Jump to content

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

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.  :)

 

Me thinks that should be under "Cinematic Cowboy Powers", like how Martial Arts Powers are in HERO System Martial Arts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 ass

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 th

Okay, let me take a stab at this.   These are my assumptions of what is written.   First to define Combined attack we should look at what it won't let you do. It won't let yo

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

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.  :)

 

 

A lot depends on how the builds are done.  This is basically the result of a Combined Attack with two guns (other than the identical damage rolls) and reasonably simulates the same thing.   However, it means the character has to pay for his guns with CP.  Is that fair in a game where everyone else just spends $$?

 

As a build, however, it simulates the desired effect reasonably well, so I'd have no issue with it.  It's far from the only "multiple attack" construct simulated with Reduced Penetration.

 

However, if I had a problem with "either both hit or both miss" for a combined attack, I'd have the same problem here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, steriaca said:

Me thinks that should be under "Cinematic Cowboy Powers", like how Martial Arts Powers are in HERO System Martial Arts.

 

 

Well to be fair, I use it in Westerns as a gunfighter-type build.  Not a lot, but for the reasons mentioned, I have used it.

 

However, I find it (in my games) most often in cyberpunk, with the justification of smart-guns and things like that.  The two-gun fighter who can "see" through the gun scope as it feeds information to the neural implant in his eye; that sort of thing.

 

 

Thanks, Hugh.

 

I was just curious about your reaction to this given that comment of yours I'd quoted when I asked.  Thank you again.

 

 

Duke

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about stuff like naked advantages for up to 2d6 Killing Attack, and added limitations. But I honestly don't know what advantage would be good enough to add Reduced Penetration to.

 

Another "Gun Trick" is the bouncing bullet trick (Indirect, with advance versions with variations of Autofire with the 'advantage' being only one bullet fired).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martial Arts appropriate for Western Hero, via HERO System Martial Arts book.

 

Bojutsu (Staff-fighting) p.23.

Boxing, Modern p.24-25

Capella, p.26

Dirty Infighting (Fisticuffs/Cinematic Brawling) p.27-28

Fencing p.29-31

Jailhouse Rock (Prison Brawling) p.35

Jujutsu p.36-38

Jukenjutsu (Bayonet Fighting) p.38

Karate p.39-41

Kenjutsu (only appropriate in a Last Samurai senerio) p.41-43

Knifefighting p.44

Kung Fu p.45-50

Kyujutsu (Bow Mastery. Indjin Bowmanship) p.51

Lua p.52-53

Lucha Libre p.53

Ninjutsu (only appropriate in a Last Samurai campaign) p.56-58

Sambo, p.64

Savate p.65-66

Stickfighting p.66-67

Swordfighting p.68

Weapons Combat p.72-73

Whipfighting p.73

Wrestling p.74

Wrestling, Professional p.74-75

Brick Tricks (Brute Force Fighting) p.79

Gun Fu p.82

Red In Tooth And Claw p.84

 

Western Hero and Martial Arts p.240

 

Hope I can help.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, steriaca said:

I was thinking about stuff like naked advantages for up to 2d6 Killing Attack,

 

Not gonna lie:  I have a personal distaste for naked advantages in "normal humans" type games.  Fantasy, sci-fi (all permutations), etc-- well, then it's still case-by case, but normal human stuff like Westerns and Daredevils?  I don't know.  I don't generally like or allow it.  No; I am not arguing against the legality: I _know_ it's rules-legal.  I'm arguing partly against the validity, and partly against the over-all feel.

 

That being said, I would like to point out that I am not arguing that the end effect is inappropriate.  I just feel-- much like my Hammer Fanning skill mentioned above (there is a long-gun version of that for the two revolving rifles that were more widespread during the era, but it requires you spend the money to modify the rifle to give you an open hammer.  I can't recommend the rifles, though, as they were famous for burning your bracing hand as the exhaust gasses vented in the open air between the cylinder and the barrel- you know: right behind and aiming at your bracing hand. ;)--

 

sorry; let me re-state that, as the digression was longer than the actual thought  :lol:

 

I prefer in "normal human stuff" that the end effect be achieved with a custom Skill that achieves that same effect.  It reduces that feel of "is this a super power or just magic?" and turns it more into a "_damn_ that guy is _good_" kind of feel.  I mean, with a naked Advantage, there's no chance that he's _not_ going to pull it off flawlessly.  Even if his skill rolls is 24 or less, there's still that 18 to wreck his day.....

 

 

--- this one is also a "just me" thing:

 

The only time I'd allow "aiming a ricochet" is if I was playing magical cowboys, comedy western, or freakin' Roy-Rogers hundred-shot revolver type stuff.   :rofl:

 

Or an actual cowboy-themed superhero in Champions

 

 

 

(you forgot "Indian Wrestling." ;)  )

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Clearly, Gnome and I do not see the status quo as unbalanced.

And neither do I.  I was a bit surprised by it when I first read it, but it almost never came up in my games (as a player or as a GM), because pretty much everyone had all their attack powers in a multipower, so they could only use one at a time anyway.  But yeah, if you paid full price for a Blast, Flight, and Force Field, you should be able to use them all at the same time, without any restrictions or Extra Time needed, or reduced DCV, or anything else.  And if you paid full price for any three other powers, you should be able to use them all at the same time, even if they're all attacks.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

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.

My only problem with it is a thematic/realism problem, not a rules problem or a balance problem.  Technically, if the character paid the points, he can do it.  I might not let him buy such a construct, but only for genre restrictions, not because the build is in any way problematic according to the rules - it's a perfectly fine build.  OTOH, I've never actually run a Western Hero game.  I would also let a character buy 2-shot Autofire as a nekkid advantage, requires two guns - one in each hand, to reflect such an ability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the most expensive handgun in 6e v2 has 37 AP.  That’s a 2d6 RKA with a +1 Stun Multiple but -1 OCV.  The .45 Colt Peacemaker is 2d6-1 with a +1 Stun Multiple.  So let’s use 37 AP as our baseline.

 

We’d need a 4d6 RKA, +1 Stun Multiple (75 AP), OIF (any two pistols; -1/2), Reduced Penetration (-1/4), Damage limited to the sum of the two guns in use (say-1/4), adds “2 charges per use” (-1/4).  That’s 33 real points.

 

The Naked Advantage approach requires Autofire on up to 37 AP, so 9 points, plus 2 PSLs to “offset” the Autofire penalty with pistols (so 4 more points).  That’s 13 real points.

 

Or we can buy Rapid Attack, Ranged only (5 points), +2 PSLs to offset the Multiple Attack penalties (4 points) and, say, +5 DCV (only when Multiple Attacking, -1/2, so 17 points) for a total of 26 real points.  The limitation on only when multiple attacking is debatable, obviously.

 

For 33 points, he could have bought 11 Skill Levels with Pistols, which is enough to add 5 DCs to every pistol shot and get +1 OCV or DCV.  26 points would get him 8 levels and +1 OCV with pistol shots, so +4 DC with all pistols fired.  For 13 points, he would only get 4 skill levels with pistols (and 1 point left over), so 2 DCs.

 

Given the much greater versatility of skill levels, I am inclined to say that the Naked Autofire is the more reasonable cost.

 

Make it a 13 point Talent to hide the build and it becomes a SuperSkill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I find this a fascinating and productive discussion, there is a rule that you are all overlooking that does bear on it.

 

6th Edition has a rule that allows you to build a second copy of a power for 5 points. It's there in HD for every attack power.

While I still feel a good GM would bring out the "black marker of doom" if they saw this on a sheet without a good amount of vetting and discussion beforehand, it does allow the hypothetical abusive Combined Attack for very few points.

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

Plus Capoeira. There was even an episode of Kung Fu where Caine encounters a capoeirista. 

Yes. I'll add Capoeira.

 

Technically almost all martial arts pre-20th century is "available", but depending on the exact campaign, may not be available. For example, you could want to play a displaced Russian who knows Sambo. It might be acceptable in a campaign set in Alaska/Canada, but explain why a Russian is wandering the old west...

 

Then again, I said Lua is acceptable, and in that time period is only limited to Hawaiians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugh:

 

You're not wrong. 

 

But that's not how I built it.  Firstly, there's no "rapid attack" before 5e (unless I'm mis-remembering 4e, which is quite possible, as I don't use it very often). 

 

I've got errands to run and a deck to re-level today (not mine), but when I get a few minutes, l will try to get together a walk-through on how I did it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Grailknight said:

While I find this a fascinating and productive discussion, there is a rule that you are all overlooking that does bear on it.

 

6th Edition has a rule that allows you to build a second copy of a power for 5 points. It's there in HD for every attack power.

While I still feel a good GM would bring out the "black marker of doom" if they saw this on a sheet without a good amount of vetting and discussion beforehand, it does allow the hypothetical abusive Combined Attack for very few points.

I can find the +5 to double rule for Followers, Bases, Vehicles, Multiforms, Duplicates but not as a general rule for powers.  What page is that on? 

E: Ah, it's in 6e2 (WHY?).  That explains why I didn't find it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Grailknight said:

While I find this a fascinating and productive discussion, there is a rule that you are all overlooking that does bear on it.

 

6th Edition has a rule that allows you to build a second copy of a power for 5 points. It's there in HD for every attack power.

While I still feel a good GM would bring out the "black marker of doom" if they saw this on a sheet without a good amount of vetting and discussion beforehand, it does allow the hypothetical abusive Combined Attack for very few points.

 

IIRC, that rule applies to foci, not natural abilities.  There it is - p 181, the "doubling rule".

 

Quote

Characters may not apply the 5-point doubling rule to innate powers or abilities.

 

That always struck me as an unreasonable distinction unless it is used only to provide backups.

 

I recall applying it some years ago for a "most abusive character" discussion.  Combine Extra Limbs with a Mandarin-type idea...4 finger rings on each hand that have Attack multipowers, and a ring on each thumb providing a small amount of defenses.

 

The Hundred Handed Mandarin becomes remarkably effective as each 5 points doubles each ring...

 

Of course, it is pretty easy to simply rule that multiple copies of the same focus cannot be used at the same time (or maybe we are OK with Tony Stark building suits of Iron Man armor for the whole team using the doubling rule). Or just rule that this is not a Combined Attack, but multiple uses of the same power which must be done as a multiple attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

IIRC, that rule applies to foci, not natural abilities.  There it is - p 181, the "doubling rule".

 

That always struck me as an unreasonable distinction unless it is used only to provide backups.

The other use for it is for vehicle/base weapons, but I would not allow them to be fired at the same time unless each one was being manned by someone (or an AI).  Like in the Millenium Falcon, when Han and Luke each manned one of the guns.  And yes, if a character had some kind of two-weapon-fighting skill that applied to these weapons, then it would be possible for a single character to man more than one, or they could potentially use them as multiple attacks, subject to realism and common sense.  If the two weapons are separated by more than the character's reach, then no.  I suppose it might also be possible for a super-speedster to run around the ship firing all of the weapons in rapid succession.  But note that all of these require characters' attack actions.  You don't get to fire a thousand weapons just because you paid an extra 50 points.

 

I remember an example (from 5th edition Star Hero, IIRC) of a star ship that had a life support system powered by an END reserve that cost a total of about 50 points or so, and had a back-up emergency life support system, in case something went wrong with the main one.  The backup system wasn't as good, and only cost 25 points.  But why would you pay 25 points for a worse backup system when you could just pay 5 point for an identical backup system?  This is the perfect example of why I find the +5 to double exquipment rule problematic, if not outright broken.  A backup system that's not as good as the main system is a valid concept and a common element in many genres, but the +5 rule discourages you from such builds.

 

IMO, it would be better if the equipment doubler was an advantage (say +1/4), rather than an adder.  That way, you're paying more for more powerful equipment, as it should be.  And speaking of Life Support, suppose you have some limited life support equipment, after the Focus limitation and whatever other limitations it might have, it may well cost even less than 5 points!  Why should you have to pay 5 points for a backup of something that cost less than 5 points?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Grailknight said:

While I find this a fascinating and productive discussion, there is a rule that you are all overlooking that does bear on it.

 

6th Edition has a rule that allows you to build a second copy of a power for 5 points. It's there in HD for every attack power.

While I still feel a good GM would bring out the "black marker of doom" if they saw this on a sheet without a good amount of vetting and discussion beforehand, it does allow the hypothetical abusive Combined Attack for very few points.

It is also explicitly at the GM's option.  That's a serious limiter on the potential abuse (unless the player and/or GM don't read the book and just blindly obey HD, which happens). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

IMO, it would be better if the equipment doubler was an advantage (say +1/4), rather than an adder.  That way, you're paying more for more powerful equipment, as it should be.  And speaking of Life Support, suppose you have some limited life support equipment, after the Focus limitation and whatever other limitations it might have, it may well cost even less than 5 points!  Why should you have to pay 5 points for a backup of something that cost less than 5 points?

6E2; Pg 181:

"If a character wants to buy multiple items of equipment that cost less than 5 points, he can buy the items individually or using the 5-point rule,
whichever is cheaper."

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, steriaca said:

Yes. I'll add Capoeira.

 

Technically almost all martial arts pre-20th century is "available", but depending on the exact campaign, may not be available. For example, you could want to play a displaced Russian who knows Sambo. It might be acceptable in a campaign set in Alaska/Canada, but explain why a Russian is wandering the old west...

 

Sambo it seems is a very modern invention (like karate) in that its 20th century years old. It does seem to incorporate many features of older arts (such as Mongolian wrestling etc).

As for a Russian wandering the Old West, that's easy. He was the Cossack bodyguard of a late White Russian aristocrat on a hunting party expedition (Shalako!) who having failed to save his master from a marauding grizzly/injuns/bandits has become a lost soul in the Old West - ashamed to return home.

 

Incidentally... Googling Turkish Oil Wrestling brings up the question "Why do Turkish oil wrestlers put their hands in each other's pants?"

 

"Because they're Turkish" is not the answer apparently.

 

Edited by MrAgdesh
Expanded information!
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrAgdesh said:

Sambo it seems is a very modern invention (like karate) in that its 20th century years old. It does seem to incorporate many features of older arts (such as Mongolian wrestling etc).

As for a Russian wandering the Old West, that's easy. He was the Cossack bodyguard of a late White Russian aristocrat on a hunting party expedition (Shalako!) who having failed to save his master from a marauding grizzly/injuns/bandits has become a lost soul in the Old West - ashamed to return home.

 

*nod* That works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 On 12/7/2019 at 7:41 PM, Hugh Neilson said:
On 12/2/2019 at 9:11 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:

 

You response is a nonsequitor. I stated our campaign position, that is all I stated. Whether or not I think it's a problem is a different thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 7:09 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.

 

Or perhaps you can ask yourself why you assume that only these two disagree with you. There may be people reading and forming opinions and not expressing them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has two mouths and sometimes keeps both shut

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

@tech - I classified your comment as "General disallowance of both Combined and Multiple Attacks:".  My classification precedes the quote; I've amended the post to have a more clear cutoff between each.

 

 

You see?!

 

How can you not enjoy discussing something with this guy?!

 

:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...