Entangles that Hurt

[l33tsh4rk]

I'm trying to build a fire-based entangle that would cause damage to the entangled character every phase the entangled character fails to break free of the entangle. I know that there is 'Backlash,' but I want to do consistent damage rather than return the entangled character's roll. 'Linked' seems to mean that the damage would only be dealt on the casting of the entangle, rather than the entire time the entangle is in effect.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Sorry not to get back to this one before. There are various ways of doing it, but here is one:

 

Burning Bands of Biharrio

60 1) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF 6

31 2) Killing Attack - Ranged ½d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½), Uncontrolled (Stops when entangle is broken; +½), Indirect (Any origin, always fired away from attacker; +½), No Normal Defense (LS: Heat; +1), Does BODY (Only does Body once opponent is unconscious; +1), Continuous (+1) (55 Active Points); Linked (Entangle; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -¾)

 

The Entangle and KA are linked so they are fired off together. Anyone trapped in the entangle takes 1-15 points of stun damage per phase , unless they have some sort of heat immunity. If they pass out the flames consume them, burning them to a cinder in their fiery prison.

 

The KA is continuous - an advantage that converts an instant power to one that just keeps going - and it is 0 END and uncontrolled, so whatever happens to the person who threw the power in the first place it keeps burning until the entangle is broken.

 

Finally the 'indirect' is used to simulate the burning continuing on the target INSIDE the entangle. It may not really be necessary, and your GM might allow you off with it, although that does not save a lot of points. It is there, basically, to stop the flames burning the entangle.

 

I do not know if that was the sort of thing you were looking for

[prestidigitator]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

You might need the Advantage on the Entangle that allows the character to be damaged without the Entangle being affected also. Or perhaps a lesser version of it if it only applies to the linked attack.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

You might need the Advantage on the Entangle that allows the character to be damaged without the Entangle being affected also. Or perhaps a lesser version of it if it only applies to the linked attack.

 

As the entangle is not hardened, the 'indirect' on the KA allows an attack through the entangle to the entangled without having to advantage the entangle itself or deduct damage using the entangle as a sort of defence, but it depends a lot on sfx.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

As the entangle is not hardened' date=' the 'indirect' on the KA allows an attack through the entangle to the entangled without having to advantage the entangle itself or deduct damage using the entangle as a sort of defence, but it depends a lot on sfx.[/quote']

 

Oh. Does it work that way on an Entangle that a character is trapped in directly (as opposed to where it is used to form a barrier)? If I knew that, I guess I've forgotten.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Oh. Does it work that way on an Entangle that a character is trapped in directly (as opposed to where it is used to form a barrier)? If I knew that' date=' I guess I've forgotten.[/quote']

 

 

...or I may have had it wrong all along

[ghost-angel]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Even if it doesn't work that way - it makes sense and should in this case.

[Split Decision]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

I think it would be Linked (-3/4), Indirect (+1/4), Continuous, Persistent, Uncontrolled and 0 END (+1, +1/2, +1/2 and +1/2 respectively) on the RKA.

 

The Uncontrolled would end when the character broke out of the Entangle, or when doused with sand or water, or when the RKA did twice the maximum BODY damage (whether applied to the victim's BODY or soaked up by his defenses) that could be rolled on a single instance of the RKA dice.

 

So, like this:

 

Burning Bands of Biharrio

60 Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF 6 plus

32 Killing Attack - Ranged vs. ED 1d6, Indirect (+1/4, always targets the target of the Entangle but does not harm the Entangle), Continuous (+1), Persistent (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2) ends when target breaks Entangle, when doused with sand/water, or when the RKA does twice the maximum BODY damage that could be rolled on a single instance of the RKA dice (whether applied to the victim's BODY or soaked up by his defenses)(56 Active points), Linked (-3/4 Entangle; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value).

 

The italicized block above are the advantages that you need to apply to the RKA to make sure it keeps burning the victim after you throw it.

 

Almost identical to Sean Waters' excellent construction. This one differs from that one on the value of the Indirect and a few of the other Advantages that are applied.

 

Since the attack is essentially "bands of fire" in this construction, you may wish to apply some various advantages and limitations to the base Entangle, such as

Entangle and Character Both Take Damage (+1/4) or

Entangle Takes no Damage from Attacks (+1/2), and

Vulnerable: Water or Cold powers (-1/2) or

Does Not Prohibit the Target's Use of OAFs (-1/2).

[SteveZilla]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Buy the attack as a Damage Shield and link it to the Entangle. That solves all problems of "Does the Attack damage the Entangle it is linked to?".

[Split Decision]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Can you do that? Can you link a Damage Shield power to an Entangle?

 

I've never thought of it. Reading the description of the Damage Shield Advantage, it does not mention any way to separate the damage shield from the character it surrounds, although I have seen Damage Shields applied to Force Walls, and that seems to make sense.

 

I still don't know about Entangles, but it's a gut thing. Logically, it ought to work just fine.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

I think that as damage shield is self only it will only really work if you tie yourself up, and it would allow you to have multiple 'damage shields' running simultaneously so may not be widely approved. Also a damage shield power has no range....

 

In any even you have to make the power 'continuous' before applying damage shield, so it is not a particularly cost effective way of accomplishing what you want. In fact the reason I used a NND was simply that ANY damaging power that is made continuous is only going to be running at half normal power, assuming an active point cap, and probably less than that as it will need other advantages to work logically, which is why I reverted to the NND construct - at lest you will get some damage through and the logic, if such it be, si that heating a targhet over a period of time will cause damage even if an 'instant heat' wouldn't - it is like microwaving a cup of water: a quick burst and it doesn't heat up at all, but over time it will start to boil.

 

Complete aside, but - interesting idea, for a NND power:

 

6d6 NND (LS Heat or specifically heat resistant defences) (30 +1) 60 points

Limited Power: damage is reduced by 1 point for every 4 points in energy defence (-1/4)

 

So, the power causes 21 points of damage on average and if you have defences of around 24 ed that is reduced by 6 points

 

You could pop that in at different levels, so 'damage reduced by 1 point for every 2 points in ED' would be -1

 

1 in 3 would be worth -1/2

 

It allows a power to come across as 'more intense' - if you are LS: Heat immune you ignore it, but otherwise your defences work less well against the power - a sort of tuneable armour piercing, perhaps. Obviously it only works on a power that has NND or AVLD as it is 'adding' defences to an attack that would normally ignore them.

[DocMan]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Same Question with a twist: How would you build this fiery cage if it could contain the target safely? i.e. sitting in the entangle causes no damage, you just can't do anything, but trying to break out of the entangle causes damage.

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Same Question with a twist: How would you build this fiery cage if it could contain the target safely? i.e. sitting in the entangle causes no damage, you just can't do anything, but trying to break out of the entangle causes damage.

 

Doc

 

Same build as the 'burning bands' but with an additional limitation 'damage only occurs if entangled character tries to break out -1/4 (it is low because the entangled character will almost ALWAYS try to break out).

[Oruncrest]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Same Question with a twist: How would you build this fiery cage if it could contain the target safely? i.e. sitting in the entangle causes no damage, you just can't do anything, but trying to break out of the entangle causes damage.

 

Doc

Buy Backlash for the Entangle (FRED pg. 109, 5er pg 169):

 

This Advantage represents an Entangle that reflects back any attacks made by the Entangled character in an effort to break free. The damage done by the Backlash is the same as whatever was used to attack the Entangle with — Normal Damage for an Energy Blast' date=' Killing Damage for an HKA, and so on. If an attack destroys the Entangle, the Entangle doesn’t reflect that attack. Attacks made by other characters to free the trapped character do not activate Backlash.[/quote']

[SteveZilla]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

I think that as damage shield is self only it will only really work if you tie yourself up' date=' and it would allow you to have multiple 'damage shields' running simultaneously so may not be widely approved. Also a damage shield power has no range.... [/quote']

 

Nothing in the rules for Damage Shield specifies that it becomes Self Only -- only that it looses any Range component and must be a Constant power (normally or w/ the Advantage). And many Constant Attack powers are able to have multiple instances up simultaneously. The difference would be in the usage.

 

A regular Damage Shield would only be "usable" once (the same way Armor is usable only once) despite being Continuous. But when it's attached to another Constant power that is Ranged, it can be used as many times as the power to which it is linked.

 

The example of a Force Wall w/ Damage Shield shows this. Nothing in the rules say that the character can only have one of these Force Walls up at a time. And those rules specify that one doesn't have to buy the Damage Shield power with Ranged, just that it has to be Linked to the Force Wall. And the whole construct can still be used at range. The Linked Limitation essentially "moves" the Damage Shield from being "on" the character to being "on" each use of that Power.

 

In any even you have to make the power 'continuous' before applying damage shield' date=' so it is not a particularly cost effective way of accomplishing what you want.[/quote']

 

Any damaging component of an "Entangle that Hurts" that lasts (causes damage again and again) until the Entangle is removed would *have* to be Constant/Continuous.

 

In fact the reason I used a NND was simply that ANY damaging power that is made continuous is only going to be running at half normal power' date=' assuming an active point cap, and probably less than that as it will need other advantages to work logically, which is why I reverted to the NND construct - at lest you will get some damage through and the logic, if such it be, is that heating a target over a period of time will cause damage even if an 'instant heat' wouldn't - it is like microwaving a cup of water: a quick burst and it doesn't heat up at all, but over time it will start to boil.[/quote']

 

Personal preference for NND.

 

Complete aside, but - interesting idea, for a NND power:

 

6d6 NND (LS Heat or specifically heat resistant defenses) (30 +1) 60 points

Limited Power: damage is reduced by 1 point for every 4 points in energy defense (-1/4)

 

So, the power causes 21 points of damage on average and if you have defenses of around 24 ed that is reduced by 6 points

 

You could pop that in at different levels, so 'damage reduced by 1 point for every 2 points in ED' would be -1

 

1 in 3 would be worth -1/2

 

It allows a power to come across as 'more intense' - if you are LS: Heat immune you ignore it, but otherwise your defenses work less well against the power - a sort of tunable armour piercing, perhaps. Obviously it only works on a power that has NND or AVLD as it is 'adding' defenses to an attack that would normally ignore them.

 

Not a bad idea for a Limited Power limitation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Nothing in the rules for Damage Shield specifies that it becomes Self Only -- only that it looses any Range component and must be a Constant power (normally or w/ the Advantage). And many Constant Attack powers are able to have multiple instances up simultaneously. The difference would be in the usage.

 

A regular Damage Shield would only be "usable" once (the same way Armor is usable only once) despite being Continuous. But when it's attached to another Constant power that is Ranged, it can be used as many times as the power to which it is linked.

 

The example of a Force Wall w/ Damage Shield shows this. Nothing in the rules say that the character can only have one of these Force Walls up at a time. And those rules specify that one doesn't have to buy the Damage Shield power with Ranged, just that it has to be Linked to the Force Wall. And the whole construct can still be used at range. The Linked Limitation essentially "moves" the Damage Shield from being "on" the character to being "on" each use of that Power.

 

I'm with you on that, but a damage shield does not damage what it is 'on', so putting it on someone else gives them a damage shield - it does not damage them.

 

 

 

Any damaging component of an "Entangle that Hurts" that lasts (causes damage again and again) until the Entangle is removed would *have* to be Constant/Continuous.

 

...or gradual effect - but you are right it would have to go there somehow - but I don't think DS is a particularly stunningly thought through advantage - it costs too much to do useful damage unless you advantage stack and the whole thing about not being able to take a 'no range' limitation upsets me.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

I'm with you on that' date=' but a damage shield does not damage what it is 'on', so putting it on someone else gives them a damage shield - it does not damage them.[/quote']

But you’re not putting the Damage Shield ‘on’ the person. That would be some form of Usable by Others or As Attack. You are putting the Damage Shield on the Entangle, and as such, anything that touches the Entangle (and thus the DS) takes damage. Not saying it’s the best way to go, just think that your argument against it isn’t quite correct.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

 

But you’re not putting the Damage Shield ‘on’ the person. That would be some form of Usable by Others or As Attack. You are putting the Damage Shield on the Entangle, and as such, anything that touches the Entangle (and thus the DS) takes damage. Not saying it’s the best way to go, just think that your argument against it isn’t quite correct.

 

 

As to putting DS on an entangle it is an interesting idea but more expensive than a simple linked attack (although it would also then harm people attacking the entangle not just the entangled character).

 

More of a problem to me is that you probably shouldn't be running more than one DS at a time - certainly you never would if it was used in the 'conventional' way - so it is not far off getting something for nothing. It wouldn't bother me that much as the actual cost becomes almost prohibitive - it is going to be difficult to find the points to build an attack power that anyone can feel with at least +2 1/2 in advantages (continuous, uncontrolled, 0 END AND damage shield).

 

If someone wanted to do that I probably would let them but I do not think it is a technically proper use for DS.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

I agree, at best it is iffy, at worst it’s plain out against the rules (although I don’t think it is truly addressed in RAW). I was just trying to emphasize that the build didn’t give the target a benefit.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

As to putting DS on an entangle it is an interesting idea but more expensive than a simple linked attack (although it would also then harm people attacking the entangle not just the entangled character).

 

Not true. It'd be the same cost as your example earlier:

 

Burning Bands of Biharrio

60 1) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF 6

31 2) Killing Attack - Ranged ½d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½), Uncontrolled (Stops when entangle is broken; +½), Indirect (Any origin, always fired away from attacker; +½), No Normal Defense (LS: Heat; +1), Does BODY (Only does Body once opponent is unconscious; +1), Continuous (+1) (55 Active Points); Linked (Entangle; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -¾)

 

Just replace the Indirct(+½) with Damage Shield(+½). Same Cost. And you're correct about the build without DS not damaging those "on the outside" that are touching the Entangle. I guess the Burning Bands of Biharrio are only burning on the inside.

 

More of a problem to me is that you probably shouldn't be running more than one DS at a time - certainly you never would if it was used in the 'conventional' way - so it is not far off getting something for nothing.

 

I agree when it's a "regular" Damage Shield. But that is changed by linking it to another power like Force Wall (per 5ER) or Entangle.

 

 

It wouldn't bother me that much as the actual cost becomes almost prohibitive - it is going to be difficult to find the points to build an attack power that anyone can feel with at least +2 1/2 in advantages (continuous' date=' uncontrolled, 0 END AND damage shield).[/quote']

 

True. Though we face the same issue with +2 1/2 in advantages (continuous, uncontrolled, 0 END AND Indirect).

 

If someone wanted to do that I probably would let them but I do not think it is a technically proper use for DS.

 

The only other way apart from Damage Shield to make an Entangle that damages not only the one inside but those that touch it on the outside is to use Trigger, and that is going to be (IIRC) more than just +1/2.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Maybe it'd be simpler just to use Force Wall in the first place.

[jwpacker]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Yes, there is an explicit okay in the 5th Ed rules to use Damage Shield with a Force Wall.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

But using Force Wall would allow the use of all powers to escape, even Foci or ones with Gestures or Restrainable. You lose part of the effect of Entangle. And FW won't allow you to attack the character.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

But using Force Wall would allow the use of all powers to escape' date=' even Foci or ones with Gestures or Restrainable. You lose part of the effect of Entangle. And FW won't allow you to attack the character.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I know. Heh heh. Well, you could possibly attack the target, but it would require specially constructed attack powers (indirect ones, or ones to which the Force Wall is transparent). It was just an idea. Not one that'll build the same construct obviously, but one that might fulfil the need of the OP. **shrug**

[Sean Waters]

Re: Entangles that Hurt

 

Not true. It'd be the same cost as your example earlier:

 

 

 

Just replace the Indirct(+½) with Damage Shield(+½). Same Cost. And you're correct about the build without DS not damaging those "on the outside" that are touching the Entangle. I guess the Burning Bands of Biharrio are only burning on the inside.

 

You're right: same cost. That is probably the best way to do it.