Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

[Tywyll]

How do you stop a character you are engaging in combat from disengaging and walking around you to pulverize the princess/DNPC/puppy you are protecting? Other than holding an action, there doesn't seem to be a way from stopping the non-sensical, but rules legal action of a character involved in a fight from walking past his attacker in a later phase to attack someone or something behind them.

 

DnD 3.X had Attacks of Opportunity, one of the more difficult rules to completely grasp because it had so many "and...if" clauses, but it still made a lot of sense in use. Is there any way to do that in Hero, short of just cludging it?

 

I am familiar with the Interpose rules, but those don't actually stop your opponent from getting past you, it just punishes them for doing it (AFAIR).

 

Anybody do anything with this?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

You're right, it's not as easy as it should be considering how often such things occur in comics and films, but there are at least two ways:

 

1) Hold a Phase so you can move with/react to him

 

2) You can Block to protect other characters, not just yourself; and if you successfully Block you get the next hit in first.

 

Realistically, no bad guy is going to take out Aunt May with the hero right behind him unless he's a fanatic willing to die to accomplish his mission. It's not genre; and essentially is metagaming as the villainous character exploits a loophole in the combat system. Were a villain to try this, I'd give the hero both a bonus to hit (because the villain is deliberately ignoring him) and possibly extra dice of damage as well.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

If you have The Ultimate Martial Artist, the Interposing rules on p. 160 can help you out. The section even starts with the line, "In the HERO System, it's very difficult to defend someone else."

[Tom Carman]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

I don't think there is a book-legal way to prevent this in HERO, tho you can make the villain regret it. There may be something in FREd about penalties for ignoring attackers (but I don't have that on hand, just the old Ed.4 PDF). If 5th doesn't have anything covering it, you could simulate it by treating this as a combat Surprise attack (halved DCV).

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

I would agree that the Interposing rules are probably the best option in the system for dealing with this. I disagree, though, that the default situation in HERO is actually nonsensical. Have you ever tried to stop a determined person from getting past you by interposing yourself? It's not as simple as blocking the line of sight of someone using a weapon at range. It's a very dynamic process that requires you to match that person's moves. If your opponent is quicker and more agile than you (in HERO terms, has a DEX and SPD advantage) he likely will get by you, short of you actually succeeding in grabbing and holding on to that person (requiring a successful Grab Maneuver). Anyone who's played football or basketball can attest to this.

 

One option that you might consider is to allow characters to Abort to a Move only to interpose themselves between an attacker and someone they're protecting, treating that as a defensive action. This would enable the character to constantly put himself in his opponent's way, forcing the opponent to remove the defender first.

[yamamura]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Also they are leaving their back open and so imho the person they moved past can get all the bonuses for attacking from behind.

 

G

[prestidigitator]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

One option that you might consider is to allow characters to Abort to a Move only to interpose themselves between an attacker and someone they're protecting' date=' treating that as a defensive action. This would enable the character to constantly put himself in his opponent's way, forcing the opponent to remove the defender first.[/quote']

That's just what I was going to say! I might also inject Dex vs. Dex or Per rolls for the defender to match movements, but this is, of course, not a part of the standard rules. The Abort to movement is part of the rules, though interpreting it as defending someone else (or some "place" else--why not allow the guardning of a door or hallway?), and allowing simultaneous opposed movement, could be viewed as a fudge.

[Herolover]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Before I start any campaign I hand out two sheets to my players. One list all the applicable manuevers and one list possible actions in combat and I mention that they want to hold actions.

 

Hold Action is the way you want to go so that as the attacker moves by you to get to the princess you can attack, block, or grab him.

 

My only problems is that I always forget to do the manuevers for the bad guys...oops.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

BTW, I liked some attacks of opportunity when used judiciously by the GM in very appropriate situations back in, say, barebones 2nd Edition D&D. Ever since (stupid) Combat and Tactics and the core 3rd Edition rules incorporated them into everything under the Sun, I have felt sickened (which, by the way, must grant someone an Attack of Opportunity against me, right?)! I can't even approach an enemy without their getting a free attack on me? I can't drink potions or cast spells anymore? What the f**k?!??! The next step will be when all enemies get Attacks of Opportunity against you for attacking (EDIT: and then, if it isn't obvious, you get an Attack of Opportunity against each of them for taking Attacks of Opportunity, and then they each get...)!!!!

[Lezentauw]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

One option that you might consider is to allow characters to Abort to a Move only to interpose themselves between an attacker and someone they're protecting' date=' treating that as a defensive action. This would enable the character to constantly put himself in his opponent's way, forcing the opponent to remove the defender first.[/quote']

 

I have considered this very thing, especially after watching some of the Spiderman animated series. I have even considered allowing it to be used for any action, as long as it is done for the intention of defending an innocent. This then allows for the villian to put the good old hero into the position, so that he can make his get-away. If it fits the genre, then I say let it happen.

 

Here are a couple Spidie examples that I have thought of, I am sure that there are a ton more:

Aborting to a grab by, while swinging.

Aborting to an entangle to create a web to catch falling debris.

[Inu]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

I would agree that the Interposing rules are probably the best option in the system for dealing with this. I disagree' date=' though, that the default situation in HERO is actually nonsensical. Have you ever tried to stop a determined person from getting past you by interposing yourself? It's not as simple as blocking the line of sight of someone using a weapon at range. It's a very dynamic process that requires you to match that person's moves. If your opponent is quicker and more agile than you (in HERO terms, has a DEX and SPD advantage) he likely will get by you, short of you actually succeeding in grabbing and holding on to that person (requiring a successful Grab Maneuver). Anyone who's played football or basketball can attest to this.[/quote']

However, if in the original situation the two characters are fighting, this is different.

 

I'm standing in front of my girlfriend, fighting the kidnapper. I think most people will attest that if you take your attention off the guy you're fighting for a moment, you're going to get hit. It's not a case of stopping him by interposing - interposing is merely the only way to do it in HERO. In real life, you'll be stopping him by the threat of your meaty fists (or whatever else you have available).

 

But in HERO (and, indeed, most other game systems), the guy I'm fighting can not only stop paying attention to me, he can walk three hexes around me, and Grab my girlfriend, then use her as human shield cover. Meanwhile, I can't do a thing about it other than desperately try to interpose myself (exposing myself to an attack).

 

The rationale behind Attacks of Opportunity (AoO) is that combat is fluid, and while the miniatures are standing still, the characters are not. So if you lower your guard, you give your opponent a chance to hit you outside of the normal sequence. This attack can be any of the standard options, including Grab (as would probably be appropriate in this case).

 

There are certain rules in Hero which just strike me as manipulating the game, rather than actually working with the 'reality' of the setting. The ability to run around and around and around an opponent without any possible is one of the things that sticks in my throat.

 

Now, you CAN create situations where you can get things like AoO. You can buy a trigger on your attack as a naked advantage (trigger=when bad guy runs past me). You can hold an action, as was mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

But all of those things SHOULD be unnecessary! They're kludges. Why SHOULD I have to hold my punch, just in case the other guy is gonna try to get around behind me? I mean, if I do that, he just might be tempted. If I keep assailing him with blows, wouldn't he be more tempted to stay where he is?

 

But this all boils down to various holes in most RPGs - primarily, the turn-based nature. I shoot at bad guy X. Bad guy X now has a whole turn to run towards me. Unless you use segmented movement, he can do it; but we suspend our disbelief here, because it's just how game systems work, and doing anything else is problematic. (Some situations are worse than others, of course. I was running a WW2 game using the Torg system, and was struck by the possibility of someone running 250 metres towards an entrenched machinegun nest in a SINGLE round and taking it out with a grenade or something, all without any possible retalliation. So I changed the rules there.)

 

Anyway, this post has largely been long and rambly, rather than having any real point... as for the original poster's problem, no, I have no idea how to deal with it other than building kludges into your character. Unless you're willing to say that any maneuver can be Aborted, if the bad guy's obviously not trying hard enough to defend himself against you.

 

It's a problem inherent in any game system. Some deal with it, some don't.

[Inu]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

BTW' date=' I liked some attacks of opportunity when used judiciously by the GM in very appropriate situations back in, say, barebones 2nd Edition D&D. Ever since (stupid) Combat and Tactics and the core 3rd Edition rules incorporated them into everything under the Sun, I have felt sickened (which, by the way, must grant [i']someone[/i] an Attack of Opportunity against me, right?)! I can't even approach an enemy without their getting a free attack on me? I can't drink potions or cast spells anymore? What the f**k?!??! The next step will be when all enemies get Attacks of Opportunity against you for attacking (EDIT: and then, if it isn't obvious, you get an Attack of Opportunity against each of them for taking Attacks of Opportunity, and then they each get...)!!!!

Attacks of Opportunity don't happen ALL the time. They happen in specific situations when your opponent lowers his defences. The primary way for this to happen is when they're moving within your threatened area. Having played 3e and 3.5 a lot, I can tell you that AoO are fairly rare once people get the rules down, and that's because people don't want to provoke them. Just about the only time I see them is when monsters or players charge targets who have reach (PCs with long weapons, big monsters), or they've somehow been knocked prone and have to stand up (standing up provokes an AoO).

 

There are other situations, of course. Unless you're trained (IE, have the correct feat) you provoke an AoO by trying to disarm an opponent. This makes sense to me.

 

No, you do not provoke an AoO simply by attacking (unless you're untrained in unarmed combat, and you're attacking an armed opponent - does anyone want to quibble with this?). The number of things that provokes an AoO has hardly gone up since the original release of 3e, and so I don't believe there is in fact that risk of an ever-expanding list of things that provokes an AoO.

[Tywyll]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

However, if in the original situation the two characters are fighting, this is different.

 

 

Anyway, this post has largely been long and rambly, rather than having any real point... as for the original poster's problem, no, I have no idea how to deal with it other than building kludges into your character. Unless you're willing to say that any maneuver can be Aborted, if the bad guy's obviously not trying hard enough to defend himself against you.

 

It's a problem inherent in any game system. Some deal with it, some don't.

 

Exactly! Having played lots of Larp combat, and been in a few fights (not many, just an unfortunate few) its extremely rare that a combatant completely ignores the person they are trading blows with to move past them. In most cases, if they do, they are really attempting a Move By or Move Through, which I am ok with. What I am not ok with is running the 3 hexes around me and grabbing my ward that I, mighty fighter, have sworn to protect.

 

And of course you can flip this and have the heroes do it to the villian's power crystal of ultimate doom, or whatnot.

 

Anyway, it bugs me. Sure, if the character is in full plate and is half elemental, I can see them taking the blow and trying for it anyway, but in most cases, short of absolute protection or suicidal tendencies, the characters aren't simply going to ignore an armed and dangerous opponent.

 

Speaking of movement though and the non-sensical things it provokes, yeah, there is some issue with the fact that similar speed characters can never outrace each other, but that's another thread I think.

 

Ok, so the question is this: how unbalancing would it be to allow characters an AoO or something similar? Interposing is ok, but frankly I don't think a defender needs to take a hit to bash at someone who is ignoring them. Simply being engaged with a target should be sufficient to keep them from gacking the ward behind you, at least until you fall. And if you swing at them, unless you are just incredibly slow, no difference in speed is really going to stop you from being able to get a "back attack" on them.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think of OAD&D's rule where you got a free swing on anyone who ran away from you in combat as they turned their back.

[Tywyll]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Before I start any campaign I hand out two sheets to my players. One list all the applicable manuevers and one list possible actions in combat and I mention that they want to hold actions.

 

Hold Action is the way you want to go so that as the attacker moves by you to get to the princess you can attack, block, or grab him.

 

My only problems is that I always forget to do the manuevers for the bad guys...oops.

 

While hold action does work, to a degree, it doesn't satisfy me. You don't take a penalty in a fight for the other guy dropping his defenses. You can be attacking him and fully intent on stopping him (using your phase to attack) and if he suddenly drops out of a defensive stance and tries to dart past you, unless he's fainted or something similar, you will get a chance at him, even if it is just sticking your foot out and tripping him or hitting him with your shield/foot/fist. The game system doesn't allow that (though as Inu pointed out, this problem isn't simply with Hero, most other games that use miniatures have the same issue /except/ 3rd Ed DnD).

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

One option that you might consider is to allow characters to Abort to a Move only to interpose themselves between an attacker and someone they're protecting' date=' treating that as a defensive action. This would enable the character to constantly put himself in his opponent's way, forcing the opponent to remove the defender first.[/quote']

 

In furtherance to this suggestion, I've been doing more research into the rules for Aborting An Action, and I've come up with some interesting rulings.

 

From the sidebar description of Defensive Actions on 5E p.236, Aborting can "Use any other Maneuver, activation/use of any other Power, or performing any other Action deemed by the GM to be primarily for purposes of defending or protecting the character." This gives the GM a lot of leeway to define Abortable actions.

 

The passages below are also from p.236, with emphasis added by myself:

 

Ordinarily a character can only Abort to protect himself. However, with the GM's permission, a character can Abort to protect others (for example, to step in front of an attack intended to hit another character, or to use Missile Deflection at range to save someone from a bullet.

 

A character may perform more than one defensive Action while Aborting - such as Aborting to Dodge and simultaneously activating a Defense Power - provided they are not mutually exclusive. For example, a character cannot Abort to Dodge and Block; both are Combat Maneuvers and cannot be performed together.

 

In relation to Aborting to multiple defensive Actions, I found this ruling from the FAQ under "Combat And Adventuring" which I believe to be relevant:

 

Q. Can a character Abort after performing a Half Move? After a Full Move?

 

A. Per 5E 236, a character can Abort after taking a Half-Phase Action (be that a Half Move or something else). A character cannot Abort after performing a Full Phase Action (be that a Full Move, an attack, or something else).

 

Based on these rulings, I would say that it's well within the rules for the GM to allow a character protecting another one to Abort to Half or Full Move into the path of someone trying to go around him to attack the other character. Furthermore, the defender could Abort to both Half Move and another defensive maneuver, such as Blocking the attacker's blow or Missile Deflecting a ranged attack, as the same Aborted Action.

[Greatwyrm]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Rules aside, what self-respecting villain would purposely go for the weak npc behind the hero when he knows he's smarter/faster/stronger than the dorky hero he's lured into this situation?

 

Sure, I can see a situation where maybe the villain wants/needs to capture the person. You still have to deal with the hero once you have the target. You'd either need to be able to scoop them up and get away before the hero could react or keep the hero busy with other problems while you do it. It just doesn't seem tactically sound to try it in the first place.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Well, FWIW I ran my suggestions from my previous post above past Steve Long on the Rules Questions board, and he didn't shoot them down outright:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31001

[prestidigitator]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Attacks of Opportunity don't happen ALL the time. They happen in specific situations when your opponent lowers his defences. The primary way for this to happen is when they're moving within your threatened area. Having played 3e and 3.5 a lot' date=' I can tell you that AoO are fairly rare once people get the rules down, and that's because people don't want to provoke them. [/quote']

Yes, they are fairly rare once people get the rules down and start worrying about AofOs. Of course, at this point players spend just about all of their time worrying about how they can take just about any action without provoking AofOs. I play D&D 3.5 with a very experienced group of players (because, for the most part, they refuse to do anything else ). Just about all the arguments and delays in combat are over AofOs. It is ridiculous.

 

Just about the only time I see them is when monsters or players charge targets who have reach (PCs with long weapons, big monsters), or they've somehow been knocked prone and have to stand up (standing up provokes an AoO).

If played correctly in D&D, monsters with reach can take almost complete advantage of characters who aren't using reach weapons or ranged attacks. Likewise, I have seen so many characters whose complete concept is built around tripping enemies, and so many whole combats where combatants stay on the ground in order to avoid the AofOs that I am entirely sick of it!

 

There are other situations, of course. Unless you're trained (IE, have the correct feat) you provoke an AoO by trying to disarm an opponent. This makes sense to me.

 

No, you do not provoke an AoO simply by attacking (unless you're untrained in unarmed combat, and you're attacking an armed opponent - does anyone want to quibble with this?). The number of things that provokes an AoO has hardly gone up since the original release of 3e, and so I don't believe there is in fact that risk of an ever-expanding list of things that provokes an AoO.

I wasn't saying you provoke an AofO just by attacking. I was using it to illustrate the ridiculous extreme toward which D&D is heading. And yes, I will quibble with the AofOs against unarmed attackers. If you attack someone while they are attacking you, you may certainly be able to take advantage of proximity and openings, you may be able to catch them off guard, but the exact same thing goes toward opponents who are armed or unarmed. If they are unarmed, you just may have the advantage of a little extra reach (handled very well the way Hero suggests CV penalties), and you just may not care as much about their also hitting you. Such things are best handled with held actions, blocks, etc. In fact, I might myself allow a character--say with an edged weapon--to Abort to a Block, and if the Block succeeds, cause some damage to the attacker (though I probably wouldn't allow them to add Str to the damage). This represents well the fact that an unarmed attacker is presenting a viable target to the defender.

 

Allowing AofOs is ridiculous unless you still go for the whole, "an attack isn't actually a single attack; it is the final likely attempt after a lot of ducking, dodging, feinting, etc." philosophy, which Hero certainly doesn't need and D&D has moved away from in so many other respects that AofOs are silly. If an attack action is an actual attack or sequence of attacks, then AofOs are a way for characters to suddenly somehow move much faster than they would normally be able to; they no longer represent just the ability to take advantage of an opening.

[Inu]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Yes' date=' they are fairly rare once people get the rules down and start worrying about AofOs. Of course, at this point players spend just about [i']all of their time[/i] worrying about how they can take just about any action without provoking AofOs. I play D&D 3.5 with a very experienced group of players (because, for the most part, they refuse to do anything else ). Just about all the arguments and delays in combat are over AofOs. It is ridiculous.

Which is opposite to my experience. It probably helps that we've had a fairly static group, but we all know the rules, we all run things by the rules (even have a couple to make things MORE complex, like follow-up movement), and we haven't had an argument for years now. The rules are clear, really. The only place they aren't clear is if an AoO provokes another AoO, and that's easily solved by a single house rule (my house rule: no).

 

If played correctly in D&D, monsters with reach can take almost complete advantage of characters who aren't using reach weapons or ranged attacks. Likewise, I have seen so many characters whose complete concept is built around tripping enemies, and so many whole combats where combatants stay on the ground in order to avoid the AofOs that I am entirely sick of it!

That's really a problem with trip. IT's too powerful, particularly when combined with reach. The real killer problem is trip+spiked chain. In future, I plan to either make the spiked chain disappear, or make it a damage-only weapon rather than a tripping/disarming weapon.

 

And yes, large enemies are hard to close with. If you want to avoid the AoO entirely, you close at 5' per round, or you tumble. If you're in heavy armour, you might just want to suck down the attack. If you get grappled, sucks to be you. But that's what you get for charging big monsters.

I wasn't saying you provoke an AofO just by attacking. I was using it to illustrate the ridiculous extreme toward which D&D is heading. And yes, I will quibble with the AofOs against unarmed attackers. If you attack someone while they are attacking you, you may certainly be able to take advantage of proximity and openings, you may be able to catch them off guard, but the exact same thing goes toward opponents who are armed or unarmed. If they are unarmed, you just may have the advantage of a little extra reach (handled very well the way Hero suggests CV penalties), and you just may not care as much about their also hitting you. Such things are best handled with held actions, blocks, etc. In fact, I might myself allow a character--say with an edged weapon--to Abort to a Block, and if the Block succeeds, cause some damage to the attacker (though I probably wouldn't allow them to add Str to the damage). This represents well the fact that an unarmed attacker is presenting a viable target to the defender.

In D&D, if you're good enough to attack someone who's armed without giving them an opening, then you have Improved Unarmed Strike and you are treated as being armed even when not carrying a weapon. IE, you no longer provoke AoOs simply by attacking. Simple, neh?

 

I have friends who are bouncers. They ALL say, without exception, that if someone's got a knife, they don't dare go near them, because they expect that, unless they catch them off-guard, they're gonna get cut.

 

And y'know, that catching someone off-guard thing happens in D&D, too. If you're flat-footed, no attacks of opportunity (unless you have combat reflexes, but then you are exceptional).

Allowing AofOs is ridiculous unless you still go for the whole, "an attack isn't actually a single attack; it is the final likely attempt after a lot of ducking, dodging, feinting, etc." philosophy, which Hero certainly doesn't need and D&D has moved away from in so many other respects that AofOs are silly. If an attack action is an actual attack or sequence of attacks, then AofOs are a way for characters to suddenly somehow move much faster than they would normally be able to; they no longer represent just the ability to take advantage of an opening.

D&D still works that way plenty fine. With melee attacks, anyway.

 

Even if you don't go for that philosophy... do you really think it takes someone with SPD 3 four seconds to stab with a knife? They stab (swish) and then wait for another opening. The notion that it takes them four seconds to recover and swing again is non-sensical.

 

So, the AoO (or, Hero-wise, the abort) gives them another opening sooner. Bang! They take that opportunity instead of waiting for another one.

 

It makes sense unless you actually believe that, in a combat, the combatants stay still for four seconds, then suddenly hit each other, then go back to standing still. Combat is FLUID, the game mechanics we use are just so that we can simulate it using dice and sheets. They aren't an exact representation of what happens, and there's a LOT of room for interpretation.

 

I'm not saying people HAVE TO work this into the game, or even that they SHOULD. But it won't require any radical re-think of the system philosophy to allow it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

In D&D' date=' if you're good enough to attack someone who's armed without giving them an opening, then you have Improved Unarmed Strike and you are treated as being armed even when not carrying a weapon. IE, you no longer provoke AoOs simply by attacking. Simple, neh?[/quote']

No one is good enough to attack without leaving some opening. Ever. The question is whether your opponent finds the tradeoff of being more vulnerable to your attack worth the value of taking that opening. Only this tradeoff really makes a difference between armed and unarmed opponents.

 

I have friends who are bouncers. They ALL say, without exception, that if someone's got a knife, they don't dare go near them, because they expect that, unless they catch them off-guard, they're gonna get cut.

True. Of course, if the bouncers also had knives, they would still have to expect to get cut. With their opponents unarmed, they should probably expect to get punched (except that carrying a weapon usually inspires more bravado in people). The question, again, is whether you'd rather get punched (usually by people who have no idea how to do much damage with a punch), or stabbed (which is very likely to kill you or at least injure you very badly, no matter the skill of the wielder).

 

Even if you don't go for that philosophy... do you really think it takes someone with SPD 3 four seconds to stab with a knife? They stab (swish) and then wait for another opening. The notion that it takes them four seconds to recover and swing again is non-sensical.

If they aren't waiting at all I call that a Sweep, and no: that doesn't take 4 seconds between swings. You can't move in between, either, and since you are attacking continuously and without much regard for your own defense, you are easier to hit. If you initiate an attack on your Phase, you are not waiting for an opening, but pressing for one. If you wait for an opening, you are holding your action until a more advantageous time to attack; for example, taking advantage of attacking during their Phase for possible situational modifiers, or waiting for them to do something like execute the above-mentioned Sweep.

 

So, the AoO (or, Hero-wise, the abort) gives them another opening sooner. Bang! They take that opportunity instead of waiting for another one.

Big differences between D&D's AofOs and Hero's Aborts: The AofO gives you a full attack for free. Completely for free. Hero's Abort usually gives you defensive capabilities. I just think that Blocking with an edged weapon (and possibly some others) should incidentally do some damage (just think of them as providing a bit of a limited Damage Shield). That's me.

 

It makes sense unless you actually believe that, in a combat, the combatants stay still for four seconds, then suddenly hit each other, then go back to standing still. Combat is FLUID, the game mechanics we use are just so that we can simulate it using dice and sheets. They aren't an exact representation of what happens, and there's a LOT of room for interpretation.

Quite so fluid, you think? Actually, there is a lot of backing off, considering your opponent, waiting for their next move or the right moment to press your own attack. It isn't like in the action movies where everyone acts completely without hesitation. On the other hand, you don't have to think of Phases as pulses of activity followed by periods of inaction. It is merely an abstraction, and you can consider the exact actions you take in your Phase as taking the amount of time you have between Phases, more or less. It serves closely enough for representing an action-for-action scene to me, at least to an order of magnitude.

 

I'm not saying people HAVE TO work this into the game, or even that they SHOULD. But it won't require any radical re-think of the system philosophy to allow it.

I think you are way off there. If AofOs suddenly become a part of the system, it is easy to start thinking of ways to take significant advantage of them. It would unbalance things as we know them now. Completely. Just like D&Ds AofOs have completely turned their system upside-down. I'm not saying that's all in a bad way, but it has gone way, way overboard.

 

If you truly want AofOs, pay for them: buy extra Speed that is only for taking advantage of "suitable openings," and have the GM decide what kind of Limitation that warrents based on your agreement over, "suitable openings." Then you can always be holding a Phase for that, "right moment."

 

I'm not saying a GM shouldn't allow some kind of AofO occasionally, in the extreme case, but I seriously don't think it should be an everyday part of the system.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Interesting debate.

The one and only time I played 3rd ed D&D I broke the campaign "standard" and played a plain vanilla human fighter. By 10th level, he could mop the floor with all the various gnome/werewolf ranger/sorccerers and the like, if I had wanted to. And it was all because of the Attacks of Opportunity from his plethora of feats. So I tend to agree that game is broken...It DEFINITELY rewards minmaxing. Alas I moved before I could get the reciprocal HERO game going...

"OK I'll play D&D with y'all to learn the players and give the new system a fair try...but then Y'all are gonna play FH with me..."

I've been pondering ways to ease the restrictions on Abort without killing game balance, as I do feel that the basic idea behind Opportunity attacks, Zones of Control, and Overwatch are features that could lend a bit more realism to HERO combat, but I'm still a bit wary. I remember the unbeatable Strike Force martial arts with abort elements on every move.

One possible (legal) solution, if you're willing to pay the cost... Variable trigger on Strike.

[Inu]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

 

Big differences between D&D's AofOs and Hero's Aborts: The AofO gives you a full attack for free. Completely for free. Hero's Abort usually gives you defensive capabilities. I just think that Blocking with an edged weapon (and possibly some others) should incidentally do some damage (just think of them as providing a bit of a limited Damage Shield). That's me.

Yup, at game standard, Hero aborts only give defensive action. What was proposed earlier in the thread is allowing an abort to offensive action, in the case that the opponent gives you a mighty good opening - such as walking right past you. I can't really see anything inherently wrong with this, particularly if mostly what you're doing between phases is waiting for an opening - well, the guy just gave you one.

 

 

Quite so fluid, you think? Actually, there is a lot of backing off, considering your opponent, waiting for their next move or the right moment to press your own attack. It isn't like in the action movies where everyone acts completely without hesitation. On the other hand, you don't have to think of Phases as pulses of activity followed by periods of inaction. It is merely an abstraction, and you can consider the exact actions you take in your Phase as taking the amount of time you have between Phases, more or less. It serves closely enough for representing an action-for-action scene to me, at least to an order of magnitude.

And that's exactly what I'm saying. I agree totally. Action in combats should be fluid. What we see is merely an abstraction. That's just what I'm saying. There are tentative presses, testing, evaluation. This leaves a lot of room open, in my opinion, for things happening between phases, such as aborting to Strike.

 

I think you are way off there. If AofOs suddenly become a part of the system, it is easy to start thinking of ways to take significant advantage of them. It would unbalance things as we know them now. Completely. Just like D&Ds AofOs have completely turned their system upside-down. I'm not saying that's all in a bad way, but it has gone way, way overboard.

 

If you truly want AofOs, pay for them: buy extra Speed that is only for taking advantage of "suitable openings," and have the GM decide what kind of Limitation that warrents based on your agreement over, "suitable openings." Then you can always be holding a Phase for that, "right moment."

 

I'm not saying a GM shouldn't allow some kind of AofO occasionally, in the extreme case, but I seriously don't think it should be an everyday part of the system.

Certainly, buying an ability is a solution. But it's only so much of a solution.

 

Before the old Dark Champions, I'm quite sure people said: "Hey. I have two guns, one in each hand. Why can't I fire them both at once?" Which was probably met by: "Buy extra SPD or buy up damage (with Reduced Penetration)." Dark Champions introduced rules methods to cope with firing two weapons - including both rules modifications (using a variant of sweep, in rapid fire), and things to buy (to improve the ability).

 

Now, introducing some kind of AoO is more of a modification than adding in rapid fire/two gun action. But I do believe that this is a legitimate concern, and adding in some kind of rules modification may make more sense than simply saying 'buy it with points.'

 

I don't care whether they're in the standard system or not - they would certainly complicate an already complicated system. However, my major problem with Hero is that it has some very detailed rules in some areas, which make sense... and their rules in others are simply gamey (DfC to avoid ranged attack, even if you just dive prone, is the prime offender here, in my opinion).

 

I feel the impact of AoOs, or equivalent, in Hero sysem would be minimal. It would cut down on things like people running past others - but if you kept the circumstances that provoke AoOs simple (such as only movement provoking them), then how much of any particular game session would really be altered? And how much frustration would it resolve? If a bad guy simply ran around me, grabbed Aunt May and started using her as a human shield, I'd be frustrated for sure. It doesn't make SENSE to me. Rules sense, yes, common sense, no. It violates my suspension of disbelief. (Unless, of course, a superpower were used to distract me, or to let the guy run real fast - but that's something bought with points. We're talking base rules here.)

 

My blessing on anyone who decides to introduce AoOs into their game. I feel the impact will not be large, but will be largely good. My experience is that, in D&D, they've done very well for resolving gameyness and only VERY rarely feel gamey themselves. By and large, they feel natural, rational and intuitive.

 

And that's all I have to say on that.

[Inu]

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)

 

Interesting debate.

The one and only time I played 3rd ed D&D I broke the campaign "standard" and played a plain vanilla human fighter. By 10th level, he could mop the floor with all the various gnome/werewolf ranger/sorccerers and the like, if I had wanted to. And it was all because of the Attacks of Opportunity from his plethora of feats. So I tend to agree that game is broken...It DEFINITELY rewards minmaxing. Alas I moved before I could get the reciprocal HERO game going...

And Hero never rewards min-maxing?

 

If not, why do we have threads on re-costing strength, putting attribute limits into place, and related topics such as that?

 

I mean, really.