An attack without a predictable defence

[Sean Waters]

It strikes me that UAA as an advantage is a power that can not be reliably defended against as the person setting up the power defines what stops it working.

 

There is one current exception that I am aware of, well, sort of....

 

If you buy a force field (or any defences really) with 'cannot be escaped with teleportation' then, arguably, you can not be telported whilst your FF is up unless the attacker has armour piercing UAA teleport...and what are the chances?

 

Given that there are a relatively small number of powers that can be used UAA, realsitically, and they are all pretty much movement powers, I was thinking it might be possible to expand the advantage somewhat in order to cover other modes of movement. Realistically I think there are four modes of movement that you would need to cover: teleportation (which could include EDM), flight (which could cover gliding, leaping and swinging (?!?)), running, and tunneling. You might say swimming is another but I figure that is likely to fall in somewhere between running and tunelling. The other 'non-movement' power that is useful as an attack is desolid, so that might have to be another category, although arguable a desolid attack should be built with transform.

 

So each 'mode' could add +1/4 to the cost of the defence for a total cost of +1 (leaving aside the swimming and desolid problem).

 

Easy enough.

 

Mind you the approach could then be 'I'll have a 1pd FF that prevents UAA movement powers', which, whilst clearly abusive in game terms, is a legitimate enough build.

 

So:

 

1. Is there a need for this kind of approach?

2. If so, how do you prevent the above mentioned abuse?

 

In answer to my own question 2. I was thinking of relating the amount of UAA movement power the defences countered to the active points of the defence, say on a 2:1 basis, so a 15 pd/15ed force field that prevents teleportation would cost 37 points and 'block' up to 74 active points of UAA teleport.

 

Comments?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

Hmmmm......

 

I like the idea you're going for, but I don't know if using FF or FW is the best start:

 

Running UAA +60" is going to be most amusing when you're target meets his Running-proof Force Wall.....

 

And, on another aspect, consider that Body Affecting powers in general (not just Desolid) make nifty attacks when limited: Shrinking: only vs. Mass UAA or DI: only vs Mass UAA for example, or even Growth: only vs. PER Mods UAA (Okay, that's pretty dirty, and I'd never allow it as presented, but wanted to include it; it was presented to me once for approval).

 

Perhaps we should be looking for some new category of defense?

 

Fend: movement attacks

 

Fend: body-altering attacks

 

I'd love to discuss this further, but won't be able to; I'm only in town for a few minutes, and will be gone again for a couple of weeks. I was looking for the thread where I was last discussing with G-A, but can't find it....

 

glad I stumbled across this, though!

 

Nice start, Sean.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

I really don't think it's necessary for a special defense build versus UAA Powers. For one, I can't think of how the same mechanic (and any associated SFX) could equally defend against a Flight UAA defined as creating a large disc of force that you and everyone near you soar through the air on (UAA because it takes passengers who are unwilling but in the area) and Flight UAA defined as super knockback (linked to a punch maneuver). And that's using the same base Power. It gets even more innapropriate if you use other Movement Powers.

 

I've also have't come across a tendancy for Movement Powers to be the predominant Power to apply UAA to. I've seen it done with Darkness and Change Enviornment to name two that are just as common, if not more common.

 

In any case, it's probably best to just leave it as it is, with the player (or GM) determining what an appropriate defense is. For my examples above, the flying disc could be avoided automatically by anyone who had Flight or Gliding (they can just float away)as well as anyone else who simply chooses to jump off). The super knockback is easily defended against with KB Resistance (on a 1 for 1 basis even, which is hard to arrange with UAA attacks).

[Duke Bushido]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

For the record, DR--

I agree with you.

 

It's the same problem I have with things like "Affects Desolid" and similar meta-mechanics.

 

But I am rather intrigued by Sean's suggestions, and am curious to see where it goes.

[prestidigitator]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

I've also have't come across a tendancy for Movement Powers to be the predominant Power to apply UAA to. I've seen it done with Darkness and Change Enviornment to name two that are just as common' date=' if not more common.[/quote']

Yeah. And Disadvantages (which cost points rather than giving them).

 

Okay, or we could use Transform if you want to be a stickler....

[Dust Raven]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

Yeah. And Disadvantages (which cost points rather than giving them).

 

Okay, or we could use Transform if you want to be a stickler....

 

Heh heh. I've heard of that (buying a Disad UAA) but have never actually seen it. I have seen the Transform though.

 

I like the idea of buying Disads UAA though. It seems more clear and balanced than Transform. If you want to give your opponent a Physical Limitation (one eye) it will actually cost you less than if you want to give him a Physical Limitation (no arms). Of course, it does get tricky when you want to apply Psychological Limitation (willing slave).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

As an aside, I personally almost never allow UAA Movement as it is simply too degenerate. For instance, UAA Flight is better than TK. If there are significant downsides in a particular build Ill consider it, but as the years go by Im less and less prone to allow it.

[The Souljourner]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

I'm with the Shrike on this... Teleport is about the only UAA movement power I would allow. It's the only one that isn't straight out duplicated by TK (or adding double knockback to a power).

 

I think UAA is one of those things which has to be very closely monitored for abuse by the GM.

 

-Nate

[Sean Waters]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

UAA Flight is different to TK, and importantly employs a different mechanic. If you want a form of telekinesis, for instance, that relied on creating a powerful electrostatic field that repelled the subject from all surrounding objects (including the ground) building it as STR based TK is daft: being strong is not going to prevent an electrostatic charge from levitating a 100kg body, and, once out of contact with handy levers and anchors, the strongman really should be helpless. Equally in that situation, if you WERE to build it as a normal Str based TK, it would hold every flier and controller of electrical charge unless you plonk on custom limits.

 

Another example (maybe a better one) - reversing gravity - how does being strong help you there once you are off the ground? Or an oils slick = uaa running (OK, you might be able to do it with change environment, but that is a pretty potent power there for not many points)

 

Now I concede that my 'defences to defenceless attacks' idea is going to be hard to make work in a logical fashion - especially as I have defined it - but I can't stand by and watch UAA dissed like this! I think I have seen it munchkinned and overused, but for what it is good at it is the only way to do it.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

I agree with Sean that UAA is important for creating certain effects, and certainly one of the balancing features of the Hero System is that for every attack there is a defense. Rather than disallow UAA in general, the GM might consider requiring a reasonable way to avoid or cancel its effects, defined when the power is purchased, in a similar fashion to defining a defense for an NND or a class of attacks that will affect a desolid character. I don't think this is the elegant set of defenses that Sean was going for, but it would at least prevent abuse without trashing UAA entirely.

 

_____________________________________________________________

"The fiction in her family was that she was never nice.

I'd say she was very, I just did not see the price." - S. Vega

[prestidigitator]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

I think UAA Movement is fine in some circumstances. Not always, but sometimes. I have actually allowed applicable modes of the target's movement to apply as a defense in a sense, and occasionally things like Str (with the same conversion as using Movement as Str as described in the book). Thus if you use UAA Flight against a target with Flight they can try to fly in the opposite direction to that you are trying to make them move and counter (some of) your UAA Flight. Also, if they are next to a streetlight they may be able to grab on and use their Str to do similarly. A target with Teleport may be able to counter your UAA Teleport, and a target with Tunneling and maybe even Running or Flight may be able to counter your UAA Tunneling, depending on the circumstances.

 

I consider most such applications to be defensive actions for purposes of Aborting, and the Abort may usually occur after the attacker hits but before movement is done to them (similar to Rolling With a Punch). I find this to be a pretty balanced approach, and easy on the common sense as well.

[mallet]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

but I can't stand by and watch UAA dissed like this! I think I have seen it munchkinned and overused, but for what it is good at it is the only way to do it.

 

Just a question, but where do you see this being abused? I a game you Gm? In a game you play in?

 

This is something that has bothered me for awhile, not just in this thread (which is new) but also in other threads of a simular nature.

 

Where are you guys playing that allows for some of this stuff to happen? Maybe I have been strangely lucky in the games I've played and judged that none of the players even try to do munchkiny stuff like this, but still... Shouldn't the GM be stepping in and saying flat out "no!" to builds of this nature? I mean how many characters can have a UAA or the like as part of their basic concept so that they could take it? It's not all that common in comics, and I can not think of many characters that would have it without getting it only to be munchkiny.

 

Instead of new rules/powers/ads/lims, etc... I think the GM's should be the ones stoping this.

[Kelcyron]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

I suspect (or at least hope) that a lot of these threads are just thought experiments on how to break the system. I've been in some pretty rules-abusive games, but in those games it was expected (and encouraged, and half the fun ).

 

In most games that I've seen though, people will push the envelope somewhat for what they can do/get away with, but in general they try to be reasonable.

 

Kelcyron

[Sean Waters]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

Just because a megascale UAA teleport 'into the sun, see - cool idea, huh?' gets presented does not mean it gets allowed. We could close these boards now if we just had enough sensible GMs, neh?

 

Having said that I've run villains with UAA teleport (one called 'Sender' could 'send' people through space OR time: nasty), but then it is me running them, and I'm not out to 'win' but to ensure everyone enjoys themselves. Mind you if a player asks me how he can build a character protected from this kind of construct, well, in the system that can do anything, (yes: I know) I don't want to be saying 'sorry- you can't', at least not without good reason, hence the idea about defined defences - which I accept can be probleatic in itself.

[zornwil]

Re: An attack without a predictable defence

 

In my prior group/supers campaign we had a character with a primary attack of teleporting others, often back to the base/jail. This character even had duplication. But it was controlled primarily as his OCV and SPD were fairly poor, relatively.

 

It's an interesting idea Sean. Even with that character, we never had an abuse problem, though. It's one of those things where it's useful if a group has an issue with it getting out of hand, I'd suppose.