ajackson

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

This also strongly suggests we have the basis of range modifiers wrong and should go back to -1 per X" where X is determined by the circumstances: being under fire' date=' X might be 2", when you are not it might be a lot higher...[/quote']

I don't really see how that follows -- if you want situational modifiers, I'd just make them a flat CV penalty, since miss rates at one hex distance are still quite high.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

So I have a ~10% chance of missing a 2 meter wide target from 30 feet away?

Under combat conditions? Sure.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

What if I prop it upright' date=' paint concentric circles on it, walk back 8 meters, draw my handgun and shoot at it? Still a DCV 3?[/quote']

Nope, DCV 0. A wall is DCV 0, a hex on the ground is DCV 3.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

So' date=' if the entangled target is prone, their DCV goes up to 3?[/quote']

Maybe 2; they're still capable of stopping an object passing through. Part of the reason it's hard to hit a hex on the ground is because it's so easy to overshoot.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Stun at 1:1 isn't actually a ridiculous price, especially at low values and with the elimination of ECs, because stun applies to all defenses. It works against AVLDs. It works against NNDs. It works against AP and Penetrating hits. I never bought up Stun in 5e because it was more efficient to buy Str or Con, but if I was stuck at 20 I'd certainly consider bumping it up.

Re: 6e Characteristics

And the problem of making "every point of INT matter" has not yet been solved (as far as Steve has revealed so far).

I have pondered a theory of 'you can temporarily spend a stat point for a +1 to a roll with that stat' -- which means that a guy with Int 13 can roll once at 13- at a cost of being 11- for the rest of the scene, whereas a guy with Int 14 can roll once at 13- and remain at 12- for the rest of the scene. Not a huge bonus, but possibly good enough, and I find the idea that you can burn out your head by thinking too hard amusing and not entirely unreasonable.

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

I've run a game without END; you burnt 1d6 or 2d6 stun to push for 5 or 10. It worked fine, and made things like force field actually a viable build. I didn't even have any problems with autofire. It does mean you can't have characters running out of steam and having to take a breather even when they aren't being hit, and it means someone who wakes up from unconsciousness is instantly able to use powers at full, but neither problem is crippling.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I lean to the second camp. Players should build to concept' date=' and the system should not reward some concepts with greater efficiency and penalize others with poor point efficiency.[/quote']

It's inevitable that any system will encourage some builds and penalize other builds, you just have to decide which builds you want to encourage (though in general, two builds with the same capabilities should have the same cost). Within the superheroic and heroic/pulp genres there are plenty of people who aren't exceptionally agile but are still plenty good in a fight, so separating Dex and CV makes sense.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Personally' date=' I still say "ultimate gamer's toolkit" is much more a marketing message than a mission stattement, but I could be wrong.[/quote']

Hero rather unsubtly suggests that it's about heroic characters, not Joe Schmo.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

There was discussion of the cost of levels on the 6e boards, but no idea if Steve Long used any of them. I argued for 5 point CSLs dropping to 4 and 8 point CSLs dropping to 5.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

So' date=' if there's anywhere realism has no place, IMO, it's the superhero genre. [/quote']

As far as stun goes, just about all serial dramatic fiction involves people getting knocked out and otherwise injured and recovering basically 100%, again and again. Look at how often Tintin has been knocked out.

 

In reality, it's grossly difficult to reliably incapacitate people in a nonlethal manner; tazers are one of the best.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

The thinking with a taser is that it incapacitates you not knocks you out cold.

Punching someone doesn't knock them out either, unless you hit them in the head and give them a concussion. Stun damage is largely a genre convention.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

RE: Tazers' date=' I model them as Entangles.[/quote']

I model them as Energy Blast, Stun Only. Seriously, they're not NND -- anything that will stop a lightning bolt (generally defined as either an EB or RKA) will stop a taser just fine.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I myself suggested at least a dozen alternatives to the SPD Chart' date=' but none were without problems. No worse than the SPD Chart, but neither so much of an improvement as to be obvious replacements.[/quote']

I kind of liked the shot systems (actions just consume X segments, where X depends on Spd. Possibly modified by an advantage), but it has resolution problems at the high end.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I think this is a mistake. Now ' date=' I haven't read every page of the suggestions leading to this, but did anyone recommend using the 3d20-median roll instead?[/quote']

I believe so; several variant die rolling mechanisms were proposed. All were discarded; there simply wasn't enough to gain to make it worth the trouble.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

The two ideals are not mutually exclusive. If you try to build something and it comes out too expensive' date=' it is often a sign that the build is the wrong one, the basic rule it is built from is in some way flawed and should be fixed[/quote']

In this case, the problem seems to be with penalty skill levels -- not all penalties are equally useful to eliminate. Range penalties (come up all the time) are hardly the equivalent of left-handed weapon use penalties (come up basically never).

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I do not see how you can allow Character C to make a DEX Roll of greater than 7- to replace Breakfall; otherwise' date=' you are completely undermining buying Familiariaties.[/quote']

I would probably go with something like 'roll vs half your stat roll', so Joe Average would be rolling against a 6. It does make familiarities pointless if you have a 15+ stat roll, but eh.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Will buying Ego as defense against mental attacks be worth it without Ego contributing to ECV' date=' I wonder?[/quote']

I'm assuming it will be dropped to 1. Actually, I'm assuming all the primaries will drop to 1; without figs they're generally worth x1, and eliminating cost multipliers for stats is certainly a simplification.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Well' date=' the baseline question should be, should mental powers be as effective as other powers?[/quote']

Sure. That means, however, that they should be able to put down an agent with one attack, and a hero will probably break out after one round. I think that mental powers should have a higher base effectiveness, and that most heroes should have 20+ ego

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

If you decouple it' date=' then buying up EGO only has the effect of making the target more resistant to other's mental powers, and increasing their ego-based rolls.[/quote']

And this is a problem because...? Frankly, in-genre, plenty of non-mentalists have loads of willpower, so ego should be priced to be useful if you don't have mental powers. At that point, giving it a benefit for mental powers makes it too good for mentalists.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I'm hoping that Steve reduces the default values for Disadvantages -- Complications. I always hated trying to come up with 150 pts of them.

I'm sort of fond of limiting Disads/whatever to a specific number (say, 5) with no particular limit on points. It encourages you to take the bigger disads, and means you don't have so many disads you can't keep track of them all.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I mean' date=' 250 to 350 took some getting used to, and I imagine this will require a bigger jump.[/quote']

Hm. I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't be surprised by it only being something like 350 to 400.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Actually' date=' that's a good question. With the expected increase of recommended starting points, will the guidelines for awarding XPs per session also need to be inflated?[/quote']

Doubtful. The resolution of character point awards is pretty low, and I doubt the bump in point values will be big enough to merit the equivalent of +1 xp per adventure.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Here's a suggestion for how I think an 'appearance' perk or ability should work:

'Appearance': -1/4 limitation on presence. This ability only functions if the subject can clearly perceive your appearance; thus, it does not function if you are invisible, unseen, disguised, etc. Frequently, additional limitations are taken, such as 'friendly only' (-1/2), 'hostile only' (-1/2), only vs creatures that respond to human norms of beauty (generally -1/4), only vs creatures that respond to (some other) norms of beauty (usually -1 or more), only vs opposite gender (-1/2)....

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Really Chris? You honestly aren't able to figure out the purpose of a compromise?

Compromises can have purposes, but only if it's the right compromise. While I was in favor of removing Com, Com as an optional characteristic is worse than Com as a standard characteristic.