Entangle and Barrier
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:09 pm
So, Character A has a weapon with Entangle (it is a large chain, no magical abilities.) Character B has Barrier, and plenty of endurance. Character A attacks Character B, using an entangle attack and rolls higher than Character B. (4 points higher, for the record.) Can Character B burn endurance to avoid being entangled?
Barrier's rules text states, "If your opponent's attack still connects, you may burn endurance to 'buy off' damage on a one for one basis." - since Entangle does no damage ("Any successful attack entangles, but no damage is dealt."), would Character B be entangled, even if he/she wanted to burn endurance to avoid it? Barrier also says, "With enough endurance, you could theoretically nullify any attack!"
How would it work? The last line of Entangle's rules text also says, "Players and Game Masters should use common sense in any scenario." My common sense tells me that someone with a barrier up could not be entangled as long as they have the endurance to keep it going, but there's a lot of fighting going on over it, so I'd like to hear some other opinions.
BACKGROUND: (Because it occurred to me that I should give some, heh...) Character A's weapon is basically a long chain with dagger-like weapons at each end. It has Entangle, for obvious reasons.
Character B is the "boss" of a fight. She has 20 Health, 50 Endurance, and is controlling a bunch of goblin flunkies (extras, clumsy-1, dumb-2, weak-willed-3, there are 17 of them left because the battle has barely started... they are doing basically no damage to the characters, who are fairly high level, and are being picked off with ease.)
There are 6 characters fighting these goblins and the controlling sorceress (most of them decided to attack the sorceress, meaning that even with 50 endurance, her barrier would only be able to survive for two or three rounds, because I thought it would be best if she couldn't control the goblins and keep the barrier up, which would have required her to concentrate on that.)
On his first turn, Character A decides to use an Entangle attack on sorceress, who has been attacked only once prior and has 45 endurance left. She fails the defense roll (her 8 to his 12) and I rule that she can still buy off points because she has plenty of endurance. (To be honest, my plan was basically that the group would have to fight her minions until they were all gone or her barrier was broken, and then they could fight her.) Also, it was absolutely not a sneak attack. He stood right in front of her and basically announced his attack (I won't let you have your way," he says to the woman. "Evil has no place in this world!" Suddenly, throwing all thought of defense to the winds, Character A gives a great swing of his chain, trying to wrap it around the woman.), which was a Kamikaze Strike to boot.
The player of Character A, complained for a few turns after I made my ruling, then demanded that I take it back or he would walk out. I didn't take it back, so he argued, and one of the other players (a good player who is somewhat new to the game) got sick of it and left. At that point, I told him that when he started making other players leave, it was time to put a stop to it (he has a long history of arguing everything with the GM) and told him to leave and come back when he was ready to follow my rules.
I want to know if I was justified, not only in throwing him out (I know that was justified - he'd been warned for several games prior), but also in making the ruling I did.
Your thoughts?
Barrier's rules text states, "If your opponent's attack still connects, you may burn endurance to 'buy off' damage on a one for one basis." - since Entangle does no damage ("Any successful attack entangles, but no damage is dealt."), would Character B be entangled, even if he/she wanted to burn endurance to avoid it? Barrier also says, "With enough endurance, you could theoretically nullify any attack!"
How would it work? The last line of Entangle's rules text also says, "Players and Game Masters should use common sense in any scenario." My common sense tells me that someone with a barrier up could not be entangled as long as they have the endurance to keep it going, but there's a lot of fighting going on over it, so I'd like to hear some other opinions.
BACKGROUND: (Because it occurred to me that I should give some, heh...) Character A's weapon is basically a long chain with dagger-like weapons at each end. It has Entangle, for obvious reasons.
Character B is the "boss" of a fight. She has 20 Health, 50 Endurance, and is controlling a bunch of goblin flunkies (extras, clumsy-1, dumb-2, weak-willed-3, there are 17 of them left because the battle has barely started... they are doing basically no damage to the characters, who are fairly high level, and are being picked off with ease.)
There are 6 characters fighting these goblins and the controlling sorceress (most of them decided to attack the sorceress, meaning that even with 50 endurance, her barrier would only be able to survive for two or three rounds, because I thought it would be best if she couldn't control the goblins and keep the barrier up, which would have required her to concentrate on that.)
On his first turn, Character A decides to use an Entangle attack on sorceress, who has been attacked only once prior and has 45 endurance left. She fails the defense roll (her 8 to his 12) and I rule that she can still buy off points because she has plenty of endurance. (To be honest, my plan was basically that the group would have to fight her minions until they were all gone or her barrier was broken, and then they could fight her.) Also, it was absolutely not a sneak attack. He stood right in front of her and basically announced his attack (I won't let you have your way," he says to the woman. "Evil has no place in this world!" Suddenly, throwing all thought of defense to the winds, Character A gives a great swing of his chain, trying to wrap it around the woman.), which was a Kamikaze Strike to boot.
The player of Character A, complained for a few turns after I made my ruling, then demanded that I take it back or he would walk out. I didn't take it back, so he argued, and one of the other players (a good player who is somewhat new to the game) got sick of it and left. At that point, I told him that when he started making other players leave, it was time to put a stop to it (he has a long history of arguing everything with the GM) and told him to leave and come back when he was ready to follow my rules.
I want to know if I was justified, not only in throwing him out (I know that was justified - he'd been warned for several games prior), but also in making the ruling I did.
Your thoughts?