Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

[Istaran]

If a game has DC/AP limits on attack powers, MPAs and potentially sweeps as well (maybe autofire too?) can conciderably exceed the typical damage output.

 

So those of you with far more experience in Hero than I: have MPAs been an issue in your games? If not, why not? Is the point cost/END cost/etc. enough of an impediment to keep the damage down? Or do the GMs often put restrictions that keep too many damaging powers from combining? (It seems like combining drains/suppresses/flashes/etc with a single damaging attack might not be as bad.. but maybe it's really worse? If you peg someone with an Entangle + Suppress STR for example?)

 

For that matter, in a game without DC/AP caps I can still see a possibility for pure damage MPAs to get nasty.

 

Dragon:

STR: 30

Bite: HKA 2d6

Claws: HKA 2d6 (reduced penetration)

Tail: HA +6d6

 

MPA: costs 18 END or 12 END? Either way it does 3 hits for 12 DCs each off a single non-penalized attack roll.

Now add 20 3pt levels (Bite, Claws, tail): against a dodgy target you will just plain hit; against an entangled target you add +30 STUN to the HA and +10 BODY (and the resulting STUN) to each of the HKAs. (okay, so all your above-average rolls get clipped, but that's part of the point.. ) It's also almost certain to do knockback (14 minimum BODY per HKA, with each fairly likely to do a full 24 BODY. Even 3d6 is unlikely to stop that from knocking back.. in fact 13-14" KB is to be expected!)

 

Average roll damage:

Bite: 24 BODY, 48 STUN (rolled a 3 on multiplier)

Claws: 12 + 12 BODY, 72 STUN ( rolled a 4 on multiplier)

Tail: 12 BODY, 72 STUN (rolled 3.5 per die, +30 from levels)

= 60 BODY - PD - 3x rPD (might not kill, but it should be felt)

= 192 STUN - 4x PD (and despite being broken up, it's quite likely to STUN as well). With the double-jeapardy STUN lotto, you can easily have a single hit for 120 STUN.

 

So.. is this all as crazy as I think it is?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I'm not a fan of MPAs and belive that they should be penalised more: maybe -2 OCV per additional power used, or somesuch. I generally do not encourage their use in games I play in.

 

Of course I mainly play in superhero games and it is relatively rare that a PC will have multiple attacks that they can use at full power for MPAs.

 

OTOH I quite like linked attacks - for example an electricity EB with a (small) linked DEX drain to simulate muscle spasm. Also you can see up front what the 'total power' is going to be and make a decision if it balances for your game.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

This is great topic and it hasn't been brough up in awhile I think.

 

We originally house ruled against Multi-Power Attacks but have since started to allow them again after incorporating some options suggested in 5ER.

 

From 5ER Pg. 360:

To prevent characters from over-using multiple-power attacks, the GM can impose restrictions similar to those on Rapid Fire and Sweep: for each power or maneuver added to the combination (including the first one) the character suffers a -2 OCV penalty; multiple-power attacks take a Full Phase; using one halves the character’s DCV.

As Sean (intuitively) pointed out, with a little tweaking, they can easily be brought in line with Sweeps and Rapid Fires.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

This is great topic and it hasn't been brough up in awhile I think.

 

We originally house ruled against Multi-Power Attacks but have since started to allow them again after incorporating some options suggested in 5ER.

 

From 5ER Pg. 360:

 

As Sean (intuitively) pointed out, with a little tweaking, they can easily be brought in line with Sweeps and Rapid Fires.

 

Of course I wouldn't need intuition if I actually read the book

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

If a game has DC/AP limits on attack powers, MPAs and potentially sweeps as well (maybe autofire too?) can conciderably exceed the typical damage output.

 

So those of you with far more experience in Hero than I: have MPAs been an issue in your games? If not, why not? Is the point cost/END cost/etc. enough of an impediment to keep the damage down? Or do the GMs often put restrictions that keep too many damaging powers from combining? (It seems like combining drains/suppresses/flashes/etc with a single damaging attack might not be as bad.. but maybe it's really worse? If you peg someone with an Entangle + Suppress STR for example?)

 

I haven't seen it used a lot, and it tends to be of the variety discussed by Sean - a main attack with a small tagalong attack, usually with the total at the top end of campaign norm DC's.

 

If a character has two 12 DC attacks, that's probably a lot less devastating than a single 24 DC attack at the same price, though. The END cost factors in as well.

 

Oddly, I've seen a lot of posts on this subject that suggest this could get unbalanced, and that they don't allow or use them in their games, but I can't recall seeing any that discuss a game where they were allowed going off the rails.

 

Some changes I would make to the MPA rules:

 

- it should be possible to use multiple powers in a framework to MPA. If a character has a 60 AP multipower with flexible slots, let him mix and match. A character with an EC with multiple attacks pays a premium over that swiss army multipower - let him have the benefit of MPA's. With VPP's, I would set a restriction that the total AP of all attacks in the MPA cannot exceed the pool. A 60 point Pool might be able to have a 12d6 EB and a 12d6 Flash running at the same time (with -1 limitations), but should not be able to fire both as a single attack.

 

- it should be possible to fire different kinds of attacks at once, such as firing a gun while swinging a cutlass, or punching while ego attacking. I think I'd like to add this alternative, but perhaps with a -2 for each additional type of attack (ranged, hth, mental, etc.). Perhaps not, though - maybe that's better addressed as a multiple target penalty.

 

- speaking of multiple target penalties, it should be possible to Sweep or Rapid Fire an MPA. I'd like to see these, and Multiple Move By's, consolidated into a single maneuver. Each one allows you to make multiple attacks on either the same target or different targets. Each additional attack beyond the first imposes a cumulative -2 to hit.

 

Considering all of the above together, why is a Multiple Power Attack significantly different from a Sweep or a Rapid Fire? All allow you to use multiple attack powers at the same time. I would suggest the following:

 

RULES CHANGE

 

MPA, Sweep, Rapid Fire and Multiple Move By replaced with a "Multi-Attack" maneuver. This maneuver allows you to make multiple attacks as a single action.

 

Each additional attack past the first imposes a cumulative -2 penalty. Each attack is resolved separately (not "all hit or all miss" and not "one miss ruins them all").

 

Powers can be fired as a Merged attack if they use the same type of attack roll (eg all ranged, all HTH, all mental combat) to hit the same target. In this case, one attack roll resolves the entire Merged attack.

 

You can fire at one or multiple targets. (Eg. you could fire three EB's at one target (-4 OCV), one each at three targets (-4 OCV), fire your EB and Flash against a single target (-2 OCV) or fire your EB at one target and your Flash at another (-2 OCV) - you could even fire a combined EB and Flash against each of two targets (-6 OCV).

 

Any attack roll reduced to needing less than a 3 to hit (more than 18 if we went to "roll high") results in the attack missing automatically (this puts a cap on someone with 0 END firing 1 million shots because he should roll over 4,000 3's in a million rolls).

 

END is paid for each use of each power.

 

A Multi-Attack normally requires a full phase and halves the user's DCV. A series of skills should be implemented to remove the full phase and/or the DCV penalty, with cost varying depending on the scope of the skill. Only removing a penalty for, say, one combination ("gun/cutlass") would be fairly low cost, removal of a common group ("any two weapon attack") would be somewhat more costly and removal of the penalty for any combination would be the most expensive. The progression would be similar to penalty skill levels as far as multiplying the base. I'd suggest a modest 5 points to remove either of the two penalties from a single attack combination (10 points for a half phase action that does not halve DCV).

 

6e board, here I come...

 

For that matter, in a game without DC/AP caps I can still see a possibility for pure damage MPAs to get nasty.

 

Dragon:

STR: 30

Bite: HKA 2d6

Claws: HKA 2d6 (reduced penetration)

Tail: HA +6d6

 

I count 90 points spent on attacks - that's a lot in a game of 150 point characters.

 

MPA: costs 18 END or 12 END? Either way it does 3 hits for 12 DCs each off a single non-penalized attack roll.

 

I count 21 END (four 3 END attacks plus STR three more times).

 

Now add 20 3pt levels (Bite' date=' Claws, tail):[/quote']

 

For 60 more points - I could have made all four attacks AoE Accurate for less!

 

against a dodgy target you will just plain hit; against an entangled target you add +30 STUN to the HA and +10 BODY (and the resulting STUN) to each of the HKAs. (okay' date=' so all your above-average rolls get clipped, but that's part of the point.. ) It's also almost certain to do knockback (14 minimum BODY per HKA, with each fairly likely to do a full 24 BODY. Even 3d6 is unlikely to stop that from knocking back.. in fact 13-14" KB is to be expected!) [/quote']

 

First off, I expect a dragon to be dangerous. Second, 20 levels is pretty over the top. Third, perhaps we should add a rule that 3 point levels can only add to one of its three attacks at a time, so you don't get a bonus on MPA's with anything less than a 5 point level, but I really don't think that's essential.

 

So.. is this all as crazy as I think it is?

 

Having one 30 AP and 3 60 AP attacks, all fully paid for, plus 20 3 point levels? You bet that's crazy! This also highlights the problem with "STR Adds for Free" powers, as three of those attacks get doubled for free because the creature bought STR. Maybe he should have to divide his STR between the multiple attacks. That Other Game bit the bullet a few years back and reduced the bonus of high STR on attacks after the first in a sequence.

 

But I think those, more than the Multiple Power Attack rules, are the cause of the craziness.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

A few thoughts:

1) Linked powers: Linked is a limitation, not an advantage; so should Linked be the only way to get MPAs or at least non-penalized MPAs? It kind of feels that way a little bit to me, and I sense that I am not alone. But it seems to go against the design of Limitations(/Advantages). Maybe Linked on attack powers is a -0 and comes with No Penalties to Multiple Power Attacks with just these powers? It already is a way to bypass the MPA restriction on Power Frameworks.

2) Sweep vs MPA: Even giving the -2 for sweep and the full round time (perhaps eleviated by Rapid Attack skill or whatever it was called?) and 1/2 DCV.. MPA still comes out a bit ahead of Sweep/Rapid Fire on the fact that there's only 1 attack roll. (If not for the First Miss Ends the Attack Sequence (but you still pay for it all!) part of Sweep, I wouldn't call it a clear advantage for MPA.) Is that justified by the more restrictive nature of MPA?

3)END cost:

I count 21 END (four 3 END attacks plus STR three more times).

There's only 3 attacks there (STR could be used to attack on its own, but isn't in this case as it would invalidate the CSLs). Also there's the part in the front of the book that says you pay for STR only once per phase, regardless of how many times you use it. The FAQ overrules this specifically for Autofire, but as far as I know it is not specifically overruled for Sweep or MPA, hence the question. It obviously should be though. Of course on the character in question, 7 points for 1/2 END on STR is a steal, and 15 points for 0 END on STR is tempting as well.

 

4) On points:

Having one 30 AP and 3 60 AP attacks, all fully paid for, plus 20 3 point levels? You bet that's crazy! This also highlights the problem with "STR Adds for Free" powers, as three of those attacks get doubled for free because the creature bought STR. Maybe he should have to divide his STR between the multiple attacks. That Other Game bit the bullet a few years back and reduced the bonus of high STR on attacks after the first in a sequence.

Since none of these are in frameworks, they can leverage Limitations rather well, though the label I gave for the character is somewhat restrictive of choices. (A dragon with Focus for it's natural attacks? <_< IIF: Dracoform Amulet? Perhaps not too restrictive.) If such a character has diverse limitations, they may lose some but not all of their DC 12 attacks due to lims and still be quite dangerous.

While we're at it, let's just see what a DC 36 character would be doing (spent 180 AP on one attack, instead of 30 on STR, 30 on Bite, 30 on Tail, 30 on Claws, and 60 on CSLs)

Average STUN: 126 - PD, BODY 36 - PD.

END: also 18.

 

vs:

= 60 BODY - PD - 3x rPD (might not kill, but it should be felt)

= 192 STUN - 4x PD (and despite being broken up, it's quite likely to STUN as well). With the double-jeapardy STUN lotto, you can easily have a single hit for 120 STUN.

 

The break even point on STUN based on these 'average' rolls is 22 PD. The 36d6 attack will be pretty solidly drawn toward the average by probability, and as I pointed out on another thread, the CSL user is better off taking Standard Effect at this point.

If we're expecting 36 DC attacks to go flying around, 22 PD is obviously pretty low. And 72 PD/36 rPD will completely shut down the MPA user but only be 'about right' against the 36 DC straight attack.

 

MPAs mostly seem to be hardly worth it (maybe cool for diverse effects but that's about it) except when you use STR and damaging CSLs, both of which get leveraged up by certain MPAs. Even then, it seems like you need a lot of buck for your bang. Maybe the only thing about them that even needs to be addressed balance-wise is how they are treated by campaign DC caps?

 

I haven't seen it used a lot, and it tends to be of the variety discussed by Sean - a main attack with a small tagalong attack, usually with the total at the top end of campaign norm DC's.

If the tagalong attack is subject to PD or ED, it seems like such an MPA would be weak for the DCs (see above.) so it mostly works on an assumption that whatever exotic defense the tagalong targets is rare. Otherwise, I don't know... if everyone has average defenses of 2 PD/ED, 1 rPD/rED per average DC, then the first average DC/2 damage classes in an attack don't do much of anything. Maybe ignore those in the second attack when checking for DC limit? (i.e. if the limit is 12, two DC 9 attacks could be MPA'd together (9 + 9 - (12/2) = 12) or a DC 10 + DC 8 but not a pair of DC 12s?)

 

(Again, it honestly seems like bypassing DC limits is the only real potential for imbalance here.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I had always thought it should have been in the game from the start.

 

I convinced a GM to do something similar under 4E - never once had a problem with it.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I had always thought it should have been in the game from the start.

Essentially, it was. Just most people didn't realize it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

You should have seen the expression on my face when I said I wanted to fire my two guns at once (Heroic game) as one attack and was told "Er, you can only attack with one weapon at a time" ... I was like "Have you SEEN a John Woo movie?! Tell me I can't do that...."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Perhaps all that we need is to scrap the current MPA rules as a shade too permissive and replace them with a simple statement that you can sweep or rapid attack with different powers or weapons.

 

That would seem to cover it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Why not just allow two Attack Rolls against one target as a Full Phase Action with two different Powers/Equipment.

 

ya don't even have to add the Stun together like the current MPA rule.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Perhaps all that we need is to scrap the current MPA rules as a shade too permissive and replace them with a simple statement that you can sweep or rapid attack with different powers or weapons.

 

That would seem to cover it.

 

I think it still needs something for Linked. Linked attacks should be used together with no penalty, but if non-Linked powers cannot be used together without penalty that requires some re-costing of Linked.

[pinecone]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I've been using MPA's since V-1. And it has never broken the Universe...just try them out sometime, if you find problems ...Then put in fixes.

 

I did not red the example closely, but 12D6 avg's 42 Stun, not 72....

 

So the dragon is going to unload on me, is built in a totally unfair way (unless my hero has 20 3 pt levels with Sword that is..) and is burning End out the wazoo... "dive for cover" GM "WHAT!" "Dude a Dragon is cutting loose on me...I'm diving for cover!"

 

A few phases later I use 10-14 of my levels to increase damage and aim my shot, and the dragon is decapitated...

 

And Dude, is 3 or 4 12Dc attacks really more horrible than 1 18 to 24 DC attack? I say, no way!

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I've been using MPA's since V-1. And it has never broken the Universe...just try them out sometime, if you find problems ...Then put in fixes.

 

I haven't seen them in game yet, but as currently constructed my character can MPA with a couple of str based attacks, DC 11 + DC 12 in a DC 12 limited game, with CSLs for +damage (or +OCV depending if there's an entangle in play or not) and has enough END to do this quite often. So I'm trying to get a feel for how balanced they are, and how far pushing the STR/CSLs in an MPA breaks things.

 

I did not red the example closely, but 12D6 avg's 42 Stun, not 72....

42 STUN + 30 STUN (from CSLs.) (On the HKAs it adds +BODY and STUN multiplier applies to that. An HAs it is just +3 STUN per 2 CSLs. This all assumes Superheroic rules, but the +DCs on Heroic rules serves a similar function.)

 

So the dragon is going to unload on me, is built in a totally unfair way (unless my hero has 20 3 pt levels with Sword that is..) and is burning End out the wazoo... "dive for cover" GM "WHAT!" "Dude a Dragon is cutting loose on me...I'm diving for cover!"

 

Well if the dragon can have 20 3pt levels I imagine you can too. NPCs can be allowed to exceed PC campaign limits. But I don't see why you can't have a good number of 3 pt levels with Sword.

The END cost is only 12/Phase according to the book, 18/Phase if you take the reasonable balancing factor of making him pay for STR three times.

And dive for cover is a perfectly legit option. If you fail that DEX roll you're in for a world of hurt, but it shouldn't be that hard to dive 1".

 

A few phases later I use 10-14 of my levels to increase damage and aim my shot, and the dragon is decapitated

Superheroic usually doesn't allow hit locations. Otherwise, yes: if the dragon spent that much on offense (especially in a heroic level game!) it probably has no DCV to speak of and you should be fine. (Though if you aborted to dive for cover and it has higher SPD than you.. hope your party can distract it well!)

 

And Dude, is 3 or 4 12Dc attacks really more horrible than 1 18 to 24 DC attack? I say, no

I think I'm coming toward that conclusion.

3 12 DC attacks can be bought for the same AP as 1 24 DC attacks (assume all are HTH and 30 STR). I'm not keen on figuring out the Real cost, because we don't know what Lims will ultimately be on each.

For the 3 attacks, you gain 12 DCs (+50% damage output) but triple the defenses you face. So for 21 PD you do 42-21 STUN x 3 = 63 STUN after defenses, or 84-21 STUN = 63 STUN after defenses. Looking at that without CSLs it looks like 21 PD is the break even point.. though if 24 DC attacks are allowed, that's really weak PD.

How about a more reasonable 48 PD? The MPA does nothing without CSLs and the 24 DC attack is still getting 36 STUN through. The first 4 CSLs bring the MPA up to bouncing average rolls exactly and the big attack up to 42 STUN through. At 20 CSLs we're getting about 3x24=72 STUN through with the MPA and 72 STUN through with the 24 DC attack on average rolls. That doesn't quite address the average though, as you can't get low enough for any of the attacks to bounce now (+30 STUN will do that, skipping the HKA question for this comparison) but you can easily clip at the top. In fact the 3x12DC attacks are hitting max STUN on an average roll now, but the 24DC attack has room to go another 30 STUN higher. (And it will Stun someone way more often.)

 

------------

 

Thanks for everyone helping me think this through.

[caris]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

If and how much of a problem MPA are depends a lot on the ratio between defenses and attacks. The lower defenses are in relation to attacksthe more potent MPAs can be. This can cause problems depending on how the campaign limits are set up. Using the sample levels for "Superheroic" from the main book where a "typical" normal defense is a 20. Two 10 DC attacks in an MPA do roughly equivalent Stun damage to a 14 DC attack.

 

This becomes a real problem when the character uses any of the various cost saving methods to get attacks cheap. The most obvious to me is the +5 cp for x2 equipment. I've seen GM allow MPAs with an attack in a EC and attack in an MP, I'm not sure if that is one of the things that Steve ruled out in the FAQ or not. There is also the option of Martial Arts, IIRC each manuever is considered a separate attack for MPA pruposes. As has been pointed when points aren't a factor, than why shouldn't everyone go in with two guns blazing?

[caris]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

You should have seen the expression on my face when I said I wanted to fire my two guns at once (Heroic game) as one attack and was told "Er' date=' you can only attack with one weapon at a time" ... I was like "Have you SEEN a John Woo movie?! Tell me I can't do that...."[/quote']

 

Oh, you can it is really easy. You take the damage level of the guns you want to use. Build and RKA at twice that, and slap the Reduced Penetration Limitation on it and call it's special effect Two Guns. (Please, keep it within campaign AP limits please)

 

Or

 

You can buy additional Auto Fire as a Naked Advantage and call the special effect Two Guns.

 

This isn't to say that MPAs are wrong, just that they aren't the only way to acheive the effect.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I use the option for penalizing MPA's presented in the sidebar on page 360...each character has to define a penalty for a particular MPA combo, and that penalty is then forever in effect for that combo.

 

Either they suffer a -2 OCV, it takes a Full Phase, halve DCV, or take some other equivalent penalty.

 

So if a character used an EB + Flash combo as an MPA, the player would declare that for that character, they suffered a -2 OCV for that combo (or the penalty of their choice).

 

Another character that combo'd Legsweep and Takeaway might declare it takes a Full Phase to use that combo (or the penalty of their choice).

 

Etc.

 

If I felt a particular MPA combo were getting chained out of hand I would have no issues requiring two or even three such penalties to be applied.

 

 

I also even allow ranged and hth attacks to be combo'd in an MPA with the purchase of a custom Talent called Mixed Attack that "unlocks" such behavior. John Wrath had it, and it worked well.

 

 

Mixed Attack

Notes: Mixed Attack: A Character with this Combat Skill is able to mix Ranged and HtH Attacks with Multiple Power Attacks, and to mix Ranged attacks with HtH attacks in conjunction with Sweep/Rapid Fire. For 5 points the Character may do this with a -4 OCV -4 DCV penalty. For +5 points the Character may do this with a -2 OCV -2 DCV penalty. The penalties are in addition to any of the standard penalties applicable to an MPA or Sweep/Rapid Fire

[Markdoc]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

If and how much of a problem MPA are depends a lot on the ratio between defenses and attacks. The lower defenses are in relation to attacksthe more potent MPAs can be. This can cause problems depending on how the campaign limits are set up.

 

Thinking about it, this may have been the key reason that MPAs were a major problem in our heroic/heroic style games: it's not uncommon for attacks to be able to do BOD through typical defences on a decent roll and plenty of STUN damage is a given. In that situation, where an MPA is used, getting double STUN on a target can often put them right out in a single hit.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

My only big issue with MPA is linked to that of the STUN lotto. It makes it more likely that you are going to win big in any one attack action if you are firing several killing attacks.

 

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Oh, you can it is really easy. You take the damage level of the guns you want to use. Build and RKA at twice that, and slap the Reduced Penetration Limitation on it and call it's special effect Two Guns. (Please, keep it within campaign AP limits please)

 

Or

 

You can buy additional Auto Fire as a Naked Advantage and call the special effect Two Guns.

 

This isn't to say that MPAs are wrong, just that they aren't the only way to acheive the effect.

 

Heroic Game - we did not have the option to "build" guns.

 

I had two .44s as written in the book.

[caris]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Heroic Game - we did not have the option to "build" guns.

 

I had two .44s as written in the book.

 

I was posting what my response would have been if you were to complain to me about not letting you use two guns the same time. Actually, I was being a little more generous and nice about it than I really would have been, since statements like “have you seen a John Woo movie?” would annoy me, and triggered even greater levels of sarcasm and matching condescension back at you than were evident in my post.

 

Now, to address the point that since “building” guns weren’t available to you that MPA was the only option:

 

The option not to “build” guns was based on your GM’s at the time interpretation of the rules as written, and/or the ground rules he set up.

 

Your GM at the time had interpreted the rules to read you make one attack with one weapon at time (unless presumably said weapon had the Autofire Advantage).

 

Either way you were convincing your GM to change the way the game was being run. Convincing the GM to allow MPAs as one way. Convincing the GM to let you use existing mechanics like Reduced Penetration, or increased amounts of Autofire (I’ll grant you that Naked Advantage would have been as much of an intuitive leap as MPA in 4th) were equally valid approaches. Obviously, I would have been more open to allowing you to buy an ability that produced the effect you wanted as opposed to having to try and figure out rules for something that I saw as being explicitly forbidden in the RAW of the time.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Oh, you can it is really easy. You take the damage level of the guns you want to use. Build and RKA at twice that, and slap the Reduced Penetration Limitation on it and call it's special effect Two Guns. (Please, keep it within campaign AP limits please)

As we've pretty much shown to my satisfaction at least, this is far more powerful than the MPA approach. Though perhaps offset by STUN Lotto double jeopardy.

 

 

This becomes a real problem when the character uses any of the various cost saving methods to get attacks cheap. The most obvious to me is the +5 cp for x2 equipment. I've seen GM allow MPAs with an attack in a EC and attack in an MP, I'm not sure if that is one of the things that Steve ruled out in the FAQ or not. There is also the option of Martial Arts, IIRC each manuever is considered a separate attack for MPA pruposes. As has been pointed when points aren't a factor, than why shouldn't everyone go in with two guns blazing?

Multiple slots from the same framework are never allowed in an MPA according to the book, only Powers in the same slot (which means they MUST be Linked and at least one cannot be used without the other). (At least in 5r)

 

I don't like the +5 for x2 rule, as it causes problems both with MPAs and the ability to spread the wealth. (We build a team of the ArmorSmith, the WeaponSmith, and the Cobbler, and GadgetMan. Each makes a distinct multipower (maybe EC for the armor and VPP for the utility belt if the GM is drunk enough) and takes +10 for x4 to spread them around. Whatever points you spend on that gear gets leveraged up to x4 value. (though you maybe lose a little bit from having relatively homogenous characters in play. The raw power makes up for it.)

 

The Martial Arts one is kind of a problem but kind of regulated by the GM. The book says to not allow an MPA of manuevers that serve the same purpose, especially raw damage. So while you can Disarm and Legsweep you can't Offensive Strike and Martial Strike. (Not sure about Legsweep + a pure damage manuever but I'd say no. I'd also probably deny Legsweep + Grab/Throw) I think the GM ought to, based on the MPA rules, deny any martial manuever MPA that has multiple damage dealing attacks. They can Sweep if they want to hit with multiple martial arts.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I was posting what my response would have been if you were to complain to me about not letting you use two guns the same time. Actually, I was being a little more generous and nice about it than I really would have been, since statements like “have you seen a John Woo movie?” would annoy me, and triggered even greater levels of sarcasm and matching condescension back at you than were evident in my post.

 

Now, to address the point that since “building” guns weren’t available to you that MPA was the only option:

 

The option not to “build” guns was based on your GM’s at the time interpretation of the rules as written, and/or the ground rules he set up.

 

Your GM at the time had interpreted the rules to read you make one attack with one weapon at time (unless presumably said weapon had the Autofire Advantage).

 

Either way you were convincing your GM to change the way the game was being run. Convincing the GM to allow MPAs as one way. Convincing the GM to let you use existing mechanics like Reduced Penetration, or increased amounts of Autofire (I’ll grant you that Naked Advantage would have been as much of an intuitive leap as MPA in 4th) were equally valid approaches. Obviously, I would have been more open to allowing you to buy an ability that produced the effect you wanted as opposed to having to try and figure out rules for something that I saw as being explicitly forbidden in the RAW of the time.

 

It was never explicitly forbidden by RAW.

 

I thought it was possible personally.

[caris]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

It was never explicitly forbidden by RAW.

 

I thought it was possible personally.

 

I never did. I just couldn't get around the whole you can only perform one attack action per phase, deal.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

It is one attack, with two guns. Was my point.