Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

[Markdoc]

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

 

Actually, that is only a suggested optional rule.

 

from:

360 ■ Combat And Adventuring Hero System 5th Edition, Revised

sidebar

 

Hyperman beat me to it - and prior to 5ER, I don't recall any suggested limits at all. MPAs are not normally a full phase action: it's one of the things that make them problematic compared to other "multiple attack" routines.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Indeed .... I guess we instinctively just figure two attacks should take the Full Phase. Well no wonder.

[tesuji]

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

 

Indeed .... I guess we instinctively just figure two attacks should take the Full Phase. Well no wonder.

 

Which gets to at least part of the differences in perceptions - most mpa i have seen in actual play were not "two attacks" in concept but rather "one attack" just one which happens to be made up of two distinct hero game system traits.

 

they are more often seen in my games as "my lightning strikes with a peal of thunder" (mpa electrical eb and sound flash probably linked) instead of something like "i fire my lightning bolt... and hey lets also add in my flash and ..."

 

should a lightning bolt that happens to also cause thunder take longer to throw than a more powerful lightning bolt which has less noise but more damage?

 

We didn't ever think so.

 

Back to earlier questions - would i allow two character to shoot one target at same time - well yes but thats not really relevent. I would allow as many as five six or even seven different character to attack one target at once BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH whether i would allow one character to be built so as to have that same damage potential in a single phase. If i am bothering with campaign balance limits such as dc's at all, that means i probably shouldn't allow one character to on his action do as much damage as several other characters combined that seems obvious from the whole concept of balance.

 

so if my restriction is something like 12dc, then i would not see any problem with saying NO to a pc who wanted to be able to do twice as much damage as a 12dc attack would normally do as his typical attack. So i would say not to a design with two 12dc attacks capable of being MPA.

 

It doesn't make sense to say 12dc limit and then pretend somehow that two or even three 12dc attacks are fine and within that balancing scheme.

 

now, as stated before, depending on the effects involved this doesn't mean MPAs have to be held to a cumulative total ap/dc the same as straight up attacks do as different effects do not have the same additive effects that similar ones, even ones that affect defenses independently, do.

 

and on a note of agreement - yes its a sort of blind "12dc is the limit regardless of how many 12dc attacks" without paying attention to the results that can lead to imbalance issues AND that goes with either interpretation- if you go with "keep each one under 12dc" you get the obvious "three 12dc mpa whammy - oh god oh god mpa need restrictions" but if you go with "12edc total regardless of how many" you can end up with "three 4dc attacks separate against defenses" as a useless trait no where near worth its expense.

 

so IMo all MPAs need is a little analysis on the part of the gm, a little scrutiny to see they fit as a character within his balance desires, but not really much more than any typical "look at the whole character" does.

 

this isn't really as difficult as some seem to see it as, IMO.

 

its just not as simple as "pick-a-dc"

[Markdoc]

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

 

Thinking about it - we've been "not using" MPAs for so long that I didn't really consider it - adopting the recommended GM's option rule to treat MPAs like sweeps or rapid fire would actually address all of my concerns.

 

In fact, I think that'll go in my house rules from now on.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

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

 

Which gets to at least part of the differences in perceptions - most mpa i have seen in actual play were not "two attacks" in concept but rather "one attack" just one which happens to be made up of two distinct hero game system traits.

 

I've always treated these as linked attacks, so issues of extra time were never a question - and anyway, prior to the "GM's option" in 5ER, I don't recall anything ever suggesting that MPAs should take more time.

 

I've snipped out the section about balancing MPA attacks, because I largely agree. However, I still treasure the look on the GM's face in one long ago game where after my PC MPA'ed Flash attacks to cover the whole group of our foes, the rest of the group MPA'ed a variety of killing attacks at their now blinded targets - leaving all but two of his numerous "tough guy team" unconscious or dying after the first segment of combat. It can be a real game-changer.

 

I do want to address this though:

 

so IMo all MPAs need is a little analysis on the part of the gm, a little scrutiny to see they fit as a character within his balance desires, but not really much more than any typical "look at the whole character" does.

 

this isn't really as difficult as some seem to see it as, IMO.

 

its just not as simple as "pick-a-dc"

 

One of the things that makes MPA problematic, is that it's not always clear during character design what can be used as an MPA. This is particularly true in heroic level games where attacks are often not built into the character but are acquired in-game and may change from session to session. Even in superheroic games, where points are paid, things can get mixed, as in on one Sci-Fi game where my PC picked up another character's custom weapon after he got KO'ed and used that to MPA alongside my own weapon.

 

It's why I have no problems with linked attacks, as they are flagged in advance as "will be used together". The suggestion to treat MPAs like Sweep would address both these concerns. A linked attack would not take extra time but must be bought as, and can only be used as, one attack. An MPA can combine separate attacks, but takes extra time.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Hyperman beat me to it - and prior to 5ER' date=' I don't recall any suggested limits at all. MPAs are not normally a full phase action: it's one of the things that make them problematic compared to other "multiple attack" routines.[/quote']

 

Thinking about it - we've been "not using" MPAs for so long that I didn't really consider it - adopting the recommended GM's option rule to treat MPAs like sweeps or rapid fire would actually address all of my concerns.

 

If MPA's require a full phase, would there be an advantage to bring them back to a half phase? If not, do Linked attacks (which are really attacks which are limited to ONLY be usable as MPA's) now also require a full phase? if not, do we go back to the Great Debate of why Linked - a limitation - provides an advantage free of charge?

[Markdoc]

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

 

If MPA's require a full phase' date=' would there be an advantage to bring them back to a half phase?[/quote']

 

Not in my games.

 

If not' date=' do Linked attacks (which are really attacks which are limited to ONLY be usable as MPA's) now also require a full phase? [/quote']

 

Again, not in my games.

 

if not' date=' do we go back to the Great Debate of why Linked - a limitation - provides an advantage free of charge?[/quote']

 

I certainly couldn't be bothered. We've always allowed Linked, always treated it as a disadvantage (it is after all, an attack that can only be used under certain, highly specific conditions - even more limited than an MPA - and the "advantage" you get is minimal). It's never been a terribly common approach, even in the absence of MPAs, though people do use it from time to time, meaning it appears to be neither over - nor under-priced. It's never proven problematic in decades of use.

 

As for the great linked debate, that was pretty small bananas. I barely recall it - it's not like the eternal "cost of STR" or "should we keep Com" debates.

 

cheers, Mark

[schir1964]

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

 

During the 4th Edition Years, before it was revealed that MPA existed and were the way things were supposed to work, I had proposed a new Advantage called Linkable which would allow an attack to be used with any other attack as a single attack.

 

Linked would then only serve as a restricted version of that advantage.

 

Markdoc, would something like this have made MPA attacks more visible in you opinion?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

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

 

The biggest change we made when MPAs were outlined in 5E after we'd used them for several years was to go from two Attack Rolls to one. I would imagine going back up to two Rolls might also alleviate a number of issues: you literally are shooting twice, one could hit and one miss, both miss or both hit. CSLs also didn't apply to the whole attack (or both as the case may be) you had to choose.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Not in my games.

 

Again, not in my games.

 

I certainly couldn't be bothered. We've always allowed Linked, always treated it as a disadvantage (it is after all, an attack that can only be used under certain, highly specific conditions - even more limited than an MPA - and the "advantage" you get is minimal). It's never been a terribly common approach, even in the absence of MPAs, though people do use it from time to time, meaning it appears to be neither over - nor under-priced. It's never proven problematic in decades of use.

 

So why should it be possible to combine, say, an Energy Blast and a Flash as a half phase action if one of them has a limitation, but not if they are both purchased without limitations? The Linked limitation now gives the advantage of being able to fire two different attacks as a single maneuver in a half phase instead of a full phase.

 

I agree that Linked limits the power - exactly as you say, it restricts its usage. But should it also reduce the time required to fire the combined attack? If I have a 12d6 EB and a 3d6 Flash, how often would I use the Flash all by itself anyway? The advantage of being able to combine the two as a half phase, rather than a full phase, seems quite valuable compared to the loss of ability to fire the Flash separately on those rare occasions I would wish to do so.

 

As for the great linked debate' date=' that was pretty small bananas. I barely recall it - it's not like the eternal "cost of STR" or "should we keep Com" debates. [/quote']

 

I suggest that's because MPA's eliminate the cause of the debate. Linked does not provide the ability to fire both attacks at once - you could have had that ability with two or more powers having no limitations.

[Istaran]

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

 

The biggest change we made when MPAs were outlined in 5E after we'd used them for several years was to go from two Attack Rolls to one. I would imagine going back up to two Rolls might also alleviate a number of issues: you literally are shooting twice' date=' one could hit and one miss, both miss or both hit. CSLs also didn't apply to the whole attack (or both as the case may be) you had to choose.[/quote']

 

I could imagine this being an optional one-time choice by the character (with GM input) informed by SFX. If you have a single arm-cannon that can combine multiple beams into one uber-beam-o-niftiness that EBs, Drains, Flashes, and Sings and Dances all in one MPA.. (or any subset thereof) then it is one attack and they will all hit or all miss. If it is your arm cannon laser, your shoulder mounted missile launcher and your horrible singing voice then each should rationally be rolled seperately. Maybe the laser and missile together if it's a laser-guided missile.

 

I don't like the CSLs only applying to one (assuming they're broad enough to apply to all) since CSLs tend to be overpriced in superheroic already. Maybe as yet another heroic/superheroic distinction (since CSLs are a better deal when NCM gets in your way).

 

Thinking about it - we've been "not using" MPAs for so long that I didn't really consider it - adopting the recommended GM's option rule to treat MPAs like sweeps or rapid fire would actually address all of my concerns.

 

In fact, I think that'll go in my house rules from now on.

 

cheers, Mark

 

To me this creates problems. Not just the "Linked is an advantage?!" issue, but also the following problem:

Character A has a 12d6 EB, bought full price.

Character B has 2 12d6 EBs, bought full price.

A can Rapid Fire his EB. B can Rapid Fire either EB or MPA the two together. The only difference between As option and any of Bs options (that he paid twice as much for) is that B may have better SFX choices. Assuming one SFX is superior for a given situation (and not the combination of the two hitting simultaneously), A could gain B's advantages by paying 12 points to make his EB an MP of two EBs.

 

That is assuming you apply the full penalties of Sweep/Rapid Fire to MPA.

 

MPA is more expensive to build than Sweep/Rapid Fire which is why it is priced cheaper.

 

Maybe MPA should just be disallowed for any powers you did not buy with points? To combine Gun (bought with cash) + Gun (found) + Gun (borrowed off buddy) + Gun (stolen from baddy) into one four-armed volley of doom you use Rapid Fire. To combine Gun (paid for with points) + Gun (paid for with more points) + Gun (paid for with yet more points) + Gun (paid for with, you guessed it, more points) you can MPA.

[Markdoc]

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

 

To me this creates problems. Not just the "Linked is an advantage?!" issue, but also the following problem:

Character A has a 12d6 EB, bought full price.

Character B has 2 12d6 EBs, bought full price.

A can Rapid Fire his EB. B can Rapid Fire either EB or MPA the two together. The only difference between As option and any of Bs options (that he paid twice as much for) is that B may have better SFX choices. Assuming one SFX is superior for a given situation (and not the combination of the two hitting simultaneously), A could gain B's advantages by paying 12 points to make his EB an MP of two EBs.

 

This might bother me if I considered it even slightly realistic. But seriously, have you ever had a player construct a character with two EBs that he paid full price for? I can honestly say that in 30-odd years of Hero system gaming and hundreds of characters, I can't say I ever recall such a build.

 

The question then becomes:

Attacks in frameworks can only be rapid-fired (at the appropriate penalties) since they cannot be MPA'ed

An attack or attacks not all in frameworks can be either rapid fired or MPA'ed (at the appropriate penalties). They could even be rapid-fired and MPA'ed, since the penalty is the same.

You pay more for the latter, but it's more flexible. In addition (big plus, in my book) MPA becomes an option you can use when needed, rather than a standard attack. A further big plus is that it simplifies the rules. If we adopted this approach, we could do away with many of the special rules regarding MPA (which attacks can and cannot be MPA'ed) and simply replace them with a single unified "multiple attacks" rule using the current sweep/rapid-fire mechanism - such an approach works at both heroic and superheroic levels, since it balances extra attacks against movement/CV penlaties, so cost alone is not the only issue. As a final plus, it ends the linked debate since you could use unlinked attacks together (in an MPA, at the appropriate penalties) or seperately. A linked attack can only ever be used on top of another attack, and is subject to the usual framework restrictions.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

This might bother me if I considered it even slightly realistic. But seriously' date=' have you [b']ever[/b] had a player construct a character with two EBs that he paid full price for? I can honestly say that in 30-odd years of Hero system gaming and hundreds of characters, I can't say I ever recall such a build.

 

Chicken, meet Egg. Perhaps if there were any benefit in paying full freight for multiple attacks, people might do so. If EC's could MPA, an attack suite in an MPA rather than a Multipower would be viable and people might buy such structures. They don't now because it's an utter waste of points. I have seen some creative structures to create a character who looks like he has two separate EB's on a cost-effective basis.

 

The original MPA rules also provided an incentive to pay for flexible, rather than fixed, multipower attack slots, since you could then mix & match using the MPA rules. But then we got the "one attack power per framework" rule in 5er which removed any incentive to buy such flexible slots, since you gained precisely 0 benefit in an "attacks multipower", which is (at least in my experience) by far the most common use of the framework.

[Markdoc]

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

 

Chicken' date=' meet Egg. Perhaps if there were [b']any benefit[/b] in paying full freight for multiple attacks, people might do so. If EC's could MPA, an attack suite in an MPA rather than a Multipower would be viable and people might buy such structures. They don't now because it's an utter waste of points. I have seen some creative structures to create a character who looks like he has two separate EB's on a cost-effective basis.

 

The original MPA rules also provided an incentive to pay for flexible, rather than fixed, multipower attack slots, since you could then mix & match using the MPA rules. But then we got the "one attack power per framework" rule in 5er which removed any incentive to buy such flexible slots, since you gained precisely 0 benefit in an "attacks multipower", which is (at least in my experience) by far the most common use of the framework.

 

Sure, MPAs out of frameworks was one of the unbalancing problems we had, so I can see why they made that change. But trying to deal with that has muddied the picture somewhat. It's why I prefer the idea of dropping MPAs entirely in favour of a simple shared mechanism for multiple attacks. The penalties would balance the extra attacks and then we could ignore the framework questions.

 

Attack multipowers are still around, but MPAs and flexible slots are not features any more: most of them exist now to simply provide flexibility.

 

cheers, Mark

[Istaran]

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

 

I could be misreading you, Markdoc, but you seem to be saying that something that people already don't do because it is obscenely expensive and doesn't do enough to be worthwhile needs to have penalties stacked onto it, to bring it in line with the free option.

 

Also are you saying that linked attacks would be free of these penalties (which you say ends the Linked debate, when it is in fact the source of the linked debate) or that Linked attacks would always and everywhere be subject to the penalties (which destroys the most common use for MPAs, which is multiple-effect attacks bought as linked powers that are always MPAd)?

[Kdansky]

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

 

I can't say I've seen a build which tried to MPA much. I've seen linked a few times (Flash or Drain with Attack), but that's about it. If there was a problem with cheap stuff being to good, we would see some abuse, after all, it's incredibly easy to justify two attacks concept-wise.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Markdoc mentioned wanting a simple Mechanic.

 

You buy two Powers and can use them at the same time if they aren't in a Framework . . . how much simpler can one get Mechanically? Linked is just Limiting this concept by saying "can't use one without the other, they always have to be MPA'd."

[pinecone]

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

 

Markdoc mentioned wanting a simple Mechanic.

 

You buy two Powers and can use them at the same time if they aren't in a Framework . . . how much simpler can one get Mechanically? Linked is just Limiting this concept by saying "can't use one without the other, they always have to be MPA'd."

 

 

Exactly Linked is a limit on MPA's....

[Markdoc]

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

 

I could be misreading you' date=' Markdoc, but you seem to be saying that something that people already don't do because it is obscenely expensive and doesn't do enough to be worthwhile needs to have penalties stacked onto it, to bring it in line with the free option.[/quote']

 

No, I'm saying I've never seen people buying two full power attacks outside frameworks and using them together - the "double the cost" argument. I have - very often - in the early days seen people using cost limited powers or framework-based attacks to make MPAs. Prior to 5ER, there was no limit about MPA'ing out of frameworks, so MPA's out of frameworks were common. Equally (or even more) problematic were heroic games where the players didn't pay points for their attacks at all. In both situations, MPAs proved highly unbalancing. I know Ghost-Angel has stated that their group did not find MPAs unbalancing - but he also noted the houserules they added to the use of MPAs, to stop them becoming unbalancing, like requiring them to take a full phase, requiring multiple attack rolls, restricting use of CSLs (that's already more than halfway to what I am suggesting).

 

So what I was saying was the argument "the player who pays full value for both his attacks is disadvantaged if he can't MPA them" doesn't cut much ice with me because I've never seen such a character.

 

So what I'd like to see is a simple, unified rules for multiple attacks that can be used in heroic and superheroic games. If adopted, we could also drop things like you can MPA attacks from two different frameworks, but not from one framework, but you can rapidfire an attack from a framework, so you can still shoot more attacks, just not of different kinds. There are other oddities, things like being able (with martial arts) to MPA a punch and a legsweep but not two punches, etc, the requirement for GM's option on MPA'ing certain attacks (but not others) the question of MPA'ing STR-based attacks, etc.

 

I guess I just see little benefit from retaining the current approach and significant benefit from streamlining it.

 

cheers, Mark