Defensive Auras

[Plane]

It's like noting that they also use a lot of the same words or words with variations on the 26 letter alphabet. You haven't provided a similarity that doesn't ignore presented rules. In the former case, you're ignoring limits that cover the application. In other cases you're ignoring how handling an attack is spelled out.

I don't think identifying that "Attack Modifiers" and "Direct Attack Advantages" being associated with the trinity is as broad as talking about 26-letter alphabets.

Are you referring to B377 under Damage and Injury?

If your attack roll succeeds and your target fails his defense roll (if
any), you hit him! If your attack is one that can do damage, you must now make a “damage roll.”

I think you're reading a bit too far into general guidelines. Exceptions can override this. For example if you have DR w/ Area Effect and the DR stops it, do you think it still counts as actually hitting your target?

What if the target fails his defense roll but his ally succeeds in his Sacrificial Dodge? That too would violate these holy words.

What if the target took All-Out Defense: Double? If he fails his defense roll, he can try a 2nd one. No mention of that here!

What if the target has the Reverse Missiles spell cast on them? The statement simply isn't a final word, there are exceptions where you ignore it when it makes sense to.

Your comment does not make sense. You don't know the thought process that went into these, and the description at the end provides a better basis for "how it's intended to work" than anything presented here. The whole thread was "can I justify."

You're the first person in the thread to use the word 'justify'.

That's funny. There's nothing realistic about this ability and again, you're basically using your vision of how it might work in a specific setting to justify what you think should be part of the rules.

This isn't about the realism of the specific ability (it's rather Magneto-ish, X-men doesn't real) but rather of the overall concept that it is possible to have an AE of constant repulsion which if strong enough, makes it impossible to approach a direction with slow projectiles.

If I can for example, throw a beach ball about 30 feet, if I tried throwing it into a wind tunnel, that's not going to happen.

I've listed both that it's not and why it would be better covered elsewhere. You keep coming back to "yea, but it should work this way". Perhaps it should. Perhaps there should be a type of IA/defense ability that has all the inbuilt features you want. Unfortunately, GURPS designers decided to do such things as a combination of (usually linked) abilities rather than a justification for one ability to provide another.

No special features are needed for the knockback, all you need is a target. What you need to define is if you want price differences between targetless projectiles (sound waves) and targeted projectiles (bullets, arrows, giant boulders).

If you want a burning aura/area that stops damage and injury, that's a different ability/feature that's not covered by IA, and logically it might provide your protection even from Cupid.

I wouldn't need any DR against Cupid if I could just teleport him too far away to shoot me. Teleporting his bow far away is a similar tactic. Teleporting his arrows far away would also work.

What you seem to be arguing is that while I could teleport cupid's arrows away while they're in his quiver, or while he's readying them in his hand, somehow I can't teleport them away after he's loosed them but before they hit a target, because they become magically untargetable teleporting arrows? That's malediction!

rules provide limitations for external advantages (gear) relative to character durability. The DR/HP isn't related to ammo and the GM is free to allow 0% breakable gadgets that are either easily replaced or ultra-durable.

It seems like gear can take any form. Why not ammo as well?

Cutting Attack 0.25 (ST-Based, Limited Use 1, Slow Reload; Breakable, Can Be Stolen) sounds like a throwing axe. The GM is free to define that the parameters of Slow Reload are "you have to go and get the throwing axe from wherever you threw it".

In that case, the Gadget limitations (being able to steal it, being able to destroy it) don't just apply to the Throwing Axe while in the hand, but also after it becomes a projectile.

"Slow Reload" arguably has "Can Be Stolen" built into it, because it refers to actual objects used to bypass the usual daily limitations of Limited Use. So you can steal a guy's bullets, whether they're mid-flight, in the chamber, in his hand, or in his satchel. The GM is free to designate a realistic amount of difficulty in depriving people of their Slow Reload ammo.

First off, there's two things to balance here. One is the attack powers that will suddenly no longer work on an entire *new* class of enemy.

There's nothing sudden about it. There's never been any ruling saying shot bullets and tossed cats don't get melted by fire walls just because they're moving passively by merit of an attack.

The other is a the near invulnerability you're apparently allowing.

Do note that AE has a height ceiling of 12ft that does not increase, so any AE shot above it will be a great counter for this. I would suggest dropping objects on them. If the knockback/second doesn't exceed terminal velocity, being crushed is inevitable.

In the former case, "doesn't work on anyone with an aura" could be a pretty powerful limitation. Sure, it's a subset of "all physical ranged"

Are you meaning something like "is influenced by knockback"? You could also define "insubstantial substantial-only shots" as an enhancement, and assume "your projectiles are objects" as the default stance.

You implied that weapons were based on real world statistics. Obviously that's harder to for the ones that don't exist.

For non-existent weapons, you can freely define them as shooting "stuff which is immune to knockback" and be done with it. Stuff like that should certainly be some kind of enhancement.

Bullets are affected by wind speed / direction, for example. Snipers know this. We wouldn't expect that to happen with lasers. So there is differently a differences which should be quantified here.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

Is that such a major concession? What this is about is what knockback does to something which is moving forward but not under its own power. Another situation like that would be what would happen to someone who is knocked off their horse while charging forward on it. How would you treat that situation? Do you think all the forward momentum they've gained from the horse should count for nothing?

I believe there are rules from being ejected while moving as well as something for lancers being unmounted while attempting joust. Regardless, it's something you can house rule easily enough. As for the size of the concession, there's two different types of discussions a) "what do you think of my house rules" and b) "is this correct by existing rules". I've pretty clearly stated I don't believe it's (b) with a healthy dose of warning as to what imbalance it brings relative to other abilities for (a).

Looking past "the GM may choose to extend the special modifiers of one particular trait to other, very similar traits." under "Special Modifiers" on B101...

Sure, GMs may and are in fact encouraged to extend the rules how they see fit. It's called a "house rule."

Blink is a Special Modifier for Warp, while AE and Aura are mainstream "Attack Enhancements" which per B102 "are intended only for Affliction, Binding, and Innate Attack, and for advantages modified with the Ranged enhancement (p. 107)."

You'll note that AE and Switchable are also listed under Mana Dampener but do different things. When you have an enhancement listed under a particular advantage that works differently, you typically cannot pick up and migrate those differences to other abilities. Otherwise, AE from Mana Dampener would make for a much improved Affliction.

While it says "Certain of these have additional restrictions; e.g., Armor Divisor applies only to Affliction and Innate Attack" no such added restriction is mentioned for AE/Aura.

So? We know that *either* of those are valid for an IA. The problem came from how *you* are trying to apply both to justify an unrelated defense.

Auras of Power doesn't apply to all attack powers: it's underpriced. The "metaenhancement" includes a 'Reduced Duration' discount, so it's actually a mix of enhancements and limitations (I'd prefer to call it a Metamodifier for that reason).

Call it what you like, it's still hard to justify ignoring the half of the rules you don't like that are explicitly written for that.

There's no reason to speculate there are reasons other than that obvious one for why that statement is there. None of the other modifiers are taboo for Binding/IA.

There's no reason to speculate because Auras of Power is taboo for anything but specific afflictions, per the written rules.

This doesn't mean that you couldn't create a modified version of Auras of Power excluding the duration discount for Afflictions with these 3 modifiers, or for other attack advantages. It still serves as an example of how those other aspects function.

No, it serves as a basis for creating what I believe would be a bad house rules, bad precedent, and overall point crock. Where do you stop justifying one power gives another once you start down the path "well, you bought one flame so you should also be able to do X with it"?

Normally, you pay for the advantages the concept provides. You're trying to justify advantages with an ability (and modifiers) through a convoluted explanation. Go back to the *concept* and pick abilities that actually provide what that *concept* does rather than what you believe you can strain an ability to additionally provide.

CAN you design a gadget which works just like a gun?

Sure.

You seem to exclude the idea that a gadget can define its output as things with HP/weight like a gun would have. If defined that way, it would be affected. If not, it wouldn't be.

No, it shouldn't either way. I've went over how attacks are normally resolved per the rules, but you seem to be intent on using different/inserted expectations to resolve attacks. That's fine, but why don't you list how you're doing it differently and ask for opinions on those rather than try to convince everyone else they can't read?

This sounds like you're talking about there being some kind of difference between moving actively and being moved passively in terms of taking damage from Area Effect.

No, I'm saying that weapons are used in a maneuver, while PCs take maneuvers.

You're trying to treat them as one and the same, but not recognizing the inherent things you're also ignoring while doing that. If you aren't going to be using slam/collision rules on top of weapon rules like you're using KB on top of weapon rules, then you aren't being consistent. Decide if they have HP/move for every action or not, then we can have a proper discussion of what the unintended side effects are.

One unintended consequence is that weapon attacks will have both the damage they do, plus the HP/move damage they do, since attack profiles don't explicitly account for mass and aren't necessarily proportional to the mass. It will make up for the momentum you're trying to rob them via KB.

If I tie up a dwarf with a rope and drag him behind me as I walk us through a firewall, I take damage from the fire but he doesn't, because he's not taking a Move maneuver?

Actually he should count as baggage in that situation. What you carry isn't immune, explicitly.

You need to be aware of attacks to defend, bullets are generally not aware of anything.

Obviously you didn't see "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?".

It seems like a pretty decent guideline for situations when you would need to know velocity, like for example, if you want to roll Perception vs the Speed/Range table to see if someone can visibly see what direction a projectile was going or where it came from.

Feel free to handle anything like that as a house rule.

Is there any amount of Burning Attack (Wall, Permeable) which you think could simply vaporize the cat so there's nothing coming out the other side to hurt people? Cats have ST 4, so reducing them below -10xHP would take 45 damage. Shouldn't Burning Attack 45d (Area Effect +50% Persistent +40% Reduced Duration -20% Wall +30%) [450] be enough to guarantee it?

The cat wouldn't fare well. He's be d-e-a-d beyond recognition and resurrection (should that be available). As for the target it was thrown at, since the wall provides 0 HP and 0 cover DR, the target would get 0 protection from being hit by a flaming unrecognizable crispy corpse. If you want the wall to behave differently, buy it differently. It's not a limitation of the system, it's that you picked the wrong ability to represent what you want to happen.

Area Effect inherently gives the capability of affecting targets outside of your Max. What you hit is where your area radius is centered.

That would be no range (emanation). The limitation here is melee, like a melee weapon with zero range, that your body has to touch.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

I don't think identifying that "Attack Modifiers" and "Direct Attack Advantages" being associated with the trinity is as broad as talking about 26-letter alphabets.

You haven't defined a dividing line. Your examples so far have been "hey I see similarities, I guess I can pull from here".

I think you're reading a bit too far into general guidelines. Exceptions can override this. For example if you have DR w/ Area Effect and the DR stops it, do you think it still counts as actually hitting your target?

You mean like the Cover DR rules?

What if the target fails his defense roll but his ally succeeds in his Sacrificial Dodge? That too would violate these holy words.

If you're trying to point out that specific rules can add or replace general rules, sure. You still have to find specific rules that are relevant to the situation, though, to use them instead of the general rules.

This isn't about the realism of the specific ability (it's rather Magneto-ish, X-men doesn't real) but rather of the overall concept that it is possible to have an AE of constant repulsion which if strong enough, makes it impossible to approach a direction with slow projectiles.

Did I say I had a problem with the concept or ability? No. I've suggested how it could be re-written to fall within the rules and be fair for the other players that were actually paying for protections they are getting.

What you seem to be arguing is that while I could teleport cupid's arrows away while they're in his quiver, or while he's readying them in his hand, somehow I can't teleport them away after he's loosed them but before they hit a target, because they become magically untargetable teleporting arrows?

No, I was discussing how much the implementation would cost. It's just that nearly all of the write ups you've provided tried to use illegal or at the very best shady/house rule short cuts to be arbitrarily cheap.

In that case, the Gadget limitations (being able to steal it, being able to destroy it) don't just apply to the Throwing Axe while in the hand, but also after it becomes a projectile.

Why would you assume that?

"Slow Reload" arguably has "Can Be Stolen" built into it, because it refers to actual objects used to bypass the usual daily limitations of Limited Use.

You'd qualify for other things as well. Unique if you need that particular throwing axe and cannot replace it. Can be Stolen if others could use or deprive you of it. Real though, unless the axe/ammo/bullets does something extraordinary that can't be done in the game world via other means, it's not really a gadget either.

There's nothing sudden about it. There's never been any ruling saying shot bullets and tossed cats don't get melted by fire walls just because they're moving passively by merit of an attack.

First, off I never said anything like that. We did discuss timing, but it was in reference to when it would get hit not if. What I did say is that the fire wall does not provide any cover DR since you didn't buy it that way. It also don't make you fly, billow blinding smoke, or leave behind diamonds that you can sell. If you want also want those as abilities for your wall, pay for them.

Are you meaning something like "is influenced by knockback"? You could also define "insubstantial substantial-only shots" as an enhancement, and assume "your projectiles are objects" as the default stance.

Sure, but then you're buying an enhancement to bring them up to the value of energy attacks. The point is that you're creating an inequality that the rules suggest shouldn't exist.

Bullets are affected by wind speed / direction, for example. Snipers know this. We wouldn't expect that to happen with lasers. So there is differently a differences which should be quantified here.

Conditions could affect how hard it is to make any shot, regardless if it's a bullet or laser. It's a feature of being a ranged attack not a feature of having mass. Furthermore, UT even gives examples of specific limitations you might apply to lasers for specific environmental limitations. If it's bad enough for a specific type of attack, it's worth assessing as a limitation.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by naloth

it's still hard to justify ignoring the half of the rules you don't like that are explicitly written for that.

You ignore the rulings on duration by ignoring the duration limitation. "Modified Aura of Power" costs more because you omit Reduced Duration, but it would otherwise work the same.

Originally Posted by naloth

There's no reason to speculate because Auras of Power is taboo for anything but specific afflictions, per the written rules.

AOP is, MAOP is not. AOP is a clear guideline on how to build MAOP.

Originally Posted by naloth

it serves as a basis for creating what I believe would be a bad house rules, bad precedent, and overall point crock.

I don't think it's house rules, since Kromm wrote the original guidelines for Aura+AE a long while ago. The flip side of "it may not be canon" is that "it may be canon". The latter is supported by PU4.

Originally Posted by naloth

Where do you stop justifying one power gives another once you start down the path "well, you bought one flame so you should also be able to do X with it"?

Powers leading to others is covered by "Using Abilities at Default". This, however, is not a new power, but rather a consequence of it. Area attacks hit all distinct objects in an area as long as they aren't behind cover.

Originally Posted by naloth

Normally, you pay for the advantages the concept provides. You're trying to justify advantages with an ability (and modifiers) through a convoluted explanation.

There is no separate advantage being justified. This isn't DR.

Originally Posted by naloth

Go back to the *concept* and pick abilities that actually provide what that *concept* does rather than what you believe you can strain an ability to additionally provide.

It's not an addition if it's how the rules work unmodified, which is what I think. We have no other examples of how to explicitly work Area when added on to Aura. Nor the alternatives of how to treat things passing through Permeable Walls or other Persistent AEs. We're never told to delay the application of that damage to objects passing through them.

Originally Posted by naloth

Sure.

Neat, tell me the value of a limitation which makes a Gadget targetable with the Disarm technique?

Originally Posted by naloth

I've went over how attacks are normally resolved per the rules, but you seem to be intent on using different/inserted expectations to resolve attacks. That's fine, but why don't you list how you're doing it differently and ask for opinions on those rather than try to convince everyone else they can't read?

I've provided evidence that there are exceptions to how you think attacks must be resolved.

Originally Posted by naloth

No, I'm saying that weapons are used in a maneuver, while PCs take maneuvers.

You're trying to treat them as one and the same, but not recognizing the inherent things you're also ignoring while doing that.

Why do you think it matters who is taking the maneuver? What matters is cause/effect and order of events. A cat traveling forward at a given velocity isn't going to be able to somehow delay the effects of an attack better if he's thrown there than if he leaps there.

Originally Posted by naloth

If you aren't going to be using slam/collision rules on top of weapon rules like you're using KB on top of weapon rules, then you aren't being consistent. Decide if they have HP/move for every action or not, then we can have a proper discussion of what the unintended side effects are.

They have Move 0, but they have Velocity and changing hex locations over time like someone who moves.

Originally Posted by naloth

One unintended consequence is that weapon attacks will have both the damage they do, plus the HP/move damage they do, since attack profiles don't explicitly account for mass and aren't necessarily proportional to the mass.

Who says they don't account for it? There's no telling without being told the speed of the swing.

Originally Posted by naloth

It will make up for the momentum you're trying to rob them via KB.

KB isn't robbery, it's a debt they already owe for merit of being vulnerable to Crushing Attacks.

Originally Posted by naloth

Actually he should count as baggage in that situation. What you carry isn't immune, explicitly.

I see... so a dwarf will be burned if I drag him behind me, but he will not be burned if I throw him ahead of me...

Don't examples like this sort of nudge you into realizing you might be making wrong assumptions?

Originally Posted by naloth

Feel free to handle anything like that as a house rule.

Perception rolls based on speed aren't house rules. Getting a range of possible velocities by dividing out HP from dice*100 is simply applying the Collision rules to determine an unknown variable.

Originally Posted by naloth

The cat wouldn't fare well. He's be d-e-a-d beyond recognition and resurrection (should that be available). As for the target it was thrown at, since the wall provides 0 HP and 0 cover DR, the target would get 0 protection from being hit by a flaming unrecognizable crispy corpse.

Is there even a corpse left at -10xHP though? At what point do you stop treating something utterly destroyed as a single high-mass object?

I will note that this isn't even a consideration with Side Effect: Warp which is guaranteed to leave no white-hot corpse dust to hit you.

Originally Posted by naloth

The limitation here is melee, like a melee weapon with zero range, that your body has to touch.

Interesting word, touch. One thing I do notice is that Aura of Power has Malediction. Do you think there is anything preventing the combination of Melee Attack with Malediction?

I ask because I seem to recall explicitly that touch-based Maledictions can buy Ranged.

I'd also like to know your stance on whether or not Melee-Capable and Aura would be compatible.

You haven't defined a dividing line. Your examples so far have been "hey I see similarities, I guess I can pull from here".

Shared categories, not just similarities.

You mean like the Cover DR rules?

Sure. At which point does your own DR count as cover and not just your DR? By default if not Tough Skin? Only if Force Field? Only if Area Effect?

If you're trying to point out that specific rules can add or replace general rules, sure. You still have to find specific rules that are relevant to the situation, though, to use them instead of the general rules.

The ability to damage objects immediately sounds specific enough. I suppose you might make the argument that damage is resolved immediately but knockback is resolved after a delay. But there isn't really anything indicating that, and there's guidelines about how much delay to be using.

Did I say I had a problem with the concept or ability? No. I've suggested how it could be re-written to fall within the rules and be fair for the other players that were actually paying for protections they are getting.

You keep insisting on DR to fall within the rules, but DR isn't the only thing which can interfere with attacks. "Your sword is gone" is a perfectly fine way to stop a thrust sword from stabbing its target.

I was discussing how much the implementation would cost. It's just that nearly all of the write ups you've provided tried to use illegal or at the very best shady/house rule short cuts to be arbitrarily cheap.

There's shady shortcuts which are canon and shady shortcuts which aren't.

Why would you assume that?

If I'm wrong: then you'll admit you can't emulate a throwing axe / throwing knife using an Innate Attack, so the balance vs equipment doesn't matter?

unless the axe/ammo/bullets does something extraordinary that can't be done in the game world via other means, it's not really a gadget either.

Make them some kind of magic Fatigue Attack fairy bullets then, I guess?

First, off I never said anything like that. We did discuss timing, but it was in reference to when it would get hit not if. What I did say is that the fire wall does not provide any cover DR since you didn't buy it that way. It also don't make you fly, billow blinding smoke, or leave behind diamonds that you can sell. If you want also want those as abilities for your wall, pay for them.

If we agree that what the wall does do is burn the cat, at some point we have to acknowledge when an object is no longer a cohesive object and begins to function differently.

Sure, but then you're buying an enhancement to bring them up to the value of energy attacks. The point is that you're creating an inequality that the rules suggest shouldn't exist.

I agree the rules suggest they shouldn't exist: so why are you insisting there is an inequality?

I'm arguing that I'm not creating anything (this is just how physical objects operate different) so balance in, balanced out.

Conditions could affect how hard it is to make any shot, regardless if it's a bullet or laser. It's a feature of being a ranged attack not a feature of having mass. Furthermore, UT even gives examples of specific limitations you might apply to lasers for specific environmental limitations. If it's bad enough for a specific type of attack, it's worth assessing as a limitation.

That sounds interesting. But is there an enhancements for lasers to acknowledge that you don't have to care about wind or gravity like you would with physical projectiles?

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

You ignore the rulings on duration by ignoring the duration limitation. "Modified Aura of Power" costs more because you omit Reduced Duration, but it would otherwise work the same.

So you say while ignoring that all the components are why it was "judged" a fair meta-trait for those specific few types of Afflictions.

AOP is, MAOP is not. AOP is a clear guideline on how to build MAOP.

That is a (bad, IME) judgement call.

I don't think it's house rules, since Kromm wrote the original guidelines for Aura+AE a long while ago.

citation? As I recall there hasn't been an IA that is Aura & AE example, let alone a rules citation that says it has the benefit of both a rigid and permeable wall.

Powers leading to others is covered by "Using Abilities at Default". This, however, is not a new power, but rather a consequence of it.

Holy shifting ground Bat-man! You're suggesting that this is an emergency probably one-off thing that isn't part of the reason you're buying the advantage? That particular part of Powers covers stuff your ability doesn't and isn't usually *allowed* to do, but can this time because "rule of cool." If you make a habit of it, you still need to buy it as a real ability.

There is no separate advantage being justified. This isn't DR.

As long it isn't providing a defense, sure.

It's not an addition if it's how the rules work unmodified, which is what I think. We have no other examples of how to explicitly work Area when added on to Aura. Nor the alternatives of how to treat things passing through Permeable Walls or other Persistent AEs. We're never told to delay the application of that damage to objects passing through them.

Thou art missing the point... We are never told that we decrease the damage of an attack traveling through them, period. Until you can come up with that magic text, it doesn't matter if the projectile was turned molten or barbecued. We also aren't told to care if the bullet was bounced around, either. The attack roll worked, the target didn't defend, the attack was within range. All criteria have been met to inflict damage.

Neat, tell me the value of a limitation which makes a Gadget targetable with the Disarm technique?

You mean like a quick contest of skill vs something? That's priced at -30%.

I've provided evidence that there are exceptions to how you think attacks must be resolved.

No, you haven't provided anything that has affected my thinking, nor any rule quotes which contradict what I've written.

Why do you think it matters who is taking the maneuver? What matters is cause/effect and order of events. A cat traveling forward at a given velocity isn't going to be able to somehow delay the effects of an attack better if he's thrown there than if he leaps there.

Using the rules, figure out which sections apply to a *thrown* cat and which apply to a that's *slamming* into you. I would suggest they are on entirely different pages, using similar words from the same alphabet covering different situations.

Who says they don't account for it? There's no telling without being told the speed of the swing.

No, you've implied it's up to you to reverse engineer all that info. That's what your doing with ammo after all, by not using *just* the attack profile.

KB isn't robbery, it's a debt they already owe for merit of being vulnerable to Crushing Attacks.

You haven't shown that attack profiles are vulnerable to that.

I see... so a dwarf will be burned if I drag him behind me, but he will not be burned if I throw him ahead of me...

Again, no. I've pointed out that the target on the other side isn't protected by frying the dwarf. From experience, fried dwarf makes a very effective projectile even at highly negative HP.

Don't examples like this sort of nudge you into realizing you might be making wrong assumptions?

A great many of the things I've pointed out are a directly lift from rule books. They aren't assumptions, they are just reading what is there. As someone that has built a narrative on a series of assumptions that all need to be correct for any of it to hold water, shouldn't you concerned that you can't dismiss any of the objections?

Is there even a corpse left at -10xHP though? At what point do you stop treating something utterly destroyed as a single high-mass object?

Does it matter how many pieces hit you if it does the same damage? If you stat up a bullet how are you representing the damage it does? Are you giving it an Aura that stays functional until its destroyed? Seems like that might be necessary for it to pass through one target and engage another. If so, does that aura interact with your aura? Inquiring minds want to know just how complicated this will be. You suggested a projectile in motions is a tiny NPC, let's see a full work up that includes the damage it does when it touches.

I will note that this isn't even a consideration with Side Effect: Warp which is guaranteed to leave no white-hot corpse dust to hit you.

Meh, for hundreds or thousands of points, I'd be open to it doing some pretty incredible things. Stat a valid ability and we'll discuss.

Interesting word, touch. One thing I do notice is that Aura of Power has Malediction. Do you think there is anything preventing the combination of Melee Attack with Malediction?

Nah, maledictions ignore DR on touch. I wouldn't bother with higher levels, though, since you still have a max range of C.

I ask because I seem to recall explicitly that touch-based Maledictions can buy Ranged.

Example?

I'd also like to know your stance on whether or not Melee-Capable and Aura would be compatible.

I'm not sure what you mean. Melee -30% is required for an Aura.

Shared categories, not just similarities.

So what? If something is specific to *one* advantage, it's specific to *one* advantage. It doesn't matter if they both use the letter "e" in their name, if they both happen to cost the same, or if they are both attack types powers or not. When you start off by ignoring the "this only applies here" part, you've pretty much invalidated anything that follows as a rules argument.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't say "what if we take X and try it on Y," for a "too good/bad/broken" discussion, but that's far afield from arguing RAW.

Sure. At which point does your own DR count as cover and not just your DR? By default if not Tough Skin? Only if Force Field? Only if Area Effect?

Which rules depend on which situation. Overpenetration generally counts all DR. Tough Skin (per its rules) doesn't cover you from attacks that just need skin contact. FFs (area or not) typically work as if you had DR for you and your equipment, counting once at the perimeter.

You keep insisting on DR to fall within the rules, but DR isn't the only thing which can interfere with attacks. "Your sword is gone" is a perfectly fine way to stop a thrust sword from stabbing its target.

You haven't provided an example to discuss that was valid. My general comment was that such an ability should have a cost that reflects its apparent usefulness.

There's shady shortcuts which are canon and shady shortcuts which aren't.

The examples you provided has multiple rules and implementation issues. In nearly every case you simply didn't provide enough levels/points to accomplish anything.

If I'm wrong: then you'll admit you can't emulate a throwing axe / throwing knife using an Innate Attack, so the balance vs equipment doesn't matter?

Equipment isn't directly balanced by points, regardless of the ability to emulate it.

Make them some kind of magic Fatigue Attack fairy bullets then, I guess?

This goes back to why would you stat bullets at all?

You'll notice that I used "Project Blow" for an attack that throws a projectile that automatically (and unavoidably) returns to your hand at the end of the attack on write-ups. That's because it's mechanically the simplest way of doing such. Do you think it matters if Project Blow is teleportation or Thor's hammer moving unerringly towards its target? Do you believe the rules for Project Blow change because someone has an aura?

If we agree that what the wall does do is burn the cat, at some point we have to acknowledge when an object is no longer a cohesive object and begins to function differently.

Sure, we can worry about that long after the attack has been resolved.

I agree the rules suggest they shouldn't exist: so why are you insisting there is an inequality?

You mean an equality between:
IA 5/lvl works on 2/3rds of targets encountered
<vs>
IA 5/lvl works on all targets.

ummm, because one has a massive pro over the other?

[naloth]

I'm arguing that I'm not creating anything (this is just how physical objects operate different) so balance in, balanced out.

The saying you're paraphrasing sounds suspiciously close to: garbage, in garbage out.

In any case, it's fairly obvious there's no negative for energy to offset the huge negative you're assigning physical projectiles. That's even before you get into the big pro auras suddenly have over other abilities now.

That sounds interesting. But is there an enhancements for lasers to acknowledge that you don't have to care about wind or gravity like you would with physical projectiles?

Sure, buy more range if you shoot your lasers farther than IA says by default. Of course, you might decrease the range for "scatter" too, depending on the ability.

You could even build a new or meta-enhancement that only applies to lasers. Just beware the player wanting to use it on an unrelated ability to justify being a multi billionaire that's bullet proof for some reason.

[Plane]

DFM3p12 "Heat Aura: 1d burning damage/second to anything within one yard of the lava lizard" INTERESTING

the components are why it was "judged" a fair meta-trait for those specific few types of Afflictions.

"Fair" in that "reduced duration" would be illegal for Coma, Heart Attack or Stunning? Sure.

That is a (bad, IME) judgement call.

What in your experience makes it bad?

citation? As I recall there hasn't been an IA that is Aura & AE example

"An actual radius would amount to adding Area Effect on top of it all."

You're suggesting that this is an emergency probably one-off thing that isn't part of the reason you're buying the advantage?

No, if you buy an AE advantage designed to blast interlopers on its own, I think you expect that to be done.

We are never told that we decrease the damage of an attack traveling through them, period.

Attacks aren't things, they are processes. A process doesn't travel all the way through if the object representing the attack is gone from the area.

Until you can come up with that magic text, it doesn't matter if the projectile was turned molten or barbecued.

I think you're looking for B485 "Broken Weapons":

If a weapon is destroyed – that is, it failed a HT roll at -1xHP or
below, or went to -5xHP – it is completely useless.

In particular you might find this useful for an incoming throwing dagger which gets bashed around:

An extremely light weapon (anything weighing 1 lb. or less, such as
a dagger) or a missile weapon (sling, bow, firearm, etc.) is useless even when merely disabled.

B276 under "THROWN WEAPON (KNIFE)" lists a mere 0.25 for the dagger, even the small knife (0.5) and large knife (1.0) fall within the "useless when disabled" guidelines.

Something would not be "useless" if it was still capable of landing and delivering a hit. I see no reason to except arrows/bolts/bullets from these guidelines, ammunition IS weaponry. B275 "Silver Weapons" includes "arrowheads" and LTC2 "Armor-Piercing Weapons" includes arrows.

We also aren't told to care if the bullet was bounced around, either. The attack roll worked, the target didn't defend, the attack was within range. All criteria have been met to inflict damage.

That is not the sum total of all possible criteria, only general guidelines. You don't bother with damage against insubstantial foes, if an ally made up for your failure to defend with a Sacrificial Dodge/Parry, or if Missile Shield or Reverse Missiles (M168) was active.

Stuff like "someone took a wait and hit my throwing knife with a 100d fireball" is clearly another situation (since per Broken Weapons, it is a "useless" weapon) where you wouldn't bother going ahead with damage.

You mean like a quick contest of skill vs something? That's priced at -30%.

That value of Can Be Stolen is only for DX v ST, I'm not aware of variations of this being allowed. B370 "Grabbing" is a REGULAR contest of ST v ST, so it doesn't even duplicate that.

No, you haven't provided anything that has affected my thinking, nor any rule quotes which contradict what I've written.

B485 seems adequate. The idea that projectiles can still inflict damage after taking 6xHP sounds more than useless.

Using the rules, figure out which sections apply to a *thrown* cat

"Collisions and Falls" B430

I would suggest they are on entirely different pages, using similar words from the same alphabet covering different situations.

The different situations being "a cat hits you from X velocity from above" vs a cat hits you from X velocity from the front"? You don't see why it's reasonable to compare the damage either of these do?

No, you've implied it's up to you to reverse engineer all that info. That's what your doing with ammo after all, by not using *just* the attack profile.

Weapons are certainly more than the attacks they can be used for.

You haven't shown that attack profiles are vulnerable to that.

The way it works is, since a Wait can interrupt a turn in action, if you make a successful roll to hit with your sword, I can declare my wait active and cast a spell to teleport your sword to the moon, and your sword doesn't hit despite having succeeded in your roll, because Wait is very flexible and open-ended. So to is "immediate" damage acting upon a projectile traversing intermediate space between 2 locations.

Again, no. I've pointed out that the target on the other side isn't protected by frying the dwarf. From experience, fried dwarf makes a very effective projectile even at highly negative HP.

Fried dwarf projectiles who've suffered 10xHP are fine, my objection is dwarves fried to the point of 11xHP. That's the point where your body should be reduced to negligible components unless you have Unkillable 2.

Does it matter how many pieces hit you if it does the same damage?

Yes, if it changes the attack type. Axes becomes clubs, spears become staffs/batons if disabled. If targeted via a Wait maneuver as soon as they get in range, their damage profiles can be altered.

If you stat up a bullet how are you representing the damage it does? Are you giving it an Aura that stays functional until its destroyed?

Following the example of the Smart Shuriken, I would say "uses the rules for sharp collisions" (HP*V*50 dice for pierce/cutting) here. You know the number of dice, you know the HP, so if you need to know the velocity, assign one which creates the proper result. A range of them will.

Stat a valid ability and we'll discuss.

Due to variations in bullet weight, I think it would be simpler to use a "Large Knife" for my example. What I need to compare is a damaging attack which can inflict 6xHP (reducing to -5xHP guarantees uselessness) or a non-damaging attack which can inflict HP/2 and has 2x value Symptoms which take effect at 50% HP loss.

OHPT (B558) assigns homogenous objects weighing 1 pound 8 HP. So I'm looking at 64 damage or 4 non-damage. "Solid-metal melee weapons have DR 6" increases that to 10 and 70. Taking into account You can use http://www.sjgames.com/gameaids/gurps/g4innatecalc.html to check my calculations. I will avoid the randomness of dice by doing strict static bonuses.

Burning Attack 0.25+2.7 does 10 damage. 5x2.95=14.75, rounds up to [15] base.

Jumper (Cannot Escort -10%, Cannot Follow -20%, Naked -30%) [40] is worth +400% on Affliction on on Symptoms 2/3, or +800% on Symptoms 1/2. The extra 100% for Melee/Aura/AE is +900%, the total being worth 1000% of original value is x10 to cost, changing [15] to [150].

Burning Attack 0.25+20.7 does 70 damage. 5x20.95=104.75, rounds up to [105] base, for comparison. The +100% Melee/Aura/AE increases that to [210].

It is cheaper to reliably jump the bullet to a parallel world than to reliably destroy it.

AE/Persistent is only +90% so it's even cheaper to do, but you'd have to renew it every 10 seconds, but can also leave it in places you're not occupying to protect allies.

Example?

Psionic Powers 20

When applied to an ability that works as a touch-based Malediction, this enhancement does not turn it into a true ranged attack. Instead, it becomes a Malediction that uses standard range penalties

Sounds like it's perfectly acceptable to over-ride touch-based abilities (whether inherrent or because of Melee Attack limitations) with Ranged.

Something like Cutting Attack (Melee -30%, Limited Ranged +36%) with Ranged +40 reduced by "Costs Fatigue 2 -10%", should be able to represent someone with a cutting ability that's normally limited to melee range, but who should be able to attack at a distance when they spend 2 FP.

I'm not sure what you mean. Melee -30% is required for an Aura.

The funny thing about that, is while it is priced for "C" range, someone with an Aura can throw a kick at reach 1 and still hit with the Innate Attack.

What I mean is that "Melee-Capable" is effectively just buying Ranged +40% on top of whatever Melee option you want, with a limited form of Selectivity (only in respect to 1 enhancement) built in since it's the default form.

If something is specific to *one* advantage, it's specific to *one* advantage.

Metamodifiers, sure, component modifiers, no.

This goes back to why would you stat bullets at all?

The same reason I would stat any weapon or other object: if I want to know how much damage it takes to move them around, destroy them, or give Symptoms to them.

Do you think it matters if Project Blow is teleportation or Thor's hammer moving unerringly towards its target?

Yes. Whether something moves straight toward or teleports matters in regards to whether cover stops it. Whether things like ricochets are needed to get around intervening obstacles.

Do you believe the rules for Project Blow change because someone has an aura?

I actually didn't notice where you defined this ability, I'd like to read it to better understand this question.

Sure, we can worry about that long after the attack has been resolved.

You shouldn't resolve the damage an attack with a weapon does before you resolve the damage done to a weapon, if the weapon is damaged before it damages.

Sure, buy more range if you shoot your lasers farther than IA says by default.

So why not do that for bullets as well? More range means more yards of knockback needed to shift tiers.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

"Fair" in that "reduced duration" would be illegal for Coma, Heart Attack or Stunning? Sure.

Fair in that section as a whole is fair. Picking it apart is an exercise in guessing that cannot prove anything either way. Taking something out of place to do something it was never intended to do doesn't support anything.

What in your experience makes it bad?

I keep explaining that. You're effectively giving an advantage that was never intended to be part of that package for free. The precedent is that any game world side effect can be used to justify any other free advantage, as long as the player "feels" it should also do that.

Why can't in Innate Attack produce substances that you can sell for unimaginable amounts of money? Why can't it leave a tag that you (and only you) can use to track enemies down? Why wouldn't it have other longer term effects that benefit you or punish enemies you shoot?

The usual (and answer given in Basic / Powers) is that if it's worth enough, it justifies buying the advantage that reflects what benefit you're getting. Negligible effects are worth negligible costs. Powerful effects are either separate enhancements that spell out that benefit or entirely other advantages (possibly linked).

"I want my damage field to also protect me" isn't negligible and it's certainly not spelled out as any part of Innate Attack, Aura, or Area even in the remotest sense. Furthermore, limitations (melee) don't add functionality, they transform or limit it to be a worse ability.

"An actual radius would amount to adding Area Effect on top of it all."

You cannot add distance to Melee. Extending how far "touch" can be from you negates the required value/version without a variant. That's pretty explicit in the melee description.

No, if you buy an AE advantage designed to blast interlopers on its own, I think you expect that to be done.

Yes, if you pay the points for that. You haven't come up with a legal ability that does that.

Attacks aren't things, they are processes. A process doesn't travel all the way through if the object representing the attack is gone from the area.

IA is a thing I buy. I use it to attack. It follows rules, and those rules aren't subject to being interrupted by KB or enemy damage.

I think you're looking for B485 "Broken Weapons":
<snip>
Something would not be "useless" if it was still capable of landing and delivering a hit. I see no reason to except arrows/bolts/bullets from these guidelines, ammunition IS weaponry. B275 "Silver Weapons" includes "arrowheads" and LTC2 "Armor-Piercing Weapons" includes arrows.

Then why don't the overpenetration rules check to see if a given projectile survives the first hit? Answer: it doesn't affect the outcome of the attack. It's not part of the rules.

That value of Can Be Stolen is only for DX v ST, I'm not aware of variations of this being allowed. B370 "Grabbing" is a REGULAR contest of ST v ST, so it doesn't even duplicate that.

? Disarm allows you to sub in your technique level for a skill or attribute.

B485 seems adequate. The idea that projectiles can still inflict damage after taking 6xHP sounds more than useless.

Meh, it's rather unimportant as you don't figure out the damage to a projectile at all.

The different situations being "a cat hits you from X velocity from above" vs a cat hits you from X velocity from the front"? You don't see why it's reasonable to compare the damage either of these do?

Comparing is fun, but it doesn't make them related. When specific rules address a situation, them's the rules. If you sub in others or your own, you're using house rules. You can 'spain why that's good or better, but it doesn't change what the actual rules are.

[quote]
The way it works is, since a Wait can interrupt a turn in action, if you make a successful roll to hit with your sword, I can declare my wait active and cast a spell to teleport your sword to the moon, and your sword doesn't hit despite having succeeded in your roll, because Wait is very flexible and open-ended. So to is "immediate" damage acting upon a projectile traversing intermediate space between 2 locations.[/.quote]
That's not the way wait works. You would teleport it before it was swung, try doing something as a defense, or do it after it struck you. Waits are declared to happen after something your PC perceives (i.e. guy came around the corner, guy going for his gun), not after rolling to see if an event will happen.

Following the example of the Smart Shuriken, I would say "uses the rules for sharp collisions" (HP*V*50 dice for pierce/cutting) here. You know the number of dice, you know the HP, so if you need to know the velocity, assign one which creates the proper result. A range of them will.

By the time you are done, it will be a completely new/revised game system. That's ok, but you shouldn't confuse it with the rules provided.

[INDENT]Jumper (Cannot Escort -10%, Cannot Follow -20%, Naked -30%) [40]

Again, how is that -60% actually reducing the utility of sending things that can't do any of that anyway on this ability? Second, Jumper requires a "use" and time (or IQ-10). Failure does nothing while critical failure is supposed to do bad things to the active user, which in this case should be your PC rather than your target or the aura. After all, it's not fair to bungle an attack such that it's worse for your opponent. Even bundling it with an IQ 18, it would only stop less than 25% of attacks.

You'd also need selective area, which again, would have an opt in/out issue. What instructions to do give the field such that it will stop projectiles but not air or friends that approach you?

Psionic Powers 20

When applied to an ability that works as a touch-based Malediction, this enhancement does not turn it into a true ranged attack. Instead, it becomes a Malediction that uses standard range penalties

Sounds like it's perfectly acceptable to over-ride touch-based abilities (whether inherrent or because of Melee Attack limitations) with Ranged.

What do touch-based Maledictions have to do with anything? IIRC, quite a bit of PP uses a build where higher levels buy off limitations rather than re-writing them.

The funny thing about that, is while it is priced for "C" range, someone with an Aura can throw a kick at reach 1 and still hit with the Innate Attack.

Yea, because your leg is extending into that hex.

What I mean is that "Melee-Capable" is effectively just buying Ranged +40% on top of whatever Melee option you want, with a limited form of Selectivity (only in respect to 1 enhancement) built in since it's the default form.

Perhaps you should try to get a publication for your house rules as an upcoming article?

Metamodifiers, sure, component modifiers, no.

I useless distinction, since you don't know which of the subsequent rules applied to any one component rather than all.

The same reason I would stat any weapon or other object: if I want to know how much damage it takes to move them around, destroy them, or give Symptoms to them.

Sure, in the right time or place. You seem to overlook that different rules are in use for the same items at different times depending on what you're doing.

Yes. Whether something moves straight toward or teleports matters in regards to whether cover stops it. Whether things like ricochets are needed to get around intervening obstacles.

I suppose there's the difference. I'm going to use rules based on how the ability was built to resolve it. If project blow effectively teleports it, then I'll treat it as ignoring intervening stuff (it finds a way around it), since it had to have LOS to attack.

I actually didn't notice where you defined this ability, I'd like to read it to better understand this question.

It's in my Supers thread, but it's more of a point about how Project Blow could be used to model that sort of attack.

For that matter look up "Ghostly Move". It's a canon example for using Warp to simulate really fast move, which is something I've also done with speedsters.

You shouldn't resolve the damage an attack with a weapon does before you resolve the damage done to a weapon, if the weapon is damaged before it damages.

Perhaps your opinion, but not really the way aura works.

So why not do that for bullets as well? More range means more yards of knockback needed to shift tiers.

That gets back to the point that extra range was never intended to counter KB, but yes, when you're fleshing out a concept you need to buy the appropriate modifiers.

[Plane]

Picking it apart is an exercise in guessing that cannot prove anything either way.

Rational deduction, not guess. Enhancements excluded were the non-minutes. Duration is the proven basis for exclusion

You're effectively giving an advantage that was never intended to be part of that package for free.

Original intentions don't matter, what matters is the intention of Kromm when he suggested AE on Innate Attack w/ Aura.

any other free advantage, as long as the player "feels" it should also do that.

It isn't a free advantage, and this is not about feels.

Why can't in Innate Attack produce substances that you can sell for unimaginable amounts of money?

It can if the GM thinks that is balanced by some other built-in aspect.

Why can't it leave a tag that you (and only you) can use to track enemies down?

Metal detectors can tell you if there's a lead slug in someone. Are you arguing that IA doesn't cover lead slugs?

Why wouldn't it have other longer term effects that benefit you or punish enemies you shoot?

The usual is that if it's worth enough, it justifies buying the advantage that reflects what benefit you're getting.

No, we're explicitly told that even if points can represent it (perks/quirks) you can ignore that if they balance out within the ability.

Negligible effects are worth negligible costs. Powerful effects are either separate enhancements that spell out that benefit or entirely other advantages (possibly linked).

The benefit of AE on Aura has been spelled out for us. The benefit of knockback's been known from the outset.

"I want my damage field to also protect me" isn't negligible and it's certainly not spelled out as any part of Innate Attack, Aura, or Area even in the remotest sense.

Except of course for Wall, or the obvious strategic use of throwing down a flaming inferno in the middle of a corroder so people won't advance down it.

Furthermore, limitations (melee) don't add functionality, they transform or limit it to be a worse ability.

Melee does add functionality, you can get a +4 to hit with Determined Attack, for example.

Extending how far "touch" can be from you negates the required value/version without a variant.

Reach already does that. "Touch" is 1 yard for a human leg, more w/ Stretching, no risk w/ Force Projection.

You haven't come up with a legal ability that does that.

AEs that re-smack interlopers without further input is what Persistent does (where you set it) or what Uncontrollable can do (within Max) or what Aura can do (where you are)

IA is a thing I buy. I use it to attack. It follows rules, and those rules aren't subject to being interrupted by KB or enemy damage.

If you define your IA as shooting physical objects, they're subject to object rules.

Then why don't the overpenetration rules check to see if a given projectile survives the first hit?

That's like asking why doesn't Rapid Strike or AOA Double check to see if you broke your fist in the first punch before allowing you to make a 2nd punch. You're expected to apply the rules, but not every overview is going to cite every single one of them.

Disarm allows you to sub in your technique level for a skill or attribute.

B230 "you may use it instead of the underlying skill whenever you attack to disarm" MA70 "both for the roll to hit and in the ensuing Quick Contest." Disarm is subbed in for a weapon skill. The problem there is that the Gadget limitation doesn't allow you to use a weapon skill, only DX.

you don't figure out the damage to a projectile at all.

You can figure out the damage to ANY object.

Comparing is fun, but it doesn't make them related.

No, but they are inherently related. Damage is a product of M*V, so when we only know 2 we can find the 3rd.

[QUOTE]That's not the way wait works. You would teleport it before it was swung, try doing something as a defense, or do it after it struck you.[quote]That sounds like a false trichotomy. Time passes between the launch of a projectile and the arrival. Waits can trigger at ANY time during that span.

Waits are declared to happen after something your PC perceives (i.e. guy came around the corner, guy going for his gun), not after rolling to see if an event will happen.

Then in the case of a "Wait>Fireball the Arrow" you can require a Mage to pass a Perception roll to trigger his Wait.

In the case of attacks which are operating automatically without user input, they effectively automatically perceive everything applicable to what triggers them so it doesn't matter.

By the time you are done, it will be a completely new/revised game system. That's ok, but you shouldn't confuse it with the rules provided.

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?

how is that -60% actually reducing the utility of sending things that can't do any of that anyway on this ability?

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.

Jumper requires a "use" and time (or IQ-10). Failure does nothing while critical failure is supposed to do bad things to the active user, which in this case should be your PC rather than your target or the aura. After all, it's not fair to bungle an attack such that it's worse for your opponent. Even bundling it with an IQ 18, it would only stop less than 25% of attacks.

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?

You'd also need selective area, which again, would have an opt in/out issue. What instructions to do give the field such that it will stop projectiles but not air or friends that approach you?

Easy enough to pay for if change Usually On to Always on to save 80%, or if I tack on Illusory Form -15% to save 120%. You could create a whole thread about how specific Selective Area can be.

because your leg is extending into that hex.

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?

I useless distinction, since you don't know which of the subsequent rules applied to any one component rather than all.

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.

You seem to overlook that different rules are in use for the same items at different times depending on what you're doing.

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.

In either case you're going to have a velocity you're traveling toward that object. It's just reached differently, and doesn't need to be known to calculate the damage when you're thrown.

If someone is trying to teleport you before you hit the acid pit the giant threw you at, your Speed matters on the Speed/Range table for the difficulty in targeting you. The time it takes to reach the acid pit matters in knowing if there's time to intervene for someone who didn't already have a prepped Wait.

If project blow effectively teleports it

PU1p9 is analagous to taking Ranged. There is no reason to think this would be a teleporting attack. That'd invalidate "Arching Shot" + "Bank Shot"

For that matter look up "Ghostly Move". It's a canon example for using Warp to simulate really fast move, which is something I've also done with speedsters.

"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.

Perhaps your opinion, but not really the way aura works.

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).

With AE aura, weapons are damaged when they come within the RADIUS (this happens 1st) and then weapons damage you (this happens 2nd). There is a logical sequence of events, and they must be applied in that order.

extra range was never intended to counter KB

If I have Move 5, my range is effectively 5, either for doing a Move and Attack, or an Evaluate. Not a Feint, of course, that's limited to my Reach!

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.

Movement through space isn't instant just because you are acted upon by another force, whether it's being dropped, shot, shoved or thrown. There is going to be a realistic "movement over time" just like in Tactical Combat when that happens.

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

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

Rational deduction, not guess. Enhancements excluded were the non-minutes. Duration is the proven basis for exclusion

Perhaps that was a coincidence? It also excluded anything that could be another advantage, which seems to include *shocking gasp* Innate Attack. If that's the only basis you have for proof (something *not* in common) my deduction would be as proven as yours.

Original intentions don't matter, what matters is the intention of Kromm when he suggested AE on Innate Attack w/ Aura.

Please provide. I don't recall seeing one where it said what you're suggesting.

It isn't a free advantage, and this is not about feels.

It can if the GM thinks that is balanced by some other built-in aspect.

Neither of these are true, and you've summarily ignored what I've written. You can't point to it in *any* rules elsewhere, which makes this at best your idea of what *should* happen in a game world you've designed. 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.

Metal detectors can tell you if there's a lead slug in someone. Are you arguing that IA doesn't cover lead slugs?

No, 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.

Why wouldn't it have other longer term effects that benefit you or punish enemies you shoot?

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

No, we're explicitly told that even if points can represent it (perks/quirks) you can ignore that if they balance out within the ability.

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.

The benefit of AE on Aura has been spelled out for us. The benefit of knockback's been known from the outset.

Sure, when you attack enemies directly on your turn.

Except of course for Wall, or the obvious strategic use of throwing down a flaming inferno in the middle of a corroder so people won't advance down it.

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

Melee does add functionality, you can get a +4 to hit with Determined Attack, for example.

You can take Determined with Ranged as well. 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.

Reach already does that. "Touch" is 1 yard for a human leg, more w/ Stretching, no risk w/ Force Projection.

Would you like some apples with those oranges? That is not applicable for anything else. It's an alternative to TK for someone that invested in ST.

AEs that re-smack interlopers without further input is what Persistent does (where you set it) or what Uncontrollable can do (within Max) or what Aura can do (where you are)

... and among the few you presented that might be legal none of those interrupt actions or act to actively defend you... So next?

If you define your IA as shooting physical objects, they're subject to object rules.

We can agree to disagree since evidence does not seem to influence you.

That's like asking why doesn't Rapid Strike or AOA Double check to see if you broke your fist in the first punch before allowing you to make a 2nd punch. You're expected to apply the rules, but not every overview is going to cite every single one of them.

No, because there's actually a section that talks about specifics like that.

The problem there is that the Gadget limitation doesn't allow you to use a weapon skill, only DX.

First off, 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. 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 can figure out the damage to ANY object.

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.

No, but they are inherently related. Damage is a product of M*V, so when we only know 2 we can find the 3rd.

In Toon universe it's M*wacky - humor = Ke. Perhaps your setting is different. Good that rules work in either setting.

[quote]That sounds like a false trichotomy. Time passes between the launch of a projectile and the arrival. Waits can trigger at ANY time during that span.[/qoute] Sure, 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.

Then in the case of a "Wait>Fireball the Arrow" you can require a Mage to pass a Perception roll to trigger his Wait.

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

In the case of attacks which are operating automatically without user input, they effectively automatically perceive everything applicable to what triggers them so it doesn't matter.

No example comes to mind. Anything that selectively chooses to act on its own must have volition.