Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

[Thia Halmades]

While sitting in the Boston Market the other day, Chris & I got into over a fight sequence from the last game. I had a group of energy weapon wielding mooks going against my team, and one of the team members is a GenGiant who went to full size. At full size, he tends to like to grapple opponents who are way, way smaller than him.

 

Thinking realistically, I decided that the "intelligent" thing to do when a giant hand comes down is to Dive for Cover -- to get out of range of the grapple attack. This caused a tremendous stir among the group, as everyone immediately insisted that what I really meant was "dodge." To be fair, to me, there's a huge difference between +3 DCV, and no longer being in the area about to get hit.

 

I say this: Once you've committed to an attack, and made an attack roll, the attack lands in the hex it targeted, even if you aren't there any more (see, "Haymaker," et al.)

 

Chris said this: That once you've opted to attack a target, your attack should "track." Otherwise there's no point in ever Dodging anything -- you would ALWAYS Dive for Cover. I countered with the comment, "If that were true, then once you fire your gun, your bullet will track even though I've dodged over 3 hexes? The point of Dive for Cover is to no longer be in a position to get hit." He then maintained that this obviates the need for Dodge at all, and everyone should always Dive for Cover.

 

However, I submit (in counter) Dive for Cover works the way I think it does, but unlike Dodge, requires a roll. So what say thee, Senate?

 

1) You attack a man in a hex. He uses Dive for Cover to get out of the hex (specifically, one hex away). If you have REACH on him, does your reach extend to where he landed when he aborted, or did you already commit to the hex he was in when the attack started?

 

2) What are the differences other GMs see between the two? As an Acrobat type character with a Dex of 18+, IS there a reason, when aborting, to not simply "dive" one hex out of the way of an attack?

 

Thoughts & rules clarifications welcome.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

1) You attack a man in a hex. He uses Dive for Cover to get out of the hex (specifically' date=' one hex away). If you have REACH on him, does your reach extend to where he landed when he aborted, or did you already commit to the hex he was in when the attack started?[/quote']

 

I'd say you committed to the hex you were aiming at. You see this a lot in comics, actually ... the giant's fist hits the ground while Spider-Man leaps away, or the like. If nothing else, you'd lose a lot of force from a punch if you had to change the angle of the strike in mid-swing. As an experiment, set up two cans on a low wall and start to punch at one, then try to adjust your punch in mid-swing to hit the other. You won't hit it very hard at all.

 

2) What are the differences other GMs see between the two? As an Acrobat type character with a Dex of 18+, IS there a reason, when aborting, to not simply "dive" one hex out of the way of an attack?

 

Dive For Cover gives you a chance (usually a good one) of completely avoiding one attack; if you only have one attacker, it's an excellent move. However, it renders you prone after you use it, making you a sitting duck if the person you Dived from has friends, or if he gets sneaky ... say, if he's SPD 4, waits 'til the end of 5, makes you Dive, then acts on 6 while you're still prone.

 

Dodge gives you a flat +3 DCV, but it applies against *all* attacks coming your way.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Consider the following house rule.

DIVE FOR COVER

 

With this Combat Maneuver, the diving character responds to a current attack by choosing a straight-line direction to dive, and then attempting a DEX Roll. If the DEX Roll fails, the character is considered to be "in the air" until the resolution of the attack, but otherwise the Dive For Cover has no effect (his location does not change, his DCV does not change, he is not automatically left prone at the end of the maneuver, etc.)

 

If the DEX Roll succeeds, then the character is entitled to move 1 hex in the chosen direction for each 1 the roll succeeded by (to a maximum of half the character's maximum combat movement), and the character is considered to be "in the air" until the resolution of the current attack is completed. The character does not have to move the full number of hexes a successful roll entitles him to.

 

For each hex the character moves, he gets +2 DCV that functions only against the incoming attack (and any other attacks that are Coordinated with it, or combining with it in a Multiple Power Attack, etc.). So for example, if the character moved 3 hexes, he would get +6 DCV against the current attack only.

 

In addition to the DCV bonus, the fact that the character has changed position may result in other effects. For example, if the current attack is an Area Effect, the character may have moved out of the affected area (or into a less-effected area, in the case of an Explosion). Or the character may have been able to move behind literal cover (providing additional DEF/BODY) or concealment (providing additional DCV bonuses). Or the character may even have been able to pass beyond the range of current attack (such as moving more than 1 hex away from a barehanded attack), in which case the current attack of course cannot succeed.

 

Once the current attack has been resolved, the character is no longer automatically considered to be "in the air" (though he may actually be in the air, if he used a Movement Power such as Flight, Leaping, or Gliding to Dive For Cover). Also, he immediately becomes prone (or is considered "prone" if using a Movement Power such as Flight) and therefore 1/2 DCV. This effect occurs instantly after the resolution of the current attack, before even other actions on the same DEX in the Combat Order in the same Phase. Breakfall cannot be used to prevent the character from becoming prone as the result of a Dive For Cover, but can of course be used to allow the character get to his feet as a Zero-Phase Action on his next Phase.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

If you make the Dive For Cover roll, then the attack misses period.

 

However, any OTHER attacks after the one you use DFC to escape from are now vs. your 1/2 DCV (due to being Prone in the target hex). If the attacker has a higher SPD and DEX you are screwed because recovering from being Prone requires a 1/2 phase all by itself which means you cannot abort to DFC twice in a row. You would have to recover from being Prone at your DEX before using it again.

 

I would strongly suggest printing out my post on combat maneuvers and implied sfx in my sig to help with the explanation as well.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Yeah, you called it right.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

If you make the Dive For Cover roll' date=' then the attack misses [u']period[/u].

 

However, any OTHER attacks after the one you use DFC to escape from are now vs. your 1/2 DCV (due to being Prone in the target hex). If the attacker has a higher SPD and DEX you are screwed because recovering from being Prone requires a 1/2 phase all by itself which means you cannot abort to DFC twice in a row. You would have to recover from being Prone at your DEX before using it again.

 

I would strongly suggest printing out my post on combat maneuvers and implied sfx in my sig to help with the explanation as well.

 

I knew there'd be a good reason, and I knew I was right. So I'm correct; once you dive for cover, you're out of the way, and I'm also correct, there are plenty of reasons to opt to dodge instead (all attacks vs. one attack, not prone, etc.).

 

Thanks guys.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

I'm assuming the giant had an AoE fist? If so, dodge would not help at all as you would still be in the targetted hex.

 

DFC is pretty useless if you are facing multiple opponents: 1 attacks, then 2 nails you.

 

Against a single opponent, if you have a speed advantage and a decent DEX, it is mustard.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

No, the fist was NOT AOE -- he just had "reach." But he targeted the mook, the attack went off, and the mook made a one Hex DFC. This caused quite an uproar, as I said, but I have the answer now. If it were AOE, then there would be no argument, but I think everyone was a little short sited in terms of functionality and usability.

[gojira]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

I'll just add my "me too" onto this tread. You are correct Thia. Normal person vs. big hand, Dive for Cover is often seen in movies and TV; it's a cinematic classic. Think King Kong movies.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Besides, the rules explicitly allow using Dive For Cover against single-target attacks. There shouldn't even have been an uproar, IMO.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Besides' date=' the rules explicitly allow using Dive For Cover against single-target attacks. There shouldn't even have been an uproar, IMO.[/quote']

 

I think the uproar was from the idea that if you D4C'd into a hex where the opponent could still reach you (via size/stretching), you should be allowed to 'follow' him.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

I think the uproar was from the idea that if you D4C'd into a hex where the opponent could still reach you (via size/stretching)' date=' you should be allowed to 'follow' him.[/quote']

 

CC's got this dead bang, Derek; you and I (and the rest of the forum) are all on the same page. Speaking of pages, I need to look up the official "rule" so I can hit Chris in the head with it. Anyway. My vision at the time was just that -- a cowering mook who was throwing himself out of the way of this single attack, without thought of "Hmm... what shall I do when I am prone, other than get riddled with gunfire?" He was more concerned with avoiding the over sized pugilist.

[Silbeg]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Besides' date=' the rules explicitly allow using Dive For Cover against single-target attacks. There shouldn't even have been an uproar, IMO.[/quote']

 

Exactly.

 

CC's got this dead bang' date=' Derek; you and I (and the rest of the forum) are all on the same page. Speaking of pages, I need to look up the official "rule" so I can hit Chris in the head with it. Anyway. My vision at the time was just that -- a cowering mook who was throwing himself out of the way of this single attack, without thought of "Hmm... what shall I do when I am prone, other than get riddled with gunfire?" He was more concerned with avoiding the over sized pugilist.[/quote']

 

5ER 394.

 

Note, however, that the GM can impose a minimum Dive distance, or direction. This may be modified by the nature of the attack. This is what CrosshairCollie is talking about.

 

In the case of a giant (with reach/stretching), I would argue that the target must dive out of reach of the giant. Example: Giant has a reach of 4", and strikes at Badguy 2" away from him (well within reach). If Badguy doesn't dive at lest 3" away from Giant, he will still be within reach of the attack, and is able to be hit (and possibly at 1/2DCV).

 

The other issue with using Dive For Cover against non-area attacks is that if you miss your DFC roll, your attacker is at a +2OCV for you efforts. I would probably also apply this (instead of 1/2DCV) for the case above, where the target didn't Dive far enough away.

 

In any case, Thia, I would say you did the right thing, making a "spur of the moment GM's decision". You are now making it even better by discussing it "out of game". Good for you!

[sbarron]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

I haven't looked into this issue for 5th edition, so I won't argue against the crowd that clearly has. However, we always played DFC as only useful against AoE attacks, and dodge was for everything else, but not AoE. So presumably, we felt you could "track" a diving opponent. Though if you dove to cover, that would protect you accordingly. It kind of became a guessing game if your oppenent had both normal and AoE attacks. It was fun that way.

 

But like I said, that was 4th edition...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

I haven't looked into this issue for 5th edition, so I won't argue against the crowd that clearly has. However, we always played DFC as only useful against AoE attacks, and dodge was for everything else, but not AoE. So presumably, we felt you could "track" a diving opponent. Though if you dove to cover, that would protect you accordingly. It kind of became a guessing game if your oppenent had both normal and AoE attacks. It was fun that way.

 

But like I said, that was 4th edition...

 

We might as well include characters who purchased Flying Dodge as part of a Speedster Martial Arts package in this discussion.

 

runs away....

[Blue]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Near as I always figured, when you have an area effect attack you had two options: target a hex or target a person; declare before you roll.

 

If you declare targeting a person, then the area extends out from wherever that person is when you connect. A dive for cover won't help unless you manage to dive completely out of his reach or range!

 

If you declare targeting a hex, that's where it's centered. A dive for cover works effectively.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

There is discussion about this on page 182 of Dark Champions that might actually support your players beef, under the sub-header "Standard and HTH Attacks"

[Blue]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Near as I always figured, when you have an area effect attack you had two options: target a hex or target a person; declare before you roll.

 

If you declare targeting a person, then the area extends out from wherever that person is when you connect. A dive for cover won't help unless you manage to dive completely out of his reach or range!

 

If you declare targeting a hex, that's where it's centered. A dive for cover works effectively.

Just from rereading the full "Diving for Cover" section I would seem be off the mark.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Without snarking, yes, you're a little off the mark. the rules themselves are a little shady, since they say, first: "If you dive 1" then your attacker automatically misses." They further go on to comment "the GM (may? should?) rule that reach applies to a DFC." Under THAT stipulation, the player has a reason to have grief, however, reach on a haymaker wouldn't apply. Again, as an example of the rules saying, "you have to hit the character where he's standing now." By the book, though, I absolutely ruled it correctly (thanks to Silbeg for the page reference, I was looking for that).

 

So there's a level of plausibility that has to be considered. Obviously having an AOE attack obviates the need to have reach since you've already struck the zone. On the flip side, again, I'm leaning heavily towards the idea that unless it is an AOE, the attack doesn't track. That's just not how it works.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

Combat Handbook 75-77 reveals all.

 

The section on pg 77 discusses non-area attacks and DFC.

 

If you fail at your roll, your DCV is not penalized until after the attack is made. Non-area attacks do receive +2 OCV in this situation.

 

You have to dive out of reach of a melee attack, or dive behind cover. If the giant had a 4" reach, the DFC would have to get the target 5" away. If an EB was leveled against a target, you would have to dive behind cover. A generous GM might give you a DCV bonus for "hitting the dirt" against that one attack, but after that you would be at 1/2 DCV (of course you are prone and against ranged attacks that can still be a good thing).

 

So, in essence, you are both right. A DFC can avoid a melee attack completely, provided you leap out of range. If the giant was 4" away when he made his attack, then the Mook would only need to dive 1" to get out of his reach.

 

I don't think there needs to be any house rules to handle this. I think it is clear as is.

[Blue]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

1) Attacker declares attack and target

2) Defender declares he's diving for cover

---Does the defender automatically know where the edge of the AOE is going to be? If so, I assume he's going to have to declare the specific hex he's headed to at that point.

3) Attacker resolves attack roll.

4) If he misses, Attacker has to determine where that attack winds up hitting.

5) Defender resolves dive for cover roll.

6) Damage and Knockback if appropriate.

 

I assume the drawback to diving for cover is 1) You end up prone and have to expend an action, 2) Once you declare it, hit or miss, you're going to end up in that target hex

 

Also, If you missed your attack roll and the attack winds up a couple hexes over, but the AOE still covers the area where the intended target dove to, do you still apply damage to him?

 

Funny how I've been playing this game since 1st edition yet I never manage to run out of things I'm unclear about.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

The order of 3-5 doesn't really matter. I usually do the DFC before the attack roll IF the attack is a non-area attack to speed play.

 

If it is an AoE attack and the attack misses and deviates into the "safe" area the defender dove to he would still be affected unless the "safe" area provided some other type of defense.

 

For example, if the defender dives 2 hexes around a corner and the AoE deviates to the hex right next to the corner (but not around it) I would still say the target is safe.

 

I like DFC and use cinematic diving. Allow players to declare the DFC for "as far as I can" and then use the success to determine the distance (up to 1/2 move). DFC has been a lot of fun in melee heavy games, especially for those Rogue types. I don't think it is a game breaker at all (of course I am one of those crazy people who doesn't mind Flying Dodge, but there you go).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

DFC is one of those necessary conceits of the system where every attack has a defence and so on and so forth.

 

You know Missile Deflection? I’m bookless at present, but the default position is that you can’t missile deflect an AoE, unless the AoE has a limitation that it CAN be missile deflected.

 

Well, why not allow a limitation on AoE that it CAN be DFC’d, but the default position is that it can’t.

 

I mean, it makes sense, if you see a grenade sailing through the air that you can guess where it is going to land, you can estimate the likely blast radius and you will have time to move, but if the explosion is caused by a destabilisation beam hitting something near you and making it explode instantly, how are you going to have the chance to move?

 

OK, I guess that you COULD cue it up from the attacker pointing his destabilisation ray gun at you, but that leads to the interesting question – if you are actually moving before he fires, and he adjust his aim?

 

No, I think that’s how I’d do it, if I were writing Hero now.

 

I also don’t think for a moment that you should have any knowledge of how far you have to dive: I usually ask the players where they are heading for (and the sensible ones dive behind cover, which will usually protect them from the AoE, at least to an extent), and if they are limiting how far they go, but otherwise they just roll the dice and go as far as they can.

 

As for DFCing melee attacks, you have to get right out of the range of the melee attack? Well that means that the attacker certainly CAN adjust point of aim – so why can you do that in melee but not for ranged attacks?

 

I’m not sure that one has been thought all the way through. I’d say that for a non-AoE attack all you had to do was get out of the hex you are in when the attack is thrown, which is what I’ve always understood the rules to be. Never particularly liked it, but always understood it to be that way, and at least it is internally consistent then.

 

Now bear in mind DFC has significant penalties, even if it is more effective at getting you away from immediate danger, you are prone and at a significant DCV penalty, and you’ve given up your next (or a held) action. Neither Block nor Dodge is probably as effective (even pretty average supers have 13- DEX rolls) at avoiding a single melee attack, but then neither of them leave you a sitting duck afterwards.

 

One final thing: don’t allow the ‘flying leap’ martial art manoeuvre, ever.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

I think there is one thing that everyone is forgetting. How familiar the defender is with the various attacks (and their sfx*) that are available to the attacker.

 

*SFX includes any obvious AOE or Damage modifiers.

 

example:

 

Namor is fighting Human Torch. Human torch throws several 'normal' Flame Blasts (EB) at Namor and he Dodges them all. HT then decides to throw an 'Explosive Blast' (EB with Explosion). Even if Namor had never seen this new attack before he should easily be able to tell that it is different than what he has been facing up till that point.

 

There is a reason that 'IPE, SFX Only' is available as an attack advantage in the system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Aborting Rules: Dodge v. Dive for Cover

 

I think there is one thing that everyone is forgetting. How familiar the defender is with the various attacks (and their sfx*) that are available to the attacker.

 

*SFX includes any obvious AOE or Damage modifiers.

 

example:

 

Namor is fighting Human Torch. Human torch throws several 'normal' Flame Blasts (EB) at Namor and he Dodges them all. HT then decides to throw an 'Explosive Blast' (EB with Explosion). Even if Namor had never seen this new attack before he should easily be able to tell that it is different than what he has been facing up till that point.

 

There is a reason that 'IPE, SFX Only' is available as an attack advantage in the system.

 

I agree that a GM should point out that the attack does not look like a normal Flame Blast, but that is as much as I'd give away. Of course, once he has seen them, Namor can identify the different attacks....but I've always thought of flame blasts as relatively slow: if we are talking normal or explosive bullets....well, it would require a pretty impressive PER roll to spot the difference...