DEX vs. CSLs

[Doc Democracy]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Actually it does help in several ways I think.we both (all) get greater insights into our approaches and its always good to exercise the old thinking cap.

 

In my mind it never hurts to examimne even the things that we hold as fundamental.

 

Always a pleasure to discuss with you Mr Steamteck sir.

 

 

Doc

[badger3k]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Batman should just take NCM' date=' a 20 DEX and a 4 SPD, then buy +36 DEX, +3 SPD with "must maintain training regimen, -0". Now they are a power instead of characteristics, so no doubling should apply. Just like Defender's OIF Armor lets him circumvent the cost of his characteristics despite his NCM disadvantage.[/quote']

 

You'd allow this? Seriously?

 

NCM is a bizarre and, in my view, inappropriate, disadvantage in that you don't take it to define your character, but to define how you spend your points. Should a Brick get points for "ranged attacks cost double", or "mental powers cost double", or "martial arts cost double"? There's no reason, to me, that a disadvantage should be available for how the character chooses to spend his points. You will never see a Brick or Martial Artist in a Supers game select the NCM disadvantage - only a character who doesn't lose more than 20 points from its effects would ever do so. The "disadvantage" can basically be rephrased "things I don't buy anyway would cost double if I did".

 

To be honest, I've rarely ever seen any superheroic character take NCM, since it doesn't fit the genre. For sidekicks and the rest, sure, but when dealing with supers, I always went by the idea that the campaign sets what is "normal human range" and what is superheroic/mutant/power/etc. Some characters were able to achieve superheroic levels of ability through intense effort (and good but non-mutant genes). As for Batman, I really haven't thought of it, but whatever way is used, he has so much experience that it is really pointless. Either way would work for him. Considering DCs use of the metagene, I'm surprised no one made the hypothesis that for non-super-supers (like Bats and Nightwing), maybe their metagenes are active at a very very low level (which would make the "best human" line a joke, but it already is) or else that even inactive, it gave them a higher potential than other humans. Whoever said that human potential had to be even across the board?

 

For heroic level games, where the normal human potential is preset as 20, then NCM works just fine. You can push beyond that, and many have done so, it just takes more effort.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

You'd allow this? Seriously?

 

No. But I would allow Bats to take a 36 DEX and a 7 SPD and still be a "normal human with intense drive and training". And I wouldn't let Defender avoid the impact of NCM (if I did allow it at all) by putting limitations on his "over 20" characteristics either.

 

If you get rid of NCM as a disadvantage, it makes no difference.

 

And I have seen Mentalists take NCM. A 20 EGO is quite adequate in most games. And some extra SPD "only for mental powers" circumvents the main issue quite nicely.

[JmOz]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

You'd allow this? Seriously?

 

 

I actualy go more than allow (Well not necesarily those numbers, but the concept), but favor it.

 

It is a nice distinction for when someone has taken complete "You have no mind left" control over where skill stops and natural ability starts

[badger3k]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

I actualy go more than allow (Well not necesarily those numbers, but the concept), but favor it.

 

It is a nice distinction for when someone has taken complete "You have no mind left" control over where skill stops and natural ability starts

 

Instead of making them drop NCM as a disadvantage, you'd allow them to take a limitation, for no value, that penalizes them in no possible way (unless their 'training regimen' came up in game time), that let's them circumvent the disadvantage they themselves took?

 

Wow.

 

That makes absolutely no sense whatseover.

[JmOz]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Instead of making them drop NCM as a disadvantage, you'd allow them to take a limitation, for no value, that penalizes them in no possible way (unless their 'training regimen' came up in game time), that let's them circumvent the disadvantage they themselves took?

 

Wow.

 

That makes absolutely no sense whatseover.

 

Sorry, misinterpreted a part of what you were saying, I only use NCM as a ground rule, either everyone has it or no one, but if a player wants to make a batman type character in a super campeign I would rather see a dex 15 on the sheet with +20 dex "Intence Combat Training" so if I decide to have him possesed I know that the body he is in has the dex 15 not 35, where the flash might have a dex 35 strait by concept. Note that while I do give some advantages to this I consider it normaly a +/- 0

[badger3k]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Sorry' date=' misinterpreted a part of what you were saying, I only use NCM as a ground rule, either everyone has it or no one, but if a player wants to make a batman type character in a super campeign I would rather see a dex 15 on the sheet with +20 dex "Intence Combat Training" so if I decide to have him possesed I know that the body he is in has the dex 15 not 35, where the flash might have a dex 35 strait by concept. Note that while I do give some advantages to this I consider it normaly a +/- 0[/quote']

 

Ok . . . I think. I don't see any reason to have such a distinction. Of course, the issue there would be the possession - why would someone be able to access the Flash's abilities but not Bats? Look to Titans issue 4 (I think) where a character who mimicked powers basically got Barry Allen's at the height of his power, and it proved more than he could handle. If it takes time to master the abilities of someone, why would the source matter? Batman may have trained his body to move fast, but it is his body. If it is the intense training, then that should be skill levels to represent that.

 

I think part of it is that I see "intense training" as something most heroes need to do to keep themselves in that shape. If characters were out of the loop for a while, I'd have no problem penalizing them a bit until they got back in shape (this is story-driven, really). If it was a magical ritual that needed to be done every day, or an "hourman" injection, or something like that...I could see. If it is the normal human limitation of having to stay in shape...I just don't see that as being different enough to make the distinction. You know, a change to the body is a change to the body. A bodybuilder can go to flab if they break training for a long time, but I'd never design one with such split characteristics.

 

Just different philosophies, I think.

 

I'd argue (or maybe I am) that Bats has a combination of both.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Batman may have trained his body to move fast' date=' but it is his body. If it is the intense training, then that should be skill levels to represent that.[/quote']

 

Now we are back to imposing certain SFX on certain abilities. "Skill comes only from training. Characteristics are always innate." In my games, SFX are independent of mechanics. A handgun and laser vision (SFX) are both Killing Attacks (mechanic). Why can't training and skill be just as much a SFX for characteristics as for skill levels?

[Vulcan]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

In your games, sure. I just prefer the separation of 'skilled normal' and 'clearly superhuman' that skill levels give over DEX.

 

This is probably an artifact of the primary HEROS game I'm playing in. The big (one might say ONLY, it's so big) conflict isn't good vs. evil, it's human vs. superhuman. The forces of evil on both sides are pushing for a war, and those of us that are 'good' are stuck in the middle trying to stop it. But the government is leaning ever more strongly toward the 'anti-super' side, a time could arrive where being superhuman is going to be a major limitation in and of itself; it could be nice to be clearly labeled as 'highly skilled normal' rather than 'potentially superhuman, kill him just in case.':help:

[Doc Democracy]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

In your games' date=' sure. I just prefer the separation of 'skilled normal' and 'clearly superhuman' that skill levels give over DEX.[/quote']

 

 

So how many skill levels do you need to have before you are superhumanly skilled?

 

It is a question worth answering. There are some shots no-one normal could pull off reliably but with enough skill levels, those become easy.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

So how many skill levels do you need to have before you are superhumanly skilled?

 

It is a question worth answering. There are some shots no-one normal could pull off reliably but with enough skill levels, those become easy.

 

Skill levels are also often used to simulate certain powers. Short-term precognition (DCV levels - "I knew you would strike there"; OCV levels "I knew you would dodge in that direction") and Luck are fairly common examples.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

There are enough different versions of Batman over the years that you would be justified in saying that some are superhuman and some are extreme human, but let's not cop out of this one, eh?

 

Thee are advantages to skill levels, but those advantages are generally lost in superheroic games. Which is better: +3 DEX (9 points) or +3 skill levels with martial arts (9 points)?

 

Generally - GENERALLY the DEX is a better bet but that gives you +1 OCV/+1 DCV, whereas the skill levels allow you up to +3 OCV or +3 DCV, and if you need it you need it (to take a very narrow example, ignoring other benefits).

 

More expensive skill levels are often not worth it in a superhero game, especially as SPD is higher and so the DEX is effectively much cheaper when you take into account the figured benefit.

 

I do like the '15 DEX + 15 DEX (intense training)' although to be an utter pedant I'd probably make you buy the extra DEX as inherent (so it can't be drained as such) but take a limitation that it reduces in direct proportion to any INT loss and once your DEX is drained by 15 points (in this case) you suffer the 'negative DEX' effects. OK, +0 is far, far easier to write, but I'm an inveterate tinkerer.

 

Can I just commend everyone on a thoroughly civilised conversation!

[Istaran]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

I recently looked up the rules for CSLs adding damage to Sweeps/MPAs as well as Advantaged powers. I also confirmed with my DM that the campaign DC limit does not prevent me from adding damage with CSLs. (He says since it's a Superheroic game, and the bonus damage is limited to within what could have already been rolled it's okay.. but I'm quite certain a 12 DC attack and a 12 DC attack +15 STUN (max 72) do not have quite the same sting.) Enemies will really regret be Entangled around me. And when I target a DCV 0 hex to use my breath weapon, why not pump the damage?

[badger3k]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Now we are back to imposing certain SFX on certain abilities. "Skill comes only from training. Characteristics are always innate." In my games' date=' SFX are independent of mechanics. A handgun and laser vision (SFX) are both Killing Attacks (mechanic). Why can't training and skill be just as much a SFX for characteristics as for skill levels?[/quote']

 

They can...but if the situation is where that when possessed the possessor can only use the innate abilities but not skills, then skills that require mental ability (not just innate physical, even trained physical skills, such as martial arts that become reflexive or operate at an almost "subconscious" level) would not be accessed. If this were common, then the abilities, such as combat skills would be better represented by skills and not Dex.

 

And as Sean brought up, Dex (physical ability) can be drained, but I doubt that many have "skill drains", although I can't see why not. Training as skills in that case would still give the character skilled acrobatics, even if he became clumsier (his training can compensate for his disability, much like a skilled athlete or fighter can compensate). Getting older (and have difficulties) can make you more aware of how much is learned as opposed to innate.

 

Now, I admit such distinctions probably are not needed for most games, but if that is important, then that is how I would do it. Does that make sense?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

They can...but if the situation is where that when possessed the possessor can only use the innate abilities but not skills' date=' then skills that require mental ability (not just innate physical, even trained physical skills, such as martial arts that become reflexive or operate at an almost "subconscious" level) would not be accessed.[/quote']

 

Neither would that +15 "training DEX".

 

If this were common' date=' then the abilities, such as combat skills would be better represented by skills and not Dex.[/quote']

 

if this were common, the Training DEX should be entitled to a limitation to reflect its reduced utility. So should the skill levels.

 

And as Sean brought up' date=' Dex (physical ability) can be drained, but I doubt that many have "skill drains", although I can't see why not. Training as skills in that case would still give the character skilled acrobatics, even if he became clumsier (his training can compensate for his disability, much like a skilled athlete or fighter can compensate). Getting older (and have difficulties) can make you more aware of how much is learned as opposed to innate.[/quote']

 

Let's posit two characters. One has DEX 18, and Acrobatics (13- base roll) and +4 with acrobatics. His acrobatics roll is 17-. The second has DEX 38 and Acrobatics (17- base roll). Their acrobatic skills are indistinguishable.

 

Both are hit with a 15 point DEX drain. Both acrobatics rolls fall to 14-.

 

Who would buy a "skills drain"? Good question. More likely, they would buy Change Environment, reducing all DEX rolls by 3. Same 14- rolls.

 

If this were truly important, I'd do it by first enforcing the need for all characters to define "natural aptitude" and "trained skill" separately (for both characteristics and skills - "he's just a natural acrobat", so he has +2 to the roll, is just as viable as "he trains long and hard" so his DEX is increased by 10).

 

Second, if loss of trained abilities were much more common than loss of natural aptitude, I'd have to consider allowing a limitation on abilities purchased with the SFX of Trained Abilities. If he's going to be denied the benefits of his abilities with significantly greater frequency, he should pay less.

[badger3k]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Neither would that +15 "training DEX".

 

In other words, tomato-tomato?

 

if this were common, the Training DEX should be entitled to a limitation to reflect its reduced utility. So should the skill levels.

 

But not a +0?

 

Let's posit two characters. One has DEX 18, and Acrobatics (13- base roll) and +4 with acrobatics. His acrobatics roll is 17-. The second has DEX 38 and Acrobatics (17- base roll). Their acrobatic skills are indistinguishable.

 

Both are hit with a 15 point DEX drain. Both acrobatics rolls fall to 14-.

So in other words, the only difference is what is in the skills, and what is in the physical dexterity? Seriously, since they are the same to you, where's the problem you have?

Who would buy a "skills drain"? Good question. More likely, they would buy Change Environment, reducing all DEX rolls by 3. Same 14- rolls.

 

Actually, mindwipe comes to mind, temporary amnesia of the comic book kind, a character that leeches skills, the old "idiocy field" - hell, even the superfriends cartoon where Dr Frankenstein drained Batman's detective skills to put into his robot (well, he drained his intelligence, which in practical terms was the same thing). In fantasy settings such things as curses can easily affect skills. Odd that I never thought of those things before (or course, the mechanics aren't as simple as a characteristic drain, so that helps).

If this were truly important, I'd do it by first enforcing the need for all characters to define "natural aptitude" and "trained skill" separately (for both characteristics and skills - "he's just a natural acrobat", so he has +2 to the roll, is just as viable as "he trains long and hard" so his DEX is increased by 10).

 

Second, if loss of trained abilities were much more common than loss of natural aptitude, I'd have to consider allowing a limitation on abilities purchased with the SFX of Trained Abilities. If he's going to be denied the benefits of his abilities with significantly greater frequency, he should pay less.

 

About the only thing I would say is that natural aptitude is your characteristics - you can't get more natural than that. If you have training that improves your body to that point, it's characteristics. If you have a high skill level (something that generally includes a conscious mind), then that is skills. Simple.

 

I don't see any point in what you describe, especially because I see no way that "he trains long and hard" is any kind of limitation. "Hey Bob, did Flying-FoxMan train long and hard today" "Yep, sure did" "Ok". Some limitation. Unless you play your heroes every second of the day, or plot them out that way, it's a fake limitation. Giving it +0 is a cop out. Most training lapses take days or weeks for the effects to be really felt...if it is less then that, give him the dependence disadvantage. Then buy the characteristics that way. Make it a meaningful limitation. In 3.5 D&D, as proto-4e they had a martial character who had magic-like abilities that could only be used once per encounter. An easy limitation...but they gave an out - he could recharge them by making an attack. So, he could pretty much recharge his encounter abilities multiple times. A meaningless limitation. Why bother with the pretense?

 

If your game enforces training time, then maybe there's a point to such a gesture, but I can't see that being a meaningful distinction, and if it serves no real game purpose, why bother? If you want to be more realistic, make every character suffer effects of a lack of training, but what that would be, I have no idea. Considering all the superhero games I have run have been pretty much episodic, there is usually ample time for training or pretty much anything else that is needed for normal upkeep.

 

In the end, I just don't see any reason for the distinction.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

IAbout the only thing I would say is that natural aptitude is your characteristics - you can't get more natural than that. If you have training that improves your body to that point' date=' it's characteristics. If you have a high skill level (something that generally includes a conscious mind), then that is skills. Simple. [/quote']

 

Some people have a natural aptitude for the sciences, but can't handle money. Others are very skilled with finances, but not with literature. Aptitudes can be quite narrow, not so broad as characteristics in general. Someone with great gross motor skills has a natural aptitude with skills like acrobatics and dance that often does not translate into marksmanship or working with their hands. All of these could easily be skills/levels with the "natural aptitude" sfx. Really, most non-combat skill levels are just "+5 CHAR, only for these skills".

 

In the end' date=' I just don't see any reason for the distinction.[/quote']

 

Which distinction? I don't see any reason for distinguishing between a character who has a high OCV and DCV purchased as a high DEX and one who gets there with skill levels, regardless of whether his SFX are "trained normal human" or "superhumanly fast".

[badger3k]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Some people have a natural aptitude for the sciences' date=' but can't handle money. Others are very skilled with finances, but not with literature. Aptitudes can be quite narrow, not so broad as characteristics in general. Someone with great gross motor skills has a natural aptitude with skills like acrobatics and dance that often does not translate into marksmanship or working with their hands. All of these could easily be skills/levels with the "natural aptitude" sfx. Really, most non-combat skill levels are just "+5 CHAR, only for these skills".[/quote']

 

That's true - do you feel that the way skills work should be different (being careful not to step on 6e toes and locking the thread)?

 

Which distinction? I don't see any reason for distinguishing between a character who has a high OCV and DCV purchased as a high DEX and one who gets there with skill levels, regardless of whether his SFX are "trained normal human" or "superhumanly fast".

 

Honestly, I agree - for superhumans. For normal humans, I still prefer the NCM, although that does get into the cost/benefit of the characteristics. That's really what I was trying to get at - the whole "intense training time" limitation cheese was meaningless and you don't need that distinction. I probably could have ended without that last sentence since I said the same in the paragraph above it, but I was trying to type while keeping a psychotic puppy from, well, everything. Ever have a juvenile delinquent dog? Sheesh.

 

Anyway, sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Sometimes I get way too long winded and lose people (and myself).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Honestly' date=' I agree - [b']for superhumans[/b]. For normal humans, I still prefer the NCM, although that does get into the cost/benefit of the characteristics. That's really what I was trying to get at - the whole "intense training time" limitation cheese was meaningless and you don't need that distinction.

 

It's that caveat that disturbs me, and it depends on how one defines "superhumans". If the game is Superheroic, all of the characters are "superhuman". They might be superhuman by virtue of being mutants, aliens, or enhanced humans changed by cosmic rays, superserums or what have you. Or they might be "normal humans" whose personal drive, dedication and diligence have allowed them to surpass the limits of 99.9% of the population - without leaving the realm of "ordinary humanity" in the process.

 

That last is the Batman or Tony Stark type. He won't show up on a Mutant Detector or a Superhuman Gene DNA test. He's, by SFX, a "normal human". But he is still a PC in a superheroic campaign. He has 350 points. No normal person (as opposed to "normal human" sfx) can do what he can do. Normal people don't make the kind of scientific advances - in rapid succession -that Tony Stark has made. Maybe teams of "normal humans" do. But compare Einstein's accomplishments to those of Tony Stark, or Bruce Lee to Batman, and it's pretty clear where the realm of normalcy stops. It's well before what we accept as "normal human" sfx in a Superheroic (and even some Heroic) games.

 

To me, NCM should never have made its way to the Disadvantage list. It's got some possible use as a campaign parameter - ALL characters operate under this limitation. But "here's some points for paying double for some abilities" is irrational. Bricks don't get 10 points for having mental powers cost double. Martial artists don't get a disadvantage for having defenses above 12 cost double. GadgetMan doesn't get to take "non-focused powers cost double" for 20 points. Why can't my character with a disparate power set take "no elemental controls allowed" for 5 points? Why should characters who don't buy stats above 20 (without some circumvention mechanic like a limitation - and avoiding NCM using OIF is no less cheesy than avoiding it with the Intense Training -0 limitation, or Samson's "not if he cuts his hair" limit)get 20 points of disadvantages for building their character to their concept?

 

Disadvantages should restrict the character's abilities and actions. They should not restrict the manner in which the player spends points to develop the character. You don't get a disadvantage for not buying mental powers, or high defenses, or EC's, or non-focused powers, or high characteristics. The "benefit" of not buying certain abilities is that you get to spend the points on other abilities - that's the basis of a point buy system.

 

I find most "normal humans" in a Supers game are mentalists - you can get by with 20 Ego. You can buy extra SPD "only with mental powers". So someone who's as abnormal as the rest is a "normal human". How does that make sense? Because NCM is not "You are a normal human" mechanically. It is "you pay double if you buy your stats above this level" mechanically. It's not a concept, it's a metagaming tool.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

Interesting our group has lots of "normal humans" in all roles ( energy projector, magician, martial artist, gadgeteer,etc) except bricks pretty much. mileages obviously vary.

[badger3k]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

It's that caveat that disturbs me, and it depends on how one defines "superhumans". If the game is Superheroic, all of the characters are "superhuman". They might be superhuman by virtue of being mutants, aliens, or enhanced humans changed by cosmic rays, superserums or what have you. Or they might be "normal humans" whose personal drive, dedication and diligence have allowed them to surpass the limits of 99.9% of the population - without leaving the realm of "ordinary humanity" in the process.

 

That last is the Batman or Tony Stark type. He won't show up on a Mutant Detector or a Superhuman Gene DNA test. He's, by SFX, a "normal human". But he is still a PC in a superheroic campaign. He has 350 points. No normal person (as opposed to "normal human" sfx) can do what he can do. Normal people don't make the kind of scientific advances - in rapid succession -that Tony Stark has made. Maybe teams of "normal humans" do. But compare Einstein's accomplishments to those of Tony Stark, or Bruce Lee to Batman, and it's pretty clear where the realm of normalcy stops. It's well before what we accept as "normal human" sfx in a Superheroic (and even some Heroic) games.

 

To me, NCM should never have made its way to the Disadvantage list. It's got some possible use as a campaign parameter - ALL characters operate under this limitation. But "here's some points for paying double for some abilities" is irrational. Bricks don't get 10 points for having mental powers cost double. Martial artists don't get a disadvantage for having defenses above 12 cost double. GadgetMan doesn't get to take "non-focused powers cost double" for 20 points. Why can't my character with a disparate power set take "no elemental controls allowed" for 5 points? Why should characters who don't buy stats above 20 (without some circumvention mechanic like a limitation - and avoiding NCM using OIF is no less cheesy than avoiding it with the Intense Training -0 limitation, or Samson's "not if he cuts his hair" limit)get 20 points of disadvantages for building their character to their concept?

 

Disadvantages should restrict the character's abilities and actions. They should not restrict the manner in which the player spends points to develop the character. You don't get a disadvantage for not buying mental powers, or high defenses, or EC's, or non-focused powers, or high characteristics. The "benefit" of not buying certain abilities is that you get to spend the points on other abilities - that's the basis of a point buy system.

 

I find most "normal humans" in a Supers game are mentalists - you can get by with 20 Ego. You can buy extra SPD "only with mental powers". So someone who's as abnormal as the rest is a "normal human". How does that make sense? Because NCM is not "You are a normal human" mechanically. It is "you pay double if you buy your stats above this level" mechanically. It's not a concept, it's a metagaming tool.

 

That's the whole issue. I've rarely seen NCM used in superheroic campaigns. I'm not sure of published materials, so maybe I'm outdated here. I just looked at 5er and didn't see anything under the description giving any recommendations. Is NCM common in superheroic games that you have seen? NCM is merely a limiter of the average - people can get up to strong bodybuilder or weightlifter class, but it takes serious effort (ie in CP in game terms) to go above that "muscle ceiling". The only issue I remember coming up was the issue of the more intangibles (Int, Ego). I play it that the NCM is the normal for the race (going with fantasy or SF here, but it can work in supers) and that some characters can achieve more, from training, genetics, whatever - making them "super-human" (or super-elf, etc). That's the definition - above and beyond the abilities of most people.

 

How can you say that Disadvantags should restrict the characters abilities then say that NCM doesn't. It does. It restricts them to 20 points except for 2x the cost, the same as Age. Do you think that Age is also a metagaming tool and should not be a disadvantage? Just curious.

[Vondy]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

That's the whole issue. I've rarely seen NCM used in superheroic campaigns. I'm not sure of published materials, so maybe I'm outdated here. I just looked at 5er and didn't see anything under the description giving any recommendations. Is NCM common in superheroic games that you have seen? NCM is merely a limiter of the average - people can get up to strong bodybuilder or weightlifter class, but it takes serious effort (ie in CP in game terms) to go above that "muscle ceiling". The only issue I remember coming up was the issue of the more intangibles (Int, Ego). I play it that the NCM is the normal for the race (going with fantasy or SF here, but it can work in supers) and that some characters can achieve more, from training, genetics, whatever - making them "super-human" (or super-elf, etc). That's the definition - above and beyond the abilities of most people.

 

How can you say that Disadvantags should restrict the characters abilities then say that NCM doesn't. It does. It restricts them to 20 points except for 2x the cost, the same as Age. Do you think that Age is also a metagaming tool and should not be a disadvantage? Just curious.

 

I don't think NCM should be a disadvantage you receive points for. I think it should go the way of the do-do. Instead, it should be something defined from the outset as a part of the campaign baseline: "characters in campaign X use it or they don't."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

How can you say that Disadvantags should restrict the characters abilities then say that NCM doesn't. It does. It restricts them to 20 points except for 2x the cost' date=' the same as Age. Do you think that Age is also a metagaming tool and should not be a disadvantage? Just curious.[/quote']

 

So why can't my Martial Artist take "elemental controls cost double", or my Brick take "mental powers and adjustment powers double", or my Gadgeteer take "everything but skills, characteristics and foci cost cost double"? They're just as restricted, aren't they? Maybe some not to the same extent, in which case the disad should be reduced below 20.

 

Can I have a bigger disad for "characteristics above NCM cost triple"? That's an even greater drawback, right?

 

Age is another funny one. Only a character who will have more benefits than costs takes it. We had a very young character in FH ask for this on the basis he was physically frail, but mentally strong. He wanted higher PRE and INT. Why should Age be restricted to the aged? I believe in order editions, Age also included less mechanical issues - they were also simply more frail.

Why should you get points for your choice of what abilities to purchase?

[Guest steamteck]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

I don't think NCM should be a disadvantage you receive points for. I think it should go the way of the do-do. Instead' date=' it should be something defined from the outset as a part of the campaign baseline: "characters in campaign X use it or they don't."[/quote']

 

I could live with that as long as the campaign defined normal human. I do find that "NCM' helps my players with their character conception. I could even go with the reverse like in the old iron crown "Age of Heros" Greek mythology suppliment where you paid points for being able to have superhuman physical prowess at all .

 

If characteristics are superior to skills then it seems a disadvantage not to be to buy them up to me anyway though. If you stick to your "normal Human" concept a reward doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. seems like a reward for sticking to concept even if its not the most efficient.

[Vulcan]

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

 

So how many skill levels do you need to have before you are superhumanly skilled?

 

It is a question worth answering. There are some shots no-one normal could pull off reliably but with enough skill levels, those become easy.

 

 

Doc

 

Don't forget the rest of my post which explains much of my reasoning.

 

This is probably an artifact of the primary HEROS game I'm playing in. The big (one might say ONLY, it's so big) conflict isn't good vs. evil, it's human vs. superhuman. The forces of evil on both sides are pushing for a war, and those of us that are 'good' are stuck in the middle trying to stop it. But the government is leaning ever more strongly toward the 'anti-super' side, a time could arrive where being superhuman is going to be a major limitation in and of itself; it could be nice to be clearly labeled as 'highly skilled normal' rather than 'potentially superhuman, kill him just in case.':help:

 

At the low point levels of the game, superhumanly skilled really hasn't entered into it yet. And given the lethality level of the game, it's not likely to either.

 

But I see your point. Having a bunch of skill levels turns you into Bullseye, who is probably superhuman. It's just not likely to become an issue in our game. At least not for the PC's...