Moving from D&D - rules issues

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Yah, the Monty Haul mentality does not translate well to the HERO System, which is generally one of the many reasons I prefer Fantasy HERO

[Basil]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Ignoring Opponents: p157 of FH; also p140 of the Combat Handbook. (Working from home today' date=' 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 B is at 1/2 DCV.[/quote']

A small correction is needed here. It is Character A who is at 1/2 DCV. That is, it is the person running past that has his DCV decreased.

 

I'm sure you knew that, bigdamnhero, and just got it backwards in writing it down, but I thought it best to clear things up.

[Kabluey]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

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.

 

I have to disagree. There are interposing rules (p. 140 of Combat Handbook, for those who are curious), but they definitely don't have the same "feel" as Attacks of Opporunity (which was what the original post was about). If you Interpose, all you're doing is trading your DCV this phase for extra OCV next phase. If the attacker is willing to take the hit, you've done absolutely nothing to stop him from attacking the individual. Indeed, if you interpose and the attacker can move beyond your range, then your extra OCV is useless. With AoO, the attacker has to survive your attack, then he can make his own.

 

Of course, as you correctly point out, you can use a Held action, but that really isn't what Attacks of Opportunity are meant to address (they have Readied actions in d20 for just such similar situations). It's more of a, "Oh $#%!, they're trying to get to the mage. Better do something!", rather than a, "After due tactical consideration and party debate, I have determined that protecting the mage is my foremost priority and will therefore Hold my action until the foul creatures attempt to attack him."

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I'm definitely in the opinion boat that if you aren't actively trying to prevent someone from running around you, there's no reason they can't. Now, if you want to prevent it as it happening one thing you might allow is Abort to Block which, if successful, forces the target to win a contest of STR to move past you.

 

Since it is a defensive action, there is no contest of DEX. Sure, you don't get an attack, but you do prevent them from passing by.

 

Lack of AoO I don't think is a weakness and hasn't been an issue in my games.

 

The Ignoring Opponents optional rule I think also goes a long way to stop any "running around" abuse.

 

The other thing to remember is that like d20 there is no facing in Hero. Running around someone doesn't get you anywhere except behind them.

 

It's more of a mental shift that is required. Each system is different and learning to play the game as intended will go a long way to increasing enjoyment of play than trying to recreate a part of one system in the other.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

A small correction is needed here. It is Character A who is at 1/2 DCV. That is, it is the person running past that has his DCV decreased.

 

I'm sure you knew that, bigdamnhero, and just got it backwards in writing it down, but I thought it best to clear things up.

Oh, um...yeah. Sorry. Good catch, thanks! [Edit made]

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

The Ignoring Opponents optional rule I think also goes a long way to stop any "running around" abuse.

The problem is that still requires the defender to have a held action ready. Similarly, Interposing only works on your phase, not your opponent’s. Which is fine if you are specifically trying to protect someone/something, or have reason to expect your opponent will try to get past you. But there are other situations where unrestricted movement can cause problems w/o some sort of AoO.

 

An extreme example from a Pulp game I played, using Spycraft rules which do not use AoOs: a half-dozen PCs and a half-dozen ninjas are fighting over some envelope, currently in the hands of a PC. All the PCs have higher initiative than the ninjas, and have hit several of them. Then the last PC to go manages to drop the envelope (for very funny reasons that I won't go into). Now the ninjas are up. The GM decides that Ninja #1 bends over and picks the envelope up off the ground, then moves completely around one PC until he’s next to Ninja #2; Ninja #2 grabs the envelope from Ninja #1 (who doesn't oppose the grab, of course), then moves around a second PC until he’s next to the doorway; Ninja #3, out in the hallway, reaches past a third PC to grab the envelope, then takes off running down the hall at the equivalent of non-combat speed. Up through the beginning of Ninja #3's run, every bit of this happened within arm's reach of at least two PCs, all of whom were faster and better-trained than the ninjas, and were (supposedly) actively engaged with the individual ninjas in question. But there was nothing we could do about it because we had already gone that turn and no one had a readied (ie - Held) action.

 

Now you could dismiss this as just poor GMing, which it clearly was. (As it happened, the players all howled bloody murder and eventually convinced the GM that was absurd and he backed down.) But the thing is: it was technically book-legal, and would likely have been legal if we’d been using Hero. Yes, we expect our GMs to use a little common sense. But the rules should, whenever possible, reinforce common sense; instead, the wording of the rules as they currently stand would seem to reinforce the "run around with impunity" interpretation.

 

That said, I don’t think we need a clumsy, complicated rule like D&D's AoO to fix this. Simply allowing a broad interpretation of what constitutes a defensive, ie – abortable, action will fix 90% of it. Alternately, you could just impose restrictions on moving through an opponent's Zone Of Control (to borrow a wargame term) without engaging that opponent. But the fact that the question seems to come up as often as it does would seem to imply that the rules do not do a sufficient job of addressing this.

[Guyon]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I sometimes let them treasure hunt and let it turn into a new scenario. Like the time they took parts from a Viper lab and used it with other "acquired" items to build self replicating AI robot helpers around the base.

 

You can figure out the rest.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I have to disagree. There are interposing rules (p. 140 of Combat Handbook' date=' for those who are curious), but they definitely don't have the same "feel" as Attacks of Opporunity (which was what the original post was about). If you Interpose, all you're doing is trading your DCV this phase for extra OCV next phase. If the attacker is willing to take the hit, you've done absolutely nothing to stop him from attacking the individual. Indeed, if you interpose and the attacker can move beyond your range, then your extra OCV is useless. With AoO, the attacker has to survive your attack, then he can make his own. [/quote']

 

A) "Feel" is subjective. If the objective is to get between an opponent and something else then there are rules to do that.

 

I don't have my books handy, but there are some optional rules to prevent an opponent from pushing past a character. Ill check it out when I get home.

 

Of course, as you correctly point out, you can use a Held action, but that really isn't what Attacks of Opportunity are meant to address (they have Readied actions in d20 for just such similar situations). It's more of a, "Oh $#%!, they're trying to get to the mage. Better do something!", rather than a, "After due tactical consideration and party debate, I have determined that protecting the mage is my foremost priority and will therefore Hold my action until the foul creatures attempt to attack him."

 

Actually AoO's were meant to address a common whine that in previous editions of AD&D combat was entirely turn based with practically no opportunity to interrupt opponents. Readied Actions are also a nod in that direction, but are not as flexible as HERO Held Actions.

 

Either way the HERO System does allow reactive actions and thus doesn't need an attempted fix to a problem it doesn't have.

[Talon]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

In my case, I would say the objective is to support a "feel" that opponents who leave themselves open near a foe are placed at a disadvantage. Ideally this would happen regardless of what the hero was doing at the time.

[Basil]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Each system is different and learning to play the game as intended will go a long way to increasing enjoyment of play than trying to recreate a part of one system in the other.

Excellent point, well put. I'm going to add that to my signature.

 

:thumbup:Repped!

[Kenn]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Of course' date=' as you correctly point out, you can use a Held action, but that really isn't what Attacks of Opportunity are meant to address (they have Readied actions in d20 for just such similar situations). It's more of a, "Oh $#%!, they're trying to get to the mage. Better do something!", rather than a, "After due tactical consideration and party debate, I have determined that protecting the mage is my foremost priority and will therefore Hold my action until the foul creatures attempt to attack him."[/quote']

 

Excuse me? Held actions are precislly for the "Oh $#%!, they're trying to______. Better do something!" maneuvers. People get the "I need to go first" stuck in their heads. It doesn't represent heravy tactical analysis. It represents knowing what your opponents are doing before you try to run them through.

[Kabluey]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Excuse me? Held actions are precislly for the "Oh $#%!' date=' they're trying to______. Better do something!" maneuvers. People get the "I need to go first" stuck in their heads. It doesn't represent heravy tactical analysis. It represents knowing what your opponents are doing before you try to run them through.[/quote']

 

Are you trying to say that not going first is not more of an advantage? In some cases this is true (in a game I'm currently in, I play a speedster who is notorious for holding his action - the GM looks at me ascance when I don't), but if you're a fighter in melee, generally going first is an advantage. If I can take the opponent down before he can hit me, I take less damage. If I hold my action, letting my opponent go first, then I run the risk of being killed, CON stunned, whatever.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against people holding their actions. There are times when they want to do this, and often for exactly what you're referring to ("let's wait to see what they're going to do"). But as I said in my earlier post, Held actions aren't a replacement for AoO. People aren't - and shouldn't be - holding every action in every combat, waiting for their opponents to act first.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Are you trying to say that not going first is not more of an advantage? In some cases this is true (in a game I'm currently in' date=' I play a speedster who is notorious for holding his action - the GM looks at me ascance when I don't), but if you're a fighter in melee, generally going first is an advantage. If I can take the opponent down before he can hit me, I take less damage. If I hold my action, letting my opponent go first, then I run the risk of being killed, CON stunned, whatever. [/quote'] Thats true if its one on one and you have a reasonable chance of hitting the opponent, but otherwise holding might be a better option.

 

Alpha strikes have their time and place, but most people always alpha strike, practically every action. Its a very bad habit.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against people holding their actions. There are times when they want to do this, and often for exactly what you're referring to ("let's wait to see what they're going to do"). But as I said in my earlier post, Held actions aren't a replacement for AoO. People aren't - and shouldn't be - holding every action in every combat, waiting for their opponents to act first.

 

 

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Hold when holding is advantageous, act when acting is advantageous.

 

(One of) The problem(s) with AoO is that it makes it difficult for people to move around in combat and rewards characters for attacking (since they don't really yeild anything defensively in the process). The 3e engine is designed to force people to close to HtH combat and then keep them there. A 30 foot circle is the range at which most engagements take place. This has the effect of favoring certain types of characters over others, and D&D combats tend to resemble rugby scrums since people get stuck in and then stop moving for fear of drawing attacks of opportunity. The Five Foot Step Shuffle becomes the order of the day.

 

 

 

A key point is that a high DEX in the HERO System doesnt just give a person the opportunity to go first, it gives them the opportunity to CHOOSE when they want to act. It empowers them to act when the timing is right. That may equate to going first, and it may equate to waiting for other people to commit to something and then interrupt them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Are you trying to say that not going first is not more of an advantage?

 

I'd rephrase this "The choice of whether to go first is an advantage."

[HeroGM]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

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?

 

Honestly, never had an issue without them, played D&D back when it came in a box and none of that was really handled until 2nd or 3rd.

[Kabluey]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I don't have my books handy' date=' but there are some optional rules to prevent an opponent from pushing past a character. Ill check it out when I get home.[/quote']

 

I'm no expert on the rules by any means, so feel free to point them out. But no rule I know of prevents a person from moving through or near the hex of another. The most you can do is attack them during their move, and then only with a Held Action. It requires a pro-active "I'm holding my action" rather than a reactive "I'm taking an AoO".

 

Actually AoO's were meant to address a common whine that in previous editions of AD&D combat was entirely turn based with practically no opportunity to interrupt opponents. Readied Actions are also a nod in that direction' date=' but are not as flexible as HERO Held Actions.[/quote']

 

I tend to suspect it's the other way around, i.e., Readied Actions were put in as a way to interrupt actions. AoO's dealt with a different set of problems, only one of which was for people moving through occupied areas. There are just too many limits on AoO's to think they were put in there as a way to interrupt actions, e.g., you can't use ranged attacks, there are only specific actions that you can interrupt, the 5-foot step, etc. Readied Actions, on the other hand, have none of these limitations - and allow you to interrupt other actions. I agree that Readied Actions aren't as flexible as Hero's Held actions, though.

 

Either way the HERO System does allow reactive actions and thus doesn't need an attempted fix to a problem it doesn't have.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Hero needs AoO's. In fact, I'm happy without them (though I never found them onerous or time-consuming when I played d20 as others have indicated). All I'm saying is that Held actions is not a replacement for AoO. So if you're responding to a d20 player, I do not think its fair to say that Held Actions do what an AoO did in d20. I do think it's fair to say that it's not really a problem - though the player's question would seem to indicate that he thinks it is.

 

Having said that, I have myself thought of the issue of stopping an opponent from moving through one's own hex, and failing your pointing out a rule that I'm unaware of, I do think it may be a shortcoming in the Hero System. Not a major one, and certainly not requiring trying to shoehorn AoO's into Hero System, but something that might be more "Hero"-ish but still address the issue.

[Kabluey]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Thats true if its one on one and you have a reasonable chance of hitting the opponent, but otherwise holding might be a better option.

 

Alpha strikes have their time and place, but most people always alpha strike, practically every action. Its a very bad habit.

 

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Hold when holding is advantageous, act when acting is advantageous.

 

I agree, which was my point. I don't think I said (or at least I didn't intend to say) that it's all-or-nothing - you must always hold or not. In fact, my comment was meant to counter what I perceived to be Hugh Neilson's comment that you would usually if not always be holding your action. Even my comment about the fighter striking first was qualified with a "generally", meaning not always. You have to take into account the tactical situation and take the appropriate action even if that action to wait until later.

 

(One of) The problem(s) with AoO is that it makes it difficult for people to move around in combat and rewards characters for attacking (since they don't really yeild anything defensively in the process). The 3e engine is designed to force people to close to HtH combat and then keep them there. A 30 foot circle is the range at which most engagements take place. This has the effect of favoring certain types of characters over others' date=' and D&D combats tend to resemble rugby scrums since people get stuck in and then stop moving for fear of drawing attacks of opportunity. The Five Foot Step Shuffle becomes the order of the day.[/quote']

 

I agree. But that's also one of the strengths of AoO's. You have to consider your tactical choices and the potential consequences. If you're going to move by a fighter, you can't just think, "He's already acted so I don't have to worry about it." The benefit of AoO's isn't what it provides to the defender (i.e., extra attacks against opponents), but rather that it serves as a deterrant to the attacker from just ignoring or bypassing a defender. In Hero, once the defender has acted, you no longer have to worry about him at least in that phase. Again, I'm not saying your above statement is wrong, just that it's only one side of the coin.

 

A key point is that a high DEX in the HERO System doesnt just give a person the opportunity to go first' date=' it gives them the opportunity to CHOOSE when they want to act. It empowers them to act when the timing is right. That may equate to going first, and it may equate to waiting for other people to commit to something and then interrupt them.[/quote']

 

I agree with this as well. I certainly was never meaning to imply that people should always go first when they can. All I'm saying is that you can't say that Held Actions fulfill what you get from AoO's because you always have AoO's - even when you've already acted. Also, your statement becomes less valid as the DEX lowers - as it probably will for many fighters who've spent their points on STR, CON, and BODY. So Held Actions become less useful (not useless though, not saying that) for a fighter because his chance of interrupting an opponent decreases, whereas this is exactly the sort of character an AoO was designed for.

 

I'm not meaning to be overly argumentative or anything. Essentially, I'm just saying that there is a real issue, i.e., how to stop people from moving through an opponent's hex. If Hero does have a specific rule to fit this, great. I'll flip through the book some more in search of it, or perhaps you'll point one out. But I don't think Held actions, with or without Interposing, are that answer - or at least not completely. I certainly am not saying I favor using AoO's in Hero. Actually, I'm favoring a sort of Abort to Interpose that automatically stops an attacker's move idea. My issue with it, though, is that you can't abort in the same action as you've acted - one of my issues with the Held Action as a solution to this problem. So I'm still mulling it over.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Look guys, I'm all in favor of held actions when appropriate; I use `em regularly myself. But when you get to the point where everyone is holding their actions more often than not (which is almost what some of you seem to be arguing) then every attack requires a DEX-off because five characters are all trying to go at once, combat slows down to a crawl, and the whole combat system regresses to one big game of chicken. Which is kindof amusing once, but gets real old real fast.

 

The point some people are trying to make is simply to point out that all the existing mechanisms for stopping "run arounds" require that you have a held action, which isn't always feasible. A couple people have suggested that maybe allowing people to abort to a wider range of actions in those situations might give characters a little more tactical flexibility. If you don't like the idea, fine, don't allow it in your games. But some of you are acting like they're threatening to take away your d6s and make you roll polyhedrals.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

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

The way I would GM such a situation is that the defender could Abort to keep himself interposed between the villain and the opening/target, and if the villain decides to attack the defender instead, I would allow a Block (without a second Abort).

 

If the defender has a Delayed Phase, he could use it to interpose himself automatically (without a Dex-vs.-Dex roll) unless the villain decides to devote his entire Phase to getting past, in which case there is going to be some kind of contest. The defender can also attack on that Delayed Phase, of course (subject to the usual Dex-vs.-Dex contest if appropriate).

 

P.S. - And if you haven't read those thread LL referenced, I highly recommend you do. Before I saw he did it I was just debating whether I was too lazy to go look them up myself. Thanks LL!

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Ok, got my books now.

 

There is the Ignoring Opponents optional rule from Fantasy HERO (reprinted in the Combat Handbook) which basically states that trying to move past enemies puts you at 1/2 DCV vs the opponent if they take a Held Action to smack you.

 

 

Interposing also allows you to interpose to protect a doorway or window if you like.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Look guys' date=' I'm all in favor of held actions when appropriate; I use `em regularly myself. But when you get to the point where [i']everyone [/i]is holding their actions more often than not (which is almost what some of you seem to be arguing) then every attack requires a DEX-off because five characters are all trying to go at once, combat slows down to a crawl, and the whole combat system regresses to one big game of chicken. Which is kindof amusing once, but gets real old real fast.

 

Im arguing that IF you are particularly worried about reacting to enemies as they attempt to take their actions then you should hold your action and if they do then act accordingly and if they don't go on the offensive. Simple.

 

The point some people are trying to make is simply to point out that all the existing mechanisms for stopping "run arounds" require that you have a held action, which isn't always feasible. A couple people have suggested that maybe allowing people to abort to a wider range of actions in those situations might give characters a little more tactical flexibility. If you don't like the idea, fine, don't allow it in your games. But some of you are acting like they're threatening to take away your d6s and make you roll polyhedrals.

 

 

GENERAL SCHMUCK

(thoughtfully)

Mister President, I think we've got to look

into this thing from the military point of view.

I mean, if the enemy stashed away some big

bombs and we didn't, when they come out in

a hundred years, they could take over.

 

GENERAL FACEMAN

That's right, sir. In fact, they might even

try a quick, sneak attack, so they can take

over our mine-shaft space.

 

ADMIRAL BULDIKE

They might even try to knock over a couple

of other countries and take their mine-shaft

space. If they had more mine-shaft space

than we did, they could breed more, and possibly

take over when they come out.

 

GENERAL SCHMUCK

We must not allow a mine-shaft gap!!

[Mike W]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

For me, both the ease of moving by people and the attack of opportunity rules were rationalized by the difference in turn length. In D&D one round is 1 minute and there are presumed to be a bunch of feints, parries and the like that aren't played out on the dice, so you have a lot of time in that round to react to someone doing something. In HERO, you have a 12 second turn, so you have about 2-3 seconds between actions. Hence, "attacks of opportunity" generally are based on your speed. If you have a high speed, you can divert an attack, if not, hey, you've got two seconds so you can attack the guy in front of you or the guy running by you but not both.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Actually in 3e a combat round is 6 seconds, which as I stated previously equates to a SPD 2 in the HERO System.

 

 

But other than that I partially agree with you. The entire AoO mess is one of those things that is better in theory than practice and its one of the few things I really hated about 3e, as opposed to the many things that just merely irritated me, and some things that I really liked, and at any rate is a purely metagame concept rooted in the mechanics of that game. No reason to port it over.

 

 

Ill even go so far as to say this: I've likely run more games with the HERO System, particularly Fantasy HERO, than perhaps 90% of the people on these boards, and there has never once been a situation where looking back an Attack of Opportunity equivalent beyond the many different options for accomplishing similar effects at the cost of allocating an action to do so would have been beneficial or needed. Its a non-issue.

 

Really the only mechanic from 3e that I personally think is superior to the HERO System's way of doing things is the ability to Attack then Move, but on the whole I understand the mechanical / balance rationale for why it isnt allowed in the HERO System.

[sbarron]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Actually in 3e a combat round is 6 seconds' date=' which as I stated previously equates to a SPD 2 in the HERO System. But other than that I partially agree with you.[/quote']And I agree with both of you. The presumption in D&D is that characters are continuously attacking and defending during those 6 seconds, and that if one character takes an action that prevents him from defending himself while in range of his opponent, he opens himself up to AoO.

 

In HERO, there is only half of this presumption. Characters defend themselves constantly, see DCV, but characters can only attack when they have a phase. But as KillerShrike points out, HERO gives PCs more opportunities to take action during those same 6 seconds than D&D does (generally +1/2 more actions per 6 seconds (3 SPD), but frequently +1 more per 6 seconds (4 SPD)).

 

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe D&D players should think of HERO combat in terms of turns rather than phases. So...

 

2 D&D rounds = 1 HERO turn.

2 Actions + AoO/2 D&D rounds = 3 or 4 Actions/1 HERO turn.

 

Looking at it this way, there is not such a large discrepancy. No, there are no AoO in HERO. But because you have more actions in HERO, players wanting to take AoO type attacks can hold actions for situations they'd like to take AoO type action on.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

And I agree with both of you. The presumption in D&D is that characters are continuously attacking and defending during those 6 seconds, and that if one character takes an action that prevents him from defending himslef while in range of his opponent, he opens himself up to AoO.

 

In HERO, there is only half of this presumption. Characters defend themselves constantly, see DCV, but characters can only attack when they have a phase. But as KillerShrike points out, HERO gives PCs more opportunities to take action during those same 6 seconds than D&D does (generally +1/2 more actions per 6 seconds (3 SPD), but frequently +1 more per 6 seconds (4 SPD)).

 

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe D&D players should think of HERO combat in terms of turns rather than phases. So...

 

2 D&D rounds = 1 HERO turn.

2 Actions + AoO/2 D&D rounds = 3 or 4 Actions/1 HERO turn.

 

Looking at it this way, there is not such a large discrepancy. No, there are no AoO in HERO. But because you have more actions in HERO, players wanting to take AoO type attacks can hold actions for situations they'd like to take AoO type action on.

Exactly.