Jump to content

Selling off MCVs


Kuleneko

Recommended Posts

Other than being crap in mental combat, does selling my OMCV and DMCV to 0 have any other effects? I don't know if the campaign has any espers in it, and frankly, I don't give a damn. He can be helpless against them for all I care, I just want to make sure they don't govern something outside of psychic combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, is it valid to sell back a Characteristic that has no use in the campaign? I've gone round on this a couple of times myself.

6E1 47 under toolkitting. If it's not used, the GM can just remove it--and Steve used the specific example of mental powers/combat. Also references the sidebar on Dormant Abilities on 6E1 46. CC 11 call it out very clearly under Dormant Game Elements.

 

If the GM doesn't remove it, or change the base value, then it should be eligible to sell down to 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

figure a base mentalist will have a MOCV of  7 vs a base hero w/ a MDCV of 3

there is a 93% of the mentalist hitting

selling down to 1 only changes to 99%

 

A person who buys down their DMCV to 0 is akin to the person who has NO ability to fend off any mental condition, tends to be first to be messed with at the first sign of psychic phenomenon in any area.

 

Are they doing a seance? Demon needs to inhabit a body, Bam!

 

The way I see it, as I even mentioned to people who applied to my campaigns before, buying down your MCV is legal, but what is the In Game reason for you to buy it down? Character generation is about bringing your concept to life, not about jockeying points to buy everything you can with the points you can.

 

I always felt the Hero System is about bringing a character to life within a cohesive framework. Do you try to build the character concept, or jockey to minmax your way to victory. It's the difference between character building and powergaming, especially when you see multiple character submissions for your campaign with the same loophole being exploited.

 

Just because of this happening so much in the sixth edition games I was involved in, I've come to change my further campaign efforts to start MCV values at 0, to assume people have no inherent knowledge of mental combat. 

 

Having an MCV of 3 is a holdover from earlier editions where the Mental Combat Value used to be call Ego Combat Value or ECV and it was derived from the EGO stat. In the earlier editions, stronger willed characters were harder to mentally influence.

 

All I'm really saying is look at character building for concept and not to minmax characters, this hobby already has enough Munchkins, we need good characters and story if we want to bring in new generations of players into the fold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is valid to sell MOCV and MDCV down to 0 with GM approval.  That said, cptpatriot is spot on about whether you -should- buy it down.

 

If you're strictly min-maxing for your own reasons there are a few angles that you might consider:

  • It's 100% non-Munchkin to sell off all MOCV if your character lacks mental powers.  You should absolutely do so if you're not a mentalist.
  • MDCV is a different issue -- as all minds tend to evade attack subconsciously.  That said, if you have a non-mentalist that is odd/different in some way (alien, mutant, etc.), a smart play for a non-Munchkin min-max is to sell off MOCV and sink those points directly into MDCV.  This would result in someone with no mental powers doubling his mental defensive capability -- making him tougher to hit mentally since his MDCV would go from 3 to 6 -- at zero net cost.  The fact that the mind is alien, mutant, etc. means it is sufficiently different from the norm ... offering easy justification for added MDCV.  The benefit here is avoidance/evasnion of all mental attacks powers, particularly detection via Mind Scan and/or hits from Mental Blast.
  • Another smart play for min-maxing a non-mentalist might be to buy MOCV and MDCV down to 0 and sink those points directly into 2pt skill levels with EGO roll if it is appropriate for the character to have a VERY strong will.  This would be a net +6 to EGO rolls at zero cost.  While this offers no help against Mental Blast, it's particularly useful in making Breakout Rolls against Mental Illusions, Mind Control, Mind Scan, and Telepathy.  Sure, the character is easy to hit with mental powers, but once hit, he's darn tough to mess around with, mentally.

I am actually in the midst of translating a character from 5th Edition to 6th edition.  He is hyper intelligent (a 28 INT in a world where Einstein, Edison, and Tesla have 18's or 20's) and thus, is an easily spotted and hit beacon in the world of mentalists.  He's also not a mentalist, himself and has a relatively low Ego (8 -- i.e. merely 'above average' in a human world) ... but is skilled at focusing his mind on things as required (e.g. to stay up despite fatigue, to tune out distractions, etc.) resulting in the character having three (3) 2pt skill levels with EGO rolls (labeled/named Indomitable Will).

i.e. This IS a character who should be easily hit but darn tough to control with mental powers because of his own ability to focus his mind as needed (in this case, to make Breakout Rolls).  I will likely crank his EGO roll even more (selling off all MOCV and MDCV) as part of the translation, since it's already appropriate and is effectively free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, as Tasha notes:

 

A character may sell back as many Characteristics as he wants, but may not sell them back to 0 unless the GM specifically permits him too (i.e., 1 is the minimum for Characteristics for this purpose).

Second, I'd expect some reason for this. Your character is deficient compared to the vast majority of the population.

 

As well, when you take a Complication or a Limitation, I consider this to mean "This is a noteworthy feature of the character which should come up in the game." If you save 6 points from selling back 2 mOCV, that means there must be some challenges that you will encounter from losing that mOCV. What kind of challenge may vary by the campaign, but if mOCV and mDCV are completely irrelevant, then they should be removed, not sold back.

 

I also like the idea of starting the mCVs at nil, which would also take some of the lustre off ACV using mOCV, since mOCV will trend lower even for mentalists. However, it sure makes targeting mDCV feel like a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC you can only sell a stat down to 1.

 

I think a solid argument can be made for selling OCV, DCV, MOCV, and MDCV down to zero -- and that most GM's would accept it with reasonable justification (example: MOCV sold back to 0 for a character with absolutely no offensive mental capabilities).  As for that justification: you can be DCV 0 in the game (concentration, prone, etc), right?  So why can't you naturally be that way (distracted, focused on an activity, easily hit due to inherently poor body positioning) all the time?  And why can't it be the offensive side that's at 0?  And why not the mental aspects if it can be that way physically?

 

And for the record:

I tend to agree that OCV, DCV, MOCV, and MDCV should all start at 0 ... and have their costs adjusted to account for this (rather than cranking 6e starting character costs yet again in a revised edition).  That said, until the rules are changed to support this, sellbacks make sense when appropriate for characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the munchkin aspects of selling down to 0, there should be consequences in play similar to 0's in other Characteristics. At 0 in other stats, a character needs to make a roll to act, is defenseless, exhausted or unconscious. 0 REC can't heal and 0 DEF objects will crumble under their own weight.

Unless you come up with some similar problem, you shouldn't sell below 1.

 

Dropping DCV to 0 is an option that is sometimes forced upon a character as part of another action or opponent's attack. I can't think of any reason to do it otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the munchkin aspects of selling down to 0, there should be consequences in play similar to 0's in other Characteristics. At 0 in other stats, a character needs to make a roll to act, is defenseless, exhausted or unconscious. 0 REC can't heal and 0 DEF objects will crumble under their own weight.

Unless you come up with some similar problem, you shouldn't sell below 1.

 

Dropping DCV to 0 is an option that is sometimes forced upon a character as part of another action or opponent's attack. I can't think of any reason to do it otherwise.

The rules state that you can't buy down to 0 without GM permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the munchkin aspects of selling down to 0, there should be consequences in play similar to 0's in other Characteristics. At 0 in other stats, a character needs to make a roll to act, is defenseless, exhausted or unconscious. 0 REC can't heal and 0 DEF objects will crumble under their own weight.

Unless you come up with some similar problem, you shouldn't sell below 1.

 

Dropping DCV to 0 is an option that is sometimes forced upon a character as part of another action or opponent's attack. I can't think of any reason to do it otherwise.

 

Sellback to 1 is RAW, so I think you're only arguing the difference between combat values of 0 and 1, here. 

 

I'm baffled why you seem to feel that a non-mentalist should have a minimum 1 MOCV when he has no mental powers and no offensive mental capability, whatsoever.  If ever there was a non-munchkin case for selldown of a combat value to 0, that's the poster child for it. 

 

Food for thought:

Consider that when sellback to a minimum of 1 was set as RAW, it was a time when secondary characteristics were figured from the primaries ... when only one figured could be sold back ... and when combat values were not characteristics, at all.  IIRC, the sellback to 1 rule hasn't changed since before 6e.  This is important because there are clear bodily issues that preclude a character from doing something (or harm a character, as with BODY) when things like STR, DEX, CON, BODY, etc. drop to 0 -- meaning the sellback floor made sense, especially in a world where combat values were not characteristics and, thus, couldn't be sold back.

 

But here we are in 6e -- with combat values as characteristics that have starting values of 3 ... which can be sold back.  That's new and different from ever before.  And unlike STR/DEX/CON/BODY/REC, when combat values drop to 0, there's no harmful bodily side effect to account for -- there's just poor combat capability (which might be just fine for someone's build).  Why let an arbitrary and dated sellback floor result in non-mentalists having a minimum MOCV of 1 (for example).  You can function and even fight with 0 CV's, so perhaps the sellback floor needs some attention ... at least until starting CV's are 0 and cost per point is adjusted to keep yet more campaign point limit inflation from happening...

 

I submit that the sellback minimum of 1 should not apply to combat values ... because they're just so different from all other characteristics.  You can't lift your own weight with a STR of 0 ... but you still have a 62% chance to hit an adjacent hex with an OCV of 0 ... and a 26% chance to hit someone with a DCV of 3 using your 0 OCV.  See why CV's and other characteristics are apples and oranges, yet -- and likely deserve different treatment?  If not, I'll try to spell it out:  Characters with combat values of 0 can still fight -- not well because the odds of successful rolls are low -- but they can absolutely continue to function.  DCV 0?  No problem -- hide Behind Cover.  But if STR is at 0, well, that's a very different story.

 

Since it's combat values we're talking about and you said you couldn't think of a reason to drop to 0 CV's, I figure I'll point out that 0 CV's already have well-defined consequences ...  so you don't need to add anything as a GM ... and that there are legit reasons to drop to 0 CV's.  Here are some mechanical examples:

  • ​With DCV at 0 you're as easy to hit as someone who is prone ... or an adjacent hex (or even the hex in which the attacker stands).  Someone with DCV this low is probably reduced to cowering/hiding ... unless s/he has defenses so strong that s/he just doesn't care about being hit (or better still, has lots of absorption as a defense feeding into expendable END... and LIKES to get hit).
  • With MDCV at 0 you're effectively a non-moving searchlight in a cloudless night sky that is adjacent to someone about to shoot it out with a pistol -- i.e. super easy to spot (Mindscan), super easy to hit (mental powers), and offering no mental evasion whatsoever.  i.e. Your mind is simply an open door to mental attacks ... aside from the mentalist's chance to fail due to the throw of the dice, of course. Someone who wants to be an open door for mentalists (and potentially has other protections) might very well choose this path.  An medium is a good example -- an open mind, easily used as a conduit/connection via the mind.
  • With OCV at 0, you have a ~62% chance to hit the hex you're standing in or an adjacent hex, which is a problem for most ... but may be just fine for an Image/Darkness based character that does everything with localized AoE and Personal Immunity.  It may also be just fine for a mentalist that stays far from targets and snipes with binoculars and LoS mental powers.  Consider someone with NO physical combat training and low DEX -- it's pretty reasonable for this person to have only a 26% change to hit another normal human with CV3.  Somewhere in the world are people who just can't punch/hit things well.  I believe we tend to use the term 'klutz' to describe people who fit such a bill.  If someone wants to play a klutz, this is one path...
  • With MOCV at 0 you have no inherent offensive combat value whatsoever -- logical for most entities that have no mental powers at all. Should you somehow temporarily gain a mental power that is AoE, you only have a ~62% chance of hitting the hex you're in or one that's adjacent ... and if it's not AoE, then you only have a 26% chance to hit an above average person's MDCV of 3.  That's completely reasonable for someone who lacks mental powers and has no offensive mental capacity -- which tends to be most (if not all) non-mentalists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people consider some characteristics reducible down to 0. For example, PD and ED are considered characteristics, but are used at 0 all the time without penalty other than just not having defense. CVs in FRED are attached to different characteristics, so they have consequences. In 6E, they aren't, so I would have no problem with someone reducing DCV to 0 to say that they are essentially incapable at dodging or that they are so large that they essentially hit them regardless. Commonly, DEX is reduced with DCV so I see why that is the case in FRED, but just because someone is incapable at dodging doesn't mean that they are incapable at hitting a target. Same thing with MOCV and MDCV. But that was already explained. This all goes back to the differences between FRED and 6E and how each are run.

 

 

As Words Die, I Realize That I Almost Never Use MOCV and MDCV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve's take on it basically amounts to (paraphrasing): '1 is the floor but the GM may make exceptions if there's a reasonable explanation'.

 

Here's the full thread containing his response if anyone's interested:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/92815-combat-value-sellback-to-0/

 

Surreal

P.S. What's funny is I actually referenced PD/ED in my inquiry to Steve, as well. Great minds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're strictly min-maxing for your own reasons there are a few angles that you might consider:

  • It's 100% non-Munchkin to sell off all MOCV if your character lacks mental powers.  You should absolutely do so if you're not a mentalist.

It is a mater of oppinion, but I find this extremely munchkiny.

Knight of the Dinner table had an example of a Munchkin character: He had limp leg (complication like thing, brought points). And then added missing leg/wooden leg on the same leg, wich negated the limp leg while maintaining the points.

In Hero this would be a clear case for "A Complication that is not Limiting is not worth any points".

 

In your example you sold back your OMCV without ever taking a mental power. A sellback is not that different from a Complication. And this sellback is not limiting.

 

In the end I would follow a simple rule:

If you sell it back, you are asking the GM to make this a part of the game somehow. If he can't make it into one, he can of course disallow it.

You should definitley point this out. The whole question shows that selling back your MCV's is not something normally done (or even considered) during creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sellback is not that different from a Complication. And this sellback is not limiting.

 

In the end I would follow a simple rule:

If you sell it back, you are asking the GM to make this a part of the game somehow. If he can't make it into one, he can of course disallow it.

You should definitley point this out. The whole question shows that selling back your MCV's is not something normally done (or even considered) during creation.

  1. While you say a 'sellback is not that different from a Complication' ... it IS different ... and is NOT a Complication. (Remember, an attorney authored this stuff, so subtle distinctions are still important!)
  2. And it IS limiting.  Reducing MOCV from a 3 to a 1 (or a 3 to a 0, if permitted) doesn't require a GM to go out of his way to -make- it one.  The limitation exists in that if the character happens upon some kind of offensive mental gadget he can use, he will be less capable of using it with a 0 or 1 MOCV ... than with a 3 MOCV.  That's why he gets points back -- much like if he sells off all (or all but 1 point of) his swimming ... and comes across a need to swim ... it'll be an issue .... unless he has some other mode of transport (like flight). 
  3. In #2, above, the let's say the character sold back swimming.  He would still get his swimming sellback points -- despite being able to fly.  Why?  Because even though he can fly, he still can't swim worth a darn.
  4. #3 underscores why you can't reasonably treat sellbacks as if they are Complications; they aren't.  Instead, they entail reduced capability for doing things the mechanics already cover ... should characters find themselves in positions where they need to do them.  They get points back for this regardless of whether those situations arise ... due to reduced potential SHOULD such situations arise.

As furtherance ... if I sell off running to 3" ... but I can teleport 20" ... I get to keep my sellback points. I may simply be slow; I may be old.  I may have a limp.  Regardless of how I justify it conceptually, I can only run 3" regardless of other movement (i.e. regardless of whether I can completely ignore my 3" running by teleporting).  You have basically suggested punishing me by removing my teleport ability in some scenario -- just to turn my 3" of running into an issue for me as if it were a Complication -- which it, very technically, is NOT.

 

I feel your suggestion is GM Munchkinism ... and horribly d**kish ... since the only reason behind it was because you felt that "If [i sold] it back, [i was] asking the GM to make [it] a part of the game somehow."  Certainly if there's a REASON for it to come up, that's good storytelling and I'm all for that.  But if the only reason is because a player sold something back -- that's the antithesis of good storytelling so far as I'm concerned.

 

But hey, if you want to conflate sellbacks with Complications and add extra punishment (above and beyond the inherent game mechanical ones) for characters selling CV's down to 1 (per RAW ... or 0 if permitted) just because you don't like it -- by all means, it's your game -- punish your players as you see fit.  I think most reasonable players would be just fine with a naturally-evolving storyline that underscored inherent weakpoints from time to time ... but I think those same reasonable players would be pretty irritated if they knew GM Munchkinism was at play -- and that such situations were being artificially manufactured in a punitive way by a GM who conflates sellbacks with Complications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is purely Munchkin.

 

Unless the GM gives them to you as campaign background, Limitations and Complications are picked by the player but they only come up if the GM puts them into the story.

 

If they don't come up, you got points for free.

 

Selling back Characteristics/Movement gets you points. If you got points, it should come up and should be as frequent as the equivalent point value in Limitations or Complications. Otherwise, points are being taken for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really concerned about a guy selling his OMCV down.  That's like a blaster selling off his Str, or a guy with Flight selling back his Running..  It will likely never have any game effect, but it's also not very many points.  I'm not gonna be broken hearted over the 6 points you get from going down to OMCV 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • While you say a 'sellback is not that different from a Complication' ... it IS different ... and is NOT a Complication. (Remember, an attorney authored this stuff, so subtle distinctions are still important!)
  • And it IS limiting.  Reducing MOCV from a 3 to a 1 (or a 3 to a 0, if permitted) doesn't require a GM to go out of his way to -make- it one.  The limitation exists in that if the character happens upon some kind of offensive mental gadget he can use, he will be less capable of using it with a 0 or 1 MOCV ... than with a 3 MOCV.  That's why he gets points back -- much like if he sells off all (or all but 1 point of) his swimming ... and comes across a need to swim ... it'll be an issue .... unless he has some other mode of transport (like flight). 
  • In #2, above, the let's say the character sold back swimming.  He would still get his swimming sellback points -- despite being able to fly.  Why?  Because even though he can fly, he still can't swim worth a darn.
  • #3 underscores why you can't reasonably treat sellbacks as if they are Complications; they aren't.  Instead, they entail reduced capability for doing things the mechanics already cover ... should characters find themselves in positions where they need to do them.  They get points back for this regardless of whether those situations arise ... due to reduced potential SHOULD such situations arise.
As furtherance ... if I sell off running to 3" ... but I can teleport 20" ... I get to keep my sellback points. I may simply be slow; I may be old.  I may have a limp.  Regardless of how I justify it conceptually, I can only run 3" regardless of other movement (i.e. regardless of whether I can completely ignore my 3" running by teleporting).  You have basically suggested punishing me by removing my teleport ability in some scenario -- just to turn my 3" of running into an issue for me as if it were a Complication -- which it, very technically, is NOT.

 

I feel your suggestion is GM Munchkinism ... and horribly d**kish ... since the only reason behind it was because you felt that "If [i sold] it back, [i was] asking the GM to make [it] a part of the game somehow."  Certainly if there's a REASON for it to come up, that's good storytelling and I'm all for that.  But if the only reason is because a player sold something back -- that's the antithesis of good storytelling so far as I'm concerned.

 

1+4: The same attorney was not shy to turn complications into sellbacks if that fits better. Like Sight in 6E vs 5E. What difference is there left?

2+3:

How likely will need to use your OMCV as not Mental Character in a campaign?

How likely will your Character have to swim in any given campaign?

You compare a "very unlikely" with a "likely" thing. The unlikelyness of running into it is the very reason that sounds munchkin.

You don't need to blame anybody but yourself if your GM feels it was a dick move not to tell him about this. Or if he will drop an unusual amount.

 

Selling of running, but having Teleport:

TP is inherently much more limited then walking for everyday use. At least you loose any velocity based maneuvers/drop them to unfeasible levels.

 

Selling of swimming, but having flight:

Flight does not work underwater, so you still drown. You really should be telling this to your GM. Unless you want him to accidently drown your char, not knowing that you did such a completely stupid selloff.

And again swimming is so much more common then "finding a gadget that needs OMCV to use" it boggles the mind how you could ever compare them.

 

And frankly you getting all hair-splitty about definitions and you insulting me to distract from the weakenss of your point is not making you sounds less munchkini.

 

I'm not really concerned about a guy selling his OMCV down.  That's like a blaster selling off his Str, or a guy with Flight selling back his Running..  It will likely never have any game effect, but it's also not very many points.  I'm not gonna be broken hearted over the 6 points you get from going down to OMCV 1.

Str is used for resisting Grabs, Shoves, break entangles, and stave off the "having 0 STR" point wich is quite detrimental even for a blaster.

You compare "Selling of my OMCV as non-mentalist" to "selling of something that will actually reagulary come up, even by pure accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Str is used for resisting Grabs, Shoves, break entangles, and stave off the "having 0 STR" point wich is quite detrimental even for a blaster.

You compare "Selling of my OMCV as non-mentalist" to "selling of something that will actually reagulary come up, even by pure accident.

 

I disagree.  My 10 Str blaster is no better off at breaking out of entangles or grabs than my 5 Str blaster unless I'm getting grabbed by bystanders.  It will likely never ever come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really concerned about a guy selling his OMCV down.  That's like a blaster selling off his Str, or a guy with Flight selling back his Running..  It will likely never have any game effect, but it's also not very many points.  I'm not gonna be broken hearted over the 6 points you get from going down to OMCV 1.

 

It's pretty much exactly the same thing as a mentalist selling her OCV down to 1 (or Zero). They don't use it. so why have it. Heck if they have TK bought with OMCV vs DCV, they would have little use for OCV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...