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

The only firm conclusion I have is that "Define your character's appearance however you like: it has no in-game effect" is a non-starter for our group.

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 that's when I stop playing Hero...or at least don't update to the next Edition.

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.

i am not sure where you are being insulted.

If in your game you dont feel you as gm can play off these differences adequately

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.

As gm a golem with low ego would have extremely little ability to make choices, so whenever anything occurs that requires deciwsionmaking, anything beyond "doing exactly what you sai and no more" the golem would be rather hindered.

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.

Okay, look at it this way -- I could build a pistol that does 5d6 RKA and has an infinite number of shots. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should

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?

And the official formula has finally changed to

 

11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit

 

So now the player has only one unknown on their side of the formula and can write down their attack like a pseudo-skill as Attack 17- or so.

How is this different? Do I miss the obvious thing?

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

Yes' date=' but that is an example of metagaming, not trying to building things that might fit the setting. You can do that with pretty much anything, not just summoned creatures.[/quote']

 

So summoning Arrogant Pricks should always be a lot harder than summoning Dinosaurs? That's the system imposing genre on me right there.

Re: Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

Summon: The +1/4 Advantage to give you +2 EGO roll bonus is made pointless by the fact that such an advantage would increase AP, which in turn gives you a malus on your EGO roll. In the end, it is not worth it BY FAR. Also, having an EGOvsEGO contest results in lunacy elsewhere:

Golem of Awesome Combatprowess: 300 CP, EGO 5. (305 CP in useful things)

Imp of Annoying Dickery: 50 CP, EGO 60. (0 CP in anything else)

The second one is MUCH harder to control, even though it's certainly a lot less powerful.

I pointed this out here and again in the 6th Discussion. Kinda lame that it got ignored, while being so obvious.

Re: Reactions to 6e

-1/2 means that your power is limited about 1/3 of the time. Are 2/3 of attacks fire? I think not.

Technically: Are 2/3 of ENERGY attacks fire?

Re: Reactions to 6e

I would probably also prefer to have the 14 stun

Re: Reactions to 6e

So you pay 7 points for +10 ED against fire, and once in a while you take 10 less STUN from a fire attack. Meanwhile, a character who paid 7 points for more STUN has 14 more STUN (2:1 in 6e, right?) so he has 4 more STUN after being hit with a fire attack, and 14 more after being hit with an electrical attack, physical attack or any other attack. Who got value for his 7 points?

 

The guy who just bought STUN, or another DC of attacks, is able to use his ability every time. The point value should reflect the utility of the ability. A -1/2 limitation implies the ability will be available more often than not. I don't find a single SFX applies more often than not, so I think -1/2 is an inadequate limitation for special defenses.

I have not yet gotten a chance to go through the new PDFs (I'm at work and have just ordered them), so Stun at 2:1 is (good!) news to me. For a -1/2 Defense limitation I would go with SFX that is excessively common, such as Magic in a Fantasy campaign, or Guns in Dark Champions. You're perfectly right that -1/2 is a low limitation for defenses.

OTOH: If you get hit twice, your 14 stun won't save you anymore, the (restricted) PD will.

Re: Reactions to 6e

Defenses restricted to uncommon SFX have ALWAYS been significantly overpriced, so the worst we can get is a lateral move in this area.

One could argue that those defenses often are the most beneficial ones if they apply. Assume you have 20 defenses against a 10d6 Attack. That's 15 stun through defenses out of 35. If you add 10 more (overpriced) defenses versus fire only, you will take a meager 5 stun instead of 15, cutting damage taken down by a factor of 3, which in turn means you can probably not get KOd at all with such attacks. Including misses, recoveries and all that stuff you're pretty much untouchable.

IF the additional specialized defenses kick you above the usual hard cap, then they are often worth their above-average cost. (That also means that they are annoyingly overpriced if they don't, but I estimate that to be the rarer case).

I know it's not the perfect explanation, but in practice, it can work out easily if one takes care of building the characters that way. Sadly, this is rarely pointed out.

Re: The 2nd REALLY important 6th edition question

Funny how people start to overcomplexificatorate things that have finally been simplified. Yes, I made that word up. Guess why.

The exampe given shows well why unlinking was a good idea: it's hilariously complex, convoluted (if I spend 6 on DEX, I get half a dozen different mechanical effects which might or might not be related at all) and restrictive (I cannot spend 5 on DEX, I cannot improve my DEX without increasing CV and so on) without any clear advantage whatsoever. To clarify: The only "Advantage" the complex system has is "more realism for certain flavours of realism".

Thanks Steve for improving the game a lot!

Re: It's the Little Things....

Life Support: Immunity to dirt. 1cp.

A lot simpler. Why bother with complicated constructs (and pay SEVEN points for utterly irrelevant things??) when you don't need to. Considering you can get about 25% of an ultraslot (at -1/2) for the same price, I think this is enough for that one time where the other PCs have to take a bath (to not lose face) and you don't. I usually go with a flat 1 cp for anything that is interesting, but fairly pointless (Immortality included, as the game only lasts ingame months at most).

Re: 6th Edition Question: New Powers?

Well, you (ab)used something that was pretty much borked in 5E, and with the switch to 6E, such characters have a hard time. I had a BBB Shapeshifter/Speed Aider which got quite difficult to rebuild in 5ER with less than nearly twice his original points. Solution? Change concept slightly and build the powers differently (limited characteristics instead of self only aid in my case).

Re: The 2nd REALLY important 6th edition question

And now we've got the elegance of 6E' date=' you can easily move all those parameters around to fit your vision, without worrying about point costs.[/quote']

 

And without bothering people who think figureds are silly. Now where's me book?

Re: Reactions to 6e

I've only just got it andso all i'll say at present is that it looks really good. I'll have a read and post the good and bad (if there is any ) soon.

I'm sure you will be able to find something evil