Restrainable Limitation

[Dormyn]

Can the power "bite", represented by a hth killing attack, have the limitation restrainable? If not, when would this limitation apply, if at all?

[Fitz]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Sure, it could be Restrained by, say, wearing a muzzle, or if it's a creature with a long snout like a dog or crocodile, with a grab.

 

I also use Restrainable to convert D&D characters with abilities that are negated by a saving throw -- e.g. Restrainable by the target's successful CON roll, DEX roll etc.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

You can get carried away with 'restrainable'. Technically walking is restrainable, but don't even think about asking for a limitation on it.

 

Personally I would not let you have 'restrainable' on a bite attack, as it is ludicrously difficult in practice to restrain someone from biting unless you use special equipment. Sure you can do it, but only in the same way you can restrain 'strength' i.e. by superior force.

 

OTOH to use a bit you have to be REAL close, so I might let you take a limitation that gave you reduced DCV against the target of the bite.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

.................................

 

I also use Restrainable to convert D&D characters with abilities that are negated by a saving throw -- e.g. Restrainable by the target's successful CON roll, DEX roll etc.

 

 

Now that is an interesting idea!

[Vulcan]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I consider restrainable a perfectly reasonable limitation for a bite attack. After all, if you are grabbed, the 'grabber' is unlikely to hold the 'grabbee' in such a way that they can bite him! - and thus it is restrainable.

 

Of course, there are those who disagree. Check with your GM to see what he thinks.

 

But if he says no, remember that then you can still bite your way out of a grab or entanlge, because the GM said that it 'couldn't be Restrainable'.

[jwpacker]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

But if he says no, remember that then you can still bite your way out of a grab or entanlge, because the GM said that it 'couldn't be Restrainable'.

 

More to the point, if you deliberately don't take 'restrainable', does that give you a sort of limited usage stretching to twist your neck around just so as to be able to bite the grabber?

[Vulcan]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

That kind of thing is why I think bites should be Restrainable. But if the GM thinks differently, sure, I'll leave the limitation off.

 

Just don't try and impose the limitation on me after the fact, during gameplay!

[Beast]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

the big one would be cannot use said power to blast your way out of an entangle or t-port out of one

wing won't work

 

it would be where like an OAF you cannot use it if grabbed or entangles, but it cannot be taken from you

 

spiderman{movie version)if his hands cannot do the right gesture he cannot shoot his webs

[Clovis]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

But if bites should have restrainable, wouldn't most any hth attack and hth killing attack that comes from the body need restrainable? I figured restrainable was used to imply that a power that tends to not be commonly held to being retrained. Ex Wings, a version of flight that would be considered restrainable. At the same time, hth attacks are already thought to be restrainable, so they never get the limitation.

[The Hawk God]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I built my last PC with a restrainable bite reasoning that it could be neutralized by a grab or entangle. otherwise, I would expect to use the HKA with VERY few impediments.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I consider restrainable a perfectly reasonable limitation for a bite attack. After all, if you are grabbed, the 'grabber' is unlikely to hold the 'grabbee' in such a way that they can bite him! - and thus it is restrainable.

 

Of course, there are those who disagree. Check with your GM to see what he thinks.

 

But if he says no, remember that then you can still bite your way out of a grab or entanlge, because the GM said that it 'couldn't be Restrainable'.

 

Recent case where this chap was being restrained by a doorman about twice his mass, and, obviously, reasonably competent at such things. The doorman had his arm across the throat of the nightclub insurgent who, nonetheless, managed to crane forward and sink his incisors into doorman's bicep.

 

You have to devote a surprisingly large amount of effort to immobilising a head so that the teeth can not come into play.

 

Anyway, 'restrainable' always did concern me a bit. I mean, the point of using a grab manoeuvre is to immobilise two limbs, right? Well, how is 'restrainable' further limiting you?

 

Almost any attack and the majority of movement powers can be restrained by grabs anyway. That's how grab works.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

You have to devote a surprisingly large amount of effort to immobilising a head so that the teeth can not come into play.

 

Anyway, 'restrainable' always did concern me a bit. I mean, the point of using a grab manoeuvre is to immobilise two limbs, right? Well, how is 'restrainable' further limiting you?

 

Almost any attack and the majority of movement powers can be restrained by grabs anyway. That's how grab works.

 

 

I think the big difference is "restrainable" powers are affected by entangles and such as well. An innate (not bought as a Foci) ranged attack, such as Energy Blast, can be used against an Entangle but not against a grab, barring GM fiat for common/dramatic sense. What about movement powers? A flying character can be grabbed by the arms or legs while in the air, but that doesn’t mean they will instantly plummet to the earth, unless flight is for some reason restrainable.

 

Also, a grabbed character is at reduced OCV, but can still attack their grabber, within reason. Say you have both arms pinned in bear-hug; you can still kick with your full strength, headbutt the person, etc. Now put Restrainable on STR. You can’t do anything, even try to escape.

 

As far as “bite” being restrainable for a humanoid character…I’d allow it if the person really wanted to limit themselves. Even if they don’t make bite restrainable, though, I’m still not going to let them bite someone who has them “grabbed” by the legs! But they may be able to bite someone else in the same hex; remember, grabbed characters, can, by RAW, attack people other than those grabbing them. Common and dramatic sense is the only way to deal with this kind of thing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I think the big difference is "restrainable" powers are affected by entangles and such as well. An innate (not bought as a Foci) ranged attack, such as Energy Blast, can be used against an Entangle but not against a grab, barring GM fiat for common/dramatic sense. What about movement powers? A flying character can be grabbed by the arms or legs while in the air, but that doesn’t mean they will instantly plummet to the earth, unless flight is for some reason restrainable.

 

Also, a grabbed character is at reduced OCV, but can still attack their grabber, within reason. Say you have both arms pinned in bear-hug; you can still kick with your full strength, headbutt the person, etc. Now put Restrainable on STR. You can’t do anything, even try to escape.

 

As far as “bite” being restrainable for a humanoid character…I’d allow it if the person really wanted to limit themselves. Even if they don’t make bite restrainable, though, I’m still not going to let them bite someone who has them “grabbed” by the legs! But they may be able to bite someone else in the same hex; remember, grabbed characters, can, by RAW, attack people other than those grabbing them. Common and dramatic sense is the only way to deal with this kind of thing.

 

If you have, say, claws, wolverine type claws, and someone grabs your arms, I'd say you'd have a job using them, but not because they are restrainable but because the power originates from your hands/arms and your hands/arms are immobilised by the grab.

 

Similarly if you have eye beams then it makes little sense that you could use them effectively if your head is grabbed, or you are being pushed face down into the dirt.

 

I would not normally consider either 'restrainable' but both can clearly be restrained by a grab.

 

Entangle is more problematic. Different sfx lead to different conclusions. If you are encased in ice so that you can not move then, probably, claws and eye beams should be of limited effect. You might be able to punch a hole in the ice but that would not necessarily shatter it. With other sfx though - being entangled by rope or a net, you would have enough movement to break free by targeting your attacks.

 

Perhaps Entangle ought to have an adder '+10 points - immobilises target' or '+5 points - immobilises 2 limbs (like a grab)'.

 

Conversely of you had a hand held weapon that is restrainable, having your legs grabbed should not prevent you using it, and an entangle like a net that allowed some movement should not stop its use either. Equally I can see someone who has wings being grabbed but still ebing able to fly - if the a wing was not one of the limbs immobilised.

 

Perhaps the whole thing needs a bit more definition.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Both Killer Shrike (on his cyberpunk website) and I have used Restrainable for Cybernetics - being "restrainable" by use of an EMP, which is above and beyond grabbing someone.

 

It has its uses, and most of them are not your standard set of comic-book abilities.

[Vulcan]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

But if bites should have restrainable' date=' wouldn't most any hth attack and hth killing attack that comes from the body need restrainable? I figured restrainable was used to imply that a power that tends to not be commonly held to being retrained. Ex Wings, a version of flight that would be considered restrainable. At the same time, hth attacks are already thought to be restrainable, so they never get the limitation.[/quote']

 

I thought 'Restrainable' means 'can be prevented from use with entangles and grabs.' What do you think it means? Great, now I've got to go dig out my book...

[Vulcan]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

IEven if they don’t make bite restrainable' date=' though, I’m still not going to let them bite someone who has them “grabbed” by the legs![/quote']

 

What, they can't do a 'sit-up' to get grabber into range (depending upon their relative positions, of course)?

 

Common and dramatic sense is the only way to deal with this kind of thing.

 

Agreed.

[Vulcan]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

All right, here is the 5E definition for Restrainable (p.200)

 

"A power with this -1/2 Limitation is generally by or based on an area of the body which can be restrained. Example include Flight defined as having wings or some HKAs defined as having claws. If that area or part of the body is Grabbed, Entagled, or otherwise restrained, the character cannot use the Power. When he breaks free or the restraint, or it is removed, the Power functions normally again"

 

Soooo....

 

Clovis: yes, most HA and HKA's should probably be 'Restrainable,' since they would require moving the requisite body part to use the power. However, a GM might allow some special effects to bypass this (say, and ED HA 'Lightning Punch' which could concivably shock someone holding the wrists of the character).

 

Sean: Sounds like your nightclub insurgent didn't take 'Restrainable' on his 0d6 HKA bite!

 

On a serious note, characters with an effective bite attack tend to have exaggerated/extended mandibles that would make it easier to restrain the bite, and therefore could be restrained. If they don't take 'Restrainable', then perhaps the reason is that they retain a very 'human' jaw structure which makes it easier for them to get under the restraining arm.

 

And for all: bigbywolfe is right. Don't let the rules get in the way of common and dramatic sense.

[tesuji]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

for me its simply a matter of "what do you want?"

 

do you want your character to freequently be unable to use this attack? if so, take restrainable.

 

if you want this to rarely happen? dont take restrainable.

 

by taking the lim and taking the points you are telling me "do this to me".

 

by not taking the points, you are saying "this isn't often a problem for me".

 

or at least not enough to be more than sfx.

 

see, you can be "unable to bite" even without the restrainable - its called sfx - so those whining about getting lims applied "after the fact" dont get much truck with me - its called SFX.

 

a little here and there is sfx. a limitation however gets more frequent, frequent enough its a "part of the character".

 

same way that one guys armor - did not take focus - is rarely damaged or lost or in the wrong place, while another guy's armor is frequently so - took a focus - even though both are power suits.

 

So, you tell me about "your" bite - is it often stopped by grabs or entangles?

 

welll, is it?

 

that other guy;s bite may be different!

[jwpacker]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Okay, am I missing the point here? Real world situation -- can a character buy Restrainable on Missile Deflection?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

hmmm.... maybe a stretch but:

 

Spinning Staff: Restrainable (requires wide open spaces to operate)

[jwpacker]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

hmmm.... maybe a stretch but:

 

Spinning Staff: Restrainable (requires wide open spaces to operate)

 

See, that's my gut feeling too - that you'd get more of a disad if you took the focus, but it could be taken away - but what if the sfx are just ninja reflexes and dodging and interposing objects of opportunity?

 

And what's your feeling on gestures as a limitation for missile deflection?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

Means you gotta do fancy posing to deflect. probably means you're playing Saturday Morning Kung-Fu Action Theater Hero too....

[Sean Waters]

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?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

I don't think it should. I do think Restrainable should be left for things that go above and beyond into other special circumstances - and the GM is the arbiter of what that is in their campaign.

[jwpacker]

Re: Restrainable Limitation

 

And more to the point, do you get points for both Restrainable and Gestures, since the one seems to be a superset of the other?