Maneuvers

[steph]

I have some quick questions for Fantasy sessions.

Regarding combat maneuvers. 1- Do you use all the optional maneuvers?

2- Which one of your sessions do you exclude.

3- Do you authorize Haymaker for throwing weapons (Bows)

4- and do you  authorize Haymaker for spell?

 

Steph

[eepjr24]

1. Depends on the campaign and what I think is suitable for it.

2. In my current campaign I am not "excluding" any, but some maneuvers you need a familiarity with to use. Examples: Hipshot, Unarmed block, Multiple attack all require familiarity (1 point skill, like a weapon familiarity).

3. If I am using hit locations, no. You want to simulate hitting a vulnerable spot when using hit locations, call a shot. If I am not using hit locations, usually yes. Although I tend to favor the Offensive Haymaker rule on 6e2, 69.

4. Generally, no. If the campaign does not have a standard "Spell" limitation, I would consider it. That is where I usually build in things like not using haymaker. I do sometimes allow a player to "push" a spell in extraordinary situations.

 

- E

[archer]

I've never allowed haymakers with ranged weapons or spells.

[Greywind]

Haymaker with ranged weapons is simply taking the extra time/effort into a well-aimed shot. Particularly if hit locations aren't being used.

[Lee]

5 hours ago, archer said:

I've never allowed haymakers with ranged weapons or spells.

I would allow it with a thrown ranged weapon (e.g. a dagger, rock, javelin, etc.). It seems to me that winding up for some extra power in a punch would be similar as doing so with a thrown weapon. I might cap its effect, though. I wouldn't allow it for bows/crossbows/firearms (except see below), because their effect isn't (directly) based on the character's strength but on mechanical advantage or chemical explosives. Winding up (I don't mean with a windlass ) in those cases won't change the mechanics of the (cross)bow or the chemicals.

 

Magic is one of those special cases. I might allow it in some situations--especially ones where I would allow someone to push the spell.

 

2 hours ago, Greywind said:

Haymaker with ranged weapons is simply taking the extra time/effort into a well-aimed shot. Particularly if hit locations aren't being used.

I hadn't thought of it that way. I could certainly see it if hit locations aren't being used. Would you allow the use of Brace and Set maneuvers (I consider those "aiming"), too?

 

[pawsplay]

1-2. Usually. Maybe not bounces for grittier games.

3. Obviously. You take a nice, long shot, leaving yourself vulnerable, and opening the possibility of the target moving, and hit it where it counts.

4. Yes, although some spells will have Limitations or casting requirements that might preclude this. Also burning End, charges, and expendable foci and having the target simply move is going to hurt. If you allow Dive for Cover, these spells are going to be moderately easy to avoid, just a Dex roll at -1.

 

[LoneWolf]

For the most part I see no reason not to use all the maneuvers.   About the only one I can see not allowing would be suppression fire.  Since normally there are no autofire weapons in a fantasy setting it makes it hard to perform this maneuver.  The magic rules we normally use do require attacks spells be cast each time they are used so hosing down an area with an autofire spell is not possible.  

 

The rules are pretty clear that you can perform a haymaker with any attack.  I see no reason to change this.  Penalizing a player for choosing a different combat style does not really seem fair.  I would encourage the players to reflavor haymaker and other maneuvers.  An archer might say they are taking careful aim.  A wizard might say they are spending extra time to gather their power.  As long as the character is taking the extra time and the penalty to DCV they are good.  
 

[Hugh Neilson]

Why would an archer not just draw harder on the bow.  Careful aim seems more like a called shot than an attack throwing caution to the wind to hit full-out.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I only allow haymaker for melee weapons or fists, but I allow a variant that lets you take all the same penalties but then get a +4 bonus to called shot attacks.  A super-careful aim rather than a super-strong attack.

 

Bows have an absolute limit on how much you can "draw" them and how much power you can get out of them.  No amount of extra effort will make them suddenly hit harder than proper use.  If you can make a bow hit harder by drawing it more, then you've not been using it correctly before.

[pawsplay]

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why would an archer not just draw harder on the bow.  Careful aim seems more like a called shot than an attack throwing caution to the wind to hit full-out.

 

Well there is only so far you can draw it. I think of it as more centering the shot, rather than drawing harder. Called shots are different and can be in addition to.

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, pawsplay said:

 

Well there is only so far you can draw it. I think of it as more centering the shot, rather than drawing harder. Called shots are different and can be in addition to.

I agree that called shots are different. They are "taking careful aim to hit a more damaging location".  Haymaker is "taking extra time and leaving yourself open to put everything you can in how hard you hit".  You can Haymaker a rock.  There is no "vulnerable location" to "carefully aim at" in respect of a rock.  Maybe it's not overdrawing, but the classic (and impractical if not impossible) nocking and firing multiple arrows.

 

You can only draw a bow so hard, and you can only hit so hard with a dagger (optional rule "or hitting past its capacity can damage it").  Assess which weapons can, and cannot, be "pushed to, or beyond, their limits".  Those weapons can Haymaker.  Can you Overdraw the bow?  It seems more likely to me than Overdrawing a crossbow or a gun.  Should the penalty for Overdrawing be DCV, or do we need a revised "Haymaker the bow" that penalizes OCV (overdrawing it means you are pulling it beyond its design making the shot wilder)?  Or is the penalty for exceeding the bow's normal damage cap enough?  Does it have a greater chance of damaging the bow than pushing a staff or a sword over its limits? 

 

Equipment is free, and even if you stat it out, it's a "real weapon".  There's nothing wrong with extending either or both to include "can't haymaker".  Which choice will be more cinematic ("Hero by default")?  Which will make the game more fun?

[Christopher R Taylor]

The big difference between a dagger, say, and a longbow is that a longbow properly used is at its maximum power already when properly used.  A dagger properly used is very rarely at maximum effort, and becomes wildly inaccurate when you attack with its maximum damage (from you at least), which means that haymaker perfectly represents that maneuver.  That's why I don't allow ranged attacks of any kind to be haymakered (or energy blasts from StarKing, or mental illusions from the egoist, etc.  Pushing can represent giving it your all but haymaker is an all-out, wild, swing-for-the fences punch or swing.

[pawsplay]

 

Why can't a Haymaker be an all-out, no holds barred, go big or go home shot that maximizes damage? I am really, really curious why you think someone can't "wind up" with an energy blast, when comic book and cinematic characters do that regularly. The comments about Pushing are weird to me, because you wouldn't normally be Pushing a bow and arrow.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The big difference between a dagger, say, and a longbow is that a longbow properly used is at its maximum power already when properly used.  A dagger properly used is very rarely at maximum effort, and becomes wildly inaccurate when you attack with its maximum damage (from you at least), which means that haymaker perfectly represents that maneuver.  That's why I don't allow ranged attacks of any kind to be haymakered (or energy blasts from StarKing, or mental illusions from the egoist, etc.  Pushing can represent giving it your all but haymaker is an all-out, wild, swing-for-the fences punch or swing.

 

El toro poopoos (pardon my Spanish). 

 

I choose to follow the rules as written, not the rules as revisited by Christopher.  6e v2 p68 described the Haymaker as "A Haymaker is basically an all-out attack — the character takes extra time to “wind up” a punch, put extra force into his Blast, focus the power of his mind particularly well, or otherwise attack the target powerfully."  It goes on to state that "Haymaker applies to any attack, not just punches. This includes Mental Powers and other attacks that don’t involve physical force. For example, a character could Haymaker his Drain STR, his Mental Blast, his Transform, or his Telekinesis."  Why the rules even tell us that "the GM could allow a character to Haymaker his Healing or his Presence Attack if he felt the situation justified it, such as a desperate attempt to use Healing to keep a comrade alive in the middle of a battle."

 

Now, p 69 notes that "A character cannot Push a Haymaker.  However, he could Haymaker an attack that he’s Pushing."  The two are different things.  It also suggests a "variant of Haymaker called Offensive Haymaker. It works just like a standard Haymaker, but instead of a -5 DCV penalty it has a -5 OCV penalty. This
represents taking extra time to aim precisely or to hit a vital spot — an attack that gains effect through a precise or “sophisticated” use rather than the raw extra power that characterizes most Haymakers."  That seems more appropriate for that carefully targeted bow, crossbow or firearm.  But we also know from that page that "A character can Haymaker a gunshot, unless the GM forbids him to. This could represent carefully aiming to hit the most vulnerable part of a target." 

 

SUMMARY:  So we are not discussing whether the rules allow this, we are discussing whether we want to follow those rules or vary them.

 

A dagger used "properly" or otherwise by a 16+ STR character is already capped out if we are following the "can't do better than double damage" rule.  A Haymaker will add 2 DCs at most, and less if the user is already strong or skilled (Martial Arts DCs).  This is addressed on p 199 "Drak the Barbarian has 18 STR. When wielding a dagger (1d6-1, or 2 DCs; STR Min 8), he takes no penalty for using the weapon. In fact, he  can add up to 2 DCs to the dagger’s damage, raising its DC from 1d6-1 to 1d6+1. Unless the GM permits otherwise, he can’t raise the damage any higher (by doing a Haymaker, for example) because he’s already at twice the weapon’s Damage Classes." 

 

Hero System bows have STR minimums, however damage cannot be added from STR.  That does not, to me, mean you can't "overpull" the bow to use a Haymaker.  You can "underpull" the bow if you are not strong enough.   This simply be the character putting all his might into drawing the bow, beyond his normal capability and outside the optimal use of the bow, at the expense of his DCV.  STR does not add to crossbows.  Perhaps that is a reason to deviate from the actual rules and prohibit them being used to Haymaker - or maybe they (and firearms) are restricted to Offensive Haymakers, relying on enhanced precision rather than increased power.

 

If you prohibit Haymakers, are ranged martial arts also removed?  An Offensive Strike is only a "Martial Haymaker" at its core.

 

I think I will stick to the cinematic use of haymakers on any and all attacks.  I don't find many players willing to take the time and CV penalties to begin with, so this hardly feels ripe for abuse.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

I choose to follow the rules as written, not the rules as revisited by Christopher. 

 

Sure, follow them as you want, I was just discussing how it works in the real world and what makes sense.  The only reason Haymaker was extended to any other attacks was simply "its not fair I can't haymaker my energy blast".  Its one of those meta game mechanic things that has no validity in the world.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, pawsplay said:

 

Why can't a Haymaker be an all-out, no holds barred, go big or go home shot that maximizes damage? I am really, really curious why you think someone can't "wind up" with an energy blast, 

 

 

The short version is because a haymaker is specifically a type of punch.  Not just in game, but the real-world bastard swing from which the maneuver draws its name.  The early editions even ackowldeged this.  It was never specified as a consulation prize, but it always felt like "here is something for your brick, since he has no ranged attacks."

 

I had never heard of the idea of "haymakering" an energy blast until Red October and 4e, where the idea was being bandied around a lot.  I never thought it would gain a lot of traction so I ignored most of that chatter (primarily I just lurked and a-mailed anyway).  I was secretly pleased not at the idea of haymakering an energy blast, but that the general apparent lack of knowing what haymaker actually meant suggested an over-all drop culturally in real violence.  I hadnt considered the prick in gun or gang violence, so I guess even that joy was misplaced. 

 

at any rate, I still don't allow it for more than hand-to-hand and some melee attacks.  I may change my mind when 7th edition includes rules for bouncing punches and spreading cudgels.

 

 

 

[Spence]

47 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

I may change my mind when 7th edition includes rules for bouncing punches and spreading cudgels.

[pawsplay]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Sure, follow them as you want, I was just discussing how it works in the real world and what makes sense.  The only reason Haymaker was extended to any other attacks was simply "its not fair I can't haymaker my energy blast".  Its one of those meta game mechanic things that has no validity in the world.

 

In the real world, a haymaker usually wouldn't even be a Haymaker, it would be an Offensive Strike. I know in 4e, the edition i started with, my relationship with Haymakers mainly centered on a wacko vigilante character I made who used a staff. With his high Speed, he could take advantage of Haymakers in ways other characters could not. The reason it was extended to other attacks is because a general case was better than every other sourcebook laying out a special case.

Hero System is effects-based, and there is no reason a certain kind of punch should get the delayed segment, reduced DCV, and +4 DC, and other attacks shouldn't. There are plenty of examples where this same kind of wind-up attack would apply, from energy blasters doing the glowie thing to the stone cold police detective doing a firing range perfect stance and putting down a bad guy.

And as far as bouncing a melee attack goes, you can already use Acrobatics and Surprise Moves with a punch.

 

EDIT: I looked it up, and the word haymaker is already used in a general sense, not just for punches. Eg.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haymaker

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Sure, follow them as you want, I was just discussing how it works in the real world

 

No, you were applying your personal interpretation of the real world to a game designed to simulate cinematic reality.  In the real world, how do you test whether a mental blast or a personal ability to project flames can be utilized in actual combat?

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 what makes sense. 

 

Perhaps what makes sense to you.  I don't find human flamethrowers or people engaging in combat with their minds makes any less sense when they can Haymaker those abilities. 

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The only reason Haymaker was extended to any other attacks was simply "its not fair I can't haymaker my energy blast".  Its one of those meta game mechanic things that has no validity in the world.

 

It felt more like removing combat maneuvers from being the exclusive province of HTH attacks, much like Martial maneuvers gradually extended out to include weapons, and eventually even ranged weapons.  There is no more reason a Haymaker must be exclusively a punch than that you can Push telepathy the same as a dead lift.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

No, you were applying your personal interpretation of the real world to a game designed to simulate cinematic reality.

 

Well, clearly you'd know better than I would what I was meaning to do.

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, pawsplay said:

.

 

EDIT: I looked it up, and the word haymaker is already used in a general sense, not just for punches. Eg.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haymaker

 

 

I am always game to learn something; I happily followed the link.  Forgive the uglinwss that comes from working with a phone, but i am at work, and thia ia what ihave available.

 

I found this:

 

haymaker

 noun

Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In 

 

hay·mak·er | \ ˈhā-ˌmā-kər  \

Definition of haymaker

 

: a powerful blow

 

...............

 

Before going further, let us see what a 'blow' is:

 

 

I will spare you thw xouoke of dozen definitions (most of which relate to the movement of free air or gasses) and provide this link:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blow

 

 

Interestingly,enough, a physical strike against a target is never actually mentioned.  Failure, losing a contest, and electrical overload are mentioned, bur hitting soemthing isnt.

 

Wired, but kind of amusing.

 

Getting back to MW's haymaker definition, it continues on thusly:

 

 

Synonyms for haymaker

Synonyms

• bang, 
• bash, 
• bat, 
• beat, 
• belt, 
• biff, 
• blow, 
• bop, 
• box, 
• buffet, 
• bust, 
• chop, 
• clap, 
• clip, 
• clout, 
• crack, 
• cuff, 
• dab, 
• douse 
• [British], 
• fillip, 
• hack, 
• hit, 
• hook, 
• knock, 
• larrup 
• [dialect], 
• lash, 
• lick, 
• pelt, 
• pick, 
• plump, 
• poke, 
• pound, 
• punch, 
• rap, 
• slam, 
• slap, 
• slug, 
• smack, 
• smash, 
• sock, 
• spank, 
• stinger, 
• stripe, 
• stroke, 
• swat, 
• swipe, 
• switch, 
• thud, 
• thump, 
• thwack, 
• wallop, 
• welt, 
• whack, 
• wham, 
• whop 
• (also whap)

.......................

 

 

All of these, given a quick glance, are synonymous with striking someone or something.

 

Going down the page:

 

Examples of haymaker in a Sentence

 He was knocked down by a haymaker to his jaw. dealt his opponent a haymaker that sent him reeling across the boxing ring

 

Recent Examples on the WebThe first punch, a haymaker to our collective jaw, came when COVID-19 pulled the plug on the NCAA Tournament and sidelined the stirring national title dreams of the 30-2 Aztecs basketball team.— San Diego Union-Tribune, "Column: Amid the pain, 2020 reminded us that sports matter," 27 Dec. 2020The Colts defensive line is supposed to throw that kind of punch, even if injury has taken away its haymaker.— Joel A. Erickson, The Indianapolis Star, "Insider: Titans pounding shows Colts defensive line isn't as deep as it needs to be yet," 29 Nov. 2020

These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'haymaker.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

See More

First Known Use of haymaker

1902, in the meaning defined above

 

 

........................

 

I tried hitting the "learn more about haymaker" button, but there's nothing there.  The button is dead.

 

 

 

Still ibwas curious, so I went elsewhere to dind aome,other use of haymaker.  I ended up here:

 

https://www.yourdictionary.com/haymaker

 

Not the most serious-looking dictionary, but it was a dctionay.  The definitions offered were these:

 

 

Haymaker meaning

 hā'mā'kər

Filters

A powerful blow with the fist.

 

 

noun

1

0

A powerful blow with or swing of the fist, intended to cause a knockout.

 

 

noun

1

0

A person who cuts hay and spreads it out to dry.

 

 

noun

0

0

(agriculture) A person or machine which harvests or prepares tall grass for use as animal fodder.

 

 

noun

0

0

(informal, fisticuffs) A particularly powerful punch, especially one which knocks down an opponent, thrown like a scythe chop for cutting hay, as agricultural haymakers used to have strong arms

 

...............

 

Again, I ask for forgiveness for the ugliness; I havent screwed with the settings; it seems,to be a resukt of copy-paste.  I took screenshots, but I have nowhere to host them to post them, so that was a waste, ultimately.

 

I tried a few etymology links (because I freakin' _love_ etymology!  If I could have found a way to make a living doing etymology, I would spent my life in my dream job!), and learned a lot about how the word came to be, etc, but ultimately, even across multiple online dictionaries (I will have to drag out the Oxfird when I get home.  I'm not knocking Miriam Webster, but for me, the Oxford dictionary is my dictionary of choice)-so far as to even go to the ghastly resource that is Urban Dictionary, and I can find definitions in two distinct categories: either the actual making of real hay, or a good I'm barnyard swing:  a particulalry powerful punch delivered from the shoulder with a minimum of elbow contraction, named for the similarity of motion used in threshing hay.

 

I cant find any suggestions of it being used for anything else, and I am activw2lt looking for just that thing.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

As far as I’m concerned, if a player wants to use Haymaker for a Bow and say the sfx effect is careful aim, I’m fine with it. Sfx is separate from mechanics, no? And it is cinematically appropriate too in my mind.

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well, clearly you'd know better than I would what I was meaning to do.

 

As is typically the case, I don't have much idea what you are meaning to do.  I can only read what you said.  You said your big issue was that allowing this kind of all-out attack with a bow is not realistic and you would not allow it.  That left open the questions of whether you acknowledged that:

 

 - this is a deliberate choice to depart from the rules as written, not an "interpretation of the rules" call;

 - your "realism" is cinematic; and

 - your "realism" even accords with reality (I didn't address that one as I am not an archery expert, although it seems reasonable that over-extending the bow to get more power would have negative consequences like reduced accuracy and/or limiting reaction speed so losing some DCV).  You also said "I only allow haymaker for melee weapons or fists", and I noted that I do not see how we assess real-world realism of projecting flame, sucking out a target's soul or overriding their neurons with a potent burst of pure mental energy.

 

TL;DR - you seem to have difficulty differentiating between objective realism (e.g. "violence causes long-lasting effects, a reality not consistent with repeatedly being knocked out by blunt force trauma causing no long-lasting in-game effects) and your own subjective interpretation of realism ("there is no possible valid in-game special effect for an all-out attack with a ranged weapon enhancing damage at the cost of evading counterattacks").

 

Oh, just to spare another poster on the thread some time, I know you told me so...in fact, I thought of that very exchange as I typed my initial comments further up.

[Lee]

On 3/13/2021 at 1:20 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

It also suggests a "variant of Haymaker called Offensive Haymaker. It works just like a standard Haymaker, but instead of a -5 DCV penalty it has a -5 OCV penalty. This
represents taking extra time to aim precisely or to hit a vital spot

This bit has me confused. So, I make an Offensive Haymaker "representing taking extra time to aim precisely" and incur a -5 OCV penalty...making it harder to hit? It seems to me taking extra time to aim should make it easier to hit.

 

Just sayin'...

[archer]

On 3/13/2021 at 2:20 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I may change my mind when 7th edition includes rules for bouncing punches and spreading cudgels.

 

 

When I spread my cudgel, it just feels like I'm flailing about.