Reactions to 6e

[ajackson]

Thoughts as I read through; will update as I continue.

 

Reactions as I read through Hero 6th edition

 

• p40: Characteristics
  I kind of think Dex should be x1, Dex-based skills are more prone than others to being made redundant by powers, and winning initiative is not that big a deal. Otherwise, looks good; END and STUN actually look like rational purchases, though CON is iffy.
  
• p41: Movement
  Mostly traditional, though it might have been a good idea to reduce the defaults on both leaping and swimming. Still, as long as we're dealing with heroic reality, not a big problem.
  
• p41-45: Characteristics
  I like the section on attributes at 0; it becomes annoying but not fatal. The usage of 'must make a stat roll', when the stat roll will always be a 9-, is possibly overly verbose but does deal with people using levels to act normally.
  
• p51: Skill Maxima
  It seems like the problem with levels and skill maxima could be handled easily by just saying "it requires 2 levels to increase roll by 1 in excess of the maximum".
  
• p59: Skills and the Time Chart
  Now it's possible to take my speedster, buy +15 PSLs vs time penalties, and finish a 1 hour job in one turn.
  
• p71: Cost of Combat Skill Levels
  Given that a CSL is basically a multipower of OCV, DCV, and some form of damage boost (at double cost), general-purpose CSLs really shouldn't cost more than 8 and even then are almost never going to be worth the cost. Given the cost of OCV, cost should probably be 3/4/5/6/7, not 2/3/5/8/10.
  
• p76-77: Forgery and Gambling
  Forgery (all types) is not so potent that it should cost 10 points. Cost should be 1 for a subcategory, 2 for a category, 3 for all. Same for Gambling.
  
• p88: Skill Levels
  Overall skill levels usable for combat are now 12, which is probably a good change, though even then they have the potential to be an incredible deal. Certainly, buying 8 or 10 point combat skill levels seems like a poor choice.
  
• p89: Stealth
  Stealth applies to danger sense now. Not sure how I feel about that.
  
• p124: Sensing Powers
  Visibility is now based on whether the power is self-only, not on whether the power costs END. A good change.
  
• p142: Adjustment Powers
  Reduced fade rate is now vastly more expensive. Adjusting multiple powers at once is now vastly more expensive. However, variable effect lets you adjust multiple powers as long as you use separate actions to do so, so some degenerate adjustment power builds will still exist.
  
• p147: Impenetrable
  Typo; the text still says 'hardened', not 'impenetrable'
  
• p153: Based on Con
  Sample power has AVAD (PD), which is inconsistent with the text. This should probably be a smaller limitation (-1/4 or -1/2) with a note 'should usually be given AVAD for a defense other than mental'.
  
• p170: Barrier
  Um. Wow barriers are tough. 60 active points can now give me a barrier that's, say, 4m x 4m (9), PD/ED 12 (36), Bod 15.
  Can you deliberately attack a one-way transparent barrier? Otherwise englobing someone in a one-way transparent (attacks from inside pass outwards without penalty) might be abusive.
  
• p178: Characteristics as Powers
  Characteristics as powers remain immune to normal characteristic maxima. Blah. Should be something like 'characteristics as powers may have different maxima than normal characteristics; ask the GM for specifics. Characteristics in excess of whatever maximum applies cost double, as normal'.
  
• p183-184: Damage negation and reduction
  Can now be by special effect, rather than by defense type. Generally good, though possibly overpriced if the special effect you're interested in is extremely rare.
  
• p319: Area Effect
  +1/4 for a 4m radius seems low, though the general concept of radius being a pure advantage has appeal. Area Effect (Surface) seems like a good idea, but overpriced; you get a smaller area for an effect that is generally less useful.
  
• p328: Damage Over Time
  Good idea. Badly priced. Setting someone on fire for 3 phases at speed 6 is not worth a +3 advantage.
  

[nexus]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Well as it turns out I did get a copy (Belated and highly unexpected birthday gift) so I may post some thoughts here.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Thoughts as I read through; will update as I continue.

 

Reactions as I read through Hero 6th edition

 

• p40: Characteristics
  I kind of think Dex should be x1, Dex-based skills are more prone than others to being made redundant by powers, and winning initiative is not that big a deal. Otherwise, looks good; END and STUN actually look like rational purchases, though CON is iffy.
  

 

I disagree. The comment about powers only really applies (if at all) to supers games. DEX-based Skills are among the most useful in a typical action adventure game. Also, DEX Rolls themselves are pretty common. I guess the initiative order is an individual thing -- most people I know seem to prefer going first.

 

As for CON, I guess not buying it up is okay if you don't mind spending large amounts of time Stunned. If I'd been Steve, I would have considered leaving both CON and BODY at 2, but I think they will be fine at 1.

 

• p41: Movement
  Mostly traditional, though it might have been a good idea to reduce the defaults on both leaping and swimming. Still, as long as we're dealing with heroic reality, not a big problem.

You can always recommend that players buy them down.

 

• p41-45: Characteristics
  I like the section on attributes at 0; it becomes annoying but not fatal. The usage of 'must make a stat roll', when the stat roll will always be a 9-, is possibly overly verbose but does deal with people using levels to act normally.

Well, you've said it yourself, it deals with people using levels. I suppose you could say something like "must roll 9-. This roll may be modified by any levels that affect DEX Rolls." which is a tad more verbose. Part of what Steve tries to do in the rulebook is cut off potential questions. It is sometimes better to be more verbose if it makes the text clearer.

 

• p51: Skill Maxima
  It seems like the problem with levels and skill maxima could be handled easily by just saying "it requires 2 levels to increase roll by 1 in excess of the maximum".

Probably not a bad house rule.

 

 

• p59: Skills and the Time Chart
  Now it's possible to take my speedster, buy +15 PSLs vs time penalties, and finish a 1 hour job in one turn.

This rule has been around since 5e. And technically, it would not be PSLs, but perhaps Skill Levels with a Limitation that they only work against time penalties.

 

 

• p71: Cost of Combat Skill Levels
  Given that a CSL is basically a multipower of OCV, DCV, and some form of damage boost (at double cost), general-purpose CSLs really shouldn't cost more than 8 and even then are almost never going to be worth the cost. Given the cost of OCV, cost should probably be 3/4/5/6/7, not 2/3/5/8/10.

You may be right here. I'd need to do the math.

 

 

• p76-77: Forgery and Gambling
  Forgery (all types) is not so potent that it should cost 10 points. Cost should be 1 for a subcategory, 2 for a category, 3 for all. Same for Gambling.

Whatever, I don't see it being a big deal.

 

 

• p88: Skill Levels
  Overall skill levels usable for combat are now 12, which is probably a good change, though even then they have the potential to be an incredible deal. Certainly, buying 8 or 10 point combat skill levels seems like a poor choice.

Except perhaps when you don't have the points to buy 12 point Overall levels or don't see your character as being good at anything but combat.

 

 

• p89: Stealth
  Stealth applies to danger sense now. Not sure how I feel about that.

This rule was in 5ER and you're somewhat misrepresenting it. It's probably more accurate to say that Stealth can apply to Danger Sense if the GM feels it is appropriate. That's a very different statement in my mind.

 

 

• p124: Sensing Powers
  Visibility is now based on whether the power is self-only, not on whether the power costs END. A good change.

Yup.

 

 

• p142: Adjustment Powers
  Reduced fade rate is now vastly more expensive. Adjusting multiple powers at once is now vastly more expensive. However, variable effect lets you adjust multiple powers as long as you use separate actions to do so, so some degenerate adjustment power builds will still exist.

Overall, it's probably an improvement.

 

• p147: Impenetrable
  Typo; the text still says 'hardened', not 'impenetrable'

Oopsie. Oh well, there were bound to be a few typos.

 

 

• p153: Based on Con
  Sample power has AVAD (PD), which is inconsistent with the text. This should probably be a smaller limitation (-1/4 or -1/2) with a note 'should usually be given AVAD for a defense other than mental'.

Since no Modifier value is shown for AVAD in that sample, it's possible that Steve considered it a -0 Limitation and just used to clearly state that the Power worked against PD instead of Mental Defense.

 

Or you could be right

 

 

• p170: Barrier
  Um. Wow barriers are tough. 60 active points can now give me a barrier that's, say, 4m x 4m (9), PD/ED 12 (36), Bod 15.
  Can you deliberately attack a one-way transparent barrier? Otherwise englobing someone in a one-way transparent (attacks from inside pass outwards without penalty) might be abusive.

I have the feeling that this Power may need to be adjudicated on common sense of what the Barrier is as to what values a character is allowed to buy.

 

 

• p178: Characteristics as Powers
  Characteristics as powers remain immune to normal characteristic maxima. Blah. Should be something like 'characteristics as powers may have different maxima than normal characteristics; ask the GM for specifics. Characteristics in excess of whatever maximum applies cost double, as normal'.

I think the problem here is more with GMs letting players buy Characteristics as Powers that really aren't.

 

• p183-184: Damage negation and reduction
  Can now be by special effect, rather than by defense type. Generally good, though possibly overpriced if the special effect you're interested in is extremely rare.

Doing this for Damage Reduction was in 5ER.

 

As for being overpriced for rare special effects, this may be true for Damage Negation which doesn't seem to allow any Limitation in this situation, but for Damage Reduction, this is addressed in the final paragraph under Damage Reduction As Immunity.

 

 

• p319: Area Effect
  +1/4 for a 4m radius seems low, though the general concept of radius being a pure advantage has appeal. Area Effect (Surface) seems like a good idea, but overpriced; you get a smaller area for an effect that is generally less useful.

I think the usefulness of Area Effect (Surface) may vary from Power to Power.

 

 

• p328: Damage Over Time
  Good idea. Badly priced. Setting someone on fire for 3 phases at speed 6 is not worth a +3 advantage.
  

 

I'd have to study this more.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

I've only just got it andso all i'll say at present is that it looks really good. I'll have a read and post the good and bad (if there is any ) soon.

[Kdansky]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

I've only just got it andso all i'll say at present is that it looks really good. I'll have a read and post the good and bad (if there is any ) soon.

 

I'm sure you will be able to find something evil

[Vondy]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Is this thread for reactions or for writing criticism?

[Zephrosyne]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

I haven't had a chance to read both books cover to cover as thoroughly as I would like. I have pretty much scanned them. However, I have to say that I really love everything that I have seen. I don't have a problem with any of the changes that I have seen at all. The books are a first rate effort!

 

Still, I would have preferred less pictures and more content from some of the other books (e.g. the Ultimate series). Of course, I realize that I am the exception in that I could care less about art in a role playing game. Artwork is probably more likely to attract customers than a lot of extra rules that are not particularly essential.

[Alibear]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Ordered today.

[nexus]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

[*]p71: Cost of Combat Skill Levels

Given that a CSL is basically a multipower of OCV, DCV, and some form of damage boost (at double cost), general-purpose CSLs really shouldn't cost more than 8 and even then are almost never going to be worth the cost. Given the cost of OCV, cost should probably be 3/4/5/6/7, not 2/3/5/8/10.

 

If I adopt decoupled DCV in my 5th hybrid I'll probably do some thing like this.

 

[*]p76-77: Forgery and Gambling

Forgery (all types) is not so potent that it should cost 10 points. Cost should be 1 for a subcategory, 2 for a category, 3 for all. Same for Gambling.

 

Seems reasonable

 

[*]p89: Stealth

Stealth applies to danger sense now. Not sure how I feel about that

 

Not sure I like that either. SOMETHING should work against Danger Sense but I'm not sure Stealth should, at least not be default. I can see it being a Limitation on Danger Sense.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

The Stealth/Danger Sense interaction hasn't changed at all. Not one bit. Not a single word of it.

 

STEALTH 5ER p71 = 6E1 p89 WORD FOR WORD.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Whether stealth works against Danger Sense or not depends on properly defining how your danger sense works. If it relies on noticing things that are odd, or out of place, I might not allow stealth to work, but I might allow shadowing (which is the art of blending in).

 

If the DS is some sort of limited precognition then skills might have limited applicability (although, philosophically, if you can sense that danger will have happened then there is probably nothing you can do to prevent it happening, unless the future is not fixed, in which case things that happen in teh present can still determine it, so stealth might work after all )

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

p76-77: Forgery and Gambling

Forgery (all types) is not so potent that it should cost 10 points. Cost should be 1 for a subcategory, 2 for a category, 3 for all. Same for Gambling.

 

I'm considering changing all skills with this structure to a standard 3/2 with a required Familiarity in any subcategories. (I suggested as much in the 6e forums, but Steve chose not to change anything.)

[ajackson]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Is this thread for reactions or for writing criticism?

Well, I was just noting things as they stood out to me. In general, my reaction is similar to 5e: Steve has a lot of good ideas, but is poor at giving balanced prices to things.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Dexterity

 

I'm not sure this is the wrong price as such, but I would have preferred to see the Initiative element separated from the agility/manual skill. being good at picking locks, or even good at acrobatics, doesn't and shouldn't mean that you react quickly in dangerous situations.

 

We could have had all (former) primary characteristics as 1, and just used the rather good 'Lightning Reflexes' rules for Initiative.

 

Speaking of Lightning Reflexes you get the option to buy them for certain attacks, so a gunslinger might be much faster with his six-shooters than he would be throwing a punch. Nice.

 

Errata?

 

I think the cost of Mental OCV levels is wrong (p71) it says +1 MOCV is 1 point: 2, surely?

 

Barrier/Entangle

 

I'm surprised that Entangle was not made cheaper (or ditched), given that we now have a 'Barrier' power that can englobe and is much tougher to escape from. Moreover, Entangle has lost its own 'barrier creation' ability. there are differences between an entangled target and a barrier-englobed target, but rarely so significant that I'd prefer entangle over barrier.

 

I like Barrier: it just seems a bit too beefy.

 

Example: For 60 points you can now have an 18pd/18ed barrier that is 2m high and 6m long (same as the base size of the old Force Wall): that is half again as much defence as for Force Wall (as was), and at 0 END.

 

Oddly, whilst there is an advantage that allows you to re-shape barrier, there doesn't appear to be one that allows you to turn it off. That scuppers an awful lot of concepts, and might well make 'personal barriers' impractical - even though the rules allow them to be built.

 

Automaton powers

 

Now part of the 'normal' power list (albeit all special powers) as opposed to a seperate ring-fenced set. Nice.

[The Main Man]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Damn I want to get those books now, though I am getting wearily curious about some of these observations.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Oddly, whilst there is an advantage that allows you to re-shape barrier, there doesn't appear to be one that allows you to turn it off. That scuppers an awful lot of concepts, and might well make 'personal barriers' impractical - even though the rules allow them to be built.

 

"Costs END to maintain" comes to mind.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Having done a basic read through of the 2 books (most attention payed to the character creation book)...

 

Very pretty - they look awesome.

 

Some very cool new stuff - Barrier, Damage Negation, the new Area Effect stuff, and a number of other powers and modifiers. The change to VPPs is going to be something I am going to be looking at.

 

I went into this with something of a "prove to me you are better than the Hero I play now" attitude (which is really the same attitude I give any RPG I read). It didn't.

 

I still don't like the way characteristics are handled, and I dislike the removal of ECs. Some cost things just seem a bit wonky to me (6 pts per die on a few powers, and the changes to skill levels costs and Regen).

 

For me, enough stuff that I liked / thought was fine was changed and little enough stuff was "fixed" that I prefer 5th. I suspected that with the prerelease info (ECs and Fig Chars), but reading through the books prove it.

 

So my user titles stands for now - 5th ed Grognard. But I will be incorporating a number of 6th powers lims and advantages. Still using Hero as a toolkit - just doing it across edition lines, as it were.

[nexus]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

The Stealth/Danger Sense interaction hasn't changed at all. Not one bit. Not a single word of it.

 

STEALTH 5ER p71 = 6E1 p89 WORD FOR WORD.

 

Guess I've been ignoring it for so long I assumed it wasn't there. And I see no reason to stop now.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

"Costs END to maintain" comes to mind.

 

That's a good thought but shouldn't work for an instant power - which Barrier is now. In fact, you'd only take that for a Barrier you would want to be able to turn off - which would mean you'd be using it as an advantage.

 

The 're-shape' advantage is +1/2, and I'll probably rule that you can re-shape it to nothing if you want (although that is not how it is written to work), so a straight 'turn off' is probably +1/4.

[nexus]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Whether stealth works against Danger Sense or not depends on properly defining how your danger sense works. If it relies on noticing things that are odd, or out of place, I might not allow stealth to work, but I might allow shadowing (which is the art of blending in).

 

I agree. I feel the default should be that it doesn't with a Limitation (maybe -1/2 or even -1 depending on how common mega stealthy types are in the campaign) if Stealth skills do.

 

Other wise sfx would determine what does and doesn't work. If your ability is short range precog maybe only an invisibility type power would work. If it's "sensing hostile chi/power level/whatever" then some skill at a manipulating chi might apply which could, of course be assumed to be a PART of Stealth training in wuxia/anime martial arts/appropriate setting by the GM

[nexus]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Having done a basic read through of the 2 books (most attention payed to the character creation book)...

 

Very pretty - they look awesome.

 

Some very cool new stuff - Barrier, Damage Negation, the new Area Effect stuff, and a number of other powers and modifiers. The change to VPPs is going to be something I am going to be looking at.

 

I went into this with something of a "prove to me you are better than the Hero I play now" attitude (which is really the same attitude I give any RPG I read). It didn't.

 

I still don't like the way characteristics are handled, and I dislike the removal of ECs. Some cost things just seem a bit wonky to me (6 pts per die on a few powers, and the changes to skill levels costs and Regen).

 

For me, enough stuff that I liked / thought was fine was changed and little enough stuff was "fixed" that I prefer 5th. I suspected that with the prerelease info (ECs and Fig Chars), but reading through the books prove it.

 

So my user titles stands for now - 5th ed Grognard. But I will be incorporating a number of 6th powers lims and advantages. Still using Hero as a toolkit - just doing it across edition lines, as it were.

 

I'll be using a FrankenHero too I think. There's some interesting new stuff in 6th edition but nothing that turned me against 5th.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

"Turning Off" Barrier is a 0-Phase Action - just like dismissing an Engtangle was in 5E (as it also was an Instant Power).

 

You can dismiss/Turn Off any Barrier you have created at will.

[archermoo]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Oddly, whilst there is an advantage that allows you to re-shape barrier, there doesn't appear to be one that allows you to turn it off. That scuppers an awful lot of concepts, and might well make 'personal barriers' impractical - even though the rules allow them to be built.

 

Does that mean that you don't let people turn things like Mental Illusions, Mind Control, etc off whenever they want? Those are also Instants.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

I'll be using a FrankenHero too I think. There's some interesting new stuff in 6th edition but nothing that turned me against 5th.

 

 

I've used 4th ed Damage Shield, Regen, and Instant Change in my 5E game, plus some houserules, and the 3E approach to ECs (pretty much anything goes into them with justification) - although I use the Drain one power drain 'em all idea from 5th (just not the double whammy of draining the EC cost too). I'll be adding elements from 6th too. To me the 6E books are just another "ultimate" book with new alternate rules I can use. I'll likely get the APG for the same reason.

 

FrankenHero. I like that.

[ajackson]

Re: Reactions to 6e

 

Overall, I prefer 6e to 5e, but I preferred 4e to 5e too.