Kzinbane Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 I'm still learning the GMing ropes with the game and had one of my villains use missile deflection finally last game. From my understanding from reading the write up (several times - it's a bit confusing) my take is that the deflection is sort of an attack on the attack. In other words the attacking missile ocv 7 for example is treated as DCV 7 for the missile deflection roll (did that make sense?). Boiled down further - my missile deflection is OCV 7 - the missile I am trying to "hit" is OCV 7. I need an 11 or better to "win" and make the missile go elsewhere otherwise it hits my character. Better? Have I got the idea right? Now the question of the day... if the attacker who is trying to hit with the missile has ocv 7 and rolls really well (say rolls a 5) do you take that into account at all or is it just basic OCV of attacker regardless of what they roll that you deal with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Serpent Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 You've got it right. It's treated like the Block maneuver, but works vs ranged attacks instead. No, how much the attack roll is made by does not come into play. Just use the OCV of the attacker (final, after levels/mods) vs the "OCV" of your missile deflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzinbane Posted March 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 OK. So even if the firing side makes a great roll (say a 4) the deflecting side needs only roll the firer's OCV (in the example a 7)? Never really thought of OCV as being very useful as defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
levi Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 Originally posted by Kzinbane OK. So even if the firing side makes a great roll (say a 4) the deflecting side needs only roll the firer's OCV (in the example a 7)? Never really thought of OCV as being very useful as defense. Actually the attacker doesn't roll dice yet. Like a Block maneuver, the Defender rolls OCV vs. OCV and if the roll is successful, then the missile is deflected. If the Deflection fails, the attacker rolls to hit normally. The toughest part about Missile Deflection is GMing the special effects. Entangles and AE attacks can't normally be deflected, but if the attck's special effect warrants it, the GM might make special exceptions. You will have to use your own good judgement here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzinbane Posted March 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 I guess it depends on the effects like you say. For Captain America an entangle could be theoretically avoided, but it may hit his shield instead of him. For Spider-man, assuming one bought his uncanny dodging ability by using missile deflection, an entangle would just miss like any other attack (in my opinion - were I GMing a game with him in it). Me thinks one needs an adder - Missile deflection +1/4 or +1/2 works against entangles (and/or other attacks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Champsguy Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 I wouldn't make it an advantage. Missile Deflection worked on Entangles right up until 5th Edition, and I never had a problem with it. I've really got no idea why Long decided to change it in 5th. It's not unbalancing to let someone deflect Entangles, and as I see no reason for the change, I'd just base it off the sfx. If they couldn't deflect Entangles, that sounds like a limitation to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 If you want you could add a house rule. In HERO there's a little-known optional rule about "Extraordinary Successes." If you make a skill roll by ten or more, you are allowed to make an extraordinary success, which is up to the GM. So, an "extraordinary" perception roll could mean that other than just hearing footsteps, you would be able to tell how many people, what footwear they were wearing, etc. In our game if you make an attack roll by ten or more it's a critical hit. All damage is max (i.e., 10D6 = 60 STUN, 20 BODY). For Missile Deflection, you could say that making the roll by ten or more means you don't lose a half phase or whatever (I never use MD, so I have no idea how much time it takes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monolith Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 Originally posted by Champsguy I wouldn't make it an advantage. Missile Deflection worked on Entangles right up until 5th Edition, and I never had a problem with it. I've really got no idea why Long decided to change it in 5th. It's not unbalancing to let someone deflect Entangles, and as I see no reason for the change, I'd just base it off the sfx. I don't know why you don't like Steve, and I don't really care, but in 4E the rules stated "Missile Deflection cannot usually be used against Entangles" and in 5E the books says "Characters cannot usually Missile Deflect Entangles," so Steve changed nothing. It always, and still is a GM's call based on SFX. Get your facts straight. If they couldn't deflect Entangles, that sounds like a limitation to me. It is. It's called Can Be Missile Deflected: -1/4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzinbane Posted March 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Bottom line Bottom line really is that I am GM and can (and will) fiddle with things a bit as I see fit. An entangle built along the lines of spider-man's webbing for example would entangle cap's shield, but not cap himself. This could be a problem if cap needed to use the shield soon, but at least he's free to dodge. Now if it weren't Spider-man but was instead Captain Boomerang with a net boomerang or something along those lines then the shield would work probably without being it'self entangled. Then there's the "uncanny dodging ability" bought as missile deflection. Again it would depend ON the effects of the entangle someone was using - I'd judge from there. IF it's a 5' wide net then it should be much harder to dodge. If it's a glue ball then no problem, dodge away. The main issue is making sure the players know ahead of time as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Champsguy Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Monolith I don't know why you don't like Steve, and I don't really care, but in 4E the rules stated "Missile Deflection cannot usually be used against Entangles" and in 5E the books says "Characters cannot usually Missile Deflect Entangles," so Steve changed nothing. It always, and still is a GM's call based on SFX. Get your facts straight. I don't have any problem with Steve. I'm sure he's a perfectly nice person, and I'm glad that he's got the game selling well. I just don't agree with some of the rule changes he made. I'll have to dig up my old copy of 4th Edition, but I'm almost certain that it didn't say that in the BBB. I'd ever seen it specified that it did not affect Entangles until 5th Edition. It is. It's called Can Be Missile Deflected: -1/4. A limitation on the Missile Deflection, not the attack. You're being kind of a jerk on this one, Monolith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monolith Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Champsguy I'll have to dig up my old copy of 4th Edition, but I'm almost certain that it didn't say that in the BBB. I'd ever seen it specified that it did not affect Entangles until 5th Edition. The quiet I provided came directly from my compy of the BBB, page 81. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rage Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Champsguy A limitation on the Missile Deflection, not the attack. You're being kind of a jerk on this one, Monolith. QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TIPPING HIM OFF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rage Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Monolith The quiet I provided came directly from my compy of the BBB, page 81. QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TIPPING HIM OFF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rage Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Rage QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TIPPING HIM OFF! QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TIPPING HIM OFF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rage Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Rage QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TIPPING HIM OFF! QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TIPPING HIM OFF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rage Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Rage QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TIPPING HIM OFF! QUITE YOU FOOL! YOU'RE TI...yeah, I'm bored now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Mon, CHILL First of all if ANYONE should be said to hate Steve, it would be me (I DON'T, It's just I disagree with ALOT of his rulings, more so than what is in 5th per say) Second, Champsguy is a long time poster here, as you well know, and except for commenting on the RULES Steve wrote, he has said NOTHING against Steve. Just relax, and as DW says I am the terror... err I mean have a nice refreshing fruit drink Jason "JmOz" Wedel 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.