Crushing Entangle

[Tech]

How would you build this power? A net or cocoon that slowly crushes the entangled person (until they are hopefully freed or break out of it). Got a headache so can't figure this out right now.

[massey]

Telekinesis.  Just grab and squeeze.  Put a limitation on it so other people can help break him out.

[Doc Democracy]

You want the crush to simply do damage or are you looking to invoke the suffocation rules (which would be more complex)??

 

I would have two attacks, one would be and entangle, the other would be an attack (only when caught by my entangle).

[Christopher]

17 minutes ago, Tech said:

How would you build this power? A net or cocoon that slowly crushes the entangled person (until they are hopefully freed or break out of it). Got a headache so can't figure this out right now.

Either a Entagle with a Damage Shield/Combined Continous Attack.

Or jsut using the Grab and Crush rules via Telekinesis, as massey said.

Iti s one of those things that will require a seriosu tradeoff to pull off (high AP/real Cost, lower then Campaign limit Strenght) due to it's power.

 

At worst this might be a case of Gravity Powers:
Gravity as a real world effect can do things that no balanced Hero System Power should be able to do. Like a unstopable form of Entangle and/or Telekinesis.

[Tech]

Just crushing damage. Doc, wouldn't 'an attack only when caught by my entangle' also damage the entangle?  Same situation I think as Christopher suggested with Entangle/Damage Shield.

 

I may go the TK way but would prefer leaving that as a last resort. It's for a villain so don't worry about the cost.

 

 

 

[massey]

6 hours ago, Tech said:

Just crushing damage. Doc, wouldn't 'an attack only when caught by my entangle' also damage the entangle?  Same situation I think as Christopher suggested with Entangle/Damage Shield.

 

I may go the TK way but would prefer leaving that as a last resort. It's for a villain so don't worry about the cost.

 

 

Players don't need to know how the power is built.  They only need to see the effect.  Just generally know how you want it to work, and declare that it works that way.

 

"This is gonna be a 6D6 Entangle, and while they're in it they'll take 8D6 normal damage vs PD, and 2D6 NND from choking."  The exact build doesn't matter because the players never get to see the villain's character sheet.

[tombrown803]

here is an entangle version:

3d6 entangle, 3 PD/3 ED, takes no damage from linked attack (+1/4) (37 active points); plus 1d6 RKA, constant (+1/2), trigger (when entangle succeeds (+1/4), reduced endurance (0 END; +1/2), uncontrolled (remains in effect until captured victims are freed; +1/2), linked (-1/4), no knockback (-1/4) (41 active points, 27 real points)

64 points total, adjust as needed

[Doc Democracy]

7 hours ago, Tech said:

Just crushing damage. Doc, wouldn't 'an attack only when caught by my entangle' also damage the entangle?  Same situation I think as Christopher suggested with Entangle/Damage Shield.

 

I may go the TK way but would prefer leaving that as a last resort. It's for a villain so don't worry about the cost.

 

 

 

 

Not if you make the attack NND....or indirect, only from within the entangle...

[Tech]

Thanks for the suggestions. As GM, I like to know how much a power will cost, even for a supervillain that only I will see the stats for. I very rarely just come up with a power with no actual cost figured out.

[Killer Shrike]

Another option is to summon an immobile construct with OCV levels for Grab and high strength, and / or martial maneuvers and as many martial arts damage classes as you like; I included a couple of custom maneuvers below which might be suitable. How many points you want to spend and how tough you want the construct to be determines the rest. The appropriate automaton powers would be suitable as well. The summoned construct acts on its own speed and dex. It can have whatever other abilities you think would be interesting, or none, as you think best.

 

Sacrifice Grab: 1/2 Phase, +2 OCV, -2 DCV, Grab 5 Limbs, Lasting Restriction (5 points) Big Crush: 1/2 Phase, +1 OCV, +0 DCV, +4d6 Crush, Must Follow Grab (5 points)

[Ninja-Bear]

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Not if you make the attack NND....or indirect, only from within the entangle...

In Champions Powers, I looked under Stretching (of all things) which had a choking wraparound and Steve didn’t buy indirect for it.

[Christopher]

23 hours ago, massey said:

 

Players don't need to know how the power is built.  They only need to see the effect.  Just generally know how you want it to work, and declare that it works that way.

 

"This is gonna be a 6D6 Entangle, and while they're in it they'll take 8D6 normal damage vs PD, and 2D6 NND from choking."  The exact build doesn't matter because the players never get to see the villain's character sheet.

I disagree. The exact build does mater, to make it a proper challenge. I would fell pretty miffed if a GM that usually follows the Campaign Guidelines of 60 AP suddenly throws a 200 AP Attack Powers against me.

Not to mention issues like Drain, wich defenses apply and the like.

 

22 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Not if you make the attack NND....or indirect, only from within the entangle...

Only from within Entangle sounds like indirect. But there is something easier: Transparent to one form of Damage.

 

11 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

In Champions Powers, I looked under Stretching (of all things) which had a choking wraparound and Steve didn’t buy indirect for it.

Two reasons:

1) Stretching has inherent Indirect Properties

2) Stretching entagnle propably has feedback. Or is plain Grab on Range.

Stretiching (the power, and usually the Special Effect) allows you to use your full strenght on range. But at the danger of being open to counter attacks too.

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Christopher said:

Only from within Entangle sounds like indirect. But there is something easier: Transparent to one form of Damage.

only issue with transparency for me is that it allows anyone to attack and do damage with that form.

[Cassandra]

Entangle with a Linked EB 1d6 NND Uncontrolled Continuous

[Ninja-Bear]

Good catch Christopher!

[IndianaJoe3]

On 11/2/2018 at 3:10 PM, tombrown803 said:

here is an entangle version:

3d6 entangle, 3 PD/3 ED, takes no damage from linked attack (+1/4) (37 active points); plus 1d6 RKA, constant (+1/2), trigger (when entangle succeeds (+1/4), reduced endurance (0 END; +1/2), uncontrolled (remains in effect until captured victims are freed; +1/2), linked (-1/4), no knockback (-1/4) (41 active points, 27 real points)

64 points total, adjust as needed

 

I like this build, with a tweak. You don't need Trigger, since it's a combined attack. (6e2 74)

[Christopher]

22 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

only issue with transparency for me is that it allows anyone to attack and do damage with that form.

That is why it is anything between a +1/4 and +1 Advantage

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Christopher said:

That is why it is anything between a +1/4 and +1 Advantage

 

But it doesn’t make sense, in terms of the power, for someone else to do damage without also damaging the entangle.

[Christopher]

On 11/4/2018 at 9:15 PM, Doc Democracy said:

 

But it doesn’t make sense, in terms of the power, for someone else to do damage without also damaging the entangle.

So pick the limitation lower. Transparent to "only one specific attack from the one that applied it" is a sufficiently small group of attacks.

[Tech]

massey said:

"Players don't need to know how the power is built.  They only need to see the effect.  Just generally know how you want it to work, and declare that it works that way.

 

"This is gonna be a 6D6 Entangle, and while they're in it they'll take 8D6 normal damage vs PD, and 2D6 NND from choking."  The exact build doesn't matter because the players never get to see the villain's character sheet."

 

 

Christopher replied:

"I disagree. The exact build does mater, to make it a proper challenge. I would fell pretty miffed if a GM that usually follows the Campaign Guidelines of 60 AP suddenly throws a 200 AP Attack Powers against me.

Not to mention issues like Drain, wich defenses apply and the like. "

 

 

Finally, I say: Christopher, the exact build doesn't matter in the sense that as we all know, a power suggestion can be built multiple ways.  I'd feel pretty miffed too if your theoretical happened, but in all the years on these boards, I've never heard anyone pull that off. I'm not saying it hasn't, just I haven't heard of it.

 

I can very easily pull off a power (without thinking off the cost) that works within the campaign I'm in, regardless of cost.  I've built some pretty expensive powers just to get a 'built just right' where the effect most likely isn't worth what was paid for. Would a 10d6 EB (50 pts) probably be more effective than the 132 pt power I created a long time ago? Yeah, probably. Did the players know? Of course not. Did it make a difference during the games? Not in the least. (And no, I'm not writing out the power.)

 

I think what massey meant is since the players will never see the villain sheet, it's not critical essential to find out if a villain costs 290 pts or 401 pts, as long as the villain works, and the players have fun. For myself, I work out every power for every villain for an exact cost, but that's because I like to do that.

 

Btw, massey, I rather like the power build.

 

[Doc Democracy]

It only matters when a player says they want a cool power like that villain had...then you need to be able to get that build right. 

 

I guess the rule is not to make undocumented powers ones that players might want in their next character....

 

?