I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

[budding voyager]

I'm learning this game as a change of pace for players and this rule keeps bugging me.

 

I can understand why Linked is a limitation when linked to constant powers (e.g. to fly, you must first activate desolidify) but I do not understand why it's a limitation when two instant powers are linked. It gives you a two-for-one deal on attacks. For example 6E1 385 considers a Flash (sight group) attack linked to a RKA. I know, I know; it means you can't blind someone without damaging them and that's a limitation but is it really? The times where I want to blind my opponent without otherwise hurting them are few and far between. Feels like a 0- limitation at best.

 

Five years ago, this topic was previously brought up on this thread with all the commentators saying it was definitely a limitation. Hugh wrote:

Linked generally applies to powers which could otherwise be active/activated at the same time. For example, multiple attacks which could otherwise be used as a multiple power attack, a suite of abilities which could alll be activated as a 0 phase limitation, or a power which must be on before any of the other powers can be activated. All of these place a prerequisite on use of a power which otherwise coud be used at will. As such, the power is limited.

But when I consider the alternative to the blinding laser rifle (say, a "normal" laser rifle and a targeted Flash (sight group) attack), you would attack twice in a Phase (I assume that's what he means by multiple power attack; I'm still learning all the lingo). This gives you a -2 OCV for each attack, the possibility that the first attack will miss (automatically causing the second to miss), and half your DCV. All that's pretty bad given the alternative of just linking them which not only eliminates the OCV and DCV penalties but also makes the flash attack cheaper. The only disadvantage is, again, you can't untangle the Flash from the RKA; that is well worth avoiding the pitfalls of the alternative.

 

This seems like such an obvious issue but there's virtually no one with the same concerns I do so I feel like I'm missing something obvious. I would appreciate any help.

[Steve Long]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

This seems to be a request for a conversation, not a rules question, and to the extent there's a rules question here I think it verges on game design/philosophy, which I typically refuse to delve into for various reasons. So I've moved it to Discussion where a conversation can occur.

[brionl]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

The main difference between linked and multiple attack is that with two separate powers you can use either one. Just A, Just B, or A+B. If B is linked to A, you can only do B if you also do A. Theoretically, there is some cost to this. Either more endurance, more charges, or if want to do only B and not A at all.

[Escafarc]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

Also don't forget if A is Drain (or the like) then you can't use B.

[CptPatriot]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

You also have to remember that "compound" powers combine active points for purposes of AP limits

[Christopher]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

When the greater power or both powers are in a framework, you have to allocate points to the greater power (or both).

 

When the greater power is Drained, you can't use the lesser at all or only at lower level (a one way-unified).

 

You have higher costs for Endurance and you may not deativate the greater power in the same phase.

 

Especially for the example with the Posioned Dagger, if the main attack misses the linked attack misses too.

 

The lesser power is indirect subject to some of the limitations of the greater power (i.e. link it to something with extra time that isn't always online).

 

Of course you can circumvent it by linking a 80 AP power to a 1d6 Blast, no END (or similar no gain/no loss power) but that simply falls under GM-discretion.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

It's because you lose the choice of using them seperately. You can always use a Blast + Flash, but it's a limitation to be forced to use both together.

[Ice9]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

you would attack twice in a Phase (I assume that's what he means by multiple power attack; I'm still learning all the lingo). This gives you a -2 OCV for each attack, the possibility that the first attack will miss (automatically causing the second to miss), and half your DCV.

Actually, using them together sounds more like a Combined Attack, which similarly to a 5E MPA - i.e no penalties.

[Christopher]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

Actually' date=' using them together sounds more like a Combined Attack, which similarly to a 5E MPA - i.e no penalties.[/quote']

Combined Attack is also way better than Compund powers - you don't have to stick to the AP/DC Limits for the overall attack.

I am not so sure about the downsides of the Combined Attack, but mostly anything from Multiattack seems to apply - except that those two attacks count only as one with a single throw at no DCV penalty and normal action time.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

Not all Linked Powers are Compound Powers.

 

It's a Limitation when you consider that you should ALWAYS have been able to use two or more Attacks in the same Phase - this was the base assumption I made when learning the system and only some 'seasoned veterans' insisted I was wrong - naturally I ignored them.

 

Generally speaking, I have always assumed - and continue to assume - that you can make two Attacks on the same Target in the same Attack Action with no Penalty.

Eliminating the Linked 'bonus' of being able to do the same for less points; Linked then becomes a Limitation because Must Use A To Use B is in fact more Limiting than Can Use A or B At Any Time, Together or Separately.

 

I still have a memory of the GMs face way back in the days of 4E when I said - without mincing words - "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, (and proceeded to call him a series of names because I was Young And Angry)" when he told me my awesome Cybeprunk Gunslinger couldn't shoot a guy with a gun in each hand. It boggled me that anyone in the right mind wouldn't allow that.

 

So that's why Linked is a Limitation in my book: You Can't Use B Without Using A. And sometimes, you might not want to use A.

[Christopher]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

I still have a memory of the GMs face way back in the days of 4E when I said - without mincing words - "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard' date=' (and proceeded to call him a series of names because I was Young And Angry)" when he told me my awesome Cybeprunk Gunslinger couldn't shoot a guy with a gun in each hand. It boggled me that anyone in the right mind wouldn't allow that.[/quote']

At least in 6E there a a way with combined attack:

Using a Combined Attack with both weapons/powers. When they are identical, this is just like twice the Damage, charges/end from both, single Attack roll.

And you can even use Combined Attack with Autofire. And then Multiattack with the Combined Attack or the Combined Autofire Attack (yes, you can empty a two MP 5 in one Turn and be only at half dcv and -6 OCV, if you do it right).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

The main reason Linked is a Lim is because it removes choice from the player.

 

Unlike most game systems, the HERO System is generally pretty permissive. You BUY your abilities...or in HERO lingo "you paid the points for it" and thus you are entitled to use them. If a particular character's abilities are more restricted they get a cost break because the abilities are less good.

 

 

There was some discussion about this back in the 4e -> 5e day. Apparently multiple attack, the ability to just alpha strike with everything you've got, was always the implicit intent of the game's original creators, which is why the Linked limitation existed. Not all players of the game picked up on this unstated intent. In 5e the matter was clarified with explicit rules coverage.

 

If you as the GM don't permit multiple attacks or other means of overloading attack actions with multiple effects, then yeah linked suddenly is an empowering ability and not really much of a Limitation.

 

 

For me, Compound Powers really supersede Linked, and I think Linked should have been done away with. But it's still there, and you are legally entitled to use it for a cost break in various situations. It's kind of like a tax loophole left over from previous legislature; newer tax code constructs might logically repudiate it's usage, but technically you can still claim it and save a few bucks and a savvy accountant is going to exploit it as long as it continues to exist.

 

 

Oh...and welcome to the game!

[budding voyager]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

Ok so Steve rightly moved this thread to this forum and I just found it. I understand this linked issue now, assuming I am correct how compound powers work.

 

I could just buy the RKA + flash as one attack, a compound power. If I do, I may either attack flash only, RKA only, or both at the same time.

 

Or I may link one to the other, which means I can use either the unlinked power or both powers, but not just the unlinked power (in the book's example, this is the Flash attack).

 

Since activate points are combined regardless, the second option is strictly worse than the first thus Linked is a limitation. Correct?

[Starcloud]

Re: I still don't understand why Linked is always a limitation

 

Flash linked to RKA means you can use the RKA, or RKA and Flash, but not Flash alone, so Linked is indeed a limitation on Flash.