How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

[Agent X]

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

 

Geez, Louise. Instead of having hard and fast house rules to prevent someone from building a rediculous attack and thereby eliminating oodles of unobjectionable constructs, why don't you guys who are really worried about what someone might do with multi-power atttacks or combination powers in ECs just look at the design of the character on its own merits?

[Farkling]

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

 

no no no Agent X that will never work now that Gary is involved in the conversation. If it was put in the book and specifically stated that GM's make judgements on a case by case basis......it is a broken rule and shouldn;t have been included by the game designers. They should have fixed it.

 

Gary will not be happy until the EC frameworks are removed, since they reward tight designs with free points. He wants to hand out the extra points instead of the framework....

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

It comes up every month or two...like clockwork, and the debate continues over the EC's.

[Magmarock]

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

 

no no no Agent X that will never work now that Gary is involved in the conversation. If it was put in the book and specifically stated that GM's make judgements on a case by case basis......it is a broken rule and shouldn;t have been included by the game designers. They should have fixed it.

 

Gary will not be happy until the EC frameworks are removed, since they reward tight designs with free points. He wants to hand out the extra points instead of the framework....

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

It comes up every month or two...like clockwork, and the debate continues over the EC's.

 

Not only that, but it is perfectly legal for the GM to dis-allow any framework that doesn't fit the bill. Frameworks are not a right, they are a privilige... designed to reward the Player for a good concept. Somehow, Players always forget this.

 

I wonder why that is?

 

But really, the Player should always ask their GM if they can have the framework first, explain the PC's concept, and get the "ok" before they work up the PC. The last PC I built used a pretty large VPP and I asked my group (all GMs, we trade off) if anyone had a problem with it first. Turns out they didn't, but the PC was too unwieldly for me to play.

 

 

But to get back on subject: our group hasn't exactly got into the swing of using MPAs. However, they aren't out of the question. Maybe it's because we are used to the single attack, maybe it's because we are used to the linked attacks, or using autofire, etc. Maybe no one has thought of using it just yet. LOL! Eh, anyway, when someone does decide to do this, I am sure we will all break out FReD and have a quick review of the rules.

 

 

Mags

[Trebuchet]

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

 

Geez' date=' Louise. Instead of having hard and fast house rules to prevent someone from building a rediculous attack and thereby eliminating oodles of unobjectionable constructs, why don't you guys who are really worried about what someone might do with multi-power atttacks or combination powers in ECs just look at the design of the character [b']on its own merits?[/b]

My thoughts exactly. I can see the potential for abuse, but that's true of almost any aspect of character design. All characters have to be examined by the GM. MPA is not the exception but the rule.

 

The only thing I probably wouldn't permit in a MPA is two identical attacks; I think the Powers used should be different on general principles. But I'd at least listen to a player's case before I automatically dismiss the idea.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

But to get back on subject: our group hasn't exactly got into the swing of using MPAs. However' date=' they aren't out of the question. Maybe it's because we are used to the single attack, maybe it's because we are used to the linked attacks, or using autofire, etc. Maybe no one has thought of using it just yet. LOL! Eh, anyway, when someone does decide to do this, I am sure we will all break out FReD and have a quick review of the rules. [/quote']

 

Farkling will, I trust, agree that this also seems a common theme in Gary's "broken rule" discussions. Despite the fact it is crystal clear this rule is hugely broken and anyone using it immediately becomes the most powerful character in the game, no one posting ever has a single anecdote about the rule being abused in practice. It is only in theory that a problem exists..

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

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.

 

That variability is part of the END problem. If I hit, the battle is over - I've taken my opponent down. [A bit of a stretch, but let's assume three hits will put my opponent down.] If I miss, I've used up all my END on that one shot, so I'm out of the fight. Winning or losing the battle all depends on that one roll.

 

Now, it's a roll I make at the start of the battle, when I'm probably unfamiliar with my opponent's abilities. "Ha ha - he had Invisible Desolidification", or "Surprise - he has DCV 20!" means I'm out of the fight. So does a single unlucky roll. Of course, if it goes well, my opponent is out of the fight.

 

Maybe this is a recurring opponent with whom I am familiar, so I have a prety good idea of my odds to hit. That means my opponent should also know something about me. He'll likely use every trick he has to reduce my chances of hitting and leave me exhausted. This assumes, however, that he knows this trick will leave me exhausted AND that there is some visible cue I'm about to use that huge attack, rather than a more conservative strategy.

 

Of course, the villains gain a slight advantage here - the longer my character has been around, the more of his fights have been broadcast by the media, so the better known his tactics are. If I always start off with the Mega Multi Blast, then puff and pant to regain by breath, after a while, everyone who doesn't live in a cave or outer space knows it.

 

There's a lot of discusson on how MegaBlaster has more time to do Bad Things. True - but if his focus is on taking my character down, and I just make it impossible for him to hit, is he doing a lot of Bad Things? Meanwhile, I'm using defensive powers that, in general, cost less END than my attacks, or even just using combat maneuvers and skill levels, preserving all or virtually all my END for when MegaBlaster is too tired to fire back.

 

Let's talk about the guy with an 18d6 NND attack. What do your players do against such an opponent? I'll tell you what mine would likely do. Delay. Whoever he fires on will use his delayed phase to avoid the attack (go desolid, dive for cover, max out DCV, whatever they can). Then the rest of the team will fire on NND Man. Odds are good he's down. If not, then next shot he takes will either get Aborted against or we'll be back to delays. In either case, we'll let him attack BEFORE announcing this defensive action, so he has to choose between full power and large spreading before knowing if I will dodge, or go desolid.

 

Now, I see two possibilities for this guy, who paid 180 points for his attack power (just like the guy with three 60 point attacks that he MPA's). One is that he only has 170 points left for characteristics, defenses, skills, OCV, DCV, etc. so he's basically a one trick pony. He won't last in a standup fight so, at worst, the battle proceeds with one PC down from that massive attack, and NND Guy in GM's Option Land.

 

Or he's a MegaVillain, and he's fighting alone. At that point, the delay/abort tactics come into play.

[TheEmerged]

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

 

RE: Fear of Munchkinism. I'm not afraid of it; I'm aware that it exists and I choose to err on the side of disallowing.

 

And I agree that GM's should be looking over every writeup with a fine tooth comb. Trick is that having stated rules like this saves me time, because the players know not to waste either of our times submitting something like a megascaled AE One Hex power (as an example of something I specifically disallowed in writing before the PC's submitted their characters).

[tesuji]

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

 

Despite the fact it is crystal clear this rule is hugely broken and anyone using it immediately becomes the most powerful character in the game' date=' no one posting ever has a single anecdote about the rule being abused in practice. It is only in theory that a problem exists..[/quote']

 

Thats why i asked about the criteria people use for balancing this aspect...

 

it seems like, for your games we can assume, their is a decision being made to weed out the "hugely broken" cases with 100% accuracy. Thats GREAT! Maybe that filter is being applied by PCs before they send them to you or by you as GM.

 

Either way, can you tell us what that filter you use is? What separates the "hugely broken" cases from the 100% "never been a problem in play" cases?

[tesuji]

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

 

That variability is part of the END problem. If I hit' date=' the battle is over - I've taken my opponent down. [A bit of a stretch, but let's assume three hits will put my opponent down.'] If I miss, I've used up all my END on that one shot, so I'm out of the fight. Winning or losing the battle all depends on that one roll.

 

I think you have hit it dead on.

 

characters with only 18 end should not be trying all-or-nothing 18 end costing powers.

 

of course, that same character will reach the same place if he uses 6 end attacks one per phase for three phases.

 

the difference is, by the time he runs out of end, his enemy has gotten three actions.

 

if the three attacks over time did anything other than an accounting attack on the player, this would be different. if they were con-stunning the enemy and costing him actions, thats different. heck, if your single shot is con-stunning with regularity, i would say use it first, then maybe MPA the stunned guy.

 

Now, i don't know about your characters, but it is rather uncommon in my experience for a hero to be unable to make normal level attacks and not last thru about 2 turns of combat, between 8-12 attacks in a row in combat situations.

 

if we take that same model and apply it to triple-threat MPAs, he drops to running out of endurance after 3-4 attacks.

 

if the enemy dodges against both the triple-threat guy and the single-shot guy, they both run out of end after the same "threat" has been applied to the enemy. It just took longer for the latter.

 

if the enemy does not dodge against either, they both do the same damage to the enemy, just the former does it faster.

 

if the enemy dodges against the triple-threat and not against the single shot, the triple threat guy gets low on end rather quickly, say after 3-4 attacks, but the badguy has lost those 3-4 actions while the one shot guy is still swinging around waiting to stop the bad guy. Its going to be highly circumstantial as to whether "my hero is limited in options after 3-4 ropunds" is worse than, better than, or about the same as "the bad guy has taken 3-4 offensive actiuons and i still have more phases to try and take him down."

 

into the humorous side...

 

i really gotta say... if bigger attacks are such a problem... everybody dodges them unerringly, you run out of end too quick and get hosed, and so on and so on and so on... i have two questions...

 

1. why does it seem so often that the good designs go for the bigger powers? Why do we see a lot of 12d6 attacks in a 12dc limit instead of some smart guy going with a 3d6 attack waiting for everyone else to run dry on stun?

 

2. Why do these more powerful attacks cost so much if they are just

self-defeating wastes of end? I mean, i bet many players, if i offered them an extra "at no point cost" 12d6 nnd for free on top of their 6d6 nnd would never have realized it was just a trap and that using the extra 12d6 nnds would simply be their downfall!

[Agent X]

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

 

RE: Fear of Munchkinism. I'm not afraid of it; I'm aware that it exists and I choose to err on the side of disallowing.

 

And I agree that GM's should be looking over every writeup with a fine tooth comb. Trick is that having stated rules like this saves me time, because the players know not to waste either of our times submitting something like a megascaled AE One Hex power (as an example of something I specifically disallowed in writing before the PC's submitted their characters).

Stated rules like this can also frustrate some inventive designs for characters that don't look same old, same old. The most effective characters I have ever built for combat have been very basic. The complicated characters that require thinking out of the box are discouraged by oodles of house rules to save time. It's a game and looking over a (cool) character is fun so it's really not about saving time for me.

[Agent X]

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

 

I think you have hit it dead on.

 

characters with only 18 end should not be trying all-or-nothing 18 end costing powers.

 

of course, that same character will reach the same place if he uses 6 end attacks one per phase for three phases.

 

the difference is, by the time he runs out of end, his enemy has gotten three actions.

 

if the three attacks over time did anything other than an accounting attack on the player, this would be different. if they were con-stunning the enemy and costing him actions, thats different. heck, if your single shot is con-stunning with regularity, i would say use it first, then maybe MPA the stunned guy.

 

Now, i don't know about your characters, but it is rather uncommon in my experience for a hero to be unable to make normal level attacks and not last thru about 2 turns of combat, between 8-12 attacks in a row in combat situations.

 

if we take that same model and apply it to triple-threat MPAs, he drops to running out of endurance after 3-4 attacks.

 

if the enemy dodges against both the triple-threat guy and the single-shot guy, they both run out of end after the same "threat" has been applied to the enemy. It just took longer for the latter.

 

if the enemy does not dodge against either, they both do the same damage to the enemy, just the former does it faster.

 

if the enemy dodges against the triple-threat and not against the single shot, the triple threat guy gets low on end rather quickly, say after 3-4 attacks, but the badguy has lost those 3-4 actions while the one shot guy is still swinging around waiting to stop the bad guy. Its going to be highly circumstantial as to whether "my hero is limited in options after 3-4 ropunds" is worse than, better than, or about the same as "the bad guy has taken 3-4 offensive actiuons and i still have more phases to try and take him down."

 

into the humorous side...

 

i really gotta say... if bigger attacks are such a problem... everybody dodges them unerringly, you run out of end too quick and get hosed, and so on and so on and so on... i have two questions...

 

1. why does it seem so often that the good designs go for the bigger powers? Why do we see a lot of 12d6 attacks in a 12dc limit instead of some smart guy going with a 3d6 attack waiting for everyone else to run dry on stun?

 

2. Why do these more powerful attacks cost so much if they are just

self-defeating wastes of end? I mean, i bet many players, if i offered them an extra "at no point cost" 12d6 nnd for free on top of their 6d6 nnd would never have realized it was just a trap and that using the extra 12d6 nnds would simply be their downfall!

Let's remember that the guy who is throwing 3 attacks at once spent 3 times the points to be able to do that whereas 1 attack guy has saved quite a few points for anything else they want to do.

[sbarron]

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

 

Now, i don't know about your characters, but it is rather uncommon in my experience for a hero to be unable to make normal level attacks and not last thru about 2 turns of combat, between 8-12 attacks in a row in combat situations.

 

if we take that same model and apply it to triple-threat MPAs, he drops to running out of endurance after 3-4 attacks.

In my games it would be uncommon for PCs to have 64 END (4 "stink punches" worth). 46 is usually as high as they go (23 Con). If you have the END, then by all means, throw your MPA. It could easily end the fight.

 

if the enemy does not dodge against either' date=' they both do the same damage to the enemy, just the former does it faster.[/quote'] The sheer power of the MPA almost neccesitates that the bad guy dodge. As we have established, a hit with it ends the fight. So he has to try and dodge that attack. And if he does dodge, there is a good chance the attacker will miss.

 

if the enemy dodges against the triple-threat and not against the single shot' date=' the triple threat guy gets low on end rather quickly, say after 3-4 attacks, but the badguy has lost those 3-4 actions while the one shot guy is still swinging around waiting to stop the bad guy. Its going to be highly circumstantial as to whether "my hero is limited in options after 3-4 ropunds" is worse than, better than, or about the same as "the bad guy has taken 3-4 offensive actiuons and i still have more phases to try and take him down." [/quote'] OK sure. I'll agree. My point all along has been that using up lots of END quickly could be problematic. It will be in team fights for sure. Maybe, maybe not against a single opponent. As you said, it depends. I never said MPAs were bad because they use lots of END quickly. I said END could act as a limiting factor. I still think that.

 

1. why does it seem so often that the good designs go for the bigger powers? Why do we see a lot of 12d6 attacks in a 12dc limit instead of some smart guy going with a 3d6 attack waiting for everyone else to run dry on stun?

Because as you said, most characters could fire several (8-12) 12d6 attacks without running out of END. 6 END per shot vs. 18 END per shot is a big difference. Plus, the 12d6 shooter will get some post-segment 12 REC mixed in there, too. MPA guy won't, unless his speed is really low.

 

Tesuji. If your character has the END to spend, or you think that firing off big attacks in the first two phases is the way to go, then do it. I'm not telling you you shouldn't. Heck, the only reason I've kept at this discussion so long is because both you and Gary told me my position was "illogical." Obviously, I don't think it is. Do what you want. For all I care, you can take your stink punch and throw it.

 

3, maybe 4 times

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Either way' date=' can you tell us what that filter you use is? What separates the "hugely broken" cases from the 100% "never been a problem in play" cases?[/quote']

 

I await anyone with an example of this "hugely broken" rule actually breaking a real game, as opposed to theorectically being capable of doing so. I haven't changed my approach to character building or character review based on the MPA rules. I have capped my own VPP character at 12 DC (despite a 90 point pool) which I interpret to mean 12 DC in aggregate, even with MPA's.

[zornwil]

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

 

This is a great conversation! Our group hasn't really adapted to MPAs yet. I'm suspicious of them, though I admit less suspicious upon reading through this.

 

AgentX raised a great point and I essentially agree that one has to look at characters case-by-case and decide based on actual configuration, not per arbitrary rules. However, I would say that all rules are guidelines and my house rules, despite being "rules", are no different. I create house rules to "institutionalize" my prejudices and biases but by no means does that mean I won't look through any character construct that breaks my or the orthodox rules (i.e., they are not truly institutionalized, and hence the quotes). I certainly will. As my players can readily attest, I'm not rules-bound in this regard.

 

So that being said, MPAs do concern me in their potential for not just abuse but ramping up powers and flexibility unduly (i.e., balance), even if, I restate, less so upon reading through this. After I read the MPA section a couple times, I came up with the following for my house rules to reflect my concerns and bias:

 

The inclusion of Multiple Power Attacks (MPAs) in 5th edition is a major change to combat. The rationale is not entirely wrong' date=' and in fact is even genre-correct in many instances (e.g., Iceman might fire an energy blast that also entangles, but also may fire those separately thus they are not linked); thus I am inclined to find ways to accommodate it. I feel that it is an exception in the genre rather than the rule and thus am adding disincentives that correlate with this which also reflect the increase in flexibility and power it represents. Powers that a player desires to include in any MPAs require at least a +1/2 advantage. Every power with a +1/2 advantage may be combined if and only if it is intrinsically related to the other powers with the same advantage. Typically this would apply to powers in ECs, and sometimes VPPs and MPs. The notion of "intrinsically related" means that the SFX are either identical or symptomatic of the same source of power. Normally this would mean that adjustment powers would affect all of these equally. Powers which are not intrinsically but are reasonably related may be added together with a +1 advantage. An example of this might be magical powers which stem from different foci but for which the caster is drawing on the same elemental energy. Please note the text does note many other requirements/limitations.[/quote']

 

You will note in fact I am sort of the opposite of many of you - I think that MPAs generally should be of the same "element", and my reasoning is that I feel that in the superhero genre (btw, my house rules are specific to that and my particular game thereof) MPAs are normally associated. I think that non-related MPAs are much rarer in superhero (as opposed to martial arts or such) thus my disincentive.

 

But, yeah, really, it just depends on the character at the end of the day.

[tesuji]

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

 

 

 

Because as you said, most characters could fire several (8-12) 12d6 attacks without running out of END. 6 END per shot vs. 18 END per shot is a big difference. Plus, the 12d6 shooter will get some post-segment 12 REC mixed in there, too. MPA guy won't, unless his speed is really low.

and there we have again the logic flaw...

 

every post-12 you get for end, he gets for stun. if i knock him out before segment 12, because i dropped him quicker... i get the end recovery and he may not (depending on how far under on stun he is) get a meaningful recovery.

 

taking longer to drop the bad guy is not a good thing.

 

Tesuji. If your character has the END to spend, or you think that firing off big attacks in the first two phases is the way to go, then do it. I'm not telling you you shouldn't. Heck, the only reason I've kept at this discussion so long is because both you and Gary told me my position was "illogical." Obviously, I don't think it is. Do what you want. For all I care, you can take your stink punch and throw it.

 

3, maybe 4 times

 

thanks, i was waiting for your permission, after all.

[tesuji]

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

 

I have capped my own VPP character at 12 DC (despite a 90 point pool) which I interpret to mean 12 DC in aggregate' date=' even with MPA's.[/quote']

 

ah hah!

 

So we now have two different models of MPA approval.

 

One used by... i dont recall... was that each individual attacks was under the cap, but no restriction on the overall combo other than it seemed aesthetics. So, if 12 Dc was permitted as max for a single attack, three separate 12 dcs in an MPA was OK. (I will nickname this the "MPA maneuver" since bonuses from "maneuvers" are frequently not included in DC analysis.)

 

Yours seems to say, if i read you right, that if 12 dc is ok for a single attack, then an MPA has to fit within that "aggregate", ie taken all together, so three separate 12 dc attacks in an MPA would be out but two 6dcs or an 8dc and a 4dc would be fine. (I will call this the "MPA is a power" since powers are typically always looked at for balance.)

 

those two seem to cover the extremes quite solidly.

 

i wonder if anyone has a approval method that lies between these two they are willing to share?

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

1. why does it seem so often that the good designs go for the bigger powers? Why do we see a lot of 12d6 attacks in a 12dc limit instead of some smart guy going with a 3d6 attack waiting for everyone else to run dry on stun?

 

2. Why do these more powerful attacks cost so much if they are just self-defeating wastes of end? I mean, i bet many players, if i offered them an extra "at no point cost" 12d6 nnd for free on top of their 6d6 nnd would never have realized it was just a trap and that using the extra 12d6 nnds would simply be their downfall!

 

Agent X has covered most of your comments already, and I don't see a lot to add. No one is saying these cannot add power, but I also don't think you'll see them as a steady diet, which is where they become game breakers. Why? END is certainly part of it. But cost is a big factor as well.

 

With three 60 point attacks, you've spent 180 of your 350 points on attacks. How many characters do you have that spent over half their points on attack powers alone?

 

That leaves 170 for defenses, movement, characteristics, OCV, etc. With 180 points buried in pure offense, and still needing some DEX, Speed, levels, etc. plus defense and movement, this character is a one trick pony.

 

Why not a 3d6 atack rather than a 12d6 attack? There is a point of diminishing returns, obviously. However, a 15 point attack that's got some staying power and can accomplish something (let's make it a 1d6 Transform into a frog) instead of a 12d6 attack power would free up 45 points. What could I do with 45 points, on a character who is already competetive?

 

+4 SPD would sure mean I get my attack off a lot more often. And I can use the rest for +10 END so I can throw it a bit longer. Now I can dodge on your phases and attack on my extra ones.

 

+15/+15 Armor would give me more lasting power when I am hit, on a build for a character with campaign average defenses before this addition.

 

Hmmm...I could have +9 DCV. Then I can sell back a bunch of defenses and buy something else.

 

Or I can buy +12 DEX and add 8 CP to SPD, for +2 SPD as well. That would enhance both my odds of hitting and your odds of missing, while also giving me a reduced "more actions" advantage.

 

Unbeatable characters? No, I don't think so. As viable as Master Blaster's 18 END, 3 attack? Yes, I do think so. Hey, add another 120 points to the strategies above (Master Blaster spent them on his two extra attacks) and we get:

 

- a 12 speed with lots to spare for other abilities

- 45/45 Armor

- +27 DCV (!)

- +42 DEX with 5 bonus Speed (8 CP + DEX effect)

- +24/+24 Force Wall, +1 hex facing, 0 END Self Only No Range (91) and Indirect (+1/4), 0 END (+1), autofire (+1/4) on my 1d6 Transform (22 points), with 20+ points left over. I'll spend them on Rapid Fire skills and really mnake Gary mad!

 

Good luck slipping any of these past your GM, but I'd suggest most of these are way more potent than throwing three attacks at once. And they cost the same or less.

 

The overall point? I don't think Multi Power Atacks are any more open to abuse than any of numerous other constructs that carry a similar cost. Trying to have a micro rule for each and every possible abuse of an "infinite possibilities" toolbox is ultimately futile. You end up with a pool of characters woth more or less identical abilities, since no one may have anything unusual. Once you allow for substantial variance, you'll find every character has advantages in some cases, and drawbacks in others.

 

I don't have a hard and fast "xDC max" rule because then "xDC quickly becomes the minimum as well. And we get very efficient builds which note "I'm not over the xDC cap, so it must be OK". I eyeball character sheets and assess whether this is going to be excessive or underpowered. He's got more DC than I would normally allow? Well, he's only got one attack, and he's a bit weak in movement powers. It will balance out. He's got average DC's, but has every possible attack power? No, that level of versatility demands the DC's be lower than the average. Unless he's offset this srength with a weakness somewhere else.

[tesuji]

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

 

Let's remember that the guy who is throwing 3 attacks at once spent 3 times the points to be able to do that whereas 1 attack guy has saved quite a few points for anything else they want to do.

 

absolutely... which is why i was surprised to hear how bad they are! usually i figure paying two-three times the points doesn't earn you something thats just an endurance trap, destined to hang you out to dry in a few phases with little to show for it.

 

i am so confused. :-)

[Gary]

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

 

I await anyone with an example of this "hugely broken" rule actually breaking a real game' date=' as opposed to theorectically being capable of doing so. I haven't changed my approach to character building or character review based on the MPA rules. I have capped my own VPP character at 12 DC (despite a 90 point pool) which I interpret to mean 12 DC in aggregate, even with MPA's.[/quote']

 

Fourth edition Aid at 5 pts per 1d6. A character in an actual campaign used it along with the +2 advantage and delayed fade rate to add 30 active points to every physical characteristic. That's +30 Str, +10 Dex, +15 Con, +15 Body, +30 Pre, +15 PD, +15 ED, +3 Spd, +15 Rec, +60 End, and +30 Stun.

 

The character was supposedly a multiformer who merely added enough stats to what his current form was supposed to have. In practice, virtually every Stat was near the max for all forms.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Yours seems to say' date=' if i read you right, that if 12 dc is ok for a single attack, then an MPA has to fit within that "aggregate", ie taken all together, so three separate 12 dc attacks in an MPA would be out but two 6dcs or an 8dc and a 4dc would be fine. (I will call this the "MPA is a power" since powers are typically always looked at for balance.)[/quote']

 

That's not a rule I apply or advocate. It is the restriction I placed on my own character in another GM's game because he has great versatility, so I wanted to restrict him to no more than average damage.

 

Another character might well have 2 12DC attacks he can use as a multiple power attack, and not be unbalanced. It depends on the rest of the character. I don't think you can look at just one aspect of the character and say "balanced" or "unbalanced" until you scale the heights of absurdity.

 

Let's ask this one. Assume your campaign average damage is 10d6, and no one exceeds 12d6. Normal OCV is about 10, and typical DCV about 8. Max CV's are 13. Average Speed is about 5.25, with a max of 8. Which of these characters would you consider allowing:

 

(a) 70 STR Brick with no other attack powers, 7 OCV, 5 DCV, SPD 4

 

( 12d6 Martial Artist with 12 OCV, 13 DCV SPD 8

 

(a) breaches the campaign maximum. ( doesn't. Who will be more unbalancing?

[Gary]

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

 

Let's ask this one. Assume your campaign average damage is 10d6, and no one exceeds 12d6. Normal OCV is about 10, and typical DCV about 8. Max CV's are 13. Average Speed is about 5.25, with a max of 8. Which of these characters would you consider allowing:

 

(a) 70 STR Brick with no other attack powers, 7 OCV, 5 DCV, SPD 4

 

( 12d6 Martial Artist with 12 OCV, 13 DCV SPD 8

 

(a) breaches the campaign maximum. ( doesn't. Who will be more unbalancing?

 

Depends on what the Brick spent his extra points on.

[Mentor]

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

 

Geez' date=' Louise. Instead of having hard and fast house rules to prevent someone from building a rediculous attack and thereby eliminating oodles of unobjectionable constructs, why don't you guys who are really worried about what someone might do with multi-power atttacks or combination powers in ECs just look at the design of the character [b']on its own merits?[/b]

Ultimately that is the only fair approach. Don't automatically penalize imagination and originality.

 

As a GM, I am certainly capable of designing a villain team where some of the baddies have the defense to the hypothetical three 6D6 NND attacks which equal the 18D6 attack. Then the points and endurance spent on an unbalanced power design for the PC are completely wasted.

 

Too many of these point balance concerns assume some sort of arena battle a la Dragon Ball, and that VERY seldom occurs in our campaign.

 

Champions is not chess. I challenge any GM to be able to always predict the action, number of hits and dice of damage our team would be taking or dishing out in a twelve phase turn, especially with the challenges of things like protecting innocents, villains trying to escape with the swag and heroes saving the hostages getting in the way of straight up fighting.

 

Number crunch all you want, they will do more than the GM expexts.

[tesuji]

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

 

Ok to start off, there seems to perhaps be a miksunderstanding... I am not arguing "MPAs are broken" or anything like that.

 

I am interested in the question of, for those Gms who have experience, how you fit MPAs into the usual "Gm discretion campaign limits" sieve. Most Gms seem to apply some form of "this is too much" and "this is too little" filter to their PCs, often this involves some sort of attack comparison. The arhetypal one is a DC range.

 

So my main question is and was... how do you count MPAs?

 

so far it seems like we have two... one approves Ok if each power individually is within the Dc limit, and another uses the aggregate. We have a third, more loosely expressed, in measuring "stun thru after defenses" or even "rounds to Ko" vs a test case set of NPCs.

 

Still wondering if there are other methods.

 

 

But cost is a big factor as well.

Absolutely.

 

Again, i am not arguing, dont think i have argued, that MPAs are broken.

 

In terms of 5e design, the power of the MPA is impressive, but it comes at a large cost in terms of points due to the various framework restrictions. there seems to be a "get what you pay for" between "buy powers outside of framework at full price and MPA freely", "save some in Ecs at use allat once but not as MPA." and "save lots in multipower but not use at same time".

 

Mostly, i am asking about the "how do you decide" between Ok Mopas and the "hugely broken" ones you mention. You mention for instance having never seen an abusive one in play, but also allowing non-abusive ones. Thats 100% accuracy. I want to know how you achieve that!

 

Good luck slipping any of these past your GM, but I'd suggest most of these are way more potent than throwing three attacks at once. And they cost the same or less.

Would it be more beneficial to compare on both sides "things that would likely get "past your GM""? It would seem to me that if you yourself qualify your counter points as unlikely to see play, their comparitive value is limited against something you would feel would see play.

 

I am fighting against my better instinct to mention the significance of "way more potent" and "they cost the same or less" in a discussion about a game where characters are forced to meet total point lims and as point driuven as this one... but thats really the subject for another thread.

 

The overall point? I don't think Multi Power Atacks are any more open to abuse than any of numerous other constructs that carry a similar cost.

Cool. I hope you did not think i was saying they were underpriced or borken.

Trying to have a micro rule for each and every possible abuse of an "infinite possibilities" toolbox is ultimately futile. You end up with a pool of characters woth more or less identical abilities, since no one may have anything unusual. Once you allow for substantial variance, you'll find every character has advantages in some cases, and drawbacks in others.

Agreed. However, i do not think that having a "stateable" criterion for pass/fail on the Gm scrutiny test is going to necessitate identical characters.

 

You don't, i imagine, make up brand new criteria for each character?

I don't have a hard and fast "xDC max" rule because then "xDC quickly becomes the minimum as well. And we get very efficient builds which note "I'm not over the xDC cap, so it must be OK". I eyeball character sheets and assess whether this is going to be excessive or underpowered. He's got more DC than I would normally allow? Well, he's only got one attack, and he's a bit weak in movement powers. It will balance out. He's got average DC's, but has every possible attack power? No, that level of versatility demands the DC's be lower than the average. Unless he's offset this srength with a weakness somewhere else.

 

Ok, well, maybe you do make up new criteria for each character?

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Fourth edition Aid at 5 pts per 1d6. A character in an actual campaign used it along with the +2 advantage and delayed fade rate to add 30 active points to every physical characteristic. That's +30 Str, +10 Dex, +15 Con, +15 Body, +30 Pre, +15 PD, +15 ED, +3 Spd, +15 Rec, +60 End, and +30 Stun.

 

The character was supposedly a multiformer who merely added enough stats to what his current form was supposed to have. In practice, virtually every Stat was near the max for all forms.

 

This doesn't seem to be an example of the hugely broken MPA rule being a game breaker.

 

While I would agree this is an inappropriate effect, I would also suggest any GM who allows this, rather than require a multiformer use multiform, is probably getting what he deserves. This is a classic example of using a power construct inappropriate to the actual results - if you want +30 to all stats at all times, pay for it. If you want multiple forms, there's this power called "multiform".

 

I wouldn't allow that build in 4e or 5e, but I also think one has to pay close attention to any +2 advantage, and any power with a host of advantages piled on. I'm surprised your GM was taken in by this.

 

I don't know that it would be a gamebreaker, but it's clearly far more power than it should be. Even if you make it 5e, by the way. I see this as 5d6 with +1/2 5 minute fade rate = 5 x 5 x 3.5 = 87 / 1.5 (self only) = 58 in 4e. In 5e, the equivalent would also Cost End, and be 10 x 5 x 3.5 = 175/2 = 87, 29 points more.

 

An uglier power build might be 2d6 NND Does BOD affects solid world for 60 points. You can guess the character would also have Desolid. Let's make it 0 END, persistent, always on and inherent. That's another 60 points. 230 left to buy other stuff.

[tesuji]

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

 

 

 

That's not a rule I apply or advocate. It is the restriction I placed on my own character in another GM's game because he has great versatility, so I wanted to restrict him to no more than average damage.

Ok, I misunderstood. I saw your mention of the aggregate attacks and thought that was a rule you used as Gm, not just as player. My bad.

 

Another character might well have 2 12DC attacks he can use as a multiple power attack, and not be unbalanced. It depends on the rest of the character. I don't think you can look at just one aspect of the character and say "balanced" or "unbalanced" until you scale the heights of absurdity.

Ok.

 

Again, just to be sure, i am not advocating either the aggregate or individual elements.

 

I am certainly not saying you should take X and declare it "if you pass over you are banned with no appeal" or any such thing.

 

I am asking how do you assess MPAs as compared to single attacks when looking at a character.

 

See, Hugh, i get that you would not necessarily toss a guy's character on first galnce because he had a 15d6 Eb in a 14d6 game. i get that. heck, you might not even toss him for an 18d6 eb. I get that.

 

this is not a question of "for every character what point will you cut him off based on damage alone?"

 

Its a question of "how do you compare multipower attacks and single power attack characters?"

 

Let's ask this one. Assume your campaign average damage is 10d6, and no one exceeds 12d6. Normal OCV is about 10, and typical DCV about 8. Max CV's are 13. Average Speed is about 5.25, with a max of 8. Which of these characters would you consider allowing:

 

(a) 70 STR Brick with no other attack powers, 7 OCV, 5 DCV, SPD 4

 

( 12d6 Martial Artist with 12 OCV, 13 DCV SPD 8

 

(a) breaches the campaign maximum. ( doesn't. Who will be more unbalancing?

 

Ok, this one is very easy to answer...

 

given that i have already told my guys (according to you) "no one exceeds 12d6"... the 70 strength guy is out. IF i go with a hard dc limit, which is your pre-defined condition, then i stick with it.

 

whether the martial artist is in or not will depend on the other criteria i have established. i will especially need to look at maneuvers and such since with the right maneuvers OCV can turn into damage. he has not violated the one "hard line" you gave me... "no one exceeds 12d6"... on the surface but he might exceed it more subtly or might be too far above the norms.

 

Again, if you thought i was advocating a hard line in the sand approach... you are i think mistaken.

 

if you look back, you will find me mentioning looking at stun past defenses or a sample set of NPcs and a range of "rounds to Ko them" and a batch of sample "attacks" and a range of "rounds to Ko you" as possible useful metrics for character evaluation.

 

Now, that said... i, for myself, would not often be inclined to let "low movement rates" figure into the analysis as potentially "offsetting" offensive/defensive excesses... thats because in my experience these two elements do not as frequently play off as balancing each other out. offensive vs defensive elements, accuracy vs damage, etc... they play off against each other well, so i am usually willing to let lacks in one cover excesses in the other within those related categories.

 

Also, from a dealing with players angle, one problem i have seen some Gms experience is this...

 

1. in chargen you allow a character and excess in area a because he is deficient in area B. Another guy has average areas in each.

 

2. after chargen, the first player wants to spend his Xp to shore up his deficiency to "average". The normal campaign limits have not been raised.

 

this creates a problem for some Gms as...

 

1. if they allow him to shore up his deficiency to average, he now has an excess but no offsetting weakness.

 

2. if they say no, the player might well be disturbed that he cannot bring his "area b" up to "average." After all, Bob was allowed to have "average B".