Haymaker out of combat

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

I'm sure Steve was not smoking anything he shouldn't have been. The point of the ruling, it seems to me, is to address the point that Hero is not simply a reality simulation but a dramatic instrument, and, whilst you can extract drama from captivity, there is precious little to be had from knocking down walls and destroying stuff that is not fighting back.

 

I'd simply rather do it differently: ditch Haymaker, and require an Ego roll to push for 5 points, +1 point per point the roll was made by (like the Heroic push system). Don't require any special occasion, but do apply bonuses and penalties to the roll as the GM sees fit. Possibly remove the 10 point cap.

 

That seems to serve the dramatic purpose of both push and haymaker pretty well to me.

[Checkmate]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

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)

So what you're saying is that it's okay for someone without an enegy blast to shoot an energy blast as long as it takes extra time right? Who cares that someone spent points to get a 4d6 EB, it takes extra time to shoot it if you didn't buy it.

 

To clarify my point (although Hugh doesn't seem to think it's vaild for some reason*) you have to pay points for an Offensive Strike. You need 10 points for it actually assuming GM's follow the rule you need 10points of martial manuvers. So comparing Haymaker to Ofensive Strike is like comparing someone without an EB to someone with one. You are getting a FREE bonus to damage. The only way to offest that FREE bonus is by the extra time and minuses to DCV. If you don't allow those to mean anything, how can you justify making people pay 5 (or 10 points) on Offensive Strike? Would you allow someone who didn't have an EB to shoot a 4d6 Energy Blast if they took extra time and -5 to their DCV?

 

* I say Hugh doesn't seem to think it's valid because when I brought it up before he used the rolleyes emote.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

So what you're saying is that it's okay for someone without an enegy blast to shoot an energy blast as long as it takes extra time right? Who cares that someone spent points to get a 4d6 EB, it takes extra time to shoot it if you didn't buy it.

 

To clarify my point (although Hugh doesn't seem to think it's vaild for some reason*) you have to pay points for an Offensive Strike. You need 10 points for it actually assuming GM's follow the rule you need 10points of martial manuvers. So comparing Haymaker to Ofensive Strike is like comparing someone without an EB to someone with one. You are getting a FREE bonus to damage. The only way to offest that FREE bonus is by the extra time and minuses to DCV. If you don't allow those to mean anything, how can you justify making people pay 5 (or 10 points) on Offensive Strike? Would you allow someone who didn't have an EB to shoot a 4d6 Energy Blast if they took extra time and -5 to their DCV?

 

* I say Hugh doesn't seem to think it's valid because when I brought it up before he used the rolleyes emote.

 

By the rules, you get some things for free and others not for free. A character gets 10 SR for free, so he gets 2d6 bonus damage for STR, even if he did not buy any extra STR, a hand attack, etc.

 

A character with 15 STR who buys a 1d6 HKA gets to hit with a 2d6 HKA. A character who buys no KA gets no KA dice. He doesn't get the 1d6 his base STR could add.

 

Similarly, a character with no EB can't fire one, and a character with a 4d6 EB can use a Haymaker maneuver to add 4d6 to his EB. However, he can't use an Offensive Strike to add 4d6 because he didn't buy (in this case) Ranged Martial Arts. The Default Maneuvers, like your first 6" of running and 10 STR, come free with the package.

 

The game could certainly be changed so that every maneuver has a CP cost. "didn't buy strike? can't attack". That is not, however, how the game operates by default.

[Kenn]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Heh. Then ther was the old Kick rules and the way martial arts worked in Champions prior to 4th edition...

[jtelson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Just to make sure I understand both sides of this

 

Side 1: No out of combat haymakering

Provides something for nothing

Dramatically inappropriate

Empasizes the systems inherent (+1/4) issues at the lower end of the power scale

 

Side 2: Haymaker whenever you want

Not being able to do so is inconsistant with similar abilities both free and purchased

Can be Dramatically appropriate

Can lead to all kinds of silly situations (Quick get the guards attention I need to knock down this wall)

 

After going through 4 pages of this I have to say that none of my players would ever consider trying to haymaker a cell door or wall unless it was appropriate for them to. I'm pretty sure no 10 strength egoist/mage/gadgeteer in any campaign I've ever run has ever even mentioned the completely character inappropriate act of pushing and haymakering to break out of a cell/smash a machine or whatever and this only really seems like a problem if your players are likely act out of character for a fleeting tactical advantage. I'd probably allow it just to see where they were going with it.

[Checkmate]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

By the rules, you get some things for free and others not for free. A character gets 10 SR for free, so he gets 2d6 bonus damage for STR, even if he did not buy any extra STR, a hand attack, etc.

 

A character with 15 STR who buys a 1d6 HKA gets to hit with a 2d6 HKA. A character who buys no KA gets no KA dice. He doesn't get the 1d6 his base STR could add.

 

Similarly, a character with no EB can't fire one, and a character with a 4d6 EB can use a Haymaker maneuver to add 4d6 to his EB. However, he can't use an Offensive Strike to add 4d6 because he didn't buy (in this case) Ranged Martial Arts. The Default Maneuvers, like your first 6" of running and 10 STR, come free with the package.

Okay so we accept the fact that if you don't buy it you can't use it. Well you have to "buy" haymaker every time you use it. The costs come out to 0 only if the limitations limit.

The game could certainly be changed so that every maneuver has a CP cost. "didn't buy strike? can't attack". That is not' date=' however, how the game operates by default.[/quote']

I accept you get some things for free, I don't consider Haymaker to be one of them. As I said above, you have to pay for it every time you use it. If you can't pay, you can't use it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Okay so we accept the fact that if you don't buy it you can't use it. Well you have to "buy" haymaker every time you use it. The costs come out to 0 only if the limitations limit.

 

I accept you get some things for free, I don't consider Haymaker to be one of them. As I said above, you have to pay for it every time you use it. If you can't pay, you can't use it.

 

That same logic implies that powers with limitations function only where the limitations are relevant. Thus, for example, I should not be able to use my powers with Activation rolls unless time is an issue. Outside combat, I can generally keep trying until it works. Powers with Concentration have limitations virtually identical to Haymaker - they reduce my DCV. I guess these should be prohibitted outside combat too.

 

Most limitations are situational, including those on a Haymaker.

 

The answer, at least to me, is that it's either a free "everyman" combat maneuver, so it can be used by anyone, or it gets removed from that list and assigned a point cost so only those who pay for it can use it. "It only works if you're in combat" doesn't work. Trying to reason that through the alphabet soup of examples above shows that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Just to make sure I understand both sides of this

 

Side 1: No out of combat haymakering

Provides something for nothing

Dramatically inappropriate

Empasizes the systems inherent (+1/4) issues at the lower end of the power scale

 

Side 2: Haymaker whenever you want

Not being able to do so is inconsistant with similar abilities both free and purchased

Can be Dramatically appropriate

Can lead to all kinds of silly situations (Quick get the guards attention I need to knock down this wall)

 

After going through 4 pages of this I have to say that none of my players would ever consider trying to haymaker a cell door or wall unless it was appropriate for them to. I'm pretty sure no 10 strength egoist/mage/gadgeteer in any campaign I've ever run has ever even mentioned the completely character inappropriate act of pushing and haymakering to break out of a cell/smash a machine or whatever and this only really seems like a problem if your players are likely act out of character for a fleeting tactical advantage. I'd probably allow it just to see where they were going with it.

 

 

 

...or, on the gripping hand (reference, anyone?), no haymaker = no problem

[zornwil]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

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.

But this core issue has nothing to do with haymaker, per se, it's the whole issue around the toughness of objects versus the damage characters inflict, with much wider ramifications. Fixing the haymaker symptom is hardly a fix at all, and just interferes with the haymaker maneuver itself. Now, if the haymaker manuever is fundamentally broken, that should also be fixed. But more on that below, as I answer the thread more generally in a moment or two...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Here's a thought.

 

In combat, IME, haymaker is rarely used as it is so easy to avoid.

 

Out of combat it is used almost exclusively for breaking stuff.

 

Of course, out of combat, you can afford (in most cases) to keep plugging away until you get a good roll: managing 16 Body on 12d6 is pretty unusual, but given half an hour with nothing better to do, you'll manage it.

 

So, haymaker not used in combat, and not needed out of combat.

 

Or is my experience unusual?

[zornwil]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

I'm sure Steve was not smoking anything he shouldn't have been. The point of the ruling, it seems to me, is to address the point that Hero is not simply a reality simulation but a dramatic instrument, and, whilst you can extract drama from captivity, there is precious little to be had from knocking down walls and destroying stuff that is not fighting back.

 

I'd simply rather do it differently: ditch Haymaker, and require an Ego roll to push for 5 points, +1 point per point the roll was made by (like the Heroic push system). Don't require any special occasion, but do apply bonuses and penalties to the roll as the GM sees fit. Possibly remove the 10 point cap.

 

That seems to serve the dramatic purpose of both push and haymaker pretty well to me.

If HERO is to be centered more around the dramatic, I would suggest more refinement to the core rules, then, and precisely around this point of "I can do this because I'm in combat but if not, I can't do it." The system has a strong simulation bent in its mechanics, and that implies that its mechanics are generally available. There are no rules around the stakes of a conflict. Hugh is entirely within rights to suggest that if this is the way we are to look at it, do we also then need to assess the opposition in each case and determine if the stakes are "truly" dramatic or not? And if so, should we dispense with mechanics for non-dramatic conflicts? A broader question, so anyway...

 

Back to where I was starting to go, we all know that a character can just try, ty again to get maximum/greater damage, and there's no reason not to. If I'm in a jail cell, really all we have to consider is how much END I have to sustain (x) number of attacks, then do some probability analysis or sit there rolling dice until I get the highest reasonable damage I can expect and see if that would work.

 

In this light, the real issue with Haymaker is whether the manuever itself is justifiable at all, to your central point. Because otherwise, we probably ought to manage ALL damage out of combat, as really there's no reason not to sit there and figure out what maximum damage is (or at least 1 standard deviation out) and know that eventually the character will hit it. And trying to judge whether escaping from a cell or healing someone badly hurt is "dramatic enough" to warrant a haymaker is so fudgy even I, one who normally prefers GM discretion, don't think that' s anything but an argument-starter.

 

In general, I just don't see a reason not to allow haymakers out of combat. The effect level is basically just increased a bit, and generally out of combat I think most people allow for something near maximum damage as an assumption in that any character who just keeps doing something will eventually hit some high number, though this of course also depends a lot on the number of dice and probabilities. But basically, aside from the concern over whether it's in the right timeframe, if a character needs to roll 15 on 3 dice, for example, and has "a lot of tmie," I'm certainly not going to make him sit there continuing to roll, we're going to say that he does so eventually.

[tesuji]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Well it depends.

 

out of combat its pretty easy to say "you eventually can do max" when a threshold is needed but with haymaer that applies as well. So a 10d6 punhcer has a max of 28 body (assuming you cannot push forever thats 14d6 haymakers until done.)

 

now if haymaker was limited to "no more than max the base damage before haymaker" that would be a different story.

 

but what you are describing is something akin to the take 20 rules from d20, where, out of combat given time if there is no downside to fail-retry you can just assume you eventually reach max effect without having all the dice rolling.

 

******

 

My view on haymaker was simple... most games have a similar feature in that they have a "total defense" option, a standard attack option which is the norm and which allows for an attack and normal defense, and they have an all out attack option where you sacrifice defense for offensive gain.

 

they reflect different levels of focus vs splitting efforts between offense and defense.

 

in HERo, these components always seemed to me to be called dodge or block, attack, and haymaker.

 

removing the distinction between these three elements, turn9ng the basic maneuvers into just total defense and split attack/defenses seems to be losing a very common and IMo useful elements.

[zornwil]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Here's a thought.

 

In combat, IME, haymaker is rarely used as it is so easy to avoid.

 

Out of combat it is used almost exclusively for breaking stuff.

 

Of course, out of combat, you can afford (in most cases) to keep plugging away until you get a good roll: managing 16 Body on 12d6 is pretty unusual, but given half an hour with nothing better to do, you'll manage it.

 

So, haymaker not used in combat, and not needed out of combat.

 

Or is my experience unusual?

I think haymakers are rarely used but are critical when they are used. I see them occur every so often, still.

 

Then again, pushing does produce a similar result and one could argue we need fewer options, and that haymaker doesn't add enough to the game for the increase in rules.

 

One could also just as easily argue that there be a simple out of combat rule that there's a max effect of all 4s for any damage type effects, and that only in "true" combat do we account for more due to the stresses and volatility of such situations.

 

I dunno. It all works, to me, as is, anyway.

[zornwil]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Well it depends.

 

out of combat its pretty easy to say "you eventually can do max" when a threshold is needed but with haymaer that applies as well. So a 10d6 punhcer has a max of 28 body (assuming you cannot push forever thats 14d6 haymakers until done.)

 

now if haymaker was limited to "no more than max the base damage before haymaker" that would be a different story.

 

but what you are describing is something akin to the take 20 rules from d20, where, out of combat given time if there is no downside to fail-retry you can just assume you eventually reach max effect without having all the dice rolling.

 

******

 

Yeah, part of the comment is based on just how I've seen games generally run, not just in my group. Usually if a character is going to just keep doing something, the GM grants something like maximum damage, although it's normally more narrative in play, with the GM just saying "No matter how many times and how hard you hit, you can't break through" or "Eventually, you create an opening and can bash it open wider," sticking with our earlier prison example. It doesn't really make sense from a flow and interest perspective to have someone sit and keep rolling dice dozens or hundreds of times (and some players would!).

 

As to haymaker versus base damage, I think that's a fundamental haymaker issue which either needs fixing or is fine as is, depending on one's taste and the game in question (in some games, it makes sense for "mere mortals" to suddenly be able to do something ridiculously extraordinary, in others it doesn't - HERO right now tends to favor the former more than the latter).

 

My view on haymaker was simple... most games have a similar feature in that they have a "total defense" option, a standard attack option which is the norm and which allows for an attack and normal defense, and they have an all out attack option where you sacrifice defense for offensive gain.

 

they reflect different levels of focus vs splitting efforts between offense and defense.

 

in HERo, these components always seemed to me to be called dodge or block, attack, and haymaker.

 

removing the distinction between these three elements, turn9ng the basic maneuvers into just total defense and split attack/defenses seems to be losing a very common and IMo useful elements.

 

To Sean's point, haymaker is pretty hobbled if that's its purpose; I think it's a lot more of a niche power than the all-out attack we see in many systems. I think HERO provides a bunch of options bu tno specific all-out attack, with pushing, haymaker, and flexible CV levels all entering into it, and probably things I'm not thinking of.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

But this core issue has nothing to do with haymaker' date=' per se, it's the whole issue around the toughness of objects versus the damage characters inflict, with much wider ramifications. Fixing the haymaker symptom is hardly a fix at all, and just interferes with the haymaker maneuver itself. Now, if the haymaker manuever is fundamentally broken, that should also be fixed. But more on that below, as I answer the thread more generally in a moment or two...[/quote']

 

Haymaker is fundamentally unnecessary.

 

I think that haymaker has a lot to do with DEF values in Hero: if it is the only way that supergheroes can damage objects then we either need haymaker or we need to reappraise what our Heroes should be capable of, or we need to overhaul the DEF system.

 

Arguably, haymaker is only possible in combat for this reason:

 

When you haymaker you are taking time and making an effort to land your blow just right, using not only your own power, but any movement of your opponent: if you can whack him as he comes forward onto your fist you cause more damage. Out of combat the opportunity just does not present itself.

 

I'm not saying that is how it is, but it is a possible explanation as to why haymaker works in combat and not out.

 

I stick by my position though: I can't see why we need it.

 

The Thing's patented Sunday Punch has been given as an example of haymaker, but it is not.

 

1. It rarely misses: haymaker's miss all the time as they take so long.

2. It does not seem to make him easier to hit - no DCV penalty.

3. It is his signature manouvre.

 

Seems to me that is a manouvre he has bought.

 

If an everyman manouvre was genuinely representing the comics, it wouldn't just be Ben Grimm using it. Extra effort attacks ARE made, by other characters, but that seems to be covered by pushing, or buying special manouvres.

 

Haymaker is a historical artefact that is no longer necessary. The 'power' of the haymaker has been whittled down over the years (it used to be STRx3/2 - very nasty if a brick landed one!), and I think it is time we whittled it away completely.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

I think haymakers are rarely used but are critical when they are used. I see them occur every so often, still.

 

Then again, pushing does produce a similar result and one could argue we need fewer options, and that haymaker doesn't add enough to the game for the increase in rules.

 

One could also just as easily argue that there be a simple out of combat rule that there's a max effect of all 4s for any damage type effects, and that only in "true" combat do we account for more due to the stresses and volatility of such situations.

 

I dunno. It all works, to me, as is, anyway.

 

Realistiically, even out of combat, there are real limits to how much you are ever going to roll. Max damage on 12d6 is a once in a lifetime event (if that).

 

A few extra body, however, is doable.

 

I would be happy enough with a rule that said:

 

Out of combat you can try to damage objects with constant effort. Assume that your attack does standard damage +1 BODY for each time interval on the time chart you can keep the effort up for: 1 turn +1 BODY, 1 minute +2 BODY, 5 minutes +3 BODY etc. The MAXIMUM damage you can do is still limtied to DAMAGE CLASSx2.

 

You should also generally use long term END rules when applying this rule.

 

Now that seems far more acceptable and 'realistic' to me: it has less the feel of a freebee and more of a game-realistic, Hero mechanic.

 

In combat, a player initiated Haymaker is like saying to the GM: Are you bored enough with this combat to end it now, or is the villain going to take a step backwards?

 

Yes, it is nice against the entangled, but other than that specialist use, is really quite pointless.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

 

My view on haymaker was simple... most games have a similar feature in that they have a "total defense" option, a standard attack option which is the norm and which allows for an attack and normal defense, and they have an all out attack option where you sacrifice defense for offensive gain.

 

they reflect different levels of focus vs splitting efforts between offense and defense.

 

in HERo, these components always seemed to me to be called dodge or block, attack, and haymaker.

 

removing the distinction between these three elements, turn9ng the basic maneuvers into just total defense and split attack/defenses seems to be losing a very common and IMo useful elements.

 

Many systems that have 'all out attack' don't increase damage, they increase hit chance. That aside, if you build a skilled combatant (and to my mind that is one with combat skills, not just high characteristics) then you have the option to trade defence, attack and damage.

 

The simple unskilled slugger, no matter how physically competent, should not have that option.

[tesuji]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

 

Many systems that have 'all out attack' don't increase damage, they increase hit chance. That aside, if you build a skilled combatant (and to my mind that is one with combat skills, not just high characteristics) then you have the option to trade defence, attack and damage.

Absolutely, each system has its own set of trade-offs. Some just juggle hit and defense, some juggle damage as well, and the penalties vary based on the feel the system is looking for. HERo always seemed to me, since it tends to favor damage over accuracy, went for BIG GAIN but SEVERE PENALTy as its option.

 

Thats not necessarily the best option but its Ok to me.

The simple unskilled slugger, no matter how physically competent, should not have that option.

I disagree here. if the "unskilled slugger" is accepted to have the capacity to choose between "all defense" dodge and "split attack/defense" normal attack and the other types of combat maneuvers typically allowed, then I do not see "all out attack" as being inappropriate as a core system option and feel it is left out. If the default assumption is he is skilled enough to dodge, to block and all those other standard maneuvers, I do not see having "all out attack" move from "the default anyone can do" to "only if you build your character to do it".

 

I don't think it should be incumbent on the player to build the character to have this very basic decision, offense or defense or both, any more than he should have to build in extra damage for "charging the foe" (move thru) or need to buy extra DCV levels to enable "i dodge", buy missle deflection vs melee for "i block" and so forth for most of the other common maneuvers. The baseline system needs to have a functional and somewhat robust model for resolving typical combat and not leave everything to the player build to enable.

 

I don't see anything about "i go full offense screw defense" that puts it in a different camp than "i g0o full defense" for dodge or "i rush in slamming into him" for move thru and so forth. heck, if anything, all offense and all defense fit in better as core presumptive system maneuvers than the move thru does, IMO.

 

Now, that means IMo hero should keep the "all defense" and "all offense" options available as alternatives to the "split between the two normal", but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a haymaker. One possible alternative which would serve the same model is say to create the anti-dodge "all out strike" maneuver which went like +3 OCV, 1/2 DCv and let it serve the same role only focusing on accuracy instead of damage.

 

However, again this comes back to the principle of the judgement and is it valid. If one wont allow haymaker out of combat due to it not having meaningful pealties, then move thru starts to become similarly dubious (for a character with reasonably designd defenses.) All sorts of limited powers become dubious as well.

 

Basically for me, I don't find the rationale convincing, Don't like what happens when it becomes "policy", don't see compelling reason to have it as an exception for s single maneuver, and haven't tended to have problems with it in game.

 

The "but look at what normals can do vs typical defenses" is IMo already handled in the books. I forget exactly where, but i recall comments about "normals and defenses and maneuvers" which basically said if your normal seems able to do something silly, like punching down a castle wall, don't let the mechanics override your common sense. So, i never have problems with normals punching their way out of cells and the like or taking a stilletto to cut holes in castle walls and so forth.

 

IMo the bigger problem with 5e/r and haymaker was the extension of it to non-attack powers. but again, this is a toolkit system which simply often and overwhelmingly relies on the Gm to choose approiate and inappropriate elements for his game. If a GM is uncomfortable saying no haymaker healing" when he feels its inappropriate because the toolkit doesn't explicitly allow him to say no, then he is perhaps better off with a system that is less relaint on the GM, which means most any NON-TOOLKIT.

 

haymakerr even back in the days of x1.5 never broke my game or caused serious problems. So, its just not a biggie for me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Back in the day if you wanted to keep a team of heroes that you had subdued in lock up (even if it was only so that they had a chance to escape later, you know, for plot reasons), then you had to keep the bricks unconscious, mind controlled (always a dodgy proposition in the long term, even for those with miniscule mental acuity) or strength drained.

 

Of course you could make specialist restraints, which prevent movement, and so prevent haymakers. I suppose in a world adapted to superbeings such things would be commonplace.

 

You mention 'out of combat penalties', and that haymaker doesn't really have one....but move through does: you take half the damage, or all of it if the wall is strong enough to resist you - and in a small cell you can't get up to speed anyway!

 

I think I would be happier if the offensive option was more as you suggested: an OCV bonus for a significant penalty. I probably would not allow even +3 though - for one of the reasons I am opposed to haymaker's +4d6; it trespasses on the expertise of the trained martial artist, even if you can only do it at a penalty.

 

I would propose a couple of 'everyman' manouvres:

 

Defensive attack -2 OCV +1 DCV, damage as usual

Offensive attack +1 OCV -2 DCV, damage as usual

Damaging attack -1 OCV -1 DCV, +1d6 damage

 

That way you have the options to vary the basic fighting style, but you are far better off, not only in terms of overall efficiency, but also in terms of maximum effect, buying martial arts or powers.

 

The manouvres are a bit swingeing, and you might want to double everything up, but that would still give a maximum OCV or DCV or damage bonus of +2.

 

NB I haven't checked UMA, but the idea is that they should be 0 point manouvres, or no better than.

[Checkmate]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

That same logic implies that powers with limitations function only where the limitations are relevant. Thus, for example, I should not be able to use my powers with Activation rolls unless time is an issue. Outside combat, I can generally keep trying until it works. Powers with Concentration have limitations virtually identical to Haymaker - they reduce my DCV. I guess these should be prohibitted outside combat too.

I absolutely agree, IF you can limit a power to cost 0, because if you pay points, you've paid for the ability to use that power when the limitations don't apply.

Most limitations are situational, including those on a Haymaker.

 

The answer, at least to me, is that it's either a free "everyman" combat maneuver, so it can be used by anyone, or it gets removed from that list and assigned a point cost so only those who pay for it can use it. "It only works if you're in combat" doesn't work. Trying to reason that through the alphabet soup of examples above shows that.

As is the beauty of RPG's use the rules you like ignore/change the rest.

[tesuji]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

You mention 'out of combat penalties', and that haymaker doesn't really have one....but move through does: you take half the damage, or all of it if the wall is strong enough to resist you - and in a small cell you can't get up to speed anyway!

 

"Loses some stun" in a non-combat situation isn't NECESSARILY any more of a penalty than -5 to DCV is. unless the stun damage taken is enough to reach a level which impairs the non-combat scene (which probably means knocked out to the Gm discretion or close to it) its just an "accounting attack" just like -5 DCV. Even being con stunned or kncoked out for a phase or two don't matter in non-combat scenes mostly.

 

IMX most of the time with speedsters who are built to use move thru, they have adequate defenses that it wont hurt normally. At the very least it becomes no more of a "legit penalty" out of combat as the -5 DCV does because stun recovers "very quickly" when nobody is shooting at you and you are not in "action scene" timekeeping. How many recoveries can a speedster take in a non-combat turn to recover stun?

 

Now for sure some speedsters can take body damage from this, if they were built so hindered, but the norm IMX for anyone making use of move thru is thats the exception, not the norm.

 

Which puts it in the same camp... none of its "penalties" actually penalize anything more than bookkeeping when out of combat in most circumstances. So if the penalties are not "truly limiting" then it falls away just like the new long-ruled haymaker.

 

of course, the Gm can simply decide "i wil only apply that criteria to haymakers and no other maneuvers or powers." That makes haymaker a noted exception.

 

As for acceleration, with only 2 hexes, a speedster can get +10" speed, which is +3d6, only 1d6 less than the haymaker.

Moreover, any typical brick has at least that much leaping, which means he can leap to gain as much as the haymaker and wont be bothered by the backlash damage much either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Realistiically' date=' even out of combat, there are real limits to how much you are ever going to roll. Max damage on 12d6 is a once in a lifetime event (if that).[/quote']

 

Well, one in every 2,176,782,336 rolls. Assuming you can roll 12d6 once every 40 seconds, you roll 16 hours a day, everty day, it should only take a bit over 4,138 years to get a perfect roll.

 

As to the Sunday Punch, Ben only unleashes it when the battle's pretty much over - an opponent who's stunned will have a tough time evading it. To the DCV, Ben's DCV probably isn't that great to begin with.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Leaping bricks is an excellent point - as that ignores the normal acceleration rules, and a 60 STR Brick has 12" of leaping without buying the power, or +4d6 damage.

 

I would say, as a bit of an aside, that I don't allow most characters who rely on movethrough to have enough defence to ignore a full speed failure. Enough to avoid the DAMAGE/2 you do if you cause KB, but not the full whack...mind you, bricks DO have a lot of defence usually...even so a 12d6 brick will ramp up to 16d6 move through with a leap, which is 56 damage if they DON'T get through, or probably not far off being stunned for a lot of bricks.

 

Of course, if it is enough, they have nothing to worry about....28 stun is barely going to be noticed.

 

It is looking like we are going to have to restrain those bricks though, isn't it?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

Well, one in every 2,176,782,336 rolls. Assuming you can roll 12d6 once every 40 seconds, you roll 16 hours a day, everty day, it should only take a bit over 4,138 years to get a perfect roll.

 

As to the Sunday Punch, Ben only unleashes it when the battle's pretty much over - an opponent who's stunned will have a tough time evading it. To the DCV, Ben's DCV probably isn't that great to begin with.

 

Thanks for the calculation on the 12d6 thing

 

I'm still not with you on the Ben Grimm thing - and I point at the lack of other similar examples to demonstrate that it is probably not an everyman attack, but you do raise an interesting point about Ben's DCV.

 

Most bricks don't care if they get hit - they expect it, so getting hit 9 out of 10 times instead of 3 out of 4 is probably not going to bother them overly - so the only real penalty for the brick character is the extra segment. A significant penalty to be sure, but that type of character still gets significantly more use from the manouevre than almost any other build would.

 

Even a blaster at range can ill afford to lose 5 DCV - that makes them an easy target, despite range modifiers.

 

So I'm counting that as another argument against haymaker: it is a brick trick, not an everyman attack, in practice if not in intent.

[Silbeg]

Re: Haymaker out of combat

 

 

You should also generally use long term END rules when applying this rule.

 

I tend to agree with you, Sean.

 

I would also look at using some of the optional rules in TUB, about doing damage to yourself.

 

Thinking about it this way... how often have you ever done damage to concrete when you punch it? How often does it hurt you?

 

"Common Sense" and "Dramatic License" should tell you that no matter how lucky Joe Normal is, he is not going to punch through a concrete wall... no matter how many times he tries. In addition, he will be pounding his fists into a pulp.