Deadman

I see your point, in that example you are doing two combat maneuvers, a grab and a strike. I hadn't thought of it that way honestly. I suppose you're right, that was a bad example.

Okay, let me take a stab at this. These are my assumptions of what is written. First to define Combined attack we should look at what it won't let you do. It won't let you Combine powers in a Multipower or VPP over the Pool cost You can only use up to the Total Pool points in any give Phase You could use two Variable slots up to the total pool points if you chose This is important since many characters tend to buy all of there offensive attacks in a Multipower. It won't let you make two HTH attacks using Strength for both (that would be a Multiple Attack) You could combine a Punch with a Hand Attack but if you had two weapons you couldn't use each of them as a combined attack since you would be using Strength twice and that would be a Multiple Attack You could do a Punch and fire an Energy Blast at the same time though, paying END for each It won't let you fire the same attack twice (as evidenced with Strength above) It won't let you fire at multiple targets However, it will let you shoot two AoE attacks at the same hex Firing at multiple targets requires Multiple Attack You can't combine Combat Maneuvers (this would also be Multiple Attack) You couldn't do a HTH Grab and a Strike as a Combined attack (this would be using Strength twice) So then what is a Combined attack for? If your character had two powers that he paid for independently he could use both of them at the same time For example, Flare has an Energy Blast and a Flash attack which were bought independently she could use them both in the same phase at the same target If Neutron had a Telekinetic attack and an Energy Blast (bought separately) he could both Grab the target and shoot at him in the same Phase It should be noted that the target will not suffer the DCV penalties against the EB since he actually hasn't been grabbed yet (until the successful to hit roll) If your character wanted to Combine a Multipower attack with a power that wasn't in the Multipower he could do that as a Combined attack Flare has several Energy blasts (bought as fixed slots) in a Multipower and a Flash attack bought independently She could fire attacks up to the total of the Multipower pool and the Flash as a combined attack Some notes on using Combined Attack As I mentioned previously the effects of one attack do not take place before the other This means that if your character has a PD drain and you use it as a Combined attack with a punch it doesn't drain the PD before the damage of the punch The effects take place at the same time so one does not get the benefit of the other So what is the difference with the Linked Limitation? With Linked you Have to use the other attack You cannot use the Linked power independently (that is the Limitation) For example in the case above with Flare If her Flash attack was linked to an Energy Blast she couldn't fire the Flash by itself, she must fire the Energy Blast as well Cinematically, this represents a character using two attacks at the same time. It might be two different Energy Blasts or Flash and an Energy Blast or Telekinesis or whatever. It is done all the time in movies and TV Shows. Think of an Energy Blaster using both hands to attack a target. That could be two different attacks (if it is the same attack twice then that is Multiple Attack). I hope this clears things up a bit. Again, I am no authority on the game but this is how I view the rule. Deadman

Herogames #435 was supposed to be "The Assassin's Directory" by David "Lightfinger" West, Cliff Christiansen and Jeff Andrysik, the same authors that did "Murderer's Row" #433. You can read about the ill-fated project if you go to the Wayback Machine and put in the URL http://members.cox.net/~lightfinger/west/champions/assdir.htm I am something of a completionist as well and researched what happened a long time ago. This is just one of the number of books that were scheduled but never made it to print. When I.C.E. had control of the product line there were several that were skipped. Numbers 33, 37, 43, 45 and 49 weren't used. Think of all that Hero goodness that could have been ours. Regards,

Well this thread turned into something of a flamefest. I will go back to your original post and see if I can make some sense of it. In 5th Edition, you are correct, little is mentioned about attacking from behind. There are two places you should look. I am using the Revised copy so my page numbers will be different if you don't have that edition. On page 373 in the DCV Modifiers table there are two entries which elude to being attacked from behind. They essentially say that if a character is attacked from behind while in combat he is 1/2 DCV. This is consistent with other modifiers imposed to suggest that you cannot see the attack coming (darkness, invisibility, etc.). The second condition is attacked from behind when OUT of combat which means the character is both 1/2 DCV AND Hit Location Penalties are halved. On page 380 in the Surprised section it is confirmed that the character is "Surprised" and will also take 2x Stun from the attack. As far at the abuse that you cite in other posts, it is up to the GM. If a character could completely break off the engagement and get behind the character without being seen then I suppose he could attack the character at 1/2 DCV. This is somewhat unlikely in most games and as you mention, impossible in the real world.. My ruling would be that just because you can take a position behind a character does not necessarily mean you get the "from behind" benefit. The half DCV suggests that the defender is not aware that you are there (but still moving defensively because he is expecting attacks). Combat is not meant to be this series of start and stop motions where a character can do absolutely nothing. His head still moves and in fact he is still moving as this is exactly what his DCV represents. Ultimately, there is no game in the world that can perfectly mirror how things happen in the real world. The rules exist to provide a framework for the characters to use to simulate combat they do not suggest that it is in any way just like reality. I hope that helps, Deadman

I think you are on the right track here. In my opinion one of the biggest problems with Hero has been the artwork. Back in the days of 5e the art was terrible and that didn't lead people to pick up the books. Perhaps we, as avid fans would buy them but it did little to draw new fans in. I really thought that with the IP getting bought by Cryptic (and them sharing their art) there would be a big push to get great art out there but it didn't come to pass. Instead they stuck with the basic blue cover for most of the books. I get that people don't buy an RPG for the art but it does get interest going. Look at Mutants and Masterminds, they were able to get a large following based on good looking products. I'm not a fan of the system but the art was good. I am a big fan of the Dark Champions genre and honestly I was very upset with the art that they chose to put in the 5e book Predators. It was embarrassing for me to show the players. I would be interested to find out how many copies of the BBB sold with the George Perez cover vs. Fred with the black cover. I would think that there is a correlation. The art won't do you a lot of good without a good game but Hero is a great game that should be far more successful than it is. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the industry or the company. I just find it a shame that such a great game is struggling to stay afloat.

Here is a simple drone that we worked up for our Dark Champions Campaign. Keep in mind we use Segmented Movement in the campaign so the move is different. This one doesn't have a microphone but it can be easily added. Ryze Drone: Clairsentience (Sight Group), Mobile Perception Point (can move up to 100m per Turn), Telescopic: +2 (36 Active Points); OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), 4 clips of 1 Continuing Charge lasting 20 Minutes (Increased Reloading Time: 1 Turn; Drone Must Return to User to Replace Clips; -3/4), Concentration, Must Concentrate Throughout Use of Constant Power Or Limited To Specific Path (1/2 DCV; -1/2), Requires A Roll (Drone Piloting Skill Roll; -1/2), Radio Controlled Device (Requires Controller and Drone To Operate; May Be Jammed Or Hacked; -1/2), Sense Affected As Sight And Radio Groups [any other Sense] (-1/4), Limited Range (100m; -1/4), Normal Sight Only (Drone Provides Night Vision; -1/4)

Here you go Scott. Regards, Deadman GoingToAGunShow.pdf

Page 159 of the Hudson City book is what you are looking for I believe. Page 162 breaks down Chinatown. Regards, Deadman

After doing some digging into the books, Flying Dodge goes against the rules for Aborting an Action. In 6eV2, 21 it says... "A character cannot normally Abort to a movement Action, such as to run, fly, or Teleport out of danger’s way. Dive For Cover and decelerating or turning are exceptions to this — although they do involve some movement, characters can Abort to them. At the GM’s option, characters may be allowed to Abort to other forms of movement in appropriate circumstances." With that said, I feel that allowing the maneuver itself would require the GM to allow others to Abort to movement as well. They wouldn't get the DCV bonus that Flying Dodge confers but would be able to move as a defensive abort action. Of course if the GM allows this then it renders the Dive For Cover maneuver obsolete since no one would want to end up prone if they don't have to. Right? Therefore if you require a DEX roll for someone to Abort to movement I feel it is justified to require it for those trying a Flying Dodge. If they miss the roll they still have the +4 DCV but they are in the Hex when the AoE goes off. Just my $.02, T

Sure it does. It may not fit your concept but it is available to you. If you want to gimp your character by not taking it that is your problem, right? Now I do get where you are coming from. In a perfect system every character created with a set number of points should be every bit as capable as another character with the same number of points, right? I can't tell you how many characters I have rejected that have all had a combination of Desolidification and Invisibility. At one point it seemed like a standard for characters that were being submitted for my games. But ultimately I don't see every character coming in with Martial Arts and that leads me to believe that it isn't that unbalancing. Can it be powerful? Sure, but the more flexibility you buy with it (meaning more maneuvers) the more you pay for it and the more balanced it becomes. "Gun Fu" is certainly available as presented in Hero System Martial Arts, which is considered a Core book. Strength also requires your character be a hand to hand combatant, it just costs points to increase just as Martial Arts does. Well OCV can be used for ranged attacks right? The limitation ensures that it can't. Some people may see a Hand Attack like a touch taser which may not require a Strike, in this case you would have to use a Strike to do damage. It represents that it adds only to other damage dealt and cannot do damage by itself. I think the -1/4 is a pretty good representation overall. If you don't that is your prerogative. The HKA itself makes the Strike maneuver do Killing. Yes, it is more expensive but not dramatically so. The rules state that you must take at least 10 points of maneuvers to take any Martial Arts so that helps reign in many of the abuses of characters. So just taking Flying Dodge and Fast Strike (since the Weapon Element is not included per the rules) (6Ev1 pg. 82). I also find it ironic that you say that Ranged Martial Arts isn't allowed but you include two Maneuvers that are only available through HSMA. As for how I would construct that set without using Martial Arts. A 2 slot Multipower with one +4 DCV slot and another slot with +2 OCV and 2DC of Hand Attack. Probably 15 points or so.

I don't think that Martial Arts is really unbalancing at all. It is available to everyone so that right there means it is pretty balanced. Consider the Multipower below which could be used instead of Martial Arts to pretty awesome effect. 16 Martial Arts: Multipower, 20-point reserve, (20 Active Points); all slots Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4) 3V Accurate: +4 OCV (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4) 3V Evasive: +4 DCV (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4) 3V Strong: +20 STR (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4) 3V Powerful: Hand-To-Hand Attack +4d6 (20 Active Points); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4), Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4) 3V Lethal: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (2d6 w/STR) (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4) In this example the character could use any one of the slots to bolster his HTH prowess or mix and match them (because they are Variable slots) to great effect. Martial Strike - +2d6, +2 DCV when performing Strike Fast Strike - +2 OCV, +2d6 when performing Strike Martial Block - +2 OCV, +2 DCV when performing Block Martial Dodge - +4 DCV (Total of +7!) when performing Dodge Martial Grab - +1 OCV, +1 DCV, +10 STR when performing Grab Offensive Strike - +4d6 when performing Strike Killing Strike - 2d6KA when performing Strike If you want to make it even more powerful you could drop the limitation and voila! You have the ability to do a Flying Dodge. Sure, it costs more than your average Martial Arts package but it doesn't have the Negatives on any of the maneuvers either. Just my $.02, Deadman

Thanks Jagged. I appreciate the work and fully understand the demands (well if your Misses is anything like mine ) of real life. If there is anything I can do to help let me know.

Any traction on this project Jagged? I am still using 1.4.0.5 but if any of the new builds have the functionality I would consider moving over just for that. Thanks, Deadman

Why buy a blast when you could just miss half the time? The point wasn't trying to be a rules monger and make it insanely cheap. It was to reason from effect and create a power that would do what the OP was looking for. If it were my game I don't think I would want someone to routinely disarm everything from a target for 20 points. Using CE works per the RAW but in my experience it isn't very well cost balanced. I also don't see how CE would affect things that are stowed regardless of their OAF status. The CE version you cite would look like this. Butterfingers: Change Environment (-3 to DEX Roll), Characters that Miss DEX Roll Drop Handheld OAFs (+0), Area Of Effect Accurate (1m Radius; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (18 Active Points) To me that is too inexpensive for a nearly guaranteed effect.

Wow, this is a great topic and has so many uses beyond just what the OP was presenting. I will break my thoughts down in sections. In response to the OP. I am not a fan of CE since it seems too inexpensive for what it does. (i.e. An Ice Slick causes everyone to fall in an area if they fail a Dex roll -3). Therefore I would say that TK would be better suited for this. Now if you're against STR defending against it you could use AVAD to make DEX defend against it instead. I think that you would need the Fine Manipulation Adder to do the Disarm maneuver so that is added in. The power would then look like this. Butterfingers: Telekinesis (20 STR), Fine Manipulation, Area Of Effect Accurate (2m Radius; +1/2), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (DEX; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (100 Active Points); Only Works On Very Limited Types Of Objects Handheld OAFs (-1), Only To Disarm Handheld Objects (-1) AP:100, Real Cost: 33 I Guess You Should Have Secured Those Better: Telekinesis (20 STR), Fine Manipulation, Area Of Effect Accurate (2m Radius; +1/2), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (DEX; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2), Non-Standard Attack Power (+1) (180 Active Points); Only To Disarm OAFs On Character (-1), Only Works On Limited Types Of Objects OAFs On Target (-1/2) AP: 180, Real Cost: 72 The first one would only work on a handheld OAF, while the second would work on any OAFs the Character had on his person. The attacker would make a STR based roll of 4d6 and the Target would roll 1d6 per 5 points of DEX they had to determine if they retained the objects. Now on to the bigger question of disarming holstered or stowed OAFs. The RAW don't make a distinction between an OAF in use and one that is stowed. I would say that logic must help us dictate this. Let's take a holstered handgun for example. I would assume that a handgun in a standard holster would in fact still be OAF (even if there was a velcro/snap strap on it). For a retention holster I would agree that this would be bought to resist disarm with extra STR (or alternatively extra DCV to resist disarm). This doesn't necessarily need to be written up. It could just be an additional negative applied to the -2 OCV penalty imposed by Disarm based on how it is stowed. Surrealone brought up the idea of items being stored in bags and such. In my opinion this is as much a detriment to the character as someone trying to disarm it (have you ever tried to find something in a woman's purse?). Therefore it would be handled differently (but again logically). If stowed completely in a purse, backpack, etc. the OAF in question becomes essentially an IIF for all intents and purposes. If the character wanted to use it they must retrieve it which could take anywhere from a full phase to a minute or more (you should see my wife's purse). Then you are dealing with just the container with regard to disarm. Is it an OAF itself or perhaps an OIF. This would depend on how it is worn/carried IMHO. A woman's purse carried on one shoulder is OAF, while one carried in a cross body fashion would be OIF. So if someone wanted to take the OIF they would have to break the strap. Of course there is also the case where a weapon or other OAF is concealed. The GM must decide what negatives are applied for someone to notice the device (there are actual rules for this but I don't know where they are off the top of my head). If they succeed with a PER roll then apply the decision for whatever they are contained in. Not all of this needs to be written up, it should be handled on a case by case basis by the GM. For example: Hair Trigger carries four pistols, two in Fast Draw holsters on her hips, two in cross draw shoulder holsters beneath her jacket. The GM decides that the pistols on her hips are still OAFs, the ones below her jacket are concealed (somewhat IAF) with a -2 to PER rolls. In addition she has a can of pepper spray in a belt case. The pepper spray is also OAF but it is not immediately apparent that it is pepper spray. She gets into a close quarters mix-up with Edge and knowing of her prowess with handguns decides to disarm her. He wants to Multi-Attack a disarm to remove her weapons. The GM has Edge's player roll a PER roll which he makes exactly. Now he rolls to disarm the two pistols that he can see. The GM decides that because they are fast draw holsters the standard -2 OCV for Disarm will apply. Edge takes a total of a -4 OCV to his rolls due to the multi-attack and hits both times. The GM adjudicates that the holsters will be STR 10 for purposes of disarm. They both roll and Edge succeeds in liberating the pistols from their holsters....HA! Hair Trigger takes a step back and pulls the pistols from her shoulder holsters with Fast Draw and opens up on Edge....HA BACK! Just my $.02, Deadman