Healing with Knockback

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

Reading Does Knockback under RAW, you would count the BOD like a normal attack.  But then, RAW would not allow "Does Knockback" on Healing either

 

Sure, but the rules as written state that if a power doesn't normally do body, then you count it as a normal attack.  This would mean healing -- a power that does not normally deal body -- wound calculate any theoretical knockback it does by counting the body on the dice as if it were a normal attack.  So while the rules don't normally allow you to buy does knockback on healing, they do describe how you would do so, if you did.

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Sure, but the rules as written state that if a power doesn't normally do body,

 

I would be happy to consider Healing as doing BODY, it just happens to be adding rather than subtracting.

 

😁

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, sevrick said:

Thanks for all the responses. It should be plenty for me to go on.

 

As for the people telling me the mentioned it before, I wasn't sure if it was their own take or if It was RAW.

 

For my own response, it was "my take;"  RAW doesn't have much advice as to when something should be a power paid for and wielded by a character or when it should be a disadplication applied to a character.  Not That it really _could_, mind you, because that is a world-building thing, and must be decided by the GM on a world-by-world or case-by-case basis.  Honestly, the only way to really get a feel for that is to cruise beastiaries and and villain books, though discussion of Change Environment in various editions at least alludes to taking advantage of shortcomings in individual characters.  Other than that, there isn't much out there save for intellectual exercises found on these boards.  Though that Luchadore example should stick with you forever.  I remember it every time I watch Santo enter a cave or a dark wood or a run-down mansion. 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, sevrick said:

As for the edition I am using 6th Edition, not sure why but there seems to be huge loyal following of 5th edition still.

 

Everyone has a "sweet spot," I think.  For me, it was somewhere between 2nd and 3rd edition; mostly 2e.  Call it 2.2 if you like.  I have cribbed lots of modifiers and even a rule or two from 4e, and have dabbled with some modifiers from 5e, but 6e has nothing of particular interest to me:  a bridge too far, or maybe a horse too beaten; I don't know, but I do know it's a personal decision for everyone: any "best" is a personal decision.

 

It is for this reason that even though I myself- and I have never said it directly before out of concern that someone would assume it was an insult or derision when it is simply a matter of taste- have never liked anything Steve did With the game from all the way back to 4e's Dark Champions, I will never knock someone for deciding that 6e or 5e or 5er or 4e's Dark Champions is their personal sweet spot: it's a side-effect of their being almost total compatibility from the very first to the very last edition.  At some point, someone is going to find an amount of elaboration or discussion or complexity that they feel is "just right" for what they need or want in a game.  It's all good, and I am more focused on people liking the game and having fun with it than I am on which version of the game you prefer.   

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, sevrick said:

I assumed that 6th edition would be the more refined version, let alone figuring out 4th edition.

 

I played 4e for eight or nine years; it was solid, and very enjoyable, but eventually I went back to 2e, and brought carried back a few 4e things I thought were potentially useful: I have used the Time Chart from time to time, though I find it makes effectively-permanent effects insanely cheap next to the Early Editions way to do such things (which can easily cost a hundred points or more).

 

 

2 hours ago, sevrick said:

One other thing if you need to know all these questions how does Steve Long make a book like the Grimoire? He must presuppose a lot of things.

 

A grimoire-- even an NPC or Villains book or even a simple pre-packaged adventure must all make some assumptions.  Essentially, these are world-detailing books, and unfortunately, they cannot exist without a pre-built world.  Look at the spell you yourself are working on:  you must first decide if in your world the Undead have a Disadplication that makes them suffer when near divibe healing magic, or if divine healing magic must be built more expensively than 'regular' healing magic because it has an extra power laid on top of it.  

 

I even gave a list of additional questions I would have had to have answered to build this spell for my own use.

 

This is the downside of the 4e-and-forward push to make "The HERO System" more and more generic, _particularly_ when mated with a company that cannot afford to publish actual world books:  the accessory books like equipment books, magic books, and even NPC books require many, _many_ presumptions about the world in which they will be used, making them effectively useless as anything but reading material or potential examples for anyine who did not make the same assumptions in his world building that the author made in his.  "Generic" is a double-edged sword if you want both that and pre-built worlds or adventures.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I can only assume that this is because the HD programmer decided to retain the option for anyone who wanted to GM-Option Healing that does Knockback into the game.  I recall some past discussions where Steve Long was asked about some Hero Designer issue or another, and his response was often that he did not make Hero Designer and, where it contradicts the rule book, it is "wrong" under RAW.

 

Well, since I have said it out loud finally, after years of being concerned that someone would take it as the personal attack that it absolutely is _not_, let's use this as an example of the many things I don't like about Steve's treatment of the game:  it's universal until I say it isn't, and chock full of can't-must-only-never.

 

Does Knockback is based on BODY damage.  Healing is based on BODY damage (so much as I remember; I freely admit that havibg read my way through 6e, I thought "nope" and have never opened it again save to chase down a reference or two from these boards).   There is no reason not to allow this power modifier to be fitted to healing.  For my money, "Yes" and "no" in these cases is a GM call, and not a Steve call. Is the game generic or is it not?  Can I make what I want or can I not?  From where I stand, if a creator can see how a modifier would work with a power-  if the mechanics do work together, and the result can be explained and gamed, then you have a winner, so long as the individual table is happy with the results.  Now granted, one of the reasons I prefer the Early Editions is that they did not have the habit of saying "no; you can't do what I don't like or haven't thought of yet" and instead encouraged that very thing-  sometimes a _lack_ of detail is more genuinely generic.

 

But again: everyone likes what they like.  My groups have enjoyed too much freedom to move forward; I just wish there was a more overtly pleasant-sounding way to say that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Bottom of Page 2 of the thread, where Sevrick posted:

 

Thank you. Hugh! 

 

I knew I had gotten the notion that this was Holy in some way (beyond the mention of the undead, I mean).

 

Still, my answer was explicitly to answer the original question in terms of how I would do it without regard for other proposed builds.  The OP has made his decision, so I have no reason to continue here.

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Does an NND fail to go off if the target has the required defenses? 

 

You tell me.

 

Is that not up to the player creating the power, or up to the GM creating the world?  Or was the ability to declare the sfx and nature of the power also taken away from the players and dropped behind a can't-must-only-never wall, also?

 

If it is wrong to declare that your NND simply does not work if the defense is present, then I have been wrong for years, and I am not going to change because it is too much fun having that extra layer of creativity.

 

I, like anyone else, have built NNDs "the way you would expect" for years.  But I have also built them- using the same mechanics- that just fail to work in the presence of thw defense. Nothing says I can't- at least, nothing pre-Steve says I can't.

 

One of the characters in our science fiction campaign has an experimental energy rifle, the defenses are reflective armor, magnetic defenses, and energy defenses.  She has specified that the reflective armor prevents the weapon from being able to target, and while it won't penetrate a force field at all, a strong enough force field will prevent it from actually working at all.  

 

So no; in this case (and others), the NND will not operate at all.

 

"Oh, but she should have built it-"

 

No; she shouldn't have.  She got the results she wanted: it is an NND that is terrifyingly effective except when it isn't, there are more than sufficient common defenses, and the build is simple and clean.  Further, if the DEF is at least half the potential BODY damage, she doesn't even have to roll dice for an attack that is predestined to fail. 

 

Over the years, my fantasy games have been filled with magic NNDs that are defined as X prevents the use of this spell.

 

_Yes_, one _can_ choose "doesn't work in the presence of X" as a limitation, but that does not make it an NND, does it?  And since having the defense is a _Total_ defense against an NND, if someone chooses as his SFX or flavor that the spell just doesn't work, I see no reason to make him roll to hit, then roll effect dice if he would prefer to play out "something is interfering with my magic!  What could it be?"

 

(Going,back to assumptions about game world's, etc:  this works well in most of my fantasy worlds because I prefer low-level magic as opposed to Harry Potter style spell-slingers and casually reshaping reality on a whim, etc.  The most commonly-encountered magic in some of them is various spells, prayers, and totems of magic suppression, just in case.)

 

At any rate:  unless things have changed under the Long editions, you have _always_ been allowed to create an NND that simply doesn't work in the presence of the defense: just deduct your END and move on.  I suspect that because of the existence of "does not work in presence of X," more people that I have always assumed never actually did it.  Fortunately, we did not have rules telling us we _must_ pick one and we _can't_ pick that one, etc, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Does a Healing spell not manifest if the target is unwounded (or if it rolls too low to Heal further BOD)?  Or does it go off, to no effect (or, in this case, still doing Knockback despite the target being unaffected by the Healing)?  I would say that the spell still activates, and can still inflict Knockback on targets that are not healed (which, based on the w/u of this spell, includes the Undead and Demons, who cannot be Healed but can be knocked back).

 

As would I, but I am not building the world where this spell exists, and I don't want to make assumptions about someone elses's world; hence the questions.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If I cast a Fireball straight up into the sky, with no one there to hurt, won't it still explode into a burst of flame? 

 

If you are playing D,and D, yes.  If you are playing Western Shores, also yes.  If you are playing in any HERO-published world-

 

Oh, wait!  I already said Western Shores.

 

Sorry.

 

If you are playing in an unknown person's equally unknown and likely nascent personal universe?

 

I can't answer that without making assumptions (and you know that as well as anyone else).  As my questions were related to divining the nature of magic in this unique world, I find the ridicule to be quite beneath you, and while I generally find you to be one of the better conversarionalists, I am going to assume this is not a good time for you for some outside reason, and dip out.

 

Feel better, Sir.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If I cast a Fireball straight up into the sky, with no one there to hurt, won't it still explode into a burst of flame? 

 

To bring it back to an older comment, this is why you need no range on the blast linked to heal.  Because the heal still goes off if the target is out of range, it just doesn't affect them, but it still goes off -- it still costs END, etc.  Its like swinging a sword trying to hit a bird up in the sky.  You still swung, you still attacked.  It just didn't hit.  And the Blast could hit the distant target unless you buy No Range.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

To bring it back to an older comment, this is why you need no range on the blast linked to heal.  Because the heal still goes off if the target is out of range, it just doesn't affect them, but it still goes off -- it still costs END, etc.  Its like swinging a sword trying to hit a bird up in the sky.  You still swung, you still attacked.  It just didn't hit.  And the Blast could hit the distant target unless you buy No Range.

 

The OP posited an AoE Healing.  As it does not have Range added, it would be a 4 meter radius surrounding the character.

[LoneWolf]

I may have missed something, but I have not seen anything that gave any indication that the intention was that all healing caused knockback.  I did a quick search and could not find anything from the OP stating that this is how they wanted their world to work.  I did see in the original post where they wanted to build a spell that healed their allies and knocked back undead.  If they do want this to become a standard feature of their world then using a disadvantage is the right way to go.  If on the other hand, they are just looking for this particular spell to function that way a disadvantage is the wrong way to do it.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Does Knockback is based on BODY damage.  Healing is based on BODY damage (so much as I remember; I freely admit that havibg read my way through 6e, I thought "nope" and have never opened it again save to chase down a reference or two from these boards).   There is no reason not to allow this power modifier to be fitted to healing.

 

I think since 5e, Healing has been similar to Aid and Drain - add up the dice and that is how many CP it Heals ("simplified Healing" rolled like normal damage and healing both STUN and BOD remains an option; 10 points per 1d6).

I don't think there was a conscious decision to say "you can't put Does Knockback on Healing" so much as an assumption that one would not want non-attack powers to do knockback.  6e includes a discussion of "does knockback" on attacks with no effect dice (such as Darkness), so I don't believe the intention was to limit possible applications. That discussion suggests 1d6 per 5 AP to add up BOD for Knockback.  Seems like one could just as easily use 1 BOD per 5 points (a form of Standard Effect).  As discussed above, adding up the BOD healed works fairly well (number on the dice, halved as BOD is "defensive" in 6e).

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If it is wrong to declare that your NND simply does not work if the defense is present, then I have been wrong for years, and I am not going to change because it is too much fun having that extra layer of creativity.

 

I, like anyone else, have built NNDs "the way you would expect" for years.  But I have also built them- using the same mechanics- that just fail to work in the presence of thw defense. Nothing says I can't- at least, nothing pre-Steve says I can't.

 

One of the characters in our science fiction campaign has an experimental energy rifle, the defenses are reflective armor, magnetic defenses, and energy defenses.  She has specified that the reflective armor prevents the weapon from being able to target, and while it won't penetrate a force field at all, a strong enough force field will prevent it from actually working at all.  

 

So no; in this case (and others), the NND will not operate at all.

 

Does that mean that the character automatically knows that the rifle will fail, so no point using an action to fire it? Does the rifle have an indicator that turns red if it won't work due to the target's armor or an ambient energy field?  Or does the energy beam simply fail to hit (or even to manifest) when the character takes careful aim and pulls the trigger? The NND will clearly have no effect if it targets someone with the defense, as that is the nature of an NND.

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

At any rate:  unless things have changed under the Long editions, you have _always_ been allowed to create an NND that simply doesn't work in the presence of the defense: just deduct your END and move on.  I suspect that because of the existence of "does not work in presence of X," more people that I have always assumed never actually did it.  Fortunately, we did not have rules telling us we _must_ pick one and we _can't_ pick that one, etc, etc.

 

Deduct your END suggests that the power can be attempted, and fails - fair enough.

 

If the Knockback fails to affect targets who are not healed, however, then this construct is 100% useless, as it cannot Heal the Undead. Using your model of a campaign ground rule, are you imposing the requirement that Holy spells of Healing cannot generate their Healing magic at all if the target is not wounded?

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry for the abrupt ending, Hugh; not feeling my best at the moment, and my wife won't give my bike key back (she ran to the house for a few minutes and took my keys with her).

 

Joke's on her, though: if she  isn't back before I finish this, I am going to walk home. 

 

At any rate, I wanted to answer the gun-specific question:

 

Interference from these sources- when the interference is strong enough- causes the beam to lose coherence almost immediately, rendering it little more than an expensive light show.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

The OP posited an AoE Healing.  As it does not have Range added, it would be a 4 meter radius surrounding the character.

 

Sure, but a proposed build included a blast/heal combo

[Gauntlet]

I do have to say one thing that I Extremely like about Hero Games, they pretty much support all of their older versions. I mean what other game will allow you to easily just go and purchase any version you want, not just the current one. They may not always be printed versions, but who cares, I usually just use electronic versions anyways as it is easier for me to get the info I want on my laptop then trying to get it from a book. The games I run usually are in 5th Edition and occasionally 6th Edition but I still use a ton of the info from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Editions.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Sorry for the abrupt ending, Hugh; not feeling my best at the moment, and my wife won't give my bike key back (she ran to the house for a few minutes and took my keys with her).

 

Joke's on her, though: if she  isn't back before I finish this, I am going to walk home. 

 

At any rate, I wanted to answer the gun-specific question:

 

Interference from these sources- when the interference is strong enough- causes the beam to lose coherence almost immediately, rendering it little more than an expensive light show.

 

 

Sounds like the user would only know the gun won't work after the first use fails, which is not far off seeing the beam strike a target with the defense, to no effect. That doesn't seem like a major deviation from the usual NND rules,

 

9 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Sure, but a proposed build included a blast/heal combo

 

If combining Blast and Heal, I would likely make the Blast No Range as well, so that both radiate from the caster, but it depends on the intended capabilities of the spell - Range on the Healing as well would allow a 4 meter radius bubble wherever the caster desires (at least within any rational combat range).  I would want the two to hit the same area, either way.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Hugh Neilson