Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

[The Main Man]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Color me impressed.

 

This makes me curious about Martial Maneuvers now, seeing as how all of them can be simulated with Basic Combat Maneuvers, CSL's, and Multiple Attack now.

[Netzilla]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

How about the fact that many' date=' many, many power builds out there are built with multiple Powers, and thus using them is an example of a Multiple-Power Attack? If using any of those powers requires a Full Phase and puts you at 1/2 DCV and all of that, I see it as a very, very BAD THING, and a TERRIBLE idea for the system.[/quote']

 

All depends on the definition of MPA in relation to Power (the system mechanic) vs power (the thing you build form the mechanics). If your 'Flare Blast' is built as a compound 8d6 EB + 4d6 Flash it may well count as a single power and thus not count as an MPA. We'll have to wait until we see the full MPA write-up to know.

[nexus]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Color me impressed.

 

This makes me curious about Martial Maneuvers now, seeing as how all of them can be simulated with Basic Combat Maneuvers, CSL's, and Multiple Attack now.

 

Well, we haven't seen a Disable, Exert or Flash Basic maneuver or some of the other elemens that can be applied while building Martial Arts Maneuvers. Given some comments MA in the past I suspect they'll remain (much) the same but only time will tell. Personally, I see a place for them. I used the MA design rules to create 0 pt maneuvers for some games and players still purchased MA both for the additional elements and the better quality of MA. Same as the strike maneuvers could always be simulated (to some extent) with CSL but players still purchasd things like Martial Strike.

[nexus]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

All depends on the definition of MPA in relation to Power (the system mechanic) vs power (the thing you build form the mechanics). If your 'Flare Blast' is built as a compound 8d6 EB + 4d6 Flash it may well count as a single power and thus not count as an MPA. We'll have to wait until we see the full MPA write-up to know.

 

Maybe Unified Power or some new/revised version of Linked will cover this aspect. I was wondering if Unified Power did effectively make two or more Powers act as one in all ways including activation and use.

[Peregrine]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Color me impressed.

 

This makes me curious about Martial Maneuvers now, seeing as how all of them can be simulated with Basic Combat Maneuvers, CSL's, and Multiple Attack now.

 

Martial maneuvers will probably be similar to what they are in 5eR - maneuvers with "built-in" OCV, DCV and damage modifiers that cost points, as opposed to Standard Maneuvers that every character can use that have lower modifiers, if any.

[Markdoc]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

I agree with Archermoo and Hugh - MPA shouldn't be part of Rapid Fire/Sweep.

 

The 5E Rules put Limits on a maneuver that I could do better at a cost break and it annoyed me beyond all belief.

 

And I disagree

 

I've always seen linked as a way of building composite powers, and am delighted that MPA has been included in the rules in a way that makes more sense to me.

 

In general, I have not been much enchanted by the new character building rules, but all of the changes listed here get an enthusiastic thumbs up - some of them, like breaking DEF into its components, have been part of our houserules for decades now.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

I like this: it makes everything more internally consistent. The main criticism here seems to be that it will make linked attacks crazy bad, but that assumes that a linked attack is not an exception - well - not even an exception - a linked attack is effectively a single power that has two effects, whereas an MPA is the use of two or more powers that are not a single entity, just used simultaneously, or near simultaneously by choice.

 

You may also see some slight changes in the 'Linked' power modifier as a result of this - it would not surprise me.

 

Clearly you can use the same attack twice: one example is stabbing someone with a knife then throwing at someone else. That would mean that you can MPA with single powers, in effect (which you kinda can already, I suppose).

 

The argument that MPA should be treated differently in superheroic games is that you pay for both attacks so should not be penalised in using them together (I oversimplify, obviously) but I do not see that making any real difference: many if not most attacks you'd MPA are going to be stuck in some sort of framework anyway: it would be rare and unusual for someone to purchase a 'naked' 12d6 EB and a separate 'naked' 12d6 Sight Flash. I just don't see this being an issue, especially if linked powers are in fact treated as a single/compound power (or otherwise excepted from the new MPA rules).

[Gary]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

One thing I just noticed. Entangle has separate PD/ED. Can PD/ED be bought up separately for the entangle?

 

I'm a little concerned with the prospect of someone using his 60 pt Entangle multipower slot to purchase a 15 PD/ 1 ED/ 4d6 Entangle and use specifically vs the many people without an Energy attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

1. Blazing Away & Hurry. We rarely if ever use Blazing Away but Hurry is used with amazing frequency. It is a shame to see it move to another book' date=' it should have stayed with the core. Rats.[/quote']

 

I would have liked Hurry to stay as well. I don't think it takes up a lot of space, and it seems to me the Char Gen book is already going to be much bigger than the Combat/Adventuring book (maybe I'm wrong in that), in which case trimming from C/A isn't really needed. I'd like to see a modified Hurry that allows one to quasi-Abort - I want to move NOW - roll 1d6 at a time until you Hurry enough to do move now and your ACV penalty is that many iterations of Hurry.

 

2. Things like Rapid Fire and Sweep are actually used with much less frequency in our games than Hurry is. I hope that there is a penalty for trying two different sorts of attacks at once. For instance it just makes more sense for two melee attacks in a single phase to be less difficult than trying melee and ranged attacks at the same time. Actually I really don’t care too much for allowing that sort of mixing. I guess that comes from trying to maintain a certain level of verisimilitude in our heroic level games. Leaning against this change.

 

This seems quite common in the source material, and quite cinematic. The Privateer fires off his pistol, and stabs a nearby thug with his dagger, for example. Steve gave lots of fine examples. However, a cumulative penalty for each different type of attack (Ranged, HTH, Mental) would not seem unreasonable.

 

3. We make custom maneuvers all of the time using the current rules from Ultimate Martial Artist so this does not seem to be that much of a change. Indifferent.

 

I like, first, having the official maneuvers and, second, deciding I want to Trip someone and not having to stop the game while we design a new 0 point maneuver (or try to remember how we designed it last time).

 

How would you design Strafe under UMA?

 

4. Improvised weapons are easier handled' date=' in my experience, on the fly without bothering to resort to finding rules for their use. This sounds like an added complication. No need to mess with the 5ER RAW in this case.[/quote']

 

I don't like the current IW rules. There is not a sufficient penalty in many cases, especially with the ease of a Brick achieving an automatic AoE at range. The range of penalties is too narrow. The lack of ability to add damage when that seems to be the common intent and result from the source material is also a problem I'll be glad to see disappear. These actions are common in Brick vs Brick combat, and the Bricks are generally standing toe to toe and have no problem hitting one another, so it's not likely they're doing this for an OCV bonus or for range. When Hulk tosses a bus at SpiderMan, he dives through a window on one side and out the window on the other side. Sounds a lot more like Jade Jaws got an OCV bonus (and it wasn't enough) than an AoE.

 

That said, I don't think the rules can provide much more than guidelines. I don't expect a 60 page table to the OCV, DCV and damage modifiers for various objects that could be used as in improvised weapon.

 

5. In almost all cases I would prefer to simply keep DEF for objects and not bother with it further. In odd circumstances where an unusual item is supposed to be better vs. Energy or Physical attacks I just slap a few points of armor on. I would have preferred to keep DEF.

 

You mention heroic games above, but not genre. Wood structures seem a lot better defended against a PD attack than, say, a flaming arrow (especially, again, cinematically). Different PD and ED seems pretty common. As well, some objects likely have better DEF than rDEF (a net or rope seems a good example), another differentiation I hope to see.

 

How about the fact that many' date=' many, many power builds out there are built with multiple Powers, and thus using them is an example of a Multiple-Power Attack? If using any of those powers requires a Full Phase and puts you at 1/2 DCV and all of that, I see it as a very, very BAD THING, and a TERRIBLE idea for the system.[/quote']

 

Here I agree. I don't want to see Compound or Linked powers so restricted, nor do I want to see these structures be "an exception". A character who can fire an EB that always includes a Flash should not have a marked advantage over a character who can fire an EB that sometimes includes a Flash. The first character should pay less points as he is more restricted, but it should be possible to remove JUST the requirement to use the Flash every time you use the EB, with no further automatic drawbacks to the more flexible character.

 

In this regard, I await the writeups.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

And I disagree

 

I've always seen linked as a way of building composite powers, and am delighted that MPA has been included in the rules in a way that makes more sense to me.

 

In general, I have not been much enchanted by the new character building rules, but all of the changes listed here get an enthusiastic thumbs up - some of them, like breaking DEF into its components, have been part of our houserules for decades now.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I've always viewed MPAs as something you should have been able to do anyways. But I understand where you're coming from. Linked was just a way of saying "has to use together" not "can use together" like every other attack in the system.

 

but, I think the MPA Rules in 6E will please more of the people, more of the time, than previous editions of the same idea. So I'll just say they came out pretty cool even if I disagree with the premise of how specifically.

 

And yes - some of the coolest changes in 6E are in the combat sections. At least in my opinion. I think a lot of people will start using 6E combat stuffs even if they continue on with a bunch of 5ER stuffs.

[archermoo]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

I've always viewed MPAs as something you should have been able to do anyways. But I understand where you're coming from. Linked was just a way of saying "has to use together" not "can use together" like every other attack in the system.

 

but, I think the MPA Rules in 6E will please more of the people, more of the time, than previous editions of the same idea. So I'll just say they came out pretty cool even if I disagree with the premise of how specifically.

 

And yes - some of the coolest changes in 6E are in the combat sections. At least in my opinion. I think a lot of people will start using 6E combat stuffs even if they continue on with a bunch of 5ER stuffs.

 

My issue with MPAs is that there are a couple of different types. There is the "stab the guy next to me and then throw the dagger at the guy across the room" type, and there is the "I use the power of my EB and my Flash at the same time for a Cosmic Blast" type. Treating the first one like Sweep or Rapid fire makes sense. Treating the second that way doesn't, at least not to me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Oh, I agree completely.

 

I was just sayin' - some people just flat out don't like the idea of using two Powers in a single Phase. A lot of them, from my experience actually, and I think the new rules find a decent enough middle ground.

[CourtFool]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

I have not liked the idea of having to buy multiple books from the beginning, but I understand Hero wants to make money. So I grumble at moving some maneuvers to the Advanced Player's Guide.

 

Combining Rapid Fire and Sweep seems an obvious move to me. Interestingly, Multiple-Power Attack never came up in my games. I realize it is very common in genre. I do not know why we never used it. I am curious to see how they will be done in 6th. Right now, I can not really wrap my head around combining them with Rapid Fire and Sweep. They just seem very different things to me even though they are both doing multiple things at once.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

I like this: it makes everything more internally consistent. The main criticism here seems to be that it will make linked attacks crazy bad' date=' but that assumes that a linked attack is not an exception - well - not even an exception - a linked attack is effectively a single power that has two effects, whereas an MPA is the use of two or more powers that are not a single entity, just used simultaneously, or near simultaneously by choice.[/quote']

 

That would bring us back to the old (mistaken) situation where the Linked Limitations actually gives an advantage. We were told that was never actually the intent, and that Powers could always be used together in an attack (hence the description of MPAs in 5E to clarify that). So I sure as heck hope we're not returning to a (true) Linked-as-psuedo-Advantage Limitation deal.

[Dino]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Strafe! Oh how I have missed you...

Seriously, It really bothered me in 5th Ed that you couldn't shoot on the move. When the Moving Shot martial maneuver vanished from the main maneuver list between printings of the UMA, I really started feeling paranoid...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Combining Rapid Fire and Sweep seems an obvious move to me. Interestingly' date=' Multiple-Power Attack never came up in my games. I realize it is very common in genre. I do not know why we never used it. I am curious to see how they will be done in 6th. Right now, I can not really wrap my head around combining them with Rapid Fire and Sweep. They just seem very different things to me even though they are both doing multiple things at once.[/quote']

 

To me, they aren't both doing multiple things at once. Rapid Fire and Sweep are attacking sequentially, one after the other. MPA is simply combining two or more Powers (mechanics) into a single attack, whether that be slashing at a target's legs with my cutlass while driving a dagger forward to his torso, or combining my EB, sight Flash and sound Flash to strike you with a bright, crashing thunderbolt.

[ajackson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

That would bring us back to the old (mistaken) situation where the Linked Limitations actually gives an advantage.

It's possible that 'linked' is not a limitation; instead, you can just define two effects as a single power (and possibly take Unified Power).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

That would bring us back to the old (mistaken) situation where the Linked Limitations actually gives an advantage. We were told that was never actually the intent' date=' and that Powers could always be used together in an attack (hence the description of MPAs in 5E to clarify that). So I sure as heck hope we're not returning to a (true) Linked-as-psuedo-Advantage Limitation deal.[/quote']

 

I'm not with you here: there is no advantage: at (very) worst you buy two powers that have to be used together that work as a single power. It might not be (always) worth an limitation but it is not an advantage, even under the presumed new system.

[archermoo]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

I'm not with you here: there is no advantage: at (very) worst you buy two powers that have to be used together that work as a single power. It might not be (always) worth an limitation but it is not an advantage' date=' even under the presumed new system.[/quote']

 

I think the advantage would in theory be being able to use two powers at the same time. If you aren't normally allowed to do so, it seems odd that a Limitation would let you.

 

One of the many arguments in the Great Linked Debate.

[The Main Man]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Wow, I never thought I'd get to see The Great Linked Debate (or rather, see it possibly revived).

 

*grabs a lawn chair and pic-a-nic basket*

 

Um, I guess I'll make an opening catcall.

 

 

"Um... Linked is inadequate. I don't very much like it. What are you going to do about that, you ruffian?"

 

*rubs palms together*

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

from 5er page 360 (sidebar):

 

RESTRICTING MULTIPLE-POWER ATTACKS

To prevent characters from over-using multiple-power attacks, the GM can impose restrictions similar to those on Rapid Fire and Sweep: for each power or maneuver added to the combination (including the first one) the character suffers a -2 OCV penalty; multiple-power attacks take a Full Phase; using one halves the character’s DCV.

 

Since Linked (page 299) depends in part on the multiple-power attack rules, if the GM restricts them, he may want to consider increasing the value of Linked to reflect that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

from 5er page 360 (sidebar):

 

Nice cite - thanks!

 

I have repp'd you too recently, it appears...

[Netzilla]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Nice cite - thanks!

 

I have repp'd you too recently, it appears...

 

Got him.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

from 5er page 360 (sidebar):

 

Well, all I can say is that I sure hope that remains a non-default option. :-/

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

 

Several of the games I've played in have allowed "compound powers" to act like a single attack rather than a Multi-Power Attack, as long as the AP and/or DC limits were observed. Usually Linked was not allowed in such constructs (so no point saving that way). I've always liked that approach. If MPAs are ridiculously limiting in 6E I may continue to use "compound powers" as an exception.