Buying back OMCV

[Doc Democracy]

Is this the only characteristic, in which losing some of it does not disadvantage a character? Would you allow it to be sold off? How would you make that impact the character in-game?

[Doc Democracy]

D'oh! Found the thread from earlier this year, will read that...

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

15 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Is this the only characteristic, in which losing some of it does not disadvantage a character?

 

That's a pretty bold assumption.  I assume it's based on the idea that "in this campaign, mental powers will never come up."

 

If that's correct, then it applies to pretty much all characteristics:  If Dexterity is never going come into play, then selling it back doesn't disadvantage someone.  Same for STR or INT.

 

15 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Would you allow it to be sold off?

 

If I know that it's not going to come up in the planned game, then would let them pick any value they wanted for it, as it's irrelevant.  Would I let _one_ guy sell it off, knowing it won't matter?  No; probably not; if it's not going to be used, they might as well all not have it.

 

Would I let one or two players pitch a convincing argument that if they aren't going to be using it that they should be "rebated" those points to spend elsewhere?  Sure; I probably would.

 

Would I be swayed by their well-thought-out and beautifully-organized ideas?  Don't know.  I've never had it get beyond whining and yelling.    Seriously, though: probably not: it would just be a "non-thing" for that campaign.  The obvious exception would be if there were to be a custom stat of some sort: Sanity, Taint, Magic, etc-- I would easily allow the entire group to take the point value of OMCV (which I know isn't going to be used) and place it into that new custom stat.

 

15 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

How would you make that impact the character in-game?

 

By making sure it came into play every now and again.

[Doc Democracy]

The only characters disadvantaged by low OMCV are mentalists. I am talking Golden Age superheroes here. There will be mental combat but for someone with no offensive mental capabilities selling back OMCV has no drawbacks.

 

Obviously I could contrive points where this brick might have to use OMCV but it would indeed be (and look) contrived.

[Duke Bushido]

If he's got no powers, then no; he won't be terribly disadvantage.

 

Which brings up the other point about a disadvantage that doesn't limit.

 

Hmm....

 

I see your conundrum.

 

 

Well I suppose if you opt to let him sell it back, he's _technically_ limited if the players will at some point have access to mental-power-imbuing plot devices.

 

Though I have to say that in the case exactly as you present it, I'd probably let him sell it back anyway.  Not sure if I'd allow a "full value" sell-back or not.  I guess that would depend on the vibe of the group as a whole.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Just to approach this laterally: 
If a character had nothing but mental attacks, would you object to them selling back their OCV? 

What about a character who only had Close AOE attacks, and thus would never need to make an attack roll, selling back both OCV and OMCV? 

[Surrealone]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

The only characters disadvantaged by low OMCV are mentalists. I am talking Golden Age superheroes here. There will be mental combat but for someone with no offensive mental capabilities selling back OMCV has no drawbacks.

 

Obviously I could contrive points where this brick might have to use OMCV but it would indeed be (and look) contrived.

As far as I am concerned, what you wrote is true ONLY in a world with a short-sighted/lazy GM. I say this because by selling back a non-mentalist's OMCV, a player is basically indicating to the GM that s/he expects the issue to come up -- and a GM who isn't lazy/short-sighted can easily accommodate by introducing independent foci that non-mentalists can use ... which someone with a 1 OMCV would be worse than other non-mentalists at using.

So, the reduction is, indeed, limiting … unless the GM is too lazy/short-sighted to make sure it's limiting.

With that in mind, Gnome's counter-point is spot-on -- i.e. if a mentalist sold OCV down to 1, the same issue would crop up - the mentalist would suck at using foci others could readily use.  IMHO, treatment of the selling of OMCV to 1 any differently than the selling of OCV to 1 … just reveals an underlying bias in the GM and/or the players in question.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If a character had nothing but mental attacks, would you object to them selling back their OCV? 

 

And in that case, its worth more points.  Not a ton more, but... more.

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Just to approach this laterally: 
If a character had nothing but mental attacks, would you object to them selling back their OCV? 

What about a character who only had Close AOE attacks, and thus would never need to make an attack roll, selling back both OCV and OMCV? 

 

Not in most campaigns.  There are a lot of normal situations that I get players to utilise their OCV that even a mentalist or others would use and so I would appreciate a disability worth points.  If I was sure there would be no use of OCV in the game, then I would not permit the point grab.

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, Surrealone said:

As far as I am concerned, what you wrote is true ONLY in a world with a short-sighted/lazy GM. I say this because by selling back a non-mentalist's OMCV, a player is basically indicating to the GM that s/he expects the issue to come up -- and a GM who isn't lazy/short-sighted can easily accommodate by introducing independent foci that non-mentalists can use ... which someone with a 1 OMCV would be worse than other non-mentalists at using.

So, the reduction is, indeed, limiting … unless the GM is too lazy/short-sighted to make sure it's limiting.

With that in mind, Gnome's counter-point is spot-on -- i.e. if a mentalist sold OCV down to 1, the same issue would crop up - the mentalist would suck at using foci others could readily use.  IMHO, treatment of the selling of OMCV to 1 any differently than the selling of OCV to 1 … just reveals an underlying bias in the GM and/or the players in question.

 

 

Then I guess I am lazy, shortsighted and biased, these are burdens I will have to bear because I think it is too late for me to change my spots....

 

I do challenge the equivalence of OCV and OMCV unless you are changing the fundamental basis of the world, a task too onerous for someone as time-poor as I.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If he's got no powers, then no; he won't be terribly disadvantage.

 

Which brings up the other point about a disadvantage that doesn't limit.

 

Hmm....

 

I see your conundrum.

 

 

Well I suppose if you opt to let him sell it back, he's _technically_ limited if the players will at some point have access to mental-power-imbuing plot devices.

 

Though I have to say that in the case exactly as you present it, I'd probably let him sell it back anyway.  Not sure if I'd allow a "full value" sell-back or not.  I guess that would depend on the vibe of the group as a whole.

 

I think I either allow it to be sold back at full value or not at all.  It is a small amount of points to begin with and I think my options are to say no or say yes and make it matter.

 

Doc

[dsatow]

 

One reason not to is if you allow maneuvers for mental attacks.  Say someone is trying to use telepathy to read your thoughts.  Theoretically, you could try to fill your mind with useless trivia (a mental dodge) or you could try to block the attempt by thinking something unpleasant (a mental block).

[Surrealone]

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I do challenge the equivalence of OCV and OMCV unless you are changing the fundamental basis of the world, a task too onerous for someone as time-poor as I.

They both have starting values of 3 - costing 0 points for that starting value, so there's the equivalence.  And when buying them up or selling them back, OMCV is cheaper than OCV, so deviation in any direction (up or down) already has any perceived disparity between them … accounted for.

 

If you don't happen to like that particular accounting, then that's certainly your own bias showing as it pertains to the value of points of OMCV versus points of OCV -- and you're absolutely entitled to it.  However, if you're going to be biased about it, then I suggest at least owning your bias by being consistent about it.  To wit, if you see OMCV on a non-mentalist as value-less (i.e. worth nothing) and, thus, will give 0 points for a buy-down to 1 (because you, the GM, will not lift a finger to ensure that it comes up in game) …  then it also logically follows that the same non-mentalist should be able to set OMCV to 100 for 0 cost, because you, the GM will not lift a finger to ensure that it comes up in game.  Thus, if you're consistent about your stance of OMCV being completely valueless on non-mentalists, you should let any of them set the value of OMCV to whatever they want for a cost of 0 CP, since it just won't come up in your game due to your own lack of action/input on the subject.

 

This is, of course, completely unfair to mentalists in your game (presuming you have them) since THEY can't do the same, but it's your bias, not RAW, with which you're wrestling...

Personally, I think a better approach is to set the starting values of both OMCV and DMCV to 1 for all characters in your game.  This completely disallows sell-backs while affecting both non-mentalists and mentalists equally -- making it far more fair while still catering to your own personal bias. Moreover, it doesn't put you, the GM, in a position where you're saying 'no you can't do that' just because of your own bias against the buy-downs of OMCV using the already-accounted-for cost delta between OMCV and OCV.

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

6 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

To wit, if you see OMCV on a non-mentalist as value-less (i.e. worth nothing) and, thus, will give 0 points for a buy-down to 1 (because you, the GM, will not lift a finger to ensure that it comes up in game)

 

If you can point out one instance where OMCV is of use to a non-mentalist without me having to change the physical constants of the world or introducing maguffins then I will concede I should allow it to be bought down. That is more generosity of spirit than God initially showed Abraham...  

 

Doc

[Toxxus]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Would I be swayed by their well-thought-out and beautifully-organized ideas?  Don't know.  I've never had it get beyond whining and yelling.

 

I haven't even mentioned that it's an option to either one of my tables for fear that it will immediately result in them all selling OMCV to 0 and using the points to raise DMCV to 6 for "free".

[Surrealone]

 

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

If you can point out one instance where OMCV is of use to a non-mentalist without me having to change the physical constants of the world or introducing maguffins then I will concede I should allow it to be bought down. That is more generosity of spirit than God initially showed Abraham...  

 

Doc

1. Mental Block (i.e. mental-based Block maneuver) ... as was already pointed out by dsatow.  (I've never experienced a GM who didn't allow those -- and allowing them does NOT require changing the physical constants of the world or introduction of maguffins.)
2. Use of EGO/5 dice to try to break down a Mental Paralysis requires one to first hit said Mental Paralysis …. which, per RAW, has a DMCV of 3 (same DMCV that hexes have). Thus, with an OMCV of 1, the individual trying to break out of the Mental Paralysis must roll 9- to hit it … before being able to try to break out of it … while someone with an OMCV of 3 would need to roll 11- to hit it.  END is, of course spent whether the attack against the Mental Paralysis hits or misses, so the character rolling 9- to hit will likely burn more Phases and END trying to get out of the Mental Paralysis than a character rolling 11- unless, of course, you've changed the physical constants of the world by failing to require a successful attack roll prior to allowing a damage/effect roll.

 

Quote

I haven't even mentioned that it's an option to either one of my tables for fear that it will immediately result in them all selling OMCV to 0 and using the points to raise DMCV to 6 for "free".

As a reminder, the minimum value of characteristics in 6e is 1 … whether bought down, drained, etc.

[Chris Goodwin]

12 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

As a reminder, the minimum value of characteristics in 6e is 1 … whether bought down, drained, etc.

 

1. Unless permitted by the GM.

2. Draining can take a Characteristic below 0 for purposes of how long it takes to return. 

 

6e1 p. 47

[Toxxus]

55 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

As a reminder, the minimum value of characteristics in 6e is 1 … whether bought down, drained, etc.

 

I could see that for selling stats off, but I can't imagine that holds true for Drains.

 

If it were then the entire section of what happens when your STR and other stats reach 0 would be pointless (6E1,42).

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

 

1. Mental Block (i.e. mental-based Block maneuver) ... as was already pointed out by dsatow.  (I've never experienced a GM who didn't allow those -- and allowing them does NOT require changing the physical constants of the world or introduction of maguffins.)
2. Use of EGO/5 dice to try to break down a Mental Paralysis requires one to first hit said Mental Paralysis …. which, per RAW, has a DMCV of 3 (same DMCV that hexes have). Thus, with an OMCV of 1, the individual trying to break out of the Mental Paralysis must roll 9- to hit it … before being able to try to break out of it … while someone with an OMCV of 3 would need to roll 11- to hit it.  END is, of course spent whether the attack against the Mental Paralysis hits or misses, so the character rolling 9- to hit will likely burn more Phases and END trying to get out of the Mental Paralysis than a character rolling 11- unless, of course, you've changed the physical constants of the world by failing to require a successful attack roll prior to allowing a damage/effect roll.

 

My last contribution here.  These are making things up to make OMCV useful.  Mental combat manoeuvres may be something for a mantalist heavy campaign but they are not RAW.  You do not need to hit a mental paralysis if you are the victim and I would not allow anyone else to attack a mental paralysis if they had no psychic abilities (and I do not count OMCV as such).

 

Your best response, like was raised in the first thread (by Killer Shrike I think) is that Mental CVs should be 1 by default.

 

Doc

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Your best response, like was raised in the first thread (by Killer Shrike I think) is that Mental CVs should be 1 by default.

 

And its something I'm inclined to do in my fantasy hero setting book.  A lion shouldn't have 3 DMCV, so I buy their stats down, but should all characters have that by default?  Probably not.  Again its one of those unquestioned holdovers that is worth reexamining (far more than COM, for example).

[Greywind]

12 hours ago, Surrealone said:

 I say this because by selling back a non-mentalist's OMCV, a player is basically indicating to the GM that s/he expects the issue to come up -- and a GM who isn't lazy/short-sighted can easily accommodate by introducing independent foci that non-mentalists can use ... which someone with a 1 OMCV would be worse than other non-mentalists at using.

1

 

I disagree. It is entirely possible the player is saying "I never expect to use this so it is no good to me. Let me trade it for something that will be of use to me."

Then the GM decides that everyone is going to end up with bicycles and this character only gets the frame with no wheels. Which is why discussion between the GM and players is important when making characters, campaign expectations, etc.

[Chris Goodwin]

Apologies for the terseness of my previous post.  I was on my phone. 

 

Besides the GM permission thing, 6e1 (p. 46 sidebar) also tells of something called Dormant Characteristics.  One option I would consider is to allow a character to buy their OMCV down to 0, but when they do their offensive mental capability is considered "dormant" in those terms.  Among other things, you can't use any Mental Combat Maneuvers; if someone is in telepathic or Mind Link contact with you, you can't get their attention in any way; you can't attack Mental Paralysis.  I'm thinking that... maybe... it should give you a penalty to breakout rolls from Mental Powers.  

 

Another option I would consider is that if a character has no offensive Mental Powers at all, and if they don't buy up their OMCV, then their OMCV is dormant, period.  They don't have any mental offense capability, so they just don't have an OMCV score.  And they don't get to try to buy some tiny offensive Mental Power with enough Limitations to make it 1 point, just so they can sell back their OMCV.  If it's a game where mental powers exist, and they happen to pick up a Focus that provides them with some, they start with a base OMCV of 3.  Characters without Mental Powers can still buy it up if they wish, and if they do then it's not dormant.  

 

(Interesting option: what if we treat it like Weapon Familiarity?  In most Champions games, if you have a Focus, you don't need to buy a Weapon Familiarity to use it nor weapons that are similar.  How about, then, if you have any Mental Powers, you automatically have "familiarity" with mental combat. If you don't, then any mental offense you attempt is at -3 to your OMCV, just like it is with anyone who lacks a familiarity. That also implies that you could spend 1 point for Familiarity with Mental Combat.)

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, Surrealone said:

As far as I am concerned, what you wrote is true ONLY in a world with a short-sighted/lazy GM. I say this because by selling back a non-mentalist's OMCV, a player is basically indicating to the GM that s/he expects the issue to come up -- and a GM who isn't lazy/short-sighted can easily accommodate by introducing independent foci that non-mentalists can use ... which someone with a 1 OMCV would be worse than other non-mentalists at using.

So, the reduction is, indeed, limiting … unless the GM is too lazy/short-sighted to make sure it's limiting.

With that in mind, Gnome's counter-point is spot-on -- i.e. if a mentalist sold OCV down to 1, the same issue would crop up - the mentalist would suck at using foci others could readily use.  IMHO, treatment of the selling of OMCV to 1 any differently than the selling of OCV to 1 … just reveals an underlying bias in the GM and/or the players in question.

 

My first question would be "why is your character deficient compared to average people?"  If people who have no mental powers are mOCV 1, that would be the starting number.  And making mCVs start at 1, or even 0, would be a great solution for "the stat I will never make any use of".

 

My second question would be "You are OK with this cropping up on occasion, and being a PITA for your character, right?  About as often and impeding (in combination) as a 5 point complication." 

 

If your player wanted a 5 point Complication for being unable to understand the Internet, would that be OK?  Seems like it's equally limiting for a WW II Super.

 

Gadgets that target with OMCV?  What about a character who moves us all to the DreamScape - no more OCV and DCV, you get your mOCV and mDCV instead.  I am sure that could appear in many golden-age comics.

[Surrealone]

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Besides the GM permission thing

All of RAW is littered with the GM permission thing -- so much so that I wouldn't think it needs to be stated given the RAW knowledge level of those of us who have been discussing this, as it's reasonably considered by all participating in this thread that the GM can rule as s/he likes for any reason or no reason, at all.  So why did we need to state the obvious? Oh, right, we didn't... 😝
 

3 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

I disagree. It is entirely possible the player is saying "I never expect to use this so it is no good to me. Let me trade it for something that will be of use to me."

Then the GM decides that everyone is going to end up with bicycles and this character only gets the frame with no wheels. Which is why discussion between the GM and players is important when making characters, campaign expectations, etc.

Certainly that is possible.  And if the player made that trade and didn't later like the consequences, well, that's the nature of giving something up … to get something else ... isn't it?
 

 

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

My last contribution here.  These are making things up to make OMCV useful.  Mental combat manoeuvres may be something for a mantalist heavy campaign but they are not RAW.  You do not need to hit a mental paralysis if you are the victim and I would not allow anyone else to attack a mental paralysis if they had no psychic abilities (and I do not count OMCV as such).

 

Your best response, like was raised in the first thread (by Killer Shrike I think) is that Mental CVs should be 1 by default.

 

Doc

I made up nothing.  Citing what dsatow provided as input is not making anything up, nor is sticking to literal RAW sans interpretation.

Per RAW on 6e2 p35:
"The first step in combat is to determine whether an attack hits its intended target. To do that, you need to know the attacker's OCV, the target's DCV, and the results of the attacker's Attack Roll." 

RAW on 6e2 p39 goes on to add:
"Most attacks use the ordinary Attack Rolls and CV already described. However, Mental Powers use Mental Combat Value (MCV) instead of the normal Combat Value./ MCV can be divided into Offensive MCV (OMCV) and Defensive (DMCV), just like CV. The Powers that use MCV are Mental Blast, Mental Illusions, Mind Contol, Mind Link, Mind Scan, Telepathy, and certain powers bought with the Advantage Alternate Combat Value."

While RAW on 6e1 p216 indicates that a character within an Entangle need not make an Attack Roll to hit or damage the (physical) Entangle restraining him/her (6e1 p216), the section pertaining to the (highly specific and incredibly different from Entangle) Mental Paralysis power does not echo that same lack of Attack Roll.  Mental Paralysis is a mental power (because it's bought with Alternate Combat Value to use OMCV vs. DMCV) and is so different from physical Entangles that it gets a half page to itself …. to describe how to calc BODY for STUN-only attacks (huh?  come again?  calculating BODY for a STUN-ONLY attack?? oh, right, this is a super special case, so STUN-only attacks can do BODY when dealing with Mental Paralysis), how Mental Defense can be added to EGO in some situations to increase the EGO/5 effect roll (huh? come again? having a Defense that isn't a Damage Shield add to damage/effect dice used for an attack??? oh, right, this is a super special case wherein a particular defense might do that),  damage it, attack it, how it can and can't be escaped, etc.  Thus, a reasonable person and and likely should expect all essential rules for how this power works to be covered in this section -- and there's nothing within it that says the victim need not make an Attack Roll to hit it -- just like there's nothing in it that indicates a character with Growth can use his/her Growth-augmented STR damage to affect a Mental Paralysis (as it says on 6e1 p217 with regard to Entangle).

 

If you, as the DM, are not requiring an Attack Roll for attacks by the victim of a Mental Paralysis … against that Mental Paralysis …  you're certainly entitled to that interpretation … but the section on Mental Paralysis flat-out doesn't say that the victim of a Mental Paralysis hits automatically.  Absent both that and GM fiat, what I cited on 6e2 p35 would seem to govern in conjunction with what I cited from 6e2 p39. However, if you're going to be consistent about applying the lack of need for attack roll to Entangle … to a Mental Paralysis, then I would think you'll also automatically let Growth-augmented STR damage affect a Mental Paralysis like it does an Entangle except, oops, that's just not logical, is it?  (I harp on consistent application of approaches, by the way, because I've found it to be a good litmus test for whether said approaches are faulty or sound.  i.e. Where consistent application of an approach fails to yield a logical result in all applications of that approach, one can often find a problem/fault with the approach. So it is with consistently applying things that automatically hit Entangles … to Mental Paralysis.)

Oh, and it was I who suggested starting values of 1 in the older thread.  (Killer Shrike agreed and took it farther, suggesting starting values of 0 --- something Hugh suggested [i.e. starting value of 0] very early in that thread.)  How about some credit given where due?  Also, how about just owning your bias on this one, eh?

 

 

[Toxxus]

27 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

If you, as the DM, are not requiring an Attack Roll for attacks by the victim of a Mental Paralysis … against that Mental Paralysis …  you're certainly entitled to that interpretation … but the section on Mental Paralysis flat-out doesn't say that the victim of a Mental Paralysis hits automatically. 

 

It might avoid restating that for the simple fact they've already covered that you don't need an attack roll to break out of entangles. 

 

Mental Paralysis is a special type of entangle, but absent a specific rule indicating you DO need an attack roll why would you not continue with the previously established rule?

 

The basis for Entangles having a DCV of 3 comes from this section in entangle: 

"A character may target most types of Entangle
specifically, without damaging the character
inside it (unless the Entangle has the Entangle And
Character Both Take Damage Advantage, below),
at -3 OCV. Typically an Entangle targeted in this
manner has DCV 0,... "  -- Resulting in 3

 

Then a couple pages later under Mental Paralysis:

Another character can target a Mental Paralysis
without targeting its victim; the Mental Paralysis
has DMCV 3 for this purpose.

 

This doesn't lend itself to requiring a to-hit roll to break out of an Entangle - at all.

 

Also, a subset of a group inherits the properties of the set unless otherwise stated.  The most rational interpretation would be that Mental Paralysis (a subset of Entangle) doesn't require a to-hit roll to break out of because the parent set doesn't require a to-hit roll.

 

You're artificially adding something that just isn't there.