Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

[pinecone]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

If and how much of a problem MPA are depends a lot on the ratio between defenses and attacks. The lower defenses are in relation to attacksthe more potent MPAs can be. This can cause problems depending on how the campaign limits are set up. Using the sample levels for "Superheroic" from the main book where a "typical" normal defense is a 20. Two 10 DC attacks in an MPA do roughly equivalent Stun damage to a 14 DC attack.

 

This becomes a real problem when the character uses any of the various cost saving methods to get attacks cheap. The most obvious to me is the +5 cp for x2 equipment. I've seen GM allow MPAs with an attack in a EC and attack in an MP, I'm not sure if that is one of the things that Steve ruled out in the FAQ or not. There is also the option of Martial Arts, IIRC each manuever is considered a separate attack for MPA pruposes. As has been pointed when points aren't a factor, than why shouldn't everyone go in with two guns blazing?

 

As far as I know..."You can't MPA out of a framework" is a given since forever...so that would be a "house rule " thang.... (it does cause problems) I also won't let you MPA unless you pay full cost for each gizmo.... (For me the "metarule" is full cost= Full utility)

[pinecone]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

The problem with allowing unpenalised multiple attacks is simply that you can put your opponent down faster. END is an issue but only sort of - to put your opponent down you'd need to hit them that many times anyway, so you'd be spending at least that much END anyway, but it would take longer and you'd be exposing yourself to more danger. It rapidly becomes a question of who can launch the most attacks in a single phase and the majority of hits will be one-shot kills (or KOs).

 

I would suggest that all multiple attacks be dealt with the same way in Hero.

 

We have ways to mutliple atatck now: let's list them.

 

Sweep: 1/2 DCV, full phase, cumulative -2 OCV, one miss=remaining shots miss

Rapid fire: 1/2 DCV, full phase, cumulative -2 OCV, one miss=remaining shots miss

 

The Rapid attack skill reduces the time to a half phase action.

 

The two weapon fighting skill reduces DCV penalty to -2, ignores the offhand penalty (heroic games) and the first -2 OCV penalty.

 

I'm thinking we get rid of the MPA rules and simply say that you can rapid fire or sweep with different attacks. In fact I'd go one better and say that sweep and rapid fire needn't be seperate maneouvres. I might apply an additional -2 OCV if you are mixing ranged and melee attacks. Let us call the maneouvre the Multiple Attack Maneuvre.

 

Mixing ego based and dex based attacks is more problematic. I'd want to preserve the 'single roll' principle, but perhaps you could use a single roll and apply it to seperate totals. You need to do that if you are firing at different opponents anyway, I don't see a problem. If you are mixing ego and dex attacks I'd also apply a seperate -2 penalty to OCV.

 

Single maneouvre, single rules, pages saved for other crunchy goodness. Bootiful.

 

Well...elegant, but I really hate it when people who don't use a rule first say "Lets dump it, and replace it with this..."

 

Try it, if it is bad, then make changes...

[Vondy]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

To be honest, I haven't had a problem with it. Its only come up a few times, and while effective, its endurance cost is prohibitive - and requires some tactical foresight so that you aren't "running on empty" early in the fight. My players are aware of the rule, know its on the table, and prefer sweeps, rapid fires, coordinated attacks, and their ilk. MPE's also allow for simulating "nova blast" like effects without having to go overboard with character design - again, being balanced by the fact that you have to pay all that endurance. On the other hand, I like the idea of allowing two attacks with separate attack and damage rolls as a full phase action. Also a good notion.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

As far as I know..."You can't MPA out of a framework" is a given since forever...so that would be a "house rule " thang.... (it does cause problems) I also won't let you MPA unless you pay full cost for each gizmo.... (For me the "metarule" is full cost= Full utility)

 

Actually, the rule is that only one slot in each framework can be included in an MPA. I recall at least one character with two Multipowers who is noted as MPAing with one slot from each as a matter of course. "Only one power per framework" has been the rule since 5er only. The 5e rules indicated that you could not MPA with more than one power from an EC, but offered no prohibition against MPA's with multipower or VPP slots, provided they could be active at the same time within the pool's limits.

[Markdoc]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

The problem with this again is that it makes Linked an advantage that saves you points.

 

Not really - Linked applies only to the cheaper of the two powers and means that you can never used the linked powers separately. It's a way of creating a single power with two or more effects - unlike an MPA which allows you to combine two or more separate effects, but also use them separately, or with other powers.

 

We've had problems with MPAs in the past, but I can't recall we've ever had a problem with linked attacks.

 

cheers, Mark

[pinecone]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Actually' date=' the rule is that only one slot in each framework can be included in an MPA. I recall at least one character with two Multipowers who is noted as MPAing with one slot from each as a matter of course. "Only one power per framework" has been the rule since 5er only. The 5e rules indicated that you could not MPA with more than one power from an EC, but offered no prohibition against MPA's with multipower or VPP slots, provided they could be active at the same time within the pool's limits.[/quote']

 

Oh, my poor writting skills....yeah if you buy two Frameworks, well you payed for it...so go ahead. I was reading it as "OK to MPA multiple slots" That is a no go for me...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Well...elegant, but I really hate it when people who don't use a rule first say "Lets dump it, and replace it with this..."

 

Try it, if it is bad, then make changes...

 

I don't like MPAs because when they have come up they have tended to be far too effective, and there is no real down side, especially if you have defences that cost END to keep up. For much the same reason I have house rules about coordinating attacks. I also like and apply the old rule that says 'if you move before attacking you take a -1 to your OCV'.

 

Tactically if there is an advantage to using a maneouvre and there is no associated penalty, it would be stupid not to. That makes combat very boring - it just comes down to dice rolls rather than decisions, because you already know in advance what the best thing to do will be.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I don't like MPAs because when they have come up they have tended to be far too effective' date=' and there is no real down side, especially if you have defences that cost END to keep up.[/quote']

I love them. They allow TK and Force specialists to really shine. And empower the players to tackle larger foes. As for their effectiveness... eh, so the villain looses hard! I usually get a table full of very happy players when this happens. GREAT! I just remind them that villains ALSO have access to this rule.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I love them. They allow TK and Force specialists to really shine. And empower the players to tackle larger foes. As for their effectiveness... eh' date=' so the villain looses hard! I usually get a table full of very happy players when this happens. GREAT! I just remind them that villains ALSO have access to this rule. [/quote']

 

That last bit tends to be the problem. If a PC goes down after several phases of intense battle they often accept that the dice went against them this time. If they get KO'd because of MPAs and whatever on phase one and spend the rest of the combat making the coffee they get hacked off, and understandably so.

 

It is one thing reminding the players that the villains can use tactics and maneouvres too. It is another thing entirely making an object lesson of one of your friends.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

The thing that boosts up your cost calculation enormously is the DCV thing. Probably worth something as a limitation' date=' depends how often you use it, but you'd need 10 levels, I think, as the levels are also halved for DCV. Other than that you've just spent 5 points on rapid attack and 8 on OCV levels, and if you buy 2 weapon fighting for 10 poitns the DCV penalty drops to a straight -1 so the cost is 5+8+10+10(with a limtiation) or 33 points.[/quote']

If you want to negate halving your DCV, you only need to buy an extra (your DCV - 1) since ((your DCV - 1) + your DCV) / 2 = your DCV - 0.5, which rounds in your favor.

I'm not too familiar with the 2 weapon fighting thing, but it only works for some SFX, so that's part of why I avoided it in my comparison. Also, doesn't the TWF basically require two attack powers? (though often you won't pay points for them, as I imagine it's more of a heroic, weapons bought with money thing)

 

For your MPA you need two attack powers. That gives you options you wouldn't have with the sweep set up: an EB and a ranged drain, for example - so the target has to have good ED and PowDef to resist you or the second atatck could be a flash which works differently again. So you are getting a lot more from those 60 points than just cancelling out combat penalties. In addition, in an EC, you are only spending 30 additional points for that full 60 AP attack.

 

Yes, for the same price you can get a whole seperate attacks, or negate the penalties to use your one attack 3 times. Things that target Power Defense are generally half as much bang for your buck (1d6 for 10 on Drain for example. Suppress hits hard up front, but requires END maintainance. AVLD attack vs Pow Def is a costly advantage.) which is part of the reason people don't just make all their attacks vs Power Defense in the first place. And the Sweeper could fairly cheaply replace his single 60pt attack with a 60pt multipower of attacks vs different defenses that he can sweep (viability may vary based on character concept and SFX of course).

 

The cost to negate the defense penalties scales according to DCV, rather than offensive output, which makes it scarier on bricks and weaker on MAs and such; the cost of an MPA scales on offensive output.

I will grant, however, that it's generally easier to get some kind of discount on an attack power (EC? Uh, harder to do it multiple times on the same character. Why is the GM letting you have two ECs with different attack powers you can use together? OAF? Incredibly easy to come by.) than it is to get discounts on a bunch of skills.

 

End of the day we work on a 3d6 system, which means that a -2 penalty to OCV is probably going to bite as lot harder. A -2 penalty, if your attack was hitting on a 11- reduces the chance to hit from 62% to 37%, and that is important because, well, look at an average game and assume that the atatcks are both damaging:

 

(I'm making assumptions, but not unreasonable ones)

 

Damage = DCx3.5

Def = DCx2

Stun = DCx5

 

So in a 12DC game, you get (42-24)=18 stun through defences (STD) per hit, and two hits gets you 36 STD. that doesn't add for stunning, but it cuts the number of hits to take an opponent down from 60/18=5 to 60/36=2.

 

You spend 60 extra points and take your opponents down over twice as fast. Looked at that way, it is a pretty good investment.

If you spent the 60 extra points upping the DC of your main attack it would be far more deadly. Instead of 18x2 = 36 STD (as two hits, so less likely stunning), you get 18+42 = 60 STD as one hit, much more likely stunning. So versus the same point investment it fails. Versus the no penalty 3-hit sweep I think it roughly breaks even (advantage sweep: chance to do 3x damage instead of 2x damage. Also, cost scales on DCV not damage output, so some characters get it darn cheap. The offense portion was only 13 cp after all. Advantage MPA: Possibility of differing defenses and/or differing effects (flash in particular benefits I think. For other things it seems better to focus your attention on dropping one characteristic, be it STUN, BODY, or one of the alternative debilitating ones like DEX or PRE). Also only need one successful roll to hit twice, instead of the repeated chance for failure).

 

Also if the attacks are both KAs the stun lottery becomes far more likely to come up trumps and that only has to happen once to be a turning point event.

a) STUN lottery is a problem, period.

If there are DC caps and all the attacks involved are at or near them, this is true of both Sweep and MPA. Sweep is worse as you get 3 shots instead of 2. (MPA can get up to 3 shots.. for another 5 pts per DC investment.)

c) If there are not DC caps, a max'd STUN multiplier on both of two attacks at X DCs each is less of an issue than a max'd STUN multiplier on one single attack at 2X DCs. (And the 2X DCs attack could be sweeped, even if the attacker has to pay the usual penalties.)

 

Finally, coming full circle to your point, if I see a character sheet with lots of PSLs or even extra CSLs that substantially boost the combat level, I want to know why. My assumption is going to be that it is harder to hit with two weapons at once than one and I'll want a damn good explanation for why it is not in your case, and even then I might not allow it. I've got no problem with you taking down opponents fast but I want you to feel the risk. MPAs are just too easy.

MPAs are just too weak, unless they're used to bypass campaign DC limits. And if you already let Sweep do that, MPAs seem to be a costlier way of catching up.

PSLs aren't available for the Sweep penalties, though 2-pt levels with Sweep specifically are.

I'm also not quite sure about it being harder to hit with two weapons than one.. shouldn't it at least be more likely that at least one hits? In some cases at least? For powers in general there's a lot of possible SFX conciderations as well. Maybe my laser attack ionizes a direct trail through the air, making it practically guaranteed my lightning blast will hit if the laser does, but either can be used without the other. Maybe my two autofire guns fire tracer rounds, and seeing both streams of bullets arcing through the air makes it easier to see how I need to adjust the aim on both. Or maybe both of my mutant power rays come out of the same palm with the same tragectory, so the aiming of it is no different using only one of the power rays as using all seven together. SFX can just as easily demand a bonus as a penalty when doing a MPA, or no modifiers at all. Game balance seems to be fine except for the whole skirting of DC caps. (But DC caps seems to be the only thing that really suggests MPAs on anything but linked attacks as anything other than an inefficient character build.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

The discussion of whether MPAs are worth it depends a lot on context. In a heroic game, where you are not paying for your attack powers, or in a superheroic game where you can double your available attack powers for +5 points an MPA is too generous. If you have to pay full dollar for both attacks then it is probably quite limiting.

 

In a heroic game spending 15 points on rapid attack and two weapon fighting is a significant investment that will almost certainly mean having to cut effectiveness in other areas quite seriously. In a superheroic game, 15 points is, if not a drop in the ocean, at least of relatively little consequence to most builds.

 

My preference is to have a single mechanic for multiple attacks that penalises them quite a bit becaue I'd rather have the 'standard' as a single attack, with a multiple attack being an option that can yield rewards but at a potential cost. That feels better for the games I run and play in. I personally doubt that having a machine gun in each hand is an easy thing to control, no matter how cool it looks in The Matrix or Johnny Woo-Woo-Woo!

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

The discussion of whether MPAs are worth it depends a lot on context. In a heroic game, where you are not paying for your attack powers, or in a superheroic game where you can double your available attack powers for +5 points an MPA is too generous. If you have to pay full dollar for both attacks then it is probably quite limiting.

That is absolutely true. I feel it is fair to disallow MPAs for bought equipment (especially when there is TWF rules in the game). Restrict MPAs to seperately bought powers. (So +5 doublings would be required to use TWF rules as well.)

 

In a heroic game spending 15 points on rapid attack and two weapon fighting is a significant investment that will almost certainly mean having to cut effectiveness in other areas quite seriously. In a superheroic game, 15 points is, if not a drop in the ocean, at least of relatively little consequence to most builds.

 

So have them pay 15 points to do TWF in heroic or face the penalties. In superheroic again I wouldn't allow +5 for x2 to be usable as an MPA. And they can already pay 13 points to eliminate the offensive penalties for Sweep.

 

A big part of the reason for this thread was to see where MPA breaks down as a balanced mechanic and becomes out of line with the alternatives (particularly where it becomes too powerful).

 

My preference is to have a single mechanic for multiple attacks that penalises them quite a bit becaue I'd rather have the 'standard' as a single attack' date=' with a multiple attack being an option that can yield rewards but at a potential cost. That feels better for the games I run and play in. I personally doubt that having a machine gun in each hand is an easy thing to control, no matter how cool it looks in The Matrix or Johnny Woo-Woo-Woo![/quote']

 

My preference is to have regular use MPAs as a balanced alternative to single attacks. I think if AP/DC caps are applied to them in a fair way that they can add flavor and variety to the game without being overwhelmingly powerful. (My current untested theory is that the full AP/DC of the largest attack plus half the AP/DC of each additional attack should need to fit in the AP/DC cap for the MPA to be allowed; the higher total AP/DC being thrown is offset by counting in multiple defenses or the same defense multiple times. And throwing 1 less die than max plus a 1d6 NND seems to be ever so slightly weaker than throwing max DCs as a straight normal attack.)

 

I don't think throwing two 8d6 normal attacks together is gamebreaking compared to 12d6 normal or any other 12 DC attack. I can see how two 12d6 normal attacks together would be too much in a 12 DC max campaign. And I prefer the idea that multiple different attacks that create different effects can be used together, rather than a pure damage war or giving up damage entirely for alternate effects.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

It is one thing reminding the players that the villains can use tactics and maneouvres too. It is another thing entirely making an object lesson of one of your friends.

 

Who ever said I'd do that???

 

Seriously though, the game is never about a single combat. Though a Hero System combat can dominate an entire night's game its still only 12-36 seconds in the lives of the characters. The story continues.

 

I'm lucky enough to have players that understand the importance of story over combat. I'm also lucky to have players that appreciate teamwork and are willing to work together to prevent any single character from succumbing to such a fate as you describe above.

 

Sure, carp happens, and sometimes a player takes a hit and is out early. But EOS [Early Out Syndrome] can be caused by any form of attack including Surprise, Sweeps, Auto Fire, Rapid Fire, Multiple Move Bys, Move Throughs, Armor Piercing or Penetrating, Mental, Triggered, Falling (buildings), Called Shots or even combined attacks made by low level thugs. Sooner or later everyone sits some time out while they ponder their character's misfortune. Good players often learn from such hardships and return to the fray with improved tactics.

 

Multiple attacks are just one of the many dangers my characters must be prepared for. When put into context with all of the other heinous things my villains have done, are doing, and will do Multiple Attacks seem tame by comparison.

 

Maybe the question isn't "Are Multiple Attacks Overpowered" but rather "Is My Campaign and/or Player(s) Sophisticated Enough To Handle MPAs?"

[pinecone]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I don't like MPAs because when they have come up they have tended to be far too effective, and there is no real down side, especially if you have defences that cost END to keep up. For much the same reason I have house rules about coordinating attacks. I also like and apply the old rule that says 'if you move before attacking you take a -1 to your OCV'.

 

Tactically if there is an advantage to using a maneouvre and there is no associated penalty, it would be stupid not to. That makes combat very boring - it just comes down to dice rolls rather than decisions, because you already know in advance what the best thing to do will be.

 

Sounds valid...I guess I've been lucky, or maybe, becuse they are there, people tend to Block, Dodge and Dive a lot.

 

Though many chars don't MPA because the can't, they just have a framework, so they have nothing to MPA with. Most Blasters have too little STR to waste End adding it in...so it may well be that local conditions prevent MPA's from being too effective.

 

But also I don't plan encounters with an expectation that someone will remain standing. Supers just have too many ways to lay down the smackdown.

 

Some don't like it but if I want a long fight I use a super team...or use Damage Reduction for a main baddy (but seldom, I mostly use super-teams..)

 

But for the most part the fight is just an interlude to the plot/story so I don't care how long it lasts, a short fight means more time for story elements..

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

A lot of the iffy builds/examples of MPAs revolve around using multiple HAs and HKAs. For example, the infamous:

 

55 Strength

 

"Pinky" HA +1d6

"Ring Finger" HA +1d6

"Middle Finger" HA +1d6

"Index Finger" HA +1d6

"Thumb" HA +1d6

 

possibly with 0 End on the STR, in case the GM wants to make you pay 5 END per HA rather than 5 per MPA.

 

My fix is to, first, require that a player split STR between MPA'd attacks made in one phase, and second, evaluate attacks based on the option of MPAing.

 

With that, a player pays as much for 2 12-DC attacks as for a 24 DC attack, so it's less powerful, but more varied (and lower DC for the cap, of course), so I don't see it often. However, in a 15 DC game, I'd be fine with a character who had a 14 DC attack and a tacked-on 5-10 DC attack.

 

I missed this one earlier.

As I recall, the HA rules specifically allow multiple HAs (such as those above) to be added together into one attack. So in this case he can make a 16d6 attack using all of his HAs for 10 END (5 for STR, 1 per HA). This is not allowed for advantaged HAs if the advantages don't match, but those HAs are already limited to doubling thier damage by adding STR, so they avoid the degeneracy shown here.

If I were GMing, I'd require the HAs to be combined into one attack rather than allow an MPA.

And I've already commented on my thoughts regarding applying DC caps to MPAs.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

I missed this one earlier.

As I recall, the HA rules specifically allow multiple HAs (such as those above) to be added together into one attack. So in this case he can make a 16d6 attack using all of his HAs for 10 END (5 for STR, 1 per HA). This is not allowed for advantaged HAs if the advantages don't match, but those HAs are already limited to doubling thier damage by adding STR, so they avoid the degeneracy shown here.

If I were GMing, I'd require the HAs to be combined into one attack rather than allow an MPA.

And I've already commented on my thoughts regarding applying DC caps to MPAs.

 

Yeah, that fixes the HA trick. You could still get overmuch bang for your buck out of buying 30 STR and a bunch of 2d6 HKAs, though - this is functionally similar to buying multiple attack powers in an EC and MPAing with them, which is explicitly forbidden. That's why I think that not permitting STR to add to more than one component of an MPA is an important part of preventing degenerate builds with MPAs.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

30 str + 2d6 HKA x2:

Average BODY: 28 - rPD x2

Average STUN: (assume 3x STUN multiplier) 84 - PD x2

 

30 str + 4d6 HKA:

Average BODY: 21 - rPD

Average STUN: (assume 3x STUN multiplier) 64 - PD

 

So they break even at rPD 7, PD 20. Which seems low for a campaign allowing 12 DC attacks, let alone 18 DC attacks.

[Kdansky]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

From a theoretical standpoint, I see the "Use STR twice" problem. But then, I highly disagree on how strength stacks with damage in the first place. If you use STR twice, that's called "Sweep" and fine with me.

 

OTOH: If you buy two attack powers and want to use both in the same phase? Go ahead, you may even roll twice and attack two targets if the SFX makes sense. After all, you just spent twice the points on attacks. You could have bought +6 Speed for those 60 points and essentially attack twice as often instead.

 

From a practical standpoint: No player has ever tried to MPA in my games.

 

 

And on another note: My new game has finally launched, we've survived the first two sessions (although one battle got a bit short after realizing just how utterly broken suppress STUN is... basically 12d6 AVLD).

[CTaylor]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Personally I'd like to see some kind of adder or advantage that gives a power specific permission to be used in a multiple power attack rather than the presumption that it's always possible. 5 points or a +1/4, something like that.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Personally I'd like to see some kind of adder or advantage that gives a power specific permission to be used in a multiple power attack rather than the presumption that it's always possible. 5 points or a +1/4' date=' something like that.[/quote']

 

I'd support this if not for the fact that the double-defenses issue tends to make MPAs weaker than using the points for a straight up single attack. (Even when you double count STR! with an exception for the HA abuse mentioned above.)

 

I can't even bring myself to support a limitation "Cannot be used in Multiple Power Attacks", as it takes away so little.

[CTaylor]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

If an average attack will harm someone, launching 2 or 3 average attacks will harm them 2-3 times as much as a single attack "double defenses" or not. That's an advantage any way you paint it.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

If an average attack will harm someone' date=' launching 2 or 3 average attacks will harm them 2-3 times as much as a single attack "double defenses" or not. That's an advantage any way you paint it.[/quote']

 

That depends what we're comparing to.

Does your game have DC limits? If so, DC limits need to apply to MPAs somehow. My personally feeling is add the DCs of the biggest attack plus half the DCs from the other attacks for a total 'effective DCs' and keep that under the cap. Others may feel the full DCs of all the attacks need to be under the cap. If MPAs are allowed to exceed damage caps and nothing else is, then of course they have excessive potential.

 

If you don't have DC or AP caps then the character could just plain buy a bigger attack which will always do better than the MPA (unless the targets defenses are pretty abysmal). Point for point the MPAs are inefficient.

 

I don't think it makes sense to say 'this is a damage class 12 maximum game, but if you pay a 1/4 advantage on a power you can MPA with it so you can hit with 2 DC 12 attacks together if you pay for 75 AP for each.' (and at that point why not buy autofire on a single attack instead? And use the points you would spend on the second 75 AP attack to buy 4 2pt levels so if you would have hit with the MPA you hit with 3 attacks from the autofire.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

One point, about synergy, whilst MPAing 2x10d6 EBs only gives you twice the damage through defences, so it is not the same as a 20d6 EB, 2x5d6 NND EBs (assuming the target lacks the relevant defences and you allow multiple NNDs) allows all the damage through, so it is the equivalent of a 10d6 NND EB.

 

Ultimately you either have to decide to put some system penalty on MPA (like assuming they use the rapid fire rules) or you just have to eyeball/monitor to make sure it isn't abusive. Either way you may find some people pushing the abuse envelope - then it is all down to negotiation skills.

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

One point, about synergy, whilst MPAing 2x10d6 EBs only gives you twice the damage through defences, so it is not the same as a 20d6 EB, 2x5d6 NND EBs (assuming the target lacks the relevant defences and you allow multiple NNDs) allows all the damage through, so it is the equivalent of a 10d6 NND EB.

 

Ultimately you either have to decide to put some system penalty on MPA (like assuming they use the rapid fire rules) or you just have to eyeball/monitor to make sure it isn't abusive. Either way you may find some people pushing the abuse envelope - then it is all down to negotiation skills.

 

That's a good point, and potentially pokes a hole in my balance estimate. Though why does the character have two seperate NNDs that are not in the same framework (required so they can be MPAd) and have the same defense against them? (If they have different defenses against them, it's not quite the same as a 10d6 NND: there are characters who will only take 5d6 because they have the defense against one but not the other.)

 

I concede that under my suggestion 2x5d6 NND would meet the MPA damage cap for 15DC, and would usually do more stun than 15d6 EB (unless the target has ED < 18) before counting potential stun from knockback. (It also does no BODY, has a potential to do 0 STUN, and I would personally expect different defenses in this case so it can potentially become 5d6 NND, and also costs more points as you're paying for 100 AP rather than only 75 AP, making it 10 END rather than 7 as well.)

 

Maybe I just need to say that all NNDs are added together directly when determining DCs for the cap. At the very least they need to be added together if they have the same defense. (Of course if you just require the whole MPA to respect the DC limit in the first place you avoid this whole mess. There is some wisdom to that.)

[Istaran]

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

 

Ultimately you either have to decide to put some system penalty on MPA (like assuming they use the rapid fire rules) or you just have to eyeball/monitor to make sure it isn't abusive. Either way you may find some people pushing the abuse envelope - then it is all down to negotiation skills.

 

Other than enforcing damage caps though, your example only showed that for the same points someone could have a more complex build that does the same thing:

build a:

100 10d6 NND

 

build b:

50 5d6 NND

50 5d6 NND

(and MPA them together)

 

Maybe build b can use some lims to create a rounding error to save 1 pt.