Jump to content

Attack powers that don't require an attack roll.


knasser2

Recommended Posts

Is this possible? I'm creating spells for my wizard class and I have all of them requiring a Spellcasting skill roll. I'm baking it into the magic system for any type of spell from Flight to Magic Missile. However, for attack spells this then leads to a player having to make two consequtive rolls just to hit someone. Which effectively quarters their chance. So for example, I want a minor spell like Magic Missile that does damage roughly equivalent to being hit by an arrow. All well and good except the wizard has half the chance of actually doing that damage than the archer because of the additional 11/- (at current levels) Skill roll. Plus the Wizard will probably have a lower OCV as well.

 

Is there a "No Attack Roll Required" Advantage or way of doing this? It would only be a modest cost increase to add a large area of effect (with Selective even!) and mean that for practical purposes there was no attack roll required. So the effect desired is actually achievable in the system but only by a very overkill method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I like to handle this is with an alternate to ACV: No Normal Evasion.  It allows the character a different way to avoid being hit (such a characteristics roll or "resistance" of having x kind of defense, negating its hit).  The book suggests using area effect 2m radius, which is a DCV of 3, but I don't think that simulates what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I like to handle this is with an alternate to ACV: No Normal Evasion.  It allows the character a different way to avoid being hit (such a characteristics roll or "resistance" of having x kind of defense, negating its hit).  The book suggests using area effect 2m radius, which is a DCV of 3, but I don't think that simulates what you want.

 

I could work with a resistance roll of some kind since that would get me away from the player having to feel like a warrior only needs to roll to hit once and they have to manage it twice. It would be even better if I could make it work somehow like a partial effect even if the saving throw were passed. E.g. Save for Half Damage or similar.

 

Can you clarify what you mean by alternate to ACV? "No Normal Evasion" doesn't appear in 6E1 as a phrase so this is a custom power you made? And looking up ACV I presume that is the Alternate Combate Value advantage. But the description for that talks about swapping between OMCV / DMCV and OCV / DCV, rather than other attributes. Attack Versus Alternate Defence seems closer but I'm still unclear on what I would do or how much it would cost. Can you do a really simple power the way you would do it that uses a skill roll but doesn't roll to hit? Would help me understand a lot how you're costing this.

 

Really appreciate the reply - am stuck on this one. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules as written, there is no way to circumvent the Attack Roll in the Hero System.  The system only has a couple of fairly minor absolutes (most in Life Support) and otherwise shies away from them. 

 

One of the common ways to get close to this effect is Area Effect: Accurate (Champions Complete 97, top of 2nd column; I don't have Fantasy Hero Complete but I'm guessing it has the same entry under Area of Effect).  Sure, an attacker might miss the 3 DCV but characters in most campaigns should be hitting a DCV 3 90% of the time or more (only requires an OCV of 6+).  As a GM, you could rule that AE: Accurate is close enough to waive the to hit roll, so the only way to avoid the hit is to Dive For Cover out of the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah what I did was come up with a house rule based off of Alternate Combat Value:

 

+¼ to make the attack always hit unless the target does something reasonably common (like make a characteristic roll or has a common defense such as power defense)

+½ to make the attack always hit unless the target does something somewhat uncommon (like make a characteristic roll at -1/10 active points of the power or has a common defense over a certain minimum level such as 10 or an uncommon defense like resistant mental defense or "takes no stun" automaton power)

 

That was the basic structure.  All the same rules apply: line of sight, etc, it doesnt make an attack indirect, just negates the to hit roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here's some more HERO System theory and history.  

 

From the earliest editions of the game, when it was Champions, there were two Advantages:  No Normal Defense (NND) and Based On ECV.  (ECV was Ego Combat Value; with 6th edition it was renamed Mental Combat Value, as it was no longer based on a character's Ego score.)   NND would eliminate the defense that a Power would act against; in exchange the player was required to name a relatively common Power or condition that would prevent the damage entirely.  Based On ECV would more or less turn the Power into a Mental Power; not quite, but that was the way to start.  Later but still a long time ago came an Advantage called Attack Versus Limited Defense, which would change the defense against which an Attack Power acted, usually to one that was more rare.  

 

Over time, the Advantages changed some, in restrictions, usage, and cost.  The common thread was that changing the defense or method of targeting made the attack do Stun Only; one of the changes that happened over the years was an additional +1 Advantage to make it again do Body damage.  

 

NND and AVLD have been combined into one Advantage, Attack Versus Alternate Defense; the cost depends on the cost disparity between the old defense and the new.  No Normal Defense is kept around as a shorthand for an AVAD attack that is completely stopped by the presence of one type of defense.  

 

Based On ECV has also changed.  You could sometimes find a custom Limitation to the effect that a Mental Power would now be targeted against DCV rather than ECV; those have been combined into Alternate Combat Value.  The common thread is still that the attack does Stun Only, unless you buy the additional +1 Does BODY Advantage.  

 

What Christopher Taylor did was take the same idea behind AVLD to NND progression, and applied it to the targeting instead of the defenses.  I'm not going to reiterate his full description above, but he basically changed the to-hit roll into an automatic hit, with restrictions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based On ECV has also changed.  You could sometimes find a custom Limitation to the effect that a Mental Power would now be targeted against DCV rather than ECV; those have been combined into Alternate Combat Value.  The common thread is still that the attack does Stun Only, unless you buy the additional +1 Does BODY Advantage.

I'm sorry, I am not finding it in the book. Are you sure that the Alternate Combat Value Advantage has the effect of making an attack STUN only?

 

It doesn't seem to say so, and Hero Designer doesn't work that way either.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

No Normal Palindromedary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Cannot Miss" is not a Hero Trope, which makes this kind of "autohit attack" challenging.

 

Combining the +1/2 advantage "area of effect: accurate" to reduce target DCV to 3 with "no range modifiers" (+1/2) so there is no range modifier right out to the 10m x Active Points maximum range means roll to hit DCV 3 for any target within range. Tack on, say, 5 2 point skill levels (+5 OCV with this attack), and a character with a 3 OCV hits on a 16- (1.9% miss chance). Since most characters have better than OCV 3, that would be good enough for me to handwave this to always hit.

 

So, if that's equivalent to a Medium Bow, that would be a 1d6+1 RKA (20 Points), AoE Accurate (+1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2) = 40 Active Points, + 5 OCV Levels (10 AP) = 50 AP total, Requires a Magic Skill Roll (-1/10 AP; -1/2), bunch of other limitations for spells. Definitely not cheap, but an auto hit at any range is pretty sweet.

 

Or maybe you buy 1 pip RKA (5 points), AoE Accurate (+1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2), Attack versus Alternate Defenses (all or nothing - specific charms and magical defenses protect the target; +1), Does BOD (+1) for 20 AP + 5 OCV levels (10 AP), which is a base of 30, before limitations.

 

This is a lot closer to the classic D&D Magic Missile - nuisance damage that never misses and is not reduced by normal defenses. As the character becomes more skilled, make it 1 pip RKA (5 points), AoE Accurate (+1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2), Attack versus Alternate Defenses (all or nothing - specific charms and magical defenses protect the target; +1), Does BOD (+1), Autofire (3 shots; +1 1/4) for 26 AP + 10 OCV levels (20 AP) which is a base of 46 points. Now he fires three of them and always hits. He can buy up the OCV levels and Autofire as he gains more skill to have even more missiles.

 

Imagine that Archmage with 1 pip RKA (5 points), AoE Accurate (+1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2), Attack versus Alternate Defenses (all or nothing - specific charms and magical defenses protect the target; +1), Does BOD (+1), Autofire (10 shots; +1 3/4) for 29 AP + 25 OCV levels (50 AP) which is a base of 79 points - he hits with 10 of the little missiles! Mind you, he's shelling out a lot of END, so he'd best have some END-enhancing spells to go along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that hitting automatically is worth +1 advantage, and you still can miss anyway.  Sure you can handwave it away and say "well chances are you'll hit so you get it" but that's not according to Hoyle, and if you're going to bend the rules that way, why not come up with a real house rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I am not finding it in the book. Are you sure that the Alternate Combat Value Advantage has the effect of making an attack STUN only?

 

It doesn't seem to say so, and Hero Designer doesn't work that way either.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

No Normal Palindromedary

 

 

As far as I know, ACV does not. Only AVAD makes attacks Stun Only.

 

 

Yeah I thought it did when I did my first iteration of No Normal Evasion, too.  But it doesn't; that was an assumption from back when Based on ECV turned your attack stun only by default.

 

Ah, that's what I get for not checking the book before I post.  :)  You all are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that hitting automatically is worth +1 advantage, and you still can miss anyway.  Sure you can handwave it away and say "well chances are you'll hit so you get it" but that's not according to Hoyle, and if you're going to bend the rules that way, why not come up with a real house rule?

The fellow who pays a lot of points for Dodge and DCV may disagree with you on that value. What will you charge him for an ability that guarantees he cannot be hit? How will you explain the two abilities when the character who never misses takes aim at the one who cannot be hit?

 

As for "let's just make a house rule", I prefer to minimize the number of other system interactions that may crop up, so having existing rules and rulings helps in that regard.

 

How does your Autohit interact with Block or Missile Deflection? AoE circumvents both.

 

Getting to +1 allows me to hit anyone within APx10 meters, which seems like a pretty sweet deal if he has to take range penalties to fire back. Or substitute Line of Sight range, if you prefer.

 

So can I buy "Autohits unless target Dives for Cover" for +1/4? Don't have to hit the hex, no range modifiers and cheaper than (or same price, if you use the higher costed one) as AoE Accurate. And still not guaranteed as the opponent can do something to avoid it.

 

If I also make it AVAD, can I use the same defense so anyone I miss would have been immune to it anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does your Autohit interact with Block or Missile Deflection? AoE circumvents both.

 

Good question, can you block an autohit?  I'd say yes, since its not about being hit, its about deflecting the attack.  There used to be a "cannot be deflected" advantage in the rules, not sure if its around any more.  You'd have to add that in to avoid deflection/block, that seems like a good rule.

 

So can I buy "Autohits unless target Dives for Cover" for +1/4?

 

That would probably be a +½, since there are modifiers to the dive for cover roll, rather than just a straight DEX roll.  What do you think?

 

If I also make it AVAD, can I use the same defense so anyone I miss would have been immune to it anyway? 

 

I would say no, as a GM, wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question, can you block an autohit?  I'd say yes, since its not about being hit, its about deflecting the attack.  There used to be a "cannot be deflected" advantage in the rules, not sure if its around any more.  You'd have to add that in to avoid deflection/block, that seems like a good rule.

You can't block/deflect most AoE's, so advantage goes to AoE Accurate.

 

 

That would probably be a +½, since there are modifiers to the dive for cover roll, rather than just a straight DEX roll.  What do you think?

I think I would try to define a stat roll that will typically be worse than an average DEX roll at -1, but at least the target won't end up prone. But I think using AoE Accurate avoids the need to make that determination.

 

I would say no, as a GM, wouldn't you?

I'm troubled since logically the attack being stopped by not hitting, or not hurting, has the same result. At present, I can avoid the problem by making the attacker build the Autohit under the current rules, rather than applying an NND type model.

 

Is your +1/4 or +1/2 a guaranteed hit on anyone in range (effectively No Range Modifier)? Can I choose to exchange my range for LoS, given both LoS and NRM are +1/2 advantages? What would your charge me to autohit with no "reasonably common defense" in LoS or NRM range? Is that +1 advantage really all that far off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My starting point is "how would I build it by other means".

 

If it gets full range NRM or LoS range, it is getting those benefits for free, assuming I would pay the same to put the advantage on a non-ranged attack. Is that fair?

 

To really evaluate a brand-new construct, I think it needs to be evaluated on a variety of different abilities to see how it compares to other means of achieving a similar effect. When I se a new construct, I tend to question it - that doesn't mean my questions have no answers, but if the issues have not been considered, then I would be less that comfortable tossing them into my game.

 

I don't really put a lot of value on a house rule which seems more or less randomly determined without full consideration for its ramifications. That doesn't mean I always catch all the implications, either, but that just makes me less enamoured of house rules without thorough vetting.

 

At this point, AoE Accurate pretty much always hits (certainly at Supers OCVs, not so much in a Heroic range) as long as there is no range modifier. That's a +1 total advantage to virtually always hit. Dropping it down on a limitation like "not if the target takes X action or possesses Y ability" requires that limitation be evaluated as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not really evaluating though.  Last time you said it cost too much because its almost always going to miss anyway with a characteristic roll of a heroic target, and this time it costs too little because its cheaper than AOE accurate/no range mod.

 

It can't be both, unless you're just contrary and don't like new things.

 

See the option you're leaving out is "AOE accurate/no range costs too much" by assuming if the rules say something, it must be right.  Further, you're discounting the effect of giving someone a die roll to avoid the effect, and overvaluing the reduction of DCV to 3.

 

There's nothing "more or less randomly determined" about this, its based on previous structures in the game as Chris noted above.  If you'd step back and look at this objectively to try to figure out how to make it work rather than knee jerk presuming its awful and attacking it from every angle, maybe you'd be helpful here.

 

The AOE structure is a kludge, an attempt to add in something using an existing structure that is pretty ridiculous on its face.  "Lets treat it as if its an are effect, but it only hits one target" is silly and obviously just done to give the semblance of an effect without actually doing it.

 

Coming up with a cost structure that actually creates the effect specifically in a manner consistent with other advantage structures gives the game something useful and expands the toolkit.  Is my suggestion the way to do it?  I dunno, that's why I post it here hoping people consider it and talk it over.  Instead of just gainsaying it like the argument clinic in Monty Python.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would build any spell like this with Area of Effect Accurate, No Range Modifier, and a +10 (or so) OCV bonus. Then you can use the Absolute Effect Rule to say that the attack always hits, so there is no need to roll.

Technically they removed the absolute rule from CC but you can add it back in if you want. Its on the conversion to CC in downloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not really evaluating though.  Last time you said it cost too much because its almost always going to miss anyway with a characteristic roll of a heroic target, and this time it costs too little because its cheaper than AOE accurate/no range mod.

I am starting from "this one will always hit". You appear to be starting from "this will fail about 80% of the time". I think the two should carry different costs.

 

See the option you're leaving out is "AOE accurate/no range costs too much" by assuming if the rules say something, it must be right.

I am certainly open to the possibility a given effect is too expensive. Is that your contention? What should the advantage be for "attack unerringly strikes any target within range (either normal or LoS range)"? What does the advantage become if the attack has no range?

 

Further, you're discounting the effect of giving someone a die roll to avoid the effect, and overvaluing the reduction of DCV to 3.

I am ignoring the effect of a die roll to avoid the effect because I do not recall the OP asking for a die roll to avoid the effect. To consider a die roll to avoid the effect, as you seem to have forgotten from prior discussions, I would evaluate the loss of effectiveness in a manner similar to the Requires a Roll limitation, as detailed in that prior thread.

 

What I am looking at here is the value, in isolation, of an attack which does not miss. It always hits - name the target and roll its damage or other effects.

 

There's nothing "more or less randomly determined" about this, its based on previous structures in the game as Chris noted above.

I do not consider "well, we have a cost for powers that avoid defenses" to be comparable to "hey, let's use the same pricing for powers that avoid attack rolls". Since there is no indication of how you determine your +1/4 or +1/2 advantage. If the result goes from "I have a 62.5% chance of making the to hit roll and having the power's effect", which is a to hit roll with equal OCV and DCV, to "I have an 83.8% chance of accomplishing nothing because my target makes an avoidance roll", that seems not to be advantageous to me. If I go from "I have a 62.5% chance of connecting" to "I always connect", that seems advantageous.

 

If you'd step back and look at this objectively to try to figure out how to make it work rather than knee jerk presuming its awful and attacking it from every angle, maybe you'd be helpful here.

I find math pretty objective, thanks. A 37.5% chance of missing seems preferable, to me, to an 83.8% chance the opponent "saves" and is unaffected by my attack. The only difference is the likelihood my attack is wasted. If you think, objectively, that a 16.2% chance of accomplishing something is better than a 62.5% chance of accomplishing the same thing, then I will state you are objectively wrong.

 

The AOE structure is a kludge, an attempt to add in something using an existing structure that is pretty ridiculous on its face.  "Lets treat it as if its an are effect, but it only hits one target" is silly and obviously just done to give the semblance of an effect without actually doing it.

Actually, we agree here. My preference, expressed in the SETAC discussions, was to make AoE Nonselective by default. AoE at its base level would then have a normal OCV vs DCV chance to strike each target in the area. Want to choose who is and is not targeted? Add a modifier for Selective. Want to change the roll to hit? Set a modifier that reduces the target(s) to DCV 3 - this could be used for a non-AoE attack, or a Selective AoE attack.

 

I did not address autohits at the time (I felt DCV 3 was close enough), but if we want that, set a cost for "never misses". But that cost needs to incorporate elimination of range modifiers.

 

The problem with using the absolute rule for OCV is: why do I only auto hit with this Area Effect and not others?  What sets this apart other than "I'm bending the rules to get my desired effect"?

Nothing. But creating a brand-new series of modifiers is also bending the rules to get a desired effect. Charging points to the extent that the ability will fail less than 1% of the time by the normal rules, and calling that "good enough - it always works" is good enough for me. It is like not forcing Tarzan to make a climbing roll to climb a tree. Why should he roll? "Because he might roll an 18" Why should he be exempt from rolling? "Because he's EFFING TARZAN!" and having him fail to climb a tree is not consistent with common or dramatic sense, nor is it in any way needed for game balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

creating a brand-new series of modifiers is also bending the rules to get a desired effect

 

 

 

No more so than when Steve Long says "we need a better structure for a lingering damage effect, I'll create Damage Over Time."  Its called "adding to the rule set" not "bending the existing rules to simulate something."  I mean arguing we shouldn't have rules that do a better job of giving us tools to simulate effects is sort outside my experience in Hero play for nearly 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, Steve Long also put considerable effort into figuring out how to balance DoT against the damaging capacity of other powers. It was a discussion point in the SETAC days. How is "here is a Damage over Time advantage" markedly different from "if you buy it to the point that any failure to have this effect is a highly unlikely statistical anomaly, it can be ruled an absolute effect"?

 

We do not roll to see whether a bowling ball passes through a wall, harming neither, but quantum physics says it is possible, just highly unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...