Stupid Speedster Trick

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Well..

 

1. It doesn't work if a solid object protects target’s back/flank

 

Pretty rare that someone spends all their time with their back against the wall and if they don't have a ranged attack and wabt to spend the entire combat like for fear of 2d6 NND that's fine with her and a strangle hold defined as working from the back wouldn't technically be applicable then either.

 

2. It doesn't work if the target is standing in more than 1' of water (GM's discression on other surfaces like ice or tar)

 

Most character using a strange hold would have to be able to reach their opponent to Grab them and if/when she gets the speedster trick of running on water that won't be much of a difficulty.

 

3. It doesn't work if the target has Life Support = Extended Breathing/Expanded Breathing: Void/Self-Contained Breathing

 

Neither does a regular choke hold.

 

4. Attacker at 1/2 DCV

 

Same a regular choke. Its defined as Grab Manuver and reduced DCV accordingly.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Pretty rare that someone spends all their time with their back against the wall and they don't have a ranged attack and to spend the entire combat like' date=' that's fine and a strangle hold defined as working from the back wouldn't technically be applicable then either. [/quote']

Not the first time... But repeat villains might realize this and start to dive for cover next to cars, buildings, Force Walls, etc, trumping your maneuver and leaving you easy prey at 1/2 DCV.

 

Just be careful.

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

She probably have to Abort to Defense that point and hold on. The GM allows since the character hasn't made the attack roll yet, its applicability has just been negated.

 

Yes, its a house rule/interpretation, but we felt that otherwise Dive for Cover was actually more effect in most situations that Dodge or Block which meant to deal with non area of effects attacks.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

We're a little off subject here, but I don't agree. Dive For Cover has a Dex roll involved where Block and Dodge are automatic.

 

But... House Rules are House Rules... How does the book put it... c'est la guerre.

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

We're a little off subject here, but I don't agree. Dive For Cover has a Dex roll involved where Block and Dodge are automatic.

 

But... House Rules are House Rules... How does the book put it... c'est la guerre.

 

Block isn't automatic. Its a contest roll of OCV vs OCV but the attacker still has to beat you DCV Dodge isn't rolled at all but just increases your DCV. DFC against a non area of effect is a uncontested Dexterity roll at -1 normally and even if it fails the attacker's still has to be your normal DCV.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Successful DFC = prone.

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Successful DFC = prone.

 

Which is mainly a disadvantage if you're a position to be attacked by others before your next phase rolls around, or more so before the segment since while you can't stand you can abort to a defensive action in the next segement, even standing if the gm allows it. DFC also automatically avoids the follow up attacks from Sweeps, Autofire and Rapid Fire and can give you a hand start at getting away if you want to risk leaping more then 1 hex. The GM may also allow you to scramble, roll out of the way (Dive for cover again) if you're attack further.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Which is mainly a disadvantage if you're a position to be attacked by others before your next phase rolls around' date=' or more so before the segment since while you can't stand you can abort to a defensive action in the next segement, even standing if the gm allows it. DFC also automatically avoids the follow up attacks from Sweeps, Autofire and Rapid Fire and can give you a hand start at getting away if you want to risk leaping more then 1 hex. The GM may also allow you to scramble, roll out of the way (Dive for cover again) if you're attack further.[/quote']

I don't know any GMs that allow characters suffering from a prone penalty (not just lying on the ground) to do anything but recover (per the rules - ...[standing or lying on the ground] He must spend 1/2 phase to get his bearings and is at 1/2 DCV until he does so).

 

Which is mainly a disadvantage if you're a position to be attacked by others before your next phase rolls around...

Or you're fighting a speedster with a higher speed than your own which will often give (her) an attack before you can recover.

 

DFC allows the character to be in the next (or more) hex when the attack goes off.

 

But it's not worth arguing about... Like I said, House Rules are House Rules.

 

Sorry about the thread segue.

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

I don't know any GMs that allow characters suffering from a prone penalty (not just lying on the ground) to do anything but recover (per the rules - ...[standing or lying on the ground] He must spend 1/2 phase to get his bearings and is at 1/2 DCV until he does so).

 

PG 76 Hero Combat Handbook Second Paragraph from the bottom

 

A character may Dive for Cover two more times in a row provided the special effects and timing allow for that

 

It seems to be a GM's discretion issue. The GM might also call standing or getting your bearings a defensive action and allow you to abort to the manuver on the next segment as per the discussion of Defensive Actions in Combat Manual

 

Or you're fighting a speedster with a higher speed than your own which will often give her an attack before you can recover.

 

That would have been a tactical blunder on the the part of the character, not a universal drawback in DFC that makes it "less effective" against Non Area of attacks overall. In a specific situation, its less effective not "Most of the time" as is implied by the description of the manuver.

 

But yes, this is a thread drift. I've started a thread on the subject of Dive for Cover here if you're interested.

[Half Baked]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

In 24 hrs since I posted the discussion has moved on quite a bit and the GM is permitted it anyway so I won't bother picking up on some of my previous points. One thing drew my attention:

 

If anything maybe this points out that Martial Arts is wonky.

 

Very true and one of the primary reasons I wouldn't permit the trick as a MA is for that very reason. Martial Arts are a kludge that to my eyes lack the internal consistency and elegance of the rest of the Hero System tookkit. I don't want to make them any kludgier (is that a word?) or wonkier by stretching SFX and descriptions of manuevers to do so

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions.

 

Besides if we all played the game the same that Hero Rules Discussion forum would be so boring.

 

But I have to ask does this mean you'd disallow the Speedster Martial Art manever "Rapid Fire Punch" since its supposed to emulate of flurry of blows since it would be done more "accurately" with autofire No Range EB or Autofire HTH attack?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but I prefer to build it as a smaller Autofire HA or Autofire Naked Advantage on STR instead of one big HA or Martial maneuver. I feel this is more accurate, more versatile and ultimatly more fun. It's also often cheeper to buy since, again, most of my Speedsters have a multipower, but not all of them have Speedster Martial Arts.

 

The down side of doing it with Autofire is that the martial maneuver is more likely to put a hurting on higher defense opponenets. This is something that is occasionally shown to be possible for speedsters to do. If I feel the need to simulate that, I'd just apply Penetrating.

[Half Baked]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

But I have to ask does this mean you'd disallow the Speedster Martial Art manever "Rapid Fire Punch" since its supposed to emulate of flurry of blows since it would be done more "accurately" with autofire No Range EB or Autofire HTH attack?

 

I'd allow it because the speedster's fist actually connects with his opponent. He is still directly attacking their target in a manner that is easy to see as a martial arts attack. That's my opinion anyway!

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

I'd allow it because the speedster's fist actually connects with his opponent. He is still directly attacking their target in a manner that is easy to see as a martial arts attack. That's my opinion anyway!

 

If I called the Vortex "Spin Dizzy" with special effect the speedster grabs the target and spins them around rapidly and the damage was nausea and accomlated dizziness would you find that a more accpetable use of Martial Manuever?

[Lethosos]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Nah, I'd stimulate it as a Drain DEX--Earthquake (Heroes of Filmland, UberWorld) has a similar power in his framework that basically does the same thing, and he's not even a speedster.

[Half Baked]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

If I called the Vortex "Spin Dizzy" with special effect the speedster grabs the target and spins them around rapidly and the damage was nausea and accomlated dizziness would you find that a more accpetable use of Martial Manuever?

 

For what it is worth, probably not. Again, there is a better build to simulate the effect of the move as Lethosos suggests. For me you are starting the wrong way around with this. I prefer to start with the SFX of a power and build the power that is the best fit for it, rather than select a power or manuveur and justify why it fits with your character's SFX. You seem to be trying to find complicated justifications for Choke Hold. If you want to take Choke Hold, take a Choke Hold manuveur. There are plenty of simple justifications for a character to have a simple martial arts manuveur.

 

I know you will say that it is no different to Rapid Fire Punch as it might be a more proper build as a HTH attack with autofire. There is a world of difference. It is still a punch where you stand adjacent to your opponent and punch him. With the Vortex power there are plenty of problems:

 

1. It can be stopped if speedster cannot run around target which is not part of Choke Hold.

2. Physical grab not actually involved to restrain target.

3. STR not involved so how does STR v STR escape work. The force restraining the target is based on the speed of the spinning. Is it just assumed the spin is the same force as speedster's STR? If speedster is subject of STR drain how does that effect the STR v STR?

4. Speedster doesn't end the phase grabbing target.

 

All of these require some handwaving or large assumptions. Rapid Fire Punch solution does not create problems of the same magnitude. I see the problems as follows:

 

1. Autofire requires END for each punch. That is not quite true. The END for STR is only paid for once per phase, no matter what the STR is used for.

2. The damage is larger and only applied once against defences instead of multiple times at a smaller level. I can live with that fudge if it saves on dice rolling and makes play run smoother.

 

All in all, I can live with that fudge for Rapid Fire Punch. For me, using MA manuevers for powers depends on SFX and how far the actual difference between the two constructs are based on the SFX.

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

For what it is worth, probably not. Again, there is a better build to simulate the effect of the move as Lethosos suggests. For me you are starting the wrong way around with this. I prefer to start with the SFX of a power and build the power that is the best fit for it, rather than select a power or manuveur and justify why it fits with your character's SFX. You seem to be trying to find complicated justifications for Choke Hold. If you want to take Choke Hold, take a Choke Hold manuveur. There are plenty of simple justifications for a character to have a simple martial arts manuveur.

 

I do start with the effect I want. In this case, Chokehold fit want I wanted.

 

I know you will say that it is no different to Rapid Fire Punch as it might be a more proper build as a HTH attack with autofire. There is a world of difference. It is still a punch where you stand adjacent to your opponent and punch him.

 

But you don't just punch him. You Punch him dozens of times. Yet the MA manuever is more effiecent. Its cheaper both pointwise and endurance wise, hits much easier than the autofire version and has much of a chance of effecting a high defense target.

 

 

With the Vortex power there are plenty of problems:

 

1. It can be stopped if speedster cannot run around target which is not part of Choke Hold.

 

There types of Strangle Holds that would not work if the attacker couldn't get behind the target. I consider that just a special effects limitation. All the attacker has to is occupy the same hex as her target. "Running around him"

is a specical effect.

 

2. Physical grab not actually involved to restrain target.

3. STR not involved so how does STR v STR escape work. The force restraining the target is based on the speed of the spinning. Is it just assumed the spin is the same force as speedster's STR? If speedster is subject of STR drain how does that effect the STR v STR?

 

Yes, the strength of the vortex is assumed to be the character strength. The Entangle version is just, if not more off, since escaping from an entangle is somewhat more difficult that breaking a grab. Consider the character's "Strength" in this case to be measure of their short term exertion.

 

4. Speedster doesn't end the phase grabbing target.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[

All of these require some handwaving or large assumptions. Rapid Fire Punch solution does not create problems of the same magnitude. I see the problems as follows:

 

1. Autofire requires END for each punch. That is not quite true. The END for STR is only paid for once per phase, no matter what the STR is used for.

 

IIRC, Strength purchased with Autofire is the exception to the "Pay Endurance once" rule and you pay per use like other attack powers. In any cause you would have to pay for any HTH attack your brought with it per use or get it 0 Endurance which makes it even more expensive than Martial Arts version

 

2. The damage is larger and only applied once against defences instead of multiple times at a smaller level. I can live with that fudge if it saves on dice rolling and makes play run smoother.

 

OTOH, that feels a bit wonky to me. There is no way Velocity is going to hurt our Stone Body brick by hitting him five times more often. She's just going to bruise her knuckles 5 times faster. And how does Rapid Punch interact with Damage Sheields? The SFX is that hit your target many times but you are effect by his DS once.

 

All in all, I can live with that fudge for Rapid Fire Punch. For me, using MA manuevers for powers depends on SFX and how far the actual difference between the two constructs are based on the SFX.

 

I use the same criteria but we just seem to have different opinions on what's approprate. Just to avoid any misundertanding, I wasn't trying to contest your opinion I wanted to get an idea of where you were coming from.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

For what it is worth' date=' probably not. Again, there is a better build to simulate the effect of the move as Lethosos suggests. For me you are starting the wrong way around with this.[/quote']

Square peg, round hole.

 

nexus,

 

As I understood it, your original question was "Would you allow the creative (or may some other less polite word) use of SFX. " and you were asking for perspective not permission.

 

Many people have answered you contrary to your beliefs, which seem set in stone. So what. It's you character and our opinions. We agree to disagree (just don't bring it into my game and I'll wish you the best of luck).

 

Why is it you continue to try so hard to prove that the void power is acceptable? Whom are you trying to persuade? Only your GM really cares and it's his opinion that matters. As for the rest of us that disagree with you, we're just a bunch of yokles that you don't have to convince. (Of course I speak only for myself - )

 

Do it your way and have fun!

[nexus]

Re: Stupid Speedster Trick

 

Square peg, round hole.

 

nexus,

 

As I understood it, your original question was "Would you allow the creative (or may some other less polite word) use of SFX. " and you were asking for perspective not permission.

 

Many people have answered you contrary to your beliefs, which seem set in stone. So what. It's you character and our opinions. We agree to disagree (just don't bring it into my game and I'll wish you the best of luck).

 

Why is it you continue to try so hard to prove that the void power is acceptable? Whom are you trying to persuade? Only your GM really cares and it's his opinion that matters. As for the rest of us that disagree with you, we're just a bunch of yokles that you don't have to convince. (Of course I speak only for myself - )

 

Do it your way and have fun!

 

I wasn't trying to persuade at this point. I want to see where other people are coming from with their perspective. Even I don't agree with someone standards and opinions, they can provide insight into my own and food for thought. Someone might have a point I've missed or an angle I overlooked so discussion is alway beneficial if its civil and informative as I feel this thread has been.