5th Ed: Flying Dodge

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Except that naming it "last ditch dive" seems to be a plea to people not to use it as effectively as they could. If you had named it "surefire dodge" or "perfect dive", it would essentially have meant the same thing, right? So, if a player decides that the maneuver is their best tactical choice and starts using it all the time when playing defensive, do we punish the player for making use of an overly effective maneuver, or change the way the maneuver works?

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

So: team fighting Grond, or some other mega Brick, nasty enough to be a challenge for all of them.

 

You can expect big damage from someone like that and you can expect, for many of that ilk, relatively low DEX.

 

Against a single target like that, it makes good sense for everyone to delay their actions until they know who the bigbad is targeting and then for that character to take a defensive action.

 

Block and dodge carry some risk: you could be hit, as does DFC - although the risk is pretty damn low there as it is not an opposed DEX roll you are making. Flying dodge: no risk.

 

No risk, no fun; no fun, no point.

 

OK, that is a little bleak, but the heart of it is that I LIKE the OCV v DCV, and dodge deals with that. I like the OCV v OCV idea we use for block.

 

FD and DFC take NO account of the abilities of the attacker.

 

You could be a 50 point agent with Flying Dodge (it may only be on a couple of MA lists, but it is on the big list, and there is nothing to stop anyone taking it) and they can avoid the melee attack of a 50 DEX, 12 SPD, 20 OCV character without making a roll.

 

That can not be right.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

True' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Very few have Affects Desolid on their main attack either - and if the opponent Aborts to go desolid, like we posit an abort to flying dodge, there's no time to change the attack.

 

Moreover' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The FAQ indicates that, even if FD takes you behind cover, the attacker may still hit, effectively tagging you before you get to cover. I agree this is inconsistent with applying the maximum range modifier, allowing you to get away from an AoE attack and allowing auto escape from a HTH attack, but that's the ruling at present.

 

As noted' date=' 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 [i']same DEX roll that Dive for Cover requires[/i].

 

It would seem reasonable to require a DEX roll if you want to time this so precisely that it is too late for the attacker to refrain from attacking. If you don't make the DEX roll, you didn't get away before the attack went off. This would also apply higher penalties the greater the distance, which would mitigate the speedster's high DEX with his high movement.

 

On the logic consistency front' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

One more time.

 

If I use a standard ranged attack, and you FD, I get to adjust my attack and target your new location. An AoE attack cannot be retargetted on your new location. This is not, to me, logically consistent.

 

If I use a standard ranged attack, and you FD, passing behind cover at a distance of 3" and never emerging, I get to adjust my attack and try to hit you using the 20" range modifier but ignoring the cover. This is not, to me, logically consistent. Either I can't fire until you have moved the full 20", or I am only at 3" range. Which is it? And why do you automatically get behind cover for my AoE or HTH attack, but not my normal ranged attack?

 

So: team fighting Grond, or some other mega Brick, nasty enough to be a challenge for all of them.

 

You can expect big damage from someone like that and you can expect, for many of that ilk, relatively low DEX.

 

Against a single target like that, it makes good sense for everyone to delay their actions until they know who the bigbad is targeting and then for that character to take a defensive action.

 

Block and dodge carry some risk: you could be hit, as does DFC - although the risk is pretty damn low there as it is not an opposed DEX roll you are making. Flying dodge: no risk.

 

Again, while I would like to see the movement aspect dealt with differently, the "risk" for a 1" DFC seems minimal at best.

 

You could be a 50 point agent with Flying Dodge (it may only be on a couple of MA lists' date=' but it is on the big list, and there is nothing to stop anyone taking it) and they can avoid the melee attack of a 50 DEX, 12 SPD, 20 OCV character [i']without making a roll[/i].

 

That can not be right.

 

Something in Hero could be abused? Say it ain't so!!

 

The agent in question avoids a single attack. He's got a SPD of what, 4? The vastly faster opponent gets two more phases before Agent can duplicate that incredible avoidance of the superior opponent.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

...

If I use a standard ranged attack, and you FD, I get to adjust my attack and target your new location. An AoE attack cannot be retargetted on your new location. This is not, to me, logically consistent.

 

 

The difference is because it is assumed that the AOE attack is targeting a hex (instead of a character).

 

It might be possible to target an AOE attack vs. a character (especially if the attacker had prior knowledge of the FD tactic) but then how do we calculate how far off a miss ends up?

[sobran]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

It would seem reasonable to require a DEX roll if you want to time this so precisely that it is too late for the attacker to refrain from attacking. If you don't make the DEX roll, you didn't get away before the attack went off. This would also apply higher penalties the greater the distance, which would mitigate the speedster's high DEX with his high movement.

This is essentially what I had in mind. Unlike with a Dive For Cover, a Speedster could not move 1" and make the DEX roll with minimal penalty. He would have to move over half their total movement, which for a Speedster, may be quite a bit. Although, come to think of it, that could make a Speedster less able to successfully use a Flying Dodge, depending on their build, which would be counter intuitive to say the least.

 

One more time.

 

If I use a standard ranged attack, and you FD, I get to adjust my attack and target your new location. An AoE attack cannot be retargetted on your new location. This is not, to me, logically consistent.

 

If I use a standard ranged attack, and you FD, passing behind cover at a distance of 3" and never emerging, I get to adjust my attack and try to hit you using the 20" range modifier but ignoring the cover. This is not, to me, logically consistent. Either I can't fire until you have moved the full 20", or I am only at 3" range. Which is it? And why do you automatically get behind cover for my AoE or HTH attack, but not my normal ranged attack?

Err, I clearly misunderstood what you were saying the first time. I scapegoat my four hours sleep in 48 for the discrepancy. In fact, what am I still doing here? I'm going to bed.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Very few have Affects Desolid on their main attack either - and if the opponent Aborts to go desolid' date=' like we posit an abort to flying dodge, there's no time to change the attack.[/quote']

 

Not a problem: you can not abort to desolid.

 

 

 

The FAQ indicates that' date=' even if FD takes you behind cover, the attacker may still hit, effectively tagging you before you get to cover. I agree this is inconsistent with applying the maximum range modifier, allowing you to get away from an AoE attack and allowing auto escape from a HTH attack, but that's the ruling at present.[/quote']

 

It makes me feel dirty even thinking about that. Rules should be consistent not a series of balance conditions. Still, fair enough - I withdraw that objection.

 

 

 

It would seem reasonable to require a DEX roll if you want to time this so precisely that it is too late for the attacker to refrain from attacking. If you don't make the DEX roll' date=' you didn't get away before the attack went off. This would also apply higher penalties the greater the distance, which would mitigate the speedster's high DEX with his high movement.[/quote']

 

Reasonable but not required. And I'd want an opposed DEX roll. As it is no such safeguard exists.

 

 

 

One more time.

 

If I use a standard ranged attack, and you FD, I get to adjust my attack and target your new location. An AoE attack cannot be retargetted on your new location. This is not, to me, logically consistent.

 

If I use a standard ranged attack, and you FD, passing behind cover at a distance of 3" and never emerging, I get to adjust my attack and try to hit you using the 20" range modifier but ignoring the cover. This is not, to me, logically consistent. Either I can't fire until you have moved the full 20", or I am only at 3" range. Which is it? And why do you automatically get behind cover for my AoE or HTH attack, but not my normal ranged attack?

 

If you had to make an opposed roll and the roll determined how far you got before the attack went off, none of this would be an issue.

 

I'd also let someone deliberately target a person rather than a hex with their AoE so that they can move their aim point.

 

We seem to be in agreement though that logical consistency would be nice here

 

 

 

Again' date=' while I would like to see the movement aspect dealt with differently, the "risk" for a 1" DFC seems minimal at best. [/quote']

 

Well you need to make a DEX roll (OK minimal failure risk there) and end up prone - which will certainly slow your next action unless you have Breakfall. I agree though - but then I'd re-engineer DFC too.

 

 

 

Something in Hero could be abused? Say it ain't so!!

 

The agent in question avoids a single attack. He's got a SPD of what, 4? The vastly faster opponent gets two more phases before Agent can duplicate that incredible avoidance of the superior opponent.

 

 

Oh Superspeed will win, sure, but it shouldn't even take this long: Someone that fast should hit a normal or near-normal no matter what defensive tactic they employ.

 

What winds me up is that this would be so easy to MAKE consistent, logical and, most importantly, more fun.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The difference is because it is assumed that the AOE attack is targeting a hex (instead of a character).

 

It might be possible to target an AOE attack vs. a character (especially if the attacker had prior knowledge of the FD tactic) but then how do we calculate how far off a miss ends up?

 

You may well hit with an AoE even if you miss the target: I would not have a problem with that - that is why you buy AoE. The impact point would depend on where the character would have been if they HAD been hit, with scatter applied. I definitely allow AoEs to be (optionally) targeted on characters.

[torchwolf]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

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.

 

I must say that this is one of the cases I have a House Rule of "Not Necessarily So" - this being altered by an opponent having a Held Action "I'm going to attack him if he tries anything" initiating DEX vs DEX Rolls for both characters in such a case.

Also, I wonder if the FAQ says anything about how this relates to the Cover optional maneuver? If the FAQ says, I've missed it. Anyone?

*embarrassed by not having memorized all of the FAQ*

[Trebuchet]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

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

Hardly. A Dodge still keeps you in range to fight. Beyond the +4 DCV the only difference between a Flying Dodge and a Full Move is that you can Abort to FD; and you can't do either if you've already taken your action.

 

IME (and one of my co-GMs as well), Flying Dodge looks more unbalancing on paper than it is in actual play. What in particular have you found unbalanced in actual game play as opposed to the abstract?

[Trebuchet]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

You could be a 50 point agent with Flying Dodge (it may only be on a couple of MA lists' date=' but it is on the big list, and there is nothing to stop anyone taking it) and they can avoid the melee attack of a 50 DEX, 12 SPD, 20 OCV character [i']without making a roll[/i].

 

That can not be right.

On this, we agree. Sounds like a good place for the GM to put his foot down and say "No!"

 

I should point out, of course, that that trick will only work once against that theoretical 50 DEX, 12 SPD, 20 OCV opponent. The next Segment he's dead meat. Clever tricks stop being so clever if they're overused.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

It would seem reasonable to require a DEX roll if you want to time this so precisely that it is too late for the attacker to refrain from attacking. If you don't make the DEX roll' date=' you didn't get away before the attack went off. This would also apply higher penalties the greater the distance, which would mitigate the speedster's high DEX with his high movement.[/quote']

 

Except that's not how an Abort works. A maneuver to which you can Abort essentially comes off after the attacker has fully committed himself. Otherwise we'd be having people taking actions like, "Hmm. I was going to attack Joe, but he's Aborting to a Block. I'll attack John instead. Oh. John is going to Abort to Block as well? Nevermind then. I'll take a Recovery. They've used up their Phases Blocking, so I'm safe."

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The difference is because it is assumed that the AOE attack is targeting a hex (instead of a character).

 

It might be possible to target an AOE attack vs. a character (especially if the attacker had prior knowledge of the FD tactic) but then how do we calculate how far off a miss ends up?

 

Easy. The attacker has to hit the target's DCV (instead of the hex's DCV). The scatter distance is calculated from the target's hex according to the amount by which the attacker's roll misses. If the shot scattered more than it would have if the hex was being targeted, that's easily explained away as an attack going wild because of the difficulty of trying to hit a moving (and maneuvering) target. That's the down side of tracking along with the target (the up side being that it makes DFCs and Flying Dodges more difficult if not impossible).

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Not a problem: you can not abort to desolid.

 

Even if it is allowed (and actually I think it might be; activating Desolidification to avoid an incoming attack is definitely a fully defensive action...), Desolidification is expensive and has its own drawbacks. That ability isn't coming at the cost of a Martial Maneuver. It is what Desolidification is built for, and the Power is constructed with the cost, restrictions, and opposing constructs to help balance it. I really don't have a problem with the Desolidification. I view it as a wholly different beast.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Well I read the abort rules and boy was I wrong. The automatic goes first was a surprise. I thought they worked like held actions. But (just like Steve) though the last paragraph on pg 362 5th ed rev. I believe is very useful in adjucting the flying dodge.

 

"Whether a character can Abort, and to what Actions is always subject to the GM's discretion. The GM may limit a character's capacity to Abort based on the circumstances, the special effects of powers, Limitations taken on particular power, and so forth."

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Even if it is allowed (and actually I think it might be; activating Desolidification to avoid an incoming attack is definitely a fully defensive action...)' date=' Desolidification is expensive and has its own drawbacks. That ability isn't coming at the cost of a Martial Maneuver. It is what Desolidification is built for, and the Power is constructed with the cost, restrictions, and opposing constructs to help balance it. I really don't have a problem with the Desolidification. I view it as a wholly different beast.[/quote']

 

You can abort to desolid, as it happens: 6.2.23.

 

I'd assumed you couldn't because it is not listed as a defense power.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

You can abort to desolid, as it happens: 6.2.23.

 

I'd assumed you couldn't because it is not listed as a defense power.

Based on that precedent, then Flying Dodge is valid because a dodge is - by definition - a defensive action.

 

As I said previously, we have not found it to be problematical in our campaign. I'm sure there are ways to abuse it, but that applies to many things in this system.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

As I said previously, we have not found it to be problematical in our campaign. I'm sure there are ways to abuse it, but that applies to many things in this system.

 

True and also why there is a warning about full move element.

 

Now I'm going to build a flying block !

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

...

 

Now I'm going to build a flying block !

 

Is that anything like a flying brick?

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Ouch!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The difference is because it is assumed that the AOE attack is targeting a hex (instead of a character).

 

Often,it is targeting a hex within which the character is standing. If, by the time the target Aborts, the attacker has already committed to the specific hex he is targetting and cannot adjust to follow the fleeing target character, how is it that he CAN adjust his aim if the attack affects a single target rather than an area. Either:

 

(a) he should be able to adjust the aim of either attack OR

( he should not - the AoE affects the hex the target was standing in, and a normal attack shoots at where the target was, not where he is.

 

It might be possible to target an AOE attack vs. a character (especially if the attacker had prior knowledge of the FD tactic) but then how do we calculate how far off a miss ends up?

 

We roll the standard attack roll for AoE and apply the standard rules for missing, based on the target being the hex in which the FD character ends up - the same location a non-AoE attack would have been targetting. Now, this further reinforces the illogic that a character who FD's behind cover at 4" away is still targetted as though he were the full 20" away, but that is a problem with the illogic of that rule, not applying it to AoE.

 

Not a problem: you can not abort to desolid.

 

Figured that one out later, I note.

 

If you had to make an opposed roll and the roll determined how far you got before the attack went off' date=' none of this would be an issue.[/quote']

 

If Abort only allowed the Dodge component and not the Move component, the problem would be resolved entiely. Of course, DFC sets the presedent for "abort to move", so FD only adds to it. Take away DFC and you can't avoid an AoE attack at all.

 

I'd also let someone deliberately target a person rather than a hex with their AoE so that they can move their aim point.

 

Which seems reasonable, until we consider we now leave DFC as the exception in that regard.

 

We seem to be in agreement though that logical consistency would be nice here

 

It would indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

Well you need to make a DEX roll (OK minimal failure risk there) and end up prone - which will certainly slow your next action unless you have Breakfall. I agree though - but then I'd re-engineer DFC too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh Superspeed will win, sure, but it shouldn't even take this long: Someone that fast should hit a normal or near-normal no matter what defensive tactic they employ.

 

What winds me up is that this would be so easy to MAKE consistent, logical and, most importantly, more fun.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Yeah. The movement thing I don't mind so much. It's the automatic miss on targeted attacks that bothers me. It's one thing if the attack is explicitly limited in that fashion (a Haymaker, or an attack power with Extra Time: Extra Segment, or AOEs used in the standard fashion). I don't like it as a general rule. Or at least I'd want to see a lot more restriction on how and when it could be used (e.g. the attacker is striking at the end of a move, and wouldn't conceptually be able to match the defender's movement if the defender suddenly books in the other direction, or the defender makes clever use of obstacles that the attacker can't adjust for with movement and/or reach, or...).

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

IMO both DFC and Flying Dodge should have some sort of opposed roll on their movement elements (although I'd be fine with Flying Dodge getting the +4 DCV anyway) to determine if they get hit before they move.

 

I'd be inclined to do it on DEX/3 against (attacker's) OCV: if you make the roll then you can move up to 1/4 of your move (well 1/8 for DFC as you can only DFC a half move IIRC), and each +1 you make it by allows you an additional +1/4 move: you need to make the opposed roll by 3 to move as far as possible. I'd let the Flying Dodge type trade off their dodge bonus to increase their DEX/3, so I would.

 

That should prevent Jane Normal avoiding attacks from The Flash*

 

 

 

The DC Comics version, not the slightly strange mutant whose only powers are invisibility and extra limb who was an NPC in a game I ran a while back. Jane shouldn't have any problem avoiding his physical attacks, but the sight will probably haunt her for the rest of her days.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

NB Whether or not you make the opposed roll you still move, unless knocked out and your aim point may well be thrown off by knockback.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Is that anything like a flying brick?

 

 

Looks like Brick is attacking innicents again!!

[Vondy]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Except that naming it "last ditch dive" seems to be a plea to people not to use it as effectively as they could. If you had named it "surefire dodge" or "perfect dive"' date=' it would essentially have meant the same thing, right?[/quote']

 

I didn't name it those things. I gave it a name that defined its special effect. This is no different than defining an EB as "Fireball." Having done so does impact adjudication of the power at run time, and may on occassion limit the use of the power or grant some small circumstantial benefit. That's Hero 101. A more direct example of a generic maneuver being limited by its name (special effect) is an offensive strike defined as "Spin Kick." If the character's ankles are tied to the legs of a chair or he's stuck in a crawlspace the player doesn't get to say: "its really just offensive strike so I'm going to punch the guy with it!" As a result I don't concede its a plea of any sort. Its a nuanced genre appropriate name.

 

So' date=' if a player decides that the maneuver is their best tactical choice and starts using it all the time when playing defensive, do we punish the player for making use of an overly effective maneuver, or change the way the maneuver works?[/quote']

 

Insofar as its not patently silly and doesn't violate genre constraints, no. But what you are proposing is patently silly and would violate the overall tone of the genre I was running: cop drama. A guy who makes a big dive for every defensive action is probably insane and it evokes Tackelberry from the Police Academy movies rather than a cop from CSI, L&O, The Shield, The Wire, Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue, NCIS, Flashpoint, Etcetera. Even in cop shoot 'em up flicks its generally only done when the baddies whip out heavy artillery unexpectedy or somthing big blows up. Its not done every time someone pulls a gun or takes a swing... because it would get really silly and slapstick and evoke ridicule really fast. So, unless I'm running cop slapstick comedy, yeah, I'll call them on it.