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

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Strafe could also allow a high velocity character to close and still attack' date=' reducing range penalties by more than the stradfe penalty (whatever that might be).[/quote']

 

That would depend how far away you start: closing from 60" to 40" would not get any reduced range modifiers, despite a 20" move.

 

Arguably, too, diving straight AT something should have lower (or zero) OCV penalties to ranged attacks, whereas moving at right angles to something should have much bigger penalties: it is all about relative sideways movement.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Should STR add to attacks at all?

 

2d6 RKA: no range - 20 points

+2d6 RKA: no range, linked STR - 15 points

 

35 total for a 4d6 KA - not so very different from what we pay at present, and similar in effect (and if you could get the last bit linked tot he bottom 30 STR, practically identical).

 

It is not even that complex a build.

 

Hmm. Run with that: Maybe KA should be a 10 point power, and comes with neither 'range' nor 'STR adds damage' (In fact you can not BUY STR adds damage - buy more damage and limit it)

 

I'd suggest the power should be Ranged Killing Attack at 15 points per 1d6. That would keep the AP in line with normal attacks. Other than that, I think this is an approach to consider. It would also allow STR to add to other types of attacks (PD Drain from the bruising caused by a mighty punch, for example) using the same structure.

 

Of course, the pricing depends on how much one is prepared to allow as a limitation for "can't use STR for anything else at the same time", which isn't quite Linked as Linked requires STR and the KA be used together, but it's either -1/2, -1/4 or -0, and it prevents an MPA with your STR, so it should be at least -1/4.

 

That would depend how far away you start: closing from 60" to 40" would not get any reduced range modifiers' date=' despite a 20" move.[/quote']

 

Yup - just like moving 20" closer doesn't allow you to do a move by/through to a target 60" away. Most maneuvers are tactically efficient in some situations and a bad idea in others.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I'd suggest the power should be Ranged Killing Attack at 15 points per 1d6. That would keep the AP in line with normal attacks. Other than that, I think this is an approach to consider. It would also allow STR to add to other types of attacks (PD Drain from the bruising caused by a mighty punch, for example) using the same structure.

 

Of course, the pricing depends on how much one is prepared to allow as a limitation for "can't use STR for anything else at the same time", which isn't quite Linked as Linked requires STR and the KA be used together, but it's either -1/2, -1/4 or -0, and it prevents an MPA with your STR, so it should be at least -1/4.

 

 

.......

 

Unless you have a lot of excess strength, lockout could prevent 2 weapon fighting, or might make you collapse under the weight of your armour when you swing your sword, so I'd be disinclined to build it that way.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Unless you have a lot of excess strength' date=' lockout could prevent 2 weapon fighting, or might make you collapse under the weight of your armour when you swing your sword, so I'd be disinclined to build it that way.[/quote']

 

Perhaps the limitation might better be that the STR cannot be used in an MPA. If I have a 30 STR and a 2d6 KA, nothing technically prevents me from hitting my target with a 2d6 KA and a 6d6 Normal attack as an MPA.

 

Thinking on it, does anything prevent me, under the current rules, from hitting my opponent with that 2d6 KA, + 2d6 from STR, + a 6d6 Normal attack by MPA with a Punch? [Other than the GM refusing to allow it, regardless of the letter of the rules, that is.]

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Thinking on it' date=' does anything prevent me, under the current rules, from hitting my opponent with that 2d6 KA, + 2d6 from STR, + a 6d6 Normal attack by MPA with a Punch? [Other than the GM refusing to allow it, regardless of the letter of the rules, that is.']

 

Nope. All completely legal as far as I can tell. But note that if someone shows a "compound power" with the Linked Limitation that is built with HKA plus an HA like that, most people might not blink an eye for some reason. For that matter, what about buying 15 HAs and doing one big MPA with all 15 of them, adding Str to each? But some GMs (who use them) might apply an AP restriction to the whole MPA rather than each part of it. That would seem to help, though not everyone is in favor of AP limits at all.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Nope. All completely legal as far as I can tell. But note that if someone shows a "compound power" with the Linked Limitation that is built with HKA plus an HA like that' date=' most people might not blink an eye for some reason. For that matter, what about buying 15 HAs and doing one big MPA will all 15 of them, adding Str to each? But some GMs (who use them) might apply an AP restriction to the [i']whole[/i] MPA rather than each part of it. That would seem to help, though not everyone is in favor of AP limits at all.

 

But many GM's who do not use AP limits do apply Damage Class limits. A 12 DC limit is much tougher to abuse than, say, a 60 AP limit. Consider:

 

30 STR

+ 30 points Density Increase

+ 30 points Growth

+ 6d6 Hand Attack

 

I have no abilities that are over half the AP limit, so I'm probably way underpowered, right?

[ajackson]

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

 

Perhaps the limitation might better be that the STR cannot be used in an MPA.

Or can only be used once, which is my house rule. The problem isn't using strength in an MPA -- the problem is applying it to several powers at once.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Or can only be used once' date=' which is my house rule. The problem isn't using strength in an MPA -- the problem is applying it to several powers at once.[/quote']

 

I think part of the problem is probably with HA, which creates a "separate" power that Str can add to without limit. We view HA as adding to Str, not the other way around, and yet it is Str that can be reused as many times as you need to for different purposes in the same Phase (and with only one payment of End), and it is usually HA that we think of as "the weapon." "Obviously" without HA you can't simply attack as many times as you want with your Str in the same MPA ("Hmm. I think using my base Str I'll punch him with my left hand, and my right hand, and whip him with my tail, and kick him, and heat butt him while I'm at it. I can do that with one MPA, right?").

 

We might just have to see how the rules for both adding damage and MPAs turn out to see if this is partly or wholly fixed.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

But many GM's who do not use AP limits do apply Damage Class limits. A 12 DC limit is much tougher to abuse than, say, a 60 AP limit. Consider:

 

30 STR

+ 30 points Density Increase

+ 30 points Growth

+ 6d6 Hand Attack

 

I have no abilities that are over half the AP limit, so I'm probably way underpowered, right?

 

Eh. I see the two as identical, and often think of AP limits and DC limits as the same beast. I look at the attack power as a whole, not just each Power that contributes to it. And I think most people here would too. That the example character would be attacking with 90 Str + 6d6 HA = 24 DCs (and approx. 120 APs unless there are Advantages) is pretty obvious, at least to me.

[Hyper-Man]

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

 

So how would you classify the following example?

 

75 60 or 75 ??: Energy Blast 12d6 (vs. ED), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (75 Active Points) - END=3

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Eh. I see the two as identical' date=' and often think of AP limits and DC limits as the same beast. I look at the attack power as a whole, not just each Power that contributes to it. And I think most people here would too. That the example character would be attacking with 90 Str + 6d6 HA = 24 DCs (and approx. 120 APs unless there are Advantages) is pretty obvious, at least to me.[/quote']

 

I, for one, do not see DCs and APs as even remotely the same beast.

 

There are too many Advantages you can add onto an Attack that have nothing to do with the damage capability of the attack at all. I've never liked that, and started to use DC Caps with AP Caps set higher. 12DC + 75AP makes for more interesting Powers IMO.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

I, for one, do not see DCs and APs as even remotely the same beast.

 

There are too many Advantages you can add onto an Attack that have nothing to do with the damage capability of the attack at all. I've never liked that, and started to use DC Caps with AP Caps set higher. 12DC + 75AP makes for more interesting Powers IMO.

 

Certainly. The point is, on either restriction, do you limit each attack in an MPA, or all of the attacks in the MPA added together? Maybe there should be a moving limit, like subtracting 10 APs/2 DCs for every doubling of the number of attacks in the MPA or something, but that seems like it's getting a little loose, artificial, and complicated....

[ghost-angel]

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

 

I've always viewed MPA as two separate attacks that happen to take place in the same Phase from the same attacker.

 

So I don't add them together - for purposes of Stunning or otherwise. Each attack, as I played MPA from even before 5E, was separate; against defenses separately, attack roll separately, effects separately.

 

If I had 12DC Limits in place, you could do two 12DC Attacks with MPA. And it would be treated as two 12DC Attacks.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

I've always viewed MPA as two separate attacks that happen to take place in the same Phase from the same attacker.

 

So I don't add them together - for purposes of Stunning or otherwise. Each attack, as I played MPA from even before 5E, was separate; against defenses separately, attack roll separately, effects separately.

 

If I had 12DC Limits in place, you could do two 12DC Attacks with MPA. And it would be treated as two 12DC Attacks.

 

Ah. Same here, except for the part about separate attack rolls. But it does seem like a good point about being able to have many effects hit at once; it is obviously going to be more effective. And when that may not have really been paid for because of some of the "free" aspects of Strength and such.... I don't see it as a big problem with HKA because there you have to pay for at least half of the attack that the Str adds to. That's not the case with HA. But I suppose if you go the route of not allowing multiple uses of Str (as the base attack) in the same MPA, and HA not really being a separate attack but simply adding to Str (though that doesn't always seem right when the HA is defined as a weapon), it could work out okay.

[ajackson]

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

 

But I suppose if you go the route of not allowing multiple uses of Str (as the base attack) in the same MPA' date=' and HA not really being a separate attack but simply adding to Str (though that doesn't always seem right when the HA is defined as a weapon), it could work out okay.[/quote']

Well, my assumption is that you cannot use Str multiple times, either as an attack or as an add to an attack (though I'd be okay with splitting it between several attacks).

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Well' date=' my assumption is that you cannot use Str multiple times, either as an attack or as an add to an attack (though I'd be okay with splitting it between several attacks).[/quote']

 

It might be a good way to balance things as a house rule, but my understanding of the standard rules is that you can add Str to multiple things at once. As many things as you need Str for, in fact. And you only pay the End cost once per Phase to "activate" the maximum amount of Str you use.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

It might be a good way to balance things as a house rule' date=' but my understanding of the standard rules is that you [i']can[/i] add Str to multiple things at once. As many things as you need Str for, in fact. And you only pay the End cost once per Phase to "activate" the maximum amount of Str you use.

 

3rd Edition D&D tried to balance out multiple weapon attacks by allowing a full STR damage bonus with the primary hand, but a half bonus with the off hand. You also got a 1.5x bonus with a two handed weapon. That balanced things out a bit.

 

It would be tough to apply the same approach in Hero, given the much larger number of possible "multiple attacks" SFX.

[ajackson]

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

 

It might be a good way to balance things as a house rule.

I believe I stated that this was a house rule.

[Matt the Bruins]

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

 

I'm just hoping we'll get an official guideline for the damage involved in throwing a refrigerator at someone.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Cool. I asked Steve. His answer satisfies me somewhat. I never did get around to buying TUB, though I meant to. Hmm. Now do I wait for a 6E one?

[Steve Long]

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

 

I don't expect we'll be redoing TUB, but no worries -- much of the most useful stuff from that book, including the rule you're referring to, is in 6E or the APG.

[Vondy]

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

 

I don't expect we'll be redoing TUB' date=' but no worries -- much of the most useful stuff from that book, including the rule you're referring to, is in 6E or the APG. [/quote']

 

Since I have Dark Champions, The Ultimate Martial Artist, The Ultimate Skill, and USPD I have the books that form the engine of my game. But, that said, here is the burning question inquiring minds want to know: when will you be writing THUD?! The Ultimate Disadvantage?! All those alternative methods for dealing with disads. I guess they will be complications now. TUC isn't as inspiring as THUD, but nonetheless! Its time!

[Steve Long]

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

 

inquiring minds want to know: when will you be writing [The Ultimate Complication]?!

 

Probably never, for several reasons:

 

1. It would be incredibly dull to write.

 

2. Unlike many of our Ultimate and Genre books, it would have little to no appeal to people who aren't hard-core Hero players.

 

3. The average gamer, even the average Hero gamer, IMO is not likely to buy a book about ways to hinder and weaken his character. Even assuming that 6E's general tack of "Complications are fun things that make your character more interesting to play" is wholeheartedly embraced by Hero gamers everywhere, I don't see this changing. If I thought the book would sell really really really well I could overcome the dullness of writing it, but I don't even think it would sell well.

 

At this point, I think the most likely way I'd end up writing a book is if my obsessive-compulsive desire to "catalog" things somehow got enough of a hold on me to make me write it in my spare time. Not likely, but I suppose it's possible.

[Vondy]

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

 

Probably never, for several reasons:

 

1. It would be incredibly dull to write.

 

2. Unlike many of our Ultimate and Genre books, it would have little to no appeal to people who aren't hard-core Hero players.

 

3. The average gamer, even the average Hero gamer, IMO is not likely to buy a book about ways to hinder and weaken his character. Even assuming that 6E's general tack of "Complications are fun things that make your character more interesting to play" is wholeheartedly embraced by Hero gamers everywhere, I don't see this changing.

 

I probably should have used a smiley. It was humor of a sort.

 

Though I'd have a blast writing it.

[Alibear]

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

 

my obsessive-compulsive desire to "catalog" things

 

How many points is that worth or are you keeping that for the new book?