Beast

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

because each in multiples of 3 cost the same amount of points

And they need to be balanced... why?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

what I showed was that Killing attack were overly NERFED

going to a 1d3 I did not have a problem with

what I had a problem with was that normal def got tossed in there and that sent the meter way over to the other side

The group I play with at Caltech housed ruled full def for KA's long ago

it helped a bit with the problem

I see 1d3 for a stun multiplier working even better but not with normal def vs stun

as for the 1 in 6 to see max stun yes that is a bit much but the body rolled is going to average that down

and lest we forget while you have a 1 in 6 of maxing stun

you have a 1 in 3 chance of wimping out

I'm sorry, what?

 

Far end of the spectrum....

 

For any given DC, for Killing Attacks under 5er and prior you have a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the maximum. 1 in 3 of hitting a 4 or 5. 1 in 3 chance of doing more STUN than a Normal Attack of the same BODY can possibly do. Edit: 50/50 of doing the max, or more, STUN than a Normal Attack of the same BODY.

 

Cha-ching.

 

The whole point of Normal Attacks, explicitly stated in 3rd edition at least, is to average more STUN and less BODY than Killing Attacks. I still don't see how giving Killing Attacks a 1/3 chance to do more STUN achieves that.

 

Steve has also stated that Normal Defenses protect against the STUN of Killing Attacks, whether or not you have any Resistant Defenses. Not that that matters much for our comparisons.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Chris you are using the far end of the spectrum which somebody on these board might see once in their life time

why not go with the average which is what we see more often

which would look like this

5e & 6e 12dc normal average 12 body 42 stun

5e killing 14 body x2.5 for 35 stun(or if you prefer 28 or 42 stun)

6e killing 14 body x2 for 28 stun

with defenses at 2x DC for stun come out to 24 def (if the resistant def was x1 of DC it would work some what)

so lets go with a hero and a villain both have 15 body ,20 con, 24 def,10 rec, 12 r/def and 45 stun

vs the 12dc normal attacks

our villain takes 0 body and 18 stun(only need to roll 3 above average to daze this villian he should last about 3 hits if he does not get a recovery

our hero vs a 12dc killing attack(4d6 ka)

our hero takes 2 body and 4 stun (there is no chance for dazing unless both the body and the stun multiplier roll high)

it will take 12 hits with no recoveries to KO this character and 15 to kill

if the character is say speed 6 it will take 2 turns to kill and he will still be awake for it

making it 4 times harder to KO our villain

the big thing is after 3 hits(6 body) the hero is hurt but still able to fight

while the villain is now out cold

now lets go with the 1d3 stun multiplier but only resistant def counts for def vs stun

our hero takes 2 body(as before)and 16 stun

our hero will last about 3 hits before being Ko'ed

now we have a fairly close match up

before the hero stand tall and defeat the villain with really no fear of getting killed

now with there being some stun that comes into play,the hero now might want to think about not going toe to toe with the villain as if he misses once the villain might KO him and now he is at the mercy of the villain

there needs to some fear from the killing attack and while it does less stun on average it is in the ball park of the majors instead of being in the pee wee league

12DC Normal: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN

 

5er, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 120 STUN.

 

6e, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

except now the average difference is +2 body for a killing attack

vs +14 stun for a normal attack

by changing the stun multiplier and adding how much def goes against a killing attacks it throws a wench into how things interact

to keep things in perspective suggested defenses will also have to change

while killing attacks should be used to to kill or destroy things what has happened now swings killing attacks to being near useless

If someone had to choose between two attacks' date=' both of which do the same STUN on average but one of which does more BODY on average, why would they go with the one that does less BODY?[/quote']

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I would say 12.5 per die would around the right cost with the what has been done(I know it should be a whole number and at multiples of 5 but as it stands KA'a have been nerfed so maybe the price should take a hit)

or maybe make the stun multiplier 1d6+1 and leave in the normal def also protects

I just see that the meter has swung too far to the other side in this regard

of course this can also be addressed in what suggested levels of defense should be considered for your game

which means overhauling even more stuff

The one thing that could actually make me cool with the reduction of the STUN Multiplier on Killing Attacks is if their cost were to be reduced to reflect the loss of effectiveness.

 

'82 - today : average in 12 DC Normal is 42 STUN and 12 BODY; average on 12 DC Killing (AKA 4d6 K), w/1d6-1 STUN Mult., is 14 BODY and 37 STUN.

 

Reducing the stun multiple to 1/2d6 makes the average 14 BODY and 28 STUN. That tiny difference increase in Body compared to that sharp decrease in the amount of Stun makes Killing Attacks look no where near the equivalent of Normal attacks.

 

But, if the cost of 1d6 K were reduced to 10 points, so 1d6K now = 2 DC (not 3). Then 12 DC Killing is 6d6 K. The average damage is suddenly 21 BODY and 42 STUN. Compared to the Normal Attack, the Stun is clearly comparable, and the Body looks more like it could, well, kill. The theoretical maximum (108 Stun and 36 BODY) instead of (120 STUN and 24 BODY) but by increasing the number of dice involved (7 instead of 5), the likelihood of it decreases.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

a normals game usually has sectional armor

in a super hero game around a 60 active points

15 resistant with 25 total is an average

a 4d6 ka will do zero body and 3 stun on average

now while before is did zero body before you had a chance to do some stun(sometimes horrific amounts)

the thing is that by allowing all def vs stun and going to a 1d3 stun multiplier makes KA's next to useless in a supers game

Had it just been going to 1d3 for stun and only resistant def vs the stun

I would be all for it

BUT going for both ruins KA's

That's because in a game where people are normals, your max resistant defense is like 5-6. Load a gun up with AP bullets and fire away. What's your Con Score? 13-15? If you're a huge bear of a man, 18? Roll that 2d6 RKA. See whether or not you're stunned. You still have a pretty good chance to be.

 

In super powered games, however, the wheel turns. It's harder to knock you out, and the range is such that it's commensurate with the high average damage of EB at the high end. Really, guys. I've never seen anyone roll a 72 on 12d6, and I've been playing Champions a long time.

 

Remember the Ultimate Super Mage playtest. 4d6 RKA was more broken than almost anything else they could come up with because of the stun multiplier. This is fine.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I agree with you on this

Killing attacks have just been overly NERFED

going with all def protects vs stun works

going with 1d3 for a stun multiplier but only vs resistant def works

using both really NERFS Killing attacks

I am sorry a maximum of x3 totally hoses normal games. It biases the game totally toward normal attacks. It means that in a sword battle you will end up killing someone long before you knock them out. Also it lengthens normal battles by a whole bunch.

 

The only thing that could fix this is having weapons all have +1 and +2 stun mults and that would totally nullify the change, in fact it would make the issue worse as then folk would be constantly rolling x4 and x5 stun mults. This is clearly a case of the Superhero genre totally hosing every other genre. Though this is a problem endemic in the system as a whole.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

you could do that in 4th and 5th ed

you just discribed your character as such

but if you wanted it to have an effect in game you had to buy it

this starting to smell of being PC

First of all, I'm pretty sure Lord Liaden got a little confused

 

Here are Steve Long's exact words about Striking Appearance:

 

 

 

When Lord Liaden described Striking Appearance as optional, I think he was trying to convey the concept that you don't need to buy Striking Appearance for a beautiful character if you don't see that character's beauty having a game effect.

 

There has been nothing that Steve has said in chats or on the boards that would indicate that Striking Appearance is anymore optional than any other Talent.

 

And as for running games where a character's appearance makes no difference, GMs can do that in 5E. They can just drop COM as a Characteristic or simply ignore its effects.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

in those game I have a say in I will

the bigger question will the other changes make it a too different game both in chargen and mechanics

Mechanics looks to be staying pretty close to Hero

Chargen is a different story

So' date=' put COM back in your game and don't use Striking Appearance.[/quote']

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I agree with you 100%

Who said we were surprised?

 

Disappointed? Yeah.

Questioning Mr. Long's Wisdom? Guilty.

Surprised? No.

 

There's just nothing like the feeling of fresh salt.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

it will have to look like an over worked kludged monster compared to the beautiful mechanic of comp rolls already in the game

I'm not saying it cannot be done in 6e

I'm saying you will need to use this ugly bastard stepchild of multiple activates to simulate a feature that is now gone (for the Com stat only)

and take up way too much space on the character sheet

Other than a cost of the stat,the stat,the stat roll and a mechanic that is used for other stat and skill rolls

Do we know that COM the talent is going to be a straight add and not continue to employ the same or similar (elegant) mechanic that it did as COM the stat? Not too hard to make it a talent purchased as a roll. Probably how I will toolkit it even if it's not in the new edition.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

the this is you +2 levels act 14- only in certain social interactions only gives 2 levels effect(look you made the roll by 4 or 5 so you get a +2 to your seduction roll)

to get that level of success you would need a Com of 30 for a 15- and that is if you roll average(11-)to get a +2 90% of the time(14-) you would need a Com stat of at least 45

you could have multiple levels of activate but I see that and yours as a poor kludged subtitute for an already perfectly working feature that is being dropped because some people whined that they did not use it so it was not needed

by having the Stat roll for Com you can have a wide range of results

any where from epic failure of your makeup to the perfect make over

I agree about INT: it is only used for INT rolls, so it makes sense.

 

As to the eye of the beholder effect from COM, complimentary rolls never make things worse, so it isn't a true measure anyway, but you'll still be able to do that:

 

+2 levels with interaction skills (only where appearance is a factor) (14- activation)

 

In fact this allows more fine tuning of how idiosyncratic your good looks are - most people do not find you that attractive but some find you stunning (Grace Jones, perhaps?), change the activation to 8-.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Sean you could have just had all the end spending powers cost x1.5 or more end to represent that effect of not having a high End value and only sell back some recovery to get the concept you wanted

like you said in an other thread there is no right way to do it:eg:

I have a high threshold of pain, which I've built with high CON, which gives me high STUN and (for some reason) ED (- why?) but I don't want high REC or END because although I'm tough my lungs were chemically burnt in an industrial accident, so I want to sell back the REC and END. I can't? But it makes perfect sense for my concept!

 

Also we never really knew what CON was worth. Virtually all of its value was concentrated in the figured characteristics: you get 21 points of value for spending 20 points on CON. What is it worth 'alone' - avoiding being stunned is useful, but that is what it is mainly used for as CON rolls tend to be rare.

 

(And that sounds suspiciously like a quote from a supplement from about 2nd or 3rd ed...)

 

 

 

IME PD and ED are almost always tweaked, if only because I don't like characters to necessarily have unbreachable resistant defences, and it generally is not necessary - it is usually cheaper and just as effective to buy pd/ed+armour, but everyone will have their own experience of this.

 

 

 

Well, looking, for example, at the sample characters in 5ER, only one of the 12 has fewer than half their figured characteristics point modified (The Verdict only modifies 2), and 5 of them have more than half of their figured characteristics modified.

 

Now if the change means that you modify more of what are currently figured characteristics, that might take longer, but then you are not calculating the figureds. You still have to write down a number, even if you do not modify anything. Anyway, none of us are going to take more thana few seconds longer even the first time we build a 6thed character.

 

We'll probably see more variation in character design this way too - figured characteristics can make you lazy - how many times have any of us thought 'how much stun SHOULD this character have?' instead of just eyeballing the figured STUN and dumping any spare points there?

 

The more I think about it, the less of an issue it seems.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

neither was it my understanding either

I could see a few tweaks(Str only goes for lifting and damage,use body pd,rec and more for stun)

recost Dex to be more inline with the cost of levels or recost Levels to be more in line with Dex

those I see as tweaks

divorcing figured stats to become primaries that is major IMHO

Really? Hmm.

 

OK then, show of hands, please? How many of the folks here in this discussion think that saying "Figured characteristics are going away" means that the characteristics themselves are being removed?

 

'Cause that certainly wasn't my understanding...

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

with the dropping of the Com stat to now become a talent

why not do the same thing to the Int stat

make it a talent also each level would add +1 to all Int based rolls(including perception)and call it Smarts

I found that Com could be used as a complementry roll or used in place of Presence where the character was more based on looks rather than personality with those social skills

now with it as a talent we lose that feature

I also liked that a Com roll could give an 'Eye of the Beholder" effect where an NPC might chose someone else because there was something more appealing to them (the one with the highest Com may not always be the winner)

instead of the "I'll have the pretty one"

Which doesn't stop you from buying the same characteristics at the same values and ratios. With the exception of COM you will still be able to purchase a character with the exact same values for all of their characteristics' date=' the same total leaping and the same CV/ECV. The point cost might be different, but the values can be exactly the same.[/quote']

Re: Muse's Inspiration

only problem I have with the power being a person is more a plot device

the muse powers I came up with can be applied and the muse can go way(might increase the time the skill stays with the character)

also yours would be limited to the type of artist when you bought the skill

you would also have to make that skill usable by others

all the muses I have read or heard about only enhanced the skill the artist already had

the muse did not give them the skill,they only enhanced it to legendary levels

in effect a person with say journeyman level skill meets their muse and while under the influence of the muse is able to turn out work worthy of a grand master in the same skill

One other, very straightforward, approach:

 

Muse Inspired greatness 10 active, 5 real

 

PS: Artist (10 Active Points); OAF (Focus: Muse; -1) 17-

 

OK, using a living person as a focus might seem odd, but I can not see any real reason not to allow it. Muses are not common enough to simply use OIF: Muse of Opportunity

 

This makes the 'muse' part of the person with talent - but the talent only works when the focus is close enough to 'use'.

 

Is 'Muse' an internal or external force? Can a person who is an artist's muse also inspire other artists, or is an artist inspired by a muse able to transfer that 'spark' to another muse, and be inspired by them?

 

What, in other words, do you

Re: Foxbat and...

It would be funny if he tried to steal Wraith's transport box

since it is just that a box Wraith is the power supply for it

I could see Foxbat get in it and sits in the command seat and notices that it has no controls(let alone any way to see out of it Wraith can see through it with no problem)

except a secure comm system

the command seat is part of the box and is sized for someone who is 5'5" and it does not adjust

the seat while cushioned look more like recliner that was to restrain bricks of great strength

Wraith has to use her desolid to get into and out of the command chair

there is only 1 other on the team that could pick it up and she does not fly or t-port

Re: Muse's Inspiration

here are 3 powers that I am using in Shadowsoul's New Dawn game onHC

Battle song: Aid all combat(up to 2 levels) 1d6+1, Can Add Maximum Of 16 Points, Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per 5 Minutes; +1/2), Explosion (-1 DC/2"; +3/4), Selective Target (+1/4) (44 Active Points)

song to inspire: Aid all non-combat skills(8pt level max of 3) 1d6, Can Add Maximum Of 24 Points, Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per 5 Minutes; +1/2), Explosion (-1 DC/2"; +3/4) (43 Active Points)

muse song: Aid anything 1d6+1, Can Add Maximum Of 13 Points, any [special effect] power one at a time (+1/4), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per 5 Minutes; +1/2), Explosion (-1 DC/2"; +3/4), Selective Target (+1/4) (44 Active Points)

Re: Reminiscing About Star Fleet Battles

the guy who created the Hyrans(Andy Robinson)

also created Primus and Demon

and has been on a few other books for Hero way back during 2nd and 3rd editions

yeah, the same thing killed it for me.

 

I played because I enjoyed the tactical challenge, not to see who can win using the most obscure trump card rule...

 

for the record I have to say...

 

Go HYDRANS!

 

Stubby li'l green dudes FTW!

Re: Character advancement

that can be said for any RPG

for me I want to see some kind of growth in my character over time

RPGs in general are games with out an end unless your character dies or you become god and everything runs like clockwork forever afterwards or till some other PCs see you as a problem that needs to be dealt with

RPGs are about overcoming 1 problem only to have to go after another 1 later

you might have to deal with many problems at the same time

if you over come the last problem the game is over

Re: Old Palladium player wanting to start with the HERO SYSTEM

well with 6th ed

there will be 2 core books

1 for players and 1 for GMs

then a basic play book replacing SideKick

Yes.

 

I'm suggesting Sidekick since it is cheaper and teaches the essentials of the system, but you also won't get hosed when the next edition comes out very quickly afterwards.

 

Otherwise, the core book is all that you really need to play; everything else is interpretation, builds, and the occasional rules expansion, but otherwise that's all you need.

Re: A New Dawn. 'Post-Apocalyptic' Fantasy

I'm really happy the way this game is going

it is the best one I have the pleasure to be in on HC

thanks

Re: New Trailers!

there is in the beta

Re: Mental Powers

yes it is called a move by

if they are all in a circle around you 1 hex away it is a Curly slap

But can you jab multiple people standing several feet away from eachother in one movement?

Re: Superbeing Rights Debate

would becoming a vampire or other sentient undead void a life insurance policy

could your clone who you downloaded your whole life into collect on said policy

what about constructs like Friday from the book Friday by Robert Heinlin who are made from more than 2 parents

could there be multiple mothers and fathers