Is this a reasonable NND attack?

[SableWyvern]

The character in question is a metal elementalist, and the power is the ability to cause metal armour/bracelets/necklaces etc... to constrict and damage their wearer.

 

RKA 1d6+1

NND (defence = no constrictive metal)

Does BODY

 

By the book, defences to NNDs defined by what they aren't are frowned upon at best.

 

Given a fantasy environment where metal armour is relatively common (but far from ubiquitous, with magical and other defences often taking the place of mundane armour), does this look like a reasonable power?

 

If not, how else could the effect be modelled?

[Metaphysician]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Seems fine to me. The 'lack' in this case is something extrinsic, so its not like anybody having it is screwed: they can take it off.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Looks good to me as well. "Lack of" is actually somewhat more common of a defense than you might think.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Thanks.

 

On a related note:

 

AVLD: Ignores Metal Armour

 

+1 1/2 or +3/4?

[JmOz]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I would however include or having LS: Need not breath

[SableWyvern]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I would however include or having LS: Need not breath

The attack is meant to cover crushing damage, not just asphyxiation, though.

[JmOz]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

The attack is meant to cover crushing damage' date=' not just asphyxiation, though.[/quote']

 

My mistake, though I would not nesesarily allow that as an NND in my game (personal thing), sounds like a unique Pys EB, with indirect...

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Thanks.

 

On a related note:

 

AVLD: Ignores Metal Armour

 

+1 1/2 or +3/4?

 

HERO really doesn't have an "ignores x defense" If you make an AVLD attack you still need to come up with a resonable defense against the attack that also works SFX-wise. For the power you've given NND + Does Body with the defense being "not wearing metal" is the best way to go.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

My mistake' date=' though I would not nesesarily allow that as an NND in my game (personal thing), sounds like a unique Pys EB, with indirect...[/quote']

 

Why would you do it that way? This sounds like exactly the kind of thing NND exists for. Just curious is all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I'd be more inclined to allow this as an EB, AVLD (ignores metal armor; +3/4 since that's removing a subset of the rPD that would normally apply), only vs targets wearing constrictive metal (limitation value depends on how commonly enemies will not be wearing such metal).

 

Why an EB, not a killing attack? Crushing damage seems like normal PD - physical toughness - would provide protection. A boa constrictor's attack is not a KA.

 

Why AVLD, not NND? Because a target with defenses from other sources would logically take less damage than one with no other defenses.

 

That means the metal isssue needs to be handled by a limitation, not an advantage. In a game where creatures with no armor are common opponents, the limitation should be higher than one in which human and near-human opponents, comonly reliant on such armor, are encountered.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I'd be more inclined to allow this as an EB, AVLD (ignores metal armor; +3/4 since that's removing a subset of the rPD that would normally apply), only vs targets wearing constrictive metal (limitation value depends on how commonly enemies will not be wearing such metal).

 

Why an EB, not a killing attack? Crushing damage seems like normal PD - physical toughness - would provide protection. A boa constrictor's attack is not a KA.

 

Why AVLD, not NND? Because a target with defenses from other sources would logically take less damage than one with no other defenses.

 

That means the metal isssue needs to be handled by a limitation, not an advantage. In a game where creatures with no armor are common opponents, the limitation should be higher than one in which human and near-human opponents, comonly reliant on such armor, are encountered.

 

I can see doing it your way as well. I just don't think either way is "better" in any sense. Just a matter of taste.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Gah. I've confused this issue. My AVLD question was completely unrelated. Perhaps I should have stuck it in another thread.

 

On the other hand, it has opened the original conversation up to some other possibilities. Your assessment seems to make sense, Hugh.

 

In any case, I'm very interested to see where the discussion goes from here.

[JmOz]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Why would you do it that way? This sounds like exactly the kind of thing NND exists for. Just curious is all.

 

First let me say that each GM is going to handle things differently, so this is not a right or wrong situation, just a how would I handle it

 

I look at the effect, you have a metal bracer let's say squeezing the arm of an individual. The damage you are looking for comes from the squeezing, not any kind of stopping the blood flow, hitting presure points, etc...

 

That seems like it should be in part modeled after the grab & squeeze combat manuever, which is defended by normal PD

 

However there are some unique elements, first of all is the fact that it can bypass armor (the type that is worn, not nesesarily the mechanic of the same name), second is the fact that it is not a bolt of lightning from your hands but rather there own attire attacking them. Both of these scream Indirect to me, nor NND

 

For it to be an NND there normal defences (Base PD) should not logicaly be able to help prevent the damage, but if it is basicaly just squeezing them like I could with my hand well it should do damage the same way.

 

Just my thoughts

 

BTW: The AVLD Idea is not bad either

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

First let me say that each GM is going to handle things differently, so this is not a right or wrong situation, just a how would I handle it

 

I look at the effect, you have a metal bracer let's say squeezing the arm of an individual. The damage you are looking for comes from the squeezing, not any kind of stopping the blood flow, hitting presure points, etc...

 

That seems like it should be in part modeled after the grab & squeeze combat manuever, which is defended by normal PD

 

However there are some unique elements, first of all is the fact that it can bypass armor (the type that is worn, not nesesarily the mechanic of the same name), second is the fact that it is not a bolt of lightning from your hands but rather there own attire attacking them. Both of these scream Indirect to me, nor NND

 

For it to be an NND there normal defences (Base PD) should not logicaly be able to help prevent the damage, but if it is basicaly just squeezing them like I could with my hand well it should do damage the same way.

 

Just my thoughts

 

BTW: The AVLD Idea is not bad either

 

I agree with your logic on this.

 

I am curious to see what you think about a similar issue in this thread:

Betterman Energy Blast

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=473

[SableWyvern]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Ok. I think I'm sold on EB, Does BODY, AVLD, Indirect.

[JmOz]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I would choose AVLD or Indirect, I don't think it needs both

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Telekinesis, only to grab and squeeze, only vs targets wearing armor or lots of metal (or however we're defining it) seems to cover it. If a character in full armor is getting crushed by it, he's probably not going to be able to walk or swing his weapon arms, for example, so the grabbing applies (the GM may let certain limbs still function, say the character above has no leg armor).

 

I wouldn't let it fly as an NND or AVLD because I don't see how the target's inherent toughness is bypassed. It's essentially, as Hyper put it, a ranged Grab and Squeeze, which is affected normally by defenses.

[pinecone]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

Telekinesis, only to grab and squeeze, only vs targets wearing armor or lots of metal (or however we're defining it) seems to cover it. If a character in full armor is getting crushed by it, he's probably not going to be able to walk or swing his weapon arms, for example, so the grabbing applies (the GM may let certain limbs still function, say the character above has no leg armor).

 

I wouldn't let it fly as an NND or AVLD because I don't see how the target's inherent toughness is bypassed. It's essentially, as Hyper put it, a ranged Grab and Squeeze, which is affected normally by defenses.

 

Yeah, I'm agree'in...as to the original issue, I supose the "book legal" way is NND: Some thing you got, Lim: Not vs non metallic wearing persons....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I wouldn't let it fly as an NND or AVLD because I don't see how the target's inherent toughness is bypassed. It's essentially' date=' as Hyper put it, a ranged Grab and Squeeze, which is affected normally by defenses.[/quote']

 

I'd allow the AVLD used only to bypass the metal which is actually doing the damage. In this case, the use of AVLD is more to eliminate defenses which should logically not apply (metal armor) and leave the ones that should apply (all other PD).

[SableWyvern]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I'd allow the AVLD used only to bypass the metal which is actually doing the damage. In this case' date=' the use of AVLD is more to eliminate defenses which should logically not apply (metal armor) and leave the ones that should apply (all other PD).[/quote']

Yep, as far as I can see you'll always need AVLD: PD Not From Metal Armour, otherwise the target will be protected by the very thing that's causing the damage.

[GAZZA]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

The character in question is a metal elementalist, and the power is the ability to cause metal armour/bracelets/necklaces etc... to constrict and damage their wearer.

 

RKA 1d6+1

NND (defence = no constrictive metal)

Does BODY

 

By the book, defences to NNDs defined by what they aren't are frowned upon at best.

Personally, I don't think I'd have any real issue with defining the defence as "not having X", at least not in general - as long as it was roughly as common to not have X as to have other NND defences that seems OK; I'd probably stop short of punishing characters for having defences though (you wouldn't want this to stoop to "not vs characters with no mental defence", for example, to screw over mentalists).

 

However, I'm not sure that the special effect you're talking about is best modelled this way. It looks more like a straight grab and squeeze to me, so two alternatives spring to mind:

• TK, Only to Grab and Squeeze (-1), Only vs targets with some form of constricting metal (-1/2) [Alter the value of the last limitation as appropriate; seems about right for an armour wearing Fantasy Hero campaign, but should be more limiting for Champions)
  
• EB, NND (defence is not needing to breath), Only vs targets with some form of constricting metal (-1/2) perhaps with Continuous thrown in as well.

I prefer the first, but "crushing the air out of someone" has a fair bit of "prior art" defining it as a NND, so the second works as well.

 

On the other hand, if you're trying to model something that does damage from constriction as well as strangulation, then you're really into the "this is actually a grab" territory IMO (indeed, constriction damage is pretty much what defines a grab and squeeze), so I'd do it the first way - otherwise, why does 100 PD dude's defences help him against StrongDude's grab and squeeze, but not against this power which is functionally very similar?

[SableWyvern]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I have a big problem with the "grab" part of "grab and squeeze", specifically the idea that the grab can be shrugged off. In a normal grab, you can use casual strength to escape the opponent's grip. That makes no sense when your armour is tightening around you.

 

AVLD: PD Not Originating from Metal Armour seems to deal with the objections raised by the TK advocates (given that all other PD still functions as normal), as well as avoiding the problems with grab and with the armour that's doing the damage also protecting you.

[GAZZA]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I have a big problem with the "grab" part of "grab and squeeze"' date=' specifically the idea that the grab can be shrugged off. In a normal grab, you can use casual strength to escape the opponent's grip. That makes no sense when your armour is tightening around you.[/quote']

I don't really see a problem with that. Basically your armour is taking the place of some strong dude giving you a bear hug; if you can imagine shrugging off the latter, I can't see why it's a problem with the former. Essentially you are arguing against any form of telekinetic grab and squeeze, as far as I can see - why does it make any more sense to shrug off someone who has projected a huge invisible hand around you (for example - aka The Great And Powerful Turtle)?

 

To put it another way: suppose instead a brick grabs your armour and squeezes it with you inside. Would you treat that as a grab? I don't see why it makes any less sense to throw him off than it does the telekinetic equivalent.

 

But YMMV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I have a big problem with the "grab" part of "grab and squeeze"' date=' specifically the idea that the grab can be shrugged off. In a normal grab, you can use casual strength to escape the opponent's grip. That makes no sense when your armour is tightening around you.[/quote']

 

Couldn't a very string character either push back the Constriction or, alternatively, damage the armor to the point it's not longer effective at constricting him? One means of dealing with this attack would be to destroy the metal armor.

[JmOz]

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I don't really see a problem with that. Basically your armour is taking the place of some strong dude giving you a bear hug; if you can imagine shrugging off the latter, I can't see why it's a problem with the former. Essentially you are arguing against any form of telekinetic grab and squeeze, as far as I can see - why does it make any more sense to shrug off someone who has projected a huge invisible hand around you (for example - aka The Great And Powerful Turtle)?

 

To put it another way: suppose instead a brick grabs your armour and squeezes it with you inside. Would you treat that as a grab? I don't see why it makes any less sense to throw him off than it does the telekinetic equivalent.

 

But YMMV.

 

I see one major problem with tk: The armor itself is doing the squeezing, with TK it would be external of the armor, the armor would be between the effect and the person.

 

I actualy like the idea of TK, but think it should have AVLD added to it...