Falling Prone

[Crimson King]

I did a search, and didn't find an answer to my question.

But what benefit is falling prone? FRED-Revised says you lose half your DCV, but you may gain bonuses due to concealment.

In a game I ran recently, a pc dropped prone and fired on an NPC 8" away (who was standing). The PC did not drop behind anything - there was no wall or other opportunities for concealment. So does the PC just simply lose half their DCV with no other benefit? Or, because just their 'head and shoulders' are showing, they get a bonus of +4? How does this work in a campaign that uses Hit Locations?

[Supreme Serpent]

If it's still included, you could count them as "Braced" for their own shooting purposes.

[Sean Waters]

I THINK the rule used to be that dropping prone halved your DCV for attacks launched from adjacent hexes, but not against ranged attacks at greater distance, when you got cover bonuses instead. Something like that. Not a bad rule.

I Like MitchellS's analysis of the perils of flying attackers: I suppose most flying blasters rarely attack from diretly above, but the above rule could deal with that, I suppose: if a prone target is in an adjacent hex, IGNORING THE HEIGHT COMPONENT, then they get half DCV, otherise cover bonuses apply.

[Dust Raven]

I kinda use a funky combination of what the others have suggested.

If you are prone, you lose mobility, so your DCV is halved versus all attacks. If you want to attack while prone using a ranged attack, you can count yourself as being Braced unless the GM feels this is innappropriate.

If attacked while prone, the attacker may have an OCV penalty based on how far away he is and how much elevation he his. Generaly I give a -1 put hex away from the target up to a max of -4, starting with -0 for the Adjacent hex. These penalties may be modified based on the attacker's height.

I'll to the same for attacker striking from above on a target that is standing. They'll receive an OCV penalty as above, but only at half value (unless the target is flush against something blocking some angles of fire). The target still get's his full DCV against such attacks though and is not considered prone.

[prestidigitator]

If the character is doing it on purpose to get cover, I give them 1/2 DCV, but limited cover against ranged attacks from attackers that are at least 4" away (where the Range Penalty starts to kick in). I believe I usually call it half covered. I increase this if there is clutter about (furniture, varying elevations, vegetation, etc.). I don't give a cover bonus (or give a lesser one based upon terrain only) if the character did not go prone on purpose (was Knocked Down/Back, suffered a Move Through, executed a Dive for Cover, etc.).

Otherwise, I consider being prone to be a serious disadvantage, and impose major penalties. If you make a HTH attack against someone, you get the same penalty as if you are using a much smaller weapon than them (-1 to -3). PSLs that apply to using a smaller weapon (which I tend to give to martial artists) apply. You are 1/2 DCV against all attacks. That's not to say that a clever character can't take advantage of the situation to make a surprise attack, use Acrobatics, etc., but it is the way I handle it in general.

For flying characters, I tend to ignore effects of elevation on target profile, except in extreme circumstances. I figure a flying character has enough maneuverability and space to move that any such bonus can be negated. I would probably negate any ranged cover bonus based only on being prone against flying attackers as well, but I don't think I've ever had the situation arise.

Just the way I do it, and pretty much for Heroic games; for Superheroic ones, I tend to just go with the explicit, simple rules.

[RDU Neil]

Prone is one of the faults in the game system that will need to be address at some point. The problem is that in a game where you have 180 degrees of fighting perspective there is no way to decide what type of advantage you gain from prone. In the real world a soldier falls flat and becomes harder to hit because he does not need to worry about dealing with attackers flying above him. If you use real logic then flyers would always take minuses to hit standing people because they would appear prone to them. This is like smaller people being hard to hit and larger being easier, but shrinking gives no plusses to OCV against normals and growth gives no minuses to OCV against normals. For some things in the game you must just err on the side of simplicity.

And to continue on this point... not have read 5th Cover to Cover... I'm assuming there is still no "relative modifiers" in Hero?

i.e. Smaller character gets relative OCV bonuses against a larger target? Smaller target gets increased difficults vs. range? Range should be "relative size to relative size" in fact. Smaller attacker has increased range dificulty modifiers because distance is now "farther" for them in a relative state.

These things are NOT a part of Hero... correct?

Just checking.

[prestidigitator]

And to continue on this point... not have read 5th Cover to Cover... I'm assuming there is still no "relative modifiers" in Hero?

i.e. Smaller character gets relative OCV bonuses against a larger target? Smaller target gets increased difficults vs. range? Range should be "relative size to relative size" in fact. Smaller attacker has increased range dificulty modifiers because distance is now "farther" for them in a relative state.

These things are NOT a part of Hero... correct?

Just checking.

Correct...except that the DCV bonuses or penalties due to a character's Growth or Shrinking (respectively) are canceled by similar levels an opponent has.

For example: if Arkaba has -6 DCV due to Growth and Beornewit has -2 DCV due to Growth, then Arkaba's DCV is only at -4 to Beornewit, and Beornewit's DCV is not penalized vs. Arkaba--though he has no bonus either.

If Cornwagon has +4 DCV due to Shrinking, and Dladidus has +2 DCV due to Shrinking, then Cornwagon has only a +2 DCV to Dladidus, and Dladidus gains no DCV bonus vs. Cornwagon--but suffers no penalty either.

Actually, I don't believe Range Penalties should be relative to your size. These are based on how much solid angle a target takes up, and that goes down with r^2 no matter your size (remember that a -1 is supposed to mean hitting a target is, "twice as difficult"). I guess you could argue that the first distance of 4" could change, but in the real world smaller creatures (except perhaps in very extreme cases or differences in anatomy--e.g. mammals vs. insects) tend to compensate with larger eye size (relative to body), etc. It is a little analogous to the fact that most creatures, regardless of size, can jump about the same height (total height, that is, not relative height); at least to an order or magnitude.

[RDU Neil]

Correct...except that the DCV bonuses or penalties due to a character's Growth or Shrinking (respectively) are canceled by similar levels an opponent has.

For example: if Arkaba has -6 DCV due to Growth and Beornewit has -2 DCV due to Growth, then Arkaba's DCV is only at -4 to Beornewit, and Beornewit's DCV is not penalized vs. Arkaba--though he has no bonus either.

If Cornwagon has +4 DCV due to Shrinking, and Dladidus has +2 DCV due to Shrinking, then Cornwagon has only a +2 DCV to Dladidus, and Dladidus gains no DCV bonus vs. Cornwagon--but suffers no penalty either.

Actually, I don't believe Range Penalties should be relative to your size. These are based on how much solid angle a target takes up, and that goes down with r^2 no matter your size (remember that a -1 is supposed to mean hitting a target is, "twice as difficult"). I guess you could argue that the first distance of 4" could change, but in the real world smaller creatures (except perhaps in very extreme cases or differences in anatomy--e.g. mammals vs. insects) tend to compensate with larger eye size (relative to body), etc. It is a little analogous to the fact that most creatures, regardless of size, can jump about the same height (total height, that is, not relative height); at least to an order or magnitude.

So you are saying that a Squirrel Badguy, with a squirrel gun, shoots his squirrel bullet, and is off a degree of aim against a squirrel target... and a Man badguy, standing in the same place, with a man gun, shooting a man bullet... with the same degree of bad aim... at a man sized target "the same distance away" and the squirrel won't miss by MORE than the man, if otherwise equal?

I'm not mathematician, but it seems to me that 10 feet separating two six foot oponents is much less an obstacle to accurate shots than 10 feet seperating two six INCH opponents. The actual distance is the same... the relative distance is almost a magnitude of 8. Assuming the same relative size change in the eyes, gun size, bullet size, etc.

Something non-intuitive about that.

[prestidigitator]

So you are saying that a Squirrel Badguy, with a squirrel gun, shoots his squirrel bullet, and is off a degree of aim against a squirrel target... and a Man badguy, standing in the same place, with a man gun, shooting a man bullet... with the same degree of bad aim... at a man sized target "the same distance away" and the squirrel won't miss by MORE than the man, if otherwise equal?

I'm not mathematician, but it seems to me that 10 feet separating two six foot oponents is much less an obstacle to accurate shots than 10 feet seperating two six INCH opponents. The actual distance is the same... the relative distance is almost a magnitude of 8. Assuming the same relative size change in the eyes, gun size, bullet size, etc.

Something non-intuitive about that.

Actually, the man shooter would be more likely to hit because his target is bigger (and thus occupies a larger solid angle: 35 degrees by whatever width, vs. about 3 degrees by whatever width for the squirrel target). But the squirrel shooter, if shooting at the man target from the same distance, would have the same chance to hit as the man shooter.

[Dust Raven]

And to continue on this point... not have read 5th Cover to Cover... I'm assuming there is still no "relative modifiers" in Hero?

i.e. Smaller character gets relative OCV bonuses against a larger target? Smaller target gets increased difficults vs. range? Range should be "relative size to relative size" in fact. Smaller attacker has increased range dificulty modifiers because distance is now "farther" for them in a relative state.

These things are NOT a part of Hero... correct?

Just checking.

The whole relative size thing was done best by GURPS of all games. Certainly not the most flexible game, but it did have some good rules. The Range/Speed/Size modifiers were good. it basically combined the range, speed and size of a target into a single modifier. The logic behind it was that a target X tall moving at Y speed at a range of Z would be just as easy (or difficult) to hit as a target 2X tall moving at a speed of 2Y at a range of 2Z. And it didn't matter how big the attacker was. I haven't found a way to convert this rule to Hero yet though while keeping the same feel as the current rules.

[RDU Neil]

Actually, the man shooter would be more likely to hit because his target is bigger (and thus occupies a larger solid angle: 35 degrees by whatever width, vs. about 3 degrees by whatever width for the squirrel target). But the squirrel shooter, if shooting at the man target from the same distance, would have the same chance to hit as the man shooter.

So the size of the "target" does matter... not the size of the "shooter."

That makes sense. I must have misread you earlier.

[RDU Neil]

The whole relative size thing was done best by GURPS of all games. Certainly not the most flexible game, but it did have some good rules. The Range/Speed/Size modifiers were good. it basically combined the range, speed and size of a target into a single modifier. The logic behind it was that a target X tall moving at Y speed at a range of Z would be just as easy (or difficult) to hit as a target X/2 tall moving at a speed of 2Y at a range of 2Z. And it didn't matter how big the attacker was. I haven't found a way to convert this rule to Hero yet though while keeping the same feel as the current rules.

Ok... now I'm really confused.

A target that is half the size, moving twice as fast and twice as far away... is just as easy to hit?

I must be reading that wrong. What am I missing?

[Dust Raven]

Ok... now I'm really confused.

A target that is half the size, moving twice as fast and twice as far away... is just as easy to hit?

I must be reading that wrong. What am I missing?

Sorry, massive type. Target twice as fast, twice as far away and twice as large. I'll edit my previous post.

[prestidigitator]

The whole relative size thing was done best by GURPS of all games. Certainly not the most flexible game, but it did have some good rules. The Range/Speed/Size modifiers were good. it basically combined the range, speed and size of a target into a single modifier. The logic behind it was that a target X tall moving at Y speed at a range of Z would be just as easy (or difficult) to hit as a target 2X tall moving at a speed of 2Y at a range of 2Z. And it didn't matter how big the attacker was. I haven't found a way to convert this rule to Hero yet though while keeping the same feel as the current rules.

Interesting. Hero does cover this in a way, since a target that is twice the height has a -2 DCV, but a target twice as far away imposes a -2 OCV. The two balance. The things that aren't handled well by the rules are:

1. The relative size thing is stupid; if a target is twice as big, it is four times easier to hit, no matter the size of the attacker (and vice versa for small targets).
2. Penalties due to movement, and how they are affected by distance and the direction of movement. A target moving toward or away from you is easier to hit than a target moving perpendicular to the line between you (though it may depend a bit on the trajectory of the attack--one with greater initial velocity and thus less curviture in its path makes a change in distance less of a factor, so an attacker with a gun cares less than an attacker with a bow). Also, targets with the same velocity have smaller angular velocity if farther away, making them easier to hit (since the attacker has to account for the target's movement with less/slower change in aim).

[RDU Neil]

Interesting. Hero does cover this in a way, since a target that is twice the height has a -2 DCV, but a target twice as far away imposes a -2 OCV. The two balance. The things that aren't handled well by the rules are:

1. The relative size thing is stupid; if a target is twice as big, it is four times easier to hit, no matter the size of the attacker (and vice versa for small targets).

1. But what is "bigger" if it isn't relative? That is my question. Four times "Bigger" is relative to SOMETHING. (Not trying to be a smart ass, I just don't get this.)
   
   

2. Penalties due to movement, and how they are affected by distance and the direction of movement. A target moving toward or away from you is easier to hit than a target moving perpendicular to the line between you (though it may depend a bit on the trajectory of the attack--one with greater initial velocity and thus less curviture in its path makes a change in distance less of a factor, so an attacker with a gun cares less than an attacker with a bow). Also, targets with the same velocity have smaller angular velocity if farther away, making them easier to hit (since the attacker has to account for the target's movement with less/slower change in aim).