6E Multiple Attack, No Skill Levels?

[Hugh Neilson]

21 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

The difference between a level and penalty skill level is that the skill level raises the ability by the same amount always.  The penalty skill level is something used to make you as good at using a power even when circumstances would normally dictate you would be worse at it.  the manoeuvre itself is not a circumstance...

 

While I agree overall, the concept of a level with Sweep/Multiple Attack that only reduces the penalty for multiple attacks is not necesarilly always useful.  The first two levels are used with all Multiple Attacks.  But if you had six such levels, and make two attacks with your  Sweep, the levels in excess of the first two are not used.  You have to make four attacks to use all of the levels.

[Doc Democracy]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

While I agree overall, the concept of a level with Sweep/Multiple Attack that only reduces the penalty for multiple attacks is not necesarilly always useful.  The first two levels are used with all Multiple Attacks.  But if you had six such levels, and make two attacks with your  Sweep, the levels in excess of the first two are not used.  You have to make four attacks to use all of the levels.

 

I knew I was being clumsy with what I was saying.  Penalty Skill Levels are designed to make you normally competent at something you would otherwise be less competent at.  MartialArtsGuy has OCV 10 when punching someone, OCV 8 when punching twice (multiple attack) and OCV 6 when punching thrice.  With 4 levels in Strike, he becomes OCV 14, 12 and 10 respectively, with 4 penalty skill levels he would be be OCV 10 for them all.

 

I can see reasons why the GM might not allow the 4 skill levels due to his campaign restrictions.  I think though that it makes the distinction between removing penalties for distance and environment etc from those imposed by manoeuvres more understandable.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I knew I was being clumsy with what I was saying.  Penalty Skill Levels are designed to make you normally competent at something you would otherwise be less competent at.  MartialArtsGuy has OCV 10 when punching someone, OCV 8 when punching twice (multiple attack) and OCV 6 when punching thrice.  With 4 levels in Strike, he becomes OCV 14, 12 and 10 respectively, with 4 penalty skill levels he would be be OCV 10 for them all.

 

I can see reasons why the GM might not allow the 4 skill levels due to his campaign restrictions.  I think though that it makes the distinction between removing penalties for distance and environment etc from those imposed by manoeuvres more understandable.

 

IIRC, those cannot be 2 point skill levels, as 2 point levels add +1 OCV to a Strike with one attack. That is consistent with your comments.  However, a Multiple Attack is a separate combat maneuver. 

 

I suppose we can argue that Multiple Attack is multiple uses of one or more maneuvers, but that means this construct applies only if using a Strike, not if one wants to put a Grab, Disarm or Trip into that Multiple Attack.  That argument also weakens the case against PSLs, since the reason you can't use PSLs is that they cannot be applied to cancel out penalties from a maneuver, and we are layering Multiple Attack over the underlying maneuvers.

 

If these are at least 3 point levels, they can now be used to enhance DCV or damage, not just OCV.  If we want levels that can only increase OCV, what is the limitation on these?  I would argue this is at least a -1 limitation, so 4 skill levels with all HTH would be worth 10 points.  Now tack on a limitation for only being usable with Multiple Attacks, and what would the cost be?  Even a conservative -1/2 drops the cost to 8, or 2 points per level.  Alternatively, that could be +4 OCV, only with HTH (-1), only with Multiple Attacks (-1/2) for the same cost.

 

This is not looking a lot different, costing-wise, than a PSL, and it still does not just offset the penalty for adding more attacks.

[Doc Democracy]

9 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I suppose we can argue that Multiple Attack is multiple uses of one or more maneuvers, but that means this construct applies only if using a Strike, not if one wants to put a Grab, Disarm or Trip into that Multiple Attack.  That argument also weakens the case against PSLs, since the reason you can't use PSLs is that they cannot be applied to cancel out penalties from a maneuver, and we are layering Multiple Attack over the underlying maneuvers.

 

It actually makes the rules as written make even more sense.  If you are good at grabs there is no reason why you should also be good at disarm, trip or strike.  If you want to be good at multiply attacking with strike then you do not purchase skill levels with multiple attack (prohibited explicitly in the rules), you buy levels with strike.  Otherwise being good at hitting lots also makes you good at all those other things.  🙂

 

If you wanted to put strike and disarm into the same attack, I do not think I would class it as a Multiple Attack but instead class it as a Combined Attack.  There the rules are even more explicit in that you can apply levels bought on the individual manoeuvres but not apply generally to the Combined Attack.

[Tywyll]

51 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I knew I was being clumsy with what I was saying.  Penalty Skill Levels are designed to make you normally competent at something you would otherwise be less competent at.  MartialArtsGuy has OCV 10 when punching someone, OCV 8 when punching twice (multiple attack) and OCV 6 when punching thrice.  With 4 levels in Strike, he becomes OCV 14, 12 and 10 respectively, with 4 penalty skill levels he would be be OCV 10 for them all.

 

I can see reasons why the GM might not allow the 4 skill levels due to his campaign restrictions.  I think though that it makes the distinction between removing penalties for distance and environment etc from those imposed by manoeuvres more understandable.

 

Yeah, it might be an issue for me and my example player. He's right at my campaign limit for OCV between martial maneuvers and CSLs.

 

Wait... can you use martial maneuvers as part of a sweep? Or is it a maneuver on its own? I thought you could, then I thought you couldn't and now I'm totally confused...

 

[Tywyll]

19 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

It actually makes the rules as written make even more sense.  If you are good at grabs there is no reason why you should also be good at disarm, trip or strike.  If you want to be good at multiply attacking with strike then you do not purchase skill levels with multiple attack (prohibited explicitly in the rules), you buy levels with strike.  Otherwise being good at hitting lots also makes you good at all those other things.  🙂

 

I don't follow, how do you figure that? If I reduce my Sweep penalty it doesn't add a bonus to my other maneuvers?

 

[Hugh Neilson]

42 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

 

Yeah, it might be an issue for me and my example player. He's right at my campaign limit for OCV between martial maneuvers and CSLs.

 

Wait... can you use martial maneuvers as part of a sweep? Or is it a maneuver on its own? I thought you could, then I thought you couldn't and now I'm totally confused...

 

 

I think sweep was its own maneuver, so no.  Folding all those "attack more than once" maneuvers into the Multiple Attack construct resolves that issue - you can certainly use martial and non-martial maneuvers in a Multiple Attack (with some limitations - you can't Block or Dodge, for example).

 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

It actually makes the rules as written make even more sense.  If you are good at grabs there is no reason why you should also be good at disarm, trip or strike.  If you want to be good at multiply attacking with strike then you do not purchase skill levels with multiple attack (prohibited explicitly in the rules), you buy levels with strike.  Otherwise being good at hitting lots also makes you good at all those other things.  🙂

 

If you wanted to put strike and disarm into the same attack, I do not think I would class it as a Multiple Attack but instead class it as a Combined Attack.  There the rules are even more explicit in that you can apply levels bought on the individual manoeuvres but not apply generally to the Combined Attack.

 

Nope,  not seeing that.  Or at least, I'm not seeing it as making any more or less sense than "I am much better at hitting targets that are far away, but it does not make me any better at hitting a target close up" or "it is no easier for me to hit an entire target than to hit a small portion of that target, like the head or the hands".

 

Purchasing levels with Strike makes me better at Striking (OCV, DCV or damage), not better at hitting more than once, or hitting more than one target, when I Strike.

 

A Combined Attack explicitly cannot combine multiple manoeuvres, only multiple powers each used once in the same attack against the same target.

 

If I want to Punch three ninjas neatly arrayed in a row in front of me, or if I want to Trip, Disarm and Strike the samurai to my side, I need to use a Multiple Attack.  If I want to hit that Samurai with my 8d6 Blast and my 3d6 Sight Flash at the same time, I use a Combined Attack.

[Doc Democracy]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Nope,  not seeing that.  Or at least, I'm not seeing it as making any more or less sense than "I am much better at hitting targets that are far away, but it does not make me any better at hitting a target close up" or "it is no easier for me to hit an entire target than to hit a small portion of that target, like the head or the hands".

To me, a lot of this is about balancing the game.  If you want a character who can shoot the legs off an ant at 100 paces you can have one without blowing through every campaign limit the GM may have applied.

 

obviously, in superhero games, there are going to be more circumstances where it makes more sense.

[Ninja-Bear]

I’ve come around to the 1/2 DCV for MultiAttack. It is after all a maneuver that allows you to do more than one maneuver in a phase. If to want to be better then spend points. 

[Ninja-Bear]

I asked Steve Long about grabbing an opponent and throwing him against another. That is illegal by Grab/Throw maneuver but as a MultiAttack, I believe it’s legal.

[Killer Shrike]

14 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I asked Steve Long about grabbing an opponent and throwing him against another. That is illegal by Grab/Throw maneuver but as a MultiAttack, I believe it’s legal.

 

6Ev2 p62

 

GRAB
This Maneuver allows a character to get a hold
on another character or object.

Making A Grab
To Grab an opponent, a character must make
an Attack Roll with appropriate modifiers. If
successful, he has Grabbed his opponent. (As
described below under Escaping From Grabs, the
victim immediately gets a Casual STR roll to break
free, if desired.)

 

SQUEEZING, SLAMMING, AND THROWING
In many cases, a character Grabs his enemy
just to hold onto him or prevent him from doing
something, but sometimes the Grabber wants
to hurt the target at the same time. A character
who has Grabbed someone can do either of the
following:

Squeeze him. This does regular STR damage
(STR/5 in d6 of Normal Damage) to the victim;
the character retains his hold on the victim.
Slam him against something (such as the
ground or a wall). This does regular STR
damage (STR/5 in d6 of Normal Damage) to
the victim; the character retains his hold on the
victim.

Throw him, using the Throw Combat
Maneuver (6E2 80), which requires him to let
go of the victim.

If the Grabber chooses to Squeeze, Slam,
or Throw the Grabbed character in the same
Segment in which he (the Grabber) successfully
Grabbed him, the Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
does not require an Attack Roll (it automatically
succeeds) and takes no time. A character cannot
Hold this “free” action; he must use it in that same
Segment. If the Grabber wants to Squeeze, Slam,
or Throw his victim in a later Phase, doing so is an
Attack Action (it doesn’t automatically succeed,
requires an Attack Roll, and so forth). Assume any
Grab-and-Throw is a Standing Throw, unless the
Grabber begins a Phase with a Grabbed victim
and the GM lets him move before making the
Throw. If the Attack Roll for a Squeeze or Slam
fails, the victim takes no damage but remains
Grabbed.

After performing a Grab, in that same Segment
a character can only Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
the target as an immediate attack. He can’t use
any other maneuvers or attacks (unless the GM
so permits, and even in that case, using another
attack should mean releasing the Grab in most
circumstances). In later Phases he can use any
attacks he wants (provided he has the free limbs or
other means to do so).

If a Grab-based Maneuver (such as Martial
Grab) provides a STR bonus, that bonus applies
solely for the purposes of holding on to the target.
It doesn’t increase the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing the target, increase the
distance a target can be thrown, or have any
other effect. Similarly, characters can use Combat
Skill Levels to increase their OCV or DCV when
Grabbing, but not the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing.

A character cannot use his Hand-To-Hand
Attack to improve the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing a Grabbed character. Nor
can characters Haymaker Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
damage. Grab-and-Throw damage doesn’t get a
bonus from the velocity of the Grabbed character
the way a Martial Throw does.

 

-----------------------

Later in the book 6e adds a lot of extra complexity for the specific case of a character throwing another character at a third (or more) character(s), with a special subsystem on 6Ev2 p124 (disconnected from both the rules for Grabs and Throws) that basically ignores the general rules for throwing and asserts a different model entirely.

 

Characters As Weapons
Characters often like to pick up an opponent
and use him as an impromptu club or missile with
which to attack another foe. This has the benefit of
hurting both enemies.

Before a character can use another character
as a club/missile, he must Grab the club/missile. If
the club/missile is conscious (even Stunned), this
requires the normal Attack Roll and imposes the
normal penalties to the character’s OCV and DCV.
If he’s unconscious, the character still has to make
a Grab, but suffers only the standard -1 OCV
and -2 DCV penalties (he doesn’t have the usual
halved DCV in general, and halved OCV against
other targets, if his Grab succeeds).

Once the character has successfully Grabbed
the club/missile, he may use the victim as a club
against any target in HTH Combat range, or as
a missile against any target within range of his
Throw (see Throw, 6E2 80). To do this, he must
make a separate Attack Roll against that target.
Unless the GM rules otherwise, this is a separate
Attack Action, so it cannot be performed in the
same Phase when the character performs his Grab.
The standard CV modifiers for Grab apply, and
the GM may impose other modifiers to reflect
the circumstances. If the attack succeeds, both
the club/missile and the target take the character’s
STR damage. (See 6E2 82 for rules regarding
missed Throws.)

Using another character as a club entails a
weapon Size/Shape penalty of -2 OCV (if the
“club” is unconscious) or -4 OCV (if he’s awake). A
character used as a missile is neither balanced nor
aerodynamic (minimum of -4 OCV). These penalties
are in addition to any the character suffers for
performing a Grab.

-------------------------------

So basically, in the case of throwing a character at another character, 6e wants you to wait until the next phase and make a separate attack roll, and applies a -4 OCV (if the thrown character is conscious) on top of any other penalties, etc. This is, to me, a very inconsistent special casing / blatant nerfing.

 

I really do not like the 6e special casing for this fundamentally true-to-fiction move; having grabbed and thrown people in real life...including into other people...I can tell you that it generally did not require me to latch on, wait 3-4 seconds, and then throw them. Rather, it happens as a single continuous flow of grab, pivot, and release in a direction determined by body mechanics and momentum, and the thrown person collides with whatever happens to be in the space their body is propelled into whether that be one or more objects, or one or more other people, a wall, or the floor. Same thing with a shove or a redirection.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Killer Shrike I’ve read all that and if you read multiple attack you can do two separate combat maneuvers (or more) and accept an additional -2 per extra maneuver added and an additional 1/2 DCV on top of the worse DCV of the different maneuvers. 

[Killer Shrike]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Killer Shrike I’ve read all that and if you read multiple attack you can do two separate combat maneuvers (or more) and accept an additional -2 per extra maneuver added and an additional 1/2 DCV on top of the worse DCV of the different maneuvers. 

Ya, I know.

[PhilFleischmann]

On 12/12/2019 at 5:09 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

If these are at least 3 point levels, they can now be used to enhance DCV or damage, not just OCV.  If we want levels that can only increase OCV, what is the limitation on these?  I would argue this is at least a -1 limitation, so 4 skill levels with all HTH would be worth 10 points.

I think this is a problem right here.  If a level that only works with OCV is a -1 limitation, then that means that two levels with OCV are of the same value as one level that can be used with either OCV or DCV (or damage).  IME, this is not the case.  This is a matter of flexibility vs. raw power.  In every other part of this game, raw power costs more than flexibility - which is as it should be.  Increasing your Blast from 10d6 to 20d6 costs 50 points, but making it into a multipower with a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash only costs 10 points.  Likewise, limitations that limit flexibility are not nearly as limiting as limiting raw power.

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I think this is a problem right here.  If a level that only works with OCV is a -1 limitation, then that means that two levels with OCV are of the same value as one level that can be used with either OCV or DCV (or damage).  IME, this is not the case.  This is a matter of flexibility vs. raw power.  In every other part of this game, raw power costs more than flexibility - which is as it should be.  Increasing your Blast from 10d6 to 20d6 costs 50 points, but making it into a multipower with a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash only costs 10 points.  Likewise, limitations that limit flexibility are not nearly as limiting as limiting raw power.

 

Your example does not compare apples to apples.  A 20d6 Blast is far from the same as choosing between a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash.  A character with a 16d6 Blast and a 4d6 Flash pays the same price as a 20d6 Blast, and can use both simultaneously as a Combined Attack.  Those abilities are much more comparable.  In a game where such attacks are competitive from an offensive perspective, a 50 point Multipower having a selection of 10 different 50 AP attack powers will not be competitive.

 

Two levels that only work for OCV is not remotely helpful if I am Dodging, or am trying to break through a barrier.  They are most helpful when my opponent is hard to hit, but suffer diminishing returns when my opponent was easier to hit in the first place.

 

+2 OCV only for Ranged Attacks could be purchased as either a limitation on the OCV characteristic, or as +2 levels with ranged attacks, only to enhance OCV.  A -1 limitation for either seems reasonable to me.  Prior to 6e, we did not have the ability to compare to the price of "just OCV".  Now we do.  But it was accepted, prior to 6e, that +1 DCV was a 5 point skill level.  That was half the price of a 10 point "all combat" skill level, and lost both OCV and damage.  By the same logic, +1 OCV could reasonably have been priced  at the same 5 points.

[PhilFleischmann]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Your example does not compare apples to apples.  A 20d6 Blast is far from the same as choosing between a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash.

That's precisely my point.  +4 with OCV only is far from the same as choosing between +2 with either OCV or DCV.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Two levels that only work for OCV is not remotely helpful if I am Dodging, or am trying to break through a barrier.  They are most helpful when my opponent is hard to hit, but suffer diminishing returns when my opponent was easier to hit in the first place.

But we're not talking about Dodging or breaking through a barrier,*  We're talking about making Multiple Attacks.  Just like a power that only works during the day is not remotely helpful if it's night.**  A Blast is not helpful if your opponent is virtually immune to that particular special effect,  A character built around levels with OCV will probably not be doing as much Dodging as other characters

 

Limits to flexibility are far less limiting than limits to raw power.

 

* Speaking of breaking through barriers, can you use Multiple Attack against a barrier?  If Mr, Punch wants to punch a hole through a wall, he could punch, say, 5 times in a single phase, assuming he has the END to spend.  The -8 OCV is unlikely to matter against a stationary wall.  As long as you have END and an attack that can get at least one BODY through the DEF of a barrier, Multiple Attacks mean that barriers don't have to slow you down for more than a single phase.

 

**You don't give a -1 limitation for "Only Works During the Day" do you?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

But it was accepted, prior to 6e, that +1 DCV was a 5 point skill level.  That was half the price of a 10 point "all combat" skill level, and lost both OCV and damage.  By the same logic, +1 OCV could reasonably have been priced  at the same 5 points.

FRED priced +1 with All Combat at 8 points, not 10.  10 was the cost of an Overall Level. 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

+2 OCV only for Ranged Attacks could be purchased as ... a limitation on the OCV characteristic ... A -1 limitation ... seems reasonable to me. 

I have to disagree.  No generalization of OCV Limitation is possible.  It has to be done on a per-character basis. 

Melee Marvin has twelve different attacks and none of them are ranged.  What does he lose by taking his OCV Only For HTH?  Is that really a Limitation? 

Beam-Eye Bob has a Blast.  That's it, that's his entire offensive selection.  Does it actually limit him if he makes his OCV Only For Beam-Eye Blast and Block? 

No!  Neither of those limit the character. 

But if Switch-Hitter Sam has a Blast and an HKA, OCV Only For HTH is actually limited.  If Four Blast Frank buys OCV Only For Blast #2 and Block, that's a limiting Limitation. 

 

Edit: Figured out how to word my point:

For an OCV Limitation to be a meaningful Limitation, it needs to (be able to) be phrased as "Not with this useful thing on my sheet". 

Sam's OCV is "Not with my Blast", Frank's OCV is "Not with these three Blasts".  Both of those are excluding valuable things that the character always has access to.  But Bob's OCV is "Not with my fists, my useless feeble 2d6 fists" and Marvin's is "Not with uh... maybe I'll pick up a gun?".  The former excludes something that's not useful while the latter excludes something that's not part of the character or generally available. 

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

That's precisely my point.  +4 with OCV only is far from the same as choosing between +2 with either OCV or DCV.

 

In a game where 20 DC attacks are the norm, what use will a 10d6 Blast be?  Assuming two competent characters, +2 OCV and +2 DCV will both be quite useful.  

 

4 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

But we're not talking about Dodging or breaking through a barrier,*  We're talking about making Multiple Attacks.  Just like a power that only works during the day is not remotely helpful if it's night.**  A Blast is not helpful if your opponent is virtually immune to that particular special effect,  A character built around levels with OCV will probably not be doing as much Dodging as other characters

 

Limits to flexibility are far less limiting than limits to raw power.

 

We're talking about skill levels that can only assist with OCV, as compared with skill levels that can also assist with DCV or damage.  Losing a significant portion of the ability carries a significant limitation value.  A -1 limitation is defined under limited power as one which reduces the utility of that ability by about half.  Loss of two of the three options for the skill level seems like it removes at least half of the skill level's utility.

 

Adding to OCV is fine, if you need more OCV to improve your odds of hitting.  If you can already hit on a 14-, adding 6 OCV is not nearly as useful in the vast majority of cases as adding 3 DC.  If you need to avoid being hit, adding DCV is valuable and adding OCV is useless.

 

A -1 limitation also reduces the cost of a 6e 10 point combat skill level to the 5 point cost of +1 OCV.  In other words, the base cost of OCV is one half the base cost of being able to add +1 OCV, +1 DCV or +1/2 DC to any physical combat abilities.

 

5 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

* Speaking of breaking through barriers, can you use Multiple Attack against a barrier?  If Mr, Punch wants to punch a hole through a wall, he could punch, say, 5 times in a single phase, assuming he has the END to spend.  The -8 OCV is unlikely to matter against a stationary wall.  As long as you have END and an attack that can get at least one BODY through the DEF of a barrier, Multiple Attacks mean that barriers don't have to slow you down for more than a single phase.

 

**You don't give a -1 limitation for "Only Works During the Day" do you?

 

The Barrier question is an interesting one.  The question is similar to whether you can use a Haymaker, where the rules tell us "For a Haymaker to be valid, performing
it has to subject a character to the potential drawbacks of having a reduced OCV and taking extra time."  Applying the same logic, perhaps the Multiple Attack is possible only where the drawbacks of OCV penalties, DCV penalties and/or the END cost are relevant. 

 

If the character is not in combat, does it matter whether he uses Multiple Attack five times against the barrier, or hits it once every turn for a minute?  If he is in combat, then his halved DCV will be very relevant, just as if he chose to Multiple Attack a DCV negative 3 Dragon.

 

Having skill levels that add to damage would be pretty helpful if that Barrier has 12 defenses and you have a 10d6 Normal Attack, though.  More OCV isn't at all helpful.

 

As for the limitation, the campaign becomes relevant.  If I expect that the game will be about half during the day and about half during the night (such that the character cannot influence whether the ability will be available), then the power is only available half the time, and -1 seems about right.  Situational limitations have to be assessed based on the campaign.  In a Vampire Hunter game, where most of the action will take place at night, -1 could be too stingy for a combat-driven power. 

 

Overall, I find a general tendency to be too stingy with situational limitations, the classic example being defenses "only versus fire" being -1/2 in a game with many other special effects.  Even with four equally common energy SFX, that -1/2 is ridiculously low. 

 

Even looking at the examples, "only in daylight" and "not in intense magnetic fields" are both rated -1/4.  Really, it is equally common to be in an intense magnetic field and to not be in daylight?  Not in any game I have ever played in.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

I have to disagree.  No generalization of OCV Limitation is possible.  It has to be done on a per-character basis. 

Melee Marvin has twelve different attacks and none of them are ranged.  What does he lose by taking his OCV Only For HTH?  Is that really a Limitation?

 

Anyone can throw objects, or pick up an opponent's (or just conveniently accessible) weapon.  Melee Marvin gets to buy Combat Levels in "All HTH combat" for 8 points, rather than 10, which suggests only a -1/4 limitation.  The cost of skill levels does not vary between builds, in my experience.  Maybe Melee Marvin only uses Martial Arts maneuvers, and can buy his skill levels for 5 points.

 

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

Beam-Eye Bob has a Blast.  That's it, that's his entire offensive selection.  Does it actually limit him if he makes his OCV Only For Beam-Eye Blast and Block? 

No!  Neither of those limit the character.

 

Why should he pay 5 points for +1 OCV instead of 3 point skill levels with Block and Eye Beam Blast?  Or, for the same 5 points, buy +1 OCV with  Block (2 points) and +1 Level with Eyebeams (3 points)?  Now when he uses the eyebeams, he can enhance DCV or damage, if he does not see a need for extra OCV.  Buying OCV, limited or otherwise, is not Bob's only choice.  Those plain vanilla skill levels seem much less likely to invite scrutiny than a Limited Characteristic.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

43 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Anyone can throw objects, or pick up an opponent's (or just conveniently accessible) weapon. 

Which blindly assumes Melee Marvin has the STR to do anything meaningful with a thrown object.  You pointed out that 10d6 is worthless in a 20d6 game, follow through with that logic! 

Again, everyone has a baseline of 2d6 punching.  That doesn't mean a 12d6 game should give a rebate on OCV if it doesn't help you connect with that 2d6 worthlessness. 

If Melee Marvin did have the STR needed to throw things effectively, or dropped enemy weapons were a valid combat option, then sure that might be worth a Limitation.  But that's going to vary with game and genre.  Which, whoops, leads us back to the idea that you can't price those Limitations in a vacuum. 

 

45 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Melee Marvin gets to buy Combat Levels in "All HTH combat" for 8 points, rather than 10, which suggests only a -1/4 limitation.  The cost of skill levels does not vary between builds, in my experience.  Maybe Melee Marvin only uses Martial Arts maneuvers, and can buy his skill levels for 5 points.

 

Why should he pay 5 points for +1 OCV instead of 3 point skill levels with Block and Eye Beam Blast?  Or, for the same 5 points, buy +1 OCV with  Block (2 points) and +1 Level with Eyebeams (3 points)?  Now when he uses the eyebeams, he can enhance DCV or damage, if he does not see a need for extra OCV.  Buying OCV, limited or otherwise, is not Bob's only choice.  Those plain vanilla skill levels seem much less likely to invite scrutiny than a Limited Characteristic.

I feel that CSLs are a godawful mechanic and need to die.  Among other reasons, because of exactly what you're saying. 

Why should Bob get cheaper OCV?  Why should Martial Arts Marvin pay less for OCV than Melee Marvin?  What rationale is there to make the same benefit (+1 to-hit with everything useful) cost different amounts? 

CSLs are just an expression of "CV with Limitations" so I don't get why you're saying "look, here's static-price CV with Limitations" when I'm saying "static CV Limitations are bad and wrong".  You're appealing to how things are when I'm saying things aren't how they should be.  Right now, a character can pay multiple different prices for the exact same thing.  There's zero excuse for this. 

[Hugh Neilson]

Let's flip it around - why should Melee Marvin, Beam-Eye Bob and Switch-Hitter Sam pay the same amount for OCV that has more functions for one than the others?  A mentalist gets the same benefit from mOCV, so maybe we should have mOCV, rOCV and hthOCV, each with a cost of 3 points. 

 

Or perhaps  we should eliminate mOCV, and price OCV as a single ability which enhances the ability to hit with any attack, physical or mental.

 

We can run round a lot of different circles if we want.  The above two both seem reasonable, within your parameters, but the "one attack type" characters get a significant cost break if we choose the former rather than the latter.

 

In addition to CSLs, most ranged attacks are really a multipower of DCs, OCV and Selective Area, thanks to the "spreading" mechanic. Since "Blast which can be traded for +1 OCV with Blast" costs 5 points, +1 OCV only with Blast does not appear to cost 5 points in this mechanic either.

 

It seems like the game does not assume "+1 OCV with everything" is worth the same as "+1 OCV only with my commonly used abilities".

[Ninja-Bear]

I’m curious Killer Shrike Would you allow it regardless of RAW? 

[PhilFleischmann]

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Assuming two competent characters, +2 OCV and +2 DCV will both be quite useful.

Yes, but the choice of +2 OCV or +2 DCV or +1 of each is significantly less useful than +4 of OCV.

 

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

We're talking about skill levels that can only assist with OCV, as compared with skill levels that can also assist with DCV or damage.  Losing a significant portion of the ability carries a significant limitation value.  A -1 limitation is defined under limited power as one which reduces the utility of that ability by about half.  Loss of two of the three options for the skill level seems like it removes at least half of the skill level's utility.

But it does not remove at least half the utility.  It only removes at least half the flexibility.

 

A single combat skill level that provides +1 OCV to a single attack is 2 points according to the rules.  If we multiply this flexibility by 9 - allowing it to work with 3 different attacks, and to be added to OCV, DCV, or damage, costs only 3 points according to the rules.  Is it your opinion that +1 OCV.DCV/damage with any three attacks should cost 18 points?  Or say, at least 6 points?

 

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If the character is not in combat, does it matter whether he uses Multiple Attack five times against the barrier, or hits it once every turn for a minute?

Well, if the bad guy is on the other side of that barrier, it may make a big difference if you get through it in one phase, or if you give him a full minute to get away, or harm hostages, or commit some other mayhem, or warm up his doomsday device.  I don't know what the proper solution is for this situation.  It's probably a subject for a different thread.

 

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Overall, I find a general tendency to be too stingy with situational limitations, the classic example being defenses "only versus fire" being -1/2 in a game with many other special effects.  Even with four equally common energy SFX, that -1/2 is ridiculously low.

It's not simply about the number of energy SFX in the game, it's also about what that allows the character to do.  If I'm effectively immune to fire, I can pick up a hot coal and throw it at my opponent who isn't immune to fire.  I can stand in the middle of a fire to make my presence attack (holocaust cloak, anyone?).  I can direct my efforts against the enemy with the flamethrower, while my friend concentrates on the guy with the cold weapon.

 

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Even looking at the examples, "only in daylight" and "not in intense magnetic fields" are both rated -1/4.  Really, it is equally common to be in an intense magnetic field and to not be in daylight?  Not in any game I have ever played in.

I don't know where that is listed, but I would never rate those two limitations the same, unless the campaign world had lots of intense magnetic fields in it for some reason.  Off hand, under most "normal" circumstances, I'd probably call "Only in Daylight" a -1/2, and "Not in an intense magnetic field" a -0.  I remember a GM who threw in a villain that generates an intense magnetic field himself, just to knock out the powers of any cheese-weasels who take that as a limitation.

 

BTW, in my real life, I've encountered an intense magnetic field only once - at a university's chemistry lab, where they had a very powerful electromagnet that would erase the magstripes on your credit cards in your pocket if you came within about 20 feet of it.

[Killer Shrike]

On 12/26/2019 at 2:48 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m curious Killer Shrike Would you allow it regardless of RAW? 

 

This actually came up relatively recently in actual play.

 

I exercise the "Unless the GM rules otherwise," clause and allow a Grab & Throw as a single action, and I treat a thrown person as a person-sized & shaped AoE. I assign either or both the unerodynamic / unbalanced penalties and potentially other penalties depending on the situation and how the movement is described / what makes sense to me given the givens. 

 

I do not treat this as a Multiple Attack.

 

A secondary target who is aware of the attack can abort to Dive For Cover, or may abort to attempt to catch the thrown person / object and potentially reduce or cancel the damage depending on what makes sense.