bigbywolfe

I'm sure you don't care but arguing "this makes the rules too big" is not an absurdity. Saying it is doesn't make it one. It remains the case that neither character sheets nor rule books can be made infinite. You know that, I know that, we all know that, so no, I don't know why I'm bothering to point it out.
 
I'm sure you care even less but "we shouldn't add new stuff" is as far as I can see a strawman. Who but you is saying that?
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary isn't sure why I'm bothering either.
 
 
 
 

Striking Appearance isn't a Characteristic. It appears only on the character sheets of players who wanted it and paid for it.
 
But if having the last word in a pointless argument makes you feel better, feel free to ignore this post. I already regret making it.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary regretted being in this tagline before it was composed.

So youre arguing against the addition of Striking Appearance, then?

As amusing as seeing someone look at Hero's very long list of Characteristics and say "What this game needs is yet ANOTHER characteristic!" Or look at the two volumes of core rules and say "What this game needs is still MORE optional rules!"
 
Neither character sheets nor rulebooks are infinite.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
What this post needs is a palindromedary tagline

As a player, I would pay the points as required by default, unless the GM has provided campaign guidelines to tell me different.  As GM, I would look at that point expenditure and expect to make those 2 points useful at some point in the course of the game, or tell the player that he can speak Japanese at no point cost.  More likely the former - it is an important enough element of your vision of the character that you spent the points on it.  If I took the latter approach, and it came up once or twice in the campaign, no big deal.  Just like your background saying you're from Queens might allow me to set up a rivalry with a character from the Bronx, or a pre-campaign connection with another character raised in Queens, or both.
 
 
The Doctor PC should have the perk.  He should also have a variety of knowledge and professional skills.  The question is really whether they should cost points, and then how much they should cost.  If being a licensed MD will never have any actual in-game benefit, why does there need to be a point cost?  Would you expect to charge points for an accountant being a designated CPA, or a welder having his trade ticket, or would that just be part of his background (and that free Everyman Professional Skill which is allowed for the character's job)?
 
 
If neither is ever going to be valuable in-game, my answer is that neither should cost points.  You get a character background at no point cost and it generates no significant in-game benefits, or you pay points for elements of your background and they carry in-game benefits.  Feels like this has been said numerous times already.  The player spending points on High Society is telling me "I want and expect this to come up in-game", just as much as his Reputation: Playboy complication tells me he expects that to come up in the campaign.  By agreeing, as GM, that those are worth points, I have agreed that they will come up at some point in the game.  Hopefully, the game runs long enough to build in all of those elements - if it ends after six months, perhaps not every aspect of every character, especially the small ones, will have received screen time.
 
 
Sure, with a caveat.  If the PC paid for SA, its benefits should be considerably greater than its drawbacks.  If he only took the complication DF:  Movie Star Handsome, that might work to his benefit on occasion, but should be problematic far more often than it is beneficial.  If he took both, his good looks should be a drawback far more often than if he only took SA.
 
 
Why ever update the game if everything that went before is a sacred cow?  I think at least as many people who would have preferred to retain COM rather than change to SA would have preferred the retention of Figured Characteristics, so we should write that back in too, if only as an optional rule.  I guess it should have both the option for OCV and DCV to be purchased separately, or to only change by their link to DEX and EGO, since both options are likely desired.  And given the many house rules to give COM mechanical benefits, we should include all of those as options as well, right?  Run that down through all of the game rules that have changed between editions (or even from 5e to 6e), and it seems like the books need to be a lot thicker to include all of those optional rules.
 
Or is it only the things you like that need to get continued?

Since the OP, Christopher R Taylor, is being referenced here, it may be helpful to reproduce his post:
 
 
 
Now let's consider the description of the Striking Appearance Talent, from 6E1 p. 116:
 
   "A player can describe his character’s appearance and attractiveness however he wants, but the description has no effect in the game. A character can be “one of the most beautiful women in the kingdom” or “so ugly he can only get a job in a circus sideshow,” but that provides no modifiers to Skill Rolls or any other in-game benefit.
   Characters who do want their appearance to provide a specific benefit in the game can buy this Talent. It provides a bonus to Interaction Skill rolls and Presence Attacks, but exactly which ones depend on how it’s defined. If a character’s defined as “beautiful” or “handsome,” then the bonus applies to many uses of Skills like Charm, Conversation, and Persuasion, and to Presence Attacks that might work better coming from an attractive person (such as, “Won’t you please help me?”). If a character’s defined as “ugly,” the bonus applies to many uses of Interrogation and to Presence Attacks based on fear or disgust.
   Each +1/+1d6 that can be used against all characters in appropriate circumstances costs 3 Character Points, and must be defined as “attractive” or “ugly” when purchased. If the character’s appearance only benefits him with regard to a limited group of people (for example, only Denebians regard him as attractive, to all other species he’s ordinary-looking), Striking Appearance costs 2 Character Points per +1/+1d6.
   Characters can purchase Striking Appearance multiple times, thus indicating relative “levels” of attractiveness — a character with +2/+2d6 Striking Appearance is prettier than one with only +1/+1d6. If desired, the GM can establish an “upper limit” on this so characters know what it takes to be “the fairest woman in the land” or “the ugliest mutant in America.”
   If a character wants to make another character more attractive (or uglier) as an attack, he can do that with a Cosmetic Transform."
 
And from the accompanying sidebar:
 
"The GM determines whether Striking Appearance applies, and to what extent. Not all forms of interaction between characters can be influenced by a character’s attractiveness (or lack thereof). and in many respects “beauty” and “ugliness” are highly subjective; what one NPC finds attractive might not interest another at all."
 
The implications of these statements appear to support a character's appearance functioning in a Hero System game more or less as Christopher describes Comeliness, suggesting that COM does not add something to the experience of Hero gaming that it otherwise lacks. So we once again come down to what a particular game group likes and prefers, rather than an inherent fundamental distinction.
 

You're both arguing past each other, so far as I can tell. 
 
Hugh's stance is that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical cost.  If (if, if, if, if) being pretty or having been a model or being in the FBI or having red hair or etc etc etc don't have defined mechanical effect and can just as easily be negatives, they shouldn't consume character generation resources.  They can still be character traits, still be roleplayed, just not at the expense of things with actual mechanical impact. 
And you've been arguing your views.  But now your tone has started to change.  You're arguing in bad faith with your portrayal of him in your last post and the hyperbole you use.  You're throwing up some pretty blatant strawmen.  When you say things like "If, to you, any points not spent on 100% combat related mechanical aspects of the system that are not 100% utilitarian and optimized then...play that way.", you're accusing him of rollplaying to the exclusion of roleplaying.  You're committing the Stormwind Fallacy, and using it as an attack on him directly. 

No one needs to apologize for liking something, or not liking something, or preferring one thing to another. That's normal human nature. Where we raise controversy is in taking the position that the reason we prefer something makes it objectively, qualitatively "better." If we can't quantify the difference in a way that makes direct comparisons meaningful, there's no way to win that argument.

If you want to be realistic about expertise in the modern world, it's better to give someone several overlapping skills that can be used as complementary skills in one area. An expert is going to have a lot of general knowledge about specific areas, and then be able to put it all together. So you might have:
 
PS: Pianist (13-)
KS: Classical music (13-)
KS: Romantic era (13-)
 
This person can sit down and play jazz or Elton John very. But if they sit down and play classical music that complementary skill pushes them to another level. And when they're play music from the Romantic period, their real specialty, it's going to be the best ever. This also reflects that any expert has to get a lot of background knowledge...someone who interprets music from a specific period is going to know a lot about the era they study that has nothing to do with music.

(Damn! I said I had done my last post here)
I bet you could come up with 100 different ways a character is going to notice and be disadvantaged with strength zero (or 1 if we are doing 6th RAW). What problem is Mr Zero OMCV going to have in most normal games. The GM will not have to work hard with someone selling back STR, he is entitled to say he is not interested in putting in the time or mental effort to make the OMCV sellback worth it.
 
The rules are not just about the players...powers, complications and sellbacks need joint buy-in.
 
Doc
 
 

My answers are pretty much covered above as well.
 
Why does anyone see a need to pay points for role playing?  My character can be an all-around boy scout guy, but turn it off as need be if he did not receive points by taking a complication for that.  I will still role play my character with the personality I consider him to have, even if I did not get free points for some aspect of that personality.  Your character may not like redheads, and be strongly attracted to blondes, but mine does not get points back for having red hair, nor spend points to be blonde.  I can describe my character as thin (which our society values) or fat (which our society denigrates), and people can role play their reactions accordingly, with no points spent by anyone.
 
Points are paid for mechanical effects.  You role play outside the points.
 
Mechanics and role playing are not mutually exclusive.  My character can get hit hard, mechanically, by an opponent's Blast.  I mark off the STUN (BOD?  am I Stunned?  KOd?  Killed?).  Maybe he also makes a PRE attack, forcing me to hesitate.  Those are the mechanical effects. 
 
Now I role play my character's reaction.  Is he afraid of this powerhouse?  Does he surrender?  Does he seek another target?  Flee the scene?  Focus on that powerhouse because he's the most dangerous opponent on the field?  Make a rousing speech to his teammates that we have to hold the line?  Ask to join his team because he respects power?  Fall to his knees and beg for his miserable life?  Mechanics do not prevent me from role playing.  They set the scene within which I role play.

Can your players also  not relate to a character who does 14d6 in a game where 12d6 is the norm, or a 15- skill instead of a 13- skill?
 
Scaling is a huge "if".  Some will suggest your "highly trained normal" character should have no stats above 20, because Normals scale from 1 to 20.  Others will cap it at 30, as that is the upper limit of human potential, according to 5e/6e.  Still others will point to Rainbow Archer's DEX of (was it 35?  38?) - she's just a highly trained normal.
 
Should COM be a complementary roll, or an automatic bonus?  Making COM a modifier to interaction where it could be relevant makes lots of sense - it was, in fact, what lead Steve Long to conclude that COM is NOT a characteristic, because all it can be asserted to do is modify rolls based on a different characteristic, PRE.  If it is only going to be used as limited PRE, he reasoned, let us make it limited PRE. 
 
That logic sold me.  Clearly it does not sell everyone, but que sera.

Most GMs will ensure a 5 point Complication crops up on occasion.
 
Is it 9 points or 6?  I believe a sellback cannot fall below 1.
 
Since you don't want to get all worked up over 9 (6) points, can I have 3 (2) skill levels with my main attack power(s) for free?

I think there are some GMs which would look at this as buying a type of Complication.  You get 9 points for it, so it should be treated like any other Complication and have an effect in the campaign.

I was a COM defender when the change was first announced before the launch of 6th but I've since changed my mind.
 
IMO, he deciding factor is this. Striking Appearance is:
 
1- more versatile. It cost the same to be head turning attractive, eerily unsettling or horrifically frightening. To get those same things from COM for the last two, you have to add Distinctive Features and in one case sell back COM and "buy" it to negative. Striking Appearance contains all this in the SFX you give it.
 
2- more realistic. COM used as a Characteristic makes an absolute statement. But looks are very subjective.  Although buying more levels of Striking Appearance does give you "more" in a mechanical sense, it doesn't have the same absoluteness because it can cover a broader spectrum of things.  A character with 1 level of SA can be just as physically attractive as another with 3 because those extra levels may have the SFX of "fashionable"  and "outgoing".  
 
But despite my preference, this wouldn't be a deal breaker for me if I was sitting down as a player. I can play With Com added back in as a Characteristic without missing a beat.  I was happy with COM for 20+ years and was resistant to the change like many others. SA won me over when I was translating characters from 5th to 6th and I noticed  that I was embellishing the 6th versions more in the stat block and less in the character description.

Interestingly, those people can't seem to explain why COM is superior and Striking Appearance is inferior -- i.e. they are unable to explain why one makes them happy and the other makes them unhappy.  Perhaps it's the act of making players spend/waste points on a stat that doesn't give them any mechanical impact in the game (i.e. what they paid for) … and, worse, making them pay for the privilege of bragging rights when they could have the same bragging rights (from a RP perspective) by taking using Psychological Complications and/or Distinctive Features to get points back.

Frankly, spending points on something for which you could get points back a la Complications … isn't exactly something to brag about when considering the teaching of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (also part of the game, as you may recall).
 
 
This. Is. Spot. On.  In fact, being distracted by pretty faces could readily be a Psychological Complication … and having a pretty face could readily be a Distinctive Feature.

The need for numbers around this to enable role-play … while bashing the mechanics of Striking Appearance … makes no sense.  People don't need stats to role-play.  

To the "it's a role playing stat", why do you need stats to role play?  If my character prefers redheads to blondes, would the blonde having a higher COM than the redhead mean playing my character's preferences is bad role playing, because the character is played to his established preferences, rather than stat numbers, or is that good role playing?  If my character is easily swayed by a pretty face,  yours is not, and a third character is biased against attractiveness ("bubbleheads who skate by on their good looks, all the time looking down on us normal folk who have to succeed on brains, skill and effort") which of us is "not role playing well" when we interact on the basis of our character's personaliry with a high COM character?
 
If those three are all important NPC's, what should my appearance be priced at?

I think I come down more toward this side, as well. A fundamental design feature of Hero System is, "you get what you pay for." If there's no quantifiable benefit to COM, there should be no quantifiable cost to it, either. Why should there be a different cost for 18 and 24 COM, if everything to do with the difference is completely subjective per a given player and GM? At most you might treat it like Extra Limbs, where the same flat cost gives you as many limbs as you want.
 
I see the distinctions being drawn on this thread between how Comeliness and Striking Appearance might be used in a game; but AFAICT those distinctions are all in interpretation, and not inherent to COM or SA themselves. Nothing being discussed for COM can't be translated to SA. Now, I fully appreciate if someone likes COM more than SA. There are several elements and ways of doing things from older editions of Hero that I just plain like more than their 6E analogues.
 
As I've said my piece and have no desire to change anyone's mind, I will now leave this thread to any other parties interested in continuing the debate.

Psychological Complication:  I feel pretty, oh so pretty..... (Common; Strong) 15 pts
 
Lucius Alexander
 
And a pretty palindromedary
 
 
 

For Sixth Edition, Striking Appearance is defined as doing the sorts of things you describe, under the circumstances you specify, but also has a game-mechanic benefit, which Comeliness hasn't officially had since The Golden Age of Champions for Second Edition Champions/Hero System. As SA is a Talent rather than a standard Characteristic, it's optional as to whether GMs wish to use it or players want to spend points on it.
 
I understand that many long-time Hero players feel an attachment to COM, and can and should add it back to 6E character sheets if that would enhance their enjoyment of the game. For my part, I don't see it contributing anything more substantively or subjectively than Striking Appearance does now.

I would not allow a sell back, nor would I allow a random number slotted in. It is what it is. If it will not come up in the game, you aren't getting the "free" points selling it back. Nor are you required to pay to increase it, because, without justifiable in-game reasons, you aren't going to increase it.

I think part of the challenge is that we can see the "normal human" level of other stats.  Everyone can throw a punch, run, think, perceive, look impressive, etc. etc., so we can accept that some people are better than the average, and some worse than average.
 
What does a 3 in mOCV actually mean?  What does it mean for a person to be "below average" in their ability to target a mental attack when most people do not have a mental attack to target?  That, to me, suggest that mOCV and mDCV should be like mental defense - the typical person has none, and points must be paid to have any mental combat values.

Your teleport power, by RAW, activates at DEX 28 in segment 3. The fact that it is a Full Phase action (as opposed to a Half Phase for a Half Move) is irrelevant. 
 
If your teleport was built with Extra Phase (as opposed to Full Phase), it would activate at DEX 28 in segment 6.
 
Either way, you've used your action and can't Abort until segment 4.

The problem I think people are having is that the term Phase has two meanings but are closely related.  Let's start with some RaW definitions.
 
6e2p16
Turn
The basic time frame of combat is called a
Turn. Each Turn equals 12 seconds of time. Each
Turn a character gets a number of Phases equal to
his Speed (see below). A Turn is divided into 12
Segments.
 
Segment
A Turn consists of 12 Segments, each 1 second
long. Characters who can perform an Action in a
Segment (i.e., who have a Phase in that Segment) do
so in order of their DEX values. The character with
the highest DEX score goes first, the second highest
goes next, and so on. Two or more characters with
the same DEX who act in the same Segment should
each roll 1d6; the one with the highest roll acts first.
Ties should roll again.

After every Segment 12, before the next Turn
begins, there’s a “Post-Segment 12” period that
takes no time. At this time most characters automatically
get to take a Recovery (see 6E2 129).
 
Phase
A Segment on which a character can act is
known as one of his Phases. Each character has a
number of Phases in each Turn equal to his SPD.
For instance, a Speed 5 character has five Phases;
the character can perform one or more Actions
in each Phase. The Speed Chart tells you which
Segments a character’s Phases are in.
 
Each time one of a character’s Phases comes
up, he may perform one or more Actions. Find
the character’s Speed on the left side of the Speed
Chart, and look at the row next to it. Every Segment
marked with a H in that column is a Segment in
which the character has a Phase. For instance, a
character with a SPD of 4 has Phases in Segments 3,
6, 9, and 12.
 
A character’s Phase begins on his DEX in each of
the indicated Segments. For example, if a character
has SPD 5, DEX 20, his first Phase in a Turn
begins in Segment 3 on DEX 20. Typically the GM
begins each Segment by counting down DEXs, from
highest to lowest, until there’s no one left who has a
Phase. HERO System gamers typically refer to this
as having a character’s DEX “come up” or “occur,”
or as a character “going on” his DEX (“My character
goes on DEX 21”).
 
The type of Actions a character performs
have no effect on when he acts. A character gets
to perform his entire Phase’s worth of Actions
when his Phase occurs, even if a character with a
lower DEX only wants to perform a Zero or Half
Phase Action.
 
So the questions in the arguments I am hearing are
1) I have a power which takes a full phase action.  Can I do a zero phase action when I use the full phase action? The answer is yes so long as it is started before you take the full phase action.  A full phase action effectively ends your phase and must be completed in full (you can not take half a phase, delay, and then take the other half as an example).  See 6e2p18, Full Phase Actions  and Zero Phase Actions.
2) When does your phase end?  A phase is both a measure of time and when you go.  A full phase is both half actions.  An Extra phase is a full phase in one segment to the completion of a full phase in next segment of the character.
3) Doesn't a phase end at the bottom of the segment?  No, certain actions complete at the bottom of the segment but the amount of time to start the action does not change.  This is fairly confusing to people because probably the most common use of a full phase action is to take a recovery in turn.  What you need to understand is that when you take a recovery, you are initiating a recovery.  The initiating of the recovery take a full phase.  The results just happen to end at the bottom of the phase.  HERO has many actions which do this.  A Haymaker is a 1/2 phase action but it completes in the next segment.  Recovery from being stunned is a full phase but the effects of the recovery occur at the start of the character's next phase.  The reason for this is that there can be things which interfere with the action and prevent the action from completing.
4) But my GM doesn't do it this way! Yup, that's because your GM has house ruled it for their game.  I can't say why they did it.  Maybe it's too limiting in their game.  Maybe it doesn't match the genre.  Maybe they learned it differently when they played the game.  You just have to live with it or talk the GM out of it.
     4a) How should I handle it when I GM? However you want to handle it, just be uniform.  For instance, if you don't like the idea a villain can be screwed over when recovering from being stunned, you can say that after the villain completes the full round action, they are unstunned.  But that same argument should apply to the heroes and NPCs too.