Restrainable

[Gary]

Restrainable is a -1/2 Limitation on a Power because enemies can Grab or Entangle you to prevent you from using the Power. Sounds fair enough.

 

However, does it make sense that Birdman takes Restrainable on his Flight due to wings, but Ground Slogger doesn't on his Running or Leap even though his legs can be Grabbed or Entangled in the exact same manner as Birdman's wings?

 

Why is it that Powers based on wings or tails usually get Restrainable in most writeups, while arms and legs don't?

[Warp9]

Re: Restrainable

 

Restrainable is a -1/2 Limitation on a Power because enemies can Grab or Entangle you to prevent you from using the Power. Sounds fair enough.

 

However, does it make sense that Birdman takes Restrainable on his Flight due to wings, but Ground Slogger doesn't on his Running or Leap even though his legs can be Grabbed or Entangled in the exact same manner as Birdman's wings?

 

Why is it that Powers based on wings or tails usually get Restrainable in most writeups, while arms and legs don't?

That is obviously a problem with the Running and Jumping characters.

 

It is a sign that not eough attention is being paid to the details of the rules.

 

You need to take the proper limitations people!

[MitchellS]

Re: Restrainable

 

I think the difference is that you might still be able to run when entangled, or possibly roll around or hop, to get some movement; and if your arms are entangled you might still be able to kick or headbutt someone for damage. A lot of that is going to depend on the special effects of the entangle.

 

There's also the fact that you probably won't plummet 100 feet if someone entangles your legs.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Restrainable

 

There is no reason Restrainable shouldn't be applied to Running or Leaping, although as MitchellS mentioned you might be abble to hop or achieve otherwise limiited movement even with restrained feet. My PC Zl'f has exactly that on her super-Running and -Leaping; although not on her base Running or Leaping from her STR 15. But the main thing, as MitchellS pointed oot, is that 100' drop when the wings get entangled. Aircraft are carefuly preflighted; cars are not, because if a car has engine failure it just coasts to a stop. So eventually will a plane, but the stop is a doozy.

 

We have already agreed that in our Dark Champions game if the PC Raptor (with Restrainable on his wings) takes a hit on those wings from an attack he's going to lose all or part of his Flight depending on the sfx of the attack. He might retain limited Gliding, just as we'd probably allow hopping with strictly Restrained feet but would also reduce Running from a hit to the legs. Special effects have some influence here.

[Rapier]

Re: Restrainable

 

When I first saw restrainable I thought the same thing. However, a dear friend had a thought that explained things to me.

 

Running is a generic term for ground based movement. Even if entangled, grabbed etc it is very possible to continue with some kind of ground based movement...even if nothing more than a log roll!

 

However, when your wings are restrained you can no longer move in any direction (except straight down).

 

Restrainable is an all or nothing lim. Either you are unrestrained and can use the power or you are restrained and cannot. Because of this, it doesn't necessarily work well with Running. You can run, crawl, roll or squirm!

[Gary]

Re: Restrainable

 

It sounds like most people could sell back all but 1" of Running and Leap, and sell back all Swimming. Then buy back the Running, Leap, and Swimming with the Restrainable Limitation.

[stan da ork]

Re: Restrainable

 

Restrainable is one of those Limitations that just never quite feels right. According to the rules, for example, an Energy Blast can come from anywhere, but that must be defined when you buy the Power. If I define my EB as coming from my hands, should I get to take Restrainable? After all, if I get Grabbed and my hand is held behind my back, I can't effectively fire my EB where I want. However, I think most GMs would raise an eyebrow to this. On the flip side, if I don't take Restrainable, does that mean I can fire my EB without restriction when Grabbed, even though that makes no sense? Now what if that EB is defined as a throwing weapon? Now is Restrainable kosher, since I have to be able to wind up and throw? Maybe it's okay now, maybe not. Personally, I think Restrainable should generally be avoided, and what it's trying to simulate is usually better handled through the interaction of SFX.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable

 

While I mostly agree.. Restrainable prevents the power from being used.

 

You can still use an EB defined as Hand Beams when restrained, but you may not be able to aim them at all...

 

Perhaps there needs to be a -1/4 version of Restrainable to properly simulate powers that can have their effect lessened but not removed by being restrained.

[SSJ Archon]

Re: Restrainable

 

My real question is where gestures comes into all this. Say I'm similar to Megaman and I have a cannon on my arm. If this is neither restrainable or gestures then I should always be able to use it right? Wrong.

 

There are two scenarios where this won't happen.

1) I'm not concious or don't have the END/STUN, Charges or what not.

The second is a bit more complicated. If someone makes an INT based Entangle with a Linked Darkness, (Say a Maze Spell, which Now I want to write up like that.) Then there are some things that you can't do while affected. So I conclude that Restrainable and Gestures indicate that the power can be stopped by manuevers, where Entangle works regardless of Restrainable or not.

Does your base running have restrainable on it? No, but I would treat it as such, unless it was very specific as to why not (SFX). I try to remember that many things are implied but not mentioned in the rules. One of them is that the basic character is a human. So I can extrapoliate that you can restain there running, and that its not mentioned for simplicities sake.

Man, Its been too long since I have posted. Must Stop Lurking!

[OddHat]

Re: Restrainable

 

By default, Entangle stops all movement powers save Teleportation. However, the SFX of the entangle may allow some modes of movement to continue. This is one of those times when the small advantages and limits that go with SFX become large enough that you really should stat them out. Say -0 for an Entangle that stops all movement, -1/4 for an entangle that still allows limited movement (tied arms and leg but the target can still crawl), -1/2 for arms or legs only, -1 for One Limb Only (classic arrow through the shirt to stop someone from aiming their weapon).

 

I wouldn't allow a player to sell back his base movement and then buy it again with restrainable. In this case, it falls under the "A limit that's not a limit is worth nothing" rule. If your running would never be useable when restrained by an appropriate Grab or Entangle, that's part of the mechanic of Grabs and Entangles. Adding "Restrainable" doesn't limit your power any more in play, and so is worth nothing.

 

I might allow it to apply to additional running or swimming the character purchased, but only if Entangles, Grabs or injuries that wouldn't normally stop the use of those modes of movement now did. I might use a -1/4 version of Restrainable as well.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable

 

To re-iterate what others (mosty notably OddHat) have said, restrainable means that you can not use a power if a part of your body is grabbed, entangled or restrained.

 

To be worth points it assumes that grabbing, entangling or restraining does not have that effect anyway. Flight, indeed all movement powers other than teleport, are stopped by entangles and (if I remmeber the FAQ correctly, and it has not changed) grabs too. Never really did understand that, but never mind.

 

Ergo, you should never get to apply the restrainable limitation to movement powers. I'd be more inclined, with wings, to have a generic -1/2: requires flapping to hover, requires space to use and suchlike.

 

I would need an awful lot of convincing to allow restrainable to be used for other movement powers: that seems to me to be pretty much taken in by the game system anyway: if you grab and are strong enough to hold them, you can restrain them, if you entangle them, they can't move - that is what grab and entangle do.

 

I can imagine, for instance, a character with restraineable claws - if his wrists are held and squeezed, he can't pop them, so a grab or even a pair of handcuffs would stop him using the attack, including on the grab or entangle: that is worth points.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable

 

It always felt that, to me at least, wings should have Physical Manifestation rather than Restrainable.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Restrainable

 

When it comes to a power defined as coming from a specific body part as SFX, rather than taking the Restrainable Limitation, I've been ruling that any in-combat attempt to stop the Power has to be targetted at that body part, with the appropriate Hit Location penalties, or it may not be effective. For example, for a character who shoots Energy Blasts with his hands who is Grabbed and has his arms immobilized, he may still be able to twist his arm around to point his hand at a target, even the one Grabbing him. To render him incapable of blasting anyone effectively, the attacker would have to specifically Grab his hands, at a further -6 OCV penalty.

 

OTOH a Power bought with Restrainable can be immobilized by any general Grab or Entangle which hits the target.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Restrainable

 

To re-iterate what others (mosty notably OddHat) have said, restrainable means that you can not use a power if a part of your body is grabbed, entangled or restrained.

 

To be worth points it assumes that grabbing, entangling or restraining does not have that effect anyway. Flight, indeed all movement powers other than teleport, are stopped by entangles and (if I remmeber the FAQ correctly, and it has not changed) grabs too. Never really did understand that, but never mind.

 

Ergo, you should never get to apply the restrainable limitation to movement powers. I'd be more inclined, with wings, to have a generic -1/2: requires flapping to hover, requires space to use and suchlike.

 

I would need an awful lot of convincing to allow restrainable to be used for other movement powers: that seems to me to be pretty much taken in by the game system anyway: if you grab and are strong enough to hold them, you can restrain them, if you entangle them, they can't move - that is what grab and entangle do.

 

I can imagine, for instance, a character with restraineable claws - if his wrists are held and squeezed, he can't pop them, so a grab or even a pair of handcuffs would stop him using the attack, including on the grab or entangle: that is worth points.

 

That's a very reasonable position.

 

For my part I've tried to be more flexible in whether or not I allow Movement to be stopped by a Grab or Entangle. After all, how many times have we seen the scenario in comics where a character is unshakeably held by an opponent, but then takes off in flight to attempt to shake him off? Or a strong man continuing to drag himself forward while someone clings to him trying to hold him back?

 

I'm willing to give the SFX of the situation more leeway in those situations.

[Mentor]

Re: Restrainable

 

It sounds like most people could sell back all but 1" of Running and Leap' date=' and sell back all Swimming. Then buy back the Running, Leap, and Swimming with the Restrainable Limitation.[/quote']

Not in our campaign.

 

In a "by the numbers" scenario in which the movement abilities are bought back with the -1/2 limitation as you suggested, the PC would suffer extremity restraint one third of the time because they took the point break. The default character would only have that restraint applied on the rare SFX applicable occasion.

 

I would not allow any PC to buy their running and swimming in such away unless there was a strongly overriding SFX justification.

 

More importantly, I have observed that "envy constructs" based on the approach that somebody else is getting "too good a deal" on their character construct is a far, far less sucessful and enjoyable method of playing Hero characters than role playing the PC, warts, inefficiecies and all.

[OddHat]

Re: Restrainable

 

That's a very reasonable position.

 

For my part I've tried to be more flexible in whether or not I allow Movement to be stopped by a Grab or Entangle. After all, how many times have we seen the scenario in comics where a character is unshakeably held by an opponent, but then takes off in flight to attempt to shake him off? Or a strong man continuing to drag himself forward while someone clings to him trying to hold him back?

I'm willing to give the SFX of the situation more leeway in those situations.

 

Which is exactly in accordance with the rules for Entangles and Grabs in 5thER.

[Gary]

Re: Restrainable

 

Not in our campaign.

 

In a "by the numbers" scenario in which the movement abilities are bought back with the -1/2 limitation as you suggested, the PC would suffer extremity restraint one third of the time because they took the point break. The default character would only have that restraint applied on the rare SFX applicable occasion.

 

I would not allow any PC to buy their running and swimming in such away unless there was a strongly overriding SFX justification.

 

More importantly, I have observed that "envy constructs" based on the approach that somebody else is getting "too good a deal" on their character construct is a far, far less sucessful and enjoyable method of playing Hero characters than role playing the PC, warts, inefficiecies and all.

 

 

Do your PCs who take restrainable on their powers normally suffer extremity restraint 1/3 of the time?

[OddHat]

Re: Restrainable

 

Do your PCs who take restrainable on their powers normally suffer extremity restraint 1/3 of the time?

 

If the character is a buxom heroine who fights crime while wearing a red, white and blue bikini?

 

Well...

[Gary]

Re: Restrainable

 

If the character is a buxom heroine who fights crime while wearing a red, white and blue bikini?

 

Well...

 

 

Especially in internet fan fiction...

 

Although that would be 90% of the time...

[Rapier]

Re: Restrainable

 

I'm willing to give the SFX of the situation more leeway in those situations.

 

SFX will always trump the ace of rules. If the entangle is defined as handcuffs, you sure can run! Leg Irons...now there's a problem. In fact, we recently had a characters get entangled in a green energy globe and he still ran around the field like a hamster in one of those lil plastic balls.

 

He is joking referred to as HamsterMan, now!

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Restrainable

 

SFX will always trump the ace of rules. If the entangle is defined as handcuffs, you sure can run! Leg Irons...now there's a problem. In fact, we recently had a characters get entangled in a green energy globe and he still ran around the field like a hamster in one of those lil plastic balls.

 

He is joking referred to as HamsterMan, now!

 

I'm going to be chuckling over that image all night.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable

 

That's a very reasonable position.

 

For my part I've tried to be more flexible in whether or not I allow Movement to be stopped by a Grab or Entangle. After all, how many times have we seen the scenario in comics where a character is unshakeably held by an opponent, but then takes off in flight to attempt to shake him off? Or a strong man continuing to drag himself forward while someone clings to him trying to hold him back?

 

I'm willing to give the SFX of the situation more leeway in those situations.

 

'Be more reasonable' might have been one of my new Year Resolutions....we shall see

 

My personal take is that someone with flight who is entangled whilst in the air not near anything else can continue to fly (possibly blindly) or hover so long as they can lift themselves and the entangle, assuming it is a sort of web type entangle. Similarly a grab on a flying character by a non-flying character should not prevent the flyer carrying them both aloft unless the non-flyer is anchored.

 

If it is a gravity field then it should probably cancel some or all of the flight out though, whilst the character is held (but I might let them use flight instead of strength to break out).

 

Mind you I am still not necessarily convinced that this should really be a pure sfx thing: you COULD buy the web entangle with the limitation 'does not prevent an already flying character from continuing to fly'. You could buy the gravity entangle with the limtiation 'may use AP in flight instead of STR to escape', each worth -1/4 to -1/2, depending on campaign.

 

Whilst I am not saying that you can eliminate sfx effects in game (or that you should try) I do believe that sfx effects should be minor - if they beceom enough to be worth even + or - 1/4 then they should be paid for. I'm also keen, when applying a sfx effect to find a compensating one - if in one situation the power is marginally less effective, in another it should be marginally more effective.

 

Relating this back to 'restrainable' I still think I would be very wary of applying it to movement powers. Maybe -MAYBE - if the character had wings for flight, but even then probably only at the -1/4 level. I mean, wings are potentially just sfx that balance out anyway - it is like (in many cases) getting two extra limbs that can be used for striking and maybe even a bit of reach (although by my own argument you should be buying that as powers). You might use them to provide a bit of portable cover. I'd probably allow that. The odd time your wings get entangled or grabbed would balance out then without the need for a lmitation at all.

[Mentor]

Re: Restrainable

 

Do your PCs who take restrainable on their powers normally suffer extremity restraint 1/3 of the time?

More commonly, they are compelled to take actions and make decisions based on the restrainability of their power rather than always have the power restrained. In some scenarios it occurs more than 1/3 of the time. In others not at all.

 

"You'll have to follow Slimelord down the manhole, because my wings just won't work in the sewers. I'll catch up as fast as I can run, partner."

 

I prefer to use limitations and disads much more for defining the character in role playing than punishing them for taking the points.

 

Edit: I'm not saying that is your intent, Gary. I am trying to get across my fundamental philosophy of RPGs which can be a bit looser on the letter of the rules or the mathematical equivelence than some players are comfortable with.

[Mentor]

Re: Restrainable

 

SFX will always trump the ace of rules. If the entangle is defined as handcuffs, you sure can run! Leg Irons...now there's a problem. In fact, we recently had a characters get entangled in a green energy globe and he still ran around the field like a hamster in one of those lil plastic balls.

 

He is joking referred to as HamsterMan, now!

Exactly. A fun and challenging game is the primary reason for the PCs to exist. Repped.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable

 

SFX will always trump the ace of rules. If the entangle is defined as handcuffs, you sure can run! Leg Irons...now there's a problem. In fact, we recently had a characters get entangled in a green energy globe and he still ran around the field like a hamster in one of those lil plastic balls.

 

He is joking referred to as HamsterMan, now!

 

Love the HamsterMan thing

 

Whilst I agree with your handcuff point in general, I would expect a player to take a limitation on entangle if all it is is a pair of handcuffs - only to attach two limbs together - rather than making a ruling based on sfx (in fact we have the 'set effect' limitation for that which makes the power a LOT cheaper and a MOT more limited)