Maneuvers

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Lee said:

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'...

 

I'm not sure why it would reduce DCV either, but this feels like "aiming for a specific vulnerable part of the target".  Actually, I prefer the reduced OCV for a "Swing wildly for the fences" haymaker.  less likely to connect with that horribly wild swing, but if it DOES connect...it REALLY connects.

[archer]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I'm not sure why it would reduce DCV either, but this feels like "aiming for a specific vulnerable part of the target".  Actually, I prefer the reduced OCV for a "Swing wildly for the fences" haymaker.  less likely to connect with that horribly wild swing, but if it DOES connect...it REALLY connects.

 

I've seen completely untutored college kids entered into Golden Gloves matches as part of their fraternity hazing.

 

Swinging wildly for the fences haymakers would seem to be the norm. And the boxer successfully blocking was also the norm.

[Ninja-Bear]

8 hours ago, Lee said:

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'...

I look at it the the careful aim is the you are looking for a “soft spot” so to speak.  There for extra damage. 

[Duke Bushido]

15 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I look at it the the careful aim is the you are looking for a “soft spot” so to speak.  There for extra damage. 

 

I am not disagreeing with this, but I am seeking a value comparison.  I am still at work and so I don't have access to my 6e books, i am afraid.

 

What is the CV penalty for a called shot to the head, which results in- unless this has changed for 6e- double damage (after defenses)?

 

The question, assuming that penalty is 5 or less, is "what would make Haymaker the better option here?"

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I am not disagreeing with this, but I am seeking a value comparison.  I am still at work and so I don't have access to my 6e books, i am afraid.

 

What is the CV penalty for a called shot to the head, which results in- unless this has changed for 6e- double damage (after defenses)?

 

The question, assuming that penalty is 5 or less, is "what would make Haymaker the better option here?"

 

 

Good question! And being Hero this depending on GM, there is t always a clear winner. So here are a few things to consider

 

Called Shot: Head

-5 OCV Stunx 5, Body x2, NStun x2

 

First if using standard write up of Bow, the bow has Concentration on it making user have 1/2 DCV. So the archer using Haymaker isn’t at anymore disadvantage that Called Shot because of it.  Melee weapons though it’s a difference.
 

Second since the bonus of damage from Called Shot is based on getting past defenses, there is (almost sure without doing math) a window where the +4 DC can cause damage to a target but the Called Shot won’t. Again, not sure how often that will come up.

 

Third speaking of damage, a Called Shot only increases Normal or Killing Damage whereas the Haymaker (and I do have friends that don’t like it either) can add the extra DC to things other than straight damage such as PRE attacks or Mental (almost said Ego 😂) Attacks.

 

Fourth, not everything can be Called Shot. Here I’m thinking Amorphous Monster, Most Undead, Treants, Golems, Muay Thai Master that has no Hit location Power (yup that is a suggested Cinematic power) nor can you Called Shot an inanimate object say a door but could Haymaker cause you need to break down that door! (At least I’m pretty sure you can Haymaker in this case).

 

And lastly, -5 and -8 can be a big difference from hitting and missing. 
 

So some thoughts to chew on.

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, archer said:

 

I've seen completely untutored college kids entered into Golden Gloves matches as part of their fraternity hazing.

 

Swinging wildly for the fences haymakers would seem to be the norm. And the boxer successfully blocking was also the norm.

 

Ann easy block seems very consistent with a reduced OCV.  An easy counterstrike seems more consistent with a reduced DCV.

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I am not disagreeing with this, but I am seeking a value comparison.  I am still at work and so I don't have access to my 6e books, i am afraid.

 

What is the CV penalty for a called shot to the head, which results in- unless this has changed for 6e- double damage (after defenses)?

 

The question, assuming that penalty is 5 or less, is "what would make Haymaker the better option here?"

 

 

 

The head is a -8 OCV penalty.  For killing damage, the STUN multiple is determined, and defenses subtracted.  For BOD damage, and normal STUN damage, the damage after defenses is doubled.  So no changes there.

 

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Called Shot: Head

-5 OCV Stunx 5, Body x2, NStun x2

 

First if using standard write up of Bow, the bow has Concentration on it making user have 1/2 DCV. So the archer using Haymaker isn’t at anymore disadvantage that Called Shot because of it.  Melee weapons though it’s a difference.

 

As noted above, -8 for a head shot.

 

Haymaker is -5v DCV, which would be applied before halving whatever is left.

 

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Second since the bonus of damage from Called Shot is based on getting past defenses, there is (almost sure without doing math) a window where the +4 DC can cause damage to a target but the Called Shot won’t. Again, not sure how often that will come up.

 

Well, if you were doing 2d6 Killing damage and the target has 8 rDEF, an average attack gets no BOD through.  3d6+1 will get BOD through much more often.  It would be very high defense targets that take no damage from campaign-normal hits, though.

 

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Third speaking of damage, a Called Shot only increases Normal or Killing Damage whereas the Haymaker (and I do have friends that don’t like it either) can add the extra DC to things other than straight damage such as PRE attacks or Mental (almost said Ego 😂) Attacks.

 

Fourth, not everything can be Called Shot. Here I’m thinking Amorphous Monster, Most Undead, Treants, Golems, Muay Thai Master that has no Hit location Power (yup that is a suggested Cinematic power) nor can you Called Shot an inanimate object say a door but could Haymaker cause you need to break down that door! (At least I’m pretty sure you can Haymaker in this case).

 

And lastly, -5 and -8 can be a big difference from hitting and missing.

 

Of course, nothing stops you from making a Called Shot with a Haymaker maneuver...

 

On breaking down, the door, some time between 1-3 e and 5e, IIRC, Haymaker became +4 DC instead of x1.5 STR, and we added (from 6e) "For a Haymaker to be valid, performing it has to subject a character to the potential drawbacks of having a reduced OCV and taking extra time."  I assume that OCV should be DCV.  As Stronghold (2e) had reinforced cells to withstand Ripper's Haymakers, clearly you could Haymaker the wall while alone in 2e.  [DIGRESSION] That particular rule drives me nuts from a verisimilitude perspective.  I COULD Haymaker the door if there were three VIPER agents able to shoot at me, but not if I am all alone?  What if I know they can't act before my subsequent phase, by which time the DCV penalty will be gone?  What if there is an Invisible enemy in the room just waiting for me to drop my DCV so he can (multiple) attack?  Is Haymaker a Detect Invisibility effect as well as a combat maneuver?  [END DIGRESSION]

 

Another difference:  no combining Haymaker with a Multiple Attack, and the Called Shot is not a delayed action.  No CSLs with Haymaker either, yet you can buy PSLs to reduce called shot penalties.

 

[SCUBA Hero]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Of course, nothing stops you from making a Called Shot with a Haymaker maneuver...

 

Well I'll be darned.  You can't Haymaker a Maneuver (other than Strike), and I was sure a Called Shot was a Maneuver... but it's not.

 

New tactic! 

On 3/15/2021 at 6:18 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

The question, assuming that penalty is 5 or less, is "what would make Haymaker the better option here?"

 

When evaluating this, keep in mind that a Haymaker misses if the target moves or the attacker takes Knockback or is Stunned or Knocked Out.

[Ninja-Bear]

Anybody see Offensive Haymaker? Vol.2 pg 69? -5 OCV instead of -5DCV and to paraphrase the author, “this represents precise hitting instead of raw power”.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 3/13/2021 at 7:21 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Duke this doesn’t matter. WhT you say? Let me explained I had to with my brother learning the system.  My brother (where it was accurate English or not) would argue that Hero system was using a term incorrectly. In his mind the word meant this and therefore should have x associated with it. For example, in Hero, martial arts refers to any form of advanced fighting. And I can’t remember what my brother’s issue with the term Foci was either now. What I finally got through to him was English definitions don’t matter to the game. It’s what the game refers and uses those definitions that matter. Haymaker was originally as posted above but since 5th, Haymaker has been expanded to what is included. You of course as a GM can choose to ignore the new rule, which is fine. However discussing the merits of the piece of Hero Rules should be based on the Hero System definition. 

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry. N-B; I failed to transfer the context.  Please, let me fill that in:

 

That was what I found following a link that had been posted on support of the claim that the word "Haymker" was being used in a much broader sense than just...  Well. If you will forgive the usage, a much broader sense than just q haymaker.     as an amateur etymologist, I was quite curious to see thos shift in the language, so I follwed the link.

 

I posted the entirety of what I found and, in fairness to the person making the claim, i made good effort to check a few other sources looking for support to the claim.

 

That is all.

 

I completely understand that any word or phrase can be assigned a context-specific definition that has bugger-all to do with its actual meaning: this is where things like "it's on the house" and "purple-flavored' come from. (On a related note, it is this tendency that evntually wrecks a word into uselessness,or completely changes the definition.  My favorite example is "moot."  Did you know that "a moot point" once meant the single most important or most relevant point made or part of a comment?  Dis you know that it still does?  Do you know what wrecked it?

 

Sarcasm.  Sarcastic over-use of the word moot destroyed the qbility to use it in a meaningful, commonly-understood way.  There is _nothing_ good about sarcasm; it stands in the way of communication, of understanding, and of being remotely decent to one another,  all these and more are reasons I go to great pains to eliminate it from my life.  Okay, parenthetical digression over)

 

  I was not bolstering any support that game-wise, haymaker means x.  I was looking for the offered support for the claim that haymaker no longer meant haymaker.

 

 

Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

No problem Duke. I probably misread it considering my experience with my brother. 😂.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Anybody see Offensive Haymaker? Vol.2 pg 69? -5 OCV instead of -5DCV and to paraphrase the author, “this represents precise hitting instead of raw power”.

 

ummm...

 

On 3/13/2021 at 12:20 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

6e v2 p68 described the Haymaker as "A Haymaker is basically an all-out attack..."

 

...

 

Now, p 69 ... also suggests a "variant of Haymaker called Offensive Haymaker. ... 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."

 

So I will say "maybe someone saw it".  😉

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Whoops, sorry Hugh! 😁

[pawsplay]

I already posted a link above that notes a Haymaker is "a strong hit." Whether or not you like a given dictionary source, I think the argument is done whether a broader meaning is accepted by some people out in the real world.

[Asperion]

Using what pawsplay said,  one could use that haymaker with any attack. It doesn't need to be direct, physical strength blows. The definition only states that it is a full, all-out blow. That could be with fists, clubs,  swords,  magic spells, whatever the GM allows. 

[Ninja-Bear]

8 hours ago, pawsplay said:

I already posted a link above that notes a Haymaker is "a strong hit." Whether or not you like a given dictionary source, I think the argument is done whether a broader meaning is accepted by some people out in the real world.

Like I said, that doesn’t matter in the context of Rules/Mechanics. Hero system has now  broader what is acceptable as “hit harder”. I have friends who don’t like the new version, again perfectly acceptable. However when dealing with RAW the Rules give the meaning. (Again to beat the dead horse, I’m not saying you have to use said RAW ruling.)

[pawsplay]

The points I would make are

1. Haymaker is allowed with all sorts of attacks
2. There is a good rationale for most uses
3. The name is not inappropriate

 

In general, I would say that it should be allowed unless it produces a nonsensical result. Characters can't "see" the game mechanics being used, so as long as it has a slow windup, imposes some penalties, and deals extra DC, it shouldn't be a problem if Haymakers themselves are allowed. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but conversely, just because something is unusual doesn't mean it should be disallowed. I mean, I have seen plenty of "person to frog" spells in movies that really do look like Haymakers, and further, this gets around reasonable DC caps that may be in place while still allowing characters to output stronger Attack powers as called for.

[Duke Bushido]

When we get done with this, can we move on to bouncing punches, please? 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

15 hours ago, pawsplay said:

The points I would make are

1. Haymaker is allowed with all sorts of attacks
2. There is a good rationale for most uses
3. The name is not inappropriate

 

In general, I would say that it should be allowed unless it produces a nonsensical result. Characters can't "see" the game mechanics being used, so as long as it has a slow windup, imposes some penalties, and deals extra DC, it shouldn't be a problem if Haymakers themselves are allowed. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but conversely, just because something is unusual doesn't mean it should be disallowed. I mean, I have seen plenty of "person to frog" spells in movies that really do look like Haymakers, and further, this gets around reasonable DC caps that may be in place while still allowing characters to output stronger Attack powers as called for.

Excellent points!!! I thought I was making those too but it probably got lost in my ramblings.

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

When we get done with this, can we move on to bouncing punches, please? 

 

 

That sounds like a good stunt for a Mr. Fantastic type guy!

[pawsplay]

On 3/19/2021 at 6:13 PM, Duke Bushido said:

When we get done with this, can we move on to bouncing punches, please? 

 

 

 

That's a Surprise Attack. A bouncing Blast is actually a kind of trick punch, but at a range...

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, pawsplay said:

 

That's a Surprise Attack. A bouncing Blast is actually a kind of trick punch, but at a range...

Ooh!

 

Excellent point!

 

Punch: range determined by STR !   

 

 

[Opal]

Haymaker was always presented as a HTH maneuver - IDK if 6e changed that. There used to be a similar maneuver called Kick that was -2/-2/x1.5 instead of 0/-5/x1.5, but that was a looong time ago. ;) (really long, as you can tell from the x1.5 instead of +4d)

A ranged maneuver, either standard, purchased, or improvised, to add damage is certainly not out of the question, of course. For instance, in a campaign with hit locations you could do a 'high shot' or called shot to the chest, head, or vitals to do more damage than usual. If you're not in such a campaign, you could buy some extra damage with an attack with a segment delay for 'aiming' and that called-shot/precise-attack special effect. If you want to add a maneuver or expand the scope of a manuever in a campaign, that's fine too. It's not hard to imagine an energy projector 'powering up' a blast for a full segment before releasing it, and giving that the same mods as haymaker wouldn't seem unreasonable. OTOH, most weapons, including virtually all 0-character-pt-equipment weapons are going to have 'Beam' or some such equivalent limitation that would presumably preclude playing around like that.

I don't recall if I allowed a ranged haymaker in past games... I had a whole set of variant ranged martial arts for 4e, so it's the kind of thing i'd've done, but if i did, I don't think anyone must have used it in a memorable way, if at all. Or I'd remember it.



... as for Bouncing Punches there's already sweep, and you can throw things, including things that might 'bounce' given the right surface (which is, or at least used to be, an f/x preq for bouncing EBs), so, would seem to be covered, if not in so may words.

[archer]

44 minutes ago, Opal said:

... as for Bouncing Punches there's already sweep, and you can throw things, including things that might 'bounce' given the right surface (which is, or at least used to be, an f/x preq for bouncing EBs), so, would seem to be covered, if not in so may words.
 

 

But if I bounce a punch off the wall behind my target and hit the back of his head instead of the front, I can avoid the Block he had prepared against a straight up punch.

[Opal]

14 minutes ago, archer said:

But if I bounce a punch off the wall behind my target and hit the back of his head instead of the front, I can avoid the Block he had prepared against a straight up punch.

Certainly, though he might spread his block to counter, especially in Stooge Hero.

Seriously, though, you could also just throw something at him.

[Ninja-Bear]

@Opal, fwiw Haymaker changed to +4 DC in 5th Ed.