6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree with you on this

Killing attacks have just been overly NERFED

 

going with all def protects vs stun works

going with 1d3 for a stun multiplier but only vs resistant def works

 

using both really NERFS Killing attacks

 

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.

[rjcurrie]

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

 

Actually, I suspect it boils down to one thing: Steve Long did not like COM as a Characteristic and no was able to convince him it should be kept. No more, no less.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree with you on this

Killing attacks have just been overly NERFED

 

going with all def protects vs stun works

going with 1d3 for a stun multiplier but only vs resistant def works

 

using both really NERFS Killing attacks

 

I think both was over compensating for the Lotto effect.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Actually' date=' I suspect it boils down to one thing: Steve Long did not like COM as a Characteristic and no was able to convince him it should be kept. No more, no less.[/quote']

 

I agree but I don't think anyone could have. It's a subjective thing. If you hate pizza, its difficult if not impossible to talk you into liking pizza with logic alone.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Some interest tidbits from Steve's June 10th chat:

 

sacolcor: Steve: Okay, I'll try a couple then. BOECV in 5E is kind of a conglomerate of (AVLD vs. MD) + (Line of Sight) + (Use OECV to attack) + (Use DECV to defend). But sometimes you only want a subset of these, and some powers have some of them already, and there's no other way in 5E to make a power ECV targeted. Is there a better way in 6E?

Steve Long: sacolcor -- I don't want to go into details, but yes -- yes, there is. That's one of the niftiest new things in 6E in my opinion, and I predict you're gonna like it. I think that's a good example of something that occurred at several places in 6E -- taking things that were similar, or that had organically grown too complex, and breaking them down into "pieces parts" and re-assembling them in ways that make them easier to use *and* more flexible.

 

*******

 

rjcurrie: Steve, you mentioned last week that there were new powers in 6e -- can you give an example? Or would you like to keep them to yourself for now?

Steve Long: Rod -- sorry, I'll keep mum on the new Powers for now.

 

*******

 

IndianaJoe3: Any new Skills?

 

Steve Long: IJ -- no, I saw no need to add any. A couple have been tweaked or expanded based on other rules changes/additions, but there aren't any new ones.

 

*******

 

torchwolf: Steve - Will there be any additions to Mental and Spiritual Transform?

 

Steve Long: torch -- I don't think I can answer that without going into some things in greater detail than I easily can here, so I say "check" and wait 'til the betting comes back around to me.

 

*******

 

sacolcor: One other question: In 5E, it's very hard to make a sub-megascale-but-still-really-big Explosion, because unlike AE, it scales linearly instead of doubling for (+1/4). Any change?

 

Steve Long: Sacolcor -- that's another one I can't go into right now, partly because some things don't explain well in single sentence bites.

 

*******

 

rjcurrie: ah, yes, what are Disadvantages called in 6e?

 

Steve Long: Rod -- they are called Complications. Which entails some logical name changes, e.g., Psychological Complication.

 

*******

 

Susano: Steve -- you still using "Package Deal"?

Steve Long: Susano -- no, the term "Package Deal" has been changed to "Template." Which is, I think, more accurate and easier to use.

 

*******

 

Psistrike: Hey Steve. Simple question, not sure if you can answer it right now. Did you come up with an easier way to give weapons/larger than normal beings reach without Stretching with a ton of advantages and limitations?

 

Steve Long: Changing from hexes to meters made it much easier to define and deal with issues pertaining to Reach.

 

*******

 

rjcurrie: Is PER still based on INT?

Steve Long: Rod -- yes. I considered making it a separate Skill, but ultimately that didn't seem like a change that would add anything or improve anything in any serious way, so I didn't make it.

 

*******

rjcurrie: do any of the Characteristics have extra functionality that they didn't have in 5e?

Steve Long: Rod -- what do you want to do, kick the hornet's nest? Sorry, I'm not answering any questions about Characteristics that detailed and philosophical.

 

*******

 

Susano: Steve -- Is Damage Shield any different?

Steve Long: Susano -- I will say "Yes," but I am not givin' out any details yet.

 

*******

rjcurrie: Steve, something that someone mentioned in chat earlier today, is there a generic advantage similar to Limited Power?

Steve Long: Rod -- no, there isn't. I see no need for one.

[James Gillen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That just sounds dirty

 

And the arguments for "SexEd" get more validity.

 

JG

[James Gillen]

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."

 

Ah yes. Sorta like the way Mind Control usually works in practice.

 

JG

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Interesting tidbits from the June 3 chat that haven't been covered:

 

*******

 

mudpyr8: Healing?

 

Steve Long: mud -- what about Healing?

 

mudpyr8: Any signif changes?

 

Steve Long: Hmmm. Depends on what you call "significant." I think I'll keep mum on that one for now.

 

*******

 

Steve Long: The discussion of how to handle Killing Damage was probably the single longest and most frustrating that I've hashed over with SETAC, but as always good things emerged from the chaos and thunder.

 

*******

 

The Rose: Is healing being redone?

Steve Long: Rose -- depends on what you mean by "redone." That's about all I'll say for now.

 

*******

 

rjcurrie: Is there any easier way to do "Possession" in 6E?

Steve Long: Rod -- that's one I'm still considering. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure I will have the time to work up something to my own satisfaction, since it can be a very complex topic. There have been some strong arguments raised in favor of a "Possession" Power, but I think there are also some strikes against it. We'll see how I feel about it when I start my final pass through the rules. Same for a "Projection" Power to do astral forms and what-all.

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The other issue is that for those of us who freelance, it really doesn't MATTER whether or not we like the changes. If we wish to remain professionally committed, learn or die.

 

Therefore, since I'm already professionally committed, I must learn or die.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The other issue is that for those of us who freelance, it really doesn't MATTER whether or not we like the changes. If we wish to remain professionally committed, learn or die.

 

Therefore, since I'm already professionally committed, I must learn or die.

 

Well, at times I think you should be committed. Just kidding.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Here's where I am. Nobody's going to touch this baby with a 10 foots pole in my group so I won't be able to really look before I buy so I guess I'll eventually get the PDF to check it out although I don't like buying something I may never use and may shoot up my blood pressure. maybe there's enough gems hidden in there than no one is talking about to make up for the pain in the neck to get things close to fixed to where I like it.

 

We haven't seen how things work so we have no idea how well things will "unify" or the eventual cost so I have no idea if it really is a solution..

 

I hope Steve included piercing in the main book. Very superior alternative to AP in my book.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm really betting on time to cool passions. I think many wanting to walk away will, after watching it in play or reading a friends book, will give it a whirl and find it to be ok. If you seriously can't have a fun game given the changes so far, then of course stay with what makes you happy.

 

But heck, a lot of us even gave 4th Edition D&D a chance...can't we do the same for 6E HERO?

 

 

kind of a bad comparison. Once burned twice shy?

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

[quote=rjcurrie;185002

 

rjcurrie: ah, yes, what are Disadvantages called in 6e?

 

Steve Long: Rod -- they are called Complications. Which entails some logical name changes, e.g., Psychological Complication.

 

*******

 

Susano: Steve -- you still using "Package Deal"?

Steve Long: Susano -- no, the term "Package Deal" has been changed to "Template." Which is, I think, more accurate and easier to use.

.

 

 

this is entirely subjective but I find "complications" really annoying it seems like PC or political spin talk.

 

Template works for me

[Stephen_H-G]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

this is entirely subjective but I find "complications" really annoying it seems like PC or political spin talk.

 

Template works for me

 

He only changed it because "disadvantage" was not the opposite of "advantage" in the rules, I think.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

As the post also indicates chaning things to Psychological Complication also removes confusion between Power Modifiers called Limitations and Disadvantages that were Limitations.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree with you on this

Killing attacks have just been overly NERFED

 

going with all def protects vs stun works

going with 1d3 for a stun multiplier but only vs resistant def works

 

using both really NERFS Killing attacks

 

That was my initial impression too, but then I started to wonder what I would use a KA for under those new rules.

 

In a superheroic game, which is the arena I most often play in, the Body Lotto was about as much of a problem as the Stun Lotto, if only becaue the Stun Lotto was relativey easy to regulate with a fixed multiplier. That has apparently not changed.

 

Also I'm a bit worried about how a character with low rDEF is going to play if they have average normal defences: they may barely feel an attack that almost guts them.

 

Mind you, killing attacks are not really there to stun someone, they are there to cause Body damage, we've just got used to the idea that they can also cause some kickin' stun. If KAs ARE nerfed, then that is as a result of the way we design and build characters.

 

If you want a superhero game where KAs are something teh PCs fear as much as normal attacks, reduce the campaign rDEF. 15rDEF should make a PC immune to conventional hand held guns up to and including 12 guage solid shot, but still have reason to fear a 12DC killing attack (it will often slide off but will cause Body frequently enough to be a real concern, especially given how comparatively difficult it is to heal Body.

 

Any reduction of campaign rDEF below that point makes KAs scarier and scarier.

 

The point is you get to chose, and you have a much clearer idea of what to expect. Yes, KAs are nerfed in SuperHero games if you build superheroes that can ignore KAs.

 

Take a look at the example superheroes in 5ER, which I think are very good example characters.

 

Hardpoint has 15/20 defences: he doesn't need to worry too much about KAs

 

Maelstrom has 10/23 and 10/27 defences: he does. Some of the heavier conventional small arms will often hurt him and he can expect to lose 4 Body from a 12DC KA - that is scary: four average hits and he is dying.

 

That doesn't look nerfed.

 

Hero is a toolkit, and that applies to the characters that you build and the strategy you apply to those builds in game. 6e might require a fresh look at what you want, but nothing I've seen is broken.

 

Although I do not play Heroic genres as much as superheroic, KAs work well there too - as things stand, if you get hit by a bullet, it can often just knock you out. Now, you are likely to take considerably more Body damage before passing out - it will make combat seem more dangerous - it WILL be more dangerous, because your opponent's will not be passing out either - you are much more likely to take fatal damage than just sleep it off.

 

I think that KAs will be more effort to make work, but I think that effort will be worth it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree but I don't think anyone could have. It's a subjective thing. If you hate pizza' date=' its difficult if not impossible to talk you into liking pizza with logic alone.[/quote']

 

 

Bah - why use logic? What is it about pizza you do not like?

 

Hero is a shapeshifter, able to become what you want it to be. Using the pizza example if it is the tomatoes that turn you off, we can make it with just cheese. If it is the bread crust we can make that with pastry. If you don't like cheese, tomato or bread we can make you a roast dinner.

 

As to COM, well, I'm not sure what people think you can do with COM that you can not do as well in other ways, for example as a talent or some other build. COM always had very limited system uses - it was an occasional modifier to interaction rolls. Of course people found lots of other uses for it, but as they were never core Hero, they probably did not get considered.

 

It was also massively confusing - was COM universal or relative. What did it actually mean? Did you have high COM because of your gorgeous hair or your healthy physique? What if what you had to offer was not what the target wanted? Did it work cross species?

 

The argument that the complimentary roll dealt with that didn't work for me - all it did was randomise your bonus, and you can build a random bonus (+1 Interaction Skill Level on 14-) anyway, and doing it that way gives you far more fine control over WHAT you are getting.

 

For those of you who really can not stand to see it go, can I suggest you reverse engineer it*? For every +1 Intereaction Skill Level attributable to an aspect of your appearance, you get a notional 5 points. Add them up and that is your COM for a beholder who appreciates all you have to offer.

 

Easy as pie. Pizza pie.

 

 

 

*Given that this seems a major sticking point for some I'd be surprised if COM did not resurface in a side bar or supplement.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

1. It was announced as a possibility in the 6th ed forums. Now its been confirmed as a truth and a fresh shock. If Long was going to just do everything he said he might in the forums then they were a sham.

 

If he was going to do nothing he suggested in his preamble to those Boards, then his initial posts were just as much a sham. As well, they would not have directed discussion at areas Steve wanted feedback on, making his time spent reading those hundreds of pages much less worthwhile.

 

I suspect, although he decided to decouple Figured's, that the discussion surrounding Figured and the cost of characteristics may have had some impact on the pricing of characteristics and, perhaps, changes to what some characteristics do. Of course, we can never know how Steve would have written 6e if he had simply done so with no input whatsoever, so a comparison will be impossible even after 6e is released.

 

2. Even then most of the dislike seems to be towards decoupling CVs which came out of nowhere. At least I don't recall that being even brought up a part of the discussion from an official source. Some posters did bring it up and even then it met with strong opposition.

 

I was, and remain, in favour of keeping figured characteristics coupled. That too would have required some changes, however. My views on how this would appropriately have been implemented are on the 6e boards, and involved repricing Figured's so they could be effectively purchased without buying the Primaries (reducing costs of several Figured's and changing the formuli, though probably also raising the price of DEX). Had my approach been implemented, however, buying the Primary and getting the Figured's would have cost the same (or as close as possible) as buying the Primary with "no figured's" and buying the Figured's separately, so decoupling would have had little impact on costs.

 

However, in my view, CV's are as much "figured's" in 5e and prior editions as PD and ED. They are derived from a primary characteristic based on mathematical formuli. I also believe it is appropriate they be capable of independent purchase or sellback. In my view, if PD and the others were to be decoupled, it was appropriate to decouple the CV's as well.

 

While we have historically focused on STR and CON being "bargain priced" because of all the Figured's they provide, DEX was really the biggest culprit. You paid 45 points for +15 DEX. 15 of those points went to SPD, so you really paid 30 points to receive:

 

- +5 DCV (5 DCV levels cost 25 points and were less useful - gone if you're stunned, for example)

 

- +5 OCV (value? Say 8 point skill levels only usable for OCV; call that a -1 and they're worth 20; say -1 1/2 and they're 16 points)

 

- +3 levels with DEX skills/rolls (3 5 point skill levels, so 15 points)

 

- +15 Lightning Reflexes with all attacks (I forget the cost, but at least 15, right?)

 

So that's 71 points of value, plus whatever the overpriced Lightning Reflexes was worth - 86 total points at least - for the cost of 45 points. Breaking out CV and SPD will eliminate this bargain purchase.

 

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 can see this going either way. Hit Locations allow normal attacks to do more damage than they can without hit locations, and also reduce their damage in some cases. Having KA's able to do more damage with Hit Locations than without seems reasonable, as both types of attacks gain a potential benefit.

 

You might look at the first post in the characteristics thread. Points of note:

 

First of all, it was quite obvious from the thread that no 'particularly convincing arguments' came forward, since I didn't notice anyone being convinced by arguments on that thread. Second, the CV change didn't come from nowhere..

 

Yup...I'm not sure how anyone can say this came out of nowhere, other than Steve's approach of making his initial post and making no further comments. But if he had posted a thread a month or two ago saying "I've read the 6e forum and I still lean to decoupling Figured, removing COM and splitting out CV", does anyone realistically think the hundreds of pages reiterating the same arguments would have changed the final result?

 

Sure,,we all know our own visions are the One True Way, and our cogent arguments should convince anyone with an IQ above the single digits, but it really doesn't work that way.

 

For myself, I'm less concerned that figured's are going away than I am that the repricing of various elements of various archetypes doesn't change the balance between archetypes, making one more or less effective than in the current model. That can't be evaluated until we can see 6e as a whole.

 

I agree with you on this

Killing attacks have just been overly NERFED

 

going with all def protects vs stun works

going with 1d3 for a stun multiplier but only vs resistant def works

 

using both really NERFS Killing attacks

 

In my view, "all def protects vs stun" is a simplifying assumption that will have negligible to no impact, as most characters of note in my games (others have indicated theirs vary) have, or have access to, at least 1 point of rDEF. And a character with no rDEF facing off against a significant killing attack was, in my experience, not really that concerned about the STUN.

 

1d3 Stun Multiple isn't the approach I would have preferred, but it does make a Killing Attack live up to its name - its purpose is to KILL. In a game where killing is supposed to be rare to nonexistent, such that rDEF will be bought up to the point that KA's will not be effective at generating BOD damage, they are most definitely NERFED. AND THEY SHOULD BE - they are out of the parameters for such a game.

 

Sean hits the nail on the head, IMO. Killing attacks will serve one purpose - they are intended to KILL. A knockout is not the intended result, and should be rarely achieved, with such an attack. If you want your game to feature killing attacks - attacks whose purpose is to kill, not stun or KO, their target, then restrict resistant defenses accordingly. If you want your game to feature KO's, not deaths, then why would you want killing attacks in them anyway?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hero is a shapeshifter' date=' able to become what you want it to be. Using the pizza example if it is the tomatoes that turn you off, we can make it with just cheese. If it is the bread crust we can make that with pastry. If you don't like cheese, tomato or bread we can make you a roast dinner.[/quote']

 

In 5e, if you liked COM, it was there and you could use it. If you didn't, it was easily removed. 6e removes that tool from the toolbox.

 

It was also massively confusing - was COM universal or relative. What did it actually mean? Did you have high COM because of your gorgeous hair or your healthy physique? What if what you had to offer was not what the target wanted? Did it work cross species?

 

Not to rehash the debate, but PRE is also very subjective. Is she a "forceful personality" or a "bitch", for example? I recall a Star Trek book some years ago describing a discussion between an Andorian and a Tellerite (? - the squat pig faced fellows) diplomat noting that the Tellerite glared straight at the Andorian (something typical humans would find rude) while the Andorian was more looking at the floor than the Tellerite (again, something we humans would find rude).

 

By the standards of their cultures, however, both were affording the other the greatest of respect, as Tellerites have very narrow tunnel vision so NOT staring directly at the person is a sign you are dismissing their comments. Andorians hear through their antennae, so dipping your eyes to the floor brought your antennae closer to the speaker, a sign you are listening intently.

 

How is their PRE and interaction skill universal?

 

And don't get me started on the scary lion-headed sharp-toothed man being a great orator, highly persuasive, a marvelous conversationalist and a skilled seducer...

 

Sure, there are other ways to build the same, or a similar, effect. We can build regeneration out of healing, but that's still a sore point for many Hero gamers.

[BlackSword]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

But heck' date=' a lot of us even gave 4th Edition D&D a chance...can't we do the same for 6E HERO?[/quote']

kind of a bad comparison. Once burned twice shy?

Both groups I play(ed) tried D&D4 and enjoyed the system enough that they are using it regularly. Even though there was a lot of grumbling and knashing of teeth from the various WotC updates, after giving the rules (and not the rumors) a fair shake they found that it does a good job for the games they want to play.

[Greywind]

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!

Postmaster wants to talk to you. Something about not paying up on all the postage...

But heck' date=' a lot of us even gave 4th Edition D&D a chance...[/quote']I didn't...

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

There is one thing about COM that people aren't talking about - Negative COM.

 

Comliness was the ONLY Characteristic that you could sell back to 0 and then start paying point for again to get a Negative Comliness.

 

That alone tells us that the Comliness Characteristic was not giving us the full range of capabilities just as a Characteristic. Or - to get the full range we had to treat it completely differently than all the other Charactertistics.

 

That kind of odd-man-out aspect is almost reason enough alone to rethinkg the Mechanic of what Comliness provides. Couple that with No COM-Based Skills, and No clearly defined role for Comliness.

 

Moving to a Talent you can now remodel Appearance based around exactly what type of appearance you have: "Fearful"; "Supermodel beauty"; "Alien"; "Exotic"; "Ugly Enough To Scare The Paint Of A Wall"; etc, so on and we remove the odd "sell back only to buy again" aspect that was there before.

 

Overall, I expect the Talent to provide the same utility, remove a few odities and then expand on the utility in a more clearly defined manner.

[Greywind]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

COM did a lot for complimentary skill/char rolls for persuasion and seduction in the right circumstances, as well.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

There is one thing about COM that people aren't talking about - Negative COM.

 

Comliness was the ONLY Characteristic that you could sell back to 0 and then start paying point for again to get a Negative Comliness.

 

That alone tells us that the Comliness Characteristic was not giving us the full range of capabilities just as a Characteristic. Or - to get the full range we had to treat it completely differently than all the other Charactertistics.

 

That kind of odd-man-out aspect is almost reason enough alone to rethinkg the Mechanic of what Comliness provides. Couple that with No COM-Based Skills, and No clearly defined role for Comliness.

 

Moving to a Talent you can now remodel Appearance based around exactly what type of appearance you have: "Fearful"; "Supermodel beauty"; "Alien"; "Exotic"; "Ugly Enough To Scare The Paint Of A Wall"; etc, so on and we remove the odd "sell back only to buy again" aspect that was there before.

 

Overall, I expect the Talent to provide the same utility, remove a few odities and then expand on the utility in a more clearly defined manner.

 

Actually Neg Com did come up during the endless Com Wars. Negative Com was a bad mechanic and should have been handled differently. Which didn't necessitate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Such as negative Com imposing penalties to Interaction skills, for example, Where the rules for Negative added in 4th or 5th?

 

Frightening/Horrific appearance could be done with extra limited Pre since the only "intimidation" mechanics are Pre attack. It could possible add to the base for some forms of Interrogation and Torture.

 

The Talent seems just as subjective and arbitrary as the char and losses some of the diversity, at least from the description we've received so far.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Actually Neg Com did come up during the endless Com Wars. Negative Com was a bad mechanic and should have been handled differently. Which didn't nessicate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Such as negative Com imposing penalties to Interaction skills

 

Frightening/Horrific appearance could be done with extra limited Pre since the only "intimidation" mechanics are Pre attack. It could possible add to the base for some forms of Interrogation and Torture.

 

The Talent seems just as subjective and arbitrary as the char and losses some of the diversity, at least from the description we've received so far.

 

Bold Mine:

 

So why don't we all step off the throttle and wait to see what the new Talent brings to the table before deciding it's useless?

 

No one here has read the full description - which means no one here is in a place to judge how it will or won't work compared to Comliness.

 

 

I was, and am, an advocate of keeping Comliness as a Characteristic. But I'm not going to condemn the new idea out of hand like is being done. I'd like to read it first.