Hugh Neilson

A lot depends on the "advancement" desired. D&D is very much a "zero to hero" model. Most of its d20 descendants are similar. If the average CV, defenses and DC of the campaign continue to rise, the PCs simply need to match that rise. Most growth of character power is an illusion, as the opposition simply grows in power to match the PCs - the world becomes more powerful as they do. Most Hero games have caps to various key elements. These can be raised as the campaign progresses, and we see the PCs get more powerful (as do their adversaries). There's a bit of pushback in some systems now - for example, D&D's move to "bounded accuracy" instead of constantly rising AC and BAB, to maintain some threat from mooks as the heroes advance. Practically, if we dropped the OCV and DCV of every character in a game by 3, dropped their DCs by 3 and their defenses by 10, they would interact in much the same way after this "deflation" than before. Only their relative power over some arbitrary baseline (normals, for example) would change. The focus on growth in power often decreases any focus on actual role playing and character personality. I've seen some games keep the xp, but keep the caps largely constant. Characters grow in breadth, perhaps growing up to the caps in any areas they did not initially max out, but do not increase in overall power. The system can accommodate many different styles.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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".

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

I don't believe he could use most of his powers in pure energy form. He needed the suit to Blast, and he seemed to move faster in the suit than in energy form. In his first appearance, he cut loose with such force that he exited the suit entirely and was left discorporated. In his next, he had "pulled together", but could not be detected or communicate. He somehow made his way to Legion HQ, where he was able to scout around and discover the plot against the Legion, and he indicated he could enter a person and communicate with them, but he could not pass through the force field around his suit (on display), nor the similar field created by the legion flight rings. The villain was an android who could not be communicated with. That suggests a Multiform as he has a very different power suite within the suit than outside it. Although he changed over time - I believe he eventually was able to physically manifest without the suit.

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.

In fairness, Doc's model, like all which have come before, impose a pretty heavy OCV penalty for moving a bit faster. None of those earlier mechanics allowed you to get an OCV bonus by acting later either. The tradeoff makes these a desperation play to me.

We have Hipshot in 6e, but it is restricted to +1 DEX for -1 OCV. Wasn't there an older version, Hurry, in 5e, maybe 4e as well? Found the 5e version - it was a -2 penalty to attack, skill and characteristic rolls to add 1d6 DEX.

I think a lot depends on how one interprets "that was always the rule". Back when 2e was released, there was an article where the designers referred to spreading an energy blast as a section "lost when Magneto attacked our disks". That is, we intended to include it, so that was how the game was intended to work, but we did not include it, so it was not the official rules. Regardless, being able to use multiple Attack Mechanics together as a single Attack Action (Combined Attack) makes sense to me. Adding Linked, which reduced the cost of certain Attack Mechanics if choice of when to use them was reduced then makes logical sense (where "Linked lets you do this when you otherwise could not" does not make as much sense). There has always been a substantial cost discount available if you restricted the ability to use multiple powers at the same time - the Multipower. What is the benefit of paying for two or more attacks outside a Multipower, rather than using Fixed slots in a Multipower, if Combined Attacks cannot be used? For that matter, what is the benefit of putting those Attack Powers in Flexible slots, instead of Fixed slots, if that does not allow you to mix & match in a Combined Attack? Whether the Combined Attack was the rule since 1e or still was not allowed in 6e, to me it is a logical rule which provides balance between the costs of different approaches to purchasing multiple attack powers.

Doesn't seem like an edition issue, but I definitely agree with ensuring the published character will work in my game. That said, how much self-confidence do you expect from someone who takes a job as a "Pawn"? Do they have higher EGO? Perhaps they were designed on the assumption of a game that allows EGO to be used to defend against PRE attacks. Isn't there already a modifier to the PRE attack for being at an advantage or a disadvantage? I think it's a fixed modifier, but it seems reasonable that a greater perceived advantage would translate into a greater modifier.

So what? If the individual movies are solid and worth watching, why do they need to tie together for a larger universe? That worked for Marvel, but it's not the only way to make good movies, even good superhero movies. When the going gets tough for Aquaman, why doesn't he just call in Superman for an assist, if everything is connected?

It's long enough back and hearsay that I don't recall the source, but Chris has been around long enough to be a likely source. It's odd that we never saw a reference to any published character using this approach, but a lot did not list out tactics, and paying for multiple attack powers outside a Multipower was never very common.

The practical reality is that Canadian elections are won or lost in central Canada. It holds 199 of 308 seats in Parliament. The Liberals lost their majority because they lost most of their seats in Quebec, but held on to the huge population in southern Ontario. The electoral map (there's one at https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/results/) shows the sharp division between the regions. 114 of the 157 seats held by the Liberals are in Ontario or Quebec. They hold 15 of 104 seats west of Ontario (17 of 107 if we include northern Canada in there). Much of Quebec went to the Bloc Quebecois, a party which runs candidates only in that province, has separatist history, and focuses exclusively on what is best for that single province. Quebec has threatened separation since about the time of that National Energy Program, and they have received a lot of Federal spending and concessions in those decades. I don't think they or the West (whichever portion one chooses) would win from separation. Will the UK benefit from Brexit? People don't always make rational decisions from a purely objective/economic perspective. Quebec opposes expansion of pipelines, but ignores the recurring disasters when rail cars carrying oil and gas products derail. They came very close to running out of heating fuel during a recent rail strike. Objective, rational decisionmaking, or playing to human emotion to "protect the environment"? On the topic of inflaming emotion to win political points, consider the current treatment of the oil industry in Canada. We can't cater to one economic sector like the oil industry, of course. Just like the government has never provided special deals for aerospace (Bombardier), agriculture, auto manufacturers, forestry, fishing or firms like SNC Lavalin (oh, but they are in Quebec). Oh, wait... We prize diversity and inclusivity, but our Federal government does not speak out, much less take action, against one province banning its employees from wearing any and all religious symbols, as well as imposing more limited restrictions on anyone receiving public services. Oh, but that's Quebec - we wouldn't want to tell them about freedom of religion or anything. There is a distinct double standard. We need to eliminate oil-based fuels due to climate change. We need to switch over to zero emission vehicles. How do we replace hydrocarbons in rail transport, heavy trucks, marine transport or air carriers? That technology is decades away. But we will refuse pipelines and instead import oil from the middle east - where it is produced with considerably less concern for environmental impact.

The other question is whether a combined attack is just one attack. Having a Blast, Flash and Drain is mechanics. If the SFX is one attack, the that is consistent with attacking once in a phase, ending your phase and making a single attack roll in a phase.

Until 5e, the rules contained no explicit reference to Combined Attacks. Linked had been around for many editions, eventually leading to the question why a limitation would allow attacks to be combined if they were not allowed to be combined absent a limitation. There were some at that time who indicated that the original designers intended it to be allowed, but considered it obvious enough to not bear mentioning in the rules (remember when games were 64 - 80 pages, not 640 - 1,800 pages?) Actually, I wonder if Scott Ruggles could share some insights in that regard.

Let's look at this another way. If the player slaps a -1/4 limitation on CON for this purpose, then he is saying "I want my character to be challenged by CON-based things other than being Stunned every four or five game sessions". If he slaps on -1/2, he is saying "that should happen every two or three game sessions". As the GM, either I allow the limitation and commit to making that happen, or I disallow it because I don't expect or want those issues to be as frequent in the game. If, as the GM, I allow you to spend points, that is a social contract that the ability will carry an in-game value commensurate with the points you spent. If I allow you a point discount, I am also entering a social contract that the loss of utility will carry an in-game drawback commensurate with the points you saved.

Multiple Moveby uses both STR and velocity damage multiple times in the same phase. To me, it is an example of a Multiple attack. 6e has removed it, IIRC, as a maneuver and instead provides the "run around him and hit him once for every circle" as a Multiple Attack example. And, again, more complex than how to add your STR and Hand Attack damage to the Multiple Move By? Whether you can use your Martial Arts KA instead of your Normal STR in that Multiple Move By and how we compute that damage, including MA DCs?

The first two are highly campaign-dependent. In a "mutants only" game, I suspect Mutant Powers would have Unified Power (6e) or likely be in an Elemental Control (pre-6e), and already be getting Adjusted together which makes Linked not much of a limitation anyway. If the character is Transformed to an incompetent normal, they have already lost all of their powers, both Growth and Armor, so what makes Linking them any more limiting. This is a case where the technical rules need to stand back and let GM Judgement take the driver's seat.

Sounds like a lot of discussions on these Boards, and on the Internet in general. There's an exchange of opinions, not a resolution, in which some people will participate and others will not. Not sure how that makes it any more or less difficult to use. Is this more complex than, say, adding damage classes? Combined Attack allows a single use of any number attack powers purchased in a manner that they can be used at the same time, as a single Strike maneuver, with a single attack roll, against a single target. Multiple attack applies if the character wants to hit more than one target, use more than one combat maneuver, use multiple types of attack roll (like a mental and a physical attack) and/or use the same character point investment more than once in the phase. See above. Is this more complex than, say, what is legal to purchase in a framework? I don't think anyone said it is not different. Phil said it is no more complex, so no more of a headache, than using one attack power at a time.

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.

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).

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.

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.