6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[tomd1969]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Look up the numerous threads of people complaining they have to come up with crazy disads that have nothing to do with their character concept or end up being weaker than everyone else. While the old number never bothered me' date=' it has been a pretty constant complaint from a few...[/quote']

 

Additionally, the Disad block from character to character were starting to look suspiciously... similar... The reason for this is that there were so many points that needed to be made up, but due to limitations of genre and/or imagination, people were falling into ruts of which Disads to add to their characters. For example, nearly every Champions character I have seen created by the players in my games have the following (Note, these are from Champions, since that is what I'm most familiar with, and where I've seen it the most):

 

• Psychological Limitation: Code vs. Killing (Common; Total) (20 pts)
  
• Hunted: 11- (Mo Pow; NCI; Harshly Punish) (25 pts) (Note: this is what I call the "VIPER" hunted, even if the Hunter isn't VIPER)
  
• Social Limitation: Secret ID (Frequently; Major) (15 pts)
  
• Vulnerability: 2 x STUN (Common) (20 pts)
  
• Vulnerability: 2 x BODY (Common) (20 pts)
  

 

That's 100 pts. Add another minor Hunted/Watched (for maybe 15-20 pts), and another minor Psych Lim (10-15 pts), and that's upwards of 135 pts right there. Throw in an Enraged/Berserk under suspicious circumstances (though inevitably bought at an inappropriate intensity), and you'll see where the problem is, IMV. In fact, many character concepts die on the table IMX because I couldn't justify enough unique Disads to get the character where I wanted him. When I start writing about why my character is being hunted by VIPER in my background just so I can justify the 25 pt Hunted, I know I'm in trouble.

 

YMMV.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Which is why I said "by the book". I also prefer the Complication Mutation/Evolution approach' date=' but the Book Rule is that you get no points for Disadvantages (and Complications unless 6e changed it) acquired in play.[/quote']

 

Of course if they weren't acquired in play but were acquired in the back story...

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Which is why I said "by the book". I also prefer the Complication Mutation/Evolution approach' date=' but the Book Rule is that you get no points for Disadvantages (and Complications unless 6e changed it) acquired in play.[/quote']

 

There's various values of "acquired in play". For example, suppose a character makes peace with VIPER somehow, but in the process somehow manages to tee off VIPER's sister SUSAN, the Hunted then mutates.

[Greywind]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

By the book' date=' they would be 0 point Complications, as they were acquired in play (or has that aspect changed in 6e?).[/quote']

No, they weren't acquired in play. They were acquired by Drake putting on the Robin suit the first time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

No' date=' they weren't acquired in play. They were acquired by Drake putting on the Robin suit the first time.[/quote']

 

The Joker and Two Face, however, acquired theirs in play.

 

The dividing line between "backstory" and "acquired in play" for source material is generally a tough one. Many of the Hunted's we slap on established characters would have been acquired in play if we assume play starts with the chaacter's first published appearance.

[Greywind]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Or were a mutation of a pre-exisiting disadvantage.

[Lucius]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Or maybe we should allow Complications to be acquired in play, and award less XP

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Berserk: If palindromedary threatened

[Ferret]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

So far from what I have read I like most of the changes. I always disliked Find Weakness so I'm glad it is gone. I love the concept of droping OCV from Dex. This reduces the need for players to purchase this one over used stat. Same thing for ECV. Not sure about the new way of doing elemental controls.

I will be buying a copy of the rules just to check it all out. After that then I will pick and choose books from there.

Ferret..........

[SteveZilla]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

If you insist on "realism":

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed

confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of

the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

 

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be

determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

 

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%

3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%

7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

 

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be

determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

 

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%

3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%

7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm

 

In real combat, a trained officer has about 1 chance in 3 of hitting a target in the adjacent hex. Add any distance, and the chance drops like a stone. Criminals are generally much worse shots in real confrontations.

 

Hero is being much too kind as far as allowing people to shoot straight, if we're talking "realistic".

 

Wow, who would thought that those G.I. Joe cartoons were actually *realistic*?

[SteveZilla]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It's even in bold letters in the book.

 

from 5er page 410:

 

 

Quote:

MINIMUM DAMAGE FROM INJURIES

Regardless of whether an attack does Normal Damage or Killing Damage, a character automatically takes 1 STUN for every 1 point of BODY damage that gets through his defenses. He can Recover this STUN normally; he doesn’t have to heal the BODY damage first.

Example: Ogre has a PD of 40, but only 5 of it is Resistant. He gets shot by a .44 Magnum revolver and takes 10 BODY, 30 STUN. After applying his defenses, he would normally take 5 BODY, 0 STUN. Because he took BODY damage, he takes a minimum of 1 STUN per point of BODY taken, so he takes 5 STUN regardless of his defenses

So if the attack in the above example had been for 10 BODY and 45 STUN, it still would have done only a total of 5 STUN to Ogre? I believed that, despite the name of the section including the word "Minimum", because this part:

 

A character automatically takes 1 STUN for every 1 point of BODY damage that gets through his defenses.

 

is worded as "takes 1 STUN for..." that means that inflicting BODY damage causes STUN damage that is seperate from the STUN done by that attack. Which would mean that the STUN-from-BODY-Damage is on top of any STUN-from-the-attack. At least that's how I see it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

So if the attack in the above example had been for 10 BODY and 45 STUN, it still would have done only a total of 5 STUN to Ogre? I believed that, despite the name of the section including the word "Minimum", because this part:

 

 

 

is worded as "takes 1 STUN for..." that means that inflicting BODY damage causes STUN damage that is seperate from the STUN done by that attack. Which would mean that the STUN-from-BODY-Damage is on top of any STUN-from-the-attack. At least that's how I see it.

 

They don't stack.

It is a minimum only.

 

per the FAQ:

(http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=&section=&keywords=minimum+body&dateString=)

 

On 5E 273, the rules say a character automatically takes a minimum of 1 STUN per point of BODY damage he sustains. Does this STUN remain lost until that BODY damage is healed?

 

No. Characters recover STUN lost automatically due to BODY damage normally.

 

Steve Long could have worded it many different ways if he wanted it to stack instead.

Why even use the word "minimum" at all if that was his intention?

[SteveZilla]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

They don't stack.

It is a minimum only.

 

per the FAQ:

(http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=&section=&keywords=minimum+body&dateString=)

 

Steve Long could have worded it many different ways if he wanted it to stack instead.

Why even use the word "minimum" at all if that was his intention?

 

Which is the same (possibly) poor wording as in 5ER. And the question is about something different than what we are talking about. I tried searching, but to no avail. Time to Ask Steve.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Which is the same (possibly) poor wording as in 5ER. And the question is about something different than what we are talking about. I tried searching' date=' but to no avail. Time to Ask Steve.[/quote']

 

You're over-thinking this.

 

Just look at the first entry for the definition of the word minimum:

 

the least quantity assignable, admissible, or possible

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

IF the rules were intended to be additive it would have been very simple to just say: "characters take an additional point of STUN damage for every point of BODY damage they take" and just remove the whole section regarding "minimum".

 

Since Steve Long chose NOT to do this I find it highly unlikely that he intended the rule to work that way.

[SteveZilla]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

IF the rules were intended to be additive it would have been very simple to just say: "characters take an additional point of STUN damage for every point of BODY damage they take" and just remove the whole section regarding "minimum".

 

Since Steve Long chose NOT to do this I find it highly unlikely that he intended the rule to work that way.

 

I think there is a better than even chance that you are right in the usage of this rule, but IIRC Steve Long didn't have complete free reign in making 5th/5ER...

 

EDIT: You were right. I liked my method because it didn't make taking BODY damage a "defense" against the STUN of the attack, and it made things a little more serious.

[SteveZilla]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Looks like Activation and RSR are rolled into one Limitation now - Requires a Roll. Now you can have Burnout and Jammed on Skill Rolls!

 

So, if I have a Skill with Requires A Roll, and that Skill is the Roll it requires, how far back into the infinite regresssion do I have to go to start rolling?

 

 

EDIT: I finally got to the end of this thread! It felt like climbing a mountain -- they kept growing!

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

So' date=' if I have a Skill with Requires A Roll, and that Skill is the Roll it requires, how far back into the infinite regresssion do I have to go to start rolling? [/quote']

 

Pittsburgh.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Pittsburgh.

 

 

Really???? I'd say it's clearly Albany.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Really???? I'd say it's clearly Albany.

 

Puce.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Or maybe we should allow Complications to be acquired in play, and award less XP

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Berserk: If palindromedary threatened

 

 

I sure as heck always have allowed them to be. it encourages character refinement and development seems to me.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I sure as heck always have allowed them to be. it encourages character refinement and development seems to me.

Of course. There's always Mystery Complications as well.

 

It's really no problem to allow Complications to be added in play, as long as you don't exceed the maximum. Plus you can buy some off (or down) and get new ones.