Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

[Sean Waters]

I was looking at this thread:

 

CLICK for Mental CSLs and base cost weirdness

 

and working through some examples, and I had a thought that deserved its own thread: have we completely got our approach combat levels wrong?

 

It seems to me that (discounting 1 and 2 point combat levels for the moment as they have different rules) the cost scale for levels is flawed.

 

I would suggest that for most characters (and can I declare my particular interest in Superhero characters and campaigns) it is unusual for them to use more than 3 attacks or 'a large group' at most.

 

Of course, conceptually, some characters will want to be good with any type of combat, and that has to be worth something - but is it worth the cost we ask?

 

Here's the basis of my argument:

 

In almost every case a 5 point CSL or a 3 point MCSL is better value than (respectively) OCV or MOCV.

 

I'm JUST talking OCV at present because levels are not persistent (and can not usually be made so, unfortunately) and so DCV and MDCV have a difficult to quantify advantage over levels -they are always there, and that could cloud the cost issue because there is no easy way to make a comparison of utility as it depends more on GMing style than actual mechanics. The same does not apply to OCV and MOCV because you are never going to need them if you are unaware of an attack. They may actually b persistent, but it really never matters.

 

The reason that CLSs are betterthan characteristics is that they are more flexible (they can be used for offence, defence or damage) and either can't or are much less likely to be negatively adjusted.

 

Despite OCV and MOCV costing the same as a Lage Croup CSL and a 3 group MCSL respectively, the only advantage OCV and MOCV has is that it applies to everything.

 

So what though?

 

The vast majority of characters stick to a defineable, and relatively small, group of attacks. A martial artist is never going to swing a normal punch when he can use Two Jade Dragons Punch, so where is the actual utility in being able to use your OCV levels with an attack you'll never bother with. If a character can or does use a variety of attacks that cannot be defined in a '5 point skill group', it is usually to realise a concept and for role playing purposes rather than any real need or utility.

 

We should be applauding the the creative and unconventional thinkers, not simply relegating them to a second division, whilst lauding the one* trick pony. I exagerate, of course, but that is an entirely valid argumental technique.

 

I'm not saying that broader combat skill groups shouldn't exist, nor, necessarily, that we should not pay more to buy into them, but I am saying that the current cost structure is flawed if it is there to balance cost and utility. For example you could cost combat skill levels at the same amount across the board, but have a 'buy in' cost depending on the number of attacks they applied to.

 

Another possibility is that the cost of the related characteristics needs looking at, and I think that is well within the scope of this. Do we even need combat characteristics?

 

Thoughts?

 

*Well, Large Group of Tricks Pony.

[The Main Man]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV can be affected by Adjustment powers whereas CSL's generally can not. That's a double edged sword though.

 

I think the truth lies in how versatile a character becomes with their CSL's, in which the cost catches up versus stability.

[Tasha]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

CV values don't have to be consciously applied. So once a character is on their feet (and not blind, stunned, entangled etc) they have full CV. They must apply their Combat skill levels during a phase (even an aborted phase can be used for moving around CSLs).

 

I think that CSL's were made to cost more because they can be added to Damage Classes. Though this seems to happen more in Heroic Games, and the nerf hurts (CSL's costing more) hurts Heroic level games disproportionately than Superheroic level games due to the disparity of Point budgets for character abilities.

 

I believe that the price structure of CSL's is broken. It's evidenced in how many players would rather buy CV insteand of CSL's. Though this is also an artifact of decoupling of Dex from CVs (and less so from decoupling EGO from MCV). I believe that the increased cost of CSLs have made buying CV a huge bargain. In 5er and before DEX was the thing to buy lots of, people bought CSLs due to the fact that you could use them in so many ways and that as a bonus one could apply them to DC's as an added benefit. I really don't think that the price of CSL's were broken (perhaps Overall levels were too cheap, but that is also arguable).

[The Main Man]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Speaking of Heroic Campaigns, CSLs aren't affected by Characteristic Maxima.

[Starcloud]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

CSLs, to me, represent training in versatility, and make a character more unpredictable as an opponent. Their value doesn't just lie in the points they cost, but in the fact they can be allocated and reallocated when needed. This especially helps in edge cases where, say, someone wants to go as defensive as they can. Also, it gives the player the feeling that they're not entirely at the mercy of the dice, by allowing them to "add" and "subtract" from the roll by using CSLs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Let's say I just want to trade between OCV and DCV. I could spend 30 points on a Multipower pool, then buy 2 flexible slots of +6 OCV and +6 DCV for 6 each - total cost of 42, or 7 per "level". If I limit that to HTH only or Range only (probably -1/2) it costs 28, so just under 5 per level. Restrict it to a single attack or maneuver, and it becomes even cheaper.

 

So, if I want "all combat", is it worth an extra 3 points per level to be able to add a "slot" that provides 1 DC at 0 END for each 10 points of the pool used in this manner? In fairness, it probably is. But only if I get to benefit from those extra DC's. In a game where the DC restrictions, or "unwritten rules" don't allow me to use CV's to enhance damage, the OCV/DCV multipower is all I get, so why not just buy that?

 

If my character spends 60 points for 6 overall combat levels, and the GM then looks and says "We have an OCV max of 14, DCV max of 15 and DC max of 12, so you can't have more than 8 OCV, 9 DCV or 9 DC's before levels", then I'm not building the character with 6 combat levels. He has become less effective than the character who just buys 14 OCV, 15 DCV and 12 DC's. At the same time, if he's going to buy 6 skill levels with, say, HTH with the intent of pretty much always putting these into damage so he does 15 DC routinely, he's going to be unbalanced in the game. Being able to choose between a 20 OCV, a 21 DCV and a 15 DC attack (ie he buys the maxima and then enhances one or all with CV's) is also going to be unbalancing.

 

Finding a reasonable balance where flexibility provides an advantage, but not an overwhelming one, is a challenging task. Maybe he should be allowed to achieve a 16 OCV, a 17 DCV or a 13 or 14 DC attack if he puts all his levels to one of the three (making him deficient in the other two), so he gets a 10 OCV, 11 DCV and an 11 DC attack. He can have a 12 DC attack, a 12 OCV and a 13 DCV by dividing his levels evenly, or he can take some abilities below the campaign limits to exceed them in other areas.

 

In a game where these are campaign norms, a tradeoff of being able to exceed the norms in some areas for being deficient in others seems reasonable, but in a "hard caps" game where all the characters buy close to, or at, the hard caps, levels aren't a great choice.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

It is important to note that there is a big difference in cost/utility in 5e and 6e between characteristics and levels. Generally, in 5e, characteristics were a better investment than levels, whereas in 6e the balance seems to have swung the other way.

 

Hugh, in 6e, 2 levels will get you +1DC. Say you buy 3 point CSLs with your Blast power, 6 points gets you +1d6 EB at zero END. Obviously it would cost more to buy that, so there might well be an advantage buying levels even in a hard cap game. A 12d6 Blast bought to zero END would cost you 90 points, whereas a 1d6 blast bought to 0 END costs 7 points, and 22x3 point levels cost an additional 66 points, total 73 points - bargain, even if you only ever use them to increase damage. Your Blast is more susceptible to drains, which is the only downside, but 17 points is a substantial saving.

 

One caveat - I'm assuming that DCs from levels cost no END - I can't see that spelled out, but it makes sense.

 

Even with characteristics, you are probably better off buying all your OCV as levels if you are the above blaster, saving 2 points per point of OCV. The lack of persistence on OCV levels is irrelevant - you never need your OCV to be persistent. Moreover a 'Blaster' character is likely to only have a couple of attacks they ever use, the fact that they can not apply their skill levels to their punch is irrelevant - even if they could it wouldn't do enough damage to be worth it. A blaster is not going to be losing 1/3 of the utility of the OCV levels by making them 'ranged only', however limiting the DCV levels similarly would be a significant problem.

 

It makes sense, IMO, to buy DCV as a characteristic, but OCV and even damage as skill levels, from a pure utility PoV. This leads to a further look at whether CSLs (and indeed OCV and DCV) are costed in a balanced and appropriate way.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

The variable cost of levels is also an issue. If I only want them for, say, OCV, 3 point levels are a bargain and 8 point levels are a ripoff. Not that this is anything new. But that 12d6, 1/2 END blast for 75 points seems a pretty poor investment compared to a 6d6 Blast (30 points) and 12 3 point levels (36 points). 9 points less, and that extra OCV will be terrific for making Multiple Attacks against agents and similar mooks. Spreading my Blast is a poor choice by comparison - sacrificing 1d6 gets me only +1 OCV instead of +2, and I can't get DCV instead.

[The Main Man]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

I think this depends upon individual character versatility. BFG Man only needs 2pt CSLs to use Strike (presumably) with his BFG, or else add Damage Classes... if he's okay with 3 OCV. He doesn't particularly stand to benefit from buying more expensive CSLs just to be flexible - he probably would be better off buying DCV as a CHAR.

 

Living Weapon Man, and his player for that matter, may be interested in Phase to Phase optimization. Let's say he never raised his OCV nor DCV and just bought +9 with All Attacks. He could attack for 12 OCV with any attack in any way in any given Phase, but he only has that 3 DCV until the end of such Phases. He could also attack for +6 DCs but with 3 OCV and 3 DCV. Not a very good long term idea IMO, but that player probably wouldn't go to such extremes on a common basis anyway.

 

I can have +1 OCV or +1 DCV or +1/2 DC one at a time for 10 CP. OTOH, I could always have +1 OCV with all of my attacks and +1 DCV (but no DCs) for the same cost.

 

In conclusion, I don't (yet) see how this is a problem. I think it comes down to character concept. BFG Man doesn't need to be flexible like Living Weapon Man may want to be, and Living Weapon Man may not want to go to extremes, but rather hit that sweet spot between stability and flexibility.

[Peregrine]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Speaking of Heroic Campaigns' date=' CSLs aren't affected by Characteristic Maxima.[/quote']

 

While Characteristic Maxima (in 6e) is an explicitly optional rule, even for Heroic games; as an optional rule, other rules are not necessarily balanced against it.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

I'm actually OK with this, and in fact I wish more of the "published" characters who could take advantage of this did so. Being a one-trick pony is a significant drawback, and I think getting point savings for it is fair. That said, we do have two restrictions: you can't have more than one "category" (range/melee/mental) in a single 3 or 5-point CSL, and you can't take 5-point CSLs with "anything I might conceivably use" unless those things are all in the same category and also all grouped in a power framework or martial art.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

I think this depends upon individual character versatility. BFG Man only needs 2pt CSLs to use Strike (presumably) with his BFG, or else add Damage Classes... if he's okay with 3 OCV. He doesn't particularly stand to benefit from buying more expensive CSLs just to be flexible - he probably would be better off buying DCV as a CHAR.

 

Living Weapon Man, and his player for that matter, may be interested in Phase to Phase optimization. Let's say he never raised his OCV nor DCV and just bought +9 with All Attacks. He could attack for 12 OCV with any attack in any way in any given Phase, but he only has that 3 DCV until the end of such Phases. He could also attack for +6 DCs but with 3 OCV and 3 DCV. Not a very good long term idea IMO, but that player probably wouldn't go to such extremes on a common basis anyway.

 

I can have +1 OCV or +1 DCV or +1/2 DC one at a time for 10 CP. OTOH, I could always have +1 OCV with all of my attacks and +1 DCV (but no DCs) for the same cost.

 

In conclusion, I don't (yet) see how this is a problem. I think it comes down to character concept. BFG Man doesn't need to be flexible like Living Weapon Man may want to be, and Living Weapon Man may not want to go to extremes, but rather hit that sweet spot between stability and flexibility.

 

Pardon the rather lengthy post...

 

There are a couple of issues here, and they are entangled, but I’ll try and deal with them separately.

 

First of all, we could ask whether levels and characteristics have a ‘common root’ can we build one from the other, in other words?

 

Well, we can try. Let us start with an ‘all combat’ level and try and build OCV and DCV.

 

An overall level is nonpersistent (only actually matters for DCV, not OCV), so we need to make our DCV build Persistent – technically illegal, but we are not going to be using it in-game. Technically even characteristic DCV is not ‘properly’ persistent, but we’ll not try and model that as it is too fiddly.

 

So:1 overall combat level to DCV:

 

1x10 point level, persistent (+1/4) = 12 AP

Then we have to have a Limited Power so that it can ONLY be used for DCV – not damage or OCV. If it can only be used for one of the three things that it can normally do, and they are of roughly equal utility, then it is losing 2/3 of its power, which is worth –1 ½. That means that a point of DCV built starting with an overall combat level should cost 5 points – bingo.

 

OCV works the same, but because it does not need to be persistent, only costs 4 points, built that way. That’s an issue that would indicate that characteristics (well OCV anyway) cost too much.

 

We could also try and build it the other way around – start with OCV, DCV and damage and try and build a level. That has to be a multipower: 10 point pool, with slots for +2 OCV, +2 DCV or +1DC of damage. The DC of damage is tricky but the nearest I could get would be 1d6 Blast 0 END, variable sxf (10 points). That means for 13 points you should be able to add 2 OCV or DCV or 1d6 0END damage (or halve that to 6 points for the cost of a single level). However a 10 point level only gives you +1 OCV or DCV or +1/2 DC damage – that would indicate that levels cost too much.

 

Bit odd that, and it is not due to the strange Hero ‘calculations are not necessarily reversable’ thing either.

 

 

OK the next bit of strangeness is to do with what sort of a modifier ‘large group’, ‘small group’ and ‘single weapon’ are worth. Theoretically, if you look at the total number of possible attacks and weapons available and then consider that even the largest large group (probably a very full martial arts package) is only likely to use a few weapons and maybe 10 or so manoeuvres, it looks like it should be a BIG limitation: -1 at least, and probably more.

 

But…

 

In practice, if a character has spent those points on a full MA package, when is he ever, in practice, going to use something outside the package? Very rarely IMO.

 

Even with a tight group (3 attacks) you are going to pick the weapons/manoeuvres that you use most frequently, if not all the time.

 

This means, applying the principle that you only get what you pay for, that the limitations should actually be very small, perhaps –1/4 for a large group, -1/2 for a tight group and maybe –1 for a single attack.

 

That is not how the level thing costs out at all: starting with a 10 point level, -1/4 would make it 8 points for a large group, -1/2 would make it 7 for a tight group and –1 would make it 5 for a single attack.

 

Of course, if the calculation above is right then a level should cost 6 points for all combat, then (applying the above modifiers) 5 for a large group, 4 for a tight group and 3 for a single attack.

 

You can argue this one in circles all day, but it seems to me that both the overall cost of a ‘full level’ and the ratio of costs between that and ‘group’ levels is wrong.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Small note: CSLs can be made Persistent for DCV, but not directly. You buy Defense Maneuver IV instead of applying an Advantage. That means it actually winds up being effectively 0 points per CSL, since the cost doesn't go up with the number of levels.

 

Also additional damage can't just be 1d6 Blast. If you have a 1d6 Blast and a 10d6 Blast, they don't add together to give a 11d6 Blast. You'd have to do the extra DCs with some kind of Aid with Variable Effects (only more than Variable Effects because a 10-point CSL isn't limited to a category of SFX) and something to account for Advantages that don't affect DCs (don't affect how damage is taken). That last is kind of the opposite (in effect; it won't necessarily be a Limitation and might even be an Advantage itself in this case) of the Advantage that allows Aid to add Adders/Advantages, I suppose.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

1x10 point level, persistent (+1/4) = 12 AP

Then we have to have a Limited Power so that it can ONLY be used for DCV – not damage or OCV. If it can only be used for one of the three things that it can normally do, and they are of roughly equal utility, then it is losing 2/3 of its power, which is worth –1 ½. That means that a point of DCV built starting with an overall combat level should cost 5 points – bingo.

 

This reasoning is off. Losing 2/3 of your options is not losing 2/3 of your power. Compare the cost of a 3-slot multipower with a single power - 1/3 the options will cost roughly 75% as much.

[GAZZA]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Snipping to just the bit I want:

We could also try and build it the other way around - start with OCV, DCV and damage and try and build a level. That has to be a multipower: 10 point pool, with slots for +2 OCV, +2 DCV or +1DC of damage. The DC of damage is tricky but the nearest I could get would be 1d6 Blast 0 END, variable sxf (10 points). That means for 13 points you should be able to add 2 OCV or DCV or 1d6 0END damage (or halve that to 6 points for the cost of a single level). However a 10 point level only gives you +1 OCV or DCV or +1/2 DC damage - that would indicate that levels cost too much.

As you note (and prestidigitator pointed out) the damage bit isn't really going to be that easy.

 

This might work out more similar:

Multipower, 90pt reserve [90]

Boost 10d6, any one damage power (+1/2), 0 END (+0) (average +35, which is +7 DCs) [18-v]

+14 OCV [14-v]

+14 DCV [14-v]

 

Note that this doesn't really work either - you could fire up +14 OCV and +4 DCV. You might be able to get it to work with some sort of Boost addon outside the MP with a lockout or something, but it's close enough for government work.

 

This is 136 points, which is pretty close to 14 10pt combat levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

As you note (and prestidigitator pointed out) the damage bit isn't really going to be that easy.

 

This might work out more similar:

Multipower, 90pt reserve [90]

Boost 10d6, any one damage power (+1/2), 0 END (+0) (average +35, which is +7 DCs) [18-v]

+14 OCV [14-v]

+14 DCV [14-v]

 

Note that this doesn't really work either - you could fire up +14 OCV and +4 DCV. You might be able to get it to work with some sort of Boost addon outside the MP with a lockout or something, but it's close enough for government work.

 

This is 136 points, which is pretty close to 14 10pt combat levels.

 

Well, you also need +14 MOCV and +14 MDCV, which adds 16 points (two flexible 42 point slots) for a total of 152. That's closer to 11 points per level but, as you point out, it would allow you to have +14 OCV and +4 DCV at the same time, which 14 combat levels will not permit. I believe it also permits using Boost multiple times, doesn't it, to get a total of 60 AP (12 DC) added to my damage power.

 

Assuming my Boost recollection is correct, could the DC enhancement be simulated with 6d6 Aid/Boost with 2 or 3 shot Autofire to pump up to 36 AP in one phase? It probably also needs to be Triggered with a self-resetting Trigger to be effective without an attack action. Of course, the OCV/DCV slots could be limited to require the same pool points as the equivalent Boost power.

 

A floating DC is definitely the tough one to simulate, as there's no other simple way to buy a floating DC.

 

Hmmm...

 

35 70 point multipower, only w/ martial arts (-1 since a MA level costs 5 and an all combat level costs 10)

 

7 +14 OCV

7 +14 DCV

1 +7 DC's with Martial Arts, each DC uses 10 pool points instead of 4 (say -1/2)

 

50 points/14 levels = 3.5714 points per level. That's a lot cheaper than 5 point levels. Mind you, it's skewed because MA DC's are already 0 END.

[GAZZA]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Well' date=' you also need +14 MOCV and +14 MDCV, which adds 16 points (two flexible 42 point slots) for a total of 152. That's closer to 11 points per level but, as you point out, it would allow you to have +14 OCV and +4 DCV at the same time, which 14 combat levels will not permit.[/quote']

I don't believe 10 pt combat levels can be used for mental combat; 6e1pp71 says that it works for all attacks but specifically excludes Mental Attacks.

 

I believe it also permits using Boost multiple times, doesn't it, to get a total of 60 AP (12 DC) added to my damage power.

Again, I do not believe so. You can use Boost multiple times, certainly, but as soon as you use it the second time you're no longer maintaining the first one, so it fades. Sure, you would eventually roll the maximum result, I guess. And you could certainly do as you suggest with Aid instead of Boost.

 

Assuming my Boost recollection is correct, could the DC enhancement be simulated with 6d6 Aid/Boost with 2 or 3 shot Autofire to pump up to 36 AP in one phase? It probably also needs to be Triggered with a self-resetting Trigger to be effective without an attack action. Of course, the OCV/DCV slots could be limited to require the same pool points as the equivalent Boost power.

Yes, I can't see any reason why you couldn't do that. Something like this:

 

Multipower 112 active

5d6 Aid, any one damage power (+1/2), Autofire 3 shots (+1 1/4), 0 END (+1), Self Only (-1) [11-v]

+12 OCV [12-v]

+12 DCv [12-v]

 

Works out to 147 points. I might be wrong about Autofire; I'm assuming since aiding yourself doesn't require an attack roll that you have to pay the +1 premium on it, but that may not in fact be true.

 

It occurs to me that neither of these really work though because they don't give a 0 END +1 DC. I don't really know how to do that without "special GM permission" (and returning to a variant of Sean's original idea):

 

VPP CSLs Pool Cost 10pts [10]

VPP CSLs Control Cost, Cosmic (+2), Only for OCV, DCV, or a +1 DC naked advantage (-2) [5]

 

Define the naked advantage as +1d6 Blast, 0 END, Variable Special Effects, or +1 DC RKA with the same advantages, and so on.

 

That gives you 15 points for the equivalent of 2 overall levels, so saving of 20 points - but it does require that you allow a naked advantage in a power framework, which typically is verboten.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

This reasoning is off. Losing 2/3 of your options is not losing 2/3 of your power. Compare the cost of a 3-slot multipower with a single power - 1/3 the options will cost roughly 75% as much.

 

I'm never completely sure what the 'limited power' modifier means: 'Only works v women' is worth, according to the book, -1, presumably because half the population are women: that seems to be a clear indication that the power is only half as useful*. In this case a level that can do three equally useful things being limited to only being able to do one useful thing does seem to me to be less than half effective. The MP example is a good one, but bear in mind that, when building in Hero, not everything is reversible - just because it works one way, doesn't mean that the same thing applies the other way around. In this case we have to start with a level and get to a characteristic. The route back may be completely different. Obviously that means that such comparisons are not going to make for a watertight argument, but at least it shows potential parameters.

 

 

*Although you could argue that the reasoning is flawed: say that applies to Mind Control, you halve your potential pool of targets, but there is nothing to prevent you affecting men indirectly, say by mind controlling a woman to attack one. Also, assuming that you have both male and female targets available, it is not preventing you from using the power, and you may have decided to MC a woman even if you had not got the limitation in place. Assigning modifier values is still more of an art than a science.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

It's the distinction between "power is only usable half as often" and "power has only half as many options." For example, Cannot Englobe on Barrier is an option-reducing limitation and is -1/4.

[The Main Man]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Again' date=' I do not believe so. You can use Boost multiple times, certainly, but as soon as you use it the second time you're no longer maintaining the first one, so it fades. Sure, you would eventually roll the maximum result, I guess. And you could certainly do as you suggest with Aid instead of Boost.[/quote']

Boost is treated as a Constant Power, which means that it can be used multiple times for multiple END costs per Phase.

 

Let's say I have Boost STUN 3d6 (18 Active Points -> 2 END; Average Effect: 10.5 CP). If I use it once and gain 10 CP (leaving 8 more points to max out), I must spend 2 END per Phase to maintain it. If I decide to go further and gain that last 8 CP, I must spend 2 more END to maintain it for a total of 4 END per Phase to maintain two seperate Boost effects.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

It's the distinction between "power is only usable half as often" and "power has only half as many options." For example' date=' Cannot Englobe on Barrier is an option-reducing limitation and is -1/4.[/quote']

 

Ah, but then Hero nerfs limitations on defensive powers: Only v Fire is worth -1/2 as , apparently, is Only v Arrows.

 

You can't argue that that actually makes any sense, can you?

 

Hmm. Also Englobing comes dangerously close to straying only Entangle country, and we wouldn't want to over-value the entangle-like ability of another power, would we? Like I say: more art than science.

[Ice9]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Ah, but then Hero nerfs limitations on defensive powers: Only v Fire is worth -1/2 as , apparently, is Only v Arrows.

You can't argue that that actually makes any sense, can you?

That has bugged me for a long time.

 

Personally, I blame the writeup of "Limited Power". It seems to assume an exponential curve, where -1 is half (correct), -1 1/2 is a third, and then -2 is "ultra limited". The reality of point costs, however, is the reverse. The higher the limitation, the fewer points each -1 counts for. Not only is -4 not exponentially more than -2, it's not even twice as much! Something which is only 10% as good should seriously have a -9 limitation, but you will never see that in any official example.

 

Also, the limitations for defensive powers, in particular, suffer from using the same limitation values for physical/energy specific defenses, and general ones. Obviously, "Only vs Metal" is more a limitation for Desolidification than it is for PD.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

I do agree with you that such limitations on defensive powers should generally be worth more than they're listed as, but I think that's a flaw, not a feature.

 

Limitations on VPPs are another good example.

 

Only Adjustment Powers - well, adjustment powers are less than a quarter of the available powers, so this should be -1.5 to -2. It is actually -1/2.

 

Only Drains and Aids would clearly be -2 if you were limiting based on how many options are cut out. But it's only -1.

 

Attack powers are less than half of all powers, so it should be at least -1 to have "Only Attack Powers," but it is instead only -1/4.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Oh hey. Also, Deadly Blow. CSLs, Only for Damage (-1/2).

[MorpheousXO]

Re: Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

 

Oh hey. Also' date=' Deadly Blow. CSLs, Only for Damage (-1/2).[/quote']

 

Oh yes, that is the worst, IMO. You are completely giving up all the goodness of variety that CSLs bring, but it's still majorly expensive. Sorely tempted just rebuild that one with a -1 instead.