Run On Water?

[Pattern Ghost]

I think this may have come up on the old boards, but I'm going to bring it up anyway:

 

Why not a Run On Water advantage for Running, just like Fly in Water advantage for Flight? I't de-clunkify building speedsters quite a bit. If the SFX is running, why not just buy running? The other movement modes all have different mechanics (namely turn modes) that have to be dealt with to make a really common set of speedster FX.

 

I'm thinking something like +1/4 for the advantage.

 

To me, this seems a lot cleaner than a multi, and levels to offset turn mode for fudging with flight, etc.:

 

48 +24" Running (30" total)

15 Run On Water (+1/4) on 30" Running

06 Clinging, Not to Resist KB (-1/4), Linked to Running (-1/2)

 

Now, your guy can run on water and up buildings, and it's pretty cut and dry to read.

 

What's everyone else's opinion?

[Narthon]

Your writeup looks good to me.

If you are going with the true speedster, high dex, high spd, your version looks much better for someone with a high movement rate.

I espically like it for speedsters "too fast to follow with the eye"

 

For someone who can just run really fast, but doesn't have the other effects of a classic speedster, I'd keep the flight only on surfaces, because I like needing turn modes.

 

Narthon

[Farkling]

I thought there was a power advantage to buy off the turn mode on flight now...perhaps I misremember. We had a draft for a rip off of Aurora and her brother around here somewhere...maybe it was custom advantages?

 

The "Run on Water" is a nice effect, but it seems cheap. After all, my Speedster now is able to buy the abovelisted 6 pts of Clinging...so for less than a +10 adder, I can run up and down buildings...turning my running effectively into flight with no Turn Mode...usable on a surface. Though if knocked off the surface or the surfacee is destroyed, you can still fall to the ground with the debris. Come to think of it...if you stopped moving you would sink...Flight allows for hovering (mechanicalyl speaking), but clinging or running won't let you get back to the surface of the water...or stand in place if you stop...without the GMW (GameMaster Wave).

 

Flight may have been the chosen mechanic for altitude control and the "hover" effect... but only Steve Long knows that. Perhaps the Knockback physics were also included in the consideration...eh. I prefer Flight...it seems less messy, AND less open to abuse. I like the Turn Mode. And I speak from the experience of recently playing a speedster using Running. I would buy Run on Water right alongside my 1/2 END...just to even out my power advantage.

 

I'm pretty sure that Steve said if there is more than one way to do it, use the more expensive one.

 

But it is your campaign. Do what you like.

[Patriot]

I beleive it should be done like this:

 

"X" inches of flight

(-1/2) only while incontact with surfaces

(+1/4) No turn Mode

 

I dont have FRed with me, but i think those costs are correct

[Arthur]

I like it. If you are running, it should be bought with Running, if possible. It is more - elegant.

 

The Flight method is almost like buying a Force Field with Armor that Costs END. It is technically correct, but clunky.

[Patriot]

Sorry

P 115 of FrEd states it is a (-1/4) limitation

only in contact with surface

(the description given even states water in it)

 

Of course it ultimatly is up to your GM

[Sociotard]

If it costs X points one way . . .

 

I agree that Running for a speedster is more elegant. I'm seeing something odd here though. If I buy Flight (Only in contact with surfaces -1/4) (No turn Radius +1/4) it costs 2 points an inch. If I buy Running (+1/4 up any surface) it costs 2.5 an inch. As far as I can tell, the two powers do exactly the same things. This leads me to ask "Where does it say that No turn radius is only a +1/4 advantage?" FrED does list "Turn mode" as a -1/4 limitation for movement powers that don't already have it (p. 85). I don't think that necessarily means having no turn mode is just +1/4. If it's a +1/2 advantage it costs 2.4 an inch. Again, Running with the +1/4 up anything advantage was 2.5, but the difference is small enough to be endured.

Look at killing attacks to see what I mean. HKA's aren't ranged. RKA's don't get a STR bonus. Those are the only differences that I know of. When you add range to HKA and STR bonuses to RKA, they are fairly well Identical, and cost the same either way. I just see it as a way to make sure everything stays balanced

[Pattern Ghost]

As far as I know, there is no official no turn mode advantage. Turn mode is a -1/4 limitation, which leads me to believe that getting rid of it would be at least a +1/2. Of course, why buy off the turn mode?

 

As far as sinking when you aren't moving: that's the point. You should have to maintain speed to move over water, or up walls and such. If the speedster can run in place in water as part of their FX, they should probably buy the flight option. Then again, every character has 2" base swimming, and the FX for their treading water can just be declared as standing on the surface in a champs game.

 

The +1/4 run on water seems cheap, but I based the cost on the advantage for flight, which lets you go through the water at +1/2. Since the running only works on surface, it should be a bit cheaper. Even at +1/2, though, I'd prefer it to more clunky looking writeups.

 

Thanks for the input.

[Blue]

1) With Running you have to convince the GM to wave the fact that you would sink like a stone.

2) Flight would require the no-turn radius thing if you want to corner just like you do on ground.

3) With swimming you need to convince the GM to let you use it above water rather than IN it, perhaps with the counter-balance that you can't use the swimming to go Down. (As a GM I'd say that trade-off is a +0)

[Blue Jogger]

The reason that it was Flight instead of Running was an old rule in Champions.

 

In old Champions, Running didn't have a non-combat movement, Flight automatically did. I quote from the 1981 Champions (page 62):

 

The following formula determines a character's maximum noncombat Flight speed.

 

Max Flight = (Pts. in Flight/5) x Flight inches/phase

 

This was changed in the Big Blue Book.

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by Blue

1) With Running you have to convince the GM to wave the fact that you would sink like a stone.

 

That's what the advantage is for. And there are real animals which can run on water. Running on water is a common SFX of running at high speeds in the comics, so it makes sense that the mechanics used should be the same as for running.

 

2) Flight would require the no-turn radius thing if you want to corner just like you do on ground.

 

There isn't any way to get rid of the turn mode in flight, except by buying up skill levels with flight to offset it.

 

3) With swimming you need to convince the GM to let you use it above water rather than IN it, perhaps with the counter-balance that you can't use the swimming to go Down. (As a GM I'd say that trade-off is a +0)

 

 

Or, you could buy the Swimming with the Surface Only (-1) limitation, and declare the SFX is running on the surface. The only thing is, if you stop, you don't sink. With the running, I'd say you would have to stay in motion to pull the trick off, which is something flight or swimming don't allow for without a custom limitation or at least a notation.

 

Actually, Run On Water and Over Walls for +1/2 might be feasible. That'd get rid of the need for Clinging, and it'd be more accurate to cost it that way b/c the extra pts would be higher than the limited clinging way of doing it, assuming a high running speed. It'd be more epensive than limited flight, but then, it should be, since Running doesn't have a turn mode.

[Sociotard]

Originally Posted by Pattern Ghost

There isn't any way to get rid of the turn mode in flight, except by buying up skill levels with flight to offset it.

 

*blinks* You can do that? What page do I look at? Or could you just post it here.

[Nato]

I agree that some new mechanic should be in place for this type of running. It's one of the most common powers in the genre, yet there isn't one clear-cut, or superclean way to do it in the game. A +1/2 advantage (or whatever value it would ultimately make sense to be) would simplify the creation of speedsters greatly. I hate it when a really simple power concept isn't a simple write-up. I think I'll adopt a new advantage for this, when the simplest way presents itself.

 

FWIW, I really like how easy it is to build a speedster in Mutants & Masterminds (even if they do all tend to end up looking the same.) Just get the appropriate ranks in the Super Speed power, buy whatever extras or stunts you'd like and you're done. Nice and easy.

[Farkling]

When I pipcture speedsters running on water I picture the old Golden Age flash (the guy with the funny hat!). He explained to the old Green Lantern and his wife on seperate occasions that runnning on the water wasn't hard, it was turning and stopping quickly that he had trouble with. Lack of friction. That's why I liked flilght. I figured he used the flight levels to run on a real surface. He did make occasional 90 degre turns on land. Maybe he had both. I recall him SWIMMING at superpseeds also. Obviously this needs more thought. Is it a Movement Multipower?? He never really used Superspeed attacks while moving...unless you count major multiple move bys, and that could even be bought as an Area Effect attack...

 

I bought my speedster Clinging and Running and never messed with water. He was electrically based...he used a plane to cross large bodies of water, or went around...I wanted something different.

 

 

Socio:: It used to be that any 5pt or better level with FLIGHT specifically could be used to shift your Turn Mode !-Hex per level "burned" on that turn. Did I get that right veterans?

[Jeff]

No Turn Mode is a +1/4 advantage from The Ultimate Vehicle. GM's are advised to be wary of players applying it to character's innate movement abilities, but heck, we recommend stop-sign powers with multiple stop-sign advantages for modelling things six times before breakfast....

 

If you went the Swimming with surface movement only limitation route, I wouldn't worry about the sinking thing. Most speedsters will float like the rest of us, after all. That they're running on water instead of doing a breaststroke when they crank it up to 90+ MPH can reasonably be regarded as a special effect. If, for some reason, you've got a non-buoyant speedster (The Living Bullet?), you've probably already got a Physical Limitation to cover that problem; it needn't be built into the Swimming/Flight/whatever power.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Nato

FWIW, I really like how easy it is to build a speedster in Mutants & Masterminds (even if they do all tend to end up looking the same.) Just get the appropriate ranks in the Super Speed power, buy whatever extras or stunts you'd like and you're done. Nice and easy.

 

Just buy Time Powers and make everyone a speedster. I find M & M much "coarser" than Champions - the gradations aren't as fine. I also find a lot of powers are just combinations of other powers.

 

Mind you, a lot of the phrases in M & M sound awfully familiar to this Champions vet. I consider the book an admission that Hero handles supers way better than d20 - it basically moves the system about as close to Hero as you can without getting dinged for copyright infringement.

 

Hero was the first system to do a good job modelling supers, and they're still the best.

[Nato]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I find M & M much "coarser" than Champions - the gradations aren't as fine. I also find a lot of powers are just combinations of other powers.

 

I agree.

[TRM]

Speedster Running

 

X' Flight

Only in contact with surface -1/4,

Stall Velocity -1/4 (pg316)

 

If you don't move 1/2 your combat speed you fall off the wall you're running up or sink into the water you're running on. For -1/2 you must take a full move or fall. Just like the vehicles this Lim was written for your speedster can use the flight like running to "take off" and "land" safely.

 

I've used it for every speedster I've written up for the last 5 years.

[Lupus]

For 'lesser' speedsters, I use jumping. Had a player who wanted his speedster to be able to go up walls and over water, but only for brief bursts, and only in straight line. So I called it jumping, must remain on surface.

 

Works neatly. You get straight-line-only movement and, if the character doesn't reach the other side of the river soon enough, they sink. Same with buildings - they only defy gravity for so long before they fall off.

 

I called 'must remain in contact' a -1/2 limitation. That's because you can only 'jump' up if there's a surface available, and if you're going horizontal, and there's a gap that's too big for your base jump movement, your extra jumping speed doesn't help you get over it. It's bigger than flight at -1/4, but flight at -1/4 is ridiculous, in my opinion.

 

I did, however, state that the run-on-water inches didn't stack with regular jumping inches. Character had to build up that movement mode from zero.

[PhilFleischmann]

A slight change of subject: I have a character with flight. The SFX was telekinetically pushing off of a surface. I wanted a limitation "Only within 3" of a Surface." What would the value of this limitation be? If only on a surface is -1/4, then this one should be less, because it is less limiting. But it is more significantly limiting than a -0. I someone or something 4" off the ground or more is out of my reach. I can't intercept airplanes, fly up to the cloud city, or fly from the roof of one building to the roof of another if their more than 6" apart (three problems that I've encountered in actual play). If "only on a surface" a bigger advantage, like -1/2, it starts to cost less than running, while being significantly more useful.

 

Sometimes I think the cost structure of movement powers needs adjustment, the way some have claimed the cost of STR needs adjustment. *Please! I don't want to start the whole cost of STR argument here!*

 

On solution I thought of is to allow finer-grained limitation (and advantage) values. "Only within 3" of a Surface" could be a -1/10 limitation, for example.

[Farkling]

it still looks like a -1/4 limitation....

 

Maybe it's a variant of cannot climb (-1/2).

[Jeff]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

A slight change of subject: I have a character with flight. The SFX was telekinetically pushing off of a surface. I wanted a limitation "Only within 3" of a Surface." What would the value of this limitation be? If only on a surface is -1/4, then this one should be less, because it is less limiting.

The limitation might not be precisely right for the special effect. The running up walls speedster trick might be something you can't quite manage with a telekinetic push-off. After all, you're presumably pushing off a horizontal surface that can support you - but you're not going to find that 40 stories up a vertical surface. That'd look like a reasonable -1/4 limitation to me.

 

Also, unless you've got perfect granularity, you're going to have some limititations that are just a little less limiting than others with the same limitation value, like "only within 4" of a surface" and "only within 3" of a surface". You could address the problem with more granular limitation values, but you're never going to cure it entirely. Me, I think I can live with 1/4 increments.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'd say it was worth the -1/4 for only w/in 3" of a surface. Plenty of characters can jump or shoot you at that altitude, and you can't easily cross large open spaces, so it's still limiting.

[dbcowboy]

I had a similar issue with my character Tsunami. She had flight in water with the SFX of riding a water-spout. I limited the height she could reach to about 10 or 20 inches, I forget exactly. Think I went with a -1/2 limitation, may have been overly generous with that one.