Entangle Abuse

[freakboy6117]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

one thing you could do is use the entangle as a weapon against his team mates. get a telekinetic oer super strong villain to throw them into it if it sticky they get stuck to it and the villain can pound on them till they break free if its just a solid barrier then the villain can smack the into it till it breaks two heroes for the price of one.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

If the PC wants an Entangle that he can throw on someone and then pound them without it interfering he needs to buy the Entangle with the Takes No Damage adavantage (probably +1/4).

 

I disagree. That would mean the Entangle is "see through" anyone who wants to attack the entangled character, not just the Entangle user. It also means that even friends of the Entangled target must specifically target the Entangle, or hit the character within. [bTW, Entangle Takes no Damage is normally +1/2, while "Both Take Damage" is +1/4 - I vould go for +1/4 to be "takes no damage from my attacks only" as a solution]

 

I may envision this Entangle differently than others, likely because I didn't read the HDC file and thus the description. A net sounds unlikely to work the way the player envisions. However, someone noted it can only be used where the ground is somewhat natural, which is more consistent with my vision of undergrowth rising and trapping the target. Undergrowth which does not hamper Swampie's ability to move.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Stretching' date=' no. Reach, yes. Pages 118-9 in FREd under [b']Growth[/b] talks about this.

 

But you only get this if you pay for Growth. If you say"My character is permanently 20' high", and take a Physical Limitation, you get the Reach only if you pay for the Stretching.

 

Being immune at 9'' date=' no. Being less restricted, possible depending on the sfx. Again, look at pages 118-9 in FREd. Also, page 85 under [b']Size Powers[/b]. Even if a PC didn't buy growth, if they give themselves 2" of height, they are at -2 DCV, and others get +2 on PER rolls. It's in the rules.

 

Again, they either paid poiints for the ability to change size (with the benefits and drawbacks this entails) or they received poiints for a physical limitation. As I said earlier, I would have no problem with restricting Swampie's ability to hide in a 1 hex entangle provided he has a limitation due to his bulk. I would also have no problem with a GM requiring such a limitation based on Swampie's described size, or not doing so as 7' 6" is on the cusp of "Super-size". Allowing the character at this size, with no limitation, to me means allkowing that the character's above average size does not impair him markedly.

 

Just as a Disadvantage which creates no disadvantage, is worth no points, a feature which generates no points as a Disadvantage should not carry a significant disadvantage to the character.

 

Again' date=' it depends on its sfx. If it is defined as handcuffs, it's obviously not going to work on someone with 4" of height. If it's defined as a net or glue, then it will probably affect an area (probably about 3', give or take). So, it could hit arms, legs or wings, but not all three if the target were 4". There's a Hit Locations chart to help out, too.[/quote']

 

I would have no problem considering this for a character who has paid for that advantage. He could pay for it by buying Growth, or by taking the drawbacks that come with the Physical Limitation of being exceptionally large. But, again, 7'6" is a far cry from 4" (8 meters).

 

As with Size Powers on page 85' date=' the character should by extra defenses to simulate this; however, if PC says "I'm always 9' tall," he takes the same damage as a PC who says "I'm always 5' tall."[/quote']

 

See, now you're getting it - IF you pay the points, you get the ability. Your great size can justify spending the points, but does not provide the ability unless these points are, in fact, spent.

 

Well' date=' duh. If the target isn't looking, then the flash wouldn't matter, would it? (You can shine a flashlight into Bob's eyes; just because Tom can see the light, doesn't mean he's blind also, because his eyes weren't targeted, nor in the "field of effect.")[/quote']

 

The flashlight simply isn't AE. However, nothing in the rules, other than the optional "close your eyes to get some flash defense" rule, wuld suggest facing of the target is relevant. Otherwise, since facing can be changed at will, I'll never be facing the Flash attack. Actually, a maneuver which allows avcoidance of a Sight Flash at the cost of the blindness penalties as long as you maintain it would be a great idea, but that's another thread. [Mind you, so is the ancillary effects of great size on a character]

 

An AE Flash targeted on the ground doesn't blind Gargantua who's 32 hexes high. That should be simple common sense.

 

Is he looking down? Then he sees the bright light. If, however, he's outside the area of effect, I'd agree he should not be affected by the Flash. But the fact he is 64 meters from toes to head doesn't define where that head is at any given point in time. Is his head 32 hexes high, or does he have to stoop to strike at a foe who is standing on the ground? Should a regular Flash reduce his Growth DCV penalties since, after all, it's not good enough to just hit Gargantua - you need to hit near his head. Probably, but it excessively complicates matters from my perspective.

[Kirby]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

The flashlight simply isn't AE. However' date=' nothing in the rules, other than the optional "close your eyes to get some flash defense" rule, wuld suggest facing of the target is relevant.[/quote']

If you can't perceive the flash being used, then it's useless. If you can't hear, a sound flash won't work against you. If you can't see, a sight flash won't work against you. This is common sense. Similarly, if you do a sight flash from behind me, it won't blind me. Page 114 of FREd states "The GM may wish to allow characters who are prepared for a Flash to take defensive actions...which can reduce or eliminate the effects of the Flash." So you can't just say "I choose not to look at it" if you don't know it's coming. That's being a munchkin. The PC (not the player) must be aware that the attack is a Flash attack to know to avoid it.

 

 

Is he looking down? Then he sees the bright light. If' date=' however, he's outside the area of effect, I'd agree he should not be affected by the Flash.[/quote']

Bingo. He's too tall to be affected by it; you lit up his foot with a sight flash.

[Kirby]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Is he looking down? Then he sees the bright light.

The Sun can be considered a continuous flash attack. However, has long as we don't look at it, it won't blind us. At night time, there are hundreds of the same flash attacks visible, but they're too far away to affect us.

[MechaGM]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Bingo. He's too tall to be affected by it; you lit up his foot with a sight flash.

 

The thing is, Gargantua has the Growth Power. Thus he gets the advantages (and limitations) of the power, which in this case would protect him from the AE flash. Similarly, someone who is always gigantic (and didn't take the growth power) would, IMO, need to have an appropriate Phys Lim before I'd consider giving them the same effect. (and no, they wouldn't get the extra reach either, unless they paid the points for it)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

The thing is' date=' Gargantua has the Growth Power. Thus he gets the advantages (and limitations) of the power, which in this case would protect him from the AE flash. Similarly, someone who is always gigantic (and didn't take the growth power) would, IMO, need to have an appropriate Phys Lim before I'd consider giving them the same effect. (and no, they wouldn't get the extra reach either, unless they paid the points for it)[/quote']

And it's things like this that make me outright dismiss Steve's "official" way of doing always-giant characters and instead build it with Growth, 0 End Persistant Always On Inherent instead...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

The thing is' date=' Gargantua has the Growth Power. Thus he gets the advantages (and limitations) of the power, which in this case would protect him from the AE flash. Similarly, someone who is always gigantic (and didn't take the growth power) would, IMO, need to have an appropriate Phys Lim before I'd consider giving them the same effect. (and no, they wouldn't get the extra reach either, unless they paid the points for it)[/quote']

 

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with the GM telling the player that, if you want your character to be 100' high, you'll have to take the Physical Limitation (or buy the Growth). In that case, the effect of being far away from a Flash is reasonable.

 

But even then, is your head 100' up? if it is, how are you hitting the normal-size combatants below? Do you step on them, rather than lean down and strike at them? If you lean down, your head is no longer 100' in the air, is it?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

And it's things like this that make me outright dismiss Steve's "official" way of doing always-giant characters and instead build it with Growth' date=' 0 End Persistant Always On Inherent instead...[/quote']

 

I agree: the old way was simpler. If you wanted to be big (or small, or dense), you knew exactly how to do it.

[MechaGM]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

And it's things like this that make me outright dismiss Steve's "official" way of doing always-giant characters and instead build it with Growth' date=' 0 End Persistant Always On Inherent instead...[/quote']

 

I, for one, do agree that there really didn't need to be a change in the way building such characters worked in 5th... especially, as you note, sine the Inherant power advantage was added to the game.

 

For the most part, I really like what was done with 5th edition, there were a couple of changes I just don't understand why they were done though.

 

C'est la vie.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Am I the only one who wonders why Entangle (only to build walls) builds considerably better walls than Force Wall does, for the same price, but without the constant END cost?

 

If Entangle was a single power, as opposed to two completely different powers with a (theoretically) linked special effect, we probably could avoid this argument. Ah, well.

 

PI is always a bit of a judgment call. Could someone with a PI Force Wall walk through their own walls without breaking them? That doesn’t seem like an unreasonable effect to want, but it’s probably more expensive than a PI’s +1/4.

 

Maybe PI should be more expensive for continuous or non-damage based powers. Even the traditional example of Darkness with PI is considerably more badass than a +1/4 advantage would seem to imply.

 

Now, in this specific case, a guy hiding in a ONE HEX space should not be hard to find. The entangle will absorb some damage, but probably not enough to make a difference. If the player is rebuilding his jungle every phase, he’s not doing anything useful. And, as several people have mentioned, people can pop him when he jumps out. This really isn’t any worse than making cover and hiding behind it.

 

I can’t read the character sheet. He DID buy ‘Entangle Stops a Given Sense’ right? Otherwise any barrier he makes will be more or less translucent.

 

Be wary of Passing Strike. (Note that, dispite the name, the 4th edition version didn’t let you keep moving _after_ you strike. It was just a fmove strike. Did this change with the new UMA?)

 

And his brother, Flying Dodge. (Again, just because it’s a full move maneuver, and you can abort to it, does NOT mean you can abort to the full move part of it . . .)

--

“To be LEFT ALONE! The goal of every true hero!â€

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

...Passing Strike. Note that' date=' dispite the name, the 4th edition version didn’t let you keep moving _after_ you strike.[/quote']

 

Are you sure? Well, it does now, in any event. Yes, it should be used judiciously, but it's not inherently problematic (no more so than a hundred other things in the game, anyway).

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Ah . . . Ninja Hero lists it as:

5pts, 1/2 phase, +1, +0, Str+v/5, FMove, with the FMove component meaning 'can be used at the end of a full move', must make at least a half move.

Seems pretty clear, though the name's deceptive. The original UMA uses the same languange.

 

Should I just skip 5th edition UMA? I didn't like any of the new(ish) MA-like combat 'skills' . . . What's the point of having autofire if a few skill levels and a five point 'skill perk' do the same thing?

 

I could see it not being abusive, but 'shooting by' is a pretty good perk for a five point manuver. If its an upgrade of Move By, that's one thing. If it's an upgrade of Move By that removes the 'damage self' AND the -2 OCV/-2 DCV, AND adds OCV or DCV on top of that . . . well, that's a pretty damn good deal for five points.

 

--

"Looks like a fish. Moves like a fish. Steers like a cow."

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

If it's an upgrade of Move By that removes the 'damage self' AND the -2 OCV/-2 DCV' date=' AND adds OCV or DCV on top of that . . . well, that's a pretty damn good deal for five points.[/quote']

 

The self-inflicted damage from a Move By is negligible anyway.

[MechaGM]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

I could see it not being abusive, but 'shooting by' is a pretty good perk for a five point manuver. If its an upgrade of Move By, that's one thing. If it's an upgrade of Move By that removes the 'damage self' AND the -2 OCV/-2 DCV, AND adds OCV or DCV on top of that . . . well, that's a pretty damn good deal for five points.

 

Well, Move-By can be used to attack multiple targets along the path of the attack, which is not the case with Passing Strike, so it's not just a straight upgrade of Move-By.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Well' date=' Move-By can be used to attack multiple targets along the path of the attack, which is not the case with Passing Strike...[/quote']

 

Are you sure? I believe it is.

[MechaGM]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Are you sure? I believe it is.

 

Just looked it up in my copy of UMA...

 

Passing Strike has the Strike, FMove and +V/5 elements... none of which say that that they allow one to use the maneuver to strike multiple targets the way Move-By does.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Too simplistic a read. The Multiple Move-by is just the overlay of the Sweep manuver on to the Move by Manuver. Since it is so often done the rules include the example in the text of Move by.

 

That said Passing Strike is a very powerful MA manuver and I am coming to the realization that Martial Arts, not VPPs or ECs or Transforms or Mental Entangles are the HERO system's biggest abuse area. Concept not skill or time doing the job (superheroing) should determine the availability of MA.

 

 

Hawksmoor

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Passing Strike has the Strike' date=' FMove and +V/5 elements... none of which say that that they allow one to use the maneuver to strike multiple targets the way Move-By does.[/quote']

 

It does not have to say it. You can Sweep with a Passing Strike just like you can with most other maneuvers. As I said (and as the Ultimate Martial Artist books says), Passing Strike should be used judiciously, but I do not think it's inherently any more abusive than a hundred other things in the game system. I ceratinly wouldn't lose any sleep over it, or suggest that it be removed from the game (if you did remove it, you'd need to remove Move By and Move Through as well, among other things).

 

It's really a non-issue. There are so many more important things to spend time worrying about.

[MechaGM]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

It does not have to say it. You can Sweep with a Passing Strike just like you can with most other maneuvers. As I said (and as the Ultimate Martial Artist books says)' date=' Passing Strike should be used judiciously, but I do not think it's inherently any more abusive than a hundred other things in the game system. I ceratinly wouldn't lose any sleep over it, or suggest that it be removed from the game (if you did remove it, you'd need to remove Move By and Move Through as well, among other things).[/quote']

 

Hmmm... I always forget the combining maneuvers rules, so I'll take your word on it.

 

It's really a non-issue. There are so many more important things to spend time worrying about.

 

Oh, I'm not overworried by it... my group tends to not use Martial Maneuvers much, we tend to prefer using powers to build wacky martial arts attacks, so my memory on exactly how they work is, apparantly, rusty.

 

I'm personally not fond of the Martial Arts rules for superheroic games, but that's just my personal take on it. (though there is a running joke in our group about Flying Dodge... "I'll flying dodge down to the corner store and buy some milk")

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Just looked it up in my copy of UMA...

 

Passing Strike has the Strike, FMove and +V/5 elements... none of which say that that they allow one to use the maneuver to strike multiple targets the way Move-By does.

 

I'm nost sure I see the part where it lets you end a phase in a different hex from where you attack the target, either . . . Anything about plotting your movement path beforehand?

 

+3 OCV and +2 DCV are a bit high for a martial maneuver, but not without precedent. Does the new version use half your STR as the base damage, as Move By does?

 

Though maybe I should read the new UMA before commenting on it . . .

 

Flying Dodge isn't a problem at all . . . as long as it's not interperted as a four point "dodge + free dive for cover to the limit of my movement with no roll."

 

--

"Hai-kiba!"

[incrdbil]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

There is a reason I specifically refuse Passing Strike to certain characters. Superspeeder who, at max velelcity and other mods gets average to max DC limits, probably ok.

 

 

Maxed out campaign STR limit Brick with flight? Uh-Uh.

Buy some levels with move by/though, pal.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

I double checked Passing Strike at my FLGS this morning. (Don't look at me like that. I've bought two suplements a month, minimum, for the last four months. Which is a lot for a game I never get to play) There's no indication anywhere that Passing Strike is any different from the 4th edition version.

 

Thus I put forth, again, that Passing strike simply dosn't let you do a run-by attack AKA Move By.

 

 

MA and balance:

Admitadly, MA manuvers have a couple of issues. Killing Strike is dosn't work like any other killing damage, which is super-efficent for high strength MAs, and 'target falls' is a messy, D&D-esque effect, and I'm not even going to get into Desolid. And maybe NND needs some work, too, actually.

 

On the other hand, 15 str no figured characteristics, 3 points of dex*, and 2 3 point combat skill levels cost 22 points, give you a equivelent/better version of every manuver except the two above. So allowing a version with fewer options for half the price dosn't seem so terrible to me. No matter how clever you are with it, there's no way to save more than 12 points. (Unless you allow the super versions of Flying Block and Passing Strike, of course)

 

If it really bothers you, you could always kick the minimum manuver cost up to 15 points, and maybe forbid the advanced manuvers (killing, nnd, is the flash one still in there?) until they've mastered the basics. (Two strikes and a block for hard styles, a block, a grab, and a strike or throw for soft ones)

 

*Assuming you bought your dex up. Which you did.

--

"No, I have a nose bleed because she _kicked me in the face_!!"

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Thus I put forth' date=' again, that Passing strike simply dosn't let you do a run-by attack AKA Move By.[/quote']

 

"FMove: A character can perform a maneuver with this Element during or at the end of a Full Move instead of just a Half Move.... Attacks with this Element do not automatically have to take place at the very end of a character's move." (Ultimate Martial Artist, p. 93; emphasis mine)

 

Also:

 

"If used indiscriminantly, the FMove Element can make some characters 'un-attackable,' which unbalances the game." (Ultimate Martial Artist, p. 93; emphasis mine)

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

The most abusive entange i ever heard was "Coral King"

 

Coral King was a continuous entangle of coral pylops which kept growing all the time. Basically it was a growing suit of armor. He had a few attacks, which were indirect, and teleportation linked to contortionist, to escape his own entangle. Then he'd throw it at someone and make a new one.

 

It hurt my precious mind