Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As part of building the Western Hero book for 6th I'm putting in the rules for combat etc so its a self-contained book.  I've been playing Hero since around 1982, through all 6 editions, and run hundreds of games.


But this Combined Attack rules have me a bit... baffled.  There are two different "you can hit people more than once in a phase without autofire" rules: Multiple Attack and Combined Attack.  And the rules seem to kind of overlap and run into each other.

 

Multiple attacks allow you to do more than one attack in a phase, but with penalties (half DCV etc).
Combined attacks allow you to do more than one attack in a phase, but with no penalties, just restrictions like "cannot use martial combat maneuvers"

 

To make matters worse, the rules on Combined Attacks in the HSG2 are contradictory:

 

Quote

 

Using two or more powers or similar abilities (but not Combat/Martial Maneuvers or the like) once against a single target isn’t a Multiple Attack. It’s a Combined Attack

...

[in the description of Usable Attacks]: use a Martial Strike, an Offensive Strike, and a Defensive Strike against a single target or multiple targets

 

 

And the section on Combined Attacks seems to shift over suddenly into Multiple Attacks, using the terms interchangably.

 

Champions Complete isn't really any more help, as it simply says

 

Quote

A character can include multiple forms of Strike attacks into a single Strike, made with a single Attack Roll against a single target. This is known as a Combined Attack. For example, a character could simultaneously Blast and Flash an enemy in a Combined Attack. As with Multiple Attack, the GM should forbid any Combined Attack that he feels defies common or dramatic sense.

 

Now, I want to have the rules properly presented and unchanged in the Western Hero book, and I want to make all options available to players but I don't understand this at all and I can't explain it or add it into the book if it makes no sense.  This seems ridiculously overpowered for one thing (no penalties, more than one attack at once with one attack roll??  But it also is very under explained how its different than Multiple Attacks.

 

Help?

 

I should note here that the whole "oh you always could shoot multiple times in a single phase, honest" thing always sounded a bit sketchy to me when it suddenly showed up in 5th edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference as I understand it is:

Combined Attack (Called Multiple Power Attack in 5e): You have a bunch of powers.  You want to use each one once, and on the same guy.  You pay all the END, make just one attack roll, and if you hit it's with all the attacks. 

Multiple Attack (Called Sweep or Rapid Fire in 5e): You have one power.  You want to use it multiple times, on the same or different targets.  You pay all the END, eat some penalties, make multiple attack rolls, and each one determines the success of each attack. 

 

My best guess as to the rationale for permitting Combined Attack is "Hey, if you have RKA Linked to Blast you can shoot twice in a turn.  But if you have RKA and Blast not Linked you can't?  That'd make no sense, Linked is a Limitation.  Clearly you can use both powers at once". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My best guess as to the rationale for permitting Combined Attack is "Hey, if you have RKA Linked to Blast you can shoot twice in a turn.  But if you have RKA and Blast not Linked you can't?  That'd make no sense, Linked is a Limitation.  Clearly you can use both powers at once". 

 

Yeah just seems like you're getting all the benefits of linked with none of the drawbacks.  Why ever buy linked?  You can do exactly the same thing every time but without needing to if you choose not to.

 

Seems like there ought to be SOME control or penalty to using a bunch of powers at once, I mean END is nearly meaningless now as a limiter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Yeah just seems like you're getting all the benefits of linked with none of the drawbacks.  Why ever buy linked?  You can do exactly the same thing every time but without needing to if you choose not to.

 

Seems like there ought to be SOME control or penalty to using a bunch of powers at once, I mean END is nearly meaningless now as a limiter.

Linked is a Limitation.  If you normally can't attack twice, then "Can attack twice with attacks A and B, but have to do so to use attack B" is an Advantage.  A Limitation shouldn't be an Advantage. 

Why buy Linked?  Because it gives you points back at the cost of control over the power.  Or because it fits the description of the power. 

The "control or penalty" is that you have to buy all these powers separately.  If Captain Either-Fire-Or-Ice pays 72 points for his Blast Multipower, then Captain Always-Fire-And-Also-Sometimes-Ice pays 100 for his Blasts and Captain Fire-And/Or-Ice pays 120 for his Blasts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Usagi
52 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah just seems like you're getting all the benefits of linked with none of the drawbacks.  Why ever buy linked?

Ah, Chris, I think you've forgotten that Linked is a limitation.  You don't buy linked, you get points for it.  But I think I understand your confusion.  You're used to buying Linked in order to use two powers as a single attack, because IIRC early editions of Champions didn't allow for Combined Attacks -- I've done that myself quite often.  Somewhere along the line someone realized that this made Linked a sort of advantage as it allowed you to hit someone with two powers at once, and Combined Attack fixes that loophole.

 

Combined Attack is basically Linked without the limitation.  You temporarily link two powers and use them as one power.  Unlike Linked, you can use each power independently.  So for example Lightmaster has a 10d6 Energy Blast and a 4d6 Flash while Flashlife has a 10d6 EB and a 4d6 Flash (linked to EB).  Lightmaster can Blast, Flash, or Flashblast (Combined Attack).  Flashlife can flashblast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Combined Attack is piling a bunch of powers together into one attack.  Multiple Attack is when Jackie Chan wades through a horde of mooks and hits each one three or four times.

 

Can anyone think of a few examples from movies etc where a combined attack is used that wasn't a multiple attack?

 

And can anyone give a single reason why not to use a combined attack every single time every single phase on every single target?

 

I mean, there are all these penalties for using two weapons, offhand etc, but... just use Combined Attack and they all go away!  Plus its only one attack roll!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

And can anyone give a single reason why not to use a combined attack every single time every single phase on every single target?

 

I mean, there are all these penalties for using two weapons, offhand etc, but... just use Combined Attack and they all go away!  Plus its only one attack roll!

The massive quantity of points it costs to even be able to do so. 

Also GM oversight.  If you're throwing 2x12d6 every Phase, either something's evening that out (maybe your SPD sucks) or the GM needs to step in and address you blowing everyone else out of the water.  It's a similar question to "Why don't I just spend ~10 points on END Only For Pushing and push every attack?" or "Why don't I buy a 16d6 attack in a 12d6 game?". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

And can anyone give a single reason why not to use a combined attack every single time every single phase on every single target?

 

 

Chris, is there any reason not to use your full 14d6 Blast every single time every single phase on every single target? You paid 70 points to be allowed to fire off a 14d6 Blast every phase, at a cost of 14 END.

 

How is that materially different from paying 70 points for the ability to use a 10d6 Blast, a 2d6 Sight Flash and a 1d6 OCV Drain (the DazzleBurst), costing 14 END, every single time every single phase on every single target?

 

Or, for that matter, 10d6 from STR 50 plus 4d6 from a Hand-to-Hand Attack?

 

The ability to use all of these at once is not an advantage - the player paid for these attacks, and did not bundle them together in a Multipower to save massive amounts of points.  If he does not have the choice to mix and match these as he sees fit, they are limited, and take the Linked limitation to reflect the restrictions on their use.

 

57 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I mean, there are all these penalties for using two weapons, offhand etc, but... just use Combined Attack and they all go away!

 

I have never seen anyone suggest that a character must take an OCV penalty to fire his Blast from his left hand instead of his right hand.  Those rules. IMO, are for using weapons you did not pay CP for (just like you do not need WF to use a weapon you paid points for without an OCV penalty).

 

57 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Plus its only one attack roll!

 

It's only one attack roll because it is only one attack.  It does not allow you to benefit from Skill Levels which do  not apply to all of the components of that Combined Attack.  If that one attack roll hits, it seems great that all the components hit.  If it misses, I would certainly love the possibility of rolling twice more to see if the Flash and Drain  might hit, even if the Blast did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How is that materially different from paying 70 points for the ability to use a 10d6 Blast, a 2d6 Sight Flash and a 1d6 OCV Drain (the DazzleBurst), costing 14 END, every single time every single phase on every single target?

 

Its not.  But in this case you can buy them all to full 70 active points and use them all at once every single phase.  There are no drawbacks.  Why would anyone ever use any other option?  I can blast you... Or, I can blast you 8 different ways!  And only have to roll once!  And make half move in addition!

 

Doesn't this seem a bit... off to anyone else??

 

I mean, what on earth are all those rules for dual wielding and offhand attacks if you can just ignore them and use a Combined Attack instead?  The book literally says you can attack with two weapons at the same time with one attack roll with no penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Its not.  But in this case you can buy them all to full 70 active points and use them all at once every single phase.  There are no drawbacks.  Why would anyone ever use any other option?  I can blast you... Or, I can blast you 8 different ways!  And only have to roll once!  And make half move in addition!

 

That's 210 points.  For the same price, you could have a 42d6 Blast which you can also use every single phase. How is that less powerful?  What are its added drawbacks?  I can Blast you for 147 average STUN, 42 average BOD and 70 meters average knockback!  And only have to roll once!  And make half move in addition!

 

And I need to get the GM to approve either of the two builds, of course.

 

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Doesn't this seem a bit... off to anyone else??

 

It does not seem off to me.  What seemed off was that I could have a Multipower of three Fixed slots, one with a 14d6 Blast, one with a 7d6 Drain, and the third with a 14d6 Sight Flash, and pay 91 points, and I could use any one of the three in my phase.  Or I could buy the three as separate powers, pay 210 points (more than twice as much), and I could use any one of the three in my phase.  What, exactly, did I pay 119 additional points for?

 

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I mean, what on earth are all those rules for dual wielding and offhand attacks if you can just ignore them and use a Combined Attack instead?  The book literally says you can attack with two weapons at the same time with one attack roll with no penalties.

 

To me, they are for characters who paid no character points for their weapons.  If you want to buy two guns for CP and play the Two Gun Kid to avoid the penalties for dual wielding and offhand attacks, another player who decides to just own two guns gets to use the points he saved for other abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Its not.  But in this case you can buy them all to full 70 active points and use them all at once every single phase.  There are no drawbacks.  Why would anyone ever use any other option?  I can blast you... Or, I can blast you 8 different ways!  And only have to roll once!  And make half move in addition!

 

Doesn't this seem a bit... off to anyone else??

 

I mean, what on earth are all those rules for dual wielding and offhand attacks if you can just ignore them and use a Combined Attack instead?  The book literally says you can attack with two weapons at the same time with one attack roll with no penalties.

 

 

Dude, you are _so_ preaching to the choir here.... :D

 

I liked to have choked when reading that in 5e, followed by the massive pile-on of support.

 

Apparently I was the only person who didn't already play it as "okay, in this half-phase, I would like to use my Ranged Killing attack against each of the seventy-two opponents in this room."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combined Attack is what used to be "partially Limited Power" like the paragraph in Champions III about Flare combining her 10d6 Blast with a 4d6 Blast at 2x END and 4d6 Flash.  And it's meant to be used against one target.

 

Multiple Attack is the Sweep (from FH1), Double Shot (from DI) and Gangfire (from RW), all rolled into one, and can be used against multiple targets.

 

(Edit:  Champions III p. 25, and it wasn't Flare; I was misremembering something else.  But the idea is sound, and that's pretty much the origin.  FH1 and DI had those as optional maneuvers a character could buy, and in RW that was part of being a robot pilot.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Apparently I was the only person who didn't already play it as "okay, in this half-phase, I would like to use my Ranged Killing attack against each of the seventy-two opponents in this room."

That's totally legal RAW.  You just have to deal with the -142 OCV penalty.  And paying END 72 times.  And the other players glaring at you for the half-hour it takes to resolve assuming you don't miss immediately and end your turn.

It's also a gross strawman of anyone's actual position.  And illegal under Multiple Power Attack rules, it's a Rapid Fire.  MPA is single target only, like Chris Goodwin mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Combined Attack is what used to be "partially Limited Power" like the paragraph in Champions III about Flare combining her 10d6 Blast with a 4d6 Blast at 2x END and 4d6 Flash.  And it's meant to be used against one target.

 

Multiple Attack is the Sweep (from FH1), Double Shot (from DI) and Gangfire (from RW), all rolled into one, and can be used against multiple targets.

 

(Edit:  Champions III p. 25, and it wasn't Flare; I was misremembering something else.  But the idea is sound, and that's pretty much the origin.  FH1 and DI had those as optional maneuvers a character could buy, and in RW that was part of being a robot pilot.)

 

 

Flare not withstanding, 

 

that's a damned impressive display of memory right there!  :shock:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Apparently I was the only person who didn't already play it as "okay, in this half-phase, I would like to use my Ranged Killing attack against each of the seventy-two opponents in this room."

 

That would be a Multiple Attack.  With -2 OCV for each attack beyond the first, roll to hit at -142 OCV against each target, one at a time.  First miss means all the rest miss.  Of course, this assumes you are still conscious to use that RKA after paying its END 72 time.  It also uses your full phase, and halves your DCV. 

 

Oh, Chris, it's also the Multiple Move By.

 

I do find the 6e rules poorly laid out in this regard.  I would rather have seen Combined Attack and Multiple Attack listed as separate maneuvers, not combined as they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's 210 points.  For the same price, you could have a 42d6 Blast which you can also use every single phase. How is that less powerful?

 

Wait, are you saying when you GM a campaign you allow characters to only build one power per category?  You can have 60 active points of attack!  PERIOD!  That's 3 20-point attacks, or one 60 point attack!

 

Quote

To me, they are for characters who paid no character points for their weapons. 

 

I am confident you are aware that the Hero system is used for more than simply Champions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Usagi

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I mean, what on earth are all those rules for dual wielding and offhand attacks if you can just ignore them and use a Combined Attack instead?  The book literally says you can attack with two weapons at the same time with one attack roll with no penalties.

Nope.  Doesn't say that at all.  What it does say is confusing, but it's not literally that.  Reading through this, it's one of the more confusing rules I've encountered and the example is just the worst (because while it never says the attacks are Foci, intuitively it feels like they are "weapons").

 

Quote

6E2 74 Using two or more powers or similar abilities (but not Combat/Martial Maneuvers or the like) once against a single target isn’t a Multiple Attack. It’s a Combined Attack, and counts as type of Strike....(Using two such powers multiple times against a single target, or against multiple targets, is a Multiple Attack and subject to all Multiple Attack rules.)

 

Using two or more powers is different than using two or more Foci, which is where the confusion is coming up.  Each weapon is a Foci, and activating the Attack Power focused in the weapon requires a Strike action. Each weapon is an instance of the same power.  Two weapons can't be used in a Combined Attack because it would be using the same power twice against a single target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Wait, are you saying when you GM a campaign you allow characters to only build one power per category?

 

I will not claim to be able to speak for Hugh, but if you will allow me to offer my own take-away from his comment:

 

I _believe_ that what he was offering with his example of the 42d attack was a comparison between the sum total of all the powers used in your multiple power attack (and honestly, I think if it had been named that:  Multiple Power Attack instead of Multiple Attack, I think you and I both would have had a lot less confusion about the intentions behind it).

 

That is to say, I think his comments could be re-phrased as "in essence, the powers all stacked together for the multiple power attack all hit or miss on a single roll of the dice.  However, the exact same amount of AP could be spent on a single attack that also hits or misses on a single attack roll."

 

Now I'm like you: when I first read the rules in 5e for "multiple attack," I think I developed an aneurism!  It took a good bit of careful re-reading and even following a couple of discussion to see the validity of the idea.  i still get that "not quite right" feeling from it-- likely because of my own initial mis-understanding of it-- but from a _purely mechanical_  point of view, it stands up as fair.

 

I don't know if this helps you, but what finally did it for me-- because, like you, my first thought was "not without 'Linked,' you don't!"

 

But as Hugh points out (I think he did way back when, too, now that I think about it-- back when 5e first hit) that Linked is a _Limitation_; the idea behind it being that in order to use Power B, you _must_ use Power A, and then all the matching ratios and such that went with it.

 

So then I thought about as "Linked has a value of [your edition here].  Suppose there was a "selectable" option for Linked-- what would do?  It would allow you to Link or unLink the various powers as you saw fit.  And if this was costed identically at the inverted cost of Linked (the Limitation), you'd end up pretty much with a -0 "limitation" that could be toggled on or off.

 

Put another way, if Linked is in fact a Limitation--- well, how is it limiting?  What ability does the Character (or even the Power itself) not have that an unlinked build does have?

 

Remembering that Limitations cannot be advantageous (except perhaps in some really out-there special-effects-related, GM-call situation), then Linked is not providing the ability to fire off more than one power at once; that must have been possible even before Linked existed, as Linked can only Limit.  That being the case, and given the results of having a Linked power (or three), the limitation can only be one of or both of the conditions that the powers have to be used proportionally or that the Linked power cannot be used separately.

 

For what it's worth, I think that entire section in _both_ the 5e books as well as (and _especially_) in 6e.

 

Seriously, it still rankles a bit, as I'd never played the game that way before (though there was nothing in the rules that especially _forbade_ it)  but it's just something that never occurred to anyone in my groups before it was formalized in print and so we never played it that way previously (and rarely use it now, honestly).  I believe my own problem with it (which I freely admit is _my_ problem, and not a rules problem) is all the years of playing a certain way, then having it drop out of the sky at us.  It's new and different to the entire style of play we had at that point spent decades crafting-- _that_, I think, was (and let's be honest-- still is) what bugged me about it.

 

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

You can have 60 active points of attack!  PERIOD!  That's 3 20-point attacks, or one 60 point attack!

 

 

I am confident you are aware that the Hero system is used for more than simply Champions.

 

 

As he mentioned "weapons you don't pay points for," I'm pretty sure he is.  Between me and you, I almost don't play Champions anymore: most of my stuff is a long-running sci-fi game and session-to-session Fantasy game.  The youth group (which I thought was done with the end of summer vacation) has (mostly) reformed to play on the table in my front yard, and that's about all the Champions I get these days.

 

 

Now I would like to offer that more than penalties and mechanics, a very large check on multiple power attacks in non-supers (and _possibly_ even in high Fantasy, depending on how magic works in your games) is the number of weapons you can bring to bear at once.  Just because you have three guns and two knives doesn't make it remotely likely that you can bring them all to bear for a single attack  (unless you got _lots_ of arms, of course).

 

Don't get me wrong: it still don't fall into it naturally, but after really dissecting the thing, it's not as inherently wrong or power gamer as it sounds when you read through it.

 

 

Your mileage may vary, of course, but I do hope some of this helps put it into better perspective for you, Sir.  :)

 

 

 

Duke

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Wait, are you saying when you GM a campaign you allow characters to only build one power per category?  You can have 60 active points of attack!  PERIOD!  That's 3 20-point attacks, or one 60 point attack!

 

I'm saying that, like most things in Hero, the rules can be used and the rules can be abused.  You can spend 210 points on a single 42 DC attack, or you can spend 210 points on three 14 DC attacks.  You could buy 7 6 DC attacks.  By the rules (explicit in 5e and 6e; possibly the intent prior to 5e but never explicitly stated; explicitly possible in prior editions at less cost than that 42 DC attack, but only if the attacks were linked), all 42 DCs can be combined into a single attack, at a single target, with a single attack roll.

 

That does not mean, as a GM, I am required to allow a player constructed to toss around 42 DC attacks (even at a cost of 21 END,, and of 210 character points, which is substantial even for a Champions character).

 

Could it be abused?  Sure.  How many things in the game could NOT be abused?  If the 119 points I save from placing my 3 70 AP attacks in a Multipower are spent on 27 points of Power Defense, 22 points of Sight Flash Defense, 25rPD and 25 rED (added to a typical PD and ED character), which has been possible in one form or another since 1e, would that be any more acceptable than a character who can toss around those same 3 attacks (or a single 210 AP attack)?

 

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I am confident you are aware that the Hero system is used for more than simply Champions.

 

Yup.  That is why, among many other things, we have rules for powers purchased with points and rules for equipment purchased with cash.  And, as Duke notes, you can't fire three guns, or swing three swords, at the same time.  Maybe we should acknowledge that this is an outgrowth of the Real Weapon limitation (or the nature of defined Foci) and not the base rule for attack powers.

 

I note you have ignored my question of what benefit a player receives for placing those 3 14 DC powers in a Multipower to justify paying 210 points instead of 91 points.  119 points is a lot, and it should logically carry a lot of benefit.

 

Oh, you asked about examples from the source material - every action where Legolas kicks one opponent away and then fires an arrow (where is the required Concentration for his use of a bow?) and any Supers Archer who nocks two arrows at the same time.  And the Western Gunman who uses two pistols at once, seemingly without penalty.

 

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

But as Hugh points out (I think he did way back when, too, now that I think about it-- back when 5e first hit) that Linked is a _Limitation_; the idea behind it being that in order to use Power B, you _must_ use Power A, and then all the matching ratios and such that went with it.

 

So then I thought about as "Linked has a value of [your edition here].  Suppose there was a "selectable" option for Linked-- what would do?  It would allow you to Link or unLink the various powers as you saw fit.  And if this was costed identically at the inverted cost of Linked (the Limitation), you'd end up pretty much with a -0 "limitation" that could be toggled on or off.

 

Put another way, if Linked is in fact a Limitation--- well, how is it limiting?  What ability does the Character (or even the Power itself) not have that an unlinked build does have?

 

Remembering that Limitations cannot be advantageous (except perhaps in some really out-there special-effects-related, GM-call situation), then Linked is not providing the ability to fire off more than one power at once; that must have been possible even before Linked existed, as Linked can only Limit.  That being the case, and given the results of having a Linked power (or three), the limitation can only be one of or both of the conditions that the powers have to be used proportionally or that the Linked power cannot be used separately.

 

This, exactly.  This was the Great Linked War - if you can use two or more powers at the same time with a limitation, it must be possible to use them at the same time without REDUCING their cost.

 

We do still have 0 END baked into Charges, unfortunately, but that's the only other "automatic and omnipresent advantage" limitation I can think of.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To go sideways with this:

 

Remember that -- and I kid you not-- until very recent years-- sometime after 4e stopped outputting-- we just didn't play "If you got 'em, smoke all of 'em."  We'd allow a character -- well let's spare the extra paragraphs (You're welcome, Doc!   :lol:    ) and say that we had a procedure for firing off more than one attack at the same target and even for attacking two separate targets, but didn't use them often, and I don't think combining the two _ever_ came up (as in:  I want to fire two attacks at the Marquis and two at the Sheriff!).

 

Essentially, we fired one, maybe two attacks now and again at a single target, and felt we had to build special rules to do it.   This line of thinking was born from the original rules for Extra Limbs and supported down the road by the appearance of Ambidextrous and a couple of other things (not the least of which is that a half-phase can be as little as 1/24 of a second).

 

The original description of Linked noted that you were not using two powers, but creating a _single_ brand new power that contained elements of more than one power.  

 

Now I'm not going to discuss Linked any further; I completely missed the Great Linked War (either before my time or during one of my years-long absences; I don't know which), but I'm _glad_ I missed it and I don't want to rekindle it here.

 

I only bring up the above to point out that after finally getting a firm understanding on the rationale behind the Multiple Power Attack rules (if anyone _ever_ gets crack-ed up enough to think a seventh edition is a good idea and meth-ed up enough to write it, _PLEASE_ rename it to "Multiple Power Attack:" I really feel that would eliminate _half_ the confusion, as it frames the idea better, even before the discussion starts!), having come from (and still sort of preferring / maintaining) our original understanding of combat rules, I can understand and empathize with both sides of the argument.

 

I have to --- nope.  Never mind.  Not doing that.  :lol:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nope.  Doesn't say that at all

 

Well here's what the book actually says, verbatim, in its entirety, about Combined Attacks (emphasis mine):
 

Quote

 

Using two or more powers or similar abilities (but not Combat/Martial Maneuvers or the like) once against a single target isn’t a Multiple Attack. It’s a Combined Attack, and counts as type of Strike. Therefore it has no OCV penalty, doesn’t halve the attacker’s DCV, and doesn’t take a Full Phase to perform. (Using two such powers multiple times against a single target, or against multiple targets, is a Multiple Attack and subject to all Multiple Attack rules.) However, the GM can apply appropriate Multiple Attack rules to a Combined Attack, such as the rule that the overall attack is considered to be made with the character’s “good hand.”


For example, suppose a military robot in a Science Fiction campaign has a pulson blaster (Blast 8d6) built into its right hand and a laser (RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing) built into its left. If it fires each of them once against a single target, that’s a Combined Attack, performed as a standard Attack Action with +0 OCV, +0 DCV modifiers.

 

 

So it seems like that's a statement that you can fire two weapons at once in the same attack roll at a target... with no penalties.  How am I reading this wrong, exactly?  That is literally the entire section from the HSG2, pg 74, there is no further clarification.  In no part of the book does it say "if you have weapons then you can't do a Combined Attack with them or it take penalties."  It literally says the opposite: this bot has two weapons and uses them both against a single target.  And they're both ranged attacks.

 

So again, where's the logic behind the Two Weapon Attack and other rules allowing people to use two weapons in combat with penalties?  Why on earth would anyone pay any points, let alone 10 to do so, when you can do so for free, without any penalties?? 

 

Quote

Using two or more powers is different than using two or more Foci, which is where the confusion is coming up. 

 

No, that has nothing to do with it.  Not only does the concept of foci never show up in this, but foci isn't distinct from a power, its just a limitation on a power.

 

Quote

 You can spend 210 points on a single 42 DC attack, or you can spend 210 points on three 14 DC attacks.  You could buy 7 6 DC attacks. 

 

I've never played a campaign where the GM let people have 210 active points in any single power, ever.  Have you??

 

Quote

I note you have ignored my question of what benefit a player receives for placing those 3 14 DC powers in a Multipower to justify paying 210 points instead of 91 points.  119 points is a lot, and it should logically carry a lot of benefit.

 

I didn't ignore anything.  I was simply trying to figure out what on earth you're talking about, since you're making my argument for me.  When you say that firing three 60 active point powers at once with a single die roll is the same as firing a 180 point power, I'm nodding and saying "yes, that's the point, Hugh".  This allows you to effectively have that 210 point power.  Every phase.  With every character.  The only possible reason people wouldn't do this is... because they weren't aware it was an option.

 

This isn't abuse of anything.  Its not a rule that you can twist to take advantage of.  Its literally just a combat option always available to everyone with more than one attack they can conceivably use at once.  Using Combined Attack is no more penalizing than using Martial Throw or a Haymaker.  The only reason anyone would think it might be an exploit is because it carries no penalties whatsoever.

 

That is why, among many other things, we have rules for powers purchased with points and rules for equipment purchased with cash.

 

Except this rule is not "only for Champions."  Its not only for superpowers.   Its not even an optional rule.  Its for any setting, in any genre, as a basic rule that all games have, like the rules for making a perception roll.  Nothing in the description at any point even remotely hints or implies that its for natural powers, but not for foci or things purchased with money or points.  Its just "you can do this if you want."  Then there's rules for how to do this, but with a heavy penalty. 

 

Again, I'll ask: why would anyone bother buying that stuff and how do these different rules possibly make sense in the same game's ruleset?  Its like one section of the rules saying you can buy flight and fly around, then another saying "if you want to fly, you have to buy acrobatics and take a -2 DCV penaty per 10m flight.  Here's a special skill you can purchase that reduces the DCV penalty!"

 

I'll address linked later, in a different response, because its going to be a bit longer as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...