Confused Old Timer

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

Given the usual offense to defense ratio in Fantasy HERO I just flat out disallowed Combined Attack and limited Multiple Attack to weapons based on weapon type.

* Two-Handers can sweep (hit two adjacent opponents).

* One-Handers can hit the same target (2 hits for dual wielders / Bash and Stab if using a shield and Grab and Stab if your off-hand is empty).

 

 

Yeah I'm working on some classes of weapon "speeds" to deal with things like that for my Fantasy Hero setting.  That there are advantages and disadvantages besides damage to the various types of weapons.  Some kinds of maneuvers take a penalty or are unavailable with some kinds of weapons.  I like the idea of players making choices based on what they want, or don't want, with weapons rather than simply going down the list and figuring out the most damage they can get each swing.

 

Quote

You are approaching this from the view that combined and multiple attacks are the same thing.  

 

No, not the same thing.  But Combined Attacks are a form of Multiple Attack, and are described and explained in the "Multiple Attack" section of the rules.  Look it up.  In any case, my argument is simply one of logic: Hitting people with multiple powers is heavily restricted in this form, but not another.  That's called "supporting evidence" demonstrating that my argument "combined attack should be balanced with penalties" is reasonable and according to the rules.

 

Quote

You reach that conclusion only by misreading my statement.

 

Really? Because you keep arguing it would be crazy to let someone do that, then proceed to say that combined attacks are fine as is and shouldn't be changed.  Literally, you said it would be insane to do so, then attack every argument I make that there needs to be some sort of penalty for doing so.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

On 12/2/2019 at 7:33 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

With this information in mind, let's think this through carefully and rationally.

 

I propose a possible approach would be to state that a Combined Attack should have some sort of drawback to make the advantage of using more than one power to attack at once.  My proposal is that this disadvantage would be to make a Combined Attack take a full phase (like Multiple Attacks do).

You're stating a conclusion (Combined Attacks should take a Full Phase) as a fundamental assumption and reasoning from there instead of supporting it. 

 

And I feel it's a heavily flawed assumption. 

It relies on another assumption, that using more than one power at once is an advantage.  If the GM is keeping things sane, using a Combined Attack is different, not better.  If the GM is allowing 3x14d6 in a 14 DC game then of course it's broken, but arguing based on that is as intellectually dishonest as arguing that Hand Attack is OP because technically STR 60 and Hand Attack +12d6 are two 60 AP powers not one 120 AP power so you can have 24d6 in a 60 AP game. 

 

So I'm going to take a little digression here to talk under the assumption that the GM allows whatever as long as sum AP fits in the cap. 

What happens with combining two damaging powers?  That's a rhetorical question, we all know that 2x6d6 is going to be nearly useless in a 12 DC game.  In fact, you have to go to 2x9d6+1 to break even with a basic 12d6 (assuming 25 DEF).  At 2x9d6+1, then a Combined attack is more expensive, better on soft targets but worse on hard targets, never inflicts Stunned, deals less Knockback, and costs half again as much. 

Combining a damaging attack and a non-damaging attack trades damage for utility, and means you bounce harmlessly off anyone with the appropriate exotic defense.  Blast 8d6 + Flash 2d6 + Drain 1d6 means basically nothing if the target has FD and PowD 5. Ego Attack 3d6 + Mind Control 6d6 means you deal half damage and generally don't mind control meaningfully unless you're going for really low hanging fruit. 

In fact, the only time splitting your AP into two attacks is even a wash is 3d6NND + 3d6NND, and all you've done there is split your risk of losing damage and open yourself up to doubling the defender's Damage Negation. 

So in conclusion, because of HERO's subtraction based defenses and threshold based effects, a Combined Attack of powers that sum to a given AP is outright less effective than just using singular powers of the given AP. 

 

So what has to happen for Combined Attack to be as effective? 

I touched on this above, but you have to add enough additional DCs to overcome the target's defenses again.  And this still doesn't help with Stunning and Knockback, a Combined Attack just won't do those well. 

Let's look at Damage Negation based defenses since they make things easy here.  Defending Dan has 6DCs of DN.  Attacking Anne has 12d6.  She deals 6d6.  If she were Combined Attacking with two attacks, she'd have to have a sum of 18d6 to get that same result, since Dan's DN would apply twice.  Three attacks would need 24d6 sum to get 6d6 though.  So on and so forth. 

So if for a single attack RAWDAM - DEF = DAM, then for a Combined Attack sum(RAWDAM) - DEF*Attacks = DAM.  Plug in values for DEF and DAM and you can solve for RAWDAM.  This gets a bit more complicated when exotic defenses enter the equation (you have to use sum(effectiveness*(RAWDAM-ThatDEF)) instead) but it holds. 

Except, whoops, what's happening to the cost per damage as the number of attacks goes up?  Cost goes up too! 

So in conclusion, because of HERO's subtraction based defenses, a Combined Attack as effective as a singular attack costs more. 

 

So what has to happen for Combined Attack to be advantageous?  You have to blow a giant pile of points and the GM has to check off on a construct that looks more powerful because there's more raw dice.  There's some pretty efficient cases, (NND+NND for example) but they're also the most obviously powerful. 

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

In any case, my argument is simply one of logic: Hitting people with multiple powers is heavily restricted in this form, but not another.  That's called "supporting evidence" demonstrating that my argument "combined attack should be balanced with penalties" is reasonable and according to the rules.

And our counter-argument is simply one of logic: That thing is not this thing. 

Want "supporting evidence"?  FRED puts the Multiple-Power Attack rules around forty pages away from the Rapid Fire and Sweep rules.  Very clearly very different things!  6e just moved them together because they're similar, not because they're the same. 

[Duke Bushido]

I have to say, Sir:

 

That is quite possibly the most clear, well-written, and well-thought-out thing I have read here in some time.

 

Well done, Sir!  

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

No, not the same thing.  But Combined Attacks are a form of Multiple Attack, and are described and explained in the "Multiple Attack" section of the rules.  Look it up.  In any case, my argument is simply one of logic: Hitting people with multiple powers is heavily restricted in this form, but not another.  That's called "supporting evidence" demonstrating that my argument "combined attack should be balanced with penalties" is reasonable and according to the rules.

 

Because they are described in the "Multiple Attack" section of the rules, Combined Attacks are a form of Multiple Attack, you say?  Look it up, you say?  OK, let's look it up.  Let's look at the words that follow immediately under the heading "Combined Attack" on Page 74 of 6eV2, which, as you note, is in the middle of the discussion of Multiple Attacks.  Let me also add some bolding for emphasis, which may assist in directing your reading:

 

 

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.”

 

So the very section of the rules you tell me to "look it up" so that I can see that "Combined Attacks are a form of Multiple Attack", thus supporting your arguments, opens by specifically contradicting your basic premise - that is, it says the exact opposite of what you are arguing.  That's called "reading the words on the page", and removes any real need for supporting evidence of any sort.

 

You asked

 

On 12/2/2019 at 8:33 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Would this GM allow Multiple Attacks with a 14 DC attack?

 

See again you seem to be making my case still, that the present structure of Combined Attack is unbalanced or improperly structured.  That its utility is dangerous and troubling.  The fact that you think only someone insane would let a character use Combined Attack shows that you have a problem with it just like I do.  So how do we approach this, what can be done to make this less of a concern?

 

I answered that:

 

Quote

You reach that conclusion only by misreading my statement. 

 

Which you rebut with

 

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Really? Because you keep arguing it would be crazy to let someone do that, then proceed to say that combined attacks are fine as is and shouldn't be changed.  Literally, you said it would be insane to do so, then attack every argument I make that there needs to be some sort of penalty for doing so.

 

without reading the rest of my statement that:

 

Quote

My statement is that a GM who allows a character with a 42d6 Blast should be equally prepared to allow a character with a 14d6 Blast, 14d6 Flash and 14D6 STUN Drain, used as a combined attack.  In fact, the first will be more effective, as any game where a 42d6 Blast is not horrifically overpowered will feature defenses rendering a 14d6 Blast useless.

 

Similarly, in a game where 14d6 Blasts are the norm, a 10d6 Blast, 2d6 Sight Flash, 1d6 OCV Drain is of comparable power and identical power.  The second requires no special restrictions to balance it against the first.  For this reason, I consider your proposal (and even your fundamental objection to Combined Attacks working differently from Multiple Attacks) unbalanced and unfair.

 

 

I am challenged to understand what it is that I "keep arguing it would be crazy to let someone do".  Let me provide a list of things I think would be crazy (in all cases using the RAW for combined attacks):

 

(a)   To allow a 42d6 Blast in a typical game built around 14 DCs.

(b)  To allow three 14 DC attack powers as a Combined Attack in a typical game built around 14 DCs.

(c) To disallow three 14 DC attack powers as a Combined Attack in a game built around 42 DCs where that 42d6 Blast would be acceptable.

(d)  To disallow three attack powers totaling 14 DC as a Combined Attack in a game built around 14 DCs where a 14d6 Blast would be acceptable.

(e)  To make the use of multiple attack powers in a single attack against a single target ANY DIFFERENT from using a single attack power in a single attack against a single target.

 

If my game had a Maximum DC, I would be quite all right with a Combined Attack totaling that maximum DC.  For the reasons well articulated by Gnome, above, I would even consider Combined Attacks that exceed that maximum DC, due to the need to overcome multiple defenses.  In a game where someone decided to impose huge penalties on combined attacks, I would say "screw it" and buy one bigger attack (or a group of them in the Multipower) since the GM is clearly hell-bent on ensuring combined attacks will not be effective in his game, without making any rational, objective analysis of the actual impact of the Combined Attack rules, apparently because he is not happy with the page of the rule book Steve Long chose to put the rules for Combined Attacks on.

 

I do agree that Combined Attack and Multiple Attack should have been described separately, as completely different combat maneuvers.  That they were not presented in this manner is unfortunate, but in no way changes the reality that they are two completely different combat maneuvers.  If they were presented as a single maneuver, and it was 100% clear that RAW imposed the same penalties on a Combined Attack as it does on a Multiple Attack, I would consider that inappropriate, and would argue the same case here.

 

BTW, I was the one who suggested to Steve that, if two or more powers in a framework could legally be used at the same time, it should be possible to use the two as a Combined Attack, a suggestion I am pleased to note was incorporated into the rules.

[Tywyll]

On 11/28/2019 at 11:50 PM, 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.

 

This may have been covered elsewhere in this thread, but as I understand it, one of the big limiting factors of combined attacks was that the powers had to be bought seperately. So for example you couldn't do a combined attack that was based on Strength with another attack based on strength (like hitting someone with a kick and a weapon) unless the GM allowed it. I don't recall where that rule is, whether it was a board clarification or actually in the rules. Like you, Combined attacks have always thrown me.  

 

The best example I can think of is those rare times Superman really cut loose, flying into someone with his fists while also blasting them with his eyebeams. That would be a combined attack. 

 

In a fantasy context, it does allow monsters to do the claw,claw,bite routine of DND, as usually their claws and bite are seperate power constructs. Though not necessarily at full strength, unless you are okay with that. 

 

I suppose the risk, the why you don't do it all the time, is that you are (potentially) gambling a lot of END on a single throw of the dice. But if built properly, there is no reason not to do it all the time...however, attacks build with reduced END and all that are probably going to be less effective than those that are full strength so you would end up with less effect. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

You're stating a conclusion (Combined Attacks should take a Full Phase) as a fundamental assumption and reasoning from there instead of supporting it. 

 

Probably would help if you read up and saw the previous dozen or so posts where I spent time supporting the idea.

 

Quote

It relies on another assumption, that using more than one power at once is an advantage. 

 

Could you explain to me in what possible way hitting someone with two attacks at the same time with one attack roll is not an advantage over hitting them with one attack?  I mean I agree that your argument that two 60 active point powers is less advantageous than one 120 point attack but... that's not the argument.  That's what Hugh keeps saying but its not even part of the game.  GMs don't let people have attacks that are double the AP cap.  And even if they did you could use two of them at once with a Combined Attack and we're back at square one.

 

I gotta say though trying to argue that using two blasts at once is not an advantage is a pretty creative approach. I mean... I guess it sucks so much nobody will ever want to use this option, right?  Since its not as good as using one.

[ScottishFox]

This is a difficult thing to balance out.  Contributors on both sides have made strong arguments for and against.

 

If you don't allow it then it penalizes the character who purchased their powers outside of a framework.  They've paid more points for no additional benefit.

 

If you do allow it then a character who purchased their 10d6 Blast, 10d6 Flash, 5d6 NND and 3d6+1 RKA separately (possibly with some limitations like Foci and charges to manage costs) gets to unload all attacks simultaneously on a single target.

 

Assuming you allow Combined Attacks how do you manage the burst/alpha strike nature of all of these attacks going off simultaneously?  I feel like it works OK if the separate powers are small add-ons (4d6 Flash to go with 10d6 Blast) but rapidly breaks down if the separately purchased powers are all of equal strength.  Do you force character to put their powers in a framework?  If you have a 50AP cap for the campaign are they limited to a single attack power?

 

I don't see any easy balancing options for this approach and I do see Chris' concern.  Multiple attack is massively penalized (1/2 DCV, Full Phase, Stacking OCV penalty) while Combined Attack looks VERY abusable.

 

Great discussion though.  It's beneficial to see compelling arguments in both directions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Could you explain to me in what possible way hitting someone with two attacks at the same time with one attack roll is not an advantage over hitting them with one attack?  I mean I agree that your argument that two 60 active point powers is less advantageous than one 120 point attack but... that's not the argument.  That's what Hugh keeps saying but its not even part of the game.  GMs don't let people have attacks that are double the AP cap.  And even if they did you could use two of them at once with a Combined Attack and we're back at square one.

I am horribly confused right now.  As far as I can tell, you're arguing that 2x60AP is better than 1x60AP (obviously)?  But why in the world would a GM check off on that?  Are you assuming that the GM is a robot who blindly allows anything that fits within AP caps? 

If that's not the scenario you're presenting, please explain to me in what possible way hitting somebody with two attacks is an advantage, by providing an example.  What single power could the character have used?  What pair of powers could they have used?  Why was the pair of powers superior?  What were the campaign caps?  Why did the GM allow the pair of powers? 

 

[rravenwood]

I think Gnome has brought up a point that hasn't been emphasized enough in this particular discussion (not saying it hasn't previously been brought up, I'm just not going back through all the older posts to find examples to quote...): As always, GMs have to consider whether or not any particular character build fits within the guidelines/parameters of their campaign, which in this case includes spotting builds that could make abusive use of Combined Attacks.  I'm not arguing for or against caps in this thread, but just for the sake of example, if I have a 60 AP cap on attacks for beginning characters in my game, I would need to carefully review a character capable of using both a 12d6 Blast and a 5d6 Flash as a Combined Attack - to even consider allowing it, there would have to be some kind of mitigating Limitation(s) that would disincent casual usage of such a Combined Attack (for a couple random examples, the Flash could have 1 charge/day, or  x5 END, etc.).

 

Secondly, the Multiple Attack section of the rules (which contains the separate Combined Attack rules - I agree that this placement was unfortunate) is flagged with a big yellow warning symbol, which I suppose lends even greater weight to any particular GM's decision not to use some or all of the rules within that section.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the Combined Attack rules was a bit of a shock when coming to 6E from the older editions, where we had to take approaches such as Reduced Penetration to represent two tiger claws simultaneously raking a victim (or Speed limited to certain attack actions only [if the absolute simultaneity of the attacks wasn't necessary], or even just a bigger attack than would seem to be called for - with an SFX such as "claw-claw-bite" justifying the quantity of dice purchased), so I can certainly see that might be too great a bridge to cross for some - and absolutely no disparagement intended in that statement!  Everyone has their own preferences, is all.

 

Can we all sing "Kumbaya" now?

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/4/2019 at 9:20 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Probably would help if you read up and saw the previous dozen or so posts where I spent time supporting the idea.

 

Your "supporting of the idea" is not, in my view, supporting the idea.  Being able to use all of the points you spent on attacks at the same time is not, in my view, a clear and obvious advantage.

 

On 12/4/2019 at 9:20 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Could you explain to me in what possible way hitting someone with two attacks at the same time with one attack roll is not an advantage over hitting them with one attack?  I mean I agree that your argument that two 60 active point powers is less advantageous than one 120 point attack but... that's not the argument.  That's what Hugh keeps saying but its not even part of the game.  GMs don't let people have attacks that are double the AP cap.  And even if they did you could use two of them at once with a Combined Attack and we're back at square one.

 

The problem is that what you consider is " not the argument" is only "not your argument".  The rules themselves are independent of GM oversight.  Two 60 AP attack powers, used together, are no more problematic than a single 120 AP power used on its own.  Two 30 AP attack powers, used together, are no more problematic than a single 60 AP power used on its own.  That is the relevant comparison, contrary to your repeatedly stated disbelief.

 

Comparing a character with a single 14 DC attack power to one who has three 14 DC attack powers is not a relevant comparison.  What did the first character spend his extra 140 points on?  If he spent them on +4 SPD (40 points), +8 DCV (40 points), +20 rPD and +20rED (60 points), I submit that the fellow with the three attacks will find himself outclassed, not the other way around.

 

Prima facie, the combined attack is not advantageous.  You are assuming that the GM will permit characters to be built with an unlimited number of campaign maximum attack powers, all of which can be used at once, but will exercise judgment over all other aspects of character creation, such that the choice of having a single, much higher DC attack, a massive CV advantage, much greater defenses and/or a much higher Speed does not exist.  If you allow unbalanced characters with multiple campaign maximum attacks which can be combined, that is the same as allowing any other unbalanced character into the game.  The game is not only, primarily, or even significantly about AP caps.

 

Yes, a character who spends 210 points on attack powers  WILL pack a much higher offensive punch than a character who spent 70 points on attack powers.  To suggest otherwise would be nonsensical.  But it is just as nonsensical to suggest that the solution to the reality that spending three times as many points on some aspect of a character should not result in that character being massively more powerful in that one regard.

 

We don't allow a character to exceed the campaign maximum DCs by requiring a full phase to attack.  Nor should we.  We instead exercise governance over character construction, and do not allow characters to have unbalancingly high levels of attacks, defenses or anything else.  That properly extends to abilities with which a combined attack can be made.

 

You have steadfastly refused to answer the question of what, under your model, the character who purchased three 70 AP attacks at full cost enjoys for the extra 119 points he spent in comparison to the fellow with the same three attacks in a Multipower.  Please provide a direct answer to that question.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/4/2019 at 2:57 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

If that's not the scenario you're presenting, please explain to me in what possible way hitting somebody with two attacks is an advantage, by providing an example.  What single power could the character have used?  What pair of powers could they have used?  Why was the pair of powers superior?  What were the campaign caps?  Why did the GM allow the pair of powers?

 

I second this request for a real example where each character has spent the same number of total points.  If you want to compare a single 60 AP attack to two 60 AP attacks, show me where the first character spent the 60 points that the second spent on his second attack.

[MrAgdesh]

Has anybody running a Champions game that allows Combined Attacks found them to be overpowered? I run one and haven't, although I must admit, they don't crop up perhaps as often as they could/should mainly because my players or I forget that this is a thing from 5E onwards - despite me having reminded them. 

 

I would like to thank Tywll for pointing out the 'claw, claw bite' routine above. I haven't run FH for a good while (since 4th) and the Combined Attack makes perfect sense.

 

Chris, in regards to Western Hero for 6E, maybe make some kind of statement that Combined Attacks (no penalty) are only really appropriate for inclusion in Highly Cinematic Campaigns?

 

(I'm currently running Aces & Eights: Reloaded. Very nitty-gritty and extremely lethal once the guns come out).

[Hugh Neilson]

What kind of combined attacks would we expect to see in a Western Hero game?  I would not expect a lot of characters with, say, a tomahawk in one hand and a knife in the other, but I suppose that is possible.

 

The most likely seems like a pistol in each hand (the Two Gun Kid), so two bullets instead of one against a single target.  How would that compare to a two-handed option, such as a rifle or a shotgun?  What benefits would exist in having a free hand?  Not as many as a Fantasy warrior, who gives up a shield to wield two weapons.  Obviously, he can't reload with a pistol in each hand (or clear a jammed weapon, but that would be a change from the standard for a more realistic game, I expect).

 

Using cover and firing a pistol with each hand also seems less likely (you can't just peek out from a corner with both hands sticking out).

 

It would seem reasonable, especially in grittier games, to impose the off hand penalty (note that waiving this penalty for combined attacks is an option, not automatic under RAW).

 

I'm not big on Westerns, or versed in the tech of the day.  Are there other issues specific to Western games which would create issues with a combined attack?

[Lee]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Two 60 AP attack powers, used together, are no more problematic than a single 120 AP power used on its own.  Two 30 AP attack powers, used together, are no more problematic than a single 120 AP power used on its own. 

 

Did you mean 60 AP in the second sentence instead of 120 AP (I hope)? Or maybe "Four 30 AP attack powers..."? Otherwise, you've lost me.

[MrAgdesh]

8 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'm not big on Westerns, or versed in the tech of the day.  Are there other issues specific to Western games which would create issues with a combined attack?

 

I think that you pretty much have it as is, Hugh. Both Guns Blazing against one opponent would be the classic Western trope. For a heroic game I'd put some kind of penalty on that, but not for the 'Two-Gun Kid' in a supers/western crossover game.

 

Only other combined attack I can think of would be all the shenanigans involved in a Weird West setting.

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Lee said:

 

Did you mean 60 AP in the second sentence instead of 120 AP (I hope)? Or maybe "Four 30 AP attack powers..."? Otherwise, you've lost me.

 

Yes - I got confused somewhere.  [Although two 30 AP powers are DEFINITELY not more problematic than a single 120 AP power, that was not the comparison I was going for.

 

Thanks for the catch.

[Chris Goodwin]

Just to get terminology settled:  

• Combined Attack is what in 5th edition was called Multiple Power Attack, where you can "stack" multiple Powers into a single attack, based on the idea that you can activate any number of Powers at once, even if those are attack powers, and throw them with one attack roll. 
• Multiple Attack is now the umbrella term for what in previous editions was Multiple Move-By, Sweep, Rapid Fire, and so on, plus Combined Attack.  

 

In 6th edition, they're both under the Multiple Attack umbrella.  Notable features about this are:

• It has a yellow warning symbol
• The GM can feel free to limit it to 2-3 attacks
• "The GM can forbid any use of Multiple Attack if he feels the proposed attack defies common or dramatic sense, would cause game balance problems, involves incompatible Power Modifiers or special effects, or the like."  (6e2 p. 73)
• "The GM may rule that characters cannot use Multiple Attack with some powers or weapons — such as slings, crossbows, and some spells."  (6e2 p. 75)
• Combined Attack stacks multiple Powers into a single attack against a single target with single Attack Roll.  It specifies that a Multiple Attack can be made with a Combined Attack at the usual penalties for doing so.  

 

It's 6e2 pages 73-78, for the full section.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Just to get terminology settled:  

• Combined Attack is what in 5th edition was called Multiple Power Attack, where you can "stack" multiple Powers into a single attack, based on the idea that you can activate any number of Powers at once, even if those are attack powers, and throw them with one attack roll. 
• Multiple Attack is now the umbrella term for what in previous editions was Multiple Move-By, Sweep, Rapid Fire, and so on, plus Combined Attack.  

 

In 6th edition, they're both under the Multiple Attack umbrella.  Notable features about this are:

• It has a yellow warning symbol
• The GM can feel free to limit it to 2-3 attacks
• "The GM can forbid any use of Multiple Attack if he feels the proposed attack defies common or dramatic sense, would cause game balance problems, involves incompatible Power Modifiers or special effects, or the like."  (6e2 p. 73)
• "The GM may rule that characters cannot use Multiple Attack with some powers or weapons — such as slings, crossbows, and some spells."  (6e2 p. 75)
• Combined Attack stacks multiple Powers into a single attack against a single target with single Attack Roll.  It specifies that a Multiple Attack can be made with a Combined Attack at the usual penalties for doing so.  

 

It's 6e2 pages 73-78, for the full section.

 

 

I am going to repeat this because I think it bears it:

 

If _anyone_ ever decides to do a seventh edition, immediately after begging for forgiveness, please consider renaming these as "Multiple Target Attack" and "Multiple Powers Attack."

 

I can't help but think it would clear up a lot of confusion.

 

 

But as long as I'm here....

 

I don't often use Combined Attack, simply because it's generally not worth it.  It's a crap load of END cost for, as the mathemagicians above has pointed out, damned little payoff: while it may be only one to-hit roll, each attack applies the target's defenses separately.  Shooting a tank with _twenty_ .38 caliber revolvers isn't a damned bit more efficient than shooting it with _one_ .38 caliber revolver, unless you're wanting to burn through ammo faster.  Better to find a bigger gun.  Or a missile or something.  :/

 

We do use it once in a blue moon to combine different sorts of attacks:  An energy blast and a Flash, or a Drain and and something else, but we don't use it too terribly often even then.

 

As for sweeps and such-- well, we use those a bit, particularly for the famous speedster move-through or as actual sweeps-- you know: the leg-on-leg thing with the crouching spin.  But not often.

 

Oddly, I'd never considered using Combined Attack in place of two-gun, er... two-weapon fighting.  Though now that my eyes have opened to that, I still don't think I'd do it.  Hitting with both hand-held weapons seems....  well, I won't say wrong. Hell, it's certainly super-heroic and makes for a quicker resolution with the single roll, but that single roll loses some of the realism I like in my western games.

 

which reminds me:

 

Hugh:

 

In regard to your question about what other drawbacks there may be to using two weapons, in the case of single-action revolvers (or even dual actions, if you've enlarged the hammer a bit) you lose the option to "fan the hammer," which means you have no option to up your rate of fire.  A good shootist (you can probably find trick shot artists on youtube demonstrating this) can hold the trigger and fan his hand across the hammer, pulling it back with each finger in turn as it falls forward to fire a shot.  Think of it as more-or-less an five-shot auto fire that requires a Skill Roll.  However, it _does_ take two hands.

 

In games that allow this particular auto fire build (I allow it, but you have to buy the Skill, and using it too often does damage the weapon eventually-- as well as almost-always meaning you're empty (or down to one, if you pack all six) and have to reload), having both hands full of pistol means you max out at two shots as opposed to a potential for five.

[Hugh Neilson]

Thank you, Duke - fanning the hammer was the type of maneuver I had in my head that would not be possible with a pistol in each hand, because you needed the other hand to make that maneuver work.  Sounds like it may not be that common, though.

[Duke Bushido]

It's not.  It takes a heavily modified weapon (which makes them more problem prone) and lots of practice.  Even then, there seems to be a need for a special aptitude before the practice. 

 

Most of the people I've seen do it can consistently fire threw shots.  I target shoot with a gent who can routinely fire four (can't seem to get his rhythm right to start with his thumb), but his accuracy is _bad_ when doing it. 

 

But again, you can find video of guys who are pretty talented with it. 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, "heavily modified weapon" sounds like one of:

 

(a)   The character must have the skill to modify the pistol;

(b)   The character must pay cash for a customized weapon, after finding someone with the skill to customize it; or

(c)   The character must pay CP for specialized gear.

 

And the character needs a special skill to fan the hammer, probably a naked Autofire advantage, limited to require the heavily modified weapon and the extra hand (Gestures).

 

Alternatively, it could simply be the SFX for a Multiple Attack. 

 

It won't be common enough to balance out anything that can be done for no CP expenditure, unless we assume this is something known to pretty much all PCs, and within their capability, but not to the general population.

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry:

 

Let me clarify (I tend to omit a lot when typo g with thumbs on a touch pad, because it's so @#&*-+= irritating.

 

The weapons for trick shooting are heavily modified.  There are mods that make it a lot easier.   Anyone who really practices at it can do it with most revolvers.

[Lee]

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Yes - I got confused somewhere.  [Although two 30 AP powers are DEFINITELY not more problematic than a single 120 AP power, that was not the comparison I was going for.

 

Thanks for the catch.

 

You're welcome. And, thanks for finding me. I hate being lost. 

[steriaca]

Ok. Lets put this in the context of Western Hero ( because that is what the old timer was planning on)

 

Scenario 1: Cowboy in a one on one shootout, using Fanfire (and a triggerless six shooter) to put multiple bullets into one bad guy. This is a Combined Attack. The attack is at 1/2 phase and +0 OCV and DCV. As part of the gendra, the GM rules that guns only prepared in that way can use this rule (as Gatling Guns have the Autofire advantage and use thoes rules). Also note that he can only Fanfire six bullets, then must reload.

 

Senerios 2: Cowboy with two guns blazing in an ambush of multiple bad guys. This uses the Multiple Attack rule (1 Phase, -2OCV per extra shot, 1/2DCV), and the GM rules that only two bullets, one per gun, can be fired and used. He can this, only attack two opponents out of say four of them.

 

Hope this helps.

[ScottishFox]

10 minutes ago, steriaca said:

Ok. Lets put this in the context of Western Hero ( because that is what the old timer was planning on)

 

Scenario 1: Cowboy in a one on one shootout, using Fanfire (and a triggerless six shooter) to put multiple bullets into one bad guy. This is a Combined Attack. The attack is at 1/2 phase and +0 OCV and DCV. As part of the gendra, the GM rules that guns only prepared in that way can use this rule (as Gatling Guns have the Autofire advantage and use thoes rules). Also note that he can only Fanfire six bullets, then must reload.

 

Senerios 2: Cowboy with two guns blazing in an ambush of multiple bad guys. This uses the Multiple Attack rule (1 Phase, -2OCV per extra shot, 1/2DCV), and the GM rules that only two bullets, one per gun, can be fired and used. He can this, only attack two opponents out of say four of them.

 

Hope this helps.

 

That scenario makes Multiple Attack VERY unattractive.  Going 1/2 DCV in a gunfight when you're probably sporting 1-2 rPD at best is a recipe for disaster.

 

Realistically there's a reason you never see police or military dual wielding, but blazing two hot irons feels very genre appropriate and would hopefully be constructed in a way to be on par with the alternative.

 

This is something I've found difficult to balance right since Sweep came up in Fantasy HERO back in the 80s/90s.