Concerns about Immobilize

[Lindharin]

I've been leery of the Immobilize power since my first read-through of the rules, and I want to see if my concerns are valid or not.

It seems to me that it is much more potent, at least in a majority of situations, than other combat powers. Or maybe not that it is more potent, but that it is less fun. It has a much higher chance of being a one-shot victory than the other combat powers, and that just isn't a lot of fun.

With immobilize, you have the ability to totally negate someone's movements and attacks. With a static difficulty of 10 / rank, for 5 points you can take a power that has to hit just once to totally negate all minions and even most heroes / villains. Even low-end superhumanly strong characters will have trouble escaping that, with Spiderman (with a 3 Brawn) needing to roll a 17+, or spend a Hero Die, and someone like the Thing with Brawn 4 still needing a non-trivial 13+. And it doesn't say anything about breaking if the target is attacked, so they are also sitting ducks for any follow-up attacks you or your teammates make.

Compare that to an attack power. Looking at the world-class archetypes, the high end damages tend to run in the x5 to x8. The champion has x5, the demi-god has x6 or x7, the living elemental and power armor can get up to x8. Given a x8 damage, the average damage is 56, and it will typically range from 40 to 72.

That level of attack power is fairly likely to take out a minion in one hit, although some minions like the alien shock trooper actually can survive one hit if the hero rolls poorly. So in this situation, immobilize and the best attack builds are basically equivalent.

The difference is when it comes to heroes and villains. Many heroes and villains have the same Brawn as minions, but they have much higher damage tolerance (many have some extra soak, and all have 100 hits). Barring the occasional freak exploding dice roll or Attack Weak Spot, even that x8 damage attack will probably take at least two or three hits minimum to disable any hero or villain, and the target has time to react and counter it in between.

In comparison, of the world-class archetypes, more than half will be effectively taken out in one shot by Immobilize 5 (barring the use of Hero Dice, which can also be used on avoiding/resisting damage), and many of the remainder have Brawn 4 and will still need a 13+ to get free, so it may take a few rounds during which you and your allies can freely beat on them.

I am new to BASH, and I recognize that my concerns with Immobilize might not be valid. In actual play, maybe it won't really work out like this, which is why I am posting here.

What have been your experiences with high ranks of Immobilize in actual play?

For example, AslanC, if you read this, I noticed that one of your players, Zero G, didn't have a standard attack power at all, but had Immobilize 5. Does he use it as his main combat power, and do you find it difficult to use anyone except high-Brawn villains against him?

As a side note, I've been considering alternatives that will make it more balanced against a wider range of heroes/villains without neutering it against minions. Here is my current front-runner for a house rule, but I haven't decided to use it yet.

When you take immobilize, you must choose one of the following restrictions:

* It is a physical manifestation (ice, chains, webbing, etc) and the target can use his own attack's Damage Multiplier instead of his Brawn to resist it. The difficulty remains 10/rank. In this example, Wolverine can slash it with his claws (rolling DM vs. the Immobilize difficulty), Cyclops can give it an optic blast, and the Human Torch can burn his way out. This lets them potentially escape a high-rank immobilize on even footing with the bricks on their teams.

* If it is an energy (or mental) manifestation, the target can only resist with Brawn (or an opposing energy?). However, the immobilize doesn't have a flat difficulty of 10/rank, but instead rolls against each escape attempt with a multiplier equal to the Rank.

* It negates movement but not attacks, and is resisted by Brawn with a difficulty of 10 / rank.

I'd welcome feedback on that house rule too.

Thanks for reading this far!

[Lindharin]

By the way, how do people actually treat attacks against Immobilized targets? If they can't move, can they still roll their full Agility for defense? Would Danger Sense or Deflect apply, if they can't move to take advantage of it? The Immobilize power doesn't mention that the target gets no defense (unlike Daze, which is explicit about it), so I assume their Defense is unaffected but that seems odd too.

And since I brought up Daze, I note that it is capped with a 20 difficulty to escape and explicitly breaks if the target is damaged, so it has some built-in restrictions that Immobilize does not.

[AslanC]

Interesting thoughts.

I will let you know after today's session, since this will be a major test of that character with this powerset (last session he was absent and the one before that we were still using the FASERIP rules).

On paper though your concerns look valid.

[Ratix]

Y'know, I've never really looked closely at Daze before. It does seem like a more appropriate way to deny opponent's their defense.

With Immobilize, I'm guessing the intent was to allow Defense, but deny any defenses that relied on movement. For instance, a sorcerer can't use defensive powers with the Casting Limitation, a flier with Boost Agility [while flying] loses their bonus to Agility, etc. That seems reasonable for what it does.

[BASHMAN]

I can see the concern- The narrator is free to set limits in their campaign. So if you want to limit Immobilize to level 3 (which seems pretty fair) I'd do that.

A 30 Brawn check to escape would still be hard for people with super-strength- and would likely cost even someone with a 5 Brawn at least 1 Panel to break free.

By RAW, they still get to Defend, but RAW also lets the narrator decide if they have a Minor or Major Hinderance as a result of being tied up. (Fighting in handcuffs is listed as a Minor Hinderence).

[The_Strangler]

I have to say real quick that I ran into a similar problem the other day which included Immobilize. I have a very crafty player who has a hero sporting a linked together Weaken5(Strength) and Immobilize5 beam. I'm sure there are many nasty combos out there but this one seems "cruel and unusual" even against a villain. This stopped my big brute villain in his tracks. He not only was a Brawn 5 but also has Growth 2 to boot. So this combination of powers is like Kryptonite that seems to work on anyone really.

I am currently considering Lindharin's house rule and Chris' scale-back suggestions from above. I hate to be a nerfer but this will keep the game exciting I think.

[BASHMAN]

Don't forget- that the benefits of Growing will not be removed by Weaken.

[The_Strangler]

Don't forget- that the benefits of Growing will not be removed by Weaken.

right. and i don't believe I took Growth away. but unless i am mistaken, i had to make a 51(Immob5) out of a x0+10(Brawn0 & Grow2) which is really a 1d6+10 exploding on 6. correct? that's 7 6s which didn't happen in the 4 pages it took for his allies to dispatch the villain. maybe i did it wrong and looking back i could've used a villain die but forgot about that as i am still new to narration. we had a blast regardless of my cool villain being neutared.

[Lindharin]

I know you said you don't want to be a nerfer, but I really think this is a perfect example of when a GM should consider saying "No".

But first I would have to ask the player what exactly seems fun about that power. To me, it's only purpose is to bypass the game's internal balance and make a one-shot victory. If that really is the player's definition of a fun encounter, than as a GM you need to decide whether you are willing to structure the campaign to allow for that - comic book style combat will be basically non-existent. It could still be a great roleplaying / investigation / politics type of game. But you need to ask if that is what you want to run, and is that what your other players want too. If the answer to those questions are "no", then I wouldn't let a power combo like that in.

I'm not sure that even just unlinking them and having it take two actions to use Weaken 5 then Immobilize 5 would encourage particularly fun encounters, but that may just be me and what I like in combat.

[Lindharin]

And of course you should also ask the player if he would really be happy if you had an NPC who used that on him. Would he consider that a fun encounter too?

[The_Strangler]

Agreed. And my group is pretty laid back so it won't be a problem. I might even take the time to work the reason it doesn't function into the storyline.

[BASHMAN]

It is inevitable in any rpg where there are rules, there will be a means to abuse them. The simplest fix is to say "no" and move on from there.

However, there are other things one could do. One would be to make villains who are immune to that power to be that character's specific nemesis. Venom doesn't trigger Spidey's "Spider-Sense". Green Lantern's power won't work on anything Yellow- which is what powers Sinestro's ring.

So it is "in genre" for that character to develop such a nemesis. Perhaps some sort of ghost that cannot be immobilized because he is intangible and cannot be weakened because he's undead.

[urbwar]

* It is a physical manifestation (ice, chains, webbing, etc) and the target can use his own attack's Damage Multiplier instead of his Brawn to resist it. The difficulty remains 10/rank. In this example, Wolverine can slash it with his claws (rolling DM vs. the Immobilize difficulty), Cyclops can give it an optic blast, and the Human Torch can burn his way out. This lets them potentially escape a high-rank immobilize on even footing with the bricks on their teams.

I like this. I would also suggest that depending on the type of physical manifestation, an Escapology roll would lower the difficulty. So if it's say chains, they could use contortion to loosen the hold of the chains, thus making it easier to escape (or loosen bonds if it's rope or similar form of restraint).

* If it is an energy (or mental) manifestation, the target can only resist with Brawn (or an opposing energy?). However, the immobilize doesn't have a flat difficulty of 10/rank, but instead rolls against each escape attempt with a multiplier equal to the Rank.

I'd allow Mind to be used if it's a mental Immobilize. I don't think restricting it to brawn is the way to go. I mean, if you have a mental based Immobilize, I can see someone using their mind to break free, especially if you have a character with a strong mind, but low brawn

[BASHMAN]

Well Immobilize is meant to be physical. Daze is the mental equivalent.

[urbwar]

Well Immobilize is meant to be physical. Daze is the mental equivalent.

That does make sense, but from it's description, some might not realize it (I didn't until you brought it up).