Rapid Fire

[Gary]

Based on Steve Long's answer, there are no additional penalties associated with Rapid Firing NND's or other nonstandard attacks.

 

However, the potential for abuse is quite clear. (Imagine Menton rapid firing his Ego Blast! )

 

Normally the check on Sweep and Rapid Fire is the DCV penalty and the fact that all defenses apply to each attack. However for NND's, only the DCV penalty applies. 3 3d6 NNDs from multiple hits are every bit as good as 1 9d6 NND, and a whole lot cheaper. Unlike 3 3d6 EBs compared to 1 9d6 EB.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rapid Fire

 

Originally posted by Gary

Based on Steve Long's answer, there are no additional penalties associated with Rapid Firing NND's or other nonstandard attacks.

 

Whether one is needed comes down to interpretation, I suppose. The character paid for the advantage of these unusual attacks, after all. The +1 advantage eliminates the application of most defenses, regardless of how many times he hits. Having not worked with it, I can't say whether it's hugely unbalancing, but it is another of those "whatever you can do, so can they" issues.

 

These maneuvers present a pretty hefty advantage to high OCV characters whether the attack is unusual or not, especially against very slow, or very large, targets. "Well, if he hits me I'm out anyway. He has DCV -1 thanks to Growth and my OCV is 17. hmmm...Rapid Fire for 7 shots - I still hit on 17 or less, and I can do that twice before I'll run out of END." Rapid Fire allows the potential for more hits, each of which will do more or less the same damage.

 

Originally posted by Gary

However, the potential for abuse is quite clear. (Imagine Menton rapid firing his Ego Blast! )

 

Extra scary due to the likely OCV/DCV difference highlighted above meshing with the lack of normal defenses.

 

As I say, I'm uncertain how unbalancing this would be (Menton's ego blast, for example, doesn't need many hits to take out most characters anyway!). Did you have a suggestion for fixing the problem (beyond just saying "Oh, you can't use those maneuvers with those attacks")?

 

The disadvantages of maneuvers aren't always comparable in any case. Returning to the "Big Enemy" example, what's his penalty for using Sweep/Rapid Fire? Defenses apply to each attack, but he doesn't suffer from the DCV penalty at all. A 38 DEX Martial Artist sure does!

[Gary]

Re: Re: Rapid Fire

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Whether one is needed comes down to interpretation, I suppose. The character paid for the advantage of these unusual attacks, after all. The +1 advantage eliminates the application of most defenses, regardless of how many times he hits. Having not worked with it, I can't say whether it's hugely unbalancing, but it is another of those "whatever you can do, so can they" issues.

 

If you buy autofire NND, you have to pay an additional +1 "efficiency surcharge" advantage. (Still not enough IMO for NNDs, but too much for other nonstandard autofires). There is no corresponding penalty for sweeps or rapid fire. It's far better to buy your 6d6 NND and either buy cheap skill levels or spread your attack than it is to buy autofire NND.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

These maneuvers present a pretty hefty advantage to high OCV characters whether the attack is unusual or not, especially against very slow, or very large, targets. "Well, if he hits me I'm out anyway. He has DCV -1 thanks to Growth and my OCV is 17. hmmm...Rapid Fire for 7 shots - I still hit on 17 or less, and I can do that twice before I'll run out of END." Rapid Fire allows the potential for more hits, each of which will do more or less the same damage.

 

Yeah but for regular attacks, at least the big guy gets his full defense. Having 35 ED vs each attack is far different than having 0 ED vs each attack.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Extra scary due to the likely OCV/DCV difference highlighted above meshing with the lack of normal defenses.

 

As I say, I'm uncertain how unbalancing this would be (Menton's ego blast, for example, doesn't need many hits to take out most characters anyway!). Did you have a suggestion for fixing the problem (beyond just saying "Oh, you can't use those maneuvers with those attacks")?

 

The disadvantages of maneuvers aren't always comparable in any case. Returning to the "Big Enemy" example, what's his penalty for using Sweep/Rapid Fire? Defenses apply to each attack, but he doesn't suffer from the DCV penalty at all. A 38 DEX Martial Artist sure does!

 

I'm not sure of the solution. Outright banning these maneuvers for abusive attacks is one possibility. Another would be to give additional OCV and/or DCV penalties.

[coach]

Ouch! Rapid Fire NNDs and Ego Attacks. You know, I had not even considered the implications for that. Still getting used to 5th Ed rules.

 

I think the best way to deal with the first is a strict adherance to the "Common Defense" rule for NNDs. I have seen a lot of GMs allow NNDs with defenses that are not very common at all. If your NND only works on part of the team you are fighting, you can bet that the others will gang up to stomp you before you do too much damage. One rapid fire NND and you're going down, sucker! And you can almost guarantee that when you encounter that group again, they will all be defended against that NND.

 

On the Ego Attacks, remember that Mental Def is really cheap. If I take a bare minimum of 10 points, probably costing me at most 8 points, then your Rapid Fire 3D6 Ego Attack is going to do very little to me compared to a larger, single-fire attack (as in your example).

 

I think that one of the main issues is that everyone has not yet realigned their thinking in character creation to deal with the new 5th Ed rules. As you question points out, sometimes seemingly minor rules changes can have huge consequences. So, I think one change that we will start to see is more people finding ways to take small amounts of many different defenses to deal with exactly the issue you are referring to.

[badger3k]

Not sure how abusive it can be if you watch it carefully, but let's look at Menton.

 

ECV 10, DCV 8, +2 Overall, +8 with mental/TK powers.

 

Rapid fire makes him 1/2 DCV: So base DCV of 4

 

Let's say he takes 3 shots (per written GM option to limit #, p 262).

 

His ECV for the three attacks would be 8,6,and 4 (cumulative -2 penalty).

 

Now if he adds all his levels into attack, then thats an 18,16, and 14, but he's at DCV 4, with a PD/ED of 35/40 (20r each). Still pretty vulnerable, at least for a 1400 pt character. He is supposed to be tough, though. An 8d6 ego blast definitely is, but if you know it's menton, you'll hopefully have some defenses - otherwise you'll be screwed whether he rapid fires or not. My group has a normal OCV of 8-10, so, assuming they survived (they're only on average 256 points), they'd hit on a 17 to 15 or less).

 

Looking through CKC (well, skimming), there aren't a lot of NND or special powers I'd say qualify for Rapid Fire by my interpretation, so I can't comment on any other situation.

 

If I found it to be abusive I'd just exercise more control before allowing any rapid fire/sweep attacks, rather than an additional OCV/DCV penalty. Another option is to use the reverse of the limitation (p262 - Cannot be Rapid Fired -1/2). Just make all powers special powers not rapid fireable as a defalt and make it +1/2 can be rapid fired (or +1). Don't know how that'll work out, but it's another option.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: Re: Rapid Fire

 

Originally posted by Gary

If you buy autofire NND, you have to pay an additional +1 "efficiency surcharge" advantage. (Still not enough IMO for NNDs, but too much for other nonstandard autofires). There is no corresponding penalty for sweeps or rapid fire. It's far better to buy your 6d6 NND and either buy cheap skill levels or spread your attack than it is to buy autofire NND.

 

Absent the surcharge, I can make my 4d6 NND Autofire - 5 shots for 10 points. So I see the need for an extra advantage. With the extra +1, making my NND Autofire - 5 shots costs 30 more points. Let's compare this to using Rapid Fire.

 

Rapid Attack costs me 5 points. Now I can "autofire" in a half phase with no penalty to OCV or DCV. Let's assume I have a 23 DEX and 2 levels, so I'm OCV 10, DCV 8. Rapid Attack with the same five shots makes me OCV 0, DCV 4. I need +4 DCV (only with Rapid Attack) which would cost 13. So far, I'm paying 28 points, which is comparable to the 30 I'd pay with the extra +1 advantage and way less than the 10 I'd pay without that rule.

 

Let's boost the attack to 6d6. Now autofire - 5 shots costs me 45 points, so I have 17 left. That will buy enough penalty skill levels to offset the OCV penalty with 2 left over (assuming they're only for this one attack - maybe my GM won't let me be so good at Rapid Attack with only that one attack, but that's another story). Now, I have the advantage of a separate roll to hit, unmodified, for each shot fired, where Autofire just lets me hit once more for each 2 more I hit by. Rapid Fire is now superior to Autofire.

 

So there's a difference - and I acknowledge that. But I don't think it's as severe as the one you perceive.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Yeah but for regular attacks, at least the big guy gets his full defense. Having 35 ED vs each attack is far different than having 0 ED vs each attack.

 

This is the same tradeoff as NND vs Normal Attack. A 6d6 NND will do 21 damage on average. A 12d6 EB will do 42 - 35 = 7. Of course, if the big guy happens to have the defense against my NND, Normal EB Guy is quite a bit better off. And the defense must be fairly common, remember?

 

As a GM, I'll just buy Big Guy the defense, or maybe Damage Reduction only vs NND's.

 

I do agree it's open to abuse, but NND's in general are open to abuse, as are Rapid Attack and Sweep. Combining two such items leads to a greater potential for abuse.

 

Originally posted by Gary

I'm not sure of the solution. Outright banning these maneuvers for abusive attacks is one possibility. Another would be to give additional OCV and/or DCV penalties.

 

This is where I have an opposing concern. "You can't do that with NND's" begs the question "Why not?" It doesn't make logical sense to me that FireGuy's flamebolt can be Rapid Fired but his Intense Heat Burst cannot. Similarly, I see no in game reason one should take a penalty and the other should not.

 

From a game mechaniocs perspective, I'm not convinced the imbalance is as significant as you seem to think, but I haven't seen it in use. Anyone out there seen someone abuse this construct? If so, was it someone who doesn't readily abuse other constructs (ie a weasel player) or just fell into this abuse (ie a weasel power)?

[Vondy]

Aren't you 1/2 DCV when you use the rapid fire maneuver? And isn't it a full phase action unless you have the rapid attack skill?

[Gary]

Originally posted by badger3k

Not sure how abusive it can be if you watch it carefully, but let's look at Menton.

 

ECV 10, DCV 8, +2 Overall, +8 with mental/TK powers.

 

Rapid fire makes him 1/2 DCV: So base DCV of 4

 

Let's say he takes 3 shots (per written GM option to limit #, p 262).

 

His ECV for the three attacks would be 8,6,and 4 (cumulative -2 penalty).

 

Now if he adds all his levels into attack, then thats an 18,16, and 14, but he's at DCV 4, with a PD/ED of 35/40 (20r each). Still pretty vulnerable, at least for a 1400 pt character. He is supposed to be tough, though. An 8d6 ego blast definitely is, but if you know it's menton, you'll hopefully have some defenses - otherwise you'll be screwed whether he rapid fires or not. My group has a normal OCV of 8-10, so, assuming they survived (they're only on average 256 points), they'd hit on a 17 to 15 or less).

 

Looking through CKC (well, skimming), there aren't a lot of NND or special powers I'd say qualify for Rapid Fire by my interpretation, so I can't comment on any other situation.

 

If I found it to be abusive I'd just exercise more control before allowing any rapid fire/sweep attacks, rather than an additional OCV/DCV penalty. Another option is to use the reverse of the limitation (p262 - Cannot be Rapid Fired -1/2). Just make all powers special powers not rapid fireable as a defalt and make it +1/2 can be rapid fired (or +1). Don't know how that'll work out, but it's another option.

 

One comment. Haymaker would add +2d6 ego blast, -5 DCV, and take an extra segment. I'd say that the combat penalties are at least as great as Rapid Fire. Rapid Fire can potentially have a greater DCV penalty since it's 1/2 DCV vs a straight -5, but that penalty is roughly comparable for most characters.

 

So Haymaker adds +2d6 Ego Blast for the extra time penalty. Rapid Fire adds +8d6 for a -2 ECV, or +16d6 for -4 ECV. If Menton chooses to spread, he gets +2 ECV per d6 he's sacrificing, so to equalize ECV's, the comparison is:

 

10d6 at cost of extra segment. No ECV penalty.

2 hits at 7d6 no extra segment. No ECV penalty. Total 14d6 vs the undefended.

3 hits at 6d6 no extra segment. No ECV penalty. Total 18d6 vs the undefended.

 

This merely shows that Rapid Fire is better than Haymaker for nonstandard attacks and nothing else, but it is food for thought.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Absent the surcharge, I can make my 4d6 NND Autofire - 5 shots for 10 points. So I see the need for an extra advantage. With the extra +1, making my NND Autofire - 5 shots costs 30 more points. Let's compare this to using Rapid Fire.

 

Rapid Attack costs me 5 points. Now I can "autofire" in a half phase with no penalty to OCV or DCV. Let's assume I have a 23 DEX and 2 levels, so I'm OCV 10, DCV 8. Rapid Attack with the same five shots makes me OCV 0, DCV 4. I need +4 DCV (only with Rapid Attack) which would cost 13. So far, I'm paying 28 points, which is comparable to the 30 I'd pay with the extra +1 advantage and way less than the 10 I'd pay without that rule.

 

The 4d6 NND costs 70 pts at this stage. 4d6 NND(+1) Autofire (+1.5) and costs 35 end for a full 5 shots. The 4d6 NND without autofire costs 40 pts, and 4 end a pop or 20 end total for 5 shots. Note that it costs a full additional 20 pts to make the autofire 0 end, but only 10 pts to make the regular attack, and the regular attack is paying less end to begin with.

 

I accept your analysis for 28 pts to overcome penalties, note that your analysis completely breaks down for the 2 or 3 shot variety of autofire.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's boost the attack to 6d6. Now autofire - 5 shots costs me 45 points, so I have 17 left. That will buy enough penalty skill levels to offset the OCV penalty with 2 left over (assuming they're only for this one attack - maybe my GM won't let me be so good at Rapid Attack with only that one attack, but that's another story). Now, I have the advantage of a separate roll to hit, unmodified, for each shot fired, where Autofire just lets me hit once more for each 2 more I hit by. Rapid Fire is now superior to Autofire.

 

So there's a difference - and I acknowledge that. But I don't think it's as severe as the one you perceive.

 

It's a huge advantage to have a separate to hit roll unmodified rather than a hit by every 2 you make it by, especially for 5 shots and for nonstandard attacks. If your base to hit roll is a 11-, you'll average 3.1 hits. That's 18.3d6 of NND damage on average. The autofire version would need to roll a 7 to match the average of the rapid fire attack.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This is the same tradeoff as NND vs Normal Attack. A 6d6 NND will do 21 damage on average. A 12d6 EB will do 42 - 35 = 7. Of course, if the big guy happens to have the defense against my NND, Normal EB Guy is quite a bit better off. And the defense must be fairly common, remember?

 

As a GM, I'll just buy Big Guy the defense, or maybe Damage Reduction only vs NND's.

 

I do agree it's open to abuse, but NND's in general are open to abuse, as are Rapid Attack and Sweep. Combining two such items leads to a greater potential for abuse.

 

Don't forget that you can spread the EB's to overcome the OCV penalties. Spreading gets you +2 OCV per d6 for the NND, but +1 OCV per d6 for the EB. And since these are marginal dice, it's effectively cutting 7 net stun off the EB and only 3.5 net stun off the NND. Against Big Dude, it doesn't matter, but against regular foes it's a significant advantage for NND guy.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This is where I have an opposing concern. "You can't do that with NND's" begs the question "Why not?" It doesn't make logical sense to me that FireGuy's flamebolt can be Rapid Fired but his Intense Heat Burst cannot. Similarly, I see no in game reason one should take a penalty and the other should not.

 

From a game mechaniocs perspective, I'm not convinced the imbalance is as significant as you seem to think, but I haven't seen it in use. Anyone out there seen someone abuse this construct? If so, was it someone who doesn't readily abuse other constructs (ie a weasel player) or just fell into this abuse (ie a weasel power)?

 

You already have that same concern by charging an extra +1 for autofire NNDs. Conceptually, there is no reason why throwing 3 poison darts (nnd) should cost more than throwing 3 shuriken (rka), but for game balance that's the case.

[Gary]

Originally posted by D-Man

Aren't you 1/2 DCV when you use the rapid fire maneuver? And isn't it a full phase action unless you have the rapid attack skill?

 

Yes. I'm just saying that the penalty isn't enough for nonstandard attacks such as NND. A big check on the power of Rapid Fire is that defenses apply separately to each attack. That's not the case with NNDs, where 3 hits with a 4d6 NND is just as good as a 12d6 NND and 3 hits with a 4d6 EB is far worse than a single 12d6 EB.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

It's a huge advantage to have a separate to hit roll unmodified rather than a hit by every 2 you make it by, especially for 5 shots and for nonstandard attacks. If your base to hit roll is a 11-, you'll average 3.1 hits. That's 18.3d6 of NND damage on average. The autofire version would need to roll a 7 to match the average of the rapid fire attack.

 

As I said, the advantage is with the rapid attack power if you have bought enough levels to cancel out all of the penalties. But that's a comparable expenditure of points at a 23 DEX. It may not hold true at higher levels. At lower DEX, you can get rapid attack cheaper.

 

Like most choices, each is better for certain characters. Try and make a 35 DEX martial artist with 6 DCV levels use Rapid Attack as effectively as Autofire! He needs +9 DCV levels with Rapid Attack (27 points), plus Rapid Fire (5 points) plus those 15 points of OCV penalty levels. Of course, he's a much more extreme example - and he can more afford to suck up the OCV penalty rather than buy it off.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Don't forget that you can spread the EB's to overcome the OCV penalties. Spreading gets you +2 OCV per d6 for the NND, but +1 OCV per d6 for the EB. And since these are marginal dice, it's effectively cutting 7 net stun off the EB and only 3.5 net stun off the NND. Against Big Dude, it doesn't matter, but against regular foes it's a significant advantage for NND guy.

 

Umm...I can spread whether I use Autofire or Rapid Attack, so I don't see this differentiating. Now, what is a "DC" is a good question. Do you sacrifice 1d6 EB since that's the base power, regardless of whether it's an NND, or what advantages are on it? This isn't in the FAQ as near as I can tell.

 

Originally posted by Gary

You already have that same concern by charging an extra +1 for autofire NNDs. Conceptually, there is no reason why throwing 3 poison darts (nnd) should cost more than throwing 3 shuriken (rka), but for game balance that's the case.

 

"How many points it costs" is not conceptual, as I use the term. The differing combat maneuvers is. I'm not saying you can't change it, but I would challenge you to find a fair and balanced change to correct the problem you perceive without swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As I said, the advantage is with the rapid attack power if you have bought enough levels to cancel out all of the penalties. But that's a comparable expenditure of points at a 23 DEX. It may not hold true at higher levels. At lower DEX, you can get rapid attack cheaper.

 

Like most choices, each is better for certain characters. Try and make a 35 DEX martial artist with 6 DCV levels use Rapid Attack as effectively as Autofire! He needs +9 DCV levels with Rapid Attack (27 points), plus Rapid Fire (5 points) plus those 15 points of OCV penalty levels. Of course, he's a much more extreme example - and he can more afford to suck up the OCV penalty rather than buy it off.

 

I don't encounter many characters with 18 DCV. For the "typical" character, Rapid Fire is much better when a NND attack is involved. It's a easy way to get well beyond typical campaign maximums. That 4d6 NND 0 end doesn't look especially dangerous on paper, but if the character routinely gets 2-4 hits per phase, it's gamebreakingly obnoxious.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Umm...I can spread whether I use Autofire or Rapid Attack, so I don't see this differentiating. Now, what is a "DC" is a good question. Do you sacrifice 1d6 EB since that's the base power, regardless of whether it's an NND, or what advantages are on it? This isn't in the FAQ as near as I can tell.

 

Read page 269-270 of Fred. One DC is equal to 5 active points in the attack. I'm pretty sure you disregard advantages such as 0 end, but any "combat" advantages count.

 

I'm merely pointing out that spreading a regular attack costs you more than spreading a NND will. That's because the dice you're spreading are marginal dice vs most defense levels. The last 2d6 of a 12d6 EB are essentially NND dice anyway, so you're sacrificing twice as much as when you spread the NND attack.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"How many points it costs" is not conceptual, as I use the term. The differing combat maneuvers is. I'm not saying you can't change it, but I would challenge you to find a fair and balanced change to correct the problem you perceive without swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

 

Perhaps we can take Badger3k's suggestion. Nonstandard attacks default to "cannot be rapid fired". If you want to be able to rapid fire a NND or ego blast or drain or suppress or any nonstandard attack, then you should buy a +1/2 to +1 advantage during character creation depending on how abusive a GM judges it to be.

[tesuji]

Just for the sake of clarity...

 

for all those wildly speculating about hitting someone with triple shot 4d6 NNDs with enough levels bought that you get all three shots to hit in one phase... have you stopped to look at what regular attacks would do?

 

For example, assuming just 10d6 vs the standard 20 defs...

 

three one phase hits from 10d6 vs 20 def will get 45 stun thru. ouch. How many of your typical badguys in a 10 DC game are going to be up after 45 stun? Well, most of the non-bricks run into stuns of 30-40. So most of them are down.

 

three 5d6 NND blasts will get an average of about 55 thru. thats 10 more points on all the cases where the NND works. of course, NNDs are supposed to work that way... more damage against the ones they work against and nothing against the others.

 

So, here is the rub... exactly what percentage of your NPCs will be fine after the average 45 stun but taken out by the 55 stun?

 

Thats your NND problem's weight.

 

Now, if the fact is that few character fit in this range and most of the ones dropped by the NND will be dropped by the regualar attacks as well, then you do not have a problem with NNDs.

 

You have a problem with willy nilly allowing rapid fire triple shots of full strength attacks, whether NND or regular.

 

Truthfully, one of your worst nightmares ought to be a stun-only EB at maxed strength combined with a partner with an entangle that allows the damage thru... the entangle goes off, then your partner with his held action fires plenty of max d6 ebs that go thru the entangle at hit you easily with your 0 dcv self.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

Just for the sake of clarity...

 

for all those wildly speculating about hitting someone with triple shot 4d6 NNDs with enough levels bought that you get all three shots to hit in one phase... have you stopped to look at what regular attacks would do?

 

For example, assuming just 10d6 vs the standard 20 defs...

 

three one phase hits from 10d6 vs 20 def will get 45 stun thru. ouch. How many of your typical badguys in a 10 DC game are going to be up after 45 stun? Well, most of the non-bricks run into stuns of 30-40. So most of them are down.

 

three 5d6 NND blasts will get an average of about 55 thru. thats 10 more points on all the cases where the NND works. of course, NNDs are supposed to work that way... more damage against the ones they work against and nothing against the others.

 

So, here is the rub... exactly what percentage of your NPCs will be fine after the average 45 stun but taken out by the 55 stun?

 

Thats your NND problem's weight.

 

Now, if the fact is that few character fit in this range and most of the ones dropped by the NND will be dropped by the regualar attacks as well, then you do not have a problem with NNDs.

 

You have a problem with willy nilly allowing rapid fire triple shots of full strength attacks, whether NND or regular.

 

Truthfully, one of your worst nightmares ought to be a stun-only EB at maxed strength combined with a partner with an entangle that allows the damage thru... the entangle goes off, then your partner with his held action fires plenty of max d6 ebs that go thru the entangle at hit you easily with your 0 dcv self.

 

Hmm, good point about Rapid Fire itself being the danger rather than the NND. The NND is better against higher defenses and the regular EB is better against lower defenses.

 

However a couple of factors make the NND variant superior:

 

1) Rapid firing 3 shots normally costs the 5d6 NND and the 10d6 EB 15 end. However, it costs 25 pts to remove the end cost from the straight EB and 12 pts to remove it from the NND. Normally not a big deal, but with rapid fire the end reduction is very important.

 

2) If you don't have an OCV advantage, then spreading becomes a lot more attractive for the NND. Let's take your example of the 10d6 EB vs the 5d6 NND and 20 defenses.

 

If your base chance to hit is 11-, spreading the NND is more viable. The 5d6 NND averages 10.9 stun damage after taking into account to hit probabilities. 4d6 NND rapid fired and spread for +2 OCV averages 17.5 stun. 3d6 NND rapid fired and spread for +4 OCV averages 19.7 stun.

 

Contrast that with the 10d6 regular EB. One single 10d6 will average 9.4 net stun vs 20 def after taking to hit probabilities into account. Spreading for +2 OCV leaving 8d6 and rapid firing will average 10 net stun. Spreading for +4 OCV leaving 6d6 and rapid firing will result in negligible damage.

 

Rapid Fire becomes far more of a viable maneuver under normal circumstances, rather than merely when you have a big OCV advantage.

[TheEmerged]

RE: The OECV of the Rapid Fired Ego Blast. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be a -4 penalty to all three attacks?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

I don't encounter many characters with 18 DCV. For the "typical" character, Rapid Fire is much better when a NND attack is involved. It's a easy way to get well beyond typical campaign maximums. That 4d6 NND 0 end doesn't look especially dangerous on paper, but if the character routinely gets 2-4 hits per phase, it's gamebreakingly obnoxious.

 

What do we call a "typical" character? Let's look to the "averages" for a standard Super as a benchmark and see how this works out. A standard Super has CV 7-13 - let's say OCV 11, DCV 9. He has DC 6-14 - let's say 10, again right on the average. That's 5d6 NND, or 4d6 with 2-3 Autofire (20 x 2.5). That costs 5 END per shot, so 15 END for 3 shots. 13- represents 83.8% of rolls, 11- is 62.5% and 9- is 37.5%, and he averages 14 per hit. He'll hit as follows:

 

HIT THREE: 14 x 3 x 37.5% = 15.75

HIT TWO: 14 x 2 x (62.5% - 37.5%) = 7

HIT ONE: 14 x (83.8% - 62.5%) = 2.28

 

Total average: 25.03

 

What if he goes Rapid Fire instead? To offset the Rapid Attack drawbacks, he needs to spend 5 points on Rapid Fire, buy 4 DCV levels with Rapid Attack (12 points) and buy 4 penalty skill levels (6 points, assuming they apply only to his NND). That's 23 points, leaving 27 for his attack, or 2 1/2 d6 NND. He has 1 point left over. He spends 9 END to fire a 3 shot burst. A 13- comes up 83.8% of the time, so he will hit once 83.8%, twice two hits 70.2% of the time and three 58.8% of the time. Once one shot misses, the rest cannot hit. Average damage per hit is 9 points, so that's:

 

HIT THREE: 9 x 3 x 58.8% = 15.9

HIT TWO: 9 x 2 x (70.2% - 58.8%) = 2.1

HIT ONE: 9 x (83.8% - 70.2%) = 1.2

 

Total average: 19.2

 

Advantage goes to Autofire with a solid 25% more damage - yet you think Rapid Attack is superior.

 

Now, where's the problem - the NND, or the Rapid Fire option? Using the same approach as above, let's use a 60 point normal attack vs defenses of 20 (again, Standard Super).

 

A 60 point EB with Autofire (2-3) leaves 9 1/2 d6, or an average roll of 33.5, inflicting 13.5 damage. We've established the Rapid Attack offsets cost a total of 23 points, leaving 37 for the EB, so 7 1/2d6 (one more point for an extra half die, so let's use that). That's 26.5, or 6.5 Stun per hit.

 

Autofire gets us 25.03 x 13.5/14 = 24.1

Rapid fire averages 19.2 x 6.5/9 = 13.9

 

Again, autofire has clear superiority, this time by well over 40%!

 

As AP go up, the Autofire will rise in damage slower than the non-autofire attack, so there would be an AP total where the advantage goes to Rapid Fire. But it's not so for the "typical character".

 

Now, if you ignore the character's use of other points, and blindly apply "campaign maximum is X DC and average is 50 AP = 10 DC", 6then a character buying a 5d6 NND AND paying 23 points for the Rapid Attack offsets will clearly be superior offensively to the guy with a 4d6 Autofire NND. All that means is that you should be factoring those Rapid Attack offsets into offensive power, and not simply applying a mechanical formula for DC caps.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Read page 269-270 of Fred. One DC is equal to 5 active points in the attack. I'm pretty sure you disregard advantages such as 0 end, but any "combat" advantages count.

 

I'm merely pointing out that spreading a regular attack costs you more than spreading a NND will. That's because the dice you're spreading are marginal dice vs most defense levels. The last 2d6 of a 12d6 EB are essentially NND dice anyway, so you're sacrificing twice as much as when you spread the NND attack.

 

Yup - got the page reference from Steve as well. One also has to ask whether Autofire raises DC - it certainly raises damage - but that's a judgement call for each GM.

 

With the DC clarified, I agree you lose more damage to spread the EB. I don't have a big concern with that and if I did I would solve it by setting DC as 1d6 of EB, 1/2 d6 of Ego Blast/Drain and 1/3 die of KA/Transform, ignoring all advantages.

 

I've snipped the suggestion of default to "can't rapid fire" and forcing an advantage to be purchased, since the above indicates the Autofire advantage would be superior in dealing with average characters. That would certainly be an approach one could take. Presumably, if the advantage is +1/2, I can have a -1/2 limit on my powers that default to allowing Rapid Attack, and save some points that way. Just like it costs +1/2 to give a no range power range, and saves -1/2 to take range away.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

RE: The OECV of the Rapid Fired Ego Blast. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be a -4 penalty to all three attacks?

 

You are right, and any miss ends the sequence.

[Hugh Neilson]

To me, this is fast changing from "rapid attack vs autofire" to "is NND underpriced". I have not done a lot of 5e gaming, so the former is not intuitive to me, hence the math above (which seems to indicate Rapid Fire is NOT inherently superior to Autofire).

 

I have not seen NND's take over the game since their introduction at 1e, so I would say they don't seem to be overly effective for their cost. They are a way of layinmg down some serious STUN against many high DEF opponents, and should be treated with caution.

 

The issue of reduced END being cheaper is true. Area effect is also cheaper, and a lot more effective with an attack not applied against defenses. A 60 AP EB with area effect does 6d6, or 21 Stun on average - a mere annoyance, at most, to most Supers. A 60 AP area effect NND does 4d6, which is 14 points every time. Advantages feed on themselves - it's cheap cheap cheap to add more advantages if you already have quite a few.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

RE: The OECV of the Rapid Fired Ego Blast. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be a -4 penalty to all three attacks?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You are right, and any miss ends the sequence.

 

I was mistaken in my post (I think) - but the way I read it, the first attack is normal, the second is -2, the third is -4, continuing beyond if the GM allows it, and all rolls hit. That's the other aspect - one miss and the sequence is ruined. I'm assuming that is being taken into account in the previous posts.

 

The line is "He also suffers a cumulative -2 OCV penalty for each shot after the first." p 262.

 

Anyway, the other point to consider is that it is an optional combat maneuver, so nothing states that you have to use it either. If you do, then the argument applies, naturally.

[tesuji]

On the hit probabilities thing, you have a point in that an NND, any NND in ANY situation, spreads losing less thruput damage than a standard EB will. Again i repeat, this is true in any NND vs Eb case, not just rapid fire. This is one of the many cases presumably compensated by the "common defense" and the presumption that NNDS are ineffective attacks some notable percentage of the time. But i can definitely say that it is not at all common enough to be assumed that your to-hit is 11-. With the penalties for rapid fire, range, situation et al, you need to consider a broader range of values to make a case there. (basically, choosing the fattest part of the bell curve to try and make die roll adjustment differences seem bigger is cool, just not convincing.)

 

the most frequent use of rapid fire i saw in my hero5 game followed entangles, so the enemy was 0 dcv which moves the chances of hitting into the 15- range even after the -4 for rapid fire. At those odds, the gain from spread becomes almost unperceptable.

 

****************

As for endurance, the more quickly you do damage to the target the less endurance you tend to use. Three shots in one phase means no recoveries in between for him. Dropping him in one phase means not having to keep fighting and paying for your movement and your defenses and whatever else you have that yu keep going while the fight progresses. ney result... end cost wont be a serious issue for concern when you set up a decent rapid fire shot.

 

*****

 

IMO and IMX this is a somewhat delayed sticker shock issue from the changeover from 4 to 5. As soon as i saw rapid fire and MPA as presented in 5, i knew that most of my previous underatdndings of "balance in hero" were obsolete.

 

In 4, It was not uncommon at all for most non-brick heroes to be in the range of 30-40 stun, built to be able to withstand 2-3 hits of "full power" attacks from comparable foes. This design would allow you to take one hit and then start worrying about what to do. if he rolled high, you might need to duck for cover and recover. if he rolled low, you keep fighting. As long as you dont take 2-3 hits immediately, you are OK and the game's expectations meant you could make some reasonable guesses.

 

Well, now, in 5, anyone with that same attack can throw it at you up to 3 or even 5 times in a single pgase. In 4e, being knocked back meant you lose a half phase righting yourself and you may be easier to hit. in 5e, being knocked back means you are at half DCV and now rapid fire shots against you are a SERIOUS threat for even those who did not max out skill levels. That -4 for "three shots" is probably offset by the half dcv for being KBed. Then there are the vastly increased stock in entangle that let damage thru and the ent/rapid fire double team to land 3-5 shots on target EASILY.

 

I really dont see this as rapid fire vs autofire, but more a case of rapid fire/mpa vs hero4 balance expectations. Sure, you can show a lot of damage coming from a rapid fire NND, but you can show as serious an amount coming from a normal attack rapid fired.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by badger3k

I was mistaken in my post (I think) - but the way I read it, the first attack is normal, the second is -2, the third is -4, continuing beyond if the GM allows it, and all rolls hit. That's the other aspect - one miss and the sequence is ruined. I'm assuming that is being taken into account in the previous posts.

 

The line is "He also suffers a cumulative -2 OCV penalty for each shot after the first." p 262.

 

Read the example - that cumulative penalty applies to all shots taken (3 shots means all shots suffer -4 OCV).

 

EDIT: Typo corrected

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

I really dont see this as rapid fire vs autofire, but more a case of rapid fire/mpa vs hero4 balance expectations. Sure, you can show a lot of damage coming from a rapid fire NND, but you can show as serious an amount coming from a normal attack rapid fired.

 

BINGO - it's not a case of autofire penalized where Rapid Fire isn't, it's a change to the dynamic. It can be just as deadly with a vs normal defenses attack.

[zornwil]

I'm not a big fan of "multiple" hit techniques, Rapid Fire or Autofire, but as to this thread, I do tend to think that as coach indicated earlier, the intangible addition of an "everyman" being able to counter NNDs should also go a considerable distance in making this less a problem in ongoing campaigns. But in one-shots, yes, could be unfairly devastating.

[tesuji]

As an aside, and perhaps this could be considered a hijack...

 

One of the notions used for NND vs normal attacks is the idea that sometimes the NND fails to work... it does more in some cases but none in others.

 

My question is about how often does that actually occur in play in your games? About what % of the time is an NND fired that does nothing due to its "counter" occuring?

 

In my games, experience has shown me for that to actually be somewhat rare. Possibly the most frequent case is when an AREA NND happens to catch some people who are protected but even then others are hit and affected at the same time. I cannot recall, now understand these games cover time back to the early 80s so the recollection is sketchy in some cases, EVER seeing a PC NND that just failed. I am sure it must have happened cuz i know i did not let those thinsg go without challenge.

 

here is what i often see instead.

 

First, the NND is "a slot", one option of a few in a MP. So when the choice is made to use it its against someone for whom the need exists.

 

Second, most NNDs chosen by players tend to be ones with "noticeable" counters, like say a meson beam "not vs force fields" or a heat blast "not vs fire powers or insulated" and so forth. So, since the vast majority of the time these are visible before you choose which attack to use, the actual number of times you shoot at a target thats immune is very small.

 

Anyway, just trying to see if anyone else has experienced this and to what extent. How true is the "yeah but sometimes NNDs wont do any damage at all" thing and what degree of offsetting loss of damage does it actually produce in your games? Obviously this is geared at PC NNDs, since NPCs traits are more for dramatic effect.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

What do we call a "typical" character? Let's look to the "averages" for a standard Super as a benchmark and see how this works out. A standard Super has CV 7-13 - let's say OCV 11, DCV 9. He has DC 6-14 - let's say 10, again right on the average. That's 5d6 NND, or 4d6 with 2-3 Autofire (20 x 2.5). That costs 5 END per shot, so 15 END for 3 shots. 13- represents 83.8% of rolls, 11- is 62.5% and 9- is 37.5%, and he averages 14 per hit. He'll hit as follows:

 

Stop right there. You forget that autofire NND is an additional +1 advantage. A 2-3 shot autofire nnd is a +2.25 advantage, so you'll only get 3d6. (Technically you pay only 49 pts for the 3d6 NND).

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now, if you ignore the character's use of other points, and blindly apply "campaign maximum is X DC and average is 50 AP = 10 DC", 6then a character buying a 5d6 NND AND paying 23 points for the Rapid Attack offsets will clearly be superior offensively to the guy with a 4d6 Autofire NND. All that means is that you should be factoring those Rapid Attack offsets into offensive power, and not simply applying a mechanical formula for DC caps.

 

Running your numbers again with 3d6 NND means reducing the damage by 25%. That brings them to parity right there. And the autofire is paying 15 end vs 9 for the 3 shotter.

 

Let's 0 end both powers so we can compare apples to apples. It costs the autofire guy a +1 advantage to 0 end his, or 15 pts.

 

Accepting your value of 23 pts for rapid fire, and adding in the 15 pts that it's costing autofire dude to get 0 end, leaves 41 pts, or 3d6 NND 0 end with 4 pts left over.

 

Taking your previous numbers, the autofire NND averages 25.03*(10.5/14) = 18.8 stun. The rapid fire averages 19.2*(10.5/9) = 22.4 stun.

 

The rapid fire now averages 19% more stun, and costs 4 pts less than the autofire attack.

 

See what happens when you use correct costs and equalize for end?

 

However, that analysis is for a 50 pt attack. As the attack goes up, the rapid fire is going to do better and better compared to the NND. That's because the 23 pts is a "fixed" cost and adding dice is a "percentage" cost.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I've snipped the suggestion of default to "can't rapid fire" and forcing an advantage to be purchased, since the above indicates the Autofire advantage would be superior in dealing with average characters. That would certainly be an approach one could take. Presumably, if the advantage is +1/2, I can have a -1/2 limit on my powers that default to allowing Rapid Attack, and save some points that way. Just like it costs +1/2 to give a no range power range, and saves -1/2 to take range away.

 

Please check the revised numbers.