A simple question

[Sean Waters]

Re: A simple question

 

So, not such a simple question then

 

If a human sized inanimate object is DCV 3 then that makes oddness of a number of rules, does it not?

 

You might wonder why a human sized animate object is also DCV 3 (unless you spend points on it) and why a human sized...human...who is unconscious becomes DCV 0.

 

It seems to me that a great deal flows from the answer to this question.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A simple question

 

What's a "hex"? Under 6e rules' date=' a Point in Space is DCV 3, assuing the AoE targeting rules have not changed, since we no longer target hexes.[/quote']

 

If you miss an attack roll for an Area of Effect attack, the minimum amount by which you miss is still 2m, so I'd say you are still targeting a roughly 2m by 2m area (or a 2m diameter circle or hex, if you prefer; it doesn't make much difference for our purposes).

[prestidigitator]

Re: A simple question

 

So, not such a simple question then

 

If a human sized inanimate object is DCV 3 then that makes oddness of a number of rules, does it not?

 

You might wonder why a human sized animate object is also DCV 3 (unless you spend points on it) and why a human sized...human...who is unconscious becomes DCV 0.

 

It seems to me that a great deal flows from the answer to this question.

 

Humans are lumpy? It gives me a small headache too. This is definitely one to ponder, though it may not be extremely high priority.

[Kdansky]

Re: A simple question

 

Points in space should be DCV 0, that would solve the issues... And OCV should probably start at 0 too. Oh crap, you found something.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A simple question

 

Points in space should be DCV 0' date=' that would solve the issues... And OCV should probably start at 0 too. Oh crap, you found something.[/quote']

 

Yeah, that's probably a decent fix. I've always loved that an adjacent hex/point is DCV 0, but one just a little ways away is DCV 3 even though there's no normal range modifier. Why the heck should you even have to roll to hit an adjacent hex, especially because the maximum scatter distance would be zero? (Oh wait. Now in 6E we've been given a reason: if it's no range you still have to make an attack roll and nothing happens if you miss; no scatter or anything. )

 

But then is it too easy to target Area of Effect attacks? Maybe a good balance would be to consider obstacles and obstructions between you and the point/hex you are trying to target, including anyone standing inside that hex/area and anyone roughly in the line between you and it. Maybe some people do this already, but I know I rarely think much about the Concealment of a hex/point unless things are really obstructed with major obstacles.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: A simple question

 

if it's no range you still have to make an attack roll and nothing happens if you miss; no scatter or anything. )

 

That really had to happen, though. No-range AEs were simply too strong because you couldn't miss, and hence could sacrifice OCV via Sweep/CSLs in damage.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A simple question

 

That really had to happen' date=' though. No-range AEs were simply too strong because you couldn't miss, and hence could sacrifice OCV via Sweep/CSLs in damage.[/quote']

 

You can still do that with very little chance of failure. I think the Sweep is a place where it should be left up to the GM to prevent abuse (like not allowing the maneuver for this type of attack, or not letting you make enough attacks to reduce yourself below 1/2 OCV, or only allowing the Sweep to broaden the area but not double/triple/etc. the damage done to a single target, or always requiring such attacks to take certain Limitations like RSR, or something like that). The CSLs, on the other hand, are perfectly reasonable to put into damage on an AoE attack. The AoE Advantage will reduce how much damage they add now in any case. No, I still think that change was ridiculous, and I'll never go by it.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: A simple question

 

Then what you're arguing is that in situations where a no-range AE has a reasonable chance of missing, it shouldn't be possible to make it in the first place. I'd rather keep the option.

 

A superhero with 4 OCV and 4 CSLs sweeping for 3 hits and +2 DCs and automatically hitting with all 3 was far too powerful, and I saw it come up several times. Having to hit 0 DCV fixes this.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A simple question

 

A human is 2mx1/2mx1/2m, so the apparent area is about 1m square.

 

It would seems sensible to make that a basic 'DCV 0'.

 

DCV that you buy (or are given as part of the template) modifies that.

 

Something that is half human sized would be DCV 2, something that is twice human sized would be DCV -2 (we can have negative DCV in my little world).

 

That is fine apart from AoE: it would probably be a bit too easy to hit with them: they would be DCV 0, maybe less (given the 2m scatter).

 

However, to set off an AoE you either need to hit something (and very often a hex at range gets increasingly small, because of the angle you are looking at it from) OR you need to guestimate the exact range: quite a feat.

 

SO:

 

To hit where you are aiming with an AoE, assuming an impact mechanism and the target point is completely visible (eg you are standing next to it or aiming at an upright, like a wall): DCV 0

 

Every 2m away from a flat target point you are: +1 DCV (to a maximum of DCV 3 at 6m or more)

 

Distance ranging: you need to hit DCV 0 AND guestimate range. If you have absolute range sense, no problem. If you don't, the shot is more difficult: DCV 3.

 

That seems like a reasonable way of harmonising it all.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A simple question

 

But you are assuming you have to hit a point on the ground. You don't. You can aim at a point in the air ("in the middle of that cubic hex") just as easily, unless Limitations or maybe SFX get in the way. So I'm not sure the profile area of the patch of ground is really important.

 

I guess the range-finding argument could still account for it, though I'd think the Range Modifier already takes care of that. I don't know. Hmm. Maybe the problem is reference points. If you have an unmoving landmark, like a stationary target or a telephone poll, you can specify pretty well where you want the AoE to hit. If you're trying to hit where a moving target is (or where a group of moving targets are), it can be hard to pick a good spot and go for it. Maybe just apply penalties to hit a moving target to the hex/point when targetting an AoE and there's an absence of stationary reference points to use (not to mention Concealment penalties if you're trying to place it in the middle of a group).