Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

[SwordOfAVirgin]

On page 113 of the 5th edition book, it says beam attacks have a difficult time blasting down walls and escaping from entangles. Is there a rule somewhere that describes the reduction in effect beam attacks have on entangles/objects?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

I believe the rule you're looking for is the Beam Limitation for Attack Powers (sorry, I don't have the book with me to no page reference). Basically Beam means instead of a huge blast like thing, it's a narrow beam. It does the same damage, but one of the reasons it's a Limitation is because it can't pole large holes through things, like walls and Entangles. So you can't really use it to escape from an entangle or break someone else out of one; it just doesn't to the right kind of damage. Of course, if the SFX is appropriate (such as rope), a Beam attack might be effective.

[pinecone]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Yeah, thats basicly how I've handled it...it makes a small hole in things like say ainch or two...gotta make a Lot of those to create a door in a wall...

[casualplayer]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Huh. "Beam" used to be shorthand for Must Use Power at Full Strength, applied to things that didn't have the ability to be set for lower damage. guess I'ld better pay more attention to the changes.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Huh. "Beam" used to be shorthand for Must Use Power at Full Strength' date=' applied to things that didn't have the ability to be set for lower damage. guess I'ld better pay more attention to the changes.[/quote']

It still means that. Actually, at least through 4th edition, Beam also meant narrow attack that can't poke large holes in things, but it was really never given any detail (it wasn't it's own Limitation like it is now).

 

Of course, it really should be called "Bullet" or something like that, since that's what it's simulating.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Huh. "Beam" used to be shorthand for Must Use Power at Full Strength' date=' applied to things that didn't have the ability to be set for lower damage. guess I'ld better pay more attention to the changes.[/quote']

 

IIRC, it also meant/means that the power can't be spread or bounced.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Never did understand that one: I can see can't be spread - but can't be bounced? That one makes no sense, beam or no. I mean you can bounce bullets in real life and that is the classic beam attack to me....

 

I think of a beam attack as a narrow - well - beam, whether it be a projectile or energy.

 

This determines what you can do with it. It makes sense that you can't spread the attack, and it makes sense that anything you hit will (generally) just have a small narrow hole in it, rather than a man sized one...or course if the target it a window, the result may be different.

 

Knockiing a hole in something or escaping most entangles is much more difficult and time consuming - but not impossible - with a beam attack.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Never did understand that one: I can see can't be spread - but can't be bounced? That one makes no sense, beam or no. I mean you can bounce bullets in real life and that is the classic beam attack to me....

 

I think of a beam attack as a narrow - well - beam, whether it be a projectile or energy.

 

This determines what you can do with it. It makes sense that you can't spread the attack, and it makes sense that anything you hit will (generally) just have a small narrow hole in it, rather than a man sized one...or course if the target it a window, the result may be different.

 

Knockiing a hole in something or escaping most entangles is much more difficult and time consuming - but not impossible - with a beam attack.

 

I think that is another case of little "b" vs. big "B". The Beam Limitation means that the attack can't be Bounced as a HERO combat manuever. The attack might still bounce off whatever it hits but it will not do so in any predictable and therefore combat useful way.

[Rapier]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Never did understand that one: I can see can't be spread - but can't be bounced? That one makes no sense, beam or no. I mean you can bounce bullets in real life and that is the classic beam attack to me....

 

I think of a beam attack as a narrow - well - beam, whether it be a projectile or energy.

 

This determines what you can do with it. It makes sense that you can't spread the attack, and it makes sense that anything you hit will (generally) just have a small narrow hole in it, rather than a man sized one...or course if the target it a window, the result may be different.

 

Knockiing a hole in something or escaping most entangles is much more difficult and time consuming - but not impossible - with a beam attack.

 

Yeah, the bouncing thing I always thought kind of odd. The other part of Beam that I like (and thus overlook or ignore the bouncing issue entirely) is that it can't be used at a lesser level...it's full power all the way.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

I think that is another case of little "b" vs. big "B". The Beam Limitation means that the attack can't be Bounced as a HERO combat manuever. The attack might still bounce off whatever it hits but it will not do so in any predictable and therefore combat useful way.

 

Exactly. Bullets do, indeed, ricochet, but I doubt anybody's ever done it intentionally and recieved helpful results with it.

 

And if he did, he didn't buy his gun with the Beam limitation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Exactly. Bullets do, indeed, ricochet, but I doubt anybody's ever done it intentionally and recieved helpful results with it.

 

And if he did, he didn't buy his gun with the Beam limitation.

 

Actually I'm prett sure that if you are shooting at someone sheltering behind a car, something I've heard of (but never had confirmed) is that you can bounce bullets off the road under the car to hit the target beyond.

 

Probably not that reliable, but it does the 'indirect' thing that you can use bouncing for.

 

Like I said, bullets always seemed to be the perfect candidate for beam limitations.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

I think that is another case of little "b" vs. big "B". The Beam Limitation means that the attack can't be Bounced as a HERO combat manuever. The attack might still bounce off whatever it hits but it will not do so in any predictable and therefore combat useful way.

 

I know I should not put too much stock in a name, and just look at a power description, but beam/Beam always seemed like enough of a limitation if you assumed that you had to use the attack at full power and the results had to be tracked from a small impact template. I then quietly ignore the 'can't be bounced' thing. Bouncing bullets is (in a limited way) realistic and in a cinematic way almost ubiquitous.

 

Maybe I ought to just be getting the crayons out and making amendments to the text.

 

Actually, no, I shouldn't. Beam does what you say it does. I'll create a new limtiation called Bullet (what is in a name?) and have it do what I think Beam ought to.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Actually I'm prett sure that if you are shooting at someone sheltering behind a car, something I've heard of (but never had confirmsed) is that you can bounce bullets off the road to hit the target beyond.

 

Probably not that reliable, but it does the 'indirect' thing that you can use bouncing for.

 

Like I said, bullets always seemed to be the perfect candidate for beam limitations.

 

Yep, that's something they occasionally train people to do. It's not very reliable. A reasonable and somewhat realistic approach would be to allow the Bouncing rules to be used with Beam attacks only if an appropriate Power Skill roll (like "Shooting tricks") is made, because they are "hard" to bounce properly, and require a measure of skill and a marked failure chance to get the right 'feel'.

[Rapier]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Yep' date=' that's something they occasionally train people to do. It's not very reliable. A reasonable and somewhat realistic approach would be to allow the Bouncing rules to be used with Beam attacks only if an appropriate Power Skill roll (like "Shooting tricks") is made, because they are "hard" to bounce properly, and require a measure of skill and a marked failure chance to get the right 'feel'.[/quote']

 

Welll, to be honest...I think anyone trying to Bounce an attack should have some kind of skill or power (eg CSLs, etc). Bouncing is NOT an easy thing. Yeah, I know there are penalties for it to represent the difficulty and all...it's just not an easy thing to do. I have known people who are very accomplished shooters be unable to bounce and hit a target.

[Reality Czech]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Actually I'm prett sure that if you are shooting at someone sheltering behind a car, something I've heard of (but never had confirmed) is that you can bounce bullets off the road under the car to hit the target beyond.

 

Probably not that reliable, but it does the 'indirect' thing that you can use bouncing for...

 

This could work, but having fired a lot of firearms I'll say that it'd be more likely to hit your target with chips of pavement, rock, etc. as a result of the bullet hitting nearby. That'd usually be enough to knock someone down and cause them to drop their weapon, which for most practical purposes is 75% as effective as fatally wounding them. (Talking real life only, in cinematic situations I'd accept the belief that the rock chip spray is only a mild distractor.)

 

Basically unless the bullet stops in the pavement, it has to bounce somewhere... the law of averages says eventually one will bounce into your intended target.

[Midas]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

I always thought it was misnamed: Beam to me implies a kind of very short continous advantage, which can be used for sweeps, aiming the bounce etc. I call it "Pulse" rather than "Beam." A pulse is a small discrete packet. While a pulse attack must go only where it is pointed (as opposed to aimed), cannot sweep, always does the same dice of effect, etc.

 

I always took the limitation to mean that the character *couldn't* use it to do Captain America & Shield tricks, no matter how many CSLs the characters had. While without the limitation, it *could* be done, but requires CSLs to be effective.

 

Midas

[feralucce]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

okay... here's a mechaqnics versus reality question

 

a laser is a beam by definition, but any reflective surface can reflect and refract it (basic photon behavior interacting with optics) Meaning that it CAN be bounced... off the right surfaces... how would that be modeled?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

okay... here's a mechaqnics versus reality question

 

a laser is a beam by definition, but any reflective surface can reflect and refract it (basic photon behavior interacting with optics) Meaning that it CAN be bounced... off the right surfaces... how would that be modeled?

 

A -0 Limitation.

 

Certain surfaces can be used as a perfect defense. It can also be used to an attacker's advantage get certain 'indirect' abilities. Sounds like a wash to me.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

okay... here's a mechaqnics versus reality question

 

a laser is a beam by definition, but any reflective surface can reflect and refract it (basic photon behavior interacting with optics) Meaning that it CAN be bounced... off the right surfaces... how would that be modeled?

I ignore the Cannot Be Bounced part of Beam myself. It's stupid.

 

Wait... Beam attacks can be bounced. Why are we under the impression they cannot?

 

[checking book]

 

Yeah, says so right there... Cannot Be Bounced is a completely different Limitation.

[feralucce]

Re: Beam vs. Walls and Entangles

 

Ahh... you are completely right.

 

5eR... page 113

"Characters often buy Beam attacks with the Limitations Cannot Be Bounced and No Knockback, but they’re not required."