Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

[Outsider]

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']

 

Some countries may have a higher percentage of their population made up of subcultures who score poorly on IQ tests also. Not like largely white-bread Canada.

 

As to why certain subcultures perform poorly on IQ tests, well, that is a whole nother issue that the acadenmic intelligencia hasnt formed a consensus on yet.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Frankly I don't know what point-based mechanic you could put into it' date=' but for skill users it seems a high priority.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying INT is useless or anything, just that you are essentially wasting points having an INT score that doesn't end in 3 or 8.

 

A character with a 15 INT should have a clear and useful mechanical advantage over someone with a 13, but he doesn't.

 

I've seen dozens of suggestions on how to fix it, but that's really a whole 'nother thread.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

A character with a 15 INT should have a clear and useful mechanical advantage over someone with a 13' date=' but he doesn't.[/quote']

A charater with CON 15 can only stand 2/13 (7,69 %) more stun damage than someone with CON 13 before being knocked out. Considering that Normal Stun is rolled in xd6 and killing in xd6 times 1d3 that's not that much either. And on the higher values, the difference only grows smaller.

The same goes for EGO: while it seems usefull to have two more of it, it doesn't really affect that much how suceptible you are to MC. What's important is your overall value and your breakout roll.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

A 150 IQ is pretty much unheard of. There's a bell curve here on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

 

Well, it's rare, but not unheard of. One twentieth of one percent of the world's population is still three and a half million people. Since PCs are (generally) exceptional individuals, rarity is not a concern.

 

This gives me an idea - what if characteristics represent deviations from the norm, with every 5 points representing one standard deviation? Using intelligence as an example, each point of INT would then be worth ~3 IQ points. An IQ of 160 (the reliable limit of most tests) would be a 30 INT, and a 200 IQ (if such a thing could be tested reliably) would be equivalent to an INT of 41.

 

Other characteristics may be harder to quantify, but the principle seems to hold - "normal" humans could still have exceptional stats. (STR is probably an exception, since the lift chart was designed to make the math easy, not reflect how many individuals can lift a specified amount.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

You already pointed out that a 22 INT is only one point of AID distance to 23 (breakpoint).

 

And 59 STR is one aid point away from 12d6 - do you see a lot of 59 STR characters?

 

Also' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

We've already suggested two in this thread alone. No one is saying it isn't useful.

 

I'm not saying INT is useless or anything' date=' just that you are essentially wasting points having an INT score that doesn't end in 3 or 8. A character with a 15 INT should have a clear and useful mechanical advantage over someone with a 13, but he doesn't. [/quote']

 

Like Bloodstone, they are saying buying points between the 3 and 8 breakpoints carries no in-game benefit whatsoever. And it doesn't. And it seems reasonable to expect it should.

 

Some countries may have a higher percentage of their population made up of subcultures who score poorly on IQ tests also. Not like largely white-bread Canada.

 

Without naming names, the initials of the "lower scoring" country include an S, an A and a U...

 

A charater with CON 15 can only stand 2/13 (7,69 %) more stun damage than someone with CON 13 before being knocked out. Considering that Normal Stun is rolled in xd6 and killing in xd6 times 1d3 that's not that much either. And on the higher values, the difference only grows smaller.

The same goes for EGO: while it seems usefull to have two more of it, it doesn't really affect that much how suceptible you are to MC. What's important is your overall value and your breakout roll.

 

No? Let's say I have a 13 Ego and my teammate has a 15. We both get hit with a 12d6 Mind Control. It beats the average and rolls 43(!). I'm at Ego +30 and he isn't. That's significant. If the command was Ego +20, my breakout roll is at -2 and his is at -1. That's also significant. Will there always be a major, or even any, difference? No, probably not. But it cost 2 points - it should have some value, but not overwhelming value. Ego does. CON does. INT does not.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Well' date=' it's rare, but not unheard of. One twentieth of one percent of the world's population is still three and a half million people. Since PCs are (generally) exceptional individuals, rarity is not a concern.[/quote']

You are aware that half of them are on the lower half of the scale? The problem is, that IQ is no rating like Lifting weight. It's a scale. it starts at point a and ends at point b. It can't work as it does now when there are 5-50 INT superhumans around. Most likely, they are excluded from the comparsion. Or the get their own scale. And even a SHIQ of 130 can mean a lot then.

 

No? Let's say I have a 13 Ego and my teammate has a 15. We both get hit with a 12d6 Mind Control. It beats the average and rolls 43(!). I'm at Ego +30 and he isn't. That's significant. If the command was Ego +20' date=' my breakout roll is at -2 and his is at -1. That's also significant. Will there always be a major, or even any, difference? No, probably not. But it cost 2 points - it should have some value, but not overwhelming value. Ego does. CON does. INT does not.[/quote']

Does it have a significant value? And is this Value even in the area of 1% difference? When you want to, I can give you the numbers and even the java sourcecode that calculated them.

If yes, then INT has no value in the Breakpoints wich means....well, what does it mean in the first place? It's just a fact and you can take it or ignore it entirely.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Does it have a significant value? And is this Value even in the area of 1% difference? When you want to, I can give you the numbers and even the java sourcecode that calculated them.

If yes, then INT has no value in the Breakpoints wich means....well, what does it mean in the first place? It's just a fact and you can take it or ignore it entirely.

 

It has more value than adding 2 to INT 13 to get to INT 15, which has been the entire point of this discussion.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

You are aware that half of them are on the lower half of the scale?

 

Yes. 0.05% of 7,000,000,000 is 3,500,000. Top end, bottom end, clustered in the middle - the number doesn't change.

 

The problem is, that IQ is no rating like Lifting weight. It's a scale. it starts at point a and ends at point b. It can't work as it does now when there are 5-50 INT superhumans around. Most likely, they are excluded from the comparsion. Or the get their own scale. And even a SHIQ of 130 can mean a lot then.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm aware of the problems with real-world intelligence tests, but I think they're outside the scope of this discussion.

[Balabanto]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

In my setting, 20 is a hard cap on human characteristic maximum. Anything over 20 automatically puts you into the paranormal category, and you have to explain in the background writeup how it was gotten. SPD max is 4, and many paranormals have just a 3. COM 20 is a beauty queen that virtually everyone agrees is amazing. Less than this and you can still be amazing to some people (but the proportion that think so falls) or you can be considered nice to everyone. IQ=INTx10 as a rule of thumb. But, INT isn't just intelligence, it is also ability to use it fast, and in new ways. My Reed Richards would likely have INT in the 25-30 category. The closest I have to Tony Stark probably has an INT of 18, and much of that is due to his ability to come up with new ideas, not raw brain power.

 

I can handle any pre-determined level as a hard normal maximum, but I really want all the prime characteristics to have the same maximum. If no human in real life can lift more than what a STR 20 allows, then all maxima should be 20. If INT is going to be defined as IQx5, and therefore 40 is possible, then the strength chart should be reworked so that 40 strength is pretty close to the world weightlifting record. And I fully admit, I can't think of a single good reason why the maxima should all have the same value, other than it just feels right to me.

 

AGREED! And repped.

[Balabanto]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

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

 

I don't know what kind of world you run, but most straight men who aren't too intelligent think with their shvantz. For getting information, this is better than having the right skill set. You don't even need Charm/Persuade/Seduction if your PC's can ROLEPLAY through it.

 

The reward of good roleplaying notwithstanding, the logical consequence of Alicia Keys batting her eyelashes at Joe Moron and saying "Joe, tell me where the bad guys are" shouldn't require a roll, because a 10 INT is AVERAGE.

 

I tend to treat IQ as a straight x10 modifier. This means Albert Einstein is a genius with about INT 18, and characters with superhuman intelligence are fairly superhuman. 23 is ungodly brilliant, and above that is possible insanity.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

First of all 10 is not average for humans, 8 is. 10 is the starting value for PCs. Secondly, someone being pretty, even strikingly beautiful, does not, in any way, equal any man with average intelligence will tell them whatever they want to know without so much as a interaction skill role. 26 COM has absolutely no comparison to a 12d6 Mind Control unless you are so far into house rule territory that it's not worth trying to have a discussion based on the rules.

[Balabanto]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Yes, and they changed that rule for some insane reason that I can't even begin to fathom. None of the numbers change.

 

As for that "Make your skill roll?" thing? Common sense dictates that you don't need to roll dice every time you do something unless the situation REQUIRES it. Now you're rules lawyering role playing instead of role playing and using the rules. THE GM determines when a roll is required, not the rules, at least the last time I checked the rules.

 

This never WAS a discussion based on the rules. It's all based on how people look at comliness, which people look at differently, which was the entire point of my argument. And you just proved it! Without me needing to say another word.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Note: all added emphasis via bolding or underlining in quotes is mine, not present in the original.

 

I don't know what kind of world you run, but most straight men who aren't too intelligent think with their shvantz. For getting information, this is better than having the right skill set. You don't even need Charm/Persuade/Seduction if your PC's can ROLEPLAY through it.

 

The reward of good roleplaying notwithstanding, the logical consequence of Alicia Keys batting her eyelashes at Joe Moron and saying "Joe, tell me where the bad guys are" shouldn't require a roll, because a 10 INT is AVERAGE.

 

Thank you for striking to the heart of the matter.

 

Or at least, the heart of something I've been thinking about.

 

Opale said something I think is similar.

 

Ok guys, I tried to resist but I have to give my point about use of Comeliness/Straiking Appearance in RPG.

 

AS a player, I tend to make my characters as beautiful as possible, just because I use to...

But behind the pleasure of playing a beautiful character, there is a reality.

 

I am known in RL to be a real cutie, tough not a beautiful (ie model like ) woman. And I have no shame to say I use it when I wish or need to.

 

And when you talk about beautiful people, you are really into a Striking Appearance setting, BECAUSE physical beauty doesn't give you only easiness to charm persons. It is a real tool to impress or intimidate person that don't know you.

 

How many girl/friends of mine that were beautiful ever pestered because no guy were brave enough to flirt with them.

been beautiful is that too : you can be intimidating because you make normal people feel less than they are. Sad, but real.

So, Attractiveness is largely PART of a character, and not only for romantic settings.

 

On the other hand, Striking Appearance could be used on the negative part too, to make a character really ugly and give him bonus on Intimidation/Fear and such.

 

And then there is this other thing : when you are beautiful, people of your gender usually dislike you. The bonus come then as a malus.

 

I'll add that been naturally beautiful works on your moods and personality : the world you live in isn't the same than for normal people. You have far more success that an average guy, and it can mke you become really a bitch or a lonely person, because beauty is a real Difference too.

 

Opale

 

Beauty Salon of the HeroGames forum.

 

Consider the title of the thread. And consider these posts.

 

, it is omitted; not because we imagine the women as any less attractive, but because we don't want to spend the points for it to be an actual "power" or have any functional affect.

 

Now that you comment the Appearance of superheroine, here is my opinion :

In comics all superwomen are hotties because they are dressed with spandex or latex;

 

And you CAN'T permit yourself to have ugly bulges or fat when you do wear such costumes.

So yes Superwomen DO PRACTICE alot of sport.

 

(Note – I think Opale is the only female posting in this thread)

 

When the superhuman women were written up for 6th, I was just surprised to see that Sapphire and Talisman were the two best-looking women in the Champions Universe and two master villainesses like Istvatha and Gravitar became plain, at least in game mechanics terms.

 

I honestly can't tell you who has a higher COM between Wonder Woman, She-Hulk, Power Girl and Black Widow. They are all stunningly gorgeous to me.

 

I can tell you my personal preferences, which would influence my decisions and are probably quite different from yours..

 

 

Figuring out who's smarter, da Vinci or Einstein is probably about as futile an argument as who's hotter, Megan Fox or Scarlett Johansson (I'm sure someone will barge in shortly to state that Megan and ScarJo are in fact both ugly twigs or some such...)

 

I think the Skills have way more than just atractiveness. They are about presentation.

Just think about the science/bookworm women before and after she takes of the glasses and unties her hair.

Does the women change? No.

Does the Presentation of the woman change? Hell, yes.

 

So Striking Apereance is also that you are able and willing to use your "most beautifull women alive" power in the nessesary ways.

 

Your “most beautiful woman alive” power. Is there a possible “most beautiful man alive?” power?

 

Someone mentioned "The fairest one in the land." What is a reasonable maximum for Striking Appearance that has been seen in the comics?

 

I would submit that Power Girl and Wonder Woman are the two most physically attractive women in comics that I know. Assuming that a portion of their presence comes from good looks and sex appeal, I think they hit the +4/+4d6 level when assigning Striking Appearance benchmarks.

 

I'd say the Playboy Centerfold level is somewhere around 25.

 

I'm starting to wonder if what's missed isn't COMeliness in general, but COM scores for human or humanlike attractive females.

 

Consider this:

 

To the actual question, it seems that the translation from COM to Perk has resulted in less characters having their physical appearance addressed in their writeups. I would suggest that this means a character described as a shy, bookish plain Jane and one described as a sizzling sexpot should both be treated exactly the same in the game unless one has purchased Striking Appearance, or some other appearance-based mechanic. They are functionally identical for game purposes, so they should be exactly as likely to distract a male guard, precisely as likely to get a car to pull over by showing some leg, and a male seeking companionship should be precisely as likely to approach each of them. That's why we got rid of COM, right?

 

When discussing the impact (or not) of attractiveness, it seems we go right for sex appeal, and specifically, for a female appealing to a male.

 

Even if we're discussing Striking Appearance rather than COMeliness, well...

 

Wonder Woman has all around high Presence though so her Striking Appearance modifier would be lower (because there's less of a divergence between how impressed people are with her and how impressed people with the right sexual orientation are.) Most versions of Cat Woman run on sex appeal.

 

Or consider this

 

I'm using Striking Appearance and have zero problem with it. As for the women brought up in the original post...based on their pictures in CKC...Gravitar would have no levels of Striking Apperance anyways...the picture is butt ugly....Mentalla on the other hand' date=' I'd give 2 levels based on Storn's sexy picture of her[/b']. .......

 

But it hasn't ALL been men sitting around passing judgment on the attractiveness of women.

 

out of curiosity' date=' how do the men-folk fare?[/quote']

 

Although I didn't see anyone answer Enforcer's question. And

 

Captain America could totally look hotter than Batman...

 

 

 

 

what??

 

Yes, Hermit was discussing the attractiveness of Captain American and Batman – but I think his last word “What???” speaks volumes. Beauty in women is serious business; beauty in men is “just kidding!”

 

Based on this post

 

 

First I want to address the "realism" aspect someone brought up or the "what I find attractive someone else doesn't" syndrome. We have to remember that this is a game meant to simulate an Action/Adventure setting. Think about the A-Team, did women ever find Faceman ugly? No, he got whoever he wanted whenever he wanted (with some rare exceptions). It's a staple of the genre, and that's what I used (use) COM to represent.

 

Nexus does seem to be taking male visual attractiveness seriously.

 

Also, dmjalund was, I think, trying to point out the same thing I'm trying to point out here

 

You made the assumption that the guard was male - and straight.

 

Not just the assumption of the guard as male; there's also the assumption of the distraction as female.

 

I think Christopher was acknowledging and amplifying dmjalund's point

 

Or Bisexual. Or Metrosexual. And not Asexual towards women (he can still feel love for them, but their body isn't that interesting).

 

Of course, the "shirtless Construction worker" could work for female guards.

 

These exceptions aside, I am starting to wonder to what extent most of us (myself not excluded) have been thinking with our

 

Stretching 1" (5 Base & Active) Very Limited Body Parts (-1) No Noncombat Stretch (-1/4) Always Direct (-1/4) Restrainable (Turn it off by turning him off) (-1/4) No Velocity Damage (-1/4) Side Effects: Int Drain (-1/2) Limited Power: Less than one hex Stretch (-1/4) Limited Power: Refractory Period (Must wait between activations) (-3/4) Real Cost: 1

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What would COMeliness mean to a palindromedary?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Yes, and they changed that rule for some insane reason that I can't even begin to fathom. None of the numbers change.

 

As for that "Make your skill roll?" thing? Common sense dictates that you don't need to roll dice every time you do something unless the situation REQUIRES it. Now you're rules lawyering role playing instead of role playing and using the rules. THE GM determines when a roll is required, not the rules, at least the last time I checked the rules.

 

This never WAS a discussion based on the rules. It's all based on how people look at comliness, which people look at differently, which was the entire point of my argument. And you just proved it! Without me needing to say another word.

Nothing about my post proves your point. Using roleplaying instead of interaction skills does not explain someone with in the normal levels of beauty (and COM 26 is under the 30 baseline for "super") magically getting anything they want. It still does not compare to Mind Control in any conceivable way. If your group uses roleplay interaction instead of interaction Skills, cool, more power to you, but then I'd argue the success came just as much, if not more, from good roleplaying the seduction/persuasion than it did from the high COM level...

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

It has more value than adding 2 to INT 13 to get to INT 15' date=' which has been the entire point of this discussion.[/quote']

Then don't put the two points into INT.

 

...unless you are so far into house rule territory that it's not worth trying to have a discussion based on the rules.

From what I heard and see here, I'd say he is so far out that he can't see the "Land of Rules" anymore.

 

Lucius makes a point here: This is a thread for men, about womens atractiveness. And frankly, the OP and Title says exactly that. So perhaps the entire COM-debate was never about COM, but how we gamers view women?

Especially those we play?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

 

These exceptions aside, I am starting to wonder to what extent most of us (myself not excluded) have been thinking with our

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What would COMeliness mean to a palindromedary?

 

You're funny.

 

I think Steve's original post has some merit, that the conversions from 5-6 may have dropped the ball a bit. (In regards to both Appearance/COM and other spots - DEX and the alleged decoupling of former figured characteristics being my other favorites to grumble about)

 

Conversely, I totally can see Steve (Long)'s line of reasoning for the changes he made from 5-6e. And he owns the game, not me.

But, I own the campaigns I've played in and when Steve(Long) and I disagree, at my table he loses.

 

These discussions are fun and for the most part, the crazy is usually awesome.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Then don't put the two points into INT.

 

 

From what I heard and see here, I'd say he is so far out that he can't see the "Land of Rules" anymore.

 

Lucius makes a point here: This is a thread for men, about womens atractiveness. And frankly, the OP and Title says exactly that. So perhaps the entire COM-debate was never about COM, but how we gamers view women?

Especially those we play?

 

Possibly. But I doubt it.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Possibly. But I doubt it.

Because you are willing to play a women with COM 10? (asuming you play with 5E or reimplemented COM)

[Markdoc]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Lucius makes a point here: This is a thread for men, about womens atractiveness. And frankly, the OP and Title says exactly that. So perhaps the entire COM-debate was never about COM, but how we gamers view women?

Especially those we play?

 

Alas, that hypothesis hits the rock of "It's important to the players in my group, half of whom are female" and sinks. So no, that ain't it. Further counter-evidence is that females playing male characters, males playing male characters, males laying female characters* and females playing female characters, have all, at times shown interest in COM for both PC and NPC, so it does not seem to have any clear gender bias. With the possible exception of * where I have noticed a tendency to higher COM scores.

 

My own experience is that it's important to games (and thus gamers) where social interaction plays a major role. That's borne out to some extent by the fact that in our supers games, which were mostly beating up bad guys, COM was never really an issue, and where Mind Control was a superior substitute for a hot bod and a nice smile. However, it did become something people spent points on - the same people, I should note - when we played heroic level games, where social interaction became a much bigger part of the game.

 

Looking at the comments here and in previous threads, that seems to be borne out. The people who confidently (and wrongly) state "Costs noting, does nothing" or "There are no rules for it" seem to be mostly gamers who focus more on the combat aspect of the game.

 

cheers, Mark

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Is there a possible “most beautiful man alive?” power?

 

Money?

 

Beauty in women is serious business; beauty in men is “just kidding!”

 

"Narcissism" Analyze Self (physical appearance) is the new COM for men.

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

You are aware that half of them are on the lower half of the scale?

 

I find that hard to believe. Do you have a source? nm... I found one. It turns out 2.5% of the population possesses 100% of the worlds' intelligence!!! The other 97.5% is completely late for school!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

 

 

 

~ Mister E (The Incommensurable Hunk)

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I find that hard to believe. Do you have a source? nm... I found one. It turns out 2.5% of the population possesses 100% of the worlds' intelligence!!! The other 97.5% is completely late for school!

Well, simple: 95% of the people are in the range from 70 to 130. The scale goes lower and higher than that. So:

2.5% are 69 or lower

2.5% are 131 or more

Asuming a world population of 6.000.000.000, there are 150.000.000 in either area.

With a world population of 7.000.000.000, there would be 175.000.000 in either area.

 

Wierd, still way more than Indiana calculated.

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Well, simple: 95% of the people are in the range from 70 to 130. The scale goes lower and higher than that. So:

2.5% are 69 or lower

2.5% are 131 or more

Asuming a world population of 6.000.000.000, there are 150.000.000 in either area.

With a world population of 7.000.000.000, there would be 175.000.000 in either area.

 

Wierd, still way more than Indiana calculated.

 

Yeah... I was talking about the "percentage" of the pop in terms of brain to body mass... which is 1/40. Note the link I provided. sry for wasting your time.

 

Edit: honestly, your statement, "You are aware that half of them are on the lower half of the scale?" was so intuitively obvious (and funny), I tried to make it wrong (like Lex going after Superman).

 

"I felt like destroying something beautiful." ~Fight Club

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I don't know what kind of world you run' date=' but most straight men who aren't too intelligent think with their shvantz. For getting information, this is better than having the right skill set. You don't even need Charm/Persuade/Seduction if your PC's can ROLEPLAY through it. [/quote']

 

If the character in question, male or female, has a 26 COM, a 13 PRE and no actual social skills, then they are not ROLEPLAYING if they consider their character is irresistibly charming, persuasive or seductive. Such a character would have the skills to back that up. They SHOULD be roleplaying a guy or a gal who is all flash and no substance. And their GM SHOULD be enforcing that. Yes, a 26 is very good looking. Maybe it opens some doors.

 

Would you allow a character with a 26 PRE to open the same doors by impressing the doorman? Or a 26 INT character to trick his way by. Or a 26 STR character to bull his way through, or a 26 DEX to nimbly slip in? No?

 

Then why does a 26 COM have such a huge impact when no other stat at the same level would come close? Could it be the problem is YOUR thinking, which you are projecting on to the rest of the world?

 

Now, I'd allow that gorgeous, but vacuous, bubblehead to titter and bat her eyelashes, and roll a complementary COM roll (14-). Maybe she rolls an 8, and gets +3 to her Interaction Skill (which, since she has none, is an Everyman 8-) to get in the door. Maybe, assuming no penalties (the doorman is supposed to let good-looking people in anyway), that 11- will do the trick. But if he's guarding the door to Don delaDon's Mobster Master Meeting, there are probably a lot more penalties on that roll, and an 11- isn't going to do it.

 

By the way, a 10 COM and an actual 3 point investment in an interaction skill would have provided an 11- complementary roll (still gets +1) and a 12- base roll, for a 13- instead of an 11- in my first example. Who's more likely to get in?

 

The reward of good roleplaying notwithstanding' date=' the logical consequence of Alicia Keys batting her eyelashes at Joe Moron and saying "Joe, tell me where the bad guys are" shouldn't require a roll, because a 10 INT is AVERAGE.[/quote']

 

So if a good looking lady bats her eyelashes at a typical male clerk, she gets her groceries for free? A hot chick at the car dealership gets handed the keys? Anyone with great looks at your table gets extra CP and can override your house rules? I think you vastly overstate the case for the benefits of good looks.

 

I tend to treat IQ as a straight x10 modifier. This means Albert Einstein is a genius with about INT 18' date=' and characters with superhuman intelligence are fairly superhuman. 23 is ungodly brilliant, and above that is possible insanity.[/quote']

 

So, to compare another stat which has the same cost, would this means Ah Nold or Ferrigno (at their peak) are world-class bodybuilders and weightlifters with about STR 18, and characters with superhuman strength are fairly superhuman. 23 is ungodly strong, and above that is possible insanity?

 

As for that "Make your skill roll?" thing? Common sense dictates that you don't need to roll dice every time you do something unless the situation REQUIRES it. Now you're rules lawyering role playing instead of role playing and using the rules. THE GM determines when a roll is required' date=' not the rules, at least the last time I checked the rules. [/quote']

 

So that means every action that it is remotely in character for my character to succeed with is an autowin at your table? If my character has a 26 INT, does he just invent superweapons, puzzle out alien tech, figure out the (13 INT) bad guys plans and get rich off new patents, no rolls or point investment required? I think the problem is YOU attaching too much weight to COM.

 

This never WAS a discussion based on the rules. It's all based on how people look at comliness' date=' which people look at differently, which was the entire point of my argument. And you just proved it! Without me needing to say another word.[/quote']

 

I believe this is a discussion of the RULES for COM. You are glad to see COM gone, not because the rules created a problem, but because your unique interpretation of COM, which was not remotely consistent with the rules, created a problem. If I decide that anyone with a decent STR can KO anyone with a single punch (because, wow, a 26 STR is Superhumanly Strong), then complain that STR is overpowered, will you agree we should get rid of STR?

 

Nothing about my post proves your point. Using roleplaying instead of interaction skills does not explain someone with in the normal levels of beauty (and COM 26 is under the 30 baseline for "super") magically getting anything they want. It still does not compare to Mind Control in any conceivable way. If your group uses roleplay interaction instead of interaction Skills' date=' cool, more power to you, but then I'd argue the success came just as much, if not more, from good roleplaying the seduction/persuasion than it did from the high COM level...[/quote']

 

And I would add that, if the character lacks seduction/persuasion skills, roleplaying as if the character has them at a stellar level is poor role playing meriting a penalty, not good roleplaying which should be rewarded. Of course, if your house rule says "Don't bother buying interaction abilities - success at such tasks will be decided by player skill, not character skill", then the skills on the character sheet don't matter. But don't complain when I want you, the player, to show me how your 29 DEX martial artist character does that triple backflip flowing into a shoulder roll coming up in a double kick to the opponent's midsection and nimbly flipping to his feet. After all, at THIS table, we adjudicate success based on your role playing, not your roll playing, right?

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I'm of the opinion that INT is merely a measure of one's ability to provide correct answers to questions. Like... e.g., Q: What do I have in my pocket?

 

A:

Not Nothing!

 

 

 

edit:

 

Anyone with great looks at your table gets extra CP and can override your house rules?

 

yes. wait... no. No, because that is the new house rule.