Clinging, UAA

[SteveZilla]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

22 Stay!: Entangle 4d6, 4 DEF, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Does Not Prevent The Use Of Accessible Foci (-1), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Target Retains Full DCV) (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4)

 

60 Stay!: Clinging (40 STR), Ranged (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Usable As Attack (+1) (60 Active Points)

 

Both are 60 Active Points, and both are roughly equal strength (pun intended) -- yet the Entangle costs much less. I tried to build them to have as similar effect as possible within a 60 point cap to see if one would be significantly harder to break out of than the other.

 

If I missed a point that Steve Long made about UAA Clinging, please point it out to me.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

22 Stay!: Entangle 4d6, 4 DEF, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Does Not Prevent The Use Of Accessible Foci (-1), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Target Retains Full DCV) (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4)

 

60 Stay!: Clinging (40 STR), Ranged (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Usable As Attack (+1) (60 Active Points)

 

Both are 60 Active Points, and both are roughly equal strength (pun intended) -- yet the Entangle costs much less. I tried to build them to have as similar effect as possible within a 60 point cap to see if one would be significantly harder to break out of than the other.

 

If I missed a point that Steve Long made about UAA Clinging, please point it out to me.

 

A 4 DEF 4 BODY Entangle is not "equal" to a 40 STR grab per se;

 

* for starters you can Haymaker to get out of an Entangle and also people of 23+ STR can (eventually) get out of the Entangle without needing extraordinary rolls whereas characters with less than 40 STR are at a disadvantage vs the Clinging and need above average rolls or need the resisted roll to be sub average or both

 

* for seconders you can use other powers besides STR to get out of an Entangle (assuming they aren't rendered unusable by the Entangle)

 

* for thirders friends can help you get out of an Entangle. It's currently unclear if that is true of the Clinging UAA.

 

* for fourthers its not clear from Steve's response that foci arent affected by the Clinging UAA per his explanation that items cannot be dropped w/o a STR vs STR check (which by inference means that if the target can't drop other items and don't have extra limbs they will circumstantially be unable to use some FOCI, or switch FOCI)

 

* for fifthers once someone breaks out of an Entangle they are out whereas its not clear from Steve's answer if a single STR vs STR roll nullifies the Clinging effect.

 

 

I'm waiting to see if Steve answers my questions and if so how before further speculation.

[Markdoc]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

...and f)' date=' you want the power to amke any kind of sense at all.[/size']

 

Umm - why do you hate spiderman?

 

Seriously, in a genre where we have guys who shoot "force beams" out of their eyes, I really can't see what the objection to the power to "make sticky" is: particularly since it's relatively easy to identify characters in published comics who use clinging, both in and of itself and what looks a lot like clinging UAA.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

a) you're using AP caps: yes, but this is 60 points worth: you are assuming everyone is going to have access to 70 STR. The power itself is relatively low cost.

 

Not really - your own builds at this level worked about at 10 STR more than the vastly more effective TK build, and the continuous build below about the same as a comparable entangle (though far less useful). As pointed out, the tradeoff - an extra 2 DC for less utility seems pretty reasonable.

 

the character is "stuck" to something they can't break: well' date=' it depends how they are stuck: Steve has confirmed you can tack someone down as you like, or seems to ahve, so you can take advantage of the point of origin of powers to make this a reasonably common one. Moreover, if you stick the opponent to the right object, this might not be an option: villains, for instance, might like to stick heroes to civilians.[/b']

 

That's an amusing image - however it doesn't stop the hero running/flying up to the villain and whopping him one - as long as he doesn't use the civilian to do it with! So yes, you could ... umm .... and so? It seems like an amusing, and colorful use of the power, but hardly a killer attack.

 

As to the "tacking someone down" sure - that doesn't affect their breakout any, so again, I'm not sure what the issue is. If they are lying down, they're at 1/2 DCV. If they are stuck down they are still at 1/2 DCV. You can stop them getting up (which is nice), but this is still less effective than TK, where you can throw them down and then stick them there

 

c) the character can't meaningfully react from where they are (ie: they have no ranged attacks): yes it is an absolute killer against martial artists who shoudn't be able to do full DC attacks if they can't move. Or anyone with ranged attacks who is' date=' you know, pointing the wrong way. Pretty nasty indeed for anyone who doesn't have huge strength.[/b']

 

As for "pointing the wrong way", I can look over my shoulder - I assume heroes can too. It might be an issue for a hero who was some reason inflexible and built with his attacks only on the front, but then he's likely got points back for such a build so it seems only fair it come into play sometimes. This really sounds like it'd only be a problem for a hero who has his attacks built into his feet. Like, ....um ... like ... actually, I can't think of any heroes who have their ranged attacks built into their feet. Likewise, the martial artist argument makes no sense: there's no movement requirement built into DCs. Or do you not let MAs use their full attacks when grabbed? No, didn't think so.

 

d) they can't use the built-in option to turn off the UAA. That depends very much on the build: if it is glue' date=' it might be: Apply solvent[/b']

 

Which seems fair enough - you could quibble about whether "solvent" is common, but as long as it didn't require a specific difficult-to-get solvent I'd allow it. The requirement however is common and reasonably obvious, so PCs should be able to work it out. That means Glueguy might get some mileage out of his attack the first time he used it (as long as his targets didn't know about his powers). The second time, however.....

 

e) the attacking character can afford to use his actions holding the target in place - for example if he has other comrades to attack. This is a good point' date=' but taking out one of the opposition (or more if you sweep) might be worth it. If not, you can still take advantage of the low base cost to pile on those utility advantages:[/b']

 

60 points Clinging (40 STR), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Usable As Attack (+1) (60 Active Points)

 

This last build also gets around the extremely arbitrary weight restriction on what you can stick together.

 

It does? How? It's not (you'll pardon the pun) sticky or continuous so it only affects the person standing in that hex when you fire it. If you fire it at the hex, you'll stick whatever's in the hex to the hex itself, but functionally that's the same - you can still only affect a single target - mass is largely irrelevant to this power (except inasmuch as it can be used to break out: It'd be a GM's call, but I'd allow a character with density increase to use his added weight to help a breakout roll if he was stuck on the ceiling, just as a flier could probably do the same with his flight). Anyone passing through the hex after you've fired off the attack will be fine. I specifically considered continuous, but as you have demonstrated, by piling the advantages on, you keep pushing the STR available down - now, you've got an attack which is similar to a 4d6/4DEF entangle - though in most circumstances, far less useful.

 

So, OK, I concede that your various builds have demonstrated fairly convincingly that the power is not abusive. I think the key point is the one below...

 

My problem is that it does not balance because it is taking advantage of the metagame effect: STR is being bought at an artificially reduced cost. Take away the cost/balance issue and you really remove a lot of the reason for having the character construction rules we have.

 

Now this - an æsthetic argument - I can see the point of. Looked at from that perspective, I can see how the build might appear inelegant. In this case, however I gently disagree. STR is the scale used for breaking the attack, but it is not really modified STR any more than an Entangle is.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Umm - why do you hate spiderman?

 

Seriously, in a genre where we have guys who shoot "force beams" out of their eyes, I really can't see what the objection to the power to "make sticky" is: particularly since it's relatively easy to identify characters in published comics who use clinging, both in and of itself and what looks a lot like clinging UAA.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I don't hate spiderman. Particularly. I also don't think that UAA clinging is how his power works, at least not his web power. I'm pretty sure that's an entangle.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I don't hate spiderman. Particularly. I also don't think that UAA clinging is how his power works' date=' at least not his web power. I'm pretty sure that's an entangle.[/quote']

 

Not only is it an entangle but if you look at all the various advantages and adders associated with entangles, most of them look like they're spider man inspired. It's almost as if someone went, 'When I think of the entagle power what super hero will the players want to emulate?' and the answer came back

'Hey There True Believer! who else would it be?'

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

First off, just like to say this is an enjoyable discussion: I do feel it is making some progress - we are certainly refining our arguments

 

Not really - your own builds at this level worked about at 10 STR more than the vastly more effective TK build' date=' and the continuous build below about the same as a comparable entangle (though far less useful). As pointed out, the tradeoff - an extra 2 DC for less utility seems pretty reasonable.[/quote']

 

I realise now I left something out of my superglue build: TK costs END whereas UAA Clinging doesn't. At 40 points of STR, the cost differential is not as great as fist anticipated:

 

SUPER GLUE:

 

40 STR TK: zero END (90 active) only to hold a target in place against a surface (-1), no range (-1/2) 36 points

 

40 STR clinging (10+ 30) for 20 points and UAA +1 for 40 points.

 

That's far less difference and does the same thing - but it throws up an interesting point:

 

cf

 

70 STR TK: zero END (157 active) only to hold a target in place against a surface (-1), no range (-1/2) 63 points

 

70 STR clinging (10+ 60) for 30 points and UAA +1 for 60 points.

 

The progression of utility with the clinging power is not a straight line: you can nearly double the STR with only a 50% cost increase whereas the TK cost/utility is a straight line.

 

That feels wrong. You can argue, with some force, that higher UAA Clinging STR is less useful as it is increasingly difficult to find anything that is strong enought o stic your opponent to - of course you can still, for example, stick an opponent's legs together - they can only then seperate them by sufficient strength, or stick two opponent's heads together (team brick sweep grabs two opponents and presses them face to face. Team glue nasty sticks their heads together...givent hat this is a zero END power anyway, maintaining the attack and even doing ti to someone else is not an END problem at all...)

 

Point is this construct throws off the cost/utility ratio that is supposed to be inherent throughout Hero character creation.

 

 

 

 

That's an amusing image - however it doesn't stop the hero running/flying up to the villain and whopping him one - as long as he doesn't use the civilian to do it with! So yes' date=' you could ... umm .... and so? It seems like an amusing, and colorful use of the power, but hardly a killer attack.[/quote']

 

Would you run your brick into melee against KillZone with a screaming child stuck tot your shoulder? There is more than one way to take someone out of a combat, especially someone who cares...

 

As to the "tacking someone down" sure - that doesn't affect their breakout any' date=' so again, I'm not sure what the issue is. If they are lying down, they're at 1/2 DCV. If they are stuck down they are still at 1/2 DCV. You can stop them getting up (which is nice), but this is still less effective than TK, where you can [b']throw[/b] them down and then stick them there

 

The limited version of TK used for cost comparison doesn't allow the throw, and, as demonstarated above, taking into account the cost of END reduction the active point cost is not that different. What you CAN do is get Clinging UAA into a MP or other framework that limtied TK would never fit into. That is important even if you don't have AP caps in your game.

 

 

 

As for "pointing the wrong way", I can look over my shoulder - I assume heroes can too. It might be an issue for a hero who was some reason inflexible and built with his attacks only on the front, but then he's likely got points back for such a build so it seems only fair it come into play sometimes. This really sounds like it'd only be a problem for a hero who has his attacks built into his feet. Like, ....um ... like ... actually, I can't think of any heroes who have their ranged attacks built into their feet. Likewise, the martial artist argument makes no sense: there's no movement requirement built into DCs. Or do you not let MAs use their full attacks when grabbed? No, didn't think so.

 

Well, if someone had their hands grabbed I would not allow them to punch, no - their hands are immobilised. You are not going to get martial arts manouvres bonuses if you can't move. Similarly if someone had his hand stuck to a wall I would not let him add MA DCs for a punch - even Bruce Lee needed 1" of clearance!

 

As for the ranged attacks, well, I see this power as filling a specific niche. You probably wouldn't buy it unless the character with it or a team mate was strong enough to place targets where they wanted them and then stick them there.

 

I'm not sure we need such niche powers when they can be dealt with by other game mechanics already - albeit not as cheaply (TK) or effectviely (entangle) as you might like.

 

 

 

Which seems fair enough - you could quibble about whether "solvent" is common' date=' but as long as it didn't require a specific difficult-to-get solvent I'd allow it. The requirement however is common and reasonably obvious, so PCs should be able to work it out. That means Glueguy might get some mileage out of his attack the first time he used it (as long as his targets didn't know about his powers). The second time, however.....[/quote']

 

...the second time, the characters would be carrying a litre bottle of vodka with them, just in case

 

 

 

It does? How? It's not (you'll pardon the pun) sticky or continuous so it only affects the person standing in that hex when you fire it. If you fire it at the hex' date=' you'll stick whatever's in the hex to the hex itself, but functionally that's the same - you can still only affect a single target - mass is largely irrelevant to this power (except inasmuch as it can be used to break out: It'd be a GM's call, but I'd allow a character with density increase to use his added weight to help a breakout roll if he was stuck on the ceiling, just as a flier could probably do the same with his flight). Anyone passing through the hex after you've fired off the attack will be fine. I specifically considered continuous, but as you have demonstrated, by piling the advantages on, you keep pushing the STR available down - now, you've got an attack which is similar to a 4d6/4DEF entangle - though in most circumstances, far less useful.[/quote']

 

UAA carries with it mass restrictions. We have the ridiculous situation that (without AoE or increased mass) you could glue The Amazing Automobile (a character who can shape shift into 2 ton vehicles) to the road, but not a 2 ton vehicle. welcome to the wacky world of game balance. I'm pretty sure (and I have not checked) that if you buy AoE, unlike TK, it removes the mass restriction.

 

So' date=' OK, I concede that your various builds have demonstrated fairly convincingly that the power is not abusive. I think the key point is the one below...[/quote']

 

Thank you for that concession

 

 

 

Now this - an æsthetic argument - I can see the point of. Looked at from that perspective, I can see how the build might appear inelegant. In this case, however I gently disagree. STR is the scale used for breaking the attack, but it is not really modified STR any more than an Entangle is.

 

cheers, Mark

 

My aesthetics are offended for two reasons: 1 - I do see this as limited STR. An entangle isn't, it doesn't match against strength at all, except interms of the DCs STR generates, but also I am concerned by the fact this is a partial power.

 

2 - I KNOW that UAA Clinging (assuming it does attach someone tot he spot, rendering them immobile) does not affect DCV, but it should. It should affect OCV too. If you won't or can't move your feet you cannot use your agility to maximum effect. If someone walks behind you and you can't turn to face them you cannot effectively attack or counter their attacks.

 

Now EITHER these effects have to be seperately built to make a realistic power that accords with the stataed intent, or the bonuses and penalties get given away fro free - increasing effective utility - or you ignore the problem and you have an unrealistic construct in game taking advantage of a mechanical aspect of the rules - a metagame construct.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

A 4 DEF 4 BODY Entangle is not "equal" to a 40 STR grab per se;

 

* for starters you can Haymaker to get out of an Entangle and also people of 23+ STR can (eventually) get out of the Entangle without needing extraordinary rolls whereas characters with less than 40 STR are at a disadvantage vs the Clinging and need above average rolls or need the resisted roll to be sub average or both.

 

From the FAQ:

Can a character Haymaker his STR to escape from an Entangle?

 

Well, ultimately the question of whether a character can Haymaker an attempt to break out of an Entangle is up to the GM, but as a default it shouldn’t be allowed. The justification for a Haymaker is that the character’s willing to expose himself to all sorts of potential difficulties — reduced OCV and DCV, extra Segment, target may move and spoil attack, and so forth — in exchange for the possibility of doing more damage. Those difficulties are much less significant, even non-existent, when it comes to breaking out of an Entangle, so it’s not really fair or balanced to allow it.

 

If the GM allows this, the character gets no “free” actions no matter how many BODY damage he does to break out.

 

 

 

* for seconders you can use other powers besides STR to get out of an Entangle (assuming they aren't rendered unusable by the Entangle)

 

You can use other powers to destroy what you are stuck to.

 

* for thirders friends can help you get out of an Entangle. It's currently unclear if that is true of the Clinging UAA.

 

Friends can either destroy what you are stuck to, or combine their lifting ability to gain a greater STR to win the STR vs STR contest.

 

* for fourthers its not clear from Steve's response that foci arent affected by the Clinging UAA per his explanation that items cannot be dropped w/o a STR vs STR check (which by inference means that if the target can't drop other items and don't have extra limbs they will circumstantially be unable to use some FOCI' date=' or switch FOCI)[/quote']

 

I need to re-read his response to my question as I am not clear on everything he said at this moment (at work).

 

* for fifthers once someone breaks out of an Entangle they are out whereas its not clear from Steve's answer if a single STR vs STR roll nullifies the Clinging effect.

 

That is a good point. Depending upon the F/X of the UAA Clinging, winning the STR vs STR contest would be a logical condition that would end the attack. But if it's not specified as such in the UAA, the person has overcome it's effects for that Segment or Hex (IMO).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

From the FAQ:

Can a character Haymaker his STR to escape from an Entangle?

 

Well, ultimately the question of whether a character can Haymaker an attempt to break out of an Entangle is up to the GM, but as a default it shouldn’t be allowed. The justification for a Haymaker is that the character’s willing to expose himself to all sorts of potential difficulties — reduced OCV and DCV, extra Segment, target may move and spoil attack, and so forth — in exchange for the possibility of doing more damage. Those difficulties are much less significant, even non-existent, when it comes to breaking out of an Entangle, so it’s not really fair or balanced to allow it.

 

If the GM allows this, the character gets no “free” actions no matter how many BODY damage he does to break out.

 

 

OK, thread divergence, but I need to comment on this; mmmmnnnnuuuurrrrrggggaaaaaaAAAAAAArrrrggghhhh!!!!!

 

That's better.

 

That kind of metagame fix is really damaging to my image of Hero. By all means rule you can't use a haymaker if entangled because a haymaker requires (as a default) you to brace and then move, which you cannot do effectively in (most) entangles. That has the same result but is an in-game rationalle for what you've made up your mind to do anyway. We could also add in the words (at the end of the last paragraph: "because haymaker is an extended action anyway" which is, again, an approach which gets us where we want to be and doesn't imply 'God fixing' the game.

 

I wouldn't care (well, not quite so much) if the approach was consistent, but on the one hand we don't allow haymakers when entangled because it is unbalancing (and presumably would reduce the utility of entangles), and on the other we allow UAA Clinging to largely surplant the damn power. And before anyone screams about that, it was not me who suggested that Spiderman has UAA clinging.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

From the FAQ:

Can a character Haymaker his STR to escape from an Entangle?

 

Well, ultimately the question of whether a character can Haymaker an attempt to break out of an Entangle is up to the GM, but as a default it shouldn’t be allowed. The justification for a Haymaker is that the character’s willing to expose himself to all sorts of potential difficulties — reduced OCV and DCV, extra Segment, target may move and spoil attack, and so forth — in exchange for the possibility of doing more damage. Those difficulties are much less significant, even non-existent, when it comes to breaking out of an Entangle, so it’s not really fair or balanced to allow it.

 

If the GM allows this, the character gets no “free” actions no matter how many BODY damage he does to break out.

Nice. That's the first I've seen that FAQ entry. Yet another ruling that deviates entirely from what is actually printed in the rules.

 

By that logic, can you Haymaker:

 

when affected by +30 Mental Illusions

when PRE/EGO +20 effect?

when unable to use a Targeting sense?

when using a bulky focus?

when Climbing?

when at DEX 1 or less?

when Encumbered?

when Grabbed or Grabbing?

when in the Water or Swimming or Underwater?

when Intoxicated?

when in 0 grav?

when fighting in a cramped area?

when on a narrow surface?

when prone

when at 0 or less STR?

when using a Power that requires Concentration?

 

Where is the cutoff to when you can and can't use a Haymaker due to already being at a combat disadvantage that dilutes the negative affect of Haymaker? Is a little internal consistency too much to ask for?

 

 

It's getting to the point where it seems I should print the FAQ off and take that to run games out of instead of the rulebook.

 

You can use other powers to destroy what you are stuck to.

Seems like you would just get stuck again to the next surface you contact based on the Constant nature of Clinging.

 

 

Friends can either destroy what you are stuck to, or combine their lifting ability to gain a greater STR to win the STR vs STR contest.

Each Phase?

 

That is a good point. Depending upon the F/X of the UAA Clinging, winning the STR vs STR contest would be a logical condition that would end the attack. But if it's not specified as such in the UAA, the person has overcome it's effects for that Segment or Hex (IMO).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I've just been and read Steve's response to Killer Shrike's question about UAA clinging and what jumped out at me, and I hadn't spotted before is this:

 

Breaking free from UAA clinging does not (unlike TK or entangle and unless it is the 'switch off' you've defined) end the power. So, on a particular phase you can make a STR v STR roll to move, and move, but you need to make another next phase if you are still in contact with a surface.

 

Of course, because the special 'entangle' rules do not apply, if you break out be destroying the surface you are standing on with, say, an EB, that is an attack action that ends your phase. between phases you fall into the hole you've just created...and you are stuck again

 

Can we chat about relative utility once more? I'm fascinated to hear your views.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I've just been and read Steve's response to Killer Shrike's question about UAA clinging and what jumped out at me, and I hadn't spotted before is this:

 

Breaking free from UAA clinging does not (unlike TK or entangle and unless it is the 'switch off' you've defined) end the power. So, on a particular phase you can make a STR v STR roll to move, and move, but you need to make another next phase if you are still in contact with a surface.

 

Of course, because the special 'entangle' rules do not apply, if you break out be destroying the surface you are standing on with, say, an EB, that is an attack action that ends your phase. between phases you fall into the hole you've just created...and you are stuck again

 

Can we chat about relative utility once more? I'm fascinated to hear your views.

 

Yes, I reference that in my previous post.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

This is somewhat balanced by the fact that first UAA is effectively an NND. There is a way to avoid the effect completely, beyond what TK and Entangle have. The second balancing factor is the Line of Sight limitation of UAA. Flash Clinger-Man poof, clinging gone. Heck turn the guy around or hold up a blanket and you're free as a bird.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Both TK and Change Environment also requires LOS. I'm not sure we necessarily agree on how LOS works but 2 out of 3 of the non UAA builds suffer the same limitation.

 

Since the point costs we've been seeing have specked the various powers out to be relatively similar, I would say that if UAA Clinging is effectively an NND then it is woefully underpriced particularly since the limitation (Must be in contact with a surface) is likely to be one that affects the other builds as well.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Both TK and Change Environment also requires LOS. I'm not sure we necessarily agree on how LOS works but 2 out of 3 of the non UAA builds suffer the same limitation.

 

Since the point costs we've been seeing have specked the various powers out to be relatively similar, I would say that if UAA Clinging is effectively an NND then it is woefully underpriced particularly since the limitation (Must be in contact with a surface) is likely to be one that affects the other builds as well.

Not really. TK can pull you down to the surface, Change environment could go either way, but if you had to be in contact with the surface that would make the power cheaper, the same with Entangle. I was saying it's like an NND more because it has the limitations of an NND, not the advantages.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Not really. TK can pull you down to the surface' date=' Change environment could go either way, but if you had to be in contact with the surface that would make the power cheaper, the same with Entangle. I was saying it's like an NND more because it has the limitations of an NND, not the advantages.[/quote']

 

TK & Entangle would have a lower real point cost if it had the requisite only in contact limitation, but active cost is what's generally used when comparing utility. Change Environment reduces running/leaping and so carries with it an effective Only in Contact component automatically.

 

Ultimately you gain far more utility with UAA on clinging for a greatly reduced active point cost than TK or Entagle.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Now that I think about it, if I have someone in a TK grab, I can close my eyes and keep that person in the TK grab, I don't need to keep LoS once I have the grab. Same with Change Environment. If I'm flashed I'm still able to lash out blindly with both those powers. None of that is true with UAA based attacks. If I have a TK grab and get flashed, nothing happens to the TK grab. If I have Clinging UAA at get flashed, my UAA Clinging turns off.

 

As far as cost and Active Points, I'm talking about overall pro's and con's of the power. If you can legally accomplish the same thing with a cheaper cost, that's obviously a benefit.

[gmurie]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I dunno, for a thing like this I think I'd say that if you force it on a person they get the advantages of the Clinging, but the UAA would let you do some fancy tricks with inanimate objects enough to be a decent power even if I did force people to use TK or Entangle to stick people to something.

 

I'd say "Yeah, you can choose where people fly to or teleport to with UAA's of those powers, so UAA clinging lets you choose what surfaces those people can stick to." I'd rule it this way because I don't want every single player in a group turning up with UAA Clinging powers just because they're more cheap and effective than TK.

 

It could be used for some entertaining tricks nonetheless. Inanimate objects you can stick to things (velcroman!) or better still combo it with a like STR of TK to pick things up and adhere them to other things. A subtle weirdo power more than a reliable attack like Entangle.

 

EDIT TO ADD: Upon further reflection the most themed and effective way to use UAA Clinging is to compound it with an Entangle, so the entangled person is adhered to whatever spot they were in when they got Entangled. That way another person couldn't pick the victim up and carry them away.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Now that I think about it, if I have someone in a TK grab, I can close my eyes and keep that person in the TK grab, I don't need to keep LoS once I have the grab. Same with Change Environment. If I'm flashed I'm still able to lash out blindly with both those powers. None of that is true with UAA based attacks. If I have a TK grab and get flashed, nothing happens to the TK grab. If I have Clinging UAA at get flashed, my UAA Clinging turns off.

 

As far as cost and Active Points, I'm talking about overall pro's and con's of the power. If you can legally accomplish the same thing with a cheaper cost, that's obviously a benefit.

 

All constant powers require Line of Sight, there's no difference between TK LOS and UAA LOS.

 

Isn't the rule that if you can accomplish the same thing with a different power particularly if UAA is less expensive you shouldn't be using UAA?

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

All constant powers require Line of Sight' date=' there's no difference between TK LOS and UAA LOS.[/quote']

No TK doesn't require LoS through out the use of the power. Heck doesn't "require" LoS at all. You can use TK to blindly attack someone in a field of darkness, you can't do that with a power that's UAA. I can't think of a single constant power that does requires constant LoS.

 

Isn't the rule that if you can accomplish the same thing with a different power particularly if UAA is less expensive you shouldn't be using UAA?

But it isn't the same thing. They have different pros and cons.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

No TK doesn't require LoS through out the use of the power. Heck doesn't "require" LoS at all. You can use TK to blindly attack someone in a field of darkness, you can't do that with a power that's UAA. I can't think of a single constant power that does requires constant LoS.

 

Reread the section on constant powers (Pages 98-99) where it says 'Thereafter, the character must maintain a Line of Sight to the location of the power...'

 

All constants that work against a target require LoS.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

But it isn't the same thing. They have different pros and cons.

 

Flight UAA isn't exactly the same thing as TK, but it is still described as dubiously legal. The general effect of Clinging UAA can be achieved with a myriad of other powers and so to should be considered dubiously legal at best.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Reread the section on constant powers (Pages 98-99) where it says 'Thereafter, the character must maintain a Line of Sight to the location of the power...'

 

All constants that work against a target require LoS.

Hmm you're right, never realized that before. That does put a serious hole in my build.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Flight UAA isn't exactly the same thing as TK' date=' but it is still described as dubiously legal. The general effect of Clinging UAA can be achieved with a myriad of other powers and so to should be considered dubiously legal at best.[/quote']

There are a lot of things that can be built a lot of different ways, that doesn't make them dubiously legal. By that philosophy, which other of the alternate ways to build the power are dubiously legal? The problem with Flight UAA is you have a way to move someone around with no way for them to break out of it. They either have the defense, or they're stuck forever. Clinging doesn't offer the same problems to that extent. It has the STR vs STR or the destroy what you're clung to.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

There are a lot of things that can be built a lot of different ways' date=' that doesn't make them dubiously legal. By that philosophy, which other of the alternate ways to build the power are dubiously legal? The problem with Flight UAA is you have a way to move someone around with no way for them to break out of it. They either have the defense, or they're stuck forever. Clinging doesn't offer the same problems to that extent. It has the STR vs STR or the destroy what you're clung to.[/quote']

 

Dubiously Legal in this context is specifically from the text of UAA as you should be well aware by now. I'm not saying that opting for TK over Change Environment is Dubiously Legal. I'm saying that following the reasoning laid out by the UAA rules, Clinging UAA is Dubiously Legal.