regarding 5th ed. FMove martial maneuver element

[Sociotard]

How much does FMove cost as a *ranged* martial elemet maneuver element?

 

5th ed. Ultimate Martial Artist lists the normal FMove element as 3 pts. It does not list the element for Ranged martial arts, but one of the ranged martial maneuvers has it. The math on that one works out to 6 pts.

 

Is that right? Ranged FMove costs double?

[unclevlad]

Strafe is an optional combat maneuver.  6E2 p. 88.  I don't see anything in 5E that works out the same.  In short, Strafe is -2 DCV, OCV penalty of velocity/6, and the range mod applies.  RAW says, it's from the point where the movement *starts*...so it may well be high.  There are other technical elements as well.

 

HSMA doesn't have FMove as an element, but the rules in 6E2 suggest they're not all that needed...and the conditions/exceptions run 4 paragraphs in 6E2, so that's rather long to try to shoehorn into a brief description for HSMA.  AND, it's given a yellow Caution sign, which means it's probably not suited to be used normally.

 

How do you arrive at 6 points?  I don't have UMA, just HSMA.  HSMA has no velo-based OCV penalty;  Move By has a flat -2, but a Move By is a little different.  A Move Through has a v/10...but a -3 DCV.  HSMA has the Gun Fu and Enerjutsu styles;  neither one includes a maneuver with FMove.

 

 

[Sociotard]

UMA, page 9, table of Ranged Martial Maneuvers

 

"Moving Shot" cost 5, -1 OCV, +0 DCV, +0 Range, Strike FMove

 

the restriction -1 OCV is 1 point. Nothing else distinguishes this from a regular Strike, so 6 points for making a ranged shot along a full move.

[Hugh Neilson]

Compared to a Strafe, it has +2  DCV, an OCV bonus sufficient to almost offset the velocity penalty (that's a minimum of 1).  Viewed as a "martial strafe", perhaps the pricing looks more reasonable.

 

Of course, the Full Move element for HTH maneuvers is cheaper than buying off move through penalties too.

[Hey I Can Chan]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

HSMA has the Gun Fu and Enerjutsu styles;  neither one includes a maneuver with FMove.

The Martial Arts Style An Ch'i includes the 5-Character-Point Ranged Maneuver Moving Shot (HSMA 18). The lack of FMove as a Ranged Maneuver Helpful Element (HSMA 104) suggests that the maneuver's inclusion may be accidental. (Its stat line is identical to the 5E version.)

[unclevlad]

Ahh, there it is.  Thank you for the cite.  Digging that out would be a pain.

 

Yeah, 6 points is what they're assigning, but note the style.  Throwing knives, darts, shuriken...very short range, relatively low damage.  This isn't the flying sniper style, it's "disrupt A while moving to attack B."  It may well be a carryover, but as long as it's kept in the context...and it is a 5 point maneuver, with no bonuses of any type...I don't think it's a problem.  

 

Whether I'd allow it with high-damage, high-mobility types a la Enerjutsu?  I'm inclined to say no.  The rules don't provide for it.  If we start from Strafe...that's a combat maneuver, so you can't buy penalty skill levels to offset the OCV and DCV mods.  You can buy 2-point CSLs with Strafe...but that's 2 points per, not 1 as it would be in the martial maneuver cost structure.  If you want to buy off the DCV mod, then you need 3 point CSLs.  And when you start from the basis that Strafe's already a Caution-level element, making FMoves with ranged combat is something that should be handled with exceptional caution.

 

Secondary thought:  An Ch'i feels like a Ninja Hero martial art, or agent-level...200ish points.  5 points becomes a notable cost.  For 500 point supers...not so much.  Agent-level movement is also generally rather lower than supers-level.  So what's probably flavorful at lower levels, likely becomes dangerously abusable at higher levels.

[Ninja-Bear]

23 hours ago, Sociotard said:

How much does FMove cost as a *ranged* martial elemet maneuver element?

 

5th ed. Ultimate Martial Artist lists the normal FMove element as 3 pts. It does not list the element for Ranged martial arts, but one of the ranged martial maneuvers has it. The math on that one works out to 6 pts.

 

Is that right? Ranged FMove costs double?

Which Ranged Maneuver? I found Moving Shot but that math is off too. Strike is +0, Fmove +3, -1 OCV so listed cost should he 2 pts. not 5 pts.

 

Oops, I should’ve read the whole thread first. 

[unclevlad]

Just now, Ninja-Bear said:

Which Ranged Maneuver? I found Moving Shot but that math is off too. Strike is +0, Fmove +3, -1 OCV so listed cost should he 2 pts. not 5 pts.

 

Yes, it's Moving Shot.  There is no FMove element as a Ranged element in HSMA.  Only as an HTH element.  

 

The structure of the elements says that they don't implicitly carry over:  Dodge, K-Damage, and NND Damage are not supported for ranged elements.  Also, costs are not necessarily the same.  HTH OCV/DCV is 1 point for +1 up to +2, then 2 points for the +3 max.  Ranged, it's 2 points per, max +2.

 

So you can't say Moving Shot's FMove is 3 points.  You have to work the other way.  -1 OCV is -1 point.  The maneuver is 5, so the FMove is 6.

[Ninja-Bear]

It looks like there is an error somewhere. Perhaps Steve Long did wish to charge double for FMove element for Ranged Martial Arts. That would make sense:

[unclevlad]

Then why was it omitted from the ranged maneuver elements?  Why is there no FMove maneuver in Gun Fu or Enerjutsu?

 

The simpler explanation is as HICC suggested...the inclusion in An Ch'i was a copy-paste type of oversight.  

[Sociotard]

It makes sense. 6d6 energy blast-wielding superheroes shouldn't get ranged attacks with Full-move, just low level types. Thanks!

 

This isn't for a game anyway. Every now and then a hero concept pops into my head and I just have to flesh it out to get it out of mind.

[unclevlad]

I do that all the time.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

The moving shot cost 5pts and gives you a -1 OCV, so your math is correct.   The reason it cost double is that it allows you to run move your full move away from the target.  For a character specializing in ranged attacks this is incredibly powerful.  With a HTH maneuver I move to my target so after my attack I usually end up next to him.  A move by may allow me to be a short distance from my target, but still fairly close.  If I am not next to them chances are they can make a half move and still be able to attack me. With a ranged attack that is not going to be the case.  

 

The reason it is not in the chart is it is too expensive to be used for much.  To even use it at all you have to have a -1 restriction.   There are not a lot of restrictions you can apply to it.  Putting half move required on that is abusive and any sane GM is going to veto that.  Applying more helpful elements pushes it into the super maneuver category. Personally, I would not allow the moving attack in a game I am running.   It is way too powerful for a ranged specialist.   The only thing that would be able to get near you would be a speedster.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The moving shot cost 5pts and gives you a -1 OCV, so your math is correct.   The reason it cost double is that it allows you to run move your full move away from the target.  For a character specializing in ranged attacks this is incredibly powerful.  With a HTH maneuver I move to my target so after my attack I usually end up next to him.  A move by may allow me to be a short distance from my target, but still fairly close.  If I am not next to them chances are they can make a half move and still be able to attack me. With a ranged attack that is not going to be the case.  

 

The reason it is not in the chart is it is too expensive to be used for much.  To even use it at all you have to have a -1 restriction.   There are not a lot of restrictions you can apply to it.  Putting half move required on that is abusive and any sane GM is going to veto that.  Applying more helpful elements pushes it into the super maneuver category. Personally, I would not allow the moving attack in a game I am running.   It is way too powerful for a ranged specialist.   The only thing that would be able to get near you would be a speedster.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 

 

Funny you should mention speedsters - they are the most inclined to take fMove elements in their own Martial Arts builds.  I recall many years back adapting a Villains & Vigilantes speedster with swords - Move Bys were very effective, as he could start and end at least a -8 Range Penalty away.  For 7 points, I could buy the maneuver described, and +1 OCV with one attack.  For 8, I could buy 8 Penalty Skill Levels offsetting range penalties with that single attack. How often will you be more than 125m away from your target?  If I figure I'll normally be within 64m, I can spend 6 points instead.

 

Might it sometimes be too powerful?  Sure.  Would that be more common than most other Yield or Stop Sign abilities?  I have to say "no".  The toolkit vision suggests including the option, with the group deciding how, or even whether, it will be used.

 

That Move By Speedster became an easy win when one character simply Held his action to wait for the Speedster to sprint in again.  Attacks with No Range Modifier or LoS Range (mental attacks, for example) remain quite effective at a distance. Using cover forces the ranged attacker to close in if he wants to attack effectively, or even see the target. There may be a need for new tactics, but an opponent who fights from significant range is far from unbeatable.

[LoneWolf]

You are right about the full move being popular with speedsters.  I buddy of mine was playing a speedster with a martial art where most of the maneuvers had full move element. A held action is usually the key to defeating any speedster.  I have defeated several that way with my own characters.  

 

The problem with the full move element on a ranged attack is that the attacking character is never going to get near his target.  With it the character can remain hidden and only be visible when he is attacking.  Most of the people I game with have been playing with the Hero System for decades and have a very good understanding of how combat works.  90% could use this maneuver to make themselves incredibly difficult to deal with in combat.  
 

[Hugh Neilson]

Your experienced players have never dealt with an opponent who can attack from medium to long range? This is the only combination of abilities that would give them difficulties?

 

While he's hiding behind that wall/tree/whatever, he can't see us either.  What prevents our characters from accomplishing their objective and just ignoring the attacks?  Setting a barrier between him and us?  Moving around so he needs to make a PER roll from far, far away to identify his desired target? One character aborting to defense when attacked while the rest carry on accomplishing things?  If he wanted to flee, he could already have done so. He must have some reason for continuing this sniper barrage.

 

What does the fMove element achieve that 8 Penalty Skill Levels to offset range penalties could not similarly achieve?  Then he never has to come closer (and take the attacks from characters who delayed waiting for him to move closer) to avoid range modifiers.

 

 

[unclevlad]

10 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

What does the fMove element achieve that 8 Penalty Skill Levels to offset range penalties could not similarly achieve?  Then he never has to come closer (and take the attacks from characters who delayed waiting for him to move closer) to avoid range modifiers.

 

 

What's the cost of those 8 PSLs?  Granted, there's workarounds...even Basic Shot gives +2 OCV to offset the range mods, as well as +2 DCs.  But it's generally going to be more, and often much more.  Even more:  the GM is much more likely to see "8 !!!! PSLs??" and raise a big red flag.  The FMove element is more subtle.

 

I think it shouldn't be allowed as a ranged maneuver element because 6E has a defined maneuver, Strafe...and that has a caution sign.  The penalties and rules are far more explicit, and tougher.  Using Moving Shot, can you pick the point at which you shoot, for determining the range mod?  You can't do that with Strafe (except by permission).  If they were at -4 to hit you, you're at -4 to hit them.  If Moving Shot lets you shoot at 5m away, no penalty, then that's a huge effective OCV increase, and the -1 OCV for the maneuver is almost meaningless.  Moving Shot also does not incorporate a velocity-based OCV penalty;  Strafe does.  So your strafing run where you wanna move 35 meters, and starting with a range mod of -4?  You're at -10 OCV, AND -2 DCV.  OK, Strafe allows the GM to say the Range Mod for the attack can be determined from any point along the path...and I probably would...but you still have the -v/6.  AND, this is a maneuver penalty;  you can't offset it with PSLs, you have to use CSLs.  More expensive.  And you have the -2 DCV.  So elevating Strafe to a martial maneuver with the combat effects listed?  That's way, way more than 5 points at higher point levels.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

@unclevlad, you keep referring to 6th ed when the OP clearly specified 5th ed hence no Strafe.

[unclevlad]

I mention Strafe because it gives us a defined maneuver we can use, to consider FMove as a ranged maneuver element in a broader context.  I don't accept as a given that FMove is a flat 6 point cost in general...not without more in-depth analysis.  And the only basis for that...is Strafe.  The editions are not significantly different in this area;  Strafe could be included in 5E with no more than trivial mods.  

[Hugh Neilson]

On 11/27/2022 at 10:28 AM, unclevlad said:

 

What's the cost of those 8 PSLs?  Granted, there's workarounds...even Basic Shot gives +2 OCV to offset the range mods, as well as +2 DCs.  But it's generally going to be more, and often much more.  Even more:  the GM is much more likely to see "8 !!!! PSLs??" and raise a big red flag.  The FMove element is more subtle.

 

I think it shouldn't be allowed as a ranged maneuver element because 6E has a defined maneuver, Strafe...and that has a caution sign.  The penalties and rules are far more explicit, and tougher.  Using Moving Shot, can you pick the point at which you shoot, for determining the range mod?  You can't do that with Strafe (except by permission).  If they were at -4 to hit you, you're at -4 to hit them.  If Moving Shot lets you shoot at 5m away, no penalty, then that's a huge effective OCV increase, and the -1 OCV for the maneuver is almost meaningless.  Moving Shot also does not incorporate a velocity-based OCV penalty;  Strafe does.  So your strafing run where you wanna move 35 meters, and starting with a range mod of -4?  You're at -10 OCV, AND -2 DCV.  OK, Strafe allows the GM to say the Range Mod for the attack can be determined from any point along the path...and I probably would...but you still have the -v/6.  AND, this is a maneuver penalty;  you can't offset it with PSLs, you have to use CSLs.  More expensive.  And you have the -2 DCV.  So elevating Strafe to a martial maneuver with the combat effects listed?  That's way, way more than 5 points at higher point levels.

 

 

Looking at 6e, like everyone else, 8 PSLs for 1 attack is 8 points.

 

Another way to envision the ability is a Martial Strafe.  It adds 2 DCV, converts the OCV modifier to a standard -1 and allows the attack at any point along the movement for 5 points. An Offensive Strike is just a Martial Haymaker - it takes away 1 OCV, adds 6 DCV and removes that obnoxious "act at the end of the next segment" for 5 points.

 

Speaking as the SETAC gadfly who pushed Steve to add a non-Martial Trip and Choke maneuver to 6e, a Martial version of Strafe has a certain appeal.

 

Arguing that we should not have a full move for ranged martial arts, should we also eliminate the full move HTH martial arts element?  We already have Move By and Move Through.  Why have Martial Arts at all?  We can already buy OCV, DCV and Damage Classes in various other ways.

[unclevlad]

Quote

Looking at 6e, like everyone else, 8 PSLs for 1 attack is 8 points.

Yes, but defining a martial maneuver will allow it to be used with multiple different attacks, at most at a cost of 1 point per Weapon Element, which can be treated as spread out over all maneuvers.  So IMO, you can't make a fair comparison with the single-attack PSL cost.  

 

Quote

Another way to envision the ability is a Martial Strafe.  It adds 2 DCV, converts the OCV modifier to a standard -1 and allows the attack at any point along the movement for 5 points. An Offensive Strike is just a Martial Haymaker - it takes away 1 OCV, adds 6 DCV and removes that obnoxious "act at the end of the next segment" for 5 points.

Already noted.  And for An Ch'i, this is pretty much what they did.  But if this is in a supers game, with, say, 30m of move, you've taken -5 OCV to -1.  And the point of allowing an attack anywhere along the path, will probably cancel out at least a couple points of Range Mod.  On ranged martial maneuvers, +1 OCV and DCV are 2 points each...not 1.  The OCV+ is limited to +2, as well, and that's easily surpassed here.

 

I don't see offensive strike as being based on haymaker...and if anything, what that's saying is that haymaker is a terrible maneuver, mechanically.  Offensive strike is built as per the maneuver construction elements, and there are arguably much better patterns.  How about +1 OCV (or DCV if you prefer), and +3 DCs?  Same 5 points. 

 

Perhaps Strafe is a terrible maneuver mechanically as well;  it's rather restrictive.  But even as such, it already has a caution sign on it...so creating a very low-cost substitute is a very poor idea.

 

The FMove HTH element tends to be tied to, mostly, 1 particular character type...the speedster.  That's a difficult type to build.  OTOH, energy projectors (taken broadly) with flight are fairly common, and it could be fun to build one using a lot of Leap.  Not sure I can remember a projector with considerable Running but it's not that hard to envision.  

 

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Yes, but defining a martial maneuver will allow it to be used with multiple different attacks, at most at a cost of 1 point per Weapon Element, which can be treated as spread out over all maneuvers.  So IMO, you can't make a fair comparison with the single-attack PSL cost. 

 

The same logic is much more applicable to HTH combatants.  I see very few Supers with weapon elements for ranged martial arts.

 

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Already noted.  And for An Ch'i, this is pretty much what they did.  But if this is in a supers game, with, say, 30m of move, you've taken -5 OCV to -1.  And the point of allowing an attack anywhere along the path, will probably cancel out at least a couple points of Range Mod.  On ranged martial maneuvers, +1 OCV and DCV are 2 points each...not 1.  The OCV+ is limited to +2, as well, and that's easily surpassed here.

 

Again, this is just as applicable to HTH.  The Move Through has -v/10 OCV and -3 DCV, as well as the damage caused to the attacker.

 

The move by halves STR, imposes a -2 OCV and -2 DCV and has more limited damage to the attacker.

 

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I don't see offensive strike as being based on haymaker...and if anything, what that's saying is that haymaker is a terrible maneuver, mechanically.  Offensive strike is built as per the maneuver construction elements, and there are arguably much better patterns.  How about +1 OCV (or DCV if you prefer), and +3 DCs?  Same 5 points. 

 

Perhaps Strafe is a terrible maneuver mechanically as well;  it's rather restrictive.  But even as such, it already has a caution sign on it...so creating a very low-cost substitute is a very poor idea.

 

The FMove HTH element tends to be tied to, mostly, 1 particular character type...the speedster.  That's a difficult type to build.  OTOH, energy projectors (taken broadly) with flight are fairly common, and it could be fun to build one using a lot of Leap.  Not sure I can remember a projector with considerable Running but it's not that hard to envision.

 

We had Martial Arts long before we had rules to customize maneuvers. I would suggest those rules were designed with an eye to the existing maneuvers. We had Haymaker and Offensive Strike from 1e and, as I recall, both moved from multipliers to +4d6 at the same time.

 

Can't a Speedster be a flying Speedster?  A Brick with a Martial attack with fMove doesn't get as much benefit as the Speedster, but he can close twice as much distance and still attack.  The Flying Brick is a pretty classic archetype as well.

 

A Caution sign means assess the impact on the game. The same caution should apply to pretty much any "full move" maneuver in any case.

 

I come back to the desire for a toolkit.  If you prefer to leave that particular tool in the box, that's your choice. However, it does not mean that the tool should be unavailable to those who may find it useful.