Why does flying cost the same amount as running?

[Snarf]

Both flying and running cost 2 character points per 1" of movement. I must be missing something, because it seems like flying is much more useful. So, why do they cost the same amount?

[Jeff]

Running would be far too attractive at 1 point per 1"; Flight would be far too unattractive at 3 points per 1"; Running has no turn mode; and you get 6" of it free, while you have to start at 0" for Flight.

[Kintara]

Right. Also, I think that the danger Flight poses as a Constant power is notable. If someone hurts you enough to deactivate your flight, you might get rather inconvenienced by gravity.

But the fact that Running starts at 6" is a good point. Of course, I wouldn't let a character buy only a single level of Flight, even if it was enhanced with power advantages, because I think the benefit of defying gravity requires a significant investment.

[BobGreenwade]

Besides the Turn Mode on Flight and the base 6" of Running, there's also the -1d6 to Knockback rolls, and the fact that Flight costs END to use even when you're just staying in one spot. :)

And I'm sure a creative, observant bunch of folks like this one can come up with even more.... :D

[Kintara]

Ah, beat me to that one. I'm not a real expert with the rules yet, so I was about to check on that. So, yeah, the END cost.

So, to make them rather closer to eachother in safety, and not rather fatiguing, you'd want to buy it to the Persistent level. So that makes it 4 points a level.

[Snarf]

Aha! Now it seems balanced, as long as some sort of minimum point investment is enforced. I suppose requiring at least 10 points worth would be enough.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Kintara
Ah, beat me to that one. I'm not a real expert with the rules yet, so I was about to check on that. So, yeah, the END cost.

So, to make them rather closer to eachother in safety, and not rather fatiguing, you'd want to buy it to the Persistent level. So that makes it 4 points a level.

Yes 4 points a level would make it 0 endurance (+1/2), plus persistant (+1/2). But don't forget special effect. Why is it that your character's flight doesn't turn off when he's unconscious?

For people who aren't familiar with the rules, you folks did pretty well. :) I've played Hero Games for 21 years, and you figured it out fine. ;)


Originally posted by Snarf
Aha! Now it seems balanced, as long as some sort of minimum point investment is enforced. I suppose requiring at least 10 points worth would be enough.

4th Edition used to require a minimum of 20 points of flight, if I remember correctly, but they did away with that in the 5th Edition.

[Snarf]

20 points sounds good. I'll relay that to my players.

[Derek Hiemforth]

The minimum cost in 4th Edition was 10 points (5" of Flight).

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by Kintara
Ah, beat me to that one. I'm not a real expert with the rules yet, so I was about to check on that. So, yeah, the END cost.

So, to make them rather closer to eachother in safety, and not rather fatiguing, you'd want to buy it to the Persistent level. So that makes it 4 points a level. Uh... you mean, 4 points per inch, don't you?

[CorpCommander]

To quote the Tick:


Gravity is a harsh mistress!

[Blue Angel]

While we are on the topic there is one power construct that always bothered me... Flight only in contact with a surface (-1/4). This power is just way too useful for it's points. You can go anywhere except for open air at a lower cost than running.

Hmmm... greater power for less cost. That doesn't seem right.

Except for the traveling over water part it sounds like running plus clinging with cannot resist knowkback (-1/4).
The traveling on water part sounds like swimming only along the surface (-1) with the special effect "running on the surface" with possibly an environmental movement thrown in to justify how comparatively easy it is to run on the surface.

Maybe I missed something but it looks like the surface flight breaks the "do not use a power with modifiers to make another power" rule.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Blue Angel
While we are on the topic there is one power construct that always bothered me... Flight only in contact with a surface (-1/4). This power is just way too useful for it's points. You can go anywhere except for open air at a lower cost than running.

Hmmm... greater power for less cost. That doesn't seem right.

You do still have the turn mode problem. Practically, Running plus the limited Clinging is going to be better in many ways. My problem with it is that it's just a bit silly - my suspension of disbelief is strained at runs straight up walls or over oceans on account of sheer speed, and if it is supposed to be simple ultrafast running, why _is_ there that turn mode problem suddenly?


Except for the traveling over water part it sounds like running plus clinging with cannot resist knowkback (-1/4).
The traveling on water part sounds like swimming only along the surface (-1/2) with the special effect "running on the surface" with possibly an environmental movement thrown in to justify how comparatively easy it is to run on the surface.

Maybe I missed something but it looks like the surface flight breaks the "do not use a power with modifiers to make another power" rule.

Nah. It's a way to get surface movement without a need for a surface that's supporting you. Why you're supposed to get that, on the other hand, is another question.

[Spence]

My version was "Flight limited to within 3 feet of a surface". The hero's flight was telekinetic based and he had to be close to "something" in order to levitate himself.

[Kintara]

Originally posted by BobGreenwade
Uh... you mean, 4 points per inch, don't you? :p

Well, an inch happens to be to what one level corresponds. I see your point though, non-combat movement could be confused with inches of normal flight, if I used the term "level" too much.

:p

Did I mention, :p ?

Anyway, do most GMs use minimum costs, as outlined in the book? What power level do you stop using them? Maybe this problem with Flight implies that there should be some starting level that costs more. After all, that single inch of Flight is far more useful than any other successive level. Maybe that should be modeled more directly.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Kintara
:p

Well, an inch happens to be to what one level corresponds. I see your point though, non-combat movement could be confused with inches of normal flight, if I used the term "level" too much.

:p

Did I mention, :p ?

Anyway, do most GMs use minimum costs, as outlined in the book? What power level do you stop using them? Maybe this problem with Flight implies that there should be some starting level that costs more. After all, that single inch of Flight is far more useful than any other successive level. Maybe that should be modeled more directly.

I think it is already. 1" Flight gets you no faster movement than you had already, with 2" Swimming, 2" Leaping, and 6" Running. You have to get 3" before you're faster than your base off-the-ground movement, or 7" before you're faster than your normal horizontal movement. Before that, it's basically just a non-persistent sort of LS: Immune to Falling.

[Chris Goodwin]

History lesson. Flight is 2 points per inch because as far back as first edition Champions, it was determined that flying was a common ability in the comics, and that it should be cheap to reflect this.

Flight, Only In Contact With A Surface was a pre-4th edition construct used to build speedsters by taking advantage of ridiculous noncombat multiples given Flight way back then. I don't recall the exact formula, but by buying 10" of Flight, you could get something like 140" per Phase of noncombat Flight. Running had the straight 2x noncombat. So if you wanted a speedster, you bought Flight Only In Contact etc. You got the added bonus of being able to do common speedster tricks like running at insane speeds across water, up walls, along wires, etc.

So, it's basically a historical artifact that has stuck even though the mechanics of Flight have changed somewhat.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
The minimum cost in 4th Edition was 10 points (5" of Flight).

Thanks Derek, where is that 4th Edition Rulebook anyway? LOL :)

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by archer
History lesson. Flight is 2 points per inch because as far back as first edition Champions, it was determined that flying was a common ability in the comics, and that it should be cheap to reflect this.

Flight, Only In Contact With A Surface was a pre-4th edition construct used to build speedsters by taking advantage of ridiculous noncombat multiples given Flight way back then. I don't recall the exact formula, but by buying 10" of Flight, you could get something like 140" per Phase of noncombat Flight. Running had the straight 2x noncombat. So if you wanted a speedster, you bought Flight Only In Contact etc. You got the added bonus of being able to do common speedster tricks like running at insane speeds across water, up walls, along wires, etc.

So, it's basically a historical artifact that has stuck even though the mechanics of Flight have changed somewhat.

Yeh, and I didn't think much of it back then either.

The flight along a surface doesn't bother me it is the cheapness of it compared to running that is unballanced. I would prefer to see it done as a -0 lim advantage/disadvantage tradeoff. Say something like only along a surface but eliminate the extra knockback of flite. Thus there is a tradoff but the cost remains in line with running.

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by Kintara
Well, an inch happens to be to what one level corresponds. I see your point though, non-combat movement could be confused with inches of normal flight, if I used the term "level" too much. Or we might think you're talking about Skill Levels (which is how I initially interpreted your first post).

[Tom Carman]

Originally posted by Galadorn
Thanks Derek, where is that 4th Edition Rulebook anyway? LOL :)
On my computer: I bought the PDF version of the HSR. It's very handy. Not as complete or up-to-date as FREd, of course, but people at the office don't give me funny looks when I consult it.

[Thirdbase]

Originally posted by Jeff
You do still have the turn mode problem. Practically, Running plus the limited Clinging is going to be better in many ways. My problem with it is that it's just a bit silly - my suspension of disbelief is strained at runs straight up walls or over oceans on account of sheer speed, and if it is supposed to be simple ultrafast running, why _is_ there that turn mode problem suddenly?


Nah. It's a way to get surface movement without a need for a surface that's supporting you. Why you're supposed to get that, on the other hand, is another question. [/B]

You obviously haven't seen the Swamp Buggy Races (http://www.swampbuggy.com/history.htm). These vehicles actually will run along the surface of the water for short distances.

Besides it's a classic speedster trick to be able to run up a wall or across the surface of a body of water. To do this otherwise you would have to buy Swimming with limitations, Clinging with limitations, and Running

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Kintara
Anyway, do most GMs use minimum costs, as outlined in the book? What power level do you stop using them? Maybe this problem with Flight implies that there should be some starting level that costs more. After all, that single inch of Flight is far more useful than any other successive level. Maybe that should be modeled more directly.

Historically, I think this is part of the problem minimum costs were intended to address.

Anyway, I'm sure that mathematically there comes a point where it is more cost effective to buy Flight, Only On A Surface, than to buy additional Running. I think that if you buy off your base Running, that point becomes 0" of Running. Of course, that falls into the realm of gaming the system rather than playing the game, and should be discouraged, with violence if necessary.

[zornwil]

As others have said it's a genre thing from when HERO was a super-hero game. It probably can be viewed as "broken" for pulp or even most fantasy games where you really don't want people flying but I don't think groups have had problems enforcing genre conventions by making flight have additional requirements (cost, concentration, technology with skill roll, etc.) in those other genres.

I've seen the "take a lim for flying ONLY on surfaces" thing discussed before, I think that argument dies out quickly because of the HERO rule that you can't buy something already provided for at a greater cost-break, so this form of movement must be different from running/walking, and the limitation isn't so much that it's only on surfaces but moreso that you have to keep moving at a minimum speed of some sensible sort to keep it up. Granted, that probably doesn't come into play enough in some people's minds to justify the lim, but it works for me.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Jeff
I think it is already. 1" Flight gets you no faster movement than you had already, with 2" Swimming, 2" Leaping, and 6" Running. You have to get 3" before you're faster than your base off-the-ground movement, or 7" before you're faster than your normal horizontal movement. Before that, it's basically just a non-persistent sort of LS: Immune to Falling.

1" of flight is far too cost effective at 2 pts. It's effectively the climbing skill with no chance of failure, and it makes you immune to falls while conscious.

Climbing at base level already costs 3 pts, and to buy it to 17- would cost even more pts.

[Snarf]

If the GM wants to disciourage/balance flying a little, Clinging could be used as a guidline for a power that allows you to ignore terrain problems and such.

The first level of flying could be 10 points and this would give you 0" of flight, in other words hovering or drifting, then you can start buying up the move rate for 2 points per inch.

[Agent X]

Why all this fuss about flying? You can make a case for quite a few things being underpointed. It all works out in the wash.

[Snarf]

It's not that I thought it was necessarily underpriced, I assumed it was probably at the right price but I was misunderstanding something. I figured (correctly) that the fastest way to figure it out was post a question on the forum.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Snarf
It's not that I thought it was necessarily underpriced, I assumed it was probably at the right price but I was misunderstanding something. I figured (correctly) that the fastest way to figure it out was post a question on the forum. Cool.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

People don't seem to be pointing out the additional penalties for the 'Flight, Only in Contact With A Surface (-¼)' -- turn modes are required, and again, you can't stand still for free. Me, I like the idea of all that; IIRC, the best 'wall-running' power also had the limitation of 'Must Move X" per Phase', where X was something like 15"...

[Steve]

What about Knockback?

How would you calculate Knockback for Flight, only in contact with a surface, defined as a type of hyper-running? Is it done like you would real running, or would you do it as if they were actually flying?

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Steve
What about Knockback?

How would you calculate Knockback for Flight, only in contact with a surface, defined as a type of hyper-running? Is it done like you would real running, or would you do it as if they were actually flying?

Would be calculated as per flight

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Gary
1" of flight is far too cost effective at 2 pts. It's effectively the climbing skill with no chance of failure, and it makes you immune to falls while conscious.

Climbing at base level already costs 3 pts, and to buy it to 17- would cost even more pts.

Um, the fact that you need 2" of velocity to climb 1", maybe?

[Gary]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Um, the fact that you need 2" of velocity to climb 1", maybe?

With Climbing, you can only move 1" per phase anyway. You're at 1/2 or 0 OCV and DCV, and there is the chance of failure. If you fall, you take full damage. It also takes your entire action. This costs 3 pts.

1" of flight allows 1 meter/phase movement upwards. Floating in this way has no chance of failure, and full OCV and DCV. It also allows you to take a 1/2 phase action (The half move for 1" movement is still 1" as ridiculous as it may seem :rolleyes: )

If you decide to do a noncombat move upwards, you move the exact 1"/phase upwards that you do with Climbing. You have the same combat penalties, but you have a 0% chance of failure, unlike Climbing. You're also not subject to penalties to movement rate or chance of success with a difficult surface. Heck, you don't even need a surface at all to float upwards. This ability costs 2 pts.

A bonus perk to having 1" flight is immunity to falls since you can always hover.

Basically, you're paying fewer points to have a much better ability with 1" flight as opposed to climbing.

[JohnOSpencer]

Flying can be drained, transfered or supressed. Climbing can't be. You never know when some gadgeteer will come up with the AE Supress vs flight. In my campaign almost all my pc's flew and Foxbat made the Foxbat NoFlyZone(tm). That annoyed the PCs to no end as they were all stuck with normal movement.

John Spencer

[Kristopher]

I'm not sure what the big stink is about flight. If you're in a Champs game, find some excuse to buy some for your character. Or don't. Who cares. If you're not in a Champs campaign, who has unlimited, easy flight that other's can't get?

As for the relative point costs, big flippin deal.

("You" in general, not anyone specific.)

[Blue Angel]

Thank-you for showing how much you don't care about this topic by joining the discussion.

("You" in general, not anyone specific.)

[Kristopher]

Come on, the question posed by the thread was answered within the first few replies.

And by the way, nice work there, displaying your absolute ignorance of the concept of the non-specific 2nd-peron pronoun by parroting my attempt to make sure I was clear about not addressing anyone in general, and in your pathetic attempt to be humorously sarcastic no less.

[Blue Angel]

LOL