Hero System 5th Edition

[DreadDomain]

4 hours ago, zslane said:

I suppose COM is a bit of a game design anachronism, born out of the desire to break D&D's monolithic CHA characteristic into two more compartmentalized concepts: PRE (personality) and COM (physical appearance). I feel that if you agree in principle that PRE is worth codifying with a number, then there's no logical reason to reject COM.

I see your point but COM was not rejected, It was recodified into Striking Appearance. From a mechanics point of view, COM did not do much in previous editions and I guess the choice Steve faced was to make it relevant, to drop it or to replace it with something relevant. For better or worse he chose the third option. The benefit of COM was that, at a quick glance, you had an idea of the scale of handsomeness of the character but aside from that it wasn't doing much. At least Strike Appearance provides the mechanical effect to which you can attach the special effect you want.

 

EDIT: But none of that has anything to do with the topic, sorry...

[mrinku]

Variable Advantage is also in 4e, basically the same Advantage.

[Hyper-Man]

The halving of the cost of variable advantage when the choices are limited is a limitation on the advantage not the power.

[zslane]

The lower "usefulness" of COM was already encapsulated by its lower cost. Taking COM away and replacing it with a Talent was not a solution to any problem of meaningful magnitude. It was change for change's sake, in my view. Steve absolutely had another choice, which was to just leave COM alone; I kind of feel it is disingenuous to frame this as though Steve just had to make a change, when he really didn't.

[DreadDomain]

53 minutes ago, zslane said:

The lower "usefulness" of COM was already encapsulated by its lower cost. Taking COM away and replacing it with a Talent was not a solution to any problem of meaningful magnitude. It was change for change's sake, in my view. Steve absolutely had another choice, which was to just leave COM alone; I kind of feel it is disingenuous to frame this as though Steve just had to make a change, when he really didn't.

 

" From a mechanics point of view, COM did not do much in previous editions and I guess the choices Steve faced was to ..."

 

Oh, I was certainly unclear. What I meant was that to make COM matters from a mechanics point of Steve had a few options. However, he also had the option of keeping COM as is and not bother about its lack of relevance. As you say, the existence of COM was not causing any problem of meaningful magnitude and from a mechanics perspective, the same can be said about its removal. COM was doing so little that taking it away did not impact the game in any way just as deciding to reintroduce COM in a 6E game would not require any work of any significance because it was not really connected with anything else in the system. From that perspective, it wasn't change for the sake of change but an attempt to have appearance matter if it was the desire of the player.  

 

Now personally I don't have a strong opinion, I rather liked having COM, but I understand why it was morphed into Striking Appearance which serves the same purpose in a mechanically more meaningful way. Would I have been the designer, I most likely would not have taken this route and would have looked at making COM more mechanically relevant instead but since I was not the designer, the point is rather moot.

[zslane]

The Hero System is sort of like a piece of software. With each new version there are going to be changes, but ideally you don't make changes that require your user base to refactor all previous content. Backwards compatibility is important, and most of the 6E changes forced players to refactor all their characters and villains, which is a major PITA and totally unjustified for the dubious benefits most of those changes delivered. To my mind, the removal of COM is a good example of a change that didn't need to be made, wasn't replaced by a clearly superior mechanic, and which made every single character sheet in existence incompatible with the official RAW.

 

It is because of changes like that (of which there are many, in my view) that I have a very difficult time endorsing 6E to players familiar with previous editions, even with the much improved presentation of the Complete books.

[Chris Goodwin]

I wouldn't say COM did nothing.  It did plenty, that just wasn't codified.  It was there to give your normally fluff-only good looks some small bit of mechanical oomph. 

 

For instance, considering 20 COM to be the Normal Characteristic Maximum, COM is exactly twice the "1-10" scale.  

 

COM is also a Characteristic from which one can derive its Characteristic Roll.  There are lots of things for which CHA Rolls aren't necessarily codified; one I recall specifically is in a science fiction game, when gravity shut off suddenly, the GM said "Everyone make a Constitution Roll or vomit."  Quick, easy, and not codified anywhere.  Comeliness was there to be used similarly; in any instance where Striking Appearance would apply in 6e, you could instead make a complementary Comeliness Roll for a potential bonus.  On the other hand, Striking Appearance applies always.  It's essentially an automatic bonus that you never have to roll for.  

 

I recall asking Steve Long once, privately, what his rationale was for making the change.  It was something like, there aren't any codified functions for Comeliness; any non-codified functions it might have would be as the aforementioned complementary Characteristic Roll.  Anything that provides a bonus to other Skills, rather than having its own codified uses (i.e. COM-based Skills) would be considered a Talent.  

 

Fortunately, Comeliness is forward-portable to 6e, and Striking Appearance is backward-portable to 5e.  In Hero Designer, COM can be done as a custom Characteristic, while Striking Appearance can be built as limited PRE.  

[DreadDomain]

18 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I wouldn't say COM did nothing.  It did plenty, that just wasn't codified.  It was there to give your normally fluff-only good looks some small bit of mechanical oomph. 

Yes, that is why I qualified my comment with "from a mechanics perspective".

 

18 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Fortunately, Comeliness is forward-portable to 6e, and Striking Appearance is backward-portable to 5e.  In Hero Designer, COM can be done as a custom Characteristic, while Striking Appearance can be built as limited PRE.  

Absolutely. No effort required!

[DreadDomain]

In my view HERO 6th is the first iteration of the 3rd generation of the system, Champions 1st, 2nd and 3rd being iterations of the first generation and HERO 4th, 5th and 5th Revised of the second.

 

3 hours ago, zslane said:

The Hero System is sort of like a piece of software. With each new version there are going to be changes, but ideally you don't make changes that require your user base to refactor all previous content.

In my view HERO 6th is the first iteration of the 3rd generation of the system, Champions 1st, 2nd and 3rd being iterations of the first generation and HERO 4th, 5th and 5th Revised of the second.

 

3 hours ago, zslane said:

Backwards compatibility is important, and most of the 6E changes forced players to refactor all their characters and villains, which is a major PITA and totally unjustified for the dubious benefits most of those changes delivered. To my mind, the removal of COM is a good example of a change that didn't need to be made, wasn't replaced by a clearly superior mechanic, and which made every single character sheet in existence incompatible with the official RAW.

 

It is because of changes like that (of which there are many, in my view) that I have a very difficult time endorsing 6E to players familiar with previous editions, even with the much improved presentation of the Complete books.

It must be a matter of perspective because this is absolutely not my experience. Transitioning from 5th to 6th as a player, you would certainly have to translate your character (if only because of points and future growth) but as a GM, using a 5th edition character is pretty seamless to me. The changes made in 6th are relevant during character creation because some changes were made for game balance, ease of construction or aesthetics (and I am not saying I like all of them) but for the purpose of reading a character sheet and using it play, the impact is minimal. Some names were changed, priced reworked and some construction mechanics were replaced (EC, Figured Characteristics) but it mostly doesn't matter when it comes to using the sheet. The only translation I can think of is doubling the Inches to get meters.

 

The generational gap between HERO 5th Revised and HERO 6th is fairly minor compared to others. Consider the gap between AD&D 2nd, D&D 3rd, 4th and 5th. Even GURPS, transitioning from 3rd Revised to 4th lost a lot more backward compatibility than HERO did. Some mechanically important concepts disappeared (PD), some figured attributes numerically changed (Dodge, Parry, Block), and the scale of strength was dramatically modified (an elephant in 3rd has ST 300 but in 4th it has ST 45, even more dramatic changes for vehicles). You can easily use a HERO 5th villain in a HERO 6th game. The same cannot be said for different editions of D&D or GURPS.

 

I agree the removal of COM was unnecessary but it was replaced my a superior mechanics if only because COM didn't any really codified (to use Chris term) mechanic behind it. Now is Striking Appearance clearly superior, as you say? Probably not. The net result of having COM or not on the sheet is pretty much inconsequential from a mechanical perspective.

 

Would I have kept COM? Yes.

 

But pretending that the removal of COM is a good example of a change that "made every single character sheet in existence incompatible with the official RAW" is, to use your own expression, disingenuous.

[Ninja-Bear]

I will dare to say that this forum is so helpful that they would even help someone who is playing the Fuzion Rules.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Ninja-Bear
Fixed a stupid spelling error

[Ninja-Bear]

5 hours ago, zslane said:

The Hero System is sort of like a piece of software. With each new version there are going to be changes, but ideally you don't make changes that require your user base to refactor all previous content. Backwards compatibility is important, and most of the 6E changes forced players to refactor all their characters and villains, which is a major PITA and totally unjustified for the dubious benefits most of those changes delivered. To my mind, the removal of COM is a good example of a change that didn't need to be made, wasn't replaced by a clearly superior mechanic, and which made every single character sheet in existence incompatible with the official RAW.

 

It is because of changes like that (of which there are many, in my view) that I have a very difficult time endorsing 6E to players familiar with previous editions, even with the much improved presentation of the Complete books.

I’m definitely having a different experience with 6e (CC). I’m not missing COM-mainly because it was a dump stat.  And now designing characters to tailor  the game to my kids needs, I see the value in splitting the figured characteristics away. I have a villain which is 12 DEX but does have 7 OCV/DCV and another which is 20 DEX and 8 OCV/ DCV. Heroes I’m giving 3 OMCV/4DMCV..

 

(FWIW, I wouldn’t have jumped from 5th to  6th due to the price of the massive volumes even after buying 6th Basic. However Champions Complete is a nice price range.)

[Ninja-Bear]

Did I mention though that every time I look at CC, I’m glad on how thin it is? Fifth rev is like a textbook compared to CC.

[zslane]

6E1+6E2 is even worse than FRED. I remember thinking the original BBB was massive when I first saw it. I could never have imagined how bloated and unwieldy it would still become.

[zslane]

11 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m not missing COM-mainly because it was a dump stat.

 

When a long-standing core element is useful to some players but not others, the prudent and sensible thing to do is to simply leave it alone. Those who have no use for it can continue to ignore it while those who do use it aren't left refactoring their game to accommodate the change (or undoing the change as a "house rule"). 6E was not made better than 4E/5E by replacing COM with Striking Appearance, it was merely made (needlessly) different.

[Cassandra]

The 6th Edition of the Hero System is the Star Trek Enterprise of the System.

[DreadDomain]

3 minutes ago, Cassandra said:

The 6th Edition of the Hero System is the Star Trek Enterprise of the System.

I must admit I do not get the reference here. Would you care to explain?

[Cassandra]

Just now, DreadDomain said:

I must admit I do not get the reference here. Would you care to explain?

 

As someone who started with the 1st Edition, I found that each subsequent was a natural evolution to the system, with the 5th Edition being the ultimate role playing game.

 

The 6th Edition was essentially a Retcon.  It was redoing thing simply because the systems creators decided not to work together anymore.  So rules were relabeled for not other reason they they had to be relabeled.

 

Hey, I didn't call it Star Trek: Discovery.  That would be Villains and Vigilantes.

 

[Lord Liaden]

I strongly disagree with that characterization, but you have the right to your opinion.

[mrinku]

I think on a Star Trek scale, Villains and Vigilantes is more Star Wars. Same genre but otherwise unconnected.  

[Cassandra]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

I strongly disagree with that characterization, but you have the right to your opinion.

 

Fair enough.

[Cassandra]

1 hour ago, mrinku said:

I think on a Star Trek scale, Villains and Vigilantes is more Star Wars. Same genre but otherwise unconnected.  

 

You mean there is only one woman in Villains and Vigilantes?

[DreadDomain]

4 hours ago, zslane said:

6E1+6E2 is even worse than FRED. I remember thinking the original BBB was massive when I first saw it. I could never have imagined how bloated and unwieldy it would still become.

No doubt Steve, while a prolific author, would have benefited a good editor while writing for HERO (any edition). I believe 6E has 200 pages more than 5E Revised, which is a bit mind-blowing. That being said, I believe 6E is easier to read than 5R but I cannot quite put my finger on the reasons. Is it because of the colour? Is there more white space and more art (feels less crowded)? Is it because it is whiter (less black)? Is the font different (feels the same to me)? Not sure.

 

I would have liked to see a Champions Complete with the same text but with 6E production quality. 

[zslane]

29 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I would have liked to see a Champions Complete with the same text but with 6E production quality. 

 

That would have been a pretty intriguing product.

[DreadDomain]

4 hours ago, zslane said:

 

When a long-standing core element is useful to some players but not others, the prudent and sensible thing to do is to simply leave it alone. Those who have no use for it can continue to ignore it while those who do use it aren't left refactoring their game to accommodate the change (or undoing the change as a "house rule"). 6E was not made better than 4E/5E by replacing COM with Striking Appearance, it was merely made (needlessly) different.

 

In all fairness, this statement boils down to a general resistance to change and if we would always judge the validity of a change on your above statement, nothing would ever change.. I am sure that for every changes made in 6E, we can find someone who preferred how it was done in 5ER (I know I do) and some else thinking that the change was long overdue. Let's go back in time and I am sure that for every changes made in 5E, we can find someone who preferred how it was done in 4E and some else thinking that the change was long overdue.

 

Look, there are many reasons to prefer 5ER over 6E:

• I liked Comeliness
• I liked Figured Characteristics
• I liked Elemental Control
• I liked Transfer as it was
• 5ER was shorter
• 5ER had a better library of books
• 5ER had a vehicle book (two actually)
• I liked... and so on and so forth. We could probably go on for the whole day

They are all valid and choosing 5ER as our ultimate role playing system cannot be disputed by anyone (but the same could be said if our ultimate role playing system was Rock, Paper, Scissors). However claiming that the removal of COM made every single character sheet in existence incompatible or is forcing you to refactor your game to accommodate the change is dubious at best.

 

I will leave it at that as it clearly comes down to a logical versus emotional argument that can only lead to Edition Wars (HERO do not need that). I do not agree with your rationale but I certainly respect your opinion. 

[DreadDomain]

2 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

As someone who started with the 1st Edition, I found that each subsequent was a natural evolution to the system, with the 5th Edition being the ultimate role playing game.

 

The 6th Edition was essentially a Retcon.  It was redoing thing simply because the systems creators decided not to work together anymore.  So rules were relabeled for not other reason they they had to be relabeled.

 

Hey, I didn't call it Star Trek: Discovery.  That would be Villains and Vigilantes.

 

I do not really know Star Trek (never was a fan) but regarding HERO, I cannot agree with your view.

 

Well except the part were you say the 5th Edition being the ultimate role playing game. That I can agree with.