Combat Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about combat that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about combat that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

I’m not convinced that this rule needs changing, but I’m at least willing to think about the issue. I think it might make more sense simply to drop in a sidebar explaining the rule and suggesting that you could ditch it in some games (primarily Heroic campaigns) if you want.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think they should. Over the past 25+ years, one exception or additional rule after another has been added on, with the end result being a complex mess. I don’t yet know exactly how I intend to change things, but change them I will. It may be as simple as getting rid of most of the exceptions and special rules and just trusting the GM not to let characters get ridiculously powerful attacks.

[Aroooo]

Not sure where to put this, so here made the most sense to me. About the only major change I'd like to see is damage standardization across 'scales.' Make damage more granular, or linear, not log based.

Aroooo

[CourtFool]

I am torn on the Speed chart. Yes, it is a large piece of Hero but I think characters having different SPDs causes more problems than it might be worth. 1. Who wants to play the guy with a lower SPD? In my groups, I usually have everyone at the same SPD anyway so no one feels left out to MR. 10 SPD. 2. It adds complexity, which is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but is it really worth it?

I like that attacking ends an action. Otherwise you have to start adding Attacks of Opportunity or some such.

Yes, you should change the default way the Attack Roll is presented. Another Skill works for me and is more consistent.

I like having Normal and Killing Damage, although I think the only time it really matters is in Supers campaigns. Everywhere else people just use Killing...don't they?

How about a damage save like Mutants & Masterminds? Sacrilege? You do not have to keep track of Hit Points. Non-killing damage just knocks an opponent unconcious. No more 20d6 fireballs. Alright, I will shut up now.

[Thia Halmades]

Not sure where to put this, so here made the most sense to me. About the only major change I'd like to see is damage standardization across 'scales.' Make damage more granular, or linear, not log based.

Aroooo

I just said the exact same thing elsewhere in this shiny new mess. But yes, agreed. Speaking of which, are we doing anything OTHER than discussing 6th next Saturday?!

[Bismark]

I have been a long-time proponent of linear damage (and armour values) for Heroic games especially (my first post was about making STAR HERO weapons HURT...).

I know that it can result in scary numbers, like in GURPS, where [in 3rd ed - I don't have 4th] a 9mm pistol round did about 2D6 or 2D6+1 damage, whereas a 7.62mm NATO rifle round did 7D6, and sci-fi armour could be up in the 60 DEF-equivalent range, but it does add granularity.

Of course, what the DEF of a 'brick' Supers character would have to be to bounce 120mm APFSDSDU ammo from the gun of a main battle tank is genuinely scary (as is the thought of the points cost) - at the risk of getting flamed for 'heresy' here, something like the FUZION (yes, I said the forbidden word ) 'Kills' system might be needed for Supers..

[CourtFool]

Now I am thinking of Truth & Justice's scale. A concept like that could allow more granularity for Heroic games (maybe stay linear) and allow Super Heroic games to jump on the exponential train.

[Bismark]

Please keep the Speed Chart - it's one of the defining things about the game (for me at least)

[arosslaw]

Personally I'd prefer to see the Speed Chart go. As noted above and in many, many other posts, most games make everyone have the same speed to avoid the problem of one guy monopolizing the session. The problem is while it is nice to have something that allows you to show someone is just quicker than other people, its too good a stat and everyone maxes it out because you're an idiot if you don't.

A lot of other games find a fix for the super-speed problem (and let's face it, that's what speed was designed to address, really) without the problems speed causes. Really, we already have movement, extra HTH damage, clinging, et al to cover the super speed tricks. And in comics supes and flash don't act MORE than other characters, they just act quicker which is DEX not SPD anyway.

Separate and apart from Speed, though strongly related to it, whatever we do in 6th ed, please please please please please find a way to make combat FASTER!!!! I've have more players turned off by how slow the game plays than by the complexity. They like min-maxing but that that one bank robbery takes 2-4 hours to run. The system needs to get away from its war-gaming roots and run faster. Whether that means going from 3d6 to a single die, standardizing damage, I don't know, but that's going to determine whether I pick it up or not.

[Enforcer84]

What games have really fast combats?
I can't think of an RPG I've ever played where a big combat was not a chunk of time.

[Aroooo]

For the speed chart, I'm torn. I like it from the character perspective. Sure, it can get abusing at times. And a really fast character in a Supers game can take over a combat session. But that what the game is all about, and a good GM should be able to handle that. But I'd like to see it go from a vehicle perspective. I've always had issue with trying to balance character movement with how I perceive inanimate objects should move. Not to mention what a mess it can make on trying to calculate a vehicle's movement rate. I think in the long run we could probably do away with the Speed chart and figure out a better way to represent the Speedster type characters.

But like all change, I'm not sure I'd be happy with anything other that what I've grown so used to over all my years playing and GM'ing Hero

Aroooo

[Susano]

Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

I’m not convinced that this rule needs changing, but I’m at least willing to think about the issue. I think it might make more sense simply to drop in a sidebar explaining the rule and suggesting that you could ditch it in some games (primarily Heroic campaigns) if you want.

Attacking the moving is very cinematic, which is something HERO does well. I've seen the effect in a lot of HK wuxia films and Japanese samurai movies and anime. One solution is "X" actions per phase (such as move, draw weapon, attack, ready spell and so on), but that might be cumbersome. Another is to allow some sort of Attack and Move combination that isn't a Move-By. Example -- running (or flying) along firing a gun or energy blast. It is a common staple of cinema to see a character run a "Full Move" and keep pulling the trigger on his weapon (or drop a grenade). And HERO is all about cinematic realism after all.

Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

This works, but requires us to roll high, correct? Personally, I've gotten good at 11 = my CV and thus a 12 = my CV -1, while an 8 = my CV +3. I can give a DCV I've hit without knowing my foes DCV.

Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.

Not really (IMO). Making it an Advantage just adds to character sheet clutter.

Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think they should. Over the past 25+ years, one exception or additional rule after another has been added on, with the end result being a complex mess. I don’t yet know exactly how I intend to change things, but change them I will. It may be as simple as getting rid of most of the exceptions and special rules and just trusting the GM not to let characters get ridiculously powerful attacks.

I think streamling how CLSs are used would be very nice.

[Log-Man]

Many arguments have been made in both directions on the SPD chart, so I won't rehash them here. I'll just say that I'm one that would like to see it changed or drastically modified.

The SPD chart is a 'defining characteristic' of the game for some; for others it is symbolic of the often times overly complex system.

[steamteck]

I like the speed chart basically but I will admit I halved it to 6 phases for my game. Even a speed three over a speed two makes the players feel quick and elite. I like it but a little simplification might be in order.

In movies, the heroes do often seem to be able to do more things than the mooks in a given time.

[gregghelmberger]

Re: Speed Chart, for me it is one of the defining elements of the game and one of the things I point to when describing why Hero is superior to other systems. I do like the idea of quick people acting more frequently than other people.

This dates me, but I can remember that Villains and Vigilantes did the same thing by having multiple actions per round, with faster characters getting more actions in the round. That worked too, and if you really dislike the Speed Chart you could do something along those lines to get the same effect without a chart.

One thing I would like if the Speed Chart stays is some of the options presented in Ultimate Speedster to make it into the mainstream rules as far as having more randomness involved in the initiative, even if it's only as options. One of my beefs about the Speed/Dex initiative system is that you always know what order everyone's moving in, which feels manipulative to me. Introducing an element of randomness into the process would make it more interesting to me -- that is, if you have a Speed of 5, you always ought to get five actions in the Turn, but you shouldn't necessarily always know when they're going to come up. I'm not sure if you want a Chit system, or be able to pay Hero Points to move your action up in the round, or whatever.

A related issue is attacks of opportunity. As it stands now, once you make your attack you have to stand motionless until your next action comes up, even if an enemy in front of you turns his back to pick something up, walks around you, or does something else that "realistically" would present an easy target. I'd like to see some rule where extra attack actions can be granted so that people can't just waltz around the battlefield with impunity the way they can now. I admit I don't have any great ideas for the mechanics of it, only that it shouldn't require you to abort your next action to do it. Maybe each character could get a number of attacks of opportunity per turn based on Speed or some other factor? These attacks could only be used when an enemy disengages or otherwise moves through the character's attack range. This could of course present play balance issues but this is something that's bothered me about Hero for a long time.

[Susano]

Personally, I'd lime more detail given to what facing means. How does one attack from behind? Move 3" and swing? What is meant by "from surprise"? If you're going to give people tactical options, then the book needs to explain what they are and when the GM should implement them.