6th edition

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6th edition

 

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.

 

Probably true.

 

I wonder if the folks that dislike 'new' editions ever think about the fact that the publishers of those new rules are usually the sponsor of the very forum (at least in HERO's case) that they are posting on.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition

 

Probably true.

 

I wonder if the folks that dislike 'new' editions ever think about the fact that the publishers of those new rules are usually the sponsor of the very forum (at least in HERO's case) that they are posting on.

 

And now, a word from our sponsor

 

Lucius Alexander

 

This post brought to you by Palindromedary Enterprises.

[Greywind]

Re: 6th edition

 

The Gaming Police won't break down your door and take away your 5e rules.

That's not what I heard.

[Christopher]

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']

Another propblem with the Skill level approach: You can do more damage. Even if you don't want to to more damage, you can do mroe damage. So when you want to play a low dex character without the option to increase damage with Combat Skill Levels - you simply have no way.

 

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.

Balacing the characters is the entire point of a game system. It's the job you assign it when playing in the Rules.

 

So everything that improves that ability is an improvement.

 

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

I have seen and heard similar sentences a lot lately, and each of them led to problems. Why? Because they basically say: "You are not worthy to even talk to me about that".

I am not certain who threw the first "me better"-brick here, but any discussion easily devolves into a brick throwing contest once it is said

 

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

I vote that the Forum writes an automatic warning whenever somebody new opens a Thread containing the words 5th and 6th Edition.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6th edition

 

Another propblem with the Skill level approach: You can do more damage. Even if you don't want to to more damage, you can do mroe damage. So when you want to play a low dex character without the option to increase damage with Combat Skill Levels - you simply have no way.

 

Err, actually that is very easily changed with a simple Limitation, which will also lower the cost, in either Edition...

[Balabanto]

Re: 6th edition

 

Actually, the limitation doesn't reduce the values in the correct way. Cannot Deal Damage should be a -1/4 at most, especially with Overall Levels. Being able to raise your DMCV? Fantastic! This has saved my characters and villains tons of mental pain over the years.

 

Mentalists are rare in most of the games I play in. If you have an OMCV or ECV, edition dependent, of higher than 8, it's largely a waste of points.

 

Mentalist: I have to hit a 9? Are you kidding?

 

Me: Well, according to this, he's got a DMCV of 7 and 2 overall levels. You have an OMCV of 8. Roll a 10-.

 

Player: (rolls dice) !@#$!!!!!! 11.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th edition

 

Actually' date=' the limitation doesn't reduce the values in the correct way. Cannot Deal Damage should be a -1/4 at most, especially with Overall Levels. Being able to raise your DMCV? Fantastic! This has saved my characters and villains tons of mental pain over the years. [/quote']

 

I'd say the limitation should be larger for 3 and 5 point levels, which can add OCV, DCV or damage. All Combat levels add OMCV and DMCV into the mix, and Overall levels further add skill rolls into the mix, so you lose a smaller percentage of options when your levels are All Combat or Overall than with more focused combat levels.

[Checkmate]

Re: 6th edition

 

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!

 

Who said anything about 6th being more balanced? Just because it might have gotten closer with one archetype doesn't mean we're all going to bow down and sing praises to it.

 

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

Wow melodramatic much? A couple of people comparing 5th to 6th hardly qualifies as hatred, especially when most of those same people talked about the good things in 6th.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition

 

Who said anything about 6th being more balanced?

 

Everyone who looked at it objectively.

 

I have some issues with how it achieved that balance - there were other ways it could have been done and I would prefer Figured Characteristics to be reformed rather than abolished - but the improvements go far beyond "getting closer with one archetype." The change to Killing Attacks for example brought them into balance (or closer to balance) with Normal Attacks.

 

In any case, we already have your opinion:

 

it isn't important to me if points are balanced.

 

Which is fine, but some of us do care.

 

I have to admit, though, what perplexes me is that you also say

 

What it really boils down to in my eyes' date=' is who cares how it's built, as long as it works the way the player wants it to?[/quote']

 

when the issue seems to be that previously, some players - those whose concepts precluded superhuman DEX for instance, but who still wanted to be effective combatants against superbeings - found that it did NOT work the way they wanted it to, so the system was reformed and now it does work the way they wanted.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

If you really don't care about point balance, the palindromedary would like to take an extra thousand points please

[Vondy]

Re: 6th edition

 

6e is the current version. It brought some very good things to the table. It also introduced a few problems of complexity that diminish the play experience. Decoupling characteristics is something I like. I think the cost of skill levels is a little high, but its a margin call. I also like the regen fix, barrier, and multiple attacks. I dislike the complexity the "clarified" damage calculation explanation has injected into the system. For instance, A damage class is no longer a straight forward thing, but has to be adjusted for certain advantages, which makes Damage Negation a total bear to deal with at play time. DN is a great idea, but unworkable because of the "clarified" assumptions. For me 6e as a system is essentially solid and workable, but some of the added complexity at play time is a very big turn off.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th edition

 

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.

 

Criticism doesn't equal hatred.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th edition

 

...but I don't thimnk SETAC deserves co-writer credits by any stretch' date=' although Steve's thanks in the forward somewhere was very kind.[/quote']

 

Nor were their suggestions the only suggestions by posters that made their way into the books.

[Tasha]

Re: 6th edition

 

Criticism doesn't equal hatred.

Criticism is fine. I would hope that people won't say things that aren't true about 6e (ie needing the APC to play). Anything else about the rules are opinion and opinions can be sorted through by a reader and judged for what rings the truest for the reader. It's up to us doing the discussing to present our sides of the argument in a way that presents our case best. Hopefully using as many facts as we can as well as our experiences.

 

I don't really mind criticism, heck even I don't think that 6e is perfect. You brought up something that I hadn't noticed about 6e and the way DC's are calculated. IMHO Characteristics still probably need some work, but they work better than they did in 5th.

 

I really like a lot of things about 6th. I like the way that Character gen has challenged my assumptions about the "Way Characters Need to be Built".

 

6e isn't perfect, but it's the edition that we have right now and the one that is going to be supported moving forward. Even if Hero isn't doing much in the way of publishing new books, the parties that will be writing books can only publish books for 6e.

 

I dunno. I have liked every edition ever printed and have run games in every edition (inc Fuzion). Each edition has things to like and things to hate. IMHO the things to hate in this edition aren't really worth the effort to change as a house rule. It's far easier to play without a ton of house rules. (though I may make DC work based on raw DC without taking Advantages into consideration).

 

I think that the changes in 6e are a good thing because it makes people look at their assumptions about how powers work. Also in how to build character. I know that people don't really like change, but in the long run I think that decoupling Figureds is going to turn out for the best.

 

I guess I am sick of arguing the Figured Characteristic is bad argument esp when it seems that I can't get an argument that isn't based on emotion and "that's the way we have always done it". Again, I do see the argument that decoupling has nerfed Drains and other adjustment powers. I think that if you wanted an OCV/DCV/SPD/Dex drain one should have to pay for it. Same with a STR/PD/STUN drain. Now people won't take DEX drains because they are the most efficient. They will take the Drain that covers the stuff they really want to be lowered due to the power's conception. Also it will be much easier on new players that won't have to refigure their figured Chars everytime they are Dex/Con or Str drained. I see it as all positive.

 

ie the ice based Dex drain. I would argue that while it's hard to stand on ice, that should a slippery area make me more likely to drop something or make it harder to hit something. I would think that an ice patch would force a Dex roll and that once made I should still be able to shoot normally (heck falling down should make shooting easier). I guess working in a 6e mindset is making me look at power constructs differently. I mostly see Drains as being poisons or diseases, or spells that dampen powers.

[Tasha]

Re: 6th edition

 

Who said anything about 6th being more balanced? Just because it might have gotten closer with one archetype doesn't mean we're all going to bow down and sing praises to it.

 

Wow melodramatic much? A couple of people comparing 5th to 6th hardly qualifies as hatred, especially when most of those same people talked about the good things in 6th.[/color]

 

Getting everyone to an even playing field is what balance is all about. If one archetype gets a bunch of point breaks that aren't available to other archetypes (ie bricks in 5e and earlier) then your system isn't balanced. There were some really good ideas behind figured characteristics, unfortunately the concept was flawed from a game balance point of view. 6e broke the way one had to build characters to be point efficient. That's a good thing. Perhaps there was another way to balance Figureds so they were more fair, but the simplest one that fixed the most problems was eliminating all free secondary characteristics. The only real problem that it has caused is that new players can now build characters that don't take enough End Stun or Defenses, but that's something that can be fixed with education.

 

BTW I have not called anyone in this thread any names. So far I have been characterized as being Melodramatic and as coming into the thread looking for a fight. I can assure you that I wasn't looking to troll the thread (ie start a fight). I do like talking about stuff like this. I find that I learn stuff (ie Vondy's objection to Damage Class calculation). So lets not start getting personal in this thread. If we keep the thread going lets get back to talking about 6e and keep the jabs about one another out of the thread.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th edition

 

Nor were their suggestions the only suggestions by posters that made their way into the books.

 

Sure weren't - I think Steve took the time to read all the input provided - a huge task - and integrated that into 6e, trying to see what could be improved and what could not. It would be interesting to return to his "first thoughts" posts and assess what changed in the course of the actual rewrite, but I do believe he read the comments, even those that ran counter to his initial feelings, with an open mind.