Kdansky

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition http://www.theprincessplanet.com/2009/08/30/farrahs-no-trophy-wife/ I found this funny and fitting

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition Certainly. But that can be well accomplished by a lot of options. Most of my characters had Distinctive Features / Social Limitations (Race) / Reputation (Race) since 4th, giving way better hooks than "COM 8". Even without Striking Appearance or COM, looks can be easily modeled.

Re: What is your plans for your first 6th Edition game? We're going for a Film-Noir style game where the PCs are all connected to the (of course powerless) Police in a Cyberpunk game. I can't give details, as I'm not GM. Probably low combat, low action, but I got told there is a huge twist and change of pace 1/3 into the campaign. Other than that, I want to play some Exalted, since I've recently acquired books and I like it a lot.

Re: 6e Discussion: Combat Values And you will miss out on something

Re: A simple question Points in space should be DCV 0, that would solve the issues... And OCV should probably start at 0 too. Oh crap, you found something.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated.... I usually use these guidelines: - If one of the forms is clearly the best at combat (without having huge Complications such as 14- Berserk or Vulnerability to Oxygen or similar), then that form is supposed to have as many points as the other characters, but need not pay for the multiform. This guarantees it has similar effectiveness like anyone else when points matter most (combat is rules-heavy and RP-light in my games, and I'm probably not the exception there). - If one of the forms is exceptionally weak and the character will be forced spend a lot of time in it (such as the human disguise for a demon), then that form is allowed to pay the (now quite irrelevant) cost for the multiform. - Forms that won't see use are not allowed to pay the points for the power. It is very efficient under these guidelines to build a combat form and a non-combat form, while letting the non-combat form pay the power. I think that is acceptable. These guidelines work fairly well (challenge me and offer me a concept for me to judge if you feel like it )

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition Of course what I wrote is oppinion (mostly), and I don't want to get into the whole fight (again). But still, I have to add something: If you used COM as a complementary roll to Presence Skills, it is essentially a shortcut for layered PRE with Activation Roll (since it does exactly that: give you a better roll on a PRE skill, if you make your COM roll first). Instead of rolling once for the skill, you roll twice and take the sum of both effects. You've been playing 6E all along Now don't go misunderstanding me and trying to convince me of something here. The assumption is spelt out clearly (in italics).

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition rjcurrie has already named the other way of doing COM: Describe how your character looks, then let everyone else decide if that is pretty or ugly. Presence is a very abstract "how impressive am I" stat, similar to HP (Body) or EGO. If you want to abstract COM as far, you end up wit PRE. If you abstract a bit less than that, you end up with limited PRE, and if you abstract as less as possible, it's probably best left to SFX (after all, the Fire Blast and the Iron Spikes Blast cost the same, even though Fire is a lot more beautiful) or some incredibly complex construction involving Mind Control or Transform. I'm not trying to convince you to drop COM. I'm trying to convince you that limited PRE is the best mechanical representation for it. You may still write it down as COM, starting at 10 (equaling +0 PRE), and going from there. I really don't see any better way to use COM in game terms. It does not make you stronger or faster, it does not directly give you a reputation, it does not allow you to do damage, it only makes you more pleasant to look it, which is essentially a function of PRE. You could even go as far as to separate PRE into two parts, such as "frightening" and "lovely", where the first one is used for "FREEZE" type attacks, and the second one (COM) is used for Seduction. And yes, you may houserule as much as you like. I only recommend not doing it for COM, because you're not gaining anything, you're only introducing unnecessary complexity. Yesterday was always better, until you realize that you're wearing rose-tinted nostalgia goggles.

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition Think of what you want Comliness to achieve, then build that. "Being cute" is no valid definition of a power in HERO. I suggest building it as limited PRE, since that seems very simple, elegant and does exactly what I imagine comliness to do. It amuses me greatly that I can write this as a totally serious and 100% honest suggestion

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long. Yes, I suck as a GM, that's my problem!

Re: 6E Cool Stuff Shout-Outs Figureds are gone. EC is gone. Energy Blast is now called Blast. Area of Effect is great now. New visibility of power rules (not bound to END cost) is great. CVs are decoupled. NND/AVLD rework. Growth/DI rework. Those are all awsome.

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long. I get insulted left and right if I point out a mathematical flaw. Seems mkultra was right.

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long. That of course is true, but do you think EGO is the relevant stat on anything that can be summoned? 20 EGO or 10 EGO makes the same difference (+2 EGO roll) as +100 total points of the summoned entity. That's 10 times as much. Surely that is not an adequate measure of power. This has nothing to do with metagaming or Roleplay examples, but is a purely technical comparison. Sure you can. What does this have to do with low EGO entities being too easy to summon, and high EGO entities being too hard to do so for the same costs of the summon spell? And that does not solve the trouble of Weak Willed: +1/4 gives me +2 on EGO roll (well, -2 to the entity, but the difference is minor), which would cost 10 cp on a 40 cp base power, which in turn gives me -1 EGO. At 80 base, I only pay 20 extra for nothing, and at 120 base, I pay 30 extra to recieve -1 to my EGO. Hardly useful.

Re: Omcv 1? How is this different? Do I miss the obvious thing?

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.