6E Multiple Attack, No Skill Levels?

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

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

 

We can reasonably start with the premise that +2 OCV or +2 DCV or +1 of each or +1 DC is worth more than +2 OCV, so more than 10 points.  How much more?  I would suggest it is not worth as much as +2 OCV and +2 DCV, so less than 20 points.  Based on that logic, it is also less expensive than +4 OCV.  However, the current 6e pricing suggests that it is, in fact, worth 20 points.  That is likely why few characters (and few experienced Hero gamers) see "all combat" skill levels as a bargain purchase.

 

Then we get the question of how limiting it is  to be able to apply that OCV or DCV or DC to a more limited group of abilities, or how limiting it is to remove one element from the mix.

 

Practically, we could remove Combat Skill Levels from the game entirely, and construct them as Multipowers.  10 point base with two Flexible slots gets me +2 OCV, +2 DCV or +1 of each any time I want them.  That's 14 points, or 7 points for an "all combat" skill level that does not have the option to select a 0 END Damage Class.  If we allow that the 0 DC damage class is worth 10 points, we would pay 16 points to add that slot, so we have 8 point All Combat Skill Levels.

 

We would still need to limit this construct down to create "only HTH/Range", "Only Martial Arts/Multipower", "only three maneuvers", etc.

 

It appears we can also extrapolate that "only with one attack" is a - 1 1/2 limitation on OCV, which re-creates the two point skill level.  That might suggest a -1 limitation for that Tight Group (so 4 points) and -1/2 for a broader group (so about 5 points) and we can make "only range" or "only HTH" -1/4 (6 points).  Not much of a discount, but how many characters that use ranged and HTH attacks will want to buy these?  Those that will buy them probably use one or the other.  Of course, that's a chicken and egg argument.

 

2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

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.

 

If the bad guy is on the other side of the barrier, that half DCV is a lot more meaningful if I knock a hole in that Barrier, isn't it?  I find the "only if the penalty is meaningful" rule challenging.  Maybe one of the team should attempt a Haymaker to determine whether there are invisible opponents in the vicinity - if there are, the Haymaker will work.  I prefer the view that maneuvers can be used independent of whether their penalties are immediately meaningful.  Definitely a different topic, though.

 

2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

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.

 

Where, absent the limitation, I can also use a live wire, a cannister of liquid nitrogen, a radioactive object or any number of other energy defense objects in the same manner you wish to use that hot coal.  I can stand in other hazardous environments to boost my PRE attack.  And I don't have to worry about that guy with the cold weapon targeting me because he knows I am less damaged by fire (something it tends not to take long to figure out).

 

Selecting the fire-wielder is one of the few reasons "only versus one special effect" is worthwhile.  Will there be a fire attacker in every combat?  If they appear in half of the combats, which seems like a lot, I only get to use the defenses in half of all combats, much less against half of all energy attacks that hit me.  Isn't "loses half of its utility" the base for a -1 limitation?  Seems I have lost more than that with ED that only defends against fire.  Does it defend against molten lava, or will you only give me -1/4 for fire and heat?

 

Of course, there is an advantage to knowing when your defenses will, or will not, work.  That's the reason Act 11-, which works 62.5% of the time, is valued on the basis it has lost half of the ability's utility.  The unpredictability of the failures makes it more limiting than an ability whose failure can be accurately predicted.

 

2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

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.

 

It's an obscure product called 6e V1.

 

I would treat "intense magnetic fields"" much like "chunks of my home planet, destroyed light years away".  By setting the limitation value, you set the frequency in which it will come up in the game. If you want, and I am prepared to allow, -2 for "only in daylight", we have just set the stage for a nocturnal or underground campaign where we will rarely be using powers in daylight.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

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? 

More functions?  What more functions?  It's +1 OCV.  You go from hitting on N- to hitting on (N+1)-. 

The cost for having multiple useful attacks is the cost of having multiple useful attacks.

 

And again, I'm arguing that the status quo is wrong.  Please stop presenting the status quo as if it's unquestionable truth, because that comes off as you ignoring everything I'm saying and implying I don't know the basics of the game.  If the Spreading optional rule makes Blast work like a Blast/OCV Multipower that throws off existing cost structures then maybe Spreading has issues. 

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

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 givens 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. 

I’ve allowed too without Multiple Attack . I think I allowed a Hero point spent.  New motto for 2020 for me is less getting hidebound for RAW and more of does this make sense in a common sense or dramatic sense?

[Hugh Neilson]

So do you propose to modify every cost structure in the game?  To me, things work reasonably well as-is, so most rule changes I would make are more tinkering than throwing out the existing structure to try again.  Discussing "the rules" only works if we are discussing a common baseline of rules from which we then consider specific changes.  The RAW include combat skill levels, so my discussion of limited OCV or DCV includes a comparison to combat skill levels.  It sounds like you would prefer a system which deviates from that norm.

 

Spreading does not make Blast work like a "Blast/OCV multipower".  It is already a "DC/OCV/minor AoE" multipower due to the Spreading rules (or was until someone decided it should be more "optional" than other rules).  Spreading was added in It is, by default, what a Blast does.2nd Edition as something Blast had been meant to be capable of in 1e, but was erroneously excluded.  In my experience, it does not throw off the existing cost structure.  Maybe it would throw off your heavily modified cost structure, though.  The reality is that many CV-related game mechanics in the RAW presume that limiting the attacks with which CV can be used limits the CV itself, without assessing each character's mix of attacks, defenses, etc.

 

Either Marvin, Bob and Sam get different benefits from their +1 OCV or, as you state above, a default +1 OCV goes to hitting - with everything - on N- to (N+1)-.  Changing that default - reducing "everything" to "not everything"  - is a limitation on the addition to OCV.  Requiring this limitation be customized to each character separately seems like it should be accompanied by things like a sliding scale cost for attack powers.  After all, that puny 2d6 Blast that will have no effect on anyone should not cost the same as +2d6 added to a 10d6 Blast that is more effective, should it?  And once your OCV is so high you almost never miss, additional OCV should clearly be discounted, as it is less useful, right?

 

Damage Reduction is much more valuable to someone with low defenses than someone with high defenses.  Better scale that pricing as well.  And the cost of reduced END (or limitation of increased END) needs to be scaled to the specific character's available END, and abilities which use that END.

 

In order to have workable rules, we have to compromise theoretically perfect pricing, customized for each character (and, presumably, revised as the character changes - if Marvin buys a flash grenade, so his ranged OCV now is more meaningful, his "only HTH" OCV limitation has to be repriced at the same time, right?  Or, I suppose, just reduce available options.  If no one can have OCV that only works for some attack forms, then pricing that limitation becomes unnecessary. 

[dsatow]

Sorry, I am to this discussion late, but if its compensating for the penalties for multiple attack, why not just use +1 CSL single attack (multi-attack) for 2 points or +1 OCV with the -1 limitation only with multiple attack?

[PhilFleischmann]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

We can reasonably start with the premise that +2 OCV or +2 DCV or +1 of each or +1 DC is worth more than +2 OCV, so more than 10 points.  How much more?  I would suggest it is not worth as much as +2 OCV and +2 DCV, so less than 20 points.  Based on that logic, it is also less expensive than +4 OCV.  However, the current 6e pricing suggests that it is, in fact, worth 20 points.  That is likely why few characters (and few experienced Hero gamers) see "all combat" skill levels as a bargain purchase.

I don't own 6e.  Has the price of All Combat Skill Levels gone up from 8 to 10 points?

 

Is a +1 OCV with one attack CSL still 2 points?  Or has that gone up, too?  Is +1 for OCV/DCV or increasing damage with three attacks or a tight group still 3 points, or has that gone up?

 

You were the one suggesting that "Only for OCV" should be a -1 limitation, making them exactly half the price.  Are you changing that stance?

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Selecting the fire-wielder is one of the few reasons "only versus one special effect" is worthwhile.  Will there be a fire attacker in every combat?  If they appear in half of the combats, which seems like a lot, I only get to use the defenses in half of all combats, much less against half of all energy attacks that hit me.  Isn't "loses half of its utility" the base for a -1 limitation?  Seems I have lost more than that with ED that only defends against fire.

That might be true only if your opponents are the sole determinants of the nature of the combat.  A character does have some control over the tactics he chooses.  You can choose to pick up the hot coal without permission from your enemy.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I would treat "intense magnetic fields"" much like "chunks of my home planet, destroyed light years away".  By setting the limitation value, you set the frequency in which it will come up in the game. If you want, and I am prepared to allow, -2 for "only in daylight", we have just set the stage for a nocturnal or underground campaign where we will rarely be using powers in daylight.

But you don't set the limitation value on your own.  The GM is involved, too.  That's why I said "normal" circumstances.  If you set your "Not in an Intense Magnetic Field" at -2, you're asking the GM to put intense magnetic fields all over the campaign world.  If the GM doesn't want to do that, then you don't get to take it as a -2 limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, dsatow said:

Sorry, I am to this discussion late, but if its compensating for the penalties for multiple attack, why not just use +1 CSL single attack (multi-attack) for 2 points or +1 OCV with the -1 limitation only with multiple attack?

 

To the former, I believe because skill levels specifically with Multiple Attack are prohibited (6e v2 p 77).  To the latter, that's really the thrust of the discussion.

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I don't own 6e.  Has the price of All Combat Skill Levels gone up from 8 to 10 points?

 

Is a +1 OCV with one attack CSL still 2 points?  Or has that gone up, too?  Is +1 for OCV/DCV or increasing damage with three attacks or a tight group still 3 points, or has that gone up?

OK, I will first suggest that the addition of OCV and DCV as separate characteristics is a game-changer between 5e and 6e.  DEX, no Figureds cost 2 points, so I could get +3 to all DEX rolls and +5 OCV and DCV for 30 points.  The same 30 points could buy:

 

-          10 levels with a tight group (OK, I get more flexibility between OCV and DCV, as well as the potential to add DCs, with the tradeoff being loss of DEX rolls, initiative and restriction to a tight group of attacks);

-          6 levels with a broad group of attacks (wow – I can have +1 OCV or DCV, and some DC flexibility just by sacrificing initiative, the other CV and DEX rolls, as long as I stick to a broad group of attacks – is this any kind of bargain?)

-          Almost 4 overall combat skill levels (for 2 points more, I can’t even equal the OCV or DCV, and all I get is some DC flexibility).

 

DEX was the unsung bargain purchase of all editions prior to 5e.  Imagine DEX, no Figured, no DEX rolls, no Initiative, only in HTH.  No one was ever gutsy/cheesy enough to go there, but it would certainly have highlighted what a bargain DEX was.

 

6e sets the price of OCV or DCV at 5 points.  2 and 3 point CSLs are basically unchanged.  5 point CSLs apply to a Large Group of attacks (e.g. a Multipower with more than 3 slots or a Martial Art with more than 3 maneuvers), 8 point CSLs can be used with all HTH or all Ranged attacks and 10 points apply to all combat.

 

Mental skill levels are purchased separately in 6e.

 

Back to the discussion.

 

17 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

You were the one suggesting that "Only for OCV" should be a -1 limitation, making them exactly half the price.  Are you changing that stance?

 

I am suggesting that skill levels are overpriced.  Any ability that no one paying any attention to point efficiency will buy is, IMO, overpriced.  Pre-6e, this was largely hidden by the inability to buy CV outside DEX, and a general acceptance of "appropriate" DEX ranges for various types of characters.  But how often did any edition feature a 20 DEX character buying Overall Skill Levels to show "really great in combat", rather than a 35 DEX to get the higher CV much more efficiently?

 

A 10 point skill level "only for OCV" priced at -1 would generate the same 5 point cost for +1 OCV.  If we revised the cost of skill levels to 8 points, I would call "only for OCV -1/2 (to still be close to 5 points for +1 OCV).  However, I have to question why anyone would buy skill levels "only for OCV" when he could just buy +1 OCV.  In any case, there is no compelling reason, IMO, that +1 OCV purchased by way of skill levels should reasonably cost any more, or any less, than +1 OCV purchased directly.

 

DCV is similar, except not having the DCV if you have not allocated your skill levels is problematic.  That issue is easily avoided by assuming DCV only skill levels are always active.

 

Then we get "only to add DCs".  Should that be the same -1 limitation?  At the "all combat" level, that's 10 points for +1 DC, 0 END, with all attacks.  Maybe that's not too far off.  For a Large Group of attacks, we would pay 5 points for the same +1 DC, 0 END.  That's 1 point more expensive than a Martial Arts DC.  Maybe that is not so far off either (and should replace MA DCs).  3 points for +1 DC with a small group of attacks?  That seems more problematic, doesn't it?

 

Many of these issues go away if we follow RAW, however.  From 6e v1 p 71:

 

Quote

With the GM’s permission, characters can put Limitations on CSLs (for example, to build equipment, like a laser sight for a gun). The GM may restrict which types of CSLs a character can Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations. Unless the GM rules otherwise, CSLs with Limitations can only increase the user’s OCV, not DCV or damage. (Limitations such as “Only For OCV” or “Only For DCV” are not legal for CSLs; if a character wants that, he should just buy more of the OCV or DCV Characteristics.)

 

This also implies that limited OCV is the more appropriate (or only appropriate) build for, say, +3 OCV, HTH only.

 

It does, however, remind me of the "figured characteristics are too expensive bought on their own and too cheap from STR and CON, so we'll restrict you to only sell back one, rather than fix the pricing inequities.

 

17 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

That might be true only if your opponents are the sole determinants of the nature of the combat.  A character does have some control over the tactics he chooses.  You can choose to pick up the hot coal without permission from your enemy.

 

You can only pick up a hot coal if there is a hot coal lying around to be picked up.  In how many typical combat scenarios do you have a pile of hot coals waiting around to be picked up?  And how much damage do they do as a thrown weapon, anyway?  Would I choose this tactic over a typical Supers attack?  Is it more damaging than a handgun or a bow?  This seems like an incidental benefit at most.

 

17 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

But you don't set the limitation value on your own.  The GM is involved, too.  That's why I said "normal" circumstances.  If you set your "Not in an Intense Magnetic Field" at -2, you're asking the GM to put intense magnetic fields all over the campaign world.  If the GM doesn't want to do that, then you don't get to take it as a -2 limitation.

 

Yup.  Either the GM agrees that there will be enough chunks of your dead planet around to justify the limitation value you have suggested, or decides that it will not be that common in this game, so the limitation must be reduced.

 

I can see a few ways to address that intense magnetic field.  "They are all over the place" is one, but it messes with real-world dynamics.  A second would be downgrading how intense it has to be (and having a lot of battles on construction sites with those big magnet cranes, scientific research centers with magnetics involved, etc.).  A third is to allow broad knowledge that intense magnetic fields mess up the character's powers (either at the outset of the game or in an early reveal), so many opponents who would not typically be able to generate intense magnetic fields make the effort to acquire the tech when expecting trouble from that character (how many of the Flash or Green Lantern rogues gallery carry kryptonite?).

 

Like many character creation issues, a discussion between player and GM as to how, exactly, we vision this playing out in-game can solve a lot of issues in advance.

[dsatow]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

To the former, I believe because skill levels specifically with Multiple Attack are prohibited (6e v2 p 77).  To the latter, that's really the thrust of the discussion.

OK, according to the RaW on 6e2p77 (thanks for the reference!), then you just put a limitation on the 2 point level, only for multiattack on one of the attacks in the multiattack.  This would probably be a -1 limitation making it 1 point per +1 OCV.

[PhilFleischmann]

Hmmm...  OK, well, it seems those higher-cost CSLs are indeed overpriced.  Maybe they'll fix it in 7e.    Does 6e still include the option of Normal Characteristic Maxima?  Or some other type of characteristic maxima?  Under those circumstances, where OCV/DCV above a certain value either costs double, or is not available at all, then CSLs become viable again.

 

But back to my earlier issue:  2-point and 3-point CSLs are "basically unchanged", even though 3-point CSLs have nine times as many ways to be used.

 

And back to the real issue of this thread (sorry for the side-track):  It seems to me to be perfectly appropriate to by PSLs against the OCV penalty for Multiple Attacks, but they have to be bought based on the maneuvers/attacks that they apply to.  For example, a 1.5-point PSL reduces the penalty for Multiple Attacks for one attack form, for example Strike - a basic HtH punch.  So if you buy 2 1.5 PSLs with Strike for the Multiple Attack penalty, that costs you 3 points, and you can punch two opponents in a phase for no penalty, but if you want to punch more opponents, the penalties start adding up.  And if you only punch one opponent, you don't get any bonus.  And for a 3-point PSL, you can reduce the Multiple Attack penalty for all your attack forms.

 

That's assuming PSLs didn't change in 6e.  In essence, Multiple Attack is not a maneuver, it's a circumstance that carries a penalty.

[ScottishFox]

22 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

 New motto for 2020 for me is less getting hidebound for RAW and more of does this make sense in a common sense or dramatic sense?

 

Literally nobody I play Fantasy HERO with thinks the rules need more clarifications for edge cases.  I think the Grab section of Vol 2 is 6+ pages for that single maneuver.

 

Admittedly, I really liked 4th edition and to a lesser extent 5th edition.

 

The rules for 6th edition make sense - but it's so granular even my nerdiest player balked at the two part rules encyclopedia.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, dsatow said:

OK, according to the RaW on 6e2p77 (thanks for the reference!), then you just put a limitation on the 2 point level, only for multiattack on one of the attacks in the multiattack.  This would probably be a -1 limitation making it 1 point per +1 OCV.

 

RAW, 2 point levels cannot be limited. 

 

Quote

With the GM’s permission, characters can put Limitations on CSLs (for example, to build equipment, like a laser sight for a gun). The GM may restrict which types of CSLs a character can Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations. Unless the GM rules otherwise, CSLs with Limitations can only increase the user’s OCV, not DCV or damage. (Limitations such as “Only For OCV” or “Only For DCV” are not legal for CSLs; if a character wants that, he should just buy more of the OCV or DCV Characteristics.)

 

This, to me, makes limited CSL's useless.  Just put bonus OCV on the power, with a Focus and for one power only.

 

Really, do we even need 2 point levels, if we simply assign a limitation of -1 1/2 to OCV, only for one attack?

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

34 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

This, to me, makes limited CSL's useless.  Just put bonus OCV on the power, with a Focus and for one power only.

 

Really, do we even need 2 point levels, if we simply assign a limitation of -1 1/2 to OCV, only for one attack?

It's an artifact of the bleak days when you couldn't just buy OCV and had to go through DEX or CSLs instead.  I fully agree that we don't need them, but I feel we don't need CSLs in general now that CV can be purchased directly so my opinion is a bit biased. 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Hmmm...  OK, well, it seems those higher-cost CSLs are indeed overpriced.  Maybe they'll fix it in 7e.    Does 6e still include the option of Normal Characteristic Maxima?  Or some other type of characteristic maxima?  Under those circumstances, where OCV/DCV above a certain value either costs double, or is not available at all, then CSLs become viable again.

 

NCM is suggested as a possible optional rule.  To me, pricing should not be based on "perhaps there will be an optional rule in play", but "using the standard rules, these costs are reasonably balanced".  NCM can then be an optional rule, with its own options for changing the costs of other abilities.

 

NCM has never worked right, especially when the "characteristics with a limitation are not subject to doubled costing" got added in.

 

2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

But back to my earlier issue:  2-point and 3-point CSLs are "basically unchanged", even though 3-point CSLs have nine times as many ways to be used.

 

Not sold that they are appropriately priced, as indicated above.  However, if we accept +1 OCV with a single attack as -1 1/2 on OCV, and 8 points for an "all combat" level based on a Multipower concept, we should be able to price out other options.

 

Let's start with 30 levels as a 150 point pool with three flexible slots (OCV, DCV and 'floating damage').  That's 240 points for

30 levels, or 8 points per level.  [big numbers to make limitations easy with no rounding).

 

If we make them "only when using one specific attack, -1 1/2) we have a pool costing 60, and 12 points per slot, so 96 points/30 is about 3 points per level.  That makes the 3 point level less versatile, as it can only be used for one attack/maneuver, not three.

 

Proceeding from there, if we apply a -1 limitation for the 3 point "tight group/3 maneuvers", that gets us 75 points + 15 per slot = 120, or 4 points per level (one point more than RAW).

 

Continuing that logic with only HTH or only ranged being -1/2, we get a pool cost of 100 + 20 per level = 160, so let's call that 6 points per level.

 

That gives us 5 points per level for a broad group of attacks, between small group and all HTH/Range.

 

So we end up with:

 

+1 OCV (or DCV) with a single attack priced at 2 points - no change (5e or 6e)

 

+1 Skill Level with a single attack priced at 3 points - an option which does not currently exist

 

+1 Skill Level with a tight group priced at 4 points - increased  by 1 point over current RAW (5e or 6e)

 

+1 Skill Level with a broad group priced at 5 points - no change (6e; does not really exist in 5e)

 

+1 Skill Level with all ranged or HTH priced at 6 points - 2 points less than 6e (1 point more than 5e)

 

+1 Skill Level with all combat priced at 8 points (same as 5e; rolled back 2 points from 6e)

 

The only one that really bothers me is 6 points (2 levels) to add 1 DC at no END to a single attack.  Maybe those levels should allow OCV or DCV, but not DC enhancement.  That would drop the cost for 30 levels from 96 to 84 (so 3 points is still in the ballpark), and avoid making skill levels a lower-priced ability to buy up a single attack's DC.

 

A Multipower of 9 50 AP attack powers, all fixed slots, costs 50 + 45 = 95.  That's just shy double for 9x the uses of those points.  And it could be any 9 abilities - they don't have to be attacks. 

 

2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

And back to the real issue of this thread (sorry for the side-track):  It seems to me to be perfectly appropriate to by PSLs against the OCV penalty for Multiple Attacks, but they have to be bought based on the maneuvers/attacks that they apply to.  For example, a 1.5-point PSL reduces the penalty for Multiple Attacks for one attack form, for example Strike - a basic HtH punch.  So if you buy 2 1.5 PSLs with Strike for the Multiple Attack penalty, that costs you 3 points, and you can punch two opponents in a phase for no penalty, but if you want to punch more opponents, the penalties start adding up.  And if you only punch one opponent, you don't get any bonus.  And for a 3-point PSL, you can reduce the Multiple Attack penalty for all your attack forms.

 

That's assuming PSLs didn't change in 6e.  In essence, Multiple Attack is not a maneuver, it's a circumstance that carries a penalty.

 

6e PSLs cost 1 point for a negative OCV modifier with a single attack, 2 for a specific modifier with a tight group or 3 for a specific modifier for all attacks.

 

They specifically cannot be used to offset maneuver penalties, and Multiple Attack is both a maneuver and specifically precluded from specific CSLs.  Practically, however, the issues go away if we stop treating Multiple Attack as a maneuver.  As it is not a maneuver, PSLs become relevant and CSLs become irrelevant.

 

That +1 OCV for a single attack is basically +1 OCV (only for 1 attack, -1 1/2), only when Multiple Attacking (-1), only to offset the OCV penalty (-1).  Not quite the -4 we need to get 5 points down to exactly 1 point, but reasonably close - and the same as any other PSL like "only to offset range penalties with a single attack".

Edited December 27, 2019 by Hugh Neilson
Correct 5e ref as pointed out by Phil

[Hugh Neilson]

12 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

It's an artifact of the bleak days when you couldn't just buy OCV and had to go through DEX or CSLs instead.  I fully agree that we don't need them, but I feel we don't need CSLs in general so my opinion is a bit biased. 

 

The only thing a CSL does that we can't directly duplicate is that floating DC.  If we accept a "floating DC" with a cost of 10 points, we can eliminate CSLs in favour of a Multipower, and/or add CSLs to Talents instead of Skills.

[PhilFleischmann]

19 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

NCM is suggested as a possible optional rule.  To me, pricing should not be based on "perhaps there will be an optional rule in play", but "using the standard rules, these costs are reasonably balanced".  NCM can then be an optional rule, with its own options for changing the costs of other abilities.

No argument there.  Although the intent could have been that these "overcosted" CSLs were intended for use only in games with NCM, and that in games without NCM, characters would just buy up CV normally.  But of course, if that was the intent, they probably should have said so.

 

21 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Let's start with 30 levels as a 150 point pool with three flexible slots (OCV, DCV and 'floating damage').  That's 240 points for 30 levels, or 8 points per level.  [big numbers to make limitations easy with no rounding).

I hate to open up another whole can of worms, but I've had a problem with the cost of flexible slots for many years.  I maintain that they're too expensive - at least relative to fixed slots.  This particular multipower is a perfect illustration of why.  You could build the same functionality with 90 fixed slots of one level (5 points) each, if we don't round up these slots, they cost 1/2 point each.  So that's 45 points for all the slots.  And thus the whole MP only costs us 195 points.  If you're concerned about the 1/2-point slots, and insist they all must be rounded up to 1 point, then we can have just 6 of these slots (costing 1 point and having 5 points of power in them), 2 for each of the three level options, and then the remaining levels can be represented in 2-level (10-point) slots, costing 1 point each without any rounding.  So that's 6 5-point levels costing 1 each, and 42 10-point levels costing 1 each, for a total of 150 + 6 + 42 = 198 points for the same functionality.  And if we skip the 5-point slots and make them all 10-point slots, then we only lose the functionality of being able to put odd numbers of levels into each function - without any rounding at all.  We could have 14 levels in OCV, 16 in DCV, but we couldn't have 15 in OCV and 15 in DCV.

 

37 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

+1 Skill Level with all ranged or HTH priced at 6 points - 2 points less than 6e (not a 5e option IIRC)

This was available in 5e for 5 points.

 

39 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

6e PSLs cost 1 point for a negative OCV modifier with a single attack, 2 for a specific modifier with a tight group or 3 for a specific modifier for all attacks.

So they reduced the cost from 1.5 to 1.  I guess I can live with that.  Now, for 2 points, you can punch at -0 once or twice in a phase.  Or for 2 points, you can punch once in a phase at +1, or twice in a phase at -1.  Seems pretty reasonable.

 

43 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

That +1 OCV for a single attack is basically +1 OCV (only for 1 attack, -1 1/2), only when Multiple Attacking (-1), only to offset the OCV penalty (-1).  Not quite the -4 we need to get 5 points down to exactly 1 point, but reasonably close - and the same as any other PSL like "only to offset range penalties with a single attack".

It seems to me that "Only when Multiple Attacking" and "Only to offset the Multiple Attacking OCV penalty" is double-dipping.

[Hugh Neilson]

24 minutes ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I hate to open up another whole can of worms, but I've had a problem with the cost of flexible slots for many years.  I maintain that they're too expensive - at least relative to fixed slots.  This particular multipower is a perfect illustration of why.  You could build the same functionality with 90 fixed slots of one level (5 points) each, if we don't round up these slots, they cost 1/2 point each.  So that's 45 points for all the slots.  And thus the whole MP only costs us 195 points.  If you're concerned about the 1/2-point slots, and insist they all must be rounded up to 1 point, then we can have just 6 of these slots (costing 1 point and having 5 points of power in them), 2 for each of the three level options, and then the remaining levels can be represented in 2-level (10-point) slots, costing 1 point each without any rounding.  So that's 6 5-point levels costing 1 each, and 42 10-point levels costing 1 each, for a total of 150 + 6 + 42 = 198 points for the same functionality.  And if we skip the 5-point slots and make them all 10-point slots, then we only lose the functionality of being able to put odd numbers of levels into each function - without any rounding at all.  We could have 14 levels in OCV, 16 in DCV, but we couldn't have 15 in OCV and 15 in DCV.

 

We find a simple answer in the RAW 6e v1 p 398

 

Quote

However, a slot in a Power Framework cannot add to or modify a slot in the same or another Power Framework, or the same or another Power Framework as a whole.

 

So you get the single highest +X OCV slot in use. 

 

24 minutes ago, PhilFleischmann said:

This was available in 5e for 5 points.

 

It's the midpoint between 3 and 5 that is missing, then.

 

24 minutes ago, PhilFleischmann said:

It seems to me that "Only when Multiple Attacking" and "Only to offset the Multiple Attacking OCV penalty" is double-dipping.

 

I'm looking for a broader structure to build from this, so "only for specific maneuver" is one limitation, and "only to reduce specific penalty" is a second.

 

This construct is

 

"only for Multiple Attacks" and "only reduces OCV penalty"

 

but we might also have

 

"only for Strike" and "only reduces range penalty" applied to only a Blast.

 

We probably do need to look at PSL's, though.

 

Seems like they are:

 

 - only with specific attack (which we have set at -1 1/2);

 - only with specific maneuver (seems like this could vary, but setting Strike and Multiple Attack separately creates at least a couple of options for each power, so -1 seems reasonable)

 - only to offset specific penalty (-1 again seems reasonable)

 

That gets us roughly 1 point to offset a specific penalty for one attack with a specific maneuver;

any maneuver with a single attack becomes 1.43 - maybe call that +2/3 points;

Tack on a "tight group of attacks" at -1/2 and we get -1 1/2, or 2 points, to offset 1 specific OCV penalty with a tight group

Make it any attack and maneuver, with a specific penalty, and we are looking at 2.5 (so 5 points for +2) instead of 3 points.

 

[PhilFleischmann]

However, a slot in a Power Framework cannot add to or modify a slot in the same or another Power Framework, or the same or another Power Framework as a whole.

This seems to contradict the whole Combined Attack rule, as well as the very raison d'etre of Multipowers.  And it seems to prevent the very construct you presented:  If some of those levels are applied to OCV and some are applied to extra damage, then I'm adding extra OCV to the extra damage in the same attack, from two slots in the same Multipower.

 

If I pay for 150 points in my MP pool, I expect to be able to use 150 points in my MP pool.

 

(But this is probably a topic for a different thread.)

[Hugh Neilson]

The OCV does not modify the damage, nor does  the damage modify the OCV.  As neither slot modifies the other, they can be used simultaneously.  The Multipower cannot, however, have "+ xd6 Blast" that adds to another slot "in the same or another Power Framework", so taking 20 individual slots of 1d6 Blast would mean, at best, firing off 20 individual 1d6 Blasts as a Combined Attack, not getting a single 20d6 Blast.

 

That 150 point pool could access 12d6 of Blast (60 points), 8d6 of Flash (40 points) and 5d6/5DEF Entangle (50 points), and combine the three into a Combined Attack.  The individual Powers (build mechanic) are not being modified by any of the other Powers/slots.  This was specifically not permitted in 5e.  I recall addressing that back in the SETAC days and suggesting that, provided the Framework would permit the powers to be used together otherwise, the character should be able to combine multiple Framework slots into a single Combined Attack.  That was the rule that eventually made it into 6e.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Quote

A character may have two Power Frameworks, or two slots in the same Framework, that both add to or affect the same ability bought outside any Power Framework (or the same Combat or Martial Maneuver, or the like). For example, a character could have a Multipower slot of +10 PD, and a Variable Power Pool slot of +15 PD, that both added to his PD, since his PD is not in any Power Framework and the two powers are not adding to each other.

FRED p310, 6e1p399

[PhilFleischmann]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The OCV does not modify the damage, nor does  the damage modify the OCV.  As neither slot modifies the other, they can be used simultaneously.

And none of the slots in the construct I gave modify each other.  They are all added to an attack or maneuver or characteristic (OCV/DCV) outside of the framework.

 

As per the FREd quote Gnome supplied.

[Grailknight]

The Multipower rules are not written to balance Skills in slots. Skills in a framework are a GM discretion ruling, not RAW so naturally the balance will be off.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, Grailknight said:

The Multipower rules are not written to balance Skills in slots. Skills in a framework are a GM discretion ruling, not RAW so naturally the balance will be off.

 

No one is proposing Skills in slots.  The proposed builds envision  Characteristics in slots, which is a legal construct.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

And none of the slots in the construct I gave modify each other.  They are all added to an attack or maneuver or characteristic (OCV/DCV) outside of the framework.

 

As per the FREd quote Gnome supplied.

 

OK, I will start with the statement that the results are not really appropriate - may as well just get rid of the "no slot can modify another slot" rule, or just make all slots Flexible automatically and avoid the need to chunk the abilities up into 10 point blocks.  Alternatively, one could simply view that MP with identical abilities purchased multiple times as avoiding the rules for Fixed and Flexible slots and disallow it.  If I recall correctly, at least one older edition included a rule that you could not have the exact same Power in more than one Multipower slot.  That would also be an easy fix, although it is not in 6e. I wonder whether that was intentional.

 

It's not in the errata.  I posted a Rules Question so that Steve can confirm the approach is RAW legal.

 

The "half point" issue creates a further question, as the minimum cost for anything is 1 point (p 13).  However, that's easy to get around - all we need is a single slot with +1 OCV and +1 DCV, or two slots, one with +1 OCV and one with +1 DCV, and we can again have any combination desired.

 

So what does that make our 30 levels, 150 point pool with three flexible slots (OCV, DCV and 'floating damage')?  We need 15 floating damage slots, 15 +2 OCV slots, 15 +2 DCV slots and let's assume 1 slot each for +1 OCV and DCV.  That's 197 points for 30 levels, so we are down to about 6.5 points per level. 

 

Of course, the reality is that the cost of that "floating DC" is a kludge to begin with, used to get around the need to buy a slot for every possible attack which could be augmented, which comes with the issue that those would not cost 10 points per DC, so we could get a better tradeoff for adding DCs, or a higher cost for adding yet more attack slots to the MP.  Given the current structure of skill levels, I think assuming it is 10 points, at least for this purpose, is the most rational approach.

[PhilFleischmann]

Let me clarify:  I am not actually suggesting that this or any other Multipower be built this way.  Even if one interprets the rules to allow it, no GM should.  The flexibility of Flexible Slots is worth something.  I simply claim that it is not worth as much as the RAW charges.  IMO, a Flexible Slot is not worth twice the cost of a Fixed Slot - for the actual utility you get.  As a result, I find very few characters, both published and made by players I've played with, have Flexible Slots in their Multipowers.

 

As I said, it's another whole can of worms, for a different thread.  But in short, I'd say that Flexible Slots should cost about 50% more than Fixed Slots.  So with a 60-point pool, Fixed slots (that use the whole pool) will cost 6 points, and Flexible slots that can use the whole pool should cost 9.  Or something close to that.