Stunned vs set to resist knockback

[DasBroot]

Interesting situation - a character was using their strength to resist knockback but an abnormally high damage roll saw them be stunned by the damage of the attack they were trying to resist.

 

I ruled that since knockback is calculated after damage the intended set action of using the strength to resist it failed and the character went skipping down the street (actually a beneficial result for the character in question, as opposed to being stunned at the feet of something that could clearly harm them).  Could a case be made to resisting the impact and then falling prone stunned instead?

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

I would say that if a character was stunned due to the damage, and had braced themselves to prevent knockback, I would say that they cannot maintain the resistance while stunned, so I think you made a good judgment call there. 

 

 

 

 

As Words Die We See That A Character Whose Stunned Skip Down A Street 

[IndianaJoe3]

I disagree. A Stunned's character's nonpersistant defenses stay up until the end of the segment, so it is perfectly reasonable that any bracing actions would still be effective.

[Hyper-Man]

I disagree. A Stunned's character's nonpersistant defenses stay up until the end of the segment, so it is perfectly reasonable that any bracing actions would still be effective.

 

Also, the character Resisting Knockback via STR (or Flight) will have already taken a penalty to DCV as a result of that action* that might have made the difference for them actually getting hit and taking the damage that Stunned them in the first place. 

 

I believe they should get the benefit of the Resisting Knockback attempt regardless of whether they are Stunned.  However, the rules state that IF they still take Knockback after all, THEN the effects of Resisting KB are ignored.

 

from 6e2 page 117,

Resisting Knockback

A character can use his STR or Flight (if he has it) to resist Knockback. In either case, he must declare in advance of an attack that he’s resisting Knockback. Doing so is a Half Phase Action and halves his DCV, regardless of how much STR or Flight the character uses (in other words, characters can’t use their Casual STR to brace against Knockback “for free”). A character may Abort to resist Knockback.

 

Any character can use his STR to prevent Knockback from a given direction (if he’s hit from an unexpected direction, he takes normal Knockback). This requires a reasonably stable ground surface for the character to “dig in.” Each 5 points of STR reduces the Knockback by 2m.

 

A character with Flight may declare that he’s using part of his Flight to root himself to a single spot (or to remain at a specific location in mid-air, if he’s already flying). For every 2m of Flight used to stabilize him, he takes -2m of Knockback. He must declare which direction he’s bracing against. If he’s hit from an unexpected direction, he takes normal Knockback.

 

If a character attempting to resist Knockback takes Knockback despite his efforts, he takes full Knockback, just as if he’d done nothing.

 

 

HM

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

It is more of judgement call than anything for me. I do believe that the keeping of  knockback defies dramatic sense. I mean if you tried to brace yourself to stop knockback and got shot by a tank round, you are going to go flying. 

 

 

 

As Words Die, We Define What Knockback Is

[Hugh Neilson]

I think if you tried to brace yourself to stop knockback and got shot by a tank round, you are going to go flying because the knockback exceeds any resistance the bracing provided. On a gut feel, I'm inclined to rule that the character was braced when he was hit, and he takes knockback and STUN simultaneously, so any reduction to knockback applies even if he is Stunned.

[Hyper-Man]

I think if you tried to brace yourself to stop knockback and got shot by a tank round, you are going to go flying because the knockback exceeds any resistance the bracing provided. On a gut feel, I'm inclined to rule that the character was braced when he was hit, and he takes knockback and STUN simultaneously, so any reduction to knockback applies even if he is Stunned.

 

The question was whether being Stunned by the attack then negates the Resisting Knockback.  This is only important if the effort to Resist Knockback would have resulted in a net ZERO amount of Knockback.  I think it is telling that RAW gives an alternative ruling for when the final result is a positive amount of KB but makes no mention about the character also being Stunned by the same attack.  That's a inference and not proof positive (only Steve Long can provide that) but still a pretty strong case.

 

HM

[Greywind]

I'd say, since KB is calculated after damage that the bracing failed.

[bigdamnhero]

Interesting question. Hero very deliberately makes Knockback independent from the other effects of damage: you can be sent flying from an attack that got zero Stun through, or knocked out by an attack that did zero KB. Being Stunned doesn't change any of the other factors that affect KB, tho granted most of those factors are passive rather than active. So by the book, I'd say being Stunned does not immediately cancel out the effects of Resisting. Visually, the character digs his feet in and leans into the punch to increase his stability, but doing so means he absorbs the full brunt of the blow, maybe gets spun around in place dazed, legs wobbling; but he already did the bracing & leaning part, so he still gets the benefit of it IMO.

 

(actually a beneficial result for the character in question, as opposed to being stunned at the feet of something that could clearly harm them).

RAW aside, if the player wanted to "waive" their resisting in the name of not getting stomped on, I'd probably allow it rather than penalize the player for [Good Decision + Bad Roll = Unintended Consequences]. Of course, then they'll have to take the full KB damage instead...

 

A Stunned's character's nonpersistant defenses stay up until the end of the segment, so it is perfectly reasonable that any bracing actions would still be effective.

That's a good way of looking at it. In fact, one of the example powers for Knockback Resistance is "Improved Bracing" with Requires a STR Roll [6e1 p242]; that's basically a hard-wired version of the effect we're talking about here. Even if you slapped on Nonpersistent, it would still last until the end of the Phase which means it still applies here.

 

I mean if you tried to brace yourself to stop knockback and got shot by a tank round, you are going to go flying. 

The question isn't whether or not you can resist knockback from a tank round; the question is whether or not your "bracing" against the shot stops before or after you take damage from it. While mechanically I think we all apply KB after we apply damage, I don't see anything in RAW that actually stipulates KB takes place after damage. Since the force that inflicts damage is the same force that imparts backward motion, I think you could argue the two things happen simultaneously.

 

But I agree it's a judgement call.

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

I mean i would think that if someone were to use a brace against knockback and then they got hit by an attack this is how I would establish it.

 

 

 

1: Determine if attack hit or not.

2: Roll Damage

3: Apply Defenses.

4: Determine if target if Stunned, Knocked Out, Killed, or none.

5: Determine Knockback

6: Apply Knockback Resistance

7: Apply Bracing against Knockback

 

 

So, if a target is Stunned on step 4, I would rule that the target cannot contain his bracing. It makes sense because if you look at any person getting hit by something and going backward, you see the impact lands, the affected person stands still for fractions of a second, then goes backwards. I will end on this:

 

If you are going for realism, apply knockback afterwards.

If you are going for dramatics, apply knockback beforewards or not at all.

 

 

 

As Words Die A Battle Emerges

[bigdamnhero]

JohnnyAppleseed098: Mechanically, I agree that's the order I would typically resolve it in. But I see that as an artificial abstraction of several things that really happen simultaneously, or at least nearly so.

 

I was thinking about this some more, and I can think of two ways that Resisting KB with STR is typically depicted in superhero comics/movies: The character sees the blow coming, so they clench up, widen their stance, lean into the punch, dig their toes into the concrete, etc before the punch lands. Or the character does all that stuff *after* the punch lands so they don't slide back as far. Either seems valid in genre, sfx permitting. But given that Resisting has to be declared ahead of time, reduces DCV, etc, the former description seems to more closely match the mechanics. So it seems to me those actions would remain in effect for an instant or so after being hit, basically before the brain has time to know it's been stunned.

 

Either way, if the character paid the cost for it (1/2 DCV, etc), they should get the benefit IMO. But I doubt I'd lose too much sleep over it if my GM ruled differently.

[womble]

I think the bracing against knockback should remain in effect: it's only "Stunned" (1/2 DCV). The victim of the clonk won't fall down, or even necessarily drop what they're holding and is still able to defend themselves somewhat. I'd say of they were KOed they go limp fast enough that their bracing becomes ineffective. Many a collision sport player has made a tackle which left them dazed...

[bigbywolfe]

Being hit is what produces Knockback.  They were already Braced when they took the hit.  The fact that the hit Stunned them does not change the fact that they were Braced when struck.

[DasBroot]

Persuasive arguments for the bracing standing - it does make sense as a pseudo constant power.

 

Had the character been imperiled by the result (knocked into a vat of acid, off a cliff, etc) I would have ruled the other way for sure.

[TheDarkness]

Being hit is what produces Knockback.  They were already Braced when they took the hit.  The fact that the hit Stunned them does not change the fact that they were Braced when struck.

I agree with this. It just has the best feel for me. That said, I'd have to examine what balance issues come up in implementing it, but it just feels right.

[TheDarkness]

I agree with this. It just has the best feel for me. That said, I'd have to examine what balance issues come up in implementing it, but it just feels right.

My without thinking about it much, I'll just make up a rule on the fly thought might be that, if stunned, the brace still works, with the caveat that the knockback can be reduced, but never to zero. Which could likely end up with a knockdown, which still leaves the character in a predicament, and also feels right to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

My without thinking about it much, I'll just make up a rule on the fly thought might be that, if stunned, the brace still works, with the caveat that the knockback can be reduced, but never to zero. Which could likely end up with a knockdown, which still leaves the character in a predicament, and also feels right to me.

Why? The penalty for being Stunned is that you are Stunned - you lose DCV, you must spend your next action recovering from being Stunned, your non-persistent powers may shut down shortly thereafter. Being knocked down/back is a separate mechanic, so why should it change if you are Stunned?

 

I also note that being at 0 to -9 STUN does not (read the rules - this surprises a lot of people, so I will repeat) DOES NOT cause the character to fall over.

 

Often, when a target is hit and falls over without moving back, the assumption is that the target has been KO'd (and, if the RAW are being applied, is at -10 or less). So may as well target someone else for now. That actually works to the Stunned target's advantage, permitting him to recover from being Stunned before someone takes advantage of his reduced DCV.

[massey]

I don't think knockback is calculated after you determine damage.  Now in practice, most people probably do figure knockback later.  But I don't think the rules apply it after damage.  The reason I say this is because of Move-Throughs.  You determine how much damage the attacker takes after you see if they knocked the target back.

[bigdamnhero]

The reason I say this is because of Move-Throughs. You determine how much damage the attacker takes after you see if they knocked the target back.

Great point!

[Hyper-Man]

I don't think knockback is calculated after you determine damage.  Now in practice, most people probably do figure knockback later.  But I don't think the rules apply it after damage.  The reason I say this is because of Move-Throughs.  You determine how much damage the attacker takes after you see if they knocked the target back.

 

 

Great point!

 

Yep.  

We ALL apparently forgot that a Move Through that does ZERO Knockback to the Target also does FULL damage to the Attacker!

[Surrealone]

 

Being hit is what produces Knockback.  They were already Braced when they took the hit.  The fact that the hit Stunned them does not change the fact that they were Braced when struck.

 

Spot-on.

 

 

I don't think knockback is calculated after you determine damage.  Now in practice, most people probably do figure knockback later.  But I don't think the rules apply it after damage.  The reason I say this is because of Move-Throughs.  You determine how much damage the attacker takes after you see if they knocked the target back.

 

Also spot-on.