How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

[Farkling]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

You are corresponding with an individual who once purchased "1/4 Damage Reduction vs KA's with 4 Stun Mult; 1/2 Dam Red vs KA's w/ 5 Stun Mult and Full Dam Red vs KA's w/ 6+ Stun Mult" to counter "SM Roulette" and actually penalize largish stun multiples. If the mechanics are causing a problem, there's generally a m,echanic out there to fix it.

 

Inquiring minds want to know the value of those limitations. That's a beautiful idea

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

You are corresponding with an individual who once purchased "1/4 Damage Reduction vs KA's with 4 Stun Mult; 1/2 Dam Red vs KA's w/ 5 Stun Mult and Full Dam Red vs KA's w/ 6+ Stun Mult" to counter "SM Roulette" and actually penalize largish stun multiples. If the mechanics are causing a problem' date=' there's generally a m,echanic out there to fix it.[/i']

 

Inquiring minds want to know the value of those limitations. That's a beautiful idea

 

hmmm...this was a pretty old character (might have been 3e, maybe 4). I wonder if I still even have a copy anywhere.

 

Obviously, a lot depends on how common KA's are in the campaign. IIRC, we went pretty much on the STUN only, since the character had rDEF at a level BOD was unlikely at best.

 

T think I'd give a -1 for KA's only to begin with. Stack that with -1 for a 4+ SM, -1 1/2 for 5+ and -2 for 6+. I'd call those fairly conservative (1/3 of KA's with no bonus SM get a 4+, and 1/6 get a 5. You need bonus SM to get a 6).

 

So, resistant Phys and Energy would be 30/3 = 10 for 1/4 vs KA's 4+ SM

+ 30/3.5 = 9 for 1/2 at 5

+ 60/4 = 15 for that 6+

 

Total 34 points.

 

I think I might call "KA only" something higher, maybe -1 1/2 or even -2, in my current game environment, which would reduce the cost further, but I can't see a cost of 34 being unreasonably low.

[Magmarock]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

RE: House rules stifling creativity. I slept on this so I wouldn't come across as angry. If it still happens I apologize in advance.

 

Please explain to me how making sure powers cost as much as I feel they should keeps players from being creative within the system. Frankly, I'd stack my players' creativity and ability within the system on par with anything I've seen in publication or on these boards. Obviously I'm prejudiced of course...

 

I assure you I do not have the "standard" any archetype in my campaign PC-wise. In fact of the four the only one that comes close to a "standard" is the gadgeteer, and even he has his tricks (among them that he doesn't have the nerd/geek personality).

 

 

I agree with you, TE.

 

Games have rules. Rules are boundries to define a general consensus. The people playing the game must be in agreement with said rules. House rules are not a seperate and distinct item, but merely a further definition of the rules to a specific which fits the way the group wants to play.

 

We all are playing Hero System, which, by using this set of rules, defines our RPG of choice. Then we narrow that definition by choosing to play the Champions genre. Next we define it even more by choosing campaign level, power level, etc. There is nothing wrong with fine-tuning the rules further than that... to fit the individual group playing the game. The book even suggests that we do. It's all to keep the game within manageable boundries for the GM and Players alike.

 

It is quite possible to be creative within those boundries. The game is flexable that way. Rules are there for a reason, to keep the playing field even. Not a bad concept.

 

Mags

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I think the game is pretty balanced as it is. My suspicion is any house rules that involve not allowing some option normally available as per the book just stifles opportunities. None of the powers or options such as multiple power attacks, cheap strength, autofire, hand attacks, and so on that concern anyone on this forum have ever caused me to think "Oh, there's no good reason to ever allow that." And that's what a house rule saying you can't have this power or this modifier say.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I think the game is pretty balanced as it is. My suspicion is any house rules that involve not allowing some option normally available as per the book just stifles opportunities. None of the powers or options such as multiple power attacks' date=' cheap strength, autofire, hand attacks, and so on that concern anyone on this forum have ever caused me to think "Oh, there's no good reason to ever allow that." And that's what a house rule saying you can't have this power or this modifier say.[/quote']I guess I'm still trying to understand why anyone considers MPA to be abusive. After all, probably a majority of characters can use it. Any martial artist with two or more offensive martial maneuvers and most bricks could utilize an MPA. It's really not much more than a Sweep maneuver with special restrictions.

 

And considering the offense:defense ratio of most MAs, if an opposing MA successfully uses an MPA (Say a Martial Strike, Offensive Strike and Legsweep in combination) it will pretty much end the fight right then and there, with the only END expenditure being that from his STR. Not bad for say an 8d6 + 10d6 + 7d6 combination for a fairly typical Champions MA. 28 + 35 + 24 STUN in the aggregate. That'll mess up most MAs pretty good I suspect.

 

In any case I going to at least use it a few times before I declare it fish or fowl. I'd like to give Steve Long and his Merry Men the benefit of the doubt before I decide they were out of their minds for adding MPAs to the combat repertoire.

 

My instincts tell me it will not be unbalancing, at least in our campaign.

[TheEmerged]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

In any case I going to at least use it a few times before I declare it fish or fowl. I'd like to give Steve Long and his Merry Men the benefit of the doubt before I decide they were out of their minds for adding MPAs to the combat repertoire.

 

My instincts tell me it will not be unbalancing, at least in our campaign.

 

That's where I was when I decided to try them, and as I said they proved to be more balanced than I expected. However, I believe that to be due to the restrictions placed on them by the Fifth Edition Rulebook.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

That's where I was when I decided to try them' date=' and as I said they proved to be more balanced than I expected. However, I believe that to be due to the restrictions placed on them.[/quote']By "restrictions placed on them" I assume you mean the HERO System rules and not your own campaign-specific house rules?

 

By golly, those boys at Hero must have actually playtested the new rules!

[TheEmerged]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

By "restrictions placed on them" I assume you mean the HERO System rules and not your own campaign-specific house rules?

 

By golly, those boys at Hero must have actually playtested the new rules!

 

That's exactly what I mean, and you're right I should have said that more clearly. To the EditMobile, Sidekick Boy!

 

Only thing I house-ruled was telling the PC's not to submit something related to STR use yet until we tried MPA's themselves first. I wanted to make sure the concept as a whole worked before I made a judgement about a specific case (that admittedly doesn't look balanced). Stated another way, I wanted to make sure the broad case wasn't to blame before I tested a narrow one.

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I think the game is pretty balanced as it is. My suspicion is any house rules that involve not allowing some option normally available as per the book just stifles opportunities. None of the powers or options such as multiple power attacks' date=' cheap strength, autofire, hand attacks, and so on that concern anyone on this forum have ever caused me to think "Oh, there's no good reason to ever allow that." And that's what a house rule saying you can't have this power or this modifier say.[/quote']

Do you read house rules as mandates that are somehow "deeper" or "stronger" than the system rules? I think of them as no different or more or less inviolate than the HERO rules. And I've rarely - no, never - played in HERO games where some rules weren't broken or twisted in some serious way.

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I guess I'm still trying to understand why anyone considers MPA to be abusive. After all, probably a majority of characters can use it. Any martial artist with two or more offensive martial maneuvers and most bricks could utilize an MPA. It's really not much more than a Sweep maneuver with special restrictions.

 

And considering the offense:defense ratio of most MAs, if an opposing MA successfully uses an MPA (Say a Martial Strike, Offensive Strike and Legsweep in combination) it will pretty much end the fight right then and there, with the only END expenditure being that from his STR. Not bad for say an 8d6 + 10d6 + 7d6 combination for a fairly typical Champions MA. 28 + 35 + 24 STUN in the aggregate. That'll mess up most MAs pretty good I suspect.

 

In any case I going to at least use it a few times before I declare it fish or fowl. I'd like to give Steve Long and his Merry Men the benefit of the doubt before I decide they were out of their minds for adding MPAs to the combat repertoire.

 

My instincts tell me it will not be unbalancing, at least in our campaign.

As I've thought about it, I agree it wouldn't be unbalancing per se. However, bear in mind I (like I think you do) run without damage caps and I allow a lot of lattitude in creaiton, none of that having been attentive to MPAs or quite that opportunity. So at least for me I wouldn't want ot "rush" into it but I am considering revising my own house rules to further encourage/not discourage them.

 

But then again, aside from the whole balance consideration, I'm just not fond of them in a superhero context that I run, outside of them being the normal linked things. As always, open to what players bring up.

 

Personally, I find most house rules, at least of mine, aren't ones that I'd inflict on HERO games, and therefore it's not as if they're there because of some intrinsic "balance" issue or the like. It's usually just my personal preferences and how I like the game to "work" in my campaigns.

 

However, bear in mind, my campaigns don't have much "real" martial arts stuff or the like. So far constructs have been fairly regular superheroes with some off-kilter variations, but nothing dramatically so.

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Do you read house rules as mandates that are somehow "deeper" or "stronger" than the system rules? I think of them as no different or more or less inviolate than the HERO rules. And I've rarely - no' date=' never - played in HERO games where some rules weren't broken or twisted in some serious way.[/quote']The house rules I'm concerned with are the ones that close off avenues for character design. The rationale usually given is that something in the book is too abusive when combined with x. That may be the case and then again it may not be... but if it is it will show up in a character review that balances the needs of the player, other players, and the gm.

[Gary]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

hmmm...this was a pretty old character (might have been 3e, maybe 4). I wonder if I still even have a copy anywhere.

 

Obviously, a lot depends on how common KA's are in the campaign. IIRC, we went pretty much on the STUN only, since the character had rDEF at a level BOD was unlikely at best.

 

T think I'd give a -1 for KA's only to begin with. Stack that with -1 for a 4+ SM, -1 1/2 for 5+ and -2 for 6+. I'd call those fairly conservative (1/3 of KA's with no bonus SM get a 4+, and 1/6 get a 5. You need bonus SM to get a 6).

 

So, resistant Phys and Energy would be 30/3 = 10 for 1/4 vs KA's 4+ SM

+ 30/3.5 = 9 for 1/2 at 5

+ 60/4 = 15 for that 6+

 

Total 34 points.

 

I think I might call "KA only" something higher, maybe -1 1/2 or even -2, in my current game environment, which would reduce the cost further, but I can't see a cost of 34 being unreasonably low.

 

I'd say that -1 for a 4 SM, -1.5 for a 5 SM and -2 for a 6 SM is way too high a limitation. Those are precisely the SM where the DR is needed to begin with! A 1 or 2 SM probably wouldn't leak any stun through to begin with. The 6 SM is the only one that deserves a real limitation because it does require purchasing bonus SM.

 

Example. A 4d6 RKA vs 25 def and your version of DR. Assume 14 body in the initial attack.

 

1/3 of the time, your limitation wouldn't kick in because only 14 stun is done, and 0 net stun gets through regardless of whether you had that limitation or not.

 

1/6 of the time, only 3 net stun gets through. Your limitation saves only 1-2 stun vs purchasing the DR straight.

 

In general, most 1 or 2 SM are meaningless vs most superheroic characters.

 

I'd put the value of the limitation at -1/4, -1/2, and -2 personally. I can agree with the -1 for KA only.

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

The house rules I'm concerned with are the ones that close off avenues for character design. The rationale usually given is that something in the book is too abusive when combined with x. That may be the case and then again it may not be... but if it is it will show up in a character review that balances the needs of the player' date=' other players, and the gm.[/quote']

I'm not sure that answered my question.

 

Do you treat a house rule more or less seriously than an "actual" system rule?

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

As I've thought about it' date=' I agree it wouldn't be unbalancing per se. However, bear in mind I (like I think you do) run without damage caps and I allow a lot of lattitude in creaiton, none of that having been attentive to MPAs or quite that opportunity. So at least for me I wouldn't want ot "rush" into it but I am considering revising my own house rules to further encourage/not discourage them.[/quote']You are correct; we have no Damage Caps per se in our campaign. We do have a guideline of SPD + DC is less than or equal to 20 which has served us well. As yet no PC has exceeded or even hit this guideline. However, we (Meaning Mentor, Blackjack, and I) recognize that as our campaign crosses the 400+ CP mark we are inevitably going to have to relax that guideline as our characters begin to move into the higher power range. We will cross the 400 point character point sometime this summer.

 

Our strongest "limitation" on character design is that no character step on the schtick of any other PC. A player is currently working on a Multiform/Shape Shifting PC and we are concerned not because he can imitate any living creature at the molecular level but because some of his pre-designed forms come close to matching other PCs schtick. (For example, he has a 50 STR super-gorilla form and a SPD 7 33 DEX super-agile monkey form. But since neither of those is too close to our brick and speedster respectively I'm inclined to allow it. Overall I like the utility of a Shape Shifter in our group and think he'll be a tremendous asset. Wierder Powers are not a bane but a boon in my book. It'll take more work to write adventures that take his flexibility into account, but that's why they pay us GMs those big bucks.

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I'm not sure that answered my question.

 

Do you treat a house rule more or less seriously than an "actual" system rule?

A rule is a rule is a rule, neither more nor less.

[Farkling]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I vaguely remember Steve Long stating that MPA's were the way they always played, and that this isn't a new rule, but aclarification for all the people who were not using them...

 

What a polite way to say "you know, you've been playiing wrong for years"

 

 

[TheEmerged]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I vaguely remember Steve Long stating that MPA's were the way they always played, and that this isn't a new rule, but aclarification for all the people who were not using them...

 

What a polite way to say "you know, you've been playiing wrong for years"

 

 

 

Steve's definition of "clarification" is very different from mine, given that he uses the same term for the Damage Shield bu... er, "opinion very different from mine and directly contradicting previously published examples".

 

RE: SPD + DC <= 20. You've never had anyone approach that in your campaigns? Even at 250pts I generally saw 12 DC & 6 SPD characters; in my current campaign (PC's started with 400 pts) 15 DC & 6 SPD is something of a norm.

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Steve's definition of "clarification" is very different from mine, given that he uses the same term for the Damage Shield bu... er, "opinion very different from mine and directly contradicting previously published examples".

 

RE: SPD + DC <= 20. You've never had anyone approach that in your campaigns? Even at 250pts I generally saw 12 DC & 6 SPD characters; in my current campaign (PC's started with 400 pts) 15 DC & 6 SPD is something of a norm.

The damage shield definitely wasn't built in the old days like it is now but, after hearing that multi-power attacks had always been allowed, a buddy of mine, Super Skrull on the boards, actually was able to find evidence that implied some of the game designers had intended its use all along.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

RE: SPD + DC <= 20. You've never had anyone approach that in your campaigns? Even at 250 pts I generally saw 12 DC & 6 SPD characters; in my current campaign (PC's started with 400 pts) 15 DC & 6 SPD is something of a norm.

No' date=' I said nobody has hit it yet. We do have one character at 19 (My own character, Zl'f) and two at 18 but as yet nobody has reached the 20 or exceeded it. We have one character, Prodigy, who [i']theoretically[/i] surpasses the "cap" with his SPD 5 and 90 point VPP, but in practice he's never exceeded 13 DCs since he has to operate all of his defenses out of the same VPP. But in general this formula seems to have worked very well to provide some level of combat equivalence. Probably any one of our characters could defeat any other.

 

We're a 350+ point four-color campaign so the emphasis has been on Skills and general versatility rather than ramping up attack dice and defenses with XP. I expect we'll up the target maximum number to 22 or 24 within the next year or so. Our 250 point versions were about the same power level as the 350 point versions, they were just more heavily combat oriented.

[TheEmerged]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

No' date=' I said nobody has hit it yet. We do have one character at 19 (My own character, Zl'f) and two at 18 but as yet nobody has reached the 20 or exceeded it. We have one character, Prodigy, who [i']theoretically[/i] surpasses the "cap" with his SPD 5 and 90 point VPP, but in practice he's never exceeded 13 DCs since he has to operate all of his defenses out of the same VPP. But in general this formula seems to have worked very well to provide some level of combat equivalence. Probably any one of our characters could defeat any other.

 

We're a 350+ point four-color campaign so the emphasis has been on Skills and general versatility rather than ramping up attack dice and defenses with XP. I expect we'll up the target maximum number to 22 or 24 within the next year or so. Our 250 point versions were about the same power level as the 350 point versions, they were just more heavily combat oriented.

 

I can see where that mechanic could work, I may have to try it. Personally I prefer characters that are "tricked out" as opposed to "powered up", I just set the 'expected DC' at 15 because it was where I wanted it.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I can see where that mechanic could work' date=' I may have to try it. Personally I prefer characters that are "tricked out" as opposed to "powered up", I just set the 'expected DC' at 15 because it was where I wanted it.[/quote']There's absolutely no reason the number couldn't be set to any level you wish. With a campaign with average DCs around 15 you could set the number at 22 or 24 and it should still work. Our average max attack (sans Pushing or Haymaker) now is probably around 12 or 13d6; Zl'f's is the lowest at 10d6. IIRC our SPD 4 brick Silhouette does 15d6. Everyone on our team calculates at between a 16 and 19 using this formula and it seems to work a lot better than any Rule of X we've tried. It certainly has the advantage of simplicity.

 

You could "test" to see if it would work for your current campaign by examining your current batch of PCs using this formula and seeing what kind of numbers you arrive at and how closely they seem to reflect actual relative effectiveness in combat. If the numbers are too disparate then it may not work with your current characters.

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

The damage shield definitely wasn't built in the old days like it is now but' date=' after hearing that multi-power attacks had always been allowed, a buddy of mine, Super Skrull on the boards, actually was able to find evidence that implied some of the game designers had intended its use all along.[/quote']

Actually as you read 4th edition I tend to think that what DS ended up being in 5th was actually intended in 4th. I never thought of it that way myself, and like most people didn't play it the way it is in 5th, but I do think that Steve's case on that is not wholly without merit. Same, really, with MPAs. But the problem remains that in reality most people did not play Damage Shield or MPAs as 5th pressents them, and for most people (including me) it really isn't a "clarification" as such, even if one can go back to 4th and say "oh, I see how it probably meant that." One has to determine the usage and legacy of rules just like laws, the "normal" interpretation is as important as the book's ill-stated intent.

[Kristopher]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

As far as I know, no one I ever played with has ever run Damage Shield the say it's set up in FREd, or even considered it.

 

And I can say with certainty that none of us ever even dreamed of using anything resembling MPAs.

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Actually as you read 4th edition I tend to think that what DS ended up being in 5th was actually intended in 4th. I never thought of it that way myself' date=' and like most people didn't play it the way it is in 5th, but I do think that Steve's case on that is not wholly without merit. Same, really, with MPAs. But the problem remains that in [b']reality[/b] most people did not play Damage Shield or MPAs as 5th pressents them, and for most people (including me) it really isn't a "clarification" as such, even if one can go back to 4th and say "oh, I see how it probably meant that." One has to determine the usage and legacy of rules just like laws, the "normal" interpretation is as important as the book's ill-stated intent.

There wasn't a single 4th edition character that I can think of that built a Damage Shield anything like Steve Long's notion. The option of a multi-power attack is a little hard to read as it isn't a "points" thing.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

As far as I know, no one I ever played with has ever run Damage Shield the say it's set up in FREd, or even considered it.

 

And I can say with certainty that none of us ever even dreamed of using anything resembling MPAs.

Why not? Damage Shields are rather wimpy in FREd, but that's not the case with MPAs. Did you try them and see if they were unbalanced?