Jump to content

Attack Rolls with Potions and similar Triggered Powers


Recommended Posts

A lazy Saturday afternoon and my thoughts turn, as they so often do, to Hero System mechanical hypotheticals...  :)

 

Say an alchemist character in a fantasy game has a Potion Of Suggestion built as Mind Control, Invisible Power Effect, Triggered by the target drinking the potion. By the rules, the character must make an MCV Attack Roll when the potion is Triggered. Normally that's fine, and I'm cool with the potion applying against the target's DMCV, MD, EGO, etc, as I think that fits what's going on.

 

But on the caster's side I'm not sure how much having OMCV as the controlling Characteristic fits the sfx here. The alchemist is not a mentalist, and the effectiveness of the potion should be a factor of her brewing ability rather than the strength of her willpower. To some extent that's already captured by the Power Skill Roll when she brews the thing, but should the Attack Roll be based on something different than MCV? Changing it to normal OCV doesn't really make better sense - it's not like she has to throw the potion into the target's mouth. But clearly there needs to be some sort of attack roll, right?

 

Along those same lines, is the target at any DMCV penalty for willingly drinking the potion? Should the target be considered Surprised or Out of Combat due to the Invisible Power Effect? That kindasorta seems to make sense in this specific situation, but extended to a general rule it could make IPE even more powerful than it already is...

 

The question goes beyond Mental Powers: say an assassin slips poison into a target's drink, and the target drinks it. (Poison built as Drain BODY, Triggered, etc.) Does the poisoner have to make an OCV attack roll? What if any skill levels should apply? 631 p351 on Using Triggered Powers uses the example of setting up a landmine, and in that case it makes sense that there's some sort of aiming required. Potions aren't "aimed" in the usual sense of that word.

 

There's not much precedent in Hero for attacks that don't require an Attack Roll of some kind, and I'm a little leery of opening that door. But I'm having trouble visualizing how it fits here (or explaining the how & why to the player). Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that if the TARGET has to consume the potion for the Mind Control the have an effect -- the target should be considered WILLING (i.e. DMCV 0) unless a) s/he has some means (e.g. Danger Sense) of knowing that drinking the potion will result in Mind Control effects or B) the target is having the potion forcibly sent down his/her throat and s/he is resisting it.

 

I think this should address your attack roll angle -- i.e. an attack still needs to be made when someone suggests something -- if nothing else to determine if the suggestion was heeded or ignored -- but it's likely against DMCV 0 unless the consumer of the potion did so unwillingly or knows what the potion does.  I would also think that a Mind Control delivered in this form would result in ANYONE being able to issue commands -- not just the brewer of the potion -- and I would expect the power to be built to reflect this.  Last, either the number of suggestions, the duration of the Mind Control, or both should be limited in some way for this to make cinematic sense.

 

Poisons are a slightly different matter.  If it's an ingested poison and someone willingly consumes the delivery agent, cinematic effect means an attack roll likely should not be made -- and one would go straight to the DoT aspect of the poison.  However, if it's being poured down the target's throat, one could miss the mouth.  I think you get the idea.

 

These are, of course, weird edge cases, so I don't think we need hard/fast rules to cover them since they're not exactly common scenarios.  Most gamers I know aren't in the habit of having their characters consume substances their characters don't know much about unless they have some means of dealing with the potential outcome(s) of doing so (i.e. Wolverine/Deadpool-like healing, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some points in no particular order:

1. Triggered powers always take important (nessesry) abilities from the user:

Including stuff like O(M)CV, senses to do Perception with, the Per skills to make the Percetpion tests with, etc.

With OMCV we can asume it is at default (3). Selling it back would be very munchkini (to the point where I would not allow it).

 

2. If you do not want the alchemsit to "stand in" for his brews, you can enter the area of Automatons/Self acting Focus*. The the AP directly correlates to the penalty on the skill roll to make it.

 

3. Compund power. The actuall effect + OMCV, both with Charges. For this specific attack the Alchemist OMCV is considered higher then what the sheet says (and we can propably lock in his "brewing time OMCV" too). Again, direct correlation between AP and potency of the brew.

You could also use "Combat Skill Levels, Sugestion Potions" as a 3-2 point CSL.

 

4. You could just wave the attack roll. I mean seriously, he has to get the target to drink the potion. Wich either means buying it very inobvious (poision to put into meals) or literally shooving it down his throat.

"Hitting" someone with a power he ingested himself is like trying to hit your own hex with a 1 hex AoE.

 

 

*Part of the Advanced Focus building rules in APG (II?) is a "Focus with Speed". Basically a mini-automation. Originally for stuff like self-guiding missiles, but could be adapted here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as potions are concerned, an attack roll would, IMO, only come into play if your were forcing it down someone's throat; like the scene in Temple Of Doom where the cult leader forces Indie to swallow a mouthful of brainwashing potion.

 

Same movie at the start, Indie willingly takes a drink only to discover its poison and then has to fight to get the antidote...  This where a "Saving Throw" could come in handy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hitting" someone with a power he ingested himself is like trying to hit your own hex with a 1 hex AoE.

 

Yes, technically you would roll to hit your own hex, but in practice I think a lot of us would let that happen automatically. I agree that this makes sense for potions.

 

..  This where a "Saving Throw" could come in handy...

But if it seems unbalancing to not have an attack roll, one might replace it with a "Saving Throw" made by the target. Perhaps a roll based on CON or on EGO depending on the nature of the effect. This could just be a house rule, or built into the Power via a form of Alternate Combat Value. Either way I doubt I'd require it for something like a Healing Potion.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

A Saving Throw vs Potion of Polymorph Person to Purple Palindromedary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same movie at the start, Indie willingly takes a drink only to discover its poison and then has to fight to get the antidote...  This where a "Saving Throw" could come in handy...

Please no D&D concepts to Hero.

Saving throws were invented to fix a bug in D&D, caused by many earlier design decisions. Hero lacks the bug, it does not need the fix.

 

Poision has to be build at least with IPE to be inobvious. Drastically reducing it's power.

Poision can also not run indefinitely. The effect is limited and will heal normally.

Atribute Damage style D&D poision needs Drain with a very low Fade rate.

Mind Control Poision in Hero still has to overcome EGO+10 too EGO+30 theshold.

Lack of absolute effects, means no need for "Absolute Effect Avoiders" (what Saving throws are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinks for the thoughts & suggestions - I've been ruminating on this for awhile.

 

I would think that if the TARGET has to consume the potion for the Mind Control the have an effect -- the target should be considered WILLING (i.e. DMCV 0) unless a) s/he has some means (e.g. Danger Sense) of knowing that drinking the potion will result in Mind Control effects or B) the target is having the potion forcibly sent down his/her throat and s/he is resisting it..

OK, but does that set a precedent that all IPE Mental Attacks are made against DMCV 0? I'm of two minds about whether that makes sense and/or would be a good thing.

 

I think this should address your attack roll angle -- i.e. an attack still needs to be made when someone suggests something -- if nothing else to determine if the suggestion was heeded or ignored

This kinda makes sense to me in this case, tho the concept doesn't translate well to the poison example. And whether the command is heeded or ignored is already a function of the potion's Effect Roll and the Target's Breakout Roll. "Hitting the target's brain" in mental combat is always a tricky concept to actually visualize.

 

I do like the idea that the target is open to commands from anyone, possibly resulting in competing PRE Rolls for conflicting suggestions?

 

Poisons are a slightly different matter.  If it's an ingested poison and someone willingly consumes the delivery agent, cinematic effect means an attack roll likely should not be made -- and one would go straight to the DoT aspect of the poison.  However, if it's being poured down the target's throat, one could miss the mouth.  I think you get the idea.

I agree that makes sense cinematically for poisons; the challenge I'm having is extrapolating that to a more general mechanical rule. I can think of situations where that makes sense, and others where I would require an attack roll - it seems like the former ought to be worth some sort of Advantage? Or are we just saying it's a situational effect - out of combat, target willingly drinking it - rather than an Effect of the Power per se? I mean hypothetically if I had some kind of gun with IPE and I tricked the target into shooting themselves with it, would that be the same thing?

 

Maybe there ought to be a "use X skill as attack roll" advantage so the castor uses his skill as an attack roll - GM rolls it secretly when the potion is made. And it is then compar d to the targets applicable DMCV when he consumes the liquid.

Not a bad idea. Mechanically you're just expanding the idea of Alternate Combat Value to include Skill Rolls. Of course that means you'd need to have a 14- or better to have a 50-50 chance of hitting someone with a measly 3 DMCV. But if we're going to say the target is at DMCV 0, that gets a lot easier.

 

Same movie at the start, Indie willingly takes a drink only to discover its poison and then has to fight to get the antidote...  This where a "Saving Throw" could come in handy...

I'd say, that's a series of combat and/or DEX Rolls to grab the antidote, or in other circumstances KS: Poisons to try and whip up a quick antidote.

 

 

One other idea I thought about: if we assume the benefits of "Automatically Hits" are more-or-less balanced by "Target must willingly drink it" then we can just combine those into a +0 "Potion" Modifier on the Trigger? That way you don't explode the AP of the Power itself. Granted not all potions & poisons are built with Triggers, but if you do that seems like a simple way of codifying the handwaving it sounds like we're all already doing. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of absolute effects, means no need for "Absolute Effect Avoiders" (what Saving throws are).

I'm not sure that's a totally accurate description. Not all D&D attacks that require Saving Throws are absolute effects; many are simple attacks that do damage unless you save to avoid/reduce it.

 

I agree Hero doesn't need saving throws per se. But OTOH I'm fine with letting characters roll to avoid effects in some circumstances, like a DEX Roll to dodge a booby-trap, or a CON Roll to shrug off the effects of tear gas. Or, y'know, a Breakout Roll against Mind Control...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's a totally accurate description. Not all D&D attacks that require Saving Throws are absolute effects; many are simple attacks that do damage unless you save to avoid/reduce it.

It is a absolute effect, in the sense that there is no damage mitigation.

One of the most problematic decisions for D&D was "Armor does not reduce damage"*. The whole cleric class derives directly from that fact.

And then they added damage dealing and absolute effect spells (like the one that insta-kills you if you fail the throw). Hence Saving throws had to be invented to solve the issue.

 

*The goal seems to have been speeding up combat resolution. That it propably still does. It just creates some wierd artifacts (like the Rogue/Monk/3.5 Ranger in a 2x2 room not being burned by the Fireball - at all!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does that set a precedent that all IPE Mental Attacks are made against DMCV 0? I'm of two minds about whether that makes sense and/or would be a good thing.

No, it doesn't.  DMCV 0 was something for which I advocated because the target willingly drank a potion whose effect was Mind Control.  i.e. I suggested DMCV 0 because the target was willing; it had nothing to do with IPE.  But since we're on the topic, I think that Hero System already does a fine job of detailing the impacts of powers that cannot be perceived by their targets ... and suggest you look to the existing rules on Surprise for mechanics for handling attacks bought with IPE.

 

 

whether the command is heeded or ignored is already a function of the potion's Effect Roll and the Target's Breakout Roll. "Hitting the target's brain" in mental combat is always a tricky concept to actually visualize.

Not necessarily true.  Per RAW, the target of a mental attack can sense the source of the attack and knows what power s/he's been attacked with. RAW doesn't state that the target must be hit for this information to become available, so it should be applicable whether the attack hits or misses the target.  Thus, a 'miss' against a target's DMCV using Mind Control results in the target being aware of an attempt to control his/her mind ... and the source.

 

This can readily be interpreted as the mind sidestepping the attack without ignoring it ... regardless of whether any dice were rolled for the effect ... and it's the very same information the target knows AFTER the effect has passed unless the effect level warrants the target not remembering ... or there's IPE, Indirect, or other relevant advantages in play.  (Breakout rolls are merely the mind fighting the effect once it's taken hold...)

 

It's got an interesting implication for the potion of Mind Control -- because if it misses, the target will know what the potion does unless it was bought with IPE and/or Indirect.  This is why I feel you need an attack roll -- because even a willing drinker still has a chance of side-stepping the Mind Control. 

 

 

I do like the idea that the target is open to commands from anyone, possibly resulting in competing PRE Rolls for conflicting suggestions?

If you go this route, I'd think resisted Interaction skills should apply ... and straight PRE vs PRE rolls should be in play if neither the commanded nor the commander has the appropriate Interaction skills.  I'd think the sorts of modifiers that apply for Interaction skills and PRE rolls should also apply, here.  i.e. Penalties for being in combat, poorly worded commands, commands that are diametrically opposed by psych lims, etc. ... and bonuses for well-worded commands, commands that align with psych lims, etc.

 

The Resistance talent should have strong applicability, here, too, I'd think?

 

 

I agree that makes sense cinematically for poisons; the challenge I'm having is extrapolating that to a more general mechanical rule. I can think of situations where that makes sense, and others where I would require an attack roll - it seems like the former ought to be worth some sort of Advantage? Or are we just saying it's a situational effect - out of combat, target willingly drinking it - rather than an Effect of the Power per se? I mean hypothetically if I had some kind of gun with IPE and I tricked the target into shooting themselves with it, would that be the same thing?

I don't think you need a more general mechanical rule -- because you're dealing with a situational edge case.  Seriously, in the real world how often do people willingly drink things about which they know nothing?  (That was rhetorical.)  Now take it to the comic books and ask the same question -- and while it may seem like it's still more frequent, it's still darn uncommon ... and when it occurs it's usually out of desperation or because the consumer has some kind of healing or nullification capability that allows him/her to overcome the effects of drinking something foreign and unknown.

 

Put another way, I think you're spending entirely too much time trying to derive a general mechanical rule for a rare situational thing.  We have GM's to make calls on rare, situational things -- which is WHY we shouldn't bother with rules for every little niggling rare, situational thing that might possibly crop up.

 

I also think you're seriously stuck on IPE for some reason.  A target being a willing target has no direct tie to IPE, so why have you conflated the two?  (That was rhetorical.)  That said, a gun with IPE still looks like a gun -- and people don't exactly pick those up, put them to their heads, and pull the trigger unless they want to -- even if they look like toys or are supposedly unloaded. So again, with your gun question you're dealing with an uncommon and situational edge case -- meaning it's nothing that should warrant a general mechanical rule since the rate of occurrence is stupidly low.  If you think about it, we've probably spent more time discussing it than it tends to occur in game and require some sort of resolution.  So the GM should do his/her job and suss it out as required, when required...

 

​But to answer your question:

If someone is tricked into putting a gun to his/her head and pulling the trigger (let's call it a really good Persuasion roll that the gun was a toy gun, shall we?), then yes, the shooter was willing ... and was likely DCV 0 against his/her own self-inflicted wound.  After all, if actually tricked, then why would the target be unwilling with regard to the attack s/he is inflicting on him/herself?

 

 

One other idea I thought about: if we assume the benefits of "Automatically Hits" are more-or-less balanced by "Target must willingly drink it" then we can just combine those into a +0 "Potion" Modifier on the Trigger? That way you don't explode the AP of the Power itself. Granted not all potions & poisons are built with Triggers, but if you do that seems like a simple way of codifying the handwaving it sounds like we're all already doing. Thoughts?

I'm not handwaving anything, here.  My read on it is that the drinker is a willing target at DMCV 0 unless the drinker is having the potion forced into his/her body (syringe, poured down his/her throat by someone else, etc.) ... and an unwilling one (at his/her usual DMCV) in most (but not necessarily all) other cases ... and that an attack roll must be made since his/her mind has the chance to completely sidestep/shrug off the effect before any effects or breakout rolls become required.

 

This also means I think Trigger makes no sense, here; it's redundant/unnecessary.  Also, there may be situations where the alchemist wants to force the potion down someone's throat (example: to get a beaten enemy to then follow instructions, reveal things while being questioned, etc.).  The trigger you've suggested ("Target must willingly drink it") would preclude the potion's use in this manner.  When used in such manner, the unwilling target should probably get his/her normal DMCV ... because while s/he doesn't know what the potion does, s/he DOES know that an enemy is pouring it down his/her throat and that it's probably not a good thing for him/her.

 

And in case you didn't pick up on it, the scenario I just outlined is one more underscore as to why I think the GM needs to make the call on willing/unwilling, determine DMCV appropriately based on it ... and then require an attack roll -- rather than trying to lay out a trigger and avoid the call.  Again, the mind might just sidestep the effect of the potion entirely... and the DMCV of the target is variable depending on willing/unwillingness to consume the potion.

 

Note:

Willing/unwilling is generally easy enough to determine -- i.e. should your rare situational use case crop up, it should be relatively easy UNLESS someone says to a beaten and captured foe (the target), "Drink this potion or I'll kill you."  Now the call is tougher ... because while the target might choose to drink the potion, there's duress involved in the choice -- i.e. it's being forced upon him/her under threat of violence/retaliation.  I'd probably rule that the drinker of the potion in that situation was unwilling -- since most people ARE NOT willing to let themselves die.  (i.e. Unwilling due to the duress and, more specifically, the KIND of duress).  This means I'd give full DMCV.  

 

​To underscore this duress point and also why a GM call probably makes more sense than a Trigger, let's change up that scenario just a bit and say to the beaten and captured foe, "Drink this potion or I'll kill your [dearly loved DNPC] significant other".  Since most people ARE willing to die for their loved ones, I'd rule that this time the consumption was willing ... and give DMCV 0 .... despite the duress.  (The difference, to me, is in the kind of duress.  Previously the person's self-preservation instinct was invoked, and that's a fight/flight response when flight was impossible -- hence 'fight' -- hence 'unwilling target'.  In the latter example, the person's ability to sacrifice himself for another was in play, and that's a state of surrender, not fighting -- hence 'willing target'.)

 

​Clearly you might call these differently, but I think you get the idea -- Trigger would miss the nuances, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some good points. Just a few additional thoughts.

DMCV 0 was something for which I advocated because the target willingly drank a potion whose effect was Mind Control.i.e. I suggested DMCV 0 because the target was willing; it had nothing to do with IPE.

OK, thanks for the clairification. But I'm not sure "willingly drank something I thought was wine" is the same thing as "willingly subjected myself to a mind control attack." The former would certainly make someone DCV 0 if we felt a physical attack roll was required, but I'm not sure if it should make automatically someone DMCV 0 against a mental attack roll.

 

But since we're on the topic, I think that Hero System already does a fine job of detailing the impacts of powers that cannot be perceived by their targets ... and suggest you look to the existing rules on Surprise for mechanics for handling attacks bought with IPE.

I agree Surprise is the relevant mechanic here. Which is why I was thinking about the implications for other mental attacks with IPE. I agree it seems to make sense that a target who doesn't know a mental attack is coming will have a hard time defending against it. I just worry that could make IPE mental attacks even more powerful than they already are.

 

I completely agree that IPE and "willing target" are two separate issues. But they're both in play here, which is why I asked the question the way I did.

 

The Resistance talent should have strong applicability, here, too, I'd think?

Yeah, good idea. (Depending on sfx of course.)

 

Put another way, I think you're spending entirely too much time trying to derive a general mechanical rule for a rare situational thing.  We have GM's to make calls on rare, situational things -- which is WHY we shouldn't bother with rules for every little niggling rare, situational thing that might possibly crop up.

I would agree, except that "slipping something into someone's drink" is hardly a rare fringe case. It's certainly a common enough theme in genre literature that it seems like the mechanics should be fairly well established. So as a GM, it just surprised me that it doesn't seem to be addressed in RAW as such. [shrug] I'm all for making GM calls; I was just asking - in between games - how other GMs handle it.

 

This also means I think Trigger makes no sense, here; it's redundant/unnecessary.  Also, there may be situations where the alchemist wants to force the potion down someone's throat (example: to get a beaten enemy to then follow instructions, reveal things while being questioned, etc.).  The trigger you've suggested ("Target must willingly drink it") would preclude the potion's use in this manner.

The Trigger reflects the fact that the potion takes hours to brew, concentration, yadda yadda, but then is activated quickly when drank. Which is a different issue from the IPE and/or willing target questions, yes. But when I first started thinking about this, the first response from several people was "You don't need an attack roll because it's Triggered;" except that the rules for Triggered don't say that.

 

You're right about the wording of "willingly" in the conditional tho - good catch. Change to "Target must drink it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some good points. Just a few additional thoughts.

OK, thanks for the clairification. But I'm not sure "willingly drank something I thought was wine" is the same thing as "willingly subjected myself to a mind control attack." The former would certainly make someone DCV 0 if we felt a physical attack roll was required, but I'm not sure if it should make automatically someone DMCV 0 against a mental attack roll.

If it would be DCV 0 for physical attacks, why not DMCV 0? Am I mentally more on guard than physically?

 

If I willingly accept and drink something offered by my server, I assume I'm at DCV 0 for the physical aspect of the poison in the drink because I trusted the server and just took it. Why would I mentally not be as trusting/vulnerable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree, except that "slipping something into someone's drink" is hardly a rare fringe case. It's certainly a common enough theme in genre literature that it seems like the mechanics should be fairly well established. So as a GM, it just surprised me that it doesn't seem to be addressed in RAW as such. [shrug] I'm all for making GM calls; I was just

asking - in between games - how other GMs handle it.

This one's actually easy to handle -- simply require the entire potion to be consumed.  i.e. It can't be slipped into someone's drink because there's too much of it. 

 

Put another way, it'd be the entire drink ... none of this 'sips of the potion from the potion bottle' stuff -- the character either uses it all to get the effect, or doesn't get the effect.  For precedent that's how 1st & 2nd Ed. AD&D potions functioned, IIRC.  In fact, I seem to recall that only oils and dusts had multiple applications back in the day.  (I don't even pretend to know what would be in AD&D 3d, 4e, and 5e!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surrealone: I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this power into something else, but thanks for your help.

Was there a power build posted here, somewhere, that I missed?  I'm asking because I don't recall seeing one -- meaning there's nothing to rebuild ... and I certainly haven't offered up a build.  I -have- offered thoughts on handling certain scenarios you've put forth, but that's distinct/different from rebuilding a power ... to me, at least.

 

Glad to have contributed something that might have been useful. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't.  DMCV 0 was something for which I advocated because the target willingly drank a potion whose effect was Mind Control.  i.e. I suggested DMCV 0 because the target was willing; it had nothing to do with IPE.  But since we're on the topic, I think that Hero System already does a fine job of detailing the impacts of powers that cannot be perceived by their targets ... and suggest you look to the existing rules on Surprise for mechanics for handling attacks bought with IPE.

 

Personally, if something is imbibed there is no attack roll required

Idea: Just follow RAW. Interpret it heroically.

 

Back in Temple of Death, Indiana Jones was subject to another poision attack: Poisioned Date Fruits.

However, he was saved because the small pet monkey of the NPC of the week ate a Date first, died and alarmed his host and he stopped indi from eating a date.

Game effect: Trigger used attackers OCV. He did not passed Indianas DCV*

Special effect: What I described above.

 

*That is what happens if you let low level NPC do the poisioning

 

One thing we should not forget, is that trigger is supposed ot be a advantage.

DCV includes a lot of factors, including luck and plot armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the "saving throw" effect be represented in Hero System by the roll against mental ECV (and the effect roll). Mental Power "to hit rolls" aren't necessarily to strike but to take effect. So it could be Mind Control with a Trigger "drinking the potion". There is some precedent for Triggered powers not requiring attack rolls (I'm not sure if they're RAW) but I suppose you could make AE: 1 hex, accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the "saving throw" effect be represented in Hero System by the roll against mental ECV (and the effect roll). Mental Power "to hit rolls" aren't necessarily to strike but to take effect. So it could be Mind Control with a Trigger "drinking the potion". There is some precedent for Triggered powers not requiring attack rolls (I'm not sure if they're RAW) but I suppose you could make AE: 1 hex, accurate?

One aspect of the D&D saving throw (that we might be able to copy easily) is the inversion.

Normally in D&D (and most other RPG's) the attacker has to proove he hits. This time it is the defender that has to proove he avoids. And in D&D saving throws and Hit rolls are usually exclusive (except for a few edge cases, like deadly Illusions wich might have two saving throws or hit and saving throw).

Otherwise both are D20 rolls, derived from class and Characteristics.

 

How difficulty would it be to turn the OCV test of the attacker into a DCV test of the Defender?

This might already be a core part of the engagement that Saving Throws offer. Just moving that roll to the other side, makes it more engaging for that side.

The math might not need to change at all, but the engagement could be an order of magnitude higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some of the issue may stem from Hero System's general focus on fairly traditional combat when it comes to Powers. You could ask similar questions about planting actions like planting a bomb in another character's car or slipping poison in their food. Action that might technically require a “To hit” roll at least against an Area though it doesn't make allot of sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want someone to suffer a negative effect from drinking something.  I would make it a NND with the defense, "Don't drink it" 

Then the focus/fragile all those fun limitations would bring the cost back down. 
 

Handwave the actual attack roll in my opinion, you did all the RP work to get them to drink it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A lazy Saturday afternoon and my thoughts turn, as they so often do, to Hero System mechanical hypotheticals...  :)

 

Say an alchemist character in a fantasy game has a Potion Of Suggestion built as Mind Control, Invisible Power Effect, Triggered by the target drinking the potion. By the rules, the character must make an MCV Attack Roll when the potion is Triggered. Normally that's fine, and I'm cool with the potion applying against the target's DMCV, MD, EGO, etc, as I think that fits what's going on.

 

But on the caster's side I'm not sure how much having OMCV as the controlling Characteristic fits the sfx here. The alchemist is not a mentalist, and the effectiveness of the potion should be a factor of her brewing ability rather than the strength of her willpower. To some extent that's already captured by the Power Skill Roll when she brews the thing, but should the Attack Roll be based on something different than MCV? Changing it to normal OCV doesn't really make better sense - it's not like she has to throw the potion into the target's mouth. But clearly there needs to be some sort of attack roll, right?

 

Along those same lines, is the target at any DMCV penalty for willingly drinking the potion? Should the target be considered Surprised or Out of Combat due to the Invisible Power Effect? That kindasorta seems to make sense in this specific situation, but extended to a general rule it could make IPE even more powerful than it already is...

 

The question goes beyond Mental Powers: say an assassin slips poison into a target's drink, and the target drinks it. (Poison built as Drain BODY, Triggered, etc.) Does the poisoner have to make an OCV attack roll? What if any skill levels should apply? 631 p351 on Using Triggered Powers uses the example of setting up a landmine, and in that case it makes sense that there's some sort of aiming required. Potions aren't "aimed" in the usual sense of that word.

 

There's not much precedent in Hero for attacks that don't require an Attack Roll of some kind, and I'm a little leery of opening that door. But I'm having trouble visualizing how it fits here (or explaining the how & why to the player). Thoughts?

mental effect based on con?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...