Knockback/knockdown/KNOCKUP??

[jaws]

Suppose I wasn't to create a power that when striking a target on the ground, the target is lifted up of the ground instead of knocked back or down....

I don't want to lift them with telekineses or flight UBA since the Idea is to actually HIT the target. Sort uf like to set up for a video game aerial combo.

[Steve Long]

This seems like an attempt to start a discussion rather than a rules question, so I've moved it to the "Discussion" board. What do you think, Herodom Assembled?

[Outsider]

I'd just use the standard knockback rules, but define the direction the character is knocked as up.

Or, if your GM doesnt like that as a freebie, you could add +1/4 Indirect to the attack (always comes from below)

[Nolgroth]

I'd go with standard Knockback rules, but halve the number of inches for vertical movement. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

I'd go with standard Knockback rules, but halve the number of inches for vertical movement. :)

Which pretty much is the same as 1/2 KB damage from not hitting anything. Works for me. :D

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd just use the standard knockback rules, but define the direction the character is knocked as up.

Or, if your GM doesnt like that as a freebie, you could add +1/4 Indirect to the attack (always comes from below)

I think I would require the advantage. The character will be knocked X inches up immediately, but will return to the ground at the standard falling rates. I would be inclined to have him startfalling in the next segment. A non-flyer who'se still falling when his phase comes up is at a disadvantage, after all.

[Outsider]

Unless you're playing with pretty big attacks, it is unlikely that a character will need to fall for more than 2 segments (15" using the standard falling table) before hitting the ground again. It is more likely, but still not hugely likely that they will need to fall more than 1 segment (5") if you're halving the knockback distance to reflect the fact that it is 'up' they're going. Shrunken characters (or ones who are otherwise vulnerable to knockback) might have more troube, but they're not all that common.

[ghost-angel]

I think I would require the advantage. The character will be knocked X inches up immediately, but will return to the ground at the standard falling rates. I would be inclined to have him startfalling in the next segment. A non-flyer who'se still falling when his phase comes up is at a disadvantage, after all.

Well, the non-flyer who is still falling on his Phase can try and use Breakfall, or Leaping to land instead of splat.

[Comic]

If the idea is to have cinematic 'Crouching-Tiger-Hidden-Dragon' combats where the whole fight takes off as everyone punches each other upwards, it might be more like a use of the Roll with Punch maneuver, possibly with Acrobatics, by the target.

[BobGreenwade]

I'd just use the standard knockback rules, but define the direction the character is knocked as up.

Or, if your GM doesnt like that as a freebie, you could add +1/4 Indirect to the attack (always comes from below)

I tend to go along with this approach. The only other thing I can think of is to impose Leaping UAA, Linked to the main attack and proportionate to the amount of Knockback done by the attack.

[Vondy]

This isn't fatal. We don't need knocked-up rules. :D

[jaws]

I'd just use the standard knockback rules, but define the direction the character is knocked as up.

Or, if your GM doesnt like that as a freebie, you could add +1/4 Indirect to the attack (always comes from below)

Strait forward, and was pretty much what I had in mind but didn't know if it was rules worthy.


I'd go with standard Knockback rules, but halve the number of inches for vertical movement. :)

Good consideration, its easy to accidentally forget this for a new guy like me.


I think I would require the advantage. The character will be knocked X inches up immediately, but will return to the ground at the standard falling rates. I would be inclined to have him startfalling in the next segment. A non-flyer who'se still falling when his phase comes up is at a disadvantage, after all.

Yes, to start falling the next segment is a must for the whole idea to be of any use. However as outsider says below, unless KB is amazing, characters will rarely fall more than 1 segment.


Unless you're playing with pretty big attacks, it is unlikely that a character will need to fall for more than 2 segments (15" using the standard falling table) before hitting the ground again. It is more likely, but still not hugely likely that they will need to fall more than 1 segment (5") if you're halving the knockback distance to reflect the fact that it is 'up' they're going. Shrunken characters (or ones who are otherwise vulnerable to knockback) might have more troube, but they're not all that common.

Where are the rules for falling speed? I think I remember reading them once, but it was a bit complex and confusing I believe. I think it was a bit to much work.


This isn't fatal. We don't need knocked-up rules. :D


:D, I was hoping the whole conversation wouldn't take this particular meaning for knocked up when I posted it. happily it has been quite useful.

[CrosshairCollie]

Where are the rules for falling speed? I think I remember reading them once, but it was a bit complex and confusing I believe. I think it was a bit to much work.

Basically, the end of the first segment you have no horizontal support, you fall 5". End of the next segment, 10". End of the next, 15" (as in, six-foot game inches, not real inches). Continue until your reach 30" velocity, or hit the ground. Take 1d6 damage for each " of velocity.

I believe this damage is still limited by the Body/Def of whatever you hit, however, so you may dig yourself a nice pit when you land. :)

[Comic]

..And if your GM is kind, once you do more DEF+Body than the floor has, you only take that much damage and fall through to the next level, subtracted the dice of that floor from your current velocity.

Complicates the fall, but can save your life, since five 8d6 impacts is much nicer for a DEF 20-, Body 10- character than 30d6.

[Doc Democracy]

Not the sort of thread I initially thought it was....

looked to me like the sequence of events for DarkPorn HERO...a version of the four colour game with more realistic consequences...


Doc

[SCUBA Hero]

I'd also use the +1/4 Indirect. Note that on page 421 of 5ER, it states: "If a character takes Knockback in an upward direction ... the inches traveled aren't halved (as they would be for a character using Flight to move straight upward)."

I'd also reserve the right, as a GM, to make the Advantage retroactively worth +1/2, if it proved to be unbalancing in the game.

[ghost-angel]

I'd also use the +1/4 Indirect. Note that on page 421 of 5ER, it states: "If a character takes Knockback in an upward direction ... the inches traveled aren't halved (as they would be for a character using Flight to move straight upward)."

I'd also reserve the right, as a GM, to make the Advantage retroactively worth +1/2, if it proved to be unbalancing in the game.

Why an Advantage?

What's the difference between hitting someone in an upwards direction to try and get them to take falling damage (in a later segment, giving teammates a chance to stop the fall and prevent damage) and hitting them into a wall where they take the Knockback Damage immediately.

As far as I'm concerned, knocking someone in an upward direction is just as valid as allowing them to be knocked back in any other direction.

[Comic]

Roll Acrobatics to get underneath them, and swing away.

Don't say you weren't warned about doing this to The Blob.

[SCUBA Hero]

Why an Advantage?Given two roughly equal-sized opponents, it (to me) violates common sense to let one of them hit the other straight up (or straight down, for that matter) without some kind of penalty ... and one way to negate that penalty is with an Advantage.

[SCUBA Hero]

Roll Acrobatics to get underneath them, and swing away.Sure. That works for me, too. Although I'd probably also allow the other character an Acrobatics roll to avoid the effects, as well.

[ghost-angel]

Given two roughly equal-sized opponents, it (to me) violates common sense to let one of them hit the other straight up (or straight down, for that matter) without some kind of penalty ... and one way to negate that penalty is with an Advantage.

Consider, if it's part of the genre Video Game Ninja Hero for example, to do so is it still merit for an advantage?

Also, since Knockback is most often used in Superhero Games, why is this suddenly a violation of common sense? Laser-EyeBeam Boy isn't?

But, given two opponents of equal size and no stated maneuvering to get under the opponent I would say Upward Knockback is not necessarily possible.

However, any kind of maneuvering (getting under, using Size Powers to suddenly appear under a character and hit upwards) should be allowed without any other Advantages needed.

No, if a Character happens to have an Indirect Power that can come from below, then Upwards Knockback falls under the above situation of "manuvering to cause it."

But I would not require Indirect to have a Character take Upwards Knockback. I would like a reasonble (or at least semiplausable given the nature of Supers) reason that the opponent goes up instead of simply away from the Attacker.

[Hugh Neilson]

Why an Advantage?

What's the difference between hitting someone in an upwards direction to try and get them to take falling damage (in a later segment, giving teammates a chance to stop the fall and prevent damage) and hitting them into a wall where they take the Knockback Damage immediately.

As far as I'm concerned, knocking someone in an upward direction is just as valid as allowing them to be knocked back in any other direction.

Any other form of knockback will not leave the opponent hovering in the air for a segment or two. That hovering could be very disadvantageous to a non-flying target knocked back. He can't, for example, abort to a Dive for Cover on his next phase, since he can't logically leap or run with no ground contact. He can't use Breakfall to land on his feet instead of land prone, avoiding the DCV penalty resulting from being prone.

With the attacker paying to knock the target up, allowing him to place the defender in a disadvantageous position seems reasonable. Allowing it as a freebie? OK if it's in genre. OK if it's available to everyone. But giving a free advantage to the select few? No thanks.

[SCUBA Hero]

Consider, if it's part of the genre Video Game Ninja Hero for example, to do so is it still merit for an advantage?No, it doesn't. And I'd allow all PCs and major villains equal access to it.


Also, since Knockback is most often used in Superhero Games, why is this suddenly a violation of common sense? Laser-EyeBeam Boy isn't?In a superhero context, it's not a violation of common sense, but getting an effect that the character didn't pay for. Laser-EyeBeam Boy paid for his EB (even if it violates conservation of energy and numerous other physical laws). I wouldn't let a character have an upward Knockback effect for free unless I allowed it for all major characters (as in Video Game Ninja Hero, above).


But, given two opponents of equal size and no stated maneuvering to get under the opponent I would say Upward Knockback is not necessarily possible.Agreed.


However, any kind of maneuvering (getting under, using Size Powers to suddenly appear under a character and hit upwards) should be allowed without any other Advantages needed.Agreed, see my earlier post about using Acrobatics to achieve this... and also to avoid it.


No, if a Character happens to have an Indirect Power that can come from below, then Upwards Knockback falls under the above situation of "manuvering to cause it." Agreed.


But I would not require Indirect to have a Character take Upwards Knockback. I would like a reasonble (or at least semiplausable given the nature of Supers) reason that the opponent goes up instead of simply away from the Attacker.Agreed.

Heck, I can't find anything to argue with here...

[SCUBA Hero]

Any other form of knockback will not leave the opponent hovering in the air for a segment or two. That hovering could be very disadvantageous to a non-flying target knocked back. He can't, for example, abort to a Dive for Cover on his next phase, since he can't logically leap or run with no ground contact.Given the high-powered nature of a game that allows the upward Knockback in the first place, I'd be inclined to allow the character to Dive For Cover; although I'd have to look at each case specifically. In any case, it would work the same for all characters.


He can't use Breakfall to land on his feet instead of land prone, avoiding the DCV penalty resulting from being prone.Reading the Breakfall skill description on page 51 of 5ER, I'd allow Breakfall for this.


With the attacker paying to knock the target up, allowing him to place the defender in a disadvantageous position seems reasonable. Allowing it as a freebie? OK if it's in genre. OK if it's available to everyone. But giving a free advantage to the select few? No thanks.Agreed.

I think we're actually pretty much all on the same page here.

[ghost-angel]

I think we are. Hmmm... well. Ok. Threads over. Everyone go home.

[Hugh Neilson]

Reading the Breakfall skill description on page 51 of 5ER, I'd allow Breakfall for this.

I can see breakfall enabling the character to avoid being "knocked prone", but they're still in mid-air with no means of directing their movements. to me, that's still not a full DCV situation.

But, if I were allowing DFC from mid-air due to the nature of the campaign, I'd probably allow dodging in mid-air as well.

If the ground rules result in being knocked upwards having no major drawbacks over those of being knocked back, then I'd agree no advantage is required to direct knockback in this fashion.

[Super Squirrel]

I had a character named Inertia. His entire concept was Knockback related. Double Knockbacks and Indirects. I think he had an "Inertia Storm" which was an Indirect, Double Knockback, Explosion, NCC (-1 can't control effect). It sent people in completely random directions.

Indirect is the solution you seek.

[jaws]

Basically, the end of the first segment you have no horizontal support, you fall 5". End of the next segment, 10". End of the next, 15" (as in, six-foot game inches, not real inches). Continue until your reach 30" velocity, or hit the ground. Take 1d6 damage for each " of velocity.

I believe this damage is still limited by the Body/Def of whatever you hit, however, so you may dig yourself a nice pit when you land. :)

Thanks thats simple enough to remember with out having to go to tables or a rule book.


Not the sort of thread I initially thought it was....

looked to me like the sequence of events for DarkPorn HERO...a version of the four colour game with more realistic consequences...
Doc

LOL I knew something didn't read just right on the title.

Thanks everyone for all the cool Input! I will actually be able put this together I think.

JAWS

[BobGreenwade]

Not the sort of thread I initially thought it was....

looked to me like the sequence of events for DarkPorn HERO...a version of the four colour game with more realistic consequences...I kinda had a similar reaction, what with the Katherine Heigl movie currently being promoted in the media.

Gives one reason for a pregnant pause. It's just not what I was expecting.





Okay, I'll be good now....