How would you simulate this?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

Am I wrong or are we getting caught up in trying to describe the special effects rather than the mechanics?

 

Could a homing round not simply provide a lot of OCV and take a couple of segments to reach its target?

 

My reasoning is that if I make a to hit roll but the target does not take damage immediately and indeed may have even a slight chance of getting something in the way, then that is a limitation on my attack (I should get to do the damage immediately).

 

If the limitation is something like (missile travels 10" per segment, follows target unerringly once 'locked on' -1/4) then someone could get themselves behind a closed door that would take the hit (if they could travel faster than the 10"/segment to the door), otherwise they'd get hit a few segments after I fired the round. My 'to hit' roll would simulate the lock on. If I failed the attack roll then I wouldn't have managed to lock on to the target at all and the missile would miss.

 

My suggestion is to buy an EB with the limitation as above - the round you are talking about isn't better than a regular shot it is worse.

 

 

Doc

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

That's another way of looking at it. I was assuming that the projectile hit during the same segment it was fired.

[prestidigitator]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

Yes, it does. Even if the rules didn't say specifically that it does (H5R, p. 393), ordinary common sense should lead one to the same conclusion. If you can leap aside to avoid the explosion of a grenade, you can certainly leap aside to avoid being hit by a tiny little bullet.

 

After all, if you are going to use an entire action and voluntarily stand there with your pants around your ankles (figuratively speaking) until your next action and risk failing a Dex roll and getting hit anyway, by gosh you ought to be able to avoid getting hit if you do succeed at that Dex roll.

Oh, come on! Who is going to fail that Dex roll? LOL. Just about no one. For an AoE attack, at least you are required to go some distance, which very well could cause you to fail. If you can use it for just any old attack, you're never going to fail. That means if I am already at half DCV for some reason, there is almost no reason not to do a simple, painfully easy DFC. I think this rule is bogus! If you are going to DFC away from a non-AoE attack, it should only be under specific circumstances, when you might be able to break the line of attack. God I hate 5ER!

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

first off, i've failed a 12- DFC roll at most inappropreat moments, it sucks. Also you forget DFC leaves you prone, so you have to spend a 1/2 phase to get up.

 

Finally, they will fail their dex roll if you add in some "Luck useable as attack: only for failing dex rolls for DFC (-2)"

 

That one hurts. I love seeing a players eyes wince as his 11 turns into a 14 and he gets beaten on.

[Onyxclaw]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

plus, you do have to give up a half phase getting back up, and unless you're super fast this will hurt you if you're forced to do it a lot.

 

I've failed dex rolls too, in fact about 26% of the time a character will fail a 12- dex roll. And at 14- it's still a 10% fil chance. And besids if you have a high dex roll, then by all rights you should be able to get out of the way. That's the point right? Isn't that one reason why dex is so expensive?

 

The way I figure, if you make them roll enough, eventually they will fail.

The best way to ensure that your opponent can't get out of the way is to drain dex or use luck to reroll thier dice to make sure they fail. Anyother way to make them fail is also acceptable. You could even limit it more if you want so the drain/luck is only applicable to DFC dex rolls, that's pretty cheap now then isn't it?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

Oh' date=' come on! Who is going to fail that Dex roll? LOL. Just about no one.[/quote']

 

That is a fallacious statement, unless you habitually play characters with unmodified DCVs over 10 (in which case, why would you be Diving For Cover from a non-Area Effect attack, anyway?). As I said, not only does a character run a very real risk of blowing the Dex roll (and getting hit anyway), they're also prone (and thus 1/2 DCV) until their next action, whether or not they make the Dex roll -- and if they aborted to dive for cover, that could be a very long time, indeed. And then it takes another action (or a successful Breakfall roll) for the character to stand up again.

 

A Dive For Cover is not the easy escape from damage that you seem to think it is. There is no reason to place arbitrary restrictions on when a character may Dive For Cover: the maneuver is already quite limited. It's a desperation move: Dodge is usually preferable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

A Dive For Cover is not the easy escape from damage that you seem to think it is. There is no reason to place arbitrary restrictions on when a character may Dive For Cover: the maneuver is already quite limited. It's a desperation move: Dodge is usually preferable.

 

Consider two characters of equal Speed. One fires, the other DFC's.

 

As long as DFC Boy keeps making the DEX roll, he doesn't get hit. But he also can't counterattack. He can't wait for an attack to miss - it's too late to DFC after the attack roll is made. Sooner or later, DFC Boy will fail his roll. Then he takes damage.

 

At best, DFC Boy can drag the combat out to a draw (ie delay long enough for the attacker to lose interest, or his friends to come help him). And he looks so heroic flinging himself all over the map to avoid getting hit.

 

One other issue: DFC Boy requires a half phase to get up. I would suggest it's reasonable to penalize a DFC roll made from a prone position.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

from a prone position, we've always played you could "crawl for cover" at 1"

[Killer Shrike]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

In the manga that I am reading one of the weapons fires a projectile that will follow an evading foe. This is a power that, up until now, the character with the weapon did not realize it had. He stumbled upon how to get the gun to "lock" on to the target through experimentation.

 

Until now whenever he used the gun he had to get the drop on a target or else they'd dodge out of the way. If one of the enemy saw the gun fired at them they would dive for cover and avoid the shot. When the last fellow tried this he dove to off to the side and the projectile turned to follow and nailed him.

 

What mechanic do I used with a ranged weapon to negate a target's effort to dive for cover? The only thing I can think of is a hideously powerful Indirect Area Of Effect Accurate. With an area large enough to be certain a target cannot dive far enough away. Is there a more "elegant" solution that I am overlooking?

 

 

Summon.

 

This character has a similar ability; the Lamplighters power:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/MillennialMen/CharacterFiles/Legend.HTML

http://www.killershrike.com/MillennialMen/CharacterFiles/Lamplighter.html

[Killer Shrike]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

I don't think DFC normally works at all against a non-AoE attack. However' date=' I occaisionally allow it when there is nearby cover that would break the line of attack. Indirect would naturally be able to counter this.[/quote']

You can D4C vs non-AoE's in 5th Edition. You couldnt in 4th Edition, but it never made any sense to not be able to. Even from just a meta standpoint, you have to declare the Abort before the attack roll is made, so how do you know if the attack is an AoE or not?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: How would you simulate this?

 

Even from just a meta standpoint' date=' you have to declare the Abort before the attack roll is made, so how do you know if the attack is an AoE or not?[/quote']

 

Exactly. That always bugged me in 4th Edition.