Is Move-Through Abusive

[coach]

Hey, I don't know if this has been discussed before, and I have never really thought about it, but it came up in a restricted game we were playing the other day. The situation was that the game is a pretty low-point super-hero game with a 12DC damage cap. So, we have a brick with a 60 STR and 30" of Leaping. Normally, she does the same damage as most everyone else. But, she put a Move-Through on this giant millipede we were fighting and can crank it up to 22d6. This is a HUGE difference between what our EBer and Mentalists can do, especially in a low-level campaign.

 

So, what can you do? I mean, it's not fair to limit a brick's movement, is it? But, getting double duty out of your movement seems a little unfair to the other character types. This is usually just an issue with a brick since most other character type cannot benefit significantly from movement damage. And even most speedster types take movement damage into account when calculating their DC for damage limit consideration.

 

So, what do ya'll do about this?

 

Thanks.

[Supreme]

Let's Compare

You raise a good point about Move Through, but I hesitate to say that it is, in fact, abusive -- or abusable as the case may be. Let's lay out all the facts:

 

60 STR and 30" movement into a move through.

Damage: 22D6; OCV: -6; DCV: -3

Other effects: character takes half of the 22D6.

 

Now let's compare: an energy projector performing a "haymaker" with his 12D6 EB.

Damage: 16D6; OCV: -0; DCV: -5

Other effects: takes an extra phase to perform.

 

The way I see it, both maneuvers are so hard to perform successfully that they can only be pulled off in select situations (i.e., when target is prone, distracted, has normally low DCV, or is otherwise immobilized). True, the brick in the above example is doing 6D6 more. However, he has to eat half of the damage. 11D6 is nothing to sneeze at, even for many bricks.

Leaping Rules

If you really think it's abusable, enforce the rule that leapers have to make an attack roll against their target hex when leaping. This means that the brick has to make an attack roll against a DCV 3 hex, at -6 for the range.

And keep track of the height of the ceilings that the brick leaps beneath. A brick making a 30" leap must have 7" of clearance.

 

Convinced yet?

[Gary]

I had a brick named Lariat who used to do this. She could grow energy tendrils that acted like extra limbs. With 42" leap, 6" of stretching, and the ability to pick up cars, trees, or boulders for area effects, missing wasn't a problem. I had to tone it down in the campaign because she was so abusive. She also had a bad habit of grabbing bad guys and using them to block with her missile deflection...

[DoctorItron]

Originally posted by Supreme

SNIP

60 STR and 30" movement into a move through.

Damage: 22D6; OCV: -6; DCV: -3

Other effects: character takes half of the 22D6.

SNIP

 

I'd allow it as long as the brick doesn't buy obscene movethrough combat levels. 22d6 is an immense amount of damage, but the -6 OCV penalty will make a successful movethrough a rare event.

 

The character takes half damage if the target is knocked back. If the target isn't knocked back, the character takes the *full* 22d6.

 

Granted, most targets are going to take knockback if hit for 22d6 damage. However, if a target's big enough so that the brick can still hit despite the -6 OCV penalty, then the target might have gobs of knockback resistance.

 

Another thing to consider on a leaping movethrough: In order to get the bonus for 30" of movement, the brick needs to move the full 30" (at least that's how I'd GM it - there's no acceleration and deceleration with a leap). So, if the brick misses, she may very well wind up doing the movethrough on a building, car, or other object on the other side of her target.

[Talon]

Yes, it's abusable -- you have to watch for it during character design, and even then quite reasonable characters can use it to devastating effect in the right circumstances. IMO, the best solution is the optional velocity rules in FREd; they modify the linear nature of the damage, which is really what causes the problem.

[slikmar]

And move through is not nearly as abusive as perhaps the martial arts ability passing strike. I have a martial artist who with all things considered(15" movement) does more damage with a passing strike then he does with the big offensive strike. I dont believe this would be uncommon in a medium to high end campaign. At least the penalties for a move through are dependent on the amount of movement involved.

[GradonSilverton]

I agree with Doctorltron above... the key is the 1/2 damage and the full damage if no knockback is done..... a milipede should have some sort of knockback resistance or clinging.... teach em a lesson... also, dont forget the bad guys can do it too!

 

Can it be unbalancing? Yes. You should just keep and eye on it. One rule you you could institute is something I use for hit locations... If the minus makes your OCV so low that you would dip below zero... so a character with a 6 base OCV would be at a 0 for the maneuver... I wouldn't allow it then.... but that depends on your OCV/DCV levels...

[tesuji]

The GM needs to consider several things in character design vs campaign limits phase. Haymakers, pushing and move thrus are among them.

 

A Gm who approves 30 move and 12dc on a character who doesn't do the math about the move thru has made an error.

 

Sure, the OCV is low but there are tactics that can make the difference.

 

Does a teammate have an entangle that doesn't block attacks for +1/4? If so then it is simple for the entangle followed by the move thru to run against DCV 0. If the NPC is not defended against a 22d6 attack... WHAM... downed NPC.

 

Heck the same thing can occur with say rapid fire.

 

What if i have a 12dc attack which is say "meson blast" 6d6 NND not vs force fields. My teammate with the entangle throws it on a bad guy and with a full phase half-dcv rapid fire i shoot three times, for 6d6 NND each, and while i am at -4 OCv he is 0 DCV. Thats 18d6 worht of stun... averaging about 49 stun. Unless the Bg was a brick, he is probably KOed.

 

OCV and DCV in 5e vary a lot in combat with entangles and maneuvers. With move thru, rapid fire, sweep, and the like the basic old fashioned "D^s vs PD/ED" straight up comparison is too simple for the new 5e combat rules.

[coach]

Well, over the years, I have noticed that when you need to land a Move-Through, you generally can, either through teamwork or other circumstances, so I don't think the CV modifiers are that restricting, they just make you think a little more creatively. And 11d6 is a decent amount of damage, sure, but not when compared to 22d6.

 

I did like the comparison to Rapid Fire, that does show other ways to get outstanding damage.

 

I'm not sure what I'm looking for here. Just to see if anyone else had noticed the problem and if any GMs had found a good way to address it. Of course, she is on my side, so I'm not too upset about it, but we don't want to mess up the campaign.

 

Any other thoughts are appreciated.

[lemming]

It sounds like this was a situation where there was a big target to Move-Through against. The best way I've found for that is give the target enough Knckback resistance to have a good chance of resisting. In that case 15" would make it much more exciting.

[TheEmerged]

One of my players likes to run "Bouncing Boy" types -- characters built around Move-By & Move Thru, combined with Absorb against the "blow back" so they get tougher as they're hit.

 

Is Move By/Thru abusable? Kinda. Personally I wouldn't allow someone in a campaign with a 12DC cap that already has a 12DC attack to have more than 15 or 20 hexes of movement, anymore than I'd allow someone with a significant "avoid getting hit" power like Invisibility or a self-focused Darkness Field to also have capped DEF scores.

 

How to correct? It sounds bad on the surface, but the bottom line is that you have to handle it the way you do any other advantage the PC's have -- plan around it. Knockback resistance exists for a reason, use it.

 

Also, be very hesitant if a player comes to you with not-quite-capped STR, DEF, and Movement -- and then asks for Penalty Skill levels for Move By & Move Thru. I let the player in question do this, and I'm beginning to question the wisdom of that decision...

[Blackout]

Ouch

 

Taking half the damage yourself is, I think, the major limiting factor here. Taking full damage yourself if you don't do knockback, is a huge limiting factor.

 

I think some of that depends on the brick-in-question's defenses, too. 22d6 is going to do 77 Stun and 22 Body on average, and if the brick "only" has 30 PD that's gonna hurt if no KB is done.

 

(And, hey, if it's a giant millipede, it's got Clinging, right? That's 1d6 less KB. Depending on how giant "giant" is, that could gut any chance of doing KB right there.)

 

My gaming group finally started playing Champions again this past Saturday. One of the guys (playing a brick) wanted to get through a wall in a hurry, so he tried a move through on it. He didn't do enough Body to break the wall down and ended up Con stunning himself. It was very funny. Well, I laughed.

[tesuji]

Unless the move thru is the bulk of the damage, the half-damage is not going to hurt much. I would gladly take 7 stun in order to wallop him for 22d6 in a 12d6 game.

 

As for "if you get full damage" one of two things are true...

 

1. you did not KB because you rolled really really low... in which case neither of you is too hurt.

 

2. you made a stupid move thru decision... like trying to move thru godzilla.

 

With just room temperatur IQ, a player can figure out who to move thru and who not to fairly quickly.

 

Suggestion for GMs worried about balance, dont count on STUPID players when you make decisions. If you assume they will be balanced by this 22 dice attack because sometimes they will take 22 dice themselves, dont be surprised when they start waiting to see someone take KB and then tag-teaming them instead of godzilla.

 

Balance for reasonable or even smart play, not numskulls.

[DoctorItron]

I still don't think the 22d6 is unbalancing. For most games. But your game might differ, depending primarily on what type of opposition you plan to throw against the players.

 

The -6 OCV penalty is significant.

 

Large creatures that can be easily hit despite the -6 OCV are going to have knockback resistance, damage resistance, damage shield, etc. The player might hit, but then the player will be unconscious for the rest of the battle.

 

Maybe one of move-through-guy's teammates has an entangle that doesn't take damage from attacks. So what? It depends on the SFX of the entangle. Let's say said entangle is super-glue. Villain gets hit and entangled. Move-through-guy charges said villain and hits for 22d6. As GM, I would rule that the entangle's DEF + BODY acts to the d6 rolls to resist knockback. Move-through-guy knocks out the villain, does no knockback due to the entangle, and knocks himself out.

 

Yes, the above doesn't hold true for all entangle SFX. But then we're no longer talking about a balanced *character*, we're talking about a balanced *team*.

 

Another tactic: villainous martial artists can hold an action, then use a Martial Throw to send move-through-guy flying when he runs past them.

 

To the guy who asked the original question, if you think the 22d6, despite OCV penalties, is still a problem, work out a compromise with the player.

 

Don't forget that any character can boost a 12d6 attack. +4d6 for a haymaker. +2d6 for pushing. For comparison purposes, let's pretend that move-through-guy had 6 levels to offset the move-through penalty. Put those levels to damage, there's another +3d6 (yeah, that's the rule for heroic campaigns, but the superhero bonus of +3 stun comes out close). That's 21d6. You've got to live with the haymaker penalties, but there's no risk of you taking damage from your own attack.

[Gary]

Originally posted by DoctorItron

I still don't think the 22d6 is unbalancing. For most games. But your game might differ, depending primarily on what type of opposition you plan to throw against the players.

 

The -6 OCV penalty is significant.

 

Large creatures that can be easily hit despite the -6 OCV are going to have knockback resistance, damage resistance, damage shield, etc. The player might hit, but then the player will be unconscious for the rest of the battle.

 

It would take a really large creature to have the roughly 15" of kb resistance to stop this attack. Anything that sizable can be avoided or fought normally. The -6 can be overcome in a number of ways, the easiest is by using an object to get an impromptu area effect attack. Entangles, flashes, grabs, etc are also ways to allow a hit.

 

Originally posted by DoctorItron

Maybe one of move-through-guy's teammates has an entangle that doesn't take damage from attacks. So what? It depends on the SFX of the entangle. Let's say said entangle is super-glue. Villain gets hit and entangled. Move-through-guy charges said villain and hits for 22d6. As GM, I would rule that the entangle's DEF + BODY acts to the d6 rolls to resist knockback. Move-through-guy knocks out the villain, does no knockback due to the entangle, and knocks himself out.

 

Yes, the above doesn't hold true for all entangle SFX. But then we're no longer talking about a balanced *character*, we're talking about a balanced *team*.

 

How big of an entangle are we talking about? A typical 4def 4 body or 6 def 6 body entangle won't be enough to stop the knockback. It would take a pretty sizable entangle to do so.

 

Originally posted by DoctorItron

Another tactic: villainous martial artists can hold an action, then use a Martial Throw to send move-through-guy flying when he runs past them.

 

Martial artists are the very opponents that you wouldn't attempt the move through on unless entangled. We're assuming the brick has some combat smarts.

 

Originally posted by DoctorItron

To the guy who asked the original question, if you think the 22d6, despite OCV penalties, is still a problem, work out a compromise with the player.

 

Don't forget that any character can boost a 12d6 attack. +4d6 for a haymaker. +2d6 for pushing. For comparison purposes, let's pretend that move-through-guy had 6 levels to offset the move-through penalty. Put those levels to damage, there's another +3d6 (yeah, that's the rule for heroic campaigns, but the superhero bonus of +3 stun comes out close). That's 21d6. You've got to live with the haymaker penalties, but there's no risk of you taking damage from your own attack.

 

The push is invalid since you can push the movethrough as well. No advantage to haymaker. 6 skill levels is an awful lot to assume. If the GM is stupid enough to allow that many, he deserves all the grief he gets. Also, haymakers are much harder to land since it lands on the next segment. Movethroughs land immediately.

[tesuji]

Goodly Doctor....

 

Certainly, a Gm can add in house rules to make move thru's less viable.

 

He can add free KB resistance to entangles and thus make the players choose certain FX over others. The balance issues of these house rules are his to deal with.

 

Heck, he can just as easily rule that you take full damage MINUS 1d6 per inch of KB, so that only if you knock him back a long way do you even get down to half dice.

 

But, this isn't about "is move thru balanced with these house rules."

 

its about move thrus and their abuse in the normal rules.

 

I do agree that, if move thrus are abusive, your entangle house rule might well be one potential solution. As a house rule intended to fix the issue, I think it lacks scope, since it only fits some FX of entangle and it adds a new ability to entangles that affects things way outside of the problem at hand.

 

So, as an intriguing house rule for some entangles in general, it is OK. As a house rule to correct abusing move thrus, it doesn't do much for me.

 

but thats fine because its your house rule and i presume it works well in your game.

 

BTW assuming a 22 body KB chance... assuming a standard 12dc entangle stopping 12 body plus def. the 2d6 roll would need to be 10+ to cause full damage (maybe 11+) which means we are looking at a solution which only works 1 time in 6 at best... barring again specific defenses such as KBRes. If the entangler is room temperature IQ, he uses 4d6 4def (enough to easily handle casual strength) and now the roll needs to be a 14 on 2d6?

 

of course, you did that math already, right, before touting your house rule out?

 

A room temperature IQ can do this math and use the 22d6 move thru with entangles intelligently. All your house rule does is choose which SFX they will prefer AND urge them to choose lower levels of entangle for this purpose. if they entangler decided to use fewer dice, it works just fine.

[Trebuchet]

As long as it's recognized as an "unusual" combat maneuver I think it's all right to allow occasional Move Throughs. It has enough penalties to make it difficult to accomplish, particularly for a Leaping character who can't change course if his target moves and suffers a penalty to hit based on the range he's Leaping from. I would look closely at characters who make this a primary method of attack or buy levels in Move Through, but on the whole I think it's OK to have it exceed normal damage caps just like Haymakers.

 

In her very first adventure, my fast martial artist tried to do a 30" Move Through on an opponent. Said opponent happened to be another martial artist, who simply Martial Threw her into the ground and put her out for the rest of the fight. Suffice it to say she is a heck of a lot more cautious about using Move Through now.

 

In a recent adventure in my campaign, a villain brick decided to try a Move Through on our brick Silhouette. What he didn't know was that Sihouette's strength comes from 11 levels of Density Increase, so when he rammed her he succeeded only in Stunning himself. Ouch!

[DoctorItron]

I agree that the 22d6 move-through *could* be a problem, depending on the opposition and other powers that the PC team has. However, I never said the fact that entangles provide knockback resistance is a house rule; I think it's an official rule. Let me clarify:

 

If an entangle fastens a character to the ground, then the entangle has to be broken before the target can be moved. That is *not* a house rule.

 

If the entangle does *not* fasten the character to the ground, then that means that an entangled target with non-foulable flight (i.e. boot jets rather than wings) can still fly, making him unhittable with a running move-through. A flying move-through, on the other hand...

 

I think the conversation is drifting from "is move-through abusive" to "is move-through combined with other powers abusive". Entangles that take no damage from attacks are powerful. Especially if you're using the optional hit location rules, in which case someone entangles the target and everyone else shoots at the target's head.

 

As for a speedster running around with a large object to make the move-through area effect, remember that the maximum damage that the speedster can inflict is limited to the object's DEX+BODY. Most items that are large enough to inflict massive damage are too bulky and too heavy for a typical speedster to carry.

[Chaosliege]

Re: Is Move-Through Abusive

 

Originally posted by coach

Hey, I don't know if this has been discussed before, and I have never really thought about it, but it came up in a restricted game we were playing the other day. The situation was that the game is a pretty low-point super-hero game with a 12DC damage cap. So, we have a brick with a 60 STR and 30" of Leaping. Normally, she does the same damage as most everyone else. But, she put a Move-Through on this giant millipede we were fighting and can crank it up to 22d6. This is a HUGE difference between what our EBer and Mentalists can do, especially in a low-level campaign.

 

So, what can you do? I mean, it's not fair to limit a brick's movement, is it? But, getting double duty out of your movement seems a little unfair to the other character types. This is usually just an issue with a brick since most other character type cannot benefit significantly from movement damage. And even most speedster types take movement damage into account when calculating their DC for damage limit consideration.

 

So, what do ya'll do about this?

 

Thanks.

 

Ok. everyone here is talking about how to limit this kind of thing. From what you said, this only happened once. That hardly qualifies as abuse. Is there the potential for abuse? Sure, there is for every power if you're creative on how you use it. I wouldn't do anything unless the player actualy starts to be abusive with it.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by DoctorItron

If an entangle fastens a character to the ground, then the entangle has to be broken before the target can be moved. That is *not* a house rule.

 

If the entangle does *not* fasten the character to the ground, then that means that an entangled target with non-foulable flight (i.e. boot jets rather than wings) can still fly, making him unhittable with a running move-through. A flying move-through, on the other hand...

 

Book not in front of me... but from my recollection

 

Nowhere in ENTANGLE rules does it state that it provides any sort of KBRes. Nowhere in entangles does it state that it IN ANY WAY reduces the KB distance done.

 

To rule that it does for some SFX of entangle and not for others is a HOUSE RULE.

 

Regardless of whether you want to hide behind "its an interpretation, yeah, not a house rule" or whathave you, the fact is its almost irrelevent. There is practically NO 12dc entangle that is not going to be taken out by the 22d6 attack.

So, unless the GM house rules in that not only does the entangle have to be killed but that it ALSO reduces the attack's KB... then it aint gonna affect the result much at all.

 

Then again, maybe a mental paralysis entangle would also reduce KB? :-)

 

*******************

 

The reasona entangles are brought in is the post after post which decry how much the -6 OCv balances the 22d6.

 

There are a lot of powers and causable conditionsincluding but not limited to entangle, flash, being prone or off balance, mental illusions, and the like which can drastically reduce an opponent's DCV in 5e. Those all go a long way towards making the -6 OCV a less than balancing factor. Entangle is just the most easily accessible power, needing only about 40-50ap to be just right for the job.

 

Net result, IMO and by the normal rules, if a GM dismisses his concerns over the move thru 22d6 in a 12dc game BECAUSE the OCV penalty is severe, he is setting himself up for trouble because with many of these abilities and power that ocv penalty can be rendered trivial due to the enemy DCv penalties caused by the PCs.

 

In short, like you see MANY MANY times in hero, you have to consider BOTH severity (how many dice) and frequency (chance of hitting) BOTH independently and together. just like the rules advise you to consider "fellow PC powers" when considering frequency... "only near magnetic fields but my partner generates high magnetic fields as a SFX"... you need to consider it here as well.

 

**************

 

Would you approve a 22d6 EB in a 12d6 game with a 1/day charges because "i cannot use it that often"? if not, think twice or even three times before approving a 22d6 move thru character for that same game because "circumstances where it will be used will not occur that often."

 

 

[Gary]

A really nasty tactic is to have a brick grab the opponent, and then use the opponent in your next phase with a movethrough of a solid object. You won't miss in this case...

[SaintHax]

Leaping for Movethrough?

 

My only problem is that the brick is using leaping. The brick does need to hit DCV 3 w/ the -6 range modifier before the attack, unless they paid 5 points for Accurate (let's assume they did). Leaping is poor for move through-- first, it's only 1 point per inch, making it a cheap way to get velocity; second, it can't get 30" velocity w/ a 30" leap. It has to gain velocity going up, and lose it's velocity as it starts to come down. If it didn't, your character would be suffering a 30" falling damage every time he leaped. Therefore, I'd rule against 30" velocity at the end, in favor for 1/2 that. That give the same velocity as 30 ap's worth of running. You may also want to require a "Brick Trick" roll if it looks abusive. I personally don't see anything wrong w/ this if the movement power was purchased as Running. Thrity inches of Running is 60ap, and the 60 Str is 60 ap: For 120 ap-- PLUS, the AP's worth of protection to take 11 DC's of damage-- 22 DC is fine.

 

 

Seems good to me, just make the leap BS realistic, (maybe an errata is needed?)

[Zaratustra]

The real problem is that damage from speed is arithmetic, while damage from strength is geometric. Lifting twice the weight adds 1d6 to damage: Running twice the speed can add several dozen dice if you're already fast. A way to fix this would be to make a geometric damage table for speed in move throughs, like:

 

5" - +1d6

10" - +2d6

20" - +3d6

40" - +4d6

80" - +5d6

 

And so on.

[tesuji]

In regards to the last two posts...

 

I would have to agree that in liue of GM oversight, the best way to handle MTA (move thru abuse) is probably not using the rules presented for them and making up your own. The house ruled entangle-kbr thing also fits in that category.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zaratustra

The real problem is that damage from speed is arithmetic, while damage from strength is geometric. Lifting twice the weight adds 1d6 to damage: Running twice the speed can add several dozen dice if you're already fast. A way to fix this would be to make a geometric damage table for speed in move throughs, like:

 

5" - +1d6

10" - +2d6

20" - +3d6

40" - +4d6

80" - +5d6

 

And so on.

 

Then you'd have the problem of terminal velocity falls doing 10-12D6 damage.