Skill Levels

[Sean Waters]

It was mentioned in another thread that the cost of skill levels might benefit from a bit of analysis, so let’s do that, starting with Combat Skill Levels.

 

+1 OCV costs 5 points but you can get a skill level that gives you +1 OCV for 2 points.  Sure, it is limited to a single attack but if your character is MegaBlast whose only offensive power is his MegaBlast, that is a bargain: you’re probably never going to use your OCV for anything else.

 

We can pretty much guarantee that is someone is buying 2-point levels they are only planning to use a single attack most of the time and, in a game with hit Locations, are going for Head Shots all the time.  Also, you can’t put limitations on those.

 

Executive decision: let’s get rid of them.

 

You can build a skill level with all combat as a MP with three slots: +1 DC (fixed slot, which has a base cost of 5, with 0 END) and +2 OCV (variable slot, can't be adjusted) and +2 DCV(variable slot, can't be adjusted), which comes to 17 points (because rounding) if 'can't be adjusted' is + 1/4, same as Inherent.

 

That would make a single skill level with all combat worth 8 points, with rounding, but if you double everything to even out the rounding, it comes to 36 points, which makes a single skill level worth 9 points.

 

Let’s go with 9 points, shall we?  An all combat skill level currently costs 10 points.  Bargain.  Also feels right - you could have +1 OCV and +1 DCV and +5 STR for 15 points and Lockout is -1/2 and that's a little bit more useful than a level in All Combat.

 

So how much should we discount that if it is just Ranged or HtH?  Well, one argument is that about half the attacks are Ranged and half HtH so -1, right?  No, not that.  Whilst the half and half might be true it is almost never true for a single characters: if you mainly brawl, the fact you can’t use your level to shoot someone hardly matters.  It’s somewhere between -¼ and -½ and I’m feeling stingy.  That means a level with HtH or Ranged would be 7 points (6 if you go with -½).

 

We should also compare that with +1 OCV or +1 DCV.  It’s not as straightforward as you might think.  OCV and DCV are adjustable, which means they can be boosted, although so what: you’re always going to have at least 1 OCV and DCV, so they can be boosted anyway but also can’t be drained, which I pegged above as the same as Inherent i.e. +¼  which would make a level worth more than OCV and DCV.  Sure levels are technically Nonpersistent but that really does not matter with OCV almost ever and DCV is only sort of half Persistent – if you are surprised you only get half DCV anyway, which is why I say it is only half Persistent.  If you know that you’re about to be in a fight persistence is not relevant.

 

Point is that a level that can be used for just OCV or DCV should cost 6 points, so it seems fair that a  level that can apply to half (roughly) of the tings you can do with it should cost 6 points minimum and, given the added utility of being able to allocate levels and do more damage, it should cost more.  Back to 7 points for All HtH or All Ranged.  Cool.

 

OK, what about a small group of attacks?  The argument that the character is only going to buy levels with things they actually need again applies: these are attacks you’ll be using more than half the time, so the discount can’t be as much as -1, which would make a Small Group level cost 4 points, so it has to be more than that.

 

So –½ to –¾, which would be 6 points or 5 points.  I’m going to make another executive decision and say 5 points for –¾ purely because we want to differentiate a bit more from the large group.

 

So, an overall combat skill level should cost 9 points, a large group 7 points and a small group 5 points.

 

We are not going to have levels with individual manoeuvres because no one learns just how to throw a punch and nothing else about fighting, and whilst you could say that the same doesn't apply to guns, if all you've ever done is stand at a range in Isosceles Stance and shoot paper targets any levels you might have are going to be useless when people start shooting back.

 

If you want a scope on your sniper rifle it is a 5 point level with Rifles and  OAF for -1, which makes it cost 2 points (or a bit more if you buy multiple levels: 2.5 points per level for 2 levels and 2.33 points per level for 3, because rounding).  If all you’re doing is offsetting range penalties which is what a scope does, really, you can make it even cheaper.  You can't have 'only to offset hit location penalties', ever, because that is metagaming.

 

I have not gone near noncombat Skill Levels, yet, and we will need to talk about the Overall Skill Level at some point.

 

Thoughts?

 

[Grailknight]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

It was mentioned in another thread that the cost of skill levels might benefit from a bit of analysis, so let’s do that, starting with Combat Skill Levels.

 

+1 OCV costs 5 points but you can get a skill level that gives you +1 OCV for 2 points.  Sure, it is limited to a single attack but if your character is MegaBlast whose only offensive power is his MegaBlast, that is a bargain: you’re probably never going to use your OCV for anything else.

 

We can pretty much guarantee that is someone is buying 2-point levels they are only planning to use a single attack most of the time and, in a game with hit Locations, are going for Head Shots all the time.  Also, you can’t put limitations on those.

 

Executive decision: let’s get rid of them.

 

 I can agree to this as I already do this if running a super heroic campaign. In a heroic setting, I'll allow them but for CV only. No Hit Locations or adding DC's. This still leaves 3-point levels as something to be addressed.

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

You can build a skill level with all combat as a MP with three slots: +1 DC (fixed slot, which has a base cost of 5, with 0 END) and +2 OCV (variable slot, can't be adjusted) and +2 DCV(variable slot, can't be adjusted), which comes to 17 points (because rounding) if 'can't be adjusted' is + 1/4, same as Inherent.

 

That would make a single skill level with all combat worth 8 points, with rounding, but if you double everything to even out the rounding, it comes to 36 points, which makes a single skill level worth 9 points.

 

Let’s go with 9 points, shall we?  An all combat skill level currently costs 10 points.  Bargain.  Also feels right - you could have +1 OCV and +1 DCV and +5 STR for 15 points and Lockout is -1/2 and that's a little bit more useful than a level in All Combat.

 

I can see how you built it, but making Skills into Powers does not make them Persistent automatically. In order to be nonadjustable, you'd also have to add Persistent in addition to Inherent. That would raise the Reserve to 17 pints and the slots to 4, 2 and 2 for a total of 25. Making each level 12.5 points which we'll round down to 12. Yes, if you make this the RAW for skills, they'd then be nonadjustable but how they're initially constructed versus powers is what we're looking at here.

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

So how much should we discount that if it is just Ranged or HtH?  Well, one argument is that about half the attacks are Ranged and half HtH so -1, right?  No, not that.  Whilst the half and half might be true it is almost never true for a single characters: if you mainly brawl, the fact you can’t use your level to shoot someone hardly matters.  It’s somewhere between -¼ and -½ and I’m feeling stingy.  That means a level with HtH or Ranged would be 7 points (6 if you go with -½).

 

Since we're already at 12 points for all combat, let's go with -1/2 and get 8 points.

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

We should also compare that with +1 OCV or +1 DCV.  It’s not as straightforward as you might think.  OCV and DCV are adjustable, which means they can be boosted, although so what: you’re always going to have at least 1 OCV and DCV, so they can be boosted anyway but also can’t be drained, which I pegged above as the same as Inherent i.e. +¼  which would make a level worth more than OCV and DCV.  Sure levels are technically Nonpersistent but that really does not matter with OCV almost ever and DCV is only sort of half Persistent – if you are surprised you only get half DCV anyway, which is why I say it is only half Persistent.  If you know that you’re about to be in a fight persistence is not relevant.

 

Point is that a level that can be used for just OCV or DCV should cost 6 points, so it seems fair that a  level that can apply to half (roughly) of the tings you can do with it should cost 6 points minimum and, given the added utility of being able to allocate levels and do more damage, it should cost more.  Back to 7 points for All HtH or All Ranged.  Cool.

 

I can follow this, but I come up with 8 points.

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

OK, what about a small group of attacks?  The argument that the character is only going to buy levels with things they actually need again applies: these are attacks you’ll be using more than half the time, so the discount can’t be as much as -1, which would make a Small Group level cost 4 points, so it has to be more than that.

 

So –½ to –¾, which would be 6 points or 5 points.  I’m going to make another executive decision and say 5 points for –¾ purely because we want to differentiate a bit more from the large group.

 

So, an overall combat skill level should cost 9 points, a large group 7 points and a small group 5 points.

 

I don't see the need to make a distinction between large and small groups. Especially when I've seen the same value used for Multipowers and VPP's throughout all the published examples. Let's just go with 5 points here.

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

We are not going to have levels with individual manoeuvres because no one learns just how to throw a punch and nothing else about fighting, and whilst you could say that the same doesn't apply to guns, if all you've ever done is stand at a range in Isosceles Stance and shoot paper targets any levels you might have are going to be useless when people start shooting back.

 

I've got to disagree here. A character with basic knowledge but one special skill is a common trope across genres. And it definitely applies to guns. That practice may be less useful in a firefight, but you still know how shoot better than someone with just a familiarity and definitely comes into play if you have cover or even just initiative. 3 points is fine as long as these levels can't be applied to hit location.

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

If you want a scope on your sniper rifle it is a 5 point level with Rifles and  OAF for -1, which makes it cost 2 points (or a bit more if you buy multiple levels: 2.5 points per level for 2 levels and 2.33 points per level for 3, because rounding).  If all you’re doing is offsetting range penalties which is what a scope does, really, you can make it even cheaper.  You can't have 'only to offset hit location penalties', ever, because that is metagaming.

 

I have not gone near noncombat Skill Levels, yet, and we will need to talk about the Overall Skill Level at some point.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Agreed. Range is great offense and defense on its own merits. Hit Location bonuses should really be restricted to all Melee/Ranged combat levels or above.

 

There are some issues with this though. An all-noncombat skill level should probably cost less than all-combat now. I'd probably go with 10 points there and 15 for an Overall Level.

[Sean Waters]

8 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

I can see how you built it, but making Skills into Powers does not make them Persistent automatically. In order to be nonadjustable, you'd also have to add Persistent in addition to Inherent. That would raise the Reserve to 17 pints and the slots to 4, 2 and 2 for a total of 25. Making each level 12.5 points which we'll round down to 12. Yes, if you make this the RAW for skills, they'd then be nonadjustable but how they're initially constructed versus powers is what we're looking at here.

 

 

The thing is that the system does not really fit here: Skill levels are non-persistent by default and, if we made them persistent first we would be making them something they are not.  Inherent is meant for stuff like someone made of metal who is 'naturally' dense but the principal is just that you can't positively or negatively adjust the power - you can't make them more or less metal*.  I don't really understand why something has to be Persistent to benefit from Inherent.  Inherent is listed under Duration Advantages, but it isn't really: it could really apply to anything that can't be adjusted, which levels can't.  I can't believe I'm saying this but all that stuff about Persistent and Always on is just unnecessary rules-mongering.

 

I quite like Inherent being applicable to anything without any pre-requisites involved: your character is the goddess of Strength, so her Strength in Inherent - you can't take it away - it is what she is - but you also can not artificially boost it.  For a lot of things you are probably just better off buying Power Defence, but it is nice to have the option.

 

Anyway, for that reason I would argue that you should be able to apply Inherent even to Instant powers, if you want or, if that sticks in the craw, call it 'Can not Be Adjusted +1/4' and jobs a goodun.

 

On the cost point, I do feel 12 is too high for an all-combat level given that you can buy +1 OCV and +1 DCV and +1d6 HtH Attack at 0 END for 15 points which is much, much better.  I'm using the power builds as a basis for calculating costs, but I don't think you can precisely emulate combat Skills with a power build in the RAW.  My aim is to get a reasonable and appropriate cost structure using power builds as guidelines but not rail tracks.

 

* which leads me to wonder whether the Strength/PD/ED/KBR that comes with Density Increase is also Inherent if the DI is. It probably should be.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

It was mentioned in another thread that the cost of skill levels might benefit from a bit of analysis, so let’s do that, starting with Combat Skill Levels.

 

+1 OCV costs 5 points but you can get a skill level that gives you +1 OCV for 2 points.  Sure, it is limited to a single attack but if your character is MegaBlast whose only offensive power is his MegaBlast, that is a bargain: you’re probably never going to use your OCV for anything else.

 

We can pretty much guarantee that is someone is buying 2-point levels they are only planning to use a single attack most of the time and, in a game with hit Locations, are going for Head Shots all the time.  Also, you can’t put limitations on those.

 

Executive decision: let’s get rid of them.

 

Until you are placed in a scenario where your MegaBlast is suppressed and you need to manage with conventional weapons or hand to hand.  A -1 1/2 limitation on OCV for "one attack only" does not seem any more bargain-priced than many other limitations.  If any character has massive OCV, a head shot seems logical anyway.

 

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

You can build a skill level with all combat as a MP with three slots: +1 DC (fixed slot, which has a base cost of 5, with 0 END) and +2 OCV (variable slot, can't be adjusted) and +2 DCV(variable slot, can't be adjusted), which comes to 17 points (because rounding) if 'can't be adjusted' is + 1/4, same as Inherent.

 

That would make a single skill level with all combat worth 8 points, with rounding, but if you double everything to even out the rounding, it comes to 36 points, which makes a single skill level worth 9 points.

 

Let’s go with 9 points, shall we?  An all combat skill level currently costs 10 points.  Bargain.  Also feels right - you could have +1 OCV and +1 DCV and +5 STR for 15 points and Lockout is -1/2 and that's a little bit more useful than a level in All Combat.

 

What is the real value of that "inherent"?  It really doesn't come into play that often. The real challenge is pricing that floating 0 END damage class.  How many slots would you need to cover all possible attack types?  Here the character with only one attack doesn't get the full benefit - why isn't that as significant an issue as their not using OCV for much else?

 

I'd expect to get full use of the levels if they cost 9 points.  Often, the CV max and the DC max in the campaign is "including skill levels".  If I have to choose between a 10 OCV, 10 DCV and 12 DC attack (setting these as "campaign max") or 8 OCV, 8 DCV and 11 DC attack, plus two skill levels for 18 points, I think I'd rather buy +1 OCV, +1 DCV and +1 DC for 15 points and save up 7 XP to get to campaign maximum.

 

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

So how much should we discount that if it is just Ranged or HtH?  Well, one argument is that about half the attacks are Ranged and half HtH so -1, right?  No, not that.  Whilst the half and half might be true it is almost never true for a single characters: if you mainly brawl, the fact you can’t use your level to shoot someone hardly matters.  It’s somewhere between -¼ and -½ and I’m feeling stingy.  That means a level with HtH or Ranged would be 7 points (6 if you go with -½).

 

-1/2 seems reasonable. 5 points has never felt "wrong" for these levels, but I rarely saw them used to add damage, so if that will be a common use (not getting a glare or refusal for exceeding the campaign max DC), 6 would not be unfair.

 

For 14 points, I could have a Multipower (10 pool) of +2 OCV (2 slot) and +2 DCV (2 slot). That would not be restricted to HTH or Range only, although I could not add to damage.  If "only HTH" or "only range" is -1/2, I'm down to about 10 points, so a 5 point skill level.

 

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

We should also compare that with +1 OCV or +1 DCV.  It’s not as straightforward as you might think.  OCV and DCV are adjustable, which means they can be boosted, although so what: you’re always going to have at least 1 OCV and DCV, so they can be boosted anyway but also can’t be drained, which I pegged above as the same as Inherent i.e. +¼  which would make a level worth more than OCV and DCV.  Sure levels are technically Nonpersistent but that really does not matter with OCV almost ever and DCV is only sort of half Persistent – if you are surprised you only get half DCV anyway, which is why I say it is only half Persistent.  If you know that you’re about to be in a fight persistence is not relevant.

 

Point is that a level that can be used for just OCV or DCV should cost 6 points, so it seems fair that a  level that can apply to half (roughly) of the tings you can do with it should cost 6 points minimum and, given the added utility of being able to allocate levels and do more damage, it should cost more.  Back to 7 points for All HtH or All Ranged.  Cool.

 

OK, what about a small group of attacks?  The argument that the character is only going to buy levels with things they actually need again applies: these are attacks you’ll be using more than half the time, so the discount can’t be as much as -1, which would make a Small Group level cost 4 points, so it has to be more than that.

 

So –½ to –¾, which would be 6 points or 5 points.  I’m going to make another executive decision and say 5 points for –¾ purely because we want to differentiate a bit more from the large group.

So, an overall combat skill level should cost 9 points, a large group 7 points and a small group 5 points.

 

Not digging too far into this.  I will take a step back and ask whether you see players buying huge amounts of skill levels at the current pricing. If every character is buying 6 or 8 levels, then they are likely underpriced.  That's not what I see in practice, and that suggests that the current pricing is either about right, or perhaps even excessive if skill levels are rarely purchased.

 

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

We are not going to have levels with individual manoeuvres because no one learns just how to throw a punch and nothing else about fighting, and whilst you could say that the same doesn't apply to guns, if all you've ever done is stand at a range in Isosceles Stance and shoot paper targets any levels you might have are going to be useless when people start shooting back.

 

If you want a scope on your sniper rifle it is a 5 point level with Rifles and  OAF for -1, which makes it cost 2 points (or a bit more if you buy multiple levels: 2.5 points per level for 2 levels and 2.33 points per level for 3, because rounding).  If all you’re doing is offsetting range penalties which is what a scope does, really, you can make it even cheaper.  You can't have 'only to offset hit location penalties', ever, because that is metagaming.

 

Best get rid of martial maneuvers as well, then.  Why should that punch provide a better OCV? Wouldn't a wrestler be better at Grabbing and a boxer better at Punching?

 

To the topic of hit location penalties, I can only say "And the Vorpal Blade went SnickerSnack".

 

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

I have not gone near noncombat Skill Levels, yet, and we will need to talk about the Overall Skill Level at some point.

 

Skill levels with all DEX skills should be +5 DEX, only for DEX rolls. I would call that a -1 limitation.  So for 5 points, you get +1 to all DEX rolls.  Or you can buy DEX only for initiative (Lightning Reflexes), also a -1 limitation.

That means that 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 or PRE rolls costs 5 points.  +1d6 PRE attack, +1 with all PER rolls or +5 Lightning Reflexes for all purposes costs 5 points.

  These are all -1 limitations.

+1 to only one roll based on that stat at a time is reduced to 3 points.  +1 with only one roll (this would include +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. 

Both -1 limitations to EGO.

[Sean Waters]

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Until you are placed in a scenario where your MegaBlast is suppressed and you need to manage with conventional weapons or hand to hand.  A -1 1/2 limitation on OCV for "one attack only" does not seem any more bargain-priced than many other limitations.  If any character has massive OCV, a head shot seems logical anyway.

 

 

 

 

I’m not sure that analysis works.  +1 OCV with a particular power means the power is more accurate: it is effectively part of the power.  If the +1 OCV is worthy of a huge discount because it can be taken away, then the base power should be getting the same discount because it can be taken away.  In my experience, powers are rarely taken away from characters unless, possibly, the GM really likes having lots of villains with adjustment powers, and even then, the players are going to wise up and buy Power Defence eventually.

 

In any event if MegaBlast has the MegaBlast taken away there’s probably nothing else that is going to be effective, no matter how accurate it might be.

 

I don’t like targeted Hit Locations in hero.  They do not work the same as in some other games because of the way hero deals with damage – see Doc Democracy’s recent thread on Alternative Damage Mechanics.

 

What I would suggest is that, if you want to be a sniper, for example, and go for the equivalent of a headshot, then you take advantage of the fact that the target is probably unaware of you, at least for the first shot, and so is at half DCV* then you can use some of those levels you bought to increase damage to emulate picking your spot.

 

 

* This does not make much sense to me: there’s two characters at a cocktail party, standing and chatting to each other - why is one harder to hit than another whatever their relative normal DCV?  Out of combat I think your DCV should be zero unless you have some sort of Danger Sense.

 

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

...

What is the real value of that "inherent"?  It really doesn't come into play that often. The real challenge is pricing that floating 0 END damage class.  How many slots would you need to cover all possible attack types?  Here the character with only one attack doesn't get the full benefit - why isn't that as significant an issue as their not using OCV for much else?

 

I'd expect to get full use of the levels if they cost 9 points.  Often, the CV max and the DC max in the campaign is "including skill levels".  If I have to choose between a 10 OCV, 10 DCV and 12 DC attack (setting these as "campaign max") or 8 OCV, 8 DCV and 11 DC attack, plus two skill levels for 18 points, I think I'd rather buy +1 OCV, +1 DCV and +1 DC for 15 points and save up 7 XP to get to campaign maximum.

 

...

 

When I notionally built the MP, I used +1DC as a custom 5 point power because there are a lot of attack types, just to get a reasonable figure.  There are lots of attacks, but very few characters have all of them or even many of them - they will only be applying that +1 DC to a small range of powers, even if they have All Combat Levels.  In practice I don't think it matters that much if we don't add every attack power into the notional MP.

 

All Combat Levels already cost 10 points.  It is up to the GM to veto a silly build, but if a character was seriously lowering their CV in order to do more damage, I'd let them, even if it exceeded normal campaign maxima.

 

As to the cost of All Combat Levels I think you've put your finger on the point: people rarely buy them like that because they rarely have a use for them like that - they buy levels for the powers they have which are usually a small or possibly large group and are cheaper.  I suppose there's nothing to prevent you buying +OCV an +DCV 'only when using MegaBlast' too...

 

9 points is a slightly awkward number: for 45 points you can have 5 All Combat Levels or +4 OCV and +4 DCV and +1 DC in Blast and the CV does look better, absolutely.  The thing is I doubt anyone would buy All Combat levels unless it fit their theme as a Master of All Combat.  9 points is still less than what it currently costs though.  What would be a better cost?  It has to be more than 5 points.  8 points, like it used to be?  Then 40 points gets you 5 levels or +3OCV, +4DCV and +1 DC.  That sounds fairer: all your levels in OCV and you have an excellent chance to hit, all your levels in DCV and you have an excellent chance to avoid being hit and all your levels in Damage (+1 OCV), you don't have a great chance to hit but at least it will sting if you do.

 

7 points?  For 35 points you get 5 levels or +2 OCV, +3 DCV and +2DC.  You'd never want to put your levels in Damage as you're only getting equivalent damage with a worse CV, but your CV is the same, effectively, but you can shift it around if you want to do an all out attack, or avoid one.

 

The trouble is that if you balance All Combat Levels like that you make small or large group levels too tasty.

 

Maybe the problem is the added DC?  Maybe you should be able to add more, say 2 DC for 3 levels or one for one.  Bear in mind that only All Combat levels apply to DCV against all attacks, but even so, if you have 3 point levels with Punch/Block/Dodge and you're spending 45 points on them (back to the 9 point equivalent example) you get 15 levels, which can give you +4 OCV, +5 DCV and +3 DC, which is way better than the equivalent CV + Damage buy and no one is going to take your punch away.

 

Although to be fair, HtH damage is cheaper anyway: you could get +3 OCV, +3 DCV and +5 HtH Damage for 45 points.  Back to damage costing far more through levels as an issue.  You'd be better off just buying 30 points of 3 point levels to give you +5OCV and DCV (which you could change as you like) and then spending the additional 15 points on that +5 HtH damage directly.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think about it. the +Damage for combat skill levels is only really useful for snipers or targets that have been Stunned already.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

What if two OCV levels do NOT add damage at all? As fas I can tell, that only came into the rules at 4th Ed. Perhaps it was a special rule in one of the 3rd edition books like Danger International?

[Sean Waters]

36 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

What if two OCV levels do NOT add damage at all? As fast I can tell, that only came into the rules at 4th Ed. Perhaps it was a special rule in one of the 3rd edition books like Danger International?

 

That simplifies things but you wind up with little more than assignable CV and you can build it with a MP and probably don't need skill levels at all.  I like to retain skill levels because of Heroic Games where I try and avoid power builds as much as possible.

 

However, running with that, 2OCV and 2DCV (2 to avoid rounding errors) in variable slots in a MP would cost 14 points, making an All Combat skill level 7 points and, in fixed slots 12 points, making an All Combat level 6 points.

 

Interesting.  

[rravenwood]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

What if two OCV levels do NOT add damage at all? As fas I can tell, that only came into the rules at 4th Ed. Perhaps it was a special rule in one of the 3rd edition books like Danger International?

 

Using levels to increase damage class was introduced in the original Fantasy Hero (1985).  The earlier Espionage! and Justice Inc. did not include that usage, but the subsequent Danger International did.

[Gauntlet]

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

What if two OCV levels do NOT add damage at all? As fas I can tell, that only came into the rules at 4th Ed. Perhaps it was a special rule in one of the 3rd edition books like Danger International?

 

One problem with that is it makes it many times rather worthless to purchase skill levels. Plus it is nice to give players more options of how their characters act in combat. One thing I don't like about D&D is the fact that in combat you pretty much back and forth roll to hit with nothing else. I roll to hit you, same roll all the time, then you roll to hit me, came roll all the time. In hero your character actually has options as to what they can do, and many times you can win due to the options you use, not just the point value of your character.

[Sean Waters]

So, if you were to build a MP like this:

 

 

That would cost 48 points, which means that 1 level would cost 8 points and allow you to add 1 OCV or DCV or 2DCs of damage for every 3 levels (or 1 for 2 levels).  I've done 6 levels and divided to avoid rounding anything.

 

That’s slightly better than the current All Combat level and costs 8 points, like it used to in previous editions.

 

I’ve talked myself into liking the extra damage because it means you can sneak up on someone and put all your effort into KOing them because their DCV is halved if they do not know you are there, so you don’t need a really high OCV and you don’t need a really high DCV if they  are unconscious.  I’d probably never use it in regular combat unless the target was at a DCV penalty already for some reason, like being Stunned, Braced or they’d just done a Multiple Attack or a Haymaker.  Also Snipers.

 

So, there you go: All Combat Skill Levels should be 8 points, like they used to be.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

I appreciate that +DC is not an actual power, but you're probably not applying that added damage to a huge range of things because almost no one without a VPP  has access to all the attack powers.  It slightly benefits ranged attackers, I suppose, as a +1 DC for ranged costs more than +1DC for HtH, but not enough to actually bug me.

Edited July 27 by Sean Waters

[Ninja-Bear]

On 7/25/2024 at 2:22 PM, Gauntlet said:

 

One problem with that is it makes it many times rather worthless to purchase skill levels. Plus it is nice to give players more options of how their characters act in combat. One thing I don't like about D&D is the fact that in combat you pretty much back and forth roll to hit with nothing else. I roll to hit you, same roll all the time, then you roll to hit me, came roll all the time. In hero your character actually has options as to what they can do, and many times you can win due to the options you use, not just the point value of your character.

Which edition of D&D? Things have changed. And for argument sake I’ve seen the back and forth in Hero System too. (Plus various other systems I’ve played.)

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

So, if you were to build a MP like this:

 

 

That would cost 48 points, which means that 1 level would cost 8 points and allow you to add 1 OCV or DCV or 2DCs of damage for every 3 levels (or 1 for 2 levels).  I've done 6 levels and divided to avoid rounding anything.

 

That’s slightly better than the current All Combat level and costs 8 points, like it used to in previous editions.

 

I’ve talked myself into liking the extra damage because it means you can sneak up on someone and put all your effort into KOing them because their DCV is halved if they do not know you are there, so you don’t need a really high OCV and you don’t need a really high DCV if they  are unconscious.  I’d probably never use it in regular combat unless the target was at a DCV penalty already for some reason, like being Stunned, Braced or they’d just done a Multiple Attack or a Haymaker.  Also Snipers.

 

So, there you go: All Combat Skill Levels should be 8 points, like they used to be.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

I appreciate that +DC is not an actual power, but you're probably not applying that added damage to a huge range of things because almost no one without a VPP  has access to all the attack powers.  It slightly benefits ranged attackers, I suppose, as a +1 DC for ranged costs more than +1DC for HtH, but not enough to actually bug me.

 

The fact that +1 DC is not an actual power makes it challenging to equate.  +1 DC to a single attack power should be less expensive than+1 DC to any attack power.  I call +1 DC to any attack, 0 END, a 10 point power because it equates to either +2 OCV, +2 DCV or +1 to each of OCV and DCV in a "Skill Level as Multipower".

 

That still leaves all combat at 8 points, though.  Actually, perhaps that has to be "all physical combat" as there is no ECV in there.  It also suggests +1 DC to any attack, at 0 END, being 10 points is too inexpensive, as limiting it to "only range", "only HTH" or "only (or not) mental attacks" will reduce the cost below 7.5 (5 x 1.5) pretty quickly.

 

That floating DC really is the wild card that makes the pricing difficult.  Of course, we can also Spread most ranged attacks to lose 2 DC in exchange for 1 OCV, a very different price ratio but one that cost no points.

[Gauntlet]

12 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Which edition of D&D? Things have changed. And for argument sake I’ve seen the back and forth in Hero System too. (Plus various other systems I’ve played.)

 

5th edition. I actually liked 3.5 edition somewhat and think that Pathfinder Version 1 is even a ton better.

[Steve]

I must be missing something in the discussion so far, but I’m looking at this late at night.

What about Advantaged attacks? Would there be an assumption that the “+4 DCs” item is adjusted based on the Advantages in the power being enhanced?

[Sean Waters]

20 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The fact that +1 DC is not an actual power makes it challenging to equate.  +1 DC to a single attack power should be less expensive than+1 DC to any attack power.  I call +1 DC to any attack, 0 END, a 10 point power because it equates to either +2 OCV, +2 DCV or +1 to each of OCV and DCV in a "Skill Level as Multipower".

 

That still leaves all combat at 8 points, though.  Actually, perhaps that has to be "all physical combat" as there is no ECV in there.  It also suggests +1 DC to any attack, at 0 END, being 10 points is too inexpensive, as limiting it to "only range", "only HTH" or "only (or not) mental attacks" will reduce the cost below 7.5 (5 x 1.5) pretty quickly.

 

That floating DC really is the wild card that makes the pricing difficult.  Of course, we can also Spread most ranged attacks to lose 2 DC in exchange for 1 OCV, a very different price ratio but one that cost no points.

 

The thing is that it will simply cost too much to build in every attack and attack type for no real utility: if someone has mental powers, they will almost always be using mental powers.  If someone is built with claws they will almost always be using them.

 

Hero has too many options but almost no one has access to them all, or would use them all if they did.  Most people only have a few attack powers and, even if you can tack your All Combat levels onto MDCV (and you should be able to), you've still got to know that someone is going to attack you with a mental power. Being able to improve your OCV or DCV or damage is great, but being able to do it with more and more things yields vastly diminishing returns.

 

I mean, you can Haymaker an attack, which gives you +4DCs to any attack (obviously your GM might not allow Haymakers on Ego Blast, but the rules specifically say you can (6E2 68)), and that's only -5DCV, so for the cost of 5 levels you can effectively add 4 DCs of damage and still have your 'normal' DCV.  That's +1 DC for 1.25 levels.

 

Some monkey is going to try and sneak '+5 DCV only while doing a haymaker (-1)' in at some point: as I've said before - that is why we have GMs.  Haymakers don't happen that often, but if you're built to do haymakers they do.  Metagaming.  Bleugh!

 

The point is that Hero is wildly inconsistent over costs and, being a system that promises, at least implicitly, relative point equivalence, that's not great.  It does not need to be inconsistent: it should be relatively easy to harmonise manoeuvres and levels and CV.  We just need to strip it back and rebuild it consistently.  I like the idea of being able to trade accuracy/defence/damage. 

11 hours ago, Steve said:

I must be missing something in the discussion so far, but I’m looking at this late at night.

What about Advantaged attacks? Would there be an assumption that the “+4 DCs” item is adjusted based on the Advantages in the power being enhanced?

 

If you had a NND (+1), +4DCs would get you 2d6 NND extra.

[unclevlad]

11 hours ago, Steve said:

I must be missing something in the discussion so far, but I’m looking at this late at night.

What about Advantaged attacks? Would there be an assumption that the “+4 DCs” item is adjusted based on the Advantages in the power being enhanced?

 

Depends on the advantage.  If it impacts the nature or effectiveness of the damage...AP, Penetrating, AVAD, that sort of thing...then, yes.  They're DCs, not dice.  So, if the attack is AVAD Power Def, Does BODY...that's +2.  3 DCs converts to +1d6.

 

OTOH, advantages that don't relate to the damage...LOS, Half Range Mod, Indirect, Trigger, even Autofire...don't require adjusting the DCs.

 

I think in DCs because that's the damage cap, or damage target, depending on how firm it's meant to be.  In an MP or VPP, as I'm building, I might allocate 62 points for 10 DC attacks with 1/2 END.  Doesn't matter if it's 10d6 plain, 5d6 AVAD Power Def, 4d6 NND Power Def Does BODY, etc.  I also prefer to do that with odder numbers, like AVAD Does BODY, if it doesn't covert neatly.  It's 10 DCs that are going into this.  Then I add however many more DCs to get my final number...THEN convert, at the end, to dice.  

[Hugh Neilson]

37 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

The thing is that it will simply cost too much to build in every attack and attack type for no real utility: if someone has mental powers, they will almost always be using mental powers.  If someone is built with claws they will almost always be using them.

 

Trying to cost it out as a multipower creates a lot of the issues with inflating the cost of "all combat" levels (overall levels are worse - what is the concept behind being really good at combat, stealth, medicine, detective work and oratory, plus absolutely everything else?).  But why would you buy "all combat" levels if you don't have that scope and variety of abilities that justify that broad scope?  Why would your expert in firearms be able to boost his eDCV to avoid being Mind Controlled, or even boost his OCV with a sword or a punch?  Skill levels restricted to specific types of combat exist, IMO, for that reason. Further, they should be more common than "I am just good at everything" levels.

 

But if "all combat" levels cost the same, or only a tiny bit less, than more restricted levels, being good at everything is rewarded by the costing mechanisms. Pricing less versatile levels lower encourages specialization.

 

That said, I agree that the constant inflation of skill levels has resulted in overpricing at the high ends. Paying 10 points to have +1 OCV or +1 DCV when the same 10 points would buy +1 OCV and +1 DCV doesn't exactly scream "point value", even with the occasional option to add a DC.  

[Steve]

It just sounds weird to me to say +4 DCs as a power of 20 points without just calling it 20 points.

If you build it as a power that applies to Advantaged powers, I’m wondering if Variable Advantage could get involved to simplify the math.

 

Math at the table that grows more and more complicated only slows things down.

[LoneWolf]

One thing you are not factoring in is overall skill levels. At 12 points per level, they seem expensive, but are actually quite cost efficient.  Not only can they be used for OCV or DCV with any attack, they also can be used with or to defends against mental powers.  The 10-point combat skill level cannot be used to with or to defend against mental power.   They can also be used to boost skills and even for the roll for contacts and favors.   They can also be used to boost perceptions rolls which the 4-point skill levels with intellectual skills cannot do.  Considering they cost 2 points more than a skill level with all combat, why even bother with all combat skill levels.  

 

 

[Gauntlet]

One thing I have in many cases known about Variable Advantage is that you many times can have the exact same thing cost less if you just use Multipower.

[Sean Waters]

16 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Trying to cost it out as a multipower creates a lot of the issues with inflating the cost of "all combat" levels (overall levels are worse - what is the concept behind being really good at combat, stealth, medicine, detective work and oratory, plus absolutely everything else?).  But why would you buy "all combat" levels if you don't have that scope and variety of abilities that justify that broad scope?  Why would your expert in firearms be able to boost his eDCV to avoid being Mind Controlled, or even boost his OCV with a sword or a punch?  Skill levels restricted to specific types of combat exist, IMO, for that reason. Further, they should be more common than "I am just good at everything" levels.

 

But if "all combat" levels cost the same, or only a tiny bit less, than more restricted levels, being good at everything is rewarded by the costing mechanisms. Pricing less versatile levels lower encourages specialization.

 

That said, I agree that the constant inflation of skill levels has resulted in overpricing at the high ends. Paying 10 points to have +1 OCV or +1 DCV when the same 10 points would buy +1 OCV and +1 DCV doesn't exactly scream "point value", even with the occasional option to add a DC.  

 

Yes, true.  The MP approach is just to give me a framework, pun obviously intended, to build it on and a starting point for costing.

 

Most characters probably wouldn't buy All Combat levels, precisely because they can buy cheaper combat levels and get just about as much utility from them.  The only thing that All Combat Levels do that other levels don't, as far as I can make out, is allow you to add DCV against both ranged and HtH attacks.  You might buy them because it fits your concept, but otherwise the point is to have somewhere to start.  I could have looked at martial Arts: for 10 points, the cost of a single All Combat Level RAW, you can buy Offensive Strike and Defensive Strike which allow you to take a -2 OCV penalty and get +1 DCV and 4 DCs of damage or get  +1 OCV and +3DCV and no added DCs of damage.  That's much better than an All Combat Level, or even three x3 points levels with your Martial Arts Style.

 

Sure there's real diminishing returns with Martial Arts: once you get past about 14 or 15 points you are probably not really adding anything to your effectiveness, which is why I did not go that route.  You get a lot of flexibility with Standard Manoeuvres in Hero, even if you don't have levels, which you also have to account for, but even so that minimum buy of MA is a bargain, and if your GM lets you design your own manoeuvres, you're in like Flint.

 

I think that a lot of players would buy lower cost combat levels, even if there was only a small point difference, because you're always looking to squeeze in at the end of a build, but if they don't, that's fine - it is not as if All Combat Levels make you (except for DCV as above) better, just more versatile.

 

I'm not sure why the costs changed in 6E - I do not recall anyone moaning about the costs Combat Skill Levels - and we moan about everything.

 

Another way of looking at this is that a 3 point combat level is 1/3 the cost of a 10 point combat skill levels: that is a -2 limitation (or better), in effect, which should mean that most of the time you'd expect not to be getting much use from them.  In actual play they are constantly in use and useful and you know what they say - a limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus.

 

I do appreciate that this is not an exact science, but Combat Skill Levels feel a little bent out of shape which I think, at least in part, we agree on.

8 hours ago, Steve said:

It just sounds weird to me to say +4 DCs as a power of 20 points without just calling it 20 points.

If you build it as a power that applies to Advantaged powers, I’m wondering if Variable Advantage could get involved to simplify the math.

 

Math at the table that grows more and more complicated only slows things down.

 

It's because attack powers cost END and +4DCs at 0 END is 20 x1.5 = 30 points.  You can add those DCs to whatever you like but, if the thing you are adding them to is advantaged or cost more than 5 points per die, you get less than an additional 4 dice of effect.  The only reason I settled on 4DCs and 6 levels of OCV and DCV was to avoid rounding anything in this example/illustration.

[Sean Waters]

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

One thing you are not factoring in is overall skill levels. At 12 points per level, they seem expensive, but are actually quite cost efficient.  Not only can they be used for OCV or DCV with any attack, they also can be used with or to defends against mental powers.  The 10-point combat skill level cannot be used to with or to defend against mental power.   They can also be used to boost skills and even for the roll for contacts and favors.   They can also be used to boost perceptions rolls which the 4-point skill levels with intellectual skills cannot do.  Considering they cost 2 points more than a skill level with all combat, why even bother with all combat skill levels.  

 

 

 

Yes.  I've avoided dealing with them at the moment because Combat Skill Levels are complicated enough on their own.

 

10 point combat skill levels not being useable with Mental Powers is silly and inconsistent and 6 point MCSLs are another unnecessary waste of column space.  I can dodge a laser beam but my years of disciplined training/bottomless rage won't help me if someone tries to get into my head?  Ridiculous. In my opinion.

 

I mean, 12 point Overall levels can be used as Combat Skill Levels with mental powers and even contacts and the like, as you point out.  Not only that but you can use them with your Breakout Roll* if you are hit with a Mental power that allows one.

 

The reason they exist is Batman.

 

I'm not too bothered by the 12 point cost: that's +1 on your Stealth Roll v +6 on your Stealth Roll, or +4 on Stealth/Streetwise and Shadowing, but I do think the cost differential is wrong: All Combat or All Non-Combat should probably cost 8 points, not 10.

 

Also, as the worm-can is open, I do not like the thing about General Skills, as they used to be called, having a different cost to improve.  By all means make them cheaper to buy, maybe even 1 point, but the cost to improve should be the same as everything else.  It's just much cleaner that way. I mean, Stealth is probably more use than Acrobatics in most campaigns, and Persuasion and Charm more use than Gambling or High Society, generally.  You might go through most of a campaign without needing Forgery or Mimicry.  Why does everything (that is Characteristic Coupled) need to cost the same 3 points?  Maybe buy-in should be between 1 and 5 points, with +1 being 2 points across the board.

 

In fact, while I'm waxing lyrical, as we have been through the Great Decoupling, I'd decoupled skills based on a characteristic and relied on levels to define what your strengths are, so, for example, you could buy a 3 point skill level that worked with any Interaction Skill but had to define what your approach was, stunning looks, friendly personality, menacing aura, whatever. If you are really good looking, for example, your approach might fail against someone who isn't interested, might even turn them against you.  Being menacing helps against the Mooks, not so much against the confident Boss.   Pay a bit more for a level and you're not a one-trick pony.

 

Makes for much more interesting social interactions.  I do appreciate that Talents are used to do this sort of thing.  My question is why?  Skills in general and interaction skills in particular should be much more highly developed at ground level.

 

That would probably mean getting rid of some more characteristics: good.  If you're going to do it, do it properly.

 

 

* This is a ridiculously effective way to avoid Mind Control/Mental illusions/Telepathy/Mind Scan - for 10 points you get +5 on your Breakout Roll, which means that all but the very subtlest uses are likely to fail.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

I'm not sure why the costs changed in 6E - I do not recall anyone moaning about the costs Combat Skill Levels - and we moan about everything.

 

Clearly if we were not moaning about it, the costs had to change...

 

More seriously, I think Steve Long looked at them in conjunction with pricing OCV, DCV and mCVs as separate stats.

 

10 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

Another way of looking at this is that a 3 point combat level is 1/3 the cost of a 10 point combat skill levels: that is a -2 limitation (or better), in effect, which should mean that most of the time you'd expect not to be getting much use from them.  In actual play they are constantly in use and useful and you know what they say - a limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus.

 

The challenge becomes which is correct.  For 7 points, I can have +1 OCV in a MP with +1 DCV.  For 10 points, I can have +1 OCV and +1 DCV all the time.  Feels like "you can have one or the other, or half a DC" is not worth 10 points, but is worth more than 7, so I like 8 for "all combat".  "Only ranged" or "Only HTH" must be worth less than "All Combat", and "only a subset" should be worth even less.

 

Add in that the OCV and DCV is limited, but the DC is advantaged to become both 0 END and more flexible, and comparables are pretty challenging.

 

But if no one was moaning about the 5e costs, what in 6e changed to make them problematic?  The 5e costs were used to price DCV at 5 points, so there must be some cross-reference between 5e and 6e CV pricing.  DCs did not get repriced either.

 

 

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

But if no one was moaning about the 5e costs, what in 6e changed to make them problematic?  The 5e costs were used to price DCV at 5 points, so there must be some cross-reference between 5e and 6e CV pricing.  DCs did not get repriced either.

 

 

Specific to the DCs, I suspect not repricing them in 6E was a mistake.  In 5E, you have to gauge the impact versus +5 STR...with the figured-characteristic implications.  Remember that in 5E, +3d6 HA would be 10 points...15, with that -1/2 for being HA only.  (Basically translating to No Figured Characteristics...yeah, slightly worse because it doesn't increase lifting STR, but I don't think that alone would justify making the HA -3/4.)  3 MA DCs would be 12, with uses beyond damage alone, as well as not increasing END costs.  

 

Another issue in 6E is removing the restriction from 5E, where you couldn't add more additional damage than existed in the base damage.  So, if you have a 20 STR and no HA, then you can't add more than 4 DCs.  Oh, but then, there's the KLUDGE that an HA adds to the base damage...but an HKA does not.

 

Insofar as CSLs?  I'm not sure the 5E costs make any sense, and I personally don't believe the costs for DEX were properly analyzed.  +1 OCV and +1 DCV, from DEX, is 9 points on the character sheet...at first glance.  In reality it was only 6.

 

I wonder if the 5 points for DCV was based on something else...spreading.  Trade 1d6 (5 points) for +1 OCV, right?  So the surface analysis says a level of DCV, to offset spreading, should be 5 points.

 

Generally, I think the costs were mostly just eyeballed...assigned and mostly forgotten.  I just gauge the increasing rules complexities in the system suggests, to me, it's *always* been just eyeballed, at least through 5E.  Going from 5E to 6E changed some of this, but it's also plausible that while some price changes might've been considered...unless there were serious problems, there was a "leave well enough alone" aspect.  And perhaps, a central if only semi-articulated point that 5 points is the default cost unit for combat...for a DC, for a CV, 5 points.

[Gauntlet]

One of the problems I do see with 6e is the no limit to Damage Classes. You can have someone with a 1 pip HKA raise it to unlimited levels. I just can't see someone with a large bobby pin being able to do as much damage as a Two-Handed sword. I definitely believe that the HKA only being allowed to be doubled was a very good idea, something I keep even on 6th edition games. Now there may be the argument as to how good they are at using it, but still you poke someone in the eye with a large bobby pint it will hurt and be nasty but not even close to as nasty as having that Two-Handed sword going through your eye (and then of course through your brain and through the back of your skull).