6th Ed House Rules

[Gary]

A couple of things were almost instantly institututed in my 6th Ed campaign.

 

1) Killing Attacks have a 1/3D6+1 stun multiple (2 or 3). 1/2D6 nerfed KAs far too much. At 1/3D6+1, KAs have some real utility but still do significantly less stun than normal attacks. A sword actually becomes viable as someone's primary attack instead of a club or staff.

 

2) Barrier was limited. At 3 pts per Def and 1 per Body, it was WAY too powerful when stuck in someone's multipower. We limited total Def+Body to the campaign DC max +1.

 

3) Change Environment seems a little too powerful, but no changes have been made yet.

 

What house rules have other people implemented?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

A couple of things were almost instantly institututed in my 6th Ed campaign.

 

1) Killing Attacks have a 1/3D6+1 stun multiple (2 or 3). 1/2D6 nerfed KAs far too much. At 1/3D6+1, KAs have some real utility but still do significantly less stun than normal attacks. A sword actually becomes viable as someone's primary attack instead of a club or staff.

 

At 1d3+1, a killing attack matches the average damage for an equivalent normal attack. eg. 12 DC normal attack averages 12 x 3.5 = 42 Stun. 12 DC killing attack averages 3.5 x 4 = 14 x 3 = 42. However, the KA has a 1 in 3 chance of getting 56 STUN, a lot more than a normal attack. While 1d3 + 1 reduces the volatility of 1d6-1, allowing the same average as a normal attack with significantly enhanced volatility still seems to leave a KA as the statistically superior attack, especially when it manages comparable knockback (average 5 for normal attack or

2.5 for a killing attack still knocks both targets back a few and wrecks their DCV), superior BOD (for barriers, entangles, automatons, etc.) and BOD defended only by rDEF. While the impact of these ancillary benefits will vary between games, the enhanced STUN volatility seems like it would always be advantageous.

 

Maybe this is mitigated by the fact that even a 2x multiple will get some STUN on a target with average defenses. At 20 defenses, STUN past defenses seems likely to be statistically similar. At 30, we get [(0 + 12 + 26)/3 =] 12 2/3, not a huge enhancement. Against 35, we get [(0 + 5 + 21)/3] = 7 2/3 vs 7. But still slightly superior with ancillary advantages. I'd be inclined to expect the STUN to seem pretty much equal over time, and KA's to get used largely for BOD enhancement, rather than the significant advantage offered by KA volatility under the 5e rules.

 

2) Barrier was limited. At 3 pts per Def and 1 per Body' date=' it was WAY too powerful when stuck in someone's multipower. We limited total Def+Body to the campaign DC max +1.[/quote']

 

I haven't worked enough with Barrier to form an opinion, although I note a DC +1 barrier will be dropped in one shot from a killing attack, but stand up to two (more if we use 0 BOD and DC+1 defense) normal attacks at the same DC. More an issue for advantages of killing attack than Barrier, perhaps, but easily fixed by boosting that max. I also wonder how Barrier compares against Entangle with those limits. Barrier could cover a broader area, Entangle seems vastly superior dealing with any target with a Focus. This perhaps makes Barrier used primarily as larger area attacks, and if that's the desired result, this restriction probably helps a lot.

 

3) Change Environment seems a little too powerful' date=' but no changes have been made yet[/quote']

 

Again, haven't seen it in action.

 

We have cut the price of DEX to 1. Going first + skill rolls seems comparable in value to skill rolls + PER rolls or skill rolls + PRE attacks and defenses. Skill levels for DEX skills get similarly reduced.

 

Skill levels in general seem overpriced (+1 to any INT skill roll one at a time for 4 points vs +1 to all INT skill rolls at one, plus PER rolls, for 5 points seems off). We haven't changed that yet.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

My group has extensive house rules, but I'll try to briefly summarize the issues so far addressed:

 

We always have used Hit Locations for Killing Damage Stun, and continue to do so. This fixes the change quite nicely.

 

We doubled the BODY and DEF costs for barrier, which turns it into an average option, not the best, but useable.

 

We use a house rule that genericly held actions must be "used or lost" in order from lowest dex count to highest. Thus a higher DEX score allows characters to wait out their opponets or get the drop on them. Definitly worth 2 points per point.

[Gary]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

At 1d3+1' date=' a killing attack matches the average damage for an equivalent normal attack. eg. 12 DC normal attack averages 12 x 3.5 = 42 Stun. [/quote']

 

Nope, it's 1/3d6+1. IOW, 2 or 3 stun multiple. 2.5 average stun. 1-3 means 2 SM, and 4-6 means 3 SM.

 

I did a computer simulation of 2 bricks fighting 100 times, one with NA and one with KA. Both had 30 Def, 15 rDef, 30 Con, 60 Stun and used 60 active attacks and basically just stood there and pounded each other. I stopped the fight when one side ran out of stun or got Stunned. With 1-3 SM, the brick with 12d6 normal won about 95% of the time. With 2-3 SM, he won about 75-80% of the time. With lower defense and con characters, it was somewhat closer but not by too much.

 

As I said, NAs are still superior to a 2.5 average SM, but killing attacks aren't completely nerfed. It balances nicely in actual play.

 

I haven't worked enough with Barrier to form an opinion, although I note a DC +1 barrier will be dropped in one shot from a killing attack, but stand up to two (more if we use 0 BOD and DC+1 defense) normal attacks at the same DC. More an issue for advantages of killing attack than Barrier, perhaps, but easily fixed by boosting that max. I also wonder how Barrier compares against Entangle with those limits. Barrier could cover a broader area, Entangle seems vastly superior dealing with any target with a Focus. This perhaps makes Barrier used primarily as larger area attacks, and if that's the desired result, this restriction probably helps a lot.

 

In actual play, it seems to work very well without being overpowering. While an average KA will drop the average barrier, the volatility of KA makes it very reasonable for KA to roll slightly below average and not drop the barrier. Initial characters bought 12 Def/6 Body barriers with decent size and in practice, it allowed them to isolate 1 or 2 opponents and wipe them out.

 

We have cut the price of DEX to 1. Going first + skill rolls seems comparable in value to skill rolls + PER rolls or skill rolls + PRE attacks and defenses. Skill levels for DEX skills get similarly reduced.

 

We haven't changed it due to laziness. We use HD now, and it would be too much of a pain to change the cost.

[Matt Holck]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

hit location will be used along with the 1d6-1 stun multiple

strikes to the head vitals and stomach get a +1 stun multiple

strike to the limbs get a -1 stun multiple

 

if an attack does half the character's constitution in stun after defenses to a limb,

a dexterity roll is required to remain standing or grasping

 

if an attack does 2/3 the character's constitution in stun after defenses to a limb,

a dexterity roll and an ego roll are required to remain standing or grasping

[dsatow]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

Personally, I like the new stun mod. The old stun mod, too many people were using killing attacks for the Stun Lottery or buying up the stun mod because it was efficient to do so. Characters were being formed around the chance of wiping out the villain in one shot.

 

Before 6th edition, the simple way to stop the stun lottery was simple to make the stun mod a static 3. Thus on the average 4d6K will still do 42 stun just like a normal attack.

 

So far the one house rule I have not wavered on is Diving for Cover/Flying Dodge when moving out of an area requires a -1 per 2m penalty to a Dex Roll.

[Matt Holck]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

+1/2 advantage of a +1 stun mod was not efficient

with the d6-1 stun multiplier average of 2.67 (1,1,2,3,4,5)

jumping to 3.5 with a +1 stun mod (1,2,3,4,5,6)

 

the character is doing (3.5/2.67)-1 = 0.31 or 30% more stun damage

but paying 50% above the base value

[GAZZA]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

Whereas now it is +1 STUN multiplier is definitely efficient; you get a +50% increase in STUN for a +1/4 (+25%) cost. If you want to extract the urine, go for something like:

 

RKA 1d6, +12 Stun Multiplier (+3) [60 active]

 

That averages 45 STUN and 3.5 BODY - it is, in many ways, a safer attack to use against a target with low defences for heroes to use than a straight 12d6 Blast. I don't know that I'd call it abusive though - but it is a lot more efficient to buy Stun Multiplier increase than it used to be, and you get more bang for your buck.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

I like the mechanic for things like brief exposure to vacuum or TASER-type attacks that knock people out relatively quickly but have little (though still extant) danger of being lethal.

[Shinobi Killfis]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

 

Skill levels in general seem overpriced (+1 to any INT skill roll one at a time for 4 points vs +1 to all INT skill rolls at one, plus PER rolls, for 5 points seems off). We haven't changed that yet.

 

The only way it seems to be used in my experience is in heroic games after you have maxed the stat. And then it pays off if you have 2+skills, but that is party due IMO to 2 for +1 in a skill is expensive as is. Also combat skill levels seem really expensive as well. I know they are flexible and can be used for increasing damage etc, but +1 overall level costs the same as +1ocv and DCV or +2 OCV. That seems out of whack. Again I don't see myself taking them unless I hit a normal characteristic cap.

[dsatow]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

I've been wondering about letting +1 Stun mod be allowed for Blasts and other attacks and not just killing attacks.

 

Ex: a 12d6 EB with +1 Stun would get an effective +12 Stun or just slightly better than an extra 3d6(10.5). A 8d6 EB with +1 Stun would get an effective +8 stun or just slightly better than getting +2d6(7). A 20d6 EB would get +20 Stun or just slightly better than +5d6(17.5)

 

Ex2: a 4d6 Mental Attack would get an effective +4 stun or slightly better than an extra 1d6(3.5). A 6d6 Mental attack would get an effective +6 stun or slightly better than +1.5d6(5.5)

 

If we try and nerf the advantage, say buying +8 stun on a blast, the advantage would look like the following.

 

Ex: a 4d6 EB with +8 stun would do on average 46 stun, slightly better than a 12d6 blast (42)and do only 4 body.

 

What do people think about the idea?

[RexMundi]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

I never nerf. I do however, Rescale things when I see stuff that is off skew with comparable powers. Most of that I have worked up into my campaign rules though so it's a bit twitchy to disect out the actual changes I made without bring the entire context as to why as well....meaning pages upon pages of "stuff" heh.....

 

One thing I've noticed is a lot of folks want to ramp up the stun damage of Killing Attacks. All I like to leave on the table for that is, not having obnoxious amounts of stun being generated by killing attacks keeps the wolverfanboys in line, AND, allows a more balanced way to pull off the "Walking Dead" Cinematic effect, when said sacrificial guy took a gut shot and is well, Done For, but lasts long enough (because he still had piles of stun), to hold off the zombie horde for everyone else to escape.

 

So I don't mind the lower stun die.....Anyway let me see if I can unwrap my home rules from my campaign write up and see if I can present it with minimal context tagalong.....

 

~Rex

[MyChampionsHero]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

i don't have 6th Ed yet but just curious from all the post here,

(Example) what about the swords ability to sever other objects?

such as, a staff with +9D6 HA vs. a Sword with 3D6 HKA, both have a base of 45 points but a sword should have no problem severing through a staff vs. the staffs slim chance of breaking a sword.

do you think or feel the rules have changed to better allow these possibilities?

[GAZZA]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

Assuming they are both foci, the sword vs staff is already fine. You can buy defences for the sword "only vs staves" if you want to.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

Or you can have that be part of "real weapon" limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

The only way it seems to be used in my experience is in heroic games after you have maxed the stat. And then it pays off if you have 2+skills' date=' but that is party due IMO to 2 for +1 in a skill is expensive as is.[/quote']

 

This has been the problem with skill level pricing for a long time. If they are priced appropriately for a character paying standard costs for characteristics, they are a huge bargain for a character paying double due to normal characteristic maxima. However, 6e removed NCM as a basic rule, which seems to me to mandate pricing skill levels on the expectation that the normal characteristic cost will be paid in the alternative. The pricing of skill levels would need to be considered by a GM who has decided to use the optional NCM rules.

 

IMO, this always highlighted the problem with doubling the price of an ability, rather than setting caps on those abilities. If buying INT or DEX or PRE beyond a certain point strains credibility and realism, so doubling the cost is the solution, why is it OK to buy the same effects in another manner without an increasing cost scale. Isn't 10 skill levels a strain on credibility/realism? How does limiting the characteristic, thus making it a power (and exempt from NCM doubling) make it more realistic/credible? If it does make it OK, then why should I buy INT skill levels (that boost 1 skill roll at a time) instead of +5 INT, only for skill rolls (which would enhance all my INT skill rolls at the same time, benefiting complementary rolls)? I'm glad to see NCM relegated to "GM can change the rules and GM should deal with the fallout" territory, and I wish the pricing of skill levels (and, if need be, +1 to a given skill) had been seriously re-examined for consistency with that approach.

 

Also combat skill levels seem really expensive as well. I know they are flexible and can be used for increasing damage etc' date=' but +1 overall level costs the same as +1ocv and DCV or +2 OCV. That seems out of whack. Again I don't see myself taking them unless I hit a normal characteristic cap.[/quote']

 

Combat levels suffer similarly, in my view. I think they also suffer from the problem that "damage classes" are not otherwise priced in the system. For 40 points, I can add up to 4 OCV, 4 DCV or 2 DC's to any attack. A Multipower of +4 OCV and +4 DCV with flex slots would cost 28 points. A 0 END DC costs 7.5 points, so each slot adding that option should cost 3 points (and leave more points free for OCV/DCV). Is 4 slots a reasonable number to simulate "any attack I can use"?

 

Drop down to 3 point CSL's and I can buy +10 levels for 30 points. That can add 10 OCV, 10 DCV or 5 0 END DC's. Buying +5 DC's at 0 END would cost 25 x 1.5 = 37.5 points. It could be spread for up to +5 OCV or to fill a few hexes. Is that really more valuable? It seems a lot less valuable to me. So why not buy skill levels instead of extra damage classes? Maybe we need a mechanic for buying +1 DC to any or all attacks, and skill levels could then be priced in accordance with that pricing. Perhaps that would even change the ratio between OCV, DCV and DC's.

[Greywind]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

Assuming they are both foci' date=' the sword vs staff is already fine. You can buy defences for the sword "only vs staves" if you want to. [/quote']

And hope that your opponent isn't also proficient with dual short staves/escrima sticks.

[Gary]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

For most campaigns that I've seen, it may be appropriate to break the cost of +1 to a skill into tiers:

 

2 pts per +1 Skills that can give you combat advantage on a regular basis

Acrobatics

Breakfall

Contortionist

Power Skill

Teamwork

Stealth

Possibly Analyse depending on whether it can give you a combat advantage on a regular basis.

 

3 pts per +2

The more utilized current 2 for +1 skills. Depending on campaign, different skills can fall into this category.

Examples for interaction skills might be Charm and Persuasion. Note that for 3 pts, you can increase 1 skill by +2 or 2 skills by +1 each

 

1 pt per +1

The less utilized current 2 for +1 skills. Depending on campaign, different skills can fall into this category.

Examples for interaction skills might be Oratory and Trading since IME they tend to be used a lot less than Charm and Persuasion.

 

1 pt per +2

SS, KS, PS. For 1 pt, you do can either increase a single skill by +2 or increase 2 separate skills by +1 each.

 

Again, this is what sounds good to me in theory. Due to the difficulty of implementing this in Hero Designer, it's probably never going to happen.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

For most campaigns that I've seen' date=' it may be appropriate to break the cost of +1 to a skill into tiers:[/quote']

 

The only issue I would have with this is that, if certain skills are sufficiently valuable that a bonus to the roll should cost more, then logically that should carry up through the skill level costing chain.

 

The assumption that combat advantageouos skills are always more valuable also seems very campaign-dependent. Is it worth more to have Breakfall that may enhance your chance of success in combat with a mob, or Oratory that could allow you to either calm the mob or incite them against someone else, avoiding any need for you to be involved in combat in the first place? If the campaign is one wyhere noncombat skills can be used to resolve issues without resorting to combat, noncombat skills become much more valuable. If it's one where the only use of noncombat skills is to get you from the last fight to the next one more efficiently, they are much less valuable.

[djkester]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

For most campaigns that I've seen, it may be appropriate to break the cost of +1 to a skill into tiers:

 

Again, this is what sounds good to me in theory. Due to the difficulty of implementing this in Hero Designer, it's probably never going to happen.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but couldn't this be handled with a custom limitation?

 

For example:

 

Real Cost: 2 -- Oratory 12- (5 Active Points); Less Valuable Skill (-1)

 

Seems like a good way to handle this house rule in the tool.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

(Example) what about the swords ability to sever other objects?

such as, a staff with +9D6 HA vs. a Sword with 3D6 HKA, both have a base of 45 points but a sword should have no problem severing through a staff vs. the staffs slim chance of breaking a sword.

 

Are those the base damage of the weapons, or with STR already added in? Because if the former, I'd assume something unusual is going on with either the materials or some other enhanced aspect of both, and might expect both to pull through normal use without harm. (I'm also not entire sure that a normal sword would easily cleave through a normal wooden staff that might be twice as thick as a broom handle, particularly if the staff isn't being gripped with both hands with the contact point falling somewhere between them. It's not designed for chopping timber like an axe, after all.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6th Ed House Rules

 

I don't have any house rules but I do have campaign guidelines for building characters, which accomplishes much the same thing. Generally if you deal with problems at the build stage they never emerge. For example Gary said int he original post the he feels that KA is too nerfed and so increased the average stun with a house rule. He also mentioned that Barrier is too beefy.

 

We've been talking elsewhere about AP, and, if applied to a Killing attack you can do 3d6 KA AP for less than 60 points, which willdo significant Body damage (not one hit kill, but significant damage nonetheless) to many characters AND easily take down a 18/18 DEF 1 Body 3 length Barrier (which costs 60 points).

 

The trouble with House ruling is that it can have unintended consequences. Whilst I gripe a lot about individual things, I'm of the opinion that the system as a whole is very robust. If people are sticking Barrier in MPs then perhaps a penetrating or AP KA in a MP slot is the way to go rather than reduce the effectiveness of the power.

 

Of course you can make a Barrier with 10/10 defences and 25 Body, which is going to take several hits of anyone's attack to take down. If that happens, as a GM, if you are not happy, you need to head it off early: if the builds look abusive then you need to say so early. I'd rather leave everything as a possibility and regulate for individual games than limit the system as a whole. Any unusually big numbers need looking at, and any mature player will recognise that just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.