[Rq-rules] Knockback domino

[perala at cc.joensuu.fi]

  Thanks, your analysis was interesting. I think I'll be making some additions
to my own house rules.

Marko Perälä

> My knockback house rules provide for this. I calculate basic knockback 
> as the rolled damage bonus of the attacker (or original impactor) plus 
> current movement rate in m/SR, minus the rolled damage bonus of the 
> target, to a minimum of zero. In the case of secondary knockbacks, I 
> treat the current movement rate as however many meters remain unspent 
> of the current knockback.
> 
> So, applying this to your example, here's how it goes.
> 
> Giant's damage bonus is 20d6. We'll assume person A has a damage bonus 
> of +1d4. The Giant has not taken a running charge at this, so his 
> movement rate is zero. That gives us a knockback for person A of 
> 20d6-1d4, or about 67 meters.
> 
> Now it becomes relevant just how far apart A and B are. Let's say 5 
> meters.  Let's also assume B has no damage bonus. A therefore strikes  
> B at an effective speed of 67-5=62 m/SR. Add 1d4 for A's damage bonus, 
> and subtract nothing for little B's lack of a damage bonus, and the 
> knockback for B is about 65 m.
> 
> However, that's a pretty elastic collision. They're not likely to 
> bounce that much. So we convert some of that kinetic energy into 
> damage. I once calculated, for fun, the approximate amount of damage 
> someone would suffer on impact if launched from a trebuchet against a 
> solid stone wall, and got something like 100d6. (Looking it over now, I 
> think it should have been about 60d6. 60 m/s is about the speed you'd 
> be moving after falling from a height of 180 m, and RQ3 says you take 
> 1d6 for every 3m you fall.) So, probably the impact between A and B 
> should soak up more than half the kinetic energy, giving each about 20 
> or 30 d6 worth, and reducing the distance they travel accordingly.
> 
> Actually, I would probably rule that A is no longer an intact 
> character, and B takes damage from flying bits of A. No, wait. 5 m is 
> still within Giant's follow-through, so they both end up smeared across 
> Giant's fist.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, let's reverse it, and look at the domino part. The thing about 
> knocking over dominoes is that you knock down a potentially unlimited 
> amount of stuff for a very small initial force. So let's say David (SIZ 
> 10, no damage bonus) shoves Goliath (SIZ 20, +1d6 damage bonus) and 
> gets a special success on knockback. 0-1d6 gives us zero distance, so 
> Goliath just sort of falls over. But Big Butch (SIZ 22, +1d6 damage 
> bonus) is right  next to him, and doesn't get out of the way. 0 + 1d6 - 
> 1d6 can range from zero to 5, so Big Butch can be knocked back into 
> Large Larry, and so on, assuming nobody makes a DEX check to get out of 
> the way.
> 
> On 22-Jul-06, at 12:50 AM, perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote:
> 
> > I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can 
> > knockback into
> > people cause a chain reaction?
> >
> > For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and 
> > punches
> > person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage 
> > and flies
> > into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback 
> > into
> > people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions 
> > flown.
> > That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it 
> > end here,
> > or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C 
> > (SIZ 14)?
> > That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of 
> > flight into D
> > (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of
> > argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly 
> > positioned for
> > this effect to be possible.
> >
> > I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I 
> > might be
> > missing something essential. Comments?
> >
> > Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on 
> > purpose with
> > aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would 
> > it take
> > (an aimed blow perhaps)?
> >
> > Marko Perälä
> > _______________________________________________
> > RQ-Rules mailing list
> > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>