Opinion on a limitation - only for move by/through?

[Rerednaw]

I'm working on a speedster with limited physical invulnerability to collisions or move throughs/bys. (Kinda of like Cannonball from the old New Mutants).

 

What kind of limitation would it be on extra defenses if they only work in those circumstances (must be moving and doing a move by/through etc.). Normally I'd say -1. But since it will probably end up being his primary type of offense, maybe -1/4 or -1/2?

 

Opinions?

 

Cheers.

[nblade]

You know I swear I've seen an example of this in a published product, but I have no idea where. I'd say likely around -1/2 myself.

[Uncle Shecky]

Originally posted by nblade

You know I swear I've seen an example of this in a published product, but I have no idea where.

 

Yeah, Kinetik, in Champions Universe (p. 80). He's got Force Field with a -1/4 limitation "only when moving." If you want the FF to work only for move-thrus and move-bys (not just when moving, but only for specific actions made when you are moving), that would be at least -1/2 I would think.

[Catacomb]

If it's not much of a disadvantage(Primary attack you said) then I would make it 1/4

[Uncle Shecky]

Originally posted by Catacomb

If it's not much of a disadvantage(Primary attack you said) then I would make it 1/4

 

Catacomb might be right, depending on whether the FF sticks around between your action phases (like the effects of a dodge). If it protects that character as long as he does a move-by or move-thru every phase, then -1/4 is probably right. If it only protects him at the instant of impact (so he takes no damage from his own move through), then it would be -1/2 at least.

[DoctorItron]

Clarification requested

 

Rerednaw, I'm a little confused. I'm not sure if you want the defenses to protect you from all attacks, or only from the "feedback" damage you take when you do a move-by or move-through?

 

If the former (all attacks), then I agree that the limitation should be small, since you'll almost always be moving in combat. A -1/4 limitation sounds right.

 

If the latter (feedback damage only), then I'd go with a -1 limitation, since the defenses won't protect you against attacks.

[Rerednaw]

Re: Clarification requested

 

Originally posted by DoctorItron

Rerednaw, I'm a little confused. I'm not sure if you want the defenses to protect you from all attacks, or only from the "feedback" damage you take when you do a move-by or move-through?

 

If the former (all attacks), then I agree that the limitation should be small, since you'll almost always be moving in combat. A -1/4 limitation sounds right.

 

If the latter (feedback damage only), then I'd go with a -1 limitation, since the defenses won't protect you against attacks.

 

It is only from feedback damage. If anyone hits him while he is moving he takes normal damage. With time and experience, he will be able to extend the effect of his defense to beyond that of impact only.

 

Cheers.

[TheEmerged]

For most characters, this would be at most a -1/2 limitation, and I'd lean toward -1/4.

 

If the player intends to do Move By/Thru often enough that s/he has made other decisions based on this, it's DEFINITELY no more than a -1/4. Examples of "pro-move by/thru" decisions would include Absorption vs PD into STR (turn Feedback damage into pumping the character up) and penalty skill levels versus the multiple-attack penalties (the better to move by/thru more than one target).

[DoctorItron]

Since it only protects from feedback, IMO it should be worth a significant cost reduction. I'm going to try a quick example to help me think this through. I think I'm using reasonable defenses for a 350 pt. game.

 

Let's call the proposed speedster with some defenses that only stop feedback damage character "A". 20 normal PD, 10 extra PD only to stop feedback.

 

Let's say "B" is a brick. He's got 30 PD with no limitations.

 

"A" and "B" have the same protection against move-by and move-through feedback. Incoming attacks, however, will almost always do 10 more STUN to "A" than to "B". That's a pretty big limitation to "A".

 

If we give "A" a -1/4 limitation on the 10 feedback-only PD, he saves 2 points. I don't think that's enough, considering how much more damage "A" takes from every attack. A -1 limitation would save "A" 5 points, which I think goes a long way to balancing things. I might even go as far as a -2 limitation, but I'd rather start at -1 and adjust later if it turns out to be a problem.

 

Conditional defenses like this example, or like the "only protects against fire damage" example that has been frequently discussed, are *much* less effective than defenses that work all the time. A player who accepts such reduced effectiveness should be rewarded with a significant discount on the defense.

[Lord Liaden]

The published characters that I've seen set the Limitation at -1 for defenses that only protect a character from damage resulting from his own Move By and/or Move Through. Even if these are the character's primary modes of attack, the defense is still deprived of its main function: protecting the character from attacks from others. So I would concur with -1.

[CrosshairCollie]

Velocity Defense

 

One of my old rules of thumb for conditional limitations was that a 1/4 should cause you some hassle about 1 in every 4 games, a 1/2 every other game, and a -1 every game, give or take. And given that, by his very career choice, a super will be attacked virtually every game, the fact that some of his defenses won't defend against someone else clobbering him with a tractor would be worth a -1, I'd say.