Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

[Mathew]

Is it legitimate to put a Limitation on Combat Skill Levels equal to that on the attack they apply to? For instance if you have an EB that only works at night, and buy 3 Combat Skill Levels with that EB, can you ALSO put "only at night" on the Levels, or is that double dipping for points?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

CSL's already have a cost structure essentially built around how common the situation is that they apply to.

 

However, you can put Limitations on higher costing levels (in 5e they had to be a minimum of 5 point levels before Limitations could be applied), I don't know off the top of my head what the minimum is for 6e since the price of levels in general was increased across the board.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

This is something I've wondered about, too. Even at the same cost level, not all CSL's are created equal. (I'll use 6e costs for this example.) Take the 3pt CSL with a "small group of attacks." If my character defines these for three different 'energy blast' powers (w/o limitations), okay -- the CSL's are good as long as he's got the energy blast. If he defines them as 'thrown knives' then he needs an OAF to use the CSL's, but unless he takes a limitation on them, they cost the same as the 'energy blast' CSL's.

 

It gets worse. Small group of attacks: Longbows = OAF and Concentration. Crossbows = OAF, Concentration, and Extra Time!

 

But without the limitations, all these CSL's for small groups of attacks cost the same number of points. Why does the Hero System hate crossbowmen!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

Yes, you can. But I consider it suspect, wiuld probably dissallow it.

 

There us no minimum SL of any kind needed to add modifiers. It was a foolish rule and has been remoced in 6E.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

Yes, you can. But I consider it suspect, wiuld probably dissallow it.

 

There us no minimum SL of any kind needed to add modifiers. It was un foolish rule and has been remoced in 6E.

 

Amen to that.

 

I think the key issue here is that CSL's are only as useful as the best attack they can be applied to, so in some cases it would make sense for the attack and the CSL's that go with it to have the same limitations. The point at which this will come back to haunt the character in question is when they wish to spend points to expand the scope of their CSL's. Once you hit the "All Hand to Hand" or "All Ranged" (8pts) category, it's hard to justify limitations on CSL's to match the attacks, because they can be used with so many different attacks it's impossible to say what limitations, if any, would apply consistently. Improving limited 3pt and 5pt CSL's to the 8pt level would most likely require buying off the limitations on them as well.

 

I don't know how common this is for other players, but a lot of my characters go through this progression, starting off with low-cost specialized CSL's, then buying them up to broader categories with XP. If you do it that way, the points saved with those limited CSL's might turn out to be only temporary savings, in the long term.

[Christopher]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

If I get it right, what you want to do is a 2 Point CLS. It could (could!) even be defined as for any Blasts, but then may not apply if you use any combat maneuvers (like haymaker) with the blast.

 

The only truly "legal" may to limit CSL's seems to make them a Focus, Restrainible, Material Manifestation or similar. Pretty much anything you would try to make a Flash-Resistance or other minor Special Power legal for a Power Framework (I say minor, since you can use flash resistance in fewer circustances than duplication/summoning).

[dmjalund]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

IIRC the smallest Skill Level that can be treated like a Power is a 5pt level

[Christopher]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

In 6E at least, the GM can deceide that and the example uses 3-pt csl's. If this is a rule/encouragement is hard to say.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

In 5E and earlier the smallest CSL that could take Limitations was 5pts.

 

In 6E there is no rule regarding CSL size and Limitations. There are suggestions and house rules - but no 6E Rule.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

Depends on the limitation. If you had a gun with OAF, then bought the skill levels with the same OAF, I would see that as double dipping. You can't use the gun unless you have the gun, and you can't use the skill levels that only apply to the gun unless you have the gun.

 

OTOH if they were broader levels, limitations seem more applicable.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

Depends on the limitation. If you had a gun with OAF, then bought the skill levels with the same OAF, I would see that as double dipping. You can't use the gun unless you have the gun, and you can't use the skill levels that only apply to the gun unless you have the gun.

 

OTOH if they were broader levels, limitations seem more applicable.

 

Even then it depends. If the CSLs are inherent to that specific gun, it should have the OAF to represent that. After all, you could theoretically damage the weapon in a way that the CSLs are rendered useless, or fail to maintain it (assuming Real Weapon Limitation) and the CSLs inherent to the gun reduce over time.

 

There are a great number of reasons a CSL could have a Limitation, and they are also priced that oftentimes the Limitation is redundant. Take it on a case-by-case.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

I think the question you need to ask is "Does it make sense that the CSL have this limitation?"

 

Case 1: The hero Lightbeam has a Photon Blast attack that does not work in Darkness fields. He practices regularly with it so he is a pretty good shot. Can he buy CSL with the limitation "Not in Darkness fields"? No, because that doesn't reflect the sfx of the skill.

 

Case 2: Per Case 1 except that Lightbeam never practices with his Photon Blast. But he can make a little tracer to help him aim, like a laser targeting spot. Can he buy CSL with the limitation "Not in Darkness fields"? Yes, because the sfx is such that it makes sense.

 

Now the question is why would anyone take Case 1? Hopefully because you are building the character to conception and not just scrounging for extra points. More practically, as Xavier points out, it ultimately leads to more flexibility as you sink XP into it. Also, there are some things you couldn't reasonably do with the tracer, like use those levels to bounce shots.

[Ice9]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

I could swear I've seen - in official books - weapon builds where the additional CSLs for accuracy and/or PSLs for range had the OAF limitation.

[Christopher]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

I could swear I've seen - in official books - weapon builds where the additional CSLs for accuracy and/or PSLs for range had the OAF limitation.

In 6E, it's in the rules for the CSL's. But afaik that was a sight that could be switched between weapons and CLS 3 (even if it just was for OCV Bonus to offset range).

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

In 6E' date=' it's in the rules for the CSL's. But afaik that was a sight that could be switched between weapons and CLS 3 (even if it just was for OCV Bonus to offset range).[/quote']

 

Hero System vol 2 (p209) indicates that 2pt OCV levels and 1pt Range levels for Ranged weapons are build with the OAF, Real Weapon, and Required Hands limitations.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

I think the question you need to ask is "Does it make sense that the CSL have this limitation?"

 

Case 1: The hero Lightbeam has a Photon Blast attack that does not work in Darkness fields. He practices regularly with it so he is a pretty good shot. Can he buy CSL with the limitation "Not in Darkness fields"? No, because that doesn't reflect the sfx of the skill.

 

Case 2: Per Case 1 except that Lightbeam never practices with his Photon Blast. But he can make a little tracer to help him aim, like a laser targeting spot. Can he buy CSL with the limitation "Not in Darkness fields"? Yes, because the sfx is such that it makes sense.

 

Now the question is why would anyone take Case 1? Hopefully because you are building the character to conception and not just scrounging for extra points.

 

I'll turn the question around. How is it reasonable that both skill levels will have exactly the same effect in game, being usable, and unavailable, with precisely the same frequency and exactly the same benefits, yet they will cost different amounts? Why should one concept or SFX cost more than the other?

 

And Lightbeam isn't as good a shot in Darkness fields because he's unable to practice shooting his Photon Beam in Darkness fields because it won't fire in them.

 

More practically' date=' as Xavier points out, it ultimately leads to more flexibility as you sink XP into it. Also, there are some things you couldn't reasonably do with the tracer, like use those levels to bounce shots.[/quote']

 

You can spend xp to buy off the limitation, if desired. I don't see a problem with an ability costing less because it is more limited carrying a higher cost to become more flexible.

 

If your Tracer is limited in other ways, it should receive the appropriate point reduction for those limitations.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

Hugh, you are right that the levels have the same utility for a static character, so on one level you want them to cost the same amount. But if Lightbeam gets to spend XP and encounter lots of different situations then there is some distinction.

 

Let us assume Lightbeam figures out how to focus his Photon Blast so that it does work in Darkness fields. If he bought his CSL straight out, then he can use them when the limitation on Photon Blast is bought off. If he bought his CSL as the tracer that doesn't work in Darkness, then he has to spend extra XP to buy the limitation off on his levels too. The advantage to buying the CSL outright is that he can advance more quickly later.

 

The situation is similar, though not as profound perhaps, to a character that buys his powers with the limitation "Not useable underwater" because he knows the character is only going to be used once in a desert setting. If the character is never going to gain XP, you might well have a much different character than one that is designed to develop over the course of a campaign.

 

My real contention though, is that if you have limitations on levels, or any power, they should make sense for the sfx. They shouldn't be taken just because it saves a few points. I don't mind if a good character concept saves points, but I don't want to encourage munchkin builds.

[Lucius]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

b

I think the question you need to ask is "Does it make sense that the CSL have this limitation?"

 

Case 1: The hero Lightbeam has a Photon Blast attack that does not work in Darkness fields. He practices regularly with it so he is a pretty good shot. Can he buy CSL with the limitation "Not in Darkness fields"? No, because that doesn't reflect the sfx of the skill.

 

Case 2: Per Case 1 except that Lightbeam never practices with his Photon Blast. But he can make a little tracer to help him aim, like a laser targeting spot. Can he buy CSL with the limitation "Not in Darkness fields"? Yes, because the sfx is such that it makes sense.

 

Now the question is why would anyone take Case 1? Hopefully because you are building the character to conception and not just scrounging for extra points. More practically, as Xavier points out, it ultimately leads to more flexibility as you sink XP into it. Also, there are some things you couldn't reasonably do with the tracer, like use those levels to bounce shots.

 

 

So you're saying the SFX of Case 1 implies the character can use those levels in Darkness, even if he can't use the Photon Blast?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

+3 Levels with Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

b

 

 

So you're saying the SFX of Case 1 implies the character can use those levels in Darkness, even if he can't use the Photon Blast?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

+3 Levels with Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

 

Yes.

 

What is the point then? Conceptually he doesn't become less skilled because it is dark. This is no different than a sharpshooter who has the same skill with his rifle in air or underwater, even though his rifle won't fire underwater.

 

Practically there are differences too, or at least there can be. Maybe the levels apply to all his ranged attacks and only Photon Blast doesn't work in Darkness. Or as I noted above he might ultimately buy off the limitation on Photon Blast, but then his levels are still useless in the Darkness until he spends points there too.

 

It is a matter of what you want the character to be able to do now vs. later, how you want to spend XP to develop the character, but most importantly why the character is a good shot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

Hugh' date=' you are right that the levels have the same utility for a static character, so on one level you want them to cost the same amount. But if Lightbeam gets to spend XP and encounter lots of different situations then there is some distinction.[/quote']

 

He has levels that are useless in darkness. If he wants them to become useful in darkness, he buys off the limitation. Perhaps he also has a 1d6 Susceptibility to being in a Darkness field because, conceptually, it drains his energy, preventing him from using his Photon Blast and sapping his strength. Should he be prohibited from having points for both the Complication and the limitation because he may decide to buy one or the other off at some future time?

 

Let us assume Lightbeam figures out how to focus his Photon Blast so that it does work in Darkness fields. If he bought his CSL straight out' date=' then he can use them when the limitation on Photon Blast is bought off. If he bought his CSL as the tracer that doesn't work in Darkness, then he has to spend extra XP to buy the limitation off on his levels too. The advantage to buying the CSL outright is that he can advance more quickly later.[/quote']

 

I don't find that to be a huge advantage. He can spend only 350 of his 400 available points to have 50 available later and advance more quickly like that as well. In the interim, those 50 points aren't doing him any good.

 

He could choose to buy off the limitation on both the Blast and the levels, if desired. Or he could buy off the limitation on the Blast (which he has now learned to focus, even in the darkness) and leave the limitation on the levels (because he can't focus the tracer in the dark...yet). He would pay the points for the added utility at the time the character is able to benefit from the added utility. Why not argue that he should not have put "not in darkness field" on the Blast as well, if he's just going to buy it off later?

 

The situation is similar' date=' though not as profound perhaps, to a character that buys his powers with the limitation "Not useable underwater" because he knows the character is only going to be used once in a desert setting. If the character is never going to gain XP, you might well have a much different character than one that is designed to develop over the course of a campaign.[/quote']

 

I don't find the two comparable. One is taking a limitation that is not limiting. It is worth no points. The other is taking a limitation that, presumably, will be limiting - he will encounter darkness fields. If he should spend XP to buy off the limitation before he encounters a darkness field, fine. He got lucky. He could have put Requires a Roll on the power and been lucky enough to always make the roll before buying the limitation off.

 

While the photon blast is not able to function in the dark, neither it nor the levels are useful in the dark. With the limitation, the levels will still be useless in the dark, even if the Blast limitation is bought off, so the levels themselves are limited.

 

My real contention though' date=' is that if you have limitations on levels, or any power, they should make sense for the sfx. They shouldn't be taken just because it saves a few points. I don't mind if a good character concept saves points, but I don't want to encourage munchkin builds.[/quote']

 

My contention is that the game should not reward some special effects and penalize others if they have the exact same mechanical effects. That is the whole point of segregating mechanics from special effects.

 

Practically there are differences too' date=' or at least there can be. Maybe the levels apply to all his ranged attacks and only Photon Blast doesn't work in Darkness.[/quote']

 

Then he either has some limitation on his levels that prevent their being used in the darkness field, or he should pay full price for the levels because they are useful outside the darkness field.

 

Or as I noted above he might ultimately buy off the limitation on Photon Blast' date=' but then his levels are still useless in the Darkness until he spends points there too. [/quote']

 

Yup. If you don't want to be limited by the limitation, you buy it off. That doesn't seem overly difficult as a concept.

 

It is a matter of what you want the character to be able to do now vs. later' date=' how you want to spend XP to develop the character, but most importantly [i']why[/i] the character is a good shot.

 

Let's assume the limitation on the levels will save 5 points. You can:

 

(a) limit the levels, spend the 5 points elsewhere and need to cough up another 5 points later if you want to remove the limitation.

 

( place no limitation on the levels and be able to use them as soon as your attack becomes usable in the darkness field.

 

© just "not spend" the 5 points, and be able to use them to buy off the limitation at some later date.

 

I see no mechanical difference between ( and ©. In both cases, you cannot use your levels in the Darkness Field, and you have 5 less points to spend on other abilities. In both cases, you do not need 5 more xp to "buy off" the limitation. If, however, the player wants to pay only the points which generate benefits for the character, and be required to pay up further points later if he wants the limitation to go away - well, that is how limitations work, isn't it?

 

There should be a special effect of his abilities which justifies the limitations. But, if the ability is useless in a darkness field, then the ability is limited, and the point savings appropriate to that limitation should be available.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

Even then it depends. If the CSLs are inherent to that specific gun, it should have the OAF to represent that. After all, you could theoretically damage the weapon in a way that the CSLs are rendered useless, or fail to maintain it (assuming Real Weapon Limitation) and the CSLs inherent to the gun reduce over time.

 

There are a great number of reasons a CSL could have a Limitation, and they are also priced that oftentimes the Limitation is redundant. Take it on a case-by-case.

 

In this case, I’d say OAF was a -0 limitation because it is not limiting. If you lose the OAF for the base attack, you can’t use the CSLs regardless if they have OAF or not. I’m not saying that CSLs can never have limitations, but their limitations should be limiting, so as to justify the points saved.

 

For heroic gear, it is far less relevant because characters buy equipment with money and the GM makes all the equipment. I’m more concerned with superheroic games.

[Ice9]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

I think limited the CSLs makes sense, if they are specific to, and considered a part of, the attack. With Martial Arts manuevers, we have the concept that some attacks can be inherently more accurate. Fast Strike has a higher OCV than Offensive Strike, as part of the maneuver itself (and thus could have any relevant limitations, such as OIF (magic black belt)).

 

Now let's say that we want to do something similar with energy projection. For instance:

Laser Eye Beams - 60p Multipower

1) Heavy Beam - RKA 4d6

2) Precision Beam - RKA 3d6, +6 OCV

3) Rapid Beam - RKA 3d6, AF 3

 

Ok, works well enough. But now we figure it should have some limitations to reflect how the power works - No Knockback and Concentration. Suddenly, the Precision Beam is treated differently than all the others? Makes sense to me that if the Precision Beam is considered on-par when not limited, it would still be on-par when limited.

[Christopher]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

2) Precision Beam - RKA 3d6' date=' +6 OCV[/quote']

Are those 2-pt CSL's or higher?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

In this case' date=' I’d say OAF was a -0 limitation because it is not limiting. If you lose the OAF for the base attack, you can’t use the CSLs regardless if they have OAF or not. I’m not saying that CSLs can never have limitations, but their limitations should be limiting, so as to justify the points saved. [/quote']

 

I'd say that, if the levels have OAF, then they are tied to that specific OAF piece of equipment. He's very good with his custom .44, but if he loses it and picks up another gun, not so good. However, purchased without the OAF, the levels would also apply when his own .44 is lost, and he is able to take one from a downed opponent.

[Arc Esu]

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

 

As a GM, I would be very careful with limitations on CSLs. If you allow CSLs to take the same limitations as the powers they apply to, they become very cheap and potentially abusive. I mean, suppose you had a Fantasy Hero mage who took 5 point levels with "All Magic Attacks," then applied a -1/4 limitation "Doesn't work in anti-magic field," or even "Unifed Power: Magic." I can think of zero situations in which those limitations would restrict the CSLs any more than the mage would otherwise be restricted, and I doubt most GMs would allow it. Yet in spirit, it is no different than the Lightbeam example that has been thrown around.