Selling off MCVs

[Surrealone]

If I am playing Gritty Cold War Espionage, there aren't many instances where PC's will be using Mental Powers. Beyond using a Con based Mindcontrol (truth serum).

 

Also remember, By RAW OMCV only helps Mentalists(AKA people with Projective Mental Powers), It's totally useless for everyone else.

I guess The Shadow King or equivalents don't exist in your game.

 

That's rather what I was driving at: there are plenty of games that are as wide open in terms of possibilities as the Marvel Universe, itself -- despite being at heroic (or even lower) power levels.  Heroic game play, itself ... and even genre-specific game play ... doesn't necessarily preclude mental powers.

 

If a competent normal (in terms of physical attributes) who happens to have mental powers has a MCV of '3' ... what, then would an 'above average' normal have (in terms of physical attributes) have?  2?  And an 'average' Joe/Jane?  1?

 

All of this would be a lot simpler if the base MOCV/MDCV were 0.  I say 0 instead of 1 because of what you already spelled out: MOCV is only useful for someone with offensive mental abilities.  (Or, getting a little weird -- mental maneuvers that rely on MOCV-- i.e. 'mental block', anyone? Assuming, of course, that a GM will permit a mental martial art or similar to be built out in his/her game using skills and powers as appropriate -- i.e. using 'chi', anyone?)  Since most people don't have offensive mental capabilities, it stands to reason that most people would have 0 for the MOCV characteristic.

 

I can see MDCV having a base ONLY if the underlying assumption is that every mind has an inherent ability to defend itself from mental attack in a 'mental dodge' like fashion.  Frankly, I'd think only those with mental abilities and mental awareness should be able to perceive that which the mind would need to dodge -- meaning those without the ability to sense mental abilities should probably have a MDCV of 0 as a base, too.  That doesn't, by the way, do away with every mind having an innate ability to resist; breakout rolls address that succinctly for everything except mental blast (which seems fine, to me).

 

I'm hoping for a correction to this issue in a future rev of 6.x, as it would put the issue of MCV sellbacks to bed completely -- so that people who want/need these stats for their characters can pay for them, as usual -- instead of people who do NOT want/need them having the risk of certain GM's taking it to mean they want to be mind-f*cked ... or taking it to mean they're powergaming in a munchkin way when, in fact, they're just building out their character's abilities based on things the character should/shouldn't be able to do.

 

Surreal

 

P.S. And shouldn't area of effect mental powers target MDCV 0?  i.e. Why, exactly does an area (which, itself, has no mind) have a higher MDCV than a sleeping mind?  That should probably be fixed, too... 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Its never made sense to me that a hex has a larger DCV than a prone, unconscious human.

[Tasha]

Its never made sense to me that a hex has a larger DCV than a prone, unconscious human.

 

I think it's to make AOE's bit harder to land. Adjacent AOE's are DCV 1

[Tasha]

Minimum stat is 1 by RAW.

[Vondy]

I am curious why you assume a game at a heroic level would not have mental powers.  The games I tend to play in allow any/all powers and are simply played at point heroic point levels... which makes things like mental powers, invisibility, desolidification, etc. VERY powerful when encountered. Keep in mind, I also play in games where characters can (and do, from time to time) die -- which is rather the point of playing at lower point levels -- things like 4d6 RKA's (i.e. equiv of a surface to air missile) are VERY lethal ... as they should be.

 

 

Entirely genre dependent.

 

A lot of heroic genres include zany technology or weird powers.

 

But, just as many don't.

 

For instance, Pirates of the Caribbean? Yes.  Three Musketeers? Probably no.

[bigdamnhero]

Its never made sense to me that a hex has a larger DCV than a prone, unconscious human.

Yeah, it makes no logical sense. We made hexes DCV 0 once, and it didn't have a major impact but it did make it effectively impossible to miss with AOE attacks, which made them more powerful. We talked about increasing the cost of AOE to compensate, but eventually decided to just use RAW and switch off the part of our brains that twitched at the idea. Of course in superhero games, the difference between DCV 0 and DCV 3 is somewhat trivial; and in Heroic games where you don't have to pay points for that grenade, the cost difference doesn't matter much.

[Surrealone]

Minimum stat is 1 by RAW.

 

Implied by my previous post was the idea that maybe that particular RAW needs to be reconsidered.  Why would a non-mentalist have anything, at all, in a stat it will never use?  This is why starting values of zero (0) seem to make more sense for things like MOCV ... and even MDCV.

[Tasha]

Implied by my previous post was the idea that maybe that particular RAW needs to be reconsidered.  Why would a non-mentalist have anything, at all, in a stat it will never use?  This is why starting values of zero (0) seem to make more sense for things like MOCV ... and even MDCV.

 

Yeah, but that train has left the station. There's not going to be a 6.5 Hero that fixes the little things like OMCV. (it is OMCV and DMCV). Also in genres where there are Mental powers "normals" start with MCV and CV of 3 both defensively and offensively. It makes it a bit easier to build a slightly better than average normal (i.e. 10's in all of the primaries, and the base numbers in the secondaries). Which is why the rules say to ignore OMCV if your campaign doesn't make use of it. It also allows for individual GM's to decide whether to allow players to buy down OMCV to 1.

 

If I were rewriting the game I would explore eliminating Dex and Ego and moving their functionality into OCV/DCV and OMCV/DMCV. One to have less stats in the game. Also to give more uses for CV than just hitting and dodging. It would be interesting to see how well it would function and "how it would feel" in play.

[Christopher R Taylor]

We made hexes DCV 0 once, and it didn't have a major impact but it did make it effectively impossible to miss with AOE attacks, which made them more powerful.

 

Sure, but how often do you miss a 3 DCV anyway? Even if you miss with an AE you usually hit anyway (horseshoes and hand grenades).

[Amorkca]

 

If I were rewriting the game I would explore eliminating Dex and Ego and moving their functionality into OCV/DCV and OMCV/DMCV. One to have less stats in the game. Also to give more uses for CV than just hitting and dodging. It would be interesting to see how well it would function and "how it would feel" in play.

 

But Dex is used in so many skills.  How would you account for that change?

[Nolgroth]

Personally, I'd go the other way and remove all CV values and default to CSLs. That way, only the combat values that are important to the character would be purchased. Otherwise, defaults to 0. I'd also probably effectively shift CV to CSLs because I would get rid of all the closet cases ( like '+1 only with Flotsbottom Heirloom Sword') and have it be just CSLs for OCV, DCV, both / OMCV, DMCV, both. I know that would not settle well with people that like to tinker down to infinitesimal levels, but it is part of my personal campaign to simplify Hero for myself. I might be convinced to allow levels in Melee vs Ranged as well. I would completely dump the specific attack or groups of attack. I know why they are there, but blah.

[Vondy]

Personally, I'd go the other way and remove all CV values and default to CSLs. That way, only the combat values that are important to the character would be purchased. Otherwise, defaults to 0. I'd also probably effectively shift CV to CSLs because I would get rid of all the closet cases ( like '+1 only with Flotsbottom Heirloom Sword') and have it be just CSLs for OCV, DCV, both / OMCV, DMCV, both. I know that would not settle well with people that like to tinker down to infinitesimal levels, but it is part of my personal campaign to simplify Hero for myself. I might be convinced to allow levels in Melee vs Ranged as well. I would completely dump the specific attack or groups of attack. I know why they are there, but blah.

I have heard of worse ideas, and seen a few version'd into RAW. It is worth brainstorming, at least.

[Tasha]

But Dex is used in so many skills.  How would you account for that change?

 

I would divide Dex Skills into ones that are more hand eye coordinated and Assign them to OCV and the ones that seem more body/leg oriented and assign them to DCV.

 

Also initiative order would be based on DCV.

[Tasha]

I would love to see stuff be by default really generic i.e. currently for newbies I only buy them OCV and DCV and don't buy CSL's

 

I do love the ability to drill down to the most specific CSLs possible, and would hate to give that up for advanced users. Like I keep saying, we have to be very careful in the quest for simplicity that we aren't adding complexity that isn't apparent.

[Vondy]

I would love to see stuff be by default really generic i.e. currently for newbies I only buy them OCV and DCV and don't buy CSL's

 

I do love the ability to drill down to the most specific CSLs possible, and would hate to give that up for advanced users. Like I keep saying, we have to be very careful in the quest for simplicity that we aren't adding complexity that isn't apparent.

I think the key is "default granularity." That should remain about 4e levels, IMO, which is not so overwhelming for new players who have a guide for the system. The post 4e arcane disquisition approach to uber granularity should be left for advanced students of the system I really do feel that the crew who pushed so hard for the 6e Uber granular break down of Hero were a bunch of "graduate students" who lost sight of the laymen, or undergraduates, abilities and needs. I love what I can do with hero, but I seldom needs it's full power, and it puts novices off.

[Tasha]

I think the key is "default granularity." That should remain about 4e levels, IMO, which is not so overwhelming for new players who have a guide for the system. The post 4e arcane disquisition approach to uber granularity should be left for advanced students of the system I really do feel that the crew who pushed so hard for the 6e Uber granular break down of Hero were a bunch of "graduate students" who lost sight of the laymen, or undergraduates, abilities and needs. I love what I can do with hero, but I seldom needs it's full power, and it puts novices off.

 

I think that is more of the Taste of the Author than anything pushed by the fanbase. The Original 5e project didn't have much in the way of fan input IIRC. It was Hero Games having Steve Long update the rules to fix loopholes and logic errors.

 

Much of the fiddly granularity existed in one form or another in 4e, just spread out over many different supplements.

 

I will agree that many of the "simplifications" done to the rules actually made things harder to build. (ie Regeneration, Growth, Healing, etc).

[Vondy]

I think that is more of the Taste of the Author than anything pushed by the fanbase. The Original 5e project didn't have much in the way of fan input IIRC. It was Hero Games having Steve Long update the rules to fix loopholes and logic errors.

 

Much of the fiddly granularity existed in one form or another in 4e, just spread out over many different supplements.

 

I will agree that many of the "simplifications" done to the rules actually made things harder to build. (ie Regeneration, Growth, Healing, etc).

 

I'm mostly referring the the 6e development forum and the zeitgeist that prevailed in it. It was marked by a passionate core of old guard "Hero policy wonks" who pushed to take what had been reasonable to logical extremes. I'm an old timer, I get the changes, and I don't begrudge them having a favored style. I do think, however, that it was a bridge to far, made the system nigh inaccessible, and turned it into work. 

 

And, I will respectfully disagree about 4e. The core rules suffered from ambiguity rather than complexity. The supplements you reference are just that, supplements. In the 4e days the supplements were written by a lot of third-party contributors and all had different approaches and styles. And most of the ones that introduced complexity were written by the 5e/6e author (Mr. Long).  And, I was mostly okay with 5e. It was one man's exposition on what could be done with 4e, and had some neat features.

 

A lot of the changes could be taken or left to taste. That's not the case with 6e. Its broken down and out in such a way that you can't ignore the extra rigor and work necessary to play it. 

[Tasha]

I'm mostly referring the the 6e development forum and the zeitgeist that prevailed in it. It was marked by a passionate core of old guard "Hero policy wonks" who pushed to take what had been reasonable to logical extremes. I'm an old timer, I get the changes, and I don't begrudge them having a favored style. I do think, however, that it was a bridge to far, made the system nigh inaccessible, and turned it into work. 

 

And, I will respectfully disagree about 4e. The core rules suffered from ambiguity rather than complexity. The supplements you reference are just that, supplements. In the 4e days the supplements were written by a lot of third-party contributors and all had different approaches and styles. And most of the ones that introduced complexity were written by the 5e/6e author (Mr. Long).  And, I was mostly okay with 5e. It was one man's exposition on what could be done with 4e, and had some neat features.

 

A lot of the changes could be taken or left to taste. That's not the case with 6e. Its broken down and out in such a way that you can't ignore the extra rigor and work necessary to play it. 

 

I can't bring myself to blame the folk on the committee. I know that on some things Steve already had his mind made up as to how it was going to be. The final word on everything that made it into 6e was Steve's. Perhaps I don't see things the way you do. I know that there were some epic discussions about parts of the game. Usually about some change someone wanted that others disagreed with. the 1250 pages are archived somewhere. I don't think they were deleted.

 

I tend to wonder if the changes had actually seen some playtest, that perhaps some of the more obvious ones (ie OMCV being useless unless you are a mentalist) might not have made themselves more obvious.

[Greywind]

I would love to see stuff be by default really generic i.e. currently for newbies I only buy them OCV and DCV and don't buy CSL's

 

I do love the ability to drill down to the most specific CSLs possible, and would hate to give that up for advanced users. Like I keep saying, we have to be very careful in the quest for simplicity that we aren't adding complexity that isn't apparent.

 

For me, if I wanted simplicity I would play one of the d20 derivatives.

[Shiva13]

I think removing Figured Characteristics created more problems than it solved, It opened up a whole new level of abuse that didn't previously exist.

[Surrealone]

Removal of figured characteristics eliminated a number of places where point crunchers could catch the round while expanding the type of characters that could be built .. but it also inflated the point base for play at specific levels and created the very issue that spawned this thread.

 

Was it worth it?  Honestly, for the beginning player it was probably a very good thing, as it reduced the 'mathiness' that is commonly complained about by folks new to the system.  In addition, most advanced players seem to agree that the capability to easily build characters not easily modeled in earlier versions (e.g. the old martial artist with bad knees, arthritis, and low DCV ... who has insane OCV and a block/throw-based form) makes the changes worthwhile. 

 

Shiva:  If I had to guess, I'd say you likely don't find the changes worthwhile because no one in your games has stats under base (because that'd be munchkin, right?) and because modeling a less than superheroic martial artist, as above, apparently doesn't occur (or isn't permitted?) in your games using characteristics in combination with complications.

[rjcurrie]

So, do the people in this thread arguing about balance issues due to selling back OMCV really think that a 6 or 9 point (depending on whether or not the GM allows OMCV to be bought down to 1 or 0, respectively) difference in character points is going to be unbalancing?

 

Do you honestly believe that the HERO System is that finally tuned?  I certainly don't. I believe that character points can give you characters that are roughly around the same level of effectiveness (although CV levels and attack DC classes probably has more to do with that than total points). I also believe that the tactical abilities and creativity of a character's player also play a big part in the effectiveness of that character. So, frankly worrying about a small difference in points just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Surrealone]

I personally don't think it's game breaking or even unbalancing, but I also think it should be done for character-driven reasons, not point-crunching reasons.

[bigdamnhero]

I really do feel that the crew who pushed so hard for the 6e Uber granular break down of Hero were a bunch of "graduate students" who lost sight of the laymen, or undergraduates, abilities and needs. I love what I can do with hero, but I seldom needs it's full power, and it puts novices off.

I wasn't part of those discussions, but I do feel like that describes a lot of threads/posts here, my own included. Good point to consider.

[bigdamnhero]

We made hexes DCV 0 once, and it didn't have a major impact but it did make it effectively impossible to miss with AOE attacks, which made them more powerful.

 

Sure, but how often do you miss a 3 DCV anyway? Even if you miss with an AE you usually hit anyway (horseshoes and hand grenades).

Well that was a Heroic game where CVs were relatively modest. If your OCV is 5, no CSLs with Thrown Weapons, and you're trying to throw a grenade at a hex 20m away, you have a a 74% chance of hitting DCV 0, vs a 38% chance of hitting a DCV 3. And you're right about the next hex over often being close enough, but that still reduces Explosion damage, to say nothing of the effects of cover/terrain, collateral damage, friendlies/innocents in the mix, etc. Like I said, not overpowering, but definitely an increase in effectiveness.