Jump to content

Is this a reasonable NND attack?


 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I see one major problem with tk: The armor itself is doing the squeezing' date=' with TK it would be external of the armor, the armor would be between the effect and the person.[/quote']

If you can't see it or touch it, is it meaningful to draw the distinction between "force causes armour to contract" and "armour squeezing itself"?

 

It is certainly arguable that the idea of physical strength releasing oneself from a telekinetic grip in any circumstance is a little strange (what are they pushing against?) but for better or worse Hero models TK as essentially ranged STR. If you can get away from the Turtle, I don't see that it matters whether he was squeezing you or your armour was squeezing you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

The difference, and it is quite important IMO is that the armor can provide defense against the force, if the armor is doing it to you it should not be able to provide you with the counter productive defence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I see shrugging off a grab not as flexing against a squeezing pressure, but actually applying force against your opponent's leverage. If you grab my arm, and I pull it away, I'm not so much resisting your actual squeeze, I'm affecting your whole ability to maintain balance and leverage. Similarly if I push the brick (from your example), rotate around and apply a slight trip, I'm not opposing the squeeze, but the bricks basic ability to gain a grip. That is what a grab, and shrugging it, represents to me. Telekinetic grabs represent basically identical applications of force, with the same inherrent difficulties for the grabber -- just applied at distance.

 

OTOH, I don't see the situation in question as the result of a direct application of outside force. Something that shrinks as it cools would be roughly equivalent to what I'm envisaging. You can't shrug or dodge away from something like that, because there's no outside force that, if pushed away, will cause the shrinking to stop. You will be "grabbed" until you cut away or otherwise remove the constricting item.

 

Essentially, I do not think that in this case "your armour is taking the place of some strong dude giving you a bear hug". Instead, I see a fundamentally different interaction

 

... or perhaps, from a different angle ...

 

To shrug of the strong guy's grab, you need to force him away. Since the armour takes his place, you would need to force it away, ie, rip it off. And I don't think ripping off your armour is a well represented by a STR check vs a TK grab.

 

Which isn't to say your perspective isn't valid, it just doesn't mesh with my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I see shrugging off a grab not as flexing against a squeezing pressure' date=' but actually applying force against your opponent's leverage. If you grab my arm, and I pull it away, I'm not so much resisting your actual squeeze, I'm affecting your whole ability to maintain balance and leverage. Similarly if I push the brick (from your example), rotate around and apply a slight trip, I'm not opposing the squeeze, but the bricks basic ability to gain a grip. That is what a grab, and shrugging it, represents to me. Telekinetic grabs represent basically identical applications of force, with the same inherrent difficulties for the grabber -- just applied at distance.[/quote']

 

That doesn't match up with the game mechanics, however. Breaking out of a grab by an octopus' many tentacles, a creature wrapping itself around the target or a telekinetic Grab of the entire target at once are mechanically identical to breaking the grab of a man holding you by the arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

I still see all those examples as things that you could feasibly extricate yourself from (the TK may vary depending on your precise explanation of the SFX), while I see a worn item constricting as something different. For what it's worth, IMO, a TK Grab with a similar SFX to the armour-constrict under discussion would not be well modelled by the existing Grab rules.

 

Obviously, some of you are seeing things from a different perspective, which is fine by me. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

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...

 

I look at it and see TK: Lim "Physical manifestation: Metal as available"....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

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?

I would probably accept that as a valid build, given the fantasy setting, but I would suggest dropping the NND entirely and using Penetrating instead. Or perhaps Armor Piercing, or maybe even both. And then you add a limitation: Only if the target is wearing metal. It could even be "Only in proportion to the amount of metal worn."

 

Yes, the armor still provides some defense, and that can reflect the idea that it's probably harder to squeeze a suit of plate armor than it is to squeeze a mail shirt.

 

But in most fantasy games, normal armor is never Hardened (at least it isn't in mine). So the power will work well. In my FH games, armor has to have some special quality to be allowed to be Hardened, such as magic armor, or armor made of Plotdevicium steel, instead of ordinary steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

 

That is a tricky attack. Would one have to assign a defense and body value to the item in question. I'm sure some focuses in different campaigns are madeof other world materials or maybe unbreakable relics. And what would be the consequences if such an item were broken, the release of power from an article like the ones mentioned would have to have some sort of repercussions wouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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']

I would go in this direction, with a Limitation related to "Target must be wearing some sort of constrictive metals, including jewelry" - since it's so broad, probably not more than +1/4 (depends how stringent the definition of the Limitation is - and sometimes I go more generous if it's going to become something all the opponents know about and will just be prepared for every time, if it's that easy to prepare against).

 

As JmOz said later in the thread, I am not suggesting my way is the necessary way. I think the NND idea is interesting and probably not a problem if you go that way, though I think it's a bit less clear than the way I am suggesting or the way Hugh or some others have suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...