Entangles on other CHA

[Ellis]

I'm a mean GM, apparently, for disallowing a PC to have an Entangle that uses non-STR CHA to get out of (ie: Entangle vs INT).

Has anyone actually allowed this? :confused:

[BNakagawa]

Nah, they're just being cheese-monkeys.

You can't justify a power that would neutralize 95% of all published villains with one hit. Not for 60AP, anyway.

[Zaratustra]

While most GMs will let a 30, 40 or even 60 STR pass, try to get a 40 INT through a GM. They'll either laugh at you or expect you to RP it and stuff.

[Steve Long]

My HEROglyphs column in Digital Hero #5 covered several aspects and optional rules for Entangles, including one on this very subject.

[Farkling]

MY viewpoint is this::

Only if it is a small Entangle. I think ONE of my characters has a 33 INT. The rest are 10-23.
EGO base would be worse. PRE would be pretty inflictive to them also.

IF using canon Champs Universe, this would lash up most villains immediately, as they do not have overlyimpressive INT scores.

Point out also that attacks will still hit an Entangle based on other CHAracteristics, and perhaps he seeks another power.

My question is this... What is the special effect description for this attack? It really sounds like a cheesy effect with just the power query...and I am curious to know what precisely he has in mind?

Charge him the "Based on ECV" or "AVLD" power advantage...that should hold the dice down.

[Killer Shrike]

Treat it similarly to a EGO Based Entangle, requiring a +1 1/4 overhead cost (similar to BOECV (+1) and Based On Ego Not STR (+1/4)).

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Steve Long
My HEROglyphs column in Digital Hero #5 covered several aspects and optional rules for Entangles, including one on this very subject. Just pulled this up to reference it. Hmm.

The article would seem to suggest that you could have a EGO based Entangle without BOECV, if it were merely targeted normally. Afterall, if you dont have to have something like BOECV for a PRE, INT, or COM based Entangle, then logically you shouldnt need it for an EGO based Entangle unless you intend for the power to be targeted vs ECV rather than DCV.

It seems like if EGO Based Entangles MUST take BOECV as stated in FRED, then other 'Exotic' Entangles should have a comparable overall cost, but the HEROGlyphs article indicates otherwise.

Ill have to give this some thought before Im comfortable with it.

[BNakagawa]

A <stat> based entangle that can be affected by standard damage isn't quite so nasty as one that isn't, but still...

Many bricks/martial artists are designed to use STR as their only or a large component of their attacks. take that capability away from them and they're basically useless.

Allow a INT based entangle and you've got a cheap attack that can completely neutralize Grond, the Monster, Bulldozer, Ogre, Black Palladin, etc. Still too unbalanced, IMO.

[Ellis]

I had actually read Digital #5, but 'threw it out' by accident, and didn't feel like re-buying it. Probably I wasn't impressed with optional entangles that weren't STR or EGO, since most of the FRED advantages are for those.

The AVLD idea sounds good, but he hasn't yet come up with a better justification, other than 'People do what my character wants because he has a 60 PRE.' (which I'm not sure I'm allowing either. Heck, with that many dice of PRE attack, who needs an entangle?)

Thanks for all the advice everyone. :)

[Caveman]

Originally posted by Zaratustra
While most GMs will let a 30, 40 or even 60 STR pass, try to get a 40 INT through a GM. They'll either laugh at you or expect you to RP it and stuff.

np, I have(of course, you just have to SOUND intellegent, and talk alot of sci-fi mumbo-jumbo). then again I've seen people buy up the int or pre and they couldn't RP it if their life depended on it.

:D

[Simon]

Originally posted by Ellis
I had actually read Digital #5, but 'threw it out' by accident, and didn't feel like re-buying it. Probably I wasn't impressed with optional entangles that weren't STR or EGO, since most of the FRED advantages are for those.

The AVLD idea sounds good, but he hasn't yet come up with a better justification, other than 'People do what my character wants because he has a 60 PRE.' (which I'm not sure I'm allowing either. Heck, with that many dice of PRE attack, who needs an entangle?)

Thanks for all the advice everyone. :)
Just re-download the issue. You don't need to purchase it again. Once an issue has been purchased by a particular account, it remains on that account (and available).

Just login under the account that you used to purchase the issue and you're good to go.

[dugfromthearth]

I would have two modifiers:

AVLD to reflect that it is going against a cha not normally used to attack.

and then I would do a straight cost multiplier using the cost multiplier for the cha to account for the extra cost per d6 of the cha.

ie entangle vs CON would have an AVLD modifier, and then the cost of the power would be doubled (after all adv and lims applied) to reflect that CON is 10pts per d6 instead of 5.

whereas entangle vs COM would have an AVLD and then the cost of the power would be halved.

[BNakagawa]

scaling the cost of such an entangle to the cost of the stat that affects it is a really bad idea.

Con is a universally useful stat, and even with a cost four times that of Comeliness, the average villain has a higher Con than Comeliness.
The number of villains that could mathematically affect a 2d6 <affected by COM> entangle with a +1 def is pretty low. Most bricks seem to be on the homely side.

It's real simple. If most characters can't get out of it most of the time, it's unbalanced. If you build an entangle that is affected by COM, then 90% of the bricks, martial artists and OAF wielders in the book are never ever going to get out. And that's WITHOUT it being half the cost of one that is affected by INT or PRE.

[Kristopher]

I think AVLD is probably the best model for this.

I'm having trouble coming up with a special effect that really makes sense for this kind of thing, though.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Originally posted by Kristopher
I think AVLD is probably the best model for this.

I'm having trouble coming up with a special effect that really makes sense for this kind of thing, though.

Same here. The best example I can come up with is an effect sort of like a DnD "Maze" spell, which I suppose could be an Entangle vs. INT.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by JeffreyWKramer
Same here. The best example I can come up with is an effect sort of like a DnD "Maze" spell, which I suppose could be an Entangle vs. INT.

Since the targets actually go away for the duration of the spell, I did Maze w/ XDM http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/Powers/Spells/Spells.asp?Provider=Killer%20Shrike&Category=Universal#Maze


All that aside, I can think of plenty of SFX for unusual Entangles; I just cant think why non EGO-based "Exotic Entangles" would be so much cheaper than EGO-based as indicated by the HEROGlyphs #5 article.

[Vondy]

I allow BOECV Entangles vs Ego

[Farkling]

My point was that if the player can't come up with a special effect, then he can't buy the power.

"People do what I say because I have a 60 PRE" is NOT a special effect. "People do what I say because of my forceful personality" is a special effect...but describes Mind Control...not an Entangle. Which is broken by EGO rolls over time...hmmm...perhaps allowing a different modifier on Mind Control.

[JmOz]

INT based:

A Mental puzzle that consumes the character until he can solve it

PRE based

Such a forcefull personality that the character is in great awe/Dredd of him (Think Super Presence attack)

[Rene]

I think this kind of stuff is better simulated with Mind Control with the Limitation Set Command: "Freeze". In the first case, substitute INT Roll for EGO Roll as the Breakout Roll. I guess it would have to be NND too, since Mental Defense wouldn't protect against it.



Originally posted by JmOz
INT based:

A Mental puzzle that consumes the character until he can solve it

PRE based

Such a forcefull personality that the character is in great awe/Dredd of him (Think Super Presence attack)

[Dust Raven]

Most of the SFX I see for these "entangle" powers seem to point to the use of other Powers for their effect.

Mental paralysis is just Mind Control with the command to "not move". Entangles can be blasted out of, and even if it's based on EGO, meaning only "ego powers" can be used to break it's effect (in addition to EGO), it's just replaced the rules that another mentalist can break the effect of a mental power by rolling higher than the original effect. Mind Control is already there and it works.

The same thing goes for most other types. A PRE based Entangle might be better bought as a huge amount of extra PRE with "Only To Make People Freeze In There Tracks For A While". It might even be cheeper then the Entangle.

The "mental puzzle" sounds like a Mental Power (Control or Illusion) too.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
Most of the SFX I see for these "entangle" powers seem to point to the use of other Powers for their effect.

Totally agree. Why overcomplicate things when there are easy solutions at hand?

[dugfromthearth]

"Totally agree. Why overcomplicate things when there are easy solutions at hand?"

bored at work

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by JmOz
INT based:

A Mental puzzle that consumes the character until he can solve it

PRE based

Such a forcefull personality that the character is in great awe/Dredd of him (Think Super Presence attack)

That can be busted by a 1 INT, 1 PRE brick. (on the outside)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Zaratustra
While most GMs will let a 30, 40 or even 60 STR pass, try to get a 40 INT through a GM. They'll either laugh at you or expect you to RP it and stuff.

I don't have a problem with 40 INT, if it fits, just for the record. As to the thread, I've never witnessed an Entangle on INT so can't speak to it, really, haven't given it much thought, but it'd seem to me that any Entangle on a characteristic would be against that and not STR, DEPENDING on the SFX of the Entangle, of course.

How would an Entangle on INT work, anyway? The ways I can think of would be better served by Drain, Dispel, Suppress, or Mind Control.

[Ellis]

Yeah, I think we're going to call this guy a Mentalist, he'll have Mind Control and Drains and the like.

[Andrew Cermak]

Originally posted by Rene
Totally agree. Why overcomplicate things when there are easy solutions at hand?

Maybe because the "overcomplications" actually allow for some interesting power constructs that can't otherwise be easily duplicated.

With an Entangle based on INT (for example, a logical conundrum the character is compelled to solve before he can take any physical action), other characters could help "guide" the victim to a solution (ie making INT based "attacks" on the Entangle). With a PRE based Entangle (say, paralyzing fear), a commanding ally could "snap him out of it" with a PRE attack against the Entangle. These are interesting dynamics that would be hard to represent with Mind Control.

An idea that I find most intriguing is an Entangle that is affected by two or more characteristics. Perhaps an entangling rope attack could be escaped with STR or DEX. Or, if the Puzzlemaster traps you in one of his Giant Rubiks Cubes, you *could* simply bust out with STR, or you could solve the puzzle with INT and thereby force it to release you.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of interesting possibilities there. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea of Entangles against alternate CHA out of hand.

[trechriron]

Originally posted by Ellis
I'm a mean GM, apparently, for disallowing a PC to have an Entangle that uses non-STR CHA to get out of (ie: Entangle vs INT).

Has anyone actually allowed this? :confused:

No, you’re a smart GM.

I will not allow “mechanics” based character constructs of any kind in a game without some story-based or description-based reason. If the player comes to me with this really great idea, and an INT based Entangle fits the bill, so be it. But to come to me with that cheesy-grin exclaiming at the top of your lungs that you have found the penultimate attack that NO ONE will beat, is a sure fire way to get "red-flagged" for the GMS audit. (Game Master Service).

Ask an important question. Can I see your character concept?

When the player starts to sputter and then tries to concoct an explanation on the spot. Veto it on a matter of principle and then make this person create a concept before you will allow them to crack a book.

Just because the system will allow you to do anything you want does not mean you should, or that the GM will allow it.

Don’t let experienced Hero Players dictate to you how you want your game to be ran. Just because they know six different ways to build the coolest power with very little points that can destroy the whole universe does not mean they are right. Smart perhaps, but not right. I am constantly impressed at the sheer genius some of my experienced Hero players come up with stuff. I still don’t allow it if it seems broken or unbalanced. If you don’t like it, don’t allow it, even if the rules say it is possible. It is your game after all. If you feel that is a bit heavy-handed, then ask them to justify it story-wise. At least you will have something to work with in the context of the game and not be victimized by the raw mechanics.

Just my two cents...

[Ellis]

I love your two cents so much, Trentin, I'm copying it and showing it to the players. You've written it better than I could ever explain to people, about the difference bewteen what can be done versus what should be done. Thanks :)

[trechriron]

You are most certainly welcome!

:D

[mudpyr8]

I'll second that notion. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Here, here.