How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

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?

 

Still wondering if there are other methods.

 

Since I don't use a lot of math in character aproval, I'm not much help there. I'm interested in others' experience though.

 

In terms of 5e design' date=' 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".[/quote']

 

I wonder about EC's. Might be less "Attack Multipower and EC for all else" character design if two/three attacks in an EC could be used in MPA's.

 

Mostly' date=' 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![/quote']

 

In large part, good players. They normally don't look for game breakers. They want viable characters, sure, but interesting characters before "more power MORE POWER" characters.

 

My point is more directed at "world at large", however, as I haven't seen any horror stories from anyone on MPA's breaking a game, only that they clearly would break the game from theorists.

 

 

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.

 

Points are the best comparative, in my view. If something is more powerful for the same points, one ability or the other isn't priced right.

 

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

 

Only in the extreme case will that result. However, let me ask you, and other GM's with DC caps, this one. When you set a DC cap of, say, 12DC, how many characters come in with less than 12DC? Restated, what percentage of characters are at max DC's, and what percentage voluntarily have less than max DC's?

 

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

 

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

 

Cliche, but it's an art, not a science. I've never met a mathematical model which was accurate enough to work on unusual concepts.

 

As an example, let's assume you have a 12DC average and a 25/25 PD/ED average in your campaign. A player wants his main defense to be a personal force wall. He'll have 5 PD/ED natural, and 5/5 Armor through a focus, to propvide a bit of defense if the Wall is down. His Wall will be No Range, Self Only. It will NOT have feedback. How much DEF will you allow him to put in the Wall?

[tesuji]

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

 

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".

 

of course, how many times do we see "a great thing about HERo is you can usually find several different ways to do any given effect."? Saying, or implying that there is one right way to do a given thing kind of slams right into the whole "SFX" model.

 

BTW, the amusing thing is, i often cite "just buy the characteristics and put limitations on them" as a preferred way to buying "conditional characteristics" rather than deal with all the aid nonsense. i myself am flumoxed as to why "+2 for OCV/DCV only when fighting within 5" of my buddy" should cost 22 cp (and require several rounds in advance to set it up) when +6 dex (which gives you the same OCV/DCv increase and more) only costs 18 cp and give you so much more without any restrictions.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

ahh... the old super-baby powers... low ap base power with tons of advantages to squeak thru...

 

but, as much fun as it might be, i might suggest a thread about "how many different abuses there are and which are worse" might be more appropriate for another thread.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Now' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Again, it depends on how "over" and how "under" to me. A 6" movement rate makes it tough to close to reduce range penalties or attack HTH. Movement would be much more significant in my eyes if the character lacks ranged powers than if he has them, but I agree it's a "weak sister" in either case.

 

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".

 

Now you're down to player dynamics. My players are pretty good. Maybe I have more dialogue at chargen than others. My general bent is to tell tyhe player which areas I have concerns about and hash it through. If I'm allowing, say, a very large attack because you have a poor OCV and DCV, poor movement and no range, I'm going to state that for the record. If your goal was to buy up those deficient areas, consider that now, and tone back the attack.

 

I have no problem later saying "sell back your extra attack dice to Bob's level and buy up your weak aeas, then. It's a package."

 

I've also handed characters back saying "I think your defenses are light" and had players indicate that's OK, that was their intent.

 

Good players make all the difference.

[Gary]

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

 

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

 

Oops, I read your post as asking for a broken rule that was used in an actual game. Not a MPA rule.

 

Sorry. :embarrassed:

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

of course, how many times do we see "a great thing about HERo is you can usually find several different ways to do any given effect."? Saying, or implying that there is one right way to do a given thing kind of slams right into the whole "SFX" model.

 

BTW, the amusing thing is, i often cite "just buy the characteristics and put limitations on them" as a preferred way to buying "conditional characteristics" rather than deal with all the aid nonsense. i myself am flumoxed as to why "+2 for OCV/DCV only when fighting within 5" of my buddy" should cost 22 cp (and require several rounds in advance to set it up) when +6 dex (which gives you the same OCV/DCv increase and more) only costs 18 cp and give you so much more without any restrictions.

 

I like multiple build mechanics, but only when the cost/benefits work. When there's a power specific to the effect you want, I may take a little persuading that another approach is equal/better.

 

I like the "limited Char" approach. If you want Aid, bet on there being times when your Aid is not set up and running. If you always have the enhanced stat, suddenly that Aid power is only SFX for a higher stat.

[tesuji]

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

 

 

I wonder about EC's. Might be less "Attack Multipower and EC for all else" character design if two/three attacks in an EC could be used in MPA's.

I think that would eliminate the full price stand alone powers, which fianlly have a reason for being in 5e.

 

BTW, what is the only real problem i see with the MPA rule... strength is exempted from the "cannot use the same powere twice". i cannot buy 1 single 12d6 EB and use it in a MPA multiple times. I can buy 60 strength and use it to add 12d6 to each of several maneuvers/powers in an MPA. (talking by rule.)

 

strength, if treated like "a power" and restricted to "use once in an MPA" takes a lot of the potential abuses right away.

My point is more directed at "world at large", however, as I haven't seen any horror stories from anyone on MPA's breaking a game, only that they clearly would break the game from theorists.

absolutely, but that may say more about the quality of the GMs than the quality of the rule. Honestly, HERo Gms are pound for pound the most experienced lot of GMs i know. So i would not be surprised to find that that level of expertise can cover up for something like the MPA rule.

Points are the best comparative, in my view. If something is more powerful for the same points, one ability or the other isn't priced right.

yet, you don't view points as sufficient for character/power approval?

 

Only in the extreme case will that result. However, let me ask you, and other GM's with DC caps, this one. When you set a DC cap of, say, 12DC, how many characters come in with less than 12DC? Restated, what percentage of characters are at max DC's, and what percentage voluntarily have less than max DC's?

I would say easily its 95-5 in favor of max or very close to max.

 

My own gues is that this is in part due to the ranges. getting fitting into a 10-12dc range is EASY within 250 pts, much less the new 350. The ranges recommended have always been with an eye towards a "normal fight" not involving a lot of one shots and con stuns. In essence, the ranged recommended have been INTENTIONALLY chosen to normalize the characters.

 

Rules of X, on the contrary, set up a "strength and a weakness" option, where you can have high offense but at the risk of low defense. they sort of formulize your notion of their being compensating weaknesses.

 

I saw a lot more diversity in max attack when i used a RoX criteria than when i used a "within the range".

 

 

Cliche, but it's an art, not a science. I've never met a mathematical model which was accurate enough to work on unusual concepts.

I think i can safely say that there are unusual concepts that will break any formula. Thats why i do not use such absolute statements as "no one can exceed 12dc" typically.

 

On the other hand, unless the unusual is the usual, these are merely the exceptions.

As an example, let's assume you have a 12DC average and a 25/25 PD/ED average in your campaign. A player wants his main defense to be a personal force wall. He'll have 5 PD/ED natural, and 5/5 Armor through a focus, to propvide a bit of defense if the Wall is down. His Wall will be No Range, Self Only. It will NOT have feedback. How much DEF will you allow him to put in the Wall?

 

Ok, well, after reading up on force wall to see if its an immobile defense or not, and assuming it isn't...

 

i would (assuming by average of 12 dc you do not really mean MAX, and assuming he has a con score in the 23+ range, assuming i am not a complete moron who is actually planning on using the focus breakage rule as written) allow him a 12/12 force wall.

 

the logic would be as follows...

 

a "typical PC" would take an average of 17 stun from an average 12dc attack.

a lower one, say 10dc or a bad roll, would only get 10 stun thru, a high one, maybe 14 dc or a high roll would get 24 thru.

 

at 11/11 force wall, this guy would take nothing from 10 dc and nothing from 10 dc but would take 21 thru from the average one and 28 thru from the above average one. That averages out well against the 10-17-24 so it would appear balanced.

 

However, in practice, this would not prove quite right. The force wall would GO DOWN after an average or better hit. that would leave this guy vulnerable, no force wall for immediate follow ups.

 

So, unlike the 25/25 defense guy, the force wall guy would be at risk for "taking shots while my defenses are down" and, my experience tells me, that would occur, maybe not all the time, but enough to matter.

 

So i would raise it to 12/12 limit on the force wall. Now his stun thru against our three attacks is 0 - 0 - 27, which is a noteable divergence from the 10-17-24 but it would be done knowing that he, unlike the 25/25, would be mixing a few 25-32-29's in there when he took hits with his forcewall down.

 

In play, after making this determination, i would make sure there were enough "vs team" encounters which made the follow-ups likely, to keep the balance in line. Ap attacks are also likely to be good wall droppers.

 

I could have allowed 13/13, but that seems to creep the number of times i need high rolls or higher dcs a little higher than i would like.

 

However, in my experience, force wall defense characters are much more rare than the more normal ff/armor/pd/ed types.

 

EDIT: A book not in front of me thing... i do not recall whether a 12 body hit on a force wall drops it. I was assuming 12 bod vs 12 def meant nothing thru, force wall stays up in the examples above. if 12 body beats 12 def and knocks the wall down and gets stun thru, then i would change my answer to 13/13. just enough FW to bounce off an average attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

BTW, what is the only real problem i see with the MPA rule... strength is exempted from the "cannot use the same powere twice". i cannot buy 1 single 12d6 EB and use it in a MPA multiple times. I can buy 60 strength and use it to add 12d6 to each of several maneuvers/powers in an MPA. (talking by rule.)

 

strength, if treated like "a power" and restricted to "use once in an MPA" takes a lot of the potential abuses right away.

 

That is a fairly significant potential abuse, and hopefully will be addressed/rectified in Ultimate Brick. We already have an exception to that rule for a Sweep, so why not expand it to every use of STR that permits multiple uses as an attack.

 

absolutely' date=' but that may say more about the quality of the GMs than the quality of the rule. Honestly, HERo Gms are pound for pound the most experienced lot of GMs i know. So i would not be surprised to find that that level of expertise can cover up for something like the MPA rule.[/quote']

 

But is that cause or effect? A "rookie" player or GM will commonly be more comfortable in a structured environment than a toolbox system, so it's GM's and players who want the higher maintenance system (or will tolerate it for the benefits) who gravitate to Hero.

 

There are broken rules in many games, but Hero is one of the few that invites the players/GM's to toss, disallow or revise anything they don't like.

 

yet' date=' you don't view points as sufficient for character/power approval?[/quote']

 

It's a tool, but not the be-all, end-all. Some abilities need high AP's to function, but have huge limitations that drag them back in line. Others have issues beyond their points.

 

If I'm gearing for 12 DC, do I disallow telekinetics more than 40 STR TK? That's the 60 point cap, but doing 8d6 in a 12d6 norm isn't likely to be effective. Force Wall is similar - restrict it to force Field level points, and it won't be very effective.

 

I would say easily its 95-5 in favor of max or very close to max.

 

That's what I would have guessed. Maximum becomes minimum in fairly short order.

 

I think i can safely say that there are unusual concepts that will break any formula. Thats why i do not use such absolute statements as "no one can exceed 12dc" typically.

 

On the other hand, unless the unusual is the usual, these are merely the exceptions.

 

Like the GM's, Hero players always seem to be looking for something unusual. In a 5 player group, I'd expect something unusual from one in any given character generation. 20% failure says "the model doesn't work" to me.

 

i would (assuming by average of 12 dc you do not really mean MAX' date=' and assuming he has a con score in the 23+ range, assuming i am not a complete moron who is actually planning on using the focus breakage rule as written) allow him a 12/12 force wall.[/quote']

 

My non-mathematical approach also leads me to 12/12. Why? Because, on average, you'll take no damage from an average attack, however above average atacks will do even more damage to you (22 DEF rather than the 25 norm), and leave you vulnerable with the Wall down. As well, your offense is penalized. You either need Indirect, or non PD/ED attacks to get past your own force wall.

 

My understanding of various isues (mobility, 12 BOD leaves it up) matches yours. I'll add that a punch that gets through the Wall hits you, so you don't frustrate HTH atacks.

[Magmarock]

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

 

RE: Fear of Munchkinism.

And I agree that GM's should be looking over every writeup with a fine tooth comb.

 

Our group goes one step further: we reserve the right to fix unforeseeable problems down the road. The sorry, old excuse of "But you approved it already!" just doesn't fly. It applies to everyone. It is fair. And it keeps us all honest.

 

Mags

 

-Edited for spelling error.

[zornwil]

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

 

Our group goes one step further: we reserve the right to fix unforeseeable problems down the road. The sorry' date=' old excuse of [b']"But you approved it already!"[/b] just doesn't fly. It applies to everyone. It is fair. And it keeps us all honest.

 

Mags

 

-Edited for spelling error.

Excellent point, Magmarock, I think the vast majority of good gaming groups tend to play this way or at least should.

[tesuji]

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

 

 

That is a fairly significant potential abuse, and hopefully will be addressed/rectified in Ultimate Brick. We already have an exception to that rule for a Sweep, so why not expand it to every use of STR that permits multiple uses as an attack.

I agree. As matter of fact, the inclusion of sweep/rapid fire i felt aded a lot of good in HERo5, enabling a number of things such as two-weapon fighting that were clumsy before. I felt the addition/redefinition of MPAs did not help much at all.

 

There are broken rules in many games, but Hero is one of the few that invites the players/GM's to toss, disallow or revise anything they don't like.

I must say, i disaggree with that strongly. i cannot think of how long it has been since i bought or saw a game that did not express the "use what you want, change what you want" *explicitly* in its core rules. maybe it was DND 2e back in... 80's?... with its "Real Dms go by the book!" posters in bookstores.

 

But certainly, most every modern game i see has the same "use what you want" statements.

If I'm gearing for 12 DC, do I disallow telekinetics more than 40 STR TK? That's the 60 point cap, but doing 8d6 in a 12d6 norm isn't likely to be effective. Force Wall is similar - restrict it to force Field level points, and it won't be very effective.

See, there is a misstatement there... you start with "if i am gearing for 12 dc" and the proceed to show how points dont equate to DCs.

 

of course, if you set the value you want to use at "something other than points". then points wont map there.

 

the relevent point is, you don't start with "if i am gearing for 60 rp..."

 

Does anyone use "real points" as a metric for chargen thumbs up thumbs down for indivuidual elements? Not that i have seen.

but we all act like RP do matter.

 

if Rp are not a useful or accurate gauge for the elements which add up to make a character, why do we believe they make a useful or accurate metric for the sum of the character?

 

but that is getting off topic.

That's what I would have guessed. Maximum becomes minimum in fairly short order.

Which is why other types of formulaci approaches exist, such as RoX. The options are not limited to "range of" and "eyeball."

Like the GM's, Hero players always seem to be looking for something unusual. In a 5 player group, I'd expect something unusual from one in any given character generation. 20% failure says "the model doesn't work" to me.

I wont argue with whether the model works or not... but i can say that 80% success means 80% less work. The key is, how easy is it to spot the rejects... if that 20% unusual is easily identified, then the 80% is work saved.

 

or to put it in our terms...

a throughput of 80% is great!

an error rate of 20% sucks!

My non-mathematical approach also leads me to 12/12. Why? Because, on average, you'll take no damage from an average attack, however above average atacks will do even more damage to you (22 DEF rather than the 25 norm), and leave you vulnerable with the Wall down. As well, your offense is penalized. You either need Indirect, or non PD/ED attacks to get past your own force wall.

 

My understanding of various isues (mobility, 12 BOD leaves it up) matches yours. I'll add that a punch that gets through the Wall hits you, so you don't frustrate HTH atacks.

 

As an aisde, i reached the same initial thought... bounce the average attack... by eyeball guesstimate as well. All the analysis was trying to see if i was right or wrong. When i came down to "about one hit in three needs to be "unshielded" for it to balance" i felt that was OK.

 

In truth though, what it comes down to is... allow enough so it will be seen effective and not so much as the scripting necessary to make it not be too good seem "normal".

 

I could allow 14 def, if i was going to throw enough AP attacks and really high damage guys or enough indirects as to keep the "unshielded hits" frequent enough to balance out all the bounces. But, at 14 def or higher it starts to feel like i will need so many of the "exceptional" cases as to make them seem forced or "planned" as opposed to feeling natural.

 

the beauty of making the point system, any point systenm work is scripting the encounters to make the costs you approved "play out right" and getting the initial costs to be a close enough fit as to make the scripting seem natural. When either og these is off, something starts to feel wrong.

 

but now i am waxing way off topic.

[Gary]

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

 

How would you deal with the fact that killing attacks will skew the results? If you allow 12/12 FW as the main defense, what's to stop every villain with a multipower to realistically use the killing attack vs FW dude?

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

How would you deal with the fact that killing attacks will skew the results? If you allow 12/12 FW as the main defense' date=' what's to stop every villain with a multipower to realistically use the killing attack vs FW dude?[/quote']

 

The fact that I don't build every villain with a Killing Attack? Seriously, this approach will be better against some attacks than others. Penetrating and AP is also extremely effective against this type of defense.

 

If the KA's were a real concern, the easy fix would be to purchase +2/+2 (or maybe +3/+3 just because I'm tired of KA's) vs. Killing Attack BOD only. I'd allow that. I'd eve consider letting you harden 1 point of DEF so this can't be basted through with a 1 pip penetrating KA.

 

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.

[Agent X]

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:

 

 

 

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.

I think your house rule is incredibly punishing. Multi-power attacks are NOT that devastating to the game. The balance is obvious. The player has to buy attacks that aren't neatly placed in frameworks to save them points. You can't use skill levels unless they apply to both attacks, etc.

 

It's actually fairly inefficient compared to the same amount of points in ONE attack.

[Hawksmoor]

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

 

Actually one abuse I can see is the +5 points doubles the number of "items" rule.

 

If a 5 point charge is allowed to duplicate say a knife, gun or Heaven Forbid Blaster (bought as a MP), then MPA become DEVASTATING to balance and the rules.

 

Hawksmoor

[Agent X]

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

 

Actually one abuse I can see is the +5 points doubles the number of "items" rule.

 

If a 5 point charge is allowed to duplicate say a knife, gun or Heaven Forbid Blaster (bought as a MP), then MPA become DEVASTATING to balance and the rules.

 

Hawksmoor

Is it the MPA or the doubling rule that is the imbalance?

 

Simple solution. Don't allow that particular doubling if you are worried about it. Take it into account in terms of what you expect your villains to be able to do and what the other characters are suppposed to be able to do. If it's just too good then don't let the guy do it.

 

It's been my experience that tons of things that players do to exploit the rules end up being far mor limiting than they thought at first. Two mighty attacks bought up in foci, even one incredibly cheap focus due to the doubling rule, still have all the weaknesses of a focus.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Stated rules like this can also frustrate some inventive designs for characters that don't look same old' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I agree ... most of these "house rules" I've seen are really "I don't like having to think to much about your construct and all the posibilities you might come up with to creatively use powers to I'll make this pseudometarule to stop you"

 

Almost everytime I take a power to my GM and say, hey you can do this and this and this he immediately panics and goes "That'll be the MUST HAVE POWER for every character now!" ... if that were true all of our players would have multiforms with transforms and large hand-attacks that are duplicated blah blah blah ....

 

whatever.

 

House Rule your players to death so you only have Classic Bricks, Classic Speedsters and Classic Energy Projectors to deal with - it'll save you time all around making adventures each session and character creation will be cookie-cutter .. better yet introduce Classes!!

 

Don't outlaw a construct because you think you see a problem, outlaw a construct because it doesn't fit the concept or genre.

[Hawksmoor]

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

 

Is it the MPA or the doubling rule that is the imbalance?

 

Simple solution. Don't allow that particular doubling if you are worried about it. Take it into account in terms of what you expect your villains to be able to do and what the other characters are suppposed to be able to do. If it's just too good then don't let the guy do it.

 

It's been my experience that tons of things that players do to exploit the rules end up being far mor limiting than they thought at first. Two mighty attacks bought up in foci, even one incredibly cheap focus due to the doubling rule, still have all the weaknesses of a focus.

 

True, but allowing a doubling of focus rule makes the entire power WAY cheaper 99.99999% of the time way too cheap for the utility.

 

37 5d6 RKA Megablaster OAF

5 Another Megablaster OAF

 

Used in a MPA is just *wrong*!

 

Hawksmoor

[Trebuchet]

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

 

I think your house rule is incredibly punishing. Multi-power attacks are NOT that devastating to the game. The balance is obvious. The player has to buy attacks that aren't neatly placed in frameworks to save them points. You can't use skill levels unless they apply to both attacks, etc.

 

It's actually fairly inefficient compared to the same amount of points in ONE attack.

You've hit that right on the head: Points spent on the "outside" attack are points not spent elsewhere, like on defenses or combat levels. And if the omni-attack doesn't deck the bad guy, then what? (I actually saw a PC once with only an NND EB as an attack. If the opponent had the defense, said PC was helpless.)

 

We haven't yet had any PCs or villains use MPAs in our campaign, although it would be logical for several of them particularly our team's EB Thunderbird. My guess is they won't prove that overwhelming in actual play. I guess we'll just have to try it and see. Since we don't have damage caps in our campaign, there's nothing to exceed except vague guidelines.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

I agree ... most of these "house rules" I've seen are really "I don't like having to think to much about your construct and all the posibilities you might come up with to creatively use powers to I'll make this pseudometarule to stop you"

 

Almost everytime I take a power to my GM and say, hey you can do this and this and this he immediately panics and goes "That'll be the MUST HAVE POWER for every character now!" ... if that were true all of our players would have multiforms with transforms and large hand-attacks that are duplicated blah blah blah ....

 

whatever.

 

House Rule your players to death so you only have Classic Bricks, Classic Speedsters and Classic Energy Projectors to deal with - it'll save you time all around making adventures each session and character creation will be cookie-cutter .. better yet introduce Classes!!

 

Don't outlaw a construct because you think you see a problem, outlaw a construct because it doesn't fit the concept or genre.

That last sentence should be engraved on every GM's wall in foot high letters. Why do so many GMs want to cripple HERO's greatest strengths?

[tesuji]

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

 

How would you deal with the fact that killing attacks will skew the results? If you allow 12/12 FW as the main defense' date=' what's to stop every villain with a multipower to realistically use the killing attack vs FW dude?[/quote']

 

if i planned to have killing attacks of "high enough strength" be common enough to change my estimation of "how often will it go down", then i would raise the level i would allow.

 

its not like the NPCs are some random thing i draw out of a hat. its not like i am unable to choose whether or not KAs at full power are common enough to throw off my estimate.

 

more importantly, its not like i am brain damaged enough to use one scale (Ebs do this amount of body) for the approval stage and then use a significantly different scale (but most of my villains have a bigger than that KA) in play.

 

:-)

 

This gets back towards my "there is no objective game to balance to" arguments, but i will stop here.

[zornwil]

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

 

That last sentence should be engraved on every GM's wall in foot high letters. Why do so many GMs want to cripple HERO's greatest strengths?

You know, you're right, and in about 5 minutes you'll see how much I agree...

[zornwil]

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

 

I think your house rule is incredibly punishing. Multi-power attacks are NOT that devastating to the game. The balance is obvious. The player has to buy attacks that aren't neatly placed in frameworks to save them points. You can't use skill levels unless they apply to both attacks, etc.

 

It's actually fairly inefficient compared to the same amount of points in ONE attack.

As stated, I did it moreso for genre reasons as I see it, though as granted I was overly-concerned about it as a mechanic. You'll have to take it on faith (not that I'm implying you're doing otherwise) my relationship with my players is such that they won't hesitate to bring up good ideas regardless of house rules - I encourage it.

[zornwil]

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

 

You've hit that right on the head: Points spent on the "outside" attack are points not spent elsewhere, like on defenses or combat levels. And if the omni-attack doesn't deck the bad guy, then what? (I actually saw a PC once with only an NND EB as an attack. If the opponent had the defense, said PC was helpless.)

 

We haven't yet had any PCs or villains use MPAs in our campaign, although it would be logical for several of them particularly our team's EB Thunderbird. My guess is they won't prove that overwhelming in actual play. I guess we'll just have to try it and see. Since we don't have damage caps in our campaign, there's nothing to exceed except vague guidelines.

I think the "problem" and reason is that so often people still get Linked and use that. Speaking for myself, I think that's in-genre moreso than the way MPAs are presented in HERO (which isn't to say they are totally out of genre for supers, not at all).

 

That being said, I'm not suggesting that MPAs are a bad HERO rule. I fully admit I was not into it at first, but as I went through my rules and thought about it more, I feel it's a great construct for street-level and fantasy and sci-fi and... many other genres. And I have no intrinsic objection to it being used in OTHERS' super games, I just want to minimize it in mine - while continuing to allow Linked to be thus subtly encouraged.

[TheEmerged]

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).

[Agent X]

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'm not trying to make you mad or upset you in anyway. I'm giving you my perspective on the game.

 

I've gone the tons of house rules route and didn't like the experience. I still have house rules but they are additions to the game or modifications on combat rules and the like. I really can't think of a house rule designed to limit a particular exploit. I simply review the characters and see what the players have come up with. I prefer the honor system and a character review to saying "no" before they've even built a characer.

 

In another thread someone said you have to trust your GM and I think that's reciprocal.