An EB by any other name...

[Trebuchet]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I hardly think adopting less confusing terms for a few of the powers constitutes a major change to the game system. Even long time players can get confused by Stunned vs. Stun.

 

No changes are to be undertaken lightly. That's why we are discussing this.

[Vurbal]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I hardly think adopting less confusing terms for a few of the powers constitutes a major change to the game system. Even long time players can get confused by Stunned vs. Stun.

 

No changes are to be undertaken lightly. That's why we are discussing this.

Exactly!

[bcholmes]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

No changes are to be undertaken lightly. That's why we are discussing this.

 

Well said.

 

I'm always surprised when people can't get the difference between "Here's something that I'd like to talk about" and "You must do this thing because I'm complaining."

[rjcurrie]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Giving the responses on this thread, I am willing to concede that "Stunned" does seem to be a troublesome term. "Dazed" is the best suggestion that I have seen. I use the term myself when I want to avoid "game-speak". For example, "Dr. Destroyer appears to have beeen dazed by that shot."

[Silbeg]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Giving the responses on this thread' date=' I am willing to concede that "Stunned" does seem to be a troublesome term. "Dazed" is the best suggestion that I have seen. I use the term myself when I want to avoid "game-speak". For example, "Dr. Destroyer appears to have beeen dazed by that shot." [/quote'] Exactly! The one thing that I hate, both as a player, and a GM, is the tendency to describe everything in game terms. I know I have used many different descriptors for when a villain has been "stunned". Dazed would be one, but as often would be "Ogre seems a bit out of it... not quite focusing at the moment". I prefer to let the players make their assumptions on that kind of terminology, rather than...

 

GM: Kid Comet, it looks like you stunned Ogre with that shot!

Kid Comet: Cool!

Chaos: Ok, now that he is at ½ DCV, I attack him...

Shugokon: Me too!

Aegis: Sure, why not. Get him out of the action.

 

HOwever, if the reason he is a little out of it has to do with the fact that the mastermind Ogre is working for is a mentalist who was using the mind link they established to order Ogre to do something, then they may be surprised to find Ogre at full DCV (ok, maybe Ogre is a bad example, since his DCV is already low, but you catch my drift!)

[Christougher]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Of course' date=' none of the proposed names for Entangle reflect he ability to make barriers with it.[/quote']

 

Combining the barrier aspect of Entangle with Force Wall is a very common suggestion for change/argument. Call it Barrier, give it adders or advantages for increased shape control, it becomes the power to create physical objects.

 

I like the suggestion of Immobilize; removing the barrier aspect leads to interesting thoughts. I think the DEF+Body mechanic should probably change(not sure to what), but that takes away the chance for someone else to free the target.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

DUH! Everyone knows that the opposite of SuCCoR is RoXXoR!

I don't get it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I do think it's annoying/stupid that we call the good modifiers "Advantages" but then use "Disadvantages" for something completely different.

I always thought that Advantages should be called Enhancers or something similar. Either that call Limitations Disadvantages and Disadvantages Restrictions or Drawbacks.

 

Then again, I've never really had a problem with any of those named as it, nor have anyone I've ever played with.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Exactly! The one thing that I hate, both as a player, and a GM, is the tendency to describe everything in game terms. I know I have used many different descriptors for when a villain has been "stunned". Dazed would be one, but as often would be "Ogre seems a bit out of it... not quite focusing at the moment". I prefer to let the players make their assumptions on that kind of terminology, rather than...

 

GM: Kid Comet, it looks like you stunned Ogre with that shot!

Kid Comet: Cool!

Chaos: Ok, now that he is at ½ DCV, I attack him...

Shugokon: Me too!

Aegis: Sure, why not. Get him out of the action.

 

HOwever, if the reason he is a little out of it has to do with the fact that the mastermind Ogre is working for is a mentalist who was using the mind link they established to order Ogre to do something, then they may be surprised to find Ogre at full DCV (ok, maybe Ogre is a bad example, since his DCV is already low, but you catch my drift!)

I tend to do the same. I describe the action as I might if witnessing a real life situation.

 

Then again, I'm a gamer-geek who tends to describe real life situations in game terms.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I always thought that Advantages should be called Enhancers or something similar. Either that call Limitations Disadvantages and Disadvantages Restrictions or Drawbacks.

 

Then again, I've never really had a problem with any of those named as it, nor have anyone I've ever played with.

 

In GURPS (which has the equivalent of Power Modifiers, though they're not as core a part of the system as in HERO) they are called Enhancements and Limitations. Whereas Disadvantages are still Disadavantages and Talents and Perks are both classed as different types of Advantages.

 

To my mind, the naming of these and indeed many other elements in GURPS is rather more logical and consistent than in HERO, But HERO is still a far better system overall IMO.

[zornwil]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Of course' date=' none of the proposed names for Entangle reflect he ability to make barriers with it.[/quote']

Good point.

 

I suppose "Impede" might do the trick.

 

"Restrain" or "Immobilize" still are both better than Entangle. (I prefer "Restrain" myself.) And Entangle certainly doesn't reflect the ability to make barriers either. I would dump the ability to make barriers from Entangle and make it a subset of Force Wall anyway.

 

I like Impede, that makes a lot of sense on many levels, even better!

 

...staying away from whether barriers should be made from Entangles or not. I have a related (but not identical) thread idea.

[zornwil]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I always thought that Advantages should be called Enhancers or something similar. Either that call Limitations Disadvantages and Disadvantages Restrictions or Drawbacks.

 

Then again, I've never really had a problem with any of those named as it, nor have anyone I've ever played with.

That approach is okay, too, re Enhancers, I could see that. Perhaps it's better, as Disads are just so ingrained as a term.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Thought of a new name for Entangle:

 

Barrier. As I explained in another thread, all an Entangle does is create barriers. Either as a stand alone wall, or around a target.

 

Then again, I like the name engangle, as it makes me thing of webs, which are used by spiders to create barriers that catch prey, rather than using them on a specific target and entrapping them like Spiderman does.

[zornwil]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Thought of a new name for Entangle:

 

Barrier. As I explained in another thread, all an Entangle does is create barriers. Either as a stand alone wall, or around a target.

 

Then again, I like the name engangle, as it makes me thing of webs, which are used by spiders to create barriers that catch prey, rather than using them on a specific target and entrapping them like Spiderman does.

I think the problem is that Barrier suggests Force Wall, at least to me.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I think the problem is that Barrier suggests Force Wall' date=' at least to me.[/quote']

True. But in my mind, so does Force Field.

 

In any case, I'm not suggesting a change in name of any given Power/Skill. Maybe a few terms, such as Stunned, but that's about it. I like the names of the Powers as is.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Thought of a new name for Entangle:

 

Barrier. As I explained in another thread, all an Entangle does is create barriers. Either as a stand alone wall, or around a target.

 

No, it stops characters from being able to move or act. Physical barriers are just a special effect. Out of the three characters in the two campaigns I'm currently running who have Entangle based abilities, all three are built with the Cannot Form Barriers Limitation, and from what I have seen of characters posted online, Entangles built that way are just as common as Entangles with a physical barrier type special effect.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

No' date=' it stops characters from being able to move or act. Physical barriers are just a special effect. Out of the three characters in the two campaigns I'm currently running who have Entangle based abilities, all three are built with the [i']Cannot Form Barriers[/i] Limitation, and from what I have seen of characters posted online, Entangles built that way are just as common as Entangles with a physical barrier type special effect.

I guess you and me differ then. In my entire history of gaming using Hero, I've only every seen two, maybe three, Entangles that didn't/couldn't/shouldn't form barriers. One of them was handcufs, another one one was a clunky mental paralysis.

 

So I would say yes, it creates a barrier that the attacker can either form on it's own, or around a target to immobilize it. Anything else is a Limited version of that (Like an EB that can't spread or an HKA that doesn't add STR).

[Mark Taylor]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I guess you and me differ then. In my entire history of gaming using Hero, I've only every seen two, maybe three, Entangles that didn't/couldn't/shouldn't form barriers. One of them was handcufs, another one one was a clunky mental paralysis.

 

So I would say yes, it creates a barrier that the attacker can either form on it's own, or around a target to immobilize it. Anything else is a Limited version of that (Like an EB that can't spread or an HKA that doesn't add STR).

 

I think we just differ in the genres we play. I am guessing you mostly play Champions. In the heroic (as opposed to superheroic) genres Entangles which do not form barriers are IME actually more common than ones which do. Any kind of paralysis effect from a Martial Artists' paralysing nerve strike ability, to a paralysing poison, to a Wizard's spell of mystic bonds, to a Sci-Fi Tangler weapon is generally built using an Entangle which Cannot Form Barriers. OTOH if a player wants to build an ability which is purely intended to form barriers, he's more likely to employ a Force Wall than an Entangle, since in most cases he gets more value for his Character Points that way.

[lemming]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I've run across a bunch of entangles that don't do barriers as well. The ice slick that freezes the feet to the ground type for example. Ropes, Glue Guns as well.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Oh, I thought of another one that could stand to be changed...

 

Elemental Control.

 

The current name implies a connection to "elemental" powers that doesn't exist. I would propose the name "Megapower." It drives home the concept that this Power Framework is used in cases where a character has a single "power" (small-p) in the context of the campaign world (such as "produces flame" or "projects force"), but this single power requires multiple Powers (big-P) in terms of game mechanics in order to simulate all of its facets or applications.

[zornwil]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I guess you and me differ then. In my entire history of gaming using Hero, I've only every seen two, maybe three, Entangles that didn't/couldn't/shouldn't form barriers. One of them was handcufs, another one one was a clunky mental paralysis.

 

So I would say yes, it creates a barrier that the attacker can either form on it's own, or around a target to immobilize it. Anything else is a Limited version of that (Like an EB that can't spread or an HKA that doesn't add STR).

FWIW, I've almost never seen a PC who could do Entangles also do any sort of barriers, including VPP-based ones. Perhaps actually never. I'm not suggesting right or wrong, just indicating experience.

[zornwil]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

Oh, I thought of another one that could stand to be changed...

 

Elemental Control.

 

The current name implies a connection to "elemental" powers that doesn't exist. I would propose the name "Megapower." It drives home the concept that this Power Framework is used in cases where a character has a single "power" (small-p) in the context of the campaign world (such as "produces flame" or "projects force"), but this single power requires multiple Powers (big-P) in terms of game mechanics in order to simulate all of its facets or applications.

It's funny you mention this, I thought about it but I still consider "element" to be a good basis.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

FWIW' date=' I've almost never seen a PC who could do Entangles also do any sort of barriers, including VPP-based ones. Perhaps actually never. I'm not suggesting right or wrong, just indicating experience.[/quote']

 

I think most PC's underestimate use of barriers. Whether chicken or egg, they also tend to ramp up Defense at the expense of Dice (eg. 3d6 6 DEF, or 4d6 8 DEF, but never 6d6 3 DEF or 8d6 4 DEF). This reduces the ability to create barriers.

 

In Fantasy Hero, I've been using a 6d6 3 DEF Entangle which works very nicely for creation of barriers. A 3 hex wide barrier doesn't last too long, but it does slow down archers. And if I keep replenishing the barrier, my teammates have a lot of time to prepare for a counterattack. Alternatively, my teammates can hold until the barrier drops, then fire at the opponents. After which, I can create a new barrier.

[Dust Raven]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I don't really understand why so many people/campaigns/players don't use the Barrier aspect of Entangle. Or worse, don't see how some SFX wouldn't form barriers.

 

Never tied a rope across a doorway? Never formed a wall of ice? Never had a mage cast some force bonds just out there to block someone? Even a glue gun can make a barrier in a doorway or over a trap door.

 

As for martial artists, poisons and such, I almost never use Entangle for these effects. I use something that's more appropriate to the SFX of what's actually causing the paralysis. I end up using Transform often, but then again, I've never heard of anyone using Entangle to so simulate turning someone to stone so I guess I'm okay. I also like using weird combinitation of Suppress/Drain STUN or SPD to cause paralysis effects.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: An EB by any other name...

 

I don't really understand why so many people/campaigns/players don't use the Barrier aspect of Entangle. Or worse, don't see how some SFX wouldn't form barriers.

 

Never tied a rope across a doorway? Never formed a wall of ice? Never had a mage cast some force bonds just out there to block someone? Even a glue gun can make a barrier in a doorway or over a trap door.

 

A rope accross a doorway doesn't form any kind of barrier anybody can't get past in half a second unless it's strung back and forth several times and pretty well secured in place. An action that's going to take a lot of Extra Time, so it's hardly a valid use for, or a natural part of the powers of a lasso, for example. As for mystic bonds, for example, again that's highly SFX dependent. It depends hugely on the nature of the spell and how it's visualised. I'm not sure how a 'glue gun' could reliably form any kind of barrier which couldn't easily be passed, without an awful lot of time and effort or exactly the right circumstances.

 

 

As for martial artists' date=' poisons and such, I almost never use Entangle for these effects. I use something that's more appropriate to the SFX of what's actually causing the paralysis. I end up using Transform often, but then again, I've never heard of anyone using Entangle to so simulate turning someone to stone so I guess I'm okay. I also like using weird combinitation of Suppress/Drain STUN or SPD to cause paralysis effects.[/quote']

 

There's nothing inappropriate to these SFX (except the turning to stone one) about an Entangle which can't form barriers. That's why the limitation exists. For my part, using Transform for such powers is somewhat against the spirit of the power, and runs contrary to the guideline that it shouldn't be used to simulate existing Powers. I'm going to suggest that you read the description of Entange again. I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to draw your attention to the fact that the actual description of the power strongly emphasises its restraint / paralysis effects and keeps the ability to form barriers very much secondary.

 

I'm not saying in any way that your way of doing things is "wrong", but I am pointing out that it's your personal taste and not in any way a HERO System standard. You may almost never use Entangle for those effects but you don't seem to be typical in that respect. Official HERO System products provide many examples of Entangles which don't form barriers (two out of four of the examples given in the main rulebook, for starters). OTOH correct me if I'm wrong but I can't recall seeing a single example of a Transform used to paralyse in a HERO book, except in cases where the paralysis is the side-effect of an actual physical transformation, such as petrification.