Omcv 1?

[Greywind]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That's a matter of opinion, when one is capitalized and the rest aren't...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I think we all need to calm down about now.

 

Some people won't like 6E stuff just because they don't like 6E stuff. It's all cool.

 

My stance is this:

If you've read the rules and decide you just hate them for whatever reason or even no reason - Cool.

If you have not read the rules, I don't think you really have a right to judge.

 

And even then, if you haven't read the rules and just say "Meh, I don't think I'll like it." - Also cool. But don't tell us how bad the rules are if you haven't read them.

 

Case in point: I have not read the 4E DnD Rules. Up until yesterday I had no interest in them (curse you bunneh), and no opinion on them. I don't particularly care for some of the core ideas behind DnD (character classes), but I also have no opinion on whether they are "good rules" or not. I just don't like the idea. If someone came up to me and said "This is awesome stuff! I love some of the classes in this book!" I'd go "game on." and let it be - not tell them how wrong character classes are, or how awful DnD is compared to Hero, or GURPS, or Toon, or anything else. I haven't read 'em - they could freaking awesome rules for what they are. Just not my cuppajoe.

 

Now, when I do read them (again - curse you bunneh) I will compare them to DnD3E and decide based on that if I like them more or less, and compare those changes to each other. Then I have an opinion on the rules. Until I read the book I have no opinion. Just a preference: Read, Not Read.

 

And again - that's cool.

 

So, let's all chill out. Take it in. Decide some stuff we love. Some stuff we like. Some stuff we're meh on. And yes some stuff we just hate.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That's a matter of opinion' date=' when one is capitalized and the rest aren't...[/quote']

 

The capitalization in the thread title is an artifact of how the boards handle things, sometimes it removes capitalization.

 

The correct acronym is in fact OMCV, though I doubt I'd sweat it enough to care personally if someone typed MOCV. They both get the point across.

[Greywind]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

True...

 

I'm having issues that they expect us to pay to read the rules. Might be a few years for me yet...

[director13]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

 

My stance is this:

If you've read the rules and decide you just hate them for whatever reason or even no reason - Cool.

If you have not read the rules, I don't think you really have a right to judge.

 

And even then, if you haven't read the rules and just say "Meh, I don't think I'll like it." - Also cool. But don't tell us how bad the rules are if you haven't read them.

 

 

What he said. Exactly what he said.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

True...

 

I'm having issues that they expect us to pay to read the rules. Might be a few years for me yet...

 

 

So, you think they should just give the rules away free? Given the nature of the Hero System and the nature of Hero System players, I'm not sure that would be a smart business decision. But perhaps I'm missing something.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That's a matter of opinion' date=' when one is capitalized and the rest aren't...[/quote']

 

I will concede that point. But the order is correct.

[Greywind]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

So' date=' you think they should just give the rules away free? Given the nature of the Hero System and the nature of Hero System players, I'm not sure that would be a smart business decision. But perhaps I'm missing something.[/quote']

Just a reflection of my current situation...

[archermoo]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Of note, unless I'm mistaken, buying Mental Powers no longer automatically gives you Mental Awareness for free.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Of note' date=' unless I'm mistaken, buying Mental Powers no longer automatically gives you Mental Awareness for free.[/quote']

 

That would be correct.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Not doing so may stem from an innate desire for similtude. Setting it the same as physical combat gives one "scale of reference" to hang all the combat values on. Its value neutral from where I sit' date=' but I can understand not wanting to explain how 7 OCV and 4 MOCV really are, for all intensive purposes, exactly the same on a statistical/probability level if they have different base values. No, no, dear boy! That four really is as good as the seven! It would make a good many people, especially newcomers who aren't accustomed to hero's implicit principles and underlying math, froward and suspicious. For such indiwijuals, its truth value wouldn't be here nor there.[/quote']

 

 

...which makes me think we could have set all CVs to zero. That does not mean you can not fight as it is a relative scale. It does acknowledge the fact that most people are pretty rubbish at fighting though, and would have led to CV deflation without affecting relative ability.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Seriously people, all of this nonsense because someone might reclaim six points and spend it somewhere else? Those six points are gonna throw off the delicate balance of Hero characters to a degree never before seen. Oh, please.

 

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

 

But I guess with 6th Edition finally out, you all need to find new pointless things to argue about for 50 pages.

 

Its not pointless: it's six points.

 

*ducks missile*

 

This is not a major issue, it is a itch, and, like most itches, you can't help scratching, even though you know it is only going to make it worse.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Does no one see the irony in 6E deleting COM because it's a "seldom used and poorly defined" Characteristic and then promptly adding a brand new seldom used Characteristic (OMCV) which is already generating house rules to rectify?

 

 

No. Irony was also deleted from 6e.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Oh' date=' and by the way, it's OMCV not MOCV or YMCA or whatever letter combinations you've come up with.[/quote']

 

Has there been a leak? I thought Your Mental Combat Ability (YMCA, the average of OMCV and DMCV) were being saved for the APG!

 

And what is this nonsense about superheroes not having Characteristics lower than a normal human? I've certain seen lots of Champions characters over the years with EGO' date=' INT, and others at below the level of a normal human. [/quote']

 

Yup. And they have neither been "the norm for character builds" nor viewed as something less than deficient in that area.

[Vondy]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

...which makes me think we could have set all CVs to zero. That does not mean you can not fight as it is a relative scale. It does acknowledge the fact that most people are pretty rubbish at fighting though' date=' and would have led to CV deflation without affecting relative ability.[/quote']

 

No disagreement.

 

I would have been fine with the baseline for CVs being 0.

 

Of course, at that point we might as well jettison them altogether and make the fomula:

 

11 + Attacker's Offensive Combat Levels - Defender's Defensive Combat Levels = To Hit on 3d6.

 

Which is pretty much what we have now, albeit cloaked in a +3 Prophylactic of Characteristic Granularity.

 

EDIT: While being far too lazy to actually look it up, it occurs to me it may be that there may be a material difference between CVs and Skill levels in some situations where you might get combat values and not skill levels.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Skill Levels are still non-persistent and so do not count towards your 1/2 DCV out of Combat.

 

And the official formula has finally changed to

 

11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit

 

So now the player has only one unknown on their side of the formula and can write down their attack like a pseudo-skill as Attack 17- or so.

[Vondy]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Skill Levels are still non-persistent and so do not count towards your 1/2 DCV out of Combat.

 

I suspected some dirty trick like that!

 

I don't see it as being insurmountable in terms of tweaking CVs out of the system, but it is a material difference that has to be accounted for in some way.

 

And the official formula has finally changed to

 

11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit

 

So now the player has only one unknown on their side of the formula and can write down their attack like a pseudo-skill as Attack 17- or so.

 

This is a good thing, in my book.

[Kdansky]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

And the official formula has finally changed to

 

11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit

 

So now the player has only one unknown on their side of the formula and can write down their attack like a pseudo-skill as Attack 17- or so.

How is this different? Do I miss the obvious thing?

[Vondy]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

How is this different? Do I miss the obvious thing?

 

The obvious has a pretty high DCV.

 

Note: not a shot at you. I just saw a chance for a system based pun and went for it.

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Seriously people, all of this nonsense because someone might reclaim six points and spend it somewhere else? Those six points are gonna throw off the delicate balance of Hero characters to a degree never before seen. Oh, please.

 

 

Actually for me this is why i am worrying about it.

 

Now at the start understand that my ruling which wont allow points back unless there is a clear detriment that will occur at least equal to rare solves the issue entirely.

 

But here is why I will go that route instead of saying "its just six points who cares?"

 

A newbie player has plenty of hurdles to be "on par" with similar pcs built by experienced players. this is a high learning curve game system where novice vs expert isn't really an even matchup or even close. The experienced guys stuff will have better synergy and better "efficiency" as well as basic system tactics on his side.

 

I dont want to make that hurdle any higher.

 

A novice wont be thinking "can i seel back mental stuff" the same way a veteran might.

 

So i am faced with one of two approaches.

 

say "its only six pts" and let them all do it AND tell the novices to be sure and consider it.

 

or "dont give nay more pts than its worth - 0 - and move on knowing none will bother.

 

The second option produces slightly simpler chargen.

 

so i go with the simpler, more novice friendly approach to the issue.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

How is this different? Do I miss the obvious thing?

 

 

It isn't different. Ghost-Angel misspoke slightly. The formula hasn't changed; the way the formula is expressed in the book has changed.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

what RJ said.

 

There's a visual difference between

 

11 + OCV - DCV = Roll On 3D6 Or Less

 

and

 

11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit.

 

The player can fill in completely one side and have a Success Rate of sorts.

 

I will concede it is a minor thing to a degree, but I have seen enough new players stumble over it to have always made it cause concern for how we express things in the Hero System.

 

By rearranging how the formula is represented allows Players to write things down in a similar manner to how they write down Skills. It's a small piece of uniformity that tidies up how we think about the system.

 

An Attack Roll isn't a Skill Roll, but in many ways acts exactly like one - the more you roll under your 11+OCV total the better success you have.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Skill Levels are still non-persistent and so do not count towards your 1/2 DCV out of Combat.

 

And the official formula has finally changed to

 

11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit

 

So now the player has only one unknown on their side of the formula and can write down their attack like a pseudo-skill as Attack 17- or so.

 

Surely CV is non-persistent too: if I'm unconscious I'm easy to hit. It hacks me right off when specific terms (and that one is capitalised) are used inappropriately or incorrectly. You should (if it is not already mentioned) be able to buy persistent/inherent DCV if you are harder to hit anyway, for example if you are smaller than normal all the time.

 

What it means is that you can not walk around with your levels on all the time, but, to be fair, that only really matters if you are REALLY not expecting anything bad to happen. If you're that chillaxed about it all, there's no good reason why you should even have half DCV: not moving is not moving. When you walk warily into the abandoned warehouse, expecting to be attacked at any moment, as a GM I'd let you have your DCV levels set, or set them if you are attacked, on a successful PER roll. Unless you are so surprised that you can not react in time (unlikely if you are expecting trouble) you can always abort to a defensive manoeuvre anyway and assign skill levels then.

[Vondy]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

 

What it means is that you can not walk around with your levels on all the time, but, to be fair, that only really matters if you are REALLY not expecting anything bad to happen. If you're that chillaxed about it all, there's no good reason why you should even have half DCV: not moving is not moving. When you walk warily into the abandoned warehouse, expecting to be attacked at any moment, as a GM I'd let you have your DCV levels set, or set them if you are attacked, on a successful PER roll. Unless you are so surprised that you can not react in time (unlikely if you are expecting trouble) you can always abort to a defensive manoeuvre anyway and assign skill levels then.

 

I agree with your premises.

[Greywind]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

what RJ said.

 

There's a visual difference between

 

11 + OCV - DCV = Roll On 3D6 Or Less

 

and

 

11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit.

 

The player can fill in completely one side and have a Success Rate of sorts.

 

I will concede it is a minor thing to a degree, but I have seen enough new players stumble over it to have always made it cause concern for how we express things in the Hero System.

 

By rearranging how the formula is represented allows Players to write things down in a similar manner to how they write down Skills. It's a small piece of uniformity that tidies up how we think about the system.

 

An Attack Roll isn't a Skill Roll, but in many ways acts exactly like one - the more you roll under your 11+OCV total the better success you have.

...and helps us teach the system to new players...