rjcurrie

Re: Cost of Levels

I'm pretty sure that Negative Skill Levels are gone based on comments by Steve.

Re: Screenshots

I created some CO characters based on SuperSquad America characters.

Here is Challenger:

Here is Silver Bow:

Here is Crimson Fist:

And finally, here is Forethought:

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

Sure' date=' and I was pointing it out in a humorous forum. What's the problem?[/quote']

 

I guess I don't view it as a humorous thread (cause certainly the whole forum is not humorous) because humor was clearly not the original intent, but rather that it was intended as a place for people to post their pet peeves about 6e. Hence, I took your post as a serious pet peeve with the system.

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

How much SPD is a 20 DEX good for in 6e?

So Steve missed something. It was bound to happen.

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Whoops!

 

You're right, I'd conflated some of the text in my mind over the years.

It happens to all of us. See my comments in your thread on CSLs.

Re: Resistant PD and ED

Ya know' date=' this might be the best way to approach this. Thanks[/quote']

 

Or if you choose to go the route of reducing the PD and ED by 1:

3 Resistant Protection (1 PD/1 ED)

 

Which has the advantage of being on one line.

Re: Champions 6th version

Were the figured characteristics perfect? Of course not. There is no gaming system this is. Do you not think there will be opportunities in 6th Ed for players to exploit the system? Of course there will be. I'm not attached to the formulas. What I am attached to is the concept of the primary characteristics effecting the figured characteristics. I'm all for revamping the formulas or character costs...within reason. I simply disagree with removing figured characteristics all together.

Then I'll make a suggestion I've made elsewhere. Set campaign minimums for the former figured as follows:

PD: STR/5

ED: CON/5

... and so on. Oh, and allow them to ignore one of these minimums.

No, it won't give you the free points that the old Figured Characteristics gave you, but it does mean the former Primaries have an effect on the value of the former Figureds.

Re: Champions 6th version

5th edition did not force you to buy END or REC to represent a higher CON. The character already received bonuses to END or REC as a result of buying a higher CON.

 

Removing the figured characteristics will force a PC to buy up END and REC to represent having a higher CON.

No, it forces a PC to buy up END and REC to represent having a higher END and REC.

Re: Champions 6th version

I disagree with that. Figured characteristics are effects based. Yes you can spend points to increase them or lower them and gain some points, but their base value was the effect of the primary characteristics.

 

Let me be clear about this. I am not bashing anyone for liking this change. I sincerely hope Hero Games continues to be successful for a long long time. I simply disagree with this change.

I'll admit I find to difficult to understand how people can be so attached to formulae that were clearly chosen just because they looked nice and used simple numbers. I mean does anyone really think that how much you lift and how hard you punch determines how physically tough you are while your general healthiness determines how resistant to energy damage you are but plays no part in your resistance to physical damage?

Not to mention that these formulae were broke from the beginning and the highly artificial rule restricting you to only selling back one Figured Characteristic had to be put in place to prevent exploits.

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

Despite your ringing endorsement of the official method' date=' extra PRE bought with Limitations =/= attractiveness.[/quote']

 

So write a number of the character sheet from 1to 30 that represents the character's attractiveness or however else you choose to describe it. That can then be used like any other special effect in combination with things with Striking Appearance and other modifiers.

 

Like character pictures and descriptions, it does not need to be a game mechanic to have an effect.

Re: Champions 6th version

I don't view figured characteristics as getting something for free. They are a by-product of the primary characteristics. I disagree with removing them from the game. IMO it removes something that was unique to the system and diminishes the system.

So, why were the Base values calculated from Primaries placed in the same column and treated the same way as the free base of 10 that each Primary got.

And incidentally, other systems have Characteristics figured from other Characteristics. Therefore, by definition, it is not unique.

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Excuse you? I don't believe anyone in this thread has tossed an insult your way. I don't think you want to go down the road you just started on.

He's referring to Dan's recommendations that people start fresh when creating characters for 6e, while Dan himself seems to have edited the 5e template to create the 6e one.

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Gotchas are minor rule changes that might catch people up if they're not expecting them.

 

For instance: Ego no longer helps defend against Presence Attacks. (It is provided as a GM's option, but isn't the default.)

Mental Powers no longer provide Mental Awareness for free; it must be purchased.

This is probably obvious but it might catch some; Entangle can no longer be used to create a barrier.

Some may get caught up by the removal of Growth Momentum and Stretching Momentum damage from Shrinking and Stretching, respectively.

Due to the change from game inches to meters, various combat and martial maneuvers divide velocity by 10 or 6, rather than 5 or 3.

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Varying Dimensions is listed in HD for Barrier ' date='but is not in the description for Barrier in the Power Descriptions part of the book[/quote']

 

And as you were told in the other thread, it will be gone in the next update of HD, which is likely tomorrow.

Re: What is the change of Hand Attack in 6e ?

So you still can't use HA other than Strike? : (

I think you may want to reread the description of the Power in 5e or 5er, but this was not the case there.

Re: Holodeck

A GM-controlled plot device?

You know, like any other location.

I suppose if you want to buy one for your base or vehicle, then I'd probably go with the EDM approach.

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

Pretty much this. They serve a near identical function. The mechanical differences should be handled by limitations/advantages to a single base power.

I think you'd need so many exceptions to represent the two concepts as one power that it is not worth it. Starting with, but not limited to the fact that Summon brings GM-controlled characters with limited free will into play and Duplication brings player-controlled characters with complete free will into into play.

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

Configurable is an advantage that allows you to change the shape of an already created Barrier or when cast

 

Varying Dimension's define says this

 

This Adder allows the character to vary the dimensions

of the barrier/wall from use to use. The character may exchange 1" of length for 1" of height, or vice-versa,

but may not more than double the standard dimensions of the barrier/Wall without the GM's permission.

 

Rod it looks as another one for the FAQ

No need for anything to be written about it. I was basically correct and Dan is removing that Adder in the next update which will likely be tomorrow.

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

It's on 6E1/CC p. 173' date=' and it's called [i']Configurable (+¼)[/i].

Nope. See my post above.

Re: Cage Barrier

You can put "windows" in a Barrier. The holes between the bars are just interestingly shaped "windows". Common sense should dictate what can get through it' date=' and from what angles. Shrinking anyone?[/quote']

 

Well, you can if the GM allows it. It is not part of the basic description of the Power.

Re: Champions 6th version

So this does away with a core concept that has been with the system from the get go? Sad. Yep' date=' not a fan. [/quote']

 

Yes, it does.

 

And brings it in line with one of the key Hero philosophies of getting what you pay for.

 

In the same way that buying large amounts of movement doesn't let you vibrate through walls for free, buying large amounts of STR shouldn't give you large amounts of PD for free.

 

But the arguments in favor of and against Figured Characteristics were made in these forums before and after it was announced that Steve was considering "decoupling" them in 6e. And there is really no need to go through it all again.

Re: Champions 6th version

Hi Folks,

 

I haven't read all of the posts here or in th other very extensive threads dealing with the 6th Ed but I did pick it up and browse through it (all 700+ pages).

Well, at least you looked it over before beginning your criticism. That's a plus.

Unfortunately, imo, it's the weakest iteration of the game baring New Millenium, which was an all time low.

You're half-right -- Champions: The New Millennium (it seem that while you can read, you do have spelling problems) was a low point.

I can understand Steve's stated reasoning that it's made to appeal to subscribers for the online game but it seems to be targeted to a group that really, in its very nature, has no interest in anything but online gaming.

At most, I think Steve said that they hoped to capitalize on the MMO to possibly attract new fans. He has never said that the 6e rules were being designed to appeal to those fans. And since you've looked through the rules, point the rules changes that are designed to appeal to MMOers.

So, it's basically a situation of abandoning your base in the hopes of finding a broader audience.

Trust me, if Hero was going to abandon its base in a quest for a broader audience, Hero 6e would not have been the result. Heck, it's not an uncommon belief that 6e didn't go far enough and catered too much to the core Hero audience.

Truly a case of the grass is greener if ever there was one.

A conclusion based on fault premises.

It seems some of the changes were pretty trivial and some (like Growth) were of the "huh, what th--?" sort (4 points for level of DI and 6 for Shrinking just seems odd and gimmicky somehow) .

Well, certainly, not the first time that these powers have been adjusted. One or more of them has changed in each of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and now, 6th edition. What's wrong with a Power costing 4 or 6 points a level if it produces more balanced results?

The size change Powers are tricky because of the characteristics they provide.

To me the truly egregious offense came in the dismantling of the CHAR systems, something that has been a bulwark and an insitution right from the get go. Jettisoning the Figured CHARs made no sense either.

Okay. I wanted say the Figured Characteristics were jettisoned, they're merely bought up or down from a constant base now rather a variable calculated base. Figured Characteristics have been around since day one and were broken since day one. That's why the rule was added about only selling back one. And have you seen the arguments over the year about how STR and CON gave you for what you paid for them. Not to mention, it isn't all that hard to come up with concepts where the "relationships" between Primary and Figured Characteristics don't hold, so why force them. By decoupling Figured Characteristics, you decide yourself how much PD you should have compared to your STR, just like you decide how much BODY you should have compared to your CON. If you think a relationship should exist between two Characteristics, purchase those Characteristics to reflect it.

Given the revision it seems that every CHAR should be 1/1 as none of them really seem to have any use at all, anymore.

STR -- Lifting Ability, Damage, Escape from Grabs, etc.

DEX -- Initiative, Agility Skills, DEX Rolls, Dive For Cover

CON -- Amount of STUN taken before being Stunned, CON Rolls

INT -- Intellect Skills, INT Rolls, Perception Rolls

EGO -- "Defense" against Mental Powers (and Presence Attacks), EGO Rolls

PRE -- Presence Attacks, "Defense against Presence Attacks", Interaction Skills

Yeah, they all do nothing now. Geesh.

DEX being 2/1 just seems to be a rather lame attempt to retain some of the old flavour (gvien that it's usefulness has been gutted as it it no longer determinative of OCV/DCV) and to prevent the system from looking too much like the CHAR generation systems you see in online gaming.

DEX is at 2/1 because Steve felt that its role in initiative combined with its other uses warranted the higher cost.

And let me get this straight, it's your contention that Steve changed the system to appeal to the MMO players but then set DEX at a price that make it look like he wasn't trying to appeal to MMOers. Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm curious what MMO you think that Hero System character generation now resembles (with the exception of DEX).

Moreover by making EGO 1/1 the system makes Mental powers, which were already a pretty dodgy prospect even more unavailing. At one for one the cost of EGO is such that bricks can run around with 30 EGOs for 20 paltry points. It just about makes EGO powers useless.

With the changes in how Characteristics are purchased, bricks petty much need all of the extra points available in 6e just to remain near the same levels as in 5e, so they are unlikely to have an extra 20 points lying around just to raise their EGO to 30.

Obviously, the big change is breaking out OCV/DCV into their own CHARs. This seems to echo other systems...see below. This is not too terribly bad of an idea but given that in the examples they are all tied to to the 3/1 DEX ratio why bother anyway? Moreover, this formula makes CSLs basically superfluous, which the rules kinda do anyway.

The examples were conversions from 5e characters that Steve decided not to change too much. Should he have maybe put a little more variety in those characters and their CVs? Probably. But they're just examples. And how does this make CSL superfluous?

I think that the revision may well be an attempt to turn Champs into more of a "popcorn" game like "Mutants and Masterminds" but it's counterintuitive since I don't know of many 700+ page 2 volume popcoirn games. It doesn't make the system any more accessible, user friendly or understandable just far less interesting and distinctive and much more generic.

So, in other words, changes that make a greater variety of characters possible or, at least, easier to build (by removing largely artificial restrictions in character generation) makes the system less interesting. As for it being more generic, I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Hero has been a generic system for 20 years since 4e was released in the summer of 1989.

I'm hoping really that this is all a glitch or a bad dream or an imaginary story as this is a truly horrendous revision. Maybe I will wake up tomorrow and see that is as it was and all is good.

Oops. Guess not.

I know that, I for one, will no longer pick up Hero products as the system I know and love no longer exists (in certain very meaningful ways) as it has for almsot 30 years!

And this is your right as a consumer. I'm pretty sure that Steve and company knew that they would lose some people when they made the decision to create the 6th edition.

Ah well, at least I still have my memories...and given this revision they will have to do...

Actually, don't you still have copies of older versions of the rules that you can still use?

Honestly, you're sounding like those people who cried that their childhoods were being raped because Battlestar Galactica was being remade.

Re: What is the change of Hand Attack in 6e ?

Essentially, the Hand-to-Hand Attack Limitation is now -1/4 instead of -1/2.

Re: 6E Cool Stuff Shout-Outs

But now it's the main formula in big type. I cheered.

Whereas it is often the actual version of the formula that I use, I think there is something of a loss by not presenting the main formula as:

11 + Your OCV - Their DCV = Roll Needed

or something similar. Because while I agree that this expression of the "to hit" equation is not the easiest to work with directly in play, I do think it is the form that best expresses the game design logic behind it.

Re: Omcv 1?

I was pointing out that your post was condescending and out of line and a bit silly all at the same time.

 

'Hark' means 'look at' or 'pay attention to' in the Scottish dialect.

Ah. I know that. It was more the phrase "Hark at her" and in particular, the "her" that was a bit confusing.

In any event, I'll apologize for "your silly little house rules". That was condescending. I should have just said "your house rules". But I don't feel the rest of the post was condescending or out of line.