Hero-D&D system merge?

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

I have a question: Let's say that the PC is engaged with an Orc, Lala. Zugzug runs by them, provoking an attack of opportunity. If the PC takes a swing at Zugzug, does that provoke an attack of opportunity from Lala?

[Greywind]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

No. Attacking does not provoke. Movement provokes. Which was why there were feats that allowed a 5' move that didn't provoke.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Sounds like a silly rule. You shouldn't be rewarded for taking your focus off of your enemy.

[Istaran]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

I have a question: Let's say that the PC is engaged with an Orc' date=' Lala. Zugzug runs by them, provoking an attack of opportunity. If the PC takes a swing at Zugzug, does that provoke an attack of opportunity from Lala?[/quote']

 

In D&D 3.5: no. Ranged attacks and casting spells provoked, but melee attacks (such as attacks of opportunity) did not.

 

In D&D 4e: Generally no. Ranged attacks and area attacks provoked, but melee and close attacks did not. However, some characters such as a PC Fighter or some types of enemies can mark the enemy they are engaging, and get free swings if that enemy attacks anyone else, including making an OA.

In other words, a typical combatant can exploit the opening from leveling a bow, aiming a fireball, or just running past. But certain characters that specialize in it can exploit the opening from even a melee attack or attempting to move carefully.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Here I cannot. An AoO is free. You do not sacrifice another action to be permitted to take an AoO, should the opportunity arise. Neither can you choose to forego the ability to take an AoO and do something else instead (say, get an extra attack against the opponent you're fighting). A Held Action requires you give up another action you could have taken, so it is not comparable to the AoO mechanic.

 

We can argue whether that's a flaw or a feature, but the comparison fails, IMO, simply because the AoO is a freebie and a held action is not.

 

Quoting myself - I'll go blind and crazy (crazier?) no doubt...

 

Someone on a D&D/Pathfinder board had a relevant comment (with no Hero discussion involved). A D&D character could delay his own action (or ready his action to do one of these) and follow an opponent trying to back away or pass through his threatened area, or move to threaten the area. Depending on the use of his own action, he may get an attack from the readied/delayed action plus an AoO. Another difference between the AoO mechanic and the Delay or Ready in Hero.

[Christopher]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Quoting myself - I'll go blind and crazy (crazier?) no doubt...

 

Someone on a D&D/Pathfinder board had a relevant comment (with no Hero discussion involved). A D&D character could delay his own action (or ready his action to do one of these) and follow an opponent trying to back away or pass through his threatened area, or move to threaten the area. Depending on the use of his own action, he may get an attack from the readied/delayed action plus an AoO. Another difference between the AoO mechanic and the Delay or Ready in Hero.

So D&D has a rules exploit in the Attack/Task resolution system? Well, put it to the other 30 we already found.

 

Seriously, exploits in that system are simply too commom place to even be noted. We should be happy that we have HERO's SPD system and don't have to deal with that anymore.

 

D&D Mutli-BaB + AoO = trying to put the flexibility of HERO combat into way to small mechanical part.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Quoting myself - I'll go blind and crazy (crazier?) no doubt...

 

Someone on a D&D/Pathfinder board had a relevant comment (with no Hero discussion involved). A D&D character could delay his own action (or ready his action to do one of these) and follow an opponent trying to back away or pass through his threatened area, or move to threaten the area. Depending on the use of his own action, he may get an attack from the readied/delayed action plus an AoO. Another difference between the AoO mechanic and the Delay or Ready in Hero.

 

So D&D has a rules exploit in the Attack/Task resolution system? Well' date=' put it to the other 30 we already found.[/quote']

 

That's not an "exploit". It's simply "holding your action", then attacking as a reaction. Just like it is suggested we do in Hero to simulate an "attack of opportunity". In my view, holding an action is a very different mechanic. It requires an action. Attack of opportunity do not. It does not, however, require the opponent take a risky action to allow an opening - you can always use a held action to attack.

 

Some might suggest the Hero ability to delay an action to attack at, say, DEX 1 on phase 5, then Abort to do something else (or take an ordinary action at your DEX) on phase 6 is an exploit in the system. That doesn't happen in d20 as delaying changes your place in the action order for the remainder of the combat. d20 also allows you to attack, then move, which the Hero rules forbid, and which has been highlighted in a few venues as a Hero oddity.

 

[ASIDE]I liked the old Champions-related comics where a reformed villain described making his RPG character in real life, only to be defeated by the hero when he attacked, then moved, a possibility the villain never considered since it wasn't possible in the game).[/ASIDE]

 

Attacks of opportunity are a different mechanic. That doesn't make them "good" or "bad", just a different mechanic that may fit well with some play styles and gamer preferences, and poorly with others. Just like the Speed Chart is a mechanic enjoyed by many Hero gamers, while some mitigate it (eg. "everyone is SPD 4") or dislike it enough that they don't wish to play Hero System games. Not "good" or "bad", but a matter of preference.

[Portland Barbie]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

I've been reading through the posts in this thread, and, like many players, my first rpg was D&D (2nd Ed). I've been running it in it's many incarnations for the last 20 some years, and noticed one thing about the OP's posts.

 

Yeah, 3.x/PF has many ways it could be abused, and many of them are a direct result of feats/spell/prestige class combinations . . . which when toolkitted, and broken down/converted to HERO, are nothing more than the GM not placing limitations on the Powers, Perks, and Maxima for his FH game.

 

These forums are full of threads dealing with issues similar to what the OP has stated he's having with his players, and every last one of them states to implement some blanket restrictions to the rules, in one form ore another. The main message behind those posts is basically "just because the rules allow it, doesn't mean you have to."

 

I think a lot of people out there seem to forget that even less open systems sometimes need to be restricted as well. I know personally that I've had to restrict many feats/spells/prestige classes in mt 3.x games simply because I realized how they could be used to break the game. If the OP, or anyone else is having an issue with the builds of the characters in their game, they need to pull the reigns in some on what they're allowing, no matter what system they are using.

 

We are gamers, and as such we tend to look at rules in a way that allows us to break, twist, or manipulate them to our advantage, and any GM worthy of the name knows his system well enough (or is willing to admit that he made a mistake) to rework/restrict things to make the game enjoyable for all those involved.

 

Yes this may cause some players to leave the group, but I've found that this is usually a blessing, as it tends to be one or two players who try to "op" their character, which causes others to get bored, and begin to do the same thing.

 

Being in a small town, and there not being anyone else who games could be a good thing as well. Some people have mentioned "forcing" (or politely asking them to try out) the HERO system on a group, and if there's no one else who plays, they don't really have a choice, but to an extent, the same goes for restricting options in the system already in use.

 

If they're not interested in the HERO system, it's not fair to force it upon them, and you run the risk of having players who don't get as involved in the game as they could. You may just need to restrict the options they have in the original system to bring it to a more manageable level. And I've found that starting off by saying "I'm not having fun running the game anymore" lends a lot of weight to what you have to say next, especially if there's no one else who's willing to run a game . . .

[lordredraven]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

As a sidenote to this conversation, has anyone considered simplifying the extra damage classes gain by str to be simply +1 killing for every 5. No escalation of effects. So for example 15 adds +3 to killing instead of an extra die. I know it flattens out the effect of extra str, but it simplifies things. I seem to remember it as an optional rule or suggestion in one of the 6e books, but for the life of me i can't find it at the moment.

[psyber624]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

I never understood where AoO concept came from. Basically your saying, if im fighting a certain opponent, i can attack x times per time segment (round, turn, phase, second, whatever). But if people move past me, i can SUDDENLY attack faster, because they are moving past me, in fact, i can (in may such systems) attack a near infinite number of times as people continue to move by me before i can attack the guy i am ACTUALLY fighting again..... it just seems really odd and counter intuitive to me. I get wanting to have something like the Tank class of character, but every MMO (as an example, you can use other systems as well) builds in a taunt system for that. If your playing hero and you REALLY want a Tank, i would just build it using PRE attacks (or if your really REALLY serious about being the guy attacked, a Limited Mind Control power). You can also buy some form of always on, AOE attack power so that you are surrounded by flames or the like, and anyone moving through there has to take damage if your just wanting to play a wall.... but getting free attacks, faster than you can normally attack, just because someone moves past you seems really weird to me and always has.

 

Now, I have played several games and game systems where this is the case, and while playing those systems i would use those abilities just like everyone else of course. After all, its just a game , but I never thought they made any kind of sense.

 

And Istaran, not calling you out, but basically what I'm understanding you to say, is that you don't want a GM to make NPC's make decisions poorly, so you should get bonus attack powers for free because you chose a defensive build? If you CHOOSE to play an overly defensive character, why should that suddenly force people to attack you instead? Your basically wanting to get extra attack powers so that if they choose to act sensibly they will suffer for it, thus making it less sensible to do so. Yes, it does make highly defensive builds somewhat less powerful than normal, but then you CHOOSE to be less powerful to be really defensive. If you want your character to be able to defend other players there are many many ways to do that in HERO, Barriers, defenses bought useable by others, the Mind Control thing i mentioned earlier, or even your mention of buying powers with the trigger effect stating the trigger is when people move by you. And yeah, in HERO you should have to pay for these extra attack powers. They dont get tacked on to defensive powers for free.

 

And my last point, if your building a glass cannon, you get alot of power for that, but with the understanding that you are fragile, honestly youd better have SOME way to keep yourself out of reach of melee types (which is the only type that will have to worry about AoO's anyway) or your not going to be shooting for long.....

[gojira]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

I never understood where AoO concept came from. Basically your saying' date=' if im fighting a certain opponent, i can attack x times per time segment (round, turn, phase, second, whatever). But if people move past me, i can SUDDENLY attack faster, because they are moving past me,[/quote']

 

 

I can. In fact it's been in the rules since first edition (the only edition of ADnD, sorry, "DnD", I've played). In first edition, if you tried to flee an encounter, your opponent got a free swing at you. It's based on the idea that you're no longer defending, you're instead focused on moving away, that is running away rather than fighting. It's reasonable imo, given that the threat of offense, including feints, is a part of defense, and if you're just making tracks you can't engage in that activity any more.

 

That's a distinct idea from say just moving backwards while remaining engaged with an opponent. One is still fighting, the other is high-tailing it.

 

Not that I agree with any sort of AoO rule. (Now that I write that, I can see issues. AoO's seems to prevent movement altogether, and disallow "moving backwards while remaining engaged with a foe," something I personally see as valid). And the concept of "an infinite number of free attacks" is obviously stupid. But still I think the rule does have its foundation in ADnD... sorry, DnD, history.

[psyber624]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

yes, i agree that "breakaway attacks" are a valid concept, if you stop fighting and try to run away having a character get a SINGLE attack against a SINGLE opponent that he was already fully engaged with makes a certain amount of sense, if you stop defending its a lot faster and easier to hit you after all, its the "Zone of Control" rules that let players get ridiculous numbers of attacks that I have issues with.

 

and if your not in the process of fighting someone at the moment, holding your action to attack anyone who comes near you is perfectly fine, IMO. its some of the other nonsense that really has me scratching my head.

 

Yes there comes a point where you have to divert from logical, realistic concepts to game concepts, but I dont really see it as fair or balanced that any movement at all by one player suddenly allows another player free atacks... (adding to my earlier comments, not directed at gojira, who basically said the same thing lol)

 

(and to note, I wasn't refering to the origins, i was refering to the logic or game function that it was intending to emulate. Most rules (not all by any means) are the result of the writers trying to simulate something about how they think combat works in a logical or stylistic sense. I never understood what would be the logical or game balance or stylistic impetus for creating a rule anything similar to the AoO discussed earlier.)

[Tasha]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

I can. In fact it's been in the rules since first edition (the only edition of ADnD' date=' sorry, "DnD", I've played). In first edition, if you tried to flee an encounter, your opponent got a free swing at you. It's based on the idea that you're no longer defending, you're instead focused on moving away, that is [i']running away[/i] rather than fighting. It's reasonable imo, given that the threat of offense, including feints, is a part of defense, and if you're just making tracks you can't engage in that activity any more.

 

That's a distinct idea from say just moving backwards while remaining engaged with an opponent. One is still fighting, the other is high-tailing it.

 

Not that I agree with any sort of AoO rule. (Now that I write that, I can see issues. AoO's seems to prevent movement altogether, and disallow "moving backwards while remaining engaged with a foe," something I personally see as valid). And the concept of "an infinite number of free attacks" is obviously stupid. But still I think the rule does have its foundation in ADnD... sorry, DnD, history.

 

You only get ONE AoO unless you have a feat.

 

You can also 5' adjust during your action. So you can usually adjust then Spell cast or shoot your bow. Also there are defensive feats that give extra AC for moving through protected squares or when using a ranged weapon.

[Markdoc]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

The AoO mechanism can be bit clunky at times, and it's easily exploitable, but the rationale was good. There were two major design concepts behind it. The first was to make spellcasting in combat a bad idea: the designers wanted casters to be vulnerable in melee. The second concept was to decrease freedom of movement. This made the game more tactical, and also prevented people simply zipping around defenders and whacking the squishies in the back line.

 

It's not a perfect mechanism*, but it does do those things to some extent. It doesn't do to think too hard about "number of blows" - the whole combat mechanism can be best thought of a series of exchanges of blows, with each attacker being able to find one or more openings per round, where they can get a good blow in. The AoO simply reflects the fraction of a second when you see a sudden opening.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

*indeed, my character is built to exploit this design paradigm: in every fight, it's my job to swiftly bypass the defenders and kill the spellcasters at the back, something he's very efficient at

[Burrito Boy]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

The time that AoO's consume is more in the realm of the ridiculous extremes that players to while moving their PC's to avoid taking one AoO. Which is kind of immersion breaking to me. It's one metagame thing that filters into the minds of even the most RP oriented players. It doesn't really take much more time' date=' it's just annoying.[/quote']

 

Been there, done that.

 

Rules Lawyer: If you move there, you'll provoke an attack of opportunity.

Me: I don't care.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Converting DnD to Hero, one step at a time.

 

1. Flip the d20 roll, so low is good.

2. Change the d20 to 3d6 'same average, guys. Oh, look, a distraction!'

3. Introduce some general resistances for characters as resistances work like hero defences.

4. Rationalise damage dice by converting them all to a certain number of d6.

5. Hand the players characters with superpowers.

 

BOOM!

 

Alternatively just play Hero with them and tell them it is DnD Next.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Hmmm...custom dust covers for 6e that read "TOP SECRET D&D NEXT PLAYTEST V2.0"

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Hmmm...custom dust covers for 6e that read "TOP SECRET D&D NEXT PLAYTEST V2.0"

 

It's just crazy enough to work...

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Converting DnD to Hero, one step at a time.

 

1. Flip the d20 roll, so low is good.

2. Change the d20 to 3d6 'same average, guys. Oh, look, a distraction!'

3. Introduce some general resistances for characters as resistances work like hero defences.

4. Rationalise damage dice by converting them all to a certain number of d6.

5. Hand the players characters with superpowers.

 

BOOM!

 

Alternatively just play Hero with them and tell them it is DnD Next.

 

"Hey, let's use some of these house rules from Unearthed Arcana!"

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

"No, you can't look at the rule book..."

[Lucius]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Converting DnD to Hero, one step at a time.

 

 

.....

 

5. Hand the players characters with superpowers.

 

 

Why?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Let's cross a palindromedary, an owlbear, and a black pudding!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

They are DnD players. They'll love superpowers. I mean, a wizard with Shield, Fly and Fireball is practically a superhero already!

[Nolgroth]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

As a sidenote to this conversation' date=' has anyone considered simplifying the extra damage classes gain by str to be simply +1 killing for every 5. No escalation of effects. So for example 15 adds +3 to killing instead of an extra die. I know it flattens out the effect of extra str, but it simplifies things. I seem to remember it as an optional rule or suggestion in one of the 6e books, but for the life of me i can't find it at the moment.[/quote']Personally, I would not have a problem with that. It's like Standard Effect for extra strength. But then, I am all about the simplification of Hero. I want all the crunchy goodness behind the screen, but a simple "interface" for the players in front of it.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

Maybe i'm the crazy one here, but i'd rather be up front about the game system being used when it concerns my players.

[Old Man]

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

 

That's crazy talk! Next you'll be wanting to allow them to affect in game events!