torchwolf

Re: Update to 6ed? Personally, I think 6E1 is a quite 6E1, and 6E2 is pretty 6E2.

Re: Interlingua Eminent modeling. Incidentally, this proves the Language Similarity rules covers learning such inter-languages easier. In a medieval Fantasy Hero, Latin does the same, only backwards from the Romance language similarities (well, duh, since it's the very cause of those similarities).

Re: Interlingua I suppose Interlingua or Esperanto would have 2 pts of similarity to Latin and Spanish and 1 pt to most other languages, excluding the Arabic/Semitic family, Chinese dialects, Japanese and many "native" languages (native North and South American, African, Aborigine, etc.). Then again, I'm not a linguist (nor Linguist).

Re: Presence and Classes of Mind Cool. In Dark Star (the 1976 movie), they actually use both Persuasion and Oratory on a sentient nuclear bomb. Would that fall under vs Machine Class of Mind?

Re: Size Powers Mass Manipulation Powers? Density Control Powers? Depending on how you define it, a variant use Damage Reduction and/or Damage Negation might represent some kind of partial effect of Desolidification, but that might muddy up the issue if you want a category of Powers as opposed to powers (game mechanics vs concept); I'm not entirely sure if you're intending to group game mechanics or concepts here. Interesting idea, though.

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition I know he recently said bye for now, but Christopher's Collection of new mechanics and especially the Comeliness Perk is worth considering for the purposes of this thread. Many of you already know about this, but, just for completeness.

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition *ka-ching*

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition No, really, I'm serious. I would consider doing some compiling if there is enough interest. I don't think I personally will use COM under 6E, but I have used it previously, and something like the Power Skill/RSR (OK, it's now RaR) is what I might use. Since there has been much written on the subject already, I just thought it might be structured out and compiled together. I haven't yet looked through what might be under other threads like schir1964's compilations or other similar, but I had to start somewhere, and I know there is much material both on recent threads and under the 6th Edition Discussion (aside from the arguments in either direction). I think Bob Greenwade's initiative Based on COM in this direction is a good example of how that could work. Any comments? If noone has any, I will just drop the subject as gracefully as I am able.

Re: Update to 6ed? Here is an official summary of changes and conversion advice: 5E to 6E Character Conversion Summary And no, it never got an unofficial nickname beyond that it depends on how you pronounce the two books of the core rules: 6E1 and 6E2. Bundles, including the 2 books for $50 or the 2 books plus pdfs for $80, are in the online store now. Books will take some time to ship, apparently. Go to the Hero System Discussion forum if you want to read some opinions and reactions.

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition Proposition: as stated in the intent of this thread, the function of COM can be expanded. Likewise, the function of Striking Appearance can be expanded. As several posters have expressed, many define and/or use COM more broadly than it is actually defined in the 4E and 5ER rules. Nothing in and of itself prohibits the use of both COM and Striking Appearance. Methodology of COM uses (obviously simplistically categorized): Method 1: COM value as an indicator for attractiveness/value for physical attractiveness. This is the official version, since 5ER p38, states: “Comeliness reflects the character's beauty or handsomeness. This may effect the use of some Skills or Presence Attacks.” Example: 5ER Definition. Method 2: COM value as the basis for a COM Roll to determine if another character/NPC find them attractive/interesting/charming. This may also include using the COM value itself as a direct indicator of “positive impression” attributes encompassing a broader definition than the official definition of physical attractiveness. Examples: Innumerable; so many good ones it would be presumptuous of me to list just one (several posts on this thread and others have suggestions for this; perhaps some these numerous suggestions could be compiled?) Method 3: COM value as game mechanic in itself; i.e. COM Attacks, modifiers to PRE Attacks, modifiers to Interaction Skills. This may also include extensions to existing Skills and other game mechanics concerning Interaction, as well as special Skills based on COM. Example: “Based On COM” by Bob Greenwade (see his link in Post 11 in this thread). Method 6E: Striking Appearance Mechanics, usable in and of itself and/or in combination with any other method. Example: Striking Appearance with RSR. The RSR is one of the Everyman Power Skill "Appearance", as Chris Goodwin suggested. This Power:"Appearance" Skill represents the value of noteworthiness (as in a COM value); it also represents the character's chance of being noticed and remembered by a random witness. It must be defined as Attractive or Ugly, similarly to Striking Appearance, and is subject to the "Eye of the Beholder" effect - a higher value means either more Attractive or more Ugly, as defined. A low value indicates blandness and lack of distinguishing attributes. This Skill also acts as the RSR for Striking Appearance to take effect (at the level purchased by the character - if any). At the GM's discretion, Power: “Appearance” Skill may be purchased twice, to represent a character that is perceived as Attractive by some and Ugly by some, or both. “Attractive” in this context is defined as a character possessing attributes that would give a positive impression on the target, while “Ugly” is a character possessing negative impression attributes. The exact attributes should be defined both for purposes of this Skill as well as for Striking Appearance (if any). Method 456 (FrankenHero): COMbinations of 4E/5ER/6E Rules. Example: This would constitute a synthesis of several different edition rules as well as requiring some tweaking (if I'm not misunderstanding, I think nexus has argued repeatedly for this?). I've given some effort here to list credit for ideas, but I may (probably) have missed several contributors – I know some of these suggestions were given more than a year ago during the Great Debates. Hope we can move this forward into anything usable that doesn't already exist. I'm pretty sure several of you also have some house rules that others may want to incorporate into their games. Feel free to mangle these ideas into a total lack of recognizability! Let the Wars Begin! … no, I meant... not.

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Re: Omcv 1? I agree that it is some ways more logical to have CVs start at 0 or 1, even more so MCVs, but I don't think it's a flaw of the system to start them at 3. If there should be a baseline at all for CHAR, CVs should start at 3 as the default, similarly to DEX at 10, SPD at 2, and PD at 2. OTOH, Valdorian Age CHAR start at 8; using the same logic, MCVs might just as reasonably start at 0 or 1, depending on the campaign or the setting - or even not exist at all, as stated in 6E. OMCV may be hard to justify at 3, though some mechanics like psychological brainwashing can conceivable works against DMCV even in a Heroic campaign (in addition to having psychoactive drugs work against CON in the same campaign). That said, IMHO I see no particularly right or wrong way to do it from the several good arguments stated here in both directions.

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition I may be going out on a limb here, but I think there are several different intents where reintroducing/keeping/expanding COM is concerned: 1: Some like to use the COM value as an indicator for attractiveness/value for physical attractiveness. 2: Some like to use the COM value as the basis for a COM Roll to determine if another character/NPC find them attractive/interesting/charming. 3: Some like to use the COM value as game mechanic in itself; i.e. COM Attacks, modifiers to PRE Attacks, modifiers to Interaction Skills. 4: Some want several of the above. Suggestion: Striking Appearance with RSR. The RSR is one of the Everyman Power Skill "Appearance", as Chris suggested. This Power:"Appearance" Skill represents the value of noteworthiness (as in a COM value); it also represents the character's chance of being noticed and remembered by a random witness. It must be defined as Attractive or Ugly, similarly to Striking Appearance, and is subject to the "Eye of the Beholder" effect - a higher value means either more Attractive or more Ugly, as defined. A low value indicates blandness and unremarkability. This Skill also acts as the RSR for Striking Appearance to take effect (at the level purchased by the character - if any). What'cha think?

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Re: Omcv 1?

Re: Post "gotchas" here I stand corrected. It had, furthermore, listed COM as Superhuman at 31+, so I was simply wrong on every count. I am a waste of space.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated.... In effect, redefining the adder as "+5 points per 2 x pts to spend on forms". Going the other way - averaging the points of the alternate forms - opens up for abuse; applying Advantages or Limitations for more/less capable forms quickly gets absurd for such small returns (Partially Limited Multiform etc.)... This might be the most effective solution yet. It certainly allows for builds like "Ring of Reptile Forms": Multiform to Dragon, Salamander and Tiny Lizard, without loss of game balance (apart from being a Dragon, of course) or need for major clunkiness writeups. After reviewing the similar mechanics (Followers, Duplication, Summon, etc.) I think this might be applied to some of those as well under certain circumstances. The "Only In Alternate ID" discount argues against charging a character's most combat-capable form for diversity, and allows a bonus for having a less-powered "true form". The similarity to Multipowers is noted; Doc Democracy also has a valid idea. I wonder how it can be represented with _variable_ slots - a Partial Multiform? I sincerely think that several of the solutions presented here merits consideration as the default variant in different campaigns, depending on to which extent emphasis is based on combat effectiveness vs general utility vs roleplaying. Kudos to you all! Personally, I think I will try out tesuji's suggestion in my games (obviously, with some GM policing).

Re: Post "gotchas" here This is not a big issue and has next to no impact on character building, but the Characteristics Comparison Table (6E1 p48) now lists the "Superhuman" values of INT, EGO & PRE as 51+. This is of course GM preference territory by campaign, but still... IMO, I thought this was rather odd for COM in 5ER, also.

Re: The Return of the 1” Half-Move! "move and attack!" I agree, 1 pt now equals 1 m. If anything else is implied in the 6E rules, I have missed it so far. Granted, some really old Hero System maps have a 2m hex overlay, but that has nothing to do with the rules; just the scale. This is not a rules question, it is a ruler question.

Re: Question reguarding To Hit probability Just one note: 11- on 3d6 has a 62.5% chance of success. 11- on 2d10 has a 55% chance of success. While this doesn't seem much statistically, it _does_ have an impact on many Skill Rolls, To-Hit Rolls, etc. I've thought about 2d10 and other variations as well, but that is one of the reasons I decided against changing it, because the bell curve alters slightly at the very base point used by many of the game system's Rolls. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but there are some impressive studies of alternative rolls and statistical distribution under the 6e discussion threads and elsewhere.

Re: Omcv 1? Regarding 6E2, p270, Character Sheet As Contract: Buying stuff tends to mean you intend to get any use for, taking Complications would mean you expect them to have an impact on the game. My (personal) interpretation of that would be that by buying up or down CHAR values, I expect that to have an effect on the game. That would mean that the GM should rightly inform the player that "buying up or down OMCV would have no impact on that character who is probably not going to have any use for it in this campaign, thus it is worth no points either way, up or down". Just my long-winded way of restating "a limitation that does not limit the character is not a limitation (or Complication)". Like Alibear said. However: As a GM, I might suggest a possible scenario where a reduced OMCV might come up, to a player who was thinking about buying it down. That usually causes people to drop the issue, IME.

Re: 5E To 6E Character Conversion Summary I suspect this will be downloaded very extensively - one of the first things I show my players when I've convinced them to have a look at 6E. Thank you ever so much.

Re: 6th Edition Character Sheet Crisp, clean, useful, utilitarian - I will use it as-is; more complicated builds, I'll export from HD6 instead. Thank you.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated.... That was my thought also, upon pondering it, but that the cost would be reduced to 1/10th instead of 1/5th, as well as possibly dropping the doubling adder (Post 12). In essence, Multiform can be used to make a "Dial-a-Hero" one-character superteam. Real Game Example: Back in 1990 or so, I allowed a Champions PC who was a Mentalist possessed by a demon Brick. I told the player I reserved the right to revise it, and after seeing how it was abused in play, I invoked that right. The player was not that cooperative, so I let the demon side take over and run rampant; then he elected to build another character rather than revise his old one - and pronto, I had a new campaign villain to bedevil my PCs. If I hadn't seen it coming, though, it might have turned out differently.

Re: Multiform for Free? Frustrated.... Example of unfairness: Since the highest Base Cost of Multiform would be equal to 1/5th the Total Cost of the alternate form, a character based on 400 points can pay 80 points (Base Cost) to have another 400 point form, which itself pays nothing. One solution would be to require each form to pay 1/5th of its own Total Cost? In that case, each form would be proportionally charged, and the "extra 400 point form" in my example would pay exactly as much. That way, Multiform might be overpriced, though. If each form pays, say, 1/10th of its own Total Cost, it would cost exactly as much as if the two forms in the example would have split their cost. Note: If this would be used, the x2 adder should probably be removed, as each form already pays some points for itself. Thoughts?