Entangle Abuse

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

That's what I get for quoting a book I just skimmed through. I guess I was wrong.

 

About the official status, I mean. I was correct that it _shouldn't_ do that.

 

Maybe Flying dodge really DOES let you have a free max range dive for cover now . . .

 

Looks like I can leave the new UMA off my 'to buy' list . . . On the other hand, if I don't read it, how will I be able to explain when I'm using house rules or not?

 

--

Why would you want to use a pass-by attack for any reason BUT not to be withing smashing range by the target after you do it?

[Publius]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

I'd Mind Control him with the command "Run and hide now". Given his own behavior, hiding in his Entangle seems to be an "action he's inclined to perform anyway" so only 17 points of effect on the MC can make him hole up for the entire combat (or at least until he breaks out).

 

As someone else has mentioned, the media should really have picked up on this behavior if they have not already. If you are a few adventures into the campaign, have someone say "Hey, it was just a matter of time." Reporters ask his comrades "Are you angry that Treeant is not carrying his share of the load in combat" and "Why they are hanging out with a coward?" The media loves to bring people down, especially heroic types. Pelt him with Funny editorials and cartoons, if the campaign city is a big one maybe some late-night talk show (Leno, Letterman) will do a skit on him. Shame him into acting like a hero. BTW, a bad guy with mind control will be keen on this coverage as well, and thus can word his MC that much better (+5 to the effect roll).

 

Now, about Personal Immunity. It says that Personal Immunity "prevents the character from being affected by his own power", now certainly it allows him to move in and out of the entangle, which is the negative consequence of being entangled. The description of PI however doesn't say that it only stops the negative stuff, it says they are not affected by the power, and I'd rule that you are thus not affected positively either. In other words, no restrictions on movement sure, but no armor either because both are effects of the power.

 

Myself, I'm inclined to go with the DCV 0 thing as well, largely because if someone descirbes themselves as "hiding behind a net of vines" I get the impression of a lack of movement. That isn't "Bad GMing" that is listening to the players self-description of their action. Have him describe exactly how he is moving around inside of the hex to actively dodge while wrapped up in vines and then assess whether it is realistic or not. Ask yourself questions like: If he is immune to their restricting his movement, how is he staying inside of their protective covering?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Myself' date=' I'm inclined to go with the DCV 0 thing as well, largely because if someone descirbes themselves as "hiding behind a net of vines" I get the impression of a lack of movement. That isn't "Bad GMing"...[/quote']

 

Yes, it is. The character is standing in a hex: no more, no less. That's what every other character does when they aren't actively moving between hexes or performing some kind of combat maneuver: no more, no less. Breaking the rules to screw over a character just because you don't like how the player is using those rules is bad GMing, plain and simple. Either handle it in character, and abide by the rules of the game, or handle it out of character and tell the player what you have a problem with and why.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

That's what I get for quoting a book I just skimmed through. I guess I was wrong. About the official status' date=' I mean. I was correct that it _shouldn't_ do that. [/quote']

 

There's nothing wrong with Passing Strike. Like a hundred other things in the game, there are ways to abuse it. The answer to that, as it is with everything else, is "don't abuse it".

 

Looks like I can leave the new UMA off my 'to buy' list...

 

You shouldn't. It's a good sourcebook, and worth the money.

[Vondy]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Its not very heroic, but it is clever. That said, there are ways around it:

 

1) have a "moving combat" - one that's not limited to a specific area.

2) have a plot/objective based combat where they have to go to or get something.

3) enter the vile mercenary Weed killer! He has an AE One Hex NND Weed Sprayer. The entangle is a "net," not a solid wall...

4) have a fire character attack the entangle - maybe it will igite...

5) have an earth villian with an indirect attack strike from below

6) have a clever villian drop a mound of something on top of the entangle. He now has to dig his way out...

7) put him in a situation where he has to go out and expose himself to save innocents, etc...

 

Dude! This character has one skill and three CSLs. What?!

[Kirby]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Yes' date=' it is. The character is standing in a hex: no more, no less. That's what every other character does when they aren't actively moving between hexes or performing some kind of combat maneuver: no more, no less. Breaking the rules to screw over a character just because you don't like how the player is using those rules is bad GMing, plain and simple. Either handle it in character, and abide by the rules of the game, or handle it out of character and tell the player what you have a problem with and why.[/quote']

Except some people refuse to listen to what the player is saying, such as "I'm hiding" and assume if you listen to the player, it's bad GMing. The rules give DCV modifiers for related combat actions. Bad GMs just don't want to acknowledge what's been stated by ignoring the word "hide" and using disinformation to change it to "stand" or "what every other character does."

 

Breaking the rules to allow a power abuser to continue just because you don't like that the player is stating he's hiding is bad GMing, plain and simple.

 

 

Dude! This character has one skill and three CSLs. What?!

He also has nine points in "martial arts" skills (passing strike and dodge), though he's not intelligent. I believe that's not allowed, but I don't have my book handy. That's another abuse. Either by ignorance or by trying this player has created a munchkin type power abusing character.

[cutsleeve]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

If the entagle is sfx driven which for this character id assume plant based why not have a flame villian hose it down with napalm now Mr. Mockturtle is in a fiery deathtrap he must escape, very supercliche : ) . Or have the Defoliater throw insta weed killer on it. or you could have another plant based hero manipulate transform it into an entangle that they can control. BogTurtle meets The Deadly Marsha.

 

As far as the power being abusive i would more or less see it as a neat idea that caught me for a loop. That doesnt mean that you have to stand idley by while he does it. The amazing thing about tactics is it only takes 2 uses for people to realize it is a personal tactic and exploit it to their advantage. Three uses and every villian in the city will be prepared for it.

[Vondy]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

 

He also has nine points in "martial arts" skills (passing strike and dodge), though he's not intelligent. I believe that's not allowed, but I don't have my book handy. That's another abuse. Either by ignorance or by trying this player has created a munchkin type power abusing character.

 

The rule is 10 Points Minimum. I don't have an issue with single maneuver buys. An energy projector might be good at dodging for instance, but I stick to the rule nonethless. And normally, though martial arts are technically "skills" I tend to count them in "combat stuff" and not skills when I review a character. I look at CSLs much the same way. From my perspective this character spent 3 points on skills.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

1) have a "moving combat" - one that's not limited to a specific area.

2) have a plot/objective based combat where they have to go to or get something.

3) enter the vile mercenary Weed killer! He has an AE One Hex NND Weed Sprayer. The entangle is a "net," not a solid wall...

4) have a fire character attack the entangle - maybe it will igite...

5) have an earth villian with an indirect attack strike from below

6) have a clever villian drop a mound of something on top of the entangle. He now has to dig his way out...

7) put him in a situation where he has to go out and expose himself to save innocents, etc...

 

Indirect attacks will logically bypass the 1 hex area Entangle. To add to this, an Indirect entangle would trap the character inside his own Entangle, such that any assistance from teammates would have to get through his own entangle first.

 

Villains who reserve until he comes out of his shell would also circumvent this tactic.

 

I think the most common means around this would be moving combats and villains who have objectives other than trashing the Supers ("While Treeant hides in his weeds and laughs at the frustrated Oculon, the Viper agents entered the labs and stole the Chronal Accelerator"; one villain remains outside to keep Treeant believing he's in combat and the rest leave with the loot).

 

I also don't see this as a huge deal - attack him in his nest. If you destroy the entangle every phase, he never actually gets to make an attack. Any residual stun inflicted on the character is gravy. This forces him to choose between constantly rebuilding his Entangle, effectively making him ineffectual (other than taking one shot a phase which would otherwise have been directed at someone else), or he has to give up on the Entangle.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Except some people refuse to listen to what the player is saying' date=' such as "I'm hiding"...[/quote']

 

Neither you nor I have any idea what the player said, so the rest of your little screed is as fatuous as everything else you've said in this thread. But just to cover all the bases, let's assume that the player did say "I'm hiding...". Here's how a competent and fair-minded GM might handle that:

 

Player 1 (playing Treant): "Treant runs by Megavillain, whacks her on the noggin', and then runs back to the briar patch and hides."

Player 2 (the GM): "Okay, by 'hide', do you mean that Treant is relying on the cover of the area effect Entangle, or do you mean that she's actually crouching down, staying still, and trying not to be seen? Because if you're actively trying to hide, you'll be half DCV, and you'll need to make a Concealment roll (at +4 because you're in an area effect briar patch)."

 

At that point, Player 1 can make an informed decision what her character is doing.

 

You know, the thing about this that really disappoints me is not that there's someone proudly defending her right to be a jerk to the other players at the game table. That, unfortunately, is all too common. What disappoints me is that I seem to the be only one here willing to point it out and call it what it is.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

I also don't see this as a huge deal - attack him in his nest. If you destroy the entangle every phase' date=' he never actually gets to make an attack. Any residual stun inflicted on the character is gravy.[/quote']

 

Exactly. This is much ado about nothing.

[Kirby]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Neither you nor I have any idea what the player said.

You don't, but I do have an idea.

Post 1: Lately he has been casting the entangle on himself, (in his hex) and hiding in it.

 

so the rest of your little screed is as fatuous as everything else you've said in this thread.

Everything? You mean from posts 11 where I state my opinon, post 27 where I cite the rule book (how foolish to mention the rules ) along with quoting what's on the player's character sheet (the insanity!) for reference, or perhaps where I suggested using VIPER which you "Agreed, completely," with me?

 

I know, you must mean when in post 35, I referenced the first post where it was stated the PC is hiding, but you refuse to acknowledge the word hiding and using misinformation in post 36 to state "standing." I also pointed out that the modifiers are in the book, which you've never acknowledged. (Must be convenient.)

 

Or perhaps when I made the simple statement (post 39) "Being motionless is 0 DCV. regardless" of one's DEX. To which you again (post 40) ignore what was stated to put your own assumption "Standing in a hex does not mean that you are motionless." Of course, post 40 is where you also state you aren't discussing this with me further, but I suppose you chose to ignore that as well (when it's convenient, after all). Maybe you're just a hypocrite. Who knows?

 

Which probably means you missed (ignored, whatever) posts 50-54 talking about the rules (those things you ignore when convenient for argument's sake).

 

 

 

 

Here's how a competent and fair-minded GM might handle that:

Don't you mean how you would handle it and anyone who disagrees with you is either incompetent or sleazy or unworthy? Or all three?

 

 

Player 1 (playing Treant): "Treant runs by Megavillain, whacks her on the noggin', and then runs back to the briar patch and hides."

Player 2 (the GM): "Okay, by 'hide', do you mean that Treant is relying on the cover of the area effect Entangle, or do you mean that she's actually crouching down, staying still, and trying not to be seen? Because if you're actively trying to hide, you'll be half DCV, and you'll need to make a Concealment roll (at +4 because you're in an area effect briar patch)."

Wow! Isn't this amazing?! You mention DEX modifiers and you're "a competent and fair-minded GM." I mention DEX modifiers and I'm petty, incompetent, unfair, sleazy: (reminder of post 27) "Except that imposing a DCV penalty is legal. Just look at page 245 of FREd for DCV modifiers." This is because you stated (post 16) "I think imposing penalities on his DCV and so forth is not." Wow, you've ignored yourself, again. Or is this more hypocrisy?

 

Additionally, this reminds me where you've ignored post 27's methods 1, 2a & 2b on how the PC & his entangle might be working (allowing, options).

 

Personally, I think you're a small, petty man who is angry about some past issue(s) and using this as an outlet. You prequalify your posts with statements that boil down to "if you don't agree with me you're not worthy" to cover up your bitterness. You've ignored not only what others have said but what you have said as well, arguing on both sides of the fence just to argue. Maybe some insight and calm breathing techniques can help you clear this out.

[Onyxclaw]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

actually there was a character called Coral King, that did this. He had a power that continually created "coral" around himself wich was an entangle trapping him inside. I think it was a continually renewing 100 body one, but since I don't have his stats I can't tell you. It was cumulative, I do know that. Because he couldn't walk he moved using "telekenetic" flight. He also had a mean psychic hammer.

 

Chris Russo, one of my friends at college designed him....too bad we could never get through the stuff =P

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Everything? You mean from posts 11 where I state my opinon' date=' post 27 where I cite the rule book (how foolish to mention the rules ) along with quoting what's on the player's character sheet (the insanity!) for reference, or perhaps where I suggested using VIPER [b']which you "Agreed, completely," [/b] with me?

 

Fair enough. My apologies. Not everything you have said has been pernicious nonsense, just the bit about arbitarily dropping one PC's DCV.

 

Don't you mean how you would handle it and anyone who disagrees with you is either incompetent or sleazy or unworthy? Or all three?

 

I mean precisely what I said: that's a way to handle it. There are many right ways to GM, just as there are many wrong ways, and an even greater number of ways in between which are simply a matter of taste.

 

You've ignored not only what others have said but what you have said as well' date=' arguing on both sides of the fence just to argue.[/quote']

 

I do not believe this to be true. However, I will understand if you perceive things differently.

[Publius]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Fair enough. My apologies. Not everything you have said has been pernicious nonsense' date=' just the bit about arbitarily dropping one PC's DCV.[/quote']What a charming backhand you have. There is nothing "arbitrary" about dropping someone's DCV when their action is to hide. Your "this is exactly the same as everyone else" mantra has no bearing on reality unless everyone else declares that they are hiding. By this logic if I were to declare that my action is to stand completely motionless in a hex I would recieve my full DCV. You constantly ignore perfectly valid comments like Kirby using the rules (heaven forbid!) or my suggestion that the Player be given the chance to explain how they are hiding behind a stationary object and performing a dodge at the same time.* Hey, maybe the Player can come up with something compelling. But then again, we are all Bad GMs except for you, so why listen to anything like reason unless it springs from your eternal magnifience.

I mean precisely what I said: that's a way to handle it. There are many right ways to GM' date=' just as there are many wrong ways, and an even greater number of ways in between which are simply a matter of taste.[/quote']And of course all the bad ways just happen to be the ways you don't do yourself. How wonderful of you to share our deficiencies with us. And you never said it was a way to handle anything, it is always your way and only your way, all else is labelled as "bad Gming" or referred to as "pernicious nonsense". I for one am sick of your troll behavior.

This' date=' of course, is untrue.[/quote']You know, I think you honestly believe that; how sad. And funny. Because ignoring someone's comment that you ignore the facts is just hillarious. I think we all need to wrap our arms around Bblackmoor and help him get through the state of creamy GM perfection that has been thrust upon him.

 

*CLARIFICATION:You did mention that idea a few posts ago, but when I said the exact same thing a few posts before that I was a "bad GM". Is it just Bad GMing when someone other than you makes a suggestion?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

By this logic if I were to declare that my action is to stand completely motionless in a hex...

 

Logical fallacy. Is this what the character did? No. They ended their move within an area effect. No more, no less.

 

You constantly ignore perfectly valid comments like ... my suggestion that the Player be given the chance to explain how they are hiding behind a stationary object...

 

Logical fallacy. Is this what the character did? No. They ended their move within an area effect. No more, no less.

 

And you never said it was a way to handle anything...

 

Here's how a competent and fair-minded GM might handle that...

 

Not "every" -- "a". Not "would" -- "might". As I said (and will say again, since you appear to have missed it the first time), there are many right ways to GM, just as there are many wrong ways. The example I provided is one right way among many. Screwing over the player and arbitrarily penalizing the character's DCV because one disapproves of their tactics is one wrong way among many. And of course there are an even greater number of ways in between that are simply a matter of taste.

 

...it is always your way and only your way' date=' all else is labelled as "bad Gming"...[/quote']

 

Incorrect. This thread has seen numerous suggestions, most of them perfectly reasonable, even if they are not what I would be likely to do myself.

[Publius]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Blow me off all you want, I think a lot of other folks have gotten your number. Snide comments about other peoples suggestions as "bad GMing" in the vast majority of your posts shows your true colors more than anything you are saying now. The simplest solution is to stop calling other people Bad GMs. If you want to think that yourself, go ahead, be my guest. Having been told I was a bad GM several times from you I already know how you think. Your new line is to call others bad GMs and then when they say something about it to retreat to a "gosh there are many ways to GM..." soft-soap, why not come out with the later non-offensive stance first and forget the former?

 

As for your "logical fallacy" comments, you argued that we don't know precisely how the PC is wording their actions to the GM and now you say that they are worded in a specific way. Which is it? Maybe I missed a clarification from the thread-starter, which I may have.

 

You have still ignored the suggestion for the PC to clarify their action which I made from the beginning, with the caveat that a thoughtful response might not give the individual a DCV of 0. Oh, you repeated it as your own, but when I said it it was unworthy of mention and ignored.

 

You have also not commented on the idea that Personal Immunity applies to the positive effects of a power as well as the negative effects. Now, this is, if anything, somewhat dicey. I just float it as a notion and I would actually like to see some comments on it (other than the standard "Bad GM label). Frankly, as a GM I'd disallow PI bought to do this. PI is bought for damage powers and can be bought for other powers with the GM's permission. I don't allow players to buy PI for Flight or other movement powers either unless they have something other than slamming into other people in mind when they are purchasing the power.

[Onyxclaw]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

You have also not commented on the idea that Personal Immunity applies to the positive effects of a power as well as the negative effects. Now, this is, if anything, somewhat dicey. I just float it as a notion and I would actually like to see some comments on it (other than the standard "Bad GM label).

 

I'm going to stay away from the fire. But I would like to offer my thoughts on the "personal immunity".

 

While personal immunity might, but in my opinion should not, allow a character to move freely in an entangle AND get the benifets of defense from it. I think that I would allow for a more expensive version that would under the right cercumstances: if it made sense that the power could be used that way.

 

I think PI is a +1/4, maybe making a possible +1/2...could even price it higher if you want.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Snide comments about other peoples suggestions as "bad GMing" in the vast majority of your posts shows your true colors more than anything you are saying now.

 

I've not performed any kind of statistical analysis, but I do know that I encounter useful and interesting ideas here on a regular basis, and I generally praise them as such when I find them.

 

Your new line is to call others bad GMs and then when they say something about it to retreat to a "gosh there are many ways to GM..."

 

When I encounter someone advocating a gross abuse of GM power, I call it what it is. Despite that, there are many other ways which are just as bad, and many other ways which are good, and many more ways which are simply a matter of taste. None of this is new (although of course I hope I am a better GM now than I was 10 years ago, and then again 10 years before that).

 

As for your "logical fallacy" comments' date=' you argued that we don't know precisely how the PC is wording their actions to the GM and now you say that they are worded in a specific way.[/quote']

 

I based my statements upon what we know: we know that the player performed a Passing strike and ended her charater's movement within an area effect entangle. That is all that we actually know. All else is conjecture.

 

You have still ignored the suggestion for the PC to clarify their action which I made from the beginning... it was unworthy of mention and ignored.

 

I do not generally feel compelled to pat people on the back every time they say something worthwhile. I usually only comment on good ideas when it is something that I would not have thought of myself (which happens on a regular basis around here, although you may not know it from the evidence of this thread). Perhaps it's a personal flaw, but I feel that good ideas will prosper without my help, while bad ideas need to be opposed before they take root and spread.

 

But just to be clear: yes, that, and most of the other suggestions in this thread, have been useful, helpful, and reasonably fair.

 

You have also not commented on the idea that Personal Immunity applies to the positive effects of a power as well as the negative effects. Now' date=' this is, if anything, somewhat dicey. I just float it as a notion and I would actually like to see some comments on it[/quote']

 

I will confess that this "penalize the character" thing has consumed most of my attention. As I said, I tend to place a higher importance on opposing bad ideas than encouraging good ones. Perhaps I will reconsider that emphasis.

 

Okay, onto the subject of Personal Immunity.

 

I have a basic ground rule when it comes to powers: if the character paid points to have something, it should benefit them. If the character received points (from a Disad, Limitatrion, or what have you), it should be a hindrance. So if a character paid points to have Personal Immunity to their own Entangle, then I am going to give them that and not try to find some way to screw them out of it.

 

This is not to say that Personal Immunity can't have unexpected or even detrimental side effects. The one case I remember quite clearly (considering it was close to 20 years ago) was a character who had a Darkness field with personal immunity. When the agents the team was fighting threw Flash grenades, no one else in the Darkness was affected by the Flash, but he was. Hmm. That was years ago... I find myself wondering just why the agents threw Flash granades at a Darkness field. I'm sure it made sense at the time. I do recall that it surprised everyone, including me, when the Darkness-using character was blinded by the Flash grenades.

 

So, yes, Personal Immunity can have unfortunate side-effects. But that should be the exception, not the rule.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

... personal immunity might' date=' but in my opinion should not, allow a character to move freely in an entangle AND get the benifets of defense from it.[/quote']

 

If it were not an area effect, I would agree with you. As it is, the Entangle covers the area. It exists independently of anything in it or on the other side of it. As such, I do not think it is reasonable that Bullet A goes right through it but Bullet B doesn't, just because Bullet A is aimed at Character X rather than Character Y, when the path of both bullets would go through the area of the Entangle. Do you see what I mean?

[Onyxclaw]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

If it were not an area effect' date=' I would agree with you. As it is, the Entangle covers the area. It exists independently of anything in it or on the other side of it. As such, I do not think it is reasonable that Bullet A goes right through it but Bullet B doesn't, just because Bullet A is aimed at Character X rather than Character Y, when the path of both bullets would go through the area of the Entangle. Do you see what I mean?[/quote']

 

eh, I would expoiund on what I was thinking but at this point I'm not really interested in it anymore

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

eh' date=' I would expoiund on what I was thinking but at this point I'm not really interested in it anymore[/quote']

 

I can't say I blame you. I'm debating whether to swear off the Hero Games forums entirely for a month or two.

[Publius]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

When I encounter someone advocating a gross abuse of GM power' date=' I call it what it is. [/Quote']Grow up. Making a GM call like DCV 0 for a specific action is hardly a "gross abuse of power", especially if the player is allowed to clarify themselves and make an argument why they should not be DCV 0. You make it sound like the GM killed someone's character for getting into an argument with the GM outside of the game or something. That would be a "gross abuse", this is just a line call you don;t happen to agree with. Plus, who made you the Good GM Fairy anyway to make such a call? Get over yourself.

 

I do not generally feel compelled to pat people on the back every time they say something worthwhile.

Don't recall asking for such, it was simply a statement about how you ignore facts like this one when you get into your little snits. Nice footwork though on the frame-up there.

 

I can't say I blame you. I'm debating whether to swear off the Hero Games forums entirely for a month or two.

Gosh, a few people got after you for impolite comments and you want to leave. Okay, See ya. Frankly, I have found some of your stuff very useful and some not. I just don't pass judgement on you when I don't agree. Try that sometime rather than claiming "I call 'em as I see 'em".

[Publius]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

eh' date=' I would expoiund on what I was thinking but at this point I'm not really interested in it anymore[/quote']Discretion is the better part of valor sometimes. Nevertheless, I found your comment to be a very good suggestion. Myself, I think in future I will be asking specific questions about why a player wants Personal Immunity for a non-Combat power and asking them to keep to the spirit of that in play.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Entangle Abuse

 

Making a GM call like DCV 0 for a specific action is hardly a "gross abuse of power"...

 

Publius, I'm not interested in pursuing this further. If you think it's reasonable to impose a 0 DCV on a character -- the equivalent of being unconscious or Entangled -- when they are merely standing in a particular hex, well, you go right ahead. I'm sick of this whole thing, and I won't be posting on it again.