Selling back OMCV

[Lucius]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

My approach, if I wanted to remove all benefit of OMCV sellback, would be to set both OMCV and DMCV at a default of 0. Every kid has thrown a rock, tried to tag another kid, and tried to avoid being tagged or hit by a rock, so they have a standard 3 CV. They have not had the opportunity to practice attacking or defending against mental attacks, so standard characters need special training to have mOCV or mDCV above 0. Characters with default stats still hit on 11-, so this does not change the ranges. A mentalist who buys +2 mOCV will hit on a 13-, whether that is a 5 mOCV targeting a 3 mDCV or a 2 mOCV targetting a 0 mDCV, so actual game play is unaffected, except to establish that default characters lack any competency with attacking or defending mentally - they start as low as you can go!

 

This strikes me as very good thinking.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys +5 OMCV which thinks me as very good striking

[Christopher]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I'm not sure why the blind guy should get 35 more points to play with. despite the fact that a good portion of them will go towards overcoming his blindness...making something else a targeting sense is 20...so... just curious.

 

How does this affect (if at all) the discussion on OMCV?

From my udnerstanding he doesn't sells his sight. He sells the entrie Sight Group, since otherwise the price would be wrong indeed. But I better check that back.

 

While he can make an alternative targetting sense, this is still very costly. Even just upgrading your hearing (group) with Targetting shoves of 10-20 Points of that 35 he saved. 25-15 left, for being unable to distinguish colors, read on distance and his targettign sense is still on the list of senses that are likely to be blocked (Sight and Hearing Flash is the effect of a Flashbang-grenade). Plus the sense he targets with is not considered Targetting by default, so it's way cheaper to use sense-affecting powers agaisnt him. Hunt his team through the sewers and he can't distinguish friend or foe.

 

He could make his sense more riable or take a less valuable Sense Group, but then he will have to buy even more adders.

Or he could use the unusual group, but that would be even more expensive than what he saved with selling back sight. And he can't still read.

[Christopher]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Okay, asked Steve about the wording of "Selling back your sense":

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/87414-Selling-back-a-Sense-or-the-Sense-Group

[Escafarc]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Just to throw a swerve here...

 

Didn't 6e bring the idea that a blind character now sells back his "sight" sense for 35 pts rather than taking a Physical Complication?

I'm not sure why the blind guy should get 35 more points to play with. despite the fact that a good portion of them will go towards overcoming his blindness...making something else a targeting sense is 20...so... just curious.

 

How does this affect (if at all) the discussion on OMCV?

 

I treat them the same. If the player has a "in game"(not just to get a few more points) reason to sell something back I allow it(and not just for OMCV).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Just to throw a swerve here...

 

Didn't 6e bring the idea that a blind character now sells back his "sight" sense for 35 pts rather than taking a Physical Complication?

I'm not sure why the blind guy should get 35 more points to play with. despite the fact that a good portion of them will go towards overcoming his blindness...making something else a targeting sense is 20...so... just curious.

 

How does this affect (if at all) the discussion on OMCV?

Why wouldn't he "get 35 more points to play with"? He's Blind! For most characters a good chunk of those points (10-20) will go to purchasing some other Sense that partly makes up the difference. And what if they didn't? If they didn't buy another Targeting Sense would you still think it should only be a Complication? How is it any different than selling back any other "free" or "innate" ability like Running, Leaping, Et cetera?

[Christopher]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Why wouldn't he "get 35 more points to play with"? He's Blind! For most characters a good chunk of those points (10-20) will go to purchasing some other Sense that partly makes up the difference. And what if they didn't? If they didn't buy another Targeting Sense would you still think it should only be a Complication? How is it any different than selling back any other "free" or "innate" ability like Running' date=' Leaping, Et cetera?[/quote']

He said he is "just curious", so no reason to bold anything here

 

As far as I heard, the main reason this was changed from Complication to Sellback is:

It makes creating a Daredevil type Super so much easier, because you get points you can invest in your alternate targetting sense.

The pricing seems to be based on the Free Adders provided by that Sense Group. Sight gives: lesser Discriminatory (<10), Sense (???; should be more than 2), Targetting (20) and Range (10)* + your normal Sight Sense.

When you put the "lesser Discriminatory" at 5, "Sense for entire Sense Group" at 5 too and asume that "Normal Sight" is a 5 point detect, you get: 20+10+5+5+5 = 45 for the entire Sight Sense Group + Normal Sight.

*not certain if that counts. Most of the extra senses Are Detects, wich bring their own Range along (nightvision is the only exception).

 

Regarding the "Let's start DMCV at 0":

You might overlook that this makes most maneuvers with a 1/2 or 0 DCV less problematic. In the default rules, these DCV penalties affect DMCV as well. But when DMCV starts at 0, there is no penalty for doing a haymaker/multiattack/use Non Combat Movement with a mentalist around.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Just to throw a swerve here...

 

Didn't 6e bring the idea that a blind character now sells back his "sight" sense for 35 pts rather than taking a Physical Complication?

I'm not sure why the blind guy should get 35 more points to play with. despite the fact that a good portion of them will go towards overcoming his blindness...making something else a targeting sense is 20...so... just curious.

 

How does this affect (if at all) the discussion on OMCV?

 

I don't think it impacts the OMCV discussion much.

 

I do think the result is equitable. It resolves the Daredevil Conundrum.

 

Previously, the player would spend points on other enhanced senses to get a character who was playable despite his blindness. Let's say he spent 50 points on enhanced senses, so he actually had better senses, overall, than a normally sighted character. Then he would take a "Blind" disadvantage. Assuming sight is worth 35 points, the character is now 15 points "better" than a character with no sensory powers or disadvantages. But he has spent 50 of his character points, not 15, to attain this superiority, so he has 35 less points than his teamates to spend on other advantages.

 

If he was less fortunate, his GM would interpret the rules to say "hey, you spent 50 points on enhanced senses, so being blind isn't all that disadvantageous" and markedly reduce or eliminate the disadvantage points, so blindness was viewed as flavour.

 

If a character has Sight or has 35 points of enhanced senses that exactly replicate the effectiveness of sight, I think they are equally powerful, so one should not have more points to spend (or more disadvantages/complications to take) than the other.

 

The alternative, in my view, would be to eliminate sellbacks entirely and make them all complications like "can't swim: -4 meters swimming" as a 2 point complication, or "not that bright: -3 INT, -1 Ego" 5 point complication. I prefer the sellback approach, though.

[Hermit]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I knew at least one GM who followed a firm 'good for the gander, good for the goose' mentality. If players tried this, all the VIPER agents would soon have an additional 9 points to play with as well.

 

I think for me, it would have to have a reason in character. If some player informed me he wanted to sell his OMCV down to 0 or even 1, I'd ask him something like "Ok, did your character receive brain damage in his origin story? What's the non-mechanics reason this score is so low?" and judge from there.

[Folded]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I do see a difference between selling back Sight and selling back OMCV. Being blind means you can't read normal text, can't differentiate colors, and could easily have problems perceiving at any great distance. Passive Sonar, like DD's, while sensitive, has it's limits simply due to the inverse-square rule when considering energy transmission.

 

Losing your OMCV, however, doesn't really impact a character in a world without a relatively common use for the ability. Even if the Mental Block rule is in effect, unless you're running into Mentalists on a regular basis who are using powers that that maneuver will affect, you're not losing anything significant. Most other Characteristics have a common use for every character, from the basic Normal to the Cosmic Super. OMCV doesn't seem to have such a use in every campaign. And I think the answer to this question is ultimately going to come down to campaign parameters.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I don't think it impacts the OMCV discussion much.

 

I do think the result is equitable. It resolves the Daredevil Conundrum.

 

Previously, the player would spend points on other enhanced senses to get a character who was playable despite his blindness. Let's say he spent 50 points on enhanced senses, so he actually had better senses, overall, than a normally sighted character. Then he would take a "Blind" disadvantage. Assuming sight is worth 35 points, the character is now 15 points "better" than a character with no sensory powers or disadvantages. But he has spent 50 of his character points, not 15, to attain this superiority, so he has 35 less points than his teamates to spend on other advantages.

 

 

 

If he was less fortunate, his GM would interpret the rules to say "hey, you spent 50 points on enhanced senses, so being blind isn't all that disadvantageous" and markedly reduce or eliminate the disadvantage points, so blindness was viewed as flavour.

 

If a character has Sight or has 35 points of enhanced senses that exactly replicate the effectiveness of sight, I think they are equally powerful, so one should not have more points to spend (or more disadvantages/complications to take) than the other.

 

The alternative, in my view, would be to eliminate sellbacks entirely and make them all complications like "can't swim: -4 meters swimming" as a 2 point complication, or "not that bright: -3 INT, -1 Ego" 5 point complication. I prefer the sellback approach, though.

 

Ok, but he's not spending 35 less on other advantages. He's been spotted 35 points. Yes he has to spend some - maybe all to make up the fact, but if he spends them all correcting the problem why bother? Why not just say "Differently sighted" complication (can't read or discern color) but everything else is same.

 

Then perhaps I need an example of a physical complication. I'm not sure how the changes in complications has effected the game so much but why bother having them if the way to go is sellbacks?

 

if they're going to o with the "Dare Devil" response and spend 50 points in enhanced senses, then this differently sighted character has been given 435 pts where as a guy who's got a complication only has spent 400pts for the same issues.

 

But as has been pointed out, this may not be nearly as relevant to the OMCV conversation as I thought. I'll not respond anymore.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I do see a difference between selling back Sight and selling back OMCV. Being blind means you can't read normal text, can't differentiate colors, and could easily have problems perceiving at any great distance. Passive Sonar, like DD's, while sensitive, has it's limits simply due to the inverse-square rule when considering energy transmission.

 

Losing your OMCV, however, doesn't really impact a character in a world without a relatively common use for the ability. Even if the Mental Block rule is in effect, unless you're running into Mentalists on a regular basis who are using powers that that maneuver will affect, you're not losing anything significant. Most other Characteristics have a common use for every character, from the basic Normal to the Cosmic Super. OMCV doesn't seem to have such a use in every campaign. And I think the answer to this question is ultimately going to come down to campaign parameters.

 

A fair point.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I do see a difference between selling back Sight and selling back OMCV. Being blind means you can't read normal text, can't differentiate colors, and could easily have problems perceiving at any great distance. Passive Sonar, like DD's, while sensitive, has it's limits simply due to the inverse-square rule when considering energy transmission.

 

Losing your OMCV, however, doesn't really impact a character in a world without a relatively common use for the ability.

 

That's why loss of sight is worth 35 and loss of OMCV is worth 9 (assuming sellback to 0). It should not be as significant or it would be worth more points.

 

Even if the Mental Block rule is in effect' date=' unless you're running into Mentalists on a regular basis who are using powers that that maneuver will affect, you're not losing anything significant. Most other Characteristics have a common use for every character, from the basic Normal to the Cosmic Super. OMCV doesn't seem to have such a use [i']in every campaign[/i]. And I think the answer to this question is ultimately going to come down to campaign parameters.

 

If mental powers aren't a facet of the campaign, I would simply have mOCV and mDCV vanish. There have been lots of good examples above for ensuring oMCV has a use for a character lacking mental powers, the mental block being, perhaps, one of the weaker ones (how often will you succeed with a 3 mOCV anyway?).

 

The utility of many abilities is context-sensitive. How useful is STR to a Telekinetic, especially one with a Fine Manipulation TK? Selling back Running isn't nearly as problematic if you have Flight. BOD is much more valuable if your defenses are low. There's not much difference between a 3 and a 0 DCV in most Supers games (even the much vaunted multiple attack gets a small bonus if you make one more or a small penalty if you make 2 more). OCV isn't overly useful if your attacks have area of effect, or are all based on mOCV - Supers don't pick up guns and weapons very often anyway. EGO is a lot less useful in games with no, or very infrequent, mental powers.

 

In a game focused on political intrigue, DEX and CV lose much of their value. If you have 0 END on most abilities, the value of END and REC declines, and high DCV characters don't get as much mileage out of STUN and REC, or out of their defenses.

 

The value of water breathing varies a lot between Arabian Nights and Atlantis games.

 

How many points do you get for selling back your sense of smell/taste? How much in game use does it have? No more than mOCV, I suggest - the most common relevance is attacks vs Smell/Taste flash defense, and selling back the sense makes you immune to those. Why aren't the mOCV sellbackers selling that back too? It's not really helping them in combat!

[Lucius]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Regarding the "Let's start DMCV at 0":

You might overlook that this makes most maneuvers with a 1/2 or 0 DCV less problematic. In the default rules, these DCV penalties affect DMCV as well. But when DMCV starts at 0, there is no penalty for doing a haymaker/multiattack/use Non Combat Movement with a mentalist around.

 

Christopher is now on my list of people who too frequently provoke me to reputize them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I never thought of that, and neither did the palindromedary

[Folded]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

edit:{referring to Hugh Neilson's post, above}

 

Okay, I can agree with all of that. It is certainly true that any ability can be considered to be context-specific and dependent on the nature of the campaign in terms of value. Which is essentially what I said, that this question comes down to campaign parameters.

 

I'll restate my question: What value does OMCV give to the zero-point average person walking down the street (other than as a sellback)?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Regarding the "Let's start DMCV at 0":

You might overlook that this makes most maneuvers with a 1/2 or 0 DCV less problematic. In the default rules, these DCV penalties affect DMCV as well. But when DMCV starts at 0, there is no penalty for doing a haymaker/multiattack/use Non Combat Movement with a mentalist around.

 

While true, the impact is at most 2 dMCV for a halving maneuver and 4 for a "DCV 0" maneuver.

 

Pretty sure Haymaker reduces your DCV by 5 (so now it is -5), and does not halve it, but the issue is still there for other maneuvers. Halving or reducing DCV/dMCV is already a much lesser penalty if your DCV/dMCV is low to begin with. My 5 DCV Brick thinks little of halving DCV, but my 13 DCV Martial Artist is a lot more careful about that!

 

Ok' date=' but he's not spending 35 less on other advantages. He's been spotted 35 points. Yes he has to spend some - maybe all to make up the fact, but if he spends them all correcting the problem why bother? Why not just say "Differently sighted" complication (can't read or discern color) but everything else is same. [/quote']

 

By the same token, why should the character who only has 2 meters running be allowed 10 points for the sellback rather than taking a complication called "Lame: -10 meters running" for 10 points? To me, sellbacks should be consistent. Either they are all complications, or they are all direct sellbacks.

 

We could also bump up the base points, start everyone with 0 in everything, no movement, no arms, no senses, etc. and make you build a human from scratch, increasing starting points accordingly, but the added complexity seems unjustified by the benefit.

 

Then perhaps I need an example of a physical complication. I'm not sure how the changes in complications has effected the game so much but why bother having them if the way to go is sellbacks?

 

Physical complication...hmmm...

 

There's always "no knowledge of Earth culture", but I suppose we could establish CS: Earth as an Everyman skill and sell that back too! With that in mind, perhaps these are simply constraints for which no sellback cost has been established, and we should look to stat out as many of these as possible (ie selling back colour vision or depth perception).

 

I'll restate my question: What value does OMCV give to the zero-point average person walking down the street (other than as a sellback)?

 

The point values are not, IMO, based on the average person walking down the street, but on the PC's and relevant NPC's. That's who the game is based on. That's why kindly octogenarian Aunt May has a 50/50 chance to Dive for Cover 2 meters when attacked by a Supervillain, For that average person, living his average life, 5 points of Wealth is worth way more than a 6d6 NND, Defense is Force Field!

 

It gives Joe Average the exact same benefit it gives the Super - the opportunity to use this in any ability requiring use of OMCV. Just like his OCV gives him the ability to attack with a 3 OCV rather than a 0 OCV. I'd gladly trade my own 3 OCV for, say, 10 points of Wealth and Life Support: Immortal. If I could redesign my own "character sheet", I'd be prepared to trade in quite a bit of my basic human sellback stats!

[Lucius]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

While true, the impact is at most 2 dMCV for a halving maneuver and 4 for a "DCV 0" maneuver.

 

Pretty sure Haymaker reduces your DCV by 5 (so now it is -5), and does not halve it, but the issue is still there for other maneuvers. Halving or reducing DCV/dMCV is already a much lesser penalty if your DCV/dMCV is low to begin with. My 5 DCV Brick thinks little of halving DCV, but my 13 DCV Martial Artist is a lot more careful about that!

 

 

 

By the same token, why should the character who only has 2 meters running be allowed 10 points for the sellback rather than taking a complication called "Lame: -10 meters running" for 10 points? To me, sellbacks should be consistent. Either they are all complications, or they are all direct sellbacks.

 

We could also bump up the base points, start everyone with 0 in everything, no movement, no arms, no senses, etc. and make you build a human from scratch, increasing starting points accordingly, but the added complexity seems unjustified by the benefit.

 

 

 

Physical complication...hmmm...

 

There's always "no knowledge of Earth culture", but I suppose we could establish CS: Earth as an Everyman skill and sell that back too! With that in mind, perhaps these are simply constraints for which no sellback cost has been established, and we should look to stat out as many of these as possible (ie selling back colour vision or depth perception).

 

 

 

The point values are not, IMO, based on the average person walking down the street, but on the PC's and relevant NPC's. That's who the game is based on. That's why kindly octogenarian Aunt May has a 50/50 chance to Dive for Cover 2 meters when attacked by a Supervillain, For that average person, living his average life, 5 points of Wealth is worth way more than a 6d6 NND, Defense is Force Field!

 

It gives Joe Average the exact same benefit it gives the Super - the opportunity to use this in any ability requiring use of OMCV. Just like his OCV gives him the ability to attack with a 3 OCV rather than a 0 OCV. I'd gladly trade my own 3 OCV for, say, 10 points of Wealth and Life Support: Immortal. If I could redesign my own "character sheet", I'd be prepared to trade in quite a bit of my basic human sellback stats!

 

Just gimme immortality. I can buy everything else with experience eventually, as I have potentially infinite experience.

 

More seriously, regarding the Sellback/Complication issue:

 

I vote we erase the distinction. Classify Complications such as Vulnerability and Unluck as "Negative Powers." And Complications such as Hunted and DNPC are not worth points. Similarly, Perks such as Contact or License to (whatever) are taken off the books. These can be part of the background, implied in the Skills or Powers, possibly impacting Experience awards or utilized in some kind of "Heroic Action Point Economy."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Never selling back the palindromedary. But I might rent it out.

[Lucius]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Ok, but he's not spending 35 less on other advantages. He's been spotted 35 points. Yes he has to spend some - maybe all to make up the fact, but if he spends them all correcting the problem why bother? Why not just say "Differently sighted" complication (can't read or discern color) but everything else is same.

 

Then perhaps I need an example of a physical complication. I'm not sure how the changes in complications has effected the game so much but why bother having them if the way to go is sellbacks?

 

if they're going to o with the "Dare Devil" response and spend 50 points in enhanced senses, then this differently sighted character has been given 435 pts where as a guy who's got a complication only has spent 400pts for the same issues.

 

Can I quote you on that?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

can I quote you on a palindromedary?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Can I quote you on that?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

can I quote you on a palindromedary?

 

Sure, but I'm not sure I've said anything worthy of quotation.

[assault]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

In my game, the number of situations where the character would have to use OMCV would increase proportionately to the amount which they sold back.

 

Aside from the astral plane, there can be all kinds of situations where a character might need to use a telepathic device, or otherwise be given temporary mental powers. Being a blockhead who can't use them properly just adds entertainment value to this.

 

I'd consider letting a robot sell it back, though. They'd still have problems, but I wouldn't give them as much grief about it.

 

Actually, I wouldn't generally let characters do it without a good excuse. Simple point scraping wouldn't do the trick.

[dmjalund]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

In a high tech campaign OMCV can be used to aim cybernetically attached weapons. - or may be all you use when in cyberspace.

 

In a fantasy campaign OMCV can be used to aim a mystic blast from a magic rod.

[Christopher]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Ok' date=' but he's not spending 35 less on other advantages. He's been spotted 35 points. Yes he has to spend some - maybe all to make up the fact, but if he spends them all correcting the problem why bother? Why not just say "Differently sighted" complication (can't read or discern color) but everything else is same.[/quote']

It's a difference what you do with those points and how many you invest in your alternate targettign sense.

You could only make your normal hearing targetting. That cost only 10, but also gives your poor performance and you will still be affected very common flashes/Invisibilites/darkness Powers.

Or you could make your touch/mental sense group ranged and give 360° Arc of perception so you have a good group for the Simulated Sense group rule. But somebody who read the rules regarding "no touch sesne" in 6E2 might find that flashing the touch sense is a very good idea in general...

Or you could sink a lot more points in a targetting sense that is not part of any Sense Group. Expensive, but the ultimate in "hard to affect".

So you could save points, but have unreliable targetting or invest more than what you got to get superior targetting.

 

Now, what is the difference to somebody who retains his sight and buys any of the above in addtion to his normal sight and somebody who forgoes the entire sight group and buys the same?

The one character has two targetting sesne (in different Sense Groups, so two times as hard to affect with sense affecting powers, Inlcuding Illusions).

The other still only has one targetting sense, so one flash can make him "blind" (in the sense of combat penalties for not having targettign sense ready). Plus the sene affecting power to totally disable his targettign sesne will be cheaper than "Flash Sight".

 

The utility of many abilities is context-sensitive. How useful is STR to a Telekinetic' date=' especially one with a Fine Manipulation TK? Selling back Running isn't nearly as problematic if you have Flight.[/quote']

I disagree with those beign equall. Flight has drawback realtive to running (-1d6 on KB throw. Stun/K.O. means you fall).

TK-STR costs a lot more active points/STR, hence draws more endurance and is by default Obvious to two sense groups, so using it silent is hardly feasible.

 

How many points do you get for selling back your sense of smell/taste? How much in game use does it have? No more than mOCV' date=' I suggest - the most common relevance is attacks vs Smell/Taste flash defense, and selling back the sense makes you immune to those. Why aren't the mOCV sellbackers selling that back too? It's not really helping them in combat![/quote']

I would not understimate Smell and Taste for our survival. They are our main "is it edible/in not safe condition"-senses.

 

Christopher is now on my list of people who too frequently provoke me to reputize them.

The same is true for you and my List.

 

I'll restate my question: What value does OMCV give to the zero-point average person walking down the street (other than as a sellback)?

None. And it is still not a sellback that imposes any difficulty. Actually it becomes less of a problem as "Joe Average" is way less likely to ever use "Mental Block" (because the chance to be affected by a mental pwoer is way lower than for a superhero).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I disagree with those beign equall. Flight has drawback realtive to running (-1d6 on KB throw. Stun/K.O. means you fall).

 

TK-STR costs a lot more active points/STR, hence draws more endurance and is by default Obvious to two sense groups, so using it silent is hardly feasible.

 

They are not identical, just like Normal Sight is not identical to 35 points spent on enhanced senses used to replace normal sight. They are pretty similar, but have their own unique benefits and drawbacks. The drawbacks you list for Flight are offset by the ability to gain altitude and the potential to move at no END cost (Gliding). The TK drawbacks are offset by adding Range and an Indirect component.

 

A character with TK certainly gets much less benefit from normal STR, and one with Flight gets considerably less benefit from Running. Just like a character with 35 points of Enhanced Senses has far less need for Sight.

 

I would not understimate Smell and Taste for our survival. They are our main "is it edible/in not safe condition"-senses.

 

How often does it come up in game? That's the acid test.

[phoenix240]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I like the "Phantom characteristic" idea from page one. You can't sell it back because you don't have it unless you use it. Though really, I'd prefer it not be a "default" characteristic at all. It's very specialized unless you invent new rules/situations to give it a general; otherwise only certain characters (and campaigns) will use it.

 

Not to dig up old bones but part of the reason Comeliness got the ax was because it didn't have enough uses and only certain characters would ever use it so it shouldn't take up space on every character sheet.

[Folded]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

How often does it come up in game? That's the acid test.

 

Intrigue game with lots of poisonings. Post-apoc game with concerns about the status of the food. Any game with cinematic scout/spec-ops/ranger types. Werewolf oriented, animal characters, etc...

[Lucius]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I like the "Phantom characteristic" idea from page one. You can't sell it back because you don't have it unless you use it. Though really, I'd prefer it not be a "default" characteristic at all. It's very specialized unless you invent new rules/situations to give it a general; otherwise only certain characters (and campaigns) will use it.

 

Not to dig up old bones but Comeliness got the ax was because it didn't have enough uses and only certain characters would ever use it so it shouldn't take up space on every character sheet.

 

True. The problem is, DEFENSIVE MCV is far more generally useful (although still not universal.) And I don't know about anyone else but I find something odd in the sequence of

 

OCV

DCV

DMCV

 

On every character sheet, without OMCV. It's a matter of symmetry.

 

Then again, we could eliminate MCV entirely as a default, and everyone (including mentalists) starts at zero....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Combat Value