Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

[Surgo]

For those in a hurry, there's two distinct parts to this post: "is this balanced/a good idea" and "maybe there's a better resolution mechanic out there".

 

One of my players and I came up with a neat idea for a power: taking the energy from a punch or kick or (physical) blast, and redirecting it to somebody else (preferably an enemy). Fairly straightforward to build, my interpretation was:

Damage Negation (10 physical DCs), Nonpersistent, Instant, Usable On Others (Limited Range; Grantor pays END; +1/4); followed with Blast 10d6, Linked (Damage Negation), Damage Capped by Damage Negated (-1/4), Indirect.

 

Originally, this was written up as a Blast with a linked Damage Negation. Now, Blast is (obviously) not a defensive power, so you can't abort to it. Of course, with the not-so-brilliant idea of turning it around and linking the Blast to the Damage Negation (which also lets us redirect the energy "nowhere", i.e. not using the linked Blast, so we don't have to choose to hit anybody with the power), it becomes abortable. This is just a happy accident though, and I expect to come up with more situations where you'd want to abort the powers. My campaign already has one -- a Dispel Magic in our magic system should be abort'able. Now I can just say "you can use this to abort", but that's a little...unsatisfying, because I think a general case solution is better than a single case one.

 

So, let's say we were to make an advantage called "Abortable" which allowed you to abort to a power that had the advantage. How much should this cost? I'm tempted to say +1/4, based on the Trigger advantage. Essentially, this is designed to be used where Trigger isn't as appropriate (such as where "resetting" doesn't make any sense). There's no reset condition, so that would be more expensive if you just used trigger, but it's not a zero-phase action either (which would make it less expensive, theoretically).

 

This brings me to my other point -- all of this making actions abortable seems like a hack. A hack that, basically, tries to turn HERO's combat resolution, where actions resolve sequentially, into something where they don't necessarily resolve sequentially anymore. So this is a more general question -- has anyone tried to change this resolution mechanic into something that happens simultaneously instead? I tried this a while back with a small space-combat minigame I made for a game (I think it was Dungeons and Dragons) -- basically, everyone rolled their initiative for the round and the person who won went last (and the second-best went second-last, and so on). That way, they could see the actions everyone else made before deciding their own, and then everything done in the round resolved simultaneously. Has anyone tried to change the HERO system in a way like this? Did it work, or is it just not appropriate?

[Ternaugh]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

Aborts in the Hero System generally are for defensive purposes only. That said, I could see a house rule that would allow a Dispel to be used to counter an incoming spell as a defensive action.

 

For the example that you presented, I'd probably still use Trigger, with an automatic reset (see Trigger table, 6e1 349 for details). That would put the cost at around +3/4, and that's about right for this ability.

 

JoeG

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

The OP example is referring to a HTH attack. What if it was Ranged instead. The applicable Power would be Reflection.

 

from 6e1 page 272:

a character cannot use Reflection if he Aborted...

 

The original Block needs to be 'prepared' with a Held Action before the attack can be Reflected.

 

Trigger would be the Advantage to use if you want to make a seemingly 'abortable' or auto-response attack.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

One of my players and I came up with a neat idea for a power: taking the energy from a punch or kick or (physical) blast, and redirecting it to somebody else (preferably an enemy). Fairly straightforward to build, my interpretation was:

Damage Negation (10 physical DCs), Nonpersistent, Instant, Usable On Others (Limited Range; Grantor pays END; +1/4); followed with Blast 10d6, Linked (Damage Negation), Damage Capped by Damage Negated (-1/4), Indirect.

 

Wouldn't this just be Reflection? Granted, you can't Abort to Reflecting an attack, but you can't Abort to this either under the RAW.

 

So' date=' let's say we were to make an advantage called "Abortable" which allowed you to abort to a power that had the advantage. How much should this cost? I'm tempted to say +1/4, based on the Trigger advantage. Essentially, this is designed to be used where Trigger isn't as appropriate (such as where "resetting" doesn't make any sense). There's no reset condition, so that would be more expensive if you just used trigger, but it's not a zero-phase action either (which would make it less expensive, theoretically).[/quote']

 

My own instinct is that it should be +1/2. (Based on the cost similarity to buying the ability a second time, and applying a Limitation on when it can be used.) At any cost, I would certainly say it should be a Stop Sign Advantage.

 

This brings me to my other point -- all of this making actions abortable seems like a hack. A hack that' date=' basically, tries to turn HERO's combat resolution, where actions resolve sequentially, into something where they don't necessarily resolve sequentially anymore. So this is a more general question -- has anyone tried to change this resolution mechanic into something that happens [i']simultaneously[/i] instead? I tried this a while back with a small space-combat minigame I made for a game (I think it was Dungeons and Dragons) -- basically, everyone rolled their initiative for the round and the person who won went last (and the second-best went second-last, and so on). That way, they could see the actions everyone else made before deciding their own, and then everything done in the round resolved simultaneously. Has anyone tried to change the HERO system in a way like this? Did it work, or is it just not appropriate?

 

That sounds similar to how DC Heroes did it, where the slowest characters declared actions first but carried them out last, and the fastest characters declared actions last but carried them out first. That was a good way of giving a sort of "SPD-esque" feel to things in a game system that had no SPD mechanic.

 

I've never tried a simultaneous resolution mechanic with the HERO System, and I'm not sure how you'd go about it, to be honest. Would you eliminate SPD?

[Surgo]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

You guys are right: I totally forgot about Reflection. Go me. That being said...there are a couple differences. I like the idea of reducing the damage if it goes over the Reflection instead of having it fail entirely (if you miss); I also don't like how you need to be in range of the attack to block it. I like the more absolute nature of Damage Negation. But I really, really don't like that clause about not being able to Reflect after an abort -- it kind of defeats the purpose of the power, because this character has far better things to do than sit around waiting for an attack to come (namely, actively attacking targets themselves). Of course, it's just a GM ruling away, but...

 

The OP example is referring to a HTH attack. What if it was Ranged instead. The applicable Power would be Reflection.

 

from 6e1 page 272:

 

 

The original Block needs to be 'prepared' with a Held Action before the attack can be Reflected.

 

Trigger would be the Advantage to use if you want to make a seemingly 'abortable' or auto-response attack.

Yeah, see, I really don't get where this is coming from. Maybe I'm still thinking from a D&D sense too much where holding an action was always a bad idea, but it doesn't necessarily seem like a much better idea here.

 

I've never tried a simultaneous resolution mechanic with the HERO System' date=' and I'm not sure how you'd go about it, to be honest. Would you eliminate SPD?[/quote']

Neither have I :-P On first thought I would not eliminate SPD at all -- higher SPD characters could still take more actions. But this may be a bad idea. It's why I'm trying to see what other people think, heh.

 

Thank you all for the responses on cost. I think I did undercost it, and perhaps a +1/2 would be a better idea. It fits with trigger too -- basic Trigger is +1/4, no action to fire the trigger is +1/4 again, and reset being a half-phase action (which I take to mean the aborted action here) is +0 -- for a total of +1/2.

[Blazar]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

You can abort to turn on your damage reduction. If an offensive power is linked to a defensive power, so that the defensive power can't be used without the use of the offensive power you can still abort to it.

There is an example given for this in the book, but I don't have the book in front of me atm.

[Christopher]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

In addition to Trigger and reflection, how about Damage Shield (special case of Area of Effect)?

 

A 0-phase Trigger can be fired during aborting. And and you can target whoever you want with the triggered attack. Of course an auto-resetting trigger is also very expensive.

 

A Damage Shield can be limited to "only of Blocked".

HSMA 124 "Counterpunch" is HA +4d6 with Area of Effect (Damage Shield), Constant, 1/2 Endurance, HTH-Attack (mandatory; -1/4), Not while Grabbing/Beign grabbed, Requires an Attack Roll.

STR adds to that (but keep in mind how DC's add with the Advantages). Of course that only works on the attacker.

 

Use the Option for HTH-Reflection and just deal with the limitations (you need to hold a phase to use it).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

You guys are right: I totally forgot about Reflection. Go me. That being said...there are a couple differences. I like the idea of reducing the damage if it goes over the Reflection instead of having it fail entirely (if you miss); I also don't like how you need to be in range of the attack to block it. I like the more absolute nature of Damage Negation. But I really, really don't like that clause about not being able to Reflect after an abort -- it kind of defeats the purpose of the power, because this character has far better things to do than sit around waiting for an attack to come (namely, actively attacking targets themselves). Of course, it's just a GM ruling away, but...

 

 

Yeah, see, I really don't get where this is coming from. Maybe I'm still thinking from a D&D sense too much where holding an action was always a bad idea, but it doesn't necessarily seem like a much better idea here.

 

 

[/color]Neither have I :-P On first thought I would not eliminate SPD at all -- higher SPD characters could still take more actions. But this may be a bad idea. It's why I'm trying to see what other people think, heh.

 

Thank you all for the responses on cost. I think I did undercost it, and perhaps a +1/2 would be a better idea. It fits with trigger too -- basic Trigger is +1/4, no action to fire the trigger is +1/4 again, and reset being a half-phase action (which I take to mean the aborted action here) is +0 -- for a total of +1/2.

 

 

I think you are equating a HERO "Phase" to the most common term used by other systems: "Round".

The analogy can work but but I think the better match to the generic "Round" is really the HERO "Turn".

Looked at from this perspective, holding a Phase is not a waste of time but rather a measured encounter response vs. an all out attack.

[Christopher]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

I think you are equating a HERO "Phase" to the most common term used by other systems: "Round".

The analogy can work but but I think the better match to the generic "Round" is really the HERO "Turn".

Looked at from this perspective, holding a Phase is not a waste of time but rather a measured encounter response vs. an all out attack.

Exactly. You are not loosing your phase.

You just take it later in Response to something, similar to how you hold your action in D&D (except that you can still attack at full speed and power even while holding a phase).

[Surgo]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

Exactly. You are not loosing your phase.

You just take it later in Response to something, similar to how you hold your action in D&D (except that you can still attack at full speed and power even while holding a phase).

I see your point, but this is GM-dependent. It says the GM may allow you to just hold your phase generically, but if not you have to specify it in response to something else -- in which case, if said "something else" never happens, you've just your phase and this is an inferior option.

 

If you can hold your phase generically, though, it doesn't seem so bad.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Abortable advantage, leading to a more general question of resolution mechanics

 

I see your point, but this is GM-dependent. It says the GM may allow you to just hold your phase generically, but if not you have to specify it in response to something else -- in which case, if said "something else" never happens, you've just your phase and this is an inferior option.

 

If you can hold your phase generically, though, it doesn't seem so bad.

 

The way I run it, and it seems to work out well, is that you can do either. You can hold for something specific (a specific action or DEX value), or you can just do an "open hold" and wait to see what happens.

 

If you do the specific hold, then if/when that action occurs, you can automatically take your action first (or after; your choice), with no need for a DEX Roll. The rationale is that since you were specifically waiting for something to occur, then when it starts to occur, you're ready to pounce and take advantage of it.

 

If you do the open hold, then your action automatically comes after whatever you're responding to. (Though in some genres, I'll allow a successful Tactics or PER Roll to allow you a chance to dice off.) Since you weren't waiting for this, but instead are (by definition) reacting to it, your action comes after it.