Cover Fire ability. Comments?

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I would like to point out that the halved DCV only applies to the suppressive fire and not to any other attack. Which represents that this power is supposed to do the wall of hot lead thing more effectively than the Suppressive Fire manoeuvre. I can, however, see the argument that the half DCV should be an advantage on the attack or at most a -0 lim.

[phookz]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

That's a good point; I didn't notice that the first time through.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Another possibility is a Continuous, Area of Effect attack (probably a single hex) with some kind of Limitation stating that enough normal cover vs. the attacker drops the target "out of the area". Then it would act very much like the Suppression Fire maneuver, except if the target moves or even peeks their head up to take a shot or something, it'll comprise moving into the area and be an automatic hit. For the same kind of feel as the ability in the OP, exempt targets (possibly for a larger Limitation value) performing a Snap Shot maneuver (or exempt them if they perform that maneuver and agree to take an additional OCV penalty "so they can react fast enough to avoid getting hit").

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Where are you coming from on it being an advantage? The limitation is that the target gets to choose whether they'd rather take the -4 OCV that the power would normally cause, or the 1/2 DCV against the autofire attack (which represents ignoring the suppression). If that limitation wasn't there, the target would always take -4 OCV unless they had enough defense to ignore the autofire attack. Clearly this limitation is limiting. I suppose you could argue it should be a -0, although I disagree, but I have no idea how it's better to give the target the option.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Where are you coming from on it being an advantage? The limitation is that the target gets to choose whether they'd rather take the -4 OCV that the power would normally cause' date=' or the 1/2 DCV against the autofire attack (which represents ignoring the suppression). If that limitation wasn't there, the target would always take -4 OCV unless they had enough defense to ignore the autofire attack. Clearly this limitation is limiting. I suppose you could argue it should be a -0, although I disagree, but I have no idea how it's [i']better[/i] to give the target the option.

 

The issue with the build is that it still ignores being "fearless". A high PRE character shouldn't take a hit to their OCV or DCV from this. Sure, they might get hit by whatever attack is being used but if your intention is to make that attack have a better chance to actually hit who it's being used to intimidate then actually use the mechanics designed exactly for that purpose (the aformentioned Suppression Fire, CSL's, Naked AOE Advantage, etc...)

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

You could, I suppose, get to the same effect by removing that limitation, putting on "Targets (Not User) Choose Whether User Gets the Benefit of This Power or Hail of Lead Against Them Individually" (-3/4) <- the -3/4 is based on this being worse than Lockout, since with Lockout the user could choose which power works

 

Hail of Lead: +(some OCV, depending on how many different attacks this is supposed to apply to), Only When Combine Attacking An Autofire Attack and Suppression Fire (-? depending on where the OCV is coming from), Targets (Not User) Chooses Whether User Gets the Benefit of This Power or Suppression Fire Against Them Individually (-3/4).

 

I can see the merits to this approach.

 

 

I think where we differ is that we're reading two different things into the way this power's SFX works. You are reading it as "Spray a bunch of bullets around, scaring people so that they aren't as effective at fighting" and I'm reading it as "Spray a bunch of bullets around, so that people have to either duck or risk getting shot." Basically, whether the OCV penalty is coming from intimidation only and Captain Courage can just walk through the effect with no drawback even if he's not bulletproof, or coming from practical self-defense.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

... or coming from practical self-defense.

 

Not letting concern for self-defense interfere with a characters combat effectiveness IS the definition of Presence.

[phookz]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Where are you coming from on it being an advantage? The limitation is that the target gets to choose whether they'd rather take the -4 OCV that the power would normally cause' date=' or the 1/2 DCV against the autofire attack (which represents ignoring the suppression). If that limitation wasn't there, the target would always take -4 OCV unless they had enough defense to ignore the autofire attack. Clearly this limitation is limiting. I suppose you could argue it should be a -0, although I disagree, but I have no idea how it's [i']better[/i] to give the target the option.

 

I missed that the -4 OCV was only vs the autofire attack; that was pointed out already by Bodkin Odds. I agree that it is not an advantage in this construct, but I'm not comfortable with it as a limitation either. There's a bit of an end-around side effect of this that makes the autofire attack more potent.

[phookz]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

You could, I suppose, get to the same effect by removing that limitation, putting on "Targets (Not User) Choose Whether User Gets the Benefit of This Power or Hail of Lead Against Them Individually" (-3/4) <- the -3/4 is based on this being worse than Lockout, since with Lockout the user could choose which power works

 

Hail of Lead: +(some OCV, depending on how many different attacks this is supposed to apply to), Only When Combine Attacking An Autofire Attack and Suppression Fire (-? depending on where the OCV is coming from), Targets (Not User) Chooses Whether User Gets the Benefit of This Power or Suppression Fire Against Them Individually (-3/4).

 

I can see the merits to this approach.

 

I'm not following what the +? to OCV is for; is this instead of that 1/2 DCV vs the Autofire attack?

 

I think where we differ is that we're reading two different things into the way this power's SFX works. You are reading it as "Spray a bunch of bullets around' date=' scaring people so that they aren't as effective at fighting" and I'm reading it as "Spray a bunch of bullets around, so that people have to either duck or risk getting shot." Basically, whether the OCV penalty is coming from intimidation only and Captain Courage can just walk through the effect with no drawback even if he's not bulletproof, or coming from practical self-defense.[/quote']

 

I think both of your examples are really the same thing. The people are scared into ducking because they don't want to risk getting shot. In either event, how does this work against the guy who simply chooses not to duck?

 

This looks like a form of PRE attack to me, and if I were GM I would apply modifiers based on the perceived lethality of the attack. Take Superman as an example - he knows that he is bulletproof, and it's his schtick to stand there and just bounce bullets off of his chest. Because of that I think that would incur penalty dice to the presence attack - probably 1 or 2d6. Supes isn't going to be cowed by a guy with a revolver - it's classic Superman and that makes sense. Then you've got other characters who are calm even when under heavy fire (seen this in a dozen war movies, the bad guy in Avatar was the same way) - they have oodles of PRE for defense, like the fearless talent Hyper-Man quoted. I think a PRE based attack would be a better fit for this.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

The issue with the build is that it still ignores being "fearless". A high PRE character shouldn't take a hit to their OCV or DCV from this. Sure' date=' they might get hit by whatever attack is being used but if your intention is to make that attack have a better chance to actually hit who it's being used to intimidate then actually use the mechanics designed exactly for that purpose (the aformentioned Suppression Fire, CSL's, Naked AOE Advantage, etc...)[/quote']

 

Actually, there's also a supposition here that a target who isn't actually hurt by an attack can't, in any way, be affected by it. Who says that Superman isn't a little distracted and put off by all those bullets bouncing off him (maybe that's part of why he stands there and takes the bullets until the goons are done firing--besides the obvious impressiveness of the feat). I mean, driving rain wouldn't necessarily hurt you either, nor would you likely be "fearful" of it, but would you be doing your best target practice while standing in it? A skilled attacker giving cover fire might well be able to nail the Brick in a way that'd make it difficult for him to make an attack at full normal effectiveness, even if he couldn't hurt the Brick. Reminds me of some anime or something....

[prestidigitator]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Not letting concern for self-defense interfere with a characters combat effectiveness IS the definition of Presence.

I disagree strongly. It helps be more impressive, thus very possibly aiding in a Presence Attack, but otherwise it isn't synonymous with Presence at all.

[phookz]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Actually' date=' there's also a supposition here that a target who isn't actually [i']hurt[/i] by an attack can't, in any way, be affected by it. Who says that Superman isn't a little distracted and put off by all those bullets bouncing off him (maybe that's part of why he stands there and takes the bullets until the goons are done firing--besides the obvious impressiveness of the feat). I mean, driving rain wouldn't necessarily hurt you either, nor would you likely be "fearful" of it, but would you be doing your best target practice while standing in it? A skilled attacker giving cover fire might well be able to nail the Brick in a way that'd make it difficult for him to make an attack at full normal effectiveness, even if he couldn't hurt the Brick. Reminds me of some anime or something....

 

In Superman returns Superman takes a shot in the eye and doesn't even blink - I think it's fair to say he's not distracted by the shot:

I think it's just his passive way of making a PRE attack.

 

That being said, I'm okay with the concept of a character so good with whatever weapon that he can provide a distraction.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I'm not following what the +? to OCV is for; is this instead of that 1/2 DCV vs the Autofire attack?

Yes.

 

In either event, how does this work against the guy who simply chooses not to duck?

 

He takes a larger risk of being shot than the guy who ducks. It really depends on how realistic a game you want to run. If you want "Bullets? What bullets? Everyone knows you can't get shot on Cartoon Network!" then it should be presence based, since it's just fear based and there's no actual reason to duck. If you want keeping your head up and ignoring the bullets to be dangerous, then it should be something along the lines of what I built.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

He takes a larger risk of being shot than the guy who ducks. It really depends on how realistic a game you want to run. If you want "Bullets? What bullets? Everyone knows you can't get shot on Cartoon Network!" then it should be presence based, since it's just fear based and there's no actual reason to duck. If you want keeping your head up and ignoring the bullets to be dangerous, then it should be something along the lines of what I built.

 

So Captain America, armed only with his Shield, is fighting against Hulk or Thor. He knows that he could DIE if they land one good hit past his Shield. Based on your logic he either A) does the sensible thing and runs away or surrenders OR... stands and fights but takes an automatic penalty to his CV due to knowing he is EXTREMELY outclassed.

 

Yep that makes perfect sense....... NOT.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

We don't know what genre this power is going to be used in. I could just as well give an example from World War II Hero that would suggest the opposite.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

We don't know what genre this power is going to be used in. I could just as well give an example from World War II Hero that would suggest the opposite.

 

We can go gritty realist Dark Champions if you want. The Fearless Talent I quoted before is just as appropriate in that circumstance as in supers.

See Sgt. York as an example. A REAL person who against incredible odds did not lose his head and saved the day.

 

Now there are other aspects of gritty realism to consider as well (like guns/bullets not being built using some form of the IPE Advantage) but that's a different conversation altogether.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

We can go gritty realist Dark Champions if you want. The Fearless Talent I quoted before is just as appropriate in that circumstance as in supers.

See Sgt. York as an example. A REAL person who against incredible odds did not lose his head and saved the day. .

 

I think the disconnect is about whether the ability is supposed to represent an attack that is difficult to dodge without sacrificing offense, or an attack that is "scary" but not actually hard to avoid. Going back to the Captain America example, what I'm talking about would be, say, Doctor Octopus having a melee version of this ability with the defense being a 360' targeting sense, to represent "it's hard to keep track of all the tentacles, you either have to keep watch on the tentacles (taking -4 OCV because you're distracted) or keep your eyes on Dr. Octopus (giving him +4 OCV to hit you, because this means you won't be sure where his tentacles actually are at any given time)." It has nothing to do with how much damage his tentacles do or how "scary" he is, it has to do with the tentacles being difficult to avoid without paying a lot of attention to them.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I think the disconnect is about whether the ability is supposed to represent an attack that is difficult to dodge ...

 

Yes.

 

You refuse to acknowledge that making an attack that is difficult to dodge should be done with CSL's or other appropriate Advantages.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

Actually, the power I posted at the top of the page is built that way (using either CSLs or just +OCV, depending on what it's supposed to work with).

[phookz]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I think there is a disconnect, and I don't think I've been clear on my objections to some of the builds suggested. I will try to clear that up here.

 

For purpose of this post, consider three individuals: an attacker, who is providing the covering fire, a defender, who is being suppressed with the covering fire, and a target, who the attacker is providing the covering fire for.

 

There are two approaches to this - one is that the attacker provides a suppression fire that seeks to keep the defender from making an effective attack. This has been the approach that I have focused on so far in this thread. The alternative approach is for the attacker to provide covering fire that is distracting in some way. Both of these are viable approaches.

 

For the first option, I would suggest the following:

 

There is already a Suppression Fire manuever, see 6E2 p91. With this maneuver, the attacker takes -2 OCV and has to fire max Autofire for every segment of his phase into the designated area(s). If the defender attempts to move, and this includes making an attack, the defender is automatically attacked (with the -2 OCV).

 

I think this fits the SFX described in the OP. The idea is to provide covering fire. Now this maneuver is a little different in that it doesn't provide a DCV bonus to the target, but it's a good place to start.

 

If you want an OCV bonus to the Suppression Fire you should have to pay points for it (buy CSLs). If you read the text of Suppression Fire, there really isn't a choice to make - the suppression fire doesn't actually hit the defender unless the defender attempts to move or attack. The choice is either don't move and suffer no ill effects from the suppression fire, or move and suffer the attack. You cannot choose to ignore the effects of Suppression Fire.

 

So how do we get the DCV bonus to the target? Let's go back to the SFX. The SFX is that the covering fire is really good - it's going to be tough to pull this off without getting shot at. We have that covered already with the Suppression Fire and CSLs to increase the OCV with it, but we want to make it tough, even if you do get shot at, to get the shot off. That's why I suggested the Drain/Suppress that requires a PRE attack. That to me is the perfect fit for this SFX. If you have Captain Fearless & Bulletproof, he's probably not going to be impacted by this - he has tons of PRE and knows that your puny bullets can't hurt him. That fits the power. This also works well for gritty realistic campaigns. Some characters are still not going to be afraid of the attack - that should be representable somehow and PRE is the best way to do that.

 

To put it another way, what if the SFX was shooting a jet of flame, flame so hot that nobody would dare to try and fire for risk of getting burned. Would this make sense to affect a Fire Elemental? Would they care how hot your flame was? What is the difference if it's bullets? Some defenders are not going to care.

 

I would build it as follows (similar post #25):

 

5 Covering Fire: Change Environment (-4 to Range Modifier), Area Of Effect (4 2m Areas; +1/2) (18 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Requires use of Suppression Fire Maneuver; -1), OIF (Gun of Opportunity; -1/2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (-2 OCV; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Requires Successful PRE Attack at Targets Base PRE Level; -1/2)

 

Now, if the SFX was that the attack was distracting... that would be a different build. Looking at the OP, it's tough to say which way they were really thinking. Without some examples it's tough to say what is distracting about the attack. It's clearly a gun wielding character, so there is the implication of bullets and whatnot. I would suggest something like the following:

 

6 Distracting Fire: Change Environment (-4 to Range Modifier), Area Of Effect (4 2m Areas; +1/2) (18 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Requires use of Suppression Fire Maneuver; -1), OIF (Gun of Opportunity; -1/2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (- 2 OCV; -1/2)

 

It's still using Suppression Fire. The target will receive an effective +4 DCV due to the range penalty modifier, and the defender will have to risk being attacked. Note that the second one is more expensive. It's more expensive because it's not based on a PRE attack. It will work against pretty much anyone, the SFX is that the shots are distracting - either kicking up dust, paper, whatever, or even shooting the character in the face.

 

I'd be fine with either approach. There are no hidden advantages in this - any bonus to Suppression Fire will have to be bought as CSLs to Suppression Fire. The first approach is a better fit if the desired SFX is that the defender needs to avoid the attack. That approach is limited in effectiveness because the defender may not care that you're shooting him.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I just wanted to say, that if you have a jet of flame so hot that nobody would try and fire for risk of getting burned, then by definition it would burn a fire elemental. The fire elemental is a body, it is risking getting burned.

 

Also, I'm not sure what the disconnect seems to be about. It seems like some people think this should be a physical "spray bullets and if you don't duck you get hit" which would ignore your force of personality, and another group of people seem to think this is a mental effect, "I shouldn't stick my head up or I'll get hit" sort of thing. In the physical build, it doesn't matter if you are fearless, the bullets won't care. Is that what the disconnect is about?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I just wanted to say, that if you have a jet of flame so hot that nobody would try and fire for risk of getting burned, then by definition it would burn a fire elemental. The fire elemental is a body, it is risking getting burned.

 

Also, I'm not sure what the disconnect seems to be about. It seems like some people think this should be a physical "spray bullets and if you don't duck you get hit" which would ignore your force of personality, and another group of people seem to think this is a mental effect, "I shouldn't stick my head up or I'll get hit" sort of thing. In the physical build, it doesn't matter if you are fearless, the bullets won't care. Is that what the disconnect is about?

 

I have issue with any build which imposes a penalty to the target's CV without taking into account their PRE (or INT/PER to ignore 'distraction'). If the purpose of the build is to actually increase the chance of hitting the target with the bullets then don't use CE or Adjustment powers.

 

To do otherwise violates a core idea of HERO. For every effect there should be an appropriate defense.

[phookz]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I just wanted to say' date=' that if you have a jet of flame so hot that nobody would try and fire for risk of getting burned, then by definition it would burn a fire elemental. The fire elemental is a body, it is risking getting burned. [/quote']

 

Technically true. I was unspecific with the use of the term nobody. I should have said "what if you had a fire so hot the average character..." In reality it depends on how hot the fire is and how resistant the fire elemental is. If it's a 10d6 Blast and the elemental has 10 levels of Energy DC Damage Negation, the fire elemental is not going to get burned.

 

Also' date=' I'm not sure what the disconnect seems to be about. It seems like some people think this should be a physical "spray bullets and if you don't duck you get hit" which would ignore your force of personality, and another group of people seem to think this is a mental effect, "I shouldn't stick my head up or I'll get hit" sort of thing. In the physical build, it doesn't matter if you are fearless, the bullets won't care. Is that what the disconnect is about?[/quote']

 

I think that's the gist of it. However, the OP wanted to give a bonus to the DCV of someone based on providing covering fire. So for that to work for the physical build and the fearless opponent, my position is that the most appropriate way to do that is to have the attack go against the defender's (the defender of the covering fire) PRE. A fearless opponent is going to be harder to impact with this.

[phookz]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I have issue with any build which imposes a penalty to the target's CV without taking into account their PRE (or INT/PER to ignore 'distraction'). If the purpose of the build is to actually increase the chance of hitting the target with the bullets then don't use CE or Adjustment powers.

 

To do otherwise violates a core idea of HERO. For every effect there should be an appropriate defense.

 

That's even better said than my response. This was my core objection from the start as well. There are builds suggested that penalize the defender and give him an option to take either one effect or another with a penalty to their DCV. The only defense to the attack with penalty is to choose the other option.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

 

I have issue with any build which imposes a penalty to the target's CV without taking into account their PRE (or INT/PER to ignore 'distraction').

Why? That's a pretty blanket statement. You don't think there are things that can make it difficult for someone to aim without also intimidating them into wetting their pants? How about something that makes it physically difficult to follow a target with your weapon as you pull the trigger?