Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

[Markdoc]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

'm surprised' date=' with the complete lack of any other changes, that Striking Appearance didn't get directly swapped for COM. No thought seems to have been given to OCV, DCV and DEX being separated, so everyone gets the same stats they had previously. But I guess it is because COM isn't in the stat box, so it's easier to ignore.[/quote']

 

This, in fact, exactly what was predicted, so I'm not surprised in the slightest. Pity.

 

Cheers, Mark

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

This, in fact, exactly what was predicted, so I'm not surprised in the slightest. Pity.

 

Cheers, Mark

I agree. I've always been a huge supporter of people who paid points on basically useless things that were basically just for flavor. I was sorry to see COM go.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I agree. I've always been a huge supporter of people who paid points on basically useless things that were basically just for flavor. I was sorry to see COM go.

 

I see no reason anyone couldn't do the exact same thing in 6e: a 5e Comeliness score of 20 can be converted to 6e by taking a 5pt custom perk: Drop-dead gorgeous.

Same cost, same effect: five points spent on 'flavor' with no other purpose.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Now see, when I first saw the thread I thought it was going to be about how the females were presented in the artwork.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has a Y chromosome and a Y-Not? chromosome

 

Some were ripped off before too.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I think this supports the theory that COM was by and large a dump stat in previous editions.

 

Define dump stat? I always thought that was the stat you ignored so as to max your others. Which is not the case. Com was generally used. In fact, the talent seems to be less so.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

He was a 6 in 5E.

 

Did he have Negative COM in older editions?

 

How old is he now? did his acne clear up?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I see no reason anyone couldn't do the exact same thing in 6e: a 5e Comeliness score of 20 can be converted to 6e by taking a 5pt custom perk: Drop-dead gorgeous.

Same cost, same effect: five points spent on 'flavor' with no other purpose.

 

Or we could just use the COM stat. I just never stopped using it

Being an old guard I'm used to it and didn't see a reason to get rid of it.

 

Striking Appearance is nice too and probably makes more sense to new players. But it's not much different than Positive Rep, perhaps a tad more expensive.

[Tech]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Or we could just use the COM stat. I just never stopped using it

Being an old guard I'm used to it and didn't see a reason to get rid of it.

 

Striking Appearance is nice too and probably makes more sense to new players. But it's not much different than Positive Rep, perhaps a tad more expensive.

 

Assuming I (or my gaming group) ever switch to 6e, COM will be right back in there. Unlike most gamers who've griped about it, we use it to effect. Still, I strongly dislike Tako-undead-lord (does he like tacos?) 120 Pre total attack - sounds way too monty-haulish.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Well I can totally understand getting rid of it, actually. It really didn't serve a function (other than to start arguments over who was hotter Wonder Woman or Power Girl (or Let's say Nightwing and Gambit?))

 

So Striking Appearance does have functionality that COM didn't, it just doesn't seem to have functionality that couldn't have easily been attributed to COM without dumping the stat completely. I've had it explained to me, very patiently I might add, but it still doesn't fly.

 

Now, I lost my job before 6e Came out. And was initially very much a 5e guy. My only real exposure to it so far has been through Hero Designer. And playing with that I will probably be remedying the No 6e Core books pretty soon. I'll just keep COM. I've been pretty impressed with most of the changes once I've worked my way through them.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Define dump stat? I always thought that was the stat you ignored so as to max your others. Which is not the case. Com was generally used. In fact' date=' the talent seems to be less so.[/quote']

 

IF

my initial conception of the character's looks were better than average (12-20 COM)

and I had already covered all the bases regarding characteristics, skills, talents, perks and powers

and I didn't feel like another 1-5 points in skills were really necessary

I would then "dump" between 1-5 points in COM

 

I detested having any character with just a 10 COM but I rarely spent more than 4 points on the stat.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

IF

my initial conception of the character's looks were better than average (12-20 COM)

and I had already covered all the bases regarding characteristics, skills, talents, perks and powers

and I didn't feel like another 1-5 points in skills were really necessary

I would then "dump" between 1-5 points in COM

 

I detested having any character with just a 10 COM but I rarely spent more than 4 points on the stat.

 

 

While our group found it so cool and useful for Role playing, I ended up charging 1 point per point for it. Even with this and the campaign cost of double over 20 in some of my worlds, there are characters with 23, 28 and even 30 COM. Different strokes for different folks.

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I see no reason anyone couldn't do the exact same thing in 6e: a 5e Comeliness score of 20 can be converted to 6e by taking a 5pt custom perk: Drop-dead gorgeous.

Same cost, same effect: five points spent on 'flavor' with no other purpose.

Right, except the point of this thread is that the pre-made characters USED to spend those points, and now they don't. The game is also encourages against this type of behavoir by giving players free skills something to the effect that: If your character should know how to read a map, and it won't come up often, they don't need to buy Navigation, they just get it for free.

 

I detested having any character with just a 10 COM but I rarely spent more than 4 points on the stat.

I believe a lot of people felt this way. I think for a lot of people COM did have an effect, it was just a Role-Playing, and this gets into one of my larger issues.

 

I used to be VERY involved with Hero. I started in 3rd Ed, played 4th for years and years, and when 5th came out, I didn't like the direction it was going and left (eventually I broke down and bought some of the books). My problem was that Hero was become way too power game-y. In 4th ed. If you wanted a character that could attack a lot you bought up your SPD or bought Autofire. That's what it was for. In 5th and beyond, you have Sweep, and Multiple Power Attacks (which I absolutely despise by the way) to make people feel more powerful so they can attack more in a phase. It's gotten worse now with encouraging giving away free skills. Now I got over my... Tiff, I guess you'd call it, when I decided I didn't care how the management wanted me to play, I was going to continue to do it my way.

 

Wow, sorry rant over.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I see no reason anyone couldn't do the exact same thing in 6e: a 5e Comeliness score of 20 can be converted to 6e by taking a 5pt custom perk: Drop-dead gorgeous.

Same cost, same effect: five points spent on 'flavor' with no other purpose.

 

That would be Drop-dead gorgeous +2/+2d6 Striking Appearance

 

Define dump stat? I always thought that was the stat you ignored so as to max your others. Which is not the case. Com was generally used. In fact' date=' the talent seems to be less so.[/quote']

 

Agreed - dump stat is where you drop points. I'm a fighter, who cares about skills? I'll just put that 4 in my INT. COM was used. Characters had COM of 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and higher COM's for really attractive characters, and we saw 8 and 6 on occasion, but I see a lot more "I should sell my mOCV back to 1 since I have no mental powers" comments than people who would sell back COM.

 

Well I can totally understand getting rid of it' date=' actually. It really didn't serve a function (other than to start arguments over who was hotter Wonder Woman or Power Girl (or Let's say Nightwing and Gambit?)) [/quote']

 

It served the function of resolving that contest for characters in game. It also had some suggested uses in the rules, and others in house rules.

 

Without fully reviving The Great COM Wars, my perspective is that:

 

- it would have been possible to give COM function. One approach would have been to divide COM by 5, subtract 2 and apply this as a bonus just like the Striking Appearance talent. Another, already used by a lot of groups, was to use COM rolls as complementary to pretty much the same skill rolls Striking Appearance would affect. Add that to "it's always been there, so why change unless there is a reason" and "everyone has an appearance so it is basic and fundamental enough to be a characteristic", and we get the main points I found persuasive for retaining COM.

 

- the biggest factor I see against COM is that it did not have a standalone function. If all it does is modify PRE-based abilities, isn't it really just limited PRE, rather than a characteristic of its own? I find that argument persuasive as well, and it was the one that ultimately prevailed.

 

Unfortunately, there is fallout in that the use of Striking Appearance seems to be far less common than COM. I think that will be endemic. We would buy COM up a few points because "I see my character as being more attractive than the average person", but we don't buy Striking Appearance because we don't expect to use the benefits (interaction may not be a focus of the character), or I don't think my character is "that attractive" to justify redirecting the points (oddly, points I would have spent on COM). I had a lot of characters with 12, 14 or 16 COM just because I had 1 to 3 points left over after balancing my character, and I could use COM to balance, making him a bit more attractive than average, but not extraordinarily so. I would not buy such a character Striking Appearance, so I suspect my characters are also getting uglier.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

How old is he now? did his acne clear up?

 

Considering the way the Champions MMO artists draw him I would have to say "NO"...

 

http://www.champions-online.com/villains/grond

 

(I personally really, really liked his more reptilian 5E look)

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

It served the function of resolving that contest for characters in game. It also had some suggested uses in the rules' date=' and others in house rules.[/quote']

 

Which I admit was one of the main uses we had for it, but it was such an artificial construct since beauty is SO subjective in real life.

 

I honestly can't tell you who has a higher COM between Wonder Woman, She-Hulk, Power Girl and Black Widow. They are all stunningly gorgeous to me.

 

I can tell you my personal preferences, which would influence my decisions and are probably quite different from yours..

 

I had a lot of characters with 12, 14 or 16 COM just because I had 1 to 3 points left over after balancing my character, and I could use COM to balance, making him a bit more attractive than average, but not extraordinarily so. I would not buy such a character Striking Appearance, so I suspect my characters are also getting uglier.

 

Well, you're characters aren't getting uglier unless you want them to be uglier, as Striking Appearance doesn't strictly represent your looks.

 

It represents your ability to USE your looks to your advantage (intentionally or not).

 

It's all just SFX.

 

We don't make Rainbow Lass pay more points for her "Scintillating Butterfly Blast" Sight Group Flash than we do Snot Boy for his "Ooze in the Eye!" Flash just because one of them has "prettier" SFX than the other...

 

Of course, once one power has a mechanical advantage/disadvantage over the other, the costs start to shift.

 

And I will say, I think Striking Appearance probably SHOULD be included on some character's that it is presently NOT included on and probably removed from others.

 

Like in my Ben 10 write ups, Ben, Gwen and Kevin all have levels of Striking Appearance because I was initially using it just like I would use COM in older editions: trying to arbitrarily rate physical attractiveness. But realistically, Ben's "Heroic Good Looks" have never really offered him an advantage over people. He doesn't use his looks (and infact kinda fails when he tries), even though it's been commented by several female characters (of various species) that he's "cute".

 

So is it something he needs to spend points on or can I just make a note along those lines in his description/roleplaying notes and leave it at that?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Which I admit was one of the main uses we had for it, but it was such an artificial construct since beauty is SO subjective in real life.

 

 

That is (was) a big problem with COM in my mind. To take an extreme example, lizardmen might have a low COM to a human eye, but they might be quite gorgeous to another lizardman. Who defines beauty?

 

Granted there are usually some societal norms, but those can change significantly between cultures. Throw individual preference into the mix and COM becomes a rather arbitrary stat.

 

That said, I see no problem keeping COM if the players like the flavor, and just granting one level of Striking Appearance for each 3 points spent in it.

 

Or you could define it as a Perk, 1pt = Cute, 2pts = Beautiful/Handsome, 3pts = Striking (and grants 1 level of Striking Appearance), 4pts = Gorgeous, etc. There are no mechanical effects except for multiples of 3, but that isn't so different from having a 14 INT instead of a 13 even though the extra point doesn't give you a bonus to any INT-based rolls. Its just flavor.

[Steve]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Hmm... Bloodstone raised an interesting point.

 

If Striking Appearance is not the attractiveness itself (or alternately, scary ugliness), but the ability to use that to your advantage, then an argument could be made for taking No Conscious Control on levels of Striking Appearance. The character is beautiful or ugly, but doesn't know how to actively use it to their advantage whenever they want to. It would be like a latent ability. Then they could spend experience to buy it up to a consciously used ability, if they so choose. They then know how to make their beauty work for them, or in the case of ugly villains like Fiacho or Durak, make themselves even more terrifying based on their looks.

[Steve]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Another thought on that same tangent. If Striking Appearance is the ability to use your looks to your advantage, then that explains why Witchcraft and Talisman have different levels in the talent, despite being twins. Talisman knows how to really flaunt herself in a way that Witchcraft wouldn't be comfortable doing.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

There are no mechanical effects except for multiples of 3' date=' but that isn't so different from having a 14 INT instead of a 13 even though the extra point doesn't give you a bonus to any INT-based rolls. Its just flavor.[/quote']

 

Don't get me started on the mechanics of INT.

 

I consider it a rather huge flaw in 6E that still needs fixing...

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

It would be like a latent ability. Then they could spend experience to buy it up to a consciously used ability' date=' if they so choose. They then know how to make their beauty work for them, or in the case of ugly villains like Fiacho or Durak, make themselves even more terrifying based on their looks.[/quote']

Or even start at the disadvantage "Gorgeous" and transform it into an advantage (power).

 

I also thought about a very good looking dress/hero outfit to give a bonus (basically Striking Apereance, OIF). Opales "American Dream" super could go in that direction, when she finishes the conversion to 6E.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I wanted to keep COM. Now that its gone I don't miss it all that much. If I were running a 5E game I'd use it, but I wouldn't add it into a 6E game.

 

I decided I didn't care how the management wanted me to play, I was going to continue to do it my way.

 

This statement wins. There are no game police. The only one you (for all given values of you) have to make happy is you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

That is (was) a big problem with COM in my mind. To take an extreme example' date=' lizardmen might have a low COM to a human eye, but they might be quite gorgeous to another lizardman. Who defines beauty?[/quote']

 

While true, who defines intelligence? Is the absent-minded professor more, or less, intelligent than the literary genius who is also conscious of his own surroundings? How about the medical doctor who can't balance his chequebook?

 

Who defines PRE? Aspects of personality considered positive by some are negative to others. Is he "persuasive" or "pushy"? Is she "liberated" or "a slut"?

 

Granted there are usually some societal norms' date=' but those can change significantly between cultures. Throw individual preference into the mix and COM becomes a rather arbitrary stat.[/quote']

 

As do PRE and maybe INT.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

That would be Drop-dead gorgeous +2/+2d6 Striking Appearance

 

No.

 

No, absolutely not. No comparision. They're not the same thing.

 

Striking Appearance has an in-game effect. The COM stat did nothing. No equivalence whatsoever.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Considering the way the Champions MMO artists draw him I would have to say "NO"...

 

http://www.champions-online.com/villains/grond

 

(I personally really, really liked his more reptilian 5E look)

 

totally agree

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The COM stat did nothing. No equivalence whatsoever.

You mean: "It did nothing in the games I used to play"?

 

Others have time and again showed that they could use it effectively. The other stats were most likely clearer defined in their effects. Either trough rules, or common conception (what you can do with STR is pretty clear).

 

About the professor: Bad choice. INT may be the base for you INT-based skills, but it doesn't has to be (you can just take a 11- base throw and go from there). It says so right in the description for INT.