Abort to Drain?

[Jkeown]

Here's a cool visual. The gadgeteer Inventory throws a grenade at the vile villain Rust. Rust is aware of the attack. He aborts to Drain, reducing the grenade to inert ash before it strikes him.  I think it falls under this bit from 6E2 23. How would you react, especially if I narrated it accurately? Because he Aborted, he loses his next phase. Or... should he have to use Drain before Inventory ever throws the damn thing? 

 

"Use of any other Maneuver, activation/use of any other Power, or performing any other Action deemed by the GM to be primarily for purposes of defending or protecting the character."

 

Keep in mind that I am Forever GM of my group. 

[Greywind]

I wouldn't allow it. Drains are attack. Not defense.

[Barton]

I would allow it if he can make a dex roll or per roll.

[unclevlad]

First, how is this a Drain?  What is Rust Draining?  Drain is more specific, it's not a catch-all.  

 

Second:  if this can be done with Drain, then why not with Blast?  I blow the grenade up.  Hey, maybe the explosion will hit the gadgeteer.  

 

Third, this is what Deflection is for.  The SFX is it crumbles to dust.

 

So, no, I wouldn't allow it like that.

[indy523]

I think that to make this work you have to have a defense power and the best one is Deflection that blocks ranged attacks at range.

 

You then can link the drain to the deflection or by the drain with an automatic trigger so that it goes off when the deflection is used.

 

You have to buy the drain with an advantage to let it work against a broader group of powers to include the ability to actually reduce the attacks.

 

But honesty I think an easier way is not to use drain but suppress or dispel.

[Hugh Neilson]

Seems like a reasonable SFX for Aborting to Block, or even Dodge, against an attack with a physical manifestation. If the attack misses due to the aborted action, it's shot out of the air.

[Jkeown]

Thanks for the options. I guess I was trying to fit too close to his whole "de-buff" concept. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Well if Rust bought Trigger for his Drain, he can Rules wise do what you want it to do. However if the Hero wanted to do something like this-without buying Trigger? We’ll spend a Hero point. 😀 

[unclevlad]

20 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Well if Rust bought Trigger for his Drain, he can Rules wise do what you want it to do. However if the Hero wanted to do something like this-without buying Trigger? We’ll spend a Hero point. 😀 

 

EXACTLY what Drain has been set up on this Trigger?

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

EXACTLY what Drain has been set up on this Trigger?

I’d imagine Drain Body.

[Jkeown]

As originally conceived, it would drain the "Technology" special effect. However, when I look at the cost of such a power (50 points per die!), using Dodge to simulate is probably best. 

 

Also, maybe who cares about the cost? He's a villain, and I don't think villains should worry about points too much. They have their hands full coming up with ridiculous plots to keep the heroes busy while maintaining an active work/life balance. They've got a lot going on and should unplug for a bit and just kick around the lair. (I think I just found another hook for this guy's character.)

 

Destroy Technology:  Drain Tech-based Powers 6d6, Tech Powers (+1/2), Expanded Effect (All Tech-Based Powers) (+3 1/2) (300 Active Points); One Use At A Time (-1), Requires A Roll (Corrosion Power roll; -1/2), Lockout (-1/2) Real Cost: 100

[Duke Bushido]

Eh.

 

I'd allow it as a spur of the moment thing, but I will also say that I am more "spirit of the game" and less "letter of the rules" than most folks.

 

 

However, if it is something he wanted to do as a semi-regular schtick... Well, as others have pointed out, there are powers specifically for that sort of thing.   Just remember though, that I would also require that he "attack" the grenade, since he is not using a deflect or block where he is countering his opponent's attack roll.

 

That grenade is going to get some serious size modifiers... 

 

 

[Barton]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Eh.

 

I'd allow it as a spur of the moment thing, but I will also say that I am more "spirit of the game" and less "letter of the rules" than most folks.

 

 

However, if it is something he wanted to do as a semi-regular schtick... Well, as others have pointed out, there are powers specifically for that sort of thing.   Just remember though, that I would also require that he "attack" the grenade, since he is not using a deflect or block where he is countering his opponent's attack roll.

 

That grenade is going to get some serious size modifiers... 

 

 

Very BIG size mods on the grenade. Hard to hit.

[unclevlad]

Something around 4 levels of Shrinking, so +8 DCV.  But figure its base DCV is 3, so the net's 11.  And that's a good point, but I'm not one to allow the kinds of simple, catch-all Drains.  What OP posted, with some serious advantages...that's reflecting this by paying for the generality.

 

I'd hate to see the skill roll, tho...at -30?  That would be impressive.   

[Jkeown]

Not even GMs can justify that in a 4-color Bronze Age campaign. At least, I hope it stays Bronze age. 

[Derek Hiemforth]

On 10/24/2021 at 7:44 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

Seems like a reasonable SFX for Aborting to Block, or even Dodge, against an attack with a physical manifestation. If the attack misses due to the aborted action, it's shot out of the air.

 

I think this is the best answer: Don't get too hung up on the mechanics of "aborting to Drain," and focus instead on the SFX of "stopping an incoming attack." While area-affecting attacks can't normally be blocked, a grenade is certainly one that falls under the common sense exception.

[Greywind]

Unless it is contact/impact fused.

[Tom Cowan]

would you let some one use a blast to take out the focus instead?

[Jkeown]

3 hours ago, Derek Hiemforth said:

 

I think this is the best answer: Don't get too hung up on the mechanics of "aborting to Drain," and focus instead on the SFX of "stopping an incoming attack." While area-affecting attacks can't normally be blocked, a grenade is certainly one that falls under the common sense exception.

I completely agree! When I describe it as such... I might have to explain to my players what I mean by it. Perhaps I tell them up front that I'll be describing things dramatically instead of with mechanical terms. Might preserve the Comic Feels. 

[Greywind]

29 minutes ago, Tom Cowan said:

would you let some one use a blast to take out the focus instead?

 

As an attack action, yes. As a defense, probably not.

[Hugh Neilson]

44 minutes ago, Tom Cowan said:

would you let some one use a blast to take out the focus instead?

Just as the drain, it could be SFX for a Block.  It is a defensive action, despite using an Attack Power.  SFX should trump.

[Greywind]

25 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Just as the drain, it could be SFX for a Block.  It is a defensive action, despite using an Attack Power.  SFX should trump.

 

Removing someone else's focus should only be from an attack option.

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, Tom Cowan said:

would you let some one use a blast to take out the focus instead?

 

 

If we don't, we are going to have to rewrite a _lot_ of cowboy movies....

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Tom Cowan said:

would you let some one use a blast to take out the focus instead?

 

Not as a responsive-defensive action.  This is what Deflection is for.;  it's pretty much one of the exemplar situations.

[dmjalund]

If I was houseruling, I would only allow Aborts to 'block' where the person is attacking the incoming attack (OCV vc OCV) or the attack to Abort to is with 0 OCV. (the person has no time to aim). therefore any attack that doesn't require aiming (like area affect no range) can be Aborted to without any other ill effect.