"Mobility" as an Adder

[JmOz]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

I would say Entangle, as a GM I would allow a player to say he was trying to just block someone's senses. However maybe Darkness, one target only, etc would work better

[Sean]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

The entangle option strikes me as the more elegant of the two proposals. The two necessary characteristics: a breakable object (with body, def optional) creating blindness for a single target.

 

Entangle offers both attributes and can be limited down easily. Flash only creates blindness and requires a lot of enhancement to get to the same place.

 

 

This is sparking a lot of discussion, as I'd hoped, but it hasn't really addressed what I was most curious about, that being the concept of Mobility as an inbuilt Adder for Entangle which could therefore be swapped out with a Sense Group, and the other possibilities inherent in the existence of a Mobility Adder.

 

Consider that it's not Mobility that would be an adder. It's Immobility that would be the adder - mobility is an attribute possessed by the target character. Mobility would have to be a subtracter if anything -- which really doesn't make sense given the Hero framework. Immobilizing a target is a fundamental attribute of entangle from minimum cost upwards. An adder really is about tacking on a different attribute to a given power that doesn't scale in the same way as the base power itself. In the case of an entangle the more Body and DEF it has the better it is immobilizing a target. A limitation that limits (or eliminates) the immobilization and proportionally reduces the cost of the power seems more appropriate to me than assigning a fixed point cost to Immobilization.

 

Certainly there's no reason why you can't do what you propose for a character in your campaign with GM agreement. That would be a shortcut to avoid jumping through some limitation hoops. However, given what's in place for entangles the clue to building this seems to lie with this listed disadvantage Set Effect (Hands Only; Feet Only) (-1). The limitation we want is only a bit farther than that. Going by the book it flows pretty logically to taking the adder to block a sense and then limiting the entangle to Head Only (-1 1/2).

 

Aside from keeping down the total Active Cost of the power (which admittedly is an issue when building with multipowers/using VPP) I don't see the advantage of your proposal over this. It'll be cheaper in Real Cost going the disadvantage route.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

Limiting the "entangleness" of Entangle is perfectly valid for simulating other kinds of Entangle effects. In particular, the example in FREd of Handcuffs limits the Entangle to "Hands Only", which would not limit the character's mobility. There are other SFX of Entangle that don't require embedding a target in a substance.

 

Overall, I don't believe anything about Entangle or the system in general prohibits using it in this manner. YMMV, and if you're the GM, run it your own way.

 

 

Agreed 100%. Other examples: An entangle that can ony be used to create barriers. An entangle, self only, personal immunity, used to create a defensive shield.

 

It's interesting that proponents of the Flash approach first cite "reason from effect", then ignore all effects of this construct other than the fact that it blocks the target's vision. The classic reasoning from effect example (acid that destroys a character's eyes) would, by this logic, be a Flash with COntinuous, and likely NND, not the TRansform which is recommended.

 

Would I call mobility a "sense"? No, I don't think so. We would then have to deal with questions of "enhanced mobility", "Flash vs Mobility" and similar issues. Mobility is not a sense, so why try to shoehorn it in? Adding "Blocks a sense" and limiting the power to not prevent movement (where appropriate) seems quite adequate.

[Sean]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

Nice to see a fellow Edmontonian on the boards. (Figured I should put that first before objecting to a point. It seemed less sincere when placed at the end of this post. )

 

 

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson

Other examples: An entangle that can only be used to create barriers. An entangle, self only, personal immunity, used to create a defensive shield.

Hmm. I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to that one. I'd read those modifers resulting in an entangle that's only usable on yourself that won't work--my read on Personal Immunity. The previous discussions above don't apply either -- a "disadvantage" allowing movement wouldn't be a actual in-game disadvantage with the self-only and thus wouldn't pass muster.

 

Entangle with No range, Only to form barriers to make a hill to hide behind makes sense to me though. The defensive shield idea seems better modelled through a self-only force wall. Goes to show that there's always a different opinion.

[captainNeda]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

This was originally inspired by a "popular mutant superhero film." (Everyone seems to be careful about stepping on trademarks.) Specifically, the scene where an "amphibious" villain-type slimes the telekinetic woman in the eyes, effectively blinding her until her energy-projecting boyfriend blasts off the hardened slime.

 

That to me would look like an Entangle of, let's say, 5D6 (50) with the adder Stops Sight Group (+10). Easy enough, except that save for the blinding, TK woman is completely unrestricted in her movement. Considering it's a -1 Limitation for Allows Accessible Focus use OR Hands/Feet Only, I figure that for Does Not Restrict Movement At All could arguably be a -2 Limitation.

 

(Of course, the attack itself could be a Slime Power Trick if you like, but keep following me here . . .)

 

So we have a highly effective blinding that could last anywhere from 1 phase (for characters with 10DC+ attacks available) to indefinitely (for characters too weak to break the Entangle), at a Real Cost of 20 points, which would buy you 4 segments of Flashed Sight Group.

 

This didn't seem balanced to me, so then I thought, what if you treat Mobility like a built-in Adder for Entangle? Say, "Sense of Mobility (10)" (the ability to move freely, not to be confused with Motion Sensing). The base Entangle is designed to block that "sense" with a 1 DEF/1 BODY barrier for every 10 points. Looked at like that, one could easily swap out Mobility for a Sense Group (in this case, Sight) and make an Entangle based purely around Sensory Deprivation. So the Entangle used in the above example would more likely be a 5D6 Entangle (50) with a real cost of 50, and a 20 point level of the same power could be broken out of by agent level characters (but not too easily). That seems more balanced.

 

Of course, now I've opened up a new can of worms with Mobility Adder. The first thing that came to mind was a Mobility Flash, or Flash-Freeze. Basically, it would be like a quick paralysis that would last for segments and be unaffected by the target's strength or firepower. Some SFX could be slowing time, freezing as an Ice Power, or even as a Presence Attack that completely overwhelms the target. Of course, Mobility Flash Defense could be tricky, but I think the basics are sound.

 

So what do you guys think? Should I run it past Steve?

 

JDRook

Minor Deity of Understanding

 

Another alternative no one seems to be considering is using the disabled or impared rules. I've always considered an imparing or disabling injury to a location to impare or disable some aspect of the character based on that location. Handcuffs can be considered an imparement to a characters arms while a straight jacket would esentially disable them. If the jumping sliming character had slimed our favorite feminine mentalist's foot to the floor she would have been unable to move, disabling her running essentially until the entangle was broken. If he only hit her knee and put a hardend slime cast around it her movement would have been impared as she hobbled around, but instead he hit her in the face disabling her sight, sense of smell and recovery (as she could breathe to recover).

 

It seems many people treat an entangle as an AE hex, though I think that should be an adder or advantage as many entangles don't hit a whole hex. Sure a net does, but what about that slime trick, a bolo, glue gun, ice bonds (like in Batman Forever in the rocket) or something else. They don't hit the whole hex and only disable a portion of the characters ability.someone i

[Dust Raven]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

Agreed 100%. Other examples: An entangle that can ony be used to create barriers. An entangle, self only, personal immunity, used to create a defensive shield.

 

Actually, I brought this up a while back with Steve. Granted, the ultimate answer was "if the GM says so" but also that one Power shouldn't be used to duplicate what another Power already does. A self only, PI Entangle is just Armor.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

Nice to see a fellow Edmontonian on the boards. (Figured I should put that first before objecting to a point. It seemed less sincere when placed at the end of this post. )

 

If you can't take people disagreeing with your ideas, posting to a public forum probably isn't very wise. It's the discussion that makes it fun!

 

 

 

Hmm. I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to that one. I'd read those modifers resulting in an entangle that's only usable on yourself that won't work--my read on Personal Immunity. The previous discussions above don't apply either -- a "disadvantage" allowing movement wouldn't be a actual in-game disadvantage with the self-only and thus wouldn't pass muster.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Personal Immunity Entangle's been put to Steve before and he noted that the tactic is workable. There are the usual caveats, of course - maxiumum defenses for your campaign are potentially at risk.

 

A "self only" entangle that doesn't hinder movement wouldn't generate a lot of limitation value in my game either. Mind you, call it "self only, does not inhibit movement" and what do you get? Call those -2 in aggregate and you're still paying 10 points for (on average) 6 resistant PD and ED that you need an attack action and END to set up and will be shot away. 18 points would have bought you 6 Resistant PD and ED that you could use whenever you want at no END - make it cost END and require a half phase and it only costs 9, stays up and needs no attack action. It's not exactly overpowered. Of course, no one says using an attack as a defense should be point-effective

 

Entangle with No range' date=' Only to form barriers to make a hill to hide behind makes sense to me though. The defensive shield idea seems better modelled through a self-only force wall. Goes to show that there's always a different opinion.[/quote']

 

The difference between the force wall and the entangle is significant. The force wall keeps on costing END. The Entangle is gradually chipped away. The force wall doesn't need an attack action to set up. etc. They model differently. Actually, Entangle, Barriers Only is a better construct for a lot of force wall-y powers than force wall. A wall of ice, for example, shouldn't disappear because I stop paying END for it.

[Sean]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

The difference between the force wall and the entangle is significant. The force wall keeps on costing END. The Entangle is gradually chipped away.

Giving it some thought, I'll agree that either option is pretty much equivalent.

 

4d6 Body, 4 DEF Entangle, Personal Immunity (+1/4) (50 Active Points), Self Only (-1/2) Total cost: 33 points

 

8 PD/ED Force Wall, Costs End only to Activate (+1/4) (50 Active Points), Self Only (-1/2) Total cost: 33 points

 

The force wall shatters if breached, while the Entangle could be chipped away at. On average 4 DEF, 4 Body = 8 rPD/rED. You could get lucky or unlucky with the entangle's body. I'm assuming you're blocking Stun damage from passing through while the entangle exists? If not then the entangle is a lot weaker than the force wall option. Another differerence is that the entangle has a built in persistant effect missing from the force wall. I can see where it would fit in better with certain character conceptions.

 

I'm actually rather impressed how nicely all this dovetails. Score one for the design of this game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Mobility" as an Adder

 

Giving it some thought, I'll agree that either option is pretty much equivalent.

 

I'm assuming you're blocking Stun damage from passing through while the entangle exists? If not then the entangle is a lot weaker than the force wall option.

 

No, and yes it is, respectively This should be expected - after all, Entangle is at its base an offense power, and they tend to cost double a defense power. I'd be more inclined not to take Self Only and have a power usable for both offense and defense for 17 points more.