Hugh Neilson

I don't think my numbers would be a lot higher than yours. I find it's more common for "NND vs F Field Guy" to assume that glowing nimbus is a force field when it isn't, so he doesn't try it when the NND would have worked. I've seen them blow off their own NND for that reason a few times (certainly not more than 10% of opponents, though). But when the attack does hit, and do nothing, the villain generally doesn't say "HA HA HA I have that defense!". He may brag it off (but he's probably dismissing non-NND's simialrly) if he's a tough guy who likes to brag. Maybe he shrieks in agony because he wants to fool you into using it again (don't be a cheapskate - pay for the Acting skill). Or maybe he just winces ("about to get hit" reflex) and shoulders on. As a result, if they have picked the wrong target, they commonly continue with it for more than a phase. But I'm just as guilty of letting the defense envelope be pushed. Is the defense "need not breathe" or "is not breathing"? Under the old rules, how many gas attacks were skin-absorbed rather than inhaled? How common is "resistance to extreme cold" life support? Official Hero material and our own campaigns tend to push the envelope on what constitutes a "reasonably common" defense. Maybe it's time to tighten that up some (or a lot!) Thinking on it further, most of the characters in my campaign don't have an NND. The one I recalll using it a lot was an archer with a gas arrow. In hindsight, his opposition should have been nmore willing to hold their breath when he showed upo on the scene. Mind you, he used small area continuing charges, and often used it more to ensure the big opponent would stay down than to lay stun on them while they were mobile.

Again, I reiterate: before you blast off 3 shots, how do you KNOW this guy does, or does not, have the defense. Being less obvious in this regard is a simple method of cutting down this abuse. "No, you can't "just tell" whether he needs to breathe, or whether that glowing numbus is a force fiel;d, damage shield or just a Distinctive Feature. On a similar note, you assume that you know your opponent's DCV to optimize your decision of how many shots to fire. I don't know what your experience has been , but my characters don't make a habit of wearing their DCV's as a crest. It takes time to figure out most opponents' DCV's, and even then a judicious shift of levels and/or selection of combat maneuvers will do the trick. On reduced END: perhaps a variant of the "mental power" rule should be adopted here. Mind Control, no END, still costs END to maintain the initial effect. Perhaps reduced END should apply only to the first shot fired unless you pay double (as you must for Autofire). I can see where 0 END multiple shots could exacerbate a powerful maneuver into an unacceptable one, although again I've never seen it in play. Part of the problem with NND's is that we let players, and NPC's, expand the limits of an "acceptable defense". Read the advantage examples in FREd and compare them to what is used in practice. "Any resistant defenses" for a dart gun. "Need not breathe or holds breath" for gas. The force field is likely the easiest one to ID, but lots of villains have them. A very small, invisible force field will do the trick quite nicely, and is an easy solution to "NND Man" running rampant.. None of these indicate Rapid Fire itself is the problem, regardless of the attack type. It is permitting players to push the envelope on optimization of the character's offensiove punch. Of course, your target cannot abort to Dodge, reallocation of skill levels, Desolidification or his experiemental Force Field belt commissioned due to his knowledge of your character, right? Better attack someone who already attacked this segment (hmmm...Force Field, Trigger when Meson Man fires his EB at me"), and hope he hasn't attacked you with a Rapidf Fire NND, I guess... Actually, 4" rad is a 7" circleout both ways, plus the center point). Many villains have the option of "up" as a distance away. And if they KNOW your character regularly tosses off these aea effect attacks, they will work at staying further apart than you can engulf - villains have tactics too, and they can watch the news! And you must also ensure that none of your teammates, or anyone else you wish not to harm, is in that radius. Do all your allies have the defense against your NND? That would logically indicate most other supers have it as well, or can easily obtain it. Do you have extra perception rolls to accurately and precisely determine exactly where everyone is standing? We assume our heroes can also benefit from that overhead view and careful hex counting we as players can do with the battlemat. Is it OK, to KO innocent bystanders? "But my NND does not BOD", you say? Explain that to Old Aunt May, who broker her hip falling after being KO'd by your "no BOD" NND ("She had 3d6 Unluck andthe Age Disadvantage" isn't much defense against a civil suit). Or to Willy "Wheezy" Williams' parents (he had asthma, and the disadvantage "takes normal BOD from NND gas attacks"). For that matter, three hits with a 4d6 NND =42 STUN on average. On a high roll (or more than three shots, maybe due to overlapping areas), reducing a Norm to a comatose state (say -40 or -50 STUN) would seem a real risk. Not to say this should hapen constantly, but it is an excellent way of enforcing some restraint on the part of "our hero". Note the FAQ, by the way, which states that you cannot voluntarily reduce your area of effect - a 4" radius is always a 4" radius - so you can't reduce the radius to leave your allies out of it. " No, I've stated that I would know that a character purchasing these clearly intends to make greater use of these attack options. This would ensure I consider the full ramifications, taking the character as a whole, in deciding whether the character is acceptable for the specific campaign. Just as I would have to consider whether Autofire is acceptable. And, as Tesuji has pointed out, I would ensure the opposition poses a credible threat to this character. I don't have a "problem" with any specific options offered by the Hero system. I do, however, recognize that point-based systems are ripe for abuse, and watch out for combinations that may be excessive for the planned campaign. I don't use a srict mathematical formula, because I don't believe I will accurately consider every possible combination up front. How often does a Supers PC take a CON of 17 or less? Does this indicate CON is overpowered, and must have a higher cost, or be disallowed? Or does it indicate the genre convention that Supers are tough, and healthy, so I accept it? In my world, the fact that I generally accept high CON's does not mean I must accept whatever CON each character chooses to by, with no thought to character conception. Similarly, the fact that I generally expect attacks in the 10 to 15 DC range does not mean I MUST accept every atack which fals within these parameters, nor that I would automatically disallow one faling outside them. The character as a whole must be considered. Tell you what, Gary - make your Rapid Fire character, and get it into a game. Tell us how your GM restricts your rapid fire abilities (try several GM's if the first doesn't accept it). Once the character is in the game, let us know how overwhelmingly powerful he/she turns out to be. Then we'll have some real evidence of a problem, rather than your hypothetical concerns. It doesn't have to be Gary - any GM's or players out there have experience seeing Rapid Fire used a lot (or abused as Gary suggests)? Posters to date say "no", but we're not the whole gaming universe.

It's not happening IMC, so I'd say it's not a problem. The issue was what happens after you fire off the three NND shots, only to discover they did not affect yoour opponent because he has the defense. Do you even read what you are responding to? Whether I will or not depends on whether I actually SEE someone abuse it. No problem, and no purchaser, to date, so who needs to disallow it? Half DCV is also a significant penalty. You one punch one of theirs, they do the same to you. One opponent removed from each side of the battle. Your posts seem to indicate you only play solo campaigns, since you assume one opponent KO'd = battle over. Yes, all villain groups stand stock still in small clusters, with no friendlies around, waiting to be attacked by the famous super who always fires area effect blasts. Seems I forgot that rule somewhere - what genre convention does it support? The only poster who seems to have enountered **any** problem with this is youy, and even you haven't seen it in games, only modeled it mathematically. Until it's actually a problem, it doesn't merit fixing. But I still look forward to seeing Gary's Perfect Game System on the market.

I don't deny an ordinary EB can be unbalancing - in the right circumstances. An NND that does BOD can be very unbalancing too, with the same Stop SIgn transform has! This thread has shown, however, that Rapid Fire has not become unbalancing at the gaming table. That's the real test. This thread has also highlighted lots of ideas for dealing with it if it were to become unbalancing. That is actualy a separate problem. To some extent, it arises because GM's simply hand out "That had no efect" rather than proceeding with play. Do you KNOW it had no efect, or must you surmise from the fact the opponent didn't seize up in pain? How many Stun requires you to seize up in pain? And the GM can make some characters who look like they have the defense, if desired. On our specific point, how much END do you want to spend to test out whether the target has the defense? Enough for three shots? Five shots? You'd better guess right - you'll be at half DCV after the attack! The damage is normally negligible. The 1/2 DCV "Prone" penalty is not. Oh, and you can't rapid attack if you have to spend half a phase getting up, can you? He has to pick someone to attack or lose his phase. I, on the other hand, will abort to Dodge if he fires on me, or fire on him if he shoots at someone else. We can, of course, all just stand there waiting for someone to move. hmmm...looks like Life Support - Need Not Sleep is underpriced - that would be hugely advantageous! You seem, again, to forget that ANYONE can use that approach. If it's hugely unbalancing, EVERYONE will. Then we will all complain that Hero doesn't work and is no fun. Steve can then either issue an errata, or suggest that you simply remove something if you find it unbalancing, perhaps after providing a half dozen options for dealing with the problem. Let's answer D-Man's post. 1. No one on the board has provided any indication this has occured in play. 2. Therefore it is not a problem. 3. Common sense can solve the problems and we have lots of suggestions in this thread. SUGGESTION: No fix is required. Gary can make this modification in addition to the many other fixes he's already espoused on these boards. When his adjustments have perfected the system, he can publish his poerfect system and see how well it competes.

Good summary of the drawbacks to Rapid Fire - which are the reason it doesn't come across as so unbalanced in play! Absent the Rapid Fire skill (which cuts the maneuver down to a 1/2 phase) and skill levels to offset the DCV penalty, I expect to see Rapid Fire about as often as haymakers (which weren't common before adding 50%, and I'll bet won't be common now adding 4 DC's). And I'll certainly look twice if I see those skills on a character sheet!

Actually, your "Points (equal points or even very precisely calculated points) do not make balance happen in play. Instead, balance in play is what shows the points and costs were appropriate." tag line says it all for me. If this is so unbalanced, why don't I see it at my gaming table?

Huh? This started because you felt attacks against exotic defenses should be penalized for Rapid Fire because they are penalized for Autofire. Now it's normal attack vs. NND?? Wouldn't it be easier to simply eliminate either rapid attack or autofire and require this ability be simulated only one way under the rules? Don't the rules themselves say we use the most expensive approach if two or more equally valid aproaches exist for getting the same result? Strict adherence to this "uber-rule" would actually require you to use Autofire where Rapid Fire skills would be more effective and vice versa. Perhaps just banning the Rapid Fire skill would do the trick - now you have to suck up the full phase or pay the freight for autofire. Penalty skill levels and DCV levels are pretty obvious on a character sheet, and easily restricted or disallowed if the GM wants to preserve a structure where Rapid Fire invokes serious penalties. If you don't, you can't half move and you lose half your DCV (spreading for OCV reduces damage more than PSL's, too, but that's secondary). Gary, a couple of months ago, you strenuously argued the need for big movement to survive in a Champs setting. Now, you're focused on a maneuver that denies you the ability to move. In other words, "In some situatoons, the power with the advantage is superior". Isn't that the idea? Armor Piercing is superior to a normal attack as long as the opponent lacks Hardened defenses. Using your 25 DEF example, a successful 12d6 regular attack gets 10 points through, but the AP gets 15 points through. Rapid fire or autofire will multiply that advantage too! Assuming the GM misses the problem, and it actually exists, what will happen in the next scenario? The opposition will also have realized the power of rapid fire! Anyone can do it, remember? The playing field is now balanced, and the group can assess whether this new balance is fun, or whether rapid atacks should be outright banned, or alternatively weakened (say by raising the OCV penalty per shot) to change the playing field again.

That makes a grand total of zero posters who have actually had this problem arise. COuld it be it's not as serious as you think? I'm not redoing the math. In any case, this seems a bit simplistic. It assumes that, despite a 6 point spread in target DCV, his defenses are unchanged. It assumes he ;lacks the defense against the NND as well. It does not consider that getting more damage through creates a better possibility of stunning the target, thus reducing his DCV for the next shot. When his DCV allows only an 8- to hit, that could be a game-breaker. It also fails to consider that the EB doesn knockback while the NND does not. Knockback can both add damage and make the target easier to hit on the next shot. FInaly, is it likely the guy with 6 more DCV has the same defenses? Not in a balanced campaign! It doesn, however, highlight the fact that it is wide disparities between OCV and DCV which make rapid fire devestating - if the martial artist can expect to land 3 or 4 hits on the Brick every phase, this boosts his combat effectiveness considerably. That's why I don't use hit locations in Champions - every hit an MA gets on a Brick would be a head shot. Maybe a similar restriction is needed for Rapid Fire. All the above seems to prove, however, is that there may be a problem with Rapid Fire. A high OCV character with Autofire would have a similar advantage. This also supports my initial assertion that the real change is in the dynamic of the game. As you note, these are pretty basic attack powers. Virtually every character should be using these tactics. Of course, in a dynamic environment, it's not that easy. Maybe the Brick will fight smart - since the guy always Rapid Fires, I'll Abort to a Dodge and reallocate al my levels to DCV, or I'll dive for cover. Now, while he's at 1/2 DCV, my teamates can take him out. Actually, if the opponent did rapid fire, my inclination wpould be for everyone on the team to take their next shot at him - while his DCV is halved. Hey, our own Rapid Fires also hit better now, don't they? It's the Rapid Fire skill (use only a half phase to Rapid Attack) and the offset DCV levels that really make Rapid Fire a devestating ability. If I have to lose half my DCV and forego any movement, it's not such a no brainer any more. hmmm...maybe this could be balanced by allowing movement after attacks ("I'll attack him, then ha;lf move back. If he wants to Rapid Fire again, he'll have some range penalties to deal with."). But that's a whole 'nother thread!

We've established a slight advantage. I look forward to seeing your solution that equalizes them, rather than swinging the advantage the other way for Rapid Autofire, say. Of course, if you add more advantages (eg. Range advantages, Personal Immunuty if you lack the defense, Does Knockback, Explosion, Indirect, Invisible, Trigger), the advantage goes to the Autofire attack once we're beyond 60 points, since it's got lower base points to work with - especially with rapid autofire. My point is that the player better have a pretty great justification for being able to more effectively rapid fire the NND only, and not the other attacks in the multipower. POtherwise, buy the more expensive levels for all attacks, or at least all attacks in the multipower. That's still 3 point DCV levels (5 points is +1 DCV all the time), but 2 point PSL's (not likely 3 point unless that's one huge multipower). And I've never seen a character with just an NND, no other offensive powers - no one wants to face that opponent who is immune to his only significant attack! The level we're measuring at cost over 90 points - this would cover a pretty fair chunk of offensive power for a standard supers campaign. Yes, if we go for a much higher power campaign the balance will shift. What if we assume lower power - say Fantasy Hero - instead? Who's got that 90 points to throw around? I consider this a "ban Rapid Fire" argument more than a "vs autofire" argument - autofire vs rapid fire comes to a 3 point difference, not all that substantial in my books. Maybe I'm not clear enough - SCREW CAMPAIGN LIMITS. Any GM relying on mechanical foirmuli to balance his campaign is suffering from a 25 point psych lim. Given the mathematical results, I would either allow both contructs, or prohibit both contructs. Also, if Rapid Fire is superior to autofire, perhaps the actual problem is that an extra +1 for Autofire is excessive, not that Rapid fire is too cheap. Area Effect is +1. A 75 point attack can do 15d6, or 7 1/2d6 Extended Area. That area effect EB hardly does anything on average. Make that Area Effect an NND, and now it's 4d6, with 5 points left over to halve the END cost, enough to gradually take people down. Pump it up with all those skill levels you no longer need since you only need top hit a hex and BOOM! The fact is that NND's are very effective attacks when you put other advantages on powers so you are only dealing a few DC's. Autofire/Rapid Fire is hardly the only example of this. Gary, solving all the "problems" you see in the game would take more work than just writing a new game from scratch. ANY construct can be abused. The GM needs to review characters and assess what will, or will not, be allowed. That doesn't mean the rules are flawed. For a system to allow for "any power imaginable", it has to allow for some that will be unacceptable at some power levels, or in some genres. You cannot possibly make everything absolutely equal under all circumstances and preserve the same level of flexibility.

My 2 cents: The first (base) entangle seems fine. I would treat the second as +4d6 BOD to the original entangle, with gradual effect and the same cancellation. As it is part of the first attack, it should not need to be continuous (or uncontrolled, which you didn't buy). As such, it would cost ony 20 AP, real cost 9, for a total cost of 60 AP, 49 real. To pay 75 real points for your construct seems radically unfair when you could have 8d6 7 DEF entangle that works all at once for 75 points (and costs less END). 60 for 8d6 BOD 4 DEF all acting at once is legal, so your limits on the remaining 4d6 BOD should reduce the cost considerably - very few Supers will be around for it to harden, for example.

As noted previously, I'm not seeing that huge advantage you perceive. Probably time to get back to the numbers again, and purify them. 13- to hit Rapid Attack skills cost 23 to offset all penalties for an 11 OCV, 9 DCV character. This assumes the GM allows 1.5 point PSL's to offset Rapid Fire penalties on only that one attack [i'd need a very good justification why he can't rapid fire anything else - ie pay the bigger points.] It costs 28 to add "Rapid Autofire". 3d6 NND (+1), Autofire (+1.25), 128 charges (+3/4) costs 60 points. It will hit once 83.8% of the time, twice 62.5% of the time, and 3 times 37.5% of the time, so its average amage is [.838+.625+.375]*[3.5x3]= 1.838 x 10.5 = 19.3 For the same 60 points, I can offset all Rapid Fire penalties for three attacks and have a 3d6 NND (+1), 0 END (+1/2) EB (I'll spot you the 1/2 point). It will hit the first time 83.8% of the time, a second 70.2% and three 58.85% of the time, so averaging [.838+.702+.5885]x 10.5 = 22.3. ADVANTAGE: Rapid Fire. Add 32 points to each. Autofire gets Rapid Autofire, the skill suite and moves his attack up to 0 END. The other adds 32 to his attack, making it 5 1/2d6 (this time I'm spotting you a full point). Rapid Fire does 19.5 x [.838+.702+.5885] = 41.5. AutoRapid does 19.3 x [.838+.702+.5885] = 41.1 I'd say that's pretty close, so anything you do to make it tougher on the Rapid Fire character transfers the advantage to Rapid Fire Autofire. To May To To Mah To I'm curious how the balance would look if we shifted to 5 shots, but I really don't want to do the math, especially for the 25 shot rapid autofire with no OCV penalties. There is a point at which more damage does nothing, since you already KO with one shot. DR has some other advantages. Most germane here, it will reduce NND damage. Or maybe most players either play real characters rather than min/maxed number crunch characters (by choice or by GM intervention) or most GM's can offset a slight variance in power levels. To close, I remain of the opinion that the difference is not sufficient that any "fix" will resolve the discrepancy, rather than just create a new discrepancy. If it really bothers you, maybe you should restrict Sweep and Rapid Fire to Heroic campaigns, and make Autofire an option only for GM designed and approved weaponry in such campaigns.

Gradual Effect is one option. I suppose a second would be an uncontrolled continuous zero END Entangle (small dice, probably some time delay) linked to the base entangle, which stops when the base entangle is escaped, and perhaps caps out at some number of attacks (that's as hard as it gets).

So I should be able to buy +5 END for 2 points...but I can't. I can buy +4 END for 2, or +5 or +6 for 3. COM has the same issue. In the FAQ, one decimal is noted as "all that is required", but also that many GM's require two decimal places and most products other than FREd use 2 decimal places. I think I'll stick to the .5 breakpoint, but that's just personal preference. With a zero END NND, we're talking 12.5 points per die, not a 1d6 difference. I'd still call the attack boost more common than +5 DCV. But the guy with a high DCV tends to have high DEX, so high base OCV, making Rapid Fire a more viable combat option without spending a bunch of points to cancel penalties. As for the costing difference, note that an advantage in scaling up is a drawback in scaling down. This just makes one approach more economical for large attacks and the other preferable for smaller attacks. Why would this be a major concern? Defenses and Damage Reduction have a similar tradeoff. UGH! I knew I didn't want to do the math on that mess. So that means the first attack misses 14.2 % of the time, and hits 85.8% of the time. We've established that's 19.2 damage. So we have an 85.8% chance of getting another 19.2 damage = 16.1 damage. We have an 85.8% chance of another 16.1 average = 13.5 more, total 48.8 average damage. Autofire + RapidFire beats straight RapidFire by 7.2 damage - pretty significant IMO. If you still see a problem, why not run the math on your solution of an advantage on NND's and EGO Blasts to equalize them with autofire. Don't forget it will need to differ for each, since NND's have an extra +1 advantage vs EGO Attacks basing at 1d6 per 10 points. I find that solution excessively complex for a problem I don't really see existing in practice - you'll just wind up tipping the balance the other way.

Submitted separately for those mnot wanting to read the back and forth: BOTTOM LINE: All of this analysis demonstrates a few things from my perspective. First, Autofire and Rapid Fire are reasonably balanced as is for NND's, and no adjustment to the rules is required. Second, with the rules for rapid attacks, do we even NEED a separate autofire advantage any more? It's just a second way of doing more or less the same thing. It has some differences, and the two approaches seem reasonably balanced, so no point trashing it. Third, 5e supports multiple attacks in a phase much more than prior editions, and this new tactical option changes the playing field considerably, unless the players and GM choose to restrict it in some way. This is something to keep an eye on, for sure. Fourth, if a player is planning to (ab)use the Rapid Attack maneuvers, he needs a lot of skills and skill levels, certainly enough that his character sheet will make his intention obvious to a GM reviewing the character. If I can identify it, I can decide I don't like it, and disallow the combination, or adjust my expectations to compensate for this new wrinkle.

I also see "specific SFX" adjustment powers. In any case, the END issue will arise more commonly. Interested in the reference academically. Not always true (you can't have a multipower slot for zero points, but I can get some below 1, or even 0.5, points), but 1 point is academic anyway. Each DVC level costs 3 points. Penalty skill levels only apply to OCV, so +1 DCV with Rapid Fire is a 3 point level. It is the same, actually. The character is taking three shots, each of which will get one hit on 13-, two on 11- and three on 9-. Since we've already mathed out the average of one such shot, tripling gets you three such shots. This is no different from average damage of 14 and a 50% chance to hit. Average damage is 7. Fire two shots, and average damage is 14, although the range becomes much wider. The 14 charges do become more of a factor, which is why I used those extra points to move from 128 charges (+3/4) to zero END (+1) on the Rapid Autofire example. A further thought: The Rapid Fire Autofire could also be simulated by purchasing enough PSL's to offset another -12 DCV (so 18 points), but at this point, those extra shots are getting less and less likely to hit (sooner or later, a bad roll comes up), so three shots of three shots should get through more, on average, than 9 shots.

Is this Speed, or levels in Sweep/Rapid Attack? The book provides examples of chgaracters using Sweep to make several attacks, each using a diferent maneuver. You can simulate this multiple ways, in other words.

I agree with your comment that it's pretty rare. The disadvantage seems more "sometimes I must do something else" than "sometimes it does nothing and I waste a phase". I've never seen a character whose only major attack is an NND. As you note, sometimes someone in an area NND has the defense. That said, I once ran a power armor character with a +5/+5 Invisible Hardened force field. That came back to haunt a few adversaries (especially a castling teleporter..., but I'm sure I caught an NND here and there). I've also seen players I GM forego the NND against characters who would have been affected in the mistaken belief he "must" have the defense (eg. mistaking a damage aura for a force field). I agree with your ovservations that the character generally only spends 1/10 the cost of an NND since it's in a multipower and rarely, if ever, wastes a shot with it. At the same time, I haven't seen NND's dominate the game, and I go back to the early '80's, as you do.

Somehow, I had it in my head it was double, rather than an aded +1 My bad. The other attack is 2 1/2d6 NND, for 26 points, plus 23 for offsets, makes 49, so we're even in points. So that should be 18.8 for the autofire vs 19.2 for the rapid attack - only out by rounding. That seems to indicate the system is balanced so far, although we have a considerable END discrepancy. This assumes one guy runs out of END before the other runs out of STUN, but in the broader picture, using less END will still be an advantage. On the other hand, "Rapid Fire Guy" is far more susceptible to adjustment powers, since he's got only 26 points to begin with. Minor issues. 3d6 NND 0 END = 15 * 2.5 = 37.5, so 38 + 23 = 61. 3d6 NND Autofire 0 END = 64. Close enough. Three less, but still a slight advantage. However, I'm not convinced they need to be taken to 0 END. It makes sense for RapidFireGuy - only a +1/2, and costs 61 points. For 60 points, Autofire Guy can have 128 charges - that's 42 clips a day. Practically, firing off more than that is in the same likelihood (probably less) than finding a guy who can drain the NND attacks. See what happens when you optimize the limitations? Actually, it's now for a 60 point (61 for RFGuy) attack. 50-60 points, more or less equal. Sounds right to me. It's also for a 9 DCV guy. If DCV goes up, the fixed cost to equalize goes up. The other possibility here is that Captain Autofire takes the Rapid Autofire skills... That will cost him 28 points (23 + Rapid Autofire), and brings him down to 14 shots (from his 128 charges) - still lots. His attack still costs 15 * (1 + NND 1 + Auto 1.25 + 128 cg 3/4) = 15 * 4 = 60, so he's spent 88 points. Our RF straight guy spends 23 of those on skills, so he has 65 to buy a 5d6 NND 0 END attack - let's make it 5 1/2 d6 for an extra 5 points - Autofire can use 4 of these to just make his attack 0 END. He'll spend the other point on COM. So Autofire now averages 18.8 x 3 = 56.4, where Rapid Fire gets 19.2 * 19.5/9 = 41.6. We've taken the points way out of that 50 point base we started with, and that Autofire is still looking mioghty good, even with double cost for 0 END and an extra +1 for Autofire. Assuming the characters are otherwise identical, then winner is...no one - they fire at the same DEX on the same segment and KO each other!

BINGO - it's not a case of autofire penalized where Rapid Fire isn't, it's a change to the dynamic. It can be just as deadly with a vs normal defenses attack.

Read the example - that cumulative penalty applies to all shots taken (3 shots means all shots suffer -4 OCV). EDIT: Typo corrected

To me, this is fast changing from "rapid attack vs autofire" to "is NND underpriced". I have not done a lot of 5e gaming, so the former is not intuitive to me, hence the math above (which seems to indicate Rapid Fire is NOT inherently superior to Autofire). I have not seen NND's take over the game since their introduction at 1e, so I would say they don't seem to be overly effective for their cost. They are a way of layinmg down some serious STUN against many high DEF opponents, and should be treated with caution. The issue of reduced END being cheaper is true. Area effect is also cheaper, and a lot more effective with an attack not applied against defenses. A 60 AP EB with area effect does 6d6, or 21 Stun on average - a mere annoyance, at most, to most Supers. A 60 AP area effect NND does 4d6, which is 14 points every time. Advantages feed on themselves - it's cheap cheap cheap to add more advantages if you already have quite a few.

You are right, and any miss ends the sequence.

What do we call a "typical" character? Let's look to the "averages" for a standard Super as a benchmark and see how this works out. A standard Super has CV 7-13 - let's say OCV 11, DCV 9. He has DC 6-14 - let's say 10, again right on the average. That's 5d6 NND, or 4d6 with 2-3 Autofire (20 x 2.5). That costs 5 END per shot, so 15 END for 3 shots. 13- represents 83.8% of rolls, 11- is 62.5% and 9- is 37.5%, and he averages 14 per hit. He'll hit as follows: HIT THREE: 14 x 3 x 37.5% = 15.75 HIT TWO: 14 x 2 x (62.5% - 37.5%) = 7 HIT ONE: 14 x (83.8% - 62.5%) = 2.28 Total average: 25.03 What if he goes Rapid Fire instead? To offset the Rapid Attack drawbacks, he needs to spend 5 points on Rapid Fire, buy 4 DCV levels with Rapid Attack (12 points) and buy 4 penalty skill levels (6 points, assuming they apply only to his NND). That's 23 points, leaving 27 for his attack, or 2 1/2 d6 NND. He has 1 point left over. He spends 9 END to fire a 3 shot burst. A 13- comes up 83.8% of the time, so he will hit once 83.8%, twice two hits 70.2% of the time and three 58.8% of the time. Once one shot misses, the rest cannot hit. Average damage per hit is 9 points, so that's: HIT THREE: 9 x 3 x 58.8% = 15.9 HIT TWO: 9 x 2 x (70.2% - 58.8%) = 2.1 HIT ONE: 9 x (83.8% - 70.2%) = 1.2 Total average: 19.2 Advantage goes to Autofire with a solid 25% more damage - yet you think Rapid Attack is superior. Now, where's the problem - the NND, or the Rapid Fire option? Using the same approach as above, let's use a 60 point normal attack vs defenses of 20 (again, Standard Super). A 60 point EB with Autofire (2-3) leaves 9 1/2 d6, or an average roll of 33.5, inflicting 13.5 damage. We've established the Rapid Attack offsets cost a total of 23 points, leaving 37 for the EB, so 7 1/2d6 (one more point for an extra half die, so let's use that). That's 26.5, or 6.5 Stun per hit. Autofire gets us 25.03 x 13.5/14 = 24.1 Rapid fire averages 19.2 x 6.5/9 = 13.9 Again, autofire has clear superiority, this time by well over 40%! As AP go up, the Autofire will rise in damage slower than the non-autofire attack, so there would be an AP total where the advantage goes to Rapid Fire. But it's not so for the "typical character". Now, if you ignore the character's use of other points, and blindly apply "campaign maximum is X DC and average is 50 AP = 10 DC", 6then a character buying a 5d6 NND AND paying 23 points for the Rapid Attack offsets will clearly be superior offensively to the guy with a 4d6 Autofire NND. All that means is that you should be factoring those Rapid Attack offsets into offensive power, and not simply applying a mechanical formula for DC caps. Yup - got the page reference from Steve as well. One also has to ask whether Autofire raises DC - it certainly raises damage - but that's a judgement call for each GM. With the DC clarified, I agree you lose more damage to spread the EB. I don't have a big concern with that and if I did I would solve it by setting DC as 1d6 of EB, 1/2 d6 of Ego Blast/Drain and 1/3 die of KA/Transform, ignoring all advantages. I've snipped the suggestion of default to "can't rapid fire" and forcing an advantage to be purchased, since the above indicates the Autofire advantage would be superior in dealing with average characters. That would certainly be an approach one could take. Presumably, if the advantage is +1/2, I can have a -1/2 limit on my powers that default to allowing Rapid Attack, and save some points that way. Just like it costs +1/2 to give a no range power range, and saves -1/2 to take range away.

And therein lies the problem...who wins depends a lot on which publisher makes the decision!

I searched "spread" in the Combat part of the FAQ - but didn't find this pretty basic question. If I spread an NND to gain +2 OCV, do I sacrifice 1 or 2 dice of damage? The former assumes a DC is 1/2 d6 since the NND has a +1 advantage. This implies every power with an advantage (or limitation?) impacting DC gets divided down fro spreading purposes. The latter assumes 1 DC of the base power, Energy Blast, is used, and that's 1d6 no matter how many advantages it has. Either approach seems arguable, so I'm surprised it never came up before (I probably mised something somewhere). Thanks Hugh