PSLs in my Dark Champions Campaign

[BoloOfEarth]

On 11/16/2017 at 12:52 PM, Cantriped said:

It stands to reason that since 6e and CC both call out CSLs specifically, but never make any mention of either SLs or PSLs, that those rules do not apply to them.

 

19 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

I concede that your position is reasonable. I am not certain it is correct.

 

 

Lucius is right.  Reasonable or not, that reasoning is not correct.

 

Per Steve Long in the 6E Q&A forum in answer to the questions:  (1) "Can one use penalty skill levels to offset the OCV loss of Multiple Attacks?"

 

Quote

No; the rules on 6E1 84 specifically state that PSLs cannot be used to counteract the OCV penalty imposed by a Combat Maneuver.

 

(2) "How about the 1/2 DCV?"

 

Quote

No; here again, as stated in the rules, DPSLs are intended to offset negative DCV modifiers imposed by specific conditions. A Maneuver's inherent penalty isn't a "condition" as contemplated by the rules.

 

As to buying DCV with the limitation "Only usable during Multiple Attacks", that is still DCV (albeit partially limited) and would be applied at step #1 of the DCV checklist, and thus would be subject to halving.

(edited because on rereading I saw that Lucius was referring to DCV itself, not CSLs.)

[Cantriped]

Steve Long is incorrect, and obviously did not review the 6th edition rules carefully enough before replying to that rules question. His entire basis for argument regarding DPSLs is that "maneuver penalties" are not a "condition" and therefore PSLs do not apply to them.

This statement is utterly false.

First off; the term "condition" is never defined or rather 'contemplated' within the Hero System Sixth Edition at all. So if we want a definition, we must use one of the real ones. Such as: "the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being." A penalty to DCV as a result of performing a Combat Maneuver qualifies as a circumstance that affects the way in which people "work", especially with regard to their safety (in that fighting can be very dangerous work) so per common English, A DCV Penalty imposed by a Maneuver is still a condition, and since unlike OPSLs no exception was made by the rules, that definition stands.

Secondly; 6e1 84 explicitly notes that DPSLs "can only [be used] to reduce or counteract a specific type of negative DCV modifier." which supports my assertion that CV modifiers are, in fact, a "condition". Especially considering that DPSLs can only be applied to conditions and that they can only ever be used to offset DCV modifiers.

 

The statement regarding OPSLs is accurate though, you explicitly cannot use them to offset Maneuver penalties.

 

[Surrealone]

Unfortunately, Mr. Long has a history of contradicting some items in RAW .... with his own rulings made at a later date.  This is subtle enough that it's prone to being one such place.

[Hyper-Man]

So the argument now is that the AUTHOR of the rules doesn't understand how he intended for them to work?!  He also has a LAW degree and still takes the tme to answer rules questions but that isn't enough evidently. I'll admit that I don't always agree with his rulings but I would always treat my changes to be House Rules for my games.

 

Wow.

[Surrealone]

No, the argument is that the AUTHOR of the rules contradicts the actual verbiage in the RAW he authored, at times -- i.e. he's human/fallible. 

 

RAW regarding PSLs is very clear -- they modify the penalty, not OCV/DCV.  Need evidence?  For this I cite 6e1 p84 which states:

"Penalty Skill Levels (PSLs) are a type of Skill Level that only reduce or counteract a specific type of combat-related penalty."

 

• Notice how that verbiage indicates Penalty Skill Levels are a type of skill level (implying a difference between them and, say, Combat Skill Levels)?
• Notice how that verbiage does NOT say PSLs modify OCV/DCV?
• Notice how the language specifically states PSLs reduce/counteract a specific type of combat-related penalty?

 

Per the cited verbiage, PSLs very clearly modify/reduce/counteract penalties ... not OCV/DCV.  (Read the quoted words again, carefully, if you doubt.)  Now, couple the foregoing with the DCV checklist (that was so kindly cited earlier in this thread) making absolutely no mention of PSLs (which as I pointed out, above, are not the same as CSLs) ... and, well, it's clear that actual, in-force, long-standing RAW has PSLs not figuring into things like DCV halving (since they don't modify DCV prior to halving ...  they modify the penalty!) -- at least not by way of any verbiage within RAW.

 

RAW (which Mr. Long previously authored) codifies how Mr. Long intended the rules to work at the time of their writing and, unfortunately, Mr. Long's latest response to an inquiry on this very subject contradicts the verbiage he previously selected/used to codify his intent.  This suggests he's either changed his opinion on the matter (in which case we'd expect to see the issue addressed in errata) ... or he made a mistake during the original codification of the rules ... or made one when responding to the recent inquiry on them. 

Occam's Razor would suggest the last of the aforementioned possibilities is the most probable, since it involved a snap response made to fairly open question (with no reference from the inquirer made to the 6e1 p84 citation I noted above).

[Hyper-Man]

Ok. Mull this one over.

 

If PSL's can be used to counter 1/2 or 0 CV just HOW would it be done?  How many OPSL's does it take to offset some or all of the imposed 0 OCV from using a movement ability at noncombat velocity?  The penalty isn't a number, it's a calculation.

[Surrealone]

Per actual RAW (as cited, above), PSLs modify the penalty ... which obviously has to happen before you can apply a penalty when working through a checklist like the DCV checklist.

 

To answer your question about half CV:

1. Pre-compute the penalty value of half CV for the situation that causes it.
2. Purchase enough PSLs for the situation that causes the penalty .... such that the penalty is counteracted.
3. When the situation arises ... take the penalty, modify it using the PSLs that were purchased, and then proceed through your checklist like you normally would.

 

Example: Let's say our hero has DCV 10 and the situation we want to deal with is Prone (i.e. 1/2 DCV) ... just to keep things simple

1. -10/2 = -5 = penalty value of half DCV when prone
2. Buy 5 PSLs for DCV to modify/reduce/counteract the penalty value of being Prone
3. The next time the character is Prone, the penalty value of -10/2 = -5 will be counteracted by the +5 PSLs for DCV that apply when Prone, resulting in a modified penalty value of 0 ... which is the modified penalty value you'd then use when working through your checklist as usual ... resulting in full DCV while Prone.

 

The above process works for half DCV, half OCV, and the like.  I can't speak to 0 OCV from using a movement ability at noncombat velocity ... but I also don't think I know a GM who would allow someone to buy a PSL for that situation, so I feel pretty justified in punting on that lark.

[Hyper-Man]

deleted

[Hyper-Man]

I am debating whether I will delete my last post.  Thinking about it some more I think the bigger issue is allowing PSLs to apply modifiers from maneuvers  vs conditions.

[Surrealone]

3 hours ago, Hyper-Man said:

Ok we are getting into the weeds again.  FAQ responses are where 5er came from. Steve is human and should be allowed to revise his answers with time.

 

On a different tack I suggest thinking of all types of Levels as Overall levels with varying degrees of different Limitations that define what category of Skill they are. The CV checklist I posit that special exceptions for PSLs were not added because it was assumed they applied like CSLs.

 

Movement Skill Levels can be applied to DCV if moving and performing a defensive maneuver like Dodge . They aren't CSLs so when are they applied?

 

Re: the checklist and halving PSLs

There is precident in core mechanics with how drains vs defensive powers work.

We're in the weeds because you asked a question that brought us there ... and also potentially because Steve contradicted his own codified verbiage ... as a result of a question you asked him without giving him all of the facts/context that pertained to the question.  (Some might even say you set him up by doing so... not necessarily intentionally, mind you, but still...)

 

Regarding the CV checklist and PSLs not being added:
Regardless of why they are not present ... they are not present.  Nor has it been addressed by any errata to date (of which I am aware).  Thus, plainly put, RAW does not factor them in as part of the checklist.  You may want RAW to do so.  Steve may feel (today) that RAW should do so ... but as written ... RAW currently doesn't.

 

As for Movement Skill Levels:
I'm not sure why you're changing the topic, but I'll respond anyway.  Since Movement Skill Levels modify DCV directly (unlike PSLs) ... assuming a GM allows someone to use Movement Skill Levels for DCV purposes (when a Combat Maneuver that provides bonuses to DCV is in use) ... I believe those would be handled in Step 6 of the DCV checklist, which reads:  "Apply any other modifiers."  I'm also not sure why you asked this question since the answer is predicated on your own assertion (in this thread) that modifications to OCV/DCV should follow the checklist.  Movement Skill Levels applied in this fashion are definitely direct modifications to DCV.  The application of Movement Skill Levels just happens to require a Combat Maneuver that adds to DCV .... in order to use the Movement Skill Levels for DCV purposes ... but the Movement Skill Levels are still made directly to DCV when used in this way. (i.e. 6e2 p34 has no verbiage indicating the Movement Skill Levels modify the bonus of the requisite Combat Maneuver.  And even if that's how it worked, since the Combat Maneuver's modifiers are handled in Step 4, it'd still be a wash that falls within the checklist (unlike PSLs, per RAW).)

 

Regarding the so-called 'halving rule' for Adjustment Powers you reference a la drains:

I have no idea why you think the so-called 'halving rule' has something to do with PSLs.  The two are completely unrelated, IMHO.  As I understand it, the so-called 'halving rule' was created to keep Adjustment Powers from making a mockery of defensive powers/characteristics.  (Put a nicer way, the so-called 'halving rule' apparently exists to keep defensive powers and characteristics cost-viable compared to the effects of Adjustment Powers.)  Moreover, the so-called 'halving rule' is codified as part of RAW ... unlike the application of PSLs as part of OCV/DCV checklists.

 

Given the above, this one feels like a long reach to find some place to hang one's hat to show that Mr. Long didn't actually contradict himself.  Personally, I think he did ... and I've cited RAW that supports my assertion.  Hey, he's human, it happens; let's call it what it is, treat it accordingly, and move on.

 

Note that I will certainly switch camps on the matter if someone can show me (without reaching, but instead via a citation of actual, codified RAW dated prior to Nov 18, 2017 ... in the 6e ruleset or existing 6e errata) where PSLs are to be treated the same as CSLs ... or where it says PSLs modify OCV/DCV instead of "a specific type of combat-related penalty". Until then, RAW is RAW and so far as I'm concerned Steve contradicted his own RAW (again) in his recent response on the matter...

[Cantriped]

9 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Note that I will certainly switch camps on the matter if someone can show me (without reaching, but instead via a citation of actual, codified RAW dated prior to Nov 18, 2017 ... in the 6e ruleset or existing 6e errata) where PSLs are to be treated the same as CSLs ... or where it says PSLs modify OCV/DCV instead of "a specific type of combat-related penalty". Until then, RAW is RAW and so far as I'm concerned Steve contradicted his own RAW (again) in his recent response on the matter...

Careful, Steve might just decide to publish another half-baked Errata supporting his position, like he did for the Great "Is Healing Halved" Debate. I thank my dark gods he won't touch CC/FHC with a 3m pole.

 

To be fair, while I (often) don't agree with him, the fact that Steve Long still answers requests for rulings (and generally does a better job at it than the entire Paizo Development Team combined) is a fact worthy of a great deal more respect than I probably give him. It is a fact which I boast about elsewhere in the depths of the internet as a shining example of decency in this industry.

[Surrealone]

I don't mind errata; that happens.  The fact that someone takes time to make errata updates and respond to questions is exactly why I don't mind the occasional contradictions.  (And to be very fair, when considering how many questions as Mr. Long answers -- his self-contradiction rate is VERY low.)

 

What we have to all remember is that Mr. Long is human and, therefore, just as prone to imperfection and fallibility as any of us.  i.e. His rulings are not (despite Hyper-Man's attempt to treat them so earlier in this very thread -- via his shock at questioning a ruling from Mr. Long) beyond scrutiny and/or reproach.  In fact, every ruling should likely be scrutinized precisely because a human made it.  

[Armory]

On 11/17/2017 at 4:44 PM, Cantriped said:

Steve Long is incorrect, and obviously did not review the 6th edition rules carefully enough before replying to that rules question. His entire basis for argument regarding DPSLs is that "maneuver penalties" are not a "condition" and therefore PSLs do not apply to them.  [/quote]

 

This might be heresy when talking about the Hero System, but I don't think it's that deep.  I'm perfectly happy preventing PSLs from being applied to Maneuvers, since that's explicitly RAW, without having to delve into the etymology of the word "condition".

[Hyper-Man]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:06 PM, Hyper-Man said:

I recently added the following to my John Wick Chapter 2 build.

 

10  7) Defensive Attack (Custom Skill) 

[Notes: From APG1 page 38 - Defensive Attack

A character with this optional new Combat Skill has a heightened ability to avoid attacks in combat. He only suffers a -2 DCV when making a Multiple Attack (6E2 73), rather than his DCV being halved. (This includes Multiple Attacks made with the Two-Weapon Fighting Skill.) No roll is required, and all other Multiple Attack penalties and rules apply. Defensive Attack costs 10 Character Points and applies to all forms of Multiple Attack. If a character only wants to be able to use it with Multiple Attacks only featuring HTH attacks, or only featuring Ranged attacks, he can apply a -1 Limitation, HTH Multiple Attacks Only or Ranged Multiple Attacks Only.]

 

HM

 

For those that may have overlooked the original post....

 

This ability from the first Advanced Player’s Guide for 6e should be looked at as the official method to deal with 1/2 DCV penalty for using Multiple Attacks. 

 

The fact that it costs 10 points by default is a pretty good argument against the PSL route as well.

[Cantriped]

Using Defensive Attack is also going to be more cost effective than using PSLs (if your GM allows them) for characters with very high DCVs because it changes the penalty from a relative penalty to a flat penalty. However there being an alternate method available in an optional rules supplement is not a "good" argument against the legality of other methods.