Knockback Only

[Mark Taylor]

How would I build an attack that ONLY does knockback (no STUN or BODY damage)?

 

Edit: BTW, this is in a campaign that doesn't use the knockback rules as standard.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Only

 

How about Telekinesis, only to throw targets away from character? That's a combination of limitations - affects entire target; loses its indirect advantages, can only throw, not grab. Probably totals about:think: -3.5 since that gets the same cost as my EB, below...

 

EB, Knockback Only?

 

The better question is how limiting these should be (ie what shyould the cost be)? Since No Knockback is -1/4, "Only Knockback" should be at least -2. A case could be made that it should cost 1 point per die, since that's how much "No Knockback" saves, but since you'll use your EB only in cases where you want knockback, I'd say -2.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Dispel vs. Knockback Resistance, Does Knockback (+1/4), Double Knockback (+3/4).

[Blue]

Re: Knockback Only

 

I had it one way and then changed. It started out like this: EB, Only for Calculating Knockback-No actual damage from EB (-1), Double Knockback (+3/4). Of course that limitation value was set by me (so GMs may vary).

 

Example (Using our current campaign limit of 80 Active Points): 9D6 EB, x1.75, /2 = 39 Real Cost. That averages 9 BODY for caculation purposes, or 18" of KB. Average KB roll of 7", leaves a net ot 11". On the average, the player takes 11D6 from hitting an object (Assuming the object can withstand that much damage) and nothing from the actual blast.

 

I wondered if this was balanced once and reasoned it out like this: In real terms, it's like buying 11D6 EB (55 active points), with a limitation that there must be an object for you to hit fly back into and you don't take the full damage if the object doesn't have enough body to support the blow. With that logic, you're actually paying more for it than you should (In my opinion) because a limit like that should be at least -1/2.

 

So then I went to the TK, as mentioned above, with the limitation of only flying away from the blow. Much more cost effective and logical.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Knockback Only

 

I had it one way and then changed. It started out like this: EB, Only for Calculating Knockback-No actual damage from EB (-1), Double Knockback (+3/4). Of course that limitation value was set by me (so GMs may vary).

 

Example (Using our current campaign limit of 80 Active Points): 9D6 EB, x1.75, /2 = 39 Real Cost. That averages 9 BODY for caculation purposes, or 18" of KB. Average KB roll of 7", leaves a net ot 11". On the average, the player takes 11D6 from hitting an object (Assuming the object can withstand that much damage) and nothing from the actual blast.

 

I wondered if this was balanced once and reasoned it out like this: In real terms, it's like buying 11D6 EB (55 active points), with a limitation that there must be an object for you to hit fly back into and you don't take the full damage if the object doesn't have enough body to support the blow. With that logic, you're actually paying more for it than you should (In my opinion) because a limit like that should be at least -1/2.

 

So then I went to the TK, as mentioned above, with the limitation of only flying away from the blow. Much more cost effective and logical.

looking only at averages does give the appearance of being skewed against the +3/4 cost but keep in mind that like the stun roll for Killing Attacks, the usual 2 dice that you roll to subract from the Body of the attack can vary wildly from this average. one roll in the 2-4 range is creating a potential 14-16d6 attack. we are also forgetting if the target is flying or not which gives a range something like 14-22 minus 1-6 or knockback potentially reaching 21 inches!! (yes this has very low odds of occuring but it comes close to the potential of a haymaker of the same points with little downside, even a bad roll gets the target 'away' from you)

[Blue]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Also good points. I still think the TK is more elegant, but I did have fun the time he did 22" of Knockback into the exterior Duranium wall of a containment unit during an attempt to break out some prisoners.

 

I remember another player shrieking, "22 Dice! That's 110 Strength!"

 

All arguing was silenced next turn when a guy took damage from a terminal velocity fall (30D6), prompting the obligatory "That's 150 STR" comment.

 

I still would have stuck with it if the TK hadn't seemed more logical.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Knockback Only

 

How about a Flash verses the Nonexistant Sense Group, Does Knockback (optionally with Double Knockback)?

 

Technically, you can define a Sense Group that actually doesn't exist, or a Sense that no one in the universe is likely to have, and put Does KB on it and have your Power. There's no rule that says if a Power that does KB doesn't affect a target won't still cause KB. It'll be like shooting someone with a 100 DEF with a 15d6 EB. He'll never take damage, but he'll still take knockback.

 

Or more closely, it's like shooting an automaton with Takes No Stun with an NND Does Knockback.

[Old Man]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Dispel vs. Knockback Resistance' date=' Does Knockback (+1/4), Double Knockback (+3/4). [/quote']

 

I consider this to be the standard for pure knockback attacks.

[Mortannis]

Re: Knockback Only

 

I watched a showing of the justice league. they went to another place were they were the justice lords. think judge dredd superman.

 

the good flash was fighting evil superman. flash was winning due to one trick. when super man would get close. flash would grab his arm, spin at high speed. and throw him. this can be done.

 

Super leap. useable on others. extra time (next phase or something). its cheap. effective. and its a uber martial throw.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Knockback Only

 

If it was in a campaign that did use KB rules as standard, I'd say that Double KB, being a +3/4 Advantage, 'costs' 3.75 points per die. That translates to a +1/3 Limitation but since that doesn't exist, take the closest equivalent at +1/4.

 

Since the campaign rules don't use KB as standard, try to figure out how much that advantages you vs. other attacks that don't do KB. Maybe just call it the same cost as a regular EB for starters, then judge in play and adjust accordingly.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Thanks for all the advice, people! I'll let you know when I decide what to do. (It's not all that urgent right now).

[zornwil]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Thanks for all the advice' date=' people! I'll let you know when I decide what to do. (It's not all that urgent right now).[/quote']

Have you decided?

[Mark Taylor]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Have you decided?

 

Well let me see. Let's take a look at my options. Let's assume that Only to cause Knockback is a -1 Limitation. I pretty much agree with Blue that that's what it should be worth. After all you're not stripping a power of most of its usefulness as a -2 would suggest, rather you're creating a power with an effect that's extremely useful in itself. The power, BTW, will be a kind of Damage Shield. A burst of energy knocks the target back. Note that since the campaign doesn't use the knockback rules as standard, that means even powers which normally do knockback actually need the Does Knockback advantage to do it in the first place.

 

 

Dispel Knockback Resistance 6d6, Does Knockback (+1/4), Double Knockback (+3/4), Continuous (+1) Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Damage Shield (+1/2) (72 Active Points). Total Cost: 72 Points.

 

Or…

 

EB 6d6, Does Knockback (+1/4), Double Knockback (+3/4), Continuous (+1) Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Damage Shield (+1/2) (120 Active Points); Only to cause Knockback (-1). Total Cost: 60 Points.

 

Or…

 

Telekinesis (30 STR), Does Knockback (+1/4), Double Knockback (+3/4) Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Damage Shield (+1/2) (135 Active Points). Always Direct (-1/2), Affects Whole Object (-1/4), Only to cause Knockback (-1). Total Cost: 49 Points.

 

Note for the Telekinesis version that I borrowed the Always Direct Limitation from Stretching, but increased it's value from -1/4 to -1/2 because it seems to me to be significantly more limiting for Telekinesis than it is for Stretching. Mostly because Stretching loses some of its capabilities when used indirectly whereas Telekinesis does not.

 

 

The Flash vs. Nonexistent sense group was an interesting idea but didn't feel right to me, because the power is so completely unrelated to the effect. Also it would be at least as expensive as the Dispel Knockback Resistance without any of the advantage.

 

I think the Telekinesis is my preferred method in terms of seeming more elegant, though the Dispel Knockback Resistance version is the best and is worth the extra points if you want the added effect.

[zornwil]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Personally I'm a TK fan.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: Knockback Only

 

Personally I'm a TK fan.

 

TK is what I will use in this instance. The Dispel version is great if you want a power which actually does ignore Knockback Resistance, but I don't think that suits my concept as well.