Pattern Ghost
-
Posts
15,698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
News
Store
Forums
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Pattern Ghost
-
-
Re: The Clown Guild - The First Clan for the new MMO
I'll join any guild that will get me a Beta invite, regardless of name. =)
Just let me know if you set it up and I'll PM you an e-mail addy for the form on the site.
Edit: Actually, I just PMed it to ya. Go for it! And rep to you!
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Limited skill levels is a houserule?
Ok, I didn't catch that in your post.
Still, wouldn't it be pretty easy to just slip the COM stat back in there?
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
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.
Ok, so you've already added to the game to accommodate your playstyle. According to this, you use COM, and something like what you think Striking Appearance will be. So, you have half of your solution now. In 6th, you'll just have the other half.
It sounds like you need to houserule something to fit your playstyle either way you slice it.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
This thread is starting to sound like something from an MMO message board. If you love COM so much, just keep using it. This is a pen and paper game. You have the option.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
I think I see what you're getting at, Steamteck, thanks for the reply.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
I don't understand this thing about using Unified Power to recouple stats. How would that look on paper? Do we know what the UP mechanic actually is yet?
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
If you're wearing a bulletproof vest and get hit by a bullet that fails to penetrate, you're going to get bruising and pain, but it's going to be nowhere near as random as the effects of a bullet that penetrates.This is true enough.
There was a quite long discussion of the statistics of killing attacks on the 6e boards, and it was quite clear that KAs were superior to NAs against most targets. 1d3 might be unduly weak (though I don't really think so), but 1d6-1 was way too strong.
Yeah, that discussion is an old favorite around these parts.
Now, I'm not saying I'm opposed to the new rule. I'm actually really neutral to it. I was just looking at things from the POV of folks who don't like the change. I think there's a possibility of it having an impact on lower power level heroic games.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
No it wasn't. Non-penetrating damage for bullets and the like is neither particularly random nor particularly effective. It's only penetrating damage that is random.So, explain to me what real thing you are talking about in game terms. I'm not sure I follow, and I don't want to contradict you without understanding your reasoning.
I think you're talking about attacks that don't do Body but do massive Stun? Is that right?
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Yeah' date=' but knocking people out isn't the purpose of killing attacks. It just means characters shouldn't use killing attacks unless they're trying to kill the target.[/quote']On the other hand, the old randomness was actually pretty realistic. Sometimes people just get knocked out by a killing attack, whereas other times, people just keep going and going with horrendous wounds.
I think there may be some valid concern that under the new ruling, if someone is using a killing attack -- and there are many genres where that's the default type of attack -- the default behavior will be "keep fighting right up until death." Which is not realistic.
So, you buy up the stun multiple, but with the narrow range on the rolls, you're actually just swinging things the other way toward knocking folks out short of killing them.
Some folks like the mechanic to be "sometimes you die, sometimes you get knocked out." And that's a really cool mechanic for a lot of non-supers genres.
So, I can see where folks are concerned that the balance here is kind of aimed at one kind of campaign at the expense of others.
-
Re: increased END - too much?
It seems to me that the player is trying to get a cost break on abilities that he's only going to use out of combat. Which is reasonable, as in-combat abilities should cost more.
Maybe he could look at other point-efficient builds that aren't such END hogs as to knock him out? Foci, lots of Extra Time, etc.
-
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.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Normal : 12 Body 42 Stun5e : 14 Body 37.333 Stun
6e : 14 Body 28 Stun
OK, thanks. So, it basically evens out the Stun but keeps Killing at a slightly higher average Body. Seems reasonable.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
12DC Normal: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN5er, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 120 STUN.
6e, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN.
What are the averages between the new and the old Killing?
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Zoinks!Jinkies!
-
Re: Storn's Art & Characters thread.
A beutiful picture' date=' Storn, of a ninja assassin awaiting his victim.[/quote']"Must spread rep... blah blah blah."
-
Re: Why the dislike for Find Weakness?
I don't think removing it becomes unfair unless the base game mechanics change so much that they won't permit you to simply plug the prior version of the power back into the game.
In order for someone to like the power, they must already have the rules for the power either in print, or memorized. So, dropping it from the book does nothing to remove their ability to put it right back IN their games.
Unless the rules change so much that the power won't work. Which I doubt.
-
Re: Old Palladium player wanting to start with the HERO SYSTEM
I remember a huge thread on building Rifts from a long time ago. I'm not even sure if it was on this version of the boards or the old, old one. Was a pretty good thread, and a pretty good demonstration of how good Hero is at scaling up damage.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Ok. Just caught up on the thread. There's one thought I have on the whole issue of what Steve and DoJ decide to do or not do with the Hero System:
Without them, it would be long DEAD, with only the 4th Edition and earlier material for people to play with. Geeze people, do you think Steve and company is really out to get us? Even if you decide to skip 6th Edition, the company has given us a TON more material for 5th than any other version of the game has ever had. All of it pretty darned decent quality, too.
I've been on the boards here through like four or five incarnations of BBS software. This company has NEVER acted like one which doesn't take its fan base into careful consideration. The bottom line is, you cannot build a game system by a committee of a zillion ravenous fanboys. At some point, someone has to step up and decide what the official rule is going to be, and implement it. Guess what: YOU didn't get that job. YOU didn't invest your money and your time into it to the level that the folks running the show did. When you do, then maybe you can run around being butt hurt about it, but I swear some of the folks in this thread are taking these changes way too seriously. Not a large number, but the more vocal of the crowd are just plain irritating.
/rant
-
Re: Why the dislike for Find Weakness?
To me, Find Weakness going kind of simplifies things in that it frees up five or so points on average for bricks who are only dumping the points on an off chance they may face an opponent with a rather exotic power. When a defense is way more common on builds than the attack it defends against, something is just a little out of whack.
I wouldn't have minded if it were left in, either, but ditching it does simplify things.
-
Re: Old Palladium player wanting to start with the HERO SYSTEM
I'll have to say, though, that Heroes Unlimited was fun. So was TMNT and Robotech. (Though at the time FASERIP Marvel was a lot better than HU, but I still had some fun games with the system.)
Palladium didn't really start going downhill for me until Rifts came out. Cool concept, but mixing the mega damage rules in just spoiled it. The different Palladium systems were far from being universal. They missed an opportunity to overhaul the game mechanics into something that could handle Rifts.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Steve specifically stated that the result will be "simpler," so waiting would seem to be prudent.That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach.
On the other hand, some things Steve considers "simple" are things I don't.
In principle I'm inclined to agree with, but I've noticed that what things are called seems to make a real difference to a lot of people in the HEROphile community.
I don't like the change, particularly, but I can see why he made it. The change may also come with a loosening up of the whole "If a Disadvantage doesn't kill, maim, render your character insane, or useless, then it's not a disadvantage" thing. Because, frankly, some GMs take that whole aspect of Disads too far.
If the goal is to make Disads be a reward for adding color to your character and fleshing it out with real background detail that has a game impact, and to get away from the whole problem of having to roll for frequency for the collective DNPCs, Hunteds, Rivals, etc. for an entire team of characters, and wedge all of that into the plot, then using a more moderate term, like "Complications" makes sense.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Aside from the rather uncomplimentary way you put that. I disagree about the same arguments over and over again also. There was lots of that but there was lots of new insight everyone got into their positions Yes' date=' I do think they could have changed the final result or it was all a sham. If I think Steve was sincere and I do, of course they could have changed things.[/quote']I think Steve was sincere. I think he was very sincere when he said he'd be very unlikely to change some things. I thought he was pretty up front about it. He probably didn't see merit in many of the arguments against changes, because at the end of the day, his changes ended up working out mechanically similar, and they -- at least in his point of view -- added some benefit.
If the mechanics of something give the same end result, then all we are arguing over is the aesthetics of the mechanics. I think that's what the bulk of the arguments of this thread have been. And that's why they'll never end, because they're for the most part subjective.
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
That problem can also be fix without getting rid of the Comeliness characteristic. I' date=' for one, will be doing as much with my new house rules.[/quote']I don't care either way, personally.
Look at it this way: You can fix this with YOUR house rule. Steve is fixing this with HIS house rule. Fifth Edition is basically Steve's House Rules MINUS The Stuff They Wouldn't Let Him Put In. Fourth Edition is basically a consolidation of the original however many rules books, slightly tweeked around to bring all the genre rules under one umbrella.
Most of us have 4th and 5th Editions. Most of us already house rule what we like between those two editions. 6th Will probably provide more of the same, or could easily be left on the store shelf.
Everyone, to one extent or another, rolls their own with Hero, so why cry over rules changes that can be ignored?
-
Re: Questions from a New Hero
If he doesn't use the car to fight crime I'd write it up like this:
Description: Blah blah blah.... and drives a 2009 Toyota Yaris.
6E Rules changes confirmed so far
in HERO System Discussion
Posted
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Ah! This is perfect. I was in favor of keeping COM, defining it differently, and raising the point cost to a full point, along with giving it some function outside the Complementary Skill Rolls, to merit the cost increase.
First, negative COM would have to go. COM would be redefined as the intensity of the character's appearance, not just beauty. You could chose three broad special effects (making the stat fit with the reasoning from effect philosophy) for your COM: Beauty, Ugliness, and Nondescriptness.
For complementary rolls, you could apply your COM roll as per your focus. (Nondescript characters would be better at Shadowing and other skills requiring one to be discrete or blend into a crowd.)
Likewise, you could use the GA Hero rule to add to different types of PRE attacks. (Again, obvious for pretty or ugly characters, for nondiscript, the PRE attack may go along the lines of appearing as an inconsequential or unthreatening target, with an exeptional result of being regarded as a simple bystander in the right circumstances.)
Of course, COM can also be used to adjucate modifiers for mental powers, like Mind Control. You can already do that (target more inclined to obey a "kiss me" command from an attractive target or to attack an uglier target, etc.) with COM, but the rules don't really suggest it anywhere that I can remember.
That gives COM (or a rename to Appearance/APP may be in order) a solid three areas of benefit, justifies getting rid of the stupid negative scores, and justifies a normal price cost, which adds granularity since people can now buy any value and not just even numbers.
That's the fix I'd want to see for COM in 6th. The Golden Age rule of adding to PRE attacks is the final piece of the puzzel that would make COM viable at a full 1 point cost. (It'd also help flesh out PRE attacks a bit more, I think.)
Not gonna happen, but I really like that GAC rule, so I just tossed it out there.