Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

And never fight anywhere with a ceiling lower than 60 meters high...

You don't need a 60 m ceiling to leap 60 m forward. At most, you'd need 17 m (assuming a 2 m tall character).

[TaxiMan]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'll check tonight, but I'm guessing that Passing Strike doesn't have the negative OCV modifiers due to velocity?

 

Move Through and Move By (I think) both have a pretty tough problem with large negative modifiers to OCV when high movement is used. It kinda balances them out. It pretty much shut down one player's munchkin concept of a 30d6 Rhino-type killer PC when I told him he was -10 OCV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'll check tonight, but I'm guessing that Passing Strike doesn't have the negative OCV modifiers due to velocity?

 

Move Through and Move By (I think) both have a pretty tough problem with large negative modifiers to OCV when high movement is used.

 

Move by has a fixed -2 (but -2 for each additional move by in the same sequence). Only Move Through is variable.

 

It kinda balances them out. It pretty much shut down one player's munchkin concept of a 30d6 Rhino-type killer PC when I told him he was -10 OCV.

 

So spend the 15 or 20 points for penalty skill levels.

[DoctorItron]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Personally, the following valid character concept is what ruined Passing Strike for me: The character is a genetically engineered warrior with futuristic combat armor (Warhammer 40K Space Marine). 25 (?) STR normally plus a few martial maneuvers. The armor, when compared to a typical superhero in power armor, was a minor focus - it added 20(?) STR, a little bit of superleap, and some PD/ED.

 

Passing Strike worked great when the character was out of his armor. He could do something even when caught without his gear. In the armor, though, he dealt out far too much damage with Passing Strike.

 

It didn't occur to me at the time, but changing Passing Strike damage to (STR/2)+(v/5)+2d6 would have kept the maneuver reasonable whether the character did or did not have the boosted STR.

 

(?): I'm working from memory. It was 2+ years ago. The PC now has 200+ XP and doesn't need the armor anymore.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Regarding the large OCV penalty for Move Through...

 

So spend the 15 or 20 points for penalty skill levels.

 

Ah, but that would have completely given away his plans! He was hoping to sneak a "killer" concept past me. As it was, I let him try out his strategy before convincing him to try for something a little more balanced. He still wants to play bad guys however...

[TaxiMan]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

So why doesn't Move By have a variable OCV penalty like Move Through? Anyone that's tried to run by a golf ball and hit it with a club knows it's easier to kick the d@mn thing.

 

My bet is the creator of Move By figured the maneuver was balanced with just -2 OCV. For me, any attack whose damage varies with speed should be more difficult with more speed.

 

Oh well, it's not my game (except in my house!).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

sorry if this has already been mentioned...

 

I think it might be insightful if we were to take a step back from the 'supers' argument for a moment and just examine the rules for the real world martial arts in UMA.

 

I seem to remember that all the full move 5 point maneuvers are only usable with a weapon. Kenjutsu explicitly bans the unarmed element (as well as any weapon besides swords) except for defensive maneuvers like Takeaway. The only possible* way around this is to have at least 10 points in another martial art that has the unarmed element.

 

*I'm not sure if this would work with Kenjutsu.

 

Since several posters have pointed out that skill levels with Movethroughs and Moveby are technically more efficient in terms of OCV/DCV and Damage I would only like to point out one other glaring difference between these and the 5 point Full Move UMA maneuvers. The UMA maneuvers do not have ANY chance for the attacker to take damage. This is a major difference when comparing Passing Strike with a Move By of moderate to high damage. And a Move Through must do knockback/knockdown or the attacker has to apply the full damage he delivered to his own defenses too!

 

If I were running a Champions game and a player wanted to build a speedster with a custom martial art that had 1 or more of the 5 point full move maneuvers I would want to know what his rationale is besides combat efficiency; Like why his arm or fist is totally imune to any side effects to bashing someone as hard as a brick wall with 15-20 D6 of damage when he only has a 15-25 STR?

 

just my 2 Canadian quarters...

[JMHammer]

Does it fit the character concept or is the player "gaming" the system?

 

I think Hyper-Man makes some good points. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that my own house rules require attackers using Passing Strike, Charge, and the similar damage-causing, velocity-based martial maneuvers to absorb 1/3 of the damage they inflict. Of course, there's still the issue of what to do with characters who use foci to inflict their damage but whose foci are either Unbreakable or just have an exceptionally high defense (but I've house-ruled that problem away, too).

 

Hyper-Man said:

I think it might be insightful if we were to take a step back from the 'supers' argument for a moment and just examine the rules for the real world martial arts in UMA.

 

I seem to remember that all the full move 5 point maneuvers are only usable with a weapon. Kenjutsu explicitly bans the unarmed element (as well as any weapon besides swords) except for defensive maneuvers like Takeaway. The only possible* way around this is to have at least 10 points in another martial art that has the unarmed element.

 

*I'm not sure if this would work with Kenjutsu.

Take another look at UMA: Those full-move maneuvers are reserved for specific martial arts styles ("football" gets running tackle, for instance) or to help represent a character concept, such as one which revolves around being a swift runner or flyer. They're not supposed to be on the menu for anyone who just feels like buying a couple of them because it will make their character stronger. The way I approach this, it would be reasonable for The Flash or Jet Pack Rocketman to take the "Speedster Martial Arts" package or whatever subset of those moves they could afford to purchase; but it's not appropriate for Superman or Massive Space Marine Ultraguy. Such martial maneuvers are outside their character concepts and shouldn't even be on their "menu" of things to buy as their players continue to develop their characters, any more than Jet Pack Rocketman should suddenly develop 50 extra points of Strength or The Flash develop a Transform Man to Frog spell.

 

Others have mentioned that balance issues like these have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, and I completely agree. Anyone who knows the system can create abusively powerful, yet not immediately obvious, powers or synergistic combinations. This is why Hero/Champions is a terrible competitive wargame. I used to try to run "combat arenas" at conventions where players could bring any character they wanted within a certain point limit (with no character Disadvantages except common Vulnerabilities and a shortish list of Physical Limitations and a shorter list of Psychological Limitations) as long as it was built legally and then compete in a big free-for-all. Even after fixing all the characters who broke the rules and removing the sillier Power Limitations, there would always be two or three players who still had characters that were unstoppable and could roll over all the other players who just came to the con with their favorite character from their home campaign game.

 

Anyone who "games" the rules can get his character to a place that will make the GM uncomfortable and the other players feel like sidekicks. That's where a GM has to step in and enforce character concept. I remember a Tokienesque fantasy campaign from years ago: After the first play session, everyone wanted to buy Breakfall because the one nimble rogue-type character had it and all the others wanted it once they saw how it kept Nimble Guy from taking a half phase to recover every time he dove for cover or got knocked down. The GM let Massive Swordsman Guy buy it, but Old Wizard Guy and the player who insisted on playing a horse (don't ask...) were out of luck. The Wiz and the Horse bitched about it for a while, but in the end everyone agreed that the campaign was better for it. IMO, this was good GMing.

 

I see this issue in supers games even more often. If anything in the rulebook is available to any character regardless of character concept, things get out of hand. Everyone's Speed starts to go up, up, up far beyond what their character concept calls for, everyone takes Martial Dodge so they get +5 instead of +3 when they want to dodge, everyone buys Breakfall, etc. Avoiding this isn't a matter of some characters having to be the "weak links" – every player's character needs his own bailiwick where he is supreme, or at least superior. Only GMs can prevent the "growth toward similarity" that can plague Hero campaigns if gaming the system is allowed to overwhelm adherence to the character concept.

 

Best wishes,

John H

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Not taking a side on this, but check out the points:

 

Example Given Earlier:

 

"Martial Artist"

50 STR = 40 points

30" Flight = 60 points

Passing Strike = 5 points

 

16d6, +1 OVC, +0 DCV, 30" range = 105 points

 

Compare that to this Brick:

80 STR = 70 points

+44" Leaping = 44 points

+1 OCV with Punch = 2 points

Sell back 11 STUN = -11 points

 

16d6, +1 OCV, +0 DCV, 30" range = 105 points

 

The first guy gets better flexibility with his flight, the second gets more stuff with his strength.

 

And how 'bout this Energy Projector:

16d6 Energy Blast = 80 points

+1 OCV = 2 points

+6 PSL vs Range = 9 points

 

16d6, +1 OCV, +0 DCV, 30" range = 91 points, 14 points left to make up for lack of movement powers, plus, he can fire his EB farther than 30" (at a significantly reduced RMod penalty).

 

All three characters can do 16d6 to a target 30" away with +1 OCV without taking damage themselves or reducing their DCV. All for about the same amount of points.

 

Valid points are being made about Passing Strike and other FMove maneuvers, but before you say that a particular combo is too powerful, you need to look at what else you could buy for the same points.

[JMHammer]

Comparing Apples to Apples

 

PhilFleischmann said:

Valid points are being made about Passing Strike and other FMove maneuvers, but before you say that a particular combo is too powerful, you need to look at what else you could buy for the same points.

Consider other martial maneuvers, even. Someone earlier in this thread said that they believe that martial maneuvers in general are "broken" and maybe they are, at least if compared to the standard maneuvers.

 

The good 'ol Martial Throw is surprisingly similar to the Passing Strike. They both give a +1 CV bonus (Passing Strike gets +1 OCV, Martial Throw gets +1 DCV) and they both do Str + Vel/5 in damage (remember that all maneuver-based damage bonuses are based on the relative velocity between the attacker and the target). The only real difference is that Passing Strike allows the attacker to take a full move and attack and, perhaps, move away from the target after attacking; while Martial Throw has the "target falls" modifier so the target is always "prone" with a successful attack without regard to knockback. And Martial Throw is only 3 points compared to Passing Strike's 5 points.

 

The only complaints I had ever heard about Passing Strike before this thread started related to the lack of any damage reflection and the ability to move away from the target after making the actual attack; never about the damage it could do.

 

John H

[Gary]

Re: Comparing Apples to Apples

 

PhilFleischmann said:

 

Consider other martial maneuvers, even. Someone earlier in this thread said that they believe that martial maneuvers in general are "broken" and maybe they are, at least if compared to the standard maneuvers.

 

The good 'ol Martial Throw is surprisingly similar to the Passing Strike. They both give a +1 CV bonus (Passing Strike gets +1 OCV, Martial Throw gets +1 DCV) and they both do Str + Vel/5 in damage (remember that all maneuver-based damage bonuses are based on the relative velocity between the attacker and the target). The only real difference is that Passing Strike allows the attacker to take a full move and attack and, perhaps, move away from the target after attacking; while Martial Throw has the "target falls" modifier so the target is always "prone" with a successful attack without regard to knockback. And Martial Throw is only 3 points compared to Passing Strike's 5 points.

 

The only complaints I had ever heard about Passing Strike before this thread started related to the lack of any damage reflection and the ability to move away from the target after making the actual attack; never about the damage it could do.

 

John H

 

 

Fred page 265 is very specific in that martial throw's damage depends entirely on the target's velocity.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

And how 'bout this Energy Projector:

16d6 Energy Blast = 80 points

+1 OCV = 2 points

+6 PSL vs Range = 9 points

 

16d6, +1 OCV, +0 DCV, 30" range = 91 points, 14 points left to make up for lack of movement powers, plus, he can fire his EB farther than 30" (at a significantly reduced RMod penalty).

 

All three characters can do 16d6 to a target 30" away with +1 OCV without taking damage themselves or reducing their DCV. All for about the same amount of points.

 

Valid points are being made about Passing Strike and other FMove maneuvers, but before you say that a particular combo is too powerful, you need to look at what else you could buy for the same points.

 

 

Except if the brick trades 5" leap for Passing Strike (or Charge or Flying Tackle if you don't think Passing Strike is in conception), he'll do 27d6 damage plus have boatloads of figured characteristics and tons of movement advantage over the EB or martial artist.

[JMHammer]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Gary,

 

When you say:

Fred page 265 is very specific in that martial throw's damage depends entirely on the target's velocity.

You are cherry-picking the rules to support your case. Both the rules FAQ and later-published rules in UMA overrule that reference from FRED.

 

From the rules faq:

Q:* Can a character Grab another character, move to build up some velocity, and then use the velocity to smash the Grabbed character into something to add velocity/5 (or the like) to STR damage?

A:* As a default rule, no, because Martial Throw damage depends on the target’s own velocity (though as UMA discusses, the relative velocity of target and attacker can also factor in). There is some provision or ability within the rules for substituting the attacking character’s velocity — such as the Passing Strike maneuver — but those are exceptions to the general rule, and shouldn’t be taken as blanket permission for any character to add his velocity damage to his attacks all the time. This definitely sounds like it will deserve some discussion in The Ultimate Speedster.

See page 97 of UMA. There isn't a "relative vel/5" maneuver and a "target's vel/5" maneuver and another "attacker's vel/5" maneuver. Any maneuver using this element, such as Martial Throw or Passing Strike, relies on relative velocity. As this rule also points out, of course, GM's are to be free to apply whatever makes the most dramatic sense based on the special effects of the maneuver.

 

-If you're charging into someone from the side, only the attacker's velocity should have any effect. (But isn't that relative velocity, anyway?)

-If you're sticking out your foot to trip your opponent, then probably only the target's velocity should have any effect.

-In most other cases, such as when the attacker and target are moving toward each other, or the attacker is chasing the target, relative velocity is easy to calculate and should be applied.

 

But the general rule is relative velocity.

 

Except if the brick trades 5" leap for Passing Strike (or Charge or Flying Tackle if you don't think Passing Strike is in conception), he'll do 27d6 damage plus have boatloads of figured characteristics and tons of movement advantage over the EB or martial artist.

And he needs to spend 5 more points so he has the minimum 10 total points of martial maneuvers, and he has to have some kind of reason for having that maneuver beyond "It will really let me kick some serious patootie!" and his GM has to agree that it's not an abusive synergy with his other purchases.

 

John H

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Gary,

 

When you say:

 

You are cherry-picking the rules to support your case. Both the rules FAQ and later-published rules in UMA overrule that reference from FRED.

 

From the rules faq:

 

See page 97 of UMA. There isn't a "relative vel/5" maneuver and a "target's vel/5" maneuver and another "attacker's vel/5" maneuver. Any maneuver using this element, such as Martial Throw or Passing Strike, relies on relative velocity. As this rule also points out, of course, GM's are to be free to apply whatever makes the most dramatic sense based on the special effects of the maneuver.

 

 

Cool. I was the one who originally asked that FAQ question. However, if you read the FAQ and UMA 97, they clearly imply that Martial Throw should use only the target's velocity.

 

if the maneuver involves using the target's own momentum against him (such as Martial Throw), then only the target's velocity matters.

 

I'd say that Fred 265, the FAQ, and UMA 97 all support my interpretation.

 

 

-If you're charging into someone from the side, only the attacker's velocity should have any effect. (But isn't that relative velocity, anyway?)

-If you're sticking out your foot to trip your opponent, then probably only the target's velocity should have any effect.

-In most other cases, such as when the attacker and target are moving toward each other, or the attacker is chasing the target, relative velocity is easy to calculate and should be applied.

 

But the general rule is relative velocity.

 

But UMA 97 and Fred 265 have an implicit exception for Martial Throw. Not coincidentally, it's the only V/5 maneuver that doesn't involve a Fmove.

 

And he needs to spend 5 more points so he has the minimum 10 total points of martial maneuvers, and he has to have some kind of reason for having that maneuver beyond "It will really let me kick some serious patootie!" and his GM has to agree that it's not an abusive synergy with his other purchases.

 

John H

 

 

No big deal. Sell off 5" more leap and buy another 5 pt maneuver. 50" leap should be quite sufficient, and the damage is merely reduced to 26d6.

 

Obviously that configuration wouldn't pass the GM in most campaigns, but it doesn't change the fact that Passing Strike or any of the Fmove maneuvers are too cost effective in a Supers campaign.

 

If the brick uses moveby, he'd do 8d6 from Str and 11d6 from velocity for a total of 19d6 damage at a cost of -2 OCV and -2 DCV and taking 1/3 damage. With Passing Strike, the brick does 16d6 from Str, 11d6 from velocity for a total of 27d6 and +1 OCV and +0 DCV.

 

So for the cost of 5 pts, the brick adds +8d6 damage and +5 CV while taking no damage from the attack. Simply insane.

 

And while not many bricks can justify Passing Strike, many certainly can justify Charge or Flying Tackle. As long as the GM doesn't rip up the character sheet for being too abusive...

[JMHammer]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Gary said:

Sell off 5" more leap and buy another 5 pt maneuver. 50" leap should be quite sufficient, and the damage is merely reduced to 26d6.

Do you think if you repeat this argument two or three more times on top of the two or three times you've already stated it that you'll convince somebody?

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Gary said:

 

Do you think if you repeat this argument two or three more times on top of the two or three times you've already stated it that you'll convince somebody?

 

 

That Passing Strike is abusive in a superheroic campaign?

[Vondy]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

That Passing Strike is abusive in a superheroic campaign?

 

Can be abusive depending on the character design, but then, most things in Hero can be abused.

[MitchellS]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Can be abusive depending on the character design' date=' but then, most things in Hero can be abused.[/quote']

Wow! I think I said that somewhere back on page 1.

[Vondy]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Wow! I think I said that somewhere back on page 1.

 

We did!

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Can be abusive depending on the character design' date=' but then, most things in Hero can be abused.[/quote']

 

 

That's because it's a fixed cost item with a variable effect. Sorta like Damage Reduction. In a low powered world where attacks average 6d6, it's definitely not worth 30 pts for 50% resistant DR. In a high powered world where attacks average 20d6, it's a bargain at 30 pts.

 

One thing that bothers me is that UMA only values V/5 as a 1 pt addition to a martial maneuver, the same cost as adding +1d6 damage. That would only be true if movements are <10". As soon as a character has a movement >9", a V/5 maneuver immediately becomes underpriced.

[Vondy]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

That's because it's a fixed cost item with a variable effect. Sorta like Damage Reduction. In a low powered world where attacks average 6d6, it's definitely not worth 30 pts for 50% resistant DR. In a high powered world where attacks average 20d6, it's a bargain at 30 pts.

 

One thing that bothers me is that UMA only values V/5 as a 1 pt addition to a martial maneuver, the same cost as adding +1d6 damage. That would only be true if movements are <10". As soon as a character has a movement >9", a V/5 maneuver immediately becomes underpriced.

 

True, but that's the nature of the beast. We could theoretically remove all such constructs from the game, but I've found that they provide useful tools for the precise simulation of desired effects in many situations. Yes, they need to be evaluated for abuse on a construct by construct basis, but I think they add more to the game than they detract.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

The problem is that almost everything in HERO has a cost that is proportional to its utility.

 

Not Find Weakness. And Not Passing Strike.

 

Sure, it's more convenient than buying a HA that is linked to your movement and can only be used in proportion to your velocity, but isn't there some sort of metarule that says if there are two ways to buy the same power/ability you have to use the more expensive one?

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

You're right, Passing strike is no more screwed up than most other martial arts maneuvers.

 

They're all pretty unbalanced.

 

It only gets worse if you allow MPAs.

For me, that's why in superhero games Martial Arts is kind of like the old days. You add up maneuvers, for every 5 points in maneuvers it's a +1/4 Advantage to STR.

 

Of course the player workaround is to buy CSLs with hand to hand maneuvers.

 

But anyway, the system I use works for me, wouldn't work for everyone.

[Edsel]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Okay you can expect a string of posts from me on this topic as I start looking over this thread. I don't think I participated in this discussion when it made its debut in October of 2004, but the subject has suddenly become a hot topic among my group.

 

I'm GMing a supers campaign and disallowed the Passing Strike maneuver. It seemed too powerful when compared to a Move By: better OCV, better DCV, and better damage.

 

The effectiveness of Passing Strike over Move By isn't much of a concern at lower point levels, but as characters' STR and velocity increase, Passing Strike becomes ever more powerful.

 

I wonder if the rest of Herodom agrees or disagrees...

 

Personally I don't see much problem with the full move maneuvers but some of my gaming group does. Interestingly they seem to take the view that the FMove maneuvers are too powerful in lower point campaigns but not so much in higer point campaigns. Exactly the oppsite of what you postulate.

[Edsel]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Okay after reading the whole thread I can see how Passing Strike, in particular, can be awfully powerful for a super campaign with high movement rate characters. Based upon what I have read I am trying to figure out why two of the gamers in our group (both very experienced with the Hero System) were telling me that they felt that FMove MA maneuvers were overpowering in Heroic level games but not so in Superheroic level games. I think I need to email a couple of people to make sure I understood them correctly.

 

This has all come about because I am preparing to start my new Dark Champions campaign (heroic-level characters). We have pretty much decided that Combat Luck needs to be limited (perhaps to not stack with armor) and that Flying Dodge needs work (that's been discussed at length in other threads). The suggestion that FMove maneuvers were too powerful for heroic-level games kind of caught me by surprise.