I know I have seen this lim before

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I think this is an unsolvable debate.

 

Why?

 

Because your Points "C" and "D" would depend on several variable factors:

 

1) Depends on the player: Some players may build characters who move around a lot (me) some players may build characters who move around very little (JMOZ) and some players may fall in between the two.

 

2) Depends on the campaign: Some campaigns have lots of combat, where the power in question is only slightly limited. Some campaigns have much less combat, where its lack of non-combat applications make it more limited.

 

3) Depends on the GM: Some GM's go out of their way to provide challenges for the players where the advantages and limitations of their characters powers come into play, in which case, it would definately be more limited. Some GM's simply run their scenario without regard to the PC's specifics and in this case, the power would be less limited.

 

Lets just say in one of my campaigns, that would easily be worth a -1 Limitation.

 

 

Your points apply to most limitations. Some characters will be affected more than others by a lot of limitations. You can't just make every limitation apply only to that character in that campaign. Well you can, but there's no point discussing it if you are going to.

 

In the mythical 'average campaign' most PCs take quite a few half moves in combat. I am amazed that an archer doesn't need to make half moves in combat often: even if you can start at range any moderately intelligence opponent will use cover so you'll need to move, and it would be daft to close at a full run: where is the abort to dodge when they pop out ad clobber you?

 

I have to say, and this will have to remain something we agree to disagrree on, I can not believe that any character, actually presnt on the battlefield, could survive long without using half moves on a regular basis.

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

The sfx of the ability as initially described is that the character has a full move of 6"' date=' and can act as a combatant with no penalties while making it. The example character above has the same ability, but has an enhanced running speed which makes his full move 15". The boost just allows him to make a full move of running and still be able to take a second half phase action.[/quote']

 

It means that it makes no sense to just limit the additional running though, and what to do with NCMs becomes problematic: all of the running, including innate running, should be included, and a lower limitation applied.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

And considering that a character who wants to use his full movemet to attack merely need pay 5pts for a Martial Maneuver with the FMove element. I think -1 isn't too far out of sorts for a cost break. They'll get a big cost break either way!

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

And considering that a character who wants to use his full movemet to attack merely need pay 5pts for a Martial Maneuver with the FMove element. I think -1 isn't too far out of sorts for a cost break. They'll get a big cost break either way!

 

You ignore the fact that martial manourves require more than just a single FMove attack to be bought, and can only be used to attack. You may want to half move and aim, or dodge, or...well, whatever. The FMove allows a full move and attack, boosted halfmoves allow a lot more.

 

If buying a Fmove manourve fulfills all the requirements you have, buy it: don't limit your running speed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

It means that it makes no sense to just limit the additional running though' date=' and what to do with NCMs becomes problematic: all of the running, including innate running, should be included, and a lower limitation applied.[/quote']

 

Agree absolutely - sorry for misreading your comment.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

And considering that a character who wants to use his full movemet to attack merely need pay 5pts for a Martial Maneuver with the FMove element. I think -1 isn't too far out of sorts for a cost break. They'll get a big cost break either way!

 

He needs to pay 10 points to buy martial arts at all (minimum of

10 points in maneuvres). He also needs to purchase each weapon element, so Mr. "I can full move while attacking" can't do so with a weapon of opportunity unless he has luckily paid for that weapon element.

 

Besides, he's looking for the ability to do anything he could otherwise do in a half phase while making a full move. Maybe he has a Force Field which requires Extra Time - 1/2 phase top activate. Perhaps he wants to move 6", then use a skill which requires 1/2 phase (even at some "extra time" penalty).

 

ASIDE: It's funny that the two arguments for -1 are "the game isn't only about combat" and "it's similar to an ability that would only work in combat".

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

And FMove can not be used with ranged Martial Arts (The one manuver was something they erratad out)

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Your points apply to most limitations. Some characters will be affected more than others by a lot of limitations. You can't just make every limitation apply only to that character in that campaign. Well you can, but there's no point discussing it if you are going to.

 

In the mythical 'average campaign' most PCs take quite a few half moves in combat. I am amazed that an archer doesn't need to make half moves in combat often: even if you can start at range any moderately intelligence opponent will use cover so you'll need to move, and it would be daft to close at a full run: where is the abort to dodge when they pop out ad clobber you?

 

I have to say, and this will have to remain something we agree to disagrree on, I can not believe that any character, actually presnt on the battlefield, could survive long without using half moves on a regular basis.

 

Why I don't need alot of movement:

 

1) I find sniper nests when I can (not often, but ocasionaly works out for me)

2) My primary movement when I need to run is 20" Swinging, and Speed 6, faster than most of my opponents, allowing me a chance to do a full move and attack 2-3 times before a melee opponent gets to me

3) I work as part of a team, a team with multiple players, some of whom are scary.

 

i) Cerebus- three headed hell hounds with a 7d6+1 HKA AF-3 attack...they get close to me, there is not alot left

ii) Marvel Man- TK is a wonderful power to keep them away as well

iii) Minotaur- Stone Throwing Brick

iv) 3 other members, not as scary but still more than enough to back me up (Blaster, Speedster, Supermage)

 

4) Lots of Blinding & Binding

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

The last bit (with the +5†Running) was to Prestidigitator and Duke Bushido' date=' not you. They’re arguing it’s not worth anything. You’re arguing it’s worth –1. I think you’re all dangerous extremists. [/quote']

 

 

Just to clarify:

 

I can't speak for P, but I am _not_ arguing that it's not worth anything. I am arguing that it's not worth _both_ "only for half-moves" _and_ "No NCM," as 'Only for Half Moves' precludes 'No NCM' anyway.

 

That, and I commented that the construct-- the entire construct as a whole, is of no value to _me_, as I already have House Rules in place to deal with the sorts of situations that this construct was designed for.

 

Sorry if I blurred the two thoughts together.

 

And, if anything, I am a dangerous mediocracists, I promise!

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

okay---

 

just got back in town, and just finished refreshing the thread in my mind.

 

It's getting wiggy.

 

"But it would be limiting in _this_ situation, or _that_ one, or _his_ campaign---

 

whatever.

 

We can play Infinite Regression all night,

 

or we can try to figure out exactly what the purpose of the construct was. That is to say, follow the chain of reasoning from effect backwards from construct to intended simulation. It seems to me that this power is specifically designed to emulate an ability to continue fighting while full-moving. Pricing, I am not going to bother with, as this will obviously vary widely from group to group, but personally, I don't think it's a huge cost break, because it is not so much a limited power, but a new power, constructed with existing rules. I'd allow a limitation, but my big gripe so far has been that as presented, there is double-value on 'No NCM.'

 

Fine--- maybe someone has a campaign where windsprinters and joggers have all gone bad, so such a running construct would be limited in that game. But we need to go back to what the idea behind the power was: was it a crippled version genuine running, or was it to simulate something that really wasn't running at all?

 

With Infinite Regression, all things are possible. Back up far enough, and you end up with a scenario in which all villains fly, all the time. So, considering the obvious handicap, should characters be allowed to buy Running at -1? -10?

 

Infinite Regression is not valid; it is justification built on what-if.

 

What was this power originally supposed to represent? What was the concept that lead to the construct?

 

That's where the price should be determined.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

This simply makes you more mobile and accurate while being mobile' date=' thats all. Thats seems pretty limited to me. Then again, my games include scenes where we use movement and other abilities while not in combat, so that may be the difference in our perspectives.[/quote']

(My emphasis)

 

...which again sounds like CSLs with FMove maneuvers and/or Movement Skill Levels. There's no reason you can't use FMove maneuvers, "out of combat," as we are calling it. Make your Grab By to catch the falling NPC before she hits the ground! Make your Move By to cut the ropes holding the draw bridge on your way out! So why again are we breaking a metarule by trying to build something outside the normal avenue for the same thing in the system?

[ghost-angel]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Here's how I look at it:

You want to move as fast In Combat as you do Out Of Combat, ignoring NCM for the moment. So OOC you move 6" and IC you move 6" and still get your normal Attack Actions (shoot, stabby, eyebeam, whatever). To do this you have to buy up your Running so a Half Move = Full Move. Thus you buy more Running +6" to get another 3" of Half Move: 6" Running + 6"Running for Half Moves Only = 12" Running/2 for 6" Half Move. If you decide IC to make a FM you can only move 6" (The second 6" only counts towards Half Moves) - you have limited it somewhat now.

 

Factor in NCM, a normal x2. So now your OOC Move is 12", Full Move is 6", Half Move is 3". You want another 3" Half Move as defined above so you build a +6" Only For Half Moves and No NCM so you get 12" NCM, 6" Full Move, 6" Half Move. If you bought the 6" Normally you would get 24" NCM, 12" Full Move, 6" Half Move.

 

Looks like that Extra 6" Is fairly limiting when all added up, you 'lose' 12" of NCM, you 'lose' 6" of Full Move and you 'gain' 3" of Half Move.

 

I'd call that a -3/4 at the least, -1 may be about right.

 

Assuming anyone in your game ever takes Full Moves or travels NCM. In Supers Games where people are more likely to have alternate Movement Powers it may be a -3/4, definately a -1 for those without it. In Heroic Games where alternate Movement powers are rare to nonexistent under most conditions it is definitely worth a -1 IMO.

 

YMMV.

[Silbeg]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

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?

 

Actually, I would disagree with this...

 

Since you can make a 1/2 move at NCM (since you can make an attack at NCM), this would also give you a faster NCM 1/2 move. So, I would have no problem with it being a -1/4 limitation... since it does only limit what it can do to doubling 1/2 moves.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Since you can make a 1/2 move at NCM (since you can make an attack at NCM)

 

just for my own clarification:

 

you can have combat at non-combat speeds?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Re--

 

all the stuff that G-A just put up.

 

There is not going to be any resolution to this. Honesty, a group of outsiders taking someone else's character and trying to deconstruct it without the creator will all run into the problem of infinite regression. Regardless of construct, I promise you that you can find justification to give every possible limitation a -5 if you're willing to step far enough 'outside.'

 

But without knowing what the intent of the construct was--- what specific ability and limitations it was intended to represent, we're just practicing.

 

The majority of the people on this thread see it as a very crippled version of Running, which is fine. I have no way of knowing that it's not representative of a track star that now walks on a cane, or any other such thing.

 

Personally, I think it is a cobble to represent a currently unmade new talent, power, or somesuch thing and that it simply represents the ability to make a full move with no 'can't attack' penalty. As such, I don't think that the character is really 'limited' at all, since he is being 'denied' only things that he doesn't want anyway. Sure, I'd allow some cost break (if I allowed the ability as written) simply because it doesn't make sense to charge him full price if he doesn't want / need full use, etc.

 

But as I understand the power, I am not going to allow both 'No NCM' and 'Only for half moves,' it's just not happening. Not with what I feel the construct represents.

 

The argument can be made ad nauseum that the construct represents something else entirely-- and it may well do just that, and it can be made ad nauseum that it represents what I think it does, and it could be bantered about for months that it represents four as-yet-unannounced concepts. And each and every one of these positions would be right.

 

This isn't even a 'PC' thing; it's a simple fact. Without knowing what the intention was, there is really no way to accurately asses what does or does not work any more than there is a way to asses what the right 'value' for the limitations are.

 

In previous editions of the system, simply adding a new ability of some sort would have easily solved this. Really, it would in 5E as well, but 5E does seem to go out of its way with cobbled and hammered constructs to avoid creating anything new. It's in its infancy still, so it's understandable that there would be extra effort taken to show the utility of the system.

 

Now getting back to my other problem with the construct (I'm done discussing price, as it's obvious that there are at least two completely different interpretations of what the construct actually is, and without the creator here to chip in some details, I happily accept that there is a logical impass), this construct allows the character to make what is undeniably a full move for him in any direction without penalty to his CV. Any direction, of course, except straight towards, in which case the move by / through limitations come into play. So the character can run full tilt away and fire over his shoulder at no penalty, but takes a hit to shoot what he is running toward. Odd, to say the least.

 

Thoughts?

[ghost-angel]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

just for my own clarification:

 

you can have combat at non-combat speeds?

You can make a Non-Combat Move in the middle of Combat.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

You can make a Non-Combat Move in the middle of Combat.

You just had to have moved the last Phase and stayed at full Combat Velocity, unless you have acceleration Advantages on your movement. Since velocity has nothing to do with the actual distance you move on the board, though ( ), you can do things like Half Move at Non-Combat Velocity in order to attack (you'll just be at 0 OCV and 1/2 DCV--or at a DCV calculated from your speed if you are moving quickly and the GM is feeling generous).

 

EDIT:

 

Of course, since IIRC multipliers to even OCV apply before reducing to zero, the only penalties to making a Move By or Move Through, for example, will be additional ones to DCV, so it is arguably worth it to just perform one of those maneuvers in many cases anyway.

 

Acceleration on normal Running? Yes. Even though you can turn on a dime and go in the opposite direction immediately, there is are still acceleration restrictions on normal Running. :sigh:

[ghost-angel]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

But as I understand the power' date=' I am not going to allow both 'No NCM' and 'Only for half moves,' it's just not happening. Not with what I feel the construct represents.[/quote']

I'm pulling this point out as it may help to illustrte something.

 

There are two basic types of momvent: Combat and Non-Combat. Remvoing Non-Combat Movement will signifigantly slow a character down outside of combat (by half the Base Standard). Everyone seems to agree this is fairly limiting.

 

Of Combat Movement there are also two types: Full Move and Half Move. Removing the ability for one to perform a Full Move with some or the movement is also limiting, basically you can only use 1/2 of what you payed for In Combat. I would say this warrents a slightly higher Limitation that not just being able to use it Non-Combat. At least with just No NCM you get exactly what you paid for, no multiplier to double it.

 

In the end if you're only using Movement for Half Moves without anything else factored in you are limiting yourself to a mere 1/4 of it's full potential. I believe that comes to a -1 Limitation? perhaps a -3/4 if you use the Limited Power Table.

 

As Duke pointed out, what we do in our games is up to us.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

I'm pulling this point out as it may help to illustrte something.

 

There are two basic types of momvent: Combat and Non-Combat. Remvoing Non-Combat Movement will signifigantly slow a character down outside of combat (by half the Base Standard). Everyone seems to agree this is fairly limiting.

 

Of Combat Movement there are also two types: Full Move and Half Move. Removing the ability for one to perform a Full Move with some or the movement is also limiting, basically you can only use 1/2 of what you payed for In Combat. I would say this warrents a slightly higher Limitation that not just being able to use it Non-Combat. At least with just No NCM you get exactly what you paid for, no multiplier to double it.

 

In the end if you're only using Movement for Half Moves without anything else factored in you are limiting yourself to a mere 1/4 of it's full potential. I believe that comes to a -1 Limitation? perhaps a -3/4 if you use the Limited Power Table.

 

As Duke pointed out, what we do in our games is up to us.

I'm still fully against the construct to begin with, but for purposes of determining a suitable Limitation, I think this argument is also a little flawed logically. You assume that all uses have equal weight. It is like saying, "If it happens when 2-6 is rolled on 1d6, it is worth half the value because there are two possibilities: it happens or it does not happen." Bunk.

[Silbeg]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

just for my own clarification:

 

you can have combat at non-combat speeds?

 

Absolutely. In fact, air combat usually will take place at non-com speeds.

 

I don't have 5ER right in front of me, else I would quote the rule on this...

 

Now, according to Dark Champions, the limitation is

 

"Only to Make Half-Moves In Combat, -1"

 

Which I would take to mean only applies to non-combat movement. This is also limited to an amount of movement equal to the character's running (or other movement), as it is meant to allow the character a full move in a 1/2 phase.

 

So with the full -1, I would agree with the fact that this doesn't affect non-combat velocity.

 

However, I would probably grant -1/4 to -1/2 if it will allow non-combat velocity (would have to think more about it)

[ghost-angel]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

One last thing occured to me..

 

At a -1 Limitation you pay 6 pts for 6" of movement which gets you 3" of Half Movement Running... putting you back at 2pts/1" of Movement. It just happens to be a reapplied form of Running.

 

Half Move Running

Movement Power

2pts/1"

With this form of Running a character may only increase their Running when making a Half Move. A character may only double their Half Movement Rate with this power. If a character has 6" of Movement their Normal Half Move is 3", they may only purchase another 3" of Half Move Running for a total Half Move of 6". Half Move Running only applies when the character is making a Half Move in Combat.

 

2pts per 1" for up to double their Base Half Move.

[Silbeg]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

One last thing occured to me..

 

At a -1 Limitation you pay 6 pts for 6" of movement which gets you 3" of Half Movement Running... putting you back at 2pts/1" of Movement. It just happens to be a reapplied form of Running.

 

Half Move Running

Movement Power

2pts/1"

With this form of Running a character may only increase their Running when making a Half Move. A character may only double their Half Movement Rate with this power. If a character has 6" of Movement their Normal Half Move is 3", they may only purchase another 3" of Half Move Running for a total Half Move of 6". Half Move Running only applies when the character is making a Half Move in Combat.

 

2pts per 1" for up to double their Base Half Move.

 

Not quite...

The since this is a limitation, it does affect the costs of other limitations.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Not quite...

The since this is a limitation, it does affect the costs of other limitations.

Should add .. no other factors withstanding. i.e. This is the only thing you're doing with this Running.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

One last thing occured to me..

 

At a -1 Limitation you pay 6 pts for 6" of movement which gets you 3" of Half Movement Running... putting you back at 2pts/1" of Movement. It just happens to be a reapplied form of Running.

 

Half Move Running

Movement Power

2pts/1"

With this form of Running a character may only increase their Running when making a Half Move. A character may only double their Half Movement Rate with this power. If a character has 6" of Movement their Normal Half Move is 3", they may only purchase another 3" of Half Move Running for a total Half Move of 6". Half Move Running only applies when the character is making a Half Move in Combat.

 

2pts per 1" for up to double their Base Half Move.

Have you considered that this actually does increase the characters Velocity? In Hero, Velocity is independent of the actual distance you move. If I have 10" of Running, my maximum per-Phase Velocity is 10", but I may move at this Velocity and make a Half-Move, traveling 5" or even less while still having a, "Velocity," of 10" per Phase.

 

So for your example, while the extra limited Running doesn't allow the character to move any farther than they normally could, it does allow them to move faster, and accelerate faster (per-Phase) as well. So the character with normal Running of 6" and extra +6" with the proposed Only to Make Half Moves Limitation can only move 6" (ignoring Non-Combat Movement for the moment) whether making a Full Move or a Half-Move, but when making a Full Move the character's Velocity may only be 6", whereas when making a Half-Move the character's Velocity may be as great as 12". Therefore, if the character makes only a Half-Move in order to perform a Move By or Move Through, they will actually do more damage. They may also have a higher Velocity-Based DCV if that rule is used (not in this case, perhaps, but for speedsters certainly). Is this really the intent?

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Extra velocity damage is not the intent and should be included as part of the limitation. As per NCM, the more I think of it the more it is a -0 lim for this power (Worth noting but nothing else)