Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Yeah. I like that.

 

Thanks.

 

Wanna no the sick truth... I probably won't use it. I think it works better and is more realistic (well, a better representation of what we see in heroic fiction) than the existing and previous haymakers, but I'd rather not change a rule just because it feels good. The current haymaker works just fine the way it is.

[zornwil]

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 look at it this way - the old Haymaker was tried and true and worked. The idea of extending it to all other sorts of things (mental, energy, whatever) is indeed new and dangerous territory. But I think that since "we know" (which is a statement I make realizing that both words are contentious, but it's fair to say that some substantial audience, if not a real majority, felt Haymaker worked in the past) that the Haymaker worked and it seems at the least interesting and fair for others to have something roughly equivalent, it's a step at a time, so as not to unbalance the game. Because IF one feels (as many do) that it was balanced before, then adding new abilities is where the potential is, not rescaling the existing ability. So letting everyone else have an "old-fashioned" haymaker is a BIG step, but seeing how it works on a partial scale is a good step to see. In all fairness, if people in my game actually play-tested this (I don't think anyone has done a non-STR haymaker) and it seemed like it should be more beefy, than I'd willingly go up the next step and make it the same as STR haymakers.

 

However, as to your END-specific statement, good catch, I do NOT suggest that the END rules should be different, just the damage rules - only.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm with Zornwil on actually preferring the old-style Haymakers for bricks. It allowed them to deliver those tank-busting blows of yore that some people really liked, and the penalties in time and CV were substantial enough to keep them relatively rare. But I also like the idea of an "all out strike" for other attacks as with the new version of Haymaker. I'm just not certain that wouldn't have been better handled with an expanded version of Pushing in the superhero genre rather than as Haymaker. Perhaps Pushing should have allowed an additional 1DC for each point the EGO roll was made by with 2X END?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm with Zornwil on actually preferring the old-style Haymakers for bricks. It allowed them to deliver those tank-busting blows of yore that some people really liked' date=' and the penalties in time and CV were substantial enough to keep them relatively rare. But I also like the idea of an "all out strike" for other attacks as with the new version of Haymaker. I'm just not certain that wouldn't have been better handled with an expanded version of Pushing in the superhero genre rather than as Haymaker. Perhaps Pushing should have allowed an additional 1DC for each point the EGO roll was made by with 2X END?[/quote']

 

I don't like merging this with Pushing. Haymaker is, and should be, a maneuver, available at any time. Pushing is, to me, only available under times of extreme duress.

 

I don't mind the +4 DC approach, but I could live with +50% if that option were available to all types of attacks. Maybe it could be +50%, and at least +4 DC, to avoid penalizing those characters (genres) whose attacks won't generally hit 8d6.

 

Although I could see an END charge reflecting going all-out in this regard, should we then have an END charge for other maneuvers which require an extra effort (eg. Dive for Cover to reflect the sudden leap for safety; Hurry to reflect pushing oneself to move faster)? I don't like changing the rule for just one maneuver without looking at the whole picture.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm with Zornwil on actually preferring the old-style Haymakers for bricks. It allowed them to deliver those tank-busting blows of yore that some people really liked' date=' and the penalties in time and CV were substantial enough to keep them relatively rare. But I also like the idea of an "all out strike" for other attacks as with the new version of Haymaker. I'm just not certain that wouldn't have been better handled with an expanded version of Pushing in the superhero genre rather than as Haymaker. Perhaps Pushing should have allowed an additional 1DC for each point the EGO roll was made by with 2X END?[/quote']

IMHO:

1- We should keep the traditional Str based Haymaker Maneuver.

2- We need a different Maneuver variation for non Str based powers that has similar pros and cons for using it that takes into account the fact that it's not Str based.

3- Pushing should remain a separate issue

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I don't like merging this with Pushing. Haymaker is, and should be, a maneuver, available at any time. Pushing is, to me, only available under times of extreme duress.

 

I don't mind the +4 DC approach, but I could live with +50% if that option were available to all types of attacks. Maybe it could be +50%, and at least +4 DC, to avoid penalizing those characters (genres) whose attacks won't generally hit 8d6.

 

Although I could see an END charge reflecting going all-out in this regard, should we then have an END charge for other maneuvers which require an extra effort (eg. Dive for Cover to reflect the sudden leap for safety; Hurry to reflect pushing oneself to move faster)? I don't like changing the rule for just one maneuver without looking at the whole picture.

I could live with Haymaker being "+50% or +4 DC, whichever is greater" without any problems. That would work in any genre. It's not like it's all that easy to connect with a Haymaker on anything but an immobile target.

 

I disagree that Pushing is invariably only for circumstances of extreme duress. It's costly enough in END as it is even for bricks that it doesn't get use a lot anyway. I would agree that Pushes above 2 DC should be only for extraordinary circumstances.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I disagree that Pushing is invariably only for circumstances of extreme duress. It's costly enough in END as it is even for bricks that it doesn't get use a lot anyway. I would agree that Pushes above 2 DC should be only for extraordinary circumstances.

 

So assuming I have a fair REC, I should always push for 2 dice at the start of combat, right? After all, I'll get my PS 12 right after, so I may as well get the extra 2DC. At least it's a reason to buy Ego up a bit.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

So assuming I have a fair REC' date=' I should always push for 2 dice at the start of combat, right? After all, I'll get my PS 12 right after, so I may as well get the extra 2DC. At least it's a reason to buy Ego up a bit.[/quote']Most fights don't start out with the all out attack, so barring very unusual circumstances (Say a powerful villain known by the characters to get more powerful the longer he fights) I'd reject such an attempt in my campaign as being not only out of genre but as blatant metagaming.

 

Bad players!!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I look at it this way - the old Haymaker was tried and true and worked. The idea of extending it to all other sorts of things (mental, energy, whatever) is indeed new and dangerous territory. But I think that since "we know" (which is a statement I make realizing that both words are contentious, but it's fair to say that some substantial audience, if not a real majority, felt Haymaker worked in the past) that the Haymaker worked and it seems at the least interesting and fair for others to have something roughly equivalent, it's a step at a time, so as not to unbalance the game. Because IF one feels (as many do) that it was balanced before, then adding new abilities is where the potential is, not rescaling the existing ability. So letting everyone else have an "old-fashioned" haymaker is a BIG step, but seeing how it works on a partial scale is a good step to see. In all fairness, if people in my game actually play-tested this (I don't think anyone has done a non-STR haymaker) and it seemed like it should be more beefy, than I'd willingly go up the next step and make it the same as STR haymakers.

 

However, as to your END-specific statement, good catch, I do NOT suggest that the END rules should be different, just the damage rules - only.

 

Now, I might be strange and different, or I might be making wrong assumptions, but I've always thought that when a Herogames product hits the shelves it's been playtested already. This includes the core rulebook. Even if DOJ didn't playtest FREd (which I'm certain they did), it was on the shelves for three and a half years being "playtested" by the players and designers alike, yet it seems that the rule for Haymaker has remained the same.

 

I also seem to recall a number of topics in times past on the heroboards about the huge unbalanced increase in a haymaker's damage, so I think you are incorrect in assuming there "we know" the 4th edition haymaker worked. At best it worked. A rusty knife works too, but with a little cleaning and a bit of sharpening it works better.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

So assuming I have a fair REC' date=' I should always push for 2 dice at the start of combat, right? After all, I'll get my PS 12 right after, so I may as well get the extra 2DC. At least it's a reason to buy Ego up a bit.[/quote']

 

I'm with the group (or pair, if it's just me and trench) that believe that Pushing is just another type of maneuver (to put in simply). I do believe there should be some appropriate restriction on it. For one, I don't believe anyone should be able to Push at the start of combat unless it's in emergency (Aaah! Dr. Destroyers attacking me! Full power to my FF!!!) or they are able to take their opponent completely by surprise (Grond tippy toes up behind Defender while his team is currently out of LOS and being distracted by VIPER agents). Any other time feel free to overexert yourself. It's just END, and if you've got it, use it. If you end up falling after a Turn because you're burning STUN, too bad. If you Push every attack for two full Turns and aren't even winded, the GM needs to have a look at you character sheet...

[Ki-rin]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm with the group (or pair' date=' if it's just me and trench) that believe that Pushing is just another type of maneuver (to put in simply). I do believe there should be some appropriate restriction on it. For one, I don't believe anyone should be able to Push at the start of combat unless it's in emergency (Aaah! Dr. Destroyers attacking me! Full power to my FF!!!) or they are able to take their opponent completely by surprise (Grond tippy toes up behind Defender while his team is currently out of LOS and being distracted by VIPER agents). Any other time feel free to overexert yourself. It's just END, and if you've got it, use it. If you end up falling after a Turn because you're burning STUN, too bad. If you Push every attack for two full Turns and aren't even winded, the GM needs to have a look at you character sheet...[/quote']

I completely second this.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Now' date=' I might be strange and different, or I might be making wrong assumptions, but I've always thought that when a Herogames product hits the shelves it's been playtested already. This includes the core rulebook. Even if DOJ [i']didn't[/i] playtest FREd (which I'm certain they did), it was on the shelves for three and a half years being "playtested" by the players and designers alike, yet it seems that the rule for Haymaker has remained the same.

 

I also seem to recall a number of topics in times past on the heroboards about the huge unbalanced increase in a haymaker's damage, so I think you are incorrect in assuming there "we know" the 4th edition haymaker worked. At best it worked. A rusty knife works too, but with a little cleaning and a bit of sharpening it works better.

I'm not going to address your point about playtesting - that is entirely another argument - and frankly, as I'll state below, has nothing to do with what you asked or how I answered. But I will point out that 5ER deliberately made no changes generally speaking, so it's a real falsehood to say that just because a rule wasn't changed is evidence of playtest experience. You might recall that 5ER's scope deliberately was not to make changes, and the few that crept in were relatively minor for that reason. You are absolutely aware of contentious issues not addressed in 5ER's release (whether they should be or not for a 6th edition release is another issue).

 

Regardless, and with all due respect, that isn't really relevant to my point. I'm not dismissing critics of pre-5th haymaker (in fact, DR, I specifically referenced such). I already admitted that "we know" is a contentious argument. I tried to address your question, DR, and it seems like you're just saying "what works for you is rubbish", frankly. I know you don't mean it that way but I think you're setting aside what I clearly stated as assumptions and what is - beyond a doubt - an absolute fact for many playing HERO in prior editions. I didn't say that you or your supporters were incorrect to change the rule. You asked me specifically why I thought my ruling was fair. I play with a group that is steeped in HERO tradition and doesn't like "all them new fangled changes" (an exaggeration, certainly some changes were respected). Given that, my group likes 4th ed. haymakers. So you asked me why it was fair to not give non-STR haymakers the same advantage as STR haymakers, and I think I answered you. Your response seems to dismiss the premise without addressing the core assumptions, and you seem to be acting as if I claimed "we know" was in fact that simple when I myself said it was contentious.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm with the group (or pair' date=' if it's just me and trench) that believe that Pushing is just another type of maneuver (to put in simply). I do believe there should be some appropriate restriction on it. For one, I don't believe anyone should be able to Push at the start of combat unless it's in emergency (Aaah! Dr. Destroyers attacking me! Full power to my FF!!!) or they are able to take their opponent completely by surprise (Grond tippy toes up behind Defender while his team is currently out of LOS and being distracted by VIPER agents). Any other time feel free to overexert yourself. It's just END, and if you've got it, use it. If you end up falling after a Turn because you're burning STUN, too bad. If you Push every attack for two full Turns and aren't even winded, the GM needs to have a look at you character sheet...[/quote']

 

 

It gets silly when people start routinely Pushing to gain 2-4" of movement just to have a slightly higher Half Move when they need to move that extra hex or two. And it gets dangerous when you Push both your HA or HKA plus your Str.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I'm with the group (or pair' date=' if it's just me and trench) that believe that Pushing is just another type of maneuver (to put in simply). I do believe there should be some appropriate restriction on it. For one, I don't believe anyone should be able to Push at the start of combat unless it's in emergency (Aaah! Dr. Destroyers attacking me! Full power to my FF!!!) or they are able to take their opponent completely by surprise (Grond tippy toes up behind Defender while his team is currently out of LOS and being distracted by VIPER agents). Any other time feel free to overexert yourself. It's just END, and if you've got it, use it. If you end up falling after a Turn because you're burning STUN, too bad. If you Push every attack for two full Turns and aren't even winded, the GM needs to have a look at you character sheet...[/quote']

I think I agree with you, but I don't think the rules should codify when one can Push, I think it has to be left to groups as they wish to honor (or not) genre conventions. I think it's worth a leading sentence in the book, though.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Regardless' date=' and with all due respect, that isn't really relevant to my point. I'm not dismissing critics of pre-5th haymaker (in fact, DR, I [b']specifically[/b] referenced such). I already admitted that "we know" is a contentious argument. I tried to address your question, DR, and it seems like you're just saying "what works for you is rubbish", frankly. I know you don't mean it that way but I think you're setting aside what I clearly stated as assumptions and what is - beyond a doubt - an absolute fact for many playing HERO in prior editions. I didn't say that you or your supporters were incorrect to change the rule. You asked me specifically why I thought my ruling was fair. I play with a group that is steeped in HERO tradition and doesn't like "all them new fangled changes" (an exaggeration, certainly some changes were respected). Given that, my group likes 4th ed. haymakers. So you asked me why it was fair to not give non-STR haymakers the same advantage as STR haymakers, and I think I answered you. Your response seems to dismiss the premise without addressing the core assumptions, and you seem to be acting as if I claimed "we know" was in fact that simple when I myself said it was contentious.

 

Ah, my assumptions were based on that I thought you meant that Haymaker, used the way you use it, should be a standard, published rule (or widely used house rule), rather just they way you game. There's a big difference there, at least to me.

 

Some specific statements to clear things up:

I tried to address your question, DR, and it seems like you're just saying "what works for you is rubbish", frankly

What I specifically meant was that "what works for you won't work for the majority, and should't be the legal, published ruling. If it works for you, use it. I've done some odd, campaign-wide rulings myself from time to time, but I'd never say it was right or wrong, just whether or not it was in line with or against the publised rules (or, in some cases, what I think the published rules should be).

you or your supporters

You're making me sound like a religious or political icon or something. I didn't even know I had "supporters". Hell, I didn't even know I had a posse!

without addressing the core assumptions

That's exactly what I did I think. I didn't know your ruling was based on group preference for the 4th Edition in general but assumed it was based on a personal belief that the 5th Edition method did it wrong (or some other phrase that would indicate you didn't like it).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

It gets silly when people start routinely Pushing to gain 2-4" of movement just to have a slightly higher Half Move when they need to move that extra hex or two. And it gets dangerous when you Push both your HA or HKA plus your Str.

 

It's even sillier when people simply decide not to move at all because they know they won't be able to reach their target in a half move (and come short by only an inch or two).

 

As far as dangerous, I never allow someone to Push more than one Power/STR at a time. I don't think that's a standard rule for Pushing, but it works for me (and tends to make sense in most cases).

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Ah, my assumptions were based on that I thought you meant that Haymaker, used the way you use it, should be a standard, published rule (or widely used house rule), rather just they way you game. There's a big difference there, at least to me.

 

Some specific statements to clear things up:

 

What I specifically meant was that "what works for you won't work for the majority, and should't be the legal, published ruling. If it works for you, use it. I've done some odd, campaign-wide rulings myself from time to time, but I'd never say it was right or wrong, just whether or not it was in line with or against the publised rules (or, in some cases, what I think the published rules should be).

 

You're making me sound like a religious or political icon or something. I didn't even know I had "supporters". Hell, I didn't even know I had a posse!

 

That's exactly what I did I think. I didn't know your ruling was based on group preference for the 4th Edition in general but assumed it was based on a personal belief that the 5th Edition method did it wrong (or some other phrase that would indicate you didn't like it).

I thnik we're clear now, thx.

 

To echo something we PMed, just for the general audience, I'm very much conflicted on how haymakers really shoudl be in the rules. I think the new version is an admirable attempt at compromise on the matter. I really strongly don't agree with the "STR is over-powered" school, but I recognize their issue and that it has some validity, as well as I recognize they are a significant number, so they represent a serious bone of contention, even if they're "wrong". So I don't know that I'd change haymaker back even if I ran the company tomorrow. I'm pretty sure I woudln't, actually, the more I think about it, because, as I said, thsi attempt at compromise is decent.

 

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that Long got this one fundamentally correct, because at least this suggests a more open-ended structure (btw, one thing I agree with is opening it up to non-STR attacks, I think it's more in-genre for this), and while I'm not so sure the mechanic is sound, I do think at least it's a more easily scaleable (either way one wants to scale it) structure.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

It's even sillier when people simply decide not to move at all because they know they won't be able to reach their target in a half move (and come short by only an inch or two).

 

As far as dangerous, I never allow someone to Push more than one Power/STR at a time. I don't think that's a standard rule for Pushing, but it works for me (and tends to make sense in most cases).

Not to pick too much of a nit here, and I don't think I am, but I can see the idea of not moving at all because you're a hair short of where you need to be.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Not to pick too much of a nit here' date=' and I don't think I am, but I can see the idea of not moving at all because you're a hair short of where you need to be.[/quote']

 

I find this problematic as well - unles sthe character somehow knows precise distance and personal velocity, how does he know where a half move gets him? In theory, he's moving to close and attack - does the character really knowwhere one phase begins and another ends, or see precisely how far he can move in any given direction in a "half move" - a concept the player knows, but the character does not?

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I find this problematic as well - unles sthe character somehow knows precise distance and personal velocity' date=' how does he know where a half move gets him? In theory, he's moving to close and attack - does the character really knowwhere one phase begins and another ends, or see precisely how far he can move in any given direction in a "half move" - a concept the player knows, but the character does not?[/quote']

The real-world analogue I see is, just as a little example, is you know you know the light is changing and you can run acxross the street or not. You look and think you can make it in a second before the light changes or you think you cannot. If you think you cannot, you freeze. So that's where I'm thinking of it. And of course if you want to go for it and you have little time, you then "push" in HERO terms.

 

I agree there's no precision in the real world like a game, naturally, but suggesting that there are real-world situations that fit this behavior.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

It's even sillier when people simply decide not to move at all because they know they won't be able to reach their target in a half move (and come short by only an inch or two).

 

As far as dangerous, I never allow someone to Push more than one Power/STR at a time. I don't think that's a standard rule for Pushing, but it works for me (and tends to make sense in most cases).

 

 

Then they should've bought more movement at character creation. IME, you get too much flexibility if you allow trivial Pushes on movements. If the character doesn't have enough movement, they should hold their action or full move.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

The real-world analogue I see is' date=' just as a little example, is you know you know the light is changing and you can run acxross the street or not. You look and think you can make it in a second before the light changes or you think you cannot. If you think you cannot, you freeze. So that's where I'm thinking of it. And of course if you want to go for it and you have little time, you then "push" in HERO terms.[/quote']

 

But in the real world, we don't have a 100% success rate guessing whether I can make that light (or beat that train), do we? The hex map contributes a false level of precision. Elimination of that precision would carry other problems, however.

 

A wargamer might say (after carefully measuring and counting hexes) "my half move is 5" and he's 6" away, so I'll reserve".

 

A role player might say (after glancing at the map) "I'll move towards him. If I get there in a half move, I'll punch, and if not I'll do a move through."

[Dust Raven]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Of course, if the things our characters typically do were possible for us in the real world, we probably wouldn't be pretending would we?

 

As far as having 100% knowledge of where you can end up, having a few moments to think over your options while the character is actualy making a snap decision, and otherwise utilizing the game mechanics to your character's advantages is just the author knowing what the limits of one of the main characters are. This makes for a more dramatic and action oriented combat. If you know all you'll do is run up to him and get smacked before you do, and don't want that happening to the hero, you have your hero hold back and taunt the other person into making the foolish move, or somehow make your character even more inaccessible to the villain, but allowing you to reach him when he can't reach you (such as running up those stairs, grabbing the big heavy chain with the hook on it and swing down and kick him in the head. Or, of it's really important to the player that the character get there NOW, such as in a climatic final battle that is already underway and the character doesn't have time to go looking for big chains to swing on, he can Push his movement.

 

Of course it's completely up to the player if it's important enough, so they can do it whenever they want. The only trade off is that is their character is constantly working hard to do their best (almost always Pushing), they won't have any star moments where they do something amazing (in comparison to their normal actions).

[Ki-rin]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

...

Of course it's completely up to the player if it's important enough, so they can do it whenever they want. The only trade off is that is their character is constantly working hard to do their best (almost always Pushing), they won't have any star moments where they do something amazing (in comparison to their normal actions).

Of course, the character type who "always gives 110%" is a valid one too, and a character who "is almost always Pushing" certainly looks to me like a valid way to model that in-game.

[zornwil]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

But in the real world, we don't have a 100% success rate guessing whether I can make that light (or beat that train), do we? The hex map contributes a false level of precision. Elimination of that precision would carry other problems, however.

 

A wargamer might say (after carefully measuring and counting hexes) "my half move is 5" and he's 6" away, so I'll reserve".

 

A role player might say (after glancing at the map) "I'll move towards him. If I get there in a half move, I'll punch, and if not I'll do a move through."

Oh, I don't disagree with that, but we also aren't action heroes who are rather uncanny, so I find the tradeoff acceptable, even desirable. It's like the same thing in military wargaming, it helps compensate for the fact we're far from real-world generals.