schir1964

Re: Just to prove I'm not a complete Comeliness Grognard

Alternative Name Changes:

• Strength becomes Force: Measure of force that can be exerted upon the environment (Damage/Lift).
  
• Dexterity becomes Agility: Measure of performing complex physical tasks (Physical Skills). (Initiative should be moved to another characteristic)
  
• Intelligence becomes Insight: Measure of processing information and understanding (Scholar Skills).
  
• Speed becomes Quickness: Measure of movement/performance (Speed/Actions).
  

Just Suggestions

- Christopher Mullins

Re: 6e Characteristics

I'm not sure that is true about DCV levels not adding to damage. Certainly some defense only maneuvers will not do damage so adding damage is not an option' date=' but if you have DCV levels and you are doing (say) a martial punch, I can see nothing in the notes or rules preventing you using your DCV levels to increase damage. It might sound counter-intuitive, but I'm pretty sure it is perfectly legal.[/quote']

Not for DCV Levels that apply to all attacks and is considered "constant/persistent". And it is an optional rule via GM permission in the combat skill levels section if I remember correctly.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Optional stats is not a viable compromise' date=' at least in a main book. Tossed into a book of optional rules, sure.[/quote']

Now you see' date=' if someone had said [i']this[/i] in the great COM debate, I would have said "Oh. I see your point then." And it might have saved a great deal of trouble arguing for a compromise.

I did, multiple times. I didn't use the word "compromise", but it was one of my main efforts to try to help those in favor of COM.

But in the Great COM Debate' date=' that was never said, so I stand by our side as the reasonable one. WE were willing to move toward a compromise, while the anti-COM crowd was NOT.[/quote']

Again, not true.

A successful negotiation implies a conculsion where everyone got at least some of what they wanted...

Well this was your mistake in thinking there was a negotiation going on. There wasn't and I'm not sure why you thought there was, but it does explain your frustration.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I think the reason that Marcus feels... kicked while's down' date=' so to speak... is that eventually the pro-COM group settled around a 'let's compromise and make COM optional' stance. The anti-COM crowd stayed pretty vehemently "No, it must GO!" to the end...[/quote']

No, this is not true.

 

I was the one who proposed the idea of COM being an optional Characteristic as a possible alternative near the beginning of my posts. Only later, did the some of those in favor of COM state that they would find that alternative tolerable (and seemingly begrudgingly so as far as the way they posted). There were a couple who were open to the idea when I explained it to them.

 

I'll be happy to search and find those posts I made when and put the links here if you need to read them again.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Repeatedly. And with a fair amount of hostility. "No one uses COM so it must GO!" was the mantra' date=' no matter how many of us pointed out that we, in fact, [i']did[/i] use COM.

I'm going to keep asking this.

Who specifically gave this "Mantra" that "... so it must GO!".

If accusations like this are going to be made about a general group of people, I'm going to want specific names and who you are including in this group.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Maybe there was' date=' but as I previously stated, we offered a reasonable compromise only to have it spat back in our faces.[/quote']

Who spat in your face?

 

Please provide a link or quote.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

...So' date=' you know. Let's try to calm down a bit. We're all here because we like the Hero system. Some of the changes will be good, some will be bad. You'll like some of them, you'll dislike others -- and some of the ones you like or dislike, others will feel just the opposite. You may or may not buy the new books. That's all fine. We're allowed to have different opinions (and really, that's all any of this is -- just opinions). Let's not turn this into a war...[/quote']

Thank you.

 

Although it's been a war since the start of the 6th Edition Threads. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Character advancement

One of the options I provided with my "Genesis Setting" was to allow the GM to create full powered versions of the Superheroes the players wanted to play. Once the "event" happened the normal versions of the characters the players had designed, the players would then have to figure out how to use their powers. This allows the GM to keep the general power level in check, but can let any particular character to use whatever power level is necessary for any particular situation as a means to show growth.

Never got to see this actually used in practice. It requires a great deal of trust between the Players and GM.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Pain

I was trying to get an idea of how we might approach building pain based attacks. Most attacks are done with NND normal attacks.

 

Wounding, like suffocation is a mechanic that is used in the system but is not available directly to be used in power building. It might be useful for such things to be a component part of the toolkit rather than an effect accessed through the application of damage.

 

Chris - what mechanic are you using to apply the penalties? Transform??

 

Doc

My approach was for the GM to create a new Combat Pain Sense Category and treat it like the other Senses with environmental penalties pre-defined by the GM and imposed as the situation dictates just like the other Sense penalties.

A Perception Roll is only required if the sum of all Penalties/Bonus results in a negative number which becomes the penalty to the Perception Roll.

Therefore, a Pain Roll is only required if the sum of all the Pain Penalties/Bonuses result in a negative number which becomes the penalty to the "Pain Roll" or "Stat Roll" or whatever might be appropriate.

Hmmm... you've got me thinking now about how a more fleshed out mechanic might work...

Anyway, the current system does not require that the player define whether their attacks cause "Pain" or not. It is something that perhaps should be required since you can have the following:

Personal Taser: Energy Blast (Stun Only) [Causes Pain]

Sonic Attack: Energy Blast (Stun Only) [Causes Pain]

Carbon Monoxide Attack: Energy Blast (Stun Only) [Causes No Pain]

Sleep Gas: Energy Blast (Stun Only) [Causes No Pain]

One could argue that the last two should require some level of Invisible Power Effects, but these are quick examples and given some time I'm sure there are examples of visible attacks that cause no pain but only do stun damage.

So if the rules/GM were to require definitions include Pain/Non-Pain attacks then you are halfway to creating a workable mechanic based on Pain.

I'll continue thinking on a more developed mechanic that works consistently with the existing mechanics.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Pain

Okay Doc... here's my take.

Based on your analysis, it sounds like a Combat Option that imposes a Stat Roll to the Character's actions based on what is being attempted. A Pain Penalty is obviously in effect which why a Stat Roll is required at all. The particular Characteristic that needs to be rolled against is determined by the action the character is attempting to perform.

Writing a Term Paper during a Migraine (vs INT or EGO)

Running/Walking with a sprained ankle or broken bone in the legs (vs DEX or EGO)

Lifting weight with a muscle cramp (vs STR or EGO)

Any action during the bends (vs EGO)

Does this help?

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

It also tells us that a lot of people who don't have a problem with Killing Attack don''t have that problem because they are avoiding or ignoring the RAW version' date=' or using an alternate rule to avoid the silliness.[/quote']

I suggest it is because the player is not permitted to use the IPE and LOS advantages. The most significant benefit of these is, or should be, the ability to stand on the sidelines, blending with background scenery, crowds of NPC's or what have you, and attack without fear of retaliation. But we don't allow Mentalist Snipers, so the advantages are of very limited utility and the price of Ego Attack recognizes that, although we claim the powers have these benefits, we will never allow them to be used, so the advantages don't really exist.

 

From a game philosophy perspective, I'd prefer to see the powers priced accurately (remove the things we won't allow to actually work as advertised from the base power, ideally, rather than charging full freight for them) rather than rely on the players and the GM nerfing those advantages to bring value back into line with cost.

Ditto.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Open ended damage

Thank you Christopher, for organising the thought. Two additions:

 

Option 1: Open ended damage only applies to living or complex targets that have areas that cause disproportional damage if hit.

 

Option 2: You can buy a form of Life Support that works to prevent open ended damage (both 'good' and 'bad') for (say) 10 points and represents the character having no critical locations - they might be a living stone statue, for instance, with no heart or brain as such, so it hurts just as much where ever they are hit.

Done.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Open ended damage

Open-ended Damage Roll

This alternative damage roll allows for more volatility in damage results than the current system. Each Six may be rolled again to add more damage while each One does not add to the damage and cancels out the damage of the largest value die rolled correspondingly for that rolling of the dice.

• Die Roll [6]: Each Six rolled on the die is rolled again. If the Six rolled is not canceled out then it's value is included for calculating damage.
  
• Die Roll [1]: Each One rolled on the die cancels the damage of the highest value die rolled on a one to one pairing of the dice. Also, each One rolled is not included for calculating damage.
  
• Dice Rolling: Each rolling (or re-rolling) of dice is handled separately using this procedure.
  
• Examples
  
  • 6d6 Roll [654321]: The Six is rolled again but it's value is canceled (not included for damage) by the One that was rolled. Total Stun = 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 14 + Six Re-roll.
    
  • 6d6 Roll [654311]: The Six is rolled again but Six and Five's values are canceled (not included for damage) by the two One's that were rolled. Total Stun = 4 + 3 = 7 + Six Re-roll.
    
  • 6d6 Roll [664321]: The two Six's are rolled again but the first Six's value is canceled (not included for damage) by the One that was rolled. Total Stun = 6 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 15 + Six Re-roll + Six Re-roll.
    

GM Options

Objects Need Not Apply: Open ended damage only applies to living or complex targets that have areas that cause disproportional damage if hit.

Life Support - Difficult To Kill (10 Points): Prevents open ended damage (both 'good' and 'bad') that represents the character having no critical locations. Example: A living stone statue with no heart or brain as such so it hurts just as much where ever they are hit.

Concept By Sean Waters

- Christopher Mullins

Re: I know what you are getting for Christmas (I've felt your presence)

I'm not sure it would take on all the nuance it could - there is a penalty tot eh attack roll' date=' but the effect would be fixed, and would not take into account psychological and other factors that a straight PRE attack can easily incorporate. Whilst you could build it to take that all into consideration I'm not sure how elegant it would look by the end of the process [/quote']

Those other "nuances" would appropriately fall under the classification of situational modifiers, but that is just my take on it. I understand that codifying all those modifiers would be impractical, but that is no different than how the "conditional" limitation guidelines are handled now. It was just a thought.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Two adjustment powers sharing the same maximum.

Sounds like two standard Multi-Power Slots to me (with the power pool serving as the Adjustment Pool). Not sure if that helps or not.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: I know what you are getting for Christmas (I've felt your presence)

... They can not simply ignore the fact that they are terrified and trembling' date=' if Great Cthulu suddenly appears in front of them. [b']They will take penalties (probably massive ones) to their 'Disarm Bomb' attempt[/b], but a PRE attack in itself will not cause them to do something specific...

Okay, I now see where you are going with this.

Basically you are imposing penalties on the target if they don't react in accordance to the attacker's wishes/will/command. They still get to react, but if they react in discordance then they suffer the penalties to whatever they are attempting.

This effect can already be achieved with the existing rules.

Presence Attack: Change Environment (Limitation: Target's PRE/3 Penalty vs Attack Roll, Limitation: Non-Selective Targets, Variable Limitation: Has No Effect vs Condition)

More elegant, defined, and flexible than the current PRE Attack mechanic. I wouldn't have a problem with players purchasing the mechanic above. It is balanced and consistent with the rest of the rules.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: I know what you are getting for Christmas (I've felt your presence)

Um' date=' what about EGO?[/quote']

I know that EGO or PRE can be used to resist a mental attack, but I thought a PRE attack could only be defended against with PRE. Or have I got them reversed?

 

Even so, EGO or PRE are still static values.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Re: I know what you are getting for Christmas (I've felt your presence)

The basic premise of the PRE Attack is the ability of the character to convince others that they can do what they claim they can do (whatever that may be... kill/win/lead/etc) by being impressive in some fashion.

How does the character be impressive?

The current rules allows acts of power to boost this impressiveness which may be defended against with PRE (Possibly EGO).

Herein lies the problem (balance wise).

1) You have an attack (No Max Range, Area Of Effect, Indirect - Hearing Group) that does not have to be purchased to be effective and is variable in strength and use (based on what the attacker does and whatever power they choose to employ).

2) The defense is PRE/EGO (Static Value).

3) The effect of a successful attack results in the target being convinced of whatever the attacker has claimed and reacts accordingly on that belief.

A solution to the balance problem would be to allow the target's maximum power level to act as a defense modifier against the attack. This makes sense since if an attacker tries to convince a target to surrender or suffer by blowing up a bus, but the target can blow up a building then the target should not find the attacker's claim convincing at all (given that both characters have the same PRE value).

So while Sean's idea can work (the mechanic is applied equally/consistently to everyone and is thus balanced in that manner) I still don't like the effect aspect of the mechanic in general.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Social effects

I haven't thoroughly read the entire thread so my thoughts below will be generic in nature based on my campaigns and is not in response to any particular idea or post.

Player Control: The player has 100% control over their character's actions and choices not withstanding any specific control given up by the player with Limitations/Disadvantages and so forth.

GM Control: The world, environment, and all other characters outside of the Players. These characters must abide by the same restrictions as the player's characters concerning Limitations/Disadvantages.

A player can choose to change a character's actions at will (regardless of whether it is out of character for that character from prior experience or on the character sheet) and will suffer the consequences of those actions/choices as appropriate in a consistent manner. In other words, a player can have his character act bizarre, erratic, or even schizophrenic if they want to, but the world and the other characters in that world will react accordingly as deemed appropriate by the GM.

Using this system, no Social Mechanic is required or even needed to resolve such conflicts of behavior or interaction.

I don't like PRE for the very fact that if applied consistently it violates the Player/GM Control as defined above. However, I've rarely seen this rule applied consistently and it then just violates the GM Control portion defined above.

Interactions skills likewise violate these definitions if applied consistently. They actually allow a chance of success even if logically there should not be any chance of success.

Example: Using conversation to glean information is only logical if applied in the appropriate setting where there is no perceived conflict between the attacker and the target. If a character is at a party and blends in with the guests, then this skill has a chance of success. In other words, a friendly environment is presumed. However, if the same skill is attempted by a stranger who walks up to a guard post in restricted area vs a diligent guard, then there should be no chance of success regardless of the dice roll.

Now when a skill should or should not be used is completely within the control of the GM regardless of what skills the Player possesses. This is what mucks things up a bit because it now blurs the line of the Player/GM Control and it is inevitable that a violation of that definition will occur.

Either the player can use the character's skills at any time with the chance of success that roll provides, or the GM controls the skill and controls when such a chance of success may be available. Either of these would be consistent. If it is the latter, then why as a Player waste points on a skill that the Player doesn't control.

I prefer to let the players run their characters while I run everything else. Social interactions are resolved through game play not through the mechanics.

Just my thoughts.

Now this does not mean that a social conflict mechanic could not work for those who would like such a mechanic. This is akin to those who like to randomly roll up characteristics vs those who like to purchase their characteristics with points. Neither is inherently wrong or bad, but each may be preferred over the other by the person's own likes/dislikes concerning RPGs.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: A Time Traveling Character

Sounds like a custom modifier for Teleportation.

Duration Modifier (+/-0 Per Segment): Teleportation is no longer instantaneous with this modifier. During travel the character may not interact with the world in any way besides movement.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Thread Linkage: New Power Ideas

[thread=70940]Super Block[/thread]

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Find Weakness, again

What if Find Weakness were done from the other direction.

New Advantage: Attack Multiplier (+1: x2 Damage, +2: x3 Damage, +3: x4 Damage)

An attack with this Advantage multiplies the damage rolled by the factor purchased.

Find Weakness

Naked Power Advantage (Any Attack): Attack Multiplier x2 (+1), Power Skill Required (-1/4)

Naked Power Advantage (Any Attack): Attack Multiplier x3 (+2), Power Skill Required (-1/4)

Naked Power Advantage (Any Attack): Attack Multiplier x4 (+3), Power Skill Required (-1/4)

Not sure what the costs would look like, but it may give a similar effect. Once the costs are nailed down, then you perhaps it could be rewritten as a canned power.

Just A Thought

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Find Weakness, again

I seem to recall from the FAQs concerning Find Weakness that you had to specify which Defense you were using it against.

Changing the Defense you were using it against immediately forced a reset on any successful accumulated Find Weakness rolls.

- Christopher Mullins

Re: New Mechanic: Super Block

I'd avoid the word 'automatic' which may be interpreted t mean you take at LEAST that much KB and suggest a slight wording modification to: +1" KB (before rolling for KB reduction or applying KBR) per 2 dice of blocked attack.

Okay, the mechanic is done (unless there is something I missed or need to change).

What do you think of the final product?

- Christopher Mullins

Re: Innate Defense vs Power Limitations

I know, the title makes no sense. I can't really come up with a way to explain it, so I'll use examples.

 

Mechanon has full Life Support, including the immunity to diseases, poisons, chemical weapons, and bio-weapons. This makes perfect sense, since he's a robot and should obviously be immune to such attacks.

 

On the other hand ... shouldn't those kinds of attacks automatically come with a limitation that they only affect living targets? Plague, whose power is disease generation, obviously can't give the bubonic plague to a statue ("All right, Mr. Thinker, turn your head and cough.").

 

Which leads to a weird chicken-and-egg scenario ... should the robot have to buy the immunities to thinks that, logically, should have a limitation that it can't affect them in the first place?

This has been discussed before. But the example given had to do with Priest Attacks (via Holy Symbols/Weapons) vs Supernatural Creatures (Undead/Demons/etc).

The question was whether the weapons were required to have a modifier vs Supernatural Creatures or whether supernatural creatures were required to have a disadvantage vs Holy Items.

It really depends on how you want things to work in general.

I think a good general rule of thumb is to determine if something is mundane or if something is special.

Example: If metallic objects are considered mundane and by virtue of being defined as a metallic object automatically means that diseases have no effect, then the diseases have a limitation (only vs living organic things).

Example: If a super soldier who is a living organic thing is immune to diseases even though all other mundane living organisms would be infected, then the super soldier is special and requires Immunity To Diseases.

Does that help any?

Side Note: This is where the hidden "Human Template" reveals itself for PC creation. If Mechanon was built with the PC rules ("Human Template"), then the mechanics should require Immunity vs Diseases (but they don't), however, if Mechanon was built with the Automaton/Computer/Vehicle/Base rules ("Non-Human Templates"), then the mechanics should not require Immunity vs Diseases (but they don't).

- Christopher Mullins