Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-25-2019, 08:14 PM   #231
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
So area is expanding the user to fill the area?
Expanding scope of the target enjoying its benefit.

Quote:
That's the only way it's still "contact or being contacted". Otherwise, it's just a fancy way of using an enhancement to ignore parts you don't like on other modifiers.
You're talking about Auras as if it were a limitation instead of an enhancement. Enhancements widen the scope of instructions.

You could give all your friends and probably even items auras. If two NPCs with auras touch, collide, or punch each other, they do normal damage plus inflicting auras on each other for each touch. Given the way you bought this, I wouldn't allow it to enhance bullets in a gun (they would tend to go off prior to being shot) prior or during firing.

Quote:
DR with Affects Others, Area, and FF creates a barrier around. You can use it to include involuntary targets (which Affects Others even with Area doesn't normally do). If you want to change the shape, Selective Effect/Area would be necessary.
So you agree that Affects Others is not optional, requiring 'Selective' modifiers to turn it off?

Quote:
I didn't see a quote saying that.
"Melee Attack (-30%). That's a range 0, "if I touch you or you touch me" type of thing." + "Melee Attack takes care of the "ground zero is at range zero" element"

Quote:
Melee attacks have reach not range. Those aren't quite the same thing. Aura explicitly says to take Melee at the -30% level since the aura only works on things that you contact or contact you.
I don't think that is why, because C-range Melee does not actually require contact (it can represent an energy dagger, for example) and Aura can attack beyond range C (kicks).

Quote:
Area Effect doesn't change any of the requirements or wording of the Aura enhancement. Indeed, AE isn't applied to Aura, so it can't change the fundamentals of how Aura works.
AE isn't applied to "Force Field" either, not seeing your point. Just because you apply an enhancement to the underlying trait doesn't mean it can't be specific to attributes added only through another enhancement. You can add Extended Duration to the 10 seconds gained by 'Persistent', as an example.

Quote:
IA attacks need a point of origin, but it does not need to be your arms or hands. It could be eyes, feet, or even other more bizarre locations. Powers expands on that.
Do you have an example of a non-Aura -30% IA coming out from the feet and being usable at reach 1?

Again, yes, that's why this should not be part of the ability. The power to deflect/stop isn't related to the ability or incorporated in its cost.

Quote:
Sure, after it hits or misses it will be obvious. Prior to that, there's no way the character will know.
Characters have to know, or else you wouldn't be allowed to wait until the strike roll to choose whether or not to defend.

Quote:
For that matter, feints trigger Waits just as readily as real blows.
Where is this elaborated on?

Quote:
You believe it's real attack that's going to hit you.
No you don't, or you would expend a parry against them. Feints if anything are suggested as being described as misses to avoid metagaming.

Quote:
You also don't defend against feints with an Active Defense, either. You resolve it differently. Different rules for different situations.
All the more obvious it is NOT perceived as an attack. Nobody does a teleport dodge to get out of the way of a feint.

Quote:
...and so has the defender if they don't interrupt prior to that attack being made.
Defenders interrupt after an attack has been initiated, and after its roll is made. You don't bother to decide to defend until after the roll is resolved. They're 'ware.

Quote:
That's not how the "miss" rules work. You can find "hitting the wrong target" in campaigns, but basically it says that if other targets are in the vicinity, the miss could end up hitting them.
If it does, it would look like it was headed at them all along. The only difference is the lack of intention in the shooter, and they probably aren't ogling you with deadly intent so it could be a surprise attack.

Quote:
I'd have to look myself for the prior threads. "dodging bullets" should provide novels of reading material, though.
I like "Dodge This!" in Pyramid, personally.

Quote:
Waits do not work like that. Waits are triggered on actual events the character witnesses. If you are not triggering your wait until the character experiences an actual hit, you certainly aren't preempting the attack before you hits.
There is a point after an attack roll is made and before you take damage where people do things like active defenses. I don't see why you couldn't trigger waits in that span. You're not 'experiencing a hit' as soon as the to-hit roll is made. To-hit rolls merely mean it is on the path to hitting, barring interruptions or relocations.

Quote:
If you try to preempt it before being hit, you're doing it before they roll (attempt). If you do it after they roll to hit, you get an active defense (if you want), and if that fails, you'll meet condition "if they hit me" in the game world, but you'll have already taken the hit.
Why are you skipping directly there without opportunity to intercede?

Characters know when attack rolls against them succeed or fail. They can even know when their active defense succeeds or fails. All-Out Defense (Double) allows you an optional 2nd defense that you only need to take if the 1st one fails, for example. If the 1st succeeds, you aren't obligated to take the 2nd. You can choose AT THAT TIME.

Meaning that you really should be able to trigger waits not only after the attack roll succeeds, but also after you make your 1st defense roll, because at that point an attack STILL hasn't hit and you ARE aware that your active defense is a failure.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 10:36 AM   #232
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Expanding scope of the target enjoying its benefit.
Expanding the scope of an existing benefit might make sense. Adding a benefit that it never had does not.

Quote:
You're talking about Auras as if it were a limitation instead of an enhancement. Enhancements widen the scope of instructions.
No, I'm talking about the circumstances under which it comes into play. Ignoring half the rules of modifiers is not the way you follow the rules.

Quote:
So you agree that Affects Others is not optional, requiring 'Selective' modifiers to turn it off?
That's the default for modifiers.

Quote:
"Melee Attack (-30%). That's a range 0, "if I touch you or you touch me" type of thing." + "Melee Attack takes care of the "ground zero is at range zero" element"
Are you back to quoting from Auras of Power thread, where the variant used just maintain duration and the contact restrictions were intentionally loosened with new guidelines presented later?

Quote:
I don't think that is why, because C-range Melee does not actually require contact (it can represent an energy dagger, for example) and Aura can attack beyond range C (kicks).
Read Aura, see what it says. It lists both the -30% melee and the restrictions adding it on imposes.

Quote:
AE isn't applied to "Force Field" either, not seeing your point. Just because you apply an enhancement to the underlying trait doesn't mean it can't be specific to attributes added only through another enhancement. You can add Extended Duration to the 10 seconds gained by 'Persistent', as an example.
Let's try to make this simple. Persistent adds 10 seconds to the ability. Extended Duration multiplies any duration the ability has. Extended Duration requires the ability has a duration, but however the ability get it is good enough for you to use the multiplier. Area Effect can be applied to DR. Affects Others says how it would apply to an area ability. Force Field says how it would work on an area ability with Affect Others. All of those apply changes to the base ability, and usually when we have other modifiers that would interact in a different way, we get instructions on what happens.

Aura allows you to have a switchable "if you touch me or I touch you" trigger added to cause the abilities affects. Area allows you to extend the effects of an ability to an area. You're suggesting that Area can alter the trigger rather than extend the effects. Perhaps that would be fair for certain things (Afflictions where it would just do the same thing but at longer reach), but it's certainly not fair if you're using it to give you a defense that would be more powerful and cheaper than actually buying a defense advantage.

Quote:
Do you have an example of a non-Aura -30% IA coming out from the feet and being usable at reach 1?
Sure:
Flaming Foot of Death 10d burn (Melee R:1, cannot parry -30%) [35] which if I wrote a Melee -30%, you wouldn't know exactly which pieces of melee I was taking. Interestingly Aura requires Melee -30% (C level) but is also cannot get the extra -5% from cannot parry since auras cannot be used to parry (defend). You can either take that as Auras have extra rules that limit the scope of what an Aura can do, or you can take that as melee being priced with the understanding that you'll have the reach of your body even though it's bought with C reach. Either way, it prices out the same as above and it doesn't ever get to defend.

Quote:
Characters have to know, or else you wouldn't be allowed to wait until the strike roll to choose whether or not to defend.
Characters don't choose that. Players do, and they know. When you use a Wait, your put your character into "observe and only act when the character perceives this event"

Quote:
Where is this elaborated on?
Feints put your opponent at a disadvantage by having them react to a perceived (but fake) attack.

Quote:
All the more obvious it is NOT perceived as an attack. Nobody does a teleport dodge to get out of the way of a feint.
What do you think the contest of skill represents?

Quote:
There is a point after an attack roll is made and before you take damage where people do things like active defenses. I don't see why you couldn't trigger waits in that span.
That is meta-gaming, as surely as you using table talk of information other players discovered that hasn't been relayed to your character.

Quote:
You're not 'experiencing a hit' as soon as the to-hit roll is made. To-hit rolls merely mean it is on the path to hitting, barring interruptions or relocations.
Waits aren't on that list, since they rely on actual perceived events.

Quote:
Meaning that you really should be able to trigger waits not only after the attack roll succeeds, but also after you make your 1st defense roll, because at that point an attack STILL hasn't hit and you ARE aware that your active defense is a failure.
Ask what the wait event was, and if the character could perceive it. If you say "when someone hits me," that only happens after you are hit. If you say "when attacked" that will happen prior to rolls being made, since it's not conditional on being hit. There isn't an event your character will perceive between the attack happening and the attack resolution to interrupt. The dice rolls you are pointing to are game mechanics, not game world events.

Last edited by naloth; 01-26-2019 at 10:40 AM.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 01:59 PM   #233
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Defensive Auras

B107 "Ranged" says "gives range to an advantage that normally affects your immediate area, or that requires a touch to affect others." Would you oppose taking Ranged+Emanation (net +20%) to enable AE on Aura? Your opposition seems to be based on the idea that you should only be able to take AE on "range" instead of "reach" abilities?

Also wondering, with the insistence of Auras working like Melee Attacks, do you think you can AOA:Strong with an Aura to get a damage bonus?

Quote:
Expanding the scope of an existing benefit might make sense. Adding a benefit that it never had does not.
AuraIAs always had the benefit of thwacking stuff that hit the target.

Quote:
No, I'm talking about the circumstances under which it comes into play. Ignoring half the rules of modifiers is not the way you follow the rules.
Ignoring, or acknowledging and altering per adds?

Quote:
Are you back to quoting from Auras of Power thread, where the variant used just maintain duration and the contact restrictions were intentionally loosened with new guidelines presented later?
no, FAQ (it's logical)... to reiterate: "might not" (see A or B or C) isn't "isn't".

Read Aura, see what it says. It lists both the -30% melee and the restrictions adding it on imposes. [/quote]"affects anyone you touch (reach C) or who touches you"

Come to think of it, I could be wrong about kicking. Since "reach C" is in parenthesis, an aura might not affect anyone you kick at reach 1. Or punch, if you have long arms and can punch at reach 1, because that's beyond reach C.

If you want to be super-literal, "If a weapon strikes you, your aura affects the weapon" only refers to the 2nd half. It shouldn't allow auras to affect weapons you strike, only weapons which strike you.

B59 Healing also has pretty restrictive guidelines:
You must be in physical contact with the subject.
There's no special notes on B59 or P51 being some "custom" modifier for healing. P100 however:
Area Effect makes it possible to affect groups of people with non-attack advantages that normally affect just one target; e.g., Healing, Mind Control, and Telekinesis.
Innate Attacks can be perceived "non-attack advantages" when they are made into Auras. You no longer make attacks with them, instead you use Readies (or Concentrates, if you change from physical to mental) to switch them on and off.

The examples given for "non-attack advantage" don't conform to P235's "Any ability that can injure an opponent or compromise his capabilities – most often Affliction, Binding, Innate Attack, Leech, or Neutralize." definition of "attack ability", since being Mind Controlled can compromise capabilities. It makes them "Reprogrammable". Affliction (Disadvantage) would affect "capabilities" in the same way.

Telekinesis can result in attacks on targets, but the user is not actually attacking, it is their TK attacking after they do a Concentrate maneuver to activate it. Same with Mind Control and forcing enemies to attack. Aura's like that. The user just activates it, they never attack directly with it, and that is what "attack advantage" means in this context.

I believe this wording on P100 may be the basis for the idea of applying AEs to Auras. Due to that, the 4 bullets (multiplying FP cost by radius, separate contests, penalty summing, same effects) should apply.

Quote:
Persistent adds 10 seconds to the ability. Extended Duration multiplies any duration the ability has. Extended Duration requires the ability has a duration, but however the ability get it is good enough for you to use the multiplier.
If "however the ability get it is good enough" then why "isn't applied to Aura, so it can't change the fundamentals of how Aura works"? Aura changes how the ability works, and then AE changes the ability. Same thing.

Quote:
Force Field says how it would work on an area ability with Affect Others. All of those apply changes to the base ability, and usually when we have other modifiers that would interact in a different way, we get instructions on what happens.
P108 "converts a defensive trait into a field projected a short distance from your body." and IA w/Aura has been described as "Defensive" (P144)

Quote:
You're suggesting that Area can alter the trigger rather than extend the effects.
Trigger and effect are inexorably linked for passive abilities, Psi-Static and the 2 Mana advantages show us that.

Quote:
Perhaps that would be fair for certain things (Afflictions where it would just do the same thing but at longer reach), but it's certainly not fair if you're using it to give you a defense that would be more powerful and cheaper than actually buying a defense advantage.
I'm not going to quibble about subjective things like fairness, I value DR more highly than you do.

Quote:
Aura requires Melee -30% (C level) but is also cannot get the extra -5% from cannot parry since auras cannot be used to parry (defend).
I will note that despite the similar name, "Power Parry" is not a subset of "Parries", so there's no reason to think Auras wouldn't do them. Innate Attack (ranged by default) can't do parries either (without Melee-Capable) and there's no indication that "Melee" is a requirement on IAs to do Power Parries with them.

Quote:
You can either take that as Auras have extra rules that limit the scope of what an Aura can do, or you can take that as melee being priced with the understanding that you'll have the reach of your body even though it's bought with C reach.
I would expect to see "anyone you touch (reach C, or 1 with kicks)" if the reach of your entire body mattered. Someone with C,1 reach auras (kicks included) shouldn't get a -30% discount.

Quote:
Characters don't choose that. Players do, and they know. When you use a Wait, your put your character into "observe and only act when the character perceives this event"
A player choosing to Wait is roleplaying their character choosing to Wait. I'm not understanding what distinction you're trying to make.

Quote:
Feints put your opponent at a disadvantage by having them react to a perceived (but fake) attack.
One that they perceive as a miss, and which they do not expend an active defense against. B444 treats distraction via cloak-to-face as Feinting, for example. It's perceived initially as a miss which, if you realize it was a feint, you're supposed to realize AFTER you choose your active defense. Otherwise, if you knew you'd been feinted, you could take a Move to get to a safe distance, or do All-Out Defense, or Feverish Defense, etc.

Quote:
What do you think the contest of skill represents?
General reactivity. Whatever it is, there's no -4 to any parries or -1 to dodges or -5 to blocks made after resisting the contest. I'm not even sure if you're allowed to try to resist a feint if your modified skill is less than 3.

Quote:
That is meta-gaming, as surely as you using table talk of information other players discovered that hasn't been relayed to your character.
Assuming your character knows attacks will hit or miss them is not meta-gaming under the basic rules, because that knowledge is assumed and influences whether you expend a defense against them. Characters don't bother to expend active defenses against misses.

I would suggest incorporating "Do or Die Bullet Dodging" by T-Bone (Pyramid 3/34 page 26) if you want the rules to work differently:
adventurers must announce a dodge (or other valid defense) without knowing the result of attack rolls
In play, the GM switches from asking “The bullets will hit you; what do you do?” to asking “The bullets might hit you; what do you do?”
Quote:
Waits aren't on that list, since they rely on actual perceived events.
I do not agree with the implication that active defenses do not rely on perceived events. The choice of whether to Warp Dodge hinges upon the knowledge you will be hit. You don't choose to parry before knowing if it will hit or miss.

Quote:
Ask what the wait event was, and if the character could perceive it. If you say "when someone hits me," that only happens after you are hit. If you say "when attacked" that will happen prior to rolls being made, since it's not conditional on being hit. There isn't an event your character will perceive between the attack happening and the attack resolution to interrupt.
Sure there is: "the attack will hit". This happens after the attack is made, but before the attack arrives.

Last edited by Plane; 01-26-2019 at 02:03 PM.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 06:27 PM   #234
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
B107 "Ranged" says "gives range to an advantage that normally affects your immediate area, or that requires a touch to affect others." Would you oppose taking Ranged+Emanation (net +20%) to enable AE on Aura? Your opposition seems to be based on the idea that you should only be able to take AE on "range" instead of "reach" abilities?
Actually my opposition is based on the notion that you're trying to 'spain an advantage rather than pay for advantage. That is based in the facts of what Innate Attack and the modifiers you're assigning do.

Your rather convoluted argument still relies on notions of what they could do if the GM decides to alter how ranged attacks are treated, incorporate some of your ideas on expanding their profile to have a physical, attack-able component, then allows Auras to effectively create a defensive shield around you (even though Auras expressly can't defend) at a longer reach than the other modifiers permit.

The bottom line has always been that in a point based system abilities are based on paying points for the mechanics they provide. How you explain those mechanics working in a particular game world to achieve that effect doesn't alter the game mechanics nor do those explanations give you advantages that would effectively be new powers.

Quote:
Also wondering, with the insistence of Auras working like Melee Attacks, do you think you can AOA:Strong with an Aura to get a damage bonus?
You would get to add AoA: Strong to your punch damage. The Aura is concurrent, not a follow up. It would be separate damage.

[quote]AuraIAs always had the benefit of thwacking stuff that hit the target.[quote] Yes, the guy with aura being hit is the trigger for it to "thwack" anything.

Quote:
Ignoring, or acknowledging and altering per adds?
Enhancements don't negate limitations, period. You couldn't take Always On -30% then Switchable +10%, which is the same as taking no reach then adding reach. Furthermore, enhancements aside from Cosmic can't negate a built in restriction (such as a restriction in Melee that prevents range from being added), either.

Of course, this is entirely aside from the other problem, that you still don't have a reasonable rationale for attacks targeting *dice* of damage with any basis in the rules.

Quote:
"might not" isn't "isn't".
Ah, you're back to something which at best doesn't offer any rules commentary whatsoever, and at worst confirms that it's not canon. Either way, it's still not permission to attack incoming attacks, so I don't see how it helps you. Your whole notion relies on not 1, not 2, but at least 3 major changes in how things are typically done *plus* a GM that's generous enough to build a world where the values fit your notions of what should happen.

Quote:
If you want to be super-literal, "If a weapon strikes you, your aura affects the weapon" only refers to the 2nd half. It shouldn't allow auras to affect weapons you strike, only weapons which strike you.
The prior statement has other conditions.

Quote:
Area Effect makes it possible to affect groups of people with non-attack advantages that normally affect just one target; e.g., Healing, Mind Control, and Telekinesis.
Powers expands on those as range 0 abilities. Of course, if you could add Melee to TK or Mind Control as well. Area+TK+Melee was an early suggestion for "touch TK" allowing you lift a car by its fender without worrying it would break off. The "Area" was high SM much like Affliction allows it to counter the penalty would you get for afflicting it.

Quote:
Innate Attacks can be perceived "non-attack advantages" when they are made into Auras. You no longer make attacks with them, instead you use Readies (or Concentrates, if you change from physical to mental) to switch them on and off.
Where did you get the notion that what maneuver you take has anything to do with if it's an attack or non-attack advantage? Besides, if you can touch someone and set them on fire, how is that any less of a burn attack than setting them on fire by throwing a fireball at them?

Quote:
Telekinesis can result in attacks on targets, but the user is not actually attacking, it is their TK attacking after they do a Concentrate maneuver to activate it. Same with Mind Control and forcing enemies to attack. Aura's like that. The user just activates it, they never attack directly with it, and that is what "attack advantage" means in this context.
TK is strength at a distance. You don't get your hands dirty wielding a sword with your hands, either, but you're attack with a weapon (directly) regardless if it's muscles or TK doing the swinging.

Mind Control allows you to direct someone, so I suppose you're indirectly attacking, but there's still a 1 to 1, you do, action happens relationship.

Aura isn't like either of those. Aura has a trigger: touch, which works on targets after they contact you. Even if you can extend that area, the mechanics still don't say anything about negating/affecting attacks before they contact you to trigger the aura.

In the case of the "persistent damage area" it's assessed once per turn. It's not intended to stop dice of damage from anything. Indeed, if you had someone already inside your Aura and he fired a gun, it wouldn't make sense to assess it against the bullet (since it's already been assessed against the character prior).

Quote:
I believe this wording on P100 may be the basis for the idea of applying AEs to Auras. Due to that, the 4 bullets (multiplying FP cost by radius, separate contests, penalty summing, same effects) should apply.
I really don't follow how you could apply anything there to ignore rules elsewhere.

Quote:
If "however the ability get it is good enough" then why "isn't applied to Aura, so it can't change the fundamentals of how Aura works"? Aura changes how the ability works, and then AE changes the ability. Same thing.
The problem with that statement is that Aura doesn't add DR mechanics. Area doesn't add Selective Area mechanics. Aura doesn't slice bread and serve you in bed either. Aura is adds the mechanics described in Aura and other modifiers don't get to ignore how Aura works.

Quote:
P108 "converts a defensive trait into a field projected a short distance from your body." and IA w/Aura has been described as "Defensive" (P144)
Are you referring to the header "Defensive Venoms" inside the "Attacks" example section? You should look at the description of how they work, since they at best discourage contact rather than offer you a defense.

Quote:
Trigger and effect are inexorably linked for passive abilities, Psi-Static and the 2 Mana advantages show us that.
You're suggesting that walking beside but not touching a land mine is the same as stepping on it?

Quote:
I'm not going to quibble about subjective things like fairness, I value DR more highly than you do.
Apparently not, since you are encouraging others to buy things that potentially offer a better defense cheaper.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 06:28 PM   #235
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
I will note that despite the similar name, "Power Parry" is not a subset of "Parries", so there's no reason to think Auras wouldn't do them.
You mean, slapping Increase Range or Armor Divisor on Doesn't Breathe to allow you a Power Parry? The "it doesn't say I can't" isn't a good standard. Aura doesn't give you any defense, at all, so it doesn't make sense to try to give it one.

Quote:
Innate Attack (ranged by default) can't do parries either (without Melee-Capable) and there's no indication that "Melee" is a requirement on IAs to do Power Parries with them.
No, just rules under Power Parry that allow certain attacks to parry that way.

Quote:
A player choosing to Wait is roleplaying their character choosing to Wait. I'm not understanding what distinction you're trying to make.
Ok, last stab at this. You will be "P" for player and your character will be your "PC" for player's character. Enemy will be E for enemy.

If P says they are going to wait until they see E attacking, PC's wait will trigger when PC sees E making any attack i.e. GM says, he reaches for a gun, points at gun at you, etc.

If P says they are going to wait until E hits them, PC's wait will trigger when PC is hit. PC doesn't know if any given attack is going to hit, or if his defense will work. If the PC doesn't act prior to being hit and defending, the PC *can't* know how the attack will turn out.

Quote:
Assuming your character knows attacks will hit or miss them is not meta-gaming under the basic rules, because that knowledge is assumed and influences whether you expend a defense against them. Characters don't bother to expend active defenses against misses.
First off, meta-gaming is using player knowledge that the character doesn't have to guide the character. Assuming your character know, voids the possibility of meta-gaming. Do active defenses allow you to do that legally? Probably. Doesn't matter, it's not part of this discussion and I wasn't saying that as bad or any kind of problem.

I was saying that doing that in other situations is generally bad role playing, such as when your buddy spots something, but your PC reacts on that info even though your PC doesn't know that info. In other cases, such as firing at a piece on the board someone else can see but your PC can't and wouldn't even know about, it's even prohibited. In either case, taking a maneuver based on something your character does not know isn't something to encourage. Note that, again, I'm discussing maneuvers which are a wholly different beast than Active Defenses.

Trying to game a Wait maneuver based on the outcome of dice and defenses is meta-gaming, since your character won't know the outcome until they witness the outcome in the game world (what we call events). In fact, it's a fairly common thing for GMs to roll attacks, defenses, perception checks, and other things behind a screen such that even the players don't know the actual outcome until they need to defend. (Besides, every GM at one time or another has done a "fiat" result instead of taking what the dice show.)

Quote:
I do not agree with the implication that active defenses do not rely on perceived events. The choice of whether to Warp Dodge hinges upon the knowledge you will be hit. You don't choose to parry before knowing if it will hit or miss.
There's a separate section for Active Defense rules. Since I didn't bring this up and describing how ADs work isn't in scope, I don't see any reasons to clarify how much knowledge you need to make an AD. Needless to say, that AD rules are separate from the Maneuver rules, serve a different purpose, and allow PCs to do different things.

Quote:
Sure there is: "the attack will hit". This happens after the attack is made, but before the attack arrives.
"the attack will hit" is not an event until it has happened. Waits are done as a result of an event, not what-ifs.

To put it another way, if you're triggering on any attack that will hit, but you stop it, then it wouldn't have hit, and you shouldn't have triggered the wait. You've created a paradox and destroyed that universe.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2019, 07:10 PM   #236
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
rules under Power Parry that allow certain attacks to parry that way.
My point is simply that Aura in basic set is talking about normal parrying.
Power defenses arenít mundane defenses, though. A hero can attempt a Power Block and a mundane block on the same turn, has no penalty on future parries if he tries a Power Parry, and can attempt a Power Parry during a Move and Attack.
Quote:
If P says they are going to wait until they see E attacking, PC's wait will trigger when PC sees E making any attack i.e. GM says, he reaches for a gun, points at gun at you, etc.

If P says they are going to wait until E hits them, PC's wait will trigger when PC is hit. PC doesn't know if any given attack is going to hit, or if his defense will work. If the PC doesn't act prior to being hit and defending, the PC *can't* know how the attack will turn out.
There is a distinction between 'the to-hit roll succeeded' and 'being hit'. I think PCs (not just Ps) know if an attack will miss (or else you would still do active defenses against misses) and even if a defense will fail (or else you couldn't do the 2nd half of "All-Out Defense: Double").

I think you would also know if a Sacrificial Dodge (or Block/Parry) would succeed, because if one of those manages to stop an attack, you choose not to actively defend.

Quote:
First off, meta-gaming is using player knowledge that the character doesn't have to guide the character. Assuming your character know, voids the possibility of meta-gaming.
It's an educated assumption. Why else would you not bother to dodge+drop if someone shot wide of you?

Quote:
taking a maneuver based on something your character does not know isn't something to encourage.
I really don't see the basis of thinking a character doesn't know. The only attacks you couldn't know about hit/miss are surprise ones.

Quote:
Trying to game a Wait maneuver based on the outcome of dice and defenses is meta-gaming, since your character won't know the outcome until they witness the outcome in the game world (what we call events).
The event a character witnesses is the same they witness that leads them to not bother committing to an active defense.

"Wow, that ogre is throwing a massive punch at me, but I can tell from his stance that his fist is going to miss my face by a couple of inches, so I'm not going to cross-parry with both my knives and lose my ability to parry for the rest of the turn.

Quote:
In fact, it's a fairly common thing for GMs to roll attacks, defenses, perception checks, and other things behind a screen such that even the players don't know the actual outcome until they need to defend. (Besides, every GM at one time or another has done a "fiat" result instead of taking what the dice show.)
A character doesn't know the exact outcome of dice, but they will know if they need to actively defend, meaning they will know whether or not the attack is on route to hit, or en route to miss.

Quote:
"the attack will hit" is not an event until it has happened.
If that were the case, it would be too late to block/dodge/parry/retreat/warp away, if you were already hit then you'd be damaged.

Quote:
Waits are done as a result of an event, not what-ifs.
The event is your character perceiving an encroaching hit/miss, which we know they can do since it affects their choice of whether to actively defend.

Quote:
To put it another way, if you're triggering on any attack that will hit, but you stop it, then it wouldn't have hit, and you shouldn't have triggered the wait. You've created a paradox and destroyed that universe.
This is like arguing "if an attack will hit, but you dodge it, then it wouldn't have hit, and you shouldn't have dodged".
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2019, 08:01 AM   #237
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
My point is simply that Aura in basic set is talking about normal parrying.
Sure, but it points out parry because otherwise Melee would grant a normal parry. It doesn't need to point out anything else that isn't provided.

Quote:
There is a distinction between 'the to-hit roll succeeded' and 'being hit'. I think PCs (not just Ps) know if an attack will miss (or else you would still do active defenses against misses) and even if a defense will fail (or else you couldn't do the 2nd half of "All-Out Defense: Double").
and again, you can't take bits of pieces of the Active Defense rules and apply them to the Maneuver rules. Active Defenses may very well let your PC act on things your Player would only know, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

Waits are based on game world events (things that have happened). Active Defenses are rolled when the GM tells you something could happen. One is a maneuver, the other is an action that happens as a reaction if you took a maneuver that allowed it.

Quote:
I really don't see the basis of thinking a character doesn't know. The only attacks you couldn't know about hit/miss are surprise ones.
Ok, I rolled an attack. Did I hit? You obviously believe you can know before I tell you the outcome.

The rules permit you a defense after I tell you, but at that point it's too late for your character to interrupt what I've already done.

Quote:
This is like arguing "if an attack will hit, but you dodge it, then it wouldn't have hit, and you shouldn't have dodged".
One messes with the flow of time and the other does not. If you take a Wait after an events has occurred, then try to back up time, such that the event did not occur, then why did the wait happen? Defenses don't work like that. The attack was still successful, you just either moved from the target area or deflected the attack.

Let's look at the implications of your Wait interrupt. What if you punch someone for 5 damage (no HPT), after they rolled and hit you by a MoS of 1? Are you suggesting that they now miss due to shock? If they missed, it was because you inflicted shock penalties *prior* to any attack they took to prevent it from ever having a chance to hit you. Indeed, you could do enough damage that they couldn't have *initiated* an attack that caused the Wait trigger. If the hit by a MoS of 1 stands, then you'll still take the hit and your attack takes effect afterwards.

Backing the game up, reassessing the attacker's ability to attack, and potentially negating something before it could happen, breaks the flow of time. Defenses don't do that. You rolled a dodge to get out of the way of where an attack was going to be. You didn't roll a dodge to go back in time to prevent the attacker from making the attack.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2019, 02:58 PM   #238
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Sure, but it points out parry because otherwise Melee would grant a normal parry. It doesn't need to point out anything else that isn't provided.
IAs which are powers provide power parries against appropriate targets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
you can't take bits of pieces of the Active Defense rules and apply them to the Maneuver rules. Active Defenses may very well let your PC act on things your Player would only know, but ultimately it doesn't matter.
Could you explain the basis for your argument that only a player and never the character could know whether or not attack rolls are successful before the roll results in contact?

When whether or not you waste your costly warping hinges upon whether or not there's a value in warping away, it seems like the warper would know that the attack missed and that's why they didn't bother to teleport in response to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Waits are based on game world events (things that have happened).
Like "he threw a kick, his foot is heading towards your jaw" (as opposed to "heading for your torso" (he failed by 1) or "heading for your friend" (he's attacking into close combat and missed you, and your ally is the random target)

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Active Defenses are rolled when the GM tells you something could happen.
There isn't any "could", someone WILL kick you in the face if you don't parry their leg. Unless some other consciousness is performing the active defenses, the person who is actively defending is aware they are being attacked, and they are deciding whether or not to parry based upon it not being a miss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
One is a maneuver, the other is an action that happens as a reaction if you took a maneuver that allowed it.
Pretty sure Wait maneuvers are reactive too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Ok, I rolled an attack. Did I hit? You obviously believe you can know before I tell you the outcome.
I can tell whether you missed your roll (there's no need for me to actively defend) or whether you succeeded (there is a need to actively defend). I can tell that you will hit or that you won't hit if I do nothing. What I can't tell is whether or not if I choose to react, I'll do so quickly enough to stop it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
The rules permit you a defense after I tell you, but at that point it's too late for your character to interrupt what I've already done.
According to which page?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
One messes with the flow of time and the other does not. If you take a Wait after an events has occurred, then try to back up time, such that the event did not occur, then why did the wait happen?
You take a Wait before the turn of the person you are reacting to. It's already your turn. You've already chosen your maneuver. You're just delaying it until you react to something.

That something might be "an enemy throws an attack that will not hit me unless stopped or avoided" or "an enemy throws an attack that will hit me unless stopped or avoided". There's no backing up time involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Defenses don't work like that. The attack was still successful, you just either moved from the target area or deflected the attack.
Same logic for Wait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Let's look at the implications of your Wait interrupt. What if you punch someone for 5 damage (no HPT), after they rolled and hit you by a MoS of 1? Are you suggesting that they now miss due to shock?
You are able to dodge gunfire without massive penalties because you begin reacting to a gunshot past the point of no return (they can't opt not to pull the trigger if someone successfully dodges) yet before the bullet exits the barrel (dodging the aim, even without an Aim maneuver)

Due to that, if you could react instantly with zero delay between trigger and delivery, you should be able to. However since most attacks would have some realistic delay between trigger and delivery, doing some kind of rolling to see if you do it quickly enough to inflict the shock before the bullet leaves the barrel sounds like a fair approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
If they missed, it was because you inflicted shock penalties *prior* to any attack they took to prevent it from ever having a chance to hit you.
Prior to, or DURING?

A parallel I could use would be the idea of using Obscure as some kind of Power Dodge. Obscure doesn't let you dodge attacks, but if someone was attacking you and you wanted to react by obscuring them after they began their attack but before they finished it, a successful power dodge meaning they could apply the penalty to the roll (a failure meaning they reacted too late, and can't apply it to THAT roll) sounds fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Indeed, you could do enough damage that they couldn't have *initiated* an attack that caused the Wait trigger.
If you mean by reducing effective skill below 3, are you sure that means someone absolutely can't do something (try to grapple, drop an object, try to punch, throw something) or just that it has 0% chance of success and is an automatic miss?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Backing the game up, reassessing the attacker's ability to attack, and potentially negating something before it could happen, breaks the flow of time.
Not if the attack is still in the process of happening. Turn interruption is a lot like how Decreased Time Rate would interact with normies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Defenses don't do that. You rolled a dodge to get out of the way of where an attack was going to be. You didn't roll a dodge to go back in time to prevent the attacker from making the attack.
I don't think skill 2 means you can't make attacks, just that they are always failures. Otherwise I can't drop an object as a free action if my skill drops below 3 because my Dropping skill is too low.

"May not attempt a success roll" isn't "may not act". If a GM wants you to roll at -20 to ST to lift some heavy object but your ST is only 10, it doesn't mean you can't TRY to lift it, just that you will fail.

If speed/range penalties reduce your skill below 3 it doesn't mean you can't fire a gun/arrow to try and hit the thing, it's just so hopeless you shouldn't try at all (if you have common sense to realize your own limits) because failure is guaranteed.

If someone doesn't have common sense and doesn't make attacks without rolling, there is the weird benefit that they can't critically fail (since they do not roll) which is weird, so allowing them to roll just to see if they miss normally or miss critically would be a good house rule.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2019, 04:04 PM   #239
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Defensive Auras

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
IAs which are powers provide power parries against appropriate targets.
Sure, as an active defense. Adding Aura does not provide an additional defenses, though, so I'm not sure why it matters?

Quote:
When whether or not you waste your costly warping hinges upon whether or not there's a value in warping away, it seems like the warper would know that the attack missed and that's why they didn't bother to teleport in response to it.
The rules permit that. They don't say anything about letting you alter time. I expanded on why trying to prevent an attack that was already rolled for wasn't an interception of the attack (that's a parry or block), but an attempt to go back and stop it from every happening at all.

Besides, all you know is the time you rolled was the time it mattered. Your character was presumably doing other things at other times, it just wasn't important.

Quote:
Pretty sure Wait maneuvers are reactive too.
No, you're delaying your action until after an event. If you don't take the (Wait) delay first, you don't get a maneuver when that event happens later. Furthermore, you must describe what event you're waiting for *and* what action you'll take. If you are waiting for Z to approach, but Y decides to shoot you instead, your Wait is wasted and you don't react.

That's the opposite of Active Defenses which are done on demand, not used until needed, and chosen after you see what your opponent is doing.

Quote:
I can tell whether you missed your roll (there's no need for me to actively defend) or whether you succeeded (there is a need to actively defend). I can tell that you will hit or that you won't hit if I do nothing. What I can't tell is whether or not if I choose to react, I'll do so quickly enough to stop it.
Actually, that's paraphrasing what I said. You will only know if you get a chance to defend, which if you don't defend, will result in you being affected by the attack. There's no event to trigger your wait on here. In fact, if your opponent rolls a critical success or for some other reason no defense is possible, the GM can jump straight to telling you how much damage you've taken.

Quote:
According to which page?
Read the rules for Waits and Active Defenses. They aren't on the same page.

Quote:
You take a Wait before the turn of the person you are reacting to. It's already your turn. You've already chosen your maneuver. You're just delaying it until you react to something.
Sort of. You're delaying action until something specific has happened, to which you'll take a predefined response. I gather you've treated waits like "meh, I'll take my action later after I know what they are doing" rather than "if anyone gets inside sword range, I'll attack them with my sword."

Quote:
That something might be "an enemy throws an attack that will not hit me unless stopped or avoided" or "an enemy throws an attack that will hit me unless stopped or avoided". There's no backing up time involved.
Sure, I even showed you an example. Someone rolls for a punch that will hit. You claim you can interrupt the punch, take your action and knock them down or out. That punch that was going to hit you, now never occurred because they aren't in a position to initiate it. You can't really claim you intercepted the punch, because if the original roll were to stand, unmodified, you would get hit before they went down. It was either good enough to hit you (defend or damage, wait doesn't matter) or it was prevented from occurring by knocking them down before they made that "good hit" roll (time reversal).

Quote:
Same logic for Wait.
First off, it's a matter of game mechanics that separate different situations.

Second, it makes no sense that you could prevent the action you're supposed to be reacting to.

Third, active defenses don't prevent the attack from happening. If you were just avoiding or deflecting the attack, you'd be doing what the game calls an "active defense."

Quote:
You are able to dodge gunfire without massive penalties because
Because the rules let you, no more, no less. If the rules did not let you, you could not. The "why" is only interesting when explaining the scene. What you use for a "why" may not apply to any one else's game or game world. Your "logic" is just your description of what you see happening when you imagine it. It does not represent what the rules say any more than if I suggested GURPS bullet dodge is done that way because it's simpler than taking into account erratic movement and target speed.

Quote:
A parallel I could use would be the idea of using Obscure as some kind of Power Dodge. Obscure doesn't let you dodge attacks, but if someone was attacking you and you wanted to react by obscuring them after they began their attack but before they finished it, a successful power dodge meaning they could apply the penalty to the roll (a failure meaning they reacted too late, and can't apply it to THAT roll) sounds fair.
First off, Obscure isn't allowed a Power Dodge, since it can't get you out of the way or transform you in a way to prevent the hit. Obscure can allow a Power Block, though, and is listed as an example under Power Block. Second, popping smoke after a shot is fired won't interfere with the original aim at all, so it doesn't make any sense to try to apply a "post-aim" penalty. Third, none of the power defenses (Power Block/Dodge/Parry) apply any penalties after an attack has been made. Indeed, I can't think of a case where additional penalties are applied after a roll unless you screwed up on the calculation of the original penalties. Certainly it's too late for the target to make aiming harder *after* the shot has been fired.

Quote:
If you mean by reducing effective skill below 3, are you sure that means someone absolutely can't do something (try to grapple, drop an object, try to punch, throw something) or just that it has 0% chance of success and is an automatic miss?
Perhaps they fell down, got knocked out, or even killed. At that point, you have this ambiguous roll that was supposedly successful before you invoked your wait that you now are trying to change or pretend did not happen.

Quote:
Not if the attack is still in the process of happening. Turn interruption is a lot like how Decreased Time Rate would interact with normies.
Neither that nor ATR works in that way. You still take and follow the turn sequence.

Quote:
If someone doesn't have common sense and doesn't make attacks without rolling, there is the weird benefit that they can't critically fail (since they do not roll) which is weird, so allowing them to roll just to see if they miss normally or miss critically would be a good house rule.
It's more of a nuisance than anything and I wouldn't consider it adding to the story to know that you dropped your coffee cup or made some very odd tasting coffee while researching mummies. Critically failing the research roll, sure, that's important. Those side events, not so much.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aura of power, persistent

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.