How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

[Hawksmoor]

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

 

 

 

 

So, if i get you right, the "generalrule on Ap limits" would be each individual attack would have to be within the damage cap?

 

Yes that is about it. The AP caps on individual powers are not additive with a MPA. Now, that said in general I am leery of MPAs. I probably will discourage their use for the reason outlined above. I am an old school One Attack per Action guy. I have no problems with a "Super Move - Special Attack action" type power I just frown on it as a general utility power.

 

I, for one, so no problems with the old linked limitation.

 

 

Ok, so its not a balance issue, it an FX vs powers selected aesthetics issue, right? If another FX made the NND fit the concept more to your liking, a character could have the punch-flash-nnd power?

 

I was trying to throw in a "reasonable sounding FX" to avoid the "individual Gms aesthetics" thingy so we could focus on the issue of balancing those MPAs as opposed to the aesthetics preferences, you cannot please everybody! :-)

 

Thanks!

 

Yes! If the SFX were good and the concept sound I would think that a NND+Flash MPA would be acceptable. Again I am a fan of that Special "Super Attack" that the character only brings out on occasion. If the Player is all the time trotting out his MPAs I am going to frown heavily as the tactics of the game are altered to much to my taste. Wargaming is fine to a point, but MPAs are like Battletech: Fire all your PCC (x2), SRM-6 (x2), and Small ER Laser (x6) at a target and hope he pops. That is not Genre for a Superhero game!

 

Hawksmoor

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Personally I don't allow combined slots in an Elemental Control because IMO it's nothing but a mechanic to bypass the minimum cost drawback of the EC.

 

(thread hijack)

So, you don't allow linked powers in an EC then either?

 

And I don't really follow why that's such a bad thing, if an EC allows for 30AP powers and you want one power with multiple effects, or two different powers that act as one?

 

I'm not sure why you see it as a problem to have several smaller powers in one slot if they fit the SFX and gameplay, but you'd allow it outside an EC?

[SCUBA Hero]

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

 

(smacks forehead)

 

Oh, the reason I count the AP levels separately in an MPA attack is that each attack is applied vs. the target's defenses separately.

 

Hmmmm, two 4d6 RKAs MPA'd are less powerful than a single 8d6 RKA, but more powerful than having to use two Phases for two separate 4d6 RKA's. . . possibly some rule of thumb could be used to account for that on AP cap points, but I'm not sure I can come up with one better than 'GM scrutiny'. Anyone else have ideas?

[sbarron]

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

 

OK, maybe its just how i see it but this is faulty logic...

 

i am going to burn in a combat enough end for enough attacks to eliminate my opponent. lets say this means for enemy X i need six hits to drop him.

 

if i fire those six attacks as two "three power" MPAs it will cost me no more end than it takes me if i fire them as six individual attacks over six phases.

 

If your character only has 8 END left after those 2 attacks, his options will be very limited. Trying to dodge "big wammy" attacks like this is a no brainer. Which means you may be burning lots of your END to miss. Spreading attacks (and thus END) over several phases allows your character to have options. Once the END is gone, those options are limited.

 

You can think my logic is faulty, that's up to you. I just won't be surprised if you notice your character running short of END in pretty short order throwing this MPA around.

[tesuji]

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

 

(smacks forehead)

 

Oh, the reason I count the AP levels separately in an MPA attack is that each attack is applied vs. the target's defenses separately.

 

Hmmmm, two 4d6 RKAs MPA'd are less powerful than a single 8d6 RKA, but more powerful than having to use two Phases for two separate 4d6 RKA's. . . possibly some rule of thumb could be used to account for that on AP cap points, but I'm not sure I can come up with one better than 'GM scrutiny'. Anyone else have ideas?

 

"total damage after defenses" vs a standard set of NPCs.

 

this can also be expressed as "hits to take out" or rather, "phases to take out" to get OCV and speed in the mix.

 

A most useful mechanics might be to provide your players with six sample NPCs, each with different ranges of ocv, dcv, pd, ed, md, etc.

 

you tell them to figure out how many "phases of attacks it would take to drop the enemies" for each enemy and add them all up. You then require the heroes to all fall within a certain range of total phases. too low a number of phases means they will be too fast at killing bad guys, too lhigh means their offense is inadequate. Set the range so that they wont be able to quick kill more than a third of them without having to be very slow at some of the others.

 

A similar set of attacks applied to your heroes can judge their defensive strengths.

[SCUBA Hero]

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

 

Good thoughts, tesuji!

[tesuji]

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

 

 

 

If your character only has 8 END left after those 2 attacks, his options will be very limited.

more limited than if i have the end but still have a healthy enemy?

 

i think its obvious that, if i have better things to do than beat down this bad guy, i wont be wasting my time beating on him with either single shots or MPAs.

 

if i dont have better things to do than beat this bad guy, until he goes down the only option i need worry about is putting him down quickly. MPAs get that done quicker than normal swings.

 

Trying to dodge "big wammy" attacks like this is a no brainer.

unless i attack when he cannot dodge. if he holds so he can always dodge, and i think the MPA is a worse choice, then i use the single punch after i start to worry about end cost.

 

Which means you may be burning lots of your END to miss.

no more than if he dodged three times vs three attacks on three different phases.

 

if my enemy wants to dodge my strikes, all i can do is either swing away or to find an area attack or to hold until he cannot dodge. Thats true for MPAs and for single attacks.

 

Spreading attacks (and thus END) over several phases allows your character to have options. Once the END is gone, those options are limited.

thats true whether that point comes after six phases or two. MPAs burn the same amount of end for the same amount of potential damage... just taking less time to waste doing so.

 

You can think my logic is faulty, that's up to you. I just won't be surprised if you notice your character running short of END in pretty short order throwing this MPA around.

and i wont be surprised if my enemies fall much quicker either.

[TheEmerged]

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

 

(thread hijack)

So, you don't allow linked powers in an EC then either?

 

Nope, and I'd argue the rules disallow it as well. If you can't MPA multiple slots in an EC (and you can't per FREd pg 204, insert "without GM permission" boilerplate here), you certainly can't use them together just because one of them can't be used without the other.

 

And I don't really follow why that's such a bad thing, if an EC allows for 30AP powers and you want one power with multiple effects, or two different powers that act as one?

 

I'm not sure why you see it as a problem to have several smaller powers in one slot if they fit the SFX and gameplay, but you'd allow it outside an EC?

 

While not as abusive as that "knuckle" power earlier, consider this build.

 

EC 30

30pts 12d6 EB

30pts 12d6 Sight Flash

30pts 6d6 NND

 

For the cost of 2 full-cost powers you will be able to hit with three. Again, not as abusive as *some* builds but still not something I'm going to allow.

 

As for the combined slots? Each of the frameworks give you something at the expense of something else. VPP's give you extreme flexibility at the cost of not being able to limit the pool cost itself. MP's give you a fair amount of flexibility at the expensive of the slot costs and the fact that it's really just one power.

 

To me, the EC has two seperate balances for what is in reality the only truly cost-saving framework. The first is that they can all be negatively adjusted as a single power. The second is that in order to save more, you have to spend more -- and that means you aren't saving on the "cheaper" powers. It's the second one that leads to my opinion about combined slots.

 

See, in order to save 30 points off of a series of 60-active powers, you lose the ability to save on the powers that are cheaper than that. IN MY OPINION, allowing combined slots bypasses this balance factor.

 

RE: "Extra END Cost". I guess this one depends on your campaign. I see too many END Reserves to give this matter much weight.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Hmmmm' date=' two 4d6 RKAs MPA'd are less powerful than a single 8d6 RKA, but more powerful than having to use two Phases for two separate 4d6 RKA's. . . possibly some rule of thumb could be used to account for that on AP cap points, but I'm not sure I can come up with one better than 'GM scrutiny'. Anyone else have ideas?[/quote']

 

Well, Autofire allows you to fire more than one attack, albeit with a reduced chance for each shot after the first to hit. Maybe try applying the Autofire advantage appropriate to the number of different attacks to determine DC.

 

So for Punch + Flash + NND, in a 60 AP max, cap them at 48 AP each (or say 45 AP each). You'll still need to make some judgement calls when the character will use, say, one larger attack and one or two smaller attacks (eg. a 10d6 punch + 2d6 Flash + 1d6 NND).

[sbarron]

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

 

thats true whether that point comes after six phases or two. MPAs burn the same amount of end for the same amount of potential damage... just taking less time to waste doing so.

 

Assuming 40 END, your character can MPA twice and punch once (at 60 STR) before he is out of END. 3 attacks and your character is burned out. Somehow though, END usage is not something to consider?

 

I can't believe you are trying to argue this.

[Gary]

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

 

(smacks forehead)

 

Oh, the reason I count the AP levels separately in an MPA attack is that each attack is applied vs. the target's defenses separately.

 

You have to make adjustments for nonstandard attacks. 3 4d6 NND attacks are precisely as powerful as 1 12d6 NND attack except for the con stun probabilities. Average net stun is exactly the same, except that the first will be within your damage caps, and the second won't. The same problem applies to some extent with stuff like ego blasts, drains, avlds, etc.

 

 

Hmmmm, two 4d6 RKAs MPA'd are less powerful than a single 8d6 RKA, but more powerful than having to use two Phases for two separate 4d6 RKA's. . . possibly some rule of thumb could be used to account for that on AP cap points, but I'm not sure I can come up with one better than 'GM scrutiny'. Anyone else have ideas?

 

Average total net stun through defenses is a good rule of thumb, but then you get icky stuff like flashes, entangles, darknesses, etc linked to the damage attack. What you might want to do is to run a few sample combats before allowing the character, and then reserving the right to ask for changes in the character if his abilities prove to be too unbalancing.

[Gary]

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

 

Assuming 40 END, your character can MPA twice and punch once (at 60 STR) before he is out of END. 3 attacks and your character is burned out. Somehow though, END usage is not something to consider?

 

I can't believe you are trying to argue this.

 

Let's keep things simple. Assume it takes me 3 attacks to take out the enemy, and I have enough End for 8 attacks. Further, assume that I have a 50/50 chance of hitting.

 

Person 1 attacks 1 attack per phase. It takes him 6 phases on average to take out the opponent, and he spent 6 attacks worth of End, leaving him with 2 attacks remaining.

 

Person 2 multiple attacks 3 times per phase. It takes him only 2 phases on average to take out his opponent, and he spends 6 attacks worth of End, leaving him with 2 attacks remaining. But he takes out his opponent 4 phases sooner.

 

Which person is better off?

 

What you're arguing is somewhat like arguing that a 18d6 NND isn't much better than a 6d6 NND because you're spending 3 times as much End. That's not a logical position to take, since you're also taking out your opponent 3 times as quickly.

[Farkling]

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

 

TheEmerged

Apples to Oranges

 

Is he asking about treating his EC as a Multipower to MPA?

Or is he asking about whether you would allow slot 4 ??

 

EC 30

30pts 12d6 EB

30pts 12d6 Sight Flash

30pts 6d6 NND

27pts (approx) 2d6 NND + 4d6 Sight Flash + 6d6 EB

[tesuji]

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

 

Assuming 40 END, your character can MPA twice and punch once (at 60 STR) before he is out of END. 3 attacks and your character is burned out. Somehow though, END usage is not something to consider?

 

I can't believe you are trying to argue this.

 

I really dont get this.

 

doing damage three times quicker but using three times the end to do so doesn't leave me any worse off when he goes down. We just reach that state sooner.

 

unless you are arguing that you will stop trying to take this guy down after four shots because you would rather have an active unattacked bad guy than be low on end, the only difference is you get to the same place much later than i do.

 

Now, if we want to get more into specifics, with the stinky example, i would likely make the first swing i could the full three MPA, but as soon as he gets blinded, i stop using the flash since it no longer works and just use the stinky punch and spores to get double damage thru defenses. but if the flash were another form of cumulative damage, i would se all three until he drops.

 

but, no, end would not enter into it. if the most importantthing i needed to do was to drop this badguy, i would MPA to drop him faster, and if that ends me at low or even no end, thats fine, because we would reach that point anyway. its not like its a choice as to how much end it will take me to drop him. We are only talking rate.

[sbarron]

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

 

What you're arguing is somewhat like arguing that a 18d6 NND isn't much better than a 6d6 NND because you're spending 3 times as much End. That's not a logical position to take' date=' since you're also taking out your opponent 3 times as quickly.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying MPA aren't more powerful than regular attacks. I'm not saying that MPA aren't as good as regular powers. I am saying that because they burn so much END, they can be problematic for those who use them. That's my point. The whole thing.

 

Most characters will try to dodge a 18d6 NND attack. Maybe not 6d6 NND. If the 18d6 NND misses, the attacker just burned half of his END to do no STUN. If you can only do the MPA a couple of times before you are out of END, you probably won't just throw it around willy-nilly. You'll run out of END, and then you'll likely lose.

 

In the 6d6 NND example, the opponent is much less likely to feel the need to dodge any one of the attacks. So on an END per STUN done ratio, the 6d6 NND "nickle and dime" is much less risky for the attacker. Also, because it takes more phases, the character has time to adjust his tactics depending on the situation. He still has END to burn. Not so for the 18d6 NND attack. It's all or nothing. And the opponent will probably be dodging...

[Fenixcrest]

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

 

The only problem with the MPA in the debate above is that if you miss the roll, all three attacks miss, and you're down X Endurance. However, if you make the three attacks seperately, then, yes, it will take longer, but you'll also stand a better chance of hitting the enemy. I guess it depends on the priorities of the battle and the dexterity of the target.

[SCUBA Hero]

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

 

You have to make adjustments for nonstandard attacks. 3 4d6 NND attacks are precisely as powerful as 1 12d6 NND attack except for the con stun probabilities. Average net stun is exactly the same,

 

(snip)

 

Average total net stun through defenses is a good rule of thumb, but then you get icky stuff like flashes, entangles, darknesses, etc linked to the damage attack

On the NND attacks: 3 4d6 NND attacks are precisely as powerful as 1 12d6 NND attack IF the target has the defense for all or none of them - otherwise they are very different.

 

I agree that adjustments need to be made for nonstandard attackes.

 

I agree that average total net stun (or effect) through defenses is a good rule of thumb.

[tesuji]

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

 

The only problem with the MPA in the debate above is that if you miss the roll' date=' all three attacks miss, and you're down X Endurance. However, if you make the three attacks seperately, then, yes, it will take longer, but you'll also stand a better chance of hitting the enemy. I guess it depends on the priorities of the battle and the dexterity of the target.[/quote']

 

there is no reason to expect three attacks hiting X% of the time for Y damage the damage will do more damage over a period of time than a single attack doing three times that damage with the same to hit chance.

 

"hitting the enemy more often" (as in throwing six attacks hits and hitting three for 45 damage thru defenses vs hitting once in two swings for 45 damage thru defenses) doesn't get you anywhere.

 

Now, if for some reason, there are tactical issues that affect the problem...

 

if, somehow, its good to dodge one MPA as opposed to dodging three normal attacks (which sbarron seems to accept as unassailable axiom for this discussion, go figure) then the odds will favor the single attack. (in my games, the guys who favor dodge as their defense tend to favor it against full strength attacks and not just against really powerful attacks, so i dont know as i have seen much of an increase in dodge vs MPAs specifically as perhaps sbarron has. I, for one, would definitely weigh the "more likely to dodge you" penalty for MPAs sbarron wants to assume against the "enemy gets three times as many actions to do BAD THINGS" you will get if you do not MPA.)

 

In cases where factors instead favor the "fewer hits for more damage" such as enemies with damage shields, the odds will favor the MPA more.

 

But, lets add in the one thing which i think both sbarron and i might agree on... in cases where dropping the enemy three times as fast so he doesn't get three times the amount of actions to DO BAD THINGS matters, MPAs that deliver three times the damage per attack will see some benefit.

[Gary]

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

 

I'm not saying MPA aren't more powerful than regular attacks. I'm not saying that MPA aren't as good as regular powers. I am saying that because they burn so much END, they can be problematic for those who use them. That's my point. The whole thing.

 

Most characters will try to dodge a 18d6 NND attack. Maybe not 6d6 NND. If the 18d6 NND misses, the attacker just burned half of his END to do no STUN. If you can only do the MPA a couple of times before you are out of END, you probably won't just throw it around willy-nilly. You'll run out of END, and then you'll likely lose.

 

In the 6d6 NND example, the opponent is much less likely to feel the need to dodge any one of the attacks. So on an END per STUN done ratio, the 6d6 NND "nickle and dime" is much less risky for the attacker. Also, because it takes more phases, the character has time to adjust his tactics depending on the situation. He still has END to burn. Not so for the 18d6 NND attack. It's all or nothing. And the opponent will probably be dodging...

 

If the other guy does a lot of dodging, you can just dial down the NND to 6d6 and you're no worse off than before. And of course the other guy can dodge the 6d6 NNDs just as easily as the single big attack.

 

If the opponent isn't dodging your 6d6 attacks, he's probably firing back at you. You're probably just as much at risk of being KO'd as your target. Also, dodging still implies an element of risk for your opponent. Forcing him to dodge with the MPA means a number of phases where you're completely safe and your target is at risk.

 

There's a reason that a 18d6 NND is 3 times as expensive as a 6d6 NND.

[Gary]

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

 

The only problem with the MPA in the debate above is that if you miss the roll' date=' all three attacks miss, and you're down X Endurance. However, if you make the three attacks seperately, then, yes, it will take longer, but you'll also stand a better chance of hitting the enemy. I guess it depends on the priorities of the battle and the dexterity of the target.[/quote']

 

You'll average the exact same number of hits with a 3 attack MPA and 3 separate attacks. It's just that there is a lot more variability with the first attack sequence compared to the second.

[Magmarock]

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

 

Pretty much, but said inveterate powergamer wants to move exclusively to 5th, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

 

And GM's permission is only a limiting factor when the players accept it as such. Since nearly everyone in the group GMs, they figure they can get away with whatever. I almost posted a rant on PC Scrutiny and Acceptance about it.

 

In our current campaign, all four Players are GMs (we trade off) and we agreed that a PC has to be accepted by everyone or it doesn't get played. We recently added a new Player and, lucky him, his PC is going through the scrutiny right now. Soon, we'll be handing copies of our PCs to him out of fairness...

 

 

Mags

[Christougher]

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

 

Sounds like your group needs to hash out a few things before you all make the transition to 5th edition HERO. To make things fair and fun for everybody in any group' date=' everyone needs to be on the same page so far as rules go. Me, I'd just say "No" and shelter behind the fact my own character is straight book-legal. It's only the flaky builds that are going to be powergamed anyway.[/quote']

 

We are hashing out what we want/don't, but slowly.

 

As for "only the flaky builds", they're *ALL* flaky builds, and they like it that way.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Nope, and I'd argue the rules disallow it as well. If you can't MPA multiple slots in an EC (and you can't per FREd pg 204, insert "without GM permission" boilerplate here), you certainly can't use them together just because one of them can't be used without the other.

 

 

 

While not as abusive as that "knuckle" power earlier, consider this build.

 

EC 30

30pts 12d6 EB

30pts 12d6 Sight Flash

30pts 6d6 NND

 

For the cost of 2 full-cost powers you will be able to hit with three. Again, not as abusive as *some* builds but still not something I'm going to allow.

 

As for the combined slots? Each of the frameworks give you something at the expense of something else. VPP's give you extreme flexibility at the cost of not being able to limit the pool cost itself. MP's give you a fair amount of flexibility at the expensive of the slot costs and the fact that it's really just one power.

 

To me, the EC has two seperate balances for what is in reality the only truly cost-saving framework. The first is that they can all be negatively adjusted as a single power. The second is that in order to save more, you have to spend more -- and that means you aren't saving on the "cheaper" powers. It's the second one that leads to my opinion about combined slots.

 

See, in order to save 30 points off of a series of 60-active powers, you lose the ability to save on the powers that are cheaper than that. IN MY OPINION, allowing combined slots bypasses this balance factor.

 

RE: "Extra END Cost". I guess this one depends on your campaign. I see too many END Reserves to give this matter much weight.

 

So Linked powers can never occur in an EC, and they are legal per the rules (it's UnLinked powers in an EC that requires GM caveat)?

 

Interesting.

 

Each slot of an EC must meet the minimum requirement in Active Points in order to be legal. It does not mean that Each Power must equal the minimum slot requirement, but each Slot itself. If you have a 60AP EC with a slot that has linked powers they must together equal 60AP.

 

You're very limiting in your fear of "muchkinism" ... Since you're not really making "extra savings" or "bypassing" any actual rule - you're simply building a multiple effect power (say, a light ray that does damage and flashes = EB + Flash Sight) inside an EC. If you don't go over your AP Slot Minimum then you are simply reducing the individual effectives of each seperate power in order to combine them inside an EC. Instead of a 12D6 EB and a 12D6 Flash Sight you have a 6D6EB + 6D6 Flash Sight together. I'm not sure I see your issue over that....

 

but it's your game and your rules. have fun.

[palehorse]

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

 

In our current campaign, all four Players are GMs (we trade off) and we agreed that a PC has to be accepted by everyone or it doesn't get played. We recently added a new Player and, lucky him, his PC is going through the scrutiny right now. Soon, we'll be handing copies of our PCs to him out of fairness...

 

 

Mags

 

Now that's an interesting way to do it; I've never tried peer reviewing character sheets. Of course, I always end up with one player saying, "But I have a Deep Dark Secret I don't want them all to know about, and it's written right there on my sheet!"

 

Next time one of them pulls that, I'll just whip out a black marker and redact it on the spot. "You know what it says, I know what it says, now let 'em look at the farking character sheet, ya big weenie."

[Kristopher]

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

 

And if you can't use two powers in the same EC to execute an MPA, then there's another EC drawback that makes the new limitations on ECs in FREd seem even more needlessly punative than they were before.