Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

[Dead guy on tab]

27 Real/62 Active

2d6 Def 3 Entangle BOECV (+1), No damage from physical attacks (+1/4); Works against EGO not STR (+1/4); Cannot form barriers (-1/4); Mental powers based on CON (-1) vs. ED

 

This power would overwhelm the target's neurobiology causing paralysis. Eventually the body's resilience would "reboot" their electrical system. Does this power seem fair/legal. Any modifications to the advantages/limitations. Would you allow it?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

My opinion: Legal, but unadvisable.

 

This, and other such constructs essentially penalize opponents for not being versatile or flexible.

 

If you are playing in a game without a mentalist, you are doomed. If you are playing in a game with only one mentalist, then if they concentrate fire to wipe out the mentalist first, then they are doomed.

 

DCV is expensive and the default survival strategy for the martial artist (and to an extent the speedster). This cheap and abusive power bypasses DCV and leaves the victim completely open to being taken out of the game immediately.

 

This power, used effectively, makes the game less fun.

 

I wouldn't make this a large part of a game I run.

[Dead guy on tab]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

This power would still need to hit vs. DCV. The conversion of mental powers to con converts ECV to OCV.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Couldn't you just drop the BOECV instead of adding the Mental Powers Based on CON?

 

That said, I'd allow it, though at 3d6 with 2 DEF instead of 2d6 with 3 DEF. If there's no reasonable way for it to be removed, anyone with 10 EGO would be stuck forever in a 3 DEF mental entangle (barring the presence of a mentalist). At least with 2 DEF, someone could feasibly push their EGO and get out within a turn or two.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Missed that part, about hitting DCV.

 

Even so, the proposed built is abusive in the extreme. Only a dedicated egoist stands a reasonable chance of escaping such a power in one action.

 

Compare this to any other entangle built on roughly 60 active points. Against these, almost any character type can escape in one shot without pushing, assuming an average roll.

 

Any entangle not based on generic damage is extremely likely to be abusive. Damage is an assumed ability of just about every Champions character. Ego is not.

 

Funny how most people who propose any sort of entangle based on something other than raw damage always buys up the def rather than the body. It's a dead giveaway that they're looking for a cheap and cheesy abusive way to shut people down.

 

I'd still avoid using it.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Oh, and I'd strongly consider adding some sort of Limitation "Power DEF adds to EGO for breaking free" (rather than Mental DEF adding to EGO like straight mental entangles might have).

[Dead guy on tab]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Actually I was trying to simulate the old V&V power paralysis ray without being too powerful. A brick with a CON of 25 will get out of the entangle in 1 action on average. I went the BOECV route because it didn't seem to fit the special effect to have a transparent entangle, but I oculd see Ego attacks would be able to reboot the neurons. I usually prefer DEF over BODY not sure why - maybe it's a tad more efficient in my mind, but it might be worthwhile to reconsider. One note - I assumed the EGO not STR would be converted to CON not STR by the Mental Powers based on CON; so the characters would use CON to break free

[Ragdoll]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

27 Real/62 Active

2d6 Def 3 Entangle BOECV (+1), No damage from physical attacks (+1/4); Works against EGO not STR (+1/4); Cannot form barriers (-1/4); Mental powers based on CON (-1) vs. ED

 

This power would overwhelm the target's neurobiology causing paralysis. Eventually the body's resilience would "reboot" their electrical system. Does this power seem fair/legal. Any modifications to the advantages/limitations. Would you allow it?

 

Emphasis mine. In light of the above bold text, couldn't you reasonably say that the power should have a 'entangle has no defense' limitation? Representing sure recovery?

[Dead guy on tab]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Emphasis mine. In light of the above bold text' date=' couldn't you reasonably say that the power should have a 'entangle has no defense' limitation? Representing sure recovery?[/quote']

 

I was mostly including that as a consideration for normals ala Spiderman's web dissolves after a half-hour or Iceman's block melts. Although an AED/appropriate electrical power might restart a person's neural pathways. A 3d6 Def 2 Entangle might also work since eventually most "heroic" normals will get 3 Body on 2 dice.

[Balabanto]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Dude, that power is nasty, but it could be worse.

 

Just buy an autofire penetrating speed suppress. Until the suppress is removed, they're paralyzed.

 

Unfortunately, Mental Paralysis and powers like it have a tendancy to be highly sought after.

[Kevin Schultz]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

In looking at it, EGO seems to be costed on the assumption that the character uses OECV. Thus, it's twice as expensive as it should be for non-mentalists. This is why all of my characters have the following:

 

Iron Will: EGO +5 (Defensive Only, -1; 10 Active, 5 Real)

 

To me, that's a reasonable build, and puts it in the same level as Mental Defense.

[Oruncrest]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

27 Real/62 Active

2d6 Def 3 Entangle BOECV (+1), No damage from physical attacks (+1/4); Works against EGO not STR (+1/4); Cannot form barriers (-1/4); Mental powers based on CON (-1) vs. ED

 

This power would overwhelm the target's neurobiology causing paralysis. Eventually the body's resilience would "reboot" their electrical system. Does this power seem fair/legal. Any modifications to the advantages/limitations. Would you allow it?

 

I think you've made the power too complicated. Can I assume that you want an Entangle that requires that the victim use CON to escape instead of STR? If so, I'd dump the 'Mental Power based on CON' limitation and change the Characteristic that worked against the power from 'EGO' to 'CON', like so:

 

49 Neurolock: 4d6 Def 3 Entangle, No damage from attacks (+½), Works against CON not STR (+¼); Cannot form barriers (-1/4); 61 AP; 4 END

 

Written like this, it becomes clear that the Characteristic required to escape is CON, not STR or EGO. Note that 'No Damage from Attacks' is used since there's no such thing as a 'CON Blast'.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Even this build is very easy to abuse.

 

Because there is one and only one way of getting rid of this entangle, it becomes unbeatable when combined with a CON suppress or similar adjustment power.

 

Entangles based on anything other than generic damage are a dangerous proposition. Use them sparingly if at all, IMO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Even this build is very easy to abuse.

 

Because there is one and only one way of getting rid of this entangle, it becomes unbeatable when combined with a CON suppress or similar adjustment power.

 

Entangles based on anything other than generic damage are a dangerous proposition. Use them sparingly if at all, IMO.

 

If you make enough combinations, pretty much any power is unbeatable. Combine Mind Control or Mental Illusions with an EGO Drain/Suppress and you get a similar effect.

 

Given the original description, that it will always be escaped given time, I would be inclined to revise the power to (sticking as close as possible to 50 real points):

 

51 Neurolock: 7d6 Entangle, No damage from attacks (+½), Works against CON not STR (+¼); 1/2 END (+1/4) Cannot form barriers (-1/4); No defenses (-1 1/2) 140 AP; 3 END

 

A normal human will require about 4 phases (2 turns) to get out. Supers will have considerably less difficulty. I tossed in 1/2 END to make the END comparable to the previous construct. You could remove it have have 8d6.

[Mister E]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

Couldn't you just drop the BOECV instead of adding the Mental Powers Based on CON?

 

49 Neurolock: 4d6 Def 3 Entangle' date=' No damage from attacks (+½), Works against CON not STR (+¼); Cannot form barriers (-1/4); 61 AP; 4 END [/quote']

 

So you shoot it like a ray gun attacking the target's DCV... it entangles the target (14 BODY 3 DEF on average)... the victom uses his CON to breakout (10 CON = 4 phases; 20 CON = 2 phases... on average).

 

Is that about right? This is the cleanest build that I can see, so far. It's stronger than the original build.

 

Oh' date=' and I'd strongly consider adding some sort of Limitation "Power DEF adds to EGO for breaking free" (rather than Mental DEF adding to EGO like straight mental entangles might have). [/quote']

 

This is a great idea. Power DEF was designed for these types of attacks. It only makes sense that it would be useful against a Paralysis Ray. I'd cost this limitation exactly the same as the version that allows Mental DEF to be affective... (-1/2)

 

I went the BOECV route because it didn't seem to fit the special effect to have a transparent entangle' date=' but I oculd see Ego attacks would be able to reboot the neurons. [/quote']

 

I see. Very cool. Power Skills are relatively common. Would you be down with allowing the Entangle to be escaped with a Psionic Power Skill roll (call it, "acute psychic surgery")... like as with a Contortionist roll vs. regular entangles? I wouldn't give any points for it, but you could call it a "Susceptibility" (as per the Entangle Limitation) with perhaps a (-1/4) modifier.

 

Here's my final thought:

 

Paralysis Ray:

Entangle 4d6, 3 DEF, Works Against CON, not STR (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Attacks (All Attacks; +1/2) (61 Active Points); Power DEF Adds To CON For Breaking Free (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4), Susceptible to Psionic Power Skill rolls (completely cured by acute psychic surgery; -1/4) Total cost: 30 pts. 6 END to cast.

[Cancer]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

I might allow the power as written, but the character who had it would find himself hounded by an army of automatons against which the power would be worthless.

[Clonus]

Re: Paralysis Ray: Would you allow this?

 

27 Real/62 Active

2d6 Def 3 Entangle BOECV (+1), No damage from physical attacks (+1/4); Works against EGO not STR (+1/4); Cannot form barriers (-1/4); Mental powers based on CON (-1) vs. ED

 

This power would overwhelm the target's neurobiology causing paralysis. Eventually the body's resilience would "reboot" their electrical system. Does this power seem fair/legal. Any modifications to the advantages/limitations. Would you allow it?

 

If it is a paralysis "ray" it should actually not be based on ECV. You're going to have to hit with it, right?