rjcurrie

Re: Naming the baby

Name it 6e for all I care.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Well' date=' he is from [i']Edmonton[/i].

Good point.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

yes but in the case of Regen and Instant Change these where broken for no other reason than vanity

 

while I did not like that shape shift in effect doubled in price it did come in line with Images so in that case I can see it was the right thing to do

Because he felt they were minor powers that were better done as builds of other powers? That's vain?

When you're adding a Power like Healing and there's a Power for Regeneration, doesn't it make sense to combine them? Did he do a good job of it? No. Did he do it out of vanity? I don't think so.

And as for Instant Change, did we really need a separate power that lets you change clothes? Maybe when it was just a superhero game, but that isn't the Hero System anymore. Again, was it good build? Maybe not. But I still don't see it as vanity.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Clearly you're one of *them*!

 

Rod turned me into a newt!!!

 

I got better...

Now, would I do that to a fellow Canadian?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I think we can guess who some are based on comments on this board.

Let me guess. You're now going to proceed to name everyone who has spoken in favor of 6e. After all, we can't possibly like it unless we were part of the group that created it, right?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Say' date=' has anyone asked, or Steve commented on, whether Regen will change in 6e? All I've seen on the boards is the comment that Healing is changing, but he doesn't want to explain how yet.[/quote']

 

I haven't heard anything.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

It also' date=' and this is my opinion, illustrates that "Powers" are not the domain of Superheroic Gaming.[/quote']

 

There's also the cynical point of view that says if you can just eyeball a point value for a Talent, then why can't you just eyeball a value for a Power? And if you can do that, what do we need these build rules for?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Good point' date=' although I suppose I could be stubborn and declare that those builds should be for illustrative purposes only to calculate pricing. Seems to me Talents get used fairly often as "superpowers" in games or genres that don't allow Powers.[/quote']

 

To be honest, I think the builds are really just to calculate pricing. After all, if you add Advantages or Limitations to a Talent, you the Talent's cost as the base for calculating the cost. You don't go back to first principles and add those Advantages and Limitations into the original build.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

All right I have to be a hypocrite here.

 

Okay, why isn't the use of the complimentary skill roll a mechanic tied to the stat? Serious question.

 

Edit: and I certainly hope its not just "when target is sexually attracted" because Com wasn't just about sex appeal. that would be a big Fail for me. Appearance effect reactions in more ways than sexual. A very cute child can be very persuasive due to their looks but I pray it doesn't have anything to do with the target wanting ot have sex with them, for example.

I don't think it does any good to get too wound up about any poster's speculation about something might be designed. The actual release is only 9 weeks from today.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I apologize. I didn't make my point clear.

 

My impression has always been that what separates Killing vs. Normal damage is that one requires Resistant Defense to counter it and the other doesn't. Period. Using a different dice mechanic to determine damage is acceptable, but there's a point where one needs to stop and accept that things are not going to match up nice and pretty and still be playable.

Which seemed to be a big part in why Steve chose the 1/2d6 STUN multiple. It was nice and simple and largely solved the STUN Lotto issue that a lot of people had. I never really saw it as an issue but whatever.

[qouote]I'm not saying that costs be arbitrary from player to player. But taking the road that every Characteristic, every Skill, Talent, Power/what-have-you has to balance on some cosmic worksheet is taking the game into an extreme that creates such constructs as 5E Regeneration and "Instant Change", which frankly are unnecessarily complicated messes.

Interesting I never saw them as a result of any kind of balance but rather a desire to have a smaller power list. I think they could have been done better, but I don't think balance was the goal.

I recall once arguing with a player who insisted that Fencing MA maneuvers should be cheaper to buy than other Martial Arts because they required a Focus.

Been there.

It is this trend of Game Balance as God that I've been seeing growing in the system. I concede that there is a respectable section of the Hero Games fanbase who prefer and welcome such a trend.

 

I'm not one of them. And I'm sad to see the game I've played and enjoyed since its inception way back in '81 head in a direction I have no wish to follow.

 

That's my mileage...

I think it's more a trend among people on the boards than it is a trend in Steve's designs but until we see the full 6e, I'm not sure we can really judge.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Emphasis mine.

 

Now you see, this is what is commonly referred to as 'insulting.'

 

You imply that because I like COM and will house rule it back, I 'live in the past' and want everything to be as it used to be, regardless of the merits of changes. Perhaps I want to 'live in the past' where women were expected to stay at home, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Perhaps I want to 'live in the past' where African-Americans were all owned, and referred to by a word with two g's in it.

 

As it happens, I do not want everything to be as it was. I want things to be better. New and improved, not just new.

 

Strking Appearance, as it has been presented, is nothing I haven't already done to supplement COM. That means that, in my experience, it is not a replacement for COM.

 

Others, including you, disagree. Fine. That's you're perogative. But DO NOT presume to tell me my preferences.

I actually meant it as "why should I live in the past?" but you're right even that could be taken as an insult.

So, I apologize -- I didn't mean to insult you.

I should have said: "It's just a game. The rules have changed. I'll use the new rules".

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

That actually works just fine for me and seems to make things easier. Some mention of maps ans scales might be included but meters is good

I think Steve will put something in about maps and scales -- I don't think it would take more than two or three paragraphs.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Okay. That's fine.

 

My point was that at the very least, some (if not most) of the people who actually used COM will continue to do so.

 

 

 

By the way, did you actually use COM? Was it used in game, or was it just relegated to it's slot on the character sheet and ignored it most of the time?

I used it as a complimentary roll when appropriate.

But it's just a game. The rules have changed. Why live in the past?

For the record, I was pretty neutral in the COM debate.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I really havn't played enough to have any real opinions about most of the changes. But this one makes a bit of sense to me.

If you are using minitures just break out your tape measure and use the usual conversion. A lot of the miniture games seem to be doing this

Or you can still play on a hex map where one hex is 2m just like it's been for 28 years -- it's just that you'll have 34m of Flight and an 12m AoE EB rather than 17" of Flight and a 6" AoE EB. You can still count them out on the map just like you do now.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

My prediction is that most people will be saying that they bought 4 levels with Striking Appearance - Beauty. Most folk won't even know that there was ever a Com score or even care.

I'm not so sure. I still run into lots of people who think there is a -1 on your to-hit roll for making a half move and that rule disappeared 20 years ago.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

5e Regen is clunky and requires an exception to the Healing rules to work. 4e Regen was much more elegant and didn't require me to open the rule book to find out what advantages' date=' and limitations to apply to healing to make regen. That's why most folk consider it broken.[/quote']

 

All games have things that are broken. All new editions break new things. It's the circle of life.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

But there's one problem with that: Beauty - or lack thereof - has an effect' date=' [i']period.[/i]

 

Studies have shown that attractive people get more - and more positive - attention from salespeople. They are rated as being more sucessful based soley upon visual appearance. Many people have no problem speaking to a person of average appearance, but get tounge-tied around someone who is really attractive.

 

So saying that someone can be beautiful - and yet that beauty has no effect - is, well, ridiculous.

So do you play Pulp games at all? If so, do you make sure to include sexism against women? Do you make sure to include constant references to the bread lines of the depression? How about racism? Do you include it?

Lots of games ignore things.

Part of "no effect" is whether the player wants the beauty to have an effect. He may just want to be good-looking but not have it effect anything.

In the same way, a superhero character can have a Secret ID without taking the Social Limitation: Secret ID. He's telling the GM that he doesn't want the Secret Identity to be a plot point -- it's just a character bit.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I think the reason that Marcus feels... kicked while's down, so to speak... is that eventually the pro-COM group settled around a 'let's compromise and make COM optional' stance. The anti-COM crowd stayed pretty vehemently "No, it must GO!" to the end.

 

So when Mr. Long ignored the proposed compromise to agree with those who would NOT compromise, it makes us feel... ignored, at best.

Steve made the decision he felt was best for the Hero System. You disagree. Does anything more really need to be said?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

For those of us who actually did use it, it will be missed...

 

Or grandfathered back in.

You're wrong. I used COM but I doubt I'll miss it and I won't be grandfathering it back in.

You do not speak for everyone who used COM.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I have one word for you.... Regeneration... 'nuff said?

I never had that big a problem with 5e Regen. A bit clunky but it worked in play. But then I'll admit I don't use it very much at all.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Don't Heroic Games normally use the Hit Location Chart to begin with? Making what the StunX is a completel non-issue....

Well, it depends whether the Hit Location Chart changes.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Again the change to KA's don't change supers campaigns that much IMHO as it is quite in Genre for supers to have normal attacks along with their killing attacks.

 

This change pushes normals games into having both Normal attacks as well as their killing attack weapons. This is genre breaking for most fantasy games as well as many Modern games. See Killing Attacks were NOT broken for Normals games. They were only broken for Superhero genre games.

 

I am advocating for a less stringent Nerf to Killing attacks, Hell I wouldn't even complain about a different system for Supers games than for Normals games. A system that allows killing attack to actually do decent stun, so PC's don't have to kill their opponents.

 

In a normals game I find that balance is super critical. Too much Defense or DCV can really make an opponent hard to defeat. With this change, Armor in normal games becomes MUCH more powerful. Which can be an really problem in Moderns game where Kevlar vests are rated rDef 6-9 and Characters run around with 5-8PD. As a GM I will be killing PCs as I won't have a good way not to esp if I use the weapons as published. (If weapons are written up different ie with +1 stun mults where they never had such a thing, then this fix doesn't make Superheros any more bullet proof).

 

Changing Killing attacks is a nasty can of worms. It shows the real difference between the Superheroic Genre and everything else. From this thread and the ones in the 6e discussion. I guess my group is one of the few that plays the other genres.

So, in other words, you're saying that you have no faith in Steve and his technical advisory committee to have considered these things. Why don't we wait and see if there are other changes before we rush to judgment.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

By the way: Does anyone know if Sidekick for 6th will have the combat rules, at least minus the optional ones? (I'm assuming yes, but you know what they say about assuming.)

 

I don't think that I'll have the budget for a full game right off the bat, especially with the two book format, but I'm inclined to grab a PDF or printed Sidekick for 6th.

Well, first of all there will not be a Sidekick for 6e. There will be a Hero System 6th Edition Basic Rulebook which is the 6e equivalent. It's always been described as equivalent to Sidekick so I assume it will be complete. They have announced Champions Online: The Role-Playing Game as being built around the Basic Rulebook in the same way that PS238 and Lucha Libre Hero are built around Sidekick -- so once again I would suspect it will have combat rules.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Wait. What? Huh?

 

You're going to have to explain that one, 'cause I just don't see it.

I think he's talking more from a balance point of view -- you're trading off STUN for BODY when you compare it to an equivalent Normal attack.

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. . . . . .)

I'm with GA on this one.