Haymaker out of combat

[Checkmate]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Here's what really makes me giggle:

People are okay with boot jets, and repulsor blasts. They're okay with the fact that if a super could fly faster than a plane when the pilot was awake, if pilot gets knocked out, the plane will probably fall faster than the super could fly since it now goes every segment, but tell people they can't haymaker when the limitations of haymaker don't mean anything, and then HERO becomes unrealistic.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Here's what really makes me giggle:

People are okay with boot jets, and repulsor blasts. They're okay with the fact that if a super could fly faster than a plane when the pilot was awake, if pilot gets knocked out, the plane will probably fall faster than the super could fly since it now goes every segment, but tell people they can't haymaker when the limitations of haymaker don't mean anything, and then HERO becomes unrealistic.

 

Repped and welcome to ascendance.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Here's what really makes me giggle:

People are okay with boot jets, and repulsor blasts. They're okay with the fact that if a super could fly faster than a plane when the pilot was awake, if pilot gets knocked out, the plane will probably fall faster than the super could fly since it now goes every segment, but tell people they can't haymaker when the limitations of haymaker don't mean anything, and then HERO becomes unrealistic.

 

I would say rather it seems inconsistent. I would also say the above applies equally to the argument that the maneuver itself is "unrealistic".

 

Mind you, it is entertaining to see where some peoples' suspension of disbelief fades. My favorite is complaints that a magic system is "unrealistic".

[Checkmate]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

From a rules standpoint it's not inconsistant at all: In order to get a benefit you must accept the limitations. If the limitations don't limit, you don't get the benefit. I think that's a pretty prevailing theme all though HERO. The whole argument against it is, it's not realistic/logical (logical from a non-rules standpoint). The only argument I see, is Martial Arts...which peoeple have to pay points for.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

So, given that some limitations only apply sometimes, should the powers they apply to fail when the limitation is not applicable? The limitation of Haymaker is that it reduces the target's DCV. Powers which have the Concentrate limitation also reduce the user's DCV. Should these be prohibited from use outside of combat as well, given that limitation isn't very limiting outside combat?

 

BTW, the rules also generally suggest application of dramatic and common sense, so these considerations are part of the rules.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Hmm... I was under the impression that Pushing only added 10 Active Points worth of damage to an attack, but didn't increase the cap on max additional damage from Maneuvers; so a STR 10 person Pushing can only do a maximum of 6d6 damage with a Haymaker, not 8d6. However I've been unable to find a published ruling on that, so I can't support it.

 

For my part I've always allowed Haymakers against inanimate objects. The published descriptions for Stronghold in early Champions products mentioned cells having to be strengthened to withstand their Haymakers, so that seemed to be an assumed element of the game. Frankly I can't see supers performing some of the typical environment-smashing feats from the genre without allowing that option.

[Checkmate]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

So, given that some limitations only apply sometimes, should the powers they apply to fail when the limitation is not applicable? The limitation of Haymaker is that it reduces the target's DCV. Powers which have the Concentrate limitation also reduce the user's DCV. Should these be prohibited from use outside of combat as well, given that limitation isn't very limiting outside combat?

 

BTW, the rules also generally suggest application of dramatic and common sense, so these considerations are part of the rules.

The differnce being that you've still paid points for that power. You don't have to pay as much because you are SOMETIMES limited. How often you're limited is how much you save. If you are only limited sometimes, you pay more than if you're limited all the time, but even if you are technically limited all the time, you still paid points for it, so even if you find away round the limits, you've paid for that.

 

Haymaker costs nothing. You are allowed to do it, because you accept the limitations. If you don't accept the limitations (or they don't apply) then you can't do it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Here's what really makes me giggle:

People are okay with boot jets, and repulsor blasts. They're okay with the fact that if a super could fly faster than a plane when the pilot was awake, if pilot gets knocked out, the plane will probably fall faster than the super could fly since it now goes every segment, but tell people they can't haymaker when the limitations of haymaker don't mean anything, and then HERO becomes unrealistic.

 

Here's the problem, and you get it or you don't:

 

A new player comes up to me and says 'I want to play a character who is basically a normal guy, works a 9 to 5, but discovers that he can build virtually anything, given the right equipment, and enough time: it is a strange quirk of his brain that he can design and build supertech, OK? He builds himself some jet boots and some gauntlets that do repulsor blasts and decides he has been givent his gift for a reason and decides to become a hero and help humanity.'

 

K.

 

Now we build this chap.

 

During the game the built super tech gets taken off him and he gets locked in a cell. The fact that he has had jet boots and repulsor blasts up to now has not derailed the old suspension of disbelief, to mix my metaphors, as it is part of the genre.

 

Now locked in his cell, this guy, STR 10, really needs to escape to rescue the rest of the team, or thinks he does. In fact we are highlighting another character at present who has escapology skills who will rescue tech guy who will retreive his tech and....you get the picture. Maybe, he thinks, the walls are only plyboard and paste....

 

Anyway, he hits the wall, which he does not realise is concrete, hard as he can, and pushing. Lucky roll, a couple of Body up, and he has a man sized hole in the wall which, now he notices, is made of concrete.

 

Suddenly all the stuff he has been doing with repulsor rays seems to pale a bit, given that he, a slightly above average bloke can knock down concrete walls with his fists.

 

There's the problem.

 

It detracts from the overall experience, it POs martial artists and it is just utterly unrealistic within the context of the game reality. Hero damage might not be exactly exponential but it ain't exactly linear either and 4d6 is an awful lot.

 

When I play a game I expect to take a lot of assumptions with me: gravity operates and a fall of much over 10 feet is likely to hurt, 20 feet is likely to cause injury and 30 feet could kill. You can cover 100m in 30 seconds no matter who you are, and a world class athlete will be able to manage it in 10, or thereabouts. Most metals are hard and tough. Normal people can not punch through concrete walls.

 

Now if the game is specifically about characters with superpowers, or whatever, then I'm willing to accept, under the belief blanket, that superpowers exist, but if my character does not have one that allows him to punch through a wall, he shouldn't be able to.

 

No system is a perfect representation of reality (except, possobly 'physics rpg'), but there is really no need to step outside people's reasonable expectations.

 

The bottom line is this: I can't see why we need haymaker when we have pushing, I can't see that it fulfills a need in the system or in the games played with it, or even simulates something regularly found in the supporting media that is not already covered by other bits of the system.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

The differnce being that you've still paid points for that power. You don't have to pay as much because you are SOMETIMES limited. How often you're limited is how much you save. If you are only limited sometimes, you pay more than if you're limited all the time, but even if you are technically limited all the time, you still paid points for it, so even if you find away round the limits, you've paid for that.

 

Haymaker costs nothing. You are allowed to do it, because you accept the limitations. If you don't accept the limitations (or they don't apply) then you can't do it.

 

My character pays nothing for his legs, and 6" base running. Yet they work whether he's in combat or not. He can change to noncombat movement, even when greater speed is desirable and the loss of CV is irrelevant. Now, I suppose you could argue that he "paid" for this ability by not taking a "cannot walk" or "no NCM on running" physical limitation, but he didn't take "cannot haymaker" as a disadvantage either.

 

I would prefer Sean's approach of eliminating the Haymaker entirely over the purely mechanical approach that there must be someone available to take advantage of your reduced DCV in order to permit the Haymaker.

 

Let's assume my character is in a prison. he wants out, and he needs to use his Haymaker to do it. Under which of the following circumstances, applying this "the drawback must be limiting" restriction is he able to perform a Haymaker:

 

(a) The character is alone in the cell (clearly not as that's the issue we disagree on)

 

( The character has a cellmate who he knows will not attack him. He is correct.

 

© The character has a cellmate who he knows will not attack him. He is incorrect, and the cellmate will try to shank him as soon as he tries the Haymaker.

 

(d) The character has a cellmate who he knows will not attack him. He is incorrect, and the cellmate will try to shank him as soon as he tries the Haymaker. However, the knife is incapable of inflicting even a single point of STUN due to the prisoner's high defenses.

 

(e) The character has a cellmate who he is unsure will not attack him. The cellmate will not attack him.

 

(f) The character has a cellmate who he is unsure will not attack him. The cellmate will attack him.

 

(g) The character has a cellmate who he is unsure will not attack him. The cellmate will attack him. However, the cellmate is incapable of inflicting even a single point of STUN due to the prisoner's high defenses.

 

(h) The character has a cellmate who he is sure will attack him. he is wrong. The cellmate will not attack him.

 

(i) The character has a cellmate who he is sure will attack him. He is correct. The cellmate will attack him.

 

(j) The character has a cellmate who he is sure will attack him. He is correct. The cellmate will attack him. However, the cellmate is incapable of inflicting even a single point of STUN due to the prisoner's high defenses.

 

(k) The character has combat flashbacks when imprisoned, and delusionally believes he is battling enemy forces with a Haymaker when, in fact, he is targetting the wall.

 

(l) The character believes he is alone in the cell but, in fact, there is another person there - he is invisible, and just waiting for the character to drop his guard so he can attack.

 

(m) The character believes there is another person in the cell who is invisible, and just waiting for the character to drop his guard so he can attack. He is correct.

 

(n) The character believes there is another person in the cell who is invisible, and just waiting for the character to drop his guard so he can attack. He is incorrect.

 

(o) The character is in the cell with another person who has engaged him in combat. He wants to flee, so he haymakers the wall.

 

(p) The character is in the cell with another person who has engaged him in combat. He wants to flee, so he haymakers the wall. He doesn't know that the other guy in the cell started the fight in the hopes of getting them broken out, so he won't take advantage of the reduced DCV.

 

(q) The character is in the cell with another person who has engaged him in combat. He wants to flee, so he haymakers the wall. He started the fight himself so he could attempt to flee after haymakering the wall.

 

Is the ability to Haymaker contingent on the actual presence of someone who will take advantage of the reduced DCV, someone capable of taking adgvantage and the character doesn't know whether they will, someone who could take advantage whether or not they will, the character's belief that someone may or will take advantage of the situation, or the player's expectations of whether the drop in DCV might be taken advantage of?

 

Can I use an attempted Haymaker as an impromptu Danger Sense? "my Haymaker failed - it's safe to discuss our plans" or "my haymaker worked - someone in this room is a traitor!"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

A new player comes up to me and says 'I want to play a character who is basically a normal guy, works a 9 to 5, but discovers that he can build virtually anything, given the right equipment, and enough time: it is a strange quirk of his brain that he can design and build supertech, OK? He builds himself some jet boots and some gauntlets that do repulsor blasts and decides he has been givent his gift for a reason and decides to become a hero and help humanity.'

 

K.

 

Now we build this chap.

 

As he is a normal human, do we take "Normal Characteristic Maxima? If we do, I will argue that subsumed in that disadvantage is the fact he is a normal human, and normal humans cannot push their STR and beat down concrete walls. if not, why not? He's a normal human, isn't he?

 

During the game the built super tech gets taken off him and he gets locked in a cell. The fact that he has had jet boots and repulsor blasts up to now has not derailed the old suspension of disbelief, to mix my metaphors, as it is part of the genre.

 

Now locked in his cell, this guy, STR 10, really needs to escape to rescue the rest of the team, or thinks he does. In fact we are highlighting another character at present who has escapology skills who will rescue tech guy who will retreive his tech and....you get the picture. Maybe, he thinks, the walls are only plyboard and paste....

 

Anyway, he hits the wall, which he does not realise is concrete, hard as he can, and pushing. Lucky roll, a couple of Body up, and he has a man sized hole in the wall which, now he notices, is made of concrete.

 

Why is he permitted to Push as a casual action? This is where you and I seem to play differently. In my games, there must be a dramatic reason to Push, not "Well, I want to do extra damage". If you don't allow casual Pushing, Joe Tech is down to 4d6, and ends up hurting his hand on the concrete wall. I suppose he can roll all 6's and get 8 BOD, but he could have done that without Haymaker, and wish Pushing available in such a non-dramatic situation.

 

Suddenly all the stuff he has been doing with repulsor rays seems to pale a bit, given that he, a slightly above average bloke can knock down concrete walls with his fists.

 

There's the problem.

 

It detracts from the overall experience, it POs martial artists and it is just utterly unrealistic within the context of the game reality. Hero damage might not be exactly exponential but it ain't exactly linear either and 4d6 is an awful lot.

 

When I play a game I expect to take a lot of assumptions with me: gravity operates and a fall of much over 10 feet is likely to hurt, 20 feet is likely to cause injury and 30 feet could kill.

 

30' = 10 meters = 5". 20' = about 3", and 10' is about 1.5". So that fall that was "likely to hurt" can only inflict a single body on a perfect normal 1 time in 36, and won't affect anyone with a 3+ PD beyond, maybe, a few STUN he can shake off easily.

 

That 20' drop, which can be fatal in reality, does 3d6 - 1 BOD to Joe Normal on average, probably none to an action hero. He's also unlikely to be Stunned, though Joe Normal might be.

 

5d6 isn't going to kill anyone either, although Joe Normal is at 0 BOD the one in 7,776 times the dice all come up 6's.

 

The bottom line is this: I can't see why we need haymaker when we have pushing' date=' I can't see that it fulfills a need in the system or in the games played with it, or even simulates something regularly found in the supporting media that is not already covered by other bits of the system.[/quote']

 

You're allowing casual pushing to achieve this result, however. And Ben Grimm's "best sunday punch" (Haymaker) doesn't seem to tire him out a bit.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

If we lacked Dodge, would it be reasonable to get a Martial Dodge that added 5 DCV for what, 3 points?

 

Similarly, without Haymaker, I find Offensive Strike quite overpowered adding 4d6 damage. But really, it just removes some DCV penalties and the extra time from the Haymaker, and subs in an OCV penalty. That's not quite so bad.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

As he is a normal human, do we take "Normal Characteristic Maxima? If we do, I will argue that subsumed in that disadvantage is the fact he is a normal human, and normal humans cannot push their STR and beat down concrete walls. if not, why not? He's a normal human, isn't he?

 

This one deserves a reply of its own.

 

NCM just modifies the costs of a character's characteristics, and nothing more. Heroic characters who have NCM by default can still push and superheroic characters who take NCM can still push using the superheroic rules.

 

He is normal, at least as far as strength and resilience go.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Hmm... I was under the impression that Pushing only added 10 Active Points worth of damage to an attack' date=' but didn't increase the cap on max additional damage from Maneuvers; so a STR 10 person Pushing can only do a maximum of 6d6 damage with a Haymaker, not 8d6. However I've been unable to find a published ruling on that, so I can't support it. [/quote']

 

Under pushing it does say that you can only double the power when pushed, so that makes me want to add it as "additive damage" rather than "base Damage". Can't wait to see Steves answer

[Checkmate]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

My character pays nothing for his legs, and 6" base running. Yet they work whether he's in combat or not. He can change to noncombat movement, even when greater speed is desirable and the loss of CV is irrelevant. Now, I suppose you could argue that he "paid" for this ability by not taking a "cannot walk" or "no NCM on running" physical limitation, but he didn't take "cannot haymaker" as a disadvantage either.

 

I would prefer Sean's approach of eliminating the Haymaker entirely over the purely mechanical approach that there must be someone available to take advantage of your reduced DCV in order to permit the Haymaker.

 

Let's assume my character is in a prison. he wants out, and he needs to use his Haymaker to do it. Under which of the following circumstances, applying this "the drawback must be limiting" restriction is he able to perform a Haymaker:

 

(a)-(q)

 

Is the ability to Haymaker contingent on the actual presence of someone who will take advantage of the reduced DCV, someone capable of taking adgvantage and the character doesn't know whether they will, someone who could take advantage whether or not they will, the character's belief that someone may or will take advantage of the situation, or the player's expectations of whether the drop in DCV might be taken advantage of?

 

Can I use an attempted Haymaker as an impromptu Danger Sense? "my Haymaker failed - it's safe to discuss our plans" or "my haymaker worked - someone in this room is a traitor!"

In real life, we don't have a GM telling us when we can or can't do something in a game we do. The real issue: Don't take a mechanic say it doesn't work in some Roleplaying situations and call the mechanic bad.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

 

Why is he permitted to Push as a casual action? This is where you and I seem to play differently. In my games, there must be a dramatic reason to Push, not "Well, I want to do extra damage". If you don't allow casual Pushing, Joe Tech is down to 4d6, and ends up hurting his hand on the concrete wall. I suppose he can roll all 6's and get 8 BOD, but he could have done that without Haymaker, and wish Pushing available in such a non-dramatic situation.

 

What is casual about wanting to save the rest of the team. You don't have to be in combat to have drama.

 

I certainly wouldn't allow multiple attempts: if the dramatic all-or-nothing fails then you don;t have the heart to summon your full resources, but I can not see that this is 'casual'. In any event, the rule is that you can push for noble, heroic or life saving reasons. If this chap believes his team are in life threatening danger, he can push.

 

As an aside, normals can push, although not often. See the title sequence tot he Hulk TV series

 

Interestingly enough villains can rarely push, except to save theri skins as little that they do is heroic or noble.

 

 

 

 

30' = 10 meters = 5". 20' = about 3", and 10' is about 1.5". So that fall that was "likely to hurt" can only inflict a single body on a perfect normal 1 time in 36, and won't affect anyone with a 3+ PD beyond, maybe, a few STUN he can shake off easily.

 

That 20' drop, which can be fatal in reality, does 3d6 - 1 BOD to Joe Normal on average, probably none to an action hero. He's also unlikely to be Stunned, though Joe Normal might be.

 

5d6 isn't going to kill anyone either, although Joe Normal is at 0 BOD the one in 7,776 times the dice all come up 6's.

 

Indeed: you may recall me complaining about the falling rules in the past.

 

 

 

You're allowing casual pushing to achieve this result' date=' however. And Ben Grimm's "best sunday punch" (Haymaker) doesn't seem to tire him out a bit.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not allowing casual pushing, but frankly I can't see any objection to casual pushing. I'd require an EGO roll for all pushes, and penalise ones that were just for damage bonuses, reward those for a good cause.

 

Pushing only adds 2d6 at most.

 

How do you know if Ben is tired? He almost certainly grunts when he hits with his Sunday Best, which denotes extra effort, which Haymaker does not require...so I ask again....what does haymaker do that we need doing?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

In real life' date=' we don't have a GM telling us when we can or can't do something in a game we do. The real issue: Don't take a [b']mechanic[/b] say it doesn't work in some Roleplaying situations and call the mechanic bad.

 

You can have a bad mechanic. I don't think that the mechanic of haymaker is bad, but then I don't think that the situational ruling is part of the mechanic.

 

If you can haymaker in combat it makes no sense at all that you can't haymaker out of combat.

 

If you can haymaker an energy blast in combat, it makes no sense that you can't haymaker healing in combat, so long as you take the same penalties.

 

It is not the mechanic that is bad, just the application of the mechanic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

This one deserves a reply of its own.

 

NCM just modifies the costs of a character's characteristics, and nothing more. Heroic characters who have NCM by default can still push and superheroic characters who take NCM can still push using the superheroic rules.

 

He is normal, at least as far as strength and resilience go.

 

True - I'm extrapolating from the Age discussion (and maybe older version so of NCM).

 

What is casual about wanting to save the rest of the team. You don't have to be in combat to have drama.

 

Occasionally a character needs to exceed the normal limits of his abilities to perform a noble, heroic or life-saving action.

********************************************************

Sixth, pushing is only for heroes and important NPC's

********************************************************

Seventh, characters can only use Pushing for crucial, heroic or life-saving actions

********************************************************

Pushing is a last-ditch effort to save the day when all else fails.

 

That's more than the routine "break out" roll, at least in my games.

 

I'm not allowing casual pushing, but frankly I can't see any objection to casual pushing. I'd require an EGO roll for all pushes, and penalise ones that were just for damage bonuses, reward those for a good cause.

 

Pushing only adds 2d6 at most.

 

Changingthe rules is fine. Complaining that another rule is broken because of how it interacts with your changed rule, however, seems a bit unreasonable. If I make all defenses Resistant by default, I shouldn't complain that killing Attacks aren't lethal enough because they bounce off basic PD and ED.

 

How do you know if Ben is tired? He almost certainly grunts when he hits with his Sunday Best' date=' which denotes extra effort, which Haymaker does not require...so I ask again....what does haymaker do that we need doing?[/quote']

 

He never looks tired afterwards. And a Haymaker requires so much extra effort that you lose 5 DCV after performing one, and require an extra segment to complete it.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

® The character wants to haymaker an inanimate object within the cell, which if successful, will not allow him to escape or benefit him in any way. In fact, it will probably attract undesirable attention from the guards due to the noise. And then he'll be in trouble for breaking stuff.

 

(s) The character wants to Haymaker an inanimate object. Unbeknownst to the character, it isn't an inanimate object, but is in fact Captain ShapeShifter in disguise.

 

(t) The character wants to Haymaker an inanimate object, that he believes is actually Captain ShapeShifter in disguise. He is correct.

 

(u) The character wants to Haymaker an inanimate object, that he believes is actually Captain ShapeShifter in disguise. He is incorrect.

 

(v) The character wants to Haymaker an inanimate object or the wall of his cell. Unbeknownst to the character, there is a trap set to go off in just such an event (an Attack Power with Trigger: goes off when the object/wall is damaged).

 

(w) Same as v, but the character is aware of the trap.

 

(x) Same as v, but the character suspects there is a trap, but there isn't.

 

It seems to me that there *is* a limitation to Haymakering an inanimate object: The fact that it's an inanimate object! It's a circumstantial limitation. Haymaker works quite well on targets that can't take advantage of the delay and reduced DCV. Haymaker doesn't work well at all against targets that have the wherewithal to attack the lowered DCV during the extra segment delay.

 

(y) Character Haymakers an opponent who has already used his phase during this segment and won't get another segment next phase. There are no other opponents.

 

(z) Character Haymakers an opponent who is Grabbed/Entangled/Stunned, or otherwise can't launch an attack before the haymaker lands. And there are no other opponents to come to his rescue.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

aa) Character is mind controlled by Menton to haymaker themself whilst under a mental illusion from Mind Maid that they are alone in a cell, and a mental transform from Psychic Surgeon to believe that they are an inanimate object...

[Kenn]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Anyone else remember the pre-Fred rules where a Haymaker allowed one to do 1.5x their STR damage, and it was just a hand-to-hand maneuver? 10 STR guy, could haymaker to 3d6. If he pushed, he got up to 6d6.

 

Ben Grimm's sunday punch, assuming Ben had a 60 STR, now did 18d6. Which seems a lot closer to how much damage those Sunday punches tend to do, IMO.

 

Essentially, the Haymaker was nerfed so it wasn't so damaging on the high end. Though it does seem more fair that now not just bricks benefit from it. But in the nerfing it to limit abuse on the high end made it rather silly on the low end.

 

And in nearly 20 years of play, I can honestly say I've seen the push rules abused far more often then I've seen the Haymaker rule abused.

 

And the can't Haymaker out of combat ruling by Mr. Long will be ignored in my game. I appreciate most of what Mr. Long has done for the Hero System, but he's human and makes mistakes. This call was one of them.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

I well remember the pre-5E haymaker. You may have noticed the complaints that some HEROphiles have posted over the relative power level of official writeups for military vehicles compared to 5E superhumans; that supers are too weak in comparison (at least in four color games). IME they lined up better when supers were used the x1.5 damage Haymaker against them.

 

BTW I remember the 4E rulebook specifically noting that extra Damage Classes from a Push were to be added after the x1.5 multiplier for Haymaker, not before as part of the base damage.

[Mad Fnorder]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Seems like the weirdness issue isn't Haymaker Out of Combat as much as repeated Haymakers against inanimate objects, especially at small scale. Consider the context in which Steve was talking about Haymakering- for a Healing power. It makes sense to avoid people from buying a Healing die or two and haymakering the rest into existence.

 

Seems like instead of punting Haymaker, limit its effect against inanimate objects. Save that burst of adrenaline for breaking ropes and walls and bars for Pushing- which lets the GM more carefully modulate what can and can't be overcome by the average person- or superhero.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

I well remember the pre-5E haymaker. You may have noticed the complaints that some HEROphiles have posted over the relative power level of official writeups for military vehicles compared to 5E superhumans; that supers are too weak in comparison (at least in four color games). IME they lined up better when supers were used the x1.5 damage Haymaker against them.

 

BTW I remember the 4E rulebook specifically noting that extra Damage Classes from a Push were to be added after the x1.5 multiplier for Haymaker, not before as part of the base damage.

 

...and I was one of the complainers, but I new realise that the way for a brick to deal with a tank is to pick it up and throw it into a building, or off a cliff or just tip it into its roof, not tear through the front armour.

 

The solution to materials being too tough is not, IMO, handing out damage bonuses, it is a proper reappraisal of the DEF values of materials in the Hero world, and weapon damage values for that matter. I mean the only weapon listed that can get throught he front armour of a MBT is the Wire Guided Missile, which does 8d8killing explosion and is double AP, and weighs in at a massive 420 active points.

 

Needs looking at.

[Shaft]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Damn you, Hugh, for your 0 END persistent insight & eloquence. It appears I've repped you elsewhere and cannot do so again for a while.

 

Haymaker on a punch is not that big a deal since it's actually weaker that an offensive or sacrifice strike, because of the extra time and heavier DCV penalties (remember, Haymaker can only be done on the basic strike). Stacking it with a push is not that big a deal either since effectively we're looking at STR +6DCs for the duration of the dramatic push.

 

Where I find Haymaker to be more of a potential problem is out of combat is with telepathy or other mental powers. If you've got a prisoner tied up in an interogation room it makes sense for a telepathic interogator to "go deep" and haymaker his probe to get a better result.

 

Personally, I allow Haymakers outside of combat. The way I see it, skill rolls get an extra boost if extra time is taken. The haymaker merely simulates the effects of extra time as applied to damage.

[captainNeda]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Personally I really like the 5th Haymaker, it makes a lot more sense to me anyway. In essence I compare it to Offensive strike, and consider the special effect to be putting more weight and movement behind the blow

 

In my mind it seems most people don't know how to throw a real punch and focus their whole body mass into it. A martial strike to me is a proper strike where the attacker makes a quick blow and they put their entire body weight into it and recover quickly. An offensive strike then to me is a proper blow with the entire body weight and some movement localized to the hex behind it like a round house kick, spinning punch or some such big flare attack that takes a while to land hence the -2 OCV.

 

Haymaker would then just be an extension of this, with the characters entire body mass behind it, and localized movement. Like Offensive strike it's slower and more devestating but because it is untrained it's extremely slow and sloppy. The offensive strike is essentially the same, but more refined to present less of a target, and more easily land the blow.

 

Since first reading the STR rules I've always believed that 1d6 of an attack was an apparent doubling of damage. Using the Kenetic energy formula f= ma^2 you could double mass for double damage (1DC) or double movement for quadruple damage (2DC). Martial strike then made more sense to me as a punch with 4 times the mass behind it, or twice the speed, and an offensive srike was both, but the X 1.5 damage for a haymaker broke this mold. I was really happy to see this change.

 

As for most of you, I agree with "What was Steve Smoking when he made this ruling". Dramatic effect is one thing, but if someone can do something once, they should be able to do it again.