Double Knockback too pricey?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

I agree that this is an issue for Hand Attack (and HKA)' date=' and not for the cost of the underlying advantage. I can also make a 6d6 AP Hand Attack 12d6 with STR. Should we raise the price of AP to +3/4 as well?[/quote']

 

a comparison to AP is a great idea

 

AP can at most take away half of a targets defense

 

x2KB has the potential of more than doubling the damage of the base attack. On that basis alone it is correctly priced at +1/2 (unless you think AP should be +1/4)

[Mike W]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

I've always thought Double KB was overpriced, but I left it as it was because I don't want to see it a lot.

[Frenchman]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

I can't speak much for supers games, but I know that double KB is almost literally useless in lower-powered genres. When your spells have an AP cap of 30 and you have to buy Does KB, this means you get a 3d6 EB... or you could just use your 6d6 EB and do double the damage with the same KB - it's silly. Even if you don't have to buy Does KB (in a game where attacks do KB by default) it's pretty hard to make a double KB attack for under 50 points that actually, y'know, does KB. So we never use the 2xKB advantage in our fantasy games, even when we have a spell that should have it - it cripples the power.

 

I like what MitchelS & Jmoz said, so I think I'm going to suggest a cost structure like this:

Does KB: +1/4

2x KB: +1/4

3x KB: +1/4

+1x KB: +1/4

'Hard' KB: 2x advantage

 

This would assume that there are two types of KB; 'soft' and 'hard'

'Soft' KB doesn't do damage (or no more than 1-2d6 or 1/2 the base inches)

'Hard' KB does damage as per KB in the book

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

a comparison to AP is a great idea

 

AP can at most take away half of a targets defense

 

x2KB has the potential of more than doubling the damage of the base attack. On that basis alone it is correctly priced at +1/2 (unless you think AP should be +1/4)

 

Let's use a 60 point attack, since I think Supers is where we're most likely to see Knockback. What choices do we have?

 

- 12d6 EB: average Stun 42, average BOD 12, average knockback 5"; Knockback damage negligible

 

- 8d6 EB: average Stun 28, average BOD 8, average knockback 1"; defenses halved; knockback damage negligible

 

- 7d6 double knockback (OK, that's 1 point over 60): Average Stun 24.5; average BOD 7; average knockback 7".

 

So, all three attacks will knock an opponent over (the main benefit, IMO, of knockback - DCV reduction) on an average roll, assuming no knockback resistance. The double knockback attack will, on an average hit where the target hits a sturdy solid object, get to do its damage again.

 

Assuming defenses of 20, the target takes 22 STUN from the EB or 18 from the AP EB. The DKB attack does 4.5 from the blast, and another 4.5 if the target hits that sturdy solid object, a grand total of 9 Stun.

 

Gee, I wonder which attack will be most effective over time...

 

Or buy 8d6 EB, +8d6 Knockback Only (-1, as noted above) and get an attack that does average Stun 28, average BOD 8, average knockback 9" for the same 60 real points (albeit tougher to squeeze into a framework since it's 80 AP).

[mattingly]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

Knockback is only partly about damage. An important aspect of it is knockdown. Knocking a target prone is more likely with a DKB attack, putting him at 1/2 DCV and making him waste a 1/2 Phase standing up. If he's a melee combatant and you've knocked him more than a hex away, his whole Phase is wasted standing up and closing the distance.

 

Also, DKB attacks can spread the damage around. By doing (say) half damage, but twice the KB, you can do damage again to the target and to his teammate if you aim it right.

 

And, of course, there's always the damaging object to knock him into -- the lava pit, the deep pit, etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

Knockback is only partly about damage. An important aspect of it is knockdown. Knocking a target prone is more likely with a DKB attack' date=' putting him at 1/2 DCV and making him waste a 1/2 Phase standing up. If he's a melee combatant and you've knocked him more than a hex away, his whole Phase is wasted standing up and closing the distance.[/quote']

 

Absolutely - but note that all three examples above average at least 1" of knockback, so the main result (IMO) is achieved on average.

 

Also' date=' DKB attacks can spread the damage around. By doing (say) half damage, but twice the KB, you can do damage again to the target [i']and to his teammate[/i] if you aim it right.

 

Maybe other GM's are a lot more liberal than I am, but I consider a knocked back target to have a 0 OCV for purposes of hitting another character. Although a Sweep variant to knock one character back into another would be a reasonable approach as well.

 

And' date=' of course, there's always the damaging object to knock him into -- the lava pit, the deep pit, etc.[/quote']

 

Or just pick him up and throw/carry him there...

[Silbeg]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

I can't speak much for supers games' date=' but I know that double KB is almost literally useless in lower-powered genres. When your spells have an AP cap of 30 and you have to buy Does KB, this means you get a 3d6 EB... or you could just use your 6d6 EB and do double the damage with the same KB - it's silly. Even if you don't have to buy Does KB (in a game where attacks do KB by default) it's pretty hard to make a double KB attack for under 50 points that actually, y'know, [u']does[/u] KB. So we never use the 2xKB advantage in our fantasy games, even when we have a spell that should have it - it cripples the power.

 

Sounds more like something the GM should be making an exception for. This is exactly the reason why I hate AP (or DC) ceilings... makes it very difficult to create certain constructs, if not impossible.

 

As a GM, if I were using such a limit, I would create a list of advantages that wouldn't count against the limit... or that would count less against the limit.

 

Another thing you can do is have the RP increase if the AP exceed a certain limit, much like NCM (Normal Characteristic Maxima). Thus, you can have as powerful of a spell as you want, but it will cost you.,

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

Sounds more like something the GM should be making an exception for. This is exactly the reason why I hate AP (or DC) ceilings... makes it very difficult to create certain constructs, if not impossible.

 

As a GM, if I were using such a limit, I would create a list of advantages that wouldn't count against the limit... or that would count less against the limit.

 

There are also practical limits. If the typical spell caps out at 30 AP, making a 50 AP spell means paying 2/3 more points, or applying considerably more limitations making the spell tougher to work with. It also means a greater penalty on any skill rolls, potentially requiring more points be spent to be able to cast the spell, or making the spell more likely to fail.

 

If the advantage is priced correctly for the effect, I don't mind it being inaccessible to the character. However, a spell that actually does knockback doesn't seeem hugely overpowered to me.

[Edsel]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

Our old write-up of the X-man Cyclop's Optic blast was a 5d6 RKA (when at maximum intensity). To that we added a +1d6 RKA, Only Adds to Knockback (-1). That worked pretty well. Of course I wasn't the one who wrote it up, so I haven't put much thought about whether or not that build is legal.

[Frenchman]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

We actually do use something similar to what Silbeg suggested. We only count advantages and disadvantages which affect how, umm, effective the spell is, as opposed to those that affect how easy it is to cast or how accessable it is. Sadly, this inevitably means the 2x KB is one of the ones that is counted, and even then it doesn't help tons when you're trying to fit the spell into a power framework.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Double Knockback too pricey?

 

As Zornwil pointed out much earlier in this thread, this is a GM personal philosophy issue.

 

x1.5kb as a +1/2 Advantage seems weak but is it really?

 

in a 'typical *' 60 AP limit game you can have 8d6 EB with it (or any other +1/2 Advantage) or 12d6 straight up. On average they are both going to do the same amount of knockback. However, the x1.5kb version is a version of 'pulling your punch' by default without any minuses to OCV. This is not a small thing in some styles of game where agile normals can get pulverized by accident.

 

* the current game I participate we use a 60/75 mix where 12 DC is the limit for ranged EB's and RKA's and 10 DC's with +1/2 advantages are also possible. HA's go beyond these limits somewhat but do so in the same way that bricks are by default more efficient in straight-up combat than blasters. Bricks and Martial Artists are usually the only characters affected by no-range attacks#. They are also the easiest target of opportunity for the opposition so they need all the 'freebees' they can get.

 

# trying to avoid the dreaded Damage Shield debate.