5th Ed: Flying Dodge

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Yuck! There's no way I'd use the official version of that maneuver. That's just wrong.

 

So how many characters in your games have attacks with the Affects Desolidified Advantage?

[Ice9]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Desolid is a lot more points though. Sure, you can put it in a Multipower, but that does assume you have an appropriate MP that you're not using for another purpose. And FD is already a very useful movement power - for a speedster, you can move entirely out of sight or catch up to a fleeing enemy, while getting the benefits of dodging.

 

That said, I think it's mostly fine, but the "auto-avoid any HTH attack" part pushes it into "best manuever ever" territory.

[sobran]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

I think I would ignore a single part of the FAQ and require a DEX contest to see who goes first in the case of a HtH attack vs Flying Dodge. Sort of like the example given when someone is trying to axe someone that is in the process of Desolidifying. Maybe that is altering the rules, but I am uncomfortable with anything that functions as an "absolute defense", even against a single type of attack. It doesn't seem very Hero-esque.

 

That being said, if used by a Speedster, chances are they would win most DEX contests anyway.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

I am uncomfortable with anything that functions as an "absolute defense", even against a single type of attack. It doesn't seem very Hero-esque.

 

 

So you disallow Block in your games too?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

If I had a Speedster with say a full move of 50"' date=' then he could abort to moving 50" away giving a ranged attacker a -8 modifier and still get a +4 DCV. Basically, it allows him to disengage and get the heck out of there as well as maintaining a high DCV. [/quote']

 

OK, he's run away. The villain uses his next phase (you Aborted yours) to do a Flying Grab past the McGuffin and begin his escape. He'll be moving noncombat next phase. Since you are a full move away from his old position, you can't catch him in a single Full Move, so I guess he'll get away.

 

Being away from the fight means not getting hit. Unless the villains were trying specifically to KO/capture/kill you, it doesn't mean you win. It means you successfully run away.

 

Interesting. Maybe you can't move at all with it if you Abort; just use the +4 DCV part? Perhaps the moving bit is only so you can get the +4 DCV while doing a normal (non-Abort) Full Move' date=' when normally you couldn't (a normal Dodge or Martial Dodge will require an Attack Half-Phase, so you can only do a Half Move before them).[/quote']

 

From the FAQ quotes, I see nothing that says an HTH attack automatically misses. EDIT: I MISSED IT! The dynamic combat assumption seems to support the HTH attacker making a to hit roll and, if he hits despite the Dodge bonus, he hits before you move out of range.

 

Even so, our Speedster has lost his next phase (aborted), and needs a full move to come back. Our HTH attacker need merely move 1" back and the Speedster can't reach him next phase either. While Speedy is way over there, the HTH character can use some teamwork and help take out one of Speedy's teammates.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

From the FAQ quotes' date=' I see nothing that says an HTH attack automatically misses. [/quote']

 

You must have missed this line:

 

If it’s a HTH attack, the Attack Roll is irrelevant, since the character won’t be in HTH combat range any longer.

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The problem with 'Flying Dodge', as far as I'm concerned is that it is a 'get out of jail free' card. You can just use it: no roll needed. I don't like DFC because I don't think it is fair and balanced, but at least you have to make a DEX roll (even if success is almost inevitable for some characters). Flying dodge just is, and what it just is is wrong.

 

Sure there are tactics you can use against it, if you've built your character to, but that's no good reason to include it. It doesn't work like other stuff, it violates a rule principle (no aborting to movement) and I plain don't like it.

 

Your view may differ.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The problem with 'Flying Dodge', as far as I'm concerned is that it is a 'get out of jail free' card. You can just use it: no roll needed. I don't like DFC because I don't think it is fair and balanced, but at least you have to make a DEX roll (even if success is almost inevitable for some characters). Flying dodge just is, and what it just is is wrong.

 

Sure there are tactics you can use against it, if you've built your character to, but that's no good reason to include it. It doesn't work like other stuff, it violates a rule principle (no aborting to movement) and I plain don't like it.

 

Your view may differ.

If the defender has already acted, he can't use DfC or Flying Dodge. That hardly seems something requiring special tactics to counter.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

If the defender has already acted' date=' he can't use DfC or Flying Dodge. That hardly seems something requiring special tactics to counter.[/quote']

 

As well, it only works against one attack. The Dodge bonus remains up, I believe, but he can't Flying Dodge to move away from the next attacker until he has another phase.

[sobran]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

So you disallow Block in your games too?

Did we stop rolling to see if a Block succeeds these days? Much like the DEX roll I said I would require in my games?

 

Maybe you could read the whole post before you become flippant.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Did we stop rolling to see if a Block succeeds these days? Much like the DEX roll I said I would require in my games?

 

Maybe you could read the whole post before you become flippant.

 

I read the whole post. It was a serious question since you are in clear house rule territory.

 

I have no idea what 'example' you are referring to about turning on Desolidification. Turning on a power, especially an arguably defensive one, is not something that a DEX roll on the part of an attacker can normally interrupt.

 

From 5er, page 362:

 

An Action a character Aborts to always “goes first,” even if an opponent is already attacking or has a higher DEX. For example, if a character Aborts to activate his Force Field, he automatically gets the Force Field turned on before any opponent can attack him or complete an Action.

[sobran]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Yeah, I quoted it vaguely because it may or may not actually pertain to this situation. It may have been in relation to Held Actions or something. I do remember that it was, specifically, an example that involved a DEX roll to see if a defender could desolidify before being struck. I'm at work. I'll have to look at the book when I get home.

 

As for the Block/Flying Dodge thing... you're comparing apples and oranges. I said that I would choose to ignore one portion of that rule because it seemed a little too close to an "absolute defense", in my opinion. Sean outlined my concerns a bit more eloquently. The mere fact that I said I would be ignoring that part puts it in "clear house rule territory". There is little point in stating it. Its obvious.

 

To compare my concern with Flying Dodge to Block is evidence that either you are ignoring what my actual concerns with the maneuver are, since the way that I would run Flying Dodge would actually make it more SIMILAR to Block, or engaging in the type of argument in which you extrapolate my argument to a ridiculous degree and then question the result. As far as I'm concerned, you may as well have said, "As long as you're houseruling anyway, why not remove STR as a characteristic?"

 

I can see why you would compare Flying Dodge to Desolidification. That makes sense. I just happen to disagree that Flying Dodge, as written, represents an appropriate defense with an appropriate cost.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

As well' date=' it only works against one attack. The Dodge bonus remains up, I believe, but he can't Flying Dodge to move away from the next attacker until he has another phase.[/quote']

 

Fighting one one one it only needs to work against one attack. Against HtH it is automatic: attacker misses, against ranged it is +4 DCV AND whatever range modifier you can manage - which is not going to be far off an automatic miss.

 

I don't have UMA with me at present but IIRC correctly you can even use it to get out of the radius of an AoE.

 

That's a lot of goodness.

 

Nothing else is an automatic miss in Hero, even desolid can be countered.

 

Just to be clear, I know I can house rule it out: I'm just wondering why it is in - what need demanded its inclusion.

[Jagged]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

good catch.

 

I see what you did there

[JmOz]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The way we've been using it, you don't get to auto-avoid an attack that you abort in response to (you do get the +4, but the movement occurs after the attack). You could abort to it before the attack (when the attacker moves toward you), but then they'd be able to do something else with their half phase.

 

On closer inspection, it does let you auto-avoid attacks, but I don't think we'll switch - it's already one of the better manuevers, even without that.

 

I have always played it that if you abort to it you don't get the movement part, just the +4 DCV

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

So just to sum up things so far...

 

There seems to be no problem with Dive For Cover (a free but optional maneuver) being used by a Speedster (who probably has the highest DEX) to have a near guaranteed chance of avoiding any single attack.

 

But there seems to be a perceived problem with allowing Flying Dodge (a 5 point maneuver that is introduced in UMA and only shown in 2 styles, one of which is specifically for 'speedsters').

 

If you disallow the 'movement before an attack' aspect of Flying Dodge how do you justify its increased cost and reduced DCV bonus in comparison to a Martial Dodge? Why not just disallow the maneuver (and DFC for that matter) and be done?

[Trebuchet]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Fighting one one one it only needs to work against one attack. Against HtH it is automatic: attacker misses' date=' against ranged it is +4 DCV AND whatever range modifier you can manage - which is not going to be far off an automatic miss.[/quote']If you haven't already moved, it gets you away from an HtH attack. So does the free DfC; Flying Dodge costs 5 Points. You've just blown a Phase running away. You don't win fights by fleeing.

 

I still haven't seen anything in writing which indicates FD automatically evades HtH attacks; only that it provides a +4 DCV bonus. Any character already has the option of moving out of HtH range during his Phase; FD just permits him to Abort to such a move.

 

I see no reason to permit additional range mods for Flying Dodge: range penalties are already assessed before movement precisely so characters cannot gain huge penalties by moving away.

[MrAgdesh]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

I don't have UMA with me at present but IIRC correctly you can even use it to get out of the radius of an AoE.

 

You remember correctly, although the clarification is in the FAQ, not UMA.

 

 

Does Flying Dodge work like “Martial Dive For Cover”?

 

No. Flying Dodge functions differently — it doesn’t require a DEX Roll, render a character “prone,” or the like.

 

If a character with Flying Dodge moves out of the way of an area-affecting attack, compare the inches moved to where the attack hits (typically the hex the character was formerly standing in) and the attack’s size — it’s possible that, as with a Dive For Cover, the character’s movement didn’t carry him far enough to get out of the way. If the Flying Dodge’s movement carries him beyond the area covered by the Area Of Effect/Explosion, then the attack doesn’t affect him.

 

 

Just to be clear, I know I can house rule it out: I'm just wondering why it is in - what need demanded its inclusion.

 

In theory I can see it as a legitimate move for certain types of character (as I've already said), but I think that the FAQ rulings make it too powerful. On a Speedster, with a presumably high move value, this is an auto miss for an opponent's HtH attack, and probably area effect attack (unless its a really big area) with substantial bonuses likely against a ranged attack too.

 

It does not seem to be 'right' that if the final distance away is used for the DCV range modifier, that interposing obstacles (cover) along the way will not also affect the chance of being hit.

 

Personally, as it costs more than Martial Dodge and offers less DCV bonus, I will play it that the +4 DCV against an attack applies, with the movement occuring after that (if the attack is not successful of course, and perhaps stops the move due to other combat effects).

[MrAgdesh]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

So just to sum up things so far...

 

There seems to be no problem with Dive For Cover (a free but optional maneuver) being used by a Speedster (who probably has the highest DEX) to have a near guaranteed chance of avoiding any single attack.

 

 

Dive for Cover has limiting factors and drawbacks of its own. As per the FAQ, this maneuver has none whilst also allowing the character to break a rule - No aborting to movement.

 

 

I still haven't seen anything in writing which indicates FD automatically evades HtH attacks

 

Its in the FAQ.

If a character uses Flying Dodge to try to avoid a ranged non-area-affecting attack' date=' he still gets to move and still gets a DCV bonus from the maneuver, but he’s not automatically missed — the attacker still gets a roll to hit (unlike with Dive For Cover, where the attack would automatically miss).[b'] If it’s a HTH attack, the Attack Roll is irrelevant, since the character won’t be in HTH combat range any longer[/b].

 

(my emphasis)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Fighting one one one it only needs to work against one attack. Against HtH it is automatic: attacker misses, against ranged it is +4 DCV AND whatever range modifier you can manage - which is not going to be far off an automatic miss.

 

I don't have UMA with me at present but IIRC correctly you can even use it to get out of the radius of an AoE.

 

That's a lot of goodness.

 

Nothing else is an automatic miss in Hero, even desolid can be countered.

 

Countering Desolid typically requires a +1/2 advantage on the relevant attack. No Range Modifier or Line of Sight Range, also +1/2 advantages, would take care of that range modifier, so the Flying Dodge becomes inferior to Martial Dodge in protecting the user from an attack.

 

So just to sum up things so far...

 

There seems to be no problem with Dive For Cover (a free but optional maneuver) being used by a Speedster (who probably has the highest DEX) to have a near guaranteed chance of avoiding any single attack.

 

But there seems to be a perceived problem with allowing Flying Dodge (a 5 point maneuver that is introduced in UMA and only shown in 2 styles, one of which is specifically for 'speedsters').

 

If you disallow the 'movement before an attack' aspect of Flying Dodge how do you justify its increased cost and reduced DCV bonus in comparison to a Martial Dodge? Why not just disallow the maneuver (and DFC for that matter) and be done?

 

I think you can disallow the ability to Abort to movement without making Flying Dodge not worth its cost. You can normally make a half move and Dodge or Martial Dodge but, if you abort, you only get the Dodge bonus - no half move. It would be pretty simple, and quite reasonable, to structure the fMove element to mean "a full move, rather than a half move, can be made in conjunction with this maneuver, provided the character could otherwise move". This would eliminate the ability to abort to the maneuver to move, but still permit the Dodge bonus to be obtained.

 

With respect to AoE attacks, there is a logic problem. If I'm being attacked by a normal ranged attack, and I Flying Dodge 20", passing behind cover at the 4" mark, the opponent gets to make his attack roll against my enhanced DCV with a 20" range modifier, despite the fact that there is no way he could target me at that range due to the cover. If there is no cover, I am hit at the full 20" distance away.

 

But if the attacker is using an area effect attack, somehow Flying Dodge removes his ability to adjust his aim and track my movement. How is it that he can clearly compensate for my movement and still target my final destination with a normal attack, but not one that fills an area, or one which is simply Accurate (1 hex AoE Accurate).

 

I think the mechanics of Flying Dodge should be revisited for logical consistency, if not for fairness. It seems that either a ranged attack should be able to track a target who uses Flying Dodge to evade, or it should not - the question of whether the attack is, or is not, an AoE attack should not change whether it is possible to adjust one's aim to compensate for this movement.

 

Maybe that means Flying Dodge (and, by extension, Dive for Cover) allow ranged attacks to be avoided when activated in response to such an attack, just as they presently allow HTH attacks to be avoided.

 

Maybe HTH attacks get to be part of the dynamics of combat and the defender gets the Dodge bonus only - if the attack still hits, it connected as the character started his Flying Dodge.

 

Maybe the ability to move when aborting to F Dodge is removed. You can Abort to get the dodge bonus. Using a phase with no abort, the character can get a +4 Dodge bonus and get to make a full move (or get to use a half phase on something else, make a half move and get the dodge bonus). That still seems to carry some value as a maneuver.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

If you haven't already moved, it gets you away from an HtH attack. So does the free DfC; Flying Dodge costs 5 Points. You've just blown a Phase running away. You don't win fights by fleeing.

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

 

 

By this argument there would never be any point in using dodge either.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

So just to sum up things so far...

 

There seems to be no problem with Dive For Cover (a free but optional maneuver) being used by a Speedster (who probably has the highest DEX) to have a near guaranteed chance of avoiding any single attack.

 

But there seems to be a perceived problem with allowing Flying Dodge (a 5 point maneuver that is introduced in UMA and only shown in 2 styles, one of which is specifically for 'speedsters').

 

If you disallow the 'movement before an attack' aspect of Flying Dodge how do you justify its increased cost and reduced DCV bonus in comparison to a Martial Dodge? Why not just disallow the maneuver (and DFC for that matter) and be done?

 

Actually I also growled at DFC. It is better than not having a DEX roll, but not as good as, say, using the same mechanism as block: OCV v OCV, or maybe DEX/3 v OCV. How quick the attacker is should be a factor in how effective a full move abort is going to be.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Countering Desolid typically requires a +1/2 advantage on the relevant attack. No Range Modifier or Line of Sight Range, also +1/2 advantages, would take care of that range modifier, so the Flying Dodge becomes inferior to Martial Dodge in protecting the user from an attack.

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

 

 

True, but...if the target is nearby then, assuming that there is a choice of attack, you are not going to use the NRM or LOS attacks as you probably have bigger hitters without those advantages, so it is unlikely that (unless that attacker knows your tactics) that will ever be an issue. It is a rare character whose main attack features those advantages.

 

Moreover, if you can get out of LoS completely you are protected from ranged atatcks to: you are targeted at the endpoint. Sure it has to be a straight line, but it doesn't have to be a straight line straight away. you can move, for instance, left.

[sobran]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

As noted, I would choose to handle this by simply requiring a DEX roll. Turns out my 'example' (did I do that right?) was from a section dealing with resolving actions that take place on the same DEX, when the order of those actions matter. So not exactly applicable. However, given that Dive For Cover renders the target prone and therefore at 1/2 DCV, I don't think it would make Flying Dodge underpowered if, at 5 points, you could use it do everything Dive For Cover grants, with a +4 DCV (instead of 1/2 DCV...) and a farther move potential, but be required to make the same DEX roll that Dive for Cover requires.

 

On the logic consistency front, Flying Dodge is consistent in terms of range and AoE attacks--the AoE only affects someone who Flying Dodges 20" away if the AoE is large enough to still affect them at the end of their move.

[Vondy]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

I've allowed it in my games and had no problems with it. It was renamed "last ditch dive" and was there for situations where the characters, heroic level police detectives without defensive powers (other than vests) or talents in the event they realized they were about to be shot at. In other words, its the well-heeled character's version of Dive for Cover. No one ever tried to use it for hand-to-hand combat, though I guess, in theory, they could. One thing to remember is, if you remove the generic name and give it a genre appropriate name, you have effectively defined its special effect and will, to a small degree, controlled its use during play. I don't imagine it would be a problem at higher levels of play either, especially since such characters have more build options and a broader array of special effects explanations that may well justify it. Its correctness is based on explanation, genre, and implementation. Communication is generally the key. If the GM and Player have spoken about it and understand its intended use and limits you won't have a problem.