Why can't you move after you attack?

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Warp9

What I am saying is that, IMO it is simply a logical consequence of your argument.

 

But it isn't.

 

OK lets use a rather simple possibility...

 

think of non-attack actions as actions taking 45% of an action and attack actions as taking 55% of an action. Then its perfectly logical for you to be able to move+attack at 100%, attack+move at 100%, move+move at 90% (with a little wasted turn) but to not do attack+attack at 110% as thats more than you can do.

 

Thats why the argument isn't "all half actions are created equal" but is simply "why would the order matter." Arguing that the order restriction should be lifted does not lead you in any way to the "all half actions are the same" and from there to the "attack+attack is cool." position. (Whether that place is a good place to be or a bad place to be notwithstanding.)

[Hugh Neilson]

First off, has anyone read the old Champions comic where a gamer creates a techno-suit and attacks their Ice character? He's beaten when the ice guy attacks him, then jumps out of his way. The gamer never anticipated such a strategy because, in the game, you can't attack and then move.

 

Originally posted by Warp9

If the following are all valid options:

 

1/2 Move and Attack

1/2 Move and 1/2 Move

Attack and 1/2 Move

 

then why not:

 

Attack and Attack

 

Why not indeed? As another approach, why not adopt the 3rd Edition d20 approach (OK, I didn't sontaneously combust for typing that on the Hero board

)

 

Simply consider the terms "move equivalent" and "half phase" action to be the same, and "standard" and "attack" action are equivalent. In either system, a character may take one half phase and one attack action, or take two half phase actions (plus any number of free/zero phase actions). The only difference here is that Hero prescribes an order - once you take a standard action, your turn ends - while d20 allows you to take your move equivalent after the standard action.

 

Now, to strech out the analogy, d20 has the "full attack" option - merge your attack and half phase action into one and take a full attack sequence. But this doesn't alow two attacks - it only allows you to use extra attacks you may be entitled to. So the octopus can half move and make one attack, or stay still and attack with al 8 tentacles, since he has both options. The low level character still only attacks once with a full atack action.

 

Champions already has full attack actions - Sweep, Rapid Fire, etc.

 

So, in both games, I can make a full attack action (full phase action), or a move equivalent and attack (half move and attack). But in Hero, I can't attack and then move equivalent, where in d20 I can.

 

I've never deviated from the "attack ends your move" structure, but I don't think it would necessarily be fatal to the game.

 

It might force some different thinking - when our group (all experienced with D&D and Hero) started a 3rd Ed campaign, we recognized the concept of different action types, but it took us several sessions, and some time with the rulebooks, to realize we could take our "half move" after we attacked!

 

Would this give some characters an advantage? You bet! Can these be countered? Probably - use a little forethought and planning.

 

The biggest adsvantage argued is that a character with high movement can attack and then zip back out. Move bys accomplish more or less the same thing, and they've been with us from the start. And it seems reasonably consistent with the genre.

 

"He just darts in, hits me, then darts out before I can draw a bead on him - how can I beat this guy?" Maybe OUr Hero will have to use his brain and figure out how to beat this strange opponent - just like he had to figure out how to take down a guy with a 15 DCV when he has an 8 OCV, or how to beat the desolid character when his attacks can't affect the desolid.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by tesuji

But it isn't.

 

OK lets use a rather simple possibility...

 

think of non-attack actions as actions taking 45% of an action and attack actions as taking 55% of an action. Then its perfectly logical for you to be able to move+attack at 100%, attack+move at 100%, move+move at 90% (with a little wasted turn) but to not do attack+attack at 110% as thats more than you can do.

 

Thats why the argument isn't "all half actions are created equal" but is simply "why would the order matter." Arguing that the order restriction should be lifted does not lead you in any way to the "all half actions are the same" and from there to the "attack+attack is cool." position. (Whether that place is a good place to be or a bad place to be notwithstanding.)

 

IMO there is a major problem with your logic here. (but maybe I'm just not understanding what you're getting at)

 

Lets take your premise that a non-attack "1/2 phase" action takes up 45% of the phase.

 

Why then can a character with 100" inches of flight per phase go a full 50" inches during a half-phase? If it was actually only 45% of the time, then the character should only be able to go 45" inches.

 

And, if you are assuming that a full move only takes up 90% of the time, then what happens to that extra 10% of time? Does my character simply hang there in mid air?

[Rick]

As far as D&D 3rd's movement system is concerned: Given that Monte Cook was once a line editor for Hero Games ICE, is there any question as to why combat feels oddly familiar to experienced hero gamers. It was obviously heavily influenced by Hero, there is no reason for that not to recipricate.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Rick

As far as D&D 3rd's movement system is concerned: Given that Monte Cook was once a line editor for Hero Games ICE, is there any question as to why combat feels oddly familiar to experienced hero gamers. It was obviously heavily influenced by Hero, there is no reason for that not to recipricate.

 

Maybe. . . .

 

But I personally can think of many reasons that I would not want Hero to be influenced by D&D.

 

I mean, sure it makes sense that some hack would imitate a great master, but that doesn't mean that the master should allow himself to be influenced by the fool.

 

However, I may be biased because: My hat of d02 no know limit!

[Rick]

Ummm...ok...at the risk of hijacking this thread: Monte cook is no hack, and his fingure prints on D&D 3rd are some of the shining bright spots of the system.

 

I've been fighting W/the moving after you attack on my own after playing D&D and realizing that it didn't actually destroy the combat, even when I was running a badass monk (to use most of there best abilities you need to use a full round).

 

edited: for terrible grammar.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Rick

Ummm...ok...at the risk of hijacking this thread: Monte cook is no hack, and his fingure prints on D&D 3rd are some of the shining bright spots of the system.

 

I've been fighting W/the moving after you attack on my own after play D&D and realizing that it didn't actually destroy the combat, even when I was running a badass monk (two use most of there best abilities you need to use a full round).

 

Sorry. . . .

 

My reference was meant more about D&D being influenced by Hero and the reverse, nothing was aimed at anyone personally.

 

I have nothing against Monte Cook, and I didn't mean to imply that he was a hack.

[Rick]

Well, I don't personally care for the system either, but I've a lot of experience W/it. Yah, levels and classes suck, but combat worked fairly well, Attacks of Opertunity were hit and miss though. Lame system or not, when you mine coal you may find diamonds.

[tesuji]

ooookkkaaaayyy....

 

clearly, my communicative skills are not up to the task of getting this across to you. Thats fine. this wont be the first time.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on the amount of "but if you expand the notion to allow this other stuff too then..." that is necessary here. HERo currently permits there to be differences in what half actions can do without working those differences into the MECHANICS of the implementation.

 

Suffice it to say, i hope, that to SOME (me and perhaps some of the others speaking favorably towards allowing attack+move) it does not immediately, logically, and necessarily follow that this leads you inextricably to also allowing attack+attack. It is not necessary when removing one restriction (can you move after an attack) to remove ALL restrictions (cannot attack twice without penalty using the same power.) That there can be differences (any at all) between half-actions is a different subject than "but what about this specific one?"

 

Ay least to me and perhaps others, and perhaps not to you and others.

 

However, FWIW, the system which eliminated the difference between MEA and partial action seems to have fared well enough in play, no dramatic breakage, so it is possible HERO would be as versatile and resilient not break down too badly if attack+attack were permitted. But thats another discussion.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Warp9

IMO there is a major problem with your logic here. (but maybe I'm just not understanding what you're getting at)

 

Lets take your premise that a non-attack "1/2 phase" action takes up 45% of the phase.

 

Why then can a character with 100" inches of flight per phase go a full 50" inches during a half-phase? If it was actually only 45% of the time, then the character should only be able to go 45" inches.

 

And, if you are assuming that a full move only takes up 90% of the time, then what happens to that extra 10% of time? Does my character simply hang there in mid air?

[Chudwine]

Just a couple of notes from someone who did switch over to allowing attack-then-move in a game but finally chose to switch back.

 

I had no real problem with allowing a character to move after an attack was made. A intelligent player with a fast character could finesse the rule to gain combat advantages in some situations but that was never a major issue. The rule applied to all characters and if one character was creating a situation where he could get free attacks by attacking then moving, it was up to the other character to change the tactical situation (move into a confined area, hold an action, retreat and regroup or whatever).

 

What ultimately made me go back first was the issue of holding. Could a character hold an action after making an attack? If not, why not? There seemed to be no good reason to disallow it.

 

If he could , were there specific things he could not do with this held action that he could do with any other. Note that the held action could theoretically last for a couple of segments.

 

Next came the issue of the other manevuers that end a character's action. Dodge, block and dive for cover were the ones that came up most often. If an attack didn't end a turn, should they. I eventually decided that yes, these abortable defensive maneuvers would end a character's turn.

 

A character could move after an attack so he could use certain powers. Could he also use other maneuvers? Dodge was the prime issue here. I eventually decided no. Then I starting getting into a gray area. How about Dive For Cover, Roll With Punch or other things that were sort of actions and sort of combat maneuvers. Note that this was important because our group wanted detailed, objective and transparent rules.

 

Ultimately, it was too much trouble than it was worth to keep up with all the potential options. (Now, my character can hold after attacking but he can't use that held action to dodge even on the next segment, he has to abort his next action to do so?) The rule gave us a different set of tactical options but they weren't necessarily a better set of options and didn't make up for the problems they caused.

 

Bottom line, in my opinion. The creators of the Hero System drew the line at a certain point (Attacking ends a character's action). Some players have drawn the line at a different point (you can move before or after attacking), others might choose to draw it even farther down the line (all half-actions are equal and attack followed by attack is the logical outcome).

 

It's all rather arbitrary and it seems odd that someone would argue that their preferred mode of play is more "modern" or more "realistic". I don't think it is. All it really does is create a different set of tactical assumptions. And I did not find the tactical options better or richer which would have been the necessary trade-off for the higher level of complexity. So for the core rules for a game that a lot of people will be playing (bringing their own views of how tactically oriented or rules intensive they want the game to be) I think the rules as they presently stand are better.

 

Finally, let me point out that the group I tried this with broke up long ago and the group I am with now plays a lot more fast and loose with the rules. I would have no problem playing "attack-then-move" as a house rule with many groups but I would not want to play it with a tactically inclined group and I do not think it should be the default assumption for the game.

[Trebuchet]

Nicely done analysis, Chudwine.

 

Given that even a slow PC in Hero is likely to have SPD 4, that's plenty of actions in one minute (5 Turns). Remembering my D&D/AD&D days in the 1970s, where characters were thrilled to get 3 attacks per round (minute) of combat, this gives even a 4 SPD character in Hero 20 attacks per minute. And don't even get me started on what a SPD 8 or SPD 9 character can do in one minute! My Grandmaster of Spring would have turned green with envy. Suddenly it doesn't really seem all that slow.

 

In my Champions campaign, which is consciously modeled after Silver Age comics, we've found it useful to just consider a Phase to be one frame of a comic book without worrying about exactly how many nanoseconds it represents in real time.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

In my Champions campaign, which is consciously modeled after Silver Age comics, we've found it useful to just consider a Phase to be one frame of a comic book without worrying about exactly how many nanoseconds it represents in real time.

Which was what George MacDonald was thinking of with the speed mechanic at one point. thanks to chromatic for reminding me