Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

[Furry Fox]

I have been thinking about the value of overall levels and if they are fairly priced at 10 points each. I was wondering how many people actually use them in a Champions setting or opt for less expensive level enhancers.

[Starlord]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

My feeling is that overall levels (and levels in general) are too cheap as written. I think that the cost should be more exponential, but then I feel that way about most everything in the system. For example, 1 overall level should be ten points, two overall levels should be 10 + 20 points, 3 overall levels should be 30 + 30 points, etc. That is probably too expensive, but I've never settled on a set pattern that I like for the cost of powers, skills, etc.

[Furry Fox]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think that the cost should be more exponential' date=' but then I feel that way about most everything in the system.[/quote']

 

 

Gurps uses an increasing cost system for skills which is more realistic and gritty. I prefer HERO straight cost for skills and powers although I can see where others might differ especially in a darker or more realistic setting. An incremental cost increase of skills, abilities or powers is in essense anti-heroic and encourages the building of generalists as opposed to niche players.

 

Back to the original questions. Are Overall levels too cheap or not and do you use them often?

[JmOz]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think 4th edition had it right, 5th has added to them somewhat.

 

I would say that 10 points is right for +1 to any skill or Combat stat, but would not let it be used for PER or Stat rolls.

[Furry Fox]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I would say that 10 points is right for +1 to any skill or Combat stat' date=' but would not let it be used for PER or Stat rolls.[/quote']

 

What makes overall levels interesting to me is the flexibility that they can be used for anything including Stat rolls or even ECV. This in part compensates for their extremely steep cost. 10 points is a lot for +1. Consider that you can get +5 ocv with 5 2pt levels or 3, 3pts levels instead. Just a thought.

[Edsel]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

Their flexability is one of the things that make them such a good bargain. Depending on the setting, our group will sometimes forbid a starting character from having any. I don't ever remember a character in any of our campaigns with more than two.

 

They are a bargain but they are not inherently unbalancing. Like anything else though an enterprising character (power gamer) can find a way to abuse them. Just as long as the GM keeps an eye on their purchase I have no problem with them.

 

Take a 350 point Champions character. Buy 30 points in skills and 32 Overall levels. Play around with that. You'll find that you can do some amazing (and throughly ludicrous) things.

[Blade]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think that the 10 point overall level is fairly priced, but the combat skill levels are a little steep. Consider that for 8 points you get +1 with any one combat action. For 6 points (holding SPD fixed) you can get +3 Dex and thus +1 OCV and DCV, covering most of the uses of all combat skill levels for just 1 point more than a +1 DCV or OCV with HTH or Ranged combat, plus the effects of +3 Lightning Reflexes (another item I think is overpriced). Just my perspective.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think that the 10 point overall level is fairly priced' date=' but the combat skill levels are a little steep. Consider that for 8 points you get +1 with any one combat action. For 6 points (holding SPD fixed) you can get +3 Dex and thus +1 OCV and DCV, covering most of the uses of all combat skill levels for just 1 point more than a +1 DCV [u']or[/u] OCV with HTH or Ranged combat, plus the effects of +3 Lightning Reflexes (another item I think is overpriced). Just my perspective.

 

Part of the problem with skill levels is that they are much more effective for their price in campaigns where normal characteristic maxima are in effect.

 

As Blade sets out, 5 points for +1 DCV seems pretty steep when one extra point enhances your order of actions, OCV and possibly DEX rolls.

 

But it seems a lot less onerous if you assume you would have to pay 15 points (18, less 3 point SPD rebate) because your character is at the NCM breakpoint and must pay double for any additional DEX.

 

Similarly, even 3 points for +1 to all PRE skills seems steep when +5 gets me +5 PRE overall. It seems like a bigger bargain, however, if that +5 PRE would cost 10 points.

 

To me, this is one of the balancing act issues in trying to have one system fit all genres.

[incrdbil]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I'm prettyhappy with the cost of them--you just don't idily toss on a few overall levels. I do impose some limits on them. I've had players who wanted to use them on Find Weakness rolls, activation rolls among other inapplicable things.

 

When checking for surprise actions (a Per roll to notice a completely unexpected ambush) I wont let them be used.

[Outsider]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

A big weakness of overall levels is that they can only be used for one thing at any particular time. This can be a problem when a character wants to complement the primary skill being used for a task with a secondary one that also relies on those overall levels. Or when he wants to use a skill in the same phase as an attack (Examples : fastdraw or OCV in a showdown? Stealth or OCV/extra Damage when sneaking up and clobbering an enemy?)

 

Most supers games, I havent noticed much use of overall levels, since (as has been mentioned) one gets so much more by buying up stats.

[Blade]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I guess I have to agree with Hugh Neilson. Having never played in a campaign with normal characteristic maxima, I can see where the cost would be a lot more reasonable in those characters. However, in superheroic campaigns, it always seemed to me that CSLs let you build capability without violating character concept, but at a steep point cost.

[Matt Frisbee]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I'm a big fan of using overall levels to shorthand the Ubervillains in my campaign. For example, the big baddie in my current campaign has twenty different skills and it gets fairly nightmarish from a points perspective to get all of them to a truly dangerous level. I like the overall level to more accurately reflect what he can do -- focus his efforts to a specific nefarious task instead of being the world's expert in many different subjects.

 

So far as characters are concerned, I only allow skill, combat skill, ranged skill and overall skill levels to be purchased with experience points, since I feel that every character is a beginner when they enter play. (I haven't yet started a campaign with an experienced group.)

[Trebuchet]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think they're priced just about right. They're too expensive to buy casually, but inexpensive enough to buy a couple if the character has enough Skills to justify it. My current Champions PC Zl'f has two Overall Levels; and my first Champions character Ranger had five Overall Levels when I retired him in 1985. IIRC my ninja character who fell between Ranger and Zl'f had two or three too, but she was very Skill oriented. All (for all three characters) were bought with XP and not as part of the initial builds.

 

I seldom buy strictly combat levels for PCs; although I often do for villains.

[Hermit]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

If I'm using guidelines for a cap on DCV or OCV I limit them since they can be used as such, but within that cap, it's cool.

 

Truth to tell, my biggest concern with them is sometimes I have to remind my players who have them to use them

One of my players is great at RP, but doesn't exactly have her sheet or the rules memorized

"Oh #$#, I think I just failed my demolitions roll..."

 

*Tap paper*

"Oh thank god!"

[bwdemon]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

The pricing of skill levels takes both superhero and normal games into account. So while it may only be another 6 points for a superhero to get +3 DEX for +1 OCV/DCV, a bump up on the action order list, and maybe a +1 to DEX-based skills; it could mean up to another 15 points more for a normal to get the same benefit (not to mention GM permission). In that case, the lower cost of a level makes it a smart buy

 

Generally, I discourage overall skill levels. I prefer to keep levels separated into combat, penalty, and skill categories. The overall skill level seems to offer too much benefit for not enough cost.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think they're priced just about right. They're too expensive to buy casually, but inexpensive enough to buy a couple if the character has enough Skills to justify it. My current Champions PC Zl'f has two Overall Levels; and my first Champions character Ranger had five Overall Levels when I retired him in 1985. IIRC my ninja character who fell between Ranger and Zl'f had two or three too, but she was very Skill oriented. All (for all three characters) were bought with XP and not as part of the initial builds.

 

I seldom buy strictly combat levels for PCs; although I often do for villains.

I have to go with Trebuchet on this, too expensive to just buy a few offhand, cheap enough to still make them viable.

[Furry Fox]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I agree with Trebuchet as well. However 5 overall levels is extreme and can be abusive. I would probably put the limit of overall levels to 3 with good justification.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I agree with Trebuchet as well. However 5 overall levels is extreme and can be abusive. I would probably put the limit of overall levels to 3 with good justification.

Seems like a fair and reasonable limitation. I had a GM once that did a similar thing, I think his was 3 as well.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

However 5 overall levels is extreme and can be abusive. I would probably put the limit of overall levels to 3 with good justification.

It never worked out as unbalancing in that particular campaign because that character had only a DEX 20 and SPD 4, so even with all 5 Overall Levels in OCV he had the lowest OCV in our campaign. When I retired Ranger he had 125 XP.

 

In other campaigns 5 levels (or less) might well be excessive. All campaigns are different; and even being "book legal" or complying with all house rules doesn't guarantee an individual character will be balanced. Balance often depends as much on the player as on the character.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I have a 10 pt. NCM on Combat Skill Levels. It doesn't matter what you buy, everything after the first 10 pt.s costs double. That tends to make the lower cost (an dmore flexible) levels more attractive.

Because of the nature of the combat I want to encourage, I have a separate 10 pt. NCM on DCV-only levels, and on PSLs. But GMs can adjust to their own tastes.

 

Keith "Why 'levels', anyway?" Curtis

[TaxiMan]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think they are priced fairly. Even 5 levels doesn't bother me, the player devoted 50 points to the levels after all. There isn't any way to reduce their cost, so that keeps them from being abused IMO.

 

As far as Find Weakness goes, that is a possible abuse with Overall Levels. I believe they can be used to improve FW rolls, according to Steve. However, game limits can probably keep that in check (e.g. FW of 14- is game max, or some such).

[pinecone]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I'm suprized by how many people don't like them...I've never had a problem with 'em my self and I let them aply pretty much to anything (except contacts...I had to stop doing that...) Gezz they cost 10 points Each! So if you go "Ultimate skill monger" more power to ya...though most skill mongers find them selves selling back a couple of those levels so they can buy all the other goodies...it's a point based system so things tend to ballence them selves....though I'd likely be Real concerned about Overalls with limits.....(like say OIF:Battle suit....)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

I think they are priced fairly. Even 5 levels doesn't bother me, the player devoted 50 points to the levels after all. There isn't any way to reduce their cost, so that keeps them from being abused IMO.

 

As far as Find Weakness goes, that is a possible abuse with Overall Levels. I believe they can be used to improve FW rolls, according to Steve. However, game limits can probably keep that in check (e.g. FW of 14- is game max, or some such).

Of course you can reduce their cost:

8 Amulet of Skill: +1 Overall (10 Active Points); IIF (-1/4) (10AP)

 

And I wasn't even getting creative. As was pointed out once: The regulars on these boards can nake a standard 350pt Super do some scary things. And be "book legal" about it.

 

I do notice that those who figure a lot of Overall Levels are the route to go are those who are new to the System. Most veteran Herophiles I know will either go with a series of lower point sepcialized Skill Levels or only a couple of Overall Levels - whichever fits concept. Rarely do I see an experienced Hero Player buy more than 2-3 Overall Levels prefering to put points in other areas first.

[Lamrok]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

It really depends on the game. In a heavily combat oriented game, you won't get as much value from them - your'e better off buying specific levels in specific things. In a game with a lot of non-combat action, they are far more useful, since they allow skill mongers to put up passable combat stats without a heavy dual investment of points.

 

As a GM, I don't like them because they are often a quick way for a character to cover a lot of bases with a rule mechanic, and without a lot of deliberation. My house rule used to be that overall levels always had to have a limitation on them, but the lims could be -0 "flavor" lims.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

 

Of course you can reduce their cost:

8 Amulet of Skill: +1 Overall (10 Active Points); IIF (-1/4) (10AP)

 

I probably wouldn't permit a limited Overall Level in my campaign; although I do allow limited Combat Levels (OIF: Fire Control Computer, etc.). Part of the inherent game balance for Overall Levels is that they're fairly expensive; with Limitations they become too cheap. There are already ways to improve Skill rolls (Extra Time, labs, etc.).

 

And I wasn't even getting creative. As was pointed out once: The regulars on these boards can nake a standard 350pt Super do some scary things. And be "book legal" about it.

 

I do notice that those who figure a lot of Overall Levels are the route to go are those who are new to the System. Most veteran Herophiles I know will either go with a series of lower point sepcialized Skill Levels or only a couple of Overall Levels - whichever fits concept. Rarely do I see an experienced Hero Player buy more than 2-3 Overall Levels prefering to put points in other areas first.

My experience in Champions has been is that you aren't good enough at a Skill (especially a combat one) to do it without adding levels then you're not good enough at it in the first place. In combat I generally apply levels solely to counter penalties from maneuvers or other actions.