nexus

Re: Omcv 1?

Re: Omcv 1?

Re: Omcv 1? OMCV is an odd beast. Its well defined but has exactly one function and that function is exceptionally specialized for a characteristic. It's only useful to certain characters and not in all campaigns To use some of the arguments brought up against Comeliness perhaps that indicates it should be something other than a Characteristic.

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

Re: Omcv 1? Hm... Maybe set OMOCV to 0 for anyone that doesn't have a Mental Power/Power that uses it? They get those 3 points for free, like Mental Powers provided Mental Awareness. So the Latent Mentalist Talent You're considering could be priced 1d6 of Telepathy Only to gain active MOCV/Mental Power Perks -2 That's kind of dangerous "something for nothing thinking" though.

Re: The 2nd REALLY important 6th edition question I think establishing minimums as a means of recreating the effect of Figured characteristics will have an interesting effect on character generation. Since Players will be, for lack of a better term, forced to invest a certain amount of their points in Secondaries according to how much they increase Primary Chars such campaigns might see more "human" levels there (with the likely exception of Con which has a direct combat function, Strength for Brick concepts and Ego* for mentalists) with more points invested in Secondary Chars as needed instead of required and, of course, powers and skills. This might be a boon or a flaw depending on your perspective *I'm not entirely sure about Ego being increased particularly high since the MCVs are independent What might make for an interesting experiment is to establish Maximums on secondary chars based on the level of Primaries.,,

Re: Omcv 1? Only if your campaign is using hit location and, more subjectively, if 10 OCVs are going to be as relatively common in this 6th with more CVs starting at 3 and CSLs slightly more expensive.

Re: Omcv 1? There are but they are a little extreme (EDM usable as an attack isn't a common ability, IME) and likely to be uncommon. A villain that forces people into the Mindscape, for example isn't just going to "punish" people that sold back their base OMCV its going to punish, to some extent, anyone that focused primarily on Physical combat IE: Any non mentalists unless only the character's with lowered MOCV are targeted. That a risk with any of the methods I can think of. OMCV is just kind of a special snowflake among the new attributes that brings some unique baggage to the table. IMO. It's a characteristic that only certain character concept have any use for. This wasn't as blatantly an issue when it was a derived value instead of a true characteristic as you couldn't sell it back. Of course there were opportunities gained that some felt were worth the shift.

Re: Omcv 1? I think it would have been better to define base CVs as 0 (and do the same for hitting a hex/1 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter area). If I decouple I might use that as a House Rule.

Re: A Thread for Random Videos Total Eclipse of the Heart: Literal version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj-x9ygQEGA&feature=related

Re: Omcv 1? The thing is, IMO, with OMCV most non mentalist characters do have a valid reason to sell it back: It doesn't exist for them. Aside from the game convention that all characters have it as characteristic....they don't have it. It controls abilities that they don't possess. Every other characteristic is something that any character will use over the course of their existence, at least once at some point with two exceptions: OMCV: It serves no function accept to govern accuracy of mental attacks. If your character has no mental powers or mentally targeted powers they have no reason to even possess that attribute again aside from mechanical convention. DMCV: If there are no mental powers or powers that target it this doesn't exist in the figurative reality of the setting. It doesn't effect anything. Now it's perfectly valid to say "3 is the base ability of any normal thinking being of normal mental acuity" but that's really a campaign dependent choice and up to the GM, IMO. IOW, would you allow a character is a avowed pacifist and never thrown a punch in his life to sell back their OCV? Most non mentalists are in the same position when it comes to MOCV. It's part of the flexibility that comes with decoupling. One solution (if you consider this a bug) is to give OMCV something to do that is more universal than its base function.

Re: Omcv 1? Not if you just sell back MOCV. It has no function if the character has no offensive mental powers

Re: Omcv 1? I'm not sure it's cheesy. It does make a certain degree of narrative since that if a character has no mental powers or abilities that rely on MOCV that it would be deficient. They've never used it the way an avowed pacifist character that's never so much as thrown a punch might sell back their OCV, that's just more risky. You could call it natural talent/raw "human" ability but saying MOCV is deficient is just as justifiable. I don't think those points should be dumped into MDCV with justification like any other purchase but if its something every non mentalist does then its not too bad, IMO. I suppose one way to make it count might be to require an MOCV vs MOCV roll to attempt to Break out of a Mental Power either on the first try or every time. Or maybe restructure break out all together and make it take MOCV into account.

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier I wonder if might be worth House Ruling a small Adder for Entangle that eliminates bonuses from MA and Contortionist.

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier IIRC, that is left up to the GM judging from the sfx of the entangle* on a case by case basis but I think default assumption is that a character can apply a Escape Exert based maneuver on an Entangle. *And the maneuver really. There's nothing that says a character's martial escape might not represent a brief surge "chi" that lends them strength or magically making the body slightly amorphous in a really wild MA campaign.

Re: Omcv 1?

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

Re: Reactions to 6e I did like the option to Reflect HTH attacks. That's been needed for awhile, IMO.

Re: Reactions to 6e I'll be using a FrankenHero too I think. There's some interesting new stuff in 6th edition but nothing that turned me against 5th.

Re: Reactions to 6e I agree. I feel the default should be that it doesn't with a Limitation (maybe -1/2 or even -1 depending on how common mega stealthy types are in the campaign) if Stealth skills do. Other wise sfx would determine what does and doesn't work. If your ability is short range precog maybe only an invisibility type power would work. If it's "sensing hostile chi/power level/whatever" then some skill at a manipulating chi might apply which could, of course be assumed to be a PART of Stealth training in wuxia/anime martial arts/appropriate setting by the GM

Re: Reactions to 6e Guess I've been ignoring it for so long I assumed it wasn't there. And I see no reason to stop now.

Re: Reactions to 6e If I adopt decoupled DCV in my 5th hybrid I'll probably do some thing like this. Seems reasonable Not sure I like that either. SOMETHING should work against Danger Sense but I'm not sure Stealth should, at least not be default. I can see it being a Limitation on Danger Sense.

Re: Reactions to 6e Well as it turns out I did get a copy (Belated and highly unexpected birthday gift) so I may post some thoughts here.

Re: 6th Edition Question: New Powers? Or Defenses with Instant Healing as the sfx