Leaping Limitations!

[Sean Waters]

Forward movement only -1

Hmmm....cool!

Can someone please explain to me why not having any vertical height component on your leaping is a limitation?

I mean, normally with my 50" of leaping I would be scuppered trying to leap down a corridor with a 3 metre ceiling: I'd be going up at least 50 metres (so I'd be limited in fact to a leap of 3"), but with this limitation: no problemo. And it halves the cost. Bargain.

OK I know that you might have some problem getting onto a roof outside (unless you lie down, in which case forward is up), so OK that is a bit of a limitation, but at least half the time heroes are inside, so it really does balance out and tip heavily in favour of it being an advantage overall.

Or am I crazed?

[Vanguard00]

-1? Really? Where'd you see that? I probably wouldn't give it more than -1/2, and probably only -1/4. But maybe I'm missin' something...wouldn't be the first time.

[Sean Waters]

-1? Really? Where'd you see that? I probably wouldn't give it more than -1/2, and probably only -1/4. But maybe I'm missin' something...wouldn't be the first time.

Under 'leaping' in 5ER.

Weird, huh?

[Vanguard00]

Under 'leaping' in 5ER.

Weird, huh?
Definitely. I wonder if Steve and/or Company will chime in...

[The Main Man]

I have to agree with lowering that Limitation.
Vertical Movement is more deserving of -1 value.

[prestidigitator]

"Forward Movement Only," doesn't mean to me that you have no arc to your leap (that's really a GM call). It means you cannot use your Leaping to end up three hexes above your current position. Three hexes horizontally offset, sure (well, so long as it is in the, "forward," direction, I suppose).

Now, if you are asking for a common-sense reason you cannot use forward-only leaping to also go upward, don't ask me. Power builds aren't always about common sense, and I think I'll only strain my brain about it if the situation actually comes up in a (semi-)realistic game.

[Sean Waters]

I accept that, Presdidigitator, but until I can come up with a reason you can leap through an arc but not land at the top of it, I don't think I'll be allowing the limitation.

[stan da ork]

Just a thought, but why can't an unlimited Leaper leap down a long hallway? I can certainly see such a character making a simple Acrobatics roll to flip his feet against the wall, then pushing off in the correct direction to "leap" down the long corridor. Very cinematic, and totally in genre for many genres.

[Dust Raven]

Just a thought, but why can't an unlimited Leaper leap down a long hallway? I can certainly see such a character making a simple Acrobatics roll to flip his feet against the wall, then pushing off in the correct direction to "leap" down the long corridor. Very cinematic, and totally in genre for many genres.
I use Running for that SFX. I tend to call the Power "Backflips and Cartwheels". It's the ninja's and acrobat's method of getting around quickly in nearly any environment.

[Dust Raven]

The value of the Limitation does seem wonky. Upward Movement Only is also a -1, and seems much more limiting. Leaping, in my experience, is primarily used for forward movement, and limiting it to only that doesn't seem very limiting.

[Erkenfresh]

Just sell off Running to 0, there's +12 points. Now purchase Leaping 25" (-1, no vertical movement) for those 12 points, you can leap 25" for 1 END. Good deal! Maybe that's too fast, let's do this instead:

Leaping +17" (20" forward, 1 1/2" upward), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (25 Active Points); Forward Movement Only (-1)

Now we can leap around all day without rest.

[Dust Raven]

Just sell off Running to 0, there's +12 points. Now purchase Leaping 25" (-1, no vertical movement) for those 12 points, you can leap 25" for 1 END. Good deal! Maybe that's too fast, let's do this instead:

Leaping +17" (20" forward, 1 1/2" upward), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (25 Active Points); Forward Movement Only (-1)

Now we can leap around all day without rest.

Don't forget Restrainable! :nonp: Gotta move them legs you know...

[Killer Shrike]

I havent looked at that power in a long time, but one of the mainstay PC's of one of my campaigns (Rook from the Millennial Men campaign) had it.

My judgement was that it functioned like a train. The character moved from point A to point B in a straight line. They didnt need anything underneath them except their start and end point so they could "bridge" gulfs, or go from one rooftop to the next and things like that.

What the power couldn't do was allow the character to gain altitude by itself and could only lose altitude as a byproduct of gravity. They couldnt jump OVER something and since they couldnt turn either anything that got in their way was an effective obstruction forcing them to move thru it or stop their slide and manuever around it using their normal movement.

It was an interesting form of movement that had some real limitations worked into it. I'd say it really was about 1/2 as useful as normal Leaping.

[BNakagawa]

One thing you do lose with this limitation is the ability to use leaping to offset falling damage.

[Dust Raven]

One thing you do lose with this limitation is the ability to use leaping to offset falling damage.

That's true. But enough for a -1 Limitation? I'm not so sure. My faith is in the system in general and that Steve thought this out before he just went "well, up only is a -1...", so I think there must be something significent that makes this worth a -1, which is the same as going to 0 DCV throught the use of a constant Power, or an OAF, or an 11- Activation Roll, or a 60+ Active Point Side Effect, or buying only half the Power...

I just can't think of what it might be.


Then again, I think the -1 for Based On CON for Mental Powers is f---ed up and not should be at least a -2, so who knows?

[ghost-angel]

I havent looked at that power in a long time, but one of the mainstay PC's of one of my campaigns (Rook from the Millennial Men campaign) had it.

My judgement was that it functioned like a train. The character moved from point A to point B in a straight line. They didnt need anything underneath them except their start and end point so they could "bridge" gulfs, or go from one rooftop to the next and things like that.

What the power couldn't do was allow the character to gain altitude by itself and could only lose altitude as a byproduct of gravity. They couldnt jump OVER something and since they couldnt turn either anything that got in their way was an effective obstruction forcing them to move thru it or stop their slide and manuever around it using their normal movement.

It was an interesting form of movement that had some real limitations worked into it. I'd say it really was about 1/2 as useful as normal Leaping.
Not to mention the inability to make a sidestep hop to the left/right or to jump backwards out of danger.

[Dust Raven]

Not to mention the inability to make a sidestep hop to the left/right or to jump backwards out of danger.

Okay, it's rolling in now...

[Vanguard00]

I guess it's a matter of degrees. Leaping forward only is about half as effective as leaping with no limitations, and technically "half as effective" is worth -1...

Oh, well.

[Supreme Serpent]

It's one of those limits where the value is pretty campaign-dependent, unlike the more (but not always) cut&dried activation rolls. If the game is "Infinite Hallway Crisis", then no, it's not too limiting. If instead the game focuses on fights in under-construction skyscrapers, it's very limiting.

[Zed-F]

I usually use Leaping Forward Movement Only much like KS describes. It's basically a 'Charge!' power that lets you go straight forward, but you can't turn easily, and you can't gain altitude. In practice, unless you're out in the open, there's not much likelihood of being able to use your full charge distance... especially if the area is at all busy. There are lots of minor obstacles that wouldn't bother a traditional leaper but which could cause problems for a charger, and of course you now have no chance at all to hit that flying blaster with your megapunch. I think -1 is reasonable, if the GM makes any effort to enforce the lim. Of course... that same caveat applies to all limitations.

[prestidigitator]

I think the rationale may have been that if Vertical Only is -1 (which indicates the Power loses roughly half its effectiveness), the other half of the Power's effectiveness must be in horizontal movement. I'm not even sure the spirit of the Limitation was supposed to be specifically forward; the intent may have been to make it, "horizontal," only, but I don't have my book with me to reread it, so it is just a vague suspicion.

Anyway, I'm personally fine with dividing it into Vertical Only (-1) and Horizontal Only (-1). It's not an exact science, and I can think of plenty of situations when a vertical leap is just as useful as a horizontal one, if not more so. It's certainly going to depend on the style of game and GMing, of course.

[Zed-F]

Forward only ~= horizontal only, if you spend a 0 phase action to turn in place before leaping. However, if you're restrained from performing that 0 phase action somehow, or you for instance wanted to leap backward without changing facing, it might be a bit be a bit more restrictive. All part of the -1 lim.

[RDU Neil]

Forward only ~= horizontal only, if you spend a 0 phase action to turn in place before leaping. However, if you're restrained from performing that 0 phase action somehow, or you for instance wanted to leap backward without changing facing, it might be a bit be a bit more restrictive. All part of the -1 lim.

Is that your interpretation of the rule... or is it stated that way in the book?

I think it makes sense as you've described it... I'm just trying to clarify if this is Zed-F speaking or the book.

[Sean Waters]

I appreciate that there may be limitations in being only able to leap forward, but if you can't gain vertical height that does mean that you can use it indoors, which you can't do with normal leaping. Depends on where your combats take place, but maybe half of ours are indoors, so it is quite an advantage in some ways.

[Dust Raven]

On the forward movement only = "a straight horzontal line, parallel to the ground" idea, I don't buy it. It's rare that a Limitation grants some kind of advantage to a Power, and rarer still when that advantage is of such significence that it completely alters the way to Power works. Leaping does not allow you go leap across a room with a low ceiling. It just doesn't, and limiting it will in no way, never ever, allow Leaping to do something it couldn't already.

Forward does not equal horizontal movement. I'll even go so far as to say that the character can leap into the air and land at a higher elevation, so long as that location was a significant distance ahead of him. It's still forward motion, and as I said, forward does not equal horizontal.

[John T]

My mind's eye sees this as something akin to a rocket-assisted leap for a ground vehicle; not a whole lot of vertical movement going on, there.

Worth -1? I'd have to GM it a few times before I'd know for sure; it'd probably end up at -1/2 for my own use, but who knows? As with any other Limitation in the game, it's all about how limiting it actually is.

[Rapier]

Well, I would look a bit askance at a -1.

However, I can see the logic. Leaping movement has two components, vertical and horizontal. If you eliminate one of them, Leaping loses "half" its usage. That is worth a -1.

Now, does that not mean that there are times when its not a limitation or times when its actually a benefit? Oh sure. I can't think of a single limitation that at some point couldn't become an "advantage" in the situation you want to use it in.

The meter stick is, as always, set as how much usage the limitation will limit.

[casualplayer]

Since gaining altitude is only at half the movement speed (a 12" superleap can only get you 6" of up) shouldn't that limitation be only -1/2, maybe -3/4? Anyway, every example of this SFX occuring in game that I can think of should probably be bought as Flight with 1 Recoverable Charge, No Turn Mode. Who thought up this goofy power example?

[prestidigitator]

On the forward movement only = "a straight horzontal line, parallel to the ground" idea, I don't buy it. It's rare that a Limitation grants some kind of advantage to a Power, and rarer still when that advantage is of such significence that it completely alters the way to Power works. Leaping does not allow you go leap across a room with a low ceiling. It just doesn't, and limiting it will in no way, never ever, allow Leaping to do something it couldn't already.

Forward does not equal horizontal movement. I'll even go so far as to say that the character can leap into the air and land at a higher elevation, so long as that location was a significant distance ahead of him. It's still forward motion, and as I said, forward does not equal horizontal.
To be fair, I believe it is completely up to the GM to enforce any kind of arc when Leaping is used. IIRC there is nothing in the official rules about how high a horizonal leap will take you. In many games, especially heroic ones, it is of course often a given that the GM will make some kind of common sense ruling on the matter, so things might well vary between games.

Certainly the official restrictions of Leaping: that you must begin and end on some kind of surface (unless you want to fall), that you cannot turn mid-leap, etc., should not be changed by a Limitation.

[schir1964]

To be fair, I believe it is completely up to the GM to enforce any kind of arc when Leaping is used. IIRC there is nothing in the official rules about how high a horizonal leap will take you. In many games, especially heroic ones, it is of course often a given that the GM will make some kind of common sense ruling on the matter, so things might well vary between games.

Certainly the official restrictions of Leaping: that you must begin and end on some kind of surface (unless you want to fall), that you cannot turn mid-leap, etc., should not be changed by a Limitation.
I think this one may have been answered in the Rule FAQs.

- Christopher Mullins

[Mike W]

Forward movement only -1

Hmmm....cool!

Can someone please explain to me why not having any vertical height component on your leaping is a limitation?

I mean, normally with my 50" of leaping I would be scuppered trying to leap down a corridor with a 3 metre ceiling: I'd be going up at least 50 metres (so I'd be limited in fact to a leap of 3"), but with this limitation: no problemo. And it halves the cost. Bargain.

OK I know that you might have some problem getting onto a roof outside (unless you lie down, in which case forward is up), so OK that is a bit of a limitation, but at least half the time heroes are inside, so it really does balance out and tip heavily in favour of it being an advantage overall.

Or am I crazed?


Well, if you take it literally, Forward only means you can't use it to go backward or side to side - which would make using it to Dive for Cover much harder. That would be worth something.

[prestidigitator]

I think this one may have been answered in the Rule FAQs.
Hmm. Could be. I just searched the new FAQ under the, "General Questions," "Characteristics," "Powers," and, "Combat and Adventuring," sections using the case-insensitive strings 'jump', 'leap', 'height', and 'high' and skimmed from there. I didn't find anything that seemed to be relavent, but I could have missed something.

[Dust Raven]

To be fair, I believe it is completely up to the GM to enforce any kind of arc when Leaping is used. IIRC there is nothing in the official rules about how high a horizonal leap will take you. In many games, especially heroic ones, it is of course often a given that the GM will make some kind of common sense ruling on the matter, so things might well vary between games.

Certainly the official restrictions of Leaping: that you must begin and end on some kind of surface (unless you want to fall), that you cannot turn mid-leap, etc., should not be changed by a Limitation.

All true, but as far as I'm concerned, it's gotta be mighty limited in function for it's base cost to be half that of Running or Flight. Requiring enough general open space to use it seems about right.

[schir1964]

Upon further research I also could not find any references for the Arc Of Leaping.

However, I've ruled for simplicity sake that the minimum height of a norma leap would 1/4 of the distance being leaped. The complementary rule is that maximum height of any leap is of course 1/2 of the distance being leaped.

So a 20" Leap requires a clearance of at least 5" inches.

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Upon further research I also could not find any references for the Arc Of Leaping.

However, I've ruled for simplicity sake that the minimum height of a norma leap would 1/4 of the distance being leaped. The complementary rule is that maximum height of any leap is of course 1/2 of the distance being leaped.

So a 20" Leap requires a clearance of at least 5" inches.
Interesting. If you use equations for ballistic arcs (in a vacuum), use a small-angle approximation (sin a ~= tan a ~= a; questionable here, but the only approximation that is going to give a decent-looking answer), and maximize the starting velocity (common sense if you are trying to minimize the height of the trajectory), the ratio of the maximum height to the range comes to:

H/R ~= R/8R(max)
Where R(max) is the maximum range (at a 45-degree angle). The maximum height of the R(max) trajectory is one-quarter R(max) (the approximation is not very good at a 45-degree angle, but gets better as the angle decreases).

If we take the pessimistic end and make the minimum height of a jump equal to R/4R(max), it seems to be a very simple and usable relationship. If a character has 8" of Leaping but only jumps 4", the minimum peak of the jump is 1/2" (one-eighth the distance jumped). If a character with only 4" of Leaping makes the same jump, the minimum peak is 1" (one-quarter the distance jumped).

[schir1964]

So, you liked that one?

- Christopher Mullins

[CrosshairCollie]

I don't know if I can see it as a -1, but I can see it being a problem in some cases, not the least of which is the inability to plow into flying targets, which at one point seemed to be a national pasttime in my games (we liked to smash downward on the descending arc of the leap and drive 'em into the ground). You also have to deal with obstacles that could otherwise be circumvented (no jumping over cars or people in the way). Combining that limitation with a cluttered battlefield can make for some frustration, to be sure.

[prestidigitator]

So, you liked that one?
Yeah. I saw your value was based upon a trajectory with a 45-degree angle (maximum range in a vacuum) and took it from there. I just like also making it depend on the character's total Leaping distance (alternately, the amount of Leaping for which the character spends End, so a character with more Leaping could choose to spend more End to make the jump lower).

[prestidigitator]

I don't know if I can see it as a -1, but I can see it being a problem in some cases, not the least of which is the inability to plow into flying targets, which at one point seemed to be a national pasttime in my games (we liked to smash downward on the descending arc of the leap and drive 'em into the ground). You also have to deal with obstacles that could otherwise be circumvented (no jumping over cars or people in the way). Combining that limitation with a cluttered battlefield can make for some frustration, to be sure.
True! Removing the height of a Leap would have definite drawbacks as well as benefits. It all depends on the situation.

[schir1964]

Yeah. I saw your value was based upon a trajectory with a 45-degree angle (maximum range in a vacuum) and took it from there. I just like also making it depend on the character's total Leaping distance (alternately, the amount of Leaping for which the character spends End, so a character with more Leaping could choose to spend more End to make the jump lower).
Nice!! I like that END option. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[John T]

Some additional thoughts on the extent to which this limitation could be used to advantage (based on my interpretation):

Keep in mind that there is NO provision for gaining altitude with this type of Leap. If the far side of the chasm you're trying to reach is even 1/2" higher than your launch point, THUD! If the open space you're attempting to cross is crowded with people, someone's going to get hurt.

The only condition under which this type of Leap seems to have an advantage over the standard kind is if A) there is a ceiling restricting a normal Leap, and B) you trajectory (if you can call it that) is free of major obstructions (things you couldn't brush aside with casual Str).

[Dust Raven]

Some additional thoughts on the extent to which this limitation could be used to advantage (based on my interpretation):

Keep in mind that there is NO provision for gaining altitude with this type of Leap. If the far side of the chasm you're trying to reach is even 1/2" higher than your launch point, THUD! If the open space you're attempting to cross is crowded with people, someone's going to get hurt.

The only condition under which this type of Leap seems to have an advantage over the standard kind is if A) there is a ceiling restricting a normal Leap, and B) you trajectory (if you can call it that) is free of major obstructions (things you couldn't brush aside with casual Str).

I still disagree that "forward only" equals "straight line horizontal" movement. I think it means a normal leap that you can only make in one direction: forward. No leaping straight up, backwards or to the sides.

I'm afraid to ask for verification from Steve though. I afraid he'll say it's up to the GM and nothing else.

[Dust Raven]

Okay, I guess I had nothing to fear:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42583

[Zed-F]

Steve's answer seems like a rather silly interpretation to me. How is not being able to leap sideways or backwards limiting when it's a 0 phase action to change your facing? You lose nothing mechanically speaking by not being able to jump sideways or backwards, if you can still gain altitude with a forward leap.

I think I like my interpretation better.

[Hyper-Man]

Steve's answer seems like a rather silly interpretation to me. How is not being able to leap sideways or backwards limiting when it's a 0 phase action to change your facing? You lose nothing mechanically speaking by not being able to jump sideways or backwards, if you can still gain altitude with a forward leap.

I think I like my interpretation better.
Not entirely true.

If you want to retreat from a battle you run the risk of losing sight of one or more the combatants and suffering the 1/2 DCV vs. suprise/from behind attacks during your leap.

Also, the altitude gained from a non-balistic or forward leap is not going be very much. Maybe 1" per 5" forward at best.

[Sean Waters]

Steve's answer seems like a rather silly interpretation to me. How is not being able to leap sideways or backwards limiting when it's a 0 phase action to change your facing? You lose nothing mechanically speaking by not being able to jump sideways or backwards, if you can still gain altitude with a forward leap.

I think I like my interpretation better.

As Zed-F says, given that a change of facing takes no time and you can still get up to high places, so long as you stand far enough back, I think that the answer does not explain the (–1) limitation value: one or the other has to be wrong.

[Hyper-Man]

As Zed-F says, given that a change of facing takes no time and you can still get up to high places, so long as you stand far enough back, I think that the answer does not explain the (–1) limitation value: one or the other has to be wrong.

Also, the rule on changing faces assumes that you have not moved. The full amount of Leaping assumes that you have room for a running start.

So say you had a character standing on the outside ledge of a building with his Jump-Jet Backpack that normally gives him +20" Leaping with this Limitation. He would only get to apply the bonus for a standing leap (1/2 or 1/4, i don't have the book handy) and he would have little to no altitude control. If he tried to leap into a window of another building it would be at a severe penalty compared to leaping bought without the lim.

[prestidigitator]

Not entirely true.

If you want to retreat from a battle you run the risk of losing sight of one or more the combatants and suffering the 1/2 DCV vs. suprise/from behind attacks during your leap.
True. Also, if you happen to be using Running with a Turn Mode, you might be rather restricted if already moving. Not very common, but there. Use of Acrobatics tied with a leap could also be hampered a bit. If your opponent(s) know you leap around a lot they might just Delay their attacks until you turn your back....


Also, the altitude gained from a non-balistic or forward leap is not going be very much. Maybe 1" per 5" forward at best.
Yeah. I would restrict the initial angle of your leap to no greater than 45-degrees above horizontal. As stated earlier that means the maximum height of the jump will be one-quarter the horizontal travel.

[prestidigitator]

Also, the rule on changing faces assumes that you have not moved. The full amount of Leaping assumes that you have room for a running start.
Hmm. Actually, that brings something to mind. Generally you can only activate/deactivate any particular Power once per Phase, even though you can normally take Zero-Phase Actions before an initial Half Phase and before a final Half Phase. I could see restricting a character (at least if the Limited Leaping is used) to only changing facing before or after the Leap, so you may not be able to, for example, change facing, jump, change facing, and attack.

[RDU Neil]

Hmm. Actually, that brings something to mind. Generally you can only activate/deactivate any particular Power once per Phase, even though you can normally take Zero-Phase Actions before an initial Half Phase and before a final Half Phase. I could see restricting a character (at least if the Limited Leaping is used) to only changing facing before or after the Leap, so you may not be able to, for example, change facing, jump, change facing, and attack.


All of this quite a bit of work and tangled logic in order to justify a -1 limitation.


All this is leaving me with that "bad-Hero" taste in my mouth. While logic puzzles can be fun, I hate it when the game begins to require complex, nuanced and highly variable reasoning from effect just to answer "Can I jump to that ledge or not?"

[Hyper-Man]

Maybe someone should start another thread discussing all the possible movement Advantages and Limitations and the relative usefulness of each.

ex: What exactly does Sideways Movement* (+1/2) give that No Turn Mode (+1/4) does not?

* Advantage found in Ultimate Vehicle

I know the answer but it is a special effects based answer (vehicles can normally only move in 1 or 2 directions based on their facing (planes 1: forward, trucks 2: forward and backwards).

The Leaping limitation is similar in some ways. It assumes that the Leaper could otherwise do the following with his or her native leaping:
Use it to go upwards at 1/4 value.
Use upwards leaping to cancel falling velocity.
Use leaping at nearly any angle of attack.

The special effect of leap is really necessary to determine the rest of the effects.

For instance:

What do the 5er rules say about a running speedster trying to cross a chasm? or the General Lee jumping a ramp to land on the interstate?

Would they need to buy some extra Leaping to use in conjuction with his running (or flight only on surface) to make the 'jump'? If so I think this limitation fits the bill. I might even say that the limitation automatically takes the "safe" factor out and requires them to make a Dex or Skill roll to keep their footing/traction on landing.

Just some crazy thoughts bouncing through my head.

Now I want to try writing up Evil Knievel using HERO!

HM

[prestidigitator]

All of this quite a bit of work and tangled logic in order to justify a -1 limitation.

All this is leaving me with that "bad-Hero" taste in my mouth. While logic puzzles can be fun, I hate it when the game begins to require complex, nuanced and highly variable reasoning from effect just to answer "Can I jump to that ledge or not?"
I was just explaining what I thought to be the consequences of various rulings, builds, and ideas. As I stated before, I already thought it is worth a -1, and would limit it in play accordingly. I don't think this topic requires, "complex, nuanced and highly variable reasoning from effect." I'm merely having fun brainstorming about it. I don't know about the others.

[Dust Raven]

Things you can't do with a Forward Only Leap that you can with a normal Leap:

1) You are standing bellow the villains balcony/catwalk or somesuch that is 2" up from where you are standing. In order to reach it, you must first move away from the ledge and then leap toward it, using up two Phases (unless you have a lot of movement with Running and/or Leap). Otherwise, you can just leap straight up.

2) You are getting our *** kicked by a bunch of goods who maxed out their credit cards on new equipment. You're options are to run and hide or stay and die. You opt to run an hide. If you use your Leaping, you must expose your back to the enemy and effectively give them all free "from behind" bonuses against you, or else slowly back away as they whittle you down.

3) While peacefully walking through the park, you are suddenly attack by an AoE Firey Ball of Death! Dive For Cover sounds like a nice option, but if you use your Leaping, you can only leap in the direction you are facing. At the moment, that's the direction the attacks are coming from. Even if successful, you'll end up prone and closer to the rest of your attackers.

4) Similar to 3, but this time you just want to get behind that garbage truck, but unfortunately, it's to the left of you.

5) Gigantoman grabs your hat and holds it way up in the air where you can't reach it, even if you are leaping. (or hell, just imagine anyone using a Grab from above on any of your accessible foci). Now you've got to run away (exposing your back) before you can try to leap for it, and by that time, they might have left (assuming they didn't just shoot you).

6) You just pushed out the window on the 15th floor of the apartment building. You better hope there is a sturdy yet flexible awaning down there, because your Leaping isn't gonna help cushion the fall.

There are most likely even more, but this is what I could think of off the top of my head.

The question would be, is this worth a -1 Limitation? So far I think so, but I could be underestimating some other aspect of Leaping.

[prestidigitator]

1) You are standing bellow the villains balcony/catwalk or somesuch that is 2" up from where you are standing. In order to reach it, you must first move away from the ledge and then leap toward it, using up two Phases (unless you have a lot of movement with Running and/or Leap). Otherwise, you can just leap straight up.
Not to mention the fact that you have to have 8" of Leaping rather than 4" of Leaping to get that high (since the peak of your jump is only 1/4 of the horizontal distance of the jump), and will be travelling pretty quickly once you get to that balcony (could make grabbing on a bit risky/difficult).

[Zed-F]

Things you can't do with a Forward Only Leap that you can with a normal Leap:

1) You are standing bellow the villains balcony/catwalk or somesuch that is 2" up from where you are standing. In order to reach it, you must first move away from the ledge and then leap toward it, using up two Phases (unless you have a lot of movement with Running and/or Leap). Otherwise, you can just leap straight up.
Not really. Half move with running away from the ledge and then leap up.


2) You are getting our *** kicked by a bunch of goods who maxed out their credit cards on new equipment. You're options are to run and hide or stay and die. You opt to run an hide. If you use your Leaping, you must expose your back to the enemy and effectively give them all free "from behind" bonuses against you, or else slowly back away as they whittle you down.
And since you probably want to go non-combat.... you're already at half DCV anyway. Or, since with Steve's interpretation you can leap over stuff with a Forward Movement Only leap, just leap over a tall building in a single bound so they can't target your back.


3) While peacefully walking through the park, you are suddenly attack by an AoE Firey Ball of Death! Dive For Cover sounds like a nice option, but if you use your Leaping, you can only leap in the direction you are facing. At the moment, that's the direction the attacks are coming from. Even if successful, you'll end up prone and closer to the rest of your attackers.

4) Similar to 3, but this time you just want to get behind that garbage truck, but unfortunately, it's to the left of you.
Snort. So DFC using your running.... you do want to actually be able to make that DFC roll to get out of the way in time anyway, don't you?


5) Gigantoman grabs your hat and holds it way up in the air where you can't reach it, even if you are leaping. (or hell, just imagine anyone using a Grab from above on any of your accessible foci). Now you've got to run away (exposing your back) before you can try to leap for it, and by that time, they might have left (assuming they didn't just shoot you).

6) You just pushed out the window on the 15th floor of the apartment building. You better hope there is a sturdy yet flexible awaning down there, because your Leaping isn't gonna help cushion the fall.

The question would be, is this worth a -1 Limitation? So far I think so, but I could be underestimating some other aspect of Leaping.
Not enough for the Caramilk secret. The 'freight train' interpretation of 'Forward Movement Only' has both these issues, and is a LOT more restrictive generally speaking otherwise. It can't deal with (1) at all since you can't gain altitude at all, it can't deal with (2) since you can't jump over an intervening object, is just as restrictive when it comes to (3)-(6), PLUS is a lot more cumbersome in crowded areas, leaves you move vulnerable to aerial attackers and ground-based attacks, and generally gives you fewer options in combat. That sounds like something actually worth -1, rather than Steve's interpretation which sounds like -1/4 or maybe -1/2 if you're feeling generous. Most of the time, with a 0 phase facing change before leaping or after a 1/2 move, you're just not going to run into any significant problems using Steve's interpretation.

[Sean Waters]

I'm most assuredly witht he 'not worth -1' crowd.

I can see this as a limtiation on flight or running being worth the points, but not on leaping, a power that does not let you change direction through the course of your leap and only costs 1 point for 1".

I'm not going to go into refuting or supporting the various arguments - good points made on both sides - I'm just thinking that it is too much of a problem to GM and make worth a -1 limitation, so I don't think I'm going to be allowing it at least at that value.

Bear in mind what you normally do with leaping:

1. Move
2. Add damage to your attacks

These aspects are hardly limited at all in this build, given that you can point yourself whichever way you want before you start the leap and, frankly, if you'd wanted to leap in any direction but the direction you were actually facing when you took off, even without the limitation, then you'd be taking real penalties in any event if I was running the game: leaping sideways of backwards just is not as efficient.

The other thing you have to bear in mind is that, nice as it would be, advantage and limitation values in Hero are rarely absolute. How much of a limitiation something is may well depend on the rest of the build. If the leaping is the only available method of movement then cool, it is worth more of a limtiation than if it is just a secondary mode used for, say, getting stupid damage bonuses to your move-attacks. Players are rarely either so stupid or so noble as to not minimise any limtiations in practice.

The other thing I'd quite like to know: anyone think of an sfx which explains why you can only jump forwards?

I've heard rocket pack: well, OK, that has directional nozzles that mean you have to face the way you leap, but lean back, and why can't you go up, or twist in the air to cushion a fall, especially if you don't care about adding your own STR-based leaping distance?

Can anyone think of a sfx that would actually work here?

[schir1964]

Actually, standard vehicles would have this limitation.

Cars may also be considered to be limited to a type of "Running Leap" and require an incline to do so.

Now whether or not this should be classified as using the mechanic "Leap" is debatable.

- Christopher Mullins

[Zed-F]

Sure. Don't think of it as a 'jump.' Remember, the name of the power is not important, or else rubber bullets wouldn't be an energy blast.

With the 'freight train' version, just think of anything that goes really fast in a straight line, can't change altitude, and can hardly turn at all while going at speed. Like, say, a train. :) Or someone charging in a mad rush at top speed, which is the SFX I typically use. Or the aforementioned rocket booster, without the directional controls that enable true flight -- the boost is too powerful and/or shortlived for that -- though this might be more appropriate for a vehicle where the booster is fixed in place, like a rocket car. Of course, you could get more esoteric. KS's sample character using this build uses TK force effects to achieve the result, and like many superpowers, it works that way because that's how the player defined the power.

Anyway, I have no problem with the freight train version being priced at -1. There are real limits that are easily enforced on that version. Good luck hitting someone around a corner with your movement attack, something trivially simple with running or pretty much any other movement power.

[Sean Waters]

Sure. Don't think of it as a 'jump.' Remember, the name of the power is not important, or else rubber bullets wouldn't be an energy blast.

With the 'freight train' version, just think of anything that goes really fast in a straight line, can't change altitude, and can hardly turn at all while going at speed. Like, say, a train. :) Or someone charging in a mad rush at top speed, which is the SFX I typically use. Or the aforementioned rocket booster, without the directional controls that enable true flight -- the boost is too powerful and/or shortlived for that -- though this might be more appropriate for a vehicle where the booster is fixed in place, like a rocket car. Of course, you could get more esoteric. KS's sample character using this build uses TK force effects to achieve the result, and like many superpowers, it works that way because that's how the player defined the power.

Anyway, I have no problem with the freight train version being priced at -1. There are real limits that are easily enforced on that version. Good luck hitting someone around a corner with your movement attack, something trivially simple with running or pretty much any other movement power.


The freight train version being the one that enables you to use the power without restriction indoors? That one?

I mean, it is all well and good saying that you can leap in whichever direction you like and can't manage altitude but unless all your battles take place in a featureless arena of quasi-infinite dimension, that can be a positive advantage.

[Dust Raven]

Not really. Half move with running away from the ledge and then leap up.
Which is the difference between a half move and a full move.



And since you probably want to go non-combat.... you're already at half DCV anyway. Or, since with Steve's interpretation you can leap over stuff with a Forward Movement Only leap, just leap over a tall building in a single bound so they can't target your back.
Try again. Leaping over a tall building isn't leaping forward, it's leaping up. while you may get some height off a forward leap, to get enough height to clear a tall building, you'll need to spend all of your point on Leaping and be Leapman and nothing else.



Snort. So DFC using your running.... you do want to actually be able to make that DFC roll to get out of the way in time anyway, don't you?
And being force to use Running instead of Leap isn't a Limitation in your opinion?


Not enough for the Caramilk secret. The 'freight train' interpretation of 'Forward Movement Only' has both these issues, and is a LOT more restrictive generally speaking otherwise. It can't deal with (1) at all since you can't gain altitude at all, it can't deal with (2) since you can't jump over an intervening object, is just as restrictive when it comes to (3)-(6), PLUS is a lot more cumbersome in crowded areas, leaves you move vulnerable to aerial attackers and ground-based attacks, and generally gives you fewer options in combat. That sounds like something actually worth -1, rather than Steve's interpretation which sounds like -1/4 or maybe -1/2 if you're feeling generous. Most of the time, with a 0 phase facing change before leaping or after a 1/2 move, you're just not going to run into any significant problems using Steve's interpretation.

I'm not understanding the 0 Phase facing change thing. If Leaping is forward only, you can't use it to turn around. If you want to turn around first, you have to use a half phase of Running (which has no turn mode).

You are forgetting the added functionality of moving straight along the ground. With movement like that, you can leap indoors without restriction, which is something you can't do with normal Leaping. That's an Advantage, not a Limitation. What modifier would you apply if you could leap in a straight line in any direction?

[Dust Raven]

The other thing I'd quite like to know: anyone think of an sfx which explains why you can only jump forwards?

I've heard rocket pack: well, OK, that has directional nozzles that mean you have to face the way you leap, but lean back, and why can't you go up, or twist in the air to cushion a fall, especially if you don't care about adding your own STR-based leaping distance?

Can anyone think of a sfx that would actually work here?

As Christopher said, I can see this on vehicles primarily. I'm thinking of the "turbo boost" of KITT and similar super vehicles. On characters, it doesn't make much sense unless the character doesn't have normal leggs.

[ghost-angel]

I've been trying to find it in the book ....

Where does it say changing facing is a 0-Phase Action, or Action That Takes No Time?

And if you're considering that part of the Movement Mode you're using a Full Move Leap with Forward Only disallows a Face Change by the nature of the Limitation.

[Dust Raven]

I've been trying to find it in the book ....

Where does it say changing facing is a 0-Phase Action, or Action That Takes No Time?

And if you're considering that part of the Movement Mode you're using a Full Move Leap with Forward Only disallows a Face Change by the nature of the Limitation.

It's in the movement section under Turn Modes. Movement that doesn't have a Turn Mode may make as many turns as they like at any point in their movement. Only Running and Swimming have no Turn Move by default.

[prestidigitator]

I've been trying to find it in the book ....

Where does it say changing facing is a 0-Phase Action, or Action That Takes No Time?

And if you're considering that part of the Movement Mode you're using a Full Move Leap with Forward Only disallows a Face Change by the nature of the Limitation.
I believe there are also FAQ entries about this and/or answers on the Rules Questions Board. You don't necessarily have to use Running to change facing.

BTW, while Turn Modes limit how quickly you can change the direction of your movement, I don't know that that is explicitly linked ahywhere to the direction you are actually physically facing. The SFX of some movement (ground vehicles) may certainly do that, but it is not necessary physically (e.g. you can run backwards or even sideways, though that may not be the best example since Running does not normally have a Turn Mode). I think what may be implicit is that you can change facing not only as a Zero-Phase Action, but also during the course of your move; i.e. even if changing the direction of your movement does not require a change in facing, it allows such a change in facing outside the bounds of your normal opportunities for Zero-Phase Actions.

[Dust Raven]

I believe there are also FAQ entries about this and/or answers on the Rules Questions Board. You don't necessarily have to use Running to change facing.

BTW, while Turn Modes limit how quickly you can change the direction of your movement, I don't know that that is explicitly linked ahywhere to the direction you are actually physically facing. The SFX of some movement (ground vehicles) may certainly do that, but it is not necessary physically (e.g. you can run backwards or even sideways, though that may not be the best example since Running does not normally have a Turn Mode). I think what may be implicit is that you can change facing not only as a Zero-Phase Action, but also during the course of your move; i.e. even if changing the direction of your movement does not require a change in facing, it allows such a change in facing outside the bounds of your normal opportunities for Zero-Phase Actions.

I'm not quite sure I got that. Are you saying you are allowed to change facing regardless of direction of movement? In essessence, you can be facing North and fly in a Northerly direction, then turn to face Each, but still be traveling North so it doesn't affect your Turn Mode? Is this where Advantages like Sideways Movement come in handy?

[prestidigitator]

I'm not quite sure I got that. Are you saying you are allowed to change facing regardless of direction of movement? In essessence, you can be facing North and fly in a Northerly direction, then turn to face Each, but still be traveling North so it doesn't affect your Turn Mode? Is this where Advantages like Sideways Movement come in handy?
I'm saying that there's nothing that explicitly disallows it. As far as I know Turn Modes only have to do with the direction of movement, not the direction your body/head/vehicle might be facing. Actually it makes a lot of sense if you think about vectored thrust flight; you may have to change facing before you change flight direction. :)

[Dust Raven]

I'm saying that there's nothing that explicitly disallows it. As far as I know Turn Modes only have to do with the direction of movement, not the direction your body/head/vehicle might be facing. Actually it makes a lot of sense if you think about vectored thrust flight; you may have to change facing before you change flight direction. :)

Facing, rather than direction, has been a bit of confusion for me. There are some rules implications concerning vehicles, but nothing about characters.

[ghost-angel]

Facing is mentioned in the Combat Handbook on p27.

My copy hasn't arrived yet, so I can't check it. I can't find any reference to Facing in 5ER at all.

[Dust Raven]

Looks like another book I wasn't planning to buy I'll have to pick up at some point. I hate to say it, but Hero System is starting to feel like Rifts with the number of books needed to play the game. Then again, maybe I'd feel better if they called it The Ultimate Combat or something. All this time I figured it was just a compilation of the various combat rules presented in all the books.

[ghost-angel]

So far that's the only thing I've seen in HCH that isn't referenced somewhere else.

So either I don't see it, or it really is a rule that isn't elsewhere.

[Foxiekins]

Um, guys....?

Look at the Original Power... Someone with 20 STR and +8" Leaping can leap 12" if he is leaping horizontally, or 6" if he is leaping vertically...

The power lets him do either one...

Horizontal Only means you can't leap Vertically...
Vertical Only means you can't leap Horizontally...

Someone who is Horizontal Only could make normal horizontal leaps, which generally require some vertical clearance, but they can't jump straight up...

Vertical Only means jumping straight up is all you can do with the power...

[Zed-F]

The freight train version being the one that enables you to use the power without restriction indoors? That one?

I mean, it is all well and good saying that you can leap in whichever direction you like and can't manage altitude but unless all your battles take place in a featureless arena of quasi-infinite dimension, that can be a positive advantage.
Without restriction? What kind of indoor area do you live/work in that has no tables, chairs, corners, doors, piles of stuff, etc.? Unless you're fighting in vacant-corridor-land, you're at least as restricted indoors using this sort of leap as you are with regular leap. Most real-life indoor locations I can imagine that present few problems for a charger, such as an empty warehouse, present similarly few problems for a regular leaper. Note that there's nothing preventing a leaper from using his leap in a series of bounds rather than in one large jump, as well.

Sure there are a few situations where you might have an advantage over a regular leaper, but those situations are either pretty uncommon or pretty contrived.

[Zed-F]

Um, guys....?

Look at the Original Power... Someone with 20 STR and +8" Leaping can leap 12" if he is leaping horizontally, or 6" if he is leaping vertically...

The power lets him do either one...

Horizontal Only means you can't leap Vertically...
Vertical Only means you can't leap Horizontally...

Someone who is Horizontal Only could make normal horizontal leaps, which generally require some vertical clearance, but they can't jump straight up...

Vertical Only means jumping straight up is all you can do with the power...
Foxiekins, the argument is that 'horizontal only' leaping as you (and Steve) describe it isn't worth the -1 in limitations that's ascribed to it, and moreover doesn't really make sense. Some of us have been trying to propose alternatives that we feel are indeed worth -1 in limitations, others would just disallow 'forward movement only' leaps, and others are content to leave things as they are.

[Sean Waters]

Without restriction? What kind of indoor area do you live/work in that has no tables, chairs, corners, doors, piles of stuff, etc.? Unless you're fighting in vacant-corridor-land, you're at least as restricted indoors using this sort of leap as you are with regular leap. Most real-life indoor locations I can imagine that present few problems for a charger, such as an empty warehouse, present similarly few problems for a regular leaper. Note that there's nothing preventing a leaper from using his leap in a series of bounds rather than in one large jump, as well.

Sure there are a few situations where you might have an advantage over a regular leaper, but those situations are either pretty uncommon or pretty contrived.

I live in a huge, empty world, with a low ceiling. You?

Whilst I agree that there may be tables and chairs in the way, I'd be surprised if casual strength was not capable of taking care of many restrictions, and if not then such obstacles would be a problem for any mode of movement, preventing either getting up to full velocity, or reducing (in the case of running which has no turn mode) the distance you can travel, given that you can't move in a straight line. Bear in mind that leaping is already a lot cheaper than flight and running, so I'd argue that sort of limitation is built in to leaping, not just into the limtied version of it.

As to the multiple leap scenario, I did think of that before but as, even with regular leaping, you can't change your direction of travel, I concluded that it would make no sense to allow multiple hops (or surely you COULD change direction with regular leaping each time you touched ground, at least a bit), and it would frankly look riduculous.


Boing, boing, boing, boing, boing!

Superbunny's battlecry

[casualplayer]

The only solution to this is for Hero Games to release The Ultimate Leaper.

Something we haven't discussed is that whatever character bought this goofy construct (which should be Flight No Turn Mode 1 Recoverable Charge) is going to have versatile Superleap figured off of his/her STR unless they sold back their Leap to make it all mono-directional. But all Leaping is mono-directional unless another vector is applied, something like oh say gravity or forward momentum. Giving someone a -1 limitation for something that they are constantly going to be reasoning-from-effect to overwhelm is pure cheese.

Or maybe Superleap needs to go the way of the dodo. Perhaps we should start opting to modify Flight to follow parabolic arcs instead. Perhaps we should change or jettison a rule that lets weightlifters jump 10 meters. It's just as broken and breakable as any other figured characteristic.

[Zed-F]

I live in a huge, empty world, with a low ceiling. You?

Whilst I agree that there may be tables and chairs in the way, I'd be surprised if casual strength was not capable of taking care of many restrictions, and if not then such obstacles would be a problem for any mode of movement, preventing either getting up to full velocity, or reducing (in the case of running which has no turn mode) the distance you can travel, given that you can't move in a straight line. Bear in mind that leaping is already a lot cheaper than flight and running, so I'd argue that sort of limitation is built in to leaping, not just into the limtied version of it.

As to the multiple leap scenario, I did think of that before but as, even with regular leaping, you can't change your direction of travel, I concluded that it would make no sense to allow multiple hops (or surely you COULD change direction with regular leaping each time you touched ground, at least a bit), and it would frankly look riduculous.


Boing, boing, boing, boing, boing!

Superbunny's battlecry
Ridiculous or not, it might well be appropriate for some forms of leaping, and IIRC it's book-legal. I seem to recall a FAQ entry or example of such.

As for the Casual STR debate... is property damage not any kind of concern in your games? I mean casual STR with running means you just shove it aside a bit, and won't damage it unless you intend to (or it's somehow impossible that you not damage it.) Casual STR with a 'freight train leap' means you're effectively doing a move-through on it -- at least, that's my interpretation. You have much less control over your movement with a leap-based charging attack than you do with Running, and this includes the kinds of measures you can take to get around small-medium objects in the way. Even if you don't want to run around a larger table, with Running you might well just hurdle it, possibly with an acrobatics roll. No such luck with a leap-based charge. If you want any kind of flexibility in how you get around obstructions, buy a Running-based charge instead of a leaping-based one.

The inability to deal with obstructions easily is one of the main reasons of why a charge-based leap is worth a -1 limitation, and casual STR won't let you get around that without consequence.

[Sean Waters]

Even if you have your leaping power built with the 'forward only' limitation a 20 STR character can still clear 2 hexes vertically if he uses part of his base leaping, which should deal with any obstacle in much the same way that hurkdling while running would.

My contention, you see, is not that this is not a limtiation at all, but that -1 is far too generous, especially as there are instances where not having a vertical component (as in the freight train leap) can be advantageous. Whilst I agree that in most rooms there will be obstacles, corridors tend to be built straight and obstacle free.

[casualplayer]

Ah, but then you blow your Unluck roll and faceplant right into an Emergency Exit sign or light fixture hanging from the ceiling. Earn that -1 disad, munchkin monkey!

[Zed-F]

You would not be able to use inches of vertical leap from base leaping while adding on your leap-based charge power, obviously. That would be a clear violation of the spirit of the rules.

As for -1 being too generous, I can't say I agree. How often do you run into obstacle-free corridors that are long enough to really exercise a leap-based charge? Not very often... and even if there are few fixed obstacles in corridors, there are often moving obstacles -- like people -- in them. Really, the limitation is worth what it's worth based on how often you plan to enforce it. If you don't feel like exercising your creativity just a little to enforce the limitation, then it's not worth the points. But I think it's no challenge at all to envision many different circumstances where this limitation is at least as problematic as an OAF. And given that you *can* legally do a series of bounds with a regular leap even when clearance is somewhat of an issue, in my opinion you're making far too much out of the whole 'advantage gained by not having a vertical component' angle. You're giving up way more than you're gaining, IME.

[ghost-angel]

Looks like another book I wasn't planning to buy I'll have to pick up at some point. I hate to say it, but Hero System is starting to feel like Rifts with the number of books needed to play the game. Then again, maybe I'd feel better if they called it The Ultimate Combat or something. All this time I figured it was just a compilation of the various combat rules presented in all the books.
the Combat Handbook has this to say about Facing:

Hero doesn't have any official Facing Rules. Handle it however you see fit.

paraphrased heavily and put in a nutshell.