Defensive Auras

[naloth]

Making a perception check to follow a Shuriken (smart or not) is CANON. What would you suggest, aside from handwaving, to impartially decide upon the speed a shuriken was thrown at to know what penalties to apply per the Speed/Range table?

Quote what you're referring to from rules and we can discuss. This seems rather specific, and I'm not aware that anyone can judge projectiles that accurately. That's why we have tools rather than letting people judge how fast baseballs are thrown (and that's a fixed path in a non-combat setting).

Escort is the ability of others to follow. If I don't put it on, then I could shoot myself and Jump to the world later on and retrieve the knife for my own use.

Not much of a drawback on an attack that would need to burn off half your health... or rather, if you're willing to lose half your health, why do you care about finding knives?

Valid point. I guess I need another 40 point advantage to avoid recalculating stuff. Insubstantiality (No Vertical Move -10% Usually On -40%) [40]. Any questions?

Again, useless limitations aren't valid. Usually on for something that you *want* to force to on? Are you expecting your targets to do a lot of moving, vertically or otherwise?

Which begs the question: ignoring Auras, if I had a C-range Innate Attack and I wielded it in my toes, would I also get the +1 to reach? What if I had long arms? Are these all merely a baseline increasable with bonuses?

A high SM has other compensating disadvantages. In fact, you can find plenty of threads where high SM is considered a disad and negative SM an advantage.

It is very easy to distinguish the discussion of duration and its relation to the duration modifier. Everything else is distinctly about the other modifiers.

Really, I read and quoted that everything was about "Auras of Power" as applied to Afflictions. Where do you see that it's legal to apply *anything* there to another ability as in pieces or as a whole? Are you applying the "I can grab a few words I like from anywhere" standard again?

Damage is calculated based on ST/thrust if you are thrown at an object, and calculated based on height/velocity if you are falling on an object.

And are those rules found on different pages to cover different situations?

"could have gotten there “the hard way,” given sufficient time." soudns good for limiting abilities which normally don't care about intervening barriers. Innate Attack isn't one w/o Malediction.

To what do you refer? IA is affected by cover DR, but your aura wouldn't be that... In fact, you made a point to say that many types of IAs couldn't be affected based solely on the description, which is part of the game world impact rather than the rules of IA.

It is how it works with normal Aura for targets behind you. Weapons are damaged when they touch you (this happens 1st) and weapons damage people behind you (this happens 2nd).

That like your area is what you believe should happen. Can you can point over penetration rules that disagree? Aura seems to happen after the attack is resolved, rather than during.

The range I can move per second is definitely intended to counter knockback, because if I'm hit by an Obstruct defense and knocked back when I've only moved half the distance I'm capable of, my momentum doesn't cease and I can continue applying the remaining half of that distance.

Bullets don't have a move value and PCs don't have a "range" value, a 1/2 damage value, nor do they "overpenetrate." Other similarities may be more of a coincidence rather than intention. Hard to say, since you're still essentially back on how things may happen in a given setting.

In a cinematic non-realistic game sure you can just ignore stuff like travel time, I'm talking about when you acknowledge it exists.

Sure, in many settings it may be important... By default, it's not considered for normal combat, which is assumed to be within ranges where it wouldn't matter for the length of a turn. It's not written into how Innate Attacks work. Indeed, you would have to worry about the speed of your aura otherwise rather than treating it as a field effect.

[Plane]

Perhaps that was a coincidence? It also excluded anything that could be another advantage, which seems to include *shocking gasp* Innate Attack.

Innate Attack, like Affliction (Coma +250%) and Affliction (Heart Attack +300%) has no intrinsic duration. This isn't a coincidence, you can't take any form of a "Reduced Duration" limitation on these.

Please provide.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=331833

You can't point to it in *any* rules

P114

I've pointed out time and time again that the only way this *ever* comes into play is with the series of things you must first implement in how *your* setting works. It doesn't apply if those same assumptions aren't made for another setting.

I don't understand all this setting stuff. You can decide if you want to assign cost differences to physical projectiles and energy projectiles, based on the countermeasures which exist for them in your game.

I've pointed out that's below the threshold for even a nuisance, probably even below a quirk. I've been through a metal detector that went off and after wanding over my jaw they just asked if I had dental work rather than make an issue of it.

You wouldn't want to be Magneto's prison guard though.

Again, that's not part of IA by default.

Neither is Gadget. What are you getting at?

Again, so what? Obviously a few hundred points of defense aren't balanced by something that doesn't even qualify to the value of a quirk.

Competetiveness relies on the "all I need is 1 yard" approach, which could send a bullet hitting an ally/innocent, something you wouldn't have to worry about with DR. They aren't the same thing.

Sure, when you attack enemies directly on your turn.

Wrong, Knockback doesn't require anything about direct attacks or your turn. It can happen indirectly from explosions/misses or from Aggressive Parry, for example. It can also happen from things like your ability operating on its own, like for example Telekinesis w/ Independent.

if they do, does it reduce the damage you take?

If they burn up completely before they get to you, they won't damage you at all. If the fire damages their spears to the point of being merely batons, they will do less damage.

It's back to the "why is a rigid and permeable wall the same cost since you seem to give every benefit the rigid has for stopping to a permeable wall and more"

I don't understand this analogy, knockback is not a wall, if you can move further in 1 second than a Permeable Crushing Wall can knock you back, you can walk right through it.

You can take Determined with Ranged as well.

For a mere +1, sure.

IIRC, you can even put your gun on someone then pull the trigger such that you can't miss just like a single melee attack for the +4 "touch", and if they don't defend against that you don't can't miss.

Tactical Shooting 25, "Close Contact Shots", the +4 is actually for being in C range (or C,1 for non-pistols) and you can get another +4 for actual touching (essentially Telegraphic Attack).

So I suppose Melee -30% is on par with pistols, -20% (C,1) is on par with rifles, -25% (1) is inferior to rifles but the following have no match in ranged attacks: -25% (2), -20% (1,2), -20% (2,3), -15% (1-4)

One other interesting difference, if you're proposing we acknowledge TS rules, is pg 26's "Guns as Melee Weapons" with pistol-whipping and the like. There's no "pistol whip" for having Piercing Attack. At best you might argue that any advantage defined as a handheld gadget could operate as a fist load.

That is not applicable for anything else. It's an alternative to TK for someone that invested in ST.

Could you explain where it says you can't use Force Extensions as your Touch (like Stretching normally offers) in circumstances other than hitting/lifting?

there's actually a section that talks about specifics like that.

Where does it talk about resolving damage to your fist/weapon prior to resolving additional attacks with it in the same maneuver?

Stolen gives sample values much like rarity categories. As such, those are example you can pull from. If it can be stolen via other means (disarm), the GM adjudicates the value.

Any in-book examples of that in practice? Would like to record for later use.

In any case, you first need to touch it (via some means) then you need to either slip it off (DX, "bracelet") or yank it out (ST, "wand"). Since disarm replaces the normal grab and yank with ST for relieving an enemy of a weapon (like a wand), it seem very fitting to sub it in. Perhaps you can consider it a house rule since it's not explicit. Either way, the lack of an example value doesn't prove that one cannot be assigned.

You could apply this line of thinking to the objections you've been making to others' ideas :)

Or in the Marvel universe it could be Uru.... or adamantium... or unobtanium.... or anything else that floats your boat. The rules do not limit you that way.

Sure! GM could set "indestructible un-knockable projectiles" as a default assumption and decide to apply limitations to those which are destructible or knockable. Or vice versa, have destructible/knockable projectiles as default and design enhancements to those immune to that. Or he could treat them as equal.

the Flash can perceive the launch of a bullet and declare a wait for seeing it leave the barrel. Most people can't, and as such will need to use actions they can perceive.

Anyone can, but Flash probably has something like Altered Time Rate 10 [1000] which would help with perceiving things. I can think of 3 ways to do that, I'm not sure which is the correct one:
1) roll once, get a +3 bonus for 8x "Time Spent" (B346)
2) roll once, divide speed by 10 on the speed/range table (B550) to get a lower penalty
3) roll every turn, but since the bullet gets closer each decisecond, there's a lower "range" penalty on the speed/range table

There's no hard line, people with better perception of time just have better rolls, either due to higher bonuses or lower penalties.

If he waits until the arrow is released, it's too late.

Feel free to show where "Wait" descriptions actually say that? "a particular event you specified in advance" doesn't need to be "a foe moves into range", it could be "an arrow moves into range". There's no logical reason you could "Wait: Fireball the 500mph fairy when it gets within 2 yards" but not Wait: Fireball the 400mph arrow when it gets within 2 yards".

Quote what you're referring to from rules and we can discuss. This seems rather specific, and I'm not aware that anyone can judge projectiles that accurately. That's why we have tools rather than letting people judge how fast baseballs are thrown (and that's a fixed path in a non-combat setting).

B550 "the GM can also use it for Sense rolls" Tell me the sum of SM penalty and the Speed/Range penalty of a fastball pitch, and I'll tell you why we need technology to supplement human senses.

Not much of a drawback on an attack that would need to burn off half your health... or rather, if you're willing to lose half your health, why do you care about finding knives?

I forgot "No Wounding", that makes it even cheaper!

useless limitations aren't valid. Usually on for something that you *want* to force to on? Are you expecting your targets to do a lot of moving, vertically or otherwise?

You're only looking at one application of the attack, this could also be used to turn things insubstantial that you might want the option of resubstantiating. You normally couldn't do that without healing the lost HP (or imaginary HP in the case of No Wounding + Symptoms).

I read and quoted that everything was about "Auras of Power" as applied to Afflictions. Where do you see that it's legal to apply *anything* there to another ability as in pieces or as a whole?

AOP in 2010/2012 illustrated the 2006pm/2009faq idea for IAs for another attack-type advantage.

are those rules found on different pages to cover different situations?

They're different ways of determining the dice depending upon whether the causing force is "x points of ST" vs "x level of gravity acting over y distance". The end result is still a damage which would be a product of mass x velocity of impact, so if you want to interact with rules designed for one half, you can approximate unknown variables using the other.

That like your area is what you believe should happen. Can you can point over penetration rules that disagree? Aura seems to happen after the attack is resolved, rather than during.

Auras happen when TOUCH happens, not "after the attack is resolved".

Bullets don't have a move value

Moving things have velocities, which are enough to work with if you need to know changing locations in tactical combat.

PCs don't have a "range" value, a 1/2 damage value, nor do they "overpenetrate."

Just because Overpenetration was introduced under 'Special Ranged Combat Rules' doesn't mean it's limited to ranged combat anymore. B484's "Damage to Shields" ("A powerful blow may punch through your shield! The shield acts as cover, with “cover DR” equal to its DR + (HP/4). Damage in excess of cover DR penetrates the shield and possibly injures you; see Overpenetration (p. 408).") is referenced in MA112 "Striking at Shields" which is part of the "Melee Attack Options" section, the "Ranged Combat Options" section doesn't start until 119. Meaning if you have an Impaling attack (for example, Talons) or an Impaling melee weapon (like a spear) you could overpenetrate a shield and hit the person behind it.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

Innate Attack, like Affliction (Coma +250%) and Affliction (Heart Attack +300%) has no intrinsic duration. This isn't a coincidence, you can't take any form of a "Reduced Duration" limitation on these.

Innate Attack, much like Telescopic Vision, isn't an Affliction. That's not a coincidence either.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=331833

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement. It was simply the simplest solution for making an attack that pulsed every turn autonomously with a disclaimer about being non-canon.

P114

B11, P39, P117.

I don't understand all this setting stuff. You can decide if you want to assign cost differences to physical projectiles and energy projectiles, based on the countermeasures which exist for them in your game.

Yes, *you* can for your game. The general case is that there's no difference. If you come up with a setting where you're implementing differences, you should weigh what you're introducing. GURPS is that way because it's designed to be setting neutral i.e. with assumptions that you can generalize for Supers, ultra-realistic, or Toon as you want it to be.

Neither is Gadget. What are you getting at?

You brought up gadgets... I just mentioned that firing a weapon was akin to *using* an innate attack. They use the same resolution rules, which doesn't factor in damage that the projectile might sustain.

Competetiveness relies on the "all I need is 1 yard" approach, which could send a bullet hitting an ally/innocent, something you wouldn't have to worry about with DR. They aren't the same thing.

No, that's just one example of how broken this is.

Wrong, Knockback doesn't require anything about direct attacks or your turn. It can happen indirectly from explosions/misses or from Aggressive Parry, for example. It can also happen from things like your ability operating on its own, like for example Telekinesis w/ Independent.

An explosion is an attack. An aggressive parry has explicit rules. TK may attack, in which case it's just an attack happening in normal attack order.

If they burn up completely before they get to you, they won't damage you at all. If the fire damages their spears to the point of being merely batons, they will do less damage.

You're still hunting for easter eggs. That may be an option for a given setting, but it's not part of the Basic or Powers ruleset for realism.

I don't understand this analogy, knockback is not a wall, if you can move further in 1 second than a Permeable Crushing Wall can knock you back, you can walk right through it.

That you are suggesting everyone treat Permeable as "damage plus blocking" but Rigid as only "blocking" ? It's not an analogy, it's a consequence of allowing damage attack to do blocking as well as damage.

<snip discovery that melee is inferior to ranged like mentioned before>
One other interesting difference, if you're proposing we acknowledge TS rules, is pg 26's "Guns as Melee Weapons" with pistol-whipping and the like. There's no "pistol whip" for having Piercing Attack. At best you might argue that any advantage defined as a handheld gadget could operate as a fist load.

... which is at best a perk (Striking Surface).

Could you explain where it says you can't use Force Extensions as your Touch (like Stretching normally offers) in circumstances other than hitting/lifting?

Which other circumstances did you have in mind?

Where does it talk about resolving damage to your fist/weapon prior to resolving additional attacks with it in the same maneuver?

B379 says that you take 1 point of damage when per 5 you inflict when striking bare handed against hard DR3+. I'd apply a similar damage to a weapon as it hits someone with an aura, since that is worded similarly. To be clear, after I resolved the damage for the first attack I'd resolve damage against the fist/weapon before moving onwards. In terms of overpenetration, you only care about the damage value and cover DR, you don't roll again to hit, you don't roll for damage again. You subtract cover DR from the initial damage quantity to figure out how much hits the target behind (and potentially again and again, if it can continue penetrating and hitting new targets). All of that would be done with the initial damage roll which is before the weapon could be destroyed.

Any in-book examples of that in practice? Would like to record for later use.

Gadget rules are rather underused, but you can see in Supers where they discuss shields they don't even bother to say ST/DX. If it can be stolen by a contest, it's -30%.

You could apply this line of thinking to the objections you've been making to others' ideas :)

I've already mentioned that I'm happy to discuss house rules and share those that I've had good luck with.

Sure! GM could set "indestructible un-knockable projectiles" as a default assumption and decide to apply limitations to those which are destructible or knockable. Or vice versa, have destructible/knockable projectiles as default and design enhancements to those immune to that. Or he could treat them as equal.

Yea, but the book default is the prior not the latter. Changing it to the latter and the implications of that decision is what this thread has become about.

Anyone can, but Flash probably has something like Altered Time Rate 10 [1000] which would help with perceiving things.

ETS. No quantity of ATR is mentioned as providing that benefit. That would be a GM gifting ETS as a bonus for enough ATR, as if ATR isn't advantage enough.

I can think of 3 ways to do that, I'm not sure which is the correct one:

None of the above.

Wait: Fireball the 400mph arrow when it gets within 2 yards".

Sure there is. Unless you've purchased powers to identify precise speed and distance, you wouldn't realize when that happened.

B550 "the GM can also use it for Sense rolls" Tell me the sum of SM penalty and the Speed/Range penalty of a fastball pitch, and I'll tell you why we need technology to supplement human senses.

What difference does it make? If you can't do it, you can't decide fast enough for your aura to selectively block it. You're back to lacking a criteria of what it will or will not effect.

I forgot "No Wounding", that makes it even cheaper!

Hard to get below 2/3rd HP when you can't reduce HP.

You're only looking at one application of the attack, this could also be used to turn things insubstantial that you might want the option of resubstantiating. You normally couldn't do that without healing the lost HP (or imaginary HP in the case of No Wounding + Symptoms).

No, I'm looking at the concept which was "create an aura that will protect against enemy attacks." How do those limitations further reduce its effectiveness in doing that?

Auras happen when TOUCH happens, not "after the attack is resolved".

How do you think the touch happens? Prior to declaration or after you've actually made your attack?

Just because Overpenetration was introduced under 'Special Ranged Combat Rules' doesn't mean it's limited to ranged combat anymore.

Sure, so? It doesn't say anything about figuring out if the shield damaged the weapon or projectile. You only worry about the cover DR the shield is providing. If anything, that's further proof that once you make the attack roll, hit (not actively defended), you roll damage and finish that out before worrying about what happened to the weapon/projectile.

As side amusement, this pretty well sums up what I've been trying to explain.

[Plane]

Innate Attack, much like Telescopic Vision, isn't an Affliction. That's not a coincidence either.

It's also no coincidence that Telescopic vision isn't grouped together with A/B/IAs as "attack" advantages that can use pistol-icon modifiers.

a disclaimer about being non-canon.

Wrong, "might not be" != "is not". It inherently includes "might be", which was affirmed in 2010/2012.

B11, P39, P117.

Powers trumps basic. By P39 I assume you're referring to P37 when viewed in a PDF which counts the cover as the first 2 pages. "Paying the Price" says "determine whether" and is merely suggestions.

As for P117, assuming this refers to P115, I see "select the advantages and modifiers whose built-in mechanics and special effects most closely fit that explanation" which supports avoiding the use of DR in this context. DR can be ablated by stuff like "Water Blade" (P140) which doesn't match the concept of "I project a wall of wind that pushes away stuff". DR is "materials" even when it's a Force Field, it doesn't represent the idea of a field that's pushing stuff away.

Water should have an effective HP for pushing it away, whether it's defined as Corrosive Attack like Water Blade, or a Crushing Attack like Water Blast / Water Cannon. I think you could treat these as a large collective body.

This is why, for example, you can't "knockback the ocean". Even if the effect of your attack moves some of it around, the rest of the ocean just fills in the space you cleared.

The general case is that there's no difference.

Yet you argue there IS a difference.

If you come up with a setting where you're implementing differences, you should weigh what you're introducing.

Powers not assigning a difference in VALUE doesn't mean there's no actual difference in implementation. -20/+20 and -30/+30 have the same value, but have differences. Heck, -1/+1 and -1/+1 can also be different from one another, if those mirrored values represent different criteria.

I just mentioned that firing a weapon was akin to *using* an innate attack. They use the same resolution rules, which doesn't factor in damage that the projectile might sustain.

high dmg = high HP = high cover DR = no overpenetrate

Think an iceball through fire wall remains crushing no matter what? Boiling away b4 hitting other targets impossible? Rules flexible in P114 to deal with absurdity.

If you don't want to deal with the massive crunch of deciding how much your ice ball should weigh, and how much HP and DR it should have, and how much injury it can sustain before "dying" (which is canonically, how you SHOULD deal with objects) then I'd suggest a house-rule simplification of rolling the wall's damage and subtracting it from the ice ball's damage, as if an automatically successful power parry.

No, that's just one example of how broken this is.

What's broken about it? Knock-left/Knock-right/Knock-up isn't a viable alternative to DR, I've proven it: you endanger pedestrians with that kind of defense.

This is why, for example, Superman stands still and lets a bullet flatten against his eyeball. He's Flash-esque enough he could probably swat bullets aside easily, but then it would go past him and hit something else. That's why, if he was going to swat them, he's use a 'Grabbing Parry' to make sure he could stop them from doing that. This is something which a Crushing Attack aura simply can't do, so it is INFERIOR.

Clearly, powers which allow heroic "protect the innocents" countermeasures is very valuable, enough to make up for villains who can redirect pebbles randomly at bystanders.

That may be an option for a given setting, but it's not part of the Basic or Powers ruleset for realism.

Show me where it says that if you toss your spear through the Body of Fire that it won't become an inferior baton by the time it hits the next guy.

That you are suggesting everyone treat Permeable as "damage plus blocking" but Rigid as only "blocking"?

No, Permeable's damage never "blocks". Destroying things as they move THROUGH you isn't actually blocking them.

Now I'm wondering if we can pull in the 1/5 interior advantages from Bio-Tech to the discussion...

Striking Surface

Okay, so where's your example of guns defined as innate attacks paying for this?

B379 says that you take 1 point of damage when per 5 you inflict when striking bare handed against hard DR3+. I'd apply a similar damage to a weapon as it hits someone with an aura, since that is worded similarly.

You mean that some guy with Striking ST 50 is going to take more damage from a 1d6 aura than someone with Striking ST 10?

In terms of overpenetration, you only care about the damage value and cover DR, you don't roll again to hit

Actually you OFTEN do. Unless a target is DIRECTLY behind the first (automatic hit), you use either Hitting the Wrong Target (B389 your attack roll against each possible target is the same: a flat 9 or the number you would have had to roll to hit him on purpose, whichever is worse.) or Occupant Hit Table (B555 roll 3d against the resulting number;)

I don't believe I said anything about rerolling the damage. Although if you rolled a critical hit against the first target, I imagine that damage-maxing or damage-multiplying resulting from that would only apply to him and not subsequent ones behind him who were not critically hit.

you can see in Supers where they discuss shields they don't even bother to say ST/DX. If it can be stolen by a contest, it's -30%.

S37 says "Can Be Stolen, Quick Contest of ST", where are you referring to?

the book default is the prior not the latter. Changing it to the latter and the implications of that decision is what this thread has become about.

Not at all, I'm fine with defaulting to prior. Just define your physical projectiles with a note where applicable, whether you call that +1, 0 or -1.

No quantity of ATR is mentioned as providing that benefit.

Sure it does. B38 "you experience two subjective seconds for each real second that passes". That will affect relative speeds (what approaches at 100y/s to a normal person, approaches at 100y/2s for you, or 50y/s) and relative time spent (you can spend 2 seconds on a skill in the time it takes someone to spend 1 second on it) or give 2 rolls in a second where a GM would normally only give someone 1 roll in that second. It's not just about the extra maneuver!

Unless you've purchased powers to identify precise speed and distance, you wouldn't realize when that happened.

Not realizing it happened is a failed perception check. Anyone can try to make a perception check as long as penalties don't reduce their effective skill below 3. Bullets are generally small and fast enough to cause that to happen to most people. Some IQ 20 wizard with a perception of 30 might manage it without any special advantages though. B52's ETS is an asset because "You never suffer skill penalties for being mentally “rushed”" means you can think of something in 1/10 the time (B346 cap) without taking a -9 to skill.

The issue is moreso we don't have a baseline time it takes to make a perception check. If it's 1 second then ETS would let you make a perception check at something after it being within your field of visiion for 0.1 seconds at no penalty, whereas someone without ETS would be at a -9 penalty to perception.

If a projectile takes less than 1/10 the time to get to you than whatever the baseline perception time would be, even ETS couldn't detect it, except in cinematic games where "instant" stuff can be done for -10 which ETS would ignore.

What difference does it make? If you can't do it, you can't decide fast enough for your aura to selectively block it. You're back to lacking a criteria of what it will or will not effect.

Or selective exclude it, if your default is everything. There might also be a means to program advance criteria than 'everything by default' or 'nothing by default'. Including "Accessibility" for targets.

Hard to get below 2/3rd HP when you can't reduce HP.

See http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=25838

I'm looking at the concept which was "create an aura that will protect against enemy attacks." How do those limitations further reduce its effectiveness in doing that?

Trait pricing is based on all applications, not your primary intent.

How do you think the touch happens? Prior to declaration or after you've actually made your attack?

False dichotomy. Making an attack roll does not mean an attack arrives immediately. Longbows can fire so long that it can take several seconds for arrows to arrive on target.

It doesn't say anything about figuring out if the shield damaged the weapon or projectile.

That sounds like a nuisance roll. Why bother rolling damage for collision if you know the weapon has enough DR to absorb it no matter the outcome?

you roll damage and finish that out before worrying about what happened to the weapon/projectile

At best this might encapsulate the "directly behind" overpenetration situation of auto-hit. In other cases (HTWTb389/OHTb555) by your rational of separate attack rolls being separate events, you should be resolving the damage to the weapon before making those subsequent rolls.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

As for P117, assuming this refers to P115, I see "select the advantages and modifiers whose built-in mechanics and special effects most closely fit that explanation" which supports avoiding the use of DR in this context. DR can be ablated by stuff like "Water Blade" (P140) which doesn't match the concept of "I project a wall of wind that pushes away stuff". DR is "materials" even when it's a Force Field, it doesn't represent the idea of a field that's pushing stuff away.

What benefit are you trying to derive from "pushing" stuff away, if not protection?

Yet you argue there IS a difference.

The problem is that you've tried to mix and match a half dozen sections of the rules to provide a benefit (stuff bounces away from me) as a free side effect (which only is only free if would be a negligible point cost or was counter balanced in a meaningful way). I've pointed out why that's a terrible precedent, why it's not a negligible effect, and why you can't point to any of the components in either Powers or Basic to support your claim.

It comes back to this: your user defined benefit is *entirely* and *solely* as good as the GM decides to design the game world around your preconceived notions. You can't expect it to defend any particular attack (air, wind, bullets, fire, lasers, Thor's hammer) because you didn't buy *any* advantages that provide any defined defense value.

Knocking back attacks and incinerating weapons might make for a good explanation for a potential power, but if you want to claim an actual defense, you have to base it on an ability that provides a quantifiable reduction in the amount of damage you would take. IA simply does not, nor has anything you've added to your IA.

What's broken about it? Knock-left/Knock-right/Knock-up isn't a viable alternative to DR, I've proven it: you endanger pedestrians with that kind of defense.

Why do you think that endangers civilians any more than missing with an IA, dodging, or bouncing bullets off your body? It's not worth even a nuisance value limitation.

Show me where it says that if you toss your spear through the Body of Fire that it won't become an inferior baton by the time it hits the next guy.

Ok, I target BoF guy with a spear that hits and does 15 impaling damage. If BoF guy has 10HP and no DR, BoF guy provides 10 cover DR (his HP value) for the next guy, so 5 impaling damage hits the next person. What hits guy 2 is the remaining damage after the first guy's hit. You don't assess the spear, re-roll anything, or alter the damage type regardless of what happens to the spear. I'm not sure even what you're suggesting doing to that calculation or what you would insert as a house rule to alter if you're concerned about secondary targets.

No, Permeable's damage never "blocks". Destroying things as they move THROUGH you isn't actually blocking them.

You can't even quantify how much protection you're providing, so it might be providing a better barrier for cheaper. If they are priced the same, they should have different but similar utility, not one that does everything the other does and more.

You mean that some guy with Striking ST 50 is going to take more damage from a 1d6 aura than someone with Striking ST 10?

That doesn't relate to anything I said. If Striking ST 50 punches hard DR3+, he better have enough personal DR to absorb the 1/5 damage the DR will return. ST 50 does more damage than ST10, so buy more DR. Auras don't have anything to do with that.

snipping unrelated tangent on hitting other targets that doesn't pertain to overpenetration at all....

S37 says "Can Be Stolen, Quick Contest of ST", where are you referring to?

Shield writeup, where DB is used. Note that the -30% only says "Can be Stolen -30%" means not listed or important. The level was chosen to be logical for how you would steal that type of item.

Not at all, I'm fine with defaulting to prior. Just define your physical projectiles with a note where applicable, whether you call that +1, 0 or -1.

Ok, so in your world assign an Acc level for this freebie defense.

Sure it does.

At no level does ATR provide ETS or negate the rules for what you cannot do with bullets.

Not realizing it happened is a failed perception check. Anyone can try to make a perception check as long as penalties don't reduce their effective skill below 3.

No, you can make any perception check the GM allows you to attempt. GURPS says humans without ETS can't detect bullets.

Or selective exclude it, if your default is everything. There might also be a means to program advance criteria than 'everything by default' or 'nothing by default'. Including "Accessibility" for targets.

Free actions happen on your turn. You wouldn't have time to exclude on an opponent's turn.

See http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=25838

You realize that's a thread with disagreement from before Rev was even a line editor. It's certainly not an official permission and there are problems with the "healing" as pointed out.

Trait pricing is based on all applications, not your primary intent.

That's how abilities in the book are priced. What you take for a given ability is based on a *concept* being translated in book terms. You threw in a bunch of modifiers that didn't have anything to do with any *concept* and arguably improved the ability to penalize an enemy, then tried to claim a point reduction for that. That flies directly in the face with most of what Powers says on how to build something and what you can legitimately claim as a drawback.

Anyway unless you have something new, why continue? I've made an effort to answer what I thought were legitimate questions, but there's no sense in rehashing points we obviously disagree on.

[Plane]

What benefit are you trying to derive from "pushing" stuff away, if not protection?

You could run at enemies and knock them off edges without needing to touch them, as an example.

The problem is that you've tried to mix and match a half dozen sections of the rules to provide a benefit (stuff bounces away from me) as a free side effect

Unless you view "attacks everything which enters the radius immediately with a 1 second downtime" as what you paid for with Aura and Area Effect.

you can't point to any of the components in either Powers or Basic to support your claim.

True, the option and mechanics of Aura+AE were first mentioned by Kromm in an August 2006 PM, Powers came out in April 2006.

It comes back to this: your user defined benefit is *entirely* and *solely* as good as the GM decides to design the game world around your preconceived notions.

It hinges upon the HP that the GM assigns to substantial projectiles, true.

You can't expect it to defend any particular attack (air, wind, bullets, fire, lasers, Thor's hammer) because you didn't buy *any* advantages that provide any defined defense value.

Innate Attacks all have the the "defense value" of being able to damage objects which could cause the user or their allies harm.

Knocking back attacks and incinerating weapons might make for a good explanation for a potential power, but if you want to claim an actual defense, you have to base it on an ability that provides a quantifiable reduction in the amount of damage you would take. IA simply does not, nor has anything you've added to your IA.

You don't need to interact with the damage an object can do if you simply interact with the object before it can do the damage.

If someone tosses a grenade, for example, and I pick it up off the ground before it explodes and toss it elsewhere, it doesn't matter how much damage that explosion would've done. I prevented its delivery by relocating the object before it could deliver the damage.

Why do you think that endangers civilians any more than missing with an IA, dodging, or bouncing bullets off your body? It's not worth even a nuisance value limitation.

I don't think "bouncing bullets off your body" is inherently how DR is meant to work. People must intentionally try to ricochet. Dodging only endangers people directly behind you that you were providing cover for, not for people all around you.

I target BoF guy with a spear that hits and does 15 impaling damage. If BoF guy has 10HP and no DR, BoF guy provides 10 cover DR (his HP value) for the next guy, so 5 impaling damage hits the next person. What hits guy 2 is the remaining damage after the first guy's hit. You don't assess the spear, re-roll anything, or alter the damage type regardless of what happens to the spear. I'm not sure even what you're suggesting doing to that calculation or what you would insert as a house rule to alter if you're concerned about secondary targets.

You do roll to hit a second time if the target is not immediately behind you. If the weapon type is altered by damage, this could mean rolling against a different skill to hit them.

Different skills to hit mean different thresholds for criticals, so it can result in less damage.

I believe the idea that you keep the original damage could be intended for when you keep the original successful to-hit roll, for targets immediately behind. I think that is what the example uses, the bodyguard directly in front of his client.

In cases where people aren't sharing a hex, do you have an example of the same damage roll being retained?

That doesn't relate to anything I said. If Striking ST 50 punches hard DR3+, he better have enough personal DR to absorb the 1/5 damage the DR will return. ST 50 does more damage than ST10, so buy more DR. Auras don't have anything to do with that.

I was trying to understand the context of ". I'd apply a similar damage to a weapon as it hits someone with an aura"

Shield writeup, where DB is used. Note that the -30% only says "Can be Stolen -30%" means not listed or important. The level was chosen to be logical for how you would steal that type of item.

Which page? I pointed out that S37 was specific, what page/section has the non-specific?

Ok, so in your world assign an Acc level for this freebie defense.

I'm not sure what you mean, do you think Accuracy enhancements would benefit a Bombardment roll?

At no level does ATR provide ETS or negate the rules for what you cannot do with bullets.

I never said ATR provides ETS. I'm saying that you don't need ETS to hit bullets or see bullets. The existing rules already provide plenty of realism here, because their SM makes them very hard to hit/see even when not moving and close up. If you put them at a distance and moving at a high speed, the penalties will reduce people's combat skill or perception below 3. No added restrictions exist, or are needed.

The only place I recall ETS coming into play is the option of parrying when someone has the Parry Missile Weapons skill.

GURPS says humans without ETS can't detect bullets.

Exact quote please. I don't have ETS and I can see a non-moving bullet within 1 yard just fine.

Free actions happen on your turn. You wouldn't have time to exclude on an opponent's turn.

Free actions can happen outside of your turn too. P171 on Unlinking for example "can end his involvement at any time, as a free action"

P154 mentions for switchable abilities "The user must switch these on or off at the start of his turn." after "All other zero-time transient abilities work only on the user's turn"

The problem is that "Selective Area" is not an ability, it is an enhancement. It is not switchable or transient. B108 says "you choose which targets within your area are actually affected", it doesn't say anything about being limited to doing that on your own turn.

You realize that's a thread with disagreement from before Rev was even a line editor. It's certainly not an official permission and there are problems with the "healing" as pointed out.

Kromm discussed how No Wounding works with Side Effect in http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=111893

Bruno mentioned some 4e playtest which sounds interesting.

I've read a lot of proposals on treating it like "imaginary damage" but haven't been able to find post-authority confirmation. It does make me wonder if there might be some example of it in one of the books though, I'll keep an open eye.

That's how abilities in the book are priced.

I don't agree. If the primary aim of DR is to stop damage, for example, the secondary benefit of 3 DR causing harm to someone who hits it is still part of the pricing. The loss of this benefit is also inherent to the pricing of 'Flexible', even if the primary loss from that limitation is protection against blunt trauma.

What you take for a given ability is based on a *concept* being translated in book terms.

Concepts have multiple components

You threw in a bunch of modifiers that didn't have anything to do with any *concept*

They were based on the concept I gleaned of my assessment the original poster's intent.

arguably improved the ability to penalize an enemy,

Enhancements to tend to improve your lot.

tried to claim a point reduction for that.

What reduction? Melee Attack is a prerequisite for Aura and the net cost of that is positive.

unless you have something new, why continue?

A 1st new thing I'm wondering about, is do you think that treating damage as instantaneously resolved is innately linked to treating knockback as instantly resolved?

I imagine that if you are knocked back toward an ally behind you they gain opportunity to dodge you. Since you don't teleport to wherever you end up (and can even alter the distance using Roll with Blow to double it) that could be resolved as a time-based event.

What this means is that even if damage is enough to knock a bullet a yard off course, we could potentially figure out way to work a distance-over-time approach to knockback resolution, which might mean that a projectile might not be moved off course fast enough to cause it to miss a creature.

A 2nd new variable that comes to mind is multi-yard creatures of high SM. Even in the case of humans, you are effectively 2 yards tall, so if you have a "knock upward" defense, if someone aims at your foot, knocking it 1 yard upward would still have you as a potential target for the bullet. You'd need to knock it 2 yards upward to have it clear your skull.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

You could run at enemies and knock them off edges without needing to touch them, as an example.

If you are content with your attack power being an attack power, I don't see an issue. It's when you try to argue that do more than any component permits or is priced for that you begin to have an issue.

True, the option and mechanics of Aura+AE were first mentioned by Kromm in an August 2006 PM, Powers came out in April 2006.

Sure, as a non-canon easy alternative to recasting.

It hinges upon the HP that the GM assigns to substantial projectiles, true.

That's one of the things it hinges on... By last count this notion hinges on:
1) GMs allowing you to combine modifiers in a non-canon way.
2) Deciding that the "sum of the parts" does stuff that no part allows.
3) Having the GM assign NPC like stats to the attack profile (normally damage, range, min, max, etc) in addition to it's normal stats.
4) Letting your aura attack the profile rather than using the normal attack/resolution rules (which at that point just consider an amount of damage to be defended or taken).
5) Inferring that all mixing different pieces of rules from 5 different supplements*, none of which reference Innate Attack with or with Auras.

*Campaigns for HP by weight & KB rules, Martial Arts for stop attacks, Powers for "side effects", and PU: Enhancements for Auras of Power.

Innate Attacks all have the the "defense value" of being able to damage objects which could cause the user or their allies harm.

That's an offensive value. I've clarified and re-iterated that I was talking in terms of direct damage avoidance or reduction. Hoping to injure such that they can't later hurt anything might indirectly help you later, or it might land you in jail for being a killer, but either will be subsequent later benefits rather than helping you in that moment.

I don't think "bouncing bullets off your body" is inherently how DR is meant to work. People must intentionally try to ricochet. Dodging only endangers people directly behind you that you were providing cover for, not for people all around you.

You can believe the first, but DR obviously encompasses that. It's "hard" like stone/brick/metal by default. As for the latter, any bullet you don't soak up could potentially end up in someone else around you.

In cases where people aren't sharing a hex, do you have an example of the same damage roll being retained?

The example I provided for overpenetration doesn't require they share a hex. As long as they are in the same path and within range, that's how it's handled. Targets are automatically hit if they are directly behind, though if that is ambiguous there is a "hitting the wrong target" rule.

It sounds like you need to work out a few examples of overpenetration following what Campaigns says? I'd suggest you try the rule a fair bit before trying the change it.

I was trying to understand the context of ". I'd apply a similar damage to a weapon as it hits someone with an aura"

In so much as the damage is resolved after the strike is done before any subsequent actions.

Which page? I pointed out that S37 was specific, what page/section has the non-specific?

S78, shields are a -30% Can be Stolen. The means aren't noted, presumably because any way you can steal a shield you can steal a shield that's also a gadget.

I'm not sure what you mean, do you think Accuracy enhancements would benefit a Bombardment roll?

I meant Accessibility value for the likelihood of encountering IA Auras since for your particular game world they would be a counter measure for certain IA attack as good as Static or Neutralize is for others.

The only place I recall ETS coming into play is the option of parrying when someone has the Parry Missile Weapons skill.

B376: A parry won't stop anything except melee attack or thrown weapon, unless you have special skills. ATR isn't a skill, so it doesn't help. Parry Missile Weapons says those with ETS could potentially parry bullets. Alternatively they could use Precog Parry, but either way ATR isn't listed as an exception at any level.

Exact quote please. I don't have ETS and I can see a non-moving bullet within 1 yard just fine.

Even if you could, perceiving doesn't mean you could do anything about it.

Free actions can happen outside of your turn too. P171 on Unlinking for example "can end his involvement at any time, as a free action"

Any time *as* a free action. B363 defines those as a variety of things that can be done *during* another maneuver. If you cannot take a maneuver, you can't take a free action.

The problem is that "Selective Area" is not an ability, it is an enhancement. It is not switchable or transient. B108 says "you choose which targets within your area are actually affected", it doesn't say anything about being limited to doing that on your own turn.

Actually I believe they are specified to be "free actions". Otherwise, you'll need to define what type of action they are for a PC to legally perform and lookup the associated rules for when.

Kromm discussed how No Wounding works with Side Effect in http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=111893

As I recall, the issue was Symptom, which goes away when the damage you've taken goes away. No Wounding = No Injury, so you couldn't get the target down to the necessarily threshold.

I don't agree. If the primary aim of DR is to stop damage, for example, the secondary benefit of 3 DR causing harm to someone who hits it is still part of the pricing. The loss of this benefit is also inherent to the pricing of 'Flexible', even if the primary loss from that limitation is protection against blunt trauma.

That completely misses what I was getting at. You're discussing the components of a given advantage, not the concept of what they ability is supposed to do. If you describe it as "a field that damages people that get close," build it as a field that damages people that get close. IA seems like a good choice. If it's a "field that protects me from damage" IA isn't a good choice. If it's a field that's supposed to do both, base it on abilities (DR & IA linked?) that accomplish that.

For your example, if the concept was "turn things coming at me insubstantial" then permanency isn't much of a limitation or consideration. Certainly reducing the duration would be related to how it was inflicted. Making an affliction that you're forcing on someone "always on" is pretty meaningless since you're already forcing it on them.

They were based on the concept I gleaned of my assessment the original poster's intent.

How can I save points isn't an ability concept. At best it's optimizing for the system; at its worst, you're gaming/breaking the system.

Enhancements to tend to improve your lot.

You were trying to claim improvements in how the ability was used as an attack as a limitation for a cost reduction. Such limitations should be thrown out as invalid.

A 1st new thing I'm wondering about, is do you think that treating damage as instantaneously resolved is innately linked to treating knockback as instantly resolved?

In general, probably not. You need to be aware of an attack before you can defend (You would need to expect that your ally is going to fall on you.) and it would have to be within your viewing arc. If you saw them being attacked, I'd probably give you a roll to anticipate so you could know that you'd need to defend, but I can't point to a rule that explicitly allows it.

A 2nd new variable that comes to mind is multi-yard creatures of high SM. Even in the case of humans, you are effectively 2 yards tall, so if you have a "knock upward" defense, if someone aims at your foot, knocking it 1 yard upward would still have you as a potential target for the bullet. You'd need to knock it 2 yards upward to have it clear your skull.

Given that's still less than 10 points of damage, upward shouldn't be hard to manage. On a budget, sideways is still more reliable, though.

[Plane]

If you are content with your attack power being an attack power, I don't see an issue. It's when you try to argue that do more than any component permits or is priced for that you begin to have an issue.

I think pricing does permit it.

Sure, as a non-canon easy alternative to recasting.

"Might not be" is not "non-"

1) GMs allowing you to combine modifiers in a non-canon way.

I have never seen a forbiddence on Aura/AE, just vagueness on how it would work. We're allowed to take other gun-icon stuff like 'Armor Divisor' on Melee Attacks, so why not AE?

2) Deciding that the "sum of the parts" does stuff that no part allows.

You mean like how "Increased Range" can allow you to attack 1000 yards away instead of 100 (but not multiple targets) and 'Area Effect' can allow you to attack multiple targets (but not at 1000 yards) but BOTH allows multiple targets at 1000 yards?

The way the benefits of enhancements are multiplicative could be an argument for multiplicative modifiers pricing, but there's certainly more than addition going on here.

3) Having the GM assign NPC like stats to the attack profile (normally damage, range, min, max, etc) in addition to it's normal stats.

Item profile, not attack profile.

4) Letting your aura attack the profile rather than using the normal attack/resolution rules (which at that point just consider an amount of damage to be defended or taken).

I don't know where you keep drawing this 'profile' angle. This is really a lot more than bullets, you're essentially dealing with ranged rules in general, weapons in general, and giving them some kind of supernatural immunity to damage because they somehow go FTL and avoid being damaged in the process of traveling through dangerous areas.

5) Inferring that all mixing different pieces of rules from 5 different supplements*, none of which reference Innate Attack with or with Auras.

You are referencing this out of context. MA was cited to HELP you. To make knockback less powerful a stopper. The argument of reactive AEs hitting incoming objects doesn't rely on that in the slightest.

Your complaining that I cite Powers is also hypocritical seeing as how you tried to rely on that to make the argument that it set a precedent that item-lobbing powers didn't need any special notations.

That's an offensive value. I've clarified and re-iterated that I was talking in terms of direct damage avoidance or reduction. Hoping to injure such that they can't later hurt anything might indirectly help you later, or it might land you in jail for being a killer, but either will be subsequent later benefits rather than helping you in that moment.

How long is a 'moment'? Someone could fire a first shot and then dodge and then you blow off his arm. A 'defensive' shot because you didn't initiate the combat.

You can believe the first, but DR obviously encompasses that. It's "hard" like stone/brick/metal by default. As for the latter, any bullet you don't soak up could potentially end up in someone else around you.

Being hard doesn't mean shots automatically ricochet off and hurt people. Is that what you think happens when arrows hit plate DR?

The example I provided for overpenetration doesn't require they share a hex. As long as they are in the same path and within range, that's how it's handled. Targets are automatically hit if they are directly behind, though if that is ambiguous there is a "hitting the wrong target" rule.

I dunno, is 'directly' only referring to on the same path? Or could it also be referring to them being CLOSE behind on the same path? That's where we'd benefit from examples.

S78, shields are a -30% Can be Stolen. The means aren't noted, presumably because any way you can steal a shield you can steal a shield that's also a gadget.

Okay, so since this occurs after the specific example I cited, wouldn't that set a precedent that it's probably referring to that, and this is just shorthand?

I meant Accessibility value for the likelihood of encountering IA Auras since for your particular game world they would be a counter measure for certain IA attack as good as Static or Neutralize is for others.

S34 the 2nd half of "Mechanical" sounds appropriate for bullets: "can be detected by X-ray scans and other forms of medical imaging, and may also trigger metal detectors, smell of oil or exhaust fumes, or get hot enough to show up on infrared (-5%).

B376: A parry won't stop anything except melee attack or thrown weapon, unless you have special skills. ATR isn't a skill, so it doesn't help. Parry Missile Weapons says those with ETS could potentially parry bullets. Alternatively they could use Precog Parry, but either way ATR isn't listed as an exception at any level.

Correct. Good thing I'm not talking about parries.

Even if you could, perceiving doesn't mean you could do anything about it.

Sure it does. But even if I took a determned +4 telegraphed +4 attack, I don't think my DX and/or combat/weapon skills would be high enough to stay above 3 with all the size/speed penalties taken into account.

If you cannot take a maneuver, you can't take a free action.

Why can't I take a maneuver?

Actually I believe they are specified to be "free actions". Otherwise, you'll need to define what type of action they are for a PC to legally perform and lookup the associated rules for when.

Where is selective area defined as a free action?

Why do you think someone needs to be uber-aware of environment to give guidelines like 'allies' and 'enemies'.

Do you think you need to necessarily be able to see your ally at all times to keep them excluded? Does an ally burn up if they run behind you and you can't see them anymore?

As I recall, the issue was Symptom, which goes away when the damage you've taken goes away. No Wounding = No Injury, so you couldn't get the target down to the necessarily threshold.

I'm aware he was discussing a different modifier. He hasn't exactly dismissed PK's statement about imaginary damage though, even if it was made pre-authority.

You're discussing the components of a given advantage, not the concept of what they ability is supposed to do. If you describe it as "a field that damages people that get close," build it as a field that damages people that get close. IA seems like a good choice. If it's a "field that protects me from damage" IA isn't a good choice. If it's a field that's supposed to do both, base it on abilities (DR & IA linked?) that accomplish that.

I think "It's a field that pushes metal away" is a good enough concept. Why does it need to be defined in your choice of words?

For your example, if the concept was "turn things coming at me insubstantial" then permanency isn't much of a limitation or consideration. Certainly reducing the duration would be related to how it was inflicted. Making an affliction that you're forcing on someone "always on" is pretty meaningless since you're already forcing it on them.

If it wasn't always-on, you have the option of turning them substantial again without needing to heal them. That is useful.

How can I save points isn't an ability concept. At best it's optimizing for the system; at its worst, you're gaming/breaking the system.

The whole complaint you're making is that I couldn't make an affordabe alternative, so of course I need to 'game' point optimization a little to prove you wrong. You can't really break a system, just make really powerful stuff using it.

You were trying to claim improvements in how the ability was used as an attack as a limitation for a cost reduction. Such limitations should be thrown out as invalid.

It's hard for me to remember what that's about when you speak only in general terms, was this about taking 'Always On' on Insubstantial? That doesn't improve it, because I think like with Afflictions, if you put an Advantage on someone, you control the advantage, so it already operates as Always On unless you want to switch it off.

Given that's still less than 10 points of damage, upward shouldn't be hard to manage. On a budget, sideways is still more reliable, though.

Sideways might have a higher likelyhood of hitting an adjacent ally... and if you were lying sideways already then it might send something at your head into your leg, dependin on the angle someone shot from compared to what hexes you occupy on the ground.

Fact of the matter is, because canon is cruel for low HP fast-moving things, the best solution is to houserule that AE begin applying its damage per second immediately, but doesn't apply 100% until 1 second later, and to only apply whatever % of damage it would take based on the time it was exposed during the time needed to go from radius to center.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

I think pricing does permit it.

In what sense? Neither the ability nor the modifiers quantify *any* sort of defense, and attacks (that come in dice of damage) aren't purchased in terms of HP.

"Might not be" is not "non-"

It did in that sentence. Read it, diagram it. The structure "it might not canon, but this would be easy if it was" exactly means that he's suggesting something that's not canon for this instance simply because it was expedient and *for that use* did not seem to break anything.

I have never seen a forbiddence on Aura/AE, just vagueness on how it would work. We're allowed to take other gun-icon stuff like 'Armor Divisor' on Melee Attacks, so why not AE?

First off, there's no canon way to combine "you much touch" with "you injure at a distance". Armor Divisor isn't a range, so why would it conflict? Range/not-range contradict. Not-range plus another unrelated effect, do not.

You mean like how "Increased Range" can allow you to attack 1000 yards away instead of 100 (but not multiple targets) and 'Area Effect' can allow you to attack multiple targets (but not at 1000 yards) but BOTH allows multiple targets at 1000 yards?

No. You're just using both enhancements. If you have x100 range, and 2 yard area, you can put your area within that range. Both enhancements spell out that benefit.

You could not say, that since you have x100 range and a 2 yard area, that now your attack generates a smoke cloud that offers cover for 10 seconds as well. It's not part of either enhancement or the underlying ability, even if you *described* your attack as a concussive attack that kicked up debris and spread confetti. The latter effect would need to be another advantage linked to the IA, not just "described" as part of it.

Now, I anticipate you'll argue "but KB is part of a crushing IA", which is true, but the application of applying that to incoming attacks isn't. Auras do not have any rules to prevent incoming attacks from reaching you, nor do Areas. Your presumption of the ability to attack an attack is still a "what you want to happen" that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules.

What does exist in the rules is that when a weapon is shot or thrown, they are now effectively a quantity of damage. You can Actively Defend, use cover/overpenetration rules, or even a Power defense, but there's no mechanic for your aura magically diverting the attack.

Item profile, not attack profile.

That's what I said you're trying to argue that an Item Profile needs to be *added* to the Attack Profile so that you can game a benefit.

I don't know where you keep drawing this 'profile' angle. This is really a lot more than bullets, you're essentially dealing with ranged rules in general,

There is one generalized set of ranged rules and they don't do what you want. I could guess at the reasons, but ultimately it doesn't matter why.

You are referencing this out of context. MA was cited to HELP you. To make knockback less powerful a stopper. The argument of reactive AEs hitting incoming objects doesn't rely on that in the slightest.

Hardly, I avoided mentioning even more tangents that you've relied upon. Either way, you're still pulling rules not related to shooting, IA, auras, areas from multiple places out of context to create a new generalization that fits your viewpoint.

Your complaining that I cite Powers is also hypocritical seeing as how you tried to rely on that to make the argument that it set a precedent that item-lobbing powers didn't need any special notations.

No, I was pointing out the pieces you were ignoring from the same book you were quoting.

How long is a 'moment'? Someone could fire a first shot and then dodge and then you blow off his arm. A 'defensive' shot because you didn't initiate the combat.

It's not a defined game term, nor relevant to this discussion. My prior definitions were "attacks directly injure or impair others" while defenses reduce or prevent damage an attack is causing. Your "I shot him dead, so he couldn't shot me" doesn't stop an attack that *is* happening; it stops him from attacking entirely. Trying to prevent an event isn't a defense, it's an offense.

Being hard doesn't mean shots automatically ricochet off and hurt people. Is that what you think happens when arrows hit plate DR?

Having witnessed that (and arrows striking other hard surfaces), I can safely say that will either shatter or bounce. Since arrows are directional, they don't tend have the same direct effect as if they were fired at someone, but I've pulled the pieces out of nearby targets/objects, so it's pretty clear that momentum ends up deflected elsewhere. A bullet doesn't have to be pointed as well to do damage, so it's deflections are much more dangerous. When I was much younger, I got caught in a hailstorm where I took shelter in a patio with a concrete floor and brick walls on 3 1/2 sides. The hailstones that made it in bounced around until they hit something "soft" or bounced out.

I dunno, is 'directly' only referring to on the same path? Or could it also be referring to them being CLOSE behind on the same path? That's where we'd benefit from examples.

You can read the rules, as it's pretty clear. Directly behind it automatically hit using overpenetration rules. Potentially behind uses "hitting the wrong target" rules.

Okay, so since this occurs after the specific example I cited, wouldn't that set a precedent that it's probably referring to that, and this is just shorthand?

If it is, what it is shorthand for? You've implied that you need to specify DX or ST, because they are the only 2 options. I mentioned that they don't bother to specify, because at -30% it's any logical contest to steal it. I've noticed that at the -30% they usually don't spell out means.

S34 the 2nd half of "Mechanical" sounds appropriate for bullets: "can be detected by X-ray scans and other forms of medical imaging, and may also trigger metal detectors, smell of oil or exhaust fumes, or get hot enough to show up on infrared (-5%).

So anyone that's shot now qualifies for the Mechanical disadvantage as well?

Sure it does. But even if I took a determned +4 telegraphed +4 attack, I don't think my DX and/or combat/weapon skills would be high enough to stay above 3 with all the size/speed penalties taken into account.

To do what?

Why can't I take a maneuver?

You get to on your turn.

Where is selective area defined as a free action?

It needs to be some kind of action. If it's not free, you're left with a Ready, Concentrate, Attack or something else that will be your entire action for the turn.

Why do you think someone needs to be uber-aware of environment to give guidelines like 'allies' and 'enemies'.

Abilities don't know "allies" or "enemies" so when you opt-in or opt-out (depending on which type of Selective Area you pick), you need to individually identify which is which at the point where they would be affected.

Do you think you need to necessarily be able to see your ally at all times to keep them excluded? Does an ally burn up if they run behind you and you can't see them anymore?

You'd need to specify more detail. In general, as long as they don't leave/re-enter, they are covered by the exclusion.

I think "It's a field that pushes metal away" is a good enough concept. Why does it need to be defined in your choice of words?

Wrong question, leading to the wrong answer. That description isn't a problem as a concept. It's that IA isn't the right power to base it on, or at least not the right ability if the intended effect it to push away incoming metal attacks.

If it wasn't always-on, you have the option of turning them substantial again without needing to heal them. That is useful.

Useful to whom? This isn't purchased as an ability the user can turn on an off. It's an attack where you're forcing that ability onto the user for the duration. They explicitly can't turn it off and you aren't forced to keep it on anyone you don't want to force it on. What drawback are you, the user that's buying it, getting by taking that limitation, since you can completely ignore that limitation?

The whole complaint you're making is that I couldn't make an affordabe alternative, so of course I need to 'game' point optimization a little to prove you wrong. You can't really break a system, just make really powerful stuff using it.

Wait... so to prove your point is "fair" you have to use "unfair" tactics and "unfair" abilities? I don't quite follow that logic. You should price it against "fair" abilities that GMs would recognize as reasonably built.

so it already operates as Always On unless you want to switch it off.

Yes, making that a worthless limitation for an afflicted ability. The prior example had additional limitations that qualified as additional afflictions because they made the attack more dangerous. Either way, both aren't really valid under the rules, so they aren't good for comparisons.

Fact of the matter is, because canon is cruel for low HP fast-moving things, the best solution is to houserule that AE begin applying its damage per second immediately, but doesn't apply 100% until 1 second later, and to only apply whatever % of damage it would take based on the time it was exposed during the time needed to go from radius to center.

Canon doesn't apply AE damage to "damage dice" which is how a bullet is treated after fired.

[Plane]

attacks (that come in dice of damage) aren't purchased in terms of HP.

Destroying weapons is an attack, not a defense, correct. GM defines HP of projectiles.

"it might not canon, but this would be easy if it was" exactly means that he's suggesting something that's not canon

You write "it isn't canon, but" if you mean to deny its canonicity. "Might not" is non-committal either for affirmation or denial.

First off, there's no canon way to combine "you much touch" with "you injure at a distance".

That's like saying there's no way to combine "your target must be within 100 yards" with "you injure within 102 yards". That is exactly the exception which Area Effect allows to normal range parameters. AE allows you to injure targets within Max+Radius. In the case of Melee Attack, C or Emanation, Max is 0.

You could not say, that since you have x100 range and a 2 yard area, that now your attack generates a smoke cloud that offers cover for 10 seconds as well. It's not part of either enhancement or the underlying ability, even if you *described* your attack as a concussive attack that kicked up debris and spread confetti. The latter effect would need to be another advantage linked to the IA, not just "described" as part of it.

Although abilities such as Twister do link an impressive 'Obscure' attack, it is feasible and legal to allow for minor 'obscure' benefits to be an unstatted benefit of an attack (just like Temperature Control) so long as the GM thinks it is balanced by other realistic drawbacks.

Stuff like "I threw my rock into a sack of flour and the flour flew in the air" is perfectly legal environmental interaction. Debris can be a result of environment instead of attack, such as a comet hitting the earth and kicking up dust. Minor debris/obscure such as the smoke coming out of a rocket would be a realistic benefit. It's also a drawback in a way since it would indicate an attack's point of origin.

Now, I anticipate you'll argue "but KB is part of a crushing IA", which is true, but the application of applying that to incoming attacks isn't.

It is applied to all objects which enter the radius. That the object is necessary for conveying an attack is merely circumstantial.

Auras do not have any rules to prevent incoming attacks from reaching you, nor do Areas.

But weapons do have rules which prevent them from being useful if they are destroyed. They are explicitly useless. This happens regardless of what manages to destroy it. It needn't be defined as a special property of what attacks it.

Your presumption of the ability to attack an attack is still a "what you want to happen" that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules.

there's no mechanic for your aura magically diverting the attack.

There isn't anything magic about hitting a weapon before it gets to its destination it's a matter of timing.

That's what I said you're trying to argue that an Item Profile needs to be *added* to the Attack Profile so that you can game a benefit.

It doesn't need to be. GMs are free to define Innate Attacks as being non-object based if they want. Rocks, throwing knives, arrows, bullets are all clearly objects though.

There is one generalized set of ranged rules and they don't do what you want. I could guess at the reasons, but ultimately it doesn't matter why.

There isn't though. There are different rules which apply to different things, such as physical projectiles (thrown things, arrows, bullets) or energy waves (lasers). Projectiles travel at different speeds which affect the difficulty of seeing or hitting them. They have different DR and HP which affects the difficulty of damaging or moving them.

Hardly, I avoided mentioning even more tangents that you've relied upon. Either way, you're still pulling rules not related to shooting, IA, auras, areas from multiple places out of context to create a new generalization that fits your viewpoint.

It seems you are rejecting the 'Charging Foes' escape because the precedent it sets makes knockback less powerful, and interferes with the argument you are trying to make about it being more powerful.

I was pointing out the pieces you were ignoring from the same book you were quoting.

I dismissed the examples of guns because they weren't meant to represent present-day tech implements, they're for futuristic scifi robots and cyborgs. They're built-in weapons, not Gadgets or Allies, one of which would be how you would represent realistic arms as a distinct destroyable entity.

Your "I shot him dead, so he couldn't shot me" doesn't stop an attack that *is* happening;

I've yet to see evidence that you can't simply "Wait > Swing/Cut his hand if he throws a punch that won't miss and I am unable to dodge it". That would prevent an attack in progress, and still be an attack, not a defense.

Having witnessed that (and arrows striking other hard surfaces), I can safely say that will either shatter or bounce. Since arrows are directional, they don't tend have the same direct effect as if they were fired at someone, but I've pulled the pieces out of nearby targets/objects, so it's pretty clear that momentum ends up deflected elsewhere.

A bounced-off arrow, if it hit anything, might not necessarily hit with the point though. A shattered arrow, if the head scratches someone, wouldn't have the full mass of the arrow and the shot behind it either.

A bullet doesn't have to be pointed as well to do damage, so it's deflections are much more dangerous. When I was much younger, I got caught in a hailstorm where I took shelter in a patio with a concrete floor and brick walls on 3 1/2 sides. The hailstones that made it in bounced around until they hit something "soft" or bounced out.

A bounced bullet ought to do some reduced damage, I think that's built in though and there's an enhancement to avoid it.

Directly behind it automatically hit using overpenetration rules. Potentially behind uses "hitting the wrong target" rules.

I know, the question is what 'directly' and 'potentially' means. If I am directly behind someone in line, am I within 3 feet of them, or perhaps 30 feet behind them?

So anyone that's shot now qualifies for the Mechanical disadvantage as well?

In the sense that you would if you had a tiny machine in your pocket, or embedded in your torso. That sounds like a Gadget-based Mitigator for Mechanical. -10% is defined as two distinct -5% parts, only referring to latter.

do what?

Punch a moving bullet. It's something I can't attempt because the penalties would reduce my attack skill below 3, not because there's any actual rule.

You get to on your turn.

It's already my turn if I took a Wait.

It needs to be some kind of action

Does it? Is perceiving also necessarily a free action that you can only do at the start of your turn? It isn't in a list of exceptions either.

Abilities don't know "allies" or "enemies" so when you opt-in or opt-out (depending on which type of Selective Area you pick), you need to individually identify which is which at the point where they would be affected.

So do you think in the case of "I'm throwing my selective AE burning Attack" that a GM should make you roll perception every single time for every single ally and every single enemy to make sure you don't get them mixed up in the flurry of combat? Sounds busy.

as long as they don't leave/re-enter, they are covered by the exclusion.

So why not apply that to atmosphere?

That description isn't a problem as a concept. It's that IA isn't the right power to base it on, or at least not the right ability if the intended effect it to push away incoming metal attacks.

DR is an inherently problematic representation of this because of how it can be 'damaged' by a Corrosive Attack or 'healed'.

Useful to whom? This isn't purchased as an ability the user can turn on an off. It's an attack where you're forcing that ability onto the user for the duration. They explicitly can't turn it off and you aren't forced to keep it on anyone you don't want to force it on.

On the contrary, you ARE forced to keep Afflictions (unless you have Cancellations) or Side Effects on for their full durations, unless you define it as a Switchable advantage under your control. If you take 'Always On', you lose that control.

What drawback are you, the user that's buying it, getting by taking that limitation, since you can completely ignore that limitation?

You can't ignore it. "Always on" prevents you from switching of the insubstantiality on your target. Normally you would need to wait out the duration or heal them to stop that.

to prove your point is "fair" you have to use "unfair" tactics and "unfair" abilities?

I don't describe point optimizing as unfair. Limitations come with the drawback of limited utility.

making that a worthless limitation for an afflicted ability.

Being able to switch off the insubstantiality you afflict/SE/symptom on someone is not worthless. It might be important for you to do that before the duration expires or they heal.

The prior example had additional limitations that qualified as additional afflictions because they made the attack more dangerous. Either way, both aren't really valid under the rules, so they aren't good for comparisons.

Canon doesn't apply AE damage to "damage dice" which is how a bullet is treated after fired.

This is broader than bullets. Objects propelled at others (be they swung, thrown or shot) do not cease to be objects at any point. They are never reduced to just damage dice.