6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Wait' date=' did you just compare Ysgarth to being born, or am I reading a movie reference into your statement that wasn't intended?[/quote']

 

 

Thank you. That made my day.

 

The reference was half-intended, although it was more in the spirit of being a long time ago since I'd heard of Ysgarth.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Got that book. Interesting setting. Calling it a RPG is extremely generous' date=' though. It was totally devoid of any rules. Really, their idea of creating a character was "Come up with what he can do then make up some way to play it." [/quote']

 

 

 

I use the Superhero 2044 city map for our base campaign city.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I use the Superhero 2044 city map for our base campaign city.

 

That's cool!

 

Do you use anything else from the book (e.g., the Science Police, the superhero store)?

 

It's always struck me that the campaign setting would be ideal for running a Silver/Bronze Age game. With a proper RPG backing it up, of course.

[Lucius]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

You're welcome to disagree, but I have the books to back me up (still have them after all these years). I'll gladly go down to the basement and dig though the boxes for them if you need specific page numbers.

 

Feel free. I don't know if there were more than one edition, but I know the first edition of In The Labyrinth did not have anything like Flaws or Disadvantages. I know my memory is imperfect, but if there HAD been such a thing, there would have been no need for the Dragon article that both I and Steamtek remember.

 

And' date=' yes, I do recall the change in skill and spell costs for character types, but to call them "Classes" is, IMO, stretching the term quite a bit.[/quote']

 

I don't remember calling them classes. I just remember pointing out that your statement

 

And the distinction between magic-users and non was simply a matter of buying the necessary skills/abilities.

 

Was misrepresenting the case.

 

As for self-defeating? I suppose if one's intent was to build some uber-efficient character, yes. If you were building a specific concept, it certainly got you there a hell of a lot easier than D&D.

 

Oh, I'm not denying it was far superior to D&D in a lot of ways. And it let you create a character who was mostly skill based but had one or two spells, or a Wizard who had a few skills (especially if they were skills like Priest or Alchemy that he did not take a penalty for choosing.)

 

But if you wanted more crossover than that, like a character that wanted to spend half his points on spells and half on skills, the system actively hindered that character concept.

 

As for what I called "self defeating" what I said was

 

So while you could technically have a hero with several spells or a wizard with no spells and only skills' date=' it was pretty self-defeating to do so.[/quote']

 

I have to admit, I don't know what concept calls for a wizard with no spells, or a character with mostly spells that isn't a wizard.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Or a palindromedary with three heads.

[Lucius]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

My Gods, we've gone from discussing the changes in the latest (as in, not even here yet) edition of Hero, to talking about the RPG equivalent of ancient history!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Archeological palindromedary

[Vondy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

I have to admit, I don't know what concept calls for a wizard with no spells, or a character with mostly spells that isn't a wizard.

 

In terms of selecting some sort of magic-user class in a class based system I'm not sure what concept would call for it, either. But I could think of a wizard who, depending how magic worked, had lost the ability to cast spells for whatever reason (call it an unusual handicap) but still had the arcane knowledge, ability to read scrolls, use arcane items only wizards understand, and be the overall loremaster / indiana jones character. You could build that with other "classes" in some systems, or simply do it however you wanted in systems without classes, but I'm sure, beyond what I just proposed, there are some good concepts a creative player could come up with for a "wizard without spells."

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

but I'm sure' date=' beyond what I just proposed, there are some good concepts a creative player could come up with for a "[b']wizard without spells[/b]."

Rincewind.

[lemming]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I remember disads and such for Fantasy Trip, but I do think it was an article that brought them in. I wonder if they were mentioned in the in house magazine. I'll have to find my issues.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Earthsea. So sad.... Heh heh.

[casualplayer]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

What could be fun is if you treated magic ability as basically having a loaded gun in your pocket all the time and gave spellcasters the ability to bluff and threaten. Constantine doesn't have to cast hardly any spells because his reputation precedes him!

 

A game that let reputation have an effect on in-game reactions and a mechanism for gauging that would be clearly the superior system.

[Vondy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

What could be fun is if you treated magic ability as basically having a loaded gun in your pocket all the time and gave spellcasters the ability to bluff and threaten. Constantine doesn't have to cast hardly any spells because his reputation precedes him!

 

A game that let reputation have an effect on in-game reactions and a mechanism for gauging that would be clearly the superior system.

 

I think 4th Ed. Ninja Hero had rules for "psychic duels" ala Samurai Showdown that could work for this. I'm not sure if they made it into TUM or NH 5.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

In terms of selecting some sort of magic-user class in a class based system I'm not sure what concept would call for it' date=' either. But I could think of a wizard who, depending how magic worked, had lost the ability to cast spells for whatever reason (call it an unusual handicap) but still had the arcane knowledge, ability to read scrolls, use arcane items only wizards understand, and be the overall loremaster / indiana jones character. You could build that with other "classes" in some systems, or simply do it however you wanted in systems without classes, but I'm sure, beyond what I just proposed, there are some good concepts a creative player could come up with for a "wizard without spells."[/quote']

 

Aahz from Myth Adventures. And he has sometimes been able to bluff his way through opposition who did not know he had lost his spellcasting abilities.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

In terms of selecting some sort of magic-user class in a class based system I'm not sure what concept would call for it' date=' either. But I could think of a wizard who, depending how magic worked, had lost the ability to cast spells for whatever reason (call it an unusual handicap) but still had the arcane knowledge, ability to read scrolls, use arcane items only wizards understand, and be the overall loremaster / indiana jones character. You could build that with other "classes" in some systems, or simply do it however you wanted in systems without classes, but I'm sure, beyond what I just proposed, there are some good concepts a creative player could come up with for a "wizard without spells."[/quote']I ran a character like that, Old Thom the Sage, in my very first Fantasy Hero campaign. Thom carried a staff, had a long white beard, and looked the very archetype of a mage. Unfortunately he had no magic beyond being tougher (read: harder to kill) than he looked and possessing a minor bit of inherent Regeneration. What he did have was a deep scholarly education in a variety of topics, fluency in a dozen languages including High Demonic, a devious mind, and a ruthlessness belied by his genial personality. Despite being almost useless in combat (he could barely defend himself), Old Thom was one of the party's most important members. He was always useful, either from some arcane bit of lore or simply his ability to speak Dwarvish, Elven, or Latin when no one else in the group did.

 

You couldn't realistically build a sage character in AD&D. Old Thom was the character that convinced me Fantasy Hero was a better game system than AD&D for my style of play; and I never looked back.

[VorpalAuroch]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Rincewind.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Rincewind was the DNPC.

 

Luggage was the Character.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I *HEART* Luggage!

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I remember disads and such for Fantasy Trip' date=' but I do think it was an article that brought them in. I wonder if they were mentioned in the in house magazine. I'll have to find my issues.[/quote']

 

There was an article in the house magazine at the time, the Space Gamer on disadvantages for fantasy trip. Unfortunately I have no idea where my copy is.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Dunno if this has been covered thus far, but since 6th doesn't use hexes anymore, how does this affect things like AoE entangles and TK?

I think before it was X STR per hex or X BODY/DEF per hex, right?

So is it now X STR per target/object and X BODY/DEF per target/object?

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I imagine it'll probably be, "...per square meter" (or cubic meter I suppose), wouldn't you think?

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I imagine it'll probably be' date=' "...per square meter," wouldn't you think?[/quote']

 

That could still be a bit awkward, I suspect.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That could still be a bit awkward' date=' I suspect.[/quote']

No more awkward than "per inch (2m)" or per "cubic hex".

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Dunno if this has been covered thus far, but since 6th doesn't use hexes anymore, how does this affect things like AoE entangles and TK?

I think before it was X STR per hex or X BODY/DEF per hex, right?

So is it now X STR per target/object and X BODY/DEF per target/object?

AOEs are figured differently than in 5th edition see Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield for more details

 

AOE becomes MUCH more flexable, the amount of advantage is based on the size of the AOE in Meters. So you can make very small to very huge AOE's without the cheese that existed in 1-5th edition.

 

The showcases are a really good place to see some of the coolest changes coming in 6th edition. They are stickied at the top of this forum subject.

 

Tasha

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

AOEs are figured differently than in 5th edition see Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield for more details

 

AOE becomes MUCH more flexable, the amount of advantage is based on the size of the AOE in Meters. So you can make very small to very huge AOE's without the cheese that existed in 1-5th edition.

 

The showcases are a really good place to see some of the coolest changes coming in 6th edition. They are stickied at the top of this forum subject.

 

Tasha

 

Thanks, I've read those, but that doesn't really answer my question, which was how AOE TK STR and Entangle are to be applied--per target/object, per square/cubic meter, or something else?

[GamePhil]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Thanks' date=' I've read those, but that doesn't really answer my question, which was how AOE TK STR and Entangle are to be applied--per target/object, per square/cubic meter, or something else?[/quote']

 

No one can really answer that question until they start going on sale at GenCon, which will be soon (Saturday?), but there hasn't been any indication that it will change from 5th so far, aside from AoE Entangles not being able to form Barriers (since that's now its own Power). That is, TK will be applied per target (unless the target is something like a pile of sand, which prevents people with 1 STR AoE TK from picking up tons of the stuff), and Entangle should do so as well though the text is slightly less clear (I assume full strength per target on AoE unless it specifically says otherwise).

 

Everyone will know soon for sure, though.

[Toadmaster]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Seriously' date=' back in the day Champions was the game that turned you (the generic "you", not anyone in particular) into a lifelong roleplayer, instead of just someone who played D&D back in junior high. It's also the reason over half the games that came out afterward had some form of character points and flaws.[/quote']

 

 

Sorry but Chaosium's BRP (Runequest, Call of Cthulhu) and FGU's Aftermath, Bushido, and Space Opera played a part as well. All allowed huge flexibility in skills / stats. I know Aftermath included disadvantages, I don't recall without doing some digging through boxes if Bushido or Space Opera did, but I believe they did. All of these games are too close to Champions release to have been influenced by Champions (1980-82).

 

As I recall even TSR's Top Secret included a disadvantage system, and it definately had a system for selecting skills.

 

None of this is meant to take away from Champions / HERO, it very much deserves a place in the top 10 most influential RPGs, but it was just part of a gaming evolution. Champions was definately a step forward doing many things more elegantly than others had to that point. Giving it credit for point buy and advantages / disadvantages is going a bit far, particularly when you consider it was another several years before the game branched out to other more popular genres where it had a wider impact (Espionage 1983, Justice Inc 1984, Fantasy HERO 1985). Chosium's BRP beat both HERO and GURPS to the universal RPG concept with their Worlds of wonder even though they didn't come right out and call it that.