PhilFleischmann

Are these numbers correct? Dispel is 3 points per die and Suppress is 10 points per die in 6e? IDHMBIFOM, but IIRC, in 5e, Dispel was 3 and Suppress was 5. As a general rule, I would not allow Dispel or Suppress (or Drain for that matter) to work against natural conditions. Those are meant to work against Powers. The sun going down is not a power. You going into a room with no light is not a power. And to see in the underground cave, IR is somewhat useful, but it doesn't model everything we might want. We might want to be able to see all the objects in the cave, even if they don't radiate any body heat, even if everything in the cave is the same temperature. Now an ACTIVE UV Vision might be the perfect solution in a cave (or closed room). Your eyes emit UV light which then reflects off of things so you can see them. The drawback is that anyone else with UV Vision (even Passive) can see just as well, and especially, can see you as a bright source of light. This lets you see, but it doesn't create light for anyone else to see who doesn't have UV Vision. OTOH, you could define your Regular Sight sense as Active, and then your eyes emit visible light, which you (and everyone around you) can see. In 5e, the Active/Passive choice for a sense had no cost difference, because they felt the advantages and disadvantages cancelled each other out. Assuming this is still the case in 6e, then Creating Light by making your normal sight an Active sense, might be free! The drawback is that your eyes (or some other body part) visibly glows. Other people might laugh and call you names, and not let you join in any reindeer games. Of course, this Active Sight might (should) be considered a different sense, and therefore must be bought from scratch. How much does Normal Sight cost?* And is it different if you make it Active instead of Passive? If it's expensive to do this, then you can buy this Active Sight through a Focus, call it a "flashlight" or a "lantern". Limit to reflect that it works in a smaller area than normal sight in daylight. It can be an OAF Lantern or Flashlight, or it can be an OIF built into the chest of your power armor suit. And I think that does everything we want it to, and nothing we don't. It doesn't see through smoke/fog, or through opaque objects, it's still subject to Flash and stopped by the Darkness power, because it works just like normal sight, except it's active. *Normal Sight should cost exactly as much as the Physical Complication: Blindness gives you. 25 points? So 12 points for a daylight-equivalent lantern, 17 points for a built-into-power-armor daylight-equivalent lantern. Considerably less than that for the much smaller area lit, and/or for the narrower angle of vision than a flashlight provides (maybe call it 60 degrees for a flashlight, as opposed to 120 degrees for normal daylight sight.

That really depends on the precise location of the light source. If there's a light bulb directly in front of my face, than I won't be able to see anything behind it (or much of anything else) because it's shining directly into my eyes. But if the lightbulb is next to me or above my head, I can see outside the area just fine, depending on the distance. There would be some cancelling of the darkness penalty, even complete negation of it if the thing I'm looking at is close enough. Unless the light effect is some comic-book-physics thing where there is no light source, and photons are just being spontaneously created in the air around me. Then I would be well-illuminated, along with everything else in the area, but I wouldn't be able to see out, because the light would be shining in my eyes no matter which way I face.

Was the 20% price picked out of somewhere other than the air? What number would you pick? And where would you pick it from, if not the air? I'm not sure what good that would do. You can do it yourself if you want. The math is very easy. Variable Slots change from costing 20% of the Active Points in them to only 15% (or some other % if you want to pick some other figure out of the air). So a Variable Slot costing 12 points (such as for a 60-point MP), will then only cost 9 points. And the character will have 3 points to spend on other things for each such Variable Slot he has. A Variable Slot costing 8 points (such as for a 40-point MP), will then only cost 6 points. And the character will have 2 points to spend on other things for each such Variable Slot he has. Those extra points might be spent on defenses, on PRE, on any other characteristic, other powers, skills, buying off or buying down limitations, etc., or even on increasing the size of the MP pool (assuming it doesn't go over campaign limits), or maybe even buying off complications. OK, that's sweet. Comparing sweet apples to sweet apples: Fixed: 40 8d6 Blast 20 MP Pool 4 f +4d6 Blast 4 f 4d6 Flash 4 f +20 PD 4 f +20 ED 4 f +20 m Flight 80 Points total Variable: 40 8d6 Blast 20 MP Pool 8 v +4d6 Blast 8 v 4d6 Flash 8 v +20 PD 8 v +20 ED 8 v +20 m Flight 100 Points total Is that second one really 20 points worth of sweetness more than the first? Or to go back to the earlier example: 60 MP Pool 6 f 12d6 Blast 6 f 12d6 Flash 72 points total or 60 MP Pool 12 v 12d6 Blast 12 v 12d6 Flash 84 points total Does this 12 points of additional cost really provide 12 points-worth of additional utility? You said yourself that a 6d6 Blast plus a 6d6 Flash is not nearly as effective as 12d6 of one or the other.

I feel I should mention that I may not have quite as much of a problem with Images Only to Create Light as others here do. I don't think it's the best solution, but it does kind of work, mostly. Yes, I'd prefer CE, or something like it. The problem with Images is that it effectively creates a spotlight, unlike a regular lamp or fire, whatever is in the light is illuminated, and it has a "hard" edge, beyond which nothing is effectively illuminated.. The reduced visibility of things within the light is only based on how far away the viewer is, not how far away the viewed thing is from the light source. Another possible hint might come from the rules for background skills: If you have a base 11- in a Professional Skill, that's enough to get a job, and you don't have to roll at all under normal circumstances. For example, a dentist with PS: Dentist 11-, doesn't have to roll when a patient comes in to have a cavity filled. It's a routine application of the skill, done under normal conditions, so we assume automatic success. We can apply the same idea to perception. If your PER roll is 11- or better after all circumstantial modifiers are applied, and there's no other circumstance that would cause you to fail to see something*, then don't bother rolling - you can automatically see what you're looking at. *Such as being distracted by bad guys shooting zappy guns at you.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. I showed - multiple times now - how the same functionality can be had in a rules-legal way for less cost using fixed slots. And even with non-abusive constructs (not using the "microslots"), how you can achieve very nearly the same flexibility as the variable slots, using fixed slots. But here's one more way to show how flexible slots aren't as useful as their official price suggests: Take a "standard" Starburst-style MP, with a 12d6 Blast as one of the flexible slots. How much of that flexibility is ever going to be used? Will this character ever need to use just s 1d6 Blast? Will there ever be an occasion where he will want to lower his defensive/movement power(s) by 5 points to make a 1 DC attack? Will this character ever fire this Blast at less than 6d6? If not, then he's really only using half the flexibility he paid for. Agreed, but I'm not talking about what should be allowed. I'm talking about how much something should cost. And I'm basing that on the HERO principle that its cost should be commensurate with its utility. I assess that 20% is too high based on all the arguments I've presented. I am not unable to assess whether 18%, 15% or 12.5% is appropriate - I simply haven't made that full assessment yet. And all this is based on my many years of experience with the HERO System. I picked 15% because it seems about right, based on everything I've learned about the system so far. And it's also simpler to calculate than any other percentage between 10 and 20. I do not offer it as *the* answer only because I haven't playtested it extensively, and I am willing to hear arguments for other costs. So far, IMO, 15% seems about right. Well then you're not addressing my question. I was comparing flexibility to raw power. If you aren't including flexibility in either of your two constructs, then it's not really relevant to the question. Exactly my point. The great flexibility of two entirely different attacks only costs 20% of the price of the raw power. Hence the fundamental principle of "Additional Flexibility costs less than Raw Power". To look at it the other way, you could turn that 72-point MP into a single power, a 12d6 Blast, for the same 60 points. Either way, we reduce the cost by 16.7%, but in one case, we're reducing the Raw Power 16.7%, and in the other case, were reducing the flexibility to 0. A huge reduction in flexibility reduced the cost by the same amount as a fairly small reduction in raw power. None of these things exist in a vacuum. What's allowed in a campaign is not directly related to what something should cost. Assuming a campaign maximum of 12d6, you could have a three-fixed-slot MP for 60+6+6+6 = 78 points, or a three-variable-slot MP for 60+12+12+12 = 96 points. Does this variable-slot MP truly offer an additional 18 points worth of utility? That's the only question I'm asking. Campaign limits have nothing to do with it.

I think I've demonstrated the difference in relative value several times now. For the record, I did not say they are worth 1 1/3 x a fixed slot. The figure I was using was 1 1/2. But as I said, that's just a rough guess. 1 1/3 might be better. Or something else entirely. And yes, increasing the cost of fixed slots is also a solution. (Increasing the cost of fixed slots would probably be a more radical change, and a much harder sell.) And yes, I agree that it's not an exact science. I don't know why that's the best comparison, It makes it even harder, and comparing MP to MP seems more apples-to-apples than comparing MP to VPP. But you're right in that enough slots in a MP eventually becomes most costly than a VPP. And this "tipping point" comes much sooner if the MP uses variable slots. Just a reminder, my 15% proposal is just an estimate. 15% is a reasonably round number. Assuming we want to keep fixed slots at 10%, then variable slots have to be more. And as I think 20% is too high, 15% seemed like a good first guess. But it could be 12.5% or 18% or something else. Exactly my point: The raw power is more useful than the flexibility. A 50-point MP with two fixed slots Blast and Flash costs 60 points. The RAW equate this to a 12d6 Blast. The "doubling" of flexibility is only worth +1/5 of raw power. Agreed on the first. But the current price difference between fixed and variable has indeed been problematic to me. Can we drop the campaign maxima please? It's about what you get for the price. Instead of asking "What can you get for the points?", we can ask, "How much does it cost to get to the campaign maximum?" Then both constructs we compare are within that, and we can see that one costs less than the other.

Duke Bushido: I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Nobody downvoted your post. I will downvote your latest one, because you're being flat-out rude and insulting. You said, "Accordingly, we can't ever come to a point of "and this is the right way to do it," because no right way is defined". By this, I assume you mean to say that it is impossible for us to ever figure this out (how to do light and darkness in HERO). I simply asked you why you think this? I think it is quite possible. It's not brain surgery. Mere mortals invented the HERO System, and mere mortals have made great improvements to it over the years, and have figured out ways to simulate and adjudicate all kinds of different effects - even ones that don't exist in the real world and even defy the laws of physics or even common sense. I don't think it needs to be that hard to figure out light and darkness. The "we" I see here are people trying to figure it out. This "we" thinks it can be done. I don't know which "we" thinks that it can't, other than you. Which is why I asked, "Who's we?" and "Why not?"

Which is exactly what I did. I constructed a variation of Hugh's construct from the previous post. I didn't bother repeating the part outside the multipower, because it was exactly the same - I didn't make any changes to that part of it.

AFAIK, there is not even the slightest hint in any of the genre books or setting books or rule books that implies that natural darkness is in any way different in the Turakian Age as opposed to in the modern Champions world. Nor is there any difference in Western Hero vs. Star Hero. Who's "we"? Why not? Just because the rulebooks didn't define it right is no reason to just give up. It really isn't that hard. That's what range penalties are for. They apply to perception as well as targeting of attacks. It's harder to see something that is farther away. Well, there is in the real world. All we have to do is decide how to simulate it with the rules. An additional problem is the "immovable object vs unstoppable force" contradiction of a power that creates light vs a power that creates darkness. I think we all agree that a light-creating power (even a mundane flashlight or candle) should work against natural darkness, but it doesn't work against the Power Darkness. And then there are other effects like fog or obscuring smoke, which could be natural or caused by the Darkness power. Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that we're only interested in natural darkness and the Darkness with the SFX of just "darkness" - taking away all light - not making the air opaque, then we can just define light based on that. A Dispel Darkness power, by default, works against all SFX, from a field of blackness which removes all light, to thick fog, or even a jumbled confusion of bright colors that gets in the way of the real objects that would otherwise be seen. I think this shows that a plain "Dispel Darkness" is not sufficient for creating light.

What stops him? Nothing in the rules stops him. Only the GM can stop him. Because it's 100% within the rules, it clearly shows that FLEXIBLE SLOTS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE, relative to fixed slots. That is the only point I'm trying to make here. It's not about campaign limits, or which powers can be in a framework (Mental Defense is a Special Power, but when you make it Resistant, it's no longer a Special Power?) You know what else is not in the spirit of the rules? Paying significantly more points than the utility is worth. Not getting what you pay for. I am in no way disagreeing with the spirit of the rules. I am disagreeing with the letter of the rules. Specifically the rule that makes flexible slots cost twice as much as fixed slots. He wouldn't be more capable. He'd be spending a more appropriate price for his flexible multipower. To put it another way, he'd be more capable because he'd have some more points to spend on other things. Which would put him on a more equal footing with another character who bought fixed slots (normal, single fixed slots, not the "system gaming" constructs above). Your original construct was 180 points, with my revised cost proposal (which is just an initial estimate) it would be: 70 points for - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight 70 point Multipower v 10.5 +14d6 Blast v 9.9 +22 rPD/+22rED v 9.9 66 meters of Flight = 170.3 points (I kept the decimals just to be transparent about any round-offs.) So the character would have another 10 points to spend elsewhere. Now in this particular example (the "Starburst-type" multipower),you're not likely to see a fixed-slot version of this, since you'll probably need defenses, movement, and attacks all at the same time, much of the time. But if there were such a character, the slots would cost 7, 6.6, and 6.6, respectively, for a savings of (3.5+3.3+3.3=) 10.1. So another 10 points to spend, in effect compensating him for his lack of flexibility. Yes, flexibility is valuable, but it's not worth the same as raw power. And indeed the cost of every other form of flexibility in HERO acknowledges this.

I'm not trying to figure it out. I already know that total darkness is much more than a -4 penalty. I'm offering a way for others to figure it out, in case they aren't convinced. I agree, but the RAW don't. That's why I think I'm being generous. For the sake of the game, I might allow the following: Bright moon & stars = -4 penalty to Sight. Dim moon & stars = -5 (generous - could range up to -7) No light whatsoever = -6 (very generous - should be -8 at least) And this is still subject to modifiers for the object being viewed (or that one is attempting to view). If there's some especially shiny, sparkly object that nicely reflects what little light there may be, you might get some bonus to see it, that will partially counteract the darkness penalty.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about comparing separately purchased powers with a multipower. And I'm also not talking about campaign standards. I'm talking about the cost effectiveness of variable slots in a multipower, as compared to fixed slots in a multipower. See my previous post showing variations on dsatow's defensive multipower. Or we can look at your multipower and come up with similar variants. Yours is 70+14+13+13 = 110 points (with a little bit of rounding). You could have made it slightly simpler and let the rPD/rED go up to 23, and the Flight up to 70 m. So that would be 112 points (70+14+14+14). For those same 112 points, we could have a MP with fixed slots: 70 MP 4f +8d6 Blast 3f +6d6 Blast 3f +20 rPD 3f +20 rED 1f +3 rPD/+3 rED 10v +50 m Flight and 18 m of Flight outside the Multipower. If the GM won't let you have a 22d6 Blast, you can drop one of the first two slots and save 3 or 4 points, assuming the GM will let you have a 16d6 Blast, or at least a 14d6 Blast. Or you can reduce the outside-the-MP Blast and save even more points. Or we can break it down further: 70 MP 4f +8d6 Blast 2f +4d6 Blast 1f +2d6 Blast 3f +10 rPD/+10 rED 2f +10 rPD/+3 rED 2f +3 rPD/+10 rED 4f +40 m Flight 2f +20 m Flight 1f +10 m Flight and 10 m of Flight outside the Multipower. Now we've got the potential of 10 m MORE of Flight, and we've saved 11 points! We could spend those 11 points on +2 rPD, +2 rED, and an extra 1d6 outside the MP. or we could buy 11 more points worth of slots, like: 1f 10 Mental Defense 1f 10 Power Defense 6f Armor Piercing and Area Affect for the base Blast 3f 30 points of Life Support Regardless of the campaign limits, the extra flexibility of variable slots are not worth the extra cost over the price of fixed slots. Therefore, I maintain that variable slots should cost less than they currently do by the RAW. My ballpark estimate is that they should cost 50% more than fixed slots, rather than 100% more, as they do now.

Good to know. I don't see much of that in published characters, however. But if you don't mind, let me take a further look at your defense multipower. It costs a total of 66 points. For that, you could have bought 20 rPD, 20 rED, and +6 REC all the time, at the same time. But you lose the flexibility. You could also have: Multipower (40) 4f Resistant Protection 26 PD 4f Resistant Protection 26 ED 4f Resistant Protection 26 Mental Defense 4f Resistant Protection 26 Power Defense 4f +8 DCV 4f +40 REC 64 points. 2 points less, for 1/3 more power, but less flexibility. Or you could have: Multipower (40) 3f Resistant Protection 20 PD 3f Resistant Protection 20 ED 3f Resistant Protection 20 Mental Defense 3f Resistant Protection 20 Power Defense 3f +6 DCV 3f +30 REC 1f 10 PD 1f 10 ED 1f 10 Mental Defense 1f 10 Power Defense 1f +2 DCV 1f +10 REC 1f 10 points of Life Support 1f 10 points of Barrier For the same 66 points. A good amount of flexibility, with more power than the original MP. I'll take it one step further: Multipower (40) 2f Resistant Protection 13 PD 2f Resistant Protection 13 ED 2f Resistant Protection 13 Mental Defense 2f Resistant Protection 13 Power Defense 2f +4 DCV 2f +20 REC 1f Resistant Protection 6 PD* 1f Resistant Protection 6 ED* 1f Resistant Protection 6 Mental Defense* 1f Resistant Protection 6 Power Defense* 1f +2 DCV 1f +10 REC 1f +1 rPD, +1 rED, +1 Resistant Mental Defense, +1 Resistant Power Defense, +1 PD, +1 ED, +1 Mental Defense, +1 Power Defense 1f +1 DCV, +5 REC * and you can add 1 more point of non-resistant defense into each of these slots,if you like. For the same 66 points. You can have the same maximum of 20 rDEF in any of the four categories, or +6 DCV, or +30 REC, and you can mix-and-match with a high degree of flexibility - and with some extra power thrown in. In the original, you could have +10 rPD and +3 DCV at the same time. In this version, for the same price, you can have +13 rPD and +4 DCV at the same time. Or +13 rPD, +3 DCV, and +5 REC. etc.

That's good to know. You didn't argue that, but Hugh did.

People don't use them even for non-attack powers. Well then why can't you use OCV & DCV in slots to add to your OCV & DCV outside of the MP?

And if you just have plain old +4 Sight Perception, then you can see in darkness as well as a normal person sees in light?

I don't mean to throw more kerosene on this fire, but I've never bought the idea that natural darkness is only a -4 to sight. Sure, in the outdoors, above ground, with the moon and stars, maybe -4 is appropriate (though I'd still call it generous). Though I'd say it should be -5 - -7 if there's no moon, or if trees/mountains/clouds are blocking some or most of that little light. And if you're in an underground cave or "dungeon", or in a closed room with no windows, it should be at least -8. Have a friend go into an interior room (one with no external light source) and place an object somewhere visible. Then you go into the room with your eyes closed. Your friend turns off the light and closes the door. How many PER rolls do you think it will take you to see the object? A normal person in HERO has a sight PER roll of 11-, at -4, that's 7-, which is about a 16% chance. This means it'll take you an average of about six tries to see the visible object in complete darkness. And remember, this is sight, not touch, so feeling around doesn't count. I don't think there's any chance at all to see in complete darkness, and I'm being generous making it only a -8 penalty, which means you can still see on a 3. And if you happen to have better than average vision, like a +1 or +2, you've got a much better chance.

That's my point. Nobody makes Starburst-style MPs because they're just not cost effective compared to Pulsar-style MPs. To constructs that cost the same ought to have the same overall utility. For 90 points, you could have a 60-point Multipower, with five fixed slots (6+6+6+6+6). Or you could have a 45-point Multipower, with five variable slots (9+9+9+9+9). You sacrifice 15 active points in all those powers, for the ability to mix-and-match. I don't think that's a fair trade-off. The variable one is much weaker. For 84 points, you could have a 70-point Multipower, with two fixed slots (7+7). Or you could have a 60-point Multipower, with two variable slots (12+12). I guess that's a bit closer. So I guess variable slots are for having only a few of. The more variable slots you have in your MP, the less cost effective it is. Combined with the rule that you can't add slots to each other, it makes them even less effective, and further discourages their use. And Hugh's example includes PD/ED variable slots along with rPD/rED variable slots - which according to the rule he sited earlier in this thread, can't be added to each other.

We probably don't need to continue speculating on this further until we hear back from the OP.

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.

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.

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.)

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. 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. This was available in 5e for 5 points. 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. It seems to me that "Only when Multiple Attacking" and "Only to offset the Multiple Attacking OCV penalty" is double-dipping.

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.

OK, here's the mathematically equivalent formula to the "Make it by half" crit system, for roll high: For a normal to-hit, you need to roll at least 10 + target's DCV - your OCV. For a critical hit, you need to roll at least half of this number, plus 10.5, or equivalently, you need to roll *higher* than half that number plus 10. So, OCV 7 vs DCV 7 means 11- to hit, 5- to crit. With roll-high, it should come out to 10+ to hit and 16+ to crit. Half of 10 is 5, plus 10.5 = 15.5, so 16+ is a critical hit. Or half of 10 is 5, plus 10 = 15, so you need to roll *higher* than 15 to crit. Checks out so far. OCV 9 vs DCV 7 means 13- to hit, 6- to crit. Roll-high means it should be 8+ to hit and 15+ to crit. Half of 8 is 4, plus 10.5 is 14.5, so you need at least 15+ to crit. (Or you could just add 10 and say it has to be *greater* than 14, rather than *at least* 15.) Still works! OCV 11 vs DCV 7 means 15- to hit, 7- to crit. Roll-high means it should be 6+ to hit and 14+ to crit. Half of 6 is 3, plus 10.5 = 13.5, so 14+ is a critical hit. It works! The usual way of thinking about the roll-high to-hit is your OCV + 3d6 is at least 10 + target's DCV. So another way of determining the critical hit is by adding the 3d6 value again to the (OCV + 3d6). If that's still at at least 21 plus (10 + DCV), then it's a critical hit. ----- Another possibility is to use some different critical hit system for the roll-high method. If you extend the formula out, you could have the case where a 22+ to hit results in a 22+ to crit as well. This isn't really a problem because you can't roll 22 on 3d6. And it's the equivalent of the roll-low system, where if you need 0- to hit, then you also need 0- to crit. Which also isn't a problem for the same reason - you can't roll 0 on 3d6. A very simple crit method would be just "Make is by 5". So, either roll-high or roll-low, if you make your to-hit roll by at least 5, it's a critical. Or you could make it 4, or 6,or whatever seems appropriate. Another simple system, which could be used for either roll-high or roll-low, is to make an extra roll, after the hit, to determine if it's a crit. It could be something as simple as 1d6, on a 1 (or a 6), it's a crit. Or if 1-in-6 is too common, you could make it 2 (or 12) on 2d6, or 2-3 (or 11-12) on 2d6. Or something similar to that.