Surrealone

It usually becomes clear about where the DCV is ... but as a player I find it more interesting when the team has no idea as the combat commences.

Tasha, I tend to agree with you and Ninja-Bear, but the literal verbiage from 4th Edition is pretty clear, hence why I cited it in full -- so it could stand on its own (in addition to my commentary). I won't requite or rehash it again, as those who would argue against the literal meaning would again likely aim their debate at me when, in fact, it should be with the author(s) of the verbiage I quoted. Surreal P.S. The 'R' word was part of the original verbiage. No offense or devaluation intended; that was a direct quote, too.

The game designers included the Rules Rapist in the kinds of people who play the game whose "diversity is good for the campaign" ... so your disagreement isn't with me -- it's with them.

"The Rules Rapist In general, this player mostly wants to create characters with Skills or Powers which bend and exploit the existing rules. These players are constantly redesigning their characters for higher point efficiency. Unless they also have other campaign interests, they're probably not all that involved in roleplaying." --4th Edition "TYPES OF CHAMPIONS PLAYERS Lots of different kinds of people play roleplaying games; each has different aims and requires different treatment in order to be happy. While this diversity is good for the campaign, the GM must work to discover what everyone wants. The following list constitutes most of the different types of Champions players. It's not completely comprehensive, but you'll probably see yourself and most of your players in one or more of these types." -- From the beginning of the very same section of 4th Edition OBSERVATIONS: 1) No one'd discussed redesigning characters here -- so I'm not sure why Shiva felt the Rules Rapist label applied. ​2) It's clear that even the Rules Rapist type was included in the diversity that the game designers indicated was 'good for the campaign' (see above). And it's also clear that the the GM is supposed to consider even that player type's aims and handle those aims appropriately in order for that player type to be happy, just as s/he would other player types. It sounds to me like Shiva is discounting this player type even though it was called out by the designers as a legitimate one. 3) I don't get the sense Shiva has learned to keep that type of player happy while also keeping them from being abusive. That's a soft GM skill that must be learned/practiced...

Now express it as a formula, massey -- since that's what the OP asked for/about.

As a result of failing to catch the round when building a particular character within this thread, that character's player apparently wasted some points on INT (as they were paid for yet had no game effect) ... and missed a few key INT rolls, too.

It was also apparently 'by design', since the designer(s) called out those efficiencies and even taught players to do the same via annotations. Thus, anyone playing with that in mind is playing the game not only as designed, but as instructed by the designers...

I think you misunderstood what I meant by point-crunching. I'm ALL FOR effective builds where every single math calculation catches the round; 1st-3rd editions taught this line of thinking. But I have trouble with a buydown on the basis of 'because I needed 3 more points'; I don't consider that a solid enough reason for a buy-down. Instead, I think buy-downs should fit and/or fit in with the player's vision of the character. That said, I'm a player, not a GM, so just because I have trouble with 'because I needed 3 more points' and don't that, myself, it doesn't mean it's not present in games in which I've played. And frankly, when it happens, I don't consider it a big deal, at all; I just consider it 'bad form'. (After all, the character could just buy whatever it was with after saving 3 experience, or ask the GM to advance some experience points, etc...)

The following are classified as skills ... and are commonly used/relied upon in combat: Analyze Autofire Skills Breakfall Contortionist Combat Driving Combat Piloting Combat Skill Levels Defense Maneuver Fast Draw Language Skill (your people DO talk in combat, right?) Martial Arts Mental Combat Skill Levels Movement Skill Levels Oratory (for PRE attacks) Paramedics Penalty Skill Levels Persuasion (for PRE attacks) Rapid Attack Stealth Teamwork Tactics Two Weapon Fighting Weapon Familiarity That's off the top of my head. Given the above, can you shed some light on why you feel "skills aren't being used in combat to any extent"???

Most (but not all) games in which I've played are run by GMs who do not wish to tell the players the DCVs of their various villians/agents, as doing so could unduly influence the approaches the characters take. As a result, I tend to experience the combat formula as follows: 11 + OCV - 3d6DiceTotal = DCV_that_would_be_hit The GMs then tend to ask for damage totals and tell the players in detail what happened (by describing either the hit on the target after defenses ... or the miss and damage to whatever was struck instead of the target).

I personally don't think it's game breaking or even unbalancing, but I also think it should be done for character-driven reasons, not point-crunching reasons.

Removal of figured characteristics eliminated a number of places where point crunchers could catch the round while expanding the type of characters that could be built .. but it also inflated the point base for play at specific levels and created the very issue that spawned this thread. Was it worth it? Honestly, for the beginning player it was probably a very good thing, as it reduced the 'mathiness' that is commonly complained about by folks new to the system. In addition, most advanced players seem to agree that the capability to easily build characters not easily modeled in earlier versions (e.g. the old martial artist with bad knees, arthritis, and low DCV ... who has insane OCV and a block/throw-based form) makes the changes worthwhile. Shiva: If I had to guess, I'd say you likely don't find the changes worthwhile because no one in your games has stats under base (because that'd be munchkin, right?) and because modeling a less than superheroic martial artist, as above, apparently doesn't occur (or isn't permitted?) in your games using characteristics in combination with complications.

Implied by my previous post was the idea that maybe that particular RAW needs to be reconsidered. Why would a non-mentalist have anything, at all, in a stat it will never use? This is why starting values of zero (0) seem to make more sense for things like MOCV ... and even MDCV.

An unconscious or sleeping mind has a DMCV of 0. Area of effect mental powers must target a DMCV of 3. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect, here, in that an area -- which has no mind, at all, and which can be hit mental shotgun blast style -- is actually harder to hit than an unconscious/sleeping mind that is a smaller target. This becomes an interesting issue to work out when the unconscious mind occupies the very space the AoE mental shotgun blast would target. i.e. The smaller unconscious target is easier to hit than the surrounding space, which is counter-intuitive, even for a mentalist, I'd think. Sure the smaller unconscious target is an open door for a mentalist ... but complete lack of a mind in an open area entails no doors at all. I would think it is easier to attack (with a mental shotgun blast) a space with no doors than would be to attack a smaller space with exactly one door that happens to be open. Yes, I know it's a strange case -- as it's mixing spatial and non-spatial things, but that's the nature of AoE mental attacks ... hence my need for clarity. Given the above, I am curious if the 6th edition rule entailing DMCV 3 for AoE mental attacks is simply an error that needs to be corrected (to AoE mental attacks using DMCV 0)? If not, I'd be very interested in the explanation as to why not, because I'm struggling to comprehend the RAW mechanics on this one (as I hope is obvious with the example, above).

I guess The Shadow King or equivalents don't exist in your game. That's rather what I was driving at: there are plenty of games that are as wide open in terms of possibilities as the Marvel Universe, itself -- despite being at heroic (or even lower) power levels. Heroic game play, itself ... and even genre-specific game play ... doesn't necessarily preclude mental powers. If a competent normal (in terms of physical attributes) who happens to have mental powers has a MCV of '3' ... what, then would an 'above average' normal have (in terms of physical attributes) have? 2? And an 'average' Joe/Jane? 1? All of this would be a lot simpler if the base MOCV/MDCV were 0. I say 0 instead of 1 because of what you already spelled out: MOCV is only useful for someone with offensive mental abilities. (Or, getting a little weird -- mental maneuvers that rely on MOCV-- i.e. 'mental block', anyone? Assuming, of course, that a GM will permit a mental martial art or similar to be built out in his/her game using skills and powers as appropriate -- i.e. using 'chi', anyone?) Since most people don't have offensive mental capabilities, it stands to reason that most people would have 0 for the MOCV characteristic. I can see MDCV having a base ONLY if the underlying assumption is that every mind has an inherent ability to defend itself from mental attack in a 'mental dodge' like fashion. Frankly, I'd think only those with mental abilities and mental awareness should be able to perceive that which the mind would need to dodge -- meaning those without the ability to sense mental abilities should probably have a MDCV of 0 as a base, too. That doesn't, by the way, do away with every mind having an innate ability to resist; breakout rolls address that succinctly for everything except mental blast (which seems fine, to me). I'm hoping for a correction to this issue in a future rev of 6.x, as it would put the issue of MCV sellbacks to bed completely -- so that people who want/need these stats for their characters can pay for them, as usual -- instead of people who do NOT want/need them having the risk of certain GM's taking it to mean they want to be mind-f*cked ... or taking it to mean they're powergaming in a munchkin way when, in fact, they're just building out their character's abilities based on things the character should/shouldn't be able to do. Surreal P.S. And shouldn't area of effect mental powers target MDCV 0? i.e. Why, exactly does an area (which, itself, has no mind) have a higher MDCV than a sleeping mind? That should probably be fixed, too...

I am curious why you assume a game at a heroic level would not have mental powers. The games I tend to play in allow any/all powers and are simply played at point heroic point levels... which makes things like mental powers, invisibility, desolidification, etc. VERY powerful when encountered. Keep in mind, I also play in games where characters can (and do, from time to time) die -- which is rather the point of playing at lower point levels -- things like 4d6 RKA's (i.e. equiv of a surface to air missile) are VERY lethal ... as they should be.

1) There are plenty of people in the military who did not wash out who are a collection of 8's (above average) in stats. People working in the IT/electronic security segments, for example, may be high-INT and high skill but low physical stats. They certainly DO NOT have Navy Seal stats... or training. 2) The table I cited earlier in the thread covers skilled normal all the way to powerful superheroes. It is stock Hero System data you can look up for yourself. I point this out because playing at the skilled normal, competent normal, agent, and such levels are all WELL within the scope of the game as designed, and that table is evidence that the game designers considered play at those levels -- and even took the time to call out rough point totals for those levels. You originally said you expected no stats below base to qualify as superheroic. I notice that your most recent post has downgraded your conversation to 'heroic' instead of 'superheroic', meaning you've backpeddled a bit. Given that there is proof in the RAW (see #2, above) that play at normal levels was, indeed, considered in the game's design -- are you sure you don't want to backpeddle just a bit more, so that you're actually correct instead of merely stating your opinion as if it were fact?

Or two levels of Striking Appearance vs. all!

Hopefully because it makes sense for the character concept. If not, then Houston, you have a problem.

Instant change is a great example. It used to be simple and easy, but now it's a complete pain in the butt to list on a character sheet since, technically, it doesn't exist in its own right, anymore (i.e. it's now just a 'brand' of cosmetic change). Books with piles of pre-built talents, powers, etc. that you can just use ... and reference if needed (rather than having a mechanical build-out on the char sheet) would be a huge boon. It's akin to a mage's list of known spells in 1st and 2nd Ed. AD&D ... where on the character sheet there's a list of known spells, without all the specifics pertaining to components (V, S, M), reagents (for the material part of the spell components), casting time, etc. If anyone's in doubt as to how it works, it gets looked up on the spot. That said, how well did the UNTIL SP DB sell? It's truly a compilation of pre-built things. Did people eat it up or ignore it? If it was ignored was it an organizational problem with the material (i.e. how it was laid out), a genre problem (i.e. clearly hero/superhero), or was the player base sending a message that it wasn't interested in genre books with lots of pre-built talents, powers, etc.?

Sounds like you retaliate in kind (i.e. personally), too given that you're pretty absolute about sellbacks being equivalent to exploits. It also sounds like you now view every (or nearly so) player who might want to do a sellback as a munchkin when, Occam's Razor suggests that it is much more likely that you've simply got trust issues. That said, if 6 pts of sellback makes you stir crazy, then don't allow it. It's your game. I can't say I'd want to join a game where someone making a Professor Xavier type (i.e. gifted and crippled at the same time) or an average joe type (i.e. straight 8's because, well, that's average) that has some extraordinary abilities ... was instantly viewed as undermining, untrustworthy, and/or munchkin. Prejudice (which is what that is) just isn't my thing. But hey, I'm sure you've got players who are down with your style. And you know what? That's what's great about the world. Differences make things interesting! It'd be an awfully boring place if we all held the same view. Salud.

Be careful, because someone will invariably want to know how they can win the pot(s)!

New Coke -- the preferred soft drink of alleged serial rapists everywhere!

Funny! I say that because my idea of the perfect RPG system entails exactly one book ... of 400 pages or less... resting on a coffee table with no other materials around it. That's actually -why- I was drawn to Champions: 1st through 3rd Editions were tiny and 4th Edition ended up being exactly what I was looking for, as one book absolutely could do it all. I think it got kind of ridiculous with 5th Edition (too big) .... and the 2-volume 6th set is absurd in its verbosity ... so colour me pleased to see Champions Complete, since it was a return to what I felt Hero System should be. You just shouldn't need a crate of books or a directory full of PDF's to play any RPG, IMHO.

I don't think it's THAT far gone, Cpt. Besides, the Palindromedary is cracking me up...