Haymaker question...

[Netzilla]

Sure, haymakers require setup. Ideally, you want your target immobilized in some way (someone else does a grab or catches them in an entangle that takes no damage, they're already prone, etc).  That's kind of the point.  The big payoff requires some work to set it up or you risk good odds of it completely wiffing.  Classic high risk/high reward.

 

That brings us back around to house ruling the maneuver in regards to ranged and mental attacks.  Such house rules should keep the high risk/high reward nature of the maneuver and (ideally) require a decent setup to pull off properly.  Most of the OCV penalty alternatives I've seen suggested so far seem a bit too light to me.

[Surrealone]

Most of the OCV penalty alternatives I've seen suggested so far seem a bit too light to me.

Work got in the way of me finalizing my response to Hugh in the previous post, so I had to edit it.  Check it again and see what you think about the proposal I put forth; I'd like to know your thoughts.  I personally think it's pretty stiff....

[Hugh Neilson]

If you don't see haymakers very often, then perhaps you aren't the best judge to know if they're a problem or not.

If the risk deters their frequent usage, that suggests they are not a problem.

 

 

 

I see them used all the time, at least once per session if there's heavy combat. They really aren't a problem. In fact, other than a new player using the maneuver and mis-timing it, I've never seen a haymaker miss due to someone moving before it lands. So it's really more of an academic issue to me. You just have to time your haymaker when the other guy doesn't have a phase.

So the opponent will always just stand there and take it rather than Abort to a defensive action? If he moves on Phase 5, and the Haymaker setup starts that phase, the target can still abort in Phase 6.

 

If he's Stunned, that's a good time to Haymaker. I've seen the gamble that he's Stunned (or at 0 to -9 STUN, which is just "heavily stunned", and that Haymaker will take him out of the combat).

 

 

 

 

This really goes to two things that I find ridiculous -- diving for cover from a non-area attack, and someone who is using a segmented method of movement. You shouldn't dive for cover vs a punch, it breaks the verisimilitude of the game. And some guy in a car going 5 mph through a parking lot shouldn't be immune to haymaker just because his car is moving.

To dive out of the way, he either uses a phase or aborts. If he fails his roll, he still gets hit at the start of his dive.

 

Segmented movement, if used, requires rules changes to take segmented movement into account, like any other rules variant. For example, my gut feel would be that the predictable, steady movement can be accounted for in the Haymaker setup - you can even wind up a punch for where the car will be - but a change in direction or speed (requiring an action be used) will take the car out of the Haymaker's plan and ruin the attack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, haymakers require setup. Ideally, you want your target immobilized in some way (someone else does a grab or catches them in an entangle that takes no damage, they're already prone, etc). That's kind of the point. The big payoff requires some work to set it up or you risk good odds of it completely wiffing. Classic high risk/high reward.

 

That brings us back around to house ruling the maneuver in regards to ranged and mental attacks. Such house rules should keep the high risk/high reward nature of the maneuver and (ideally) require a decent setup to pull off properly. Most of the OCV penalty alternatives I've seen suggested so far seem a bit too light to me.

To be clear, I would consider such setups included in "not frequent use of Haymaker". "Once a combat" isn't even all that frequent.

[Hugh Neilson]

 

Work got in the way of me finalizing my response to Hugh in the previous post, so I had to edit it. Check it again and see what you think about the proposal I put forth; I'd like to know your thoughts. I personally think it's pretty stiff....

I assume you are referring to this:

 

I don't conceptually have a problem with "in winding up the Haymaker, you are so focused on the target that, if the target moves a meter or more, your focus is lost and the attack fails" -- either. What troubles me is that it just doesn't make a lot of sense for ranged characters who only have to adjust inches to compensate for 10's of meters of movement in the target ... and it makes even less sense for mentalists ... where range and distance and movement is completely irrelevant to LOS-based powers and Mind Scan. (How does a haymakered Mind Scan work?! I'm not going there.)

Again, I have no conceptual problem with "in winding up the Haymaker, you are so focused on the target that, if the target moves a meter or more, your focus is lost and the attack fails" even if you would only have to adjust your aim by a matter of inches.

 

Maybe a Haymaker Mind Scan fails – since you typically Mind Scan from way far away, so the DCV penalty is meaningless, then by Steve Long’s rulings, you can’t Haymaker. You can’t Haymaker a PRE attack either, even if the DCV penalty would matter.

 

Now, if the location of the mind does not matter, how does Mind Scan (detecting the target’s mind) permit you to determine the location of the person whose mind you have scanned?

 

The suggested house rules to allow the to-hit roll to take place at a penalty if the target moves seems like it addresses the above. Logically, I believe the OCV penalty on the attacker using the haymaker should scale with the distance moved (perhaps like the dive for cover penalty does?) ... but be stiffer than the dive for cover penalty. -1 OCV per 2m moved seems WAY too light, to me, for a starting point on the haymaker. I would think It starts at -4 for the first 1m the target moves ... and grow by -1 per each additional meter the target moves. That ramps up very quickly... and makes sense for all attack types (HTH, ranged, and Mental). Unlike range- and mental- based characters, HTH types have to worry about the target moving out of range of the haymaker -- but that's not something specific to haymaker, as it's inherent with all HTH attacks ... so I don't think it is due any special consideration when discussing haymaker. (Or if it is, then it's due that special consideration with all other HTH attacks, too.)

I think this is an important distinction. The question is whether we think having Range should override the “Haymaker failure for movement” rule. Under RAW it does not, and as noted above, I can work with that conceptually.

 

As well, the target could still conceivably move out of range (certainly if the range is stretching, or based on STR, or otherwise limited), move far enough to also impose a range penalty, or move in such a manner that a mentalist loses LoS. The possibility of Haymaker imposing a penalty if they are still within range, and failure if they are not, is not unworkable. It is not, however, the RAW.

 

If you're trying to suggest range somehow mitigates a DCV penalty

I’m not suggesting it – I am saying it flat out. Being able to distance oneself from counterattack reduces the impact of a DCV penalty.

 

I don't think that's a haymaker discussion because it's not specific to haymaker; that's a broader topic of all ranged combat and what can be done with it that can't be done in HTH.

Unique to a Haymaker is the ruling that, if the DCV penalty is not relevant, a Haymaker is impossible. That means you can’t use a Haymaker to beat down a wall – unless there is someone in the area who might attack while you do it.

 

So if the prison cell has a camera to watch you, you can’t Haymaker, but if it also has a Blaster to shoot at you if you get violent, now you can Haymaker. An invisible enemy somehow makes it possible to Haymaker the McGuffin Device.

 

That rule is one I cannot conceptualize in any way. The “movement wrecks a haymaker”, I can conceptualize.

 

Likewise, if you're trying to suggest that LOS powers typically not being visible to non-mentalists somehow negates the DCV penalty that a haymakering mentalist suffers, I think it's not a haymaker discussion and is, instead, a broader topic about the tactical advantages of LOS-based powers that are only visible to one sense group ... especially since the mentalist DOES suffer the same DCV penalty while haymakering that a ranged and a HTH character would suffer.

LOS powers are visible. Mental attacks are not. That is a further advantage enjoyed already by the mentalist. It does not suggest they should not be able to Haymaker, but it does suggest they do not need any further advantages when choosing to use a Haymaker.

 

For those who have used Haymakers by the book a lot in their games, would an OCV penalty rather than absolute failure if the target moves/is moved be a significant advantage to ranged attackers and/or Line of Sight attackers? Would it be an excessive advantage? Obviously, this is speculation if you follow the RAW.

[Hugh Neilson]

This post seems to have changed a lot. I don’t often re-read the thread start to finish, so it’s easy to miss these changes.

 

Red clarification to your statement added by me to make it accurate ... since that was the full context. And you're right, I did start by asking, "How would you GM-types describe what happened to our mentalist?"

As a GM, I would base that description on your description of what happens when the character uses his power. So, unless you can tell me the description of the normal use of the power (on a hit and on a miss would be ideal), and describe the windup to the Haymaker, I can’t tell you how it would look different when the haymaker fails due to the target changing location.

 

I suggest that is why

 

So far, not a single person has rendered a GM-like description of what happened to cause the mentalist to miss the mind (not the space) he was targeting.

Minds in Hero System don't necessarily have specific locations in three dimensional space.

As well, most of us do not agree with your position that the mind lacks a special location. If it does, how does Mind Scan let me find the physical location of the person with that mind? How can I scan a city, a nation, a continent or a world (which the Mind Scan rules quite clearly indicate is how Mind Scan works) if the mind is not located in that city, nation, continent or world in some manner?

 

(i.e. Ever hear of a disembodied mind? The game I'm playing in has a villain that is exactly that...)

Yup – its presence in the area is often detected, it tends to be drawn as something the reader can perceive but the characters cannot and it occupies a physical space despite being incorporeal (like a Desolid character does).

 

As well, the disembodied mind never seems omnipresent, nor omniscient, suggesting it is not “everywhere and nowhere all at once” but, contrary to your view, is in a specific location in space.

 

Mind Scan only reveals precise location with an EGO+20 effect roll, yet a mentalist can establish Telepathy via Mind Scan with an EGO+0 effect roll (which gives general direction only to the mentalist) on Mind Scan ... and can attack with other mental powers with an EGO+10 effect roll (which gives a distance estimate in addition to general direction ... but still not exact location) on Mind Scan.

How does it provide any information on location if neither the attacker’s nor the defender’s mind occupies any location?

 

And then, if you are in a Mind Link with someone, you can attack through against DMCV 0 without having any idea or care where the target is located (unless, of course, you choose to check that out via the Mind Link).

Like Mind Scan, Mind Link functions as a targeting sense for mental attacks overriding the general rules. Pretty much every power overrides a general rule in some manner.

 

I think this demonstrates that I've got a good handle on Mental Powers and how they work within the game. I also think this nicely debunks your assertion that a mentalist must know where a target is relative to himself to hit it ... since I provided not one, but two examples where that's just not true.

Mind Scan and Mind Link specifically call out those situations because they are an exception to the general rule. They do not prove your case at all – if anything, they rebut it, due to the need to call these powers out as an exception to the general rule.

 

Just like “a meter of movement spoils the attempt” is an exception to the general rule for attacks, and is therefore spelled out in the rules for Haymakers.

[Surrealone]

As well, most of us do not agree with your position that the mind lacks a special location. If it does, how does Mind Scan let me find the physical location of the person with that mind? How can I scan a city, a nation, a continent or a world (which the Mind Scan rules quite clearly indicate is how Mind Scan works) if the mind is not located in that city, nation, continent or world in some manner?

 

 

Yup – its presence in the area is often detected, it tends to be drawn as something the reader can perceive but the characters cannot and it occupies a physical space despite being incorporeal (like a Desolid character does).

 

As well, the disembodied mind never seems omnipresent, nor omniscient, suggesting it is not “everywhere and nowhere all at once” but, contrary to your view, is in a specific location in space.

 

 

How does it provide any information on location if neither the attacker’s nor the defender’s mind occupies any location?

 

 

Like Mind Scan, Mind Link functions as a targeting sense for mental attacks overriding the general rules. Pretty much every power overrides a general rule in some manner.

 

 

Mind Scan and Mind Link specifically call out those situations because they are an exception to the general rule. They do not prove your case at all – if anything, they rebut it, due to the need to call these powers out as an exception to the general rule.

 

Just like “a meter of movement spoils the attempt” is an exception to the general rule for attacks, and is therefore spelled out in the rules for Haymakers.

1. Who, precisely are 'most of us'?
   • So far, if I'm reading correctly,  in this thread it seems to be just you and Lucius -- which I'm not sure qualifies as 'most of' anything (given there are more than 4 participants in this conversation/thread).
2. I think you have it wrong when you suggest the position of the target mind is most relevant to the ability to use Mental Powers on that mind.  Here's why:
   • Mind Scan lets you hit a mind whose location you flat-out don't know any specifics about.  You can't see it (no LOS) and you don't know where it is -- which is why you are scanning/searching for it (where a 'hit' indicates that you spotted the mind -- and the effect roll then gets you more data about the location of that mind ... and a communication pathway to that mind).  Despite not knowing where the target is, this means you can perceive that mind (if you hit) ... with a mental power (Mind Scan).  It is, in fact, only AFTER you hit the mind (whose location you don't know specifics about)  that you gain any information/specifics about the location ... with that information based on the effect roll (EGO == general direction; EGO+10 == approximate distance; EGO+20 == exact location).  I don't see this as an exception to a general rule, I see it as informative as to how Mental Powers work, on the whole, when it comes to a target mind.  In this case you scan for the mind and have the potential to hit it -- without LOS or knowledge of its locational details.
   • Mind Link is similar; it lets you hit a mind with a Mental Power through the Mind Link -- without any idea or care where the target mind is, so long as it's in range of the Mind Link through which you have perception of the target mind.  I don't see this as an exception to a general rule, I see it as informative as to how Mental Powers work, on the whole, when it comes to a target mind.  If you can perceive it, you can potentially hit it with a Mental Power -- regardless of where it is.  In this case you can perceive it by virtue of the mind link, so you have the potential to hit it.
   • Other mental powers let you hit them with no range modifier, regardless of the distance/position of them from you ... so long as you can perceive that specific mind (not its location, but the mind) a la LOS.  This is completely congruent with the foregoing in that if you can perceive it, you can potentially hit it with a Mental Power -- regardless of where it is -- which is, again, something I see as informative as to how mental powers work on the whole.  In this case you can perceive the target by virtue of LOS, so you have the potential to hit it.

With the aforementioned in mind (see what I did, there? ):

• Precise location of a target mind does not appear to be the most relevant/binding thing between all Mental Powers and the ability to hit targets.
• Instead, it is the ability to perceive a target mind that appears to be what matters most when it comes to whether it can be hit... with Mind Scan and use of Mental Powers through Mind Link being in line with this (not exceptions to it).
• Where you seem to feel Mind Scan and Mind Link are exceptions to a LOS requirement, I'm looking at it from a broader view of perception being the binding item that ties these powers together (not LOS) ... specifically because what is true of Mind Scan, Mind Link, and all other Mental Powers is that you cannot generally hit a mind that you cannot perceive. (A GM might make an exception for, say, an AoE mental power.  Mind Scan is admittedly almost a chicken/egg problem here in that it is a 'hit' that dicates to the user 'yes you can perceive it' -- but that's still perception tied to the hit and, thus, aligned with the broad view.)
• In this broad context, LOS is just a mechanic for localized perception of a mind; nothing more.  Mind Scan and Mind Link may be LOS exceptions, but they do not appear to be exceptions to the requirement that a target mind be perceived in order to be able to hit it (usually -- I acknowledge that every generality/rule has exceptions and I spell it out here to avoid you taking us down an edge case tangent as is common with these discussions).
• This is also the basis of why I started this thread ... because logically, a shift in the physical position of the target of a mental blast haymaker should have no bearing on whether it can be hit ... if the target mind can still be perceived.

[Netzilla]

The suggested house rules to allow the to-hit roll to take place at a penalty if the target moves seems like it addresses the above. Logically, I believe the OCV penalty on the attacker using the haymaker should scale with the distance moved (perhaps like the dive for cover penalty does?) ... but be stiffer than the dive for cover penalty. -1 OCV per 2m moved seems WAY too light, to me, for a starting point on the haymaker. I would think It starts at -4 for the first 1m the target moves ... and grow by -1 per each additional meter the target moves. That ramps up very quickly... and makes sense for all attack types (HTH, ranged, and Mental). Unlike range- and mental- based characters, HTH types have to worry about the target moving out of range of the haymaker -- but that's not something specific to haymaker, as it's inherent with all HTH attacks ... so I don't think it is due any special consideration when discussing haymaker. (Or if it is, then it's due that special consideration with all other HTH attacks, too.)

Even at a -4, martial artists and other high-OCV concepts will be tossing out haymakers all the time.

 

However, my main problem with this is that it still makes Haymaker a better manuever for ranged and mental attackers than it does for melee attackers. The melee attacker losses the attack entirely (no chance to hit at all) if the target moves a meter or two while ranged and mental attackers still have a chance to hit. Thus, ranged and mental attackers have an inherent advantage. Unfortunately, I don't really see a way to resolve that unless you also change the way the manuever works for melee characters (i.e. the attack gets a chance to go off before the target can move).

 

You could try going to route of allowing the attacker the option of 'hastening' the haymaker to possibly hit the target as they start moving. This would likely require a DEX roll-off and incur a major OCV penalty (perhaps 1/2 OCV) but even then that might be unbalanced. Plus it lessens the set-up requirement that the current manuever has.

 

Who, precisely are 'most of us'?

 

So far, if I'm reading correctly, in this thread it seems to be just you and Lucius -- which I'm not sure qualifies as 'most of' anything (given there are more than 4 participants in this conversation/thread).

Well, you can add me to that list. Like I stated earlier, it has to do with the setting assumptions of the campaign and the SFX of the mental attack in question. I even provided examples from a few well-known settings. Once you've decided how mental powers work in your campaign in general, and for your character in particular, you can work out how to describe mental hits and misses (including with haymakers).

[Surrealone]

However, my main problem with this is that it still makes Haymaker a better manuever for ranged and mental attackers than it does for melee attackers. The melee attacker losses the attack entirely (no chance to hit at all) if the target moves a meter or two while ranged and mental attackers still have a chance to hit. Thus, ranged and mental attackers have an inherent advantage. Unfortunately, I don't really see a way to resolve that unless you also change the way the manuever works for melee characters (i.e. the attack gets a chance to go off before the target can move).

I understand this.  However, I think this is a problem inherent with HTH combat vs ranged/mental combat -- and not something specific to haymaker.  i.e. I'm saying this is a deeper problem ... one that should likely be tackled on its own for all things it impacts (of which haymaker is merely one such item -- since it's true of ALL HTH maneuvers. 

 

​Put another way, should the fact that a Martial Strike doesn't land if the target of the attack Aborts to a 3m Dive for Cover (out of range of HTH unless Stretching is involved) have any bearing on a blaster's ability to hit that same target from range?  Probably not ... unless you're overhauling HTH/melee mechanics as a whole.  With that in mind, let's separate the two things, since what you're describing is a problem inherent with all HTH/melee combat ... and not a haymaker-specific issue.

 

And duly noted that you're added to the list.  I'm quite curious as to your take on perception (not location) being the most relevant factor in hitting with mental powers.  RAW is crystal clear on this -- perception is key, and LOS is just a mechanic regarding said perception.

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

Here is the thing, Ranged attacks have either bought advantages to become ranged or lose the ability to have Strength added. This inherent advantage comes from buying a +1/2 advantage (or +1 for LOS), thus they have advantages of being ranged. This should just be one of those advantages in my opinion. 

[Netzilla]

I understand this. However, I think this is a problem inherent with HTH combat vs ranged/mental combat -- and not something specific to haymaker. i.e. I'm saying this is a deeper problem ... one that should likely be tackled on its own for all things it impacts (of which haymaker is merely one such item -- since it's true of ALL HTH maneuvers.

 

?Put another way, should the fact that a Martial Strike doesn't land if the target of the attack Aborts to a 3m Dive for Cover (out of range of HTH unless Stretching is involved) have any bearing on a blaster's ability to hit that same target from range? Probably not ... unless you're overhauling HTH/melee mechanics as a whole. With that in mind, let's separate the two things, since what you're describing is a problem inherent with all HTH/melee combat ... and not a haymaker-specific issue.

I've not personally seen the imbalance between melee and ranged combat that your statement implies. As JohnyAppleseed noted, melee attacks get to add strength damage while ranged don't. So, at the basic level there's a balance. After that, specific manuevers that apply to both affect both equally.

 

And duly noted that you're added to the list. I'm quite curious as to your take on perception (not location) being the most relevant factor in hitting with mental powers. RAW is crystal clear on this -- perception is key, and LOS is just a mechanic regarding said perception.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you do. The rules make physical area less important for mental powers than for physical, but they don't make them irrelevant. Outside of just needing LoS (really Line of Targetting Perception), Mind Link has (very broad) range modifiers, Mind Scan requires you to define an area of effect and can provide physical location information, external enhancements (like binoculars or a remote camera) don't count when establishing LoS, the RAW interaction between Haymaker and mental powers, and so on. So, the rules do take physcial location into consideration in regards to mental powers.

 

However, all that said, if you posit a setting where mental powers truly don't care about physical location at all, then you'll need to apply house or campaign rules to reflect that. You'll also need to adjust the costs of mental powers (or their defenses) to compensate. The RAW assumption is that physical location does matter (if less so) and the mechanics reflect this. The haymaker rules are only incongruent if you look at them through a lens of certain (admittedly common) mental power SFX.

[Grailknight]

Surrealone, the text of Mind Scan says that it detects the target's precise location. Given that, I also support the contention that minds have a set point in space. 

 

Your Dive for Cover example seems to overlook the fact that the ranged character also misses if the target makes his roll. Again this doesn't seem to support your arguement.

 

Feel free to houserule either,(I do for Dive for Cover) it won't break the game, Right now Haymaker is balanced for all characters. I can see some real world sense in your point of view but Game balance  comes first.

[steriaca]

Why would a mental haymaker fail? Simple: it fails because the rules say they do when the target moves. There needs no other reason. If your looking for another reason (which supports your wishes that a haymakered mental power not to fail), then you need to make a house rule. If this gets to be a problem, then if I was a Game Master, I would just say no to a mental power being haymakered. Nuff said.

 

And if you really need an explanation for it, ask Steve Long, but don't expect an answer because Steve does not answer questions about game design reasons, only character and rule questions (the "you can do this" or "you can't do this", but not "this is why we decided upon this").

[Hugh Neilson]

Alas, too many quotes. I will break it down.
 

Who, precisely are 'most of us'?

More weighing in all the time. How many have explicitly said "physical location has nothing to do with locating a mind", besides yourself?


 

Mind Scan lets you hit a mind whose location you flat-out don't know any specifics about. You can't see it (no LOS) and you don't know where it is -- which is why you are scanning/searching for it (where a 'hit' indicates that you spotted the mind -- and the effect roll then gets you more data about the location of that mind ... and a communication pathway to that mind).

You continue to blissfully ignore the details of the Mind Scan power. How about we look at the rules, on page 261 of 6e Vol 1?
 

To use Mind Scan, the character defines the area (of any size) he wishes to scan.

GMs should only count the number of awake minds in the target area.

The location descriptions in this column

How can the area I scan be relevant, if the mind I seek cannot be defined as being within, or outside, that area?

How can the number of minds within a target area be determined if the minds are not located somewhere?

How can there be minds in locations if minds are not located anywhere?

But wait, there's more! Moving to p 262:

 

With the GM’s permission, a mentalist can also limit the number of minds he has to sift through by limiting the “height” of his search area — for example, “I’ll only scan minds at street level,” “I’ll only scan minds in the subways,”or “I’ll only scan minds above the 10th floor on this block.” A character can even define his search area as “the corner west apartment on the fifth floor of the building on E. Madison Avenue” if he really wants to narrow down the search.

The mentalist must define the area he wants to Scan with some geographic reference; he can’t scan “my car” when he doesn’t know where the car is, or “the room on the other end of the phone line I’m talking on” if he doesn’t know where that room physically is.

A character can use Mind Scan to determine the number of sentient minds in an area, without Scanning for any particular mind...To do this, he declares his target area

Wow - that's a lot of references to locations and areas for a power you say supports, clearly and completely, your contention that a mind is not in a specific physical location. Can you provide even one single rules reference that supports your contention?
 

[Hugh Neilson]

Despite not knowing precisely where the target is within the targeted area, this means you can perceive that mind (if you hit after modifiers for the total number of minds within that targeted area) ... with a mental power (Mind Scan).

 

Given your predilection for this approach, I fixed that for you. Mind Scan lets you check a specific target area to try to find the mind you are looking for. If you succeed, you have a general sense of its location within that target area – so you have narrowed down its location, much like you can narrow down the location of a target you cannot see if you make a non-targeting sense PER roll. If you roll high enough, it becomes precise enough to be a targeting sense perception, permitting you to make mental attacks.

 

But you can scan the entire planet for decades and you will not find the target mind if its owner is in orbit. Because you are not looking in the location where that mind is situated. So, while you don’t need to KNOW the location of the mind, you have to guess correctly as to the area where it is located, or Mind Scan cannot help you. In other words, you must guess, to some level of precision,

 

its locational details.

 

or your Mind Scan attempt fails automatically.

 

Let’s repeat that slowly…Mind Scan can only succeed if the location of the Mind is within the geographic area of the Scan.

 

Mind Link is similar; it lets you hit a mind with a Mental Power through the Mind Link

 

A Mind Link you had to establish when the target was in LoS – that is, the location of the mind known to you – after which you effectively have a Mind Scan lock and some other perks of linking the minds.

 

In fact, 6e even notes that anyone Mind Scanned by someone in the Mind Link joins the “circuit”. The rules also suggest a Mind Link

is generally enough for a character to Teleport to the target’s “exact location” without suffering the risks of Teleporting blind

 

How can that be, if the mind to which I am linked has no location?

 

without any idea or care where the target mind is, so long as it's in range of the Mind Link through which you have perception of the target mind.

 

Emphasis added – if minds have no location, how can we measure the distance between them to determine whether or not we are within range?

 

With this in mind, the conclusions you derive from your deeply flawed analysis are equally or more flawed, and do not merit further consideration.

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh, and before we get back to  , please feel free to post quotes from Champions Complete (or any other Complete), with page citations, if you find any that support your interpretation.

[Chris Goodwin]

If I were the GM, I'd rule that the act of attempting the haymaker with a Mental Power means you're putting so much focus into the attack that you develop tunnel vision.  If he moves one meter, you can no longer see him to target him.  

 

Actually it doesn't really matter what type of Power it is.  That would be my explanation for the miss.

 

Edit to add:  The rationale is that there's a sort of contract between player and GM.  Let's turn it around.  If I were the GM, and you'd met all of the conditions for achieving the haymaker, the target hadn't moved, your dice hit the table and it's a hit, but I then said "Uh, well, I don't think you should get those bonus dice anyway," you'd be rightly pissed.  Because you knew the conditions of the haymaker going in, you met the conditions for achieving the haymaker, you took the risk, therefore you should get the haymaker bonus.  In the instance you're describing in the OP, you knew the conditions for achieving the haymaker going in, and you took the risk, but in this case you didn't meet the conditions for getting the haymaker, and it says there in black and white that if that happens, you miss.  If you want some kind of in-game rationalization for why you missed, I'd give you the tunnel vision thing.  

[Lucius]

RAW is crystal clear on this.

 

Well, it's crystal clear to some of us. Hugh Neilson for example.  

 

You continue to blissfully ignore the details of the Mind Scan power. How about we look at the rules, on page 261 of 6e Vol 1?

 

How can the area I scan be relevant, if the mind I seek cannot be defined as being within, or outside, that area?

 

How can the number of minds within a target area be determined if the minds are not located somewhere?

 

How can there be minds in locations if minds are not located anywhere?

 

But wait, there's more! Moving to p 262:

 

 

 

 

 

Wow - that's a lot of references to locations and areas for a power you say supports, clearly and completely, your contention that a mind is not in a specific physical location. Can you provide even one single rules reference that supports your contention?

As I've said before, feel free to write houserules that you can live with, or whatever you want to call them if you don't want to call them house rules. That doesn't bother me, because as I've already pointed out, your conception of how Mental Powers work is not in any way wrong and I won't deny that it makes sense.

 

I'm afraid it does bother me when you claim that your conception matches the point of view from which the rules were written. It doesn't, nor does it need to. I cherish my right to overrule parts of the rules that don't make any sense to me, and in my opinion, you should cherish the same right.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says if you ask Lucius he'll be glad to point out rules that don't make any sense, and make fun of them.

[steriaca]

If I were the GM, I'd rule that the act of attempting the haymaker with a Mental Power means you're putting so much focus into the attack that you develop tunnel vision. If he moves one meter, you can no longer see him to target him.

 

Actually it doesn't really matter what type of Power it is. That would be my explanation for the miss.

Bravo! This is the reason. Nothing else needs to be said. Thank you Chris.

[Ninja-Bear]

If the Hulk is trying to Haymaker me, I'm going to Dive for Cover.

[Ninja-Bear]

I agree with Chris Goodwin too!

[TheDarkness]

I think, narratively, one thing that plays to the advantage of a haymaker in melee over one in ranged combat is this:

 

In punching, a haymaker, once thrown, is a bit looping, and the loop is often tightened or loosened in order to hope to hit. This is extremely common.

 

In ranged combat, once the arrow is let go or the trigger pulled, that's it. It's on it's path and nothing in the world will change it. Unless you buy an additional triggered power to do so.

 

I tend to see it as implicit in the haymaker rules that the inference is that movement means that the target, at the 'narrative moment' the attack is launched, unexpectedly is no longer there.

 

Since this is about the only narrative approach that makes sense, then ranged attacks, in my view, have no claim to immunity from this effect, since, when you let go of the bowstring, you cannot change the path of the arrow.

 

As I said, before, I really think the argument that 'that movement represents only a couple of degrees movement to actually hit', if accepted, almost entirely nullifies ANY miss by ranged attacks, because that is almost always the case. And the idea of leading the target does not apply, because leading the target implies a target already in motion in a certain direction, not sudden, unexpected motion.

 

I could see an argument that, if the target's movement is a continuation of movement from before the haymaker declaration, that that would become a factor, but that would lead to another narrative problem, that aiming and leading a target are ADVANTAGES of something called a haymaker, and that, in my mind, is problematic and at odds with what is being attempted. Accuracy is being sacrificed for damage, and this seems an attempt to have both significant added strength and accuracy.

 

As for mind and location, aside from builds where this is not the case, I think most would say that the brain is kind of the target, and that has a location for the vast majority of targets. But, the fact that DCV has no bearing means that something else is at play to some degree. That doesn't make it balanced to allow mentalist 'haymakers' to have as strong as advantages as regular haymakers with far less downside, and the problem with saying that that is correct, there should not be these downsides, is that it never answers the question 'why should there be a 'mental haymaker' in the first place?'

 

When we cannot even answer what happens with a mental miss, it's a sure bet we also cannot answer what on earth a mental haymaker is, anyway. At which point it seems to me like it should be a build, not a maneuver, and does not warrant absolute effects, which would solve both the 'automatic miss' problem and not give free stuff of significant power to only those with LOS powers that are not included in the description of LOS or the power or the maneuvers.

 

Or, it should miss if the target moves(or, if one can find some condition for missing that would be as common as having been moved or moving, use that.)

[Deadman]

I will preface this by stating that my first course of action is normally to tweak something that doesn't make sense to me.  In the case of Haymaker there are a few things that irk me since the change in 5E to allow all powers to use it.  I fully understand the thematic implications and do support them for the most part.  I offer the following as a way of tweaking Haymaker to make a little more sense (well at least to me).

 

First it must be agreed upon that Haymaker actually combines two elements to get the massive Damage Class bonus that it gives.  The first is reaching deep into one's self for more power.  The second is taking careful aim to maximize the damage.  If we use those two elements we can actually break them out and construct something that would be somewhat "realistic".

 

Power

When the character reaches deep within himself for more power he winds up and puts everything into his strike.  Since it is raw power the character isn't truly focused on where he is hitting and is able to adjust his aim unlike the accuracy portion below. It could be constructed as a Martial Arts Maneuver as below.  Since it is a standard maneuver I will ensure that it comes out as 0 overall points.

• The Power portion of Haymaker can do up to +2DC on ANY attack (4 pts. I averaged the points to increase DC on Normal and Killing Attacks)
• It is inherently inaccurate and receives a -1 OCV (-1 pt.)
• It unbalances the user and as a result gets -2 DCV (-2 pts.)
• It takes time to build up the power taking +1 Segment to land (-1 pt.)

Total Cost: 0 pts.

 

Accuracy

When the character aims his attack carefully he takes the time to make the shot count.  Doing so means that he will get a bonus to damage at the cost of being very focused on hitting a specific place. This would be constructed as a Martial Arts Maneuver like so.

• The Accuracy portion of Haymaker can do up to +2DC on ANY attack (4 pts. I again averaged the points to increase DC on Normal and Killing Attacks)
• It is inherently accurate and gets +1 OCV (1 pt.)
• It makes the user stand still to aim for -2 DCV (-2 pts.)
• It takes time to aim taking +1 Segment to hit (-1 pt.)
• If the target moves even 1m the attack misses (-2 pts.)

Total Cost: 0 pts.

 

Notice that the Power portion isn't restricted by target movement but if the target were to move out of LoS, behind cover or out of range the attack would miss as with any attack.  On the other hand the Accuracy portion is effected my ANY movement by the character as the attacker is concentrating on hitting one particular spot.

 

I would say that either option could be used by itself thus making a Power Haymaker or an Accuracy Haymaker would be possible.  But the real benefit is that the two can be combined for a True Haymaker which would look like this.

 

True Haymaker

• Combining the Accuracy and Power results in a whopping +4DC on ANY Attack (8 pts. Even though the cost for normal attacks is doubled Killing is not so I settled on 2 points per DC)
• It means that the character is both unbalanced AND stationary which results in an even worse penalty than the two combined -5 DCV (-5 pts. ya, ya, ya I know that per the Martial Arts rules you can subtract more than 2 DCV...deal with it)
• It requires time to aim and build power taking +1 segment to hit (-1 pt.)
• If the target moves even 1m the attack misses (-2 pts.)

Total Cost: 0 pts.

 

As a result we have what is exactly equal to the existing Haymaker maneuver.  So what does it really do for us?  Well I'm glad I asked.  It gives the GM some leeway as to what attacks can be used with each option.

 

For Example. . .

Mental Attacks can only use Power since they don't really benefit from Accuracy (Ultimate Mentalist Mind hit locations notwithstanding).  Of course the attacker could always push the attack for an additional 2DC.

Beam Attacks (Bullets, Arrows, etc.) may only use Accuracy since the Power is beyond the user's control.

Characters cannot use Accuracy vs. Barriers, Entangles, etc. (This addresses a particular pet peeve of mine).  Of course they could always push as well.

 

To Sum up we now have the following options for Haymaker.

 

Maneuver                              Phase          OCV        DCV        Effects                                                   

Power Haymaker                      1/2*             -1            -2          +2 Damage Classes to ANY Attack

Accuracy Haymaker                  1/2*            +1#          -2          +2 Damage Classes to ANY Attack

True Haymaker                         1/2*            +0#           -5         +4 Damage Classes to ANY Attack

 

* : This maneuver takes one extra Segment to perform and lands at end of Segment

#: If target moves even 1m in any direction the attack misses

 

 

 

So there is my idea for tweaking Haymaker to have it address some of the failings that I see but stay true to the rules.

 

What do you think?

[Surrealone]

Surrealone, the text of Mind Scan says that it detects the target's precise location. Given that, I also support the contention that minds have a set point in space. 

Only AFTER you hit it ... and only IF you get an EGO+20 effect roll.  Funny how you can hit a mind before you know its location, its rough distance from you, or even the generation direction it's in relative to you, isn't it?  So if you're hanging your hat on the precise location, you're hanging it on something that just let your hat hit the floor, sir.

 

 

Mind Scan lets you check a specific target area to try to find the mind you are looking for. If you succeed, you have a general sense of its location within that target area – so you have narrowed down its location, much like you can narrow down the location of a target you cannot see if you make a non-targeting sense PER roll. If you roll high enough, it becomes precise enough to be a targeting sense perception, permitting you to make mental attacks.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that without knowing the precise location (EGO+20 on Mind Scan effect roll), you can still communicate with the target mind via Telepathy (EGO+0 effect roll) ... or attack it with other Mental Powers (EGO +10 effect roll.)  Isn't it interesting that you can use telepathy on a mind whose absolute/precise location you don't know ... as long as you can perceive it? (That perception ... meaning successful scan ... is, after all, what your successful 'hit' represented...) Downright informative is what I call that...

 

 

Mind Scan can only succeed if the location of the Mind is within the geographic area of the Scan.

That geographical area of the scan, of course, is the area in which you happen to be trying to find/perceive the mind ... by scanning for it ... using an aptly named power 'Mind Scan'.  So yes, we're agreed, here. Note that scanning a specific area carries no implication that you know the mind is within it.  In fact, it is only after you 'hit' the mind that you learn anything useful about its location.

 

Thus, I think of the geographical area being scanned ... much like I think of the field of view of a human who doesn't have increased arc of perception on his normal sight.  i.e. The geographical area of the Mind Scan is the field of view (if you will) where one happens to be attempting to perceive the mind ... akin to a human facing a particular direction ... who happens to be looking that way in an attempt to find/perceive something.  S/he doesn't necessarily need to know where, exactly (e.g. 25.628m due NW from me), something is within that field of view to spot it (e.g. hey, there's Bob's mental signature up ahead).  And in the case of Mental Powers ... spotting/perceiving a target mind ... is all it takes to affect it with a mental power.  You could care less where it actually is ... as long as you can perceive it.  That's how LOS works, right?  That's even how Mind Scan works (you hit the mind while looking and only if/after hitting it do you get info about where it is), right?  With Mind link it's even better, you just perceive the target mind through the active link and don't give a flip where it is, right?

[Chris Goodwin]

And in the case of Mental Powers ... spotting/perceiving a target mind ... is all it takes to affect it with a mental power.  You could care less where it actually is ... as long as you can perceive it.  That's how LOS works, right?  That's even how Mind Scan works (you hit the mind while looking and only if/after hitting it do you get info about where it is), right?  With Mind link it's even better, you just perceive the target mind through the active link and don't give a flip where it is, right?

 

Correct.  But that's not how Haymaker works.

 

If you already had a link with the target that you could attack through without having LOS, I would -- assuming I let you Haymaker a Mental Power to begin with -- let you Haymaker the target through that, and movement wouldn't be an issue.  That wasn't part of your original post, though, and I don't understand why you've been bringing it up.  If you didn't have that link already, then the basic Haymaker rule applies: if the target moves before the attack hits, you miss. 

 

Line of sight on the target before and after moving is irrelevant.  Still being able to target your victim before and after movement is irrelevant.  Haymaker has its own requirements which take precedence over those.  Specific beats general. Edit: And that's the case whether or not it's a Mental Power.  If the character were Haymakering an ordinary Blast, and the scenario were the same -- Haymaker declared, target moves one meter, attacker could still target him -- or if it were a non-Ranged attack (a punch, let's say) and the target moved one meter, but you could still reach him -- the attack would miss.  

[Surrealone]

Correct.  But that's not how Haymaker works.

 

If you already had a link with the target that you could attack through without having LOS, I would -- assuming I let you Haymaker a Mental Power to begin with -- let you Haymaker the target through that, and movement wouldn't be an issue.  That wasn't part of your original post, though, and I don't understand why you've been bringing it up.  If you didn't have that link already, then the basic Haymaker rule applies: if the target moves before the attack hits, you miss. 

 

Line of sight on the target before and after moving is irrelevant.  Still being able to target your victim before and after movement is irrelevant.  Haymaker has its own requirements which take precedence over those.  Specific beats general. Edit: And that's the case whether or not it's a Mental Power.  If the character were Haymakering an ordinary Blast, and the scenario were the same -- Haymaker declared, target moves one meter, attacker could still target him -- or if it were a non-Ranged attack (a punch, let's say) and the target moved one meter, but you could still reach him -- the attack would miss.  

I brought it up only to underscore that perception of the target mind ... rather than position of the target mind... is what dictates whether a mental power can hit a target -- for ALL mental powers.  I believe it's important because the 4e artifact of movement of the target of a haymaker resulting in an auto-miss ... makes no sense with haymakering a mental power ... unless LOS is lost (i.e. unless the ability to perceive the target mind is lost.)

 

Put another way:

Without GM fiat involved, how does plain Jane movement of the target of a mental blast haymaker by 1+ meters ... in an open field with no cover ... cause the mental blast haymaker to miss?  LOS, Mind Link, or a Mind Scan lock aren't lost from it, so the mind is still perceivable ... and thus should still be hittable.  But per haymaker RAW, the target moved 1m, so a miss occurs ... for a power where range mods and distances are irrelevant so long as the target mind can be perceived.

 

That makes sense how, exactly?  To me, it doesn't make any sense ... and is, instead,suggestive of a problem with the haymaker rules -- one that requires further attention.  This is, of course, why I posted to spark a discussion.  I find it strangely humourous that some people would rather make excuses for this oddity in the rules or use GM fiat to work around/with it ... than actually address it.

 

At least Deadman and a few others acknowledge the problem and have thrown out some options.  I'm still chewing on Deadman's idea, mentally, a bit, by the way...