Multiple Attack: EC vs. MP

[Diamond Spear]

Forgive me if this topic has already been addressed. I was re-reading the rules on Multiple Attacks and was wondering if it was written, at least in part, to encourage more use of Elemental Controls and less use of Multipowers.

The advantage to the EC is clear, if you have an EB, Flash and NND in an EC you can use them all in the same phase whereas the same powers bought through a MP can only be used one at a time. I am assuming here that the MP is not bought with enough points to power all three attacks at the same time as this would be much more expensive than buying an EC and I am also basing this on full power attacks since the effectiveness of multiple attacks from a MP is greatly reduced in most circumstances.

For instance in a 60 AP limit game the character with an EC can attack with a 12d6 EB, 12d6 flash and 6d6 NND in one phase with the only drawback being the large expenditure of END. All this for a cost of 120 points. The same character using a MP would have to spend 216 points to be able to perform the same attack. Makes you want to use that EC much more than a MP now doesn’t it?

The next advantage I see in using the EC is that the same expenditure of points on combat skill levels bought for a tight group of maneuvers such as an EC or MP will give a greater benefit to the person who bought the EC when used in a Multiple Attack maneuver, since the character with the EC in the above example would gain the OCV bonus for three different attacks (even though only one strike roll is made) whereas the same points spent for the attack powers in a MP are only useful for one attack at a time. It’s almost like getting three times the levels for regular price.

Looking back at many of the 4th edition villain write-ups and the hundreds of player characters I’ve seen, MPs were always favored over Ecs because of the point cost savings. With the creation of the Multiple Attack rule it now seems that the EC is much more advantageous as it allows for more combat options than the MP and still retains its traditional advantage of allowing things like FF and Flight to be added at reduced cost as well.

Hope that came out as coherently as I hoped. Thoughts on this?

[Sean Waters]

I don't particularly like frameworks at all, but they are a necessary evil. Mind you my reading of 5ER 358 is that you can not use two slots in the same EC to MPA. And indeed 5ER315.

[Diamond Spear]

I don't particularly like frameworks at all, but they are a necessary evil. Mind you my reading of 5ER 358 is that you can not use two slots in the same EC to MPA. And indeed 5ER315.

Well that kind of make my argument moot then doesn't it? :(

I guess that's what I get for re-reading rule books late at night. :)

[Sean Waters]

You can probably attack with several slots in an EC if you use two weapon fighting/rapid fire/sweep. Or not, depending on your GM.

[Sean Waters]

Well that kind of make my argument moot then doesn't it? :(

I guess that's what I get for re-reading rule books late at night. :)


Sleep deprivation is an underutilised rality alteration technique. I'm sure it WAS different at 3am :)

[Hugh Neilson]

One of my first thoughts on reading the MPA rules was that this finally provided a reason to place multiple attack powers in an EC rather than a multipower. Then, I read the same sections Sean cites above, prohibiting an MPA made with 2 or more powers in an EC.

I'm not sure of the logic. The EC certainly reduces the cost of those multiple attacks below buying them each independently, possibly justifying some restriction. But the Multipower saves far more points, even if we're only discussing, say, three different attacks, justifying the EC being less restrictive. Yet MPA's for an EC are actually more restrictive if you have Standard MP slots, and as restrictive if you use Ultras.

Looks like the construct of choice now should be to put one of those atack powers (probably the plain vanilla EB) in your EC, and leave the rest in your Multipower. Assuming all Ultras, that's a 24 point cost for 60 AP powers (30 to add an EC slot less 6 for removing a Multi slot) and you can now combine your EB with any one of your Multipower slots.

[Bloodstone]

So, if your character just happens to want to make massive MP's and doesn;t mind carring around a lot of equipment...

40 Super Cool Blaster: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots OIF (-1/2)
4u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 6
4u 2) Sight Group Flash 12d6 (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 6
4u 3) Energy Blast 6d6, No Normal Defense ([Standard]; +1) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 6

5 An exact Copy of the Blaster
5 Yet another exact copy of the Blaster

Powers Cost: 62

[Sean Waters]

So, if your character just happens to want to make massive MP's and doesn;t mind carring around a lot of equipment...

40 Super Cool Blaster: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots OIF (-1/2)
4u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 6
4u 2) Sight Group Flash 12d6 (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 6
4u 3) Energy Blast 6d6, No Normal Defense ([Standard]; +1) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 6

5 An exact Copy of the Blaster
5 Yet another exact copy of the Blaster

Powers Cost: 62

You'd also need a 4d6 transform GM into imbecile :)

I'd rule it is the same MP copied, not a different one, so you could not MPA. But then, I'm a skinflint :D

Oh, and you forgot 5 points for extra limbs.

[Bloodstone]

Well, I never defined what the thing looks like and it is an OIF, so it could be something you strap on or otherwise does not use your hands.

I was actully going to add an RKA, an Entangle and a multi stat Drain, make enough copies to use them all at once then add the approrpiate number of limbs, but I thought that might be pushing it just a tad ;)

Yay for self restraint.

And I agree, any GM that allows it gets what he deserves.

Though I might add that few would blink at somone dual wielding pisttols or swords bought the exact same way, so it really seems MPA via foci only ticks people off when it goes beyond two attacks...

[sazisme]

Isn't there some rule in Elemental control that says you can't have one power linked to another power in the EC (via the disad), but instead you have to buy them as one slot?

Since the multiple attack rule is just the linked disadvantage expanded (so that linked is actually a disadvantage), I would think that you are not allowed to fire multiple attacks from the EC either.

I apologize if this is completly wrong, I'm still playing 4th edition. But I know the EC rules in 4th say you have to buy linked powers as a single slot.

[Phil]

One of my first thoughts on reading the MPA rules was that this finally provided a reason to place multiple attack powers in an EC rather than a multipower. Then, I read the same sections Sean cites above, prohibiting an MPA made with 2 or more powers in an EC.

I'm not sure of the logic.

I would assume that the logic is down to the fact that an EC is supposed to be a single power. Using MPA with EC would effectively be using the same power to attack multiple times. However, because of this, it strikes me that some variation on two-weapon attack ought to be possible. (unless, that is, you ignore two-weapon attack rules as nothing but SFX ;) )

[Diamond Spear]

I would assume that the logic is down to the fact that an EC is supposed to be a single power. Using MPA with EC would effectively be using the same power to attack multiple times. However, because of this, it strikes me that some variation on two-weapon attack ought to be possible. (unless, that is, you ignore two-weapon attack rules as nothing but SFX ;) )

But you can use an attack power, a force field and flight from an EC all at the same time so why would the restriction only apply to attack powers? That does not seem to make much sense.

[Zed-F]

You'd also need a 4d6 transform GM into imbecile :)

I'd rule it is the same MP copied, not a different one, so you could not MPA. But then, I'm a skinflint :D

Well... if they were all attack powers in the MPs, I'd consider it, depending on what the rest of the characters looked like and how powerful the attacks were. Especially if he dropped 10 points on Two-Weapon Fighting (Ranged) -- but then you could argue he's not going to be using MPA most of the time, but Rapid Fire. Having 2 copies of the same attack MP just means he can rapid fire with 2 different slots instead of having to use the same slot for both.

It's only when you start having multiple offensive, defensive, and movement powers in multiple MPs that using the equipment rules for doubling really starts to get cheesy.

[Hugh Neilson]

I would assume that the logic is down to the fact that an EC is supposed to be a single power. Using MPA with EC would effectively be using the same power to attack multiple times. However, because of this, it strikes me that some variation on two-weapon attack ought to be possible. (unless, that is, you ignore two-weapon attack rules as nothing but SFX ;) )

I don't buy the logic. If I can use my Flame Power to fly, project a Flame Bolt EB and project a force field at the same time, why can't I also make that EB bright enough to blind my target, using my Flash at the same time?

[Phil]

I don't buy the logic. If I can use my Flame Power to fly, project a Flame Bolt EB and project a force field at the same time, why can't I also make that EB bright enough to blind my target, using my Flash at the same time?
Yeah, you're right, it's sucky logic. But I cant think of any other reason! :D

[Sean Waters]

I don't think it's logic you're needing here....try this monkey wrench...

The reason is (to my mind) that it would make ECs a very powerful way to circumvent the really quite restrictive rules on linking attacks, which is not what they are there for.

In game, you can come up with whatever justification you want, meta-game it makes sense.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I don't have a problem with players who want to use a Multiple Power Attack with the attack powers in their EC. Of course, the limits I place on Multiple Power Attacks makes it more manageable. Basically, I charge X2 End on MPA's. You add the END cost of each power in the MPA together, then double it. Minimum END cost for an MPA is 10 End, even if all the powers being combined cost 0 End. This keeps MPA rare and under control. Of course, to counter-balance this restriction, I allow the Stun damage in an MPA to add together for purposes of Stunning the target.

[Sean Waters]

I don't have a problem with players who want to use a Multiple Power Attack with the attack powers in their EC. Of course, the limits I place on Multiple Power Attacks makes it more manageable. Basically, I charge X2 End on MPA's. You add the END cost of each power in the MPA together, then double it. Minimum END cost for an MPA is 10 End, even if all the powers being combined cost 0 End. This keeps MPA rare and under control. Of course, to counter-balance this restriction, I allow the Stun damage in an MPA to add together for purposes of Stunning the target.

Then you are mad.:idjit:

Well, maybe not mad, but I take it you like a game where there are lots of stunned (and probably unconscious) characters really early on. I mean, 12d6 EB and a 4d6 RKA would cost 2x(6+6) is 24 END, which is, admittedly a lot BUT would average around 84 stun, which would be well worth it. That would be enough to stun virtually anything in any game I've run recently where 12DC was a normal sort of attack.

Once a character is stunned they tend to be sitting duckies. The rules for coordinating attacks are bad enough, this seems like crazy talk.

BUT I'd be interested to know if my expectations are in fact no more than hot air; how does that work out for you?

[Hugh Neilson]

It makes sense if you think about an EC purchased with 3-4 attack powers with the sole-purpose of getting the cost break to be used only as part of an MPA:

25 Photonic Control: 50 point multipower
25 a) 10d6 EB
25 b) 10d6 Flash
25 b) 3d6+1 RKA

For the 100 points you now have 3 attacks which can be MPA-fired every phase. An experienced GM will realize this [and not allow it] but a novice GM will not [and get burned by a munchkin player; possibly ruining the game for everyone]. The rule is put into place to help keep balance. Each GM is then allowed to disregard the rule if they do not feel it will inbalance thier particular game.

Now, when you compare this to 150 points to be able to have the same three powers used in a MPA, this appears too cheap.

However, let's compare your EC to a Multipower of Ultra slots

50 Photonic Control: 50 point multipower
5 a) 10d6 EB
5 b) 10d6 Flash
5 c) 3d6+1 RKA

For 65 points, I get all the functionality of your 100 point EC (neither one can MPA, so I don't need Standard slots). As well, each slot's power must now be drained separately - multipowers don't share that little "drain one/drain all" limitation. As a result, this construct, 35% cheaper, is more powerful.

Or, for 80 points, I can get all this, plus the ability to mix & match at my discretion (eg. 9d6 EB + 1d6 Flash so your DCV is down - my colleagues with reserved phases now Rapid Fire you into oblivion.

[Sean Waters]

I'm thinking if you just want to buy attacks, you buy a MP, but if you want to buy other stuff you want to use at the same time as attacks, you buy an EC, and if you want to MPA you buy both.

What you can do and what you should do with frameworks lie in two very different countries to my mind.

[GAZZA]

Ah, multiple power attacks. I fondly remember the 4th edition days and the fights that the Linked limitation could spawn. 5th edition was supposed to end these fights, and yet it doesn't seem to have done so.

In brief: back in the days of the BBB, there were two camps. Camp A said "Linked allows two powers to be used together at the same time. You can't use two powers at the same time otherwise." Camp B said, "Bollocks, that would mean that Linked is not a limitation. You can use as many powers to attack as you like; Linked means that you have to use them together."

And there was much fighting. Friendships shattered. Vendettas were initiated, only to fall to shockingly brutal reprisals.

As a member of "Camp B", I proposed the following: let us suppose you want to prove that multiple power attacks without linked are unbalancing. One way to do this would be as follows:

Elemental Control (Multiattack Power), 20 point reserve
8d6 Energy Blast a-20
8d6 Energy Blast b-20
8d6 Energy Blast c-20
8d6 Energy Blast d-20

A total of 100 points. (You can substitute other powers for the duplicate EBs if you like; it complicates the point, but it remains true). That gives you a 32d6 attack - oh dear, we can't be allowing this!

Except... it's virtually worthless. Compare it to a 20d6 Energy Blast, no frills, same cost. A typical Champions campaign might have 20-30 DEF as standard. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the average damage of 8d6 vs 20 DEF is actually more than 8 (since you can't do negative damage), that's somewhere in the region of 32 STUN for the EC power compared to 50 STUN for the straight Energy Blast. And it gets worse with higher DEF. Yes, the 32d6 does more against normals with very low defenses, but that's hardly relevant - 20d6 does enough to KO (or kill!), with less "wasted".

"Oho!" you may cry, "but the latter would break the DC limits for the game!" True, but so does the former! It's not the fact that you have multiple attacks that is the problem; it's that you have so large an attack. It's clearly not a 32 DC attack, or even a 20 DC attack, but it's probably worth at least 15 or so. You should evaluate it on that basis, exactly the same way that you should be suspicious of someone claiming that a 10d6 EB with a Linked 50 Active Point Flash doesn't violate the 10DC game limits.

Along comes 5th edition and gives a result that pleases neither camp totally (it's a Camp B response, but it specifically disallows the EC construct above). Personally I think I was right back in the 4th ed days, and I'm still right now: EC slots should be allowed to be combined in Multiple Power Attacks. Just make sure that when you're evaluating an EC that contains attack powers that no possible combination thereof will violate whatever DC limit you are comfortable with - exactly as you should do for any Linked powers.

At the end of the day, a Multipower such as:

Multipower, 100 point reserve
10d6 Energy Blast 5-u
10d6 Energy Blast 5-u
25 DEF FF 5-u
25" Flight 5-u

is equally open to abuse. 5th edition (AFAIK - I don't have the book with me) has no problem with simultaneously activating the first two slots of that construct in a Multiple Power Attack. Yet:

EC, 25 point reserve
10d6 Energy Blast a-25
10d6 Energy Blast b-25
25 DEF FF c-25
25" Flight d-25

is somehow not allowed, even though (a little) more expensive? (NOTE: yes, it seems that I've gotten a very good deal here by spending only 5 more points; I have, however, presented the minimum number of Multipower slots for which this is the case. Add a couple more slots and the MP is a clear winner).

The MP got the extra attack for 5 points. The EC had to pay 25 points for it. It seems ludicrous that the MP would be allowed while the EC was not. If one is unbalanced, then the other must be as well.

Anyway, just my opinion.

[Duke Bushido]

Mind you my reading of 5ER 358 is that you can not use two slots in the same EC to MPA. And indeed 5ER315.

Wha.....?


I'm not doubting you, Sean, but that makes precious little sense.

[Sean Waters]

Wha.....?


I'm not doubting you, Sean, but that makes precious little sense.


....and why should that come as a surprise :)?

5er=5th edition revised, and the number is a page reference.

Gazza. Interesting argument, not sure what you are arguing for.

I'm not keen on MPAs, but I can see that if you spend the points you should be able to go for it. Mind you you are comparing apples and oranges: You've got a MP containing attack, defence and movement powers, which no one has done since the days of Starburst (not TM), which makes it all a bit squiffy anyway. In addition you have doubled the pool for the MP but not the pool for the EC: is is any wonder you get more utility out of the MP? Personally I don't think the rules have been properly thought through, but like I said above, my take is that ECs are not there in a primarily offensive capacity - they have uses and cost breaks that a MP can not realistically match (take out one of your attacks - the MP would need a 150 point pool to run attack, defence and movement all at once - far, far more expensive than the EC)

Horses, I'd say, for courses.....

[GAZZA]

You've got a MP containing attack, defence and movement powers, which no one has done since the days of Starburst (not TM), which makes it all a bit squiffy anyway.

"No one"? I've done it from time to time; it makes a reasonable approach for a superpowered wizard.

Sorry if that's not the "officially approved" method. :)



In addition you have doubled the pool for the MP but not the pool for the EC: is is any wonder you get more utility out of the MP?

Doubled the pool for the MP here so that it can have two powers running simultaneously - again, in a similar manner to how I've constructed certain superpowered mages in the past.

There's nothing officially "wrong" with that approach. If you want someone that has a host of different attack powers, a host of different defenses, and a host of different movement powers, but can use only 2 of 3 at once, that's a reasonable way to build it. (The more common case of having just attack and defenses there can of course be simulated with 2 separate Multipowers, but there's nothing wrong with merging the two - assuming, of course, that the special effects are OK).



Personally I don't think the rules have been properly thought through, but like I said above, my take is that ECs are not there in a primarily offensive capacity - they have uses and cost breaks that a MP can not realistically match (take out one of your attacks - the MP would need a 150 point pool to run attack, defence and movement all at once - far, far more expensive than the EC)

I think you're coming at this from the wrong direction. Rather than say that "ECs are not supposed to be offensive" and (by implication) that MPs are, I would suggest rather that ECs are for powers you can use all at once, and MPs are for powers you can use only 1 at a time (very generally speaking; the example I showed allows 2 at a time, and non-fixed slots allow many of them at reduced power, etc.) I do not see any reason to treat attack powers differently to any other kind of power in either framework.

My construct above is designed to demonstrate that there is nothing inherently abusive in the idea of even an all-EB elemental control - so why complicate the system with unnecessary restrictions?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Then you are mad.:idjit:

Hey, I've been called much worse :fear:



Well, maybe not mad, but I take it you like a game where there are lots of stunned (and probably unconscious) characters really early on. I mean, 12d6 EB and a 4d6 RKA would cost 2x(6+6) is 24 END, which is, admittedly a lot BUT would average around 84 stun, which would be well worth it. That would be enough to stun virtually anything in any game I've run recently where 12DC was a normal sort of attack.

I normally don't run standard 4-color Superhero games. When I do run standard supers, they tend to be rooted in the Iron Age style with a hint of manga (I loved Stormwatch!) so I don't mind brutal fights. I really don't want my fights to go on forever, and the one's I do want to last ("Boss Fights") I build the enemies accordingly.

In anycase, its not that bad. A 12D6 EB does an average of 42 stun. A 4D6 KA with a X3 Stun multiplier does an average of 42 stun as well. Assuming a foe can bring 20pts of Defense to the table, thats only 44 Stun after adding them together. Don't forget that the attacks have to penetrate the targets defenese before being added together, so most Bricks are still not very threatened by such attacks.



Once a character is stunned they tend to be sitting duckies. The rules for coordinating attacks are bad enough, this seems like crazy talk.

Yep, I'm crazy like that.

I like to provide the characters with ways of taking down even a very tough foe. I tend to build supertough foes that can bounce most of their standard attacks to see how they handle the situation. Pushing is one way. Haymaker is another. Multiple Power Attack is another. A Pushed and Haymakered Multiple Power Attack, while probably coma inducing (due to End costs) will likely disintigrate most foes. (what my group calls the "So na Baka na" effect) but this is something we'll see only once or twice in a campaign, if ever, so I don't have a problem with it.



BUT I'd be interested to know if my expectations are in fact no more than hot air; how does that work out for you?

No, your expectations are probably dead-on. if you play in a group thats used to playing Champions on a regular basis...they're probably going to try to exploit such options. On the other hand, my players tend to play in genre for whatever our Campaign is set it. We're pretty heavy roleplayers, so abuse of such options is rare. Also, I give my players no reason to abuse such optional rules....75% of the foes their characters face they OWN. I do that on purpose (makes the players feel effective), so that when they face a Boss or mini-Boss, they try their standard tactics first, and only resort to the extreme stuff when all the other avenues have failed.....which is as it should be!

[Sean Waters]

"No one"? I've done it from time to time; it makes a reasonable approach for a superpowered wizard.

Sorry if that's not the "officially approved" method. :)

I tend to be super-centric in my thinking. There's nothing oficial about me though :)



Doubled the pool for the MP here so that it can have two powers running simultaneously - again, in a similar manner to how I've constructed certain superpowered mages in the past.

There's nothing officially "wrong" with that approach. If you want someone that has a host of different attack powers, a host of different defenses, and a host of different movement powers, but can use only 2 of 3 at once, that's a reasonable way to build it. (The more common case of having just attack and defenses there can of course be simulated with 2 separate Multipowers, but there's nothing wrong with merging the two - assuming, of course, that the special effects are OK).

Why is wrong in quotes? The problem to my ind is that you have a 4 slot EC and a 4 slot MP, but you can only run 2 of the MP slots and you can run 3 of the EC slots (as you can't MPA) at once. So there is nothing wrong with the approach, but if you are trying to compare MP andEC cost/utility then it seems to me you re starting at the wrong base. You're wrong, I'm wrong, we're all wrong. I'm stopping all this negative energy right here....


"I think you're coming at this from the wrong direction. Rather than say that "ECs are not supposed to be offensive" and (by implication) that MPs are, I would suggest rather that ECs are for powers you can use all at once, and MPs are for powers you can use only 1 at a time (very generally speaking; the example I showed allows 2 at a time, and non-fixed slots allow many of them at reduced power, etc.) I do not see any reason to treat attack powers differently to any other kind of power in either framework.

My construct above is designed to demonstrate that there is nothing inherently abusive in the idea of even an all-EB elemental control - so why complicate the system with unnecessary restrictions?


I think MPs are "primarily" offensive in that the type of power you tend to use one at a time is offensive powers. Oddly we seem to be agreeing mechanics(and sorry if my rather offhand "Gazza. Interesting argument, not sure what you are arguing for." came across at all offensively: I'd just got up and my brain doesn't really get into gear until past lunchtime :)) but disagreeing over terms. Divided by a common language. Must get more sleep....

[Sean Waters]

No, your expectations are probably dead-on. if you play in a group thats used to playing Champions on a regular basis...they're probably going to try to exploit such options. On the other hand, my players tend to play in genre for whatever our Campaign is set it. We're pretty heavy roleplayers, so abuse of such options is rare. Also, I give my players no reason to abuse such optional rules....75% of the foes their characters face they OWN. I do that on purpose (makes the players feel effective), so that when they face a Boss or mini-Boss, they try their standard tactics first, and only resort to the extreme stuff when all the other avenues have failed.....which is as it should be!

Sounds like a good group and a good game. Now I feel all munchkiny. Must go take a bath....:eek:

[SCUBA Hero]

5th edition (AFAIK - I don't have the book with me) has no problem with simultaneously activating the first two slots of that construct in a Multiple Power Attack.5ER prohibits that; see p. 311 and 358. This prohibition was not explicity in 5E.

[prestidigitator]

While there are restrictions about what you can use in an MPA, I don't believe there are any official restrictions on what you can use in a Sweep or Rapid Fire. :whistle:

(Of course those maneuvers do have their own drawbacks, but the potential....)

[GAZZA]

5ER prohibits that; see p. 311 and 358. This prohibition was not explicity in 5E.
Damn and blast.

From my perspective, I "only just got" 5th edition (which is to say I got it a while back, but I haven't actually used it much). I've seen all these references to "FRED" and sort of hoped it was more along the lines of "D&D 3.5" - essentially ignorable - but I'm getting the impression that the changes are a little more extensive than that. Which means that I'm probably going to have to upgrade, if only to decide what parts I'm throwing out. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

5ER prohibits that; see p. 311 and 358. This prohibition was not explicity in 5E.

So much for standard slots and VPP's.

Amd are we not now back to "linked allows two powers to work together when they otherwise cannot", at least within a framework?

[Bloodstone]

Well, you don't technically need linked. You can just write up an single slot as a Combination power, though linked will obviously net you some savings so it's silly not to use it.

I know Saphire has such a construct: Combination Bolt: 8d6 EB plus 4d6 Sight Group Flash, linked (-1/2).


In any event, to be honest that was a change I didn't notice in 5ER. Makes flexi slots in an offenseive MP pretty useless now...

[Hugh Neilson]

That rule is bogus. If I have a 45 point gadget pool and use it to make 2 pistols [ one a 3d6 rka, oaf and the other a 9d6 flash, oaf] it is stupid to assume I can't use both of them at the same time in an MPA [as long as I take into account the correct penalties]. Most of the time I feel as though the Hero rules are getting more and more twisted with each pass.

There seems to be an increasing focus on preventing anything which might be "broken" in some circumstances, which closes off a lot of good, non-broken options. I see more and more rules I consider arbitrary ("no special powers in frameworks"; "powers in EC's must cost END" for example) I'd rather have the flexibility and disallow anything that will unbalance my game myself. This is a key example.

Should two slots in an EC be allowed to combine in an MPA? I can see arguments on both sides of this question. On the "no" side, you get a significant disocunt over buying the powers without an EC. On the yes side, you pay a lot more than for a series of attacks in a multipower (where ay MPA is limited to the total AP of the multipower).

Should two slots in a Multipower be allowed to MPA? There, I think the answer should be yes. If you have enough AP in the multipower (perhaps because of flexible slots), there is no reason an MPA should be prevented.

With a VPP, I thoughtthe rules board question a while back which indicated you could have any number of powers in the VPP as an MPA, provided your total AP in the atack did not exceed the VPP pool, was a reasonable approach.

If I can choose that powers be a "combo slot" without linking them, why not set every VPP power as part of a "combo slot"? I'd also be very leery of a VPP power taking a limitation for "linked", unless the VPP structure prevents a quick change to un-link them.

OK, reading 5er p 311, you require GM permission to put two powers in the same slot unless they ae linked.

I also find it annoying to see 5er change the rules for MPA's.


if two or more powers are in the same Power Framework, he must have enough points in his Power Framework to allocate to both of them

In other words, 5e clearly states you CAN MPA with two attacks in the same framework.


a character may not combine two or more slots from s ingle Power Framework as part of a multiple-power attack, even if he has suficient reserve of base points to use both slots at once

An equally clear statement that 5er prohibits this.

There was a lot of concern comparing 5er to D&D 3.5. This was dispelled with the statement there would be NO rule changes from 5e to 5er, only clarifications. For this reason, issues like revisiting Damage Shield, Regeneration and Instant Change were shot down on the "What do you want to see in 5er" thread -any rules changes had to wait until 6e. The MPA rules, however, have clearly been changed.

NOTE: I don't wish to be interpreted as saying "Hero can't change the rules". They can. I'm not even saying one approach is clearly superior to the other (though I have my own opinions in this regard). I am saying that it was not appropriate to make this, or any other, rules change after repeatedly committing that 5er would not change the rules in any way. It seems pretty obvious this was a change considering the need for a specific notation previously that two EC powers could not combine into an MPA. That clause remains on page 315 of 5er, and is clearly not needed with the change in the MPA rules.

[incrdbil]

I'm ok with the EC limits. I see the EC is well asessentially one power--if you want some form of MPA attack capability with an EC, make that one power attack a combined power within a slot. Linked if that makes you happy. Same for multipowers.

Since a MPA is such a potential devastating combo (it was sort of universally agreed not to happen in ym ld groups prior to 5th edition) I'm happy that its somewhat of a challenge to do and won't be exactly cheap on points no matter how you try it. Martial Artissts seem to be happy about it.

However, with proper constraints and reasonable player use, I could ok the MPA use of multiple EC powers, (and as far as I"m conceerned, powers made out of VPP are individual powers, not framework limited) if I felt it wasn't oo imbalancing, and maybe imposing some fuirther campaign limits. (An OCV penalty per power tossed in, or, what I liked above the extra end cost).

Another thought--an advantage that allows powers in an EC to be used as part of a MPA? Say +1/4 or +1/2? I'm not sure I like an advantage thats purely framework driven like that, but it could be a way to keep EC based MPA individual attacks in control.

[Hugh Neilson]

Another thought--an advantage that allows powers in an EC to be used as part of a MPA? Say +1/4 or +1/2? I'm not sure I like an advantage thats purely framework driven like that, but it could be a way to keep EC based MPA individual attacks in control.

I don't like that idea. If this is a problem, it really means EC point savings are unbalanced and/or MPA's are unbalanced. If this is the case the rules should be fixed in general, not just for this one combination. Plus, you can take a -1/4 limitation already for powers that cannot MPA, so this would further increase the point spread.

If an EC with multiple attack powers requires special fixes to be "balanced", why doesn't a EC with multiple defemnsive powers require similar fixing?

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm ok with the EC limits. I see the EC is well asessentially one power--if you want some form of MPA attack capability with an EC, make that one power attack a combined power within a slot. Linked if that makes you happy. Same for multipowers.

To reiterate, if I can make fire bright enough to blind, or hot enough to burn, why can't I make fire both bright enough to blind and hot enough to burn at the same time? I xcan use my fire as a blast, a shield and a flight mechanism simultaneously - why should this be different?

[GAZZA]

On the whole, I didn't think 5e was much of an improvement over 4e - to be honest, I kind of felt I wasted my money buying it. From the sounds of it, FRED is worse. I'm not sure that I wouldn't rather just ignore whatever the "official" position is and buy the FH Grimoire instead - something I'll use, rather than shelve after reading.

But as always YMMV.

[incrdbil]

If an EC with multiple attack powers requires special fixes to be "balanced", why doesn't a EC with multiple defemnsive powers require similar fixing?

Bevcause, presumabily, the characters total defenses are being kept in check by a GM.

I wasn't perfectly happy with the advantage option either, just a suggestion. MPA's with multiple attacks in a EC is, well, begging for abuse. (Heck MPA's alone can be unbalancing before you start talking about framework cost reductions)

Every time this discussion pops up, some small part of me says just to bar MPA's in general, but it takes away a lot of valid builds.

[incrdbil]

To reiterate, if I can make fire bright enough to blind, or hot enough to burn, why can't I make fire both bright enough to blind and hot enough to burn at the same time? I xcan use my fire as a blast, a shield and a flight mechanism simultaneously - why should this be different?

As a game genre, this sounds ok. Of course, you could say that the blinding part of the power shoudl be part of the EB; sometimes your flame isn't painfully bright--but this is comic book reality after all, and sometimes fire is blinding, and sometimes its not.

As a GM, I'll say no in this instance because of its potential unbalancing nature--in a campaign with 12d6 DC limits, MPA from an EC that hits with a 12 d6 eb, flash, and rka at once is simply too much. the 12d6 eb and flash at once may very well be too much.

A 12d6 (or less) eb with a few dice of flash is less of a problem for me in terms of balance.

The frameworks give you a cost savings. There are tradeoffs. MPA's have a gret ability to change the balance of a game--stacked MPA's at or near the DC limits quickly make a mockery of campaign damage limits. But well done MPA's can be part of a valid build.

I thinkl the combo of EB in EC, and following attacks in MP might strike a is worth considering, as its far easiier to put a lesser attack in the MP slot thats not too powerful for MPA use than in a pure EC construct.

Example, in EC--a 12d6 eb.
Im MP--a full strength flash (bought with the limit of not being used with a MPA) then a slot with a lesser flash that isn't bought with that limit. Trying to create the same power in a pure MP slot might push the reserve over the active point limit for a power for the campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Bevcause, presumabily, the characters total defenses are being kept in check by a GM.

It's interesting that GM's who can readily manage defense totals fall to incompetence when managing attack levels, isn't it?

[Hugh Neilson]

As a GM, I'll say no in this instance because of its potential unbalancing nature--in a campaign with 12d6 DC limits, MPA from an EC that hits with a 12 d6 eb, flash, and rka at once is simply too much. the 12d6 eb and flash at once may very well be too much.

Is it less a problem if the player pays 180 points instead of 120 points, and avoids all other limitations of the EC?

Is a 24d6 EB for the same 120 point cost less powerful?


The frameworks give you a cost savings. There are tradeoffs.

How do frameworks provide a greater benefit, requiring a greater limitation, when used to purchase attack powers than when used to purchase defense, movement or other powers? I don't buy that any more than I buy the crazed belief that, somehow, disallowing Life Support in an EC, whether because it costs no END or because it is a special power, somehow fosters "game balance".

Power costs should be balanced on the assumption no frameworks are available. Frameworks should then be balanced. If the former is not the case change the powers' for all frameworks, and for indivisual purchase. If the latter is not the case, fix the frameworks. But don't try to tell me a larger and larger group of arbitraty, even nonsensical, restrictions in any way enhances "balance".


MPA's have a gret ability to change the balance of a game--stacked MPA's at or near the DC limits quickly make a mockery of campaign damage limits. But well done MPA's can be part of a valid build.

Now we are addressing the MPA - well and good. You have a problem with MPA's, then address MPA's directly. Whether the attacks are purchased individually or through a framework makes little real difference.

One solution is simply to set a combined DC cap. You can MPA, but the total of all DC's in the attack cannot exceed X, with X being somehow referenced to the campaign maximum DC's. Maybe it equals campaign max DC's. Maybe it's campaign max +4 and you can't Haymaker an MPA. Whatever. And you can only exceed it now by pushing.

[nb: my current character started with a 90 point VPP. One restriction I placed on it was that he can never attain a 13DC attack. 12 1/2 d6? Can be done. 13d6? Beyond his power. He can carry a 12d6 Flash, 4d6 RKA and 4d6 ranged Drain if he wants, and MPA as desired, but he has to mix & match - he can't hit 13DC in aggregate.


I think the combo of EB in EC, and following attacks in MP might strike a is worth considering, as its far easiier to put a lesser attack in the MP slot thats not too powerful for MPA use than in a pure EC construct.

For an extra 24 points, assuming no limitations and 60 AP, a character with an EC and a swiss army multipower can swap one attack out of the multipower and into the EC. Now he can fire two attacks as MPA's, both at campaign maximum DC's. Pretty easy construct, in my opinion.

[incrdbil]

It's interesting that GM's who can readily manage defense totals fall to incompetence when managing attack levels, isn't it?


There's also the difference in how attack and defense powers stack. Force filed and armor stack on effect. Two different 10d6 ebs dont combine to a 20d6 eb.


How do frameworks provide a greater benefit, requiring a greater limitation, when used to purchase attack powers than when used to purchase defense, movement or other powers? I don't buy that any more than I buy the crazed belief that, somehow, disallowing Life Support in an EC, whether because it costs no END or because it is a special power, somehow fosters "game balance".

It's not a crazed belief. It may be a different opinion than yours, or mine even.

An elemental control, rarely used properly it seems, is a build reflecting one ability constructed from several powers. Cramming in Life Support in a EC, or an 'enhanced sense EC' might work for a particualr GM of course I've seen it done before. I'm not much of a fan of it, because it normally seems to be an aspect of number crunching, and not having anythign to do one ability being reflected by related powers.

If you ffeel its not unbalancing for your campaign, go for it. For the default game rules, the normal builds of attack powers stacked up in EC's then used as part of a MPA attack is a bit much--somethign that should be by permission, not by default.

Hecl, teven the name of the MPa is a vital clue-multiple power attack. The construction and effects of an EC show that the EC itself is one power. Of course you may think differently. There is no one right way to game, just as long as everyone is having fun.


"As a GM, I'll say no in this instance because of its potential unbalancing nature--in a campaign with 12d6 DC limits, MPA from an EC that hits with a 12 d6 eb, flash, and rka at once is simply too much. the 12d6 eb and flash at once may very well be too much. "

Is it less a problem if the player pays 180 points instead of 120 points, and avoids all other limitations of the EC?

In a 12 DC 20 to 24 average Def campaign, its still a problem regardless of how much the player pays for it. Firing off both at once is too powerful an attack--but paying even all of his points to do so yields an unworkable character because they are too defecient in every other area. YMMV.

I do like, as an addition to the restrictions of framework limitations, a DC capon MPA's, to include linked powers as well. Thank you for adding another option or alternative.

[Hugh Neilson]

There's also the difference in how attack and defense powers stack. Force filed and armor stack on effect. Two different 10d6 ebs dont combine to a 20d6 eb.

This should logically mean that restrictions against mutiple defensive powers should be greater than those on offensive powers. Defensive powers stack much more effectively than offensive powers. [Well, except damage reduction - you only get -1 STUN per 4 PD if you have 75% resistant physical damage reduction...]


An elemental control, rarely used properly it seems, is a build reflecting one ability constructed from several powers. Cramming in Life Support in a EC, or an 'enhanced sense EC' might work for a particualr GM of course I've seen it done before. I'm not much of a fan of it, because it normally seems to be an aspect of number crunching, and not having anythign to do one ability being reflected by related powers.

Yet that "one power" can commonly be used simultaneously as a defensive shield, means of propulsion and single offensive power. Why can it not be used similarly as two or more different types of offensive power, as in the character whose EB can cause damage or blind, or (if one accepts MPA's) do both? Now, limiting the total DC's would mean the character has only so much power - he can emit, perhaps, a 12d6 EB or a 12d6 Flash, but he lacks the strength to emit both at the same time. He could then do a 9d6 EB and a 3d6 Fklash, logically, sacrificing some damage capacity for brightness. But then, that would seem to better mechanically describe a Multipower of flexible slots, wouldn't it?


If you feel its not unbalancing for your campaign, go for it. For the default game rules, the normal builds of attack powers stacked up in EC's then used as part of a MPA attack is a bit much--somethign that should be by permission, not by default.

It may well be unbalancing. Hoqwever, it's no more unbalancing than allowing MOPA's for powers purchased directly. To me, MPA's for EC's provides a reason to put attacks in an EC, rather than just carry a versatile Multipower, creating more variety in characters.

And I don't see how allowing MPA's from Multipowers is similarly unbalancing - they are still restricted to the pool total.


In a 12 DC 20 to 24 average Def campaign, its still a problem regardless of how much the player pays for it. Firing off both at once is too powerful an attack--but paying even all of his points to do so yields an unworkable character because they are too defecient in every other area. YMMV.

Exactly - it's still too powerful. The "not from a framework" sructure just obfuscates the issue, shifting "blame" to frameworks.

And an EC which adds 3 attack powers at 60 AP costs 90 points, 120 if that's the only powers. I can buy 3 60 AP attack powers for 120 points if I slap a -1/2 limitation (such as OIF) on them, or 90 if I shift that to an OAF. The EC is not the only way to reduce the cost of three high AP attacks to a manageable level.

[Duke Bushido]

Great post. Gazza===

lots of thought-provoking snippets.

I just wanted to take a minute to point out one thing:


In brief: back in the days of the BBB, there were two camps. Camp A said "Linked allows two powers to be used together at the same time. You can't use two powers at the same time otherwise." Camp B said, "Bollocks, that would mean that Linked is not a limitation. You can use as many powers to attack as you like; Linked means that you have to use them together."

There was also a Camp C, which felt that MPAs were not allowed, and that Linked _was_ a limitation:

"Quick, LaserMan! Blind them with your Flash before they can hurt the hostages!"
"Well, Sidekick Boy, my Flash is Linked to my Killing Attack Explosion. I can blind them, but I'll have to blow one of them up to do it!"

That sort of thing.

There was a also a Camp D, that determined that under certain circumstances, Linked might well be charged as an Advantage.





At the end of the day, a Multipower such as:

Multipower, 100 point reserve
10d6 Energy Blast 5-u
10d6 Energy Blast 5-u
25 DEF FF 5-u
25" Flight 5-u

is equally open to abuse. 5th edition (AFAIK - I don't have the book with me) has no problem with simultaneously activating the first two slots of that construct in a Multiple Power Attack.

Those are Ultras, right? Just a clarification question:

are you saying that 5E has no problem letting you open both ultras (which sadly, I don't doubt), or is that a typo?

[Duke Bushido]

Never mind that typo question; it was answered later in the thread. Sorry.

[GAZZA]

Those are Ultras, right? Just a clarification question:

are you saying that 5E has no problem letting you open both ultras (which sadly, I don't doubt), or is that a typo?
Note that the Multipower is 100 points, and the ultras are only 50. Unless something very serious changed between 5e and FRED, you can activate two 50 point ultras simultaneously in a 100 pt Multipower (ignoring for the moment the whole MPA issue).

I agree that there were multiple camps beyond the two I mentioned in the bad old days of 4e; I was summarising the position for the benefit of the young tykes that may not have been around that long. Didn't mean to imply that we were all die hard extremists. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Note that the Multipower is 100 points, and the ultras are only 50. Unless something very serious changed between 5e and FRED, you can activate two 50 point ultras simultaneously in a 100 pt Multipower (ignoring for the moment the whole MPA issue).

Nothing's changed in that regard. In fact, the USPD includes an example of a player building a character using that type of structure in a Multipower.