Hugh Neilson

Combined attack specifically says it is not a Multiple Attack. It's a Combined Attack (6e rulebook emphasis). The example is two ranged weapons, but 6e does not indicate that both attacks must be HTH or ranged, only that they must be made against the same target. The logic remains sound - the duplicate gear will be the same attack type, so consider two knives compared to a sword and a dagger, or two Colt .45s versus a .38 S&W and a derringer. And if combined attack is part of multiple attack, note that p 181 says the equipment can be used in multiple attacks "and the like". To me, this is SFX. The agent does not catch Grond's hurtling fist with his outstretched hand, stopping it cold. I would describe a block of that nature more as redirection, pivoting and avoiding the blow while setting up for a quick counter-maneuver (which should be "run away" - you aren't going to win OCV vs OCV contests against Grond forever). This comes down to the approach taken. The reasoning and expected use of the doubling rule gets limited discussion. So we can accept that the +5 doubled gear is a backup and you can't use both at the same time for the same reason you can be immune to extreme heat or cold but still damaged by attacks with those SFX - you didn't pay for the utility, so you don't get that utility - the character simply never dual weilds the duplicate weapons, however logical it may seem for him to do so. You want them both used at the same time, pay for both Sais without the 5 points to double rule. Or we accept that you can spend just 5 points to double any focus and they can both be used at the same time. Even RAW cautions "If the equipment is unusual (such as an Unbreakable Focus, an enchanted item, or the like), the character should get the GM’s permission to buy it using this rule." Which seems odd as it's really designed for mundane equipment games where you don't pay points for gear anyway. Or we disallow of the doubling rule entirely (recall it is "GMs Option as introduced) - multiple foci are SFX and may move you down to "inaccessible" as you are harder to disarm. Or we allow the doubling rule for gear and innate powers, with whatever mechanics applying to those as well. It comes down to how you want your game to work. To me, +5 to get Combined Attack seems cheap, especially when someone with innate powers is denied the same option. LAZER should shell out 5 points and cut his rifle into 2 pistols! If everyone used gear, the field would be leveled and everyone would probably be a dual weapon Combined Attacker. Moving away from the topic at hand, but this seems like a "clarification" to me. You made an attack roll to Grab the first agent, and you can follow that by throwing him. But throwing him at a specific target requires an attack roll, which is a second attack in the phase. I could see the original intent being "grab and throw to the ground or off the cliff is one action" with "Grab and then throw at another opponent, requiring much more precise aim, is two attack actions, the first to Grab and hold, and the second to target a precise throw attacking someone else". Would you also let him Grab one of the agents surrounding him, and immediately spin around to use the Grabbed agent as a Multiple Attack against all the other agents, getting a damage bonus because Agent #1's armor and helmet make him a great club? EDIT: Actually, as I post that, I have the answer. Sure - that is a Multiple Attack. You want to Grab Agent #1 and Club Agents 2 - 6, so apply the OCV penalties for six attacks, halve your DCV and use your full phase and start rolling. And that also can be used to Grab one agent and Throw him at a second, can't it?

The terminology has changed over the editions. The 6e terms (discussed starting on V2 p 73) are: Multiple Attack - you can use the same power multiple times, to strike the same opponent more than once and/or to strike multiple opponents. This takes a full phase (Rapid Attack skill reduces it to a half phase), halves the character's DCV and imposes a cumulative -2 penalty for each attack beyond the first. Miss one, and all the subsequent ones miss as well. I would say this grew out of the Multiple Move By, which is early enough edition-wise to be familiar to Duke. That term still gets used, and the "only once for each time you circle the target" rule is still there in Multiple Attack. Combined Attack - using two or more powers or similar abilities once each against a single target is a Combined Attack, not a Multiple Attack, and takes no penalties. It's a single attack action. Presentation is bad in 6e - it's on V2 p 74, buried in the middle of Multiple Attack and gets no other discussion. So if you paid for a Blast and a Drain (in a manner that both are usable at the same time), you could make a Combined Attack against an adjacent opponent Blasting, Draining and (with your STR) Punching that opponent. You could not use a different combat maneuver (e.g. Trip with your STR while Striking with the Blast and Drain), direct the attacks at different targets or use any of the attacks more than once. All of those would require Multiple Attack. But if you have a sword and a dagger, two Sais or two Colt .45s, nothing precludes using Combined Attack. Two-Weapon Fighting does not discuss the possibility of using a Combined Attack, but applies only to offset penalties from Multiple Attack. Since there are no penalties for a Combined Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting would be irrelevant. But it would allow Seeker to Block with one Sai and Strike with the other, Strike two different opponents, etc. As each item of "doubled equipment" is "distinct from each other, each with its own identity and use even if they're defined identically in Hero System rules terms", they should be usable as a Combined Attack. If a character with a gun and a knife can shoot and stab one target as a combined attack, why would a character with two guns or two knives not be able to use both against the same target, the same way?

Much like the rule on 6e V2 p181 is incomplete, as noted by the OP, in not addressing innate abilities. The above discussion also does not consider the discussion of Multiple Foci on V1 p 380 (are the extra foci enough that this is no longer Accessible?) Seeker could buy a Multipower of two slots, one for each Sai, if he so desired. A VPP muddies the waters further - can I just go ahead and create a second Sai when the first is damaged or lost? Note that I can't use the Doubling rule within a framework. I don't really consider a statement outside the character construction rules as heavily caveated as to be a "core rule". **koff koff** From 6e v2 p 181, the OP's reference: They are, in fact, separate and distinct by the rules set out in the core rules. Among other things, that would give them separate charges or clips. As END reserve has a rule for creating more than one, I would say that this "specific" overrides the "general".

This comes down to what Seeker is actually getting for his 5 points. Does he now get to attack twice as a combined attack because he has two Sais? If so, that sounds like he should pay full points for the second attack, just like anyone else wanting to use two attacks at the same time as a combined attack. Can he use one and had the second one to Obsidian? That sounds like he should be paying for both powers separately, again as he is using them separately. As I think on it, he could have a Sai, a Bow and a Sword in a Multipower, using one weapon at a time. Perhaps he could simply buy another Sai slot representing that second Sai, which he can use if the first one is damaged or disarmed. Or we could simply allow a 5-point Adder to have a backup focus (or a second use of the same innate power) that can be used if the first is broken, suppressed, disarmed or what have you. The key is in defining what the ability does, and setting a commensurate point cost, ideally with an existing mechanic.

I recall a comment from Hero that, if they ever managed to release 4 issues in a calendar year, they would call AC bimonthly just out of principle.

Mine was a scarecrow-themed member of a fantasy villain team (Kor Hunter's dimension for those who remember him). A small Penetrating KA by a swarm of crows proved devastating, and they lost the battle. [OK - that allows for the classic "heroes vs big ugly monster in an arena" deathtrap, so we can fail forward.] I didn't intend that particular group to make a second appearance, but the players' discussions and plans of how they would approach a rematch persuaded me - and they crushed their opponents in that rematch, focusing attention on the scarecrow and another that had been especially effective at the outset. So what felt like an "oops, overpowered the enemy" bust turned into a great rematch because the players took a defeat in stride.

I know they were published in the old (pre-Online) Adventurers' Club, probably near the end of its run, but I don't recall which issue.

Adventurers Club ran a survey on this back in the pre-4e days. The results were very broad-ranging, with examples like 12 DC and defenses in the 30-35 range (where fights would be slow, and looking for ways to add damage was common) and 15 DC with 15 - 20 defenses where combat was quick, emphasizing tactics like Block, Dodge and finding Cover, and first strike was crucial. That may have motivated the limited guidelines provided in 4e.

YMMV is the key. How do you want combat to flow in the game? If, in your game, you want a STUN result to be extremely rare, then defenses and CON should support that. I don't think that is the intention of the rules - just write out Stunned entirely if it's never intended to happen. But it's frustrating to players to lose an action, and it puts that Stunned character at a significant disadvantage. Maybe we want a game where it takes 3 - 4 hits to KO in a typical combat. Defense and STUN totals should be set accordingly. Maybe you want more rapid combat where 1 -2 attacks can take a character down. OK, lower defenses to DC. Or perhaps you prefer longer combats, so you want characters to last through half a dozen hits before being taken out of the fight. OK, higher defenses to DC. As long as the group is OK with the speed, volatility and risk levels in combat, no choice is "wrong", just different. Supers combat tends to go on for lengthy periods. Wild West shootouts might have a fair chance of one hit ending the gunfight, and maybe even ending the character. The only real problem I can envision is when the characters are not consistent. If the game expects 3-4 solid hits to KO, including being Stunned from 20% of hits, a player who says "nuh-uh! my characters are designed to never get stunned and soak up at least 6 hits before being KOd" isn't in step with the group. Neither is the one who builds a character who can be KO'd by one good shot, won't weather two and will be stunned by any above-average hit. There will be a bit of a range, but too wide a range will have more fragile characters with frustrated players watching as the durable characters play half the game session while they are KOd.

Let's think this one through. The character could simply have Telekinesis: Full Phase (only to activate). This would require the character to spend that full phase, then keep using the power or let it shut down, and have to use a full phase again to activate it. The ability to avoid that shutdown does not seem like a further limitation. It allows the character to avoid that full phase requirement by instead spending END. I might consider that a wash if the extra END cost effectively moved the power from "requires a full phase" to "variable limitation - requires a full phase or sucks up END every phase when not in use". Given you have the choice of never spending END to keep it rolling in the background and avoid the issue. I find it hard to consider this more limiting than requiring a full phase every time you use the power when this provides an option to avoid that full phase.

I suspect that, if Hero had started with Aid and Drain and no Transfer, a Link construct would have evolved. Issues like "oh, Aid is maxed out; Drain stops working" would be resolved, and the AoE issue would not arise as there's no point putting AoE on an Aid, Self Only, so you get everyone in the area with the Drain and you get one Aid. I would, however, think that a Transfer as a "Talent" type build (the full construction behind the scenes; here's your cost per 1d6 Transfer; pick the stat it drains from the target and the stat it increases for you; it affects one target at standard range; your gains cap out like Aid and they keep losing stats even if you are already at capacity. And make a second one where the power heals, rather than Aids, the character.

If I maintain the Grab, I'd be paying END each phase to maintain the Grab. This seems a much better fit on an Entangle, Barrier or Mental Power like Mind Control. But from a SW perspective, if it's universally included, the GM can make the call whether it's appropriate. If it's not universally included, then if the GM says yes, it's a fight with the SW. I'd definitely go with universal for a SW application.

While my examples on Damage Reduction are intended to provide a costs comparison, I believe it shows that the cost is extremely high compared to just buying adequate defenses until the attacks and defenses get higher than 12 DC. If you want to suggest a "DR + Defenses" combination you think would make sense in a 12 DC game, be my guest. The negation issue is simply a means around the "enough defenses for the STUN makes BOD damage laughable" issue we often see in Supers. That's fine if you want a Silver Age Supers game. If you want attacks to occasionally or even often get some BOD damage through when dealing with comparable opposition, shifting a lot of the defenses to Negation is a viable approach. Setting the balance depends on how you want that game to work. Picking out of the air, that 5 DEF, 8 DC will leave 4d6 of a 12d6 normal attack, so an average roll of 14 and 4 BOD, so 9 STUN, 0 BOD. A 4d6 KA will be down to 1d6+1 KA. A good roll on either will do BOD, and higher DCs will do more BOD. I would expect combats in that game to often leave characters hospitalized or dead, and they are unlikely to leave a major conflict without losing some BOD. A bit more DEF and a bit less Negation will carry a different result, but it doesn't take much more DEF before BOD damage become low to no risk again. Feel free to buy some negation as STUN only. I would set the limitation value commensurate with the frequency with which it is likely to matter (or, viewed from a different angle, ensure that it does matter often enough to justify the limitation value that you selected).

So, again, my question: Phase 3: pay x END to "activate" Telekinesis as a Zero Phase Action. Like switching on a light. Phase 3: pay x END to use Telekinesis that phase for whatever action you choose. Phase 6: pay no END to maintain Telekinesis, the light is still switched offn. Phase 9: Pay no END to maintain Telekinesis, the light is still switched offn. Phase 12: Turn onff Telekinesis by not paying any END. The character cannot use TK this phase unless they switch it back on. Why would this character choose to keep the TK "on" in Phases 6 and 9 when they can avoid the END cost and just switch it back on in Ph 12 when they want to use it again? Exactly. The example above now works perfectly - pay double END in each phase of use and no END in phases when it is not used.

On damage reduction, if I want 50% resistant physical and energy, that will cost 60 points. I could have +20 rPD and rED (or 10 resistant and 15 non-resistant). In a 12 DC game, I could have 2 PD and ED, and take 20 STUN from an average attack, or 27 defenses (10 resistant) and take 15 STUN from an average attack (and live a lot longer - BOD would be way lower). Jack the DCs up to 20. I'll start with 15 PD and ED, all resistant, and choose between the same 2 options. Reduction drops average damage from that 70 point roll on 20d6 to 27.5. 40 defenses drops it to 30. Now it's much more comparable. On the question of BOD damage, the Supers model was clearly designed to make BOD damage rare. if you want a more bloody Iron Age feel, Damage Negation should be the core of defenses. Your 5 PD/ED and 8 DCs of Negation makes small arms fire laughable. But the opponent with a 12d6 Blast can get BOD through on a good roll, even though he only averages 9 STUN. Make that a 15d6 Blast, and blood will flow in every combat. A much more lethal game.

Flowing from Unclevlad's comments, one element of Hero game design that does not get nearly enough attention is the DC to Defense ratio. Combat is very different depending on this choice. Consider that 12 DC game, and assume typical defenses of 24. (1:2 ratio) An average attack will roll 42 STUN and get 18 STUN past defenses. A good roll could STUN a 23 CON character. If characters have around 40 STUN, 3 hits will just KO them and 4 should put them down, before we consider recoveries. I'd expect combats with 5-6 SPD characters to end inside of 2 turns. Let's move the goalposts - assume typical defenses of 30. (1:2.5 ratio) An average attack will roll 42 STUN and get 12 STUN past defenses. Very few rolls will be high enough to STUN a 23 CON character. If characters have around 40 STUN, it takes 4 hits to KO them and 5 to put them down, before we consider recoveries. I'd expect combats with 5-6 SPD characters to last over 2 turns, maybe longer. More extreme, assume typical defenses of 36. (1:3 ratio) An average attack will roll 42 STUN and only get 6 STUN past defenses. No one is getting STUNNED. If characters have around 40 STUN, it will take 7 hits to barely KO them and another 1 or 2 will be needed to put them down, before we consider recoveries. Now, they are definitely getting recoveries! I'd expect combats with 5-6 SPD characters to last 5 turns or more. That chart is insane - raising DCs by 2 and average defenses by 15 radically changes the ratio. Average damage past defenses at the 12 DC line will be 20 - that will make for a bit more common STUN results, and fairly short combats. At the 14d6 line, we drop to 12 average damage past defenses. Combat will be longer. At 16 and 20 DC, we're averaging 4 and 2 STUN past defenses. Combat will never end.

So, how would that work? Phase 3, I decide I want to use my (say) 40 STR TK that costs 6 END, so I activate it, spending 6 END to toggle it on and 6 END to throw a boulder at my opponent from behind him. Phase 6, I decide not to use my TK, so I can either spend 6 END to keep it running in the background, or just let it shut down. In Phase 9, I want to use it again, so 6 END to activate or maintain it, plus 6 END to use it. How does my decision whether to maintain or close my TK in Phase 6 affect what happens in Phase 9?

Whatever you're missing is also what I was missing, as I found the "buy it once for each element" model problematic at best. The philosophy behind that ruling was unfathomable to me. Under "transfer as a single power", I would go with the complex Advantage of Delayed Recovery (+1) (say, on 30 AP, so a cost of 30) Limited to only delay the Aid Recovery (for this example), so call that a -1 limitation on the Advantage. Cost 30 + [30/2 =] 15 for a 45 point power. But that assumes the Aid and Drain components have equal value.

My first thought was that halving normally applies last, but I don't think the rules address halving outside DCV. I also don't see how you apply a Penalty SL without first computing the penalty. Finally, if it was a normal skill level, its benefits would not be halved because the range penalty is halved. All of that supports Simon's assessment. Perhaps it is better to view "half range modifier" as "doubled range increments" - the penalty is not halved, the distance to which that penalty applies is doubled.

The other issue to consider is defense types. If, as UncleVlad suggests, we add half the DCs of the smaller attack, then that attack should be a Flash, a Drain or something else that targets an esoteric defense. Otherwise, that may as well be 0 DC as it is not getting past defenses. Consider a 12DC game. 8d6 + 8dd6 is pretty much useless if the target has the defenses needed to weather a 12d6 attack. I might look closer at the damage/effects that would pass through on an average hit and compare that to a plain vanilla normal attack at the campaign average and max DC.

I don't recall a ton of discussion on ECs, so I think Steve pretty much assessed that one on his own, but they definitely saw a lot of rules questions.

To me, the "doubling for 5 points" rule was meant to provide a backup focus if the original were lost, damaged, etc. It was not intended to mean you had multiple devices all usable simultaneously. That has never made its way into the rules explicitly, though, leaving the door open for MultiArm Ring Man.

Fixed that to Transfer. The issues with Transfer started in prior editions. A Transfer is a Drain with a linked Aid, self only, costs END. When we started getting rulings like the Drain part would fail if the Aid part was maxed out, or the Drain had to be divided among the targets within an AoE rather than affecting them all, or needing to buy delayed recovery or expanded effect twice if you wanted it to affect both parts...well, let's just say my thinking was not complimentary. Break them into their two components and they work fine again. That's not to say we could not make a baseline Transfer that combines the two with neither having modifiers, for a simpler purchase option, but it should not be markedly more expensive to do the same thing with Transfer as with a Linked Aid and Drain.

Never been a fan of the doubling rule. Consider The Modified Mandarin +5 PD/+ ED 5 rDEF IIF Thumb Rings (12 points) doubled (+5). 60 point Multipower with 8 Fixed attack slots, IIF Finger Ring (86 points), Doubled 3 times (+15). Or let's be really gross: +1 PD/+1 ED/+1 Mental Def/+1 Sight Flash Def/+1 hearing Flash Def/+1 Smell/taste Flash Def/+1 Touch flash def/+1 Power Def rDEF IIF Thumb Rings (10 points) doubled 5 times (+25) so 32 rings (35 points). 60 point Multipower with 8 Fixed attack slots, IIF Finger Ring (86 points), Doubled 7 times (+35) so 128 rings (121 points). Extra Limbs: 16 Arms, 5 points That's 161 points spent. I'll be needing either a big END reserve or a lot of END and REC! For another 10 points, I can double it all again and have 32 arms - we'll wait and buy that with xp...

I'm not sure Canadians like LL and I want to go there right now...