Disengaging from Hand to Hand combat

[robertperry904@glbb.jp]

Some of my players, being wrapped up in what other game systems would do, are stuck on penalties for disengaging from Hand to Hand combat. They aren't satisfied with the -2 DCV for leaving that the system suggests. So I/they proposed the following though I think some of it could unbalance things if not applied across the board. I put this here for input to anyone who has had similar issues and might have some other ideas.

 

Disengaging from HTH:

Opposed roll either DEX vs DEX or DEX vs INT (INT for attacker to figure out where/how the defender is fleeing) Could also use PRE depending on intimidation factors

Modified by +/- 1 per number in combat if more than just the 2

Difference in opposed roll is the modified DCV or every 2 failure equals -1 DCV

Must spend 1-2 actions doing evasive actions to leave combat based on difference in opposed roll. (Optional and subject to situation)

Optional: The DEX vs DEX could allow the attacker to follow with a +1 to +2 bonus to OCV or +2 to +4 additional movement, based on situation and opposed roll. I don't like this one but this is to satisfy those that think they should be able to catch or prevent from leaving HTH. 

 

Ultimately I am going to follow the rules with some modifications if not too drastic. Those that want additional rules are just doing so to try and game things. I won't let it happen, but I am willing to compromise or come up with alternate methods.

 

Have any of you dealt with this or have an input on the options you may have used.

 

[eepjr24]

I have the players who want this kind of system to pay for it. Killer Shrike has an example under Attacks of Opportunity:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Conversion3e/Conversion3eFeats.aspx#AoO

 

If they don't want to pay for it, they don't get it.

 

- E

[Christopher]

HTH or Grappling?

Both are very different concepts.

 

A lot of concepts in D&D exist to solve bugs caused by other decisions. Saving throws, Elemental Resistance and Damage Reduction only exist because of the decision that "Armor does not reduce damage like in 95% of the games" was made.

 

Attacks of opportunity for movement are somewhat a fix for a simple information not given to the GM:

Play weak enemies dumb.

There was a certain scene in one of the 3 Muskteer movies. 1 of the Musketeers, 1 villain, 4 goons of the villain and one cook in a tavern room

The goons and the musketeer fought for 5 minutes. Then the combat ended - because the villain (who had been inactive up until then) took the cook hostage. Somehow those 4 goons did not consider the option to just take a hostage despite being humiliated for 5 minutes on end. It needed thier leader to decide that.

 

AoO for leaving HTH are in part a fix that you can not attack full HTH again if you have to follow the enemy. This might loose you potentially 2-5 attacks, depending on level and combat style. It is a bug ingrained into the very To Hit mechanic since the 1st Version.

Hero lacks the bug (you can move before every attack), so it does not need the fix.

 

If you want to retrofit AoO's, I am very partial to the way Shadowrun 5E does it. SR4/5 and Hero are very close as far as combat resolution is concerend. You could call them brothers from other mothers even:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/92713-initiative-spd-and-shadowrun-5e-initiative/

I have not found any direct formula to translate it. But somebody else might ahve a better idea.

[Scott Baker]

IMO - Trying to emulate other systems in every detail is a waste of time. If all they want is some other system, they should go play it.

 

IMO with 50% less snark - This came up in my current group. The resolution was quick and simple...that's not a rule in Hero System.The players said, "OK," and we moved on. You could try that approach, although it does require some maturity on the part of the players. You could also just ask them to, "play by the rules-as-written so that we can get an idea of how the system works before we start making house rules that may break things."

[Tasha]

IMO - Trying to emulate other systems in every detail is a waste of time. If all they want is some other system, they should go play it.

 

IMO with 50% less snark - This came up in my current group. The resolution was quick and simple...that's not a rule in Hero System.The players said, "OK," and we moved on. You could try that approach, although it does require some maturity on the part of the players. You could also just ask them to, "play by the rules-as-written so that we can get an idea of how the system works before we start making house rules that may break things."

 

With my Group I pointed out that they could Delay an action and take that delay when a baddy ran away. That's how Hero does AOO, you set aside the Opportunity with the Delay. Then if something happens, you take the delay and make the attack. This can be really devistating esp when people aren't in the habit of taking delays.

[Manic Typist]

AoOs - a bad idea that was obviously invented by someone who'd never been in a fight.

 

If a player wants a special ability like this, they could purchase an attack with a Trigger, with a potential defense involving a DEX roll off or somesuch.

[robertperry904@glbb.jp]

I like the idea with the skill trigger as well as some of the other input. Honestly its only come up one time so far and the player that bitched stopped when I said its not how the system is played. The game went on with no further problems. This did not however stop the nearly 45 min discussion on the subject right after the game ended. Its not going to be a problem, Just trying to plan ahead in case it comes up again in game and the simple "rules say so" doesn't satisfy.

[Christopher]

AoOs - a bad idea that was obviously invented by someone who'd never been in a fight.

Not quite. A nessesary fix for a bug earlier design decisions created.

 

Problem:

If you have more then one attack in D&D, you can only use it with a full attack action wich only allows 5 foot step movement/free actions.

A weak enemy could abuse that by just going moving away more then 5 foot (even 10 foot), holding his action. That would deny you between 1 and 5 attacks just there.

Solution:

Expand AoO to include "leaving melee while doing anything but movement". That way the weak enemy has at least to risk one attack at full base attack value. Wich should on average be worse then 1-5 attacks at -5 or -3 cumulative.

 

 

I like the idea with the skill trigger as well as some of the other input. Honestly its only come up one time so far and the player that bitched stopped when I said its not how the system is played. The game went on with no further problems. This did not however stop the nearly 45 min discussion on the subject right after the game ended. Its not going to be a problem, Just trying to plan ahead in case it comes up again in game and the simple "rules say so" doesn't satisfy.

As a rule of thumb, asume that every other rule in D&D is a fix for a problem caused by earlier design decisions. And only every 2nd is being generous.

The more I learned about Shadowrun and later Hero, the more I am able to see it.

You just need to figure out wich bug and wich decision caused it. And then show that the bug does not exist for Hero, so the fix is not needed.

 

A character can always choosse a trigger build to imitate it of course.

[bigdamnhero]

While Hero normally doesn't use facing rules per se, you can also invoke "From Behind" bonuses as a way to keep characters from just plain turning their backs on their opponents. (And yes, there are apparently some players out there who will try to abuse this too.)

[Manic Typist]

Not quite. A nessesary fix for a bug earlier design decisions created.

 

 

 

Of course- I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm sure you're right about the history of when the issue arose, and your explanation makes perfect sense.

 

For amusing example of this problem which I am well aware of: 

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html

 

 

However, my response remains valid. It's a bad idea instituted by people who obviously hadn't ever been in a fight, or at least did not care about how little narrative/mechanical sense it made. 

 

If in fixing one bug you create a NEW bug, it's a poor fix and you're not likely to deserve a pat on the back. Especially when you create hundreds of people who subsequently think that AoAs make sense because turning your back on someone means you somehow speed up the opponent's reaction time so they can attack you (and just you).

 

The necessary fix would be to change the rules to avoid the nonsensical situation in the first place - although a lot of melee fights do turn into "I attack you while backing away while you pursue me," with mixed results.

[massey]

D&D, for a long time, abstracted their combat. An "attack" was not just one swing. You were assumed to be moving around and fighting, and the attack roll represented an opening in your opponent's defenses. In this respect, an attack of opportunity makes a lot of sense. Your opponent's defenses are down because he's distracted by something else. In Champions it doesn't, because each individual swing is accounted for.

[bigdamnhero]

D&D, for a long time, abstracted their combat. An "attack" was not just one swing. You were assumed to be moving around and fighting, and the attack roll represented an opening in your opponent's defenses. In this respect, an attack of opportunity makes a lot of sense. Your opponent's defenses are down because he's distracted by something else.

Hmm. Agreed about D&D combat being partially abstracted. (Tho don't get me started on how inconsistent they are about it...) But I'm not sure that makes a significant difference. Backing away but keeping my guard up doesn't mean I'm just turning my back and running away - if I do the latter, then I'm "ignoring an opponent" for which there are already penalties.

 

In Champions it doesn't, because each individual swing is accounted for.

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. I can't find a rules citation either way, but I've never assumed that each attack represents one and only one swing. Especially at heroic SPD levels, the notion that a fighter only moves his sword once every 3-4 seconds is absurd on its face.

 

I think Attacks Of Opportunity are mostly another holdover from wargames, where they often do make sense at the much more abstracted level scale of those games.

 

Also, I just remembered a group I played with years ago, who allowed characters to Abort their next action to take a swipe at a withdrawing opponent. (I think there were rules about disengaging tactically as opposed to just "turn and run.") Sortof like AoOs, but doesn't give you an additional action. IIRC it worked okay for that game, but I'd have to think before I tried it again.

[Hyper-Man]

 In Champions it doesn't, because each individual swing is accounted for.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. I can't find a rules citation either way, but I've never assumed that each attack represents one and only one swing. Especially at heroic SPD levels, the notion that a fighter only moves his sword once every 3-4 seconds is absurd on its face.

 

Massey didn't say only 1 attack per Phase which is what you seem to be alluding to.

 

HERO does not limit characters to only 1 attack per Phase. There are very clear rules on how to make Multiple Attacks in a single Phase (using the maneuver of the same name - the 6e replacement for the HTH Sweep and the Ranged Rapid Fire maneuvers) without resorting to using the Autofire Advantage.

 

HM

[bigdamnhero]

Massey didn't say only 1 attack per Phase which is what you seem to be alluding to.

No, he was saying that in D&D one Attack in rules terms doesn't necessarily equate to one and only one swing of the sword; it's assumed to be multiple cuts, thrusts, parries, etc, but we abstract it to one "effective" attack roll. I'm saying the same is true in Hero. Unless you actually picture your SPD 3 fighter standing perfectly still for 3 seconds until his phase comes up, swinging his sword exactly once over an additional second, and repeat?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Attack of Opportunity is one tactical device that 3rd edition D&D did a great job with.  I added it into my heroic level games; I allow people to abort to make a single melee attack with no special maneuvers or skill levels against a target that moves past them or away from them when in hand-to-hand combat.  Its not tremendously powerful, and it does require giving up your next phase, but it has been useful in the past for players.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've certainly heard criticisms in the past on the ease with which an opponent can move past a character trying to defend someone or something else, and this type of mechanic would answer those concerns. I like the "abort to a single attack under these circumstances" model, which neatly bolts the concept on to existing mechanics.

[Greywind]

No, he was saying that in D&D one Attack in rules terms doesn't necessarily equate to one and only one swing of the sword; it's assumed to be multiple cuts, thrusts, parries, etc, but we abstract it to one "effective" attack roll. I'm saying the same is true in Hero. Unless you actually picture your SPD 3 fighter standing perfectly still for 3 seconds until his phase comes up, swinging his sword exactly once over an additional second, and repeat?

 

HERO started as Champions; a way to emulate comic books. Each phase is the equivalent of one picture frame in which the character is in the spotlight. Standing still? No. Being effective? No.

[bigdamnhero]

HERO started as Champions; a way to emulate comic books. Each phase is the equivalent of one picture frame in which the character is in the spotlight. Standing still? No. Being effective? No.

That's exactly my point: one effective attack per Phase/panel is not the same thing as saying a SPD 6 character can only throw 6 punches in 12 seconds. So we abstract multiple attacks (small-a) into one effective Attack (big-A). Works perfectly well as a game mechanic* - witness almost every RPG ever - but when people take it too literally it can lead to weird places. The concept of AOOs makes no sense if you think of a SPD 6 character as only throwing one punch every 2 seconds. But if you think of combat as a series of continuous attacks, only some of which are effective enough to count as Attacks, then the fact that your opponent is ignoring you doesn't give you more attacks, but it may make some of those attacks more effective, which as a game abstraction may translate to more Attacks or let you make an effective Attack earlier than you might otherwise.

 

* Where this abstraction breaks down a bit is that ranged attacks with Charges are not treated the same way, but that's a different thread.

 

I allow people to abort to make a single melee attack with no special maneuvers or skill levels against a target that moves past them or away from them when in hand-to-hand combat.  Its not tremendously powerful, and it does require giving up your next phase, but it has been useful in the past for players.

I like this. Giving an additional attack in Hero could be too powerful, but letting someone abort to use an attack earlier feels about right. In the one game where we used this, once everyone understand they couldn't just rush past an armed and ready opponent just because it's not his Phase, AOOs hardly ever got used. It was more of a deterrent.

[Tasha]

AoOs - a bad idea that was obviously invented by someone who'd never been in a fight.

 

If a player wants a special ability like this, they could purchase an attack with a Trigger, with a potential defense involving a DEX roll off or somesuch.

 

AoO's were a codifying of a rather common D&D house rule at least here on the West Coast. Which stated that you got a free attack on any fleeing foe. IMHO they really overcomplicated the thing, and mashed it together with the wargame concept of "Zone of Control". It's a huge mess and it's funny to watch how people work their way around the rule. It makes PC's move in combat in very odd ways. Which by itself tells you that the rule is kind of fracked.