Talking hitS

[Sean Waters]

Let me get this right.

 

You are twice as tall you take a -2 DCV penalty. You are half as tall you take a +2 DCV bonus. That assumes you stay proportional: height on its own is irrelevant - what actually matters is the area of the thing you are aiming at.

 

If I'm right that makes the 'Combat Modifiers' table 5ER375 wrong: 'fills one hex (2x human size' should not be a +2 OCV - it should be 'fills 2 hexes' (assuming a human 'fills' half a hex - making the 'usual' dimensions are 2mx1m - not that realistic, but a close enough approximation*). Even if a human has a different area ratio to a hex the remaining progression would be wrong: 'fills 2 hexes' shouldn't be +4...

 

As an aside it is also slightly confusing that some things get a DCV modifier for size and others 'grant' an OCV modifier - one might almost thing that 3 levels of growth not only give you -2 DCV but also grant an attacker +2 OCV.

 

So, I believe that the progression should be each 1/4 area = +2dcv (or -2ocv) and each 4x area = -2dcv (or +2ocv) AND the 'base' area, the area of a human sized target, is 1 square metre.

 

Expressing things in 'area' may sound unwieldly, but it actually makes calculating modifiers easier for things that do not conform to the basic human shape.

 

So, does anyone question my 'logic' and assumptions so far, or is that how it works? Or am I off on one again?

 

 

 

*Actually using a picture of Dustin Hoffman from 'Rain Man' I reckon that a he has an area of about .62 square metres, and as he is 5'6", a 'heroic' character may get as far as .7 square metres: the area of a hex of width 2m is about 3.5 square metres, making a hex about 5 times the area of a human. Roughly. That actually works OK - about 4x area should be +2 OCV - but the rest of the 'big' progression is still wrong.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

No one?

 

OK.

 

So First off we need to define an 'Area' that is the default target size when looking at OCV/DCV penalties i.e. that work out at +0.

 

At present we use the hex, but the hex is confusing - is it a 2D or a 3D target? If it is 3D it should be either DCV-2 (if you follow the rules as they are) or DCV-4 (if you follow the rules as they should be), given that a human who is not moving about is DCV 0.

 

If a hex is 2D (you have to hit the base) thn whether you are aiming at a piece of flat ground or the side of a wall should make a massive difference: it doesn't at present.

 

Anyway no hexes in 6e.

 

So, I'd be inclined to suggest that the 'basic target size' should be 1 metre square. That is close enough to a humans frontal area, especially for bulked up 100kg characters.

 

I guestimate that a 5 foot human has a 'cross sectional surface area' of about 0.5 square metres and a 6' 6" character in the same proportion has a 'cross sectional surface area' of about 0.87 square metres

 

That is quite a lot of difference: nearly double. That should probably be making a +1 CV difference. Of course defining your size and getting an advantage from doing so would mean a spate of tiny heroes, which is silly.

 

Is any of this making sense?

 

Wait for the next bit then...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Talking hitS

 

Well, there aren't that many people about and I think you are dancing on the head of a pin that is lost in a haystack...

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

So...range.

 

Eh?

 

Well, as I walked my dog the other day I got to thinking about this and it seems to me that if area is a major determinant of how easy something is to hit, then we should be able to work out the ratio of distances that something looks to be half the height it was before.

 

I've been out in the street. I stuck a piece of tape on a telegraph pole at head height then stood back with a ruler out at arms length until the height appeared to be 32cm. I paced out the distance, then repeated for an apparent height of 16cm, 8cm and so on.

 

The results were:

32cm - 5 paces

16cm - 9 paces

8cm - 17 paces

4cm - 32 paces

2cm - 70 paces

 

Given the wealth of potential errors with my methodology that is pretty damn close to 'twice as far away as before = 1/2 apparent height', and as 'half apparent height = 1/4 apparent area, the Hero range tables clearly follow the right sort of principle as far as apparent target size goes.

 

Some of you guys could probably have done it more accurately mathematically, but when I tried drawing triangles and measuring it became clear that I'd made a duff assumption somewhere. I like to double check my mathematical abilities - and good job too

 

So: good job Hero on range modifiers!

 

This would appear to be a nicely consistent system - but we still need to be clear about what our 'base size target' is. Actually - that reminds me - we use 'size' to mean all kinds of things: what I mean is 'base area'. I know Hero is not a scientific text book, but terminological consistency can be achieved and will yield substantial dividends in understanding.

 

1 m square is a good measure because it is easy enough to multiply and divide from that point. It is also in the same ball park as the 'silhouette area' of an adult human.

 

Each x1.4 in height and width = -1 DCV (or +1 OCV) and each x2 in height and width = -2 DCV (or +2 OCV).

 

Actually can I just comment on DCV/OCV. As they are relative values it doesn;t actually matter if you add to DCV/subtract from OCV or vice verse anut from a pov of consistency and understanding it would be better if all height and range modifiers were applied to one or the other.

 

Personally I'd rather have it applied to DCV because then you can record the value for the target rather than having to calculate it for the atatcker. you'd need to get rid of this 'no negative DCV' mullarkey though.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

So, if I'm right so far (and there is room on this pin head) that has some interesting implications for relative position.

 

It should mean that turning side on to an attack is worth about +1 DCV, as is kneeling down.

 

Rolling into a ball is worth +2 DCV and lying flat on the ground is worth about +3 DCV (You become, in effect, head height but the same width, and ahead is about 1/8 of your body size, so you have 1/8 of your area as width does not change, and that is worth +3 DCV (1/4 area x 1/2 area).

 

However, that only applies if the attacker is ahead of you and far enough away that all they can see is your head and shoulders.

 

Interestingly enough it also means that the head (and I've roughly measured mine to be about 45 cm squared is about 1/16 the silhouette area of the entire body and so should be -4 to hit (or +4 DCV) NOT -8 (although given the massive rewards for head hits I can see the game balance issue).

 

Anyway, if all things being equal, in combat, you can hit a stationary human sized target (or 1m square target) on 11- then it should have a DCV of 0.

 

That means that a hex (which has a cross sectional area of about 3.5 square metres) SHOULD be DCV -2 and not DCV 3.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Talking hitS

 

So, if I'm right so far (and there is room on this pin head) that has some interesting implications for relative position.

 

It should mean that turning side on to an attack is worth about +1 DCV, as is kneeling down.

 

Rolling into a ball is worth +2 DCV and lying flat on the ground is worth about +3 DCV (You become, in effect, head height but the same width, and ahead is about 1/8 of your body size, so you have 1/8 of your area as width does not change, and that is worth +3 DCV (1/4 area x 1/2 area).

 

Maybe we could have a "partially prone" modifier. Maybe fencers should just buy a level with DCV to reflect their stance. Or maybe minor items like this should be adjudicated by the GM or ignored for simplicity.

 

Interestingly enough it also means that the head (and I've roughly measured mine to be about 45 cm squared is about 1/16 the silhouette area of the entire body and so should be -4 to hit (or +4 DCV) NOT -8 (although given the massive rewards for head hits I can see the game balance issue).

 

The size penalty for the head is -4. Called shot penalties are halved outside combat,, when you aren't bobbing and weaving around, remember.

 

That means that a hex (which has a cross sectional area of about 3.5 square metres) SHOULD be DCV -2 and not DCV 3.

 

But a hex is prone. Remember, the hex next to you has a DCV of 0 - only the ones at least 2 meters away get a DCV of 3.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Talking hitS

 

So, if I'm right so far (and there is room on this pin head) that has some interesting implications for relative position.

 

It should mean that turning side on to an attack is worth about +1 DCV, as is kneeling down.

 

Rolling into a ball is worth +2 DCV and lying flat on the ground is worth about +3 DCV (You become, in effect, head height but the same width, and ahead is about 1/8 of your body size, so you have 1/8 of your area as width does not change, and that is worth +3 DCV (1/4 area x 1/2 area).

 

However, that only applies if the attacker is ahead of you and far enough away that all they can see is your head and shoulders.

Makes absolute sense to me. There's a good reason soldiers "hit the dirt" when somebody is shooting at them from a distance. The only time being prone should be a DCV penalty is when the attacker is standing in an adjacent hex (and thus shooting down) or at an altitude that makes being prone give the same area visually as standing if they were on the ground. Except in HtH combat, being Prone should never involve a DCV penalty. Being prone and quartering your surface area is a good thing. I think the fact it has a penalty is a relic of hand to hand MA/brick combat from the system's superhero roots.

 

Anyway, if all things being equal, in combat, you can hit a stationary human sized target (or 1m square target) on 11- then it should have a DCV of 0.

 

That means that a hex (which has a cross sectional area of about 3.5 square metres) SHOULD be DCV -2 and not DCV 3.

I agree, but I think these are both game balance issues. If hexes were -2 DCV base, AoE attacks would become even more effective.

 

It will be interesting to see if Steve addresses any of these issue in 6E but we've heard no signs if he will or not. (For example, I never could understand why being Stunned halves your DCV but sleeping or actually being unconscious has a -0 effect.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Talking hitS

 

Makes absolute sense to me. There's a good reason soldiers "hit the dirt" when somebody is shooting at them from a distance. The only time being prone should be a DCV penalty is when the attacker is standing in an adjacent hex (and thus shooting down) or at an altitude that makes being prone give the same area visually as standing if they were on the ground. Except in HtH combat' date=' being Prone should never involve a DCV penalty. Being prone and quartering your surface area is a good thing. I think the fact it has a penalty is a relic of hand to hand MA/brick combat from the system's superhero roots.[/quote']

 

From a "reality" perspective, I agree. The loss of benefits for erratic movement is more than offset by the reduced surface area presented. However, does this match "cinematic reality"? How often does the Hero hit the dirt, and how often does he bob, weave, and continue to move forward, shooting as he goes, with the Bad Guys, of whatever stripe, unable to hit him?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

But a hex is prone. Remember' date=' the hex next to you has a DCV of 0 - only the ones at least 2 meters away get a DCV of 3. [/quote']

 

On the question of whether a hex is 'prone'...

 

1. A hex would have to have some thickness or it would be nigh impossible to hit with a weapon that did not have a parabola trajectory at more than about 10 metres.

 

2. You could aim at a hex that is flat on the ground or on the side of a building and the system makes no differentiation, which leads me to suspect that both present the same area, which must indicate we are talking about a 2m tall hex.

 

3. The fact that you can hit a hex that is in the air leads me to the same conclusion.

 

4. Even adjacent to a hex (where you have to be aiming at the 'maximum area', if it is a 'flat hex') it is still DCV 0 - the same as an immobile human sized target - despite being considerably bigger. That can not be right.

 

The point of all this is to establish basic principles from which we then extrapolate as much or as little detail as we like. Hexes are going anyway, but I fear that their legacy will live on. Of course Steve may already have all of this well in hand

 

I think the principles are already there and, as I've proved to myself with the 'range' experiment I think the mechanics of Hero have the potential for really good 'real world emulation' without any major work: the physics is already pretty close.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

From a "reality" perspective' date=' I agree. The loss of benefits for erratic movement is more than offset by the reduced surface area presented. However, does this match "cinematic reality"? How often does the Hero hit the dirt, and how often does he bob, weave, and continue to move forward, shooting as he goes, with the Bad Guys, of whatever stripe, unable to hit him?[/quote']

 

Even cinematic reality has characters using cover and ducking. I think that a lot of combats would hold a lot more drama if that sort of thing was encouraged.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

Range modifiers:

 

I know this is unlikely to be instantly popular, but consider it for a moment:

 

Range modifiers start at anything over 1 m: 1-2m = -2, 3-4m = -4, 5-8m = -6 and so on.

 

That could accurately reflect how difficult it is to hit someone with a firearm even at short range but still allow combat at longer range, assuming use of 'Set' and 'Brace' maneuvers, and combat skills are employed. Perhaps even a new 'aim' maneuver (+1 OCV v range per additional phase taken to aim once already 'Set' up to +3 OCV?)

 

I'd also allow ranged attacks in melee range to be blocked with the normal HtH manrouvre.

[Alibear]

Re: Talking hitS

 

My quick and dirty house rule for being prone is that it doubles range mod penalties.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

In many cases quick and dirty is all you need, but I'm generally against multiplying or dividing modifiers: a straight bonus or penalty is easier to apply and probably a more accurate reflection of what is going on.

 

What I would do is have a 'minimum DCV' based on your size: say a normal human is DCV 2 (working on the basis that an adjacent hex is DCV 0) then even if stunned, unconscious or DEX is reduced to zero, they would always be at elast 2 DCV because that reflects how hard they are to hit if they were simply an immobile target. Someone with a level of shrinking would have a minimum DCV of 4.

 

'Prone target, facing you at more than 8" range' would then become a -3 OCV penalty for the attacker, based on the visible area you can attack.

 

While I'm ranting, we'll be getting rid of that 'can not reduce DCV below zero' rule. What is that all about?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Talking hitS

 

The apparent "area" (actually solid angle if you want to get technical) of a target decreases with the square of distance. Meaning if you double the distance to the target, the apparent "area" is one-quarter the starting value. That puts the -2 OCV range penalty for doubling range right in line with the modifiers for target size. I've always liked that consistency. Actually, the only thing inconsistent with that is the penalty for concealment, which is -2 OCV for a target being half concealed (half the area), when it should be only -1 OCV.

 

I have to disagree with the idea that there should be no DCV penalty for going prone. While it does decrease profile area (which could very well grant a bonus), it also decreases mobility greatly, and that has as much to do with DCV as size does in my book.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

The apparent "area" (actually solid angle if you want to get technical) of a target decreases with the square of distance. Meaning if you double the distance to the target' date=' the apparent "area" is one-quarter the starting value. That puts the -2 OCV range penalty for doubling range right in line with the modifiers for target size. I've always liked that consistency. Actually, the only thing [i']inconsistent[/i] with that is the penalty for concealment, which is -2 OCV for a target being half concealed (half the area), when it should be only -1 OCV.

 

Solid angle? I learn new stuff all the time, which is one advantage of not knowing much

 

If you look at the DCV modifiers for size on page 375, that 'larger than himan object' modifiers are also inconsistent. All this stuff is probably obvious but I didn't really work it through in my head before to see how it all hangs together, and I suspect a lot of others haven't either.

 

I have to disagree with the idea that there should be no DCV penalty for going prone. While it does decrease profile area (which could very well grant a bonus)' date=' it also decreases mobility greatly, and that has as much to do with DCV as size does in my book.[/quote']

 

I'm not suggesting there should not be a DCV penalty for going prone, I'm suggesting that the minimum DCV should be based on 'solid angle'.

 

You start off with the base chance to hit an unmoving object of human size, which by my ballpark calculations is between 0.5 and 0.9 metre squared. We'll call that 0.5 to 1 m squared, our 'base size'. What the base DCV of a human sized (1 m squared) object should be is a judgement call, but if we assume a 'hex sized object' is DCV 0 then a human sized object should be DCV 2. That means a prone human sized object is DCV 5.

 

Actual DCV is reduced by (say) 2 points for being unable to move about much. You use the higher of character DCV or 'area' DCV. That means that anyone with a DEX of 13 or less can benefit from going prone. At present there is no benefit from going prone for anyone unles there is some cover to get behind, because the reduction in your 'solid angle' is not accounted for.

 

Arguably all firearms attacks should sue Base DCV not DEX/3, at least in a 'realistic' game, especially if using the sugegsted amended range modifiers mentioned above: realistically DEX is almost irrelevant to whether or not someone can hit you with a bullet.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

..........................

 

 

The size penalty for the head is -4. Called shot penalties are halved outside combat,, when you aren't bobbing and weaving around, remember.

 

 

 

......................

 

 

I don't think penalties should be multipliers or dividers as they vary in effect from character to character. Also, if the called shot is based on area, which is logical, it doesn't make much sense to double the OCV penalty because you are in combat, any more than it would make sense for a small character to have their sized based DCV bonus doubled because they are moving around.

 

I could certainly get behind a +X* OCV bonus when not in combat to reflect that hitting something when you don't have to worry about your own safety is much easier.

 

 

 

 

*X being a number we all agree on between 2 and 4 inclusive

[Beast]

Re: Talking hitS

 

kneeling while you are a smaller target yes ,but you are not as mobile

I would consider this as a form of braced

you could add the +1 for smaller target, but you are 1/2 DCV due to restricted mobility

kneeling behind something a wall or such you could go for cover as a head and shoulders exposed but you still are 1/2 DCV

 

 

 

 

So, if I'm right so far (and there is room on this pin head) that has some interesting implications for relative position.

 

It should mean that turning side on to an attack is worth about +1 DCV, as is kneeling down.

 

.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Talking hitS

 

kneeling while you are a smaller target yes ,but you are not as mobile

I would consider this as a form of braced

you could add the +1 for smaller target, but you are 1/2 DCV due to restricted mobility

kneeling behind something a wall or such you could go for cover as a head and shoulders exposed but you still are 1/2 DCV

 

I agree, but simply halving, or penalising DCV is too simplistic: you might be easier to hit because you are less mobile, but harder to hit because you present a smaller target, even if out in the open. High DCV characters will see much less benefit from crouching or going prone.

 

One point I'm pushing is the idea that, for heroic games, with a gritty feel, DCV against firearms should not be calculated from DEX/3 but from target area (against slower attacks where DEX is a factor, DEX/3 for DCV remains)- normal humans can not move fast enough to get out of the way of a bullet, or even think fast enough to perceive it before it hits.

[Beast]

Re: Talking hitS

 

while you cannot dodge a bullet, you can make it harder for the shooter to be on target

 

if you change the rules for heroic level vs other then you just took the being able to play cross genre characters out

 

you method might work but it would need to be as a replacement to the current method not just for 1 genre

 

if you are going for the ultra realistic DCV mods then the combat should go that way also , so you get ultra long fights or the rise of snipers and baiters

 

 

I agree, but simply halving, or penalising DCV is too simplistic: you might be easier to hit because you are less mobile, but harder to hit because you present a smaller target, even if out in the open. High DCV characters will see much less benefit from crouching or going prone.

 

One point I'm pushing is the idea that, for heroic games, with a gritty feel, DCV against firearms should not be calculated from DEX/3 but from target area (against slower attacks where DEX is a factor, DEX/3 for DCV remains)- normal humans can not move fast enough to get out of the way of a bullet, or even think fast enough to perceive it before it hits.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Talking hitS

 

I agree, but simply halving, or penalising DCV is too simplistic: you might be easier to hit because you are less mobile, but harder to hit because you present a smaller target, even if out in the open. High DCV characters will see much less benefit from crouching or going prone.

One point I'm pushing is the idea that, for heroic games, with a gritty feel, DCV against firearms should not be calculated from DEX/3 but from target area (against slower attacks where DEX is a factor, DEX/3 for DCV remains)- normal humans can not move fast enough to get out of the way of a bullet, or even think fast enough to perceive it before it hits.

 

Have you ever been hunting? Try shooting a target a certain distance away. Then try to shoot a moving target, (even a bigger target) from about the same distance. Tell me which one is harder to hit.

This has been gone over so many times. You know it has nothing to do with being able to “get out of the way of a bullet” and saying that is just ridiculous. Hitting a moving target is harder than hitting a still target. The target is not dodging your bullets; it is making it hard for you to aim.

Also, I have to go back to “cinematic realism”. Even in fairly gritty fiction it is not uncommon for characters to run, jump, and summersault their way out of gunfire.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Talking hitS

 

Solid angle? I learn new stuff all the time, which is one advantage of not knowing much

 

If you look at the DCV modifiers for size on page 375, that 'larger than himan object' modifiers are also inconsistent. All this stuff is probably obvious but I didn't really work it through in my head before to see how it all hangs together, and I suspect a lot of others haven't either.

 

Yeah. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle

 

Oh yeah. I ignored the, "number of hexes," wording and was looking at the, "Nx human size," version. I assumed that was talking about height/length rather than area, which would still be consistent (e.g. 4 times the height would be 16 times the area if scaled uniformly, which is consistent with a +4 OCV/-4 DCV).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Talking hitS

 

I'd also allow ranged attacks in melee range to be blocked with the normal HtH manrouvre.

 

I've always played with that rule. Depending on the size and nature of the ranged weapon (when applicable) and how the Block is being done, I might apply a penalty. If the ranged weapon is just being drawn, I allow the Block without any penalty unless the attacker has Fast Draw, in which case I apply the normal penalty but limit it by the amount by which the Fast Draw roll is made (e.g. using a staff to block a small pistol when the attacker's finger on the trigger might be at -2; if the attacker is just drawing the pistol they'd have to roll Fast Draw to give the blocker up to that -2 penalty).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Talking hitS

 

Oh. Here's another note on going prone. It only really helps if you are lucky or do it consciously. Why? You only decrease the amount of area presented to an attacker if you face toward or away from them when prone. To someone facing your side, you generally present as much area as if you were standing. Also, to someone above you, you actually increase your profile (likewise, I'd say someone standing over you in an adjacent hex is above you enough that you don't reduce your profile significantly to them).

 

That's always been my interpretation of the wording at the bottom of 5ER p. 381: "A prone target...is at half DCV. However, he may have Concealment, making it harder to hit him." To me, that means dropping prone may effectively conceal your lower extremities to someone in front of you, and your upper extremities to someone behind you. That may not be strictly true, but it's the basis on which I have given penalties to hitting a prone target in my own games.