Moving from D&D - rules issues

[Talon]

I'm ending a long-time D&D game, and starting a Hero game of some sort, with players who have not played the Hero System in the past. While I have no concern about their ability to learn the system, I do have a little concern that the lack of certain rules in Hero will confuse them. In particular:

 

-- No "attack of opportunity" rules

 

-- In a larger sense, the ease of running around/past someone

 

Have other people encountered these issues, and if so, how have you dealt with them?

[Eosin]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I have had "issues" with this myself. It'll be interesting to hear the results. In FH somewhere there is an elaboration but I don't recall the exact details off the top.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Thia Hamaldes might be able to help, if he doesn't stop by the thread I'd PM him... I know he's done extensive conversions and such from DnD to Hero as that what he moved from last year to join us.

[Phil]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I bought the Hero System Combat Handbook - as a direct reprint of lots of other rules, I feel rather cheated, but given that it does include rules from various books I don't own it offers some small compensation. One of those rules is a sort of AoO variant for the Hero system, IIRC.

 

Presumably this actually came from Ultimate Martial Artist or possibly Fantasy Hero? Does anyone know? Anyway, as with anything else, if you want it to, HERO can emulate it.

 

Of course, in HERO the real proof against hit-n-run attacks is holding your action and smacking 'em when they get close.

[Kenn]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

What are "attacks of oppotunity"? There are rules for suprise attacks and rules for attacks when the target is considered out of combat. I would think most attacks of oppotunity would fall under one or the other or both of those cases.

 

As far as going around someone, the ease is largly based on what they are doing. If they're activly trying to prevent someone's passage, they they're going to be standing their waiting (holding an action) for the person to try, and when the person tries they'll engage in some combat action to stop them (grab, strike, what have you.)

 

If the person being gone around has already attacked that phase, or has a lower dexterity than the person moving around them, then yes, getting past them isn't that difficult.

 

The thing to remember is Hero System combat is based on a second-by-second, blow-by-blow passage of time, noticably different than the way combat is declared in D&D.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Ah, Attacks of Opportunity - the best and worst part of the D&D rules. Best because they penalize characters for ignoring opponents; worst because the rules are a pain and can slow combat down to a crawl.

 

In FH somewhere there is an elaboration but I don't recall the exact details off the top.

Ignoring Opponents: p157 of FH; also p140 of the Combat Handbook. (Working from home today, so have the books handy.) Basically, if Character A runs past Character B (same or adjacent hex), and B uses a Held Action to attack A, then A is at 1/2 DCV.

 

Note however that the only part of this that is "new" is the 1/2 DCV part. Any character can Hold an action and use it to attack someone when they get too close, DEX roll permitting.

 

One house rule I have occassionally used in the past was to allow characters to "abort to attack" when an opponent is ignoring them or moving right past them. Somewhat of a subjective call on the GM's part, and best used sparingly for obvious resons. But IMX you only have to use it a couple times before players get the hint. Note also that you have to abort your next move to do it; it's not a "free" attack, like in D&D AOOs.

[Phil]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

One house rule I have occassionally used in the past was to allow characters to "abort to attack" when an opponent is ignoring them or moving right past them. Somewhat of a subjective call on the GM's part' date=' and best used sparingly for obvious resons. But IMX you only have to use it a couple times before players get the hint. Note also that you have to abort your next move to do it; it's not a "free" attack, like in D&D AOOs.[/quote']

 

I like the idea of aborting to attack, but I'd probably want to impose some kind of OCV penalty for making a snap-shot. As much as anything, it gets rid of the rather war-gamey need to constantly hold actions and potentially makes the flow of action much more dynamic. Repped!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

One of the big differences from DnD to Hero is the size of the area someone is working in during combat. In DnD you're in a five foot square - in Hero you're supposedly moving around in a 2m Hex. Large difference in size.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

What are "attacks of oppotunity"?

In D&D, if you move past an opponent (or do something else like cast a spell or read a scroll while adjacent to an opponent), then your opponent gets a free attack against you. He still gets to make his regular attack on his regular initiative, the AOO is a freebie. A nice idea in theory, says the wargamer half of my brain; a lousy mechanic in execution, say the RPG half of my brain. And that, as they say, is the kind of argument that can only end in a gun shot.

 

I like the idea of aborting to attack' date=' but I'd probably want to impose some kind of OCV penalty for making a snap-shot. As much as anything, it gets rid of the rather war-gamey need to constantly hold actions and potentially makes the flow of action much more dynamic. Repped![/quote']

Hmm, yeah. Snap Shot or Hurry would probably be appropriate. Of course, if you invoke the 1/2 DCV penalty, then -1 or -2 OCV is a small price to pay.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

One of the big differences from DnD to Hero is the size of the area someone is working in during combat. In DnD you're in a five foot square - in Hero you're supposedly moving around in a 2m Hex. Large difference in size.

5 feet versus 61/2 feet? Not really THAT big a difference...

[Kenn]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

In D&D, if you move past an opponent (or do something else like cast a spell or read a scroll while adjacent to an opponent), then your opponent gets a free attack against you. He still gets to make his regular attack on his regular initiative, the AOO is a freebie. A nice idea in theory, says the wargamer half of my brain; a lousy mechanic in execution, say the RPG half of my brain. And that, as they say, is the kind of argument that can only end in a gun shot.

 

I think you just convinced me that the lack of a specific Attack of Oppotunity rule is one more of the strengths of HERO.

[Talon]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

A five-foot square and a 2m (6.2 ft?) hex don't seem all that different in size...but then there's already a big thread on the area of a hex.

 

According to Hero rules, you can move through the same hex as an opponent, something which is highly verboten in D&D (there are entire Combat Maneuvers devoted to moving someone out of a square). I know that some of my players will have a hard time getting into the mindset where people can run past them unless they take a Held Action.

 

(This is the kind of thing that can unduly prejudice people against a system, so I'm trying to pre-emptively come up with the best way to handle it.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

5 feet versus 61/2 feet? Not really THAT big a difference...

Square vs Hex...

 

though actually doing the math (assuming I did it right) the Hex has less area (by a little under 2ft). so never mind me. I'm going back to yelling at phone companies now.

[Kenn]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I know that some of my players will have a hard time getting into the mindset where people can run past them unless they take a Held Action.

 

They're going to have a hard time getting into the mindset where, in a fight, holding an action is usually a good thing. The differences in game, particularly combat mechanics are very different.

 

They're going to be used to saying "okay, I use one action to parry, and the other one (or two) to try to attack." In Hero, that description would be stretched over six-to-twelve (or more) segments, and each little part resolved as it comes up.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

We've had this subject come up a couple of times before, with some very good suggestions on how to handle it, as well as how to approach the concept of an AoO:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30900

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32698

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Let me just extract some posts regarding a particular suggestion I made during one of those previous discussions, and the rules justification for it:

 

--------------------------------------

 

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.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

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.

 

-------------------------------------

 

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

[CourtFool]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

My first response is to ask, “Is it really needed?†I think this really depends on your preference. I think it is less of an issue in a Superheroic game. I would broach the subject with your players first and use Held Actions. If, after a few sessions, this appears broken, then I would attempt a house rule.

[Talon]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Heh, you compiled as I was reading the threads.

 

The issue I have with "Abort to move" (which was pointed out) is that it penalizes the defending character. Villain goes to move past, hero aborts to move, villain attacks the hero anyway -- rinse, lather, repeat.

 

Here are some ideas bouncing around my head:

 

-- Move the AoO rules into Hero wholesale. This would be more of a rules experiment than anything, else, I think overall it would be a huge headache (but would make for an interesting forum post )

 

-- Create a limited AoO rule (to be Hero-esque, declare that all characters have a free Trigger Naked Advantage that can be applied to any attack) for when people run past.

 

-- New Combat Modifier. Call it "Engaged". If you move past/around an opponent who you were fighting with (or who could engage you, GM's discretion), 1/2 OCV and DCV. Stretch or restrict the application of the rule based on genre.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

First off, I have a lot of D&D to HERO Conversion material, and generally useful Fantasy HERO material as well, here:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/FantasyHERO.htm

 

That aside, the HERO System does not have "Attacks of Opportunity" per se, but between Held Actions + Dex Offs, Aborts, Covering, and Interposing you can do basically everything you could do with AoO's and more. You just can't do it for "free".

 

On the other hand most characters get more actions per unit of time than they do in D&D. In D&D 3e you get 1 action per 6 seconds, which translates to a 2 SPD, while in the HERO System most Fantasy HERO characters have between a 3 and 5 SPD. Some of those extra actions can and usually should be used defensively and / or tactically rather than to just attack attack attack attack.

 

Ultimately the HERO System supports a great deal more flexibility and tactical options than D&D, and it does so in a less confusing and abusive fashion than AoO.

 

In my experience its a non issue.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Heh, you compiled as I was reading the threads.

 

The issue I have with "Abort to move" (which was pointed out) is that it penalizes the defending character. Villain goes to move past, hero aborts to move, villain attacks the hero anyway -- rinse, lather, repeat.

 

True enough. Of course if the villain is trying to move past the hero, one may assume that he doesn't want to attack the hero in the first place.

 

 

Here are some ideas bouncing around my head:

 

-- Move the AoO rules into Hero wholesale. This would be more of a rules experiment than anything, else, I think overall it would be a huge headache (but would make for an interesting forum post )

 

-- Create a limited AoO rule (to be Hero-esque, declare that all characters have a free Trigger Naked Advantage that can be applied to any attack) for when people run past.

 

-- New Combat Modifier. Call it "Engaged". If you move past/around an opponent who you were fighting with (or who could engage you, GM's discretion), 1/2 OCV and DCV. Stretch or restrict the application of the rule based on genre.

 

Given your particular concerns about the experience of your players, these may be the best course of action. To my mind, though, all of these are going to be a rules headache. Either you allow something into the system that it wasn't designed for, and have to deal with whatever the consequences turn out to be; or you have the players use something that doesn't quite match what they're used to, and isn't really in the rules that they're learning, which might be confusing for them.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Heh, you compiled as I was reading the threads.

 

The issue I have with "Abort to move" (which was pointed out) is that it penalizes the defending character. Villain goes to move past, hero aborts to move, villain attacks the hero anyway -- rinse, lather, repeat.

 

Here are some ideas bouncing around my head:

 

-- Move the AoO rules into Hero wholesale. This would be more of a rules experiment than anything, else, I think overall it would be a huge headache (but would make for an interesting forum post )

 

-- Create a limited AoO rule (to be Hero-esque, declare that all characters have a free Trigger Naked Advantage that can be applied to any attack) for when people run past.

 

-- New Combat Modifier. Call it "Engaged". If you move past/around an opponent who you were fighting with (or who could engage you, GM's discretion), 1/2 OCV and DCV. Stretch or restrict the application of the rule based on genre.

 

 

The game already provides mechanics that cover this kind of situation; there is no need to hack something or make major adjustments to handle it.

 

If you want to stop people from moving around you, Hold your action and when someone attempts it DEX off with them. If you win, you take your action first. If you don't take your Held Action to do anything like this you don't lose the action and can use it to do something else.

 

Also, there are optional rules for interposing oneself in such a way as to block entrance to a door or window. The same idea could be extended to include blocking entrance into a hex within HtH range.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

-- Create a limited AoO rule (to be Hero-esque' date=' declare that all characters have a free Trigger Naked Advantage that can be applied to any attack) for when people run past. [/quote']

 

First off, I agree with the belief that an AoO system is not essential. Held actions work fine in this regard. I do recall an optional suggestion some time back that a character wishing to defend a second character, or an area, could declare he was doing that, and set a "number". That number reduced his DCV, but increased his OCV against anyone moving past him to the defended character/area. His declaration was a zero phase (maybe half phase) action, and the other half would be held for the attack.

 

That said, if you feel you must have AoO's, the approach above makes the most sense to me. It allows you to set the Triggering events for an AoO. As well, a player wanting the ability to take multiple AoO's could simply be required to pay the differential cost for added triggered attacks (since the AoO in general would be limited to once per phase).

 

The AoO rules in D&D are sometimes problematic, and often poorly understood. [As an example, many players forget that you can move through the same square as a"friendly" and use them for enough cover to avoid the AoO.]

 

At the end of the day, however, I'm a big fan of the theory that emulating all the rule specifics of another game is generally an indication you should just play the other game. I play D&D and I play Hero. When I play D&D, I have attacks of opportunity. When I play Hero, I don't. But in D&D, I can't abort to Dodge or Block either.

[Guyon]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Nice job in finding related links Lord Liaden, that should really help them.

 

I think the BIGGEST problem you will having then not treasure hunt. I have a player that wants to grab every extra weapon and technology that he can form villain's. I mean grenades, electronics, equipment, it DIVES ME CRAZY!

 

While I think it is creative to use an item found for an action that it is not intended for, I do not want them doing a rape and pillage on every base and villain they find. The average D&D player wants to collect and horde stuff. Good luck in breaking that habit. LOL

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Since this is the sort of thing that villains tend to do to heroes, and so the heroes are supposed to have this option to counter that tactic... perhaps you as GM could just not have your villains do it.

 

If it then became something that your PCs would only try occasionally themselves, it might be allowable via successful Power Skill roll, or expense of an Heroic Action Point, if you use those rules in your campaign.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I think the BIGGEST problem you will having then not treasure hunt. I have a player that wants to grab every extra weapon and technology that he can form villain's. I mean grenades, electronics, equipment, it DIVES ME CRAZY!

 

While I think it is creative to use an item found for an action that it is not intended for, I do not want them doing a rape and pillage on every base and villain they find. The average D&D player wants to collect and horde stuff. Good luck in breaking that habit. LOL

 

Yes, treasure-hunting is one of the harder preconceptions to wean D&D players from, along with trying to kill whatever stands in their way. It's known as the "kill things and take their stuff" mentality.

 

IME that tends to be more of an issue than Attacks of Opportunity.