6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[tomd1969]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Okay, I'm going to pitch my 2 copper pieces into the breach. This flame war has gone on long enough that I've given up trying to keep up with it.

 

The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains, and it will continue to be "roll-low."

 

I would have been happy with a change to this, if anyone who has been following my posts would see. Though, I'm not really surprised.

 

No changes to the Speed Chart.

 

Good.

 

Movement will continue to be measured per Phase.

 

Okay, I understand this.

 

All measurements will be given in meters. There will be no use of "hexes" or any other mapping arrangement in 6E.

 

 

Comeliness will no longer be one of the Characteristics. It's being replaced with a Talent, Striking Appearance, which a given group can choose to use in their game if they want a character's appearance to have a mechanical effect.

 

Good. Get rid of it, I says! Good riddance to a Characteristic that had to be kludged to find ways to use it.

 

All the other Characteristics will remain, but none of them will be "Figured," i.e. derived from other Characteristics. They'll all start with a base value that must be bought up separately. The costs of some of them have been "tweaked" -- no further details yet.

 

The Figured Characteristics were one of the funkiest things about the Hero System. What do I mean? There was a reason that there was a rule about only being able to sell back one Figured. This rule got rid of some valid character concepts; since there are no longer any Figured Characteristics, we get increased flexibility. Good riddance, says I.

 

OCV, DCV, OECV, and DECV will become separate Characteristics, not derived from DEX and EGO. They'll start with a base value of 3 and will be bought up separately.

 

Some things about this: I've been thinking about this for years. I saw no real reason that someone who could pick a lock should be able to automatically shoot a gun better than anyone else, really (talking raw talent, not skill). Dex coupled with O/DCV and the bonuses it gave to Dex-based Skills made it *very* cost effective. I would also like to point to the Str/Dex debates of many years ago from the old Champions-l mailing list that raged for months. This will (hopefully) clear that up.

 

Suggested starting point totals will be raised to compensate for the change to Characteristics -- no specifics yet.

 

Oh, for sure.

 

Perception will still be based on INT.

 

Hmm... I could almost see these two being separated, as well... but oh, well. I'm neutral on this.

 

Leaping will no longer be derived from Strength -- it will start at a base amount for all characters, as with Running and Swimming.

 

As others have pointed out, not very many weight-lifters are high-jump gold medalists.

 

Skills will still be calculated from CHAR/5, but there will be an optional "Toolkitting" note about changing that if desired. Other Toolkitting notes will appear throughout the rules -- no further details on those.

 

This is one of the underpinnings of the Hero System, and I understand why it isn't going away, but I would have liked some more thought to have been given to this. Oh, well.

 

Seduction Skill will be renamed Charm.

 

I'm still scratching my head over this... was this really that big an issue?

 

No new Skills will be added, although a couple have been "tweaked" (no more details yet).

 

I'll have to see what's been tweaked.

 

Package Deal will be renamed Template

 

Finally. Language that says what it actually is. "Package Deal" was a term from previous editions when they actually provided a bonus. Since they no longer provide that bonus, it's about time to get rid of the "Deal" language. It's about time it's been changed.

 

Some new Powers have been added, and others have been removed. The only one mentioned is Find Weakness, which is being removed. There will be no official way to reduce Defenses below 1/2 as with Armor Piercing.

 

Eh. I never really used Find Weakness as it was. There are other ways to model it if you must have it.

 

Adjustment Powers have been significantly reworked -- no further details yet.

 

These have me curious.

 

Energy Blast and Killing Attack will still be separate forms of Damage, as they are in 5E.

 

I would have loved to have seen them combine them into one damage type and made "Killing" an Advantage on EB or HA.

 

The Stun Multiplier for Killing Attack will become a straight 1/2d6. It will still be possible to buy up the Stun Multiplier with Advantages.

 

I've been complaining about the effectiveness of KAs for some time. Look into some of my other posts about my philosophies concerning this. Max Stun for a KA was 1) higher than a EB/HA of the same number of DCs; 2) easier from a probability standpoint to reach. People were buying RKA just for the Stun Mult. That's a problem. I don't know if this is the fix, but it might be the first step.

 

You will be able to apply your Normal Defenses to the STUN damage of a Killing Attack whether you have any Resistant Defenses or not.

 

Good. See above for why. KAs needed to be nerfed for several editions now. Either the point cost of KAs needed to change, or the mechanic needed to change.

 

Nothing has changed about the way STR adds to Hand-To-Hand Killling Attack damage.

 

I'll have to wait and see on this. It makes sense, but with the other ways KAs have been nerfed, this might mitigate the issue somewhat.

 

Increased reach for larger-than-normal beings and weapons will not necessarily require Stretching -- no further details yet.

 

Wait-and-see.

 

The method of Adding Damage is supposed to be simplified -- no further details yet.

 

Yay! Big Thumbs Up!

 

The Multipower and VPP Frameworks will remain, but Elemental Control is being replaced by a new Limitation, Unified Power (no value given). Aside from GM oversight there will be no restrictions on what Unified Power can be applied to.

 

This might be good news... it may not. I'll have to see how this will work in practice. Elemental Controls seem to have fallen out of favor the last few years. I haven't seen many characters using them in the official supplements.

 

Damage Shield is going to be "different" -- no details yet.

 

With the ways people have been moaning about the "changes" to DS in 5ed and 5ER, is it any surprise that this would be changing? Personally, I see this becoming a new Power, but I could be wrong. Wait-and-see.

 

There will be another, more granular way to make a Power ECV-targeted than using the BOECV Advantage. No specifics given, but it involves breaking the Advantage into its separate components (i.e. ECV Attack Roll, Line Of Sight, etc.) and "reassembling" them to make them more flexible (and simpler according to Steve). Steve implied that he's used this approach for other elements of the system.

 

Wait-and-see.

 

Disadvantages are being renamed Complications, and Psychological Limitations will become Psychological Complications.

 

Good. They weren't really Disadvantages to begin with, particularly with things like Social Limitations and Reputation.

 

There will be a single index, printed in both 6E rulebooks, with a letter code before each number to indicate which book it refers to.

 

That's good. Hero's indices have been a wonder since the release of 5ed.

 

Okay, overall, it looks like I will like 6th ed. I have a wait-and-see attitude to most of them, but any change on this list that increases the flexibility of the system will automatically get a thumbs-up from me. The Hero System touts itself as the most flexible rpg out there. The Hero System is not a game; it is a toolkit to make your own game. If you don't like any of the changes, houserule them back in. 5ed had a section in the back for adding & taking away Characteristics, adding/taking away/changing Skills, Powers, Disads, you name it. I have no reason to believe that 6ed will be any different in that regard.

 

Play on!

[Alibear]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think that that would be an excellent idea. Rep to you.

 

I can see the possibilty of getting Mental DCV confused with Mental Defence so it would require playtesting on Hero noobs I think.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I can see the possibilty of getting Mental DCV confused with Mental Defence so it would require playtesting on Hero noobs I think.

 

Well given that Steve has already mentioned that it OECV and DECV and the book either has gone to layout or is about to go to layout, I supect it won't be changing.

[Alibear]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Probably for the best.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

OCV, DCV, OECV, and DECV will become separate Characteristics, not derived from DEX and EGO. They'll start with a base value of 3 and will be bought up separately.

 

Some things about this: I've been thinking about this for years. I saw no real reason that someone who could pick a lock should be able to automatically shoot a gun better than anyone else, really (talking raw talent, not skill). Dex coupled with O/DCV and the bonuses it gave to Dex-based Skills made it *very* cost effective. I would also like to point to the Str/Dex debates of many years ago from the old Champions-l mailing list that raged for months. This will (hopefully) clear that up.

 

 

We've always been able to build characters that are good at lockpicking but not particularly good with guns (even if trained to use them). Start off with a lowish DEX and buy lots of skill levels for your lockpicking skill and no CSLs. Skill levels can represent raw talent just as much as a decent DEX can.

 

Thing is, whilst we have always had that choice it was economic nonsense - try as I might to believe that concept realisation is really important, it is difficult when other characters are as good as you but cost less.

[Peregrine]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

We've always been able to build characters that are good at lockpicking but not particularly good with guns (even if trained to use them). Start off with a lowish DEX and buy lots of skill levels for your lockpicking skill and no CSLs. Skill levels can represent raw talent just as much as a decent DEX can.

 

Thing is, whilst we have always had that choice it was economic nonsense - try as I might to believe that concept realisation is really important, it is difficult when other characters are as good as you but cost less.

 

I've always wondered if this is a problem with players wanting to model a specific concept or GMs wanting to restrict a specific concept.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I've always wondered if this is a problem with players wanting to model a specific concept or GMs wanting to restrict a specific concept.

 

I suspect that it is often a case of simply thinking 'I want him to be good at lockpicking, so he needs a high DEX...' and not necessarily thinking through what else that means.

 

In addition, I think the existence of figured characteristics has meant that it is so much easier (and cheaper) to simply slide along the channels the system creates rather than deconstruct your concept into its components and ONLY build that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

We've always been able to build characters that are good at lockpicking but not particularly good with guns (even if trained to use them). Start off with a lowish DEX and buy lots of skill levels for your lockpicking skill and no CSLs. Skill levels can represent raw talent just as much as a decent DEX can.

 

Thing is, whilst we have always had that choice it was economic nonsense - try as I might to believe that concept realisation is really important, it is difficult when other characters are as good as you but cost less.

 

I lean to the second camp. Players should build to concept, and the system should not reward some concepts with greater efficiency and penalize others with poor point efficiency. Spending 48 points for +6 combat skill levels would be appropriate for a character who is really good at combat, but not overly agile. But when those same 48 points can be spent on +24 DEX, No Figured, so we get two characters with the same SPD:

 

- one of whom has (say) a base OCV and DCV of 3, acts at 10 on the initiative order, has a DEX roll of 11- and can have OCV and DCV summing to 12 due to his skill levels

 

- the other of whom has a base OCV and DCV of 11 (better than the first character can achieve with all his levels in one, and a 3 CV for the other), acts at 34 on the initiative order, and has a DEX roll of 16-,something is wrong with the system.

 

Training Man needs a 10- to hit Dex Man, and is in turn hit on a 19-. Dex Man acts way faster and is far better with DEX skills. The only advantage Training Man has is converting his OCV/DCV to added damage, but he can't afford to since he needs all his levels in OCV to have a 50/50 chance of even hitting Dex Man.

 

ANSWER: My next character's concept will include high DEX, not training. Training is a concept the system penalizes. OR I will define his combat training as providing DEX, not skill levels.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I really can not see anything that says that when your DCV is halved due to surprise you do not apply DCV CSLs - in fact the DCV checklist (5ER 372/373) suggests that you do.

 

Certainly you can, if you are already in combat and have already allocated them. If you are surprised out of combat on the other hand you can't have your levels in DCV already allocated and so they don't apply.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I lean to the second camp. Players should build to concept' date=' and the system should not reward some concepts with greater efficiency and penalize others with poor point efficiency. Spending 48 points for +6 combat skill levels would be [i']appropriate[/i] for a character who is really good at combat, but not overly agile. But when those same 48 points can be spent on +24 DEX, No Figured, so we get two characters with the same SPD:

 

- one of whom has (say) a base OCV and DCV of 3, acts at 10 on the initiative order, has a DEX roll of 11- and can have OCV and DCV summing to 12 due to his skill levels

 

- the other of whom has a base OCV and DCV of 11 (better than the first character can achieve with all his levels in one, and a 3 CV for the other), acts at 34 on the initiative order, and has a DEX roll of 16-,something is wrong with the system.

 

Training Man needs a 10- to hit Dex Man, and is in turn hit on a 19-. Dex Man acts way faster and is far better with DEX skills. The only advantage Training Man has is converting his OCV/DCV to added damage, but he can't afford to since he needs all his levels in OCV to have a 50/50 chance of even hitting Dex Man.

 

ANSWER: My next character's concept will include high DEX, not training. Training is a concept the system penalizes. OR I will define his combat training as providing DEX, not skill levels.

 

Absolutely: that is why I see losing figured characteristics as a potentially quite exciting development.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Certainly you can' date=' if you are already in combat and have already allocated them. If you are surprised out of combat on the other hand you can't have your levels in DCV already allocated and so they don't apply.[/quote']

 

 

:thumbup:Good - that was my understanding; it had been suggested earlier that being surprised OR out of combat deprived you of your DCV levels.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

:thumbup:Good - that was my understanding; it had been suggested earlier that being surprised OR out of combat deprived you of your DCV levels.

 

No, it isn't a matter that you get deprived of your CSLs. It is just that you have to actively allocate them when you want to use them. Unlike just buying up xCV as a characteristic.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I lean to the second camp. Players should build to concept' date=' and the system should not reward some concepts with greater efficiency and penalize others with poor point efficiency.[/quote']

It's inevitable that any system will encourage some builds and penalize other builds, you just have to decide which builds you want to encourage (though in general, two builds with the same capabilities should have the same cost). Within the superheroic and heroic/pulp genres there are plenty of people who aren't exceptionally agile but are still plenty good in a fight, so separating Dex and CV makes sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It's inevitable that any system will encourage some builds and penalize other builds' date=' you just have to decide which builds you want to encourage (though in general, two builds with the same capabilities should have the same cost). Within the superheroic and heroic/pulp genres there are plenty of people who aren't exceptionally agile but are still plenty good in a fight, so separating Dex and CV makes sense.[/quote']

 

The result can be achieved by separating the abilities. It could also have been achieved by retaining figured characteristics, and pricing the component parts, the secondaries and the "no figured" limitation to achieve an equitable result.

 

A change to the current system is welcome, and the one adopted may be very effective, despite not being my first choice. I need to see the costs, however. I would also like to see a reduction in the cost of REC, STUN and END, as these are not presently effective alternatives to higher defenses (REC and STUN) or reduced END (REC and END).

 

How many more sleeps? [Oh, never mind it takes the blasted things forever to reach Canada anyway.]

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

How many more sleeps? [Oh' date= never mind it takes the blasted things forever to reach Canada anyway.]

 

8 weeks from today (56 sleeps).

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

If BODY becomes 1 pt, then Stun could easily be justified as costing 1/2 pt (1/2 the cost of BODY as before).

 

Similarly, if END costed 1/4 of what CON costed, then pricing it at 1/4-pt could make sense (again, this all assumes that CON/BODY have been repriced at 1pt).

 

Lastly, REC could simply be halved to 1pt.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Oh God, that's all we need. Fractional costs.

 

That was the one thing I felt was positive about getting rid of COM as a Characteristic.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Oh God, that's all we need. Fractional costs.

 

That was the one thing I felt was positive about getting rid of COM as a Characteristic.

 

The cost of Endurance is going up to 1 for 1?

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Stun at 1:1 isn't actually a ridiculous price, especially at low values and with the elimination of ECs, because stun applies to all defenses. It works against AVLDs. It works against NNDs. It works against AP and Penetrating hits. I never bought up Stun in 5e because it was more efficient to buy Str or Con, but if I was stuck at 20 I'd certainly consider bumping it up.

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The cost of Endurance is going up to 1 for 1?

 

I hope not, unless END costs are recalculated.If there was one thing that I don't remember ever arguing against COM's existence about it was its cost*, since the same standard could be said for END.

 

*This is a mere retrospective comment; I am still done with the COM Debate. Secondly, if someone digs up a post on the contrary then I apologize in advance; my views would have changed since.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Oh God' date=' that's all we need. Fractional costs. [/quote']

 

Require characteristics that cost a fraction of a point to be bought in full-point increments. Problem solved!

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Require characteristics that cost a fraction of a point to be bought in full-point increments. Problem solved!

 

Which is what 5ER did.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I hope not, unless END costs are recalculated.If there was one thing that I don't remember ever arguing against COM's existence about it was its cost*, since the same standard could be said for END.

 

I'm not going to dig around for it but yeah, the "annoying half point cost" came up at least once.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

No' date=' it isn't a matter that you get deprived of your CSLs. It is just that you have to actively allocate them when you want to use them. Unlike just buying up xCV as a characteristic.[/quote']

 

Er, yes...then they remain allocated unless you change them, once allocated you don't need to allocate again each phase you remain in combat.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Er' date=' yes...then they remain allocated unless you change them, once allocated you don't need to allocate again each phase you remain in combat.[/quote']

 

IIRC, if something happens to alter your status (being stunned, KO'd, flashed, or entangled), you might have to reallocate...