6th edition

[MrAgdesh]

Re: 6th edition

 

Perhaps the biggest argument I have seen to play 6th over 5th is that Figured Characteristics are now decoupled. However; in 5th, if you want to play a character say, with a low DEX that is still combat effective can't you just take skill levels?

 

I own the 6th ed core books and also just about every 5th ed book printed. Presently, I'm not seeing enough to make me want to make the change, or importantly, put my players through it. Some of them have had bad experiences with multiple versions of other systems and become sceptical of new editions.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6th edition

 

Perhaps the biggest argument I have seen to play 6th over 5th is that Figured Characteristics are now decoupled. However; in 5th, if you want to play a character say, with a low DEX that is still combat effective can't you just take skill levels?

 

I own the 6th ed core books and also just about every 5th ed book printed. Presently, I'm not seeing enough to make me want to make the change, or importantly, put my players through it. Some of them have had bad experiences with multiple versions of other systems and become sceptical of new editions.

If you try to make up the difference with Skill Levels in 5th your character will be underpowered (possibly drastically so), or much more expensive, compared to someone who simply bought the Dex.

[MrAgdesh]

Re: 6th edition

 

If you try to make up the difference with Skill Levels in 5th your character will be underpowered (possibly drastically so)' date=' or much more expensive, compared to someone who simply bought the Dex.[/quote']

 

What you are describing here seems to be more a problem of players min-maxing than decoupling characteristics. " It's more cost effective to buy DEX so I'll buy that". What about their character conception?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: 6th edition

 

What you are describing here seems to be more a problem of players min-maxing than decoupling characteristics. " It's more cost effective to buy DEX so I'll buy that". What about their character conception?

 

What about it? Why should they be punished for their character conception by forcing them to spend more points to get the same level of effectiveness than someone with a different character conception?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th edition

 

In YOUR opinion Dex was underpriced- I and others liked it just fine.

 

I found it a bug I could live with, but was far from thrilled with it. I leaned, at least initially, to fixing the pricing of primary stats and figured characteristics, and with the change in pricing of STUN, REC and END, I believe that Figured's could be made to work. But, to fix them, the cost of Primaries needed to exceed the cost of the related Secondaries they provided, by enough to support the value of abilities gained that were not purchased separately, and "No Figured" had to reduce the cost of the primary by the cost of the Secondary.

 

My views on the dropping of Figured's changed for two reasons. First, if we're making the math work anyway, repricing the Primaries to their cost without Figured's gets the same result in a more straigfhtforward structure. Second, while STR, CON and BOD could all be fixed, and EGO probably as well, there was no chance of making DEX work unless it became a 5 or 6 point characteristic. That, or making OCV and DCV, in particular, carry a trivial cost for their benefits. The discussion on DEX vs Skill Levels below highlights the fact that DEX was not appropriately priced for its mechanical benefits.

 

To me, one of the most significant 6e changes, behind the scenes, was the full implementation of getting what you pay for, and decoupling abilities, so characters buy exactly those abilities they envision characters to have. So no more tangential added damage from half a dozen powers - instead, buy the added attacks if you envision that as something your character can do. And no more figured characteristics.

 

Ultimately, a matter of opinion, I agree. But your opinion is no more "The One True Way" than mine, or Tasha's, or Steve Long's.

 

What's more' date=' it had been that way for 5 editions of the game and should have stayed the same[/quote']

 

But people have always eaten people - what else is there to eat?

 

The whole point of a new edition is to examine what works and what doesn't, and make changes, hopefully for the better. Whether I agree with every change or not, or whether there are other changes I would have made, I find 6e an improvement. What prevents you from continuing to cost characters under the 5e model, if that's your desire? Hero, at all editions, is far more reverse compatible than most games. Try bringing your 2e D&D character into 3e, or 3e into 4e. I suspect you will find moving a Hero character up through the editions a much more viable process.

 

in 5th 9 points (tops' date=' depending on where your DEX is, 6 points may do it) drops your OCV, DCV, and reduces your DEX order by 3. To do the same thing in 6th takes 16 points. As far as Change Environment vs Drain, don't get hung up on the example, focus on the point.[/quote']

 

This is an outgrowth of the fact that DEX, granting CV, was undercosted. If adding to it was too cheap, then so was taking it away. A DEX Drain was a hugely effective ability in 5e. For 60 points (the standard attack in many Supers games), I could Drain 4d6 DEX at range (BTW, have you factored Range into your math? Drain is now ranged by default, remember). That averaged a roll of 14, or water it down with standard effect to 12. This dropped DEX 4 points (would have been 6 if we decoupled Speed), so every phase, the target's OCV and DCV drops 1. A small change in relative CV has a material impact on hitting and being hit.

 

That's the another thing that really bugged me' date=' (the first being turning some seemingly random game mechanic to a real world measurement for no logical reason), the decision to call it 400 points including 50 points in complications. That's just needlessly confusing and makes no real sense. You're really given 400 points, you're given 350 and have to "earn" the other 50, so why not just say it that way?[/quote']

 

Another way to say it is that every character has 75 points of complications. You also have 400 points to spend on advantageous abilities. If you choose, you can spend some of them on Reduced Complications.

 

"200 + Disadvantages" has not been accurate since the total disadvantages were capped - virtually no one built characters below the cap anyway. I find the change in phrasing pretty neutral, overall, but I see its rationale.

 

Perhaps the biggest argument I have seen to play 6th over 5th is that Figured Characteristics are now decoupled. However; in 5th' date=' if you want to play a character say, with a low DEX that is still combat effective can't you just take skill levels? [/quote']

 

If you try to make up the difference with Skill Levels in 5th your character will be underpowered (possibly drastically so)' date=' or much more expensive, compared to someone who simply bought the Dex.[/quote']

 

What you are describing here seems to be more a problem of players min-maxing than decoupling characteristics. " It's more cost effective to buy DEX so I'll buy that". What about their character conception?

 

Why should one character conception gain a mechanical advantage in a point buy system. Here's a simple illustration. We have two identical characters. They are SuperSoldiers, the best trained combatant in the world, and have a 12 OCV and a 12 DCV. One follows conception, and has an above average, but still human, DEX of 14. He gets a 5 OCV and a 5 DCV. He must make up the other 7 points using skill levels. The second has a DEX of 35 (modifying his conception to add a Super Soldier Serum which enhanced his reflexes to Superhuman levels). He paid [35 - 14 = 21] x 3 = 63 points for DEX, less 21 points saved on Speed = 42.

 

The "normal human" pays 35 points for 7 CSL's to add to his DCV (which don't work as often as base DCV). +7 OCV is harder to define, but let's say All Combat levels (8 points), limited to Only OCV. We'll be as or more generous as any GM I've seen and price that at -1, so 28 more points. That's 63 points so far. He pays 21 points more, has CV that works less effectively, acts later in initiative order and has poorer DEX skills. He needs 20 more points in skill levels to get 1 DEX roll to the level of all of his comparable's skill rolls, so that's anothe 20 points.

 

The SerumSoldier is already superior, and he gets 41 more points to play with. We'll use 15 to add +2 DC's to his main attack at no END cost, 10 to add 1 SPD and 16 to add +8 PD and +8 ED. That 41 points is over 10% of the total points available - it's not a minor expenditure for character flavour.

 

The SerumSoldier is clearly superior in all respects. Why? I thought the whole purpose of a point buy system, with my maximum points strictly capped, no exceptions, was to build balanced characters. Further, I thought Hero divorced mechanics from special effects. These two characters seem to indicate the Special Effect of "Superhuman DEX" has a significant mechanical advantage over "Highly Trained Normal". That is a flaw in the system, in my eyes. We get around it by building characters with DEX (and often SPD) beyond what their concept should allow, or by only having concepts that justify 'Superhuman Reflexes". In the source material, it's the trained normals that other Supers look at and think "Wow, he's fast/agile/whatever", but in Hero, walking piles of rock are more agile than Olympic gymnasts. Decoupling DEX so it's not the sole means of cost-effective (read as "not punitively to prohibitively expensive") combat effectiveness is, to me, a massive system enhancement.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: 6th edition

 

In YOUR opinion Dex was underpriced- I and others liked it just fine.

 

In 5E, 18 points spent on DEX gave you 41 points worth of stuff. The fact that you liked the bargain doesn't mean it wasn't a bargain.

 

What's more' date=' it had been that way for 5 editions of the game and should have stayed the same[/quote']

 

By this logic, no editions after the 1st should ever have been done. Everything changed later had previously been some other way for every previous edition of the game.

[Clonus]

Re: 6th edition

 

What you are describing here seems to be more a problem of players min-maxing than decoupling characteristics. " It's more cost effective to buy DEX so I'll buy that". What about their character conception?

 

My character conception is not "ineffective".

[danbuter1]

Re: 6th edition

 

I have to dispute this.

 

There is justice in saying that 6th edition takes two books to do what 5th edition did in one, but not in claiming it takes THREE. The Advanced Player's Guide does not, in my opinion, really correspond to anything in 5th edition and is just what it's title implies, a lot of optional add-ons or suggested variants. It has things like the Possession Power (combining aspects of Mind Control, Telepathy, etc) that aren't in 5th edition at all.

 

 

Except that the Champions book references the APG, and kind of assumes you have it. Which was a dumb mistake, IMO.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition

 

Except that the Champions book references the APG' date=' and kind of assumes you have it. Which was a dumb mistake, IMO.[/quote']

 

I have to admit that I don't have the Champions book (for any edition later than the 1st) so I can't speak authoritatively about that.

 

But I was responding to a claim that 6th edition needs 3 books to do what 5th edition did in one, and I stand by my assertion that this claim is unjustified. 6th edition needs 2 books to do what 5th did in one, and needs 3 books to do MORE than 5th did in one.

 

If you want to drag in the Champions book, then 4th edition needed 1 book (Rules + superhero stuff all in one volume,) 5th needed 2 books (Hero Rules + Champions,) and 6th needs 3 - and needs 4 only if the Champions book actually references the Advanced Players Guide constantly and you actually do need it to make use of the Champions book. Frankly I doubt that, but since I don't have the Champions book I could be wrong.

 

I DO have the Advanced Player's Guide, and I don't recall seeing anything in there that would be absolutely vital to playing a superhero game. Useful, yes, but not necessary.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

A palindromedary is not required

[Checkmate]

Re: 6th edition

 

What you are describing here seems to be more a problem of players min-maxing than decoupling characteristics. " It's more cost effective to buy DEX so I'll buy that". What about their character conception?

 

Dude you're relatively new here, so take it from a guy who's been on your side, step away from this argument, nothing good can come from it.

[fbdaury]

Re: 6th edition

 

In 5E, 18 points spent on DEX gave you 41 points worth of stuff. The fact that you liked the bargain doesn't mean it wasn't a bargain.

 

 

 

By this logic, no editions after the 1st should ever have been done. Everything changed later had previously been some other way for every previous edition of the game.

 

Actually- no. All the changes made from editions 1-5 were enhancements or alterations of the existing system (with one or two minor exceptions) and were also all done or implemented by those that actually CREATED the hero system. I might not have liked all the changes made but as they were the creators, I recognized that it was their sandbox to alter as they saw fit. If Steve was so opposed to the way the system ran then he should have developed his own system that worked the way he felt it should, instead of massively altering the existing Hero system (and while some may think that removing Com and decoupling figured chars isn't that big a change, I disagree- these were fundamental elements of the system from the start and chnaging them is more than a 'cosmetic' or 'accounting' change IMO).

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition

 

Dude you're relatively new here' date=' so take it from a guy who's been on your side, step away from this argument, nothing good can come from it. [/quote']

 

I don't know about that...maybe something good can come of it. I eventually got at least, I think, a tiny glimmer of understanding of what COM meant to some people.

 

Maybe I can come to understand this, too.

 

 

Here's how I see it.

 

In previous editions, to be combat effective, a high DEX was required. For munchkins who don't care about character conception, the path of optimization was obvious and they had no problem. Those who do care about character concept saw this as punishing some concepts and rewarding others, or even of practically forcing players to build "out of concept" sometimes if they did not want to handicap their characters.

 

They argued for a change and got it. Now we have a system that is more equitable towards a variety of character concepts.

 

And yet, during the discussion before change and now after it, there are those arguing agains the change, or sayng it's unneccessary - not because they are munchkins who were exploiting the system, or saying they liked having what I called "the clear path to optimization" but saying things like "what about character concept" - when encouraging character concept is the very reason for the change and reason some celebrate it.

 

 

I don't get it. If someone says something that does help me get it, I would consider that "something good."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary doesn't get it either.

[fbdaury]

Re: 6th edition

 

While some character concepts may not be penalized now, others clearly are- a martial artist in 5th, with let's say Dex 23 spent 39 points and recieved OCV/DCV 8 as a result of their higher Dex- which is perfectly in conception for someone like Iron Fist, Shang Chi, Karate Kid, etc. They also had a base Spd of 3.3. Now, likely this character would then be bought up to 5 or 6 Spd and would have a few levels of combat skill levels as well. Then you also have your speedsters, your feral type characters, your cybernetically enhanced or wired reflex characters, etc. In many cases these characters had one main advantage over other character types- better speed and chance to hit/avoid being hit, and now they are being shafted, having to spend more points to get that same advantage while those with other power types are having their abilities lowered in cost... seems like a penalization of certain concepts to me.

 

Why should this same character now have to pay 26+50+13-39= 50 more points for no additional effect? How is that not not penalizing a character concept? If you had a character with a Dex 23 in your game that didn't have a valid justification for that level of Dex then it is the fault of the player for min-maxing and the GM for not enforcing concept, not the fault of the system.

[Checkmate]

Re: 6th edition

 

I don't know about that...maybe something good can come of it. I eventually got at least, I think, a tiny glimmer of understanding of what COM meant to some people.

 

Maybe I can come to understand this, too.

 

I'll start by saying I understand the "other" side of the argument. I get it, it's valid, I just don't agree. Hopefully that will stave off any flame wars.

 

The argument is sort of like this: To me concept trumps all. Hammer out your concept and we'll work it from there. If your concept is a trained normal human, like Batman, then you don't get a 32 DEX, you get a 20ish DEX and skill levels. In 5th ed a 32 DEX is cheaper than a 20 DEX and skill levels. My response is "so what" your concept is normal human you get normal human stats.

 

The counter argument is that if the player changes his concept to bitten by radioactive spider, he can now have a 32 DEX and get the same effect for cheaper.

 

A lot of people feel that points should be balanced. Everyone should get the same effect for the same cost. My philosophy is to balance game play. Balancing game play is a much more abstract thing and wholly dependent on the GM. An example of what I'm talking about is if you had Spider-Dude and Training Dude in your game, there would be Power Take Away Man where Spider-Dude is now down to a 10 DEX because his abilities were powers not training. Or one day Spider Dude would wake up with a spider leg for an arm and have to keep his secret ID with that.

 

There are just examples off the top of my head to hopefully help illustrate why it isn't important to me if points are balanced. What it really boils down to in my eyes, is who cares how it's built, as long as it works the way the player wants it to?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: 6th edition

 

Actually- no. All the changes made from editions 1-5 were enhancements or alterations of the existing system (with one or two minor exceptions) and were also all done or implemented by those that actually CREATED the hero system. I might not have liked all the changes made but as they were the creators' date=' I recognized that it was their sandbox to alter as they saw fit. If Steve was so opposed to the way the system ran then he should have developed his own system that worked the way he felt it should[/quote']

 

You don't even know what you're talking about. Only the 1-3rd editions were "done or implemented by those who actually CREATED the hero system." 4th Edition was primarily the work of Rob Bell (not one of the creators) and 5th edition was done by Steve Long (the same Steve Long you're apparently so sore at for 6th edition).

 

instead of massively altering the existing Hero system (and while some may think that removing Com and decoupling figured chars isn't that big a change' date=' I disagree- these were fundamental elements of the system from the start and chnaging them is more than a 'cosmetic' or 'accounting' change IMO).[/quote']

 

I find your take on what are "fundamental" elements of the system to be... odd. Figureds, maybe. Maybe. But Comeliness? C'mon...

[fbdaury]

Re: 6th edition

 

You don't even know what you're talking about. Only the 1-3rd editions were "done or implemented by those who actually CREATED the hero system." 4th Edition was primarily the work of Rob Bell (not one of the creators) and 5th edition was done by Steve Long (the same Steve Long you're apparently so sore at for 6th edition).

 

 

 

Well let's see- HMMM, BBB- hmm by George Macdonald, Steve Peterson, and Rob Bell, Edited by Rob Bell- so, I do know what I'm talking about, and you don't know how to read apparently- when I said IMPLEMENTED by the original creators- Steve Wrote the 5th edition but he was still doing under the former Hero Games ownership at the time, so they had final say on what was changed or included in that edition, not Steve. See, I can be snotty too.

[fbdaury]

Re: 6th edition

 

 

 

 

I find your take on what are "fundamental" elements of the system to be... odd. Figureds, maybe. Maybe. But Comeliness? C'mon...

 

Hmmm, was part of the system from the very beginning, yeah- I must be insane to call it a fundamental game element...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: 6th edition

 

Well let's see- HMMM' date=' BBB- hmm by George Macdonald, Steve Peterson, and Rob Bell, Edited by Rob Bell- so, I do know what I'm talking about, and you don't know how to read apparently- when I said IMPLEMENTED by the original creators- Steve Wrote the 5th edition but he was still doing under the former Hero Games ownership at the time, so they had final say on what was changed or included in that edition, not Steve. See, I can be snotty too.[/quote']

 

How the book credits are presented is not the same thing as who actually did the work. And while Steve was originally tasked with 5th Edition when former Hero Games ownership had control, it was actually published when he had control. So if he wanted to change things in it before its release, he certainly could have.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: 6th edition

 

Hmmm' date=' was part of the system from the very beginning, yeah- I must be insane to call it a fundamental game element... [/quote']

 

By this reasoning, anyone being able to do Killing Damage with their STR was a "fundamental game concept" because it was in the game at the very beginning.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th edition

 

In 5E' date=' 18 points spent on DEX gave you 41 points worth of stuff. The fact that you liked the bargain doesn't mean it wasn't a bargain.[/quote']

 

It means either DEX was a bargain, or the component parts were overpriced. I feel the former is the case, as do you, and that is how 6e has been priced. Another option would have been to lower the cost of DEX (for initiative and skill rolls only), SPD, OCV and DCV so that a 45 point investment would buy 1.5 SPD, +15 Initiative, +5 OCV, +5 DCV and +3 with DEX rolls. Now, to me, that would make those bargain priced, but comparing attacks, defenses, skills and movement costs is a much more subjective matter.

 

Except that the Champions book references the APG' date=' and kind of assumes you have it. Which was a dumb mistake, IMO.[/quote']

 

Steve has indicated any serious gaming group would have a copy of APG. Just like serious D&D groups would have all the PHB's, DMG's and Monster Manuals. You don't need APG OR Champions to play a Supers game using the Hero rules.

 

Actually- no. All the changes made from editions 1-5 were enhancements or alterations of the existing system (with one or two minor exceptions) and were also all done or implemented by those that actually CREATED the hero system. I might not have liked all the changes made but as they were the creators' date=' I recognized that it was their sandbox to alter as they saw fit. If Steve was so opposed to the way the system ran then he should have developed his own system that worked the way he felt it should, instead of massively altering the existing Hero system (and while some may think that removing Com and decoupling figured chars isn't that big a change, I disagree- these were fundamental elements of the system from the start and chnaging them is more than a 'cosmetic' or 'accounting' change IMO).[/quote']

 

Others have noted changes in ownership. Should we have stuck with "every 1/4 advantage halves END", "END cost is 1/5 AP", "No Aid power", all 1st Ed (and some subsequent Ed's) artifacts? Should we praise Steve for removing the STR add limit for KA's? That changed from 1e to 2e. Should we throw out spreading EB's - we didn't have that in 1e. Maybe we should toss Multiple Power Attacks, introduced (or explicitly stated, depending on your side of the fence) for the first time in 5e.

 

If you don't like the changes, don't use them. The Gaming Police won't break down your door and take away your 5e rules.

 

While some character concepts may not be penalized now, others clearly are- a martial artist in 5th, with let's say Dex 23 spent 39 points and recieved OCV/DCV 8 as a result of their higher Dex- which is perfectly in conception for someone like Iron Fist, Shang Chi, Karate Kid, etc. They also had a base Spd of 3.3. Now, likely this character would then be bought up to 5 or 6 Spd and would have a few levels of combat skill levels as well. Then you also have your speedsters, your feral type characters, your cybernetically enhanced or wired reflex characters, etc. In many cases these characters had one main advantage over other character types- better speed and chance to hit/avoid being hit, and now they are being shafted, having to spend more points to get that same advantage while those with other power types are having their abilities lowered in cost... seems like a penalization of certain concepts to me.

 

Why should this same character now have to pay 26+50+13-39= 50 more points for no additional effect?

 

Is that the same 50 points more that was added to starting Supers characters? I don't believe high DEX got shafted. I believe it got leveled down to the rest of the team. High STR also costs more if you want all the perks, as does high CON. Meanwhile, concepts like "A low DEX but a terrific combatant" are actually feasible now - where they were definitely shafted before.

[Tasha]

Re: 6th edition

 

You don't even know what you're talking about. Only the 1-3rd editions were "done or implemented by those who actually CREATED the hero system." 4th Edition was primarily the work of Rob Bell (not one of the creators) and 5th edition was done by Steve Long (the same Steve Long you're apparently so sore at for 6th edition).

 

Taking a look at the afterwords in both Champions 3rd edition and Champions 4th Edition (from the Rules not the sourcebook). 3rd edition seems to be completely written by Steve Peterson and he implies that he did the writing/editing on earlier editions too.

 

In 4th Edition Rob Bell thanks George MacDonald and Steve Peterson for allowing him to do a new edition. Also from the Seminar from the 4th edition release at Pacificon or Dundracon. I seem to remember that George had taken a backseat esp after ICE started to Publish Hero. He was there at the Seminar, hell he signed my 4th ed Champions book

 

All of the Authors and Contributors that have made their mark on the system have done a great job of including the Game's Originators in the credits. Whether they had much any real input or not.

 

6e might have been written by Steve Long, but nearly everything in it was talked to death in the Forums here. Steve then read the 500+ pages of 5 different threads. He also had a council of veteran posters that worked with him on the rules too. So 6e is probably the most crowd sourced version of the rules ever.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th edition

 

6e might have been written by Steve Long' date=' but nearly everything in it was talked to death in the Forums here. Steve then read the 500+ pages of 5 different threads. He also had a council of veteran posters that worked with him on the rules too. So 6e is probably the most crowd sourced version of the rules ever.[/quote']

 

I agree Steve read a lot of posted comments. His use of a group of posters was as a sounding board, though. There was never any question that he set the agenda, and when he had enough input, that issue was done. I'd like to think we helped frame out some issues and options, but I don't thimnk SETAC deserves co-writer credits by any stretch, although Steve's thanks in the forward somewhere was very kind.

[Ndreare]

Re: 6th edition

 

Eitherway I am sure the original poster has been turned off.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition

 

While some character concepts may not be penalized now' date=' others clearly are- [/quote']

 

"Not enjoying an avantage you previously had" is not the same as "being penalized."

 

Why should this same character now have to pay 26+50+13-39= 50 more points for no additional effect? How is that not not penalizing a character concept?

 

How is not penalizing a character concept?

 

Because you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get.

 

As long as that's true for all concepts, then none are penalized, no matter how much one player might yell that his concept deserves free goodies that the other player's concepts don't get.

 

If you had a character with a Dex 23 in your game that didn't have a valid justification for that level of Dex then it is the fault of the player for min-maxing and the GM for not enforcing concept' date=' not the fault of the system.[/quote']

 

And if that character is penalized for the system for staying within concept, that IS the fault of the system and the system needs reform.

 

I'll start by saying I understand the "other" side of the argument. I get it, it's valid, I just don't agree. Hopefully that will stave off any flame wars.

 

The argument is sort of like this: To me concept trumps all. Hammer out your concept and we'll work it from there. If your concept is a trained normal human, like Batman, then you don't get a 32 DEX, you get a 20ish DEX and skill levels. In 5th ed a 32 DEX is cheaper than a 20 DEX and skill levels. My response is "so what" your concept is normal human you get normal human stats.

 

The counter argument is that if the player changes his concept to bitten by radioactive spider, he can now have a 32 DEX and get the same effect for cheaper.

 

A lot of people feel that points should be balanced. Everyone should get the same effect for the same cost. My philosophy is to balance game play. Balancing game play is a much more abstract thing and wholly dependent on the GM. An example of what I'm talking about is if you had Spider-Dude and Training Dude in your game, there would be Power Take Away Man where Spider-Dude is now down to a 10 DEX because his abilities were powers not training. Or one day Spider Dude would wake up with a spider leg for an arm and have to keep his secret ID with that.

 

There are just examples off the top of my head to hopefully help illustrate why it isn't important to me if points are balanced. What it really boils down to in my eyes, is who cares how it's built, as long as it works the way the player wants it to?

 

 

In other words - "Sure, i'ts messed up and not balanced, but I don't care because I'll make it work out somehow in play."

 

No system is perfect, but making the system more balanced in the first place can only help the guy who's trying to balance it during run time. I still don't get why anyone would complain about that.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

the palindromedary should get 100 more points than anyone else, and if you don't agree, you're penalizing it! Help, my palindromedary is being oppressed!

[Tasha]

Re: 6th edition

 

Eithereay I am sure the original poster has been turned off.

 

I think his question was answered in the first few posts. Before all of the 6e hatred entered the thread and set off a terse discussion.

 

It's about like someone hitting the D&D forums and asking whether 4e or 3.5 was a better edition of the rules. I am sure that one would see the same amount of emotion in a thread about that.