Confused Old Timer

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

please explain to me in what possible way hitting somebody with two attacks is an advantage, by providing an example.

 

...are you joking?  You want me to explain how hitting someone twice is better than hitting them once????

 

Quote

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.

 

Well you can do it but it takes really fast, strong thumbs like a 13 year old girl after all her texting experience.  Realistically its not very feasible, though

 

A more realistic move is to snap the hammer back with your thumb for one shot, and then pull the trigger, ba-bam.  Extremely poor accuracy (your thumb will yank the barrel up) but works in close range and takes a really smooth, easy to work mechanism.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

You want me to explain how hitting someone twice is better than hitting them once[?]

Yes. 

On 12/4/2019 at 1:57 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

[P]lease 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?

 

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours 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.

 

I'd call example 1 a Multiple Attack - you are firing the same gun multiple times.  It could also be a character ability, like a Naked Autofire advantage.  Finally, we could consider this to simply be possible use of weapons prepared in this way.  As you are using the same gun more than once, that is not a combined attack.

 

Firing two guns, one in each hand, once each, at the same target?  Combined attack.

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

...are you joking?  You want me to explain how hitting someone twice is better than hitting them once????

 

I know I am looking for an example of a combined attack with a build you would allow, which is abusive compared to a campaign maximum DC attack (which I also expect you to set), and an idea of what the single attack user does with his extra points saved by only buying one attack. 

 

From his post above, Gnome and I are on the same page here.

[Duke Bushido]

First odf, what's wrong Christopher's post to get a down vote?  This is getting out of hand.... 

 

Moving on:

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well you can do it but it takes really fast, strong thumbs like a 13 year old girl after all her texting experience.

 

I have nothing to add here; I just thought your analogy was hilarious. 

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

A more realistic move is to snap the hammer back with your thumb for one shot, and then pull the trigger, ba-bam. 

 

 

And that's the technique I use when I'm screwing around with it, because I have discovered my fingers aren't up whacking the hammer repeatedly (I keep hitting one ot my two more arthritic knuckles) and I don't really want to put a fan hammer on any of revolvers because it's a nuisance in a shoulder harness, and tends to get a bit giggy on a traditional harness. 

 

Still, it can be done with a whole handful of fingers. 

 

I'm on a phone right now, but if I have time when I get home I will see if I can find a YouTube video I can link to.  There are a few other revolver fans at the range I attend, and a couple of them are pretty good at it, with one of them capable of getting a fair tight grouping and four shots (he can't or won't pull the hammer with his pinky finger) on a good pass (he can always get 3, which I can only manage about every fourth or fifth fan, and my grouping can spread a foot at twenty yards.  Like I said:  I'm trying to learn this trick and have only been dabbling I practice because of time issues). 

 

Here; have a trophy. 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

First odf, what's wrong Christopher's post to get a down vote?  This is getting out of hand....

 

While I am not a fan of downvotes, I am also tired of CT asking that we give careful consideration to his views, and his proposals for change, while dismissing ours with comments such as " ...are you joking? ", rather than making the same investment in working to understand where we are coming from.

 

When it is suggested that a character with three 70 AP attacks might instead have bought, and used, a 210 AP attack, this is dismissed with "that's stupid - no sane GM would allow that".  Well, if that GM restricted the second character to a single 70 AP attack, then he has 140 points to spend that our character with three 70 AP attacks does not.  What does he spend those on, to allow us to compare the two builds directly?

 

I don't see any sane GM allowing a character in a 70 AP/14DC game allowing a character with three 70 AP attacks which can be constantly used together as a combined attack either.  How is it that the same GM who would have the common sense to restrict a single huge attack would be too stupid to exercise any oversight on a character with three campaign maximum attacks?

 

What benefits does the character who spent 210 points on three 70 AP/14 DC attacks get, when compared to one who spent 91 points on a Multipower of those same three attacks (fixed slots - no point making them flexible when CT will heavily penalize the combination of two or more attack powers to make a single attack anyway) that is worth the extra 119 points spent?

 

It feels like I have asked these questions many times without the courtesy of a considered response from CT.  It looks like Gnome sees this pretty similarly.  So how about it, Christopher?  Show us the two or three comparable builds which any reasonable GM would allow, and which demonstrate the huge imbalance created by combined attacks in a campaign run by a "sane GM".  Or show us a character with a campaign max attack (full writeup), then rebuild him to have three campaign standard attacks usable as a Combined Attack routinely, so we can see how little he had to sacrifice to free up those extra points.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I am also tired of CT asking that we give careful consideration to his views, and his proposals for change, while dismissing ours with comments such as " ...are you joking? ", rather than making the same investment in working to understand where we are coming from.

...

It feels like I have asked ... questions many times without the courtesy of a considered response from CT.  It looks like Gnome sees this pretty similarly.  So how about it, Christopher?  Show us the two or three comparable builds which any reasonable GM would allow, and which demonstrate the huge imbalance created by combined attacks in a campaign run by a "sane GM".

These are basically my thoughts as well. 

On that note, Hugh, please put the telepath back where you found him.  He has crime to fight and/or commit. 

[Duke Bushido]

I get where you're coming from; really I do.

 

But there are options beyond just hitting the down vote.  My favorite personally (and one I have used regularly):  once it's clear that no one's mind is going to be changed, it's clear there's no point in continuing the conversation.  Certainly conversations can bring up related or side topics, and they can often be more productive, so chase those for a bit, as long as everyone involved is civil _and_ more or less enjoying the exchange, what's the harm?  But when you realize there's no point in continuing, and one or more of you can't retain simple respect for each other, end the conversation.  Make the (sincere) Gentlemen's offer of agreeing to disagree.  If accepted, then great: we have both agreed that we cannot agree completely with each other, but respect each other enough not to beat this horse (or each other) any longer.

 

Whether it's accepted or not, stop participating.

 

I'm in a weird position on this one, simply because I _don't_ agree with Christopher, but I _totally_ understand where he's coming from, because I was _there_!  Dude, when I read through those sections in 5e, I was _furious_!  I was like "why call it HERO?!   Why not just call it 'simulated slaughter' or 'win initiative or die instantly!'"  Now he did something I _didn't_ do, and that's ask questions on the board.  I don't know if you remember it, Hugh, but _I_ posted lengthy gripes and complaints about how each successive edition seemed more and more about how to spend the least amount of points to kill the most people, and how the whole focus of the game was shifting from being heroes to simply killing everything on a map.  There's no nice way to say it: I was _pissed_ about what I perceived to be massive changes to a game I'd played at that point for-- well let's just call it "half my life or so."   

 

Yeah....  not the smartest reaction.....

 

I didn't participate much after that, but I did read, simply because there were (and are, but many seem to be gone now) a lot of people I respected and viewed as observant and intelligent, even when I didn't agree with them.   It was reading conversations-- mostly involving Sean, Liaden, Chris Goodwin, Keith Curtis, you, and a few others that i began to think "clearly the didn't read the same damned abomination of a rules book that _I_ read!"  (for the record, I used to enjoy Ghost Angel's stuff, too: no-nonsense common-sense approach to things that I liked, but a short fuse that kept me from interacting with him a lot (I've heard tell that two short fuses are a bad thing  ).

 

The absolute hardest damned thing about the entire process was accepting that maybe _I_ had misunderstood what I read.   

 

No joke; no hyperbole.  That was _hard_.  It was (though hearing it in that voice over and over again in Princess Bride has made me _hate_ this word) _inconceivable_ that I had gotten it wrong.  It was _months_ before I got rid of the prejudice enough to divest myself of everything I _thought_ I knew about it and actually re-read it a couple of times.  Even then, I had to run some scenarios-- not in my head, but on one of my trusty "Roses" maps using some villains from the file....

 

I can't even say it just clicked.  Not until I actually sat down to (go ahead: laugh) "play with myself" and actually roll some dice that it finally clicked.

 

It wasn't even until then that I realized that like it or not, even if _had_ been problematic, the rules have allowed it for _years_:  You can have in use as many powers as you can afford (END-wise) to keep running.  You can be using Flight, ForceField, Life Support, Growth, and Density Increase all at once.  You can even add an Energy Blast in there and no one will even _suggest_ you can't do that.  You can add a Damage Shield to that and _still_ use that Energy Blast!  If  you're still covering the END bill, you can be maintaining an Area Affect Darkness (or fire, or electrical storm, or whatever) with your Flight, Force Field, Life Support, Growth, DI, and Damage Shield and _still_ fire off your Burning Eyes of Justice.

 

The rules have _always_ allowed you to use as many powers as you could fuel whenever you wanted, so long as you can keep them fueled.

 

I felt like an idiot when that revelation hit.  I tried to cover it with "No!  That's something the Harbinger of Bullets slipped in!  If that was always legal, there would have been all kinds of rules balancing the problems it creates!"  

 

To "prove" my point, I had _both_ of my weekly groups (I had two at the time.  Well, if the youth group keeps showing up at my picnic table, I guess I still do.  Sort of.    ) to have a big "prove me right, Dammit!" party, and we played straight-up unabashed arena combat for _hours_.  I was actually _angry_ to discover that----    it doesn't cause any balance issues.  :/

 

As many have pointed out: if you're character is shrugging of 12d6 attacks, he's going to keep shrugging them off.  Hit him with one every other Segment or hit him with six on this Phase, he's going to shrug them off.  The only real "advantage" is the potential for a good tactician to pop in something surprising, like a Flash or a Drain along with his Lightning Bolt.  Even then, you're only setting him up for the _next_ attack, as no GM is going to rule the "Drain: ED" took effect _before_ a simultaneous attack landed, and his DCV was full when you launched that attack, so the Flash (if successful) is only good for the next guy; not for you.

 

 

 

Dude, it's unpleasant to learn someone made you wrong, but I can't stress enough how much it sucks to realize that you did it yourself, or even how difficult it is to admit that the _possibility_ is strong enough to go back and try to "understand differently."

 

For me, it was another "Haymaker moment."  Haymaker was, for us, always, a maneuver you could use with a punch.  Why?  Well because we all know what a haymaker actually _is_: it's an uppercut that starts at the knees; it's a good old-fashioned from-behind-the-spine roundhouse swing.  Hell, the first few editions specifically spelled out "it's a kind of punch that...."

 

I remember reading on the old Red October boards (when I first got online) something along the lines of "but if he haymakered his optic blast" and thinking What the *((^%%% is this jackass talking about?!  You can't haymaker an optic blast!

 

Then I thought "well...  why can't you?  Mechanically, a haymakered punch is a kick.  Why can't you "haymaker" a kick?  Why can't you haymaker something else?  (to be fair, we _still_ don't play it that way, but we do accept it as valid).

 

 

the multi / combined stuff?  It was a lot like that.

 

AND IT SUCKED!

 

Yeah; I agree that he could be a little more civil and less insulting in his reply / rebuttals, but I totally get where he's at right now.

 

 

 

Also:

 

Evidently since Bob Munden's death, his youtube channel has be managed by someone else.  Most of the videos I used to really enjoy are gone, including the one I was looking for where he _explained_ "Sure; everyone knows you can thumb the hammer, or fan it with your thumb.  But you've got four more fingers....."   There are a couple of other guys I was looking for (I promised Christopher I would make the effort to find a video akin to what I was talking about), but one has evidently deleted  his account or had it removed for him, and I just can't find the other one.  I did find some smarmy guy called "Cisko; Master Gunman" or something like that.  He doesn't have a video of himself doing it, but I notice that in most of his fanning videos, he _is_ wearing a glove with metal reinforced fingers, as if he's been practicing it.  (haven't tried it that way, and likely won't, as I don't want to have to stop and say "wait!  Let me get my glove!"  I found him doing one fanning that gives the impression of _starting_ that way, but after the first pass it's straight on index finger over and over and over at ludicrous speeds.  It's like he got two then fumbled the third and gave up trying for that particular video.

 

 

Oh, and Christopher:

 

I missed this when I was reading at break today, but the technique you described is the other way around.  You start with the revolver cocked, and pull the trigger.  As you're pulling the trigger, start the fan; you want to catch it just as the hammer falls for the first shot then fan it for the second.  Doing it the other way just incases the chance your going to try to rotate the cylinder while you're fanning or just bind everything up and have to stop and do some quick smithing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Nope, still  not overly sympathetic.  I've been there too.  Mine was Killing Attacks.

 

Never saw the issue.  They weren't really a problem in Supers.

 

They were not a problem in our games, because our players "rarely to never" used them against living targets.  Helpful to break out of Entangles, take down automatons, etc. but the living villains were targeted with normal attacks.  So in my mind, they simply were not a problem.

 

Except they were.  It took someone on these Boards, quite a few years back, who made me look at the math.  Sure, the average STUN was a bit lower than a normal attack, but that was before defenses.  There was a breakpoint of defenses where the KA passed more STUN along than a normal attack - and it had a far better chance to stun the target.

 

And then I had to think about all the mooks I armed with KAs because a few will get some STUN damage past those Super defenses when an equivalent  Normal attack never would.  So I was abusing it, I just never realized it (and, of course, as GM it was not my goal to overpower the PCs anyway).

 

I'm grateful to the poster who made me look at the math, and see past my own experience to the reality.  If we want to engage in meaningful discussions, we have to be prepared to have our views questioned.  And even question our own views.

 

Still not a "downvote" fan -  but I can see why other people may use them.   Maybe someone will sell me on those someday as well...but I doubt it.

[steriaca]

Anyone remember the Fanfire rule from Western Hero?

[Hugh Neilson]

DId not find a fan fire rule, but...

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Nope, still  not overly sympathetic.  

 

In fairness to me, I did not intend to imply that I am sympathetic, either.  I was, but I lost that when interest in actual discussion disappeared.  I am, however, still _empathetic_, just because I vividly remember how it was. 

 

Given that, I'm inclined to either try to help (to a point) or walk away rather than complain about him not taking the help.  I mean, at that point, you're giving him something he clearly doesn't want in the first place; why down him for not taking it?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I don't really want to put a fan hammer on any of revolvers because it's a nuisance in a shoulder harness, and tends to get a bit giggy on a traditional harness. 

 

Its really bad for your gun too.

 

But you are supposed to do this kind of thing on a single action revolver.  A double action revolver will cock and isn't able to snap the hammer freely,

 

Quote

I am also tired of CT asking that we give careful consideration to his views, and his proposals for change, while dismissing ours with comments such as " ...are you joking? "

 

I'm sorry, that came across a bit strong but... seriously?  I didn't mean to be mocking, just... jaw dropping amazement.

 

There is zero support or logic in any remotest sense to saying blasting someone once with a blast is superior to basting them more than once.  That makes no sense at all no matter how you look at it.  I was trying to make sure that I had this correct because its like asking why its a bad idea to hit your thumb with a hammer.  This is not even something worthy of discussion.

 

What on earth could possibly prompt someone to suggest that hitting an opponent twice is not better than hitting them once?  Do you stop the fight after a single blow?  Do you not charge an advantage for autofire?  Do you think that multiple attacks aren't worth penalties because its worse to hit the same target more than once (you can do that with multiple attack, you realize, yes?). 

 

Quote

I know I am looking for an example of a combined attack with a build you would allow

 

For the last time at no point have I ever suggested I don't want to allow Combined Attacks.  Ever.  In any way.  No matter how you read it.  The only thing I've ever said is that this is a maneuver that should carry some sort of penalty.  That this is part of the rules and I'm fine with it existing but that its build improperly and should have a drawback to offset its blatantly obvious advantage.

 

Do you see how this could possibly get frustrating and annoying to me?  To have you repeatedly mis-characterize what I'm saying?  It almost seems as if you're not relay reading what I write and are just arguing your own point while claiming that you understand fine but disagree.

 

So I'm just going to move on.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

I agree, and that's my concern.  This is a good overall wrap up of the problems and the discussion broken down to the actual subject rather than heated personalities and side tracking.  Although nobody that I saw ever suggested doing away with Combined Attacks entirely, just finding some way to balance it out.

 

It seems absurd to not use every single phase, since there's really nothing at all to stop you and all the benefit in the world.

 

Yet penalizing it causes problems with linked powers.  How to work that out?

To me, instead of going "I'm going to nitpick and find technicalities" the best topic for discussion would be "how can we find a way to make this rule better constructed?" 

 

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, steriaca said:

Anyone remember the Fanfire rule from Western Hero?

 

There weren't any. 

Well, there was "firing two shots," for a typical fanned second shot. 

 

If you're interested:

 

We did it as a Skill that granted something akin to auto fire (five shots). 

Essentially, roll the skill.  For each two points you succeeded by, you could fire off an additional shot.  First shot (the initial trigger pull) was unmodified; each successive hit was at - 1.(realistically, it should have been - 2, but read on about wasted shots. ) as soon as you missed, all subsequent shots missed. 

 

Whatever your success turned out to be, you popped off that many shots.  If you missed the second shot but your skill roll said you fired four shots, then you spent those other shots.  Track your ammo, track your expense. 

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm sorry, that came across a bit strong but... seriously?  I didn't mean to be mocking, just... jaw dropping amazement.

 

There is zero support or logic in any remotest sense to saying blasting someone once with a blast is superior to basting them more than once.  That makes no sense at all no matter how you look at it.  I was trying to make sure that I had this correct because its like asking why its a bad idea to hit your thumb with a hammer.  This is not even something worthy of discussion.

 

What on earth could possibly prompt someone to suggest that hitting an opponent twice is not better than hitting them once?  Do you stop the fight after a single blow?  Do you not charge an advantage for autofire?  Do you think that multiple attacks aren't worth penalties because its worse to hit the same target more than once (you can do that with multiple attack, you realize, yes?). 

 

Hitting someone more than once means dealing more damage each phase.  Hitting them only once means dealing less damage each phase.  This is simple arithmetic and not even worth discussing.

 

So I'm just going to move on

On 12/3/2019 at 2:10 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

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.

On 12/4/2019 at 1:57 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

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?

 

Answer the question please!  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Anyone remember the Fanfire rule from Western Hero?

 

Fanning the Hammer didn't come up, and its not in the main rules either.  My solution was to give it a +1 OCV (only for Multiple Attacks, thus it slightly offsets MA penalties) at the expense of causing damage to your weapon if you do it too much.  A couple shots, probably okay but each shot has a chance of causing your gun to be damaged and not function.

 

Edit: I like Duke's idea quite a bit, as it requires less technical focus on the survival of the gun, avoids the baggage of Multiple Attacks (and all the penalties it entails) and seems like it represents Fanning the Hammer a bit better.  I'll give it some thought, whether that requires a skill or should just be a familiarity (I mean, anyone could try it).

 

As a side note, here's the text for using two guns:
 

Quote

A character using a second melee weapon, a cape -- like a matador uses - or any other sort of parrying implement in his off hand gets a +1 DCV vs melee attacks.  A character carrying two weapons may attack with the off hand weapon (instead of his regular attack), and the GM may give a surprise attack bonus for such an attack.  Remember that the off hand attacks take a -3 OCV penalty (Unless the attacker has Ambidexterity).

 

Character can simulate two-gun attacks by drawing two pistols and firing each alternatively.  one common technique actually used by many gunfighters in the old west was to draw the gun on his right hip and fire it at his opponents.  He would the holster the empty pistol while drawing the gun on his left hip, toss the loaded gun into his right hand, and begin firing again.

This technique, called a "border shift" allows a character to fire up to twelve bullets in a row without a break and with no OCV penalty for shooting with his off hand.

 

As you'll note, before 5th edition there was no idea of firing the same attack over and over in the same phase which is why it was such a shock when the rules came out and it was said that his was always possible.

 

[Chris Goodwin]

29 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

As you'll note, before 5th edition there was no idea of firing the same attack over and over in the same phase which is why it was such a shock when the rules came out and it was said that his was always possible.

 

 

Uhhh...

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Uhhh...

 

Sigh, yes sweep existed, but in the context of this thread... multiple attack and combined attacks weren't a thing until they suddenly showed up. 

[PhilFleischmann]

I wouldn't allow a two-gun attack to be a Combined Attack if the character didn't pay points for those guns.  And even if he did, it still doesn't sit right to me that two different bullets, from two different guns, use the same hit roll, so that either they both hit or both miss.

 

The Two-Weapon Fighting skill is certainly available, and various other similar options.

 

And if I may, allow me to take a shot (no pun intended) at rephrasing the earlier question:

 

Please explain in what possible way hitting somebody with two 50-point attacks is an advantage over hitting somebody with one 100-point attack?

[PhilFleischmann]

Oh, and one other thing, somewhat relevant to Western Hero, regarding the penalties of Multiple Attacks:  Coming in guns-a-blazin' is rather dangerous against multiple opponents, due to your reduced DCV, but it might still be a viable move in a "cinematic" sense, because it can be combined with a Presence Attack, so that all your opponents hesitate, or spend their phases dodging or diving for cover (which they might do anyway, even without a Presence Attack).  Likewise, if you're the hero with  a significantly higher SPD and DCV than these mooks.  And Combat Luck, and whatever else a PC hero has that NPC fodder don't.

[Joe Walsh]

19 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Then I thought "well...  why can't you?  Mechanically, a haymakered punch is a kick.  Why can't you "haymaker" a kick?  Why can't you haymaker something else?  (to be fair, we _still_ don't play it that way, but we do accept it as valid).

 

My response to that was the same as yours. "WTF? 4e, p 154 says, 'This is basically an all-out punch, and takes an extra segment to execute.' In what world does that imply that it can be used for lightning bolts, etc.??" And then, on reflection, "Well, the risk/reward is the same either way, so I guess extending it makes sense."

 

Like you, we still don't play it that way, but accept it as valid.

 

And that's one of the hardest things about being online: accepting that your ways aren't the only ways, and that others doing things in other ways that work for them is fine.  

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm sorry, that came across a bit strong but... seriously?  I didn't mean to be mocking, just... jaw dropping amazement.

 

There is zero support or logic in any remotest sense to saying blasting someone once with a blast is superior to basting them more than once.  That makes no sense at all no matter how you look at it.  I was trying to make sure that I had this correct because its like asking why its a bad idea to hit your thumb with a hammer.  This is not even something worthy of discussion.

 

What on earth could possibly prompt someone to suggest that hitting an opponent twice is not better than hitting them once?  Do you stop the fight after a single blow?

 

You are assessing the situation in a vacuum.  Sure, hitting with two 14 DC attacks is better than hitting once with a 14 DC attack.  The character had to pay full points for a second 14 DC attack.  It should be better.  Similarly, a character who pays for a 28 DC attack has spent a lot more CP than one who has paid for a 14 DC attack.  Should there be a requirement to use a full phase and take OCV penalties if you spent more points, and bought a single attack with more DCs than the other character has?

 

This is why we keep saying "show me what the fellow who does NOT have two 70 AP attacks to fire off together spent the extra points on.  The fellow who did has a significant offensive advantage.  But what did the other fellow spend his 70 points on?  If he spent it on Desolid and +3 SPD, I think the advantage shifts back to him.

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Do you not charge an advantage for autofire? 

 

This is another example of paying extra points to get an extra attack.  It is a very good comparable to your proposal, actually.  Let's compare:

 

For 140 points, Character A can buy two more 14 DC attacks, and use all three together as a Combined Attack.

 

For 17 points (a +1/4 advantage on a 70 AP attack), Character B can buy 3-shot autofire for his 14 DC attack.  Character B can target different targets with each shot (within pretty tight limits, but Character A can't do that at all).  That leaves him another 123 points he can spend, compared to Character A. Let's spend 4 points for +4 OCV with that one autofire attack.  Now, Character A and B still need the same roll to hit with three shots, but Character B will sometimes hit with one or two shots when character A misses entirely.

 

Character B still has 119 points left over, to spend as he sees fit.  He could spend 87 points to buy a second 70 AP attack with 3 shot Autofire, and another 4 for +4 OCV with that one.  He gets two 70 AP attacks that both hit 3 times compared to Character A landing hits with three 70 AP powers.  And he still has 18 points left over, which he can invest in some extra END, as he will go through END faster than Character A.

 

Or he could spend his 119 extra points on, say, +3 SPD, +5 DCV, +20 PD, +20 ED, and 24 points worth of END.

 

I do not see that Combined Attack making Character A markedly more powerful.  Do you?

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Do you think that multiple attacks aren't worth penalties because its worse to hit the same target more than once (you can do that with multiple attack, you realize, yes?).

 

The character using Multiple Attack to fire his 70 AP attack off three times saved 140 points compared to our Combined Attacker.  He did not pay points to get that ability, unlike the Combined Attacker or the Autofirer.  Instead, he takes combat penalties.

 

Let's use 10 of those points to buy Rapid Attack (Multiple Power attacks now take only a half phase), and 20 more to buy +10 OCV with that attack power.  Oh, look - he can use his attack three times with a much better chance to hit, and he has 110 points more than our combined attacker left over.  Let's spend a bunch on +12 DCV.  I bet his DCV when using Multiple Attack (halved DCV) is better than the Combined Attacker.  And he has another 50 points left over (more if we limited his extra DCV to only apply when Multiple Attacking, and made his extra OCV into Penalty Skill Levels instead of 2 point skill levels). 

 

Yet it is the Combined Attacker that you consider overpowered and want to penalize.  Maybe we should be asking whether you are joking!

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

For the last time at no point have I ever suggested I don't want to allow Combined Attacks.  Ever.  In any way.  No matter how you read it.  The only thing I've ever said is that this is a maneuver that should carry some sort of penalty.  That this is part of the rules and I'm fine with it existing but that its build improperly and should have a drawback to offset its blatantly obvious advantage.

 

I suggest the above demonstrates that your perception of a blatantly obvious advantage is rebutted by actually doing the math instead of just repeating how you must be right and anyone who does not see that must be joking or an idiot may be less than correct.

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Do you see how this could possibly get frustrating and annoying to me?  To have you repeatedly mis-characterize what I'm saying?  It almost seems as if you're not relay reading what I write and are just arguing your own point while claiming that you understand fine but disagree.

 

So I'm just going to move on.

 

I find I can add little to the above.  Perhaps if you had done the same elementary math I just did above, after being asked several times and dismissing the requests as just ignoring your clearly correct perceptions, we could have avoided some frustrations and annoyance for everyone involved.  Or am I missing something blatantly obvious here?

 

Let's move on.

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I agree, and that's my concern.  This is a good overall wrap up of the problems and the discussion broken down to the actual subject rather than heated personalities and side tracking.  Although nobody that I saw ever suggested doing away with Combined Attacks entirely, just finding some way to balance it out.

 

It seems absurd to not use every single phase, since there's really nothing at all to stop you and all the benefit in the world.

 

It is absurd not to use it if you dropped the points required to use it.  Just as many find it absurd to fire off an 8d6 Blast, rather than a 14d6 Blast every phase when they paid for a 14d6 Blast.  Assuming a spare 140 points lying around doing  nothing, it seems absurd to leave the Blast at 14d6 and not just buy it up to 42d6, doesn't it?  We rely on player restraint and GM oversight to curb the tendency to make overpowered characters, at least when the limited resource of character points is not enough, on its own, to curb the excess.

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yet penalizing it causes problems with linked powers.  How to work that out?

 

Linked is a red herring.  If three 14DC powers fired off at once is a problem or at a minimum is something it would be stupid not to do every phase, Linking them does not solve the problem, and is not really limiting since you would always fire off all three at once even if they were not linked.

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

To me, instead of going "I'm going to nitpick and find technicalities" the best topic for discussion would be "how can we find a way to make this rule better constructed?"

 

To me, before we ask "how can we find a way to make this rule better constructed?", we should first assess whether the present construction is, in fact, flawed.  In my view, and I believe in Gnome's, it is not poorly constructed.  We expressed that view, set out our reasoning (at least in part) and asked you for examples that support your contention that the rule is deeply flawed.  You provided none, because it is "clearly obvious" that you must be right, so only a fool would request evidence.

 

So please enlighten me with the blatantly obvious flaws in my analysis above, which suggests that what you find "blatantly obvious" is, in fact, fallacious when reviewed objectively.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

You are assessing the situation in a vacuum.  Sure, hitting with two 14 DC attacks is better than hitting once with a 14 DC attack

 

And that was the question, which I could not believe anyone would even consider asking.

 

Quote

I suggest the above demonstrates that your perception of a blatantly obvious advantage is rebutted by actually doing the math instead of just repeating how you must be right and anyone who does not see that must be joking or an idiot may be less than correct.

 

Tell you what.  You apologize for repeatedly claiming I am saying something I am not, and stop claiming it... and I will yet again go through how Combined Attack needs to be changed like I did for two pages previous so you can see it again.

 

Int he meantime maybe you could go over and ask yourself why it is only you and Gnome seem to think its perfectly fine as is.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I wouldn't allow a two-gun attack to be a Combined Attack if the character didn't pay points for those guns.  And even if he did, it still doesn't sit right to me that two different bullets, from two different guns, use the same hit roll, so that either they both hit or both miss.

 

The Two-Weapon Fighting skill is certainly available, and various other similar options.

 

I agree with the issue.  I see a few possible solutions:

 

(a)  Allow the "combined attack" for attacking the same target with multiple weapons, but you roll a separate to hit roll for each weapon (allowing the potential that one hits and the other misses).  Off hand penalties would also be reasonable.  This could also be applied with foci the character paid for.

(b)   Part of "real weapon" (and the lack of CP invested) is that these items cannot be used as part of a "combined attack" maneuver.  It has to be a Multiple Attack.

(c)   Accept the single roll as a simplifying assumption (does not sit well with me either, though).

(d)   Most people can't do combined attacks, but PCs and some notable NPCs are made of sterner stuff, so allow it (combined with (a) or (c), above).

(e)   Make Combined Attack a form of martial maneuver and charge CP to make it available with a specific combination, right up to any combination, as suits the campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/7/2019 at 5:09 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

And that was the question, which I could not believe anyone would even consider asking.

 

 

Gnome asked

 

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

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? 

 

 

You cropped off all of the context, quoted a fraction of his question, and asked if he was joking.  You continue to proceed on the basis that the only relevant comparison is two virtually identical characters, with the sole exception being that one can use his campaign max attack twice a phase and the other cannot.  However, the only way that can happen is if the first has enough extra points over the second to purchase a second campaign max attack outside any framework.  Those characters are not comparable.  They are not a reasonable comparison to assess whether Combined Attack is, or is not, overpowered.

 

On 12/7/2019 at 5:09 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Tell you what.  You apologize for repeatedly claiming I am saying something I am not, and stop claiming it... and I will yet again go through how Combined Attack needs to be changed like I did for two pages previous so you can see it again.

 

It seems obvious that you have not actually read my post above. 

 

I did read all of yours.  Reading them again will not cause me to agree with your misconceptions any more than it did the first several times.  In fact, parsing through the autofire and multiple attack mechanics have reinforced my view that your belief that Combined Attack requires drawbacks to be balanced is 100% wrong.

 

Rather than barfing back your presumption Combined Attack is a problem because Christopher R Taylor ("CRT") perceives it as a problem one more time, I will ask, again, that you "please show us the two campaign-appropriate characters with equal points, one of whom has three campaign-maximum attacks he can use as a combined attack at his discretion, and the other who spent his points somewhere else, and can only use one campaign-maximum attack at a time".

 

I provided a few comparables above.  I believe they adequately support my view that Combined Attack is not in need of any modification.  Please provide me with your examples not just your rhetoric - demonstrating that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

To be blunt, the only view I have expressed on this thread that you have given me any cause to question is my personal dislike of downvoting.

 

On 12/7/2019 at 5:09 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Int he meantime maybe you could go over and ask yourself why it is only you and Gnome seem to think its perfectly fine as is.

 

We are?  If I include anyone who does believe Combined Attack is unbalanced as is and mandates further restrictions, whether those CRT proposes or otherwise, or I have otherwise misrepresented you, please note below and I will delete any reference to your prior posts that follow:

 

Clipped from a much longer discussion of his own analysis of the change from 5e onwards:

On 11/28/2019 at 10:33 PM, Duke Bushido said:

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 later commends Gnome on his very well laid-out comment supporting the status quo at the second post on Page 3, which opens quoting you (CRT) saying " With this information in mind, let's think this through carefully and rationally. "

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Seems supportive of the status quo:

On 12/2/2019 at 11:38 AM, Guest Usagi said:

The problem here is that you've crippled people's ability to make a lot of pretty normal, routine attacks.  Hugh gave the example of the rattlesnake, but the examples are effectively endless.  Flaming swords are now slower than non-flaming swords, poisoned daggers slower than unpoisoned daggers, etc.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Genre-specific disallowance of both Combined and Multiple Attacks (note that the last point also attracted the question of whether the spells had Gestures, Incantations, etc. which would presumably limit the ability to cast several at the same time).

On 12/2/2019 at 7:44 AM, ScottishFox said:

 

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).

 

In my current campaign all spells are bought outside of power frameworks and here's a scenario I wouldn't allow - ever.

 

Wizard:  DM - I'm going to cast all of my spells on the Orc King.

DM:  Which spell?

Wizard:  ALL of them.

 

And then the Orc King is magic missile'd, fire balled, lightning bolted, scorching ray'd, etc. ??

But is clearly not sold on either view:

 

On 12/4/2019 at 9:56 AM, ScottishFox said:

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

******************************************************************************************************************

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.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

General disallowance of both Combined and Multiple Attacks

On 12/2/2019 at 8:11 AM, Tech said:

I'd throw my 2 cents in but we never allow Combined Attacks or Multiple Attacks, short of autofire in the campaign I'm in.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Seeking examples that demonstrate this is a problem:

On 12/5/2019 at 3:01 AM, MrAgdesh said:

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.

 

Those were the ones I spotted on a quick pass through.  Others have not expressed an opinion (whether "OK as is", "desperately needs fixing" or "not really sure", but have provided significant contributions clarifying the rules, and their history.  Thanks for those comments as well.

 

Clearly, Gnome and I do not see the status quo as unbalanced.  You, CRT, are the only poster I saw who has stated that there is a crying need to limit Combined Attack, especially in comparison to Multiple Attack, by adding new drawbacks.  Do you see someone I do not who has clearly expressed that view?

 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

(c)   Accept the single roll as a simplifying assumption (does not sit well with me either, though).

 

 

Serious question:

 

how do you feel about a build for double the DC with the "Reduced Penetration" limitation?  Perhaps even "requires two guns" or "gestures" or something to indicate that both hands are firing a weapon and "x2 END" or "uses two Charges / rounds" or something like that.  This gives effectively the same results (with the odd "and both rolls produced identical damage!" side-effect), and for a single attack roll.

 

I ask because I have seen it used a few times to indicate a two-gun fighter with no off-hand penalties, or who has such"flawless aim" that both projectiles will hit the exact same spot, every time.

 

If this sits differently with you, then please explain.

 

 

Thanks ahead of time.