Aborting to attack

[BlueBuddha]

Does anyone think it might be appropriate for a person holding a handgun at the ready to abort to attack some idiot who's charging them? This is also assuming they're not surprised. I probably wouldn't use this in a supers campaign, but I think it's appropriate for a realistic campaign.

Whachoo think?

BlueBuddha

[Derek Hiemforth]

Personally, I think Covered and Held Actions handle this situation well enough. I'd be worried about the can of worms that would be opened by allowing people to abort to attacks.

[Jhamin]

I agree that Held actions are probably best.

In the movies people get jumped all the time when they aren't ready. If you have a held action you are ready to react to such things, if you don't, you aren't.

[Super Squirrel]

I would allow a player to build a gun with a trigger that is activated on a DEX roll or something. One of those hair-pin triggers.

[KA.]

Part of it depends on how "realistic" you are trying to be.
Even though Hero has a more precise and defined set of mechanics for combat, (haven't played D&D for years and don't mean that as some kind of insult) there is one concept from D&D that I still apply.

Even though characters only get a certain number of "attacks" in a certain amount of time, that does not mean that the rest of the time they are just "standing there".
I read a description in one of the AD&D books that said that the "attacks" that count (the ones you roll to hit) come during a fury of moving, positioning, feinting, etc.

Based on a character's dexterity and skill, he only gets a certain number of real opportunities to do some damage in a given time period.

What does this have to do with your question?

If a character with a gun is holding an action (and waiting for a target to shoot his gun at), and you start to charge him, he will target you and shoot before you get there.

But if he is doing something else: looking out for the cops, watching two other characters fight, dodging flying bits of stuff from a fight nearby, trying to decide if he should just run for it, etc., he may not notice that you are charging until it is too late.

To give people the chance to abort to an attack could prove unbalancing.

Way back when, Aaron Allston's group created their own Martial Art where all of the attack maneuvers could be aborted to. It was so nasty that they ended up banning it themselves! And as far as I know, those were only HTH moves. To be able to abort to a Ranged attack seems like it would really alter gameplay.

Just my opinion,
KA

[Keneton]

If you are holding you do not have to abort. You just do it. Now this brings up Dex rolls or Fast Draw to resolve the event.

EX: Firearm is holding half waiting for the Technomancer to come the easy way or the hard way. With a growl The technomancer instead commits to an EB against his hostage. Firearm responds with and EB of his own as the hostage is to far away to cover with a dive for cover maneuver.

Technomancer and Firearm make opposed Dex rolls. To make sure he goes first Firearm places two of his four 8 point combat levels in Dex roll to go first. He commits the other two to OCV to make sure and hit his target. His Dex is 23 and with the levels his Dex roll is 16-. He roll a 9 making his roll by 7. Technomancer has a 26 Dex (14-) but has his levels in 2 levels in DCV hoping to make our hero miss. He rolls an 11 making his roll by 3. Firearm shoots first.

Firearm hits and does knockbak to Technomancer spoiling his attack. If Technomaner was missed, hit but not stunned, ko'd or knocked back, his attack would follow through.
:)

[Chaosliege]

I'll just chime in to say I also agree that the covered and held action rules are enough to handle this. The only attack we ever allowed a character to abort to was the martial throw. I don't remember if that's legal or not, but we used to alow it.

[Keneton]

In 2nd edition that was legal. But this is today!
Also there was always Peak-Tu!
:)

[KA.]

Originally posted by Keneton
In 2nd edition that was legal. But this is today!
Also there was always Peak-Tu!
:)

That's the one I was talking about Paek-Tu!

KA

[Keneton]

Yes I spell poorly. Paek-Tu with the combo attacks and aborts. No this is not so in FRED but at one time it was. So was Martial Throw as noted earlier. In many ways Force Wall was this way through 4th!

:D

[Nato]

Everything said previously makes sense to me as far as using covered and held actions instead of aborting to an attack. But it raises a question to me as far as which to use in this instance.

So as described above, a gunman has a gun to a hostages head. Some fool decides to rush the gunman. The gunman then turns his gun and shoots the would-be hero.

Now, to have a hostage at gunpoint, that is using the "covered" option right? Well if he's already covering a hostage in this manner, how then would he turn the gun on the rushing hero suddenly - since he can't use cover and hold an action at the same time right?

Or would you just rule that he doesn't really need to use an action to cover the hostage? Then he can hold his action and either use it to shoot the hostage or the rushing hero right?

Thanks.

[KA.]

Originally posted by Nato
Everything said previously makes sense to me as far as using covered and held actions instead of aborting to an attack. But it raises a question to me as far as which to use in this instance.

So as described above, a gunman has a gun to a hostages head. Some fool decides to rush the gunman. The gunman then turns his gun and shoots the would-be hero.

Now, to have a hostage at gunpoint, that is using the "covered" option right? Well if he's already covering a hostage in this manner, how then would he turn the gun on the rushing hero suddenly - since he can't use cover and hold an action at the same time right?

Or would you just rule that he doesn't really need to use an action to cover the hostage? Then he can hold his action and either use it to shoot the hostage or the rushing hero right?

Thanks.

Yeah, what you said.
To be more clear:
I think if you are standing behind a hostage with a gun, and you have a held action, you can certainly use that action to shoot the hostage without using the official "cover" maneuver, and you would be free to instead use the action to shoot at an incoming Hero.

Shooting the Hero would use up your held action, so you would now have to wait a second or two (based on Speed) to shoot the hostage. Which is how things are supposed to work out, isn't it?

KA

[Nato]

Right. But what I guess I'm wondering is if you just hold your action instead of actually covering your hostage, can't they just run away. Uh, duh. Never mind. You'd just use that held action and blow them away.

What about the traditional "grab hostage around neck, press gun to head" scenario. You'd always have the gun on them, but could easily turn the gun on a rusher. So is that basically a grab maneuver, then you just hold your action? The hostage could always choose to struggle free, but they know you could still pull the trigger. Cool. Og course, once you turn the gun on a rusher, the gun is no longer to the hostage's head. Since that hostage has in a sense been holding their own action, they could now make a move while your gun is off of them. Interesting.

OK, I think I talked myself through it. I'm fairly certain I'd know how to run that scenario now.

[Dynamo]

Originally posted by Nato
OK, I think I talked myself through it. I'm fairly certain I'd know how to run that scenario now. I'm so pleased we could be of assistance. :p

[KA.]

Originally posted by Nato
Right. But what I guess I'm wondering is if you just hold your action instead of actually covering your hostage, can't they just run away. Uh, duh. Never mind. You'd just use that held action and blow them away.

What about the traditional "grab hostage around neck, press gun to head" scenario. You'd always have the gun on them, but could easily turn the gun on a rusher. So is that basically a grab maneuver, then you just hold your action? The hostage could always choose to struggle free, but they know you could still pull the trigger. Cool. Og course, once you turn the gun on a rusher, the gun is no longer to the hostage's head. Since that hostage has in a sense been holding their own action, they could now make a move while your gun is off of them. Interesting.

OK, I think I talked myself through it. I'm fairly certain I'd know how to run that scenario now.

Glad we could help. Try not to get any hostages killed.

KA