entangle

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: entangle

 

BTW I asked Mr Long about attacking through an entangle that you are in and here is what he said:

 

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39191

Well, okay. That certainly throws a monkey wrench in my "use Entangle with Personal Immunity to simulate a gradually-damagable-and-re-createable defense" plan.

 

Hmm. Well, damn. Where does that leave us? Let's see if there's another way to build this effect (the Spider-Man web shield-type thingy).

 

Requirements:

1. We want it to provide some DEF.
2. We want it to be destroyable, but work until destroyed.
3. Once destroyed, we want it to be re-createable.
4. Once created, we want it to remain around without needing to keep feeding it END or keep Power Framework points allocated to it.
5. It can't interefere with the user's ability to attack.

What kind of build would satisfy all four of those requirements?

 

Armor (or 0 END Force Field, etc.) would provide DEF, and combining it with Ablative would sort of simulate it being gradually destroyed. However, Ablative isn't exactly what we're looking for, for three reasons. One, it doesn't get "shot away" any faster (i.e., its Activation Roll doesn't worsen faster) when hit by a big attack than it does when hit by an attack that just barely exceeds its DEF (in other words, it doesn't act like a "real" barrier taking BODY). Two, it isn't normally re-createable -- once it's gone, it's gone until the next adventure. Three, it can fail to protect the character, even when it hasn't been destroyed yet; we're looking for an effect that always protects the character until/unless it's destroyed.

 

Any other ideas?

[prestidigitator]

Re: entangle

 

Well, okay. That certainly throws a monkey wrench in my "use Entangle with Personal Immunity to simulate a gradually-damagable-and-re-createable defense" plan.

 

Hmm. Well, damn. Where does that leave us? Let's see if there's another way to build this effect (the Spider-Man web shield-type thingy).

 

Requirements:

1. We want it to provide some DEF.
2. We want it to be destroyable, but work until destroyed.
3. Once destroyed, we want it to be re-createable.
4. Once created, we want it to remain around without needing to keep feeding it END or keep Power Framework points allocated to it.
5. It can't interefere with the user's ability to attack.

What kind of build would satisfy all four of those requirements?

 

Armor (or 0 END Force Field, etc.) would provide DEF, and combining it with Ablative would sort of simulate it being gradually destroyed. However, Ablative isn't exactly what we're looking for, for three reasons. One, it doesn't get "shot away" any faster (i.e., its Activation Roll doesn't worsen faster) when hit by a big attack than it does when hit by an attack that just barely exceeds its DEF (in other words, it doesn't act like a "real" barrier taking BODY). Two, it isn't normally re-createable -- once it's gone, it's gone until the next adventure. Three, it can fail to protect the character, even when it hasn't been destroyed yet; we're looking for an effect that always protects the character until/unless it's destroyed.

 

Any other ideas?

How about:

Force Field;

Reduced End Cost: 0 End except when exceeded by the Body of an attack (+1/2);

Uncontrolled: may only be fueled with 1 Phase worth of End (+1/2);

I didn't think the Reduced End Cost was really worth less of an Advantage than reducing it to 0 End, but others may reasonably differ (you could possibly reduce it to +1/4, but it definitely still merits some value as an Advantage). I also figured the Uncontrolled wasn't worth less of an Advantage since the Power generally takes 0 End to maintain, but again it is certainly reasonable to differ.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: entangle

 

How about:

Force Field;

Reduced End Cost: 0 End except when exceeded by the Body of an attack (+1/2);

Uncontrolled: may only be fueled with 1 Phase worth of End (+1/2);

I didn't think the Reduced End Cost was really worth less of an Advantage than reducing it to 0 End, but others may reasonably differ (you could possibly reduce it to +1/4, but it definitely still merits some value as an Advantage). I also figured the Uncontrolled wasn't worth less of an Advantage since the Power generally takes 0 End to maintain, but again it is certainly reasonable to differ.

An interesting approach, but I think there are a couple of problems with it...

1. The shield would vanish if the character was Stunned (or Knocked out). Spider-Man's web shield wouldn't go away if Spidey was stunned.
2. I'm not sure how this would be damaged. Is the idea that it would be destroyed by any attack whose BODY exceeded the Force Field's DEF, and that paying the END cost when that happens is the SFX of creating a new shield? If so, what if he doesn't want to create a new one? It sounds like he'd have to spend END anyway.

I think part of the problem is that this effect is sort of Persistent, but sort of not. It is Persistent in the sense that it doesn't automatically go away when the character is Stunned or knocked out. But it's not Persistent in that it presumably costs END and takes an action (at least a Zero-Phase Action) to create it. But once created, it's Persistent until destroyed.

 

That's why I originally liked Entangle for this effect... Entangle, by it's nature, is already "Costs END to use it, but the effect is Persistent once used."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: entangle

 

BTW I asked Mr Long about attacking through an entangle that you are in and here is what he said:

 

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39191

 

Your question involved a normal Entangle, and not one with Personal Immunity. Steve has answered some other Q's as fllows:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/search.php?searchid=366788

 

I don't find the answers to these to be entirely consistent.

[prestidigitator]

Re: entangle

 

An interesting approach' date=' but I think there are a couple of problems with it...

1. The shield would vanish if the character was Stunned (or Knocked out). Spider-Man's web shield wouldn't go away if Spidey was stunned.
2. I'm not sure how this would be damaged. Is the idea that it would be destroyed by any attack whose BODY exceeded the Force Field's DEF, and that paying the END cost when that happens is the SFX of creating a new shield? If so, what if he doesn't want to create a new one? It sounds like he'd have to spend END anyway.

I think part of the problem is that this effect is sort of Persistent, but sort of not. It is Persistent in the sense that it doesn't automatically go away when the character is Stunned or knocked out. But it's not Persistent in that it presumably costs END and takes an action (at least a Zero-Phase Action) to create it. But once created, it's Persistent until destroyed.

 

That's why I originally liked Entangle for this effect... Entangle, by it's nature, is already "Costs END to use it, but the effect is Persistent once used."

You may want to re-read the Uncontrolled Advantage. Powers with Uncontrolled do not turn off if the character is Stunned or Knocked Out. The idea was that you pay the End for one use of the Power up front, and it lasts until the first attack that exceeds the FF's Def in Body Damage (actually it should probably be re-worded a bit to look more like Force Wall, as Penetrating attacks should likely destroy it unless it is also Hardened), at which point the End expended at the activation time is used up and the FF turns off.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: entangle

 

You may want to re-read the Uncontrolled Advantage. Powers with Uncontrolled do not turn off if the character is Stunned or Knocked Out.

Right you are. I was thinking of it only in its aspect of "doesn't require you to keep concentrating on it' date='" and didn't think it through properly.

The idea was that you pay the End for one use of the Power up front, and it lasts until the first attack that exceeds the FF's Def in Body Damage (actually it should probably be re-worded a bit to look more like Force Wall, as Penetrating attacks should likely destroy it unless it is also Hardened), at which point the End expended at the activation time is used up and the FF turns off.

Hmm. That's pretty good! I think we're getting there!

 

My only lingering dissatisfaction with this build is that it doesn't work enough like a real wall. Like a Force Wall, it essentially has only DEF, no BODY. So it's either unharmed or totally destroyed... never damaged.

 

Also, it would apply pretty unevenly with regard to STUN and BODY. In other words, if you made the DEF high enough to be very useful against STUN damage, it would be very hard to destroy it with anything short of Penetrating BODY damage. If you keep the DEF low enough that BODY can get through, it wouldn't provide much protection against STUN.

 

I suppose this latter factor could be gotten around by making the Force Field into a Partially Limited Power, and buying two out of every three points of PD/ED with the Limitation "Only vs. STUN." That way, you could have a shield that provides 15 DEF vs. STUN, but can be damaged by attacks that do more than 5 BODY...

[Sean Waters]

Re: entangle

 

Interesting armour:

 

 

1: 23 points for +20 BODY (doesn't grant increased negative BODY -1/2, no natural recovery -1/4)

2: 10pd/10ed armour LINKED to number 1 above for 30/1.5=20 points

 

Total = 43 points

 

So then you have armour which boosts both defences and BODY, but as the extra BODY granted by the armour is eroded, the armour decreases proportionally. It costs nothing to maintain.

 

To repair you would need either a BODY AID/HEALING/REGENERATION power, or you might be able to do it with continuing charges on the BODY....

 

I THINK that fulfills most of Derek's criteria and it is easy to build and manage in-game.

[Dust Raven]

Re: entangle

 

Your question involved a normal Entangle, and not one with Personal Immunity. Steve has answered some other Q's as fllows:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/search.php?searchid=366788

 

I don't find the answers to these to be entirely consistent.

 

The link appears broken. Rather, it says nothing matches my search.

[Dust Raven]

Re: entangle

 

How about:

Force Field;

Reduced End Cost: 0 End except when exceeded by the Body of an attack (+1/2);

Uncontrolled: may only be fueled with 1 Phase worth of End (+1/2);

 

I didn't think the Reduced End Cost was really worth less of an Advantage than reducing it to 0 End, but others may reasonably differ (you could possibly reduce it to +1/4, but it definitely still merits some value as an Advantage). I also figured the Uncontrolled wasn't worth less of an Advantage since the Power generally takes 0 End to maintain, but again it is certainly reasonable to differ.

Interesting build. I was thinking of something along the lines of:

 

FF, Cost END Only To Activate, Uncontrolled.

 

Since Uncontrolled Powers must have a reasonably common/obvious method of shutting them down (especially 0 END ones), the method is "breaking it". Build it small and assume it has BODY equal to it's DEF (or whatever) and once the BODY's gone, it breaks and needs to be recreated. Otherwise, you can assign DEF and BODY as you would a Focus (well, make the DEF+BODY equal to the DEF you'd have if it were a Focus).

[Sean Waters]

Re: entangle

 

How do you turn off an uncontrolled force field when you want to?

[Dust Raven]

Re: entangle

 

How do you turn off an uncontrolled force field when you want to?

 

Depends on the SFX. In most cases, you just meet the turn it off requirement of the Uncontrolled. In the case of the examples above, you'd just throw it away.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: entangle

 

The link appears broken. Rather' date=' it says nothing matches my search.[/quote']

 

Serves me right for shortcutting, I suppose. [i linked to a search on the Rules Questions for "Entangle Personal Immunity"]

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25128&highlight=entangle+personal+immunity

 

Here, Steve explicitly says PI on an entangle does not mean you can walk through it, nor can you attack through it. [Dec 9/04] It doesn't say what PI would then mean for an entangle - sounds to me like a wasted +1/4.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6974&highlight=entangle+personal+immunity

 

This one asks whether Entangle - personal immunity could be used to entangle oneself and provide extra defenses. Steve notes there is no specific rule against it, but that GM's may not allow it, and using an attack power to add defenses may be unbalancing. [Aug 16/03]

[Sean Waters]

Re: entangle

 

How about:

Force Field;

Reduced End Cost: 0 End except when exceeded by the Body of an attack (+1/2);

Uncontrolled: may only be fueled with 1 Phase worth of End (+1/2);

I didn't think the Reduced End Cost was really worth less of an Advantage than reducing it to 0 End, but others may reasonably differ (you could possibly reduce it to +1/4, but it definitely still merits some value as an Advantage). I also figured the Uncontrolled wasn't worth less of an Advantage since the Power generally takes 0 End to maintain, but again it is certainly reasonable to differ.

 

So you put 1 phase worth of END into the power, and then when BODY damage gets through you use up the END and it does down? Are you not just building a sort of personal force wall you can attack through? If so you could build it like this:

 

Force field 0 END (+1/2) persistent (+1/2) with limitation (switches off it BODY damage gets through (-1/4): cheaper, does the same thing and no problem to turn off when you want to.

[prestidigitator]

Re: entangle

 

So you put 1 phase worth of END into the power, and then when BODY damage gets through you use up the END and it does down? Are you not just building a sort of personal force wall you can attack through? If so you could build it like this:

 

Force field 0 END (+1/2) persistent (+1/2) with limitation (switches off it BODY damage gets through (-1/4): cheaper, does the same thing and no problem to turn off when you want to.

Except that doesn't meet the stated requirement that it must stay up if switched away from once used out of a MP or VPP.

[Dust Raven]

Re: entangle

 

Serves me right for shortcutting' date=' I suppose. [i linked to a search on the Rules Questions for "Entangle Personal Immunity"']

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25128&highlight=entangle+personal+immunity

 

Here, Steve explicitly says PI on an entangle does not mean you can walk through it, nor can you attack through it. [Dec 9/04] It doesn't say what PI would then mean for an entangle - sounds to me like a wasted +1/4.

That's not what he says at all really. Realize that when Steve Long always, and only, answers the question asked. In this case, it was asked if PI on Entangle would allow a character to shoot another character with it, and than ignore the Entangle when attacking and if he can walk through barriers made with it. He has nothing about what would happen if such an Entangle were turned on the character who purchased it.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6974&highlight=entangle+personal+immunity

 

This one asks whether Entangle - personal immunity could be used to entangle oneself and provide extra defenses. Steve notes there is no specific rule against it, but that GM's may not allow it, and using an attack power to add defenses may be unbalancing. [Aug 16/03]

Again, not quite what was asked. The only question asked was whether or not PI was legal to put on Entangle, and that is what there is no rule against. Steve does note that doing so in order to gain extra defense could be seen as unbalancing (though he doesn't make a call either way on the issue).

 

Unless Steve Long actually, and specifically says otherwise, I'm sticking with the assumption that a PI Entangle would work like any other PI attack. If turned on the character who purchased it, it has absolutely no effect whatsoever.

[Sean Waters]

Re: entangle

 

Except that doesn't meet the stated requirement that it must stay up if switched away from once used out of a MP or VPP.

 

I really ought to read these things more carefully...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: entangle

 

In this case' date=' it was asked if PI on Entangle would allow a character to shoot another character with it, and than ignore the Entangle when attacking and if he can walk through barriers made with it. He has nothing about what would happen if such an Entangle were turned on the character who purchased it.[/quote']

 

Good catch, and this reconciles the two responses quite accurately.

 

The only question asked was whether or not PI was legal to put on Entangle' date=' and that is what there is no rule against. Steve does note that doing so in order to gain extra defense could be seen as unbalancing (though he doesn't make a call either way on the issue).[/quote']

 

In saying it could be seen as unbalancing, there seems to be tacit approval that this would be "book legal", but I agree it's imprecise. In particular, if the character walks one hex forward, the question of whether the Entangle moves with him, or simply falls off (or whether it simply falls off, having no impact, when it initially hits the character) is unanswered.

 

Unless Steve Long actually' date=' and specifically says otherwise, I'm sticking with the assumption that a PI Entangle would work like any other PI attack. If turned on the character who purchased it, it has absolutely no effect whatsoever.[/quote']

 

I'm inclined to take that approach as well. The same logic as Tunnelling ("If you want to tunnel through people, buy a killing attack") would seem to apply. Entangle is intended to tangle people up. If you want more defenses, buy a Defense power (and put it in the same EC or Multipower if you want).

[Sean Waters]

Re: entangle

 

In answer to a question by Hugh Neilson, Mr Long has made it quite clear that you do not get defences from an entangle without the penalties of being entanged, even if you do put PI on it.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: entangle

 

In answer to a question by Hugh Neilson' date=' Mr Long has made it quite clear that you do not get defences from an entangle without the penalties of being entanged, even if you do put PI on it.[/quote']Yep. However...

 

 

He has also made it clear (in answer to a question from me) that you could create a barrier with Entangle that was small enough to define as a "shield," then (assuming you were able to break that barrier free of the ground with your own STR or other reasonable means) pick it up and carry it around with you.

 

So if I'm really bound and determined to use Entangle for this effect, I can.

 

In fact, here's the ultimate munchkin build of this effect for Spidey's shield using Entangle...

 

Web Shield: Entangle 6 DEF/3d6 (45 Active Points); Only to Form Barriers (-1), Vulnerable to Spider-Man's STR (Very Common; -1), OIF (-1/2), Only Provides Protection to Characters Behind the Barrier in the Same Manner as a Shield (must be aware of the incoming attack, may require a DEX roll to interpose, etc.; -1/2). Real Cost: 11.

 

He simply creates the "barrier" (shield-sized and shaped), then breaks it free (assuming a 45 STR Spider-Man, he can do this with Casual STR on an average roll, since it's Vulnerable to his STR), and carries it around, hiding behind it as needed until it's destroyed... at which time he can make another one.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: entangle

 

Yep. However...

 

He has also made it clear (in answer to a question from me) that you could create a barrier with Entangle that was small enough to define as a "shield," then (assuming you were able to break that barrier free of the ground with your own STR or other reasonable means) pick it up and carry it around with you.

 

So if I'm really bound and determined to use Entangle for this effect, I can.

 

I could also do this with a rock...

 

In fact, here's the ultimate munchkin build of this effect for Spidey's shield using Entangle...

 

Web Shield: Entangle 6 DEF/3d6 (45 Active Points); Only to Form Barriers (-1), Vulnerable to Spider-Man's STR (Very Common; -1), OIF (-1/2), Only Provides Protection to Characters Behind the Barrier in the Same Manner as a Shield (must be aware of the incoming attack, may require a DEX roll to interpose, etc.; -1/2). Real Cost: 11.

 

I'm thinking I wouldn't give you the "vulnerable to Spidey's STR" limitation. I don't see it as very limiting. But I agree the Munchkin would ask for it!

 

I'd rather have:

 

Web Shield: Armor, +10 PD, +10 ED, OIF (-1/2), Only Provides Protection to Characters Behind the Barrier in the Same Manner as a Shield (must be aware of the incoming attack, may require a DEX roll to interpose, etc.; -1/2), requires an attack action to activate (-1/2), costs END to activate (-1/4) for the same 11 points.

 

I get a bit more defense, it doesn't get chipped away, and it would have cost me an attack action and some END for (casual) STR every time the Entangle was broken.

 

I could also argue for Visible and Non-Persistent, I suppose, so I'm not Munching enough.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: entangle

 

I could also do this with a rock...

But in a superheroic campaign, you'd have to pay points for the rock if you wanted to use it frequently.

I'm thinking I wouldn't give you the "vulnerable to Spidey's STR" limitation. I don't see it as very limiting. But I agree the Munchkin would ask for it!

Yeah, this was totally a joke build. As a player, I would never try to get it, and as a GM, I would never allow it.

 

I'd rather have:

 

Web Shield: Armor, +10 PD, +10 ED, OIF (-1/2), Only Provides Protection to Characters Behind the Barrier in the Same Manner as a Shield (must be aware of the incoming attack, may require a DEX roll to interpose, etc.; -1/2), requires an attack action to activate (-1/2), costs END to activate (-1/4) for the same 11 points.

 

I get a bit more defense, it doesn't get chipped away, and it wouldn't have cost me an attack action and some END for (casual) STR every time the Entangle was broken.

But it would also vanish if you were Stunned or Knocked Out...

 

Also, I am admittedly basing this effect on how Spidey's shield behaved in the old Sega Genesis Spider-Man video game. So I want it to be gradually destroyed, and then re-creatable by expending more web fluid.

[prestidigitator]

Re: entangle

 

Also' date=' I am admittedly basing this effect on how Spidey's shield behaved in the old Sega Genesis Spider-Man video game. So I [i']want[/i] it to be gradually destroyed, and then re-creatable by expending more web fluid.

You are basing a Spidey power on a video game?!?!

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: entangle

 

You are basing a Spidey power on a video game?!?!

Not precisely...

 

Spidey can create a web shield in the comics, too. I've seen him do it. I'm just basing the behavior of it on the behavior of it in a video game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: entangle

 

Hmm. I'd be inclined to buy 20 points of missile deflection, and then Spidey can block or MD incoming attacks and the 'shield' would just be sfx. Doesn't get chipped away though...

 

Does anyone realise that this thread originally asked how to entangle someone if they attacked you, and everything blossomed out of Derek's inventive 'personal immunity sticky entangle' idea?

 

Thinking about a 'chip away defence' we could have a armour (say 10pd 10ed) for 30 points limitations (costs END if BODY penetrates -1/4), LINKED to the amount of END in the END reserve -1/2 (OK, it should be less as the END reserve is the smaller power, but it FEELS like a -1/2. Maybe if the protection was greater it wouldn't) for 17 points.

 

Have it run off an END reserve (10 points END 2 REC (costs END)) costs 1 + 2=3 points.

 

OK, so for 20 points you get 10pd/10ed armour that is reduced by 2pd/2ed each time it is hit and can be restored by 2pd/2ed per turn if you pay a point of END to do so.

 

OK, still doesn't work with a multipower BUT it does have that 'chipping away' thing going rather than the on/off thing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: entangle

 

Actually I am pretty sure that the chipping away thing SHOULD be done by some version of ablative, but ablative as writ doesn't do it for me.

 

The problem with reducing defences based on BODY penetrating is that (in a given campaign) the advantage should be worth a lot less on 15pd/15 ed hardened armour than on 10pd/10ed armour.

 

What I'd like to see is a special version of STUN and BODY that you can interpose between you and an attack as a defence, that has to be gotten through before you are damaged.

 

You can kinda do that with BODY if you are not running impairing/disabling and hit location rules, but STUN gets scuppered by the stunning mechanic.

 

How about applying a +0 advantage to normal STUN and BODY: SEPERATE. This means that the amount of SEPERATE STUN and BODY you take reduces the seperate values before you are considered to take damage. the trade off is that your REC does not apply to them, so you would either have to assume it works on a 'recovers between adventures' basis or buy powers to specifically top them up (a sort of regeneration, probably). You could also take 'no figured' as a lim on the BODY. Defences would act before damage is applied to SEPERATE characteristics. In fact you could maybe buy SEPERATE REC too (-1/2, only applies to SEPERATE STUN AND BODY)

 

This would mean for Slim Jim who has 30 STUN, and a 20 CON, but 40 SEPERATE STUN, if he takes 50 STUN after his defences, from Massive Attack, he would lose all of his SEPERATE STUN, 10 of his own stun and avoid being stunned. next hiot is going to be a problem....