Omcv 1?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

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.

 

There are specific modifiers to specific conditions.

 

Since I'm not in the mood to get into a terminology war over this:

 

DCV is around during Non-Combat Time; Skill Levels are not.

 

In the book there is no longer a 5 Point +1 DCV Combat Skill Level.

 

The 5 Point Combat Skill Level is now defined as "A Large Group Of Attacks" and the given examples are Frameworks or Martial Arts with more than 3 Slots/Maneuvers. It provides +1 OCV, +1 DCV or if you have 2 of them +1 Damage Class.

 

Out of Combat you are not using your "Large Group Of Attacks" and the Combat Skill Levels cannot possibly apply.

 

If you want CSLs that can only be applied to DCV add a Limitation "DCV Only -1" but they are still only applicable in Combat. And the book notes that even that is GM Permission (actually, a premise I disagree with to be honest - if I want a Defensive Fighting Style I'd like to be able to take DCV CSLs only when I'm using my fighting style).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I was not planning on a war. A polite discussion perhaps. There might be biscuits.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

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

 

Adding to tesuji's comments, where else in the system do we say "it's only 6 points, so don't worry about it"? Can I just have an extra 5 INT for no cost? How about giving my Brick +5 STR or +3 PD and +3 ED for free? Each of these is only 5 or 6 points, so don't worry about it, right?

 

Discussing the costs of various system elements is also a waste of time - just don't worry about it, right?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, using points as a measuring stick means we should at least treat the points as having some relevance - that is, worrying about them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Adding to tesuji's comments, where else in the system do we say "it's only 6 points, so don't worry about it"? Can I just have an extra 5 INT for no cost? How about giving my Brick +5 STR or +3 PD and +3 ED for free? Each of these is only 5 or 6 points, so don't worry about it, right?

 

Discussing the costs of various system elements is also a waste of time - just don't worry about it, right?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, using points as a measuring stick means we should at least treat the points as having some relevance - that is, worrying about them.

 

I think the concern might be that OMCV is simply not going to be used by most characters, and there is no logical reason to actually develop the ability in a vacuum.

 

Rather than changing the rules though, about sell backs, players should be made aware of the possible uses for OMCV in that game.

 

Perhaps there are certain types of high tech equipment that can be operated by latent psionic ability, and OMCV is used for that.

 

If there's no reason to have it though (saving buying mental powers), it seems wrong to make the player keep it against the remote possibility the GM will think of a use for it. The player , after all, is making a decision: is 3 OMCV worth more to me than 6 points to spend on something else? You shouldn;t make then keep something you've decided they do not need.

 

They are not 'free points', they are re-distrubuted. At some point they might regret that decision, but by and large they'd probably rather know Acrobatics and French.

[Vondy]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

 

DCV is around during Non-Combat Time; Skill Levels are not.

 

 

This is a mechanical distinction rather than one that addresses what is appropriate for the the character in the narrative at hand. It also attempts to make a distinction between the object and a modifier when the two are abstractions with overlapping conceptual components. It doesn't necessarily follow, from an effects based point of view that combat values should be on prior to saying "On 12!" but skill levels should not. This is doubly true since combat values don't represent a wholly innate ability (they are a pseudo-characteristic) and represent several abstracted factors all at once. Also, combat time is a rigorous distinction for adjudicating a confrontation, but regular time may have several less rigorously measured actions (such as skill rolls) leading up to and directly related to the eruption of violence and the sudden shift to combat time. In other words, there's often a gray-zone from an effects based perspective. As such, while you are absolutely mechanically correct that OCV is on and CSLs are off prior to combat-time, I don't think, in terms of reasoning from effect that always makes sense in the narrative sense. If the character is whistling their way down the street no problem. If they're going in hot the mechanic may not be universally applicable.

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

If there's no reason to have it though (saving buying mental powers), it seems wrong to make the player keep it against the remote possibility the GM will think of a use for it. The player , after all, is making a decision: is 3 OMCV worth more to me than 6 points to spend on something else? You shouldn;t make then keep something you've decided they do not need.

 

They are not 'free points', they are re-distrubuted. At some point they might regret that decision, but by and large they'd probably rather know Acrobatics and French.

 

is anyone saying "make them keep it? I for one am saying allow the sellback, let them be omcv 1, but only give them points for the sellback if it is an actual loss in effectiveness.

 

Take a typical brick with omcv 3

take an equivalent brick with OMCV 1 and +6 strength

 

are they going to be seen as "equivalent"? if not then the sellback has not helped your game.

 

Would you allow the same value for complication "no legs" for a character with flight and a character without flight? the rulebook iirc recommends against doing so.

 

if not then why would you allow the same payback for "selling back omcv" for a character with powers that use omcv as you would for one without any such abilities?

 

basic hero principle -you pay for and get paid for IMPACT. if it doesn't matter - it aint worth points, and that rule shouldn't be tossed out the window when we are talking sell back any more than if we were talking KS lithuanian poets or "no legs flying".

 

imo of course.

 

if it matters then its points but if it doesn't matter it aint points - for good and for ill. cuts both ways.

 

in 6e

 

right?

[teh bunneh]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

DCV is around during Non-Combat Time; Skill Levels are not.

 

I once played a speedster who had an average CV (7ish or so, IIRC), but had something like +10 Combat Levels with DCV. In combat, she was durn near unhittable. But if someone got a lucky shot in and stunned her, her DCV dropped to 4 (half your normal DCV, Combat Levels do not apply). She became a sitting duck (which sucked, because a small child with a wiffle bat could take her down at that point -- she had very low defenses).

 

With the new DCV rules, I could buy up her natural DCV to 17, then if she gets stunned she's still going to be harder than normal to hit (which fit her concept much better -- even when she was "standing still," she was still vibrating like a coked-up hummingbird).

 

As for MOCV/MDCV, I'm planning on using the same rule I use for END in some of my games: I'm not using this stat in this game (or it's never going to come up in this game), so you don't need to buy it up, and you cannot buy it down. It's pretty simple, and it works for me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

is anyone saying "make them keep it? I for one am saying allow the sellback, let them be omcv 1, but only give them points for the sellback if it is an actual loss in effectiveness.

 

Take a typical brick with omcv 3

take an equivalent brick with OMCV 1 and +6 strength

 

are they going to be seen as "equivalent"? if not then the sellback has not helped your game.

 

Would you allow the same value for complication "no legs" for a character with flight and a character without flight? the rulebook iirc recommends against doing so.

 

if not then why would you allow the same payback for "selling back omcv" for a character with powers that use omcv as you would for one without any such abilities?

 

basic hero principle -you pay for and get paid for IMPACT. if it doesn't matter - it aint worth points, and that rule shouldn't be tossed out the window when we are talking sell back any more than if we were talking KS lithuanian poets or "no legs flying".

 

imo of course.

 

if it matters then its points but if it doesn't matter it aint points - for good and for ill. cuts both ways.

 

in 6e

 

right?

 

 

...er...

 

Here's how I have it. 'No Legs' is a particularly poor example because all you really need your legs for is running and jumping and reaching the top shelf. I'd just have them sell back their running and leaping. You can take 'unusual looks' but not a physical limitation unless you can think of something else not having legs troubles you with.

 

Now if they also bought flight I would not be saying 'You're running is not worth as much if you can fly, so you don't get the full 12 points sell back.

 

If the GM is saying 'OMCV is no use to you' (and it is the GM's decision) then why is OMCV a universal characteristic in that game? If it is then you get to trade it off, at full point value. If it is only useful if I have mental powers, hell, I'll take a point of telepathy and sell the OMCV back to one and have 5 points to spend on other stuff.

 

My opinion is that the value of something is independent of what else you've bought....or not bought - even though that can have a substantial effect on utility, or loss thereof.

 

Otherwise everything is relative and nothing has any concrete value.

[director13]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I

As for MOCV/MDCV, I'm planning on using the same rule I use for END in some of my games: I'm not using this stat in this game (or it's never going to come up in this game), so you don't need to buy it up, and you cannot buy it down. It's pretty simple, and it works for me.

 

I think that's the way Steve would handle it also... "Dormant Abilities", 6E1. p 46.

[director13]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Referring back to the Thread Title, I would be inclined to add a use for OMCV into the game (that actually uses Mental Combat, otherwise it gets yanked with the rest), rather changing the cost.

 

Maybe some kind of Detection Sensory roll? Maybe a bonus to Breakout rolls?

 

Alternatively, one of the Interaction skill rules alternates that are floating about , and then we can leave DMCV in also, even in non-mentalist games.

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

...er...

 

Here's how I have it. 'No Legs' is a particularly poor example because all you really need your legs for is running and jumping and reaching the top shelf. I'd just have them sell back their running and leaping. You can take 'unusual looks' but not a physical limitation unless you can think of something else not having legs troubles you with.

 

Now if they also bought flight I would not be saying 'You're running is not worth as much if you can fly, so you don't get the full 12 points sell back.

 

If the GM is saying 'OMCV is no use to you' (and it is the GM's decision) then why is OMCV a universal characteristic in that game? If it is then you get to trade it off, at full point value. If it is only useful if I have mental powers, hell, I'll take a point of telepathy and sell the OMCV back to one and have 5 points to spend on other stuff.

 

My opinion is that the value of something is independent of what else you've bought....or not bought - even though that can have a substantial effect on utility, or loss thereof.

 

Otherwise everything is relative and nothing has any concrete value.

 

 

we clearly disagree on this.. everything is relative.

 

another example

 

value for 10d6 Eb "only in high radiation areas for a normal pc and for one who also has force field with side effects "high radiation"

 

the former might be only worth 25 or down to 17 cp depending on the frequency while the latter might well be worth 35-40 since he basically carries his radiation as side effect.

 

the value of something is intrinsically linked to its value in the game, the costs are not magical absolutely.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I think that's the way Steve would handle it also... "Dormant Abilities"' date=' 6E1. p 46.[/quote']

 

 

Definitely - no use, no place, no cost, no penalty.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Adding to tesuji's comments, where else in the system do we say "it's only 6 points, so don't worry about it"? Can I just have an extra 5 INT for no cost? How about giving my Brick +5 STR or +3 PD and +3 ED for free? Each of these is only 5 or 6 points, so don't worry about it, right?

 

Discussing the costs of various system elements is also a waste of time - just don't worry about it, right?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, using points as a measuring stick means we should at least treat the points as having some relevance - that is, worrying about them.

 

Geesh, all I was trying to say was that I don't think the difference between a character built on 100 points and a character built on 106 points is all that great, so even if a character sells back 2 OMCV, it shouldn't have much of an impact when comparing that character to others in the campaign.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

To comment on Vondy's and Bunneh's thoughts on DCV that represents "Combat capability" where outside combat they aren't all that, but in a violence situation become extra hard to deal with...

 

I definitely advocate the idea of Combat Skill Levels; DCV Only as a construct. While the books actively advocates not doing this... well... luckily I know when to deviate from the book and play the game I want to play.

 

If the concept calls for Normal DCV when out of combat, and Combat Readiness during combat, then we have the ability to construct such things to concept as we see fit.

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Geesh' date=' all I was trying to say was that I don't think the difference between a character built on 100 points and a character built on 106 points is all that great, so even if a character sells back 2 OMCV, it shouldn't have much of an impact when comparing that character to others in the campaign.[/quote']

 

It's the precedent it set's, Rod. Not really about the 6 points as such.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

What precedent? That people can buy down stats they don't think they need? I don't see the issue.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Definitely - no use' date=' no place, no cost, no penalty.[/quote']

 

Well, yes, this refers to campaigns where no MCV (either OMCV or DMCV) is in use at all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Referring back to the Thread Title, I would be inclined to add a use for OMCV into the game (that actually uses Mental Combat, otherwise it gets yanked with the rest), rather changing the cost.

 

Maybe some kind of Detection Sensory roll? Maybe a bonus to Breakout rolls.

 

Hmmm...use OMCV in some manner as the baseline for mental perception rolls, such that it would also determine the character's success in detecting the attacker using a mental power against him, perhaps? Base roll of, say, 9 + MOCV, so the typical character has a 12- roll, and sellback of 2 points reduces you to 50/50 odds.

 

Alternatively, what about using MOCV, rather than Ego, as the basis for breakout rolls? Make the roll 8 + MOCV, rather than an Ego roll.

 

A complete revamp of the mental combat system might be the ultimate answer. I like the idea of a variant Breakout system where you get a Breakout Roll every phase, but you don't get "full breakout" - you roll damage (based on EGO, perhaps?) to reduce the impact of the mental effect. The "mental effect" could have a MDCV based on, say, 3 plus 1 for every 5 points the effect roll succeeded by.

[director13]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That's what I was thinking!

 

(Clearly, you didn't sell YOURS back)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

we clearly disagree on this.. everything is relative.

 

another example

 

value for 10d6 Eb "only in high radiation areas for a normal pc and for one who also has force field with side effects "high radiation"

 

the former might be only worth 25 or down to 17 cp depending on the frequency while the latter might well be worth 35-40 since he basically carries his radiation as side effect.

 

the value of something is intrinsically linked to its value in the game, the costs are not magical absolutely.

 

 

So if a character has 40 metres of flight, what should he pay (assuming it is not in a framework) for 40 metres of teleport?

 

Whilst teleport does stuff that flight doesn't, and so has ulility, a lot of the utility of a movement power is, well, moving. If you can already do that, should you pay less for a second mode of movement? It is relatively less useful to that character than to a character who doesn't have another mode of movement.

 

As to your question, I'd probably let the character away with that one: he can only use his energy blast when he's taking side effects from his defensive powers. Looked at relatively or absolutely that has to be worth a limitation.

 

Let us trot out the classic: do you get full points back for being blind if you've bought a compensating sense?

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

What precedent? That people can buy down stats they don't think they need? I don't see the issue.

 

The precedent of min maxing, rules raping and general nastiness that is designing a character to play the numbers and exploit holes in the system rather than design a character 'cos that's how you envision that character being.

 

How do you justify buying the OMCV down to one? Plain English that passes the GM Cheese barrier?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Ouch man. He got you there. Can I ref this debate? Tick! LOL.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

The precedent of min maxing, rules raping and general nastiness that is designing a character to play the numbers and exploit holes in the system rather than design a character 'cos that's how you envision that character being.

 

How do you justify buying the OMCV down to one? Plain English that passes the GM Cheese barrier?

 

May I rephrase that?

 

Thank you.

 

How do you justify buying the OMCV down to one when the typical man on the street has an OMCV of 3? Plain English that passes the GM Cheese barrier and explains why this character is seriously deficient in this area as compared to the average man on the street who has, and likely will, never be exposed to mental combat in any form?

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

May I rephrase that?

 

 

 

I don't even know why you asked, it's not like you waited for an answer!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I don't even know why you asked' date=' it's not like you waited for an answer! [/quote']

 

At least I can LOOK polite