I am confused by using Indirect

[SuperKlaus]

I've gone and confused myself here. I was making my own Captain America PC and assigned his shield throwing move Indirect (originates with Cap, strikes the target wherever, +1/2). I figured this was legit to represent him bouncing the shield off something for crazy trick shots like he does. I've used the same Indirect (+1/2) for Cyclops and a personal laser-shooting character when they do trick shots. It seems like precisely what I want given that 5ER specifically says this type "originates with character, fires anywhere" and suggests boomerangs and arcing arrows. But then I started wondering.

 

What's the point of +3/4 Indirect? These +1/2 types can handle striking a target from behind, right (5ER's examples strongly suggest so)? And even if you defined your +3/4 as originating right next to a target you have to count range from you to him just the same as +1/2, right?

 

I was thinking about how most of these +1/2 definitions work and thought maybe the difference is that a +1/2 is assumed to need to bounce off a solid object and return to the target, thus making a bigger RMod than a +3/4 would have. Only problem with that idea is things like boomerangs, which don't need to bounce off anything to change direction. Plus, given that Advantages are mandatory, I think it's kinda lame that if this were true Cap would need a whole different Multipower slot for throwing his shield straight at a dude (I suppose he could bounce it off the dirt just in front of his target but that's silly).

[Vondy]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

Since bouncing attacks is an optional maneuver, I would simplify your life and just by PSLs.

[Robyn]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

Since bouncing attacks is an optional maneuver' date=' I would simplify your life and just by PSLs.[/quote']

 

I can suddenly imagine this lich walking up to some PC (in disguise, of course) and saying "You poor, complicated person, you. You must get such a headache just from living day-to-day."

 

"Allow me to simplify your life for you: You are about to die."

[Andrew Cermak]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

What's the point of +3/4 Indirect?

 

Because +1/2 Indirect attacks must originate from the attacker, they cannot bypass barriers with the ease a +3/4 Indirect attack can. A +3/4 Indirect Attack could, for example, originate on the inside of a Force Wall globe, depriving the target of that defense.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

I was thinking about how most of these +1/2 definitions work and thought maybe the difference is that a +1/2 is assumed to need to bounce off a solid object and return to the target' date=' thus making a bigger RMod than a +3/4 would have.[/quote']

 

It's not assumed to bounce off of anything. That's merely one SFX.

 

another example of the +1/2 Indirect is, say, a rotating turret of some kind, it may fire in any direction but always originates from the character.

[SuperKlaus]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

Because +1/2 Indirect attacks must originate from the attacker' date=' they cannot bypass barriers with the ease a +3/4 Indirect attack can. A +3/4 Indirect Attack could, for example, originate on the inside of a Force Wall globe, depriving the target of that defense.[/quote']

 

I really should have thought of that earlier. Thank you!

 

As for Bouncing through CSLs, I prefer not to allow that in my games. I really like giving CSLs more flexibility, but letting a CSL costing 10 points tops do things a +1/2 Advantage often costing more than 10 can do seems unfair. Maybe I'm missing things there too though. Come to think of it, there's the tracing along the whole vector thing I myself mentioned earlier, isn't there...

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

I really should have thought of that earlier. Thank you!

 

As for Bouncing through CSLs, I prefer not to allow that in my games. I really like giving CSLs more flexibility, but letting a CSL costing 10 points tops do things a +1/2 Advantage often costing more than 10 can do seems unfair. Maybe I'm missing things there too though. Come to think of it, there's the tracing along the whole vector thing I myself mentioned earlier, isn't there...

 

 

Sounds to me like you need the +1/2 version of Indirect, because it still originates from the character. Blue-bolts from the Heavens is an example of a +3/4 Indirect.

 

For my own games, a HOUSE RULE that I use for Indirect is as follows:

 

+1/4: Originates and still fires away from the attacker. May bypass the DCV bonus from passive protection (Like Sheilds and Cover bonuses)

 

+1/2: As +1/4, but also renders Block and/or Missile Deflection impotent. Can routinely gain bonus for "Surprise Move".

 

+3/4: As +1/2 but does not need to originate from the attacker. May gain the bonus for attaking from behind (1/2 DCV) on a regular basis.

 

Those are my particular guidelines for Indirect. They aren't set in stone, but in general this is what each particular level imparts in my games.

[Sean Waters]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

Why do you want to bounce CA's shield off stuff to hit at odd angles? I can think of three possible reasons:

 

1. To circumvent cover or barriers

2. To gain an OCV bonus for surprise

3. To cause KB in an unusual direction

 

The first two are specifically approved by the description for bouncing a power on page 377 of 5ER.

 

If you want to do that with indirect you need the +1/2 level, which seems silly, really. I mean you can limit the advantage (requires appropriate surfaces of opportunity -1/2, and possibly an activation or RSR roll too), but even so, your 9d6 shield attack is only doing 6d6 in the 'bounce' form, so the advantage of that odd direction KB is pretty much lost.

 

I think that 'indirect' needs a bit of a look at generally (see NSG's suggestions, which seem sensible), but I wouldn't feel at all guilty about allowing a bouncing manouvre for this one.

 

Superklaus mentions that he is not keen on a skill level replacing a quite hefty advantage, and he has a good point: on a 12d6 attack a +1/2 advantage is worth 30 points.

 

However that +1/2 advantage should (as suggested above) be built with limitations:

 

-1/2 surfaces of opportunity

-1/2 14- activation (even if surfaces are present they are not always suitable)

-? Makes it harder to hit (bouncing requires, in effect, -1 or more on your OCV)

 

That substantially reduces the value of the advantage.

 

Moreover don't forget that it is perfectly reasonable to rule that it with take (say) 1/2d6 bounces to do what you want, so you may well be looking aat more than one bounce for many situations and so more that 1 skill level used.

 

Even thoughthe rules don;t require it you may decide for your campaign that only ceertain skill levels can be used for bouncing: say only 5 or more point levels, whish will stop the character just buying 3x2point CSLs to remove the bouncing penalty. You can't buy PSLs because it is not a penalty, so that is not a problem.

 

Finally, and I've long thought this: isn't it just a bit mad to allow a bounce to create a surprise move that nets you a bonus to OCV? Doesn't that cancel out the penalty and then some?

 

I wouldn't allow bounce manouvres to be used to gain an OCV bonus, ruling that any such bonus was subsumed in the difficulty of the manouvre, so I'd allow bounces to:

 

1. circumvent cover/barriers and

2. apply KB in an unusual direction

 

In regard to the first one, if you can't actually see the target then you are not able to use a targetting sense directly and so I'd rule that you needed to make an INT roll to target the character at all, in addition to any other penalties.

 

One potentially cunning plan would be to do this:

 

Shield: 8d6 EB

Shield Multipower: 20 point reserve

mSLOT1 +4d6 EB

mSLOT2 +4 x 5point levels with shield

uSLOT3 Missile deflection (all)

 

Then you could trade the SLOT 2 skill levels off with the SLOT 1 damage if you wanted to bounce the attack. I'd allow that.

[casualplayer]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

I was smart and concise once a long, long time ago. Not going to let a chance pass to relive the glory (OK, not glory but a warm fuzzy feeling.)

 

There are three implied rules for all others-affecting powers:

 

1) Power must originate from specified area of the attacker's body.

2) Power must affect the revealed facing of target, unless it's an "affects whole target" type of power.

3) Intervening objects provide cover and protection.

 

Each +1/4 of Indirect lets you break one of these rules. Mix and match however you want.

 

Now, your Cap example can stop with +1/2 and work fine, but he has actually effectively flung his shield with his feet meaning you could give him the full Indirect monty.

[Sean Waters]

Re: I am confused by using Indirect

 

I was smart and concise once a long, long time ago. Not going to let a chance pass to relive the glory (OK, not glory but a warm fuzzy feeling.)

 

 

 

Now, your Cap example can stop with +1/2 and work fine, but he has actually effectively flung his shield with his feet meaning you could give him the full Indirect monty.

 

I like that a lot, although I might add a little complexity, for the sake of lack of concision (it is make a word up day):

 

1) Power must originate from specified area of the attacker's body.

2) Power must affect the revealed facing of target, unless it's an "affects whole target" type of power.

3) Intervening objects provide cover and protection, but you could get tot he target, just not in a straight line

4) Intervening objects provide cover and protection, but you can't go around them (i.e they englobe the target)

 

You can't buy 4) without also buying 3)