Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

[Starlight]

(with apologies to Richard Feynman)

 

There's a thread for commenting on the cool ideas in sixth edition, which is sure to grow with time. So I figured we ought to have a matching thread for commenting on the sixth edition ideas that seem, shall we say, somewhat less than optimum at first sight. This thread isn't really the place for the big issues that are sure to get full attention by forum regulars. However there sure to be, in a set of rules of this size and complexity, a number of minor items that will induce a 'you're kidding, right?' reaction when reading them.

 

So let me start the ball rolling. 6E2 p 47. Climbing - "More difficult climbs, including most climbs that require the character to make a roll with his Climbing Skill, reduce his DCV by up to half and subtract 2 DCs from all attacks."

 

Now, it strikes me that a character hanging by their fingernails on the side of a cliff is most certainly going to be at reduced DCV, and is hardly in a good position to swing a battleaxe with anything like full effect. However, while his chance of hitting a target are likely also reduced, should he manage it I cannot see why, if he is shooting a 44 magum, that weapon will do reduced damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

My own pet peeve for 6e would initially be pricing DEX at 2 points, along with doubling the cost of DEX skill levels. DEX was the big bargain in 5e, and I'm glad to see that change, but it's now overpriced when all it provides is an improvement to skill rolls and combat order.

 

Lots of other threads to discuss that on, though.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

So let me start the ball rolling. 6E2 p 47. Climbing - "More difficult climbs, including most climbs that require the character to make a roll with his Climbing Skill, reduce his DCV by up to half and subtract 2 DCs from all attacks."

 

Now, it strikes me that a character hanging by their fingernails on the side of a cliff is most certainly going to be at reduced DCV, and is hardly in a good position to swing a battleaxe with anything like full effect. However, while his chance of hitting a target are likely also reduced, should he manage it I cannot see why, if he is shooting a 44 magum, that weapon will do reduced damage.

 

Allow me to refer the reader to 6E1 p. 9, specifically the part that begins most of the way down the first column and continues in the second.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

Wait a minute. COMeliness has been removed from the Characteristics? What was Mr. Long thinking?! It’s madness I tell you! MADNESS!!!

 

 

 

 

 

*Bigbywolfe runs away and hides…*

[Lucius]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

(with apologies to Richard Feynman)

 

There's a thread for commenting on the cool ideas in sixth edition, which is sure to grow with time. So I figured we ought to have a matching thread for commenting on the sixth edition ideas that seem, shall we say, somewhat less than optimum at first sight. This thread isn't really the place for the big issues that are sure to get full attention by forum regulars. However there sure to be, in a set of rules of this size and complexity, a number of minor items that will induce a 'you're kidding, right?' reaction when reading them.

 

So let me start the ball rolling. 6E2 p 47. Climbing - "More difficult climbs, including most climbs that require the character to make a roll with his Climbing Skill, reduce his DCV by up to half and subtract 2 DCs from all attacks."

 

Now, it strikes me that a character hanging by their fingernails on the side of a cliff is most certainly going to be at reduced DCV, and is hardly in a good position to swing a battleaxe with anything like full effect. However, while his chance of hitting a target are likely also reduced, should he manage it I cannot see why, if he is shooting a 44 magum, that weapon will do reduced damage.

 

If that's the worst problem it has, it will be a miracle.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Familiarity, Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[prestidigitator]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

Is Barrier Instant or isn't it? Should we call it Persistent instead? Is it just a wall after all, or does it have some fundamental connection to the character who created it? Can we englobe someone with a wall that is anchored?! Grrrrrrr!

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

He's not joking. And stop calling him Shirley.

 

Just the idea of firing a .44 magnum while hanging off a cliff is sort of mind-boggling. james Bond might be able to pull it off, but that doesn't mean your character can.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

Is Barrier Instant or isn't it? Should we call it Persistent instead? Is it just a wall after all' date=' or does it have some fundamental connection to the character who created it? Can we englobe someone with a wall that [i']is[/i] anchored?! Grrrrrrr!

 

It's Instant, in the same way that Entangle has always been Instant. It can be purchased "Costs END To Maintain" which means that you spend END every Phase or it goes away.

[Susano]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

He's not joking. And stop calling him Shirley.

 

Just the idea of firing a .44 magnum while hanging off a cliff is sort of mind-boggling. james Bond might be able to pull it off, but that doesn't mean your character can.

 

Considering that HERO wants to emulate cinematic action and there's nothing stopping me from playing a pastiche of James Bond, I don't see why I can't fire a .44 mangum while hanging off of a cliff.

[Vondy]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

He's not joking. And stop calling him Shirley.

 

Just the idea of firing a .44 magnum while hanging off a cliff is sort of mind-boggling. james Bond might be able to pull it off, but that doesn't mean your character can.

 

It doesn't mean he can't, either. Maybe my character wears a "James Bond's a Loser" T-Shirt. Its just a question of what's appropriate for the genre/game in question.

[Kdansky]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

Summon: The +1/4 Advantage to give you +2 EGO roll bonus is made pointless by the fact that such an advantage would increase AP, which in turn gives you a malus on your EGO roll. In the end, it is not worth it BY FAR. Also, having an EGOvsEGO contest results in lunacy elsewhere:

 

Golem of Awesome Combatprowess: 300 CP, EGO 5. (305 CP in useful things)

Imp of Annoying Dickery: 50 CP, EGO 60. (0 CP in anything else)

 

The second one is MUCH harder to control, even though it's certainly a lot less powerful.

 

I pointed this out here and again in the 6th Discussion. Kinda lame that it got ignored, while being so obvious.

[Susano]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

Summon: The +1/4 Advantage to give you +2 EGO roll bonus is made pointless by the fact that such an advantage would increase AP, which in turn gives you a malus on your EGO roll. In the end, it is not worth it BY FAR. Also, having an EGOvsEGO contest results in lunacy elsewhere:

 

Golem of Awesome Combatprowess: 300 CP, EGO 5. (305 CP in useful things)

Imp of Annoying Dickery: 50 CP, EGO 60. (0 CP in anything else)

 

The second one is MUCH harder to control, even though it's certainly a lot less powerful.

 

Yes, but that is an example of metagaming, not trying to building things that might fit the setting. You can do that with pretty much anything, not just summoned creatures.

[Kdansky]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

Yes' date=' but that is an example of metagaming, not trying to building things that might fit the setting. You can do that with pretty much anything, not just summoned creatures.[/quote']

 

So summoning Arrogant Pricks should always be a lot harder than summoning Dinosaurs? That's the system imposing genre on me right there.

[Susano]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

So summoning Arrogant Pricks should always be a lot harder than summoning Dinosaurs? That's the system imposing genre on me right there.

 

Okay, look at it this way -- I could build a pistol that does 5d6 RKA and has an infinite number of shots. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should. As for the imp, I haven't read that far in 6E but I recall 5E mentioning you could bargain with the summoned creature as opposed to pure EGO versus EGO rolls. So instead of the GM building a 60 EGO imp, and saying "hah, hah, you're screwed" he could build an imp and have the PC bargain or bribe the imp to get something done.

[tesuji]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

also keep in kind these numbers have some actual meaning.

 

As gm a golem with low ego would have extremely little ability to make choices, so whenever anything occurs that requires deciwsionmaking, anything beyond "doing exactly what you sai and no more" the golem would be rather hindered.

 

on the other hand when the willful imp did decide to act on your behalf his decision making would be swift and well decisive.

 

EGO in summoned beings is not just a detriment, or should not be played as such by a Gm playing "fair" since he is requiring the character pony up points to get the higher ego.

 

if in your game ego for summons is soley a negative trait, or mostly a negative trait, you should consider not counting it as positive points, p ossibly even costingit as "complications".

[mkultra]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

So summoning Arrogant Pricks should always be a lot harder than summoning Dinosaurs? That's the system imposing genre on me right there.

On some RPG Forums, it's not at all hard to summon an Arrogant Prick.

[Kdansky]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

As gm a golem with low ego would have extremely little ability to make choices, so whenever anything occurs that requires deciwsionmaking, anything beyond "doing exactly what you sai and no more" the golem would be rather hindered.

That of course is true, but do you think EGO is the relevant stat on anything that can be summoned? 20 EGO or 10 EGO makes the same difference (+2 EGO roll) as +100 total points of the summoned entity. That's 10 times as much. Surely that is not an adequate measure of power. This has nothing to do with metagaming or Roleplay examples, but is a purely technical comparison.

 

Okay, look at it this way -- I could build a pistol that does 5d6 RKA and has an infinite number of shots. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should

Sure you can. What does this have to do with low EGO entities being too easy to summon, and high EGO entities being too hard to do so for the same costs of the summon spell?

 

 

And that does not solve the trouble of Weak Willed:

+1/4 gives me +2 on EGO roll (well, -2 to the entity, but the difference is minor), which would cost 10 cp on a 40 cp base power, which in turn gives me -1 EGO. At 80 base, I only pay 20 extra for nothing, and at 120 base, I pay 30 extra to recieve -1 to my EGO. Hardly useful.

[tesuji]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

 

That of course is true, but do you think EGO is the relevant stat on anything that can be summoned? 20 EGO or 10 EGO makes the same difference (+2 EGO roll) as +100 total points of the summoned entity. That's 10 times as much. Surely that is not an adequate measure of power. This has nothing to do with metagaming or Roleplay examples, but is a purely technical comparison.

I dont think anything is THE anything. They have defined ego as the default. if your sfx require some other stats be used, you can apply lim or adv if necessary. EGo however is the default the baseline. Nothing more.

 

Sure you can. What does this have to do with low EGO entities being too easy to summon, and high EGO entities being too hard to do so for the same costs of the summon spell?

a low ego high power summon IS a trade off vs a lower power but high ego summon. The former has more crunch but requires more work from you and rarely gives you any extras. The latter is more reliable when acting in your stead and requires less effort but is also more prone to do his own thing. The former you just order. the second you work with.

 

If in your game you dont feel you as gm can play off these differences adequately, then you should feel free to change the mechanics to match more accurately how you will play it.

[Kdansky]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

I get insulted left and right if I point out a mathematical flaw. Seems mkultra was right.

[Susano]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

I get insulted left and right if I point out a mathematical flaw. Seems mkultra was right.

 

Okay, I can see this discussion is going nowhere. I'm done here, good bye.

[tesuji]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

I get insulted left and right if I point out a mathematical flaw. Seems mkultra was right.

 

i am not sure where you are being insulted.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

Considering that HERO wants to emulate cinematic action and there's nothing stopping me from playing a pastiche of James Bond' date=' I don't see why I can't fire a .44 mangum while hanging off of a cliff.[/quote']

 

Fire the most powerful handgun in the world while hanging off a cliff any you'll be playing a James Bond pasty.

 

**Ba-boom cha...**

[Sean Waters]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

I say, I say, I say...Steve Long summons a talking white horse to a bar and says, "They've got a drink here named after you"

 

"What?", says the horse, "George?"

 

A talking bear says to George, "Why the long....................face?"

 

George responds, "Why the big pause?"

 

The bear says, "I've..................always had them."

 

Ay thenk yew!

[Kdansky]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

i am not sure where you are being insulted.

 

If in your game you dont feel you as gm can play off these differences adequately

 

Yes, I suck as a GM, that's my problem!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

 

also keep in kind these numbers have some actual meaning.

 

As gm a golem with low ego would have extremely little ability to make choices, so whenever anything occurs that requires deciwsionmaking, anything beyond "doing exactly what you sai and no more" the golem would be rather hindered.

 

on the other hand when the willful imp did decide to act on your behalf his decision making would be swift and well decisive.

 

EGO in summoned beings is not just a detriment, or should not be played as such by a Gm playing "fair" since he is requiring the character pony up points to get the higher ego.

 

if in your game ego for summons is soley a negative trait, or mostly a negative trait, you should consider not counting it as positive points, possibly even costing it as "complications".

 

This is an excellent point. If I tried to define my Follower as having the Psychological Complication of "Obedient to Me", the GM would and should disallow it, or at least not reduce the cost of the Follower as a consequence. Similarly, if the cost of Summoning the creature is increased due to a higher EGO, this should act in the Summoner's favour, not to his detriment. If it is to be detrimental, then it should reduce, not increase, the cost of the Summon.

 

To me, at least, the corollary to "a limitation that does not limit is worth no points" is "if it costs points, it must benefit the character".

 

On some RPG Forums' date=' it's not at all hard to summon an Arrogant Prick.[/quote']

 

Summon is easy. Try Controlling one, which is what the Ego roll represents.