Cost of Armor vs PD/ED+Damage Resistance

[Bloodstone]

+8 PD/ED (10/10 Total) and Damage Resistance (10 rPD/10 rED)

RC: 26

vs

Armor (10 rPd/10rED)

RC: 30


Both are Self Only, Persistant powers that provide an equal amount of Resistant Defense. Is there any good reason why it is cheeper to buy the PD/ED+Damage Resistance instead of Armor?

The only time I find myself buying Armor is when I want a small amount of my total defenses with some sort of advantage, like Hardened. But I see no reason why I should have to "pay extra" for that...

So is PD/ED+Damage Resistance combo simply too cheep, is Armor too expensive or is there something I am just totally missing?

[Dust Raven]

It's not cheaper. With the Armor, you'll end up with 12 total and 10 resistant, because it also adds to you base of 2. Of you bought a full +10 PD/ED like you did with Armor, you'd get the same numbers for the same cost.

But if you want a brain twister... cost compare Armor to FF :eg:.

[Bloodstone]

You are correct and I guess that's what I was missing... I feel stupid now...

and rather then waste the topic:


But if you want a brain twister... cost compare Armor to FF

Ok, I'll bite: how so?

[Jarekk]

Brain twister? What brain twister? Armor is FF bought with persistant and inherant.

Or, is it just persistant?

I think it's just persistant--but I can't remember for sure...

But, that's the reason for the cost difference.

[Bloodstone]

doesn't quite work out...



FF (10 PD/10 ED)

AP: 20
RC: 20
END: 2

VS

Armor (10 PD/10 ED); Costs Endurance (-1/2), Nonpersistent (-1/4)

AC: 30
RC: 17
END: 3

OR

Armor (10 PD/10 ED)

AP: 30
RC: 30
END: 0

VS

FF (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2)

AP: 40
RC: 40
END: 0

In theory, since they provide the same effect, they should have the same costs... but they don't.

'Least I assume that's what Dust Raven was refering to...


Wonder how hard it would be to roll this all into a single power...?

[Aroooo]

Don't you have to add something about invisible power effects to FF for a true comparison? I thought there was something about Armor and visibility or visible FX, but can't remember right now and Fred is not with me.

Aroooo

[Simon]

You don't get to apply Nonpersistent to Armor if you are going to take Costs END. As soon as you apply Costs END, it becomes non-Persistent (without the Limitation) -- that's a facet of the Costs END Limitation.

Likewise, it becomes Visible when you do this.

So, to make Armor into a FF, all you do is apply Costs END:

Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) = 20 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED) = 30 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED); Costs Endurance (-1/2) = 20 points

Q.E.D.

[Hugh Neilson]

You don't get to apply Nonpersistent to Armor if you are going to take Costs END. As soon as you apply Costs END, it becomes non-Persistent (without the Limitation) -- that's a facet of the Costs END Limitation.

Likewise, it becomes Visible when you do this.

So, to make Armor into a FF, all you do is apply Costs END:

Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) = 20 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED) = 30 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED); Costs Endurance (-1/2) = 20 points

Q.E.D.

But it doesn't work the other way. A 10/10 force field needs to be 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), and fully invisible (+1) to emulate armor, for a total of 60 points vs 30 points. Even making it no END and persistent costs 40 points, more than the equivalent cost of Armor.

Add "always on" and the cost is 40 or 27, but Armor Always On would be 20. Whether PD/ED and DR can be "always on" becomes another interesting question in this discussion. And if you don't see a disadvantage to these being always on, imagine you require an injected innoculation, or life-saving surgery [or just need to protect your secret ID during a blood drive, or when you get scratched by a cat or bitten by a dog].

Consider a character who is sentient energy - it seems reasonable to sell back his PD/ED, get all defenses as 0 END persistent Force Field (he's a walking force field) and take a Distinctive Features. However, the distinctive features actually come from the visible nature of the force field itself, and he still pays more points than the guy with Armor.

[JmOz]

Sometimes it is better to just buy Visible armor and call it a FF

[Agent X]

I like force field just the way it is. Granted, force field is more expensive to duplicate the effects of armor but that is not what it is for. One nice thing about force fields is it is cheaper to stack advantages on to the base cost. What's cheaper 10/10 armor, hardened or 10/10 force field, zero endurance, hardened? :cool:

[tesuji]

That force field costs 2 end per phase, while that armor costs 3 end per phase.





So, to make Armor into a FF, all you do is apply Costs END:

Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) = 20 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED) = 30 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED); Costs Endurance (-1/2) = 20 points

Q.E.D.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sometimes it is better to just buy Visible armor and call it a FF

That will cost you when the NND's start flying, another balancing point that falls right outside "points". Mind you, I would call that power "force field", and not "armor", for purposes of NND's and similar.

But the original point remains - why do the costs of defenses vary with what they're called? [for 6th ED, I suppose...] Why not just have PD, ED and Damage Resistance. If you want to define it as Armor, you do so. If you want to call it a Force Field, go ahead. Want it to cost END? That's a -1/2 limitation. Want to put it in an EC? Make it cost END.

For that matter, why should I ever have any power liomited by "costs END" (mechanically)? I can make it nonpersistent and visible, get the same limitation value, and not have to spend any END. Only so it will go in my EC, I suppose.

[tesuji]

That will cost you when the NND's start flying, another balancing point that falls right outside "points".

Not if there are more "not vs armor" NNDS than "not vs force fields" ones in the particular campaign.

[Agent X]

That will cost you when the NND's start flying, another balancing point that falls right outside "points". Mind you, I would call that power "force field", and not "armor", for purposes of NND's and similar.

But the original point remains - why do the costs of defenses vary with what they're called? [for 6th ED, I suppose...] Why not just have PD, ED and Damage Resistance. If you want to define it as Armor, you do so. If you want to call it a Force Field, go ahead. Want it to cost END? That's a -1/2 limitation. Want to put it in an EC? Make it cost END.

For that matter, why should I ever have any power liomited by "costs END" (mechanically)? I can make it nonpersistent and visible, get the same limitation value, and not have to spend any END. Only so it will go in my EC, I suppose.Armor takes up one line while buying extra pd and ed and damage resistance (defined as armor) takes up 3.

Why reduce everything to its core. It's not as if we don't have brains. I don't want to play a game that reduces powers to defense, resistant, physical, zer endurance, persistent and attack, ranged, against energy, killing or no range, physical, normal, adds strength. I'd just rather use the descriptors pd armor, rka(e), and hand attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Why reduce everything to its core. It's not as if we don't have brains. I don't want to play a game that reduces powers to defense, resistant, physical, zer endurance, persistent and attack, ranged, against energy, killing or no range, physical, normal, adds strength. I'd just rather use the descriptors pd armor, rka(e), and hand attack.

Well and good. However, I continue to believe that three powers which provide functionally identical effects should carry identical costs.

Armor, in particular, could go. It's just SFX for rPD and rED. It should have been eliminated when the Damage Resistance pricing got changed from flat rates for 1/2 and full to 50% of the cost of the defense made resistant.

[Vorsch]

If the system was reduced to its core elements it would be better, after all regen was removed because it was just a aid effect ( not true in my oppinion ).

Ego attack is just eb with BOecv, except it has the advantage applied to the initial cost before other advantages, same goes for all the defencive powers.

Resistant is effectively a +1/2 adv, but DR acts as a adder rater than a advantage, this makes a difference when harbened is applied. What you call your armour is SFX and should have no bearing on NND defined a FF as that is a game mechanic. Why should a wind/magnetic based FF stop a neutron beam when adamantium armour does not?

[Hugh Neilson]

Ego attack is just eb with BOecv, except it has the advantage applied to the initial cost before other advantages, same goes for all the defencive powers.

Actually, to get an Ego Attack, you also need Invisible Power Effects (+3/4; still visible to mental senses), so Ego Attack is actually underpriced :yes:

NB: Compared to buying it as an advantaged EB - I've never seen this as a misbalance in play.

[Really, it should be an EB, Invisible (+3/4), AVLD (+1 1/2), Acts vs Ego rather than Dex (say +1/2), for a total of 13.75 per d6.]

[schir1964]

But it doesn't work the other way. A 10/10 force field needs to be 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), and fully invisible (+1) to emulate armor, for a total of 60 points vs 30 points. Even making it no END and persistent costs 40 points, more than the equivalent cost of Armor...

Clarification:
Armor is not automatically "Fully Invisible" by default. It does not have "Visible SFX" which requires "Visible In Three Sense Groups".
Therefore, to be make FF like Armor, does not require "IPE" at the +1 value.

- Christopher Mullins

[Vorsch]

Actually, to get an Ego Attack, you also need Invisible Power Effects (+3/4; still visible to mental senses), so Ego Attack is actually underpriced :yes:

NB: Compared to buying it as an advantaged EB - I've never seen this as a misbalance in play.

[Really, it should be an EB, Invisible (+3/4), AVLD (+1 1/2), Acts vs Ego rather than Dex (say +1/2), for a total of 13.75 per d6.]

If BOecv grants unlimited range why not invisibility? I though Boecv made it into a mental power and subject to the mental power "rules".

Acting vs ego rather than dex should not be a advantage, its a choice.

Also your advantages work out as 18.75 per dice.

[Agent X]

Ever thought about it this way?

If you reduce everything to its most basic characteristics, some things will actually be more expensive and less effective than they should be, like that whole idea of reducing everything to the fundamentals would do to ego attacks.

[Dust Raven]

Reducing things to an absolute base would make the system fair, but dry and tastless. A lot of the Powers in the Hero System could be simulated by some other metapower, or set of metapowers, if we really tried, but would we really want that? We need an Armor Power to make a normal kevlar vest. It's so much easier to say

Kevlar Vest: Armor 6 PD/ED OIF Sectional Defenses (protects locations 11-13) Real Armor
than it is to say

Kevlar Vest: PD +6 OIF Sectional Defenses (protects locations 11-13) Real Armor, plus ED +6 OIF Sectional Defenses (protects locations 11-13) Real Armor, plus Resistant Defenses 6 PD/ED OIF Sectional Defenses (protects locations 11-13) Real Armor.

And what about Attack Powers? I suppose we could simply make a "Damage Attack" power, that would cost 5 points per d6. It does 1d6 damage per 5 points, costs END and has a range of APx5". When purchased, decide what Characteristic or Power it damages and whether or not it applies to PD or ED. If it damages STUN, then you get the Does BODY Advantage for free, is desired.

Then you'd need to make a bunch of rules about how to determine if the damage recovers atomatically at 5/turn or by the target's REC, reset the values of many Advantages like NND and AVLD and a number of others twists and complications that would make this "simple" power into an incomprehencable string of technogarble for a game where all I want to do make a character with eye beams.

[DrFurious]

Reducing things to an absolute base would make the system fair, but dry and tastless. A lot of the Powers in the Hero System could be simulated by some other metapower, or set of metapowers, if we really tried, but would we really want that?

Dry and tasteless? I don't see how that follows. It's not really that different from having a generic Energy Blast. I do agree that an EB construct is a good shortcut over a Damage power with range, end, etc modifiers but that is no real reason not to have that underlying structure. You could have a meta-power system with more abstract concepts and then a refined base-powers list defined from that.

I think that such an idea should be considered but for obvious reasons, not for the current incarnation (5th) of the game. IMO, Hero is getting to a point where it is about due for a good cleanup and simplification. With the release of 5th and all the support supplements, it doesn't make good business sense for the company to revise until a (far) future date. I suspect that we'd see a simplification once the tastes of the developer(s) lean toward less crunch. I used to be into the heavy crunch style but much less so nowadays - it seems like a natural progression.

[Dust Raven]

Dry and tasteless? I don't see how that follows. It's not really that different from having a generic Energy Blast. I do agree that an EB construct is a good shortcut over a Damage power with range, end, etc modifiers but that is no real reason not to have that underlying structure. You could have a meta-power system with more abstract concepts and then a refined base-powers list defined from that.
That's basically what's been done. Kinda like with Talents. FF is nothing more than Armor that costs END. Of course, it doesn't work in reverse...

[Old Man]

Oh yeah? so what about Force Wall?

*snicker*

[Dust Raven]

Oh yeah? so what about Force Wall?

*snicker*
Well that's based on the cost for Entangle isn't is ;)?