GamePhil

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

I'm getting too old and too lazy to want to do a lot of retooling. The whole notion of adding more letters to short-hand tags like ECV turning into... whatever.

Well, it is possible to bundle up whatever Advantages give you the benefits of BOECV right now and just call that BOECV. Not sure if that helps you, but it is still doable. Plus, we can't be absolutely sure yet if BOECV is going away as a separate Advantage, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Not sure how much that helps, though. It looks like NND may be kept as a term even though it's built as AVAD (from Steve's first post), so we'll see.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Perhaps this might be rephrased "I try to examine all sides of the issue with an objective state of mind."

That's very generous of you Usually the case, but sometimes I get caught up in the moment like most people. It's just random what side I'll be on when that happens.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Well' date=' I'm not going to dismiss what you say. We all have different gaming experiences and perhaps my style just fell into synch with this particular issue so it didn't get annoying. There's probably a few things that bug me that were never a problem for you and your players. Thanks for the thought out and civil response.[/quote']

 

Well, really, this isn't a matter of my experience: I'm talking about the only objective thing about it, that, on paper Figured Characteristics give you a big ol' cost break that No Figured doesn't actually fully refund. I've long argued that this is illusory, that the perception of getting too many points back is because they are not priced correctly (or, at least, offset well by everyone else getting EC's), but there you go. I've personally never had any of these things break the game, though I admit I've just let people get away with not taking No Figured and come up with an explanation if it was necessary to be effective.

 

I sometimes forget to mark which are my concerns, and which are problems that I've seen expressed. I don't sit on the fence, I bounce over it like a tennis ball.

 

The benefit to me is actually the subjective points, not the mathematical one. I've actually presented ideas of just starting characters completely from scratch, too, because that is often going to give me some benefit. I don't think that's useful to the game as a whole, though. I think the math of it is more to my liking, but like I said, if that were all of the benefits to me, I wouldn't find it desirable (see: baby and bath water comment

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

In a way we are not loosing figured characteristics however. Unified Power (I think is what it is called) can be used to save points on characteristics if it is conceptualy part of the character. So your brick will be able to buy his Str' date=' Armor, Rec, Stun, etc... all with a -1/4 lim to represent that it is all one ability (I'm TOUGH)[/quote']

 

Sort of: Unified Power causes things to be Drained as a unit (or something like that, I know I saw something to that effect on this thread), while Figured Characteristics aren't Drained when their Primaries are.

 

No more free cost breaks. In one way, I'll miss them, but then, if I want a cost break for something I can always put it in.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

How were unusual character's penalized unduly?

You lose more points from taking the Limitation than the Limitation gives you, especially if you plan to buy back some of them, which almost every character will do. My Powered Armor makes me very strong, but its STR doesn't give me PD or STUN or REC, so I have to buy them up separately if I want them? Ugh, I'll just not take the Limitation and give it a special effect that allows for such things. STUN alone already loses you more points than you gained by not taking No Figured Characteristics, if you want it.

De-coupling them avoids that, so even if I buy them up separately I'm not penalized compared to a regular Brick: everyone does it the same way. And, while I can just always take a character conception that allows for my PD to just be high and not conceptually linked to STR, I don't want to be forced to do so.

That's a problem that Hugh's solution would nicely correct, since it's quite possible that the problem was with the value of No Figured Characteristics, the cost of said Figured Characteristics, or both. Probably both. Hence my statement that there were other solutions to this problem. But this solution does correct it, whether or not it is otherwise desirable.

Personally, though, and on a less objective note, I prefer being able to link things up in a straightforward manner however I wish, rather than having to unlink them and relink them again, or unlink them and leave them that way. But I also build probably a larger percentage of characters that this will be useful for than most people. So it goes.

My ideal? Re-cost things per Hugh's suggestions to make them balance out, provide rules to create a Characteristic Block with Primaries and Figureds designed and linked however you prefer, and keep the pre-4th Edition version of EC's. But the benefits I thought of for such a system seem to have been covered to my satisfaction, and I did spend some time thinking about the re-definition of Figureds without coming up with a way that was both simple and flexible, so I'm calling it good enough. Well, for now, the house rules gears are always grinding.

Re: Top 5 Favorite 5E Supplements

Well, I really have a list of about 10 that are all kind of crowded into my top 5 with lots of ties, but I'll be good and follow the rules, unlike certain obsessed fans. Plus, I don't want to repeat the others too much. I also left out a couple of books that weren't published by HERO, even thought there's no rule against it, it just felt like a separate category somehow, but I've been subtly advertising for one of them for a long time.

DEMON: Creepiest superhero book ever, and he somehow contrived to actually make that a good thing.

Post-Apocalyptic HERO: Not normally a fan of the genre, but this re-defined it in my mind to include things other than surviving a nuclear war or other modern disaster.

Galactic Champions: Any book with a giant Mechanon head in it is a win in my lexicon.

Mystic World: I've always been fond of mapping out the multiverse.

Valdorian Age: Any book that can get me even moderately enthusiastic about an Age of Conan style setting must be good. I even built a superhero based on the magic of the age (loosely: the other realms are just nicer in Champions).

Re: Alternative systems for mental powers

And then, and then we eliminate Stun in favor of simply Draining CON! And Presence Attacks in favor of Draining PRE! Eliminate END and instead use a Drain Side Effect on... well, CON currently, but another stat for your stamina could be put in.

Then, all Characteristics will give us some benefit and be used as a damage meter! Bwa ha ha ha! The possibilities are endless!

No, this is not some straw man criticism of the idea, I'm quite serious. Not that the rules should be changed to this, just that it could be made into a really neat set of house rules.

Re: Poll: What do you play

Still looking for a group, or even a game store. I'm told there is one up here (several people have looked at me and thought "Geek", and one even "Gamer". I thought I was less noticable), but I can't find it.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Normally to Block or Missile Deflect you must use an Action/Abort to Defense Action' date=' you can't use it passively like DCV. If the Advantage can do away with the requirement then it could create a new exception to the general combat rules for using OCV defensively.[/quote']

 

Ok, I lied about staying out, but clearly I'm not being direct enough. What general combat rules for using OCV defensively? All I know is that there are only two ways to use OCV defensively, I haven't seen anything anywhere that says you can't otherwise, it has just never come up since there is no other way to use it. Can you please give a page reference that would have to be changed?

 

Hey, it's a big book, I don't have the whole thing memorized. Help a guy out.

Re: Alternative systems for mental powers

1. The adjustment method for Mind Control: Buy Ego drain with a limitation that EGO is ONLY drained for the purpose of obeying commands from the ‘drainer’. Once your EGO gets down to 0 or less you have to start making EGO rolls or you do as you are told – the lower you go the harder it is to resist. You should get a bonus of +2 on your roll if you are asked to do something difficult or dangerous' date=' +4 if you are asked to do something potentially lethal and +8 if you are asked to do something that is almost certainly fatal.[/quote']

 

Probably reasonable as an alternative to Mental Powers, but I don't see anything that makes me want to take them out of the game. I'd probably call that a -0 Limitation, maybe a -1/4, but that's ok. I like the fact that it's not as permanent as Transform but can give just as a straightforward method of controlling the target.

 

All in all, a good candidate for "so obvious it's brilliant". I certainly never thought of it, but now that it's mentioned, it's very straightforward. Good deal.

 

One possible flaw in 6E: One of Steve's proposed changes was "no Characteristics below 0". He hasn't verified on the boards if that's going to be the case. Still, after this Drain they have a 9- chance of being able to resist you, and that's not all bad.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

I agree. Requiring CSLs to be put into OCV or OMCV to defend against one attack (whether or not we now allow it as part of an Abort) leaves a character wide open to the majority of normal attacks. Suddenly characters designed to be versatile or highly defensive lose the foundation of their design entirely. I'd strike attacks that target offensive CVs from the books in an instant.

I just fail to see why people seem to think that this would be changing the rules other than by expanding them. Just because there is currently only one way to use OCV for defense doesn't mean you don't get to use it otherwise if it's appropriate, and such an Advantage would make it appropriate. This doesn't change the way combat works, it just changes the target CV. It's not as if you don't have an OCV, and all he said was OCV vs. OCV, not "OCV vs. OCV Used In A Defensive Maneuver".

As for leaving yourself wide open, it also means that someone that used levels to OCV to hit the martial artist would be harder to hit. You don't have to put your levels to OCV to defend yourself, they do serve another purpose. Can it be abused? Surely it can, but then if my purpose was to be abusive I'd just get an AOE: Accurate attack and force you to Dive for Cover and leave yourself prone (or in midair) to avoid it. Then my buddy shoots you while your DCV is halved, just as he might if you put your levels to OCV to avoid this thing. No complaints I've seen lately about that, and there you can't even get any benefits from the maneuver, unlike being "forced" to apply your levels to OCV.

Interestingly' date=' there are few to no maneuvers you can Abort to that increase your OCV.[/quote']

 

Few, yes, and they're all some form of Block. But there are actually only a few maneuvers that you can Abort to get DCV, either, and they're generally some form of Dodge. So that's ok It's the ability to Abort that's rare, not the ability to Abort to something that gives OCV. Unless such an advantage miraculously ends up in 6E, that's unlikely to change since Block is still the only Abortable action that benefits from OCV bonuses, unless I'm missing something.

 

I seriously doubt that there will be a rule for this, but I just don't see it as a problem, or if it is, it's no worse a problem than we have dealt with before. And that's it for me, get in final words if you want.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Yes I know that's why I said unless the Advantages changes the normal combat resolution process. I just think it seems like allot of trouble for what amounts to a sfx difference. "DCV"' date=' "Block", "Dodges", etc can represent allot of things in Hero. It's one of the things I like about the combat system.[/quote']

 

How is it changing the normal combat resolution process? That's 11+My CV-Your CV, roll low. Everything else is optional: you don't have to Dodge to get a DCV, you don't have to Block to get an OCV, you may choose to do so to get a bonus.

 

But apparently you're defining the normal combat resolution process differently.

 

And if someone comes to me with a homing missile that can't be avoided but only Blocked or shot down or parried with a shield, I see no more unbalanced with that than forcing them to Dive for Cover with an AOE: Accurate attack.

 

And I will jump through hoops to allow an increase in what special effects can be simulated, and let others come up with interesting ways to use them. Most important thing in the game. This is a very easy hoop, not even on fire.

 

Still, hardly essential. Definately a niche audience type of thing.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

You already have the same design flexibility. If you wanted to make a character who was an "exception" to the general rule then buy some or all of the relevant characteristics with No Figured. At least I never ran into a character I couldn't build with Figured chars in place.

Of course you had the same design flexibility, in a sense, but only at the cost of penalizing characters that didn't fit into a specific mold, in that they lost more than was fair. This is an unacceptable answer to those of us that want to make unusual character easy and balanced with everyone else. If that were the only thing that dumping Figured Characteristics were meant to fix, I'd view it as a baby-and-bath-water deal, but it does fix the problem.

But see Hugh's previous post: other forms of re-working would have been just as good for that. I do feel there are other benefits, though, it's just a matter of time to see if they are worth the cost.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

( My wife is telling not to bother to try to explain but I guess I'm stubborn:D)

Always try to explain, just never try to convince.

What you're describing would certainly be part of the gain that Figured Characteristics give you for whatever small price you have to pay for it, in the same was as the trade-off for not having them is you have to do more work if you want the same package, but can then create any package you want. It comes down to which benefit is more important to each person.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

That would be odd and powerful since using you OCV to defend requires an Phase ending action of some kind (Block or Missile Deflection) unless the advantage would alter that. And could you do MOCV vs MOCV since there isn't (currently) a mental block maneuver?

Even if it's there, that's not necessarily the case. It would only have to work against raw or total OCV at the point when the attack is thrown. The significant difference is that, if you had a Phase you could Abort to, you'd Abort to Martial Block, for example, instead of Martial Dodge. The defender still wouldn't necessarily make a roll, it could be rolled just like an OCV vs. DCV attack.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Is calculating the figured really all that hard of an extra step?

Amusingly, the spot where I actually used the phrase "extra step" was not about Figured Characteristics, but simulating them in 6th by buying them up to the appropriate values. The extra step was in figuring out the cost of, say, PD 12 for a 60 STR character, which you don't have to do in 5th, since you just start with that score.

So it goes

Yes, I know you were speaking more generally. Just vaguely funny that the comment that set off that train of thought was actually in the other direction.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I guess the issue for me is you have to create a template to recouple reestablishing the relationship. Now my players have to consult my campaign guidelines for the template with every character.

Not sure what you mean there: wouldn't they just have to consult it once if you were going to make it just like old-style Figureds, since they already know those rules? Or are you saying because the costs will be different if you try to just do it in 6th?

The talent instead of COM is reawakening old GURPS fears. its just ugly over here for 6th.

heh heh, just ugly over here because of COM. Was that intentional?

Anyway, that one's still better than GURPS in one respect: there's no indication that it will be restricted to Very Handsome/Beautiful.

I'm kinda sad. HERO 5th was the only time I've been part of a live game community like this. Usually I house rule things so intensely it might as well be a different game. Maybe they'll still be enough dinisaurs on the boards to chat with though.

If everyone on the boards but you were to suddenly See the Light from on high and change wholly over to 6th Edition, they're still a generally bunch of polite folk that will get your Dialect of the language. Newbies may not understand, of course, but have other benefits to recommend them.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I have seen people offput by the math' date=' but they generally didn't become Hero fans at all. This board is naturally self-selecting for people who like Hero.[/quote']

 

And that is the normal course of things, but I've also met a few people that struggled with the math but still liked the game for, well, the POWER! I thought they deserved a for sticking it out, even if they aren't actually on the board or reading these posts

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Yeah' date=' I know you were framing it as part of a larger example, but it's been mentioned a few times as adding complexity, and that just baffles me. I still do roughs on paper and use HD to finish up. I was under the impression that most of us on the boards pretty much had all the normal Hero calculations down pat, kind of a limited form of Lightning Calculator, Only for Hero System Calculations (-1).[/quote']

 

"I have never taken five minutes."

 

How easy it is for us is irrelevant. How hard it is for newbies is irrelevant. The only relevant questions are, and they are inextricably linked for a -1/4 on both: Does it add to complexity? If so, is the added complexity worth it?

 

Is it more complex to have to Figure Characteristics compared to just buying them up from a base number? Of course it is. It's an extra formula that links the two stats together. Is it significantly more complex? Depends on who you ask. Not to me, which is why I'll probably re-introduce something like various Figured stat sets by Template, but that's more because of the benefits than the cost. Mathematically oriented people can find it easy enough to do but be unwilling to do it because the benefits to them are not worth even the small cost, and people who find the math hard might find it worthwhile even so because the linkages feel right to them.

 

Of course, there are plenty of people that find the cost small and find the benefits great.

 

So, to restate my point more clearly: for anyone that has mentioned that Figureds are more complex, the assumption should be that they are saying:

 

1. They are in an absolute sense more complex, because they are. That isn't itself a bad thing, though.

 

2. They are not worth the cost to them from added complexity vs. benefit, especially if they are found to be a detriment. I don't like the current structure, though I may use something like it, because I want my sentient binary load lifter to be easy to build.

 

3. The added formulae may be offputting to new users. They have been in the past.

 

What should not be assumed they are saying is:

 

a. Math is hard, let's go shopping! No long-time Hero fan is offput by the math, and I've seen no relatively new ones that are, either. But it's possible, they just see the benefits as outweighing the costs.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

heck' date=' why not OCV vs. OCV? -- you can block/parry it but you can't dodge it.[/quote']

 

That's... so obvious it's probably brilliant. We'll have to see if Steve thought of it (and if he did, if he considered it useful enough to put in the book).

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Is calculating the figured really all that hard of an extra step? I'm not picking on GamePhil's post in particular' date=' but I've seen this listed as an "extra step" people who like figureds will be forced to go through several other times. Have folks become so dependent on the software that this is a real burden?[/quote']

 

I consider it a young whippersnapper crutch that people use calculators or pencil and paper. Do it in your head as nature intended

 

First, no, not a difficult extra step, but I was comparing an absolute level of complexity, and even that was only to demonstrate that it wouldn't be difficult to fit Figureds back into the game if you are a rare person that likes Figureds and 6th both. Possibly just me, at least until the book is actually out. So, the removal of that step for that person does make it simpler, though only slightly

 

But, if I was saying it was hard to take this extra step, well, there are plenty of people that have argued that having to add up the cost of these new separate Characteristics is somehow harder than Figuring them then buying them up, and I never asked the question of whether this is "somehow harder" or implied that people are "dependent" on software. Perhaps others did, but you did mention my name after all, and you're the one doing it right now.

 

Well, maybe I did. It's been a long time and I haven't been immune to getting all emotional. If I did, I'll apologize when everyone else who was ever snarky on these subjects does on whatever "sides" you want to define. I don't see it happening any time soon, and I'm all better now personally. So, moving on.

 

I'm not going to be responsible for going round-and-round, so I shall make this very clear: I'm not belittling anyone's position on this issue. I am not saying "it's easy to do, you should all join me!". I am saying that the rules have gotten no more complex, at least from what I've seen with regards to Characteristics, and in some ways can be actually simpler. I am not saying that this makes it desirable. Just to be clear. To each their own.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Then again' date=' maybe the rule will be that they do BOD by default, and the pricing will adjust to accommodate that, with either a reduced advantage or a limitation if the attack does not do BOD.[/quote']

 

I think it should do that, or at least have a mention that it can do Body with the GM's permission when it's at a certain level of Advantage. Converting PD to ED (which I assumed earlier was a +0, but that hasn't been released for sure) should (maybe) not lose you Body damage.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Do I have that about right?

Sounds like it, of which some will no doubt be Limitations or +0.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

I realize that' date=' but since one of my biggest dislikes of the 6E changes is decoupling and removal of DEX as the basis for CV (and EGO for ECV)... I will be either recoupling them via house rules or I'll simply carry on with 5ER. In either eventuality ([i']in my particular case[/i]) this makes ACV not worth the trouble.

I'm sorry, I'm entirely failing to see how the two issues are related. You're still using OCV, DCV, OECV, and DECV, yes? The only difference is in how they are calculated, so ACV works exactly the same either way, which, again, is very little like BOECV. I suppose it may still not be worth the trouble, but I don't see how it has anything to do with how CV is figured.

But, carry on.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Actually I think torchwolf made some good observations. Nothing is being subtracted that can't easily be replaced.

I agree with his observations up to a point. What I don't agree with is statements like your second sentence above. Or rather, yes, they are easy to replace, but that's irrelevant. To me, COM, Figured Characteristics, and so on, were never core components of the system, so losing them for things that benefit me is not that hard. For people for whom these are defining aspects to the system, though, or for whom the benefits I see are not important, this is too major a change. They could come around once the book is in their hands, or they may not, but comments about how easy it is to change the system back are not going to fly when they already have the game they want, and may constitute metaphorically poking them with a sharp stick, and I simply don't see any point in doing so.

I don't see re-coupling to be that easy of an issue.

Well, in a sense it is, though see previous paragraph: just because it may be easy doesn't make it desirable for everyone. The following is only about the complexity issue, with no attempt to convince anyone of desirability beyond that.

You can use 6E and keep Figureds as guidelines rather than actual rules. Drawbacks: You have to pay for them, and for any Figured you want to leave at 5E base value, there's an extra step (figuring out the cost at base). However, you only have to figure them if they are at base levels. If your brick has a 60 STR, there's no reason to figure out the base PD of 12, you just buy it to where you want it. If you have a CON of 20 but want very little END (hard to Stun, but gets tired easily), again you don't have to calculate the 40 END and buy down. So that's, if anything, a little less complex. And if the costs have been restructured, buying them to levels that were unusual in 5ER and before may be easier. We'll see on that.

You can also use 6E and apply a Limitation to get a cost break like in 5E, whether Unified or something home brew, but that does get complex. Not more than Figureds are now, necessarily (again, we'll see), but we're used to Figureds.

Finally, I've seen nothing that would stop you from just porting in the traditional Characteristic block. Return to 5E point totals, use everything else out of 6E, but keep the block, costs, Figureds, and all. I'm pretty sure that soon after Dan releases the 6E update to HD, there will be exactly that hybrid version of it. And if you want to use mostly 5ER rules with a few things ported back? Should be even easier to add or change a few Powers and Advantages here and there.

But, at the risk of repeating myself, easy doesn't mean desirable. I can like something while still recognizing that others don't.