So, it is advised that a character combat effectiveness should be capped at +5 during character creation. That kind of ceiling I find very taxative to the characters, at least those in my group seem to feel very restricted. So, I was thinking about a little tweak:
Instead of capping the maximum number of dices used, why not the maximum you are able get from a roll? For example, the GM stabilishes a 'power level' for characters, the maximum any single ability should have at the start of the game. With that, the maximum a player could roll would be 4 times their power level. So, if your power level is +3, your maximum roll is 12.
This makes things in a way that a player could make a character like a swordsman (Combat +3, Hobby/Specialty - Sword +3, Agile +2 = +8 attack) and not be 'broken' because thei are rolling a lot of dice.
My main problem is that I'm not entirelly sure of how much should be the Maximum Roll. It could be power level x3, x4, x5, x6; or maybe a base of 6 + 2 x power level (a character with PL 3 would have maximum 12) ? Or 6 + 3x power level (PL 3, Max 15)?
What do you guys think about this idea?
What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
There is also the possibility with going somewhat similar to Legends of the 5 Rings system, where you would only keep X dice. So, someone with power level +3 could only choose 3 dice, even if they roll 10.
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
If they find it really restrictive, there are a couple of things that could be going on.
First off, they could be making characters that are already at maximum level of badass. The +5 restriction is meant for beginning characters. With OVA, because there are no levels, it is important to understand where you want characters to be when you start the game. Do you want weak characters with lots of room for improvement? Or strong characters who will not improve much? The +5 limitation is geared more toward the latter. Both ways of playing are perfectly valid!
Another possibility is that they do not understand the power levels well enough. Specifically, that every character is assumed to be average at any possible ability unless otherwise noted -- Abilities and Weaknesses are only for extraordinary skills. A tell-tale sign is this: look at your players' characters -- did all or most of them take the Smart Ability at at least +1? Players coming to OVA from other game systems frequently assume that if they don't have an ability on their sheet, they don't have it at all. That is not the case with OVA. (That's what the base 2 dice are!) If your character does not have the Smart Ability, it doesn't mean that they're not smart, only that they're not extraordinarily smart.
For Abilities at +1, your character is notably good at something; at +2, they're very good at that thing; and at +3, they're extremely good at that thing; at +4, they're the best around; at +5, they're best, period. Likewise with Weaknesses, at -1 it's something that noticeably affects the character, at -2 it's something that he struggles with very often, and at -3 it's something that has (or threatens to) completely take over his life.
To limit players in the beginning of the game, I usually tell them that they can have any number of Abilities at +1/+2, but only one Ability at +3. I also usually check their threat values and ask that they keep them around 15. This is for beginner characters, mind you -- for strong characters you'll want to increase the limit a bit.
One thing I want to point out is that Hobby (Knowledge in OVA Revised) should probably not stack with an Ability that does the same thing. So with your example, you would get either the Combat Expert or the Hobby: Swordsman, not both. So let's say you have Combat Expert +1 and Hobby: Swordsman +3. When you are using swords, you'll get the +3 from the hobby, but for other things, you'll use the general Combat Expert.
First off, they could be making characters that are already at maximum level of badass. The +5 restriction is meant for beginning characters. With OVA, because there are no levels, it is important to understand where you want characters to be when you start the game. Do you want weak characters with lots of room for improvement? Or strong characters who will not improve much? The +5 limitation is geared more toward the latter. Both ways of playing are perfectly valid!
Another possibility is that they do not understand the power levels well enough. Specifically, that every character is assumed to be average at any possible ability unless otherwise noted -- Abilities and Weaknesses are only for extraordinary skills. A tell-tale sign is this: look at your players' characters -- did all or most of them take the Smart Ability at at least +1? Players coming to OVA from other game systems frequently assume that if they don't have an ability on their sheet, they don't have it at all. That is not the case with OVA. (That's what the base 2 dice are!) If your character does not have the Smart Ability, it doesn't mean that they're not smart, only that they're not extraordinarily smart.
For Abilities at +1, your character is notably good at something; at +2, they're very good at that thing; and at +3, they're extremely good at that thing; at +4, they're the best around; at +5, they're best, period. Likewise with Weaknesses, at -1 it's something that noticeably affects the character, at -2 it's something that he struggles with very often, and at -3 it's something that has (or threatens to) completely take over his life.
To limit players in the beginning of the game, I usually tell them that they can have any number of Abilities at +1/+2, but only one Ability at +3. I also usually check their threat values and ask that they keep them around 15. This is for beginner characters, mind you -- for strong characters you'll want to increase the limit a bit.
One thing I want to point out is that Hobby (Knowledge in OVA Revised) should probably not stack with an Ability that does the same thing. So with your example, you would get either the Combat Expert or the Hobby: Swordsman, not both. So let's say you have Combat Expert +1 and Hobby: Swordsman +3. When you are using swords, you'll get the +3 from the hobby, but for other things, you'll use the general Combat Expert.
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
Well, without the accumulating effect of Hobbys (knowledges) and special abilities to combat statistics, I believe that solves the problem. I don't know if I like that or not. For one, it means less dice rolled, which I like. For other, it impedes specialization of the character using the mechanics of the system. In theory, I believe you could use special attacks to simulate those (a great swordsman would have many special attacks related to their swordtechnique), but it is not the same thing.
It does, however, make things easier, I have to say. Maybe the extra knowledge could be used for improving the DX? Me personally, I don't use the ability Attack, I find it too generic. I still prefere to use the old Weapon. I feel that it is much less evocative having 'Attack +3' than 'Weapon - Optic Ray' for Ciclops, or wolverine's claws 'Weapon - Claws, or Ginji Amano's electric bolts 'Weapon - Electricity'.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure about those, and I'm kind of digressing. But these are some ideas. = )
It does, however, make things easier, I have to say. Maybe the extra knowledge could be used for improving the DX? Me personally, I don't use the ability Attack, I find it too generic. I still prefere to use the old Weapon. I feel that it is much less evocative having 'Attack +3' than 'Weapon - Optic Ray' for Ciclops, or wolverine's claws 'Weapon - Claws, or Ginji Amano's electric bolts 'Weapon - Electricity'.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure about those, and I'm kind of digressing. But these are some ideas. = )
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
The "Attack" ability is more like Power Attack + Weapon, where you can make a suite of attacks using perks and flaws. (Attack, however, does not have a base endurance cost.) Weapon is now a flaw that you can put on an Attack to show that it needs a weapon to function. (You can also use Gear if your entire ability to attack relies on a piece of gear.)
Hmm... maybe it's better to show with an example. Maybe a swordsman mook, since that's an easy example.
Noble's Bodyguard
Health/Endurance: 20/20
Threat Value: 8.5
Abilities/Weaknesses:
Hmm... maybe it's better to show with an example. Maybe a swordsman mook, since that's an easy example.
Noble's Bodyguard
Health/Endurance: 20/20
Threat Value: 8.5
Abilities/Weaknesses:
- Combat Expert +1
- Quick +2
- Knowledge: Swordplay +3
- Attack +1
- Code of Conduct (Honor) -1
- Guardian (Noble) -2
- Initiative Roll: 4
- Defense Roll: 4
- Unarmed Attack: Roll 3, DM 2
- Sword Attack: Roll 5, DM 2
Weapon (-5), Armor Piercing (+5) - Power Slash: Roll 5, DM 4, End 5
Weapon (-5), Effective x2 (+10)
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
Hum, I don't know if I like this 'attack' ability or not. It's too generic for my taste. I might just stick with the old 'weapon'. Basically, if I make a character like Cyclops or Wolverine, having in mind someone with some sort of weapon that gives them more damage, it's pretty strange to give them Attack +3. With that, if they do ANY damage, that damage is amplified. If they punch, throw knives, shoot guns... I don't like it. Basically, Attack with some sort of limitation, as you pointed in your mook. In other words, the old 'weapon' ability.
In resume, when stating a character, I like to be able to point at his characteristics. So...Inuyasha's Tesaiga, Goku's staff, Link's master sword and things like that.
In resume, when stating a character, I like to be able to point at his characteristics. So...Inuyasha's Tesaiga, Goku's staff, Link's master sword and things like that.
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
I don't think that Cyclops or Wolverine would be able to make use of Weapon (the Flaw) anyway, since their "weapons" are parts of their bodies and not disarm-able. :X
But you can't tell me that the claws are Wolverine's only method of attack! With the "Weapon" Ability, you essentially get only one attack. Unless you make your players take it for every attack they want.
Let's say Wolverine's amazingly badass. (Well, okay, he is....) You could give him Combat Expert +3, Attack +4, Strong +2, and some attacks:
But you can't tell me that the claws are Wolverine's only method of attack! With the "Weapon" Ability, you essentially get only one attack. Unless you make your players take it for every attack they want.
Let's say Wolverine's amazingly badass. (Well, okay, he is....) You could give him Combat Expert +3, Attack +4, Strong +2, and some attacks:
- Adamantium Claws: Roll 5, DM 5
Armor Piercing x2 (+10), Ineffective x2 (-10) - Punch in Yer Face, Bub: Roll 5, DM 5
Fatiguing (+0), Stunning (+10), Ineffective x2 (-10) - Grapple: Roll 5, DM 7, End 10
Fatiguing (+0), Paralyzing (+10), Continued Effect (+10), Unique Flaw (Wolverine can't attack any other character other than the one he is grappling, or the grappled character is released from Paralysis.) (-10)
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
My problem with Attack is that it is too generic to tell something about the character. He can cause damage with actions, that is it. I It's not like 'armor' that must have some sort of explanation and characterisation (medieval armor, super resistant skin, living sand etc), it is just 'cause more damage with anything basically'.
If you had to chose a 'font' of damage - like wolverine being 'martial arts and adamantium claws', Lina (from Slayers) being 'magical energy' and stuff like that, it would be fine. But just having 'Attack' is too generic.
So, that is my criticism: having a descriptor for the type of attack. Nevertheless, I don't know. Maybe just dropping it altogether would be better for me. I will have to play and see what to make out of it.
If you had to chose a 'font' of damage - like wolverine being 'martial arts and adamantium claws', Lina (from Slayers) being 'magical energy' and stuff like that, it would be fine. But just having 'Attack' is too generic.
So, that is my criticism: having a descriptor for the type of attack. Nevertheless, I don't know. Maybe just dropping it altogether would be better for me. I will have to play and see what to make out of it.
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
There are some examples... somewhere, but i normally use an "element" in my Attacks.
Fire Ball (Fire, Reach, Effective 2) Roll x DX x
Laser Sword (Physical, Effective 2, Something 1) Roll x DX x
Fire Ball (Fire, Reach, Effective 2) Roll x DX x
Laser Sword (Physical, Effective 2, Something 1) Roll x DX x
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
I don't understand how making your own attacks is generic. I just named an attack, "Punch in Yer Face, Bub" you don't get less generic than that. XD
The attacks that you make are going on your character sheet, too. "Attack" is just the baseline power for your attacks.
The attacks that you make are going on your character sheet, too. "Attack" is just the baseline power for your attacks.
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
Create your own attacks is not generic, but the `attack` ability is, although I can cope with it.
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
Combat Effectiveness is only a suggestion. If you feel it’s limiting the story you want to tell, throw it out.
–––
If you want to “bring back” the old Weapon Ability while keeping the current Attack Ability, revise the “Weapon” Flaw to read something like this.
“Weapon (?) This attack is actually a weapon, be it a blade, a gun, or something in between. Should you lose it, have it taken from you, or find yourself disarmed during a battle, you may no longer use this Attack. This Flaw grants Endurance equal to five times your level in Attack.”
That should make it behave more or less like it did before—the only difference is you can now use Effective (Damaging) Perks if you choose!
–––
Most of the Characters in OVA have a parenthetical explanation after “Attack” to describe their general combat style (similar to the way Knowledge, Rival, Fear, etc. further explain the focus of the attribute in this manner.) Perhaps that will help?
–––
If you want to “bring back” the old Weapon Ability while keeping the current Attack Ability, revise the “Weapon” Flaw to read something like this.
“Weapon (?) This attack is actually a weapon, be it a blade, a gun, or something in between. Should you lose it, have it taken from you, or find yourself disarmed during a battle, you may no longer use this Attack. This Flaw grants Endurance equal to five times your level in Attack.”
That should make it behave more or less like it did before—the only difference is you can now use Effective (Damaging) Perks if you choose!
–––
Most of the Characters in OVA have a parenthetical explanation after “Attack” to describe their general combat style (similar to the way Knowledge, Rival, Fear, etc. further explain the focus of the attribute in this manner.) Perhaps that will help?
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
Yeah, a descriptor to the type of attack might be enough for me. Also, as a minor detail, I really dislike the `attack` name. It is confusing, considering that you roll dice to attack, but the `attack` ability does not add dices to it.
I remember reading it somewhere else in this forum about your concerns with that name. For me, I will probably call it 'Power', or 'Strike', so it will not be ambiguos.
The way that 'attack' is described here reminds me of a brazilian rpg '3det', where you have a generic 'Attack' atribute which represents the amount of damage that you cause with an attack. But you have to describe what is your type of attack (swords, lasers, magic fireballs etc) and, if you lose your weapon, you will cause -1d damage, unless you have the advantage 'Adaptive', where you can change wapons as you want.
There are many similarities between that objectives of both 3det and OVA, although I prefere OVA for finding it not only more versatile, but more adaptable and simple to grasp than 3det.
I remember reading it somewhere else in this forum about your concerns with that name. For me, I will probably call it 'Power', or 'Strike', so it will not be ambiguos.
The way that 'attack' is described here reminds me of a brazilian rpg '3det', where you have a generic 'Attack' atribute which represents the amount of damage that you cause with an attack. But you have to describe what is your type of attack (swords, lasers, magic fireballs etc) and, if you lose your weapon, you will cause -1d damage, unless you have the advantage 'Adaptive', where you can change wapons as you want.
There are many similarities between that objectives of both 3det and OVA, although I prefere OVA for finding it not only more versatile, but more adaptable and simple to grasp than 3det.
Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
I liked "Technique" or maybe calling attacks "techniques." 
Maybe I will call attacks techniques from now on. My poor players do have problems sorting it out since we moved to Revised. (Mostly because they want to add their Attack ability to their attack rolls....)
Maybe I will call attacks techniques from now on. My poor players do have problems sorting it out since we moved to Revised. (Mostly because they want to add their Attack ability to their attack rolls....)Re: What about Combat Effectiveness vs Maximum Roll?
I just can't have the ability named 'attack', it will be a gigantic problem when I try playing it in conventions and when playing with my group. I have a particular player that, I'm sure, will never settle with the idea to causing more 'damage' with attack instead of rolling more dice. I really do believe that another name should have been chosen.
Technique is a good name for the special attacks, but as an ability I find it confusing. People might think it is similar to knowledge. I believe Power is good, but also Damage or Extra Damage. Since 'attack' is a generic name, 'Damage' would be fine, since the ability does improve damage. So, if you read 'Damage +2' in your sheet, you know "Hey, I can cause +2 damage with my attacks". If you see Attack +2, you will think "Hey, I can roll +2 dice with my attacks".
But that is a minor thing, really. I will either use Damage or Power as the name in my groups, though.
Technique is a good name for the special attacks, but as an ability I find it confusing. People might think it is similar to knowledge. I believe Power is good, but also Damage or Extra Damage. Since 'attack' is a generic name, 'Damage' would be fine, since the ability does improve damage. So, if you read 'Damage +2' in your sheet, you know "Hey, I can cause +2 damage with my attacks". If you see Attack +2, you will think "Hey, I can roll +2 dice with my attacks".
But that is a minor thing, really. I will either use Damage or Power as the name in my groups, though.