General Rules Issues

[Hugh Neilson]

Would you allow a limitation for "last 4d6 are applied seperately against defenses"?

While I would see that as a limitation, I suggest that limitation should be greater than the Reduced Penetration limitation, which only applies the attacks separately for BOD purposes.

At the same time, if you buy an 8d6 EB and a 4d6 EB, they apply separately against defenses. An 8d6 EB and a 4d6 EB in a MPA are no different from an 8d6 EB +4d6, applies separately against defenses.

[Istaran]

Although it is a rule I disagree with, the rules have always prohibited MPA with two or more powers in the same EC. In 5er, this was extended to two or more powers in any single framework.

To me, the character who has 6 attack powers in an EC has paid 210 points, when he could have paid 90 to have the same 6 attack powers available one at a time in a Multipower. That extra 120 point cost should carry some benefits. At present, it carries only the drawback that the attacks are now all drained together. A character with the same six powers in a MP with flexible slots, costing 120 instead of 90 points, should have the ability to MPA as well - that is, mix & match within the slots. Otherwise, what benefit did that 30 points extra (1/3 more cost) generate?

So paying more points should generate better results. Makes sense.

I think the rules should try to set out how the game works by default, not set out a bunch of choices for the GM to choose from. House rules are fine, but there should be a default system.

If MPA's do not exist, Linked should not permit an MPA. Under the present system, Linked reduces options (appropriate for a limitation) rather than granting an option that cannot be obtained otherwise.

Should be MPA rules be modified to bring them more in line with Sweep and Rapid Attack? I think that all of these maneuvers, which allow characters to effectively make more than one attack as a single action, should be rationalized. Whether that means more penalties for MPA's, or less penalties for Sweep and Rapid Attack, they should be consistent. The rules for hitting the same opponent three times with my Energy Blast should not be substantially different from the rules for hitting him once with my EB, once with my KA and again with my NND.

So paying more points shouldn't generate better results. Wait, what?

MPA has a significant cost prerequisite above and beyone what Sweep, Rapid Attack, and even Autofire require in terms of cost. (Ignoring the cheesy 5 pt x2 item MPA idea. Though if the doubling rule remains it should be made clear you can't MPA with it.) It seems reasonable then that it should have less penalties to use.

[Hugh Neilson]

So paying more points shouldn't generate better results. Wait, what?

MPA has a significant cost prerequisite above and beyone what Sweep, Rapid Attack, and even Autofire require in terms of cost. (Ignoring the cheesy 5 pt x2 item MPA idea. Though if the doubling rule remains it should be made clear you can't MPA with it.) It seems reasonable then that it should have less penalties to use.

There's something to be said for this logic. At the same time, I believe it should be possible to hit three different targets, one with each attack, just as I can Sweep or Rapid Attack to hit three different targets with my EB. There is certainly an advantage to hitting the one target without the appropriate defense with my NND, the target with the defense with my EB and the Automaton with my KA, rather than chosing to hit each target with the same attack.

I think the rules should be dovetailed, but I have not given a lot of thought to how they should read. Perhaps the Multiple Attacks rules should provide for the following (as a very rough starting point):

- the character can use each power which he has paid for, and which could be used simulatneously under the normal rules, once in a phase without penalty, provided they use the same type of roll to hit (DEX CV vxs DEX CV; all ranged or all HTH). Thus, attacking Target A with my NND, RKA and EB would be the same as the current MPA rules.

- each additional target results in a -1 cumulative penalty to OCV for all attacks as the character divides his focus.

- each additional use of the same power results in a -1 cumulative penalty to OCV for all attacks as the character divides his focus. The power used the most times in the phase determines the penalty (using three attacks three times results in a -2 penalty, not -6).

- each additional type of attack (range; HTH; ECV rather than DEX CV) imposes a further -2 cumulative penalty to OCV for all attacks as the character divides his focus.

- each attack is rolled separately, and its success or failure resolved separately [I envision a series of attacks fired quickly in succession here.] Where multiple attacks of the same type are used against a single target, the attacker may choose to fire them as a single combined attack, with a single roll determining success or failure for all of the attacks [a combined attack, as envisioned by the current MPA rules].

- Linked attacks follow all of the above rules except that they are always resolved as a single roll and must all be directed at the same target. A character with a Linked EB and Flash could target two different targets with the same attack (rolling to hit once against each of them, with a -1 OCV for the single added target and -1 for using the same attack twice), or twice against one target (with the same -1 OCV penalty for double use of an attack). He could not fire the EB against one target and the Flash against another.

That seems a reasonable framework. Of course, we might want to keep a -2 penalty for each usage, or vary the penalties between types. It definitely needs playtesting.

As to the "doubled for +5", I think this needs to be addressed in some manner. Even if it had no other issues, the ability to double focused powers, but not innate powers, provides an unreasonable advantage to powers with the Focus limitation.

[Talon]

Regarding MPAs, 5ER has a lot of "if the GM prefers" text scattered about the Multiple-Power Attack section. This makes it clear that the concept is one that GMs may wish to restrict or alter for their game -- but there is not a coherent discussion.

In 6E, while I think MPAs should definitely be included (and I like folding them into Sweep and the other multi-attack rules), I think that the concept of combining multiple Attack Powers into a single Attack Roll could become another Optional Combat rule.

[Klaus Mogensen]

It seems to me that the debate has largely died down. Might this not be a good time to close it and let Steve sort it through? Hopefully he will then call for a second round based on the suggestions he wants to test.

- Klaus

[Kdansky]

That seems very reasonable

[AnotherSkip]

Still say this is a Dark Champions Style Distraction....

[Talon]

It seems to me that the debate has largely died down. Might this not be a good time to close it and let Steve sort it through? Hopefully he will then call for a second round based on the suggestions he wants to test.

Makes sense, if Steve is ready to pay that level of attention. If not, I'd say keep it open -- there has been a lot of repetition but also some good stuff over the past couple weeks.

[The Main Man]

This was also posted in Combat Issues:

Here's a little tidbit about Move-Through: It's inconsistent with the Falling rules.

While the following suggestions do not completely solve that issue, I think that they approach it.

1) If a character is moving through objects, they should be able to continue until they either run out of movement in their phase or until an object stops them.


2) I think that if a character knocks back a target with a Move-Through then they should be able to continue moving until they either use up their movement or if they fail to knock back a target, whichever happens first.


3) A character should be able to perform multiple move-throughs.


Sure they could be devastating, but that's assuming that they can hit after the accumulated velocity and multiple attack penalties.

But think about this too: Who would want to line up to get hit head on by characters like The Flash or the Juggernaut?


I think that these two implementations would be better than AOE: Trail.

They also would make Damage Shield a more valuable purchase.

[AnotherSkip]

It seems to me that the debate has largely died down. Might this not be a good time to close it and let Steve sort it through? Hopefully he will then call for a second round based on the suggestions he wants to test.

- Klaus

And a "where are we now" would let us know whethere we need to be COm defenseive or Offensieve

[The Main Man]

Yeah, I'd like to see a second round start too.

[rjcurrie]

As for Steve being ready to deal with these issues, he has said several times that he will not be reading these threads until he is ready to start working on 6th Edition which is currently planned to be in February.

[The Main Man]

As for Steve being ready to deal with these issues, he has said several times that he will not be reading these threads until he is ready to start working on 6th Edition which is currently planned to be in February.

Have you ever seen The Thing?

[Vulcan]

Which has what to do with 6E?

[The Main Man]

Think about it for a while.

It might take a long while, but it'll come to you.

I'll even quote rjcurrie for (infinitesimally slighter) clarification.