An Energy Blast That Gets More Powerful With Distance

[Pariah]

Back in the 80s, Iron Man had an attack that grew more powerful the farther away the target was. To build this, I was thinking a base EB of 8d6 or so, plus 2d6 for every range modifier (10d6 after 8m, 12d6 after 16m, 14d6 after 32m, etc.). 

 

So:
8d6 EB
+2d6 EB, No END, only after 8m
+2d6 EB, No END, only after 16m
+2d6 EB, No END, only after 32m
+2d6 EB, No END, only after 64m
...and so on.

 

What limitations would be appropriate for the extra sets of 2d6? I was thinking -1/2, -1, -2, -3, etc. Is this appropriate? Or is there a better way to build it?

 

Thoughts?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think the best way to build this is a really powerful blast with a limitation (-1d6/xm distance) or whatever.  Maybe a ¼ or ½ depending on the sweet spot of the range

[Doc Democracy]

I like the conciseness of your approach Christopher but it delivers the opposite of the power described, your gives a blast that diminishes with range rather than one that grows more powerful.

 

I think the limitation depends on how you see the combat in the game going.  If the character can always give himself distance in a half move before firing, then his only disadvantage is that he is having to take a range modifier due to range.  If he cannot regularly get distance, then there is some disadvantage in it.  Will also make a difference on what average damage is in the campaign - at 10D6 no great disadvantage, at 14D6, a bit more. To a quick look, I think it is over generous.

[Killer Shrike]

This is just the inverse of Reduced By Range

 

Reduced By Proximity
Value: -1/2
This -1/2 Limitation represents a power that
gets stronger over a distance. The power does full
effect to targets at it's maximal Range category, and 

loses 2 Damage Classes (see 6E2 97) or dice of effect 

for each lesser Range category between the attacker

and  the target.

 

Example: Missilery has a Blast 12d6, Reduced By
Proximity missile launcher that launches missles that

have to first travel some distance to arm themselves,

and then pick up kinetic energy and become deadlier

as they travel. The missile launcher has a standard

range of 600m.

 

If an attack is made using it: 

at the 501-750m Range category the attack has 12 DC, 

at the 251-500m Range category the attack has 10 DC,

at the 126-250m Range category the attack has 8 DC,

and so on. At 16m or less, the attack has no DC.

[Hugh Neilson]

KS< I would say that is more limited than "reduced by range".  How often will the target be 500+ meters away?  With Reduced by Range, closing improves both my likelihood of hitting and my damage.  Here, it's a tradeoff.  The attack becomes useless within 125 meters - not exactly typical Hero battle range- which really highlights how limited this power would be.

 

To really highlight the issue, I would get an additional -1/4 limitation for "reduced maximum range", yet that would make this construct more powerful, not less powerful.

 

I'd use Pariah's approach, but assess the limitations for each added 2d6 based on how easy it will be for that character to get out to that range, and how much the reduced OCV is likely to impact him (maybe he has range skill levels or the power is LoS).

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I like the conciseness of your approach Christopher but it delivers the opposite of the power described, your gives a blast that diminishes with range rather than one that grows more powerful.

 

Perhaps I stated it too concisely.

 

Its -1d6 for each xm close to you.

For example, you buy a 15d6 blast, with this limitation

1-3m it does 5d6

4-6m it does 6d6

7-9m it does 7d6 

finally only at 33m it does full damage at 15d6.

 

Simple, concise, easy to use.  Instead of some complicated multi-stage build, a single limitation.

[Killer Shrike]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

KS< I would say that is more limited than "reduced by range". 

 

Well, I did set it as -1/2 vs -1/4...but the exact value of the Lim can obviously be adjusted...the mechanic is the main thing.

 

What value do you think would be more accurate? -3/4, -1? More?

 

Quote

How often will the target be 500+ meters away?  With Reduced by Range, closing improves both my likelihood of hitting and my damage.  Here, it's a tradeoff. 

 

Standard range depends on the base effect of the power...so the range will vary. The movement available to a character also varies; a half move + attack has to be taken into account in determining range banding.

 

Quote

The attack becomes useless within 125 meters - not exactly typical Hero battle range- which really highlights how limited this power would be.

 

Of diminished effect, obviously and agreed, but "useless" is a rather absolute term.

 

Quote

To really highlight the issue, I would get an additional -1/4 limitation for "reduced maximum range", yet that would make this construct more powerful, not less powerful.

 

I think it is understood that you generally don't combine the Range Limitations in that way...

 

Can you take No Range and any of the other Range Limitations? No.

Would you allow Range Based On Strength and Reduced By Range on the same power? I generally wouldn't
Would you allow Subject To Range Modifier to be combined with the other Range Limitations? I could maybe be convinced but generally, I wouldn't.

 

However either of two things seems apparent: either it would not be allowed, OR combining the two results in stepping the Limitation UP to a lesser Limitation.

 

Quote

I'd use Pariah's approach, but assess the limitations for each added 2d6 based on how easy it will be for that character to get out to that range, and how much the reduced OCV is likely to impact him (maybe he has range skill levels or the power is LoS).

 

I don't have a problem with the the limited +Xd6 approach (I was an innovator of that approach back in the day, for some problems). I just don't think it's entirely appropriate here. This is fundamentally a disadvantage to a normal / standard attack not a power up.

 

This is obviously not intended to be a character's main attack, but rather an attack specifically designed, intended, and purchased by a character for very long range combat.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

Of diminished effect, obviously and agreed, but "useless" is a rather absolute term.

 

I don't have a problem with the the limited +Xd6 approach (I was an innovator of that approach back in the day, for some problems). I just don't think it's entirely appropriate here. This is fundamentally a disadvantage to a normal / standard attack not a power up.

 

This is obviously not intended to be a character's main attack, but rather an attack specifically designed, intended, and purchased by a character for very long range combat.

 

Chunked up to put the bits I want to assess.  How the DCs of the attack compare to the campaign norm is key.  If it does 12d6 only at maximum range, and 12d6 is campaign standard damage, it will be largely useless.  IOW, if the character needs to be further away than combats allow in-game, or if he has to be so far away his OCV leaves a negligible chance of hitting, then the power is of limited use.

 

If it has campaign standard damage at typical campaign ranges, and goes up from there, it's advantageous.  Whether we get there with extra dice that have a limitation, or a larger base power with a limitation applied, it should still be more pricy than a campaign standard attack.

 

I think a power that only works at close range (-1/4 or -1/2) is less limited than a power which only works at extremely long ranges.

 

As I think on it, I think this is a powered-up attack.  As you note, it will not likely be the character's main attack.  If he is not far enough away to get the damage of  the character's standard attack, why bother using it at all?  Same range penalties and the same (or lower) damage. 

 

The power that loses damage as range increases seems "obviously" -1/4 since No Range would be -1/2.  This is limited, but not as limited as No Range.

 

If the game standard is 8d6, then using your mechanic, this power might as well start as 8d6, must be at least 125 meters away from target.  That seems more limited than -1/2.  It may be so unlikely as to not be worth buying (or maybe it only gets purchased as a multipower slot, but then its AP must be comparable to other slots).

 

Given the character would logically never use this attack if he is not far enough away to beat his standard attack's damage, does this not suggest additional, limited dice on that standard attack?

 

2 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

I think it is understood that you generally don't combine the Range Limitations in that way...

 

Can you take No Range and any of the other Range Limitations? No.

Would you allow Range Based On Strength and Reduced By Range on the same power? I generally wouldn't
Would you allow Subject To Range Modifier to be combined with the other Range Limitations? I could maybe be convinced but generally, I wouldn't.

 

However either of two things seems apparent: either it would not be allowed, OR combining the two results in stepping the Limitation UP to a lesser Limitation.

 

I was not thinking of this as a range limitation, where you clearly were.  Your examples are all abilities which fall somewhere between "has normal range" and "has less than normal range".  While the 12D6 Blast would have a normal range of 600m, how often is it ever fired to maximum range in a typical campaign? I cannot think of a single time when a power with the normal "multiple of AP" range has ever been limited by that maximum range.  Combats don't sprawl out that far, PER rolls aren't that good and/or the OCV penalty becomes prohibitive.  We did have a character at one time with 6 PSLs against range, who would try to stay at or about that range increment.  Typically, he had to make part of that distance "up" if he wanted to stay on the battlemat.

 

To assign a reasonable cost, I think we need details of the power itself, and how it stacks up to the campaign standards.  I don't recall Iron Man firing the PulseBlaster from 500m away, so I think the desired effect has to be worth using in "Supers Fight" proximity.  If the attack is purchased as "Xd6, reduced by proximity", I think we need to know how far away the character must be to make the attack useful.  Practically, if it will be useful in most combats, I am thinking it may end up -1/4.

 

It does feel like a build that works better in the comics than it would in a game, especially if it requires a distance outside typical combat parameters.

[Greywind]

5 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

At 16m or less, the attack has no DC.

 

 

Hammer tech?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

49 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The power that loses damage as range increases seems "obviously" -1/4 since No Range would be -1/2.  This is limited, but not as limited as No Range.

I contest this assertion.  A No Range power is useful in all fights which occur in "normal distance" provided the user has non-terrible movement abilities and/or enemies who favor melee.  A Long Range Only power is useful only in long range fights.  What's the relative frequency? 

[Hugh Neilson]

??  As I said, a power that loses damage as range increases seems obviously -1/4 as no range would be -1/2.  That power is less limited than a No Range power, but more limited than full range.

 

It will still be useful in most combats.  I think you and I agree that long range battles which would favour the "more damage at extreme ranges" are pretty rare, so that gaining damage as distance increases is significantly more limited.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Sorry, was skimming too fast, saw a "de" where you put an "in". 

[mallet]

How about working with the Explosion rules, but creating a "reverse" Explosion?

 

In a normal explosion you remove 1DC (basically 1 die) every 2m that target is away from the center/source of the attack, but in this case you would remove 1DC for every 2m the target is closer to the source of the attack (ie, the Character).

You would still need to figure out the "max range" of the power, so you know where it is strongest, then then work back from that. Also if I remember correctly there are additional rules/options for making the blast fade quicker or longer and other options. Again, keep the same point cost/advantage/disadvantage costs of an Explosion, just in this case "reverse" them for this specific power. 

 

For example:

 

Reverse Power Blast:  Blast 12d6, Area Of Effect (52m Line Explosion; This is a reverse Explosion effect. Target(s) at Max range takes full damage, then for every 4m closer to Character they take 1DC less damage; +1/4), Selective (+1/4) (90 Active Points); Limited Range (-1/4)

 

 

[Killer Shrike]

10 minutes ago, mallet said:

How about working with the Explosion rules, but creating a "reverse" Explosion?

 

In a normal explosion you remove 1DC (basically 1 die) every 2m that target is away from the center/source of the attack, but in this case you would remove 1DC for every 2m the target is closer to the source of the attack (ie, the Character).

You would still need to figure out the "max range" of the power, so you know where it is strongest, then then work back from that. Also if I remember correctly there are additional rules/options for making the blast fade quicker or longer and other options. Again, keep the same point cost/advantage/disadvantage costs of an Explosion, just in this case "reverse" them for this specific power. 

 

Ya, I actually looked at that actually, but to have an Explosion that degrades over the range mentioned in the OP (at least 128m), would be something like 64D6 and over several hundred Active Points. Even if using the prorated option to have more reasonable # of d6, the AP would still be high and the Lims necessary to return the effect to being a point target subject to the range modifier would erase the minimal benefit gained from AoE. So basically a non-starter.

[Killer Shrike]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Chunked up to put the bits I want to assess.  How the DCs of the attack compare to the campaign norm is key.  If it does 12d6 only at maximum range, and 12d6 is campaign standard damage, it will be largely useless.  IOW, if the character needs to be further away than combats allow in-game, or if he has to be so far away his OCV leaves a negligible chance of hitting, then the power is of limited use.

 

If it has campaign standard damage at typical campaign ranges, and goes up from there, it's advantageous.  Whether we get there with extra dice that have a limitation, or a larger base power with a limitation applied, it should still be more pricy than a campaign standard attack.

 

I think a power that only works at close range (-1/4 or -1/2) is less limited than a power which only works at extremely long ranges.

 

As I think on it, I think this is a powered-up attack.  As you note, it will not likely be the character's main attack.  If he is not far enough away to get the damage of  the character's standard attack, why bother using it at all?  Same range penalties and the same (or lower) damage. 

 

The power that loses damage as range increases seems "obviously" -1/4 since No Range would be -1/2.  This is limited, but not as limited as No Range.

 

If the game standard is 8d6, then using your mechanic, this power might as well start as 8d6, must be at least 125 meters away from target.  That seems more limited than -1/2.  It may be so unlikely as to not be worth buying (or maybe it only gets purchased as a multipower slot, but then its AP must be comparable to other slots).

 

Given the character would logically never use this attack if he is not far enough away to beat his standard attack's damage, does this not suggest additional, limited dice on that standard attack?

 

I was not thinking of this as a range limitation, where you clearly were.  Your examples are all abilities which fall somewhere between "has normal range" and "has less than normal range".  While the 12D6 Blast would have a normal range of 600m, how often is it ever fired to maximum range in a typical campaign? I cannot think of a single time when a power with the normal "multiple of AP" range has ever been limited by that maximum range.  Combats don't sprawl out that far, PER rolls aren't that good and/or the OCV penalty becomes prohibitive.  We did have a character at one time with 6 PSLs against range, who would try to stay at or about that range increment.  Typically, he had to make part of that distance "up" if he wanted to stay on the battlemat.

 

To assign a reasonable cost, I think we need details of the power itself, and how it stacks up to the campaign standards.  I don't recall Iron Man firing the PulseBlaster from 500m away, so I think the desired effect has to be worth using in "Supers Fight" proximity.  If the attack is purchased as "Xd6, reduced by proximity", I think we need to know how far away the character must be to make the attack useful.  Practically, if it will be useful in most combats, I am thinking it may end up -1/4.

 

It does feel like a build that works better in the comics than it would in a game, especially if it requires a distance outside typical combat parameters.

 

Ok. There's a couple of things in there I'd quibble about, but it would be hair splitting and its needless as I've come around to your main point. You've convinced me that pragmatically speaking this should be a powered up ability.

[clnicholsusa]

As a thought experiment, could it be built using Indirect and Reduced By Range?

12d6 energy blast, (Indirect - power has source point other than character but source point is the same for every use of the power (+1⁄4), Path of power is from source point to target (0), Source point is defined as a point 128m away from the user of the power on a line through the target of the power
Reduced By Range, does full damage between 120m and 128m, loses 2DC's bewteen 104m and 120m, loses 2DC's between 72m and 104m, loses 2DC's between 8m and 72m, loses 2DC's when the target is within the last 8m of the user, (-1⁄4)
Oddly enough, this would have the same cost as a vanilla energy blast.

[Killer Shrike]

The AP would be the issue due to indirect being an advantage; if it were a slot in an MP along with a vanilla energy blast, for instance.

 

As the Range Modifier of an Indirect attack includes both the distance from the character to the source point and from the source point to the target, it's also worse in that regard. However if the GM agreed to allow the Range Modifier to start from the point of origin and not include the distance from the character to the source point, then it would have some utility, being more accurate at long range than a vanilla blast. 

 

But it is a clever construct in a "use the rules creatively" sort of way.

[Hugh Neilson]

I like the approach, but I'm not sold on the costing result - a Blast requiring the target be 120 - 128 meters away to do 12d6 seems a lot less powerful/useful than one which does 12d6 to anyone within 128 meters.  The power in question also does not bypass obstacles between the user and the target, so the "advantage" of indirect isn't part of that power.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah I agree, its a limitation for a power to do less damage within its maximum range, not an advantage.  The only way an advantage works is if you build it as 12d6 then the advantage makes it do more after a certain range.

[Christopher]

On 2/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Pariah said:

What limitations would be appropriate for the extra sets of 2d6? I was thinking -1/2, -1, -2, -3, etc. Is this appropriate? Or is there a better way to build it?

 

On 2/24/2019 at 1:46 PM, Doc Democracy said:

I think the limitation depends on how you see the combat in the game going.  If the character can always give himself distance in a half move before firing, then his only disadvantage is that he is having to take a range modifier due to range.  If he cannot regularly get distance, then there is some disadvantage in it.  Will also make a difference on what average damage is in the campaign - at 10D6 no great disadvantage, at 14D6, a bit more. To a quick look, I think it is over generous.

I can only agree with that. The value of the limitation is highly subject to the gaming circumstances. You even have to include the option of a ally moving the enemy farther away (Knockback, Shove, Grab or Telekinesis).

 

This Character sounds like a Blaster. And it is always beneficial for a blaster to be away from his enemy. Especially if the enemy is a melee oponent.

There is the range Modifier, but that might already be accounted for with defensive bonus. And/or Offensive Penalty Skill Levels.

 

On 2/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Pariah said:

Thoughts?

Building it as a composite power is a acceptable way.

A "single power with limitation" approach has the advantage of clearly stating the total damage.

 

 

I do have a unique idea to add: Combat Maneuvers.

 

The "Haymaker" maneuver is defined as "taking extra time to do more damage".

Him flying away to deal more damage could be how he "takes extra time to do more damage" for this attack.

If you give the Character Ranged Martial Arts (HSMA 6E), this could be a maneuver with the "Half Move Required" Element added. I mean it is even allowed for Ranged Martial Arts, wich is something I did not expect.

Even the Velocity element might work (again allowed for ranged martial arts). Usually it is about running towards the enemy to get more force of impact (like throwing a spear from a run). But in this case it is about running away to do deal more damage. Of course consider what I said above about it being usually beneficial to be farther away.

[Steve]

On 2/24/2019 at 6:40 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

KS< I would say that is more limited than "reduced by range".  How often will the target be 500+ meters away?  With Reduced by Range, closing improves both my likelihood of hitting and my damage.  Here, it's a tradeoff.  The attack becomes useless within 125 meters - not exactly typical Hero battle range- which really highlights how limited this power would be.

 

To really highlight the issue, I would get an additional -1/4 limitation for "reduced maximum range", yet that would make this construct more powerful, not less powerful.

 

I'd use Pariah's approach, but assess the limitations for each added 2d6 based on how easy it will be for that character to get out to that range, and how much the reduced OCV is likely to impact him (maybe he has range skill levels or the power is LoS).

 

Perhaps the damage calculation could be approached by literally inverting the language of "reduced by range" instead? No damage at 8 meters, then adding 2 DC for each doubling of range? 2 DC at 9-16m, 4 DC at 17-32m, 6 DC at 33-64m, 8 DC at 65-128m, etc. Done this way, it seems to do what the OP is looking for. You'd need to be pretty far away from your target before you can do good damage, and the range modifiers to your OCV would be nasty by that point.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, Steve said:

 

Perhaps the damage calculation could be approached by literally inverting the language of "reduced by range" instead? No damage at 8 meters, then adding 2 DC for each doubling of range? 2 DC at 9-16m, 4 DC at 17-32m, 6 DC at 33-64m, 8 DC at 65-128m, etc. Done this way, it seems to do what the OP is looking for. You'd need to be pretty far away from your target before you can do good damage, and the range modifiers to your OCV would be nasty by that point.

 

This begs the limitation value question.  If it only does full damage at a huge range penalty, and doing any damage of significance markedly reduces the likelihood to hit, that seems a lot more limited than "in close range, you hit easier and do more damage".

 

Spitballing here, but what if the OCV penalties also reversed?  It's easier to target at long range, but the attack is "farsighted" and takes OCV penalties at short range.

[Steve]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

This begs the limitation value question.  If it only does full damage at a huge range penalty, and doing any damage of significance markedly reduces the likelihood to hit, that seems a lot more limited than "in close range, you hit easier and do more damage".

 

Spitballing here, but what if the OCV penalties also reversed?  It's easier to target at long range, but the attack is "farsighted" and takes OCV penalties at short range.

 

I suppose that could work, but it seems like the benefit of being able to stand off at long range cancels out the hindrance of inverting the range penalty. Range Penalty levels are pretty cheap for a single attack, especially if done through a Focus like Iron Man's armor.  

[Hugh Neilson]

If I have the PSLs to offset the range penalty, I could have stayed that far away whether or not the attack would only do full damage from that distance.  A normal Blast will do full damage up close, or from far away.  When I am a quarter km away, how hard is it for you to find some cover?

[Christopher]

On 3/5/2019 at 8:08 PM, Steve said:

 

I suppose that could work, but it seems like the benefit of being able to stand off at long range cancels out the hindrance of inverting the range penalty. Range Penalty levels are pretty cheap for a single attack, especially if done through a Focus like Iron Man's armor.  

In that case the existince of PSL on the same sheet increases the Advantage/Decreases the Limitation cost. Up to +2 or -0.