jdounis Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 Hello everyone, In my Fantasy campaign there where some issues raised with DEX drained down to 0 in combat. According to 6E1 pg 44 a character with 0 DEX loses control of his reactions and must succeed with a DEX roll to perform an Action requiring any physical movement(even making Gestures), so when our Necromancer Drained an enemy to 0 Dex, i ruled that this enemy should succeed with a DEX roll to use his DCV or else he is a sitting duck with 0 DCV(although the minimum DCV is 0 an inanimate object of human size has a DCV of 3 that can not undestand) . Did i handle this right? Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 That sounds right to me. An entangled (and therefore stationary) target is 0 DCV, so one who is unable to react and move should also be 0 DCV. And I've never understood the 0 DCV / 3 DCV thing either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndreare Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 Sounds right to me as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrinku Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 I think the DCV 3 thing is a hold over from earlier editions and how Area Effects were targeted. Until 6e there wasn't any way to drain DCV directly (it wasn't even clear if DEX drains affected CV back then) and DCV of at least 3 was pretty much assumed. I checked CC on the matter and it uses "DCV3, DCV0 if the target point is within 2m of the attacker" for targeting an area effect. Size is basically +0 for a human target, +2 OCV per target size doubling and +2DCV per target size halving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdounis Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 I think the DCV 3 thing is a hold over from earlier editions and how Area Effects were targeted. Until 6e there wasn't any way to drain DCV directly (it wasn't even clear if DEX drains affected CV back then) and DCV of at least 3 was pretty much assumed. I checked CC on the matter and it uses "DCV3, DCV0 if the target point is within 2m of the attacker" for targeting an area effect. Size is basically +0 for a human target, +2 OCV per target size doubling and +2DCV per target size halving. The bizzare thing is that according to RAW a human size character unable to move has a DVC of 0 and a refrigerator of human size, is somewhat elusive to hit with a DCV of 3 generally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 The DCV for targeting an area effect is probably a little tougher to hit than a refrigerator an equal distance away. If I want to throw a rock at a refrigerator 8 meters away, and my throw would pass through the space where the refrigerator stands, and carry on another 5 meters, the rock will hit the refrigerator, It would not have "hit" the desired hex without the refrigerator in the way to stop it passing through and travelling another 5 meters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdounis Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 The DCV for targeting an area effect is probably a little tougher to hit than a refrigerator an equal distance away. If I want to throw a rock at a refrigerator 8 meters away, and my throw would pass through the space where the refrigerator stands, and carry on another 5 meters, the rock will hit the refrigerator, It would not have "hit" the desired hex without the refrigerator in the way to stop it passing through and travelling another 5 meters. I don't disagree with that, my beef is that a human sized character that is immobile/entangled/still has a DCV of 0 but a human sized object that stands still has a DCV of 3. So if i throw a rock at a immobile human 5 meters away i throw against DCV 0, if i throw it at a human sized refrigerator at 5 meters away i throw it against DCV 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 I don't disagree with that, my beef is that a human sized character that is immobile/entangled/still has a DCV of 0 but a human sized object that stands still has a DCV of 3. So if i throw a rock at a immobile human 5 meters away i throw against DCV 0, if i throw it at a human sized refrigerator at 5 meters away i throw it against DCV 3. It's just an artifact of the way area effect attacks were targeted back in the day. It was really just a way to give a possibility for scattering. I don't think it should be seen as anything more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 I ruled that this enemy should succeed with a DEX roll to use his DCV or else he is a sitting duck with 0 DCV(although the minimum DCV is 0 an inanimate object of human size has a DCV of 3 that can not undestand) . Did i handle this right? That's how I would do it. As for the DCV 3/0 thing, I only use the 3 DCV for trying to hit a horizontal area, not a standing one. Hitting a 2m wide target is easy. Hitting a 2m wide area on the ground (or, especially invisibly floating in the air), a bit more challenging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 non-adjacent hexes are considered prone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilFleischmann Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womprats in my T16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrinku Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 Yeah, but were those womp rats shooting back at you with blasters? +1 to Chris' thought about the area effect DCV3. But thinking about it and checking CC p 145, that rule relates specifically to area effect attacks against a target point, which can scatter and tend to be less precise than normal single target attacks in the first place. If a 10m radius AoE scatters 4m, you still affect your intended target point. It's NOT the rule for trying to hit a stationary object with a single target attack. I've had a good look through CC and have not found any rule about targeting stationary objects as such, just the rule that a knocked out character is DCV 0. So it works for me that non AoE attacks against any normal stationary object should be vs DCV 0, modified for size and range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdounis Posted August 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 Yeah, but were those womp rats shooting back at you with blasters? +1 to Chris' thought about the area effect DCV3. But thinking about it and checking CC p 145, that rule relates specifically to area effect attacks against a target point, which can scatter and tend to be less precise than normal single target attacks in the first place. If a 10m radius AoE scatters 4m, you still affect your intended target point. It's NOT the rule for trying to hit a stationary object with a single target attack. I've had a good look through CC and have not found any rule about targeting stationary objects as such, just the rule that a knocked out character is DCV 0. So it works for me that non AoE attacks against any normal stationary object should be vs DCV 0, modified for size and range. CC pg.142 under Breaking Things, has the same text as 6E2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrinku Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 CC pg.142 under Breaking Things, has the same text as 6E2. Thanks! There really seems very little reason for it, aside from Tradition, and it does conflict with the rule for hitting an unconscious body even at point blank range. I would advise that if the GM thinks it should be DCV 0 in line with p.158 for an unconscious character instead of the rule on p142, to use the former. The DCV 3 for targeting a point for AoE attacks at range is really a different situation and I'd leave that as is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilFleischmann Posted August 14, 2017 Report Share Posted August 14, 2017 Yeah, but were those womp rats shooting back at you with blasters? Well, if they shoot as well as Stormtroopers, it's no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrinku Posted August 14, 2017 Report Share Posted August 14, 2017 They let you go. It's the only reason for the ease of your escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdamnhero Posted August 15, 2017 Report Share Posted August 15, 2017 (although the minimum DCV is 0 an inanimate object of human size has a DCV of 3 that can not undestand) Yeah, been there. For awhile my group played with a house rule that hexes were DCV 0 instead of 3. The practical effect was to make Area Effect attacks absurdly easy to target. It worked okay for that game because it was heroic modern, so the only area effect attacks were things like hand grenades the characters weren't paying points for anyway. If you decide to use it in a game where point costs matter, I would suggest upping the cost of the AOE Advantage by at least +1/4, if not +1/2 to maintain balance. Of course if you're playing superheroic, the difference between DCV 3 and DCV 0 might be small enough not to make a difference. The DCV 3 hex rule is one of those things that only makes sense from a game mechanic & balance standpoint. Honestly, my advice is to acknowledge it doesn't make much logical sense...but go with it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrinku Posted August 15, 2017 Report Share Posted August 15, 2017 Yeah, been there. For awhile my group played with a house rule that hexes were DCV 0 instead of 3. The practical effect was to make Area Effect attacks absurdly easy to target. It worked okay for that game because it was heroic modern, so the only area effect attacks were things like hand grenades the characters weren't paying points for anyway. If you decide to use it in a game where point costs matter, I would suggest upping the cost of the AOE Advantage by at least +1/4, if not +1/2 to maintain balance. Of course if you're playing superheroic, the difference between DCV 3 and DCV 0 might be small enough not to make a difference. The DCV 3 hex rule is one of those things that only makes sense from a game mechanic & balance standpoint. Honestly, my advice is to acknowledge it doesn't make much logical sense...but go with it anyway. You can still have the AoE target point be DCV 3 AND rule that non-AoE attacks use DCV 0. AoE has a scatter mechanic while normal attacks don't, so there's already a major point of difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.