Rapid Fire

[Gary]

Originally posted by 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.)

 

Spreading a single shot attack affects just one attack. Spreading a rapid fire attack affects all attacks.

 

Incidentally, spreading gets much more effective as the dice increase. Spreading 4d6 nnd for +2 OCV leaves 2 3d6 NND attacks. Spreading 8d6 nnd for +2 OCV leaves 2 7d6 NND. A big percentage change.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

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.

 

Rapid firing regular attacks only works well if you have an OCV advantage. Rapid firing NND attacks works pretty well if you have OCV parity. Or even an OCV disadvantage and a large enough nnd attack. IOW, NND attacks can be profitably rapid fired in many more situations than regular attacks.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

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

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.

 

*****

 

That's if you manage to drop him in that phase. If it takes you 2 phases, that's 6 times end cost. Add in movements and perhaps defenses, and you could be out of end just about when you knock out the opponent. And if he manages to dodge or deflect the attack, that's 3 times the end you're wasting. I agree in general with you, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

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.

 

Agreed with the proviso that rapid firing nonstandard attacks is still more abusive than rapid firing regular attacks.

[Gary]

Originally posted by 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.

 

I notice the same thing as you. And even worse, the characters will generally only fail once. Once they mark a particular foe as having the defense, they'll never use that nnd against that foe again.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

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).

 

Somehow, I had it in my head it was double, rather than an aded +1 My bad. The other attack is 2 1/2d6 NND, for 26 points, plus 23 for offsets, makes 49, so we're even in points.

 

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

So that should be 18.8 for the autofire vs 19.2 for the rapid attack - only out by rounding. That seems to indicate the system is balanced so far, although we have a considerable END discrepancy. This assumes one guy runs out of END before the other runs out of STUN, but in the broader picture, using less END will still be an advantage. On the other hand, "Rapid Fire Guy" is far more susceptible to adjustment powers, since he's got only 26 points to begin with. Minor issues.

 

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

3d6 NND 0 END = 15 * 2.5 = 37.5, so 38 + 23 = 61. 3d6 NND Autofire 0 END = 64. Close enough.

 

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

Three less, but still a slight advantage. However, I'm not convinced they need to be taken to 0 END. It makes sense for RapidFireGuy - only a +1/2, and costs 61 points. For 60 points, Autofire Guy can have 128 charges - that's 42 clips a day. Practically, firing off more than that is in the same likelihood (probably less) than finding a guy who can drain the NND attacks.

 

Originally posted by Gary

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

 

See what happens when you optimize the limitations?

 

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

Actually, it's now for a 60 point (61 for RFGuy) attack. 50-60 points, more or less equal. Sounds right to me. It's also for a 9 DCV guy. If DCV goes up, the fixed cost to equalize goes up.

 

The other possibility here is that Captain Autofire takes the Rapid Autofire skills... That will cost him 28 points (23 + Rapid Autofire), and brings him down to 14 shots (from his 128 charges) - still lots. His attack still costs 15 * (1 + NND 1 + Auto 1.25 + 128 cg 3/4) = 15 * 4 = 60, so he's spent 88 points.

 

Our RF straight guy spends 23 of those on skills, so he has 65 to buy a 5d6 NND 0 END attack - let's make it 5 1/2 d6 for an extra 5 points - Autofire can use 4 of these to just make his attack 0 END. He'll spend the other point on COM.

 

So Autofire now averages 18.8 x 3 = 56.4, where Rapid Fire gets 19.2 * 19.5/9 = 41.6. We've taken the points way out of that 50 point base we started with, and that Autofire is still looking mioghty good, even with double cost for 0 END and an extra +1 for Autofire.

 

Assuming the characters are otherwise identical, then winner is...no one - they fire at the same DEX on the same segment and KO each other!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by 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?

 

I agree with your comment that it's pretty rare. The disadvantage seems more "sometimes I must do something else" than "sometimes it does nothing and I waste a phase". I've never seen a character whose only major attack is an NND. As you note, sometimes someone in an area NND has the defense.

 

That said, I once ran a power armor character with a +5/+5 Invisible Hardened force field. That came back to haunt a few adversaries (especially a castling teleporter..., but I'm sure I caught an NND here and there). I've also seen players I GM forego the NND against characters who would have been affected in the mistaken belief he "must" have the defense (eg. mistaking a damage aura for a force field).

 

I agree with your ovservations that the character generally only spends 1/10 the cost of an NND since it's in a multipower and rarely, if ever, wastes a shot with it. At the same time, I haven't seen NND's dominate the game, and I go back to the early '80's, as you do.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Somehow, I had it in my head it was double, rather than an aded +1 My bad. The other attack is 2 1/2d6 NND, for 26 points, plus 23 for offsets, makes 49, so we're even in points.

 

Ok.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

So that should be 18.8 for the autofire vs 19.2 for the rapid attack - only out by rounding. That seems to indicate the system is balanced so far, although we have a considerable END discrepancy. This assumes one guy runs out of END before the other runs out of STUN, but in the broader picture, using less END will still be an advantage. On the other hand, "Rapid Fire Guy" is far more susceptible to adjustment powers, since he's got only 26 points to begin with. Minor issues.

 

I find end issues to crop up far more than adjustment's of powers. I mostly see adjustment of characteristics.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

3d6 NND 0 END = 15 * 2.5 = 37.5, so 38 + 23 = 61. 3d6 NND Autofire 0 END = 64. Close enough.

 

Rounding is always in the player's favor, so 37+23 = 60.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Three less, but still a slight advantage. However, I'm not convinced they need to be taken to 0 END. It makes sense for RapidFireGuy - only a +1/2, and costs 61 points. For 60 points, Autofire Guy can have 128 charges - that's 42 clips a day. Practically, firing off more than that is in the same likelihood (probably less) than finding a guy who can drain the NND attacks.

 

4 less. I'll agree that 125 charges are essentially equivalent to 0 end, except that a GM can actually exploit the charges by sending enough mooks. However that would be very unusual unless the GM wants to build his storyline around that. So 60 pts to 60.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

See what happens when you optimize the limitations?

 

Except that now it's 3d6 nnd vs 3d6 nnd (instead of 2.5d6 nnd). IOW it's the 18.8 vs 22.4 stun situation, with rapid fire gaining a +19% advantage.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Actually, it's now for a 60 point (61 for RFGuy) attack. 50-60 points, more or less equal. Sounds right to me. It's also for a 9 DCV guy. If DCV goes up, the fixed cost to equalize goes up.

 

Since Autofire is paying +3 advantages and Rapid Fire is paying +1.5 advantages, adding 1d6 costs 20 pts for Autofire and 12.5 for Rapid Fire. 7.5 pts is enough to pay off the penalty from 5 additional DCV (since you only have to make up half). I find adding 1d6 much more common than adding +5 DCV in general.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The other possibility here is that Captain Autofire takes the Rapid Autofire skills... That will cost him 28 points (23 + Rapid Autofire), and brings him down to 14 shots (from his 128 charges) - still lots. His attack still costs 15 * (1 + NND 1 + Auto 1.25 + 128 cg 3/4) = 15 * 4 = 60, so he's spent 88 points.

 

Our RF straight guy spends 23 of those on skills, so he has 65 to buy a 5d6 NND 0 END attack - let's make it 5 1/2 d6 for an extra 5 points - Autofire can use 4 of these to just make his attack 0 END. He'll spend the other point on COM.

 

So Autofire now averages 18.8 x 3 = 56.4, where Rapid Fire gets 19.2 * 19.5/9 = 41.6. We've taken the points way out of that 50 point base we started with, and that Autofire is still looking mioghty good, even with double cost for 0 END and an extra +1 for Autofire.

 

Assuming the characters are otherwise identical, then winner is...no one - they fire at the same DEX on the same segment and KO each other!

 

I don't think Rapid Autofire is as simple as multiplying by 3. I think it's the same percentage change as regular Rapid Fire.

 

So it's 18.8 * (19.2/9) using your original percentage change. That's 40.1 stun vs 41.6, and now the 14 "charges" start approaching a limitation that Rapid Autofire has to worry about.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

I notice the same thing as you. And even worse, the characters will generally only fail once. Once they mark a particular foe as having the defense, they'll never use that nnd against that foe again.

 

I understand your and Tesuji's post on this, and I think about it sometimes as well. I do think the "regular" villains will get hip to the NNDs and easily counter them. But I don't get your last sentence, as to why that is such a concern? Isn't that reasonable even in a 4-color genre?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

I find end issues to crop up far more than adjustment's of powers. I mostly see adjustment of characteristics.

 

I also see "specific SFX" adjustment powers. In any case, the END issue will arise more commonly.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Rounding is always in the player's favor, so 37+23 = 60.

 

Interested in the reference academically. Not always true (you can't have a multipower slot for zero points, but I can get some below 1, or even 0.5, points), but 1 point is academic anyway.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Since Autofire is paying +3 advantages and Rapid Fire is paying +1.5 advantages, adding 1d6 costs 20 pts for Autofire and 12.5 for Rapid Fire. 7.5 pts is enough to pay off the penalty from 5 additional DCV (since you only have to make up half). I find adding 1d6 much more common than adding +5 DCV in general.

 

Each DVC level costs 3 points. Penalty skill levels only apply to OCV, so +1 DCV with Rapid Fire is a 3 point level.

 

Originally posted by Gary

I don't think Rapid Autofire is as simple as multiplying by 3. I think it's the same percentage change as regular Rapid Fire.

 

It is the same, actually. The character is taking three shots, each of which will get one hit on 13-, two on 11- and three on 9-. Since we've already mathed out the average of one such shot, tripling gets you three such shots. This is no different from average damage of 14 and a 50% chance to hit. Average damage is 7. Fire two shots, and average damage is 14, although the range becomes much wider.

 

The 14 charges do become more of a factor, which is why I used those extra points to move from 128 charges (+3/4) to zero END (+1) on the Rapid Autofire example.

 

A further thought: The Rapid Fire Autofire could also be simulated by purchasing enough PSL's to offset another -12 DCV (so 18 points), but at this point, those extra shots are getting less and less likely to hit (sooner or later, a bad roll comes up), so three shots of three shots should get through more, on average, than 9 shots.

[Hugh Neilson]

Submitted separately for those mnot wanting to read the back and forth:

 

BOTTOM LINE: All of this analysis demonstrates a few things from my perspective.

 

First, Autofire and Rapid Fire are reasonably balanced as is for NND's, and no adjustment to the rules is required.

 

Second, with the rules for rapid attacks, do we even NEED a separate autofire advantage any more? It's just a second way of doing more or less the same thing. It has some differences, and the two approaches seem reasonably balanced, so no point trashing it.

 

Third, 5e supports multiple attacks in a phase much more than prior editions, and this new tactical option changes the playing field considerably, unless the players and GM choose to restrict it in some way. This is something to keep an eye on, for sure.

 

Fourth, if a player is planning to (ab)use the Rapid Attack maneuvers, he needs a lot of skills and skill levels, certainly enough that his character sheet will make his intention obvious to a GM reviewing the character. If I can identify it, I can decide I don't like it, and disallow the combination, or adjust my expectations to compensate for this new wrinkle.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I also see "specific SFX" adjustment powers. In any case, the END issue will arise more commonly.

 

Agreed about the end, but IME, the characteristic drains still occur far more often. Your experience can easily be different.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Interested in the reference academically. Not always true (you can't have a multipower slot for zero points, but I can get some below 1, or even 0.5, points), but 1 point is academic anyway.

 

Technically, .599999 or less rounds in the player's favor. Steve Long in an email to me said that you only look at the first decimal to determine rounding. This was an explanation why a lot of errata I pointed out wasn't really errata.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Each DVC level costs 3 points. Penalty skill levels only apply to OCV, so +1 DCV with Rapid Fire is a 3 point level.

 

Right, so 7.5 pts adds 2.5 DCV levels, or +5 DCV increase on the character.

 

As I said, it's far more common from people to raise a 3d6 attack to 4d6 than from 9 DCV to 14 DCV.

 

Basically, spending the same amount of points on dice for Auto and Rapid Fire means that Rapid Fire increases at a 20/12.5 or 60% quicker. And that's on top of the 19% advantage that Rapid Fire already has in your example.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

It is the same, actually. The character is taking three shots, each of which will get one hit on 13-, two on 11- and three on 9-. Since we've already mathed out the average of one such shot, tripling gets you three such shots. This is no different from average damage of 14 and a 50% chance to hit. Average damage is 7. Fire two shots, and average damage is 14, although the range becomes much wider.

 

But missing on any sequence means that any further shots automatically miss, the same as with regular rapid fire. Thus multiplying by 19.2/9 instead of by 3. After all, rolling a 14 on that first shot stops the sequence regardless of whether you have a regular or autofire rapid fire attack.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

A further thought: The Rapid Fire Autofire could also be simulated by purchasing enough PSL's to offset another -12 DCV (so 18 points), but at this point, those extra shots are getting less and less likely to hit (sooner or later, a bad roll comes up), so three shots of three shots should get through more, on average, than 9 shots.

 

As your (corrected) analysis shows, it's better to add dice to basic rapid fire than it is to rapid fire for 9 shots. There is a point of diminishing returns with rapid fire that depends on the dice of the original attack and the original to hit number.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Submitted separately for those mnot wanting to read the back and forth:

 

BOTTOM LINE: All of this analysis demonstrates a few things from my perspective.

 

First, Autofire and Rapid Fire are reasonably balanced as is for NND's, and no adjustment to the rules is required.

 

Disagree. Rapid Fire starts with an advantage, that keeps growing as time goes on.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Second, with the rules for rapid attacks, do we even NEED a separate autofire advantage any more? It's just a second way of doing more or less the same thing. It has some differences, and the two approaches seem reasonably balanced, so no point trashing it.

 

Third, 5e supports multiple attacks in a phase much more than prior editions, and this new tactical option changes the playing field considerably, unless the players and GM choose to restrict it in some way. This is something to keep an eye on, for sure.

 

Fourth, if a player is planning to (ab)use the Rapid Attack maneuvers, he needs a lot of skills and skill levels, certainly enough that his character sheet will make his intention obvious to a GM reviewing the character. If I can identify it, I can decide I don't like it, and disallow the combination, or adjust my expectations to compensate for this new wrinkle.

 

Just based on our previous analysis, it seems that Rapid Fire is the superior option with NNDs. Let's assume a typical 60 active point 25 def campaign, and the 11 OCV/9 DCV previously assumed:

 

3d6 NND with rapid fire skills and penalty offsets average 22.4 net stun as previous analysis determined. And at 0 end.

 

3d6 autofire NND average 18.8 net stun, with 125 charges.

 

6d6 NND averages 17.6 net stun at the cost of 6 end. If you want to 0 end it, it only averages 11.7 net stun. If more reasonably you 1/2 end it, it averages 14.7 net stun at the cost of 2 end, and 4 pts left over.

 

12d6 EB averages 14.2 net stun at end cost 6, 3.2 net stun at 0 end, and 8.4 net stun at 1/2 end at cost of 62.

 

To get the 12d6 EB (at full end) to match the Rapid Fire dude, average defenses in the campaign would have to be lowered to 15. And no campaign I know of has 60 pt attacks and averages 15 defenses.

 

The 8d6 0 end dude needs average defenses lowered to 1 to match Rapid Fire guy!

[lemming]

I will have to say after reading this thread and several others, I'm going to have to go read Fifth & the FAQs again.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Technically, .599999 or less rounds in the player's favor. Steve Long in an email to me said that you only look at the first decimal to determine rounding. This was an explanation why a lot of errata I pointed out wasn't really errata.

 

So I should be able to buy +5 END for 2 points...but I can't. I can buy +4 END for 2, or +5 or +6 for 3. COM has the same issue. In the FAQ, one decimal is noted as "all that is required", but also that many GM's require two decimal places and most products other than FREd use 2 decimal places. I think I'll stick to the .5 breakpoint, but that's just personal preference.

 

Originally posted by Gary

As I said, it's far more common from people to raise a 3d6 attack to 4d6 than from 9 DCV to 14 DCV.

 

With a zero END NND, we're talking 12.5 points per die, not a 1d6 difference. I'd still call the attack boost more common than +5 DCV. But the guy with a high DCV tends to have high DEX, so high base OCV, making Rapid Fire a more viable combat option without spending a bunch of points to cancel penalties.

 

As for the costing difference, note that an advantage in scaling up is a drawback in scaling down. This just makes one approach more economical for large attacks and the other preferable for smaller attacks. Why would this be a major concern? Defenses and Damage Reduction have a similar tradeoff.

 

Originally posted by Gary

But missing on any sequence means that any further shots automatically miss, the same as with regular rapid fire. Thus multiplying by 19.2/9 instead of by 3. After all, rolling a 14 on that first shot stops the sequence regardless of whether you have a regular or autofire rapid fire attack.

 

UGH! I knew I didn't want to do the math on that mess. So that means the first attack misses 14.2 % of the time, and hits 85.8% of the time. We've established that's 19.2 damage.

 

So we have an 85.8% chance of getting another 19.2 damage = 16.1 damage. We have an 85.8% chance of another 16.1 average = 13.5 more, total 48.8 average damage.

 

Autofire + RapidFire beats straight RapidFire by 7.2 damage - pretty significant IMO.

 

If you still see a problem, why not run the math on your solution of an advantage on NND's and EGO Blasts to equalize them with autofire. Don't forget it will need to differ for each, since NND's have an extra +1 advantage vs EGO Attacks basing at 1d6 per 10 points. I find that solution excessively complex for a problem I don't really see existing in practice - you'll just wind up tipping the balance the other way.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

With a zero END NND, we're talking 12.5 points per die, not a 1d6 difference. I'd still call the attack boost more common than +5 DCV. But the guy with a high DCV tends to have high DEX, so high base OCV, making Rapid Fire a more viable combat option without spending a bunch of points to cancel penalties.

 

Yep.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As for the costing difference, note that an advantage in scaling up is a drawback in scaling down. This just makes one approach more economical for large attacks and the other preferable for smaller attacks. Why would this be a major concern? Defenses and Damage Reduction have a similar tradeoff.

 

And the power level of most campaigns will reflect it. A 90+ pt attack limit will have far more players buy DR, while a 60 or less attack limit will have far more players buy defenses.

 

At the 60 pt level, Rapid Fire already has the advantage (even if you count skill levels toward attack limits. Many GMs don't.)

 

The difference is that for Rapid Fire, the "break even point" occurs a lot sooner than for DR.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

UGH! I knew I didn't want to do the math on that mess. So that means the first attack misses 14.2 % of the time, and hits 85.8% of the time. We've established that's 19.2 damage.

 

So we have an 85.8% chance of getting another 19.2 damage = 16.1 damage. We have an 85.8% chance of another 16.1 average = 13.5 more, total 48.8 average damage.

 

Autofire + RapidFire beats straight RapidFire by 7.2 damage - pretty significant IMO.

 

Your math is wrong again. 13- is 83.8%, not 85.8%. And the original damage figure for the autofire was 18.8 not 19.2. Net stun from the Rapid Autofire is 40.1 vs 41.6 for the Rapid Fire guy with more base dice.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If you still see a problem, why not run the math on your solution of an advantage on NND's and EGO Blasts to equalize them with autofire. Don't forget it will need to differ for each, since NND's have an extra +1 advantage vs EGO Attacks basing at 1d6 per 10 points. I find that solution excessively complex for a problem I don't really see existing in practice - you'll just wind up tipping the balance the other way.

 

I'll do it when I have more time.

 

I think this problem hasn't cropped up more often because most players don't analyze the numbers to the same degree that I have. If more players crunched the numbers and the GMs allow them to get away with it, we'll see a lot more Rapid Fire used.

[Chudwine]

This is an interesting subject. My own thoughts on it are as follows:

 

First of all, although Rapid Fire and Autofire do somewhat similar things, comparing them to one another is sort of missing the point. Rapid Fire is a maneuver and as such is always available and can be used anytime it makes sense to do so. It makes more sense to compare it to similar maneuvers like Sweep and Multiple Move Through.

 

It was an open question in 4th edition whether Sweep could be used to do multiple attacks against a single target. The wording seemed to disallow it and we never allowed it in our group. Now, in 5th edition it is expliticly allowed by the rules. Multiple Move-By could always be used to target an opponent more than once if the attacker has sufficient movement.

 

Clearly the changes favor high OCV characters. There are very few characters in a game with Damage Class caps who would not trade 3 blows for 1 no matter what the respective defenses of the characters might be.

 

As a maneuver, Rapid Fire is not counted against Damage Class caps (either hard or soft) for campaigns that use such things. There are plenty of situations (The Fast Brick optimized for doing Move-Throughs comes to mind) where a combination of an attack and a maneuver which shatters the campaign limits is used frequently. At that point the either player has to agree not to use the abusive combination very often if at all or the GM and Player have to tweak the character to remove the potential for abuse.

 

It seems to me that the primary issue is not hitting multiple targets but rather hitting a single target multiple times and creating quick knockouts. In that situation Rapid Fire is really no more offensive with NNDs or Ego Attacks than with regular attacks since they are full power attacks. (In a 12 damage class campaign with defenses in the 20-25 range, a 12d6 EB, a 6d6 Ego Attack and a 6d6 NND attack are all fairly well balanced against one another in the amount of damage they do and that balance remains no matter how many times a target is struck.) If number of dice were lowered and the defenses remained the same (As with Autofire counting against the Damage Class Cap), then NNDs become much more useful. (An 8d6 EB will do little against a character with 25 defenses but a 4d6 NND will still put a fair amount of stun through).

 

Rapid Fire seems very open to abuse in superhero games. That doesn't mean it should be disallowed but it does mean that the GM will have to be careful in what sorts of characters he allows in the game. For example, if Photonic want to add "Photon Cloud" (4d6 Energy Blast, NND, 1 Hex Area Effect, 0 End Cost) to his 60 point attack multipower, I might well see this as an attack designed for Rapid Fire and disallow it (or force the character to take the limitation "cannot be rapid fired).

 

Clever teamwork can also create situations where a Rapid Fired Attack is a battle ender. Legsweep followed by Rapid Fire Attack is one option. Having one character set up the target with a transparent to damage entangle followed up by a Rapid Fire attack is another. While I like to see clever tactics and teamwork rewarded, this looks like too high a reward. If I was running a Mentalist with a decent ECV, the temptation to Rapid Fire 2 Ego Attacks per phase would be tremendous and it is not too difficult in many firefights (by holding until the right moment or falling back under cover) to be put the character into a position where the DCV penalty does not come into play.

 

Ultimately, while I felt the new rules for Sweep and Rapid Fire added something to heroic level games, I had to tweak them for Superhero games. I ended up going back to the 4th edition rules for sweep (only usable vs. multiple targets) and houseruled that superpowered attacks could not be rapid-fired unless they were purchased with the +1/4 advantage "Usable with Rapid Fire".

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

And the power level of most campaigns will reflect it. A 90+ pt attack limit will have far more players buy DR, while a 60 or less attack limit will have far more players buy defenses.

 

At the 60 pt level, Rapid Fire already has the advantage (even if you count skill levels toward attack limits. Many GMs don't.)

 

As noted previously, I'm not seeing that huge advantage you perceive. Probably time to get back to the numbers again, and purify them.

 

13- to hit

 

Rapid Attack skills cost 23 to offset all penalties for an 11 OCV, 9 DCV character. This assumes the GM allows 1.5 point PSL's to offset Rapid Fire penalties on only that one attack [i'd need a very good justification why he can't rapid fire anything else - ie pay the bigger points.] It costs 28 to add "Rapid Autofire".

 

3d6 NND (+1), Autofire (+1.25), 128 charges (+3/4) costs 60 points. It will hit once 83.8% of the time, twice 62.5% of the time, and 3 times 37.5% of the time, so its average amage is [.838+.625+.375]*[3.5x3]= 1.838 x 10.5 = 19.3

 

For the same 60 points, I can offset all Rapid Fire penalties for three attacks and have a 3d6 NND (+1), 0 END (+1/2) EB (I'll spot you the 1/2 point). It will hit the first time 83.8% of the time, a second 70.2% and three 58.85% of the time, so averaging [.838+.702+.5885]x 10.5 = 22.3.

 

ADVANTAGE: Rapid Fire.

 

Add 32 points to each. Autofire gets Rapid Autofire, the skill suite and moves his attack up to 0 END. The other adds 32 to his attack, making it 5 1/2d6 (this time I'm spotting you a full point).

 

Rapid Fire does 19.5 x [.838+.702+.5885] = 41.5.

AutoRapid does 19.3 x [.838+.702+.5885] = 41.1

 

I'd say that's pretty close, so anything you do to make it tougher on the Rapid Fire character transfers the advantage to Rapid Fire Autofire.

 

To May To To Mah To

 

I'm curious how the balance would look if we shifted to 5 shots, but I really don't want to do the math, especially for the 25 shot rapid autofire with no OCV penalties. There is a point at which more damage does nothing, since you already KO with one shot.

 

Originally posted by Gary

The difference is that for Rapid Fire, the "break even point" occurs a lot sooner than for DR.

 

DR has some other advantages. Most germane here, it will reduce NND damage.

 

Originally posted by Gary

I think this problem hasn't cropped up more often because most players don't analyze the numbers to the same degree that I have. If more players crunched the numbers and the GMs allow them to get away with it, we'll see a lot more Rapid Fire used.

 

Or maybe most players either play real characters rather than min/maxed number crunch characters (by choice or by GM intervention) or most GM's can offset a slight variance in power levels.

 

To close, I remain of the opinion that the difference is not sufficient that any "fix" will resolve the discrepancy, rather than just create a new discrepancy.

 

If it really bothers you, maybe you should restrict Sweep and Rapid Fire to Heroic campaigns, and make Autofire an option only for GM designed and approved weaponry in such campaigns.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by lemming

I will have to say after reading this thread and several others, I'm going to have to go read Fifth & the FAQs again.

 

I just figure I'm safe so long as nobody selects Rapid Fire!

 

Seriously, I really don't like multiple strikes in a phase, as evidenced by my restrictions, however minimal, on MPAs and generally discouraging Autofire.

[lemming]

Originally posted by zornwil

I just figure I'm safe so long as nobody selects Rapid Fire!

 

Seriously, I really don't like multiple strikes in a phase, as evidenced by my restrictions, however minimal, on MPAs and generally discouraging Autofire.

Well, it helps you've got mostly veterens in your game. It's hardly been brought up.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As noted previously, I'm not seeing that huge advantage you perceive. Probably time to get back to the numbers again, and purify them.

 

13- to hit

 

Rapid Attack skills cost 23 to offset all penalties for an 11 OCV, 9 DCV character. This assumes the GM allows 1.5 point PSL's to offset Rapid Fire penalties on only that one attack [i'd need a very good justification why he can't rapid fire anything else - ie pay the bigger points.] It costs 28 to add "Rapid Autofire".

 

3d6 NND (+1), Autofire (+1.25), 128 charges (+3/4) costs 60 points. It will hit once 83.8% of the time, twice 62.5% of the time, and 3 times 37.5% of the time, so its average amage is [.838+.625+.375]*[3.5x3]= 1.838 x 10.5 = 19.3

 

For the same 60 points, I can offset all Rapid Fire penalties for three attacks and have a 3d6 NND (+1), 0 END (+1/2) EB (I'll spot you the 1/2 point). It will hit the first time 83.8% of the time, a second 70.2% and three 58.85% of the time, so averaging [.838+.702+.5885]x 10.5 = 22.3.

 

ADVANTAGE: Rapid Fire.

 

I'm glad we've finally established that Rapid Fire is better than autofire NND. And this advantage escalates rapidly as you add more and more dice.

 

The reason that we're allowing the 1.5 pt penalty skill levels is that realistically the character would have 2 pt penalty skill levels for his multipower. And being able to rapid fire any attacks in his multipower is enough of an advantage to warrant the extra .5 pts per level. So we won't consider that aspect.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Add 32 points to each. Autofire gets Rapid Autofire, the skill suite and moves his attack up to 0 END. The other adds 32 to his attack, making it 5 1/2d6 (this time I'm spotting you a full point).

 

Rapid Fire does 19.5 x [.838+.702+.5885] = 41.5.

AutoRapid does 19.3 x [.838+.702+.5885] = 41.1

 

I'd say that's pretty close, so anything you do to make it tougher on the Rapid Fire character transfers the advantage to Rapid Fire Autofire.

 

To May To To Mah To

 

Correct, at the level you're measuring at, the two are essentially equal. The Rapid Autofire isn't appreciably better like you've been arguing before. However, even here the advantage shifts to the basic Rapid Fire Dude when the attacks get bigger. All "fixed" costs have been paid off for both, but it's a lot cheaper to add dice to the basic Rapid Fire compared to Autofire Rapid Fire.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I'm curious how the balance would look if we shifted to 5 shots, but I really don't want to do the math, especially for the 25 shot rapid autofire with no OCV penalties. There is a point at which more damage does nothing, since you already KO with one shot.

 

And there's a point of diminishing returns when OCV penalties diminish the average expected damage to the target as you add more shots to Rapid Fire. 3 shots is usually sufficient to take out most targets.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

DR has some other advantages. Most germane here, it will reduce NND damage.

 

Yep, but vs most 60 pt attacks, an extra 20 resistant PD is better than adding 1/2 resistant DR, and an extra 40 resistant PD is better than adding 3/4 resistant DR. At the 60 pt level, the Rapid Fire dude is significantly better than the regular 60 pt attack dude.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Or maybe most players either play real characters rather than min/maxed number crunch characters (by choice or by GM intervention) or most GM's can offset a slight variance in power levels.

 

To close, I remain of the opinion that the difference is not sufficient that any "fix" will resolve the discrepancy, rather than just create a new discrepancy.

 

If it really bothers you, maybe you should restrict Sweep and Rapid Fire to Heroic campaigns, and make Autofire an option only for GM designed and approved weaponry in such campaigns.

 

I think the difference is very significant. As I showed before, the Rapid Fire dude is doing much more damage than regular 60 pt attacks vs most defense levels, and at 0 end. Combined with the ability to spread NND attacks more efficiently than regular attacks and the fact that many if not most GMs don't count skill levels toward campaign maxes, makes Rapid Fire NNDs potentially game breaking. Rapid firing normal attacks if you skim 23 pts off the top as you've been doing results in a 7d6 EB at full end which will hardly do anything to the average foe.

 

I think it's a significant enough problem that something needs to be done, even if it's as simple as a GM saying no.

[tesuji]

"the fact that many if not most GMs don't count skill levels toward campaign maxes,"

 

Every HERo Gm i have known over the years included OCv/DCv in his campaign maxes, and that did include skill levels.

 

I would surmise that most of the ones who don't would take a moment to look at someone who bought above and beyond skill levels for OCV "to cancel penalties for rapid fire" and thus get them cheap, as its sort of a red flag, just like they would look ascance at a bunch of skills levels "OCV Only" for an autofire attack.

 

If a Gm is nt enough on the ball to pay a whit of atention to skill level red flags like these and he is GMing HERo, my hunch would be that rapid fire shenanigans would be way down the list of problems he has to deal with.

 

But in general any problem premised on an obvious Gm balance error for a game as dependent on GM for balance as HERO, doesn't sound too scary.

 

But again, if it has caused you a problem in your games in actual play (it has right? This isn't just all theoretical mathematical oddity... you have actually seen it as a problem in real play at least one time, right?) then restrictions on rapid fire would seem apropos for your game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

I'm glad we've finally established that Rapid Fire is better than autofire NND. And this advantage escalates rapidly as you add more and more dice.

 

We've established a slight advantage. I look forward to seeing your solution that equalizes them, rather than swinging the advantage the other way for Rapid Autofire, say.

 

Of course, if you add more advantages (eg. Range advantages, Personal Immunuty if you lack the defense, Does Knockback, Explosion, Indirect, Invisible, Trigger), the advantage goes to the Autofire attack once we're beyond 60 points, since it's got lower base points to work with - especially with rapid autofire.

 

Originally posted by Gary

The reason that we're allowing the 1.5 pt penalty skill levels is that realistically the character would have 2 pt penalty skill levels for his multipower. And being able to rapid fire any attacks in his multipower is enough of an advantage to warrant the extra .5 pts per level. So we won't consider that aspect.

 

My point is that the player better have a pretty great justification for being able to more effectively rapid fire the NND only, and not the other attacks in the multipower. POtherwise, buy the more expensive levels for all attacks, or at least all attacks in the multipower. That's still 3 point DCV levels (5 points is +1 DCV all the time), but 2 point PSL's (not likely 3 point unless that's one huge multipower).

 

And I've never seen a character with just an NND, no other offensive powers - no one wants to face that opponent who is immune to his only significant attack!

 

Originally posted by Gary

Correct, at the level you're measuring at, the two are essentially equal. The Rapid Autofire isn't appreciably better like you've been arguing before. However, even here the advantage shifts to the basic Rapid Fire Dude when the attacks get bigger. All "fixed" costs have been paid off for both, but it's a lot cheaper to add dice to the basic Rapid Fire compared to Autofire Rapid Fire.

 

The level we're measuring at cost over 90 points - this would cover a pretty fair chunk of offensive power for a standard supers campaign. Yes, if we go for a much higher power campaign the balance will shift. What if we assume lower power - say Fantasy Hero - instead? Who's got that 90 points to throw around?

 

Originally posted by Gary

At the 60 pt level, the Rapid Fire dude is significantly better than the regular 60 pt attack dude.

 

I consider this a "ban Rapid Fire" argument more than a "vs autofire" argument - autofire vs rapid fire comes to a 3 point difference, not all that substantial in my books.

 

Originally posted by Gary

I think the difference is very significant. As I showed before, the Rapid Fire dude is doing much more damage than regular 60 pt attacks vs most defense levels, and at 0 end. Combined with the ability to spread NND attacks more efficiently than regular attacks and the fact that many if not most GMs don't count skill levels toward campaign maxes, makes Rapid Fire NNDs potentially game breaking.

 

Maybe I'm not clear enough - SCREW CAMPAIGN LIMITS. Any GM relying on mechanical foirmuli to balance his campaign is suffering from a 25 point psych lim. Given the mathematical results, I would either allow both contructs, or prohibit both contructs.

 

Also, if Rapid Fire is superior to autofire, perhaps the actual problem is that an extra +1 for Autofire is excessive, not that Rapid fire is too cheap.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Rapid firing normal attacks if you skim 23 pts off the top as you've been doing results in a 7d6 EB at full end which will hardly do anything to the average foe.

 

Area Effect is +1. A 75 point attack can do 15d6, or 7 1/2d6 Extended Area. That area effect EB hardly does anything on average. Make that Area Effect an NND, and now it's 4d6, with 5 points left over to halve the END cost, enough to gradually take people down. Pump it up with all those skill levels you no longer need since you only need top hit a hex and BOOM! The fact is that NND's are very effective attacks when you put other advantages on powers so you are only dealing a few DC's. Autofire/Rapid Fire is hardly the only example of this.

 

Gary, solving all the "problems" you see in the game would take more work than just writing a new game from scratch.

 

Originally posted by Gary

I think it's a significant enough problem that something needs to be done, even if it's as simple as a GM saying no.

 

ANY construct can be abused. The GM needs to review characters and assess what will, or will not, be allowed. That doesn't mean the rules are flawed. For a system to allow for "any power imaginable", it has to allow for some that will be unacceptable at some power levels, or in some genres. You cannot possibly make everything absolutely equal under all circumstances and preserve the same level of flexibility.

[Vondy]

I have a simple view of this argument. I haven't had a problem with it to date, so there is no problem. My players have discovered that the reduced attack rolls and halved DCV can be a serious impediment to using rapid fire willy nilly, and I say no to any construct that sets my dink alarm off. That is solution enough.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

Every HERo Gm i have known over the years included OCv/DCv in his campaign maxes, and that did include skill levels.

 

But that's usually a separate limit, or perhaps a sliding scale limit with speed and defenses involved as well. It's usually not a "CV+DC" combined limit.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

I would surmise that most of the ones who don't would take a moment to look at someone who bought above and beyond skill levels for OCV "to cancel penalties for rapid fire" and thus get them cheap, as its sort of a red flag, just like they would look ascance at a bunch of skills levels "OCV Only" for an autofire attack.

 

If a Gm is nt enough on the ball to pay a whit of atention to skill level red flags like these and he is GMing HERo, my hunch would be that rapid fire shenanigans would be way down the list of problems he has to deal with.

 

But in general any problem premised on an obvious Gm balance error for a game as dependent on GM for balance as HERO, doesn't sound too scary.

 

This doesn't have to involve GM oversight or things that trigger red flags. It could be as simple as a straight 6d6 NND without any levels at all. See below for more details.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

But again, if it has caused you a problem in your games in actual play (it has right? This isn't just all theoretical mathematical oddity... you have actually seen it as a problem in real play at least one time, right?) then restrictions on rapid fire would seem apropos for your game.

 

It's hypothetical. I haven't been playing in awhile because of limited time and the fact that I have a different favorite game.

 

Let's take a "typical" 60 active point world with 25 defenses, and assume no skill levels. I'll do this analysis with 8-, 11-, and 14- basic to hit since previously you wanted a broader range of scenarios. I'll keep it simple and compare only a 12d6 EB and 6d6 NND. I'll ignore end results for now and only compare net stun. I'll only consider 2 or 3 shot rapid fire to keep the math simple:

 

With 8- to hit:

 

For 12d6 EB, the optimum strategy is to spread for +1 OCV. The net damage is 5.06 stun.

 

For 6d6 NND, the optimal strategy without rapid fire is to spread for +5 OCV and get a 13- to hit with 3.5d6 NND or 10.5 net stun.

 

With rapid fire available, the optimal strategy is to spread for +7 OCV and rapid fire 2 shots with a final 13- to hit and 2.5d6 NND for 13.9 net stun.

 

At this point, rapid fire isn't optimal. It does do 3.4 more net stun, but it's doubtful whether that's worth the extra End and DCV penalties.

 

With 11- to hit:

 

For 12d6 EB, the optimum strategy is a straight attack. The net damage is 10.6 stun.

 

For 6d6 NND, the optimal strategy without rapid fire is to spread for +2 OCV and get a 13- to hit with 5d6 NND or 14.7 net stun.

 

With rapid fire available, the optimal strategy is to spread for +6 OCV and rapid fire 3 shots with a final 13- to hit and 3d6 NND for 22.3 net stun. Also, you can spread for +5 OCV and rapid fire 2 shots for final 14- to hit and 3.5d6 NND for 21.6 net stun.

 

Here, rapid fire becomes a lot more viable. The 2 shot version might be preferable if end is a problem since the difference is only .7 net stun. This is probably about the break even point where optimal rapid firing is about equal to optimal spreading single shot since you do a lot more stun, but with the DCV penalty.

 

With 14- to hit:

 

For 12d6 EB, the optimum strategy is to rapid fire 2 shots without spreading. The net damage is 21.9 stun. It would be 15.4 net stun with single shot.

 

For 6d6 NND, the optimal strategy without rapid fire is to straight attack for 19.1 net stun.

 

With rapid fire available, the optimal strategy is to spread for +4 OCV and rapid fire 3 shots with a final 14- to hit and 4d6 NND for 34.7 net stun. Also, you can spread for +2 OCV and rapid fire 2 shots for final 14- to hit and 5d6 NND for 30.3 net stun.

 

At this point, the rapid fire 3 shots is a no brainer. 34.7 net stun is usually so much better than 19.1 net stun that the DCV penalty is trivial. The reward is far greater than the risk. The difference between rapid firing NNDs and rapid firing regular attacks is also much larger, 15.6 stun compared to 7.5 stun. Thus the reward is greater compared to the same risk for the regular attack.

 

I'm pretty sure that anything beyond a 11- to hit will result in a situation where some combination of spreading/rapid fire NND will result in the reward being greater than the 1/2 DCV penalty.

 

And remember, all that previous analysis is for a simple 6d6 NND and 12d6 EB without any penalty skill levels or anything of that nature that would trip a GM's warning signal.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

We've established a slight advantage. I look forward to seeing your solution that equalizes them, rather than swinging the advantage the other way for Rapid Autofire, say.

 

We've established a slight advantage compared to autofire nnd. It's a substantial advantage compared to regular attacks.

 

The solution is simple, make rapid fire a +1/2 advantage for nonstandard attacks, and double that for autofire, the same way that you double the cost for reduced end with autofire attacks. Or simply ban it. I'm not convinced that Rapid Fire is a balanced maneuver at all, especially for nonstandard attacks.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Of course, if you add more advantages (eg. Range advantages, Personal Immunuty if you lack the defense, Does Knockback, Explosion, Indirect, Invisible, Trigger), the advantage goes to the Autofire attack once we're beyond 60 points, since it's got lower base points to work with - especially with rapid autofire.

 

It'd better be a lot of extra advantages to make up for the 20 to 12.5 discrepancy we already have.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

My point is that the player better have a pretty great justification for being able to more effectively rapid fire the NND only, and not the other attacks in the multipower. POtherwise, buy the more expensive levels for all attacks, or at least all attacks in the multipower. That's still 3 point DCV levels (5 points is +1 DCV all the time), but 2 point PSL's (not likely 3 point unless that's one huge multipower).

 

And I've never seen a character with just an NND, no other offensive powers - no one wants to face that opponent who is immune to his only significant attack!

 

Agreed.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The level we're measuring at cost over 90 points - this would cover a pretty fair chunk of offensive power for a standard supers campaign. Yes, if we go for a much higher power campaign the balance will shift. What if we assume lower power - say Fantasy Hero - instead? Who's got that 90 points to throw around?

 

See my previous post. You don't actually need to pay the "fixed" costs to derive a substantial edge from using Rapid Fire NND.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I consider this a "ban Rapid Fire" argument more than a "vs autofire" argument - autofire vs rapid fire comes to a 3 point difference, not all that substantial in my books.

 

See previous post. The rapid fire benefits NND's substantially more than regular attacks.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Maybe I'm not clear enough - SCREW CAMPAIGN LIMITS. Any GM relying on mechanical foirmuli to balance his campaign is suffering from a 25 point psych lim. Given the mathematical results, I would either allow both contructs, or prohibit both contructs.

 

Also, if Rapid Fire is superior to autofire, perhaps the actual problem is that an extra +1 for Autofire is excessive, not that Rapid fire is too cheap.

 

Nope, autofire NND is already better than a regular attack even with the +1 advantage. The Rapid Fire is even better than the autofire. Of course this assumes that you have a CV advantage over your opponent. At lower to hit rolls, the autofire loses much of its value.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Area Effect is +1. A 75 point attack can do 15d6, or 7 1/2d6 Extended Area. That area effect EB hardly does anything on average. Make that Area Effect an NND, and now it's 4d6, with 5 points left over to halve the END cost, enough to gradually take people down. Pump it up with all those skill levels you no longer need since you only need top hit a hex and BOOM! The fact is that NND's are very effective attacks when you put other advantages on powers so you are only dealing a few DC's. Autofire/Rapid Fire is hardly the only example of this.

 

Gary, solving all the "problems" you see in the game would take more work than just writing a new game from scratch.

 

ANY construct can be abused. The GM needs to review characters and assess what will, or will not, be allowed. That doesn't mean the rules are flawed. For a system to allow for "any power imaginable", it has to allow for some that will be unacceptable at some power levels, or in some genres. You cannot possibly make everything absolutely equal under all circumstances and preserve the same level of flexibility.

 

See my previous post. The difference between rapid fire NND and regular attacks is vast, and most GMs won't be able to tell without putting in the same number crunching I did. At least until the first player pulls this stunt.

[Gary]

Evil thought. Imagine a Rapid Fire Transformation attack that is spread...

 

Who cares if you're at 1/2 DCV...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

It's hypothetical. I haven't been playing in awhile because of limited time and the fact that I have a different favorite game.

 

That makes a grand total of zero posters who have actually had this problem arise. COuld it be it's not as serious as you think?

 

Originally posted by Gary

Analysis snipped

 

I'm not redoing the math. In any case, this seems a bit simplistic. It assumes that, despite a 6 point spread in target DCV, his defenses are unchanged. It assumes he ;lacks the defense against the NND as well.

 

It does not consider that getting more damage through creates a better possibility of stunning the target, thus reducing his DCV for the next shot. When his DCV allows only an 8- to hit, that could be a game-breaker. It also fails to consider that the EB doesn knockback while the NND does not. Knockback can both add damage and make the target easier to hit on the next shot. FInaly, is it likely the guy with 6 more DCV has the same defenses? Not in a balanced campaign!

 

It doesn, however, highlight the fact that it is wide disparities between OCV and DCV which make rapid fire devestating - if the martial artist can expect to land 3 or 4 hits on the Brick every phase, this boosts his combat effectiveness considerably.

 

That's why I don't use hit locations in Champions - every hit an MA gets on a Brick would be a head shot. Maybe a similar restriction is needed for Rapid Fire.

 

All the above seems to prove, however, is that there may be a problem with Rapid Fire. A high OCV character with Autofire would have a similar advantage.

 

This also supports my initial assertion that the real change is in the dynamic of the game. As you note, these are pretty basic attack powers. Virtually every character should be using these tactics. Of course, in a dynamic environment, it's not that easy. Maybe the Brick will fight smart - since the guy always Rapid Fires, I'll Abort to a Dodge and reallocate al my levels to DCV, or I'll dive for cover. Now, while he's at 1/2 DCV, my teamates can take him out.

 

Actually, if the opponent did rapid fire, my inclination wpould be for everyone on the team to take their next shot at him - while his DCV is halved. Hey, our own Rapid Fires also hit better now, don't they? It's the Rapid Fire skill (use only a half phase to Rapid Attack) and the offset DCV levels that really make Rapid Fire a devestating ability. If I have to lose half my DCV and forego any movement, it's not such a no brainer any more.

 

hmmm...maybe this could be balanced by allowing movement after attacks ("I'll attack him, then ha;lf move back. If he wants to Rapid Fire again, he'll have some range penalties to deal with."). But that's a whole 'nother thread!