Why is the DCV of a hex 3?

[zslane]

I can't recall ever reading an explanation for why a (non-adjacent) hex is given a DCV of 3 despite being around 50x larger by volume than a default human character standing within it (who would have a DCV of 0 if immobile, you know, like a hex). The notion that a normal human body "fills" a 2m hexagonal volume isn't a horrible simplification, but it is inaccurate enough that giving hexes a DCV of 0 certainly feels to me like reasonable compensation.

 

Is "Hex has DCV of 0" a common house rule? If not, why not?

[pinecone]

Nope, never tried it. But I think such 3 is about right. I suggest a few games of horse shoes. That seems like a real world version of " hit the hex" no real hard, not real easy....a person is a very large vertical target. And a person is usually a default dvc 3, so it all looks good to me...

[zslane]

Yes, but a hex is a much larger target overall, and if you hit any part of it you've covered all of it (with an AoE attack). Moreover, attacks can come from all kinds of angles (from the side, from above, etc.), so vertical length is not necessarily the best dimension for comparison, is it? A hex is, after all, a volume, and so is a character, coincidentally.

 

BTW, I was off by a factor of 2 before. A 2m hex measured side-to-side has a volume of about 10.4 m3, which is more than 100x the volume of the average male human with a body mass of 100kg.

[Nolgroth]

Everybody will want to suddenly buy AoE attacks if a Hex becomes DCV 0. I think the logic is pure, 100% metagaming at its best. A character's default DCV is 3 so therefore a hex must have the same DCV. Whether you agree with that reasoning or not is another question. I can certainly see a logical reason for a DCV 0 hex (or meter). I can also see game balance shifting in the favor of Controller type characters that use AoE attacks to hit large crowds of mooks. It might be a slight shift but it will be a shift.

 

You should try it out (assuming you have a play group) and let us know how it works. I would be interested in seeing how a DCV 0 hex game plays out.

[Grailknight]

I've played with Hex as DCV 0 for 30 years. It has never been a problem.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah its a grandfather thing.  If you think of a hex on the ground its going to be tougher than 0 DCV to hit.  And a hex in the air, a bit harder to hit without a backboard or something relative to it to mark its distance.  You can get good at hitting this, but that translates into levels (to me, at least).  So I can see a justification for giving it a DCV but there are some problems and its always bothered me.

 

A prone, unconscious character is 0 DCV, and they're not only smaller than a hex, but lying prone, which makes them harder to hit.  In other words, that makes no sense.  So using 0 DCV for a hex makes logical sense.  The problem is, its so easy to hit with AE attacks as is, and they're so powerful as is, that reducing the DCV is problematic for game balance.  So it really comes down to metagaming as zlsane notes.  It makes the game work.

[Beast]

Ask Steve Long
I wounder if even he knows

or hunt down George MacDonald ans ask him

[Greywind]

Yes, a hex is a big target. Yes, you can still miss.

 

Think about it the next time you're out playing disc golf.

[schir1964]

I can't recall ever reading an explanation for why a (non-adjacent) hex is given a DCV of 3 despite being around 50x larger by volume than a default human character standing within it (who would have a DCV of 0 if immobile, you know, like a hex). The notion that a normal human body "fills" a 2m hexagonal volume isn't a horrible simplification, but it is inaccurate enough that giving hexes a DCV of 0 certainly feels to me like reasonable compensation.

 

Is "Hex has DCV of 0" a common house rule? If not, why not?

If you do a search you might find a thread that asked this exact same question. Presuming those threads have survived until now.

 

Anyway, if I recall correctly the idea put forth that any person/object/location(hex) had a default DCV 3 at range only. A stationary person/object/location(hex) was considered DCV 0 within a certain range based on some obscure rule mentioned in the BBB at the time. Never thought to check if that rule survived to later editions. I could be mis-remembering though (it was over 10 years ago).

 

Addendum:

These rules above were talking about hitting the ground at the hex location not the air filling that hex location. If you are talking about hitting an object that fills the entire space of a hex then I would suggest looking at the bonuses one gets for larger targets. An object that fills the space of a hex would easily get a +4 bonus for being a larger target I think.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[NuSoardGraphite]

I think its more of a balancing factor back when the game was primarily a super hero simulator. at this point it is a legacy rule.

 

I personally dont see any problem with a hex being DCV 0. range penalties will ensure that pinpointing a 2 meter "hex" at 50 meters (-6 penalty) will be just as difficult as it is in the real world.

[bigdamnhero]

Yeah, it's one of those things that makes no logical sense, and only works from a game balance standpoint. I ran a 4ed-5ed campaign for several years where we used DCV 0 for hexes, and it worked fine in that game. But that was also a heroic game where AOE attacks were fairly rare - I think grenades were the only commonly used AOE attack, and characters didn't pay points for equipment anyway, so balance was less of an issue. For a game where characters pay points for AOE attacks, it might increase the cost of the AOE advantage. On the other hand, in every supers campaign I've ever run, it's not like hitting DCV 3 is much of a challenge even at range, so changing to DCV 0 might not have a big impact. 

[Old Man]

Hexes have a DCV of 3 because they didn't put any points into DEX. Duh.

 

[zslane]

Heh.

 

I always figured hexes had a DEX of 0, so their DCV should also be 0... ;-)

[bigdamnhero]

The closest to a "logical" explanation I can come up with is that AOE attacks are inherently less accurate at hitting point targets because they're designed to hit a wide area. It'd be like trying to hit an individual person with a howitzer round - it's not designed for that level of accuracy because, frankly, close enough DOES count.

[zslane]

In the Hero System, a target's DCV has nothing to do with the form of attack directed against it. A hex is just another target with a DCV.

 

The 5th edition rules give adjacent hexes a DCV of 0. Well all hexes should have the same DCV, and it should be 0. We already have range mod penalties to OCV to reflect the difficulty of hitting targets at a distance, we don't need to make a special case for hexes.

[Christopher R Taylor]

We already have range mod penalties to OCV to reflect the difficulty of hitting targets at a distance, we don't need to make a special case for hexes. 

 

 

I would argue that we kind of do because of game balance issues with area effect.

[zslane]

I'm not sure anyone who is setting the DCV of a hex to 0 in their campaign(s) is seeing any game balance issues. But I'm sure everyone sees the illogic in setting it to 3 (once they think about for even a moment).

[Greywind]

Nope.

[Scott Baker]

This is one of those design decisions that we'll likely never know the answer to. Personally, I never saw any game balance issues back-in-the-day¹ when "Area Effect" rolled against a DCV 0 target hex with appropriate range modifiers added. I also don't see any game balance issues using the current DCV 3 hexes at range.

 

______________

¹ Champions The Superhero Role Playing Game, 1981.

[Hyper-Man]

I think it has to do with moving targets. 

 

Say the target your character wants to hit is moving.  Hitting the particular hex they are in at the time your character makes their AOE attack should be more difficult than hitting a hex adjacent to you.  If your character can match movement with the target and reach an 'adjacent' hex then they can take advantage of the 0 DCV instead of the standard 3 DCV. 

 

HM

[Lucius]

I'm not sure anyone who is setting the DCV of a hex to 0 in their campaign(s) is seeing any game balance issues. But I'm sure everyone sees the illogic in setting it to 3 (once they think about for even a moment).

I'll have to disagree with your second sentence.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is ruminating

[Ndreare]

I think it has to do with moving targets. 

 

Say the target your character wants to hit is moving.  Hitting the particular hex they are in at the time your character makes their AOE attack should be more difficult than hitting a hex adjacent to you.  If your character can match movement with the target and reach an 'adjacent' hex then they can take advantage of the 0 DCV instead of the standard 3 DCV. 

 

HM

 

You know I never thought of it this way and think it is likely a case of justification coming after the fact. But it really makes sense and I am going to go with it. Excellent statement Hyper-man and it makes me wonder if perhaps this was what the creators were thinking back in the day.

[zslane]

Actually, that is incorrect on two counts.

 

First of all, I am talking exclusively about non-moving, immobilized targets (which I've said so repeatedly in my posts I am starting to feel self-conscious about it), so starting a counter-argument with "Say the target your character wants to hit is moving." is already talking entirely about the wrong thing.

 

Secondly, I am not talking about hitting a character, but a hex. Actually, I am comparing hitting a hex to hitting a non-moving, immobilized character. The non-moving, immobilized character has a DCV of 0. A hex, which also does not move and is 70x larger by volume, should not have a DCV higher than a non-moving, immobilized character. It makes no sense to rule otherwise.

 

Moreover, when targeting a hex, how a character moves into it is immaterial because the character is not the target. That is the whole point of AoE attacks. Instead of having to hit a high-DCV character, one merely needs to hit the volume the character occupies. If you hit the hex, you hit everything in that hex. The only way a fast, high-DEX character can avoid getting hit is to Dive For Cover (i.e., get themselves out of the hex).

 

I'm not sure what I find more surprising: the tortured lengths folks are going to to make sense out of something that intrinsically doesn't, or the fact that this has never come up before (and given a satisfactory answer by Steve or George) in the 30+ year history of the game. Obviously the game "works" with hexes at DCV 3, but nobody can really suss out a logical reason for it, and all fears that setting it to DCV 0 would break game balance are purely speculative and unconvincing.

[zslane]

Perhaps it would help to imagine we're comparing a hex to an immobilized gelatinous cube in the exact shape of a hex. The gelatinous cube would have a DCV of 0 (like any other character or monster in its position) and so should a hex, which is exactly the same size and shape. And neither are moving or capable of moving.

[Lucius]

Zslane: first, calm down.

 

Second, remember that the hex is invisible.

 

edit: That is to say, the hex is NOT a "target." It's not like an immobile person lying on the ground. It's not a thing you can perceive and point to. It's a vague "place over there" abstraction.

 

I think it makes perfect sense that a hex at a distance has a DCV higher than that of an unmoving person at the same distance. Maybe it makes less sense if you have Absolute Range Sense or Spatial Awareness, but otherwise you're talking about something you can't actually perceive.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I wanted to just say "remember that the hex is invisible"  but the palindromedary insisted I should elaborate on that.