Rapid Fire

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

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

 

Huh? This started because you felt attacks against exotic defenses should be penalized for Rapid Fire because they are penalized for Autofire. Now it's normal attack vs. NND??

 

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to simply eliminate either rapid attack or autofire and require this ability be simulated only one way under the rules? Don't the rules themselves say we use the most expensive approach if two or more equally valid aproaches exist for getting the same result? Strict adherence to this "uber-rule" would actually require you to use Autofire where Rapid Fire skills would be more effective and vice versa.

 

Perhaps just banning the Rapid Fire skill would do the trick - now you have to suck up the full phase or pay the freight for autofire. Penalty skill levels and DCV levels are pretty obvious on a character sheet, and easily restricted or disallowed if the GM wants to preserve a structure where Rapid Fire invokes serious penalties.

 

Originally posted by Gary

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

 

If you don't, you can't half move and you lose half your DCV (spreading for OCV reduces damage more than PSL's, too, but that's secondary). Gary, a couple of months ago, you strenuously argued the need for big movement to survive in a Champs setting. Now, you're focused on a maneuver that denies you the ability to move.

 

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

In other words, "In some situatoons, the power with the advantage is superior". Isn't that the idea? Armor Piercing is superior to a normal attack as long as the opponent lacks Hardened defenses. Using your 25 DEF example, a successful 12d6 regular attack gets 10 points through, but the AP gets 15 points through.

 

Rapid fire or autofire will multiply that advantage too!

 

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

Assuming the GM misses the problem, and it actually exists, what will happen in the next scenario? The opposition will also have realized the power of rapid fire! Anyone can do it, remember? The playing field is now balanced, and the group can assess whether this new balance is fun, or whether rapid atacks should be outright banned, or alternatively weakened (say by raising the OCV penalty per shot) to change the playing field again.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

As i said earlier, if this occurs as a problem in game, restricting rapid strike and so forth in whatever way the Gm sees fit would be a probably appropriate response. I am sure there are others as well.

 

Maybe, if this ever becomes a real problem in play somewhere, as opposed to another friendly romp to the corner of "mathematical model furor" lane and "HERO should be my way Blvd", we can get some actual "how we "fixed" it in play" results to consider.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

Maybe, if this ever becomes a real problem in play somewhere, as opposed to another friendly romp to the corner of "mathematical model furor" lane and "HERO should be my way Blvd", we can get some actual "how we "fixed" it in play" results to consider.

 

Actually, your "Points (equal points or even very precisely calculated points) do not make balance happen in play. Instead, balance in play is what shows the points and costs were appropriate." tag line says it all for me. If this is so unbalanced, why don't I see it at my gaming table?

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Actually, your "Points (equal points or even very precisely calculated points) do not make balance happen in play. Instead, balance in play is what shows the points and costs were appropriate." tag line says it all for me. If this is so unbalanced, why don't I see it at my gaming table?

 

Well, one element could be did you as Gm and your players as players react and understand the 5e impacts? If so, then likely characters were built/rebuilt with knowledge of the fact that some paradigms have changed, particularly for balance.

 

Another might be the boomerang effect for rapid fire. By using it, you cut your own dcv by half. This makes you now much easier to be rapid fired on. So, unless you are against one single foe and you KNOW your triple tap will drop him (which gets iffy against the single big monster scenarios anyway) you may just be setting yourself up.

 

Example: Gary runs the numbers and knows triple shots are cool. Gary throws his shot at bad guy #1 who is at full DCV, spreading and so forth. Say gary got good and KOed bad guy#1. Now gary is at 1/2 DCV, so bad guy#2 selects him as the target for his triple shot. Since gary is already at half dcv, the bad guy#2 doesn't need to spread as much and so does more damage as payback. Now, gary;s buddy sees bad guy#2 as half dcv and....

 

tactically, being the first to go into half-dcv maneuvers is risky in a multiadversary environment. So, games where the opposition if frequently more than one bad guy IN PRACTICE may not see triple taps as all that great.

 

Of course, games where combats are fluid and a lot of movement occurs, instead of full phase stand and trade blows, will also not see this problem much if at all.

 

In short, in spite of all the mathematical model furor, there are plenty of practical in play issues that would account for this being less of a problem, if a problem at all, in ACTUAL LIVE PLAY.

 

At least, thats some of the things we saw in play. I know for a fact that my bad guys would NOT rapid fire against a target when he had three to fopur buddies ready to capitalize on his voluntarily lowered DCV... criminals being a cowardly lot and all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

tactically, being the first to go into half-dcv maneuvers is risky in a multiadversary environment. So, games where the opposition if frequently more than one bad guy IN PRACTICE may not see triple taps as all that great.

 

Of course, games where combats are fluid and a lot of movement occurs, instead of full phase stand and trade blows, will also not see this problem much if at all.

 

Good summary of the drawbacks to Rapid Fire - which are the reason it doesn't come across as so unbalanced in play!

 

Absent the Rapid Fire skill (which cuts the maneuver down to a 1/2 phase) and skill levels to offset the DCV penalty, I expect to see Rapid Fire about as often as haymakers (which weren't common before adding 50%, and I'll bet won't be common now adding 4 DC's). And I'll certainly look twice if I see those skills on a character sheet!

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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?

 

The math is undeniable. Can you deny that a rapid fire transform can be unbalancing? That one is easy to see without lots of number crunching.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

I can easily have a sliding scale where the target's defenses get lower as their DCV gets higher. It won't change the NND numbers at all, and will change the EB numbers for the worse.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

It assumes he ;lacks the defense against the NND as well.

 

As Tesuji correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, NNDs are almost never used incorrectly in play. The player either knows, or fails only once.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

This is the first valid objection you have so far, but consider:

 

1) In the 8- case, my analysis concluded that rapid fire wasn't useful anyway unless end wasn't an issue and there was no fear of retaliation.

 

2) In the 11- case, the analysis showed about the break even point. And also this is the most likely case where the "average" campaign defenses apply anyway.

 

3) In the 14- case, the defender probably has higher defenses and higher con to begin with. Thus the con stun probability is extremely low to start, and rapid fire NND becomes even more useful.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

The knockback from the 12d6 attack is probably negligible in terms of actual damage. Certainly less than the extra damage from rapid fire! And knocking out your opponent with one shot will give him a lower CV than knockback will!

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

FInaly, is it likely the guy with 6 more DCV has the same defenses? Not in a balanced campaign!

 

As I explained before, this actually helps the rapid fire nnd argument.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

With regular attacks, this isn't as much of a problem since bricks usually have very high defenses and martial artists tend to be on the lower side of attacks. If the MA has a 11d6 strike while the brick has a 32 def, Rapid Fire is not much of a problem since the extra damage from Rapid Fire isn't worth the lower DCV. If the MA rapid fires a 5d6 NND however, it makes a huge difference.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

Perhaps, but the effectiveness of the rapid fire is magnified with nonstandard attacks.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

A bigger problem lies with rapid fire NNDs. If you changed my previous analysis and give the 14- to hit target extra defenses to compensate for lower CV, it magnifies the disparity already shown. The 12d6 EB gets less and less advantage as defenses rise.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

And maybe the Rapid Fire guy fights smart as well. Maybe he saves an action just before his next phase and unloads. Or he immediately aborts to a dodge in the segment after his rapid fire.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

I disagree. This may be true for regular attacks, but the vast increased damage for nonstandard attacks make this devastating anytime.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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!

 

Yep, that's a whole 'nother thread.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Huh? This started because you felt attacks against exotic defenses should be penalized for Rapid Fire because they are penalized for Autofire. Now it's normal attack vs. NND??

 

It's both. It's about 16% more effective than the NND attack, and a lot more vs the regular attacks.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Wouldn't it be easier to simply eliminate either rapid attack or autofire and require this ability be simulated only one way under the rules? Don't the rules themselves say we use the most expensive approach if two or more equally valid aproaches exist for getting the same result? Strict adherence to this "uber-rule" would actually require you to use Autofire where Rapid Fire skills would be more effective and vice versa.

 

Agree that this will solve the problem. However, you seem to be denying that there is a problem.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Perhaps just banning the Rapid Fire skill would do the trick - now you have to suck up the full phase or pay the freight for autofire. Penalty skill levels and DCV levels are pretty obvious on a character sheet, and easily restricted or disallowed if the GM wants to preserve a structure where Rapid Fire invokes serious penalties.

 

That might work.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If you don't, you can't half move and you lose half your DCV (spreading for OCV reduces damage more than PSL's, too, but that's secondary). Gary, a couple of months ago, you strenuously argued the need for big movement to survive in a Champs setting. Now, you're focused on a maneuver that denies you the ability to move.

 

Well, you should at least pay the 5 pts for Rapid Attack if you intend to rapid fire. If the GM bans that skill, that would solve a lot of problems. My previous analysis showed problems even without PSLs. If you allow the cheap PSLs as well, it merely magnifies the problem.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

In other words, "In some situatoons, the power with the advantage is superior". Isn't that the idea? Armor Piercing is superior to a normal attack as long as the opponent lacks Hardened defenses. Using your 25 DEF example, a successful 12d6 regular attack gets 10 points through, but the AP gets 15 points through.

 

Rapid fire or autofire will multiply that advantage too!

 

There's degrees of magnitude involved as well. Going from 19.1 average stun to 34.7 average stun (even without PSLs) is a lot bigger magnitude difference between 10 and 15 net stun.

 

Incidentally, the 10 stun is after multiplying by to hit probability. At 25 def, the 12d6 EB is better than 8d6 AP EB. The 8d6 AP EB averages 9.4 net stun. The break even point is 28 defenses between the two attacks.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Assuming the GM misses the problem, and it actually exists, what will happen in the next scenario? The opposition will also have realized the power of rapid fire! Anyone can do it, remember? The playing field is now balanced, and the group can assess whether this new balance is fun, or whether rapid atacks should be outright banned, or alternatively weakened (say by raising the OCV penalty per shot) to change the playing field again.

 

And the people with nonstandard attacks benefit far more than the people with regular attacks.

[Vondy]

I repeat: has this occured in play?

 

If not - its not a problem.

 

If so - it requires the same remedy that every construct in hero requires: GM common sense.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

Well, one element could be did you as Gm and your players as players react and understand the 5e impacts? If so, then likely characters were built/rebuilt with knowledge of the fact that some paradigms have changed, particularly for balance.

 

I'm pretty sure most people haven't crunched the numbers for how effective Rapid Fire of nonstandard attacks can be. Sometimes the optimal solution isn't always the obvious one.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Another might be the boomerang effect for rapid fire. By using it, you cut your own dcv by half. This makes you now much easier to be rapid fired on. So, unless you are against one single foe and you KNOW your triple tap will drop him (which gets iffy against the single big monster scenarios anyway) you may just be setting yourself up.

 

You can take precautions such as holding your phase just before your next phase, or aborting immediately the next segment thus limiting your exposure. Sure the other side can hold actions as well, but that bogs down the game.

 

Against the single big monster, you can easily save the triple tap until you've already weakened him or if you're desperate.

 

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Example: Gary runs the numbers and knows triple shots are cool. Gary throws his shot at bad guy #1 who is at full DCV, spreading and so forth. Say gary got good and KOed bad guy#1. Now gary is at 1/2 DCV, so bad guy#2 selects him as the target for his triple shot. Since gary is already at half dcv, the bad guy#2 doesn't need to spread as much and so does more damage as payback. Now, gary;s buddy sees bad guy#2 as half dcv and....

 

tactically, being the first to go into half-dcv maneuvers is risky in a multiadversary environment. So, games where the opposition if frequently more than one bad guy IN PRACTICE may not see triple taps as all that great.

 

That may be true, but what I'm saying is that the risk/reward is skewed. The reward is too high for the risk with nonstandard types (A major reason why autofire versions have to pay +1 extra). Perhaps both sides will adapt, but the potential is always there and it could be saved for instances where you can finish off especially dangerous foes. Or if you can limit your exposure either by holding phases or immediate aborts in the next segment. Or if you teamwork with a buddy and have him protect you.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Of course, games where combats are fluid and a lot of movement occurs, instead of full phase stand and trade blows, will also not see this problem much if at all.

 

If you purchase Rapid Attack, you can rapid fire as a 1/2 phase action. And in a fluid battle where you can isolate one opponent, it's more likely that you'll uncork it.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

In short, in spite of all the mathematical model furor, there are plenty of practical in play issues that would account for this being less of a problem, if a problem at all, in ACTUAL LIVE PLAY.

 

What would you do if one of your players Rapid Fires a Transform attack?

 

Menton may not be a good example because of his power level, but with his skill levels, he can reasonably expect 6 or so hits. He becomes someone who a Group can fight with some degree of success to someone who'll level an entire group in one shot. Why shouldn't he always Rapid Fire against all except those with high mental defenses?

 

Originally posted by tesuji

At least, thats some of the things we saw in play. I know for a fact that my bad guys would NOT rapid fire against a target when he had three to fopur buddies ready to capitalize on his voluntarily lowered DCV... criminals being a cowardly lot and all.

 

At the beginning of the battle, it's certainly far more true than the end of the battle where both sides get whittled down. And there are counter measures and teamwork that compensates for many of the penalties.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Good summary of the drawbacks to Rapid Fire - which are the reason it doesn't come across as so unbalanced in play!

 

Absent the Rapid Fire skill (which cuts the maneuver down to a 1/2 phase) and skill levels to offset the DCV penalty, I expect to see Rapid Fire about as often as haymakers (which weren't common before adding 50%, and I'll bet won't be common now adding 4 DC's). And I'll certainly look twice if I see those skills on a character sheet!

 

The risk/reward is very different between Rapid Fire and Haymaker. The biggest thing is that Rapid Fire doesn't have to wait an extra segment and isn't spoiled by someone moving 1" or if you take knockback. And in most situations, the -5 DCV for Haymaker is roughly the same penalty as the 1/2 DCV of Rapid Fire.

 

For Normal attacks, the Haymaker and the Rapid Fire are roughly comparable damage wise. The +4d6 for Haymaker is essentially NND damage anyway. The big benefit of Haymaker is that one 16d6 EB is far more likely to con stun than 2-3 12d6 EBs.

 

For NND attacks, it's not even close. The Haymaker adds only +2d6 or 7 stun. Hardly worth it when you can add +15 stun, and not wait the extra segment by rapid firing.

 

Again, I do agree that removing Rapid Attack will go a long way towards balancing the maneuver, especially for nonstandard attacks (although the threat will always be there for it to be uncorked).

[lemming]

Originally posted by D-Man

I repeat: has this occured in play?

 

If not - its not a problem.

 

If so - it requires the same remedy that every construct in hero requires: GM common sense.

Yes. Most things can be abused, it's between players & GMs to figure out how to make it enjoyable.

[zornwil]

However, given all the changes in 5e, many groups are only now discovering "loopholes". I think it's good that this gets aired, just so it can be considered by GMs when it does come up.

[lemming]

It's nice to see loopholes exposed so surprises are minimized.

[megaplayboy]

Well, considering that PCs may now also employ Haymaker with EBs, Mental Powers, NNDs, etc., I don't see the balance problem per se--to hit 3 times with Rapid Fire, you have to take a -4 on CV, and any sort of play balance would set max cv in proportion to attacks, so PSLs vs. rapidfire penalties would probably be overlimit. Plus, even with the maneuver, you're still at half DCV, until your next phase . And, of course, if the maneuver is too ubiquitous, the master villains can start doing it.

 

Plus, of course, there's multiple-power attacks, which in theory are much worse(hitting someone with an EB, NND, Entangle, STUN Drain and Flash simultaneously(since they're all in an EC), for example).

[tesuji]

"What would you do if one of your players Rapid Fires a Transform attack?"

 

You still seem to stay focused on "after the silly GM errs... then...." scenarios.

 

like i said, when i started with 5e one of the biggest things i saw in my prep stage was the impact of rapid strike mpa and so forth on "old balance notions."

 

So to start with the question is "what size transform did i approve, knowing it could be rapid striked?"

 

Did I allow a transform attack into the game thatcould be rapid striked IF that same transform rapid striked would casue me a problem.

 

So the answer tyo your question is, if one of my players rapid striked a transform attack i approved, it would be fine, because i would have already vetted that power as "acceptable when rapid striking" when i approved the power.

 

Just because a maxed 4d6 major transform at 60 ap was ACCEPTABLE in balance for hero4, does not mean it must also be acceptable in HERO5, given the changes such as rapid strike.

 

Of course, designs and builds need to change too.

 

In 4e, 30-40 stun was OK, but given rapid striking 12d6 EBs thats now probably LOW for HERO5.

 

Similarly, low or now power defense and low body (say 10-15) was acceptable in hero4, but now maybe like the stun these values need to be higher to accomplish the same level of defense.

 

In short, rapid strike changes the "what do i need to have in order to stay afloat for X turns" dynamic... for stun, for body for everything that can be attacked. HERO4 designs may well not do the same thing they once did, may not stand up to triple doses of offense and need to be rethunk.

 

Its not massive horror, just part of the whole hero5 redesign.

 

Thats part of the joy that is HERO5.

[Gary]

Originally posted by megaplayboy

Well, considering that PCs may now also employ Haymaker with EBs, Mental Powers, NNDs, etc., I don't see the balance problem per se--to hit 3 times with Rapid Fire, you have to take a -4 on CV, and any sort of play balance would set max cv in proportion to attacks, so PSLs vs. rapidfire penalties would probably be overlimit. Plus, even with the maneuver, you're still at half DCV, until your next phase . And, of course, if the maneuver is too ubiquitous, the master villains can start doing it.

 

If you've read through the thread (admittedly a big chore), you can see that someone with a nonstandard attack can easily spread to compensate for the OCV penalty even without PSLs. And they can hold actions or abort the next segment to minimize the DCV penalties. Also, DCV penalties many times are overrated (unless the other guy targets you with Rapid Fire, Autofire, or targetted hit locations). Generally OCVs are slightly higher than DCVs since OCV levels are cheaper than DCV levels. If the other guy already has a 13- to hit you, he's already hitting 83.8% of the time. Bumping that to 99.5% isn't that big a deal if he's attacking with a single attack. You were most likely going to be hit anyway.

 

Originally posted by megaplayboy

Plus, of course, there's multiple-power attacks, which in theory are much worse(hitting someone with an EB, NND, Entangle, STUN Drain and Flash simultaneously(since they're all in an EC), for example).

 

First of all, buying lots of attacks in a EC is much more expensive. Secondly, you can't multiple attack with 2 powers from the same EC.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

"What would you do if one of your players Rapid Fires a Transform attack?"

 

You still seem to stay focused on "after the silly GM errs... then...." scenarios.

 

like i said, when i started with 5e one of the biggest things i saw in my prep stage was the impact of rapid strike mpa and so forth on "old balance notions."

 

So to start with the question is "what size transform did i approve, knowing it could be rapid striked?"

 

Did I allow a transform attack into the game thatcould be rapid striked IF that same transform rapid striked would casue me a problem.

 

So the answer tyo your question is, if one of my players rapid striked a transform attack i approved, it would be fine, because i would have already vetted that power as "acceptable when rapid striking" when i approved the power.

 

Just because a maxed 4d6 major transform at 60 ap was ACCEPTABLE in balance for hero4, does not mean it must also be acceptable in HERO5, given the changes such as rapid strike.

 

Of course, designs and builds need to change too.

 

In 4e, 30-40 stun was OK, but given rapid striking 12d6 EBs thats now probably LOW for HERO5.

 

Similarly, low or now power defense and low body (say 10-15) was acceptable in hero4, but now maybe like the stun these values need to be higher to accomplish the same level of defense.

 

In short, rapid strike changes the "what do i need to have in order to stay afloat for X turns" dynamic... for stun, for body for everything that can be attacked. HERO4 designs may well not do the same thing they once did, may not stand up to triple doses of offense and need to be rethunk.

 

Its not massive horror, just part of the whole hero5 redesign.

 

Thats part of the joy that is HERO5.

 

I'm puzzled. Is your answer that you wouldn't allow a 4d6 Transform in the first place for anyone, or that you would allow it but expect the player to "one shot" many villains when he can get away with it?

 

Suppose I offered a character to you that has 26 dex, 2-3 skill levels with a multipower, and a 60 pt multipower with several slots, including 1-2 nonstandard attacks such as NND. Would you approve the character?

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Gary

I'm puzzled. Is your answer that you wouldn't allow a 4d6 Transform in the first place for anyone, or that you would allow it but expect the player to "one shot" many villains when he can get away with it?

First, whether it would be permitted or not would depend on the campaign i was going for. I would suspect the type of transform would have a great deal of impact.

 

However, IF I approved the 4d6 transform (say petrify), odds are it would not find itself one-shotting many villains. Mooks? Sure. Bad guys on par with him? Nope. (As you apparently missed it before, the villains and scenarios would be designed with the PCs abilities in mind. He will likely meet as many worthy foes who are one shotable with his transform as the guy with 4d6 RKA meets people one shotable with his.)

 

Again, very important, the addition of rapid fire and the addition/clarification of MPAs in HERO 5 means that the designs common and workable in HERO4 need to be changed to maintain similar balance in play. A villain who is easily one-shotable by a transform triple-tag rapid fire is simply put more "mook" than "nad guy" when you have a PC with such.

 

 

Originally posted by Gary

Suppose I offered a character to you that has 26 dex, 2-3 skill levels with a multipower, and a 60 pt multipower with several slots, including 1-2 nonstandard attacks such as NND. Would you approve the character?

 

That is not enough information. It would depend on the specific powers involved. My previous campaigns tended to have for dex 26 few skill levels but your 2-3 is not out of whack so it would probably not be out of bounds. (Again, it depends on the attacks... AP alone are almost meaningless for balance.)

 

Once i knew what they chose and after i had approved it, the villains and the scenarios would be appropriately chosen as well. I don't populate my scenarios with random PCs from a wandering damage list... they are chosen to highlight the PCs in both good and bad ways (even moreso now than in my early days of GMing.) I have already listed *some* of the various scenario issues involved with balancing out this particular nuance of yours.

 

But, if you want a benchmark...

 

26 Dex

+3 CV levels with multipower attacks (9 pts)

Multipower at 60 ap

12d6 EB

6d6 NND choking smoke

4d6 NND choking smoke over 4" radius (if one wants to gripe about NNDS, gripe about the area effect)

12d6 sight flash

 

that would be just fine. i could Gm for that.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

First, whether it would be permitted or not would depend on the campaign i was going for. I would suspect the type of transform would have a great deal of impact.

 

However, IF I approved the 4d6 transform (say petrify), odds are it would not find itself one-shotting many villains. Mooks? Sure. Bad guys on par with him? Nope. (As you apparently missed it before, the villains and scenarios would be designed with the PCs abilities in mind. He will likely meet as many worthy foes who are one shotable with his transform as the guy with 4d6 RKA meets people one shotable with his.)

 

Again, very important, the addition of rapid fire and the addition/clarification of MPAs in HERO 5 means that the designs common and workable in HERO4 need to be changed to maintain similar balance in play. A villain who is easily one-shotable by a transform triple-tag rapid fire is simply put more "mook" than "nad guy" when you have a PC with such.

 

Surely it stretches plausibility that every 350 pt villain has power defense or very high Bodies. But I do see your viewpoint on this.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

That is not enough information. It would depend on the specific powers involved. My previous campaigns tended to have for dex 26 few skill levels but your 2-3 is not out of whack so it would probably not be out of bounds. (Again, it depends on the attacks... AP alone are almost meaningless for balance.)

 

Once i knew what they chose and after i had approved it, the villains and the scenarios would be appropriately chosen as well. I don't populate my scenarios with random PCs from a wandering damage list... they are chosen to highlight the PCs in both good and bad ways (even moreso now than in my early days of GMing.) I have already listed *some* of the various scenario issues involved with balancing out this particular nuance of yours.

 

But, if you want a benchmark...

 

26 Dex

+3 CV levels with multipower attacks (9 pts)

Multipower at 60 ap

12d6 EB

6d6 NND choking smoke

4d6 NND choking smoke over 4" radius (if one wants to gripe about NNDS, gripe about the area effect)

12d6 sight flash

 

that would be just fine. i could Gm for that.

 

Ok, I already did the analysis with the regular NND. Imagine Rapid Firing the area effect NND vs the DCV of 3?

 

And if you disagree about rapid firing smoke, there can easily be a NND special effect that does allow rapid fire. Perhaps Meson beams (defense is FF), or stuff like that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

The math is undeniable. Can you deny that a rapid fire transform can be unbalancing? That one is easy to see without lots of number crunching.

 

I don't deny an ordinary EB can be unbalancing - in the right circumstances. An NND that does BOD can be very unbalancing too, with the same Stop SIgn transform has! This thread has shown, however, that Rapid Fire has not become unbalancing at the gaming table. That's the real test. This thread has also highlighted lots of ideas for dealing with it if it were to become unbalancing.

 

Originally posted by Gary

As Tesuji correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, NNDs are almost never used incorrectly in play. The player either knows, or fails only once.

 

That is actualy a separate problem. To some extent, it arises because GM's simply hand out "That had no efect" rather than proceeding with play. Do you KNOW it had no efect, or must you surmise from the fact the opponent didn't seize up in pain? How many Stun requires you to seize up in pain? And the GM can make some characters who look like they have the defense, if desired.

 

On our specific point, how much END do you want to spend to test out whether the target has the defense? Enough for three shots? Five shots? You'd better guess right - you'll be at half DCV after the attack!

 

Originally posted by Gary

The knockback from the 12d6 attack is probably negligible in terms of actual damage. Certainly less than the extra damage from rapid fire! And knocking out your opponent with one shot will give him a lower CV than knockback will!

 

The damage is normally negligible. The 1/2 DCV "Prone" penalty is not. Oh, and you can't rapid attack if you have to spend half a phase getting up, can you?

 

Originally posted by Gary

And maybe the Rapid Fire guy fights smart as well. Maybe he saves an action just before his next phase and unloads. Or he immediately aborts to a dodge in the segment after his rapid fire.

 

He has to pick someone to attack or lose his phase. I, on the other hand, will abort to Dodge if he fires on me, or fire on him if he shoots at someone else. We can, of course, all just stand there waiting for someone to move. hmmm...looks like Life Support - Need Not Sleep is underpriced - that would be hugely advantageous!

 

You seem, again, to forget that ANYONE can use that approach. If it's hugely unbalancing, EVERYONE will. Then we will all complain that Hero doesn't work and is no fun. Steve can then either issue an errata, or suggest that you simply remove something if you find it unbalancing, perhaps after providing a half dozen options for dealing with the problem.

 

Let's answer D-Man's post.

 

1. No one on the board has provided any indication this has occured in play.

 

2. Therefore it is not a problem.

 

3. Common sense can solve the problems and we have lots of suggestions in this thread.

 

SUGGESTION: No fix is required. Gary can make this modification in addition to the many other fixes he's already espoused on these boards. When his adjustments have perfected the system, he can publish his poerfect system and see how well it competes.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't deny an ordinary EB can be unbalancing - in the right circumstances. An NND that does BOD can be very unbalancing too, with the same Stop SIgn transform has! This thread has shown, however, that Rapid Fire has not become unbalancing at the gaming table. That's the real test. This thread has also highlighted lots of ideas for dealing with it if it were to become unbalancing.

 

Reliable one shot knockouts aren't a problem for you?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

That is actualy a separate problem. To some extent, it arises because GM's simply hand out "That had no efect" rather than proceeding with play. Do you KNOW it had no efect, or must you surmise from the fact the opponent didn't seize up in pain? How many Stun requires you to seize up in pain? And the GM can make some characters who look like they have the defense, if desired.

 

On our specific point, how much END do you want to spend to test out whether the target has the defense? Enough for three shots? Five shots? You'd better guess right - you'll be at half DCV after the attack!

 

3 shots is usually plenty. Not many people can survive even 3 spread shots.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The damage is normally negligible. The 1/2 DCV "Prone" penalty is not. Oh, and you can't rapid attack if you have to spend half a phase getting up, can you?

 

Easily fixed with Breakfall. And your penalty after a one shot knockout is more severe. And that's if you disallow Rapid Attack. I guess that's one change you're making to your campaign.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

He has to pick someone to attack or lose his phase. I, on the other hand, will abort to Dodge if he fires on me, or fire on him if he shoots at someone else. We can, of course, all just stand there waiting for someone to move. hmmm...looks like Life Support - Need Not Sleep is underpriced - that would be hugely advantageous!

 

Yep, even more people stand around than usual if Rapid Fire is allowed. IOW, the game bogs down. This is a problem even if Rapid Fire isn't unbalancing (which it is).

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You seem, again, to forget that ANYONE can use that approach. If it's hugely unbalancing, EVERYONE will. Then we will all complain that Hero doesn't work and is no fun. Steve can then either issue an errata, or suggest that you simply remove something if you find it unbalancing, perhaps after providing a half dozen options for dealing with the problem.

 

Yep, everyone has the opportunity to use that approach. Of course the people with nonstandard attacks benefit more from it. Also, just because everyone has access to it doesn't mean that it's balanced. For example, if you lower the cost of killing attack to 5 pts per 1d6, it's "balanced" in the sense that everyone has access to cheap KAs, but it's certainly not "balanced" in general.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's answer D-Man's post.

 

1. No one on the board has provided any indication this has occured in play.

 

2. Therefore it is not a problem.

 

3. Common sense can solve the problems and we have lots of suggestions in this thread.

 

SUGGESTION: No fix is required. Gary can make this modification in addition to the many other fixes he's already espoused on these boards. When his adjustments have perfected the system, he can publish his poerfect system and see how well it competes.

 

Fine, I'd like to see your reaction when the sample 26 dex 3 skill levels guy rapid fires 4 times using the 4d6 area effect NND at the villain group.

[megaplayboy]

My suggestion is either to disallow it, or count Rapid Fire toward Active point caps, as if you were trying to buy a +1/4 AF 3 advantage for a power. So with a 60 AP cap, the PC with rapid fire would be limited to ca.50 AP attacks with RF.

With an 80 AP cap, it would be limited to about 60-65 AP.

Compare three shots at 10DC with one haymakered shot at 16 or 18(with pushing). Even for NNDs, that's still pretty close.

 

I think Rapid Fire works best for heroic level games, and some superhero sub-genres(like DBZ).

[badger3k]

One of my players took Rapid attack (hth) for his FH character, so in a few weeks I may see if its unbalanced. The low END of typical FH characters will hurt, plus, as was said, I will balance the opponents to the characters, I'll see how it works. The same as the deadly blow ability - I allowed it as a test to see how it works. Both abilities have already been aired to the group as "possible disallows" - they'll get their points back if I feel that either makes the game less enjoyable. That's SOP in most games - I reserve the right to change the rules if something is not suitable for the game. Had no big problems yet.

 

Given that Rapid Fire is in the books as an Optional maneuver, in a game where pretty much everything is optional by default, makes you consider that maybe this isn't perfect for everyone's game or every genre. The ability is useful to simulate certain abilities or attacks. It's like firing a pistol - try three quick shots vs a three shot burst. There is a difference.

I'd guess that the maneuver was put in to reflect such attacks. Many military/paramilitary are trained to double-tap targets. I haven't, but from what I understand, most who do prefer it over the burst method (not that I know a group sufficiently large to be statistically significant).

 

I'll relay back sometime when we start playing and let y'all know if it became a problem in my campaign.

[Gary]

Originally posted by badger3k

I'll relay back sometime when we start playing and let y'all know if it became a problem in my campaign.

 

My gut instinct is that Rapid Fire won't be too much of a problem with normal attacks, especially HTH (since the player can't spread) unless you allow the player to buy cheap PSLs.

 

OTOH, if the player was a wizard with NND or other nonstandard attacks, that could be a problem.

 

Keep us posted.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Reliable one shot knockouts aren't a problem for you?

 

It's not happening IMC, so I'd say it's not a problem.

 

Originally posted by Gary

3 shots is usually plenty. Not many people can survive even 3 spread shots.

 

The issue was what happens after you fire off the three NND shots, only to discover they did not affect yoour opponent because he has the defense. Do you even read what you are responding to?

 

Originally posted by Gary

Easily fixed with Breakfall. And your penalty after a one shot knockout is more severe. And that's if you disallow Rapid Attack. I guess that's one change you're making to your campaign.

 

Whether I will or not depends on whether I actually SEE someone abuse it. No problem, and no purchaser, to date, so who needs to disallow it? Half DCV is also a significant penalty. You one punch one of theirs, they do the same to you. One opponent removed from each side of the battle. Your posts seem to indicate you only play solo campaigns, since you assume one opponent KO'd = battle over.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Fine, I'd like to see your reaction when the sample 26 dex 3 skill levels guy rapid fires 4 times using the 4d6 area effect NND at the villain group.

 

Yes, all villain groups stand stock still in small clusters, with no friendlies around, waiting to be attacked by the famous super who always fires area effect blasts. Seems I forgot that rule somewhere - what genre convention does it support?

 

The only poster who seems to have enountered **any** problem with this is youy, and even you haven't seen it in games, only modeled it mathematically. Until it's actually a problem, it doesn't merit fixing.

 

But I still look forward to seeing Gary's Perfect Game System on the market.