combat luck when grabbed

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

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

I agree the Limitation should probably be labeled differently; even though as I've said I think 'luck' in this context is only used as a shorthand. Personally, I dislike long and overly precise Limitation descriptions, especially for small (-½ or less) discounts. I prefer a shorter more flexible interpretation, at least in a four-color supers or pulp game.

 

In our group we don't really pay attention to the build - we use it as a pure Talent and in our Pulp Hero campaign every single character has it for the simple fact the bad guys all use guns or swords and without Combat Luck every fight would leave characters crippled for weeks. It really doesn't make much difference whether we call it "Luck Based, "Blue Alpha Seven," or "The PCs Get Extra Protection Because They're The Heroes."

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

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

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.

 

 

Grr. IT DOESN'T. The non-persistent limitation means that it doesn't work when you are asleep. Take that out and luck works just fine when you snooze.

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

..........

 

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 do get that you should not get 10- activation for -1, even though that is mathematically accurate. I agree that something you have NO control over is more of a limitation than something you have some control over. I'm happy with 11- = -1: your power works 62.5% of the time. Seems fair: a small increase in reliability set against the lack of control (albeit a lack of control that can work in your favour as much as against it). However, the numbers do not follow: for -1 ('half power') you get a power that works 6 times in 10, for -1/2 ('2/3 power') you get a power that works 9 times in 10.

 

The progression would be much fairer if it went:

 

11-: -1

12-: -3/4

13-: -1/2

14-: -1/4

 

In fact it could arguably go:

 

11-: -1

12-: -1/2

13-: -1/4

 

and still be consistent and 'fair'. I know we've always done it the other way, but we have maths now.

 

 

 

A thrown rock doesn't seem like Energy to me' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The difference is that 'Combat Luck', 'Darkness', 'Energy' and 'Flash' are Power/Talent names, and so meaningless'. 'Luck Based' is a limitation definition, and so far from meaningless.

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes, quite: build what you want to express as your character's ability BUT if you are using the build in that book that is what you have chosen. I'm saying it would be sensible for a lot of characters to amend the Talent rather than stick with what is there and have a plethora of different definitions for what 'luck' means in context.

[prestidigitator]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

I don't agree with Non-Persistent. Combat Luck definitely still works when you are Stunned. (EDIT: Nevermind. See below.)

 

Maybe a more soothing interpretation would result if, instead of focusing on one word, we focus on both. If you look at plain "luck" you'd think of random chance, and how could that depend on what the character is or is not doing? But if you look at the phrase, "combat luck", it may bring to mind characters who are lucky in combat. They move in such a way, have enough wits and dexterity to react quickly enough, and generally always seem to somehow pick the right spot to be in even with little forewarning, that they tend to survive. Indiana Jones is probably the single best example of this I can think of. He's sure as heck not lucky out of combat. In fact, he tends to have to work very hard to overcome all the misfortune he winds up in. But in combat....

[secretID]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

I don't agree with Non-Persistent. Combat Luck definitely still works when you are Stunned.

? - The rules explicitly say that's it's Nonpersistent - i.e., when they walk through the build, it's Armor, Nonpersistent (-1/4), Luck-based (-1/2).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Grr. IT DOESN'T. The non-persistent limitation means that it doesn't work when you are asleep. Take that out and luck works just fine when you snooze.

 

Maybe I'm missing the boat, but it seems to me that Nonpersistent results in Combat Luck failing in a lot more situations than Luck Based results in, yet nonpersistent is -1/4 and Luck Based is -1/2.

 

In any case, my issue is why it being "luck" demands it be nonpersistent (ie I would remove the limitation).

 

? - The rules explicitly say that's it's Nonpersistent - i.e.' date=' when they walk through the build, it's Armor, Nonpersistent (-1/4), Luck-based (-1/2).[/quote']

 

I think the issue is more that we assume defenses continue to work when the character is stunned when, in fact, the character needs to "turn on" his combat luck after being stunned. Seems off to me as well, to which the solution is to remove "nonpersistent".

[Hierax]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Luck-based screams someone like Maxwell Smart (Agent 86) and he'd just roll over in his sleep and avoid any harm!

[secretID]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Maybe I'm missing the boat' date=' but it seems to me that Nonpersistent results in Combat Luck failing in a lot more situations than Luck Based results in, yet nonpersistent is -1/4 and Luck Based is -1/2.[/quote']

I agree, if the list in the rules is taken as exhaustive. I don't think it is, in part because the FAQ adds to the list. If the line were drawn where I proposed, I think that would be a fair -1/2, as compared to, say, Restrainable.

 

In any case' date=' my issue is why it being "luck" demands it be nonpersistent (ie I would remove the limitation).[/quote']

That's all part of the misnomer, IMO. Nonpersistent doesn't really fit the name of the talent or the name of the lim, but it does fit the (somewhat fuzzy) definition of the lim - that it only works where the character could dodge, block, or otherwise avoid. A better name for Combat Luck would be "Damage Avoidance," as Treb suggested, or something similar.

[prestidigitator]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

? - The rules explicitly say that's it's Nonpersistent - i.e.' date=' when they walk through the build, it's Armor, Nonpersistent (-1/4), Luck-based (-1/2).[/quote']

 

Oh. Damn. Okay. I missed that this time around. I thought it was being assumed from the "Luck-based". Okay. I take it back. In that case, forget it when you're Stunned too. And you will never get it when surprised outside of combat unless your GM feels the circumstances are very appropriate for you to have it active. Ouch!

[secretID]

Re: combat luck when grabbed

 

Steve's response:

"I don't think bright lines are particularly helpful in this situation. The text provides some general guidelines, and using those and his common/dramatic sense the GM can interpret things appropriately for his campaign."

 

(Sigh.) I'm going with the line I defined.