Restrainable Limitation

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I'm sure I could think of concepts that would best be modeled by both - but as a generalized rules of thumb; no.

[tesuji]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

So does anyone think 'normal' running is not restrainable by a grab or entangle?

 

Does anyone think it ought to be worth a limitation?

 

Well, now, hang on a sec...

 

Can i take a limitation on my stun and body that says "when hit by an Eb that gets past my defenses i lose stun and body"?

 

I wouldn't think so... because thats what you paid points for Eb to do. Thats what EB does.

 

Well, entangle does something for that 60 cp you pay for it. It stops most movement. It stops you from running.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Well, now, hang on a sec...

 

Can i take a limitation on my stun and body that says "when hit by an Eb that gets past my defenses i lose stun and body"?

 

I wouldn't think so... because thats what you paid points for Eb to do. Thats what EB does.

 

Well, entangle does something for that 60 cp you pay for it. It stops most movement. It stops you from running.

 

I agree: I'm trying to make the point that to be 'restrainable' then you have to go a bit beyond simply 'doesn't work it entangled or grabbed because entangles and grabs prevent most movement powers working, whether you fly with wings or with telekinesis (OK if you are already flying there might be a difference, but if you are on the ground, a grab or entangle may well stop you effectively activating your TK flight).

 

There is a conflict of logic and gamplay here. IMO martial arts, for instance, should generally not be usable when restrained (extra STR for escaping being an exception), but do we assume that 'restrainable' is a limitation of MA or not?

 

The restrainable limitation is worth -1/2, which is a good bit, and I'm wondering what makes it worth that much.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Just a single point before bed, though I might post more on this later. To me, the biggest difference between Flight and Restrainable Flight, is the whether or not you plummet out of the sky and take significant damage from hitting the ground when Entangled. To me this is worth a -1/2 cost break in many Super games.

[mallet]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Maybe there should be two levels of Restrainable? -1/4 & -1/2

 

The -1/4 could apply to a defined and limited number of effects that cause the restraining (this would be the EMP for Cyberwear, etc...)

 

And the -1/2 level where a wide number of effects can restrain the power/ability.

 

And maybe, since we are on the topic, Entangle should also be looked at again. If I have flight with a TK SFX, then a normal rope net shouldn't stop be from flying away. Maybe Entangles should only work against limited powers/abilities/movements, etc...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

there's nothing about Entagle that stops any kind of Flight Power from working, TK SFX or otherwise. What's to look at?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

there's nothing about Entagle that stops any kind of Flight Power from working' date=' TK SFX or otherwise. What's to look at?[/quote']

 

 

Well yes and no.

 

Per 5er page 166:

Basic Entangle Effects

When a character is Entangled, his arms and legs are restrained, giving him a DCV of 0. Typically an Entangle completely immobilizes a character, making it impossible for him to move or use any Movement Powers except Teleportation, but the exact effects depend on the special effects of the Entangle and Movement Power. In some cases, the character may retain the ability to move, but remain Entangled when he does so. For example, a character with Flight could fly while handcuffed — but this wouldn’t free him from the handcuffs, he’d just take them with him. But if his Flight had the Gestures Limitation, he couldn’t fly, since the handcuffs prevent him from making the proper gestures.

 

It mentions sfx being a consideration but cites a Limitation based example. A lot depends on how accurately the flight or other movement was actually modeled with Limitations.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

True.

 

I've always ruled if the Flight is simply "Superman Flight" where you just defy physics and propel your body through the air, I see no reason not having limbs available stops it.

(this includes TK Flight, Jet Boots, Rocket Packs, just Flying by Willpower, etc).

 

Wings, would take Restrainable, and make itself unavailable if you can't spread 'em. (I'll also note, the other part of Restrainable Wings, above Entangle and Grab, is wingspread space, giving it that little something extra I talked about above.)

[JmOz]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

True.

 

I've always ruled if the Flight is simply "Superman Flight" where you just defy physics and propel your body through the air, I see no reason not having limbs available stops it.

(this includes TK Flight, Jet Boots, Rocket Packs, just Flying by Willpower, etc).

 

Wings, would take Restrainable, and make itself unavailable if you can't spread 'em. (I'll also note, the other part of Restrainable Wings, above Entangle and Grab, is wingspread space, giving it that little something extra I talked about above.)

 

 

Even limitations however should be looked at in regards to the F/X you are fitting

 

Bird guy for instance has a belt that defies gravity, but he needs his restrainable wings to manuever, he takes restrainable on his wing harness to represent that all he can do is hover in place without it...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

All flight is 'restrainable', even 'superman flight' if you are hit on the ground or near something you can be anchored to. It would make sense for 'TK/superman flight' not to fail if you are in mid-air, although it could well resrtict your maneouverability.

 

I keep coming back to 'restrainable' being quite a big limitation for something that many powers have to live with anyway.

[tesuji]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

My default position is: ENTANGLE DOES SOMETHING THATS WHY I PAID POINTS FOR IT!!!

 

What entangle does is STOP THE OTHER GUY!

 

You dont IMO need a limitation to say "i cannot use this movement power while entangled" cuz thats what the other guy paid all those ap for the entangle to do.

 

Thats why he is 0 dcv - he cannot move!

 

I certainly am not going to tell "speedy flier guy who flies by TK "yes, you are entangled and YES you can move just fine since you chose "superman style flight sfx" instead of "wafting muon particle flight sfx" for the same price but hey even though you can move your dcv is zero for some reason...

 

that violates tesuji's stupid rule

 

nor am i going to tell him "yes you are entangled by the 60 pt entangle but you can move and have your dcv cuz you chose "superman style flight sfx" and the guy with the entangle just gave you additional PD/ED you should thank him..."

 

cuz that violates tesuji's stupid rule.

 

if you want an entangle that doesn't restrict movement - you get a lim. like the one they mention for handcuffs

 

now for a power that entangle doesn't normally affect, like say missile deflect - that is still stopped by an entangle, then you can start talking about restrainable.

 

but once you default to "sure you can move under entangles, just choose the right sfx" and you have gutted most of the benefit of entangle, you have imo missed a boat somewhere.

 

i mean, paying 60 cp to give you free pd/ed seems like a heckuva bad deal.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I'm not sure if I fully picked up on what tesuji was getting at....

 

Mind you you can see why a lot of people would buy flight (wings) as 'restrainable' - because the rule book suggests it. If you actually look at it, however, I'm still not seeing the additional limtiation that 'restrainable' imparts in that instance.

 

I'm not sure 'superman flight', logical as it would be for it to be unaffected by by an entangle (at least if you are not close enough to anything to become anchored) can be explained away just by 'sfx'. I mean: where's the balancing downside to 'superman flight'?

 

Perhaps we ought to buy flight that is unaffected by entangle with an advantage that circumvents entangle, like 'armour piercing' (on the basis it works for teleportation).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

The rule book mentions if you are Entangled while In Flight - you keep moving in a straight direction at the same velocity you were at the time of Entanglement.

 

Seems to me if you have Restrainable on Flight you plummet instead.

[tesuji]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

The rule book mentions if you are Entangled while In Flight - you keep moving in a straight direction at the same velocity you were at the time of Entanglement.

 

reference please

 

thanks

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Restrainable is, basically, an alternative to Focus. If the use of the power can be prevented in a way similar to taking away or interfering with a Focus, but its not actually in a Focus, then Restrainable is the logical option.

 

At the -1/4 level its just another label on a -1/4 Partially Limited Power Lim. Restrainable (By Magnetic Fields, -1/4) isn't really any different than "Not in Magnetic Fields, -1/4), and since 5th Edition I've opted for Restrainable over a generic lim in such cases.

 

One could look at that and say it's also not that different from say, Restrainable (In Secret Id, -1/4) vs OIHID, -1/4. However, OIHID is more specialized and has custom rules around what it takes to assume hero form, and also long standing convention. So, I continue to use OIHID even though Restrainable could cover it. Restrainable is also usable on powers that are also OIHID, so there is value in such a nuance.

 

At the -1/2 level Restrainable is roughly equivalent to OIF or IAF or {Pick Any Two: [Gestures | Incantations | 1/2 DCV Concentration]}. The way I adjudicate it in practice is, any overt physical interference with the character's applicable point of origin body parts prevents the use the power, as does any non-overt interference. So, Grabs and Entangles that affect a Restrainable power's point of origin prevent the use of the powers, as well as any environmental concerns (such as lack of space to move in, inappropriate medium (flapping wings don't work in space, usually)) and _on occassion_ sfx considerations (being submerged in water could prevent the use of Restrainable fire powers, etc).

 

It could be said that I treat Restrainable at the -1/2 level as essentially a combination of "Affected By Appropriate Grabs & Entangles" and the equivalent of the "Real Weapon" limitation -- ie it asserts logical considerations over purely mechanical considerations.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Wow. That is as comprehensive and logical a description as one could hope for. Thank you.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Since your head is a limb that can be grabbed, disabled, entangle etc, I suppose you could drop restrainable on a bite. It doesn't seem to different from restrainable flight with the sfx of wings.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Right. You could apply it or not apply it.

 

All attacks have to have a defined point of origin. "Bite" would usually have a defined origin point of "mouth". That's the same whether Restrainable is applied or not.

 

If a character is grabbed or entangled or muzzled or is otherwise in a position where _logically_ they wouldn't be able to employ their bite, without Restrainable applied they still could mechanically; with Restrainable applied they could not.

 

On the other hand, it doesnt have to be one way or the other. For instance, a dog's snout might be restrainable, while a human's mouth might not be. One is much harder to physically interdict than the other thanks to differing anatomy / topography.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

You can attack your "grabber" when you have been grabbed. So if you had a bite attack, you could use it, arguably even if they grabbed your head. Likewise, you could use a bite attack to break an Entangle. Now, add Restrainable to your bite attack. If someone grabs your head you can’t use your bite attack, ever, for any reason. Likewise, if you are Entangled and bite is your strongest attack, guess what? You can’t use it to break through the Entangle. Why do people have issues with this as a limitation?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

You can attack your "grabber" when you have been grabbed. So if you had a bite attack' date=' you could use it, arguably even if they grabbed your head. Likewise, you could use a bite attack to break an Entangle. Now, add Restrainable to your bite attack. If someone grabs your head you can’t use your bite attack, ever, for any reason. Likewise, if you are Entangled and bite is your strongest attack, guess what? You can’t use it to break through the Entangle. Why do people have issues with this as a limitation?[/quote']

 

Because its new to 5th Edition. HERO players are like Ents...don't want to be too hasty accepting anything new. 5th Edition is less than a decade old; and thus the Entmoot is still undecided on it.

 

 

I like it, I use it, it works; good enough for me.

[Vulcan]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

You can attack your "grabber" when you have been grabbed. So if you had a bite attack' date=' you could use it, arguably even if they grabbed your head. Likewise, you could use a bite attack to break an Entangle. Now, add Restrainable to your bite attack. If someone grabs your head you can’t use your bite attack, ever, for any reason. Likewise, if you are Entangled and bite is your strongest attack, guess what? You can’t use it to break through the Entangle. Why do people have issues with this as a limitation?[/quote']

 

Exactly. Alligators are my favorite example of a 'restrainable' bite. A normal human can hold an alligator's moth shut easily. Electrical tape can do it - and often is used for just that purpose by wildlife control officers who have to deal with 'gators a lot.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

You can attack your "grabber" when you have been grabbed. So if you had a bite attack' date=' you could use it, arguably even if they grabbed your head. Likewise, you could use a bite attack to break an Entangle. Now, add Restrainable to your bite attack. If someone grabs your head you can’t use your bite attack, ever, for any reason. Likewise, if you are Entangled and bite is your strongest attack, guess what? You can’t use it to break through the Entangle. Why do people have issues with this as a limitation?[/quote']

 

 

You can attack your grabber if you have something to attack with. You can always apply STR against a grabber, because strenght does not take a point of origin - you are the point of origin. However if someone has claws, for example, I'd certainly let someone grab their forearms to prevent their use. Now should I do that if they have not bought it with 'restrainable'? I think so.

 

If you follow the logic through then almost any attack should be restrainable, as should most movement powers. That's the problem though - logic often lets you down when we are talking about creating a Hero - Hero has its own logic.

 

Running should be restrainable - you need legs to run, right? Well, no, running is just movement along the ground but as a matter of convention and practice we assume that we need legs, or wheels, or something.

 

Normal human running is not bought with restrainable. We know this.

 

Logically and practically it IS restrainable.

 

Where do we draw our line?

 

I have issues because we are not treating everything the same way. If we were to build out characters consistently then almost every attack and movement power SHOULD be restrainable. A bite attack is (perhaps) a HKA, and it has to take a point of origin. If that point of origin is immobilised, can you still use it? It is not enough to say 'Yes, unless you've bought it as restrainable' because either:

 

1. Almost everything should be bought as restrainable

 

OR

 

2. Almost everything is restrainable anyway so should not warrant a (substantial) limitation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Exactly. Alligators are my favorite example of a 'restrainable' bite. A normal human can hold an alligator's moth shut easily. Electrical tape can do it - and often is used for just that purpose by wildlife control officers who have to deal with 'gators a lot.

 

Do you believe there is any bite (except on some bizarre creature that can form a toothy maw anywhere it likes on its body) that isn't restrainable?

 

The alligator example is not how it works: you can always use your nomal STR to break free of a grab or entangle. Alligators are STRONG. The fact that an alligator can not - it is a matter of leverage - qualifies it for being restrainable, sure, but an alligator basically has restrainable strength too - hold it right and it can not get at you. It can spin around a lot because it still has a strong tail, but it can not get at you. It has tiny, useless (in a fight) limbs. That is not how 99.99% of the characters that take 'restrainable' work.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I believe there is a difference between realistic and fantastic. The system does not really model the realistic, generally speaking, by default. Limitations and Optional Rules can be applied to make the game more closely model reality, but by default it favors the fantastic / cinematic.

 

There is a difference between MECHANICS and LOGIC. Mechanically you can use an ability as its written in the rules, and logic / arguments couched in terms of realism be damned. If you want to impose further restrictions upon the mechanics for whatever reason, including a desire to more closely model realism, then cost reductions may apply. Restrainable is just one of many different configuration options available to restrict the default open usage of some mechanics, no more and no less.

 

If you don't want to use Restrainable or recognize its value, then don't use it. Some of us do see a value and a use in it and we do use it.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

You can attack your grabber if you have something to attack with. You can always apply STR against a grabber, because strenght does not take a point of origin - you are the point of origin. However if someone has claws, for example, I'd certainly let someone grab their forearms to prevent their use. Now should I do that if they have not bought it with 'restrainable'? I think so.

 

If you follow the logic through then almost any attack should be restrainable, as should most movement powers. That's the problem though - logic often lets you down when we are talking about creating a Hero - Hero has its own logic.

 

Running should be restrainable - you need legs to run, right? Well, no, running is just movement along the ground but as a matter of convention and practice we assume that we need legs, or wheels, or something.

 

Normal human running is not bought with restrainable. We know this.

 

Logically and practically it IS restrainable.

 

Where do we draw our line?

 

I have issues because we are not treating everything the same way. If we were to build out characters consistently then almost every attack and movement power SHOULD be restrainable. A bite attack is (perhaps) a HKA, and it has to take a point of origin. If that point of origin is immobilised, can you still use it? It is not enough to say 'Yes, unless you've bought it as restrainable' because either:

 

1. Almost everything should be bought as restrainable

 

OR

 

2. Almost everything is restrainable anyway so should not warrant a (substantial) limitation.

 

Since you’re focusing on logic and realism I think it's only fair to point out that grabbing (the act of taking hold of, not the game mechanic) someone’s head would make you more likely to get bitten, not less. In fact, grabbing someone’s legs, arms, really almost anywhere else on the human body other than the head, especially from behind, would make you less likely to be bitten then grabbing someone’s head/neck. So, when you designate the head (which is considered a “limb”) as the point of origin for a “bite” type attack, you are being illogical, because designating the head as the point of origin means that restraining the head (Grabbing it) restrains the attack, even though logically and realistically it’s fairly easy to bite someone who has you in a headlock.

 

Also, let’s look at Entangle. An EB can be used to break out of an Entangle. It just can. That’s part of the mechanics of the game. If the EB is bought as a Focus, then it usually can’t be used to break out of an Entangle. Now, Player of Laser Finger Man wants to show that his EB (the laser finger) needs very precise aim and won’t be useful when Entangled, yet he doesn’t want it to be a Focus that can be taken away, it’s his finger after all. What do we do? Apply Restrainable. IMO this makes perfect sense.