Jump to content

Why does flying cost the same amount as running?


Snarf

Recommended Posts

If the GM wants to disciourage/balance flying a little, Clinging could be used as a guidline for a power that allows you to ignore terrain problems and such.

 

The first level of flying could be 10 points and this would give you 0" of flight, in other words hovering or drifting, then you can start buying up the move rate for 2 points per inch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that I thought it was necessarily underpriced, I assumed it was probably at the right price but I was misunderstanding something. I figured (correctly) that the fastest way to figure it out was post a question on the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snarf

It's not that I thought it was necessarily underpriced, I assumed it was probably at the right price but I was misunderstanding something. I figured (correctly) that the fastest way to figure it out was post a question on the forum.

Cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't seem to be pointing out the additional penalties for the 'Flight, Only in Contact With A Surface (-¼)' -- turn modes are required, and again, you can't stand still for free. Me, I like the idea of all that; IIRC, the best 'wall-running' power also had the limitation of 'Must Move X" per Phase', where X was something like 15"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steve

What about Knockback?

 

How would you calculate Knockback for Flight, only in contact with a surface, defined as a type of hyper-running? Is it done like you would real running, or would you do it as if they were actually flying?

 

Would be calculated as per flight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gary

1" of flight is far too cost effective at 2 pts. It's effectively the climbing skill with no chance of failure, and it makes you immune to falls while conscious.

 

Climbing at base level already costs 3 pts, and to buy it to 17- would cost even more pts.

 

Um, the fact that you need 2" of velocity to climb 1", maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Um, the fact that you need 2" of velocity to climb 1", maybe?

 

With Climbing, you can only move 1" per phase anyway. You're at 1/2 or 0 OCV and DCV, and there is the chance of failure. If you fall, you take full damage. It also takes your entire action. This costs 3 pts.

 

1" of flight allows 1 meter/phase movement upwards. Floating in this way has no chance of failure, and full OCV and DCV. It also allows you to take a 1/2 phase action (The half move for 1" movement is still 1" as ridiculous as it may seem :rolleyes: )

 

If you decide to do a noncombat move upwards, you move the exact 1"/phase upwards that you do with Climbing. You have the same combat penalties, but you have a 0% chance of failure, unlike Climbing. You're also not subject to penalties to movement rate or chance of success with a difficult surface. Heck, you don't even need a surface at all to float upwards. This ability costs 2 pts.

 

A bonus perk to having 1" flight is immunity to falls since you can always hover.

 

Basically, you're paying fewer points to have a much better ability with 1" flight as opposed to climbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying can be drained, transfered or supressed. Climbing can't be. You never know when some gadgeteer will come up with the AE Supress vs flight. In my campaign almost all my pc's flew and Foxbat made the Foxbat NoFlyZone. That annoyed the PCs to no end as they were all stuck with normal movement.

 

John Spencer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the big stink is about flight. If you're in a Champs game, find some excuse to buy some for your character. Or don't. Who cares. If you're not in a Champs campaign, who has unlimited, easy flight that other's can't get?

 

As for the relative point costs, big flippin deal.

 

("You" in general, not anyone specific.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, the question posed by the thread was answered within the first few replies.

 

And by the way, nice work there, displaying your absolute ignorance of the concept of the non-specific 2nd-peron pronoun by parroting my attempt to make sure I was clear about not addressing anyone in general, and in your pathetic attempt to be humorously sarcastic no less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...