HS 6e is mechanically the best version of the rules; dissenting views welcome

Christopher · January 30, 2019

5 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

By 'detail' I mean that, for example, Shapeshift is now a sensory power. That sort of makes sense, I suppose, but it is confusing for new players and some old players too: actually building something that can change shape, as most people would understand the concept, is not straightforward.

Shape Shift is a "Sense Affecting Power".

And it can be used for anything from "Physical Shape Shift", "Shape Shifting Illusion" to "I Modified the deflector grid so for longrange sensors we appear as a Koberian Freighter".

That is just the most sensical thing to do, IMHO.

It is one of those things that I read and thought "huh, that makes perfect sense. Why did I never think about it that way?"

massey · January 30, 2019

At the very most, selling your Comeliness off would get you 5 points. That's to be Elephant Man ugly. I don't know any player who ever did that.

But you can't balance the game within single digit points. If you try, you're pretending the game has a degree of accuracy that it doesn't have.

Christopher R Taylor · January 30, 2019

Yeah I see Comeliness/Presence as having a similar relationship as Ego/Presence. They can overlap but have different areas they specialize in. The proper argument should not be "I can't think of a way to use it" which Bob Greenwade blew to tatters with a 3-page workup on ways to GM comeliness and posted on the discussion page. It should have been "its highly subjective" and difficult to give an objective rating to. Still not enough reason to delete the stat entirely, but enough to say "this optional for your campaign." Also, an optional "here's how you can do figured characteristics if you prefer" in the back would be good, too.

Killer Shrike · January 30, 2019

11 hours ago, Christopher said:

I was honestly asuming you were using that by accident/innocence. You are not the first one on this forum to make this mistake. It is a honest mistake to make. But you are the first one not to change the title on being informed of it.

However I have to point out that this is far from the first time I saw a long term participant of a forum from turning to trolling all of a sudden. I have not yet figured out the how and why, but my experience tells me it is possible. One does not exclude the other.

"Convince me" and it's Synomyms are like most of the stuff Neo-Nazis say: You can not use that without putting yourself into that despised group and I was pointing out you were/are doing that to yourself.

So, I just want to get this straight. If someone phrases something in a way you associate with some group you have issues with, your reaction is to respond with some sort of passive aggressive spur that I was meant to interpret as an appeal to modify the topics title, plus aspersions that I'm trolling. When I respond with a clarification and invitation to converse your response is to double down on accusing me of trolling, and then inform me that you've classified me as a Nazi (of all things).

I have to wonder...is everything going ok in your life? I don't remember you as being this combative.

If you did honestly assume that I was accidentally using phraseology that you consider to be verboten and wanted me to change it to avoid any unintended misunderstanding, a different way to handle it might be to say something like:

"The internet meme ', change my mind' has been appropriated, at least in my experience, by some alt-right groups, and you may want to consider rephrasing the topic to avoid any unintended associations."

I've not personally encountered the association you mention with the phrase and Neo-Nazism (or other similar groups). I've experienced it as a generalized internet meme. I don't have a problem changing it to something less offensive to you. However I (respectfully) suggest that you consider softening your approach a bit and not be so quick to escalate.

Sean Waters · January 30, 2019

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

Shape Shift is a "Sense Affecting Power".

And it can be used for anything from "Physical Shape Shift", "Shape Shifting Illusion" to "I Modified the deflector grid so for longrange sensors we appear as a Koberian Freighter".

That is just the most sensical thing to do, IMHO.

It is one of those things that I read and thought "huh, that makes perfect sense. Why did I never think about it that way?"

Yeah, but you knew what I meant

That's the thing though: mechanically, building a character that can shapeshift is no longer a matter of deciding how many different shapes they can assume, it is deciding if they still look like their normal selves in infra red and sonar . If you just want to look different to normal sight but like yourself to other senses, that's Self Only Images, to my mind. Or if you want to look like something different to long range radar, ditto.

I mean, I can not think of a single example of a shapeshifter that looks like its normal self on sonar but can actually fit through a six inch hole because it is long and thin to the touch group. That might allow you to do some interesting things but is very very unhelpful if you are trying to actually run a game with a shapeshifter whose player did not think of all that.

I mean, they shouldn't have to. It is a conceit too far and an overlap too far.

I like 'sensical' though. I might steal that.

Hugh Neilson · January 31, 2019

10 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I'm up for re-classification. I have broken things into four groups, the first impacts on the starting rolls for skills, the second is all about acting/reacting and how effective that might be, the third is about the condition of the character and the last is outside combat because those numbers are routinely advantaged in some way where other numbers are not.

Characteristics = STR, DEX, CON, INT, EGO and PRE

Combat numbers = OCV, DCV, OMCV, DMCV, SPD

Health indicators = STUN, BODY, END, REC

Defence numbers = PD, ED, PowD, Mental D, Flash D (all potentially advantaged with resistant, hardened etc).

You think breaking them up into groups like this would help in presentation terms?

I do. Let's compare to a game "much less hard" compared to Hero.

Six characteristics - like STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA

Combat numbers - Attack Bonus, Armor Class, Initiative, Saving Throws (I count 6 of these on a 5e sheet)

Health Indicators: Hit Points, Death Saves (that's new...)

Unclassified: Inspiration, Proficiency Bonus

That's 19 items on the D&D sheet and we have 20 above (including three defenses not typically reflected as stats on the character sheet).

I left out D&D Speed and Perception as Hero has Movement and PER rolls as well. That D&D sheet has a long list of skills, and we have not listed out spells and other abilities.

Change the presentation and the game looks less complicated.

Hugh Neilson · January 31, 2019

8 hours ago, massey said:

6th edition is inferior because it is designed by a committee, based upon a false promise, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying system. It's the product of endless tinkering without an achievable goal or a clear direction. I'll try to flesh out what I mean by all that, but some of it is conceptual and may be rather hard to explain.

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I wasn't active on the boards during the time that they were soliciting suggestions for 6th edition. I think I had an account here but I had wandered off. But as I understand it there was a lot of discussion about what changes people wanted to see made. And while I like most of you guys just fine, good lord do I disagree with a lot of you over how the game system should work. I see questions on the Hero System Discussion page, and many of the suggestions are overly complex and extremely point inefficient. But some people feel like they've got to dot those "i"s and cross those "t"s. Again I wasn't involved in any of the discussions, but when I flip through the 6th edition book, I'm reminded of the adage "too many cooks spoil the broth". 6th compounds some of the mistakes of 5th edition and doesn't look back.

Actually, even if we ignore outside input, early editions were written by a three-person committee. 5e and 6e were written by Steve Long. He read input on the board, and he put together the SETAC to bounce ideas off and get some discussions, but SETAC had no decision-making power. Topics for discussion were selected only by Steve, and topics were closed when he said they were closed.

6th Ed was designed by Steve, or a committee of four instead of three persons if you want to count the 1-4e authors.

7 hours ago, massey said:

Long story short, 6th edition is chasing the white whale. Players have complained about small cost discrepancies with things like figured characteristics. "Strength is too efficient!" Yeah... kind of. Buying your strength up is efficient, except unless you're a brick you're still paying for dice damage that you aren't going to use. In a 12D6 game, buying a 30 strength isn't abusive, because a 6D6 punch isn't enough to get through anybody's defenses.

Buying up primary characteristics to boost figureds tends to result in a small point savings, relative to the overall cost of the character. A 350 point hero with high primaries may end up saving 20 to 30 points versus a character with lower primaries who bought up his figured characteristics. This is a real discrepancy, but it's less than 10% of the character's cost. 6th edition separated primaries from figureds, but then they were faced with the idea that maybe figureds were overcosted to begin with. So Stun and End became a lot cheaper. But then the cost structure of Endurance Reserve was all screwed up, because you could just buy regular End for really cheap. The limitation Increased Endurance became an easy way to save points, because the price on that didn't change, but End itself is way cheaper. Which means that the value of the Charges limitation is all screwed up now.

You can't change one fundamental aspect of the system without affecting the others. And that's what they did in 6th. Recovery became 1/2 cost, Endurance became less than 1/2 cost. That means I can pump both those stats up higher than a 5th ed character, and take x2 End cost on all my powers for a -1/2 (or x3 for a -1) for significant savings. You went from somebody saving 20 to 30 points (between 5-8% of total character cost) by buying up their primaries to saving between a third and half on their primary power set. 6th edition is rife with problems like that.

The biggest culprit of "figured characteristics" was DEX.

END reserve has all of the benefits of END, and it does not disappear when you are KOd (and keeps recovering during that time). Why would it logically cost less?

I would like to see that "high END/high REC/everything 2x or 3x END" build. The first thought I have is that being KOd means the character awakens absolutely helpless, since he starts with negligible END.

I have not played a ton of 6e, but what I have played did not suggest any balance issues on the order you are suggesting. How much 6e did you play to conclude the balance has been crushed?

Hugh Neilson · January 31, 2019

6 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

So...first: Thanks for the examples.

Second: I'll take issue with them but...I mean...it's all pretty minor. The main thing being: I think you can totes emulate all of those in 4th if you wanted.

You buy combat levels to create a skilled (*skill* levels, in *combat*, even) combatant who doesn't have insane Dex. Also campaign limits factor in.

So "skilled combatant who doesn't have maxed campaign Dex" = buy some combat SKILL levels and there you go.

High OCV v Low DCV...kinda the same as above? (Also...is this really a character concept?)

Buy more OCV (overall combat levels- only for OCV and\or Dex - only for OCV) and leave Dex and default DCV low.

Maybe it's a sniper\hunter. Maybe it's a dwarven berzerk who doesn't care about his own safety.

Easy to simulate. In 4th\5th.

I took your comment of "can't be done as neatly and cleanly in 5e " to include "can't be done cost-effectively". A character with high CVs and low DEX, or high OCV and low DCV, should not cost more than one who has all of the advantages of DEX. So let's consider:

I want a slow, poky rock monster (DEX 8, let's say) with a moderate DCV (say 6) and a good OCV (let's say 10). He'll have a campaign average 5 SPD.

So, under your model, I sell back 2 DEX (-6 points), and pay 32 points for a 5 SPD. So far, 26 points spent. I buy +3 skill levels with DCV (15 points - and note that I have to have an opportunity to activate those skill levels, while an 18 DEX would mean I always have a base 6 DCV) and +7 OCV (how does one buy "OCV with all attacks" through 5e skill levels? Let's call those 5 points as well) for 35 points. So I have spent 76 points.

Player #2 buys a 33 DEX (69 points) and spends 7 more to get a 5 SPD. He always has his DCV, has a DEX roll of 16- to my 11-, has an 11 DCV (I have 10, and only after I activate my skill levels) and an 11 OCV. He spend the same points, and is my equal or my superior in every way.

To me, that is not "as neatly and cleanly" as 6e, where my character has an 8 DEX (-4 points), a 5 SPD (30 points), a 6 DCV (15 points) and a 10 OCV (35 points) for a total of 76 points, and Player 2 spends 46 points on DEX, 30 on SPD, and 40 each on OCV and DCV. Given he spent 80 points more than I did, he should be equal or superior in every way.

6 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

Olympic Gymnast that isn't a skilled combatant?

Super easy again.

Either buy up Acrobatics to the "Olympic" level while leaving Dex reasonable, then do not buy any WF or combat levels.

Or if the actual concept is "my character is an Olympic gymnast that sucks at combat" then take a Disad "sucks at combat" and workout a CV penalty with your GM.

So you consider building an agile, dextrous character to be best done "neatly and cleanly" without buying the very characteristic which describes an agile, dextrous character? You and I read those words very differently, I fear.

So what limitation would you place on "DEX, no OCV or DCV"? How about "DEX, only provides OCV, DCV and SPD"? And how will those prices compare to buying skill levels.

I am not seeing 5e being "mechanically superior" to 6e. I am seeing pretty much the exact opposite.

Hugh Neilson · January 31, 2019

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah I see Comeliness/Presence as having a similar relationship as Ego/Presence. They can overlap but have different areas they specialize in. The proper argument should not be "I can't think of a way to use it" which Bob Greenwade blew to tatters with a 3-page workup on ways to GM comeliness and posted on the discussion page. It should have been "its highly subjective" and difficult to give an objective rating to. Still not enough reason to delete the stat entirely, but enough to say "this optional for your campaign." Also, an optional "here's how you can do figured characteristics if you prefer" in the back would be good, too.

EGO provides willpower. PRE provides skill at interacting with people. The only issue I see is that EGO should be the sole determinant of PRE defense.

What did COM provide that was not provided by PRE? Please feel free to include the Bob Greenwade list - but only if it has no impact on interacting with, impressing, scaring, inspiring, etc. others.

Seriously, I was in the "retain COM" camp, pretty solidly. But Steve's conclusion that it lacked anything to make it a characteristic in its own right cut through any case I could make for COM being anything but limited PRE. Why not have "COOL" right under EGO and PRE. It gets added to EGO and PRE for the sole purpose of resisting PRE attacks, because COOL people can keep their cool.

TranquiloUno · January 31, 2019

41 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I took your comment of "can't be done as neatly and cleanly in 5e " to include "can't be done cost-effectively". A character with high CVs and low DEX, or high OCV and low DCV, should not cost more than one who has all of the advantages of DEX. So let's consider:

I want a slow, poky rock monster (DEX 8, let's say) with a moderate DCV (say 6) and a good OCV (let's say 10). He'll have a campaign average 5 SPD.

So, under your model, I sell back 2 DEX (-6 points), and pay 32 points for a 5 SPD. So far, 26 points spent. I buy +3 skill levels with DCV (15 points - and note that I have to have an opportunity to activate those skill levels, while an 18 DEX would mean I always have a base 6 DCV) and +7 OCV (how does one buy "OCV with all attacks" through 5e skill levels? Let's call those 5 points as well) for 35 points. So I have spent 76 points.

Player #2 buys a 33 DEX (69 points) and spends 7 more to get a 5 SPD. He always has his DCV, has a DEX roll of 16- to my 11-, has an 11 DCV (I have 10, and only after I activate my skill levels) and an 11 OCV. He spend the same points, and is my equal or my superior in every way.

To me, that is not "as neatly and cleanly" as 6e, where my character has an 8 DEX (-4 points), a 5 SPD (30 points), a 6 DCV (15 points) and a 10 OCV (35 points) for a total of 76 points, and Player 2 spends 46 points on DEX, 30 on SPD, and 40 each on OCV and DCV. Given he spent 80 points more than I did, he should be equal or superior in every way.

So you consider building an agile, dextrous character to be best done "neatly and cleanly" without buying the very characteristic which describes an agile, dextrous character? You and I read those words very differently, I fear.

So what limitation would you place on "DEX, no OCV or DCV"? How about "DEX, only provides OCV, DCV and SPD"? And how will those prices compare to buying skill levels.

I am not seeing 5e being "mechanically superior" to 6e. I am seeing pretty much the exact opposite.

Thanks! Good examples! I don't play 6e so...thus my asking.

It's not MY model, it's...5e's.

For the +1 OCV.

Either overall combat levels with a -1 (half effectiveness) to put them at 4pts or 3pts of Dex with a -1.5 (1/3rd as effective) at 4pts. Call it 5pts to include "always on"\"always allocated". Easy.

For the gymnast, for sure, definitional issue with 4th\5th having Dex be both CV and Speed. Under a model of Dex being both of those things having a person defined as having high dex, but not having (almost) any of the benefits of that dex...doesn't really compute. Under that model.

Same for the low DCV\high OCV. How is a clumsy, low Dex guy, with poor hand-eye actually really good at hitting stuff (ALL stuff! Ranged, HtH, all of it! Trained or untrained!) but not doing it with skills. He's a bit clumsy but...not when hitting folks? But at all times he's a solid defensive combatant? And he's "slow, pokey" but...actually faster than the fastest human beings (Spd 5) in fighting?

But really...again, if you've got an actual player that has the concept "Elite gymnast that sucks at fighting", then...you can do that in 4th\5th\6th.

I suppose I could run in to a player who will just HATE that their super-coordinated, highly trained, elite athlete can't suck at combat but kick ass at handstands.

I'd make a Disad for that player. Easy.

Definitely fair points for the cost efficiencies!

Hugh Neilson · January 31, 2019

46 minutes ago, TranquiloUno said:

Same for the low DCV\high OCV. How is a clumsy, low Dex guy, with poor hand-eye actually really good at hitting stuff (ALL stuff! Ranged, HtH, all of it! Trained or untrained!) but not doing it with skills. He's a bit clumsy but...not when hitting folks? But at all times he's a solid defensive combatant? And he's "slow, pokey" but...actually faster than the fastest human beings (Spd 5) in fighting?

Who says he has to have a high DEX (making him good at acrobatics, picking locks, climbing, driving vehicles, contorting and stealth, among others) to be able to fight? Is Ben Grimm good at these skills? No (well, he is a trained pilot). But he is definitely a good combatant.

If you want to argue SPD, what is the average DEX and SPD of a Supers character whose concept does not include any superhuman agility or SPD? SPD inflation was an issue right out of the gate.

That 8 DEX is actually not "clumsy", it is "human average". 10 is "starting PC".

51 minutes ago, TranquiloUno said:

But really...again, if you've got an actual player that has the concept "Elite gymnast that sucks at fighting", then...you can do that in 4th\5th\6th.

I suppose I could run in to a player who will just HATE that their super-coordinated, highly trained, elite athlete can't suck at combat but kick ass at handstands.

I'd make a Disad for that player. Easy.

First, I need that Disad for pretty much every Fantasy Rogue. They get a great CV because they are agile, but they should not be better at combat than the warriors.

Here again, we come down to character equity. You want my Gymnast/Rogue to pay for all the benefits of DEX (so he cannot use those CP to buy things that enhance his abilities as a rogue), then be compensated with a disadvantage/complication. Again, no character equity. And, I will say, customizing a disadvantage is nowhere near "as neatly and cleanly" as simply buying the agility (DEX, SPD) without buying the combat competency (OCV, DCV). This is also another great example of a character whose DCV probably should be better than his OCV.

Coming back to the thread topic, it was suggesting that 6e is mechanically superior. In my view, better balanced costs is a mechanical superiority.

KS - any chance you want to define your view of what "mechanically" encompasses? To me, it would not encompass presentation, for example.

Duke Bushido · January 31, 2019

My, oh my, oh _my_ but I do _not_ need to be doing this right now.

But the compulsion.... it's maddening.....

23 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Duke, if I might make a suggestion:

KS started with the statement 6e is the best edition mechanically.

I suggest that you do not place a premium value on mechanics, which would be why you do not consider it "the best edition". However, KS has also not suggested it is "the best edition", but "the best edition mechanically".

Thank you, Hugh; I appreciate your taking the time and patience to point that out rather than come screaming down like Odin on high, as is the case on so many other forums. You, like most other folks here, are an excellent conversationalist, and it is very much appreciated. However (as I quoted below; I couldn't get it worked into the middle of the stuff of yours I quoted here and immediately below this, I'm afraid), I was intentionally refraining from commenting on anything "purely mechanical" until I have my copy of Basic in my hands and have had time to read it. Yes; Iv'e read the two "big boys," but as I mentioned: trying to clear those from mind and focusing purely on what's in Basic... there is a chance that it will change _my_ mind. :lol: And if nothing else, it will put me more in touch with the position that Killer Shrike is currently in: I will have read the two books he considers to be "6e."

Hence, my digression. I was trying hard not to join the thread at all, but he practically dared me to. :rofl: ( I kid; Shrike's as great a conversationalist as you are, and I'm fairly certain my occasional anachronisms offer up tags saying "he doesn't mind being made an example of.")

23 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I do agree that the presentation is an issue. "Games Powered by HERO System" can be written with more genre (or even setting) specific terminology, likely making for a more fun read, and can leave out rules that are not germane to the specific game. The full-powered 2 volume tome is the full system manual (well, almost - I believe ranged martial arts belong in the core rules).

Right. And there are rules in the Players Guides that are -- well, official rules. While they might be considered "optional" or a "fresh angle" or something like that, the fact that the author references _this_ material-- the stuff in the Player's Guides-- suggests that they aren't so much "optional rules" and after-the-fact errata to the main rules. And of course, there has been more than reference to the possibility of a third APG. Should there be a 7th edition, likely we'll see a majority of these guides moved into "core rules" status. I can't remember at the moment, but is there not a Martial-Arts-specific book for 6e as well? I don't know if it qualifies as "core rules"-- well, let me rephrase: I know that the two books are still considered officially "all you need to play" or "core rules of the HERO system" of whatever you might like to call them (I like "core rules" because it's easier to type :lol: ), but if history repeats itself, any Martial Arts book will become more canonical to the majority of players than any Player's Guide will. At best, the official core rules are two large books. At worst, they are _five_ large books, with the author periodically mentioning the need of a sixth.

The short version: I agree with you. Presentation is a not-unsizeable problem for pitching the HERO system.

On January 29, 2019 at 3:08 PM, Duke Bushido said:

As much as I would love to jump in here and pretend we could change your mind, I recently discovered HERO Basic was available in print, and found a print copy for sale.

When it arrives, I intend to work reading it around my scanning project (somehow).

As much as I detest 6e, I want to see if the presentation in Basic changes _my_ mind.

Sure: I am an opinionated crotchety old curmudgeon. But I pride myself on being as fair as I can, and as open minded as I can.

Duke

And that was just to confirm that I had no intention (and still don't, as I haven't read Basic yet) of weighing in specifically on mechanics.

On January 29, 2019 at 6:06 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

Duke I hope you enjoy 6th Basic but if I’d known sooner, I would’ve pointed you to Fantasy Hero Complete. It has more rules than Basic. (Basic intentionally left out 5 Powers) and at $20 (that was the price I paid-hope it’s still the same.) physical copy, you got a PDF for free. It’s the better deal. And yes it does cover Supers.

This I quoted on accident, and can't make go away. I responded already, but since it's here again:

Thanks, NB, but I've already got that book. I appreciate you looking out, though, Sir; it's never unwelcome.

On January 29, 2019 at 6:16 PM, Doc Democracy said:

a gymnast that was a poor combatant, and to remove the incentive for almost every player to buy raised CON and STR due to their figured characteristic value.

I quoted you, Doc, to mention that this always _could_ be done, but someone (a couple of someones, I think) addressed it already (but I had it in "quoted" section by the time I got there and didn't want to start all over again).

So I can convince myself I didn't just kill all my "computer time" this evening reading this thread instead of finishing up my scans, I will add something that I didn't see touched on:

The reason you didn't see this sort of build a lot in every group wasn't that it was impossible or even particularly hard to do. The fact that you _did_ see it in some groups demonstrated that. The reason that you didn't see it in every group was that some people are less willing to build.. well, for lack of a better term, let's say "strictly to concept." There are those people who, no matter what the concept, will look at a couple of models to get what they want and say "bump that noise! I can spend the same / similar points this way and get a whole lot more out of it!"

if I want a gymnast, why buy up a gymnastics skill to represent years of study and practice, when I can simply buy up DEX and get all this other great stuff with it?! And if i'm getting all this for free, then why would I bother selling any of it back? Let me just change my concept a bit and it all makes sense. Deadly gymnast. Gymkata! (man that was an awful movie).

Discrepencies in OCV and DCV were easily modeled with Skill Levels. (though as Hugh noted at some point in this thread, skills progression is still just as out of whack as it ever was. For what it's worth, I think because of the new Characteristics models, Skill costs, skill progression, and Skill Levels end up being rather less balanced than they ever were, but again-- I don't really want to get into mechanics until I can fully see where Shrike is coming from-- that is, until I can read Basic. Granted, this thread will be as dead as the "least favorite edition" thread by then, I suspect, but my pet project is my priority right now.

On January 29, 2019 at 6:16 PM, Doc Democracy said:

What drives the impression of complexity is the amount of explanation and example provided. Champions Complete shows that the explanation can be removed to expose quite a simple system that is not hugely different from its roots, probably just more flexible and balanced.

I love ya, Doc; I really mean that: you've always been one of the first to help anyone, including helping me, and you are always a joy to converse with. But in this, we'll have to disagree. I will accept "differently balanced," but I don't see any real long-term gains. To qualify that, let me add "in the games I tend to run." I can't speak for other groups, but I just don't run into a lot of point-misering or combat-tweaking in my games. I don't know if it's the way I run or if it's simply the way the group indoctrinates new players, but with one single exception in all these years (I'm sure I've mentioned Davien -- by name, in case he lurks here :lol: -- who was the single-most stand-out rules rapist, point-squeezing, all-my-skills-are-for-killing disagreeable sack of irritant ever to sit in at my table. And that's saying a lot, because he wasn't really the only "power gamer" we've ever had. He was just _gifted_. Make the Harbinger look like Fred Rogers), my groups are pretty big on building strictly to concept, even if they occasionally kneecap themselves just to add a bit of flavor or extra challenge. You remember how excited I was in the one-armed Fantasy character thread? That's the kind of groups I have: concept first, screw effectiveness that goes against concept.

On January 29, 2019 at 6:16 PM, Doc Democracy said:

I do think that Steve missed a trick. The focus was on character creation, something each edition has done. What remains almost the same as those very first poorly typeset rulebooks is the core system. It remains a sophisticated point buy system resting upon an ancient game, I think that some of the rules could have been updated and made the core system as sophisticated as the character creation has become.

By its nature, in something like this: a building system of sorts, sophistication usually requires a bit more complication. Now to an extent, I accept that no conversation will sway either side on this: there are those (like me) who will point out that given the rep of HERO outside the fan base, additional complication is a bad move for long-term survivability, and there are those who will defend the increased complication as necessary to improve simplification, akin to pressing a button to open a garage door, when before you had to get out of the car, open the door manually, get back in the car.... It's simpler; yes. But getting there required adding a breaker, more wiring, a complicated electrically-powered mechanical gizmo that's going to require some maintenance, a sensor, a circuit board, etc. So point-blank, I accept that this is a no-win area of discussion, and offer no challenge to any claims from or for either side.

On January 29, 2019 at 6:16 PM, Doc Democracy said:

And that empty bit is still there because I can't make it go away. Sorry about that.

On January 29, 2019 at 8:37 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

Comeliness always comes up. As I recall, Steve made the decision mainly because COM was not really a characteristic as it had no mechanics of its own. Any mechanics suggested always modified PRE, so another characteristic. Why retain Comeliness, again? Why not have a stat for Muscular, that means your character sure looks buff, but has no mechanics of its own?

I see the point. Doesn't mean I agree with it (non-confrontational; I can't find a phrasing that can't be misread as confrontational. Forgive the sound of it, please, and focus on the meaning). But yes: PRE didn't have a solid definable mechanic. If we kept PRE, what's the limit? We could add some kind of "Luck" power with a poorly-defined GM's discretion cop-out kind of mechanic. Makes about as much sense as PRE did.

On January 29, 2019 at 8:37 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

I found Transfer problematic in that it cost an excessive amount to add advantages (since you had to pay them on the Aid cost they did not impact). 5e worsened this by adding issues like "you can't drain if the Aid is maxed out"; "AoE has to divide up the points rather than affect multiple targets like every other AoE power" and some advantages having to be purchased twice to affect the Drain and Aid components. Practically, if Hero 1e/2e/3e had Drain and Aid from the outset, I think Transfer would likely never have been its own power.

I agree that the pricing of skill levels vs stats is still off.

okay, I'm going to leave that, simply because I can't make the box go away, even if I delete the contents. I'm also going to say that when I quoted it, I was going to comment-- especially to the skill levels and skill pricing comments, but I have thought better of it, simply because I _did_ tell myself (and you guys ) that I really _don't_ want to get into the mechanicals until I read Basic-- until I really have the best-possible understanding of where KS was coming from when he issued his invitation. That is, I really want to be fair not just to my own thoughts, but to his position as well. So I'm going to leave this unaddressed, at least for now.

On January 29, 2019 at 9:07 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Actually in the discussion quite a few mechanics and ways of using comeliness were offered, and ignored. All he had to do was say "this is optional" and leave it at that, not simply delete a state because you don't see how to use it.

Obviously, we will never know, as it didn't happen that way, but would like to think that might have been easier to swallow rather than flat-out nixing it and offering as a replacement "unusual looks." You know, not everyone is striking; not everyone has looks so great or so awful that they will get a ---

never mind. I've been warned that this is a can of worms best left unopened. But I will say that, after having nixed it, offering a binary replacement was a bit of a salty icepick to the hemorrhoids for fans of COM, particularly from a system marketed from the ground up as "build anything you want."

23 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Only a bit shorter and that limitation is a shortcut.

Well, I have no learned that quote-in-a-quote won't quote. Imagine that.

But I trust you know the limitation you referred to. And yes: that's a workaround for those who don't want to fill two lines on a character sheet with rather lengthy list of modifiers to make it work. For what it's worth, though, it's not a limitation I would allow, and especially under 6e. Not because my distaste for 6e would drive me to penalize myself, but because, from what I've seen and read so far, "the text" is insufficient: CC, FHC, Basic, and "core rules" seem to have different inclusions and unclusions (probably not a real word ). At least specify which text, just so we're both on the same page. Even then though, as a matter of habit, you will have it written out, fully, somewhere before I approve it. I don't mind the idea of simply putting the name of the power and relevant costs on the sheet, but somewhere you will have a spelled-out definition I can discuss with you before I approve your character. I'm not looking to derail this thread (and don't think it's possible, really), but that just kind of needed saying: that part of the conversation (how long do power descriptions have to be?) seemed to be losing focus on the fact that at the end of the day, you have to bring out all those details for review, and for the math to build it, no matter how little you get away with writing down.

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Transfer 3d6 Stun.

IN any case, even if I were to accept the false argument that Comeliness never actually did anything in the game, you still handle it by saying "this doesn't seem to do anything so its optional"

Agreed. I can't say I would have been thrilled (again, we will never know, since it didn't happen, and any opinion I have on how I _might_ have felt is undeniably tainted by how I feel about the way things ended up), but I'd like to think I would have been a lot more "okay" with it than I am about how it ended up.

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

not "I'm deleting this and I'm in charge so you can all suck it"

I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it went down. I wasn't there, so I can't know (I'm pretty sure the SETAC guys were sworn to secrecy :lol: ), but I don't think it went quite like that.

16 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Afasik you can still create a custom Power in 6th-so you could bring back Transfer and COM. Though I get it if you liked those as official.

Also I’ve found now that with the decoupled CV from Dex, you can set the range you want a lot better than before.

Sorry, NB; I didn't realize I had quoted two different examples of this. I addressed this in a reply to a quote from Doc Democracy above, if you're interested. (I wouldn't be, but I don't think I would have made it this far into a post, either. :lol: ) Looks like I did a third one with another quote from Hugh a bit down the page from here.

I gotta stop using this board as a sleep replacement.

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I think we all develop shorthand means of writing out powers and other abilities, but I agree with the book providing more, rather than less, detail so it is fully illustrative.

Part of the issue, though, is perception. Consider this a Fantasy Hero spell. Does that "wall of text" really compare unfavourably to a D&D spell

If you consider how much adding a string of "cans" and "cants" and math functions behind the name robs that feeling of "magic spell," then yes: it compares unfavorably to _any_ magic spell from any system from any game built to incorporate magic as a theme.

However....

This is not a problem unique to 6e. Certainly 5 and 6 exacerbated this problem, but they did not create it. This is one of --and perhaps the biggest-- the motivators behind me allowing players to have a separate record of the _actual_ power build while putting only the name of the power / spell, it's effect (in dice or what-have-you), and relevant costs in actual points and END costs). Because of the popularity of fantasy-- even those of us beyond-burned-out on fantasy are familiar with it-- these build sheets are affectionately referred to in our groups as "spell books," even if they're lists of weapons builds or super powers. :lol:

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Given that one of the very valid complaints about Hero is that it is 2 giant tomes (like, say, a Player's Handbook and a DMs Guide) and therefore far too large to ever be salable (which is why games with a PHB and DMG don't sell very well, or so I assume),

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. Based on your history, I'm going to assume not, but based on the idea that a game with a Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't sell well----

Well, you aren't stupid, either- at least, not that you've ever demonstrated, so I'm confused. Seriously. I'm going to run with "you are being sarcastic," so if I am totally off-base, at least you'll know why.

With the current iteration, we have two giant tomes _before_ we get to the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's guide (APG 1 and 2). We also have (I believe; I should have been asleep before I even logged on) the Martial Arts book, and a game author mentioning the need for an additional Player's Guide. That's a lot of giant tomes to pitch. I daresay that stacked up against 2 giant tomes, well, two seems more affordable. And then there's the reputation HERO has (deserved or not) for unnecessary complexity, and those four-to-six giant tomes start looking like a bad way to invest a mortgage payment.

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I disagree with your view that it would be a good idea to add optional rules that do nothing. I would rather have seen a sidebar for those who want to retain figured characteristics, although here again I agree with the logic that, with the pricing fixed, we don't need figured characteristics.

You yourself told me once-- it was over a misunderstanding of a comment that I had meant negatively-- that one of the best things about 6e was that it opened up even more ways to build a particular end result. I'm not certain why, from that point of view, an optional rule to retain figureds or COM or anything else strikes you as less than reasonable. No; I'm sorry. I've had words put in my mouth before, and I don't intend to do it here: you say that you disagree it would be a good idea; you do not specifically say that it is a bad idea. However, it does come across as you holding the idea in a negative light.

That's fine, though: it's all about opinions, ultimately. I would simply like to point out that "we don't need figureds anymore" depends _heavily_ on believing that the pricing _is_ fixed. It's changed, and it's all matchy-matchy-er, but "fixed" is still a judgement call, based on opinions of the in-game value of each aspect. Currently it is "fixed" almost exclusively with regard to math, and honestly-- that's as far as it can ever get. This is because every play group, play style, and player is going to have a different favorite, and a different "important thing" Characteristics and build-wise. Some things are going to be inherently more important to some groups than they are too others, and ultimately there will never be universal agreement that Characteristics are "fixed." I remember the most common example way back when was the idea that STR was "underpriced." To this day I maintain that it was overpriced, simply because, as Massey pointed out, if you didn't buy a hell of a lot of it, you simply never got the "free values" that so many people were up in arms about Strength giving away. You tied up a bunch of points, but at the end of the day, you'd be more "cost effective" spending them on a good ol' fashioned energy blast in the majority of situations we encountered during actual play.

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Transfer is still easily replicated, while "Enhance OCV" never was.

Skill levels.

12 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Combat numbers = OCV, DCV, OMCV, DMCV, SPD

Been at this a couple of hours now, and forgot what I wanted to respond to in the original post, so I'm just going to ask a general question:

What is the intrinsic value in changing "Ego Combat Value" to "Mental Combat Value," particularly in light of defining mental powers as working versus Ego?

12 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

I think, on balance, my view is that, mechanically, Hero has not changed since it was first edition Champions. It has a simple but effective mechanic that it has stuck to, despite a number of people pointing out that rolling high for good makes more sense.

Sean, my friend, please forgive the bluntness: at this point I just want to power through and get to bed.

In what game do you want to roll low for damage?

12 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

By 'detail' I mean that, for example, Shapeshift is now a sensory power. That sort of makes sense, I suppose,

Not when you stop to consider that Multiform, which most generally involves a shape shift, and often a substantial one, is most certainly not.

9 hours ago, massey said:

I am sorry, Massey, but as above, I've been here so long on this I no longer remember what I wanted to reply to. I would like to point out that I agree with most of what you said. However, since I can't remember what I was wanting to dig out specifically, I have deleted the content of the quote entirely in the interest of shortening this post (though it's clearly far too late for that).

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Ditto, with apologies to both of you.

Good night, Amigos.

Duke

TranquiloUno · January 31, 2019

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Who says he has to have a high DEX (making him good at acrobatics, picking locks, climbing, driving vehicles, contorting and stealth, among others) to be able to fight? Is Ben Grimm good at these skills? No (well, he is a trained pilot). But he is definitely a good combatant.

If you want to argue SPD, what is the average DEX and SPD of a Supers character whose concept does not include any superhuman agility or SPD? SPD inflation was an issue right out of the gate.

That 8 DEX is actually not "clumsy", it is "human average". 10 is "starting PC".

First, I need that Disad for pretty much every Fantasy Rogue. They get a great CV because they are agile, but they should not be better at combat than the warriors.

Here again, we come down to character equity. You want my Gymnast/Rogue to pay for all the benefits of DEX (so he cannot use those CP to buy things that enhance his abilities as a rogue), then be compensated with a disadvantage/complication. Again, no character equity. And, I will say, customizing a disadvantage is nowhere near "as neatly and cleanly" as simply buying the agility (DEX, SPD) without buying the combat competency (OCV, DCV). This is also another great example of a character whose DCV probably should be better than his OCV.

Coming back to the thread topic, it was suggesting that 6e is mechanically superior. In my view, better balanced costs is a mechanical superiority.

KS - any chance you want to define your view of what "mechanically" encompasses? To me, it would not encompass presentation, for example.

Well, sure, that's why I was curious for character concepts that are enabled by 6e (neater and cleaner). You've given me a couple. Thanks again for that.

6e does seem the logical endpoint of things. Divorcing CV from Dex and so on. So it's certainly more mechanically detailed by default in character creation.

I'm just not sure that's "best" "mechanically". It's certainly more fiddly.

Like you I'd like to know what Killer Shrike means by that. Then I can try to change his mind. ;D

I mean if the character doesn't pay for the skill (lockpicking, let's say) then they might not even be able to attempt it, depending on the GM.

And...who says he has to have a high Dex to be good at fighting? Buy him some combat levels to represent his skill in fighting.

Ben Grimm is a terrible example for exactly that reason. Football star, veteran, test pilot. He's got excellent reflexes and he's highly trained in various ways.

But him aside, my point isn't that 6e doesn't allow finer granularity by default for these edge cases, it's that I think I can do all that in 4th or 5th. Accomplish the same effect. So I can get to playing.

If Shrike feels having more granularity by default is mechanically better (and I think that's a very reasonable position) then 6e is probably superior.

But if "best"\"better" means generally being able to easily replicate any weird corner case a PC can throw at you then...4th is fine too.

As far as historical norms in published products and average games that I haven't played in regarding Speed scores....I guess I'm in favor of limiting them?

It's no problem for me if Thing, Wolverine, Cyclops, Punisher, and Tony Stark are all Dex 12. And speed 3. And are some of the greatest fighters in the world because they have spent XP on tons of levels.

Disad for Rogues to keep their CV down? 5pts for every -1 OCV penalty when they aren't in favorable conditions.

"Gun shy" or "Prefers to attack from the rear" or "Not a Fighter".

Anyway.

Yah, sure, if better balanced point spends, for some kinda arbitrary meta-rules-based character concepts, is "better", then I'd say that's a strong case for 6e being best.

For sure. That kinda of super detailed edge case stuff does seem better suited to 6e.

I'm more about: I don't know if any of that really benefits playing the game. So "best" seems uncertain.

I'm more interested in a rules system that I can fairly quickly create highly customized characters with and then get to gaming. While gaming it's nice to have a solid framework for skills, combats, and such in addition to the skeleton of the system that drives XP based progressions.

4th worked for me for that, 5th does now (and I'd be strongly inclined to switch back to 4e Shapeshift if it ever comes up from a player in a game), it all seems good.

6th seems more detailed. But I'm not sure that's better.

Neater and cleaner to create some of the stat relations you're talking about. Point breaks re: Figured look good too.

But "best"?

For what value of "best" and "mechanically"?

Killer Shrike · January 31, 2019

Bit late, need sleep, but to keep the conversation moving I mean the game mechanics themselves, both from the perspective of character building and the resolution of gameplay. The actual rules of the game system as used by a GM and some number of players to populate and execute roleplaying game sessions.

I forward no position on which version of the rules had the best presentation. I personally prefer the overall no-nonsense aesthetics of DoJ era core products with a focus on substance vs style...but art, design, and layout are entirely subjective. I have boxes of 4e, 5e, and 6e materials (and some older materials), and I find most of them to be easy enough to look at (with a few notable exceptions) and find information in. I appreciated the sidebars, index, and uniformity of most of the DoJ era products and value their utility as rules texts higher than I value the nostalgic moment of joy I get when I gaze upon a Perez cover from 4e era before opening the book. While I do care about look and feel / fit and finish, usable and interesting content is far more important to me. If I want a comic book, I'll buy a comic book. Rules text should work as rules text first; if it is also pretty then great but not entirely necessary. But no matter how pretty the product, if the mechanics are bad I'm not interested in it. I prefer diagrams that illustrate rules concepts or good maps that illustrate a place of significance to an adventure or setting over random illustrations anyway. To sum up: I don't include internal or cover art in my assessment of effective game mechanics.

Hugh Neilson · January 31, 2019

Before I forget, if you hover the mouse just above the top left of the quote box, there's a little square with arrows in it. You can use that to move the quote, or click on that little box and the quote can be deleted with the delete key. It took me quite a while to figure that one out. You can also copy the quote with that little box.

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Right. And there are rules in the Players Guides that are -- well, official rules. While they might be considered "optional" or a "fresh angle" or something like that, the fact that the author references _this_ material-- the stuff in the Player's Guides-- suggests that they aren't so much "optional rules" and after-the-fact errata to the main rules. And of course, there has been more than reference to the possibility of a third APG. Should there be a 7th edition, likely we'll see a majority of these guides moved into "core rules" status. I can't remember at the moment, but is there not a Martial-Arts-specific book for 6e as well? I don't know if it qualifies as "core rules"-- well, let me rephrase: I know that the two books are still considered officially "all you need to play" or "core rules of the HERO system" of whatever you might like to call them (I like "core rules" because it's easier to type ), but if history repeats itself, any Martial Arts book will become more canonical to the majority of players than any Player's Guide will. At best, the official core rules are two large books. At worst, they are _five_ large books, with the author periodically mentioning the need of a sixth

I believe Steve considers the APGs part of the "core rules" as optional. I doubt they would be folded in to core rules, as Steve has indicated he views these as needing more oversight, and likely not appropriate as default rules.

The Martial Arts book bugs me, as both the ability to build maneuvers and the ranged martial arts rules should, in my view, be part of the core rules.

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The reason you didn't see this sort of build a lot in every group wasn't that it was impossible or even particularly hard to do. The fact that you _did_ see it in some groups demonstrated that. The reason that you didn't see it in every group was that some people are less willing to build.. well, for lack of a better term, let's say "strictly to concept." There are those people who, no matter what the concept, will look at a couple of models to get what they want and say "bump that noise! I can spend the same / similar points this way and get a whole lot more out of it!"

if I want a gymnast, why buy up a gymnastics skill to represent years of study and practice, when I can simply buy up DEX and get all this other great stuff with it?! And if i'm getting all this for free, then why would I bother selling any of it back? Let me just change my concept a bit and it all makes sense. Deadly gymnast. Gymkata! (man that was an awful movie).

Discrepencies in OCV and DCV were easily modeled with Skill Levels. (though as Hugh noted at some point in this thread, skills progression is still just as out of whack as it ever was. For what it's worth, I think because of the new Characteristics models, Skill costs, skill progression, and Skill Levels end up being rather less balanced than they ever were, but again-- I don't really want to get into mechanics until I can fully see where Shrike is coming from-- that is, until I can read Basic. Granted, this thread will be as dead as the "least favorite edition" thread by then, I suspect, but my pet project is my priority right now.

I don't think it is fair to disparage players who "don't build to concept" if the system rewards some concepts and penalizes others. The system should ensure you get what you pay for so that concepts are balanced. That's challenging in many cases, but when you can either get OCV and DCV through DEX or skill levels, and DEX costs less and gives more, it's easy to compare. That is a mechanical failure in the system.

I think skill levels are closer now. Combat skill levels were modeled on a Multipower concept (variable slots of OCV, DCV and floating damage classes), but when we add mental CVs, etc. and have no other mechanic for floating DCs, it feels a bit off.

Skill levels are just wrong. To me, +1 with all DEX, INT or PRE rolls should cost half the price of +5 to that characteristics. I've set out my gut feel costing model in the past and won't repeat it on this lengthy thread.

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I see the point. Doesn't mean I agree with it (non-confrontational; I can't find a phrasing that can't be misread as confrontational. Forgive the sound of it, please, and focus on the meaning). But yes: PRE didn't have a solid definable mechanic. If we kept PRE, what's the limit? We could add some kind of "Luck" power with a poorly-defined GM's discretion cop-out kind of mechanic. Makes about as much sense as PRE did.

Obviously, we will never know, as it didn't happen that way, but would like to think that might have been easier to swallow rather than flat-out nixing it and offering as a replacement "unusual looks." You know, not everyone is striking; not everyone has looks so great or so awful that they will get a ---

I think you said PRE when meaning COM.

Luck could use better definition as well, but at least it does nothing. Maybe using it as the cost for "Luck, no conscious control" would be a useful approach.

Like many things in Hero, physical appearance is SFX for a variety of mechanics. Beneficial results are Striking Appearance and detrimental ones are Distinctive Feature. I can get over Sleep being a Blast - the mechanic names are just labels.

BTW, from any interactions I have had with Steve, "suck it" is the exact opposite of his attitude to other gamers in general, and Hero gamers in particular. SETAC had, IIRC, no input to the COM decision - Steve had made his decision on that because it did not fit with "Characteristics".

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. Based on your history, I'm going to assume not, but based on the idea that a game with a Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't sell well----

Well, you aren't stupid, either- at least, not that you've ever demonstrated, so I'm confused. Seriously. I'm going to run with "you are being sarcastic," so if I am totally off-base, at least you'll know why.

With the current iteration, we have two giant tomes _before_ we get to the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's guide (APG 1 and 2). We also have (I believe; I should have been asleep before I even logged on) the Martial Arts book, and a game author mentioning the need for an additional Player's Guide. That's a lot of giant tomes to pitch. I daresay that stacked up against 2 giant tomes, well, two seems more affordable. And then there's the reputation HERO has (deserved or not) for unnecessary complexity, and those four-to-six giant tomes start looking like a bad way to invest a mortgage payment.

Definitely sarcastic - Hero has "too many books", but D&D has two giant tomes and Pathfinder has a jumbo-size Tome. Both have dozens of extra books (try playing with no Monster Book, before we get into all those splatbooks). They sell. All you need for Hero is the "two tomes". APG, Martial arts, etc. add options, but the base rules have WAY more options than that PHB/DMG in other games.

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

You yourself told me once-- it was over a misunderstanding of a comment that I had meant negatively-- that one of the best things about 6e was that it opened up even more ways to build a particular end result. I'm not certain why, from that point of view, an optional rule to retain figureds or COM or anything else strikes you as less than reasonable. No; I'm sorry. I've had words put in my mouth before, and I don't intend to do it here: you say that you disagree it would be a good idea; you do not specifically say that it is a bad idea. However, it does come across as you holding the idea in a negative light.

That's fine, though: it's all about opinions, ultimately. I would simply like to point out that "we don't need figureds anymore" depends _heavily_ on believing that the pricing _is_ fixed.

Fair point. There are two questions in your comment on cost of Figured Characteristics.

The first is whether they are balanced in 6e. I feel like they are, but they have limited testing.

The second is whether they were balanced in 5e. Given the Figured's alone cost more than buying STR or CON to get them, I consider that they were objectively overpriced. You had to spend MORE to have an 8 STR and high PD, REC and STUN than if you bought a higher STR. Spending more and getting less is objectively unbalanced.

I also think 6e had to "move on". We'll make changes, but we'll include a sidebar to change all of them back, makes no sense to me. Figured was one of the few where I would have seen some merit to that sidebar, but I don't think leaving that out was ureasonable either.

To Ego vs Mental? I would say all power issues should change to "Mental" to reflect mental combat rather than Ego. But that's just nomenclature. That said, we don't have STR attack - we have HTH attack.

Hugh Neilson · January 31, 2019

7 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

Ben Grimm is a terrible example for exactly that reason. Football star, veteran, test pilot. He's got excellent reflexes and he's highly trained in various ways.

But him aside, my point isn't that 6e doesn't allow finer granularity by default for these edge cases, it's that I think I can do all that in 4th or 5th. Accomplish the same effect. So I can get to playing.

It's no problem for me if Thing, Wolverine, Cyclops, Punisher, and Tony Stark are all Dex 12. And speed 3. And are some of the greatest fighters in the world because they have spent XP on tons of levels.

Disad for Rogues to keep their CV down? 5pts for every -1 OCV penalty when they aren't in favorable conditions.

"Gun shy" or "Prefers to attack from the rear" or "Not a Fighter".

First off, Ben Grimm is not superhumanly fast, but would have been DEX 23 (at least) and SPD 4 or 5 (minimum) in Hero standards. That inflation started early on. Now, if every character dropped by 2 SPD and 12 DEX (4 OCV and DCV, they would be balanced against one another , and "typical Super" would be DEX 11, SPD 3. That would work, but you'd lose utility of all prior writeups, so it will not happen.

In 6e, those examples you provide can be DEX 12 and spend tons of xp on OCV and DCV. How is that markedly different?

So my rogue can buy +3 DEX for 9 points, and get that -1 OCV limitation for 5 points? Maybe I should take +3 DEX, no Figured plus that Disad and get +1 DCV, better initiative and better DEX rolls for 1 point? Of course, this also reflects the huge difference between a limitation or sellback and a disad/complication. My rogue is still out the price of DEX (can't repurpose points to be better at something else), and did not get all the benefits of that DEX.

I find "he buys DEX and DCV, but not OCV" much more intuitive, and way better balanced.

fdw3773 · January 31, 2019

On 1/30/2019 at 7:50 AM, Doc Democracy said:

I'm up for re-classification. I have broken things into four groups, the first impacts on the starting rolls for skills, the second is all about acting/reacting and how effective that might be, the third is about the condition of the character and the last is outside combat because those numbers are routinely advantaged in some way where other numbers are not.

Characteristics = STR, DEX, CON, INT, EGO and PRE

Combat numbers = OCV, DCV, OMCV, DMCV, SPD

Health indicators = STUN, BODY, END, REC

Defence numbers = PD, ED, PowD, Mental D, Flash D (all potentially advantaged with resistant, hardened etc).

You think breaking them up into groups like this would help in presentation terms?

I've been playing Champions/Hero System for years and never considered presenting the information that way and was using templates that I created from the character sheet model provided in the books. What you presented makes great sense, especially when I introduce Champions to new players who might get overwhelmed by seeing all the stats in one long list as portrayed in current character sheets.

Thanks! I'm definitely modifying my character sheets based on your idea!!!

sentry0 · January 31, 2019

18 minutes ago, fdw3773 said:

I've been playing Champions/Hero System for years and never considered presenting the information that way and was using templates that I created from the character sheet model provided in the books. What you presented makes great sense, especially when I introduce Champions to new players who might get overwhelmed by seeing all the stats in one long list as portrayed in current character sheets.

Thanks! I'm definitely modifying my character sheets based on your idea!!!

I made this template last year for a group of new Champions players that I was GMing for. I wanted to make a simple export template specifically for new players that printed well. It has the stats broken into categories like what was proposed in this thread. It's not my idea, I saw it in another export template and adopted it because I liked it.

Lucius · January 31, 2019

On 1/30/2019 at 8:15 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

If we never had COM, and Striking Appearance had developed as skill levels to interaction skills, or limited PRE from the outset, I will suggest that no one would have been clamouring to make that a characteristic.

15 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Seriously, I was in the "retain COM" camp, pretty solidly. But Steve's conclusion that it lacked anything to make it a characteristic in its own right cut through any case I could make for COM being anything but limited PRE. Why not have "COOL" right under EGO and PRE. It gets added to EGO and PRE for the sole purpose of resisting PRE attacks, because COOL people can keep their cool.

It's a lot like Pluto.

Lots of people want to call Pluto a planet, but the problem is that if we do, there are numerous other bodies in the solar system that should be called planets.

If COMeliness is a characteristic, I can think of at least a hundred other characteristics that deserve inclusion just as much.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary does not want to see a game with one hundred and seventeen characteristics

Killer Shrike · January 31, 2019

On 1/28/2019 at 5:06 PM, dsatow said:

I agree that 6th shouldn't be discounted as one of the best but there are a number of broken items.

Changing Force Wall to Barrier created an effectiveness problem in that you can easily entrap people in circular wars with high amounts of BODY and no defenses. While tunneling does get around the issue, not every superhero or character should have some form of tunneling.

Growth uses almost the same level of disadvantage for size as Density Increase uses but the disadvantage of Growth increase as you get bigger and bigger but the complication cost calculated into the power remains the same. A -2 DCV isn't the same as a -4 DCV nor a -6 DCV. In older versions of growth, the cost was linear but the current version after the second level of growth, the change in cost leaps due to the cost of AoE Strength.

The merger of multiple attack with multiple move by has broken many speedster builds. Now, doing a multiple move by drops your DCV by 1/2 regardless of the number of targets.

FW vs Barrier: I appreciate it when the rules take the opportunity to abstract a mechanic away from a special effect, as one of the core precepts of the system is a separation of mechanic and sfx. As with many (if not most) of the abstracted base powers, it is possible to make constructs that are particularly effective. The system tends to allow this in the interests of being a "build to your concept" toolbox, and relies on GM arbitration to amend or veto a power construct they find problematic. This has been true of the HS for the entire time I've played (4e, 5e, 5er, and 6e). Barrier is a new formulation, but it is in the vein of what has come before. So, I agree that powers made using it require scrutiny, but I contend that the same is true of many core powers.

Extreme Growth and Shrinking can be problematic, but that's been true all along. Size scaling is a fundamentally problematic concept and difficult to model in any game system, and variable scaling (the ability for a thing to change the size scale at which it operates) is of course even more difficult. Overall, I think the changes DoJ-era made to size scaling over the course of 5e and 6e are for the better. They are not perfect, but I don't expect perfection of a new version of something, I only expect overall improvement.

Multiple Attack / Multiple Move-by...I would require an example as I'm not 100% following what you are referring to. As I recollect the big shock was in 5e when DOJ presented Multiple Attack in print, and then revealed via these forums that per their interpretation (or perhaps it was the original game designer's interpretation, I forget) the ability to do a Multiple Attack was implicit all along and was not actually new, only made explicit. It has been many years, but that's how I recall it. I don't recall hearing people talk about Multiple Attack as being a problem in 6e specifically previous to this. Could you please clarify what you mean with this bullet point?

Quote

Some other problems that have existed prior to 6th:

Flying Dodge is the ultimate dive for cover/defense move. It better than a normal dodge, you can abort to it, you get a full movement while doing it and you are considered to be standing at the end of it (no longer prone).

Because martial arts are so cheap, many move by artists will buy a passing strike, charge, et al. rather than use move by or move through The maneuvers do not have the take 1/2 or 1/3 damage rules to them and better CVs.

Change environment ability to enforce an ability roll can be problematic. The classic example is an oil slick. Its fairly easy to create a large slippery area with a -6 to a Dex roll or fall for fairly cheap.

Issues that pre-existed 6e are a wash when comparing it to previous versions as they are not 6e issues.

However, in the interests of discussion...

Flying Dodge is great, no argument. It should of course be better than a "normal dodge" as you pay cp (character points) for it, but it is also arguably better than a Martial Dodge. I ended up using it in a lot of builds as it is quite good, particularly on characters with better than average movement. It is borderline OP (overpowered) and is very synergistic with other commonly possessed abilities (mobility, good base DCV) and is particularly effective when a group is using a tactical map with obstructions / cover plotted out. Is it broken, or grounds to consider versions of the system that offer it as inferior to versions that don't? I don't think so. Again, it is a given that the character building tools the HS offers allow an incredible freedom to make characters, with the downside that it is very susceptible to min maxing. This is true of any game system that allows flexible or freeform mixing of disparate abilities; some will use the design space in an attempt to realize an interesting character, others will instead exploit it to cherry pick combat effective abilities to make an ego-fulfillment vehicle.

FMove Martial Arts: yeah, they're great. I used them extensively. They were great in 4e. They were great in 5e. They're still great in 6e. Personally I like them and consider them to be a feature not a flaw. The standard "yes, of course, you can min max this to make a combat monster" applies.

Change Environment: I've gone on record in the past as having issues with CE. There is a nugget of a good, even essential idea, in it...but it is fundamentally flawed with arbitrariness and even its originating precept. I don't want to bog this discussion of 6e vs predecessors with a CE rant, but to give you a glimmer of what I mean, I believe that the way the game handles debuffs in general (CE, Drain, etc) would benefit from some modernization and unification. The same is true of buffs (Aid, characteristics and other odd constructs such as skill levels bought as powers, pushing, situational modifiers, etc).

Quote

Finally, there are items in 6th which people don't like which seems, at least to me, to be personal taste:

No more find weakness/lack of weakness.

No more figured stats.

Penetrating requiring a impenetrable as a defense instead of hardened.

Damage Negation.

Find Weakness was a bit of a problem mathematically and by its very nature did not scale well across power levels. In a game system designed to allow games to be run at a very broad range of power levels, it had issues. Mechanically it also overlapped the Armor Piercing advantage, which I didn't mind per se (the HS is after all the system of multitudinous cat-skinning options), but multiple methods of halving defenses was perhaps a little redundant and an opportunity for consolidation.

And as it was only resisted by a special snowflake of a base power (Lack of Weakness) that had no other purpose (aside from a commonly named foil to NND attacks), it essentially forced characters with a lot defense to invest in LoW or else likely regret it later. As such, independently of its in-game effect, FW also effectively warped the meta of a campaign. If no one used FW, then no one needed LoW. If a PC used FW, some percentage of antagonists had to have LoW. If some NPC's used FW, then some percentage of the PC's would end up with LoW. The same is true of Hardened and other tit-for-tat mirrored offensive and defensive options (the same is true of Killing Attack and Resistant Defense, obviously), but it was particularly noticeable for FW and LoW as they were detached base powers and an alternate vector of arms race.

Personally, I liked FW and used it a fair amount...because it was effective and because it modeled an ability I always liked in comics and cyberpunk (the robocop eye), etc. But I understood why it got cut...it was low hanging fruit.

It is of course possible to just re-include previous edition base powers as custom powers in 6e. In the case of FW it is also possible to formulate an equivalent. I don't know if the official rules questions will survive the forums purge Dan S. will be doing soon, but here's a post I made that Steve answered back in 2009 on a FW equivalent build. Since then others have shared their solutions to the same concept.

Here's an example FW equivalent from a 6e character who was updated from 5e:

Cyber-Eye: Find Weakness : Armor Piercing (APG Style 1/2 then 1/4 AP; +3/4) for up to 90 Active Points of All Attacks, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (100 Active Points); Requires A Roll (Skill roll (Analyze); Must Make A Roll For Each Level Of Effect; Second Roll Takes A -2 Penalty, Burnout - Can't Roll Again Against A Target Once Roll Is Failed, Burnout Only Affects Target Roll Failed Against; Existing Effect Remains; New Targets Allowed; -1 1/4), IIF (Cybereye; -1/4); Real Cost: 40

Notes: Grand-fathered "Find Weakness" equivalent.

I'll address Figured Characteristics separately as it is probably the most divisive change in 6e. I've discussed it considerably in the past and was one of the proponents for getting rid of them prior to 6e (it would require deep delving into the archives of these forums, which are about to be purged away anyway, so I'll leave off dredging up posts from the dead, but some of the early argumentation against figured characteristics can be found in this old document on my site, from the 5e era: http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/HEROAnatomy.aspx), but one more time wont hurt I suppose.

Hardened was very efficient in prior editions, and as such had a tendency to show up on many builds where it arguably had no conceptual basis. It was so good it was borderline foolish to not take a level of it.

Damage Negation: personally, I like Damage Negation overall. I think its execution is a bit flawed, but I used it when I ran 6e games to good effect. I wrote up an analysis of it back in the day on these boards, and for ease of reference I pulled it out into a separate document that's been on my website for many years... http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/GeneralThoughtsOnDamageNegation.aspx

Christopher R Taylor · January 31, 2019

Ending Find Weakness didn't bother me at all, it had the possibility of being crazy overpowered in big, long "boss" fights, and otherwise wasn't really all that great. I never really liked how it worked, even if it was a mechanic that fit the comics with guys like Karnak from the Inhumans. Most of the changes in 6th I liked (merging gliding into flight, for instance, adding a new layer on to transform, etc) but some were either needless (deleting comeliness, which added nothing to the game) or questionable (folding Suppress and Transfer into Drain, changing the mechanics of both in the process and messing up some build concepts).

Overall it is the most effective and successful mechanical build of Hero, but it lost a lot of the charm and ease of play it had in 4th and earlier editions, which is a mistake in a game.

Oh, and I don't see that Damage Negation was even needed or useful to the game, although it is an interesting concept, its both too cheap and too expensive at the same time (see Shrike's analysis of Reduced Negation for how it can be too expensive).

Christopher R Taylor · January 31, 2019

Quote

Lots of people want to call Pluto a planet, but the problem is that if we do, there are numerous other bodies in the solar system that should be called planets.

For the record astronomers are changing their mind (again) on Pluto, since it has many planetary characteristics they did not believe were there, such as polar caps. Its definitely a planet, just a very small one, possibly the smallest that an object can be and yet be considered a planet.

And your position argues against adding Comeliness to the game, not for removing it.

Doc Democracy · January 31, 2019

Good grief Duke - you churn out the words!! ?

On 1/30/2019 at 2:36 AM, Duke Bushido said:

As mentioned by someone else above, the changes break the feel of progression. Yes: the argument can be made that "this is the next logical step." I don't agree because it doesn't feel like a step in the game that I've always played as much as it feels like a veering off. I wish I had a better way of expressing this, but it doesn't _feel_ like any of the changes were made to streamline play or increase enjoyment of the game; it feels like a purely gamist exercise in math.

I understand what you are saying. There was a very deliberate decision made in 5th Edition to try and clarify what the HERO System is, a generic set of mechanics that could be utilised to deliver a game in multiple genres. Those genres were then described (with guidance on how to apply the HERO System) as how to play a game within those genres.

That is where things diverge - the actual rule options in one set of books and how those rules might be applied in a different set of books. The Big Blue Book combined the HERO System with the Champions genre book. I reckon 5th Edition and Champions covers the same ground but better. 6th Edition further evolved the rules, breaking things down so that different genres might be more closely emulated.

I think the big mistake people make with HERO is that they think they need to use the rules that exist or have watertight arguments on what they will or will not allow players to use. The genre books missed a trick in that they did not begin with an overview of the things that they would utilise and the things that they would gloss over (for the betterment of the game experience). HERO suffers when the GM does not put in enough thought into what they will and will not utilise in the game they want to run. Hugh's vision of games Powered by HERO would do that for the GM.

In first edition Policeman 14 or less covered much of the detail that might take 10 lines of skills in the usual 6th Edition game - separating out all of the elements of being a policeman. If you want transfer - you know how it is built in 6th Edition - you can simply write 3D6 END Transfer. You know how it works. If you want instant change, you can write instant change - you know how it works. There is no NEED to play the maths games. There is no requirement but it means that you, as GM, have (if you want) a greater insight into how everything hangs together.

6th is only huge because it contains shedloads of design information - things I would scour magazine supplements to gain are all in 6th Edition as standard.

I reckon I play HERO. I will bet I dont play pure 6th, there will be elements of almost every edition I have played and forgotten/ignored changes in later editions because I like how it plays.

Would I like a Golden Age book that does not facilitate me to write a Golden Age campaign but delivers a version of the rules that push the bold strokes of four colour comics, broad skills that have little detail and a fast and loose way of playing? Absolutely. Huge time saver. Would I buy a game that better emulated Bond - giving talents that are bought as black boxes and delivers the feel of a spy game (possibly writing out the SPD chart as an explicit thing because everyone has the same SPD by design)? Most probably. I reckon my group would love that game.

The other reason I would buy those games ahead of other systems that do the same is that I would know they were both built on a consistent base and that,with a little bit of work, I could consistently add elements to those games that I wanted, properly costed. In other games it would simply be changes made by sticking a finger in the air.

Dont peer too closely at the detail. Pull back, ignore the stuff you don't want, aren't interested in. The system is robust enough to cope with that.

6th provides you with more options than previous editions, no one says that you have to use them all...

Doc

Killer Shrike · January 31, 2019

On 1/28/2019 at 7:29 PM, LouisGoncey said:

Here are my anti-6th edition opinions. Don’t know, and don’t care if they change your opinions.

Your lack of caring has been noted; thanks for responding all the same. ?

Quote

1st edition thru 5th edition are basically the same game. 6th edition goes it’s own way. This is from a simulation type game to a more general gamist type of game.

I find this to be an interesting statement. The only significant mechanical change between 6e and 5e is the removal of Figured Characteristics. There are some superficial changes such as relabeling and tweaking of Disadvantages to Complications (but the concept remains the same) and related re-jiggering of how points are accounted for (but the end result is the same). There are some consolidations of concepts and pruning away of a few others. But character creation, the game's resolution engine, and base mechanics are all unchanged. It isn't really possible to give an exact percentage for these kinds of things, but I'd ballpark it and say that 6e and 5e are at least 85% the same game. If you were to draw a Venn diagram of all the things they are identical in overlapped, and the things in which they differ are not (thus, a Venn diagram), the non-overlapped fringes would be small.

As far as gamist vs simulationist, the HS has always been a gamist-simulationist hybrid. The design of the system itself is strongly simulationist. Some people use it to drive strongly simulationist campaigns. Others are drawn to the system for the ease in which it can be min maxed and the robustness of its combat system to drive strongly gamist campaigns. Some groups have a mix thereof. This dichotomy has always been present among the player base as long as I've been playing, and is one of the things at the core of many of the back and forth arguments that have kept posters on these and other boards conversing and conflicting and sometimes combating over for many years...the divide between the optimal mechanical expressions to model a concept and combat effective pragmatism and / or exploitiveness.

So, to say that 6e somehow became a gamist system compared to 5e...well, I just don't see it. YMMV of course.

Quote

1) Getting rid of figured characteristics. What is gained vs. what is lost? The mathematics become slightly simpler, for sure, but how many people still use Hero Designer? If the majority of players use HD that simplicity of mathematics is lost.

2) nerfing of Killing Damage. The Stun Multiplier goes from 1-5 tom1-3 and the PD/ED now removes from all damage both Killing and Normal. I don’t know about Hit Locations, they remain unchanged which doesn’t really make sense to me...

3) hexes get switched to meters. Hexes allow players to know exact distances, while meters only work for those born or used to using the metric system. I understand that many players use TotM when playing Hero System, but removing hexes and the exact patterns of area-effects that come using a hex grid and we have to ask, “why do we worry about exact distances when using meters?”

I am tired and my heart is not into being so anti-HERO so I will stop here. There are other nits to pick but why bother.

I'll address Figured Characteristics separately later.

Killing Attacks did not get nerfed per se they got balanced. It was a thing in earlier editions where some players would take a Killing Attack as the base for a power intended to Stun (CON stagger). The fact that it was even possible for a Killing Attack to be more effective at Stunning than a Normal Damage attack was a problem. Either Normal Damage needed a buff or Killing Attacks needed to be dialed back. Now, if you were a player or GM who appreciated the utility of Killing Attacks for stunning people, then yeah the exploit was blocked and you may feel irritated about it. You are of course free to just set the stun multiple of killing attacks at whatever you want in your own games; it is literally a zero effort house rule.

Hexes were always measured in meters, as has already been pointed out. You may have not thought of it that way, but it remains true. However there were many reasons to decouple hexes from 2m, which I wont be able to fully elaborate as I have to budget my time, but I'll hit a few of the high points.

First, whenever you measure or count something and desire precision, it is best for one 1 unit of the thing you require precision on to equal 1. This is axiomatic.

If you are counting chickens, each chicken would be 1 unit. If you are counting chicken feathers, each feather would be 1 unit and a chicken with 1000 feathers (made up number, I have no idea how many feathers a chicken might have) could be represented as a cluster of 1000 units (how many feathers do you have sir? 3.3 chickens worth!) but it would be more accurate to just count the feathers regardless of which chicken a given feather came from. Viz, hexes and meters.

Hexes are an abstraction, notable only because they were found an a type of battlemat commonly available at the time the game was created, primarily for wargames but usable in an rpg context as well. The three basic choices were square grid, hex grid, no grid (use a measuring tape). Square grids have an odd pixelation effect on movement and AoE abilities and facing is difficult to manage. Hexes are not immune to this but lessen the effect considerably and offer a compelling advantage over squared grids for those who require a little more precision.

At the time, most miniatures available were somewhere between 22mm and 32mm in scale (though exceptions existed at both ends), with a sort of happy middle ground between 25 and 28mm.

Layered over that were some practical considerations, such as the size of the typical battlemat, which itself was driven by the size of the typical playing surface, and the desire for some extra space around the board for character sheets, books, dice, drinks, snacks, elbows, et al, and you get a reasonable approximation of 2m (a common approximation of the height of an adult male human) per hex as a working general model.

From there, if you are writing a game that you fully intend to be played on a hex battlemap at 2m per hex, then it seems like a convenient shortcut to just measure all distances in hexes within the rule text including weapon ranges, movement, general measurement of distances (yeah yeah, its 125 feet tall...how many hexes is that?), and so on. Unfortunately, this shortcut is founded on a big assumption, and as all decisions based upon an assumption it is a wrong decision whenever the founding assumption is not true.

To wit...people who don't use a tactical map at all are encumbered by the hex concept which has no bearing at all to their non-tactically mapped game resolution. The introduction of megascale to the rules, useful for things like space based games particularly, would greatly prefer a tactical map that deals in something a bit more practical to them than 2m. Vehicles and supers with high mobility quickly make a farce out of the distance available on the tactical battle map, easily traversing off the edge and requiring hand waving or a reset...but if only the abstraction of the hex lines drawn on the map were decoupled from the amount of real distance they are meant to represent and from the rules text that needlessly expresses itself in that coupling, this logical flaw just falls away.

And it should be obvious, but I'll point out that you can choose to continue to treat hexes as 2m increments the same as you ever could. Decoupling the tactical map representation from a unit of measurement did not take away your ability to continue to use your trusty battlemat or what have you in exactly the same way as you ever did. What it accomplished is allowing you to also scale your representation as necessary or desired. For instance, perhaps for MOST conflicts you treat 1 hex as 2m, nothing has changed for you, but to do an aerial battle or a naval engagement or a car chase thru a city or a battle between giant mechs you shift the scale and for that resolution treat 1 hex as 5m, and for a small intimate battle in a tight space you change the scale for that engagement to 1 hex is 1m. It gives you much more control over the tactical representation for a given conflict.

Think of it algebraically; replace all references to hexes with the variable "x" (just delete he- and -es from the word so to speak). Let x = whatever number you want it to be to suit your current playing surface and the action being resolved there on.

Personally, I prefer playing the game at 1 hex = 1m for typical heroic conflicts where the characters involved are basically mundane, but for conflicts where people have high mobility, it can be useful to zoom out a bit and handle it at 1 hex = 2m or more. I prefer to shift along 1, 2, 5, 10 per hex and anything beyond that I would tend to handle abstractly (not on a tactical map) unless there was a strong reason to do so. I tend to just hand wave megascale movement as being effectively non-tactical.

As a practical exercise, get a piece of blank grid paper; it doesn't matter if it is hex or square, and draw a rpg map of whatever. One of the first things you need to decide on is the scale. Does one grid unit equal 5 feet or 10 feet or 100 feet? You make this decision every time you take out a new sheet of grid paper and start to draw; you may have a default scale that you sort of auto-decide, but the choice is there and you can make a decision based upon what you are trying to represent vs force yourself to draw everything at a uniform scale even if it takes 50 sheets of graph paper taped end to end to do it.

A representation of distance on a tactical map is an abstraction. A precise unit of measurement is a concretion. By coupling an abstraction that was only true in a specific context to a concretion that was entirely arbitrary was a bit of a mistake by the original game designer(s) which no doubt seemed reasonable and intuitive at the time but in retrospect was unnecessarily limiting, but to compound the mistake by doing it at a ratio (1:2 hex:meter in this case) compounded the mistake. If it had at least been 1:1 then it would have been little more than a quirky label (this game calls meters "hexes", oh well no big deal) or possibly even a useful abstraction unto itself (a hex is whatever distance it is defined to be in a campaign's guidelines). Instead it was a unnecessary anchoring of a not-necessarily-a-tactical-game-system to a tactical battle map.

Finally, you said “why do we worry about exact distances when using meters?”, and try as I might to understand the question, I'm sorry to say I couldn't fathom your meaning. Please clarify?

Killer Shrike · January 31, 2019

I intend to respond to all the legitimate points that con-6e posters have put forth in order of their posting in due time, but it may take a while as the responses are lengthy and I have limited time in the day to do so. For reasons of practicality, some things I may opt to address in a general response (such as Figured Characteristics), which I will do at the end. I invite people to keep sharing their thoughts in the meantime, and thanks to those who have shared already as well as those who have fielded responses on the pro-6e side. It's been interesting reading.

HS 6e is mechanically the best version of the rules; dissenting views welcome

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

massey

massey

Spence

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members