OCV, DCV as skills

[Knightmare]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but it seems to me that OCV and DCV could be replaced with various combat skills. This would require opposed skill rolls for combat with the best margin of success winning the round.

There are already catagories of WF's. Allow them to be purchased as DEX based Combat Skills.

The use of skill levels, martial mods, and situational mods really wouldn't change they would modify the skill roll vs modifying OCV or DCV. The base skill roll would be used in offence or defence and modified just as OCV and DCV are now.

Why make this change?

 

The DEX /3 is only used for OCV and DCV (and ECV). The combat roll seems kind of clunky when a skill based solution exists. This would reduce one level of complication for newbies.

This would help to balance DEX, by putting more emphasis on skill than on raw talent.

The OCV+11-DCV formula can be confusing to newbies.

 

This hasn't been play tested, nor have all the details been thoroughly plumbed but would like to see what the Heroes Assembled thought!

 

Thanks

[ghost-angel]

I personally feel the current method works with no problems.

 

Of course, with the formula you mentioned I can see where people have problems using it. Took me a long time (years) to get my current group to use the following formula:

 

(11+OCV+Modifiers)-Die Roll = DCV Hit.

 

OCV is your OCV

Modifiers is any modifers you know apply, like Range, Martial Maneuver adjustments, CSLs, Environmental penalties/bonuses, and so on. Any Modifiers you GM is appling to you that you don't know about he can tack strait onto the DCV Hit answer.

DCV Hit is the DCV or less that you just tagged with your attack.

 

This way you don't need the DCV of the enemy, the GM can keep that all sneaky and stuff and the player only needs what is written on their sheet.

 

Say, they have an OCV of 7 with +2 CSL for OCV .. the formula is 11+7+2 = 20. they roll a 12. 20 - 12 = 8. So the player can now say they hit a DCV of 8. If the GM has modifiers he can apply them, if he imposed a -2 to the characters OCV he simply subtracts 2 from the "DCV Hit" for a 6. If the GM subtracted 2 from the enemies DCV he does nothing to the characters "DCV Hit" just subtracts 2 from the DCV of the target and see if it is equal to or under the "DCV Hit" total.

 

I find that formula works best for old and new player alike and prevents you from wanted/needed to rework the system to try and make it simpler.

 

Dont go messing with the clunky 11+OCV-DCV thing, it makes for messy numbers and requires things that are not on a PCs character sheet for a player to deal with. I find the formula I mentioned above much more strait forward and simpler.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I like the CV method fine the way it is.

[BNakagawa]

The problem with expressing OCV and DCV as skill rolls is that you now need to make twice as many rolls to calculate hits and misses.

 

Under the standard system, you're rolling 3d6 vs a benchmark defined by the attacker's OCV and defender's DCV.

 

Under a skill based system, you're comparing the attacker's roll to their skill level to define a level of success. then you're comparing the defender's roll vs their skill level to define a level of success, then you're comparing the attacker's result to the defender's result.

 

That's twice as many rolls and three times as many value comparisons for not very much mechanical difference. If you think hero system combats take a long time now, try it with these rules.

 

If you're really concerned with system streamlining, why don't you consider scrapping the skill system and replacing it with a hit a difficulty level (DCV) instead?

 

$0.02

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by ghost-angel

(11+OCV+Modifiers)-Die Roll = DCV Hit.

This is the method Ive used for years. Another benefit of it is, I dont have to tell the players the baddies DCV.

 

There's another way too which involves adding DCV to 10 to get a target number or something, but I dont use it and cant remember.

[Intrope]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

There's another way too which involves adding DCV to 10 to get a target number or something, but I dont use it and cant remember.

 

That'd be OCV + Modifiers + Die Roll = (DCV + 10)

 

If you used this, you'd probably precompute everything's DCV + 10 for reference.

[DrFurious]

Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by Knightmare

I'm sure this has been discussed before but it seems to me that OCV and DCV could be replaced with various combat skills. This would require opposed skill rolls for combat with the best margin of success winning the round.

I like this idea. This means that you could have someone like Grond be a great combatant without having a DEX better than a world-class olympian - a flaw that seems to appear in many 4th edition characters. I'm sure that others would disagree and say you could use CSL. The problem with this approach is that it's really cheaper and more effective to have an obscenely high DEX. You're not going to see many players (or writeups) that follow that approach consistently.

 

!DrFURIOUS!

[Knightmare]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

The problem with expressing OCV and DCV as skill rolls is that you now need to make twice as many rolls to calculate hits and misses.

 

Under the standard system, you're rolling 3d6 vs a benchmark defined by the attacker's OCV and defender's DCV.

 

Under a skill based system, you're comparing the attacker's roll to their skill level to define a level of success. then you're comparing the defender's roll vs their skill level to define a level of success, then you're comparing the attacker's result to the defender's result.

 

That's twice as many rolls and three times as many value comparisons for not very much mechanical difference. If you think hero system combats take a long time now, try it with these rules.

 

If you're really concerned with system streamlining, why don't you consider scrapping the skill system and replacing it with a hit a difficulty level (DCV) instead?

 

$0.02

 

The defender's and attacker's roll occur at the same time and thus really don't take additional time.

 

The defender becomes an active participant in his defence which may add to the excitement of combat.

 

The math becomes easier because the ref no longer has to refigure a formula every round for every character. He only has to know his modified attack roll. The defender figures his modified defence roll. They both roll and find their margin. "made it by 3, made it by 1" the comparison is very easy.

 

Actually I like the skill system. I also think the OCV/DCV system is ok but am just trying to look at it from a new persons perspective. It seems we have one way to do combat and another way to do every other opposed character interaction.

 

Thanks for the input!

[Dust Raven]

There is merit to Knightmare's method, in that it directly involves the target in the attack process. The target actually has to make a roll to defend themself from an attack.

 

On the downside, it adds an extra step in determining if the attacker hits, and add a lot more randomness to combat.

 

The standard method assumes that combatants are moving defensively and intelligently and actively trying to avoid attacks, and represents this by giving them a DCV bassed on DEX. This works.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by DrFurious

I like this idea. This means that you could have someone like Grond be a great combatant without having a DEX better than a world-class olympian - a flaw that seems to appear in many 4th edition characters. I'm sure that others would disagree and say you could use CSL. The problem with this approach is that it's really cheaper and more effective to have an obscenely high DEX. You're not going to see many players (or writeups) that follow that approach consistently.

 

!DrFURIOUS!

 

I've always solved this problem by not giving such characters a high DEX. They have CSLs instead.

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by Knightmare

The defender's and attacker's roll occur at the same time and thus really don't take additional time.

 

The defender becomes an active participant in his defence which may add to the excitement of combat.

 

The math becomes easier because the ref no longer has to refigure a formula every round for every character. He only has to know his modified attack roll. The defender figures his modified defence roll. They both roll and find their margin. "made it by 3, made it by 1" the comparison is very easy.

 

Actually I like the skill system. I also think the OCV/DCV system is ok but am just trying to look at it from a new persons perspective. It seems we have one way to do combat and another way to do every other opposed character interaction.

 

Thanks for the input!

 

If it works for you, use it. Especially if the standard system doesn't. I do think it'll add time to combat though. Doesn't really matter if the rolls are made simultaneously if you still have to look at and compare two things, both of which are random (whereas you still have to compair two things normally, but one is constant).

[NuSoardGraphite]

Ah. I can finaly post a decent reply.

 

First off, I adore the OCV/DCV method that Hero uses. I think its just about perfect. OCV representing a characters inherent accuracy and DCV representing their basic ability to "Bob 'n Weave".

 

Skill does figure in heavily even in this system, because just a few Skill Levels will heavily affect the percentage chance of landing a blow (one way or the other) because of the bell-curve involved in the 3D6 attack roll. (+1 actually means something. +3 is significant)

 

And while many will tell you the "Bell-curve" is the systems weakness, I think its the systems strength.

 

Using a Skill vs Skill system like you suggested doesn't remove the "bell-curve" but it does change the nature of it.

 

Also with a system of opposed skill tests for basic combat, one has to re-do how Dodge and Block figure in to the combat, because everyone essentially gets a free "Defensive" roll to begin with, how does an actual Dodge or Block maneuver affect these rolls?

[DrFurious]

Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by Dust Raven

I've always solved this problem by not giving such characters a high DEX. They have CSLs instead.

The point I was trying to make is

... that it's really cheaper and more effective to have an obscenely high DEX. You're not going to see many players (or writeups) that follow that approach consistently...in existing published material and from most other write-ups made by others.

 

edit: for clarity

[BNakagawa]

if you really think the system is so simple, then try running a game.

 

Three PCs attack three different villains simultaneously. They all announce their hit-by numbers. Now the GM has to look up three different villains, roll three times and match each one to their attacker. Simple, no? Now wait till one of them starts spreading and attacking multiple targets. And the other starts autofiring. Or sweeping. This will be extremely fun when three PCs attack three villains and affect all of them simultaneously, and now the GM has to make 9 defense rolls and match each of them to the appropriate opposed roll.

 

Not nearly as simple as just having a number noted for each one's standard DCV that they either hit or don't.

 

The other advantage of the current system is that it's extremely obvious that some rolls are going to hit and some rolls are going to miss. This streamlines combat resolution because the GM doesn't need to waste any brainpower on really awesome or really crappy rolls. It's time to move onto the next action or start rolling damage. This is never the case when you have opposed rolls for conflict resolution.

 

Admittedly, this is the case when the target is in missile deflecting or blocking modes, but this is the exception and not the rule. I notice how much this slows down combat resolution in these cases, and wouldn't wish this to be the standard system.

 

$0.02

[Trebuchet]

Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by DrFurious

The problem with this approach is that it's really cheaper and more effective to have an obscenely high DEX. You're not going to see many players (or writeups) that follow that approach consistently.

Au contraire, mon frere. Currently spending 30 CP gets you a 20 DEX for a 7 CV. Under Knightmare's proposed system spending 30 CP for Combat Levels gets you a 13 CV (DEX 10/3 + 10). That's an enormous difference. Are you really prepared to see bricks with 20 CV or martial artists with 40 CV? An unremarkable martial artist with a 33 DEX has spent 69 points, which would get him a 34 CV!

 

The only possible upside I can see to this idea is a general broadening of CV (Most official characters currently fall between 8 and 14 CV). But I think that would be more than negated by the huge increase in die rolls required by such a method.

[DrFurious]

Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Au contraire, mon frere. Currently spending 30 CP gets you a 20 DEX for a 7 CV. Under Knightmare's proposed system spending 30 CP for Combat Levels gets you a 13 CV (DEX 10/3 + 10). That's an enormous difference. Are you really prepared to see bricks with 20 CV or martial artists with 40 CV? An unremarkable martial artist with a 33 DEX has spent 69 points, which would get him a 34 CV!

 

Ah my friend, but you have neglected the other effects! What if you want to purchase DCV as well? The costs become much more equal but without all the added benefits of a high DEX - speed, DEX-skills, going first in a phase, etc.

 

For example:

20 DEX -> 7 OCV, 7 DCV (30 points)

10 DEX -> 3 OCV, 3 DCV + 8 CSL (1/2 for offense, 1/2 for defense, say -1/2 limitation) (0 + 27 points).

Admittedly, I haven't worked out all permutations of numbers (and I'm not inclined to do so), but I suspect that the totals would be very close - why else do write-ups tend to be DEX-focused?

 

As an aside, I'm not sure that Nightmare was advocating CSL as the OCV/DCV replacement. Going with a skill vs skill roll and assuming a 3/2 cost structure you may very well get significant cost savings for the same CV.

 

!DrFURIOUS!

[sbarron]

Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Currently spending 30 CP gets you a 20 DEX for a 7 CV. Under Knightmare's proposed system spending 30 CP for Combat Levels gets you a 13 CV (DEX 10/3 + 10).

 

Actually, I don't think that is how Knightmare invisioned it. He wants to have CV based on skills, so they'd be (9 + Stat/5). Also, I think he intended that you buy skills with particular weapons (or maybe Fam. groups, like Common Melee), not just buy up your CV in general. So, you start out with a 10 Dex, and buy Weapon Skill Swords for 3 points. Your base Sword skill role (CV) is 11- (9+ Dex/5). If you wanted to add levels to this, you'd do so at +1/2cp, just like regular skills. These levels wouldn't help you shoot a bow or swing an Ax any better, though. You'd have to buy a seperate skill for that.

 

I suppose if you wanted to run with this idea, you could make Fam. Group skills cost more to buy and increase, to reflect their increased utility. Or you could make PCs buy each weapon as a seperate skill.

 

Regardless, I think BNakagawa pointed out some excellent reasons why this would be difficult in execution. Finding a different way to calculate CV is one thing. Opposed combat roles is a much bigger animal.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by sbarron

Actually, I don't think that is how Knightmare invisioned it. He want to have CV based on skills, so they'd be (9 + Stat/5). Also, I think he intended that you buy skills with particular weapons (or maybe Fam. groups, like Common Melee), not just buy up your CV in general. So, you start out with a 10 Dex, and buy Weapon Skill Swords for 3 points. You're base Sword skill role (CV) is 11- (9+ Dex/5). If you wanted to add levels to this, you'd do so at +1/2cp, just like regular skills.

Perhaps I misunderstood. However, this approach is also not without its own flaws. If CV becomes a (9+ Dex/5) roll then that only incentivizes characters to buy higher DEXs than they already have. My own MA with her 43 DEX has a CV of 14 with the current system; with the (9+ Dex/5) system she'd have a 19. All this does is more steeply incline the 3d6 bell curve.

 

While the idea is not entirely without merit from certain aspects, it's not really any better than the current method and certainly makes Hero combat even more cumbersome. Since that's one of the major complaints about Hero, I'd say that's something to be avoided for most players and GMs.

[badger3k]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by sbarron

Actually, I don't think that is how Knightmare invisioned it. He want to have CV based on skills, so they'd be (9 + Stat/5). Also, I think he intended that you buy skills with particular weapons (or maybe Fam. groups, like Common Melee), not just buy up your CV in general. So, you start out with a 10 Dex, and buy Weapon Skill Swords for 3 points. You're base Sword skill role (CV) is 11- (9+ Dex/5). If you wanted to add levels to this, you'd do so at +1/2cp, just like regular skills. These levels wouldn't help you shoot a bow or swing an Ax any better, though. You'd have to buy a seperate skill for that.

 

I suppose if you wanted to run with this idea, you could make Fam. Group skills cost more to buy and increase, to reflect their increased utility. Or you could make PCs buy each weapon as a seperate skill.

 

Regardless, I think BNakagawa pointed out some excellent reasons why this would be difficult in execution. Finding a different way to calculate CV is one thing. Opposed combat roles is a much bigger animal.

 

That's what I invisioned when I read the thread. However, you can also do it with a different base, such as a standard 11-, +1/2 cp, or make the base straight from CSLs. Everybody starts at 0, then spends points for CSLs with weapon groups (perhaps). Spend 15 points for 5 levels would get you an OCV of 5. Hmm - what if we used CL - combat level. Base roll is 9+CL, so that OCV of 5 would make that character 14- to hit, vs the DCV roll. Something like that. An opposed roll with the greater margin as success.

 

It sounds more like the system in Runequest, where combat and defense (parry) were skill based. Such a skill system would be a little slower than that game, since you'd need to see how much the roll was made by. IIRC in Runequest if the parry roll succeeded, the attack was missed, no matter what the attack roll.

[sbarron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Perhaps I misunderstood. However, this approach is also not without its own flaws. If CV becomes a (9+ Dex/5) roll then that only incentivizes characters to buy higher DEXs than they already have. My own MA with her 43 DEX has a CV of 14 with the current system; with the (9+ Dex/5) system she'd have a 19. All this does is more steeply incline the 3d6 bell curve.

Actually, I think it would discourage buying up Dex. It isn't cost effective under that system. Currently, your character with the 43 Dex spent 99 points to have a 14 CV vs Average Joe's 3 CV (+11 diff, or 9 pts per CV). Under that system, your characer would have an 18 CV vs. Average Joe's 11 CV (+7 diff, or 14 pts per CV). It would probably be cheaper to select attacks to be skilled in and purchase levels in them.

 

This brings up another interesting question. You don't use Weapon Fams in superheroic games, and most characters rely on some natural ability (punching, kicking, shooting beams from hands, etc.) rather than using a weapon of some sort. Would Unarmed be a skill (probably)? How about "fire powers?" Or would you have to do "energy blasts" and "RKAs?"

 

I am spending way too much time thinking about an idea I will never use...

[badger3k]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by sbarron

This brings up another interesting question. You don't use Weapon Fams in superheroic games, and most characters rely on some natural ability (punching, kicking, shooting beams from hands, etc.) rather than using a weapon of some sort. Would Unarmed be a skill (probably)? How about "fire powers?" Or would you have to do "energy blasts" and "RKAs?"

 

I am spending way too much time thinking about an idea I will never use... [/b]

 

If you're going to use a skill system, you'd have to make categories like that (or else just use a general combat skill, as in Superheroic games the standard is that you are skilled in what you pay points for. To learn other skills, you can use weapon groups (If I want Gun-Boy to be able to pick up an M-16 and use it on the bad guys in one combat, I'd buy WF for it) - I think that's one of the options mentioned in Fred (unless I am just carrying over something from long ago, or a house rule). How detailed the categories would be for a game is really subjective - I'd break it down more by special effect than power (someone skilled in "Energy Blasts" would be skilled with his EB, RKA, and Flash, provided they were all Blasts of some sort. If the flash was a burst of light, not a beam, then he would need another skill for it, IMO. Just one option out of many.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Perhaps I misunderstood. However, this approach is also not without its own flaws. If CV becomes a (9+ Dex/5) roll then that only incentivizes characters to buy higher DEXs than they already have. My own MA with her 43 DEX has a CV of 14 with the current system; with the (9+ Dex/5) system she'd have a 19. All this does is more steeply incline the 3d6 bell curve.

 

While I agree with your point about this slowing down combat, I disagree with your reading that this would add to dex inflation.

 

Under your example, your Dex 43 character has a 6 point advantage over a dex 23 character using the standard CV. Using a skill based one, your character would only have a 4 point advantage. Admittedly, this is really an 8 point advantage because the other guy is at a 4 point deficit when attacking you. Problem is, you spent 60 points to get this advantage.

 

Still, 8 levels, 60 points. I think this system incentivizes buying levels, not DEX.

 

$0.02

[Trebuchet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills

 

Originally posted by sbarron

This brings up another interesting question. You don't use Weapon Fams in superheroic games, and most characters rely on some natural ability (punching, kicking, shooting beams from hands, etc.) rather than using a weapon of some sort. Would Unarmed be a skill (probably)? How about "fire powers?" Or would you have to do "energy blasts" and "RKAs?"

 

I am spending way too much time thinking about an idea I will never use...

Actually in superheroic games you automatically get "Familiarity" with any weapon you paid points for. So if StaffMan has a magical staff with several powers that cost him character points then he automatically has Familiarity with that particular staff. However, unless he buys the WF: Staves he still gets the penalties for unfamiliarity for any other staff but his own unique weapon. (Wouldn't be much of a staff-based hero if he couldn't use other staffs IMO.)

 

Since she bought the appropriate WF and Weapon Element for staff my MA Zl'f is actually better with one (Higher OCV and more damage) than our team's weaponmaster with his own custom-built weapon. In a recent adventure, he got Stunned badly and so my character picked up his staff and proceeded to kick butt with it. Best line from the fight was when Zl'f whipped the staff around fast enought to actually break the sound barrier (which is what makes whips "crack!") and the supervillain using a whip said "Oh crap." He was unconscious half a second later.)

 

Kicking around ideas is what we do best here. It's never a waste of time to look for better ways to do things or we'd still be computing with rocks and sticks. Sometimes all you can manage is to reinvent the wheel.

[dstarfire]

good in theory, but ...

 

I like the idea of making the defendant an active participant in his defense, especially when I'm the defendent. However hero's abort to block/dodge system handles this fairly well.

 

However, if you're set on adding a skill roll to the combat values themselves, I'd replace the fixed 11 in the combat formula with a number derived from the skill roll. You'll have to figure out the actual formula yourself, but, ideally, the result should have a range of 6-16 (50-150% of base 11).

 

grrr, now I'm going to spend the rest of the day trying to come up with that formula.

 

input:

3d6 roll

skill level

 

output:

~6-16

 

process:

unknown.

[badger3k]

Re: good in theory, but ...

 

Originally posted by dstarfire

I like the idea of making the defendant an active participant in his defense, especially when I'm the defendent. However hero's abort to block/dodge system handles this fairly well.

 

However, if you're set on adding a skill roll to the combat values themselves, I'd replace the fixed 11 in the combat formula with a number derived from the skill roll. You'll have to figure out the actual formula yourself, but, ideally, the result should have a range of 6-16 (50-150% of base 11).

 

grrr, now I'm going to spend the rest of the day trying to come up with that formula.

 

input:

3d6 roll

skill level

 

output:

~6-16

 

process:

unknown.

 

Step 1: Collect Underwear!

 

Step 2: (pause)

 

Step 3: Profit!

 

Simple.