Jump to content
Christopher R Taylor

Confused Old Timer

Recommended Posts

On 12/8/2019 at 4:48 AM, Duke Bushido said:

 

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." ;)  )

 

 

 

 

 

Would you find it as problematic if there were a RSR on it? Gun-Tricks or whatever? Then there is a chance of failure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Would you find it as problematic if there were a RSR on it? Gun-Tricks or whatever? Then there is a chance of failure?

 

Well my solution is to use an actual skill, so I reckon I'm pretty good with that.  :lol:

 

Seriously though: I use a custom skill-based mechanic, detailed above. 

 

Duke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, I don't think Combined Attack would really be a thing in a Heroic game because you don't (usually) buy your attacks. As such, you can't link them together per (my understanding) of the Combined Attack rule. 

 

I think that's why Sweep/Multiple Attack exists and has such limitations...one rule is primarily for superheroic games and the other is for heroic. 

Share this post


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

At the end of the day, I don't think Combined Attack would really be a thing in a Heroic game because you don't (usually) buy your attacks. As such, you can't link them together per (my understanding) of the Combined Attack rule. 

 

I think that's why Sweep/Multiple Attack exists and has such limitations...one rule is primarily for superheroic games and the other is for heroic. 

 

I think this is part of the "rules could stand more definition" issue.  Guns, swords and clubs are attack powers, although they are attack powers that the character does not pay points to acquire.  The rules don't say that two pistols, or a sword and a dagger, can't be used as a Combined Attack, although it is also not clearly stated that they can't.

 

As indicated above, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to include "can't be part of a combined attack" as part of the Real Weapon limitation.  At least one edition of Fantasy Hero also suggested a -1/2 Spell limitation which included the inability to use maneuvers like Combined Attack and Multiple Attack with the spells.  But then I wonder why a sorcorer swinging a sword in his right hand and slinging a spell with arcane gestures made with his left should not be possible (whether as a Combined or Multiple attack).

 

Of course, if you want to target two different opponents, that is clearly a Multiple Attack.  But I think the use of Combined Attack in a heroic game needs some definition for defaults and options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I think this is part of the "rules could stand more definition" issue.  Guns, swords and clubs are attack powers, although they are attack powers that the character does not pay points to acquire.  The rules don't say that two pistols, or a sword and a dagger, can't be used as a Combined Attack, although it is also not clearly stated that they can't.

 

As indicated above, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to include "can't be part of a combined attack" as part of the Real Weapon limitation.  At least one edition of Fantasy Hero also suggested a -1/2 Spell limitation which included the inability to use maneuvers like Combined Attack and Multiple Attack with the spells.  But then I wonder why a sorcorer swinging a sword in his right hand and slinging a spell with arcane gestures made with his left should not be possible (whether as a Combined or Multiple attack).

 

Of course, if you want to target two different opponents, that is clearly a Multiple Attack.  But I think the use of Combined Attack in a heroic game needs some definition for defaults and options.

 

Agreed, it definitely needs some clarity. However, I thought I remembered it specifically referencing 'powers you bought' or something similar, which explains why strength can't be multiattacked with itself (a punch and a kick). This might have been in an online clarification or something similar though, I can't recall. 

 

Regardless, if it does say that (or it's been clarified that that is how it works) it would stand to reason that it doesn't work with powers you don't buy. But again, as you say, a simple sentence in the book could clarify it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, new to this forum. Coming back to Hero after a long break. Everytime I reread the rules, I always have this WT... moment when I get to the multiple-power attack/ combined attack. I've previously been using 5th edition and comparing it to 6th edition in hope it can provide clarifications.

 

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

At the end of the day, I don't think Combined Attack would really be a thing in a Heroic game because you don't (usually) buy your attacks. As such, you can't link them together per (my understanding) of the Combined Attack rule. 

 

I think that's why Sweep/Multiple Attack exists and has such limitations...one rule is primarily for superheroic games and the other is for heroic. 


Pretty much the conclusion I came to. The mention of off hand penalty not applying to combined attack really puzzled me. This time it clicked in my head when I got to read the Off Hand section (6E2, p. 49).

"This optional rule is usually used only in Heroic campaigns or other games where characters buy Weapon Familiarity and similar Skills instead of paying Characters Points for their weapons and equipment."

 

 

3 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

Agreed, it definitely needs some clarity. However, I thought I remembered it specifically referencing 'powers you bought' or something similar, which explains why strength can't be multiattacked with itself (a punch and a kick). This might have been in an online clarification or something similar though, I can't recall. 

 

Regardless, if it does say that (or it's been clarified that that is how it works) it would stand to reason that it doesn't work with powers you don't buy. But again, as you say, a simple sentence in the book could clarify it. 


There is a mention of this in 5th ed R , but this is for multiple-power attacks (combined attack) (p. 358). I didn't find mention of it in 6th ed. 6th ed also exclude the combination of Combat/Martial Maneuvers.

In 5th , it is also mentioned :

" A Character cannot use the same power, ability, or weapon to attack more than once per Phase with a multiple-power attack - that requires two (or more) distinct attacks."
(5th ed R, p.359)

This is a strong indication, that multiple-power attack (combined attack) cannot be used in conjunction with rapid fire, sweep... in 5th ed. Is there any indication in 6th?

In the end, I think it all depend on the type of game the GM wants to run, heroic or superheroic, and what is allowed. If the players are properly briefed and can equally take advantage if it, it shouldn't be a balance issue.

But yes, better guidelines would help. Especially in heroic genre where weapons are bought with cash but supernatural abilities are payed with points.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, PierSeb said:

If the players are properly briefed and can equally take advantage if it, it shouldn't be a balance issue.

 

I feel this is the tricky part.

 

Let's say that Hero1 buys a 10d6 blast with 16 charges for 50pts.

Hero2 buys a 10d6 blast (cold) and a 10d6 blast (fire) both with 8 charges and Extra Time (Full Phase) so they're 25 pts each for a total of 50 pts.

 

If Hero1 wants to blast SuperVillain01 twice he must use Multiple Attack and takes a -2 OCV on both shots (increasing his odds of missing one or both shots) and is 1/2 DCV until his next phase.

If Hero2 wants to blast SuperViallin01 twice he gets to use Combined Attack and takes no penalty to OCV and no penalty to DCV improving his odds of landing both shots.

 

They've both paid the same amount of points, but one of them is far more effective in the scenario where they'd like to double up on damage output.  Granted - Hero1 has a general advantage in being able to attack as a half-phase, but this could probably be finagled with some limitations cherry picking (unified power and something else worth a -1/4).

 

This is a very tricky balancing act.  It's a very different thing to burn down an opponent in 3 phases while being full DCV vs. doing the same while being 1/2 DCV or needing 6 phases.

 

I could see GMs tossing them both out for the sake of balance.

Share this post


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

I could see GMs tossing them both out for the sake of balance.


You are right, it can be unbalanced if not all players take advantage of it. I don’t entirely rely  on points for balance. I'm used to GURPS, and it's probably a worst offender regarding this. ;)

But, the Multiple Attack does have an advantage over Combined Attack. If an attack is successful, you can decide to forego further attacks. You still take the full penalties, but you can save END.

I just realise, maybe not everyone plays it out the same... Do you roll all of your attacks before rolling damages or do you roll attack and damage before moving to the next attack? Knowing how well you've done before spending more END can be advantageous. Technically, you could maybe even decide to switch target??

Combined attack is all or nothing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't Hero1 buy a 15d6 Blast with 8 charges?  He'll probably take his opponent down much faster, get his half moves and keep his full DCV.

 

If the answer is that the max attack in the campaign is 10 DC, then I suggest the solution is that characters should not be able to buy multiple 10DC attacks usable simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I feel this is the tricky part.

 

Let's say that Hero1 buys a 10d6 blast with 16 charges for 50pts.

Hero2 buys a 10d6 blast (cold) and a 10d6 blast (fire) both with 8 charges and Extra Time (Full Phase) so they're 25 pts each for a total of 50 pts.

 

If Hero1 wants to blast SuperVillain01 twice he must use Multiple Attack and takes a -2 OCV on both shots (increasing his odds of missing one or both shots) and is 1/2 DCV until his next phase.

If Hero2 wants to blast SuperViallin01 twice he gets to use Combined Attack and takes no penalty to OCV and no penalty to DCV improving his odds of landing both shots.

 

They've both paid the same amount of points, but one of them is far more effective in the scenario where they'd like to double up on damage output.  Granted - Hero1 has a general advantage in being able to attack as a half-phase, but this could probably be finagled with some limitations cherry picking (unified power and something else worth a -1/4).

 

This is a very tricky balancing act.  It's a very different thing to burn down an opponent in 3 phases while being full DCV vs. doing the same while being 1/2 DCV or needing 6 phases.

 

I could see GMs tossing them both out for the sake of balance.

 

I've never seen Combined Power attack used in a game.

 

I think your suggestion of ditching is a good idea.

Share this post


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

I've never seen Combined Power attack used in a game.

That's because most characters either have only one attack power, or have all their attack powers in a Multipower so they can only use one at a time anyway.  Multipowers make for very efficient buys with a lot of flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2019 at 3:22 PM, PhilFleischmann said:

That's because most characters either have only one attack power, or have all their attack powers in a Multipower so they can only use one at a time anyway.  Multipowers make for very efficient buys with a lot of flexibility.

While that’s probably true in many cases, I’d say the bigger reason as this thread proves, is that it’s too big of a headache of a rule to use for all it’s worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

While that’s probably true in many cases, I’d say the bigger reason as this thread proves, is that it’s too big of a headache of a rule to use for all it’s worth.

I haven't seen anyone so far say that the Combined Attack rule is a headache.  The only claim against it I've seen up to now is that it's "unbalanced" or "unfair".  I don't see any way in which it's a headache - not any more so than any other use of multiple powers, whether in the same phase or different phases.  If I use attack A in one phase and attack B in the next phase, I'm doing the exact same thing as I would if I used them both in the same phase.  I'm rolling the same dice, subtracting the same defenses, spending the same END.  One might argue that it's actually less of a headache, since I'm making one fewer attack rolls.

 

Our Hero, Aspirin Man has a 60-point "Walk" power, and a 60-point "Chew Gum" power.  And he simply decides to use them both at the same time.  No headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for NB, but I _believe_ the headache he is referring to is the potential for an unresolvable discussion of opinions, like this very discussion.  One camp is attempting to change the mind of a camp that isn't willing-- or perhaps isn't ready-- to have its mind changed.

 

Until _that_ changes, there's no resolution to be had here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil you’re tight in that I don’t believe anyone has said it’s a headache on the board but I’ll hazard a guess that off line people have found it  a headache cause it confusing. Here are some points:


When was Combined Attack allowed? Some say that it was always allowed in older editions others say no 5th ed. 
 

What  is the difference between Combined Attack and Multiple Attack? 

 

What is legal to be used in a Combined Attack?

 

And in reference to your example, depending on the character, no going twice in the same phase is different than the same attack used in two different phases. If I’m faster and I can Dodge (or other such thing) then I could avoid the second hit. With a Combined Attack you could wallop me in one phase and depending on build still attack the next phase. 

Share this post


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

I can't speak for NB, but I _believe_ the headache he is referring to is the potential for an unresolvable discussion of opinions, like this very discussion.  One camp is attempting to change the mind of a camp that isn't willing-- or perhaps isn't ready-- to have its mind changed.

 

Until _that_ changes, there's no resolution to be had here.

 

Sounds like a lot of discussions on these Boards, and on the Internet in general.  There's an exchange of opinions, not a resolution, in which some people will participate and others will not.

 

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Phil you’re tight in that I don’t believe anyone has said it’s a headache on the board but I’ll hazard a guess that off line people have found it  a headache cause it confusing. Here are some points:


When was Combined Attack allowed? Some say that it was always allowed in older editions others say no 5th ed.

 

Not sure how that makes it any more or less difficult to use.

 

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

What  is the difference between Combined Attack and Multiple Attack?

 

Is this more complex than, say, adding damage classes?  Combined Attack allows a single use of any number attack powers purchased in a manner that they can be used at the same time, as a single Strike maneuver, with a single attack roll, against a single target.

 

Multiple attack applies if the character wants to hit more than one target, use more than one combat maneuver, use  multiple types of attack roll (like a mental and a physical attack) and/or use the same character point investment more than once in the phase.

 

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

What is legal to be used in a Combined Attack?

 

See above.  Is this more complex than, say, what is legal to purchase in a framework?

 

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

And in reference to your example, depending on the character, no going twice in the same phase is different than the same attack used in two different phases. If I’m faster and I can Dodge (or other such thing) then I could avoid the second hit. With a Combined Attack you could wallop me in one phase and depending on build still attack the next phase. 

 

I don't think anyone said it is not different.  Phil said it is no more complex, so no more of a headache, than using one attack power at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Hugh for me the first bit of confusion has for me was Multiple movebys. The way I read it, it should be considered a Combined Attack not a Multiple Attack.  It was clarified awhile ago that I was in error but I believe on that old thread, I wasn’t alone in the confusion.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple Moveby uses both STR and velocity damage multiple times in the same phase.  To me, it is an example of a Multiple attack.  6e has removed it, IIRC, as a maneuver and instead provides the "run around him and hit him once for every circle" as a Multiple Attack example.

 

And, again, more complex than how to add your STR and Hand Attack damage to the Multiple Move By?  Whether you can use your Martial Arts KA instead of your Normal STR in that Multiple Move By and how we compute that damage, including MA DCs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 12:52 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

When was Combined Attack allowed? Some say that it was always allowed in older editions others say no 5th ed. 

 

Until 5th edition, there was no such thing as Combined Attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Tech said:

 

Until 5th edition, there was no such thing as Combined Attack.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So, it's ambiguous.

 

There was clearly a lot of copy-paste in every edition. And Rob Bell was a college student and superfan who seems to have been given primary responsibility for 4e (but, again, I don't know the facts; it's just the impression I get). So it could just be an oversight that the rules are inconclusive. It was all just copied forward, and no one gave it a second thought. "Of course you can attack more than once per phase! Ignore that admonition in the Ambidexterity entry!"

 

But my interpretation has always been that Sweep and spreading Autofire are exceptions to the general rule of 1 attack roll per Phase, and they are the way they are because they were the best way to handle the given attacks.

 

The entry for Sweep even supports this, ending with, "Sweep is usually performed with some sort of (large) hand-to-hand weapon such as a two-handed sword, but it may be done bare-handed." The implication being that this is not something for general use.

 

But, then, there's that weasel-word, "usually."

 

It's a bit ambiguous, in the end.

 

Which makes one wonder why it wasn't ever clarified while George MacDonald and Steve Peterson were involved. There are clear statements indicating one attack per phase, and then there are clear exceptions.

 

If they'd intended those exceptions to be more generalized, wouldn't they have said so? Or at least left out the unambiguous statements that were contrary, such as the one under Ambidexterity?

 

We'll probably never know. I think the last time George gave an interview that talked about HERO System was around the time 6e came out. Long ago, in other words.

 

 

Share this post


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

Multiple Moveby uses both STR and velocity damage multiple times in the same phase.  To me, it is an example of a Multiple attack.  6e has removed it, IIRC, as a maneuver and instead provides the "run around him and hit him once for every circle" as a Multiple Attack example.

 

And, again, more complex than how to add your STR and Hand Attack damage to the Multiple Move By?  Whether you can use your Martial Arts KA instead of your Normal STR in that Multiple Move By and how we compute that damage, including MA DCs?

Reread the multiple movebys this morning and they make better sense though that 1/2 DCV is going to hurt. Btw if you really want to add complex have Martial Arts plus weapon elements in the equation. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...