Why the heck not?

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

...and he gets the benefits of a high ego roll' date=' high ECV. Being able to take attacks based on OCV and switch them to his ECV is to that characters advantage if his EGO > his DEX. When he bought EGO, he was not paying for extra CV for non mental based powers. [/quote'] The whole point of allowing the character to use ECV to attack DCV with an energy blast is because the energy blast is a phyical expression of mental powers, thus a mental-based power. There isn't a whole lot of min-maxing gonig on here. The character who chooses to have a 10 ECV and a 5 OCV/DCV is still going to feel it when the enemy targets his DCV with their OCV... or he's buying up both his ego and dex which have some redundant offensive capabilities.

 

Now' date=' what about reaction times? If we're going to allow the normal attack to be based off ECV, shall he get to act at his EGO on initiative rather than DEX? [/quote'] Sure, why not? He bought his ego up. C'mon, show me an example of the disaster it would make in a game. I dare you.

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Is the 'targetting with EGO' going to increase the chance of hitting without an increase in cost?

No. The character bought his DEX and his EGO. If one is bought up higher than the other, it doesn't matter if he chooses the higher one to target with as long as the sfx is sound.

 

Is it going to let you build your chosen concept for less?

Maybe. Like many other things in the game, it depends on where else you spent your points.

 

Question for you: Why should "Novelty" cost you points?

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Group 1 (as seemingly exemplified by AgentX) above believes the relative worth of Ego targetting to be +0. The 26 points paid for a 23 Ego is enough of a cost for him. Group 2 believes it to be +1/4, because 26 points isn't enough for them. Neither are right or wrong, no matter how much math you try to throw behind it. It's just what FEELS right, in the end. (Especially at that last break point of +1/4, where the granularity tends to stop.)

 

Add me to group 3, who believes the cost should be reflective of the gain or loss. if changing from "dex to ego helps. it costs... if it hurts, it saves.

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

The bottom line is that, if there should be an advantage to change the default of a physical attack from OCV to OECV, solely because it is changing the default, then there should logically also be an advantage (and not a limitation) for changing the default targeting of a mental attack.

 

Is anyone arguing that there should be an adavntage "soley because it is changing the default"? i may have missed it.

 

I am arguing, for example, that it should cost more points "for changing the default" IF IT IMPROVES the character and it should give points back "for changing the default" IF IT HURTS the character.

 

"CHANGE THE DEFAULT" is the FX for the EFFECT "improves the chance to hit" or "lowers the chance to hit." Cost is based on effect, not FX.

 

Simple question... in my previous character example, the only difference between the two was one had TK and Eb tk fx as dex based default and the other had them as ego based default and as such the latter one had +3 better to hit than the former with those two powers.

 

Should in your view those two characters be the same cost or should the latter guy with the better to-hits be more expensive?

 

if you think they should be the same, how many other examples of "here, take +3 with two attack powers for free" would you think of allowing that did not have the "switching default cv" FX?

 

 

I come down, somewhat obviously, in having the guy with +3 better to hit with two powers be more expensive. I could be wrong i guess.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

That not a white flag! That's mocking! MOCKING!

 

Am I really that transparent? Guess so

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

No. The character bought his DEX and his EGO. If one is bought up higher than the other, it doesn't matter if he chooses the higher one to target with as long as the sfx is sound.

 

Maybe. Like many other things in the game, it depends on where else you spent your points.

 

I'm sure you know what I think by now. I won't be adopting the mechanic, but I'm sure you'll have good games with it in place.

 

Question for you: Why should "Novelty" cost you points?

 

There's two ways of looking at it: points balance and game utility. On a points balance analysis, there is no real difference (unlike the examples above: sorry, couldn't rein myseld in...), but a 'novel' build, or a non-obvious advantage is often harder to defend against: if flash works against mental defence, then when someone sees the sfx of a flash, they put on their sunglasses: no effect. If it is OBVIOUS (somehow) that the right defence is mental defence, no real advantage accrues, but in practice that would be unlikely.

 

I suppose the other point is that if someone has a problem with losing vision they build a character that can defend against it. I think it is kind of unfair to circumvent other people's concepts, so I can see the sense in having to pay more to do so, although I still think +3/4 is too much.

 

Also, if you can switch your mind control from mental defence to flash defence then you are probably on to a winner, efficiency-wise as people tend to buy flash defence at 10 points or less: ther is not much point in buying a lot more, so whilst flash defence is probably slightly more common than mental defence, it is not as common amongst, say, mentalists, so having your ego blast AVLD v Flash defence is likely to zap the people you have the biggest problem with pretty good.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Is anyone arguing that there should be an adavntage "soley because it is changing the default"? i may have missed it.

 

Someone did state that as an issue, yes.

 

I am arguing, for example, that it should cost more points "for changing the default" IF IT IMPROVES the character and it should give points back "for changing the default" IF IT HURTS the character.

 

"CHANGE THE DEFAULT" is the FX for the EFFECT "improves the chance to hit" or "lowers the chance to hit." Cost is based on effect, not FX.

 

Simple question... in my previous character example, the only difference between the two was one had TK and Eb tk fx as dex based default and the other had them as ego based default and as such the latter one had +3 better to hit than the former with those two powers.

 

Specifically in this regard, should "Mental Power Based on CON", as a limitation, vary depoending on the spread between the character's ECV and dex-based OCV? After all, if my Martial Artict (35 DEX, 10 EGO) takes "Based on CON" for his Hallucinogen dart gun, he goes from a 3 OCV to a 12 OCV. Why should he get the same -1 limitation that would apply to a secret agent with 15 DEX, 18 Ego who applies the limitation to his Truth Serum?

 

Interestingly, P120 5ER suggests that mental powers based on CON sitch to regular OCV "unless the GM allows the character to choose otherwise". No costing is suggested for such an option. Dramatic sense and common sense would appear to be the watchwords.

 

Should in your view those two characters be the same cost or should the latter guy with the better to-hits be more expensive?

 

if you think they should be the same, how many other examples of "here, take +3 with two attack powers for free" would you think of allowing that did not have the "switching default cv" FX?

 

Your basic assumption assumes it is fair to charge points for the privilege of having the same OCV with all attacks, and that this issue applies more or less equally to all characters. It does not. Very few characters have both mental and physical powers. Most of them are mentalists. Why should mentalists alone bear this drawback of needing to spend 12 points to buy stats to enhance their OCV with all attack powers?

 

Mentalists are already faced with the drawback of being required to buy up two different stats to get CV with their powers. They are the only character type which faces this drawback. And that +3 is not "free" - he had to pay for the Ego to get the OCV. Looked at another way, by NOT allowing characters to make this swap, our Egoist (23 EGO, 15 DEX) is forced to spend extra points to get the same OCV with all his attacks, but Joe Energy Projector (DEX 23, Ego 15) gets OCV 8 with all his attacks automatically. Is that somehow "more fair"?

[Just A Guy Name]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

It occurs to me that if you were to allow a mental attack to go against a target's DCV, there should be a congruous option allowing a physical attack to go against ECV.

 

Just a thought experiment.

[incrdbil]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

 

Sure, why not? He bought his ego up. C'mon, show me an example of the disaster it would make in a game. I dare you.

 

I was just thinking that it would seemingly step on the toes of lightning reflexes. If you want to make a normal attack at a initiative higher than your normal DEX, everyone else must buy lightning reflexes. If you let EGO act as the base for OCV and reaction time of all non mental based powers for mentalists, then they definitely are getting a free ride.

[incrdbil]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Someone did state that as an issue, yes.

Looked at another way, by NOT allowing characters to make this swap, our Egoist (23 EGO, 15 DEX) is forced to spend extra points to get the same OCV with all his attacks, but Joe Energy Projector (DEX 23, Ego 15) gets OCV 8 with all his attacks automatically. Is that somehow "more fair"?

 

Yes--if Joe Energy Blaster for soem reason buys a mental power, he has to buy up his EGO as well. Mentalists don't have to buy EB's, after all.

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

 

Specifically in this regard, should "Mental Power Based on CON", as a limitation, vary depoending on the spread between the character's ECV and dex-based OCV?

i wasn't discussing how to handle the in book limitation, but the question raised here.

 

However, the big huge 500 lb meat-n-potatoes of "based on con" limitation is the hoard of "target based" changes in how the power works such as goin against regular defenses, going against COn instead of ego, and so forth. "Target based" changes are very important since those traits are in Gm control.

 

Thats why that lim is not so dependent on the change from hypothetically ECV to attack vs DCv to attack. The BIGGIE is a target issue.

 

What we are discussing here is REGARDLESS of target. The PCs ECv and DCv are known and set and barring a whole lot of drains relatively constant.

 

We are basically discussing change his OCV for some attacks, against whatever enemies he is facing.

 

that is not a dramatic sense thing.

it is a common sense thing... better ocv should cost more.

 

 

Interestingly, P120 5ER suggests that mental powers based on CON sitch to regular OCV "unless the GM allows the character to choose otherwise". No costing is suggested for such an option. Dramatic sense and common sense would appear to be the watchwords.

again, the real meat of the -1 lim is all the target based changes... PD/ED instead of mental D, vs con instead of ego, con rolls for breakout instead of ego rolls.

 

here we are soley talking about changing the characters ocv with some attacks, which, for every other character concept, is a simple matter of adding points into csls or the equivalent.

 

strangely, for this guy, it seems some people want it to look complicated.

Your basic assumption assumes it is fair to charge points for the privilege of having the same OCV with all attacks, and that this issue applies more or less equally to all characters. It does not. Very few characters have both mental and physical powers. Most of them are mentalists. Why should mentalists alone bear this drawback of needing to spend 12 points to buy stats to enhance their OCV with all attack powers?

uhhh... huh?

 

Ok are you saying that mentalists are normally underpowered due to some error in the system and that, as a result of this, you want to give them price breaks on advantages/csl to make up for the imbalances you have seen in play?

 

hey, i might be able to buy that as a rationale, but as you keep dodging my question, then aren't you saying that of my two characters they SHOULD NOT cost the same?

 

It really sounds like you are saying the former guy, with the default ocv on his two tk thingies, should be cheaper than the latter guy... that he got the mentalist screw job and did not take any of the "i will give you for free" advantages you would have given him.

 

So, shouldn;'t he be cheaper?

 

See, that may be where we differ. Rather than offer "under the table" free advantages, wouldn't it be better to get the base cost right and then let them choose the advantage if it fits or not if it doesn't and still be both priced right?

 

personally, i do not agree with your assessment. i have not seen mentalists be shown as "too pricey" or imbalanced or having pt problems in play. they have been some of the most effective ones.

 

So, for me, i would not be inclined to give them free advantages as i don't see anything to compensate for.

 

 

Mentalists are already faced with the drawback of being required to buy up two different stats to get CV with their powers. They are the only character type which faces this drawback. And that +3 is not "free" - he had to pay for the Ego to get the OCV.

comapring the two characters given, both of which bought the ego and both of which get lots for it, the second character has +3 ocv with two powers that the former guy has not. They cost the same IF you do not charge for this bonus OCV.

 

thats "+3 for free"

Looked at another way, by NOT allowing characters to make this swap, our Egoist (23 EGO, 15 DEX) is forced to spend extra points to get the same OCV with all his attacks, but Joe Energy Projector (DEX 23, Ego 15) gets OCV 8 with all his attacks automatically. Is that somehow "more fair"?

 

in play, i have not seen any noticeable imbalance between blasters and mentalists and the tk-hybrid mentalists (split ecv and ocv attacks.) So, i would say that it is "fair" in practice once all the vagaries of "mental attack" compares to "normal attack"... and note that a lot of those differences are target based like "vs Mental def" and "vs ECV not DCV"

 

But HERE we are discussing making a change that is not in any way target based. we are not changing the EB "vs mental def" or even "vs ECV" but only changing the user's OCV to ECV.

 

That weighs in as simply a bonus.

 

usually, bonuses cost pts in this system.

 

in the case in question it would be between 6-12 cp for +3 ocv with a pair of powers.

 

for anyone else that is.

 

ymmv

 

So, is it fair to say that your position is "for other characters, this sort of thing would cost cp, but mentalists are already getting hosed on price so i give them this for free to make up for it."

 

if so, that is a position i cn understand... not agree with... but understand.

 

what do you do for mentalists who aren't getting this particular rebate to keep them fair i wonder?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Let's start by stating that, while I'm arguing allowing a change to the OCV base at no charge, I'm not specifically pushing for such a change. However, there is a certain logic in this.

 

I can change an attack from opposing ED to opposing PD for free. The precedent for AVLD requires a +3/4 advantage to change between exotic defenses - why no advantage for changing between normal defenses? There is a line drawn between "changes for free" and "changes that cost". I would remove the cost for changing between exotic defenses, with less consideration than I would give to allowing a swap between "based on DEX" and "based on EGO" OCV.

 

Thats why that lim is not so dependent on the change from hypothetically ECV to attack vs DCv to attack. The BIGGIE is a target issue.

**********************************************

We are basically discussing change his OCV for some attacks, against whatever enemies he is facing.

 

that is not a dramatic sense thing.

it is a common sense thing... better ocv should cost more.

 

I'm not denying "Based on CON" carries other restrictions. But I also believe the logic of "You can't swap from Dex-based to Ego-based for free" logically implies you cannot make the reverse swap for free either.

 

To me, this comes down to the definition of powers. At present, there is no mechanic for a power which aims mentally, not physically (ie uses Ego OCV, but targets physical DCV). And there should be.

 

Levels don't cut it. The character's OCV does not adjust appropriately if DEX or Ego is affected by an adjustment power. Brace works with DEX-based OCV, but logically not with Ego based CV. This may also be true of other maneuvers (I'm undecided on Hurry and Hipshot).

 

The description of "Based on CON" implies an ability (in at least those restrictuve situations) to swap back to Ego based CV at no cost. Most other limitations and advantages vary in cost when they are modified to provide an additional benefit or limitation, so this implies choice of "targetting CV" is not anticipated to carry a cost.

 

ECV is used to target mental attacks, so much of this comes to defining "mental" attacks. I don't see it as a huge issue to classify a "Blast of mental energy" EB, a "Telekinetic Punch" EB or classic "Moves objects with force of will" Telekinesis as being a "mental attack".

 

Alternatively, let's just put "Based on ECV" on the power for a +1 advantage, then "Based on CON" for a -1 limitation, and apply the comment in the rules about retaining targeting with ECV. Same result, and same cost.

 

So' date=' is it fair to say that your position is "for other characters, this sort of thing would cost cp, but mentalists are already getting hosed on price so i give them this for free to make up for it."[/quote']

 

No, my position is that mental attacks are appropriately considered a special effect, not merely a mechanic. Where it makes logical sense for a power to be targeted mentally and dodged physically, this should be permitted. And I do not see this as a sufficient advantage to merit a point cost, though it will benefit some characters more than others. To me, this is not a game-breaker.

 

Why not? Because many abilities already benefit some characters more than others. Some obvious examples? "Based on CON" may provide some characters with an OCV bonus. Halving DCV is far more an issue for a high DEX Martial Artist than a low DEX Brick with Growth, so abilities allowing this to be avoided like Defense Maneuver, enhanced senses or Breakfall are "more valuable" to such characters. Breakfall is more valuable if you don't have a movement power with Position Shift, and Position Shift is much more valuable if your attacks have the "requires a full phase" limitation.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Hugh wrote:

No, my position is that mental attacks are appropriately considered a special effect, not merely a mechanic.

 

This is the only thing you wrote that I'm not sure about. Isn't "mental attack" a specific power set... telepathy, mind control, etc.,... and these have special properties unique to them... (like movement powers, etc.) They are invisible to normal senses, LOS range, vs. mental defense, and all that.

 

So simply defining the SFX of an attack as "mental" is weird. It doesn't take on the properties above. So you have to be very careful about what you mean by "mental power." I can understand why the fact that just calling something "mental" with SFX and then allowing it to be targeted with OECV for free seems to be a kind of "slippery slope" type of call. In and of itself, the decision has little game balance ramifications, but it sets a precedent that "small changes don't cost anything" and things could quickly spin out of control (theoretically).

 

This is the only hink in your otherwise fine explanation... at least from my POV.

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

 

Let's start by stating that, while I'm arguing allowing a change to the OCV base at no charge, I'm not specifically pushing for such a change. However, there is a certain logic in this.

So is this then something you would argue for on these boards but not something you would use in a game?

I can change an attack from opposing ED to opposing PD for free. The precedent for AVLD requires a +3/4 advantage to change between exotic defenses - why no advantage for changing between normal defenses?

I cannot support a +3/4 for changing between exotic defenses. there is no evidence i am aware of to suggest that Men d is more common than flash d or vice versa.

 

But, those remain insufficient grounds for me to argue that when i can see a concrete advantage in another sort of change, i should not charege for it.

 

There is a line drawn between "changes for free" and "changes that cost". I would remove the cost for changing between exotic defenses, with less consideration than I would give to allowing a swap between "based on DEX" and "based on EGO" OCV.

I agree. one is a concrete and definable thing while the other seems more or less neutral to me.

I'm not denying "Based on CON" carries other restrictions. But I also believe the logic of "You can't swap from Dex-based to Ego-based for free" logically implies you cannot make the reverse swap for free either.

I agree. i said earlier, the value of the change can be either a positive or a negative and even in some cases, a neutral. But...

 

in this case its not a guess or an estimatiuon at all. You simply have to look at the character and see how the numbers have changed.

To me, this comes down to the definition of powers. At present, there is no mechanic for a power which aims mentally, not physically (ie uses Ego OCV, but targets physical DCV). And there should be.

I don't think anyone has argued this should not be allowed, just whether it costs anything.

Levels don't cut it. The character's OCV does not adjust appropriately if DEX or Ego is affected by an adjustment power. Brace works with DEX-based OCV, but logically not with Ego based CV. This may also be true of other maneuvers (I'm undecided on Hurry and Hipshot).

with skill levels, the adjustment effects from adjustment powers would work the same as they would otherwise until the dex or egio were drained down to nothing. Does that happen often enough in your games to be a breaker?

As for which maneuvers effect ECv vs DCv that would be the same issue whether the +3 ocv were free or were bought as levels, right?

 

Not sure i see a problem here thats more noticeable or even as noticeable than "hey have +3 ocv!"

The description of "Based on CON" implies an ability (in at least those restrictuve situations) to swap back to Ego based CV at no cost. Most other limitations and advantages vary in cost when they are modified to provide an additional benefit or limitation, so this implies choice of "targetting CV" is not anticipated to carry a cost.

I must say, reading the "implication" of a part of a rather complex limitation and tryintg to morph that into "get ocv for free" for a very simple modifier is stretching it a bit for me.

 

if it works for you, great.

ECV is used to target mental attacks, so much of this comes to defining "mental" attacks. I don't see it as a huge issue to classify a "Blast of mental energy" EB, a "Telekinetic Punch" EB or classic "Moves objects with force of will" Telekinesis as being a "mental attack".

I dont either but i also don't see it as relevent to the issue of "is +3 ocv worth anything at all?" I reallt think that was answered already within the game system. I see no reason to ignore that.

Alternatively, let's just put "Based on ECV" on the power for a +1 advantage, then "Based on CON" for a -1 limitation, and apply the comment in the rules about retaining targeting with ECV. Same result, and same cost.

I think that, some veteran hero type guys, would point out that applying one advantage and a second disadvantage that counters it to get back to the same original net cost but getting +3 ocv out of an "if permitted" clause is not an example of "good hero design" but more likely falls into the realm of "abuse". (this assumes you at the same time try to argue you should not get the active cost problems of increased end and such.)

 

If an EB guy tried this and finagled out of it an extra 3 dice of damage, would you go "yup, that looks right!"

No, my position is that mental attacks are appropriately considered a special effect, not merely a mechanic. Where it makes logical sense for a power to be targeted mentally and dodged physically, this should be permitted.

in agreement on this, we are.

And I do not see this as a sufficient advantage to merit a point cost, though it will benefit some characters more than others. To me, this is not a game-breaker.

To me if it is an advantage, it should be costed. if it is a detriment, it should be costed.

 

Again,m from your earlier response, am i correct that you wont allow "just take +3 ocv" as a no cost thing for other cases. It is a "game breaker" if my martial artist just wants to change fx for two of his maneuvers and gain +3 ocv for them? But, its not here?

Why not? Because many abilities already benefit some characters more than others. Some obvious examples? "Based on CON" may provide some characters with an OCV bonus. Halving DCV is far more an issue for a high DEX Martial Artist than a low DEX Brick with Growth, so abilities allowing this to be avoided like Defense Maneuver, enhanced senses or Breakfall are "more valuable" to such characters. Breakfall is more valuable if you don't have a movement power with Position Shift, and Position Shift is much more valuable if your attacks have the "requires a full phase" limitation.

These are TRADE OFFS. There are a ton of good things and bad things about being the big tough guy vs the dexey little guy. NND attacks will serve as a positive one way and a detriment the other way. Each of the examples you give have trade offs, more points spent here for the edge but points spent there for a lack.

 

Looking at my two characters however, there is no trade off. One simply gets higher OCV than the other and has no drawbacks for it. Its a simple calculable, definable advantage. A similar set of examples can be done to show characters where it is a disadvantage. others can be shown to be neutral.

 

Why not take the obvious "we can see which it is" and calculate the cost appropriately as opposed to waving a single "ahhh... no cost" brush over all of them?

 

What is gained by ignoring the EFFECt in setting the cost in this case?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

So is this then something you would argue for on these boards but not something you would use in a game?

 

The question posed by Hawksmoor initially was whether this would be reasonable to allow. I think it is reasonable to consider, but I have not yet had to decide whether I would allow it to a character in my game as no one has asked for it. I might use it for an NPC, but who cares? If I decided it costs points, the NPC could simply have more xp.

 

I do, however, see the point of several posters on this thread, and at least one earlier thread on the same topic, that a case can be made this is should be a choice allowed to the player (much like an EB that does no BOD, or whether certain attacks act vs PD or ED) with no advantage or limitation applied.

 

I cannot support a +3/4 for changing between exotic defenses. there is no evidence i am aware of to suggest that Men d is more common than flash d or vice versa.

 

There we agree, although I do agree with one poster's comment that mental defense seems generally to exceed flash defense (ie higher DEF when taken). However, if this were a concern, I think AVLD should be recosted entirely - if it's more effective to target Flash DEF than POW Def, for example, AVLD should vary in cost. Is this far enough off topic yet? The ony reason I raised the point was to set out some other "changes from the default" which don't seem to merit a point cost to me.

 

But' date=' those remain insufficient grounds for me to argue that when i can see a concrete advantage in another sort of change, i should not charege for it.[/quote']

 

The crux is whether it should be charged for, agreed.

 

I agree. i said earlier, the value of the change can be either a positive or a negative and even in some cases, a neutral. But...

 

in this case its not a guess or an estimatiuon at all. You simply have to look at the character and see how the numbers have changed.

 

Exactly as "mental power based on CON's effect" on OCV is readily quantifiable, yet the costing change does not vary, nor is anyone proposing it should. Have you ever seen a mentalist (or any character whose EGO exceeds DEX) take a mental power based on CON?

 

with skill levels, the adjustment effects from adjustment powers would work the same as they would otherwise until the dex or egio were drained down to nothing. Does that happen often enough in your games to be a breaker?

As for which maneuvers effect ECv vs DCv that would be the same issue whether the +3 ocv were free or were bought as levels, right?

 

Here, we have a bit of unclarity (probably I just don't get it). Is your suggestion "leave the OCV based on DEX, just pay for the skill levels" or "let the basis of OCV change, with a cost equal to the skill levels"?

 

If the former, maneuvers become an issue. Similarly, Drains, Aids, etc. which impact the stat OCV should be based on (ie Ego rather than Dex for a mentally targeted attack) have the wrong effect. ie a DEX AID helps the character's OCV, and an EGO drain has no effect, but that should not happen.

 

If the intent is that the example character pays 6 points (the cost of +3 OCV for one attack, BTW, not with 2 or more different ones - and higher point levels would provide options other than +1 OCV) and this swaps his base from DEX to EGO, this carries a different problem - what happens if, with xp, the character later buys up either his DEX or EGO? Does the cost of being able to target with EGO instead of DEX now have to be reworked? I don't think we need a system which requires characters be re-worked every time they spend some xp.

 

For that matter, should the cost vary if the character has ready access to an Aid to one of the two stats? What if a major Hunted has a Drain against one of them? Let's take it to the limit - it's a mystery hunted, so only the GM is aware that this issue exists.

 

Nearer the end of your post, you ask "What is gained by ignoring the EFFECt in setting the cost in this case?". We avoid the above issues, which is a gain to me.

 

I must say' date=' reading the "implication" of a part of a rather complex limitation and tryintg to morph that into "get ocv for free" for a very simple modifier is stretching it a bit for me.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. It would certainly have been easier to explicitly state an ability to swap between bases for OCV (whether with or without a cost) and the brief mention in the limitation may have better been silent. After all, why should this be the only kind of ability which has any mechanic for changing the OCV basis?

 

If an EB guy tried this and finagled out of it an extra 3 dice of damage' date=' would you go "yup, that looks right!"[/quote']

 

I can't see a way to get that extra 3d6. Let's look at a couple of other examples, using a paid of EB Guys this time. One has 15 STR, and the other has 45 STR.

 

Each wants an EB at no range which does 12d6. Rather than buy a 12d6 EB, No Range, they buy Hand Attacks. EB#1 has to buy 9d6, but EB #2 only has to buy 3d6. The same effect is cheaper for the guy who bought more STR.

 

They also each want a 4d6 ranged killing attack. EB #1 buys a 4d6 RKA (60 points). EB #2 buys a 2d6 HKA with Range for 45, which he can make 4d6 with STR. He saved 15 points - because he has a higher STR. (They control earth - the power is defined as creating and hurling a spear of rock).

 

If we were to allow swapping of DEx-based and EGO-based OCV, characters with higher EGOs would get higher OCV's for appropriate powers because they have paid for a higher EGO, just as the 45 STR character gets some benefits because he has a higher STR.

 

Similarly, if I have a 30 EGO and don't buy my PRE up,. I take a lot less ill effect than a guy with 10 EGO who doesn't buy his PRE up (or, looked at another way, the guy who has a high EGO gets ripped off when he buys his PRE up to 25, since it's not reducing the impact of PRE attacks against him). There are all sorts of "freebies" buried in the game already.

 

Whether that makes it reasonable to allow another for characters with high EGO and lower DEX is, of course, the crux of the issue. And, while I'm not 100% decided, I'm more and more believing this freebie isn't unreasonable - we simply revise the definitions to make "Targeting" a free choice when selecting attack powers, to be based on SFX, just as "Whether it does BOD" is a free choice for energy blasts, and "PD or ED?" is free for many types of attacks.

 

Again' date=' from your earlier response, am i correct that you wont allow "just take +3 ocv" as a no cost thing for other cases. It is a "game breaker" if my martial artist just wants to change fx for two of his maneuvers and gain +3 ocv for them? But, its not here?[/quote']

 

What fx change does he make, and what else did he have to purchase for the effect to be "+3 OCV"? Martial Artists already enjoy this advantage - all of their maneuvers are considered "hand to hand" (ignoring ranged MA's for now), so they get more options to use their 5 point levels in HTH combat than characters who lack Martial Arts.

 

These are TRADE OFFS. There are a ton of good things and bad things about being the big tough guy vs the dexey little guy. NND attacks will serve as a positive one way and a detriment the other way. Each of the examples you give have trade offs' date=' more points spent here for the edge but points spent there for a lack.[/quote']

 

There are also tradeoffs between having a good OCV because your power is targeted mentally and you have a high EGO, and having a good OCV because your powers are targeted physically and you have a high DEX. Most notably, what types of powers hit you most often in return. A mentalist is a lousy choice to target with a mental attack anyway - they virtually always have above average DECV, Mental defense, and better resistance due to higher EGO. Lowering their DEX makes it even easier for physical attacks to hit them (and my experience is mentalists have average, at best, defenses and STUN). So there would certainly be a tradeoff in deciding to have a low DEX. The tradeoff would certainly be reduced, however, if the mentalist could retain a decent OCV with powers which use DEX to target as a default.

 

 

While I am not coming to the same conclusion you are (that this should be costed out precisely, with a cost that varies character to character), I do consider your comments valid. Allowing a switch beteeen "Physical Targetting" and "Mental Targetting" will provide some characters with a benefit - more value for buying up their EGO if they didn't buy up their DEX. It will also eliminate what might be a limitation from other characters (whose powers should logically target mentally, and whose DEX is superior to their EGO).

 

Your comments greatly improve the analysis of the issue from all sides. I suspect, however, that we will not agree as to what the ultimate conclusion should be. I am leaning towards "This additional benefit for EGO should be allowed where the SFX support it." I believe you are leaning towards (or are intractable in) the opposite conclusion.

 

And fair enough - it's definitely not cut & dried.

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

 

Have you ever seen a mentalist (or any character whose EGO exceeds DEX) take a mental power based on CON?

I miss the relevence but...

 

yes, in a 4e game. i have also seen several published character with it and i have used, albeit rarely, NPCs with it.

Here, we have a bit of unclarity (probably I just don't get it). Is your suggestion "leave the OCV based on DEX, just pay for the skill levels" or "let the basis of OCV change, with a cost equal to the skill levels"?

the FX (basis of ocv) would change and the cost would be identical to skill levels. Again, i am not saying "no you cannot" as in "keep it dex based" but only detemrining the cost of the IMO valid SFX definition.

 

I could agree with a +1/4 advantage or lim or whatever, but the "use skill levels cost" seems a lot more accurate.

 

I guess for game mechanic purposes the additional cost would be an adder and treated as such.

If the former, maneuvers become an issue. Similarly, Drains, Aids, etc. which impact the stat OCV should be based on (ie Ego rather than Dex for a mentally targeted attack) have the wrong effect. ie a DEX AID helps the character's OCV, and an EGO drain has no effect, but that should not happen.

but not an issue since i am changing the basis.

If the intent is that the example character pays 6 points (the cost of +3 OCV for one attack, BTW, not with 2 or more different ones - and higher point levels would provide options other than +1 OCV) and this swaps his base from DEX to EGO, this carries a different problem - what happens if, with xp, the character later buys up either his DEX or EGO?

How is this a problem? it works the same as with any other set of linked cost abilities. When one is changed the others have to be bought/bought off as well.

 

i suggest that if this is a problem, HERO might be the wrong game.

Does the cost of being able to target with EGO instead of DEX now have to be reworked? I don't think we need a system which requires characters be re-worked every time they spend some xp.

So you plan on dropping the linked advantage (changing the relative costs of the linked powers may require refiguring), dropping similar linked costs for things like extra limbs and so forth and the other places where this is already accepted in the hero system?

 

Now, in my games, i did not see characters changing Cv levels "every time they spend some xp" but our games might well be very different in that regard.

 

For that matter, should the cost vary if the character has ready access to an Aid to one of the two stats? What if a major Hunted has a Drain against one of them? Let's take it to the limit - it's a mystery hunted, so only the GM is aware that this issue exists.

Unless your copy of hero is different than mine, there is no Xp spending involved when aids and drains affect a character's stats. The stats just change and then go back whenever appropriate.

 

So, other than attempting to throw up as many "see its a problem" smokescreens as you can, why would you believe that my suggetion would require xp spending when adjustment powers were in play?

Nearer the end of your post, you ask "What is gained by ignoring the EFFECt in setting the cost in this case?". We avoid the above issues, which is a gain to me.

They aren't issues. The former is already in the rulebook in several places.

The latter is a non-entity since adjustment power effects do not now require xp changes in targets.

 

they are smokescreens.

I can't see a way to get that extra 3d6. Let's look at a couple of other examples, using a paid of EB Guys this time. One has 15 STR, and the other has 45 STR.

I didn't say there was... it was a hypothetical question.

Each wants an EB at no range which does 12d6. Rather than buy a 12d6 EB, No Range, they buy Hand Attacks. EB#1 has to buy 9d6, but EB #2 only has to buy 3d6. The same effect is cheaper for the guy who bought more STR.

 

They also each want a 4d6 ranged killing attack. EB #1 buys a 4d6 RKA (60 points). EB #2 buys a 2d6 HKA with Range for 45, which he can make 4d6 with STR. He saved 15 points - because he has a higher STR. (They control earth - the power is defined as creating and hurling a spear of rock).

yup.

If we were to allow swapping of DEx-based and EGO-based OCV, characters with higher EGOs would get higher OCV's for appropriate powers because they have paid for a higher EGO, just as the 45 STR character gets some benefits because he has a higher STR.

yup.

Similarly, if I have a 30 EGO and don't buy my PRE up,. I take a lot less ill effect than a guy with 10 EGO who doesn't buy his PRE up (or, looked at another way, the guy who has a high EGO gets ripped off when he buys his PRE up to 25, since it's not reducing the impact of PRE attacks against him). There are all sorts of "freebies" buried in the game already.

they aren't freebies. they are the products of having bought up your stat. Someone else who bought that stats would gain the same benefits.

Whether that makes it reasonable to allow another for characters with high EGO and lower DEX is, of course, the crux of the issue.

Stop.

 

The difference between your examples and mine are that in mine the two characters have spent the same amount on EGO, not differing amounts. They have spent the same amount on "other powers". The "gain" of +3 ocv with two powers is coming solely from an SFX or even a sub-sfx issue of "what is basis for ocv."

 

In your examples, while there are bonus effects there are also downsides.

 

In my example, there are no downsides, no tradeoffs, just +3 ocv benefit for a couple of powers.

And, while I'm not 100% decided, I'm more and more believing this freebie isn't unreasonable - we simply revise the definitions to make "Targeting" a free choice when selecting attack powers, to be based on SFX, just as "Whether it does BOD" is a free choice for energy blasts, and "PD or ED?" is free for many types of attacks.

both of those have both positive benefits and downsides. thats why they are freebies. Obviously, game specifics may even change those. In a game world where there is a lot of PD only kind of armors and few ED armours, making an attack ED should not be free. In a game world where killing people carries little or no drawbacks, does no body should be a limitation.

 

but" my ocv is based on my higher stat" is not going to be a tradeoff, anymore than "my ocv is based on my weaker stat" is a tradeoff.

 

matter of fact, i ought to ask... if the values were reversed, and the trade for Dex Cv to ego Cv were losing the character OCV, making him more likely to miss, would you still tell the player thats a freebie loss of to-hit, worth no points? or would you have to admit that dropping ocv is worth changing cost?

 

There are also tradeoffs between having a good OCV because your power is targeted mentally and you have a high EGO, and having a good OCV because your powers are targeted physically and you have a high DEX.

the advantages of high dex vs high ego are already assumed in the cost of ego and dex. you don't normally need to alter other powers costs in order to keep those costs for dex and ego appropriate, do you?

 

and in the example of cost error i gave, dex and ego were identical between the two characters.

 

Summary, i concur, we will not agree.

 

no surprise there.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

I miss the relevence but...

 

The question had been asked whether one ever expected to see a character swap from DEX to EGO if their DEX were greater than EGO. This was used to support the assertion that the swap should be an advantage. As I recall, you weren't the one who asked it.

 

yes' date=' in a 4e game. i have also seen several published character with it and i have used, albeit rarely, NPCs with it.[/quote']

 

So shouldn't they have received a further limitation (and shouldn't someone who gets an OCV increase by making his mental power Based on Con pay for the privilege? Your argument seems easily summarized as "it is unreasonable to let a character freely swap a Dex based OCV for Ego based if he gets a better OCV as a result". Should it not then be equally unreasonable to permit a change from ego- based to Dex-based? This is, effectively, free, as the "based on CON" limitation does not change in any way regardless of the spread between Ego OCS and DEX OCV.

 

the FX (basis of ocv) would change and the cost would be identical to skill levels. Again' date=' i am not saying "no you cannot" as in "keep it dex based" but only detemrining the cost of the IMO valid SFX definition.[/quote']

 

Then we've established it should be do-able. All we're dealing with is pricing. Agreed.

 

I could agree with a +1/4 advantage or lim or whatever' date=' but the "use skill levels cost" seems a lot more accurate.[/quote']

 

Perfect accuracy is a sacrifice the system has already made in numerous other places. Why is there no variance in cost for "EGo power based on CON", or for buying a 2 point 11- background skill to an INT roll for +1 point?

 

How is this a problem? it works the same as with any other set of linked cost abilities. When one is changed the others have to be bought/bought off as well.

 

Linked carries the issue only if one power is increased, and they are not cross-linked. However, I agree this is a similar issue.

 

Let's "shop and compare", however. Let's assume our hypothetical mentalist has, say, 26 EGO and 20 DEX, so a 2 OCV difference. He has a Telekinesis multipower with TK, a TK energy blast and an Area effect TK Blast with Selective. He wants these based on ECV. How does he buy it?

 

Is that a 4 point cost? +1 OCV with any one attack should cost 2 points, so it's still underpriced based on your definitions.

 

6 points (3 per level) on the basis this is a tight group? Well, now he gets ripped off since the same 6 points would have allowed him to use the bonus for things other than OCV at his discretion.

 

5 points (because it's between 4, which is too low, and 6, which is too high?) Call that 2 5 point levels with Multipower, with "Only to increase OCV, -1"?

 

He buys +3 Ego, so what does that cost? It would normally cost 6, but I guess for him it costs 8 or 9, since he has to cover off the extra OCV.

 

All this can be avoided if we simply add a rule that powers are either targeted physically (DEX) or mentally (EGO), and that this base can be selected to best reflect the SFX of the power. This does provide a small advantage to characters who have powers with two different default CV bases. Or, aklternatively, it reduces a disadvantage they were previously subject to. I don't see the game being rendered hopelessly unbalanced just because we add an option (not CHANGE an option - we already acknowledge there is presently no way, under the rules, to change the basis of targeting a power).

 

Note that, in Champs 1e, Energy Blasts worked against Energy Defense. Physical EB's had simply not been considered. At this time, swapping the OCV basis has not been considered under the rules.

 

So you plan on dropping the linked advantage (changing the relative costs of the linked powers may require refiguring)' date=' dropping similar linked costs for things like extra limbs and so forth and the other places where this is already accepted in the hero system?[/quote']

 

To emphasize from the above, "the other places where this is already accepted in the hero system". There is no currently accepted mechanic under the system for changing the basis of an attack's OCV. If I am in error in this statement, I look forward to someone providing a page reference.

 

Unless your copy of hero is different than mine' date=' there is no Xp spending involved when aids and drains affect a character's stats. The stats just change and then go back whenever appropriate.[/quote']

 

To illustrate the problem with this thinking, let's assume we have two mentalists. Both have 20 DEX. One has 20 EGO and the other has 30 Ego (20 extra CP spent).

 

So, by your logic, Mr. 20 should be able to swap bases for free, and Mr. 30 should pay (say 2.5 points per OCV variation) 7 points.

 

Let's flesh out these characters a bit more. Mr. 20 has a power called "Mental Fortitude", which is a 3d6 Aid, Ego, fades 5 CP per hour. He will generally enter combat with a 29 EGO (and the same 10 ECV as Mr. 30). He also has "Mental Bolstering", a 4d6 Ego Transfer, so his ECV will often be even greater than Mr. 20. These are slots in his Mental Powers multipower, and cost 6 points each (Ultras).

 

Mr. 20 has spent 12 points for his two Ultra slots. Mr. 30 has spent 27 to have a 30 EGO and base his TK on mental OCV. So Mr. 20, who will most commonly gain the same benefits as Mr. 30 and sometimes more (let's assume the drawbacks of Aid are offset by the benefits of transfer, for simplicity) pays 15 more points (well over double) what Mr. 20 pays.

 

To me, this indicates that your approach is no more fair and equitable than simply allowing a swap for free. It would likely be possible to work out the exact costing appropriate for both characters, with a substantial increase in complexity, but is it worth it?

 

they are smokescreens.

 

Your concern is that a hypothetical mentalist gets +3 OCV (worth 6-9 points) for free if we allow swapping of OCV basis. I agree with you that is a valid issue.

 

As cited above, using your system with no consideration of the impact of adjustment powers can easily result in a 15 point difference in CP spent. If 15 point differences are "a smokescreen", I suggest 6-9 point differences are also smokescreens.

 

they aren't freebies. they are the products of having bought up your stat. Someone else who bought that stats would gain the same benefits.

 

And anyone else who bought up his Ego would have a better OCV if he swapped the basis of computing OCV from DEX to EGO. The examples previously presented are examples where rules already thought out and added to the system create benefits.

 

The PRE/EGO issue is one which did not exist under older editions (I believe 3 and prior) when Ego was not considered in assessing the results of PRE attacks. Oddly, there were mentalists before 4e, and the extra benefit some of them (who lacked high PRE) attained with the change did not derail the Hero system. Perhaps this proposal would also not have a derailing effect.

 

Your concerns about "bonus OCV" is an example where a potential rule to address an ability the rules do not presently provide for would create a benefit for having purchased certain characteristics.

 

In your examples' date=' while there are bonus effects there are also downsides. [/quote']

 

One character buys +9d6 HA and the other buys +3d6 HA. Both end up with a 12d6 attack when STR is added in. What is the downside to the guy who effectively got a -2 limitation?

 

There is a small drawback on the KA front - the high STR character pays more END. However, he could put 1/2 END on his KA for 7 points, and be down to the same 6 END his peer uses, and still up 8 points (enough to buy his KA OCV up by 4, more than the +3 in your example). The bottom line: Bonuses and downsides don't always equal out precisely. Allowing a swap between DEX and EGO OCV is no different in this regard.

 

In my example' date=' there are no downsides, no tradeoffs, just +3 ocv benefit for a couple of powers.[/quote']

 

In your example - but not in all cases. In mine, you are overcharging the guy who buys Ego vs the guy who buys Aid. Note that the guy with Aid has the added ability to bolster his teammates' egos - Mr. 30 can never to that. Even without this, however, you have given Mr. 20 a significant point advantage.

 

matter of fact' date=' i ought to ask... if the values were reversed, and the trade for Dex Cv to ego Cv were losing the character OCV, making him more likely to miss, would you still tell the player thats a freebie loss of to-hit, worth no points? or would you have to admit that dropping ocv is worth changing cost?[/quote']

 

Under the "freely swap" approach? Yes, the swap is point-free regardless of whether it is beneficial or detrimental. Just like the OCV change from making a mental power based on CON presently lacks any point cost, positive or negative, regardless of the OCV gained or lost.

 

Bottom line: There will be characters who will face a point cost, a point savings or a perfect breakeven if we allow the "pick your OCV basis for free" approach. The same will apply if we use the "pay the equivalent cost for skill lebvels" approach. Our discussions have provided examples of each. There would certainly be similar examples if we evaluated a limitation/advantage mechanic.

 

Based on that, I will suggest that "Points (equal points or even very precisely calculated points) do not make balance happen in play. Instead, balance in play is what shows the points and costs were appropriate."

 

We've evaluated the options in theory, but I haven't played with any of them, and I don't believe you have either. Any comments from people out there who have had characters swap their CV bases (whatever the game mechanic used)?

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

 

So shouldn't they have received a further limitation (and shouldn't someone who gets an OCV increase by making his mental power Based on Con pay for the privilege? Your argument seems easily summarized as "it is unreasonable to let a character freely swap a Dex based OCV for Ego based if he gets a better OCV as a result". Should it not then be equally unreasonable to permit a change from ego- based to Dex-based? This is, effectively, free, as the "based on CON" limitation does not change in any way regardless of the spread between Ego OCS and DEX OCV.

In my experience, the change to dex involved in "based on con" plays out fine because that limitation brings in a world of drawbacks for the power that are target based.

 

In the case being discussed here, i say AGAIN, there are no drawbacks involved, there are no trade offs. its either a gain, or a detriment, or a wash and this can be easilt seen ahead of time and should be costed.

Perfect accuracy is a sacrifice the system has already made in numerous other places. Why is there no variance in cost for "EGo power based on CON", or for buying a 2 point 11- background skill to an INT roll for +1 point?

the first has trade offs, the second is an established cost for skills.. .3 pts for based on att.

 

So, lets ask another question...

 

Would you allow for free a mentalist character to redefine his skills that are normally based on int to all be based off ego? lets say his int is 13 and his ego is 28. Would you allow him to bu science skills, knowledge skills etc and redefine all of them as "works off ego not int" and so effectively gain +4 with every one of those skills at no extra charge?

 

SFX: "my character is a powerful telepath and when he seeks info he scans other people until he finds someone who knows the answer."

 

or insert another SFX for it.

 

or what about a brick who wants to redefine the basis for breakfall into strength?

 

Would you with these go "well they had to buy the ego or strength,m so its probably free!" o would you say "these clearly improve the characters and should cost something?"

 

I don't see the game being rendered hopelessly unbalanced just because we add an option (not CHANGE an option - we already acknowledge there is presently no way, under the rules, to change the basis of targeting a power).

has anyone said the game would become hopelessly imbalanced?

 

giving free +3 ocv to some characters would not cause the earth to spin out of orbit either... but thats not sufficient grounds to support such a call.

To emphasize from the above, "the other places where this is already accepted in the hero system".

to clarify... the system already accepts that changes to one trait MAY cause changes in cost to other traits if they were linked.

To me, this indicates that your approach is no more fair and equitable than simply allowing a swap for free. It would likely be possible to work out the exact costing appropriate for both characters, with a substantial increase in complexity, but is it worth it?

AID for nigh permanent stats is an issue the GM, lookingb at the character, can see and needs to certainly take into account. The EXACT same issue could take place with LINKED powers, where the smaller power will "in practice" get aided to match or exceed the bigger power and the Gm has to make the call of "do i allow the link at full or do i smile and let the player know this "accounting trick" wont earn him bonus pts?"

 

nothing new, and nothing overly complex.

 

to let you know how i rule it for these types of things, the long term aid is figured into "the power's size." I assume the aid will be used as expected. Then i determine the "size" for "smaller power or bigger power or much the same. thats how i handle links and how i would in theory handle the other.

 

Transfer is usually not handled that way as it requires, usually, enemy action to bring it out. now, if the transfer was defined as "can drain sidewalks body to boost my ego" so that its effectively another form of aid, easily tramped up out of combat, i would smile and include it as well in my calculations.

 

Seriously hugh, after all these years of play, do you really have problems figuring out how to account for obvious long term aids and their effects? is this all reallt that confusing for you?

 

and for the record, i was responding to what i thought you were asking... XP refiguring in the face of aids, not about the initial determination of cost if the character had aid.

 

To be very clear in the light of your clarification...

 

AID adjustment of the stat would NOT require recalculation of the base cost when it is used. This is just like linked would work.

 

The presence of long term aid powers on the character WOULD however influence the initial cost determination. This is just like i would do for linked powers.

 

As cited above, using your system with no consideration of the impact of adjustment powers can easily result in a 15 point difference in CP spent. If 15 point differences are "a smokescreen", I suggest 6-9 point differences are also smokescreens.

fine. see the clarifications above.

One character buys +9d6 HA and the other buys +3d6 HA. Both end up with a 12d6 attack when STR is added in. What is the downside to the guy who effectively got a -2 limitation?

assuming you are not going to spin this into an argument about the cost of strength, the guy who buys more strength but less HA pays more cp for this than the guy who buys more HA and less strength, right?

 

Now, if the guys had bought the same strength, and paid the same price for HA, but one was given by the Gm a couple extra dice... would that be the right way to go?

 

if not, why is it the right way to go for +3 OCV in my example?

Based on that, I will suggest that "Points (equal points or even very precisely calculated points) do not make balance happen in play. Instead, balance in play is what shows the points and costs were appropriate."

Thats great! So, how would you IN PLAY make my two guys, who are identical except that one has +3 more ocv of two attacks, play out in balance?

 

What give and takes would mr "i got 3 less ocv here" see in play from you to even the score?

 

See, thats the rub. As GM when i see tradeoffs, i gauge them based on how often i can use them to show the ups and downs and thats where the whole "balance in play" things comes from.

 

The only time the rules get in the way of this is when they dont provide any reasonable tradeoffs.

 

this is one of those cases. if the two characters were allowed in my game at the same cost, i would normally be pretty much at a loss as to how to balance them in play fairly. there would be little "obvious payback" for the one getting free ocv.

 

On other other hand, if i provided him with a small charge for the change of basis, i could see those 8 cp spent elsewhere on the guy with lower ocv and everyone would see the same thing.

 

8cp btw is arrived at by +6 cp to raise the MP by 6 ap and increase the slots to 66 ap for those two powers to add a +6 cp for +3 OCV skill levels (FX based on Ego not dex) which raised the slots to 66 ap (60 of which was end requiring.)

 

Net result, 8 cp.

 

enjoy your games, especially any where you freely allow no charge swapping of basis for skills! Those ought to be a hoot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

In my experience' date=' the change to dex involved in "based on con" plays out fine because that limitation brings in a world of drawbacks for the power that are target based.[/quote']

 

But again, if one characher has a 15 DEX and 25 EGO, and the other has a 25 EGO and 15 DEX (exactly equal characters otherwise), and both have taken a mental attack based on CON, one has lost 3 OCV and one has gained 3 OCV. You have no concern with this, based on your prior comments.

 

But a 3 point spread arising from different special effects which justify one character basing OCV on Ego instead of DEX does cause concern.

 

The only difference I can see is that one is already described in the rules, and the other is not. When we're discussing how to create an effect not already in the rules, I like to look at similar effects in the rules for guidance. There are only two other rules where the base for OCV is changed. If you disagree with that count, show me the other example(s).

 

One is Mental Power based on CON The cost of a mental power based on CON does not vary with the change in OCV.

 

The other is a non-mental power Based on ECV. Here again, variance between the character's OCV based on DEX and his OCV based on EGO does not change the cost of that power at all.

 

In both cases, it could (just as we could cost a change from DEX based OCV to EGO based OCV on that basis), but it does not.

 

the first has trade offs' date=' the second is an established cost for skills.. .3 pts for based on att. [/quote']

 

So because it's in the book, you accept it, but you can't accept anything that's not in the book. That's not exactly addressing the issue, is it? A guy with 20 INT and 15 background skills spends 15 points and gets +2 on each of those skills. The guy with 10 INT must spend 60 points to get +2 on each of 15 skills. The 8 points you cite below for +3 OCV seems a minor benefit by comparison.

 

Would you allow for free a mentalist character to redefine his skills that are normally based on int to all be based off ego? lets say his int is 13 and his ego is 28. Would you allow him to bu science skills, knowledge skills etc and redefine all of them as "works off ego not int" and so effectively gain +4 with every one of those skills at no extra charge?

 

SFX: "my character is a powerful telepath and when he seeks info he scans other people until he finds someone who knows the answer."

 

Well, first off, no because that would only be +3, but we all make math errors.

 

Second, no because I don't buy the SFX. You want info telepathically, buy telepathy.

 

Finally, and of greatest mechanical relevance, there is also no precedent for changing the basis for skills. There are two precedents, cited above, for changing the basis for computing OCV between DEX and EGO. Neither has any variance based on the spread between DEX and EGO. Why should this one differ?

 

One could argue an advantage or limitation should apply (effectively breaking down the BOECV advantage and Based on CON limitation into their component parts), but I think the comments on the earlier parts of this thread are pretty persuasive that there's no advantage needed for the OCV swap.

 

Seriously hugh' date=' after all these years of play, do you really have problems figuring out how to account for obvious long term aids and their effects? is this all reallt that confusing for you?[/quote']

 

There is a big difference between "It can be done" and "It makes sense to do it". Further, we're discussing a potential rule for swapping the OCV basis of attacks. It would not be restricted to "Only gamers who have played Hero for at least 10 years". Additional complexities should not be needlessly shunned, but the cost must exceed the benefit.

 

The presence of long term aid powers on the character WOULD however influence the initial cost determination. This is just like i would do for linked powers.

 

So, moving further along in our analysis, assume Mental Man has been in play for several years, and has paid the CV shift-based cost for having his TK powers' OCV based on Ego. Today, a new character is introduced. His powers include a long-term Ego aid similar to that discussed previously, and he can use it to bolster Mental Man's ECV 3 points. Is Mental Man required to invest the points to move his "OVC based on EGO" cost to reflect this new potential EGO increase? Does he get those points back if the new player changes characters or moves away? Do you see any other examples of costs which vary as one's teammates change?

 

The benefits of some powers certainly change - Darkness, Personal Immunity is a lot more effective if one's teammates can see through it with other targetting senses, for example.

 

Thats great! So' date=' how would you IN PLAY make my two guys, who are identical except that one has +3 more ocv of two attacks, play out in balance?[/quote']

 

In PRE-PLAY, if two players handed me characters that were all but identical, I would likely suggest one of them run a different character so they aren't clones. How do you balance them when each has a mental power based on CON, and one of them wants to leave OCV based on EGO (a valid option per the rulebook)?

 

8cp btw is arrived at by +6 cp to raise the MP by 6 ap and increase the slots to 66 ap for those two powers to add a +6 cp for +3 OCV skill levels (FX based on Ego not dex) which raised the slots to 66 ap (60 of which was end requiring.)

 

Net result, 8 cp.

 

So if his two powers were not in a Multi, would the cost vary? I generally look for rule changes I can apply at least somewhat objectively from character to character, not "let me see your character and I'll tell you how much it would cost". That 8 points comes from somewhere - maybe he drops a slot in the MP. Oh look - now we have to recost the blasted thing again.

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

 

But a 3 point spread arising from different special effects which justify one character basing OCV on Ego instead of DEX does cause concern.

yes, +3 ocv with attacks is a concern for me. its something i feel will normally play enough of a role to be worth points.

The only difference I can see is that one is already described in the rules, and the other is not.

or, it could be that one is a case where there are drawbacks to the choice that can be exploited for balance and the other is simply a beneficial change for no cost. there are already, whether i like it or not, cases in the rules where limitations have inherent advantages that go with them. Charges is one example, where the no end advantage is added as part of the mechanical package.

 

That doesn't make me obliged to add more of them.

 

neither do coases where some things come in for free obligate me to give new benefits for free when deciding how to handle "unspecified" cost assessments.

 

I don't think that i am out of whack to say "hey, +3 ocv is worth something!" and charge points for it when someone hands me a new wrinkle which effectively does that.

 

if you do, then I guess we disagree.

When we're discussing how to create an effect not already in the rules, I like to look at similar effects in the rules for guidance. There are only two other rules where the base for OCV is changed. If you disagree with that count, show me the other example(s).

and also there are the costs for improving OCV with single attacks, which i feel rather confident in saying the rules give this a cost.

 

So because it's in the book, you accept it, but you can't accept anything that's not in the book.

wow, you jumped a mighty conclusion there, didn't you?

 

 

That's not exactly addressing the issue, is it? A guy with 20 INT and 15 background skills spends 15 points and gets +2 on each of those skills. The guy with 10 INT must spend 60 points to get +2 on each of 15 skills. The 8 points you cite below for +3 OCV seems a minor benefit by comparison.

False logic. you are comparing two characters trying to buy to the same thing two different ways. HERO is rife with there being different ways to get the same result which produce different costs. There are more effective and less effective ways to get things. Skill levels are an obvious example. Its ridiculously inefficient to buy +2 cp per +1 on a broad range of related skills, being more efficient to gain it by using skill levels or by buying up atts. The system is built this way because groups of similar things should cost less 'per unit".

 

thats what your example is pointing out. thats a subject change. if you would like to entertain a discussion of whether group discounts is good or bad, start another thread. Multipowers and ec would likely get in, as well as skill modifiers.

 

 

Second, no because I don't buy the SFX. You want info telepathically, buy telepathy.

assume he has telepathu and this is just a telepathy trick, just like people sometimes buy skill levels with "pre skills" based on their character using mind control, or bonuses with presence attacks based on their "fear power."

 

would you allow, IF a reasonable FX were given, a character to change for free the feed stat for his skills, if that result produced a +3 change per skill?

 

or are you saying there can never be any justification for changing the attribute basis for a skill, period, so the issue is not worth consideration?

 

Finally, and of greatest mechanical relevance, there is also no precedent for changing the basis for skills. There are two precedents, cited above, for changing the basis for computing OCV between DEX and EGO. Neither has any variance based on the spread between DEX and EGO. Why should this one differ?

so you would not even consider doing the skill thing because its not already in the book?

 

Why is this different? because it comes with no drawbacks to counter the advantage gained. that makes it a solid easy slam dunk, in my book.

 

One could argue an advantage or limitation should apply (effectively breaking down the BOECV advantage and Based on CON limitation into their component parts), but I think the comments on the earlier parts of this thread are pretty persuasive that there's no advantage needed for the OCV swap.

and i consider bonus ocv with attacks worth something.

There is a big difference between "It can be done" and "It makes sense to do it".

Ok for the record then, I *am* discussing this from the perspective of "what i would do" and am not arguing in favor something i would not do in answer to someone else's question or seeking advise just because...

So, moving further along in our analysis, assume Mental Man has been in play for several years...

snip... again, hugh, this same issue would exist with linked and its power basis for level of limitation. Amazingly, the game has not collapsed under link.

The benefits of some powers certainly change - Darkness, Personal Immunity is a lot more effective if one's teammates can see through it with other targetting senses, for example.

agreed, the other characters would not be weakened by the darkness, which means they become more effective, so they should have to pay cp to reflect their capability.

 

but wait, they did! They bought an enhanced sense.

 

that does not mean i should pay more for my darkness.

In PRE-PLAY, if two players handed me characters that were all but identical, I would likely suggest one of them run a different character so they aren't clones. How do you balance them when each has a mental power based on CON, and one of them wants to leave OCV based on EGO (a valid option per the rulebook)?

i do not have 5er and this option is NOT mentioned in 5e, but i guess its likely this "choose ego or dex" option was added with some form of "with gm permission" the "if the gm permits" clause? is that right.

 

if so, the answer would be that i would NOT give permission for characters taking based on con to have mentally targetted powers using that lim.

 

So if his two powers were not in a Multi, would the cost vary?

Ok, for the record, yes hugh, it has been long established in HERo that costs of powers in a multipower will vary from costs of powers not in a multipower. Thats kind of the whole point of multipowers... to alter the cost to reflect the power effectiveness.

 

I generally look for rule changes I can apply at least somewhat objectively from character to character, not "let me see your character and I'll tell you how much it would cost". That 8 points comes from somewhere - maybe he drops a slot in the MP. Oh look - now we have to recost the blasted thing again.

 

uhhh... in my hero books, it always told me or led me to believe that i should look at characters when assigning costs for things, ESPECIALLY when it comes to advantages and limitations.

 

i seem to have recalled one classic example... only in magnetic fields" being discussed as if it DID matter whether the given character or a close ally could routinely generate said fields that would ALTER THE COST OF THE LIMITATION?

 

is that right, hugh? Does the hero book suggest anywhere, hint anywhere, that it is a good idea to set costs based on the character specifics, looking at things like this, particularly with regard to limitations?

 

Have you missed that all these years? isn't this something you yourself have probably done a number of times?

 

if so, was it such a monster cross to bear? Did the magno boy leaving and coming back and so forth lead to worlds of headaches of cost refigs?

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

I was just thinking that it would seemingly step on the toes of lightning reflexes. If you want to make a normal attack at a initiative higher than your normal DEX' date=' everyone else must buy lightning reflexes. If you let EGO act as the base for OCV and reaction time of all non mental based powers for mentalists, then they definitely are getting a free ride.[/quote'] If the guy chooses not to move and gets the "benefit" of a higher Ego than his Dexterity, why does it matter? Again: He paid points for the Ego score AND is using a power based on psionics. I don't see the problem. And, of course, mentalists with high ego scores don't tend to have ego scores that are as high as martial artists' high dexterity scores - so it's not like the mentalist is suddenly the Quickest Power in the West.

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Yes--if Joe Energy Blaster for soem reason buys a mental power' date=' he has to buy up his EGO as well. Mentalists don't have to buy EB's, after all.[/quote'] Yeah, but mentalists have to deal with attacks that target their DCV on a very regular basis. Most designs of Mentalists seem to buy at least some DEX. High DEX characters often buy very little Ego. I just don't see a "balance" issue here.

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Hugh wrote:

 

 

This is the only thing you wrote that I'm not sure about. Isn't "mental attack" a specific power set... telepathy, mind control, etc.,... and these have special properties unique to them... (like movement powers, etc.) They are invisible to normal senses, LOS range, vs. mental defense, and all that.

 

So simply defining the SFX of an attack as "mental" is weird. It doesn't take on the properties above. So you have to be very careful about what you mean by "mental power." I can understand why the fact that just calling something "mental" with SFX and then allowing it to be targeted with OECV for free seems to be a kind of "slippery slope" type of call. In and of itself, the decision has little game balance ramifications, but it sets a precedent that "small changes don't cost anything" and things could quickly spin out of control (theoretically).

 

This is the only hink in your otherwise fine explanation... at least from my POV.

I don't think it's hinky. It is an issue that isn't addressed by the rules and Hugh points out the "switch out" for PD and ED AND it makes sense.

 

P.S. Slippery Slope arguments need evidence to support their usage. Possibility does not equal plausibility as it is generally used nor does it equal probability.

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

To the Objectores: So an energy blast that attacks PD or ED but uses ECV is more threatening to game balance than mental illusions that attack the ECV of the opponent with ECV? I just don't see it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

If the guy chooses not to move and gets the "benefit" of a higher Ego than his Dexterity' date=' why does it matter? Again: He paid points for the Ego score AND is using a power based on psionics. I don't see the problem. And, of course, mentalists with high ego scores don't tend to have ego scores that are as high as martial artists' high dexterity scores - so it's not like the mentalist is suddenly the Quickest Power in the West.[/quote']

 

If one reads the comics, it's reasonably common for mental powers to be noted as "acting with the speed of thought". X4 #2 had this issue - Sue Storm takes out Emma Frost with a force field hit, and comments "She's not the only one whose powers work at the speed of thought".