Combat luck and armor

[Christopher]

6 hours ago, Toxxus said:

I feel like the +2 PD/ED for double-the-weight charts give us a good rule of thumb for stacking defenses.

 

Essentially the lesser defense has to be no more than 2 pts below the higher defense or it doesn't effectively add anything.

  

I do allow players to stack things like a chain shirt (5 PD/ED) with a steel breastplate (6 PD/ED) and for the low-low cost of the weight of both armors enjoy a total of 7 PD/ED in the double-covered areas.

  

By limiting the stacking to +1 pt it keeps things from getting out of control.  Plate Armor + 2 levels combat luck = 14 rPD/14 rED?  No thanks! 

I still think that "does not stack" rules are for RPG Systems that lack the concept of a cap.

Indeed I have seen many Systems that used to have "no Stacking" rules switch to caps, to finally have that problem reliably solved.

 

Shadowrun had issues with Magic and Cybernetics being combined. It could result in some pretty broken stuff, like the "Antitank Troll Archer Adpet".

But then they introduced the Limits for Skill Checks. Now it did not mater if you got 20 dies, as you could not get more then Y sucesses.

For weapons they introduced the Accuracy, wich limit the amount of damage you can add via high Skill Rolls. Got rid of adding all those Skill Dice to the Antitank Troll Bowshoot. And shootguns suddenly have a low accuracy cap as a tradeoff.

And afaik Attributes can not be buffed more then +4 over what you bought with Points, regardless of source.

 

D&D was notorious for all the kinds of Bonuses that would and would not stack. They had to list them all in the 3E and 3.5E GM Handbooks.

And then D&D 5E just introduced a hard cap of 20 for Attributes (30 on Monsters and Divine beings).

 

Hero has the advantage that we always had caps.

[Doc Democracy]

On 2/18/2019 at 10:54 PM, Christopher said:

Hero has the advantage that we always had caps.

 

Not hard coded into the rules and not actually in solid guidance in the rulebooks.  Caps are something that evolved in us talking about our campaigns and how to get them within boundaries to make it easier for GMs to write villains they could be sure would not be one-shotted.

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

You know you could create a lesser form of Combat Luck. Say 1 rPD/1 rED.

[Duke Bushido]

Or roll your Luck Dice.  Every 6 gives you +X appropriate defense. 

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

31 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Or roll your Luck Dice.  Every 6 gives you +X appropriate defense.

You're pushing this Luck angle pretty hard, and I have to say it's starting to wear pretty thin. 

 

I'd never suggest replacing Combat Luck with Luck, for a few reasons. 

A - People want and need consistency in their RDEF.  One botched roll meaning days of bedrest is simply unacceptable for the tone of many (I want to use "heroic" as an adjective with different meaning) high-flying low-lethality games.  One botched roll meaning you lose a giant chunk of BODY and STUN if you don't have other RDEF makes combat too swingy.  Telling a player their Combat Luck can't be reliable will be met with characters suddenly deciding to wear armored costumes or get force-belts or mutate to be bulletproof. 

B - Rolling dice every time you get attacked pushes the rolls-per-attack even higher, and it's already at least three for most games.  HERO gets slow enough with newbies and won't-memorize-rulesbies already.  It'd work for an experienced group, maybe. 

C - Combat Luck doesn't have to be actual Luck despite the name.  Reference the first paragraph of its description in FRED. 

D - Luck itself is a clusterexpletive because it includes no useful guidelines on when to actually roll or what each success on the dice actually means.  It's great at one table and trash at another. 

 

Combat Luck fills a rather definite niche that is highly distinct from the one filled by Luck, and the two should never be merged.  I will gladly say that Combat Luck is badly named though. 

[Duke Bushido]

I agree completely, which is why I will continue to fuss and gripe until "luck," which plays _zero_ part in this power, is removed completely.  Call it "invisible armor" or "big girl panties" or "I want the stylish and rugged charm of not needing or wanting armor,  but I also definitely want me some armor." 

 

"oh, but it so perfectly models not getting hit in spite of your opponent flat-out hitting you." 

 

Well so does any other armor, if that's how you want to define it.   Granted, I have issues with that definition (make Combat Luck a DCV boost, for Pete's sake: then you can actually model" well how about that! You didn't actually hit me" without sticking in the craw of the guy who vey clearly hit you.), but it'd be a Hell if a lot easier to ignore if it wasn't being called "Luck (a thing that actually exists in the game)" without remotely _being_ Luck. 

[eepjr24]

23 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

I agree completely, which is why I will continue to fuss and gripe until "luck," which plays _zero_ part in this power, is removed completely.  Call it "invisible armor" or "big girl panties" or "I want the stylish and rugged charm of not needing or wanting armor,  but I also definitely want me some armor." 

 

"oh, but it so perfectly models not getting hit in spite of your opponent flat-out hitting you." 

 

Well so does any other armor, if that's how you want to define it.   Granted, I have issues with that definition (make Combat Luck a DCV boost, for Pete's sake: then you can actually model" well how about that! You didn't actually hit me" without sticking in the craw of the guy who vey clearly hit you.), but it'd be a Hell if a lot easier to ignore if it wasn't being called "Luck (a thing that actually exists in the game)" without remotely _being_ Luck. 

<shrug> I think you are quibbling over word usage a little bit here. The actual power is:

 

Quote

Combat Luck: Resistant Protection (3 PD/3 ED), Hardened (+¼), Impenetrable (+¼) (13 Active Points); Luck-Based (encompasses all the restrictions described in the text; -¾), Nonpersistent (-¼). Total cost: 6 points.

So, it is based on luck explicitly in the power. It does not work if you are not aware (asleep, surprised, etc.), purposefully accepting taking damage (not taking an action that would prevent harm, taking an action that will be reasonably likely to cause harm, move by, move through), etc. 

 

The players that take it in my experience (mostly in dark champions type settings) are the ones who can't or don't wear complete armor for other reasons. Sometimes it is movement related, sometimes it does not fit the characters theme, etc. I don't find it to be abused, although I do let players know if they get into areas I consider invulnerable that this will mean that others on their team could be in danger from collateral damage as bigger guns are brought to try to stop you...

 

But if the name bothers you that much, just call it something else. Combat Fortune or Fate Armor or Chance Bulwark.

 

- E

Edited February 21, 2019 by eepjr24
Note on invulnerability

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

I agree completely, which is why I will continue to fuss and gripe until "luck," which plays _zero_ part in this power, is removed completely.  Call it "invisible armor" or "big girl panties" or "I want the stylish and rugged charm of not needing or wanting armor,  but I also definitely want me some armor." 

 

"oh, but it so perfectly models not getting hit in spite of your opponent flat-out hitting you." 

 

Well so does any other armor, if that's how you want to define it.   Granted, I have issues with that definition (make Combat Luck a DCV boost, for Pete's sake: then you can actually model" well how about that! You didn't actually hit me" without sticking in the craw of the guy who vey clearly hit you.), but it'd be a Hell if a lot easier to ignore if it wasn't being called "Luck (a thing that actually exists in the game)" without remotely _being_ Luck. 

Duke how’s that any different then when a guy hits you in the craw and rolls one for damage? ?

[Duke Bushido]

Really? 

 

How is acknowledging his successfully making contact with you any different from some some bull$@=; pansy-@$+ little-kid-getting-tagged-and-runs-off-yelling "did not! Did not! Did not!"? 

 

Just clarifying:  that _is_ the question being asked here, correct?

 

At the beginning of every single edition of these rules is some syrupy little bit about how 'we use to play cowboys and indians or cops and robbers or army and aliens or pirates and navy or whatever.  Do you remember the problems?  First, you had to have room to run around' etc, etc, until they get to talking about what's so gteat about an RPG, and they get to that point where there are rules we all share that let us know when we are successful, or when we've been hit, or when we've yadda yadda, and these rules are great, because they keep your friends from being the complete dicks they were when you were kids who kept yelling "nunh-unh" and "did not" every time they were shot, outflanked, arrested-- whatever. '

 

So then this tiny little cobble pops up one day, slap in the face of that very preface in the same book.  Is Steve telling us something?  Was he one of those kids?  Or did they leave a bad taste in his mouth so he built us a handy little detector they couldn't help but pick up, because it's just so _them_? 

 

 

Y'all can (and will; I've been down this road before.  I almost developed a roster  (almost because a lot of them don't seem to be active anymore) of who will tell me this very thing here:

 

"But the end result is the same, so what does it matter? "

 

Because Forrest Gump is not Lord of the Rings!

 

You know what?  I dont care any more.  Screw it.  Forrest Gump _is_ Lord of the Rings, because the end result is the same.  Imagine the money Peter Jackson would have missed out on if Hanks had just titled his film "guy takes boring-assed walk".  There.  Same. 

 

And SWAT kicking in your door and shooting your grandmother and your dog, that's the same as serving a warrant, because now you know the police want something.  Same/same. 

 

 

At the end of the day, the player had a Success.  And Cobblebat Luck very specifically uses a mechanic (one of the new perfect ones) that absolutely one-hundred percent cannot affect that success, and uses that mechanic to take that success away. 

 

I say "take it away" instead of prevent it, but this mechanically-perfect bit of "nyunh-uhn" used a mechanic that is incapable of affecting the odds of  success one way or another to flat out pick up its ball and go home---  I mean, steal someone's success retroactively: you know:  after everyone at the table has watched them succeed. 

 

You want to know what the difference is when the end results are the same; I want to know why, given the number of builds that could have incorporated things that actually affect an attack roll, were all fighting to see how many levels of Dick Move we should allow to stack. 

 

 

And a million more, but I went back to work today; I've got to get inside. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Yes Duke really. This is a game and we use abstract ideas/mechanics for hit and miss and damage. Why should a bullet do variable damage? Shotgun shot, yeah but a slug? So you’ll accept a boot knife can do variable  damage on its own but then Combat Luck is unrealistic? Btw Combat Luck visually (at least for me) isn’t he missed, rather the attacker didn’t get a shot hit in.

 

Better yet, why do we accept having a set value all the time? Why do we accept that when I take Body that’s all that happens to me?  I got burned but no scars. I got sliced but no artery?

 

So yeah, really?

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

At the end of the day, the player had a Success.  And Cobblebat Luck very specifically uses a mechanic (one of the new perfect ones) that absolutely one-hundred percent cannot affect that success, and uses that mechanic to take that success away. 

 

I say "take it away" instead of prevent it, but this mechanically-perfect bit of "nyunh-uhn" used a mechanic that is incapable of affecting the odds of  success one way or another to flat out pick up its ball and go home---  I mean, steal someone's success retroactively: you know:  after everyone at the table has watched them succeed.

 

I do not see how "but you just winged him and he takes no damage because Combat Luck" invalidates that Success any more, or any less, than "but it bounces off his steel-plated chest"?  In either case, the attacker rolled a successful attack, but it did  no damage, so really he may as well not have hit at all.

 

Presumably, this indicates that d20 is the superior system, since armor gets folded into whether you succeed - hit and do damage - rather than invalidating your successful hit by eliminating any damage.  But get rid of that Damage Reduction as it invalidates, or may invalidate, my successful roll.

[Toxxus]

14 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

A - People want and need consistency in their RDEF.

 

Even City of Heroes realize this after a couple of years.  I ran an Ice Tank which was based on lowering the accuracy of nearby attackers and raising it's own DEF.  However, it had no resistant defenses and a bad hiccup in the RNG would result in an instantly dead "tank".  Invulnerability tanks, on the other hand, were able to raises resistant defenses so high that getting hit by everything was meaningless.

 

In the latter half of the game's life they adjusted both so that Ice Tanks got some moderate resistance to damage so they wouldn't be insta-killed by a couple bad rolls and Invulnerability tanks had their resistant defense lowered a little, but got a bonus to their ability to avoid attacks.

 

Long-winded version of - "Couldn't agree more!". 

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry folks, lunch break is twenty minutes, so I can't really read what I've missed if I want to poke in any words on this tiny screen. 

 

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." 

 

Whether or not the math works out, the intent that here is a mechanic designed to turn a success "yay!  I hit!" 

"Okay, roll your damage, then add it up." 

Oh, okay.  Turns out you missed. 

 

You mean I didn't go through his defense? 

No; I mean you miss. 

 

I'm a super marksman, government sniper assassin with eleven skill levels with this particular weapon, a scope that has nine more skill levels built in, and I'm firing from twelve feet away. 

 

And you missed. 

You said I hit. 

 

Well you did.  But then you rolled too low on your damage, so you missed. 

 

That's bull"&3i@, Man. 

 

Yeah, but you still missed. 

 

 

We can sit hear and say "well it should be used" or "it could be used" and you won't be wrong: we all tend to create situations where we are justified, after all.  Hell, I'm doing it now. 

 

But we have a unique situation in the history of all editions: we have access to the original incarnation of the rule, and every version thereafter, and we know that it was written (and left unchanged) by the same guy (not team) every time.  So no matter what we may convince ourselves was the direction of the first few players who created this game, we can _see_ the original intent of this rule, and see that it is _still_ the intent of this rule. 

 

And just like the 4e crap of "Desolidification: only versus damage" or that other nonsense, it is intended as a way to _take_ a success without actually going to the trouble of altering the probability of that success. 

 

Suppose it was some other sort of success? 

 

You have successfully defused the bomb and saved everyone in the stadium!  The police officer slumps against the wall in relief.  Thank you.  My kids are here.  Thank you. 

 

Too bad our villain has retroactively improved the design.  Kaboom! 

 

What?  That's crap, Dude!  

 

No.  It's Something we put together building on the idea of retroactively taking a success away from you.  On the plus side, you never knew the cop's kids were there, either. 

 

 

And we've done this before, back when it first hit, and taking my lessons from then, I'm done.  There are those who will refuse to see this, and those who will justify it with a work-around definition without acknowledging the origins, clearly-stated intent, and maybe even a few who have gone out of their way to make sure they can't, but at the end of the day, if you can't see why a power build intended to retroactively take a success away from someone is utter crap, I can't help you see it, either. 

 

 

Have fun!  Gotta get back to work.

 

 

 

Duke

[dmjalund]

Technically Combat Luck doesn't reduce Knockback

[Lucius]

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Really? 

 

How is acknowledging his successfully making contact with you any different from some some bull$@=; pansy-@$+ little-kid-getting-tagged-and-runs-off-yelling "did not! Did not! Did not!"? 

 

Just clarifying:  that _is_ the question being asked here, correct?

 

 

To clarify - correct in that yes, Duke Bushido did just ask that question.

 

Incorrect in so far as there is any implication that anyone else has asked that question. It is only Duke Bushido's question.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary certainly didn't ask that question.

[Chris Goodwin]

As written, nothing about Combat Luck says "the attack misses".  The Talent is 3 rPD and rED per level; your Combat Luck could come into play, but you might still take damage from an attack.  Also, barring other circumstances, you determine Stun Modifier of a Killing Attack before defenses.  So you could -- in theory -- take 0 BODY from a Killing Attack due to your Combat Luck, but might still take STUN from it.  

 

In most of the non-superheroic games I've ever played in, armor is free (as in points) to characters.  Usually up to 3 DEF overall no questions asked; greater than that is something you buy with money (maybe part of a Wealth perk), or get issued by your agency or guild, or somehow acquired in other circumstances.  In most of the games I've been in, characters can start with reasonable gear based on their origin, conception, and so on -- meaning that someone who's written their backstory as a warrior type who has been in armies and battles and so forth, could start the game with weapons and armor.  And as I've said in another thread, spellcasters can theoretically cast spells that provide DEF in greater amounts, even to others; also, non-casters can spend points for magical armor.  

 

If a character bought multiple levels of Combat Luck, I'd look at that the same way I'd look at the character buying the same level of defenses through other means.  It runs up against my general dislike of "anything goes" Powers for non-supers, but aside from that, 3-9 DEF worth of Combat Luck falls within the general amount of resistant defenses characters can acquire through normal armor.  If I allowed it in a game at all I'd probably put a hard cap of three levels, and probably wouldn't let it stack with normal or magical armor, but I don't see that amount of DEF as being something that'll break the bank, generally speaking.  

 

(Edit to add:  also, if players need more DEF than that for sheer survival, maybe the GM needs to dial back the amount of Killing Damage in the game?  Just a thought.)

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I'm a super marksman, government sniper assassin with eleven skill levels with this particular weapon, a scope that has nine more skill levels built in, and I'm firing from twelve feet away.  

The bulk of the damage potential of sniping comes from the ability to makie a Aimed Shoot at a unaware target (1/2 DCV, 1/2 Hit Location penalty, no option to abort).

If a defense can negate that it would be bad. But most defenses (combat luck included) does not work that way. It adds plain old rDefenses. And that this kind of extra damage, a conditional defense is unlikely to make a big difference.

 

At short ranges you are actually prone to over-penetration and not hitting the right spot. And the target can see and try to dodge you.

 

While I agree that adding randomness is propably a bad idea, I doubt we can do more then warn people of it. Some things you just have to experience yourself to understand. Or are something you do not care about.

[Duke Bushido]

5e:

 

Unfortunately, 5e is only in my phone right now (didn't realize that when I sat down here), but I promise it's pretty much the same, including the phrase "sometimes called the just missed me!" effect.

 

 

 

 

5er:

Because Combat Luck depends on a char- acter’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if he’s asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury). Nor does it protect him from damage in most situ- ations where he deliberately does something he knows will hurt him (such as performing a Move By/Through, both of which cause him to take some of the damage he does to the target). In some cases Combat Luck won’t apply if the character is Sur- prised (see page 380); the GM may require a PER Roll or other roll to determine if the character per- ceived the attack in time to use his Combat Luck. 

 

 

6e1:

 

This Talent represents a character’s ability to avoid damage in combat due to luck, skill, training, or some similar reason. Although referred as Combat Luck, it can indicate a charac- ter’s skill at dodging attacks (it’s sometimes known as the “just missed me!” effect).

Combat Luck provides a character with 3 points of Resistant PD and ED for 6 Character Points. (Characters may buy Combat Luck more than once, unless the GM rules otherwise.) This defense is considered Hardened (see 6E1 147). It works together with any other applicable defenses a character has, such as his innate PD/ED, armor he wears, his Resistant Protection power, and the like.

Because Combat Luck depends on a character’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if the character is asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury). Nor does it protect him from damage in most situations where he deliberately does something he knows will hurt him (such as performing a Move By/Through, both of which cause him to take some of the damage he does
to the target). In some cases Combat Luck won’t apply if the character is Surprised ( 

 

 

 

Let me see if I can shorten that up:

 

5er:

 

Combat Luck depends on a char- acter’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if he’s asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury).

 

6e:

 

Combat Luck depends on a character’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if the character is asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury).

 

 

Factor in the creator of the rule calling it "just missed me," the rule that says characters can have it multiple times, and the fact that it is _not_ armor (though it works like it) and the fact that the only way it won't help a character is if he, paraphrasing, chooses to get hit or is in a circumstance where he cannot dodge, twist, bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate his way out of being hit.

 

The rules, as quite specifically written, regardless of _how you chose to _use_ them_, have a very clear message that this is intended to simulate "not getting hit" (when it works perfectly, at any rate) _after_ having actually been hit.

 

Fine.  It bothers none else.

 

We could decide to roll a die every time a character takes any sort of action.  Every time a 6 comes up, we ignore that action as though it never happened.  Eventually, we'd find a way to justify that, too.  We are creative people, after all.

 

Used with proper GM discretion, this models it _poorly_, but since so many people worry about stacking it with several other kinds of defenses, I, like Chris, have to wonder just how much P-v-P is going on between GM and everyone else.  I mean, if the GM decides he wants to hose you, go adventure naked.  It'll be over sooner.

 

_IF_ this rule _did not_ present itself as a way to avoid getting hit without using CV, skill levels, or their mechanics, but instead said "roll with the punch" and presented itself as "this talent represents people who have learned to instinctively blah blah blah to alter and change etc etc etc deflect knife blades hooziwhatsits to mitigate the damage he takes from being hit in combat," I would have _way_ less problems with it.  If it just changed it's name from "Combat Luck," that would help.  Lessen the severity of knife wounds?  Screw that!  I rolled three sixes!  I want a damned flamethrower!  _That's_ a three-sixes luck roll.

 

So my last entry to this conversation (bowing out before the round of "why don't you just call it that and define it so?" questions-- actually, no: I'll answer it preemptively this time)

 

Why does it bother me?   Partly because it claims to be luck.  Oh, but luck doesn't have a good mechanic.  Well neither does actual, honest-to-Pete luck.  Things just happen-- good or bad, while you're too damned busy to figure out why, or sometimes even understand.  "A good mechanic for Luck" is physics, which is the opposite: it's understanding-- Hell, most of you are better educated than I am: you know what physics is; I'm not here to patronize anyone. (short "a")   Mostly, though, it bothers me for the same reason so much of the Dark Champions fall-out bugs me: here's a neat way to use one mechanic to screw up another one.  Want to be invincible?  Desolid, only versus bullets / knives / thrown weapons / whatever.  So now my "Desolid" is cheaper (you know, because it's "limited" ), I'm practically invincible within my campaign, _and_ I don't have to buy "affects Solid" because my enemies aren't damage dice!  Woo-hoo!  Want to never miss?  Autofire or Area Effect on your fist, Dude.  (yeah, there are some giants and speedsters for whom that's a rather inspired build; we know that.  But just because you don't want your street-wise vigilante to have a serious chance of missing a punch?  Bit much).

 

Enough!  Sorry: first day back to work after three days of unbelievable fever, and I'm tired as all get-out, and want to wrap this up before forgetting it.

 

The reason I don't do that and call it that is because that is not a HERO construct:  That is a Duke construct.  Or a Lucious construct.  Or a whoever-wants-to-be-the-first-to-suggest-this-obvious-solution-this-time construct.   The official HERO construct will always be "here's a way to completely undo getting knocked on the head.  Try it out."

 

And from HERO-- the company that is _not_ D&D--  this rule, by it's own explanation, completely ties the strength of your armor to whether or not you got hit.  Coming from Champions (HERO System today)--  the game that, so far as I can recall in my foggy sleep-deprived mind, was the _first_ game to separate "getting hit" from "defense"-- it's a Flippety-flappin abomination.

 

 

Night, All.

 

 

 

Duke

 

 

[Toxxus]

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.

[Chris Goodwin]

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!"

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The rules, as quite specifically written, regardless of _how you chose to _use_ them_, have a very clear message that this is intended to simulate "not getting hit" (when it works perfectly, at any rate) _after_ having actually been hit.

 

Mechanically, it's still resistant PD and ED; there's nothing in the description that makes it do any more than stop 3 points of BODY and/or STUN damage per level.  There's no way I'd read a single level as a complete and total mechanical whiff, unless it were enough to completely bounce the attack.  Admittedly, a 1d6K could very well get completely bounced by it... 

 

And, I mean, in a Fantasy Hero game, a warrior type could easily have 8 normal and 8-10 resistant PD, for a total of 16-18.  In the event that all of that entirely bounces an attack, it's effectively a whiff.  Still not mechanically a miss, but if a tree falls in the forest, etc. etc.?  

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The reason I don't do that and call it that is because that is not a HERO construct:  That is a Duke construct.  Or a Lucious construct.  Or a whoever-wants-to-be-the-first-to-suggest-this-obvious-solution-this-time construct.   The official HERO construct will always be "here's a way to completely undo getting knocked on the head.  Try it out."

 

The Chris construct here is, for most of my heroic level campaigns, to not allow Combat Luck to begin with.  I am going to go to the obvious solution, though; just because it's in a book doesn't mean I as a GM have to allow it, or that I as a GM have to allow it as written; and that's sort of the overriding rule.  The "GM Construct" maybe?  

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, 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 agree with you completely.  I have always understood the way this works mechanically: it's armor with some eclectic limitations.  I totally understand that. 

 

Quote

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

 

This!  This is the part that chafes like 80-grit Charmin:

 

" missing me" _is_ a special effect.  It's all special effects for playing with random number generators, in the end.  But "missing" is not just any special effect.  Missing is a special effect for which we already have not just a mechanic, but a well-known mechanic.  Several source books have been written around ways to make this mechanic more exciting and colorful, and how to exploit this mechanic in new and creative ways.  In response to a question, Hugh (no negativity, Hugh; just citing my source ) responded that he felt the martial arts rules should be considered part of the core rules.  The martial arts rules are nothing more than further flavoring for the existing and well-established mechanic of  I/you  hit/missed. 

 

That mechanic is the to-hit roll.  I won't go into all the ways to influence that; I could not possibly do a better job typing with two thumbs on a tiny screen than the umpteen actual complete books on the subject have done.  I couldn't even do well enough to embarrass myself by comparison. 

 

In the last couple of editions, we have seen flavor and color lost to the drive to consolidate mechanics: unique abilities that are now mealy (and often expensive!) versions of their former selves, simply because, if you stretched a different mechanic far enough, and piled enough advantages and limitations, and had a shoe horn and one of those long-handled golf hammers, you could make it fit. 

 

The push has been toward the importance of reducing mechanics into groups of type: transfer is now drain and aid; instant change is now T-form (for _how_ many ap?!), etc, etc. 

 

Except for this.  This is a mechanic that is clearly armor (sorry; it's so much more practical to type than "Resistant Defense").  Ain't no doubt about it.  We all see it's just armor.  No one, myself included, will claim that armor does not work just the way the mechanic of this power works. 

 

But then the text spells out the intent of this power (which it further supports via the limitations listed) is to nullify the to-hit roll. 

 

I ain't havin that.  You want to get missed, then find a way to affect that roll before it happens, and not a way to claim it was any different than what it was. 

 

Combat weaving: +2 DCV.   

 

If 6 let's you put mods on skill levels, or buy raw CV as talents and powers, flavor it up a bit:

 

Character has a well-defined defensive instinct or extreme training that keeps him moving, feinting, and learning his opponent's Tell for striking.  This allows him to twist and weave in such a way that he is often able to completely side-step attacks from even the most skilled of fighters. 

 

Quote

 Admittedly, a 1d6K could very well get completely bounced by it..

 

In which case, it missed complete, by the Combat Luck description.

 

At the end of the phase, a miss and a zero-damage hit are "mechanically the same." 

 

I'm not a damned robot; I don't get hot for mechanics.  I'm not an accountant; balanced spreadsheets don't tighten my pants, either. 

 

I'm a writer, a reader, and a teller of stories, and this construct was designed specifically (it's right there in the description) to re-write a piece of the story that has already been penned, and read by everyone at the table. 

 

It _kills_ me a little that no one else is ever bothered by that because "hey, same thing, sort of, and it's cheap, too!" 

 

So what?  Get your THAC0 out of my OCV/DCV. 

 

Quote

The Chris construct here is, for most of my heroic level campaigns, to not allow Combat Luck to begin with. 

 

Except for the qualifier phrase, that's my own construct as well.  

 

 

Duke 

[Old Man]

Combat Luck only exists because Hero isn't costed appropriately for heroic level killing damage in the first place.  It's a kludge to begin with so it's not surprising that it overlaps with some other mechanics.

 

As I played it, Combat Luck would have been better described as "instinctive dodging" or "rolling with the punch".  It didn't stack with other types of defenses and only worked if the character was conscious.  SFX-wise it does overlap with DCV.  But then again this is Hero, and in Hero, why do things one way when we can do it three different ways? 

[Duke Bushido]

14 hours ago, 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.

 

 

Told myself I wasn't coming back to this thread, but as I posted a hit-and-run at lunch the other day, I wanted to see what I had missed at least above that.

 

And I want to say a couple things (briefly; game resumes in a couple more minutes):

 

First:

 

Thank you!   Thank you so much.  Gadzooks!  I thought I was taking crazy pills or something...

 

Yes!  This is _so_ much more acceptable, as it completely precludes the written-in justification of "you missed anyway."  I have no idea why-- it's probably a math thing or a tinker thing, but the more vocal on this board-- no; that's not a negative or pejorative or any other such itive; it simply means those who are most regularly active-- are focused so much on _mechanics_ that they don't seem to think that the _semantics_ even matter.  And the fact is, plainly and simply, that the _semantics_ are where the flavor is!  Ignore the semantics and we don't have a rules set; we have a book full of mathematics exercises; word problems at the very best.

 

 

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

Combat Luck only exists because Hero isn't costed appropriately for heroic level killing damage in the first place.  It's a kludge to begin with so it's not surprising that it overlaps with some other mechanics.

 

HERO isn't scaled appropriately for the HEROIC level, either, but we seem to sweep that under the rug by unspoken agreement.  Personally, I think that could have been fixed by raising prices on Characteristics and lower / altering them on Skill Levels, etc; but I've mentioned that before, and "raising costs" never seems to be the most popular topic out here.  But that's also a different discussion, and I'm going to stop starting those, at least for a while, because I have got _so_ much catching up to do on the scanning project.

 

 

Quote

 

As I played it, Combat Luck would have been better described as "instinctive dodging" or "rolling with the punch".  It didn't stack with other types of defenses and only worked if the character was conscious. 

 

It wouldn't have to stack, as-- since your opponent retroactively missed (if you had enough CL, that is), you wouldn't need those other defenses anyway.  And as written, it doesn't work if you're unconscious or otherwise-unable to ... well, to avoid getting hit.  And yes: not specifically including the concept of causing a retro-active miss would have been _miles_ ahead of what got published; I agree completely.  And frankly, I think Toxxus's approach is absolutely _perfect_ for mechanical application for the ability to roll with the punch: you will get banged up, but you have managed to "soak" or avoid it.

 

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

 

Quote

 this is Hero, and in Hero, why do things one way when we can do it three different ways? 

 

I understand where you are coming from, and would ordinarily agree with the concept.  However, since the last three incarnations of the rules have done all they can (so far) of cutting "extraneous" or "one-off" mechanics and folding them back into other mechanics, they have effectively cut the legs off that argument even before the gate dropped.

 

Would love to add a bit, but I gotta run; groups almost completely back, and if anyone holds up the game, it should _not_ be the GM.

 

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

I picture Combat Luck more as “I grazed you” more than “It just missed me” I still love the mechanic of it though.  Ps I don’t have a problem with allowing 1 Body getting through even though CL would stop it. Also, if the Hero is doing something Heroic like Jumping in front of buddy to save him from a blast, I won’t deny the CL.

 

I once didnt like the the fact that Blick could be defined as Dodging. Now? Eh, when in Rome.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Most magical armor and shielding type spells in my Codex specifically have a "does not stack with armor" limitation on them, just to contain armor bloat.  I'm fine with a mage having better defenses than a warrior, because what gets through will probably wreck their tiny physical stats.  But I don't want some warrior with some magic throwing 5 PD ED magical protection on top of 8 PD ED plate and his own 8 PD, 6 ED defenses.  Then we're slouching into champions territory.