Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

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

 

I don't think it's retarded, I know it's retarded. And it's still the same cost mechanic. 2 points of Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense costs 2 points. 2 points of resistant Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense costs 3 points. 2 points of resistant Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense that costs End costs 2 points. It's not quantum physics here. But really, the only reason to buy resistant special defenses is if someone buys an AVLD killing attack.

[tesuji]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Then comes Force Field. All FF is, is Armor with Cost END. That's it. Done. End of story.

 

minor bit.

 

10/10 Force Field = 20 ap, 20 rp, 2 end per phase

10/10 armor = 30 ap, 20 rp, 3 end per phase.

 

with the higher end cost, its not quite so much a case of "That's it. Done. End of story. "

 

By making FF a separate power and recosting its base pts, the inconsistency is created within the system. It didn't have to be, but it was done very very long ago, and so is likely with us for a lot longer to come.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I don't think it's retarded' date=' I know it's retarded. And it's still the same cost mechanic. 2 points of Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense costs 2 points. 2 points of resistant Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense costs 3 points. 2 points of resistant Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense that costs End costs 2 points. It's not quantum physics here. But really, the only reason to buy resistant special defenses is if someone buys an AVLD killing attack.[/quote']

 

2 points of nonresistant flash defense that costs END and is Linked to a force field costs 1 point, to further muddy the waters.

 

I would be inclined to remove any differentiation between resistant and nonresistent mental, power and flash defenses. The only reason for providing for such defenses to be resistant or nonresistant is to allow sleazy constructs like AVLD Killing Attacks to avoid the usual defense anyway. I wouldn't allow an AVLD EB versus Resistant Flash Defense, so why should buying it as a KA allow you to enhance the rarity of the defense? "Because it works for KA vs EB" is no answer - almost every character has some resistant PD and ED. How many characters have resistant Flash Defense?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I can see no cost or functionality difference between damage resistance+pd/ed and armour with or without advantages and limitations. As Hugh Neilson pointed out, the existence of armour is probably a hangover from the days when damage resistance worked differently.

 

There is a difference that has been snuck in though: when using find weakness you need to target resistant pd and armour seperately. That makes no real sense to me, but there you go.

 

Personally I'd get rid of armour entirely as you can do 'armour' with pd+DR and the latter mechanic allows for far more fine tuning.

 

FF and the 'base mechanic' do not line up cost-wise the same, but there are real practical differences. You want to stick FF in a multipower or VPP, and you'll get a lot more than if you use armour: half as much again. Moreover (and I appreciate I'm in a minority of 1 here) if you pay attention to active points, you can get higher defences out of force field.

 

What you shouldn't be doing is modding armour to work like FF only cheaper. One of the meta-rules, and one that makes some sense at that, says that you shouldn't use one power to make another existing power. Mind you even if you do, the END and active points costs should allow sufficient variation to make them reasonably unique.

[sbarron]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

minor bit.

 

10/10 Force Field = 20 ap, 20 rp, 2 end per phase

10/10 armor = 30 ap, 20 rp, 3 end per phase.

 

with the higher end cost, its not quite so much a case of "That's it. Done. End of story. "

 

By making FF a separate power and recosting its base pts, the inconsistency is created within the system. It didn't have to be, but it was done very very long ago, and so is likely with us for a lot longer to come.

Armor doesn't cost END.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Ultimately this all boils down to 'should we have a system with just 6 basic mechanical systems (attack, defence, movement, control, boost and change) and a shed load of limitations and advantages?

 

Maybe, but it ain't never gonna happen.

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

minor bit.

 

10/10 Force Field = 20 ap, 20 rp, 2 end per phase

10/10 armor = 30 ap, 20 rp, 3 end per phase.

 

with the higher end cost, its not quite so much a case of "That's it. Done. End of story. "

 

By making FF a separate power and recosting its base pts, the inconsistency is created within the system. It didn't have to be, but it was done very very long ago, and so is likely with us for a lot longer to come.

 

Yes, but it's supposed to be that way. It basically gives FF characters a (small) benefit to having a power that always costs End. It's like Combat Luck is included as a talent, where 2 levels (6/6) cost 12 points, even though if you actually do the math (with the limitations and all), it costs 13 points. Players are given a small cost break because it's a common limited construct of an existing power.

[tesuji]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Yes' date=' but it's supposed to be that way. It basically gives FF characters a (small) benefit to having a power that always costs End. [/quote']

 

Ok, maybe i am dense but...

 

why is a character with a FF that always costs end supposed to have any advantage over a guy with armor that always costs end?

 

Why is "FF 10/10" supposed to grant an edge over "armor 10/10 -1/2 costs end" again?

Clearly, you see a reason why its supposed to be this way, but whatever this is is not obvious to me. Can you explain further the reasoning behind the "its supposed"?

 

thanks.

[schir1964]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I don't think it's retarded' date=' I know it's retarded. And it's still the same cost mechanic. 2 points of Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense costs 2 points. 2 points of resistant Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense costs 3 points. 2 points of resistant Power Defense/Flash Defense/Mental Defense that costs End costs 2 points. It's not quantum physics here. But really, the only reason to buy resistant special defenses is if someone buys an AVLD killing attack.[/quote']

What are you going on about? If you check the very first post, the point of this thread is not about what should or should not be, but what is.

 

You made a comment about Force Field and Armor being pretty much the same thing, and I just clarified how the two are considered different, per the rules. If you don't like them, great, wonderful, make as many house rules as you like. I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything.

 

I never implied that the PD and ED were different in cost or function, not sure where you got that idea.

 

The cost structures presented so far seem solid for the Core Defense mechanics.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Ok, maybe i am dense but...

 

why is a character with a FF that always costs end supposed to have any advantage over a guy with armor that always costs end?

 

Why is "FF 10/10" supposed to grant an edge over "armor 10/10 -1/2 costs end" again?

Clearly, you see a reason why its supposed to be this way, but whatever this is is not obvious to me. Can you explain further the reasoning behind the "its supposed"?

 

thanks.

 

Because he's picking the power that's closest to his power conception. Force Field is the defense that costs End. Armor is the defense that doesn't. If you try and make Armor into Force Field, you won't get quite as good a version. If you try and make Force Field into Armor, you won't get quite as good a version.

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

What are you going on about? If you check the very first post' date=' the point of this thread is [b']not[/b] about what should or should not be, but what is.

 

What do you not understand?

 

You made a comment about Force Field and Armor being pretty much the same thing, and I just clarified how the two are considered different, per the rules. If you don't like them, great, wonderful, make as many house rules as you like. I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything.

 

I'm stating my opinion on them. Then I'm talking about the cost structure as they exist in the book. If you can't read, that's too bad.

 

I never implied that the PD and ED were different in cost or function, not sure where you got that idea.

 

You may not have implied it, but others have explicitly stated that the costs for Armor differed from PD/ED+Damage Resistance.

 

The cost structures presented so far seem solid for the Core Defense mechanics.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Yes, they are. I disagree with needing damage resistance on special defenses (this is the point where you normally stop reading, Chris), but their cost structure is the same as special defenses plus damage resistance, costs end. That's what some here have had trouble understanding.

[schir1964]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

You may not have implied it' date=' but others have explicitly stated that the costs for Armor differed from PD/ED+Damage Resistance.[/quote']

Which they currently discussing as to what the "missing" piece might be to explain that. Which I am find very useful reading about. I have not made a comment about it one way or another. You've seemed to have jumped to some conclusion about me without knowing for sure and taken exception to something that doesn't exist.

 

Relax, this is not something to get upset about. Based on your responses to me, it seems you are trying demean me or my opinion by attempting to make it appear that I'm ignorant. A failed attempt, but that besides the point. Obviously you misunderstood what I was doing and took an exception to me pointing out some additional rules. I was in no way trying to make you angry or imply that your opinion wasn't valid.

 

Therefore, please accept my humble apology. I wasn't trying to impugn your ideas or opinions. Just adding an additional piece of information. That's all.

 

Yes' date=' they are. I disagree with [i']needing[/i] damage resistance on special defenses (this is the point where you normally stop reading, Chris), but their cost structure is the same as special defenses plus damage resistance, costs end. That's what some here have had trouble understanding.

Yes, and that is why I'm continuing to read. I'm finding the discussion about the missing piece very useful.

 

Yet how does change the fact that, per the rules, Armor and Force Field have a different utility? It doesn't. And that's why I posted that additional piece of information about the rules. I thought it should be considered, that's all.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Silbeg]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

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.

 

DR, I agree with you fully, and this is how I always saw it.

 

Another reason that the three differ is how they interact with exotic (NND/AVLD) attacks.

 

Thus, a Taser (EB NND vs Force Field) is stopped by the FF, because the shocking attack never touches the skin of the target, so never conducts to the target.

 

The Martial Maneuver, Nerve Strike (NND) is typically stopped by (rigid) Armor covering the critical locations.

 

Personally, I prefer these sorts of NNDs instead of the vs. rPD type (though it could be argued that this discounts Armor, since it is techincally not Resistent PD, but Armor)... but that is my preference

[Silbeg]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

You may be able to say that about Armor' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Also a quite valid point. in addition, since you didn't mention it, neither of the others allow the "Protects Carried Objects" adder, which also makes FF's unique.

 

Also, one must note that it is less effecient to put the exotic defenses in a FF than buying them straight out, since the cost is the same, and they inherit the Costs Endurance that Force Fields already have. However, this really comes down to character concept. If it is the polarized force field that grants the Hero Flash DEF, then it probably belongs inthe force field.

[schir1964]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Also a quite valid point. in addition' date=' since you didn't mention it, neither of the others allow the "Protects Carried Objects" adder, which also makes FF's unique. [/quote']

I had forgotten about that. Thank you for pointing that out. 5th Edition has changed things so there are more subtle differences between Force Field and Armor that is easily overlooked.

 

Now to add something else, and this is strictly my opinion and can be ignored at will.

 

I take the position that a power that is not "Visible" as defined per the rules, does not imply that the power is "Invisible" as defined per the rules (under END Costing Powers section).

 

Therefore, Armor is not "Invisible", but visible, usually to the Sight group. If someone wanted their Armor to be truly invisible, then they would need Invisible Power Effects, based on the SFX of the Armor in question.

 

There's been other threads that have exhausted the meaning of this, so I won't do that here. Just thought I'd throw it out for cogitation.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Because he's picking the power that's closest to his power conception. Force Field is the defense that costs End. Armor is the defense that doesn't. If you try and make Armor into Force Field' date=' you won't get quite as good a version. If you try and make Force Field into Armor, you won't get quite as good a version.[/quote']

 

Uhh, if i were to build a colossus-type i would first want to build him with ARMOR costs end" as its not a force field by any means but also is not IIRC or maybe just in my concept a persistent thing.

 

Really tho, "def that costs end" is not a concept, its just a mechanic and you cannot really make generalizations about how close a power cost mechanic is to any concept.

 

What if armor is actually "closer to my concept" but i buy it as "force field", should i somehow lose the "supposed to gain benefit"?

 

 

Summary: Whether FF or Armor with end is closer to the concept or not is up for grabs depending on what the concept is. Reagrdless of which is closer to concept, the FF guy gets this edge in end cost.

 

Why again is he supposed to be getting that edge?

 

More to the point, if the armor is the best fit for the concept, why does he get a slight shaft for choosing the best fit? Why is he supposed to get the cut?

[tesuji]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

If it is the polarized force field that grants the Hero Flash DEF, then it probably belongs inthe force field.

 

You know, until they added tese as part of force field, myself and maybe others thought "it should be" or "probably belongs" as something like...

 

Mental Defense X pts -1/2 (costs end) -X (linked to FF) where X was often as low as -0 and rarely as high as -1/2.

 

This was just the same kind of build as if we bought "life support" such as say "immune to radiation" and "immune to pressure vac" and "immune to heat/cold" and all the "could very reasonably be a part of force field" other things like lack of weakness and the like.

 

before the new wording, it was all very simple and consistent... tieing things that normally don't cost end to your force field worked the same way for all those little obvious things you would want to tie in.

 

Now, we have a couple of things that get tossed in one way and everything else still gets tossed in the old way.

 

6 pts of flash defense and 6 pts of life support normally cost the same. But, when both are tossed "into" my force field, upping end cost, they cost different now, assuming the linked is worth anything.

 

But, hey, this is probably another "supposed to be an advantage" thing snuck in.

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Uhh, if i were to build a colossus-type i would first want to build him with ARMOR costs end" as its not a force field by any means but also is not IIRC or maybe just in my concept a persistent thing.

 

Really tho, "def that costs end" is not a concept, its just a mechanic and you cannot really make generalizations about how close a power cost mechanic is to any concept.

 

What if armor is actually "closer to my concept" but i buy it as "force field", should i somehow lose the "supposed to gain benefit"?

 

Armor doesn't mean shiny metal plates. Armor is a power that can have any special effect you want. You can have Armor that's defined as a guy who is too dumb to take damage. Armor can be a force field that never shuts off. Armor is PD and ED that has Damage Resistance and does not cost End. Force Field is defense that costs End.

 

Summary: Whether FF or Armor with end is closer to the concept or not is up for grabs depending on what the concept is. Reagrdless of which is closer to concept, the FF guy gets this edge in end cost.

 

The Armor guy gets the edge in End cost. Armor does not cost End. Force Field does. Armor has a higher active point cost because it is Persistent. Force Field has a lower active point cost because it is not Persistent and costs End.

 

Why again is he supposed to be getting that edge?

 

Armor is defense that does not cost End. Force Field costs End.

 

More to the point, if the armor is the best fit for the concept, why does he get a slight shaft for choosing the best fit? Why is he supposed to get the cut?

 

Okay, I'll explain again.

 

 

The Powers (note capitalization refers to the game mechanic Powers, not the sfx of a super-power) Armor and Force Field are game mechanics. Armor is a Power that does not cost End. Force Field is a Power that costs End. The superpowers of armored skin and a personal force shield are special effects often given to Armor and Force Field. Colossus has armored skin. I can build this either as Armor (or PD and ED, plus Damage Resistance), or as a Force Field. If it's Armor, then he'll always have those defenses up. If it's a Force Field, then when he's stunned or knocked unconscious, the protection will drop. It will also cost Endurance to maintain. I can define either one as looking like armored skin or as looking like a glowing energy field. Neither is any more "correct" special effect-wise. Pick the one you want for the game mechanics you're seeking.

 

Force Field makes a better Force Field than does Armor. That's because Armor is a different Power than Force Field. Armor is intended to be Persistent. Force Field is not. Thus, Armor has a base higher active point cost than does Force Field. Hence, you're screwing yourself if you buy Armor as costs End. Just buy Force Field. Make the special effects whatever you want.

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

I take the position that a power that is not "Visible" as defined per the rules, does not imply that the power is "Invisible" as defined per the rules (under END Costing Powers section).

 

Therefore, Armor is not "Invisible", but visible, usually to the Sight group. If someone wanted their Armor to be truly invisible, then they would need Invisible Power Effects, based on the SFX of the Armor in question.

 

Why?

[schir1964]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Why?

As I said in the previous post, there's been other threads that have exhausted the meaning of this, including the why. To try to explain why here would seriously derail the original intent of this thread. Feel free to find those threads and read them.

 

However, I'll put quick example of logic behind doing this, but I won't respond to any critiques of this, since it is my opinion and it won't change a thing even if I did respond.

 

Example 1:

SFX: Magic ray gun in holster, can't be taken away or broken. (Doesn't really matter, since there are numerous SFX that could have these qualities.)

Power: EB (Magic Ray Gun)

This power costs endurance and is "Visible" when used (it's an instant power). However, it suddenly doesn't become "Invisible" when not in use. Even if the Gun were put away back at the base, it still would not be "Invisible".

 

Example 2:

SFX: The Torch - Flames propel the torch through the sky.

Power: Flight (Flames)

This power costs endurance and is "Visible" when used (it's a constant power).

However, it suddenly doesn't become "Invisible" when he's not flying, Flames are still there. However, when he changes Id's....

 

Example 3:

SFX: Iron Skin: Martial artist can make his skin repel bullets due to a mutation in his skin.

Power: Armor (Iron Skin)

This power costs no endurance and is "Not Visible", even when used, but is not "Invisible" since his skin can be seen repelling bullets, and his mutation is detectable with appropriate equipment, even when not being used. But since this would only be two Sense Groups, the power is still considered "Not Visible".

 

End of discussion.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

As I said in the previous post' date=' there's been other threads that have exhausted the meaning of this, including the why. To try to explain why here would seriously derail the original intent of this thread. Feel free to find those threads and read them.[/quote']

 

That's too much work.

 

However, I'll put quick example of logic behind doing this, but I won't respond to any critiques of this, since it is my opinion and it won't change a thing even if I did respond.

 

Fine. But I'm gonna respond anyways.

 

Example 1:

SFX: Magic ray gun in holster, can't be taken away or broken. (Doesn't really matter, since there are numerous SFX that could have these qualities.)

Power: EB (Magic Ray Gun)

This power costs endurance and is "Visible" when used (it's an instant power). However, it suddenly doesn't become "Invisible" when not in use. Even if the Gun were put away back at the base, it still would not be "Invisible".

 

Okay. I think it's just sfx, but hey, there you go.

 

Example 2:

SFX: The Torch - Flames propel the torch through the sky.

Power: Flight (Flames)

This power costs endurance and is "Visible" when used (it's a constant power).

However, it suddenly doesn't become "Invisible" when he's not flying, Flames are still there. However, when he changes Id's....

 

Well, I think that's probably his damage shield, but hey, there you go.

 

Example 3:

SFX: Iron Skin: Martial artist can make his skin repel bullets due to a mutation in his skin.

Power: Armor (Iron Skin)

This power costs no endurance and is "Not Visible", even when used, but is not "Invisible" since his skin can be seen repelling bullets, and his mutation is detectable with appropriate equipment, even when not being used. But since this would only be two Sense Groups, the power is still considered "Not Visible".

 

Again, I think that's just the sfx. I don't think all Armor is automagically visible.

 

End of discussion.

 

It's not a discussion if only one person talks. 'Cause I'm not married. Women have "discussions" where they talk forever and you have to pretend to pay attention.

[Gary]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

One often overlooked advantage of FF over Armor (other than the fact that it's easier to place FF in a EC) is that it's significantly cheaper to harden a FF than Armor. 50% cheaper in fact.

 

So you can have 10/10 Armor for 30 pts, or 10/10 FF 1/2 End Hardened for the same price. The armor may still be better overall, but it's not as obvious.

[tesuji]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Ok believe it or not, I know how powers work and such. Repeating ad infinitum the rules doesn't gain you any points.

 

Force Field makes a better Force Field than does Armor. That's because Armor is a different Power than Force Field. Armor is intended to be Persistent. Force Field is not. Thus, Armor has a base higher active point cost than does Force Field. Hence, you're screwing yourself if you buy Armor as costs End. Just buy Force Field. Make the special effects whatever you want.

 

You still have not answered the question. let me see if this rephrase works better to get you to see the question.

 

In a game where cost and effectiveness are supposed to go hand in hand, why is it that forece field is "supposed to" give you and edge over armor at all? Why is it that armor is "supposed to" give you an edge over force field at all?

 

Why is it "the way things are supposed to be" that "10/10 resistant PD/ED that costs end to maintain" will have two different sets of specs depending on whether i started with armor or started with force field?

 

you keep saying it is "supposed to" be this way, but why?

 

At what point did "cost hand in hand with effectiveness" get thrown aside in favor of "you should get a bonus if you start with a power with this name instead of another power with some other name"?

 

Did I miss a memo?

[Guest C--]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Ok believe it or not, I know how powers work and such. Repeating ad infinitum the rules doesn't gain you any points.

 

 

 

You still have not answered the question. let me see if this rephrase works better to get you to see the question.

 

In a game where cost and effectiveness are supposed to go hand in hand, why is it that forece field is "supposed to" give you and edge over armor at all? Why is it that armor is "supposed to" give you an edge over force field at all?

 

Because one is better suited to a specific use than another. It depends how you want your powers to work. Buying a power the "hard" way will be less beneficial.

 

Why is it "the way things are supposed to be" that "10/10 resistant PD/ED that costs end to maintain" will have two different sets of specs depending on whether i started with armor or started with force field?

 

Because one is designed for characters who want to spend End to get that defense, and one is designed for characters who don't want to spend End.

 

you keep saying it is "supposed to" be this way, but why?

 

Because the game designers wanted to give players versatility.

 

At what point did "cost hand in hand with effectiveness" get thrown aside in favor of "you should get a bonus if you start with a power with this name instead of another power with some other name"?

 

Did I miss a memo?

 

Yes, you missed a memo.

 

Cost goes hand in hand with effectiveness. However, if you build your character poorly, you aren't going to be effective. I've seen people waste gobs of points on crappy designs. Pick the power that does what you want. Don't retro-engineer some other power.

 

Ex:

Energy Blast vs Ego Attack.

EB is 5 points per D6, while Ego Attack is 10 points per D6.

Based on ECV is a +1. Now you've got an Ego Attack, but everyone can see it. Invisible is a +3/4 (since it will still be visible to Mental). That'll give you a 13 (or so) points per D6 approximation of an Ego Attack. But it's cheaper to go with Ego Attack because you're not trying to backdoor your way into the power. If you want a power that does a certain thing, buy that power. Don't try to get fancy and do it some backwards way.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

 

Don't know about anyone else but this whole argument says to me that we do need a simpler more coherent structure for defence costs.

 

Sean is right the logical extreme is that we have six basic mechanical effects with shed loads of advantages and limitations but I think there is a happy place somewhere between here and there.

 

Having basic defence costs based on 1pt per point of defence and other things added to that seems sensible to me. It doesn't seem sensible that differnent pre-costed packages cost more or less than each other.

 

In fact, I curse the man who informed me of the disparities - I was happy in my ignorance!

 

 

Doc