Confused Old Timer

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, GM Joe said:

I would love to know the extent to which George MacDonald and Steve Peterson were involved with the BBB, because it seems pretty plain on the subject at times, but then muddies the waters.

 

For example, under Ambidexterity it says, "Ambidexterity [removes the penalty for off-hand use], but does not allow the character to attack twice in one combat Phase. (To attack more often in a turn, buy more SPD.)"

 

That seems pretty clear to me. How many times you can attack per Turn is determined by SPD.

 

Elsewhere, it makes clear that attacking ends your Phase.  And autofire can hit multiple opponents but is a single attack roll, which supports this view.

 

But then that same Autofire entry goes on to muddy the waters with the way it allows characters to spray Autofire across multiple hexes. In that case, each hex with a target in it gets a separate roll.

 

And then there is Sweep, which says, "For each target after the first, the Sweep takes a cumulative -2 OCV for all the attacks that the character makes that phase."

 

That seems to make it clear that it's not just a single attack roll per phase.

 

So, it's ambiguous.

 

The other question is whether a combined attack is just one attack.  Having a Blast, Flash and Drain is mechanics.  If the SFX is one attack, the that is consistent with attacking once in a phase, ending your phase and making a single attack roll in a phase.

[Tech]

On 12/14/2019 at 10:05 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Until 5e, the rules contained no explicit reference to Combined  Attacks. 

 

Linked had been around for many editions, eventually leading to the question why a limitation would allow attacks to be combined if they were not allowed to be combined absent a limitation.

 

There were some at that time who indicated that the original designers intended it to be allowed, but considered it obvious enough to not bear mentioning in the rules (remember when games were 64 - 80 pages, not 640 - 1,800 pages?)

 

Actually, I wonder if Scott Ruggles could share some insights in that regard.

 

Duke, as Hugh said, until 5e there was no explicit reference to C.A. and well aware of "linked", but "linked" is not C.A. as it's used now.

 

Hugh, you state "there were some who indicated..." etc. Can you be offer more explanation?

[Chris Goodwin]

3 minutes ago, Tech said:

Hugh, you state "there were some who indicated..." etc. Can you be offer more explanation?

 

I'm not Hugh, but I asked one of the original Hero folks directly, and was given the information Hugh references.  I may be who he is referring to.

[Joe Walsh]

17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The other question is whether a combined attack is just one attack.  Having a Blast, Flash and Drain is mechanics.  If the SFX is one attack, the that is consistent with attacking once in a phase, ending your phase and making a single attack roll in a phase.

 

Great point!

 

It'd be nice if we could, without increasing complexity otherwise, just stick to one attack roll per phase, making the various types of multiple strike attacks work within that boundary one way or another.

[Joe Walsh]

5 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I'm not Hugh, but I asked one of the original Hero folks directly, and was given the information Hugh references.  I may be who he is referring to.

 

So many products back then had so many unstated assumptions built into them. They rarely had the rigor of even today's small press products.

 

Out of curiosity, who did you ask?

[Tech]

19 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I'm not Hugh, but I asked one of the original Hero folks directly, and was given the information Hugh references.  I may be who he is referring to.

Thanks for the insight.

[Chris Goodwin]

18 minutes ago, GM Joe said:

 

So many products back then had so many unstated assumptions built into them. They rarely had the rigor of even today's small press products.

 

Out of curiosity, who did you ask?

 

Bruce Harlick, though I can't remember if it was on Facebook or in email, and I can't find it in my email if so.

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, Tech said:

 

Duke, as Hugh said, until 5e there was no explicit reference to C.A. and well aware of "linked", but "linked" is not C.A. as it's used now.

 

 

Oh for Pete's sake!

 

First off: I won't be available tomorrow until after noon.  until then, I will be flying over the country, dropping F-bombs on everyone for making me read through that book again.  

 

Second off: I know it's in there because when I first read it, I had the same reaction the CT is having now with 6e,-- well, not quite the same: I was righteously and furiously _pissed_, as I remembered that the author who brought me this was the same one who brought me Dark Champions, the Harbinger of Bullets, Desolidification: Only versus Damage (paraphrasing multiple uses of Desolid as a form of "invulnerable to"), and other "combat monster" builds that would have resulted in burned character sheets at my table.

 

Hugh-- who apparently doesn't remember _any_ of it, including the fact that it existed in 5e, if I read your post correctly-- in addition to being one of four or five guys patient enough to bring me around, but ultimately was _the_ guy who got it click in my head that this was not a _new_ thing; it was simply being _specifically stated_ for the first time.  It was implied through omission of forbiding in all previous editions.

 

 

So here we go; I re-read the damned book (or at least the combat section)

5e.  

 

Page 234.

 

Second column.

 

First Heading (Multiple-Power Attacks).

 

First paragraph under that heading.

 

Starting with the first word in that paragraph: (typos are mind because I'm just going to burn through this)

 

"A Character may use as many Attack powers in a Phase as he wishes, provided he meets several restrictions.  First, he must be able to pay the END for all of the Powers.  Second, if two or more of the Powers are in the same Power Framework, he must have enough points in his Power Framework to allocate to both of them.  Third, he can only make one Attack Roll (and it must be the same type of Attack Roll; you can't use a Power requiring a Dex-based Attack Roll together with one requiring an ECV Attack Roll, except with the GM's permission).  Fourth, he must use all of the Attack Powers on the same target.  Use of multiple Powers in this fashion is considered a single Attack Action."

 

 

I could go on through the example and the full two-column discussion, but I really don't see the point.

 

"But that's a horribly different thing you're talking about Duke!   Can't you see that?  The name is different and everything!"

 

 

And it didn't see to confuse nearly as many people (either that, or 5e has a far smaller "installed" base than 6e; I certainly have no way to know that).  There was some genius somewhere up-thread who mentioned that if a 7th edition is to be produced, then this particular maneuver should be renamed "multiple-Power Attack" to avoid confusion.

 

Evidently it worked when it was use the first time.

 

 

I'd check re-5 to see if it was in there, but then I'd have to start dropping F-bombs here, and immediately.  

 

[EDIT: however, if you'd like to check re-five for yourself, multiple power attacks are discussed on pages 19, 311, 315, and 358 of that treasured tome]

 

Now if you want to check the 5e Combat Handbook-- well, that came later, so what's the point?

Edited December 15, 2019 by Duke Bushido
I was hit with a wave of forgiveness and generosity

[Hugh Neilson]

It's long enough back and hearsay that I don't recall the source, but Chris has been around long enough to be a likely source.

 

It's odd that we never saw a reference to any published character using this approach, but a lot did not list out tactics, and paying for multiple attack powers outside a Multipower was never very common.

[Tech]

Duke, I hope your flight goes well. I expect alot of people traveling for work or the holidays for this season.

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Duke, you mention in 5e the page (p234) etc. Simply put: we aren't talking about 5th or 6th edition; merely 1st-4th edition didn't have it. No need for any pseduo-language at anyone. However, I'm leaving this discussion since it seems to be warming up.

[Duke Bushido]

My apologies to you, then, Sir. 

 

I missed the shift to 4e.  My fault entirely. 

 

And the f-bombs have nothing to do with my opinion in the discussion itself; it has more to do with the aggravation of reading the crowded and ti y text of the 5e book (or the pale blue and tiny index of 6e)

[Chris Goodwin]

It took me long enough to find this, and I overlooked it more than once.  

 

 

Champions III, p 24.  

 

Edit to add:  While it might have thrown additional gasoline on the Great Linked Debate fire back in the day, it also assumes that the Powers are designed to go off together.  Essentially, what Hero Designer refers to as a "compound Power".  X, plus Y, plus Z. 

 

[Joe Walsh]

Thank you for doing that research, Chris!

 

So, the concept goes way back to 1984: characters can only make one attack per phase, but that one attack can involve using multiple Powers that go off together. The quoted section goes on to reinforce this regarding Multipowers: "A character couldn't throw different parts of a Multipower together, because the Powers don't always go off the same way. But a character could have several Powers in the same slot together, so long as they all go off at the same time together."

 

We also know that "one attack per phase" can mean attacking multiple people: area affect, autofire, and sweep all allow that.

 

So, multiple Powers and multiple targets were explicitly OK at least as far back as 1984, as long as you'd paid for the ability to do that.

 

The exception is the case of Sweep, where you don't have to pay for it, you just have to be in the right circumstances.

 

But that maneuver was introduced in 1985's Fantasy HERO 1e as a unique bit for that genre. In that game, it is restricted to the Common Melee Weapon group and quarterstaffs.

 

Four years later, in the BBB, that weapon proviso was softened to "usually" limit it to "big weapons," but to then say that it can be done with bare hands as well.

[PierSeb]

The headache, for me, is figuring out what to allow for a given campaign.

Let’s say we run a superheroic game. Presuming that a key element in allowing Combined attack is that character by their attacks/powers with character points. And are not limited by Power Frameworks, both are HTH or range attack and use similar attack roll… We have the following cases.

 

• Energy projector, with a Blast and Flash power. This is the classical case, and if not limited by PF, he should be allowed to use them in a combined attack.
• Weapon master. Dual wielding and bought his weapons with CP. Is not required to buy skills for them. 5^th Ed R p.373 makes a strong case for it. He should be allowed to use them in a Combined Attack and not be affected by off hand penalty. What if he picks up similar weapons but not the one he payed points for? He might even be skilled with them. Should he be allowed to us them in a Combined Attack? Probably not…?
• Martial artist. Might have a few abilities bought as powers but the bulk are bought as Martial maneuvers. . 5^th Ed R p.359 says the maneuvers can be combined as long as the effects are not similar. Legsweep + Martial Disarm is ok, but not Strike + Legsweep. This gets a bit more complicated and might require a lot of GM ruling during play. Not ideal. 6th Edition simply forbids it. Is that fair if the previous characters are allowed?
   

Now, for heroic campaign. Most attacks are made by weapons bought with cash. Skills are bought to used them. Combined Attack should not be used. Off hand penalty should be applicable.  If proficient in Two-weapon Fighting skill, it allows the use of Multiple Attacks. 5^th edition does distinguish between campaign that allows Multiple Attacks or not. 6^th ed doesn’t.

 

• What about heroic campaign that mix the weapons and equipment bought with cash and some abilities (psionics, chi, magic…) with CP? Should they have access to Combined Attack if they didn’t buy it at a discount within a power framework?
• Should monsters that bought their attacks (claws, bite, tail…)  with CP, again not limited by PF, be allowed to Combined Attack?
• …

 

The rules phrasing hint that GM should decide what is allowed or not. I’m fine with it as long as this is clearly set as ground rules for the campaign. It might affect point balance but players can choose to take advantage of it. Figuring all the edge cases can be a real headache. It can quickly go south when you have to make an on the spot ruling that affect the effectiveness of a player’s character. The more I think of it, I find it simpler to treat Combined Attack as Multiple attacks. Same penalties as if each power used is a separate attack, take a full phase, 1/2 DCV… Linked powers would require 2 separate to hit rolls. First the “carrier” attack and then the limited linked attack. This way, it stills act as a limitation.

Out of curiosity, how would you handle linked limitation if you don’t allow Combined and Multiple Attacks?

[Ninja-Bear]

17 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

It took me long enough to find this, and I overlooked it more than once.  

 

 

Champions III, p 24.  

 

Edit to add:  While it might have thrown additional gasoline on the Great Linked Debate fire back in the day, it also assumes that the Powers are designed to go off together.  Essentially, what Hero Designer refers to as a "compound Power".  X, plus Y, plus Z. 

 

Ok I get confused between Champions III and 3ed. Isn’t Champs III considered advanced/optional rules? 

[Chris Goodwin]

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Ok I get confused between Champions III and 3ed. Isn’t Champs III considered advanced/optional rules? 

 

Additional rules, but yes.  Champions III, not the 3rd edition corebook.

[Doc Democracy]

On 12/16/2019 at 9:18 PM, PierSeb said:

The headache, for me, is figuring out what to allow for a given campaign.

 

Welcome to HERO! 🙂

 

Any GM, doing the job will have a headache for every campaign until you are comfortable enough with saying no to ad hoc things the palyers come to you with because you did not expressly forbid them at the outset. 

 

HERO is described as a toolkit, the GM should build the campaign game before the players build the characters.  In other games there are house rules but in HERO it is expected that the GM will put together a game using the toolkit.  It is obviously possible to skip this but you then open up every rule, whether or not it is appropriate for the game and campaign you are trying to run...

 

And, used to other games you will get the argument "But it is in the rulebook!" to which an experienced HERO GM will say "No.  It is in the toolkit.  I am not using that rule in this game."!!

 

😁

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

22 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Additional rules, but yes.  Champions III, not the 3rd edition corebook.

That’s what I thought. So saying that it was always there is still sketchy. As an optional rule? Yeah of course. But as a core rule? Nah. And the  comment of “it was so obvious we didn’t think to write it in the rules” is sketchy too. (I’m not doubting that you got that answer, just the answer itself. And if they truly felt that way, it’s an example of of why you don’t assume.

[Doc Democracy]

On 12/17/2019 at 12:12 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

Ok I get confused between Champions III and 3ed. Isn’t Champs III considered advanced/optional rules? 

 

I remember waiting for the different Champions books to come out.  Neither Champions II nor Champions III seemed to me to be advanced or optional, they were live additions to the core rulebook.  I remember us changing our characters to accomodate the expanded ruleset and I used the three books as a set.

 

I guess how I consider those rulebooks to be coloured by how I remember them when they were released - so many new things my characters could use and accomplish.

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

That’s fair enough Doc however since it isn’t mentioned in 3ed and 4ed, I’d say then the rule was dropped for a reason. The reason though I don’t know why.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think a lot depends on how one interprets "that was always the rule".  Back when 2e was released, there was an article where the designers referred to spreading an energy blast as a section "lost when Magneto attacked our disks".  That is, we intended to include it, so that was how the game was intended to work, but we did not include it, so it was not the official rules.

 

Regardless, being able to use multiple Attack Mechanics together as a single Attack Action (Combined Attack) makes sense to me.  Adding Linked, which reduced the cost of certain Attack Mechanics if choice of when to use them was reduced then makes logical sense (where "Linked lets you do this when you otherwise could not" does not make as much sense). 

 

There has always been a substantial cost discount available if you restricted the ability to use multiple powers at the same time - the Multipower.  What is the benefit of paying for two or more attacks outside a Multipower, rather than using Fixed slots in a Multipower, if Combined Attacks cannot be used?  For that matter, what is the benefit of putting those Attack Powers in Flexible slots, instead of Fixed slots, if that does not allow you to mix & match in a Combined Attack?

 

Whether the Combined Attack was the rule since 1e or still was not allowed in 6e, to me it is a logical rule which provides balance between the costs of different approaches to purchasing multiple attack powers.

[Jhamin]

On 12/16/2019 at 12:24 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

It took me long enough to find this, and I overlooked it more than once.  

 

<<SNIP>>
Champions III, p 24.  

 

Edit to add:  While it might have thrown additional gasoline on the Great Linked Debate fire back in the day, it also assumes that the Powers are designed to go off together.  Essentially, what Hero Designer refers to as a "compound Power".  X, plus Y, plus Z. 

 

 

My god man!  I survived the great FRED wars when 5th edition made attack builds like this explicit.  Hundreds of posts for months and years and I don't think this was *ever* dug up in all that time.

What kind of world could we have built had such an explicit call out been made back then?