Only for Presence Attacks?

[BenKimball]

I'm not sure that there should be any limitation value allowed for buying PRE with "Only for Presence Attacks." What do you think?

[BenKimball]

It occurs to me that there are two primary uses for PRE: making Presence Attacks, and resisting them. So maybe PRE that can only do one or the other should take a -1 limitation.

Cheers,
Ben

[misterdeath]

Presence is used for three things.

1) Skills.

2) Making Presence Attacks.

3) Resisting Presence Attacks.

Since you're giving up the other two, I'd go with -1/2.

D

[McCoy]

What does Presence do? It allows you to make Presence attacks, and resist Presence attacks. If you are not allowing it to resist presence attacks, you have taken half the value away. -1

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, PRE for Defense only is -1.

PRE for attacks only should probably be -1 as well, but on the grounds that defenses should always be cheaper than attacks and that a PRE attack gives a much larger benefit than PRE defense (especially since a lot of GMs don't use PRE attacks on PCs anyway), I'd say -1/2 is in order for PRE only used to attack, even though you're also losing the skills aspect.

Then again, what's PRE with both attack and defense (i.e., not for skills) worth? -1/4? That seems a little low. On the other hand, most characters who just have RRE for attacking and defending, but are socially inept aren't likely to have many PRE skills, if any.

[OddHat]

I'd say -1/2, but then I run a skills heavy game where not being able to use your PRE for Oratory, Bribery, Conversation, Seduction, etc. has a real impact. I'd allow -1 if only one type of pre attack was possible; induce fear, induce lust, induce pity, etc.

If you don't use PRE skills much anyway, maybe go for the -1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Well, PRE for Defense only is -1.

PRE for attacks only should probably be -1 as well, but on the grounds that defenses should always be cheaper than attacks and that a PRE attack gives a much larger benefit than PRE defense (especially since a lot of GMs don't use PRE attacks on PCs anyway), I'd say -1/2 is in order for PRE only used to attack, even though you're also losing the skills aspect.

I'd say -1. Remember, 10 PRE only for defense takes 10 off the PRE attack, where 5 PRE only fior attack adds 1d6 (average 3.5). 5 STR or EB adds a die, and 5 points adds 5 PD or ED. Similarly, 5 PRE attack only gets 1d6 and 5 PRE for defense only buys 5 DEF, so having both cost the same seems equitable.

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I'd say -1. Remember, 10 PRE only for defense takes 10 off the PRE attack, where 5 PRE only fior attack adds 1d6 (average 3.5). 5 STR or EB adds a die, and 5 points adds 5 PD or ED. Similarly, 5 PRE attack only gets 1d6 and 5 PRE for defense only buys 5 DEF, so having both cost the same seems equitable.

Good point.

[pinecone]

My rule of thumb is "lose about half the usefulness, -1/2...I'm thinkin that it's in the ball park...-1 is too much of a price break in my opinion....

[Lord Liaden]

If official precedent makes a difference for you, Takofanes from Conquerors, Killers and Crooks has extra Presence Only to Make Presence Attacks. The Limitation is set at -1/2, which was the case for several characters under 4E as well.

[Farkling]

My contribution to this is very small...

I vote for -1/2 for "only to attack" because it is an active power :) Rationale::

Presence Defense is only used wo stop an effect which has happened...it is not in the character's control.

Presence attacks happen whenever the character wishes...

and 1/4 for "not for skill rolls sounds reasonable...if you HAVE PREsence based skills.

[Crimson Arrow]

Originally posted by Farkling
My contribution to this is very small...

I vote for -1/2 for "only to attack" because it is an active power :) Rationale::

Presence Defense is only used wo stop an effect which has happened...it is not in the character's control.

Presence attacks happen whenever the character wishes...

and 1/4 for "not for skill rolls sounds reasonable...if you HAVE PREsence based skills.

This was my view 100%. -1 for Defence Only, -1/2 for Attacks Only, -1/4 for Only for Making or Defending Against PRE Attacks, but the last one is only a Limitation if you have some Skills that would suffer as a result.

However, thinking about that again, isn't there always more of a Limitation if you have Interaction Skills than if you don't? I think I'd just stick with what I've said, otherwise you'd have to recalculate the sheet if the character had no PRE-based Skills to start with, then acquired some. There is an argument for saying the Limitations are worth 1/4 less if you have no Interaction Skills (hence the last is worth nothing).

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Crimson Arrow
This was my view 100%. -1 for Defence Only, -1/2 for Attacks Only, -1/4 for Only for Making or Defending Against PRE Attacks, but the last one is only a Limitation if you have some Skills that would suffer as a result.

However, thinking about that again, isn't there always more of a Limitation if you have Interaction Skills than if you don't? I think I'd just stick with what I've said, otherwise you'd have to recalculate the sheet if the character had no PRE-based Skills to start with, then acquired some. There is an argument for saying the Limitations are worth 1/4 less if you have no Interaction Skills (hence the last is worth nothing).

This is one that would have to fall under the "if a limitation isn't a limitation" meta-rule. In a campaign where PRE skills aren't important the limit means something different than in a campaign where they are.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
I vote for -1/2 for "only to attack" because it is an active power :) Rationale::

Presence Defense is only used wo stop an effect which has happened...it is not in the character's control.

Presence attacks happen whenever the character wishes...

OK, I remain in the camp that says PRE for attack only is limited the same as PRE for defense only. You've lost one function.

Since PRE attacks happen when the player wishes, if he takes PRE defense only, he's actually defending against something outside his control, and sacrifgicing nothing since he wouldn't take the limitation if he planned on making PRE attacks.

If we apply -1 to each, a player could (in theory) buy PRE - only for attacks and PRE - only for defense at a cost equal to PRE in total. He's lost the impact on skill and CHA rolls, but otherwise bought PRE. Fair enough - you normally pay a bit more to buy the ability peicemeal, and if you want both attack and defense you should just buy the PRE. That's 30 points for 30 PRE in each category.

Make them each -1/2, and you pay 40 points total for +30 PRE only for attack and +30 only for DEF. This implies you're not getting much discount. Make one +1 and the other +1/2 and you pay 35 in total. These approaches imply "letting" your PER rolls go up actually limits you, as it saves you points.


Originally posted by Farkling
and 1/4 for "not for skill rolls sounds reasonable...if you HAVE PREsence based skills.

To add more gasoline to the fire...

So what would it cost for PRE NOT to attack, or NOT to defend, or ONLY to enhance skill rolls?

If we think it's -1 for "defense only", I suppose it should also be -1 "not to defend"

If it's -1/2 "only to attack", "not to attack" should probably be -1 1/2.. That makes +5 PRE that defends and boosts skill rolls only 2 points, but it's 2.5 "only to defend". Clearly no one will allow that.

Perhaps the limitation should more be set on what the PRE can't do than what it can. If you have no PRE based skills, PRE is used solely to attack and to defend, so -1 for losing either seems a maximum right - half the value costs half the points. -3/4 might be more reasonable (2.86 points for 5 PRE), or even -1/2 (3.33 points for 5 PRE). It seems there's general agreement that -1 is OK for "only to defend", and -1/4 is about right for "doesn't enhance PRE skills" That implies "does not attack" is worth -3/4. I'm inclined to set "does not defend" as also being -3/4.

If you want PRE that does not attack, defend or add to skill rolls, you shouldn't be buying it at all, so who cares that it still costs points [1.53 for 5 PRE]?

If we assume -1 for "not to defend" and -1/2 for "not to attack", PRE, not to attack or defend, would be worth -1.5, or 2 CP per 5 PRE. hmmm...it costs 3 points (at least) to buy a skill level with all PRE based skills, 2 points for +1 with a single skill, or 2 points to raise all my PRE based skills. Decisions, decisions, decisions...

Clearly, we're not going to allow the PRE based skills to be raised at a cost of 2 CP per +1 to all rolls (unless interaction skills are completely useless in the campaign in question, in which case njo one will pay even that cost). The "not for skills" limitation really needs to be decided based on two things, how useful the skills are in the campaign and whether the character in question has any. That means setting the value based on the starting character and, possibly, increasing the limitation if he buys more PRE based skills. Then again, you don't get points for a Hunted you pick up in play, so I could see saying changes in play don't boost your limitation value either.

I'm really coming to the conclusion that the limitations need to vary campaign by campaign depending on hos common use of PRE based skills, and PRE attacks, are. If you rarely have a PRE attack, PRE only for defense is pretty useless, and the value of PRE to attack may be greater since characters are often poorly defended against it. If interaction skills are very important, "not for skills" becomes a much more significant limitation.

Looks like the right answer may be "-1 in my campaign; YMMV"

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

So what would it cost for PRE NOT to attack, or NOT to defend, or ONLY to enhance skill rolls?


5 points per +1 to a group of related skills; standard skill levels. Maybe 3 points per level if the GM is feeling generous, or the PC has only three PRE skills.

You could argue that skill levels are overpriced: I prefer to think that after a certain point it just makes more sense to boost the base stat.

[BenKimball]

Wow! Lots of good posts and info here. Thanks to all, and keep it comin'.

Cheers!
Ben

[Crimson Arrow]

Originally posted by OddHat
This is one that would have to fall under the "if a limitation isn't a limitation" meta-rule. In a campaign where PRE skills aren't important the limit means something different than in a campaign where they are.

Yes, I agree and said as much earlier in the post. I was pointing out that if you took off 1/4 from each of the suggested Limitations if there are no Interaction Skills, the lowest value disappears, i.e. it is exactly in keeping with the meta-rule. You can reach the same result two different ways.

I have to say that Skill Levels are over-priced especially the +1 to (say) Interaction Skills one. For 10 points you get +1 with anything you do (although only one thing at a time). For 5 points, you get +1 with one group of Skills (not even all Skills). They seem more appropriate for campaigns with NCM.

On Hugh's points, I'm not sure I am OK with the idea of PRE only for Skills, as this is half (or less, depending on rounding) the price of the Skill Level, if you give it a -1 Limitation. I might allow it in a Superheroic setting, where there is no maximum on characteristics (well, unless you buy PRE to 70 or something), but I think it would be a -1/2 as well. This is again based on the fact that you instigate the use of the Skill, whereas PRE Defence is a reaction to someone else.

I agree entirely with Hugh that the value of the Limitations varies from campaign to campaign. Also a good point about not getting a boost to the Limitation if you acquire suitable skills after play starts. That makes sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
5 points per +1 to a group of related skills; standard skill levels. Maybe 3 points per level if the GM is feeling generous, or the PC has only three PRE skills.

You could argue that skill levels are overpriced: I prefer to think that after a certain point it just makes more sense to boost the base stat.

If I can pay 5 points for a level that adds to one skill at a time, or 5 points for 5 more PRE that boosts all the skill rolls and gives me PRE defense and offense, guess which one I'll pick? If I have NCM, my answer will differ after I hit 23 PRE (6 points is only 1 extra point for the extra +1, so I'm inclined to take it).

I agree natural aptitude (the stat) is, at some point, more effective than training. IRL, the reverse is often true, but we don't have the advantage of just "getting smarter" instead of training for INT skills :(

[zornwil]

It seems to me that in my experience, which seems to vary from others', PRE attacks are way less common than the application of PRE skills. So I go with -1. If only for defense, hmmm, you know, I admit if I never had thought about both in the same breath, I'd just have said -1, but given the comments here, I'd go with -1 1/2.

I can probably count on two hands - well, okay, not more than 4 hands - the number of times PRE attacks were made in games I ran or super-hero games I played in over the last 2 decades. Whereas I couldn't count the number of times interrogation, conversation, oratory, etc., were used.

[Dust Raven]

I'm voting with -1/2.

PRE Attacks might not be too comon, but if a character buys PRE for the expressed purpose of making PRE Attacks, you can wager he'll be using it that way.

I've been a bit perplexed at the cost of Skill Levels verses the cost of INT and PRE.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
I'm voting with -1/2.

PRE Attacks might not be too comon, but if a character buys PRE for the expressed purpose of making PRE Attacks, you can wager he'll be using it that way.

(snip)


Well, you know, that's a dang good point.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
I'm voting with -1/2.

PRE Attacks might not be too comon, but if a character buys PRE for the expressed purpose of making PRE Attacks, you can wager he'll be using it that way.

Agreed.


Originally posted by Dust Raven

I've been a bit perplexed at the cost of Skill Levels verses the cost of INT and PRE.

Yup. This is one area where the costs only make sense in an NCM campaign. I just allow 3 point levels for "all INY skills" and such as a house rule. The 5 point levels are used for "all Detective skills" (as some will be PRE based, some INT based, some general) and such.

[Edsel]

I voted "Other" because I believe the value will vary depending on the genre of the campaign.

In a typical superhero campaign (eg. Champions) PRE Attacks can play a big part and therefore I'd make it a -1 in such a setting. Many games allow EGO or PRE to be used as a defense against PRE Attacks, so PRE used for Defense and for skills are only about half of the equation.

On the other hand, in a heroic setting PRE skills often play a much bigger part and PRE attacks are less often used. In such a setting I'd rate it as a -1/2 limitation.

[BoneDaddy]

Wel, what if I bought 50 points of presence? What if I bought 50 points of presence, and find weakness with presence attacks (this is a form of psychic attack).
Obey!

Whaddya think, kids? Could presence attacks be used as a short term alternative to mind control? It isn't cheaper, really, since it is mostly short term, and the only limit on figuring out you've been the subject of a presence attack is your own obliviousness.

"You will take me to Jabba."

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by BoneDaddy
Wel, what if I bought 50 points of presence? What if I bought 50 points of presence, and find weakness with presence attacks (this is a form of psychic attack).
Obey!

Whaddya think, kids? Could presence attacks be used as a short term alternative to mind control? It isn't cheaper, really, since it is mostly short term, and the only limit on figuring out you've been the subject of a presence attack is your own obliviousness.

"You will take me to Jabba."

There was an article from the pre-5E version of Digital HERO that explored this very issue, complete with jedi references.;) It's still on the board archives, right here:
http://www.herogames.com/FreeStuff/dharchives/presense.htm

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, published characters have been given exclusively Offensive Presence at -1/2, and Defensive Presence at -1. This reflects one of the meta-rules of the system which has existed since its first incarnation: Defenses should be less expensive than the Attack they protect against. Hence Armor Piercing, for example, is a +1/2 Advantage, while Hardening is only +1/4.

Now whether you think that's fair is of course up to you, but it is consistent. :)

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by pinecone
My rule of thumb is "lose about half the usefulness, -1/2...I'm thinkin that it's in the ball park...-1 is too much of a price break in my opinion....

A -1 limitation gives half off the cost, assuming it's the only limitation in play (if there are more, each -1 counts for less than half). Half price for half the power should not be too much of a price break.

[BoneDaddy]

Thank you, Lord Liaden

[Chromatic]

I would say not for presence attacks is a -1/2, as it allows for use with skill levels and defense.

Only for presense attacks should thus be a -1

[abalux]

-1/2. The character can control when he/she makes a Presence Attack. PRE bought Only To Defend Against Presence Attacks sits there until someone attempts an attack.

[pinecone]

Captain O...I don't beleive that 1/2 loss of utility should mean 1/2 cost...but ,really thats a style thing...I basicly go with limits like this....Loss of some sort of utility, example ;not in h2o, "psionic" (ie visable to mental sense group) act (15), IIF...ie: some sort of limit that probibly comes up every 4 to 5 sessions....-1/4........loss of about half of a powers usefulness, -1/2, example OIF, act (14), only for offense.....usally comes up every 2 or 3 sessions...loss of most of a power, -1 example OAF, act (11) not in day time...should come up constantly (every session) OAF dosen't stop the power But you can lose it completely if it gets grabbed and that probibly gets attempted often and succeeds sometimes....loss of almost all use (practicly useless) this more of a "cool power" that Might happen and therefore justifys a point cost -2 example Act(8)...I'm pulling a blank on any others...I've always though about it this way and I beleive that most published characters use a similar logic as I very seldom go "What!!???" when I see a limit, but each campain has it's own way of doing things....

[Solomon]

A character in DH 13 lists PRE "Only for Defending Against or Making Presence Attacks" as a -1/4 limitation.
It's hard for me to get the in-game rationale; she's got personality to spare for Presence attacks but not for Persiasion attempts?
However, it is consistent with "Only for Making Presence Attacks" at -1/2 and "Only for Defending Against Presence Attacks" at -1.

[Bodkins Odds]

PRE should never have defended against PRE attacks in the first place. What does ones impressiveness have to do with being unimpressible? Absolutely none, if one wants to be hard to impress then one should increase ones willpower and mental fortitude. e.g. ones EGO.

[dmjalund]

PRE based on MCV (Presence of Mind)

[Ockham's Spoon]

I would absolutely go with -1/4 limitation for this. I understand the desire to say -1/2, and at first I would think so too, but I have a few reasons for thinking that is too much of a limitation.

First, in 6E the HTH power is essentially STR only for damage (-1/4), so we have the precedent set.

Second, if you are buy PRE only for attacks, then you are probably buying a high attack PRE. PRE attacks (as noted elsewhere) can be enormously powerful, essentially a 0 END, area affect attack than can seriously hinder or incapacitate most opponents. Giving a -1/2 limitation for PRE used that way will be unbalancing.

Third, the other two uses of PRE are for Interaction skills and defending against PRE attacks. Although useful, skills can easily be bought up other ways, and for most campaigns skills don't have anywhere near the utility of combat applications, either because the game is combat heavy, or because the GM puts more emphasis on the role playing than the dice roll for Interaction skills. And as for defense, every game I have ever played in has allowed the use of EGO as an alternate defense to PRE attacks, so the defense aspect of PRE becomes less critical. Which means you are mostly using it for attacks, hence any limitation restricting to attacks only should be small.

[Hugh Neilson]

I would absolutely go with -1/4 limitation for this. I understand the desire to say -1/2, and at first I would think so too, but I have a few reasons for thinking that is too much of a limitation.

So if I want PRE that does not enhance PRe attacks, I get a huge limitation, since most of the value is in PRE attacks which I gave up, right?

[dmjalund]

So if I want PRE that does not enhance PRe attacks, I get a huge limitation, since most of the value is in PRE attacks which I gave up, right?
I think the idea that "Only A" + "Not A" = 1 is not completely appropriate.
as characters are adaptable and can perform actions that minimize the limitations, so I generally think that "Only A" + "Not A" should be > 1
by how much is dependent on how much characters can adapt to the limitations.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think the idea that "Only A" + "Not A" = 1 is not completely appropriate.
as characters are adaptable and can perform actions that minimize the limitations, so I generally think that "Only A" + "Not A" should be > 1
by how much is dependent on how much characters can adapt to the limitations.

I think that, if it is worth 4 points to have +1d6 PRE attacks, 4 points to have a +1 with all PRE rolls (not just one roll a phase, not just skills, ALL PRE rolls) and 2.5 points to have +5 defense against PRE atttacks, then +5 PRE is worth more than 5 points.

Will the character be able to Charm the keys out of a neutral landlord with a PRE attack? Will his PRE attack defend him against Grond's PRE attack? Can he us it to subtly persuade the barmaid to tell him where and when the crime she overheard partrons discussing will take place?

How important being able to do so will be depends, of course, on the game. But then, if all PRE is good for is PRE attacks in a specific game, then "only for PRE attacks" should not be a limitation at all, and "not for PRE attacks" should be free, since it carries no benefits.

[Ockham's Spoon]

I think that, if it is worth 4 points to have +1d6 PRE attacks, 4 points to have a +1 with all PRE rolls (not just one roll a phase, not just skills, ALL PRE rolls) and 2.5 points to have +5 defense against PRE atttacks, then +5 PRE is worth more than 5 points.

Will the character be able to Charm the keys out of a neutral landlord with a PRE attack? Will his PRE attack defend him against Grond's PRE attack? Can he us it to subtly persuade the barmaid to tell him where and when the crime she overheard partrons discussing will take place?

How important being able to do so will be depends, of course, on the game. But then, if all PRE is good for is PRE attacks in a specific game, then "only for PRE attacks" should not be a limitation at all, and "not for PRE attacks" should be free, since it carries no benefits.

You make a good point, but there are two things that you aren't taking into account. First, if you are buy PRE only for attacks, you are going to buy it much higher than you would for other purposes. If you have a 60 PRE, that isn't a whole lot different from a 30 PRE from a skill standpoint, your roll is still so high you are unlikely to fail often. And for defense, a moderate PRE is all that is needed to defend against most PRE attacks. So effectively all that extra PRE is really only being used for attacks, hence the low limitation.

Also, powers in HERO tend to get cheaper by the group as it were. You can buy Life Support against a single poison for 1 point, but you can be immune to hundreds of different poisons for 5 points. Likewise, you can have WF: Swords for 1 point, but for 2 points you get all common melee weapons. It is always cheaper to get the package deal so to speak. PRE follows the same structure.

[Ice9]

I voted -1. While you are losing 2 out of 3 uses - arguably a -2 limitation - the "losing skills" aspect has little effect because people who want to be good at those skills wouldn't be taking this anyway. Losing Presence Defense, however, is a significant loss than you can't ignore - enemies will make Presence attacks on you whether you want it or not.

I think this is actually slightly more of a limitation than "Only for Defense", because while a given character never has to make a Presence attack if they don't want to, they're still subject to them. So "Only for Defense" is sacrificing something you may or may not have used anyway, "Only for Attack" is sacrificing something you definitely will use.

[dmjalund]

You make a good point, but there are two things that you aren't taking into account. First, if you are buy PRE only for attacks, you are going to buy it much higher than you would for other purposes. If you have a 60 PRE, that isn't a whole lot different from a 30 PRE from a skill standpoint, your roll is still so high you are unlikely to fail often. And for defense, a moderate PRE is all that is needed to defend against most PRE attacks. So effectively all that extra PRE is really only being used for attacks, hence the low limitation.

Also, powers in HERO tend to get cheaper by the group as it were. You can buy Life Support against a single poison for 1 point, but you can be immune to hundreds of different poisons for 5 points. Likewise, you can have WF: Swords for 1 point, but for 2 points you get all common melee weapons. It is always cheaper to get the package deal so to speak. PRE follows the same structure.wot 'e sed

[Hugh Neilson]

You make a good point, but there are two things that you aren't taking into account. First, if you are buy PRE only for attacks, you are going to buy it much higher than you would for other purposes.

Which costs more points. Limited points, since you are not getting all the benefits that would come with a higher PRE.


If you have a 60 PRE, that isn't a whole lot different from a 30 PRE from a skill standpoint, your roll is still so high you are unlikely to fail often.

Assuming that tasks are never more difficult than requiring an average roll. If your opponent has a 50 EGO to resist your interaction skill, suddenly that extra +2 is the same benefit as going from 10 to 20 PRE to persuade the average guy. Every ability has diminishing returns if you buy it high enough. If your attacks are high enough to kill every opponent with one shot more attack dice have no value either. Presumably, the GM will maintain some campaign balance such that what you paid for has benefits, or will cap it lower so you aren't buying useless abilities.

Viewing your statement from another angle, if PRE above 30 grants no benefit from skill enhancement, shouldn't it be cheaper to reflect the fact that it does not provide skill enhancement? Same for defense. In fact, if I have a 25 PRE and a 25 EGO, shouldn't I get a limitation on one since I am not getting any enhancement to defense from it?


And for defense, a moderate PRE is all that is needed to defend against most PRE attacks.

Assuming "most PRE attacks" are low. If you are facing 12d6 PRE attacks, with an average roll of 42, 20 PRE doesn't cut it any more.


So effectively all that extra PRE is really only being used for attacks, hence the low limitation.

That extra PRE is restricted to being usable only for attacks. That is the limitation. You are assuming the other aspects of PRE away. Why should buying +10 PRE to move from 10 to 20 cost 10 points, and the same +10 cost 10 points to move from 60 to 70 if the extra 10 to bump up from 60 to 70 is much less useful?


Also, powers in HERO tend to get cheaper by the group as it were. You can buy Life Support against a single poison for 1 point, but you can be immune to hundreds of different poisons for 5 points. Likewise, you can have WF: Swords for 1 point, but for 2 points you get all common melee weapons. It is always cheaper to get the package deal so to speak. PRE follows the same structure.

Your examples are outliers not supported by a basic premise. It is not cheaper to have armor and a force field, or to have two attacks that you can use at the same time. Having multiple movement powers can be cheaper if you buy them in a framework, but they are not cheaper by default. Having radar, Sonar and Targetting Smell does not grant a discount to their costs. Buying PD and ED together grants no discount.

I would suggest that LS against a single poison is 5 points of Life Support (all poisons) with a -4 limitation (only this one poison).

By the way, since you view the skills and the defense aspects as virtually useless, assume my character already has a 30 PRE, and he wants to buy +30 PRE "only for skills and defense". How much of a limitation will you alllow?

[Ockham's Spoon]

See Hugh, this is why I like your posts, because they are so logically argued. Even when you argue with me.

Okay, I agree that a 60 PRE will definitely benefit you more than a 30 PRE for skills and defense. My contention, however, is that few people would ever buy a 60 PRE for those purposes. Most of the time a 30 PRE will suffice for skills and defense (maybe not against a 12d6 PRE attack, but IME those are not common). But if you want a really devastating PRE attack, a 60 PRE is way better than a 30. Ergo, most of the PRE above 30 is really for attack purposes. If that is all you want it for, you should get a limitation, but I would argue the limitation should be low because the primary benefit to a really high PRE is for attacks. If you want the ultra-high skill roll and virtual PRE immunity too, then of course you have to pay the full price.

As for the limitation on PRE only for skills and defense, I would have to go with -1/2, if only because PRE for defense only is -1, and certainly the skill boost offers some advantage. Yeah, I'm stingy with limitation values.

You make a good point about LS and WF being "unusual". In 5e, you could buy an Aid to everything for a +2 advantage which was a similar deal, but that got fixed in 6e. Maybe I'm just off base here.

My primary reason for setting PRE only for attacks at a -1/4 limitation value however, remains the fact that even at full cost PRE attacks can be unbalancing, so I can't see giving a larger limitation to something that is already borderline abusive. Maybe PRE caps would be a better solution.

[dmjalund]

I follow the guideline that STR - only for Martial arts - is effectively -1/4 (4 per 1d6/+5 STR)

[Hugh Neilson]

Okay, I agree that a 60 PRE will definitely benefit you more than a 30 PRE for skills and defense. My contention, however, is that few people would ever buy a 60 PRE for those purposes. Most of the time a 30 PRE will suffice for skills and defense (maybe not against a 12d6 PRE attack, but IME those are not common). But if you want a really devastating PRE attack, a 60 PRE is way better than a 30. Ergo, most of the PRE above 30 is really for attack purposes. If that is all you want it for, you should get a limitation, but I would argue the limitation should be low because the primary benefit to a really high PRE is for attacks. If you want the ultra-high skill roll and virtual PRE immunity too, then of course you have to pay the full price.

My contention is that, if the extra PRE provides no real benefit for defense or skill rolls, it should already cost less than PRE that does provide significant benefits in this regard.


As for the limitation on PRE only for skills and defense, I would have to go with -1/2, if only because PRE for defense only is -1, and certainly the skill boost offers some advantage. Yeah, I'm stingy with limitation values.

So why should anyone limit their abilities? I can have +30 PRE for attacks only for 24 points, so for +6 points I get +6 with PRE rolls and +30 PRE defense.
But if I buy +30 PRE for defense and skill rolls only, it costs 20 points. For 10 (instead of 24), I can buy +6d6 PRE attacks.

This problem already exists. Why should I buy +6 PRE skill levels for 24 points when, for 30, I can get +30 PRE? That's 6 points for +6 to all PRE rolls other than one skill per phase, +30 PRE defense and +6d6 PRE attacks.


My primary reason for setting PRE only for attacks at a -1/4 limitation value however, remains the fact that even at full cost PRE attacks can be unbalancing, so I can't see giving a larger limitation to something that is already borderline abusive. Maybe PRE caps would be a better solution.

This is a different issue. If PRE is too cheap, then the cost should be fixed for everyone, not just the guy who wants limited PRE. Perhaps PRE should cost 2 points. Now we could set "attacks only" as a -1 limitation and rolls only as a -1 limitation. You want more limited "rolls only"? Well, let's lower the cost further with a higher limitation. Maybe +1 to any one skill based PRE roll is -1 for Skills Only and -1 for "one at a time" for a total of -2.

What about PRE defense? Simple - add it to EGO and remove it from PRE.

By the way, I would suggest the best example of "no package deals" is the removal of elemental controls. This mechanic was with us from 1e with minimal changes, and was removed because it provided a package deal.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Well Hugh, you are right, and the system is not perfect. Actually I was hoping that 6e would rework the PRE attack mechanic, but there were so many other improvements I guess I can't complain (and yes, getting rid of elemental controls, though painful in some cases, was a good move).

Slightly off tangent, my reason for being stingy with limitations is that it tends to discourage the more frivolous and players trying to game the system. I would rather keep the character sheet uncluttered and govern sfx to take care of a lot of the little adjustments than try to load powers down with limitations. But maybe that is just me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Slightly off tangent, my reason for being stingy with limitations is that it tends to discourage the more frivolous and players trying to game the system. I would rather keep the character sheet uncluttered and govern sfx to take care of a lot of the little adjustments than try to load powers down with limitations. But maybe that is just me.

I'd rather evaluate each limitation on its merits, deny point benefits for the frivolous little adjustments and reducce the cost of limited abilities commensurate with the reduction in their usefulness.

[Ockham's Spoon]

I'd rather evaluate each limitation on its merits, deny point benefits for the frivolous little adjustments and reducce the cost of limited abilities commensurate with the reduction in their usefulness.

Yeah, I'd rather do that too, but there are those players that will push for every little niggling limitation, so having a blanket policy saves me time and aggrevation and helps prevent PC arguments of "He got a limitation for that? How come I don't get a limitation for this?" So maybe the problem is I am just a lazy arbitrator. Fear not, however, I am not in line for a position on the Supreme Court, so my minimalist judgment style will not impact anyone other than my players (and my kids, but that is another matter).

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah, I'd rather do that too, but there are those players that will push for every little niggling limitation, so having a blanket policy saves me time and aggrevation and helps prevent PC arguments of "He got a limitation for that? How come I don't get a limitation for this?" So maybe the problem is I am just a lazy arbitrator.

Maybe the problem is player attitude. Mine have generally been more reasonable.

[Bodkins Odds]

I voted -1. While you are losing 2 out of 3 uses - arguably a -2 limitation - the "losing skills" aspect has little effect because people who want to be good at those skills wouldn't be taking this anyway.

Isn't a two-thirds loss of effectiveness a -¾ lim according to the limited power table? I really don't see why you think could even be arguable that it's -2 lim.

Also, I think it's screwy that a char that gives an attack would be it's own defence.

[prestidigitator]

I went with -1/2. It definitely shouldn't be any larger of a Limitation as far as I am concerned, though it may well be smaller.

[Beast]

Pre for attack only is too cheap for what it can do with a -1
25 pts for a 12d6 attack that will average 42 pts
vs a hero with a 20 Pre that is 2 levels of awe that they now have to deal with
that is lose a full phase and 1/2 DCV
that is a daze all my foes (area effect)
all my allies get a free shot at the other side
do a very violent action like kill a normal add 7 pts more on average
come up with a good threat add another 3.5 pts

now I'm 52 pts
all foes are 0 dcv lose a full phase faint,surrender,run away
will follow most commands
now it is doubling as mind control

Pre has it's place but it is way too easy to abuse

[Hugh Neilson]

If 10 points for +3d6 PRE attack is fairly priced to bargain priced, as suggested by much of the above, then I suggest 15 points for +3d6 PRE attack, +3 to all PRE rolls and +15 PRE defense is significantly more underpriced. It also seems a bargain compared to 12 points for +3 to a single PRE based roll at a time.

I suggest that PRE only for PRE attacks loses much more than 1/3, or even 1/2, of its utility. The solution, then, is not to reduce the limitation, but to increase the price of PRE overall. Make PRE 2:1, remove PRE defense as the prerogative of EGO instead, and a -1 limitation leaves +1d6 PRE attack costing 5 points. Still need to fix the gouging price of skill levels, but this would at least help.

[Bodkins Odds]

That's what I ended up doing and it works perfectly. I decided to leave Intellect & Interaction skill levels 4-points per, but I did lower the cost of Agility levels to match. Since I'm also using these (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/79272-Repricing-CSLs?p=2007794#post2007794) CSL prices, I lowered the price of All Noncombat levels to 8 points per and overall levels back to 10-points.

It does make Deadly Blow and Weapon Master cheaper, especially on the high end, but it hasn't led to any abuses so I think it works out fine.

EDIT: The cheapest version of Weapon Master is actually two points more expensive this way, but that's to be expected since the 3-point CSLs were raised to 4-points.

[AlHazred]

Generally, under both 5E and 6E, I've gone with "Usable For Presence Attacks Only (-1/2)." If it's a specific kind of presence attack, I've gone with a bigger Limitation, "Usable For Fear-Based Presence Attacks Only (-1)." If it's for defense, I've gone with "Usable For Defense Only (-1)" on the theory that many PRE Attack-type effects are simulated with Mind Control, for which this would offer no defense.

I wouldn't allow "Usable For Interaction Skills Only" because there's already a mechanic to simulate that -- Skill Levels.

[FreeDice]

Presence is used for three things.

1) Skills.

2) Making Presence Attacks.

3) Resisting Presence Attacks.

Since you're giving up the other two, I'd go with -1/2.

D

I disagree - Limitation (Power loses 1/3 it's value) is a -1/2 Limitation. Here, they're giving up 2/3 its value. That's at least a -1 Limitation, or possibly more.

[Bodkins Odds]

I wouldn't allow "Usable For Interaction Skills Only" because there's already a mechanic to simulate that -- Skill Levels.

But skills levels are nonpersistant and only apply to one skill at a time. Their priced wrong though since Only for Skills -1, Nonpersistant -1/4, One Skill at a Time -1/4 equals 2 points, but if you make PRE cost 2:1 then 4 is exactly right.

[Edge]

I haven't read the whole thread but here is my two cents for whatever it is really worth:

Bought straight up:

5 points gives +1 to pre skills, +1d6 to presence attacks (3.5 on average), and 5 points to presence defense (based upon presence attacks being compared directly to presence).

Average attacks fall behind defense by 1.5 for every 5 points of presence purchased.
I will (probably to the displeasure of some) not consider skill cost comparison for this because, as I understand it, the rules for cost calculations heavily concern themselves with combat because that is how the game is geared.

-1 limitation for presence attacks only:

5 points buys 2d6 presence attack or an average of 7.
10 points buys 4d6 presence attack with an average of 14.

-1/2 limitation for presence defense only:
5 points (4.67 etc.) buys 7 points of presence defense
10 points buys 15 points of presence defense.

The -1 and -1/2 limitations are barely geared toward defense.

substituting in -3/4 for presence defense:
5 points buys 9 points of presence defense.

So, 5 point and 5 point purchases without limitations favors defense by 1.5 but 5 point and 5 point purchases with the limitations (-1 for attack only and -3/4) favors defense by 2.

That is pretty close by my account.

However, I think that -1 for an attack only might be a little high and that lowering both may be better...

[prestidigitator]

Generally, under both 5E and 6E, I've gone with "Usable For Presence Attacks Only (-1/2)." If it's a specific kind of presence attack, I've gone with a bigger Limitation, "Usable For Fear-Based Presence Attacks Only (-1)." If it's for defense, I've gone with "Usable For Defense Only (-1)" on the theory that many PRE Attack-type effects are simulated with Mind Control, for which this would offer no defense.

I wouldn't allow "Usable For Interaction Skills Only" because there's already a mechanic to simulate that -- Skill Levels.

Yeah, that's about the way I go with it too.