tesuji

Re: Is there a "penalty to skill roll" modifier for powers?

my concern would be using this to milk the system

If i buy a lot of cheap powers saving lots on them because i take -10 to the roll but then only have to buy the skill +10 to effectively negate that, then i am getting something for nothing.

I would be VERy dubious as a GM of such a construct.

Like hugh said - how many points do you save for taking -2 on all those skill rols when offsetting that -2 is only 4 cp?

if its more than 4, its likely too good a deal.

ideally the gain from "all my spells take -2 on skill rol" is only 4 cp total.

Re: Size Powers

Pardon me. I assumed that the "House Rule:" prefix on the title' date=' and the "[i']in my game[/i]..." opening words of the post, would make it sufficiently clear that my intent was to discuss a house rule. I won't make that mistake again.

 

 

My point: the essence of the "Size Powers" group is not really about size; it's about - well, if I could sum it up in one or two words, I'd have a more appropriate name for it. The common feature that caused those powers to be grouped together is the recommendation that you never take Always On with them: they represent the ability to change, and the capabilities that you'd have from "Always On Growth" are better handled by raising the appropriate Characteristics and taking Complications to represent the downsides. Other than the fact that it doesn't change your size, Density Increase fits this description exactly, and ought to be included.

 

So my first question is this: what would be a good name for the Power group that includes Growth, Shrinking, and Density Increase, and which addresses the inadequacy of using Always On with the included powers?

 

And my second question is this: are there any other powers that ought to be included?

Yu want to discuss a house rule, fine.

But the house rule seems to be just changing the name of a group of powers, which isn't really a rule at all.

Ok same questions as with any house rule:

What EFFECTS on play do you expect this change to create for your game?

Well?

Now if you were to ask me that question my answer would be "none. you dont buy powers "by group" you buy powers. no one is going to write "size affectinhg" or "body altering powers" on their character sheet." and so my response would be "why bother?"

I mean a house rule that doesn't have an in game effect hardly seems worth fussing with.

What gains come from your house rule that are prompting you to change? once we know what you are trying to gain, we can help answer whether or not this change is appropriate.

thanks

Re: Omcv 1?

actually it has been explored in some of the mentalist books

as for this being a partial solution, that really depends.

assuming the normal has omcv dmcv 3 or omcv 1 and mental maneuvers exist, well which would you rather spend an action on:

attempting an omcv 3 roll vs the mentalist omcv to block and then have him try and hit your dmcv 3

or

mental dodge and make him roll vs dmcv 6?

if we assume omcv of 7

block needs something like a 15 to succeed which means a 95% ish chance of attack succeeding followed by a 90% or so chance of hitting... thems long odds on success against the block and miss.

on the other hand omcv 7 vs dmcv6 is about 25% chance of failure.

off the top of my head, i would take the dodge over the block and hope.

especially when that give me 6 more cp to play round with.

sure some players might fall for it, but not any imo savvy enough to do the math enough to figure out selling omcv back in the first place.

ymmv.

Re: Idea about Dex

STR and lifting capacity and by extension encumbrance in a fantasy game where armor weighs and carrying capacity is really big - at least as important as dex, especially if melee is frequent so that str boosting weapons, and again especially if str min apply...

could easily see it at same as dex.

then again in a future scifi not so much.

Re: Replacements for...

If it were me, and assuming the 5e versions of FW and LOW had proven ok in my game and were fun, then i would keep them verbatim as in 5e. There is nothing about 6e which makes it more at risk than 5e regarding these two. So if it works now at those costs it ought to work after 6e.

So, given no matterwhat its now a house rule, keep the one you have. why risk "getting it wrong"

if it works fine now. If it aint broke, dont break it.

that would be my motto, if i had a motto.

Re: Idea about Dex

Guys, everything is setting dependent.

In a psychic wars cmpaign, where MOST characters of note have psionic abilities and mental powers, EGO is likely the most important combat stat and would be REAL VALUE at likely higher than DEX.

My main suggestion on the issue of DEX is a broader toolkit approach on evaluating stats per setting.

In GA like games where combat is not as crucial, dex and its "who goes first" drops to 1.

Heck it could even be so for more routine cmbat games if "going first" was a rarely beneficial thing. I know i have played in games, higher end supers, where "effectively" going after everyone else seemed beneficial. kinda depends on the group and campaign feel towards held actions.

In games like say OLD WEST flavor where "who shoots first" is huge, say one with street level at best defenses so one hit might well be a ko, then heck dex is cheap at dex skills and go first.

There is nothing universal about those three campaigns - psi wars, supers and old west - as far as the values of ego, dex and going first are concerned. They are each unique.

I think the system needs to be more reflective of that fact, supporting more customization, not just looking for a different "one size squuishes all" solution than the one we have now.

ymmv

Re: Abort to block

In my view, if some attacks are easier, and others harder, to Block, those that are easier than the default (wherever that is set) to Block should be reduced in price, and those more difficult to Block should have a price increase.

I would agree but with the saveat that the value for such a limitation/advantage might be -0!

Whether or not "my shuriken can be blocked" is worth less points on a 1d6 rka shuriken as opposed to a 1d6 rka gun is a matter of genre and how frequently it will matter. Once in a blue moon someone blocks my shuriken is not going to earn you a lim worth more than -0. For my frame of reference, if something is worth points I will want it to occur at LEAST as often as the rarest complications - once every five sessions or so, If the thing is still a partial success, more often than that.

If its rarer than that, Its SFX or -0 lim/adv.

So like most things its a choice.

Take a can be blocked lim and guess what, you will be blocked, quite a bit in fact. You insisted on it after all. A block is still a win (or draw) for you since they lose an attack so its not like a wasted shot.

Dont take the lim, guess what? You are rarely blocked, likely only by those for whom blocking is a very strong concept thing.

Re: Omcv 1?

The point is, if we have to dig down into that level of detail to find issue the system is doing pretty good.

Which is where the words like BIGGESt and/or ONLY were missing.

This is indeed a small problem, and if it were the only problem or the biggest problem then yes your comment was correct.

But thats not being purported here.

Or is it being purported by you?

The key is, the fact that small issues to be nitpicked exist doesn't mean there aren't bigger problems as well. Discussing this one doesn't mean we HAVE to go this small for problems. It merely means we are discussing this one.

Other bigger IMO YMMV problems in 6e to me include:

Multipower and 'changing slots" lims pricing

Buy little save big enabled in extra limbs and bases

Multiform cost structure

This isn't a knock at 6e. i think these things are wrong and fairly easily fixed, but in a book as large as the hero six rules, thats not a lot. certainly not a terribly broken ruleset.

But i cannot say that because OMCV sellback get a lot of discussion that means anything about the other. The MP one would play a significant role in my games if i didn't correct it.

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I would have liked to have seen the price of all mental powers but Ego Attack doubled, with them becoming automatically Cumulative with no limit to the maximum. "All or nothing" would then become a -1 limitation. That, I could see as a change to the defaults (much like Transform began as an "all or nothing" and changed to a "cumulative by default" ability). But I can simulate this in a game where I want to simulate it by ruling any Cumulative mental power with a +1 Cumulative advantage has an unlimited maximum, rather than a maximum of 4x the maximum rolled on the dice. At 12 DC's, a maximum of 144 isn't that far off "unlimited" anyway.

Kudos

I like this.

At 12dc you have 6d6 which makes the lesser effects within the reach of "one shot" but the stronger effects take multiple phases, which encourages "clever" attempts to work with their psych lims etc and less offensive commands vs the "brute force" obey any command kind of things. It also lets long lasting mind control be possible as the extremely high values make breakouts impossible until after a goodly number of time increments pass.

Clever. i may steal it.

Mandatory cumulative +1 on mentals except for ego attack - nice and simple.

Re: Abort to block

In 6E you have to buy Deflection to be able to Block ranged attacks.

Actually no... in 6e you have to buy deflection to block ranged attacks AT RANGE. ^e2 59 allows blocking of ranged attacks by anyone, in more general sense, though has "gm may say no" type uts for sfx issues.

Re: Abort to block

Would you allow someone to abort to block if they were being attacked at range and had nothing to block with?

.

In 6e you can block ranged attacks tho there are a lot of "GM can say no" statements regarding it, so its more a matter of sfx.

However iirc levels and maneuvers with hth attacks dont count for blocking ranged attacks so i dont think, could be wrong, that martial block applies to a block ranged attack.

But for my money i would allow someone to block say a thrown spear but likely not a bullet without something to block with.

On the other hand, a super with super-level defenses vs any "normal weapon" I would almost certainly allow a block, counting it as part of the "real weapon vs supers" limitation - depending on genre.

Re: Omcv 1?

If the starting value of OMCV is a sticking point then I'd call that a major win for the System as a whole.

i would echo this sentiment if the words "only" or "biggest" preceded "sticking point" but as is just being another sticking point doesn't say much positive on its own.

its a new "error" to some perhaps just a wrinkle to others and while any new rules are prone to have new errors, having them is not a good sign in any regard.

:-)

Re: 6E Speedster Suite

i would drop the megascale tp to 2m base and add another 1/4 to the megascale for the same net distance.

Unless it violates a campaign limit.

franklybstrategic movement is good and this is a dandy but it sn't on par with 140 cp.

thats a gross over investment for the scenes in which it will take part in frequency and sevrity. your gm isn't going to want to run sufficient scenes where becausse of that power only you get to participate in a scene to warrant an investment of that many points.

if he even tries the other pcs will be quite annoyed at all their time watching you play.

then again if they all buy a compensating 150 pt power ad the investment is like a campaign freebie then cost is irrelevent.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

If, for example, a player wants to play a werewolf with three forms (man, wolf, hybrid). He decides to get sneaky and build the human as the base form and does little more than a PS and a skill or two to reflect the human's profession and hobby. That's all fine and great until some lucky schlub drops him with a mighty attack. Now, unconscious, the character reverts to his completely powerless form.

.

i get it but two things...

first werewolves do not typically swap back to human when stunned. they swap back when killed or when circumstances change.

so are you suggesting disallowing those concepts because the rule cost is faulty?

if you want to allow them to add persistent for proper concepts, then you are right back to the problem because the higher multiform cost is invisible.

i would mich prefer a useable and meaningful cost structure that lets me say yes to those characters to one which forces me to say no to them.

as i suggested above make each sub-form pay a slot cost, 1/10 plus adders for multiples. that amounts to roughyl half the multiform full cost paid by the base form.

with that i am not putting myself in the role of policing their forms, worrying about forcing them into this form or that form, and can just leave them to play their character. just like the mpower guy runs his four ebs.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

 

The only issue that leaves (for me) is that extra forms still cost the same even if they are fewer points. Why would anyone with a 400-point extra form buy more forms that aren't 400 points also? If they're only 300 or 200 or 100-point forms they cost the same. Yes, yes, I know "concept" but that's not a sufficient argument, because peoples' concepts will change to use the rules most effectively. "It's not in concept for my mouse form to have 400 points, so I'll change the concept to a Mighty Mouse form." I have some ideas on how to deal with this, which I'm not entirely satisfied with, and they're even further off-topic for this thread.

for my way of thinking the issue is a non-problem.

balance-wise a guy with a 200 pt form a 400 pt form and a 300 pt form is not noticeably worse off than a guy with all 400 pt forms.

You do not control how often he goes into which form.

if the 200 pt form is a good science guy, say computer guy, then MOSTLY that form will be used when they need compuiters and his lack of combat isn't NORMALLY going to be a problem.

he will dial in the 400 pt monster when fighting starts.

So if you start with the assumption that "the guy will use the best form at a given moment for what he needs" then the big element of cost is "whats the biggest form".

If as Gm i start giving point breaks for "some of my forms are weaker than their max" then i think i am obliging myself to stick it to those forms. I am now being paid to get those forms weakness into play. On the other hand, if i just leave it as a concept/sfx then i am not going to be WORKIBNG towards sticking the guys weaker forms into situations. i am fine to just let him choose forms and not force the situation - "we need you to bring up geek boy while we hold of mechanon"

Of course there might be one easy way to do this.

The pt total times number of forms is a TOTAL not discrete blocks.

So if you pay 80 for multiform for 400 pt forms and pay +10 for four such forms, you have 1600 pts to spend and that can be four 400 pt characters or it can be a 400 two 300s and four 150s.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

No offense' date=' but in a thread looking for ways of changing the rules to discourage/prevent abuse, one more proposed change is not out of place. [/quote']

 

Apparently i misunderstood. i did not read his post as a suggested rules change but as a description of how he thought it worked.

 

As a proposed rule change, I dont get how it solves the problem. it changes the cost for sure - people would need to have the base form pay more for a persistent multiform if the default was non-persistent but that cost is invisible so no problem

 

or is he suggesting disalllowing any persistent multiforms?

 

If thats the suggestion i would say No because that limits too many concepts imo. I prefer to say NO because something is disruptive not because the costing is problematic.

 

I think i will do the following

 

BASE FORM pays as per book

Every other form pays a FORM COST equal to 1/10 the most expensive form PLUS 5 each for multiple forms

 

So assuming 400 pt games

A guy with FOUR 400 pt forms

BASE form has 400 and spend 90 pts 80 for 400 pt forms and +10 for FOUR forms.

Three other forms have 400 pts each and each spend 50 FORM cost. So they are "effectively" 350 pt characters.

 

So taking out for MF spends, he is playing a base form with 310 and three alternates with 350 each in a 400 pt game.

 

Lims can reduce cost etc.

 

I mean you could also say "all MF have an 11- activation" and let that shuffle them into true form at certain times but again that limits the concepts to those which fit.

 

I mean, your typical werewolf doesn't pop back to human when he gets kncoed hard upside the head, does he?

 

My goal would not be to try anf force the character into true form any more than his concept woul suggest - I dont want to force anything - just have the system accurately cost the benefits whatever the design calls for.

Re: Omcv 1?

a potential wrinkle for the "wont give you points" crowd, of which i am one, who wont give any points for the omcv sellback.

what if the non-mentalist character wants to get an omcv of 5?

is that likewise "not worth points" and thus free?

my answer - yes. as long as he has no mental powers that can use omcv then this is like any other for concept but wont play a role trait - write it down and... no points.

Now one obvious concept if the castrated telepath, from a race which punishes misuse of psionics by castrating the mentalist, so to speak, so you may wind up with high omcv high dmcv mental def and even an intimate knowledge of psionics but not ability to speak of.

of course, if later he somehow ganed psionics again he would have to pay for that omcv as its no longer "useless"

Per 6e

I have a brick with 50 strength and 30 dex and he pays 80 cp for the choices

i have a second brick with same stats but who also has four normal size and dexterity tails. he pays 32 for the strength and 32 for the dex, applying a -1/4 lim to each and a few pts, still 5?, for the extra limbs.

sigh...

similarly with bases - if i have a portion of my base that has less defense or say where the life support doesn't get to, i can limit the life support and the def cost, not the size so a base with everything i have now plus some more open stuff is cheaper.

both examples of "buying low to save big" where you purchase a small cheap ability and somehow construe to limit a much more expensive thing.

Limit expensive dex and str because they dont apply to the cheap exta limbs.

limit the cost for the best parts of the base because the cheap extra space isn't covered.

In both cases its the cheap extra thing that SHOULD mathematically get the lim applied.

maybe in 7e?

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

I would make sure that the character will spend significant time in his/her/its weakest form. Steve Long may have thought this too obvious to mention.

My problem with adopting this approach for my games is - i am now scripting the game and events to make the system work right. i want the system to work for me and for my game, not for us to work for the system.

Also depending on structure this may be widely innappropriate.

For example consider a "typical animated series" where the emphasis is on short episodic quick action one offs. usually little or no time in spent on the "non-super stuff" may be minimal due to the pacing demands (unlike many other supers genres which may spend a lot of time on the secret ID stuff.

But frankly, either concept - most of the time i am in hero id and "most of the time i am in normal id - ought to be calculable and usable just fine, but that requires a costing structure that doesn't make the mf effectively free so you have a benchmark to guage "how much other stuff".

I mean, she-hulk could go back normal, at least at various points in her development but just preferred to be green. As a Gm i would really feel silly saying "sorry but i cannot let that concept in because multiform is written to assume you spend lot of time in non-green form."

Moreover, the assumption should be like unto that used in multipowers.

When you pay for a multipower there is no presumption "you will use the first slot more than the rest" or anything like that. They charge you for having multiple options and assume you as character will be choosing the one you want at any given moment. Since you have paid for the utility, the fact that you use it is assumed.

With multiform there is no real cost paid for the utility, so the focus and onus seems to turn to "prevent abuse" instead of "enable use".

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

what does "powerful" even mean here?

In order to avoid a needless distraction into trivia replace the cite with the following

"But for "i want to have four DIFFERENT forms" the net result of the choice to not have anything but the true form pay results in the system saying "you are on your own for what works as a trade off here" and that punt seems highly odd and not very helpful."

geesh!

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

It's really not the Games problem to determine which form is the most used.

 

I can make a 400 Point Combat Monster Superhero with a Multiform into a 600 Point Non-Combat Poorly "optimized" Scientist, that stutters.

 

How's the System supposed to know which form is going to get used more? It doesn't. And it doesn't care. Nor should it.

 

I personally think this thread is inventing a problem that doesn't exist - or at best a problem only solvable by the GM policing his Game properly.

The comment was in regards to your confusing comment about setting the game parameters to the base form? Since apparently i did not understand that lets simply go with "what does that mean? In my games it works the reverse - characters conform to the games guidelines.

From my experience with multiform you dont care as much about base form vs non-base form when assessing whether or not the character is appropriate but look, for "policing" purposes at the most powerful forms. Are they going to break the bnk badly when played. Then i also look at "which one will be seen most" to get an idea of opportunities.

But frankly, the "which is true form" has almost nothing to do with balance considerations.

But again its not about policing or abuse.

They system is perfectly happy with handing me a measuring stick for "if this guy wants four ebs he can use one at a time then he has to give up this much other stuff"... no one is running around shouting about how it should be free.

But for "i want to have four powerful forms" the net result of the choice to not have anything but the true form pay results in the system saying "you are on your own for what works as a trade off here" and that punt seems highly odd and not very helpful.

I can "police" my game without any points calculation at all. I do it in every other game.

But if the 6e version of multipower had been "allow as many alternative ebs as you like but police the game and determine yourself where to say no" then there would be quite a bit of naysaying.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

Disallow Persistent? Even if 0 End' date=' the character gets knocked out and immediately reverts to the base form. Do you want your weakest form as the base then?[/quote']

 

6E1 271

"Because Multiform is Persistent,

a character who’s Stunned or Knocked Out

doesn’t normally revert to his true form."

 

So we boil down to maybe having your multiform dispelled and again the problems which stem from the "dont waorry about cost its free" design crop up.

 

Three guys all were

 

New Were - a 400 pt beast form and a 150 pt true form but the multiform is easily dispelled. true form pays 80 but applies say a -1/4 for the easily dispelled. if you dont like easily dispelled apply another thing like "takes a turn to change" for -1/2. His base form pays now less for the multiform but is in play more often.

 

Average were - same forms but no difficulty to change. His base form spends more on the mf and so has less other stuff BUT is in play at risk less often ince he can were out quicker and easier.

 

Seasoned were - adds "difficult to dispel" to his mf. So his base form is a little less capable BUT he now can stay almost always in were form with no real fear of it being dispelled, forcing a true form.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

Practically - the Base Form will be the one that the GM set the campaign parameters to. If you are in a game defined as 150 point characters the Base Form will be that Character regardless of them being the most, least or middle point cost form.

 

Beyond that suggestion I can't help you.

i dont quite understand this. The catch is there is nothing in the power which determines which form will be the most used. The Gm needs to watch for balancing vs the form most often used more than the others.

Consider a typical banner-hulk, the vast majority of the time will be spent when in combat in hulk for, so banner's capabilities in combat are rather unimportant.

But again its not about abuse and such but about balance.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated....

but this isn't IMO about policing. its not about abuses but about accuracy.

A "character" with four 60 ap ebs that can use them one at a time costs more than a similar guy with only one such eb. This is represented by the multipower. Because of this the one blast guy has some extra points to spend elsewhere.

No where do we see people lining up to say "this whole multipower cost strucure is too hard to calculate so lets just tell the Gms to let them have as many blasts as they feel they want for just the one cost and lets let the gm say no when he feels they took too many"

A multiform to me is very much akin to that - except that we say "yeah basically multiform is free but the gm should police abuses."

Well thats just not helpful.

Just like i can rationally say "four 60 pt ebs costs an extra 24 cp so the one blast guy has 24 cp extra to spend" I would REALLY EXPECT to be able to say "having four 400 pt forms costs XXX and so the guy with only one form has ZZZ extra points" for the exact same balancing reasons.

The way mf works in 5e and 6e there is defacto no cost. there is no mechanism for me to say "since you only have the one form, you have an extra xx pts to balance you with the foursome."

Now had it been me, and it wasn't, i would have expanded the multi-power mechanic and turned multiform into a "character multipower" using the exact same math - 1/10 for fixed slots, 1/5 for variable slots (within parameters) and producing similar numbers. but then i aint too worried about that math.

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

i always thought that an issue with comps was TOO MUCH DEFINITION.

the defined differences between enraged and hunted and vuln etc are what drives the "discrepancies" in costing vs effectiveness and also as a side effect they tend to promote "fishing" for the ones worth more but hurting less.

What I would rather have seen is a generic costing scheme -

1. Choose how often the comp causes problems. Express as x session in ten or somesuch.

2. choose how limiting it is? use broad categories like mostly fine, seriously weakened, and practically crippled.

3. let those two determine value and payback.

4. provide several examples of "my comp" at work.

This gets a lot better communication as to how often things will go wrong and better consensus as to what things it will bring.

In this case enraged for instance may trigger a plot line where some particularly snarly pictures are published of our hero and a wave of media attention about "rampaging heroes" has this guy as the poster child. Now, in a strictly by the book sense, this is like having enraged temporarily bring on some bad reputation.