Questions about Innate Attack (Wall)

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Nah, I think charging the +25% is still appropriate. Consider these two builds:

The +30% for a wall that touches 2 hexes vs the +50% for a full 2 yard area is generally a fair trade off, especially since a lot of builds don't need a minimum 4 yard length wall. Making the minimum size that long seems unnecessary.

The +25% for a 1 yard area isn't something I've ever used.

I'm actually thinking of a middle ground between the high cost of a linked Obscure and the no-cost of just making it part of Wall (largely because I like the idea of Walls being able to block senses other than sight - sound, Detect Magic, etc - as well as being able to block different wavelengths of light - visible vs IR vs UV, but would like this to have a cost associated... but linked Obscure is too much).

Obscure has a lot more flexibility and functionality than "I put an object in the way". I don't have an issue with linked Obscure, especially when you're doing something more complicated than just putting something in between two points. However, just putting something between two points creates an effect that needs to be defined within the scope of the ability.

You wouldn't require Obscure for a Summonable Ally, Snatcher, or Create for something placed in the way. Nor would anyone suggest you require it for TK on Control when you move something in the way. Visible walls, either material or energy, will tend to block vision by existing so I still don't see why this wouldn't be a valid fixed (chosen at creation) special effect based on the material or intensity of the wall.

I'm starting to think it might be more appropriate to make Wall actually a +0% modifier;

It sounds like you've building it more of a variant of Area.

*I'm actually not certain how Walls work in this regard. Can they go anywhere, even outside of your Range, so long as they're continuous?

As long as your target point is within your area, the effect (radius) can exceed the range. Walls technically deviate/bounce like area attacks so you should define what point your wall is built around (which hex / orientation it will be when you throw it).

[Plane]

Originally Posted by naloth

I'm not even sure a 1 dmg wall is even valid (DR1 and 0 HP?).

1-damage innate attacks cost 0.25 dice so I figured 0.75 (¾) DR and 0.125 (⅛) HP.

Technically a 1d-4 innate attack attack would be cheaper (1-0.3*3=0.1 dice) and have 0.3 DR and 0.02 HP

That's if you ignore the "round up" instruction which would just be 1 DR and 1HP since that gets a bit overpowered (especially in the 1d-4 = 0.1 dice case)

That's an issue the 1d-4 attack has w/o walls too (due to minimum 1 damage for non-crushing attacks) which is why I bet a lot of GMs might ban it or else give diminishing discounts.

Originally Posted by naloth

A 1d wall is fairly useful but it's not inexpensive if you take on lots of enhancements.

The cheapest is sometiems to base it on Small Piercing since that's the cheapest per-dice innate attack.

Though it can't take some limitations that Crushing Attack can (no Knockback for example) so that can also be competetive. -20% to 5/level makes it 4/level just like Toxic Attack, you need another -20% to make it 3/level like Small Piercing.

You can get that with No Blunt Trauma, but Piercing can take that limitation too, so it still wins.

No Wounding is another way to make walls cheaper (no damage to slam into them) which isn't much of a concern for Small Piercing since it doesn't focus on creating wounds anyway (bad wounding modifier).

The lower wounding modifier is part of the per-dice pricing system of Small Piercing which makes me wonder if it's really fair for the per-dice pricing system to be the basis of the DR/HP you get via Wall enhancements if you're just going to take No Wounding anyway and negate that benefit.

IE if you're going to make a No Wounding wall, is there any reason whatsoever to base it on Large Piercing instead of Small Piercing?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by naloth

The +30% for a wall that touches 2 hexes vs the +50% for a full 2 yard area is generally a fair trade off, especially since a lot of builds don't need a minimum 4 yard length wall. Making the minimum size that long seems unnecessary.

The +25% for a 1 yard area isn't something I've ever used.

The issue there is when comparing +30% for a 3-hex Wall to +25% for a 1-hex Area Effect. That may just be a function of the 1-hex AE overcharging compared to the 7-hex (radius 2) version - I agree +30% for 3 hexes and +50% for 7 hexes seems acceptable.

Originally Posted by naloth

Obscure has a lot more flexibility and functionality than "I put an object in the way". I don't have an issue with linked Obscure, especially when you're doing something more complicated than just putting something in between two points. However, just putting something between two points creates an effect that needs to be defined within the scope of the ability.

Yeah, if it weren't for the other tweaks available by bringing Obscure into the picture (variable soundproofing, blocking Detect, etc), I think I'd be fine with just letting a Wall's opacity be a free feature. So, the sizable discount of making it 1/5th cost seems about right to me.

Originally Posted by naloth

It sounds like you've building it more of a variant of Area.

I mean, that's what Wall is, at least when permeable - you pay extra (+30% or +60%) and get less of an area to work with (much less as you increase Area Effect), but you can shape it however you'd like (either upon creating the ability, or each time you use it, depending on how much you paid). I just think the cost - both in price and lost area - is too high.

I consider the ability to make the Wall rigid to be a Feature of sorts, not baked into the price - as I previously noted, if being able to make it rigid is superior to being able to make it permeable, then you clearly overpay for the latter at the very least. Personally, I think the two seem about equivalent - a rigid wall blocks projectiles, but from both sides, and is readily destructible, while permeable walls don't block projectiles* and are less destructible.

*I'm not certain if it would be appropriate to allow a permeable wall - or any persistent AE, including an Aura - to damage a projectile en route. It makes a great deal of sense if they can, but projectiles will often have low enough HP you can readily destroy most with low-damage (not to mention potentially knocking them off target if your AE does knockback). Projectiles also typically spend very little time within any given hex, but GURPS doesn't really account for that - a speedster running through a hex of persistent burning IA at 100 mph (~Move 50, so spends only 0.02 seconds in that hex) takes the same amount of damage as someone who stands in it for a full second.

Originally Posted by naloth

As long as your target point is within your area, the effect (radius) can exceed the range. Walls technically deviate/bounce like area attacks so you should define what point your wall is built around (which hex / orientation it will be when you throw it).

Well, particularly with a +60% Wall, how do you determine the target point? Is it the center of mass of the arrangement? Do you just need one hex of the Wall to be within Range (IIRC, RPM at least is fine with only one hex of a typical Area Effect being within Range - indeed, I believe you don't even need to pay for Range so long as at least one hex is adjacent to the caster)? Does a Wall have to be continuous? My personal inclination is that a Wall can be broken up, and so long as at least one hex is within Range you're fine, but any section that extends beyond Range must be connected to a section that's within Range, at least upon creation (if breaking a section isolates it, it stays up, at least until either its Duration expires or it is also destroyed). This is valid if Area Effect also only requires one hex to be within Range; if the center must be within Range, amend the above to note at least half of the hexes must be within Range.

Originally Posted by Plane

Technically a 1d-4 innate attack attack would be cheaper (1-0.3*3=0.1 dice) and have 0.3 DR and 0.02 HP

1d-4 averages out to 0.5 damage (0,0,0,0,1,2), and would thus give Cover DR of 0.5. I wouldn't allow that to round up - it's pretty blatant munchkinism - and thus wouldn't allow it.

Originally Posted by Plane

The cheapest is sometiems to base it on Small Piercing since that's the cheapest per-dice innate attack.

Yeah, I don't think I'd allow a Piercing Wall. It really doesn't make any sense to me - I think of "piercing" as "crushing that penetrates deeply," like a bullet. And, yeah, making a Wall Small Piercing is pretty hefty munchkinism - the point of a rigid Wall is more to put a physical barrier in the way than to try to wound people who Slam into it.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

*I'm not certain if it would be appropriate to allow a permeable wall - or any persistent AE, including an Aura - to damage a projectile en route.

At the risk of resurrecting a long undead thread auras, areas, and walls are still innate attacks: stopped by DR/HP while ignoring damage attacks. GURPS generally charges for the effect. Using an attack to attack an incoming attack requires a power parry (no duration). I'd extend that to equipment in a general sense treating the effect how I would build it as a gadget (guns example builds also use innate attack).

[quote]
Well, particularly with a +60% Wall, how do you determine the target point? Is it the center of mass of the arrangement?[/quot] With either +30% or +60% you determine the shape and orientation before using it (it's just a matter of when). +60% would should let you pick a point and extend from that however you want but you have to specify the shape (with orientation) before rolling to hit.

IME, most +60% walls tend to extend from either from user or very close so scattering won't be an issue. YMMV.

Does a Wall have to be continuous?

Unless you have selective Area, sure. I count any "off" square as part of the total area.

1d-4 averages out to 0.5 damage (0,0,0,0,1,2), and would thus give Cover DR of 0.5. I wouldn't allow that to round up - it's pretty blatant munchkinism - and thus wouldn't allow it.

Yeah, I don't think I'd allow a Piercing Wall. It really doesn't make any sense to me - I think of "piercing" as "crushing that penetrates deeply," like a bullet. And, yeah, making a Wall Small Piercing is pretty hefty munchkinism - the point of a rigid Wall is more to put a physical barrier in the way than to try to wound people who Slam into it.

A lot of this can be fixed by building the power from the description of what it does.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

1d-4 averages out to 0.5 damage (0,0,0,0,1,2), and would thus give Cover DR of 0.5.

Not sure I understand the math here. Cover DR is a combination of HP and DR right? What is being added?

I wouldn't allow that to round up - it's pretty blatant munchkinism - and thus wouldn't allow it.
[/quote]
I don't like rounding up either, I like keeping decimals :)

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yeah, I don't think I'd allow a Piercing Wall. It really doesn't make any sense to me - I think of "piercing" as "crushing that penetrates deeply," like a bullet.

I figured it'd be like "a wall of needles".

Originally Posted by Varyon

And, yeah, making a Wall Small Piercing is pretty hefty munchkinism

It's just good cost design, you could equally say that making a wall Large Piercing would be wasteful, at least when it's No Wounding and there's no benefit whatsoever to the Wound Multiplier that LP usually enjoys.

For the same reason, a "no wounding impaling wall" would also not make too much sense.

This would raise the specter: should all no-wounding walls be based on the 5/level baseline of Crushing and Normal Piercing?

Originally Posted by Varyon

- the point of a rigid Wall is more to put a physical barrier in the way than to try to wound people who Slam into it.

Pretty sure it could be both otherwise they wouldn't mention "the damage type applies to the injury inflicted on anyone crashing into it" on B109.

Originally Posted by naloth

Using an attack to attack an incoming attack requires a power parry (no duration).

Not sure what you mean by "no duration". If you have an Innate Attack AE w/ Persistent and do a Power Parry I think it would still persist for 10 seconds or whatever you buy.

I think "he doesn’t damage his foe" it just meant for the standard IA where you immediately attack/defend: in that respect you exhausted your attack's power cancelling out the attack, but any lingering effects (per second damage) should probably effect them as if they got caught in the AE.

So in the case of walls, it still seems like it ought to create the Wall, albeit possibly losing some HP if the DR wasn't enough to stop all the incoming damage.

- -

On semi-related note... anyone ever notice that weird bit on P168 where you can add shield DB to a Power Parry if the attack you're responding to has Blockable or Melee?

The whole point of a power parry roll is "I react quickly enough to roll my dice and subtract the result from the incoming attack's damage roll", right?

How would "I'm wearing a buckler" help with "I react fast enough with my telekinetic Crushing Attack to slow down the incoming Impaling Attack" vs an arrow or spear?

Really strange to conceive.

Originally Posted by naloth

A lot of this can be fixed by building the power from the description of what it does.

something like 1d-3 has precedent for emulation though, B433 "Fire Sources" assigns that as the damage you take from running through a fire, so that seems like a logical "bottom line" to consider for low-damage Burning AEs.

Which is of course not -2/-1/0/1/2/3 it is 1/1/1/1/2/3

Even standing in a fire is 1d-1 which is actually not 0/1/2/3/4/5 it is 1/1/2/3/4/5

So getting a full -0.9 or -0.3 to "dice" (cost) for the -3 or -1 to damage seems off since for a lot of those results the deduction won't reduce the output at all.

The big issue here is "if you can never do less than 1 damage, should your ability cost less than the 0.25 dice it costs to always do once damage"

There could be an advantage to "I always know how much damage I do" so you can do measured destruction and avoid killing people. 1d-1 burning is pretty chaotic (1-5) and compared to "a fixed 1" even 1d-3 is chaotic (a third of the time you do double or triple the 1 damage)

Chaos can also be amplified by critical hit multiplyers.

So in that way I could see "I'd rather pay 0.25 for 1 damage than 0.1 for 1d-3 damage" but it still seems like there should be diminishing discounts when the minus only affects your maximums and not your minimums.

Like maybe it's -0.3 for the first, 0.25 for the 2nd, 0.20 for the 3rd, 0.15 for the 4th, 0.10 for the 5th?

That's just for crushing too (where the first -1 reduces your dmg to 0) it should prob be .25/.20/.15/.10/0.05 for the five possible -1s you apply to 1d.

This also fixes the issue of being able to design all the way to 1d-5 which at -0.3 per -1 takes you into negative dice.

Instead you're looking at 0.75/0.55/0.40/0.30/0.25 cost progressions... which conveniently works out to "0.25 for 1d-5" equivalent to "0.25 for 1".

Crushing Attack which has "minimum 0" could benefit from a different scale though I can't really fathom how to assign it. The -1 penalty is progressively way huger here since you're reducing the chance of doing 1 damage as well as your maximum.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

It's just good cost design, you could equally say that making a wall Large Piercing would be wasteful, at least when it's No Wounding and there's no benefit whatsoever to the Wound Multiplier that LP usually enjoys.

Gaming the system isn't good design. The ability you base it on should make sense rather than be a trick to game a few points.

What ability are you trying to make - a wall of marshmellows that doesn't hurt someone that impacts it? In what way are marshmellows piercing, ever?

This would raise the specter: should all no-wounding walls be based on the 5/level baseline of Crushing and Normal Piercing?

Crushing, usually.

Pretty sure it could be both otherwise they wouldn't mention "the damage type applies to the injury inflicted on anyone crashing into it" on B109.

It's a pretty high premium on a rigid wall to pay for impaling or cutting damage on the off chance someone will run into it. Rigid walls should probably be a separate ability, entirely/

Not sure what you mean by "no duration". If you have an Innate Attack AE w/ Persistent and do a Power Parry I think it would still persist for 10 seconds or whatever you buy.

I'd allow a rigid wall to thrown up in time (out of sequence) with a Power Parry roll. It's not exactly book correct but it makes more sense. It's a lot like a Power Block to activate an ability in time.

I wouldn't allow most permeable walls to Power Parry. Except for attacks in direct opposition, it doesn't really make sense. Reality check wise most projectiles couldn't be deflected or destroyed while energy attacks might not have anything the wall would damage. As a comic or movie trope, I'd allow a water/ice attack to parry a fire/heat attack.

I think "he doesn’t damage his foe" it just meant for the standard IA where you immediately attack/defend: in that respect you exhausted your attack's power cancelling out the attack, but any lingering effects (per second damage) should probably effect them as if they got caught in the AE.

Power parries go against the attack, rather than the source of the attack. Most of the time, the balance of your parry will just be collateral damage.

On semi-related note... anyone ever notice that weird bit on P168 where you can add shield DB to a Power Parry if the attack you're responding to has Blockable or Melee?

I don't. After all, you have to account for how a shield would help if the power parry fails somewhere. Furthermore, using an area/ranged attack as a parry is already an edge (unusual, possibly cinematic and illogical) case.

, B433 "Fire Sources" assigns that as the damage you take from running through a fire, so that seems like a logical "bottom line" to consider for low-damage Burning AEs.

I'd suggest you're going from "how I'd like to save a few points" rather than "here's the ability I want to build, let's look at the tools".

Second, it's only rigid walls that have an issue with fractional dice. Fractional damage on a permeable wall works just like fractional damage with any other innate attack.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by naloth

Gaming the system isn't good design. The ability you base it on should make sense rather than be a trick to game a few points.

What ability are you trying to make - a wall of marshmellows that doesn't hurt someone that impacts it? In what way are marshmellows piercing, ever?

piercing attacks w/ No Wounding still deliver Penetrating Damage for delivering stuff like Side Effect

so your wall could deliver a side effect to those who ram into it, and like with Innate Attack that could represent a certain delivery service which crushing-only DR doesn't help against

Crushing, usually.

Originally Posted by naloth

It's a pretty high premium on a rigid wall to pay for impaling or cutting damage on the off chance someone will run into it.

It's less of an off chance if you're throwing people into walls or creaitng them spontaneously in front of a high-speed sprinter who can't decelerate in time (moreso w/ Enhanced Move vehicles)

Originally Posted by naloth

Rigid walls should probably be a separate ability, entirely/
I'd allow a rigid wall to thrown up in time (out of sequence) with a Power Parry roll.
It's not exactly book correct but it makes more sense.

I guess the only thing is maybe it should force you to spend your next upcoming maneuver on an Attack, retroactively?

Not doing so should probably require Takes Less Time even though that's not supposed to be able to allow attacks to be done as free actions.

A parry of course isn't quite a free action, you have a limited amount of them, especially in the case of Power Defenses where you get one (parry, block or dodge) per turn period.

Originally Posted by naloth

It's a lot like a Power Block to activate an ability in time.

you probably mean Power Dodge as Power Block is for already-active abilities to see if you either double the effectiveness (resistance, DR, etc) or it has zero effect

Originally Posted by naloth

I wouldn't allow most permeable walls to Power Parry. Except for attacks in direct opposition, it doesn't really make sense. Reality check wise most projectiles couldn't be deflected or destroyed while energy attacks might not have anything the wall would damage. As a comic or movie trope, I'd allow a water/ice attack to parry a fire/heat attack.

Yeah these are standard considerations for any kind of Power Parry.

Originally Posted by naloth

I don't. After all, you have to account for how a shield would help if the power parry fails somewhere.

If the power parry fails (you don't subtract any damage) then it doesn't help.
If the power parry succeeds, it doesn't say to act like the shield stopped the attack, you just subtract damage as usual.

Originally Posted by naloth

it's only rigid walls that have an issue with fractional dice.
Fractional damage on a permeable wall works just like fractional damage with any other innate attack.

for rigid walls the issue is rounding up fractional HP and DR for good pricing

1d-3 attacks (non-crushing) always doing a minimum of 1 basic damage while costing 0.1 dice is a universal quirk of innate attacks (including permeable walls and other AEs)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by naloth

At the risk of resurrecting a long undead thread auras, areas, and walls are still innate attacks: stopped by DR/HP while ignoring damage attacks. GURPS generally charges for the effect. Using an attack to attack an incoming attack requires a power parry (no duration). I'd extend that to equipment in a general sense treating the effect how I would build it as a gadget (guns example builds also use innate attack).

To get a combination of "makes at least some sense" and "relatively balanced," I'm considering handling permeable wall vs projectile interactions as follows:

Damage: If the projectile takes enough damage to be reduced to 0 HP, apply a retroactive -1 to the roll to hit (so MoS 0 becomes a miss, and rapid-fire attacks might have one - or more, if using Very Rapid Fire or a fractional-Rcl houserule - projectile miss). If the projectile takes enough damage to be reduced to -5xHP, this increases to -2. If the projectile takes enough damage to be reduced to -10xHP, reduce Armor Divisor by a level (no AD becomes (0.5)) and increase the retroactive penalty to -3 - if this causes a miss, the GM may rule the projectile was simply vaporized (or whatever is appropriate for the damage source) en route.

Knockback: If the permeable Wall would cause Knockback to the projectile, add the yards of Knockback to the Range the projectile traveled, for purposes of determining if the projectile crosses its 1/2D or Max thresholds (for half damage or being unable to reach the target, respectively). Optionally, if this puts the Range into a worse range band (say, 5 yards of Knockback on a projectile that traveled 17 yards - this takes it from -6 for 20 yards to -7 for 30 yards), apply the difference in the penalty to the initial attack.

Originally Posted by naloth

Unless you have selective Area, sure. I count any "off" square as part of the total area.

I like this idea. I'm fine with discontinuous Walls within the IA's Range, but allowing this for Walls outside of the Range should be fine. I don't think I'll require Selective Area, however. Also, I think outside of Range, thinning the Wall shouldn't get you any more to work with (that is, you can't use the "lost" material elsewhere).

Originally Posted by Plane

Not sure I understand the math here. Cover DR is a combination of HP and DR right? What is being added?

As I stated upthread, I consider the math behind rigid Wall DR and HP to be "gives Cover DR equal to average damage."

Originally Posted by Plane

I don't like rounding up either, I like keeping decimals :)

GURPS deals with integer values for damage, DR, HP, etc. I suppose the 1d-4 isn't quite as bad if you use fractions for such - although I'll note 1d-4 is RAW unavailable, as RAW only lets you get down to a 1-damage IA (for 1/4th cost; 2/7ths would be more accurate, but mathematically annoying). To go further (only valid if you allow for fractions), I'd say multiply the cost of a 1-point IA by the damage (or average damage, if you want a dice roll involved). In the case of 1d-4, the 0.5 point average means half the cost of a 1-damage IA.

Originally Posted by Plane

I figured it'd be like "a wall of needles".

I hate treating "small impaling" as some form of piercing. Needles and the like should treat DR, IT:DR, Vulnerability, etc as though they were impaling, not piercing (a needle should get through Kevlar more easily than a bullet). Of course, in this case there's still the issue of paying far less for a perfectly-functional Wall just because you'll do less Injury in the off-chance someone decides battering it down with their own body (rather than using weapons) is a good idea.

The wounding modifier of a Wall (and its interaction with armor etc) is generally a minor component of its cost. A minimalist Wall has +95% worth of Enhancements - and that's very much a minimalist Wall, with only 3 hexes to work with (Area Effect 1 yard +25%), a 10-second duration (Persistent +40%), and a set shape (Wall +30%). Most Walls will have much more than this (larger Area Effect, longer Duration, and possibly a more variable shape). At this level, making it so the Wall does no injury at all (No Wounding -50%) changes its cost from 195% of the base IA to 145%, and even letting No Blunt Trauma -20% and No Knockback -10% apply only gets that down to 115%.

If the player wanted a damaging effect, he/she'd have a permeable Wall. The point of going rigid is that it physically prevents foes - and their projectiles - from going past them (a permeable Wall prevents the former by threatening damage - anyone willing to take the damage can just walk through). A foe can still get through a rigid Wall by destroying it first, and Slamming into it is typically not going to be their best bet to do that. So, again, the damage type of the Wall generally only matters if the foe is trying to get through it by Slamming (rather than by just attacking it). An exception is when a character throws up a Wall in front of a charging foe, forcing a collision. That's also when I'd expect the player to be wiling to pay a premium for a cutting/impaling Wall, and why I'm largely OK with those being priced the way they are. But usually, that's a pretty niche application of the power, so getting the whole thing at a huge discount (a 1d pi- minimalist Wall would cost [5.85], but a 1d cr minimalist Wall with nbt nkb nw would cost [5.75]) to account for reduced Wounding when that niche shows up is rather unbalanced.

Originally Posted by Plane

On semi-related note... anyone ever notice that weird bit on P168 where you can add shield DB to a Power Parry if the attack you're responding to has Blockable or Melee?

The whole point of a power parry roll is "I react quickly enough to roll my dice and subtract the result from the incoming attack's damage roll", right?

I had thought a Power Parry negated an attack, just like an Active Defense, but it looks like it serves to weaken the attack instead (potentially enough to reduce its effect to nothing), as you describe. Perhaps that was leftover from an earlier draft where Power Parries negated outright rather than weakening?

Originally Posted by Plane

something like 1d-3 has precedent for emulation though, B433 "Fire Sources" assigns that as the damage you take from running through a fire, so that seems like a logical "bottom line" to consider for low-damage Burning AEs.

Which is of course not -2/-1/0/1/2/3 it is 1/1/1/1/2/3

Honestly, below 1d, -0.3d per -1 shouldn't be used - rather, you should use the average damage, and pay what would be appropriate for that. For things other than crushing (that is, when 0 and lower are treated as 1), 1d-1 should be 0.75d, 1d-2 should be 0.6d, 1d-3 should be 0.5d, 1d-4 should be 0.3d, and 1d-5 should be 0.25d (it's exactly the same as a flat 1 damage, but with a useless dice roll in the mix). Crushing would be a little different, due to it treating results of 0 and less as 0 rather than as 1 - 1d-1 should be 0.7d, 1d-2 should be 0.5d, 1d-3 should be 0.25d (it averages to 1, so use the cost for 1 damage), 1d-4 should be 0.1d, and 1d-5 should be 0.05d.

Of course, for rigid Walls you don't actually roll, so you'd just use average damage. With normal Wall rules, I wouldn't allow for anything less than an average damage of 1. With my tweaks, I might be inclined to allow it, but you'd have to assign everything to HP, lacking DR - a 1d-4 cr Wall would give Cover DR of 0.5, so it would have HP 2.

Originally Posted by naloth

It's a pretty high premium on a rigid wall to pay for impaling or cutting damage on the off chance someone will run into it. Rigid walls should probably be a separate ability, entirely

I've considered that, with damage types other than crushing being Enhancements (sufficiently-small impaling to have a fractional wounding modifier might be worth a Limitation, but I'd be inclined to make it +0%, given it would still make the wall sharp, dealing a minimum of 1 Injury to unarmored foes).

Originally Posted by naloth

I'd allow a rigid wall to thrown up in time (out of sequence) with a Power Parry roll. It's not exactly book correct but it makes more sense. It's a lot like a Power Block to activate an ability in time.

P168 allows for Walls to be used for Power Parries. It doesn't note if the Wall persists (or if more than the one hex needed to Parry pops up), but I'd expect it would.

Originally Posted by naloth

I don't. After all, you have to account for how a shield would help if the power parry fails somewhere. Furthermore, using an area/ranged attack as a parry is already an edge (unusual, possibly cinematic and illogical) case.

I suppose you could have it be that, if your shield's DB makes a difference, the Power Parry fails but the attack hits the shield.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

piercing attacks w/ No Wounding still deliver Penetrating Damage for delivering stuff like Side Effect

Piercing is defined by its wounding effects. If you're taking "no wounding" on the ability such that the wound multiplier will never make a difference, then it's not really a piercing attack. The justification you've used has nothing to do with why this would make sense as a base for an ability.

so your wall could deliver a side effect to those who ram into it, and like with Innate Attack that could represent a certain delivery service which crushing-only DR doesn't help against

Describe the ability you're trying to create, not the game mechanics you're trying to ramrod together. I really don't see a Wall/Side Effect IA that makes since. As a linked ability, ok, but not on the same IA.

If the power parry fails (you don't subtract any damage) then it doesn't help.
If the power parry succeeds, it doesn't say to act like the shield stopped the attack, you just subtract damage as usual.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of either the Power Parry or Power Block mechanic. Even in a Supers context "I grunt to brace it and double my DR" doesn't really make sense. IME, players only use Power Parries when nothing else will work (mostly area attacks).

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As I stated upthread, I consider the math behind rigid Wall DR and HP to be "gives Cover DR equal to average damage."

Ah okay I think I get it now, wasn't processing the sentence before. Per B408 it seems like the wall HP is being treated as "flesh" though, since it's not 1/2 HP like unliving or 1/4 HP like homogenous has for cover DR.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The wounding modifier of a Wall (and its interaction with armor etc) is generally a minor component of its cost.

Ought to be, but since it is a major component of the base Innate Attack ability, there isn't any way to avoid that for walls.

Originally Posted by Varyon

A minimalist Wall has +95% worth of Enhancements - and that's very much a minimalist Wall, with only 3 hexes to work with (Area Effect 1 yard +25%), a 10-second duration (Persistent +40%), and a set shape (Wall +30%).

You could take -20% for 1/10 reduced duration to get a 1-second persistent :)

Originally Posted by Varyon

If the player wanted a damaging effect, he/she'd have a permeable Wall. The point of going rigid is that it physically prevents foes - and their projectiles - from going past them

Or to cause collision damage if they can't avoid them.

I guess the question is: what is the cap on the collision damage that rigid walls can actually cause compared to their permeable form?

Originally Posted by Varyon

(a permeable Wall prevents the former by threatening damage - anyone willing to take the damage can just walk through). A foe can still get through a rigid Wall by destroying it first, and Slamming into it is typically not going to be their best bet to do that.

True, unless you create the wall in the middle of a highway, or do a Wait>Attack against a charging foe

Originally Posted by Varyon

I had thought a Power Parry negated an attack, just like an Active Defense, but it looks like it serves to weaken the attack instead (potentially enough to reduce its effect to nothing), as you describe. Perhaps that was leftover from an earlier draft where Power Parries negated outright rather than weakening?

I'm thinking it might just weaken it in respect to the original target but that damage doesn't evaporate and instead hits nearby targets via diversion.

So to actually negate teh damage safely you'd need to rely on DR.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Honestly, below 1d, -0.3d per -1 shouldn't be used - rather, you should use the average damage, and pay what would be appropriate for that.

It's a good all-around approach, stuff like 2d-6 would still cause a problem.

Originally Posted by naloth

Piercing is defined by its wounding effects. If you're taking "no wounding" on the ability such that the wound multiplier will never make a difference, then it's not really a piercing attack.

Damage type still matters for stuff like DR which only guards against certain damage types.

How much Penetrating Damage you get (how much DR your Basic Damage interacts with) matters not just for wounds but also the HT roll penalty for Side Effect.

Originally Posted by naloth

Honestly, I'm not a fan of either the Power Parry or Power Block mechanic
Even in a Supers context "I grunt to brace it and double my DR" doesn't really make sense.

I think it does make sense... but we already have "Extra Effort" rules for powers (you can spend FP and roll wil lto try and increase your DR levels by a %) so I don't know why we also need Power Block.

Originally Posted by naloth

IME, players only use Power Parries when nothing else will work (mostly area attacks).

or if posture penalties cause other defenses problems, I think it avoids those

could also help if your Innate Attack skill for shooting your power was much higher than your other combat skills for parrying or Basic Speed for dodging