End to activate FF

[JmOz]

Should not be an option (unless something has changed)

[Simon]

Nothing has changed, and of course it should be an option.

Force Fields cost END by default. "Costs END Only to Activate" is available to any Constant Power which costs END. It's a +1/4 Advantage (vs. a +1/2 for Reduced END: 0 END).

[JmOz]

umm, no...

Please provide page refrence...

It is available as a limitation to any power, but not an advantage, only to those that are listed for it (Shinking & grouth for example IIRC)

[Simon]

It is available as an Advantage -- a modified form of Reduced END -- to any Constant, END-Using Power. Per Steve Long.

[JmOz]

From the FAQ



Q: Can a character apply Only Costs Endurance To Activate on Constant Powers other than Body-Affecting Powers (such as Force Field)?



A: No, but the GM, in his discretion, can allow this if he thinks it’s appropriate and not unbalancing.

[Simon]

Keep reading the FAQ, there's a somewhat contradictory entry in there. I would also point out the caveat that is mentioned in the entry that you cite: the GM can allow it at his discretion (i.e. "with GM approval...").

Again: I have talked to Steve about this. He wants it to work the way that it is.

If you would like to pay me for the programming, I can make a custom character generator for you which follows your rules, but until then, I'm going with what Steve tells me.

[JmOz]

No reason to be snippy:

You have continualy said things akin to "This is what the rules/faq/etc says", so when the FAQ says something different don't you want/expect people to point it out?

[Simon]

I expect you to listen to me when I say that I have talked to Steve about it and he has told me that the way HD is doing things is the way that he wants it.

Steve (and Darren, et al) is the one that determines the rules by which HD operates. Not you.

[JmOz]

Never said differently: HOWEVER WHen:
A) Steve has a written thing (In the book, in the FAQ)
B) You say a contradictory thing and say I've talked to him
I need to go by the hard evidence (The written word)

BTW I found the contridiction, so you are right here

[Simon]

I am not here to debate the rules with you (or anyone). It is neither my job nor my place to do so.

I said that I had talked to Steve about it. That, as far as I am concerned, is the end of the story. The <b>ONLY</b> thing that will change my mind on the matter is Steve telling me that he has reconsidered. I don't care what sources you cite, Steve is the ultimate authority.

In the future, if you want to debate rules or point out inconsistencies, I would suggest you talk to him. You won't get very far by debating them with me.

[JmOz]

Not trying to debate anything, I am pointing out the simple fact that if it is written down that is what people have to go with, that put simply verbal communication is easy to misinterpret.

[Simon]

You seem to have a hard time understanding this. Stubborn, as always.

I go with what Steve tells me. Period.

I'm sorry if this offends your sensitivities.

Once again, if you would like, we can discuss the terms under which I would code for you. Given your past history, it will cost you dearly, as I have little desire to work with you and will need a bit of incentive.

Until then, you're going to have to live with HD the way that Steve Long wants it (since he's the one that signed me on to write it, not you).

Since we have diverged from the topic of this thread and are (once again) retreading very, very old ground, I'm going to shut this thread down.

As a matter of policy from here on out, I will shut your threads down (in this forum) as soon as I feel they have been answered/dealt with. I have no desire to continue to debate things with you.