combat luck when grabbed

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

We used to use an "only when conscious and mobile" limitation for characters whose defenses (commonly Reduction rather than defenses) were contingent on getting out of the way of an attack, applying a -1/2 limitation.

 

This would fit the criteria you described, but they could also roll with an attack they deliberately intercepted. For the same limitation, I'd expect Combat Luck to pick something up in exchange for losing the defenses against those types of attacks. To me, that['s the retention of the defenses in surprise situations, for example.

 

To me, CL simulates that amazing, unexplained durability of the main characters in many genres. It's not intended to be realistic - it's intended to be cinematic. If you want a more realistic ability, create a different limitation intended to be more realistic.

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

A non-persistent power is 'off' when you are asleep and when you are unconscious: luck has nothing to do with that.

 

It could, potentially, be 'on' (so long as it had been turned on) at any time whilst the possessor was conscious and maintained it. Arguably the power would not be on if the possessor was surprised as there would be no reason to be maintaining it.

 

SO, unconscious, asleep, surprised - nothing to do with whwther you are lucky or not - they are all about the fact that the power is non-persistent. Presumably 'Luck Based' limits the power further in situations where it is capable of working.

 

Now 'Luck' is one of those sfx which you can write in to almost anything, but you need to bear in mind that it is a limitation: whilst there could be 'luck' in any situation, because it is a limitation, in fact there is only luck in a limited number of situations, and applying the limitation strictly, well, somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 attacks should get through your 'luck based' defence.

 

Well, that or you should re-assess the value of the limitation.

 

That is probably at least one attack per combat that hits will ignore your luck based defences.

 

So, you need to decide how you are going to decide which attacks your defences do not work against. You can not really do it by list: that doesn't 'feel' appropriately 'luck based'. You can't really do it by simply rolling 1d6 and it doesn't work on 1 or 2 (well you CAN but if you're going to be that mechanistic why not just buy it on an activation roll?)

 

The only real way to do it is ad hoc, on a case by case basis: however you have to bear in mind the statistics: if your intuitive apporach is not letting between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 attacks though, you need to think again.

 

Going back to the original post, well, I can imagine a luck based explanation for avoiding (some) squeeze damage: perhaps you wriggle into another position, or the attacker sneezes as he squeezes, so I suppose the answer should be:

 

Yes, Combat Luck can save you from some sqeeze damage - but will not always do so.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

If it were purely random, it should work against 9 out of 10 attacks, as a 14- activation roll succeeds 90.74% of the time and is also worth -1/2.

 

Of course, knowing which attacks combat luck will, or will not, work against allows the character the ability to avoid those attacks his defenses will not function against (just like a character whose defenses don't work against fire will avoid attackers who use fire where this is possible), so the potential for damage combat luck does not defend against should be more frequent than 10%.

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Huh, I always saw it as a way to give resistant defenses to a character that didn't have something like armor or a force field or even naturally resistant def in the concept. To protect against the Body damage of Killing Attacks, not so much against the Stun. Except insofar as having any Resistant def allowing them to use their normal def against the Stun way back in 5e.

 

So to my mind the need for/usefulness of it haven't really changed.

 

Oh I agree it is useful for avoiding Body damage, and that can certainly make a life and death difference - and keep PCs in the fight longer than they would otherwise be, but IME, characters with no resistant defences of a conventional nature usually rely on not being hit rather than 3 more points of defence. Killing attacks rarely do enough damage (unless you are using all the gritty reality rules - and Combat Luck is not exactly a gritty reality ability) to one-shot a PC, but the stun from a killing attack you have no defences against can, quite easily - or could - it is much less likely with the new killing attack mechanic.

 

I'm not saying avoiding Body damage is not useful - it is - I'm saying that it was not the whole picture. Now it might be.

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

If it were purely random' date=' it should work against 9 out of 10 attacks, as a 14- activation roll succeeds 90.74% of the time and is also worth -1/2.[/quote']

 

That may well be seen as an argument that the limitation value for a 14- activation is all wrong: you save 1/3 of the points for a 9.3% reduction in utility.

 

I mean for -1 you get the power 62.5% pf the time: still not mathematically exact (although I acknowledge that there is more to it than strict stats), which is much less of a bargain, so it can not just be the nature of the limitation.

 

I know we've always done it that way, but that is not any kind of argument to carry on doing it.

 

Of course' date=' knowing which attacks combat luck will, or will not, work against allows the character the ability to avoid those attacks his defenses will not function against (just like a character whose defenses don't work against fire will avoid attackers who use fire where this is possible), so the potential for damage combat luck does not defend against should be more frequent than 10%.[/quote']

 

I think I'm against the idea that there should be certain categories of attack that combat luck fails against, or succeeds against consistently. It doesn't feel like luck if it works that way.

 

Even being within the area of an AoE attack, luck could still save you. The lack of predictability may well be the whole point.

 

Otherwise you should perhaps redefine the limitation: make it 'Movement Based', for instance, and call it Combat Dodging - so long as you are capable of moving out of the way of the attack then it works.

[prestidigitator]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

That may well be seen as an argument that the limitation value for a 14- activation is all wrong: you save 1/3 of the points for a 9.3% reduction in utility.

 

I beg to differ. Having a chance of failing, leaving you with no action, is a lot different than a situational restriction where you know it is not going to work and thus don't even try. Would you bet your life on a power that only works 50% of the time? What about one that only works in daylight?

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

I beg to differ. Having a chance of failing' date=' leaving you with no action, is a lot different than a situational restriction where you [i']know[/i] it is not going to work and thus don't even try. Would you bet your life on a power that only works 50% of the time? What about one that only works in daylight?

 

Well, you might not try to use your 'Only in daylight' power at night, that is true, but your enemies KNOW you can not use it at night and so attack you then: certainty can work for or against you.

 

As for betting your life on a power that only works 50% of the time: well, you decided to pay a lot less for it than for a power that works all of the time. You do not know when it will work - but neither do your enemies.

 

Another thing to bear in mind, and that the system does not differentiate on, is the difference between attack powers and (say) movement powers: attack powers on an activation are less risky (at worst you do not get a chance to hurt the enemy) than movement powers: flight that could cut out at any moment could kill you.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Otherwise you should perhaps redefine the limitation: make it 'Movement Based'' date=' for instance, and call it Combat Dodging - so long as you are capable of moving out of the way of the attack then it works.[/quote']Since Combat Luck doesn't defend a character against damage from his own Move By or Move Through, movement would not seem to be part of the equation for when it works. It's often portrayed in the movies and comics as "luck" but I don't think that necessarily means the "lucky at dice/four-leaf-clover/rabbit's foot" type of luck. I think the 'Luck" portion of it is just a shorthand for the various circumstances it doesn't work: asleep, unconscious, out of combat, doing a Move By/Through, etc.

 

From what I've read, the new 6E Power Negation might be another way to represent this ability.

[secretID]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

It's often portrayed in the movies and comics as "luck" but I don't think that necessarily means the "lucky at dice/four-leaf-clover/rabbit's foot" type of luck. I think the 'Luck" portion of it is just a shorthand for the various circumstances it doesn't work: asleep' date=' unconscious, out of combat, doing a Move By/Through, etc.[/quote']

That's my thinking.

 

Batman's and Daredevil's evasiveness always works against guns. There's no randomness there.

 

So...what about my second example (with my players waiting on my final ruling): an Uncontrolled RKA? I applied the CL to the first phase's damage, but not to later phases, since there was no avoiding it.

 

I posted this latest question (and other examples) to Steve.

[prestidigitator]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

I think it doesn't protect against Move Through/By damage because that's damage a character has inflicted upon himself. Just like if you purposefully interpose yourself in front of an attack aimed at someone else. The point being that this power doesn't directly absorb some of the damage of the attack; it serves instead to get you partly out of the way of the attack or whatever, turning a potentially lethal blow into a "flesh wound." So if it is damage that you are actively welcoming rather than trying to avoid....

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

I think it doesn't protect against Move Through/By damage because that's damage a character has inflicted upon himself. Just like if you purposefully interpose yourself in front of an attack aimed at someone else. The point being that this power doesn't directly absorb some of the damage of the attack; it serves instead to get you partly out of the way of the attack or whatever' date=' turning a potentially lethal blow into a "flesh wound." So if it is damage that you are actively welcoming rather than trying to avoid....[/quote']That was precisely Steve's reasoning when I asked him for that clarification several years ago. It makes Combat Luck a lot less attractive option for speedsters specializing in Move Through.

 

OTOH, the fact Combat Luck is theoretically "avoiding" the damage rather than blocking it explains why it's Hardened: If it's (ostensibly, at least) not a solid hit, it's not going to armor pierce or penetrate.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

That's my thinking.

 

Batman's and Daredevil's evasiveness always works against guns. There's no randomness there.

 

So...what about my second example (with my players waiting on my final ruling): an Uncontrolled RKA? I applied the CL to the first phase's damage, but not to later phases, since there was no avoiding it.

 

I posted this latest question (and other examples) to Steve.

I don't see that an Uncontrolled power would automatically "hit" someone with CL. For me it would depend to some extent on the sfx of both Powers.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

So...what about my second example (with my players waiting on my final ruling): an Uncontrolled RKA? I applied the CL to the first phase's damage, but not to later phases, since there was no avoiding it.

 

I posted this latest question (and other examples) to Steve.

What about this? If it was a regular RKA (say a gun) you’d apply the Combat Luck and might say the bullet grazed the character’s shoulder or some such. You said you’d apply the Combat Luck to the first application (the “hit”) of the Uncontrolled RKA, but didn’t know whether to apply it to the subsequent damage. Let’s use Fire as the SFX for this example. If the first application of the RKA “grazed the shoulder” or some such (in other words, Combat Luck applied) why wouldn’t the Uncontrolled aspect of the attack also be reduced? Sure, the PC has been lit on fire, but it’s the difference between his shirt sleeve catching fire or his torso being enveloped in flames. Isn’t there a difference there?

[secretID]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

What about this? If it was a regular RKA (say a gun) you’d apply the Combat Luck and might say the bullet grazed the character’s shoulder or some such. You said you’d apply the Combat Luck to the first application (the “hit”) of the Uncontrolled RKA' date=' but didn’t know whether to apply it to the subsequent damage. Let’s use Fire as the SFX for this example. If the first application of the RKA “grazed the shoulder” or some such (in other words, Combat Luck applied) why wouldn’t the Uncontrolled aspect of the attack also be reduced? Sure, the PC has been lit on fire, but it’s the difference between his shirt sleeve catching fire or his torso being enveloped in flames. Isn’t there a difference there?[/size']

At first there is, but then the fire spreads or is extinguished. I'd be more inclined to say that the hit was just a grazing hit, so that the fire went out on its own, but then it occurred to me that if he goes unconscious for unrelated reasons, the CL stops working, so...he suddenly bursts into flames? Either the degree to which he's burning is dependent upon his state of consciousness, or he has somehow been avoiding the fire from hurting him.

[prestidigitator]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Why, until he fell unconscious he was beating the flames out, keeping them from spreading up his arms (while fending off a herd of wilderbeasts using his sword, of course). Sounds movie-plausible.

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Since Combat Luck doesn't defend a character against damage from his own Move By or Move Through, movement would not seem to be part of the equation for when it works. It's often portrayed in the movies and comics as "luck" but I don't think that necessarily means the "lucky at dice/four-leaf-clover/rabbit's foot" type of luck. I think the 'Luck" portion of it is just a shorthand for the various circumstances it doesn't work: asleep, unconscious, out of combat, doing a Move By/Through, etc.

 

From what I've read, the new 6E Power Negation might be another way to represent this ability.

 

My point was not that we should consider 'Luck Based' = 'Movement Based' but that you could rebuild Combat Luck using a different limitation and get a much more comprehensible power.

 

Asleep/unconscious/out of combat have NOTHING to do with luck - it is the quite separate 'non-persistent' limitation that covers those bases.

 

There is no reason at all that 'luck' should not intervene to reduce damage for a move through (you hit the target just as he is moving backwards to try and get our of your way, maximising the effect on him, minimising it on you). There is no reason it should not apply to a continuous RKA: yes you are on fire, but a gust of wind or the backlash of a nearby explosion temporarily reduced the intensity.

 

The whole point about something being based on LUCK is that the results will NOT be predictable because luck is not predictable. You can define luck how you like, but you can always think of a way you could 'luckily' avoid a bit of damage: if you can't then you've defined luck into something it is not.

 

That is why I suggested that 'luck based' is not a particularly helpful limitation and you may be better off defining a more tangible basis for damage avoidance - like being able to move out of the way.

 

That wasn't what I was thinking when I first posted in this thread, but that is the conclusion I've come to. point is, however you define it, it is a limitation and has to limit the power (in a way that other existing limitations do not) or it is worth nothing.

[secretID]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

The whole point about something being based on LUCK is that the results will NOT be predictable because luck is not predictable. You can define luck how you like, but you can always think of a way you could 'luckily' avoid a bit of damage: if you can't then you've defined luck into something it is not.

 

That is why I suggested that 'luck based' is not a particularly helpful limitation and you may be better off defining a more tangible basis for damage avoidance - like being able to move out of the way.

The rules actually do define it better than that: "depends on a character's ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage." That says to me that "Luck-based" is really a misnomer - "Dodge-based" would make more sense.

 

As I think you were saying, "luck-based," with no clearer definition, could cover just about anything. I would certainly allow a player to by DEF with no lim, with a sfx that he doesn't get cleanly hit b/c he's magically lucky. All kinds of weird things would then happen.

 

I also agree - and I think it's an important point - that most of what's listed in the rules and FAQ is part of Nonpersistent. If we take out that portion, we're left with the move-based maneuvers, and the case of jumping in front of a bullet, which I would sum up as "self-inflicted." I wouldn't call that -1/2.

 

What do you think of my proposed line, based on the rules description, that it only operates when Dodge, Block, Missile Defection, or Dive for Cover theoretically could?

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

..............

 

What do you think of my proposed line, based on the rules description, that it only operates when Dodge, Block, Missile Defection, or Dive for Cover theoretically could?

 

 

I think that is a handy way to operate the limitation: it makes it clear when it will and will not work.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

My point was not that we should consider 'Luck Based' = 'Movement Based' but that you could rebuild Combat Luck using a different limitation and get a much more comprehensible power.

 

Asleep/unconscious/out of combat have NOTHING to do with luck - it is the quite separate 'non-persistent' limitation that covers those bases.

 

There is no reason at all that 'luck' should not intervene to reduce damage for a move through (you hit the target just as he is moving backwards to try and get our of your way, maximising the effect on him, minimising it on you). There is no reason it should not apply to a continuous RKA: yes you are on fire, but a gust of wind or the backlash of a nearby explosion temporarily reduced the intensity.

 

The whole point about something being based on LUCK is that the results will NOT be predictable because luck is not predictable. You can define luck how you like, but you can always think of a way you could 'luckily' avoid a bit of damage: if you can't then you've defined luck into something it is not.

 

That is why I suggested that 'luck based' is not a particularly helpful limitation and you may be better off defining a more tangible basis for damage avoidance - like being able to move out of the way.

 

That wasn't what I was thinking when I first posted in this thread, but that is the conclusion I've come to. point is, however you define it, it is a limitation and has to limit the power (in a way that other existing limitations do not) or it is worth nothing.

That's why I said "I think the 'Luck" portion of it is just a shorthand for the various circumstances it doesn't work: asleep, unconscious, out of combat, doing a Move By/Through, etc." Combat Luck is not like other defensive Powers such as Armor that defend regardless of the character's condition or Force Field that protects the character as long as it's switched on; the character must actively attempt (or at least be must be able) to avoid being hurt for it to work. Unlike those other defenses, CL doesn't protect while the characters are standing around out of combat or defend the character from self-inflicted damage such as a Move through or deliberately hitting someone who has a Damage Shield. That's already a significant suite of Limitations which easily add up to -½.

 

"Luck" is only one possible sfx for this Talent. Combat Luck was probably a poor choice of names for this ability; perhaps Damage Avoidance would have been a better name.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

The rules actually do define it better than that: "depends on a character's ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage." That says to me that "Luck-based" is really a misnomer - "Dodge-based" would make more sense.

 

What do you think of my proposed line, based on the rules description, that it only operates when Dodge, Block, Missile Deflection, or Dive for Cover theoretically could?

I think it would be an excellent clarification. I guess we'll have to wait for 6ER or 7E.

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

That's why I said "I think the 'Luck" portion of it is just a shorthand for the various circumstances it doesn't work: asleep, unconscious, out of combat, doing a Move By/Through, etc." Combat Luck is not like other defensive Powers such as Armor that defend regardless of the character's condition or Force Field that protects the character as long as it's switched on; the character must actively attempt (or at least be must be able) to avoid being hurt for it to work. Unlike those other defenses, CL doesn't protect while the characters are standing around out of combat or defend the character from self-inflicted damage such as a Move through or deliberately hitting someone who has a Damage Shield. That's already a significant suite of Limitations which easily add up to -½.

 

"Luck" is only one possible sfx for this Talent. Combat Luck was probably a poor choice of names for this ability; perhaps Damage Avoidance would have been a better name.

 

We may well be arguing the same point with different terminology but the limitation (call it luck or call it something else) does not cover anything in your description except (maybe) out of combat (and being attacked out of combat is relatively rare) and movethroughs (which you can decide not to do, and so may never be a problem). Being asleep/unconscious (and sometimes 'out of combat') are all covered by 'nonpersistent'.

 

Now one thing here is this: whilst Power/Talent names should not be taken to imply any particular effect, and so can give no real clue as to function, sfx names are absolutely and vitally linked to effect. Therefore there is no problem calling it Combat Luck - that is as meaningless as calling it Blue Alpha Seven - but having a limitation 'luck based' is completely about defining effect. If it is not Luck Based (and I think that the general consensus is that it is NOT) then the limitation should be differently labelled.

 

IMO

[Hierax]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

The current official Combat Luck is only one way to build the concept. It could be built a lot of other ways too -- +DCV, Damage Reduction, Damage Negation, etc. Heck, you could build the Talent as a Multi-Power of several things if you wanted to cover all the bases of what could happen. My point is that if the official Combat Luck build doesn't do what works for your character (like avoiding being grabbed) just use the good ol' "Reasoning from Effect" and build a power/talent/skill/whatever that works for your character concept -- isn't that what Hero does best - let you customize to concept?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Hierax, I don't think the problem is modeling something we want, we can do that. That issue is discussing how to apply Combat Luck as it is already modeled.

[Hierax]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Yeah, I know but I'm saying maybe the problem is that it isn't built right in the first place -- right tool for the right job and all that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Oh I agree it is useful for avoiding Body damage' date=' and that can certainly make a life and death difference - and keep PCs in the fight longer than they would otherwise be, but IME, characters with no resistant defences of a conventional nature usually rely on not being hit rather than 3 more points of defence. Killing attacks rarely do enough damage (unless you are using all the gritty reality rules - and Combat Luck is not exactly a gritty reality ability) to one-shot a PC, but the stun from a killing attack you have no defences against can, quite easily - or could - it is much less likely with the new killing attack mechanic.[/quote']

 

I agree that most low defense characters (including both those with no conventional rDEF and those with limited conventional defenses) rely on not getting hit. However, those are characters I often see taking some limited defense power (and Combat Luck is the default since 5e, since it is the only one with an official writeup). It's not something they rely on. It's something to prevent that one lucky hit from having an overly devastating effect. I've had many players describe it as a bit of extra defense to shave off some of the BOD if someone gets in a lucky hit, because they're OK with being KO'd by the occasional lucky hit, but don't want the occasional lucky hit to equate to a dead, dying or hospitalized character.

 

Of course, every game will have different uses for combat luck. In some, it probably is "a bit of extra defenses that piles on my existing conventional defenses", but that is not my experience, in my games, of how the ability is used.

 

That may well be seen as an argument that the limitation value for a 14- activation is all wrong: you save 1/3 of the points for a 9.3% reduction in utility.

 

I mean for -1 you get the power 62.5% pf the time: still not mathematically exact (although I acknowledge that there is more to it than strict stats), which is much less of a bargain, so it can not just be the nature of the limitation.

 

I beg to differ. Having a chance of failing' date=' leaving you with no action, is a lot different than a situational restriction where you [i']know[/i] it is not going to work and thus don't even try. Would you bet your life on a power that only works 50% of the time? What about one that only works in daylight?

 

I'm with Prestidigitator on this one. You get a higher limitation for a power that only works half the time and you have no way of knowing whether it will or won't than you get for a power that only works half the time but you know in advance whether it will or won't. That predictability has benefits. If I know that my Force Field will work because I meet the relevant criteria, I can wade into combat. If I know it won't, I don't engage. If it will work on exactly half the hits I take, then I have no way of knowing whether I should fight or flee.

 

Sure, my enemies may be able to work out when my powers do and don't work (and nothing says my enemies get to read my character sheet), but they can also work out that, sometimes, my defenses fail, and keep hammering away until they eventually get lucky. And I may be able to use their perceived knowledge against them. An old Aquaman story where he takes the Bad Guy down a bit over an hour after he's attacked comes to mind, as the Bad Guy rails against the unfairness - Aquaman should be dead as he can't stay out of water for more than an hour. Aquaman laughs at that misread of his abilities - it depends on physical exertion, heat, humidity, etc. It's been raining throughout the period, so he's almost as hydrated as he was at the start of the period.

 

I think I'm against the idea that there should be certain categories of attack that combat luck fails against' date=' or succeeds against consistently. It doesn't feel like luck if it works that way.[/quote']

 

A thrown rock doesn't seem like Energy to me, nor does sound dampening feel like Darkness nor a thunderclap as a Flash, but all three are described with those terms mechanically (dropping to two with 6e). Combat Luck describes situations where it will and won't work. If you want a power that is mechanically random, that's a power that requires a roll.

 

Otherwise you should perhaps redefine the limitation: make it 'Movement Based'' date=' for instance, and call it Combat Dodging - so long as you are capable of moving out of the way of the attack then it works.[/quote']

 

I think you could have either, or have both running side by side. One says "when I am able to perceive the attack, and to move freely, I can roll with it and avoid some of the damage". The other says "I manage to be in the right place at the right time which results in the attack being less harmful than if I had not caught that lucky break". You can also use different mechanics - defenses, damage reduction, damage negation, whatever - to show the reduction in damage taken.

 

What about this? If it was a regular RKA (say a gun) you’d apply the Combat Luck and might say the bullet grazed the character’s shoulder or some such. You said you’d apply the Combat Luck to the first application (the “hit”) of the Uncontrolled RKA' date=' but didn’t know whether to apply it to the subsequent damage. Let’s use Fire as the SFX for this example. If the first application of the RKA “grazed the shoulder” or some such (in other words, Combat Luck applied) why wouldn’t the Uncontrolled aspect of the attack also be reduced? Sure, the PC has been lit on fire, but it’s the difference between his shirt sleeve catching fire or his torso being enveloped in flames. Isn’t there a difference there?[/size']

 

Agree 100%. It does beg the question why "luck based" means you stop being lucky if you're KO'd or asleep - other than "that's the mechanical definition". If my combat luck works when I'm asleep, maybe it fails against AoE attacks, or perhaps it only gets a -1/4 Luck Based limitation.