Selling back OMCV

[phoenix240]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

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

 

I've been toying with the idea of dropping CV entirely as a characteristic and just using Skill levels and Maneuver bonuses but that's outside the scope of the thread.

[Lucius]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I've been toying with the idea of dropping CV entirely as a characteristic and just using Skill levels and Maneuver bonuses but that's outside the scope of the thread.

 

Given the way threads drift around here, I'd say not far outside.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says we should be taking notes for seventh edition

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Intrigue game with lots of poisonings.

 

How often are RPG poisons detectable using standard senses of smell and taste?

 

Post-apoc game with concerns about the status of the food.

 

Again, how commonly is the smell or taste reliable as a detector? And why can't the one character who didn't sell it back smell/taste the food supplies?

 

And a psionics game with lots of psionic equipment (purchased with cash rather than points) or a game involving cyberspace or the astral plain (where all attacks are directed by MCV) frequently are similar examples of specific settings where OMCV would be useful - for smell and taste, as for OMCV, I am referencing a "typical campaign". Water breathing isn't hugely useful in all settings, but if we're playing in Atlantis, everyone will probably have it.

 

Any game with cinematic scout/spec-ops/ranger types. Werewolf oriented' date=' animal characters, etc...[/quote']

 

Seems like these are specific character types that not only use. but enhance, the sense in question, much like mentalists in a 20th century Supers game won't be selling back their base OMCV, but do not reduce the temptation for other character types to do so.

 

ASIDE: It's funny that, in d20 games, even point buy d20 games, people think nothing of having "dump stats" (I'm considering a Pathfinder character with 2 7's, for example) yet we get upset in Hero if a characteristic might be a "dump stat" for a character and thus sold back. Characters have different strengths and weaknesses. Bards have good PRE (or CHA) but less use for INT, where Wizards face the reverse.

 

Would we demand a strong-willed character lacking mental attacks buy his OMCV up more or less in proportion to increases to his other mental stats, or are we concerned only when it is sold back below an arbitrary base level?

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I've been toying with the idea of dropping CV entirely as a characteristic and just using Skill levels and Maneuver bonuses but that's outside the scope of the thread.

 

Last night I got together with the players for my new campaign, and specifically pointed out that selling off OMCV wasn't an option. One of them immediately came back with "What about Swimming? Can I sell that off?"

 

"Um... sure." I'm pretty sure swimming's gonna come up more often than OMCV, and it's worth fewer points, so no argument there. But I have to wonder why.

[phoenix240]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Last night I got together with the players for my new campaign, and specifically pointed out that selling off OMCV wasn't an option. One of them immediately came back with "What about Swimming? Can I sell that off?"

 

"Um... sure." I'm pretty sure swimming's gonna come up more often than OMCV, and it's worth fewer points, so no argument there. But I have to wonder why.

 

I've not following. Why what exactly?

[assault]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Characters who can't swim are a lot easier to justify than ones who can't use telepathy on the Astral Plane, or who can't use an alien telepathic translation device.

 

Even there, though, I wouldn't generally allow an able bodied human in a superheroic setting to just say they can't swim. A robot, a brain in a jar, or someone from a particularly exotic background, sure. But it would hardly be worth deliberately choosing such a background just to get back a couple of points, would it?

[Lucius]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I frequently sell back Running, Swimming, sometimes even Leap.

 

But that's because I always buy up SPD. If my character has 4 SPD for example, he can cut Running almost in half and still be able to outrun a "normal human."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I can never outrun the palindromedary

[phoenix240]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Side Question: Would selling your Swimming back to 0 mean if you fall into water deep enough you start to sink or just that you can't move but can tread water indefinitely?

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I've not following. Why what exactly?

 

Sorry for not being clear; why is something that's generally more useful to a typical character worth so many fewer points? (swimming v. OMCV)

[phoenix240]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Sorry for not being clear; why is something that's generally more useful to a typical character worth so many fewer points? (swimming v. OMCV)

 

Oh! I see what you mean. Yeah, that is a good question.

[Folded]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Sorry for not being clear; why is something that's generally more useful to a typical character worth so many fewer points? (swimming v. OMCV)

 

Because Swimming has a maximum utility. OMCV can be applied to many powers and situations, swimming lets you stay afloat and move in a controlled fashion through water. You could, conceivably, build a character around Super-Swimming, but you'd be taking at least 3d6/phase Embarassment Damage at the table.

[Christopher]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

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

How often did you have one character who sold either back and how good was the GM at using it?

 

Smell and Taste not worth much. It's in the price-category of "Immunity to all Poisions" and other LS Powers. And how often does such a Power come up?

The only difference is that Sense of Smell/Sense of Taste are often forgotten, unless anybody in the group modifies it in any way.

 

Last night I got together with the players for my new campaign, and specifically pointed out that selling off OMCV wasn't an option. One of them immediately came back with "What about Swimming? Can I sell that off?"

 

"Um... sure." I'm pretty sure swimming's gonna come up more often than OMCV, and it's worth fewer points, so no argument there. But I have to wonder why.

 

Characters who can't swim are a lot easier to justify than ones who can't use telepathy on the Astral Plane, or who can't use an alien telepathic translation device.

 

Even there, though, I wouldn't generally allow an able bodied human in a superheroic setting to just say they can't swim. A robot, a brain in a jar, or someone from a particularly exotic background, sure. But it would hardly be worth deliberately choosing such a background just to get back a couple of points, would it?

Some people can't read. Some can't swim. Even in our "advanced" Soceities this is not something that only applies to One out of Thousands. Both will equally feel shame about their weakness, thus they won't get rid of them befoer it get's into play. So no special heart-breakign story or why he never elarned to swimm. It simply happened.

And we even know the Price for being unable to read: 1 Point saving per Language affected (6E1 80).

 

I didn't choose this deliberately in design, but my brick Landslide can't swim. She actually learned it like 95% of all westerners, but once she got her powers her body desity increased. A lot (2 Levels permanent DI for 4 times wieght). I doubt you can swim with a density of over 0.8 g/cm³, so I bought the swimming of.

 

I frequently sell back Running, Swimming, sometimes even Leap.

 

But that's because I always buy up SPD. If my character has 4 SPD for example, he can cut Running almost in half and still be able to outrun a "normal human."

I consider it completely legal to even sell back your Movement when increasing your SPD characteristics with XP (and maybe even use some of the freed points to pay for the extra SPD).

But I just noticed that his raises some questions regarding movement maxima...

 

Because Swimming has a maximum utility. OMCV can be applied to many powers and situations' date=' swimming lets you stay afloat and move in a controlled fashion through water. You could, conceivably, build a character around Super-Swimming, but you'd be taking at least 3d6/phase Embarassment Damage at the table.[/quote']

In a underwatter campaign, he could just be the equivalent of a flier or even flying speedster.

[Balabanto]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I have noticed that very few characters (at least in the Champions Villains series) have sold back any of their OMCV values.

 

But some of my players have sold some points back, noting that they are not mentalist and would never need or use such values, and thus using the points to better uses.

 

The question is: Would you allow a character to sell back their OMCV? If so, what criteria would you demand?

 

I have already allowed some characters to sell back their OMCV, what is a good way to "teach them a lesson" about selling back such a characteristic?

 

Buy AVAD and Alternate Combat Value. There is nothing that says you can't build an attack that targets an offensive value. If they are going to be sacks of rotting fruit in your game, then you have the right to be a doubly stinky sack of rotting fruit to them.

[torchwolf]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

How often did you have one character who sold either back and how good was the GM at using it?

I once GMed a rather offbeat superhero campaign where one of the PCs suffered from Anosmia (lacking smell and taste), and the player actually used the 5 points I deemed it worth (this was 4th Edition) pretty well against his character all by himself.

 

He was also always Poor due to being in debt from a lawsuit for misuse of powers, so he took whatever he had at home, poured it all into a bowl, ran it through a blender and gulped it down. Doing that continually in effect generated the equivalent of Social Complications to go with the Physical one; never gained many friends...

Ah, those were strange days.

 

Even so, there were a few gas attacks and poisoning attempts he was always the last to notice, and his teammates frequently asked him to check out some places where his nonexistent sense of smell was an "advantage" of sorts.

My point being, yes this can be used, in a number of ways, though some of them not for the faint of heart.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

I once GMed a rather offbeat superhero campaign where one of the PCs suffered from Anosmia (lacking smell and taste), and the player actually used the 5 points I deemed it worth (this was 4th Edition) pretty well against his character all by himself.

 

Even so, there were a few gas attacks and poisoning attempts he was always the last to notice, and his teammates frequently asked him to check out some places where his nonexistent sense of smell was an "advantage" of sorts.

 

My point being, yes this can be used, in a number of ways, though some of them not for the faint of heart.

 

It certainly can. So can the lack of OMCV, as ably illustrated above. So both are valid sellbacks.

 

To the costing issue ("swimming costs less than OMCV"), Swimming lacks the synergies possessed by many abilities. How useful is a substantial investment in mental attacks if your OMCV is such that you almost never hit with it? Just as OMCV is of limited utility if you have no mental powers, a lack of OMCV renders those mental powers far less useful.

[Christopher]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Buy AVAD and Alternate Combat Value. There is nothing that says you can't build an attack that targets an offensive value. If they are going to be sacks of rotting fruit in your game' date=' then you have the right to be a doubly stinky sack of rotting fruit to them.[/quote']

There is a difference between "having stinky fruits" and a simple missunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the missunderstanding was corrected and the PC revised accordingly. I should know, I am in that game.

 

It certainly can. So can the lack of OMCV' date=' as ably illustrated above. So both are valid sellbacks.[/quote']

The difference could be that we have to invent the situations where OMCV does not apply, while we can just take totally mundane situations for Anosmia.

That makes it a lot easier to implement, where as lack of OMCV requires creating objects that use it (and are somehow required to be used) in the first place.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

Because Swimming has a maximum utility. OMCV can be applied to many powers and situations' date=' swimming lets you stay afloat and move in a controlled fashion through water. You could, conceivably, build a character around Super-Swimming, but you'd be taking at least 3d6/phase Embarassment Damage at the table.[/quote']

 

True, but Embarrassment Defenses are free! I should know; I've got 100% Embarrassment Damage Reduction, with the special effect Has No Shame.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Selling back OMCV

 

The difference could be that we have to invent the situations where OMCV does not apply, while we can just take totally mundane situations for Anosmia.

That makes it a lot easier to implement, where as lack of OMCV requires creating objects that use it (and are somehow required to be used) in the first place.

 

Given OMCV is an entirely fictional concept, it is hardly surprising we need to invent situations where it applies.

 

I would challenge you to review your campaign notes for, say, three months during which no character in the game had any unusual abilities or disabilities related to the sense of smell or taste, and identify the number of times it would have been relevant. That should show whether these situations commonly arise, or must be planned for - that is, situations must be created where the sellback of this sense is disadvantageous.