Jump to content

Surrealone

HERO Member
  • Posts

    1,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    Surrealone got a reaction from Prefers2Lurk in Hero system 7 ideas   
  2. Like
    Surrealone got a reaction from Prefers2Lurk in Speed and END   
    The examples of Smoke Screens, Potions of Giant Strength that were given are charge-based examples.  Thus, they should really be bought as Continuing Charges to completely preclude END-related issues.  (In the case of a Potion of Giant Strength where you don't want the added strength to cost the user added END, simply make the potion a Compound Power that has the amount of conferred Strength bought @0 END for the user a la a Naked Power Advantage being part of the compound power.)

    And Dsatow's citation of Costs end to activate (+1/4) ... is one that completely resolves the Force Field concerns raised above.

    So what, exactly, is wrong/missing with judicious use of RAW, again???
  3. Like
    Surrealone got a reaction from Prefers2Lurk in No Recoveries For Dying Characters   
    Hero System has its foundations in, well, heroes (a la Champions) … and what you describe is decidedly un-comic-booky.  However, if it suits your desired gaming style or perhaps your genre (a la a really lethal, heroic level Dark Champions game), by all means, house rule away.
  4. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Not once did I intentionally target anything rude or insulting at you or your group.  And yes, I absolutely gave as good as I felt I got with downvotes.  As previously noted, if those who initiated the downvotes will retract them, I will, as well.  (I didn't start the downvoting … so I also won't start the retractions.  I like to be consistent.)
  5. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    You appear to have ignored something from my earlier post when rendering this response, so I'll remind you of it: having your characters or NPCs put their backs to walls or fight back-to-back costs zero real points.  (As a reminder, I explicitly posted, "...positioning oneself with one's back to an ally or a wall, judicious use of cover with maneuvers like Snapshot, and the like all prevent this."  Note that these are all things that can be done in the course of one's normal movement on the field of battle, too -- so there's no special expenditure of a HPA to do them.  Instead, one simply has to be thoughtful about the half-moves and/or full moves that one makes (relative to the battlefield environment, one's allies, and one's opponents.)

    Put another way, you flat-out DO NOT have to pay ANY real points to avoid being subject to the aforementioned munchkinism.  But one can certainly pay real points if one doesn't want to bother using cover and/or the environment effectively.  (That is, after all, one of the benefits of point expenditures -- you buy the means to deal with issues you might not otherwise be able to deal with … as well as the means to be lazy about issues you might not otherwise be able to be lazy about.  Example: the Hulk's defenses are so high he can be lazy about multiple attackers, cover, rear attacs, etc.  Welcome to Hero System!)
  6. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from ScottishFox in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Context matters.  I point this out because Tywyll is apparently using 5th edition (per the initial post of this thread) … and your quoted text is 6e.  (5er may have an equivalent statement within it?  I don't know … I didn't look.)

    Also, worth mentioning is your quoted text deals with "surprise", which is NOT the same as the "attacked from behind" DCV modifier.  i.e. Surprise and attacked from behind bonuses are distinct/separate per RAW.  To support this assertion I cite the fact that they appear distinctly/separately within the DCV MODIFIERS TABLE on p373 of 5er (aka FRED).  Thus, the above merely states that the Surprised bonus may not apply … while saying nothing about the 'attacked from behind' bonus not applying.   [I'm being this technical/literal because that appears to be the mindset of Tywyll and his gaming group, and I'm trying to think as they are when responding, since facing was apparently a big deal in their prior system.]

    Now, that said, GM common sense should always apply, which is what seems to be lacking in most of Tywyll's complaints about endless circling of opponents in munchkinized fashion to try to game a bonus. The problem is easy enough to put an end to without resorting to GM fiat, but it appears that a GM who has endless points to spend on baddies is concerned about 3pts on mooks … or doesn't want to engage in interesting gameplay by having characters fight back-to-back or from 'gunfighter' positions (i.e. with back to a wall).  So be it.  Some people would rather bitch than switch, I guess...
     
    I still don't see merit to Tywyll's concerns about endless circling; I've only seen it happen a few times when munchkins were at play, and the GMs had the mooks learn the predictability of their opposition and then shut that crap down quickly. It made for good story!
  7. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Yeah, that's my problem. It's a cool ability, if it gets used enough to warrent it.
     
    I'm thinking you would need coordination to work without a skill roll AND rear attackers get auto 1/2 DCV.
     
    However, this also leads to needing some sort of 'threatened hex' rule, or else there is no reason not to run behind someone every time your turn comes up, which is clearly stupid. I'm allowing characters to abort to an attack (illegal, I know) against a target that moves through their surrounding hexes and the target suffers 1/2 DCV.  If they move more than 1 hex. This is someone else's rule, but I like it. 
  8. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Which is weird considering 'facing' doesn't seem to be a thing in HERO?
  9. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    I think you are still missing the point though. People move in fights. They turn to face someone threatening them. They don't freeze after moving, allowing an attacker to run behind them and hit them.
     
    Everything you've mentioned doesn't deal with the issue that characters can move behind each other on their phase to get a bonus in a way that is ridiculous and impossible in real life. Sure, put your back to a wall when facing multiple attackers., or rely on defensive maneuver. You shouldn't need either of those things when it is one on one, but currently you do, and that is insane. 
  10. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    This example is completely wrong. Fighter A uses 3" of movement and now is completely behind his opponent, at which point he stabs the guy. He has zero reason to hold his action. B is frozen from his previous action last round. After he's stabbed in the back and survives, he then repeats the process on A who's facing is held by his attack, leaving his back exposed.
     
    Tell me in what world is this gameplay desirable?  What genre of action or real life fighting encounter does it emulate? This is not what Defensive Maneuver was created for, I don't believe, it was created for fending off multiple attackers and surprise attacks. 
     
    And none of this accounts for the various reasons one might want to block a target's movement, something done in real and cinematic life by the threat of attacking them if they try to run around you. As it is now, you can't protect an ally behind you, or block a villain from reaching the missile launch control button because they can just run around you (yes, I know you can block for someone else, but that's it). Just having a bad guy run past you without being able to slow them down is an issue. 
  11. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    You don't seem able to keep a consistant arguement going...
     
    "GM common sense should always apply... The problem is easy enough to put an end to without resorting to GM fiat, "
     
    Since there are no rules prohibiting endless circling for the attack from behind bonus, any GM ruling from 'common sense' would, in fact, be GM Fiat. So which should it be? Use their common sense and make a house rule like I and several other GMs did (as stated above) or allow munchkin silliness to happen that can't work in reality? By your own argument you can't have both.
     
    Further, the fact you've seen it at all is poor design. The fact that it took 6 editions to comment on it shocks me, especially considering the minutiae in which so much else is covered in HERO. But I guess some people would rather defend bad design than acknowledge there is a flaw in a system they like. 
     
    Also, your example of the rotation and half phase held actions doesn't work in the first round of combat with the faster opponent, nor does it work when the two fighers are sharing the same hex (at which point one of them steps out of the shared hex for the backstab).
     
    I think the problem is that HERO tried to have it both ways, for rules for theatre of the mind and map based game play, without really shoring up both. So you end up with weird inconsistancies like the one we are talking about.  
  12. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    I've not dealt with it because it's already handled by RAW.  Chistopher Taylor even cited it for you earlier in the thread.
     
    Per 6e2 p26:
    "changing facing while Running, Leaping, Swimming, Swinging, or Tunneling is a Zero Phase Action in most circumstances. That means a character can’t do it after performing a Full Phase Action, but the GM can rule otherwise based on the situation, the abilities involved, common and dramatic sense, and other relevant factors. Changing facing with Flight or Teleportation depends on Turn Modes and/or the the use of the Position Shift Adder."
     
    Thus, Knife Fighter A half-moves (circling to rear/flank -- hoping to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds …. and then his/her opponent Knife Fighter B does the same (circling to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds. Since a Full Phase Action hasn't been used, Knife Fighter A should be able to turn to face Knife Fighter A as a Zero Phase Action unless the GM rules otherwise.  This assumes they're on the ground and not flying, of course, as Flight gets more complicated due to Turn Mode unless Position Shift is in play.

    That's a key benefit of half-moving and then holding … it allows someone to react, attack, etc.
     
    Now since you're using 5er, it doesn't have an equivalent statement/rule within it, as far as I know.  I suppose that's one of the drawbacks of using the older, less polished rule set.  Perhaps you should move to 6e?
  13. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Context matters.  I point this out because Tywyll is apparently using 5th edition (per the initial post of this thread) … and your quoted text is 6e.  (5er may have an equivalent statement within it?  I don't know … I didn't look.)

    Also, worth mentioning is your quoted text deals with "surprise", which is NOT the same as the "attacked from behind" DCV modifier.  i.e. Surprise and attacked from behind bonuses are distinct/separate per RAW.  To support this assertion I cite the fact that they appear distinctly/separately within the DCV MODIFIERS TABLE on p373 of 5er (aka FRED).  Thus, the above merely states that the Surprised bonus may not apply … while saying nothing about the 'attacked from behind' bonus not applying.   [I'm being this technical/literal because that appears to be the mindset of Tywyll and his gaming group, and I'm trying to think as they are when responding, since facing was apparently a big deal in their prior system.]

    Now, that said, GM common sense should always apply, which is what seems to be lacking in most of Tywyll's complaints about endless circling of opponents in munchkinized fashion to try to game a bonus. The problem is easy enough to put an end to without resorting to GM fiat, but it appears that a GM who has endless points to spend on baddies is concerned about 3pts on mooks … or doesn't want to engage in interesting gameplay by having characters fight back-to-back or from 'gunfighter' positions (i.e. with back to a wall).  So be it.  Some people would rather bitch than switch, I guess...
     
    I still don't see merit to Tywyll's concerns about endless circling; I've only seen it happen a few times when munchkins were at play, and the GMs had the mooks learn the predictability of their opposition and then shut that crap down quickly. It made for good story!
  14. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Gnome BODY (important!) in Attacking 'from behind'   
    You shouldn't have to pay 10 real or 3 real and an HPA every turn to not be subject to inane rules abuse. 
  15. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    You shouldn't need point spending to stop behaviour that literally CANNOT work in most situations in real life or cinematic life.
  16. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Superheroic speedsters is one thing. Heroic Knife fighters circling each other isn't at all what happens. At no point, unless something distracts or prevents one of the fighters from responding, do either of the two knife fighters get to stab the other guy in the back. Movement in the real world isn't static like it is in a game, they literally circle each other, moving simultaneously. If there are no rules to prevent unrealistic movement then you get people only every attacking someone's rear because that has the best mechanical advantage. 
     
     
    Even if that were so, it would look stupid. Captain America and a Hydra Thug in armor face off. Cap runs behind the thug and punches him in the back. Thug miraculously doesn't go down, turns around, runs behind Captain America and punches HIM in the back... That would be the dumbest comic ever. 
     
    The mechanical problem is that when you reduce a target's DCV by half, it frees up your combat levels to go into things other than accuracy, so you damage increases. Aimed shots become more viable as well, which could further up damage. Attacking vs half DCV is a huge advantage and isn't meant to be something you can trigger easily (it usually requires at least an attack).
  17. Downvote
    Surrealone reacted to Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    No, those prevent the repercussions of back attacks...what I'm asking is how do you stop the clearly unrealistic spinning fight effect that seems to result if just played straight. I attack you from behind, okay now I swing around behind you and attack you from behind, etc, etc. That's not how fights happen in the real world because trying to pull that off would get you killed. 
  18. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    And you shouldn't need the GM fiat hammer when you have other ways to disincent certain munchkin behaviours...
  19. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Spot-on.  So rather than create some ad-hoc, un-needed house rule, I'm baffled as to why these GMs don't simply slap 3 points on their skilled mooks and NPCs (a la Defense Maneuver) and then make sure their PCs encounter such NPCs enough that the light bulb finally goes on for them. This is really what I was getting at when I suggested the use of Defense Maneuver or the purchase of powers that result in not caring if one is hit (in Hulk-like fashion, for example) … or using position (back-to-back with an ally … or back to a wall) to prevent munchkin-ized circling just to game a mechanic.
     
    Again, plainly put -- point expenditures and/or good character play by discerning players are all that's required. As a reminder, the GM is a player, too (s/he plays all the mooks/NPCs). I really prefer it when GMs take that type of approach, rather than just shutting down a mechanic for no reason other than what I consider GM laziness.  And as a GM, I know I'd get a lot more of a chuckle out of people munchkin-izing the rear attack mechanic only to find a) it didn't work, b) they wasted movement doing it, and c) they whined due to a) and b)...  

    Note that I'm not saying shut the PCs down at every turn … but the more abusive the group or player tended to be with the mechanic, the more prepared I'd be as a GM to curtail it.  It's also easily explainable within the storyline, as mooks and their tougher NPC brethren tend to learn when a character or group repeatedly uses the same tactic(s) ... ad nauseum … and they usually tend to devise a counter to it.  Some of the baddies may see it first hand. Others may see it on camera recordings of events (like, oh, the news … or police footage … or a livestream of footage at the mook base, etc.). Still others might hear of the repeatedly-used tactic by word of mouth, since just like heroes talk among themselves, so do those with villainous intent. If your baddies aren't learning from repeated use of the same tactics by players/groups such that they come up with counters that present new and interesting challenges, then something's probably missing from your game, anyway … right?

    With some decent GM'ing and judicious use of points combined with good storytelling, you just don't need a house rule to end the munchkin behavior; it'll resolve itself if you simply use story and NPC learning to dis-incent it. Or be heavy-handed and slam down the GM fiat gavel.  Your choice. You certainly get a more immediate return, but you miss out on a fun storytelling opportunity … not to mention listening to munchkins whine.
  20. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from ScottishFox in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Spot-on.  So rather than create some ad-hoc, un-needed house rule, I'm baffled as to why these GMs don't simply slap 3 points on their skilled mooks and NPCs (a la Defense Maneuver) and then make sure their PCs encounter such NPCs enough that the light bulb finally goes on for them. This is really what I was getting at when I suggested the use of Defense Maneuver or the purchase of powers that result in not caring if one is hit (in Hulk-like fashion, for example) … or using position (back-to-back with an ally … or back to a wall) to prevent munchkin-ized circling just to game a mechanic.
     
    Again, plainly put -- point expenditures and/or good character play by discerning players are all that's required. As a reminder, the GM is a player, too (s/he plays all the mooks/NPCs). I really prefer it when GMs take that type of approach, rather than just shutting down a mechanic for no reason other than what I consider GM laziness.  And as a GM, I know I'd get a lot more of a chuckle out of people munchkin-izing the rear attack mechanic only to find a) it didn't work, b) they wasted movement doing it, and c) they whined due to a) and b)...  

    Note that I'm not saying shut the PCs down at every turn … but the more abusive the group or player tended to be with the mechanic, the more prepared I'd be as a GM to curtail it.  It's also easily explainable within the storyline, as mooks and their tougher NPC brethren tend to learn when a character or group repeatedly uses the same tactic(s) ... ad nauseum … and they usually tend to devise a counter to it.  Some of the baddies may see it first hand. Others may see it on camera recordings of events (like, oh, the news … or police footage … or a livestream of footage at the mook base, etc.). Still others might hear of the repeatedly-used tactic by word of mouth, since just like heroes talk among themselves, so do those with villainous intent. If your baddies aren't learning from repeated use of the same tactics by players/groups such that they come up with counters that present new and interesting challenges, then something's probably missing from your game, anyway … right?

    With some decent GM'ing and judicious use of points combined with good storytelling, you just don't need a house rule to end the munchkin behavior; it'll resolve itself if you simply use story and NPC learning to dis-incent it. Or be heavy-handed and slam down the GM fiat gavel.  Your choice. You certainly get a more immediate return, but you miss out on a fun storytelling opportunity … not to mention listening to munchkins whine.
  21. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Gnome BODY (important!) in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Spot-on.  So rather than create some ad-hoc, un-needed house rule, I'm baffled as to why these GMs don't simply slap 3 points on their skilled mooks and NPCs (a la Defense Maneuver) and then make sure their PCs encounter such NPCs enough that the light bulb finally goes on for them. This is really what I was getting at when I suggested the use of Defense Maneuver or the purchase of powers that result in not caring if one is hit (in Hulk-like fashion, for example) … or using position (back-to-back with an ally … or back to a wall) to prevent munchkin-ized circling just to game a mechanic.
     
    Again, plainly put -- point expenditures and/or good character play by discerning players are all that's required. As a reminder, the GM is a player, too (s/he plays all the mooks/NPCs). I really prefer it when GMs take that type of approach, rather than just shutting down a mechanic for no reason other than what I consider GM laziness.  And as a GM, I know I'd get a lot more of a chuckle out of people munchkin-izing the rear attack mechanic only to find a) it didn't work, b) they wasted movement doing it, and c) they whined due to a) and b)...  

    Note that I'm not saying shut the PCs down at every turn … but the more abusive the group or player tended to be with the mechanic, the more prepared I'd be as a GM to curtail it.  It's also easily explainable within the storyline, as mooks and their tougher NPC brethren tend to learn when a character or group repeatedly uses the same tactic(s) ... ad nauseum … and they usually tend to devise a counter to it.  Some of the baddies may see it first hand. Others may see it on camera recordings of events (like, oh, the news … or police footage … or a livestream of footage at the mook base, etc.). Still others might hear of the repeatedly-used tactic by word of mouth, since just like heroes talk among themselves, so do those with villainous intent. If your baddies aren't learning from repeated use of the same tactics by players/groups such that they come up with counters that present new and interesting challenges, then something's probably missing from your game, anyway … right?

    With some decent GM'ing and judicious use of points combined with good storytelling, you just don't need a house rule to end the munchkin behavior; it'll resolve itself if you simply use story and NPC learning to dis-incent it. Or be heavy-handed and slam down the GM fiat gavel.  Your choice. You certainly get a more immediate return, but you miss out on a fun storytelling opportunity … not to mention listening to munchkins whine.
  22. Downvote
    Surrealone got a reaction from Tywyll in Attacking 'from behind'   
    Please see the DCV MODIFIERS TABLE on p373 (as labeled on the page) of 5th Edition (Revised) aka FRED. What you're looking for is in that table as it relates to being attacked from behind (both in and out of combat).
     
  23. Like
    Surrealone got a reaction from Pattern Ghost in Speed and END   
    The examples of Smoke Screens, Potions of Giant Strength that were given are charge-based examples.  Thus, they should really be bought as Continuing Charges to completely preclude END-related issues.  (In the case of a Potion of Giant Strength where you don't want the added strength to cost the user added END, simply make the potion a Compound Power that has the amount of conferred Strength bought @0 END for the user a la a Naked Power Advantage being part of the compound power.)

    And Dsatow's citation of Costs end to activate (+1/4) ... is one that completely resolves the Force Field concerns raised above.

    So what, exactly, is wrong/missing with judicious use of RAW, again???
  24. Like
    Surrealone got a reaction from Grailknight in Speed and END   
    The examples of Smoke Screens, Potions of Giant Strength that were given are charge-based examples.  Thus, they should really be bought as Continuing Charges to completely preclude END-related issues.  (In the case of a Potion of Giant Strength where you don't want the added strength to cost the user added END, simply make the potion a Compound Power that has the amount of conferred Strength bought @0 END for the user a la a Naked Power Advantage being part of the compound power.)

    And Dsatow's citation of Costs end to activate (+1/4) ... is one that completely resolves the Force Field concerns raised above.

    So what, exactly, is wrong/missing with judicious use of RAW, again???
  25. Like
    Surrealone got a reaction from drunkonduty in Hero system 7 ideas   
×
×
  • Create New...