Kenn

Re: Just to prove I'm not a complete Comeliness Grognard You've never had your face ripped?

Re: Astro City: Roustabout I agree with Pattern Ghost. I think the 35 STR is a little low for him. I'd have gone 40 or 45. But still, a fine write-up.

Re: Who would be the Super Villians of your area? Rod Blagojevich.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Except at 28 STUN per shot instead of 37 is going to make Killing Attacks a lot more useless in a supers game too. The effectiveness of 14 BODY Killing hasn't changed, it'll still do BODY or not depending on the target's rPD (or rED). The 1/2d6 Multiple is broken on EVERY level.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far "Old" "New" The change is apparently designed to make the maximums line-up, to address this alleged Stun Lotto problem, regardless of the fact that it makes the average roll noticeably less potent.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far 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 Please feel free to disagree about which is more intuitive, or anything. But please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was... I DON'T CARE WHICH METHOD IS USED. And I don't think the rulebook should either.

Re: Why the dislike for Find Weakness? I don't like it. I don't use it. I discourage my players from using it. And ditto with Lack of Weakness. That said, I think removing it from the RAW is a mistake that unfairly penalises the people who do use it, like it, and are happy with it.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I knew the rules existed, I couldn't have said where. And the fact that I'm fine with someone using either method isn't my point. I understand the advantages of both. But I am not willing to make a judgment that "cheaper is better" or "intuitive is better". My point is that because the RAW says "Use the less intuitive, but cheaper method; do not use the intuitive method" the RAW does make the judgment. That I'm willing to ignore it is immaterial. The comment was made that there is more of a feeling of there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things that didn't used to exist. And this is an example of that. The RAW says one of the two methods is the one to use. It adds specifically to there being a "right way" feeling. I may be an agent of chaos, but I don't have the influence that the RAW has. I've had to draw upon my chaotic tendencies more specifically because the number of rules has increased.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Fine, and I do. But the fact that I have to make a conscious decision to ignore a printed rule reflects the whole "there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things". He might be the first to tell me to ignore printed rule, but I wouldn't have to ignore it if he hadn't added it.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far It's not a link, but I believe that there are multiple 5e books that indicate that 20 Become a 10 Ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent is okay, but 15 I am a 10 ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent, Inherent, Always On is not okay.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far We saw it. And somehow "Several people have been using it and finding it a useful tool" wasn't compelling. I don't like Find Weakness; I discourage my players from using it. But I'm against it's removal from the rules because I know there are people who do use it and don't have my issues with it. If something is present, and one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to use it. Removing things because some people misuse them or don't use them is unfair to the people who've been using them happily for a long time.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Or any thread about the "universal" problems of Stun Lotto, Figured Characteristics, or Elemental Controls...

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Yeah, one hopes the new Damage Shield rules are an improvement. But so far it still sounds like it'll be easier to port the "Weapons Size" changes, the Damage Shield changes and the BOECV changes backwards into 5e than it would be to House Rule Figured Characteristics, Elemental Controls, Comeliness, and a 1d6-1 default Stun Multiplier into 6th. The positive changes are going to only affect specific characters. Many of the negative changes are going to affect EVERY character. Why exactly should I be excited about 6E?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far 3 is just what the "figured" stat from DEX 10 has been for the past 30 years has been. But since the "special effect" of being a biological being is no longer being enforced by the rules, and is now left, assuming the gamemaster likes people with similar special effects following the same guidelines, to gamemaster to enforce, why not just take it all the way and make no assumptions and start everything at zero.

Re: Top 5 Champs books of all time Aaron Allston's Strikeforce Kingdom of Champions To Serve and Protect Champions 4e (BBB), even with it's amazing dissolving binding. When I can think of a fifth book that I have as many positive memories of as these, I'll let you know.

Re: TV to rpg I was one of two alternating gamemasters in a game we referred to as "The Doctor Who Knockoff Campaign". We were using 4e Hero.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far 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: Naming the baby SEF Sixth Edition F---ed. That can be "flushed" if we're being family friendly.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Hopefully, SexEd will get rid of the characteristics having a non-zero start value. I mean that whole "start at 10" implies that I'm playing an adult who is a little better than the average person in the street. Why not just start all the characteristics at zero, and have everyone's starting points jump by an extra 125-175 points? I mean, yeah, it'll be some extra work for the 90% of the characters that fit that paradigm, but the other 10% won't have to screw around with those complicated negative numbers in their costs.

Re: Naming the baby RETP: Really Expensive Toilet Paper.

Re: Captain American Build 350 pts Which is why no photonic shields were ever developed and inferior shields were never built by Stark or T'Challa.

Re: Kingdom of Champions 6th Edition? I liked the original Kingdom of Champions book, even if I never used the characters in it. Coming out with a new one after the system becomes Dead To Me would be useless to me.

Re: Old Palladium player wanting to start with the HERO SYSTEM Geez, MM, you sound like you work in a gaming store.... BTW, does TIY still have the birthday club?