Combat luck and armor

[Cassandra]

Combat Luck is better for Villains because Heroes rarely launch a sneak attack.   This could go a long way in explaining why Villains seem so tough to take down.

[Toxxus]

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Quick question for Toxxus: what about STUN?  First point?  First Die?  Just curious.

 

I almost always have hit locations in play so 1x stun multiplier for location or 3 stun for generics (roughly mid point between killing x2 and normal x3.5).

[Hugh Neilson]

On 2/21/2019 at 12:26 PM, Duke Bushido said:

From 5, 5r, and 6, without changing from one to the next: (paraphrased for time reasons) 

 

Combat luck represents a character's ability to dodge or turn or otherwise avoid attacks.  Also called the "just MISSED me effect."

 

As I read 6e, you are vastly overtstating the case.To "Just Missed Me", it actually says:

 

Although referred as Combat Luck, it can indicate a character’s skill at dodging attacks (it’s sometimes known as the “just missed me!” effect).

 

Not "it indicates" or "it typically indicates".  You can scratch that line out and the mechanic remains unchanged.  In my experience, it is rare that the character takes no damage (STUN, BOD or KB) once the attack has, in fact, hit. Very few characters have defenses (whether combat luck or whatever else) that result in attacks doing no damage.

 

Note that it also need not be "Luck" - the character avoids damage "due to luck, skill, training or some other similar reasons".  Pre-4e, we saw quite a few with high DCV, low defenses and even lower, if any, rDEF.  Lots of characters in the source material like that.  Such characters either were missed entirely, or demolished (stunned, if not KOd or killed outright), when targeted with any attack.

 

Our games evolved to many such characters having Damage Reduction dependent on being conscious and mobile.  We never called it luck, but it was its own variation of Combat Luck.  Change the mechanic and leave the SFX of deftly rolling with the punch to ensure the hit grazed, rather than landing a solid hit, and we could just as easily have "Combat Luck".

 

I assume you also disallow any 2e/3e Blast against PD, since it's called "Energy Blast".  This is a similar issue where the name of the mechanic inappropriately evokes a specific SFX.  Merely change this to "Slippery Target", remove the offending sentence and the word "luck", and we no longer have anything offensive, at least based on how you describe the aspects that offend you. 

 

If the target took no damage because he was Desolid, or because he had massive PD and ED that exceeded the damage rolled, would you still consider that "turning a success into a failure"?

[Ninja-Bear]

Also this is a game. The game involves rolling dice. And we all know that with dice, funky things can happen. Ever been in a fame where the expert with 16- botches a roll but the.noob with a mere 8- makes a crap roll and shows him up? I have. It stinks but it’s part of the game.

[Chris Goodwin]

Plot Armor. Bulletproof Nudity, if it doesn't stack with any armor.  

[Toxxus]

On 2/23/2019 at 5:49 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

Ever been in a fame where the expert with 16- botches a roll but the.noob with a mere 8- makes a crap roll and shows him up? I have. It stinks but it’s part of the game.

 

This kind of thing happens in real life as well.  Sometimes you get very lucky or make a silly mistake.

 

Ex:  In ancient times when I was sparring with my TKD Instructor (an undefeated LHW kickboxer to boot) I landed the slowest, clumsiest blue-belt hook kick on him.  It was a one-in-a-million shot.  My kick was so slow that he lifted his hand up to block and then started the counter-attack before my kick actually hit his arm.  We all had a good laugh after that.  I don't think I landed another shot until I was creeping up on black belt.

[Christopher]

On 2/22/2019 at 7:24 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

I think the disconnect with is in how we're reading it, and in whether "missing" in this case is a mechanical effect or special effect.  I've all along been reading "you just missed" as a special effect.  Also I always read the emphasis on "just" as in "you just (barely) missed", not as in "ha ha, missed me!"

If a bullet bounces off your armor without even dealing stun Damage, effectively the enemy "missed" you.

Unless Ablative or "Endurance Cost based on damage blocked" Armor is in effect, it is the same end result mechanically.

 

But even a bouncing/stopped shoot can still do STUN. People in Movies nowadays remark how they still feel the bullet being stopped by the "bullet proof vest".

 

On 2/22/2019 at 3:10 PM, Toxxus said:

This rant has inspired me to alter Combat Luck to not work against the first point of BODY damage like a build option that was posted earlier. 

 

I like the idea that it is more rolling with the punch or "almost" dodging the attack better than outright immunity.

So a sort of inverted Impenetrable? Easily penetrable?

[Doc Democracy]

I have an instinctive dislike of the combat luck in play.  It is effectively indistinguishable from normal armour under all but the odd occasion and players are likely not to play it as if they could be hurt in a combat.  They play to the defence they can rely on whether that is "luck" or "tin plate".

 

I buy into the special effect etc etc stuff, it is something I like about HERO.  This just does not float my boat though.  I think combat luck probably works better with Damage Negation than resistant defence (it actually feels different in play) and when combat luck was introduced to the game Damage Negation did not exist.

 

Doc

[Scott Ruggels]

Never had it in play. never used it as a GM (Damage reduction was my poison of choice). and it now seems like an excuse to argue. Not a fan of the mechanic, and "if you hit, you hit". seems like the fairest way to deal with it, So in future, Combat Luck will not be used in my games.

[Christopher R Taylor]

This kind of discussion probably wouldn't ever take place had it not been built into an official power that now everyone wants to have an excuse to take.  If it was never in the rulers and was just a player who said "my character just really good at avoiding damage that they're aware of" the discussion would be a completely different sort.

[Scott Ruggels]

23 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

This kind of discussion probably wouldn't ever take place had it not been built into an official power that now everyone wants to have an excuse to take.  If it was never in the rulers and was just a player who said "my character just really good at avoiding damage that they're aware of" the discussion would be a completely different sort.

Oh completely. It also would make sense if it was just stacked RPD/ RED. on top of normal for one of those frustrating, one offf Villains. The problem is it’s a new rule with a new Paradigm , that instead could have bee extra defenses on an activation. 

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I buy into the special effect etc etc stuff, it is something I like about HERO.  This just does not float my boat though.  I think combat luck probably works better with Damage Negation than resistant defence (it actually feels different in play) and when combat luck was introduced to the game Damage Negation did not exist.

 

It would be interesting to use Damage Negation as the mechanic.  I've used Damage Reduction in the past, but that was Supers level - DR is too expensive for Heroic levels.

 

Given the biggest issue seems to be stacking with real armor, one could just require it be built with the limitation that it does not stack with real armor.  Or that part of the "real armor" limitation includes not stacking with Combat Luck ? or maybe only half of Real Armor increases CL, so you get the full "real armor" defense, or your CL + half of the real armor defense.

[Ninja-Bear]

I see a lot of “reasons” on this thread to the the baby out with the bath water instead of looking at the mechic and using common sense.

[Scott Ruggels]

49 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I see a lot of “reasons” on this thread to the the baby out with the bath water instead of looking at the mechic and using common sense.

Common sense? what's that?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I see a lot of “reasons” on this thread to the the baby out with the bath water instead of looking at the mechic and using common sense.

But selling back the Common sense group is enough for a 15- in PS: Internet Arguer AND  a 15- in KS Internet Arguments.  Come on man, leverage those points. 

[Hugh Neilson]

Practically, Combat Luck showed up because every character in a typical Hero game needs resistant defenses, or some other means of dealing with BOD damage from killing attacks, to survive due to the Killing Damage mechanic.  Characters who don't look like they have rDEF were simply reasoned from effect to clearly have some, as they don't die in the source material so they must have some protection.  Call it "Plot Armor" and it would be the same construct.

[Old Man]

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Common sense? what's that?

 

Pretty damn uncommon.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Practically, Combat Luck showed up because every character in a typical Hero game needs resistant defenses, or some other means of dealing with BOD damage from killing attacks, to survive due to the Killing Damage mechanic

 

Before Combat Luck, every  character died in games, it was horrible.  Because they didn't have any resistant defenses, they were cut down like wheat, it was unbelievable the lethality of Hero games.

[Doc Democracy]

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Before Combat Luck, every  character died in games, it was horrible.  Because they didn't have any resistant defenses, they were cut down like wheat, it was unbelievable the lethality of Hero games.

 

You know.  I played a LOT of Justice Inc, with pistols and no combat luck and I can only remember one of our characters dying (and that was almost planned by the player heroically sacrificing himself - we could probably have found another plan but the player was pining for a new character anyway).

[Christopher]

20 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I have an instinctive dislike of the combat luck in play.  It is effectively indistinguishable from normal armour under all but the odd occasion and players are likely not to play it as if they could be hurt in a combat.  They play to the defence they can rely on whether that is "luck" or "tin plate". 

I asumed that was it's point. Providing a defense that was really hard to take away in Heroic games, but at the cost of Character points.

And additional GM scrutiny for the totals, of course.

 

18 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

This kind of discussion probably wouldn't ever take place had it not been built into an official power that now everyone wants to have an excuse to take.  If it was never in the rulers and was just a player who said "my character just really good at avoiding damage that they're aware of" the discussion would be a completely different sort.

Actually this might have started way earlier. Look at the D&D monk:
Can not use armors. But do get their Wisdom modifier to AC.
Rather then just buffing the DEX derived AC bonus, they inveted a totally new mechanic to more closely resemble armor.

 

If I wanted to translate a monk to Hero with the differences in how armor works, I would use combat luck for that part.

[akrippler]

well this thread took a turn. if anyone is still interested: we've decided to just roll with combat luck stacking on armor for now. agreed as a group to re-evaluate if anyone thinks it has become a problem... tankiest character in the group is 9rpd/12pd with armor. it seems a little high, but were playing a more role-play heavy game, and hes still in danger of getting knocked unconscious.  which to a degree makes sense to me..

 

if you gave me a normal person, even with a little above average strength, a long sword and told me to damage a competent maneuverable person in llamelar armor (he is suffering no encumbrance with his current str/weight) i dont think i could realistically do any body to him.  now a person with training (modeled by str only with sword) that is capable of upping the damage to 2 and a half d6, is fully capable of knowing the right spots to hit to actually hurt the armored person.

 

as for the philosophical combat luck debate: Ive always seen it as a "grazed you" option.  Arrow bounces off the armor, of if unarmored, scrapes the bone etc....  Sometimes we have fun with it and rename the power "Just a scratch!" or "Rolling with the punch."  DND has similar mechanics in that if the monster rolls a 17 against the 18 AC fighter its more fun to say "His jaw snaps shut on your forearm but is unable to pierce the armor" rather than a simple "he missed" 

i mean we could theoretically argue that hit points from DND and stun/body in hero are really just plot armor points, once you reach 0 you've expended your allotment of bullshit before the inevitable happens.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 I played a LOT of Justice Inc, with pistols and no combat luck and I can only remember one of our characters dying

 

Yeah me too, in fact I can't remember EVER having a character die before 5th edition came out except in deliberately extremely lethal games.  I was being sarcastic because Hugh made it sound like everyone needed resistant defenses or there would be characters strewn on the battlefield like harvested hay.

[Toxxus]

17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Practically, Combat Luck showed up because every character in a typical Hero game needs resistant defenses, or some other means of dealing with BOD damage from killing attacks, to survive due to the Killing Damage mechanic.  Characters who don't look like they have rDEF were simply reasoned from effect to clearly have some, as they don't die in the source material so they must have some protection.  Call it "Plot Armor" and it would be the same construct.

 

The show Knight Fight - while comically garbage and sublimely awesome at the same time - displays the absolute absurdity of group fighting without resistant defenses.  You might dodge, parry and block a dozen blows, but  you're going to get hit and when you do it is going to be immediately lethal.  Every week they'll have a guy in plate armor take a shot to the body or back that is so brutal that even with the plate armor on he's dropped to his knees hoping he'll regain feeling in his legs.

 

When they have the guys fighting in chain mail (5-6 def) they will use spinal plate armor and limit the size of weapons allowed to prevent broken bones.

 

You want to fight in pajamas?  Want to know why that wasn't historically a thing?  Because death.

[Chris Goodwin]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Yeah me too, in fact I can't remember EVER having a character die before 5th edition came out except in deliberately extremely lethal games.  I was being sarcastic because Hugh made it sound like everyone needed resistant defenses or there would be characters strewn on the battlefield like harvested hay.

 

I couldn't quite tell...

 

Yeah, I'm with both you and the Doc.  I remember one PC of mine dying to a heroic sacrifice, another PC of mine dying to a failed Pilot roll (failing to eject from his 'mech in a Battletech Hero game), someone else's PC dying because I flat out murdered him (not one of my better moments, I assure you, but it was a long time ago), and I'm sure the other players in our group had one or two PCs they lost as well.  Those aside, our campaigns tended not to runneth over with rivers of player character blood.  

 

If you're in a game where you can justify armor, wear some!  Even 3 DEF can help you survive long enough to get healed up.  I don't recall many of my characters having more than 3 DEF armor.  

 

GMs: if your players feel like they need resistant defenses in order to survive, stop hitting them with Killing Attacks!  Easier in superhero games, true, as most other games have characters facing swords, claws, teeth, bullets, and other methods of destruction, but those latter games also tend to be the ones that are easier to justify armor.  

 

[Old Man]

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Yeah me too, in fact I can't remember EVER having a character die before 5th edition came out except in deliberately extremely lethal games.  I was being sarcastic because Hugh made it sound like everyone needed resistant defenses or there would be characters strewn on the battlefield like harvested hay.

 

Of course it's not that bad.  But playing an unarmored character in a killing-damage heroic campaign is very all-or-nothing in a way that's not always fun.  Especially if hit locations are used.