When sfx lie

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Have you ever thought that the idestructible is only against a concretrated attack ? The AoE attack could represent an overwhelming attack which you never were indestrucible? Best analogy is this; if your hit by a baseball (single attack)' date=' it hits, but typically doesn't due alot of damage, but if you get hit by a car (area effect) well then you typically get hurt alot. But as it was stated previously, indestructible means diffrent things to different people, so there should be a disscusion as to what the pc envisions what this menas to him.[/quote']

 

Yes, but a baseball is, what 1d6? 2d6 tops.

 

A car could easily be 10d6. It doesn't hurt because it is AoE it hurts because it is applying a lot more force.

 

Generally in Hero AoE attacks do less damage than 'single' attacks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

If you don't mind me using the old straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) defense, I think there is a precedence in the Superhero genre for having purposely misldeading SFX. Some characters that come to mind...

 

Mysterio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterio) would love you to believe he uses real magic, so don't bother casting "dipel magic".

Morbius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbius,_the_Living_Vampire) wishes he sparkled in daylight, but don't waste your time with holy water.

Even the mighty clone Superboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superboy) uses "tactile telekinesis" to make you think he has the strength of big blue, but until recent retcons firing that kryptonite ray would have been a waste of time.

 

I'm sure others can think of many more purposely misleading SFX used in comics.

 

The difference to my mind is that they are misleading you as to the sfx at work - not as to the underlying mechanic. Game mechanics have no place in the gameworld - they only show up as sfx - so it is really important that the sfx correctly translates the mechanic to the gameworld. There might be lots of ways to do that , but they should all work within the context of the gameworld and be consistent within the likely scenarios in which they might feature.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sean, I really don't understand your basic premise. How could the sfx possibly lie? Your GM could lie to (or mislead) you, but the sfx can't.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with building a character normally and saying that any missed attack roll is actually a hit that does no damage. You don't have to buy more DCV with this sfx, it's just the way you conceive of your character. As long as your GM agrees, you're good to go.

 

You certainly want to be transparent about the mechanics of this with your players. Let people know that mechanically they missed on their attack even though sfx-wise, they hit.

 

This is really no different from the way Powers work in the game. You can let people know that mechanically they've been struck by a Killing Attack even though sfx-wise, the fire blast didn't look any different from a normal attack.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sean, I really don't understand your basic premise. How could the sfx possibly lie? Your GM could lie to (or mislead) you, but the sfx can't.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with building a character normally and saying that any missed attack roll is actually a hit that does no damage. You don't have to buy more DCV with this sfx, it's just the way you conceive of your character. As long as your GM agrees, you're good to go.

 

You certainly want to be transparent about the mechanics of this with your players. Let people know that mechanically they missed on their attack even though sfx-wise, they hit.

 

This is really no different from the way Powers work in the game. You can let people know that mechanically they've been struck by a Killing Attack even though sfx-wise, the fire blast didn't look any different from a normal attack.

 

SFX can lie in a number of ways. The most obvious - and aggravating - is when a character with Ice Powers - which do not work well against fire - has 'fire sfx' thus making it less likely that an opponent would think that fire would be an effective attack against them.

 

There's also the instant case when you apparently hit but cause no damage. As I mentioned above that was less of a problem in 5e but is more of an issue now there are more possible explanations - and you may be prevented, or at least discouraged, be using an effective attack because you've been mislead by the description of what is happening. I don;t mind that if the target has in some way paid for the privilege but they haven't - and there is no real downside to misleading sfx that balance the scales. If sfx provide an unbalanced advantage then they are not good sfx. You say you can let the player know 'mechanically' - fine - but sometimes the only way to do that is to reveal the mechanic at work and not only does that make suspension of disbelief harder, it reveals the mechanics that sfxc are there to hide i.e. it makes the sfx pointless.

 

The other way - and most important way - that sfx lie doesn't involve mechanics at all. If Slippery Jane, a martial artist with no resistant defence, decides to 'chin block' a 90mm DU tank shell, that is a lie, a lie that is harmful to the integrity of the game. it is a lie because, even within the limited reality of the game, that is not something that is justified by the abilities of the character or the power or maneouvre they are employing. That makes it hard for other players to take the game seriously, and that is a cardinal sin. If everyone in the game group thinks that is how such things should work, cool, but it is not the way the majority of players would think, and it is a completely alien concept to most new players. That sort of disconnected sfx should be heavily sidelined.

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I tend to agree with Sean: SFX must be appropriate to the powerset. That still leaves you a wide degree of latitude. DCV as "roll with the punch" or even "actively block the incoming attack" (a la Darth Vader with a blaster shot to the hand) I'd be good with. DCV as invulnerabilty, I'm not going to accept, simply because it fails to map on so many levels - AoE, grabs, entangles, damage shields, even simple falling damage.

 

This is not about the sort of internal consistency that Doc Democracy was talking about. I wouldn't allow "invulnerable" in my games, but if a GM said "Buying r30 PD and r30 ED is enough to make you invulnerable" I'd have no real beef with that. Defence maps pretty well to "invulnerable". A tricked-out desolid would be OK. But DCV simply doesn't map well to the SFX described, in this case.

 

cheers, Mark

[Naanomi]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Q) Why can Bullseye, who probably has a whole lot of OCV/CSL with throwing stuff, and known as the man who 'never misses' never seem to hit Daredevil?

 

A) Daredevil bought his agility as Combat Luck rather than DCV. Better luck next time, Bullseye!

[Greywind]

Re: When sfx lie

 

What was his excuse going up against Spider-Man?

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Maybe DN or 100% reduction with "requires a DEX vs. DEX or OCV vs. OCV rol(takes penalties to roll for multiple attacks)(-1/2)", "must be aware of attack(-1/2)" and "not vs. SFX of type Y(-1/4)" could do the trick? with -1 1/4 of lims, put into a two slot multipower, we come up with a 63 real point build for the 100% DR, or if that isn't used in the campaign, then 18 DCs of negation will do the trick pretty well in a 12 DC setting(the character can shrug off a pushed haymaker), for a mere 48 points. It still requires a roll and isn't 100% reliable, the character can be beaten by a better roll or more accurate strike, or surprised in combat, and is also vulnerable to a certain type of attack no matter what.

 

Though I have to confess to having been fond of DCV-as-invulnerability as a concept, there are holes in it which require the cobbling together of additional mechanics to fill those gaps---if it can be done more elegantly, then it should.

[GMumford]

Re: When sfx lie

 

How about an Achilles invulnerability. Add a limitation that says the additional DCV is not

cumulative with the penalties to hit a specified hit location so called called shots work normally. Character gets hit with an AOE, his entire body gets hit including the weak spot. Someone hits over his DCV, lucky shot to the weak spot.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

But DCV simply doesn't map well to the SFX described' date=' in this case[/b'].

 

cheers, Mark

Sure it does. Someone attacks, they "miss", it is described as a "hit" -- the GM makes it clear that mechanically it was a "miss" -- and the character seems to be practically invulnerable. You'll have to roll much better to find the chink in that armor.

 

Naturally, you'll also need more defenses to cover certain situations, but since when is that new? If you go with lots and lots of PD/ED, you'll still need to pick up tons of Power Defense and Mental Defense and Flash Defense (to counter those nasty AVLD attacks), etc.

 

DCV maps extremely well to the sfx.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

sometimes the only way to do that is to reveal the mechanic at work and not only does that make suspension of disbelief harder' date=' it reveals the mechanics that sfxc are there to hide i.e. it makes the sfx pointless.[/quote']

Sorry, but that's bunk. We all know about the mechanics in the game. We're constantly reminded. Every time we pick up the dice or cite their results, we're reminded. Every time we mark off some STUN damage or check to see if our total will be enough to Mind Control the mook into shooting his boss, we're reminded.

 

I'm certainly not so tender that it would eliminate my suspension of disbelief or ruin a game to have a GM tell me "You were right on target. He took that shot right in the chest -- seemed to invite it! -- and he took no damage at all. You're convinced, however, that if you could aim just a bit better, you might be able to wipe that smile off his face. His face. Yeah, that's the ticket. By-the-way, your roll was a miss."

 

The other way - and most important way - that sfx lie doesn't involve mechanics at all. If Slippery Jane' date=' a martial artist with no resistant defence, decides to 'chin block' a 90mm DU tank shell, that is a lie, a lie that is harmful to the integrity of the game.[/quote']

We call that bad role playing. It's mentioned often in the rules.

[casualplayer]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Concealing your abilities from your opponents is a benefit that should cost points, proportional to the usefulness of the duplicity. If the SFX of your defense leads your opponents to switch to the Big Gun to get through your defenses rather than tracking missiles, then you are getting a huge advantage, one I have no problem with as long as you pay the points for it.

 

Combat Luck was a step in the wrong direction to accomodate the commonality of KAs flying around the game. Just because it has quickly become ubiquitous doesn't make it right; actually in HERO the powers that everyone has are usually the ones that need to be checked for brokenness.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Concealing your abilities from your opponents is a benefit that should cost points' date=' proportional to the usefulness of the duplicity. If the SFX of your defense leads your opponents to switch to the Big Gun to get through your defenses rather than tracking missiles, then you are getting a huge advantage, one I have no problem with as long as you pay the points for it.[/quote']

 

So DCV with IPE (or perhaps we should add to IPE a category for MPE - misleading power effects).

[jtelson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Concealing your abilities from your opponents is a benefit that should cost points' date=' proportional to the usefulness of the duplicity. If the SFX of your defense leads your opponents to switch to the Big Gun to get through your defenses rather than tracking missiles, then you are getting a huge advantage, one I have no problem with as long as you pay the points for it.[/quote']

 

SFX can provide small or occasional advantages (Fryalator shoots at the gas truck with his fire bolt vs. Mageatron using his magic bolts). As an advantage in combat DCV as toughness might last for a phase or two across the character's career in the campaign, certainly on par with the advantages granted by many other SFX.

[BNakagawa]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Yes' date=' but a baseball is, what [b']1d6? 2d6 tops.[/b]

 

A car could easily be 10d6. It doesn't hurt because it is AoE it hurts because it is applying a lot more force.

 

Generally in Hero AoE attacks do less damage than 'single' attacks.

 

Oh, so that's why MLB is forcing players to wear new, more protective batting helmets?

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Oh' date=' so that's why MLB is forcing players to wear new, more protective batting helmets?[/quote']

 

yep, 150 gram fastball moving at 40m/sec(90 MPH) = over 50 joules of kinetic energy. Compare with a karateka moving their 2-4kg forearm at 10-15m/sec. for a KE range of 100-450 joules. Hmm, maybe 3 or 4 dice for the fastball?

[casualplayer]

Re: When sfx lie

 

SFX can provide small or occasional advantages (Fryalator shoots at the gas truck with his fire bolt vs. Mageatron using his magic bolts). As an advantage in combat DCV as toughness might last for a phase or two across the character's career in the campaign' date=' certainly on par with the advantages granted by many other SFX.[/quote']

 

Like most things in HERO, it helps to view the counter with the ability to make sure they are balanced. So what would counter this construct? Analyze Style? Sense Nimbleness? Telepathy? Also how are DCV modifiers going to affect this? If I Haymaker what is my DCV and how much of it is Visible or not? Does a manuever take it off the top or proportional?

 

This type of construct really encourages you to go Meta rather than being able to rely on describing the effect to advance the game like, y'know, roleplaying. Anyone on the wrong side of this is going to end up feeling duped and cheated.

 

If Images was properly titled Deceive Sense we would all know how this effect would need to be constructed and we would have a cost comparable to utility.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

So what would counter this construct?

A better roll to hit.

 

The GM very clearly indicates (examples earlier in the thread) that you failed to be accurate enough to damage the target. You are in no way duped -- you understand that a better to hit roll would have succeeded in doing damage. Honestly, what's difficult about this?

[casualplayer]

Re: When sfx lie

 

A better roll to hit.

 

The GM very clearly indicates (examples earlier in the thread) that you failed to be accurate enough to damage the target. You are in no way duped -- you understand that a better to hit roll would have succeeded in doing damage. Honestly, what's difficult about this?

 

What are you talking about? The OP Sean is pointing out something that can be done in HERO but questioning "should it be done?" It's what he does. I am agreeing with him that it shouldn't.

 

It's been mentioned but this is essentially reconstructing D&D's Armor Class, where an attack that would successfully hit AC 10 modified by DEX would actually "hit" but if it didn't overcome the additional AC provided by your armor the attack was considered to have been blunted. Yes, the toolkit is versatile enough to construct a flawed system. There's a marketing slogan.

 

The problem is that the HERO lexicon has "hit" established as successfully targeting, start warming up the damage dice. If you start fuzzying up the agreed upon definition you end up speaking the same language but not communicating, which leads to frustration, which leads to bad gaming, which leads to the door, which leads me to think it is a bad idea unless you renegotiate the definition of "hit" with your players as part of the campaign construction.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

It's been mentioned but this is essentially reconstructing D&D's Armor Class' date=' where an attack that would successfully hit AC 10 modified by DEX would actually "hit" but if it didn't overcome the additional AC provided by your armor the attack was considered to have been blunted.[/quote']

What are you talking about? There are plenty of examples of just this among the thousands of published HERO characters. Characters are built with increased DCV (often through increased DEX) provided by power armor or a magical necklace or focused qi or what-have-you. An attack that would successfully hit the character without the power armor (or whatever) fails to hit because of the additional DCV provided by the armor. There is no difference.

 

The problem is that the HERO lexicon has "hit" established as successfully targeting' date=' start warming up the damage dice.[/quote']

 

That's a very narrow reading of the HERO lexicon! It makes as much sense as insisting that every Strike be a punch, every Block be interposing a limb, and every Dodge be something you can do only against dodge balls. The rulebook is full of counter-examples. If the Attack Roll fails, the attack doesn't harm the target and the character's Phase ends. If the Attack Roll succeeds, the character must determine how much damage the attack does and/or what other effect it has. Insisting that failed Attack Rolls mean that the target was in no way touched is limiting and often silly -- as when a Brick winds up on Godzilla and rolls an 18 and you insist that means he slipped on a banana peel or some other nonsense.

 

If you start eliminating perfectly valid sfx, you end up telling perfectly good players that their ideas can't be incorporated into HERO, which leads to the door, which leads me to think that it is a bad idea.

[casualplayer]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Have you considered decaf?

 

The whole point of the thread is whether the OP's suggestion is a valid sfx for DCV levels. Using an obvious, focus-based example of DCV levels to argue for the allowing of inobvious or Invisible DCV levels is an interesting tactic.

 

I don't know why you're taking this so personally but I am not. You have won the internets, and driven me from the field.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: When sfx lie

 

A general question for everyone. If you are GM, when a player misses with an attack do you still make them roll damage? If the answer is "no" then I have to ask how the following situation is misleading: Player rolls to hit, GM states that the attack bounced off him, Player either understands that Mechanically it what a miss, or asks why he didn't roll damage. Even if the GM has to say "the roll missed but it looks like a hit" no one is being fooled.

 

I'm not saying that DCV is a good way to model invulnerability, or even toughness. I sure wouldn't model it that way. But saying that the "SFX are lying" or that the players are somehow being decieved is just foolish. If the player doesn't understand what happened mechanically it's the GM's fault, not the SFX's fault.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: When sfx lie

 

A general question for everyone. If you are GM' date=' when a player misses with an attack do you still make them roll damage? If the answer is "no" then I have to ask how the following situation is misleading: Player rolls to hit, GM states that the attack bounced off him, Player either understands that Mechanically it what a miss, or asks why he didn't roll damage. Even if the GM has to say "the roll missed but it looks like a hit" no one is being fooled.[/quote']

 

In 6e, it is possible for a target to be hit with an attack roll, but have Damage Negation eliminate the entire damage roll.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: When sfx lie

 

So what? It's still the GM's job to let the players know what is happening, not only "in game" but Mechanics-wise as well. My point remains the same. Even if 90% of us think that an SFX really doesn't fit, (which seems to be the case here) if a GM decides to use that SFX with that Mechanic, but isn't clear about what is happening, the GM is at fault, not the SFX. You can argue that the SFX is inappropriate (which I would in this case), but if a group decides that it works for them that's great, as long as everyone's on the same page.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Oh' date=' so that's why MLB is forcing players to wear new, more protective batting helmets?[/quote']

 

No, that is because their insurance company is risk-adverse. You could potentially blind someone with a baseball, if it hit just right, and 2d6 normal can deliver up to 8 BODY on a VERY lucky set of rolls.

 

That can cause injury sufficient to cost a lot of money.

 

However, if they were throwing cars at each other then they would be suffering very significant damage much more frequently.