Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

But the point was that you can't just say "he spent 65 points to get an average attack" like you had before, because he actually got a lot more than "just an average attack".

 

He got an attack that does less damage than the brick. He got an attack with less range than a blaster. He got an attack that can be turned against him with a martial throw. He got an attack without lots of good figured characteristics. He got an attack that can't be multiple power attacked with other martial maneuvers. He got at attack that requires him to close with an enemy (and take the effects of damage shields, etc). He got an attack that is only a few CVs better than a maneuver that everyone can do without spending any points at all.

 

Yeah, this guy is really a rules-rapist.

 

As for the Hulk getting Flying Tackle.

 

A) That's a different maneuver, which balances a little better because of the "You Fall" element, but I'm very leery of allowing any maneuver with a v/5 element where the character performing the maneuver is generating the velocity. Especially as a one point element. Make it a 3 point element and it might balance. But you get too much damage from a one point element to balance it against the times when it isn't useful.

 

The Hulk buys instant stand for 5 points and now it doesn't matter if he falls. If you think Passing Strike is unbalanced as a 1 point element, then it's not going to be balanced as a 3 point element.

 

So how about, making the v/5 element a +1 element when you have to use your opponent's velocity but a 3 point element when you are generating the velocity yourself? You could slap a -2 DCV penalty on the Passing Strike(which is essentially made for Flying Kicks anyway) and it would balance a lot more.

 

Passing Strike is for more than flying kicks, especially at the superhero level. And the -2 DCV ain't that rough a deal to overcome. I'd drop it from a +1 OCV to a -1 OCV, and then buy 2 2 point levels with it. I'm spending 4 more points, but I'm still getting the same effect.

 

People would be leery of using it all the time because of the DCV penalty, the maneuver would balance better because the defensive tradeoff would be more in line with the offensive power gained, and the DCV penalty even makes sense for the aesthetics of the maneuver.

 

The aesthetics of the maneuver are going to vary depending on the sfx of the guy doing them. People won't be wary of the DCV penalty if they're smart. It's still a good move.

[Mike W]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

C--

 

You continue to miss my point. And I never said that he, or anyone else, was a rules rapist. Just that the maneuver doesn't balance at high levels.

 

And making it a three point element would do a lot to balance because you would have to put some more limitations on the maneuver, be they DCV or otherwise, maybe a "you fall" element. Something to counteract the fact that you are paying the same points for Passing Strike as you do for Offensive Strike but getting a much better maneuver, one which, if it was built with a +D6 element instead of the v/5, could not do the same damage that it normally does and fit into the rules of the game.

 

Now since no one even seems to be arguing against my points logically, just telling me I'm wrong, I'm done. Oh there have been attempts at "logic" but they aren't directly addressing anything I've stated. Not really.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

C--

 

You continue to miss my point. And I never said that he, or anyone else, was a rules rapist. Just that the maneuver doesn't balance at high levels.

 

And making it a three point element would do a lot to balance because you would have to put some more limitations on the maneuver, be they DCV or otherwise, maybe a "you fall" element. Something to counteract the fact that you are paying the same points for Passing Strike as you do for Offensive Strike but getting a much better maneuver, one which, if it was built with a +D6 element instead of the v/5, could not do the same damage that it normally does and fit into the rules of the game.

 

Now since no one even seems to be arguing against my points logically, just telling me I'm wrong, I'm done. Oh there have been attempts at "logic" but they aren't directly addressing anything I've stated. Not really.

 

Passing Strike costs more Endurance. You've got to pay End for your movement.

Passing Strike cannot be included in a mpa.

Raising the cost of the one element would not change much in the way of its effectiveness. I'll just build it with the fullmove component, and the v/5 component. To offset those costs, I'll take it at -1 OCV. Done. Now I'll buy 2 2 point levels with the maneuver, and it'll be the same effect. You have not "fixed" Passing Strike with increasing the base cost of the v/5. If the maneuver is, in fact, broken (which I don't think it is), then it'll still be broken at an increased cost of 2 points.

 

You description of "not balancing at high levels" is, in fact, more of an argument about the maneuver performing at low levels. The Hulk doing a 50" passing strike for 30+D6 is "high level". A martial artist getting 3D6 from his velocity is not high level. The maneuver balances fine at the lower level because you're limited in how you can use it. You can't use it in a confined space. You pay more endurance. You can't use it in a multiple power attack.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

The brick in your example bought 60 Str and 45" of Superleap' date=' plus 10 points of Martial Arts. He performed a 21D6 attack at +1 OCV. I countered with a brick that had not purchased Passing Strike. He instead bought a 90 Str (getting 18" of movement for free) and +6 OCV w/ movethrough. He did 24D6 damage at either +3 or +4 OCV (depending on whether you round up or down for the -1 per 5" of movement). He's doing 3 extra D6 of damage at +2 or +3 extra OCV, with a DCV penalty and without the extra range, for one point less, all without using Passing Strike. A 60 Str brick with 36" of Superleap could also buy +7 OCV for movethrough and get a 24D6 attack at +0 OCV and -3 DCV at 9" less maximum range. Passing Strike does not appear to be superior to move-through, [i']if the character is properly constructed to take advantage of the move-through maneuver[/i]. Passing Strike seems to be quite comparable to it, in fact (fewer dice with no DCV penalty, and a bit greater range of movement). I don't see the problem.

 

Your 90 Str brick has +2 OCV, -3 DCV, and does 24d6 damage. He also does 1/2 damage to himself (or full damage if the target doesn't get knocked back such as another brick who braces), and his 'range' is only 18" as opposed to the 60 Str brick with +1 OCV, 0 DCV, 21d6 damage, and a 'range' of 45" (You seem to not understand that movement is inherently good regardless of whether you do damage with it). He also has another maneuver (Flying Dodge?) that the first brick doesn't have. And his extra leap is likely in a EC which decreases his cost considerably compared to the 90 Str brick.

 

Also, you're comparing Passing Strike with movethrough. Moveby is the appropriate maneuver to compare it with since they serve the same niche.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Others seem to be concerned with them.

 

In my experience, there are 3 types of Passing Strike characters.

 

Type #1 is the martial artist with 10" or less of movement. To him, Passing Strike is a maneuver no different from Offensive Strike or Legsweep. He can't generate the speed he needs to test the limits of the maneuver. He's not a problem. Passing Strike works fine for him.

 

Type #2 is the guy who decides to trick out his character to perform Passing Strikes at every opportunity. Passing Strike is quite powerful in his hands, but there are a number of different ways he could have taken the basic concept and run with it. Passing Strike just happened to be the one he chose. It's no more unbalancing than any other powerful method of construction--it's got its own advantages and disadvantages. This character is not a problem.

 

Type #3 is the character who has already spent all the points he could ever want on his Str and movement, and only now has seen Passing Strike. This seems to happen the most in concept-based games. My Superboy character has an 85 Str and like 30 something inches of Flight. Passing Strike would be

a great maneuver for him to pick up, because he's already spent more points on movement than he's really benefitting from. This could make him a more effective combatant. I'm not worried about these characters because their very status in this category means they weren't built for point-efficiency to begin with.

 

 

I disagree strongly with #3. Huge amounts of movement are inherently good, regardless of whether you do damage or not. The extra damage is icing on the cake.

 

As I stated before, Passing Strike is essentially equivalent to paying a flat 5 pts for a +1/2 or greater advantage on your Str and/or movements.

 

 

Martial maneuvers are extremely effective, and very cheap. Basic strike is +2D6 and +1 OCV, all for 3 points. That's a hell of a lot better than Hand Attack. Martial Block would cost 12 points to buy flat-out (+2 OCV w/ block or missile deflect, 3 point levels, +2 DCV w/ block or missile deflect, 3 point levels). It's only 4 points. Martial arts are dangerous, and they're powerful. Passing Strike is not unusually powerful for a martial attack.

 

For characters with low movement, PS isn't unusually powerful. For characters with high movement, it is. Just compare it to any 'standard' maneuver when the character has 30+" movement.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Your 90 Str brick has +2 OCV' date=' -3 DCV, and does 24d6 damage. He also does 1/2 damage to himself (or full damage if the target doesn't get knocked back such as another brick who braces),[/quote']

 

And he's doing Body - 2D6 for knockback, as opposed to Body - 3D6 since Passing Strike is a martial maneuver. So he's got a greater chance of doing damage from his KB than the Passing Striker. Since he's doing 24D6 damage (26 if he pushes his Str), he's got a very, very good chance of doing KB. He'll also have higher figured stats than the 60 Str guy, and will have a very good chance of taking only negligible damage from the 12D6 he'll be hit with as a result of his move-through (at least the bricks I build will take negligible effects).

 

and his 'range' is only 18" as opposed to the 60 Str brick with +1 OCV, 0 DCV, 21d6 damage, and a 'range' of 45" (You seem to not understand that movement is inherently good regardless of whether you do damage with it).

 

Yes, but in practice, the 45" of 'range' won't come up all that often. I knew I was making trade-offs when I built the thing. I could easily construct something to get a little closer to the 45" of range (in fact, I whipped up 2 or 3 different levels of Str and Superleap for comparison--see the 60 Str guy with 36" of Superleap and 24D6--effectively trading -1 OCV and -3 DCV for 3D6 of damage).

 

He also has another maneuver (Flying Dodge?) that the first brick doesn't have. And his extra leap is likely in a EC which decreases his cost considerably compared to the 90 Str brick.

 

EC is not part of the Passing Strike equation. I could build the 90 Str brick even nastier by using power frameworks. I've been keeping it simple because that helps us to identify problems with the maneuver, not with other aspects of the construction. Construction tricks such as that are usable by both sides.

 

Also, you're comparing Passing Strike with movethrough. Moveby is the appropriate maneuver to compare it with since they serve the same niche.

 

Not for a brick, it's not. The important thing for the brick is adding velocity damage to their full Str damage, not keeping it at v/5. When bricks use Passing Strike, the closest approximation is move-through, because we don't want to lose half the brick's strength damage. Passing Strike is a mid-point between move-by and move-through (v/5, but full strength vs half strength). On the brick side, we want the full strength more than the v/5.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

15" Leap costs 15 pts.

 

Movethrough has a fixed -3 DCV, so it's 9 base points to pay it off (since 2 pt levels can only be used for OCV), and 2 pts for the +1 OCV bonus or 11 total base points.

 

For movethrough, you have to pay a 'tariff' of 2 pts per 5" to pay for the OCV penalty, so it's 21 pts for 15" of Leap. To cancel out the 1/2 damage penalty, you need 1.75 Def for every +1d6 damage, so that's another 5.25 pts. And you have the potential of taking full damage if you don't knock back the target, but I'll ignore that for now. So now it's 26.25 pts per 15" movement to equate the movethrough with the passing strike.

 

With 26.25 pts, you can buy +25" Leap and do the same damage as the movethrough, but you have +10" 'free' movement and 1.25 pts left over on top of the 11 pt initial cost that you must pay for movethrough. On top of the possibility of KOing yourself if the target isn't knocked back.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

And he's doing Body - 2D6 for knockback' date=' as opposed to Body - 3D6 since Passing Strike is a martial maneuver. So he's got a greater chance of doing damage from his KB than the Passing Striker. Since he's doing 24D6 damage (26 if he pushes his Str), he's got a very, very good chance of doing KB. He'll also have higher figured stats than the 60 Str guy, and will have a very good chance of taking only negligible damage from the 12D6 he'll be hit with as a result of his move-through (at least the bricks I build will take negligible effects).[/quote']

 

Against another equal brick who braces (especially a large or dense one), it's quite likely he'll do no KNB.

 

 

Yes, but in practice, the 45" of 'range' won't come up all that often. I knew I was making trade-offs when I built the thing. I could easily construct something to get a little closer to the 45" of range (in fact, I whipped up 2 or 3 different levels of Str and Superleap for comparison--see the 60 Str guy with 36" of Superleap and 24D6--effectively trading -1 OCV and -3 DCV for 3D6 of damage).

 

I suspect that the 45" range will come up a lot more often if the character has Passing Strike...

 

 

EC is not part of the Passing Strike equation. I could build the 90 Str brick even nastier by using power frameworks. I've been keeping it simple because that helps us to identify problems with the maneuver, not with other aspects of the construction. Construction tricks such as that are usable by both sides.

 

Frameworks normally work the same for both sides, but in this case, Str is usually not allowed in a EC while Leap usually is.

 

Not for a brick, it's not. The important thing for the brick is adding velocity damage to their full Str damage, not keeping it at v/5. When bricks use Passing Strike, the closest approximation is move-through, because we don't want to lose half the brick's strength damage. Passing Strike is a mid-point between move-by and move-through (v/5, but full strength vs half strength). On the brick side, we want the full strength more than the v/5.

 

 

See my previous post. Also, if you put any limitations or framework tricks on the Leap, the 'tariff' on the movethrough becomes a higher percentage than the 40% nominal value.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

I disagree strongly with #3. Huge amounts of movement are inherently good' date=' regardless of whether you do damage or not. The extra damage is icing on the cake.[/quote']

 

It's a process of diminishing returns, though. +20" of movement is wonderful when you're in the 6-10" of movement range. It's less wonderful when you're in the 60" of movement range.

 

My point on #3 is that most characters who have enough movement to take advantage of a great Passing Strike almost always will. The exception are "Superman" type characters who are not paying attention to points. If you're spending 70+ points on movement, you either a) are unconcerned with costs, or have a plan for that movement in mind. If you're unconcerned with costs, then Passing Strike being super-effective is not an issue in the game.

 

As I stated before, Passing Strike is essentially equivalent to paying a flat 5 pts for a +1/2 or greater advantage on your Str and/or movements.

 

For characters with low movement, PS isn't unusually powerful. For characters with high movement, it is. Just compare it to any 'standard' maneuver when the character has 30+" movement.

 

It's no more broken than the other martial arts. 60 Str character. Legsweep, Fast Strike, Sacrifice Strike. It lets you make a 13D6, a 14D6, and a 16D6 attack as a multiple power attack, with one to-hit roll at +2 OCV.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

15" Leap costs 15 pts.

 

Movethrough has a fixed -3 DCV, so it's 9 base points to pay it off (since 2 pt levels can only be used for OCV), and 2 pts for the +1 OCV bonus or 11 total base points.

 

For movethrough, you have to pay a 'tariff' of 2 pts per 5" to pay for the OCV penalty, so it's 21 pts for 15" of Leap. To cancel out the 1/2 damage penalty, you need 1.75 Def for every +1d6 damage, so that's another 5.25 pts. And you have the potential of taking full damage if you don't knock back the target, but I'll ignore that for now. So now it's 26.25 pts per 15" movement to equate the movethrough with the passing strike.

 

With 26.25 pts, you can buy +25" Leap and do the same damage as the movethrough, but you have +10" 'free' movement and 1.25 pts left over on top of the 11 pt initial cost that you must pay for movethrough. On top of the possibility of KOing yourself if the target isn't knocked back.

 

Excellent points, and I don't disagree with your analysis, except that I'll say what I said in the Armor vs Force Field vs PD and ED thread. "You can't ungrind the hamburger meat and make a steak out of it." Move-through cannot perfectly mirror Passing Strike. But neither can Passing Strike perfectly mirror move-through. Trying to turn move-through into a Passing Strike will not be favorable to the move-through. The brick may very well be tough enough, however, to ignore the majority of the 1/2 damage (thus negating the need for spending extra points on PD--which you'd get extra use out of anyway--and also negating the needs to buy limited PD 'only for move-through', which would cost less). If he's an 18 Dex guy anyway, then the -3 DCV may not be a problem at all (he's gonna get hit regardless--he's not worried about getting missed).

 

It's like saying that Armor is too cheap, because Force Field needs to get 0 End Persistent (+1), and Invisible (+1) to duplicate it. Don't try to ungrind the hamburger meat. It won't turn into a steak. Just because Force Field/Move-Through won't perfectly duplicate Armor/Passing Strike at the exact same points cost/combat values does not mean that either one is "broken". It just means they're not the exact same.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

It's a process of diminishing returns' date=' though. +20" of movement is wonderful when you're in the 6-10" of movement range. It's less wonderful when you're in the 60" of movement range.[/quote']

 

No more so than any other power. Doing 40d6 damage isn't usually much better than 25d6 in a typical campaign. And having a 30 DCV isn't much better than 20.

 

 

 

My point on #3 is that most characters who have enough movement to take advantage of a great Passing Strike almost always will. The exception are "Superman" type characters who are not paying attention to points. If you're spending 70+ points on movement, you either a) are unconcerned with costs, or have a plan for that movement in mind. If you're unconcerned with costs, then Passing Strike being super-effective is not an issue in the game.

 

Only if the GM allows Passing Strike. And the 'plan' for high movements could be something as simple as getting from point A to point B, or to retreat from combat to take a quick breather if you're getting hammered.

 

 

It's no more broken than the other martial arts. 60 Str character. Legsweep, Fast Strike, Sacrifice Strike. It lets you make a 13D6, a 14D6, and a 16D6 attack as a multiple power attack, with one to-hit roll at +2 OCV.

 

 

If Fmove maneuvers are allowed, then why couldn't the MA use Passing Strike, Charge, and Flying Tackle? Assuming the GM even allows this sort of multiple power attack in the first place.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Against another equal brick who braces (especially a large or dense one)' date=' it's quite likely he'll do no KNB.[/quote']

 

Which means he's quite likely to move-through someone else. Or maybe he superleaps into HTH with the braced brick, and then whaps him with his extra D6 of Hand Attack. Captain Move-Through does not have to use his power in every situation, especially those that are obviously disadvantageous. Yes, I know that Passing Strike Boy can still perform his attack. But he'll be in just as much trouble (possibly more, since he won't have quite as high a PD) against Martial Throw Lad.

 

I suspect that the 45" range will come up a lot more often if the character has Passing Strike...

 

It doesn't. I played a Flash level speedster for years. 30 or so inches is usually about all you need for 90% of combats. Remember, these characters are getting to attack after a full move, so the movement they do have will give them greater "combat range" than a normal half-move.

 

Frameworks normally work the same for both sides, but in this case, Str is usually not allowed in a EC while Leap usually is.

 

Str doesn't provide figureds if it's in an EC. But I can buy a 0 End PD-only FF that only protects against movement damage, or superleap of my own in an EC. Besides, most bricks don't have ECs anymore (what else is gonna go in Passing Strike Boy's EC?).

 

See my previous post. Also, if you put any limitations or framework tricks on the Leap, the 'tariff' on the movethrough becomes a higher percentage than the 40% nominal value.

 

I don't quite understand what you mean here.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

No more so than any other power. Doing 40d6 damage isn't usually much better than 25d6 in a typical campaign. And having a 30 DCV isn't much better than 20.

 

Exactly, except that you need to start creeping into those higher movement rates to really get good cheesy effect from Passing Strike. So, once you hit the point of diminishing returns, the only reason to go much higher is if you're planning on using Passing Strike or move-through, or something like that. Or if you're unconcerned with points (my Superman writeup has 60" of Flight, because, well, Superman's a 2500 point character and he just has 60" of Flight).

 

Only if the GM allows Passing Strike. And the 'plan' for high movements could be something as simple as getting from point A to point B, or to retreat from combat to take a quick breather if you're getting hammered.

 

Yes, but that's not very efficient. There are cheaper ways to do so. And if the GM doesn't allow Passing Strike, then it's not even an issue. We might as well say "well, if the GM doesn't allow levels with move-through, then someone wouldn't build a move-through character." It goes without saying.

 

If Fmove maneuvers are allowed, then why couldn't the MA use Passing Strike, Charge, and Flying Tackle? Assuming the GM even allows this sort of multiple power attack in the first place.

 

Again, once the GM's house rules come into play, and he starts disallowing certain things, you change the cost economy of many maneuvers and tactics. Passing Strike, Charge, and Flying Tackle are all supposed to be the same thing. You're supposed to use different sfx of maneuvers when you use a MPA with martial arts (which the Sacrifice Strike and Fast Strike are kind of the same thing, but I wanted things that gave a +2 OCV and didn't want to look at a book). So you could have a Strike maneuver (fast, martial, etc), a NND nerve strike, a grab, a throw, and a legsweep. But with Passing Strike/Charge/Flying Tackle, those are all "slam into you for v/5 damage", and so aren't supposed to be used together like that.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

If Fmove maneuvers are allowed' date=' then why couldn't the MA use Passing Strike, Charge, and Flying Tackle? Assuming the GM even allows this sort of multiple power attack in the first place.[/quote']Because all three of those maneuvers gain damage from the attacker's velocity, and that velocity will quite reasonably be usable only on the first attack. Special effect has to be taken into account here. I wouldn't allow a combination maneuver like this any more than I would allow a Legsweep followed by a Martial Throw as a multiple attack: If the target is already on the ground, you're not going to do additional damage to him by putting him on it when he's already prone.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Against another equal brick who braces (especially a large or dense one)' date=' it's quite likely he'll do no KNB. [/quote']

 

Let's add that the hypothetical Brick also has a Martial Throw. Neither Move Through Melvin nor Passing Strike Percy wants to take a run at this guy with their standard tactic. However:

 

(a) Melvin does 18d6 with a Strike. Percy does 12d6.

 

( Bricks and extra density are generally easy to guess. By the time Percy knows his opponent has a martial throw, he's skidding across the ground at 45".

 

As well, both Passing Strike and Move Through assume I have room to get up to full velocity. This will not always be the case. Percy does 12d6 at close range. Melvin does 18d6.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Which means he's quite likely to move-through someone else. Or maybe he superleaps into HTH with the braced brick' date=' and then whaps him with his extra D6 of Hand Attack. Captain Move-Through does not have to use his power in every situation, especially those that are obviously disadvantageous. Yes, I know that Passing Strike Boy can still perform his attack. But he'll be in just as much trouble (possibly more, since he won't have quite as high a PD) against Martial Throw Lad.[/quote']

 

 

Nevertheless, that is a factor that must be taken into account when comparing the two maneuvers. The fact that there are opponents (and GMs being an evil lot, will custom design some) where the movethrough specialist goes BLAMMO. Also note that Martial Throw Lad will have an easier time with Move Through Monster since he has -3 DCV rather than Passing Strike Pugilist who has normal DCV.

 

 

It doesn't. I played a Flash level speedster for years. 30 or so inches is usually about all you need for 90% of combats. Remember, these characters are getting to attack after a full move, so the movement they do have will give them greater "combat range" than a normal half-move.

 

 

And I've played a brick with 36+" of Leap for years who found that the extra movement comes in handy quite often. The GM is going to throw all sorts of opponents at you, all with varying degrees of movements.

 

 

Str doesn't provide figureds if it's in an EC. But I can buy a 0 End PD-only FF that only protects against movement damage, or superleap of my own in an EC. Besides, most bricks don't have ECs anymore (what else is gonna go in Passing Strike Boy's EC?).

 

 

Have you seen my character, Lariat?

 

Leap in an EC will provide damage + movement at half cost; if you pay the 5 pt adder called Passing Strike. Leap will only provide movement at half price if you don't have PS. And the 0 End PD only protects against movement damage is an additional cost that PSP doesn't have to pay at all.

 

 

I don't quite understand what you mean here.

 

 

Simple. If you're paying 15 pts for 15" leap, the +3 OCV costs 6 pts or a 40% surcharge. If you're paying only 7.5 pts for 15" Leap such as if you have a Limitation or if it's in a EC, then that 6 pts now is an 80% surcharge for MTM relative to PSP.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Here's another way of restating what I posted earlier.

 

PS essentially adds +3d6 HA to Leap per 15". That's 10 pts of effect per 15 pts of Leap, or equivalent of a +2/3 advantage. It also gives essentially an additional +15" Leap Only to Add to Half Move (Let's be generous and call it a -1 Limitation). That's 17.5 total points or the equivalent of a +1.17 Advantage on Leap.

 

PS also adds 20% more damage to Str (25 Str gives you 5" free leap, so you're doing 6d6 damage per 25 Str). And it gives +1 OCV. After factoring the free Fmove on the free Leap, I'll call the whole thing a +1/4 Advantage on Str.

 

So for 5 pts, you're getting a +1/4 Advantage on Str and a +1.17 Advantage on purchased Leap.

 

Now what would you say if someone proposed paying 5 pts to add 1/2 End on Str and get 0 End and Usable By Others on all his purchased Leap as a freebie?

 

And this is precisely the problem with having a scalable power with a fixed cost, especially a fixed cost of only 5 pts.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Let's add that the hypothetical Brick also has a Martial Throw. Neither Move Through Melvin nor Passing Strike Percy wants to take a run at this guy with their standard tactic. However:

 

(a) Melvin does 18d6 with a Strike. Percy does 12d6.

 

( Bricks and extra density are generally easy to guess. By the time Percy knows his opponent has a martial throw, he's skidding across the ground at 45".

 

As well, both Passing Strike and Move Through assume I have room to get up to full velocity. This will not always be the case. Percy does 12d6 at close range. Melvin does 18d6.

 

 

Why bother with Martial Throw? For MT to work, you need a held action and to win a Dex roll off against the attacker. Why not have the hypothetical brick purchase Passing Strike instead of Martial Throw since the same conditionals would apply? Now he can use his own Str, his own velocity, and his attacker's velocity to do damage. And you get the OCV bonus to boot.

 

So a clone of Percy would do 12d6 + 45/5d6 + 45/5d6 or a total of 30d6 to Percy. Or 24.5d6 to Melvin. However, Percy 2 had better win the Dex roll and not miss or else he'll get splattered...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Why bother with Martial Throw? For MT to work' date=' you need a held action [b']and[/b] to win a Dex roll off against the attacker. Why not have the hypothetical brick purchase Passing Strike instead of Martial Throw since the same conditionals would apply? Now he can use his own Str, his own velocity, and his attacker's velocity to do damage. And you get the OCV bonus to boot.

 

In either case, the same logic applies - neither Percy nor Melvin wishes to utilize his own Passing Strike, and is forced to rely on ordinary HTH damage. I'm sure any number of additional scenarios where velocity (especially leaping velocity, which has difficulty with corners and, at least in theory, requires an arc) is involved.

 

As well, after the Throw, all my teammates can target your skidding Brick at 1/2 DCV, and he needs to stand up again (1/2 phase assuming lack of mitigating skills/powers), and he's only 1 hex away, instead of completing his move, neither of which results is provided by a Passing Strike.

 

Melvin should logically be better prepared for a halved DCV - he was expectuing to be -3 DCV most of the time anyway, so he's likely designed to defend against attacks that hit, rather than avoid being hit, but now we get into the "whole character design" permutation, which makes for a near-infinite number of possibilities.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Nevertheless' date=' that is a factor that must be taken into account when comparing the two maneuvers. The fact that there are opponents (and GMs being an evil lot, will custom design some) where the movethrough specialist goes BLAMMO. Also note that Martial Throw Lad will have an easier time with Move Through Monster since he has -3 DCV rather than Passing Strike Pugilist who has normal DCV.[/quote']

 

Yes, but if the GM is custom designing villains, the -3 DCV isn't gonna matter.

 

And I've played a brick with 36+" of Leap for years who found that the extra movement comes in handy quite often. The GM is going to throw all sorts of opponents at you, all with varying degrees of movements.

 

Yeah, but again, he's only got 36+ inches of Superleap. My speedster originally (back when I played him in another GM's game, and he wrote up our characters) had 60" of movement. I quickly discovered that that was way too high--my main attack came from a move-by, and I had overkill levels of movement. No one was ever even outside of my half-move. When you have enough movement to get there, you don't need more.

 

Have you seen my character, Lariat?

 

Yeah, Lariat was a nice little demi-brick. Ever seen Con-El?

 

Leap in an EC will provide damage + movement at half cost; if you pay the 5 pt adder called Passing Strike. Leap will only provide movement at half price if you don't have PS. And the 0 End PD only protects against movement damage is an additional cost that PSP doesn't have to pay at all.

 

Yes, Passing Strike doesn't need the extra defenses (unless you're worried about Martial Throw Lad).

 

Simple. If you're paying 15 pts for 15" leap, the +3 OCV costs 6 pts or a 40% surcharge. If you're paying only 7.5 pts for 15" Leap such as if you have a Limitation or if it's in a EC, then that 6 pts now is an 80% surcharge for MTM relative to PSP.

 

Gotcha. Of course, you're also getting the benefits (figured stats) of a higher strength with the 90 Str brick who focuses on move-through. Move-through will also have a certain "sweet spot", depending on the character writeup, where you won't have to purchase as much extra defense, or extra leap, or extra CV. Move-through does enough extra damage over passing strike so that it's often worth the small sacrifices. Move-through Marvin can hit 30+D6 real easy.

 

I never said Passing Strike wasn't good. It's just not especially broken.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Yes' date=' but if the GM is custom designing villains, the -3 DCV isn't gonna matter. [/quote']

 

Sure it is. First of all, all opponents are going to be benefiting from that -3 DCV. Secondly, even custom designed villains can only go so far since they'll be interacting with the rest of the group as well. The GM often will not want a villain who'll hit everyone virtually all the time.

 

 

Yeah, but again, he's only got 36+ inches of Superleap. My speedster originally (back when I played him in another GM's game, and he wrote up our characters) had 60" of movement. I quickly discovered that that was way too high--my main attack came from a move-by, and I had overkill levels of movement. No one was ever even outside of my half-move. When you have enough movement to get there, you don't need more.

 

 

When your half move is at least 1" greater than the other guy's full move, you have a tremendous tactical advantage. Your character's 60" movement will provide a direct advantage if the GM throws villains with 30+" movement at him, and that shouldn't be a problem for most GMs.

 

 

Yeah, Lariat was a nice little demi-brick. Ever seen Con-El?

 

Yeah, he's built with several broad overall limitations, and he has Characteristics in an EC. Wouldn't fly in most campaigns. However, I'm sure I would modify Lariat to take advantage of the same character building tricks if I were playing in your campaign.

 

 

Yes, Passing Strike doesn't need the extra defenses (unless you're worried about Martial Throw Lad).

 

Gotcha. Of course, you're also getting the benefits (figured stats) of a higher strength with the 90 Str brick who focuses on move-through. Move-through will also have a certain "sweet spot", depending on the character writeup, where you won't have to purchase as much extra defense, or extra leap, or extra CV. Move-through does enough extra damage over passing strike so that it's often worth the small sacrifices. Move-through Marvin can hit 30+D6 real easy.

 

I never said Passing Strike wasn't good. It's just not especially broken.

 

 

We're not getting a clear picture with 2 characters of varying Strs.

 

Let's compare 2 dudes with the same Str:

 

1) Mort has 45 Str, +15" additional Leap and levels with movethrough.

2) Pug has 45 Str, +15" Leap, and Passing Strike.

 

 

a) If purchasing the Leap straight, Mort spends 50 pts, has -5 OCV, -3 DCV, and does 17d6 damage. Pug spends 55 pts, has +1 OCV, +0 DCV, and does

14d6 damage. Mort needs to spend 12 pts on OCV and 9 pts on DCV for a total of 21 additional points to even out with Pug (let's ignore the extra defenses issue for now). Pug started 5 pts in the hole, so now he has an extra 16 pts to play with. He now buys +3d6 HA for 10 pts, and still has 6 pts left over to purchase +3 OCV. Pug is already clearly better even without considering the extra defense issue.

 

If purchasing Leap as part of a EC or with a -1 Limitation, now both Mort and Pug have +30" Leap for the same price as before. Mort still spends 50 pts before Levels, and Pug still spends 55 pts before extra damage. However, Mort now has -8 OCV, -3 DCV, and does 22d6 damage. He must spend 18+9 or 27 extra pts to match Pug. Pug at this point does 17d6 damage and 22 extra points to play with. If purchased straight, Pug would need to buy +5d6 HA for 17 pts to match and still be ahead. However, since there is an existing EC, Pug could stick a +6d6 HA in the same EC for 10 net points. Now he has 12 extra points to play with, and already does 1d6 more damage than Mort without any worries about needing to buy extra defenses. Pug's advantage over Mort will only get better as more Leap is purchased.

 

All of this of course is assuming that the GM would allow someone to buy 6-9 2 pt levels with Movethrough. Lots of GMs are pretty leary about stuff like that.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

In either case, the same logic applies - neither Percy nor Melvin wishes to utilize his own Passing Strike, and is forced to rely on ordinary HTH damage. I'm sure any number of additional scenarios where velocity (especially leaping velocity, which has difficulty with corners and, at least in theory, requires an arc) is involved.

 

As well, after the Throw, all my teammates can target your skidding Brick at 1/2 DCV, and he needs to stand up again (1/2 phase assuming lack of mitigating skills/powers), and he's only 1 hex away, instead of completing his move, neither of which results is provided by a Passing Strike.

 

Melvin should logically be better prepared for a halved DCV - he was expectuing to be -3 DCV most of the time anyway, so he's likely designed to defend against attacks that hit, rather than avoid being hit, but now we get into the "whole character design" permutation, which makes for a near-infinite number of possibilities.

 

Percy is better prepared to deal with another Percy or MTL than Melvin is. First of all, Percy2 or MTL needs to have a held action. This affects both Percy and Melvin, so that's a wash. Secondly, P2 or MTL needs to win a dex roll. Again, it affects both equally. Third, P2 or MTL needs to hit. This does NOT affect both equally. Given average CVs, P2 or MTL would need a 11- to hit Percy and a 14- to hit Melvin. A HUGE difference.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Sure it is. First of all' date=' [b']all[/b] opponents are going to be benefiting from that -3 DCV. Secondly, even custom designed villains can only go so far since they'll be interacting with the rest of the group as well. The GM often will not want a villain who'll hit everyone virtually all the time.

 

GMs don't want to hit everyone all the time? Who told you this?

 

When your half move is at least 1" greater than the other guy's full move, you have a tremendous tactical advantage. Your character's 60" movement will provide a direct advantage if the GM throws villains with 30+" movement at him, and that shouldn't be a problem for most GMs.

 

It's only an advantage when you've got equal or greater speed. We're talking about bricks here, probably not the fastest. Even so, these characters are able to do full-move attacks, meaning that they don't need to have as good a half-move as other characters.

 

Yeah, he's built with several broad overall limitations, and he has Characteristics in an EC. Wouldn't fly in most campaigns. However, I'm sure I would modify Lariat to take advantage of the same character building tricks if I were playing in your campaign.

 

Yes, I saw how people reacted to poor Lariat. And I remember how they reacted to Con-El.

 

We're not getting a clear picture with 2 characters of varying Strs.

 

Let's compare 2 dudes with the same Str:

 

1) Mort has 45 Str, +15" additional Leap and levels with movethrough.

2) Pug has 45 Str, +15" Leap, and Passing Strike.

 

 

a) If purchasing the Leap straight, Mort spends 50 pts, has -5 OCV, -3 DCV, and does 17d6 damage. Pug spends 55 pts, has +1 OCV, +0 DCV, and does

14d6 damage. Mort needs to spend 12 pts on OCV and 9 pts on DCV for a total of 21 additional points to even out with Pug (let's ignore the extra defenses issue for now). Pug started 5 pts in the hole, so now he has an extra 16 pts to play with. He now buys +3d6 HA for 10 pts, and still has 6 pts left over to purchase +3 OCV. Pug is already clearly better even without considering the extra defense issue.

 

If purchasing Leap as part of a EC or with a -1 Limitation, now both Mort and Pug have +30" Leap for the same price as before. Mort still spends 50 pts before Levels, and Pug still spends 55 pts before extra damage. However, Mort now has -8 OCV, -3 DCV, and does 22d6 damage. He must spend 18+9 or 27 extra pts to match Pug. Pug at this point does 17d6 damage and 22 extra points to play with. If purchased straight, Pug would need to buy +5d6 HA for 17 pts to match and still be ahead. However, since there is an existing EC, Pug could stick a +6d6 HA in the same EC for 10 net points. Now he has 12 extra points to play with, and already does 1d6 more damage than Mort without any worries about needing to buy extra defenses. Pug's advantage over Mort will only get better as more Leap is purchased.

 

Again, as I've been explaining to people over in the Armor vs Force Field thread, you'll just screw yourself if you try and use one power to exactly duplicate another ("Armor that costs End costs more End than the same amount of Force Field--waaahhh!!!"). Move-through won't exactly duplicate Passing Strike--the advantages of each maneuver are a bit different. Trying to shoehorn move-through into Passing Strike will not be kind to move-through. Move-through has different break points. While it's tempting to break them down as you've done and show why one is more effective, the reality is that you have to analyze them as a whole character. Basically though, move-through needs more levels and less Superleap. It does more damage but comes with more combat penalties.

 

All of this of course is assuming that the GM would allow someone to buy 6-9 2 pt levels with Movethrough. Lots of GMs are pretty leary about stuff like that.

 

Exactly. They should be leery about it. It's a very nasty move. Just as nasty as Passing Strike, in fact.

 

Of course, Superleap is the friend of Passing Strike. So is Swinging and (technically) Swimming. Passing Strike likes movement types that start with the letter S, because they're only 1 point per inch. Running and Flight, however, require a heftier outlay of points for movement. At this point, the percentage of points spent on movement vs levels begins to favor move-through. Move-through maintains it's nastiness when flying in orbit, because it only needs 3" per D6, while Passing Strike starts to take it on the chin because it needs 5" per D6.

[Gary]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

GMs don't want to hit everyone all the time? Who told you this?

 

Yeah I know it's shocking, but many GMs actually want to design encounters that are challenging but not onesided.

 

It's easy for the GM to slap +3 OCV on all their villains, but unless there's a serious GM/player adversarial relationship, most GMs want to give their players a chance. And I can easily see GMs designing custom villains for one PC, but not wanting that villain to automatically trash the rest. Especially if that villain is part of a team and doesn't have to fight the party alone.

 

 

It's only an advantage when you've got equal or greater speed. We're talking about bricks here, probably not the fastest. Even so, these characters are able to do full-move attacks, meaning that they don't need to have as good a half-move as other characters.

 

It all depends on exactly what villains the GM throws at you.

 

 

Yes, I saw how people reacted to poor Lariat. And I remember how they reacted to Con-El.

 

Yeah, Con-El probably works fine in your world where everyone is built the same way. It's when you have a mixed party where there are some Con-Els, and some standard characters that there will be problems. Or if you try and bring a Con-El to a more standard world. To a lesser extent, this applies to Lariat as well. However, she's built mostly straight so it'd be a lot easier to tweak her to fit another world if I had to.

 

 

Again, as I've been explaining to people over in the Armor vs Force Field thread, you'll just screw yourself if you try and use one power to exactly duplicate another ("Armor that costs End costs more End than the same amount of Force Field--waaahhh!!!"). Move-through won't exactly duplicate Passing Strike--the advantages of each maneuver are a bit different. Trying to shoehorn move-through into Passing Strike will not be kind to move-through. Move-through has different break points. While it's tempting to break them down as you've done and show why one is more effective, the reality is that you have to analyze them as a whole character. Basically though, move-through needs more levels and less Superleap. It does more damage but comes with more combat penalties.

 

When analyzing 2 powers, you have to take out extraneous factors and only compare the differences. With my analysis, I only added stuff that the movethrough specialist would want to buy anyway such as extra OCV/DCV. And the cost of that OCV/DCV is very easy to determine.

 

 

 

Exactly. They should be leery about it. It's a very nasty move. Just as nasty as Passing Strike, in fact.

 

Of course, Superleap is the friend of Passing Strike. So is Swinging and (technically) Swimming. Passing Strike likes movement types that start with the letter S, because they're only 1 point per inch. Running and Flight, however, require a heftier outlay of points for movement. At this point, the percentage of points spent on movement vs levels begins to favor move-through. Move-through maintains it's nastiness when flying in orbit, because it only needs 3" per D6, while Passing Strike starts to take it on the chin because it needs 5" per D6.

 

Not really. We can do the same analysis with Flight instead of Leap.

 

Mort with 45 Str and 15" flight pays 65 pts now and does 14d6 damage. He has -3 OCV and -3 DCV.

 

Pug with 45 Str and 15" flight and PS pays 70 pts and does 12d6 damage and has +1 OCV +0 DCV.

 

Mort needs to pay 17 pts to have the same CV as Pug. Pug needs to pay 7 pts to add +2 HA and do the same damage as Mort. Pug is 5 pts ahead at this point (or +2.5 OCV). This is not counting the extra defense issue.

 

Now let's put the Flight in a EC so we get 30" for the same price. Mort now has -6 OCV and does 19d6 damage. Pug does 15d6 damage.

 

Mort now has to spend 23 pts to match CVs. Pug has to spend 13 pts to do the same damage if purchasing +4d6 HA straight, or if he takes advantage of the existing EC and places HA in it, he can add +12d6 HA for a total of 27d6 at a cost of 20 pts. Pug is now 2 pts behind Mort, but now he does 8d6 more damage. I'd say Pug still has an edge.

[Guest C--]

Re: Passing Strike (martial maneuver) Unbalanced?

 

Yeah I know it's shocking, but many GMs actually want to design encounters that are challenging but not onesided.

 

It's easy for the GM to slap +3 OCV on all their villains, but unless there's a serious GM/player adversarial relationship, most GMs want to give their players a chance. And I can easily see GMs designing custom villains for one PC, but not wanting that villain to automatically trash the rest. Especially if that villain is part of a team and doesn't have to fight the party alone.

 

You've never had Agent X as a GM, have you?

 

It all depends on exactly what villains the GM throws at you.

 

Yup.

 

Yeah, Con-El probably works fine in your world where everyone is built the same way. It's when you have a mixed party where there are some Con-Els, and some standard characters that there will be problems. Or if you try and bring a Con-El to a more standard world. To a lesser extent, this applies to Lariat as well. However, she's built mostly straight so it'd be a lot easier to tweak her to fit another world if I had to.

 

Heh heh heh. Our group was sitting around reading the 5th Edition rules when they came out. We figured that if Con-El ever came to a 5th Edition world, he'd just explode.

 

 

When analyzing 2 powers, you have to take out extraneous factors and only compare the differences. With my analysis, I only added stuff that the movethrough specialist would want to buy anyway such as extra OCV/DCV. And the cost of that OCV/DCV is very easy to determine.

 

Well, yeah, except that the move-through specialist benefits more from a different construction than the passing strike guy. Instead of him having 45 Str and 15" of movement, he'd be better served by taking a 50 Str and 12" of movement (selling off the one PD and the extra inch of Superleap to make up the costs). That way, he still gets 4D6 damage, but he doesn't need the extra +1 OCV. The characters get different break points.

 

Not really. We can do the same analysis with Flight instead of Leap.

 

Mort with 45 Str and 15" flight pays 65 pts now and does 14d6 damage. He has -3 OCV and -3 DCV.

 

Pug with 45 Str and 15" flight and PS pays 70 pts and does 12d6 damage and has +1 OCV +0 DCV.

 

Mort needs to pay 17 pts to have the same CV as Pug. Pug needs to pay 7 pts to add +2 HA and do the same damage as Mort. Pug is 5 pts ahead at this point (or +2.5 OCV). This is not counting the extra defense issue.

 

Hand Attack (or just plain extra Strength) is gonna be cheaper than movement anyway. And again, it isn't in the interest of Mort to try and get the exact same CVs as Pug.

 

Now let's put the Flight in a EC so we get 30" for the same price. Mort now has -6 OCV and does 19d6 damage. Pug does 15d6 damage.

 

Mort now has to spend 23 pts to match CVs. Pug has to spend 13 pts to do the same damage if purchasing +4d6 HA straight, or if he takes advantage of the existing EC and places HA in it, he can add +12d6 HA for a total of 27d6 at a cost of 20 pts. Pug is now 2 pts behind Mort, but now he does 8d6 more damage. I'd say Pug still has an edge.

 

Again, Hand Attack changes the equation a lot. At this point, you're really comparing Hand Attack with move-through, and that's a battle that Hand Attack is gonna win every time.