Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I would say the fact that Blocks (available to everybody) and Throws make the various Passing attacks far less imbalancing' date=' if they actually ever were in the first place. Personally I'd love to have some 40"/Phase demibrick try a Passing Strike on Zl'f. He'd be picking concrete out from between his teeth for a week after being Martial Thrown for 14d6. [/quote']

 

 

That's why you wait until after she's done an attack. And with a 43 Dex, she's going first a lot...

[Force]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I would say the fact that Blocks (available to everybody) and Throws make the various Passing attacks far less imbalancing' date=' if they actually ever were in the first place. Personally I'd love to have some 40"/Phase demibrick try a Passing Strike on Zl'f. He'd be picking concrete out from between his teeth for a week after being Martial Thrown for 14d6. [/quote']

 

I'm sure you would. Just remember that when the energy projector on your team is getting fitted for dentures because they didn't reserve their action and forgot to take Martial Throw.

 

 

As people have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, martial arts are VERY cost effective.

 

Bricks were highly efficient to begin with and Martial Bricks are even more so.

 

It's passable tho. It comes down to breaking every game mechanic down. When you do that, it gets ugly...

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm sure you would. Just remember that when the energy projector on your team is getting fitted for dentures because they didn't reserve their action and forgot to take Martial Throw.

 

As people have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, martial arts are VERY cost effective.

 

Bricks were highly efficient to begin with and Martial Bricks are even more so.

 

It's passable tho. It comes down to breaking every game mechanic down. When you do that, it gets ugly...

My point is (was?) that every attack has a defense or counter; generally cheaper. For martial attacks the defense is likely to be another martial maneuver. These maneuvers are unbalancing only if their opponents are prohibited from purchasing the countermove or defense. But in most campaigns I've seen, damage caps would keep a fast brick from purchasing Passing Strike even if he could justify it conceptually.

 

Only two members of our current team could possibly justify it: Our two MAs. And I won't buy it for Zl'f because it makes her too much like a speedster. And our other MA moves too slowly (10" Running) to make it imbalancing even if he wanted it.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Even if you play in a campaign without a "static" damage cap (say one like mine where I use an Expected Damage per Turn Cap), IMHO the lack of control implied by these high velocity MT and MB (and PS) has its own built in weakness if we try our best to use the rules in a logically consistent way.

 

Just as a Haymaker is a an uncontrolled "give it all you've got" strike that takes extra time to perform and leaves you wide open after throwing it (and FTR I do not like the 5ed Haymaker as much as the 4ed one: it should be a proportional damage maneuver, not a constant +4DC one), so a "power dive", "falling rock", or "sprinting strike" takes extra time and sacrifices DCV for damage potential.

 

...and that means uber-damage MT and MB have built in limits to their effectiveness.

 

I suspect watching someone defending against these things looks like a matador dodging a charging bull...

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Even if you play in a campaign without a "static" damage cap (say one like mine where I use an Expected Damage per Turn Cap), IMHO the lack of control implied by these high velocity MT and MB (and PS) has its own built in weakness if we try our best to use the rules in a logically consistent way.

 

Just as a Haymaker is a an uncontrolled "give it all you've got" strike that takes extra time to perform and leaves you wide open after throwing it (and FTR I do not like the 5ed Haymaker as much as the 4ed one: it should be a proportional damage maneuver, not a constant +4DC one), so a "power dive", "falling rock", or "sprinting strike" takes extra time and sacrifices DCV for damage potential.

 

...and that means uber-damage MT and MB have built in limits to their effectiveness.

 

I suspect watching someone defending against these things looks like a matador dodging a charging bull...

I'd have no objection if all of the moving attacks had OCV penalties for velocity, but not all of them do. On the other hand Passing Strike and the other UMA maneuvers are completely optional so it's never obligatory to permit them. And UMA provides rules for designing new maneuvers, so if you don't like Passing Strike just design a "Passing Attack" maneuver with a velocity penalty.

 

I like the new 5e Haymaker better myself. The older versions favored bricks too much (and characters who weren't strong basicly couldn't use them at all). Even now most martial artists can't use Haymaker (or won't because there are equal martial maneuvers).

 

And just remember one thing about charging bulls and matadors: The bull almost invariably loses.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'd have no objection if all of the moving attacks had OCV penalties for velocity, but not all of them do. On the other hand Passing Strike and the other UMA maneuvers are completely optional so it's never obligatory to permit them. And UMA provides rules for designing new maneuvers, so if you don't like Passing Strike just design a "Passing Attack" maneuver with a velocity penalty.

Ah, but there IS a velocity penalty if you read the rules strictly. The Relative Velocity modifiers to DCV should apply. In this case, with the defender relatively still compared to the attacker, it's effectively a bonus to the defender's DCV rather than a penalty to the attacker's OCV, but maybe that is enough?

 

I understand that due to the nature of using 3d6 for combat resolution it's better at some point to have BOTH modifiers to the attacker's OCV AND modifiers to the defender's DCV, but ATM it seems people aren't considering what they can already do. Which means we are not evaluating MT and MB maneuvers and there variants like PS fairly.

 

 

I like the new 5e Haymaker better myself. The older versions favored bricks too much (and characters who weren't strong basicly couldn't use them at all). Even now most martial artists can't use Haymaker (or won't because there are equal martial maneuvers).

No MA should ever WANT to use Haymaker. It's counter to the extremely well trained and disciplined warrior concept. Haymakers SHOULD be thrown by big, untrained fighters that are used to using their size and strength as their primary combat advantage. Ie, Bricks.

 

Taking an extra Segment and being essentially a sitting duck vs counter attack ( -5 DCV, and I'm not sure that is punitive enough given the sfx) should be matched with you doing as much damage as using just about every muscle in your body allows. and THAT is proportional to what kind of body you have, meaning the damage should be proportional to Str.

 

Finally, even the old version of HM was rightfully less efficient than the use of skill. MA routinely 2x their Str damage with MA, but Haymaker only multiplied Str damage by 1.5x. OTOH, the Bricks didn't need the extra efficiency since they were usually much, much, stronger than a MA (and of course campaign caps kept atrocities like MA/Bricks from being too far out of control).

 

The 5ed HM is too efficient for characters <= 25 Str, just right for characters of 30 Str, and punitive to characters with > 30 Str. IOW, a classic Brick Maneuver is now prejudicial to Bricks! That can't be right. Bricks are STRONG, when they throw everything they have into a strike, it's damage potential should be awe inspiring. Not an insipid +4 DC. Finally, the 5ed HM overly punishes classic Bricks because they MUST do lot's of damage when they hit since they don't hit very often (Expected Damage per Turn comes up again).

 

 

And just remember one thing about charging bulls and matadors: The bull almost invariably loses.

Yep, that was my point. The bull loses as long as the matador fights more skillfully and smarter. The deadliest weapon in combat is the proper use of brainpower.

[Phil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Taking an extra Segment and being essentially a sitting duck vs counter attack ( -5 DCV' date=' and I'm not sure that is punitive enough given the sfx) [/quote']

 

A slight aside, but I think this is way too punitive, but perhaps a problem of applying a fixed penalty rather than proportional penalty. This means that anyone of Dex 15 or lower is going to be effectively blind and/or prone while carrying out a Haymaker. Sure it's distracting, but to that degree? What's wrong with 1/2 DCV for concentration?

 

Dammit. I'm disagreeing with canon again

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

No MA should ever WANT to use Haymaker. It's counter to the extremely well trained and disciplined warrior concept. Haymakers SHOULD be thrown by big' date=' untrained fighters that are used to using their size and strength as their primary combat advantage. Ie, Bricks.[/quote'] Martial Artists perform haymakers all the time, they just look flashier and don't come with all the baggage (extra segment and massive DCV penalty). I had a quasi-brick once who schtick was classic fisticuffs and a gun. I bought him the Fisticuffs martial art which included the Two Fisted Smash, an Offensive Strike that was essentially a haymaker with bonuses.

 

Taking an extra Segment and being essentially a sitting duck vs counter attack ( -5 DCV, and I'm not sure that is punitive enough given the sfx) should be matched with you doing as much damage as using just about every muscle in your body allows. and THAT is proportional to what kind of body you have, meaning the damage should be proportional to Str.

I guess that depends on what is proportional. If +1d6 is viewed as doubling the energy, then +4d6 is a consistant x16, and by varying the dice you then vary the multiple of energy increase. If you just view damage as damage then it doesn't matter how haymaker is represented. It is handy to remember that Haymaker doesn't only apply to STR, but to any Attack Power (including EB, Mental Powers, RKA, etc).

 

Finally, even the old version of HM was rightfully less efficient than the use of skill. MA routinely 2x their Str damage with MA, but Haymaker only multiplied Str damage by 1.5x. OTOH, the Bricks didn't need the extra efficiency since they were usually much, much, stronger than a MA (and of course campaign caps kept atrocities like MA/Bricks from being too far out of control).

 

The 5ed HM is too efficient for characters <= 25 Str, just right for characters of 30 Str, and punitive to characters with > 30 Str. IOW, a classic Brick Maneuver is now prejudicial to Bricks! That can't be right. Bricks are STRONG, when they throw everything they have into a strike, it's damage potential should be awe inspiring. Not an insipid +4 DC. Finally, the 5ed HM overly punishes classic Bricks because they MUST do lot's of damage when they hit since they don't hit very often (Expected Damage per Turn comes up again).

If you are comparing 5ed Haymaker to 4ed Haymaker, then the magic number of 40 STR. At 40 STR the 5ed work exactly like the 4ed version. Less effective at higher STR, more effective at lower STR.

 

But in any case, why should bricks get such a bonus? Why are bricks special? None of the other archtypes get a special maneuver or bonus damage. At least not in 4ed. In 5ed they do, but the damage is kept constant, so that a character isn't penalized for only buying a 9d6 EB instead of a 12d6 EB.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'd have no objection if all of the moving attacks had OCV penalties for velocity, but not all of them do. On the other hand Passing Strike and the other UMA maneuvers are completely optional so it's never obligatory to permit them. And UMA provides rules for designing new maneuvers, so if you don't like Passing Strike just design a "Passing Attack" maneuver with a velocity penalty.

 

I like the new 5e Haymaker better myself. The older versions favored bricks too much (and characters who weren't strong basicly couldn't use them at all). Even now most martial artists can't use Haymaker (or won't because there are equal martial maneuvers).

 

And just remember one thing about charging bulls and matadors: The bull almost invariably loses.

I kept the old Haymaker for STR and allow the new Haymaker for all else.

 

I'm nutty that way!

 

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

(snip).

 

But in any case, why should bricks get such a bonus? Why are bricks special? None of the other archtypes get a special maneuver or bonus damage. At least not in 4ed. In 5ed they do, but the damage is kept constant, so that a character isn't penalized for only buying a 9d6 EB instead of a 12d6 EB.

 

First, I never found it unbalancing. Bricks, in the old days, rarely wanted to haymaker and still are hesitant (whlie I rule "all actions" are simultaneous in a phase, haymaker, by its definition, is of course after all that).

 

Second, it seems more genre-correct to me at least for supers. StR haymakers should be kinda scary.

 

Third, I never saw people stampede to be bricks in my campaigns before or after. Nor have I had people complain about bricks. The one brick who became over-powered was toned down by the player before it was an issue.

 

Fourth, I question, then, whether it's a real advantage, anyway (at least in and of itself and as divorced from the general issue of whether STR is over-powered) as per the above. While it's an advantage on paper (in true Gary-stat-math fashion) in games I've seen it rarely amount to an issue - there's a tradeoff in timing and often used in a dramatically correct fashion, out of either desperation (good) or "finish-him-off-now-that-he's-exposed/weaker" fashion (also good).

 

Very happy with the results.

 

Now, as a more general as opposed to personal game issue? I could see it being marginalized to a Champions-only trope, fair enough point. I am allowing it "as such" in regular non-supers games, but I don't run those at all as often and understand the points made by many people, so I'm very open-minded on the matter as to the core rules.

[Mentor]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

That's why you wait until after she's done an attack. And with a 43 Dex' date=' she's going first a lot...[/quote']

But she also has a lot of DCV to overcome if the Brick is going to use any OCV lowering moves. And if she doesn't attack, she has a whole lot more phases to abort with that 9 SPD than the average Brick can ever catch up..

[prestidigitator]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I actually wonder about some kind of merge of the Haymaker and Pushing rules, to simplify it all. It's just a possibility I have floating around in the back somewhere, ready to surface when it is ready.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

But she also has a lot of DCV to overcome if the Brick is going to use any OCV lowering moves. And if she doesn't attack' date=' she has a whole lot more phases to abort with that 9 SPD than the average Brick can ever catch up..[/quote']If a demibrick can hit Zl'f despite her 14+ DCV, he doesn't need a Passing Strike to put her down anyway. An average 9d6 hit will Stun her; an average 12d6 hit will KO her. A Passing Strike for 14d6+ is overkill.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I actually wonder about some kind of merge of the Haymaker and Pushing rules' date=' to simplify it all. It's just a possibility I have floating around in the back somewhere, ready to surface when it is ready. [/quote']

Interesting. I think you have 3 dimensions - END/effort, time, and degree of damage desired. I would just point out time because that plays heavily in haymakers but not pushing, while pushing doesn't give as much damage but takes END. You could build a relationship between these three, sort of a take on that old addage, "good and cheap not fast, good and fast not cheap, fast and cheap not good".

[prestidigitator]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Interesting. I think you have 3 dimensions - END/effort' date=' time, and degree of damage desired. I would just point out time because that plays heavily in haymakers but not pushing, while pushing doesn't give as much damage but takes END. You could build a relationship between these three, sort of a take on that old addage, "good and cheap not fast, good and fast not cheap, fast and cheap not good".[/quote']

Exactly. As I said, I don't think I'm to the pont of having a solid proposal yet (nor am I completely sure I will ever have one that appeals aesthetically), but this kind of general game-time tradeoff makes some sense.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Interesting. I think you have 3 dimensions - END/effort' date=' time, and degree of damage desired.[/quote']

This triggered a thought (there I go again!):

 

Since this thread was originally about Martial Maneuvers, does anyone besides me notice the one dimension of the three zornwil mentions that is missing from the custom maneuver elements for Martial Arts?

 

I know it's off the subject somewhat, but you could add Restrictive Elements to that list that would reflect an increased END cost. Using them would create a somewhat unusual martial art form, but certainly a possible one, especially for a non-human race in a fantasy or sci-fi setting. Say:

 

-1 pt. END cost for STR included in the maneuver is doubled

-2 pts. END cost for STR included in the maneuver is tripled

 

You can't use these with the "No STR used" element. You could even add these helpful elements:

 

+1 pt. STR used with the maneuver costs 1/2 END

+2 pts. STR used with the maneuver costs 0 END (but the maneuver itself should still cost at least 1 END).

 

And obviously, you can't use the contradictory END cost elements together. Hmmm. These reduced END elements might be way too cheap. I thought of this stuff just now. I have no idea if they are balanced or priced correctly. What do you think?

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

But she also has a lot of DCV to overcome if the Brick is going to use any OCV lowering moves. And if she doesn't attack' date=' she has a whole lot more phases to abort with that 9 SPD than the average Brick can ever catch up..[/quote']

 

 

That's why you use the motorcycle you picked up...

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

First, I never found it unbalancing. Bricks, in the old days, rarely wanted to haymaker and still are hesitant (whlie I rule "all actions" are simultaneous in a phase, haymaker, by its definition, is of course after all that).

 

Second, it seems more genre-correct to me at least for supers. StR haymakers should be kinda scary.

 

Third, I never saw people stampede to be bricks in my campaigns before or after. Nor have I had people complain about bricks. The one brick who became over-powered was toned down by the player before it was an issue.

 

Fourth, I question, then, whether it's a real advantage, anyway (at least in and of itself and as divorced from the general issue of whether STR is over-powered) as per the above. While it's an advantage on paper (in true Gary-stat-math fashion) in games I've seen it rarely amount to an issue - there's a tradeoff in timing and often used in a dramatically correct fashion, out of either desperation (good) or "finish-him-off-now-that-he's-exposed/weaker" fashion (also good).

 

Very happy with the results.

 

Now, as a more general as opposed to personal game issue? I could see it being marginalized to a Champions-only trope, fair enough point. I am allowing it "as such" in regular non-supers games, but I don't run those at all as often and understand the points made by many people, so I'm very open-minded on the matter as to the core rules.

Have you considered the implications of allowing the x1.5 Haymaker to apply to any attack as it is in 5th? If everybody can do it, it might be more of a problem if all the energy projectors are suddenly flinging out such attacks from behind cover or out of range of their opponents.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

This triggered a thought (there I go again!):

 

Since this thread was originally about Martial Maneuvers, does anyone besides me notice the one dimension of the three zornwil mentions that is missing from the custom maneuver elements for Martial Arts?

 

I know it's off the subject somewhat, but you could add Restrictive Elements to that list that would reflect an increased END cost. Using them would create a somewhat unusual martial art form, but certainly a possible one, especially for a non-human race in a fantasy or sci-fi setting. Say:

 

-1 pt. END cost for STR included in the maneuver is doubled

-2 pts. END cost for STR included in the maneuver is tripled

 

You can't use these with the "No STR used" element. You could even add these helpful elements:

 

+1 pt. STR used with the maneuver costs 1/2 END

+2 pts. STR used with the maneuver costs 0 END (but the maneuver itself should still cost at least 1 END).

 

And obviously, you can't use the contradictory END cost elements together. Hmmm. These reduced END elements might be way too cheap. I thought of this stuff just now. I have no idea if they are balanced or priced correctly. What do you think?

 

While I like the concept, I think it would break down becasue you could buy your STR 1/2 or 0 END. You'd just be getting cheep Martial Arts or free Reduced END on STR in the end.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

This triggered a thought (there I go again!):

 

Since this thread was originally about Martial Maneuvers, does anyone besides me notice the one dimension of the three zornwil mentions that is missing from the custom maneuver elements for Martial Arts?

 

I know it's off the subject somewhat, but you could add Restrictive Elements to that list that would reflect an increased END cost. Using them would create a somewhat unusual martial art form, but certainly a possible one, especially for a non-human race in a fantasy or sci-fi setting. Say:

 

-1 pt. END cost for STR included in the maneuver is doubled

-2 pts. END cost for STR included in the maneuver is tripled

 

You can't use these with the "No STR used" element. You could even add these helpful elements:

 

+1 pt. STR used with the maneuver costs 1/2 END

+2 pts. STR used with the maneuver costs 0 END (but the maneuver itself should still cost at least 1 END).

 

And obviously, you can't use the contradictory END cost elements together. Hmmm. These reduced END elements might be way too cheap. I thought of this stuff just now. I have no idea if they are balanced or priced correctly. What do you think?

I don't know, but I think this might be useful. I wouldn't want to do it just from a "book-keeping"/complexity perspective, but something like this would seem to have merit.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Have you considered the implications of allowing the x1.5 Haymaker to apply to any attack as it is in 5th? If everybody can do it' date=' it might be more of a problem if all the energy projectors are suddenly flinging out such attacks from behind cover or out of range of their opponents.[/quote']

I'm not positive if I understand what you are saying. I do not allow x1.5 for anything but STR, so STR-based attacks are as in 4th. All the other non-STR powers are as in 5th, with the additional DCs and restrictions.

 

It sounded to me like you were thinking I was doing 4th-ed. version for all forms of attacks.

 

If that is not what you meant, I don't think the scenario you mentioned would happen so much, but then again my group is (as mentioned elsewhere) very traditional and hasn't tried very many of the new tactics in 5th.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm not positive if I understand what you are saying. I do not allow x1.5 for anything but STR, so STR-based attacks are as in 4th. All the other non-STR powers are as in 5th, with the additional DCs and restrictions.

 

It sounded to me like you were thinking I was doing 4th-ed. version for all forms of attacks.

 

If that is not what you meant, I don't think the scenario you mentioned would happen so much, but then again my group is (as mentioned elsewhere) very traditional and hasn't tried very many of the new tactics in 5th.

 

Don't you think that's a little biased, a bit if a double standard? You'll use a standard mechanic (meaning one that applies to everything, not a standard rule from the book) for everything, except for one thing that gets it's own mechanic just you like it that way?

 

Okay, so with a 60 STR it's not a big difference in damage, but ask your players what they think of your rule when Grond haymakers. Also, is it really fair that that a 18d6 punch can reach 27d6 without any extra END cost, but an 18d6 EB can't?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Don't you think that's a little biased, a bit if a double standard? You'll use a standard mechanic (meaning one that applies to everything, not a standard rule from the book) for everything, except for one thing that gets it's own mechanic just you like it that way?

 

Okay, so with a 60 STR it's not a big difference in damage, but ask your players what they think of your rule when Grond haymakers. Also, is it really fair that that a 18d6 punch can reach 27d6 without any extra END cost, but an 18d6 EB can't?

I've always felt Haymakers should use the extra END, no matter what version (4e or 5e) you're using. It just doesn't make sense for an "all out" attack to use the same END as a normal one.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I've always felt Haymakers should use the extra END' date=' no matter what version (4e or 5e) you're using. It just doesn't make sense for an "all out" attack to use the same END as a normal one.[/quote']

 

True. My ideal Haymaker looks like this:

Haymaker Full Phase, +0 OCV 1/2 DCV Attack+4 DC, +2 END Cost

 

If the attack is 1/2 END, the extra END is only 1, and obviously 0 for 0 END attacks. Unlike putting END requierments on Martial Arts, I don't mind putting an END restriction on this because it's a "free" maneuver.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

True. My ideal Haymaker looks like this:

Haymaker Full Phase, +0 OCV 1/2 DCV Attack+4 DC, +2 END Cost

 

If the attack is 1/2 END, the extra END is only 1, and obviously 0 for 0 END attacks. Unlike putting END requierments on Martial Arts, I don't mind putting an END restriction on this because it's a "free" maneuver.

Yeah. I like that.