Ruling on this situation...

[CBikle]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Some systems actually spell out how much you can actually lift while flying (Chaosium's SuperWorld did it this way).

 

Personally, I like how Hero does it.

 

I think the whole "flier can't fly while grabbed" is partially a game-balance thing and partially to have it mesh with how TK str works.

 

How I (and others) have always run it, is that you can fly while grabbed if your strength (and any extra str from using unused movement as str) exceeds the grabber's weight.

 

I still don't get how this happens every game (does the character have that dopey clinging damage shield power ?)

[DEFCON Clown]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

I have another theoretical question for you:

 

What is the weight of a PLONK?

 

Since this is a bulletin board owned by a company that publishes an RPG,

and one of the genres covered by that RPG is Superheroes,

and this is the area of that board designated for discussion of those rules,

what did you expect to find here, sushi recipes?

 

I don't mean to be offensive, but your comment is somewhere between ill-informed and downright trollish.

 

Do you go to NASCAR discussion boards and ask if they realize they are talking about a bunch of guys who just drive in a circle all day?

 

Of course they realize that. That is why they are on the NASCAR boards!

 

KA.

I actually I believe they are at a NASCAR forum because they want to talk about NASCAR with other fans. I don't think you'll find any NASCAR forum with a board called "Left Turns Are Cool!".

 

My original comment was not supposed to be offensive, or trollish. Honestly I'm surprised it got any response at all. It was merely an observation. One that I felt, as a nerd myself, needed to be made. I still find it incredibly funny that so many people are worried about real world physics, in what is supposed to be a comic book rpg. The two just don't mesh very well.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Okay. Let's say a character has Growth (or Density Increase) and extra Strength of equal amounts as slots in a Multipower. He turns on all the Growth (or DI) and uses his Flight to take off. Now, I suspect most everyone is going to agree that he can still fly. So now, in mid-flight, the character reallocates all of the points from Growth (or DI) to Strength, but picks up a ton of bricks to make up the difference in weight. Should he still be able to fly, or should the Flight become less strong because the character is less massive? Just something to think on.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

If I were GMing, I don't think there are many versions of Flight even without Gestures, Focus, or Restrainable that I would allow to function if the grabbed character were being twisted into an upside down, inside out pretzel by the grabber.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

I still find it incredibly funny that so many people are worried about real world physics' date=' in what is supposed to be a comic book rpg. The two just don't mesh very well.[/quote']

It is pretty funny, but that's okay. I'm not horribly worried about it, either, though I like to have logical arguments over this kind of thing, and it could wind up being useful for more realistic games (and there's where I have to disagree with you: Hero is not supposed to just be a comic book RPG--especially these days).

[tesuji]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Okay. Let's say a character has Growth (or Density Increase) and extra Strength of equal amounts as slots in a Multipower. He turns on all the Growth (or DI) and uses his Flight to take off. Now' date=' I suspect most everyone is going to agree that he can still fly. So now, in mid-flight, the character reallocates all of the points from Growth (or DI) to Strength, but picks up a ton of bricks to make up the difference in weight. Should he still be able to fly, or should the Flight become less strong because the character is less massive? Just something to think on. [/quote']

 

Did the bricks grab him or did he grab the bricks?

 

Apparently that matters!?!

 

 

I mean if I get this right, this has been argued into the following...

 

Teenager on roof of burning building about to collapse.

 

if i fly down and grab him as a grab-by, i pick him and and we move away all in one fell swoop.

 

If i fly down past him and he grabs onto me, assuming i don't break the grapple, then we stop right there and don't move and, maybe not sure, we cannot move until I break his grab and do one of my own.

 

do i have this right now?

 

Side issue: are murphy's rules still taking submissions?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

if i fly down and grab him as a grab-by, i pick him and and we move away all in one fell swoop.

 

If i fly down past him and he grabs onto me, assuming i don't break the grapple, then we stop right there and don't move and, maybe not sure, we cannot move until I break his grab and do one of my own.

 

do i have this right now?

Eh? I would assume that just because you--as the grabber--might be able to keep a grabbed character from moving doesn't mean you have to keep a grabbed character from moving.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

I guess my computer got tired of the discussion, because it barfed in the middle of my long, line-by-line reply. I’m not really up to typing the whole thing again, so I’ll just make some general comments and leave it at that. Try to contain your disappointment.

 

You all make some good points. I’m still not convinced, but that could just be me. I think part of the reason we’re talking past each other is that I’m thinking about flying as an effect, not just Flight as a Power. As an effect, flying implies the ability to lift a certain amount of weight; at least the character’s weight, normally some amount more. This effect is normally built with the Power Flying, obviously. Unless you buy STR seperately for your flying -- pause for a question: how many of us normally (or ever?) do that? -- the rules assume that the lifting capacity of the flying effect is the same as the character’s physical strength. This still seems to me like a bad general assumption, even in superhero campaigns; more so in other genres. To work around it requires me to add limitations, or buy +/- STR:Only When Flying, or other cludgy fixes. Basing carrying capacity on AP in Flight seems not only more realistic, but simpler (at the very least, no more complex) and far more logical from a character creation standpoint.

 

For those of you who don’t care about realism in your games, fine: have a blast, knock yourselves out, no one is saying you can’t. Some of us prefer a little more realism in our games; no need to be condescending about it. Every campaign I’ve ever played in has violated at least one known Law of the Universe in order to make the game work (and make it fun). But the default (there’s that word again, sorry) is that the laws of physics, etc, apply until/unless we say they don’t. Sure, I’ve got FTL travel and humanoid aliens in my space opera game; but gravity still pulls down, heat still rises, and F still generally approximates MA. For superheroes, there tend to be a lot more “exceptions†– but the default is still something that approaches reality until/unless there’s a good reason for it not to.

 

Finally, I hate to keep harping on it, but the Hero System is not just Champions. If we really want people to get past the image of Hero as “just a superhero game†– as lamented in numerous threads - then we need to stop answering general rules questions with “It’s a comic book – it doesn’t have to make sense.â€

 

Thanks for the good discussion. Cheers,

[David Johnston]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

But this was not a general rules question but one about a specific situation. And while Hero may be used for things other than superhero gaming, most of those things do not have plain and simple Flight with no limitations like wings or being based on foci.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

But this was not a general rules question but one about a specific situation. And while Hero may be used for things other than superhero gaming' date=' most of those things do not have plain and simple Flight with no limitations like wings or being based on foci.[/quote']

 

good point!

 

How often do we see 'powers' like flight in a non-superhero genre that are bought without some type of limitations based on the chosen special effect?

 

I would hazard a guess and say not very many. In a non-supers game Flight would be a pretty amazing ability all by itself.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Villain has grabbed hero. Hero has Flight. Hero says they'll simply fly up until they(the villains) either let go...or hero turns around and rams them into the ground. Hero tries this tactic every game and it turns into a verbal fight that I have little patience for. Rules don't say much on this subject. My take..is...you're grabbed. You can't do squat until you "break free". What's the general consensus....anyone?

 

Rob

 

just wanted to give the original question that started the thread a little more airtime.

 

What if we changed the Hero in this example to a rocket (with a payload capacity strong enough to lift 100 tons into space) that the non-flying villain is strong enough to lift?

[tesuji]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Eh? I would assume that just because you--as the grabber--might be able to keep a grabbed character from moving doesn't mean you have to keep a grabbed character from moving.

 

 

and i assumed that the issue of grab and move was an issue of movement vs lifting power and encumbrance and the usual move penalties for carrying things... but no matter how much you or i assume... the FAQ answer is...

 

Q: What happens if a character Grabs a moving character (typically, but not necessarily, with Telekinesis) — does the moving character instantly decelerate to 0†of movement?

 

A: When a moving character is Grabbed, he immediately gets a standard Casual STR Roll to break out. If the GM is using the optional rule on 5ER 364 regarding the effect of movement on STR, then the character’s Casual STR would be calculated with that in mind. If the roll succeeds, the character keeps moving until the end of his declared inches of movement (assuming he wasn’t there already). If the roll fails, the character is reduced to 0†of movement and remains in the hex where he was Grabbed; he has to break out in the usual fashion, without gaining any STR benefit from movement.

 

But, even if I assume your way... it doesn't make any more sense to me that whether the teenager on the building wants to stop our flying hero when he grabs him or wants to fly along as a rider MAKES ONE WHIT OF DIFFERENCE to what happens when the teenage kid grabs onto the superman as he zips past, barring some sort of limitation like wings where he can physically by grabbing interfere with the flight.

 

Either way, i think its a murphy candidate, tho the RAW is the more extreme one.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Okay. Let's say a character has Growth (or Density Increase) and extra Strength of equal amounts as slots in a Multipower. He turns on all the Growth (or DI) and uses his Flight to take off. Now' date=' I suspect most everyone is going to agree that he can still fly. So now, in mid-flight, the character reallocates all of the points from Growth (or DI) to Strength, but picks up a ton of bricks to make up the difference in weight. Should he still be able to fly, or should the Flight become less strong because the character is less massive? Just something to think on. [/quote']

 

It would make no difference to his Flight speed (as in, how many inches/phase me moves). Wanna know why? He's not at all Encumbered. You gain just enough extra STR to carry the equivilant of your own mass from Growth or DI. With the STR slot of the Multipower, he's just using the "extra" STR to lift the bricks, so he's not at all encumbered. Basically that's it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

I guess my computer got tired of the discussion' date=' because it barfed in the middle of my long, line-by-line reply. I’m not really up to typing the whole thing again, so I’ll just make some general comments and leave it at that. Try to contain your disappointment. [/quote']

I hate it when that happens to me! My condolences.

 

You all make some good points. I’m still not convinced, but that could just be me. ...

While this touches on your final statements here, I think it's really a matter of how "real" of a game is being played. For superhero games, there's some reality/physics involved, but for the most part, it's all cinematic/comic book suspension of disbelief running rampant across the screen/page. For other games, characters don't have superpowers and just about everything has some Limitation on Flight (as well as other Movement Powers) that allows any GM with a sense of "reality" to work it into the game fairly.

 

For those of you who don’t care about realism in your games, fine: have a blast, knock yourselves out, no one is saying you can’t. Some of us prefer a little more realism in our games...

I don't think that's really the issue here, but good point.

 

Finally, I hate to keep harping on it, but the Hero System is not just Champions. If we really want people to get past the image of Hero as “just a superhero game†– as lamented in numerous threads - then we need to stop answering general rules questions with “It’s a comic book – it doesn’t have to make sense.â€

Agreed, but as mentioned above and by others, Flight all by itself without Limitations and such is a superhero world power. It's a fake, break the laws of physics, does what it needs to do to get the hero from point A to point B, who cares about realism, movement ability. Most of what's in the book is like that. Slap on Restrainable (wings) or a Focus (rocket boots) and suddenly you have something any GM can say "wait a minute, this is Limited (litterally) in function and applicability... I could just apply common sense and the laws of physics to it."

 

Of course, this reality of how the system works (unmodified Powers seem superheroic by default) is what works to create the illusion that Hero System is specificlly geared toward the superheroic/comic book genre. That's all that it is though, an illusion. The true reality is that it just so happens that the superheroic/comic book genre is one of the few genres that allows for "raw", simple, straightforward, cookie-cutter powers, while most others require fine tuning (and Hero System can't provide universal fine tuning without presenting "raw", simple, straightforward, cookie-cutter powers as a baseline). But I suppose that's for some other thread.

 

Thanks for the good discussion. Cheers,

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

It would make no difference to his Flight speed (as in' date=' how many inches/phase me moves). Wanna know why? He's not at all Encumbered. You gain just enough extra STR to carry the equivilant of your own mass from Growth or DI. With the STR slot of the Multipower, he's just using the "extra" STR to lift the bricks, so he's not at all encumbered. Basically that's it.[/quote']

Yes. That was my point. The character has the same Str using either slot. And the Flight is acting on the same mass/weight before and after the change in slots. But some are arguing that the amount of extra weight Flight can act on should depend on the Active Points in Flight, which would make the character plummet to the ground as soon as he changed slots in my example (assuming the character doesn't have a huge amount of Flight). It doesn't make much sense that a character with the same Str but less mass should be penalized when they have the exact same construct for Flight.

 

Unless people are arguing that Flight should be bought high enough to accommodate for a large character's own weight as well as any extra weight carried. That doesn't work for me either: a ten ton character should very well be able to buy only 5" of Flight.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

the FAQ answer is...

But that FAQ answer assumes that the grabber is using the Grab maneuver to its fullest potential (immobilizing the target as much as possible), and that the grabbed character wants to break free. If instead the grabber is okay with just catching hold and getting a lift, and the grabbed character is willing to have the grabber hop aboard, then I see absolutely no reason the grabbed character shouldn't be able to continue moving. Actually there is even probably no reason to use the Grab mechanic in such a situation unless the GM is really being stickler. It might very well even be appropriate not to require an attack roll.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Yes. That was my point. The character has the same Str using either slot. And the Flight is acting on the same mass/weight before and after the change in slots. But some are arguing that the amount of extra weight Flight can act on should depend on the Active Points in Flight, which would make the character plummet to the ground as soon as he changed slots in my example (assuming the character doesn't have a huge amount of Flight). It doesn't make much sense that a character with the same Str but less mass should be penalized when they have the exact same construct for Flight.

 

Unless people are arguing that Flight should be bought high enough to accommodate for a large character's own weight as well as any extra weight carried. That doesn't work for me either: a ten ton character should very well be able to buy only 5" of Flight.

 

Of course, if you apply real world physics to the problem, and say that the character can fly just fine either as heavyman, or as lightman+STR and a lot of bricks, but if heavyman picks up a lot of bricks, he's encumbered. This doesn't happen according to the rules. The character can carry the same load and be unencumbered using either slot, even though he's effectively twice the mass/weight while using Growth/DI.

 

Does this make sense in the real world? Absolutely not!

 

Does this make sense in a fictional universe? Depends on the dramatized action of the universe, and even in some "realistic" universes it might still make sense or at least be consistant with how other objects work while in motion.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

But that FAQ answer assumes that the grabber is using the Grab maneuver to its fullest potential (immobilizing the target as much as possible)' date=' and that the grabbed character wants to break free. If instead the grabber is okay with just catching hold and getting a lift, and the grabbed character is willing to have the grabber hop aboard, then I see absolutely no reason the grabbed character shouldn't be able to continue moving. Actually there is even probably no reason to use the Grab mechanic in such a situation unless the GM is really being stickler. It might very well even be appropriate not to require an attack roll.[/quote']

 

Actually you're right; that's not a Grab (as in the Grab maneuver). It's not even any kind of maneuver. It's just one character holding onto/carrying another while moving.

[tesuji]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

its not a grab maneuver to grab a hold of someone zipping past you?

 

thats news to my villains!

 

thats great news to my heroes too, because now they don't need to grab by when trying to catch the falling NPC and can just let the other guy catch hold on and hang on automatically for free.

[tesuji]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

 

But that FAQ answer assumes that the grabber is using the Grab maneuver to its fullest potential (immobilizing the target as much as possible), and that the grabbed character wants to break free. If instead the grabber is okay with just catching hold and getting a lift, and the grabbed character is willing to have the grabber hop aboard, then I see absolutely no reason the grabbed character shouldn't be able to continue moving.

Note however that this new assumption of yours, that the penalties of a grab can be willingly avoided, cuts many ways. it means a HERo swopoping down to snatch up someone in peril doesn't suffer the DCV penalties that doing a grab normally applies, if he and the grabbee agree to waving them. Tnat means my villain can no longer take advantage of "while the hero grabs the normal and is easier to hit since he is not juking and such too and fro as he tries to make the grab".

 

Its certainly a hero friendly assumption. But most of the other maneuver's penalties and such do not get so easily voluntarily waved.

Actually there is even probably no reason to use the Grab mechanic in such a situation unless the GM is really being stickler. It might very well even be appropriate not to require an attack roll.

 

ifthe Gm assumes the task is so easy as to be automatic, sure.

 

I cannot imagine i would ever make such an assumption for a normal snagging a hero in flight.

 

Lets put it this way... if it were an invisible villain standing right beside the kid, would be also get a free no fail automatic grab and travel on pass... or would he have to make a grab maneuver and to-hit roll?

 

and, as asked before, if the scared kind on the roof wanted to stop the hero, do you somehow see it as making more sense that he can just by grabbing on?

 

Unless the flight is restrainable, what does "using grab to fullest extent" mean in terms of stopping the hero? What does the kid do when he wants to "full extent grab" that stops the hero that he doesn't do when he "not fullest extent"?

 

to my way of thinking, barring restrainable flight, what happens after the kid is snagged to the heroes movement should be the same regardless of whether the kid grabs the hero, the hero grabs the kid, the kid grabs with "fullest intent" or the kid grabs with "only partial intent".

 

Does that make sense to you or does it make sense for it to vary greatly between those four, err.. three cases from "full move is fine " to "stops instantly"?

 

NOTE: of course insert at the end the "use dramatic sense, common sense, sense of fairness, sense of balance and scent of deer in heat" and always the every effective "if you don't like our rules, don't use them" but in terms of "How does this rule work?" "Does this rule work?" and so forth...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Note however that this new assumption of yours' date=' that the penalties of a grab can be willingly avoided, cuts many ways. it means a HERo swopoping down to snatch up someone in peril doesn't suffer the DCV penalties that doing a grab normally applies, if he and the grabbee agree to waving them. Tnat means my villain can no longer take advantage of "while the hero grabs the normal and is easier to hit since he is not juking and such too and fro as he tries to make the grab".[/quote']

Well if the hero let the other character do the, "Grab," since presumably he doesn't want to waste time stopping his move to pick something up (I thought that was the case we were debating; whether it stopped the grabber's movement), then the hero wouldn't be suffering a maneuver penalty to DCV anyway. However, if it were a real grab both the hero and the NPC would be at 1/2 DCV once the grab was executed. It's going to be up to the GM whether anyone giving a piggyback ride is at 1/2 DCV, of course. I don't think it is unreasonable, but I don't see think it is unreasonable to not impose such a penalty either. It could probably vary based on Str, size, etc., too. Eh. All GM's prerogative land.

Its certainly a hero friendly assumption. But most of the other maneuver's penalties and such do not get so easily voluntarily waved.

Not necessarily. The same would theoretically apply to a villain catching ahold his goon-piloted helicopter to get away before he is captured by the PCs, or whatever.

ifthe Gm assumes the task is so easy as to be automatic, sure.

 

I cannot imagine i would ever make such an assumption for a normal snagging a hero in flight.

 

Lets put it this way... if it were an invisible villain standing right beside the kid, would be also get a free no fail automatic grab and travel on pass... or would he have to make a grab maneuver and to-hit roll?

Yeah. I didn't assume this, by the way. If things are still really rushed I don't see any reason the GM shouldn't require some kind of roll. That may be an attack roll, it may be an Acrobatics/Dex roll; it may be Complimentary; it may be that the hero has to volunarily lower his DCV in order to ensure the NPC will be able to grab ahold easily (and there would be your villain's opening, BTW).

 

As to whether an invisible villain would get a free automatic Grab, the answer is: probably not. If the hero were blind and thus only knew that someone friendly was about to grab ahold, maybe. Otherwise, some invisible hand grabbing ahold is quite a bit different than swooping in on someone you can fully sense and willingly allowing/helping them catch a lift. The villain might certainly Surprise the hero (though that won't really do anything beyond the usual 1/2 DCV against someone you can't sense, unless the GM is mean enough to give an OCV bonus for surprise maneuver--whatever).

and, as asked before, if the scared kind on the roof wanted to stop the hero, do you somehow see it as making more sense that he can just by grabbing on?

Well, the hero is expecting the kid to simply put arms around him and get carried off. If the kid instead grabs him and tries to throw him down against the roof and pin him or whatever, then it would be up to the GM whether the kid really fooled the hero, and if so whether the kid needs to make an attack roll (against a Surprised hero, I'm sure). Either way, good luck beating the hero's Casual Str to ignore the Grab, punk.

Unless the flight is restrainable, what does "using grab to fullest extent" mean in terms of stopping the hero? What does the kid do when he wants to "full extent grab" that stops the hero that he doesn't do when he "not fullest extent"?

See above. Try to redirect the hero into the roof, tie up the hero by forcing the hero's head between the hero's knees, wedge the hero between himself and the chimney, etc. Use your imagination.

to my way of thinking, barring restrainable flight, what happens after the kid is snagged to the heroes movement should be the same regardless of whether the kid grabs the hero, the hero grabs the kid, the kid grabs with "fullest intent" or the kid grabs with "only partial intent".

Well, to each his own, I suppose. Do you require an attack roll when a friendly character comes up to a willing and dying ally and tries to use Healing, BTW?

Does that make sense to you or does it make sense for it to vary greatly between those four, err.. three cases from "full move is fine " to "stops instantly"?

Varies. Intent can change things very dramatically as far as I am concerned.

[tesuji]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

 

However, if it were a real grab both the hero and the NPC would be at 1/2 DCV once the grab was executed.

right, thats what i meant.

It's going to be up to the GM whether anyone giving a piggyback ride is at 1/2 DCV, of course. I don't think it is unreasonable, but I don't see think it is unreasonable to not impose such a penalty either. It could probably vary based on Str, size, etc., too. Eh. All GM's prerogative land.

hey, every rule is in that land. The Gm can choose to let a 10d6 Eb do 5000 dice of damage if he chooses. But I find it often dubious to use such a land in assessing rules and their impact.

Yeah. I didn't assume this, by the way. If things are still really rushed I don't see any reason the GM shouldn't require some kind of roll. That may be an attack roll, it may be an Acrobatics/Dex roll; it may be Complimentary; it may be that the hero has to volunarily lower his DCV in order to ensure the NPC will be able to grab ahold easily (and there would be your villain's opening, BTW).

seems odd to invent a brand new proceudre on the fly to resolve the question of "does he grab the guy and hang on" just to avoid using the less enjoyable aspects of the grab maneuver. odd to me, probably not to anyone else. I would rather use the grab manuever and fix its quirks that make me want to not use it, like intent determining what happens after the hero has a hanger-on.

As to whether an invisible villain would get a free automatic Grab, the answer is: probably not. If the hero were blind and thus only knew that someone friendly was about to grab ahold, maybe. Otherwise, some invisible hand grabbing ahold is quite a bit different than swooping in on someone you can fully sense and willingly allowing/helping them catch a lift. The villain might certainly Surprise the hero (though that won't really do anything beyond the usual 1/2 DCV against someone you can't sense, unless the GM is mean enough to give an OCV bonus for surprise maneuver--whatever).

the assumption is that the hero is doing his fly by and not doing any sort of maneuvering. Whether or not he resists the grab by the opposed strength is also a secondary issue. The issue is would the villain get the free to-hit like the kid does, since the hero isn't resisting the grab, tho he may the hold.

 

For my money, the fly by means anyone wanting to grab has to make the grab hit roll. Then the hero decides whether or not he resists the hold with casual strength.

Well, the hero is expecting the kid to simply put arms around him and get carried off. If the kid instead grabs him and tries to throw him down against the roof and pin him or whatever, then it would be up to the GM whether the kid really fooled the hero, and if so whether the kid needs to make an attack roll (against a Surprised hero, I'm sure). Either way, good luck beating the hero's Casual Str to ignore the Grab, punk.

Actually, many of my fliers don't have high strengths at all so beating casual strength to hang on is pretty easy. Unless he is a meller, his strength may well be 18 or less and casual then is below 10.Now, then having the strength to throw him... thats another issue with the mass of the hero coming into play.

 

But, by the rule, only the grab and hold is needed to stop the hero. he doesn't have to be able to throw him.

See above. Try to redirect the hero into the roof, tie up the hero by forcing the hero's head between the hero's knees, wedge the hero between himself and the chimney, etc. Use your imagination.

the rule doesn't require a chimney or s successful throw... just a grab and hold.

Well, to each his own, I suppose. Do you require an attack roll when a friendly character comes up to a willing and dying ally and tries to use Healing, BTW?

Actually YES, if the recipient is still mvoing at full DCV., then even friendlies have to roll to hit with expected touches. You don't get to stand still for one guy and not be standing still for someone else at the same time, in my games.

 

The "let him touch me" equates to 1/2 dcv for everyone else, sort of the equivalent of "non-combat moving" in the defensive sense.

Varies. Intent can change things very dramatically as far as I am concerned.

intent to me doesn't add capability. It adds intent. if the kid can lift and throw the hero, then when he grabs amd holds he can throw the hero and gain the effect of stopping him IF there is something to throw him into.

 

if the kid doesn't have the ability to do this, then whether he is grabbing the hero or the hero grabbing him doesn't change the impact this has 0on the hero's movement.

 

Basically, to sum up, for me, the grab itself doesn't by default stop the hero in the hex. If the grabber can do something to stop the hero, like succeed on a throw into something, then that additional thing will have its usual effect and that might stop the hero. That more or less puts the onus of "stop the hero" on the character trying to stop the hero so that he has to do something that by the mechanics could stop the hero (IE he has to use the existing mechanics) as opposed to the onus being on the Gm to figure out why the hero isn't stopped by some GM fiat land ruling.

 

but thats just me. i want the rule to make sens e y default and me to have to only go into fiat land when I have to.

 

to each his own.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ruling on this situation...

 

Shoot, just give the Grabber "Teleport, No Relative Velocity" and then hold an Action until they're about to hit the ground then POP over a few inches, not moving at all, and watch Mr Flyer eat dirt. Doing that a couple times should break the habit nicely.