Klaus Mogensen
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Store
Forums
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Klaus Mogensen
-
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
People have suggested that my analysis fails because it fails to take exotic attacks into account. I will attempt to address that here, though such an analysis must include many more assumptions.
Let's take a basic superhero as an example, and see how he would be best off spending his experience points: On defenses, or on STUN/BODY/REC/CON. Let's say he starts with 20 rDEF and 10 each of Mental Defense and Power Defense, though these values aren't important for the analysis.
In his last epic battle, lasting two and a half turns, our hero was hit by:
- 4 agent attacks vs. PD, 2 of which did STUN
- 2 agent attack vs. ED, 1 of which did STUN
- 3 powerful energy attacks, all of which did STUN, and one of which did BODY and stunned him
- 3 powerful physical attacks, all of which did STUN, and one of which did BODY and stunned him
- 1 EGO Attack, which did STUN
- 1 attack vs. Power Defense, which did STUN
+1 PD would have saved him 5 STUN and 1 BODY
+1 ED would have saved him 4 STUN and 1 BODY
+1 Mental Defense would have saved him 1 STUN
+1 Power Defense would have saved him 1 STUN
Hence, +4 points worth of defenses would have saved him 11 STUN and 2 BODY and reduced his chances of becoming stunned, similar to having +1 CON.
If STUN, BODY and CON all cost 1 each in 6e, that's 14 points worth for 4 points.
Now, the hero also gets two PS12 recoveries. Having +4 REC would replace 8 of the lost STUN, so we could also compare the 4 points of defense with +3 STUN, +2 BODY, +1 CON, +4 REC, or 14 points. The value of REC also recovering END we can set at 4 points, so the net value is 10 points - still 2½ times the cost of defenses, including MD and PowD.
Comments?
- Klaus
- 4 agent attacks vs. PD, 2 of which did STUN
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
Since the System must take into account all elements - not the ones you think are more common - then the analysis fails to create a fair cost comparison and is over simplified.Making it less than useful and less than fair and you will draw an incorrect conclusion.
Please make what you consider a fair cost comparison, then.
- Klaus
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
4. Most characters need both DEF and STUN at more than starting levels' date=' certainly in higher powered games, so it is about balance.[/quote']Yes. My analysis is based on what's better once you have bought basic levels of DEF and STUN to prevent against common attacks. You need some (resistant) DEF to prevent taking BODY, and you need some STUN as protection from exotic attacks, STUN Drains, and such. Once you have that (which of course is campaign dependant), is it better to buy more PD/ED or buy more STUN/REC/CON? My analysis suggests the latter.
7. Game balance is important in character design - you can't just spend all the points on DEF because that doesn't make for a fun game - combat takes forever.Which is exactly why I advocate making PD/ED a less powerful option than it is now.
- Klaus
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
You are assuming that the power has no other advantages' date=' and that rounding does not work in your favour.[/quote']Yes - it is a simple analysis. However, in my experience, the majority of powers don't have too many advantages. Let us say that a 30 point base power with Reduced END also has +½ in other advantages. The cost of Reduced END is thus 7, and the END cost is reduced by 2. If the 7 points were used instead to buy more END, the power must be used 7 times in a situation before Reduced END even begins to save points - assuming that no END is recovered in the meantime.
More complexly, we can try to assume that the power is used 4 times in a turn. Hence, 8 END is saved. Buying +8 END costs 4 points, while buying +8 limited REC* would cost 8 points. This is 12 points compared to 7, but the extra END and REC can be used for all powers. Is this worth the extra cost? Hard to say.
In my experience most battles last between one and three turns. Let's say two turns (8 power uses). Then the 7 points spent on Reduced END should be compared to spending 16 END at the cost of 8 points, just 1 more than the cost of Reduced END - and once again, having a lot of END is much more flexible.
This suggests that if you have other advantages on a power and roundings are in your favor and you use the power constantly for more than two turns, Reduced/0 END may be a valid alternative to buying more END/REC, but it in no way shows that it always is a better option. In fact, I would recommend buying more END (and REC) for greater flexibility, except perhaps for movement powers you plan to use for extended periods.
*: I don't suggest actually buying limited REC, I'm just trying to value the END-related parts of REC. Buying high REC is good for all sorts of other things. IIRC, you e.g. wake up from unconsciousness with END equal to your REC.
- Klaus
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
Your math isn't very transparent.I see no mention of Mental Attacks or Exotic Attacks
I clearly state that I'm only looking at how many non-exotic attacks a character is typically hit with in a turn. Additional exotic attacks may be defended with by having more Stun or by having exotic defenses; this isn't important for my analysis. Given that exotic attacks typically are much rarer than attacks vs. DEF (and may not exist at all in many campaign types), I chose to disregard them for this simple analysis.
If CON is 1:1 and it provides Con Rolls; Stun Threshold and I believe the Stun Threshold is the primary function I give you a -0 Limitation. Not .8 Points.That actually strengthens my point - now +1 PD, +1 ED has a value of 6 points rather than 5.8.
Have you done this cost analysis for Attacks over a range of Damage Classes with a series of set Defense Levels? I suggest an array starting from 1 DC (5 Active Points) to 20 DC (100 Active Points) for Defenses Values of 8/12/15/20/25 and Stun/REC Values of an equal Cost.That is a very complex analysis where you have to take into account the different distributions of different numbers of dice. Ideally, such an analysis should be done, but I don't have the week or so available to do it right now.
Also, you mentioned on Superpowered Attacks - but don't define them. You're being Genre Inclusive and trying to fix the system against only one level of Attack. That is ultimately useless.
The distinction between "superpowered" and "agent" attacks was introduced by ajackson in the 6e Characteristics thread.
The main point is: Some attacks are big enough to consistently let Stun through - call them "hero-level" attacks, if you prefer. Other attacks only let Stun through on about every other hit, since the average damage is about the same level as the hero's defenses - call these "mook-level" attacks. With this distinction (rather than superpowered/agent), we become genre inclusive without changing the results of my analysis.
- Klaus
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
I think that buying more STUN and REC has never been a viable option to buying up defenses. However, like Alibear, I think the answer lies in STUN and REC (and END, for that matter - how many people buy up REC and END rather than buying reduced END) being overpriced. I hope, with the elimination of figured characteristics, the costs of these characteristics will decline in 6e.[...]
Finally, I am opposed in principal to the theory that the solution to any perceived pricing imbalance is "raise the cost of something". We never think to suggest that something might be overpriced and its cost should be reduced. This is a classic case for reducing the cost of the overpriced ability.
I agree (see above) that lowering the cost of REC and STUN is better than increasing the cost of PD and ED - I was a little too quick there.
However, I don't agree that Reduced END is a better alternative than buying more END and REC:
The Reduced END and 0 END advantages reduce END cost at a price of 5 points per END saved. At the current cost, the same 5 points will buy you +10 END - enough for 10 uses of the power.
If we assume a power is used 4 times per turn, you need +4 END and +4 limited REC (END recovery only; -1), at a current cost of 6 points, to match the effect of Reduced/0 END. This is just one point more, and is much more flexible, since you can use the extra END and REC for all powers, not just the one. Also, if a power costs END, you can save END for other uses by using it at less than full strength - you get no similar savings by using a 0 END power at less than full strength.
If the cost of REC is reduced to 1 in 6e (which the STUN/REC vs. DEF discussion above suggests), the cost of +4 END and +4 limited REC will be just 4 points - cheaper than buying Reduced/0 END. You would have to use a power more than 5 times a turn before Reduced/0 END saves more END and REC than you can buy for the same points.
One solution would be to increase the cost of END; but as you say, we should look to reduce costs instead. We could make 0 END a +1/4 advantage, doing away with Reduced END. Or, more flexiibly, we could instead introduce a new adder, Reduced END Cost, at e.g. 3 points, which would reduce the END cost of a power by 1.
- Klaus
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
The new edition is written. Moot point at best. You are also going under the premise that the cost of Characteristics isn't altered already in 6E.I'm hoping there's still a chance to correct some costs if necessary. This may not be the case, but hope is eternal.
You analysis also seems to leave Figured Characteristics in place, which we know is going away. So you also don't know the cost of that.Where do you get that idea? I included CON in the calculation because if your DEF is lower, you need more CON to avoid getting stunned. I set the cost at 1, which seems the most likely for 6e.
Did you cost analysis take into account that Stun works against all incoming attacks, and PD/ED only against specific kinds of incoming attacks? Stun works vs Ego Attack as well, so you need to factor in Mental Defense to the cost analysis. Also Drain Stun, so you should add in the cost of Power Defense to properly measure Stun Hero vs Defense Hero.Yes, I took all that into account, as you would know if you had read my post:
I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle' date=' how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks.[/quote']So, to answer: No. Your math is currently incomplete.In what way?
- Klaus
-
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?
you might have a case for reducing the cost of Stun though.Yes, halving the cost of Stun and Rec might be a better idea, or defenses may become too expensive compared to attacks.
This will reduce the value of +1 PD, +1 ED to 3.3 points (according to the analysis above), still more than half again the current cost, but not as bad as before.
- Klaus
-
This topic came up under the 6e Characteristics thread, but I think it is important enough to have its own thread.
Basically, I did an analysis that suggests that even if the costs of PD and ED were doubled, they would still be a very good deal compared to buying more Stun. I repeat the analysis below, and I would like to hear that I'm wrong - if not, I think it is vital to increase the costs of PD and ED in the new edition.
I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle, how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks. We can also assume that both the Stun-based and the DEF-based hero have enough rDEF to avoid taking BODY from typical attacks, hence we only look at how good an idea it is to buy non-resistant PD and ED on top of that.
So let's make the analysis: In a typical turn of intense combat, I assume a hero will get hit by an average of either 2½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF (in a 1-on-1 battle) or by 1½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF plus 2 agent attacks vs. DEF.
We assume that superpowered attacks do enough Stun so that each extra DEF saves 1 Stun per attack, and that every second agent attack does Stun through defenses, meaning that each extra DEF saves 0.5 Stun per attack. In either of the above cases, each point of DEF will save an average of 2.5 Stun per turn.
To match the effect of +1 DEF, a hero will thus need +2.5 Stun and +2.5 REC (only to recover Stun; -1) for a total of 5 points. To resist becoming stunned, he will also need +1 CON (not for CON Rolls; -1/4), 0.8 extra points. The value of +1 PD, +1 PD is thus about 5.8 points, but costs only 2 points. It looks like an extremely good deal to buy high PD and ED!
Let's say that we put PD and ED at 2 points each, double the current cost. How many attacks vs. DEF would you have to be hit by per turn in order for DEF at 4 points to be a decent choice compared just buying more Stun?
The Stun-based hero will still have to buy +1 limited CON at 0.8 points; this leaves 3.2 points. Split evenly between Stun and limited REC, this gives +1.6 for each. So DEF breaks even if the hero is hit in an average turn of intense combat by 1.6 superpowered attacks vs. DEF or 3.2 agent attacks vs. DEF. This doesn't look like very intense combat to me, so even at 2 points each, PD and ED seem like a good deal compared to buying more Stun and (limited) REC and CON.
Also consider that in light combat, with fewer attacks per turn than outlined above, neither type of hero will be in serious trouble. However, in very intense combat, with more attacks per turn, the DEF-based hero will be much better off than the Stun-based hero. This means that the value of DEF may be even greater than outlined above!
- Klaus
-
Re: 6e Characteristics
It's actually likely to be more on the order of 2 stun' date=' either because you get hit by attacks that don't go vs def, or because you go down too soon. I didn't say that stun was an amazing deal, but it's not atrocious.[/quote']I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm merely saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle, how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks.
In my previous analysis, I suggested that we should compare Stun with rDEF, but that was wrong, since we are only looking at Stun damage. We can assume that both the Stun-based and the DEF-based hero have enough rDEF to avoid taking BODY from typical attacks, hence we only look at how good an idea it is to buy non-resistant PD and ED on top of that.
So let's make a new analysis: In a typical turn of intense combat, I assume a hero will get hit by an average of either 2½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF (in a 1-on-1 battle) or by 1½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF plus 2 agent attacks vs. DEF.
We assume that superpowered attacks do enough Stun so that each extra DEF saves 1 Stun per attack, and that every other agent attack does Stun through defenses, meaning that each extra DEF saves 0.5 Stun per attack. In either of the above cases, each point of DEF will save an average of 2.5 Stun per turn.
To match the effect of +1 DEF, a hero will thus need +2.5 Stun and +2.5 REC (only to recover Stun; -1) for a total of 5 points. He will also need +1 CON (not for CON Rolls; -1/4), 0.8 extra points. The value of +1 PD, +1 PD is thus about 5.8 points, but costs only 2 points. It looks like an extremely good deal to buy high PD and ED!
Let's say that we put PD and ED at 2 points each, double the current cost. How many attacks vs. DEF would you have to be hit by per turn in order for DEF at 4 points to be a decent choice compared just buying more Stun?
The Stun-based hero will still have to buy +1 limited CON at 0.8 points; this leaves 3.2 points. Split evenly between Stun and limited REC, this gives +1.6 for each. So DEF breaks even if the hero is hit in an average turn of intense combat by 1.6 superpowered attacks vs. DEF or 3.2 agent attacks vs. DEF. This doesn't look like very intense combat to me, so even at 2 points each, PD and ED seem like a good deal compared to buying more Stun and (limited) REC and CON.
Also consider that in light combat, with fewer attacks per turn than outlined above, neither type of hero will be in serious trouble. However, in very intense combat, with more attacks per turn, the DEF-based hero will be much better off than the Stun-based hero. This means that the value of DEF may be even greater than outlined above!
- Klaus
-
Re: 6e Characteristics
Hm. On the cost of Stun, let's make the assumption that, out of every 100 attacks in a typical game, you will be hit by a total of:30: 21 stun vs PD (agents, misc damage such as knockback)
20: 21 stun vs ED (agents)
20: 42 stun vs PD
15: 42 stun vs ED
5: 21 stun vs Mental
5: 21 stun vs Power
5: 21 stun NND
At 0 defense, average damage per attack is 28.35; +1 PD gives -0.5, +1 ED gives -0.35. At 21 defense, average damage per attack is down to 10.5, +1 PD/ED is down to -0.2/0.15 per hit, and a typical character can withstand 2 hits. If we want to increase toughness by 50%, we can either reduce average damage to 7 (-3.5 damage, which by above logic can be done with +10 PD and +10 ED, and is probably about as high as a typical GM will let you buy your defenses in a 60 active game) or add 10 stun (or add resistance to specials, but that's more expensive). +10 stun is the cheapest option by quite a bit there.
Overall, while I doubt you'll see that many characters with 50+ stun, stun in the 30-40 range will be worth the cost for many characters.
You are comparing defenses, which remain after each attack, with stun, which is lost every attack. Of course you find that stun is a bad idea. Let's look at it a different way:
Which is better to make you make it through a significant battle, DEF or stun? Let's assume that in a significant battle, a hero is hit by 5 agent attacks vs. DEF and by 3 superpowered attacks versus DEF.
The agent attacks are assumed to do average damage close to the hero's DEF - say, average of 21 stun vs. 21 DEF. This means that every other attack will let stun through, so +1 DEF saves 0.5 stun per attack, for a total of 2.5 stun in the battle.
The superpowered attacks are assumed to do average damage close to twice the hero's DEF - say, average of 42 stun vs. 21 DEF. This means that almost every attack will let stun through, so +1 DEF saves 1 stun per attack, for a total of 3 stun in the battle.
So 1 DEF saves 5.5 stun in a typical significant battle. Assuming that the DEF is rDEF, it currently costs 3 points - a very good deal.
Add to this that DEF will protect you from getting stunned, while stun won't. For each 1 DEF you don't have, you have to buy +1 CON instead (presumably at a cost of 1 in 6e). This makes the value of +1 rDEF 6.5 points - currently at the cost of 3 points; a very good deal indeed.
Doubling the cost of PD and ED would be the best solution. A compromise between the current imbalance and truly balanced costs would be to set PD and ED at 1½ points each, with Damage Resistance still at ½ point.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6e Characteristics
For the secondaries' date=' I can't see PD and ED changing in price, but I could see STUN, END and REC dropping, hopefully enough to make high END and REC a reasonable substitute for Reduced END, and high STUN and REC a viable choice compared to more defenses.[/quote']I agree that high STUN and REC aren't a viable choice compared to more defenses. Reducing the cost of STUN and REC would help, but half cost might be overdoing it, and I don't think we want to introduce costs of 3/4 or such. I would prefer to increase the cost of PD and ED to 1½ (or better yet, 3 points for a combined DEF, though I don't think that will happen).
However, having high END and REC is a reasonable substitute for Reduced END. Reduced END costs 5 points per END saved (barring roundings). For a power used four times a turn, this corresponds to having +4 END, +4 limited REC (END only, -1) at a current cost of 6 points - and the extra END and REC can be used for all powers, not just a single one. In fact, Reduced END is only a reasonable option for high-SPD characters, and then mainly for defenses that are on all the time. Even if END cost is increased to 1, buying more END and (limited) REC is a good alternative to Reduced END - you pay a little more (8 points compared to 5 for four uses per turn), but gain a lot of flexibility.
For instance, if you use a "Zero END Cost" power at reduced strength (e.g. flying at less than top speed), you don't save anything, but if you instead had bought extra END, you would save END by using the power at reduced strength.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6e Characteristics
As I see it' date=' it would be simpler and more flexible to replace the advantages by a 5-point adder that reduces END cost by 1.[/quote']Not a bad idea. But how would it work in the case of using a power at less than full-strength? A 60-base point power with 1/2 END costs 75 points (3 END saved, 5 points per as you've identified), and 3 END. Using only 40 base points costs 2 END (saving only 2, not 3).It would work a little differently under my suggestion. END will be reduced by an absolute amount, not a relative amount. 5 points save 1 END regardless of how much of a power you use. So a 60-base point power with three levels of reduced END (total 75 points) would cost 3 END to use at 60 base points and 1 END to use at 40 base points.
Of course the REC isn't even that much of a benefit, because presumably, you have more than one turn's worth of END to begin with. You might well have enough END for the entire combat even if you had 0 REC. Looking at it from the standpoint of combat length, if the combat lasts 3 turns, you're saving yourself 12 END, which currently costs 6 points.If END costs 1 per, that's 12 points-worth saved for only 5 points. This suggests to me that Reduced END should increase in price if END increases in price.
Well, if END costs 1 per, you'd be better off buying 4 END and 4 limited REC (END only) at a total of 8 points. Since the 5 points for END reduction only can be used for one specific power, while the extra END and REC can be used for all powers, this seems balanced.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6e Characteristics
With the removal of COM' date=' that leaves just one char that costs 1/2 - END. I don't have a problem with that, but I know some people would prefer if everything had an integral cost. So why not? What if END cost 1 per?[/quote']Well, let's take a look at Reduced/Zero END Cost: Reduced END is a +1/4 advantage and reduces the END cost of 20 Active Points by 1, at the cost of 5 points. Zero END is a +1/2 advantage and reduces the END cost of 20 Active Points by 2, at the cost of 10 points. Ergo, reducing the END cost of a power by 1 costs 5 points. (As I see it, it would be simpler and more flexible to replace the advantages by a 5-point adder that reduces END cost by 1, but that's immaterial here.)
Now to compare this to the COST of END. Let's say that you use a Power four times per turn. The equivalent of reducing its END cost by 1 would be to have +4 END and +4 limited REC (only to regenerate END; -1). At the current cost scheme, this will cost 2+8/2 = 6 points, just a little more than the Reduced END (5 points), but much more flexible, since you can use the extra END/REC for all powers, not just a single one. If a power tends to be used less than four times a turn, buying more END/REC becomes even more effective.
This suggests to me that there's no big problem in increasing the cost of END to 1 point without changing END cost from being 1 END per 10 active points. END is a bit too cheap now (or else Reduced END is too expensive).
About END Reserves: I don't see why the END in END reserves should be any cheaper than normal END. END is END, and you can assign some or all your powers to draw END from the Reserve rather than from your normal END, or vice versa. You just can't use your normal REC to recover Reserve END, but neither can you use your Reserve REC to recover normal END. In fact, the Reserve END has an advantage in that it doesn't disappear when you're knocked out (which perhaps balances that you can't spend STUN instead of Reserve END).
Another problem with END Reserves is the slow recovery option. This will never be cheaper than just buying 1 point of REC for the pool, but will always be less efficient.
- Klaus
-
Re: A roll high variant
I did suggest 2d6-2d6 as an option on the 6e discussion, mainly because it is zero-centrered. It doesn't extend the standard deviation by much (15.5%) since the bell curve is tighter, nor is the central result much less likely: 11.27% chance of getting 0, compared to 12.5% chance of getting 10 (or 11) on 3d6.
Rather than having open-ended rerolls, the range can be extended in simpler ways, e.g.: Count 1s as 0 and 6s as 10. This extends the range to -20 to +20 while retaining a fairly nice bell curve.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6e Characteristics
My suggestion for organising the stats (with suggested costs):
Primary Characteristics
All cost 1 point, have a base of 10, and give a bonus of CHA/5.
(Ideally, this bonus should always round the same way, unlike now when you round STR down to determine damage die, but round all other characterictics off to determine skill/characteristic rolls.)
STR (physical force)
CON (physical toughness)
DEX (physical suppleness)
PRE (mental force)
EGO (mental toughness)
INT (mental suppleness)
Variable Characteristics
These characteristics can go down due to damage or exhaustion and are recovered according to the REC characteristic, which for that reason is grouped with these.
BODY base 10, cost 1
STUN base 20, cost 1
END base 20, cost ½
REC base 4, cost 2
Combat Characteristics
SPD base 2, cost 10
PD base 2, cost 1½
ED base 2, cost 1½
OCV base 3, cost 3
DCV base 3, cost 3
OECV base 3, cost 2
DECV base 3, cost 2
Note1: I have increased the cost of PD and ED because I think they are too cheap now compared to buying STUN. Alternatively, reduce the cost of STUN.
Note 2: Perhaps all of these should be given a base of 2 for streamlining.
Skill Levels
1 point: +1 to a single skill or maneuver
2 points: +1 to three skills or maneuvers
3 points: +1 to a broad group of skills and maneuvers, e.g. all INT skills or all Ranged combat
5 points: +1 to all skills or all combat
Note: combat levels of 2 points or more can be exchanged for damage at a rate of +1 DC for 4 levels (compare +1d6, 0 END, which costs 7½ points).
- Klaus
-
Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks
3. A winning/losing streak is this:a) The first time in a combat that one side succeeds with all it rolls to hit and the other side fails with all its rolls to hit.
The first time one side takes a casualty (KO or death)c) One side rolls several excellent hits (8 or less) in a turn and does not take any casualties
One problem with this is that it depends very much on the size of a "side". In a one-on-one match, every hit will trigger (a), and in big matches, (
is very common, but shouldn't matter much.Perhaps better:
a) The leader or primary champion of a side falls.
More than half of a side has fallen while less than one-third of the opposing side has fallen (major characters and mooks counted and tested seperately).- Klaus
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
I really don't think the rename is apropos. Being charming is very different than enticing someone with favors' date=' money, and/or sex. Nor, despite popular usage, is the concept seducing someone limited merely to sex.[/quote']I think Temptation would fit better. You can tempt with the promise of money, power, or revenge, neither of which necessarily requires being charming.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains' date=' and it will continue to be "roll-low."[/b']I think this is a mistake. Now , I haven't read every page of the suggestions leading to this, but did anyone recommend using the 3d20-median roll instead?
No changes to the Speed Chart.
I dislike the lack of granularity in the speed chart low-end. Speed 3 is 50% faster then speed 2, high-end speed changes have less and less additional effect, and there is not much room 'downward'.
There were lots of suggestions to replace both of these.
The point with a different roll mechanic was not mainly to flatten the curve, but more to extend the range for increased granularity. Median20 doesn't do that all that much - perhaps enough to justify CHA/4 rather than CHA/5, but no more. Among the better suggestions were 3d12, d20+2d6, 2d6+(d6x3), and 2d6-2d6. The last two are "d6 pure". While 2d6-2d6 doesn't do much to increase the spread, it is zero-centred, which is a point in itself: Roll+OCV >= DCV to hit - very simple.
I myself suggested at least a dozen alternatives to the SPD Chart, but none were without problems. No worse than the SPD Chart, but neither so much of an improvement as to be obvious replacements.
For finer granularity SPD at the low end, you could buy +1 SPD with an activation roll: Roll at the beginning of each turn to see if you get the +1. Or allow half-value SPDs and flip a coin the first turn of combat to see if you round up or down, and then alternate rounding up and down every turn after that.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains, and it will continue to be "roll-low."No changes to the Speed Chart.
Movement will continue to be measured per Phase.
I would have liked to see all these changed, but I can understand why they aren't - none of the alternatives were truly streamlined.
All measurements will be given in meters. There will be no use of "hexes" or any other mapping arrangement in 6E.A good change.
Comeliness will no longer be one of the Characteristics. It's being replaced with a Talent, Striking Appearance, which a given group can choose to use in their game if they want a character's appearance to have a mechanical effect.A good change, too.
All the other Characteristics will remain, but none of them will be "Figured," i.e. derived from other Characteristics. They'll all start with a base value that must be bought up separately. The costs of some of them have been "tweaked" -- no further details yet.This deals with one of my biggest issues with older editions.
OCV, DCV, OECV, and DECV will become separate Characteristics, not derived from DEX and EGO. They'll start with a base value of 3 and will be bought up separately.A bit unexpected, but not a bad idea. It seems to work in Mutants and Masterminds 2e. It will probably also mean that all primary characteristics can get a cost of 1.
Suggested starting point totals will be raised to compensate for the change to Characteristics -- no specifics yet.Probably necessary, though point inflation will make fixed-cost powers like Senses and Life Support relatively cheaper.
Perception will still be based on INT.Not entirely happy about this one, but if skill level costs are reduced, it isn't too bad. If skill level costs remain unchanged and INT cost remains 1, though, INT will be much too good a bargain (as it is now).
Leaping will no longer be derived from Strength -- it will start at a base amount for all characters, as with Running and Swimming.Good change.
Skills will still be calculated from CHAR/5, but there will be an optional "Toolkitting" note about changing that if desired. Other Toolkitting notes will appear throughout the rules -- no further details on those.Fair enough, though too many toolkitting options can harm the integrity of the system.
Seduction Skill will be renamed Charm.While I see the reason for this, I'm not sure Charm is the right name. You can seduce with money or promises of power, and neither requires charm. Temptation may fit better.
No new Skills will be added, although a couple have been "tweaked" (no more details yet).No comment until details are known.
Package Deal will be renamed TemplateNo big deal.
Some new Powers have been added, and others have been removed. The only one mentioned is Find Weakness, which is being removed. There will be no official way to reduce Defenses below 1/2 as with Armor Piercing.No big deal, either. I would however like to see a system where skill levels can be used to bypass armor, at least worn armor.
Adjustment Powers have been significantly reworked -- no further details yet.Probably needed; hope the changes improve matters.
Energy Blast and Killing Attack will still be separate forms of Damage, as they are in 5E.The Stun Multiplier for Killing Attack will become a straight 1/2d6. It will still be possible to buy up the Stun Multiplier with Advantages.
I think reducing StunX to d3 is overdoing things.
You will be able to apply your Normal Defenses to the STUN damage of a Killing Attack whether you have any Resistant Defenses or not.It has always seemed ridiculous that a single point of rDEF could make so much difference. However, with the new, nerfed StunX die, I would rather see Normal Defenses being ineffective vs. Killing Stun no matter what. nDEF vs. Normal Attacks, rDEF vs. Killing Attacks, with no crossover - what could be simpler?
Nothing has changed about the way STR adds to Hand-To-Hand Killling Attack damage.No comment.
Increased reach for larger-than-normal beings and weapons will not necessarily require Stretching -- no further details yet.It is always nice when simple effects can be made with simple solutions.
The method of Adding Damage is supposed to be simplified -- no further details yet.Is this adding damage with skill levels, or what?
he Multipower and VPP Frameworks will remain, but Elemental Control is being replaced by a new Limitation, Unified Power (no value given). Aside from GM oversight there will be no restrictions on what Unified Power can be applied to.It is good to see EC go, but I would have liked to see MP and VPP unifiee more. Why is it e.g. impossible to have a Multipower where it takes extra time to switch slots, like you can with VPP?
Damage Shield is going to be "different" -- no details yet.I hope it gets expanded to include ranged attacks, also of the non-physical kind (e.g. "look at me and be struck blind").
There will be another, more granular way to make a Power ECV-targeted than using the BOECV Advantage. No specifics given, but it involves breaking the Advantage into its separate components (i.e. ECV Attack Roll, Line Of Sight, etc.) and "reassembling" them to make them more flexible (and simpler according to Steve). Steve implied that he's used this approach for other elements of the system.Sounds good unless it becomes too complex.
Disadvantages are being renamed Complications, and Psychological Limitations will become Psychological Complications.Makes sense. Now we just need to rename Limitations as Disadvantages (opposite of Advantages) - though I guess this will have to wait until 7th editition.
There will be a single index, printed in both 6E rulebooks, with a letter code before each number to indicate which book it refers to.Indexes are good!
- Klaus
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
IIf STR is decoupled from Figured CHAR in SexEd' date=' why wouldn't Telekinesis and maybe even Stretching just become Ranged STR? Flavored to taste, of course, so psychokinesis will be Invisible to all but Mental Senses, some degree of Indirect and Ranged while Stretching will have to Cross Intervening Space along with Ranged. Buying it as +STR to your base STR would mean an implied Unified Power structure, making it conceivable and advantageous to buy TK from 0 as a distinct pool of STR isolated from adjustment. Hmmm....[/quote']If Telekinesis is just Ranged STR, you can add your Telekinesis to your normal STR. And your Telekinesis will be drained by "Drain Strength", even though your SFX is mental.
At any rate, I would like to see Telekinesis start at a much lower STR, say STR 30. This will fit better with the low-powered TK you see in fantasy and pulp fiction.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
The Stun Multiplier for Killing Attack will become a straight 1/2d6. It will still be possible to buy up the Stun Multiplier with Advantages.I agree that the StunX is a problem in games that use generalized damage. At the same time, cutting the StunX down to 1-3 seems like overkill. On the other hand, I run heroic games with the hit location chart (or default to "chest" sans called shots in some games) and don't have this problem. So long as the hit location chart multipliers remain unchanged I don't really care. If they do get changed, I'll just carry the old chart over.
I also find a d3 StunX overkill. In particular, there will still be a one-third chance of x1, which is not only weak, but also superfluous, since you take at least as much STUN as BODY anyway. It might as well be x0.
I think d2+1 might be a better solution: x2 on a roll of 1-3, x3 on a roll of 4-6. Average 2.5, meaning 1d6K will do 8.75 average STUN, still far less than the 10.5 for 3d6N. One of my GMs used a d4, that also worked well (but ruined the d6 purity).
On the hit location chart, I imagine head shots will be reworked to x4 rather than x5. Or maybe the Killing column will be removed and the "N STUN" column made universal.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
Actually' date=' I'm assuming all the primaries will drop to 1; without figs they're generally worth x1, and eliminating cost multipliers for stats is certainly a simplification.[/quote']Yes, that would make sense. With CV and SPD decoupled from DEX, there isn't much need to split it up, even at a cost of 1. As mentioned above, EGO may need a bit more goods to be worth 1 point. INT may be the biggest problem, since it covers both INT Skills and Perception, but if skill costs are dropped a bit (to 3 points for "all (CHA) Skills"), that may cease to be a problem.
- Klaus
-
Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far
I think most of the changes make sense, though I am a bit disappointed about some of the non-changes. I would have liked to see more streamlining.
Now that EGO no longer adds to ECV, it seems a relatively useless characteristic. It protects vs. PRE attacks, but so does PRE itself (unless that is changed), and it protects against certain mental effects (useful, but only in campaigns where mental attacks are relatively common).
Will EGO be repriced to ½? Doubtful. A better idea may be to let some skills - e.g. "Concentration Skills" - be derived from EGO. Many of the 4e "General Skills" could apply: Demolitions, Forgery, Gambling, Shadowing, Survival. Perhaps also Lip Reading, Mimicry and Ventriloquist, since these in the source material often are seen with mentalists/hypnotists. The Resistance Talent could also be reworked as a Concentration Skill.
- Klaus
The first time one side takes a casualty (KO or death)
Are PD and ED far too cheap?
in HERO System Discussion
Posted
Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?