Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

[Gunrunner]

I was just wondering if any of you GM's out there put any limits on the number/type of CSL's a player can give his character when first created. And if so, what are they? The reason I ask is because I just don't like the idea of players making characters with 15 2-point OCV CSL's in one weapon. It just doesn't seem right for characters who dedicate some of their character points toward more expensive CSL's to increase their DCV, which become useless against a huge (and inexpensive) OCV bonus. Combat just becomes a matter of whoever goes first usually wins, since no one can effectively defend against someone with a +15 to their OCV. I'm just trying to find a good method to preserve game balance, and give players reasons to buy more expensive CSL's. I do have my own method, but I just want to know how others handle it in the case that others have better ideas I can use.

[Markdoc]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

In general, I don't limit CSLs. I have to admit that I have never had a player who wanted to buy 15 2 point CSLs, though! If I DID have such a player, I'd certainly discuss the issue with them. I hesitate to say I'd ban it outright: there are plenty of NPCs in my game who could in fact deal with uber-CSL characters. But the player in question would need a damn good rationale - in general, that level of CSL would be unbalancing.

 

cheers, Mark

[sbarron]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

I've considered a couple of different systems for controlling combat skill levels, though I've never implemented them.

 

The first (and my favorite) involves buying certain skills and KSs to increase CV beyond a certain point. These would be campaign specific, and might look something like this:

 

1-8 CV: None

 

9-11 CV: WF w/Com Melee, Tactics 11-, +1 w/H-to-H, KS: fighting styles of City

 

12-13 CV: WF w/Com Melee, Tactics 12-, +2 w/ H-to-H, KS: fighting styles of Region, KS: Anatomy 8-

 

14-15 CV: WF w/Com Melee, Shield, Tactics 13-, +3 with H-to-H, +1 All Combat, KS: Fighting styles of Region, KS: Anatomy 11-, etc...

 

My thinking is to make it cost more points for PCs to buy up their CV beyond a certain level, and force them to be somewhat well rounded combatants without putting arbitrary limits on things. PCs wouldn't be able to just buy 15 2pt levels. In my setting, you couldn't get that good in a vaccuum. PCs would have to improve their overall understanding of combat and improve many different skills in order to have a 15 OCV.

 

Once I win the lottery, I'll have enough time to come up with levels for all of the various profession my PCs might pick in my hypothetical campaign. Until then...

 

The other method is similar. You can never have more than 3 of any type of level. So, the progression would look like this for a PC who primarily uses a short sword...

 

Start: +3 w/short sword.

Next level: +1 w/swords, +2 w/short sword

Next level: +1 w/swords, +3 w/short sword

Next level: +2 w/swords, +2 w/short sword

Next level: +2 w/swords, +3 w/short sword

Next level: +3 w/swords, +2 w/short sword

Next level: +3 w/swords, +3 w/short sword

Next level: +1 w/ H-to-H, +3 w/swords, +2 w/short sword

etc...

 

This one is similar to the first, in that it forces PCs to get better at a group of things in order to get better w/ one weapon. This one is simple, and doesn't require as much forthought as the first example.

 

Hope these help.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

i watch overall levels not csl specifically.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

If someone has 15 +1 OCV levels with one weapon, then you BREAK THE WEAPON.

[Fitz]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

I put a skill level cap on my fantasy game of 8 assorted levels for *anything* -- note that this applied only to levels; it didn't apply to the base characteristic roll or any environmental/tactical modifiers. It did apply to CSLs as well as skill levels.

 

The reason for this was simply to encourage tactical thinking; if the players wanted to be able to get a skill roll or OCV/DCV up to stupendously high levels, they had to find some way to swing the environment (or whatever) in their favour -- by taking extra time, sneaking up on the target from behind, buying exquisitely crafted tools, and so forth.

 

I found 8 to be a workable cap level for my own game, though it may not work as well for others.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

I agree with Crosshair Collie. If the player insists on buying all those skill levels in one weapon, even after pointing out how limiting that is for the character, then do stuff to make that weapon useless.

 

"Your sword melts in the extreme heat of the fire elemental's Damage Shield."

 

"Your sword is broken. This culture doesn't use swords, so you'll have to make do with a spear."

 

"The mage casts his Blade Invulnerability spell. He now has 40rPD only vs swords."

 

"There's no room to swing a sword in these close quarters. Try using a knife."

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

Of course, if you do that constantly, you're just picking on him ... on the other hand, just like the 'every once in a while, in Champions, you lose a focus', every now and again will help keep him on his toes.

 

More seriously, how limited you make combat skill levels depends partially on your genre, and partially on how realistic you want to be. In some genres, there's no reason to cap the CSLs ... the characters are SUPPOSED to be that nauseatingly good ("There's something you should know ... I'm not left handed."). It's hard to argue that Robin Hood or William Tell didn't have a metric squidload of bow levels with some of the shots that they were purported to make. So, if you're in a fairly 'wild' genre, a high cap is probably good.

 

If you're in a low, more realistic game, then one interesting idea for capping CSLs would be that you can't have more base CV + Levels than the amount possessed by anybody you've beaten in combat. If you never face anybody with a total base CV + Levels over 10, you can't give yourself a CV + CSL level of eleven (you simply haven't had the opportunity to learn to fight better, because you haven't had to). You only get so good if you spend your life fighting DEX 11, 1 level Goblins. Practice only goes so far ... you have to push yourself to the limit to truly get better.

 

to the , baby.

[Outsider]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

My method was similar to sbarron's second option. Simply stated, if a character bought more than 2 levels of any type applicable to a particular attack, any excess levels cost double (for the next 2) then redouble (for the next two) and so on. Kind of like a normal characteristic maximum for combat skill.

 

The theory was that a person couldnt get that much better with a particular weapon without getting somewhat better with the category of weapons that that perticular weapon comes from. Nor coould they get that much better with a category without getting better at HTH in general.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

I set an NCM on combat skill levels of ten points. Anything you spend on them after that is double cost.

 

If +15 OCV bothers you (and it should), a good house rule might be to treat skill levels in a manner similar to Killing attacks, where your strength cannot more than double the base damage.

 

In this system, tell the players they cannot more than double their base Combat Value. This includes any combination of skill levels or maneuvers. Thus, even someone with 20 DEX (CV 7) cannot take their OCV up to anything more than CV 14. This is still pretty high, but better than (7+15)=22.

 

Keith "problem solver" Curtis

[Talon]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

I provide a chart which measures combat ability based on DEX + best levels (i.e., using the weapon to which the most levels apply) and establish a baseline for PCs ("I expect PCs will be at the Experienced level of the chart"). Going above that requires consultation.

[McCoy]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

Guideline more than rule, should not have more skill levels than raw CV. Thus I would allow a DEX 20 character 7 CSL with a specific attack without comment. Anything more needs a compelling justification.

[Photon1966]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

ArialWe are in fact just discussing this idea in my own campaign. I had come up with the idea to base the purchasing of levels based on the stat that the skill or ability is based on. For every 5 points in that stat you can purchase a level type. For example our warrior with 14 DEX can have a max of two levels of each type. He started off with one 2pt level and has since purchased another. He is also buying a level in HTH as he dowsn't just use the sword. Plus he is purchasing a 5pt DCV level. If he wants to buy a third 2pt level he'll either have to buy up his dex to 15 or pay double the cost. Eventually he'll have the dex 15, and buy 3 2pt levels, 3 5pt HTH levels and at least one or two 5pt DCV levels. I also limits stats to one 20, two 18, the rest 15 before doubling. He took Str 20, Con and Ego 18, the rest 15. I do the same thing for skills. For example Spell skill based off Int of 18 would mean max +3 2pts, +3 3pts fire spells, +3 5pts Elemental, +3 8pt magic spells. I don't allow Overall levels in my campaign as I found them unbalnced for my style of play.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

I put a skill level cap on my fantasy game of 8 assorted levels for *anything* -- note that this applied only to levels; it didn't apply to the base characteristic roll or any environmental/tactical modifiers. It did apply to CSLs as well as skill levels.

 

The reason for this was simply to encourage tactical thinking; if the players wanted to be able to get a skill roll or OCV/DCV up to stupendously high levels, they had to find some way to swing the environment (or whatever) in their favour -- by taking extra time, sneaking up on the target from behind, buying exquisitely crafted tools, and so forth.

 

I found 8 to be a workable cap level for my own game, though it may not work as well for others.

 

I like this a lot for heroic level games. Can I borrow the idea?

[Fitz]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

Knock yourself out

[Just Joe]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

Though I think several of the suggestions above are helpful (especially the simpler ones, such as the one proposed by Keith Curtis), often the best solution to such problems is GM discretion. You don't (or shouldn't) need a specific rule to prohibit 15 2 pt CSL's or anything else that seems inappropriate for your game. Simply tell the player that it would be unbalancing or unfun or unrealistic (whichever of these applies) or just that it would not work well in your game.

 

That having been said, I do usually give CV guidelines and the like for my campaigns, but these are less important to me than my own subjective judgment.

 

BTW, I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that 2 pt CSL's are useless in defense, but in case you were -- they're great for blocks.

[Wil Hyral]

Re: Limits on CSL's? General consensus?

 

My first return is, "no," but I definitely see the need to regulate the phenomenon. I've seen two stalwart suggestions here, and I'll point them out, but not their owners because I'm lazy.

 

One: to rid them of their weapons. Just do it. It's realistic - if a tall guy comes at me with a knife, I'm not running. His legs are longer, and I don't want to get stabbed in the back any more than I want to in the front. Nunno, I'm gonna go for the disarm. It happens, and it's realistic.

 

Two: require other skill levels with which to accompany the higher levels of WF CSF. I liked how that makes a sort of continuity, or a more realistic basis of knowledge and application.

 

The second one is of course the more liberal, more taxing of the two. I'm a traditional practitioner of the first one. Mages (and later wizards) have often turned entirely useless after I compromised their spellbooks in the 14 years of D&D I've played.