Combat Issues

[Markdoc]

Another excellent point which would need to be addressed...by someone else, as I'm fresh out of ideas. :)

You also need to address concepts like Lifedrainerman who has a 1 megahex always hits, AoE, selective BOD and STUN transfer. Any time he wants, all the enemies for a kilometer around start losing BOD and STUN while he gains it. Unless they have power DEF after a turn or two they are all dead. If the GM wants to state that he can't hit targets he is unaware of, you can reduce that to "every enemy he can see". Even at +2 it's a bargain. :D

There's plenty of other simple exploits - it's almost redundant to say that "always hits" is broken, since by definition, it was intended to break the rules.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

We have AoE 1 Hex Accurate, which always hits unless the target Dives for Cover. Could we also have 'always hits unless' something else common? I.e., an expansion of 'Accurate' built like NND?

I can e.g. see an attack that always hits if the target is touching the ground (e.g. a shockwave that travels along the ground) or always hits unless the target moves faster than X or dodges behind cover (e.g. a target-seeking missile).

Perhaps a requirement should be that targets are always allowed to abort to whatever defense there is against the attack (and that this defense should be obvious).

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

We have AoE 1 Hex Accurate, which always hits unless the target Dives for Cover. Could we also have 'always hits unless' something else common? I.e., an expansion of 'Accurate' built like NND?

1 hex accurate doesn't always hit. It's simply a limited version of area affect. It's still subject to range penalties, cover penalties, penalties for situation, weather, visibility, dodge and CSLs and it can be missile deflected (dependant on special effect), etc. It operates entirely inside the existing mechanisms and in fact is nothing even remotely like "always hits".

Oh, and as an aside you don't have to DFC vs 1 hex accurate - the rules specifically allow you to dodge it. :D

I can e.g. see an attack that always hits if the target is touching the ground (e.g. a shockwave that travels along the ground) or always hits unless the target moves faster than X or dodges behind cover (e.g. a target-seeking missile).

Why not use the existing rules? An attack that always hits someone standing on the ground (unless they DFC) already exists. It's called area effect. Likewise, I have already given one build (there are others) for target-seeking attacks, which can be used for similar approaches.

To me, "always hits" looks suspiciously like a solution in search of a problem.

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

I can e.g. see an attack that always hits if the target is touching the ground (e.g. a shockwave that travels along the ground) or always hits unless the target moves faster than X or dodges behind cover (e.g. a target-seeking missile).

The first one is an FX of AEH, with the target diving for cover using Leaping or Flight. The second one... perhaps AEH Cone for the area the target is in, with a limitation that it can only hit one target at a time?

Perhaps a requirement should be that targets are always allowed to abort to whatever defense there is against the attack (and that this defense should be obvious).

- Klaus

Not only obvious, but commonly available to the typical character. The defense for a 'always hits' fire attack should not be 'tons of ED vs. fire.' Even LS: Intense Heat probably isn't common enough.

[Hugh Neilson]

AEH One-Hex Accurate does exactly what you're describing. And since Captain DCV (with his high DEX) can dive for cover away from it, I have no problem with it being in the game. Always Hits would need to be at least a +2 advantage at a minimum to be viable. It should be comparable to Affects Physical World because it does something similar - it breaks the basic rules interactions.

NND beaks the existing rules interactions and it's not +2. If the ultimate answer is that "always hits" has an advantage so high that it becomes "always hits but never hurts", there's really no point having the advantage, is there?

Clearly it would mean that, so the cost must include No Range Modifier (if the attack is ranged of course).

Seems remarkably like buying 1 hex accurate, NRM, and enough OCV to hit DCV 3 on all but an 18.

Very good point. One reasonable answer would be to say that the Advantage does not work when the character is at 0 OCV (so you could always hit an invisible character in HTH, but at range he needs to make a PER roll).

Or that you can only use the advantage if you can perceive the target with a targeting sense, or with a non-targeting sense. But now I probably need to be able to build a power with any of the three. And probably one where I can hit with none of the three. The reason for adding this was to be able to have an "always hits" power that the toolkit presently lacks, so I need to cover all the bases so no holes will be left in the toolkit, right?

From a game-mechanics point of view, I would say that such attacks ignore hit location modifiers (much in the same way that AOE attacks work, as you mention). I agree that the clarification should be included for AOE Accurate -- the problem is similar.

That runs to the logic issue "if I can auto-hit someone the size of an eyeball, why can't I autohit an eyeball?", as well as the fact that we still are misssing a tool from the toolkit. And can I fire my autohit attack to hit the Wizard's OIF Magic Ring? That's a lot like hitting his eyeball.

You also need to address concepts like Lifedrainerman who has a 1 megahex always hits, AoE, selective BOD and STUN transfer. Any time he wants, all the enemies for a kilometer around start losing BOD and STUN while he gains it. Unless they have power DEF after a turn or two they are all dead. If the GM wants to state that he can't hit targets he is unaware of, you can reduce that to "every enemy he can see". Even at +2 it's a bargain. :D

Actually, he's getting ripped off. He could buy 1 megahex AoE, Selective, add 1 hex accurate for +1/2 and hit pretty much anyone anyway, at their new 3 DCV. Paying another +1 1/2 advantage (or +1 if he needs No Range Modifier - do range modifiers apply to targets in Selective or Nonselective AoE's?) to remove the chance of rolling an 18 seems pretty expensive to me.

There's plenty of other simple exploits - it's almost redundant to say that "always hits" is broken, since by definition, it was intended to break the rules.

While I agree to some extent, most advantages are intended to break a rule. NND breaks the "subtract defenses" rule, and is a pretty simple exploit - buy an NND the desired target lacks the defense for.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not only obvious, but commonly available to the typical character. The defense for a 'always hits' fire attack should not be 'tons of ED vs. fire.' Even LS: Intense Heat probably isn't common enough.

Why not? We accept LS: heat as a valid defense for an NND.

If my attack is NND, Always Hits, does it need two separate defenses, one to prevent hitting and a second to prevent harming?

[Vulcan]

NND beaks the existing rules interactions and it's not +2. If the ultimate answer is that "always hits" has an advantage so high that it becomes "always hits but never hurts", there's really no point having the advantage, is there?

An advantage that destroys entire concepts (speedsters and martial artists, shrinking guy, anyone else with high DCV/low DEF on concept) should be very expensive indeed. Kind of like the guy who can hit people, but cannot be hit in return (except under extremly limited circumstances).

And for 75 AP (our campaign average), a 5d6 E-Blast will do some damage to my 11 DEF, 17 DCV (on the average) martial artist. Sure, it won't be an automatic kill, but it will do about the same proportion of STUN to me (20-25% of my 28 STUN) that a larger attack would do to a more robust character. So at +2 it would be about right, if it absolutely must exist at all.

Seems remarkably like buying 1 hex accurate, NRM, and enough OCV to hit DCV 3 on all but an 18.

But I can dive for cover from that. Which is as it should be.

Or that you can only use the advantage if you can perceive the target with a targeting sense, or with a non-targeting sense. But now I probably need to be able to build a power with any of the three. And probably one where I can hit with none of the three. The reason for adding this was to be able to have an "always hits" power that the toolkit presently lacks, so I need to cover all the bases so no holes will be left in the toolkit, right?

And Invisble Woman gets gunned down by the new rules...

That runs to the logic issue "if I can auto-hit someone the size of an eyeball, why can't I autohit an eyeball?", as well as the fact that we still are misssing a tool from the toolkit. And can I fire my autohit attack to hit the Wizard's OIF Magic Ring? That's a lot like hitting his eyeball.

And bricks start dropping from called shots to their eyeballs...

While I agree to some extent, most advantages are intended to break a rule. NND breaks the "subtract defenses" rule, and is a pretty simple exploit - buy an NND the desired target lacks the defense for.

But at least the NND has to hit first. Sure, it sucks if you're the guy getting hit, but at least there was a chance it wouldn't hit.

Now take an NND and give it "Always Hits." http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/sick.gif That's an "I win, period" power.

Now try to figure out why Dr. D doesn't have it in his MP's. http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif

[Vulcan]

Why not? We accept LS: heat as a valid defense for an NND.

If my attack is NND, Always Hits, does it need two separate defenses, one to prevent hitting and a second to prevent harming?

Yes, because frankly 'fire' has nothing to do with being that accurate.

We have a defense against being hit. It's called DCV. It's one of the big difference between HEROS and Heroes Unlimited (where you are hit on a modified 5 or better on a d20 - unless you blow an action to dodge/block; they assume people in a fight stand around picking their nose unless they actually use an action...)

All in all, autohit does not belong in Champions.

[Klaus Mogensen]

An advantage that destroys entire concepts (speedsters and martial artists, shrinking guy, anyone else with high DCV/low DEF on concept) should be very expensive indeed. Kind of like the guy who can hit people, but cannot be hit in return (except under extremly limited circumstances).
You could similarly argue that NND "destroys" concepts like the armored tank or heavily force-fielded energy blaster, yet that doesn't seem to be the case, probably because NND attacks only have about half the dice of a normal attack.

I'm not convinced that an "always hits" attack option is a good idea; but I'm not convinced it is a bad idea either. However, I am convinced that an "always hits" option should be no more aboslute than NND or Desolid.

Consider Magic Missile from older versions of D&D: That always hit in spite of high armor or DEX; yet it didn't seem unbalancing. Not that Hero and D&D can easily be compared, but it does hint that there may be no problem with the basic idea.

BTW, such an option should probably be called "No Attack Roll Required" rather than "Always Hits".

- Klaus

[nexus]

BTW, such an option should probably be called "No Attack Roll Required" rather than "Always Hits".


I agree with this. Or something like "No Attack Roll"

[Vulcan]

But the low DEF/High DCV character is also usually pretty low on STUN (mine average 30). So a 7d6 Autohit (+1 advantage), doing 25 STUN on an average roll - 14 damage to my martial artist - now takes him out in two shots.

NND vs. tanks - well, the tank usually has 60-80 STUN. So a 7d6 NND does about a third of that. So to make Autohit comparable, it would need to be at least +1.5 (6d6 for 75 AP, doing 21 STUN, 10 past defenses or around 1/3 of total STUN).

Now how about the NND Autohit? If Autohit is +1, then a 75 point Autohit NND does 5d6, period. No matter how tough or how fast you are. 18 STUN to all. KO's my martial artist in two phases PERIOD, and the tank in... what, 5 or 6? Or more?

If Autohit is +1.5 then it's 4d6 NND - or 14 STUN. I could still easily go down in two shots. Autohit at +2 yields 3d6 - 11 STUN. 3 shots to out.

The point of the High DCV set is that he rarely gets hit - and when hit is out!. I expect that to happen when I build a character that way. Just like a brick expects to take a bit more damage from an NND than a normal attack.

Granted, I'm using a very limited set of examples. But I just don't see 'autohit' (whatever you call it) as having a place in HEROS.

[Chris Goodwin]

But the low DEF/High DCV character is also usually pretty low on STUN (mine average 30). So a 7d6 Autohit (+1 advantage), doing 25 STUN on an average roll - 14 damage to my martial artist - now takes him out in two shots.

11 DEF in a 14DC game? Pardon me for saying so, but that is piss poor character design, even in a game without the existence of a +1 No Attack Roll Advantage (hereafter NAR).

That 7d6 NAR is also a 7d6 NND, or a 4d6 NND Does BODY, 7d6 AoE Radius, 4d6 AoE Radius NND, or 9d6 1 Hex Accurate. Any of which hose you just as badly if they hit (the NND is worse).

Suppose I come at you with the 7d6 AoE Radius. I've nullified your DCV advantage, and one of these times you're going to miss that DFC roll.

Bluntly, the potential existence of NAR is the last thing you should be worried about, and in a game where NAR exists as a +1 Advantage, you for damn sure should have designed your character differently, or else you would deserve everything you get.

Edit: Unless you've deliberately chosen an extreme character design to illustrate a point, in which case I'm not buying.

[Kdansky]

I have to agree. If you have less (significantly even) DEF than DC, that's a problem and it has nothing to do with a possible +1 NAR.

[Markdoc]

Actually, he's getting ripped off. He could buy 1 megahex AoE, Selective, add 1 hex accurate for +1/2 and hit pretty much anyone anyway, at their new 3 DCV. Paying another +1 1/2 advantage (or +1 if he needs No Range Modifier - do range modifiers apply to targets in Selective or Nonselective AoE's?) to remove the chance of rolling an 18 seems pretty expensive to me.

You - and to be fair most people in this thread - appear to have forgotten that you can dodge 1 hex accurate and also add levels.

See page 248 which states:
Targets may Dodge Accurate attacks; they do not have to use Dive For Cover to avoid them. The bonuses from the Dodge (or Martial Dodge) add to the base DCV 3, and the character can apply relevant Combat Skill Levels to increase his DCV if he wants.

It's not unusual for a high DCV character like a martial artist to be able to raise his DCV to 13 (martial dodge + 5CSLs) against 1 hex accurate with a half action. That leaves anyone relying on the approach you suggest struggling to hit them. In addition accurate means you can target one person and only one person - not everyone in the hex. For a puny +1 1/2, being able to hit anyone regardless of DCV around you is a bargain.

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

Or that you can only use the advantage if you can perceive the target with a targeting sense, or with a non-targeting sense. But now I probably need to be able to build a power with any of the three. And probably one where I can hit with none of the three. The reason for adding this was to be able to have an "always hits" power that the toolkit presently lacks, so I need to cover all the bases so no holes will be left in the toolkit, right?

This is a bit of a strawman. Make the default "doesn't work at 0 OCV," which is equivalent of requiring a non-targeting PER roll. "Requires a targeting PER" roll is a limitation. "Requires full OCV" is a limitation. Voila.

That runs to the logic issue "if I can auto-hit someone the size of an eyeball, why can't I autohit an eyeball?"

This is pure and simple a game balance issue. Why doesn't an AOE get headshot modifiers?

Personally (not sure if 6E would go along with this), if you want to automatically do headshot damage, buy enough extra damage to simulate the multiplier. Game balance problem solved.

[Kdansky]

Scissors, meet Rock.

If you have 5 CLs, Martial Dodge and probably about 30 dex, you are rather impossible to hit anyway (10 OCV, 15 DCV without dodging). I think it's fair that someone can buy a 6d6 which hits you still. Even at 12 defense (half the standard, as in "horribly low"), that will only hit you with a meagre 0 BODY and around 9 stun. I don't see how that is supposed to be broken.

I could spread for 6 dice, which will probably allow me to hit you if you don't dodge, even if you put your levels into DCV (a 13- at 11 ocv including levels). That will have the same effect. Basically, it's a toolbox advantage. Sometimes it's good (against a Dodging, extremly low armor Martial Artist), but usually, it's not. It might see use only with advantage stacking and/or MP slotting, but generally, 12d6 EB is superior in 90% of all cases.

[Hugh Neilson]

An advantage that destroys entire concepts (speedsters and martial artists, shrinking guy, anyone else with high DCV/low DEF on concept) should be very expensive indeed. Kind of like the guy who can hit people, but cannot be hit in return (except under extremly limited circumstances).

I think the guy who is immune from retaliation is much more powerful. I can still attack AutoHit Man, and hope to take him down before he takes me down. NND "destroys" armored tanks. So do mental attacks (Mind Control and Mental Illusions are often "one hit KO's" for such characters. Frankly, I don't think your high DCV character should enjoy effective invulnerability either.

And for 75 AP (our campaign average), a 5d6 E-Blast will do some damage to my 11 DEF, 17 DCV (on the average) martial artist. Sure, it won't be an automatic kill, but it will do about the same proportion of STUN to me (20-25% of my 28 STUN) that a larger attack would do to a more robust character. So at +2 it would be about right, if it absolutely must exist at all.

So it can be slightly effective against a character no one else can hit, and serve no other purpose? I think that's unrealistic. Frankly, I expect a character with a DCV that makes him virtually unhittable to be pretty easy to KO if someone does connect. Why should I take a 5d6 "Hits any target" attack instead of a 15d6 EB that I will spread for 10d6 against you (and do the same 5d6) and spread not at all against a high DEF, low DCV target and still have the power be useful?

But I can dive for cover from that. Which is as it should be.

And you now are prone with much reduced DCV for my teammate. I can quite easily live with that.

And Invisible Woman gets gunned down by the new rules...

IR vision is all it takes to gun down Invisible Woman - few characters in the comics have the all-encompassing Invisibility we buy our PC's. That's why she developed other powers when it was decided her role should be expanded beyond "hostage".

And bricks start dropping from called shots to their eyeballs...

I see this as a more significant issue for the 'always hits" modifier - it creates other issues.

But at least the NND has to hit first. Sure, it sucks if you're the guy getting hit, but at least there was a chance it wouldn't hit.

But the NND is typically used on a low DCV, high defense target, so it pretty much does always hit. And an attack that manages to connect with a 17 DCV target should pretty much always hurt. A lot.

Now take an NND and give it "Always Hits." http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/sick.gif That's an "I win, period" power.

Why don't AoE NND's rule the Hero system, then?

Now try to figure out why Dr. D doesn't have it in his MP's. http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif

Now why doesn't he have a homing missile? That seems like something Doc D would have.

But the low DEF/High DCV character is also usually pretty low on STUN (mine average 30). So a 7d6 Autohit (+1 advantage), doing 25 STUN on an average roll - 14 damage to my martial artist - now takes him out in two shots.

Gosh, a character with an attack you are extremely poorly defended against takes you out in two shots. Imagine that! How many shots from a 4d6 Ranged Int Drain do you think it takes to take out the Brick with no power defense?

NND vs. tanks - well, the tank usually has 60-80 STUN. So a 7d6 NND does about a third of that. So to make Autohit comparable, it would need to be at least +1.5 (6d6 for 75 AP, doing 21 STUN, 10 past defenses or around 1/3 of total STUN).

The 7d6 NND adds to the nickel and dime damage the target takes from other hits. Who else hits the Artful Dodger?

Now how about the NND Autohit? If Autohit is +1, then a 75 point Autohit NND does 5d6, period. No matter how tough or how fast you are. 18 STUN to all. KO's my martial artist in two phases PERIOD, and the tank in... what, 5 or 6? Or more?

And the tank is affected by donzens of other attacks while your character is not. Frankly, why bother with NND against a character with less than 1 defense per DC anyway? 1 hex AoE for 10d6 will do just fine. Either you take 24 damage, on average, or you dive and fall prone, easy prey for my teammate's 15d6 attack. Either way works for me.

If Autohit is +1.5 then it's 4d6 NND - or 14 STUN. I could still easily go down in two shots. Autohit at +2 yields 3d6 - 11 STUN. 3 shots to out.

And how many to take out any other character? You seem dead set focused on one very extreme character type.

The point of the High DCV set is that he rarely gets hit - and when hit is out!. I expect that to happen when I build a character that way. Just like a brick expects to take a bit more damage from an NND than a normal attack.

Then why are you arguing someone with a power especially suited to taking down a high DCV target should have to hit you three times just to get you down to 0 STUN? 45 STUN (56 before defenses) is what I would call an "instant KO", since you are now below -10. Even at +1 (which is probably about right), he's doing 26.5 on average and needs two phases to take down a character who is about as obvious a "soft target" to such an attack as you will ever see.

This is a bit of a strawman. Make the default "doesn't work at 0 OCV," which is equivalent of requiring a non-targeting PER roll. "Requires a targeting PER" roll is a limitation. "Requires full OCV" is a limitation. Voila.

Limitations or variant advantages are pretty much the same, except that they have different impact on AP. And why should "requires a targeting PER roll to hit automatically" reduce the cost of the entire power when it only impacts the "Autohit" advantage?

This is pure and simple a game balance issue. Why doesn't an AOE get headshot modifiers?

To the former, I agree - but it costs the structure a certain logic. To the latter, because an attack that inflicts damage across the character in his entirety hits him from head to toe, and the damage reflects this hit over the entire target. If I buy double damage, I do twice as much damage against trees and walls, which typically lack heads.

[Kdansky]

As much as I agree with Hugh (and I do that, totally!), I just found a major problem with NAR:

You can easily hit stuff while having lowered OCV.

Meaning: You can attack from noncombat speed. Assuming you have a bad DCV to begin with (brick), this effectively allows you to use noncombat speed + NAR attacks (always assumed to be MPd with a normal EB to fill the obvious gaps) to catch up with speedsters and still hit them. I don't like this a lot.

You can also hit invisible targets a bit too easy. It's incredibly hard for an invis character to not get perceived with everyone having decent PER rolls plus additional senses. This would be further troubling.

The other problem has been pointed out: Called shots. It would be necessary to fix that by plainly stating: "NAR attacks cannot be called, ever."

And yes, it's quite good against a 11 DEF 15 DCV character in a 15 DC game. Kinda like a Flash vs someone without flash defense. Or a 75 AP entangle against a 10 str character. If you have such a glaring, over-the-top weakness, then you might deserve to have a counter in the system. Like a brick with vulnerability vs NND, that's about the same style. We cannot sell defenses, but you saved about 50 points on defenses compared to the average 30 (15r) in that game.

Point I want to make: Yes, that one special character might have a difficult time with it, but it's neither unbalanced nor impractical. In fact, many people would probably like to see it. But Hero has no absolutes you say? Desolidification? NND? NAR would need a countermethod, like NND.

[nexus]

I see this as a more significant issue for the 'always hits" modifier - it creates other issues.


I promised myself not get into a prolonged discussion about this but this is valid issue, It's avoidable by GM's discretion but I'd say NAR should be treated like Area of Effect and cannot be used for called shots. The reason would be game balance. For the sfx that would justify targeting the character could additional damage to their attack to represent it, perhaps with activation roll or some other limitation to reflect what it does. I still think most of the powers NAR would be reasonably used to simulate wouldn't be affected Hit Location but I can where it could be an issue for some games.

[Marcus]

Don't we already essentially have 'autohit', in the form of AOE (and all its variants)?

And even if there was, I'm not sure why autohit is so cruel... we already have NND for defenses, etc.

If theres any defense construct that is currently too good for its points, its probably Damage Reduction. Unlike DCV and Def, there is no real way around DR.

[Hugh Neilson]

As much as I agree with Hugh (and I do that, totally!), I just found a major problem with NAR:

You can easily hit stuff while having lowered OCV.

I see that as a major problem. Wy should I ever refrain from using a maneuver with OCV penalties when I have an attack that always hits anyway? Noncombat movement is another area where this comes into effect.

And if we have "no attack roll required", why not "no skill roll required" or elimination of the roll for any other roll required? May as well Cover the target and fire just as he strats to move - there's no OCV penalty and I may disrupt his action in addition to the other benefits of my action. Might as well Hipshot every time as well. If I have Cover, clearly I'll use Snap Shot. Oulling a punch has no down side. And that's just the maneuvers with no penalty other than OCV.

May as well Sweep, Rapid Attack or Multiple Move By for some extra attacks - 2 or 20, there's no added penalty other than OCV.

As you note, there are lots more great options if your DCV was poor to begin with. As well, most of those poor DCV characters have low DEX, and invest points in combat skill levels to have a decent chance of hitting. How many could have "No Attack Roll" for a cost similar to their skill levels, and get a much greater effect? [Depends how we price NAR, of course...]

The other problem has been pointed out: Called shots. It would be necessary to fix that by plainly stating: "NAR attacks cannot be called, ever."

The need to impose such a restriction with no logical background (my Magic Dart can hit a gnat - why can't it hit a Giant in the head?) for game balance purposes (because head shots are too powerful) shows that the ability has issues.

If I'm going to buy 8d6 "Always Hits", I could have bought 8d6 with +10 OCV instead for the same price. The latter still allows DFC, and a high enough DCV avoids it, but +10 OCV will typically allow most targets to be hit.

And yes, it's quite good against a 11 DEF 15 DCV character in a 15 DC game. Kinda like a Flash vs someone without flash defense. Or a 75 AP entangle against a 10 str character. If you have such a glaring, over-the-top weakness, then you might deserve to have a counter in the system. Like a brick with vulnerability vs NND, that's about the same style. We cannot sell defenses, but you saved about 50 points on defenses compared to the average 30 (15r) in that game.

And spent a similar amount on DEX and DCV, I suspect, but the point is still valid. If Hagar the Huge has a DEC of -6 and Defenses of 60, r40, an NND, Rapid Attack'd, is his bane (or head shots where we use hit locations). Does that mean NND and/or Rapid Attack are hugely overpowered? No, it means that Hagar is an extreme build and has traded immunity to many attacks for extreme vulnerability to a few.

I promised myself not get into a prolonged discussion about this but this is valid issue, It's avoidable by GM's discretion but I'd say NAR should be treated like Area of Effect and cannot be used for called shots. The reason would be game balance. For the sfx that would justify targeting the character could additional damage to their attack to represent it, perhaps with activation roll or some other limitation to reflect what it does. I still think most of the powers NAR would be reasonably used to simulate wouldn't be affected Hit Location but I can where it could be an issue for some games.

The simplest solution for hit locations is to spend 12 points on 8 PSL's that offset hit location penalties for that one attack. Now every hit is a head hit. Bump that up to 18, and eye hits are automatic.

Don't we already essentially have 'autohit', in the form of AOE (and all its variants)?

Yes and no. Range modifiers still apply and dive for cover is a possibility (a very easy one if the area is 1 hex, less so if not but then you risk friendly fire issues).

And even if there was, I'm not sure why autohit is so cruel... we already have NND for defenses, etc.

But there are very few advantages you can get for sacrifices that would typically reduce your damage. There are many advantages available if you take a penalty to OCV, which is no penalty at all if the attack cannot miss anyway.

If theres any defense construct that is currently too good for its points, its probably Damage Reduction. Unlike DCV and Def, there is no real way around DR.

Let's assume a 60 AP game, and a character with 0 defenses (should be impossible, but let's be extreme). 25% PD and ED damage reduction costs 30 points. A typical 12d6 attack would do 42 STUN and 12 BOD x 75% = 31 STUN and 9 BOD. He could have bought +10r PD and 10rED for the same price, in which case he would take 32 STUN and 2 BOD.

50% PD and ED damage reduction costs 60 points. A typical 12d6 attack would do 42 STUN and 12 BOD x 50% = 21 STUN and 6 BOD. He could have bought +20r PD and 20rED for the same price, in which case he would take 22 STUN and 0 BOD.

75% PD and ED damage reduction costs 120 points. A typical 12d6 attack would do 42 STUN and 12 BOD x 25% = 11 STUN and 3 BOD. He could have bought +40r PD and 40rED (or 50 PD/ED with 20 resistant) for the same price, in which case he would take 2 STUN and 0 BOD.

Damage reduction really doesn't seem superior. Add base defenses, and Dam Red becomes even less effective. The value of your defenses is reduced since DR acts only after defenses, with the result that it tends to be really effective only for low defense characters hit hith high power attacks.

[nexus]

The need to impose such a restriction with no logical background (my Magic Dart can hit a gnat - why can't it hit a Giant in the head?) for game balance purposes (because head shots are too powerful) shows that the ability has issues.


Maybe the Magic Dart (if the GM allows that as a NAR power) can hit a giant in the head for sfx purposes but it just doesn't get any damage modifiers for doing so like Martial Maneuvers can be defined as always striking a certain location but for no benefits. There are other somewhat illogical things in Hero that exist mostly for game balance. You can't deliberately teleport someone into solid matter with Teleport UAA, Mega scaling knock back doesn't vastly increase damage same with Megascale movement and Move through/bys You still take damage if you accidentally Teleport into solid matter even if the character is using Desolidification (at least I think that was the eventually ruling).

I'll point out that most of the issues come from using the Advantage in a way that, while applicable according to the letter of the rules isn't necessarily in the spirit of the ability. That's why is should be a Stop Sign ability. It would be powerful and could cause problems if used carelessly, somewhat like UAA Movement or other powers but does model some fairly common abilities across various genres.

[Talon]

Hm...what if AOE Accurate became just a new Advantage "Accurate", and had two variants:

-- as written in 5ER, +1/2

-- as written in 5ER except Dodge actions and CSL when Dodging don't work, +1 1/2 (or whatever balances)

If you want to always hit, buy the expensive version, buy OCV levels as high as you want, and talk to the GM about Absolute Effect. Avoids the Hurry / Hipshot / headshot concerns, since you are still taking OCV penalties. The GM can decide how such things interact with Absolute Effect, or just always require a roll even at 18-. (For example, "Absolute Effect doesn't apply if you take OCV penalties.")

The cover issue still exists, but that doesn't seem insurmountable.

[The Main Man]

1. How do you defend against this "Instant Hit" Advantage?

2. Can someone come up with [obviously fictional] concepts that always hit that didn't ultimately miss as a great surprise during some pivotal part of the story?

3. An attack that "Always Hits" either undermines the GM or else the GM may occasionally find himself having to screw the player over.

4. If I have an attack that always hits then OCV looks pretty worthless. NND does not have this effect because either it does damage or does none. An attack that does not hit has 100% probability: it no longer has a Hit/Miss dichotomy.

5. Ultimately I think that an "Always Hits" should not be a Power Advantage but could probably be presented in a supplement that uses the Absolute Effect Rule in which anyone with a DCV lower than the character's total OCV with the item is automatically hit with it.

[The Main Man]

Hm...what if AOE Accurate became just a new Advantage "Accurate", and had two variants:

-- as written in 5ER, +1/2

-- as written in 5ER except Dodge actions and CSL when Dodging don't work, +1 1/2 (or whatever balances)

If you want to always hit, buy the expensive version, buy OCV levels as high as you want, and talk to the GM about Absolute Effect. Avoids the Hurry / Hipshot / headshot concerns, since you are still taking OCV penalties. The GM can decide how such things interact with Absolute Effect, or just always require a roll even at 18-. (For example, "Absolute Effect doesn't apply if you take OCV penalties.")

The cover issue still exists, but that doesn't seem insurmountable.
Dang, beat me to it.

[nexus]

1. How do you defend against this "Instant Hit" Advantage?


That would depend on the nature of the ability to be worked out before hand like with NND.


2. Can someone come up with [obviously fictional] concepts that always hit that didn't ultimately miss as a great surprise during some pivotal part of the story?


A poison slipped into a drink or food, a set up trap (can be evaded by characteristic/skill rolls/DFC) It might fail to kill the target for whatever reason but it does not miss. The super interaction skills defined as Mental Powers doesn't really miss but can fail for various reasons.

[Vulcan]

11 DEF in a 14DC game? Pardon me for saying so, but that is piss poor character design, even in a game without the existence of a +1 No Attack Roll Advantage (hereafter NAR).

And who the heck are you to judge my character builds? :mad:

For the record, my (average) DCV 17, 11 DEF character was often the last man standing on our team! So it's not a matter of 'piss poor character design,' it's a matter of knowing your GM. And the GM thinks 28 DEF is well into brick territory (instead of a campaign average for 14 DC) and doesn't like allowing it on non-brick characters. SO if my charcter is going to take bucketloads of damage no matter how high defense the GM allows, it makes sense to sacrifce DEF for DCV!

So get off the high horse there, Mr. Goodwin. You don't play in the game I'm in, so don't think you can judge my characters!

That 7d6 NAR is also a 7d6 NND, or a 4d6 NND Does BODY, 7d6 AoE Radius, 4d6 AoE Radius NND, or 9d6 1 Hex Accurate. Any of which hose you just as badly if they hit (the NND is worse).

Yep. And thankfully they are pretty rare. And the 9d6 Accurate isn't likely to connect that often either (14< DEX roll makes for an easy 1 Hex Dive for Cover).

Suppose I come at you with the 7d6 AoE Radius. I've nullified your DCV advantage, and one of these times you're going to miss that DFC roll.

When it happened, sure enough, I was the first man out. I expected that. What I don't expect is for my 'really hard to hit' schtick to be countered by a 'always hits' rule.

Besides, you want to be really accurate? +1 OCV only costs 2 points. Spend 20 points for +10 to the roll. +1 DCV costs 5, so for the same points I'll only get +4 DCV.

It's one of the few cases where the defense is much more expensive than the attack.

Bluntly, the potential existence of NAR is the last thing you should be worried about, and in a game where NAR exists as a +1 Advantage, you for damn sure should have designed your character differently, or else you would deserve everything you get.

And to the crows with you too.

Edit: Unless you've deliberately chosen an extreme character design to illustrate a point, in which case I'm not buying.

Vigil started at 250 and went to the points on this sheet before he died in combat.

He was predeceased by 3 duplicates of Epsilon (15 DEF, killed in HUGE explosion), Stone (granted, only brain-dead, PD 18, ED 25), Critter (DEF 20, another captured and booby-traped with a bomb), Timeline (DEF 18, caught in the explosion that killed Critter), Captain Freedom (DEF 30 Brick, beaten to death by Durak), and Gabriel (mid-20's, captured and executed).

With Explosions and AEH, it's a matter of not being the obvious target. :D

[Vulcan]

I think the guy who is immune from retaliation is much more powerful. I can still attack AutoHit Man, and hope to take him down before he takes me down. NND "destroys" armored tanks. So do mental attacks (Mind Control and Mental Illusions are often "one hit KO's" for such characters. Frankly, I don't think your high DCV character should enjoy effective invulnerability either.

So it can be slightly effective against a character no one else can hit, and serve no other purpose? I think that's unrealistic. Frankly, I expect a character with a DCV that makes him virtually unhittable to be pretty easy to KO if someone does connect. Why should I take a 5d6 "Hits any target" attack instead of a 15d6 EB that I will spread for 10d6 against you (and do the same 5d6) and spread not at all against a high DEF, low DCV target and still have the power be useful?

And you now are prone with much reduced DCV for my teammate. I can quite easily live with that.

IR vision is all it takes to gun down Invisible Woman - few characters in the comics have the all-encompassing Invisibility we buy our PC's. That's why she developed other powers when it was decided her role should be expanded beyond "hostage".

I see this as a more significant issue for the 'always hits" modifier - it creates other issues.

But the NND is typically used on a low DCV, high defense target, so it pretty much does always hit. And an attack that manages to connect with a 17 DCV target should pretty much always hurt. A lot.

Why don't AoE NND's rule the Hero system, then?

Now why doesn't he have a homing missile? That seems like something Doc D would have.

Gosh, a character with an attack you are extremely poorly defended against takes you out in two shots. Imagine that! How many shots from a 4d6 Ranged Int Drain do you think it takes to take out the Brick with no power defense?

The 7d6 NND adds to the nickel and dime damage the target takes from other hits. Who else hits the Artful Dodger?

And the tank is affected by donzens of other attacks while your character is not. Frankly, why bother with NND against a character with less than 1 defense per DC anyway? 1 hex AoE for 10d6 will do just fine. Either you take 24 damage, on average, or you dive and fall prone, easy prey for my teammate's 15d6 attack. Either way works for me.

And how many to take out any other character? You seem dead set focused on one very extreme character type.

Then why are you arguing someone with a power especially suited to taking down a high DCV target should have to hit you three times just to get you down to 0 STUN? 45 STUN (56 before defenses) is what I would call an "instant KO", since you are now below -10. Even at +1 (which is probably about right), he's doing 26.5 on average and needs two phases to take down a character who is about as obvious a "soft target" to such an attack as you will ever see.

Limitations or variant advantages are pretty much the same, except that they have different impact on AP. And why should "requires a targeting PER roll to hit automatically" reduce the cost of the entire power when it only impacts the "Autohit" advantage?

To the former, I agree - but it costs the structure a certain logic. To the latter, because an attack that inflicts damage across the character in his entirety hits him from head to toe, and the damage reflects this hit over the entire target. If I buy double damage, I do twice as much damage against trees and walls, which typically lack heads.

Rather than debate this point-by-point, I'll just sum up. IF there must be an autohit advantage, +1.5 to +2 sounds about right to me. +1 is just too cheap.

[Vulcan]

A poison slipped into a drink or food, a set up trap (can be evaded by characteristic/skill rolls/DFC) It might fail to kill the target for whatever reason but it does not miss. The super interaction skills defined as Mental Powers doesn't really miss but can fail for various reasons.

These examples aren't for combat. They are roleplaying instances and the GM should be ready to waive the to-hit roll for drama's sake. It is in the rules that the GM has that authority.

Even Vigil would acknowldege that he can't dodge the poison in the wine he just drank.

[SSgt Baloo]

I think the impetus for "Always hits" comes from D&D's "Magic Missile" spell. I don't think "always hits" is necessary. You could just as easily buy a bunch of levels and "Line-Of-Sight" (or whatever it's called. I don't keep FRED handy to the computer desk.) Is there really a need for this mechanic? Would you want it used against your PC? I'm guessing that if any GM allows it he'd probably only give it to specific big-bads he wanted to seem invincible.

Most GMs will say "don't bother rolling, you hit" when the odds are incredibly stacked against a miss anyway (unless the plot demands something else -- I'd usually just say "Don't roll an eighteen). Just how big are the dice you're rolling anyway? If rolling three dice is too strenuous then I suggest using smaller dice. If you just want to skip the to-hit part, I really don't see any valid reason to make it an official part of the rules. Those who want to do that anyway can just make up a house rule. The vast majority of players and GMs just don't see the need*.

* Of course, I could be wrong. Anyone agree? Disagree? Bueller?

[nexus]

I think the impetus for "Always hits" comes from D&D's "Magic Missile" spell.

Speaking for myself, I can say that's not the case. D and D Magic Missile is best modeled in Hero System as a fairly straight EB/RKA possibly with with a high OCV, IMO. In D and D it didn't "always hit". It forgoes the attack roll system in that game (or it did in the editions I looked deeply into it). It always did hit point damage which could represent allot of things in that system as hit points abstracted several things about combat including "dodging".

I think a NAR Advantage would be most useful to modeling effects that usually forgo the Vs DCV part of combat. Vulcan called them "non combat" but "Role playing" effects, not a distinction I would make but it might several to illustrate the idea. Right now you can handwave that issue but I think it could due with being codified in the core rules. If not as an Advantage (my preference) then as advice on how to handle it since these effects aren't uncommon across genres. Yes, GM would have to be wary about munchkin/power gamer types trying to slap it onto every attack power they have and consider the defenses they accept carefully but there are other abilities in Hero System that require moderation.

And just because it's in the book doesn't mean you HAVE to use it. There's a few core book things I don't use in some games because they don't feet the setting I want, at least not without heavy modification.

That said there have been some thoughtful observations on issue that could come up with players that like to push the envelop or letting NAR be used heavily for standard combat powers. I think if (by some thin chance) it is included in 6th Edition those will come in handy for developing the rule set for the Advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

If rolling three dice is too strenuous then I suggest using smaller dice. If you just want to skip the to-hit part, I really don't see any valid reason to make it an official part of the rules. Those who want to do that anyway can just make up a house rule. The vast majority of players and GMs just don't see the need*.

* Of course, I could be wrong. Anyone agree? Disagree? Bueller?

While I am concerned about the implications of a "always hits" ability, it seems like something reasonable to include in the toolbox. "You can just make it a house rule" always bugs me. Sure I can. And you can always house rule that the official "Always Hits" rule is not available in your game. I think having the rule in the system is the superior choice - that way, there is common ground for accomplishing this result, rather than "Hero doesn't do this, so if you want it in your game, write the rules yourself".

[Hugh Neilson]

These examples aren't for combat.

Really? I can't set a trap, then lure you into it or set it off during combat?

[Vulcan]

What's wrong with Trigger for that effect? If it covers a large area, then it's area effect. If it's really accurate, buy lots of OCV. Autohit is not necessary, and probably not too realistic to boot, for a trap.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Back in June, I posted an analysis (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1630934&postcount=628) about what would be necessary in order to have consistent logarithmic damage instead of the current hodge-podge of logarithmic, polynomic and linear damage. I have given the matter more thought now:

Relationship between Energy and Damage
Lifting 100kg 2m off the ground (the lifting ability of STR 10) requires 2000j (joules) of energy. Assuming this as the energy equivalent of DC2 (also STR 10), and that energy doubles with every +1 DC, we get the relationship E = 500j*(2^DC) or DC = log2(E) - log2(500j) (log2 being the logarithm with base 2).

Adding damage from different sources is easy: You only use the largest, unless the two sources are equal, in which case you add 1 DC to one of them.

Movement Damage
Ekin = ½mV^2. With m=100kg, we get DC2 at 6.32m/s = 23kph, which is the logarithmic midpoint of the range 17-32kph. Log2(Ekin) = log2(m) + 2log2(V) - 1; hence we add contributions from mass and velocity. To make things simple, we introduce Size Class (SC) as one-fifth the STR needed to lift an object; i.e., if you you can lift SC X, you do DC X STR damage. We also need a Velocity Index (VI) for the velocity contribution. We then get:

Movement Damage = SC + VI

Kph . . . . . VI
17-32 . . . . 0
33-64 . . . . 2
65-128 . . . 4
129-256 . . 6
257-512 . . 8
Etc.

Note the similarity to the Range Chart. Reading "range" as velocity, we can find VI from the Range Chart as Mod-6 (reading the Mod as a positive number).

A 1600kg (SC6) car going 100kph will thus do (6+4)d6 = 10d6. We could argue that a car is AoE 1 Hex (+½), making it 6½d6.

Hero generally uses "/phase rather than kph to measure velocity. However, we don't know yet if the inch will be dropped or movement decoupled from SPD, so I chose to use kph. A rough conversion to the current measure is 1"/phase ~ 2kph (assuming average SPD of 3.6).

The rule above for adding damage from different sources means that for Move Throughs, you should use either the normal HTH damage (STR/5) or the movement damage from the formula above, not both. Move Through simply becomes an option where you use your body mass and speed rather than your strength to do damage. A suitable OCV/DCV penalty may be equal to VI.

Falling Damage is easy, since energy is proportional to distance fallen (not taking air friction into account for the moment) and to body mass. A person falling 2m releases as much energy as it takes to lift that person 2m, so that person should take DC2 damage. Each doubling of the distance fallen adds +1 DC. We can use the Range Chart to index the distance fallen and get Falling Damage = SC + 2 + Mod/2 (reading Mod as a positive number).

Explosions
Explosions are reduced to 1/4 of their energy density per doubling of the distance from the center. This suggests a radius-based DC penalty equal to the standard Range Modifier (-2 at 5-8", etc.)

From the energy/damage conversion we derived at the beginning, we can find the DC of various explosives. Given the +½ Explosion advantage, the number of dice is 2/3 what we would get if the energy was concentrated in a point, and a doubling of the energy will only add 2/3 dice (x8 energy adds 2 dice). The dice here are normal damage; divide by 3 for killing damage

1 stick of dynamite: 5d6
3 sticks of dynamie: 6d6
8 sticks of dynamite 7d6
1 kg TNT: 8d6
Bunker buster bomb: 14d6
MOAB: 17d6
1 kiloton nuke: 22d6
1 megaton nuke: 29d6
1 kg antimatter annihilating with 1 kg matter: 32d6
"Deep impact" of 1 km asteroid: ~ 40d6
Supernova: ~ 100d6
Big Bang: ~ 150d6

Defenses
Basically, armor can be thought of as subtracting a certain amount of the energy from attacks, or it can be thought of as absorbing a certain fraction of the energy from attacks. As shown in the orginal post, the first option gives a rather unsatisfying all-or-nothing result.

If OTOH armor absorbs a set fraction of energy, things become more interesting. This is actually how radiation shielding works: 1 cm of lead absorbs half the incoming radiation, no matter how much there is of it. So if a certain thickness of armor absorbs half the damage, it will reduce damage by 1 DC (~ 1 BODY), no matter how many DC there are. This is DEF 1 armor as we know it! Layers add linearly together, e.g. DEF4 + DEF5 = DEF9. The only change required compared to the current system is to make the DEF of physical armor linear with armor thickness/weight. Walls and such should probably have fixed DEF, but BODY that increases linearly with thickness. This is actually a simplification of the current system.

Revised Range Chart?
The Range Chart adds a -2 penalty per doubling of the range. However, the first range doubling is free, and this gives some mathematical oddities if we want to extend the use of the chart into other areas, such as scaling.

To wit: A reasonable scaling rule is to give a half-size character +2 DCV at all ranges and +2 OCV at HTH range (he can get closer to the target); while double-size characters get -2 DCV at all ranges and -2 OCV at HTH range (which is extended 1 step on the Range Chart because of increased reach).

Realistically, hitting a 1m tall character at 2" range should be equivalent to hitting a 2m tall character at 4" range - the space angle of the target is identical. However, with the current chart and the scaling rule above, the latter would be easier to hit because the first range doubling, from 2" to 4", is free in terms of range penalties.

Hence, I would like to see the Range Chart revised like this:

Range: Mod:
1-2". . . 0
3-4" . . -2
5-8" . . -4
9-16" . -6
Etc.

This also means that the Falling Damage formula above can be simplified to SC + Mod/2 (i.e., getting rid of the +2). It will also work better with the Explosion rule above - damage will fall off quicker.

I also find it more realistic: anybody who has tried hitting targets at a range of 10m (the current minimum for range penalties) will know that it's not as easy as hitting an adjacent target.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

Really good idea Klaus. Hopefully some of that will make it into 6E!

"Must spread rep around..." yadda yadda...

[PhilFleischmann]

Back in June, I posted an analysis (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1630934&postcount=628) about what would be necessary in order to have consistent logarithmic damage instead of the current hodge-podge of logarithmic, polynomic and linear damage. I have given the matter more thought now:

Relationship between Energy and Damage
It seems to me that all damage in HERO is linear. 1d6 + 1d6 = 2d6. 2d6 + 2d6 = 4d6. 5d6 + 6d6 = 11d6. 10d6 + 10d6 = 20d6.
In my 25+ years of playing HERO, I have never needed to know how many joules of energy were in a character's punch, or any other attack.

[Kdansky]

Damage is very far from linear. Take your average 350 cp game for example, and a standard EB without advantages. Add some standard defenses (60 AP, that means you have 24 defenses).

5cp = 1d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
10 cp = 2d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
15 cp = 3d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
20 cp = 4d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
25 cp = 5d6 -> averaged very low stun after defenses, but the possibility exists

You know what I'm getting at. The first 25 points of EB don't change the result in the slightest. The next 5 points give you a cointoss chance of doing "some" damage. The next five points effectively double or tripple your average damage. The next five points again roughly double it, then it goes down rapidly. At about 70 points, the next five points make you Stun your enemy about three times more often. And at 35 points, you start having knockback on most attacks. At 60 to 70 points, knockback starts getting painful.

Hero is not linear at all ;)

[PhilFleischmann]

Damage is very far from linear. Take your average 350 cp game for example, and a standard EB without advantages. Add some standard defenses (60 AP, that means you have 24 defenses).

5cp = 1d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
10 cp = 2d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
15 cp = 3d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
20 cp = 4d6 -> 0 stun after defenses
25 cp = 5d6 -> averaged very low stun after defenses, but the possibility exists

You know what I'm getting at. The first 25 points of EB don't change the result in the slightest. The next 5 points give you a cointoss chance of doing "some" damage. The next five points effectively double or tripple your average damage. The next five points again roughly double it, then it goes down rapidly. At about 70 points, the next five points make you Stun your enemy about three times more often. And at 35 points, you start having knockback on most attacks. At 60 to 70 points, knockback starts getting painful.

Hero is not linear at all ;)
What you've described here is linear. X dice - Y defences is a linear function. It happens to have a lower limit of zero, but that doesn't make it non-linear.

With 24 DEF, and assuming average rolls for simplicity:
<7d6 = <21 pips = 0 damage
7d6 = 24.5 = 0.5 damage
8d6 = 28 = 4 damage
9d6 = 31.5 = 7.5 damage
10d6 = 35 = 11 damage
11d6 = 38.5 = 14.5 damage
12d6 = 42 = 18 damage
13d6 = 45.5 = 21.5 damage
14d6 = 49 = 25 damage
etc.

Each die adds 3.5 damage - that's linear.

[Kdansky]

What I meant: The result you get is not linear:

30 points on attack: result roughly zero.
40 points of attack: result about 4 stun on average
50 points of attack: result about 11 stun on average
60 points of attack: 18 stun

Yeah, it's linear, after you spend 30 points for nothing. Excluding Knockback, of course. Or stunning. As often in Hero, we have soft spots. In the end, that makes us look at the effects and think: "well, I don't really get twice the effect if I pay twice the price".

[Chris Goodwin]

And who the heck are you to judge my character builds? :mad:

For the record, my (average) DCV 17, 11 DEF character was often the last man standing on our team! So it's not a matter of 'piss poor character design,' it's a matter of knowing your GM. And the GM thinks 28 DEF is well into brick territory (instead of a campaign average for 14 DC) and doesn't like allowing it on non-brick characters. SO if my charcter is going to take bucketloads of damage no matter how high defense the GM allows, it makes sense to sacrifce DEF for DCV!

So get off the high horse there, Mr. Goodwin. You don't play in the game I'm in, so don't think you can judge my characters!

Fair enough. I was too prickly; I apologize.

That said, I still don't buy your argument. You have done the equivalent of arguing against NND because it invalidates a near-invulnerable brick build.

[Kdansky]

I hate to say though, if a GM thinks 28 DEF is "a lot" in a 14 DC game, then that's a GM mistake, and a bad one at that. We should not balance the new edition around the mistakes your GM makes ;)

[PhilFleischmann]

What I meant: The result you get is not linear:

30 points on attack: result roughly zero.
40 points of attack: result about 4 stun on average
50 points of attack: result about 11 stun on average
60 points of attack: 18 stun
That *IS* Linear.

"well, I don't really get twice the effect if I pay twice the price".
This isn't what linear means. This is a linear progression:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The second term is twice as big as the first, the fifth term is only 25% larger than the fourth, and the tenth term is only 11% larger than the ninth. So what? It's still linear.

This is also a linear progression:

0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

It just happens to have a "bend" in it. Two lines (=linear), if you prefer, you could call it two intersecting linear functions. But that doesn't make it anything other than linear.

[Kdansky]

If it's not one line, it's not linear. You can't have five zeroes followed by a linear function and call that linear. Or else 1 2 4 8 16 32 33 34 35 36 is also linear, since the last five numbers are linear.

f(5) = f(10) = f(15) = f(20) = f(25) = 0
f(30) = something else

This cannot ever be linear.

[PhilFleischmann]

If it's not one line, it's not linear.
Yes, it is. Try learning about linear programming. It's just multiple linear functions.

You can't have five zeroes followed by a linear function and call that linear.
Yes, you can. Five zeroes is linear. Linear + linear = linear. It's a linear function with a lower bound (and as basic a lower bound as you could possibly have).

Or else 1 2 4 8 16 32 33 34 35 36 is also linear, since the last five numbers are linear.
Apples and oranges. You started with an exponential function and then switched to linear. You've combined something non-linear, with something linear, rather than two linear things. (And not to complicate the issue further, but if this progression continues to infinity, it might as well be considered linear, since all but the first 6 terms are. If the primarily used portion of this series is after the 32, you may as well just call it linear, or "mostly linear".)

f(5) = f(10) = f(15) = f(20) = f(25) = 0
f(30) = something else

This cannot ever be linear.
Yes, it can, depending on what that something else is.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Yes, it is. Try learning about linear programming. It's just multiple linear functions.
Multiple linear functions isn't a linear function. Or else this would be a linear function: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64
since it is made up of five linear segments.

That said, this discussion is rather irrelevant to the original subject: Is it a good idea to make the relationship between damage and energy consistent across damage types like punches, falling, move throughs, etc.?

I don't think this is necessary, but I would like consistency if it doesn't make the rules more complex (even if it involves some minor changes). For one thing, it makes it easier to estimate damage from other sources.

Players need never be aware of the consistency, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It's sort of like Rolemaster, where the weapon tables try to take into account how effective different types of weapons are against different types of armor. Players don't have to know this - they just roll on the tables - but it is nice that it is there.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

This is also a linear progression:

0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

It just happens to have a "bend" in it. Two lines (=linear), if you prefer, you could call it two intersecting linear functions. But that doesn't make it anything other than linear.

Actually technically, that's not linear, but bimodal. It is correct to call it two intersecting linear functions, but then a progression with discrete values, such as 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc is also made up of intersecting linear functions.

cheers, Mark

Edit: scooped, scooped and scooped! :)

[Vulcan]

I hate to say though, if a GM thinks 28 DEF is "a lot" in a 14 DC game, then that's a GM mistake, and a bad one at that. We should not balance the new edition around the mistakes your GM makes ;)

There is that, of course.

But even forgoing that, I think 'always hits, no matter what' is a BAD IDEA for the new edition. Balanced mechanics exist in 5E/5ER for that sort of thing (20 points: +10 OCV; +1/2: AEH One-Hex Accurate). An Autohit advantage - if it exists - should be much more expensive; not just from a balance standpoint ("Hey, why does he always hit? Autohit is a +1/2? Then why the he!! did I get AEH One-Hex Accurate for?") but from a gaming fun standpoint (Player "I shoot him - and I have autohit!" GM "Okay, roll damage. He's still standing, so he shoots back - and he has autohit." Repeat ad nauseum.).

NND works a bit differently, (if it misses it does no damage at all, where Autohit almost always has a chance to do some damage) but I see the similarities. That's why my last several posts on the subject have been harping more on 'Make it really expensive to reflect it's sheer utility' than on 'Don't do it!'

Personally I think characters will get much more mileage out of +10 OCV myself, but obviously tastes vary. Even if Autohit is only a +1, then +10 OCV is a much more attractive purchase in games with as little as a 50 AP cap on attacks - and that asssumes the GM lumps the cost of the skill levels in with the AP of the attack. In games where OCV and Attack AP are not combined, then +10 OCV is almost always going to give a better return on the points in the long run. It's only when you run into 'I dodge and do nothing else' Man that Autohit really pays off - and given that DodgeMan probably has all the offensive capability of a butt normal, that's like using a howitzer to get rid of termintes.

[Vulcan]

Actually technically, that's not linear, but bimodal. It is correct to call it two intersecting linear functions, but then a progression with discrete values, such as 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc is also made up of intersecting linear functions.

cheers, Mark

Edit: scooped, scooped and scooped! :)

One thing I have learned in the HERO Fornus: Don't argue statistics and mathematics with Markdoc.

[nexus]

There is that, of course.

But even forgoing that, I think 'always hits, no matter what' is a BAD IDEA for the new edition.

It's not "Always hits, no matter what". The basic suggestion is that the modifier allows the skip the "To hit" roll and go directly to resolution (usually not damage infliction given the spirit of the ability but it can happen) The ability would come with at least one means (or probably set of circumstances) where it always "misses" or more failed to work. These could be anything that GM feels is reasonable like NND defenses including "DCV higher than X" for that matter. Could it be power gamed? Yes, absolutely. Does it have a certain spirit in mind, yep, but so allot of things in Hero. That's why it would have cautions included about it use. On other side of the screen if you GM is bound and determined to screw a high DCV/Low Def character over, they can do that already in a number of ways just like they screw high Def/Low DCV characters over by using lots of NNDs vs Defense the tank doesn't have. That's a player/gm issue not necessarily a reason to forbid a useful mechanism.

[Vulcan]

Okay, I see the point. I still think +1 is too low, +1.5 sounds better to me.

[The Main Man]

Another problem that I have with "Auto-Hit" is that it completely bypasses a mechanic (Attack Roll).

It doesn't change things, it removes.

It takes out a random element to boot too.

NND, for example, still has to hit its target and the attacker can still possibly fumble their roll (all 1's) but "Auto-Hit" skips a step, which is not done by anything else.

[Hugh Neilson]

There is that, of course.

But even forgoing that, I think 'always hits, no matter what' is a BAD IDEA for the new edition. Balanced mechanics exist in 5E/5ER for that sort of thing (20 points: +10 OCV; +1/2: AEH One-Hex Accurate). An Autohit advantage - if it exists - should be much more expensive; not just from a balance standpoint ("Hey, why does he always hit? Autohit is a +1/2? Then why the he!! did I get AEH One-Hex Accurate for?") but from a gaming fun standpoint (Player "I shoot him - and I have autohit!" GM "Okay, roll damage. He's still standing, so he shoots back - and he has autohit." Repeat ad nauseum.).

NND works a bit differently, (if it misses it does no damage at all, where Autohit almost always has a chance to do some damage) but I see the similarities. That's why my last several posts on the subject have been harping more on 'Make it really expensive to reflect it's sheer utility' than on 'Don't do it!'

The possibility of an NND missing varies with the target, just as the possibility of a "No Roll to hit" attack failing to do damage due to defenses would vary with the target. Each bypasses a different defensive mechanic. A 5 DCV Brick with high defenses will laugh off an Autohit just as easily as a 15 DCV Speedster laughs at the chance of an NND hitting.

And why does removing a die roll equate to "no fun"? I suspect (hope?) you are not suggesting we should add more die rolls. Roll to hit, roll to dodge, if miss, roll for collateral damage target and then roll damage; if hit roll damage. Damage might as well include a hit location and a sub-location table, a severity of hit roll, and a damage roll so we can have more rolls. If less rolls = less fun, then more rolls should = more fun, so add more rolls.

Personally I think characters will get much more mileage out of +10 OCV myself, but obviously tastes vary. Even if Autohit is only a +1, then +10 OCV is a much more attractive purchase in games with as little as a 50 AP cap on attacks - and that asssumes the GM lumps the cost of the skill levels in with the AP of the attack. In games where OCV and Attack AP are not combined, then +10 OCV is almost always going to give a better return on the points in the long run.

If +10 OCV costs less and is more beneficial, I would consider that a flaw, not a feature. If +10 OCV is a better buy, then "Always Hits" is clearly overpriced by comparison.

It's only when you run into 'I dodge and do nothing else' Man that Autohit really pays off - and given that DodgeMan probably has all the offensive capability of a butt normal, that's like using a howitzer to get rid of termites.

DodgeMan is getting 3 or 5 DCV. Buying +3 or +5 DCV and still being able to attack is not that difficult.

[Vulcan]

No, DodgeMan has +20 or so DCV to avoid being hit at all. Plus levels while dodging, Danger Sense, Combat Sense, Defensive Manuever, etc. "Not getting hit is what I do - and that's all I do!"

And it is only in this extreme case that an Autohit power really becomes useful. The rest of the time it's just a way to screw over speedsters and martial artists more often. Even if they have average defenses for the campaign, they often have less STUN than more durable archetypes, so getting hit more often means they go down much quicker than the other archetypes.

If you want 'autohit,' buy +10 OCV, it's plenty cheap enough - far cheaper than +10 DCV (and significantly less than +5 DCV and Martial Dodge, for that matter).

[Hugh Neilson]

No, DodgeMan has +20 or so DCV to avoid being hit at all. Plus levels while dodging, Danger Sense, Combat Sense, Defensive Manuever, etc. "Not getting hit is what I do - and that's all I do!"

:rolleyes: "I ignore him and go do what I came here to do. Let him bounce around like an idiot." Most one trick ponies are pretty easy to deal with. Or zap him with an AoE either right after he moves (can't abort - already acted this segment) or whenever (DfC? Great - you are prone (half DCV), no longer dodging (DFC is a different maneuver) and cannot act again until after your aborted phase has passed. My teammates will deal with you now.

And even if you invest so much that you have a 45 DCV after diving for cover, how much should it cost to deal with a very rare, very annoying one trick pony?

And it is only in this extreme case that an Autohit power really becomes useful. The rest of the time it's just a way to screw over speedsters and martial artists more often. Even if they have average defenses for the campaign, they often have less STUN than more durable archetypes, so getting hit more often means they go down much quicker than the other archetypes.

So if it's only very rarely useful, it should not be expensive. Longevity is very rarely useful, so it's not very expensive. KS: Renaissance Italian Literature is very rarely useful, so it's not very expensive. If Autohit is very rarely useful, it should be similarly inexpensive. The fact that alternatives exist does not mean the option should be dismissed. Why do we need Force Field? Buy Armor, Costs END. Why do we need Force Field or Armor? Buy extra PD and ED, and Damage Resistance (possibly with Costs END).

[BobGreenwade]

NND, for example, still has to hit its target and the attacker can still possibly fumble their roll (all 1's) but "Auto-Hit" skips a step, which is not done by anything else.That nothing else does it is precisely the reason that we need something to do it.

Certainly it needs a "Stop Sign" (if not a "Do Not Enter Sign") icon next to it, but it should be in there and available if needed.

[nexus]

NND does skip a step. It skips the step where the target gets to apply their defenses and possibly any resistance at all with TK unless the target has the required defense then it skips the steps beyond ending the attack resolution right there.

[Netzilla]

On the issue of a No To-Hit Roll Required Advantage, one big difference between this and NND is that, while NND does circumvent the target's defenses, it still can be mitigated with sufficiently high STUN, CON, REC or levels in Damage Reduction. While DRed is rare, STUN, CON & REC are available to everybody and typically high on those most inconvenienced by NND (bricks are usually the ones most relying on soaking damage rather than avoiding it). So, even if you lack the specific counter to NND, you can handle it by being just plain tough.

As far as I can tell, there really isn't any such equivalent counter in a NTHRR Advantage for those who rely more on not being hit rather than soaking damage. This is something that definitely should be explicitly spelled out in the description of the Advantage if it makes it into 6E.

[Chris Goodwin]

Agreed with everything Nexus said.

My suggestion is that the No Attack Roll (whatever it ends up being called) Advantage at +1 turns the attack into Stun Only unless you buy an additional +1 Does BODY on it.

[The Main Man]

The possibility of an NND missing varies with the target, just as the possibility of a "No Roll to hit" attack failing to do damage due to defenses would vary with the target. Each bypasses a different defensive mechanic. A 5 DCV Brick with high defenses will laugh off an Autohit just as easily as a 15 DCV Speedster laughs at the chance of an NND hitting.
A brick may laugh if struck by an Auto-Hit, but a speedster won't be laughing when NND does in fact hit.

And why does removing a die roll equate to "no fun"? I suspect (hope?) you are not suggesting we should add more die rolls. Roll to hit, roll to dodge, if miss, roll for collateral damage target and then roll damage; if hit roll damage. Damage might as well include a hit location and a sub-location table, a severity of hit roll, and a damage roll so we can have more rolls. If less rolls = less fun, then more rolls should = more fun, so add more rolls.
Your slippery slope could use a little more grease.:rolleyes:

If +10 OCV costs less and is more beneficial, I would consider that a flaw, not a feature. If +10 OCV is a better buy, then "Always Hits" is clearly overpriced by comparison.
OCV already exists.
"Auto-Hit" does not.
"Auto-Hit" is the one in the wrong.

DodgeMan is getting 3 or 5 DCV. Buying +3 or +5 DCV and still being able to attack is not that difficult.
Not difficult, but perfectly in line with the current mechanics.

[The Main Man]

NND does skip a step. It skips the step where the target gets to apply their defenses and possibly any resistance at all with TK unless the target has the required defense then it skips the steps beyond ending the attack resolution right there.

Uh, isn't that applying your defenses?

That's like saying a character with no PD gets hit with an HA so they skip the "Apply your Defenses" step.

It's not that it's skipped, it's just simplified and sped up.

[Vulcan]

So if it's only very rarely useful, it should not be expensive. Longevity is very rarely useful, so it's not very expensive. KS: Renaissance Italian Literature is very rarely useful, so it's not very expensive. If Autohit is very rarely useful, it should be similarly inexpensive. The fact that alternatives exist does not mean the option should be dismissed. Why do we need Force Field? Buy Armor, Costs END. Why do we need Force Field or Armor? Buy extra PD and ED, and Damage Resistance (possibly with Costs END).

No, it's very useful - for screwing over a pair of classic archetypes that really depend on being hit less often on the average. I believe I mentioned that, you just ran right past it.

Sure, if all I ever played was Energy Projectors I'd think Autohit was the greatest thing since sliced bread! If I played a lot of bricks I wouldn't care because bricks get hit a lot anyway; what's a few extra times? Mentalists pretty much Autohit anyway, what do they care?

But for the Speedster and Martial Artist, getting hit is their kryptonite; one hit usually translates into getting stunned (or even KO'd). That's why they have high SPD, to be able to abort and act defensively and still get attack actions a time or two a turn.

Autohit makes Dodge, Block, and even Missile Defelction uselss; it makes Aborting at all much less useful. It negates any amount of points spent on skill levels that happen to be used on DCV. It radically alters (if not functionally eliminates) two classic character archetypes.

So why is Autohit such a good idea again?

Nexus proposed the idea as way to model slipping poison into someone's food, and sure, it's great for that. And if that's all it could be used for, then I would not mind it being in the rules. But we all know that as soon as it's in the rules, some munchkin is going to want to use it for a new slot in his Multipower so he can waste pesky martial artists with impunity.

[The Main Man]

I will admit that poison is the only thing that I can imagine it being remotely useful for.

But let me ask this question:
Do you make an attack roll to grab a drink? Technically, yes.
Is it practical? No.

In the case of poisoning someone's drink, this assumes that you have already poisoned the drink and that they are now drinking it.

IOW, they are freely accepting your "attack," so no attack roll is actually required.

Is it unbalanced? No, it's role-playing deception.

A character can still get out of this by having poison knowledge, keen senses, or by other means to detect or at least suspect that poison is in their drink, at which they do not accept the drink and the poison fails because it relies on the target accepting it in the first place.

Once again, "Auto-Hit" just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[Netzilla]

Imagine this: Autofire Autohit. :eek::nonp::ugly:

[Hugh Neilson]

No, it's very useful - for screwing over a pair of classic archetypes that really depend on being hit less often on the average. I believe I mentioned that, you just ran right past it.

Mind Control screws over dumb tough Bricks pretty good too. Aren't they a classic archetype?

Autohit makes Dodge, Block, and even Missile Defelction uselss; it makes Aborting at all much less useful. It negates any amount of points spent on skill levels that happen to be used on DCV. It radically alters (if not functionally eliminates) two classic character archetypes.

NND negates any amount of points spent on defenses. Desolid negates points spent on attacks (absent one specific advantage). Many abilities negate many other abilities.

But your first comment gets into some interesting questions. Autohit would clearly overcome Dodge. But should it overcome Block or Missile Deflection (whichever is appropriate)? Maybe - Indirect does, I believe. But maybe not - Hawkeye always hits, but someone can catch his arrow and avoid damage. Maybe we leave "avoid Block and Deflect" to Indirect.

So why is Autohit such a good idea again?

Because it is an ability the system cannot currently model which some gamers would value.

Why is it a bad idea? Because it is an absolute, I suppose. If we have "automatically hits", why can't we have "always evades". Now one must give way to the other.

Because it will require a lot of work to accurately implement? For sure it will. Autofire, AoE, Sweep, Rapid Fire, Multiple Move By, Hurry, Hipshot and numerous other OCV penalties are meaningless if I always hit. All these issues will need to be addressed to implement it.

I don't buy that a +1 Autohit Advantage "wastes martial artists with impunity" when it allows a 60 AP attack to hit for 6d6 damage resisted by normal defenses. The concept is AutoHit, not InstaKill.

Yeah, the Brick has more Stun. And that 6d6 NND does twice as much damage to him.

In a game with average attacks of 14DC and top end defenses of 28, I would suggest defenses are underemphasized, making DCV a much more effective tool, in turn making AutoHit much more of an issue. Should Hero costs work to the Hero averages, or this one outlyer game? I think it needs to work to its own averages.

[nexus]

Agreed with everything Nexus said.

My suggestion is that the No Attack Roll (whatever it ends up being called) Advantage at +1 turns the attack into Stun Only unless you buy an additional +1 Does BODY on it.

That would be consistent with the other advantages the reduce or bypass steps.

Autofire would be a +1 advantage a no Hit Roll required power for a total +2 for a total of 20 base DC in a 60 AP campaign that would burn 30 Endurance each time it was used assuming 5 shot Autofire unless some sort of reduced Endurance was tacked on too.

Unless every single character has every single attack purchased with No Attack roll required, the circumstances needed to avoid the attack are extremely obscure and them always ignores any caps on the Damage Class as well as the intended spirit of Advantage I don't see how it eliminates high DCV characters as viable types. Big Area of Effects do about the same thing either the DFC roll is hard to make or the character doesn't have enough movement to clear the area and even if the character does make the roll the end up prone and reduced DCV yet people still play them.

A straight attack power with No roll required has a chance of doing stun, knockback and possibly Stunning. Actually a high OCV attack might be more dangerous. There's a chance of missing but OCV levels don't affect Active Point, don't cost additional Endurance and are very cheap so the attack can be max damage for the campaign with obscenely high OCV either forcing the DCV based to character to Dodge/DFC almost constantly or risk a hit that could inflict a great deal of damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

In my view, "does no BOD" goes along with "bypasses standard defenses", and would not apply to Autohit any more than it applies to AoE.

[Chris Goodwin]

In my view, "does no BOD" goes along with "bypasses standard defenses", and would not apply to Autohit any more than it applies to AoE.

As Vulcan has taken great pains to point out, DCV is, in a way, a standard defense.

[Hugh Neilson]

As Vulcan has taken great pains to point out, DCV is, in a way, a standard defense.

While I agree to a point, we have a precedent that attacks which bypass DCV are not "No BOD" by default [AoE, for example], and that attacks which are not reduced by one of PD or ED (resistant or otherwise) are "No BOD" by default [NND and AVLD, for example].

In my view, this is appropriate. It works because an "avoids DCV" attack has no enhanced opportunity to do BOD past defenses, while an "avoids standard defenses" attack does.

[caris]

This theoretical “No To Hit Roll Required” Advantage keeps getting compared to NND, but there is an aspect of NND that no one is proposing being included in the “NTHRR.” NND is an all or nothing situation, either you get the Damage or you don’t. For the “NTHRR” to be truly equivalent, wouldn’t a SFX, Power, etc. that would cause the power to automatically miss chosen at power creation be needed?

[The Main Man]

Based on that question, the next question is "what is an example?"

Where have we seen someone who can automatically hit except for certain situations?

[Vulcan]

Mind Control screws over dumb tough Bricks pretty good too. Aren't they a classic archetype?

Good point. But Mind Control is unlikely to kill a brick outright; Autohit could eaily do so to a Speedster or Martial Artist.

NND negates any amount of points spent on defenses. Desolid negates points spent on attacks (absent one specific advantage). Many abilities negate many other abilities.

All right, you've got me on that one.

But your first comment gets into some interesting questions. Autohit would clearly overcome Dodge. But should it overcome Block or Missile Deflection (whichever is appropriate)? Maybe - Indirect does, I believe. But maybe not - Hawkeye always hits, but someone can catch his arrow and avoid damage. Maybe we leave "avoid Block and Deflect" to Indirect.

I see your point, and I understand it perfectly. But I can already see the argument on the forums... "How the heck can someone block or deflect an attack that always hits? It makes no sense!"

Because it is an ability the system cannot currently model which some gamers would value.

Sure, I suppose. There are several abilities the system cannot currently model that some gamers would value, and they tend to be clustered in this area of absolutes. Cannot be hurt, cannot be killed, cannot be hit, cannot be Mind Controlled, always hits, always kills, always stuns, always KO's... So where do we draw the line?

The big problem with Autohit is that it violates one of the virtual rules of HEROES. "For every attack, there is a defense, and the defense is cheaper." Granted, 2 point OCV skill levels vs. 5 point DCV levels already violates that somewhat...

For there to be Autohit, there must be 'cannot be hit', and 'cannot be hit' must be the same cost or cheaper. Or else it's out of balance.

Why is it a bad idea? Because it is an absolute, I suppose. If we have "automatically hits", why can't we have "always evades". Now one must give way to the other.

Because it will require a lot of work to accurately implement? For sure it will. Autofire, AoE, Sweep, Rapid Fire, Multiple Move By, Hurry, Hipshot and numerous other OCV penalties are meaningless if I always hit. All these issues will need to be addressed to implement it.

I don't buy that a +1 Autohit Advantage "wastes martial artists with impunity" when it allows a 60 AP attack to hit for 6d6 damage resisted by normal defenses. The concept is AutoHit, not InstaKill.

I'm more worried about Autohit Entangle - and now the Speedster/MA gets pasted by an ally before he can get out. Or 2d6 RKA Autohit (since speedster and MA resistant defenses are often poportionally even lower than their overall defenses)... or the 1d6 RKA AP Pen Autohit... or the 1d6 RKA AF5 Autohit...

And don't tell me no one will use it that way, either.

In a game with average attacks of 14DC and top end defenses of 28, I would suggest defenses are underemphasized, making DCV a much more effective tool, in turn making AutoHit much more of an issue. Should Hero costs work to the Hero averages, or this one outlyer game? I think it needs to work to its own averages.

All right, you've got me on that one.

[Hugh Neilson]

Good point. But Mind Control is unlikely to kill a brick outright; Autohit could eaily do so to a Speedster or Martial Artist.

"Swallow this Kryptonite".

I see your point, and I understand it perfectly. But I can already see the argument on the forums... "How the heck can someone block or deflect an attack that always hits? It makes no sense!"

It did hit. It hit your shield. You use Indirect to make an attack Unblockable. And a sidebar of an "Unavoidable Attack" which cannot be dodged, blocked, deflected, etc. seems to make a lot of sense here for illustrative purposes.

Sure, I suppose. There are several abilities the system cannot currently model that some gamers would value, and they tend to be clustered in this area of absolutes. Cannot be hurt, cannot be killed, cannot be hit, cannot be Mind Controlled, always hits, always kills, always stuns, always KO's... So where do we draw the line?

This is absolutely the issue - while I can see merit to having an autohit, I also see a lot of issues it raises that may justify its exclusion, rather than its inclusion. Why shouldn't I Hurry and Hipshot? I move faster, and OCV is meaningless with an Always Hits attack.

The big problem with Autohit is that it violates one of the virtual rules of HEROES. "For every attack, there is a defense, and the defense is cheaper." Granted, 2 point OCV skill levels vs. 5 point DCV levels already violates that somewhat...

NND's don't have a specific defense but (as someone above alludes to), I would expect Autohit to have an Achilles heel, defined in much the same way an NND's defense is defined.

For there to be Autohit, there must be 'cannot be hit', and 'cannot be hit' must be the same cost or cheaper. Or else it's out of balance.

To be "impossible to hurt", you need to buy PD, ED, Flash, Power and Mental defense and even then you are close, but not there. Adding all the defensive abilities together, they are not cheaper than one attack. However, the dichotomy between "Always hits" and "Can't be struck" is the single biggest factor, to me, arguing against either one. Each is equally valid, and they are mutually exclusive.

I'm more worried about Autohit Entangle - and now the Speedster/MA gets pasted by an ally before he can get out. Or 2d6 RKA Autohit (since speedster and MA resistant defenses are often poportionally even lower than their overall defenses)... or the 1d6 RKA AP Pen Autohit... or the 1d6 RKA AF5 Autohit...

And low DCV, high defense characters need to worry about Rapid Fire and Autofire attacks against exotic defenses. High DCV should not be any more invulnerable than high defenses.

[The Main Man]

NND'd may not have a specific defense, but then again neither do EB, HA, HKA, nor RKA: You have to choose whether they affect PD or ED when you construct them.
OTOH, NND has one (sometimes more) specific defense(s) that completely negates it.
IOW, a defense, even if it is not a Defense Power, is still a defense.

[nexus]

A no hit roll required power isn't likely to kill a DCV based character outright unless they are rather subpar with regards to the campaign limits. It would be substantially less than the DC maximum of the game or the GM is pushing those limits without any consideration for the PCs. IOW mistaken or genuinely trying to screw the DCV character which he can already do in number of ways. The character still gets their defenses against the attack including the circumstances which will negate the attack entirely. It's very hard to kill a Champions character accidentally at least.

Most of the DCV based characters I've seen are built to at least be able to take a few hits with powers like Damage Reduction (hard to get a solid blow), Combat Luck, good Con and Stun, etc. OCV levels are really cheap and DCV can be subverted in a number of ways (including the plain dumb luck of a good die roll) to rely on it totally.

The point that NHR would function like NND in that there must be some powers/situations that negate the power seems to be getting lost. That's why it would be inappropriate to call the modifier "Always Hits". One aspect that should probably be innate is that character must be able to perceive his target with a targeting sense and the attack can reach them in same fashion (be ranged if at a distance, being able to breach or ignore any barriers, etc). No freebie targeting, extended range or Indirect included.

re: Mind Control

This can do worse the kill the brick, it can turn them on their friends. If certain rules are employed Mind Control to "Die" can do damage and Mental Illusions could always do so. Even a command to "turn around and stand still" can set the Brick up for a massive haymaker.

re: Cannot be hit (or hurt) outside of certain situations already exists. It's called Desolidification. Though I am in favor of some kind of SFX based Invulnerability power being implemented in some fashion.

[Vulcan]

I had a thought that addresses Nexus' original post on the subject.

The original idea beind 'No Hit Roll Required' was the example of the poisoned drink. So perhaps a staged version of the advantage would be appropriate.

For +1/4 or so, the power can be used 'NHRR' in non-combat situations, for situations like the poisoned drink. Of course, Invisible Power Effect or a Sleigh of Hand roll (or preparing the poisoned drink in another room) would be necessary to keep the target from noticing what's going on...

For combat applications, +1 to +1.5 might be more appropriate.(Remember, folks, BOECV is +1 and still requires a hit roll, however much of a formality it might be - although it also gives the option to work against mental defense as well...)

[Doc Democracy]

I'm wondering whether Auto-hit and its defence (difficult to target, possibly) should work in a similar way to armour piercing and hardened?

You can buy auto-hit on your attack and if the target has difficult to target then it reverts to simple to hit roll.

What I can't decide is what you buy your difficult to target on? CV???


Doc

[AnotherSkip]

there is allready a kind of autohit in the game.

Movement,
the only exception is Leaping/superleap.

[BobGreenwade]

there is allready a kind of autohit in the game.

Movement,
the only exception is Leaping/superleap.One that should be in there, but is absent by a few somersaults in the rules, is Area Of Effect + No Range. Somewhere (I'd have to search for where) there's a rule that says that one still has to make an Attack Roll to use a Power with this combo, and if the Attack Roll fails then the power just doesn't activate. That's properly the effect of an Activation Roll -- the combination of Area Of Effect and No Range should equate to an automatic hit of the target hex (which is restricted to either your own hex or the one right in front of you, depending on the type of Area Of Effect, and in the former case may need Personal Immunity as well).

[The Main Man]

there is allready a kind of autohit in the game.

Movement,
the only exception is Leaping/superleap.

Speaking of Movement...

I think that Move-By/Through should be something that can modify other maneuvers.

It's a concept that already practically exists.

In this case, Grab By provides the benefits of Grab and Move-By and its CV penalties are equal to its component maneuvers' [(-1/-2) + (-2/-2) = -3/-4)].

So a "Disarm By" would be at -4/-2 for instance.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I think that Move-By/Through should be something that can modify other maneuvers.

It's a concept that already practically exists.

In this case, Grab By provides the benefits of Grab and Move-By and its CV penalties are equal to its component maneuvers' [(-1/-2) + (-2/-2) = -3/-4)].

So a "Disarm By" would be at -4/-2 for instance.
In extension of that, I think all (or most) attacks should be able to target multiple targets like Move By and Sweep, with an option to keep moving after attacking at the cost of some minuses to OCV or DCV. I also think that Move By should be modified to fit this structure; i.e., making damage = STR/5 straight rather than the current mix of STR and velocity.

In effect, making multiple attacks and keeping on moving would be combat modifiers rather than special maneuvers.

The multiple attack function can be generalized even further: For each target beyond the first you lose either get -2 OCV (like Sweep and Move By) or lose 1 DC damage (like spreading EBs).

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

In extension of that, I think all (or most) attacks should be able to target multiple targets like Move By and Sweep, with an option to keep moving after attacking at the cost of some minuses to OCV or DCV. I also think that Move By should be modified to fit this structure; i.e., making damage = STR/5 straight rather than the current mix of STR and velocity.

In effect, making multiple attacks and keeping on moving would be combat modifiers rather than special maneuvers.

The multiple attack function can be generalized even further: For each target beyond the first you lose either get -2 OCV (like Sweep and Move By) or lose 1 DC damage (like spreading EBs).

- Klaus
I agree with this.

You also raise the idea of "Spreading" being presented as a Maneuver.

In this case, a power that cannot spread (mainly Beam) would be like taking the "Cannot be used with [specific maneuver]" Limitation.

[The Main Man]

I posted this in the General Rules Issues but I feel that it applies to this thread as well:

First of all, I am in favor of Killing Attacks being a Power Advantage for Normal Attacks so that damage is more consistent.

So here's an idea regarding Killing Attacks that I had last night:

As it stands:

Armor Piercing halves the target's defenses

Penetrating bypasses a minimum amount of damage past the defenses (BODY for Killing Attacks as they currently are vs. STUN for Normal Attacks)

Since AP and Pen do not stack their effects, what if "Killing Damage" was a Power Advantage that stacks onto them to increase their potency?


With this kind of change:

AP would quarter the opponent's defenses for subtracting BODY damage

Pen would instead have a minimum amount of BODY that bypasses defenses.


I would suggest that "Killing" would be worth +1/2 since it must stack with AP or Pen which effectively makes it a +1 Power Advantage.


Now that brings me to the other half of the equation: Resistance.

I think that Resistant is already a +1/2 Power Advantage in disguise as-is, but I might say that when Killing is stacked onto AP or Pen that Hardened is not enough to negate the overall advantage and that Resistant is in turn stacked onto Hardened so then the overall Killing Advantage is negated.

I think that if Resistant worked this way that it woud be a +1/4 Power Advantage since it would stack onto Hardened which would effectively make it a +1/2 Power Advantage like it already is.


Now that my mouthful is complete, any thoughts?

[Doc Democracy]

If we were allowing moving after attacking then there should be some mechanism whereby, if you fail your attack you may end up losing your remaining movement - that is you screwed up the attack so badly that you fell over, or bumped into an obstacle that stopped you in your tracks....

Doc

[The Main Man]

If we were allowing moving after attacking then there should be some mechanism whereby, if you fail your attack you may end up losing your remaining movement - that is you screwed up the attack so badly that you fell over, or bumped into an obstacle that stopped you in your tracks....

Doc

Well first there's critical fumbles- Ooh! I just had a thought!

What if Critical Fumble effects were drawn from what you were doing?

You trip or collide with something if you were doing a moving attack, you lose your weapon if you were attempting a disarm, your opponent automatically goes before you in the next shared phase if you failed to block- things like that?

[Doc Democracy]

Well first there's critical fumbles- Ooh! I just had a thought!

What if Critical Fumble effects were drawn from what you were doing?

You trip or collide with something if you were doing a moving attack, you lose your weapon if you were attempting a disarm, your opponent automatically goes before you in the next shared phase if you failed to block- things like that?

Critical fumbles happen once in a blue moon.

I think that if you are going to go for a big advantage you should be risking a big drawback (I would like more of this kind of stuff in the combat system - allowing risks for advantages - just not sure exactly what).

Doc

[AnotherSkip]

the problem with critical fumbles is that players suffer from them more than anyone else. because of the screen time issues.

[The Main Man]

The problem that I have with Critical Fumbles is that there is nothing in the rules to dictate anything other than just missing your target as opposed to doing full damage on a Critical Hit.

Paizo (?) released both a Critical Hit and a Critical Fumble deck of cards which were interesting but they apply to d20.

[AnotherSkip]

of course there is nothing to dictate how evil the gm can be when......


oh, yeah, there is nothing in the rules.

[Psylint]

The top of my wish list for combat issues is:

Roll more dice for to hit rolls. OCV/DCV is very hard to balance against resistance because 1 pip often makes a huge difference. If the mechanistic remained the same, except your rolled 4d6, it would add a lot more granularity to the game.

[Hugh Neilson]

The top of my wish list for combat issues is:

Roll more dice for to hit rolls. OCV/DCV is very hard to balance against resistance because 1 pip often makes a huge difference. If the mechanistic remained the same, except your rolled 4d6, it would add a lot more granularity to the game.

How much is "a lot more granularity"?

With 3d6, there is a 25.93% chance of rolling 8- and a 25.93% chance of rolling 13+, so 9 - 12 comes up just under 50% of the time. With 4d6, there is a just under 24% chance of rolling 11- and the same of rolling 17+, so 12 - 16 is a 50/50 chance. That's one more possibility.

With 3d6, there is a 9.26% chance of rolling 6- and a 9.26% chance of rolling 15+, so 7 - 14 comes up just over 80% of the time. With 4d6, there is a 9.72% chance of rolling 9- and the same of rolling 19+, so 10 - 18 is 80%. That's, again, one more possibility.

I'm not seeing much more granularity.

[Vulcan]

I agree there's not a lot more granularity, but there is some. A +1 modifier has a bit less dramatic impact on the probabilities on 4d6 than 3d6.

Not a lot less, granted, but still less.

[PhilFleischmann]

The difference in probability between a 10- roll and an 11- roll on 3d6 is 12.5%. The difference between 13- and 14- on 4d6 is 11.3%. Again, not a lot of improvement in granularity.

Even if we switch to rolling 5d6 for resolution, the difference between the two middle values is 10.03%.

For a real increase in granularity, I suggest switching to 3d12. That doubles the granularity, halving the probability differences between steps, while keeping the same shape bell curve. It doubles the number of 50% rolls or 80% rolls, that Hugh describes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Greater volatility requires either increasing the size of the dice, as Phil suggests, and/or reducing the number of dice. 1d20 makes modifiers much less determinative, and 1d100 reduces it even further.

For myself, I like the status quo that skill means a lot to the odds of success. What level must a D&D character be to have a decent shot at a moderately difficult task? What level does that make a skilled lawyer or professional athlete in our world?

[The Main Man]

While I don't mind the status quo either, this relates to an idea I had in "Skills Issues" in which a book is published that presents mechanical alternatives to the core rules - a "meta-toolkit" of sorts.

[PhilFleischmann]

And while we're on the subject (did we discuss this before on this thread?), You could also retain the same shape bell curve with three dice of any size (all the same), such as 3d8, 3d10, or 3d20, or even 3d30 (they do make thirty-siders). And one of these would increase granularity while keeping the same relative distribution curve. I just happen to prefer the 3d12 method, because it exactly doubles the granularity and makes the common rolls of 8-, 11-, and 14-, into the easy-to-remember numbers of 15-, 20-, and 25-. Also, I just happen to like dodecahedrons.

3d30 would give you five times the granularity, of course.

And you gould retain the same bell curve and *decrease* granularity by using 3d4, but I have no idea why one would want to do that.

And yes, the 3d6 status quo is fine with me as well. Other shapes of dice tend to be more expensive than six-siders. (Then again, if we're willing to shell out $40+ for the core rulebook, and $20+ for each other genre/setting/ultimate/etc. book, is it really that big of a deal to spend an extra dollar on a few twelve-siders?)

[The Main Man]

And while we're on the subject (did we discuss this before on this thread?), You could also retain the same shape bell curve with three dice of any size (all the same), such as 3d8, 3d10, or 3d20, or even 3d30 (they do make thirty-siders). And one of these would increase granularity while keeping the same relative distribution curve. I just happen to prefer the 3d12 method, because it exactly doubles the granularity and makes the common rolls of 8-, 11-, and 14-, into the easy-to-remember numbers of 15-, 20-, and 25-. Also, I just happen to like dodecahedrons.

3d30 would give you five times the granularity, of course.

And you gould retain the same bell curve and *decrease* granularity by using 3d4, but I have no idea why one would want to do that.

And yes, the 3d6 status quo is fine with me as well. Other shapes of dice tend to be more expensive than six-siders. (Then again, if we're willing to shell out $40+ for the core rulebook, and $20+ for each other genre/setting/ultimate/etc. book, is it really that big of a deal to spend an extra dollar on a few twelve-siders?)

Yet again I say a "meta-toolkit" would be excellent for the player who wants to tweak some mechanics here and there to get just right for themself.

[NuSoardGraphite]

The top of my wish list for combat issues is:

Roll more dice for to hit rolls. OCV/DCV is very hard to balance against resistance because 1 pip often makes a huge difference. If the mechanistic remained the same, except your rolled 4d6, it would add a lot more granularity to the game.

I actually like the fact that +1 or -1 is a big deal in HERO. Someone with +2 skill levels in something is supposed to be better than someone with only +1 skill level. Hero is one of the few games on the market where the difference is noticeable. I would not want that to change one bit.

[BobGreenwade]

And while we're on the subject (did we discuss this before on this thread?), You could also retain the same shape bell curve with three dice of any size (all the same), such as 3d8, 3d10, or 3d20, or even 3d30 (they do make thirty-siders). And one of these would increase granularity while keeping the same relative distribution curve. I just happen to prefer the 3d12 method, because it exactly doubles the granularity and makes the common rolls of 8-, 11-, and 14-, into the easy-to-remember numbers of 15-, 20-, and 25-. Also, I just happen to like dodecahedrons.

3d30 would give you five times the granularity, of course.

And you gould retain the same bell curve and *decrease* granularity by using 3d4, but I have no idea why one would want to do that.

And yes, the 3d6 status quo is fi