Quantum of Time

[Sean Waters]

A couple of things.

You can not (technically) become desolid a quarter of the way through a move.

You can not attack and then move.

Why?

The only reason I can think of is 'game balance', with a possible side of 'simplicity'.

First off I think you should be able to change movement modes, or activate powers, part way through moves. If everyone could do it then that deals with game balance. As for simplicity - well - point - but really it is not that difficult to work out that if you've moved 5" of your 20 at a run, you can leap 6" of your 12 then swim 2" of your 8.

The GM should probably require a DEX or INT roll for changes that need to be very precise, or impose a penalty if the action is one you normally need to roll for:

Say you have 30m flight and desolid and want to fly forward, become desolid to get through the wall, then solidify so that you can move through the guard on the other side: DEX or INT roll to turn the desolid on and off to avoid the wall (otherwise you hit it), possibly at a penalty depending on tolerances, then at least -1 on your move through.

If you wanted to quarter move, Blast then quarter move, declare it as a full phase action, take -2 on your OCV. Seems fair enough.

Here's a thought as well, while I'm on the subject of time in general: why can we abort, and specifically only to 'defensive actions' - again - game balance. Why not allow aborting to attack (and other) actions too - but at a penalty (if why you are doing requires a roll) of -1 per point of DEX you come forward - obviously you can only really act faster within a phase, but it is still another option. I also think that you should have to DEX or INT roll to bring an action forward (including a defensive abort) if it does not normally require a roll.

Finally if someone has a held action (or brings forward an action despite the penalty) they can interupt an action that takes more than zero phase at any time: if someone is running 15m, you can attack them at the start, end, or at ANY POINT along their run. Interupting another's action ALWAYS requires a DEX or INT roll to get it right: if you want to attack someone (for example) as they go past the door, DEX roll (opposed) and if you are beaten, you miss - no roll - they are not where you attacked (generally you should use the attack up too).

Thoughts?

[Chris Goodwin]

The GM should probably require a DEX or INT roll for changes that need to be very precise, or impose a penalty if the action is one you normally need to roll for:

Say you have 30m flight and desolid and want to fly forward, become desolid to get through the wall, then solidify so that you can move through the guard on the other side: DEX or INT roll to turn the desolid on and off to avoid the wall (otherwise you hit it), possibly at a penalty depending on tolerances, then at least -1 on your move through.

It seems to me that this is one of the things that the Power Skill is intended for.


Finally if someone has a held action (or brings forward an action despite the penalty) they can interupt an action that takes more than zero phase at any time: if someone is running 15m, you can attack them at the start, end, or at ANY POINT along their run. Interupting another's action ALWAYS requires a DEX or INT roll to get it right: if you want to attack someone (for example) as they go past the door, DEX roll (opposed) and if you are beaten, you miss - no roll - they are not where you attacked (generally you should use the attack up too).

Thoughts?

I would say that if you can perceive them throughout the course of their action, or from the Segment on which you held your Phase, then you can interrupt their action at will. Otherwise, you need to roll.

The rest... I think meta-rule 8 covers it nicely. Common sense, dramatic sense, and special effect. The GM should feel free to ignore any rule if ignoring the rule makes the game more fun for everyone.

[CrosshairCollie]

A couple of things.

You can not (technically) become desolid a quarter of the way through a move.

You can not attack and then move.

Why?

The only reason I can think of is 'game balance', with a possible side of 'simplicity'.

Thoughts?

Game Balance and Simplicity are sufficient reasons for me to not monkey with it.

[StGrimblefig]

A couple of things.

You can not (technically) become desolid a quarter of the way through a move.

You can not attack and then move.

Why?

The only reason I can think of is 'game balance', with a possible side of 'simplicity'.Good enough reasons, generally.


First off I think you should be able to change movement modes, or activate powers, part way through moves. If everyone could do it then that deals with game balance. As for simplicity - well - point - but really it is not that difficult to work out that if you've moved 5" of your 20 at a run, you can leap 6" of your 12 then swim 2" of your 8.

The GM should probably require a DEX or INT roll for changes that need to be very precise, or impose a penalty if the action is one you normally need to roll for:

Say you have 30m flight and desolid and want to fly forward, become desolid to get through the wall, then solidify so that you can move through the guard on the other side: DEX or INT roll to turn the desolid on and off to avoid the wall (otherwise you hit it), possibly at a penalty depending on tolerances, then at least -1 on your move through.

If you wanted to quarter move, Blast then quarter move, declare it as a full phase action, take -2 on your OCV. Seems fair enough.As Mr. Goodwin says, this sounds like a question of precise control of powers, thus a Power skill roll.


Here's a thought as well, while I'm on the subject of time in general: why can we abort, and specifically only to 'defensive actions' - again - game balance. Why not allow aborting to attack (and other) actions too - but at a penalty (if why you are doing requires a roll) of -1 per point of DEX you come forward - obviously you can only really act faster within a phase, but it is still another option. I also think that you should have to DEX or INT roll to bring an action forward (including a defensive abort) if it does not normally require a roll.I would like it to have some other penalty, since it would be too easy (and probably fairly cheap) to buy a PSL for this simple penalty, and suddenly a character can act whenever he wants to, with no discernible penalty.


Finally if someone has a held action (or brings forward an action despite the penalty) they can interupt an action that takes more than zero phase at any time: if someone is running 15m, you can attack them at the start, end, or at ANY POINT along their run. Interupting another's action ALWAYS requires a DEX or INT roll to get it right: if you want to attack someone (for example) as they go past the door, DEX roll (opposed) and if you are beaten, you miss - no roll - they are not where you attacked (generally you should use the attack up too).I would think that in a confrontation between a character that has a held action and a character that is acting normally, the held action has a slight advantage, as that character is capable of acting faster, but is waiting for the right moment. On the other hand, a confrontation between a character that is acting normally and one that is "aborting" a future action to act now (whether for defense or, as you suggest, for any action), the normal action has the advantage, because the aborting character is trying to act faster than he is supposed to. Perhaps this can be modeled as either "Pushing" SPD, or perhaps "spending" DEX for SPD, in order to be able to act.

[Sean Waters]

Good enough reasons, generally.

Perhaps...but not good reasons to simply accept it :D In any event it makes no sense, it jars if you enforce it...and if you don't, why bother having it as a rule in the first place?


As Mr. Goodwin says, this sounds like a question of precise control of powers, thus a Power skill roll.

Here I'm on strong ground, I think: this is something that could easily happen quite a bit - which is specifically not what power skill rolls are for. We need a mechanism to accomplish this, and Power Skill only works a couple of times...then we need a more permanent solution.


I would like it to have some other penalty, since it would be too easy (and probably fairly cheap) to buy a PSL for this simple penalty, and suddenly a character can act whenever he wants to, with no discernible penalty.

I agree, but I'm not sure what we could use instead. I've never been a fan of PSLs in most of the ways they tend to be used, but, even allowing that they are a cheap solution here, that is a problem for the GM - STOP sign it by all means, or come up with a more meaningful penalty, but don't exclude it as a possibility.


I would think that in a confrontation between a character that has a held action and a character that is acting normally, the held action has a slight advantage, as that character is capable of acting faster, but is waiting for the right moment. On the other hand, a confrontation between a character that is acting normally and one that is "aborting" a future action to act now (whether for defense or, as you suggest, for any action), the normal action has the advantage, because the aborting character is trying to act faster than he is supposed to. Perhaps this can be modeled as either "Pushing" SPD, or perhaps "spending" DEX for SPD, in order to be able to act.

A held action can be a - somewhat mixed blessing: if you are holding an action and the target does what you expect - real advantage - if not, not so much.

In any event, you could easily deal with this as a rule: each DEX point you hold an action for counts as a +1 to your DEX off (max +4) and each DEX point you abort to counts as a penalty (max -4).

That takes away the arbitrary and conforms to 'dramatic reality' expectations.

[Chris Goodwin]

Here I'm on strong ground, I think: this is something that could easily happen quite a bit - which is specifically not what power skill rolls are for. We need a mechanism to accomplish this, and Power Skill only works a couple of times...then we need a more permanent solution.

Sure, but then you build it as a new Power, in your Desolidification Tricks Multipower or whatever. For instance, the "fly through wall while desolid then go solid" trick could be done with a simple +1/4 Usable As Tunnelling attached to the character's Flight. Switching movement modes could be a trick, and once you've mastered it you just buy Usable As (something else) on your movement mode. Attacking while moving is just Move By or the optional Strafe maneuver (more or less a Move By for ranged attacks).

[Chris Goodwin]

Thinking about it a bit more....


Say you have 30m flight and desolid and want to fly forward, become desolid to get through the wall, then solidify so that you can move through the guard on the other side: DEX or INT roll to turn the desolid on and off to avoid the wall (otherwise you hit it), possibly at a penalty depending on tolerances, then at least -1 on your move through.


You just have to plot your actions and movement correctly. For instance, at the beginning of your Phase, activate your Desolidification (0 Phase). Half move through the wall (1/2 Phase). Deactivate your Desolidification (0 Phase). Continue with Move Through on target with the rest of your movement (1/2 Phase). Viola.

[Sean Waters]

Sure, but then you build it as a new Power, in your Desolidification Tricks Multipower or whatever. For instance, the "fly through wall while desolid then go solid" trick could be done with a simple +1/4 Usable As Tunnelling attached to the character's Flight. Switching movement modes could be a trick, and once you've mastered it you just buy Usable As (something else) on your movement mode. Attacking while moving is just Move By or the optional Strafe maneuver (more or less a Move By for ranged attacks).

Pretty sure - think it may be FAQ - that using 'multiple modes of movement' doesn't change the number of types of movement you can use in a phase: if you have flight useable as swimming you can not fly/swim/fly, or 3/4 move fly then 1/4move swim in a single phase.

I could be wrong.

[Sean Waters]

Thinking about it a bit more....



You just have to plot your actions and movement correctly. For instance, at the beginning of your Phase, activate your Desolidification (0 Phase). Half move through the wall (1/2 Phase). Deactivate your Desolidification (0 Phase). Continue with Move Through on target with the rest of your movement (1/2 Phase). Viola.


That works if you start within a half move of the far side of the wall. You may be able to switch off a power with trigger (not something I've seen done, but if you can switch one on...) which might allow something like this (Desolid: trigger - switch off when reach a certain point defined at activation...have to look up the cost of that).

Thing is the solutions completely overwrite any advantage of simplicity potentially gained by the rule in the first place.

[dmjalund]

somewhere there is a +1½ Advantage which allows you to have part(s) of your body solid at any given time. You could redefine this advantage meaning you can have your body Desolid for only part of a given Phase (I'd imagine you'd have to define which parts of the phase you are desolid beforehand, so no Automatically going Desolid because someone surprised you)

[CrosshairCollie]

Perhaps...but not good reasons to simply accept it :D

I disagree. Game balance, especially, trumps anything resembling 'realism', and simplicity is something HERO needs more of.


In any event it makes no sense, it jars if you enforce it.

Doing it for the sake of game balance and simplicity makes perfect sense, and I have yet to encounter anybody who felt that the rule was, in any way, jarring.

[Sean Waters]

It doesn't if it spoils enjoyment of the game: life isn't fair, why should a set of game rules emulate 'balance'? Anyway, I don't really understand how being able to freely change between movement modes is in any way unbalanced. Equally I don't understand why being able to attack before (or during) moving is unbalanced if everyone can do it.

[jtelson]

Hmmm, if I was going to look at this closely I'd probably start with pulling off all the brakes.

So
Can always take a full move during your phase - you can alternate between movement types using a reasonable look at percentage of move (12" running 4" Swimming would allow 3" Run 2" Swin 3" Run, 9" Run 1" Swim, etc etc). This does not count against actions per phase and is similar to other systems where you can always travel your movement w/o penalty

You can use your action for additional movement (1/2 phase = additional1/2 move, full phase = additional full move)

You can abort to any action w/o additional penalties. Attack actions are no longer considered 'terminal' (is that term still used?) there are no longer 'terminal' actions which would allow two attacks per phase.

Once we played like that for a while and got a good feel for it, then begin to, if necessary, re-introduce limits that seem important for balance - ultimately arriving at the set of house rules that would work best for us - also getting a real good sense of what rules to add in or take out for setting simulation.

[Sean Waters]

Interesting: had not really thought about 2 attacks per phase - but it is a logical extension.

[dmjalund]

I would allow one transition between movement powers per phase, especially if you are changing environment - flying automatically becomes swimming when you hit the water, or becomes tunnelling when you hit a solid object - (as long as you could see the solid object coming)

[CrosshairCollie]

It doesn't if it spoils enjoyment of the game: life isn't fair, why should a set of game rules emulate 'balance'?

That's exactly why games should be balanced. If I wanted to deal with life, I'd ... deal with life. And I don't see how it spoils enjoyment of the game at all.

[secretID]

I guess my answer adds up to "simplicity." I don't think there's a lot to be gained from questions about how phases are broken up unless one is considering a radical change, because there are far bigger questions about timing within phases.

A and B, two normal human characters are toe-to-toe at the start of the phase. In the exact same time, A can either strike at B once, run 18 feet away and strike someone else, or run 36 feet away. Right. How many punches could you throw in the time it would take you to run 36 feet?

One explanation is that an attack actually represents more than one RL punch. I'm sure there are other explanations, but the point is that if you're going to get into realism in the subdivision of phases, I think you've taken on a big job.

[Sean Waters]

I guess my answer adds up to "simplicity." I don't think there's a lot to be gained from questions about how phases are broken up unless one is considering a radical change, because there are far bigger questions about timing within phases.

A and B, two normal human characters are toe-to-toe at the start of the phase. In the exact same time, A can either strike at B once, run 18 feet away and strike someone else, or run 36 feet away. Right. How many punches could you throw in the time it would take you to run 36 feet?

One explanation is that an attack actually represents more than one RL punch. I'm sure there are other explanations, but the point is that if you're going to get into realism in the subdivision of phases, I think you've taken on a big job.

Not really a big job. Pretty straightforward...first off combat in Hero is a part abstraction: a superhero of SPD 6 can almost certainly launch more than 6 punches in 12 seconds, but we assume that only a maximum of 6 chances to actually do damage. Quite hard to reconcile with charged attacks (that is atatcks that use charges) but a useful start for an abstraction.

Get rid of DEX as the prime determinant for combat order within a phase, and reduce the cost to 1 point per point. Even simpler...THEN use modified OCV to determine combat order: high OCV attacks go off faster than low OCV attacks: snap punches before roundhouse kicks.

Continuous actions that take half or full phase are exacty that. A half phase move takes half your time: if you start with an OCV of 5 and take a half move then attack, the earliest that atatck can go off is the count of 3 in that phase (even if there is an OCV bonus). (It would be a good idea to sort out a metres/count for each move mode so that you can see what it does to your combat count if yuo take a part move). You can buy up combat reactions with Lightning Reflexes and, effectively, skill levels on OCV increases combat count too.

Everyone decides their actions, seperately, including when they can act. The GM then counts down. Any action that goes into negatives due to OCV penalties takes place ont eh following phase, before any other actions (except other 'negative' actions) are determined.

I think that covers most situations, is pretty intuitive and only takes 4 short paragraphs...so balanced and simple.

I also have thoughts about aborts but we'll deal with that separately.

What do you think?

[bigbywolfe]

It sounds like it might work. I don't think it is truly all that simple though :)

[Sean Waters]

Thinking a bit more: perhaps we ought to be expressing movement per segment, and buying it per turn?

Outside scope, probably - but you have to admit that using OCV rather than DEX as the determinant of combat order is both more logical (and balanced) and less complex than the system we currently use.

[secretID]

Get rid of DEX as the prime determinant for combat order within a phase, and reduce the cost to 1 point per point. Even simpler...THEN use modified OCV to determine combat order: high OCV attacks go off faster than low OCV attacks: snap punches before roundhouse kicks.
I'm not sure I see this as any better or worse than the current system.

As far as realism goes, I think there's a big problem with the number of decisions that are made in less than a second. "I was going to start a haymaker on A this phase, but on an earlier DEX my buddy hit A, knocking him back so that I would have a range modifier, so instead I'm going to do a move through..."

I haven't thought about it too much, but I could see a system in which the main activities are to activate powers, move, and "engage." Different types of fighters (i.e., those with different skills) would have different capacities to make small decisions after "engagement." E.g., a MArtist could still choose strike vs. dodge vs. grab, but for a dumb slugging brick, the first choice made ("grab that guy") would be the action tried until a new engagement choice was made. Does that make any sense?

In case it does, I'll say a little more. Much of that last paragraph could be kept under the hood (an attack actually equals multiple attacks, little dodges and blocks are inherent in DCV, etc.), but there would still be a significant modification in the relationship between movement and attack/defense.


What do you think?
This reminds me that in another thread recently, when you were saying how that Hero is actually quite simple and accessible, I forgot to say, "Are you crazy?" :)

Your proposal doesn't strike me as any more complicated than the existing system, though.

[torchwolf]

Personally, I don't view Phases of Half-Phases as units of time, rather I view the Phase concept as an abstraction regulating how doing different things at the same time affect each other; moving during your Phase means you don't have as much opportunity to do other things effectively.
In game application, I envision this as using a Move meaning you are moving to the position you will have at the beginning of your next Phase, and that a half Move means you move at a lower velocity to be able to focus on making something else simultaneously (anything taking up to a Half-Phase action).
Yes, sometimes this approach would work better using movement-per-segment, but usually the added detail unnecessarily complicates things - exception being when you are actually mapping out combat.
I do think that Sweep and similar Maneuvers represent the effort to increase your number of attacks pretty well, and if you want to move simultaneously there's always the Rapid Attack Skill - nothing in the rules actually say you need to be literally stationary.
Of course, some may say that this way of viewing it constitutes an Uncertainty Principle as to combatants' precise position during the game, but I think that it is not so complicated to approximate (excepting Speedsters and MegaScaled Movement). ;)
YMMV.

EDIT (clarification): Not that I really think most people who post or read on these boards really views combat as being static, just explaining my thoughts to be clear about what I meant here about the relativity of position. :)

[IndianaJoe3]

Thinking a bit more: perhaps we ought to be expressing movement per segment, and buying it per turn?

I suggested that for 6e, but it didn't make the cut.

[Utech]

I suggested one way to handle this sort of thing when the 6th Edition thread was open. It is a radical change and would either be quite simple once you got used to it (people going around the table very quickly with small decisions) or a horrible disaster.

Here’s the gist:

Eliminate Speed and the Speed Chart. Replace them with Feat Points. All actions now cost a number of FPs to perform. (throwing a punch or activating a power costs one FP, moving two meters costs one FP, scanning the battlefield for threats costs one FP for a PER roll at a penalty but you can remove the penalty by spending more FPs, etc) You can buy limited FPs good only for Flight or shooting or what-have-you.

In play, the GM would announce the start of a new Phase. In order of DEX (or EGO or whatever), players go around the table either spending an FP or declining to do so. If no one spends an FP then everyone must surrender one without benefit or further penalty. Naturally, characters with more FPs can do more than characters with fewer FPs. When all FPs have been spent, the GM announces the start of a new Phase and all FPs are restored.

[dmjalund]

Personally, if wer do order based on OCV, if a person is only doing defensive actions, shouldn't his order be based on DCV?

[Hugh Neilson]

And mental actions should go in order of MOCV. hmmm...if all actions went in order of MOCV, that would ditch the push to sell it back.

I don't see why accuracy should have anything to do with reaction speed. A very methodical shooter is probably quite accurate, but not fast.

I also think too much value is placed on going first. We have three characteristics, INT, PRE and DEX, which govern skill success. Each has an ancillary effect (PER rolls, PRE attacks and defenses, and combat order during a phase/segment). If those ancillary effects are not more or less equal in value, I don't think "going first" is worth more than twice the value of the others. However, the costing says it is.

I also don't believe a bonus to DEX skills is worth any more than a bonus to INT or PRE skills. Given that, I think all three should have been priced the same (either 1 point each or two points each), with "only for skill rolls" or "only for ancillary effect" priced as a -1 limitation, and a further limitation afforded for "only one skill roll per phase". I'd probably reprice as follows:

- leave DEX at 2 points

- bump INT and PRE to 2 points as well

- +1 to all skill rolls based on the characteristic - 5 points (-1 limitation)

- +1 to one skill roll per phase based on the char - 3 points (about another -1 limitation; -1/2 woud give 4 points per +1)

- +1 PER roll; +5 Combat Order; +1d6 PRE attack each 5 points

- make PRE defense the exclusive province of Ego.

- EGO for PRE defense only or for EGO rolls only would both be -1 limitations.

- we might need to bump starting points a bit more to compensate for the increased cost, but starting points are easy to adjust if it is an issue.

Sorry to switch tracks, if not derail, your thread, Sean.

[Ninja-Bear]

You can not attack and then move.

Why?



Don't know but I can say the games I've played the most were always a move then shoot method.

Battletech
Warhammer 40K
Champions
I don't think Star Wars (weg) was forced to this. Their mechanic was the more actions (upto 4) the more penalties you took. And last night I got to play an introductory skirmish for DnD 4th which has no restriction on when you move and attack.

The point, I agree Sean that perhaps the move and attack method is more of a simplicty then as to "balance". This also reminds me of the thread many moons ago where the op posted why should we have a static defense and not roll for it like damage. Do you have Ninja Hero 4th where they have optional rules where you could buy a attack manuever with abort ?! :eek: Interestingly the disclaimer was that if you found that this messed up with the combat sheet then it should be discarded !

If I ever get to play more of the DnD 4th I could get a better feel of their actions. (Which actually seem simular to Hero system actions. Well mosreso than DnD 2nd !)

Well here are my thoughts on the subject.

[Sean Waters]

................
This reminds me that in another thread recently, when you were saying how that Hero is actually quite simple and accessible, I forgot to say, "Are you crazy?" :)

Your proposal doesn't strike me as any more complicated than the existing system, though.


Yes, it is true....I am crazy :)

Funny thing but timing in combat is always an issue, in almost every game - look at DnD and their 'attacks of opportunity' - interesting mechanic, but in desperate need of simplification and clarity.

[Ninja-Bear]

I also think too much value is placed on going first.



You have not been the first I've seen to post this on the boards. But I have to say in my experience, and because of the type of character I normally run, I find going first is essential. The ability to hold 1/2 phase and to dodge (which I use to always do-hey I'm a ninja!) is well worth the cost at 3 points per 1 Dex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm just saying that I always sratch my head when this comment comes up. And fwiw, this could be a throw back to my battletech days when at one time you only rolled inititive once and was stuck at that the whole game (and at 10 players you waited forever). Plus the fact the combat wasn't considered simultanous at the time. If you blew up before you could retaliate was very benificial to me. :D

Okay that is now out of my system.

[secretID]

The ability to hold 1/2 phase and to dodge (which I use to always do-hey I'm a ninja!) is well worth the cost at 3 points per 1 Dex.
As opposed to just aborting to Dodge? You meant that the ability to half move and then abort to the Dodge later is worth a lot? (I don't mean that sceptically; I'm just trying to understand.)

[Ninja-Bear]

As opposed to just aborting to Dodge? You meant that the ability to half move and then abort to the Dodge later is worth a lot? (I don't mean that sceptically; I'm just trying to understand.)

Yes. Remeber just aborting to a dodge is reactionary. If I go first I can move-hold 1/2 phase and wait to see what the target is doing. :sneaky: I can dodge if needed, or attack, or disarm, or ...you get the point. I really like it. Even if I have to dodge, I feel its because I'm in control (I choose to dodge) vs reaction (I *shoot* I got to dodge.) Maybe its cosmetic, but I'm willing to play the price. :D

[Tasha]

One thing I have thought about a lot recently is killing "an Attack action ends your Phase" esp having played 4e D&D which allows attacks after movement. I just keep wondering why (beyond tradition) that we continue to do it this way in Hero.

The only thing that I can figure is that George McDonald wanted to prevent people from moving up hitting then moving out of range during their phase. Something that is quite possible in Superheroic games (which is where the system's roots are). Though one can point out that Move Bys and Move Throughs already allow this. I eventually want to run a game that allows attack and move, but haven't had time as we are currently playtesting 6e and I don't want to pollute the experience with any house rules.

I DO like the Speed Chart. It make sense to me and it seems to simulate ultra fast martial artists and speedsters very well. So I would be resistant to any change that would remove that from play.