Moving from D&D - rules issues

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Rule two. You import the AoO rules. No' date=' seriously. GunBunny A runs past Melee Combatant B. B swings at A as soon as A leaves a Hex B threatens. Voila. That's all it is - it's a rule built expressly to force people to view the field tactically.[/quote']

Except that it's not that simple. Not by a long shot. "Five foot steps," don't provoke. A withdrawal action doesn't provoke (what do we call that in Hero? Dodge? Dive for Cover?). A successful tumble doesn't provoke. Plenty of things other than leaving a threatening square provoke (such as getting to your damn feet, for god's sake!).

 

Lift them directly and you have to translate a billion little complications into Hero terms. Make it a simple, "you get attacked if you leave a threatened hex," and it becomes even more unbalanced than it is in D20. Not only that, but what is, "threatened," in Hero terms? All hexes you can reach? Do we throw facing out the window in order to accomadate D20 AofOs? Need I go on?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Just to chime it with my $.02

 

The wargamer part of my brain enjoyed the addition of AoO to D&D 3rd.

 

I played ONE long campaign, and by the end my straight vanilla Human fighter could inflict more grief than any of the various werid races and multiclassed characters the other players all ran. It was powergamer heaven.

 

However, I immediately saw that the new time resolution system, movement, and to a certain extent, AoO's were all attempts to HERO-ify D&D combat. A theory somewhat borne out by Monte Cook working on the new system.

 

In general, I like the "Buy your own" approach to adding AOO's to hero if you must have them. Thia's example above illustrates a build for the basic AoO. Remember that a LOT of the AoO's that can be aquired you gain from Feats, which correspond to Talents or Skills in Hero...things you have to pay for. If you want all combative types to have the basic AoO, drop a simple build into your fighter package deals (templates, basically). Increasing the options on the trigger increases the tactical options available... a variable trigger that allows a half dozen possible additional triggers can sub for most of the Feats that add an additional AoO, or for balance purposes you might require tham to be built seperately.

 

The idea of adding an "abort to attack" AoO is one I've toyed with, trying to make it into a 0-1 point martial maneuver that can be used as an optional combat maneuver. Another idea has been an abortable FMove Block with the "Must Follow: Opponent attacking within within his half move range" to represent an "Intercept" maneuver... remember that a Block in Hero sets up the Blocker to go first in his next phase, thus giving initiative to the blocker.

 

In general, however, I've usually never had an issue with the structure of HERO combat... in my games, a lot of Holding actions goes on, even if only for a few dex ranks or a single segment... This reflects my practical HtH combat experience ratehr well, and I can't honestly think of that many times I've been stuck in a fight where I've REALLY had the "opportunity" to attack someone other than my opponent, and had the time to react and do so, without actually taking a second to compose myself first. I'd be more inclined to add an optional "abort to attack" ranged combat maneuver, actually ("opportunity fire"), as its a lot easier to quickly shift aim and pull a trigger/loose an arrow than it is to commit to a full attack in HtH.

[NinjaGeek]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

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' date=' but on the whole I understand the mechanical / balance rationale for why it isnt allowed in the HERO System.[/quote']

Could you explain this. What is the rationale to allow move-then-attack but not attack-then-move?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Actually, Presto, you're over complicating the matter. I'm not saying (okay, I did say, but let me rephrase slightly) that you can import the AoO rules whole cloth - I'm saying you can take all the concepts behind the AOO, and thusly import them and/or translate them as necessary.

 

F'rinstance.

 

- You are prone. You get up - you provoke an AoO. Nothing really complex there, it's a rule, it applies.

 

- 5' Step. You spend an entire half-phase only removing yourself from immediate threat - i.e., you step back one hex from your attacker to get out of his threatened range. Again, simple.

 

- A Hex you threaten. Any hex you can reach with an equipped melee weapon. If you're a caster, and you have a held touch-attack spell, you threaten thusly as well. And so on. Again, pretty straight forward.

 

- In Hero, you can build a trigger attack on a firearm, whereas in d20, no such creature exists. And, as The Fool pointed out, you can always spend points to improve your AoOs (as Feats do in d20).

 

I see your resistance, but going over the things you mentioned alone, I don't see any problems. And, if a problem were introduced, you'd either resolve it, or toss it. I'm just opining a suggestion to a d20 gamer who found something in that system he liked and wanted to import it over. There ARE many rules which govern the d20 AoO - and most of those rules can be imported without much fuss.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Actually' date=' Presto, you're over complicating the matter.[/quote']

Perhaps. I'm rather good at that at times.

 

Anyway, I just think it would be a pity to try to bring in AofOs without first giving the group a chance to experience Hero for what it is, and give them some help and experience in how to cover with the existing system the same tactical principles that AofOs are supposed to handle (without--for the moment--passing judgement over how well AofOs actually do that).

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

That I agree with, and reinforced the idea in re: movement then attacks in my thread. But absolutely, I agree with you. Play & learn the game as written first, then introduce AoOs if you feel their necessary. however, I didn't pursue that line of argumentation further, since Talon said he has extensive experience with HERO. Ergo, ipso facto, quid pro quo, and something something sum.

[Hierax]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

AoO adaption/adoption seems simple enough to me:

• If everyone (GM and ALL Players) wants AoO in HERO have it as a free ability.

• If some want it, make them pay for their characters to have the ability.

• If no one specifically wants it don't bother.

All, some, or none.

 

Personally, since AoO is pretty new-fangled on the xD&D front it's not a big deal to me, YMMV.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

And, also, a perfectly fair point. But it can be done without too much fuss, which was the original nature of the discussion. Somehow that got sidetracked. Dagged thread jackers.

[Robyn]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Damage Shields can't be used for affecting people who don't actually touch you (or possibly your Force Wall or whatever)' date=' at least by the standard rules.[/quote']

 

Why not? Sure, not for you, but just use the air surrounding you as a Focus of opportunity, and anything that "touches" it (falls within that AoE) becomes affected. Sprinkle on a few more Limitations for flavor, and there you are.

 

This would be an example of a "mobile" power.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

... what?

 

DS = Shield. That does damage. To someone else, preferably. Whether you place it on yourself, on a cactus, or on your Iron Wall (or a Fire Elemental, etc.), it means whomever touches gets the pointy end (or the burning, or learns that the goggles, they do nothing!)

 

So... wha-choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Why not? Sure' date=' not for [i']you[/i], but just use the air surrounding you as a Focus of opportunity, and anything that "touches" it (falls within that AoE) becomes affected. Sprinkle on a few more Limitations for flavor, and there you are.

 

This would be an example of a "mobile" power.

Eh. I think it's better done with a No Range, Continuous, Area of Effect power. Damage Sheilds are conceptually supposed to strike back at someone who attacks you (make a successful HTH attack roll against you), not someone who is in a general area.

[Talon]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

The threadjacking has been productive (and not really threadjacking, the whole point is "stuff that is relevant to bringing D&D players into Hero").

 

Ah, here's the issue with "attack and move" that had been avoiding me. In D&D, you can do a "Full Move and attack" action ("Charge"), which in Hero would be Strike, FMove, +2 OCV, -2 DCV. Thus, if someone strikes and fades, you can run them down with the only downside being your DCV -- and most people who run away are the types who don't do tons of damage to start with. In Hero, you don't have the same generous Full-Move-and-attack options.

 

(To establish my "Hero cred", I've been playing since 2nd edition or so of Champions -- the color cover, and have run superhero, western, modern day psi, fantasy, and sci-fi including a few convention games over the past 20+ years. My players, on other hand, know pretty much nothing about Hero other than me enthusing about how dope it is.)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Bah, piffle. I don't care how deep you are in the system. Ya play as a playa plays, that's how you get down. I started with the predisposition I WILL prefer Hero over d20, and generally I've been correct in that assessment. As conversion assistance goes, I'd be happy however I can.

[SteveZilla]

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.

 

I don't think it's all that big of a difference.

 

5' = 1.543m

 

In a game that uses metric units, 2 meters is a good, round "breakpoint". English units of feet do offer a finer "granularity", but IMO it's not needed.

 

If that is too much a difference, then the GM could easily wave his magic wand and state "The Game Scale is Now 1.543 Meters per Hex", and be done with it. How the game plays would be virtually unchanged on the combat level. Characters can still move the same number of hexes, powers still have the same range in hexes, to hit penalties for range still acrue at the same rate of hexes of distance, and AoE powers still affect the same number of hexes.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Ah' date=' here's the issue with "attack and move" that had been avoiding me. In D&D, you can do a "Full Move and attack" action ("Charge"), which in Hero would be Strike, FMove, +2 OCV, -2 DCV. Thus, if someone strikes and fades, you can run them down with the only downside being your DCV -- and most people who run away are the types who don't do tons of damage to start with. In Hero, you don't have the same generous Full-Move-and-attack options.[/quote']

Err...I'd just do that with a Move By in Hero (maybe a Move Through depending on the kind of attack I'm using and how much risk I want to take; I usually think of a charge with a Killing Attack as a Move By, but using a lance at full tilt might work well as a Move Through).

[SteveZilla]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

With AoO, it makes it less likely that a superior number of attackers will get one of their members through/around the defenders.

 

Without it, even Held Actions used to either attack, or to interpose, can't stop a numerical superiority from getting one past.

 

For ex: Character A and B want to get past C and attack D (who isn't "in the fight").

 

Characters A, B, and C are all within H-t-H range of each other.

 

C holds his action to atack whoever tries to go past him.

 

B tries to move past, and C attacks him. B aborts to Block.

 

A now knows that since C has attacked, he can move past with impunity.

 

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

It doesn't take 2:1 to achieve this. All it takes is one more attcker than defender.

 

A, B, and C want to attack F, who is behind D & E.

 

D & E have held actions.

 

B moves past D (on the other side from E), and D attacks to stop B, who Blocks.

 

C does the same to E.

 

A is now free to move past them to attack F.

 

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

 

If the heroes are going to be outnumberd in many of their fights (as Heroes often are IMO), the lack of AoO's "stopping ability" could be very problematic.

 

So, despite preferring (Fantasy) Hero to D&D, I think the AoO is a good element of the Sword & Sorcery Genre.

 

If you think that even a slight numerical superiority *should* be able to "get one past", then don't allow the AoO. But if you want your heroes to survive, and your players to not become disgruntled, I would suggest allowing/providing other means of "leveling the playing field" (like hirelings & henchmen!).

[SteveZilla]

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.

 

You could design various "class" packages, and include an AoO (a triggered attack) in only some of them, and also to varying amouts. I think it stands to reason that not all professions will be equally good at "holding the line".

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

With AoO, it makes it less likely that a superior number of attackers will get one of their members through/around the defenders.

 

Without it, even Held Actions used to either attack, or to interpose, can't stop a numerical superiority from getting one past.

...

It doesn't take 2:1 to achieve this. All it takes is one more attcker than defender.

...

If the heroes are going to be outnumberd in many of their fights (as Heroes often are IMO), the lack of AoO's "stopping ability" could be very problematic.

 

So, despite preferring (Fantasy) Hero to D&D, I think the AoO is a good element of the Sword & Sorcery Genre.

 

If you think that even a slight numerical superiority *should* be able to "get one past", then don't allow the AoO. But if you want your heroes to survive, and your players to not become disgruntled, I would suggest allowing/providing other means of "leveling the playing field" (like hirelings & henchmen!).

Umm...have you thought about that as an actual picture in your head? Unless the environment is helping you a lot, it is almost impossible to keep multiple people from getting by you. Unless there is a pretty tight doorway, set of obstacles, or enough people to form a tight ring or something, you're probably not going to be able to stop a number of people that is even one greater than yours.

 

Of course in D&D IIRC you don't really stop them either. You just get to add some wounds to them while they do it.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Umm...have you thought about that as an actual picture in your head? Unless the environment is helping you a lot' date=' it [i']is[/i] almost impossible to keep multiple people from getting by you. Unless there is a pretty tight doorway, set of obstacles, or enough people to form a tight ring or something, you're probably not going to be able to stop a number of people that is even one greater than yours.

 

I thought someone posted to this thread that in Hero you can move through other's hexes. I never recall that happening in the games I've played, but that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist -- just that I may be unaware of it.

 

Of course in D&D IIRC you don't really stop them either. You just get to add some wounds to them while they do it.

 

And usually it's that threat that holds 'em back.

 

It just seems to me that I've seen similar situations in TV and movies where the Heroes are outnumbered, yet still manage to hold the enemies at bay. Thus my comment about it being "in genre". Though I think in TV/movies it's far more common for the opponents to directly attack the hero instead of just trying to get by past him.

 

Unfortunately, I can't recall any specific examples/scenes for you.

 

I fully admit that while I've played lots of Champions, I've played almost no Fantasy Hero. But it does seem to me that the two are quite different. In Champions, ranged attacks have a much bigger role, the combatants are much more mobile, and often aren't limited to two dimensions.

 

Side note/question: Someone said earlier on this thread that Hero doesn't have facing. Yet I seem to recall combat modifiers for attacking from behind. And if there isn't facing, how can there be a Turn mode? It's always been my understanding that hero does use facing.

 

Or maybe I misunderstood them. It's not inconceivable.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I thought someone posted to this thread that in Hero you can move through other's hexes. I never recall that happening in the games I've played' date=' but that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist -- just that I may be unaware of it.[/quote']

I was talking in my post about envisioning a real live situation in which you are trying to keep multiple people from moving past you. How easy do you really think it would be if they were just as fast as you? One? Sure, you could probably deal with that. Two? I really doubt it unless the environmental conditions are realy in your favor. Even a 2m opening is pretty hard to block with only one person.

 

Side note/question: Someone said earlier on this thread that Hero doesn't have facing. Yet I seem to recall combat modifiers for attacking from behind. And if there isn't facing, how can there be a Turn mode? It's always been my understanding that hero does use facing.

 

Or maybe I misunderstood them. It's not inconceivable.

I think it has facing as much as you want to use it. It helps to keep track of facing to know when a character might or might not be aware of something behind them (for the behind/surprise bonus, for example), and it also gives a reference point for the direction of Area of Effect scatter, but other than that I don't think any game rules depend on the direction a character is facing.

 

As for Turn Modes, that has to do with heading (the direction of travel, or vector direction of velocity), which doesn't have to be the same as facing. For example, I'm sure you've found at times that you can run backwards.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

I was talking in my post about envisioning a real live situation in which you are trying to keep multiple people from moving past you. How easy do you really think it would be if they were just as fast as you? One? Sure' date=' you could probably deal with that. Two? I really doubt it unless the environmental conditions are [i']realy[/i] in your favor. Even a 2m opening is pretty hard to block with only one person.

 

In real life? Sure. I have to agree with you there. I guess it depends upon how realistic vs how cinematic people want their game to be.

 

As for Turn Modes' date=' that has to do with [i']heading[/i] (the direction of travel, or vector direction of velocity), which doesn't have to be the same as facing. For example, I'm sure you've found at times that you can run backwards.

 

And even sideways! Though usually facing and heading are one in the same. As a small kid, while playing tag I ran into the back of a car and cut my forehead deep enough to need three stitches. Even since then I keep my facing the same as my heading.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

With AoO, it makes it less likely that a superior number of attackers will get one of their members through/around the defenders.

 

Without it, even Held Actions used to either attack, or to interpose, can't stop a numerical superiority from getting one past.

 

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

It doesn't take 2:1 to achieve this. All it takes is one more attcker than defender.

 

A, B, and C want to attack F, who is behind D & E.

 

D & E have held actions.

 

B moves past D (on the other side from E), and D attacks to stop B, who Blocks.

 

C does the same to E.

 

A is now free to move past them to attack F.

 

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

 

It's commonly forgotten that you can use a "friendly" as 50%+ cover. In so doing, you can avoid an AoO, as you don't get an AoO on a target with 50%+ cover.

 

With B and C now adjacent to D and E, A can use B or C as cover to avoid an AoO from D/E and get by in d20 just as easily as he could have in Hero. In fact, C could have used B to get past D without taking an AoO, and gotten two opponents on E.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

Could you explain this. What is the rationale to allow move-then-attack but not attack-then-move?

The HERO System attaches special rules to an Attack ending your turn, and interactions with the Abort rules. If you were able to Attack with your first 1/2 Phase and not lose your second 1/2 Phase in the HERO System, you could Attack with your first 1/2 Phase and then hold your second 1/2 Phase. Then if you needed to you could Abort, and if you didnt end up needing to you could move around or take some other non-Attack 1/2 Phase action.

 

It essentially removes any penalty for Attacking on the one hand, but also allows people to take a lot more defensive actions. In the end it would actually make combat take longer and make it harder to hit someone. It would definitely shift the balance of the game significantly.

 

Sure you could gen up some new rules to try to keep it under control, and if you do some searches on these boards you'll find a number of threads discussing it -- in fact I used to be a proponent for it myself and really wanted to come up with a good way to do it.

 

But in the end youre overcomplicating the game and affecting the way many established characters function. For me the gain wasnt worth the expense, so I finally just accepted that its a good idea in theory but cumbersome in practice.

[Old Man]

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

 

It isn't too much of a problem. The driving force behind kill and steal is that in D&D you can get exp for treasure (or did they do away with that?) When the players discover that the only thing they are getting is an encumbrance penalty from loads of loot, they will only take what they really want or really need.

 

In D&D, when you wipe out a village and the local militia, you get exp. In FH if you wipe out a village, you get a Disad and no points for it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

 

They did away with it. But at the same time they made money SUCH a huge focus of the game that it only made the problem worse. At least, that's the way it seems to me.

 

EDIT: There's even a set guideline now for exactly how much a character of a given level should be worth in total resources. Can't fall behind! For GMs: can't let them get ahead!