Is our approach to ' Combat Levels' fundamentally flawed

[AmadanNaBriona]

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

 

Oh yes' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

If and when I shift to 6E, I'll be recosting them at the (IMO) appropriate -1 1/2 or -2. Of course, I do the same for most of the other aforementioned undervalued Limitations already. With the opposite of Advantage Stacking firmly in play (I haven't heard a common nickname on the boards for the effect... "Diminishing Limitation Returns"?) it makes the most difference on less limited applications anyway, and I can't see forcing someone to pay a lot of points for something of limited utility, especially in, for ex, a Racial Template.

[Fireg0lem]

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

 

Uh, what? 2x 5-point CSLs with -1.5 "Damage Only" are 4 points. That makes them cheaper than buying DCs for just a single attack.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Uh' date=' what? 2x 5-point CSLs with -1.5 "Damage Only" are 4 points. That makes them cheaper than buying DCs for just a single attack.[/quote']

Good point. They are already 7 points per DC with Damage Only as a -1/2, and considering that they do not increase End Cost.... Note that when 8-point levels are used for either Deadly Blow or Weaponmaster, an additional -1/2 Limitation Only With Weapons is used, making them only 8 points per DC.

[The Main Man]

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

 

And when one considers STR minima and Hands in a Heroic campaign, those three, END-free DCs are proportionately more potent, especially since you can buy CSLs on top of them for OCV/DCV.

[Vondy]

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

 

My non-mathematical gut check caused me to use 5ER costs.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

[quote=GAZZA;2094926It 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.

 

The VPP can only be used for +1 OCV, +1 DCV or adding 0 END DC's to existing attacks of the character. That does not require a naked advantage. Your character can buy an addition to any attack he possesses, with all the advantages and limitations that attack may have, plus 0 END. There is no need for a naked advantage. Of course, a plain vanilla +1 DC 0 END costs 7.5 points, so every 2 DC's available provides the character access to +3 OCV or DCV. The ratio favours DC's more than skill levels do.

 

So if I want the ability to add 12 OCV or 12 DCV, I get the ability to add 8 DC's instead of 6.

 

Of course, we could question whether the limit is really -2. Maybe it should be somewhat smaller. However, the restriction against any powers the character doesn't have outside his VPP, as well as no defenses, is significant - the limitation can't be less than -1, and even that seems very light. At worst, that -2 limitation should cover "only to add 0 END DC's to attacks the character already possesses", so a 30 point pool with a 15 point control cost would permit +4d6 0 END Blast for 45 points. That sets the price of a floating 0 END DC at 11.25 points, pretty close to the 2:1 ratio suggested by skill levels, although the levels favour DC's slightly (10 points vs 11.25 points).