Attacking 'from behind'

[TranquiloUno]

11 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

All of those threads are about things that are not priced out. Apparently the silent majority either doesn't care about or agrees with the pricing as is. Propose your better option so we can use it as the basis for this debate you want so much.

 

Oh and I would price it just as it is in the book. it is useful but doesn't come up in the source material of all genres

 

Ha! I just thought it might be a more useful and interesting direction to take the thread given the proclivities of Hero fans to build stuff. I wouldn't say I want it "so much", but just...if you build it using CSLs, limited Stats, or however...how does it work out? Clarifying? Useful? Interesting? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Similarly I'm not sure where "better option" enters in to things. It might be a more expensive option. Which would be less better.

 

But others in the thread have posted that folks shouldn't have to pay 3pts (and a HPA) or 10pts for a marginally useful\useless ability only to prevent (a potential and interpretable) rules cheese.

 

ETA: "It is useful but doesn't come up in the source material of all games". True! But would you change the price depending on the game? Like a Kung Fu game where you'll be fighting a LOT of ninjas all at once all the time...still only 3\5\8\10pts?

 

[Grailknight]

2 minutes ago, TranquiloUno said:

 

Ha! I just thought it might be a more useful and interesting direction to take the thread given the proclivities of Hero fans to build stuff. I wouldn't say I want it "so much", but just...if you build it using CSLs, limited Stats, or however...how does it work out? Clarifying? Useful? Interesting? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Similarly I'm not sure where "better option" enters in to things. It might be a more expensive option. Which would be less better.

 

But others in the thread have posted that folks shouldn't have to pay 3pts (and a HPA) or 10pts for a marginally useful\useless ability only to prevent (a potential and interpretable) rules cheese.

 

 

 

The only people I've seen asking for this are those who are making a big issue of this "rules cheese" They should be the ones who ultimately fix their problem with the rules. I've proposed 3  no point cost solutions.

 

1-Actually using this "rules cheese" in a couple of sessions with every character's every action and seeing how that plays.

 

2- GM fiat

 

3- Using Surprise Attack as the basis for this and adjudicating it from there.

 

That's my limit. Life is too short to try to please everyone.

 

[TranquiloUno]

3 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

The only people I've seen asking for this are those who are making a big issue of this "rules cheese" They should be the ones who ultimately fix their problem with the rules. I've proposed 3  no point cost solutions.

 

First page of the thread: "But... you bring up a good point: why does Defense Maneuver cost so much if its application is so uncommon and often indistinct in nature?  Yes 10 points isn't much... at the superheroic level, but its a fair amount at the heroic level where its almost exclusively going to be used."

 

Poster in question doesn't seem to have a big issue with the rules cheese.

 

First page of the thread (converse): "Defense Maneuver really doesn't cost that much.  If you rule as I do, and allow easy mob tactics against untrained warriors, then the 3 point version of Defense Maneuver is about the best three points you'll ever spend.  If you're a Fighting Man with a 6 DCV and are fighting 2 uncoordinating Goblins with 3 OCV, then that 3 points is basically granting you 15 points worth of DCV by preventing you from taking a 1/2 DCV penalty."

 

Poster in question doesn't seem to have a big issue with the rules cheese. But does seem to agree with my posited position that 3pts is probably a great price for the utility.

 

Second page of thread: "You shouldn't have to pay 10 real or 3 real and an HPA every turn to not be subject to inane rules abuse." 

 

Poster in question doesn't seem to have a big issue with the rules cheese...in that they wouldn't allow it to occur (just as most of us wouldn't).

 

So...I don't think anybody was actually "asking for this"...except me.

 

You say 3pts seems good. Cool!

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

1-Actually using this "rules cheese" in a couple of sessions with every character's every action and seeing how that plays.

 

2- GM fiat

 

3- Using Surprise Attack as the basis for this and adjudicating it from there.

 

That's my limit. Life is too short to try to please everyone.

 

 

Ok. Those more address the rules abuses than the building of Defense Maneuver itself. Which is a fine solution to that part of things.

Thank you for contributing (<- not sarcasm, since tone is hard on the 1nt3rw3bz).

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Except you can't discount 2 point levels.

 

I don't have my book available right now but I think you can in 6th.

[TranquiloUno]

And since Grailknight asked a couple times, I think I'd do it like a limited form of DCV.

 

For the 3pt version:

So 5pt CSLs with Extra Time (-1 maybe since CSLs are normally 0 phase? Or -1/2 because that actually seems more in line with other examples), Only for rear attacks (-1). Call it -2.

Rather than slap a "only to counter up to half DCV penalties for rear attacks" I'd just have the PC buy it at a level matching their CV\Dex.

 

So the Dex 12 Fighter that uses heavy weapons only has to pay for 2 levels of it but the Dex 30 Speedster would need to pay his 5 levels. (insert equivalent 6th edition examples...here: < > )

 

About 2pts per level. So 4-8pts for most Heroic games, probably. 8-12+pts for most Superheroic games, depending on how folks like their Dex\Spd set up.

 

The 5\8\10pt versions also work out about the same.

 

DCV (only to counter DCV penalties, only versus rear or multi attack) is probably -1/2, eh? Maybe a -1?

 

So 2-3pts per level of anticipated penalty based on character Dex. Rather than a flat rate.

 

Seems much more Hero-y that way, no? Price based on anticipated utility matched to character capability?

 

Or maybe not since Stealth is always 3pts even if you're Dex 2600?

And unaging immortality is 5pts rather than an escalating cost based on buying off the anticipated disad costs of old age from the Age table?

 

 

Definitely makes the flat 3pt cost seem like a good deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TranquiloUno]

20 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I don't have my book available right now but I think you can in 6th.

 

p71: The GM may restrict which types of CSLs can have Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations.

 

However per p70 2pt CSLs can ONLY increase OCV and not DCV.

 

3pt CSLs can only be used for DCV against the same types of attacks as they grant OCV.

 

But it specifies under 5pt CSLs that "Large Group" means more than "Small Group" but less than "all HtH Combat or all Range Combat".

 

Not sure how that interacts with Defense Maneuver which would provide it's bonuses\nega-penalties regardless, right?

 

Still seems like 5pt level would be right.

 

But since it's 6th....now you're just buying DCV for 3pts per point. So even if you get things down to 2pts per level it might almost be cheaper in 6th to just buy more DCV in some cases?

[Lee]

12 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I don't have my book available right now but I think you can in 6th.

 

p71: The GM may restrict which types of CSLs can have Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations.

 

Just below that reference on p71 it goes on to say:

 

Quote

Unless the GM rules otherwise, CSLs with Limitations can only increase the user’s OCV, not DCV or damage. (Limitations such as “Only For OCV” or “Only For DCV” are not legal for CSLs; if a character wants that, he should just buy more of the OCV or DCV Characteristics.)

 

So, if we are talking about using CSL's to offset the DCV penalty for attacks from behind, it seems (if I am reading the RAW correctly) that you can't. That means, to me at any rate, that if we want to stat out what the offset "should" cost, it shouldn't be based on CSL's but on Limited DCV.  That's assuming that I'm understanding what we're trying to accomplish here. And, I know what happens whenever I assume something...

 

Lee

[TranquiloUno]

No! Wait!

 

The elegant solution for 6e is DCV bought with Extra Time and Only To Counter Rear Attack\Multiple Attack penalties and call that a -2.

That's 1pt per level. 

And then it's just like Lightning Reflexes (Dex only for going first), HA (Str only for damage), and whatever else ("Toughness" = Con only for not being stunned?).

 

This gets rid of the weird 3\2\3\2 point structure and the also weird levels of things you can perceive, everything, etc.

 

Just a nice easy 1pt per pt of penalty countering. And then back port it to 5e and say it's 1pt\level by fiat 'cause making that math work in 5e seems trickier.

 

That's nicer, right? Only buy what you need or want (guy that's good against mobs (eg, Fezzik) buys off the full penalty, guy that is pretty good against trash mobs (eg, Aragorn) only buys a couple points, and some folks buy none (eg, cheap Boramir joke!)) and a nice flat cost structure.

 

Seems much more Hero-y. To me. Not it's own weird special rule but just another limited form of a stat.

 

It does eliminate the 10pt version without the Extra Time on it. But, you know, at somepoint in 6e....just buy more DCV, eh? 

Or call that the 2pt\level version for master villains and Cthulu and whoever.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

The elegant solution for 6e is DCV bought with Extra Time and Only To Counter Rear Attack\Multiple Attack penalties and call that a -2.

That's 1pt per level. 

 

 

This would require the GM to permit using Combat Skill Levels with modifiers to be DCV only, of course.  But to build an effect, sometimes you have to break the rules.

 

Here are the levels of Defense Maneuver:

 

Quote

 

This Skill requires a Half Phase Action to use; the character can also make a Half Move or attack, for instance.

Defense Maneuver I: No attacker is considered to be attacking “from behind”: 3 points.
Defense Maneuver II: Eliminates Multiple Attacker Bonuses as to attackers the character can perceive: +2 points.
Defense Maneuver III: Eliminates Multiple Attacker Bonuses to all attackers, even those which the character cannot perceive: +3 points.
Defense Maneuver IV: Acts as a “sense,” i.e., the character need not spend a Half Phase to use his: +2 points.*

 

 

So if we built this as a set of limited DCV levels, they'd instead have varying costs rather than levels with set costs.

Level I seems like its simply "DCV vs surprise or rear attacks" which is pretty specific so maybe -2 (plus the extra time for -¼?? Half Phase isn't actually in the chart, for some reason so you have to guesstimate) for a total of 1.5 (1) point per DCV.  If you want to get technical you could charge 3 points per 2 DCV.

Level II is a lesser limitation, since it covers multiple attacker bonuses as well, but that's still pretty specific, maybe -1¾.  After all this doesn't come up a lot and you still have every other attack in the game that this added DCV doesn't help with.  That works out to 1.6 or 2 points per DCV.  Again, I guess you could charge 5 points per 3 DCV, but it probably should just cost +1 point per DCV added to the Level I ones you bought.

Level III is again a slightly lesser limitation, perhaps -1½, so that works out to 1.8 points per DCV or 2.  Again an additional +1 per DCV added to the previous

Level IV doesn't work out to a clean and easy cost, since each level is a different price, but its roughly 1 point at most (.8, in fact).

 

So it would look like this: buying +1 DCV at Level I would cost 1 point

Adding Level II effect would cost 2 points total, +1 each

Adding Level III effect would cost 3 points total, +1 each to the previous cost

Adding no time would cost 1 point each DCV level.

 

So +3 to DCV, only to negate attacks from the rear or from multiple attackers, which requires no extra time, would cost 12 points.  And 3 is enough for most characters to effectively negate "half DCV" since that's as low these maneuvers and attacks can reduce you.  That's roughly the same as the present Defense Maneuver, but low DCV characters need not spend so much.  If your DCV is 5, you only need 2 levels (8 points).

 

*as a house rule I always have treated IV as an adder: that is you can pay those +2 points at ANY level of the skill and just not have to take the extra time.

[TranquiloUno]

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

This would require the GM to permit using Combat Skill Levels with modifiers to be DCV only, of course.  But to build an effect, sometimes you have to break the rules.

 

But in 6e you can just buy DCV directly, right? And limited forms of it? So no CSLs involved in 6e. I think.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Here are the levels of Defense Maneuver:

 

 

So if we built this as a set of limited DCV levels, they'd instead have varying costs rather than levels with set costs.

Level I seems like its simply "DCV vs surprise or rear attacks" which is pretty specific so maybe -2 (plus the extra time for -¼?? Half Phase isn't actually in the chart, for some reason so you have to guesstimate) for a total of 1.5 (1) point per DCV.  If you want to get technical you could charge 3 points per 2 DCV.

 

Yah, that was what I was wondering, how much is "only vs rear attack\multiple attack" worth. -2 seems reasonable. I'd go -1/2 for the Extra Time though I agree -1/4 does fit the pattern. Either which way though about the same 1-2pts per level of DCV compensation.

 

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Level II is a lesser limitation, since it covers multiple attacker bonuses as well, but that's still pretty specific, maybe -1¾.  After all this doesn't come up a lot and you still have every other attack in the game that this added DCV doesn't help with.  That works out to 1.6 or 2 points per DCV.  Again, I guess you could charge 5 points per 3 DCV, but it probably should just cost +1 point per DCV added to the Level I ones you bought.

 

Sure, totally.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Level III is again a slightly lesser limitation, perhaps -1½, so that works out to 1.8 points per DCV or 2.  Again an additional +1 per DCV added to the previous

Level IV doesn't work out to a clean and easy cost, since each level is a different price, but its roughly 1 point at most (.8, in fact).

 

So it would look like this: buying +1 DCV at Level I would cost 1 point

Adding Level II effect would cost 2 points total, +1 each

Adding Level III effect would cost 3 points total, +1 each to the previous cost

Adding no time would cost 1 point each DCV level.

 

So +3 to DCV, only to negate attacks from the rear or from multiple attackers, which requires no extra time, would cost 12 points.  And 3 is enough for most characters to effectively negate "half DCV" since that's as low these maneuvers and attacks can reduce you.  That's roughly the same as the present Defense Maneuver, but low DCV characters need not spend so much.  If your DCV is 5, you only need 2 levels (8 points).

 

It seems neater too. "+3 to DCV, only to negate attacks from the rear or from multiple attackers, which requires no extra time" tells me what it does in a way Defense Maneuver III does not. Unless I'm a serious Hero dork and have it memorized. ;D ;D

 

 

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

*as a house rule I always have treated IV as an adder: that is you can pay those +2 points at ANY level of the skill and just not have to take the extra time.

 

Dropping a half-phase to (kinda) apply combat levels, particularly defensive combat levels, seems worth more to me than just the -1/4 the chart implies.

[Tywyll]

On 11/20/2019 at 9:24 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

 

I thought our problem in HERO was that we were aging middle-aged and (mostly) men.  Not the target demographic. 

 

As an interested third party, I think none of the earlier posts warranted downvoting, though they may have warranted noticing in the discussion.

 

I'll have to disagree, as I feel several crossed the line. 

 

On 11/20/2019 at 9:24 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

I know I sometimes feel hurt by comments on the forums but I think downvoting only exacerbates disagreements and encourages bad behaviour.

 

I know I ALWAYS think I am in the right, I expect many opinion givers on the internet feel likewise.  I am asking one of you (if not both) and everyone else to go back and remove all the downvotes. 

 

Then see if we can discuss like true old gamers who like the same game....

 

Doc

 

Sadly, the other guy just went through and hit a bunch of posts of mine with Downvotes, even those that had nothing to do with him. So, there's your target audience. 

 

[Tywyll]

On 11/20/2019 at 5:57 PM, Usagi said:

I don't think you necessarily have to switch to 6E because of issues like this, but I did downvote Tyrell for slamming the system as a whole when he's complaining about an issue that was fixed in 6E, the actual current edition (as of the last decade).  6E and 5E are ridiculously cross compatible, and that goes double for the combat rules.  If 5E is confusing on the issue, then 6E is not, and you can just apply the ruling from 6E to 5E.  I mean, really guys, this isn't that hard to work out.  Some of you are complaining just to complain, when the solution is both obvious and right in front of you.

 

That seems unneccesary. 

 

Of course I can use the rule from 6E, but it doesn't fix the problem. It just takes away the benefit of running around someone in a circle, it doesn't actually remove the ability to do it. It doesn't remove the ability to run past combatants and ignore them to get behind something or someone they are defending which are additional concerns about the spinning dance mechanic. 

[Tywyll]

On 11/20/2019 at 6:58 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

 

It seemed to me that you were saying that GM fiat was a bad thing; it's hard to get tone sometimes in written communication.   

 

No, that was the other guy who complained you should use Gm's common sense and not also make rules by Fiat. Which is silly. 

 

On 11/20/2019 at 6:58 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

Sure, a GM judgement call is GM fiat, and that's not a bad thing.  It seemed to me that you were looking for something other than GM fiat as a resolution to the problem.  

 

Agreed.

 

Yes, I would prefer that there were rules to cover it.  Which was why I went with the house rule I mentioned earlier.

 

However, the other guy refused to let it drop and kept exclaiming the the rules as written were 100% fine with no need to make a house rule. 

 

 

On 11/20/2019 at 6:58 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I want that too!  I also don't like insults and edition wars!  

 

To be honest, I don't really believe in editions anymore.  First edition and sixth edition are compatible enough and similar enough that I see them as one big ruleset with a whole lot of options; one "edition" is a rules snapshot and a set of options in use.  I'm also not generally one to recommend an edition change; if people are happy with the edition they're playing, why change?  I love 3rd myself, but have been playing 6th a lot lately.  I'm further hesitant to recommend a different edition because I don't know what materials people have or are willing and able to get.  

 

Which seems totally cool by me. I wanted to start this game in 4th edition, but Hero Designer is just too easy to use and without something comparable for 4th, I couldn't justify the time I'd spend statting out everything on paper. 

[Guest Usagi]

5 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Of course I can use the rule from 6E, but it doesn't fix the problem.

Then I don't understand the problem.

 

5 hours ago, Tywyll said:

It just takes away the benefit of running around someone in a circle, it doesn't actually remove the ability to do it. It doesn't remove the ability to run past combatants and ignore them to get behind something or someone they are defending which are additional concerns about the spinning dance mechanic. 

Yeah, I don't get it.  What's the issue here?  

[Tywyll]

1 hour ago, Usagi said:

Then I don't understand the problem.

 

Yeah, I don't get it.  What's the issue here?  

 

If you want to pull your downvotes, I'll be happy to discuss it. It doesn't seem fair to downvote for something when you didn't understand the complaint. 

[Surrealone]

It also doesn't seem fair to downvote just because you disagree with someone … or because you feel offended by something someone wrote when that wasn't the person's intent.  The fact that this was done, suggests fairness isn't part of the equation that was used by some people when conducting their downvotes. Thus, it seems a bit unreasonable to hold others to a standard of fairness when it comes to downvoting.  (I believe there's a term/word for holding others to a standard to which one does not, oneself, conform/adhere.  Hypo...something.  Hrm, if I could only remember the rest of it...)

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think I've only downvoted one thing, and it was something not only wildly off topic, but almost trolling in its political content, which seemed unnecessary and provocative.

[Doc Democracy]

9 hours ago, Surrealone said:

 (I believe there's a term/word for holding others to a standard to which one does not, oneself, conform/adhere.  Hypo...something.  Hrm, if I could only remember the rest of it...)

 

😤 Not helpful...

[Hermit]

Okay. Folks. 

Your friendly neighborhood moderator here.

I've had a request to lock this thread down. And I can see why. There's no rule against down voting someone, but we do have a stance against insulting or 'attacking' individuals (As opposed to disagreeing or debating what they say) and we're definitely crossing dangerously close to that. I'm not pointing fingers. But it does look at this point that we're getting into some circular arguments at best, and at worse, about to have some needless build up of personal hostility that can dim fun on all sides.

 

I'm not going to pretend I'm above that myself. We've all gone down that rabbit hole. But my advice, trite as it is, is if you're getting riled, back off from the thread. It doesn't mean you've conceded defeat or any such thing.  If it's gotten to a point where side X is in this camp, and Side Y is in that camp, and they're never going to agree, then you're no longer really sharing opposing views, you're trying to collect points from those that already agree with you  (And maybe 'show up' the other side) and that's a waste of our time too.

 

Apologies for the scattershot speech, sometimes  innocents get caught in the 'lecture fire', and I certainly don't intend that. But right now, this thread seems almost the opposite of productive given how negative it has twisted into. 

 

However, seeing posts that admit this has become something of a flame war, or questions from folk wondering what we're even talking about after four pages, makes me realize more than one of you agrees this thread has become circular and hostile... though the reasons WHY or 'who is to blame' may vary. Instead of assigning blame. I'm going to take put this thread out of its misery.

 

You're free to start a new again, fresh and clean if you like, and please bear my concerns in mind if you do. I can't claim to 'know' all of you but most on this thread I've seen for years on these boards and I've a respect for a lot of you but we all have our bad days, or 'well that escalated quickly' situations. I hope that's all this whole thing is, collectively speaking

 

 

If anybody disagrees with the locking of the thread, feel free to PM Simon, I am but a lowly mod.