#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# Multiple attack and Combined Attack

## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

I hate that Multiple Attack halves DCV.

It's something so basic that it should just be part of the system, it circles back around to "If Linked is a Limitation, using two non-Linked Attacks should also be allowed normally."

I can live with the 1/2 DCV. However if they are correct about it should now be -2 DCV then 1/2 that is where I’m getting a corenary.

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I can live with the 1/2 DCV. However if they are correct about it should now be -2 DCV then 1/2 that is where I’m getting a corenary.

You do realize that the difference between halving DCV, and subtracting 2 and then halving DCV, is only 1 pt of DCV?

So the difference between DCV 3 and DCV 2, or DCV 5 and DCV 4, is enough to give you a coronary?

Lucius Alexander

Bracing against a palindromedary

##### Share on other sites

Well...

DCV 10:

-2 then 1/2 = 4

1/2 then -2 = 3

DCV8:

-2 then 1/2 = 3

1/2 then -2 = 2

Personally, I like RAW better, as Lucius noted, you're 1DCV higher. If it's because you're getting 2 modifiers to DCV because of the rules ... well ... that's why I don't like the 1/2DCV from doing a Multiple Attack. I feel it's punishing for no reason at all. Arbitrary rule is arbitrary.

##### Share on other sites

Eh, it has a reason.  Multiple attack = all out attack, not so interested in defense.  Not saying that is the most accurate or whatever, just that I think there is a reason - multiple attacks can be quite nasty, so they come at a cost.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lucius said:

You do realize that the difference between halving DCV, and subtracting 2 and then halving DCV, is only 1 pt of DCV?

So the difference between DCV 3 and DCV 2, or DCV 5 and DCV 4, is enough to give you a coronary?

Lucius Alexander

Bracing against a palindromedary

I didn’t before now. However it feels that it is double penalizing and it adds some more math. Plus that 1 DCV can mean the difference between a hit or miss. ?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Funk Thompson said:

Eh, it has a reason.  Multiple attack = all out attack, not so interested in defense.  Not saying that is the most accurate or whatever, just that I think there is a reason - multiple attacks can be quite nasty, so they come at a cost.

Well it does encourage buying Powers to represent such abilities.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Funk Thompson said:

Eh, it has a reason.  Multiple attack = all out attack, not so interested in defense.  Not saying that is the most accurate or whatever, just that I think there is a reason - multiple attacks can be quite nasty, so they come at a cost.

Until you realize I can add Linked, spend less points and all I lose is the ability to hit multiple targets... Or if I'm using Multiple Attack to simulate martial arts scenarios, where the very point of training is to not lose defense...

Nope, it's just a bad design choice IMO. Terrible. And discourages the use of the Maneuver which can be very Heroic - the very style of play Hero is suppose to encourage.

##### Share on other sites

Ways around it via powers and such are fine. YRMV but I agree with half DCV for multiple attacks, and see the reasoning.  Please, mind your tone when disagreeing.

##### Share on other sites

And it is also 'heroic' - increased risk for an all-out attack. My take on it, natch.

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ghost-angel said:

Until you realize I can add Linked, spend less points and all I lose is the ability to hit multiple targets... Or if I'm using Multiple Attack to simulate martial arts scenarios, where the very point of training is to not lose defense...

You also lose the ability to use the powers independently, actually. And if you want any limitation you also have to use them proportionally. So you give up flexibility, generally.

I find the penalty appropriate for heroic settings. You are pressing the attack very hard and that is costing you the time you would have otherwise used on defense. If you don't like that and use it regularly, you can certainly buy PSL's to offset the penalty. At 2 points per, they would be a bargain.

- E

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ghost-angel said:

Until you realize I can add Linked, spend less points and all I lose is the ability to hit multiple targets... Or if I'm using Multiple Attack to simulate martial arts scenarios, where the very point of training is to not lose defense...

Nope, it's just a bad design choice IMO. Terrible. And discourages the use of the Maneuver which can be very Heroic - the very style of play Hero is suppose to encourage.

Also, if you are the GM you can simply say that the penalty does not apply. Easy peasy. If you are a publisher and don't want the penalty to apply to your villains, buy it off.

- E

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Funk Thompson said:

This is text, there is no tone. Read everything I write neutrally.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eepjr24 said:

You also lose the ability to use the powers independently, actually. And if you want any limitation you also have to use them proportionally. So you give up flexibility, generally.

That's why it's a Limitation - you limit the use. If you're limiting the use, then you have to assume removing the limitation is the baseline use. If the Limitation does not impose a 1/2DCV Penalty, the baseline unLimited version shouldn't either.

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:

That's why it's a Limitation - you limit the use. If you're limiting the use, then you have to assume removing the limitation is the baseline use. If the Limitation does not impose a 1/2DCV Penalty, the baseline unLimited version shouldn't either.

Apples and Oranges. Are you saying that no maneuver which is partially duplicated by a limitation should have any disadvantages that the limitation does not impose? Maneuvers often impose CV penalties, even if they cost points as Martial Maneuvers.

In any case, as I said you are welcome to disagree with the rules and ignore them in your games.

- E

##### Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:

This is text, there is no tone. Read everything I write neutrally.

Text has tone by the language used; "terrible, bad design choice."

But, is often more an issue of the reader than the writer, so I will apologize if that was the case here.

##### Share on other sites

I consider it a terrible, and bad, design choice. That's my opinion of that ruling. That's all it is, my thoughts on this particular aspect of the rules.

##### Share on other sites

Here's how I would have constructed Multiple Attack:

The baseline assumption should be you can use two or more Attacks per Phase. If that feels unbalanced, Two Attacks per Phase is the maximum (though Linked staking then becomes a problem, though easily controlled by the GM; but I like to assume Anything Is Possibly Until Campaign Limitations Restrict Them).

Linked forces two attacks to be used together (or really the Secondary Attack can't be used without the Primary), and proportionately unless you buy the Limitation without that.

The basic Limitation is that the two Attacks have to be used together, without it they can be used separately, otherwise there is no difference: you can attack a target with those two attacks either way.

Now, separate targets: unlinked gives you the option to start hitting separate targets. Linked Attacks this is a straight Limitation. Personally, I think using two attacks on two targets should be straight OCV, no penalties (beyond Maneuver imposed ones). After that, I think a -2 Per Target, accumulative and to each attack, seems fair. Trying to hit 3 Targets? -2 OCV to each Attack. Linked, can't do this.

Until you get to the Sweep Maneuver; where you can hit multiple targets with one Attack (or two Linked Attacks). Now there's no Linked Limitation, in fact it feels like an Advantage now: one attack roll for two attacks because one is Linked to the other, across all targets. So, some choices should be made, is Sweep a different enough concept that it should be broken out of Multiple Attack (which has so far in my thought process involved more than one attack against 1 or more targets) because it's one attack against multiple targets? Or should we try and create a consistent set of rules in Multiple Attack to handle this issue. It seems fair that it gets more difficult to hit every target after the first, so a -2 OCV seems fitting. But we've now run into the issue that above I felt -2OCV starting on Target 3 felt more fair, but here it's starting with Target 2. Furthermore, Sweeping should require targets to be adjacent to each other, while just Multiple Attacks should not... further creating the idea that perhaps these should be two separate concepts/maneuvers.

So in the end:

Multiple Attack - 1 or more attacks against 1 or more targets, at a -2 OCV per target after the 2nd. (plus standard maneuver penalties)

Sweep - 1 or more attacks against 2 or more targets, which must be adjacent to each other, at a -2 OCV per target after the 2nd (for consistency sake). (plus standard maneuver penalties)

This is more or less I feel where the rule should have landed. I'm sure were I to formally sit down and go over all the various situations that are currently outline there would be a bit of expansion and clarification. In any case, removing the DCV Penalty is definitely a thing I would do.

(yeah, I've put some thought into this, I don't remember if any of this was brought up in the 6E committee discussions with Steve though...)

##### Share on other sites

Does anybody know the wording in the full 6E perchance?

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Does anybody know the wording in the full 6E perchance?

6E2 pages 73-78. I am not opposed to quoting, but 5 full pages is outside fair use in my mind.

- E

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

6E2 pages 73-78. I am not opposed to quoting, but 5 full pages is outside fair use in my mind.

- E

Well I wouldn’t expect you to quote it all. ?. I’m just wondering if he goes into more in-depth about using the multiple attack with Move By and what that entails. I know you quoted above the OCV/DCV checklist above however I have a nagging (ok stubborn) feeling that that is a general guideline and that move by could have be an exemption to this rule. And we all know that Hero system has’em. ?

##### Share on other sites

Ah, sorry, did not get what you were asking.

Quote

Multiple Attacks with Move Bys against multiple targets use the standard rules for Multiple Attacks (including the paragraph above). However, a character can perform a “Multiple Move By” on a single target by moving in a circle around him and hitting him repeatedly. In this situation he can only make an attack each time he returns to the point where he first hit the target. Typically that means he has to travel a full 10m circle around the target between each attack.

There is a bit more in the previous paragraph about the targets needing to be lined up, but nothing about DCV otherwise, even in the one example (although that example end up with the attacker at -10 OCV).

- E

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eepjr24 said:

You also lose the ability to use the powers independently, actually. And if you want any limitation you also have to use them proportionally. So you give up flexibility, generally.

I find the penalty appropriate for heroic settings. You are pressing the attack very hard and that is costing you the time you would have otherwise used on defense. If you don't like that and use it regularly, you can certainly buy PSL's to offset the penalty. At 2 points per, they would be a bargain.

- E

Except each such level only applies at half value. Because first they apply, then the DCV is halved.

Lucius Alexander

Multiple Palindromedary

##### Share on other sites

I thought you weren’t allowed to by penalty skills levels or any levels for that matter with multiple attack itself?

##### Share on other sites

Sure you can, PSLs are used to buy off OCV penalties.

For instance if you buy Two-Weapon Fighting it removes the first -2 OCV penalty from Multiple Attack.

##### Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:48 PM, ghost-angel said:

Until you realize I can add Linked, spend less points and all I lose is the ability to hit multiple targets... Or if I'm using Multiple Attack to simulate martial arts scenarios, where the very point of training is to not lose defense...

Nope, it's just a bad design choice IMO. Terrible. And discourages the use of the Maneuver which can be very Heroic - the very style of play Hero is suppose to encourage.

Are we mixing between Multiple and Combined attacks?  If you have a Flash and a Blast, you can fire a Combined Attack using both powers at a single target at no penalties.  See 6e V2 p 74 - that is not a Multiple Attack.

To the question of DCV, 6e notes that, if using two or more abilities that have different DCV modifiers, you use the worst of the bunch.  The example given is a Martial Disarm (+1 DCV) + a Martial Strike (+2 DCV).  Martial Disarm is worse, so +1 DCV.  This would be followed by the halving.

If you want to be so well trained that multiple attacks don't impact DCV, or impact it less, +x DCV, only when multiple attacking, does the trick.  Buy enough and you are so good at multiple attacking that you are actually HARDER to hit when attacking multiple targets.  Making multiple attacks is powerful, so it comes with significant penalties.

×
• News

• Back
• Store