When sfx lie

[Sean Waters]

Is it OK to buy +5 DCV with the sfx 'indestructible', so that when people hit you, but by a margin of less than 5, they miss because of the extra DCV and you take no damage?

 

Is it OK to buy 10 resisteant physical defence with the sfx 'superdodge' so that when you are hit you seem to twist away from the damage?

 

I'd say 'No' to the first one but, providing it has the right limitations 'Yes' to the second.

 

Does that make sense?

 

It does to me The problem with 'Indestructible' modelled as a dodge is that the attacker is completely mislead as to what is happening AND the power does not work the same way in all situations, so it is conceptually weak.

 

When you punch someone - and apparently hit them - you do not believe that you are missing - and so you have no reason to switch to an atatck that has a better chance to hit - say an AoE. That means that the sfx are doing a lot more than explaining the power, and giving it a bit of colour - they are making it considerably more effective.

 

Moreover, if you DO switch to an AoE attack, 'Indestructible' stops working. You get hit so it hurts - it makes no conceptual sense.

 

OTOH the 'defences as dodge' works for me, so long as, even if you completely avoid damage it is clear you have hit AND there is a limitation 'doesn't work against AoE/unavoidable damage' BECAUSE the attacker is not mislead - they know they are hitting you, so do not need to switch attacks AND with the limitation it makes conceptual sense - dodges cannot avoid AoE damage.

 

You can not 'fix' the DCV thing with limitations, you can fix the Defences thing.

 

This is not limtiing the creativity of players, it is simply applying a bit of rigour to it.

 

Thoughts?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

God you really do try to pick fights dont you?

 

 

I think the first set is fine if the GM sets a limit and agrees that that defines indestrucible in his campaign - the effects and SFX should then be treated as the same...

 

Problems occur when GMs approve builds as modelling certain SFX then strictly apply the rules that contradict the agreed SFX.

 

 

Doc

[Vondy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

The most important thing is that the player and game-master agree on how the build functions. You could, in theory, define a bunch of DCV as indestructible and say anything that would have hit without it merely "bounced off." On the other hand, its a really bad way to model it. I would tell the player "indestructible" is overstating the case. "Hard to Hurt" or "Tough as Nails" maybe, but all of a sudden the character gets caught in an AoE or an opponent with a high OCV gets a hit in and their not indestructible (unless they have other defenses to buttress it?). At the same time, it doesn't pay to be overly pedantic. A flexible mind is necessary for adjudicating special effects fairly - and for using them in innovative, creative ways. For instance, a character with "Fast Regen" as a power might have regeneration per turn and resistant defense with the latter representing damage that automatically heals.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Perhaps Indestructible should have the IPE advantage, to account for the fact that you canot tell the underlying effect is DCV. This would impose a cost for the benefit of misleading the opponent.

 

I don't particularly like the effect, but perhaps the character has some vulnerable spots such that a solid hit, or a hit on all parts of the target (AoE) can still hurt him. Much like those golden age characters who are invulnerable to the point of being bulletproof, but still KO'd by a blackjack to the skull.

[Doc Samson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I played a character once whose special effect for teleportation was that he disappeared in a puff of smoke. The same character could also turn invisible. You guessed it, the special effect for his invisibility was also that the character disappeared in a puff of smoke. While I thought I was being quite clever, the GM thought I was getting something (he didn't know what but it was something) for free. After some discussion, I was allowed to use the build but the GM was never fully pleased with it.

 

I liked the idea so much I made a theme out of it and bought Invisible Desolidification and Images (only to make images of myself) too. Villains never knew if I was there or not. My point? I don't have one but if I did it would probably be something to the effect of; SFX are there to help define your character too, not just to expose what limitation you may have taken on your defenses or what you are likely vulnerable too.

 

As a long time GM, I don't recall ever saying no to a player's SFX, as long as they could be sensed by the appropriate number of sense groups.

 

[edit] In an attempt to actually contribute, how do you feel about shields? The books seem to alternate between a DCV boost, a self only Force Wall/ Barrier (6e), and Missile Deflection/ Deflection (6e), all with the same SFX. Against a shield wielding character, I have no way to know if he just soaking my damage up with a Barrier or I am missing due to a DCV boost.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Ah, but with a shield, you can SEE the F/X -- and thus determine how to 'get around it'. 'Personal Force Wall' shields tend to be 'limited coverage' or something of the sort -- which means an AoE is still going to blast 'em. The Dodge-based 'Supertough' thing is more obscure.

 

Speaking as a GM, I WOULD permit the 'Supertough' DCV advantage, but I'd also make it clear that it was versus specific single attacks -- perhaps putting a limitation of 'Only vs. One Attack per Segment/Phase', so as to represent the slight attention needed to turn the superdefense in the direction of that attack. It'd also force the player to decide who was the more dangerous foe, and so mitigate the 'omigod we can't hurt him' effect. If the player wants the enormous amount of 'can't touch this' that they seem to be wanting, force 'em to purchase Damage Reduction or its 6e equivalent...

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Perhaps Indestructible should have the IPE advantage, to account for the fact that you canot tell the underlying effect is DCV. This would impose a cost for the benefit of misleading the opponent.

 

I don't particularly like the effect, but perhaps the character has some vulnerable spots such that a solid hit, or a hit on all parts of the target (AoE) can still hurt him. Much like those golden age characters who are invulnerable to the point of being bulletproof, but still KO'd by a blackjack to the skull.

 

yeah, that's how I usually wrote it up. DCV levels, bought Fully Invisible, and generally with a limitation or two like "only vs. one attack at a time" and/or "doesn't work vs. combat surprise attacks or magical attacks". To simulate Indestructibility vs. AoE, you buy some extra Res Def and damage reduction--maybe now that'd be done with Damage negation?

 

Somebody would have to land a "clean shot" in order for PCs to figure out the target is actually anticipating the attack and "toughing out" the blow, so the way to bypass it is to either hit more quickly/cleanly(i.e., with a higher OCV attack) or to find a way to surprise them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

God you really do try to pick fights dont you?

 

The best way to learn to fight is to fight

 

 

I think the first set is fine if the GM sets a limit and agrees that that defines indestrucible in his campaign - the effects and SFX should then be treated as the same...

 

Problems occur when GMs approve builds as modelling certain SFX then strictly apply the rules that contradict the agreed SFX.

 

 

Doc

 

I'm thinking that defining DCV as being hit but not taking damage IS using sfx that contradict the build.

 

Here's my thesis: you can not attach any sfx you like to a power. The sfx have to work mechanically as the power does, at least as a beginning and end state, in all the situations that it may be tested in.

 

So, if you can be hit and ignore the damage, it shouldn't matter what you're hit with: an EB or an AoE EB - but in this case it does, so it is not working for me.

 

Getting away with anything is not flexibility, it is not an exercise in creativity: creativity is meaningless without limits and boundaries: if you can do everything there is no challenge in doing anything. What makes you good is when you can take a situation with limited options, and pick the best one: if they are all the best one, what you do is irrelevant.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I appreciate the apparent contradiction of applying logic to something that doesn't exist, like superpowers. We have no idea how they work if they did, so how can we extrapolate anything? Doesn't any explanation make as much sense as any other? Would not any sfx be as good as the next?

 

Well...logic can still be applied, even if the starting assumptions are spurious. Internal consistency is important to me

 

I'm not keen on some of the golden age characters because, well, the had not been bought through properly. The fact hat people used to write characters who made no sense does not mean we have to emulate them. If that is what you are after: a series of arbitrary abilities with little or no logic connecting them to each other or the world around them, cool. You may notice though that people tend not to write characters that blatantly, well, rubbish any more. Even DC feels it necessary and appropriate to explain some of the more questionable tosh it used to come up with: so...you've got a ring that is the most powerful weapon in the universe that can do anything you can imagine, can protect you against bullets, bombs, nuclear explosions, angry kryptonians, you name it...but doesn't work against yellow?

 

Ooooooooooooooooooo K.

[Egyptoid]

Re: When sfx lie

 

as I GM, I don't scan Indestructible as SFX. I see Indest. as a quality, one which we emulate with Hero Sys. Powers.

in your example you chose DCV to make your ""Indestructability" work.

 

Superman is described as Indest. and the source cited is krypt. physiology.

So IMHO his SFX are alien physique.

 

I call BS on using a generic word like Indest. as an SFX descriptor.

I wanna see a more definable term, even if the term is "magic"

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

It depends on what "hit" means in your games. It can mean at least two things:

1) Contact is made.

2) Effective contact is made.

 

These lead to very different descriptions.

 

If your game prefers 1, you might say things like, "Your blast passes within an inch of her face, but she must have anticipated the attack -- you fail to strike her and she emerges unscathed."

 

If your game prefers 2, you might say things like, "She tilts her head in your direction, holds up a hand, and catches your blast. Though disappointed, you're certain that with better aim, you'd catch her unawares and wipe that smile off her face."

[Wolf]

Re: When sfx lie

 

LOL, I seem to be following you around today Egyptoid, it's unintentional, but funny.

 

I think part of the problem with DCV representing a "hit" that didn't do anything really (for me anyway) has it's roots in D&D. Seriously, I would have allowed the first build you wrote up just because mentally I'd be (unknowingly, and now I can see it because I've been thinking about this as I've been reading the responces). That's what AC does. Shield = AC, Dodge = AC, Armor = AC, bracers = AC.... all in all everything in 'ol grandpaw is all a buff to the Armor Class (the to hit number). Thus if you come to me with a build that says (in essence), 'you hit, but not really,' for me it's a no brainer because I've been doing it for years. I can see that SFX, I've seen them since I was 11 years old and wondered (on a conceptional level) why when I don my armor does my AC go down, and Dex does the same thing, but for different reasons.

 

I had a Paladin recently with a shield build multiplier, and for good or bad, I allowed it... the player gave it up due to too much book keeping.

1) Taking the Brunt (25% resistant DR)

2) Deflection (DCV Buff)

3) Causal resistance (PD Buff)

4) Shield Bash (Hand Attack)

 

I saw someone who was skilled at using a shield able to do different things with it, and so I allowed it. But as you've said you know you can "get around shields."

 

I guess my end point is just that you bring up a good point, but anyone who has played D&D already accept the idea that a boost in the "to Hit" effect is a decent model for "didn't do damage." Now that I've figured out the how I see it this way, I'm conflicted as to whether I should continue to.... hmmmm

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Interesting angle. The (well, a...) difference between DnD and Hero is that Hero separates 'hitting' and 'damage delivered'.

 

DnD works with a Hit Point total. Armour simply make it less likely that you will have your Hit Point total reduced. Hero separates the chance to hit and the effect of armour.

 

The overall effect is that DnD abstracts far more than Hero does. The net effect is similar: someone with better defences lasts longer BUT how you get there differs - it is all about the journey. In Hero there is a legitimate expectation that if you appear to miss it is because you've missed, whereas if you appear to hit but cause little or no damage then it is because the target has decent defences.

 

Part of the reason I moved away from DnD in the first place was that removal of abstraction. In fact that is not true. It started before then when I found a White Dwarf article (this was before WD only did WH) which provided rules for armour which made your AC worse, not better, but provided a Hero-style defence, which reduced the damage delivered. I really liked that. I don't want to go backsliding.

 

Hmm. Anyway.

 

Hero does it right. It seems a shame to go back on that.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sean:

 

Rename your "Indestructable" build as "Rolling with the Punch" and it works with regards to a specific attack, and neatly explains why it doesn't work so well against AOE.

 

Actually, you could name both builds "Rolling with the Punch," given the effects of the second build.

 

 

Like you, I don't care for the first build as "Indestructable." For one, you're modeling a miss, and not actual "indestructability." Second, it's just going to be awkward when someone's crotchety house cat tags you at six under and draws blood with his 1/2d claws. It just doesn't represent anything about "Indestructable."

 

I don't think the SFX have failed here (beyond the potential for an absolute, of course; we know the system hates those ). I just don't think that builds offered are reasoned from the over-all effects of "Industructible."

 

Just my opinions, anyway, and worth every bit of what you paid for them

[Vondy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

The best way to learn to fight is to fight

 

I'm thinking that defining DCV as being hit but not taking damage IS using sfx that contradict the build.

 

 

Fight!

 

I think defining DCV as invulnerability contradicts the build. It overstates the potential effect. But defining DCV as shrugging off trivial blows would not be contradictory. As such, its quite possible to use DCV to model being hit and not taking damage is internally coherent insofar as you are cognizant of the build's inherent limitations and don't overstep them. Effects based definition is often a question of degrees and nomenclature. You should have stuck with "invulnerability." Then I would have had to agree with you.

 

So endeth the lesson, young grasshopper.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Is it OK to buy +5 DCV with the sfx 'indestructible'' date=' so that when people hit you, but by a margin of less than 5, they miss because of the extra DCV and you take no damage?[/quote']

 

Yes. It's called "Armor Class".

[BNakagawa]

Re: When sfx lie

 

It is a bad idea to intentionally mislead people. If a character is being ineffective because they are insufficiently accurate, the feedback from the GM should inform them of this. If a character is being ineffective because they are insufficiently powerful, the feedback from the GM should inform them of that.

 

I would be extremely wary of any construct that would logically lead a character to haymaker when they should be spreading or vice versa.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I would be extremely wary of any construct that would logically lead a character to haymaker when they should be spreading or vice versa.

No build can do that. Only a GM who isn't doing the job properly.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I'm thinking that defining DCV as being hit but not taking damage IS using sfx that contradict the build.

 

I think I am more fundamental about the building blocks of HERO than you. What I want are mechanics that allow me to play a game and provide the means to get some numbers that make the players feel that things are fair. I want to be able to layer SFX over that that allow us to tell a story that we enjoy.

 

As such, if, in my game, I think that a certain level of DCV means that you will effectively never be hit (leaving aside the problems of area effect) and want to define that as never being hurt (never being hit by an attack does equate with never being hurt by an attack) then that is for me to decide. If I tell the player that this is fine (those points will get him effective invulnerability to physical attacks) then I should abide by this, even when literal application of the rules over-rides it.

 

That IS internal consistency. Allowing a build and allowing a description that does not stand up in game play? That is bad. I think this is a player/GM trust thing, each trustung the other to do what is right in the game and agreeing costs for those things. If the decisions made allow us to game consistently and enjoy it then the rules are doing their job of guiding us through the process....

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I think I am more fundamental about the building blocks of HERO than you. What I want are mechanics that allow me to play a game and provide the means to get some numbers that make the players feel that things are fair. I want to be able to layer SFX over that that allow us to tell a story that we enjoy.

 

As such, if, in my game, I think that a certain level of DCV means that you will effectively never be hit (leaving aside the problems of area effect) and want to define that as never being hurt (never being hit by an attack does equate with never being hurt by an attack) then that is for me to decide. If I tell the player that this is fine (those points will get him effective invulnerability to physical attacks) then I should abide by this, even when literal application of the rules over-rides it.

 

That IS internal consistency. Allowing a build and allowing a description that does not stand up in game play? That is bad. I think this is a player/GM trust thing, each trustung the other to do what is right in the game and agreeing costs for those things. If the decisions made allow us to game consistently and enjoy it then the rules are doing their job of guiding us through the process....

 

Doc

 

That is internally consistent with your re-defined rule set. That's fine - but DCV doesn;t actually work that way normally.

 

My view is that we play the game with the mechanics set our in the rules but we define how we perceive the interaction of those mechanics with the environment and other mechanics through sfx.

 

The base rules are pretty broad-brush, which means there is some room - but only SOME room - for allowing the sfx to determine how the rules should be applied. However if your sfx make the rules work in a way that is outside their scope, you are using the wrong rule or the wrong sfx.

 

Hero is a system that is fundamentally rooted in a 'points for prizes' mentality. If you allow sfx to change the nature of the underlying rule, rather than simply inform its interpretation (a fine line in some cases - less so in others), then you are messing with the underlying paradigm: you are not really playing Hero any more.

 

One point here worth making.

 

If a PC punches Ms Indestructible, and her indestructibility is built with +5 DCV, and the PC misses, well the player is unlikely to be misled - confused, perhaps, but not misled BECAUSE they are not going to be asked to roll for damage - or if they are that is going WAY too far. As the player knows they did not have to roll for damage they know that, for whatever reason, they are not dealing here with something where normal defences come into play.

 

Up to and including 5e that could only mean, in effect, that you'd missed, which meant that EITHER the target had a high DCV or the target was in some fundamental way undamageable in that way - perhaps they were desolid.

 

Either way you knew you had to change your tactics going to- hitting as hard as you can is not going to work - you need to try a different type of attack or you need to up your OCV.

 

Under 6e we have Damage Negation, and that has changed things. With DN you can be hi but the attack may be reduced tot eh point where no damage is rolled. In that case, it is possible that upping your damage could be an effective tactic: perhaps they can negate your 10d6 punch but your 16d6 pushed haymaker may put them down.

 

So it is no longer clear why you are not rolling damage, which means that there is a real advantage to deliberately choosing confusing or misleading sfx, and I think that is a bad thing.

 

Whilst we are looking at Ms Indestructible, with her +5DCV - again it should probably be limited in various ways. If she is entangled, for instance, she is no longer indestructible, mechanically, and if someone tries a grab there is no sfx reason it should not succeed, even if a punch would fail to cause damage. Two more reasons why that sfx does not work for that mechanic.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Defining super toughness as DCV doesn't work mechanically for so many reasons. The least of which Super high OCV girl with a STR of 10 will beat the crap out of the character while STR 90 brute man can't hurt him

 

I way prefer the elegance of hit , miss and damage and toughness stay its wonderful separate way. Then again I don't really even much like combat luck.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I'm sure you (Sean) understand that I don't actually think that using DCV to model invulnerability is a good thing. What I am saying is that if I as GM decide that the expenditure of sufficient points confers invulnerability then that is what it confers.

 

I always hate it when people say "then you aren't playing HERO". Course I am - it says so on the books and character sheets I'm using.

 

I'm not saying that +5DCV is the level I'd use but am arguing the concept of the idea rather than the details. I have used the DCV as a baseline to indicate with this number of points I can effectively avoid being hit, thus I can effectively avoid taking damage.

 

In the game there needs to be trust between players and the GM. If the GM tells you not to bother rolling damage dice then he is speaking out of game. He should, if you want the in story explanation, also give you clues to effective ways to proceed such as "you've given it your best shot and he doesn't even blink. It looks as though your blows are having no effect at all, like he was invulnerable" (the last clause is there for the irredeemably dense! ) or "You threw everything into that and while it simply blew the dust off his costume you felt as if there was some give. If only there was a way to get more effect into your blows, there is the chance you might be able to hurt him".

 

That is how you should be helping the players. not by looking at the rulebook and saying, "well, its based on DCV, if you entangle him then you should be able to paste him a good one..."

 

 

Doc

[Doc Samson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

If you don't mind me using the old straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) defense, I think there is a precedence in the Superhero genre for having purposely misldeading SFX. Some characters that come to mind...

 

Mysterio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterio) would love you to believe he uses real magic, so don't bother casting "dipel magic".

Morbius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbius,_the_Living_Vampire) wishes he sparkled in daylight, but don't waste your time with holy water.

Even the mighty clone Superboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superboy) uses "tactile telekinesis" to make you think he has the strength of big blue, but until recent retcons firing that kryptonite ray would have been a waste of time.

 

I'm sure others can think of many more purposely misleading SFX used in comics.

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

"He seems to be anticipating your blows and bracing for them at exactly the right moment. Maybe if you could slip a punch in faster, or catch him unawares, he'd feel it more..."

DCV used to represent Invulnerability is akin to an extension of the "chin block" principle, which fits certain genres(and yes, I've seen someone chin block in real life, so don't tell me it makes no sense). But if you're going to do/allow this, you should definitely give the PCs opportunities to figure out what's really going on.

You can also simulate that kind of effect with 1) extra defense, 2)100% damage reduction, 3) damage negation, all with limitations like "must be aware of attack", "requires an OCV vs. OCV or DEX vs. DEX roll", "only vs x attacks per segment/phase", "not vs. magical/cosmic/questonite-based attacks", etc.

I don't think there's anything inherently more virtuous about one approach than another. Reasoning from effect can still lead you to doing it as DCV levels(because the "effect" is "I take zero damage"(subject to various possible limitations) and there's a number of ways to simulate that).

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Is it OK to buy +5 DCV with the sfx 'indestructible', so that when people hit you, but by a margin of less than 5, they miss because of the extra DCV and you take no damage?

 

Is it OK to buy 10 resisteant physical defence with the sfx 'superdodge' so that when you are hit you seem to twist away from the damage?

 

I'd say 'No' to the first one but, providing it has the right limitations 'Yes' to the second.

 

Does that make sense?

 

It does to me The problem with 'Indestructible' modelled as a dodge is that the attacker is completely mislead as to what is happening AND the power does not work the same way in all situations, so it is conceptually weak.

 

When you punch someone - and apparently hit them - you do not believe that you are missing - and so you have no reason to switch to an atatck that has a better chance to hit - say an AoE. That means that the sfx are doing a lot more than explaining the power, and giving it a bit of colour - they are making it considerably more effective.

 

Moreover, if you DO switch to an AoE attack, 'Indestructible' stops working. You get hit so it hurts - it makes no conceptual sense.

 

OTOH the 'defences as dodge' works for me, so long as, even if you completely avoid damage it is clear you have hit AND there is a limitation 'doesn't work against AoE/unavoidable damage' BECAUSE the attacker is not mislead - they know they are hitting you, so do not need to switch attacks AND with the limitation it makes conceptual sense - dodges cannot avoid AoE damage.

 

You can not 'fix' the DCV thing with limitations, you can fix the Defences thing.

 

This is not limtiing the creativity of players, it is simply applying a bit of rigour to it.

 

Thoughts?

 

Have you ever thought that the idestructible is only against a concretrated attack ? The AoE attack could represent an overwhelming attack which you never were indestrucible? Best analogy is this; if your hit by a baseball (single attack), it hits, but typically doesn't due alot of damage, but if you get hit by a car (area effect) well then you typically get hurt alot. But as it was stated previously, indestructible means diffrent things to different people, so there should be a disscusion as to what the pc envisions what this menas to him.