Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough?

[JmOz]

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

 

Had an idea for balancing the FW roll aspect of them:

 

If you decrease your FW roll you must reaquire the find (So you essentialy lock in your skill levels for the whole combat)

[CourtFool]

Jack of all Trades

 

As a player I love them. I always like to play a jack of all trades; a skill monger if you wish. Overall skill levels allow me to be good in a lot of different skills and still be viable in combat.

 

As a GM I have not had much problem with them. My players have rarely taken any, prefering the cheaper levels for combat and skills.

 

I think they are priced about right. 5 Overall Levels unbalancing you say? 50 points in just about anything can be unbalancing.

 

I think Overall Levels are an excellent equivelant to most other systems 'Levels'. In other systems, whenever a character 'Levels' up they get a boost in all of their abilities...just like an Overall Skill Level.

[Dr. Anomaly]

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

 

I may be coming late to this conversation, but that's not going to stop me from tossing in my $0.02 anyway.

 

I think Overall levels are priced just about right, and for the same reasons that several others have quoted -- cheap enough to be tempting and useful, expensive enough to keep them from being an "impulse buy", if you will.

 

I certainly don't think they're too cheap, because they fail my "too cheap/broken" test.

 

If there's something so good that every character write-up seems to have it, or you have to seriously ask yourself, when creating a character, what's a good reason for the character to not have the whatever-it-is, then it's too cheap or too cost-effective.

 

Since I don't see every character write-up (mine or anyone else's) showing up with Overall Levels as part of the build, I don't think they're too cheap.

 

I also happen to find them very handy for certain character types -- the Renaissance Man, ala Doc Savage, or the super-scientist / knows something about everything like Brainiac 5. Those types are much easier to build with 4 or 5 Overall Levels instead of trying to buy up each Skill seperately. Now, since those types of characters are usually NPCs (at least they are in my games) you could argue that since point-accounting isn't vital, it would be just as valid to buy up all those Skills individually. You'd be right, but I find it more elegant to just buy several Overall Levels instead.

[Enforcer84]

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

 

They work okay for me.

[keithcurtis]

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

 

I have a fantasy bard who has 3 overall levels with a (-1/4) lim: Only when luck could affect the outcome. He was blessed with a charmed life at birth, see. He also has 6 levels of luck and a few other luck-based constructs.

In general, whenever I make a roll that only succeeds because of the Overall SL's, the GM and I come up with a creative "lucky" reason it succeeded.

 

Keith "Got on my lucky overalls" Curtis

 

PS. before anyone cries "munchkin", he's easily the least combat effective of the PCs. I designed him very much as a cheerleader, one who goes out of his way to make the other characters look good. The luck thing's just fun to play.

[Dr. Anomaly]

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

 

PS. before anyone cries "munchkin"' date=' he's easily the least combat effective of the PCs. I designed him very much as a cheerleader, one who goes out of his way to make the other characters look good. The luck thing's just fun to play.[/quote']

Keith, you're one of the last people I'd suspect of "munchkin" behavior!

 

 

"Ooh! Always after me lucky charms, are ye?"

[ghost-angel]

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

 

reminds me of the time I almost took Armor (the Power) in a Fantasy Hero game with "Only when actively avoiding combat" the SFX being "The Bard always lives... who ELSE is going to tell the story"

 

Ended up with 2 extra inches of Running instead.

[Markdoc]

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

 

I'll join the "priced right" crowd. I think the most I've ever seen on a character was 3 and he was diplomat/merchant type with a lot of diverse skills. Still 30 points is fair investment. 30 points sunk into regular CSLs would be a lot scarier.

 

My problem is not with the 10 point level but the 8 point "all combat" CSL. Not that it's abusive - quite the opposite. Why would anyone pay 8 points for "all combat" when they could pay 10 for "all skill rolls and all combat?"

 

cheers, Mark

[Furry Fox]

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

 

My problem is not with the 10 point level but the 8 point "all combat" CSL. Not that it's abusive - quite the opposite. Why would anyone pay 8 points for "all combat" when they could pay 10 for "all skill rolls and all combat?"

 

And don't forget "All characteristic rolls as well". Still it might fit certain character builds better but from a points perspective it makes little sense.

It is basically a level for NPCs or very combat oriented PCs.

[Supreme Serpent]

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

 

Its balance problem IMO comes up more in higher-point characters. If you're 250-350pts, with 5-6 skills working off of good stat rolls and a good basic CV, there's other places you'll get better use out of 20-30pts. However, if you're a 700pt character with scads of skills, lots of powers, etc and are supposed to be in "worldbeater" class, then that same 20-30+pts in overall levels looks almost silly not to take.

[Zed-F]

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

 

I agree with the sentiment that overall levels are priced about right when no limitations are applied. It's pretty easy to get Hyper-Competent-Man if you're not careful, though, with skill rolls in the 18+ range across a wide variety of skills. That's ok as long as you as GM have an idea of how you're going to handle a character that can make exceptional skill rolls (at a -10 penalty) on a semi-regular or even regular basis.

[Killer Shrike]

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

 

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.

I love OL's. Practically every character Ive ever made to play myself has them. Pound for pound I think they are just about the best 10 points you can spend on a character, right up there with +1 SPD, +10 STR, and Def Manuever IV.

 

It's one of the most elegant ways I've ever seen in any system to model someone that is just good at everything they put their mind to.

[Killer Shrike]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

Thats GURPS man. The 2 problems with that kind of ascending scale is that it is much more difficult to move the point totals around to suit a campaign, and it rewards characters that are broad and shallow while punishing characters that are focused or have depth.

[Killer Shrike]

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.

Yeah, I had a character very like that called The Adept -- about 250 points in Characteristics, Skills, and MAs and 10 Overall Levels.

 

The character was really good, but not TOO good. It was a viable 350 point character and had a good "feel" -- very elegant and clean. Would have been a difficult character to model in any other game, really.

[Killer Shrike]

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.

The 8 pt All Combat Levels are kind of lame; the only time they really become efficient is in a game with NCM on a character that has hit the DEX NCM and uses both ranged and hth attacks. And even then it makes more sense to pony up 2 more points for a full blown OL.

[Killer Shrike]

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

 

Part of the problem with skill levels is that they are much more effective for their price in campaigns where non-combat multiples are in effect.

I think you mean Normal Characteristics Maxima multiples.

[Killer Shrike]

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.

 

Activation Rolls are not characteristic or skill like rolls, so that was a correct ruling, but you explicitly can use OL's for Find Weakness rolls.

 

As far as suprise actions, basically in between combats or skill resolutions a Player can either let their OL's rest in DCV or PER as a default (or split between them). If a player pre-states that their OL's are assigned to PER prior to getting ambushed, then they should get the benefit of the OL's vs ambushes and other automatic PER tests.

[Killer Shrike]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

Agreed -- that is a handy design feature of OL's

 

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.)

Don't you find this kind of limiting? So if I wanted to play a crusty, veteran campaigner who is a little past his prime, and not as advantages as the other PCs to begin with -- perhaps they're super while my guy is just and experienced "normal" -- you wouldnt let me because all PCs are tied to some global standard of conceptual experience vs points?

[Killer Shrike]

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.

That is going to depend entirely on the campaign and the character. For some characters one more OL is a big deal, on others not so much.

 

OL's tend to balance themselves out. People forget that the most bang for the buck in a bell curve system is +1 above 11-. Each extra +1 has diminishing returns. The advantage to having a lot of OL's is mostly in the ability to put a few here and a few there at the same time and is an excellent way to build a flexible, adaptible character.

 

Pouring 5 OL's into an OCV roll is only meaningful if you NEED to put 5 in to hit, in which case it wasnt a case of advantaging, it was a case of compensating. If you don't need that much of a margin improvement then it was a waste of 10 points per for each superfulous one you allocated.

 

Players that are successful with OL's are players that use them intelligently; players that use them in a hamfisted fashion are wasting points every time the misallocate their levels.

 

SO really the same rule as applies to all HERO System campaigns applies here: the problem with Point based games is that the skill of the player in using the system can make certain characters more powerful than their points indicate.

[Killer Shrike]

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)

 

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.

I tend to hover around 2 or 3 for most characters, but I've got no issues with slamming in more if it fits a character.

 

Ive played and run the HERO System in so many campaigns Ive lost count across every major genre and across the point levels, and if there is one thing I've found it is that you can almost never go wrong with Overall Levels.

 

But basically its a common sense thing. Very focused characters that only do one or two things are better off taking specific Skill Levels or abilities -- they are not set up to take advantage of the flexibility of OL's. The more broadbased a character is, the more OL's make sense.

[Killer Shrike]

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

 

I have a fantasy bard who has 3 overall levels with a (-1/4) lim: Only when luck could affect the outcome. He was blessed with a charmed life at birth, see. He also has 6 levels of luck and a few other luck-based constructs.

In general, whenever I make a roll that only succeeds because of the Overall SL's, the GM and I come up with a creative "lucky" reason it succeeded.

 

Keith "Got on my lucky overalls" Curtis

 

PS. before anyone cries "munchkin", he's easily the least combat effective of the PCs. I designed him very much as a cheerleader, one who goes out of his way to make the other characters look good. The luck thing's just fun to play.

Who could possibly call that construct munchkin? Its basically ANTI munchkin.

[Killer Shrike]

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

 

I'll join the "priced right" crowd. I think the most I've ever seen on a character was 3 and he was diplomat/merchant type with a lot of diverse skills. Still 30 points is fair investment. 30 points sunk into regular CSLs would be a lot scarier.

 

My problem is not with the 10 point level but the 8 point "all combat" CSL. Not that it's abusive - quite the opposite. Why would anyone pay 8 points for "all combat" when they could pay 10 for "all skill rolls and all combat?"

 

cheers, Mark

I allow Skill Level upgrading, ie -- you can start with a lower echelon Skill level like +1 OCV with Swords, and then grow it into a more expanded version over time all the way up to a full OL. Thus usually in my games if a character currently happens to have an All Combat Level, its because they are in the process of progressing a lesser level up to an OL.

[Killer Shrike]

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

 

I agree with the sentiment that overall levels are priced about right when no limitations are applied. It's pretty easy to get Hyper-Competent-Man if you're not careful' date=' though, with skill rolls in the 18+ range across a wide variety of skills. That's ok as long as you as GM have an idea of how you're going to handle a character that can make exceptional skill rolls (at a -10 penalty) on a semi-regular or even regular basis.[/quote']The GM always has veto rights on characters. If a player does an end run on OL's and the GM thinks it makes the character unsuitable for the campaign, then he simply says "NO."

[CBikle]

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

 

 

 

Don't you find this kind of limiting? So if I wanted to play a crusty, veteran campaigner who is a little past his prime, and not as advantages as the other PCs to begin with -- perhaps they're super while my guy is just and experienced "normal" -- you wouldnt let me because all PCs are tied to some global standard of conceptual experience vs points?

 

Not to mention characters who use overall levels to represent dumb luck or super-intelligence.

[assault]

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

 

So if I wanted to play a crusty' date=' veteran campaigner who is a little past his prime, and not as advantages as the other PCs to begin with -- perhaps they're super while my guy is just and experienced "normal" [/quote']

 

This is one of the kinds of characters I would be likely to play. In fact, if I wasn't so prone to building characters with stuff like Life Support, I would go for "crusty veteran" a whole lot.

 

In fact, I'm in the process of grandfathering one of my old 3rd Edition characters at the moment. The main change that I am making is giving him lots of extra skills to bring him up to 350 points. Unfortunately he can only really afford 5 pt CSLs. But he's certainly going to have a "veteran" vibe to him, especially after I tone down his defences to present day standards, and stick the points into even more skills...