Frameworks modifying frameworks

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Not true because missle deflection is not an attack...

 

Wrong again.

 

See 5er page 208 4th paragraph second column:

 

"Missle Deflection functions like a Block in HTH Combat: it takes a Half Phase to perform; it is an Attack Action...."

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

I would argue that it isn't a "minor variation" though because by making the arrow both moving and oncoming you make the shot MUCH harder.

 

Mmm . . . details

 

Visually, it's about the same; and for realism, it's cinematic - which, as far as I'm concerned, covers that

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Well' date=' a counter shot could also be modeled as a Dispel, which can be MPA'ed with another attack. Hitting the attack in the air rather than at the attacks point of origin is, in game terms, just SFX.[/quote']

 

Rep when I can again

 

All this talk about MPA's... I seem to recall that you couldn't combine powers from two different frameworks for an MPA.

 

See here and here; both powers are under the same "bow" Multipower.

 

Secondly' date=' if you combine the missile deflection in the attack powers framework, the char couldn't abort to it after they've taken an attack in a previous phase, as changing slots in a multipower is a zero phase action, not a free one.[/quote']

 

If they already had the Missile Deflection in place, though?

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

"Missle Deflection functions like a Block in HTH Combat: it takes a Half Phase to perform; it is an Attack Action...."

 

That specifies the type of Action it is - but is it actually an Attack?

 

Mind you, what the difference - if anything - might mean must be left to those who know more about the combat rules than I do

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Mmm . . . details

 

Visually, it's about the same; and for realism, it's cinematic - which, as far as I'm concerned, covers that

 

Cinematic doesn't mean license to igore basic timing rules of the system.

 

example:

Villain vs. Archer

 

Villain uses a ranged attack vs. Archer.

 

If Archer has an equal or higher DEX than Villain he can only use the proposed MPA Missle-Deflect+Attack if he hasn't acted already on this phase. He either has held an action or is aborting his next phases action. But if he is aborting his next phase he can't use the RKA.

 

What happens if Archer has a lower DEX than Villain, is not using a held action and doesn't act that phase? Again, he can abort to the Missle Deflection but not the attack.

 

This indicates that the proposed MPA only works with held actions which is just another way of saying he has a higher SPD than the villain.

 

Cinematic Solution: Buy more SPD and say the Missle Deflect and subsequent attack on the next phase used the same arrow.

 

Problem Solved.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Cinematic doesn't mean license to igore basic timing rules of the system.

 

But, again, you completely miss the point!

 

Mike W wasn't talking about the rules or the system.

 

At. All.

 

He was discussing the "common sense" and "real-world physics" difficulties, which fall squarely under the aegis of - here we are again! - Special Effects.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

A Naked Advantage still works' date=' though...[/quote']

 

I would say so as well. It would just have to be large enough to cover the Active Points of the largest slot in the arrow Multipower, including all Advantages, as if they were Base Points.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

5Er, p.358: "Characters cannot use defensive maneuvers or actions (such as Block or Missile Deflection) as part of a multiple-power attack."

 

So, that doesn't work.

 

For a Robin Hood / Green Arrow type character, I'd be inclined as a GM to allow the player to buy Missile Deflection separately with a Trigger to allow the 'shoot the oncoming arrow / energy blast and continue on to damage the target' - possibly with a Limitation that the main attack used is reduced by some multiple of the Active Points of the attack that was deflected.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

For a Robin Hood / Green Arrow type character' date=' I'd be inclined as a GM to allow the player to buy Missile Deflection separately with a Trigger to allow the 'shoot the oncoming arrow / energy blast and continue on to damage the target' - possibly with a Limitation that the main attack used is reduced by some multiple of the Active Points of the attack that was deflected.[/quote']

 

I also remember a recent power idea for energy blasts where two attacks meeting each other head-on would "push" each other about the battlefield, or was that just one example of how it could work out in play?

 

I just tried a few times to find it with the forum's Search function, but had no luck, perhaps someone else remembers what I'm thinking of?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

But' date=' again, you [b']completely[/b] miss the point!

 

Mike W wasn't talking about the rules or the system.

 

At. All.

 

He was discussing the "common sense" and "real-world physics" difficulties, which fall squarely under the aegis of - here we are again! - Special Effects.

 

Then why discuss the topic at all in the Hero System Discussion forum?

 

Instead, go to the appropriate Genre forum if you want to talk about genre specific special effects.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

I also remember a recent power idea for energy blasts where two attacks meeting each other head-on would "push" each other about the battlefield, or was that just one example of how it could work out in play?

 

I just tried a few times to find it with the forum's Search function, but had no luck, perhaps someone else remembers what I'm thinking of?

 

Could it be this?

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Could it be this?

 

Yes, that's the one! Thank you.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Then why discuss the topic at all in the Hero System Discussion forum?

 

Because the whole point of having a system (any, not just HERO) is to have a framework that can objectively represent ideas. Players may differ in their idea of what something does, and will probably differ on how things interact; by translating their concepts into something the system will support, they can use that system to answer such questions without games devolving into endless arguments of "No, it goes MY way!"

 

The system doesn't predate the concept, though. Gamers didn't say "Gee, let's invent a hypothetical framework that serves no purpose." and then try to come up with ideas to justify their work; they started out with some ideas and specifically tried to create a framework that would support as many of these ideas as possible.

 

Since these ideas did predate the system, it is entirely possible for them to be conceptually valid but unsupported by the rules. Where the rules fail to support an idea, this is extremely relevant to the System Discussion forum, because it's a failure of design intent!

 

Instead' date=' go to the appropriate Genre forum if you want to talk about [u']genre specific[/u] special effects.

 

We're not talking about any Special Effects that are specific to a genre, however. The arrow SFX could be done in Fantasy (medieval) or Dark Champions (street level) or Champions (superheroes), just to name what comes to mind.

[Mike W]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Mmm . . . details

 

Visually, it's about the same; and for realism, it's cinematic - which, as far as I'm concerned, covers that

 

I can see that to some extent. But I guess I and many of the people I've been around and gamed with are a bit too familiar with the "realsim" side of the situation. As for how to do it, why not just make it one heck of a hit roll, then apply the rules for breaking foci and hitting people behind cover respectively? You hit the arrow. Fine, roll to do damage to the arrow. If you do enough damage, your shot continues on and any remaining damage is applied to the opposing archer? That would be one attack action and accomplish what it needs. The reason you can do it with an arrow and not a fire blast is because of the focus limit on the arrow, which gives you something to break up.

[Mike W]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

But' date=' again, you [b']completely[/b] miss the point!

 

Mike W wasn't talking about the rules or the system.

 

At. All.

 

He was discussing the "common sense" and "real-world physics" difficulties, which fall squarely under the aegis of - here we are again! - Special Effects.

 

I wouldn't consider the physics to be purely special effects. The fact that we decided to use two arrows is the special effect. Logic usually dictates what happens when two powers come into conflict, and I also think that when we go about constructing a countershot of this nature that the relative difficulty IS important. After all, that's why we have all those modifiers on hit rolls and skill rolls.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

As for how to do it' date=' why not just make it one heck of a hit roll, then apply the rules for breaking foci and hitting people behind cover respectively?[/quote']

 

Was the (other archer's) arrow taken as a Focus, though?

 

You hit the arrow. Fine' date=' roll to do damage to the arrow.[/quote']

 

I think at the very least arrows should be taken with Physical Manifestation, or at least the Ranged Attack should (whatever its Focus is).

 

The reason you can do it with an arrow and not a fire blast is because of the focus limit on the arrow' date=' which gives you something to break up.[/quote']

 

I recall that most bullets aren't taken as Foci*; the gun is, but without a specific Limitation we're getting into whether SFX should impose penalties that are of at least a -1/4 Limitation level. Or would Real Weapon cover that?

 

*The question came up in regards to catching bullets, axes, and other ranged physical attacks; Missile Reflection promptly labelled them "Return to Sender", which was problematic since the wielder could retrieve it without your possession (9/10ths of the law) interfering.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

I wouldn't consider the physics to be purely special effects.

 

True, the system does care, as you said:

 

After all, that's why we have all those modifiers on hit rolls and skill rolls.

 

But those are derived from the SFX; to identify anything as such, I generally ask myself "If this sentence were to be transplanted into an entirely different system, such as AMBER, would there be any relics of the HERO system that stood out as not belonging there?"

 

If, on the other hand, it still makes sense, it's an idea/concept - SFX.

To elaborate on, and hopefully clarify, what I see as the difference between idea/concept, SFX, and system/rules: an idea/concept is what we had before we even knew about HERO - when the system tries translating this to rules, it gives that idea/concept the name of "SFX" to distinguish it from the mechanics.

[Mike W]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Was the (other archer's) arrow taken as a Focus, though?

 

 

 

I think at the very least arrows should be taken with Physical Manifestation, or at least the Ranged Attack should (whatever its Focus is).

 

 

 

I recall that most bullets aren't taken as Foci*; the gun is, but without a specific Limitation we're getting into whether SFX should impose penalties that are of at least a -1/4 Limitation level. Or would Real Weapon cover that?

 

*The question came up in regards to catching bullets, axes, and other ranged physical attacks; Missile Reflection promptly labelled them "Return to Sender", which was problematic since the wielder could retrieve it without your possession (9/10ths of the law) interfering.

 

Any archer I've ever seen built buys the arrows as foci, if for no other reason than to get the Focus limit on all the "trick" arrows. And technically, the ammunition is part of the "gun focus" limit. After all, if I take the bullets out of the clip, you can't fire the gun can you? And even though the ammo is bought with the charges limit, it's often bought as part of the same "gun power" indicating that they are parts of one big power and take all the limits as a whole, including the focus. This is true even if the gun is built as a multipower so that it can handle different ammo types. Each one is still part of the same MP and the focus limit applied to the gun automatically applies to all the slots. Also, the fact that we are dealing with an accessible and physical manifestation of the base power(RKA, for example) strongly argues that a focus limit shoudl be required of the power.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks

 

Also' date=' the fact that we are dealing with an accessible and physical manifestation of the base power(RKA, for example) strongly argues that a focus limit shoudl be required of the power.[/quote']

 

I agree. There should be more than just the system to ensure realism; there should be a GM looking at what the players try to get through and saying "Hold on, the SFX you're proposing should logically have these mechanical equivalents."

 

I found one of those "catching ranged attacks" threads, by the way.