6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The ability to move erraticly is already built into the system - dodge.

 

More to the point, DCV.

 

Of course you could buy a talent to move erraticly while firing a weapon.

 

+3DCV Not while dodging (-1/2), requires half move (-1/2) 7 points

 

I may have to steal this one...

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Presumably changing how Damage Adds will change some gameplay aspects.

 

Namely you won't need a Doctorate in Mathematics to add damage in the middle of a fight any more.

 

You don't in 5E either, just a solid background in HS level math. Although I grant you that it is much harder than it has to be.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That and Comeliness has been replaced with a crappy GURPS-style Talent.

 

Amen to that!

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Find Weakness without using the Find Weakness Power: Drain PD 1d6' date=' any [special effect'] power one at a time (Drains physical Defense from force wall, force field, armor, and chacteristic PD, in that order. Remember that Drain removed 2/3 of the die roll vs Armor and Force Wall.; +1/4), Ranged (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Invisible Power Effects, Hide effects of Power (Fully Invisible; +2) (42 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (only up to half of target's total current physical defense; -1), Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (only vs specific attack; -1), Requires A PER Roll (-1), Limited Power Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (each attempt after the first against same target is made at a cumulative -2 penalty; -1/4), Limited Power Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (Burnout, a missed PER roll precludes any more attempts against the same target; -1/4)

 

42 Active points, 9 Real points per die.

 

Makes as much sense as buying Instant Change as a Transform.

 

I'd rather just grandfather in the old Find Weakness... and Lack of Weakness for defense. Sorta like the way COM will return to 6E in my games - assuming I decide to play 6E at all...

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Has anyone actually said the deletion of COM was what made them dislike 6E?

 

It's one of the things I dislike about 6E. Not the straw that broke the camel's back, but it certainly doesn't help.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' it's official: Unified Power can be used (for example) to backdoor CHAR recoupling.[/quote']

Depending on what it does, it might not behave like current figs, though. I suspect unified power is something like a -1/4 limitation that means you drain the entire power as a single power, or some such.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

This change I actually support. Here's why.

 

It has to mechanized like reputation because some people CAN'T BLEEPING ROLEPLAY IT WITHOUT DICE.

 

You should not be able to walk into a room where someone has a COM of 70 (2 to the 11th power greater than a normal human) and do anything other than stare in disbelief, struggle to comprehend the sexual attractiveness of the individual, and/or have a heart attack if you have a pacemaker.

 

This was a characteristic in my game I actually had to LIMIT because people were having COMLINESS WARS. That's right, there was a fight over who in the game got to be the most attractive. It is THE most asinine thing ever, and people would not roleplay extreme levels of beauty, no matter how many times I would say "Guys, ladies, pay attention, this is heart attack in a dress/Tuxedo here."

 

I am SO relieved they removed this characteristic. You have no idea.

 

Sounds like a problem with the players, not the system. I would bet the same players would have been buying escalating levels of 'Striking Appearance' if COM had not been available.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

But you've tried raisins. You don't look at raisins and say "Those things look gross' date=' I'm not going to eat that."[/quote']

 

But when someone waved shrimp under my nose for the first time and my stomach turned over, I was able to determine that I didn't like shrimp without actually trying any.

 

Thus do I feel about some of the changes. I don't have to see how the game will play to decide that I already will grandfather in several old rules - notably COM, Find Weakness, Instant Change, and Regeneration.

 

I'll look at 6E. But the level of changes makes it look like I'm going to be changing more things back than are worth the effort.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree about INT: it is only used for INT rolls, so it makes sense.

 

As to the eye of the beholder effect from COM, complimentary rolls never make things worse, so it isn't a true measure anyway, but you'll still be able to do that:

 

+2 levels with interaction skills (only where appearance is a factor) (14- activation)

 

In fact this allows more fine tuning of how idiosyncratic your good looks are - most people do not find you that attractive but some find you stunning (Grace Jones, perhaps?), change the activation to 8-.

 

Yes - but you could do that in 5E as well. Loosing COM costs us a) the shorthand of it, and the capability for a character to be attractive in a passive way - without needing a skill to be modified by the level.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Oh my god, I just did almost a page of posts by myself...

 

Sorry about the excess postage, guys!

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Regarding Hit Locations, I suspect that the chart will be changed to reflect the smaller range of stun modifiers that KAs will now have. My guess would be that head and vitals will be x3, stomach x2, chest shoulders thighs x1 and extremities x1/2 like now. It just reduces the powerful impact of certain locations.

 

And given this reduction (and the increase of resilience automatically given to stun from KAs) I would suggest the OCV penalties be reduced on hit locations. It is not as hard to hit a head as the chart presently insists. Even based on size it makes no sense: hitting an isolated, floating head-sized dodging object is a lot harder than a head attached to a dodging body.

 

I am sorry a maximum of x3 totally hoses normal games. It biases the game totally toward normal attacks. It means that in a sword battle you will end up killing someone long before you knock them out. Also it lengthens normal battles by a whole bunch.

 

The only thing that could fix this is having weapons all have +1 and +2 stun mults and that would totally nullify the change, in fact it would make the issue worse as then folk would be constantly rolling x4 and x5 stun mults. This is clearly a case of the Superhero genre totally hosing every other genre. Though this is a problem endemic in the system as a whole.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Oh my god, I just did almost a page of posts by myself...

 

Sorry about the excess postage, guys!

 

Easily forgiven.

[OddHat]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Changes in the Hit Location chart are at this point pure speculation.

 

If the Hit Location Chart stays the same, it becomes very easy to split off genres where KAs should do lower stun from genres where they should do more.

 

Most Supers games (but not all) won't use Hit Locations. KAs will be dangerous, but won't require ridiculously high defenses to avoid the Stun Lotto.

 

Games that use Hit Locations will keep the same balance they have now.

 

Note that I'm not saying this is how things will be; that's just how I'd prefer to see it.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Changes in the Hit Location chart are at this point pure speculation.

 

If the Hit Location Chart stays the same, it becomes very easy to split off genres where KAs should do lower stun from genres where they should do more.

 

Most Supers games (but not all) won't use Hit Locations. KAs will be dangerous, but won't require ridiculously high defenses to avoid the Stun Lotto.

 

Games that use Hit Locations will keep the same balance they have now.

 

Note that I'm not saying this is how things will be; that's just how I'd prefer to see it.

 

I would be very surprised if Steve didn't keep the rules consistent for all genres. The Hit Location chart DOES need looking at esp for Normal Attacks which currently are hosed by the chart (More than half the locations change a normal attack to 1/2 damage). I guess I don't much care for the way that KA's are being changed. Not to say that I won't be buying the rules. I still like the system and am curious as to how Characters will go together and how the game will play in real life (as opposed to speculating on line).

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I might point out that there's almost zero surprises in what Steve has released' date=' and people mostly haven't complained about the stuff that's a surprise (some minor complaints about KAs) -- they've complained about figured characteristics, which has been posted since forever in the 6e discussion and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who was following those discussions.[/quote']

 

 

Divorcing CV from characteristics was totally unexpected by me and my biggest problem. I has made peace with all the other changes. I like to hear more because I desperately want to hear something new and say "Oh cool" something even like DEF is out for object and PD/ED is in would be nice.

 

Remember also Darren's refuted interview gave many of us figured lovers false hope and we were still remembering that.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Went back to look at the OP for the current scoop, and noticed a little detail.

 

Striking Appearance is a optional talent.

 

Let's repeat that: it is an option. As in, not a regular rule. Not standard.

 

So not only is COM gone, it's sadly inadequite replacement isn't a standard rule.

 

Now a GM can run games where appearnance makes no difference at all and say "I don't care how drop-dead-from-a-heart-attack gorgeous Venus is, Iron Man made his EGO roll and resists her advances."

 

 

 

And let me tell you, my wife is going to be really pissed about it when she finds out!

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Went back to look at the OP for the current scoop, and noticed a little detail.

 

Striking Appearance is a optional talent.

 

Let's repeat that: it is an option. As in, not a regular rule. Not standard.

 

So not only is COM gone, it's sadly inadequate replacement isn't a standard rule.

 

Now a GM can run games where appearnance makes no difference at all and say "I don't care how drop-dead-from-a-heart-attack gorgeous Venus is, Iron Man made his EGO roll and resists her advances."

 

And let me tell you, my wife is going to be really pissed about it when she finds out!

 

I am really surprised at how much sturm and drang is being generated over such a minor change. It's not like any skill in the game used it. No real mechanics were behind this stat. It was not really used.

 

The Talent is quite adequate and I imagine that there will be levels of beauty that can be purchased there. so one can go from decent beauty to heart attack just by purchasing the talent. I also imagine that there will be mechanics that will integrate the talent into the game officially, and not as a kind of half baked ruler for one's appearance. Perhaps there will also be rules for being extremely ugly too.

 

Now I wasn't for removing Com from the game, but now that it is happening. I don't see what the real problem is.

 

Tasha

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Changes in the Hit Location chart are at this point pure speculation.

 

If the Hit Location Chart stays the same, it becomes very easy to split off genres where KAs should do lower stun from genres where they should do more.

 

Most Supers games (but not all) won't use Hit Locations. KAs will be dangerous, but won't require ridiculously high defenses to avoid the Stun Lotto.

 

It's been my experience Killing Attacks weren't dangerous in Super games for most characters. The change of them doing Body were very low except against exceptionally low defense characters. It's entirely possible I played against paranoid players but Resistant Defense was so cheap (and good to buy as it worked just fine against normal damage in the case of Armor and Force Field) Killing attacks rarely did more than 1, maybe 2 Body tops per combat and that was rare.

 

I agree the Stun Lotto made KAs munchkin bait, particularly with the ability to buy up the Multiplier but was their one major use too.

 

Games that use Hit Locations will keep the same balance they have now.

 

The main reason I don't care for the hit locations solution is that brings other baggage with it. The issue with normal attacks, bringing up things like sectional armor that players might now want to deal with and honestly, when I've used it the chart can create some really strange visuals if you take it literally.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I've tried to keep my mouth shut. I really have

 

I am really surprised at how much sturm and drang is being generated over such a minor change. It's not like any skill in the game used it. No real mechanics were behind this stat.

 

The mechanics behind it are right under the description. They were as "real" as any other characteristic roll: A complimentary roll for Interaction skills. It's right there in the book. It's been there since 4th Edition, IIRC. There are no core skill that use Con, Ego, Body or Str either but you can develop them easily enough There could be very easily be used for PS skills. We have a few in our own games.

 

Com rolls actually had more rules for them (the complimentary roll rules) than the others Char which were basically vague suggestions that were never mentioned again.

 

It was not really used.

 

Maybe not in your games. it was used quite a bit in the ones I played in and ran both as complimentary and as a separate thing I seen more Com rolls than I've Dex rolls and I've never seen a Con roll, a Body roll or a raw Int or Pre roll.

The Talent is quite adequate

 

How do you know? Have you seen it? Have you read the reason why some people prefer Comeliness to this Talent? Personally I would preferred more be developed for Com (like in Bob Greenwade's excellent article "Based On Com) and other characteristic than to throw what was for me a useful and fun part of the game under the bus in favor of doing just like every other game out there. It was only "half baked" as you wanted it to be and because some people chose to ignore it.

 

I don't see what the real problem is.

 

The problem is the Talent doesn't seem to fulfill the function that Com had in manner the people that enjoyed it found fun. There were mechanics for it and more could be developed. Is it really so hard to understand why someone might prefer them to this new approached? Its the same thing as the killing attack changes or turning Figured chars it Secondary characteristics. Some people cared/care about it.

 

I enjoyed Comeliness and I used it. It was one of the things that made Hero System different and interesting to me. I'm not insisting that everyone else love it. If, by some means, 6th impresses me enough to use I'll be houseruling it back in but for me dropping it seems like a pointless alteration that served no purpose except to replace something I enjoyed with something that as far I've seen seem generic instead of developing what I felt was a cool aspect of the game. So yeah, I'm not happy. Several people aren't but as far as I can see no one has said their never going to play Hero again because its gone or whatever. They've expressed disappointment about it then been told their being silly for it and had the same tired old memes thrown in their faces about it "not doing anything" and "never being used". There is a rule for what it does in the book, you can develop other uses for it like other chars and clearly, some people used it unless every who's said so is lying or hallucinating.

 

Edit: For that matter, Vulcan has a point. How well will this Talent BE integrated into the game? For one it's apparently "Optional" and its probably built as Limited Skill levels (shot in the dark) and I've read that more detailed social rules aren't high on the list of things in mind for 6th anyway. So I don't imagine much space being devoted to Striking Appearance, probably about as much, maybe slightly more than was "taken up" by Com in the first place.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Went back to look at the OP for the current scoop, and noticed a little detail.

 

Striking Appearance is a optional talent.

 

Let's repeat that: it is an option. As in, not a regular rule. Not standard.

 

So not only is COM gone, it's sadly inadequite replacement isn't a standard rule.

 

Now a GM can run games where appearnance makes no difference at all and say "I don't care how drop-dead-from-a-heart-attack gorgeous Venus is, Iron Man made his EGO roll and resists her advances."

 

 

 

And let me tell you, my wife is going to be really pissed about it when she finds out!

 

First of all, I'm pretty sure Lord Liaden got a little confused

 

Here are Steve Long's exact words about Striking Appearance:

 

--Comeliness is being removed as a Characteristic and replaced with a Striking Appearance Talent. A game element that exists primarily to affect rolls made with a Characteristic (i.e.' date=' Interaction Skill rolls, in this case) isn't itself a Characteristic; it's a Talent. If you don't want your character's appearance to have any game effect, just describe him as being as good-looking (or ugly) as you want; no one cares. But if you want it to have an in-game effect, buy the Talent.[/quote']

 

When Lord Liaden described Striking Appearance as optional, I think he was trying to convey the concept that you don't need to buy Striking Appearance for a beautiful character if you don't see that character's beauty having a game effect.

 

There has been nothing that Steve has said in chats or on the boards that would indicate that Striking Appearance is anymore optional than any other Talent.

 

And as for running games where a character's appearance makes no difference, GMs can do that in 5E. They can just drop COM as a Characteristic or simply ignore its effects.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The mechanics behind it are right under the description. They were as "real" as any other characteristic roll: A complimentary roll for Interaction skills. It's right there in the book. It's been there since 4th Edition, IIRC. There are no core skill that use Con, Ego, Body or Str either but you can develop them easily enough There could be very easily be used for PS skills. We have a few in our own games.

 

Com rolls actually had more rules for them (the complimentary roll rules) than the others Char which were basically vague suggestions that were never mentioned again.

 

4th edition mentioned that COM MAY be used as a Complementary roll to ones Seduction roll. There is also a Vague paragraph saying that sometimes it can be used as being complementary to Presence rolls.

 

I have not seen the talent, but I have seen most of the other Talents that Steve created for 5th edition and 5th Revised. I imagine that the talent will be based on Skill levels that apply to interaction skill rolls that affect those who could be attracted to the character. If so, that will give a REAL quantifiable and non-vague way to use beauty (ugliness) for Interaction skill rolls. Also I am pretty sure that one could do it for the same amount of points that Cha comes out to. (ie +2 to Pre Skills 6pts. +1 only vs those who are attracted to the Character; 3 real points) or something similar.

 

Maybe not in your games. it was used quite a bit in the ones I played in and ran both as complimentary and as a separate thing I seen more Com rolls than I've Dex rolls and I've never seen a Con roll, a Body roll or a raw Int or Pre roll.

 

Dex is rolled constantly for Stealth, Shadowing and any number of skills that use it as a base. Con is of course used for not being stunned in combat (we occasionally use it to mitigate the effects of being physically ill ie vomiting). Body keeps you alive, no roll needed. Pre is the Basis of all interaction skills. Com only has the vague rules talked about above. Though 5thRev has better rules, it's still up to the GM to allow a COM roll as a complementary skill. I would rather have the levels.

 

 

How do you know? Have you seen it? Have you read the reason why some people prefer Comeliness to this Talent? Personally I would preferred more be developed for Com (like in Bob Greenwade's excellent article "Based On Com) and other characteristic than to throw what was for me a useful and fun part of the game under the bus in favor of doing just like every other game out there. It was only "half baked" as you wanted it to be and because some people chose to ignore it.

 

The problem is the Talent doesn't seem to fulfill the function that Com had in manner the people that enjoyed it found fun. There were mechanics for it and more could be developed. Is it really so hard to understand why someone might prefer them to this new approach? Its the same thing as the killing attack changes or turning Figured chars it Secondary characteristics

 

 

See above where I address this further. BTW if you like I can give you the 4 page numbers in 5th Rev and the 2 pages in 4th edition where Com is mentioned. It really isn't a clean mechanic.

 

BTW since you mentioned it. YOU don't know either what mechanic Steve is going to use to replace COM. I mentioned one possiblity of how a Talent COULD be written up. I really don't know enough about how it is going to be replaced to do anything, but just wait and see. I guess there are ways that a talent could be written up that could be annoying and not an adequate replacement for the Stat, but I doubt that is what we will see

 

Tasha

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

There has been nothing that Steve has said in chats or on the boards that would indicate that Striking Appearance is anymore optional than any other Talent.

 

Well, that's certainly good to hear.

 

On another matter, I will note since the door's been opened in contrast to what was said earlier in the thread no one HAD to be buy Com for their character or ask for any rolls if they don't feel their character's appearance has a game effect

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Depending on what it does' date=' it might not behave like current figs, though. I suspect unified power is something like a -1/4 limitation that means you drain the entire power as a single power, or some such.[/quote']

 

I suspect you're right on that. In any event, the real comment that Steve made about Unified Power is that there are no restrictions on what the Limitation can be applied to.

 

I assume that this means it can be applied to any power of any size and even to a Multipower. So, for example, Super Fire Guy could apply it to his Flight, Force Field, Damage Shield, Extra Limbs (that is, Fiery Tendrils), and Infrared Perception as well as to his Multipower of Fire Attacks. This would effectively cause them to be treated as aspects of a larger power. Of course, assumign that if does mean "Drain one, drain 'em all", then the characerr is at risk of losing all these powers when any one of them is Drianed.

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

you could do that in 4th and 5th ed

you just discribed your character as such

but if you wanted it to have an effect in game you had to buy it

 

this starting to smell of being PC

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I'm pretty sure Lord Liaden got a little confused

 

Here are Steve Long's exact words about Striking Appearance:

 

 

 

When Lord Liaden described Striking Appearance as optional, I think he was trying to convey the concept that you don't need to buy Striking Appearance for a beautiful character if you don't see that character's beauty having a game effect.

 

There has been nothing that Steve has said in chats or on the boards that would indicate that Striking Appearance is anymore optional than any other Talent.

 

And as for running games where a character's appearance makes no difference, GMs can do that in 5E. They can just drop COM as a Characteristic or simply ignore its effects.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Speaking of Extra Limbs, is there any word on if it might see some expansion in 6th? That would be cool. .