Why the heck not?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

yes' date=' +3 ocv with attacks is a concern for me. its something i feel will normally play enough of a role to be worth points.[/quote']

 

Nice selective quoting there, first of. Let's restate the question.

 

Character A has 23 DEX and 15 EGO. Character B has 23 EGO and 15 DEX. Character B wants to make his Telekinesis target using Ego-based OCV. You do not wish to allow that for free because he is gaining a benefit.

 

Character A buys Mental Illusions based on CON. You have no problem with Character A getting a 3 point OCV advantage over character B (a 6 point OCV advantage over Character B if they both bought the exact same power).

 

I find these two situations to be remarkably similar. For the mental power based on CON, Character A gains an advantage because he paid for more DEX. But, in the Physical Power targeted Mentally situation, the egoist paid poiints for his extra Ego.

 

The sole difference is that there is, at present, no rule for changing the stat on which one's OCV is based.

 

or' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

There is no drawback to the specific change of OCV basis. There is a drawback to the loss of "Line of Sight Range (a +1/2 advantage) and the defense being Mental Defense instead of PD/ED (a +1 1/2 advantage). The power likely also becomes visible (normally a -1/4 limitation, or loss of a +3/4 advantage). -1 seems to be pretty cheap for taking away the costed advantages alone, so it seems reasonable to conclude the change to OCV basis is free. Especially given the "keep the same basis if it's seen as appropriate" comment.

 

More to the point, whatever the cost (if one broke it out) is, it does not vary with the spread between OCV and DCV.

 

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

 

It costs nothing when bundled with other changes, but clearly you don't see the discrepancy there. I suppose one could replace "it costs nothing" with "the cost does not vary depending on the relative OCV based on DEX and EGO". This still leaves a discrepancy.

 

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.

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

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.

 

So there can be different ways of achieving the same skill roll, but not different ways of achieving the same OCV. Interesting logic there. [Or is it unfair to assume some internal consistency drives your individual conclusions?]

 

Skill levels are an obvious example. Its ridiculously inefficient to buy +2 cp per +1 on a broad range of related skills' date=' 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". [/quote']

 

There is a difference between the results. Assume Rick Reed has SS: Chemistry (17-), SS: Biology (17-) and SS Biochemistry (17-) (and a 38 INT). Joe Scientist has each SS at 11-, a 10 INT, and +6 levels w/ Science Skills (18 points). A complex issue arises. You need a SS: Biochemistry check at -12. SS: Biology and SS: Chemistry act as complimentary skills. Guess who's odds are better.

 

would you allow' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

Thinking on it, if the circumstances were right I wouold consider it. One area this is might be appropriate is the Power Skill (ie an undefined skill whose basis could logically vary). Most wizards have an INT based Magic skill, for example. Priests have an Ego-based skill. [That's also in the rules, by the way - more support for "basis can change for free if it's logical for the basis to be different".] I've also alowed bardic magic based on a PRE-based skill (often a "music" skill, but costed as a Power skill). A character with body control powers might logically base his Power skill on CON. BOD seems unlikely, but there may be an examnple out there somewhere.

 

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

 

I don't see a second character's abilities changing the value of Linked.

 

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.

 

Magnetra, the Mistress of Magnetism paid for her Change Environment - Create Intense Magnetic Fields". Would you give TechnoBoy, her teammate, an increased limitation for "powers do not work in an intense magnetic field"? Would his limitation be recosted if Maggie's player stopped gaming so the character retired? The other player's choices aren't in TechnoBoy's control.

 

Would he get an increased limitation if Maggie were his Hunted instead? How would this be explained if she were a Mystery Hunted? Clearly, the character wuld need to be recosted if his Hunted were resolved, and such an adjustment had been permitted in the first place.

 

Let's move it up a notch - Magnetra doesn't have CE - she has DF: creates intense magnetic field within 40" of her".

 

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.

 

I think it was "if the GM feels it apropriate" - not the classic "GM permission" phrasing, but the same basic thrust. [i hope it is a 5er change - then I won't feel so bad about not having known that tweak to begin with ]

 

And it somehow doesn't surprise me that your "GM prerogative" is commonly used to reduce available choices. I'm a bit more about making the ability work.

 

Ok' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Last I looked, we were discussing the cost of a power having its OCV based on EGO, not DEX, not the implications of a power framework. Is it fair to say your mechanic (as you currently envision it) is a swap of the CV base between EGO and DEX costed as an adder to the power, with this adder being 2 points per difference in the character's base OCV and OECV (ignoring, for the moment, any adjustment power issues in determining those bases)?

 

So the character is really buying 6 points more MP pool, and taking this adder on two of the powers in the pool, not putting a separate oine of "8 points - Swicth TK Blast and TK to ECV". He can also boost the AP of other powers in his Multipower by 6 points, if he so desires (and pays the slot cost), correct?

 

Fair enough, I suppose. He could have boosted AP of all powers by 6 points and bught each with +3 OCV.

 

Let's say the MP has 10 powers. Could he, instead, pay for the ECV swap for the whole thing by paying 9 points (equivalent to +3 levels with Multipower, and limited by handwave to only boost OCV)? Could he pay 7 points (+3 levels w/ MP, at 5 points per, only for OCV [-1])? In other words, is this a skill level free for all, with the proviso the character must pay the same points he would have paid to get enough skill levels to match his OCV to his EOCV, and he can then swap the bases for free?

 

It's a viable approach - I'd like to flesh it out.

 

Hmmm...how would you cost it if our character has 30 DEX and 20 EGO, but wants two powers in his MP to target based on Ego because that's the appropriate special effect?

 

Finally, does the answer vary if the powers in question are area effect, or otherwise automatically target DCV 3 (suddenly, the shift from OCV 7 to OCV 10, or vice versa, would seem much less critical).

 

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?

 

This, as I read it, is prsent solely because the limitation is based on frequency. But, moving back to Magnetra, what would you recost "Not in magnetic field" at, and what would you recost "Only in magnetic field" at for her allies and her Hunteds?

 

is that right' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

If "things like this" is "things whose costing is governed by frequency of occurence of a given effect", yes. If it's not, then no. The switch between DEX based and Ego based CV is not one governed by frequency of an occurence, by the way.

 

if so' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

I'll claim no direct experience in the issue (my players tend not to use such limitations).

 

But, as a test, let's assume your character has a small suite of powers limited by "only in intense manetic fields". They cost 20 points (60/3) because such fields are very rare. In 10 play sessions, you've used them once, for a liomited period of time. You have 3 unspent experience.

 

You have just been told by the GM that he needs to be recosted because a new player is bringing in Magno Boy, whoi can create intense magnetic fields. The limitation will now be -1/4. Find 48 points (45 after spending your 3 XP). Any points you don't cover become dice of unluck to balance.

 

Fair? Fun game? Will you welcome your new comrade with open arms, or find a reason Magno Boy should not be a memer of the team (and/or his player should not be permitted to game with us)?

 

Or maybe your position is that Magno Boy should have to lose his CE power unless the player whose character costing is affected agrees to pay off the extra points? I suppose we could just go "Comic Book" on it though. "For no explicable reason, Magno Boy's electromagnetic field does not allow SlugMan to access his "only in electromagnetic field" powers". [Not logical, but I'll give you that it's most definitely consistent with the genre.]

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

 

ASIDE: Mental Illusions can be amazingly effective in the classic "our team vs your team" matchup. Try "Friends look and act like enemies" at the +20 level...

 

There's pretty much always a 10 EGO, no mental defense guy out there, so 12d6 generally hits, and averages a 9- breakout roll. After three phases, the battlefield is chaos.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

ASIDE: Mental Illusions can be amazingly effective in the classic "our team vs your team" matchup. Try "Friends look and act like enemies" at the +20 level...

 

There's pretty much always a 10 EGO, no mental defense guy out there, so 12d6 generally hits, and averages a 9- breakout roll. After three phases, the battlefield is chaos.

 

When we're playing, it doesn't take 3 phases for the battlefield to dissolve into chaos, and that is without mental powers on either side.

[Constantine]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

When we're playing' date=' it doesn't take 3 phases for the battlefield to dissolve into chaos, and that is without mental powers on either side.[/quote']

 

To borrow a line: "Boy, you ain't kiddin'!"

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Wow has this ballooned.

 

I still don't see this as more than a +1/4 advantage (since the rules allow that to be built anyway), but think with all the drawbacks relative to that a +0 is more appropriate.

 

Aside from all that I have said before on this issue I want to point out the following:

 

In Champions, 6d6 EB vs. ED costs 30 pts. 2d6K RKA vs. ED costs 30 pts. Regardless of how BODY is handled (the RKA is more effective), the EB maxes out at 36 STUN and the RKA maxes out at 60 STUN. Now, regardless of how you feel about this issue, which has been discussed at length before, I'm using it as an example, in the rules, of a significant inequity for essentially the same power for the same points with a different concept/FX. Further, making an attack STUN only is a -0 limitation.

 

So, that said, if the RKA for the same number of points can cause nearly double STUN against a rarer form of defense, why is a further restricted BoECV for +0 so abusive. The system is not perfectly balanced, either intentionally or not. Balance comes from the GM and the feel of the setting and either reflects the defaults of the system or deviates for dramatic reasons.

 

I have no problem with switching the targeting stat. However, the defending stat is defined by the power, and that stat determines whether certain modifiers apply (DCV requires range, cover, Dodge, etc., DfC; ECV no range, no Dodge, no DfC).

 

At most it is a +1/4 advantage bought on each power, but at that level it should be more capable than designed since that is a standard BoECV advantage level. Moderately it is 3-pt skill levels w/ Mental Powers bought with (only for OECV) -1 to reflect the difference in ability between EGO and DEX. At a minimum it is a +0 advantage provided the power fits the character and makes dramatic sense.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Wow has this ballooned.

 

I still don't see this as more than a +1/4 advantage (since the rules allow that to be built anyway), but think with all the drawbacks relative to that a +0 is more appropriate.

 

Aside from all that I have said before on this issue I want to point out the following:

 

In Champions, 6d6 EB vs. ED costs 30 pts. 2d6K RKA vs. ED costs 30 pts. Regardless of how BODY is handled (the RKA is more effective), the EB maxes out at 36 STUN and the RKA maxes out at 60 STUN. Now, regardless of how you feel about this issue, which has been discussed at length before, I'm using it as an example, in the rules, of a significant inequity for essentially the same power for the same points with a different concept/FX. Further, making an attack STUN only is a -0 limitation.

 

So, that said, if the RKA for the same number of points can cause nearly double STUN against a rarer form of defense, why is a further restricted BoECV for +0 so abusive. The system is not perfectly balanced, either intentionally or not. Balance comes from the GM and the feel of the setting and either reflects the defaults of the system or deviates for dramatic reasons.

 

I have no problem with switching the targeting stat. However, the defending stat is defined by the power, and that stat determines whether certain modifiers apply (DCV requires range, cover, Dodge, etc., DfC; ECV no range, no Dodge, no DfC).

 

At most it is a +1/4 advantage bought on each power, but at that level it should be more capable than designed since that is a standard BoECV advantage level. Moderately it is 3-pt skill levels w/ Mental Powers bought with (only for OECV) -1 to reflect the difference in ability between EGO and DEX. At a minimum it is a +0 advantage provided the power fits the character and makes dramatic sense.

 

Wouldn't BOECV mean the RKA (and for that matter the EB) wouldn't do BODY damage without adding in the 'Does BODY' advantage? I'd have to look that up.

 

Bit of an aside, but it does follow from your comments; I can not see the problem with allowing combat manoeuvres to be used with Ego based combat: you can mentally dodge by emptying your mind, mentally block, by reciting the alphabet backwards and so on. Also just switching the targetting stat wouldn't change anything else about the power: it would still be normal range, and all normal defensive manoeuvres would apply, UNLESS you bought it as BOECV.

[Constantine]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Wouldn't BOECV mean the RKA (and for that matter the EB) wouldn't do BODY damage without adding in the 'Does BODY' advantage? I'd have to look that up.

 

I have to look at a book, too, but I think that based on ECV doesn't change the defense the attack is applied too, but only the why the attack is targeted. So, it would do body normally. To change the defense, you'd have to buy AVLD, and I think an AVLD applied to mental defense will still do body, because its not REALLY a mental power. Which is why it says you can buy resistant power, mental, and flash defense...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

I have to look at a book' date=' too, but I think that based on ECV doesn't change the defense the attack is applied too, but only the why the attack is targeted. So, it would do body normally. To change the defense, you'd have to buy AVLD, and I think an AVLD applied to mental defense will still do body, because its not REALLY a mental power. Which is why it says you can buy resistant power, mental, and flash defense...[/quote']

 

You can definitely change the defence with BOECV, and the level of the advantage depends on whether it applies to normal or mental defences, or either. Can't remember what BOECV is worth but if it is +1 then you would apply it to an EB and get a power that does stun and body for the same cost as an Ego Attack, which doesn't do Body, which i don't think can be right...

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

If you look back on page 1 or 2 I spell out all of the BoECV modifiers that reduce its value according to 5ER. You can reduce BoECV by 1/4 for each of the following: Does not bypass Desolid, Normal Defenses Apply, Range Modifiers apply. You still end up with something that is defended with ECV and ignores cover (i.e. is still indirect).

 

Regardless, my EB & RKA example was not about making it BoECV simply it was pointing out that there are 2 powers in the book that do essentially the same thing and cost the same amount, yet one can do significantly more STUN than the other. Some would say that is an advantage that should be paid for yet the rules are very clear about it. Don't think about making BoECV, just think about how the powers cost the same but do different amounts of damage.

 

Then when you think about Targeted by ECV for +0, with all of the restrictions (more than a BoECV at +1/4) and it seems okay to me.

 

That said, if you did apply BoECV to RKA it would not do BODY. However, it would do more STUN than EGO Attack AND cost the same. Heck, you could allow a character to apply normal defenses against it and normal range mods, leaving you with an attack that still targets ECV AND can affect desolid targets at 7.5 pts per DC.

 

That seems far more abusive to me than allowing an ECV vs. DCV attack power for +0.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

That said, if you did apply BoECV to RKA it would not do BODY. However, it would do more STUN than EGO Attack AND cost the same. Heck, you could allow a character to apply normal defenses against it and normal range mods, leaving you with an attack that still targets ECV AND can affect desolid targets at 7.5 pts per DC.

 

That seems far more abusive to me than allowing an ECV vs. DCV attack power for +0.

 

Actually, it wouldn't average more STUN. A 2d6 KA averages 7 BOD and 18.67 STUN (2 2/3 average Stun multiple). A 6d6 EB BoECV (or a 6d6 ego attack) averages 21 STUN. It would have a much larger range. KA's average more STUN after defeneses, but not more gross stun. Make the defenses less common, and standard will exceed KA.

 

Your analysis is right on, though. For +1/4, I could have an attack which uses my OECV, the target's DECV and is not impeded by cover. As such, allowing targeting with OECV and keeping cover and DCV can't be worth more than +1/4. This supports allowing basis of OCV (DEX or EGO) to be selected by the user of the power.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Yes, the average is slightly lower, but the high end of the range is significantly, and valuably greater. Notably, 14.81% of the time you will do more damage than the MAX on 6d6, which you only get on 1 in 6^6 (i.e. extremely remote). Even if you consider getting 30 or more STUN, that happens 22% of the time with 2d6K vs. 1 in (brain poop in calculating 30 or more on 6d6; please reboot) -- I'm sure getting 30 or more on 6d6 is not even close to 22%. So, the average does not tell the whole tale. Personally I'd give up 2.3 pts of average STUN for a 22% chance of rolling more STUN than I usually can ever.

 

I do appreciate the concurrance though.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Sooner or later, averages come back to haunt you. Wait for the night you can't beat a 3 on your stun multiple and you'll long for that secure average 21 STUN on 6d6.

 

But you are more likely to Stun your opponent with the KA mechanic, so there are definite advantages to that approach.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Absolutely. There are times that is worth it.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

I absolutely do NOT believe this is worth a +0. Because, it is my opinion that making a cheaper way to bypass defenses.

 

Take, for example, the Martial Artist. You can't make Martial Arts maneuvers based on EGO, it doesn't even make sense if you do. He has to physically connect. Martial Artists are also typically built with high DEX to represent the cool ability to block incoming attacks.

 

Furthermore, the advantage for targetting against EDCV is because less people take those types of defenses. By making attacks vs. ECV free you force others to have to pump more points into both EGO and DEX. And simply dump Variable Advantage (+1/2) onto the power and now you can make it target EGO and DEX for the type of character you are going against as opposed to spending Variable Advantage (+1 1/4) right now.

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

I absolutely do NOT believe this is worth a +0. Because, it is my opinion that making a cheaper way to bypass defenses.

 

Take, for example, the Martial Artist. You can't make Martial Arts maneuvers based on EGO, it doesn't even make sense if you do. He has to physically connect. Martial Artists are also typically built with high DEX to represent the cool ability to block incoming attacks.

 

Furthermore, the advantage for targetting against EDCV is because less people take those types of defenses. By making attacks vs. ECV free you force others to have to pump more points into both EGO and DEX. And simply dump Variable Advantage (+1/2) onto the power and now you can make it target EGO and DEX for the type of character you are going against as opposed to spending Variable Advantage (+1 1/4) right now.

Nobody is arguing that BOECV in the book should be a +0 advantage. Some are arguing that using ECV to target DCV instead of OCV is either a +0 advantage or at most a +1/4 advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Take' date=' for example, the Martial Artist. You can't make Martial Arts maneuvers based on EGO, it doesn't even make sense if you do. He has to physically connect. Martial Artists are also typically built with high DEX to represent the cool ability to block incoming attacks.[/quote']

 

If it doesn't make sense, SFX wise, it should not be allowed. The type of attack envisioned for this option is mentally directed (eg. telekinetic throwing of knioves by the cmassic "moves objects with his mind" telekinetic).

 

Furthermore' date=' the advantage for targetting against EDCV is because less people take those types of defenses. By making attacks vs. ECV free you force others to have to pump more points into both EGO and DEX. And simply dump Variable Advantage (+1/2) onto the power and now you can make it target EGO and DEX for the type of character you are going against as opposed to spending Variable Advantage (+1 1/4) right now.[/quote']

 

No one's arguing for changing BoECV. The objective is solely to cost out basing the character's OCV on EGO, but not changing from standard defualt defenses, and not changing the opponent's DCV, which would remain based on DEX. Going back to our telekinetic knife thrower, the martial artist would still use (resistant) PD against the hurled knives, and would dodge them using his DEX-based DCV. Only the attacker's OCV would be modified.

 

I agree that (at least in most genres), targeting the opponent's Ego DCV would be an advantage.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

No one's arguing for changing BoECV. The objective is solely to cost out basing the character's OCV on EGO, but not changing from standard defualt defenses, and not changing the opponent's DCV, which would remain based on DEX. Going back to our telekinetic knife thrower, the martial artist would still use (resistant) PD against the hurled knives, and would dodge them using his DEX-based DCV. Only the attacker's OCV would be modified.

 

I agree that (at least in most genres), targeting the opponent's Ego DCV would be an advantage.

Okay, so if I understand than what you are saying, allowing a player to use his eOCV to attack a targets DCV. In the case you mentioned, a telekinetic uses his mind to control knives and throw them.

 

I think I understand what your saying here, but I still think you are wrong. Granted, I don't think it comes anywhere close to what I thought was being said, but I still say it is wrong. Ego is about concentration and willpower. You can have 100 Ego and being completely unphased by anything. But it doesn't mean you have accuracy worth jack. OCV is also about hitting a target's body. You know how to expect their body to react and you adjust accordingly.

 

I mean, I get what is being argued here, but I don't see why it should be for free.

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

not really all that much to say. its really not worth the trouble. but on this new wrinkle...

 

But, as a test, let's assume your character has a small suite of powers limited by "only in intense manetic fields". They cost 20 points (60/3) because such fields are very rare. In 10 play sessions, you've used them once, for a liomited period of time. You have 3 unspent experience.

 

You have just been told by the GM that he needs to be recosted because a new player is bringing in Magno Boy, whoi can create intense magnetic fields. The limitation will now be -1/4. Find 48 points (45 after spending your 3 XP). Any points you don't cover become dice of unluck to balance.

 

Fair? Fun game? Will you welcome your new comrade with open arms, or find a reason Magno Boy should not be a memer of the team (and/or his player should not be permitted to game with us)?

 

Or maybe your position is that Magno Boy should have to lose his CE power unless the player whose character costing is affected agrees to pay off the extra points? I suppose we could just go "Comic Book" on it though. "For no explicable reason, Magno Boy's electromagnetic field does not allow SlugMan to access his "only in electromagnetic field" powers". [Not logical, but I'll give you that it's most definitely consistent with the genre.]

 

My position is that its equally bad for the Gm to allow the new character in and everyone suddenly see my guy using his "once in a blue moon" powers now all the time for free , which presumably have not been an issue balance-wise if used only once in a blue moon.

 

It is just as bad to let me run with a suddend effective 48 cp bonus as it would be to instead ask me to correct the 48 cp imbalance on the fly.

 

But, this is an issue with any circumstantial limitation or advantage? if costs are given based on one set of expectations and for some unforeseen reason the expectations change, the players and Gm involved will have to figure out how to handle the situation.

 

Now, i do not know about your games, but in my experience, fairly extensive, i have not seen these sort of gross expectations changes occur all that often. When they have they have been minor and not all that difficult to correct.

 

As a GM, in the above situation, i would take advice i know i have seen in hero products from time to time, and i WOULD recost the powers, raising them by 48 cp and ask the player to spend half his xp on the imbalance until it was paid off.

 

This is quite similar to the case where a character picks up a found item and wants to use it in combat. Thats free one scene kinda thing. if he then decides to keep it, he pays its off over time (i tended to use half his xp must go towards it) and the item keeps working fine even though he is "in debt".

 

That has seemed to fit a happy medium between "you haven't paid for it so it fails inexplicably" and "well its free" in practice.

 

I would guess, maybe, that ytou have even used something like it once or twice in your games... when you were looking for ways to make things work as opposed to looking for ways to imagine problems.

 

if you really do not know how to handle potentially sudden story based changes in effectiveness or capabilities in a point based system to avoid problems... this ain't the game for you.

[tesuji]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Actually, the balance or imbalance between rka and eb has been widely debated. Comparing the averages is very deceptive. What you need to compare id DADA (damage after defenses apply).

 

if you compare that, you will see typically that even moderate and especially for high defenses tend to let the rka do MORE stun DADA than a typical EB of the same size does on average, not less. The original model explanation for rkas was that they did less stun but more body, but that is not what happens in practice. its only true for low end or no defense enemies... which tend to not be all that important in some games.

 

Combining "more damage against typical defenses" with "more max damage potential" has indeed led some to believe that RKA vs Eb is costed incorrectly and is imbalanced.

 

Now, some may believe that "there already are imbalances" means "so i dont need to get new things right either" but for me if i want to add something the notion of adding more imbalances doesn't scratch my "if i add something, i want it to work right" itch.

 

My standard isn't "dont make a bigger screwup than is already there" but "try to get it as right as i can within the game context" when i add stuff to my games, in any system.

 

Yes' date=' the average is slightly lower, but the high end of the range is significantly, and valuably greater. Notably, 14.81% of the time you will do more damage than the MAX on 6d6, which you only get on 1 in 6^6 (i.e. extremely remote). Even if you consider getting 30 or more STUN, that happens 22% of the time with 2d6K vs. 1 in (brain poop in calculating 30 or more on 6d6; please reboot) -- I'm sure getting 30 or more on 6d6 is not even close to 22%. So, the average does not tell the whole tale. Personally I'd give up 2.3 pts of average STUN for a 22% chance of rolling more STUN than I usually can [i']ever[/i].

 

I do appreciate the concurrance though.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

There are other examples of powers with similar effects and points that given certain circumstances are more or less effective than the other. My point with EB vs. RKA was to demonstrate that in vulgar fashion. There are times when EGO attack will be far more useful than an AVLD EB, and times when its not.

 

Many of the counterpoints presented are of the nature of "This absolutely should not be +0". Okay, fine. But it also absolutely should not be +1/4 either -- that would get you a far more useful power. So, if that's the case... what should it be? It's difficult to justify any significant cost because its impact is fairly minimal. At times targetting OECV vs. DCV will be an advantage for the attacker, but nearly all the time it will be an advantage for the defender, who's ability to DfC, use cover bonuses, and who will most likely have a higher DCV than DECV.

 

For +1/4 I can target his DECV and ignore cover and martial maneuvers (a martial artist cannot use his martial dodge against the attack). For +0 I can target his DCV and be subject to martial maneuvers and cover modifiers.

 

Instead of stating, "well you just can't" tell me WHY. Tell me how the ability to target using ECV vs. DCV, subject to cover, range, maneuvers, and DfC, while making any power with this advantage visible to Mental Awareness, and adding the Mental Power category to it is worth more than +0. If you say it is worth +1/4, tell me WHY this specification is just as valuable as Autofire 3 or BoECV at +1/4 (range mod, normal defenses, does not affect desolid).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

There are other examples of powers with similar effects and points that given certain circumstances are more or less effective than the other. My point with EB vs. RKA was to demonstrate that in vulgar fashion. There are times when EGO attack will be far more useful than an AVLD EB, and times when its not.

 

Many of the counterpoints presented are of the nature of "This absolutely should not be +0". Okay, fine. But it also absolutely should not be +1/4 either -- that would get you a far more useful power. So, if that's the case... what should it be? It's difficult to justify any significant cost because its impact is fairly minimal. At times targetting OECV vs. DCV will be an advantage for the attacker, but nearly all the time it will be an advantage for the defender, who's ability to DfC, use cover bonuses, and who will most likely have a higher DCV than DECV.

 

For +1/4 I can target his DECV and ignore cover and martial maneuvers (a martial artist cannot use his martial dodge against the attack). For +0 I can target his DCV and be subject to martial maneuvers and cover modifiers.

 

Instead of stating, "well you just can't" tell me WHY. Tell me how the ability to target using ECV vs. DCV, subject to cover, range, maneuvers, and DfC, while making any power with this advantage visible to Mental Awareness, and adding the Mental Power category to it is worth more than +0. If you say it is worth +1/4, tell me WHY this specification is just as valuable as Autofire 3 or BoECV at +1/4 (range mod, normal defenses, does not affect desolid).

 

This is an excellent summary of the issue as a whole. We all know that a limitation which is less than -1/4 is classed as -0, despite the fact it may still be limiting. What happens when an advantage meets the same test? Worth far less than +1/4, but provides some advantage. I see three possibilities:

 

(a) Special Effects - all powers have SFX that can have very minor positive or negative results. If one accepts targeting with EGO-based OCV instead of DEX-based OCV balances out, one might simply chalk it up to special effects.

 

( Like Limitations, an Advantage clearly worth less than +1/4 is free. I don't like this one, as I can see a whole pile of "+1/8" advantages being piled on a power "for free". However, if one ruled that all advantages must be viewed together in this regard, so only one "negligible" advantage is available on any given power, it might work out. One could also require a "less than -1/4" limitation be applied at the same time to balance out the "less than +1/4" advantage. For example, perhaps our mentalist knife thrower accepts that he must be able to see in order to target the power - it can't be fired at all unless he can see. That's kind of the approach SFX take implicitly, but in this case both advantage and limitation are spelled out up front, moving it beyond the realm of SFX. Your SFX will benefit you sometimes, and cost you at other times, but neither will be frequent enough to merit changing the cost of the power.

 

© Like Limitations, Advantages round up, so any advantage must be at least +1/4 (unless it's under the "SFX" category). Obviously, this and ( represent opposed viewpoints. In my opinion, this is probably the superior approach. We could also use the offsetting of a minor advantage with a minor limitation, however, as described above.

 

Philosophically, I'm inclined to take option © rather than option (. Is personal immunity to your own EB really worth a 25% increase in costs either? However, I like the idea of offsetting a comparatively minor advantage (such as swapping Dex-based ECV for Ego-based OCV) with a comparatively minor limitation (perhaps lack of access to certain combat maneuvers, or inability to use against a target one cannot see).

 

I could also see free swapping between Ego and DEX as the basis for OCV on the assertion these pretty much balance out anyway, with a requirement the Ego based CV must be based on SFX (which implies there will also be some SFX-based drawbacks, so not all that dissimilar from the above).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Actually, the balance or imbalance between rka and eb has been widely debated. Comparing the averages is very deceptive. What you need to compare id DADA (damage after defenses apply).

 

if you compare that, you will see typically that even moderate and especially for high defenses tend to let the rka do MORE stun DADA than a typical EB of the same size does on average, not less. The original model explanation for rkas was that they did less stun but more body, but that is not what happens in practice. its only true for low end or no defense enemies... which tend to not be all that important in some games.

 

All true. Also the reason a KA based on ECV would have less of an advantage - low or no DEF opponents would be considerably more common if the power targeted an esoteric defense.

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

Okay, so if I understand than what you are saying, allowing a player to use his eOCV to attack a targets DCV. In the case you mentioned, a telekinetic uses his mind to control knives and throw them.

 

I think I understand what your saying here, but I still think you are wrong. Granted, I don't think it comes anywhere close to what I thought was being said, but I still say it is wrong. Ego is about concentration and willpower. You can have 100 Ego and being completely unphased by anything. But it doesn't mean you have accuracy worth jack. OCV is also about hitting a target's body. You know how to expect their body to react and you adjust accordingly.

 

I mean, I get what is being argued here, but I don't see why it should be for free.

Ego is only about concentration and willpower? Really? I don't agree. Are you saying that Mindscan works off of ECV because it literally bludgeons EVERYONE's mental defenses down until the person being mindscanned for is located?

 

I think you are too narrowly describing the characteristic Ego.

 

OCV is only about anticipating and adjusting to hit someone? I've seen it bought as having "big fists."

 

I think you are too narrowly describing OCV.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

hmmmm...

[Agent X]

Re: Why the heck not?

 

hmmmm...

No one said you have to read the thread or contribute.