CSLs & Maneuvers in Frameworks

[bigdamnhero]

Combat Skill Levels, like all Skills, cannot normally be bought in a Framework "without the GM's permission." As a general question: how do you usually interpret this, and under what sort of circumstances do you allow it?

 

More specifically, say a character wants to build an Attack Power inside an VPP and they want that attack to be more accurate than normal. Would you consider allowing them to bundle a couple of CSLs with that attack inside the Framework? (I'm envisioning a compound power consisting of the Attack plus the CSLs, but separate slots would accomplish much the same thing.) Or would you say they have to buy it as +OCV, which obviously is a bit more expensive?

 

For context, the specific case here is a voodoo priestess in a heroic urban fantasy game who channels various loa (spirits), each of which confer a different set of Powers, etc. They don't completely change her form & Characteristics, so it's not a Multiform. Mechanically it's built as a VPP with pre-defined slots that have to be selected as pre-defined groupings. Some of the loa groupings have no attacks at all, others only have HtH attacks, others only have Ranged Attacks, etc; and there are no attacks common to multiple loa groupings. The build is a little complex to create, but once you have it all written down it plays pretty well. (I've used this character before; I'm just updating it.)

 

Along the same lines, do you ever allow Martial Maneuvers to be purchased inside a VPP or MP? I'd like a couple of the loa gruopings to grant access to a few Martial Maneuvers, and buying them outside the VPP and then linking them to specific VPP slots is cumbersome and costly. Martial Maneuvers aren't exactly Skills/Special Powers per se, but it raises the same issues I think.

[ghost-angel]

I've always thought that CSLs in a Framework when coupled with a specific Attack make perfect sense and are a good exception to the rule.

 

The same logic would follow for Maneuvers; if they're granted along with specific other abilities, and aren't useable by themselves otherwise, then putting them in a Framework makes sense.

[Tholomyes]

I don't really like the CSLs in a framework approach, and generally would require CVs instead, or have CSLs bought outside the framework. Part of the cost savings for CSLs is the fact that they're limited in what attacks they're applied to, and bundling them into a framework slot gets largely around that limitation.

[Hyper-Man]

I think the big reason for the GM Permission Required rule for CSL's inside a Framework is the abuse of 2 Point CSL's.  Suddenly a 60 Active Framework with a 12d6 Blast can have a 10d6 version with +5 OCV which then overshadows Spreading an Attack as a viable option (1DC -> +1 OCV).  I think 5 point for CV is the better minimum but still not ideal as it doesn't figure into END cost and such.  Concerns such as these are why I went with Overall Skill Levels usable in their own Framework slot and AOE Accurate on specific attack slots when modeling Superman's Superspeed and Heat Vision.  I would be very wary of putting Martial Maneuvers inside a Framework as it's already illegal to put Limitations on Martial Damage Classes.  I would prefer to go the route of Martial Arts as a Framework via Power builds and just buy a minimum suite of Martial Maneuvers for those effects that are the most challenging to model via Powers.

 

HM

[Christougher]

I think the big reason for the GM Permission Required rule for CSL's inside a Framework is the abuse of 2 Point CSL's.  Suddenly a 60 Active Framework with a 12d6 Blast can have a 10d6 version with +5 OCV which then overshadows Spreading an Attack as a viable option (1DC -> +1 OCV).  I think 5 point for CV is the better minimum but still not ideal as it doesn't figure into END cost and such.  Concerns such as these are why I went with Overall Skill Levels usable in their own Framework slot and AOE Accurate on specific attack slots when modeling Superman's Superspeed and Heat Vision.  I would be very wary of putting Martial Maneuvers inside a Framework as it's already illegal to put Limitations on Martial Damage Classes.  I would prefer to go the route of Martial Arts as a Framework via Power builds and just buy a minimum suite of Martial Maneuvers for those effects that are the most challenging to model via Powers.

 

HM

 

I won't swear 6E has this rule, but 4E and maybe 5E had wording that you could not apply limitations to any skill level less than 5 points.  Doesn't seem like a far stretch to apply that to frameworks even if they don't have limitations.

 

Chris.

[Hyper-Man]

It's arguable that any power in a Framework already has a defacto form of the Lockout Limitation just by the very nature of how Frameworks function.

[Asperion]

The main way that I would allow CSLs into a framework is if they are a part of a compound power.

[Tasha]

I have allowed CSL's in a framework naked in a Multipower. I don't think I would allow someone to buy 2pt skill levels as a compound power in any kind of framework.

[Grailknight]

I wouldn't allow it in general because it's too easy to abuse.

 

One power with 5 CSLs in a Multipower may be allowable but how many is too many 2?, 3?, 5? Every power past the 1st is getting +5 OCV for 1 point and that's assuming no limitations are involved.

 

Also, what is the incentive for buying OCV in these builds?

[bigdamnhero]

Part of the cost savings for CSLs is the fact that they're limited in what attacks they're applied to, and bundling them into a framework slot gets largely around that limitation.

Hmm...That's a good point.

 

I would be very wary of putting Martial Maneuvers inside a Framework as it's already illegal to put Limitations on Martial Damage Classes.  I would prefer to go the route of Martial Arts as a Framework via Power builds and just buy a minimum suite of Martial Maneuvers for those effects that are the most challenging to model via Powers.

Yeah, certainly allowing additional Martial DCs in a Framework seems like it would be excessively munchkiney. But maneuvers themselves? Building just a simple Martial Block costs 20 AP (+2 OCV, +2 DCV).

 

I won't swear 6E has this rule, but 4E and maybe 5E had wording that you could not apply limitations to any skill level less than 5 points.  Doesn't seem like a far stretch to apply that to frameworks even if they don't have limitations.

Yes it was in 5E; 6E leaves it up to the GM to decide if/when to restrict that. But it does seem like a reasonable restriction. As HM pointed out, 2-point CSLs are so easy to abuse...

 

One power with 5 CSLs in a Multipower may be allowable but how many is too many 2?, 3?, 5? Every power past the 1st is getting +5 OCV for 1 point and that's assuming no limitations are involved.

That's kindof the sticking point for me too. It seems to make sense to allow it for one or two powers, but the road to abuse is paved with slippery stones or something.

[Tasha]

I road to avoiding abuse are well understood Character building guidelines. Also GM that can look at a PC and see the excessive CV and ask for a rewrite.

[Vondy]

There comes a point where buying more maneuvers is a disproportionate tax for the utility gained. If you look at the maneuver list, there is a lot of overlap and variations on a theme. If you have purchased 4-5 maneuvers you've generally reached the point where you are paying 4-5 points for variations that, if you were building a custom maneuver, would only amount to 1-2 points worth of difference, element-wise.

 

Another way to go would be a VPP:

 

A Dozen Arts: Power Pool 10, Control Cost 10, Cosmic (+2), Only for Martial Maneuvers (-1). Total Cost 17 Points.

 

Ten points in the pool allows the character to call up two maneuvers per phase in the event they want to use a combo moves. Its a little bit on the cheap side (I tend to view 20+ points the point where stacking on more maneuvers becomes punitive cost-wise), but its defined in such a way that skill levels beyond those provided by the maneuver itself must be purchased separately (outside the pool). I would require those levels to be purchased as applying to "martial maneuvers," "hand-to-hand" or "all combat." I would not allow two point levels.

 

Another option, which comes in at a flat 20 points, would be to leverage Universals from Skills 6e.

 

Universal Martial Arts Maneuver (20 Points). The problem here is that, even if you house-rule this to be "legal," you can't do combo-maneuvers unless you buy it twice (40 points), which my gut says is "too expensive" for what you get from it.

[ghost-angel]

If they're putting the CSLs on a significant number of Powers inside the framework, then what they really have are CSLs that work with that Framework as a whole, and whose SFX are 'Powers Granted From the Loa' and should buy them outside the Framework entirely. It will end up being more cost effective anyway.

[bigdamnhero]

I think my compromise (at least in this case) is to only allow 5-pt CSLs in the VPP, since that's what they'd have to pay if the were buying it outside the Framework and it's the same cost as +1 OCV. So it counts against the VPP's pool but is only available with certain loa groupings.

 

Thanks all for helping me think this through!

[Hugh Neilson]

There comes a point where buying more maneuvers is a disproportionate tax for the utility gained. If you look at the maneuver list, there is a lot of overlap and variations on a theme. If you have purchased 4-5 maneuvers you've generally reached the point where you are paying 4-5 points for variations that, if you were building a custom maneuver, would only amount to 1-2 points worth of difference, element-wise.

 

Another way to go would be a VPP:

 

A Dozen Arts: Power Pool 10, Control Cost 10, Cosmic (+2), Only for Martial Maneuvers (-1). Total Cost 17 Points.

 

Ten points in the pool allows the character to call up two maneuvers per phase in the event they want to use a combo moves. Its a little bit on the cheap side (I tend to view 20+ points the point where stacking on more maneuvers becomes punitive cost-wise), but its defined in such a way that skill levels beyond those provided by the maneuver itself must be purchased separately (outside the pool). I would require those levels to be purchased as applying to "martial maneuvers," "hand-to-hand" or "all combat." I would not allow two point levels.

 

Another option, which comes in at a flat 20 points, would be to leverage Universals from Skills 6e.

 

Universal Martial Arts Maneuver (20 Points). The problem here is that, even if you house-rule this to be "legal," you can't do combo-maneuvers unless you buy it twice (40 points), which my gut says is "too expensive" for what you get from it.

 

What about a VPP that can only boost OCV, DCV or STR (or an MP with those Flex Slots)?  That covers most Martial Arts, outside the esoteric NND and KA strikes.  Buy a 1 DC Hand Attack with NND and you can pro rate your STR in, and a 1 pip HKA manages the Killing Strike.  It's also a lot more versatile (OCV with non-martial maneuvers like gunfire; STR that enhances both damage and Grab/Hold STR).  It seems like that is a reasonable measuring stick against which to compare purchasing maneuvers and any other construct.

[Vondy]

What about a VPP that can only boost OCV, DCV or STR (or an MP with those Flex Slots)?  That covers most Martial Arts, outside the esoteric NND and KA strikes.  Buy a 1 DC Hand Attack with NND and you can pro rate your STR in, and a 1 pip HKA manages the Killing Strike.  It's also a lot more versatile (OCV with non-martial maneuvers like gunfire; STR that enhances both damage and Grab/Hold STR).  It seems like that is a reasonable measuring stick against which to compare purchasing maneuvers and any other construct.

 

That could also work.

[Surrealone]

One of the more interesting and obscure references regarding 6E is that "CSLs with Limitations automatically apply only to OCV (not DCV or damage)." (Champions Complete, pg 27).  So if an exception is made to, say, allow CSL's in a gadget pool ... and the gadget pool necessarily entails a limitation (focus of some kind), then those are OCV-only CSL's and can't be shifted to DCV or damage, at all.  Unless, of course, the GM is going to do yet a second handwave/exception to allow shiftable CSL's with limitations ... in a framework -- which seems kind of hairy to me.

 

Presumably the aforementioned and cited rule was made so that one would buy straight DCV or DC's rather than a shiftable CSL.  At the 5pt level it works out the same and, given this, it begs the question of why one would seek an exception for CSL's when one could much more easily justify a characteristic (OCV,  DCV, 5 more pts of STR, another DC of some offensive non-killing attack power, etc.) as part of a unified power.

 

Food for thought...

[Vondy]

I can spend 20 points to have 5 OCV and 5 DCV. Or, I can spend 20 points to have 3 OCV and 3 DCV and +2 Levels I can apply to one or the other. Why would I ever buy skill levels? Or, from another point of view, there was a valid reason skill levels were somewhat cheaper in previous editions. The bean counters ran afoul of the law of unintended consequences, IMO.

[Surrealone]

I can spend 20 points to have 5 OCV and 5 DCV. Or, I can spend 20 points to have 3 OCV and 3 DCV and +2 Levels I can apply to one or the other. Why would I ever buy skill levels? Or, from another point of view, there was a valid reason skill levels were somewhat cheaper in previous editions. The bean counters ran afoul of the law of unintended consequences, IMO.

 

Context is important -- and this thread is about CSL's (and maneuvers) in frameworks.  You can't have your +2 Levels you can apply to OCV or DCV as you please within a gadget pool due to the RAW that I cited, above, even with a GM handwaving putting the CSL in a framework.  Why?  Because a CSL with a limitation automatically causes the CSL to be -only- OCV ... and a gadget pool (usually, at least) has a limitation that all the powers within it also take.

 

Now if the GM handwaves the OCV-only aspect of CSL's with limitations ... AND handwaves putting the CSL in a gadget pool (i.e. VPP framework with focus limitation), you can have it.  However, as I said, it's getting hairy at that point since, you know, something tends to be amiss if you need exceptions to multiple rules for a given construct.

[Hyper-Man]

Context is important -- and this thread is about CSL's (and maneuvers) in frameworks.  You can't have your +2 Levels you can apply to OCV or DCV as you please within a gadget pool due to the RAW that I cited, above, even with a GM handwaving putting the CSL in a framework.  Why?  Because a CSL with a limitation automatically causes the CSL to be -only- OCV ... and a gadget pool (usually, at least) has a limitation that all the powers within it also take.

 

Now if the GM handwaves the OCV-only aspect of CSL's with limitations ... AND handwaves putting the CSL in a gadget pool (i.e. VPP framework with focus limitation), you can have it.  However, as I said, it's getting hairy at that point since, you know, something tends to be amiss if you need exceptions to multiple rules for a given construct.

 

This is another reason I prefer the Overall Skill Level approach since it technically isn't a Combat Skill Level (it just happens to be usable as one) so it arguably gets around the CSL with Limitations issue. It still needs GM permission to be included in a Framework of course.

 

HM

[Lucius]

Along the same lines, do you ever allow Martial Maneuvers to be purchased inside a VPP or MP? I'd like a couple of the loa gruopings to grant access to a few Martial Maneuvers, and buying them outside the VPP and then linking them to specific VPP slots is cumbersome and costly. Martial Maneuvers aren't exactly Skills/Special Powers per se, but it raises the same issues I think.

What can you do with Martial Arts that you can't already do with Characteristics and Powers?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I can do a lot with Characteristics and Powers and Palindromedaries

[bigdamnhero]

What can you do with Martial Arts that you can't already do with Characteristics and Powers?

I think it's more a pricing/fairness thing. I've heard it argued that Martial Arts are in some ways their own mini-Multipower, with built-in cost discounts. For example, buying a standard 4-point Martial Block with Characteristics costs 20 points, but because it's in a Framework (ie the Martial Arts package) the Real Cost is 4 pts. So if you put that 4-pt Maneuver inside an MP/VPP, are you effectively putting one Framework inside another Framework, which is pretty-much the definition of broken?

[Lucius]

I think it's more a pricing/fairness thing. I've heard it argued that Martial Arts are in some ways their own mini-Multipower, with built-in cost discounts. For example, buying a standard 4-point Martial Block with Characteristics costs 20 points, but because it's in a Framework (ie the Martial Arts package) the Real Cost is 4 pts. So if you put that 4-pt Maneuver inside an MP/VPP, are you effectively putting one Framework inside another Framework, which is pretty-much the definition of broken?

If there were something that Martial Arts and ONLY Martial Arts could do, I might consider the idea of putting a maneuver in a framework.

 

Otherwise, I don't think it's justified - you can get the same effect at a more appropriate cost.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says wow, Lucius Alexander is taking the anti munchkin position for once....