Requires skill roll

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

Many of us forget that a RSR need not determine success or failure of the power itself. In the valdorian Age, for example, all magic spells have RSR, but the spell succeeds even if you fail your roll - you just incur some debt to the nasty spirits who grant you your magic. Likewise all sorts of other "successes" can occur on a failed RSR:

 

- power works but takes more time than usual

- power works but has some random side effect (or even a Side Effect)

- power works at reduced Active Points

- power works but costs more END than normal

etc.

 

This makes RSR more fairly costed compared to Activation.

 

I'm pretty sure that is a campaign specific ruling for Valdorian Age - the 'core' RSR simply allows the power to activate - or not - depending on the roll. I'd argue (as a GM, if a player bought that sort of construction to me) that the RSR is not a seperate limitation (as it has no effect on the power, and does not limit it), but simply an activating mechanism for the side effect limitation and so would not be worth any point break.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

RSRs can also be defined as Skill Vs Skill Contests. Also 5ER goes into allowing Partial Success of some nature with RSR.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

I wouldn't like anyone to think I am going soft and missing an opportunity to complain about something, so don't think that I believe that activation rolls have got it right.

 

Roll    %
[font=Arial][size=2]8       [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2]25.9[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]9       [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2]37.5[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]10      [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2]50[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]11     [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2]62.5[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]12     [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2]74.1[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]13     [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2]83.8[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]14     [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2]90.7[/size][/font]

 

So, 8- means that the power works about 1 time in 4, so should be at -2. 9- is also about right: 2/3 of power is lost.

 

10-, however, is clearly 'loses half power' and so should be -1, 11- should be 'loses 1/3 of effective power, or -1/2, and 12- is 'loses about 1/4' , or -1/4.

 

13-, 14- and 15- shouldn't get a look in. They all represent losing 'less than 1/4 of overall effectiveness'.

 

The point is, I suppose, that AR, certainly at the higher activation levels, is an absolute bargain in any event.

 

Pain in the neck when it goes wrong, mind.....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

I wouldn't like anyone to think I am going soft and missing an opportunity to complain about something, so don't think that I believe that activation rolls have got it right.

 

So, 8- means that the power works about 1 time in 4, so should be at -2. 9- is also about right: 2/3 of power is lost.

 

At 1 in 4, shouldn't it be -3? That makes the power cost 25% if the normal cost, consistent with your theory that

 

10-' date=' however, is clearly 'loses half power' and so should be -1, 11- should be 'loses 1/3 of effective power, or -1/2, and 12- is 'loses about 1/4' , or -1/4.[/quote']

 

The point is, I suppose, that AR, certainly at the higher activation levels, is an absolute bargain in any event.

 

Pain in the neck when it goes wrong, mind.....

 

To me, the limiting factor of activation is not only how frequently it will work, but the simple fact that it could fail. If exactly half the game takes place at night, and my power doesn't work at night, -1 seems fair. My power will be unavailable half the time. But I will generally know it will, or won't, work. In the latter case, I'll never waste time or END trying to activate it. If it activates 10-, I can't reliably predict whether it will activate - I have to spend the time and/or END and find out the hard way. To me, that randomness/unpredictability makes it more limiting.

[Outsider]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

Now assuming a superhero game, where each character is going to have at least one skill in any event, we can discount the 3 point skill cost, and assume a roll (based on a superhero average characteristic of 23) in the region of 14- for that skill.

 

Why do we assume

1) a super hero game

2a) that each character is going to have one skill in any event

2b) that the one skill will be relevant to their RSR power

3a) that the relevant skill will be based on a stat

3b) that that stat will be 23

3c) that the 23 stat would have been bought that high even in the absence of the RSR skill.

 

Admittedly, all those assumptions could be the case, but they make up a 'best case' set for RSR in an RSR vs AR comparison.

 

 

A more common set of assumptions (in my experience, anyway) would be that the game is Fantasy, the RSR skill is specific to the RSR powers and would not be bought otherwise, that the skill will be based on a stat of 8 to 18, and that the level of the stat that the skill is based on will be highly dependent on the other benefits that stat provides vs its cost.

 

For Example :

Fantasy Hero magic spells with RSR using an otherwise useless 'magic manipulation' skill based on EGO.

 

In this case, we can't conveniently discount 9 points from the RSR skill cost (the base 3, plus 3 levels) as the skill wasnt going to be bought anyway & EGO provides little value vs cost in most FH settings (ie we can't assume it would have been bought up (especially to 23!) anyway.)

 

Assuming 45 Active point spells, the caster now needs a 19- skill to get an equivalent 15- success rate. that will be 3 for the skill, plus 6-8 levels (12 to 16 more points (assumes a 10-18 EGO)) So a 15 to 19 point skill, plus 0 to 16 points spent on an otherwise not very beneficial stat.

 

So how do the points stack up now?

 

ACt 15- spells : 45/1.25 = 36 per

RSR spells : 45/1.5 = 30 per

 

So RSR spells cost 5/6ths what AR spells do. The break even point is when 19 points equals 1/5th of the total points spent on spells, whch is 95 points. plus the 19 on the skill = 114 points. Assuming a 75+75 character, this leaves 36 points for the rest of the character. At the break even point. If one wants to come out ahead, then the remainder will be less than 36 points.

 

And this is assuming that the AR or RSR are the -only- disads on the spells, which favors RSR. If we assume another -1 1/2 in disads per spell, then the spells cost :

 

45/2.75 = 16 points

45/3 = 15 points

 

To make up the 19 points of skill, the character needs to spend 285 points on spells... about twice the points as the character even has.

 

 

So yes, if you can get your RSR skill to be a skill you would have bought anyway AND you can have that skill based on a stat you would have bought way up anyway, AND there are no other lims on the RSR/AR power that dilute the effect of the -1/2 vs -1/4 difference of RSR vs AR (15-), then maybe RSR > AR on points. But it isnt likely.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

Why do we assume

1) a super hero game

 

Because your examples used 60 point powers, which are a bit hefty for most other genres.

 

2a) that each character is going to have one skill in any event

 

Er....are there any characters who have NO skills at all? If so they are the serious exception

 

2b) that the one skill will be relevant to their RSR power

 

I'm assuming a build that makes best use of existing resources, or ensures that any points going to eb spent on skills are spent on useful ones.

 

3a) that the relevant skill will be based on a stat

 

Because RSR skills are supposed to cost 3/2, which are all (I think) stat based.

 

3b) that that stat will be 23

 

See 1) above - in a superhero game a useful stat is likely to be in this area. Could be lower, could be higher, but that is not a bad average. Even in a fantasy game with magic, 23 INT is not that uncommon.

 

3c) that the 23 stat would have been bought that high even in the absence of the RSR skill.

 

We are both making assumptions, and one of mine is that I don't see a 23 stat as unrealistic. YOU MIGHT, for concept reasons, base a RSR on a skill with which you only have familiarity, but I've yet to see that happen....

 

Admittedly, all those assumptions could be the case, but they make up a 'best case' set for RSR in an RSR vs AR comparison.

 

 

A more common set of assumptions (in my experience, anyway) would be that the game is Fantasy, the RSR skill is specific to the RSR powers and would not be bought otherwise, that the skill will be based on a stat of 8 to 18, and that the level of the stat that the skill is based on will be highly dependent on the other benefits that stat provides vs its cost.

 

For Example :

Fantasy Hero magic spells with RSR using an otherwise useless 'magic manipulation' skill based on EGO.

 

In this case, we can't conveniently discount 9 points from the RSR skill cost (the base 3, plus 3 levels) as the skill wasnt going to be bought anyway & EGO provides little value vs cost in most FH settings (ie we can't assume it would have been bought up (especially to 23!) anyway.)

 

Assuming 45 Active point spells, the caster now needs a 19- skill to get an equivalent 15- success rate. that will be 3 for the skill, plus 6-8 levels (12 to 16 more points (assumes a 10-18 EGO)) So a 15 to 19 point skill, plus 0 to 16 points spent on an otherwise not very beneficial stat.

 

So how do the points stack up now?

 

ACt 15- spells : 45/1.25 = 36 per

RSR spells : 45/1.5 = 30 per

 

So RSR spells cost 5/6ths what AR spells do. The break even point is when 19 points equals 1/5th of the total points spent on spells, whch is 95 points. plus the 19 on the skill = 114 points. Assuming a 75+75 character, this leaves 36 points for the rest of the character. At the break even point. If one wants to come out ahead, then the remainder will be less than 36 points.

 

And this is assuming that the AR or RSR are the -only- disads on the spells, which favors RSR. If we assume another -1 1/2 in disads per spell, then the spells cost :

 

45/2.75 = 16 points

45/3 = 15 points

 

To make up the 19 points of skill, the character needs to spend 285 points on spells... about twice the points as the character even has.

 

 

So yes, if you can get your RSR skill to be a skill you would have bought anyway AND you can have that skill based on a stat you would have bought way up anyway, AND there are no other lims on the RSR/AR power that dilute the effect of the -1/2 vs -1/4 difference of RSR vs AR (15-), then maybe RSR > AR on points. But it isnt likely.

 

So your first point is that the utiltiy of the limitation is highly genre dependent.

 

Your second would appear to be that it is highly power level dependent.

 

Finally, you seem to be saying that the one genre that RSR seems practically made for - Fantasy Magic - is the one where it is of least 'economic' use.

 

RSR works fine when you have a background to the campaign that requires all, or the majority of powers, to take it - everyone is on a level footing - but when that is not a requirement, it is a complete wild card. In a system that is based at heart on point balancing, that seems just silly.

 

Of course a flat price comparison is only really meaningful for instant powers, so I suppose another criticism I have is that the utility of the limitation depends on WHAT you are buying as well.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

personally, i think that RSR is one of the better limitations, simply because it models a specific relationship (one i find to be generally appeally) between power and skill. power is great, but without skill it is USELESS, so most of my characters have some sort of RSR or Activation roll depending on the circumstances of the power.

 

AR is also an awesome lim, because it models another specific relationship (one that i also find appealing) that powers are not always reliable. the difference, of course, is that reliabitlity is based on the actual nature of the power (gun that jams, etc) while RSR is the measure of skill or finese needed to make a certain power work (like a spell, but also anything the character has to learn to do).

 

to me, the point cost is irelevant. RSR may be better if you tie lots of powers to one skill, but if you want those skills to be unreliable, then you picked the wrong method. refigure your powers with AR, then we can get started.

 

then again, i am a stickler for rp, and a concept must warrant point expenditure, not the other way around. so for me, i love RSR, and will continue using it for nearly every character i make, because i think that using a power should be more than a simple "i do this" but should actually take some understanding of the power in question (skill, anyone).

 

p.s. if i remember correctly, activation rolls that are failed are Very Bad Things, because i believe that the power fails to work anymore, altough that may be an adder (no book to check)

[Rapier]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

personally' date=' i think that RSR is one of the better limitations, simply because it models a specific relationship (one i find to be generally appeally) between power and skill. power is great, but without skill it is USELESS, so most of my characters have some sort of RSR or Activation roll depending on the circumstances of the power.[/quote']

 

Hear, hear!

 

The AP penalty on the roll is also a big factor. For the most part, people don't have limitations on their skills. Getting a skill up to 17- can be rather expensive (regardless if it's bought up or through a naturally high CHAR base). Usually much more expensive than the RP cost without the lim (since most powers have at least one or two limitations).

[Outsider]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

You're right on about the difference between RSR and AR as far as concept goes, eternal sage. A failed activation roll doesnt prevent future attempts to activate the power, though, unless it wasnt just AR that was taken, but Burnout (a subset of AR, worth a greater limitation).

 

What I have been trying to get at is that, point accounting-wise (and IMHO), RSR is often undervalued as a limitation. As Rapier said, the cost of the skill almost always exceeds the points saved by taking the limitation.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

i knew it was something like that. and i agree as well with the skill cost with RSR. it can be prohibitatively expensive for say, a teen game. but i'm more of a concept person. as long as the concept (mine or the player's, depends on which side of the screen i'm on) is sound, fun, and interesting, i'm less into the small details. my players aren't too much into min/maxing, so they will usually just built something simple anyway (as in only a few lims or advantages).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

I'm not against the concept behind RSR, but I do think that there are significant cost, construction and even role playing problems with the construct.

 

To take one example of the last two, a high power RSR power requires a very high skill roll to have even a reasonable chance of succeeding. Having such high skills in the game to pander to RSR skews character builds and expected skill totals.

 

I think the concept could be preserved and expanded upon by making AR a more universal and flexible limitation.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

If you were activating FF THEN flight THEN EB (all in one phase' date=' but not simultaneously) you make three rolls, but each is only at the AP/10 penalty for THAT power alone.[/quote']

No. Activating all those powers in the same phase counts as "simultaneously," at least for the purposes of calculating the AP penalty.

 

I'm pretty sure that is a campaign specific ruling for Valdorian Age

Well, the specific example that I gave from the Valdorian Age, was indeed specific to the Valdorian Age. Imagine that! Of course, a GM could easily use it for a non-VA (or even non-Fantasy) game. The other examples I gave could also be used for other games, or the same games, or even added to Valdorian Age games.

 

- the 'core' RSR simply allows the power to activate - or not - depending on the roll.

That turns out not to be the case. Powers can activate even on a failed RSR roll, but with something less than optimal happening, such as the examples in my previous post.

 

I'd argue (as a GM, if a player bought that sort of construction to me) that the RSR is not a seperate limitation (as it has no effect on the power, and does not limit it), but simply an activating mechanism for the side effect limitation and so would not be worth any point break.

But these kinds of things can happen without any separate Side Effect limitation. It's right there in the rulebook: partial successes on a failed roll, etc.

 

If you ignore this (IMO important) part of the RSR rules, then yes, the cost would be out of balance.

 

And you can also have a reasonable chance of succeeding with a roll even with a high AP penalty and without a high skill roll by using PSLs as mentioned in The Ultimate Skill and elsewhere.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

No. Activating all those powers in the same phase counts as "simultaneously' date='" at least for the purposes of calculating the AP penalty.[/quote']

 

Yes. Page 305 second paragraph.

 

 

Well, the specific example that I gave from the Valdorian Age, was indeed specific to the Valdorian Age. Imagine that! Of course, a GM could easily use it for a non-VA (or even non-Fantasy) game. The other examples I gave could also be used for other games, or the same games, or even added to Valdorian Age games.

 

 

That turns out not to be the case. Powers can activate even on a failed RSR roll, but with something less than optimal happening, such as the examples in my previous post.

 

But these kinds of things can happen without any separate Side Effect limitation. It's right there in the rulebook: partial successes on a failed roll, etc.

 

You have me there. Oh those bitter grapes. I have to acknowledge that in a game that makes it quite clear that, with GM permission, anything can happen then, with GM permission, anything can happen.

 

Page 305, last paragraph, says that a GM should consider allowing a partial success if a roll is narrowly missed, by a point or two. That is not a rule, it is a suggestion as to how a GM might want to set up a campaign. Of course I have not checked all teh references, and you might know of some that say differently.

 

 

 

If you ignore this (IMO important) part of the RSR rules, then yes, the cost would be out of balance.

 

I may not have explained well.

 

Scenario 1: RSR and side effects

 

I have this power, and I roll my appropriate skill, and if I fail, then the power does not work, and the side effects bite.

 

Scenario 2: Sidfe Effects

 

I have this power, that always activates, but I have to roll my appropriate skill to see if the side effects bite.

 

What I am saying is that Scenario 1 is clearly more restrictive and limiting and the 'RSR' element of scenario 2 does not limit the power at all, but simply acts as a mechanism for deciding if the side effects take effect. You should not get a point break for that.

 

And you can also have a reasonable chance of succeeding with a roll even with a high AP penalty and without a high skill roll by using PSLs as mentioned in The Ultimate Skill and elsewhere.

 

With due respect, adding skill levels is the same thing as having a high skill, the fact that you are adding LIMITED skill levels doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference to me, but I'm an old fuddy-duddy about that sort of thing. You still need an artificially inflated total to be effective.

 

In fact, other than in a meta-game context, the use of PSLs at all is pretty dodgy in most cases I've seen.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

I'm putting this ina box so that the formatting is preserved. Sorry.

 

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]I’m not, although I can see how it might look like that, arguing against the use of an RSR type mechanism, or its inclusion in the game.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]I can see how it fits nicely into a number of concepts, but I do feel that the inclusion of AR and RSR separately, rather than as a coherent whole, is a mistake.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Here is how I’d do it, and I acknowledge that this is not a perfect fit for every concept either, but there we go…[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]8-[/size]                 [size=3]-2[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]9-[/size]                 [size=3]-1 ½ [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]10-[/size]             [size=3]-1 ¼ [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]11-[/size]             [size=3]-1 [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]12-[/size]             [size=3]- ¾ [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]13-[/size]             [size=3]- ½ [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]14-[/size]             [size=3]- ¼ [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]15-[/size]             [size=3]- 0[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]16-[/size]             [size=3]+ ¼ - included to allow high success rolls, assumes additional limitations will apply,[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]17-[/size]             [size=3]+ ½ - an activation roll is NEVER actually an advantage, reduce to +0 if it is.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Not (as I myself pointed out) a perfect cost utility match, but not bad, especially if we are concentrating on concept opportunities.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Now, in addition;[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Situational modifiers apply + 0 (simulates RSR)[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Time between activation attempts:[/size][/font]

[size=3][font=Times New Roman]-0        1 next available phase[/font][/size]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]-1/4            Additional phase[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]-1/2      One turn[/size][/font]
[size=3][font=Times New Roman]-3/4      One minute  [/font][/size]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Additional –1/4 for each point down the time chart.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Time activated power remains without additional activation roll[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]+0        Instant or full phase[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]+1/4            Additional phase[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]+1/2     Full turn[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]+3/4     One minute[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Additional +1/4 for each point down the time chart.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Power can jam  -1/4 (if power fails not useable for the rest of the adventure/GM discretion)[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Power can burn out +1/4 (power always activates but THEN jams if roll fails)[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Now I think that covers about everything and gives a single, very flexible and easily defined limitation.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]To create a RSR type limitation, pick an activation roll related to a particular skill if you see fit, and take ‘situational modifiers apply +0’ and possible additional activation time.[/size][/font]

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

Yes. Page 305 second paragraph.

I guess that's another change between 5E and 5ER.

 

With due respect, adding skill levels is the same thing as having a high skill, the fact that you are adding LIMITED skill levels doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference to me, but I'm an old fuddy-duddy about that sort of thing. You still need an artificially inflated total to be effective.

Well, they really aren't quite the same thing. A 60-point power with RSR has a -6 Active Point Penalty. If you have a high roll, say 19-, you succeed on a 13-, which is a decent chance. But if you use fewer points of power (or a smaller power with the same RSR skill), say 20 Active Points, you have virtually no chance of failure.

 

OTOH, if you have a moderate roll, say 13- and 6 PSLs vs the Active Point Penalty, you have a 13- chance with both powers, not bad, but still with a reasonable chance of failure.

 

In fact, other than in a meta-game context, the use of PSLs at all is pretty dodgy in most cases I've seen.

Well, they're in the rulebook. You certainly don't have to use them, but PSLs have been around in some form since 1st edition.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

That is not a rule' date=' it is a suggestion as to how a GM might want to set up a campaign.[/quote']

 

This is how I tend to view the entire 5E book actually.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

This is how I tend to view the entire 5E book actually.

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

......................

 

Well, they really aren't quite the same thing. A 60-point power with RSR has a -6 Active Point Penalty. If you have a high roll, say 19-, you succeed on a 13-, which is a decent chance. But if you use fewer points of power (or a smaller power with the same RSR skill), say 20 Active Points, you have virtually no chance of failure.

 

OTOH, if you have a moderate roll, say 13- and 6 PSLs vs the Active Point Penalty, you have a 13- chance with both powers, not bad, but still with a reasonable chance of failure.

 

 

 

My problem with PSLs, using magic skill, in a fantasy setting as an example is that 'magic skill' is unlikely to be used for much except magic...possibly recalling an archaic piece of magical lore, or identifying a magical object (although both of those things could be accomplished by magic anyway).

 

So, if all you use magic skill for is magic, and all the psls are doing is making it easier to cast magic, there is not a lot of difference, to my mind between a 13- roll and 6 PSLs and a 19- roll.

 

It would only be in cases - such as many of the uses in combat - that I could see that the skill was genuinely limited - for instance range PSLs are useless in quite a few contexts, so the limtiation actually bites.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

My problem with PSLs, using magic skill, in a fantasy setting as an example is that 'magic skill' is unlikely to be used for much except magic...possibly recalling an archaic piece of magical lore, or identifying a magical object (although both of those things could be accomplished by magic anyway).

 

So, if all you use magic skill for is magic, and all the psls are doing is making it easier to cast magic, there is not a lot of difference, to my mind between a 13- roll and 6 PSLs and a 19- roll.

 

It would only be in cases - such as many of the uses in combat - that I could see that the skill was genuinely limited - for instance range PSLs are useless in quite a few contexts, so the limtiation actually bites.

 

If you have a wide array of magic spells, there may be circumstances where those penalty skill levels become useless. 6 PSL's don't help you activate a 10 AP spell near as much as +10 to the roll would. OTOH, moving your RSR -1 per 10 AP to RSR -1 per 5 AP on all your powers/spells/what have you would pay for a lot of PSL's (or bonuses to the magic skill roll, for that matter).

 

Also, in some games, the Magic skill is treated like a Power skill allowing achievement of minor magical effects with no linked power, essentially a "cantrip" ability. Perhaps the real problem is not that the PSL's are applied against the "sole use" of the magic skill, but that the magic skill is given no other use, and serves only to claw back the points saved from the RSR limitation.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

And you can also have a reasonable chance of succeeding with a roll even with a high AP penalty and without a high skill roll by using PSLs as mentioned in The Ultimate Skill and elsewhere.

 

If the Skill used for the RSR power is generally the *only* use the Skill gets, I'd not allow PSLs on it. Not to mention that PSLs that affect anything other than OCV penalties are Optional, even in The Ultimate Skill book.

 

EDIT:

Well, after reading further, I can see where they wouldn't help in activating a small power. I'd say it'd be up to the GM to determine if the PSLs are limited, based upon the powers that have RSR and the Skill used in the RSR.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

My problem with PSLs' date=' using magic skill, in a fantasy setting as an example is that 'magic skill' is unlikely to be used for much except magic...possibly recalling an archaic piece of magical lore, or identifying a magical object (although both of those things could be accomplished by magic anyway).[/quote']

What else would you like it to be used for? I'm sure creative players and GMs can think of other uses. And remember, it doesn't have to be a Power Skill (like "Magic" or "Faith"), it could be a regular skill like Acrobatics or Electronics.

 

So, if all you use magic skill for is magic, and all the psls are doing is making it easier to cast magic, there is not a lot of difference, to my mind between a 13- roll and 6 PSLs and a 19- roll.

Well, to me, there is a difference between a 99.5% chance of success and an 83.8% chance of success with a 20-point power.

 

It would only be in cases - such as many of the uses in combat - that I could see that the skill was genuinely limited - for instance range PSLs are useless in quite a few contexts, so the limtiation actually bites.

I'd say it'd be up to the GM to determine if the PSLs are limited' date='...[/quote']

Huh? The skill isn't limited. The PSL's aren't limited. Only the power is limited by the RSR limitation.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

Huh? The skill isn't limited. The PSL's aren't limited. Only the power is limited by the RSR limitation.

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear -- I dashed off that edit very hastily. What I was meaning was that I would allow PSLs insteadn of regular SLs on the Skill used for a RSR Power *if and only if* that wasn't the only use that Skill was for.

 

I don't have my Ultimate Skill book with me, as I'm on vacation right now. But I glanced over the PSL section prior to leaving. IIRC, there was the option for PSLs to apply to penalties other than those on OCV (like on the AP penalty on a RSR Skill). The reasoning behind PSLs are (IMO) that they cost less because they are of more limited use than a regular Skill Level of the same "level". However, if the *use* they are being put to never involves that limitation, then I'd say that regular SLs should be used instead.

 

For instance, if a character took PSLs only vs "Penalty X" for one attack, and that attack was only ever used in actions that incurred "Penalty X", then those PSLs will *always* apply, and shouldn't be allowed a cost break.

 

At least that's how I see it currently -- it's based off the rule that a limitation that doesn't limit isn't worth any points.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

agrees with Stevezilla on this. i only allow PSLs in heroic games for combat type skills (range penalty type stuff), and even then i only okay them if a character has/gets special training (joins the military/police, gets a membership at a local range, etc).

 

both AR and RSR are limitations, and shouldn't be able to be largely negated by a few cheap PSLs, it should take heavy investment into a skill or buying a lessened AP penalty to the roll. just my two cents.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

What I was meaning was that I would allow PSLs insteadn of regular SLs on the Skill used for a RSR Power *if and only if* that wasn't the only use that Skill was for.

You're certainly entitled to make that decision for your games, but I don't see why regular SLs (which cost more) are only allowed in cases where they have *fewer* applications.

 

The reasoning behind PSLs are (IMO) that they cost less because they are of more limited use than a regular Skill Level of the same "level". However, if the *use* they are being put to never involves that limitation, then I'd say that regular SLs should be used instead.

But they are limited in that they can never raise the skill roll above the base roll. One of the main uses (the one I was discussing) of PSLs is so you can have some chance of failure for small AP powers, but still have a decent chance of success for large AP powers.

 

For instance, if a character took PSLs only vs "Penalty X" for one attack, and that attack was only ever used in actions that incurred "Penalty X", then those PSLs will *always* apply, and shouldn't be allowed a cost break.

But you don't know in advance how big of a penalty "Penalty X" will be. If the target of an attack is 6" away, the Range Penalty is -2. If you have 4 PSLs vs Range, only two of them can apply. I've never seen an attack with the limitation "Only works on targets at least 9" away."

 

both AR and RSR are limitations' date=' and shouldn't be able to be largely negated by a few cheap PSLs, it should take heavy investment into a skill or buying a lessened AP penalty to the roll. just my two cents.[/quote']

Well of course AR can't be negated by any amount of either PSLs or regular SLs, and the PSLs only negate part of the limitation - the Active Point Penalty (or whatever other penalty they are bought for), and often, only part of that penatly is negated.

 

I think you underestimate either the cost or the benefit of the PSLs, especially when combined with the skill itself that one must purchase, and perhaps the added levels to bring it up to the desired base level. a 60-point power with RSR, costs 40 points (a savings of 20 points), and incurs a -6 penalty if used at full power. Let's say you've got a base 14- roll (the relevent characteristic is say, 23). That's an 8- Roll at full power. Buying the roll back up to 14- would cost 12 points (more than half the points you saved), and it allows a maximum roll (17-) if used at half power. Enough PSLs to negate the full-power-penalty would cost 9 points (almost half of the point savings), and still leaves you with a 14- roll regardless of how many points of the power you use. And of course any other penatlies that may arise (lack of equipment, poor quality equipment, unfavorable circumstances, less than the normal amount of time taken, environmental conditions [such as caused by a CE], etc.) are not negated at all.

 

Remember that PSLs only apply to one specific penalty and never any others.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Requires skill roll

 

........................

 

Well, to me, there is a difference between a 99.5% chance of success and an 83.8% chance of success with a 20-point power.

 

 

 

.......................

 

 

Well, quite; RSR is highly dependent on the power it is being applied to and the overall build of the character, whereas an expanded AR system would not be. That is at the heart of my problem with RSR.

 

For a 60 point power, which, to put the comment back in the context that you took it out of, was what you were commenting on, and I was replying to, there would be no difference at all.