Grabbing: Most slanted towards attacker move in the game?

[ghost-angel]

One thing about Limitations is yes, they only show up as often as the GM lets them when setting scenes and creating adversaries. And sometimes values only show their worth over a long period of time.

 

But we can always discuss them in a more abstract form regarding their possible value when compared to either similar modifiers or which rules they directly affect.

 

Take "Only For Casual STR" - first there's was the misconception that if you bought 30STR, Casual Only all 30 would add, which is not true, it adds 30 to your STR which then determines your Casual STR (an effective add of 15STR).

 

Then there's the intersection of where the desired Limitation and the Rules occur; breaking out of Holds and Entangles, pushing through walls and pushing aside objects.

 

These are small, usually uncommon to rare occurrences. But, then there's the other side of the coin: casually bursting through walls and doors isn't tried that often because the chance of success isn't always that good. Even for 60STR Characters, anything tougher than a simple wooden door might pose a problem. But if they suddenly pay points to raise their Casual STR, they may use this option more frequently, thus making the value of the Limitation look too high...

 

But really, is that so bad? To create a more common use of a function for a smaller point expenditure? Why not encourage such uses of the rules...

 

If I had to pay 45 more points to increase my Casual STR to 60 versus 30 or 20 more points, it sounds less appealing. And it doesn't help outside Casual attempts of STR; I'd rather spend less points on Martial Escape and add 2 more dice on every attempt, than spend 10% of my Character Total (at a -1/2 Limitation) on what is probably only a 50/50 shot of success against a similar target...

 

At -1/2, unless you have a low STR score, it just doesn't seem like a useful investment for such a limited series of circumstances. The ROI is too low for most games.

[Christopher R Taylor]

A lot of posters on this board seem to be the GMs for their groups, and there's a strong predisposition towards undervaluing any custom limitation a player might want.  I've seen a lot of threads over the years that go something like "My player wants to take a force field that only protects him against friendly fire.  What's that worth?  I'm thinking -1/2, because you know, some villain might have missile deflection or something."

 

Yeah, there is a natural predilection for most GMs to undervalue player-made limitations just so they aren't taken advantage of.  Better to err on the side of caution, for the sake of the game, but at the same time, you can go way too far that direction as well.

[Pattern Ghost]

I like it, but since it's STR I think it has pretty broad usage scenarios.  Thus, I would expect it to be worth something ... but it's not much of a limitation.  Out of curiosity what were you assigning it and why?  (-1/4?)

 

My curiosity stems from a desire to pull this one into my own repertoire, where appropriate!

 

The 5th Edition Ultimate Brick lists it at -1.5. I think that's a bit too generous, but it's the only official source I have handy that gives a cost. I think me and the GM agreed on -1 the one time that I used it in a game (pre-Ultimate Brick). STR does so many things, especially in pre-6th editions, that it really breaks the curve on assigning limitations, so anything the player and GM agree on seems reasonable. Here's the (well, it's been years, so more like a crime scene recreation) breakdown I used to get to -1 limitation:

 

Things the extra STR doesn't let you do:

 

• Does not affect figured characteristics (a -1/2 limitation by the book)
• Does not affect jumping. (I'm not sure if that's included in DNAFC without looking it up.)
• Does not increase melee damage.
• Does not increase ability to escape from holds/grabs.
• Does not affect lifting capacity.
• Does not affect throwing ability.

 

OK, pretty long list. It looks like you lose enough of Strength's abilities to justify a -2, given that DNAFC is -1/2 and that a -1 means losing about half of the stat's effectiveness. HOWEVER . . . let's look at what it does do:

 

In two fairly common circumstances, including one combat circumstance, it saves you a phase. That's a pretty danged useful. It's not as universally useful as something you use constantly, but it's very useful when it comes up. Ultimately, it's so useful -- and STR is so cheap in 5th edition and below -- that I'd hesitate to give it better than a -1 limitation. If I was GMing, and someone used the Ultimate Brick version at -1.5, I'd be OK with that, too. But when I thought it up prior to UB, I arrived at -1 and the GM was OK with it. A few other common limitations like "Only for Lifting and Throwing" were also at -1 in official writeups IIRC, so it seemed an appropriate level for specialized bonus strength.

[eepjr24]

Gonna second what Chris said here. As a GM it is MUCH easier to decide later on that something is worth more limitation than initially thought than it is to force a player to spend more points on something "because it is too valuable for the price". That said, if a player was reasonable about it and willing to do a trial, I'd let them start at the higher limitation value and then leave it if it worked out or spend experience to raise it as needed.

 

And as many of us also put content out that is used in a variety of settings (our own and others), it is better to err on the side of caution because you don't KNOW how those other peoples campaigns look and what is frequently used or not. And players will quote your source at GM's and make them not want to use your source material. 

 

- E

[eepjr24]

The 5th Edition Ultimate Brick lists it at -1.5. I think that's a bit too generous, but it's the only official source I have handy that gives a cost. I think me and the GM agreed on -1 the one time that I used it in a game (pre-Ultimate Brick). STR does so many things, especially in pre-6th editions, that it really breaks the curve on assigning limitations, so anything the player and GM agree on seems reasonable. Here's the (well, it's been years, so more like a crime scene recreation) breakdown I used to get to -1 limitation:

 

Things the extra STR doesn't let you do:

 

• Does not affect figured characteristics (a -1/2 limitation by the book)
• Does not affect jumping. (I'm not sure if that's included in DNAFC without looking it up.)
• Does not increase melee damage.
• Does not increase ability to escape from holds/grabs.
• Does not affect lifting capacity.
• Does not affect throwing ability.

 

OK, pretty long list. It looks like you lose enough of Strength's abilities to justify a -2, given that DNAFC is -1/2 and that a -1 means losing about half of the stat's effectiveness. HOWEVER . . . let's look at what it does do:

 

In two fairly common circumstances, including one combat circumstance, it saves you a phase. That's a pretty danged useful. It's not as universally useful as something you use constantly, but it's very useful when it comes up. Ultimately, it's so useful -- and STR is so cheap in 5th edition and below -- that I'd hesitate to give it better than a -1 limitation. If I was GMing, and someone used the Ultimate Brick version at -1.5, I'd be OK with that, too. But when I thought it up prior to UB, I arrived at -1 and the GM was OK with it. A few other common limitations like "Only for Lifting and Throwing" were also at -1 in official writeups IIRC, so it seemed an appropriate level for specialized bonus strength.

 

Emphasis is mine above. If you exclude those two things, I would give a -1. At that point it is really for smashing through things and shrugging off things that a brick should be able to ignore. And this is all under 6e for me, where figured characteristics don't matter. As I researched I also realize that in 6e you would end up having to pay full END for the casual STR and then again if you wanted to use the STR so that helps balance it out.

 

- E

[Pattern Ghost]

Interesting discussion here. I responded to the question I quoted before reading through the whole thread. I didn't really expect that much discussion to come from it.

 

Based on the discussion above -- and still from a 5th edition POV -- the UB value of -1.5 does seem pretty reasonable.

 

A couple of more notes on how I came at -1 back then:

 

The character concept was an obscenely strong brick who had to operate within campaign DC caps in a 5th Edition game. The in game rationale was that he had an ingrained habit of holding back in combat because he didn't want to seriously hurt the other supers. In general, he avoided combat. He took down Ogre, for example, by talking him into having a nice ice cream cone instead of fighting. This was also a slot in a fairly obscene Brick Tricks multi (all fixed slots). The idea being that the PC could apply his Strength in extreme ways but only have one of them going at a time. Both as a limiter on the powers and to shave serious points.

 

So, in that context, an opportunity cost didn't come into the equation. First and foremost, the brick tricks were bought just to give the appearance of being obscenely strong, IOW, to look cool. Second, he was getting the Multipower discount anyway, so the value of the limitation really didn't matter much. It wasn't "what else can I buy for 30 points?" so much as "what else can I buy for 3 points, because I'm buying this multipower anyway." If you remove power caps and buy it straight up for 30 points, then it'd be smarter to just have a 90 STR instead of a 60 STR as noted above.

 

As far as how often the power would be useful: The power was never actually used in game.  

 

I think the main brick tricks that saw use were movement and his melee AOE. I think I built the AOE as a double clothesline for bowling over mooks. (The character was actually a ten year old boy who turned into an adult brick of large proportions, an idea totally not swiped from Malibu's Prime. )

[Christopher R Taylor]

Might be a good slot in a multipower, although its one of those powers you'll want available when you can't change multipower slots.

[Pattern Ghost]

I was also thinking about another limited form of STR: Only vs. Entangles and Grabs. I remembered Slick had it, so just looked up his 5th edition power write up:

 

 

Personal Slickness: +60 STR, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½); Only To Escape Entangles And Grabs (-1½)

 

Compared to STR Only to Increase Casual Strength from Ultimate Brick (5e), this doesn't seem like such a deal. The casual STR can also plow through barriers at the same limitation value.

[Pattern Ghost]

Might be a good slot in a multipower, although its one of those powers you'll want available when you can't change multipower slots.

 

This is true. You could make it your default slot, depending on what else you have in the multipower. IIRC, I only had one attack and a sort of immovable object power (tons of defense and KB resistance) in that MP, so running the casual Strength as the default slot made sense.

[massey]

+30 Str, only to increase casual Str (-?)

 

If everything in the world goes perfectly, at best, this only gives you +15 Str for certain situations. It is halved before you get any use out of it.

 

In addition, you will never be able to punch somebody with it. You will never be able to grab somebody with it. You will never be able to lift a bigger weight with it.

[Pattern Ghost]

Is that a response to something I posted or something else? I'm confused why you brought it up again.

[massey]

Is that a response to something I posted or something else? I'm confused why you brought it up again.

 

Was posting on phone.  Opened thread while leaving work.  Started post while sitting in car at a red light.  Finished like 3 miles later.  Several good posts by people in between.  Please ignore.

[Pattern Ghost]

Gotcha.

[Surrealone]

The 5th Edition Ultimate Brick lists it at -1.5. I think that's a bit too generous, but it's the only official source I have handy that gives a cost. I think me and the GM agreed on -1 the one time that I used it in a game (pre-Ultimate Brick). STR does so many things, especially in pre-6th editions, that it really breaks the curve on assigning limitations, so anything the player and GM agree on seems reasonable. Here's the (well, it's been years, so more like a crime scene recreation) breakdown I used to get to -1 limitation:

 

Things the extra STR doesn't let you do:

 

• Does not affect figured characteristics (a -1/2 limitation by the book)
• Does not affect jumping. (I'm not sure if that's included in DNAFC without looking it up.)
• Does not increase melee damage.
• Does not increase ability to escape from holds/grabs.
• Does not affect lifting capacity.
• Does not affect throwing ability.

 

OK, pretty long list. It looks like you lose enough of Strength's abilities to justify a -2, given that DNAFC is -1/2 and that a -1 means losing about half of the stat's effectiveness. HOWEVER . . . let's look at what it does do:

 

In two fairly common circumstances, including one combat circumstance, it saves you a phase. That's a pretty danged useful. It's not as universally useful as something you use constantly, but it's very useful when it comes up. Ultimately, it's so useful -- and STR is so cheap in 5th edition and below -- that I'd hesitate to give it better than a -1 limitation. If I was GMing, and someone used the Ultimate Brick version at -1.5, I'd be OK with that, too. But when I thought it up prior to UB, I arrived at -1 and the GM was OK with it. A few other common limitations like "Only for Lifting and Throwing" were also at -1 in official writeups IIRC, so it seemed an appropriate level for specialized bonus strength.

 

Lifting capacity, throwing capacity, escaping from grabs, etc. are all typical uses of casual strength by the definition of casual use of abilities in RAW.  I would tend to agree that -1 is appropriate if the list quoted, above, was the definition -- and also agree that -1.5 is too strong.  But if the STR were usable for all things to which casual STR can normally be applied ... I'm thinking -1/2 tops in 6e.  I move to that from my original -1/4 position only because one has to pay END for the casual STR use (in addition to paying END again for non-casual STR use in the same phase) in 6e ... whereas in 5e one does not (which is why I see it as -1/4 in 5e).

[Pattern Ghost]

Lifting capacity, throwing capacity, escaping from grabs, etc. are all typical uses of casual strength by the definition of casual use of abilities in RAW.  

 

I never really think of throwing or lifting things too much with casual STR, and didn't even know you could do either with casual STR in 5th ed. I was primarily thinking of using the casual STR to break grabs and crash through barriers.

 

Either way, the character's capacity isn't increased over base STR is what I was thinking. The limited STR only lets the character increase how much casual STR is applied. That's obviously the point of it, and the only thing it lets the STR do.

 

As far as 6e valuations go . . . I have no idea on those. I don't do 6e.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm with you on this.  Half cost seems ENTIRELY too cheap for a 'casual use only' limitation placed on a characteristic as useful as STR.  The key item here is 0-phase use of casual STR to push past/smash through obstacles, break free from entangles, etc.

 

Per RAW casual STR use allows a character to pay END once for STR use (regardless of how many things are done with it in a phase) and all in the same phase 1) casually bust through a wall as a zero phase action, 2) PRE attack immediately after coming through the wall -- gaining the advantage of an extremely violent actions, and THEN 3) punch someone who just hesitated as a result of the combination shown herein.  END was only paid once (per RAW), despite two distinct STR uses.

 

I think some GM's here might want to re-evaluate the value of the limitation given the above.  ​I see it as -1/4 to -1/2 (tops)... specifically because of the zero phase capability I just noted ... and because casual STR use, per RAW, allows all non-attack uses of that strength level (e.g. lifting, carrying, pushing things aside, etc.).

 

Nope. But then, I also apply a reciprocal analysis. If "only for casual STR" is merely a minor limitation, then "no casual STR" must remove virtually all benefits of the STR, and should be -2. -1/2 and -2 are actual reciprocals, so if "only for casual STR" is -1/2, then "does not provide casual STR" should be -1 1/4 or -1 1/2.

 

I might - MIGHT - allow -1/4 for "no increase to casual STR". That sets "only boost casual STR" at -1 1/2 to -2. I would be OK with the 5e limitation value of -1 1/2 applied in 6e. Anyone taking "no figured" on STR or CON in pre-6e should be registered in Remedial Kindergarten Math.

 

+30 STR, No Figured - cost 20. +30 STR 30 - 15 points Stun Sellback = 15. Which is a better deal?

+30 CON, No Figured - cost 40. Or buy +30 CON and sell back the 60 END for 60 - 30 = 30. Again, which is a better deal?

 

I definitely do not agree. When someone uses their casual strength, they are allowed to use it as a 0-phase action, which allows for you to use a full phase action in addition to say, breaking out of a grab or throwing something. This allows for you to make a running throw at full speed and throw with a casual throw and hit a target easily. Additionally, busting down a wall with a 0-phase action allows for you to make a PRE attack afterwards, run up to the target with a HMove, and then punch with full strength in one phase. This is a huge thing and this is easily exploitable.

OK, so you want the Brick to pay 40 points to have a better chance of escaping a Grab or Entangle without burning a phase. Why doesn't he buy Desolidification instead? Maybe +8 DCV so he does not get grabbed or hit in the first place. 20 meters of quadruple Armor Piercing teleportation, maybe? Are these of more or less the same utility as "gets to use his 60 STR as casual STR instead of "only" 30 STR?

 

In addition, you're values for spending are incorrect. Buying At -1/2 only cost 20 points. -1 at 15. So, the other guy would have 75 STR (38 Casual) and you would have 60 STR (60 Casual). This is incredibly bad for the 75 STR Guy.

Please read the half dozen posts above that explain that 60 STR with +30 STR, only casual, means that, when using casual STR, the character adds his base 60 STR to his limited 30 STR which is 90, then divides by two to get his casual STR, which is 45. Not 60, 45. If you want 60 Casual STR, you need a base of 120 STR. Can we make this more clear?

 

Now, if you are OK with going from 60 STR with 30 casual STR for 24 points (30/1.25), that is the same as 60/2.5, so that is a -1.5 limitation. If you would be OK with 30/1.5 = 20 to boost casual STR from 30 to 60, that is a -2 limitation on the actual cost, so we should allow -2.

[Ninja-Bear]

Right, you can't make up the gap in your 60 STR by just buying 30 more; that would be halved when used casually.

 

But I agree that its worth at least -1/2 if not more. You aren't actually gaining a lot except speed and more strength when its not your phase. You can't really use casual strength damage, because the only time its going to come up is not on your phase - why use casual strength to do damage with if its the same as your normal damage, and costs the same END? You can technically use it to lift, but its again no better than using your normal strength.

 

Basically all its useful for is to shrug things aside without taking time and break free of being grabbed or entangled, and that's a pretty limited set of circumstances.

 

 

You do realize you just argued that my experience and observation is a lie, right? Without being there to have any idea yourself?

Christopher Taylor yes I do. And how much experience do you hace and in what context?

[DasBroot]

So your complaint sounds more that bricks can both take and deal out a lot of damage, rather than grabs.  And that's a separate balance issue (one GMs need to keep in mind) to me.  Because if your brick wasn't so tough, the grab wouldn't be as much of a problem in this scenario.

 

I run capped games so *everyone* can both take and deal a lot of damage (if you set a PD of 30 for a 14DC game everyone finds a way to get that 30 PD and a 14DC attack, in my experience.) Tough characters are the norm (though some get carried away even by those standards) so the brick has neither a damage nor defensive advantage over his team mates (in fact, he's often at a disadvantage since they're all ranged).  

 

Unless he grabs them.  At which point he's basically fired off a 14 Body entangle that is immune to damage with a linked 14DC attack that repeats every round.

 

An 80 strength grab (70 AP) is functionally similar to something like this:

 

80 str grab:  (Total: 385 Active Cost, 210 Real Cost) Entangle 14d6, 14 PD/14 ED (standard effect: 14 BODY, 14 PD/14 ED), Takes No Damage From Attacks All Attacks, STR only to break out (+1) (280 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Entangle Has 1 BODY (-1/2) (Real Cost: 140) <b>plus</b> Blast 14d6, Constant (+1/2) (105 Active Points); No Range (-1/2) (Real Cost: 70)

 

(Obviously a little hyperbolic but similar - not identical (since someone can 'attack' the entangle, etc) - enough)

[Surrealone]

I run capped games so *everyone* can both take and deal a lot of damage (if you set a PD of 30 for a 14DC game everyone finds a way to get that 30 PD and a 14DC attack, in my experience.) Tough characters are the norm (though some get carried away even by those standards) so the brick has neither a damage nor defensive advantage over his team mates (in fact, he's often at a disadvantage since they're all ranged).  

You don't think there's something wrong with everyone tending to have the same defenses as your game's bricks?

 

i.e. You don't structure your caps in such a way that characters are forced to make hard choices between offensive capabilites, defensive capabilities, and/or speed -- so that a hyper-offensive character (like a FEP) can't be both super-fast and hyper-defensive ... and hyper-defensive characters (like bricks) can't be hyper-offensive and fast .... and super-fast characters (like speedsters) can't be hyper-defensive and hyper-offensive???

[Christopher]

Take "Only For Casual STR" - first there's was the misconception that if you bought 30STR, Casual Only all 30 would add, which is not true, it adds 30 to your STR which then determines your Casual STR (an effective add of 15STR).

 

Then there's the intersection of where the desired Limitation and the Rules occur; breaking out of Holds and Entangles, pushing through walls and pushing aside objects.

 

These are small, usually uncommon to rare occurrences. But, then there's the other side of the coin: casually bursting through walls and doors isn't tried that often because the chance of success isn't always that good. Even for 60STR Characters, anything tougher than a simple wooden door might pose a problem. But if they suddenly pay points to raise their Casual STR, they may use this option more frequently, thus making the value of the Limitation look too high...

Indeed a big issue with this limitation.

Casual STR is (by defnition) capped to [sTR Capaing Cap/2], hence it is not an issue that it is free. As long as you extra "STR; casual use only" does not exceed that implied Cap on casual STR a -1 might be spot on.

Once it does exceeds it, it is a whole nother story. It might even turn into an (minor) advantage, because it allows you to break caps. It is like being able to buy beyond NCM without surcharge.

 

Yeah, there is a natural predilection for most GMs to undervalue player-made limitations just so they aren't taken advantage of.  Better to err on the side of caution, for the sake of the game, but at the same time, you can go way too far that direction as well.

 

Gonna second what Chris said here. As a GM it is MUCH easier to decide later on that something is worth more limitation than initially thought than it is to force a player to spend more points on something "because it is too valuable for the price". That said, if a player was reasonable about it and willing to do a trial, I'd let them start at the higher limitation value and then leave it if it worked out or spend experience to raise it as needed.

 

And as many of us also put content out that is used in a variety of settings (our own and others), it is better to err on the side of caution because you don't KNOW how those other peoples campaigns look and what is frequently used or not. And players will quote your source at GM's and make them not want to use your source material. 

 

- E

It is easier for everyone to increase the value of a Limitation later, then to decrease it later.

Especially with big Limitations like -1 to -1/4.

 

On a related note: "Humans never developed a system they could not find a way to break."

"Telekinesis, Only to Affect Water" is a totally different power/limitation depending on if your definition of "Water" includes the 70% water in a human body or not.

 

You don't think there's something wrong with everyone tending to have the same defenses as your game's bricks?

 

i.e. You don't structure your caps in such a way that characters are forced to make hard choices between offensive capabilites, defensive capabilities, and/or speed -- so that a hyper-offensive character (like a FEP) can't be both super-fast and hyper-defensive ... and hyper-defensive characters (like bricks) can't be hyper-offensive and fast .... and super-fast characters (like speedsters) can't be hyper-defensive and hyper-offensive???

If that is indeed true, that is the real issue with the game.

The idea with higher SPD for Martial Artists and Speedsters appeared for me that they had phases to "waste" on Aborting to Dodge and Recovering from being stunned. While the Bricks defenses allowed him to last about as long, without the need to abort - maybe even ignore AoE's outright.

[DasBroot]

You don't think there's something wrong with everyone tending to have the same defenses as your game's bricks?

 

i.e. You don't structure your caps in such a way that characters are forced to make hard choices between offensive capabilites, defensive capabilities, and/or speed -- so that a hyper-offensive character (like a FEP) can't be both super-fast and hyper-defensive ... and hyper-defensive characters (like bricks) can't be hyper-offensive and fast .... and super-fast characters (like speedsters) can't be hyper-defensive and hyper-offensive???

 

It's a tangent but same raw defensive numbers - the active point cap for defensive powers is lower for non-bricks (they may both have 30 PD, but the bricks is probably 'better' - more fancy things like resistant, protect carried items, hardened, impenetrable, etc).  Blasters have a higher active point cap on ranged attacks (same DC though).  Speedsters have a higher active point cap on ocv, dcv, speed, and movement powers (and get end only to activate for 'free' on their preferred travel power).

 

The brick advantage might not seem all that hot in this case but I use a *lot* of exotic attacks that make use of it (lot of AP, or penetrating, or both, or killing floating around).  If a 6d6 AP RKA law rocket roars in during one of my sessions there's no question who jumps in front of it.

[megaplayboy]

Why can't Gilgamesh just abort to dodge? Most of the time Enkidu's grab will miss, as will his attempt on his next phase. Then initiative shifts to Gilgamesh, who can punch, grab or throw Enkidu. Did they change the abort rules while I wasn't looking?

[bigbywolfe]

I've never seen a character use Casual STR to throw an object and while my play experience is limited this thread is also the first time I have ever seen someone mention doing so on this forum.

[DasBroot]

Why can't Gilgamesh just abort to dodge? Most of the time Enkidu's grab will miss, as will his attempt on his next phase. Then initiative shifts to Gilgamesh, who can punch, grab or throw Enkidu. Did they change the abort rules while I wasn't looking?

 

I .... huh .... don't have a logical response to that.  Even if Enkidu is slightly more dexterous and goes first the next phase the dodge is still active - and if Enkidu wants that bonus to wear off he's got to wait for Gilgameshes turn, who can now freely abort again against Enkidu's held action. Better yet he could abort to a block and put Enkidu on the defensive next phase.  Provided Ekidu's ocv doesn't dwarf his foes DCV it could be a very long time before one gets and holds an upper hand against the other.

 

Tunnel vision from playing with the same group of people for so long, I guess - only the person with Desolidification aborts with any regularity and everyone else just full out attacks (building for durability to take a hit in order to return a hit) at all times.  

 

Doctor Choppenstuff (with a 10 str) is still pretty much boned once Konig Lederhosen, the Bavarian Brawler, gets his hands on him - but maybe it's not as one sided as I thought when Monsterpiece, the nefarious doctor's similarly strong bodyguard, starts wrestling with our hero to free his boss.

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

I .... huh .... don't have a logical response to that.  Even if Enkidu is slightly more dexterous and goes first the next phase the dodge is still active - and if Enkidu wants that bonus to wear off he's got to wait for Gilgameshes turn, who can now freely abort again against Enkidu's held action. Better yet he could abort to a block and put Enkidu on the defensive next phase.  Provided Ekidu's ocv doesn't dwarf his foes DCV it could be a very long time before one gets and holds an upper hand against the other.

 

Tunnel vision from playing with the same group of people for so long, I guess - only the person with Desolidification aborts with any regularity and everyone else just full out attacks (building for durability to take a hit in order to return a hit) at all times.  

 

Doctor Choppenstuff (with a 10 str) is still pretty much boned once Konig Lederhosen, the Bavarian Brawler, gets his hands on him - but maybe it's not as one sided as I thought when Monsterpiece, the nefarious doctor's similarly strong bodyguard, starts wrestling with our hero to free his boss.

 

 

I .... huh .... don't have a logical response to that.  Even if Enkidu is slightly more dexterous and goes first the next phase the dodge is still active - and if Enkidu wants that bonus to wear off he's got to wait for Gilgameshes turn, who can now freely abort again against Enkidu's held action. Better yet he could abort to a block and put Enkidu on the defensive next phase.  Provided Ekidu's ocv doesn't dwarf his foes DCV it could be a very long time before one gets and holds an upper hand against the other.

 

Tunnel vision from playing with the same group of people for so long, I guess - only the person with Desolidification aborts with any regularity and everyone else just full out attacks (building for durability to take a hit in order to return a hit) at all times.  

 

Doctor Choppenstuff (with a 10 str) is still pretty much boned once Konig Lederhosen, the Bavarian Brawler, gets his hands on him - but it's not as one sided as I thought when Monsterpiece, the nefarious doctor's similarly strong bodyguard, starts wrestling with our hero to free his boss.

Am I seeing double?