Discussing Entangles

[Sean Waters]

I've been thinking about a character whose central power is 'Entangle', a power which I have not really appreciated that much previously: in most games, most characters can get out of an entangle in a single phase so, in a straight up fight, an entangle is only ever a delaying tactic, and pretty useless.

 

Mind you...if you look at entangle it can be quite nasty.

 

1. An entangled character is DCV 0 until they break out. That means you could use THIS

 

Entangle 1d6, 1 DEF, Takes No Damage From Attacks Limited Group (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (32" Radius; Accurate; +2) (37 Active Points)

 

To hit a high DCV character (easy enough with the AoE) and reduce their DCV to zero. Pretty useless because anyone can break free from a 1d6 entangle but UNTIL THEY DO - on their next phase - they are sitting ducks. As far as I can make out you can use casual strength to break free but you still have to wait until your next phase to do it.

 

Is that right? Should it be?

 

2. Like I say, almost any PC will be able to break out of almost any entangle, but you can, with a little decent timing, and utilising that '0 DCV' rule, trap someone for a good long time using this:

 

60 Foam Spray: Multipower, 60-point reserve

6u 1) Hard foam: Entangle 4d6, 8 DEF (60 Active Points) 6

4u 2) Expanding foam: Entangle 1d6, 1 DEF, Autofire (5 shots; +½), Uncontrolled (+½), Continuous (+1), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1) (40 Active Points)

 

You hit them with hard foam using a delayed action and then, next segment (your next phase) hit their 0 DCV form with expanding foam - you have a decent chance of managing 5 hits. That adds 5 to the Body (8/9 - quite difficult to break out of AND it continues to add 5 per phase - more if you hit it again. Realistically if you spend 4 phases trussing them up, you are in relative safety and they are NEVER getting out.

 

3. I'm a little confused over what being entangled stops you doing. Assume the sfx is as above - a foam that rapidly expands then hardens - preventing movement. Who thinks you can use combat maneouvres, including martial arts, to break out? (I'd certainly allow you to apply the added STR from an escape manoeuvre to your base STR even though - technically - that added STR can not be used for damage - would you?) I'm not sure that you could use a martial punch or such if you were effectively immobilised.

 

Similarly what do people do with focuses? I would assume that you can use a focus without hindrance except, maybe, an OAF, but some OAFs 'logically' can still be used if you have contact with them (a magic staff that grants you +40 STR) while others 'logically' could not be used (a magic staff that grants you +4d6 HtH damage - really you need to swing it to use the damage and you can't). Indeed, some OIF or even IIFs might be useless (you wear weighted gloves to add oomph to your punch - not much use if you can not move).

 

Is that purely sfx (and if so how do you prevent everyone simply defining the focus in the most advantageous terms: contact = access to power), or should we be thinking about more precise builds - should your OAF sword ALSO take Gestures, to indicate that you need to swing it to use it?

 

Any thoughts or personal observations?

[Utech]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

Just a couple of quick thoughts/observations.

 

AoE Entangles are fun!

 

• They really piss off speedsters and martial artists.
  
• They make life miserable for agents/mooks.
  
• They bring a great big smile to your face when you meet the guy whose Flight depends on wings...
  

 

Entangles that block senses can be very useful.

 

• Your teammates can get into position for surprise attacks.
  
• Mentalists find they have to rely on Mind Scan until somebody stronger rips them out of their coccoon.
  
• You can entangle light sources and suddenly plunge an area into darkness.
  

[JmOz]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

 

To hit a high DCV character (easy enough with the AoE) and reduce their DCV to zero. Pretty useless because anyone can break free from a 1d6 entangle but UNTIL THEY DO - on their next phase - they are sitting ducks. As far as I can make out you can use casual strength to break free but you still have to wait until your next phase to do it.

 

Is that right? Should it be?

 

I have always played it that you got to use your casual strength right after being hit with it, if you got free then you did not loose the dcv (You just basicaly shuged it off). I am not sure if this is RAW/SOP but has always worked well in my games

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I have always played it that you got to use your casual strength right after being hit with it' date=' if you got free then you did not loose the dcv (You just basicaly shuged it off). I am not sure if this is RAW/SOP but has always worked well in my games[/quote']

 

I don't think it is RAW, but it might not be a bad idea: it does seem ridiculous that someone like Grond would even notice a 1d6 Entangle

[secretID]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

you could use THIS

 

Entangle 1d6, 1 DEF, Takes No Damage From Attacks Limited Group (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (32" Radius; Accurate; +2) (37 Active Points)

 

To hit a high DCV character (easy enough with the AoE) and reduce their DCV to zero. Pretty useless because anyone can break free from a 1d6 entangle but UNTIL THEY DO - on their next phase - they are sitting ducks. As far as I can make out you can use casual strength to break free but you still have to wait until your next phase to do it.

 

Is that right? Should it be?

There's a FAQ on that. IIRC, it suggests that the GM should probably disallow that, by allowing immediate casual STR or otherwise.

 

3. I'm a little confused over what being entangled stops you doing. Assume the sfx is as above - a foam that rapidly expands then hardens - preventing movement. Who thinks you can use combat maneouvres, including martial arts, to break out? (I'd certainly allow you to apply the added STR from an escape manoeuvre to your base STR even though - technically - that added STR can not be used for damage - would you?) I'm not sure that you could use a martial punch or such if you were effectively immobilised.

 

Similarly what do people do with focuses? I would assume that you can use a focus without hindrance except, maybe, an OAF, but some OAFs 'logically' can still be used if you have contact with them (a magic staff that grants you +40 STR) while others 'logically' could not be used (a magic staff that grants you +4d6 HtH damage - really you need to swing it to use the damage and you can't). Indeed, some OIF or even IIFs might be useless (you wear weighted gloves to add oomph to your punch - not much use if you can not move).

 

Is that purely sfx (and if so how do you prevent everyone simply defining the focus in the most advantageous terms: contact = access to power), or should we be thinking about more precise builds - should your OAF sword ALSO take Gestures, to indicate that you need to swing it to use it?

I started a recent related thread, on grabs and OAF, just recently. Consensus seemed to be that it was a sfx thing, which I personally never find entirely satisfying.

 

I don't think there should be any additional lim for not being able to use an OAF when entangled. IIRC, the rules explicitly include that in OAF, but allow for the GM to make exceptions. If I were to do anything, I would just say that no accessible focus can be used, and that's that. (And I probably would do that for any use of the power to break out - the question I had in the thread I started was about using OAF flight when grabbed.)

 

The martial maneuver, etc. thing bugs me a little. By the rules, I believe any HA can be used when entangled, b/c STR can be used. That usually doesn't make any sense with sfx - how do you punch your way out of handcuffs or club your way out of the cement binding your arms? One answer is to take an extra lim on those HAs. Note that this is the opposite of the OAF situation, b/c the rules (I think) explicitly say that accessibility implies the inability to use it when entangled.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I'm with the SFX camp here; the question is "what is the SFX of the Entangle?" Handcuffs are an Entangle. Hard Foam is too; it all depends on what you're building as to what gets restrained. A Bola might only grab their legs, or you could link an Entangle to an arrow and lance it through their calves.

 

So many options.

[Vulcan]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I'm with the SFX camp here; the question is "what is the SFX of the Entangle?" Handcuffs are an Entangle. Hard Foam is too; it all depends on what you're building as to what gets restrained. A Bola might only grab their legs, or you could link an Entangle to an arrow and lance it through their calves.

 

So many options.

 

Handcuffs and bolas (and the 'pinning shot too, I guess) would take the 'only restrains two limbs' limitation.

[Greywind]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

Actually Sean, your foam build reminds me a great deal of the cannon trap Mr. Incredible suffered from in the computer room, running down the causeway from the control panel.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

Actually Sean' date=' your foam build reminds me a great deal of the cannon trap Mr. Incredible suffered from in the computer room, running down the causeway from the control panel.[/quote']

 

Really

 

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I'm with the SFX camp here; the question is "what is the SFX of the Entangle?" Handcuffs are an Entangle. Hard Foam is too; it all depends on what you're building as to what gets restrained. A Bola might only grab their legs, or you could link an Entangle to an arrow and lance it through their calves.

 

So many options.

 

I agree that sfx are vital, although they tend to be most vital when it comes to building the power in the first place. The expanding foam idea should almost certainly block sight and possibly hearing, which I did not include. I used expanding foam because wanted an sfx that immobilised the whole target not just a bit of them to interrogate the interaction of entangle and martial arts et al.

[jwpacker]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I agree that sfx are vital' date=' although they tend to be most vital when it comes to building the power in the first place. The expanding foam idea should almost certainly block sight and possibly hearing, which I did not include. I used expanding foam because wanted an sfx that immobilised the whole target not just a bit of them to interrogate the interaction of entangle and martial arts et al.[/quote']

 

Maybe there's a different sfx you'd like to choose for your power then? A series of ropy bands that hit the target like a bolo, or, if there's no target, stretch out like a sheet of rubber?

 

Or maybe your expanding foam just has a susceptibility to hit locations 3-5?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

...or it could set transparent, I suppose, but the issue is more about how you can use MA or a focus if so entangled (or grabbed, for that matter). I do not find the 'just rely on sfx' argument helpful because it means that the system favours certain sfx as they are clearly more useful - being encased in an entangle that allows no movement is clearly more 'efficeint' than being encased in one that does allow some movement. That's the problem.

[Mr. Gridlock]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I think SFX has to matter. Otherwise there's no difference between a fire EB and a cold EB and thereby there's way to set things on fire.

 

I think from way back I've always used the idea that every power has inherent (free) advantages and limitations. To me, they are all balanced. Some will be better in some circumstances and weaker in others.

 

Some players fight this. A Human Torch-y types says that he wants his fire to burn in space because he didn't specifically buy the limitation that says he needs oxygen to burn. Okay, but then he also doesn't get any extra DCs from an oxygen-rich environment (say, in a hospital).

 

If SFX doesn't matter, then I think the game is lessened and characters lose individuality.

 

Specifically to Entangles, I've always run it that the entangled get an immediate Casual STR roll. I would not allow MA to help in breaking out of an Entangle.

 

And if you want to stymie someone, hit them with a Mental Paralysis. Most characters do not have sufficient EGO to break out in one phase (though it costs a bit more).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I think SFX has to matter. Otherwise there's no difference between a fire EB and a cold EB and thereby there's way to set things on fire.

 

I think from way back I've always used the idea that every power has inherent (free) advantages and limitations. To me, they are all balanced. Some will be better in some circumstances and weaker in others.

 

Some players fight this. A Human Torch-y types says that he wants his fire to burn in space because he didn't specifically buy the limitation that says he needs oxygen to burn. Okay, but then he also doesn't get any extra DCs from an oxygen-rich environment (say, in a hospital).

 

If SFX doesn't matter, then I think the game is lessened and characters lose individuality.

 

Specifically to Entangles, I've always run it that the entangled get an immediate Casual STR roll.

 

And if you want to stymie someone, hit them with a Mental Paralysis. Most characters do not have sufficient EGO to break out in one phase (though it costs a bit more).

 

Well, at the most basic level, sfx do not matter mechanically, only in terms of interaction with other sfx. The rules allow you to give minor advantages and limitations based on sfx, but they have to be balanced, be zero-sum, or else you wind up with some sfx being more desireable than others - which is not good for the game. Moreover everyone will have a different take on what advantages and limitations particular sfx should allow. Personally my attitude is that, whilst it is fine for a GM to use sfx in this way the rules should not encourage it, unless they are going to say more than . I was somewhat disappointed by the treatment of sfx in The Ultimate Energy Blaster both because I don't think it actually worked in practice (unless I've completely got the wrong end of the stick - always possible) and because it tried, in many ways, to do too much, covering every sfx that could be thought of, rather than laying down principles.

 

Even if we subscribe to the notion that sfx should allow minor advantages and limitations - well, compare these sfx for entangle:

 

1. You summon a large cube of solid energy that surrounds the target.

 

2. You cause the plant life in the soil to experience a growth surge, which entangles the target, pinning him to the spot.

 

3. You spray the target with expanding (transparent) foam.

 

Is that just sfx, or should they be different builds?

 

I mean the englobing energy would allow they character inside to move, at least a little, certainly enough to get to foucuses and probably enough to use martial arts. The foam wouldn't. The vines possibly come somewhere in between.

 

What is the balancing downside to the 'foam' approach? (and the 'foam' sfx could easily be replaced by ice or a coating of metal or a skintight energy field or whatever - the point is that it stops all movement and not all sfx for entangle do).

[Mr. Gridlock]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I agree with you about the zero-sum Ads/Lims for powers re: SFX. Personally, I think the game should encourage the use of SFX because that's what the genre is all about (at least as far as supers goes). For that matter, I think you should be able to use your powers to counter attacks, i.e. Hydro-Man countering Human Torch's fireball with a water blast. But that's me.

 

I might build these Entangles a little differently. Perhaps the cube is being trapped inside a Force Wall?

 

The plant life might just entangle the feet, unless you specify it grabs the whole person. Just the feet would be worth a Lim, natch.

 

The foam seems the most restrictive (ala The Incredibles) which would need Blocks Senses, too.

 

I think you just need to take each of these situations on a case by case basis and adjudicate based on A) what's desired, what's bought, C) SFX, D) player satisfaction, and E) GM satisfaction.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

I agree with you about the zero-sum Ads/Lims for powers re: SFX. Personally, I think the game should encourage the use of SFX because that's what the genre is all about (at least as far as supers goes). For that matter, I think you should be able to use your powers to counter attacks, i.e. Hydro-Man countering Human Torch's fireball with a water blast. But that's me.

 

I might build these Entangles a little differently. Perhaps the cube is being trapped inside a Force Wall?

 

The plant life might just entangle the feet, unless you specify it grabs the whole person. Just the feet would be worth a Lim, natch.

 

The foam seems the most restrictive (ala The Incredibles) which would need Blocks Senses, too.

 

I think you just need to take each of these situations on a case by case basis and adjudicate based on A) what's desired, what's bought, C) SFX, D) player satisfaction, and E) GM satisfaction.

 

You can, of course, build sfx:

 

10d6 fire blast doesn't work underwater or in zero oxygen levels (-1/4) 40 points

 

+2d6 fire blast in 'normal' oxygen levels (-1/4) 8 points

 

+2d6 fire blast in 'high' oxygen levels (-1/2) 7 points

 

So for 55 points you have a fire blast that does not work underwater or in a vacuum, does 10d6 in low oxygen level areas, 12d6 normally and 14d6 in high oxygen level areas.

 

Alternatively you can build:

 

12d6 EB (doesn't work underwater or in zero oxygen levels) -1/4: 48 points

 

PLUS a 10 point VPP 'fire effects', linked to the EB, and limited range of sfx for an extra 12 points: 60 points and you have BUILT your sfx into the power.

 

Probably too complicated for most but the point is that you do not need to rely on sfx but you should always, if you are going to, have a clear idea of what bonuses and penalties that particular sfx implies.

[DocMan]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

This is reminding me of a 4th ed campaign many years ago that Klytus ran. One of his villain groups was Gemstone, who had gems as their theme. Amber, had an entangle that encased the victim entirely in... you guessed it!... amber. Photon Blue, a teleporter/energy projector got hit by this thing... and couldn't break out. She didn't have the strength to put a dent in it and her powers didn't work through the color yellow, so she couldn't teleport out. She was literally suffocating to death until Psi Lord freed her with a Telekinetic energy blast.

 

So Amber tried the same trick on Psi Lord (my character). He shattered it right away with the same TK blast, which was Armor Piercing.

 

Doc

[Manic Typist]

Re: Discussing Entangles

 

For that matter, I think you should be able to use your powers to counter attacks, i.e. Hydro-Man countering Human Torch's fireball with a water blast. But that's me.

 

 

Who says you can´t? In addition, isn´t there something about a Power Contest or somesuch.... Ninja Hero maybe?