Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

[CorPse]

Hey Gang,

 

I'm going through the Vehicles rules with ye olde fine tooth comb because I'm running a "super agent" game.

 

I ran across the following:

 

5ER, pg. 472

 

"The vehicles Size and other modifiers affect its DCV, but it can never fall below 0 DCV."

 

I'd highlighted this in my copy some time ago, but clearly I'd forgotten it. It strikes me that this has some amusing implications. Your crappy old panel truck and an aircraft carrier could both end up having a DCV of 0.

[Kdansky]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

"Quick, blast a hole into the Aircraft carrier with your Lazor Beamz!"

"Oh no! I missed because it's 100 feet away!" (range modifiers get big quickly)

"You missed a half a mile long ship?"

[Edsel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Let's see an empty hex has a DCV of three if you are trying to hit it with an area of effect attack. However if you are trying to hit an object that fills one hex then it is a DCV of 0. I'd guess the difference is because if you are shooting at an empty hex you are having to judge the distance and if the hex is full you can't over shoot as long as you have the right angle to your shot.

 

So If you are shooting at a vehicle like an aircraft carrier it is more likely that you are going to aim for a particular hex of the aircraft carrier, and if you miss you use scatter and you'll still likely hit it.

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

There's an official way to handle scattering of a non-AOE attack?

 

I'm all ears. Well, I'm probably less than 1% ears, but c'mon, it's a metaphor!

[Comic]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Here's the dealie: Called Shot.

 

That way, if you miss the vital component in the central hex of the Aircraft Carrier, your shot still lands random inches away in random direction.. which is likely to be an even more vital component near the central hex of the Aircraft Carrier.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Aiming generally at a Hex is harder than aiming generally at an object larger than a Hex... Panel Vans and Aircraft Carriers occupy multiple hexes.

 

So yes, the DCV is lower for aiming generally at an object twenty feet long vs an object ten feet long.

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Here's the dealie: Called Shot.

 

That way, if you miss the vital component in the central hex of the Aircraft Carrier, your shot still lands random inches away in random direction.. which is likely to be an even more vital component near the central hex of the Aircraft Carrier.

 

Hrmmm.

 

I'm not finding that in the rules anywhere.

 

I looked up the Called Shoot/Placed Shot mechanics:

 

5ER pg. 415

 

On attacking with a placed shoot "... if he misses, the attack misses altogether."

 

Now logic would dictate that it would be hard to miss our aircraft carrier above... but logic would also seem to dictate that this situation would be covered with an actual rule somewhere...

 

But where?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Remember ... a miss doesn't always mean A Miss.

 

You could have still hit the aircraft carrier, because it's very hard to miss a half mile long object, especially if stationary. You just suck so badly your attack grazed the deck and left a scorch mark. . .

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Aiming generally at a Hex is harder than aiming generally at an object larger than a Hex... Panel Vans and Aircraft Carriers occupy multiple hexes.

 

So yes, the DCV is lower for aiming generally at an object twenty feet long vs an object ten feet long.

 

Well, I agree that that makes sense, but where can I find that in the rules? It's weird that a carrier isn't easier to hit than a mooky panel van.

 

Looks like stuff just stops at DCV 0.

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Remember ... a miss doesn't always mean A Miss.

 

You could have still hit the aircraft carrier, because it's very hard to miss a half mile long object, especially if stationary. You just suck so badly your attack grazed the deck and left a scorch mark. . .

 

Even if you're standing (or floating along) next to it?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Somewhere under Dramatic & Common Sense.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Even if you're standing (or floating along) next to it?

 

Most of the time, things like that will also involve Velocity Based DCV.

 

If you're standing on top of it, why would the GM have you roll? To be a jerk?

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Somewhere under Dramatic & Common Sense.

 

Yes, that's always the bailout. It's a question of whether it's a weird mechanic or not. Are you saying you don't think it's odd looked at objectively?

 

Or are you just really used to it?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

I don't think it's odd at all.

 

I've seen people literally miss the broad side of a barn. Sometimes your aim just plain sucks.

 

And besides, if it's agreed upon that One can't possibly miss, the Attack Roll is simply skipped.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Also.. just to make it clear....

 

I believe Dramatic And Common Sense to be as important, if not more important than any other rule in the book.

[Comic]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Hrm.

 

I must still be thinking in obsolete terms. When attacking people with levels of Growth, masses of people, or large structures, there once upon a time was a way to calculate how much you missed by and in what direction.

 

Made Growth suck very muchly.

 

While the new rule makes more mechanical sense.. I suppose.. it does seem to fly in the face of the good ol' "well, where _did_ it land?" question.

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

I'm not saying it's not important either. (Ah, a use for the double negative.)

 

But it looks like we're going to have to part company on this one.

 

And for what it's worth, after 30 years of playing Hero System games in all sorts of settings, I'm still waiting for a GM to giving me the "your Attack hits automatically" action.

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Hrm.

 

I must still be thinking in obsolete terms. When attacking people with levels of Growth, masses of people, or large structures, there once upon a time was a way to calculate how much you missed by and in what direction.

 

Made Growth suck very muchly.

 

While the new rule makes more mechanical sense.. I suppose.. it does seem to fly in the face of the good ol' "well, where _did_ it land?" question.

 

Yeah, maybe it was decided it made it too easy to hit called shots, or from ridiculous distances, etc.

 

Not sure why it got changed. I'm sure there was a theory at work there, tho.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Heh.

 

Also ... while DCV may never go below Zero, there are rules for providing OCV Bonuses based on size difference...

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Heh.

 

Also ... while DCV may never go below Zero, there are rules for providing OCV Bonuses based on size difference...

 

Aha.

 

I'll have to dig around for that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Combat Modifiers 5ER p375

Target Size 5ER p382

Perception Modifiers 5ER p353 (these modifiers are noted as being the same as the appropriate Size Modifier for Target Size)

 

A Nimitz Class Carrier (TUV p67) is 160" long... providing a +18 OCV to anyone trying to hit it.

[CorPse]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

done & done!

 

sounds like a set of rules that nicely cover the problem.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

Also.. just to make it clear....

 

I believe Dramatic And Common Sense to be as important, if not more important than any other rule in the book.

 

And I wish it got a page to itself right at the start of the book, in big type so we didn't need to keep on mentioning it*, and could actually, you know, concentrate on rules that make dramatic and common sense actually being there, on the page.

 

I believe the phrase 'dramatic and common sense' is the worst thing about 5th edition Hero. I always use dramatic and common sense (well, when I remember to), and I prefer my rulebooks to define a system baseline that I can change if I want. Or present multiple approaches: a baseline and official options. Whatever.

 

Not meaning this as an attack on you, ghost-angel, I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, but that phrase just pushes all the wrong buttons with me.

 

 

 

*and so that I'd only have one page to tear out.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

"Quick, blast a hole into the Aircraft carrier with your Lazor Beamz!"

"Oh no! I missed because it's 100 feet away!" (range modifiers get big quickly)

"You missed a half a mile long ship?"

 

An aircraft carrier is a really bad example of a HERO 'vehicle'. In character terms it actually is more like a base that just happens to be able to move. The 0 DCV rule probably assumes that the vehicle is moving with a velocity proportional to its size. An aircraft carrier is barely faster than a snail when compared proportionately.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea

 

And I wish it got a page to itself right at the start of the book, in big type so we didn't need to keep on mentioning it*, and could actually, you know, concentrate on rules that make dramatic and common sense actually being there, on the page.

 

I believe the phrase 'dramatic and common sense' is the worst thing about 5th edition Hero. I always use dramatic and common sense (well, when I remember to), and I prefer my rulebooks to define a system baseline that I can change if I want. Or present multiple approaches: a baseline and official options. Whatever.

 

Not meaning this as an attack on you, ghost-angel, I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, but that phrase just pushes all the wrong buttons with me.

 

 

 

*and so that I'd only have one page to tear out.

 

Actually... I take the phrase to mean the rules are a set of options, not a rigid codex to never deviate from. D&CSense really means "well, if you don't like it or it interferes with your game by all means change it!"

 

In my eyes.