PDA

View Full Version : Perception Melee Attack



Batgirl III
09-21-2014, 08:35 AM
So in trying to build a Super Martial Artist character who absolutely does not miss, I'm wondering if the following is kosher?

► Martial Strike Damage X (Strength-Based; Extras: Increase Range [Perception]; Flaws: Limited to Reach) [ X PP ]

Everything there is by-the-book, but the flaw. Limited is pretty open ended, the only guideline being that it has to be a roughly 50% reduction in utility. I'd say taking a power that would normally be effective out to the horizon down to something within arm's reach is pretty limiting.

Your thoughts, oh fellow Tankers?

kariggi
09-21-2014, 08:42 AM
Seems completely appropriate to me, of course you couldn't power attack with it, and it would be capped at PL, but mechanically I think its a nice way to represent it.

kenseido
09-21-2014, 08:51 AM
I don't see why it's not kosher. If Telepaths can have their Mental Blasts...

Now that being said, there are some issues with having a perception range attack as your primary attack. No tradeoff feats, no extra effort - which are two of the hallmarks of a martial artist. I prefer to represent "Doesn't Miss" with Ultimate Aim. Because fighting isn't about hitting, it's about hitting the right spot. Hitting their forearm vs hitting their solar plexus is two different things. So sure, you can always hit, but that doesn't mean squat.

Now I did do an Archer with that power. He could always hit, but if he wanted to focus on a specific target, it wasn't always a guarantee. There are too many factors for him to always hit the vulnerable spot. So he was Attack shifted with Precise Attack 2, Improved Aim, and Ultimate Aim.

badpenny
09-21-2014, 08:58 AM
If you buy up your Close Combat (Unarmed) skill to say +15, you can take Skill Mastery, which means a Routine check of 25--which should pretty much hit anyone. Or take an Improved Feint where you can feint as a Move action to make people easier to hit, or buy it as an Affliction (Vulnerable/Defenseless--though that's a Standard action, but would last longer than a single round).

"Never missing" is an overrated concept. It might work in fiction where accuracy is usually coupled with "hitting vital spots" or the like, but in MnM it gets you nothing.

The one advantage is that you could buy up your effect rank, since it wouldn't be traded off with attack bonus.

kenseido
09-21-2014, 09:00 AM
I know they gave Ollie Skill Mastery in DC Heroes, but I am pretty sure they have also come out and said that only applies in non-combat situations.

badpenny
09-21-2014, 09:04 AM
Hmm, never seen it mentioned.

I'd argue for allowing it since Steve chose to make Close Combat a skill, and Skill Mastery went from four skills to one. He could have kept it an Advantage (Attack Specialization in 2e).

kenseido
09-21-2014, 09:09 AM
Well technically, Skill Mastery doesn't let you make Routine checks that aren't normally allowed, it just lets you make Routine checks when a distracting circumstance would otherwise prevent you. So it comes down to whether you think you would be able to make a Routine check in combat or not. Since you can against Minions, I could see an argument either way; however, I would definitely play it the way I described - Skill Mastery on Combat skills only available in non-combat situations.

badpenny
09-21-2014, 09:17 AM
Well technically, Skill Mastery doesn't let you make Routine checks that aren't normally allowed, it just lets you make Routine checks when a distracting circumstance would otherwise prevent you. So it comes down to whether you think you would be able to make a Routine check in combat or not. Since you can against Minions, I could see an argument either way; however, I would definitely play it the way I described - Skill Mastery on Combat skills only available in non-combat situations.

Forgot that part. :confused:

Batgirl III
09-21-2014, 09:41 AM
Trust me, I know how to make excellent martial artists under M&M. This is a thought experiment for a wuxia supreme badass type character, who would still have "regular" attacks and advantages. This is for a sort of secret technique "Do right. Is no defense" maneuver.

JoshuaDunlow
09-21-2014, 10:00 AM
I always thought maybe using Penetrating attack rolls, Since oyu can have Impervious defenses, like parry, and such. But I think Perception ranged melee, would be more appropriate.

kenseido
09-21-2014, 12:15 PM
I could definitely see this option as part of an array of martial art maneuvers.

badpenny
09-21-2014, 12:23 PM
I don't understand how a Penetrating Attack Bonus would work. That's a check, not an effect.

Impervious F/W/T all work the same way: resisting a specified DC.

But that's not how active defenses work. They're Routine.

Batgirl III
09-21-2014, 01:20 PM
Tangential to the main topic, but I love me a good off topic ramble...

Back in 2E, I built the Joker with "Penetrating" tacked onto his Fearsome Presence feat; The reason being that I wanted him to be able to bypass Fearless. When the Batman is scared of you, you're scary, and no mere 1 PP should turn that off.

badpenny
09-21-2014, 01:38 PM
But Penetrating interacts with Impervious, not Immunity.

kenseido
09-21-2014, 01:44 PM
That is why I house rule Fearless to only apply to Intimidate. If you had Emotion Control, you could still affect someone with Fearless, unless they had the 5pp Immunity to Fear.

I also know that Crinos plays Fearless the way you mentioned; if they have Penetrating, it bypasses Fearless.

FuzzyBoots
09-21-2014, 05:09 PM
After reading segments of Worm, I've wondered about the possibilities of a "bypasses immunity" power extra for the "OMG... I'm... bleeding? This has never happened before" scenario. You'd probably have to pay based on the level of immunity it bypasses. Something which only bypasses an immunity to fire will be cheaper than something which bypasses an "Immunity (Toughness saves)" power.

badpenny
09-21-2014, 05:20 PM
I would be opposed to bypassing Immunity. There's just some things you need to be flat out Immune to. Impervious and Penetrating are already useless. The last thing I'd want is for Immunities to be so.

That being said, I prefer 2e's Lionheart (+4 Will for fear effects) rather than Fearless.

I houserule Fearless: at 1pp buys you Immunity to Intimidation. 2pp: Intimidation & Fearsome Presence. 5pp: all fear effects (fear gas, etc.).

Rev. Pee Kitty
09-22-2014, 11:35 AM
I would be opposed to bypassing Immunity. There's just some things you need to be flat out Immune to. Impervious and Penetrating are already useless. The last thing I'd want is for Immunities to be so.

That being said, I prefer 2e's Lionheart (+4 Will for fear effects) rather than Fearless.

I houserule Fearless: at 1pp buys you Immunity to Intimidation. 2pp: Intimidation & Fearsome Presence. 5pp: all fear effects (fear gas, etc.).

Fearsome Presence isn't a thing anymore, because it was unbalanced. Now that's bought as an Affliction, just like the other fear effects. So all fear in 3e comes either from the equivalent of limited Mind Control or from Intimidation*.

Because of that, I think 5pp for Immunity to Fear is overpriced. After all, I'd call Immunity to Mind Control 5pp, which would make Immunity to Emotional Mind Control 2pp and Immunity to Fearful Mind Control 1pp. Nothing about the Fearless description implies (to me) that it should affect Intimidation, so that doesn't change the price -- though I could certainly see allowing a second level of Fearless that also made one immune to Intimidation. (In my experience, Intimidation comes up way more often than actual fear effects, so I'd want to make it the second level, not the first.)

* I suppose the GM might also decide that a situation is so scary that everyone has to make a "fright check" with Will, but IMO that's only appropriate in an explicitly horror-themed game, and in such a game it would probably be off-genre to buy Fearless anyway.

kenseido
09-22-2014, 11:43 AM
I have always felt that powers should trump skills and feats, so I would think that Fearless should apply to Intimidate before a power.

I also think that there are certain times and certain beings that just exude fear beyond anything even the most stalwart hero can imagine. A 1pp or even 2pp Immunity should not be all it takes to ignore that completely.

badpenny
09-22-2014, 11:54 AM
Fearsome Presence isn't a thing anymore, because it was unbalanced. Now that's bought as an Affliction, just like the other fear effects. So all fear in 3e comes either from the equivalent of limited Mind Control or from Intimidation*.

I don't think it was unbalanced at all. It was built cleanly on Emotion Control and the only difference was that it was a Feat rather than a Power--if that distinction were to arise.

For a 1pp Immunity, being Immune to a few points of the Intimidation skill seemed fair. 2pp to both it and Fearsome Presence (as the Feat), but once you branch out into Powers, the cost of the Fearless Immunity has to go up. Batman probably doesn't Startle, but is susceptible to Scarecrow's Fear Gas. You shouldn't be Immune to "fear gas" with a 1pp Immunity.

As always, it totally depends on the frequency of the descriptor in the game.

Batgirl III
09-22-2014, 12:28 PM
Powers, Advantages, and all the rest should always be subject to review by the GM and players to best suit the story-telling needs of the given campaign.

Hellhound
09-22-2014, 11:30 PM
So in trying to build a Super Martial Artist character who absolutely does not miss, I'm wondering if the following is kosher?

► Martial Strike Damage X (Strength-Based; Extras: Increase Range [Perception]; Flaws: Limited to Reach) [ X PP ]

Everything there is by-the-book, but the flaw. Limited is pretty open ended, the only guideline being that it has to be a roughly 50% reduction in utility. I'd say taking a power that would normally be effective out to the horizon down to something within arm's reach is pretty limiting.

Your thoughts, oh fellow Tankers?

Looks pretty similar to the "Lucky Shot" form Power Profiles Luck wich is (Enhanced Extra (Perception Range), Variable Descriptor (Attacks), Quirk (Limited to Lower of Attack or Extra’s Rank, –1 points) • 1 point per rank.

Earth-Two_Kenn
09-23-2014, 01:39 AM
I'd have no problem with it, provided the Extras and Flaws included enough extra ranks to cover the base STR damage. Unless the player told me explicitly they wanted to always do (for example) 7 damage, but 10 damage if the attack roll hits [assuming 3 STR and Damage 7 (Strength-Based; Extras: Increase Range [Perception]; Flaws: Limited to Reach)].

Skill Mastery should be allowed with combat skills. It's ideal to give to NPCs in a fight with a really large number of combatants. The GM doesn't have to roll each attack roll from each NPC, s/he can save time by assuming a roll of 10 and adding that to the attack value.