Examining existing rules

[Outsider]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

Is your example in a super or heroic setting? I ask because Flying Dodge is not part of any real world Martial Art package and is typically only used by Speedsters. If you treat the bullets as IPE vs. sight' date=' they will get some hits even against a 11 DCV.[/quote']

 

Even without flying dodge, it is way too easy (IMHO) to waltz up to the machinegunner and punch him out. Just half move and dodge every phase, or have a couple of applicable levels that can be applied to DCV. Halving DCV against bullets outside of melee range is probably a more elegant solution though

[tesuji]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

What about a "Focus" maneuver similar to the Interpose maneuver? Your DCV is increased by X (perhaps with a caveat that X cannot be greater than some number, maybe 3) against that attacker, but is reduced by X same amount against all other attackers.

.

 

well this certain ly vhanges the face of battles against single foes... as the team fighting against the solo master villain al get this bonus to their dcv.

 

it would mean a rescaling of what are expected to be competitive ocvs for solo encounters vs team encouunters overall as well. when champions meet the infidels, they fight well, with to-hits of say 10-12- being normal but when the two team's blasters have a solo run in the obvious why-not-use-me focus maneuver means neighter can hit the other for the most part as their to hits drop to 7-9-.

 

i am not sure the changes mentioned are intended but they do seem problematic differences mto me.

 

now nyou can longify it and say "you cannot focus on one guy if only one guy is shooting" but that is irksome.

 

Alternatively, you could have focus provide an OCV penalty either in place of or in addition to the dcv penalty.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

well this certain ly vhanges the face of battles against single foes... as the team fighting against the solo master villain al get this bonus to their dcv.

 

True. Maybe the Master villain needs a few more OCV levels and/or some henchment to take advantage of the heros' reduced DCV against others. It would also seem reasonable to allow a Surprise Maneuver to get past the Focused defenses, but then we get to the subjectivity of what constitutes a sufficiently surprising maneuver.

 

it would mean a rescaling of what are expected to be competitive ocvs for solo encounters vs team encouunters overall as well. when champions meet the infidels' date=' they fight well, with to-hits of say 10-12- being normal but when the two team's blasters have a solo run in the obvious why-not-use-me focus maneuver means neighter can hit the other for the most part as their to hits drop to 7-9-.[/quote']

 

It seems to me that, in much of the source material, one on one battles often stretch out longer. Maybe this is a good genre trope to simulate those longer one on one battles. The issue is certainly valid.

 

i am not sure the changes mentioned are intended but they do seem problematic differences mto me.

 

Well, they are differences, but whether they're problems depends on the desire result. They certainly need to be considered.

 

now nyou can longify it and say "you cannot focus on one guy if only one guy is shooting" but that is irksome.

 

It's beyond irksome. I wouldn't take that approach.

 

Alternatively' date=' you could have focus provide an OCV penalty either in place of or in addition to the dcv penalty.[/quote']

 

Moving to an OCV penalty means that the character trying to flee, hold out to PS 12, make a full move, etc. isn't reallly penalized. Does it make sense that the cyharacter would find it tougher to hit a target he's focusing on?

[tesuji]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

 

It seems to me that, in much of the source material, one on one battles often stretch out longer. Maybe this is a good genre trope to simulate those longer one on one battles. The issue is certainly valid.

perhaps in some cases... but in game having one-on-one battle scenes turn into longer to resolve miss-fests means i will simply use them less often as the longer a solo scene runs the less benefit in a group game it provides.

Moving to an OCV penalty means that the character trying to flee, hold out to PS 12, make a full move, etc. isn't reallly penalized.

hugh, right now someone not wanting to make an attack simply uses a dodge maneuver for +3 dcv if they do not want to attack. the point of focus as i understand it is to have increased defense and the ability to attack at the expense of defense agaist everyone else. if you dont need ocv, just use dodge.

Does it make sense that the cyharacter would find it tougher to hit a target he's focusing on?

the name isn't the maneuver, just the name. you could call it defensive focus and avoid the implication.

 

should you have a harder time hitting when more of your focus is on defense than on offense?

 

i would suggest yes is a valid answer... especially for those you are not focused on.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I'd quite like to see the next revision of Hero address the question of settin up game mechanics in a much more detailed fahion, to reflect the genre and the expectations of the players.

 

I'd like to see (although I do appreciate that this will make the book a little over 2000 pages long) 'Settings', like on a computer game, allowing you to adjust the gameplay to suit. Many manouvres (for instance a basic attack) will not have settings that you can change, but some manouvres like dodge, which are a bit of a compromise between different ideals in any event) might.

 

For example:

 

DODGE

 

1. (Default) A character can declare that they are dodging, and this adds 3 to their DCV against all attacks, until their next phase. You can abort to dodge. Dodge is a half phase attack action.

 

2. A character can declare a dodge, which allows them to add up to three points to their DCV against a single target, or spead those bonus DCV points amongst up to three targets (i.e. +1 DCV against three targets, +1 and +2 against two targets, or +3 against one target). Dodge is a half phase attack action.

 

3. As 2. (above) except bonuses against ranged attacks are halved (round up), and a dodge is a full phase attack action.

 

I'm sure that with a bit of thought it could be done rather better than that, but you get the idea.

 

Generally the most permissive version should be TYPE ONE (DEFAULT), so you can set the realism intensity slider to 1, 2 or 3. You can of course customise your settings too, but that sounds like a lot of work.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

perhaps in some cases... but in game having one-on-one battle scenes turn into longer to resolve miss-fests means i will simply use them less often as the longer a solo scene runs the less benefit in a group game it provides.

 

I agree there's an issue that needs to be considered before implementing this potential rule change, just as any change has ripple effects. "missfest" may be a bit harsh, given even a 7- hits about 1 time in 6 (8- 1 time in 4; 9- 3 in 8). That's better than many characters in other games. But I agree Hero has always had more attacks hit then miss, and this could be a frustrating change.

 

hugh' date=' right now someone not wanting to make an attack simply uses a dodge maneuver for +3 dcv if they do not want to attack. the point of focus as i understand it is to have increased defense and the ability to attack at the expense of defense agaist everyone else. if you dont need ocv, just use dodge.[/quote']

 

12 agents and Dr. Destroyer. Would you rather have +3 DCV overall (DODGE), or +6 vs Doc D alone and normal DCV for the agents (DODGE and FOCUS)? There's some utility for combining the two.

 

the name isn't the maneuver' date=' just the name. you could call it defensive focus and avoid the implication.[/quote']

 

True. Then again, isn't Dodge focusing on defense already? In any event, the intent of the mechanic was to achieve the "focus on one target" desired by the poster. If we change that, the mechanic no longer accomplishes its intended purpose.

 

A reduction to OCV vs targets other than the one focused on would make sense, but doesn't solve anything dealing with one on one combat, which I agree is where most of the issues will arise. Even "Doc D + Agents" is essentially one on one, albeit with some "scenery" agents.

 

I do like the idea of a surprise maneuver taking the target off guard. Maybe an equal penalty to PER rolls to notice anything not directly related to the person focused on. Perhaps he shoots an overhead power line to fall on his target - and the target assumes that's just a miss.

 

Regardless, your comments are, as usual, good identification of issues to consider before making any rules/maneuver change of this nature.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

It of an aside but I have been thinking about combat styles, and considering the possiblity of allowing every character to pick a combat style, either aggressive, opportunistic or defensive, which allows you to decide how that character approaches combat.

 

If you chose opportunistic, nothing changes from the base system, but aggressive adds +1 to OCV (or EOCV) and deducts one from DCV (or EDCV), and defensive does the opposite.

 

Thereafter all attacks take that bonus/penalty.

 

This means you can build your brick to hit more often, but have a real problem getting out of the way, or up their defensive value a little at the cost of offence (not so much of a problem if they use cars as clubs...).

 

It is certainly abuseable, but, if you look at it from a role playing POV it does help to define the character of the....character....a little more, and there is no obvious reason OCV has to equal DCV for everyone.

[tesuji]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

Actually a simpler question arises when oneasks why ocv/dcv from dex is always evenly split but cv gained from skill level can change?

 

why must every dex 20 character have his focus divided evenly between offense and defense every round?

 

did everyone attend the same fight club?

 

similar thoughts from dnd and other games... why not all a variable split between offense and defense of the basic combat skill? After all, even a untrianed in combat guy like me can make different choices when facing a pair of loosed pit bulls than when trying to grab the runaway pekinese.

 

maybe something like this...

 

As a default, the character had OCV/3 and DCV/3. He may shift from ocv to dcv or vice versa each phase just as if changing skill levels. this cannot reduce either ocv or dcv below 1/2 their normal.

 

Example: at dex 20 with 7 cv the character can have 10 ocv/4 dcv or 4 ocv/10 dcv or anywhere in between.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

Actually a simpler question arises when oneasks why ocv/dcv from dex is always evenly split but cv gained from skill level can change?

 

why must every dex 20 character have his focus divided evenly between offense and defense every round?

 

did everyone attend the same fight club?

 

similar thoughts from dnd and other games... why not all a variable split between offense and defense of the basic combat skill? After all, even a untrianed in combat guy like me can make different choices when facing a pair of loosed pit bulls than when trying to grab the runaway pekinese.

 

maybe something like this...

 

As a default, the character had OCV/3 and DCV/3. He may shift from ocv to dcv or vice versa each phase just as if changing skill levels. this cannot reduce either ocv or dcv below 1/2 their normal.

 

Example: at dex 20 with 7 cv the character can have 10 ocv/4 dcv or 4 ocv/10 dcv or anywhere in between.

 

 

With the extreme shift hypothesis of Combat (ESHOC) is that you get this:

 

DEX 18 (Brick, expects to get hit, and can take it) Base 6/6, change to 9OCV 3 DCV to improve chances to hit

 

DEX 30 (MA/Speedster, can't take a hit, fighting the brick above) Base 10/10, change to 15/5 and still hit most of the time but now, instead of a 4 point DCV advantage, you have a 6 point DCV advantage.

 

 

So the brick might need to up his DCV to lure the MA into lowering his, then switch. Would it be obvious that an opponent has switched tack? Could you change your CV around quick enough to match? If you couldn't, that might make it psychologically interesting.

 

It is worth thinking about....

[tesuji]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

 

 

DEX 30 (MA/Speedster, can't take a hit, fighting the brick above) Base 10/10, change to 15/5 and still hit most of the time but now, instead of a 4 point DCV advantage, you have a 6 point DCV advantage.

so the two opposing decisions take the bricks chance of hitting from 16% to about 5% and the speedsters from 95% to 89%.

 

its an effect to be sure but not imo a problem. the difference in 100 phases is 11 less brick hits and 6 less speedster hits.

 

if however this creates a problem for some gms in some genres, it might me the range of acceptable "base cvs" gets narrower at its bease because the range of "actual cvs" seen in play grows wider.

 

 

 

So the brick might need to up his DCV to lure the MA into lowering his, then switch. Would it be obvious that an opponent has switched tack? Could you change your CV around quick enough to match? If you couldn't, that might make it psychologically interesting.

 

It is worth thinking about....

 

having used something similar before in rpgs, it turns the result of combat more to hinge on player choice, as at any moment, the combination of choices between any two players can drastically shift the expected results. it was not uncommon for finesse characters to start defensively and then adjusr as they saw what theirenemy was doing and for power characters to start heavy handed on offense and shft around more as they saw what was needed.

 

however, my experience with this was in simultaneous action style games, which led both decisions to be a blind choice round by round. what you had to go on was "what did he do before" not "what is he doing now" but in those games it added a wonderful fell to the combat, where it was much more than "i hit him again"/

 

in a scheduled move system, i would run it like skill levels. once you set it on your phase it remains set until your next phase barring an abort to switch to increase defense. i myself would not give out total info, but would allow a tactics roll to determine "favoring offense, favoring defense, neither" kind of observation using the degree of shift as a modifier to the roll ala difficulty modifiers... going full defense is easier to spot thaqn just a little defense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

so the two opposing decisions take the bricks chance of hitting from 16% to about 5% and the speedsters from 95% to 89%

 

its an effect to be sure but not imo a problem. the difference in 100 phases is 11 less brick hits and 6 less speedster hits.

 

That presumes that the Speedster keeps his mix constant. With a speed advantage, he can shift to high OCV, hit and rely on using (or aborting) his next phase to shift back into DCV mode.

 

You mentioned the "many versus one" battle earler - ie the master villain. In a structure like this, each character should maximize his OCV to hit the villain, and rely on aborting to restore DCV when the villain attacks. That abort only costs the whole team one attack. This approach probably gives some advantage to mooks as well - since their DCV's are so low the hero will hit them anyway, the VIPER agents may as well shift as many points as possible into OCV to hit the heroes.

 

Of course, if I have to Abort anyway, I guess I'll also Dodge at the same time, further enhancing my DCV. And there's not reason not to shift to all-out DCV when I've already decided to dodge, since I don't need my OCV for anything anyway. Of course, if I'm going to Block (or misssile deflect), I can shift everything to OCV in order to enhance my chances of blocking multiple hits. Auto fire becomes much more desirable if I can shift my OCV up to get more hits in - that speedster is starting to look really good.

[tesuji]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

that speedster is starting to look really good.

 

nice recount of effective speedster tactics when fighting a brick.

 

if they can be employeed the brick may well find himself in a bind the same as any character who lets the other guy execute his battle plan without fail might.

 

but again this isn't a problem with the idea.

 

in the original example, cv 10 vs cv 6 if we assume we let mr speedster do his thing, the brick is swining at dcv 13 dodging speedster (neeeding a 4- to hit) and when the extra speed allows it the speedster is attacking the cv 6 brick (needing a 15-) and the issue becomes how often does the speedster overcome the bricks defenses and recovery vs the brick getting in the lucky shot or the speedster running out of endurance.

 

all that is "the way it is now."

 

there is not that much shift going with the swinging cv suggestion as there is simply not much more room left on our 3d6 roll. the brick drops to 3- instead of 4- vs the speedster who goes from 15- to 17- vs the brick.

 

now maybe thaqt shift from 4- to3- and 15- to 17- is a game breaker odds swing, but i dont suspect so.

 

what i suspect the result of the conflict will hinge on in either ruleset is whether the brick can manage to run HIS offense and not play the speedster game. Can he grab something big so that he gets an AOE? can he do a shockwave maneuver and get an aoe?

 

in short, the numbers dont favor the brick as long as he allows the speedster to execute his attack and keep the game dependent on his cv advantageous playground.

 

in other wors, the swinging cv doesn't really affect this example, moving highly improbably brick hits to very highly improbable doesn't matter and moving highliy likely speedster hitting to very highly likely doesn't matter all that much.

 

where you will see the biggest swing IMX is when you have relatively close cvs and then the swing between each is more influential because moving your to hit from 11- to 14- or to 8- is huge when compared to moving it from 15- to 18-.

 

but it wont be for everyone's taqastes, of course.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

Actually a simpler question arises when oneasks why ocv/dcv from dex is always evenly split but cv gained from skill level can change?

 

why must every dex 20 character have his focus divided evenly between offense and defense every round?

 

did everyone attend the same fight club?

 

Actually, that focus is not divided at all. It's at full potential for both offensive and defensive actions. No one attended any fight club, but are operating untrained though intelligently. The variations come in the choices made during combat by those characters. Maneuvers have built in modifiers for this.

 

And realistically, in HTH combat, you don't get more accurate if you just stand there and make yourself a target, but you do get hit less if you don't use up all your time attacking (implying that effort is going to avoiding attacks). In Ranged combat it is true that you can become more accurate if you stand there making yourself a target, and this is represented by the Maneuvers Set and Brace.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

If we allow a shift between OCV and DCV for DEX based CV, what happens to skill levels? Effectively, +6 DEX costs 12 points after "speed rebate". That presently gives me +2 OCV and +2 DCV.

 

Under this model, it would provide +1 OCV, +1 DCV and +2 Skill Levels in all physical combat that don't affect damage classes. Let's call those 2 Combat levels with a -1/4 limitation (cost 13 points). They must be more potent than 5 point levels, since +1 DCV vs all attacks costs 5 points and can't be used for OCV at all.

 

So I can save 1 point by purchasing DEX instead, plus I get an extra OCV and DCV. That seems to render skill levels irrelevant. Of course, skill levels in a superheroic game, unless restricted to specific combat options, are a pretty poor buy in a Supers game anyway.

 

In a Heroic game, if I'm at NCM levels, I pay 30 points for +6 DEX (again after Speed rebate). 13 for +2 combat levels limited as above, +5 for +1 DCV and 5 for +1 OCV maikes 23 points, so that's a bit more reasonable.

 

Tesuji, are you speculating on this approach, or have you tried it in a game setting already? If the latter, how has it influenced the flow of the game? It seems to me this would encourage reserving phases - I'd like to see whether my opponent commits to offense or defense before I commit myself.

 

It would seem to alllow high DEF characters to get more OCV out of their DEX, since they aren't that worried about getting hit anyway. A 30 DEX might be an excellent investment for a high DEF Brick - I get a 15 OCV and a 5 DCV, and I really didn't care about my DCV anyway.

 

Do the same rules apply to mental combat? If not, these options are denied to mentalist characters. However, if the option is allowed, any non-mentalist will clearly focus on shifting his Ego into DC, since he has less use for mental OCV than my high DEF Brick has for DCV.

 

What if we imposed an END cost for shifting CV away from the default? This might simulate that comic book trope of the non-mentalist straining to resist a mental power, and also provide some cost for others moving their OCV/DCV around in cavalier fashion.

[tesuji]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

 

If we allow a shift between OCV and DCV for DEX based CV, what happens to skill levels?

I would suspect they still be used for ranges where dex buys are not permitted or for the very cheap types of skill levels. But certainly, they would be used differently than they are now.

 

Tesuji, are you speculating on this approach, or have you tried it in a game setting already?

As stated in my initial mention, I have used it in OTHER GAME SYSTEMS. I have not used it in HERO. So my experiences with it do not include the hero point costing system and accounting.

 

it might very well lead to altering some costs, as seen above skill levels perhaps.

 

it is a change and a change which had no impact would not be worth changing.

 

If the latter, how has it influenced the flow of the game? It seems to me this would encourage reserving phases - I'd like to see whether my opponent commits to offense or defense before I commit myself.

As stated before, it was used in games with simukltaneous actions not the sequential actions of HERO. In that framework, it worked beautifully, putting much emphasis on player decisions and deception and outguessing or out thinking the adversary and much less on "i swing again". Each round was mor fluid, adapting to changing circumstances, as compared to round after round of doing much the same as last time.

 

As stated, in a sequential resolution such as hero, i would tend to want to use a tactics roll to determine in broad definitions the enemy's choices, using the degree of "shift" off even as a modifier.

 

As for encouraging holding... i dont see that anymore than now. The brick in your brick speedster slugfest at ocv 6 vs dcv 10-13 is already seriously encouraged, if he cannot change the combat away from DCV, to hold action and slam the speedster when he rushes in, if he rushes in. I would imagine like HERO standard the encouragement is the "cannot abort" times... which open a window of opportunity.

 

It would seem to alllow high DEF characters to get more OCV out of their DEX, since they aren't that worried about getting hit anyway. A 30 DEX might be an excellent investment for a high DEF Brick - I get a 15 OCV and a 5 DCV, and I really didn't care about my DCV anyway.

A 30 dex is already a good investment for a brick both from an OCV nd a speed vanatege especially if he is using his dex as his sole provider of ocv, as seen in the examples being used.

 

and again, as stated earlier, this change might men an alteration in campaign standards, to limit the normal accepted range of BASE CVs because the n play range of ACTUAL CVS swings. It might be that a range of CV 6 to CV10 for a standard supers game is unplayable just as for instance a CV 3 and CV 12 range is rather unplayable.

 

A change to something as basic as CV means a change, and might mean rethinking some baselines.

 

Do the same rules apply to mental combat? If not, these options are denied to mentalist characters. However, if the option is allowed, any non-mentalist will clearly focus on shifting his Ego into DC, since he has less use for mental OCV than my high DEF Brick has for DCV.

Yes and the mentalist will shift to OCV in the absense of opposing mentalists. That will work fine until the other side has a surprise.

 

But yes, the same offense defense plit could be applied to mental as well.

What if we imposed an END cost for shifting CV away from the default? This might simulate that comic book trope of the non-mentalist straining to resist a mental power, and also provide some cost for others moving their OCV/DCV around in cavalier fashion.

 

its certainly an option for those who want to try it but see it frought with problems. Certainly wouldn't want to say No to anyone who felt it necessary.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I think dodge should give +3 DECV as well

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I think dodge should give +3 DECV as well

 

A mental Dodge isn't a bad idea but should be a seperate and distinct action from a physical Dodge.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

A mental Dodge isn't a bad idea but should be a seperate and distinct action from a physical Dodge.

Agreed, though I might only allow such a maneuver for actual Mentalists rather than just anyone.

[Mike W]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I think dodging vs. multiple attackers is covered fairly well by the potential modifiers. You don't get full benefit against people you can't see(e.g. are behind you). Plus, multiple opponents might be able to coordinate. As far as what types of attacks dodging should apply to, I'm willing to let dodge work vs. all attacks for two main reasons.

 

First, it's simpler. Simple is good. Do we really want to create a list that says: For this genre, you can dodge this type of attack but for this one you can't. I mean, sure, Joe Detective can't outrun a bullet - but the Flash can.

 

Second, and most importantly, I look at dodging as a way to make you a tougher target. Sure you or me can't outrun a bullet, but anyone who has ever tried to hit a moving target be it with a gun or a rock, or a football, knows that hitting a moving target is tougher than hitting a stationary one. No. I can't outrun the bullet, but if I am running or ducking or moving in any way, it means the shooter has one more thing he has to take into account when aiming.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

Agreed' date=' though I might only allow such a maneuver for actual Mentalists rather than just anyone.[/quote']

 

I think it should be the same manuver. It while there are seperate manuvers for ranged and melee multiattacking (sweep and rapid attack), and seperate block and missile deflection (which i have problems with as well, but that's a seperate matter), but the general panacea manuver, DFC works against all attacks equally well, and so should dodge. Dodge doesn't worry about melee and ranged, and it shouldn't nitpick about mental attacks.

 

Agreed' date=' though I might only allow such a maneuver for actual Mentalists rather than just anyone.[/quote']

 

You can't normally dodge attacks you can't perceive, this means a normal person can't dodge a normal mental attack, but if they were warey, they could be always mentaly "dodging" or trying to shield their mind. It wouldn't be unbalanced, and it might not make sense from a special effects point of view, but if you think about the ambiguity of special effects there is a balance problem.

 

In one game i play in, there is an NPC called "343" which we have lovelying dubbed "Big Red". Big Red is a mentalist who's special effect is that he shoots red lazers at you. His ego attack is a big red beam, if you try to dodge it because you think it is an energy blast, but then you don't get +3 DECV, it might make sense, but for game balance it should be added in to dodge. Big red isn't unique. In a sci-fi setting, anyone might have "neural pistol" ego attack to go with their lazer pistol. People shouldn't know what an attack is before it hits them for the first time, and they shouldn't have to know what it is in order to pick an action if they decide to abort against it instead of finding out what happens when they get hit.

 

Plus what happens if you multi-power attack with a mental attack and a ranged/melee one vs someone who aborts to dodge:? they hit or miss as one attack, so you are effectivly giving the defender +3 DECV already.

 

Plus then you have to define what is a mentalist? Is anyone with mental awareness a mentalist? or do you have to have CSLs with mental powers to be a mentalist? have mostly mental attacks? what makes a mentalist?

 

If you buy CSLs with a mental attack, you can apply them to DECV, but not if you buy dodge, you should allow people with CSLs with the dodge manuver apply lvls to DECV, under the general principal that defense should be easier to get than offense.

 

Has anyone else noticed CSL problems?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I think it should be the same manuver. It while there are seperate manuvers for ranged and melee multiattacking (sweep and rapid attack)' date=' and seperate block and missile deflection (which i have problems with as well, but that's a seperate matter), but the general panacea manuver, DFC works against all attacks equally well, and so should dodge. Dodge doesn't worry about melee and ranged, and it shouldn't nitpick about mental attacks.[/quote']

As HTH & Ranged are different, so is Mental different from each. In fact, it is the most different. It is not dependent upon range or motion for example. Dodging, granting a bonus based entirely on motion, would have no effect at all against a mental attack.

 

You can't normally dodge attacks you can't perceive, this means a normal person can't dodge a normal mental attack, but if they were warey, they could be always mentaly "dodging" or trying to shield their mind. It wouldn't be unbalanced, and it might not make sense from a special effects point of view, but if you think about the ambiguity of special effects there is a balance problem.

Sounds like a job for Mental Defense, or maybe Persistent DECV levels. (Anyone know if there is a mental version of Defense Maneuver?)

 

In one game i play in, there is an NPC called "343" which we have lovelying dubbed "Big Red". Big Red is a mentalist who's special effect is that he shoots red lazers at you. His ego attack is a big red beam, if you try to dodge it because you think it is an energy blast, but then you don't get +3 DECV, it might make sense, but for game balance it should be added in to dodge. Big red isn't unique. In a sci-fi setting, anyone might have "neural pistol" ego attack to go with their lazer pistol. People shouldn't know what an attack is before it hits them for the first time, and they shouldn't have to know what it is in order to pick an action if they decide to abort against it instead of finding out what happens when they get hit.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, but it sounds like you want to give players the option of "I have no idea what's going on, so I'll perform the Appropriate Action maneuver". That's a really bad idea, at least in most campaigns where there is usually some level of realism and causality. In a more generic/basic campaign you might want such a maneuver, but you should also have the corresponding attack form. Just one roll for all things.

 

Plus what happens if you multi-power attack with a mental attack and a ranged/melee one vs someone who aborts to dodge:? they hit or miss as one attack, so you are effectivly giving the defender +3 DECV already.

You can't MPA with different attack types. You can't even MPA HTH with a Ranged attack.

 

Plus then you have to define what is a mentalist? Is anyone with mental awareness a mentalist? or do you have to have CSLs with mental powers to be a mentalist? have mostly mental attacks? what makes a mentalist?

The definition of the term varies from campaign to campaign/setting to setting, but in the way I was using it, I meant anyone with Mental Awareness, or otherwise anyone with the ability to sense (and thus react to) mental attacks.

 

If you buy CSLs with a mental attack, you can apply them to DECV, but not if you buy dodge, you should allow people with CSLs with the dodge manuver apply lvls to DECV, under the general principal that defense should be easier to get than offense.

 

Has anyone else noticed CSL problems?

Dodge only affects DCV, not DECV, so even if you have levels with Dodge specifically, you can't apply them to DECV when Dodging. If you have levels that apply to DECV, you can apply them to DECV while Dodging, or whenever you like. Dodging has no effect on your DECV.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

1) dodging doesn't provide a bonus based on DCV, you could have a special effect, but if you want to houserule that that's how it works, i'm fine with that.

 

2) CSLs are normally persistant, and having non-persistant CSLs would work in a weird way I haven't thought about.

 

3) you got me on the MPA thing, I haven't been reading my book enouhg.

 

4) I left out some stuff when i was typing the last part of my response, so it makes no sense, but basically it was a problem with the way that CSLs apply to DCV.

 

5) I have done some conversing amonst my friends at college, and we've come to the conclusion that this will make turtleing against mentalists a little more effective, but not cructially so, unless the campain is designed to have mentalists be super effective, or the CV cap is very low (like 7-10). The difference between one or two manuvers is really minimal if the CSL rules are changed in the fashion i hope to post later, and it can be either because it really doesn't mater. If having 2 manuvers makes more sense, then 2 manuvers is fine, one manuver makes more sense to me.

 

The reason this is, is that usually where people's CSLs are makes a larger difference than a +3 bonus in the games I play in (so if you dodge, get +3 DCV but put all your lvls in DECV then you're still screwed in regular combat).

 

On the other hand I usually play in high CSL games, (or rather that CSLs make up a majority of the CV for most characters) so i might be skewed

[Dust Raven]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I'm not sure if this was in direct response to anything, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting things.

1) dodging doesn't provide a bonus based on DCV' date=' you could have a special effect, but if you want to houserule that that's how it works, i'm fine with that.[/quote']

If dodging doesn't provide a bonus based on DCV, exactly what is that +3 DCV all about?

 

2) CSLs are normally persistant, and having non-persistant CSLs would work in a weird way I haven't thought about.

CSLs not not persistent. They turn off if the target is Stunned or knocked unconscious.

 

The reason this is, is that usually where people's CSLs are makes a larger difference than a +3 bonus in the games I play in (so if you dodge, get +3 DCV but put all your lvls in DECV then you're still screwed in regular combat).

 

On the other hand I usually play in high CSL games, (or rather that CSLs make up a majority of the CV for most characters) so i might be skewed

 

Yeah... a high CSL campaign will skew this just as much as a campaign that doesn't use them. Of course, I'm not sure what you mean by "high". I generally consider high to be anything over half the average base CV of the player characters. If your characters have more CSLs than they do base CV, then levels are king and those tiny little maneuver bonuses really wouldn't mean anything. Like you said, it won't matter of the character is Dodging, but matter if they had levels in DCV. Or if fighting a mentalist, levels in DECV.

 

I will ask you one thing though. Since when does jumping around, bobbing and weaving and all that help against a mental assault? The general suggestion that Dodge should provide a bonus to DECV as well as DCV implies this.

[casualplayer]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I'm really disappointed that Sean didn't title this thread Dodging: the Question or something similar. Are you feeling all right?

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Examining existing rules

 

I'm not sure if this was in direct response to anything, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting things.

 

If dodging doesn't provide a bonus based on DCV, exactly what is that +3 DCV all about?

 

 

That's totally my bad, i was thinking one thing, and wrote another, i ment the bonus wasn't based on movement. Sorry everyone.

 

As for persistance, i thought CSLs functioned while you were stunned, KOed etc, but stunned gaves you a condition mondifier of 1/2 DCV, and KO gives you the condition modifier of 0 DCV (you add DCV CSLs in step 2 and i belive condition modifers at step 6, i belive, my copy of FRED isn't in front of me.

 

I don't know how you calculate CVs for your games, but in the games I play in, we do a OCV+DCV not greater than X number. This means you can have high DEX characters, or high CSL characters, the CSLs are better, but they cost more to do the same as DEX (you need lvls to add to DEX rolls, lvls need to apply to everything, and improved initiative)

 

I also think a high CSL game is one where more than half of your CVs come from CSLs and that's a common theme where i play. Does no one else have those characters? (low dex, high CSL characters?)

 

Also if ducking weaving "dodging" in short, doesn't help you against a mentalist, then how does jumping up in the air help you? (ie. DFC 1 hex straight up in the air)