Clinging, UAA

[Tonio]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

No, the whole point of UAA is using the MECHANIC of a power that normally affects you to affect someone else IN THE SAME WAY as it would have affected you, whether they want it to or not.

 

(A secondary usage of UAA is to take an AoE power that normally would affect an area and attach it to a person, again with no change in the functionality of the mechanic, but thats not really relevant here).

 

Well, I meant more like "the usual reason why people choose UAA", but you're right.

 

Normal UAA:

Teleport: You move from location A to location B without crossing the intervening hexes.

Teleport UAA: You move a target from location A to location B without crossing the intervening hexes...whether they want to or not.

 

Growth: You get bigger, gaining a collection of beneficial and penalizing effects

Growth UAA: You make someone else get bigger, gaining a collection of beneficial and penalizing effects...whether they want to or not.

 

As opposed to:

Clinging: You are able to use your surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You are able to resist being pulled off whatever surface you are currently attached to.

Clinging UAA: You make someone else root in place...whether they want to or not.

 

The actual MECHANICAL effect is being ALTERED by the application of UAA, which is not normal.

 

What about:

Clinging: You are able to use your surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You can resist being pulled off whatever surface you are currently attached to.

Clinging UAA: You make someone else be able to use their surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You make someome else resist being pulled off whatever surface they are currently attached to.

?

 

 

Actually' date=' this isn't how Clinging works -- there is no detrimental effect of Clinging. It doesnt [i']prevent [/i]someone from leaving the surface of something, it allows them to attach to a surface they normally wouldn't be allowed to.

 

All (most?) powers "allow" you to do something. When you buy the power, you decide when that happens. When someone else buys it UAA, and hits you with it, they decide when it happens. Flight allows you to fly. Flight UAA a) grants the power of flight (allows the target to fly), and leaves whoever bought the power in control of said power of flight (the user of the power decides when and where to the target flies). Same with Clinging. Clinging UAA grants the power to attach to surfaces, but leaves whoever bought the power in control of it: they decide when and what to the target attaches. If I buy Clinging UAA, not only can I give you the ability to attach to surfaces, but I also control that ability. I decide whether you resist being pulled off or not. I can't (and this is what I've been recently convinced of) decide whether you move along the surface or not, since Clinging doesn't move you, or stop you from moving, along a surface. But I can decide you won't be moved off it, not without a STR vs STR contest.

 

By a strict interpretation of the rules' date=' at worst UAA Clinging would just grant the power of Clinging to someone while the granter is paying END to maintain it or until the granter chooses to turn it off (UBO on the other hand leaves the turning off under the control of the granted vs the grantee). Clinging doesn't even cost END, so its already of dubious legality out of the gate. [/quote']

 

UAA doesn't only make the granter pay END (as opposed to UBO), it also leaves the granter in control of the power. This not only means "turning on or off", but also how the power is used. And I think there being a specific rule regarding UAA Clinging sorta implies it's legal. =)

 

 

 

Its no more of an invalid use of Entangle than Handcuffs are. Entangles can take many different forms; the net effect is that they prevent movement.

 

Also, I forgot to mention it previously, but Change Environment can also work against movement, though its very expensive and difficult to cover all bases in a superheroic setting where movement rates tend to be very high. It's a third option at any rate, and another one that is innately intended to affect others negatively as well.

 

Well, there's Movement and then there's movement. By Movement I mean any use of a Movement power (Running, Leaping, Flight, etc.). By movement I mean moving your body, even if you're not leaving your current position (waving your hands, performing Gestures, bending over, Dodging, etc.). Clinging UAA prevents Movement off the surface while allowing full movement and (IMO) Movement along the surface, while Entangle prevents Movement and movement. Change Environment affects Movement, but not movement, but it reduces, rather than prevents, moving off the surface (sorta like Drain/Suppress vs Dispel).

 

 

Bottom line for me' date=' if you choose to allow it in your game thats your business. I choose not to allow it in mine.[/quote']

 

Your word, as GM, is of course, the final word in your games. To be honest, while I insist Clinging UAA is a valid construct to have people stick to surfaces and not be able to move off w/o a STR vs STR contest, I wouldn't have a problem with a GM disallowing it. I'd probably go with either CE for a movement reduction, or TK to hold people in place.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

What about:

Clinging: You are able to use your surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You can resist being pulled off whatever surface you are currently attached to.

Clinging UAA: You make someone else be able to use their surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You make someome else resist being pulled off whatever surface they are currently attached to.

?

Yes, this would be valid.

 

All (most?) powers "allow" you to do something. When you buy the power, you decide when that happens. When someone else buys it UAA, and hits you with it, they decide when it happens. Flight allows you to fly. Flight UAA a) grants the power of flight (allows the target to fly), and leaves whoever bought the power in control of said power of flight (the user of the power decides when and where to the target flies).

I don't recall saying anything about Flight UAA. I don't disagree with this assertion. In fact, it is explicitly how it works per in text examples (although later the same rules go on to specifically question the legality of Flight UAA since it infringes on TK [i personally don't allow UAA movement at all without some kind of additional hard limit upon it]).

 

 

 

Same with Clinging. Clinging UAA grants the power to attach to surfaces, but leaves whoever bought the power in control of it: they decide when and what to the target attaches. If I buy Clinging UAA, not only can I give you the ability to attach to surfaces, but I also control that ability.

Which is the same thing I said. The version of Clinging UAA I'm against, as my text should make clear, is a version that PREVENTS movement by sticking a person in place.

 

I decide whether you resist being pulled off or not. I can't (and this is what I've been recently convinced of) decide whether you move along the surface or not, since Clinging doesn't move you, or stop you from moving, along a surface. But I can decide you won't be moved off it, not without a STR vs STR contest.

 

This opposite of this sentence "I can't (and this is what I've been recently convinced of) decide whether you move along the surface or not, since Clinging doesn't move you, or stop you from moving, along a surface." is what I was holding forth on. If you've already been convinced that it isn't valid by someone else then very good then.

 

 

UAA doesn't only make the granter pay END (as opposed to UBO), it also leaves the granter in control of the power. This not only means "turning on or off", but also how the power is used.

 

Actually, if you go and read the section on UAA under the rules, specifically CONTROLLING THE TARGET, you'll see that it says

 

"A Usable As Attack power may require a character to control the victim in some way. For example Flight UAA...Other Usable As Attack powers (such as Desolidification UAA) don't require any control of the target by the character -- they remain in effect as long as he pays END (and does anything else required to maintain them)..."

 

Now...is Clinging more like Flight or Desolid? Personally, its passive nature and lack of motive force makes it more like Desolid than Flight; there is no "control" aspect involved.

 

 

And I think there being a specific rule regarding UAA Clinging sorta implies it's legal. =)

Im not arguing the legality of the general idea, Im arguing the validity. There are many things that are legal constructs, not all of them are valid, and not all of them make sense.

 

And as I said before, its not whether or not Clinging UAA is legal, its what mechanic it introduces.

 

Also there is the question of the end effect being modeled to consider. The UBO rules themselves specifically state that attempts to use UBO powers to achieve the effects of other powers are not valid. Its possible that there is one or more end effects that only Clinging UAA properly defines, better and more precisely than other constructs, while other attempts to use a similar construct for similar or different ends infringe on other base powers.

 

As with all things, if a player came to me w/ such a thing on their sheet, I'd require an explanation of what end effect they were trying to model without using any actual game terms, and then assess if the means by which they attempted to achieve this effect was valid and appropriate for the campaign. If a player came to me with Clinging UAA and indicated they wanted that to model an ability whereby they stuck an opponent to a wall and prevented them from moving, I would help them design an appropriate construct not using Clinging UAA. If they came to me with a different kind of power that, say, controlled friction and had a stunt whereby they could allow other people to adhere to surfaces but move about as they liked by increasing friction at a micronic level, but could turn it off at will I'd ponder Clinging UAA as appropriate.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I have a hard time differentiating between this in flight. If you say Clinging UAA allows the attacked person to use clinging how they want, how can you justify not doing the same thing with Flight UAA?

 

Let's forget about that for a minute and I'll solve the problem: Clinging UAA but instead of attacking the Person, attack what the person is standing on, and decide what the person is standing on has decided to cling to the person.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Well, I'm not sure if they changed it from 5th to 5th Revised but Flight usable as an attack was described as being of dubious legality because TK was the appropriate and legal way to achieve that result (5th not revised page 178). So I would tend to think of clinging the same way and steer my players towards a more appropriate power (Entangle, TK)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I have a hard time differentiating between this in flight. If you say Clinging UAA allows the attacked person to use clinging how they want' date=' how can you justify not doing the same thing with Flight UAA?[/quote']

 

Putting aside the fact that Flight UAA is just broken in the first place, the difference is FLIGHT provides MOVEMENT and further flying characters must CHOOSE direction and whether to gain or lose velocity and whether to change course from Phase to Phase -- there is an active decision making process involved and the person using Flight UAA is in control of those decisions. CLINGING does not provide MOVEMENT and it does not have any active decision making to be made from Phase to Phase beyond whether it is on or not.

 

Consider the example provided -- DESOLID UAA. The target is Desolid as long as you pay END to maintain the effect. You control whether the power continues to affect them (by continuing to pay the END). What they do while Desolid is not under your control.

 

Let's forget about that for a minute and I'll solve the problem: Clinging UAA but instead of attacking the Person, attack what the person is standing on, and decide what the person is standing on has decided to cling to the person.

 

Changes nothing other than introducing the inanimate object mass rules inherent to UBO to the mix. Solves nothing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Well' date=' I was sorta right, and sorta wrong. The base power does give the ability to use the character's normal STR to cling. But under "Useable On Others", it modifies that by saying that in this case it becomes a flat 10 STR.[/quote']

 

A better question might be "Why does Clinging to walls with a 40 STR have a cost that varies depending on your STR stat?" In other words, should clinging be structured as an adder to STR to begin with, or should it have been a standalone power under which you pay for the clinging STR you want to have? Why should it be different from telekinesis, which must be purchased as a separate power rather than as STR with range?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Putting aside the fact that Flight UAA is just broken in the first place, the difference is FLIGHT provides MOVEMENT and further flying characters must CHOOSE direction and whether to gain or lose velocity and whether to change course from Phase to Phase -- there is an active decision making process involved and the person using Flight UAA is in control of those decisions. CLINGING does not provide MOVEMENT and it does not have any active decision making to be made from Phase to Phase beyond whether it is on or not.

 

Consider the example provided -- DESOLID UAA. The target is Desolid as long as you pay END to maintain the effect. You control whether the power continues to affect them (by continuing to pay the END). What they do while Desolid is not under your control.

 

Changes nothing other than introducing the inanimate object mass rules inherent to UBO to the mix. Solves nothing.

 

I would imagine that DESOLID UAA would have some nasty side effects as it arguably could make targets fall through whatever they are standing on. The target is NOT in control of how the power operates.

 

That's essentially the same argument I am making on why CLINGING UAA would at least partially* immobilize a target to what they are touching at the time. The ability to move freely along a surface in opposition to GRAVITY requires 2 things. An ability to move in the first place (which Clinging does not provide) and the ability to counteract GRAVITY (which Clinging DOES provide).

 

It may not be implicitly stated in the power's description but it does seem to make sense that under normal circumstances the owner of CLINGING is controlling the "stickiness" of his limbs used for movement. This is really not that different than the owner of DESOLIDIFICATION controlling whether or not their feet fall through the surface they are standing on.

[Markdoc]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

(A secondary usage of UAA is to take an AoE power that normally would affect an area and attach it to a person, again with no change in the functionality of the mechanic, but thats not really relevant here).

 

Normal UAA:

Teleport: You move from location A to location B without crossing the intervening hexes.

Teleport UAA: You move a target from location A to location B without crossing the intervening hexes...whether they want to or not.

 

Growth: You get bigger, gaining a collection of beneficial and penalizing effects

Growth UAA: You make someone else get bigger, gaining a collection of beneficial and penalizing effects...whether they want to or not.

 

As opposed to:

Clinging: You are able to use your surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You are able to resist being pulled off whatever surface you are currently attached to.

Clinging UAA: You make someone else root in place...whether they want to or not.

 

I think this is the nub of the disagreement. I see clinging allowing TWO things. One, as you noted is to facilitate your movement. Two, it allows you to resist being moved (either off the surface or - quite explicitly - along the same surface). Under this view, you can modify your sentence above to:

 

Clinging: You are able to use your surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You are able to resist being pulled off or moved across whatever surface you are currently attached to.

Clinging UAA: You make someone resist being pulled off or moved across whatever surface they are currently attached to...whether they want to or not. You could of course always allow them to move normally, if you wanted to.

 

I don't see any reason to rule the power out of court - but it's also simply not that big a deal to me - in a quarter century of Hero system gaming, I've seen it used precisely once. In most cases, limited flight or TK would be a more useful/appropriate build.

 

Edit: and as already noted: any movement power with UAA is pretty broken. Flight UAA is grim enough: Tunnelling UAA (tunnel closes behind) is worse - and I've seen that build more frequently in Hero games than clinging UAA! Twice, IIRC

 

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I'd have to agree. That is a little odd, perhaps...it seems that the power of clinging is specifically one of adhesion, which would mean, for instance, that the 'gravity' sfx that I'd posited would be completely inappropriate. HyperMan was right, I think: this is a power built for an sfx. Weird (not that HM was right - that's not weird at all )

 

This could be done a lot better, couldn't it?

 

The more I think about it the more I'm thinking that we should get rid of clinging altogether, and replace it with, perhaps, a limited form of flight (and if you want KBR then you either brace with the flight or buy it).

 

I think part of the problem might be in the wording you used that I replied to, SW. You described that the power was only "on the surface". Now, if the wording were different in such a way that I would believe that the power went deeper than the first grains of sand in contact with the character's body -- then I might say that the lifter would have to lift you + the weight of sand your clinging could lift. You'd essentially have a big ball of sand attached to you if and when you were pulled off the surface.

 

I disagree about getting rid of it. It works mechanically the way many things work -- geckos, suction cups, tar baby effects, glue, and flypaper to name a few.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I have Clinging + UAA (bought to 40 STR) + 1 Continuing Charges (1 Year). I have a sturdy metal footlocker (4 DEF, 2 Body) in my basement, sitting against a reinfordced concrete wall (8 DEF, 5 BODY).

 

I "attack" my footlocker to make it stick shut and stick to the wall. A theif w/ STR 10 breaks in while I am gone and first tries to lift the footlocker. To "break" the clinging he has to either win a STR Vs. STR contest (10 vs 60), or does enough body damage with his STR to break the wall (2d6 vs 8 DEF, 5 BODY).

 

Since he fails to do either, he next tries to open it and finds that it is also stuck shut. Even with his crowbar (+10 STR, Zero END - Only For Prying Things Open), he doesn't manage to win in a STR Vs. STR contest (20 Vs 60).

 

If the user of Clinging UAA could not control what sticks to what, the above reasonable (IMO) situation becomes impossible.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

You forgot you need to buy ranged on the clinging to be able to use it at range. TK is already a ranged attack. This will have the effect of increasing the cost of the clinging build

 

I took 'no range' on the TK, but you are right - the point I was making was about active points, so it would be better to do it the other way:

 

SUPER GLUE:

 

40 STR TK: only to hold a target in place against a surface (-1) 30 points real, 60 points active

 

40 STR clinging (10+ 30) for 20 points and UAA +1 and ranged: 50 points (real and active).

 

The point about the example though is STILL that you can use the construct to circumvent campaign AP caps.

[jtelson]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I have Clinging + UAA (bought to 40 STR) + 1 Continuing Charges (1 Year). I have a sturdy metal footlocker (4 DEF, 2 Body) in my basement, sitting against a reinfordced concrete wall (8 DEF, 5 BODY).

 

I "attack" my footlocker to make it stick shut and stick to the wall. A theif w/ STR 10 breaks in while I am gone and first tries to lift the footlocker. To "break" the clinging he has to either win a STR Vs. STR contest (10 vs 60), or does enough body damage with his STR to break the wall (2d6 vs 8 DEF, 5 BODY).

 

Since he fails to do either, he next tries to open it and finds that it is also stuck shut. Even with his crowbar (+10 STR, Zero END - Only For Prying Things Open), he doesn't manage to win in a STR Vs. STR contest (20 Vs 60).

 

If the user of Clinging UAA could not control what sticks to what, the above reasonable (IMO) situation becomes impossible.

 

If you're playing in a game where the GM requires you to buy a power to bolt your footlocker to the wall, I'd suggest Transform (Footlocker to footlocker attached to wall) or perhaps Entangle. Of course I'd probably just go ahead and make my footlocker an extradimentional space at that point since it would probably cost less.

[Markdoc]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

The point about the example though is STILL that you can use the construct to circumvent campaign AP caps.

 

That's true - but it's only relevant if you use AP caps and "holding in place" is your major criteria. Otherwise, you get that extra "stickiness" at the cost of greatly reduced utility: the TK remains a far more effective attack (because it allows you to "grab") even though the STR that can be bought to bear is less. If the interation with AP caps is the only remaining argument against, then I suppose you have a sort of point, but my response at that point is basically "meh".

 

Mechanistically and game-balance wise, I'm still not seeing a problem.

 

On the up side, as a GM, if the player wanted a "Glue gun attack" that stuck someone to the ground/wall/whatever, this discussion has convinced me that clinging UAA is one way to go. If they wanted a "gravity attack" that crushed the target against a surface, then it looks like TK would be the way to go. The two are so mechanistically different and have such different "flavour" that I don't see them treading on each other's toes.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

That's true - but it's only relevant if you use AP caps and "holding in place" is your major criteria. Otherwise, you get that extra "stickiness" at the cost of greatly reduced utility: the TK remains a far more effective attack (because it allows you to "grab") even though the STR that can be bought to bear is less. If the interation with AP caps is the only remaining argument against, then I suppose you have a sort of point, but my response at that point is basically "meh".

 

Mechanistically and game-balance wise, I'm still not seeing a problem.

 

On the up side, as a GM, if the player wanted a "Glue gun attack" that stuck someone to the ground/wall/whatever, this discussion has convinced me that clinging UAA is one way to go. If they wanted a "gravity attack" that crushed the target against a surface, then it looks like TK would be the way to go. The two are so mechanistically different and have such different "flavour" that I don't see them treading on each other's toes.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Can you think of an appropriate sfx?

 

Can you use this for sticking an opponent's hands together? Their gun in its holster? Their mouth shut? Their eyelids down? If they are prone when you UAA Clinging them, can they get up again, or are they stuck with the penalties? How many limbs does it affect?

 

How, exactly, are we envisaging this working?

 

Also, and I am probably guilty of this as much as anyone, we have been compaing with TK - probably because it is the most obvious match (sort of - UAA flight would not require a grab, and so does not carry those penalties) but the way you glue people down in Hero si with entangle: how does it shape up there?

 

Well, we might as well scrap entangle entirely, eh? It has clearly been superceded by a much more effective power.

[Markdoc]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Can you think of an appropriate sfx?

 

Glue on the floor is the traditional one, though in the recent Battle Angel Alita comic "manipulation of Van der Waals forces" was used by one opponent from Guntroll to stick to things, which sounds better . Bobby from the X-men used to use sprays of ice at floor level. Molecular bonding? Localised generation of a gravity field? I guess with a few minutes thought we could come up with other alternatives.

 

Can you use this for sticking an opponent's hands together? Their gun in its holster? Their mouth shut? Their eyelids down? If they are prone when you UAA Clinging them, can they get up again, or are they stuck with the penalties? How many limbs does it affect?

 

How, exactly, are we envisaging this working?

 

Technically speaking, yeah I see no reason you couldn't target specific body parts (if you are using hit locations) at an appropriate minus or target foci (again, at the appropriate minus, which for an eyelid, is going to be about -16 OCV). One could, after all presumably use TK to grab an opponent's hands, or their gun or even squeeze their head to prevent them opening their mouth (again, assuming fine manipulation and a to hit at minuses). And just like TK, if you're attacking the head, obviously you are not sticking your target to anything. You couldn't however use it to suffocate, harm or reduce the OCV/DCV of the target. For that, you want an attack like TK, which has a built-in damage/grab component.

 

Also, and I am probably guilty of this as much as anyone, we have been compaing with TK - probably because it is the most obvious match (sort of - UAA flight would not require a grab, and so does not carry those penalties) but the way you glue people down in Hero si with entangle: how does it shape up there?

 

Well, we might as well scrap entangle entirely, eh? It has clearly been superceded by a much more effective power.

 

Not really - clinging UAA doesn't stop you teleporting away or tearing yourself off a surface (after all, many surfaces won't take much to tear up: you don't have to break the Clinging, if the surface is weaker). It doesn't prevent you using your foci, or attacking, it doesn't reduce your OCV or your DCV, it offers no protection from attacks, it stops as soon as the attacker moves out of range, or is stunned, or stops paying END. At the same time entangle automatically entangles the target - it doesn't stick them to anything.

 

So it is, in fact, functionally, pretty much as unlike Entangle as it is possible to be, while still possibly sharing a special effect and goal. And in the vast majority of cases, Entangle since it does do all those things, will be far more effective.

 

Same with TK - as you note above, you can build TK to perform a similar task, but mechanistically (by which I means it's in-game effects) all three of these things are very, very, different indeed.

 

You could add a fourth power if you want for sticking people in place - Drain (running) - although again, the actual effects in-game are somewhat different from the other three.

 

As comented up-thread, there's more than one way to skin a cat. As long as it doesn't involve an obvious exploit: and from the examples given so far, it doesn't look like anyone has come up with one - I don't have a problem with that.

 

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Can you use this for sticking an opponent's hands together? Their gun in its holster?

 

I doubt it, as those get into Entagle territory.

 

Their mouth shut? Their eyelids down? If they are prone when you UAA Clinging them' date=' can they get up again, or are they stuck with the penalties? How many limbs does it affect?[/quote']

 

Technically, Clinging doesn't affect limbs -- just the "whole" target. It makes no statement about shutting mouths (Darkness vs Hearing Group territory) and eyelids (Flash/Transformation territory), so it doesn't do that. I'd say that a prone target suffereing a Clinging UAA would be stuck that way (barring a sucessful STR vs. STR contest). After all, regular Clinging doesn't automatically mean "only via hands and feet".

 

Also, and I am probably guilty of this as much as anyone, we have been compaing with TK - probably because it is the most obvious match (sort of - UAA flight would not require a grab, and so does not carry those penalties) but the way you glue people down in Hero si with entangle: how does it shape up there?

 

Well, we might as well scrap entangle entirely, eh? It has clearly been superceded by a much more effective power.

 

Not so. Don't forget that UAA requires defining "a reasonably common set of defenses that cancels out the attack". TK has no such achilles heel.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Changes nothing other than introducing the inanimate object mass rules inherent to UBO to the mix. Solves nothing.

 

It actually changes everything. The ground now has the power and has chosen not to be removed from the character. If someone wants to remove the ground from the character, including the character, then it requires a STR vs STR roll.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

So, back to sfx, as the proponents of the Clinging UAA seem to have a difference in approach; can it, or can it not stick bits of a person together.

 

If it can, yes, glue would seem to be an appropriate sfx. mind you that allows all sorts of things that go way beyond the remit of the power: as Stevezilla points out, clinging can be seen to affect the whole of a target. Mind you if that is right, what sfx can you come up with that ONLY allow adhesion to surfaces/other characters, but not to other bits of the target?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Heh. Yeah. Mass. While you are doing that sfx workup i.e. coming up with a practical application for this power, explain, if you would, how it can stick a 100kg object to the road, but not a 200kg object.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Glue on the floor is the traditional one, though in the recent Battle Angel Alita comic "manipulation of Van der Waals forces" was used by one opponent from Guntroll to stick to things, which sounds better . Bobby from the X-men used to use sprays of ice at floor level. Molecular bonding? Localised generation of a gravity field? I guess with a few minutes thought we could come up with other alternatives.

 

 

 

Technically speaking, yeah I see no reason you couldn't target specific body parts (if you are using hit locations) at an appropriate minus or target foci (again, at the appropriate minus, which for an eyelid, is going to be about -16 OCV). One could, after all presumably use TK to grab an opponent's hands, or their gun or even squeeze their head to prevent them opening their mouth (again, assuming fine manipulation and a to hit at minuses). And just like TK, if you're attacking the head, obviously you are not sticking your target to anything. You couldn't however use it to suffocate, harm or reduce the OCV/DCV of the target. For that, you want an attack like TK, which has a built-in damage/grab component.

 

 

 

Not really - clinging UAA doesn't stop you teleporting away or tearing yourself off a surface (after all, many surfaces won't take much to tear up: you don't have to break the Clinging, if the surface is weaker). It doesn't prevent you using your foci, or attacking, it doesn't reduce your OCV or your DCV, it offers no protection from attacks, it stops as soon as the attacker moves out of range, or is stunned, or stops paying END. At the same time entangle automatically entangles the target - it doesn't stick them to anything.

 

So it is, in fact, functionally, pretty much as unlike Entangle as it is possible to be, while still possibly sharing a special effect and goal. And in the vast majority of cases, Entangle since it does do all those things, will be far more effective.

 

Same with TK - as you note above, you can build TK to perform a similar task, but mechanistically (by which I means it's in-game effects) all three of these things are very, very, different indeed.

 

You could add a fourth power if you want for sticking people in place - Drain (running) - although again, the actual effects in-game are somewhat different from the other three.

 

As comented up-thread, there's more than one way to skin a cat. As long as it doesn't involve an obvious exploit: and from the examples given so far, it doesn't look like anyone has come up with one - I don't have a problem with that.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Entangle doesn't stop you teleporting away, or tearing the entangle apart (a far easier proposition that tearing the clinging apart, especially if you ARE stuck to yourself. I'm not sure how having your arms and legs stuck together (if you can do that) wouldn't afefct combat ability. At least with TK there is a mechanicsm - grab - combat penalties and immobilised limbs.

 

It is all well and good saying 'you can build it'. Sure you can buld it. It is all well and good saying 'it can stick you to the road'. Not with you ont hat, but OK. the trouble is it just doesn't appear to have been thought right the way through. You need to make up rules, or define situations to let this function. That STOP sign is there for a reason, clearly.

 

It just seems far more trouble than it is worth. Build it as entangle or limited TK: the rules are already there, and make sense.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

OK, I'm out. I've made my point, I can't see the merit or use in arguing it further. I'm not going to be using it or allowing it, as far as I can see, help yourself if you want to, but do take on board some of the points: it can be abusive and it still has to mechanically model a concept and be translateable into both mechanical system rules and in game sfx.

 

Best of luck with that.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

I would imagine that DESOLID UAA would have some nasty side effects as it arguably could make targets fall through whatever they are standing on. The target is NOT in control of how the power operates.

I don't agree with this at all. This directly contradicts the example given in the UAA rules, and makes Desolid UAA far too effective as basically a insta-kill ability with a slight delay. Unless the target could breathe underground, they would suffocate, and if they are turned solid while in the ground they would take damage from materializing in a solid object and be trapped underground and unlikely to escape.

 

That's essentially the same argument I am making on why CLINGING UAA would at least partially* immobilize a target to what they are touching at the time. The ability to move freely along a surface in opposition to GRAVITY requires 2 things. An ability to move in the first place (which Clinging does not provide) and the ability to counteract GRAVITY (which Clinging DOES provide).

 

It may not be implicitly stated in the power's description but it does seem to make sense that under normal circumstances the owner of CLINGING is controlling the "stickiness" of his limbs used for movement.

 

Well, if we start working off of what isn't stated in the rules vs what is stated, where does that leave us?

 

Your assertion also assumes that the mechanical effect of Clinging is necessarily based on a SFX related to "stickiness", that the users limbs are "sticky", that the user actively controls this "stickiness" as an active, conscious, constantly changing state. The rules state that the user "sticks" to a wall, but the means by which they do so -- the SFX -- can be diverse. It also assumes that Clinging is primarily a means of counteracting gravity, rather than a purchaseable mechanical effect that allows a character to move normally on surfaces they normally would not be able to. At root this is an argument from a SFX perspective rather than the actual mechanics.

 

 

This is really not that different than the owner of DESOLIDIFICATION controlling whether or not their feet fall through the surface they are standing on.

That's assuming that your argument regarding is correct, even though it directly contradicts an example given in the UAA rules.

[Checkmate]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

Heh. Yeah. Mass. While you are doing that sfx workup i.e. coming up with a practical application for this power' date=' explain, if you would, how it can stick a 100kg object to the road, but not a 200kg object. [/quote']

But it can. It can stick a 1billion kg object to the road. I'm effecting the road not the object. I can only effect a normal human sized section of road.

 

But even if you do it the other way, glue would be a fine example. Don't you think it would be easier to glue a piece of paper to the side of a building than a Sherman Tank?

 

I also think you're getting too hung up on SFX. There are literally THOUSANDS of applications of powers that are designed to simulate a certain SFX that just don't work perfectly.

 

Anyone remember the Ogre NND? The SFX was he squeezed the air out of you, the power was an NND.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

But it can. It can stick a 1billion kg object to the road. I'm effecting the road not the object. I can only effect a normal human sized section of road.

 

But even if you do it the other way, glue would be a fine example. Don't you think it would be easier to glue a piece of paper to the side of a building than a Sherman Tank?

 

I also think you're getting too hung up on SFX. There are literally THOUSANDS of applications of powers that are designed to simulate a certain SFX that just don't work perfectly.

 

Anyone remember the Ogre NND? The SFX was he squeezed the air out of you, the power was an NND.

 

 

I know I was going to leave this now, but I couldn't resist:

 

There are no sfx that have been properly thought through that do not match the mechanical effects to a decent degree. The Ogre NND is a perfect example of 'not thinking it through', a dire warning to us all, rather than an argument for slapdash construction of characters and poorly conceived rationalisations (as opposed to proper sfx) for powers.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Clinging, UAA

 

So, back to sfx, as the proponents of the Clinging UAA seem to have a difference in approach; can it, or can it not stick bits of a person together.

 

If it can, yes, glue would seem to be an appropriate sfx. mind you that allows all sorts of things that go way beyond the remit of the power: as Stevezilla points out, clinging can be seen to affect the whole of a target. Mind you if that is right, what sfx can you come up with that ONLY allow adhesion to surfaces/other characters, but not to other bits of the target?

 

Magnetism.