Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

[RDU Neil]

I'm just throwing it out there to see if I'm interpreting it correctly. This isn't a "should" or "shoud not" discussion... but trying to figure out "what is."

 

Defenses:

 

The core mechanic (ignoring Mental Defense or Power Defense)

- 1 Normal PD or 1 Normal ED for 1 Active point... right?

 

- Also, it is INHERENTLY PERSISTANT

 

Making Normal Def into Resistant Defense- effectively a +1/2 Advantage on the Normal PD and ED... but in reality, a kind of adder, or secondary defense... 1 Active point gets you 2 points of Resistant Defense

 

- what is odd is that this changes the Game State of the original defenses (like an Advantage would) but is then treated like a separate form of Defense for purposes of adding other advantages like Hardened (you have to buy Hardened for both the Normal and Resistant defenses, if they are PD/ED and rPD/rED. This last bit is very weird and non-intuitive, IMO... but I think that is how it works.)

 

Armor- Armor is therefore, conceptually... 1PD/1ED, with built in resistance... so you are getting the 2 for 3 points AS A SINGLE POWER. Which means if you buy Hardened on your Armor, you don't have to buy it for the both the Normal PD and resPD of the armor... that is automatic. (Very intuitive, but suddenly playing by different rules than the core mechanic.) There is no cost for Persistant, because it is inherent in the core mechanic.

-What seems to be missing is a cost BREAK for the fact that Armor is visible... or at least should be, IMO. You want a Superman like brick who looks "normal" but can bounce bullets, that is PD/ED with Damage Resistance. You want Colossus... you are using Armor, because it is pretty obvious he has metal skin. So if built in "Visible" was part of the cost... overall, Armor should cost 4 Def for 5 active points... hardwired +1/2 for resistant and hardwired +1/4 for Visible.

-I guess you could say that, for the regular 2 for 3 cost, you do have resistant and visible, but you then get the unnamed advantage of "single Power" for the purposes of adding advantages like Hardened... so it balances out. Perhaps 2 for 3 is the right cost of Armor.

 

Force Field

- So starting with the core 1 for 1 Persistent mechanic... FF gets the -1/4 Non-persistant, then -1/2 Costs END built in. (Costing END means it is visible automatically, that is part of that limitation.) So then is needs to have a built in +1/2 Advantage of resistant (like Armor, but unlike Damage Reistance at the core again) and the unnamed advantage of "treated like a single power for purposes of Advantages."

 

- So, for me, this means at best that FF should cost 4 Def for 3 active points... but with the "unnamed advantage" hard wired in (which seems to, by default, be a +1/4 advantage), then FF perhaps does cost correctly at 1 for 1

 

 

 

Now... I know some folks who go buy literal rules interpretation, not SFX in concept, so for them, there is no default "visible" for armor... I've just never seen it that way, as the word "armor" conjures up a variety of visual sfx (scaley skin, iron skin, a suit of armor, etc.) and without visible, Armor is undercosted compared to Damage Resistance on PD/ED, and doesn't differentiate from rPD/rED in any mechanical way.

 

That aside... is there anything I'm missing in the core mechanical functionality of these defenses. (Again, I'm ignoring exotic defeneses, especially the bizarre 5th ED business of allowing FF to have exotic defenses built in... since that only FURTHER compounds the "unnamed advantage" since all of them are by nature, resistant AND a single instance of Hardened covers them all, both normal and resistant.)

 

I'm trying to figure out if there is any core mechanic going on in the background of Armor and Force Field that I'm missing.

 

Appreciate any feedback.

[MitchellS]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I don't have time to read or respond to all of this right now. I will later. I just wanted to say that armor isn't always visible. Armor is invisible and must take the visible limitation if you can see it. Colossus, for example, have the visible limitation on his armor to reflect that you can see his skin is not normal.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I don't have time to read or respond to all of this right now. I will later. I just wanted to say that armor isn't always visible. Armor is invisible and must take the visible limitation if you can see it. Colossus' date=' for example, have the visible limitation on his armor to reflect that you can see his skin is not normal.[/quote']

 

 

I know that is what the rules say, but that is just not intuitive to me... nor have I ever played that way.

 

Also... if you take out a built in -1/4 Visible on armor (which, I agree, the rules do)... then Armor is undercosted because there is nothing to balance the "unnamed advantage" of being all one power, and it is inherently better than Damage Resistance on PD & ED. If that is the rules, fine... (I think it is rather stupid, but that's me) ... but it goes to my question...

 

What are the inherent "builds" of the three main defenses...

 

PD/ED

Damage Resistance

Armor

Force Field

 

Why do they cost what they do? Are they the correct costs for balance purposes? What are the background mechanics built into Armor & Force Field that differentiate them?

 

PD/Ed - core mechanic, inherently Persistent

Damage Resistance - an odd mechanic that should be an Advantage, but is some kind of odd adder

Armor - PD/ED with Damage Resistance built in, plus... ?

Force Field - PD/ED with Damage Resistance, Non-persistent and Cost END built in, plus... ?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Ahh... I know what I'm forgetting...

 

Inherent

 

PD/ED are not just Persistant... they are Inherent. You can't turn them on or off... and buy definition I would think that Damage Resistance, which is an adder to PD/ED would also be Inherent by default. You have the superskin that can't be penetrated by a needle, even if that would be a good thing!

 

Armor and FF are NOT inherently Inherent... except that this is a different KIND of Inherent.

 

By the rules, the advantage of Inherent is an increase in cost, because it makes the power/characteristic "Drain/Transfer" proof... so Characteristics, which can be Drained... are not really Inherent... but they are inherent.

 

So... you can't turn your PD off... but it can be drained. You can not use your STR at full value, but you can't turn your STR off.

 

So charcateristics, once again, play by very different rules that Powers... and since Defensive Powers seem to be created from a core rule based on a Charcateristic, we are really in a mess of confusion.

 

Hmmmm... good to know that we are really getting into some core dysfunctional areas of the game.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

You're really reaching here, Neil. Tear anything far enough down and it'll look ugly. I'm not all that interested in what's under the "skin" of my "Hero System" sausage as long as it tastes good with sauerkraut.

 

PD and ED are not Inherent, they are "Figured." They are not Powers; they are Characteristics. Characteristics are NOT technically Powers, although some Powers may be Characteristics and I suppose it might be legal to modify some Characteristics with Advantages.

 

BTW, Damage Resistance is its own Power, although I suppose it might have made more sense as a Modifier of some type. The Adder-like method seems adequate, if uninspired.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

1. PD and ED are not inherent. They can be drained. So can every stat. Inherent is something that can never be drained or suppressed, and there's very few in-game examples of that.

 

2. The inconsistency is not defenses. It is the default END rules. A power which does not cost END by default is, by default, invisible and persistent. If I place "Costs END" on such a power, for -1/2, it picks up Visible and Nonpersistent for no extra savings. However, if I bought my armor Visible and Nonpersistent (which is basically Colossus, isn't it?) I would also get a -1/2 limitation and not have to spend END.

 

3. It gets better, though, because Visible and IPE are variant costed. If I want to build Armor's effects with a Force Field, I must make the Force Field 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), IPE (+1) so it now costs 3 points per 1 DEF, twice the cost of the Armor which would have done the same thing.

 

Does that "help"?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

One other element you might consider is that basic PD and ED are Figured, so in making them Resistant you are getting a certain number of points to start with derived from your base Characteristics. With Armor you're paying for all the PD/ED and Resistant up front.

[Vondy]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

There are three things that will turn your stomach if you see how they are made: laws, sausages, and game mechanics.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

You're really reaching here, Neil. Tear anything far enough down and it'll look ugly. I'm not all that interested in what's under the "skin" of my "Hero System" sausage as long as it tastes good with sauerkraut.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for this position. It really doesn't bother me that certain constructs are not balanced against each other with mathematical precision, as long as they're roughly comparable.

 

As tesuji is fond of pointing out, the absolute utility of certain Powers/ Skills/ Advantages etc. will vary depending on the ground rules of a given campaign. I'm content with a rules framework that will keep all these elements within the balance ballpark in most circumstances.

[Wanderer]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

3. It gets better' date=' though, because Visible and IPE are variant costed. If I want to build Armor's effects with a Force Field, I must make the Force Field 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), IPE (+1) so it now costs 3 points per 1 DEF, twice the cost of the Armor which would have done the same thing.[/quote']

 

I agree with most of your observations, except to remark that for FF, the situation is slightly better than you put it: to be the functional equivalent of Armor, FF needs 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), and IPE, SFX Only (Fully Invisible) (+1/2): you don't need to hide the source of the power (for defense powers, it is obvious anyway that *something* in the character repelled the blow), just to make the field disguised to senses (it doesn't glow, hum, or register to normal energy sensors, like a normal FF). Such a FF may be used in a Secret Identity, just like Armor or Damage Reduction.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

1. PD and ED are not inherent. They can be drained. So can every stat. Inherent is something that can never be drained or suppressed, and there's very few in-game examples of that.

 

2. The inconsistency is not defenses. It is the default END rules. A power which does not cost END by default is, by default, invisible and persistent. If I place "Costs END" on such a power, for -1/2, it picks up Visible and Nonpersistent for no extra savings. However, if I bought my armor Visible and Nonpersistent (which is basically Colossus, isn't it?) I would also get a -1/2 limitation and not have to spend END.

 

3. It gets better, though, because Visible and IPE are variant costed. If I want to build Armor's effects with a Force Field, I must make the Force Field 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), IPE (+1) so it now costs 3 points per 1 DEF, twice the cost of the Armor which would have done the same thing.

 

Does that "help"?

 

Actually, this is exactly what I was looking for in some ways. Where is the inconsistency? It's not that I'm trying to necessarily fix things... just trying to determine at what point they get "ugly" as Trebuchet points out.

 

The fact that the problem comes with the Costs Endurance default rules is a good point. (The other one being, what does "Figured" really mean, other than how you derive them. How does "Figured" affect the game state... if at all? That question has never been answered, AFAIK.)

 

So yes, I know Characteristics are not Inherent (capital I), but they are inherent (lower case i) because they are part of the character's natural being. I understand that Characteristics play by different rules than Powers... the question is "why" and what exactly are those rules? (A different thread is needed for that one.)

 

So... your No. 3 example up there is just evidence that Armor and Force Field are not really core mechanics... they are Powers built off of another core mechanic (let's call it Defense) which really goes unnamed. PD/ED (the characteritics) aside

 

DEF is a 1 active point for 1 non-resistant pt of Def.

Def then needs to be defines as

 

• vs. Physical
  
• vs. Energy
  
• vs. Mental
  
• Power
  
• Flash
  
• ?? something I'm forgetting ??
  

 

What other defining elements exist for this implied, but not defined Def Core Mechanic?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

This is interesting if only because the existence of PD/ED etc as well as FF and ARMOUR does seem to go against a basic HERO toolkit principle of having one core effect from which everything else is built.

 

If we were to have a true toolkit there would only be PD/ED with a slew of advantages and limitations from which everything else could be derived.

 

Could everyone live with that? Would take away any worries about whether the three core defence types were balanced relative to each other...

 

 

Doc

[RDU Neil]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

This is interesting if only because the existence of PD/ED etc as well as FF and ARMOUR does seem to go against a basic HERO toolkit principle of having one core effect from which everything else is built.

 

If we were to have a true toolkit there would only be PD/ED with a slew of advantages and limitations from which everything else could be derived.

 

Could everyone live with that? Would take away any worries about whether the three core defence types were balanced relative to each other...

 

 

Doc

 

 

Thank you for putting it much more succinctly than my random brain dump.

 

I've always assumed that there WAS a core mechanic of PD/ED or just "Defense" at the heart of it all... assumed that FF, Armor and stats were all derived from this core mechanic... and only recently come to realize that I was wrong. There was no core mechanic. Each is a Power in and of itself. Rougly balanced within the scheme of things, but not built off a core single mechanic.

 

Duh for me... but this is really critical for some thoughts I'm having about the system, and I was just tring to clarify. As example, I would have never even CONCEIVED of trying to build Force Field from Armor, as I figured they were already the SAME THING, just a core mechanic with different limitations and advantages already built in. The fact that they are not... that they are unique Powers with unique game state effects (very similar, but unique) is rather revelatory for me.

 

To my mind, yes, I'd like to see a core "Defense" mechanic from which Force Field and Armor were built. I doubt very much they would change much in real cost or game effect... just be more unified.

 

I think what is interesting is that Hero System claims to be a toolkit, advocating alterations and tweaks within guidelines... and so it begs these deconstructionist processes... yet very often breaks down in these processes.

 

This is the dichotomy frustration that I think fuels so many discussions on this board.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Actually, I think armor is a holdover from the very earliest versions of the system, when Damage Resistance was purchased as 15 points (half your PD and ED are resistant) or 30 points (all your PD/ED is resistant). Armor costed out at, IIRC, 5 points for 3 PD or ED, but was resistant. Force Field was pretty much as it is now.

 

Armor was needed, at that time, for characters who did not have the innate ability to bounce bullets, but would have a bit of resistant defenses. In later editions, with Damage Resistance shifted to 1/2 the defenses made resistant, Armor seemed to stick around out of habit, not out of need.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I've examined things like you guys have but I can't seem to find any inconsistancies. What I have found that if you start to take apart, it eventually breaks. The Hero System is no different

 

The rules for DEF are consistant with the other rules in the system. DEF effectively costs 1 character point per point of DEF, and comes in several varieties (physical, energy, mental, flash [per sense group], power). You can make any DEF resistant at the cost of one character point per 2 points of rDEF. Thus you have the basic costs for the PD and ED Characteristics, Armor, Flash Defense, Mental Defense and Power Defense as well as Damage Resistance, which turns any nonresistant defense resistant.

 

Then comes Force Field. All FF is, is Armor with Cost END. That's it. Done. End of story. How do you turn FF into Armor? You can't. Don't try. It's like trying to turn a tree into an acorn... just isn't gonna happen. FF comes from Armor, not the other way around. Personally, I have to problem with this and wonder why some people do.

 

P.S.: For purposes of post consistancy, I won't go into EB vs Drain and Ego Attack at this time.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I've examined things like you guys have but I can't seem to find any inconsistancies. What I have found that if you start to take apart, it eventually breaks. The Hero System is no different

 

The rules for DEF are consistant with the other rules in the system. DEF effectively costs 1 character point per point of DEF, and comes in several varieties (physical, energy, mental, flash [per sense group], power). You can make any DEF resistant at the cost of one character point per 2 points of rDEF. Thus you have the basic costs for the PD and ED Characteristics, Armor, Flash Defense, Mental Defense and Power Defense as well as Damage Resistance, which turns any nonresistant defense resistant.

 

Then comes Force Field. All FF is, is Armor with Cost END. That's it. Done. End of story. How do you turn FF into Armor? You can't. Don't try. It's like trying to turn a tree into an acorn... just isn't gonna happen. FF comes from Armor, not the other way around. Personally, I have to problem with this and wonder why some people do.

 

P.S.: For purposes of post consistancy, I won't go into EB vs Drain and Ego Attack at this time.

I do like to go into the reasoning behind costs and rules, and try to ponder some lower-leveled meta-system, but I won't claim it is an easy task, or even one that I care to achieve in the near future. Right now I simply want a game that is playable and simple. These are my top priorities at this point in time, and I'd really like to see Hero simplified a bit (mostly in terms of all the complications, exceptions, and seemingly conflictory rulings/changes that have come about; I'm okay for now with differences between Characteristics and Powers, Normal and Killing Attacks, etc.).

 

I have always had a problem with the discrepency between Armor and Force Field. It is also not one of those that I can gloss over easily, because every time I try to build a Power that works somewhere in between (like costing End but being invisible, or being visible but costing no End), there comes the stupid decision once again of which Power to begin with. I must plead guilty to usually basing my decision on whether or not the Power Costs End or not, as this is the simplist and most distinguishing difference. Besides, I feel better about applying Visible to Armor than applying Costs 0 End and "Non-Persistent" to FF (is "Non-Persistent" technically a Limitation now? I forget. It wasn't before, although I've certainly used it, at the same value as the Persistent Advantage).

 

I may have a problem with it, whether functional or conceptual, but would I really like to see Armor made more expensive, or Force Field less expensive (not to mention other defenses)? Err...not sure of that one. Some things just feel right cost-wise, you know? Conceptual builds need to be honed with play-testing, and either re-justified conceptually or just changed (that's how Armor and FF feel, whatever their history; like one was just changed for being a ridiculous cost for a desired build). Where's the balance? Where's the dividing line? Not sure. Go away.

 

P.S. - Another interestng question that I don't particularly want to think about might be why all defenses seem to stack with each other, but offensive powers do not. Maybe we can just say defenses should be cheaper and easier to obtain, and wave the question aside. (Please?)

 

P.P.S. - Okay. Now to sit back and wait for Zornwil to create a thread about the building blocks of defenses, and the qualities of Powers that stack or don't stack....

 

P.P.P.S. - Yeah, DR. I run into the same questions when building something somewhere between EB and Ego Attack, too. Grr....

[Dust Raven]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I do like to go into the reasoning behind costs and rules' date=' and try to ponder some lower-leveled meta-system, but I won't claim it is an easy task, or even one that I care to achieve in the near future. Right now I simply want a game that is [i']playable and simple[/i]. These are my top priorities at this point in time, and I'd really like to see Hero simplified a bit (mostly in terms of all the complications, exceptions, and seemingly conflictory rulings/changes that have come about; I'm okay for now with differences between Characteristics and Powers, Normal and Killing Attacks, etc.).

 

I have always had a problem with the discrepency between Armor and Force Field. It is also not one of those that I can gloss over easily, because every time I try to build a Power that works somewhere in between (like costing End but being invisible, or being visible but costing no End), there comes the stupid decision once again of which Power to begin with. I must plead guilty to usually basing my decision on whether or not the Power Costs End or not, as this is the simplist and most distinguishing difference. Besides, I feel better about applying Visible to Armor than applying Costs 0 End and "Non-Persistent" to FF (is "Non-Persistent" technically a Limitation now? I forget. It wasn't before, although I've certainly used it, at the same value as the Persistent Advantage).

 

I may have a problem with it, whether functional or conceptual, but would I really like to see Armor made more expensive, or Force Field less expensive (not to mention other defenses)? Err...not sure of that one. Some things just feel right cost-wise, you know? Conceptual builds need to be honed with play-testing, and either re-justified conceptually or just changed (that's how Armor and FF feel, whatever their history; like one was just changed for being a ridiculous cost for a desired build). Where's the balance? Where's the dividing line? Not sure. Go away.

I love delving into the mechanics and the meta-game as well, but I do think there is a point where everything breaks down. Like I said, if you take something apart, it will break. There are no exceptions. Some things can be put back together, while some cannot though.

 

If there is an inconstancy, it's in the Modifiers. Why do we have both Non Persistant and Costs END? The answer is fairly obvious, but the values they have don't mesh with each other. We need them for certain affects though and can't do without them. So if you want non persistant Defenses that don't cost END, you can either buy Armor Non Persistant, or FF 0 END. They both function identically mechanicly (or can, technically Armor is invisible, but to take a Limitation it has to be visible to three sense groups and what can it be visible to other than Sight and Touch?), but one costs more than the other. The answer in my opinion is to simply grant the more expensive one some additional benifits that can't be accounted for any other way. For the FF vs Armor, I typically have many more NNDs that are blocked by FF than Armor, so those extra points spend on FF aren't wasted, because they do provide extra defense the Armor doesn't.

 

P.S. - Another interestng question that I don't particularly want to think about might be why all defenses seem to stack with each other, but offensive powers do not. Maybe we can just say defenses should be cheaper and easier to obtain, and wave the question aside. (Please?)

 

P.P.S. - Okay. Now to sit back and wait for Zornwil to create a thread about the building blocks of defenses, and the qualities of Powers that stack or don't stack....

Movement also stacks. Attacks probably don't stack because things like defense should be cheeper/morepowerful than attacks. This is backed up in actual game play.

P.P.P.S. - Yeah, DR. I run into the same questions when building something somewhere between EB and Ego Attack, too. Grr....

I started a thread on the EB/BOECV/Ego Attack subject back during 4th edition, and again once 5th edition was released and didn't "fix" the "problem". I still don't have an anser to it, other that you can eventually get a "better" attack with EB BOECV than an Ego Attack when you start adding in other Advantages (like AE or Autofire). In the end it's probably balanced, but only the GM can tell you one way or another.

[zornwil]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

This is interesting if only because the existence of PD/ED etc as well as FF and ARMOUR does seem to go against a basic HERO toolkit principle of having one core effect from which everything else is built.

 

If we were to have a true toolkit there would only be PD/ED with a slew of advantages and limitations from which everything else could be derived.

 

Could everyone live with that? Would take away any worries about whether the three core defence types were balanced relative to each other...

 

 

Doc

I think the problem is that they do arise from a core mechanic implicitly, along with, as Hugh is keen to note, the derivation of Damage Resistance was also heavily modded, increasing fudginess.

 

Because it's not explicit, it is hard to determine if the values came about as a deliberate choice to be inconsistent or as an "accidental" choice (which does not invalidate the decision but lays traps for us in attempting to analyze).

 

Just to be a real pain about it and repeat myself, again, from a level of applying further change to the system, it would be important to understand these things as best we can, and an analysis could be done to at least get as far as possible with whoever's in charge of HERO at such a time dictating their views as a starting point. I agree that RPG design is both art and science, what bothers me is that we seem unwilling or incapable of drawing that line even when we know it's there (i.e., decisions based on aesthetics or playtesting against "scientific" numbers evidence is never explicated but it should be for these reasons, not just in HERO but in other systems).

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Armor and FF are just two different options for buying resistant PD and ED. That's it. 1/1 Armor costs 3 points. 1/1 PD/ED res costs 3 points. 1/1 Force Field is the same cost as Armor or PD and ED with DR, with a "costs End" limitation on it. It fits into Power Frameworks easier that way, too.

 

Don't try and turn Power X into Power Y. I've always said that the rule in the Hero System should not be "the more expensive way is the correct way", but "the way with the fewest Advantages/Limitations is the correct way." Energy Blast won't turn into Ego Attack because the Advantages and Limitations are not designed to be mirror images. "Costs End" takes away more than "0 End" gives you. That's because players are presumed to be intelligent enough to take the power closest to what they want and modify that. If you want a steak, buy a steak. Don't buy a hamburger and then complain because you can't un-grind the beef.

[schir1964]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Armor and FF are just two different options for buying resistant PD and ED. That's it. 1/1 Armor costs 3 points. 1/1 PD/ED res costs 3 points. 1/1 Force Field is the same cost as Armor or PD and ED with DR' date=' with a "costs End" limitation on it. It fits into Power Frameworks easier that way, too...[/quote']

You may be able to say that about Armor, but not Force Field, at least, not any more since you can now buy Force Field with Mental Defense, Flash Defense, an d Power Defense. Armor only allows Physical and Energy Defense. So the basic utility of each has been further differentiated with the advent of 5th Edition.

 

Just A Note

 

- Christopher Mullins

[braincraft]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Colossus doesn't have Visible Armor.

 

He has Distinctive Features in his heroic identity and OIHID on all of his powers.

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

You may be able to say that about Armor, but not Force Field, at least, not any more since you can now buy Force Field with Mental Defense, Flash Defense, an d Power Defense. Armor only allows Physical and Energy Defense. So the basic utility of each has been further differentiated with the advent of 5th Edition.

 

Just A Note

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Yes, but that's retarded. We've got a standing house rule in our games that you don't have to buy Flash Defense, Power Defense, and Mental Defense as resistant. So there's no reason to buy it in a Force Field.

 

I know that 5th Ed allows it, but even then it's just "resistant special defense, costs end", so the core mechanic remains the same.

[casualplayer]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Are there Gms out there letting people buy Flashes and Drains with the Does Body advantage or something? Why the heck would you ever need resistant Flash or Power Defense? This smells of cheese, or more likely a defense created against the smell of cheese.

[stan da ork]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Resistant Mental Defense is pretty much only needed to stop an EGO Attack (Does BODY). Resistant Power or Flash Defenses are likewise helpful when attacked with an AVLD (Does BODY) that targets them. And C--'s breakdown works for all defenses, since all defenses cost 1 per 1 nonresistant point, and all defenses can be made resistant with DR at a cost of 1 per 2 points of resistant defense.

[schir1964]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Yes, but that's retarded. We've got a standing house rule in our games that you don't have to buy Flash Defense, Power Defense, and Mental Defense as resistant. So there's no reason to buy it in a Force Field.

 

I know that 5th Ed allows it, but even then it's just "resistant special defense, costs end", so the core mechanic remains the same.

Whether you think it is retarded or not doesn't change the fact that it is part of the standard rules and that it adds to the differentiation between Force Field and Armor.

 

Now if you were talking about "just" PD and ED, then you really don't need either Armor or Force Field, since you have "Damage Resistance" and all the advantages and limitations necessary to create them anyway.

 

Just Additional Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins