Fantasy HERO Entangle Balancing

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, PeterLind said:

The power follows Champions 2E (and later editions) with a base 2d6 with 2 DEF for the first 20 points of the power, but increases to the power are per Champions 1E -- each 1d6 is 5 pts. but with no DEFENSE.  

 

 

For what it's worth, using Champions 2e costing is going to yield a 5pt / die cost for a "normal" Entangle-- nets, ropes, large baskets, etc, as the item would be built using Focus-type rules.  You could even move further forward and borrow the "One recoverable Charge" Limitation if you so desired.

 

However, as long as we're tinkering with it, I've always liked a blend that starts with the 1e "there is no DEF:"  you roll your dice and count BODY to determine the Entagle's BODY.  Then you buy DEF separately.

 

In this way, you can simulate both a large basket trap or dropping a particularly brittle iron bell: same BODY (very brittle bell, or perhaps the drop has filled it with micro fissures), yet radically different DEF scores.

 

Though if you're going back to 1e/2e Champions, I might point out that they spell out that certain effects may or may not prevent a character from using a weapon (a character snared in a net has a pretty good chance of getting to his sharp dagger, granting him (with STR) typically a 1d6+1 KA, upping his ability to overcome the DEF quite nicely.

 

Please understand I am not disagreeing with you; I am just pointing out some other angles available.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

2 minutes ago, PeterLind said:

  I am not aware if this issue has been dealt with in later editions . . . 

 

There is something called the "Three Senses" Rule.  I don't know when it was first spelled out-- 5e, maybe?  4e?

 

But the existence of the Advantage "Invisible Power Effects from the very first edition has always suggested that powers have perceivable effects that need to be defined.

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 minute ago, PeterLind said:

Another way to balance Entangles is to ensure that the power will have a visible effect unless invisible power effect is taken as an advantage.  I would thus not allow an invisible/paralysis type effect unless 

the advantage is taken.  If necessary, you as GM can provide the visual special effect, such as a colored glow that will cover the target, etc.

 

Now, you may also rule that since the entangle has to have a visual effect, this effect will at least partially obscure the target until the entangle is removed.  In this way, called shots to hit a certain location will either be disallowed, or at a greater penalty than normal.  According to 4E, hit location penalties for placed shots are halved if a target is surprised.  Similarly, hit location penalties can be increased if the attacker is able to see the target generally, but is not able to clearly see the specific locations on the body . . .  I am not aware if this issue has been dealt with in later editions . . . 

So if I get a 1d6 Cosmetic Transform: "Target begins glowing brightly" spammed on me while I don't resist, nobody can effectively called shot me?  Cool!  Hey Wizzy Wally, hook me up with that light spell. 

That's honestly a really awkward solution with a giant pile of side effects, I can't recommend going through with it instead of just saying "No Entangles that don't take damage from attacks, guys". 

[Duke Bushido]

3 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

So if I get a 1d6 Cosmetic Transform: "Target begins glowing brightly" spammed on me while I don't resist, nobody can effectively called shot me?

 

 

I would think that would highlight you, honestly. 

 

But "target radiates a glowing pink featureless ovoid cocoon," that I would allow to make calling a shot at the very least much more difficult. 

[PeterLind]

> For what it's worth, using Champions 2e costing is going to yield a 5pt / die cost for a "normal" Entangle-- nets, ropes, large baskets, etc, as the item would be built using Focus-type rules.  You could even move further forward and borrow the "One recoverable Charge" Limitation if you so desired. <

 

I think that this would be totally fine as an approach:  With a minimum cost of 10 pts., you get 2d6 / 0 DEF Entangle for 10 pts.  Each +1d6 Entangle is +5 pts. and +1 DEF is +5 pts.  The key here is that your Entangle spell write-up needs to be approved by your GM.  Let character conception prevail, but it should also fit within the guidelines of the campaign. 

 

>  So if I get a 1d6 Cosmetic Transform <

 

This is not the intention.  I was speaking by way of example.  The special effect should fit in with the conception of the Entangle.  Again, I see your spell design as being a collaborative process with the GM. 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, PeterLind said:

This is not the intention.  I was speaking by way of example.  The special effect should fit in with the conception of the Entangle.  Again, I see your spell design as being a collaborative process with the GM. 

But then you're attaching mechanical penalties to certain SFXs.  Not even mandatory Limitations, just arbitrary penalties. 

Bob Bright makes his Entangle a pulsing field of light that restrains the target.  Freddy Ferrous makes his Entangle a handful of immovable iron bands that appear around the target's joints.  Runic Ralph makes his Entangle a blood-red scrawl that appear on the target's skin detailing the laws of stillness they are now subject to.  I'd call these equally visible, but only the first logically obscures the target in any way. 

Or perhaps you forbid the latter two just because they conveniently dodge the nerf you've applied to a SFX instead of Entangle, thus refusing player creativity. 

If you want to nerf Entangle, attach the nerf directly to the Entangle instead of stapling a nerf to a SFX. 

[Ninja-Bear]

I think I forgot to mention Scottish Fox that you could put Vulnerability on the Entangle. Perhaps x11/2 Body versus Ego?

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

There is something called the "Three Senses" Rule.  I don't know when it was first spelled out-- 5e, maybe?  4e?

 

But the existence of the Advantage "Invisible Power Effects from the very first edition has always suggested that powers have perceivable effects that need to be defined.

 

 

I think "three senses" was pretty early - I recall an old (comic book) w/u of Rose which detailed her Visible Ego powers being perceivable by sight, hearing and smell, in addition to Mental sense, and those w/u's were 1e/2e IIRC.

 

6e modified the "three senses" rule to two senses, one being sight absent specific GM permission.  It also modified perceptibility to Obvious, Inobvious and Invisible.

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I think I forgot to mention Scottish Fox that you could put Vulnerability on the Entangle. Perhaps x11/2 Body versus Ego?

 

We're going to run with the set I mentioned earlier and play test it for a couple sessions.

 

Right now there are only two major entangles in play:

1-  Web - Entangle 3d6 BOD -  3 Def, 5m AoE, Only to immobilize (characters can still attack, but they have to tear themselves free to be able to move).

2-  Fetid Caress - Entangle 2d6 BOD - 2 Def, AVAD - CON only to break out - takes no damage from attacks.  This one we'll adjust to 1/2 DCV instead of 0 DCV.  In the game it's a pretty weird/interesting game world specific spell.  The target becomes afflicted with a paralyzing disease that makes them erupt with boils that release toxic fumes around them.  Main target is paralyzed - Characters in adjacent hexes suffer a STR drain.

[Duke Bushido]

29 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 it's a pretty weird/interesting game world specific spell. 

 

I am ridiculously cool with that. 

[PeterLind]

>But then you're attaching mechanical penalties to certain SFXs.<

 

Sure.  One way to approach it is to allow Entangles of only certain special effects in the game, based on campaign tone/guidelines.  As an example, the entangle examples given above.  Under this approach, only certain "Entangle-type" spells are known in the campaign world.  This will allow the GM to balance the power, while also allowing it in the campaign  . .. 

 

Another approach, of course, is to leave it up to the player to come up with the special effect.  In this circumstance, as you say, not all special effects will obscure the target.  In this situation, would you use a house rule to address the hit location issue?

[Solitude]

Why would the Game Master not make treasures which countered Mental Paralysis in different ways findable for a while, and have some foes with counters also sprinkled about the campaign?

 

This isn't a genre where the players should be paying character points for every single thing that they carry around. 

 

[ScottishFox]

32 minutes ago, Solitude said:

Why would the Game Master not make treasures which countered Mental Paralysis in different ways findable for a while, and have some foes with counters also sprinkled about the campaign?

 

This isn't a genre where the players should be paying character points for every single thing that they carry around. 

 

 

You're exceptionally correct about the magic items contributing many powerful and character-point-free abilities on the characters.

 

However, this issue isn't so much about the defenses against Mental Parlysis and other takes-no-damage Entangles, but moreso about how DCV 0 and Hit Locations combine for certain death in Fantasy HERO.

 

In a Supers campaign all that is going to happen is that you're going to get hit every single attack.  It's going to be bad, but probably not instant death.

 

In a Heroic setting the ability to hit an opponent with a solid attack in the eyeballs 60% of the time (or more) means the character is down and out and quite possibly dead after 1 or 2 attacks.

 

If the characters are played intelligently (and they will be) they will hold Phases until the paralyzing effect lands.  And then a barrage of swords, arrows and arcane bolts will slam into the helpless targets eye sockets immediately thereafter.

With a x5 STUN multiplier and attacks in the 7-9 DC range defenses are largely irrelevant.  They're going to be absorbing 40 STUN cranium crushers in succession while sporting 4-6 PD and 4-7 points of armor (if it even covers the eyes).

 

The solution we arrived on (earlier page) was to limit the takes-no-damage Entangles to 1/2 DCV instead of 0 DCV and the "normal" Entangles still reduce to 0 DCV, but eliminate hit locations until they are destroyed (ala block of ice).

 

 

[Solitude]

12 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

You're exceptionally correct about the magic items contributing many powerful and character-point-free abilities on the characters.

 

However, this issue isn't so much about the defenses against Mental Parlysis and other takes-no-damage Entangles, but moreso about how DCV 0 and Hit Locations combine for certain death in Fantasy HERO.

 

In a Supers campaign all that is going to happen is that you're going to get hit every single attack.  It's going to be bad, but probably not instant death.

 

In a Heroic setting the ability to hit an opponent with a solid attack in the eyeballs 60% of the time (or more) means the character is down and out and quite possibly dead after 1 or 2 attacks.

 

If the characters are played intelligently (and they will be) they will hold Phases until the paralyzing effect lands.  And then a barrage of swords, arrows and arcane bolts will slam into the helpless targets eye sockets immediately thereafter.

With a x5 STUN multiplier and attacks in the 7-9 DC range defenses are largely irrelevant.  They're going to be absorbing 40 STUN cranium crushers in succession while sporting 4-6 PD and 4-7 points of armor (if it even covers the eyes).

 

The solution we arrived on (earlier page) was to limit the takes-no-damage Entangles to 1/2 DCV instead of 0 DCV and the "normal" Entangles still reduce to 0 DCV, but eliminate hit locations until they are destroyed (ala block of ice).

 

 

I read a lot of articles about archaeological digs.

Historically,  enabling headshots produces incredible Massacres.

 

This is why so many battle plans have for thousands of years included maneuvers to catch the other forces in a River where they will drown if they duck.

[Ninja-Bear]

Scottish Fox I just played a game this weekend where we were high powered Supers forced into an arena battle. And we used that tactic pretty much. My buddy used (his version) of Fire and Ice. He recognized the GM’s villain and Entangled him and expressed that him Entangle only came up to him shoulders so some one could whack the head. I myself attacked a villain who was grappling another teammate (and the Grappler was at 1/2 DCV-5th ed) and well I was able to stun the opponent.  Just letting you know, it’s a VERY effective tactic. Plus I thought of you when these moves were used.

[Hugh Neilson]

Halving or eliminating a target's DCV is also pretty effective if Multiple Attacks are in play.  If I would hit that 10 DCV Villain on 11- before his DCV was halved, now it's a 16-, so two or three attacks as a Multiple Attack will cost be a lot of END, but he's not likely getting up in a hurry.  Drop him to 0 and I can make 3 attacks that will miss only if I roll an 18...

[ScottishFox]

On 1/5/2020 at 10:41 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Halving or eliminating a target's DCV is also pretty effective if Multiple Attacks are in play.  If I would hit that 10 DCV Villain on 11- before his DCV was halved, now it's a 16-, so two or three attacks as a Multiple Attack will cost be a lot of END, but he's not likely getting up in a hurry.  Drop him to 0 and I can make 3 attacks that will miss only if I roll an 18...

 

Multiple Attack and 0 DCV combine for an END expensive alpha strike of epic proportions.

 

In all of my FH campaigns multiple attack is capped at 2 attacks for balance reasons.  Our end-game Witcher knock-off could hit 15 OCV when buffed.  26 or less to hit?  I'll take 6 attacks at 16 or less, Alex...

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Scottish Fox funny you should mention sweep. In that same game, the GM gave a character +4 PSLs to offset sweep. Now the Gam is a long time player but just started to use 5th for the game. Also the GM didn’t know sweep could now be used a against a single person. Well his brother used it and (even though it was only 3 attacks) it was devastating! It was fun though. 

[ScottishFox]

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Scottish Fox funny you should mention sweep. In that same game, the GM gave a character +4 PSLs to offset sweep. Now the Gam is a long time player but just started to use 5th for the game. Also the GM didn’t know sweep could now be used a against a single person. Well his brother used it and (even though it was only 3 attacks) it was devastating! It was fun though. 

 

We split ours up based on weapon type for flavor.  Two-handed weapons can sweep adjacent enemies (no multiple hits on single target).  Dual wielders can hit a single target twice.

[Scott Ruggels]

I would just prohibit mental paralysis in a Heroic campaign. 

[ScottishFox]

We've had one run with the new 1/2 DCV for Mental and takes-no-damage entangles and it is working out so far.

 

I suspect my original problem will resurrect itself when we're at a higher tier of play and an entangled DCV 3-4 villain can be consistently whacked in the head by an OCV 11-12 protagonist.

 

So far so good.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

We've had one run with the new 1/2 DCV for Mental and takes-no-damage entangles and it is working out so far.

 

I suspect my original problem will resurrect itself when we're at a higher tier of play and an entangled DCV 3-4 villain can be consistently whacked in the head by an OCV 11-12 protagonist.

 

So far so good.

At some point, it just becomes necessary to say "OK, 1/2 DCV now means -[something], 0 DCV now means -[something larger]" because CV fractions do not scale. 

[MrKinister]

Interesting situation. It strikes me that you are building encounters where the PCs can easily overwhelm a small set of opponents, who may be at varying power levels, with very focused paralysis spells.

 

I would recommend the following:

1. Increase the number of opponents. They don't have to be more powerful, just more numerous. This will keep the PCs on their toes and open opportunities for the villains to actually strike back, protect, counter-attack. Don't forget to apply the multiple attacker penalty on their DCV.

2. Include among your villains casters who can do the same things: have the PCs be mentally paralyzed and sent to the hospital for a few months.

3. If the PCs are known for these tactics, clever opponents will arrive prepared: consider spell reflection abilities or wards, or spell nullification preparations. I would pay good money to see one of them cast that spell and have it reflected back on them. The look ought to be priceless.

4. Consider having the villains have exotic pets: have some unearthly monsters with high mental immunity - constructs, high powered enslaved undead - things that will generally be immune to mental powers. 

 

Overall, the players are acting out a specialization with that power. All you need to do is create a setting in which the specialization does not apply. That should put them over the flame for a while.

 

Just my $0.02.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

We've had one run with the new 1/2 DCV for Mental and takes-no-damage entangles and it is working out so far.

 

I suspect my original problem will resurrect itself when we're at a higher tier of play and an entangled DCV 3-4 villain can be consistently whacked in the head by an OCV 11-12 protagonist.

 

So far so good.

 

He'd get smacked pretty easily with a 5 - 8 full DCV, wouldn't he?

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

He'd get smacked pretty easily with a 5 - 8 full DCV, wouldn't he?

 

Smacked - yes.  Smacked in the head (12 vs. 8 = 7 or less) not so much.  Though your point holds at better at 11 vs. 5 at 9 or less (30%+).

 

Gnome makes a solid point that the fractional (1/2) modifiers to OCV/DCV don't scale well relative to fixed called shot modifiers.