Value of this limitation?

[Dr. MID-Nite]

I want to create a character who flies and has a linked force field. He only has the force field while he's flying(hovering, whatever). I also want to give him a little armor for the times he isn't flying, but I don't want it to stack with the force field defense. I was thinking that this would be a -1/2 limitation on the armor? Thoughts?

 

Rob

[Vanguard00]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

I'm assuming that the force field is a by-product of his flight (like Cannonball of the X-Men being near-invulnerable while flying).

 

What's the special effect of the armor?

[Magmarock]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

I'm assuming that the force field is a by-product of his flight (like Cannonball of the X-Men being near-invulnerable while flying).

 

What's the special effect of the armor?

 

How about this for the SFX: When not flying, the armor sits on the body, much like anyone elses' armor would, but when in flight, the armor disengages and "pieces out" into bits or particals, which then hover/circle/orbit/etc the PC, thus becomeing a FF instead of armor.

 

This could be just a special effect of a FF which your PC wears all the time. Instead of buying armor & FF and then taking Lims to reduce the cost, just chose one or the other, and pay the full cost. You will save points in only buying one Defense, yet you can still get the super-cool effect of changing from "armor" to FF and back.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Mags

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

Hmmmm...perhaps I wasn't clear. The armor is just going to be a standard combat uniform bought through an OIF. I just don't wasnt it to stack with the flying force field(as it'd be grossly unfair). In conception, the character I have in mind is not unlike Marvel's Cannonball character, but older, German, and with a military background.

 

Rob

[Vanguard00]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

Aah. I thought I might be making it harder than it seemed. There was a recent discussion about something similar and the user created a custom limitation "Does not stack" (-1/2) for defenses. Most of the others seemed to agree it was a practical solution. I'd go with that.

 

Basic construction:

 

Armor [OIF]

Force Field [linked to flight, does not stack]

 

Sound like what you're lookin' for?

 

 

EDIT: On retrospect, this might not work. Under most circumstances the two defenses will still ultimately perform the same job. There really isn't a way to get past the fact that you have two defenses.

 

The concept itself just doesn't lend to me thinking of why a force field would work LESS just because you have a reinforced costume on. I'll ponder it a bit more...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

Hmmmm...perhaps I wasn't clear. The armor is just going to be a standard combat uniform bought through an OIF. I just don't wasnt it to stack with the flying force field(as it'd be grossly unfair). In conception, the character I have in mind is not unlike Marvel's Cannonball character, but older, German, and with a military background.

 

Rob

 

The real problem here is that there's really no need for Armor or Force Field as separate powers. They're both just effects for resistant defenses (some cost END, others don't). Let's assume a 30/30 Force Field flying and 5/5 Armor otherwise. Just buy it as follows:

 

5/5 Armor Variable Limitation -1/4 (-1/2 limit can either be Linked to Flight or OIF Armor) cost 15/1.25 = 12 SFX: suit or force field with which suit doesn't stack, depending on which limit is in play.

 

+25/+25 Force Field (Linked to flight; -1/2) costs 50/1.5 = 33

 

COST: 45

 

Beats buying 30/30 Force Field linked to flight (40 points)

+ 5/5 Armor does not stack (7 points) by a whopping 2 points and captures the mechanics properly with a bit of SFX comprehension.

 

Now if your GM will let you put Does not Stack w/ Armor on the force field, you're saving lots of points, but I'd resruct that to the first 5/5 Force Field to prevent people taking 1/1 Defense and then appkying Does not Stack to their other defenses.

[Southern Cross]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

Interestingly enough,I thought of buying the Armor & Force Field as separate slots in a Multipower,but this is one of those constructs which are actually MORE expensive as Multipowers than if bought as separate powers.

And incidentally,to get the full -1/2 discount,the Active Points of Flight have to be equal or greater than the Active points of the Force Field.In the previous example, the character would have to have 60 Active points of Flight at a bare minimum.

[Snarf]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

I think it would be simplest to just let the armor stack. If that gives too much armor then make the force field weaker.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

I think it would be simplest to just let the armor stack. If that gives too much armor then make the force field weaker.

 

Yes and no - from the concept, the character will sometimes be without his armor, and it sounds like there is a specific high level of DEF the player wants the character to have.

 

I guess you could limit some of the force field, equal to the Armor, to "not if Armor worn". This would simulate non-stacking somewhat, and alleviate the key concern of exceeding a reaonable max defense by combining the two.

 

You pay 2/3 the cost for "Armor OIF", so the force field should cost 1/3 to sum it to total. That's a -2 limit.

[McCoy]

Re: Value of this limitation?

 

I think it would be simplest to just let the armor stack. If that gives too much armor then make the force field weaker.

I can't think of any non-metagaming reason kelvar body armor should stop working because it's inside a force field. Just make the force field weaker. If the force field has to hit an AP limit for an EC or something, put an advantage on it. Make it cover carried objects, or even useable by others no range, or a couple levels of hardening.