Flashing Paralyzing attack

[Silbeg]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

If target resist to paralyzing effect' date=' are blinded (or not, 'cause sunglasses are common...) by flash attack...[/quote']

 

One possibility would be a transform to paralyzed, which "heals" when the target is no longer flashed... that could possibly give you a -1 lim, or so, depending on the GM?

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

Except you'll never fit a useful-sized transform into the arm.

 

Honestly, I'd just say to hell with it, and just build it as a straight flash. In a low-defense game like cyberpunk, even a small flash (especially if it's an AOE is plenty badass enough.

 

Even if you could fit it, a mental entagle or the like is going to be so effective that everyone's going to want one.

[Dr Divago]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

Even if you could fit it' date=' a mental entagle or the like is going to be so effective that everyone's going to want one.[/quote']You're right, a very powerful flash are very useful in CP...

or...

a powerful EB Stun Only linked to a not-so-powerful flash?

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I suppose you could do a 2d6 Sight Group and a 2d6 NND EB.

[Dr Divago]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I suppose you could do a 2d6 Sight Group and a 2d6 NND EB.

Really... you're right...

2d6 flash and 2d6 EB NND are not so powerful...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

Really... you're right...

2d6 flash and 2d6 EB NND are not so powerful...

 

That's only 30 AP. 4d6 Flash + 2d6 NND would be more like it for 40 points. Against a target with no Flash Defense, this would average 4 segments blind (1 or 2 phases, I suspect) and 7 Stun.

 

I've used a Champions character whpo tags 3-5d6 Flash on with another attack (either AVLD or Ranged Drain) as a regular attack of choice, and this has proven quite effective. It does, however, make him more the character who sets the enemy up for KO than the guy who delivers the knockout punch.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

It's a whole 'sight group' flash, not just normal sight. That kicks the price up 10.

[Dr Divago]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

Okay i'm up again

This is how can work a Flash+Mental Paralisys

 

Flashbulb:

Flash 2d6 (Sight), No END (+½), Limited Range (3", -¼), Cyberware (-½), IIF (-¼), Humanity Loss (½d6; -½)

Active 15, Real 6

plus

Entangle (1d6, 1 DEF), Takes no Damage from Attack (+½), No END (+½), Work Against EGO, not STR (+¼), IIF (-¼), Cyberware (-½), Linked (-½), Limited Range (3", -¼), Only if Target are Blinded (-½)

Active 25, Real 8

Total Cost

Active 40, Real 14

So it can be fit in a 40 base + 20 control VPP (standard cyberarm)

Entangle are not BoECV 'cause is linked to Flash

Average Characthers have EGO 10, so roll 2d6 to free from Entangle

on average, entangle has 3 body and 1 def; so average characters is free in 3 round (inflict ongly 1 body on every turn)

possibility is to reduce Flash and increase Body of entangle

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

Average Characthers have EGO 10, so roll 2d6 to free from Entangle

on average, entangle has 3 body and 1 def; so average characters is free in 3 round (inflict ongly 1 body on every turn)

possibility is to reduce Flash and increase Body of entangle

 

No, on average the Entangle has 1 BOD. You could BOD, not "stun" on the dice for an entangle.

[Dr Divago]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

No' date=' on average the Entangle has 1 BOD. You could BOD, not "stun" on the dice for an entangle.[/quote']O_o

D'OH!!!!!

 

Can i pay only 5 to have 1d6 Body no Def?

so for 10 point i've 2d6 body no def?

so...

wait...

no...

is toooooo weak...

[MitchellS]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I'm not 100% certain but I believe the "works against ego, not str" advantage can only be taken in conjunction with BoECV. Otherwise that advantage gives too much bang for a +1/4 buck.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I'm not 100% certain but I believe the "works against ego' date=' not str" advantage can only be taken in conjunction with BoECV. Otherwise that advantage gives too much bang for a +1/4 buck.[/quote']

I allow it without BOECV. How else could you link it to a physical attack for a paralyzing poison or such? If you couldn't take it without BOECV, I'd think it should be worded, "BOECV with an extra +1/4 Advantage works against the target's Ego instead of Str," rather than it being named as an Advantage unto itself. Maybe it's a question for Steve Long though.

[MitchellS]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I allow it without BOECV. How else could you link it to a physical attack for a paralyzing poison or such? If you couldn't take it without BOECV' date=' I'd think it should be worded, "BOECV with [i']an extra +1/4 Advantage[/i] works against the target's Ego instead of Str," rather than it being named as an Advantage unto itself. Maybe it's a question for Steve Long though.

It's way too small of an advantage without the BoECV +1. Most characters seldom have more than 15 ego, but have 12d6 attacks. Allowing a 5d6 entange to work versus ego instead a normal attack means people with 15 egos [3d6] would not be able to break out of a 60 ap entangle [5d6 plus advantage]. There's no way that's balanced. It's balanced with the +1 for BoECV as an addition though, IMO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

It's way too small of an advantage without the BoECV +1. Most characters seldom have more than 15 ego' date=' but have 12d6 attacks. Allowing a 5d6 entange to work versus ego instead a normal attack means people with 15 egos [3d6'] would not be able to break out of a 60 ap entangle [5d6 plus advantage]. There's no way that's balanced. It's balanced with the +1 for BoECV as an addition though, IMO.

 

I see changing the stat as more linked to "entangle takes no damage" than "BOECV". Why not an Entangle broken by CON rather than STR? That makes it +3/4, same as an AVLD which is switching to a less common, but not hugely exoitic, defense.

[MitchellS]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I see changing the stat as more linked to "entangle takes no damage" than "BOECV". Why not an Entangle broken by CON rather than STR? That makes it +3/4' date=' same as an AVLD which is switching to a less common, but not hugely exoitic, defense.[/quote']

I disagree. I believe there's a reason why the "ego, not str" limitation is included with the BoECV description. It's too powerful to stand on its own at that value level, IMO. I seriously doubt Steve's intention was to make it a stand-alone advantage.

 

As far as it being an off-shoot of "takes no damage" I disagree with that as well. TND is a +1/2 advantage that makes an attack require an additional -3 in order to target an entangle instead of the character. -3 to hit is much easier to do then to use ego to break out. An easier thing would not be a bigger advantage. That indicates to me that ego, not str is not a stand alone advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I disagree. I believe there's a reason why the "ego, not str" limitation is included with the BoECV description. It's too powerful to stand on its own at that value level, IMO. I seriously doubt Steve's intention was to make it a stand-alone advantage.

 

As far as it being an off-shoot of "takes no damage" I disagree with that as well. TND is a +1/2 advantage that makes an attack require an additional -3 in order to target an entangle instead of the character. -3 to hit is much easier to do then to use ego to break out. An easier thing would not be a bigger advantage. That indicates to me that ego, not str is not a stand alone advantage.

 

TND is a +1/4 advantage to apply to a limited group of attacks. That's included in Mental Paralysis (defined as "Physical attacks", which seems pretty broad to me), followed by "Ego instead of STR" (+1/4) and BoECV for +1/2. Hpowever, physical attacks cannot target a mental paralysis attack at -3. They can't target it at all. That, to me, is the function of "Ego instead of STR". Now, none of this gets into pricing.

 

Part of the problem is the murky mechanics of "mental paralysis", however. It's supposedly Based on ECV, which changes the to hit mechanic (value debated on these boards before, but somewhere between +0 and +1/4 is the general consensus to use OECV vs dex=-based DCV, though I'm uncertain whether you agree; I'd say +1/2 to use OECV and DECV), makes range LOS (+1/2) and converts the attack to an AVLD vs Mental Defense (+1 1/2), so BoECV actually provides advantages with a cost of +2 when "unbundled". Of course, it also eliminates knockback, causes the attack not to do BOD, and may have some other minor effects.

 

 

Now, when we apply BoECV to Entangle, really it should benefit from the range change, and targetting ECV, but it doesn't benefit from the AVLD aspect, because Entangle had no defense to begin with. Perhaps Mental Paralysis would be better defined as:

 

Entangle (of course)

- Range Line of Sight (+1/2)

- Targets ECV (+1/2) *

- Not affected by Physical attacks ** (+1)

 

* Whether that's the appropriate value isn't the point - leave it for another thread.

** This is the tough one, and the crux of mental paralysis. Really, it's some variance of NND/AVLD for Entangles. I use +1 to get the same value used for total advantage on Mental Paralysis, which is probably reasonable in a game where mental attacks are reasonably cmmon.

 

So let's say "not affected by physical attacks" is a +1 advantage which means STR and normal attacks don't affect the Entangle. At the +1 level, it requires another stat other than STR be able to break the entangle (in this case Ego)and that some "reasonably common" type of attack still affects the Entangle (mental attacks for MP). Does that make some sense?

 

Now let's extrapolate further. What if I want to allow the Entangled person's STR to be useful, but restrict attacks that can break the entangle? Let's call it an Entangle ofTelekinetic Force - only an attack which Affects Desolid can break it (this would include mental attacks, but only one that does BOD would hurt the Entangle). Maybe that's +3/4 - it gets most of the functionality, since the target needs high STR to enhance breakout chances.

 

Another possibility - let's use a paralysis dart now, which affects the nervous system. We don't think any attack logically affects this Entangle, so we want to restrict Brekout to CON rolls only. Perhaps that's +1 1/2? Maybe +2? Everyone has CON, but very few have enough to roll dice comparable with attacks or STR AND no one can help you break out. Call it +2, then, since this is very powerful. Perhaps we make it illegal (positive Adjustment powers like Aid or Healing, directed at any physical stat, are deemed the "attack method" to break this Entangle.

 

Whether you agree with my logic or not, I'm sure you will agree that the last example SHOULD NOT, for balance reasons, be Mental Paralysis with the Baed on CON limitation!

 

So what would this change be? Essentially, we expand "Takes no Damage", to include, say,:

 

+3/4: One type of attack (same requirements as +1/4) cannot affect the entangle at all. They can never target it.

 

+3/4: The target's STR still affects the Entangle. However, any oither form of attack (including another person attacking the entangle, or non-STR breakouts within the Entangle) will not work. A reasonably common SFX of powers (eg. mental powers, Affects Desolid powers or adjustment powers with a positive effect on a physical stat) must be selected. Such attacks can affect the Entangle as if they did normal BOD damage.

 

+1: STR and normal attacks can never affect the Entangle. Another stat other than STR, must be identified which is able to break the entangle (commonly Ego or CON) and that some "reasonably common" type of attack (eg. mental powers, Affects Desolid powers or adjustment powers with a positive effect on a physical stat) must be selected. Such attacks can affect the Entangle as if they did normal BOD damage.

 

+2: STR and normal attacks can never affect the Entangle. Another stat other than STR, must be identified which is able to break the entangle (commonly Ego or CON). As no other attack can affect the Entangle, no one else can help the character break free.

 

BoECV cannot be applied to Entangles. Simulation of a Mental entangle is accomplished by purchasing IPE, Line of Sight Range and/or Attacks based on Ego, not DEX.

 

These are definitely "caution" or "stop sign" advantages (esp. that last +2 one!), but allows simulation of a wide variety of effects that don't really work under the present model. Obviously, one for GM's to monitor (pity the sucker trapped in a 2d6 Entangle, only affected by target COM, but also poty the player trying to argue this one to the GM).

[Dr Divago]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

(pity the sucker trapped in a 2d6 Entangle' date=' only affected by target COM, but also poty the player trying to argue this one to the GM).[/quote']All character i've made have great amount of COM, 'cause COM is very cheap and useful when you've 2 or 3 points and no other power where put these...

 

And, hey, if you look at superheroines, you'll found only beatiful girls, so is'nt very unrealistic...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

All character i've made have great amount of COM, 'cause COM is very cheap and useful when you've 2 or 3 points and no other power where put these...

 

And, hey, if you look at superheroines, you'll found only beatiful girls, so is'nt very unrealistic...

 

I use COM as a rounder for those last 2 or 3 points as well. That's still only 3d6 to "damage" that Entangle.

 

Although the mental image created of "Flexing comeliness" could be entertaining, I suppose.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I disagree. I believe there's a reason why the "ego, not str" limitation is included with the BoECV description. It's too powerful to stand on its own at that value level, IMO. I seriously doubt Steve's intention was to make it a stand-alone advantage.

 

As far as it being an off-shoot of "takes no damage" I disagree with that as well. TND is a +1/2 advantage that makes an attack require an additional -3 in order to target an entangle instead of the character. -3 to hit is much easier to do then to use ego to break out. An easier thing would not be a bigger advantage. That indicates to me that ego, not str is not a stand alone advantage.

Let's not forget that the mental paralysis example given under the BOECV heading has both Takes No Damage and Works Against Ego, Not Str.

[Dr Divago]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

I use COM as a rounder for those last 2 or 3 points as well. That's still only 3d6 to "damage" that Entangle.

 

Although the mental image created of "Flexing comeliness" could be entertaining, I suppose.

Well, if some player say to me "hey i want an entangle base upon COM", first i laugh for half an hour, second, i say a powerful NO WAY...

but, just for joking...

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

22.5 (60) Velvet Rope: 3 DEF Entangle, Based on COM CV (+1), Works Against COM, not STR (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Physical Attacks (+1/4), Backlash (+1/2), Only To Form Barriers (-1), Only at entrances to nightclubs (-1), No Range(-1/2), One Body (-1/2)

 

Susceptable to Wealth, maybe?

 

---

"this makes me want to go clubbing . . . the director of this film!!"

[Dr Divago]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

22.5 (60) Velvet Rope: 3 DEF Entangle, Based on COM CV (+1), Works Against COM, not STR (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Physical Attacks (+1/4), Backlash (+1/2), Only To Form Barriers (-1), Only at entrances to nightclubs (-1), No Range(-1/2), One Body (-1/2)

 

Susceptable to Wealth, maybe?

Looooool...

[TaxiMan]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

Let's pause while we envision a female super ...

 

PUSHING her COM.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

If you PUSH COM, does it go up by 20?

[Old Man]

Re: Flashing Paralyzing attack

 

Must find "Looker" on DVD....