Questions about Innate Attack (Wall)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by naloth

I can't really understand the reasoning that the freezing or stunning effect of a rigid wall would depend on how hard I slam into it. For a rigid wall it should be a linked ability. It only makes sense for a permeable (damaging) wall since that wall does its own damage.

The idea I had for the freezing spikes was that the deeper the spikes penetrate (due to you impaling yourself upon them), the more surface area in contact with you, and thus the easier to are to freeze. The shocking force field would be similar - the further you get into the field (due to high Slam damage), the more of it is in contact with you (or, alternatively, the stronger the stunning portion is, if it's not constant over the depth of the force field), and thus the more likely you are to end up stunned.

Certainly, a Linked ability would also make sense above.

Originally Posted by naloth

Agreed. No wounding shouldn't be a limitation since it doesn't really do anything.

Well, it doesn't do nothing - it means foes can Slam into it with impunity, which also means it's hard to keep speedsters from just running through it. It's just that the aspect of the Wall it limits is a fairly small part of the Wall's utility.

Originally Posted by naloth

Even with speedsters running around there just weren't that many characters that couldn't stop if a wall was thrown up in front of them. It's definitely a niche case. You'd be better off buying an alternate attack you can use directly instead of paying the price for cutting or impaling.

A lot can depend on the campaign, of course, but you do make an excellent point that an AA would typically be a better choice there.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The idea I had for the freezing spikes was that the deeper the spikes penetrate (due to you impaling yourself upon them), the more surface area in contact with you, and thus the easier to are to freeze. The shocking force field would be similar - the further you get into the field (due to high Slam damage), the more of it is in contact with you (or, alternatively, the stronger the stunning portion is, if it's not constant over the depth of the force field), and thus the more likely you are to end up stunned.

Aside from both being a real stretch, the wall itself still has very little to do with how freezing/stunning it would be in both cases. Wound modifiers (should but) aren't taken into account and the force/damage is generated by person attacking the wall at whatever level they want.

Well, it doesn't do nothing - it means foes can Slam into it with impunity, which also means it's hard to keep speedsters from just running through it. It's just that the aspect of the Wall it limits is a fairly small part of the Wall's utility.

I've been playing Supers for 30+ years, and this must be the niche case of niches because it hasn't really come up. Besides, speedsters that make a habit of slamming into things at high speed will have defenses to avoid being turned into red mist.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by naloth

Aside from both being a real stretch, the wall itself still has very little to do with how freezing/stunning it would be in both cases. Wound modifiers (should but) aren't taken into account and the force/damage is generated by person attacking the wall at whatever level they want.

To me, it makes about the same amount of sense as any Side Effect. The fact the motive force is from the target slamming into it on their own instead of the user shooting an icy spear or whatever at the target is the only difference. Of course, I'm also fine with the idea that a magical flaming spear is more likely to set a target aflame if it hits the Vitals - Side Effect is more about making magical/narrative sense than actual physics-based sense.

Personally, I do (intend to) use Injury rather than Penetrating Damage to determine the penalty for the Side Effect. In fact, I favor using percentage of HP rather than a flat "-1 per 2 damage" - a character with HP 20 takes a -1 per 4 HP of Injury (or what the Injury should have been, if the ability has No Wounding), while one with HP 5 takes -1 per 1 HP of Injury. But that's a tangent for another thread.

Originally Posted by naloth

I've been playing Supers for 30+ years, and this must be the niche case of niches because it hasn't really come up. Besides, speedsters that make a habit of slamming into things at high speed will have defenses to avoid being turned into red mist.

Fair enough. I was thinking more along the lines of speedsters who don't make a habit of Slamming into things - a No Wounding Wall opens that option up to them. Walls that deal cut/imp might also bypass the defenses of a Slam-inclined speedster as well, if the speedster is reliant on DR or IT:DR that is Limited to only work against crushing (-40% to cost) or even only against crushing collisions (as a subset of the above, -60% to cost). I suspect the Bouncing Enhancement for Super Jump (which can be used to make a pretty devastating Slam-heavy speedster) also doesn't work for bouncing off sharp surfaces, but that would be a GM call.
EDIT: Of course, if this is something that is unlikely to ever come up, I could indeed see justification for making No Wounding a +0% modifier for Walls - you lose the "speedster go splat" niche application but gain the "falling person doesn't go splat" niche application (summon a No Wounding Wall beneath a falling person; if it is strong enough they don't break through it, it will arrest their fall safely).

Given the Wall can't cause more damage than the average of the damage the character paid for (and then converted into a rigid Wall), of course, your suggestion of an Alternate Attack for those cases is probably more economical.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

To me, it makes about the same amount of sense as any Side Effect. The fact the motive force is from the target slamming into it on their own instead of the user shooting an icy spear or whatever at the target is the only difference. Of course, I'm also fine with the idea that a magical flaming spear is more likely to set a target aflame if it hits the Vitals - Side Effect is more about making magical/narrative sense than actual physics-based sense.

While there is a certain amount of cinematic liberty with any game ability, my general guidelines are:

Linked Ability: the intensity isn't related to how well the attack does. Example: a freezing wall that stuns or paralyzes upon any touch.

Side Effect: the intensity of the side effect is directly related to how well the attack does. Example: an electrical attack that damages and stuns based on how damaging it is.

Personally, I do (intend to) use Injury rather than Penetrating Damage to determine the penalty for the Side Effect.

I have moved to this as well. IME, it's a great idea since the difference between most Innate Attacks is the wounding modifier.

In fact, I favor using percentage of HP rather than a flat "-1 per 2 damage" - a character with HP 20 takes a -1 per 4 HP of Injury (or what the Injury should have been, if the ability has No Wounding), while one with HP 5 takes -1 per 1 HP of Injury. But that's a tangent for another thread.

Offhand, I wouldn't want to mess with this. I add SM to all resistance rolls making big things harder to afflict and smaller things easier to afflict. It helps even out that 0 point feature a bit more (since otherwise positive SM is basically all negative).

EDIT: Of course, if this is something that is unlikely to ever come up, I could indeed see justification for making No Wounding a +0% modifier for Walls - you lose the "speedster go splat" niche application but gain the "falling person doesn't go splat" niche application (summon a No Wounding Wall beneath a falling person; if it is strong enough they don't break through it, it will arrest their fall safely).

Yea, I'm leaning towards making it a 0% because safely catching falling fliers, stopping falls, interposing in a fight, and stopping runaway vehicles seems like more of a bonus than trying to trick a speedster.