6E Mess

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Welcome to my little problem! Here we go!

 

Today, I ran into some intriguing 6e rules constructions that prohibit existing characters from being converted easily. Here are the concepts in question.

 

1) A is a heroic fire projector who inherited a wish from a dragon. She transforms into a beautiful superheroine with fire powers.

 

Problem #1: Rules as Written, A cannot take Only in Hero ID, as there is nothing to prevent her from changing other than her own force of will.

 

Problem #2: She could buy Shapeshift, where her height, weight, and appearance change, but this is counterproductive for what it offers. It costs SIXTY EIGHT points, which is likely less than Ember ever spent in limitations on Only in Hero ID.

 

Problem #3: Multiform is also out, because she retains her original personality, which means, rules as written, this is also illegal.

 

2) B is a teen, around five foot nine who transforms into a massive heap of humanoid rock.

 

All problems as above.

 

How did this happen? That makes a hero who transforms from an ordinary human into something completely different a legless cripple compared to his fellows, since the Only In Hero ID limitation must take at least a full phase to work and must have a means of being interrupted, whereas the others are 1) Prohibitively expensive or 2) Illegal.

 

IMHO, 68 points is WAY too much to pay for turning into a slightly hotter hot chick, and it's also WAY too much to pay for turning into Granite Boy.

 

Thoughts?

I know much of this has already been said, but I had to throw in a few things of my own in. In regards to “Problem #1”: OIAI is, from what I’ve seen here on the boards, exactly the same as OIHI in 5E. So even if you are interpreting the rule correctly, it’s not part of the “6E Mess” as you put it. To the contrary, it’s how it has worked for years. That aside, I think you’ve already been shown multiple times that nothing about the SFX you describe for the change makes it illegal by RAW.

“Problem #3” Personality does not in any way shape or form limit the use of multiform. This is just plain wrong. Also, you complain about something that again hasn’t changed since 5e. How have you been doing it all these years since 4e? If you’ve been ignoring RAW since 5e came out, then this isn’t a problem with 6E, just keep doing whatever you’ve been doing. However you choose you use (or not use) Multiform, it’s not a problem with 6e (or at least not a problem exclusive to 6e) and again doesn’t belong in the thread about the supposed “Mess” that is 6e.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6E Mess

 

You also might consider posting one of the characters that you are having issues with. I am sure we can come up with a dozen or more different ways to convert them to 6e that might help address your concerns.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Randomly, you have an equal chance of rolling any number equally on 1d6 from 1 to 6. The average defenses in my game are somewhere between 20 and 25, so I'm going to be generous, and choose 25. We're going to ignore knockback damage because on average, most of the situations we're dealing with won't deal any, but I will get back to knockback at the end.

 

1+2+3+4+5+6=3.5 3.5 per die vs 10d6, 12d6, and 14d6. An average character has around 40 stun.

 

10d6=50 points, so the equivalent AP Blast would be 8d6.

 

12d6 is approximately 10d6-1, so we'll use that, because it's as close as we can come.

 

14d6 is closest to 11d6 AP Blast, except that the AP Blast costs one point less.

 

10d6 deals 10 points of damage. Body is irrelevant. 8d6 AP deals, RAW, not my house rule where everything rounds in favor of the defender, 27-12=15.

 

12d6 deals 17, that's 42-25. 10d6-1 AP is 34-12, 22. That's 5 stun difference. This is the actual point where it breaks. Two shots of that, and your average character is at -4. He is out of the fight until the next phase unless someone else gives him a recovery. The alternative, 34, the character is still on his feet, and takes another hit to bring him to -11. Three shots and finished. This is the way Champions combat has worked since time immemorial.

 

14d6 deals 49, against 25, that's 24. Likely, this character is stunned. (Assuming an average con of 23, maybe not so for a powerful experienced character, but then, that character probably won't be stunned.). 11d6 costs one point less, but that deals 38-12=26. The target is still stunned.

 

However, let's follow through with that second shot. The second shot is fired. 24 again brings the character to -8. Still in the fight. 26 brings that character to -12. Out of the fight until phase 12.

 

Although the numbers may have changed slightly, the numbers on the recovery chart did not. And this is why I think Armor Piercing is broken at +1/4, because it brings people to the -11+ recovery categories much faster than was ever possible before. People now have to spend their time using actions to help their fellows recover. And that means that they are taking their full phase to eat the same thing.

 

First, 10d6-1 Normal Damage doesn't actually exist in the system. Some GMs allow 1/2D6 Normal Damage that isn't STR Based for 3pts, but that is also not RAW. We'll go with RAW - No Half Damage Classes.

 

I would always round 25 Defense to 13 when halving. But, we'll use an even number: 24 Defense. Just because we don't have to tit-tat about rounding rules.

 

We'll use an Average Roll of 3.5 per d6.

 

50 Active Points Or Less:

Normal AttacK - 10d6

Normal AP @ +1/2 - 6D6 AP (note: 45 Active Points, the next DC goes over a 50 AP desired cap)

Normal AP @ +1/4 - 8d8 AP

 

Normal - 35 Stun vs 24 Defense = 11 Stun Damage. Given 40 Stun, 4 Hits to 0.

AP1/2 - 21 Stun vs 12 Defense = 9 Stun Damage. Given 40 Stun, 5 Hits to 0.

AP1/4 - 28 Stun vs 12 Defense = 16 Stun Damage. Given 40 Stun, 3 Hits to 0.

 

Given 50 AP Or Less, it's clear that Armor Piercing set to +1/2 is not only NOT an Advantage, but a liability. You do less Stun on average. At +1/4 it becomes an Advantage for an equal amount of points. Advantages, in my mind, should be Advantageous, not the other way around. For an Advantage you do 5 more Stun per hit.

 

Let's move up to 60 Active Points (a suggested and common cap).

 

60 AP Or Less.

Normal Attack - 12d6 (42 Stun)

AP @ +1/2 - 8d6 (28 Stun)

AP @ +1/4 - 9d6 (31.5 Stun) (Note: this is 56 Active Points, the next DC up is over the 60 AP Limit)

 

Normal - 42 Stun vs 24 Defense = 18 Stun Damage. Given 40 Stun, 3 hits to 0.

AP1/2 - 28 Stun vs 12 Defense = 16 Stun Damage. Given 40 Stun, 3 hits to 0.

AP1/4 - 31.5 Stun vs 12 Defense = 19.5 Stun Damage. Given 40 Stun, 3 hits to 0.

 

Again - Armor Piercing set as a +1/2 Advantage does LESS Stun than an unadvantaged attack. It's a liability. And at +1/4 Advantage, for 60 Active Points or less, you do an average of 1.5 more Stun per hit. Call it 2.

 

If it isn't clear at this point why the Advantage was moved to +1/4 then nothing ever will make it clear, I suggest you stay with 5th Edition where you feel more comfortable and leave it at that.

 

As far as I'm concerned - if I'm adding an Advantage to my Attack it better dang well be Advantageous more often that not.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Yes' date=' the O Phases are generally reserved for those being extensively PRE Attacked; the worst affected occasionally get an Oo Phase in addition.[/quote']

 

O Phases usually follow a successul Seduc... I mean Charm... Skill Roll.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Actually' date=' my players don't try to screw me. Most of this is all theme enforcement, Mr. Rabbit, sir. [/quote']

 

I'd like to take a moment to point out that the Hero System is Genre Independant.

 

And that while I am in no way against adjusting the system to fit a genre or create genre-related themes... doing so in no way (NO WAY) indicates the system is broken, a mess, wrong, or otherwise flawed.

 

I request politely you refrain from using such language and instead state things in a more friendly and less antagonistic way.

 

Such as, I need to adjust the rules to fit my games Genre Themes, some of them as written aren't working for my group.

 

You constantly use Me and I which gives off a very GM vs Players feel to yoru posts. Overall your requests for help are extremely negative.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Mess

 

I still don't understand the balance point of making Armor Piercing a +1/4' date=' and I've done the math on this 30 times, no joke. I don't understand the reworking of Area Effect. An 8d6 AP Blast in a 16 meter cone used to cost 100 points. This power went from "Unattainable for anyone except a master villain, at 100 points" to "the top of my power cap at 70 points." The problem with AOE Cone is this: People can buy flight. So really, what you have is a power that's just as effective as a 32 meter radius against everyone who can't fly, and is still pretty darned good against everyone who can, AND it's armor piercing. The problem isn't the advantage itself. It's the stackability of the advantage. [/quote']

 

Then the problem is advantage stacking, not AP. I hate the argument that "because this can be abused if we combine it with several additional game elements, we must price it so that it is completely useless at its base level". A straight AP blast, and a straight AoE blast, should both be useful in the game. Right now, they are not.

 

My bigger concern with AoE is a very small (+1/4) AoE which allows the character to ignore his opponent's DCV. Perhaps "covers an area" and "hits against DCV 3" would appropriately be separate advantages. But we'll see how it plays out.

 

That AP Blast I just talked about. Let's envision Giants Stadium' date=' or better yet, let's use the Indianpolis Colts stadium, it doesn't matter, it's just that we hang out at Gencon, so I'm trying to put this into your mind so you can think about it. 70 points, 8d6 AP Blast is half a football field. That cone covers half a football field from 32 meters up. Double the radius to get the area, that's 64 meters or so, or about the distance from the goal posts to the 50 yard line. [/quote']

 

It's an impressive Superheroic power. So?

 

Now try to fit that on a battlemap. It's a question of envisioning what people think about, roleplaywise, when this cone comes shooting down at them. They can't dive for cover. There's almost nowhere they can dive to. They WILL fail their roll, except for the lucky few on the edges who might be able to dive into the seats and gain about 5-6 additional defense from foam padding. But it doesn't matter. They're probably still stunned. So they take the damage and are stunned. I freely admit I use a lot of agents. But I don't want agents to be as souped up as the supers, and I can't fit this thing on my playing table. (And my playing table is 4.5 feet by 10 feet. I treat my gamers like gold when they hang out in my basement)

 

Now let's replay that on a crowded street at rush hour at NYC. Only now, it's not a PC using the attack. It's a villain. What reason does the villain have to not just say "Ha. All right. You may arrest me, but I'll kill 500 people. Go ahead, take a shot at me." Hold action. Unless the villain has a psychological limitation that prevents him or her from doing this, the PC's just lost, no matter what happens. And THAT's not fair. Because the situation either favors the players completely, or the GM completely.

 

How does this have anything to do with AP (or have we moved beyond that now)? What reason does the villain have not to fire his no AoE blast at the midpoint of a crowded office building, or his FireBolt at a crowded shopping mall?

 

Now' date=' lets' do the Armor Piercing math for GA. I will freely admit that if you do standard effect, the Armor Piercing advantage is balanced at 1/4. I will concede that point right now, and move on to what happens when you actually roll dice. [/quote']

 

Excuse GA and I for not believing your math. SETAC ran the math back and forth or some time.

 

Randomly' date=' you have an equal chance of rolling any number equally on 1d6 from 1 to 6. The average defenses in my game are somewhere between 20 and 25, so I'm going to be generous, and choose 25. We're going to ignore knockback damage because on average, most of the situations we're dealing with won't deal any, but I will get back to knockback at the end. [/quote']

 

24 Defenses avoids rounding issues.

 

10d6=50 points' date=' so the equivalent AP Blast would be 8d6. [/quote']

 

Or, if we price AP at +1/2, the next practical option, it is 6 1/2d6 (I allow half dice, RAW or not). Average rolls 35; 28; 23. Damage to non-hardened target: 11; 16; 11.

 

12d6 is approximately 10d6-1' date=' so we'll use that, because it's as close as we can come. [/quote']

 

9 1/2d6 or 8d6. Average rolls 42; 33.5; 28. Damage to non-hardened target: 18; 21.5; 16.

 

14d6 is closest to 11d6 AP Blast' date=' except that the AP Blast costs one point less. [/quote']

 

Let's use 15d6 and avoid rounding issues. 15d6, 12d6 or 10d6. 52.5, 42 or 35. Damage to non-hardened target: 28.5; 30; 23.

 

From the above, I submit the math for +12/ demonstrates AP is a waste of points. An AP blast will always do less damage against a target with Hardened defenses, so it should do MORE damage than a straight attack against a target with non-hardened defenses. The AP attack will always do less knockback since it will always roll less BOD.

 

It should not, IMO, take an IQ of 180 to figure this out.

 

10d6 deals 10 points of damage. Body is irrelevant. 8d6 AP deals' date=' RAW, not my house rule where everything rounds in favor of the defender, 27-12=15. [/quote']

 

3.5 x 8 = 28, actually. But RAW says round in favour of the defenser, so it's still 15 damage.

 

12d6 deals 17' date=' that's 42-25. 10d6-1 AP is 34-12, 22. That's 5 stun difference. This is the actual point where it breaks.[/quote']

 

5 STUN different. About 30% more. If the AP blast DOES NOT do more Stun against targets without hardened defenses, what is the point of buying an AP blast? It will always do less KB, and less damage against targets with Hardened defenses. It's USELESS unless it does more damage against those targets it's designed to work against.

 

14d6 deals 49' date=' against 25, that's 24. Likely, this character is stunned. (Assuming an average con of 23, maybe not so for a powerful experienced character, but then, that character probably won't be stunned.). 11d6 costs one point less, but that deals 38-12=26. The target is still stunned[/quote']

 

With all the rounding stacked in favour of the AP blast, it does a whopping 2 more STUN against a target lacking the defense to block it. Maye it +1/2, and again stack the odds - make it 10d6 - and it does 35 - 12 = 23, one point less than the normal attack. And it costs 5 points more.

 

Although the numbers may have changed slightly' date=' the numbers on the recovery chart did not. And this is why I think Armor Piercing is broken at +1/4, because it brings people to the -11+ recovery categories much faster than was ever possible before. People now have to spend their time using actions to help their fellows recover. And that means that they are taking their full phase to eat the same thing.[/quote']

 

And if that shot is taken against a target with hardened defenses, it will take at least one extra hit to take him down. Your analysis ignores any comparison to the alternative of a +1/2 AP cost, which renders AP useless or virtually so.

 

Given this relatively simplistic math, I would suggest that, if you find AP broken at +1/4, the best answer may be to add a line to your house rules prohibiting AP attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Oh, and add me to the list that sees that Player vs GM vibe. I don't think Balabanto sees it that way, but I think it has some relation to that "I hate to lose" statement somewhere up the thread.

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Does that imply that you consider it necessary to purchase a Power to make any physical change? Otherwise, Killer Shrike covered it.

 

 

 

It can, however, be interpreted to mean that you would change back (if Knocked Out etc.), unless the Powers that are bought OIAID are also bought as Persistent. That may be up to the GM if he preferred it to be otherwise. If so, it should probably be reduced to a -0 Limitation, but it could also be a House Rule. You choice, really.

 

 

 

 

I think it may be a matter of your strategy. Things are probably more open to abuse from 4th, through 5th, through 6th edition, but constructing many house rules may compound your problem.

Steve Long has quite a knack for taking some effort to state things carefully worded, to leave as little room as possible for ambiguity. OTOH, that makes House Rules more likely to clash with the rules. I can see what you mean in some respect, though I looked through my own old House Rules which were written mostly to expand on vague issues; 5ER covered most of those cases, and with 6E there is less than 10% of those House Rules that I really need for any reasonable purpose (an expanded Aura Color Chart complementing UM/PH, and such stuff), and with the APG my amount of House Rules will be reduced even further.

I'd suggest you inverse the process, revising your House Rules based on 6E instead of the other way around, if that is indeed how you are going about it. Take notes of the possible abuses Steve Long already identified and make that the basis for your House Rules analysis.

From what I've found so far in the 6E rules, I have located some details that I wondered about, but 6E is so well cross-referenced that the solutions to possible problems are mostly covered. Only thing so far is that Mental Damage Negation, Only vs STUN, should probably be reduced to -0. Still, in a campaign with lots of AVAD attacks might motivate a higher Limitation, so there is still nothing fundamentally wrong there.

 

 

As far as your examples, you seem to be bypassing your Active Point Cap of 70. That would be an Armor Piercing Blast of max 11d6; a Narrow Cone AP Blast max of 9d6?

Also, in that case the average defenses could probably be beefed up to 30 or even 35 unless you want really quick fights.

 

 

If I've misunderstood your issue, please accept my apologies and disregard this post.

 

AP Blast Max of 11d6 is correct. That's 69 points.

 

The Narrow Cone AP Blast Max should be 8d6. +1/4 for AP, and +1/2 for Narrow cone. (That's 1/4 less advantage from 3/4), or 70.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Mess

 

AP Blast Max of 11d6 is correct. That's 69 points.

 

The Narrow Cone AP Blast Max should be 8d6. +1/4 for AP, and +1/2 for Narrow cone. (That's 1/4 less advantage from 3/4), or 70.

 

Blast 8d6 (vs. ED), Armor Piercing (+1/4), Area Of Effect (32m Cone; +3/4), Thin Cone (-1/4) (70 Active Points)

 

or

 

Blast 9d6 (vs. ED), Area Of Effect (16m Cone; +1/2), Thin Cone (-1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/4) (67 Active Points)

 

It really helps to say how long the cone is when you are talking about numbers. BTW the size of a cone is the Length (something that changed from 5e), and it's 30deg wide (A normal cone is 60deg) {BTW I sense a set of templates being made to help us with our 6e AOE's)

 

I think that Ghost Angel's numbers prove that AP attacks aren't that much more devastating than non ap attacks. Actually AP really makes a huge difference in Heroic games where the ratio of Defenses to DC's is much larger (ie More damage vs lower defenses)

 

"I try to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!!"

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Actually, Ghost Angel, use of "I" is grammatically appropriate, regardless of what emotional content you might read into it. The fact that you do is proof that text is blank, and "context" is read in. You may wish to consider rethinking that in light of the fact that I don't put any emotion into my requests for help. I only put emotion into what I write when I publish, because I love doing that.

 

When I say "I hate to lose", losing is equivalent to "Doing double work." Hugh's raising of the die cap is precisely what I was trying to avoid. 75 is too point efficient a number, and allows too much optimization, because it rounds in favor of too many things, and allows the easy construction of things regarding the very advantage stacking I'm trying to prevent, which is powergaming. Obviously, the GM can assign the villains whatever power constructions he wants, but when I see a thirty two fold (two to the fifth, or a 30 point difference, we'll assume the first die is negligable) increase in power, Hugh, from 100 points of value to 70 points of value, and it's the same power, no offense intended, but I don't see the way that works the same as the way you guys do. I see that as a paradigm shift in the nature of powers and how they work. Affecting half a football field shouldn't be possible without some sort of significant justification on the part of the PC, or the villain. If I wanted to give a power like that to an NPC, I'd sit down and think "How fair is this?"

 

Hugh, 8d6 AP is 50, not 60. 9.5d6 is actually 60 also, which is 32.5 , not 31.

 

Using 15d6 is irrelevant to avoiding rounding issues, because I selected a cap of 70 specifically to eliminate rounding issues, namely, the fact that a 75 point power construction was, quite simply, too powerful and point efficient. I used to have a couple players who were powergamers and complained when I installed a 70 point cap because they couldn't afford some of the powers that made them powergamey. They don't play anymore. So I know the 70 point cap works. Demonstrating that AP works better at 75 than it does at 70 doesn't change the fact that I won't let anyone have 75, so that argument doesn't matter.

 

The correct method of doing this to get it to do what I want might be a direct defense slice, where 3 points of power subtracts 2 points of defense, and bringing back the Piercing Advantage from 3rd. I'm reluctant to do that, because it's an adder, but I'm seriously thinking about it. Then 8d6 with 30 points of power for 70 points subtracts 20 and deals 17, assuming the power isn't hardened.

 

What I'm going to do is playtest it. All the numbers in the world won't change playtesting it. And if it is broken, and I'm pretty sure it will be, I'll have to do double work. And I really hate doing double work. Players feel cheated when you do double work, and I really do put a lot of love and care into my game and making it fun for everyone.

 

I'm going to walk away from this now, not because I'm "losing an argument" but because GA is reading violent anger into my posts where there is none, and obviously, and people want to defend something that doesn't need defending, which is an opinion.

 

I am totally committed to making 6th edition work. I have to. I'm a freelancer. Otherwise, my publishing career shuts off. And I like that even less than I like dealing with this math problem.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Mess

 

That AP Blast I just talked about. Let's envision Giants Stadium, or better yet, let's use the Indianpolis Colts stadium, it doesn't matter, it's just that we hang out at Gencon, so I'm trying to put this into your mind so you can think about it. 70 points, 8d6 AP Blast is half a football field. That cone covers half a football field from 32 meters up. Double the radius to get the area, that's 64 meters or so, or about the distance from the goal posts to the 50 yard line.

 

From 32m up the width of a thin cone is 16.5m (ie about 15% of a Football field) This assumes the writeups that I included in an above post. (ie under 70pt powers) Doubling the length (which is what a doubling would do) wouldn't change the width at 32m at all. Unless you removed thin Cone and doubled the length of the attack which wouldn't be a 9d6Ap attack either (for 70pts or less).

 

So make your arguments within the real numbers without throwing up examples that couldn't be written up in the points allotted.

 

Tasha

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Okay, you're right, Tasha. I dropped a decimal point.

 

Even so, the 16m standard cone is ridiculously large. I don't want to get back into this, but 32 meters is still about a third of a football field. Why build agents at all? You would have to give them absurdly stupid defenses to challenge a group of heroes under this model, even with supervillain support. I always use mixed forces every so often, a combination of tanks, planes, agents, and supervillains, especially for large criminal organizations. And, like I said, the real problem is hardened vs. armor piercing. It either becomes "Don't buy AP, it's useless" or AP is amazing and wrecks everything it hits. And by making it +1/4, there's no way to avoid that balancing act. GA wants advantages to be advantageous, and at +1/2, it still was, because it enabled you to slash that brick who has 30 or 35 but isn't hardened down to 17 and really hurt him. That was the original point of the Armor Piercing advantage, as far as what I thought Mr. Peterson and Mr. Macdonald were going for, not to do more damage to everyone.

 

I'm pretty sure GA's argument is based on the idea that 5 stun is a lot less significant than it used to be, but now I'm looking at things like stun pileups and trying to figure out where I want everything to be. I'm very concerned that all this does is justify ridiculously high stun totals and absurd CONs, because if the goal is to make AP advantageous, the way to negate that advantage is to pay 3 points for 6 more stun. I don't know that the average PC should be walking around with a stun total of 46-50, though. I find that pretty shocking.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6E Mess

 

I see a couple of fundamental issues here.

 

As a GM you want to be in complete control of the game outcome.

 

That's OK, but I think there are easier ways to go about it than what you are trying to do. (Just because a villain has the ability to blow up a football stadium doesn't mean he actually will - example: Firelord's classic fight with Spider-Man).

 

On the player side, you are just frustrating your players if you disallow 75 active points solely on the grounds that it allows "power gaming". There are slews of characters in the source material (comics) whose abilities are difficult at best to model using 90 active points in HERO. (examples: Hulk STR, Cyclops Eyebeams).

 

As others have pointed out already, certain combinations of Advantages can seem overpowered when compared to a non-advantaged power built with the same active points. That was probably as true in 5e/5er as is it is in 6e. Characters with 'swiss-army' attack multipowers should have to stay within a certain 'shtick'. Just because they can afford to add another power slot doesn't mean it fits the character (example: Green Lantern's power ring is usually modeled with a VPP. That doesn't mean it can be used to simulate ANY power. There are limits to what the rings can do, just not necessarily enough to be worth a Limitation that saves any points). Be willing to say no. Don't rely on the math to be the bad guy.

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Mess

 

No one can be in control of the game outcome. If I wanted to be in control of the game outcome, I would use Standard Effect, because then I would know exactly how much everything did, how much damage it did, etc. If I wanted to be in control of the game outcome, I would not roll my dice out in the open, where everyone could see them.

 

I want to prevent bad or stupid game outcomes, and I think 75 points is just too much. One of my groups is composed of five engineers with an average IQ of 150. My friend's wife is the highest at 185+. We ran this bell curve thing, and after looking at it, they said 'You're right. 75 is too much.' And I've been running for those guys since grad school in the early 90's, and I still go up to Rhode Island once a month and do so.

 

We have fun. The game is good. It works. Stories get told that are fun and interesting.

[JmOz]

Re: 6E Mess

 

And that is great for your game...maybe your gaming group is smarter than mine (probably is...if the IQ numbers are accurate, but then I have always had problems when people feel a need to drop their IQ...if your smart you don't need to prove it, it will come out on its own) BUT you are hearing alot of people tell you that they don't have the same problem with it you do.

 

I am willing to look at your issue, and take it as a warning, but I have been running 75 Active Point limits for years and only had problems with it with one player (Who tried to stack a 75 point RKA with 85 points of STR...easily told him NO WAY).

 

Armor Piercing has always been a bit of a underperformer in my games, unless you stacked it with something else, I have not tried it at a +1/4 now in game, but will see how it goes. Then again in my games most everyone has some combat luck (Which counts as hardened), which affects the outcomes some. This is one time I wish that hero had droped the 1/4 modifiers and went to .n modifiers instead (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc...)

 

Finaly, and this is probably a bit rude of me, but you are coming off a bit...pompus? Like you are talking down to the stupid people who don't get what you are saying, and not willing to take your wisdom because you have done the math and all they have is the personal experience with the issues.

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Mess

 

I don't think of it as pompous. I think the math is different from the math that they have done. Remember, Asperger's Syndrome isn't a blessing, it's a curse, but you have to understand that occasionally I see patterns in things that most other people don't see. They are there, but that's just the way this particular disorder works.

[JmOz]

Re: 6E Mess

 

I don't think of it as pompous. I think the math is different from the math that they have done. Remember' date=' Asperger's Syndrome isn't a blessing, it's a curse, but you have to understand that occasionally I see patterns in things that most other people don't see. They are there, but that's just the way this particular disorder works.[/quote']

 

I did not know you suffered from Asperger's (if you mentioned it upstream I missed it)

 

So let me put it to you the way I think of it:

 

There are to many variables to accuratly calculate wether any rule in this system is unbalanced with out making the rule books to large to be playable.

 

Thus we have the role of the GM, who must, among other things look at the human element (Other players) and determine what is right for that group, in some groups one thing will be abusable, in others not so. As a GM we need to be careful when we talk to other GM's not to think that are group is the ultimate sample, but to realise that each group is different.

 

As for the pompus comment, I probably should not have said it, and for that matter it is not the right word (but the right one is escaping me right now). However, while your observations are probably dead on for your games you need to realise that the system has to be written for a broad group, with many different playstyles, that yours is not necesarily typical

[JmOz]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Also if the problem is advantage stacking you can always do what I did when I fixed Damage Shield for my games, make a +1 (or what ever) advantage to stack on to abusive stackings, or double the advantage cost when it is being stacked with something (ala Red end and AF)

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Mess

 

The one I absolutely had to do was add an additional +1/4 to drains that drain a defense now that Drain is ranged and the list of stats is wider. I don't want people buying Stun and End for the sole purpose of them being defenses. It's more cost efficient to buy +100 END, only to resist the END drained by Drain (-1 1/2), than it is to buy power defense.

[teh bunneh]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Actually' date=' my players don't try to screw me. Most of this is all theme enforcement, Mr. Rabbit, sir. [/quote']

 

I don't judge, bro. It's not my game. Have fun, game on.

 

A good game doesn't have wars of escalation. It prevents them from the start. Every game I've ever played in that had a war of escalation eventually collapsed under it's own weight.

 

A good game doesn't have wars of escalation, but (IMHO) a great game doesn't have players/GMs who feel the need to escalate in the first place. The fact that you seem to need 40+ pages of house rules to prevent escalation wars... well, that says something. What it says to me is "Players v GM," but that's just my read. :shrug:

 

In my game, it ain't about who's got the biggest, baddest character or who can come up with the most dangerous combos; it's about everyone at the table having fun. I guess for some people, trying to come up with the ultimate game-breaker power is fun. It's not my cuppa, but like I said, diff'rent strokes. Game on.

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Mess

 

The problem is that someone usually believes that someone else at the table has a game breaker power, and it's not always the same person, Mr. Rabbit.

 

Also, I have multiple PC groups in the same world. If they fight, it should be interesting, not a blowout. It's happened twice in 25 years, but you know, I figure that everyone deserves a fair shot at winning a battle like that.

 

I've always believed that rules should apply to everyone equally.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Mess

 

Hugh's raising of the die cap is precisely what I was trying to avoid. 75 is too point efficient a number' date=' and allows too much optimization, because it rounds in favor of too many things, and allows the easy construction of things regarding the very advantage stacking I'm trying to prevent, which is powergaming.[/quote']

 

I'm not suggesting you raise the cap. I'm using 75 AP to compare a normal attack with an AP attack using a +1/4 advantage and AP as a +1/2 advantage to assess the math. However, at 70 points, we would have:

 

14d6 normal attack rolls 49 - 24 defense = 25 STUN taken.

 

11d6+1 AP attack (+1 since there is 1 point left over, and I want to bias in favour of AP so I round in its favour) rolls 39.5 - 24/2 defense = 27.5 STUN taken

 

At +1/2, 70 points is a 9d6 + 1 (again rounded for AP) = 32.5 rolled - 24/12 defense = 20.5 STUN taken.

 

AP has a very small advantage over a normal attack if it's +1/4, and is significantly lower powered at +1/2. Even against a target who does not harden his defenses. +1/4 is the advantage level at which there is actually an advantage to paying for the Advantage.

 

from 100 points of value to 70 points of value' date=' [/quote']

 

In my experience, AoE attacks were pretty much useless in 5e, so they were overpriced. They had the advantage of hitting against DCV 3. However, for 70 points, a 7d6 AoE attack rolls an average of 24.5 damage, so that 24 defense character barely notices it.

 

Affecting half a football field shouldn't be possible without some sort of significant justification on the part of the PC' date=' or the villain. If I wanted to give a power like that to an NPC, I'd sit down and think "How fair is this?" [/quote']

 

All powers should be justified by the character concept. The cost should be reasonable for the mechanical effect gained. A more expensive power is no harder to justify - it's just harder to pay for.

 

Hugh' date=' 8d6 AP is 50, not 60. 9.5d6 is actually 60 also, which is 32.5 , not 31. [/quote']

 

40 x 1.5 = 60. If AP is not a +1/4 advantage, it must be +1/2, so 60 points buys 8d6. Note that my comparisons are "normal attack"; "AP at 6e +1/4 cost" and "AP at 5e +1/2 cost".

 

Remember' date=' Asperger's Syndrome isn't a blessing, it's a curse, but you have to understand that occasionally I see patterns in things that most other people don't see. They are there, but that's just the way this particular disorder works.[/quote']

 

My understanding is that Asperger's also causes a certain rigidity in views and behaviours.

[torchwolf]

Re: 6E Mess

 

With all due respect for everyone who has commented, it is a game system we are discussing, so the heat that comes from frustration in communication lapses here might be refocused on the issue at hand, namely 6th Edition.

 

Now, I am not sure if I'm correct or not, but it seems to me that we may not be discussing the same thing.

 

Balabanto, you bring up the issue of agents in this discussion of AP, and that you have had campaign caps and lots of House Rules for quite a while.

I suspect there is what this discussion comes from. Normally, agents are mowed down pretty quickly, but you want them to keep going for awhile, and you also stated that your average DEF was 20-25 (pretty low).

Hero System has been presented as a toolkit to build your own game on. I think you have probably done just that; i.e. built your own system, by modifying the Hero System basic building blocks so extensively that now 6E altered the shape and sizes of those building blocks, they do no longer fit into your modified system without adapters.

I can certainly see that the value of Advantages or new mechanics - particularly those that affect defenses and damage suffered - would alter a balance you have constructed to allow, say, agents and supers, to be much closer to each other in effectiveness, and it would probably also be extremely difficult to allow a character with much stronger powers into such a precariously balanced environment. If it works that way, it is an impressive feat.

If these assumptions of mine are correct, it will be impossible to judge the effects of the changes in the 6E rules on your campaign, even more so any ancillary effects and secondary impacts on other rules that exist in your campaign. If so, I take it that you meant that you don't want to lose control of the special balance that you have built for your campaign, when you stated that you "don't like to lose". Certainly - you've spent probably enormous amounts of time and energy doing it and it seems to work reliably for you, but strictly speaking it has evolved from your Hero System building blocks, into what is now essentially your own game system, based on Hero.

From 5ER through 6E, the Hero System has also evolved, but not likely in the exact same direction. Ergo, we have two game systems descended from the same family tree, only we discuss different systems.

If this discussion is to be meaningful, or at least fruitful, it is necessary for others to be informed of the variables known only to you and your gaming group, Balabanto. It is probably as futile to repeatedly state excerpts from 6E, at least until the "which game system?" question is resolved.

 

That said, I may just be completely wrong about all this, and if noone feels that it's useful, please disregard.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Mess

 

With all due respect for everyone who has commented, it is a game system we are discussing, so the heat that comes from frustration in communication lapses here might be refocused on the issue at hand, namely 6th Edition.

 

Now, I am not sure if I'm correct or not, but it seems to me that we may not be discussing the same thing.

 

Balabanto, you bring up the issue of agents in this discussion of AP, and that you have had campaign caps and lots of House Rules for quite a while.

I suspect there is what this discussion comes from. Normally, agents are mowed down pretty quickly, but you want them to keep going for awhile, and you also stated that your average DEF was 20-25 (pretty low).

Hero System has been presented as a toolkit to build your own game on. I think you have probably done just that; i.e. built your own system, by modifying the Hero System basic building blocks so extensively that now 6E altered the shape and sizes of those building blocks, they do no longer fit into your modified system without adapters.

I can certainly see that the value of Advantages or new mechanics - particularly those that affect defenses and damage suffered - would alter a balance you have constructed to allow, say, agents and supers, to be much closer to each other in effectiveness, and it would probably also be extremely difficult to allow a character with much stronger powers into such a precariously balanced environment. If it works that way, it is an impressive feat.

If these assumptions of mine are correct, it will be impossible to judge the effects of the changes in the 6E rules on your campaign, even more so any ancillary effects and secondary impacts on other rules that exist in your campaign. If so, I take it that you meant that you don't want to lose control of the special balance that you have built for your campaign, when you stated that you "don't like to lose". Certainly - you've spent probably enormous amounts of time and energy doing it and it seems to work reliably for you, but strictly speaking it has evolved from your Hero System building blocks, into what is now essentially your own game system, based on Hero.

From 5ER through 6E, the Hero System has also evolved, but not likely in the exact same direction. Ergo, we have two game systems descended from the same family tree, only we discuss different systems.

If this discussion is to be meaningful, or at least fruitful, it is necessary for others to be informed of the variables known only to you and your gaming group, Balabanto. It is probably as futile to repeatedly state excerpts from 6E, at least until the "which game system?" question is resolved.

:

 

Repped!!

 

That is why we are taking a break from one of our 5e campaigns to play a 6e mini-series that I am running. It will be a Champions game, but it has no real tie to any other campaign. This way we can assess and learn the new rules with little or no baggage from our current campaigns.

 

Perhaps before you house rule the system to death Bala, you could try to run a short 6e game. Heck, if it works for you. Make it into another adventure you can write up and sell. Run it with no houserules beyond powerlevels of powers, and how high you want CV, Dex, and Speed. See what the players think. Don't overthink the game/adventure.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6E Mess

 

AP Blast Max of 11d6 is correct. That's 69 points.

 

The Narrow Cone AP Blast Max should be 8d6. +1/4 for AP, and +1/2 for Narrow cone. (That's 1/4 less advantage from 3/4), or 70.

Reread the new rules carefully. 6E AoE Cone is not equal to 5E's. It only shoots out 8 meters from the point of origin, or a mere 4 hexes in 5th Edition terms. A 5th Edition one would have covered 4 or 5 times as much area for the same amount of points. You're not going to hit very many people with a 60° cone-shaped blast only 26 feet long; certainly not a stadium full.

 

I guess I can't see the problem here. Even if AoE Cone stacked with AP was so devastating, you're the GM and you already have extensive house rules. You have several valid choices:

 

1) Forbid stacking these Advantages

 

2) Change the cost of either AoE Cone, AP, or both Advantages, back to -½

 

3) Stick with 5E