Kenn

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

Missed P ...Presence becomes Awesomeness - since Comeliness/Appearance is gone still only 1 A

 

SDHBIMAPEQRTG

 

Still not a word but then neither is FASERIP

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

This is clearly an instance where Champions-centric thought changed a rule. Which is a problem that the system has always had.

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

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']

 

Well, if they're playing in a Champions game, and their super hero has a code versus killing "complication" they the attack that's less likely to kill but with similar "subduing" power would be more desirable.

 

If they're playing a axeman in a Fantasy Game, I'd expect them to take the killing damage weapon. However, if playing a staff wielding monk, I'd expect them to take the normal damage weapon.

 

I guess that's my problem. I've been playing with grown-ups for so long, that I've actually gotten accustomed to people using what's appropriate to the character they're playing. I haven't had to deal with the players who tweak their characters to fit their preferred game mechanics.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

What are the averages between the new and the old Killing?

"Old"

12 DC Killing (AKA 4d6 K), w/1d6-1 STUN Mult., is 14 BODY and 37 STUN.

"New"

Reducing the stun multiple to 1/2d6 makes the average 14 BODY and 28 STUN.

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

I'd like to take a moment to point out a little fact here.

 

I find the 5E rules more intuitive for permanently sized creatures. not less.

 

Now YOU'RE the one telling us what is the absolute right way. Don't tell me /I/ should be using Size Power;0ENDPersistentAlways on because /YOU/ find it more intuitive.

 

 

I certainly don't. But hey, thanks.

(or, you know, I'm free to ignore your ruling... but then I wouldn't be using your desired RAW. . . . . .)

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...

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".

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

The reason that Growth and Shrinking are not used to make things inherently Taller/Smaller is that they cause funny things to happen to the cost of said characters.

 

ie in 4th edition a rat has 45pts stuck into Shrinking Persistant 0 End. Which makes said Minor creature rather expensive (and counter intuitively so). So Steve decided that size would be both a Disadvantage and a bonus to DCV (for being small) Which made small critters a bit less spendy. ie the same rat would only have 30pts tied up in the -6 DCV and gets a Physical Limitation (tiny, light weight) which saves points.

 

Is it better? It is less intuitive to build things this way, as the natural inclination is to use Shrinking/Growth to change the size of things. Though building stuff that way does make creatures that 'feel' right in their point totals. (ie minor squishy things are a cheaper than a person)

 

BTW Pg 127 of 5th Rev gives the "official" ruling as to how to create Taller/Smaller character. The Appendix on pg 573 goes into more detail as to how said beings should be written up.

 

Now it is YOUR game and if in YOUR game you want to use Growth and Shrinking you are totally free to do so. I think that your players will like the official rules better (They are cheaper to buy which will tend to make Players like the official way).

 

Tasha

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

And Steve - the guy who wrote the rules - will be FIRST IN LINE to tell you "Go ahead and do what you want. It's your game."

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

Really?

 

You can provide links to the messages where this occurs, right?

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

No, I did. In fact I saw both sides of the argument. I take it you missed in the first post in that thread where Steve was already inclined to get rid of COM unless presented with a compelling argument to keep it.

 

Someone deciding to do something they were already predisposed to do in no way indicates that they decided to give into the people arguing that they should do it. It just means that the people who were opposed to the change didn't come up with an argument against it that he found compelling.

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?