Flashing Paralyzing attack

[Dr Divago]

I'm converting "flashbulb" weapon, and i'm searching idea to make it like original concept.

What is Flashbulb? is a weapon that blind opponent, and cause an epileptic induced state that paralyze unprotected opponent.

Then:
blinding attack are a Flash against Sight Group; secondary effect is linked to flash and "only if flash was succesful" but...
what type of attack? an Huge "Stun Only EB"? an Entangle? a Trasform (normal human in human with epilepsy)?

tnx

[transmetahuman]

I'm converting "flashbulb" weapon, and i'm searching idea to make it like original concept.

What is Flashbulb? is a weapon that blind opponent, and cause an epileptic induced state that paralyze unprotected opponent.

Then:
blinding attack are a Flash against Sight Group; secondary effect is linked to flash and "only if flash was succesful" but...
what type of attack? an Huge "Stun Only EB"? an Entangle? a Trasform (normal human in human with epilepsy)?

tnxA Stun-Only EB still has to overcome the character's physical or energy defense; sounds like you'd want it to bypass ED.
Maybe a DEX Drain, possibly Simultaneously against other stats, but that gets hugely expensive. And the active points don't go down even if you speed up the recovery, though if it's an NPC you might not care.

Or a STUN Drain, that might do what you want it to and it'd be cheaper. And once you add in ranged and area effect, you're going to need the point savings.

[Dr Divago]

I'd go with a flash and linkekd mental paralysisMental paralysis? i've missed this power or is built with some other power?
with a limitation not versus people with sight flash defense [the value depending on how often people have FD in your game].Well, with sunglasses and mirrorshades, not counting optishield, anti-dazzle cybereyes and like... i say no lesser than a -½ limitation...

[Edsel]

Mental paralysis? i've missed this power or is built with some other power? Well, with sunglasses and mirrorshades, not counting optishield, anti-dazzle cybereyes and like... i say no lesser than a -½ limitation...
Mental Paralysis is an Entangle with the advantage "Works against EGO instead of STR," often this is also bought with the "Based on ECV" advantage. In you case I do not think you would want that second advantage. Unfortunately I am at work without my book so I can't give you page numbers to look at for this.

[Hugh Neilson]

Some good options above.

Entangle

Mental Paralysis will work like an Entangle, which means an all or nothing effect. The character is either paralyzed, or in perfect shape. A normal Mental Paralysis is built with Takes no Damage from Physical Attacks (+1/4), Works vs Ego, not STR (+1/4) and Cannot form Barriers (-1/4), plus BOECV (+1). You'd likely want to eliminate BOECV.

Do you envision your attack being shaken off by high EGO targets? Maybe using "Works vs CON, not STR" would be a better approach. The same "takes no damage from physical attacks" would apply, as would "can't form barriers". I'd also likely apply a limitation of, say, BOD reduced by target's flash def (probably a -1/2).

Adjustment Power

Someone suggested a DEX drain, which would also seem workable. This would create a more gradual effect, but also one which recovers a lot slower. You would want to consider whether this should work against power defense (default), Flash defense (AVLD +3/4 by the book; I believe the switch between exotic defenses should be free, just like the switch between the standard PD and ED, but that's a matter for GM discussion), the greater of the two (probably a -1/4 or 1/2 limitation) or the aggregate of the two (probably as much as a -1 limitation).

What about a Suppress bought to 0 END? This would maintain the seizure until a "reasonably common" recovery condition (an Ego or CON based breakout roll, perhaps, with penalties for how negative DEX becomes, or a fixed time period).

Can you be more specific on how you envision the attack functioning?

[Dr Divago]

Some good options above.
Entangle
Mental Paralysis will work like an Entangle, which means an all or nothing effect. The character is either paralyzed, or in perfect shape. A normal Mental Paralysis is built with Takes no Damage from Physical Attacks (+1/4), Works vs Ego, not STR (+1/4) and Cannot form Barriers (-1/4), plus BOECV (+1). You'd likely want to eliminate BOECV.I must eliminate BOECV 'cause is linked to a flash attack


Do you envision your attack being shaken off by high EGO targets? Maybe using "Works vs CON, not STR" would be a better approach. The same "takes no damage from physical attacks" would apply, as would "can't form barriers". I'd also likely apply a limitation of, say, BOD reduced by target's flash def (probably a -1/2).Well, i've thinked about a NND (defense is applicable Flash Defense) but is not necessary: this "epileptic state" is induced via a Flash, so i think that a "only if flash attack cause blindness" or similar limitation is better...
Can you be more specific on how you envision the attack functioning?This is a bulb who make an huge flash; intensity of the flash is so intense that cause an epileptic state in target, so target are paralyzed.
If target resist to paralyzing effect, are blinded (or not, 'cause sunglasses are common...) by flash attack...

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

with the way paralyzed sounds to me, i'd say some sort of entangle (maybe based on CON to see how quicky their nervous system recovers from that massive shock) of course the entangle shouldn't take damage from attacks and such

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, i've thinked about a NND (defense is applicable Flash Defense) but is not necessary: this "epileptic state" is induced via a Flash, so i think that a "only if flash attack cause blindness" or similar limitation is better...

The limitation then demands the question what, if anything, would defend against the paralysis. If there is no defense (other than "breaking out"), I like the CON-based entangle.


This is a bulb who make an huge flash; intensity of the flash is so intense that cause an epileptic state in target, so target are paralyzed.
If target resist to paralyzing effect, are blinded (or not, 'cause sunglasses are common...) by flash attack...

I'm more getting at the impact of repeat exposure. If you go "entangle based on CON", anyone affected by the Flash is paralyzed, and high CON targets will quickly break out. It's all or nothing (no shakiness, for example, after just barely breaking out of the entangle). Using an adjustment power, repeat exposure will create enhanced effects, and it won't be all or nothing.

[Ura-Maru]

A burst attack that stuns (and can even knock out) people, ignoring how tough they are, but stopped if they have shielded optics/ears?

Grit your teeth, this is going to be expensive.

(75) 5d6 EB, AVLD:Flash Defense (+1 1/2), Explosion (+1/2)

Then tack on OAF and Charges. (And 'can be missle deflected' if missle deflection is common enough, as it's a greneade) And link a flash to it, of course. You could go NND instead of AVLD, but then a pair of sunglasses will stop it completly.

That's enough to stun people who have less than a 18 con on average. Realistically, they it should probably be a bit bigger, but it's already pretty badass.

---
"My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing!!"

[Hugh Neilson]

A burst attack that stuns (and can even knock out) people, ignoring how tough they are, but stopped if they have shielded optics/ears?

Grit your teeth, this is going to be expensive.

(75) 5d6 EB, AVLD:Flash Defense (+1 1/2), Explosion (+1/2)

Then tack on OAF and Charges. (And 'can be missle deflected' if missle deflection is common enough, as it's a greneade) And link a flash to it, of course. You could go NND instead of AVLD, but then a pair of sunglasses will stop it completly.

That's enough to stun people who have less than a 18 con on average. Realistically, they it should probably be a bit bigger, but it's already pretty badass.

Well, you can also take a limitation for "Stun instantly recovered", which should be a pretty significant (-1 1/2 or -2?) limitation, since he doesn't want the attack to actually KO a target. He either needs no Explosion, or could make it a Conic Explosion with No Range given the flashbulb concept. That makes it a bit less pricy (and room for more dice).

Of course, the target's seizure is now 1 phase in all cases, which may not be what he's looking for.

[Kristopher]

Keep in mind that a fairly low percentage of the population is actually susceptible to siezures induced by flashing lights.

[Ura-Maru]

This way, anyone who's totally knocked out is actually just in a seziure. :)

(The 'explosion' was because I was thinking of a flashbang grenade, not the arm thingie)

The problem with attacks like mental entangles and such is that they become all or nothing kills, where everyone who didn't buy the defense for them is totally helpless. In a cyber-type game, it's usually functionally equivelent to being killed. It not only bypasses the first 'level' of defenses, (actual defenses) but the second one, as well. (con and stun)

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

(75) 5d6 EB, AVLD:Flash Defense (+1 1/2), Explosion (+1/2)

Then tack on OAF and Charges. (And 'can be missle deflected' if missle deflection is common enough, as it's a greneade) And link a flash to it, of course. You could go NND instead of AVLD, but then a pair of sunglasses will stop it completly.

i think you can't missile deflect an explosion anyway because it's AoE, so that's not a problem

[Ura-Maru]

But you _CAN_ missle deflect a grenade, usually, anyway. There's probably not enough missle deflection in a cyber game to matter, though.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

true, and if there is, you can make some sort of can be missle defleced limitation

[Dr Divago]

I'm more getting at the impact of repeat exposure. If you go "entangle based on CON", anyone affected by the Flash is paralyzed, and high CON targets will quickly break out. It's all or nothing (no shakiness, for example, after just barely breaking out of the entangle). Using an adjustment power, repeat exposure will create enhanced effects, and it won't be all or nothing.
:\ this is true...

Ah, another limitation: active point must be lower than 40 (VPP limit for cyberarm)

[prestidigitator]

I've used the Entagle Based on Con construct before for a sleep poison. I included that it stops the Sight, Hearing, Touch, and Smell/Taste Groups, but that gets expensive quickly. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Ah, another limitation: active point must be lower than 40 (VPP limit for cyberarm)

I suspect you'll find it pretty tough to construct an effective Adjustment power with that constraint. I'd probabky go with the Entangle based on CON then. You won't get a lot of dice, but it will cause a brief delay to the target.

Consider making it minimal or no DEF, to indicate anyone will eventually recover.

[Mister E]

I'm not sure how realistic you want to go with this. An epileptic seizure isn't the kind of thing that you can just break out of and then go back to kicking butt in the battle field.

I think an 6d6 EB, AVLD (Flash DEF, +1.5), Constant (+1), Uncontrolled (seizure is cut short if the victom's mind is realigned/jumpstarted by any kind of external invasive Mental Power, +.5), would be closer to the experience of a real seizure. This way, when it's all done, the power also simulates the major after-effects of having a seizure, by harming the victom significantly with Stun Damage.

My example for what could be used to turn off the seizure prematurely, before the END of the Uncontrolled attack was used up, is just fanciful speculation. I imagine the party's Mentalist could perform Telepathy on the victom to bring his brain back to normalcy.

But I'm just brainstorming. :p

[Dr Divago]

I'm not sure how realistic you want to go with this. An epileptic seizure isn't the kind of thing that you can just break out of and then go back to kicking butt in the battle field.I will not search such degree of realism...
anyway, i'm not using neither END cost for implanted weapons (so better is not use Uncontrolled) nor Mental Power

But idea may still be used, with some adjustment.
problem is: lot of active point cost...

[Hugh Neilson]

But idea may still be used, with some adjustment.
problem is: lot of active point cost...

I'm not sure you'll be able to overcpome this drawback. The bottom line is that you're looki9ng for a power which will pretty reliably remove the target from combat for one or more phases. That's a pretty powerful effect for 40 AP.

And this is before adding in the Flash component. I assume you'll have more than enough limitations to reduce each power's RP to 20 or less. However, according to Steve, that's not enough to make both powers usable at the same time. Here's a quote from the Rules Question forum:


In response to a prior question, you indicated that the following:

Originally Posted by prior question:
If I have a gadget pool VPP of 60 active pts, would the below construct be legal ?

Compound power: Ice Gun-both powers OAF, 16 charges
- 30 (60 active pts.)6d6 Entangle
- 24 (60 active) 6d6 NND(LS: vs. cold)- Linked to Entangle


would not be legal because this is a 120 AP power.

I believe it would be legal to purchase the following (but correct me if I'm wrong):

Ice Gun-both powers OAF, 16 charges
- 30 (60 active pts.)6d6 Entangle
- 30 (60 active) 6d6 NND(LS: vs. cold)

As each power is 60 AP, and the total is equal to the 60 points in the VPP.

THE QUESTION: With both power available in the VPP, can they be used as an MPA? I believe the answer is one of the following:

(a) YES - the powers are all available for use within the constraints of the VPP, and consequently they can be used at the same time.

(b) NO - the maximum active points used in any attack, including a multiple power attack, is limited to the total AP of the VPP.

[quote=Steve Long]No; see 5ER 358 or the old Rules FAQ.

So, in order to file the Flash and Seizure attack as a single shot, you need to keep their combined AP below 40, not just keep the AP of each attact below 40. This means the AP of your Seizure attack can't exceed 40 - Flash AP, so you don't even have that initial 40 to work with.

[Mister E]

How about instead of creating a power that similates a specific weakness in an individual, you treated this as a Disad:

Susceptibility to Light based Flash Attacks: 3d6 damage, Instant Effect (Very Common): 25 Character Points?

I'm sure you could convince one of your NPC's to take it... :p

[Dr Divago]

I'm not sure you'll be able to overcpome this drawback.
[sniiip]
So, in order to file the Flash and Seizure attack as a single shot, you need to keep their combined AP below 40, not just keep the AP of each attact below 40. This means the AP of your Seizure attack can't exceed 40 - Flash AP, so you don't even have that initial 40 to work with.
:think: :straight:
this is a real problem...
may be the "david" who make fall my "goliath idea" to VPP cyberarm (to permits more than 4 optional, and in more logical way)

The only way to overcome this may be building two different power, two different "optional": "flash" and "bulb". Secondary one can be limited by "only if flash are installed and hit succesfully" but i think this is a bit "bending the rules"...

[Silbeg]

If target resist to paralyzing effect, are blinded (or not, 'cause sunglasses are common...) by flash attack...

One possibility would be a transform to paralyzed, which "heals" when the target is no longer flashed... that could possibly give you a -1 lim, or so, depending on the GM?

[Ura-Maru]

Except you'll never fit a useful-sized transform into the arm.

Honestly, I'd just say to hell with it, and just build it as a straight flash. In a low-defense game like cyberpunk, even a small flash (especially if it's an AOE is plenty badass enough.

Even if you could fit it, a mental entagle or the like is going to be so effective that everyone's going to want one.

[Dr Divago]

Even if you could fit it, a mental entagle or the like is going to be so effective that everyone's going to want one.You're right, a very powerful flash are very useful in CP...
or...
a powerful EB Stun Only linked to a not-so-powerful flash?

[Ura-Maru]

I suppose you could do a 2d6 Sight Group and a 2d6 NND EB.

[Dr Divago]

I suppose you could do a 2d6 Sight Group and a 2d6 NND EB.Really... you're right...
2d6 flash and 2d6 EB NND are not so powerful...

[Hugh Neilson]

Really... you're right...
2d6 flash and 2d6 EB NND are not so powerful...

That's only 30 AP. 4d6 Flash + 2d6 NND would be more like it for 40 points. Against a target with no Flash Defense, this would average 4 segments blind (1 or 2 phases, I suspect) and 7 Stun.

I've used a Champions character whpo tags 3-5d6 Flash on with another attack (either AVLD or Ranged Drain) as a regular attack of choice, and this has proven quite effective. It does, however, make him more the character who sets the enemy up for KO than the guy who delivers the knockout punch.

[Ura-Maru]

It's a whole 'sight group' flash, not just normal sight. That kicks the price up 10.

[Dr Divago]

Okay i'm up again
This is how can work a Flash+Mental Paralisys

Flashbulb:
Flash 2d6 (Sight), No END (+½), Limited Range (3", -¼), Cyberware (-½), IIF (-¼), Humanity Loss (½d6; -½)
Active 15, Real 6
plus
Entangle (1d6, 1 DEF), Takes no Damage from Attack (+½), No END (+½), Work Against EGO, not STR (+¼), IIF (-¼), Cyberware (-½), Linked (-½), Limited Range (3", -¼), Only if Target are Blinded (-½)
Active 25, Real 8
Total Cost Active 40, Real 14
So it can be fit in a 40 base + 20 control VPP (standard cyberarm)
Entangle are not BoECV 'cause is linked to Flash
Average Characthers have EGO 10, so roll 2d6 to free from Entangle
on average, entangle has 3 body and 1 def; so average characters is free in 3 round (inflict ongly 1 body on every turn)
possibility is to reduce Flash and increase Body of entangle

[Hugh Neilson]

Average Characthers have EGO 10, so roll 2d6 to free from Entangle
on average, entangle has 3 body and 1 def; so average characters is free in 3 round (inflict ongly 1 body on every turn)
possibility is to reduce Flash and increase Body of entangle

No, on average the Entangle has 1 BOD. You could BOD, not "stun" on the dice for an entangle.

[Dr Divago]

No, on average the Entangle has 1 BOD. You could BOD, not "stun" on the dice for an entangle.O_o
D'OH!!!!!

Can i pay only 5 to have 1d6 Body no Def?
so for 10 point i've 2d6 body no def?
so...
wait...
no...
is toooooo weak...
:(

[prestidigitator]

I'm not 100% certain but I believe the "works against ego, not str" advantage can only be taken in conjunction with BoECV. Otherwise that advantage gives too much bang for a +1/4 buck.
I allow it without BOECV. How else could you link it to a physical attack for a paralyzing poison or such? If you couldn't take it without BOECV, I'd think it should be worded, "BOECV with an extra +1/4 Advantage works against the target's Ego instead of Str," rather than it being named as an Advantage unto itself. Maybe it's a question for Steve Long though.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's way too small of an advantage without the BoECV +1. Most characters seldom have more than 15 ego, but have 12d6 attacks. Allowing a 5d6 entange to work versus ego instead a normal attack means people with 15 egos [3d6] would not be able to break out of a 60 ap entangle [5d6 plus advantage]. There's no way that's balanced. It's balanced with the +1 for BoECV as an addition though, IMO.

I see changing the stat as more linked to "entangle takes no damage" than "BOECV". Why not an Entangle broken by CON rather than STR? That makes it +3/4, same as an AVLD which is switching to a less common, but not hugely exoitic, defense.

[Hugh Neilson]

I disagree. I believe there's a reason why the "ego, not str" limitation is included with the BoECV description. It's too powerful to stand on its own at that value level, IMO. I seriously doubt Steve's intention was to make it a stand-alone advantage.

As far as it being an off-shoot of "takes no damage" I disagree with that as well. TND is a +1/2 advantage that makes an attack require an additional -3 in order to target an entangle instead of the character. -3 to hit is much easier to do then to use ego to break out. An easier thing would not be a bigger advantage. That indicates to me that ego, not str is not a stand alone advantage.

TND is a +1/4 advantage to apply to a limited group of attacks. That's included in Mental Paralysis (defined as "Physical attacks", which seems pretty broad to me), followed by "Ego instead of STR" (+1/4) and BoECV for +1/2. Hpowever, physical attacks cannot target a mental paralysis attack at -3. They can't target it at all. That, to me, is the function of "Ego instead of STR". Now, none of this gets into pricing.

Part of the problem is the murky mechanics of "mental paralysis", however. It's supposedly Based on ECV, which changes the to hit mechanic (value debated on these boards before, but somewhere between +0 and +1/4 is the general consensus to use OECV vs dex=-based DCV, though I'm uncertain whether you agree; I'd say +1/2 to use OECV and DECV), makes range LOS (+1/2) and converts the attack to an AVLD vs Mental Defense (+1 1/2), so BoECV actually provides advantages with a cost of +2 when "unbundled". Of course, it also eliminates knockback, causes the attack not to do BOD, and may have some other minor effects.


Now, when we apply BoECV to Entangle, really it should benefit from the range change, and targetting ECV, but it doesn't benefit from the AVLD aspect, because Entangle had no defense to begin with. Perhaps Mental Paralysis would be better defined as:

Entangle (of course)
- Range Line of Sight (+1/2)
- Targets ECV (+1/2) *
- Not affected by Physical attacks ** (+1)

* Whether that's the appropriate value isn't the point - leave it for another thread.
** This is the tough one, and the crux of mental paralysis. Really, it's some variance of NND/AVLD for Entangles. I use +1 to get the same value used for total advantage on Mental Paralysis, which is probably reasonable in a game where mental attacks are reasonably cmmon.

So let's say "not affected by physical attacks" is a +1 advantage which means STR and normal attacks don't affect the Entangle. At the +1 level, it requires another stat other than STR be able to break the entangle (in this case Ego)and that some "reasonably common" type of attack still affects the Entangle (mental attacks for MP). Does that make some sense?

Now let's extrapolate further. What if I want to allow the Entangled person's STR to be useful, but restrict attacks that can break the entangle? Let's call it an Entangle ofTelekinetic Force - only an attack which Affects Desolid can break it (this would include mental attacks, but only one that does BOD would hurt the Entangle). Maybe that's +3/4 - it gets most of the functionality, since the target needs high STR to enhance breakout chances.

Another possibility - let's use a paralysis dart now, which affects the nervous system. We don't think any attack logically affects this Entangle, so we want to restrict Brekout to CON rolls only. Perhaps that's +1 1/2? Maybe +2? Everyone has CON, but very few have enough to roll dice comparable with attacks or STR AND no one can help you break out. Call it +2, then, since this is very powerful. Perhaps we make it illegal (positive Adjustment powers like Aid or Healing, directed at any physical stat, are deemed the "attack method" to break this Entangle.

Whether you agree with my logic or not, I'm sure you will agree that the last example SHOULD NOT, for balance reasons, be Mental Paralysis with the Baed on CON limitation!

So what would this change be? Essentially, we expand "Takes no Damage", to include, say,:

+3/4: One type of attack (same requirements as +1/4) cannot affect the entangle at all. They can never target it.

+3/4: The target's STR still affects the Entangle. However, any oither form of attack (including another person attacking the entangle, or non-STR breakouts within the Entangle) will not work. A reasonably common SFX of powers (eg. mental powers, Affects Desolid powers or adjustment powers with a positive effect on a physical stat) must be selected. Such attacks can affect the Entangle as if they did normal BOD damage.

+1: STR and normal attacks can never affect the Entangle. Another stat other than STR, must be identified which is able to break the entangle (commonly Ego or CON) and that some "reasonably common" type of attack (eg. mental powers, Affects Desolid powers or adjustment powers with a positive effect on a physical stat) must be selected. Such attacks can affect the Entangle as if they did normal BOD damage.

+2: STR and normal attacks can never affect the Entangle. Another stat other than STR, must be identified which is able to break the entangle (commonly Ego or CON). As no other attack can affect the Entangle, no one else can help the character break free.

BoECV cannot be applied to Entangles. Simulation of a Mental entangle is accomplished by purchasing IPE, Line of Sight Range and/or Attacks based on Ego, not DEX.

These are definitely "caution" or "stop sign" advantages (esp. that last +2 one!), but allows simulation of a wide variety of effects that don't really work under the present model. Obviously, one for GM's to monitor (pity the sucker trapped in a 2d6 Entangle, only affected by target COM, but also poty the player trying to argue this one to the GM).

[Dr Divago]

(pity the sucker trapped in a 2d6 Entangle, only affected by target COM, but also poty the player trying to argue this one to the GM).All character i've made have great amount of COM, 'cause COM is very cheap and useful when you've 2 or 3 points and no other power where put these... :)

And, hey, if you look at superheroines, you'll found only beatiful girls, so is'nt very unrealistic... :cool:

[Hugh Neilson]

All character i've made have great amount of COM, 'cause COM is very cheap and useful when you've 2 or 3 points and no other power where put these... :)

And, hey, if you look at superheroines, you'll found only beatiful girls, so is'nt very unrealistic... :cool:

I use COM as a rounder for those last 2 or 3 points as well. That's still only 3d6 to "damage" that Entangle.

Although the mental image created of "Flexing comeliness" could be entertaining, I suppose.

[prestidigitator]

I disagree. I believe there's a reason why the "ego, not str" limitation is included with the BoECV description. It's too powerful to stand on its own at that value level, IMO. I seriously doubt Steve's intention was to make it a stand-alone advantage.

As far as it being an off-shoot of "takes no damage" I disagree with that as well. TND is a +1/2 advantage that makes an attack require an additional -3 in order to target an entangle instead of the character. -3 to hit is much easier to do then to use ego to break out. An easier thing would not be a bigger advantage. That indicates to me that ego, not str is not a stand alone advantage.
Let's not forget that the mental paralysis example given under the BOECV heading has both Takes No Damage and Works Against Ego, Not Str.

[Dr Divago]

I use COM as a rounder for those last 2 or 3 points as well. That's still only 3d6 to "damage" that Entangle.

Although the mental image created of "Flexing comeliness" could be entertaining, I suppose.Well, if some player say to me "hey i want an entangle base upon COM", first i laugh for half an hour, second, i say a powerful NO WAY...
but, just for joking... :cool:

[Ura-Maru]

22.5 (60) Velvet Rope: 3 DEF Entangle, Based on COM CV (+1), Works Against COM, not STR (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Physical Attacks (+1/4), Backlash (+1/2), Only To Form Barriers (-1), Only at entrances to nightclubs (-1), No Range(-1/2), One Body (-1/2)

Susceptable to Wealth, maybe?

---
"this makes me want to go clubbing . . . the director of this film!!"

[Dr Divago]

22.5 (60) Velvet Rope: 3 DEF Entangle, Based on COM CV (+1), Works Against COM, not STR (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Physical Attacks (+1/4), Backlash (+1/2), Only To Form Barriers (-1), Only at entrances to nightclubs (-1), No Range(-1/2), One Body (-1/2)

Susceptable to Wealth, maybe?Looooool...

[TaxiMan]

Let's pause while we envision a female super ...

PUSHING her COM.

[TaxiMan]

If you PUSH COM, does it go up by 20?

[Old Man]

Must find "Looker" on DVD....