Jump to content

Christopher R Taylor

HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Christopher R Taylor last won the day on August 21 2019

Christopher R Taylor had the most liked content!


About Christopher R Taylor

  • Rank
    Hoopty Dude
  • Birthday 12/09/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Salem, Oregon
  • Interests
    Gaming, Theology, History, Music, Outdoors, Automotive and Airplane technology, Art
  • Occupation
    Author and illustrator

Recent Profile Visitors

2,376 profile views
  1. And that was the question, which I could not believe anyone would even consider asking. Tell you what. You apologize for repeatedly claiming I am saying something I am not, and stop claiming it... and I will yet again go through how Combined Attack needs to be changed like I did for two pages previous so you can see it again. Int he meantime maybe you could go over and ask yourself why it is only you and Gnome seem to think its perfectly fine as is.
  2. Sigh, yes sweep existed, but in the context of this thread... multiple attack and combined attacks weren't a thing until they suddenly showed up.
  3. Its going to make a ton of money off nostalgia and being "THE END OF THE SAGA" so no, its not burning out. Disney will take that as proof that Solo was a one-off and people lurve them some Star Wars movies, so they go back to pumping one out a year or more.
  4. Fanning the Hammer didn't come up, and its not in the main rules either. My solution was to give it a +1 OCV (only for Multiple Attacks, thus it slightly offsets MA penalties) at the expense of causing damage to your weapon if you do it too much. A couple shots, probably okay but each shot has a chance of causing your gun to be damaged and not function. Edit: I like Duke's idea quite a bit, as it requires less technical focus on the survival of the gun, avoids the baggage of Multiple Attacks (and all the penalties it entails) and seems like it represents Fanning the Hammer a bit better. I'll give it some thought, whether that requires a skill or should just be a familiarity (I mean, anyone could try it). As a side note, here's the text for using two guns: As you'll note, before 5th edition there was no idea of firing the same attack over and over in the same phase which is why it was such a shock when the rules came out and it was said that his was always possible.
  5. Its really bad for your gun too. But you are supposed to do this kind of thing on a single action revolver. A double action revolver will cock and isn't able to snap the hammer freely, I'm sorry, that came across a bit strong but... seriously? I didn't mean to be mocking, just... jaw dropping amazement. There is zero support or logic in any remotest sense to saying blasting someone once with a blast is superior to basting them more than once. That makes no sense at all no matter how you look at it. I was trying to make sure that I had this correct because its like asking why its a bad idea to hit your thumb with a hammer. This is not even something worthy of discussion. What on earth could possibly prompt someone to suggest that hitting an opponent twice is not better than hitting them once? Do you stop the fight after a single blow? Do you not charge an advantage for autofire? Do you think that multiple attacks aren't worth penalties because its worse to hit the same target more than once (you can do that with multiple attack, you realize, yes?). For the last time at no point have I ever suggested I don't want to allow Combined Attacks. Ever. In any way. No matter how you read it. The only thing I've ever said is that this is a maneuver that should carry some sort of penalty. That this is part of the rules and I'm fine with it existing but that its build improperly and should have a drawback to offset its blatantly obvious advantage. Do you see how this could possibly get frustrating and annoying to me? To have you repeatedly mis-characterize what I'm saying? It almost seems as if you're not relay reading what I write and are just arguing your own point while claiming that you understand fine but disagree. So I'm just going to move on. I agree, and that's my concern. This is a good overall wrap up of the problems and the discussion broken down to the actual subject rather than heated personalities and side tracking. Although nobody that I saw ever suggested doing away with Combined Attacks entirely, just finding some way to balance it out. It seems absurd to not use every single phase, since there's really nothing at all to stop you and all the benefit in the world. Yet penalizing it causes problems with linked powers. How to work that out? To me, instead of going "I'm going to nitpick and find technicalities" the best topic for discussion would be "how can we find a way to make this rule better constructed?"
  6. This is an old reference, but we used to compare it to when Mike Tyson got knocked down by Buster Douglas. He was on his hands and knees drunkenly trying to find his mouthpiece and basically out cold but still sort of functioning.
  7. The problem with a death trap is that it relies on the writer knowing how to get out and making the character figure it out. Players are... less reliable in that aspect. You often have to end up giving them die rolls to figure things out which is less than satisfying. On the other hand, sometimes they come up with a way of trying to get out which you had not considered. And if its remotely feasible or entertaining... go for it, even if you have to change things a bit to make it work. Better you change your plans for the player to succeed on their own than force them along a predetermined path through die rolls to feed them info.
  8. ...are you joking? You want me to explain how hitting someone twice is better than hitting them once???? Well you can do it but it takes really fast, strong thumbs like a 13 year old girl after all her texting experience. Realistically its not very feasible, though A more realistic move is to snap the hammer back with your thumb for one shot, and then pull the trigger, ba-bam. Extremely poor accuracy (your thumb will yank the barrel up) but works in close range and takes a really smooth, easy to work mechanism.
  9. I think the skill list probably is too long, particularly with the sub-categories for stuff like survival.
  10. Rules on being stunned: So; maybe. I would rule that its going to be based on circumstances (is the horse rearing? Running? Dodging?) and the character's actions when hit. If you're leaning off the side, you'll fall. If you're sitting squarely and the mount is not moving or is just trotting, you don't. If you're riding hard or the horse is turning etc, then maybe -- unluck roll or maybe even the horse's DEX roll depending on how well trained it is
  11. Probably would help if you read up and saw the previous dozen or so posts where I spent time supporting the idea. Could you explain to me in what possible way hitting someone with two attacks at the same time with one attack roll is not an advantage over hitting them with one attack? I mean I agree that your argument that two 60 active point powers is less advantageous than one 120 point attack but... that's not the argument. That's what Hugh keeps saying but its not even part of the game. GMs don't let people have attacks that are double the AP cap. And even if they did you could use two of them at once with a Combined Attack and we're back at square one. I gotta say though trying to argue that using two blasts at once is not an advantage is a pretty creative approach. I mean... I guess it sucks so much nobody will ever want to use this option, right? Since its not as good as using one.
  12. For me this is a feature: no matter how skilled and experienced you get, you're still just people and a dragon's bite is still very dangerous. But better spells, better armor, etc all can help make the difference between "bitten in half" and "able to still fight"
  13. Yeah I'm working on some classes of weapon "speeds" to deal with things like that for my Fantasy Hero setting. That there are advantages and disadvantages besides damage to the various types of weapons. Some kinds of maneuvers take a penalty or are unavailable with some kinds of weapons. I like the idea of players making choices based on what they want, or don't want, with weapons rather than simply going down the list and figuring out the most damage they can get each swing. No, not the same thing. But Combined Attacks are a form of Multiple Attack, and are described and explained in the "Multiple Attack" section of the rules. Look it up. In any case, my argument is simply one of logic: Hitting people with multiple powers is heavily restricted in this form, but not another. That's called "supporting evidence" demonstrating that my argument "combined attack should be balanced with penalties" is reasonable and according to the rules. Really? Because you keep arguing it would be crazy to let someone do that, then proceed to say that combined attacks are fine as is and shouldn't be changed. Literally, you said it would be insane to do so, then attack every argument I make that there needs to be some sort of penalty for doing so.
  14. No, that's not what I'm saying. This may take a bit of definition and description to get across properly. 1) A combined attack is a version of strike. It only works as a strike (ranged or melee). No other maneuver is allowed, and it only works with powers which are strike-based. So you can use it with a blast, but not a mind control. You can with GM permission use it with a strike-like power such as flash I suppose, but not darkness. 2) It is presumed (probably accurately) that Combined Attack was defined because a linked attack let you do that, but was called a limitation. What makes using two powers at once a limitation if you cannot ordinarily? 3) Linked strikes are simply a Combined Attack with a drawback: at least one of the linked powers can only be used in combination with the other, and never solo. With this information in mind, let's think this through carefully and rationally. I propose a possible approach would be to state that a Combined Attack should have some sort of drawback to make the advantage of using more than one power to attack at once. My proposal is that this disadvantage would be to make a Combined Attack take a full phase (like Multiple Attacks do). For the sake of argument, let's talk about how this would work out instead of throwing rocks at me for daring to bring up this idea. If this was done then we have a dilemma: linked attacks don't take a full phase, give you the ability to use two powers at once with one attack roll, but have a limitation! We're back to the problem with linked noted in #2 above. Hence, the solution proposed is to make any linked attack which is a strike-based attack take a full phase as well Why? Because the linked attacks are a form of Combined Attack and would, necessarily, use the rules for Combined Attack. Linked powers which are not strike-based would not be Combined Attacks and hence would not use the rules for Combined Attacks. So if Bob has a linked Telepathy/Change Environment (makes it rain) power, then it is not a Combined Attack and would not take a full phase. This creates a symmetry and fair, balanced structure in the game. incidentally if you've ever watched a rattlesnake strike... they're clearly doing a full-phase action. Not that this somehow should define things or be the reason to use this suggestion, just saying. Would this GM allow Multiple Attacks with a 14 DC attack? See again you seem to be making my case still, that the present structure of Combined Attack is unbalanced or improperly structured. That its utility is dangerous and troubling. The fact that you think only someone insane would let a character use Combined Attack shows that you have a problem with it just like I do. So how do we approach this, what can be done to make this less of a concern?
  15. This would be known as "the rules as they are written" I have no idea what kind of games you've been playing in but no game I've ever read about, heard, played in, run, or seen anything written for has allowed unrestricted powers of any power level whatsoever. None. Even the alleged 210 point power you postulated you stated clearly "It was doubtless a very limited power, not a 42d6 Blast". The restriction on powers is that GMs put active point costs on powers. No sane GM allows someone to spend an unlimited amount of points on one power. I'm confident you know this very well and are arguing not out of any sense of disagreement but because, well, you just like to argue. Could you please stick to what I actually am writing here? I never said I wanted it banned. I am sure you know the difference between "this seems overpowered" and "this should be banned" right? How can we have any kind of discussion if you're just going to invent what I'm writing instead of what I actually did? However I want to put something down right now as clearly and inescapably as I can. This would make using two powers at once a consistent rule. So they both behave the same. Linked would simply be a Combined Attack with a limitation. Does that make sense to you? See, it wouldn't be a limitation on Linked. It would just make the Combined Attack effect consistent no matter how it was used. This would indeed make the game more fair and balanced overall by making the two abilities consistent, the cost of limitation more in line with what it actually does, and making Combined Attacks not the plain and obvious choice for every single attack every time. It makes players have to make a choice: will I use one power and move, or use multiple powers and use my whole phase? Can you see what I'm saying here?
  • Create New...