bigbywolfe

I thought we were discussing pricing.  Now we seem to be discussing NCM and campaign caps. 
 
I would not expect any character to exceed campaign caps whether or not they are limiting the ability (unless the GM wishes to provide special dispensation for the character, potentially because the limitations render the ability "not unbalancing" to exceed campaign caps.  I also have never seen a GM allow exceeding the campaign caps as long as you pay double, although 6e v1 p 52 notes it as an option.
 
NCM seems like a red herring if we are discussing limited characteristics, since characteristics with limitations are purchased as powers and therefore the doubled cost for exceeding NCM does not apply (6e v1 p 178).  That would be why the cost of Striking Appearance is not doubled.  Striking Appearance is a 40% discount, somewhere between -1/2 and -3/4, or -1 1/2 if it only affects a limited group (2 points per +1d6 and +1 to interaction skills).
 
Isn't using an OPTIONAL rule bending the normal rules?
 
 
NCM does not limit how high you can buy a stat, it changes how expensive it is.  Unless you want to suggest campaign point levels are similarly limiting how high you can buy a stat, since you cannot buy it higher than your total points will permit.
 
Finally, please stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with you, or fails to follow your "logic", is doing so tactically, and just to annoy you or defuse your arguments.  It not only gets in the way of reasonable discourse, it's just tiresome.

How?  Because I've rarely seen a campaign, in _any_ genre, with caps set dead at NCM; that's how it's in question.  In fact, I hadn't seen anything in this thread until your post that suggested otherwise (though I admit I may well have missed something: it got pretty dry pretty quickly)
 
 
Would you then at least do me the favor of telling me what the heck you're talking about?
 
 

I have to admit, I didn't know there a direct connection between NCM and campaign caps. 
 
Though last I knew, the "hard limit" for NCM was mostly set by the GM, with a couple if suggestions (haven't read 4e in a while, but it seems like suggested hard limit was 25 or 30 with a mandatory soft limit at 20,beyond which you paid more. 
 
I don't remember anything tying it to campaign limits, but I remember a built-in "in case you want more" mechanic. 
 
 
Your the same guy who just said the discussion is about allowing a build that exceeds NCM, right?
 
Nah; I'm just picking: ignore that except for the humor it was intended to be.  Except for this part:
 
 
I don't think your example is valid, being as how that became the new standard. 
It didn't get a bonus or a limitation.  The rules were revised and NCM was raised. 
 
So is this an invalid example or is it an example of the freedom to ignore or change the rules? 

The value of a limitation is subjective to the GM, players and campaign.  A -1 limitation is just a general starting point for an estimated 1/2 effective use case and one can argue that "offensively", Presence only for attacking can be used in skills more easily like in Oratory.  Depending on the GM and playstyle of the players, I can see the limitation being -1/2 to -1 1/2, so a general -1 seems fine to me.

I don't have a huge issue with this.  Presumably if they bought it they did so because it's an important part of the character concept, Ala Batmunch. 
 
I mean, people who buy Flight and Energy Blast tend to use those a lot more than people who don't, yet few people are bothered by that. 

The fact that the inversion math does not work indicates that the pricing is flawed.  This is also true for the cost of segmented characteristics.  PRE is a bargain for all that it provides if the pricing of skill levels is appropriate, or the skill levels are overpriced.  I believe there is a combination of the former and the latter, and it indicates that PRE, INT, DEX and EGO, and their component parts, need to be revisited.
 
DEX provides DEX rolls and initiative.  I think 2 points is reasonably priced.  That means that, for 10 points, you can buy +1 to all DEX rolls and +5 to Initiative.  So, for 5 points, you should be able to get +1 to all DEX rolls OR +5 to initiative.  If you only get +1 to 1 DEX roll at a time, or +1 to a subset of DEX rolls, that should cost less.  By that logic, +1 to all DEX skills could cost 4 points, +1 to any one DEX skill at a time (or +1 with a subset of DEX skills) could cost 3 points, +1 to any one of a subset of DEX skills at a time becomes +2 and a +1 bonus to a single DEX skill becomes +1.  Initiative for limited purposes is also reduced in cost, probably down to +5 for 1 point for only one possible action.
 
INT provides INT rolls and PER rolls.  So split the two, and make INT + CP per +1.  Skill rolls work like DEX.  Enhanced PER is +1 for 5 points, drop that to +4 for a group of senses including a targeting sense, +3 for a single targeting Sense or a group of senses lacking targeting senses, +2 for a single non-targeting sense group or one targeting sense and +1 for a single non-targeting sense.
 
PRE provides PER skills and PRE attacks.  Bump it to 2 points as well.  Price skills as above.  +1d6 PRE attacks becomes 5 points, and limited types of PRE attacks get limitations accordingly.  Remove PRE defense - being impressive need not mean being hard to impress, and being terrifying need not make one fearless.
 
EGO stays at 5 points, with EGO rolls making up half that value and PRE defense making up the other half.
 
 
So take out the discounts.  This is Hero - you get what you pay for.  6e went a LONG way to fixing that by splitting out DEX and making it possible to be combat-effective at a reasonable price without being an Olympic gymnast, and removing the "figured characteristics freebies" which made STR and CON the only cost-effective approach for having high figured characteristics.  Now fix the rest of the characteristics in similar manner.
 
I spent a lot of time thinking DEX, INT and PRE should be priced the same, 1 point each.  But I finally realized that I was right about equal cost, and wrong about the appropriate cost - 6e got DEX right, but not INT and PRE, and still overprices skill levels.

Hmm... it sounds rather like the linked adventures in Champions Battlegrounds, for Fifth Edition; five adventures which can be played independently or as part of an overarching plot. The third adventure, "Fatal Attractions," takes place at a supers-themed amusement park called Omegaworld. But the hunt for a bomb is central to the first adventure in the series, "A Walk in the Park," set in Memorial Park in Millennium City.
 
That's the only matching reference coming to my mind at the moment. I could poke around my older collection, though, see if I'm overlooking something.

Package Deals (Templates in 6E) aren't free, you pay points for them so there is no "bonus" that isn't being paid for.
Unless this product is for a REALLY old edition.

I don't play 6th edition either.  All of my comments were 5th edition compatible.

You guys are basically arguing over a single digit number of points.  That's generally a waste of time, as there isn't a game system out there that can balance things with that degree of accuracy.  Not do that and offer lots of different character build options.
 
The primary factor affecting game balance is going to be what the GM allows in his game.  In heroic games, single digit balancing issues could theoretically have an impact (if you only have 150 points, a 6 point difference is small but still there).  But those games have less flexibility in allowed builds, and anyway available equipment is going to be a much bigger influencing factor.  In superheroic games the differences are so small that it's not even really noticeable.
 
I think there's a myth that Champions players want to believe in, that somewhere out there is the perfect balance point that can be achieved if only we make this little rule change.  That myth is harmful because it makes players focus on very minor issues, and eventually that affects the next version of the rules.

How do we distinguish that from a speedster?  They tend to meet all those qualifications too. 

I don't know.
 
I can't think about Bennie the Jet.
 
Broad, thick, powerful man.  Gave Jackie Chan a run for his money speed-wise.
 
But even then-- there is _no doubt_ that, even in the clip above, Bolo Yeung _is_ a martial artist.  Bennie the Jet _is_ a martial artist.  Samo Hung _is_ a martial artist.  The difference here is not whether or not they are martial artists, but their individual styles.
 
And that's the crux of things.  Not enough players think of "style" as anything more than "which list of maneuvers gives me the best advantages?" and default decide "yep.  I'm a martial artist.  I can't be touched."  Thus we don't have a problem of definition; we have a problem of lack of creativity.
 
Bolo _is_ a martial artist, and his conception (if you will) is to counterstrike with single blows or simple combos of great power, and relying heavily on Blocks to not get hit.  Bennie the Jet is (was; he's probably lost a lot with age at this point) ungodly fast, and plays more to dodging and simply soaking what he can't dodge, waiting for opportunities to strike with single powerful blows.
 
But it absolutely cannot be argued that they are not "true martial artists" or whatever it is we're doing to create some sort of divider where no such divider should exist.
 
We have conception differences in the same character class.  We can get all D&D and sub-sub-sub-sub class, or we can do things that educate and entice players to look at alternate conceptions for their special ninja guy.

"There... Are... FOUR... LIGHTS!"
 
"What do I have so do to prove that I'm mortal?"
"Die!"
"Very good, Worf! eaten any good books lately?"

"Puddin'!"
 
"At this point, he probably is."

"What you did to me was unbelievable, Connor. But then I got stuck in a hell dimension by my girlfriend one time for a hundred years, so three months under the ocean actually gave me perspective. Kind of a M. C. Esher perspective but I did get time to think. About us, about the world. Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh, and cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be. You're not a part of that yet. I hope you will be. I love you, Connor. Now get out of my house."

"It's a magical place."

I scrapper vs martial artist distinction is not nearly as clear as some like to make out. For example, both characters in that video (and in fact most all fighters in Enter the Dragon) are considered martial artists withing the kung fu/martial arts genre.
 
On top of that, in game terms martial artists and scrappers will often be hitting for similar damage, so the biggest distinction is often only DCV vs PD/ED, not how hard they hit.
 
Even comics blur the line. Wolverine used to be one of the iconic examples of a "scrapper" but he's also basically a ninja who gave black belt level martial arts training to several younger X-Men. Meanwhile, Spiderman who is the ultimate Dex/Dodge character has demi-brick strength and no actual martial arts training (originally).
 
Differentiating the two can have its uses in conversation, but it's not nearly as clear cut or obvious as brick or blaster or speedster.

I scrapper vs martial artist distinction is not nearly as clear as some like to make out. For example, both characters in that video (and in fact most all fighters in Enter the Dragon) are considered martial artists withing the kung fu/martial arts genre.
 
On top of that, in game terms martial artists and scrappers will often be hitting for similar damage, so the biggest distinction is often only DCV vs PD/ED, not how hard they hit.
 
Even comics blur the line. Wolverine used to be one of the iconic examples of a "scrapper" but he's also basically a ninja who gave black belt level martial arts training to several younger X-Men. Meanwhile, Spiderman who is the ultimate Dex/Dodge character has demi-brick strength and no actual martial arts training (originally).
 
Differentiating the two can have its uses in conversation, but it's not nearly as clear cut or obvious as brick or blaster or speedster.

I just watched that video three times.
 
In it, the "scrapper" Bolo dodges and blocks more times than does the 'finesse' guy in the yellow suit, and now this whole thread is out of kilter.
 
 

I'm actually basing it on the vast bulk of the martial artists (not 'scrappers', not 'bricks', but actual 'martial artists') I've seen written up.

Per your quoted text, you appear to be fixated on DCV being the only means to avoid being hit when, in fact, it isn't.  (Hint: Block!)  Show me a player with a martial artist character that doesn't use martial block or similar mechanics (a la Deflection) to actively avoid damage rather than relying on adjusted DCV … and I'll show you a martial artist that spends more time unconscious than one who blocks at appropriate times.
 
That's not the only option, by the way. Flying Dodge is in the mix, too … and it can be used to full move beyond HTH range while simultaneously adding +4 to DCV. If the martial artist successfully exits HTH range, then there's not even an attack roll to be made (much less a damage roll). However, in the off-chance the martial artist is still in range when executing the maneuver, then his/her DCV is cranked (better than a regular dodge, but not as high as if martial dodging).  
 
I think you get the idea -- there's more to not getting hit than just raw DCV; smart play is required.

Likewise. I usually use d6-1 to differentiate between weapons or ammo type as it adds a little more granularity in low power games and the equipment isn't bought with points.

Likewise. I usually use d6-1 to differentiate between weapons or ammo type as it adds a little more granularity in low power games and the equipment isn't bought with points.

Neither of these examples is subjective.
 
There are clearly-defined notes for music and signing. Just because I can't hit them with a barn doesn't mean they aren't real.  We have all sorts of measuring and comparison devices to determine what is and is not on key.  It is not subjective.  The only thing human-defined about it is the name of the note, and the only thing subjective about it is wether or not it is pleasant to hear. Having given a particular thing a name and having spent untold eons arguing its merit do not in any way change the nature of the thing, nor in any way alter its existence.
 
The range assumption is ludicrous.  If someone hands me a steel rod of a given length, it doesn't matter _what_ unit I use to measure it in, the length does not change.  It could be measured to determine that it is 1.4 meters or it is 14 decimeters.  You postulate that because we can't agree on what terms to measure it in that the length cannot be accurately determined.  So it follows that no one could reasonably expect 1.4 meters to be 14 decimeters. 
 
Deciding on units of different origin doesn't change the length of the rod, either.  Calling it 55.1181102 inches still doesn't change the length of it.  We could take a  page out of Roy D. Mercer's book and call it "right fine ass-whippin' size" and it would not in any way, shape, or form alter the size of the rod.
 
Make the rod a thousand yards.  Same rules apply, only now one end of it is far enough to classify as "long range."  Doesn't matter what you call it, that distance is absolute.
 
 
Not subjective.  Not even a little bit.
 
 
 
I agree completely.

So far I like the following ideas best:
1-  Persuasion vs. Persuasion.
2-  Persuasion vs. INT roll.
3-  Persuasion vs. Analyze: (Motive / Honesty / etc.).
 
Thanks everyone!