Reduced Penetration vs. Combined Attack

[rravenwood]

I've been thinking about the design of animal/monster/etc. attacks (such as the classic "claw-claw-bite" routine).  In the old days, barring special Skills brought into the mix such as Sweep from the original Fantasy Hero, it seemed (at least to my gaming group) that characters were limited to using one attack power per Phase ("power" as opposed to game -element "Power", since power constructions could be devised incorporating two or more Linked Powers), so Reduced Penetration was the way that creature multi-attacks needed to be modeled.  Under 6e and its provision for Combined Attack, it seems like beasts could be written up with each separate attack source as its own power (so the aforementioned "claw-claw-bite" could be purchased as three separate attack powers rather than one larger attack split up with Reduced Penetration).

 

In pondering this, it struck me that the Reduced Penetration route is superior to Combined Attack in a couple ways.  Consider a creature built with a 2d6 HKA for its claws (I'll just leave them as a single attack power here for simplicity's sake) and a separate 2d6 HKA for its bite - neither restricted from simultaneous use (not mutually exclusive slots in a Multipower, etc.).  Presuming no other Limitations (again, for the sake of simplicity), the claw and bite would together cost 60 points.  On an average Combined Attack against a single opponent, the damage would be two separate instances of 7 BODY and 14 STUN, each having the target's defenses applied against them individually.

 

If the same creature is instead built using Reduced Penetration, we'd buy a 4d6 HKA with that Limitation, which would cost 48 points: a 12 point savings over the other approach, which is benefit number one.  The average damage done to its target would be two separate instances of 7 BODY - just the same as the equivalent Combined Attack - but a single instance of 28 STUN, so more STUN would potentially get through the target's defenses: benefit number two.

 

Am I missing something?  Maybe my understanding of Combined Attack is flawed?  It seems that for less points, the creature gains a more effective attack by going the Reduced Penetration route.  I can see that the creature built with separate claw and bite attacks could apply them to separate targets (as a Multiple Attack), whereas the beast built using Reduced Penetration always has to inflict both bite and claw damage dice on the same target, but I don't know if that's enough of an advantage in flexibility to offset the points saved via Reduced Penetration and the better results of that against a single target.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight on this!

[Christopher]

Combined attack does not perform so well with two very similar attacks. But then why would you model two identical attack powers to begin with?

 

What if the attack was a Flash and a Blast? Indeed linked attack powers require Combined Attacks.

Or what if you got 3 Attacks?*

Also what if the special effects differ (and that matters from soem reason)?
What if draining of attack powers or Damage Negation is thrown in?
What if the attacks have different advantages that affect damage?

 

*While I am not sure it is officially defined for not-Equipment attacks, you could buy "extra Instances" of a power for a 5 point doubling adder.
That would mean I could do you "Claw, Claw, Bite" with only one power and +10 Points for 2 doublings.

[rravenwood]

Combined attack does not perform so well with two very similar attacks. But then why would you model two identical attack powers to begin with?

 

Thanks for replying.  The line of thought behind buying two (or more) similar Powers to use as a Combined Attack in this case is to model the ability of a creature to attack at the same time with different natural weapons - again, the "claw-claw-bite" of my given example.  Sure, we can always just buy a 3d6 HKA (for instance) and say that the special effect is the animal striking with both forepaws and simultaneously biting the target, but what if we really don't want the creature to be able to plow through walls or plate armor?  That's where - regardless of whether it is achieved through use of Reduced Penetration* or via separate attack powers - having multiple separate attacks of lower DC seems to model things more appropriately (at least for my tastes) since three* individual 1d6 HKAs won't penetrate plate armor, but can still cause grievous harm to an unarmored opponent.  So, the other alternative to buying separate discreet attacks - which can then be used in a Combined Attack - is the application of Reduced Penetration to a single attack Power, which - leading back to my puzzlement - seems more effective for fewer points.

 

*I don't know how to make Reduced Penetration divide the base attack Power into three, other than by GM approval for probably the same -1/4 Limitation, but that's beside the point here.

 

 

*While I am not sure it is officially defined for not-Equipment attacks, you could buy "extra Instances" of a power for a 5 point doubling adder.

That would mean I could do you "Claw, Claw, Bite" with only one power and +10 Points for 2 doublings.

 

By RAW I don't think this is allowed - and even if a GM decided to allow it, it would feel strange to me to double innate powers or abilities in this way.

[rravenwood]

It's occurred to me that a third approach is possible too by using Autofire.  Buying a 2d6 HKA Autofire (2 shots)  - to maintain the comparison with the examples in my initial post - costs 37 points, but doesn't guarantee that both shots will hit, and even if they do the STUN isn't combined like it is with Reduced Penetration.

 

At any rate, since nobody is telling me that my understanding of the pertinent rules is all messed up, it seems that while modeling multiple creature attacks via Combined Attack is certainly possible under 6e, it's really not the ideal way to go about it (assuming multiple instances of the same base Hero System Power, such as multiple KAs for teeth & claws).

[steriaca]

*While I am not sure it is officially defined for not-Equipment attacks, you could buy "extra Instances" of a power for a 5 point doubling adder.

That would mean I could do you "Claw, Claw, Bite" with only one power and +10 Points for 2 doublings.

It is illegal unless you buy it as extra equipment. It is that simple

[Christopher]

It is illegal unless you buy it as extra equipment. It is that simple

Wich is a bit odd:

Tony Stark can buy two "Hand Repulsors" as part of his Power Armor, to use with Combined Attack.* You might even allow him to buy those as a single Slot in his Attack Multipower.

But the Human Torch can not buy two "Hand Blasts" because his powers are internal?

 

*I would guess most would allow him that even if he was using OIAID instead of Focus on his Poweramor.

 

I know you propably do not know the answer either, just wanted to point out that it is odd that someone with a Limitation has additional combat options.

[Cantriped]

Am I missing something?  Maybe my understanding of Combined Attack is flawed?  It seems that for less points, the creature gains a more effective attack by going the Reduced Penetration route.  I can see that the creature built with separate claw and bite attacks could apply them to separate targets (as a Multiple Attack), whereas the beast built using Reduced Penetration always has to inflict both bite and claw damage dice on the same target, but I don't know if that's enough of an advantage in flexibility to offset the points saved via Reduced Penetration and the better results of that against a single target.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight on this!

I think you got it about right. Reduced Penetration is generally more cost effective than a Combined Attack using multiple identical powers... Combined Attack is intended to be used with dissimilar powers (like Blast & Flash). However I think a High Strength creature might be able to break the cost effectiveness in favor of multiple powers in a Combined Attack if they can add their higher strength to each of the "base powers" before combining them all, effectively allowing it to multiply its strength score without paying crazy END to Push it.

 

Wich is a bit odd:

Tony Stark can buy two "Hand Repulsors" as part of his Power Armor, to use with Combined Attack.* You might even allow him to buy those as a single Slot in his Attack Multipower.

But the Human Torch can not buy two "Hand Blasts" because his powers are internal?

I don't think Tony is supposed to be able to (or be required to) buy two "Hand Repulsors", although there are example I can cite that indicate otherwise. He should just be able to attack with both as a Multiple Attack maneuver. The entire Iron Man Armor is one piece of equipment, with all the benefits and drawbacks that go with that... such as being able to have, say, 15 spare suits in his garage for 20 extra CP.

In my opinion he should simply have a "Repulsor" power with the origin defined as his "Hands, Feet, and Chest", though he should probably have to take the Adder "Alterable Origin Point" to represent being able to fire from so many different locations.

 

As far as creatures are concerned... I've never been satisfied with either the HERO System or Pathfinder/DnD solutions to creatures that possess multiple Natural Attacks (such as Claws, Bites, etc):

I personally hate the Reduced Penetration modifier, and never use it if I can help it.

The rules in CC/FHC very carefully prohibit any kind of Combat or Penalty skill level that only applies to Multiple Attack... though I suppose you could argue that Two-Weapon Fighting is really just two 10-point CSLs with the modifier Only To Negate Multiple Attack Penalties For Fighting With Two Weapons (-1), which is "technically legal"... but spits in the face of the Rules-As-Intended.

Autofire (2) is legal, but it feels like a cludgey way to accomplish multiple claw attacks or the like.

[whitekeys]

I was also going to mention Alterable Origin Point as a way of building multiple natural weapons, but I'm not sure how that effects the rules of Combined Attack. It would seem to me, that if the GM and the PC both agree that the power is being built to represents two sets of claws and a set of teeth, and there's nothing inherently illegal about the build itself, then the GM would permit them to be used with Combined Attack, given the special effect.

 

However, that's exactly like Multiple Attack, isn't it?. But, the original example could be changed to have poison fangs, or soul-sucking claws.

[Cantriped]

You have to perform a Zero-Phase Action to change the point of origin, which would prevent using both origin points in a combined attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't think Tony is supposed to be able to (or be required to) buy two "Hand Repulsors", although there are example I can cite that indicate otherwise. He should just be able to attack with both as a Multiple Attack maneuver. The entire Iron Man Armor is one piece of equipment, with all the benefits and drawbacks that go with that... such as being able to have, say, 15 spare suits in his garage for 20 extra CP.

The Hundred Handed Mandarin (with an Attack Multipower Ring on each finger, and a Force Field Defense Ring on each thumb, then...my second favorite "ridiculously abusive build". Margarita Man is still my go-to, though.

[massey]

The Hundred Handed Mandarin (with an Attack Multipower Ring on each finger, and a Force Field Defense Ring on each thumb, then...my second favorite "ridiculously abusive build". Margarita Man is still my go-to, though.

 

The Hundred Handed Mandarin gets better when each ring gives him +10 to each stat.  That's the money build right there.  Still by far the most abusive character I've ever made.

[rravenwood]

I think you got it about right. Reduced Penetration is generally more cost effective than a Combined Attack using multiple identical powers... Combined Attack is intended to be used with dissimilar powers (like Blast & Flash).

 

That's what I'm coming away from this with.  Of course, it really just depends on what a GM wants to achieve with their creature builds - if the end result of a Combined Attack using multiple KAs is more accurate to the conception of the beast, then it doesn't really matter if the build isn't cost-effective.  If I don't want a target to be KO'd by fangs and claws if little to no BODY is inflicted past defenses, then I really shouldn't use Reduced Penetration.

 

 

However I think a High Strength creature might be able to break the cost effectiveness in favor of multiple powers in a Combined Attack if they can add their higher strength to each of the "base powers" before combining them all, effectively allowing it to multiply its strength score without paying crazy END to Push it.

 

Interesting point - I have no idea if the rules say anything about applying STR to multiple attack Powers in one attack action, but my first reaction is that I probably wouldn't allow that in my own game.  (Of course, that would just make the use of Reduced Penetration all that more appealing, since the split damage dice would all benefit from STR added to an HKA...)

 

 

As far as creatures are concerned... I've never been satisfied with either the HERO System or Pathfinder/DnD solutions to creatures that possess multiple Natural Attacks (such as Claws, Bites, etc):

I personally hate the Reduced Penetration modifier, and never use it if I can help it.

The rules in CC/FHC very carefully prohibit any kind of Combat or Penalty skill level that only applies to Multiple Attack... though I suppose you could argue that Two-Weapon Fighting is really just two 10-point CSLs with the modifier Only To Negate Multiple Attack Penalties For Fighting With Two Weapons (-1), which is "technically legal"... but spits in the face of the Rules-As-Intended.

Autofire (2) is legal, but it feels like a cludgey way to accomplish multiple claw attacks or the like.

 

If a GM wants to build a creature that suffers little or no penalty for a set number of Multiple Attacks, but not be that much better with an attack against a single target, then I don't see why buying standard CSLs with a Limited Power Limitation would be a problem.

 

Leaving specific rules aside for a moment, I'm curious how would you ideally like multiple natural attacks to work?

 

 

I don't think Tony is supposed to be able to (or be required to) buy two "Hand Repulsors", although there are example I can cite that indicate otherwise. He should just be able to attack with both as a Multiple Attack maneuver. The entire Iron Man Armor is one piece of equipment, with all the benefits and drawbacks that go with that... such as being able to have, say, 15 spare suits in his garage for 20 extra CP.

In my opinion he should simply have a "Repulsor" power with the origin defined as his "Hands, Feet, and Chest", though he should probably have to take the Adder "Alterable Origin Point" to represent being able to fire from so many different locations.

 

The 5-point doubling rule is one that I think GMs really need to consider deeply when reviewing potential applications of it.  Like you, for the Iron Man example I wouldn't be inclined to allow the player to purchase multiple instances of hand replusors, etc., and limit it to backup instances of the whole suit of armor.  Hugh and massey's comments about the "Hundred Handed Mandarin" seem to be enough of a cautionary example

[rravenwood]

I was also going to mention Alterable Origin Point as a way of building multiple natural weapons, but I'm not sure how that effects the rules of Combined Attack. It would seem to me, that if the GM and the PC both agree that the power is being built to represents two sets of claws and a set of teeth, and there's nothing inherently illegal about the build itself, then the GM would permit them to be used with Combined Attack, given the special effect.

 

However, that's exactly like Multiple Attack, isn't it?. But, the original example could be changed to have poison fangs, or soul-sucking claws.

 

Doesn't Alterable Origin Point just mean that on one Phase, a character can shoot his Blast (for example) from his nose, and on another Phase launch it from his pinky, etc.?  It doesn't allow the nose and pinky to emanate beams simultaneously and allow two attacks on the same Phase.  It would be a way to model a creature who could potentially attack with multiple body parts but isn't able to use those different parts together on the same Phase, however.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Sweep isnt a special skill. It is merely an optional maneuver. And it is exactly what is needed to simulate an animals Claw, Claw, Bite maneuver without jumping through ridiculous hoops.

 

And Sweep is reasonable since it drops DCV to 1/2 and takes a Full Phase.

 

Another move is the Claw Rake, which should be written up as a big HKA with reduced penetration and the power should be linked to the Bite.

 

The animal does a Grab maneuver with its bite. This allows the linked attack to go off that same phase if its successful. As long as the bite is mantaines, the animal gets a Claw Rake each phase and can also do bite damage once per phase till the Grab maneuver is broken.

[Hugh Neilson]

Interesting point - I have no idea if the rules say anything about applying STR to multiple attack Powers in one attack action, but my first reaction is that I probably wouldn't allow that in my own game.  (Of course, that would just make the use of Reduced Penetration all that more appealing, since the split damage dice would all benefit from STR added to an HKA...)

Nothing prevents it so far as I know, and if I recall correctly, there is a rule about END use for multiple exertions of STR in the same phase, so it sees possible. Given the combined attack powers, I believe you could technically slash a foe with your sword (adding STR damage to that HKA as applicable) and use a STR strike as part of the same action (whether that's a punch with your off hand or both a KA and a normal attack with the sword stroke).

[rravenwood]

Right, END for STR must be paid separately for each attack action made in a Phase (as opposed to non-attack uses of STR, which are covered by a single END expenditure for all such uses within a Phase).  That provides some kind of a counterbalance, although at the end of the day it will of course still depend on the specifics of a character build as to whether a GM feels it might be overpowered for their own game.

[bigdamnhero]

I've been thinking about the design of animal/monster/etc. attacks (such as the classic "claw-claw-bite" routine).  In the old days, barring special Skills brought into the mix such as Sweep from the original Fantasy Hero, it seemed (at least to my gaming group) that characters were limited to using one attack power per Phase ("power" as opposed to game -element "Power", since power constructions could be devised incorporating two or more Linked Powers), so Reduced Penetration was the way that creature multi-attacks needed to be modeled.  Under 6e and its provision for Combined Attack, it seems like beasts could be written up with each separate attack source as its own power (so the aforementioned "claw-claw-bite" could be purchased as three separate attack powers rather than one larger attack split up with Reduced Penetration).

Huh. I had forgotten that Sweep was originally a Weapon Skill, not a Maneuver. So +1 Trivia Point for you! But I don't think Reduced Pen was introduced until 4ed?

 

Regardless, I think you're mixing apples & oranges. The purpose of Red Pen as I understand it has always been to reflect the fact that animal claws (and similar attacks) are not as good at penetrating armor as metal weapons; basically the opposite of Armor Piercing.* If the target is making more than 1 attack, then that's Combined Attack. (Which 6ed simply combined Sweep & Rapid Fire into a single Maneuver.) If you want a true claw-claw-bite, then what you want is a Combined Attack, the individual attacks of which may or may not have Red Pen.

 

* In fact, we once played around with a House Rule where instead of splitting Red Pen into two 1/2 attacks, we just doubled the target's armor; I remember we hated it and wound up dropping it, but I can't quite remember why at the moment.

 

Edit: Sorry, I just realized you're talking about Combined Attack, not Multiple Attack. Nevermind.

Edited October 21, 2016 by bigdamnhero

[rravenwood]

Huh. I had forgotten that Sweep was originally a Weapon Skill, not a Maneuver. So +1 Trivia Point for you! But I don't think Reduced Pen was introduced until 4ed?

 

Reduced Penetration was introduced in Justice Inc. (the essential game-mechanical effect was described in "Wild Animals", but no Limitation value was given for it), and subsequently appeared in the original Fantasy Hero (in the "Monsters" section, with the effect being factored into the "Monster Attack Limitation Table"), although it didn't have that name.  The name was probably introduced with 4th edition.

 

I should also point out that the rules about shotguns in Espionage! and JI include some Reduced Penetration-like aspects (the STUN damage is combined at very close range), but I have no idea if this informed the design of animal attacks in JI and FH.