Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

NCM do not prevent you from going over 20, by the rules; it just costs double for every point over 20 (to I believe an absolute maximum of 25 IIRC?)

 

So the body builders (who are, to be honest, "super human" in a way) could get up to say 25.

 

Naturally, hard-capping at 20 is fully understandable as a campaign limit.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

INT*5 might work at 50, but it means an average person has an IQ of 50...

 

Maybe it was IQ = Square Root of (INT/10), *100

 

That results in the following equivalencies :

INT

Under 5 = Bottom 2% = about 70 or less IQ

5-7 = Bottom 15% = about 70 to 85 IQ

8-13 = Average 2/3rds of population = about 85 to 115 IQ

14-17 = Upper 15% = about 115 to 130 IQ

18+ = Top 2% (MENSA level) = Over 130 IQ

50 = Maximum recorded IQ = 223

 

Intelligence could also be "more than IQ."

 

My IQ has been tested several times in my life; in 1st Grade it was measured at 139 (and I wish I was lying, as this high of an IQ gives me NO excuse for the rather stupid things I have done in my life.)

 

In high school, it was measured at 128. And I have taken various online tests since then that ranged from 120 to 130.

 

Yet, really, I would put my INT in HERO terms at about 12 or 13.

 

I don't like to limit INT to strictly IQ, as IQ is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the other aspects of intelligence, IMNSHO.

[Outsider]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I dont like IQ as an indicator either. I am more inclined to agree with Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence type theory. But 'IQ' equivalency of INT was the subject at hand.

 

My opinion is that what far too many of the questions on IQ tests do is test to see if the person taking the test thinks like the person who made it.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I dont like IQ as an indicator either. I am more inclined to agree with Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence type theory. But 'IQ' equivalency of INT was the subject at hand.

 

My opinion is that what far too many of the questions on IQ tests do is test to see if the person taking the test thinks like the person who made it.

 

IQ tests are great at testing certain things; particularly the spatial relations part of the test as that is pretty visual. And, possibly, the reason I scored higher in 1st Grade was because the test was supervised since I couldn't read all the questions and comprehend them myself.

 

But that is a whole other conversation, as usual

[Orion]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Well, going just by bench press records, the strongest men in the world would be potentially paranormal in your game, as you need a STR of 23-24 to bench 1075 lbs.

 

(or you need an alternate mechanic to explain this discrepancy, like allowing Pushing for non heroic activities or using the Hoist skill)

 

Ummm....they haven't broken the old (ancient) record in my setting yet.....or maybe strength is defined another way (isn't military lift used for some system?)....pushing - yeah that's a good! Let's go with that one!

 

In truth, I had no idea what the record was. It's stuff like this that makes me think a chart telling exactly what various characteristics mean is really, really needed. We can look it up for strength, but dex, con, int, etc isn't so clear. Better examples are needed, especially for those like myself that play closer to Dark Champions than standard Champions.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The main problem with the IQ is that is only tells you the relations. It's re-calibrated every once or while so that 100 (+/-30*) is in fact the average person: about 95% of the population.

Actually it isn't even a quotient anymore. The original was (it was Intelligence Age/Life Age*10), but that one is discarded.

 

About the stupid things: I guess that would be EGO to overcome your minor complications, since they ignore what is Intelligent too.

 

the pushing weightlifting: i might allow it with an EGO roll. It may not be saving the world, but it may not be less important for the lifter

 

 

*They say the standart deviation(SD) is 15, but this may mean something different than +/- 15, as they in fact give the range with 70 to 130.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Equating two levels of Striking Appearance to an air-brushed model seems like a reasonable notion to me.

 

Okay, maybe I AM starting to understand.

 

If it matters that much (still struggling with “why?”) I can see why someone wants more steps in between “covergirl/centerfold” and “strictly average.”

 

There are tons of situations where COM 26 was more powerful than 12d6 of mind control.

 

I have to stretch my mind and think of contrived situations to come up with any where COM26 is “more powerful” than 12d6 Mind Control. Such as, you're in a beauty contest and there's a psionic suppression field in place to guarantee no one unduly influences the judges. Can you describe some of these “tons?”

 

But most importantly, the thing that it (Striking Appearance) did was prevent using comliness to simulate mind control because it (? not sure what “it” is?) works in real life.

 

Errm....I guess it's true that striking COMeliness from the game prevents one from using it to simulate Mind Control. But what's keeping people from using BODy to simulate Mind Control, or END, or Swinging or Acrobatics? If people in your games can routinely simulate Mind Control with things that aren't Mind Control...

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Can I simulate Mind Control with a palindromedary?

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Figure an average roll on 12d6 is going to be, what, 42? I agree, I am not seeing how 26 COM would trump a 12d6 Mind Control.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Unless your character had a complication about being a sucker for the ladies. I will gladly admit I would "do more for" a supermodel than for the slightly overweight mother of 3 in HR, but not in the EGO +30 range. COM effects how some people treat you, but not to the level of a powerful Mind Control.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The issue that you're not seeing is that there was a 20 point disadvantage people could take called "Normal Characteristic Maxima." By definition, that meant that anything above this is superhuman. Therefore, a 30 COM is 4x as attractive as the maximum level of normal human attractiveness. (Let's call 20 VCOM Playboy Centerfold level attractiveness, with airbrushing)

 

The problem with this is that it cost .5 per point. There are tons of situations where COM 26 was more powerful than 12d6 of mind control. 12d6 of Mind Control costs 60 points. COM 26 cost 8. That's the discrepancy. Plain and simple.

 

And keep in mind, all this because not everyone looked at comliness the same way. Now that you have to define your striking appearance, everyone knows what you're reacting to. When we converted to 6th in my game, COM got converted to striking appearance. This helped people out a lot.

 

But most importantly, the thing that it did was prevent using comliness to simulate mind control because it works in real life.

 

 

a) No, that's not what Normal Characteristic Maxima meant, never was. By definition it meant above normal. Not Superhuman. However this is not a thread for that argument.

When is a 26 COM more powerful than 12d6 mind control? Tons of situations or 1 situation?

 

Edit: Or...see every post that followed yours.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Okay, maybe I AM starting to understand.

 

If it matters that much (still struggling with “why?”) I can see why someone wants more steps in between “covergirl/centerfold” and “strictly average.”

 

 

Same reason some people wants to stat out Christina Aguilera songs? They just do.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Also' date=' there is one mayor thing about IQ: It is based on the average of the humans. The bell curve is recalibrated every greater test cycle, so that the humans tested fit into exactly that scematic.[/quote']

 

Actually, my understanding is that it's even recalibrated geographically (when our son was tested a few years back, the psychologist indicated that it would have been a bit higher if we lived in **another country which shall remain nameless** because the average there was lower, so "100" was more like "95" or "97" here.

[dmjalund]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Same reason some people wants to stat out Christina Aguilera songs? They just do.

And they like the idea of creating a pretty genie in a bottle

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Actually' date=' my understanding is that it's even recalibrated geographically (when our son was tested a few years back, the psychologist indicated that it would have been a bit higher if we lived in **another country which shall remain nameless** because the average there was lower, so "100" was more like "95" or "97" here.[/quote'] Even that could be possible. I only have wikipedia as a source, but I heard from an unreliable source that amercia has a different scale. But that source also said the medium was 60-80, so I doubt much of what he said.

 

About more steps in between:

I still can't understand what's so special about 30 PRE vs 20 PRE + 2 Levels Striking Apereance/equivalent amout of COM (a +10 PRE limited). It is more prominent on the sheet to have SA/high COM instead of 30 PRE and say that it comes from being pretty/being comely (the verb). But that's all about it.

Of course, for some that could be all the reason nesseary to stay with COM.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Of course, lack of fine granularity is an issue for Hero at the "human" end of the scale in general.

 

Consider CON. From the "average person" at 8 up to 20 is 12 incremental points. But mechanically, the breakpoints occur at 8, 13, and 18, so in terms of the CON roll one makes to avoid, say, getting an infection, the very robust person at CON 20 is only 2 steps from the average guy at CON 8.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Zero steps away from a palindromedary tagline

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Consider CON. From the "average person" at 8 up to 20 is 12 incremental points. But mechanically' date=' the breakpoints occur at 8, 13, and 18, so in terms of the CON roll one makes to avoid, say, getting an infection, the very robust person at CON 20 is only 2 steps from the average guy at CON 8.[/quote']

It may be more than it sounds. What are the chances for each one making the unmodified roll?

The rolls are 11-, 12-, 13-, or 62.5%, 74% and 83,8%. Of course, once you get a malus that disease will knock you down way easier than Cpt. Rock with his 40 Con (17-, 90+% at -3)

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

It may be more than it sounds. What are the chances for each one making the unmodified roll?

The rolls are 11-, 12-, 13-, or 62.5%, 74% and 83,8%. Of course, once you get a malus that disease will knock you down way easier than Cpt. Rock with his 40 Con (17-, 90+% at -3)

 

Yes, they're big steps, but my point is that there are only two.

 

As opposed to possibly a greater number of smaller steps.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants great numbers of big steps but can't find seven league boots that fit

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Yes, they're big steps, but my point is that there are only two.

 

As opposed to possibly a greater number of smaller steps.

There is the rule to modify when the breakpoint occurs and what the basic throw before +Characteristic/X is. But this seems to be part of the overall scale for 3d6-based bell curve. The only way to solve it properly would be to decouple Heroic and non-heroic Games in all aspects (especially Roll Modifiers/Roll calculation), but that would be unfeasable.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

There is the rule to modify when the breakpoint occurs and what the basic throw before +Characteristic/X is. But this seems to be part of the overall scale for 3d6-based bell curve. The only way to solve it properly would be to decouple Heroic and non-heroic Games in all aspects (especially Roll Modifiers/Roll calculation)' date=' but that would be unfeasable.[/quote']

 

I'm inclined to agree.

 

To drift back towards the topic, while something like Striking Appearance may mimic the old COMeliness score for mechanical steps, I can see where it lacks "cosmetic" granularity. I put "cosmetic" in quotes because I don't want to say it's purely cosmetic, or that those non-breakpoint points don't have any possible mechanical function at all.

 

Something like the Wealth Perk would have more "steps" to measure the quality by. One could also, I suppose, allow players to measure Striking Appearance's Active Points in "off breakpoint" totals - it's defined as Limited PREsence right? Instead of buying in blocks of 5, maybe someone could buy 6 or 7 pts of Limited PRE.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notices all the breakpoints and wonders where the fixpoints are.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Something like the Wealth Perk would have more "steps" to measure the quality by. One could also' date=' I suppose, allow players to measure Striking Appearance's Active Points in "off breakpoint" totals - it's defined as Limited PREsence right? Instead of buying in blocks of 5, maybe someone could buy 6 or 7 pts of Limited PRE.[/quote']

Exaclty. 6E1 447 is the exact explanation

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

There is the rule to modify when the breakpoint occurs and what the basic throw before +Characteristic/X is. But this seems to be part of the overall scale for 3d6-based bell curve. The only way to solve it properly would be to decouple Heroic and non-heroic Games in all aspects (especially Roll Modifiers/Roll calculation)' date=' but that would be unfeasable.[/quote']

 

Not necessarily. I suppose one could house-rule characteristic points between the breakpoints as a number of one-time-per-game-session +1's available for the given characteristic and associated skills. (For instance, a thief with 19 DEX normally has a 13- Lockpicking skill, but once each game session he can bump that to 14-. If he had a 20 DEX, he could do this twice in a game session, but I don't think I'd allow him to use both together for a 15- roll.) Never tried this myself, and perhaps something similar is already mentioned in the rules or on these boards. Just an idea.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Not necessarily. I suppose one could house-rule characteristic points between the breakpoints as a number of one-time-per-game-session +1's available for the given characteristic and associated skills. (For instance' date=' a thief with 19 DEX normally has a 13- Lockpicking skill, but once each game session he can bump that to 14-. If he had a 20 DEX, he could do this twice in a game session, but I don't think I'd allow him to use both together for a 15- roll.) Never tried this myself, and perhaps something similar is already mentioned in the rules or on these boards. Just an idea.[/quote']

 

An idea I've seen (can't remember who to credit) is this:

 

If you miss the roll by only 1 pt, you roll 1d6.

 

The chance that you succeeded is equal to the number of points you are over the breakpoint by.

 

So your thief with DEX 19, having rolled a 14, gets to roll a 1d6 and will succeed on 1. If the thief had DEX 22, they succeed on 1-4.

 

My own refinement of the idea is to let anyone roll 1d6 if they miss by 1, and succeed on a roll of 1, +1 for every point they exceed the breakpoint by.

Like so:

 

Roll was 13 or less, 14 was rolled. Roll 1d6 and if

 

DEX =18, succeed on 1

DEX =19, succeed on 1-2

DEX =20, succeed on 1-3

DEX =21, succeed on 1-4

DEX =22, succeed on 1-5

DEX =23, you obviously automatically succeeded on the roll of 14 on 3d6 so what are you looking here for? You won't need to roll this unless you rolled 15 initially, in which case you now need to roll 1 on 1d6.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary tries to measure the thread drift

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Of course, lack of fine granularity is an issue for Hero at the "human" end of the scale in general.

 

Consider CON. From the "average person" at 8 up to 20 is 12 incremental points. But mechanically, the breakpoints occur at 8, 13, and 18, so in terms of the CON roll one makes to avoid, say, getting an infection, the very robust person at CON 20 is only 2 steps from the average guy at CON 8.

 

At least every point of CON reduces the likelihood of being Stunned (which is its main use in most games I see). But INT has no function whatsoever outside of its use to determine rolls, so an INT score off breakpoint serves no function whatsoever.

 

Not necessarily. I suppose one could house-rule characteristic points between the breakpoints as a number of one-time-per-game-session +1's available for the given characteristic and associated skills. (For instance' date=' a thief with 19 DEX normally has a 13- Lockpicking skill, but once each game session he can bump that to 14-. If he had a 20 DEX, he could do this twice in a game session, but I don't think I'd allow him to use both together for a 15- roll.) Never tried this myself, and perhaps something similar is already mentioned in the rules or on these boards. Just an idea.[/quote']

 

An approach I've considered (again, never implemented) is to allow the skill roll to grade up. We currently roll 3d6, so that thief succeeds on a 13 and fails on a 14. We could allow him, on a 14 roll, to roll a 4th d6 (maybe this is a d6 of a different colour rolled with the first three to speed the process). If he rolls a "barely fail" 14, we look to the fourth d6. If it is equal to or less than the extra points over the breakpoint, he succeeds. So, if our Thief has a 19 DEX, he succeeds on a 14 one time in 6. A 20 DEX bets him 2 times in 6, and a 22 means a 14- succeeds 4 times in 6. The extra point to meet the breakpoint is twice as valuable, so it's still a better buy, but at least there is some benefit to having, say, a 21 INT.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

At least every point of CON reduces the likelihood of being Stunned (which is its main use in most games I see). But INT has no function whatsoever outside of its use to determine rolls' date=' so an INT score off breakpoint serves no function whatsoever.[/quote']

 

Hey now, every point of INT protects you from becoming a vegetable from having your INT negatively adjusted.

 

So not quite no function, just 99.9% of the time

 

This is one of my big gripes about INT, as every other attribute has some worthwhile mechanical value on point per point basis and INT really doesn't

 

(and DEX is probably too expensive...)

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

This is one of my big gripes about INT' date=' as every other attribute has some worthwhile mechanical value on point per point basis and INT really doesn't [/quote']

You already pointed out that a 22 INT is only one point of AID distance to 23 (breakpoint). Also, INT is the usual choice for Power Skill Rolls, Perception, nearly all KS, PS and SS. The later 3 can be complementary for another Roll (especially the Social ones). It's used to counter acting, forgery and some other skills. Frankly I don't know what point-based mechanic you could put into it, but for skill users it seems a high priority.