# Attacking an object

## Recommended Posts

Page 447:"A human-sized or hex-sized inanimate object typically has a DCV of 3..."

Don't you think it should be 0 instead of 3 ?

(a sleeping or KO being has DCV 0 so i think an inanimate object has no reason to have a better base DCV)

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

Yes, but...hitting a hex with an AoE is a DCV 3 problem, and we need to be consident. It would be more logical to asume that a human sized object is DCV 3, but that causes problems too - whay if a character has a DEX of 5, and therefore a DCV of 2? They would be able to increase their DCV by standing still or having a nap

Perhaps a hex should be DCV 0. It makes AoE a little more useful, but I could live with that.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

PS:

Let's say a basic humain (OCV 3) want to punch an adjacent 50 cm object ===> 11+3-3-4 = 7- = 16% hit probability.

I'm quite sure i have more chance to hit...

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

I think a hex has a 0 dcv if you're adjacent, 3 if you're not.

It can be a little tricky hitting a hex from some distance. If it wasn't, golf would be a lot easier...

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

I think a hex has a 0 dcv if you're adjacent, 3 if you're not.

It can be a little tricky hitting a hex from some distance. If it wasn't, golf would be a lot easier...

And an unconscious body would typically be prone, making it harder to hit from range, wouldn't it?

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

That is true but to a flying character, a prone target on the ground is upright

I also take the above point about a hex being hard to hit BUT that assumes you need to hit the ground. AoE attacks don't - they can airburst. Golf would be much easier if you only had to get the ball into the right hex, and it did not need to be touching the ground when it was there.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

I think a hex has a 0 dcv if you're adjacent, 3 if you're not.

It can be a little tricky hitting a hex from some distance. If it wasn't, golf would be a lot easier...

It's not just the hex you have to hit, though. There's the hole which is probably 1/32 human-size. That's -10 to hit.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

Perhaps a hex should be DCV 0. It makes AoE a little more useful, but I could live with that.

Yes, it seems that replacing the base DCV 3 of non-adjacent AoE and inanimate objects by 0 would be the only solution.

IMHO the difference between adjacent (0) and non-adjacent AoE (3) is useless because there are already rules for calculating distance modifier.

A base of 0 DCV, that's all.

Then animated being or object's "base movement" (from DEX and/or actual movement), their size and their distance modify this base.

It would be a lot more logical and simpler.

(then maneuvers and CSLs add to this base.)

I think a hex has a 0 dcv if you're adjacent, 3 if you're not.

It can be a little tricky hitting a hex from some distance. If it wasn't, golf would be a lot easier...

Because of the distance and the hole size. There are rules for that. What is the rationnal behind those free 3 points of DCV ??? I think it only brings troubles.

An average human has a base DCV of 3.

When he's KO or Sleeping it drops to 0. (prone or not, that's not the problem.)

OK, that's nice and logical.

Now, an inanimate object should have a base DCV of 0 instead of 3.

Distance and size are another things.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

When I run my games, if it's a stationary object, or a part of the ground, or an unconscious body, and 17 or less roll succeeds.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

While we're at it, we could question why trying to hit a smaller target makes you miss by more. The rules for where a shot goes use the amount by which you miss your attack roll. Well, a 10 might miss a normal sized target by 1 point, putting the shot 1 hex off. But that 10 would miss a golf hole by 11 points, putting the ball a whole 11 hexes (22m) off, provided you're further away than 22 hexes. Ouch! I think it might be better to use the scale of the target for the first point, and double thereafter (to a maximum of half the target's distance as usual). Or something like that.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Attacking an object

While we're at it' date=' we could question why trying to hit a smaller target makes you miss by more. The rules for where a shot goes use the amount by which you miss your attack roll. Well, a 10 might miss a normal sized target by 1 point, putting the shot 1 hex off. But that 10 would miss a golf hole by 11 points, putting the ball a whole 11 hexes (22m) off, provided you're further away than 22 hexes. Ouch! I think it might be better to use the scale of the target for the first point, and double thereafter (to a maximum of half the target's distance as usual). Or something like that.[/quote']

IMHO target size should be used at the very last step.

Hitting could be a 2 step process :

1. hit without taking size into account unless it's a bonus (large sizes) => if missed ==> use the amount by which you miss your attack roll [...], etc.

2. if it was a success then add the size modifier if it's a malus (small sizes). It may actually become a miss.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×

×
• News

• Social Media