Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

I don't think Steve has let that one slip publicly.

 

thanks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

 

Um, anyone have any clue about my question on "Does Body": do you still need to buy it, or can an AVAD automatically do body damage if the original attack did body damage?

 

I don't think Steve has let that one slip publicly.

 

I think Chris is correct. In my view, either that rule will remain (at some level of the AVAD chart, attacks do 0 BOD by default) in the core rules, or it will be part of my own house rules. I expect AVAD will result in many constructs being less expensive, which would be problematic if they also got to do BOD by default.

 

Then again, maybe the rule will be that they do BOD by default, and the pricing will adjust to accommodate that, with either a reduced advantage or a limitation if the attack does not do BOD.

[archermoo]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Meh. Nothing I couldn't house rule if I wanted to.

 

Of course not. There aren't any rules in any game that you couldn't house rule if you wanted to.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Not to mention, you can't house rule it if you don't think of it first.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

So, the normal config would be:

OCV vs. DCV (normal physical or energy or adjustment power attack)

OMCV v. DMCV (normal mental power)

 

and then the possible ACVs would be:

OMCV vs. DCV (normal phys/ener/adjustment power, mentally based, vs. DCV)

OCV vs. DMCV (normal mental power, physically targeted, vs. DMCV)

OCV vs. DCV(e.g. mind blast gun, uses normal targeting)

OMCV vs. DMCV (e.g., psychkinetic blast, uses mental targeting to do physical damage)

 

Do I have that about right?

[GamePhil]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Do I have that about right?

 

Sounds like it, of which some will no doubt be Limitations or +0.

[GamePhil]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Then again' date=' maybe the rule will be that they do BOD by default, and the pricing will adjust to accommodate that, with either a reduced advantage or a limitation if the attack does not do BOD.[/quote']

 

I think it should do that, or at least have a mention that it can do Body with the GM's permission when it's at a certain level of Advantage. Converting PD to ED (which I assumed earlier was a +0, but that hasn't been released for sure) should (maybe) not lose you Body damage.

[Hierax]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

heck, why not OCV vs. OCV? -- you can block/parry it but you can't dodge it.

[GamePhil]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

heck' date=' why not OCV vs. OCV? -- you can block/parry it but you can't dodge it.[/quote']

 

That's... so obvious it's probably brilliant. We'll have to see if Steve thought of it (and if he did, if he considered it useful enough to put in the book).

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

heck' date=' why not OCV vs. OCV? -- you can block/parry it but you can't dodge it.[/quote']

 

Or DCV vs. DCV, with Side Effect (full damage if attack misses target). Some weird attack that must hit either the target or yourself.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

I think it should do that' date=' or at least have a mention that it can do Body with the GM's permission when it's at a certain level of Advantage. Converting PD to ED (which I assumed earlier was a +0, but that hasn't been released for sure) should (maybe) not lose you Body damage.[/quote']

 

My preference (and expectation) is that there will be a specific level of "exotic defense" at which attacks no longer do BOD by default. So switching between PD and ED, or switching up from PD to rPD, still does BOD by default, but an attack against mental defense or flash defense loses BOD damage by default.

 

And if your Ego Attack takes a limitation to act against PD, it should gain the ability to do BOD by default.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

heck' date=' why not OCV vs. OCV? -- you can block/parry it but you can't dodge it.[/quote']

 

Hmm. I don't know. Seems a little odd. If someone's interested in defending in this way, they're going to put points into either DCV or DMCV. That sounds like an odd corner case to make them have to consider instead. I mean, can you imagine buying OCV with some kind of "Only to defend against attacks targeting OCV" Limitation?

 

But it DOES strike awfully close to other questions I have (and we'll probably have to wait and see about). For example, we've been discussing the indirect qualities of Mental Attacks in another thread. Will that still be an innate property of Mental Attacks (which would probably be my preference), or will that come with the defense against which a power acts, or with the offensive CV it uses, or with the defensive CV is uses, some flexible combination of those, or something else entirely?

 

Also, which offensive CV will you use to Block the attack? Does it depend on the offensive CV used by the attacker, the defensive CV you use as the target, defender's choice when the two are mixed, or again is it some option of the Advantage?

[nexus]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

heck' date=' why not OCV vs. OCV? -- you can block/parry it but you can't dodge it.[/quote']

 

That would be odd and powerful since using you OCV to defend requires an Phase ending action of some kind (Block or Missile Deflection) unless the advantage would alter that. And could you do MOCV vs MOCV since there isn't (currently) a mental block maneuver?

[ajackson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

That would be odd and powerful since using you OCV to defend requires an Phase ending action of some kind

Same as AE(hex).

[GamePhil]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

That would be odd and powerful since using you OCV to defend requires an Phase ending action of some kind (Block or Missile Deflection) unless the advantage would alter that. And could you do MOCV vs MOCV since there isn't (currently) a mental block maneuver?

 

Even if it's there, that's not necessarily the case. It would only have to work against raw or total OCV at the point when the attack is thrown. The significant difference is that, if you had a Phase you could Abort to, you'd Abort to Martial Block, for example, instead of Martial Dodge. The defender still wouldn't necessarily make a roll, it could be rolled just like an OCV vs. DCV attack.

[nexus]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Same as AE(hex).

 

At least in that case you increase your DCV overall (Dodge + any skill levels you invest) rather than Blocking which leaves you open for other attacks (perhaps more so as you might have to invest skill levels to OCV to block) and it really sucks if you don't have Missile Deflection because other wise you can't use a Block Maneuver against Ranged attacks.

 

Unless this hypothetical ability changes that (or even exists).

[nexus]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Even if it's there' date=' that's not necessarily the case. It would only [i']have[/i] to work against raw or total OCV at the point when the attack is thrown. The significant difference is that, if you had a Phase you could Abort to, you'd Abort to Martial Block, for example, instead of Martial Dodge. The defender still wouldn't necessarily make a roll, it could be rolled just like an OCV vs. DCV attack.

 

Yes I know that's why I said unless the Advantages changes the normal combat resolution process. I just think it seems like allot of trouble for what amounts to a sfx difference. "DCV", "Block", "Dodges", etc can represent allot of things in Hero. It's one of the things I like about the combat system.

[Hierax]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

There's creative ways to make the vs. OCV make sense even if you push it to extremes, e.g.:

 

Kelanen Quasi-Deity Prince of Swords has an intelligent magical blade imbued with his divine sword skill that only respects the sword skill of his opponents and laughs at inferior defences: Attack ACV OCV vs. the defence of the enemy's OCV with swords!

 

Either that fits into the ladder category of Rare that Steve Long mentioned or extend it to make a very rare, say if you wanted it to only be vs. the OCV from Skill Levels with swords! (thus testing pure training, maybe as a trial for a cult rite of passage, block this blade to prove you're worthy)

 

All uses need not be this extreme but sounds to me with this new rule it could just possibly work!

[ajackson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

At least in that case you increase your DCV overall

Dive for Cover doesn't increase your DCV.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Interestingly, there are few to no maneuvers you can Abort to that increase your OCV.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Well, since you can traditionally only Abort to Defensive actions, why would there be?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

At least in that case you increase your DCV overall (Dodge + any skill levels you invest) rather than Blocking which leaves you open for other attacks (perhaps more so as you might have to invest skill levels to OCV to block) and it really sucks if you don't have Missile Deflection because other wise you can't use a Block Maneuver against Ranged attacks.

 

I agree. Requiring CSLs to be put into OCV or OMCV to defend against one attack (whether or not we now allow it as part of an Abort) leaves a character wide open to the majority of normal attacks. Suddenly characters designed to be versatile or highly defensive lose the foundation of their design entirely. I'd strike attacks that target offensive CVs from the books in an instant.

[ajackson]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Interestingly' date=' there are few to no maneuvers you can Abort to that increase your OCV.[/quote']

Martial Block. Missile Deflection.

[GamePhil]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

Yes I know that's why I said unless the Advantages changes the normal combat resolution process. I just think it seems like allot of trouble for what amounts to a sfx difference. "DCV"' date=' "Block", "Dodges", etc can represent allot of things in Hero. It's one of the things I like about the combat system.[/quote']

 

How is it changing the normal combat resolution process? That's 11+My CV-Your CV, roll low. Everything else is optional: you don't have to Dodge to get a DCV, you don't have to Block to get an OCV, you may choose to do so to get a bonus.

 

But apparently you're defining the normal combat resolution process differently.

 

And if someone comes to me with a homing missile that can't be avoided but only Blocked or shot down or parried with a shield, I see no more unbalanced with that than forcing them to Dive for Cover with an AOE: Accurate attack.

 

And I will jump through hoops to allow an increase in what special effects can be simulated, and let others come up with interesting ways to use them. Most important thing in the game. This is a very easy hoop, not even on fire.

 

Still, hardly essential. Definately a niche audience type of thing.

[GamePhil]

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

 

I agree. Requiring CSLs to be put into OCV or OMCV to defend against one attack (whether or not we now allow it as part of an Abort) leaves a character wide open to the majority of normal attacks. Suddenly characters designed to be versatile or highly defensive lose the foundation of their design entirely. I'd strike attacks that target offensive CVs from the books in an instant.

 

I just fail to see why people seem to think that this would be changing the rules other than by expanding them. Just because there is currently only one way to use OCV for defense doesn't mean you don't get to use it otherwise if it's appropriate, and such an Advantage would make it appropriate. This doesn't change the way combat works, it just changes the target CV. It's not as if you don't have an OCV, and all he said was OCV vs. OCV, not "OCV vs. OCV Used In A Defensive Maneuver".

 

As for leaving yourself wide open, it also means that someone that used levels to OCV to hit the martial artist would be harder to hit. You don't have to put your levels to OCV to defend yourself, they do serve another purpose. Can it be abused? Surely it can, but then if my purpose was to be abusive I'd just get an AOE: Accurate attack and force you to Dive for Cover and leave yourself prone (or in midair) to avoid it. Then my buddy shoots you while your DCV is halved, just as he might if you put your levels to OCV to avoid this thing. No complaints I've seen lately about that, and there you can't even get any benefits from the maneuver, unlike being "forced" to apply your levels to OCV.

 

Interestingly' date=' there are few to no maneuvers you can Abort to that increase your OCV.[/quote']

 

Few, yes, and they're all some form of Block. But there are actually only a few maneuvers that you can Abort to get DCV, either, and they're generally some form of Dodge. So that's ok It's the ability to Abort that's rare, not the ability to Abort to something that gives OCV. Unless such an advantage miraculously ends up in 6E, that's unlikely to change since Block is still the only Abortable action that benefits from OCV bonuses, unless I'm missing something.

 

I seriously doubt that there will be a rule for this, but I just don't see it as a problem, or if it is, it's no worse a problem than we have dealt with before. And that's it for me, get in final words if you want.