I know I have seen this lim before

[JmOz]

I want to give my archer a new ability, here is the build

 

Highly Mobile: +6 Running: No NCM (-0.25), Only for calculating half moves (-?.??)

 

Now I know I have seen this lim before, but do not recall where, or how much it should be. If someone could point me in the right direction (so I can tell my GM where the value came from) I would appreciate it.

 

Thank you

[Cardinal]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I think John Wrath, Solo Avenger, from Killer Shrike's campaign has that build. I believe he has been posted on this board a couple of times.

 

I do not recall if there is a Canon source for the same.

 

Another way to do the same thing is to purchase some of your archer's ranged martial arts as FMOVE (though you will have to reverse engineer the prices for FMOVE on a ranged martial art... I think it is 6pts).

[Alibear]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

-1/2 Iirc.

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

During class today (Accounting II is boring), it occured to me that if this ability was going to be in anybook it would PROBABLY be in Dark Champions, and IT IS, the only difference is that Steve for one reason or another chose not to use the No NCM.

 

Thanks to both of you, I apreciate the help.

 

JmOz

[Zed-F]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

IIRC if you buy it for extra movement (e.g. to double your existing running) it is -1/2.

 

If you buy a movement power (e.g. 12" flight) and then take "only to do half moves" then it's a -1/4 lim on the whole amount of the movement.

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I don't know what lim DC gives it, but I'd be inclined to say somewhere around -.25

 

Why?

 

Well, in combat, when movement rates are going to be most imporant, and assuming your base move is 6", most characters do half move and attack actions: pure move actions are rare once combat is started unless you want to do FMove attacks like Mthrough/Mby or whatever, and an archer probably doesn't.

 

Therefore there will be very little practical limitation on the character, therefore it should not be worth much of a limitation

[Ura-Maru]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I agree. (With Sean Waters) I’ve used it once or twice, and I don’t think it’s worth more than –1/4 for the whole thing, NCM included.

 

A Speedster type might be able to argue me up to a –1/2, but that’d be pushing it.

 

I could probably be talked into letting a character who already had this put a small limitation on any extra NCMs he bought with running. So, at very, very most, it’s a 2 point (-1/2 on a 5 point power) Disadvantage, not a limitation.

 

Dark Champions (pg. 130) lists ‘Only to Make Half Moves in Combat’ as a –1 disadvantage. Which is way, way, too much.

 

What the heck is a half move made outside of combat, anyway?

 

---

“We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese!â€

[Killer Shrike]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I think John Wrath, Solo Avenger, from Killer Shrike's campaign has that build. I believe he has been posted on this board a couple of times.

 

I do not recall if there is a Canon source for the same.

 

Another way to do the same thing is to purchase some of your archer's ranged martial arts as FMOVE (though you will have to reverse engineer the prices for FMOVE on a ranged martial art... I think it is 6pts).

 

Wrath doesnt have this ability.

 

Wrath is here:

http://www.killershrike.com/MillennialMen/CharacterFiles/John%20Wrath,%20Solo%20Avenger.HTML

 

he has:

10 Faster Than He Looks: Running +6" (12" total) (12 Active Points); No Noncombat Movement (-1/4)

 

 

However, I have made characters with that ability, but I don't recall what I set the lim at off hand.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I don't know what lim DC gives it, but I'd be inclined to say somewhere around -.25

 

{snip}

 

there will be very little practical limitation on the character, therefore it should not be worth much of a limitation

 

I am inclined to agree with Sean here, mostly because if a player handed me this I would choke. Essentially, the character is getting 'No Hands' per finger:

 

If it is 'only to figure 1/2 moves,' then that would preclude that additional 'No NCM,' would it not?

 

Further, I don't much like the excessiveness of it. I would instead talk with the player to see exactly what his justification was for this ability, and try to work out a better construct. As it stands, the character essentially is able to run a full move so fast as to be able to do it in a half-phase. I can't see why the character can't do this for the second half of the phase, which grants the 'normal' full move of his base Running plus the additional Running. (and negating the 'only for a 1/2 move' Limitation)

 

It smells of cheddar. And bullets. Lots and lots of bullets.

 

Now if the player had some very unusual reason why this was possible, I would go quite a long way, I think, to find some other way to model it. Hell, I think I'd go with a T-form before I went with this.

 

As always, though; your mileage may vary. What works at my table might not at yours, and vice-versa.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I dont get the issues with this ability. It's purpose is to over come the arbitrary 1/2 Move & Attack restriction. It's an excellent way to model a character that moves just as quickly when they attack as when they don't, similar to FMOVE Martial Manuevers.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I dont get the issues with this ability. It's purpose is to over come the arbitrary 1/2 Move & Attack restriction. It's an excellent way to model a character that moves just as quickly when they attack as when they don't' date=' similar to FMOVE Martial Manuevers.[/quote']

 

We understand the purpose of this ability. But it's essential to look at the reason that the 1/2 Move & Attack restriction is there in the first place. The idea, as I understand it, anyway, is that the character has X amount of time-- in HERO combat, one Phase, in which to whatever it is he wishes to do. It is this time limit that he is up against each Phase.

 

This power does _not_ let him move just as quickly when he is attacking; it let's him move _twice_ as fast when he is attacking. That is to say that when he decides to Attack, he can cover the same distance in _half_ the time it takes him to cover it when he is not attacking.

 

Now let me be clear here:

I don't have an issue with that. What I _do_ have issues with are the -1/2 "Limitation" on this construct, and the actual purpose of the construct. As I stated above, if the character has a valid reason for this, I might allow something similar, but I doubt very much that this is the way that I would choose to model it.

 

As for the -1/2 total restrictions on this power, 'No NCM' is -1/4, at least to our group. The "only to figure half-moves" is pure rhetoric and essentially a 'gimme,' as the player, in a fit of inspiration, simply makes a 1/2 move in the first half of his phase, and another in the next. This results, of course, in getting full combat benefit of a power that has been 'Limited' away from exactly that.

 

yes, GM final say so, etc. But even with that being said, there must surely be other ways to acheive the same results.

 

As far as getting around the 1/2 move and attack restrictions, it does that rather well. So well that for the cost, the character is essentially simply buying : 1/2 Phase, 'only for movement', and buying it pretty cheaply, I would think.

 

For me personally, if the character wanted to buy the Running, fine. If he wanted to buy his SPD up, fine. If he wanted to sell back his NCM, fine. But that 'only for 1/2 moves'--- not so happy with it. Frankly, I _might_ be talked into allowing it, but it would be a -0 Limitation, as it simply does not limit. And we all know the 'cardinal rule' of Limitations, right?

 

I can't -- and won't claim to be able to-- speak for anyone else, but that's my gripe with it as presented.

 

As I said in this post and the last, a character with a very good justification for something similar, I might allow, but I'm going to exhaust every other way to model it first.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Oh---

 

Like the new avatar, by the way! Looks like y'all are having a pretty good time!

[gojira]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I don't have an issue with that. What I _do_ have issues with are the -1/2 "Limitation" on this construct' date=' and the actual purpose of the construct. As I stated above, if the character has a valid reason for this, I might allow something similar, but I doubt very much that this is the way that I would choose to model it.[/quote']

 

Well, 6" Running, Only To Make Half Moves, really only gives you 3" of running in a half move, right? If you want 6" in a half move, you should buy 12". You should also agree (GM and player) that the character can't make two half moves with this power, maybe the player can't even take a half move with the extra 3" and then a half move with out it.

 

So, what is "Character Cannot Make a Full Move" worth? That'd solve all your problems.

 

Also, if you bought the Lim as "Not for Full Moves", that might be more clear as to when you character could take the extra 3" of movement that his 6" gives him. As long as the GM makes certain to state that two half moves make a full move, always.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I thought not allowing the character to make ‘two half moves’ was obvious. That really would be no limitation at all.

 

That’s akin to taking “x2 damage from Fire†and then claiming you meant the British superheroine Fire. If you assume you’re players are pulling that kind of stuff, then no limitation is justified.

 

I was assuming that we were talking about buying 6†of extra running, that could only be used to add 3†to a half move. So you could make a single 6†half move, then attack, or a 6†full move.

 

With the special effect being “I can shoot while running around like a madman.†It’s not inappropriate for a jumpy MA or gun ballet type.

 

Not being able to run away, catch fast purse snatchers, or do a 12†Move By or Move Through IS a disadvantage. Just a small one.

 

Gojira’s phrasing was better, though.

 

Or even “Only to make a half move before an attack,†if the player’s a real weasel.

 

---

Actually, as it only saves two points, you could just buy an extra 5†of running, and still get the same 6†half move. But that wouldn’t be nearly as cool.

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I dont get the issues with this ability. It's purpose is to over come the arbitrary 1/2 Move & Attack restriction. It's an excellent way to model a character that moves just as quickly when they attack as when they don't' date=' similar to FMOVE Martial Manuevers.[/quote']

 

Not a problem having it we are just dickering over the price. I don't think it is much of a limitation as you will almost always be doing a half move and attack, so I don't think it is worth much of a limitation - certainly nowhere near -1 and probably not even -1/2. Once in combat - and it is only usually in combat that exaact move rate is important - most characters attack at every opportunity - every phase they can move so they hardly ever do a full move in combat except when closing or it they rely on movethroughs or suchlike. An archer is unlikely to rely overmuch on movethroughs.

 

The 1/2 move and attack restrction is not arbitrary IMO, it seems perfectly realistic for most characters. I can understand the concept (something like - movement and action is one) but I don't see what the character would be doing differently if he just bought the extra movement without a limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Not a problem having it we are just dickering over the price. I don't think it is much of a limitation as you will almost always be doing a half move and attack' date=' so I don't think it is worth much of a limitation - certainly nowhere near -1 and probably not even -1/2. Once in combat - and it is only usually in combat that exaact move rate is important - most characters attack at every opportunity - every phase they can move so they hardly ever do a full move in combat except when closing or it they rely on movethroughs or suchlike. An archer is unlikely to rely overmuch on movethroughs.[/quote']

 

The acid test to me is how often a character's full move rate (rather than their half move rate) matters. Their half move rate, as Sean points out, is almost always the relevant rate in combat. Very rarely does a character make a full move, rather than half move and attack. How often do the following issues (all issues where full move is more important) happen?:

 

- the characters are a few km from combat. Each must get there using his own movement rate, and they don't co-ordinate to all arrive at the same time

 

- combat is spread out over a huge area, such that full moves, rather than half moves, are made frequently

 

- a chase where you would rather move twice as fast than move the same rate and attack each phase.

 

 

In my experience, the use of a higher full move is pretty rare, so I think -1/4 is reasonable, esp[ecvially when a further -1/4 is already being received for the inability to further enhance speed in non-combat movement.

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

A few odds and ends:

 

Yes, as immagined the character could not make 2 half moves (Seriously people, I may be a munchkin but even I have some standards)

 

Dark Champions labels it at -1, this might be high, but see below

 

The NCM is a minor limitation, probably worth a -0 in this instance the more I think about it (Should still be noted however)

 

Remember that the purpose of running is not JUST FOR COMBAT, you got to factor in the difference of a character with this limitation and a character who has bought 12" of running strait. Saying this ability will only be used in combat is obvious, so what lim would you give "only in combat"? I would guess -1/2. So this lim should be more...

 

My gut right now is saying -3/4 including the NCM...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Dark Champions labels it at -1' date=' this might be high, but see below[/quote']

 

So if I add +6" running, or +12" running, only for half moves, should they cost the same? Assuming I had 6" running to begin with, I get +6" running = 12", but only for half moves. I can always move 9". +6" running gives me a 12" full move or a 6" half move. I don't think these are equitably prices.

 

Boost it up to +54" running, half moves only, and I could instead buy +27" of Running for the same price. Half moves of 30" at will, or a half move of 17" or full move of 33". I think the limitation is overvalued at -1.

 

However, I also think this reflects an underlying issue - I'm limiting the wrong thing. This doesn't just limit my +x" running, but also my basic 6" of Running.

 

So maybe the better approach is +6" of Running, no NCM and only if movement for the phase is restricted to a half move for 12/1.5 = 8, but I should also get to subtract 4 points for "selling back" the NCM and ability to make a full move with my regular 6" running. So this ability only costs, net, 4 points. [2 lkess than a -1 on the +6" running at -1]

 

But if I want +54", I pay 108/1.5 = 72 and save the same four points on my base running, for a net cost of 68 points, rather than 54 points if I used a -1 limitation on just the added running.

 

I suppose a case could be made for the total limit being -1/4, but then why not just take "no NCM" and have the freedom to make a full move as desired?

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Why you can't have no NCM as a seperate limitation

 

(I'm making the assumption here that you'll always want to double your 'base' move)

 

1. You have 6" movement

 

2. You buy 6" movement ONLY FOR HALF MOVES

 

3. You can't take two half moves and use the second 6"

 

4. Therefore your total move per phase with or without is 6"

 

5. You already have NCM on the unlimited 6", it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the limited 6" whether or not you have no NCM as you never make NCM half moves anyway.

 

6. No difference in utility = no limitation

 

7. You could get away with including this in the general 'not out of combat' limitation - probably not worth even -1/4 of itself, but additional justification for the limitation.

 

OK, so what is 'ONLY IN COMBAT' worth? Depends: how much are you going to be using it out of combat?

 

If you have to get everywhere under your own steam, using your own movement and can not regularly rely on a vehicle or teammate for transport, it is going to limit you, so -1/2 is probably about right, if you include the no NCM. I would not let it be more.

 

If, OTOH, you have alternative transport, another mode of movement or whatever, then there are going to be very few instances where you are going to actually NEED or even use that full 12" of movement outside a combat situation. If that is the case, then I'd be inclined to limit it to -1/4.

 

Whoever suggested it should be -1 in DC obviously had taken the head staggers.

 

The problem with my approach is that it bases the limit on the character IN THAT campaign: in some instances it would be -1/2, and in some -1/4. For the sake of consistency, I'd plump for -1/2 and have done: even if you are looking at +15" of movement it only makes 5 points of difference if it is -1 or -1/2, and only 4 points between -1/2 and -1/4. Not worth really worrying too much about

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

more or less what Sean said, minus the head staggers comment.

 

Though I've figure out what bugs me about this construct beyond the price (which, like a few others, was my primary complaint), and simultaneously that it does not apply to any of my campaigns anyway, so after this post, I will properly remove myself from this conversation.

 

What I did not like about the construct (other than the double-value of the Limitations) was that at first glance it seemed like a cheasy way to get around not being able to attack with a full move. And essentially, it is.

 

What I do like about the construct:

It is probably the only way under the current rules to simulate a character that is so well-trained and combat skilled that he _can_ run flat-out and attack without penalty. While this has potential to be abusive, if managed well enough (perhaps require an END bump to simulate the strain of the concentration or something; I don't know) it can lead to some of the super-ninja or super-soldier characters seen in movies (and probably comics). When looked at that way, it seems less munchinkiny.

 

Why I can't use it:

 

I allow characters to attempt to attack while full-moving. I put them at CV 0, and allow them to apply appropriate CSLs to counter the penalty. As we already have a way to handle this situation, and are completely happy with it, I withdraw my participation in this discussion.

 

Thanks for the banter, though!

 

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

We understand the purpose of this ability. But it's essential to look at the reason that the 1/2 Move & Attack restriction is there in the first place. The idea, as I understand it, anyway, is that the character has X amount of time-- in HERO combat, one Phase, in which to whatever it is he wishes to do. It is this time limit that he is up against each Phase.

 

This power does _not_ let him move just as quickly when he is attacking; it let's him move _twice_ as fast when he is attacking. That is to say that when he decides to Attack, he can cover the same distance in _half_ the time it takes him to cover it when he is not attacking.

 

Now let me be clear here:

I don't have an issue with that. What I _do_ have issues with are the -1/2 "Limitation" on this construct, and the actual purpose of the construct. As I stated above, if the character has a valid reason for this, I might allow something similar, but I doubt very much that this is the way that I would choose to model it.

 

As for the -1/2 total restrictions on this power, 'No NCM' is -1/4, at least to our group. The "only to figure half-moves" is pure rhetoric and essentially a 'gimme,' as the player, in a fit of inspiration, simply makes a 1/2 move in the first half of his phase, and another in the next. This results, of course, in getting full combat benefit of a power that has been 'Limited' away from exactly that.

 

yes, GM final say so, etc. But even with that being said, there must surely be other ways to acheive the same results.

 

As far as getting around the 1/2 move and attack restrictions, it does that rather well. So well that for the cost, the character is essentially simply buying : 1/2 Phase, 'only for movement', and buying it pretty cheaply, I would think.

 

For me personally, if the character wanted to buy the Running, fine. If he wanted to buy his SPD up, fine. If he wanted to sell back his NCM, fine. But that 'only for 1/2 moves'--- not so happy with it. Frankly, I _might_ be talked into allowing it, but it would be a -0 Limitation, as it simply does not limit. And we all know the 'cardinal rule' of Limitations, right?

 

I can't -- and won't claim to be able to-- speak for anyone else, but that's my gripe with it as presented.

 

As I said in this post and the last, a character with a very good justification for something similar, I might allow, but I'm going to exhaust every other way to model it first.

I agree completely. The whole point behind this, "Limitation," is to allow the character to make really really efficient FMove Maneuvers and execute maneuvers that are not FMove Maneuvers as if they were. If they want to do the former, CSLs are there, right at their disposal. If they want to do the latter, build a new maneuver. The reason Martial Maneuvers are so cheap IMO is that they limit what you can do; they define a new maneuver rather than simply adding to any existing ones.

 

The extra movement with, Only for Half Moves, "Limitation," is thus a totally extreme version of metagaming and breaks a metarule very heavily in my mind. I don't allow it at all. There. Easy.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

What I do like about the construct:

It is probably the only way under the current rules to simulate a character that is so well-trained and combat skilled that he _can_ run flat-out and attack without penalty. While this has potential to be abusive, if managed well enough (perhaps require an END bump to simulate the strain of the concentration or something; I don't know) it can lead to some of the super-ninja or super-soldier characters seen in movies (and probably comics). When looked at that way, it seems less munchinkiny.

I call this CSLs with FMove maneuvers. Easy.

 

Why I can't use it:

 

I allow characters to attempt to attack while full-moving. I put them at CV 0, and allow them to apply appropriate CSLs to counter the penalty. As we already have a way to handle this situation, and are completely happy with it, I withdraw my participation in this discussion.

0 OCV? Ouch! Why not just use Move By? Ranged attacks can be used with Move By, by the way (this was answered quite clearly in a FAQ or Rules Board question). That means basically -2 OCV, -2 DCV (and possibly half the Str to meet Str Mins if you use this part--I don't). You could make a character who is really good at attacking while moving using 4 CSLs with Move By and some PSLs or extra Str (Only to Meet Str Mins).

 

EDIT: You can even perform the equivalent to Rapid Fire or Sweep because Move Bys allow for multiple attacks (though CSLs the character has with Rapid Fire or Sweep wouldn't work unless they also include the Move By maneuver).

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I call this CSLs with FMove maneuvers. Easy.

 

I do, too. Great minds and all that? No? hmmmm.....

 

 

0 OCV? Ouch! Why not just use Move By? Ranged attacks can be used with Move By' date=' by the way (this was answered quite clearly in a FAQ or Rules Board question). [/quote']

 

Because that's 5E, and one of the combat-monger rules that I strongly disagree with, and therefore don't use. If you are making a full-move to one point, and attacking someone who is at a different point, then do either of them, you'd best be paying really close attention to both. At full-move, I feel that should not be the same as Move-by, or Move-through, which are both full-moving toward the target, period. One goal, one center of attention, one focus. Trying to put your full attention in two places while giving your max exertion (full-move and targetting) to two things at once is harder than trying to run into someone. 0 CV represents that better for me.

 

The CSLs, as you agree above, make a better representation of having enough skill and talent to disregard the rules that 'mere mortals' have to adhere to.

 

As far as I interpret it (and YMMV, etc), the whole reason that half-moves exist is because moving and shooting is really, really hard.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I'd call additional movement, only to add to Half Move a total of -1 limitation.

 

Why?

 

Because No Non Combat Move is -1/2 (or at least, it used to be. Has it changed in 5th Revised?) and Only to make a Half move should be around -1/2.

 

Only to make a half move: This limitation cuts the effectiveness of your power exactly in half. In effect, you are only getting to use +3" of your +6" of movement that you purchased.

 

No Non Combat Movement: This is required, because if this limitation is not present, you would be allowed to make 1/2 moves at Non-combat speeds and still attack (at 0 OCV, sure, but you can still do it!) and thats not the purpose of the power...the power is to allow you to use your full movement during combat without sacrificing combat ability (i.e. OCV) thus it requires the No Non Combat Movement limitation to remove the noncombat functionality from the build.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

At full-move' date=' I feel that should not be the same as Move-by, or Move-through, which are both full-moving toward the target, period. One goal, one center of attention, one focus.[/quote']

Hmm. Going to have to disagree with you a bit there. There's nothing in Move By to say you have to move toward your opponent. In fact, one of the most common ways I've seen it used is by someone who wishes to attack and then continue to run like crazy! It is the knight's attack with a lance, or the dragon's swoop; an attack that keeps the attacker out of reach. It is the one way you can really move after you attack, and does offer some drawbacks (OCV, DCV, Str for weapons) to compensate.