slaughterj

Originally posted by tesuji

try running past your brother when he wants to punch you. unless he is knocked down or stunned or surprised, he will punch you when you run past. So WHY is it right to allow you to run past your brother or away from him and not give him an immediate reaction but it is wrong to allow you to swing at him and move away?

Exactly. The Hero system does not have a setup akin to Attacks of Opportunity, and you have to play it with that understanding. The move-by and the attack then move away are basically the same thing in the sense that both allow movement after the attack, but the move-by doesn't trigger an attack by an opponent, so attack then move shouldn't either. Instead, I tend to have certain mooks hold actions based on character s approaching them, and react accordingly, unless they are already in an appropriate position for combat - then the held action can wait to hit the character if they try to run by the mook, but if not, then the mook will take his action (e.g., move up and attack).

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

1d6 nnd Does BODY linked to explosive entangle?

 

Adv & Lim (salt and pepper) to taste.

Interesting, I'll think about that one, thanks.

Originally posted by coach

All I can say is, of course you can attack and then move. Say you have a SPD 4 character, on phase 3 you run up and punch somebody, on phase 6 you run away. There you go, you moved *right* after you attacked.

 

Remember that even though the system makes it seem like it, the actions are not static, it's all fluid and continuous, like in the movies or "real life". Did some people manage to get in some actions between the time you started your swing and the time you ended 50 feet away? I would guess that they likely did, unless you have some really slow adversaries. But how is that unrealistic? Lots of other stuff will be going on while you attack then run. Simulated by the fact that others get phases in there somewhere.

 

Try an experiment. Punch your punching bag and then run the other way 50 feet. How long did that take you? Could other people be doing stuff during that time period? Now, take a swing at your big brother and then try to run away before he tags you right back. Unless you knocked him over or knocked his breath out, you know he's gonna be able to pop you before you can get away. *Especially* if you missed. Think about that for a second. You swing, you miss, and then you think you are going to be able to run 20' (an average half-move) before your opponent can hit you back? That's just totally unrealistic. Unless, of course, you are WAY faster than your opponent.

 

If you want your character to be able to pop somebody and then run away before they can return fire, then you need to buy an exceptionally high SPD. But, you *never* see the "tag" type of fighting that the hit-then-move type of combat tends towards in the movies. Or even in real life. In the middle of a combat, it is usually very hard to get away from your opponent. You have to do something significant to give yourself an extra second to get away.

 

So, if you want to move away immediately after attacking, do it your next phase because that IS immediately.

Haha, whatever. The point is, the system allows you to move then attack IN THE SAME PHASE, but doesn't allow for attack then move IN THE SAME PHASE. You tell me why one takes any different amount of time, and then you might get somewhere.

I understand what you mean about the tag and run off situation, but I don't see it as an issue for a myriad of reasons:

1. What else is move-by but a run by and tag the target en route, without a return strike except with a held action? Under your line of thinking, this shouldn't be allowed.

2. Attack then move means you would have had to have started out adjacent to your target, so there likely would have been a window for the target to attack you somewhere in there. E.g., SPD 4 character runs up on Phase 3 to attack SPD 3 villain. After movement, then attack on Phase 3, SPD 4 character is next to SPD 3 villain. SPD 3 villain then attacks SPD 4 character on Phase 4. On Phase 6, SPD 4 character attacks SPD 4 villain again, and moves away. Villain still got an attack in, and likely on Phase 8 can half-move and still attack SPD 4 character wherever they ran off to.

3. There are a ton of Heroic situations where attack then move makes sense, e.g., my hero is holding onto the vine with one hand, swings his sword at the adjacent cannibal, then swings across the ravine to escape his fellows. Why should that not be allowed in 1 phase, when alternatively my hero could swing on the vine to the other side of the ravine and attack a cannibal there? IT MAKES NO SENSE. It's merely a game mechanic simplifier that is outdated and unnecessary.

Originally posted by D-Man

How is a move by less flexible?

 

If you don't like it, change it.

I guess you haven't been paying attention, I stated in this thread that I changed it many years ago, without adverse effect

A move-by is a lot less flexible because of the -2 OCV and -2 DCV (damage may be down slightly on average, but maybe not). Those are some significant penalties, changing your chance to hit or avoid being hit by 25% when dealing with equivalent range CV opponents. Move-by is better when you need to move up, attack, and keep moving, of course, or to attack more than 1 target.

I eyeball it after setting an AP/DC maximum. You can't just look at AP, because you get the HKA plus STR, etc. situations. You also can't just look at DC, because you get Find Weakness, etc. situations.

Originally posted by D-Man

Several methods of doing it have been mentioned in this very thread. It is possible within the existing mechanics without changing a thing.

Yeah, but they are not nearly as flexible as simply moving, nor is there a compelling reason not to allow movement afterward but for the fact that the system arbitrarily set up the "attack action" as a phase ender, rather than simply say "once you've activated/deactivated a power, set CSLs, etc. for a phase, you can't change them". Not allowing movement after attack is a very outdated construct with no real usefulness, just a mechanical rules simplification.

Hmm, I like the idea of the explosive entangle such that breaking out doesn't harm the creature, but...that doesn't allow for strangling of the (helpless) victims...hmm...

Originally posted by tesuji

Comparison to DND is iffy, because in DND it is difficult to withdraw from a fight. Swing-then-move will earn you a free shot by the enemy unless you bought your way out of it with tumble and such.

Hmm, been a while for D&D for me, but can't you attack, then move back from your opponent (as long as you aren't running past enemies) and not trigger an attack of opportunity?

-=-=-

The D&D/d20 feats seem like a good comparison to a point raised above regarding 0 phase actions and CSL allocations. In D&D/d20, you could use feats which reduce your defense and increase your offense, but there doesn't seem to be a problem with people doing this, attacking, and then switching them back. Same goes for Hero, simply say once allocated in the phase, then they stay allocated, so you don't have issues like setting all CSLs on OCV, attacking, moving them to DCV, then moving from your opponent, all in 1 phase.

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Change Environment that reduces inches of movement, with the Reduced by Range limitation, defined as getting weaker the further from the center you are.

 

An Explosion Suppress vs Movement (all at once +2) would do it too.

Interesting idea on the Suppress, I'll have to check that out in comparison to the Change Environment. The Change Environment is pretty good, but has a few little issues, like the way you buy up all movement (though not teleport, in this particular case).

Originally posted by KA.

Okay,

 

I finally decided to weigh in on this.

 

The question as to movement after attack is not one of "right or wrong", it is, what are the results?

 

If I said that, in my family, when we play checkers, each person gets to move two checkers on their turn, instead of just one, I would not expect to be told that I was a "blasphemer", but I would expect someone to tell me that what I was playing was no longer "checkers".

 

I might enjoy it more, but the problem is, once I am used to playing this way, I can basically only play with other members of my family, or people that I "convert" to my new game.

 

That can be a problem, unless you are the GM, and you plan to game with the same people "forever".

 

Otherwise, you are teaching them a mode of play that will not be compatible with other Hero players.

 

This is not some kind of sin, but it is not necessarily the best way to go either.

 

KA

I understand where you are coming from, and that is the problem with house rules in general. People play with a lot of house rules in various rpgs, and in Hero, many do things like change the cost of STR, Damage Shield, etc. Generally I do not make those sorts of changes to my games so that people's characters stay comparable with book products and others that people might make with the system. However, I do make the occasional rules change that doesn't affect anything outside my game, and let the players know that it is a rule change, for instance, allowing attack then move. Then they know it is a house rule, but at least their characters aren't hosed by moving to another GM's game where changes like the cost of fundamental mechanics have been done.

As a side note, for FH, the way I have run it is if you are in face-to-face combat, and want to attack, but then move (e.g., a fighting retreat, which SHOULD be allowed), I allow the character to take their half move backward, but only at half speed if they want to continue to face their enemy. Thus, someone with a Running of 8" has a half move of 4" but wants to back away from their opponent after a half-phase attack, they can move backward 2" (half their half move) and still be facing their opponent. Alternatively, they could simply turn their back and run, but then their opponent could do a nasty move-thru from behind with appropriate DCV penalties for not facing them.

Originally posted by Solomon

I actually used a "move after attack" rule in my first days as a Champions GM because I had a poor grasp of the rules. I didn't like the results and was quite happy to find out there was a rule preventing unrestricted movement after attacks.

 

I felt that allowing "Move after attack" led many energy projectors with high Movement scores to do a "ranged attack two-steps" pattern: "fire then withdraw", "close then fire", rinse and repeat. Unrealistic, un-fictional and just plain silly.

 

Of course slower opponents could prevent that by holding actions, but this in turn tends to slow down fights. The "two steps" pattern becomes even more of an issue if you take into account unusual movement powers like Teleport or Tunnel.

Fire withdraw, close then fire, would seem to bring them potentially in reach. Characters can be played with a whit of sense to take cover rather than the dumb plodding brick acting like a horse after the carrot strung before him.

Originally posted by Solomon

Plus, if you allow movement after attack, there is no logic reason against allowing "0 phase" actions too, which opens a whole new can of worms. Shifting combat levels, shifting Multipowers and VPPs and pesky powers like Desolid come to mind. "Turn solid, attack, turn desolid and move" anyone? Not horribly powerful, of course, just too annoying for my personal tastes. Such issues simply do not arise under "standard" HERO rules.

I used GM discretion on these. If something had been "used", it couldn't be used again, e.g., if skill levels had been applied at the start of a phase, then attack, then they were set and couldn't be switched after the attack because they had been used. Same logic could be used for desolid (turning solid, attacking, then turning desolid) if it's a concern, and that's not horribly powerful as you noted, given holding phases. I think that the idea of "it's been used, you can't use it again" pretty much takes care of most things, as well as the old adage "if you can do it, so can your opponents", when deciding whether something should be able to be done in play. Obviously the rule book needs to flesh things out more if the rule were changed, but it could start by stating these basic principles, then getting into the thick of it from there.

Originally posted by Blue

I allow standard Half Move & Attack, Full move, and Attack & Half Move actions and have never had an issue. Just goes to my general feeling about rules in games: As long as they apply to everyone equally there's typically no problem.

Hear hear!

Originally posted by Blue

Naturally you still can't do 0 Phase actions (like activation/deactivation of powers) after you've attacked, but I'll still let you move if you have both movement left (up to half your movement) and a half-action left.

Generally I agree, but if something isn't problematic, I'm fine with a given 0 phase action being taken, e.g., if someone wants to attack from hiding, then activate their bright FF, and then move out into the open, I don't see any issue. There are probably a few issues, some might have a problem with people attacking, then turning desolid, but that's not too much of an issue for me either.

Originally posted by Solomon

Allowing characters to move normally after attacking would give a decisive edge to characters with high Movement scores. They would be able keep without reach of slower characters too easily.

Not really. This is an archaic rule with no real purpose to it now, or possibly ever. I've run Hero since the late 80s allowing movement after attack, without ever a problem. This subject (and my perspective on it) has been discussed repeatedly here actually. Further, many modern rpg systems don't have this constraint, because it is clearly not an issue.

If one is worried about a high movement brick striking someone and then moving away. Well, they are only going to do it that phase. Then what happens? If the struck target can't move to the distant brick, the brick won't start next to them to the next phase to be able to do it again. They'll have to move to them, strike them, and then be standing next to them. Further, even if the high movement brick moves away, many have ranged attacks who can still hit the brick.

Even if you take the situation of a speedster, it doesn't matter. Let's have some stats to work with, a Running 30", SPD 8 speedster versus a Running 6" Leaping 12" SPD 4 brick. Let's say the battle starts with the speedster away from the target, and moves up to attack on phase 12. Then the brick gets to hit. Then the speedster attacks again, and moves away on phase 2 (or stays there and hits again on phase 3, then moves away before the brick's action). The speedster has 2 phases of actions between each of the brick's, regardless, but now the speedster is out of reach. The brick now merely needs to hold a half phase to hit the speedster when he comes back, and can still use a half phase on each of his actions to move or whatever. If the situation where a Flying energy projector instead of a speedster, the brick can throw things at the energy projector, or if he is so outclassed, he should be smart enough to leave the situation, e.g., change the environment so he is in a building which curtails his opponent's movement.

I've yet to see any scenario presented where attack then move was an issue, and expect if there was one, that it would be fairly contrived (both people are outside with no cover on a featureless plain) as to be of little concern in regular, typical play.

Thanks for the suggestions, keep 'em coming. The entangle seems like a good mechanic to try out, maybe with an "explosive" like effect (the creature is much more spread out than the 1 hex step-down works for though). I included desolid similar to as described above, and figure I'd do by fiat what the Bestiary did with that regarding "affects" real world on the entangle.

(I've got the Bestiary and am awaiting MMM by way of background.)

I'm trying to build a mist "creature" like that in Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser story Ill Met in Lankhmar, and am encountering some difficulties. Namely, the "creature" has a mist body, whose tendrils grapple and slow up those with its grasp, strangling its targets, and seems to have more "slowing" capacity as you get closer to its center. The body's mist-like tendrils can be cut but would seem unable to be grabbed.

A few paths I have explored have included:

1. the hydra model, with duplication, to enable multiple tendrils grabbing multiple targets, but this is problematic since it really doesn't try to be able to grab a specific target more or less, based on other targets present (compared with a hydra which could attack 1 person with all its heads)

2. the amorphous horror model, since many of the powers are basically applicable, but doesn't have a multiple attack method

3. change environment over an area limited by where it is at (maybe with an "explosion" limitation), to reduce movement rates, but that doesn't do the grappling itself

4. handle the grappling by various methods including "accurate" on STR, or some other area effect or explosion advantage

5. trying to have it unhurt except at its centerpoint by silver, thus the tendrils can be cut to free one from the grapple, but that doesn't harm the creature or stop further grapple attempts - not sure how to handle that...

I'm really looking to "stat" this thing out, so as to both be able to battle characters, but also to have the points worked out for summoning purposes.

Originally posted by mudpyr8

Total Points/20 + 7. So, a 150 pt character would have a rule of X of 7.5 + 7 = 15.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes for characters that are more powerful than I'm interested in at the 150pt level personally, especially since the 20 STR only counts as "4" in your calculation, yet provides 6 DC, plus the "15" compared with my "13" provides more...

But you seem to list just "skill" where my way is implicitly "CSL/2", so that might provide for some balance, but it might downplay the value of CSLs vs simply buying up STR for your calculation, which I'd rather not promote. Or if you mean the same thing as me, then it allows for well more powerful characters.

My 150pt examples were:

Nimble Rogue, STR 13, DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA

Strong Warrior, STR 18, DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (6DC), with room for some combination of 4 CSLs and/or MA

Your 150pt examples would seem to be:

Nimble Rogue, STR 13 ("3"), DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (-), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA: the same CSLs as me, unless you mean for CSLs to be divided by 2 (to be equal to CV or MA in the calculation), then it'd be 12 CSLs, i.e. 6 more than me

Strong Warrior, STR 18 ("4"), DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (-), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA: 2 more CSLs than me, unless you mean for CSLs to be divided by 2 (to be equal to CV or MA in the calculation), then it'd be 12 CSLs, i.e., 8 more than me

Please let me know if I misread/misinterpreted your calculation, else either it's better to buy MA than CSLs under your system, and CSLs are of less value than buying DEX to increase your CV (and the Hero system itself already incentives this). Also, using STR rather than DC allows for a bigger spread by the warrior over the rogue, as shown above.

Originally posted by mudpyr8

That's essentially the same as my formula (points/20 + 7 = STR/5 + CV + Skill +2 for MA).

 

I originally had an almost identical formual, slaughter, but I found dealing with weapons and damage advantages got way whacky. Since it was for a heroic game, everyone had access to weapons and so on equally, so why not accept that as a constant and simply use STR as the base.

 

I get your drift re STR to weapon damage, but I find it to be a cleaner equation when using DC and the weapons come to mind readily for me. I could expand mine a bit to say:

base CV (i.e., DEX/3) + base DC + CSL/2 (but this I just include in the previous 2) + 2 for MA (since the typical MA is Martial Strike, with +2DCV and +1DC, thus equal to +1 CV and +1 DC) < 13

What do you mean by "points/20 + 7"?

Originally posted by Keneton

Base CV+Base DC<=13 then works.

Well, it works for me (Oh, and it's not just base CV/DC, it includes CSLs and Martial Mods, just not an extra +1 from a weapon, a PSL, shields generally, or bother to worry with an extra +1 from a Martial Art.) Others might find a desire to "tune" it, even adding in SPD as a third factor, e.g. CV+DC+SPD<16, or simply raising or lowering the # for their campaign and/or starting character points.

Originally posted by Keneton

Although I like this Idea, it seems to low a limit.

 

Example: An human fighter with an 20 Strength and 2 HTH levels does a haymaker with a large axe. The base is DC6 + 4 for the haymaker and 1 for strength = DC11+2 Levels = 13. To be in your campaign his dex would have to be 0!

 

Another less extrem example.

 

Elf with longbow and a martial maneuver for ranged martial arts +1/+0 +2dc. DC 6 base +1 for maneuver=DC 7. If the elf has and 18 Dex he has a base 6 OCV +1 for the maneuver =7. This guy cant be in you campaign.

7+7=14. In fact none of the charcters from Fantasy Hero could be in the campaign.

 

I like the concept, but the limit is far too low.

I don't include things like basic combat maneuvers, else you could get into things like move-thrus and get to some high silliness Also, as far as the elf goes, I use "CV", not "OCV", so 2 "plusses" have to mean something to me (like how I mention earlier about disregarding a weapon's innate +1), so the elf would probably be fine (also I think I said something about it being a rough guideline). I haven't examined the characters in FH, but am not too concerned as to whether they'd be in - especially because I haven't decided how to handle talents like "deadly blow" (?) (not sure the name of the one that increases base damage), since I've only most recently run FH under 5e before the FH book came out.

In addition to the combat effectiveness metric I mentioned above (CV+DC<13), I also "curb" players' excessiveness by suggesting a lot of skills for the player to consider for the character before they even get to the point of CSLs, which tends to limit how many can be purchased because they see lots of skills they can't live without.

Originally posted by Galadorn

I agree. I once played a character who was a Doc Elliot type, but with DEX 14. I was slaughtered by the first gunman my character met, who moved so fast (DEX 23), I didn't even see the gunman's movements. If I had known I would be meeting a DEX 23 gunman, I would have had at least a 24 DEX.

Hey, I thought you were ignoring me And you use my name in vain!

Good point, and I like Talon's list of ranges so that characters can know where they stack up. I've done up the stats for the city guardsman, lieutenant, and captain of the guard range before, to know how characters should stack up.

I use a rough guideline metric to see if characters are reasonably in line from the start. My equation for this is CV+DC<13, including the typical bonuses from the usual martial art used, but probably would just eyeball PSLs and shields, and don't worry with the +1OCV a given weapon might give. This provides a balance, enabling a high skill but less damaging sort vs. a wild warrior sort. Further, since 2 CSLs can be combined for 1 DC or spread to +1 to OCV & DCV, the equation is balanced with regard to them.

I'm not REALLY strict about it, nor do I want it to be viewed as a ceiling that all need to start at. Also, DEF isn't really an issue, since that's controlled more in the game (tend to play in low armor campaign settings), but usually runs about 2 DEF leather. Plus DEF is somewhat countered by penalties to DCV.

It allows for quite a bit, but not excessively so IMNSHO, for starting characters. Here's some examples which "fit":

Nimble Rogue, STR 13, DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), with plenty of room for CSLs/MA

Strong Warrior, STR 18, DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (6DC), with plenty of room for CSLs/MA

Also, I try to have characters adjusted to be "balanced" with one another, so if someone makes a "mighty barbarian warrior" (with STR 15, DEX 11 (4CV) , 1 1/2D6K sword (5DC), and 2 CSLs), that he isn't unbalanced against "lean street waif pickpocket" (with STR 13, DEX 20 (7CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), and 5 CSLs), by either boosting the warrior (seems a good idea in this case) or trimming the pickpocket (also seems a good idea in this case).

Finally, a good way to get characters built "properly" according to your game world might be to provide the stats for a typical city guardsman, so the players know how the characters stack up and are made appropriately. E.g., if your city guard has STR 13, DEX 11, 1D6+1K sword, and 1 CSL, then the warrior character might be very happen to be at STR 15, DEX 14, 1 1/2D6K sword, and 3 CSLs (knowing he'll best 1-2 guards fairly readily), and the pickpocket might be happy with STR 10, DEX 18, 1D6K sword, and 2 CSLs (knowing that he can do okay against a city guard, being heroic, but not needing to be able to beat a whole unit).

Though not one of the recent inquirers, thanks for the update, and I look forward to seeing the revised site.

Originally posted by farik

While trying to design a summoner magic system for Fantasy Hero I took a hard look at why a summon spell would summon a normal animal when he could summon an intelligent constructed creature (like a personal Imp or the aforementioned fairy.) I came to 2 realizations

 

1) First of all a consideration to keep in mind in the summoning cost is the fact that it has a small amount of mind control built in. In the cat example for instance a summoned cat will actually follow your instructions (assuming you have superior EGO) something a cat grabbed off the street (or even a pet) won't do.

 

2) A Summon that only summons creatures with animal intellect probably deserves a limitation since the character won't be able to rationalize with the creature or get it to do anything else unless they have mind control or really good animal handling skills.

 

Thoughts?

Interesting idea in #2...

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Ah, I see; part of the issue for you is, "Why shouldn't Limitations be factored into the Summoning cost?" Well, for my part I'd be concerned about the munchkin potential that that would open up. In my game experience creatures tend to be Summoned for fairly specific purposes: combat power, or some ability that they have that's useful for a particular task. If you start factoring in animal Disadvantages to lower the cost of Summon, it could be disturbingly cheap to bring in a creature only good for combat, but very good at combat.

Well, those limitations were one of the things I mentioned in the original post to this thread, so yes, I consider it an issue for discussion on this subject

The advantage in avoiding munchkinism is that by using the bestiary creatures pretty much as is, it avoids players making majorly disadvantaged creatures that are abusive for a reduced summoning cost, since the beastiary creatures should be balanced from an objective standpoint. That's why I don't have much of a concern regarding bringing in the disadvantages.