Why is the DCV of a hex 3?

[Lucius]

Perhaps it would help to imagine we're comparing a hex to an immobilized gelatinous cube in the exact shape of a hex. The gelatinous cube would have a DCV of 0 (like any other character or monster in its position) and so should a hex, which is exactly the same size and shape. And neither are moving or capable of moving.

 

Might not be a bad comparison, if you remember that the gelatinous not-cube is invisible. What are the penalties for targeting something you can't perceive with a targeting sense?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Detect Palindromedary, Range, Sense, Targeting....

[Scott Baker]

I think it has to do with moving targets. 

 

Say the target your character wants to hit is moving.  Hitting the particular hex they are in at the time your character makes their AOE attack should be more difficult than hitting a hex adjacent to you.  If your character can match movement with the target and reach an 'adjacent' hex then they can take advantage of the 0 DCV instead of the standard 3 DCV. 

 

HM

 

 

You know I never thought of it this way and think it is likely a case of justification coming after the fact. But it really makes sense and I am going to go with it. Excellent statement Hyper-man and it makes me wonder if perhaps this was what the creators were thinking back in the day.

Interesting, but not likely. The change from a DCV 0 hex to DCV 3 hex came about in 2E. There was no exception for targeting an adjacent hex, they were DCV 3 as well.

[Hyper-Man]

Maybe,

 

But I remember the chasing missiles scene from Superman the Movie.  Superman has to catch up to an ICBM moving at supersonic speeds.  To model this in HERO is difficult at best as according to RAW a character moving at Non-Combat speeds has a 0 OCV (no matter what CSL's are applied, the reduction to 0 is the last step).  The missile has a DCV lower than 3 due to it's size (greater than 1 hex) and Supes' is eventually able to match velocity and toss the missile into space before it detonates.

 

[Scott Baker]

Maybe,

 

But I remember the chasing missiles scene from Superman the Movie.  Superman has to catch up to an ICBM moving at supersonic speeds.  To model this in HERO is difficult at best as according to RAW a character moving at Non-Combat speeds has a 0 OCV (no matter what CSL's are applied, the reduction to 0 is the last step).  The missile has a DCV lower than 3 due to it's size (greater than 1 hex) and Supes' is eventually able to match velocity and toss the missile into space before it detonates.

 

Not sure how this applies to attacking an area. Superman is going after a moving object, minimum DCV 1. So even at OCV 0 he hits on a 10-.

 

(Note: Back in 1E (1981)--Superman came out in 1978--he would not have been able to use non-combat flight to engage the missile, so assuming he could have caught it he would have been at -1 OCV for his Grab maneuver.)

[ghost-angel]

Eh, because it's more interesting to add some chance and see what kind of amusing/dangerous things happen when you miss a chunk of dirt....

 

I honestly don't think there was a reason behind the decision beyond attempting to apply some form of possible game balance and/or challenge to the act of throwing Area Of Effect attacks around.

[Nolgroth]

Depending on your game, 3 DCV can be range from being really important to insignificant. In a high-powered supers game, 3 DCV is like dropping a couple of pennies when you pull out change for a soda. In a low-powered Everyman game, 3 DCV points has a very significant impact. The standard OCV of 6 for my Heroic games would still "feel" the difference between a 3 DCV and 0 DCV hex. So while many games can absorb a 3 DCV change with no significant impact, some will see an impact that drastically changes tactics. It then falls to the GM whether or not they want to use a 0 DCV hex/meter or if the slight loss of "realism" is the lesser of two evils. I see it as another one of those "Toolkitting" options, even if it is not explicitly outlined in the rule books.

[Christopher R Taylor]

As for catching objects, in Superman's case I'd use relative velocities for the modifiers: if both are moving the same speed then its just a matter of getting close enough.  He had a bit of a challenge getting a grip on the thing, but not catching it.

[zslane]

Even if we treat a hex as an "invisible" target, the result would be an attacker dropped to 0 OCV. The DCV of the hex would not be affected. An invisible character who is Entangled has a 0 DCV, while attackers are reduced to 0 OCV when targeting him. And yet when targeting a hex, attackers get their full OCV, which means hexes are not deemed to be invisible at all. I've never heard anyone from Hero Games say that giving a hex a DCV of 3 was some sort of bass-ackwards way of accounting for its lack of "visibile-ness".

 

I understand that the To-Hit formula links OCV and DCV in a way that makes them appear interchangeable, but they are not. They are separate mathematical entities for a reason: certain things modify one but not the other. Invisibility modifies the OCV of the attacker, not the DCV of the target. The velocity and size of a target modifies its DCV, not the OCV of an attacker. A quick study of the combat modifiers chart(s) might help here...

[Matt Holck]

a projectile needs an object to collide with on a timed system for detonation

 

a hex space can be in mid air

 

often the wall and floor are easy targets so zero makes sense sometimes

[Lucius]

I understand that the To-Hit formula links OCV and DCV in a way that makes them appear interchangeable, but they are not. They are separate mathematical entities for a reason: certain things modify one but not the other. Invisibility modifies the OCV of the attacker, not the DCV of the target. The velocity and size of a target modifies its DCV, not the OCV of an attacker. A quick study of the combat modifiers chart(s) might help here...

*shrug* If you're ever in a game I'm running and want to use an Area Effect attack, I'll grant you the hex has DCV 0 and you can have OCV 0.

 

If you're running the game, we do things your way. Your way isn't wrong. I just hoped you might acknowledge that it's possible for reasonable people to disagree with it and not be wrong either.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys DCV, Usable on Other, defined as usable on the hexes the palindromedary occupies

[Lucius]

a projectile needs an object to collide with on a timed system for detonation

 

a hex space can be in mid air

 

often the wall and floor are easy targets so zero makes sense sometimes

I was under the impression that if you were targeting a wall, it WAS DCV 0.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary targets the gelatinous hexagonal column

[Matt Holck]

It would be

 

arguably -2 DCV if the wall fills the hex

[zslane]

*shrug* If you're ever in a game I'm running and want to use an Area Effect attack, I'll grant you the hex has DCV 0 and you can have OCV 0.

That might actually be an interesting variant to try. I wouldn't discount it without trying it first (over the course of many sessions).

 

In the same vein, one might reasonably argue that while hexes, as spacial referents, are invisible, their volume of space isn't if only because there are usually things in the environment (like the ground and objects on the ground in the hex) that serve to provide locus data for targeting. A hex with such referential queues could be said to be "visible", or at least have the equivalent to Invisibility's bright fringe effect. Hexes up in the air, in outer space, or deep underwater--basically any hex lacking any kind of locus referents--could easily justify OCV penalties (while the hex itself remains at DCV 0). This variant could also give added value to Spatial Awareness.

 

I'd still love to see a quote from the game's designer(s) stating that giving a hex a DCV of 3 was their way of avoiding the above "complexity". Their insights from playtesting various alternatives could be illuminating.

[ghost-angel]

Good luck, that decision was made several versions and several lead designers/writers ago.

[Matt Holck]

adjacent hexes don't need targeting at all

 

area of effect  ignores the target's dcv

that is a much larger impact then whether you'll miss the hex

[zslane]

Good luck, that decision was made several versions and several lead designers/writers ago.

Oh, I don't expect the official rules to change. As you've pointed out, that decision was established too long ago; it is effectively set in stone at this point. I am nevertheless interested in knowing the official rationale behind that decision (as opposed to speculation about it), but I don't think that will ever be forthcoming.

 

As a refinement of Lucius' proposal, I was thinking of the following experimental (house) rule:

 

SPoR (static points of reference): A hex is said to have SPoR if there are static objects (rocks, trees, cars, lamp posts, buildings, etc.) in it that serve as points of reference for targeting that hex.

 

Hitting a Hex: Hexes have a DCV of 0. Attackers get their normal OCV against their own hex and any of the six adjacent hexes. Attackers get half their normal OCV against hexes further away that have SPoR, and and an OCV of 0 against those without SPoR. Range mods against OCV additionally apply, as usual. Characters with Spatial Awareness or other means of pinpointing a hex's position in 3-space suffer no OCV penalties just for targeting a hex.

[Greywind]

It might be forthcoming if you can dig up the designer(s) that made that decision. Good luck on that.

[ghost-angel]

Oh, I don't expect the official rules to change. As you've pointed out, that decision was established too long ago; it is effectively set in stone at this point. I am nevertheless interested in knowing the official rationale behind that decision (as opposed to speculation about it), but I don't think that will ever be forthcoming.

No, I meant good luck on getting an answer.

 

Because the people who made the decision did so decades ago.

 

You will probably never get an "official rational" behind the decision. Even if you do track down the people who made it, they may not answer you or probably forgot exactly why it was done.

[zslane]

No doubt. I was hoping maybe someone knew of an old interview or bbs/usenet/forum post they could dig up a quote from (or remembered anecdotally). I knew it was a long shot, but I figured it didn't hurt to ask.

[Hugh Neilson]

Zslane: first, calm down.

 

Second, remember that the hex is invisible.

 

edit: That is to say, the hex is NOT a "target." It's not like an immobile person lying on the ground. It's not a thing you can perceive and point to. It's a vague "place over there" abstraction.

 

I think it makes perfect sense that a hex at a distance has a DCV higher than that of an unmoving person at the same distance. Maybe it makes less sense if you have Absolute Range Sense or Spatial Awareness, but otherwise you're talking about something you can't actually perceive.

 

Ignoring the "invisibility" aspect, the hex is, as you say, not a "target".  I can shoot at a person and know that, if my Bolt of Energy passes through the point where he is standing, it will hit him.  If I overshoot by 100 meters, it doesn't matter - he's right there to stop the blast.  The hex?  If I overshoot, I miss.  The hex is not going to leap up and catch my grenade - it will land further away and blow up there.

 

One  might suggest the hex is "prone".  Its zero DCV is halved, to zero, but it has "cover" from all those other hexes.  It has 51% to 74% cover, which would usually be a -3 OCV for the attacker, but for simplicity we just set the DCV of the hex at 3 and call it a day.

 

To me, the impact on actual game play does not justify, or even come close to justifying, the added complexity of your suggested approach.  If it works for you, great, but "the hex is 3 DCV" works fine for me.  From the responses, it apparently works fine for many others as well.

 

Finally, I like Lucius' idea that some enhanced sensory abilities could make the hex easier to target, but that's a GM call.  I could also see "+3 OCV, only to hit a non-adjacent hex" being purchased by the character (just like a guy with enough life support to sit in the heart of star still needs to buy defenses against a flamethrower).

[Lucius]

Ignoring the "invisibility" aspect, the hex is, as you say, not a "target".  I can shoot at a person and know that, if my Bolt of Energy passes through the point where he is standing, it will hit him.  If I overshoot by 100 meters, it doesn't matter - he's right there to stop the blast.  The hex?  If I overshoot, I miss.  The hex is not going to leap up and catch my grenade - it will land further away and blow up there.

 

One  might suggest the hex is "prone".  Its zero DCV is halved, to zero, but it has "cover" from all those other hexes.  It has 51% to 74% cover, which would usually be a -3 OCV for the attacker, but for simplicity we just set the DCV of the hex at 3 and call it a day.

 

Thanks, this comes closer to what I was trying to say. It's not just that you can't see the hex, it's that the reason you can't see it is that it's not really there; it's an abstraction, a set of coordinates, not anything concrete.

 

To me, the impact on actual game play does not justify, or even come close to justifying, the added complexity of your suggested approach.  If it works for you, great, but "the hex is 3 DCV" works fine for me.  From the responses, it apparently works fine for many others as well.

 

Finally, I like Lucius' idea that some enhanced sensory abilities could make the hex easier to target, but that's a GM call.  I could also see "+3 OCV, only to hit a non-adjacent hex" being purchased by the character (just like a guy with enough life support to sit in the heart of star still needs to buy defenses against a flamethrower).

While I can see the sense, so to speak, of letting some abilities enable better targeting of hexes (how about Lightning Calculator with the Targeting Adder?) and for that matter we have a precedent of sorts for it (The Forward Observer Skill) and while I can definitely see the sense of saying that an actual target (tree etc.) standing in it should make a hex easier to hit, I think you might be right the first time - the combat system doesn't need the added complexity.

 

At least, for most groups. I'm sure there are some who would prefer the added detail and consider the default system to be too simplified.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Putting a palindromedary in a hex

[zslane]

The hex?  If I overshoot, I miss.

Overshooting is handled with its own mechanic and the fact that you can miss and overshoot isn't the cause of DCV. It is the cause of the miss-and-roll-for-drift mechanic.

 

Its zero DCV is halved, to zero, but it has "cover" from all those other hexes.

Your point about concealment is a reasonable one, except that concealment lowers OCV, it doesn't increase the target's DCV. I can see the logic behind lowering an attacker's OCV if a target hex is obscured by real cover (you know, objects that are in the way). Empty intervening hexes do not constitute cover by any reasonable interpretation of the concept.

 

To me, the impact on actual game play does not justify, or even come close to justifying, the added complexity of your suggested approach.

Fair enough. But I think you overestimate the complexity of my approach. It takes less text to describe than the standard rules for hitting invisible targets (or attacking while blind), and in practice would involve nothing more than deciding if the attacker's OCV is normal, halved, or 0 (based on a trivial observational assessment that would take a fraction of a second to perform).

[zslane]

...it's an abstraction, a set of coordinates, not anything concrete.

A hex is not merely a 0-dimensional point in space, a "set of coordinates" as you put it. A hex is a 3-dimensional volume of ~7 meters-cubed. It is not a coordinate in 3-space, it is centered on one. And when you hit a hex, the simplifying assumption is that you could have landed your attack anywhere within that volume and you're deemed to have hit its center point. A hex has real boundaries; it encloses real space which is not merely "an abstraction," but a vital tool for measuring distances and sizes in the Hero System.

[zslane]

Teleportation also establishes the fact that hexes (also colloquially referred to as "locations"), for all their "nothingness", can be targeted without making any kind of roll (PER, attack, or otherwise) with any regular Targeting Sense, like normal sight. That dispels the notion that hexes are pure abstractions that don't really exist as anything and are intrinsically difficult to "geo-locate" with ordinary senses. Therefore, that whole line of reasoning can't be used as the rationale for hexes having a positive DCV.

[Greywind]

Teleportation isn't an attack power.