Incorporating Hit Location effects into Attack Roll

[Markdoc]

To the AoE, I can't aim a grenade.  What about a gatling gun, or The Amazing Archer whose AoE rapidly fires multiple arrows, one at each target in the area?  Precision shooting with such attacks does not seem unreasonable.  As well, giving non-AoE attacks the potential for damage multiplication (especially with no down side) devalues all attacks that don't get the same benefits (not limited to AoE - mental powers, adjustment powers, Entangle and Flash come to mind).

 

Yeah, but for me, mechanics trump special effects. If you want a power that allows you to hit multiple targets AND aim at specific locations, then you don't want an AoE, which, by definition, attacks an area and which (crucially) targets the DCV of the area, not the people in it. You want an autofire attack, which has a to-hit roll. You can easily choose to shoot 3 bad guys in the hand if you have a crazy high DCV (or Overconfidence at a high level), by simply taking the hit location penalty for your first hit and then counting down by two for each additional hit.*

 

In fact, long ago, in one of our Hero system-based Judge Dredd games (run by Ofeelya on these boards) I recall bringing down a pack of fleeing juves, by shouting "It's knee-popping time!" and then shooting all 4 of them in the legs, using exactly that mechanism.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*Edit: not really relevant for this discussion; but the easiest way to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand is not by shooting his hand (which I think is -8 to hit) but by attacking his OAF (gun) at -2 to hit

[Doc Democracy]

*Edit: not really relevant for this discussion; but the easiest way to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand is not by shooting his hand (which I think is -8 to hit) but by attacking his OAF (gun) at -2 to hit

I was with you until I actually went to the rulebook...

 

Characters can perform Disarms with Ranged attacks (such as shooting a gun out of an enemy’s hand) with an OCV penalty based on the size of the weapon/object being Disarmed instead of the normal -2 OCV penalty. This penalty typically ranges from -2 to -3 for a rifle or sword (or similarly sized object), up to -5 to -8 for a handgun or knife (or similarly sized object). Convert the Damage Classes of the Ranged attack used to Disarm into STR for the STR Versus STR Contest at the rate of 1 DC = 5 STR.

So -2 for large item in HtH. For a pistol at range -6 to -8...

 

Doc

[Lucius]

These are not the same thing mechanic-wise are they? One is using autofire, the other is using a single attack over several phases. Or one is using area effect and the other a single attack. As such, I would apply precision differently to each mechanic. I suggested slightly less precision at the cost of hitting with fewer missiles.

 

Doc

Not necessarily.

 

Magic Bow with Autofire (conjures extra arrows following the first.)

 

Superskill: Naked Advantage Autofire 2 to represent swiftly loosing two arrows in the same phase.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Accurate Autofire Alternate Defense Palindromedary

[Hyper-Man]

I wonder if any consideration was given to the optional Critical Hit System provided in 6e?

 

From 6e2 page 118,
 

CRITICAL HITS
Gamemasters who want combat to be more unpredictable and dangerous should consider instituting a critical hit rule. A “critical hit” is a blow so accurate it does maximum damage. One occurs when a character’s roll to hit is less than half of what he needed to hit the target.
 

Examples: An OCV 6 character shoots at a DCV 5 character. He needs a 12 or less to hit. To make a critical hit, he needs less than a (12/2) 6 to hit — i.e., he must roll a 5 or below.

 

An OCV 7 character attacks a DCV 5 character. He needs a 13 or less to hit. To make a critical hit, he needs less than a (13/2) 6.5 to hit — he must roll a 6 or less.

 

If a character makes a critical hit, he does maximum damage for the attack. Therefore, a Killing Attack 2d6 does 12 BODY, 36 STUN. An 8d6 Normal Damage attack does 48 STUN, 16 BODY. A 2d6 NND attack does 12 STUN.

If the campaign uses the Hit Location rules, a Killing Attack uses the normal STUN Multiplier for the location — 12 BODY to the Vitals does 48 STUN, for instance. If those rules are not in use, a Killing Attack does the maximum possible STUN (3x BODY for most Killing Attacks).

Characters may only do critical hits to living targets. Ignore critical hit results against targets like doors and walls (it would be far too easy to get a critical hit on a DCV 0 door, for instance).

 

 

Of course there are also corresponding Fumble rules as well.

 

HM

[Hugh Neilson]

I am not surprised that you are confused, I have not sat down and worked something out. Let me think out loud...

That’s what we’re all doing!

 

 

The sheriff has a bandit in his sight. He wants to shoot the gun out of his hand and bring the man in for trial. However, the man is a known gunslinger and he would rather hit than aim for the gun an miss completely. He does not fancy his chnaces in a straight fight!

Agreed on his options under the present rules.

 

 

I am talking about considering another option

- try to shoot the gun but not at the expense of missing completely (-8 OCV penalty - -6 OCV for hand location, another -2 OCV for the playing it safe) if that roll including -8 penalty misses but would have hit with a -2 penalty then the target will take normal damage - 1x BODY and 2x or 3x STUN. The location would be the closest that would provide that damage. For the hand that would be shoulder or chest.

 

My thoughts are that this helps players to make a heroic decision. I know my players, if they were going to risk a location shot, would consider it more heroic with current options to take the headshot.

I like this a lot better. The character is accepting a -2 penalty (which may mean a close roll misses when it would have hit) for the possible hand hit (less likely than the called shot rule thanks to that extra -2) plus hitting normally if he misses the called shot.

 

I question whether he should automatically get a shoulder/chest hit, rather than a standard hit location, or a modified hit location based on the target area if we add the OP goal that a better shot gets results closer to those desired (in this case, closer to the hand), but it’s not necessary for the goal of providing another option for a more heroic decision (or just for more options!). I think I would lean to using the normal rules if the attack hits, but not the target location.

 

The penalty becomes an interesting question, though. If I use your system to target the chest, I take a -2 and get a chest hit as long as my roll is successful, where a called shot to the chest imposes a -3 penalty. I think I would go with a -3 penalty (for parity with the chest hit) and a “hit but not precise” hit gets the standard hit location roll. Note that I’m not hung up on the “closer roll gets closer results” objective.

 

 

These are not the same thing mechanic-wise are they? One is using autofire, the other is using a single attack over several phases. Or one is using area effect and the other a single attack. As such, I would apply precision differently to each mechanic. I suggested slightly less precision at the cost of hitting with fewer missiles.

I think it has to be extrapolated to different mechanics. Your system mitigates my concern considerably, as the precision shot is not a freebie awarded to only some attacks, but a variant called shot, so any attack which can do a called shot can logically also do a precision shot. We could always consider an adder or advantage for mechanics that don’t typically allow called (or precision) shots to allow them.

 

 

Basic is anything that does ED or PD damage that can, reasonably, be applied to the hit location table- you can roll a location and with luck you can get damage multiples. As far as an attack with accurate built on it, the player has bought a way of removing an opponents DCV. They target the hex DCV as a basic - I think they paid the points, the GM has agreed this is a valid purchase (some may not) and so the calculation progresses - starting at DCV 3 and applying penalties as previously. i would suppose this is what you would do currently for a player with accurate wanting to take a headshot. no?

I think this is reasonable. But I suggest that “hail of arrows” AoE is one that can reasonably be applied to the hit location table, while a hand grenade or fireball perhaps is not, but could be (one area is the primary location wounded by the shrapnel/fire).

 

 

Yeah, but for me, mechanics trump special effects. If you want a power that allows you to hit multiple targets AND aim at specific locations, then you don't want an AoE, which, by definition, attacks an area and which (crucially) targets the DCV of the area, not the people in it.

So what about an AoE 1 Hex Accurate attack which, by mechanic, is AoE and targets that same 3 DCV, but by definition is targeting a single person?

 

My concern is less that the mechanics should trump SFX and more that giving a free benefit to some attacks and not others skews the relative values of those attacks. If we give a freebie to attacks, but not if they are AoE, does that mean the advantage value of AoE should be reduced, for example?

[Markdoc]

So what about an AoE 1 Hex Accurate attack which, by mechanic, is AoE and targets that same 3 DCV, but by definition is targeting a single person? My concern is less that the mechanics should trump SFX and more that giving a free benefit to some attacks and not others skews the relative values of those attacks. If we give a freebie to attacks, but not if they are AoE, does that mean the advantage value of AoE should be reduced, for example?

An AoE accurate attack is still an AoE, and it still targets a hex's DCV, not the target's DCV ... It's just that it is small enough that it only affects one target. So - at least as far as I am concerned - it's treated the same as any other AoE, meaning no placed shots. Since the current costing includes the ability to aim some attacks, but not AoEs, and it seems to work well, I would not change the costing of AoE (it's already effective enough that people routinely buy AoE attacks).

 

Cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

I think we are very close now. I think I only said what ?I was saying from the start but I may have said it more clearly this time! :-)

 

I would buy the -3 rather than -2 for consistency's sake. :-)

 

As far as one hex accurate goes, I thought I covered that. I said the player had paid the points to get the 3 OCV and so could start from there. A bit if an inconsistency but just extrapolating from one that already exists...

[Hyper-Man]

An AoE accurate attack is still an AoE, and it still targets a hex's DCV, not the target's DCV ... It's just that it is small enough that it only affects one target. So - at least as far as I am concerned - it's treated the same as any other AoE, meaning no placed shots. Since the current costing includes the ability to aim some attacks, but not AoEs, and it seems to work well, I would not change the costing of AoE (it's already effective enough that people routinely buy AoE attacks).

 

Cheers, Mark

 

From 6e1 page 145,

 

Cannot Use Targeting (-½): This Limitation, which only characters in campaigns that use the Hit Location rules can take, signifies that the character cannot target the Attack Power at specific areas of the body. The Attack Power does the same damage regardless of where it hits, or is so unwieldy the character cannot aim it accurately. For example, a spell that inflicts a wasting disease on someone, resulting in the target’s rapid death, should not receive extra damage for Hit Locations, since it affects the whole body at once. Therefore it would take this Limitation

 

 

 

And from 6e1 page 320,

 

Accurate: For an additional +¼ Advantage, Accurate, a character can define an Area Of Effect (Radius) as automatically targeting only a single person, regardless of how many there are in the Radius. (Typically Accurate is only taken for 1m Radius powers.) This makes the attack work against DCV 3 without having the potential to affect multiple targets. The Range Modifier applies to Accurate attacks normally. Characters cannot Dodge or Block Accurate attacks, but can Dive For Cover to avoid them.

 

With the GM’s permission, a character may target a specific Hit Location with an Accurate attack. The normal Hit Location OCV modifier applies, effectively negating much of the benefit of Accurate.

 

 

HM

[Hugh Neilson]

I would buy the -3 rather than -2 for consistency's sake. :-)

 

As far as one hex accurate goes, I thought I covered that. I said the player had paid the points to get the 3 OCV and so could start from there. A bit if an inconsistency but just extrapolating from one that already exists...

Yeah - HM's rule post doesn't hep much. "With the GM's permission", you can do pretty much anything. Your approach is consistent with the rest of the rules, so I'd be inclined to play it on that basis and see how it works before tinkering in AoE's that can target. Practically, any AoE that can reasonably use this variant can just as reasonably use the RAW called shots, so the same house rule would reasonably apply to both.

 

Not sure I'd allow a -1/2 limit for being unable to take called shots, but if that's the reasonable limit, a +1/2 advantage to be able to make these shots with an attack that normally could not seems like a reasonable approach for handling that. I'd give the Accurate attack Targeting by default.

[Markdoc]

Pretty much what Hugh said - *I* don't allow called shots with AoEs, which is why I liberally sprinkled my post with phrases like 'in my opinion'

 

There is, as always, a mechanical analysis behind this: an AoE loses roughly half its damage capability (obviously this varies, depending how many advantages you stack, but you get the idea), in exchange for being able to hit multiple targets, at a low DCV. With hit locations in play for AoEs, though, you can buy a few PSLs vs hit locations, and for a few points get an attack that allows you to reliably hit the head – thus gaining back much of the damage you traded off for the AoE advantage and letting you headshot multiple opponents simultaneously and relatively cheaply– the ‘head-splodely’ attack.  

Accurate, oddly enough, is not so bad – all it does essentially, is drop the target’s OCV to 3 (which can simply be simulated by a regular attack with few CSLs) plus negating Dodge and Block. The combination of lowering DCV plus hitting multiple targets, is what makes targetting AoEs problematic, because you get to 'double dip' - it makes hitting specific locations easier by dropping CV and it lets you hit multiple targets, so the value in play is far more than just the CV difference. 

 

 

So I don't allow it, but of course that does not mean you can't - just be aware of the implications.

 

cheers, Mark

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

Give it a try and let us know how quickly your players can multiply by 1.75.

 

Well You Could multiply common prime numbers like 2,3,5,7, and 11 and then have the characters multiply to get there result.

 

 

 

2=3.5

3=5.25

5=8.75

7=12.25

11=19.25

13=22.75

17=29.75

19=33.25

23=40.25

29=50.75

 

 

You could either use this chart for multiplying by 1.75 or just have a calculator handy.

 

 

 

 

As Words Die, The Multiplication We Learned In The Third Grade Comes Back To Haunt Us.

[Hyper-Man]

The following is a superhero-centric special effect example of where I think it makes sense to allow Targeting vs. Hit Locations with an attack with AOE Accurate. It's not a situation that would come up that often considering Hit Locations are not normally used in supers UNLESS a called shot is being made.

 

Imagine a character who has the ability to transfer one character's biological 'powers' to another character.

Now imagine the powers are 'kryptonian'.

 

Should this character with newfound kryptonian powers have any less precision with using 'Heat Vision' as their original owner considering that it can functionally hit virtually anything the user 'looks at'?  That is, in game terms, should CSL's be required to model the accuracy of Heat Vision or should it be part of the final Power build?

 

I think the answer is the latter - it should be part of the power build as an option. The more power the character focuses through the attack the less accurate it becomes. Example 26) is intended to be like a pulsed laser.

 

The following is from a VPP - all slots Unified Power (-1/4), Conditional Power - Not in the presence of Kryptonite or red solar radiation (-1/4)

0    23) Heat Vision v1: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), +1 Increased STUN Multiplier (Could be swapped out with Indirect to be usable with "Man of Steel v3: Barrier".; +1/4), Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Penetrating (x2; +1) (60 Active Points); Can Be Deflected (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4) Real Cost: 30 - END=3

0    24) Heat Vision v2: Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2), Penetrating (+1/2) (60 Active Points); Can Be Deflected (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4) Real Cost: 30
[Notes: Area Of Effect Accurate could be swapped out with Continuous for the same level of damage but it requires adding Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4) to keep a 30 Real Cost. If Penetrating is swapped out instead there is no need to add Concentration.] - END=6

0    25) Heat Vision v3: Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); No Knockback (-1/4), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4) Real Cost: 30 - END=6

0    26) Heat Vision v4: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2), Penetrating (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/2), Autofire (5 shots; 2 END per shot fired; +1 1/2) (60 Active Points); Can Be Deflected (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4) Real Cost: 30
[Notes: Up to 5d6k total damage vs. targets without resistant defenses.  Up to 5 Body vs. targets without Impenetrable resistant defenses.] - END=2

0    27) Disarming Heat Vision: Blast 1d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), Sticky (Only the affected metal object is "Sticky"; +1/2), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2), Area Of Effect (32m Cone; +3/4), Selective (+1/4), Does BODY (+1), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Life Support Extreme Heat; +1 1/2), Damage Over Time (129-256 damage increments, damage occurs every Segment, can be negated by ending contact with the "affected" metal; Dropping the metal weapon; +5 3/4) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Only vs. Targets Touching Metal (-1/2) Real Cost: 30
[Notes: This is the classic hotfoot vs. held weapons.] - END=3

0    28) Welding Heat Vision: Healing BODY 1 1/2d6 (standard effect: 4 points), Can Heal Limbs, Limited Range (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Only vs. metal or other substance that could normally be repaired via heat welding (-1/4), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4) Real Cost: 30 - END=2

 

 

HM

[Markdoc]

Well, my response as a GM to the power below would be "that's fine" - it's a perfectly straightforward, build, and not as dangerous as the 4d6 killing he already has.. 

 

 

24) Heat Vision v2: Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2), Penetrating (+1/2) (60 Active Points); Can Be Deflected (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4) 

 

But if the player wanted to use it to target hit locations, my response would be "No way, José" - even though, as noted, "Accurate" attacks are not really the big problem. I like to keep AoE attacks as AoEs. If a player wants a precision attack, we can do that another way.

 

The rest of the stuff about the power being kryptonian, etc is just fluff. So is the fact that "he can hit anything he looks at" because of course a ) he'll still miss occasionally (and in the source material, Supes misses people with his heat vision all the time) and b ) you can build such a power multiple ways. AoE accurate is one way - built in CSLs is another.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hyper-Man]

Well, my response as a GM to the power below would be "that's fine" - it's a perfectly straightforward, build, and not as dangerous as the 4d6 killing he already has.. 

 

 

But if the player wanted to use it to target hit locations, my response would be "No way, José" - even though, as noted, "Accurate" attacks are not really the big problem. I like to keep AoE attacks as AoEs. If a player wants a precision attack, we can do that another way.

 

The rest of the stuff about the power being kryptonian, etc is just fluff. So is the fact that "he can hit anything he looks at" because of course a ) he'll still miss occasionally (and in the source material, Supes misses people with his heat vision all the time) and b ) you can build such a power multiple ways. AoE accurate is one way - built in CSLs is another.

 

cheers, Mark

 

It sure seems like you are assigning a "special effect" interpretation to the HERO mechanic of Area of Affect.

 

The only character I know of ever being missed by Supe's Heat Vision was The Flash.  And that's easy enough to cover, even vs. an Accurate AOE build, by way of Flying Dodge or Dive for Cover.

 

I am curious to know if you would allow alternate VPP slots constructed as a Compound Power with an RKA and CSLs purchased as a Power with a combined Active Point cost of 60? And IF you would, what is the minimum individual CSL cost you would require considering that they will have Limitations applied to them?

 

re: Kryptonian stuff being fluff

I get where you are coming from but I also see this as a great example of what the game was originally made to model - SUPERheroes.  And what better example than the powers of the very first one.  IF the game can have individual abilities created specifically for characters like Spider-Man (Danger Sense) and Wonder Woman (Deflection), THEN why does it have to be so damn hard to model the powers of Superman?  (I ask this as a Devil's Advocate of all the arguments I see on RPGnet and other forums).

[Markdoc]

It sure seems like you are assigning a "special effect" interpretation to the HERO mechanic of Area of Affect.

 

No. Heat Vision, Rain of Arrows, lightning storm, plague spell, these things are special effects. AoE is a mechanic - it has a direct mechanical effect in-game, and that effect is more or less identical regardless of the special effect chosen. Likewise, being able to choose hit locations is a mechanic. So I pay close attention to how the mechanics work, but I'm actually pretty relaxed about special effects.

 

I am curious to know if you would allow alternate VPP slots constructed as a Compound Power with an RKA and CSLs purchased as a Power with a combined Active Point cost of 60? And IF you would, what is the minimum individual CSL cost you would require considering that they will have Limitations applied to them?

 

Minimum 5 point levels to go into a power framework. That means in most cases, an accurate AoE attack is going to be more cost-efficient, but as noted, the trade off is that you don't get to choose hit locations. The fact that it doesn't always hit is no biggie -  after all, ol' Bats has dodged the heatray as well, and he's just a highly trained human.

 

re: Kryptonian stuff being fluff

I get where you are coming from but I also see this as a great example of what the game was originally made to model - SUPERheroes.  And what better example than the powers of the very first one.  IF the game can have individual abilities created specifically for characters like Spider-Man (Danger Sense) and Wonder Woman (Deflection), THEN why does it have to be so damn hard to model the powers of Superman?  (I ask this as a Devil's Advocate of all the arguments I see on RPGnet and other forums).

 

 

I should point out that 'fluff' isn't meant to be dismissive - fluff is what gives games character and life. It was meant more as meaning that fluff tells you nothing about how a power should work. 'Eyebeams' tells you that the power comes out of the eyes, but it tell you nothing about the power constuct used - it could be an RKA, an EB, an entangle, or a mental blast, etc etc.

 

Anyway, the reason that Big Blue's powers are hard to model is simply that in most comics he's written as though he's built on a huge amount of points. His powers themselves are actually pretty straightforward (strong, tough, flies, shoots heat beams out of his eyes) - though of course, his powers vary wildly from writer to writer* and even issue to issue. Instead of the heat vision writeup above for example, I would probably simply go with the base RKA, and let him deal with all the other aspects by simple power tricks, spreading the beam, etc.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*tell me you've read the issue where he has "rainbow powers"

[Hyper-Man]

So would you disallow the Disarming Heat Vision that I also posted? 

 

The special effect(fluff) is that he uses his heat vision to individually target each gun or other hand held weapon in site within the area of affect.  It's effectively targeting HANDS in a completely rules legal build. 

 

0    27) Disarming Heat Vision: Blast 1d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), Sticky (Only the affected metal object is "Sticky"; +1/2), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2), Area Of Effect (32m Cone; +3/4), Selective (+1/4), Does BODY (+1), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Life Support Extreme Heat; +1 1/2), Damage Over Time (129-256 damage increments, damage occurs every Segment, can be negated by ending contact with the "affected" metal; Dropping the metal weapon; +5 3/4) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Only vs. Targets Touching Metal (-1/2) Real Cost: 30
[Notes: This is the classic hotfoot vs. held weapons.] - END=3

 

[Doc Democracy]

The special effect is designed to seem as if it is attacking hands but it will damage the target if any part of their body is touching metal and the damage will not be influenced by which body part is touching the metal. For instance the crotch mounted cannon, or head mounted lasers will not get double damage.

 

As such, I would expect Mark to say yes. The AoE is delivering the benefits designed in - multiple targets and reduced DCV. It is not delivering damage bonuses based on hit location.

[Markdoc]

Yup.

 

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Not a sock puppet account, I swear - but this is what I'm talking about.

 

cheers, Mark