How much would you say this limitation is worth (Steve your opinion would be valued)

[JmOz]

May not attack while using this power, it is for either a Defensive power or a defensive MP (have not decided which quite yet)

[TheEmerged]

Default would be -1, unless the "can't attack" part is somehow intrinsiac to the power in question (like Missile Deflection).

[RadeFox]

Agreed, the Value of the "cannot use to attack" is solely dependant on the power you are wanting to attach it too. For something like forcefield or armor or Running, it isn't going to worth squat, if even that. :P

On an more offensive power like EB or Entangle, then the -1 is getting closer, but it is really going to be a case by case basis, with this Disad and each power you are applying it too. Most of all, it is up to your GM. :D

[JmOz]

Rade, the l;imitation in question is not cannot be used to attack but rather cannot attack while using it:

Think of it this way: a character can use the power or can attack, not both. The powers being considered is a DCV bonus (So in essense a superdodge) and a Force wall with among other limitations self only

[Gary]

Originally posted by JmOz
Rade, the l;imitation in question is not cannot be used to attack but rather cannot attack while using it:

Think of it this way: a character can use the power or can attack, not both. The powers being considered is a DCV bonus (So in essense a superdodge) and a Force wall with among other limitations self only

DCV bonus is worth 0 if they can be applied to block or dodge since you can't attack while blocking or dodging anyway. For the FW, I would say 0 if your character doesn't have any attacks (indirect, mental, etc) that could go through the FW anyway. If your character had a significant attack that could get through, then probably -1/2.

[JmOz]

On the DCV was refering to the 5 point +1 to DCV

[Gary]

Originally posted by JmOz
On the DCV was refering to the 5 point +1 to DCV

Can the character maintain it as a default outside of combat? I would say -1/4 or -1/2.

[JmOz]

While she could, one of the lims is it is going to cost endurance to use...

[tesuji]

IIRC the most traditional approach would be to toss this under LOCKOUT =1/2 as a broad sweeping catch all for a power which prevents other useful powers from being used.

A less traditional approach might be to write this as a physical limitation for the character... allowing a frequency/severity assessment, rather than a power limitation... after all its not the POWER that is being limited, just what the character can do while the power is in use. The defense power will never be unavailable, the hero can always use it, any time he chooses, so it doesn't appear that the defense power is limited at all.

The limit is that the character cannot choose certain other options.

So it smells a lot like a physical limitation or at best (pointswise) a limitation on other powers that they cannot be used while this power is working.

Again, though, when assessing the value it really depends on what this power is. if this is a power that would not be useful in combat, then the "cannot make attacks" is trivial.

[Steve Long]

As Tesuji notes, this sounds similar to the Lockout (-1/2) Limitation used in various books in a variety of contexts. However, without seeing the whole character, and knowing more about the campaign in question, it's hard to make a final judgment; it could be worth more or less than -1/2, depending.

[BobGreenwade]

Under Invisibility (FREd page 123), the Limitation Only When Not Attacking is listed as -1/2.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by BobGreenwade
Under Invisibility (FREd page 123), the Limitation Only When Not Attacking is listed as -1/2.

Except that it doesn't prevent attacking. You can still attack but there is one segment when you become visible after the attack.

If I am correct lockout generally applies to one continuing effect offensive power locking out itself from use until the first power ends. One example is the Deadly Ooze in Bestiery (the entangle attack). What he is describing has a more far reaching effect - cannot attack period. If locking out one power is worth +1/2 then locking out all offensive powers must be worth more.

As an example...Let's say the character defended and attacked about 50% each. That would mean each power could only be availablle 50% at of the time. If a power looses about 1/2 it's affectiveness that is a -1 lim. Plus adjustment for campaign and character specifics.

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by Blue Angel
Except that it doesn't prevent attacking. You can still attack but there is one segment when you become visible after the attack. Sorry; I should have specified: I was meaning that only as a guiding reference.

Personally I'd go with -3/4 for the query at hand.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by BobGreenwade
Sorry; I should have specified: I was meaning that only as a guiding reference.

Personally I'd go with -3/4 for the query at hand.

Oh I see. Didn't realize that.

-3/4 may actually be closer to "right" than -1 now that I think of it, since the character is in control of when the limitation happens. But it does make for some tactical thinking on the part of the player that goes beyond simple dodging and blocking.

JimOz you do tend to post some interesting construct problems. I like "Out of the Book thinking"

[Gary]

I don't think it would be worth -1. DCV only for block or dodge is probably worth -1/2, and this version of DCV is slightly better because she can keep it on outside of combat.

The FW would be worth -0 if the character couldn't attack anyway, and probably -1/2 if the character could otherwise attack through the FW effectively.

[JmOz]

Actualy it is non persistant and must be activly used (In otherwords while she can abort to it, it is not a always on type of thing)

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Gary
I don't think it would be worth -1. DCV only for block or dodge is probably worth -1/2, and this version of DCV is slightly better because she can keep it on outside of combat.

The FW would be worth -0 if the character couldn't attack anyway, and probably -1/2 if the character could otherwise attack through the FW effectively.

Except that the character in question could not attack anyone while a forcewall is up. Since there are powers that pass straight through forcewall unaffected (as you noted) and there will almost certainly be targets that are not behind the forcewall which you may want to attack there is an additional limitation. Of course if the bad guys always come at you from one side and stand close enough to be englobed then yes it might be a -0 for the forcewall example.

Also you could not set up another forcewall while the first one was up as that requires an attack action so at the very least the forcewall would qualify for the -1/2 lockout and with the additional restriction probably brings us back to the -3/4 level.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Blue Angel
Except that the character in question could not attack anyone while a forcewall is up. Since there are powers that pass straight through forcewall unaffected (as you noted) and there will almost certainly be targets that are not behind the forcewall which you may want to attack there is an additional limitation. Of course if the bad guys always come at you from one side and stand close enough to be englobed then yes it might be a -0 for the forcewall example.

Also you could not set up another forcewall while the first one was up as that requires an attack action so at the very least the forcewall would qualify for the -1/2 lockout and with the additional restriction probably brings us back to the -3/4 level.

I think the FAQ specifically frowns upon multiple FWs up at the same time as being highly abusive. It doesn't specifically ban the practice, but it highly discourages it.

I don't think that people getting through the FW without knocking it down happens often enough to be worth even a -1/4, but depending on the campaign it might be.

So -0, or -1/4 with a generous GM.

[Gary]

Originally posted by JmOz
Actualy it is non persistant and must be activly used (In otherwords while she can abort to it, it is not a always on type of thing)

Then why don't you turn it into +X DCV only with block or dodge (-1/2)?

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Gary
I think the FAQ specifically frowns upon multiple FWs up at the same time as being highly abusive. It doesn't specifically ban the practice, but it highly discourages it.

I don't think that people getting through the FW without knocking it down happens often enough to be worth even a -1/4, but depending on the campaign it might be.

So -0, or -1/4 with a generous GM.

The FAQ does not specifically frown on it or say you shouldn't do it. All it says is "Subject to GM aproval" which is probably equivalent to an exclamation mark or stop sign power. Subject to personal interpretation of the wording that doesn't sound like "highly discourage" just use with caution. Also it is specifically refering to use of concentric rings as being potentially unballancing - though the amount you would have to spend on extra hex sides to do that would make the power next to useless in terms of PD, ED provided. Force wall is very weak in the PD,ED department to begin with. And not all force walls are long enough for multiple englobement.
Besides there are other uses for multiple forcewalls. Such as delaying groups of agents or say forming a slide to slow a normals fall.

So unless the GM decides not to allow that power it should be a -1/2 lockout. But that doesn't mean the GM can't apply it as you describe. By no means am I saying that you can't.

On the other hand (just thought of this) the -1/2 lockout limitation was intended for use with entangle which is an instantaneous power with a continuing effect. This is a power which is normally used multiple times. Other continuing powers such as darkness or forcewall have a continuous end cost so they are probably less likely to be used multiple times simultaneously for that reason. Perhaps for such powers a -1/4 does make more sense.

If you have trouble convincing me I am more than happy to step in and help out.:cool:

[Gary]

Originally posted by Blue Angel
The FAQ does not specifically frown on it or say you shouldn't do it. All it says is "Subject to GM aproval" which is probably equivalent to an exclamation mark or stop sign power. Subject to personal interpretation of the wording that doesn't sound like "highly discourage" just use with caution. Also it is specifically refering to use of concentric rings as being potentially unballancing - though the amount you would have to spend on extra hex sides to do that would make the power next to useless in terms of PD, ED provided. Force wall is very weak in the PD,ED department to begin with. And not all force walls are long enough for multiple englobement.
Besides there are other uses for multiple forcewalls. Such as delaying groups of agents or say forming a slide to slow a normals fall.

So unless the GM decides not to allow that power it should be a -1/2 lockout. But that doesn't mean the GM can't apply it as you describe. By no means am I saying that you can't.

On the other hand (just thought of this) the -1/2 lockout limitation was intended for use with entangle which is an instantaneous power with a continuing effect. This is a power which is normally used multiple times. Other continuing powers such as darkness or forcewall have a continuous end cost so they are probably less likely to be used multiple times simultaneously for that reason. Perhaps for such powers a -1/4 does make more sense.

If you have trouble convincing me I am more than happy to step in and help out.:cool:

No fair! You're too gosh darn reasonable! How am I supposed to start a decent flame war if you're willing to compromise??? :mad: :p :D

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Gary
No fair! You're too gosh darn reasonable! How am I supposed to start a decent flame war if you're willing to compromise??? :mad: :p :D

What compromise? The truth is I am obsessed with being right. And I am willing to change my mind if that is what it takes to become right.

Glad you appreciate reasonable.:)

[Talon]

I'd also check the character to see what sort of non-attack options they have. With me, someone would try to sneak this past as part of a super-buff character. "Well, I can't attack...but I can give everyone all my Usable By Others powers!"

[Pattern Ghost]

Just go with a nice, round 5/8 lim.

:D

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Just go with a nice, round 5/8 lim.

:D

Come on. I'm sure we can work pi into that lim value somehow.