Haymaker with bow

[Ndreare]

Yes that is what the rough mechanics reflect, although with roles like Critical Hits included even that is questionable.

 

I am saying the RAW on this is absurd. I have house rules ruled in many games that players may reroll (once per die) any damage die showing less than their margin of success. It worked awesome and made combat go faster while also rewarding characters who were skill based so they were not at the mercy of tanks do often.

[Kesedrith]

Why not just emphasize PSLs, RSLs, and DCs?  I guess I've just never been, or even seen, the situation where someone that utilized those three things to be able to choose where they hit, how far away they're hitting, and their skill reflected as actual more dice of damage where outshone by the Brick in combat.  That or, as this thread originated discussing, the creative use of combat maneuvers.  That's not to say your house rule, Ndreare, isn't a reasonably straight forward solution too, by the way, but it does hold to a different philosophy of the hit roll than what I've always considered it, which is just that it says, "Yep, you hit," and any extra just means you were hedging your bet, kind of like sandbags say you under bid your hand when playing Spades.

[bigdamnhero]

Because it makes neither logical nor narrative sense that accuracy is limited to hitting a person-sized silhouette but has no effect on where on the silhouette you hit them because a different set of physics magically takes over at the silhouette's edge. That's not how marksmanship works with any ranged weapon I have experience with.

 

Now whether you think this is something needs "fixing" or not is a personal choice. As I've said before, I think divorcing accuracy from damage works well enough for an RPG; I've tried a couple different house rules to address it and most of them didn't add enough value to justify the extra time/complexity IMO. (I will sometimes just let players re-roll if they get a lousy damage roll after making an exceptional To Hit roll, but that's just a judgement thing.) But understanding that in reality (or in genre) the two are not completely separated helps understand how CSLs can add to damage with a bow, or Haymakers, which of course was the original question.

[Outsider]

Ninja-Bear : I may be behind the times, but isn't Set a general +1 OCV, while Brace provides +2 vs range modifiers?   So Brace is carefully aiming after a fashion, and set is just plain old extra aiming.

 

Kesedrith : My experience is that tanks are already mostly just punching bags for high CV enemies, so adding yet another mechanic to make high CV better seems even more punitive to anyone who might want to play a tank.

[Kesedrith]

Kesedrith : My experience is that tanks are already mostly just punching bags for high CV enemies, so adding yet another mechanic to make high CV better seems even more punitive to anyone who might want to play a tank.

That may be, but they typically have higher defenses too, and at heroic level the CV difference in my experience is only 2 - 3 at most.  Of course at the heroic level I'm used to the tanks have DEX 10 and base CV 3, and taking ~2 CSLs themselves, and the high CV folks having DEX 18, base CV 6, and 2 - 3 CSLs with maneuvers and 2 - 4 in PSLs and RSLs depending on their flavor.  My experience is that I usually have to bump enemy CON, STUN, and BODY because both groups are laying in about the same number of hits, because the high CV folk put their CSLs in DCV to keep from being hit since they have lighter armor, and both are doing about the same amount of damage, one by hitting with higher weapon DC, and the other by using PSLs to call shots and take advantage of damage multipliers.

 

Admittedly ranged combat is often another story, but I haven't had many Bricks worry overtly about ranged weapons unless it's thrown weapons.  (I've seen a few FH Bricks take a few RSLs or PSLs with javelins or spears, and use that to devastating effect.)  

[Outsider]

In your example, the bricks are 3-2-3 (OCV, Level, DCV) while the "skilled fighters" are 6-3-6, plus PSLs and RSLs.  That's not 2-3 de, that's 4-6 difference, which is a great deal.  Also, in campaigns at the heroic level I have run or played in, 'skilled combatants' usually have 1 or 2 more SPD than the bricks, and might have martial maneuvers as well.  

 

The higher SPD is important because it lets the skilled fighter play the speed chart against the brick, aborting to (martial) dodge and reassigning his skill levels to DCV any time the brick swings at them, leaving the brick to either waste his phase making an attack that hits only on a 3, or just holding to strike at the skilled fighter only on phases that the skilled fighter has already struck at him. And all that means is that he forces the SF to fight defensively on as many phases as the brick's SPD, and only go all offence on excess SPD phases.

 

When the SF goes all offence, he is going to be up 6-8 on the brick depending on the bricks level distribution, and this isn't counting those PSLs.

 

If the brick isn't wearing specifically rigid armor, multiple attack with Nerve Strike can really mess him up in a hurry.  If he is, the SF will have to settle for a good chance of hitting the head and getting merely double BODY and 5xSTUN. once or twice in a turn.

[Kesedrith]

I guess there's why I've never seen this be an issue then, Outsider: I've not seen anyone use the abort maneuvers.  I've even had games where myself and the other Hero System GM have specifically assigned each other tasks of showing the other players in setting just how effective that can be....to no avail.  They'd rather attack, attack, attack than use an abort maneuver or take a recovery or anything.  Not even a near TPK shook them up enough to get them to see it.  I will admit that it -DID- show them the point to combining attacks though.  

 

Edit: Nevermind.  I went back and looked at the characters from the last FH game I ran, which was fairly typical.  There are no traditional Bricks in there.  Everyone has SPD 4, average DEX is 15 with only one 10 and one at 18, the real differences came in in the equipment and skills they chose.

[Old Man]

I've not seen anyone use the abort maneuvers

[Doc Democracy]

You know, I have always wanted to add increased damage due to accuracy and it is indeed a route to bureaucratic madness. I have however possibly had an insight.

 

Dice rolling is good, players LOVE rolling the bones.

 

Instead of increasing damage or off-handedly sometimes allowing a bad damage roll to be re-rolled due to a good to hit, why not add a dice for every one over the required to hit? This gives you three options:

 

1 - count them all!!!

2 - count them all but cap damage to a maximum of what the original roll would have delivered. Excess over maximum damages the weapon or hand that delivered the blow.

3 - if the original damage was 7D6, only count the best 7 dice. The joy of this one is that a brick fighting a normal might choose a lot of fives, rather than sixes to maximise STUN while keeping BODY low.

 

I am now very interested in trying this...

 

 

Doc

[Tholomyes]

@Doc Democ: I wouldn't do that rule without drastically changing the cost structure of the game, but I think if such a rule would be used, the third is the only way to do it that doesn't just make it a race of OCV vs DCV.

 

Edit: some Anydice comparisons:

 

Regular: http://anydice.com/program/868a (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/868d )

Option 1: http://anydice.com/program/8689 (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/868e )

Option 2: http://anydice.com/program/868b (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/868f )

Option 3: http://anydice.com/program/868c (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/8690 )

 

The third option is the only one where the growth of extra dice does not drastically outpace the diminishing returns for hit chance of OCV. it still provides about 1.5x the average damage per unit increase in OCV compared to the base game's rules, so it's not anywhere near "balanced" using the point costs for OCV and DCV as they exist currently, but it's the closest you'd get if you want this "Attack roll adds to damage" rule. I'll admit I don't personally think it's necessary. HERO is cinematic, and the realism angle that "technique" determines how hard you hit doesn't really mesh with the decidedly non-realistic "dramatic realism" that HERO attempts to achieve.

[bigdamnhero]

Doc: I like the idea in theory, but I'd have to see how it works in practice. I agree it seems like it could make OCV & CSLs too powerful? If you get a chance to playtest it, let us know how it works.

[bigdamnhero]

I did just remember a House Rule I used in a previous Heroic game where we used Hit Locations, which adds a whole `nother level of randomness to damage.

 

Modifying Hit Locations: There are few things more depressing in a Hero combat than acing your attack roll, but then botching your hit location roll so you wind up stomping the Bad Guy’s toe real good. So here are a couple options to modify hit location rolls:

• Combat Skill Levels can be used to modify Hit Location. This must be declared before dice are rolled. After the hit location is rolled, you may add or subtract those skill levels to the roll to reach a better location.
• After you roll, if you are unhappy with your hit location you may expend a Hero Point to invoke “pulling your shot.” You may then add or subtract 1 to your hit location roll for every 1 above what you needed to hit. For example, if you hit a DCV 8, but you only needed to hit a DCV 5, you could “pull” your hit location by +/- 3.

The rule worked really well with that game and those players. It mostly got invoked to fix “Damn, I hit him in the arm again!” rather than “I really want to one-shot the Big Bad in the face!" You could still roll a crappy damage roll, but at least accuracy and hit location weren't completely disconnected, and it didn't slow down play significantly.

[Outsider]

I can't say I like the first option, not at 1 level to 1 roll mod anyway.   Having 3 levels to use towards it pretty much guarantees (~98%) a 4x or 5x STUN multiplier, and an ~86% chance of 2x Body.   6,7,8 are moved down to 5.   9 is moved up to 12.  10,11, 14,15,16 are moved to 13.

 

Seems REALLY powerful compared to adding 1 1/2 Damage Classes.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ninja-Bear : I may be behind the times, but isn't Set a general +1 OCV, while Brace provides +2 vs range modifiers? So Brace is carefully aiming after a fashion, and set is just plain old extra aiming.

 

Kesedrith : My experience is that tanks are already mostly just punching bags for high CV enemies, so adding yet another mechanic to make high CV better seems even more punitive to anyone who might want to play a tank.

Let me double check, I could be wrong

[dmjalund]

Whenever I see this thread, I keep imagining a pitchfork arrow.

[Doc Democracy]

Doc: I like the idea in theory, but I'd have to see how it works in practice. I agree it seems like it could make OCV & CSLs too powerful? If you get a chance to playtest it, let us know how it works.

 

I am looking at the whole idea of hitting and damage.  This advantages accuracy over damage.  I am also thinking that I might allow those with a mightier arm to shed damage to increase accuracy.  If you launch a mega attack and dont roll so well, drop sixes to determine if you can achieve a glancing blow.

 

This means those with bigger damage capacities can achieve small glancing blows against their more agile brethren.

 

There is likely to be a different dynamic between CV, damage and defence caps that you might apply.  As a GM I am always managing superhero stuff and judging what I would allow Fantasy characters to have.in the way of armour and stuff.  In Fantasy Hero I think that it begins to make unarmoured fighters more attractive as they can use their better movement to get round the armour - though I do not think I would use it in conjunction with a hit location system (I think they are mutually exclusive).

[Doc Democracy]

@Doc Democ: I wouldn't do that rule without drastically changing the cost structure of the game, but I think if such a rule would be used, the third is the only way to do it that doesn't just make it a race of OCV vs DCV.

 

Edit: some Anydice comparisons:

 

Regular: http://anydice.com/program/868a (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/868d )

Option 1: http://anydice.com/program/8689 (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/868e )

Option 2: http://anydice.com/program/868b (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/868f )

Option 3: http://anydice.com/program/868c (Normal Damage BODY: http://anydice.com/program/8690 )

 

The third option is the only one where the growth of extra dice does not drastically outpace the diminishing returns for hit chance of OCV. it still provides about 1.5x the average damage per unit increase in OCV compared to the base game's rules, so it's not anywhere near "balanced" using the point costs for OCV and DCV as they exist currently, but it's the closest you'd get if you want this "Attack roll adds to damage" rule. I'll admit I don't personally think it's necessary. HERO is cinematic, and the realism angle that "technique" determines how hard you hit doesn't really mesh with the decidedly non-realistic "dramatic realism" that HERO attempts to achieve.

 

Tholomyles, please explain what I am looking for.  I am reasonably numerate but for some reason failing to parse what each of the anydice stuff is doing to get its profiles.

 

I have always hated that while HERO let me throw lots of dice, the more I threw the less variation I saw in the results.  Probability, thou art a boring witch!!

 

I have also always hated rolling really well and then throwing lousy damage dice - it is a visceral disappointment...

 

I would be interested in looking at the numbers and understanding what it says - then it can be modified - perhaps an extra dice for every two below?

 

By "provides about 1.5x the average damage" do you mean that if a character ups their OCV by 1 in this system it has 1.5 the damage increase that you would expect over the RAW?  Obviously +1 OCV increases the number of times you hit while in the proposed system +1 OCV increases the number of times you hit AND adds a but of damage when you do.  However, every extra dice you get should add less damage than the one before - you are less likely to roll a high dice and less likely to have a one to replace (these are not extra dice as such, just a chance to roll a bit higher on any particular dice) and it caps out at the maximum damage roll - 6D6 will never do more than 36 STUN no matter how well you roll.

 

However, would appreciate you walking me through your cool probability tool - it is something I would not mind learning to use....

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

I can't say I like the first option, not at 1 level to 1 roll mod anyway.   Having 3 levels to use towards it pretty much guarantees (~98%) a 4x or 5x STUN multiplier, and an ~86% chance of 2x Body.   6,7,8 are moved down to 5.   9 is moved up to 12.  10,11, 14,15,16 are moved to 13.

 

Seems REALLY powerful compared to adding 1 1/2 Damage Classes.

 

Not sure what you are saying here.  I was not talking about allowing more dice for changing the stun multiplier.  I think that is what you are saying??  

 

I am really not following the numbers here ( you may have noticed!!)  :-)

[Doc Democracy]

Still looking to parse Tholomyles' anydice calculations.  In the situation he posed 

DC: 12

OCV: 9

DCV: 9

PD: 25

 

The average result on a hit is 42 STUN - 25 PD = 17 STUN.  The average result on a miss is 0 STUN.  :-)

 

With the new system the very best that can happen is that you roll a 3, eight fewer than you needed to hit and so you roll 20 dice and take the best 12.  If AnyDice is working the way I think it does then a three would provide you with 55 STUN (or getting 30 STUN through as opposed to the usual 17).

 

that means the following

 

3 - 55 STUN (30 through defences)

4 - 54 STUN (29 through defences) 

5 - 53 STUN (28 through defences) 

6 - 52 STUN (27 through defences) 

7 - 50 STUN (25 through defences) 

8 - 49 STUN (24 through defences) 

9 - 47 STUN (22 through defences) 

10 - 44 STUN (19 through defences) 

11 - 42 STUN (17 through defences)

 

so rather than a vanilla 17 through defences, average damage through defences ranges from 17 to 30.

 

By my reckoning (adding how many times each result is likely to come up in 1000 rolls and averaging out) then the old system with even CVs, 12DC and 25 defence gives an average of 17 STUN through defences and the new one gives an average of 22 STUN through defences.

 

That is not insignificant but not hugely unbalancing to my mind. (this may be Outsiders +1.5 damage class which probably means he was interpreting the numbers from Tholomyles' calculations better than me!).

 

It should also deliver more variation in results (so combat is less predictable and little bit more dangerous) and provide rewards to players for good rolls (which I think they like!).

 

I think it does make eyeballing balance in characters a bit more difficult but it does mean I dont have to find ways of more human level martial artists be equivalent to their brickish counterparts - martial artists can expect to do almost maximum damage an so do not need to have as many damage dice...

 

 

Doc

 

PS: link to AnyDice graphs of each dice result and results can be found here.  I also now think the conversation is more System than Fantasy HERO and so will take this strand of conversation over there...[link]

[Outsider]

If you allow your players to modify their hit location roll by one for each level they dedicate towards doing so ahead of time

 

And a player has enough OCV advantage to dedicate three levels to this, while maintaining a decent/good chance of hitting

 

Then they will get to change their hit location roll by up to 3 either way, right?

 

On any given location roll, they will presumably change from a worse damage location to a better damage location.

 

So if the player rolls  a 6, he can change it to a 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, or 9.    Since he wants maximum damage, he will change it to a 3, 4, or 5, all of which do 5x STUN and 2x BODY

 

If he rolls a 7 or 8, he can still change to a head location for 5x STUN and 2x BODY.

 

On a 9, the best he can get to is a 12, for 4x STUN

 

on 10-11-12, he can change to a 13, for 4xSTUN and 2x BODY.

 

and so on

 

 

Basically, if he can shift by up to 3, his hit location chart effectively looks like looks like this :

 

3-8: Head  2xBODY, 5x STUN

9 : Stomach : 1.5x BODY, 4x STUN

10-16 : VItals : 2xBODY, 4xSTUN

17-18 : Thigh/Knee : 1xBODY, 2x STUN

 

Which is a LOT better than the regular chart.

 

And also a lot better, as far as increasing damage done, than the standard rules option for using 2 levels to add 1 DC.

[Doc Democracy]

Yeah - small changes in the location roll can have pretty big results.  :-)   That is the issue when you begin moving along a bell curve with a linear addition.  It should not be the same moving from 10 to 11 as it is 3 to 4.  Indeed it should not be the same action to move from 3 to 4 as it is to move from 4 to 3...

 

Not sure there was a LOT of thought put to the hit locations beyond making it kinda look like a 1D6-1 multiplier.  

[Ninja-Bear]

Ninja-Bear : I may be behind the times, but isn't Set a general +1 OCV, while Brace provides +2 vs range modifiers? So Brace is carefully aiming after a fashion, and set is just plain old extra aiming.

 

Kesedrith : My experience is that tanks are already mostly just punching bags for high CV enemies, so adding yet another mechanic to make high CV better seems even more punitive to anyone who might want to play a tank.

Outsider you are correct. But I would like to point out that Set would be more useful for games that use hit locations thereby hitting a location that does more damage which isn't haymakering doing to begin with?

[bigdamnhero]

If you allow your players to modify their hit location roll by one for each level they dedicate towards doing so ahead of time

 

And a player has enough OCV advantage to dedicate three levels to this, while maintaining a decent/good chance of hitting

 

Then they will get to change their hit location roll by up to 3 either way, right?

Correct, tho in the latter case note that they have to burn a Hero Point, and they typically only get 1-2 of those per session, so burning one to change Hit Location is a non-trivial expense and means they won't be able to reroll their next crappy To Hit roll or crappy damage roll Phase. If you don't use Hero Points, or if they're so common that characters can burn them more freely, then I agree the second option could cost more than the first, maybe 2 for 1.

 

Also remember this was specifically for a heroic game where they range in CVs isn't as wide as it gets in many superheroic games.

[Outsider]

Ah, I was reading the 2 bullet points as separate methods.

 

1) Allocate skill levels ahead of time to modify hit location

OR

2) Spend a Hero Point to modify hit location after the fact, with a max mod of how much you hit by.

 

So you're saying the method was to allocate skill levels ahead of time (reducing your chances to hit) THEN have the option of spending a HERO point to actually do the modification, and even then only if you hit by more than you needed? 

 

Example :

Duelist Dan has 6 OCV and 6 Skill Levels.  He is facing Maurice the Mook who has 5 DCV.

Dan allocates 3 of his levels to location modification, leaving him at 9 OCV, which means a 15- to hit.

Dan rolls a 13, meaning he hit by 2, then rolls an 8 for Location. 

Dan decides that he wants to change that 8 to something better and spends a Hero Point.

He previously allocated enough skill levels to location modification that he could modify by up to three, but he only hit by 2, so he can only modify by 2.   He chooses to hit Location 10 (chest)

The third level allocated to location mod is effectively wasted.

 

Tying the modification to hard to come by Hero Points makes a big difference.

[bigdamnhero]

Ah, I was reading the 2 bullet points as separate methods.

 

1) Allocate skill levels ahead of time to modify hit location

OR

2) Spend a Hero Point to modify hit location after the fact, with a max mod of how much you hit by.

The way you have it summarized here is essentially correct; it's one or the other. Sorry, I think I misread what your initial objection was, but you had it right the first time. Apologies if I muddied the water unnecessarily.

 

However:

• In the (standard heroic) campaign I used this for, the max CV for PCs including CSLs was closer to 7-9. So allocating 3 CSLs to pull Hit Location means gambling you won't need those CSLs to Hit. If your PCs have those kind of CSLs to burn, then yeah you might want to make it 2-for-1 or require an HP up front or something else.
• (Also, I don't tell players the target's DCV, so unless/until they've had a few Phases to bracket it, they're guessing how many CSLs they can spare anyway.)
• That notwithstanding, if you have a CV advantage of 7(!) over your target, as in your example above? Then I'm fine with you being more-or-less guaranteed of hitting center of mass or better; if you're that good, you shouldn't be shooting mooks in the feet. So I don't really see that as a bug.

It would be interesting to run the numbers to see how many points of Hit Location Adjustment are statistically-equivalent to adding 1 Damage Class. (Someone with more points in SS: Math than me?) You may well be right that 1-for-1 is too generous. All I can say is it didn't feel overpowering in the game we used it for; it's not like players were dumping CSLs into Hit Location every single action.