Multiple Attack

[slaughterj]

So I have some questions on Multiple Attack:

1. What's up with the Combined Attack on 6E2 74? Pretty much every conceivable Multiple Attack is described on 6E2 73, but then Combined Attack seems to be a big carved out hole for having 2 weapons and attacking once each against a single target not having any of the Multiple Attack penalties. This seems to largely devalue the benefit of buying Two-Weapon Fighting (and Offhand Fighting / Ambidexterity), sure it's still useful when attacking with two weapons against multiple targets, but not even necessary for two weapons against one target (except maybe if you were going to take multiple swings with one of those two weapons, pretty unlikely though). I might like this since wielding dual-weapons versus one larger two-handed weapon probably could use some boosting (since each dual weapon would hit for a little less individually after Defenses than one large weapon usually), but I want to confirm I understand this. But this does seem to overpromote multiple attacks, which could slow game play (e.g., in a Western Hero game, why not shoot with two pistols at the main bad guy, there's no combat penalty in doing so (sure, uses more charges, END possibly for STR Mins for wielding two guns, and the time it takes to draw both weapons)).

2. A strict read of Two-Weapon Fighting seems to require using two weapons, but doesn't seem to require an attack with each of those two weapons. Has that been clarified in any way? It allows you to skip the first -2 OCV penalty for doing Multiple Attacks, but let's say you have a Bastard Sword and a Knife - you could just attack twice with the Bastard Sword it seems to get the benefit (and even makes sense, since you are assumed to be attacking with your good hand, which presumably is holding the Bastard Sword). Alternatively, if you were going to attack with each of the 2 weapons against a single target, apparently you could just use Combined Attack and have no attack penalty anyway.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Multiple Attack

 

1.) Combined attack is really meant for things like compound powers (Linked, Unified, etc.). Like if you had gun that fired a bright blast, both wounding and blinding a target. Lining up two powers simultaneously for one big hit-or-miss is kind of a natural extension. In games where Two-Handed Fighting is used, IMO it would make sense for the GM to disallow a Combined Attack with two separate weapons (i.e. two attacks not built to be triggered together). You also can't use Combined Attack to target one opponent with one power and another opponent with the other; that's definitely going to require a Multiple Attack, Spreading, or an Autofire option.

 

2.) While this is true, why (as far as the rules go) would you use an inferior weapon in your second hand anyway? Using your example, why not wield a bastard sword in each hand, instead of a bastard sword in one hand and a knife in the other? This is a case where the GM may really have to play an active role in encouraging creativity, and balancing the benefits. Although the drawback of not being able to hold something in your other hand (or use it to cast spells or whatever) may be enough, I personally do require that attacks must be balanced between both weapons in order to take advantage of the built-in bonus. Another thing to consider is allowing a character who uses different sized weapons to take the most advantageous bonus/penalty when considering difference in weapon length and cramped quarters.

[slaughterj]

Re: Multiple Attack

 

1.) Combined attack is really meant for things like compound powers (Linked' date=' Unified, etc.). [/quote']

 

Linked already pulls things together its own way, so it doesn't seem Combined attack is really meant for it. Plus, look at the text example, a robot has two different guns, one on each arm, which it can use to blast away once each on a single foe. To some degree, it makes sense in that you spent all those points, so you should be able to use them, but on the other hand, when you make an attack, that ends your turn, and this seems to flaunt that.

 

In games where Two-Handed Fighting is used' date=' IMO it would make sense for the GM to disallow a Combined Attack with two separate weapons (i.e. two attacks not built to be triggered together). You also can't use Combined Attack to target one opponent with one power and another opponent with the other; that's definitely going to require a Multiple Attack, Spreading, or an Autofire option.[/quote']

 

It just seems like an odd carve-out, there's all this trouble to explain Multiple Attack, to create the Two-Weapon Fighting skill, etc., and then to have Combined Attack available which moots all those penalties for the most basic version of Multiple Attack.

 

2.) While this is true' date=' why (as far as the rules go) would you use an inferior weapon in your second hand anyway? Using your example, why not wield a bastard sword in each hand, instead of a bastard sword in one hand and a knife in the other?[/quote']

 

Plenty of reasons, a knife is thrown which gives more options, you might only have access to those two weapons, you might want other benefits provided (long weapon keeps people at bay for the optional OCV variances by weapon length, while short weapon works when the foe moves in), etc.

 

This is a case where the GM may really have to play an active role in encouraging creativity' date=' and balancing the benefits. Although the drawback of not being able to hold something in your other hand (or use it to cast spells or whatever) may be enough, I personally do require that attacks must be balanced between both weapons in order to take advantage of the built-in bonus. Another thing to consider is allowing a character who uses different sized weapons to take the most advantageous bonus/penalty when considering difference in weapon length and cramped quarters.[/quote']

 

I would think that a GM wouldn't penalize a PC for using an inferior damaging weapon in the offhand, that's not as good for the PC already, why penalize them more by placing an extra limit on Two-Weapon Fighting? Plus, it is counter to some iconic concepts.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Multiple Attack

 

Linked already pulls things together its own way' date=' so it doesn't seem Combined attack is really meant for it. Plus, look at the text example, a robot has two different guns, one on each arm, which it can use to blast away once each on a single foe. To some degree, it makes sense in that you spent all those points, so you should be able to use them, but on the other hand, when you make an attack, that ends your turn, and this seems to flaunt that.[/quote']

No, Linked doesn't put things together its own way. It is a Limitation that restricts the power it is on by only allowing you to use it in a Combined Attack (for Attack Powers anyway). This is a very old debate; a point where the system developers viewed it one way but forgot to put it in writing until 5th Edition, so most of the players who weren't involved in the system development viewed it another way. Then 5th Edition (or was it Revised?) made people's eyes pop in a big, "Ohhhhhhhh! NOW that makes sense" fashion.

 

It just seems like an odd carve-out' date=' there's all this trouble to explain Multiple Attack, to create the Two-Weapon Fighting skill, etc., and then to have Combined Attack available which moots all those penalties for the most basic version of Multiple Attack.[/quote']

Yeah, seeing it that way is understandable. One thing that might help is to keep in mind that Multiple Attack gives you a lot more options, such as using different maneuvers for the different attacks, attacking multiple targets, etc. Is it worth it? Well, YMMV, depends on the circumstances, and it's up to the GM to help balance things. But as far as I'm concerned it's a very good thing the system provides both options.

 

Plenty of reasons' date=' a knife is thrown which gives more options, you might only have access to those two weapons, you might want other benefits provided (long weapon keeps people at bay for the optional OCV variances by weapon length, while short weapon works when the foe moves in), etc.[/quote']

That's kinda why I'm saying the GM should play up those advantages, and provide situations where they make a difference. Otherwise it's a choice like, "Hmm. A 2d6 attack plus: another 2d6 attack or only a 1d6+1 attack? Tough choice."

 

I would think that a GM wouldn't penalize a PC for using an inferior damaging weapon in the offhand' date=' that's not as good for the PC already, why penalize them more by placing an extra limit on Two-Weapon Fighting? Plus, it is counter to some iconic concepts.[/quote']

Well IIRC in 5E Two-Weapon Fighting did actually give you a cost break on something that would otherwise be a bit more expensive, and I saw that restriction as worth the Limitation. It may be worth re-evaluating in 6E. Not sure.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Multiple Attack

 

[EDIT] I said Multiple Attack when I meant Combined Attack a few times, as prestidigitator pointed out below. Fixing. [EDIT]

 

Yo, I was really confused about this one too. I got a clarification from Steve Long as to why one would bother with TWF. The answer is that when you make a combined attack, you (a) can't include any combat manuevers in it, only powers and ( after putting all those powers together, have to Strike with them. These don't apply to TWF, though. So if you have the following:

 

2d6 HKA

6d6 HA

 

You can combine attack a 2d6 HKA and a +6d6 HA, whether or not you have TWF, and make a Strike action that if it hits does both simultaneously.

 

If you do have TWF, you can still do the above. But you also have the option of using a Martial manuever with one or both of them - for example, you could Martial Strike with the HKA and then Martial Strike with the HA. Or you could combine something like a Disarm and an Offensive Strike, or a Legsweep and a Fast Strike, et cetera. Someone without TWF could also do all these things (via regular Multiple Attack), but they'd take more penalties for doing so (they couldn't ignore the first -2, and would take offhand penalties).

 

In my opinion, TWF is still something of a niche ability and is definitely only worth it for a character who also has Martial Arts. Then again it's not super expensive at 10 points.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Multiple Attack

 

Yo' date=' I was really confused about this one too. I got a clarification from Steve Long as to why one would bother with TWF. The answer is that when you make a multiple attack, you (a) can't include any combat manuevers in it, only powers and ( after putting all those powers together, have to Strike with them.[/quote']

 

Hmm. That seems a very odd statement, given:

 

Unless another rule or the GM rules otherwise, a character can make a Multiple Attack with any type of attack: barehanded; using a weapon; using a Ranged power; using a Mental Power; using a Combat Maneuver or Martial Maneuver; throwing a rock; anything.

...

For example, a character could:

• ...
  
• use a Martial Strike, an Offensive Strike, and a Defensive Strike against a single target or multiple targets.
  
• ...
  

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Multiple Attack

 

Whooooops I got Multiple Attack and Combined Attack switched up in a few places. Editing.