Knockback Attack

[dmjalund]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

No BODY is always a limitation when you need to blast a hole in a wall or an Automaton

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

You can punch him in a wall. Still BODY' date=' still STUN.[/quote']

 

The unlimited attack can accomplish that PLUS achieve the same knockback damage. If you consider the knockback to be equally valuable, then No Knockback (and, by extension, No BOD) should have a much greater limitation value.

 

Yes' date=' it is an advantage to have an attack that has no danger of directly (BODY) or indirectly (BODY from KB or Falling) killing it's target. That why you MAKE it an No Body attack in the first place.[/quote']

 

No, you make it a No BOD attack because this is consistent with your vision of the power. I, and others, have listed the numerous restrictions imposed by the power's inability to inflict BOD. Yes, there is no risk of accidentally inflicting BOD damage. A Blast with No Range has no danger of striking something further away when it misses - should we make No Range -0 as well? My teammate can pick up and use my OAF MultiBlaster if I am KO'd, but cannot pick up and use my natural Blast power. Should OAF be -0? Every use of Charges includes 0 END, so I guess Charges should be -0 or an advantage.

 

The fact that the limitation may carry some benefit as well should certainly be considered in its pricing, but what's lost also needs to be factored in.

 

If you wan't to do body' date=' don't take a limitation that makes it not doing Body. Simple, isn't it?[/quote']

 

The player selects powers. The character does not. Ben Grimm doesn't want to be a huge freakish rock monster, but his player wants him to be one because that is the character he wants to play - with all of its advantages, chalenges and drawbacks. The character might very well wish for a non-lethal attack power, but it doesn't mean he has one.

 

I can apply your argument to every limitation - drop them all to -0. If you don't want to suffer the effects, then don't take the limitation. Hero takes a different road, however - it reduces the cost of abilities commensurate with their loss of utility. So if you don't want Range, or you want it to be possible for the power to be restrained, or you want a limited number of uses, you save points for that loss in utility.

 

From what I get you argumentation is as following:

You take two mutually excluse limitations, put them togehter and then say: Well, these two limitations make the power useless and should be higher.

 

My answer is: No, they shouldn't. They shouldn't be combined, since togehter they take 100% of the effect out of the Blast. Instead make a Limitation "Does no BODY, KB or STUN" and value it as high as you want to. See, no problem than can't be solved with a little bit of thinking.

 

No' date=' it isn't. Somone may very well want a Balst that does Stun [i']and[/i] Knockback, but not Body. Also, not doing Body won't be advantagous in every game, hell it's not useful in some grittier Champions games. Does that mean that if a Player has a character concept that calls for such a power he shouldn't get a discount on the points when his Power is made less effective?

 

Then you don't get the argument. It's not about actually applying mutually exclusive Limitations (most of the time anyway), it's about using that to see if the Limitation values are reasonably set. If you apply enough Limitations to make a Power worthless and have no, or virtually no, effect than there should be -2 or more in Limitations. If Does No Stun is a -3/4 Limitation (-1/2 loses a third of effect and -1 loses half effect) so it is considered less than half of the Power's utility, than getting rid of the other things the Power can do (in the case of Blast just Body and Knockback) should be at least a -1 since those things account for more than half of the Power's utility based on the book's value for the other Limitation.

 

bigbywolf obviously gets it.

 

The no body is always usefull. You have to choose to implement it and if you do' date=' you have an attack that has [i']no risk[/i] of accidently doing body or KB, both things that could kill your target when you want it alive.

 

And it always lacks any chance of breaking an entangle, injuring an automoton or breaking down a wall. Just like a power with No Range always has a much reduced risk of collateral damage since it doesn't go very far on a miss, but also can't target opponents that aren't in close range. The drawback outweighs the benefit, so you get a limitation.

 

The question is where to put "Body only counts for KB" or "only does KB, no direct Damage":

For the first one, there is still the full STUN damage - so the mayority of the effect stays intact. Perhaps worth a -1/4, but Blast is never good at doing Body and the target can still recive the full KB effect - including being Knocked out of the 200th Floor: 30d6.

 

So, in your model, it is a -1/4 limitation (RAW) to do BOD but no Knockback, a -1/4 limitation (from your comment above) to do Knockback but no BOD, and a -0 Limitation to do neither BOD nor Knockback (RAW). How does that make any logical sense?

 

As you can see' date=' KB in and off itself is still vey usefull.[/quote']

 

Is it more useful, less useful or as useful as KB + the Stun and BOD damage of the Blast? The fact that it maintains some utility is why it maintains some cost. The fact that its utility is reduced is why a limitation is appropriately applied. In the Supers games I have played, the Stun damage is worth a lot more than the Knockback. Has your experience in games you have actually played differed?

 

For the Limitation values' date=' don't forget that KB is an Optional part of the Blasts effect. The GM can just say "No KB" and this blast won't get you anywhere. Also, you don't recieve one lousy point for it that it can't KB targets. [/quote']

 

If the game does not use knockback, then all attacks have No Knockback. If the game does use knockback, an attack losing this feature receives a -1/4 limitation. Given the OP wants a power that "only does knockback", I don't see it as much of a stretch to assume his game uses knockback.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

So' date=' in your model, it is a -1/4 limitation (RAW) to do BOD but no Knockback, a -1/4 limitation (from your comment above) to do Knockback but no BOD, and a -0 Limitation to do neither BOD nor Knockback (RAW). How does that make any logical sense?[/quote']

How about the way I have written down half a dozen times by now? You can't accidently kill your target. This is the advantage of the No Body, No KB attack (in the book Named "no Body").

Let's take some powers and compare them to the target: "We need them alive".

Blast: You ahve to pull your punch, or could kill him with a good hit.

Blast, No Body but KB: You still have to pull your punches in many chases. Otherwise the Knockback of a good throw can do more damage than the Blast could have done.

Blast, Body but no KB: You have to pull your punches, or you could kill your target with a good throw.

Blast, No Body and no KB: Blast away with impunity. Maybe autofire it. Or make it an AOE. No matter what you do, how you haymaker it or much it is aided: No chance to accidently kill your target.

 

There may be fringe chases in wich it is less likely that you need "No Body, No KB attack". In that scenarios it may be a real limitation to your attack. But overall is the Idea to limited a power to it's tertiary, optional effect still not a valid course.

 

Just take:

20 Telekinesis STR (30 AP), Only to Shove (-1); 15 Real Cost.

And now you give any target a 4m "Knockback Effect" without having to fool around with Blast (that is not designed to move the target in the first place) and with the KB being the only potential source of damage.

 

What is wrong with this simple, base rules using build that you *have* to use Blast, No Body, No STUN, but KB for it instead?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

How about the way I have written down half a dozen times by now? You can't accidently kill your target. This is the advantage of the No Body' date=' No KB attack (in the book Named "no Body").[/quote']

 

Yes, that is the advantage. There are also drawbacks. You seem to have tunnel vision on needing the target alive, resulting in an apparent inability to perceive that there are also drawbacks to an inability to inflict BOD damage. "You can't knock him away but can do BOD" is a -1/4 limitation by the book. You have suggested "You can knock him away but can't do BOD" to also be -1/4. But losing both the ability to knock him away and to do BOD, you feel, is not a limitation at all.

 

You focus exclusively on "we need this comparatively fragile target alive". Such targets tend to have worse than average CV's (ie mook), so pulling my punch is a reasonable option. So is using less than my full DC's, since he has such low defenses.

 

Now, how do I use my 0 BOD (and 0 knockback) attack to:

 

- escape an entangle

- break down a door

- defeat a zombie/robot that takes no STUN?

 

These are limitations to a power which does no BOD. The attack is less useful. The soft target situation is, to me, a straw man - especially when you earlier assert it's no big deal to have the knockback attack do BOD anyway since pretty much everyone will have enough defenses to be immune. How are they immune to the 8d6 BOD from that attack, but likely to be killed by the 8d6 BOD from my normal Blast?

 

Oh, by the way, my attack that does no STUN (only BOD and KB) is completely useless in the picture you paint, so if that's common enouigh to make doing no BOD a substantial benefit, shouldn't my "can't take him alive" does no STUN attack get more than a -3/4 limitation?

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Yes' date=' that is the advantage. There are also drawbacks. [...']

Now, how do I use my 0 BOD (and 0 knockback) attack to:

 

- escape an entangle

- break down a door

- defeat a zombie/robot that takes no STUN?

"Cobrahead Phaser" 60 Points Multipower

6f Set to Stun: 12d6 Blast, No Body or KB

6f Set to Kill: 4d6 Ranged Killing Attack

Total Points: 72

 

And like I said above, you don't need a unlimited blast. Just use your Limited Blast and stun your target or use the Unlimited RKA and Kill your target on the most direct and effective way.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

"Cobrahead Phaser" 60 Points Multipower

6f Set to Stun: 12d6 Blast, No Body or KB

6f Set to Kill: 4d6 Ranged Killing Attack

Total Points: 72

 

And like I said above, you don't need a unlimited blast. Just use your Limited Blast and stun your target or use the Unlimited RKA and Kill your target on the most direct and effective way.

 

That is a choice of two attacks, and not a single attack. It does not enable me to use my 0 BOD (and 0 knockback) attack to accomplish any of the objectives set out above. It allows me to use a second attack which is not similarly limited. This does not mean the first attack is not limited, only that I have a second option, for which I paid additional points.

 

Would you deny the character -1/2 for "no range" on the killing attack because he has another attack that has range?

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Like I said already: If you think your characters don't have any beenfit from no BODY/no KB, change the value to whatever you think is right. Your done.

If you think "only KB" is worth -X, then use -X. Your done.

 

And while you are still trying to build and properly value a Blast that does KB only, I already shove enemys around with my 30 AP/15 RC TK. (I think for real Jedi Shove, I can even get lower).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

And while you are still trying to build and properly value a Blast that does KB only' date=' I already shove enemys around with my 30 AP/15 RC TK. (I think for real Jedi Shove, I can even get lower).[/quote']

 

You are assuming the limitation you choose to apply to your TK is fully accepted by all involved. As this thread shows, the values attached to limitations can be quite subjective.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Okay, what is so wrong with Shove?

You get a gauranteed 1 BODY of KB Effect for ever 5 STR (AP) used, and unlike Blast it doesn't suffer from DN.

 

And you can easily build a +40 TK STR (for your normal 20), Only for Shove (-2), Increased Endurance only to activate (enough for -1), so using it effectively only costs 15 Real Points.

 

OK, let's assume "only for Shove" is a -2 when we only allow -3/4 to make a Blast do no damage.

 

TK used to Shove seems like an Instant power, so Increased END only to Activate makes no sense. IIRC, a -1 limitation means 3x END, so I now have 20 STR TK (30 AP; 3 END) augmented by +40 TK (60 AP; 6 x 3 = 18 END), so it costs me 21 END to Shove one target. Hopefully, I don't want to duplicate the actual Jedi moves from the movies, which strike multiple targets at once, and can be used repeatedly. Three uses of this and I've spent 63 END, which I doubt many Heroic characters have, and that's before using END for any other purpose (like moving, say).

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

No. The +40 is only for Super games.

 

The simple 20 (or maybe even 6) TK-STR may be already enough.

 

Also, to hit multiple targets just use Multiple Attack. Multitargetting TK-shove is only used with really weak foes (the i.e. Trade Federation droids) and for them even 6 STR is enough (they most likely even have a lightweight template with negative KB resistance/Knockback Vulnerability).

And even Darth Maul/Obi Wan were only shoved a few meters (under 10m) each time it was used on them. Sound like only a little bit of TK STR goes a long way here, so you don't even need those limitations.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

"Force Telekinesis":

6 Telekinesis STR; 9 BP

ACV (OMCV vs DCV; +0); IPE (Sight, Full +1/2); 13 AP

Affects whole Object (-1/4), Alway Direct (-1/4); 9 RC

 

3 Shoove, bought for use with TK (as per 6E1 295)

 

So with only 12 Real cost you can do most Jedi TK things and Shoove your enemys around. Including the Fragile/Lightweight Trade Federation Battle Droids.

 

And if you want to shoove many targets regulary without Multiattack:

Naked Advantage for up to 6 TK-STR (9 BP):

AOE Cone 8m (+1/4); 16 AP

No Range (-1/2); 8 RC (with adavantage) - 9 RC(without advantage) = 1 RC (everything costs at least 1)

 

When you want to increase the range of the Multitarget Shove closer to the TK range (90 Meter at the 6 STR Level), you must use a longer cone (higher AOE advantage) respectively.

[dmjalund]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

you could have extra TK vs things without an EGO score

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

No. The +40 is only for Super games.

 

The simple 20 (or maybe even 6) TK-STR may be already enough.

 

Also, to hit multiple targets just use Multiple Attack. Multitargetting TK-shove is only used with really weak foes (the i.e. Trade Federation droids) and for them even 6 STR is enough (they most likely even have a lightweight template with negative KB resistance/Knockback Vulnerability).

 

Each of those multi-attacks requires you spend END separately, as well as roll separate, penalized rolls to hit.

 

A 6 STR Shove will shove the target back 1 meter unless he resists. As well, the only mention of a target falling down from a Shove is when they choose to do so to avoid being moved any further, so that's not the game effect I believe is desired. A Throw would be closer to the desired result, but that first requires a Grab that casual STR does not break. However, even a small STR difference gets pretty good distance.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Each of those multi-attacks requires you spend END separately' date=' as well as roll separate, penalized rolls to hit.[/quote']

That's why I wrote down a short cone AOE for TK?

 

And if Normal Throw and Shvoe do not work, we just use Martial Throw. For distance travelled TK Throw is considered a running throw (not a Standing, as I asumed in my first calculation), so even 20 STR throws the enemy 16m far.