I've got you

[Ice9]

Re: I've got you

 

Good point, Jet Boots are a bad example. Jet boosters on the bottom of a robot's feet would be more what I'm talking about.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: I've got you

 

Hmm. I've been visiting this thread on and off. There are lots of interesting bits and pieces about the rules...

 

I have however lost track of what the main points of contention are. I was going to ask someone else for a summation but that would be lazy, so let me have a go...

 

1. The rules as written indicate that grabs and entangles stop all movement, though there is some allowance for casual strength allowing a grabbed character to 'slide' to a stop rather than coming to a dead halt.
   
2. This does not really model things as we know them from the literature, especially superhero stuff.
   
3. There is some interpretation required with respect to how flight is treated (wings potentially being more limited than gravitic flight because interpretation leads that way?)
   
4. No-one thinks the rules as written are fit for purpose, so how should this be addressed?
   

Does that cover it?

 

 

Doc

[Bloodstone]

Re: I've got you

 

No-one thinks the rules as written are fit for purpose' date=' so how should this be addressed?[/quote']

 

Well, I think a significant number of folks are doing it as we envision it happening in the comics anyhow.

 

If Spider-man shoots Angel with a web, he drops like a rock because his wings can't flap. Angel's wings are built with a limitation that represents this (Restrainable)

 

If Spider-Man tries the same thing with Jean Gray, Jean will certainly be entangled but she can still fly unhindered because her flight is not Restrainable.

 

Spider-man's webs would probably be similarly ineffective against most flyers in the MU (Iron Man, Storm, Human Torch, etc), since only a few character fly by flapping wings or rotary lift.

 

So yeah, the rules are probably somewhat inadequate here and we have all been ignoring them as written for years...

[dmjalund]

Re: I've got you

 

if Spiderman shot Jean Grey while she was standing on the groud or next to a wall, he could stop her flight as she would be stuck to the appropriate surface.

[Bloodstone]

Re: I've got you

 

if Spiderman shot Jean Grey while she was standing on the groud or next to a wall' date=' he could stop her flight as she would be stuck to the appropriate surface.[/quote']

 

Of course, though she might destroy the wall she was stuck to while using her Flight strength to break free...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: I've got you

 

If Spider-man shoots Angel with a web' date=' he drops like a rock because his wings can't flap. Angel's wings are built with a limitation that represents this (Restrainable) [/quote']

 

Question that leaves, even if you have decided to ignore the RAW, is whether you require a player to take restrainable if they have wings as the reason for purchasing the flight power??

[Hyper-Man]

Re: I've got you

 

Wings can be the appearance but not the actual reason a character can fly. The 70's & 80's incarnation of the JLA, Hawkman and Hawkgirl wore anti-gravity harnesses (made of nth metal) that were the main reason they could fly. The wings just made that flight more controllable.

[Bloodstone]

Re: I've got you

 

Wings can be the appearance but not the actual reason a character can fly. The 70's & 80's incarnation of the JLA' date=' Hawkman and Hawkgirl wore anti-gravity harnesses (made of nth metal) that were the main reason they could fly. The wings just made that flight more controllable.[/quote']

 

Indeed.

 

I will generally assume if my player says "winged flight" that they are talking the restrainable type, but I always ask for clarity since I myself have characters that have wings that are just for decoration.

 

For example, my character Coldfront flies by levitating ice/water, with water including the blood in her own body. The giant glowing blue ice wings or Silver Surfer-esque ice boards she frequently manifests are just a hold over from she could ONLY levitate ice. She still does so because the ice board is fun (and her preferred way to carry passengers anyhow). She thinks the wings look particularly impressive plus she still uses them to fight now and again (razor sharp and telekineticly reinforced ice wings make a damn fine offensive/defensive tool)

 

In game, most people still assume she actually needs the wings or ice board to fly, so they sometimes shoot at these things instead of directly targeting her. The end result being a wasted attack by the opponent

[Doc Democracy]

Re: I've got you

 

So, if I wanted to get round the movement restrictions of entangle then I should simply purchase Flight, only when touching the ground rather than extra running?

[Bloodstone]

Re: I've got you

 

So' date=' if I wanted to get round the movement restrictions of entangle then I should simply purchase Flight, only when touching the ground rather than extra running?[/quote']

 

Depends on the SFX.

 

This isn't really a Flight thing. Could apply to any form of movement really.

 

Humans swim by moving their arms and legs. Skilled swimmers only need arms or legs, not both (though having only some of their limbs would reduce speed). Entangles would be very effective against human swimming. A squid swims by jet propulsion so entangling all of it's limbs probably won't slow it down at all (but blocking it's siphon would).

 

Swinging could work similarly. Spider-man needs his hands free to swing, so he's hosed by most entangles. Toad Boy, swinging by his stretchy prehensile tonguek, will be largely unphased by many entangles, so long as he can move his head and open his mouth.

 

Most characters leaps would be stopped by Entagles, but when Jedi's use the Force to leap superhuamn distances they are really using their minds to hurl themselves into the air more so than their legs...

 

So, grabs and entangles stopping all movement except Teleport is kind of a silly default rule IMO.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: I've got you

 

So' date=' grabs and entangles stopping all movement except Teleport is kind of a silly default rule IMO.[/quote']

 

I'm beginning to wonder about that actually. I like having a power available that will stop all movement by default. If I have it in mind then it should be a matter for me to ask a player if he intends that the entangle should stop movement or whether there should be limits to that ability. It potentially makes entangles cheaper for most users but also provides that ability to stop movement.

 

I'm not sure how I would implement a movement ban by other means....

 

 

Doc

[Hyper-Man]

Re: I've got you

 

I'm beginning to wonder about that actually. I like having a power available that will stop all movement by default. If I have it in mind then it should be a matter for me to ask a player if he intends that the entangle should stop movement or whether there should be limits to that ability. It potentially makes entangles cheaper for most users but also provides that ability to stop movement.

 

I'm not sure how I would implement a movement ban by other means....

 

 

Doc

 

A Telekinetic Grab would work. Since there isn't anything to lift and there is no action-reaction link to the owner of the power I'd argue that TK has to be broken before a flyer could escape it.

An Barrier with Englobing might work similarly but I think a non-anchored one is potentially liftable and/or movable (think Dash from the Incredibles).

 

These fringe cases are probably a big part of the reason for the RAW on Grabs and Entangles since allowing TK to work begs the question of "why not just high STR" then? Is it one more tiny advantage beyond Range & Indirect that gets assigned to TK?

[Christopher]

Re: I've got you

 

So' date=' if I wanted to get round the movement restrictions of entangle then I should simply purchase Flight, only when touching the ground rather than extra running?[/quote']

 

Depends on the SFX.

 

This isn't really a Flight thing. Could apply to any form of movement really.

 

Humans swim by moving their arms and legs. Skilled swimmers only need arms or legs, not both (though having only some of their limbs would reduce speed). Entangles would be very effective against human swimming. A squid swims by jet propulsion so entangling all of it's limbs probably won't slow it down at all (but blocking it's siphon would).

 

Swinging could work similarly. Spider-man needs his hands free to swing, so he's hosed by most entangles. Toad Boy, swinging by his stretchy prehensile tonguek, will be largely unphased by many entangles, so long as he can move his head and open his mouth.

 

Most characters leaps would be stopped by Entagles, but when Jedi's use the Force to leap superhuamn distances they are really using their minds to hurl themselves into the air more so than their legs...

 

So, grabs and entangles stopping all movement except Teleport is kind of a silly default rule IMO.

So it on part also depends on the Origin Point. I could see toad boy being built with "extra Limb" (his tongue) plus stretching (only tongue). And while entangles normally do not interfere with the mouth (breahting), I think they still could make aming and thus propper using very hard.

So in either chase it could be seriously impared.

 

A Telekinetic Grab would work. Since there isn't anything to lift and there is no action-reaction link to the owner of the power I'd argue that TK has to be broken before a flyer could escape it.

But it is also a book example for Addign Movement to Escape. It's the classical "Full power to engines to break the tractor beam". And depending on the weight and mode of flight, the guy with hsi TK propably has to keep the object in the air. Yes, catching and holding at jet can be very difficulty....

[dmjalund]

Re: I've got you

 

I'm beginning to wonder about that actually. I like having a power available that will stop all movement by default. If I have it in mind then it should be a matter for me to ask a player if he intends that the entangle should stop movement or whether there should be limits to that ability. It potentially makes entangles cheaper for most users but also provides that ability to stop movement.

 

I'm not sure how I would implement a movement ban by other means....

 

 

Doc

TYou could buy the "Stops Teleportation" advantage on your Entangle

[Christopher]

Re: I've got you

 

I'm beginning to wonder about that actually. I like having a power available that will stop all movement by default. If I have it in mind then it should be a matter for me to ask a player if he intends that the entangle should stop movement or whether there should be limits to that ability. It potentially makes entangles cheaper for most users but also provides that ability to stop movement.

Specifying what "all" means is important here. Does it include Teleportation? EDM? FTL-Travel?

 

Taking those 3 out helps a lot, as it allows a simple grab to stop it.

Entangle is for me a little bit like a grab that sustains itself, and inseadt of STR it has PD and Body to simulate it's Grabbing STR limits.

[Bloodstone]

Re: I've got you

 

I'm beginning to wonder about that actually. I like having a power available that will stop all movement by default.

 

Sorry, I should clarify... I don't mind the ability to stop movement with a power. I don't even mind if that power is Entangle.

 

When a character is Entangled, his arms and legs are restrained, giving him a DCV of 0. Typically an Entangle completely immobilizes a character, making it impossible for him to move

or use any Movement Powers except Teleportation, but the exact effects depend on the special effects of the Entangle and Movement Power. In some cases, the character may retain the ability to move, but remain Entangled when he does so.

 

What I don't like is the way the above is written. It leaves an awful lot open to GM interpretation (which is essentially how I've been playing it for years, anyhow)

 

But, when I think about it, there are far too many situations I can think of and have encountered in my own games where common and dramatic sense tell me that various characters will still be able to move while trapped by an Entangle. Many Entangles in the books would seem to need a limitation to represent the fact that they will not stop many forms of movement.

 

Entangles restrain arms and legs by default and most of need those limbs to move, so maybe in general this will stop movement for many normal folks. However, I think stopping all SFX's of non-restrainable movement (except Teleport) should probably be an Advantage, not the default/left entirely to the GM's whim.

 

There is also a timing issue involved. As we have said, Entangling Jean Gray by webbing her to a wall or the ground seems pretty acceptable way to restrain her flight. But you are not even going to give her pause if you try to do it while she's in mid flight. I think there should possibly be rules for anchored and tethered Entagles (I remember reading that there used to be an adder/advantage for entangles with a control line... not sure when or why that rule was dropped...)

 

I suppose alternately, we would need to make many characters pay an advantage for the fact that their assorted forms of movement are more difficult or almost impossible to restrain.

[Christopher]

Re: I've got you

 

The problem with limitating entangles/advantaging Movement powers is that blocking Movement Powers is a considerable "low" and unimportant effect of entangles.

 

Their main target is to block limbs and (as a result) limit the targets OCV/DCV, ability to wield Foci, ....

And these effects are there, no matter if your target still can fly. And keep in mind that flying a full move in an entangle means you only get your free casual STR to break it, so it's still a bad idea to do it in a combat.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: I've got you

 

The problem with limitating entangles/advantaging Movement powers is that blocking Movement Powers is a considerable "low" and unimportant effect of entangles.

 

Their main target is to block limbs and (as a result) limit the targets OCV/DCV, ability to wield Foci, ....

And these effects are there, no matter if your target still can fly. And keep in mind that flying a full move in an entangle means you only get your free casual STR to break it, so it's still a bad idea to do it in a combat.

 

Yup. It takes a bit to think of it but I do think that many entangles might be written with a limitation that they currently do not receive. Many should probably focus on certain limbs and others might specifically exclude flight from their effects. I think there is an article to be written about the depths of Entangle as a power that have not been thought of before. It is probably more complex than people have considered.

 

Doc

[Bloodstone]

Re: I've got you

 

The problem with limitating entangles/advantaging Movement powers is that blocking Movement Powers is a considerable "low" and unimportant effect of entangles.

 

I don't know about that. Controlling the battlefield is tactically significant.

 

In addition, I play a lot of speedsters and other characters that have significant of points invested in movement abilities, so it's not a minor thing to such characters...

 

And these effects are there, no matter if your target still can fly. And keep in mind that flying a full move in an entangle means you only get your free casual STR to break it, so it's still a bad idea to do it in a combat.

 

Not always a bad idea.

 

Zip away a good safe distance, focus on breaking out of the entangle without having to worry about being shot at your reduced DCV, come back like nothing happened.

 

Even the running away parts isn't that risky if the GM is using Velocity based DCV.

[Christopher]

Re: I've got you

 

Many should probably focus on certain limbs and others might specifically exclude flight from their effects. I think there is an article to be written about the depths of Entangle as a power that have not been thought of before. It is probably more complex than people have considered.

The problem is that this limitation "Does not blocks flight" is too small to be worth any points (but see below).

 

I don't know about that. Controlling the battlefield is tactically significant.

 

In addition, I play a lot of speedsters and other characters that have significant of points invested in movement abilities, so it's not a minor thing to such characters...

Not blocking running (and "Flight, in Contact with Surface" and "Teleport, passes throug hinterveenign space, only along surfaces") is certainly worth a Limtiation value. Not blocking flight might not be.

 

I think that even if you can still fly in that iceblock/with Grundy on your back, you should be barred from using NCM/Megascaled movement. You can still move, but not fast and your balance is propably way of (preventing you from attaining high speeds without falling).

 

Zip away a good safe distance, focus on breaking out of the entangle without having to worry about being shot at your reduced DCV, come back like nothing happened.

 

Even the running away parts isn't that risky if the GM is using Velocity based DCV.

That also means you need at least an additional phase to do it (half move away, half move back). That's one phase more that the entangle will prevent you from acting, so the entangler still wins.

[Bloodstone]

Re: I've got you

 

I think that even if you can still fly in that iceblock/with Grundy on your back' date=' you should be barred from using NCM/Megascaled movement. You can still move, but not fast and your balance is propably way of (preventing you from attaining high speeds without falling).[/quote']

 

While that's a fine opinion you have there, who's even talking about NCM or Megascale?

 

I have several speedsters with triple digit movement, but even slower ones can easily to get out of LOS in many combat situations.

 

That also means you need at least an additional phase to do it (half move away, half move back). That's one phase more that the entangle will prevent you from acting, so the entangler still wins.

 

The benefit of not being shot while trying to break out of an entangle while at 0 DCV more than compensates for my reduced number of actions in a turn.

 

It's not uncommon to see Speedster/Martial Artist types have less PD/ED and STR than other characters, so being stuck in an entangle sometimes means being stuck for a while and being incredibly vulnerable while doing so. So it's often better to grab some cover (if you can) while you work out of it. Didn't used to be quite so bad, but the reduced cost of AoE in 6E means stronger AoE Entangles...

[Christopher]

Re: I've got you

 

I have several speedsters with triple digit movement' date=' but even slower ones can easily to get out of LOS in many combat situations.[/quote']

Wait, you build speedster with 100+ meters of combat Movement? That would cost over 100 real points and I think that nobody else would do it that way (not even the books speedster have that much movement).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: I've got you

 

The problem is that this limitation "Does not blocks flight" is too small to be worth any points (but see below).

 

I thjink that the problem is that you are focussing on game rules when the limitation is probably more SFX based. The differences in the entangles are going to focus around their SFX and so the limitations are likely to similarly focus around SFX. So you may define the entangle as a bolo which entangles and makes any movement requiring the legs impossible - probably including jet boots. Wings and wrist jets etc would be OK. So the entangle would catch any kind of movement that required movement of the legs regardless of what power that was used to provide the game effect.

 

I think that even if you can still fly in that iceblock/with Grundy on your back' date=' you should be barred from using NCM/Megascaled movement. You can still move, but not fast and your balance is propably way of (preventing you from attaining high speeds without falling).[/quote']

 

Possibly unsurprising but I'm not sure I agree with this. I could see you limiting the metres of movement, why should they be able to do a full move but not a full move NCM or megascale. It sounds like you are metagaming there in the guise of game realism....

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: I've got you

 

Possibly unsurprising but I'm not sure I agree with this. I could see you limiting the metres of movement' date=' why should they be able to do a full move but not a full move NCM or megascale. It sounds like you are metagaming there in the guise of game realism....[/quote']

Try running at your top speed with your arms strapped to your torso.

Or better yet, take a look at a Running or Inlines Skating competition (on youtube) and what they to with their arms. They move them as much as they move their legs. For fast movement, you need your arms for balancing and I can see that being true even for (gravitic) flight.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: I've got you

 

Try running at your top speed with your arms strapped to your torso.

Or better yet, take a look at a Running or Inlines Skating competition (on youtube) and what they to with their arms. They move them as much as they move their legs. For fast movement, you need your arms for balancing and I can see that being true even for (gravitic) flight.

 

wasn't arguing with limiting movement, remember, I'm swinging to the RAW. Was wondering why you were not simply, for example, halving movement, i.e., 10m flight going to 5m rather than forbidding ncm and megascale....