question about optional rule use

[JmOz]

There is an optional rule regarding CSL's not being allowed to be used with ranged attacks to increase DCV, does anyone other than me NOT* use this rule?

 

 

*As with most optional rules I base the use of this on the type of game I want to run, more swashbuckling I do not use it (So most champions or pulp), for more "realistic" games I do use it

[Talon]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

I use it by default, with similar exceptions to yours.

[Rapier]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

I pretty much always use it. I can see a couple of instances or genres where I wouldn't, but for the most part it's in.

[JmOz]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

as a secondary question to this one, how many people knew it was optional?

[Rapier]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

as a secondary question to this one' date=' how many people knew it was optional?[/quote']

 

Heck, it's a toolkit. EVERYTHING is optional!

[Sean Waters]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

Generally I don't let ranged skill levels affect DCV, which I believe is the optional rule. It just doesn't make sense to me that being good at hitting things with a gun (which is often a matter of stillness, if only for a moment) should make you good at avaoiding being hit by a bullet.

 

Sure you can argue that knowing about guns helps you move into areas where you are less of a target, know when to crouch etc, but that doesn't really wash with me - if someone wants to move and get behind cover, that is cool, but, like I say, I don't really see it that way.

 

This makes ranged skills less valuable, arguably, but I have not seen fit to alter (or limiT) the cost.

[Arc Esu]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

For 5 point and higher ranged CSLs, I allow the CSL to be used with DCV (though the DCV only applies against ranged attacks, of course). For lower level ranged CSLs, I don't let it apply to DCV.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

as a secondary question to this one' date=' how many people knew it was optional?[/quote']I use it, and I'll confess, I didn't remember that it was optional.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

If you have a level in an attack, and you are using the attack, IMC you can put the level wherever the heck you please.

 

It's a simplicity thing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

The basic position in the rules is that you can put the level where ever you like (at least against the same sort of attack), and the optional rule is a reality check for those who prefer it.

[JmOz]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

A few words from me

 

The reason I tend not to use it is

 

A) I like a more Swashbuckling feal

 

I feal that (In a more swashbuckling game) that a character who is a natural with (Attack) should be able to split his attention some, almost like a dodge & Attack. I admit there is an incosistancy with

[casualplayer]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

If you have a level in an attack, and you are using the attack, IMC you can put the level wherever the heck you please.

 

It's a simplicity thing.

 

I knew it was optional, I hate rules that have exclusionary clauses and the thought of buying Levels w/ Ranged Attacks as anything other than 3pt +OCV levels just sounds goofy to me. But, if for some reason the character did then, I would let them have the full versatility of the levels.

[dstarfire]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

If you limit CSL's, expect to see every blaster-type character have a near-max dex. Which is fine, if you like homogeneity.

[ghost-angel]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

If you limit CSL's' date=' expect to see every blaster-type character have a near-max dex. Which is fine, if you like homogeneity.[/quote']

 

I've always played with 3pt CSLs for Ranged Attacks not allowing DCV and have never encountered this.

 

I love these blanket statements, I get a good laugh at how stupid they are.

[Vondy]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

If they bought levels for ranged combat (five pointers) I allow them to use them for ranged combat irregardless of whether they apply them to OCV or DCV. This holds true for eight point all combat levels as well. Ranged levels cost the same as HTH levels, which can be applied to both. Why should they be worth less? Unless you're going to re-cost them I don't think you should use the optional rule. In short: I don't use this option, nor will I ever use it.

[Vondy]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

as a secondary question to this one' date=' how many people knew it was optional?[/quote']

 

I, for one.

[JmOz]

Re: question about optional rule use

 

If they bought levels for ranged combat (five pointers) I allow them to use them for ranged combat irregardless of whether they apply them to OCV or DCV. This holds true for eight point all combat levels as well. Ranged levels cost the same as HTH levels' date=' which can be applied to both. Why should they be worth less? Unless you're going to re-cost them I don't think you should use the optional rule. In short: I don't use this option, nor will I ever use it.[/quote']

 

As devil's advocate, there is definatly some advantages to engaging the enemy at range. Having said that, I do feel that this is one of those rules that favor a certain style of play, one I am not that fond of. Good for Hard Science Fiction, Low fantasy, and gritty modern (Champions/Dark Champions) games but not for Space Opera, Swords & Sorcery, 4-color champions, Pulp, anything with some swash in the buckle