Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

[Narf the Mouse]

MPs and VVPs have always seemed "iffy" to me, for purely martial (that is, skill-based) characters. I suppose you could argue that the active ones are the ones the martial character is focusing on right now...Could I get feedback from people who practice martial arts or have other experience?

 

Thanks.

[Escafarc]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Though you posted this in FH Forum, For Supers who are suppose to be Super-level Martail Artist I use a MP with slots for HtH Attack, Killing Attack-HtH, OCV, DCV, and STR for Grabs to represent that they've studyed a large number styles instead of 20+ manuevers.

[Ice9]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

It seems logical enough to me. You can go for a frenzy of attacks, or a carefully aimed arterial strike, or a defensive stance - but not all at the same time.

 

When used to simulate a highly versatile MA style, as Escafarc is talking about, I find that it makes sense if you think of each combination as a different manuever.

For instance, setting the pool to +3 OCV, +3d6 HA, +0 DCV, +0 Grab STR might represent using Darting Viper Fist, a deadly and rapid strike that leaves you somewhat exposed. It's not that you forget about having the defensive or grappling abilities, it's that the current stance/manuever you're using isn't suitable for taking advantage of them.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

...Lightning Reflexes would also make sense, to simulate a swift style/stance. Or maybe just Dex.

 

Edit: What about weapon-users?

[OddHat]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Well, point for point, you might be more combat effective with a few standard maneuvers, Damage Classes and skill levels.

 

That said, I like MPs and VPPs for some martial artists, especially highly cinematic martial artists. If you're going for something like Remo Williams or a Wuxia Hero, a MP or VPP is almost required.

 

Remo has Missile Deflection, Find Weakness (tons of it), NNDs (including killing NNDs), a range of Transformation Attacks (we see him both give people stat bosts, minor powers and significant complications, including long term loss of stats and skills), a couple types of touch only Mind Control, Paralyzing Touch, Invisibility (out of combat only), Gliding, and other tricks, all with the SFX of "Sinanju, Sun Source of the Martial Arts". There's really no way other than a MP or VPP to build most versions of him as a starting character in most campaigns.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Remo Williams sounds well outside the range of what I consider "mundane" or "skill based".

[OddHat]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Remo Williams sounds well outside the range of what I consider "mundane" or "skill based".

 

By the time the Destroyer series got to around book 15 or so, Mundane didn't apply.

 

Still, he started as a fairly standard Karate & Judo oriented Vigilante character. He only started to have minor "Super Powers" around (iirc) book 5 or so. Before that, it was all skills and (effectively) Super Skills. His later power set almost all had the SFX of Super Skills, but pushed past the limits of what any person in the real world could possibly be trained to do.

 

Many HK Action movie characters are easiest (imo) to write up with a Martial Arts & Super Skills Multipower.

 

Of course, more limited characters do fine with just standard martial maneuvers. If you search for my HK Action Superheroes on Surbrook's Stuff, you can find some examples of how various movie characters can work in 6th.

[Markdoc]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

MPs and VVPs have always seemed "iffy" to me, for purely martial (that is, skill-based) characters. I suppose you could argue that the active ones are the ones the martial character is focusing on right now...Could I get feedback from people who practice martial arts or have other experience?

 

Thanks.

 

Iffy why? I'm not seeing a difference between having a slot active and using a specific martial maneuver - and we've been using multipowers to model martial arts for decades now, in both heroic and superheroic games.

 

cheers, Mark

[OddHat]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

You could make the case that a VPP is a better way than Martial Maneuvers to represent how real world combat works. My character can try to gouge out his opponent's eyes (Hit Location, Flash or Transformation, depending on how long term the damage will be and on the campaign), use improvised weapons picked up from the surroundings, strike specifically to limit ability or reduce the target's ability to fight back (all sorts of drains, entangles, maybe hit locations again), and do other things that I as a player might not have remembered to put on the sheet. With a VPP, the player doesn't have to worry about getting down every possible variation.

 

Add in Hong Kong Cinematic tricks like "taking away his Kung Fu" by severing tendons or ripping muscles and VPPs look even better. (You can even argue that they're not that cinematic; a few minutes knife work can potentially cripple anyone, and doing the same things with your hands is possible with training).

[Markdoc]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Agreed. As a GM, I let players use both the standard martial arts rules and the multipower version (a VPP would work as well, but I discourage those in my current game simply because none of my players are good at generating powers on the fly: it takes them ages. So the only VPPs currently in use are those with powers defined in advance). Given that choice, no-one uses the standard martial arts rules any more. And as a player I find them frustratingly limited, even for heroic games, both in concept and practice.

 

And that's with a strict cap on CSLs in the framework - no more than you could get with standard martial arts, so no +6 OCV maneuvers, for example.

 

cheers, Mark

[Escafarc]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Edit: What about weapon-users?

 

You give part of the MP Pool the Focus Limitation.

[Markdoc]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

You give part of the MP Pool the Focus Limitation.

 

Part or all. If it's a purely weapons-based art like modern fencing, or kenjutsu you might as well give the whole MP the limitation.

If the martial art can be used with weapons or barehanded, I just buy +5 STR (only for maneuver X, -1/2) instead of +1d6 HA to add a DC to a specific maneuver: tat allows you to add a DC whether you are using a weapon or a fist.

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Of course it's appropriate. MP's and VPP's are simply accounting mechanics. There is no SFX bias unless you artificially impose them.

 

I don't have time to sift thru and pick out specific examples, but there are examples of such martial characters to be found among the lot here:

 

Fantasy Characters

[Vondy]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Warning: my philosophy of character design is "slack." I like minimal fuss and notation. I'm not a bean counter. I'm comfortable running commando. That said...

 

I know several people who use such MPs and VPPs for MAs. Markdoc has posted his in the past. I've taken a different approach for my heroic games, which increasingly eschew the powers section. Its been noted in many threads over the years that martial maneuvers have diminishing returns as you purchase more and more. The exact threshold where inefficiency sets in is a matter of debate, but its usually somewhere around 20-25 points.

 

With this in mind I've taken to having intensively martial characters put down 20 points for "Universal Maneuver" with a limiting SFX definition based on style at -0. For martial arts like Kung Fu or Fencing with huge maneuver lists I recommend limiting it to sub-styles, but that depends on the style of play desired.

 

For my games I don't nit-pick weapon elements. I just assume they go with the package. I allow additional styles for an adder of +5 points (see note). I also allow players to use combo moves with for +5 points. I might consider giving a discount if the art is somehow restricted, like "Axes Only." So, for instance, a knight could take,

 

Knightly Combat: Universal Maneuver [Heavy Weapon Fighting] Cost: 20 Points

 

Or the Amazon Princess From Paradise Island could take,

 

Amazon Fighting Techniques: Universal Maneuver [Faux Fu, Heavy Weapon Fighting, Combo Moves] Cost: 30 Points

 

Or Barbarian Hero could take,

 

Axe Fighting: Universal Maneuver [Heavy Weapon Fighting], Axes Only -1/4. Cost: 15 Points

 

Note: if someone wanted ranged and hand to hand I would charge them the full 20 points twice.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

...Still not sure what this "Universal Maneuver" does.

[Escafarc]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

I think it allows you to use any Martial Art Maneuver(if appropirate for the manuever/weapon combo) with your weapon.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

I think it allows you to use any Martial Art Maneuver(if appropirate for the manuever/weapon combo) with your weapon.

I'm thunking that way myself, but it wasn't clear.

[Vondy]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

...Still not sure what this "Universal Maneuver" does.

 

The APG has an optional rule for extended use of the Universal Translator concept. The examples are for conceptually related skills, like Universal Pilot being able to fly anything and use any on-board weapons system. I just extrapolated the concept for martial arts (which is not what Steve proposed): you can use any maneuver/weapon combo from specified style chosen. I do it for two reasons: diminishing returns on points invested in martial maneuvers past the 20-30 point range and laziness. I like really short character write-ups. I love the underlying core mechanics that drive hero, but I want to focus on the story and characters and not the bean counting.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

The APG has an optional rule for extended use of the Universal Translator concept. The examples are for conceptually related skills' date=' like Universal Pilot being able to fly anything and use any on-board weapons system. I just extrapolated the concept for martial arts (which is not what Steve proposed): you can use any maneuver/weapon combo from specified style chosen. I do it for two reasons: diminishing returns on points invested in martial maneuvers past the 20-30 point range and laziness. I like really short character write-ups. I love the underlying core mechanics that drive hero, but I want to focus on the story and characters and not the bean counting.[/quote']

 

Do you limit the number of Universal Skills that a single character can have? If I wanted to play an Immortal with eidetic memory, could I say buy Universal Translator (any language I could resonably have learned in my lifestyle), Universal Manuever (eveything fighting style I have studied), and Universal Scholar (any knowledge skill I learned during my long life)?

 

It's not automatically a bad thought, but it's closeer to something like FATE or Risus than what folks are used to in Hero character building.

[Vondy]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

Do you limit the number of Universal Skills that a single character can have? If I wanted to play an Immortal with eidetic memory, could I say buy Universal Translator (any language I could resonably have learned in my lifestyle), Universal Manuever (eveything fighting style I have studied), and Universal Scholar (any knowledge skill I learned during my long life)?

 

It's not automatically a bad thought, but it's closer to something like FATE or Risus than what folks are used to in Hero character building.

 

In super-heroic and pulp games I would allow it. I'm into simple designs. Its a question of concept and play style. A character like Conan who speaks a dozen languages passably (and reads their scripts!), has seen the known world, and is Rated M For Manly! Could theoretically be built that way,

 

Polygot: Universal Translator [Languages I've Learned]

Globetrotter: Universal Traveler [Places I've Been]

Rated M For Manly! Universal Maneuver [Heavy Weapon Fighting, Fisticuffs, Combo Moves]

 

That's 70 points - a huge investment! And he has many regular skills, too.

 

Caveat: I'm picky about the defined special effect for the universal. I run heroic games that are a touch too gritty to be pulp and are definitely not super-heroic games. I want it to be tightly conceived in a special effects sense. While open ended "Universal Scientist" makes sense in a super-heroic game for a Reed Richards or Victor Von Doom clone, or "Universal Engineer" for a Batman Clone, or "Universal Scholar" for the Watcher, that kind of trope doesn't fit my games very well. I'd be very reticent about "Universal Scholar" without either a clearly, tightly defined special effect, or one heck of a character history!

 

To date, I've only put one universal on a given character, either as a means of simplifying the martial arts notation, or as a definitive "shtick." I allow combo skills for conceptually related background skills, which for most characters, including Conan's languages and travels, makes more sense. Even if loosely defined I know its a dozen or a score or whatever background elements fits into a conceptually narrow frame. I have a character who is supposed to be a polymath who has Polymath: A Dozen Disciplines 15-, but its an Intelligence based combo skill, not a universal.

[OddHat]

Re: Would a MP or VPP be appropriate for a purely martial character and, if so, how?

 

I like Universal skills myself, though Universal Translator is by far the one I've used most. If your team Skill Master has invested over 20 points in a defined group of KS or SS, the player is asking you as a GM to make sure he gets some use out of them. It makes it easier for both of you, if it makes sense in the context of the setting and history of the character, to just switch him over to a Universal Schollar / Scientist / Traveller / Whatever. It saves you some time when planning adventures if you know "Jack has Universal Translator, so he'll be able to figure out the clue in the Ancient Runes, and David has Universal Traveller, so I can feed him the probable location of the Lost City after Jack lets him know that's what they're looking for."

 

I don't feel obligated to let Universal City Knowledge Man have detailed maps of the Lost City; a certain amount of GM wiggle room is built into Universal skills. I would however let him figure out the city's lay out pretty quickly once he's there, again to give him fair value for that 20 point investment.

 

Hero adventures are Heroic Fiction; in most genres of Heroic Fiction, Universal skills fit pretty well.