Derek Hiemforth

For anyone familiar with AD&D 2nd Edition, The Complete Fighter's Handbook, by Aaron Allston, had the concept of "fighting styles." It pointed out that melee combat could be boiled down to one of four approaches at any given time:
A one-handed weapon in one hand and a non-weapon (typically a shield) in the other, which it called "Weapon and Shield" style. A one-handed weapon in each hand, which it called "Two Weapon" style. A one-handed weapon in one hand and nothing in the other, which it called "One-Handed" style. A two-handed weapon, which it called "Two-Handed" style. Years ago, I brought this concept to Fantasy HERO using Martial Arts and Combat Skill Levels.  I named the four styles Bear Style (weapon and shield), Bull Style (two weapon), Bee Style (one-handed), and Butterfly style (two-handed).  Bear style got its name from the straightforward style of a weapon and shield attack, Bull style from the fact that two swords resembled two horns of a bull, Bee style from the unpredictable darting movement of a bee (similar to the evasive approach of one-handed fighting), and Butterfly style from light patterns on the flashing blade of a duelist with a two-handed sword seeming to dance like a butterfly in flight.
 
You could buy levels in a style, and they applied whenever fighting in that fashion, no matter the weapon or whether you had any of the martial maneuvers for the style.  If you were really skilled in a style, you could buy Bear Style, Bull Style, Bee Style, or Butterfly Style as a martial art, and each had maneuvers that reinforced the "feel" of that fighting style. For example, Bull Style had the highest-damage maneuvers, because the SFX included the idea that you were striking twice (even if not actually using Multiple Attack (or Sweep, as it was known then). Bee Style had maneuvers that were lighter on damage, but excellent for DCV, etc.
 
They were a fun addition.   

I have a weird fixation with EXTREMELY dense builds.  As in, a level of Shrinking with Normal Mass (1/2 height == 1/8 volume, so with normal mass, x8 density) and 4 levels of DI to get you into the 128 range.  Turns out that's about the same density as the sun's core.  
 
Yeah, when you get this massive...and this, note, only masses about 1.5 metric tons...you're way, way over weight limits for typical construction.  Look at weight-bearing ratings for even pretty high-grade shelving...500, maybe 1000 pounds.  Wanna run?  Cracking the concrete.  With the teeny tiny feet he'd have?  Making big deep holes as CRT points out.
 
Those 15 levels of DI you mention...2^15 is 128K  You're 10,000 times the density of lead. You're about 1000 times the density of the core of the sun.  There's basically NOTHING this dense in the realm of normal matter;  neutron stars are actually MUCH more dense, but that's a form of degenerate matter.  And figure that the mass alone...given the size of a human foot, the normal pressure exerted by the foot is about 6 pounds per square inch...PSI.  (CRT:  the area of a human foot is actually closer to about 1/6 of a square foot.)  So with this density your foot...just standing there...is exerting about 750K PSI.  VERY few things will not collapse.
 
To OP:  if you have 6E1, then go back into the appendix, page 446.  Heavy Characters.  It's the templates for "always on DI"...the bonuses and drawbacks for extremely massive characters whose density doesn't change.  Even 4 levels of DI justifies a 20 point physical complication;  5 levels maxes you at 25...very frequent, greatly impairing.  
 

Yeah I didn't touch on that but a lot of GMs kind of let that slide, when its a serious issue.  Even with 28 points of you'll start to wade through asphalt streets like they were mud.  You will destroy cars, furniture, steps, elevators, sidewalks, etc.  All that weight concentrated on one square foot.... 
 
Even if you're not running a super realistic game, there comes a point a GM has to say "look, you weigh too much for this floor"

That's true, but it also reminds me of another point about the mass that hasn't been made so far in the thread.  While the mass effect of a level or two of Density Increase may not be all that problematic, the problem rapidly accelerates.  If you're using DI to ramp up your STR to supers-caliber attack levels (say, 10-12 levels of DI), that's a LOT of weight. You're basically reaching the point where you all but can't fight anywhere but on the ground (or under self-powered movement), and even then, there may often be environmental side effects.  If you're trundling around weighing in the neighborhood of 100-400 tons, that's no joke...

Great!  Sounds like you've solved it for your game.  As long as you and your players are good with your approach, then all is as it should be! 

Great!  Sounds like you've solved it for your game.  As long as you and your players are good with your approach, then all is as it should be! 

I don't think it's overpowered.  Yes, the component pieces would cost you 9 CP.  But when they're bundled as Density Increase, they also have a bunch of downsides:
They cost END every Phase the power is active, even if they're not used (for example, having the +5 STR costs END even if you aren't using the STR, then costs more END if you actually do use the STR). The increased mass is more of a problem than a help. They have visible power effects. They're not Persistent. etc. If you figure the package of 9 CP worth of stuff also comes with Costs Endurance (-½) and another -½ Limitation for the combined value of extra perceptibility, extra mass, etc., then the 9 CP is knocked down to 4 CP, just like the power has.

Great!  Sounds like you've solved it for your game.  As long as you and your players are good with your approach, then all is as it should be! 

Great!  Sounds like you've solved it for your game.  As long as you and your players are good with your approach, then all is as it should be! 

It's not really OP but it is better than it was in previous editions(except 1st, getting Figured Characteristics was broken).

What Derek said.

Adding on the advantages 0 END and persistent brings the cost up to 7 per level.  If we add on invisible powers to make it inobvious to two sense groups that brings the cost up to 9pt per level.   Density Increase is not overpowered it is priced exactly right.   

I don't think it's overpowered.  Yes, the component pieces would cost you 9 CP.  But when they're bundled as Density Increase, they also have a bunch of downsides:
They cost END every Phase the power is active, even if they're not used (for example, having the +5 STR costs END even if you aren't using the STR, then costs more END if you actually do use the STR). The increased mass is more of a problem than a help. They have visible power effects. They're not Persistent. etc. If you figure the package of 9 CP worth of stuff also comes with Costs Endurance (-½) and another -½ Limitation for the combined value of extra perceptibility, extra mass, etc., then the 9 CP is knocked down to 4 CP, just like the power has.

Trouble is, this requires you to know the opponent's DCV.  The other way, you can just announce what DCV you hit, and the GM can announce whether or not you succeed. You don't have to know the DCV, or whether there were any modifiers, etc.

Thanks for the kind words, and I completely agree with you (about the CV thing... not about me being a swell guy   ).
 
I'm under no illusion that the way I described prevents the player from knowing, or that the player won't quickly figure it out, or that it's a problem if/when the player does figure it out.  My only point is just what I said: that it doesn't require the player to know the opponent's DCV.  So if you want the uncertainty for those first few dice throws, you can have it.   

Thanks for the kind words, and I completely agree with you (about the CV thing... not about me being a swell guy   ).
 
I'm under no illusion that the way I described prevents the player from knowing, or that the player won't quickly figure it out, or that it's a problem if/when the player does figure it out.  My only point is just what I said: that it doesn't require the player to know the opponent's DCV.  So if you want the uncertainty for those first few dice throws, you can have it.   

Trouble is, this requires you to know the opponent's DCV.  The other way, you can just announce what DCV you hit, and the GM can announce whether or not you succeed. You don't have to know the DCV, or whether there were any modifiers, etc.

Trouble is, this requires you to know the opponent's DCV.  The other way, you can just announce what DCV you hit, and the GM can announce whether or not you succeed. You don't have to know the DCV, or whether there were any modifiers, etc.

Thanks for the kind words, and I completely agree with you (about the CV thing... not about me being a swell guy   ).
 
I'm under no illusion that the way I described prevents the player from knowing, or that the player won't quickly figure it out, or that it's a problem if/when the player does figure it out.  My only point is just what I said: that it doesn't require the player to know the opponent's DCV.  So if you want the uncertainty for those first few dice throws, you can have it.   

Man, I love you, Derek.
 
No; that's not sarcasm (I don't do sarcasm); that's not smarm.  That's a warm compliment of the highest order.  From the time you first pointed me to this board I-can't-remember-how-long-ago (and Red October before that), even during your absences, I would tell people just what a great guy you are, how enthusiastic and how helpful and friendly-- you're just a wonderful person, from everything I can tell, even though I can't actually say in any real sense of the word that I actually know you at all.     Even then, I mean it when I say that I hold you in the highest regard, and have rarely missed acknowledging your help in my ending up here, and thanking you for it even when you weren't here.  (Granted, from your end, I am probably just another person who never quite made a blip on the screen, which is why I have never asked you how the rabbits are doing or if they are still around: don't want to seem all creepy  ).
 
That being said, I also have to say that you are not the first person to use that argument in support of the optional to-hit roll: things akin to "this way, the Player doesn't know the opponent's DCV."
 
That particular argument doesn't hold water if the combat runs for three or more attacks: while maneuvers change things up, and Skill Levels can be applied, after three back-and-forths, even the inexperienced Players will have a within-3 idea of the opponents DCV; if the combat goes on for three turns, they've had it figured out for some time now: the know the maneuver penalties and bonuses-- for most official sheets, they are right on the sheet.  We all enjoy the refrain "the math isn't that hard" in Character construction, but it's even easier when it's "add three" or "subtract 2."
 
Going just a bit further, it really doesn't matter if the Player _does_ know the opponent's DCV from the get-go: he can either hit him or he can't.  He can allocate his own Skill Levels and pick his own maneuvers, but the dice are the randomizers that determine yes or no.
 
There are lots of reasons to choose the optional method-- it's easier for some folks; it makes tracking hits and misses in high-participant-count combats a bit faster and easier, maybe.  "It just feels better to me" or "I find it easier" are all perfectly valid reasons that do hold up-- but "the Player remains in the dark" works for just a few dice throws.  After that, he either knows, or he knows enough, no matter what method you're using.
 
 

 
 
 

I have always done something similar in my games and when teaching others to play.

(11+OCV) - 3d6 = DCV hit
 
People can adjust their math as needed and speeds things up a great deal.

Trouble is, this requires you to know the opponent's DCV.  The other way, you can just announce what DCV you hit, and the GM can announce whether or not you succeed. You don't have to know the DCV, or whether there were any modifiers, etc.

Roll 3d6.
 
If you roll exactly 11, you hit a DCV equal to your OCV.
If you roll below 11, you hit a DCV one point better than your OCV for each point you roll below 11.
If you roll above 11, you hit a DCV one point worse than your OCV for each point you roll above 11.
 
It sounds slightly complicated to write out in words, but it's very easy to do in play. I've never really encountered a player who struggled with it...
 
EDIT: Obviously, this is the same thing greypaladin_01 suggested above; it's just a different way of getting there that generally lets you add or subtract smaller numbers.   

Roll 3d6.
 
If you roll exactly 11, you hit a DCV equal to your OCV.
If you roll below 11, you hit a DCV one point better than your OCV for each point you roll below 11.
If you roll above 11, you hit a DCV one point worse than your OCV for each point you roll above 11.
 
It sounds slightly complicated to write out in words, but it's very easy to do in play. I've never really encountered a player who struggled with it...
 
EDIT: Obviously, this is the same thing greypaladin_01 suggested above; it's just a different way of getting there that generally lets you add or subtract smaller numbers.   

Roll 3d6.
 
If you roll exactly 11, you hit a DCV equal to your OCV.
If you roll below 11, you hit a DCV one point better than your OCV for each point you roll below 11.
If you roll above 11, you hit a DCV one point worse than your OCV for each point you roll above 11.
 
It sounds slightly complicated to write out in words, but it's very easy to do in play. I've never really encountered a player who struggled with it...
 
EDIT: Obviously, this is the same thing greypaladin_01 suggested above; it's just a different way of getting there that generally lets you add or subtract smaller numbers.