6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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?

 

Special effects, dramatic logic and setting specifics. The Talent is going to have to deal with the same issues most likely. Of your sfx were such they severly limited the char ("Wow, look at the ovipositers on her!") then you could get it limited. Obsessing over if it was your character's hair or build that was pleasing seems like worrying about minutia like if they're EB is red or green. Is it going to have a significant and consistent game or mechanical effect? Yes, then find pricing mod for it. No? Don't worry about.

 

Heck, if your game is going to be mostly battle and tactics don't worry about Comeliness at all.

 

I mean is this talent going to be broken down the level of features so you'll have to get

 

Striking Appearance: Great Hair! +2

 

Striking Appearance: Lovely eyes +1

 

etc, etc.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed 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.

 

First, I've been saying since the thread began. I'll wait and see the whole thing regarding all of 6th edition but it doesn't look good now. Others have too.

 

I haven't seen anyone say they were jumping ship because Com was gone. Either I missed it or that's a strawman someone set up.

 

Finally, IMO, the Talent would have to be Com moved to a different location to make me happy with the change and that's not very likely from what we've heard. I can't imagine what else this Talent might be that it will do everything I liked about Com (including the roll) but be different to make going through all this rigmarole worth it. Comeliness was dropped because Steve Long didn't like it, not because it was objectively broken or a mad mechanic. That's his right of course. It's his game.

 

Edit: And I don't think anyone said the Talent was worthless, they've said they don't think it will do the same job for them as Comeliness did. There is a difference.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

I was, and remain, in favor of decoupling figureds, but I wanted to see CV kept as part of its respective Characteristics.

 

Decoupling ECV, though, is fantastic for games where there are no Mental Powers, otherwise EGO is too expensive. And it's hard to justify separate ECV while physical CV is part of DEX.

 

Here's me: yay on decoupling figureds, iffy on decoupling physical CV, yay on decoupling ECV. Net win, IMO.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I've incorporated the system changes and non-changes Steve Long mentioned during his chat of Wednesday, June 10 into the list at the head of this thread.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

That was my point. If his mind was set either way, then the forums were just a week long joke, a chew toy tossed at the fans so those that agreed with his choices could think they contributed and those that didn't could be brushed off with "Well you had your chance to chance to his mind."

 

For the sake of avoiding conspiracy theories, I assume when he said he was open to discussion and would it into account he meant that in good faith and at face value.

[Lord Liaden]

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!

 

I'm going to change that designation immediately, as "optional" was my choice of word. It's only optional in the way that all Talents are optional, i.e. that a particular game can use them or not. This way if a group wants a character's appearance to have a mechanical impact, they can make it so; if they don't, it won't.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

First, I've been saying since the thread began. I'll wait and see the whole thing regarding all of 6th edition but it doesn't look good now. Others have too.

 

I haven't seen anyone say they were jumping ship because Com was gone. Either I missed it or that's a strawman someone set up.

 

Finally, IMO, the Talent would have to be Com moved to a different location to make me happy with the change and that's not very likely from what we've heard. I can't imagine what else this Talent might be that it will do everything I liked about Com (including the roll) but be different to make going through all this rigmarole worth it. Comeliness was dropped because Steve Long didn't like it, not because it was objectively broken or a mad mechanic. That's his right of course. It's his game.

 

Edit: And I don't think anyone said the Talent was worthless, they've said they don't think it will do the same job for them as Comeliness did. There is a difference.

 

I wasn't trying to pick on you specifically - just wanted to pull out your last sentence because it was a good idea, shoulda made that more clear. Sorry.

 

I never said anyone was jumping ship at all - anywhere. I have seen people comdemn the change Out Of Hand -and yes they have. Go reread this and other threads.

 

We don't know WHAT the Talent is going to do. No one has seen it.

 

what did a Comliness complimentary roll do? Added bonuses to PRE and Interaction Skills? Correct?

 

What does, just to pull an example, the Reputation Perk do? Add bonuses to PRE and Interaction Skills? Correct.

 

I don't know what Steve did or how he built the Talent, but if I were Steve I'd model it almost the exact same way. I might even put in a note that the Striking Appearance Roll can add none, some or all of the Bonus bought for the Talent based on the success of the roll - with possible Situational Bonses for extremely good rolls (or extremely bad rolls).

 

So you know, it could be nothing more than a cosmetic change of where you write it down on the sheet. Sure I'll miss going "I have a Comliness score of 18, versus his 14. . . " But. meh.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Re: COM. You know, the whole buying -10 and below COM thing from 5th Edition was a special rule that no other characteristic had. Doing away with that with a talent for being exceptionally attractive or ugly will at least get rid of a rule inconsistency. Seems like a net gain for internal logic at least.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I

 

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?

 

One issue I ran into trying to limited Resistant Defense in superheroic games was that basically, it's too easy to get. Unless the character concept justified allot of extra non resistant PD/ED (such as most "brick") types, player would turn to Armor and Forcefield which are resistant by default so they'd end up either going over the resistant cap, being vulnerable to normal damage or having to build odd constructs like linked PD/ED to their defensive powers.

 

or even alter their concepts to include somethging like "padded costume" or some such.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

No confusion, Rod, that's exactly what I meant, but thank you for spelling it out so clearly. I've now clarified the original entry.

 

Man, this takes me back to the post-4E debates, where so much stress was generated over interpretations of a single word in the rules.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Man' date=' this takes me back to the post-4E debates, where so much stress was generated over interpretations of a single word in the rules. [/quote']

 

Welcome to Gaming Pedantry. Ain't it fun.

 

 

(note: I've probably been guilty of it at least once myself....)

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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. Steve implied that he's used this approach for other elements of the system.

 

I didn't like the overcomplication of some pretty simple things in 5th Edition by breaking them down, such as Regen, Insta-Change, and the powerfying of the Talents. This seems like more complication. Going to have to take a wait and see on this one.

 

 

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

 

Pointless change IMO. Not a huge deal, but don't see the point in it.

[Lord Liaden]

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.

 

I fully understand that Rod is simply passing on interesting bits of the discussion to people here, and I thank him for that. But this post makes me think I should clarify where I'm coming from with the list I started this thread with. I'm only including things that Steve has specifically stated that he will do or won't do, with enough specifics added that one can reasonably identify what he's referring to. I am deliberately leaving out any references to things Steve is "thinking about" or "won't say anything about yet" until and unless he provides more details. I'm sorry if anyone is disappointed by that, but I feel that the risk of rampant unfounded speculation such things might engender (even more than we already have here) isn't worth the specks of data to be gleaned from them.

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

One of the major themes of the 6th edition discussions was to make the game less complicated and smaller in rules, more sleek and easier to use. I suspect that decoupling figured characteristics made it more complicated and harder to build characters. Instead of having 8 characteristics you have to figure out baselines for, now you have 14 (18 if you add the Combat Values). Instead of natural progressions and connections between stats, each one is completely separated. That may or may not be a good thing - I can see advantages and disadvantages - but it does make things more complicated and building characters a bit more challenging. And thus daunting to new players. If the goal was to make the game easier for newcomers to play, this seems counterproductive.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I didn't like the overcomplication of some pretty simple things in 5th Edition by breaking them down' date=' such as Regen, Insta-Change, and the powerfying of the Talents. This seems like more complication. Going to have to take a wait and see on this one.[/quote']

 

Steve specifically stated that the result will be "simpler," so waiting would seem to be prudent.

 

Pointless change IMO. Not a huge deal' date=' but don't see the point in it.[/quote']

 

In principle I'm inclined to agree with, but I've noticed that what things are called seems to make a real difference to a lot of people in the HEROphile community.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I wasn't trying to pick on you specifically - just wanted to pull out your last sentence because it was a good idea, shoulda made that more clear. Sorry.

 

I never said anyone was jumping ship at all - anywhere. I have seen people condemn the change Out Of Hand -and yes they have. Go reread this and other threads.

 

The jumping ship comment wasn't directed at you but at some others that have been griping about the griping. But why shouldn't they be complaining about the change? Something they liked about the game has been axed, seemingly arbitrarily.

 

We don't know WHAT the Talent is going to do. No one has seen it.

 

We have gotten hints about its nature, hints that don't bode well for it being a satisfactory replacement for what was cut.

 

what did a Comliness complimentary roll do? Added bonuses to PRE and Interaction Skills? Correct?

 

What does, just to pull an example, the Reputation Perk do? Add bonuses to PRE and Interaction Skills? Correct.

 

Not in the same manner as a complimentary roll. For one thing, it's a fixed bonus. You lose the variability that comes from the Comp roll, you lose the Comeliness roll which could serve other purposes. You lose the ability, minor as it is, to create characters with slight differences in appearance that don't necessarily have a mechanical effect but can (and IME, did) have a role playing effect. For that matter, if the Talent is built as Limited Pre skill levels, then unless it's listed an exception, it can't effect everyman skills or fams.

 

Sure, if you don't care about it. It's "meh" but if you do care about those things its important to you. No one gets to define what is objectively important beyond since people are either disappointed enough to complain or happy enough to dance on it's grave (admittedly mostly on rpg.net) apparently Com wasn't as much of a non issue as was thought.

 

Then again, what am I arguing about? It's gone. Pages of impassioned defense didn't change Long's mind (I believe he referred to it as wasted time) this surely isn't. I'll look at this Talent when the book is released and see if it somehow replaces Com in my preferences. If it doesn't but the rest is good I'll house rule it back in.

[Edsel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The easiest solution that I see for the loss of the COM attribute is just to use a house rule custom Talent.

 

If I decide to go with 6E what I'll probably do is something like this: All characters are assumed to have a COM of 10. For each point you spend on the COM custom talent your COM score is raised by 2 points. So if you buy a 3-point custom talent you are assumed to have a 16 COM score.

 

For that matter I can house rule that the formerly figured characteristics must be bought to the levels that they would normally figure to be in 5ER. A character would be allowed to not buy, or even buy down, one formerly figured characteristic of their choice. Combat values would be required to be bought to a level equal to their 5ER attribute base. So if you have a 15 DEX you are required to buy a 5 OCV & DCV.

 

Of course the more I look at this the more inclined I am to think that I will probably just stick with 5ER. I will still likely pick-up the 6E PDF so I can more easily figure out how to back convert stuff that is later done for 6E.

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think Steve Long has made a PR mistake by not including a wow factor in the sneak preview: something that makes people go oh cool, now that's worth getting it for! What he's given us so far has been pretty much controversial or meaningless, which has resulted in controversy and people prematurely saying "this sucks I'm not buying it!!!"

 

I'm not saying I'd do any better, I'm terrible with marketing. I'm just pretty good with analysis.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The jumping ship comment wasn't directed at you but at some others that have been griping about the griping. But why shouldn't they be complaining about the change? Something they liked about the game has been axed' date=' seemingly arbitrarily.[/quote']

 

Oh, I don't mind complaining about its loss. Heck - I'm with ya. I'm sorry to see it go. I want it back. I liked it.

 

What I'm not going to do is level judgement at the replacement. Which is what is being done.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Re: COM. You know' date=' the whole buying -10 and below COM thing from 5th Edition was a special rule that no other characteristic had. Doing away with that with a talent for being exceptionally attractive or ugly will at least get rid of a rule inconsistency. Seems like a net gain for internal logic at least.[/quote']

That problem can also be fix without getting rid of the Comeliness characteristic. I, for one, will be doing as much with my new house rules.

[Greywind]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I find it interesting all the "fixes" people are working up to adjust the new when they haven't even seen how it will work out yet.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I find it interesting all the "fixes" people are working up to adjust the new when they haven't even seen how it will work out yet.

 

I as well.

 

I can see a desire to say "I like how it works now. I'm not going to change what I'm doing." Makes sense.

 

 

But the coming up with House Rules without knowing the Core Rule? odd.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think Steve Long has made a PR mistake by not including a wow factor in the sneak preview: something that makes people go oh cool' date='[/i'] now that's worth getting it for! What he's given us so far has been pretty much controversial or meaningless, which has resulted in controversy and people prematurely saying "this sucks I'm not buying it!!!"

 

I'm not saying I'd do any better, I'm terrible with marketing. I'm just pretty good with analysis.

 

I've noticed several people on this thread expressing enthusiasm about the changes. It's just that the griping has kind of drowned them out.

 

"Controversial" or "meaningless" has pretty much depended on whose opinion you're reading at the time.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

 

My daughter's group tried 4th edition d&d bought all the books and ended up asking me . What the heck was going on with them. it took them days to make up characters becuase they had to right to progress later as they wanted them and the book was organized so differently than they were used to. When they did figure it out and played after two sessions, My daughter came in picked up my FRED book. They all made HERO characters and now have bought the HERO books and play that instead. Absolutely true story.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I find it interesting all the "fixes" people are working up to adjust the new when they haven't even seen how it will work out yet.

I won't be "fixing" 6th Edition, I'll be tweaking 5th Edition to make it more to my liking. What does, or does not, happen with 6th Edition is really no longer my problem; I'm only viewing this thread out of morbid curiosity at this point.