DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

[secretID]

I know I've come across this, but I can't find it anywhere in the (5e) rules.

 

Character A is doing something beneficial to teammate B, but an attack roll is required.

1) What can B do voluntarily do to his DCV to help?

2) Can B do "it" (some kind of voluntary DCV lowering, I guess) between his phases?

3) If B does "it," does the effect last until his next phase - i.e., do enemies get easy shots as well?

4) Is there anything official limiting B's options if he isn't aware that A is trying to do something good to him? (Of course, I may limit it regardless.)

 

In case it helps, the specific situation is that Enemy has started a Haymaker against B, and A, realizing this, wants to pull B away with telekinesis.

 

Thanks for any help.

[ideasmith]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

As far as I know, there were never official 5E rules for this. Here are possible house rules:

 

1. If the defender ('player B') is unaware of the 'attack', then whether she considers it beneficial is irrelevent.

 

2. If the defender would like to be hit, she may either

2a. voluntarily lower her DCV (which also lowers it for all other attacks including hostile ones) or

2b. use the mechanics for Dive For Cover: Protecting Other Characters, but with the defender being both victim and interposer.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

I'd consider using as a house rule the Block mechanic, except that you're Blocking to be hit rather than not to be.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

Dropping DCV has to be risky when you are in a fight, but you don't want an overly complex mechanic to slow things down. Bearing in mind that shouting something out ('Go limp') won't take any time, and assuming that the attacking villain doesn't get an attack between 'B' going limp and 'A' whisking them away (which they can arrange by delaying their action or coordinating) then there shouldn't be any problem. I'd let B half phase 'stand still (DCV0) then half phase once grabbed to up their DCV again (although they would still have reduced DCV until set down). Hero does not have an 'attack of opportunity' mechanic like DnD which could make this particularly risky.

 

The dive for cover and block suggestions above are good ones.

 

The problem will come when B has already attacked this segment and the villain 'V' is about to hit him, but A wants to get his team mate out of the way quickly before that happens. In that scenario, I don't think B can drop their DCV as they do not have any actions left, although as always, that is up to the GM, and a GM may allow A a 'surprise bonus of +1 to +3 OCV as B is not expecting an 'attack' from a team mate.

[prestidigitator]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

Well, there are precedents, such as:

 

Attack Actions

Some Powers, such as Aid and Healing, are described as constituting, requiring, or taking an Attack Action, or requiring an Attack Roll. Unless a Power’s description says otherwise, this means that when the character uses the Power, he must take an Attack Action and make an Attack Roll (if the roll does not succeed, he fails to use the Power). As an Attack Action, this ends the character’s Phase. As always, the GM may change this if he feels it would be appropriate and not unbalancing to do so (such as when the character uses the Power on himself, or on a willing target).

 

The character must roll equal to or less than this number on 3d6 to hit a target with a Mental Power. Willing targets can voluntarily lower their DMCV or EGO to 0' date=' making it easy for a friendly mentalist to “lock on.” A willing target can also lower his Mental Defense to 0 (or not “turn it on” if it’s not already in use). A sleeping or unconscious mind has DMCV 0.[/quote']

 

USING AID

To use Aid, the character must first succeed with an Attack Roll. (If the target’s willing to be affected by the Aid, including when the character uses his Aid on himself, the Attack Roll succeeds automatically, but the character still has to use an Attack Action.)

 

Unfortunately these explanations aren't incredibly consistent. What I've typically done is allow the friendly character's attack roll to automatically succeed in most circumstances IF the target is aware of the attack and definitely wants to allow it to succeed. If the target isn't aware of the attack, the friendly attacker must make the attack roll, though it'll typically be against a reduced DCV because of surprise or coming from behind. There are cases where I might make an exception, though. If the target is being attacked by multiple enemies, I might decide that giving that momentary opening to even a friendly attacker by allowing them to automatically hit might reduce overall DCV to 1/2 or 0 for a Phase (or maybe just a Segment, so the target had better hope none of his enemies have held Phases or something)--at least against HTH opponents.

 

Also, against an especially clever main antagonist, I might warn that the enemy could take advantage of the momentary opening if the target wishes to reduce his DCV below half for his friend (I figure plenty of combat situations reduce DCV to half, and often against single attacks or attackers, so allowing reduction to 1/2 DCV for a friendly attacker without creating openings for unfriendly ones is pretty reasonable in most circumstances), and allow the antagonist to do so if he takes advantage of timing (held Phase or Trigger or whatever) and makes a Tactics roll.

 

I'm not sure how Dive for Cover applies to the scenario in question (just a straight Dex roll to allow an automatic hit and go prone either way, or only roll the DFC if the friendly attacker misses, determine scatter, and require the DFC to end there?), but I suppose I might allow some sort of Block type maneuver. Perhaps an attack roll vs. DCV 3 or 0 that acts as a complimentary roll to the friendly attacker's attack roll? It's sort of an odd idea because Block goes against another character's OCV, whereas this maneuver tries to aid the attacker's OCV, so you wouldn't want to make the "Block-esque" roll more difficult for a higher attacker OCV....

[Sean Waters]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

I think there is a process whenever you come up against a situation, in game, where either there isn't a rule covering the situation or you have temporarily had a senior moment and forgotten that there is one in an obscure FAQ somewhere:

 

1. As GM do you think that the maneouvre should have a chance to succeed? If not, tell the player and ask them to try something else.

2. Determine if it should be easy, difficult or nigh impossible. Easy should mean it automatically succeeds, or has an improved chance of succeeding. Hard means you just let them roll with everything in place as it is and nigh impossible means you let them try and impose roll penalties. unusual maneouvres might, in addition, have some negative outcome if the attempt fails. Tell the player which it is but not necessarily the amount of any bonus or penalty.

3. Apply all the rules you do remember and any assessed bonus or penalty (+2/0/-2 is usually fine - don't sweat it too much) to any roll the player makes to succeed.

 

In this case we have A saying they want to telekinetically yank their team mate, B, out of harm's way, the harm in this case being V. I'm presuming that B WANTS to be yanked out of the way.

 

SO:

 

1. If B has already taken his full phase this segment, he can not change his combat statistics, including dropping DCV, so A needs to make a normal attack roll with the TK, with all the normal penalties and bonuses. If this is something that the team have practiced before then I'dd assess a +2 bonus to hit and no negatives if the attempt fails. If it is a first time, never before discussed plan, I'd assess that it has a normal chance to succeed (no roll modifier) but if it fails then V will be considered to have a multiple attacker bonus on his next attack against B due to B being distracted.

 

2. If B has not taken a full phase this segment he can drop his DCV to zero if he wishes, but that affects ALL attackers, including V, so timing is vital. I'd still make A roll (drama is vital and you could roll 18) and give the same consequence as above (multiple attacker bonus to V) on a failure. If all of them are holding actions (and assuming the TK has sfx visible to V), I'd make them all roll DEX (allowing Lightning Reflexes DEX to be taken into account, as well as any teamwork levels). If V beats A and B, then B drops his DCV and, before he is whisked away, V can attack. If V beats A but not B then V can choose to attack B at full DCV before A's attempt, but he will be at full DCV against V, or lose the attack. If V beats B but not A then A can make the attempt but B is at full DCV and if both A and B beat V, then A can make the attempt with B at 0 DCV before V attacks.

 

That sounds about right and just uses basic existing rules, with a little added drama (B may not only wind up still there, but at a combat disadvantage).

 

Ultimately I look at it this way - it is a dramatic and appropriate use for TK, and so should be encouraged. Saving a team mate's bacon is heroic and adds flavour to the game (mmmm....bacon....).

 

If it is something that A wants to do often I might suggest they consider a TK multipower with a slot: Useable As Attack (or UBO) teleport (must cross intervening ground) as a safer way to re-arrange the battlefield. Couple that with enough floating points to tag each team member and I'd probably let it happen as a move equivalent half phase action or, if sober, an automatically succeeding attack action.

[Fearghus]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

I tend to handle this in the same way D&D does. If the target wants to be effected by the power then it hits automatically. I might require a roll against DCV 0 with appropriate modifiers for combat situations or something if you really want to put a mechanic to it, but in my mind DCV represents your ability to avoid the attacks you want to avoid. If you don't want to avoid the attack then you just don't try to.

 

The way I see it there is no need to make it more complicated than that. Like others have said if you make it too complicated you will simply slow down combat.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

but in my mind DCV represents your ability to avoid the attacks you want to avoid.

 

That would seem to imply you have no DCV against attacks you are unaware of - if you don't know about it, how can you avoid it? As tends to be the case in Hero, we need to reason from effect. Why does the character have a high DCV? I don't think he sees the attacks coming in and decides to get out of the way. That would reduce DCV to zero for attacks he is unaware of, rather than imposing a penalty, at worst. I think the character moves while in combat to make himself a more difficult target. If he wants to slow down to facilitate someone connecting with him, he can't just slow down for one person - anyone else aiming at him would also find it easier to hit him.

 

It then becomes a tactical choice - do I lower my DCV for a friendly, knowing that it will also be easier for an adversary to hit me in that window of opportunity?

[secretID]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

Thanks for the very interesting responses. They've made me think about the nature of DCV.

 

I'm thinking (in flux) that DCV is a combination of: 1) flitting about to generally avoid anything, like a boxer moving in the ring; and 2) little, specific dodges that aren't quite Dodges. The 1/2 (as opposed to none, or total) loss of DCV from facing and similar seems to fit that.

 

Applied here, let's see...

1) if B is totally unaware, then he has a 1/2 DCV penalty anyway;

2) if B is aware (and wants to be hit), he can keep flitting about, but decline to specifically avoid A's attack - in game terms, he can drop his DCV to 1/2 vs. A, without using any action, and without any lingering effects;

3) if B is aware (and wants to be hit) he can make himself completely still - in game terms, he drops his DCV to 0, a 0-phase action which would drop his DCV until his next full phase.

 

B's awareness and the timing of it all is more complicated, but I think I'd rather leave that fuzzy than work out an approach with rolls. The shorter and clearer the communication the better - "Go limp" is a great example - and prior practice with the maneuver would be a factor. Regardless, though, I think I'll only apply that to situation #3 above, dropping the DCV to 0.

 

Using the existing example, B sees that Enemy is loading up this haymaker, then he sees his teammate A trying to do something to him (. I guess B might reflexively flinch away from that, but with regular teammates I'm inclined to say that B just knows that A is trying to help him, so he doesn't duck or similar, and he drops his DCV to 1/2 vs. that "attack."

[prestidigitator]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

Oh. One more thing. If you're going to allow the target to drop his DCV to 0 but require that it be against all attacks instead of just the friendly one, I would still allow an Abort to bring back full DCV and even perform a fully defensive maneuver between the friendly attack and an unfriendly one. Unless, of course, the target has already Aborted or something.

 

Hmm. Another interesting thought. If the defender is Stunned, would anything be different? I might require a Perception for for a Stunned character to be aware enough to tell that an incoming "attack" is well-intentioned. Of course, they'll be at 1/2 DCV anyway, but if they wanted to drop it even further....

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

I tend to handle this in the same way D&D does. If the target wants to be effected by the power then it hits automatically. I might require a roll against DCV 0 with appropriate modifiers for combat situations or something if you really want to put a mechanic to it' date=' but in my mind DCV represents your ability to avoid the attacks [b']you want to avoid[/b]. If you don't want to avoid the attack then you just don't try to.

 

The way I see it there is no need to make it more complicated than that. Like others have said if you make it too complicated you will simply slow down combat.

 

That's how I do it. Beneficial 'attacks' succeed.

[archermoo]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

The 1/2 (as opposed to none' date=' or total) loss of DCV from facing and similar seems to fit that.[/quote']

 

To just address this, there are no DCV modifiers due to facing in Hero. There is a note that one of the most common ways for someone to qualify for the Surprised modifier (1/2 DCV) is to be attacked from behind, but it also notes that just being behind someone doesn't automatically grant that.

[prestidigitator]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

That's an interesting observation. Defense Maneuver I specifically eliminates attacks "from behind", but no level of Defense Maneuver is supposed to protect a character from being Surprised:

 

A character with Defense Maneuver (at any level) can still be Surprised. Defense Maneuver eliminates the possibility of being attacked “from behind” or suffering from a Multiple Attacker Bonus; it does not make a character immune to being Surprised' date=' especially out of combat.[/quote']

 

I guess that reduces Defense Maneuver I to simply allowing a shield bonus from any direction, even if the attack "surprises you from behind"? :-/

[secretID]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

To just address this' date=' there are no DCV modifiers due to facing in Hero. There is a note that one of the most common ways for someone to qualify for the Surprised modifier (1/2 DCV) is to be attacked from behind, but it also notes that just being behind someone doesn't automatically grant that.[/quote']

Are you talking about 6e? I'm using 5e (unrevised). There's a table giving 1/2 DCV for "attacked from behind in combat," and I can't find further explanation or qualification of that. There are also the general penalties for not perceiving an attacker with a targeting sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

Oh. One more thing. If you're going to allow the target to drop his DCV to 0 but require that it be against all attacks instead of just the friendly one' date=' I would still allow an Abort to bring back full DCV and even perform a fully defensive maneuver between the friendly attack and an unfriendly one. Unless, of course, the target has already Aborted or something.[/quote']

 

I agree with that - clearly, this is a defensive action. I'd also allow the character to Abort to reduce DCV to zero to get pulled out of the way of that Haymaker - it's also defensive.

 

Hmm. Another interesting thought. If the defender is Stunned' date=' would anything be different? I might require a Perception for for a Stunned character to be aware enough to tell that an incoming "attack" is well-intentioned. Of course, they'll be at 1/2 DCV anyway, but if they wanted to drop it even further....[/quote']

 

This is also consistent with 1/2 DCV being "not avoiding the specific attack". The Stunned character is, by this logic, still bobbing and weaving reflexively, but not reacting to new stimuli, so he doesn't have the option of deliberately reducing DCV - he doesn't have the option of deliberately doing anything.

[archermoo]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

Are you talking about 6e? I'm using 5e (unrevised). There's a table giving 1/2 DCV for "attacked from behind in combat' date='" and I can't find further explanation or qualification of that. There are also the general penalties for not perceiving an attacker with a targeting sense.[/quote']

 

In 5e the "attacked from behind in combat" modifier is part of the Surprised modifier and the further explanation/qualification is there. The 6e version isn't so much a change as just a matter of being re-written for clarity. The 5e version also includes text noting that the Surprised modifier only applies if the person being attacked isn't expecting to be attacked.

[secretID]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

In 5e the "attacked from behind in combat" modifier is part of the Surprised modifier and the further explanation/qualification is there. The 6e version isn't so much a change as just a matter of being re-written for clarity. The 5e version also includes text noting that the Surprised modifier only applies if the person being attacked isn't expecting to be attacked.

 

Huh. Found the section in 5e and a question in the FAQs as well. That part of the rules sure did need a rewrite - I had no clue that's what was meant.

 

Anyway, I'm going to stick with the 1/2 facing penalty. It just fits well with all of the other DCV modifiers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

 

As a tangent I'm always wary of divider or multiplier modifiers (like x 1/2) or absolutes (like 0 DCV) and much prefer simple adds or subtractions for bonuses and penalties. Having said that, I don't think that the situation is covered in the rules in enough detail to give a definitive answer and so, as a rule for your game, going with 1/2 DCV works well enough. Consistency is often more important than getting it absolutely right anyway, and so long as everyone knows what to expect, it is all good.

 

On whether an attempt should automatically succeed - it is worth remembering that Aid, TK etc does require an attack roll, and that means that a fleeting touch is not enough - it has to be a solid contact. That would mean, perhaps, grabbing the person you want to affect and holding for (maybe) a second; a fleeting touch is simply not enough - it is a half phase action. Looked at that way it may make the idea that some penalties should be involved more palatable to those who usually allow beneficial attacks to automatically succeed. Automatic success has the advantage of simplicity, and I vaguely recall something about Aid requiring an attack action but not necessarily an attack roll (although that may have been obiter something else) - but in the middle of combat ANY distraction could be potentially fatal, and being grabbed, even by a friendly and pumped full of a booster drug, or universal energy, or whatever, is almost certain to be somewhat distracting.