The Beam limitation?

[Autobahn987]

What is this limitation and what does it mean? or where can I find it?

The only book I have is the core rulebook.

[Beast]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

page 145 of 6th ed book 1

 

it should have a listing under the general limitation section IMO

[Autobahn987]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

I only have the 5th (Revised) book.

[The Suave]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

Page 113, 5th ed Rev.

[Beast]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

page 113 in 5th ed revised

 

same problem ,needs to be in with the general limitations

[Lord Liaden]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

In that case you should find it described on p. 113, under the section entitled "Attack Powers."

[McCoy]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

Useful limitation, silly name. Can we think of something better to call it?

[ghost-angel]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

Since I consider the part where it only makes a "small hole" extraneous information (and should have been part of Real Weapon instead) I usually just call it "Requires Full Power" or "Full Power Only."

[Guest steamteck]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

I hate the name for that limitation. for the longest time I would get confused and think it was an advantage which allowed you to simulate a continuous beam weapon like a beam laser etc.

[McCoy]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

Since I consider the part where it only makes a "small hole" extraneous information (and should have been part of Real Weapon instead) I usually just call it "Requires Full Power" or "Full Power Only."

It's "full power only" and "cannot be spread." Suppose it could be argued that "canot be pread" is implied by "full power only," the counterarguement is that it is requireing the same AP/END, thus "full power," only trading damage for OCV.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

I may also ignore "cannot be spread" ... I sadly don't use the tactic often enough to consider it.

 

Either way, in my opinion "Full Power Onl" is worth the -1/4 all by itself, no other limits should be involved.

[Rapier]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

I will admit that Beam is not the greatest description of the power. Neither is Full Power Only since the Limitation encompasses more than just that.

 

I suppose Unmodifiable is closest, since the power cannot be lowered in power or spread or bounced, but I would shy away from using the root 'Modify' since it's already used quite a bit in the system.

 

I'm afraid that all the replacement names I can come up with are just as inaccurate and/or misleading as Beam. The closest I could get would be something like Unalterable.

[Beast]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

possible names

As Is

No Special Maneuvers(NSM)favorite

Straight Shot

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

I just call it "Cannot Be Spread or Reduced In Dice." Wordy, but clear.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

ball, bolt, bullet, pellet, projectile, shot, slug, trajectile

 

I'd prefer either bolt or projectile.

 

 

Note, the small hole aspect of Beam prevents using a Beams from being used effectively vs barriers which doesn't make sense for effects like a gyroid that is beam like in its trajectory but bomb like in its detonation / effect at point of impact.

[McCoy]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

possible names

As Is

No Special Maneuvers(NSM)favorite

Straight Shot

 

I just call it "Cannot Be Spread or Reduced In Dice." Wordy' date=' but clear. [/quote']

I have called it "fixed" in the past, possible confusion with ultra multipower slots though.

[dmjalund]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

add Pulse to the list of possible names

[Tasha]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

What is this limitation and what does it mean? or where can I find it?

The only book I have is the core rulebook.

 

Just so you know. Every Hero System book has a VERY VERY detailed Index. It's the best place to look for hard to find stuff in the book. The second best place is to ask the folk here

 

Enjoy!

Tasha

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

I may also ignore "cannot be spread" ... I sadly don't use the tactic often enough to consider it.

 

Either way, in my opinion "Full Power Onl" is worth the -1/4 all by itself, no other limits should be involved.

 

It all depends on experience. I see Spreading used pretty frequently against high DCV targets or hordes of agents. In a game where everyone has an AoE in their Multipower, this would likely be less prevalent.

 

However, I rarely see attacks fired at less than full power, so -1/4 for eliminating the option would be excessive.

[Rapier]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

That does bring up a point. I can't tell you the last time I saw someone spread or bounce an attack OR use a power at less than full strength. However we also don't very often run into a combat situation where you would be fighting someone other than another super. If you run into a regular old joe (of the non-GI variety) I could see a lot of situations where you might not want to use the full on 4d6k. I guess this is my fault for not exploring this situation a bit more...and that I plan on rectifying! >8)

[Matt Holck]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

spreading allowed energy projectors

to hit martial artist that depend our their DCV for most of their defense

the reduced dice would would still hurt the martial artist.

[Beast]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

going to depend on how much def the MA has and his DCV vs how many dice you need to spread to get a hit

 

spreading allowed energy projectors

to hit martial artist that depend our their DCV for most of their defense

the reduced dice would would still hurt the martial artist.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

going to depend on how much def the MA has and his DCV vs how many dice you need to spread to get a hit

 

True enough. There's a point where it'smuch more cost effective to have a 3 or 4 OCV, and buying AoE 1 hex (accurate if you prefer) on your attack instead.

 

In a 60 AP game, a naked advantage for this would cost 15 points (+1/4 on a 60 point power). The alternative is +3 OCV, or +3d6 Blast. If you need 4 or more added OCV, the AoE appproach is much more cost effective. The Blast is harder to compare, since the extra 3d6 is useful when you don't need exttra OCV.

 

As I type this, I note that Blast costs 5 points and OCV costs 5 points. My Blaster, assuming he has only the one significant attack, seems much better off buying extra dice than buying extra OCV (of course, he could just buy 2 point skill levels with his Blast, levelling the playing field). Buying high OCV makes sense if you have lots of attacks, though.

[incrdbil]

Re: The Beam limitation?

 

Spreading an attack is handy. It's sort of like a poor mans autofire. I mainyl see it used by heroes with big blast players who find agents who or villains who have unfortunately tightly grouped.

 

If your OCV is already at the game limits spreading is a handy way of adding some insurance. I guess if you were really desperate you coudl haymaker an attack, then spread all of dice. hmm, brace, set one phase, haymaker the next and spread some dice..that should give you a chance of hitting what you need to hit.

 

I plan to make much more use of it now that I read the 6e section on it and other applications.

 

It does have a game impact on agents--a combination of sweeps, multiple power attacks, and spreading lead to a one phase wipeout of 15 Argent agents in a game yesterday. It surprised me a little, I thought I'd get at least two phases of combat, but no big deal.