Hugh Neilson Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only Sounds like you're waffling like I did at first. Your description on the use of Sweep is per the existing rules; a normal use of sweep requires the total # of attacks to be declared beforehand. The issue I perceive is after the roll is made. Let's say you declare 5 Sweeps and hit with three. Can you pay END to maintain those three, and drop the two that "missed", or must you pay 5X END every phase or drop all five Sweep attempts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only The issue I perceive is after the roll is made. Let's say you declare 5 Sweeps and hit with three. Can you pay END to maintain those three' date=' and drop the two that "missed", or must you pay 5X END every phase or drop all five Sweep attempts?[/quote'] I believe, by the rules, you pay END for all 5 on the Phase you sweep. And END only on the three you want to maintain as they had an effect. Which would be how I would interpret it were the Sweep performed on 5 separate allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only I believe' date=' by the rules, you pay END for all 5 on the Phase you sweep. And END only on the three you want to maintain as they had an effect.[/quote'] I agree. Thus, my suggestion that sweeping a Self Only succor could eliminate the ability to easily differentiate which attacks hit and which missed, such that you either pay END for all 5 each phase, or let all 5 lapse, might provide some balance, if indeed the ability turns out to be unbalanced in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only I agree. Thus' date=' my suggestion that sweeping a Self Only succor could eliminate the ability to easily differentiate which attacks hit and which missed, such that you either pay END for all 5 each phase, or let all 5 lapse, might provide some balance, if indeed the ability turns out to be unbalanced in play.[/quote'] I don't think it would prove to be too unbalanced in play personally. Perhaps a bit hinky, but not unbalanced. I just think it shouldn't be done, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only I don't think it would prove to be too unbalanced in play personally. Perhaps a bit hinky, but not unbalanced. I just think it shouldn't be done, period. It opens up the question of sweeping other powers that take an attack action, but aren't really attacks, such as Aid itself (which costs 0 END, worsening the situation) or healing. And perhaps, in that comment, lies the answer. Succor, Aid and Healing require attack actions, but they are not "attacks". Consequently, combat maneuvers like Haymaker, Sweep or Rapid Attack could reasonably be said not to apply to them at all. They are "like attacks" in some respects, but they are not actually attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only It opens up the question of sweeping other powers that take an attack action, but aren't really attacks, such as Aid itself (which costs 0 END, worsening the situation) or healing. And perhaps, in that comment, lies the answer. Succor, Aid and Healing require attack actions, but they are not "attacks". Consequently, combat maneuvers like Haymaker, Sweep or Rapid Attack could reasonably be said not to apply to them at all. They are "like attacks" in some respects, but they are not actually attacks. I wouldn't say not at all. But, you wouldn't RKA Sweep yourself. Things like Haymaker, if done in combat, and there's an actual chance you're going to be a target then the -5DCV becomes an issue - and of course someone can Knockback your intended target invalidating your Haymaker. Mostly, it's the "On Myself" aspect that breaks most of the intent/spirit and causes most of the downside to go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only Things like Haymaker' date=' if done in combat, and there's an actual chance you're going to be a target then the -5DCV becomes an issue - and of course someone can Knockback your intended target invalidating your Haymaker.[/quote'] Don't get me started on that. If someone can Haymaker at all, they can logically do so regardless of the extent to which the reduced DCV and/or Extra Time will be detrimental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 Re: Seeking opinion on Succor, Self Only Don't get me started on that. If someone can Haymaker at all' date=' they can logically do so regardless of the extent to which the reduced DCV and/or Extra Time will be detrimental.[/quote'] On this point we are in complete agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.