Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

[Mystendanian]

I have a player in my campaign that has built the following power: [6d6 EB, NND (not vs. self-contained breathing), Continous, 0 END]

 

The special effect is that the "hero" causes the enemies shadow to come alive and choke them. I have a problem allowing this power because if the enemies don't have self contained breathing (or they don't hold their breath), this power will continue to drain their stun and there is nothing they can do about it (save losing line of sight or rending the attacking character unconscious or stunned). I feel that the affected character should be able to attack the shadow or somehow make it release it's grip. Or, at the very least, have it cost END so if the hero does maintain it, he can't do it forever.

 

My understanding of the concept behind building a continuous attack power is that:

a) There should always be a defense against it (even if it is an NND, there is still SOME defense)

If it does bypass the defense and affect a character, there should be some way to overcome the power's affect

 

With all that said, would you allow this power or any other power that once it is in effect, there is nothing an character can do to escape it?

[Acroyear]

Sure, I'd allow it with some additions for the SFX...

 

In addition to LS: Self-Contained, defense to the NND would include rigid neck armor (can't constrict on the neck) or having some other rigid composition (for example: being made of metal or stone like Colossus or the Thing. They still need to breath, but you're not too likely to strangle them unless you are extra super strong).

 

The following stops the continuous: bright light or no light. Because such things are needed for shadows.

 

The character still needs to maintain the power, since it's not uncontrolled...so you can also get the attack to stop by just forcing him to do something else, stunning him, or beating him into the ground (or otherwise interfering with his ability to maintain the power). So part of it depends on how tough the guy is, too. If he's a real pushover, then it's even less of a problem.

 

Choke holds, normally, default at 2d6 NND... but they can get higher (as some martial artists can testify).

 

Do you have an Active Point/DC limit? Such a power is 105 points (or the equivalent of 21 DCs as many people view it... )

[Chaosliege]

Re: Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

 

Originally posted by Mystendanian

I have a player in my campaign that has built the following power: [6d6 EB, NND (not vs. self-contained breathing), Continous, 0 END]

 

The special effect is that the "hero" causes the enemies shadow to come alive and choke them. I have a problem allowing this power because if the enemies don't have self contained breathing (or they don't hold their breath), this power will continue to drain their stun and there is nothing they can do about it (save losing line of sight or rending the attacking character unconscious or stunned). I feel that the affected character should be able to attack the shadow or somehow make it release it's grip. Or, at the very least, have it cost END so if the hero does maintain it, he can't do it forever.

 

My understanding of the concept behind building a continuous attack power is that:

a) There should always be a defense against it (even if it is an NND, there is still SOME defense)

If it does bypass the defense and affect a character, there should be some way to overcome the power's affect

 

With all that said, would you allow this power or any other power that once it is in effect, there is nothing an character can do to escape it?

 

First there is a defense(L/S self contained breathing). This is a fairly common defense for NNDs.

 

Second, from the special effect you describe, I would treat it as a Choke Hold. Use the active points in the attack as the STR for escaping. Once the victon escapes, the shadow turns back into a regular shadow.

 

BTW: At 6d6 this power is 105 active points. If that is the normal active points for your game then there should be very few paople who don't have L/S.

[GradonSilverton]

Re: Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

 

Originally posted by Mystendanian

I have a player in my campaign that has built the following power: [6d6 EB, NND (not vs. self-contained breathing), Continous, 0 END]

 

The special effect is that the "hero" causes the enemies shadow to come alive and choke them. I have a problem allowing this power because if the enemies don't have self contained breathing (or they don't hold their breath), this power will continue to drain their stun and there is nothing they can do about it (save losing line of sight or rending the attacking character unconscious or stunned). I feel that the affected character should be able to attack the shadow or somehow make it release it's grip. Or, at the very least, have it cost END so if the hero does maintain it, he can't do it forever.

 

My understanding of the concept behind building a continuous attack power is that:

a) There should always be a defense against it (even if it is an NND, there is still SOME defense)

If it does bypass the defense and affect a character, there should be some way to overcome the power's affect

 

With all that said, would you allow this power or any other power that once it is in effect, there is nothing an character can do to escape it?

 

I dont like the way the power is built....the SFX doesn't fit a NND blast... Iwould require transform or summon with mods so that the shadow will become a Sticky Choke...the break out is up to you...and the NND is appropiate...

[Acroyear]

Re: Re: Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

 

Originally posted by GradonSilverton

I dont like the way the power is built....the SFX doesn't fit a NND blast... Iwould require transform or summon with mods so that the shadow will become a Sticky Choke...the break out is up to you...and the NND is appropiate...

 

A transform options seems uneccessarily complicated for something that can be simulated much easier. Since shadows are essentially "desolid" and have no BDY score, I think it would look extra wonky, myself.

 

A summon is not a bad idea, though. The problem with a summon is that it has set stats. So a brick might not ever be threatened by it. Using the NND blast, the shadow is "as strong" as its caster... so Gronds shadow is strong enough to wrassle with Grond. Etc.

 

Anyway...

 

Another defense to the blast, if more is desired, is that it's limited, too, by things like flight. Couldn't use it on someone too far from their shadow (or if their shadow is sufficiently dispersed by distance).

 

Another option could be an indirect on STR or a martial choke, which works almost the same as a continuous blast, but provides the option for break-outs (again, you run into that brick problem). Extra str for the shadow choke might not be so bad.. it would allow better gripping and still provide a chance to escape it.

[Guest Keneton]

I would allow it. It is a lot of active points although! More than I normally look for from a PC.

[Nightfire]

Re: Re: Re: Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

 

Originally posted by Acroyear

A transform options seems uneccessarily complicated for something that can be simulated much easier. Since shadows are essentially "desolid" and have no BDY score, I think it would look extra wonky, myself.

 

A summon is not a bad idea, though. The problem with a summon is that it has set stats. So a brick might not ever be threatened by it. Using the NND blast, the shadow is "as strong" as its caster... so Gronds shadow is strong enough to wrassle with Grond. Etc.

 

Anyway...

 

Another defense to the blast, if more is desired, is that it's limited, too, by things like flight. Couldn't use it on someone too far from their shadow (or if their shadow is sufficiently dispersed by distance).

 

Another option could be an indirect on STR or a martial choke, which works almost the same as a continuous blast, but provides the option for break-outs (again, you run into that brick problem). Extra str for the shadow choke might not be so bad.. it would allow better gripping and still provide a chance to escape it.

 

I think thwe summon is the best way to do it, the character can fight the shadow, and also allows for that very interesting effect that sometimes happens where the person being strangled manages to gain control of the shadow.

[Guest Confusinator]

A sfx is a sfx is a sfx

 

I would allow it. You're reasoning against it (and some of the alternative ways of generating it) has to do with the shadow.

 

But that's just the sfx. He could just as easily say its a giant lugie that encases the targets head and is too sticky to peel away. I don't think it warrants a change in the power. If he said the shadow could also attack other players or bring him a fresh cup of tea, then I would think it needed to be summoned.

 

I think it is a really creative way of describing his power. And as stated by others, there are ways to defend against it. If he wants to sink all the points into it, so what. First time he gets his butt whooped by some street thug with low light goggles in a dark warehouse, he's gonna wish he bought the Spider-Man belt light also.

[The Mad GM]

I agree with several posts that the Active Points is pretty high, and the NND dice pretty high for a choke. Some other thoughts:

 

Invisible characters would be immune (unless 'casts a shadow' was defined as the fringe effect). Darkness would dispel it, since no light is hitting the character to cast a shadow. A sight based Flash might dispel it. Someone with shadow based powers might also be immune, or at least partially so.

[Chaosliege]

Re: A sfx is a sfx is a sfx

 

Originally posted by Confusinator

I would allow it. You're reasoning against it (and some of the alternative ways of generating it) has to do with the shadow.

 

But that's just the sfx. He could just as easily say its a giant lugie that encases the targets head and is too sticky to peel away. I don't think it warrants a change in the power. If he said the shadow could also attack other players or bring him a fresh cup of tea, then I would think it needed to be summoned.

 

I think it is a really creative way of describing his power. And as stated by others, there are ways to defend against it. If he wants to sink all the points into it, so what. First time he gets his butt whooped by some street thug with low light goggles in a dark warehouse, he's gonna wish he bought the Spider-Man belt light also.

 

Here I agree and dissagree. I dissagree in that the SFX of a power often dictates what defence a power has, that's why we have things like that. I agree in that the guy did buy the power correctly and if he wants to spend all his points on one attack that is inefective probably 1/4 of the time that's his problem. I still standby my previous statement that this power has an incredibly high active point value, and in most games with powers that high, L/S gets more common. Heck, two guys on our team have L/S and we're only 350/70 active.

[Gary]

Re: A sfx is a sfx is a sfx

 

Originally posted by Confusinator

I would allow it. You're reasoning against it (and some of the alternative ways of generating it) has to do with the shadow.

 

But that's just the sfx. He could just as easily say its a giant lugie that encases the targets head and is too sticky to peel away. I don't think it warrants a change in the power. If he said the shadow could also attack other players or bring him a fresh cup of tea, then I would think it needed to be summoned.

 

I think it is a really creative way of describing his power. And as stated by others, there are ways to defend against it. If he wants to sink all the points into it, so what. First time he gets his butt whooped by some street thug with low light goggles in a dark warehouse, he's gonna wish he bought the Spider-Man belt light also.

 

It depends. If it's just 1 slot in a multipower, that thug is toast. It's an extremely effective attack against 3/4 of supers, and if it's in a multipower, he can deal with the other 1/4 as well.

 

I'd personally lower the attack to 4d6nnd, unless it's a high power campaign.

[Monolith]

Re: Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

 

Originally posted by Mystendanian

I have a player in my campaign that has built the following power: [6d6 EB, NND (not vs. self-contained breathing), Continous, 0 END]

I would allow the power, but built as a lower attack:

3d6 EB, NND: +1 (self-contained breathing or 10+ PD Resistant Defenses), Continuous: +1 (stops if light source removed), Costs END to Activate: +1/4.

 

This would cost the character 49 points and use 5 END when activated. The stops when light source removed means it does not work in enviroments that cannot produce a shadow.

 

Also keep in mind that a Continuous attack requires the player's character to use a half-phase action to maintain the attack. If the character wants to not have to use that half-phase action he would need to buy it Uncontrolled as well (and I might not allow that).

[Chaosliege]

Re: Re: Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

 

Originally posted by Monolith

I would allow the power, but built as a lower attack:

3d6 EB, NND: +1 (self-contained breathing or 10+ PD Resistant Defenses), Continuous: +1 (stops if light source removed), Costs END to Activate: +1/4.

 

I agree with this except the 10+ resistant defence as a defence. Something like stiff neck covering maybe, but FREd specificly says 'not' to use a minimum amount of any defence.

[Monolith]

Re: Re: Re: Would U allow this? Multiple opinions welcome

 

Originally posted by Chaosliege

I agree with this except the 10+ resistant defence as a defence. Something like stiff neck covering maybe, but FREd specificly says 'not' to use a minimum amount of any defence.

I would base it on SFX. A brick's shadow could possibly be stronger than a mentalist's shadow. That is why I chose the arbitrary 10+. This would mean that a highly resistant brick or powered armored character would be immune, while a low resistant character could be hurt. However anyone would want to do it in their game is fine though.

[JohnTaber]

Hi Gents,

 

I would NOT allow it in my game because of the active points (appears to be over 100) and in my game the limit is 75. Now...assuming the power was in my limit...around 2d6...I would allow it if the user defined maybe an additional limitation for the fact the the shadow could be disrupted in bright light (i.e. an additional limitation).

 

FYI. I personally think the way the power is constructed is fine. In fact it is how I would build it. I like simple.

[Acroyear]

Originally posted by Chaosliege

Here I agree and dissagree. I dissagree in that the SFX of a power often dictates what defence a power has, that's why we have things like that.

 

Nonsense. Otherwise I could define the defense of my "tear gas attack" as "must be wearing a Mets baseball cap." All those people scrambling for gas masks would be up the creek.

 

Just like "holding my breath" can protect me from a head encasement NND even if they guy only lists NND vs Self-Contained LS "Plastic baggie over head."

[Chaosliege]

I fail to see how what I said was nonsense, when you just said the same thing. In my post I said SFX often dictate the defence for an NND and you in turn gave a ludicrous example of exactly why I'm right...