Definition of a "tight group"?

[roch]

Is a tight group any of the items in the lists on 5ER p.76 - for example, "Two-Handed Weapons"?

 

Or is there some other nebulous definition?

 

Thanks,

 

 

(_8(0)

[Edsel]

Re: Definition of a "tight group"?

 

It is a concept and as such cannot be truely nailed down. I think it varies depending on the game and the gaming group. One GM/group might define a tight group as being "all revolvers" whereas another group might generalize further and call it "all handguns." It has been shown in several published characters that Martial Arts are considered a tight group and therefore 3-point levels work with them. But if a character has a lot of MA manuevers, or perhaps both ranged and melee MA then I can see a GM requiring those to be 5-point levels (its no longer a "tight group").

 

Some good concrete examples that are out there are the ones that refer to 5-point levels. For instance +1 all OCV is a 5-pointer, as is +1 DCV and +1 Ranged Combat or +1 Melee Combat. Obviously it then follows that a 3-point "tight group" has to be more restrictive that those examples.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Definition of a "tight group"?

 

RE: The Martial Art example. Count me as one of the GM's that requires 5-pt levels if the martial art contains both hth and ranged manuevers.

 

RE: Original Question. Officially it's a nebulous concept Here's the system I use as a basis. Please note this is house rule not canon.

 

"Meta-FX". These are not considered a tight group. Adjustment powers which affect any single power of a MetaFX pays +1/2 instead of +1/4. MetaFX cannot be used as the justification for an Elemental Control. MetaFX are sufficiently broad that you do not get a limitation for "limiting" a VPP to one such MetaFX -- practically speaking, VPP's work on the MetaFX level by default. Detects against MetaFX are always 10-pt base cost.

 

The standard MetaFX are Magic, Psionics, UltraTech (AKA "Rubber Science"), and Nova Power (AKA "Super Powers"). Martial Art tricks should be considered one of the three at the campaign level (for my current campaign it's Nova Power, under the Emergence campaign we chose Psionics, etc.). For the purposes of limitations, "only vs" or "only for" a MetaFX can never be worth more than -1/2 and should usually be -1/4.

 

EXAMPLES

The Disruptor (my GM-PC) has a power called his "Gremlin Ray", defined as a Dispel vs Any One Technological power. He pays +1/2 instead of +1/4 because the effect is so broad. Similarly, my Witchcraft rewrite has a Sense Magic power; the cost for it starts at 10pts (instead of 3) because it works at the MetaFX level.

 

Witchcraft's official writeup in Champions has an EC called "Helpful Witcheries". This would not be an acceptable EC in my campaign -- practically speaking it's no more limiting than Any Magic Spell and therefore a MetaFX. My rewrite of her has an EC called "Useful Boons" -- by definition, no attack powers or debuff powers can fit into it. Hence it's more appropriate in my opinion (although I could see why anothe rGM might still disallow it).

[Vondy]

Re: Definition of a "tight group"?

 

It is a concept and as such cannot be truely nailed down. I think it varies depending on the game and the gaming group. One GM/group might define a tight group as being "all revolvers" whereas another group might generalize further and call it "all handguns." It has been shown in several published characters that Martial Arts are considered a tight group and therefore 3-point levels work with them. But if a character has a lot of MA manuevers' date=' or perhaps both ranged and melee MA then I can see a GM requiring those to be 5-point levels (its no longer a "tight group").[/quote']

 

There's a clarification of this in the UMA I ran across today. 3-point levels can be applied to all of the manuevers in a particular martial arts style. So a character who knows Akido and Kenjutsu can use 3-point levels in akido can use them for Akido, but not Kenjutsu. The same paragraph suggests such characters should probably buy 5 point levels.

 

I'm a liberal GM. Small Arms is a 3 point group in my game.

[roch]

Re: Definition of a "tight group"?

 

Phew, thanks for the clarity on that, I thought I was missing a crucial definition somewhere!

 

As a particular case in point, for an FH campaign, I have a barbarian character and want to give him a few 3-pt CSLs in H2H 2-handed weapons... do you think "Two-Handed Weapons" or "Barbarian Two-Handed Weapons" is a reasonable 3-pt scope?

 

Some of the weapons I would want to include are greatswords, greataxes, 2-handed flails, mauls, greatclubs, and basically anything that is big and heavy and can be swung.

 

I'm not sure whether including staves and polearms would be stretching it a little.

 

Thoughts from people who've played enough to get a feel for sensible scope on this?

 

Many thanks,

 

 

(_8(0)

[Vondy]

Re: Definition of a "tight group"?

 

Phew, thanks for the clarity on that, I thought I was missing a crucial definition somewhere!

 

As a particular case in point, for an FH campaign, I have a barbarian character and want to give him a few 3-pt CSLs in H2H 2-handed weapons... do you think "Two-Handed Weapons" or "Barbarian Two-Handed Weapons" is a reasonable 3-pt scope?

 

Some of the weapons I would want to include are greatswords, greataxes, 2-handed flails, mauls, greatclubs, and basically anything that is big and heavy and can be swung.

 

I'm not sure whether including staves and polearms would be stretching it a little.

 

Thoughts from people who've played enough to get a feel for sensible scope on this?

 

Many thanks,

 

 

(_8(0)

 

I think "2-handed weapons" is nebulous. Not so much for breadth as for seeming like a rubbery SFX. You could give the character some breadth, and create of more satisfying definition by calling it *Name of Barbarian Tribe* Melee Weapons. Then you create a short list of melee weapons this tribe uses - and they don't all have to be two handed! (both the small arms and common melee WF groups have ~8). I would probably leave staves out. Or you could define it as *Tribal Great Weapons,* which would be narrow for me (some GM's might disagree).

 

Example List (That I Would Approve):

 

Great Axe

Battle Axe

Great Sword (i.e.,Claymore)

Battle Sword (1.5 Hands)

Maul

Great Club

Massive War-Flail

 

Some GM's might prefer these groups be by weapon type (i.e., swords, axes, hammers, etc). Or might argue a list like *tribal weapons* is a broad group, thus costing 5-points each (but then you can work out a longer laundry list).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Definition of a "tight group"?

 

If you are going by the Weapon Familiarity Chart, it is easy: anything that you can buy Familiarity with for 1 point is a Tight Group. This means, "Bows," is a Tight Group, but not, "Common Ranged Weapons." Likewise, "Shortbow," is a specific weapon that fits into the Tight Group, "Bows;" it is not itself a whole Tight Group. My understanding is that a 2-point CSL could apply to, "Shortbows," but not to, "Bows."

 

If you want a cross-section that is different from that on the Weapon Familiarity Chart, or you are defining things in terms of constructed Powers or Martial Arts maneuvers, things become a little less easy. See other peoples' posts.

 

I would probably require you to buy CSLs at the 5 point level if you wanted them to apply to, "all Two-Handed Weapons." See the FAQs for how they could apply to DCV at various times for either HTH or Ranged attacks.