Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Invis, sight and hearing groups.  EDIT:  added Normal Smell too.  Figure it's appropriate.

 

But the SFX is it's a mental power..."don't mind me, I'm really nothing significant, everything's fine, just keep doing what you're doing."  So it wouldn't work against cameras or microphones, and his powers only affect people, so it wouldn't affect animals.

 

So what do people think that limitation would be worth?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With every bit of respect I am capable of offering:

 

Oh, no....    I'm not getting suckered into that one again!    :lol:

 

 

To explain:  some time ago, I participated in a discussion on the same topic and was shouted down as being "too stingy" and "too liberal," and my favorite, "wrong" because if it's the mental command "ignore me!" then it should be mind control, period, and all else was wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

(you may have noticed that I _never_ post builds, _ever_.   It's the history of Bash Behavior from way back when that guarantees I never will.)  I don't expect anything I come up with in response to any question or to my own needs to be perfect, or to even be what someone else is looking for; really I don't.  But I am _not_ going to put work into something just to have it insulted out of hat without any actual discussion as to why.  Yeah, it's not so bad these days as it once was, but still-- lesson learned.  ;)

 

 

Then more recently I screwed up and alluded to a villain I dusted off whose invisibility is the continuous mental command "forget me" and got a few waves of "no; that's not inviso" and "no; you can't do that."  (let's be fair:  it's my game.  I can set the stinking table on fire if I want to, right?  :lol:  )   Lesson remembered.

 

 

So let me offer this:

 

Keep in mind that defining it as a mental command means, as you point out, that it won't work against non-sentient recording instruments, but that it _will_ work equally as well against the character with Damage Reduction: EGO-based attacks and an EGO of 80  as it does against Captain Orange Patriot with his susceptibility to any thought-based power and his raw EGO of 6.

 

In short: there's undeniably some disadvantage in there, but it's accompanied by some considerable advantages as well-- at least in terms of the SFX / description of the power.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

@unclevlad, one question is what about characters that are hybrid animals? Or is this for a game that something like this doesn’t exist? ( I’m assuming a typical Supers game). This would affect the limitation value. Offhand though I’d look at -1 limitation.


    If I were the GM I’d have the hybrid character make a scent perception roll and if I thought it were high enough and it took place in an area without other scents to explain the anomaly (the small locked room where a body was discovered, yes.  Grand Central Station, no.) I’d then have them make a deduction roll.

                                                       ———————————————————————————

   I always loved the designation for this kind of invisibility as a SOP Field.   That stands for Somebody Else’s Problem. 
       Does anybody know where that came from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Invis, sight and hearing groups.  EDIT:  added Normal Smell too.  Figure it's appropriate.

 

But the SFX is it's a mental power..."don't mind me, I'm really nothing significant, everything's fine, just keep doing what you're doing."  So it wouldn't work against cameras or microphones, and his powers only affect people, so it wouldn't affect animals.

 

So what do people think that limitation would be worth?

 

 

 

I'd give you either a -1/4 or -1/2 on this depending on the campaign.

 

If it's going to be low tech and animals are your main problem then -1/4. 

 

In a futuristic setting with AI's and robots, definitely -1/2, maybe more depending on the nature of the most  common opposition.

 

Then we come to modern contemporary settings. Animals will be a very rare issue but surveillance systems can pick you up but this is only an issue if they are being actively manned. i can see some scenarios where this would be an issue but not  enough to be half the time so again -1/2.

 

Don't worry about SFX, any inconsistencies are more than covered by the fact you took a Limitation in the first place and if you hadn't then it would have been my role as GN to give you that -1/4  to cover how you say the power works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tjack said:


    If I were the GM I’d have the hybrid character make a scent perception roll and if I thought it were high enough and it took place in an area without other scents to explain the anomaly (the small locked room where a body was discovered, yes.  Grand Central Station, no.) I’d then have them make a deduction roll.

 

I'm not sure why animals are not affected.  Would an alien race that looks exactly like a housecat but has human sentience be affected?  Would Gorilla Grodd, King Shark or Mr. Talky Tawny be affected?  Would the martians from Mars Attacks, or the aliens from V, or the many alien races of Star Trek, Star Wars or Babylon 5 be affected?

 

Without knowing that, I can't say how a human-animal hybrid would logically be affected either.

 

Can Iron Man's external tele-receptors pick him up and show Iron Man, heads-up display that he is here, or will Tony Stark inside the suit ignore his presence on the screen?  How far away must the viewer be to see him when electronics perceive him?

 

I would want the player to define the breadth of the limitation with examples relevant to the campaign.  That will assist in knowing just how commonly the limitation will matter, which will set its value.

 

42 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Then we come to modern contemporary settings. Animals will be a very rare issue but surveillance systems can pick you up but this is only an issue if they are being actively manned. i can see some scenarios where this would be an issue but not  enough to be half the time so again -1/2.

 

This again depends a lot on the campaign.  If you break into a bank vault and clean it out, having your pictures on the surveillance footage seems a big drawback compared to having the money disappear (as you pick it up and it becomes invisible with you).  Similarly, when someone later checks the security footage of the secret meeting of the Villain Consortium, or takes a photo of the group of conspirators, and your picture is in there, that seems pretty disadvantageous to me, compared to no one ever knowing you were there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the full Sixth Edition rule set (not Champions Complete) defines "classes of mind" that Mental Powers function against. The most common published classes were Human, Alien, Animal, and Machine, although it's allowed to define additional classes, or sub-classes of the above. By default a given Mental Power would work only on one class at a time, but could be expanded for others with Adders.

 

My interpretation as to why those distinctions could exist is that they affect how a particular "mind" functions, how it perceives and processes information, not only physiologically, but also psychologically. Hence an animal brain, bio-mechanically the same as a human's, has a different type of consciousness, memory, imagination etc. as a human. That distinction would apply to animal-like aliens, or human-animal hybrids, if their psychology is essentially human.

 

As far as setting a Limitation value, I still sometimes refer to the "master list of custom Limitations" assembled by our long-absent forum colleague, Tom McCarthy, from a very large number of Fourth Edition published Hero Games books. It often provides good ballpark numbers for a very wide range of Limitations. Based on the examples there, I'd probably peg the Limitation unclevlad describes at -1/2 if "not vs cameras/microphones" includes things like security monitors, automated defenses, and robots; otherwise -1/4. (Heck, I might as well attach the list to this post for anyone who doesn't have it and might find it useful.)

 

BTW Duke Bushido, I'm surprised and disheartened you received so much blowback from your suggestion. It's long been a credo of Hero Gamers that there's almost never one "correct" way to do anything in Hero System. I've seen Invisibility defined as a Mental Power with the SFX of, "don't notice me," in published Hero Games books, and have allowed its use and even used it myself in my games without qualms.

TML.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than invisibility, wouldn't a low grade mental illusion work almost as well.  Something like:

 

43 pts Mental Illusions 6d6 (Human class of minds), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (32m Radius; +1) (75 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Stops Working If Mentalist Is Knocked Out (-1/4)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dsatow said:

Rather than invisibility, wouldn't a low grade mental illusion work almost as well.  Something like:

 

43 pts Mental Illusions 6d6 (Human class of minds), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (32m Radius; +1) (75 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Stops Working If Mentalist Is Knocked Out (-1/4)

 

 

 

 

 

It woukd certainly work, but then youve opened up to the problems of ECV /EGO.  Mentalists with very high scores here woukd be immune, as woukd any one with EGO Defense.  Sure; that makes sense, of course, but going that route doesn't alow for those concepts where a character has this one simple shtick that is, for whatever reason, God-like in its effectiveness, working against everyone more or less the same way regardless of power level.

 

 

Hugh:

 

It was a long time ago.  The board was much more active (back aroubd the time I snagged my quote from Ghost Angel).  We hadnt really settled into the core group of diehard holdouts throat we have today.   Generally, there was a lot more dickishness going on.  I say more, because we still get those folks who wander in, drop a few insults, and leave again, but even those folks get bored and stay away for months at a time.

 

Still, I learned not to bother posting builds.  I help toss out ideas when I can, but as you say: no one true build, so ultimately, no one is loosing out when I dont post one. Right?

 

Arguments themselves, handled civilly, are fine.  In fact, you yourself are quite possibly my favorite sparring partner simply bevcause you focus on the discussion and nit the pedantry or the disagreement.  You give as you receive, but I have never seen you instigate.  I love that, and wish it was more common.  I have no idea where you are, but I have always suspected Canada, just because you can disagree without personal affront.   :lol:

 

there are still endless can't-walk-away-until-OP-admits-I'm-right type stuff here, even today (remember the one-armed fantasy character thread?), but they are few and far between, and even then, much more civil than they used to be.

 

Still: fool me seven or eight times, shame on you.  Fool me another seven or eight, and even I can learn a new truck.   HA!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a mental command of "you don't see me" can work as Mental Illusions, Set Effect. In fact, it is in ok cause powerful mentalist will not be fooled by it but mundane people will be.

 

Another form of "Mental Invisibility" is being invisible only to mental senses. Sure you can see him, target him with a gun, etc. But trying a mental power on him will be close to impossible unless it has an area of effect. "His mind is cloaked" usually is the explanation. Of course using mental powers on the villain is not 'impossible', but the character will be firing blind at the character. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

To explain:  some time ago, I participated in a discussion on the same topic and was shouted down as being "too stingy" and "too liberal," and my favorite, "wrong" because if it's the mental command "ignore me!" then it should be mind control, period, and all else was wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

Yep, been there or at least similar. 

I actually took a couple year off from the boards.  I came back because there are some people I enjoy having discussions with and I had discovered the ignore function.  8 ignores and my entire experience has returned to great :winkgrin:

 

But I have noticed that Hero builds have changed in peoples minds.   The power names were always just tags for a game effect because you had to name them something.  But it has drifted from "determine SFX and end effect that you want to achieve and then use the best game mechanic to build it" to "The power is named X and by golly gee gumbo that is all it can do!!!".  Kind of a reverse where effects and intent is added after picking a mechanic rather than the other way.  And a lot of posters have become pretty vicious about being the one and only truth.  

 

For me, I just browse these days and make an occasional comment when something catches my eye.

I do miss the old boards sometimes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but invisibility is a power with at least 3 separate groups:  bending light, being transparent, or simply being unnoticed.  The latter could be done with a Mind Control, but that power's structured poorly to achieve that result.    Or maybe Mental Images, but "important objects vanish if present" is a Major, so that's Ego +10.  That is another candidate, tho, if I don't like the final build doing it this way.

 

But...Invis as the basis lets you hand wave a lot mote...it basically works, you don't make rolls.  Mental Illusions has mental attack rolls.  Ehhh......  

 

Hmm.  For something like this, part of the implicit definition is that Mental Def should help.  So...something like having Mental Def allows the possessor to make an EGO roll to ignore the effect.  Every 5 points of MenD adds 1 to the target for the roll.  OH, and I *would* say this Mental Invis counts as a mental power for Mental Awareness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a neat thought, Sir.  If you run with it on the inviso base, that could (if you actually want high EGO and EGO Defense to work against the build, you can tack in a custom Limitation that says so.

 

Spence:

 

In regards to the whole "the power is called this, so it must be used for this" thing:

 

We have added new powers, removed old powers, mangkedoowers to dold them into other powers.  Qe have broken the connevtions between characteristics, we have mad CV directly purchaseable, we have replace a characteristic with a die roll and renamed things for thin reasons.  

 

Qe have added skulls and advantages and stunts that we wwere already able to build bevause some people are more willing to interpret broadly than are others and some people are more intuitive than others.

 

But the only cjange I ever thought might be helpful was replacing the names of the "powers" with numbers;

 

Mechanic 1

Mechanic 2

 

Or defensive mechanic 1. Defensive mechanic 2, offwnsive mecjanic 9-   something to actually help people break that connection between ,I"if I want to do x, then I have to use rhe power called 'do x', no matter how poorly it suits the exacr efdect I'm after.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Hugh:

 

It was a long time ago.  The board was much more active (back aroubd the time I snagged my quote from Ghost Angel).  We hadnt really settled into the core group of diehard holdouts throat we have today.   Generally, there was a lot more dickishness going on.  I say more, because we still get those folks who wander in, drop a few insults, and leave again, but even those folks get bored and stay away for months at a time.

 

Still, I learned not to bother posting builds.  I help toss out ideas when I can, but as you say: no one true build, so ultimately, no one is loosing out when I dont post one. Right?

 

We may be missing the build which would best suit the OP, which is why we ask "how would you build" questions.

 

Don't like my approach?  That's fine.  Everyone is entitled to have opinions, even if their opinions are clearly dead wrong :)

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Arguments themselves, handled civilly, are fine.  In fact, you yourself are quite possibly my favorite sparring partner simply bevcause you focus on the discussion and nit the pedantry or the disagreement.  You give as you receive, but I have never seen you instigate.  I love that, and wish it was more common.  I have no idea where you are, but I have always suspected Canada, just because you can disagree without personal affront.   :lol:

 

there are still endless can't-walk-away-until-OP-admits-I'm-right type stuff here, even today (remember the one-armed fantasy character thread?), but they are few and far between, and even then, much more civil than they used to be.

 

No prizes for guessing when it's posted on my profile.

 

I agree the Boards are a better place when we can disagree civilly.  Some conversations on the Boards have helped me think through issues, and even changed my mind on things. 

 

As to the one-armed character discussion, I'll repeat:  Everyone is entitled to have opinions, even if their opinions are clearly dead wrong :)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

something to actually help people break that connection between ,I"if I want to do x, then I have to use rhe power called 'do x', no matter how poorly it suits the exacr efdect I'm after.

 

Absolutely.  Though I am surprised that when they gutted so much to make 6th Ed have everything function separate they didn't jump on removing all the flavor text and just calling it Power Effect 1, Power Effect 2 and so on.  That actually fits the 6th Ed vibe.  

 

PS I play 5th or 4th ed and even though I have the 6th ed hardcopies it just never felt right for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Don't like my approach?  That's fine.  Everyone is entitled to have opinions, even if their opinions are clearly dead wrong :)

 

:rofl::rofl:

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

No prizes for guessing when it's posted on my profile.

 

 

 

 

To be honest, I only just now looked to see that it's filled in under your little green H avatar.

 

And I think I've been to the profiles of maybe four people the entire time I've been on this board.  :)  It's just not something that has ever struck me as necessary; what can I say?

Quote

 

 Some conversations on the Boards have helped me think through issues, and even changed my mind on things.

 

I'm sorry; I'm going to need you to repeat that.  I seem to have something incredulous stuck in my eye.....

 

 

:rofl:

 

 

It's not the matter of "I don't like what you are doing."  That doesn't bother me in the least.  Frankly, I have never-- and I mean _never_ done a single thing on this board to be agreed with, approved of, or offered accolades of any kind. Truth be told, I actually do not respond well to praise to begin with (yeah, I don't understand it, either, but I've never been comfortable with it).  If I offer something, it's because I want to offer it; I want to contribute something that I think may, in some way, be helpful.  I don't want agreement; I want to help.  Further, I already know that most of what I do isn't going to appeal to folks on this board because no matter what I do for a build, I _start_ every single build at 2e, crawling forward only when I absolutely have to, and stopping no further forward than it takes to get the results I want.  Weirdly, since Inherent made it into 5e, I've been using 5e for like twenty years now....  :rofl:   Since I haven't wanted to play with Damage Reduction, I haven't used anything specifically 6e as of yet.

 

Now, all that being said, I _promise_ you that my problem is _not_ "someone didn't like it" or "someone disagreed with it."  It went well beyond that-- well beyond the build at all, and tended to culminate in ad hominems and general disdain for my "obvious lack of knowledge about this game."   As Z pointed out to me some months ago, I've been playing this game since before it was published (Scott helped me figure out how that was possible.  Short version:  anyone who has seen my profile (which, based on my own example, is probably very few people) may recall my comment about being a fan "since my first mimeograph of 1e."  Well it turns out that said mimie wasn't 1e, but a playtest copy.  Jim (the guy who introduced me to the game) was most likely in a playtest group (Scott gave me a name of one particular test GM who was known for passing out copies of the rules), and when he moved here, he brought it with him and kept playing.

 

I will never claim to be an expert on anything;

 

("ex": former, retired or removed, no longer possessing the properties or characteristics of.   "Spurt":  A small amount of fluid expelled forcefully.  "Expert:"  A has-been drip under pressure)

 

but familiarity with this game?   Yeah.  I've got at least as much as anyone else.  ;)   But the ad hominems-- too stupid to address.  I quit posting builds.  

 

Even when I did post them, they were given freely, knowing full-well that they were likely to be "not what I'm looking for" because of my design ethics.  I didn't expect them to be anything at all.  I offered them as nothing more than something to get the gears turning.

 

But enough of this; I don't want to derail this thread any further than I already have  (Sincere apologies, Vlad.   :(  )

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh...I'm good.  I think I like defining it as Invis with a "Mental Power" limitation, which means the whole Class Of Minds matters, no cameras/mics/sensors unless you throw in the Machine class of minds of course, Mental Awareness senses it, and define how Mental Def helps.  High EGO should NOT help if that's all you have, IMO.

 

I prefer the fact that many things were decoupled in 6E, especially eliminating all the figured characteristics.  STR is the #1 problem;  the cost between 5E and 6E is the same but 5E gave about 1.85 points' worth of improvements for each point spent on STR.  (0.2 PD, 0.2 REC, 0.5 STUN -> 0.25 points, 0.2 Leap).  Dex is cost-neutral between the editions IF you always buy SPD up...but cost more than it was worth in 5E if you didn't.  That's a bad coupling.  CON was largely a wash;  5E CON gives, IIRC, 1.05 points' worth of benefit.  Negligible.  BODY was neutral, but only because STUN was priced VERY high.  That's also true for REC in 5E...fairly expensive.  So if you wanted someone without gaudy physical stats, you were gonna *pay* to actually have any kind of staying power.  The cost structure should generally not do that...at least in that way.

 

The other coupling I dislike in 5E is with VPPs;  I love both 40 Real/60 Control Cost VPPs (everything is gonna take a half limit, or perhaps it's the "easy stuff is easy, the bigger powers can be tricky" sort of thing) and the 120 Active/60 Control Cost where the character can maintain multiple max-effect powers.at once.

 

I like normalizing some things too;  I don't need Force Field AND Armor AND Resistant Defenses.  FF is just Armor, Costs END;  Resistant Defenses doesn't need to be a standalone power, and most of the time, you just buy Resistant Defenses in 6E.  5E Regen is awkward....altho 6E Regen is priced nonsensically. IMO.  

 

But overall 6E is closer to showing the naked, underlying concepts to build with, rather than a collection of concepts and packages that don't make a lot of sense sometimes.  That's my preference...but then again, that's also my fundamental way of thinking.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

It's not the matter of "I don't like what you are doing."  That doesn't bother me in the least.  Frankly, I have never-- and I mean _never_ done a single thing on this board to be agreed with, approved of, or offered accolades of any kind. Truth be told, I actually do not respond well to praise to begin with (yeah, I don't understand it, either, but I've never been comfortable with it).  If I offer something, it's because I want to offer it; I want to contribute something that I think may, in some way, be helpful.  I don't want agreement; I want to help.  Further, I already know that most of what I do isn't going to appeal to folks on this board because no matter what I do for a build, I _start_ every single build at 2e

 

Now, all that being said, I _promise_ you that my problem is [EDIT:  not that] "someone didn't like it" or "someone disagreed with it."  It went well beyond that-- well beyond the build at all, and tended to culminate in ad hominems and general disdain for my "obvious lack of knowledge about this game."

The problem starts when we confuse “This is how I might approach it”, or even “This is how I would approach it, notwithstanding the official rules are different” with “Mine is the One True Way of Playing and all who speak differently are Gaming Heretics”.  I’ve seen the latter as well.

As for 2e, the game started building these things with 1/2e rules (which were not all that different), and a lot has not changed.  Some things have, of course, but the fundamentals are largely intact.

 

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I prefer the fact that many things were decoupled in 6E, especially eliminating all the figured characteristics.  STR is the #1 problem;  the cost between 5E and 6E is the same but 5E gave about 1.85 points' worth of improvements for each point spent on STR.  (0.2 PD, 0.2 REC, 0.5 STUN -> 0.25 points, 0.2 Leap).  Dex is cost-neutral between the editions IF you always buy SPD up...but cost more than it was worth in 5E if you didn't.  That's a bad coupling.  CON was largely a wash;  5E CON gives, IIRC, 1.05 points' worth of benefit.  Negligible.  BODY was neutral, but only because STUN was priced VERY high.  That's also true for REC in 5E...fairly expensive.  So if you wanted someone without gaudy physical stats, you were gonna *pay* to actually have any kind of staying power.  The cost structure should generally not do that...at least in that way.

 

The other coupling I dislike in 5E is with VPPs;  I love both 40 Real/60 Control Cost VPPs (everything is gonna take a half limit, or perhaps it's the "easy stuff is easy, the bigger powers can be tricky" sort of thing) and the 120 Active/60 Control Cost where the character can maintain multiple max-effect powers.at once.

 

I like normalizing some things too;  I don't need Force Field AND Armor AND Resistant Defenses.  FF is just Armor, Costs END;  Resistant Defenses doesn't need to be a standalone power, and most of the time, you just buy Resistant Defenses in 6E.  5E Regen is awkward....altho 6E Regen is priced nonsensically. IMO.  

 

But overall 6E is closer to showing the naked, underlying concepts to build with, rather than a collection of concepts and packages that don't make a lot of sense sometimes.  That's my preference...but then again, that's also my fundamental way of thinking.

 

At the risk of further derailing your thread...

I agree that there were two issues tied together for Figured, overpricing of many Figured Chars if purchased directly and the result that certain Primary stats were bargain purchases.  The laughable “No Figured” limitation of -1/2 highlighted the issue.

  At one point in the SETAC discussions, I think Steve noted he could have repriced the Primaries, and “No Figured” limitations to keep the relation with Figureds, but why bother once we had fair pricing?  I'll leave my lengthy thoughts on characteristics at the end.

 

Agree 100% on the new VPP.  It finally makes sense for Hawkeye and Green Arrow - they can buy 60 AP but only 30 Real Points, so they OAF one arrow at a time.

Also on defenses.  That was an evolution - back in 1e, you paid 15 points for half your PD and ED to work against KA BOD and 30 points for all of it.  Or you bought a Force Field for 1 point per +1 rDEF.  Or Armor for +3 rDEF for 5 points.  As the editions progressed, those costs were rationalized to where we are now - Resistant is simply a +1/2 advantage on defenses.

Pricing Regen is tricky.  In some games, it's trivial.  But if the goal is a D&D style gradual attrition over many combats, it's a lot more valuable (as is all healing).  But then we see D&D moving back to easy access to full healing between combats.  So it becomes a question of the type of game we want.  Most games can set that dial, but Hero is supposed to be more flexible.

 

Back to Characteristics - a lot of detail so enter at own risk.

The old formuli were pretty easy. 

1 BOD also gave 1 STUN.  That was not such a big deal, except for the clear stupidity of BOD, no Figured.

STR provided PD (1/5), REC (1/2), STUN (1/2) and +1” Leaping (+1), so +10 STR meant +2 PD (2 CP), +2 REC (4 CP), +5 STUN (5 CP)  and +2” Leaping (+2), so in addition to lifting and HTH damage, you got 13 points of other benefits for 10 CP.  Why would I ever take STR, No Figured at -1/2 (and why did I compound the issue taking Hand Attack and losing other benefits for the same -1/2?).

CON provided ED (1/5), REC (1/2), STUN (1/2) and END (2:1), so +10 CON meant +2 ED (2 CP), +2 REC (4 CP), +5 STUN (5 CP)  and +20 END (10 CP), for a total of 21 CP, plus the benefits of resisting being Stunned.  Lose all those Figured for -1/2)  Fat chance.

DEX was the sleeper.  It sort of looked right – buy +15 DEX and get 15 points worth of SPD.  No Figured worked OK.  But you also got +5 to DEX rolls, OCV and DCV and +15 Lightning Reflexes.  Try simulating those with Skill Levels.  The closest we had was +1 DCV as a skill level, for 5 points.  Extrapolate +1 OCV for the same 5 points (that’s what 6e did) and now we have +15 DEX granting +3 to all DEX rolls (a 5 point skill level only applied to one skill at a time, so that’s at least 15 CP), +1.5 SPD (15 CP), +5 OCV (25 CP), +25 DCV (25 CP) and +15 Lightning Reflexes (15 CP) for a total of 95(!) CP – without having to assign skill levels.  All for 45 points.  Or buy it No Figured and get 80 CP of abilities for the price of 30 CP.

Move to 6e.  Want Figured back?  OK:

Change the price of BOD to 2 points and it gives 2 STUN.  No Figured becomes a -1 limitation.

+10 STR provides +2 PD (2 CP), +2 REC (2 CP), +10 STUN (5 CP) and +4m Leaping (2 CP), so 11 CP plus 10 CP for STR.  Make STR 2 points, and No Figured -1.  There’s a bit of a discount, or a premium if you don’t Leap, but pretty close.

+10 CON provides +2 ED (2 CP), +2 REC (2 CP), +10 STUN (5 CP) and +20 END (4 CP), so a total of 29 CP.  +2 CON rolls can be the other 1 CP and we re-price CON at 3, or No Figured gets you a -2 limitation.

But DEX?  95 CP for +15 DEX prices it over 6 points (it was only 3 before!).  I would leave SPD, OCV and DCV decoupled.  No more “Olympic Gymnasts are all skilled combatants”.

Then we get into where 6e fumbled the ball, IMO.  For +20 points of DEX, I get +2 to all DEX rolls at once, and +10 Lightning Reflexes.  I could only get +2 to a single skill roll for 10 points plus the 10 points of Lightning Reflexes, but at least it is close.

But INT and PRE are too cheap at 1 point each.  They give the same skill bonus, plus PER (from INT) or PRE attacks and defense (from PRE)).  My solution:

INT and PRE also cost 2 points each.  +1 with all DEX/INT/PRE rolls costs 5 points.  +1d6 PRE attack/+1 with all PER rolls/+5 Lightning Reflexes for all purposes costs 5 points.

+1 with only one roll based on that stat at a time should be reduced to 3 points.  +1 with only one roll (including +1 to a single skill) drops to 1 point.  You can have +1 to all rolls in a tight group for 4 points, and +1 to any one roll at a time in a tight group for 2 points.

Wait, where did PRE DEF go?  Well, that becomes the exclusive domain of EGO, which stays 1 point.  PRE DEF gets priced at half a point.  The rest of EGO (EGO rolls and resistance to mental powers) is the other half.  

STR is also still a pain when we look at Hand Attack and Martial Arts DCs.  An MA DC is +5 STR, only for combat effects for a group of HTH attacks (whether MA or non-MA), 0 END.  5 x 1.5 = 7.5, so that’s about a -3/4 limitation to get down to 4 points.  Just losing Lifting would normally be -1/4 (so 4 points).  Only MA or non-MA seems reasonably priced at either a further -1/4, or -1/2.  If we keep -1/2, an MA DC is a bit more pricy, but shorthanding it to 4 points seems OK.  But I think most Martial Artists rarely use STR for non-MA purposes, so -1/4 feels more appropriate and an MA DC becomes -1/2 = 5 points.

 

Now, what about “direct damage only”, which is a Hand Attack?  That has to be less pricy, right?  Maybe another -1/2, which would make the limitation -1 and Hand Attack costs 2.5 points per +1d6.

However, that still leaves things like Deadly Blow and Weaponmaster.  Maybe we need a concept of "DC adders".  Deadly Blow and Weaponmaster suggest that "only to increase damage" is a -1/2 limitation on a skill level.  I think it is higher - OCV and DCV are worth at least half of the value of a skill level.  So, if we started with the premise that +1 DC for any one attack at a time is 10 points (2 skill levels with All Combat, damage only (-1)), we could move to HTH only (either a -1/2 limitation, so 20/2.5 = 8 or 2 8 point skill levels only to add damage = 8).

 

Working down from there, maybe "only for martial maneuvers" or "only for non-martial maneuvers" are -1/2 limitations (tacked on to HTH only).  That drops me down to 20/3 = 6.67 per +1 DC with all martial arts maneuvers, or all non-martial maneuvers.  I'm also at 8 for all ranged maneuvers, or 6 2/3 if they can only be with martial or non-martial maneuvers. 

 

These cost no END.  Since the base at +1 DC costs 10 points, they should cost 1 END, so STR bundles these in at half END (+2 DC at 20/3.25, still over 6 points).  The math is pushing to the conclusion that STR is also underpriced, isn't it?  It does not feel like a full 2 points, though - STR with no damage a -2 limitation, and STR that only enhances damage at -1/2?  Maybe 2 points is not out of the realm of possibility.  Break our mindset of Active Points and let the Brick spend 100 points on +50 STR and we'd be OK.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,Hugh:

 

I am sure you picked up on it, but within your first quote you managed to capture a typo:

 

It should read "my problem is _NOT_ that someone didn't like it.  The word "not" appears to _not_ be in the original line.

 

 

Well, that's gonna skew everything else.....   I'm-a- gonna run up-thread and fix that.....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...