6th Edition vs 5th Edition (no warring please!)

[Tywyll]

So I bought the two 6th ed books right when they came out, but my FH campaign was winding down and I can't remember if we ever switched over. I think I might have run a short 6th ed game, but it's been maybe 7 years ago?

 

I know about a lot of the changes...like no figured characteristics, no elemental controls, more points, nerfed healing, AoE changing, ability to stop two bullets...

 

But its been so long since I've been able to run hero, I forgot what 6th edition was supposed to fix. Like what did it do to 'fix' 5th edition? What does it do differently that is better than previous editions?

 

I'm thinking of trying to dip back into Hero and am debating whether I'll run 4th, 5th, or maybe 6th edition. I'm not looking for an edition war, and hope that this can be civil. I don't mind if the answer is 'nothing' or 'everything' but could you give specifics if you don't mind? 

[Grailknight]

On the whole, I'll give it to 6th by a whisker.

 

I say that, realizing that as I thought about my answer, that my personal house rules cleave closer to 5th for the genre I use Hero for 95% of the time:Champions. So read my answer with the knowledge that any time I discuss a change, I look at how it affects all genres and favor that which works best in Champions  for the most part.

 

The biggest change, removal of Figured Characteristics, is a net plus for the system. While it made benchmarks more nebulous(and created more work for the GM), it eased the necessity of purchasing STR, DEX and CON to levels out of concept for many characters and pretty much removed any incentive to sell back a Characteristic. This does make Champions characters more expensive but in this case the good for other genres is just too much.

 

Characteristics also had two(perhaps more ?) changes that i disagree with. Negative Characteristics were removed and the Normal Characteristic Maxima Limitation was removed. The first makes Adjustment Powers too powerful and the second effectively removed benchmarks from the game.

 

Removal of the doubling rule for adding damage(Still an optional rule so there must be some skepticism). Yes, it enables some concepts but it doesn't really improve any and opens the door to sinking battleships with pocket knives or handguns. Absurd but rules legal.

 

Damage Negation is a great addition to the game.

 

Growth is something i'll give 6th credit for. It's still broken but a good try was made.

 

Transfer being broken up is also a net plus for the game. Yes, it now twice as wordy, but the ability to have differing fade and recovery rates is so much of an improvement that it runs right over my objections.

 

Change Environment having the option to impose rolls on powers is so horribly broken that I can't conceive the thought process behind it being rational.

 

Elemental Control removal and Variable Power Pool change. Elemental Controls were mainly(not exclusively!) to address the imbalance in character generation that Figured Characteristics gave to STR-based concepts. 6th removed one, so the other was a natural consequence. VPP's are now too inexpensive considering they are the most versatile concept in the game. There is no justification for a  5 or more slot Multipower costing increasingly more.

 

There are most of my high and low points. Even though I have more negative than positive point, I still feel that 6th is a design improvement over 5th. Most of my quibbles are easily fixed with house rules(Using 5th Edition VPP's. doubling not optional etc) or are more philosophical.

 

These are just my opinions and I won't debate then in this thread per the OP's request. Anyone who wants to discuss with me or ask questions, please start a new thread.

 

 

[Tywyll]

Thanks for that insight! I still don't know how I feel about figured characteristics and I didn't know that that was what Elemental controls were designed to address. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 10/11/2019 at 9:52 AM, Grailknight said:

On the whole, I'll give it to 6th by a whisker.

 

I say that, realizing that as I thought about my answer, that my personal house rules cleave closer to 5th for the genre I use Hero for 95% of the time:Champions. So read my answer with the knowledge that any time I discuss a change, I look at how it affects all genres and favor that which works best in Champions  for the most part.

 

The biggest change, removal of Figured Characteristics, is a net plus for the system. While it made benchmarks more nebulous(and created more work for the GM), it eased the necessity of purchasing STR, DEX and CON to levels out of concept for many characters and pretty much removed any incentive to sell back a Characteristic. This does make Champions characters more expensive but in this case the good for other genres is just too much.

 

Characteristics also had two(perhaps more ?) changes that i disagree with. Negative Characteristics were removed and the Normal Characteristic Maxima Limitation was removed. The first makes Adjustment Powers too powerful and the second effectively removed benchmarks from the game.

 

 

I don't understand your "adjustments too powerful" statement.  Under 5e, a characteristic at 0 basically meant "roll a 9- to be able to act", so adjusting someone down to 0 was already very powerful, but maybe I am missing something.  I don't see a ton of adjustment powers in play.

 

On 10/11/2019 at 9:52 AM, Grailknight said:

Removal of the doubling rule for adding damage(Still an optional rule so there must be some skepticism). Yes, it enables some concepts but it doesn't really improve any and opens the door to sinking battleships with pocket knives or handguns. Absurd but rules legal.

 

I've never understood how someone who had enough added damage to sink a battleship with a pocket knife would need the pocket knife to sink a battleship.  The STR that adds the damage can sink the battleship almost as quickly anyway.

 

On 10/11/2019 at 9:52 AM, Grailknight said:

Damage Negation is a great addition to the game.

 

Growth is something i'll give 6th credit for. It's still broken but a good try was made.

 

Transfer being broken up is also a net plus for the game. Yes, it now twice as wordy, but the ability to have differing fade and recovery rates is so much of an improvement that it runs right over my objections.

 

Change Environment having the option to impose rolls on powers is so horribly broken that I can't conceive the thought process behind it being rational.

 

Elemental Control removal and Variable Power Pool change. Elemental Controls were mainly(not exclusively!) to address the imbalance in character generation that Figured Characteristics gave to STR-based concepts. 6th removed one, so the other was a natural consequence. VPP's are now too inexpensive considering they are the most versatile concept in the game. There is no justification for a  5 or more slot Multipower costing increasingly more.

 

While I agree enough slots suggests the VPP become a Multipower, the MP having "cosmic" by default makes the cost comparison more challenging.   60 point MP with 5 fixed slots costs 90 points.  60 point VPP that can change automatically as a 0 phase action costs 210 points, but it has way more than 5 slots.  EDIT 150 points - 60 pool + (30 x 3 = 90 control cost!

 

Also agree that removal of Figured is the biggest change, and a significant improvement in removing the "buy these stats high or be either inefficiently costed or flat out ineffective" result in prior editions.

[Grailknight]

So no response to Tywyll( the OP). A pity. While I don't mind debating my opinions on Hero 6th, I was hoping to see others. Hugh, i  will await your new thread to respond.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm not actually into debating Hero rules editions, because IMO each has its benefits and drawbacks, but much of what you'd put into either category depends on individual preferences. I admit to preferring Fifth myself, partly due to familiarity and comfort with how it does things, partly due to it having hit my personal sweet spot in level of detail; but I have introduced elements from later or previous editions that I just like better.

 

However, another factor that weighs in my choice of editions is the great compatibility between Fifth and Fourth Edition. Aside from the first couple of editions of Champions, those two are the easiest to port between. Stuff built for one of them can be used with the other with only a few modifications; and between the two editions there's a ton of published material to draw from, particularly for Champions (and supers is my favorite game genre).

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Grailknight said:

So no response to Tywyll( the OP). A pity. While I don't mind debating my opinions on Hero 6th, I was hoping to see others. Hugh, i  will await your new thread to respond.

 

I was more looking for clarification of a couple of your comments - most were dead on, IMO.

 

To the overall question of "what was 6e designed to fix", I don't believe there were broad, sweeping changes to fix any perceived fatal flaw.  The focus, at least to me, was to better realize the "get what you pay for. and pay for what you get" aspect of Hero, remove redundancies (for example, removal of Force Field as a power separate from other resistant defenses) and maybe address some elements which had been hard to do in prior editions.  Some changes I've noted:

 

 - the loss of Figureds is an obvious and long-discussed one which rationalized some costs; the accompanying re-costing of REC, STUN and END  better balances  buying these with buying reduced END or more defenses, in my view.

 

 - replacement of COM with Striking Appearance provided a mechanic for appearance, and removed a characteristic that, at best, provided limited modifications to another characteristic (PRE).

 

 - not sure I agree with the "why" suggested for ECs, but the reality is that they moved from a free point savings for some characters (who had similar AP powers and could persuade the GM their "common theme" was OK) with no mechanical down side for several editions, then that "drain one, drain all" limitation which is  now recognized as just a minor limitation.

 

 - Barrier provided the ability to create walls, something which was a pain in past editions;

 

 - The change to a 1d3 multiple for killing attacks removed them from the power of choice to get STUN damage past high defenses, and made them about killing.  The lack of change to hit locations largely allowed the high multiples to continue in genres where the issue had not been as problematic.

 

 - Reducing the cost of Armor Piercing made it useful - 8d6 AP vs 12d6 Normal didn't tend to work well when many characters, especially high DEF characters, hardened their defenses.

 

 - the spinout of Impenetrable from Hardened made it expensive to be resistant to all attack advantages.

 

 - the change to VPP control costs to focus on maximum AP, not just move in lockstep with the size of the pool, made some other uses available, especially "one power at a time" VPPs with standard limitations.

 

 - one that never seems to be mentioned, several combat maneuvers were added so things previously requiring martial maneuvers can be done without Martial Arts (Trip, Choke).

 

 - Combined and Multiple Attacks are better addressed in 6e.

 

 - Adjustment Powers were fine-tuned. Making Aid cost END by default, and making Drain ranged, were both welcome, IMO, especially when comparing a STUN Drain to an attack against Power Defense. 

 

 - Recognition that the first step of "delayed return" has substantially more value than further delays, and making it more costly to Adjust large numbers of abilities both balance adjustment powers better, IMO.

 

 - Similarly, the first "big step" of Megascale being costed up, and adding in the ability to scale, was a good change IMO.

 

 - Attack vs Alternate CV makes options that did not exist before available (such as targeting mental DCV with normal OCV - "my HypnoDisk will sap your will, hero!"

 

There are a ton of little changes which probably get overlooked. 

 

Like Grailknight, I think 6e is an incremental improvement over 5e.  I'd give it more than "a whisker", but it was fine tuning, not wholesale change.  It certainly would not attract many, if any, gamers who did not find prior editions to their liking.  One advantage of that, as Lord Liaden alludes to above, is that it's pretty easy to transport elements between editions, if desired. 

[Grailknight]

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I don't understand your "adjustments too powerful" statement.  Under 5e, a characteristic at 0 basically meant "roll a 9- to be able to act", so adjusting someone down to 0 was already very powerful, but maybe I am missing something.  I don't see a ton of adjustment powers in play.

 

I may be remembering incorrectly but you could still act with 0 or Negative STR with little impairment as a Ranged or Mental user , DEX and CON were more  expensive and again DEX didn't affect  a Mentalist except for DCV and the Mental Characteristics only required rolls to change what you were doing.

 

Quote

 

 

I've never understood how someone who had enough added damage to sink a battleship with a pocket knife would need the pocket knife to sink a battleship.  The STR that adds the damage can sink the battleship almost as quickly anyway.

 

They don't so why should they get a huge HKA for free when the low STR character can't use his HKA to do Normal Damage at all.

Where did all these indestructible/super reinforced pocket knives come from? Normally a Focus can't do more DC's than the sum of their DEF and Body unless purchased as Indestructible or with extra DEF and BODY.

How does Deadly Aim/ Weapon Master allow these shenanigans with supposedly Real Weapons.

 

Quote

 

 

While I agree enough slots suggests the VPP become a Multipower, the MP having "cosmic" by default makes the cost comparison more challenging.   60 point MP with 5 fixed slots costs 90 points.  60 point VPP that can change automatically as a 0 phase action costs 210 points, but it has way more than 5 slots.

 

There is a difference between 5th and 6th that is huge though. In 5th, the Control Cost is based off the Active costs of the VPP while in 6th it is based off the Real cost. Limitations can really cut this down.  Cosmic doesn't mean much to a VPP when it has infinite slots. Also your math is off there it should only cost 150 points for your VPP

Quote

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

I may be remembering incorrectly but you could still act with 0 or Negative STR with little impairment as a Ranged or Mental user , DEX and CON were more  expensive and again DEX didn't affect  a Mentalist except for DCV and the Mental Characteristics only required rolls to change what you were doing.

 

 

My memory could be wrong as well, but as I recall, each stat hitting negative imposed some pretty serious restrictions you needed a CHAR roll to overcome (which, at 0, was 9-, and at -30 meant a 3 was required).  My recollecton is that the condition for a required roll was pretty much the same as 6e provides, but in 6e the roll will never be worse than 9-.

 

Some of the stats that became less expensive in 6e also became defensive.  I don't think CON was defensive in 5e, for example.  That was done specifically to balance out the impact of recosting on adjustment powers.

 

One of us must be misrecalling, so that at least explains why we see this differently.  Maybe someone still using 5e can weigh in on the severity of a 0 or negative characteristic.

 

20 hours ago, Grailknight said:

They don't so why should they get a huge HKA for free when the low STR character can't use his HKA to do Normal Damage at all.

Where did all these indestructible/super reinforced pocket knives come from? Normally a Focus can't do more DC's than the sum of their DEF and Body unless purchased as Indestructible or with extra DEF and BODY.

How does Deadly Aim/ Weapon Master allow these shenanigans with supposedly Real Weapons.

 

I think we risk crossing into debate here.  The "no more than doubling" rule was eliminated, in my view, to simplify the "adding damage" rules, where some abilities enhanced base damage and others were adders that were capped at double base damage.

 

Why does a +1d6 Billy Club boost 90 STR from 18d6 to 19d6?  A character can "switch" a 12d6 Blast to a 4d6 RKA at a cost of 12 points (make it a 2 fixed slot multipower), which is a lot more versatile than STR and HKA.

 

The  bigger question is probably why STR enhances an HKA at all - we have to pay for everything else, so if one wants a 1d6+1 HKA Sword that does 2 1/2d6 with 20 STR applied, that could be 4 DCs of unlimited HKA + 4 DCs of Limited HKA.  For a character with a 20 STR, that limitation should be pretty low, perhaps even -0 unless Adjustment Powers are common, or perhaps -1/2 for Lockout of STR.  We "expect" STR to enhance those KA's, but players new to Hero also often "expect" logical results of other powers, like LS adding to defenses.  The 1d6+1 HKA, +4DC that lock out STR is a kludgy build, but would most often be "behind the scenes" in a game where normal weapons cost money instead of CP.

 

By RAW, I don't believe anything prevents using an HKA and a STR Strike as a Combined Attack, so an alternative approach would have been allowing that 90 STR character with a 1/2d6 Knife to devote STR to either enhance the KA or do normal damage.  So that 90 STR could be an 18d6 Punch + 1/2d6 HKA from the knife, or a 1d6+1 HKA plus 16d6 normal damage.  I do believe it becomes unbalanced if we allow that to be a 6 1/2d6 HKA + 18d6 Strike.

 

As to Deadly Blow, Weapon Master, et al I think the removal of doubling better simulates the "just that skilled" element of 3e d20 Sneak Attacks (or even 1e/2e backstabs that went to 4x or 5x weapon damage), or the comic book Bullseye who is is accurate a thrown playing card becomes a lethal weapon.

 

Unquestionably a YMMV change.

 

20 hours ago, Grailknight said:

There is a difference between 5th and 6th that is huge though. In 5th, the Control Cost is based off the Active costs of the VPP while in 6th it is based off the Real cost. Limitations can really cut this down.  Cosmic doesn't mean much to a VPP when it has infinite slots. Also your math is off there it should only cost 150 points for your VPP

 

Where did I get that?  Edited above. 

 

90 points will buy 15 fixed slots.  Cosmic means the VPP can change like a Multipower, at will, and effectively makes all slots Variable.

 

The old VPP did not work for some concepts.  Consider, for example, the Archer - he has an arrow for every occasion, up to 60 AP, OAF Bow and Arrows.  A Multipower allowed him to halve the cost of the pool, as well as all slots.  A VPP meant at 60 point pool + 45 point control cost.  But since each power in the VPP was OAF, really every arrow should combine two attacks.  Now, he can pay 30 for the pool, + 45 for a Cosmic 60 AP control cost, all powers OAF.

 

That better balances his VPP versus Multipower choice with CosmicMan, whose powers are natural and require no Focus.  With his 60 point pool, CosmicMan could still have 2 60 AP powers with -1 limitations under the 5e rules.  The cost for the flexibility of a VPP has not really changed, so I don't see this as a differentiator between 5e and 6e.

 

Regardless of edition, I am  not a huge fan of DoAnything Man, as opposed to a VPP crafted with limits on what it can do.  VPPs are good for very flexible concepts played by highly experienced players, or players with unlimited pre-fab "slots" for the pool, but they are a Stop Sign mechanic (versus the Caution sign for a Multipower) for a reason.

[Tech]

On 10/12/2019 at 11:32 PM, Lord Liaden said:

I'm not actually into debating Hero rules editions, because IMO each has its benefits and drawbacks, but much of what you'd put into either category depends on individual preferences. I admit to preferring Fifth myself, partly due to familiarity and comfort with how it does things, partly due to it having hit my personal sweet spot in level of detail; but I have introduced elements from later or previous editions that I just like better.

 

However, another factor that weighs in my choice of editions is the great compatibility between Fifth and Fourth Edition. Aside from the first couple of editions of Champions, those two are the easiest to port between. Stuff built for one of them can be used with the other with only a few modifications; and between the two editions there's a ton of published material to draw from, particularly for Champions (and supers is my favorite game genre).

 

I agree with Liaden; simply not going to add anything. My group prefers 3rd through 5th edition, with maybe a couple things grabbed from 6th.

Correction: we still have some things from 1st & 2nd ed.

[Matt the Bruins]

While I'm generally a fan of most of the changes made between 5th and 6th editions, I think most of them are fine tuning. The BIG one as I see it is losing Figured Characteristics and opening up far more versatility in character creation.

[Grailknight]

Sorry invalid point.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Grailknight
Blatant personal error realized too late.

[dsatow]

I'd like to mention some stuff which were skipped.

 

Find weakness/Lack of Weakness was removed from the game in 6th.  This prevented quartering defenses.

 

Penetration has its own defense now called impenetrable.  So hardening will not stop a penetrating attack.

 

Growth costs were changed to reflect actual benefits.  I disagree with this as the penalties for growth were grossly minimized.

[Duke Bushido]

On October 13, 2019 at 12:32 AM, Lord Liaden said:

 due to familiarity and comfort with how it does things, partly due to it having hit my personal sweet spot

 

Thank you, LL.

 

There have been many, _many_ discussions on "which edition is bester" for as long as I can remember (even when this board was still using 4e rules), and that one important point has, in my own unimportant opinion, _never_ been treated with the importance it truly deserves.

 

 

3 hours ago, Tech said:

Correction: we still have some things from 1st & 2nd ed.

 

 

That makes me supremely happy.