6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think we just had a Belkar moment here....

 

That is what I meant, of course. But the terminology was what i cam up with working from memory. Looks like my Fiver PDF needs to get some work.

 

That said, the PhysLim approach seems a bit clumsy. I"m not convinced that the mechanic really fits the goal of imposing direct stat penalties as opposed to providing global restrictions on the character (like Blind or Deaf, which impose several quantified and non-quantified restrictions on characters, or Unfamiliar with Earth that provides numerous social handicaps that cannot be overcome by willpower). I can't help but wish for something more elegant.

 

Blame Steve Long. He's the one who came up with the idea of using PhysLims that way, IIRC.

 

I'm guessing that even with the decoupling, applying penalties to stats like CV will still be handled that way, unless someone has confirmed info to the contrary.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

So? What does that have to do with it?

 

I've never been in a situation in a game where that has been an issue. I'm not even sure persistence is really relevant to the concept of CVs. Please explain.

 

Occasionally, you get caught out of combat. Halving your DCV. Base DCV at that. You can't add CSLs to it.

 

Also, now you can purchase DCV as "Small and hard to hit" without worrying about in/out of combat or 'fudging' it.

 

It's rare, but it's been a voiced concern for a while.

 

Also, they go away completely when Stunned. Not Halved. That, by itself, is a big deal to some.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Huh?

 

"OCV and DCV couldn't be bought up via a separate mechanism"?

 

 

I repeat, huh?

 

As was pointed out repeatedly on the 6e forums, CSLs are Skills, not Characteristics.

 

In 5e and prior, you couldn't buy CV up directly as a Characteristic. It was not a Characteristic. If you look in the book under Characteristics, CV is not listed as an item.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

As was pointed out repeatedly on the 6e forums, CSLs are Skills, not Characteristics.

 

In 5e and prior, you couldn't buy CV up directly as a Characteristic. It was not a Characteristic. If you look in the book under Characteristics, CV is not listed as an item.

 

Even if one accepts CSL's as a direct substitute for CV (I don't), adjustment powers could not affect them. Bless and Curse spells now become much easier to implement.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

As was pointed out repeatedly on the 6e forums, CSLs are Skills, not Characteristics.

 

In 5e and prior, you couldn't buy CV up directly as a Characteristic. It was not a Characteristic. If you look in the book under Characteristics, CV is not listed as an item.

 

And if CV and DCV are Characteristics in the new rules, that means that they can be sold down (though why some characters would want to is a question for a future thread).

 

On another note: COM being replaced with the Striking Appearance talent leads me to question whether there should be other variants. Like Cuteness (not desirable but makes you want to protect them). And, of course, looking horrible now becomes a Complication, which might also be as it should be. And being so ugly that looking at you is an attack to Sanity becomes an Ego Attack or Presence Attack.

 

I'm reminded of that moment in the Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame movie in which a gargoyle suddenly comes to life while a guy is hanging onto it and the guy is so terrified that he lets go and plummets to his doom....

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

On another note: COM being replaced with the Striking Appearance talent leads me to question whether there should be other variants. Like Cuteness (not desirable but makes you want to protect them). And, of course, looking horrible now becomes a Complication, which might also be as it should be. And being so ugly that looking at you is an attack to Sanity becomes an Ego Attack or Presence Attack.

 

I haven't seen anything that says that Striking Appearance means you are desirable. From the name, it could easily be used to cover both Cuteness and Horribleness. A character so hideous that he can use it to a game effect is certainly Striking, after all. But we'll see.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I would imagine Striking Appearance might be similar to Reputation - some are good and some are bad. . .

 

Perhaps it's now the opposite of the Distinctive Feature Complication. I'd like to see the text and Mechanics on this one.

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I would imagine Striking Appearance might be similar to Reputation - some are good and some are bad. . .

 

I suppose I mis-spoke. I was just saying horribleness does not have to be a Complication, I can't imagine any reason why it couldn't be if all you want is the drawbacks.

 

Perhaps it's now the opposite of the Distinctive Feature Complication. I'd like to see the text and Mechanics on this one.

 

That would be odd, but I suppose it's possible. I imagine it would be some type of automatic positive response, in the same way the Disadvantage is an automatic negative response.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm just speculating, mind.

 

could be providing bonuses to certain situations.

 

I could imagine you could take a Frightening Countenance 'Striking Appearance' to add Bonuses to situations where Fear, Intimidation and Terror come into play.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm just speculating, mind.

 

could be providing bonuses to certain situations.

 

I could imagine you could take a Frightening Countenance 'Striking Appearance' to add Bonuses to situations where Fear, Intimidation and Terror come into play.

 

One could also do that as a Presence Attack, No Conscious Control for when your appearances causes everyone you meet to run away screaming. The higher your Presence (the more commanding you are), the more powerful the effect you have on people you confront, passersby, etc.

 

At least, that's a way to do it in the current rules. But I see little reason that it wouldn't work in 6e.

 

Buying charactersitcs with NCC presents some interesting problems. What does it mean, for example, to have NCC on your STR? Does that mean you break whatever you touch because you "don't know your own strength"?

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Huh?

 

"OCV and DCV couldn't be bought up via a separate mechanism"?

 

 

I repeat, huh?

 

As others have noted, CSLs are not CV. They can be used to modify CV, although that is not all they are useful for. And directly buying up CVs means that the base is higher, which can be important in a number of situations.

 

CSLs have to be allocated. Buying up base CV doesn't. CSLs go away if you get Stunned. Base CV doesn't. Buying CSLs isn't the same as buying up CV directly.

[Alibear]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Someone wearing armor is gonna get their bell rung by a warhammer.

 

I think you have a totally weird idea about what a warhammer is.

 

You think this is gonna ring your bell?

 

 

No people would get their skulls crushed not "their bell rung" when smacked by a warhammer.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

One could also do that as a Presence Attack, No Conscious Control for when your appearances causes everyone you meet to run away screaming. The higher your Presence (the more commanding you are), the more powerful the effect you have on people you confront, passersby, etc.

 

At least, that's a way to do it in the current rules. But I see little reason that it wouldn't work in 6e.

 

Buying charactersitcs with NCC presents some interesting problems. What does it mean, for example, to have NCC on your STR? Does that mean you break whatever you touch because you "don't know your own strength"?

 

Yes yes.. I'm talking beyond mere Presence.

 

I'm talking about Interaction Skill modifiers as well.

[Crypt]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think you have a totally weird idea about what a warhammer is.

 

You think this is gonna ring your bell?

 

 

 

No people would get their skulls crushed not "their bell rung" when smacked by a warhammer.

 

 

 

Just make this simple test: get a small hammer (tool) and hurt your skull. Then come back here to tell us the result.

 

You'd probably be killed by a single hit of a warhammer on your skull. That's a lot better than a bell rung, isn't it ?

A metal helmet would give you a chance but not as much as HERO DEFs suggest. With enough kinetic energy (*) the pointed side of the warhammer would pierce through the helmet like a knife through butter. That's what they were made for.

A non-lethal weapon is not a weapon.

 

(*) the long handle is made to improve angular velocity

[Alibear]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

A metal helmet would give you a chance but not as much as HERO DEFs suggest. With enough kinetic energy the pointed side of the warhammer would pierce through the helmet like a knife through butter. That's what they were made for.

 

 

I'd be inclined to make those monsters AP.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

With enough kinetic energy the pointed side of the warhammer would pierce through the helmet like a knife through butter. That's what they were made for.

 

I'd be inclined to make those monsters AP.

 

I think Fantasy Hero suggested that, for that exact reason.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains' date=' and it will continue to be "roll-low."[/b']

 

I think this is a mistake. Now , I haven't read every page of the suggestions leading to this, but did anyone recommend using the 3d20-median roll instead?

 

No changes to the Speed Chart.

 

I dislike the lack of granularity in the speed chart low-end. Speed 3 is 50% faster then speed 2, high-end speed changes have less and less additional effect, and there is not much room 'downward'.

There were lots of suggestions to replace both of these.

 

The point with a different roll mechanic was not mainly to flatten the curve, but more to extend the range for increased granularity. Median20 doesn't do that all that much - perhaps enough to justify CHA/4 rather than CHA/5, but no more. Among the better suggestions were 3d12, d20+2d6, 2d6+(d6x3), and 2d6-2d6. The last two are "d6 pure". While 2d6-2d6 doesn't do much to increase the spread, it is zero-centred, which is a point in itself: Roll+OCV >= DCV to hit - very simple.

 

I myself suggested at least a dozen alternatives to the SPD Chart, but none were without problems. No worse than the SPD Chart, but neither so much of an improvement as to be obvious replacements.

 

For finer granularity SPD at the low end, you could buy +1 SPD with an activation roll: Roll at the beginning of each turn to see if you get the +1. Or allow half-value SPDs and flip a coin the first turn of combat to see if you round up or down, and then alternate rounding up and down every turn after that.

 

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I really don't think the rename is apropos. Being charming is very different than enticing someone with favors' date=' money, and/or sex. Nor, despite popular usage, is the concept seducing someone limited merely to sex.[/quote']

I think Temptation would fit better. You can tempt with the promise of money, power, or revenge, neither of which necessarily requires being charming.

 

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think you have a totally weird idea about what a warhammer is.

 

You think this is gonna ring your bell?

 

 

No people would get their skulls crushed not "their bell rung" when smacked by a warhammer.

 

In fairness, a baseball bat will crush your skull pretty effectively, and it has never been suggested that it inflict killing damage. The boundaries really aren't as clear cut as we want to make them out to be.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think you have a totally weird idea about what a warhammer is.

 

You think this is gonna ring your bell?

 

 

No people would get their skulls crushed not "their bell rung" when smacked by a warhammer.

 

Wow, looks expensive. Must've cost you somewhere between 38 and 42 K...

[Vondy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think Temptation would fit better. You can tempt with the promise of money, power, or revenge, neither of which necessarily requires being charming.

 

- Klaus

 

I'm happy with seduction - but "temptation" works just as well. Of course, there does come a point where temptation (or erotic seduction for that matter) just becomes good old fashioned bribery.

[ChampionsLawyer]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

My thought is if there are any actually useful new Powers or Skills in 6E we'll end up "back-porting" them into 5ER.

 

True, but at that point you've purchased 6E. Mission accomplished.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm happy with seduction - but "temptation" works just as well. Of course' date=' there does come a point where temptation (or erotic seduction for that matter) just becomes good old fashioned bribery. [/quote']

 

either works better than "charm" but I admit the term carries some D&D baggage with it for me.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

True' date=' but at that point you've purchased 6E. Mission accomplished. [/quote']

 

In the short term I guess. Long term redone supplements probably won't get bought.

[Vondy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

either works better than "charm" but I admit the term carries some D&D baggage with it for me.

 

Also I. In of itself charm also works. I understand the semantics behind using it, though frankly, definition and connotation in common usage aren't always one and the same. In terms of gamer usage it has baggage attached to it (for us "back in the day" types). Still, like I said, its essentially cosmetic and is easily ignored if one feels strongly about it.