Jump to content

Limitation: "Only versus ego entangles" questions.


Panpiper

Recommended Posts

If I were to buy extra ego and give it the limitation "Only usable versus ego entangles", how much would that be worth in your estimation?  Similarly, in theory one could buy 'armor piercing' on ego so as to better penetrate the 'defense' of an ego entangle. That's an awfully high cost though. Would any similar limitation as the above be applicable for armor piercing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As a GM, I'd say it is very limited.  I'd also want the reasoning behind a resistance to ego-based entangles in isolation.  What are the SFX of this ability?

 

How about; She has a wild will that yearns to be free of restraint. That makes it quite useless for ego rolls to control her behavior but great for breaking an ego entangle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like she would be just as resistant to a Mind Control command to "Freeze in Place".  Which, I suppose, can easily be added to a Multipower with Mental Paralysis.  Toss on Unified Power and we're good to go. 

 

This just feels like a mechanic ("I don't want mental entangles to affect me") desperately seeking a justification.  But I'm also assessing it out of context.  In the right game it might fit right in.

 

My litmus test for "how big is the limitation" is "how often will it be relevant".  AT a -2, I would expect your EGO to be used for many other things (for which this extra EGO will be useless) at least as often as it is used to resist an entangle based on EGO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

This just feels like a mechanic ("I don't want mental entangles to affect me") desperately seeking a justification.

 

Just like buying a force field would be a "desperate attempt" to justify "I don't want bullets to kill me".  And this would NOT render a character 'immune' to such entangles, just more able to break free after being entangled, rather than spending the rest of the game waiting for other characters to hopefully take out whoever cast the entangle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A force field does not target one very specific mechanical attack.  This does.  Now, a Force Field, only versus heat and fire, ED only right after being beaten by Firewing?  That seems closer to the "ego that only manifests when I am the target of a mental entangle".  How much of a limitation can some other character have for "Ego Drain: only drains EGO that only affects mental entangle?"?

 

I would not expect a character to suddenly manifest a force field which has no connection with the character's abilities after fighting an opponent with an NND: Force Field either.

 

But again, context is everything.  A Gadgeteer might very well develop a force field to deal with such an opponent, and a wizard might research a spell to weaken a Mental Entangle if he faced it with any frequency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Hugh says, an EGO Entangle is very nasty, but also very expensive at 22 per die.  Even if you buy a 15 EGO, you'll break out of a 3d6 EGO Entangle in not *that* many phases...unless the attacker's maintaining it, and that's a BLOODY high cost.  And why this, as opposed to other approaches?  Higher EGO would help break out of a Mind Control...and if you're that worried about Mental Paralysis, then Mind Control should be right there.

 

I might allow a skill for this.  
Slippery Mind.  Base roll of 9 + EGO/5 for 3 points, +1 for 2 points.  Acts like Contortionist, but applies to breakout rolls from mental powers.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about if someone uses another type of mental power to prevent her from moving?  A mind control can easily be used to prevent someone from moving. A good enough mental illusions could be used for this although it would require a very high result.  Even change environment with the right special effect could be considered a mental power that limits your movement.   Why does the ego not apply to those powers?  Mind control is actually a lot more common than mental entangles.  If the ego applies against those powers it should be at most a -1 limitation.  If you have an actual reason why it would only apply to mental entangles a -2 would be appropriate, but I don’t see any justification besides wanting to get out of a mental entangle to purchase that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I just submitted my character to my GM with:  Wild Will: +7 EGO (7 Active Points); Only usable versus Ego Entangles. Power loses about half of its effectiveness (-1)

 

Not only did he not bat an eye at it, he told me he thought it was a good idea.  (My character already has an ego of 18, bought normally.)

 

Would it be effective against other forms of mind restraint? GM's call. I would not expect it, but then I only put a -1 on it, so maybe he'll feel generous.

 

I've been playing Hero since the first edition back in the 80's, more campaigns than I can remember, supers, fantasy, and all sorts of others, many lasting years. In that time I have seen ego entangles used numerous times. I have however never seen any other mind power be used expressly as a simple restraint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

The only problem I have with Panpiper’s build is that I would have to find a villain to have the Mental Paralysis and have it used against him. 😁 

 

Third fight our new game was in, my character got nailed with exactly that from a magic mentalist. Fortunately I had an ego of 18 and the GM generously allowed me to roll 4 dice attempting to break out. It took a few tries to wear it down. Now I could likely get out in two.

 

We won the fight, but the mentalist got away, so my character's power is growing/adapting itself to fight the last fight, in the grand tradition of militaries everywhere.  I do expect to encounter the mentalist again, likely soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it has limitations on it Mind Control can make the target do just about anything. 

 

I have actually seen a telepath with mental illusions use it on a speedster to make him think he was tied up.  That allowed the other characters to attack him without having to worry about an entangle giving him defense.  It did not last for long but it lasted long enough to take him down.    The character had very little defenses and relied on DCV to avoid being hit.  His Ego on the other hand was not that good so the telepath was able to make him think he was tied up which dropped his DCV down considerably
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the reason to go with a Mind Control, IF you have allies/minions/flunkies, is you can use it to to much more than just the mental binding.  That said, it does have the issue that you may need to buy a fair bit of it.

 

I may be way off base here...but...I'm also wondering if the GM didn't craft that Mental Entangle largely because you *did* buy up Ego...because that does an end run, in some ways, on doing that.  It's not paranoid when you know at least 2 Champions GMs who *did* that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the character has a defense usable only against very limited attacks, never seeing those attacks means the points were wasted.  They should come up in play, providing the character with a benefit.

 

I'd say that, in allowing the purchase of extra EGO only to break free of mental entangles with a -1 limitation, the GM has indicated that you'll see such entangles fairly often in his game.  As a GM, if my intent were to allow that to expand over other mental powers that restrain the character, I would disallow "only vs mental entangles" and require a lower limitation of "only to avoid or escape restraint" based on the defined SFX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 2:01 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

This just feels like a mechanic ("I don't want mental entangles to affect me") desperately seeking a justification.  But I'm also assessing it out of context.  In the right game it might fit right in.

 

 

And what, exactly, is wrong with someone deciding something like "I don't want mental entangles to affect me" and then wrapping an explanation around it?  

I ask because I don't see it as fundamentally any different from "I don't want to be really weak" .... and then buying a pile of STR to represent how strong the person feels the character is ... and then wrapping an explanation around it.

It's also fundamentally no different from "I don't want lead to affect my vision" and then buying N-ray vision that cannot see through lead ... and wrapping an explanation around THAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

 

And what, exactly, is wrong with someone deciding something like "I don't want mental entangles to affect me" and then wrapping an explanation around it?  

I ask because I don't see it as fundamentally any different from "I don't want to be really weak" .... and then buying a pile of STR to represent how strong the person feels the character is ... and then wrapping an explanation around it.

It's also fundamentally no different from "I don't want lead to affect my vision" and then buying N-ray vision that cannot see through lead ... and wrapping an explanation around THAT.

 

My preference is for characters that have some logical consistency.  Why is the character resistant to mental entangles, but not to any other form of mental compulsion, including those that achieve the same result through a different mechanic, such as Mind Control?

 

"Her spirit yearns to be free, but not if it's a Mind Control directing her to stand stock still, only if it's a Mental Entangle, including one defined as a focused Mind Control which forces her to stand stock still."  is quite different from extra EGO limited to mental powers which would prevent her free movement.  That, I can actually see as a -1 limitation on EGO, as it surrenders a lot of other things EGO can do. 

 

Buying up STR because the character is strong makes perfect sense. Buying up STR, but it only works to break entangles, not to lift or carry things, or root to the ground, or hit harder, or even break an englobing barrier, because last week we fought a guy with Entangle and it was frustrating for my Archer character, and we'll probably fight him again?  Not so much.

 

Not wanting lead to affect your vision and buying N-Ray vision that cannot see through lead seems less than successful, but again is it a character fit?  How does Spider-Man suddenly manifest the ability to see through walls?

 

My bias is to build a character which fits my vision of the character, not tack on bizarre abilities with no rhyme or reason based on "that fight last week suggested I might actually have a weakness".  Much like complications, though, building a character with weaknesses relies on some trust that the GM will use those weaknesses to make the game better, not as a "gotcha" to frustrate the player.  "Well, Fred has a normal human ego and no mental defenses, so every game will feature a mentalist that preys on his failure to build defenses around mental powers so Fred can be entirely ineffective every game." will quickly lead to the "my character must have no weaknesses" mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

My preference is for characters that have some logical consistency.  Why is the character resistant to mental entangles, but not to any other form of mental compulsion, including those that achieve the same result through a different mechanic, such as Mind Control?

 

...

 

My bias is to build a character which fits my vision of the character, not tack on bizarre abilities with no rhyme or reason based on "that fight last week suggested I might actually have a weakness".  Much like complications, though, building a character with weaknesses relies on some trust that the GM will use those weaknesses to make the game better, not as a "gotcha" to frustrate the player.  "Well, Fred has a normal human ego and no mental defenses, so every game will feature a mentalist that preys on his failure to build defenses around mental powers so Fred can be entirely ineffective every game." will quickly lead to the "my character must have no weaknesses" mentality.

That's YOUR preference and YOUR bias.  Just because it isn't someone else's doesn't mean s/he was ''desperately seeking a justification' for patootli squat.  For all you know, Jerry Siegel just tacked on X-Ray vision to Superman because he wanted him to not to be stuck looking at things normally ... and justified it as an afterthought akin to 'well, he's an alien, kthxdone'.

Being strong is just a mechanic.  Seeing through everything but lead is just a mechanic. Being hard to mentally entangle while weak to other mental abilities is just a mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that mental entangle is strictly a game mechanic, and could have many different special effects.  You could also create the same special effect by using a different power.  I could define my mental entangle as a telepathic command to not move.  I could also achieve the same affect by using mind control with a limitation single command only.   Both powers are legitimate ways to achieve the affect the character wants.   Mental entangle is probably the better way to achieve the goal, but a character with full mind control could also choose to use that to accomplish the same thing.  The advantage for the character with full mind control is that he can also force a target to do other things.

 

In the hero system special effect is everything, and is independent of the game mechanics.  That is outright stated on page 12 of the rules.  A well written power will be able to described without using any game mechanics at all. In some cases the words used for the game mechanics may be the same ones as the game mechanic, but that is because the game uses English words.  In other words a character in the game should be able to describe the power in game and explain how it works.  If that cannot be done it reeks of cheesy design, and would not be allowed in my games.


The value of a limitation is going to vary from campaign to campaign.  I don’t know the specifics of the campaign so I cannot say what is appropriate.  In a campaign I run the -1 limitation would work, but would be defined as only works vs mental restraints.  That would mean it applies to mental entangles, but also vs mind control and mental illusions with the relevant commands or affects.  If in the campaign mental entangles are so common that it is only worth a -1 limitation, I would require a lesser limitation.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

...only works vs mental restraints.

 

That is even more concise.

 

My sin was clearly that I defined a power based on mechanics instead of the larger special effect. Perhaps that is because I have never, not once in nearly 40 years of Hero, seen anyone, ever, be restrained by any mental power 'other' than ego entangle. I prefer to be concise when I define powers so they are unambiguous to any who read it, and 'only versus ego entangles' sounded quite precise, especially as it never even occurred to me that some other power mechanic might be used to do the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

The difference is that mental entangle is strictly a game mechanic, and could have many different special effects.  You could also create the same special effect by using a different power.  I could define my mental entangle as a telepathic command to not move.  I could also achieve the same affect by using mind control with a limitation single command only.   Both powers are legitimate ways to achieve the affect the character wants.   Mental entangle is probably the better way to achieve the goal, but a character with full mind control could also choose to use that to accomplish the same thing.  The advantage for the character with full mind control is that he can also force a target to do other things.

 

In the hero system special effect is everything, and is independent of the game mechanics.  That is outright stated on page 12 of the rules.  A well written power will be able to described without using any game mechanics at all. In some cases the words used for the game mechanics may be the same ones as the game mechanic, but that is because the game uses English words.  In other words a character in the game should be able to describe the power in game and explain how it works.  If that cannot be done it reeks of cheesy design, and would not be allowed in my games.

 

You just contradicted yourself Lonewolf. First you talk about how a SFX could be covered by several Mechanics (which is true). But then you talk about how a Power should be well written as to be able as to not need the mechanic listed. Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...