Stacking Attacks Limitation

[Kylara]

Stacking attacks is a very unbalancing power suite when taken beyond a certain point, it can create a 1 hero army that can take down Super villians in one successful hit, and frankly its not much fun for other players in the game if one player can take out the big bad and all everyone else needs to do is hold his coat.

Steve Kenson himself has also recommended that the GM limits the number of stacked powers because of balance, and stated that he will be altering how the Aura extra works in the Masterminds Manual because of this issue. The below is a link to that thread.
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?t=11449&highlight=stacking

I have also posted up a thread asking him about a recommended limit, in a way that addresses what we are trying to do, and I'll post any answer he puts up.

Official Proposal: Limit Stacked Attacks to a maximum of 2 saves in anyone attack.
Explination: By going with a limit of 2 attack effects(saves) we still allow the aura extra, or allow for things like a bolt of lightning with a dazzle extra, but its not too much at once. Also, players are free to create Alternate Arrays if they want to use some other combination.

 

[Velmont]

If I try to understand it in other words, you cannot link (as in use the linked extra) more than two powers with saves together?

 

[Kylara]

Correct. You can link Blast and Dazzle together, but not Blast, Dazzle, Stun, and Paralysis. Only 2 saves on a successful attack. Aura and Strike, or Aura and Stun, or Aura and Paralysis, but not all of them together. You can do Alt Arrays if you want options, but you would not be able to use them all at once.

 

[Bront]

I'm tenitively likely to agree with 2, but I'll have to do some models of it first. I should get an M&M book to paruse today, so hopefully that will help.

The basic idea though, is that if every save is "save or stun" and Stun means you're toast in many casses, then it's a bit rough to have to make more than 2 per time struck.

Just a generic example, if you save 50% of the time (Basicly, DC 15 with a +4 save, or the equivilent spread), 3 attacks means you only save successfully on all 3 12.5% of the time. If it was 4, it would be 6.25%. Obviously, more gives you deminishing returns, but even 2 at 25% save rate is fairly rough, and from what I can see, it's fairly easy to stack it so saves are less than 50% to start.

So, looks like I talked myself into it I'll hold off an official vote till I paruse the book, but it's likely a yes.

 

[Kylara]

I actually played out a half dozen sample combats to come to the conclusions that I did. I used my character against the sample archetypes, and what I found was that, no matter how tough someone is, if your opponent has any chance of hurting you (getting through Impervious) then whoever forces the most saves will win.

The Paragon got his butt handed to him by the character with a +8 Strike/Paralyze. Even though the martial artist needed a critical, (or HP/Power Attack) to actually hurt him, she stunned and Paralyzed him in one attack and coup de graced him in the next. He did use his HP to reroll the attack where he got nailed the first time, but once he was helpless from the paralyze (or the stun for that matter) it was just a matter of time.

Another example was against the speedster, she avoided his first attack, and then readied for his second, and pow, he was stunned, even with a HP reroll. From that point on, the speedster was stunned constantly (and slowed), even with fantastic rolling staving off a KO for 8 turns, it was never in doubt once he got stunned. Even with fantastic rolls, you are going to be snowed under just by the sheer weight of all the saves you need to make, If you allow more then 2 at once, then you can turn entire combats into a single hero taking a swing and its over (I don't mean because bad rolls either).

 

[Velmont]

Ok, let's say I have a character with Strike, extra Aura and linked Stun ( I take that example purely randomly ), if I attack, I find myself:

A) One toughnesss roll against Strike/Aura and one fortitude against Stun

or

B) One toughnesss roll against Strike, on toughness roll against Aura and one fortitude against Stun

As I see it in that case, the strike come from the Aura itself (That's why there is no Migthy PF, hard to put strength in an Aura), so I would see it as A more than B...

 

[Kylara]

Normally Velmont, if you attacked with a Character with Strike + Aura + Stun then that is 3 saves, 2 toughness and a fort (or whatever save you want since its +0 to switch to will or Ref).

With the proposed rule, you would be limited to only 2 Saves. Strike and Aura for example, if you still wanted to stun, you could make it an Alt Power, and do Stun + Aura, or Stun + Stike. You just could not do all 3 in a single attack.

 

[Velmont]

Ok, when I made CPU, his strike power was coming from the Aura itself. In other words, I wasn't expecting to have two damage roll at +10, only one with that power. So, I want to to know if it would make sense to have:

Strike
extra: Aura
flaw: Limited - Aura only

And so, the strike power give no bonus to itself but allow the use of Aura. Would that be fine?

 

[Kylara]

This isn't aimed at your character, its just a general issue that your character's build brought up, I'd like to keep any specific characters out of it if possible though.

In your example though, you'd by Aura as its own power at rank 10, you would also buy your Stun power. Whenever you hit with your stun power, your aura would also hit. It simply looks neater to list it as Aura +10, its the same thing, its just clearer what is meant.

 

[Velmont]

This isn't aimed at your character...

I know, but he was a good example of 3 save case, and all I wanted is the Aura and Stun... I've never wanted the 3 attack in one.