Area-effect selective area hit location

[bdcamara]

Does area-effect abilities with selective area have hit location without active defense?
Selective Area lets you choose which targets within your area are actually affected.
Area-effect abilities should generally take Selective Area instead of Selective Effect, but either one may fit. The former allows the user to precisely control the area of effect, while the latter allows him to control the targets affected.
And with Selective Effect you can hit hands, eyes, etc.

In advance, sorry for my poor english. I'm from Brazil.

[Plane]

Power-Ups 4 (enhancement) allows Selective Effect on Affliction to do stuff like "I'm paralyzing just your leg instead of your entire body" because I think that only makes the Affliction less effective.

Changing an Area Effect (just general injury, unless just part of your body happens to be the only part sticking in the area) to a specific hit location could make an Innate Attack MORE effective, so I don't know that you could necessarily do that with just Selective Effect.

I can understand the intent of designing an attack like this (ie "my Burning Attack is a river of lava, it will automatically target the feet not the torso") but given how that might be more effective, I'm not sure if there should be additional expenses for it or not.

Plus, if someone was kneeling, lava would probably hit the entire leg, and if they were crawling it would probably hit their hands too, and if they were lying down, also their torso/arms/head.

Powers 139 has Quicksand "Environmental, Touching ground" and the binding "webs" the legs to begin with instead of the torso, but by the way page 28 of Technical Grappling describes binding ("treat the Binding as a grapple of the target’s legs") that seems to be the default assumption anyway.

B40's description of Binding doesn't even sound like it stops the arms at all ("cannot select the Move or Change Posture maneuvers or change facing") with merely the standard -4 to DX that you'd get to all stuff when anywhere was grappled, and not stuff like the complete inability to attack/parry with a grappled arm.

For that aspect you'd need "Engulfing" (which says "cannot move his limbs or
speak" so I think in addition to legs, your arms and mouth are also grappled, although you're not suffocating w/o the "Suffocating" enhancement from Powers 43) which Quicksand doesn't have.

Technical Grappling treats engulfing as doubling CP, but I'm not sure if that means doubled CP on the existing leg grapples AND double the CP on new arm/head grapples?

[Anaraxes]

The concept seems contradictory to me.

Area attacks don't get an Active Defense precisely because they fill a large area (a full hex or more). It's not just a mechanical gimmick that they have some Enhancement tacked on in their stat block; there's a physical reality that's being modeled. So for AE, it doesn't matter if you Dodge or Block part of the attack. It's all over your hex and all the hexes around you. The only AD you get is if you can dive clear of the affected area entirely.

Choosing a specific hit location is the opposite. It's a focused attack that only affects a small part of a target. That is, such an attack doesn't cover a large area in the first place. So it can be Dodged (etc).

We do have one example of S. Effect being used to affect a single hit location rather than the entire person (paralysis, as Plane mentioned). The text there says that it lets the attacker "touch specific hit locations". It doesn't say that the target gets no Active Defense, or that the attacker doesn't have to roll to hit with that touch -- and it doesn't say that the attacker doesn't suffer the usual hit location penalties.

Most of the examples of S. Effect involve non-damaging powers that still logically affect a large area, often without actually having the AE modifier. That is, it's modelling effects like a radio broadcast (Telecommunications), normally reaching everyone in range, but in this case encrypted so only certain recipients can receive the signal. Similarly, there's an example with Illusion, which affects everyone looking at the target, but in this case only affects some of those people. (You might, say, want your friends to still recognize you while you look like the Grand Poobah to everyone else.)

Given the example of paralysis, I'd allow S. Effect for other abilities if you can explain why it makes sense that this ability normally affects the whole body, but in this case it's a restricted part of the body. Use it on an attack power, and I'd call for a die roll to actually hit that small target you were going for, and allow Active Defenses. Want to blanket the whole area, you get the benefits of an area attack. Want to limit the effect to a tiny fraction of the total area, you're back to targeting locations.

Since the S. Effect is used in the paralysis example just to limit the hit location, I'd require both Selective Area and Selective Effect if you wanted to simultaneously attack multiple targets in an area while also affecting just one hit location. ("Mass Paralysis Leg" is +SA +SE, compared with "Mass Paralysis" +AE or "Paralysis Leg" +SE.) So in this case, at least, there's a reasonable interpretation for all three combinations of Enhancements that are nevertheless distinct in effect.

[Anthony]

I would actually be inclined to allow active defenses against all selective area effects.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The concept seems contradictory to me.

Area attacks don't get an Active Defense precisely because they fill a large area (a full hex or more).

yeah, B413:

Active defenses don’t protect against an area attack,
but victims may dive for cover or retreat out of the area;
see Dodge and Drop (p. 377).

377 lists "Dodge and Drop" and "Retreat" as "Active Defense Option" so 413 should probably be phrased "except when victims dive for cover or retreat". The first portion before the comma is obviously wrong by itself since DAD/R are still ADs. Another way to phrase it would be "normal active defenses don't protect" and then you just consider retreats/DADs to be abnormal active defenses.

I think what bdcamara might be getting at is that since you use Selective Area to make it so it doesn't fill the FULL hex (for example you make a gap for an ally so you don't hit the ally) it might make it easier for enemies to dodge (perhaps without needing to move outside the radius) by exploiting the gaps you intended for others?

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

It's not just a mechanical gimmick that they have some Enhancement tacked on in their stat block; there's a physical reality that's being modeled. So for AE, it doesn't matter if you Dodge or Block part of the attack. It's all over your hex and all the hexes around you. The only AD you get is if you can dive clear of the affected area entirely.

Or behind cover. That's why it's good for villains to have minions to hide behind.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Plane

I think what bdcamara might be getting at...

That does seem to be his question. Presumably someone (not necessarily bdcamara) is eyeing what they thought might be a potential loophole and struggling with their inner munchkin, targeting Vitals or Skull at no hit penalty and no defense allowed, and scoring some bonus damage while they're at it.

Everyone so far seems to agree that no, area attacks don't let you choose specific hit locations.

It's probably worth adding that we do have a canonical way to remove the possibility of an Active Defense to your attack. Powers p101, Cosmic (No Active Defense allowed), +300%. Might as well tack on Cosmic (No Die Roll Required) for the auto-hit, at a mere +100%. I'm pretty sure SE isn't supposed to give you +400% worth of Enhancements for +20%.

From an overly literal point of view, you can't put SE on an AE attack (an ability with Area Effect or Cone). SA itself requires AE or Cone as a prerequisite. But there's not really a lot of difference between the two, other than this sense that SA is for attacks built with AE (SA has the gun icon limiting its use to attacks) while SE is for non-attacks without AE that nevertheless somehow affect multiple targets in an area. But it's a fuzzy line, and the Salamander writeup is a counter-example. (When it comes to burning up everything in a room, it might be nice to set fire to particular objects or people, rather than everything that happens to be in particular hexes. But the definition of SA uses the word "target" rather than "hex", much like SE.)

In an ideal world, we probably just wouldn't have two Selective modifiers; I can't tell much difference between them.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

In an ideal world, we probably just wouldn't have two Selective modifiers; I can't tell much difference between them.

From what I can tell, it's how the attack actually affects things. Lets say we have AE, then target someone we want to not hit;

With SA, the attack becomes a donut around the target
With SE, the target is still hit (and so is everything in the target's hex) but the target isn't affected.

As for the topic at hand, SE does sound like it can target (see how it interacted with Malediction), but I'd definitely rule you still have a penalty to attack that location as normal, plus you don't get the effect of how armor interacts with area attacks. This is some extreme cheese for +70%, though. I do agree that it's too cheap and I would allow a defense. Namely, even though the attack is an area, does that make it impossible to see what part of the body is actually getting attacked? Would it require a perception roll?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

That does seem to be his question. Presumably someone (not necessarily bdcamara) is eyeing what they thought might be a potential loophole and struggling with their inner munchkin, targeting Vitals or Skull at no hit penalty and no defense allowed, and scoring some bonus damage while they're at it.

By bonus damage do you mean the wound multipliers or something else?

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Everyone so far seems to agree that no, area attacks don't let you choose specific hit locations.

B413 says "uses the Large-Area Injury rule unless the victim is so big that only a single body part is contained within the area" so it might be possible if a one-legged target is lying down to target the hex his leg is in. If it was a normal 2 legged target then it would be more than a single body part so I think you'd still use LAI in that case.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

It's probably worth adding that we do have a canonical way to remove the possibility of an Active Defense to your attack. Powers p101, Cosmic (No Active Defense allowed), +300%. Might as well tack on Cosmic (No Die Roll Required) for the auto-hit, at a mere +100%. I'm pretty sure SE isn't supposed to give you +400% worth of Enhancements for +20%.

The +300% version probably prevents dodging by retreating/diving for cover though.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

From an overly literal point of view, you can't put SE on an AE attack (an ability with Area Effect or Cone). SA itself requires AE or Cone as a prerequisite.

Ah true, P105 says

Abilities without Area Effect or Cone can have “Selective Effect”

Ignoring SE, the question is just how specifically SA can shape the area (how easy that is) to exclude all but one body part of a target.

It seems like it shouldn't be entirely ruled out, but it shouldn't be automatic either. Which is why maybe the simplest would be to make a roll as if you were targeting with a non-area effect except what you're doing is targeting areas to exclude or include (you'd need to choose which, by default)

Then if they missed, you could instead exclude/include the wrong area that you had intended.

Something like "my area effect Burning Attack usually only burns feet (because feet are usually the only part touching the ground) because it is rolling lava" should be feasible, but expensive enough to acknowledge how that is way more useful than "I just generically burn everyone's torso".

Lava has drawbacks though (you don't need torso DR: just high DR footwear, people can climb a ladder to avoid it: "retreating" into a higher hex, the only "cover" you would need is a sandbag to stand behind, etc) whereas other stuff like "a 30 yard log that swings across at head level bashing everyone in the face who doesn't duck".

That might actually be the answer: the more limited the area, the more options you have to "retreat" out of the area. If it's only targeting head-level areas, then simply ducking is a valid retreat whereas normally (attacks which target all the way to ground level) you couldn't avoid the attack by doing that.

You also should have to specify uniform barriers like "six feet off the ground" so it narrowly misses the skulls of people 5ft tall and his 7ft tall people in the neck. Super awesome control over areas to high degree should require a lot more micromanagement of the details, like maybe 1 second of Concentration per weird variation from the default sphere shape.

Of course: AE isn't even a sphere it's like what, a static amount of feet off the ground, I think 12?

[bdcamara]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

That does seem to be his question. Presumably someone (not necessarily bdcamara) is eyeing what they thought might be a potential loophole and struggling with their inner munchkin, targeting Vitals or Skull at no hit penalty and no defense allowed, and scoring some bonus damage while they're at it.

Everyone so far seems to agree that no, area attacks don't let you choose specific hit locations.

It's probably worth adding that we do have a canonical way to remove the possibility of an Active Defense to your attack. Powers p101, Cosmic (No Active Defense allowed), +300%. Might as well tack on Cosmic (No Die Roll Required) for the auto-hit, at a mere +100%. I'm pretty sure SE isn't supposed to give you +400% worth of Enhancements for +20%.

From an overly literal point of view, you can't put SE on an AE attack (an ability with Area Effect or Cone). SA itself requires AE or Cone as a prerequisite. But there's not really a lot of difference between the two, other than this sense that SA is for attacks built with AE (SA has the gun icon limiting its use to attacks) while SE is for non-attacks without AE that nevertheless somehow affect multiple targets in an area. But it's a fuzzy line, and the Salamander writeup is a counter-example. (When it comes to burning up everything in a room, it might be nice to set fire to particular objects or people, rather than everything that happens to be in particular hexes. But the definition of SA uses the word "target" rather than "hex", much like SE.)

In an ideal world, we probably just wouldn't have two Selective modifiers; I can't tell much difference between them.

It’s the case. A player in a game that a I am not the master buy a corrosive ataque with aura, melee C, area effect and SA. Because aura, its a passive hability, no skill roll is necessary to affect every one in the area. SA are almost the same as SE, and with SE you can target hit location. He wants to cripple everyone or use other advantages of hit location.
I just want a cannonical rule that you can dodge. But it looks like you can’t dodge without leaving the area and the enhancement don’t chance the area, chance the target and dont specify how.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by bdcamara

It’s the case. A player in a game that a I am not the master buy a corrosive ataque with aura, melee C, area effect and SA. Because aura, its a passive hability, no skill roll is necessary to affect every one in the area.

You wouldn't have to make a skill roll to hit either if it was an Area Effect with "Emanation", only difference being it goes off when you make an attack maneuver instead of when someone touches it.

The application of Aura to trigger when people touch your area instead of touching you is one of those things based on how the "Aura of Power" meta-enhancement in PU4p4 is constructed.

Originally Posted by bdcamara

SA are almost the same as SE, and with SE you can target hit location.

Selective Effect just seems to be Selective Area by another name, although P105 opens "without area effect or cone" the first half is basically talking about area stuff:

if they have the potential to affect an area or multiple targets actively.

Only the 2nd half ("multiple targets" rather than area) seems to be why you'd rephrase it to use "effect" instead of "area".

PU4p16 expanded SE as such (not present in P105):

Abilities that only affect a single subject may take this enhancement if it would make sense to restrict the effect to a single part of the subject.

Given the "single subject" requirement, I don't think that interpretation was intended for Area Effect attacks.

Originally Posted by bdcamara

He wants to cripple everyone or use other advantages of hit location.

I just want a cannonical rule that you can dodge. But it looks like you can’t dodge without leaving the area and the enhancement don’t chance the area, chance the target and dont specify how.

An alternative to retreating out of the area (if it's too big to do that) is to dodge behind cover. Area-Effect attacks, since cover stops them, presumably emanate outward from wherever it is they are centred by default.

AE stuff usually isn't very precise, you target a hex and only happen to isolate a body part if that body part already happens to be the only part in that hex.

If for example, you had AE on a hex and someone kicked into it, yeah they'd burn just that foot instead of AE operating like a torso wound.

Selective Area isI think meant to be something like "yes I'm going to nuke a 30-yard radius but I will leave a gap in my nuke-area for the hex my ally is occupying"

I do't know if it was intended to be as specific as "my ally is grappling in close combat with a mouse, so I am only going to nuke the portion of the hex containing the mouse", because if you can do that, it probably does stand to reason you could instead specifically nuke the portion of a hex containing a bear's head, because a bear's head is bigger than a mouse.

If Selective Area is being used to try and "only hit this part of a hex" or "only exclude this part of a hex", then it seems like the only fair way to do it would be to require to-hit rolls or else you target the wrong part. It also seems fair to allow standard dodges in that case without needing cover-ups/retreat-outs.