6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

and the same could have been said for Regeneration and Instant Change, but they got dropped

could the same happen here

 

 

Well' date=' I think TK exists as a Power simply because it's clearer to people than STR usable at range. It's a part of a lot of Power sets.[/quote']

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't see re-coupling to be that easy of an issue. Since the cost of characteristics have changed (due to decoupling) the point balance of characteristics will be thrown off when/if you attempt to recouple under 6E. I guess I could always keep the old point costs for characteristics. However' date=' if I am going to recouple, keep the old point costs, keep COM, and keep CV based on DEX (or EGO for ECV), I am better off just sticking with 5ER and house ruling the few things I like about 6E so far.[/quote']

 

There's another way of doing it, which I might very well house rule. Decide that, for instance, OCV and DCV can differ by no more than 3. Also decide that OCV + DCV cannot be higher than DEX. (Actually they can, you just pay double.) Same goes for OMCV, DMCV, and EGO.

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Actually I think torchwolf made some good observations. Nothing is being subtracted that can't easily be replaced.

 

I agree with his observations up to a point. What I don't agree with is statements like your second sentence above. Or rather, yes, they are easy to replace, but that's irrelevant. To me, COM, Figured Characteristics, and so on, were never core components of the system, so losing them for things that benefit me is not that hard. For people for whom these are defining aspects to the system, though, or for whom the benefits I see are not important, this is too major a change. They could come around once the book is in their hands, or they may not, but comments about how easy it is to change the system back are not going to fly when they already have the game they want, and may constitute metaphorically poking them with a sharp stick, and I simply don't see any point in doing so.

 

I don't see re-coupling to be that easy of an issue.

 

Well, in a sense it is, though see previous paragraph: just because it may be easy doesn't make it desirable for everyone. The following is only about the complexity issue, with no attempt to convince anyone of desirability beyond that.

 

You can use 6E and keep Figureds as guidelines rather than actual rules. Drawbacks: You have to pay for them, and for any Figured you want to leave at 5E base value, there's an extra step (figuring out the cost at base). However, you only have to figure them if they are at base levels. If your brick has a 60 STR, there's no reason to figure out the base PD of 12, you just buy it to where you want it. If you have a CON of 20 but want very little END (hard to Stun, but gets tired easily), again you don't have to calculate the 40 END and buy down. So that's, if anything, a little less complex. And if the costs have been restructured, buying them to levels that were unusual in 5ER and before may be easier. We'll see on that.

 

You can also use 6E and apply a Limitation to get a cost break like in 5E, whether Unified or something home brew, but that does get complex. Not more than Figureds are now, necessarily (again, we'll see), but we're used to Figureds.

 

Finally, I've seen nothing that would stop you from just porting in the traditional Characteristic block. Return to 5E point totals, use everything else out of 6E, but keep the block, costs, Figureds, and all. I'm pretty sure that soon after Dan releases the 6E update to HD, there will be exactly that hybrid version of it. And if you want to use mostly 5ER rules with a few things ported back? Should be even easier to add or change a few Powers and Advantages here and there.

 

But, at the risk of repeating myself, easy doesn't mean desirable. I can like something while still recognizing that others don't.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Is calculating the figured really all that hard of an extra step? I'm not picking on GamePhil's post in particular, but I've seen this listed as an "extra step" people who like figureds will be forced to go through several other times. Have folks become so dependent on the software that this is a real burden?

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Is calculating the figured really all that hard of an extra step? I'm not picking on GamePhil's post in particular' date=' but I've seen this listed as an "extra step" people who like figureds will be forced to go through several other times. Have folks become so dependent on the software that this is a real burden?[/quote']

 

I consider it a young whippersnapper crutch that people use calculators or pencil and paper. Do it in your head as nature intended

 

First, no, not a difficult extra step, but I was comparing an absolute level of complexity, and even that was only to demonstrate that it wouldn't be difficult to fit Figureds back into the game if you are a rare person that likes Figureds and 6th both. Possibly just me, at least until the book is actually out. So, the removal of that step for that person does make it simpler, though only slightly

 

But, if I was saying it was hard to take this extra step, well, there are plenty of people that have argued that having to add up the cost of these new separate Characteristics is somehow harder than Figuring them then buying them up, and I never asked the question of whether this is "somehow harder" or implied that people are "dependent" on software. Perhaps others did, but you did mention my name after all, and you're the one doing it right now.

 

Well, maybe I did. It's been a long time and I haven't been immune to getting all emotional. If I did, I'll apologize when everyone else who was ever snarky on these subjects does on whatever "sides" you want to define. I don't see it happening any time soon, and I'm all better now personally. So, moving on.

 

I'm not going to be responsible for going round-and-round, so I shall make this very clear: I'm not belittling anyone's position on this issue. I am not saying "it's easy to do, you should all join me!". I am saying that the rules have gotten no more complex, at least from what I've seen with regards to Characteristics, and in some ways can be actually simpler. I am not saying that this makes it desirable. Just to be clear. To each their own.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Yeah, I know you were framing it as part of a larger example, but it's been mentioned a few times as adding complexity, and that just baffles me. I still do roughs on paper and use HD to finish up. I was under the impression that most of us on the boards pretty much had all the normal Hero calculations down pat, kind of a limited form of Lightning Calculator, Only for Hero System Calculations (-1).

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Yeah' date=' I know you were framing it as part of a larger example, but it's been mentioned a few times as adding complexity, and that just baffles me. I still do roughs on paper and use HD to finish up. I was under the impression that most of us on the boards pretty much had all the normal Hero calculations down pat, kind of a limited form of Lightning Calculator, Only for Hero System Calculations (-1).[/quote']

 

"I have never taken five minutes."

 

How easy it is for us is irrelevant. How hard it is for newbies is irrelevant. The only relevant questions are, and they are inextricably linked for a -1/4 on both: Does it add to complexity? If so, is the added complexity worth it?

 

Is it more complex to have to Figure Characteristics compared to just buying them up from a base number? Of course it is. It's an extra formula that links the two stats together. Is it significantly more complex? Depends on who you ask. Not to me, which is why I'll probably re-introduce something like various Figured stat sets by Template, but that's more because of the benefits than the cost. Mathematically oriented people can find it easy enough to do but be unwilling to do it because the benefits to them are not worth even the small cost, and people who find the math hard might find it worthwhile even so because the linkages feel right to them.

 

Of course, there are plenty of people that find the cost small and find the benefits great.

 

So, to restate my point more clearly: for anyone that has mentioned that Figureds are more complex, the assumption should be that they are saying:

 

1. They are in an absolute sense more complex, because they are. That isn't itself a bad thing, though.

 

2. They are not worth the cost to them from added complexity vs. benefit, especially if they are found to be a detriment. I don't like the current structure, though I may use something like it, because I want my sentient binary load lifter to be easy to build.

 

3. The added formulae may be offputting to new users. They have been in the past.

 

What should not be assumed they are saying is:

 

a. Math is hard, let's go shopping! No long-time Hero fan is offput by the math, and I've seen no relatively new ones that are, either. But it's possible, they just see the benefits as outweighing the costs.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

No long-time Hero fan is offput by the math' date=' and I've seen no relatively new ones that are, either.[/quote']

I have seen people offput by the math, but they generally didn't become Hero fans at all. This board is naturally self-selecting for people who like Hero.

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I have seen people offput by the math' date=' but they generally didn't become Hero fans at all. This board is naturally self-selecting for people who like Hero.[/quote']

 

And that is the normal course of things, but I've also met a few people that struggled with the math but still liked the game for, well, the POWER! I thought they deserved a for sticking it out, even if they aren't actually on the board or reading these posts

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Is calculating the figured really all that hard of an extra step? I'm not picking on GamePhil's post in particular' date=' but I've seen this listed as an "extra step" people who like figureds will be forced to go through several other times. Have folks become so dependent on the software that this is a real burden?[/quote']

 

I've never used the software too unadaptive and slows me down:D

 

I guess the issue for me is you have to create a template to recouple reestablishing the relationship. Now my players have to consult my campaign guidelines for the template with every character.

 

I don't know how my player who uses the software will feel about it but since only one player of mine likes the software it would no big deal if anyone in my group would actually changeover.

 

Its a pretty resistant group to changing systems. many of their characters are over a decade or more old and they don't want to redo them to a "different system". 6ed with decoupling, no COM, No ECs etc. seems like a different game enough to them that's it not their HERO. We have several EC characters, We have one gal whose highest stat is COM. There would be a lot of changes. The talent instead of COM is reawakening old GURPS fears. its just ugly over here for 6th.

 

Its hard to explain but it just seems more trouble than its worth. Why fix something back to the way you want it when you've already got rules that do it how you want it.

 

I'm kinda sad. HERO 5th was the only time I've been part of a live game community like this. Usually I house rule things so intensely it might as well be a different game. Maybe they'll still be enough dinisaurs on the boards to chat with though.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't think 5th fans are going away.

 

I know at least one of my campaigns won't be switching. We'll wait until it ends to change over.

 

The other... the campaign has been going on since 3E, and even has a GURPS Spin Off section, so the campaign could actually be in both 5 and 6E at the same time depending on which group of players is involved.

 

With luck I can get into a 6E game before the year is out. Otherwise, I'll just start one.

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I guess the issue for me is you have to create a template to recouple reestablishing the relationship. Now my players have to consult my campaign guidelines for the template with every character.

 

Not sure what you mean there: wouldn't they just have to consult it once if you were going to make it just like old-style Figureds, since they already know those rules? Or are you saying because the costs will be different if you try to just do it in 6th?

 

The talent instead of COM is reawakening old GURPS fears. its just ugly over here for 6th.

 

heh heh, just ugly over here because of COM. Was that intentional?

 

Anyway, that one's still better than GURPS in one respect: there's no indication that it will be restricted to Very Handsome/Beautiful.

 

I'm kinda sad. HERO 5th was the only time I've been part of a live game community like this. Usually I house rule things so intensely it might as well be a different game. Maybe they'll still be enough dinisaurs on the boards to chat with though.

 

If everyone on the boards but you were to suddenly See the Light from on high and change wholly over to 6th Edition, they're still a generally bunch of polite folk that will get your Dialect of the language. Newbies may not understand, of course, but have other benefits to recommend them.

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Is calculating the figured really all that hard of an extra step?

 

Amusingly, the spot where I actually used the phrase "extra step" was not about Figured Characteristics, but simulating them in 6th by buying them up to the appropriate values. The extra step was in figuring out the cost of, say, PD 12 for a 60 STR character, which you don't have to do in 5th, since you just start with that score.

 

So it goes

 

Yes, I know you were speaking more generally. Just vaguely funny that the comment that set off that train of thought was actually in the other direction.

[Netzilla]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Recoupling Figureds

 

There's a lot of talk about whether or not it would be worth the effort to 'simulate' Figured Characteristics in 6e. Not being one to resist the urge to fiddle with stuff, here's my thoughts on how I would go about it were I so inclined.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument that you have the following cost structure (numbers pulled entirely from my posterior):

 

• All primaries and REC cost 2 points each
  
• PD, ED & Stun all cost 1 point
  
• SPD costs 10 points
  
• END costs 0.5 points
  
• OCV, DCV, mOCV & mDCV costs 5 points each
  

 

I see a few ways that recoupling could be done.

 

Method 1: Simply use the 5E formula to determine the "recommended" level of the 'figured' characteristics. Then pay the cost of the characteristics:

 

• I buy +10 STR, which costs me 20 points
  
• This "recommends" values of:
  
  • +2 PD (2 points)
    
  • +2 REC (4 points)
    
  • +5 STUN (5 points)
    
  • All together this costs me 20+2+4+5 = 31 points.
    

   

  [*] +15 DEX costs 30 points and "recommends" values of:

  • +3 OCV (15 points)
    
  • +3 DCV (15 points)
    
  • +1.5 SPD (15 points)
    
  • All together this costs me 30+15+15+15 = 75 points.
    

   

 

Method 2: Use the 5E formula for Figured characteristics and adjust the cost of Primary Characteristics to account for the change:

 

• +10 STR yields the values above and thus comes to ~3 CP per point.
  
• +15 DEX yields the values above and comes to 7 or 8 CP per point.
  
• Now you do not need to pay for your 'Figured' characteristics 'calculated base'.
  

 

Method 3: As Method 2 but you apply the Unified Power Limitation (let's be conservative and call it -1/4):

 

• +10 STR:
  
  • Base cost = 20 / 1.25 = 16 points
    
  • +2 PD = 2 / 1.25 = 1.6 = 2 points
    
  • +2 REC = 4 / 1.25 = 3.2 = 3 points
    
  • +5 STUN = 5 / 1.25 = 4 points
    
  • Total cost for +10 STR = 16 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 25 (2.5 per point of STR)
    

   

  [*]+15 DEX:

  • Base Cost = 30 / 1.25 = 24 points
    
  • +3 OCV = 15 / 1.25 = 12 points
    
  • +3 DCV = 15 / 1.25 = 12 points
    
  • +1.5 SPD = 15 / 1.25 = 12 points
    
  • Total cost for +15 DEX = 24 + 12 + 12 + 12 = 60 (4 per point of DEX)
    

   

  [*] If you use this method I think you will need to keep the rule about not selling back more than 1 Figured characteristic.

 

None of the 3 seem particularly complicated to me (and I fully acknowledge that this is a personal value judgment on my part). The only added complexity that I can see is writing up the house rule for your players to see and I basically just did that. By the time character creation starts (much less actual in-campaign play) that complexity has already been handled. It's possible play-testing would reveal additional difficulties but I really doubt it would reveal anything wrong that hasn't existed for Figureds for the past 5 1/2 editions already.

 

Disclaimer: This is from the SETAC member who was largely on the fence about keeping/tossing Figureds. I originally preferred the idea of adjusting the cost of Primaries to account for the full value of their Figureds (essentially Method 2 above). However, what eventually sold me on the idea of decoupling was the fact that I would no longer have to re-compute 4 stats just because I wanted to tweak STR by a point or two (STR, PD, REC & STUN); ultimately that tended to cost me much more "design time" than buying 'Figured/Secondary' stats up from a fixed base does (having tried a few test cases).

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

If everyone on the boards but you were to suddenly See the Light from on high and change wholly over to 6th Edition' date=' they're still a generally bunch of polite folk that will get your Dialect of the language. Newbies may not understand, of course, but have other benefits to recommend them.[/quote']

 

Oh, absolutely. People do still drop in from time to time and ask 4e questions. And there's plenty of people who still have 4e books and will look stuff up. I know I've got a large stack of books going back to 3e, and I have no intention of getting rid of my 5e stuff.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

And that is the normal course of things' date=' but I've also met a few people that struggled with the math but still liked the game for, well, the POWER! I thought they deserved a for sticking it out, even if they aren't actually on the board or reading these posts [/quote']

 

I've known several people who loved playing Hero, but hated the math. Most of them would describe their characters to one of us who loved the math and let us make a character that could do what they wanted. Most of the math issues I've seen people have in person have been chargen issues.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I've known several people who loved playing Hero' date=' but hated the math. Most of them would describe their characters to one of us who loved the math and let us make a character that could do what they wanted. Most of the math issues I've seen people have in person have been chargen issues.[/quote']

 

That describes my wife pretty closely.

 

She likes playing Hero but has no love for the chargen system. Generally for a game, she'd describe what she wanted and I'd whip the character up for her based on her descriptions.

 

As for the whole "extra step" issue, I humbly submit this in the hopes it can help clarify without launching any more diatribes from any camp. When I create characters for any system, I look for points of reference for each attribute to compare against. If I want my character to be stronger than anyone else in his village, what value do I use? Etcetera, extcetera.

 

Before, I could generally leave Figured Characterstics alone, since their base values provided their own reference point, and only change them if my character concept required it.

 

With the way 6e will be set up, I will have to look at each one of those decoupled Characteristics and have to make the judgment as to what its "base" value is in reference to the campaign.

 

You might say "just use the base values from the Figured CHA days." Well yes, I could do that, but since that's no longer the norm (unless the GM sets them to be that way) I can no longer trust the "figured" values to represent the "average" stat.

 

I run the risk of creating a character supposed to be of normal durability who ends up being the first one to go to La-La-Land every time because everyone else pumped their STUN to some ungodly level.

 

Bottom line, it's more than additional math involved. There's character concept evaluation involved, too, which is not as easily dismissed.

 

Hope this helps.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That describes my wife pretty closely.

 

She likes playing Hero but has no love for the chargen system. Generally for a game, she'd describe what she wanted and I'd whip the character up for her based on her descriptions.

 

As for the whole "extra step" issue, I humbly submit this in the hopes it can help clarify without launching any more diatribes from any camp. When I create characters for any system, I look for points of reference for each attribute to compare against. If I want my character to be stronger than anyone else in his village, what value do I use? Etcetera, extcetera.

 

Before, I could generally leave Figured Characterstics alone, since their base values provided their own reference point, and only change them if my character concept required it.

 

With the way 6e will be set up, I will have to look at each one of those decoupled Characteristics and have to make the judgment as to what its "base" value is in reference to the campaign.

 

You might say "just use the base values from the Figured CHA days." Well yes, I could do that, but since that's no longer the norm (unless the GM sets them to be that way) I can no longer trust the "figured" values to represent the "average" stat.

 

I run the risk of creating a character supposed to be of normal durability who ends up being the first one to go to La-La-Land every time because everyone else pumped their STUN to some ungodly level.

 

Bottom line, it's more than additional math involved. There's character concept evaluation involved, too, which is not as easily dismissed.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Whereas I never assumed that the results of the formula for the Secondary characteristics was anything except a mobile starting point. So by getting rid of the formula that just takes out one level of complication for me to get the character that I want to play. I can buy my Secondaries where I want them without having to worry about them getting mucked up if I decide to tweak my Primaries. And I'll just continue counting on the Ref to make sure that the characters are within the ranges both for the campaign and the declared intent of the player that made them. As well as expecting them to continue providing campaign averages and (hard or soft) limits for all of the Characteristics.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

As for the whole "extra step" issue, I humbly submit this in the hopes it can help clarify without launching any more diatribes from any camp. When I create characters for any system, I look for points of reference for each attribute to compare against. If I want my character to be stronger than anyone else in his village, what value do I use? Etcetera, extcetera.

 

Before, I could generally leave Figured Characterstics alone, since their base values provided their own reference point, and only change them if my character concept required it.

 

With the way 6e will be set up, I will have to look at each one of those decoupled Characteristics and have to make the judgment as to what its "base" value is in reference to the campaign.

 

You might say "just use the base values from the Figured CHA days." Well yes, I could do that, but since that's no longer the norm (unless the GM sets them to be that way) I can no longer trust the "figured" values to represent the "average" stat.

 

I run the risk of creating a character supposed to be of normal durability who ends up being the first one to go to La-La-Land every time because everyone else pumped their STUN to some ungodly level.

 

Bottom line, it's more than additional math involved. There's character concept evaluation involved, too, which is not as easily dismissed.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

You and I are completely on the same page here. My take as well.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Erm...you will have a starting value for the Formerly-Figured Characteristics (FFC) just like you do for Str, Dex, Int, etc. How will figuring out where to put the formerly-Figured Characteristics now differ from figuring out where to put the Formerly-Primary Characteristics (FPC)?

 

If you want to make your character stronger and hit harder, buy up your Str; it starts at 10; "average human" is 8.

 

If you want to make your character better at hitting things, buy up OCV; it starts at 3; "average human" is 3 (or maybe 2; we'll just have to see).

 

What exactly is the difference?

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Erm...you will have a starting value for the Formerly-Figured Characteristics (FFC) just like you do for Str, Dex, Int, etc. How will figuring out where to put the formerly-Figured Characteristics now differ from figuring out where to put the Formerly-Primary Characteristics (FPC)?

 

If you want to make your character stronger and hit harder, buy up your Str; it starts at 10; "average human" is 8.

 

If you want to make your character better at hitting things, buy up OCV; it starts at 3; "average human" is 3 (or maybe 2; we'll just have to see).

 

What exactly is the difference?

 

If you see the characters and the formerly figured characteristics as tied together then the calculations provide what an average persons with that base characteristic should have.

 

For example, a 20 Str individual typical gets a certain level of resistance to physical damage (PD and Stun) from having that level of Strength as Hero defines it. Any additional (or less) made them not "average" examples of a person with that level of Characteristic.

 

Hope that made some sense and helped.

[Starlight]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm late joining the party. That's given me the chance to see how the discussion has gone so far.

 

 

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

 

I'm glad this is unchanged. The 3d6 roll has been at the core of Hero since its inception. It wouldn't feel the same with a change here. I'd like to see the primary attack roll calculation and alternative attack roll calculation reversed in the new edition however (see 5ER p371). I've seen combats grind to a halt with bemused players desperately trying to work out what roll is needed to hit. I'm not talking of players with limited numeracy skills. Most of the group either had or were engaged in studying for advanced degrees in hard science subjects. But at three or four in the morning and after imbibing a few cans of Newcastle Brown (a strong British ale) the alternative method proved to be significantly easier to use. There also the side benefit that the player can roll and state what DCV has been hit. In the alternative attack roll calculation there's no need for the GM to reveal what DCV the opponent has.

 

 

No changes to the Speed Chart.

 

The speed chart is at the heart of the Hero combat 'feel'. The game wouldn't, in my opinion, be Hero without this in use. Extremely glad this hasn't been altered.

 

 

Movement will continue to be measured per Phase.

 

Phased movement is fundamentally unsound. In fact the only worse movement systems are everything else that I've seen suggested.

 

So while I can see the flaws in phased movement it's arguably the best compromise in terms of simplicity in play versus realism available. So count me in the wish there was something better but not having seen anything better on offer I'm glad this hasn't been changed camp.

 

 

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

 

This is potentially nothing more than a terminology change. Wherever you saw 1" in the rules - now read 2 meters. If you want to use hex maps it's really not going to be a problem. A distance of 12 meters is going to be six hexes on the map. It's as simple as that. I'm in favor of this change simply for the elimination of the confusion that can happen when using both real inches and game inches. When I tell my group an object is six inches tall they'll now know I mean six inches, as in half a foot, and not 12 meters.

 

 

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.

 

This is a change that I'm not in favor of. I'll want to see the writeup of the talent before making any final decision. But as a base position I'm likely to be house ruling COM back into any 6th edition game I run. However the very fact that COM was so badly underutilized in game mechanic terms in 5ER means that restoring COM, and indeed expanding its role, is not going to be difficult.

 

 

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.

 

This is gravely disappointing. Figured characteristics have been a core aspect of Hero character generation since the first Champions book. They were different to, and superior to, the way every other game at that time handled characteristics, and gave Champions character generation a positive style all of its own. Yes, there are flaws in the current implementation. We all recognize that. However, discarding the principle feels very much like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In practical terms though, the elimination of Elemental Controls also signaled the doom of figured characteristics. Having one without the other distorts game balance too severely.

 

 

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.

 

Crazy! Insane! This is... actually not a bad idea with regard to promoting flexibility of character design. Maybe. When I get over the shock. I don't recall this being discussed in the 6th edition forums. Seems to have come into being from out of the blue. As always the details are important. So I'll make no final judgment until I see the finished writeup.

 

This change, and discarding figured characteristics, do add conceptual complexity to the character generation process. What do I mean? I think an example is needed. If I'm building a martial artist in 5th edition I know I'll be looking for a good DEX and CVs. In campaign X I know a dexterity of 28 giving CVs of 9 will fit the bill. It's a quick, albeit slightly lazy, solution. In 6th edition though it seems I ought to think deeper about this character. Sure, I could just make the DEX 28 and the OCV and DCV each 9. Three character build point assignment operations instead of one. But that is being very lazy. What I should do is think about each aspect separately. So - increased conceptual complexity. I do wonder what proportion of characters will make use of this increased elegance in flexibility. I also note that, with admittedly ugly combinations of partially limited characteristics, everything possible in 6th edition was already feasible in 5ER. It does feel as if to make a small percentage of builds more elegant every character has to now jump though additional hoops.

 

 

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

 

Hopefully the new guidelines for starting point totals will be intended to allow the replication of 5ER characters in 6th edition. Moving from 250pt to 350pt characters (for my preferred game style) in the transition from 4th to 5th helped create more complete and rounded characters. It was an improvement. I think the sweetspot has been reached in that change, and would not be in favor of any further boost in starting character power. But given the announced changes an alteration in starting point totals is inevitable.

 

 

Perception will still be based on INT.

This is a missed opportunity. Plus it is inconsistent with the changes made to CVs. As a previous poster commented (I'm sorry, I cannot remember your name to give you credit for the quote) intelligence may be considered a perquisite for good perception but it's not a guarantee of it. Highly intelligent individuals can be unperceptive. There's also the missed opportunity of allowing for situational perception; had perception been divorced from INT. The skilled woodsman is going to be highly perceptive in the wilderness. He may well be at a loss in the city. And vice versa for the New York detective heading west after a fleeing criminal in a Wild West campaign.

 

 

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.

 

I have mixed feelings regarding this. I like the concept of Find Weakness. But I felt the implementation was flawed. As a previous poster commented the fixed cost regardless of the size of attack that the Find Weakness applied to was one of the flaws. The unpredictability of Find Weakness was another significant problem with the power. I noted a couple of suggestions relating to stacking Armor Piercing in the discussion so far. That might make it into a house rule as a replacement for Find Weakness in any 6th edition game I run.

 

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

 

Good that they are going to be reworked. Until further details emerge there's no point in having an opinion though.

 

 

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.

 

In my style of games this is going to be an excellent change. I can see it might have a negative impact on other styles though. On the other hand there can hardly be any easier house rule for a reversion to 5ER if that is wanted than 'use 1d6-1 instead of 1/2d6 for killing attacks'.

 

 

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

 

Good! Again, details are the important thing. But this was urgently needed.

 

 

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.

 

Some of the options suggested in the 6th edition forums for VPPs seemed worth looking at. So I'm moderately pleased that there hasn't been any radical change to MPs or VPPs but wonder if a opportunity has been missed. As to the elimination of Elemental Controls, and the introduction of a new Unified Power construct, I'll want to see what the details are before making any judgment.

 

 

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

 

Good. Damage Shield was badly handled in 5ER. A change is needed.

 

 

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.

 

This is discussed in the first 6th edition highlight, and what I've seen in that thread looks kind of excellent. At last: a 6th edition 'wow' moment.

 

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

 

An improvement in terminology. No functional change it would appear.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Erm...you will have a starting value for the Formerly-Figured Characteristics (FFC) just like you do for Str, Dex, Int, etc. How will figuring out where to put the formerly-Figured Characteristics now differ from figuring out where to put the Formerly-Primary Characteristics (FPC)?

 

If you want to make your character stronger and hit harder, buy up your Str; it starts at 10; "average human" is 8.

 

If you want to make your character better at hitting things, buy up OCV; it starts at 3; "average human" is 3 (or maybe 2; we'll just have to see).

 

What exactly is the difference?

 

 

What he is saying is with figures you know exactly what the normal Stun for a character with STR 15 CON 13 and Body 13 for example, should be automatically. Without, its pretty much up to the GM's whim ans personal sense of scale what the norm would be. What was an automatic process for normal becomes something the GM would need to establish. if indeed there is a norm and not just chaos.

[OddHat]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

As for the whole "extra step" issue, I humbly submit this in the hopes it can help clarify without launching any more diatribes from any camp. When I create characters for any system, I look for points of reference for each attribute to compare against. If I want my character to be stronger than anyone else in his village, what value do I use? Etcetera, extcetera.

 

Before, I could generally leave Figured Characterstics alone, since their base values provided their own reference point, and only change them if my character concept required it.

 

With the way 6e will be set up, I will have to look at each one of those decoupled Characteristics and have to make the judgment as to what its "base" value is in reference to the campaign.

 

You might say "just use the base values from the Figured CHA days." Well yes, I could do that, but since that's no longer the norm (unless the GM sets them to be that way) I can no longer trust the "figured" values to represent the "average" stat.

 

I run the risk of creating a character supposed to be of normal durability who ends up being the first one to go to La-La-Land every time because everyone else pumped their STUN to some ungodly level.

 

Bottom line, it's more than additional math involved. There's character concept evaluation involved, too, which is not as easily dismissed.

 

I do see your point.

 

I did not favor dropping figured characteristics; If ECs went, I wanted the costs of characteristics to go up to reflect their true value in terms of the figureds derived.

 

I do see some concept benefits to dropping Figureds, but roughly those same benefits would have come out of increasing the base costs of Characteristics.

 

All of that said, in practical terms this changes very little for me as a GM. When I set the baselines for the campaign, I'll have to include baselines for STUN, END, SPD, PD, ED, and REC, but then I do that already. The only change when building characters is remembering to go down and buy those stats up a bit more than I otherwise would have, if I intended to buy them up at all.

[OddHat]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

What he is saying is with figures you know exactly what the normal Stun for a character with STR 15 CON 13 and Body 13 for example' date=' should be automatically. Without, its pretty much up to the GM's whim ans personal sense of scale what the norm would be. What was an automatic process for normal becomes something the GM would need to establish. if indeed there is a norm and not just chaos.[/quote']

 

As I see it, there's a norm for the campaign, and usually a starting minimum and maximum. The GM can set the norm as he does now, and norms will certainly be suggested. Things won't be tied to stats as much as to campaign under a no figureds model, but that doesn't bug me.