NestorDRod

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Blame Steve Long. He's the one who came up with the idea of using PhysLims that way, IIRC. I'm guessing that even with the decoupling, applying penalties to stats like CV will still be handled that way, unless someone has confirmed info to the contrary.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Um, A PhysLim: Perceptive as a Brick, that inflicts PER penalties on the character?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Or by buying CSLs. Where are you getting the price of levels from?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Overall CSL? What's that? Do you mean a CSL with all combat? 'Cause the only place I've seen the term "Overall" used is with Skill Levels, which are another animal entirely. IIRC, All-Combat CSLs cost 8 points (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). So depending on your viewpoint, they're either 2 points more expensive (since generally you only need to raise your DEX by 2 to jump to the next CV) or 1 point cheaper (9 points give you +3 DEX which gives you a full +1 CV). CSLS go up in scope from one specific attack to all combat, with increasing cost as you go up. If for some reason you wanted to create a character that had a high DEX but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside it (God knows why), you could buy a PhysLim (Can't Hit The Broad Side of a Barn) that inflicted CV penalties.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far So? What does that have to do with it? I've never been in a situation in a game where that has been an issue. I'm not even sure persistence is really relevant to the concept of CVs. Please explain.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Huh? "OCV and DCV couldn't be bought up via a separate mechanism"? I repeat, huh?

Re: Shadow Angelus "We shook the pillars of heaven, didn't we, Mage?" You weren't sure what to play. I mentioned playing a version of Avalon, but you demurred. Then I mentioned the magic chick from Wagner's "Scissors, Paper, Stone" that you'd written up. The rest is history...

Re: Shadow Angelus Heh. So how many stories about Avalon have you written lately, old friend? I'm just secretly amused that I was the one who pushed you into playing Jama in the first place.

Re: Shadow Angelus OK, I have to share this. My creative moments are few and far between enough to make this memorable. One of the players from the original SA game posted yet another post-campaign story, which prompted me to respond: Shadows Angelus: The Campaign That Just Wouldn't Die Everyone, together (to the tune of "The Song That Doesn't End"): This is the game that never ends, It just goes on and on, my friends. We thought that it was over when we beat up the big boss, But we'll continue playing it forever just because This is the game that never ends...

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Hey, if that's odd, I'm right there with you. In the first big superhero campaign was in that my wife played in, the HQ had a swimming pool that was used for evening "entertainment" so much the code word for sex in the team became "splash, splash, splash." In the follow-on campaign, my character played midwife to my wife's character as she gave birth to the son of a god. It's all about what the group as a whole is comfortable with, though, so I can understand some reservations.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Hmm, Disads... I have a real aversion to spurious Disads (e.g., PsychLims used to describe personality traits as opposed to true disadvantages). So I've had the experience a number of times of not being able to total up to the max number for the campaign. In those cases, I just play the character at that level. I've had players look at me funny when I say my character's only 225 when everyone else is 250. I'm not going to add what I believe are BS Disads to come up to some arbitrary number. If it comes to that, just give me the damn points and move on. What bothers me is when concept goes up against math and loses. The Ambidexterity anecdote I gave up-thread is an example. 9 points for something that may come up maybe once in a whole campaign.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Good point. Heck, last couple of games I played, I didn't even bother keeping track of XP awards.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far INCOMING!!! TAKE COVER!!! Actually, that's a good question. With the expected increase of recommended starting points, will the guidelines for awarding XPs per session also need to be inflated?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Should we have a wake at GenCon? Y'know, sit around, have a few drinks, tell funny COM-related stories from old campaigns, try to guess each other's COM ratings (but only after enough drinks have been consumed), etc. We could even pitch in and order a wreath to be hung at the Hero Games booth (OK, OK, maybe that's going a bit too far).

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Heh. That's what I get for responding before reading the rest of the posts. See my previous post for my thoughts regarding Ambidexterity. Bottom line, I'm right there wit'cha, sir.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Aargh. You try to escape, but they drag you back in... I see your point. My problem is the approach taken to formulate the cost. The only way I can explain my feelings in this regard is anecdotally. I had a character whose concept included the fact that he was Ambidextrous. I paid the 3 points for it (back in 4th Edition), even though I knew the chances of it coming up in the game were slim and none. And Slim had left town. (BTW, I was right in that assessment; it never came up in the three years the game was played). So when I saw that Ambidexterity had been pumped up to 9 points in 5th I groaned. Why? Just because it was "built" as CSLs and therefore had to match that cost structure? With all due respect, screw that noise. For that matter, I, as a long-time player of Hero System, look at Perfect Pitch and see nothing wrong in asking "Why the heck does it cost 3 points?" Because it was built as a Skill Level (or whatever it's built as; I don't have the rulebook with me)? Please. That is the trend I've been noticing. And it is the direction my playing style is definitely not going towards. So I find myself seeing the game I spent many years enjoying drifting away. And it makes me sad.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far This is the sort of thing I was referring to, this concern for "balance." If I need to represent an ability in my game that can be covered conceptually by a Talent, why should I go through the trouble of trying to build some power or skill construct to define it? Just say it does what you've conceived it does. Come up with a cost that seems reasonable based on factors like its usefulness in the game and frequency of use. Then go. This is not a personal attack so please don't take it as such. It's just that I've reached a point where this level of point-crunching seems excessive to me. And I see it in the rules as much as in the boards. I point once again to the much-maligned Regeneration construct in 5E. It's the textbook example of unnecessary complication. I don't even know why I'm going on with this. It's a done deal. Never mind, I'm going to bed...

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. 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. 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. 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...

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far And they need to be balanced... why?

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.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Rut-roh, Raggy!

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far OK, all right, that made me laugh. Dangit. "You must spread Rep yadda yadda."