Damage class

[Hugh Neilson]

He's using two (or more) powers - being a HKA and his native STR - not two (or more) maneuvers. In fact, the examples provided start with a Robot with a weapon built into each hand using both at the same time. It uses both hands at no OCV or DCV penalty, either.

 

I would agree that the rules are very unclear about where the line between "combined attack" and "multiple attack" is drawn. However, I think the only reason "STR plus HTH weapon" is considered problematic is the orphan mechanic of STR adding to HKA's. That is one reason my example used Martial Arts to max out the dagger, so no ability would add to the DC's of both attacks, as I think STR adding to both a Punch and a KA opens up a deeper question of how STR actually works.

 

As to the thumbtack wielded with 90 STR is an afterthought, I will suggest that a 1 pip HKA added to an 18d6 Punch very much is an afterthought. I think here it is reasonable to suggest that, in a combined attack, the character may only use his STR once, so whatever STR adds to a HKA is not also available to add to normal damage.

 

In my Hulking Warrior example, however, I think most of us would envision the warrior picking up and using the dagger, not dismissing it because 1d6+1 HKA isn't worth using if the alternative is 9d6 normal damage. Allowing the combined attack, or allowing unlimited damage adders for the dagger, both enhance that vision, as it makes sense for the burly dude to use the dagger.

[Outsider]

If the HTH weapon has a STR min, then the character using it is using his STR to use it, so using his STR again to make a punch attack would run afoul of the "can't use the same power twice" rule. Even  if he is only using a fraction of his STR to meet the STR min, he is still using his STR already.  Or so I would think.

[Hugh Neilson]

If the HTH weapon has a STR min, then the character using it is using his STR to use it, so using his STR again to make a punch attack would run afoul of the "can't use the same power twice" rule. Even  if he is only using a fraction of his STR to meet the STR min, he is still using his STR already.  Or so I would think.

The potential for multiple uses of STR is one for adjudication. However, would you prohibit the character using his AoE grenade (which he tosses using STR) and a punch? He needs some STR to pull the trigger on a gun, too. Does that mean he can't fire both of his guns (when the robot quite clearly can fire both of his weapons)?

 

One can as easily assert his STR is propelling both the dagger and his fist. If he cant combine those, can he hold a nightstick in either hand and run past two enemies, doing a Move By on each in the process, or does one stick have to slow down for the other to use his velocity?

[Outsider]

I am a big fan of hitting an opponent more than once, or of hitting multiple opponents simultaneously requiring either a power advantage or at least a cumulatively severe to hit penalty.

 

So yes, I would prohibit a character from using a grenade and a punch as a combined attack.  if you want to do both in the same phase, make a multiple attack, and take the penalties.   Same goes for the nightsticks or most anything else one might come up with.   

 

Otherwise, I am paying 5 points for "extra limbs", declaring I have 20 arms, carrying 20 guns, and shooting people 20 times simultaneously as a 'combined attack' without any penalty to my OCV!

[Hugh Neilson]

While an extreme example, I believe that is book legal. Of course, you may find a cash shortfall prevents buying 20 guns and keeping tem loaded in a game where gear is acquired for cash.

 

In a "pay for points" game, it's still been raised as an issue with 5 points doubling your gear.

 

To put that in an alternate context, if I paid for a 12d6 Blast and an Explosion outside any frameworks, that is pretty costly compared to a Multipower. So my advantage for all those points is to be allowed to use them together only if I take substantial penalties? What if I take Linked on them? I save points and get the advantage of being permitted to use Combined Attack?

 

Hitting multiple opponents is not a Combined Attack (unless using AoE, I suppose). "Using two or more powers or similar abilities (but not Combat/Martial Maneuvers or the like) once against a single target isn’t a Multiple Attack. It’s a Combined Attack, and counts as type of Strike. Therefore it has no OCV penalty, doesn’t halve the attacker’s DCV, and doesn’t take a Full Phase to perform. (Using two such powers multiple times against a single target, or against multiple targets, is a Multiple Attack and subject to all Multiple Attack rules.)"

[Outsider]

A little look on Google says one can get a 9mm pistol for as little as $130, new.   $2600 won't break a character unless they took some sort of poverty disad.  A character who carries an AR-15, along with a .50 Desert Eagle (6" barrel) as a backup will spend about the same.   Bulk 9mm ammunition isn't that expensive either.  If the GM is giving trouble about affording the guns to Mr. 20 Hands, but is allowing other PCs to have a high end desktop, or a new car without hassle, I'd call shenanigans.   The GM should have just said "I know it is book legal, but no, not in my game.  It is extremely unbalancing." during character creation.   But then, Mr. 20 Hands is pretty obviously constructed with rules shenanigans in mind.    A character who is designed to take less obvious advantage of the combined attack rule might or probably would just slip by in creation.   When he first pulls his combined attack plan out from under the covers, the GM then has two options:

 

1) Say "No" at which point there is going to be a heated argument about rules that eats up half the game night, followed by that player carrying a grudge against the GM and/or the campaign, or immediately wanting make a new character, thus eating up the other half of gaming night.  Or you tell him just play and bring a new character next week, at which point the current character starts acting like he just wants to see the world burn.

 

2) Say "OK" at which point every other PC who didn't think of the Combined Attack exploit becomes a spear carrier to/meat shield for Mr Wonderful in combat, since he has double (or more) anyone else's damage output.  The other players then start carrying a grudge or thinking of new character designs because they generally didn't sign up to be supporting actors.  Oh, and the first player will get cranky when intelligent opponents start pig-piling his character at the start of every combat, too, claiming the GM has it out for him.

 

 

Most (all?) campaigns I've played in have guidelines.  "CVs around 7, max 10, attack AP around 30, max 45" kind of thing.   This allows the GM to plan encounters that are challenging, but not guaranteed TPKs.   Throw in a character who is tossing around several maximum AP attacks at maximum OCV every phase and the whole thing comes apart.  Either the combats become a boring cakewalk, or they become TPKs if Mr. Wonderful's isn't participating.

 

 

 

PS: if you link your two attacks, the 'lesser' of them can no longer be used independently.  I would suggest making the explosion the lesser power, since situations where you might want to shoot someone, but not blow up everyone/everything around them are probably a lot more common that ones where you're fine with blowing things up, but don't want to do even more damage to whatever is at the center of the explosion.   In a campaign with damage guidelines, I'd also generally count a linked power set as one power* for guideline purposes.   If the cap is 60 AP, having an 8D6 Explosion linked to a 12D6 Blast would be right out, since that's way more than 60 AP.

[eepjr24]

Third option, you tell the rules lawyer that it will be handled after the game. And then after the game you let them know that if they want to try stuff like that in the future without running it past you before a game they can kindly disinvite themselves from the game since they are ruining everyone else's experience. 

 

- E

[Hugh Neilson]

I suppose you can always set a rule that says "linked attacks will be virtually useless so don't bother", which is exactly what using the same DC limit for two attacks that would apply to a single attack will do. In a 12 DC game, having a 6d6 Blast linked to a 6d6 Flash will be exactly as useful as having a 6d6 Flash.

 

And yes, Linked requires the lower power be used only in conjunction with the higher point one. That is why it is a limitation.

 

The Combined Attack rules were written up in 5e (IIRC - 4e did not say) specifically due to the Great Linked War, which pitted those who thought it was obvious that you could always make a single attack with multiple elements against those who believed that Linked was really an advantage that allowed you to fire off two or more powers as a single attack, and that could not be done without the "limitation".

 

A character throwing around several maximum AP attacks seems pretty unlikely - how many of your points are you spending on those multiple campaign maximum attacks?

 

Of course, it would clearly be completely out of genre for a character to be able to effectively make two attacks. Certainly, there are no two gun cowboys, trident and net wielders, sword and dagger wielders or similar characters in any of the source materials.

[Outsider]

Third option, you tell the rules lawyer that it will be handled after the game. And then after the game you let them know that if they want to try stuff like that in the future without running it past you before a game they can kindly disinvite themselves from the game since they are ruining everyone else's experience. 

 

- E

 

If there were an infinite supply of available players, and the people you are playing with aren't also people you have to deal with in the rest of your life, yeah.  But all too often, dis-inviting your housemate or co-worker leads to other complications.  Better to cut them off at the pass by closing all of the 'book legal' exploits one can ahead of time.  But I suppose that is just pitting my HERO-Fu against their HERO-Fu.

[eepjr24]

I suppose you can always set a rule that says "linked attacks will be virtually useless so don't bother", which is exactly what using the same DC limit for two attacks that would apply to a single attack will do. In a 12 DC game, having a 6d6 Blast linked to a 6d6 Flash will be exactly as useful as having a 6d6 Flash.

 

And yes, Linked requires the lower power be used only in conjunction with the higher point one. That is why it is a limitation.

 

The Combined Attack rules were written up in 5e (IIRC - 4e did not say) specifically due to the Great Linked War, which pitted those who thought it was obvious that you could always make a single attack with multiple elements against those who believed that Linked was really an advantage that allowed you to fire off two or more powers as a single attack, and that could not be done without the "limitation".

 

A character throwing around several maximum AP attacks seems pretty unlikely - how many of your points are you spending on those multiple campaign maximum attacks?

 

Of course, it would clearly be completely out of genre for a character to be able to effectively make two attacks. Certainly, there are no two gun cowboys, trident and net wielders, sword and dagger wielders or similar characters in any of the source materials.

You (or the player in question) is confusing SFX with a maneuver on the last point. There are many ways to build and use the attacks you list. Multiple attacks, autofire, linked attacks (you can still use the greater power without using the secondary at some levels of the limitation), two weapon fighting, etc.  

 

Linked powers are useful in many situations. A polearm butt strike only when you succeed on a polearm primary attack. Sets of optional powers that you can choose one or more of as ancillary attack options. Scorpions "Get Over Here" stab and pull. Those could all be purchased as linked (although again, SFX is not limited to one build).

[eepjr24]

If there were an infinite supply of available players, and the people you are playing with aren't also people you have to deal with in the rest of your life, yeah.  But all too often, dis-inviting your housemate or co-worker leads to other complications.  Better to cut them off at the pass by closing all of the 'book legal' exploits one can ahead of time.  But I suppose that is just pitting my HERO-Fu against their HERO-Fu.

 

You deal with jerks your way, i deal with them mine. I have a pretty low tolerance for ass-hats in any portion of my life, work or otherwise. And yes, I am employed and work in a constant client facing environment so I know there are some of them out there and that there are also ways to deal with them without burning bridges.

 

- E

 

PS: To be clear, I am not insinuating that you are a jerk here, just that people who act in the manner you outlined above are generally what I would call jerks.

[Outsider]

I suppose you can always set a rule that says "linked attacks will be virtually useless so don't bother", which is exactly what using the same DC limit for two attacks that would apply to a single attack will do. In a 12 DC game, having a 6d6 Blast linked to a 6d6 Flash will be exacts having aly as useful a 6d6 Flash.

And yes, Linked requires the lower power be used only in conjunction with the higher point one. That is why it is a limitation.

 

The Combined Attack rules were written up in 5e (IIRC - 4e did not say) specifically due to the Great Linked War, which pitted those who thought it was obvious that you could always make a single attack with multiple elements against those who believed that Linked was really an advantage that allowed you to fire off two or more powers as a single attack, and that could not be done without the "limitation".

 

A character throwing around several maximum AP attacks seems pretty unlikely - how many of your points are you spending on those multiple campaign maximum attacks?

 

Of course, it would clearly be completely out of genre for a character to be able to effectively make two attacks. Certainly, there are no two gun cowboys, trident and net wielders, sword and dagger wielders or similar characters in any of the source materials.

 

So -2 OCV, half DCV, and a full phase change 2 attacks from effective into virtually useless?  

 

A two gun cowboy, sword and dagger man, and trident and net wielder can still make 2 attacks, they just aren't as quick or accurate to do as making a single attack.  Who knows, the primary purpose of wielding two weapons might not be to attack with them both at the same time, but to have the option to switch what one is attacking with without having to sheath one weapon and draw the other (trident and net man) or to have twice the ammunition before having to reload (two gun cowboy), or have a distracting menace that adds to one's DCV and can be used to attack with in a pinch (sword and dagger man) 

 

If we're looking to the source material, how about 4 armed races?  Pretty common as well, and just 5 points more than a standard race.  I guess the guy who makes the Insectoid gunslinger gets twice the firepower as the guy who made a plain old two gun cowboy, and four times as much as the stupid schmuck who carries just one gun.   The problem I am addressing is that the combined attack rule has no significant trade off attached in a heroic (equipment costs money) game.  If it is allowed, it seems to me that every serious combatant would carry as many weapons as he could hold.  To do otherwise would be to willingly accept a significant combat disadvantage.  

 

As to affording several maximum AP attacks being unlikely: you seem to be arguing from a supers "everything costs Character Points" position, while I am arguing from a heroic "equipment costs money" position.   Everything costing CP would probably do a fair job of keeping combined attack abuse from getting out of control, but what is to prevent it in a some things cost money campaign?  My solution is to just not use Combined Attack, and use the CV and full phase penalties of Multiple Attack to keep simultaneous attacks under some sort of control.

[Hugh Neilson]

To me, half DCV is a big deal, yes.

 

As well, being able to divest of that half DCV, -2 OCV and full phase action by saving points with a limitation (Linked) makes no sense. "Now I can add this to my main attack whenever I want" does not seem to be all that limiting.

 

There's no question it can be unbalancing, which is why it comes complete with its own Caution sign.

 

I will suggest, however, that few games which are using "equipment costs a trivial amount of money" also allow unrestricted use of Extra Limbs to have 20 arms. What prevents the same character for whom purchase or replacement of 20 guns is trivial hiring some mercenaries to increase his firepower?

 

Ultimately, when that sci fi robot can fire its blaster and laser at the same time as a combined attack, the same rule should apply to the character with two weapons (who bought the weapons with money instead of buying a robot with money).

 

Moving away from this aspect, I also note that "Unless noted otherwise, the standard rules for Adding Damage (6E2 99) apply to Multiple Attack. Any method used to add damage applies equally and in full to all attacks in the Multiple Attack that it can affect; it doesn’t have to be “divided” among the various attacks." Looks like adding STR to both a punch and a dagger strike is perfectly legitimate.

[Outsider]

Yeah, the limitations on Multiple Attack are a big deal.  That's why people don't use it on every attack.

 

What is the limitation on Combined Attack that prevents people from using it on every attack in a "equipment costs money" game?

 

Lets not even look at 20 attack extra limb man, but at the "two gun cowboy" that is common in the source material.

 

Saddle Horse : $200*

Cowboy Saddle : $60*

Sharps repeating rifle : $50*

Colt Peacemaker pistol : $17*

 

He can come up with $327 for his basic kit, but coming up with another $17 for a second pistol is right out due to cost?  Seems unlikely.

 

Why isn't every cowboy a two gun cowboy when he is using a pistol at all?   

 

 

PS : What prevents the rich guy from hiring 20 mercenaries to beef up his firepower?   Well, they're considerably more expensive**  than a pistols.  You spend the money and you get them for only a few days instead of years barring breakage.  And if you lose many, you will find yourself unable to hire any more, whereas the Montgomery Ward will be happy to keep selling you pistols as long as you keep sending them $17 per.  They don't care if you keep doing foolish things that get them broken once you've paid.  Armed guards, they tend to care.   You can also shoot your pistols at anything you want, whereas some orders even mercenaries will refuse.

 

 

*Prices from National Park Service educational supplement  : https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/teachers/lessonplans/1870CatalogueofGoods.pdf

 

**Hiring an armed guard to protect a gold shipment from Deadwood to Cheyenne: $200 for the trip (about 2-3 days)   http://www.theroadtodeadwood.com/forum/index.php?topic=3331.0;wap2

[bigdamnhero]

just by curiosity. During your combat do you apply the rule to not exceed twice the DC of a weapon.

In heroic fantasy games, generally yes. I like the idea that there's just so much damage you can do with a dagger compared to a greatsword. But in my view [pirate voice] it's more what you'd call a guideline than an actual rule [/pirate voice], so exceptions are possible. I think I would exempt Deadly Weapon/Blow from that cap, tho the rules don't specify that.

 

What, by the rules, prevents him making a Multiple Attack to simultaneously Stab his opponent with the dagger (capped at 1d6+1, so he doesn't use anything but the dagger and his Martial Arts, picking a maneuver that adds 2 DC), plus a Strike with his STR applying 25 STR + 4 DC's from his skill levels, doing 9d6 normal damage plus a 1d6+1 KA.

I'd say that's legal. It would certainly be legal if he defined it as two separate blows (with the same or different hands), and if the player wanted to describe the sfx as being one blow I don't see why that changes things. I'm not totally sure I buy the real world rationale of saying the punch behind the dagger also counts as a separate punch, but meh, if that's what made the player happy I'd let it go.

[eepjr24]

I would view those as two strikes. Which means no combined attack, but multiple attack is certainly possible. And if the SFX they want for the multiple attack is that it is a single blow, sure.

 

- E

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah, the limitations on Multiple Attack are a big deal.  That's why people don't use it on every attack.

 

What is the limitation on Combined Attack that prevents people from using it on every attack in a "equipment costs money" game?

 

Lets not even look at 20 attack extra limb man, but at the "two gun cowboy" that is common in the source material.

 

Saddle Horse : $200*

Cowboy Saddle : $60*

Sharps repeating rifle : $50*

Colt Peacemaker pistol : $17*

 

He can come up with $327 for his basic kit, but coming up with another $17 for a second pistol is right out due to cost?  Seems unlikely.

 

Why isn't every cowboy a two gun cowboy when he is using a pistol at all?

Why not indeed? It is, after all, common in the source material. I am unclear whether you are arguing for the removal of Combined Attack, as I do not see a material difference between 2 Gun Kid and 2 Weapon Robot. Each has a weapon for each hand, so the same rules would logically, in my view, apply to both.

 

PS : What prevents the rich guy from hiring 20 mercenaries to beef up his firepower?   Well, they're considerably more expensive**  than a pistols.  You spend the money and you get them for only a few days instead of years barring breakage.  And if you lose many, you will find yourself unable to hire any more, whereas the Montgomery Ward will be happy to keep selling you pistols as long as you keep sending them $17 per.  They don't care if you keep doing foolish things that get them broken once you've paid.  Armed guards, they tend to care.   You can also shoot your pistols at anything you want, whereas some orders even mercenaries will refuse.

Are they a lot more expensive? You use the 5 points 20 armed man (ignoring how he carries the 20 guns, readily accessible, and ammo, as well as the social implications), but you are restricting hiring mercenaries based on social implications. Toss 5 points into Wealth. Or make it 15 - you can do all sorts of things outside and inside combat now. And you don't need enough STR to haul around 20 guns, plus ammo.

 

I would view those as two strikes. Which means no combined attack, but multiple attack is certainly possible. And if the SFX they want for the multiple attack is that it is a single blow, sure.

Pretty sure that Robot with a weapon on either arm is making two Strikes. Given you cannot mix maneuvers with a combined attack, it seems like it is required to combine multiple Strikes.

 

To the "why wouldn't every cowboy be a Two Gun Kid", I asked earlier why our Hulking Fighter Brute who has Martial Arts usable with blades, 25 STR and +8 levels with HTH combat, who has been stripped of his usual weapons, but has taken a dagger from the guard after escaping his cell, would bother using the dagger in combat with the next guard, who he creeps up behind. No one has provided an answer if he cannot use Combined Attack.

 

If he cannot, he gets to choose between a 1d6+1 HKA, or a 9d6 normal attack. Which one would a smart gamer choose? The normal attack will meet or beat the dagger's maximum BOD on even an under average roll. The STUN will average 31.5, with is 3.5 less than the dagger's maximum. The dagger hits the max only on a head shot, which would enhance the unarmed attack as well. The odds of 35 on the strike is way better than 35 on the dagger.

 

Yet, in the source material, the Warrior would always take the dagger. Leaving it behind to fight HTH would be WAY more out of tone with the source material than a two gun cowboy. And the Burly Warrior doesn't even need to be ambidextrous!

 

Now, if we do not cap at double damage, he has every reason to use the dagger. If not, and if combined attacks are also removed...well, may as well take it in case you need to jimmy a door or something, but use it in combat? Why? It is, quite literally, not even "better than nothing".

[Outsider]

Ok, I will bite at the 25 STR, 8 HTH level, Martial Duelist Gorilla scenario-    I will assume for the sake of argument that his base OCV is 3, since you didn't define it, and he has both Offensive Strike and Defensive Strike available.  He, as you said, has liberated a dagger and has snuck up on a guard with complete surprise.  I will also assume that your guard is neither improbably tough (20+ CON) or a knight in full armor.  He might be tough, but he isn't quite up to MDG's level.   Say a mail hauberk (location 7-14) and a Kettle Helmet (Loc 4-5), with 8 PD, 18 CON, 12 BODY, 40 STUN and a base DCV of 3, which he usually pads out with his skill levels (unassigned since he is surprised out of combat) and a shield (not applicable, since MDG is attacking from behind)

 

Martial Duelist Gorilla has an OCV of 12 (3 base, +8 Levels, +1 Defensive Strike) with a dagger to use against Guard's halved DCV (2) and half hit Location penalties.   This means MDG has a 17- (99.5%) to successfully slit the guard's throat, stab him in the eye, or whatever you want to define hit location 3 as.  MDG easily has the STR to max out the dagger, so he will do 1D6+1K.  Since he is hitting a location where the guard has no resistant defense, the guard doesn't get to apply his PD either.  So all the damage goes through, with 2xBODY/5xSTUN for location, then double STUN again for complete surprise, for a total STUN damage of 10x the BODY rolled.    So even a minimum roll with the dagger will do 4 BODY/20 STUN, stunning the guard and keeping him helpless for a follow up blow.  An average damage roll will do 8-10 BODY and 40-50 STUN, putting the out and doing a head impairing wound if those rules are being used.

 

If MDG uses his fist with an Offensive Strike, though, his OCV will be only 9 (3 base, +8 Levels -2 Offensive Strike) against the guards halved DCV (2) and halved hit location penalties, if MDG decides to strike a location.  So.. say MDG aims for the face. He will need to hit DCV 6 again, but with the lower OCV, that's only a 14- (90.5%) succeed.  If he does hit, the guard will take double body and quadruple stun after he deducts his 8 PD... so an average roll will do 2 BODY and 70 STUN.    IF he does hit.  MDG has nearly 20 times the fail rate Martial Gorilla Punching as he does stabbing with the mimpy damage capped dagger.  So...since dagger will to the job even on a minimum damage roll,  Dagger is the better choice since it fails to hit so much less.

 

If MDG decides to not take an aimed shot, so as to avoid that 9.5% chance of missing, he then has the possibility of hitting the guard where he has armor AND a half STUN multiplier.  Sure he's pretty much guaranteed to hit, but what are his chances of not doing enough STUN to put the guard down?  (we aren't worrying about BODY, since the guard will get his 8 PD, and thus not take even an impairing wound from an average 9D6N roll)  The punch will be a high shot so...

 

6 in 36 of getting a double STUN location (3-5). Armor or no, this will knock the guard into la-la-land.

4 in 36 of getting a half STUN, no armor location (6)  Amazingly, This will do 23-24 STUN, stunning the guard and allowing MDG a half DCV/half Hit Loc penalty follow up.  Guard is down.

11 in 36 of getting half STUN location with Armor (7-8).  This will do 17-18 STUN.  This will not KO or stun the guard, who then raises the alarm.  This is a fail.  MDG now has trouble.

12 in 36 of getting a full STUN location with armor (9-11).  This will do 34 or 36 STUN. Guard is stunned but not out, but MDG gets a a half/half follow up, so guard is down.

3 In 36 of getting a 1 1/2x STUN location with armor (12-13).  This will do 51 or 54 STUN.  Guard is out.

 

So... 11 in 36 the guard will raise the alarm.  The Martial Duelist Gorilla is STILL better off using the mimpy capped dagger.  It only fails 0.5% of the time instead of 30.5% that the nominally larger DC fist attack does when it hits the guard's armored arm.

 

Last option : Don't use Offensive Strike with the fist.  Use Defensive Strike.  Aim for location 3.  Let the doubled and redoubled STUN take down your opponent.   Your to hit chance is the same as with the dagger, and you do 5 BODY/17-18 STUN base.  Deduct 8PD,  (0BODY/9-10STUN) then double and redouble the STUN.. Boom  36-40 STUN.  Even an extremely improbable minumum roll on 5D6 will do 20 STUN which, like the minimum roll on the dagger, is enough to allow a follow up against a still helpless foe.

 

 

So even with capped damage, the dagger does the job at least as well as the fist, and better if the player tries to use offensive strike.

 

The whole thing changes without surprise, of course.   Then the capped dagger becomes far less useful than the 9D6 Gorilla punch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's another problem with removing the cap and freely allowing combined attacks :

 

Say you have a strong fighter (25 STR) who usually uses a Greatsword.  It has a STR min of 18, and does 2d6K base.  So he does 2D6+1K with it, with his 7 excess STR.

 

Say he decides to pick up a knife.  It has a STR min of 4 and does 1/2D6K base.  So he does 2D6K with it, with his 21 excess STR.

 

So a greatsword does just 1 DC more than a knife?  And gets 1 more OCV, but still... just ONE DC more?  Hardly seems worth the extra cost, encumbrance and non-concealability.

 

Now the strong fighter notices that he has a free hand...  he picks up ANOTHER knife...  Now he has 2x2D6K instead of just one 2D6+1K at 1 more OCV.

 

That two handed sword looks kinda marginal compared to two knives...

[NuSoardGraphite]

Depends on how I view a particular campaign. If I intend for it to be very gritty and realistic as possible, then I use weapon doubling. If I intend for it to be more fantastic, then I go with campaign maximums and the weapon is simply special effect.

 

Here is how I view it;

 

Weapon Damage Doubling is about the weapons. You gain a sort balance by making sure that no weapon is ultra-powerful. For most cases, this rule makes a sort of sense. Going against an armored opponent is certainly easier with a larger weapon. A good side effect of this option is that when an enchanted item that increases the base damage is found, it is truly something special. Imagine that 1/2d6 Dagger going to a 1d6 Enchanted Dagger. Now the party assassin is dealing nearly the same damage output maximum as that warrior with his 1d6+1 Broadsword. The downside to this method is demonstrated in the few posts preceding mine, in that players are going to look for a way around that base damage clause.

This is exactly why I support double base DC in my fantasy setting. On one hand, it skews a bit more on the side of realism. On the other hand, this allows magical weapons with DC bonuses to be especially powerful tools. And also characters with the Deadly Blow talent to be particularly effective (I allow Deadly Blow to add to base damage)

 

Campaign Maximums, on the other hand, are about the character concept. The character does damage and the weapon is simply the narrative vehicle by which that damage is dealt. In a Campaign Maximum campaign, the assassin with daggers can do just as much as the knight with his arming sword or the wizard with his spells. I often prefer this sort of campaign, as it takes away some of the complexity of worrying about what applies to base weapon damage versus total weapon damage. The downside to this method is that magical items are not special. As a narrative reward that helps a player focus his character, they are still valuable, but in terms of basic statistical worth, they are not.

I choose not to go this route in my fantasy efforts specifically because thr double base DC provides such concrete limits that an ultimate Campaign maximum is not necessary.

 

This alows various beasts and powerful spells to perform as advertised in genre without absolutely everyone in the setting being able to match them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ok, I, a will bite at the 25 STR, 8 HTH level, Martial Duelist Gorilla scenario-    I will assume for the sake of argument that his base OCV is 3, since you didn't define it, and he has both Offensive Strike and Defensive Strike available.

As I defined him, he had an MA with blades, actually, and I find a warrior with an OCV of 3 improbable, which is not consistent with the "not improbable" guard.

 

He, as you said, has liberated a dagger and has snuck up on a guard with complete surprise.  I will also assume that your guard is neither improbably tough (20+ CON) or a knight in full armor.  He might be tough, but he isn't quite up to MDG's level.   Say a mail hauberk (location 7-14) and a Kettle Helmet (Loc 4-5), with 8 PD, 18 CON, 12 BODY, 40 STUN and a base DCV of 3, which he usually pads out with his skill levels (unassigned since he is surprised out of combat) and a shield (not applicable, since MDG is attacking from behind)

 

His DCV is entirely irrelevant with a surprise attack anyway. Of course, Our Hero also has to consider the possibility someone else hears and runs in not at 0 DCV.

 

Martial Duelist Gorilla has an OCV of 12 (3 base, +8 Levels, +1 Defensive Strike) with a dagger to use against Guard's halved DCV (2) and half hit Location penalties.   This means MDG has a 17- (99.5%) to successfully slit the guard's throat, stab him in the eye, or whatever you want to define hit location 3 as.  MDG easily has the STR to max out the dagger, so he will do 1D6+1K.  Since he is hitting a location where the guard has no resistant defense, the guard doesn't get to apply his PD either.  So all the damage goes through, with 2xBODY/5xSTUN for location, then double STUN again for complete surprise, for a total STUN damage of 10x the BODY rolled.    So even a minimum roll with the dagger will do 4 BODY/20 STUN, stunning the guard and keeping him helpless for a follow up blow.  An average damage roll will do 8-10 BODY and 40-50 STUN, putting the out and doing a head impairing wound if those rules are being used.

 

If MDG uses his fist with an Offensive Strike, though, his OCV will be only 9 (3 base, +8 Levels -2 Offensive Strike) against the guards halved DCV (2) and halved hit location penalties, if MDG decides to strike a location.  So.. say MDG aims for the face. He will need to hit DCV 6 again, but with the lower OCV, that's only a 14- (90.5%) succeed.  If he does hit, the guard will take double body and quadruple stun after he deducts his 8 PD... so an average roll will do 2 BODY and 70 STUN.    IF he does hit.  MDG has nearly 20 times the fail rate Martial Gorilla Punching as he does stabbing with the mimpy damage capped dagger.  So...since dagger will to the job even on a minimum damage roll,  Dagger is the better choice since it fails to hit so much less.

Given a normal strike or defensive strike will both hit more often and still be more than adequate to take out the guard (not just stun him), why would he pick an offensive strike?

 

The whole thing changes without surprise, of course.   Then the capped dagger becomes far less useful than the 9D6 Gorilla punch.

And we are back to "why would he ever pick up the dagger" while the GM moans about the departure from genre expectations.

 

Here's another problem with removing the cap and freely allowing combined attacks :

 

Say you have a strong fighter (25 STR) who usually uses a Greatsword.  It has a STR min of 18, and does 2d6K base.  So he does 2D6+1K with it, with his 7 excess STR.

 

Say he decides to pick up a knife.  It has a STR min of 4 and does 1/2D6K base.  So he does 2D6K with it, with his 21 excess STR.

 

So a greatsword does just 1 DC more than a knife?  And gets 1 more OCV, but still... just ONE DC more?  Hardly seems worth the extra cost, encumbrance and non-concealability.

Funny - you were singing the praises of extra OCV above.

 

That two handed sword looks kinda marginal compared to two knives...

I wonder how that 2d6+1 Greatsword compares to just fighting unarmed. The two capped knives certainly do not compare favourably!

[Nolgroth]

This is exactly why I support double base DC in my fantasy setting. On one hand, it skews a bit more on the side of realism. On the other hand, this allows magical weapons with DC bonuses to be especially powerful tools. And also characters with the Deadly Blow talent to be particularly effective (I allow Deadly Blow to add to base damage)

 

 

I choose not to go this route in my fantasy efforts specifically because thr double base DC provides such concrete limits that an ultimate Campaign maximum is not necessary.

 

This alows various beasts and powerful spells to perform as advertised in genre without absolutely everyone in the setting being able to match them.

 

Neither method is "right" or "wrong" in the generic sense. All that really matters is what works for your campaign.

 

I've always considered Deadly Blow as sort of a third option in damage for 5E. You have your base, which can be doubled. The Deadly Blow then adds to that double. So a 1d6+1 Broadsword can be doubled to 2 1/2d6. The character also has Deadly Blow that applies another 1d6 for a total of 3 1/2d6 (11 DC) HKA damage. Adding to the base damage, you have a 2d6+1 base damage that can be doubled to 4 1/2d6 (14 DC) HKA. That is a lot of damage.  Again, that works if it works for you, but for me 11-12 DC is kind of the level I like to keep my starting characters at. 

[Outsider]

Actually, forget it.

 

You like the combined attack rule, and I don't.

 

I like the damage cap rule, and you don't.

 

I think your preferences lead to undesirable outcomes, and you probably think the same of mine.

 

Not worth talking about, especially the way we've been doing it.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Neither method is "right" or "wrong" in the generic sense. All that really matters is what works for your campaign.

 

I've always considered Deadly Blow as sort of a third option in damage for 5E. You have your base, which can be doubled. The Deadly Blow then adds to that double. So a 1d6+1 Broadsword can be doubled to 2 1/2d6. The character also has Deadly Blow that applies another 1d6 for a total of 3 1/2d6 (11 DC) HKA damage. Adding to the base damage, you have a 2d6+1 base damage that can be doubled to 4 1/2d6 (14 DC) HKA. That is a lot of damage. Again, that works if it works for you, but for me 11-12 DC is kind of the level I like to keep my starting characters at.

I use a different form of Deadly Blow that I have been using since the 4th ed days. Basically there are 3 levels, +1 DC per level. Level 3 is pretty rare. Each level representing Apprentice, Journeyman then Master skill levels. So my Deadly Blow doesnt automatically give +1d6k bonus damage. Thats the top level only a few masters possess.

[Nolgroth]

I use a different form of Deadly Blow that I have been using since the 4th ed days. Basically there are 3 levels, +1 DC per level. Level 3 is pretty rare. Each level representing Apprentice, Journeyman then Master skill levels. So my Deadly Blow doesnt automatically give +1d6k bonus damage. Thats the top level only a few masters possess.

 

Interesting take on it. I like it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Here's another problem with removing the cap and freely allowing combined attacks :

 

Say you have a strong fighter (25 STR) who usually uses a Greatsword.  It has a STR min of 18, and does 2d6K base.  So he does 2D6+1K with it, with his 7 excess STR.

 

Say he decides to pick up a knife.  It has a STR min of 4 and does 1/2D6K base.  So he does 2D6K with it, with his 21 excess STR.

 

So a greatsword does just 1 DC more than a knife?  And gets 1 more OCV, but still... just ONE DC more?  Hardly seems worth the extra cost, encumbrance and non-concealability.

 

Now the strong fighter notices that he has a free hand...  he picks up ANOTHER knife...  Now he has 2x2D6K instead of just one 2D6+1K at 1 more OCV.

 

That two handed sword looks kinda marginal compared to two knives...

I wanted to come back to this, because "a greatsword does just 1 DC more than a knife" is an issue. But I don't believe that issue vanishes by imposing the doubling cap.

 

Let's move away from our powerful Warrior to Barney the Blacksmith. Barney is pretty strong - he has a 15 STR - from a life of hard labour. Barney normally carries a knife, which, with his STR modifier, brings him to 1d6+1. However, a hideous creature is rampaging outside Barney's shop, and no one is around to save him. As it crashes through the door, Barney grabs a Greatsword with which to defend himself, swinging it wildly, and connecting solidly with the Beast.

 

For 2DC - except he is too low for the STR min, so he does 1 1/2d6. Only 1 DC better than the Dagger? I thought that Greatsword was a much more powerful weapon, which would inflict far more damage than a puny Knife. This seems consistent across the weapons - as the base DC's increase, so does the STR minimum so, unless you bump up against the doubled damage optional cap, a bigger weapon doesn't do appreciably more damage than a smaller one.

 

Maybe, instead, the STR MIN should not impact damage at all. Perhaps it should only impact OCV, as the character tries to wield a weapon which is much too heavy. Maybe that Knife should have base damage of 1 DC, so a 10 STR would inflict 3 DC's and anyone of STR 4 or above can wield it easily, and a Greatsword should inflict 1d6+1, so a character with a 15 STR would inflict 2d6+1 damage, but would suffer an OCV penalty with so heavy a weapon. The Brute is now inflicting 3d6 HKA, instead of 2d6+1, and the Greatsword does 3DC more than a Dagger - regardless of who wields it.

 

Maybe the OCV penalty should be increased to compensate for the damage increase, so maybe it becomes -1 OCV per 2 or 3 STR short of the minimum. -2 for every 5 points short is pretty comparable to -2 for each range increment, and would make for a bit more meaningful gradation.