Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

[Just Joe]

I first came up with the idea for a "plastic man" type character. He can make the surface of his body hard and dense, but must keep his muscles very tense to do so. The result is resistent defenses that are invisible and cost END. My first thought was armor with the "costs END" limitation. But that means it's visible. Buying it invisible ends up being more expensive than the base armor which is invisible and costs no END. The obvious alternative, an invisible FF, has the same kind of problem.

 

As GM, I can just rule that "costs END", does not imply "visible" in this case. But am I missing another solution.

 

More generally, why does "costs END" usually imply "visible"? And given that it does, why is it worth only a measily -1/2 when the corresponding advantage is +1?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

The character is visibly tensing and presumably not moving normally. If you touch him his skin feels taut. While using the power he detects as an Inorganic substance.

 

There's your detectable to three senses SFX.

 

My work is done here.....

[Just Joe]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

The character is visibly tensing and presumably not moving normally. If you touch him his skin feels taut. While using the power he detects as an Inorganic substance.

 

There's your detectable to three senses SFX.

 

My work is done here.....

As I conceive of the power, only the second of those three is true. So invisible is a +3/4 advantage.

 

Besides, there's still a more general problem.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

As I conceive of the power, only the second of those three is true. So invisible is a +3/4 advantage.

 

Besides, there's still a more general problem.

 

Ok, then instead put it on a Fuel Charge.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

LOL!

 

Well, that actually works! And its a bit less wonky than a side effect...

[Just Joe]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I'll look up details of side effects and fuel charges sometime in the next 24 hrs or so. My guess is that I'm not going to be satisfied. My current suspicion is that we're dealing with a bad rule here.

[McCoy]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I can't imagine he's at full DCV while tensing like that, So I would call it Armor with the Concentration limitation.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Or you could just take "Costs END Only To Activate" and state that it's only visible he's turning on the Armor when he Activates it/spend END on it.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

It's not a bad rule, per se... you just don't want to pay the full cost for a Constant Power with Invisible Power effects. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the system; the point of the Invisibility/ Noninvisibility of Power SFX is that, with Visible SFX, an enemy can discern, to some degree, what the power does, where it is coming from, and what it looks like. If the enemy has no clue (i.e., can't see any muscles tauten, and doesn't detect as an Inorganic substance)... if the enemy is at more of a loss as to the nature of the Comstant Power, you need to buy the Invisibility Advanatge for your Power. It should cost more to give your enemy less information about your Power -- to keep him in the dark, so to speak.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

It's not a bad rule' date=' [i']per se[/i]... you just don't want to pay the full cost for a Constant Power with Invisible Power effects. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the system; the point of the Invisibility/ Noninvisibility of Power SFX is that, with Visible SFX, an enemy can discern, to some degree, what the power does, where it is coming from, and what it looks like. If the enemy has no clue (i.e., can't see any muscles tauten, and doesn't detect as an Inorganic substance)... if the enemy is at more of a loss as to the nature of the Comstant Power, you need to buy the Invisibility Advanatge for your Power. It should cost more to give your enemy less information about your Power -- to keep him in the dark, so to speak.

 

It should not cost more to have a power that is strictly less useful than an existing power.

 

Personally, I'd just make up a custom -1/4 limitation and be done with it.

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I would just buy the armor as non-persistent [meaning he must be conscious and non-stunned to use it] and leave it at that.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I would just buy the armor as non-persistent [meaning he must be conscious and non-stunned to use it] and leave it at that.

This would be my own suggestion.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I would just buy the armor as non-persistent [meaning he must be conscious and non-stunned to use it] and leave it at that.

 

While I agree this is a viable solution from a character efficiency perspective, I think the original question remains valid. Let's assume the power grants 10/10 resistant defenses. If he takes fully persistent armor, which costs no END and is not visible, it costs 30 points. If he makes this non-persistent, it costs (I think) 24 points (a -1/4 limitation).

 

But, if he makles it cost END every phase (which means it is more limited, in my opinion, solely because END must be spent), he has to make it invisible (+3/4 advantage based on the concept he envisions) and it now costs 35 points, more than even the unlimited version of the power. [same cost for a force field, BTW]

 

The most limited concept should, reasonably, cost the least points, but here the player can save points by making his character more effective.

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

The most limited concept should' date=' reasonably, cost the least points, but here the player can save points by making his character more effective.[/quote']

Which is why I suggested the non-persistent.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Which is why I suggested the non-persistent.

 

Costs END is both non-persistent and costs END (DUH!), and as such is more limited, but also higher cost because of the visibility issue. Non-persistent is a fine gamist solution, but does not fit the concept of a power which is physically taxing (ie costs END).

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Costs END is both non-persistent and costs END (DUH!)' date=' and as such is more limited, but also higher cost because of the visibility issue. Non-persistent is a fine gamist solution, but does not fit the concept of a power which is physically taxing (ie costs END).[/quote']

Side Effect: Uses 15 end per turn of use: -1/2.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Side Effect: Uses 15 end per turn of use: -1/2.

 

That's the approach I would most likely use (well, use 3 END per phase of use, but same thing basically), but why should it be necessary to resort to Side Effect to make a power cost END, when Costs END is already a limitation.

 

Part of the problem is that limitations like Visible and Nonpersistent are already inherent in Costs END. Why not make your Armnor Visible (-1/4), Nonpersistent (-1/4) and have the -1/2 Side Effect such that you get a -1 limitation for all the same effects Costs END would have had at -1/2?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

That's the approach I would most likely use (well, use 3 END per phase of use, but same thing basically), but why should it be necessary to resort to Side Effect to make a power cost END, when Costs END is already a limitation.

 

Part of the problem is that limitations like Visible and Nonpersistent are already inherent in Costs END. Why not make your Armnor Visible (-1/4), Nonpersistent (-1/4) and have the -1/2 Side Effect such that you get a -1 limitation for all the same effects Costs END would have had at -1/2?

 

I agree entirely. One of the foibles of the HERO system was in deciding that some advantage/limitations were not mutual in point cost. Take the ranged/no range combo or the Zero END/Costs END combo, both are costed at 1/2, but Continuous (Constant)/Nonpersistant are +1 vs -1/4. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

But Costs END gives up too much utility for the cost break. Making it a -1 or -3/4 would be better. My vote would be for -1. Alternately, forbid taking Armor with these limitations since it is essentially crafting an inferior force field and go with the axiom:

 

"If it is defense that costs END then it is force field, if the defense does not cost END it is Armor."

 

Hawksmoor

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

That's the approach I would most likely use (well, use 3 END per phase of use, but same thing basically), but why should it be necessary to resort to Side Effect to make a power cost END, when Costs END is already a limitation.

 

Part of the problem is that limitations like Visible and Nonpersistent are already inherent in Costs END. Why not make your Armnor Visible (-1/4), Nonpersistent (-1/4) and have the -1/2 Side Effect such that you get a -1 limitation for all the same effects Costs END would have had at -1/2?

The problem all lies in the fact that not all limitations [or advantages for that matter] are created equal. I think it would be stupid to buy the power costs end and then invisible [as you said, you're paying more for a limited power then an unlimited one] to achieve the effect. Powers which are more limited then base powers should cost less [or at least not cost any more by using a -0 limitation].

 

I would use the non-persistent and side effect [even if I reduced the side effect to -1/4 to not make it a greater limitation value then costs end]. At some point in time DOJ is really going to need to look at advantage and limitation values and make them all more consistant, IMO [probably for a 6E].

[Just Joe]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I'm gratified that some of you agree with me that there is a problem. Some of your suggestions are useful ways of getting around that problem, but require me to change my conception of the power. I don't think I should have to do that.

But Costs END gives up too much utility for the cost break. Making it a -1 or -3/4 would be better. My vote would be for -1.

I think something like this is what the system needs, but since I've been trying to minimize my tinkering lately (because I find it's generally more trouble than it's worth), I'm just going to rule that in this case and in others where it seems appropriate, the "costs END" limitation will not automatically imply the "visible" lim. If I were a player rather than the GM, I would try for that or for WhammeWhamme's -1/4 to play it safe.

 

Alternately, forbid taking Armor with these limitations since it is essentially crafting an inferior force field and go with the axiom:

 

"If it is defense that costs END then it is force field, if the defense does not cost END it is Armor."

This would still leave the problem that the invisible FF would be inferior to armor in one way (costs END), superior in no ways, and cost more points.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

If a character has a Power that inherently costs no END (such as Armor) and he applies the "Costs Endurance" Limitation to it, it automatically becomes perceivable by three Sense Groups.

 

Now, they specifically use Armor as an example of a Persistent Power that, when it has the "Costs Endurance" Limitation applied to it, gains Visible Power Effects. Any attempt to get around this fact is rules-skirting -- which is fine if that's what you want to do, but Steve obviously had Armor in mind specifically when he wrote (or edited) that paragraph.

 

I think the assumption is that expending END almost always causes some sort of "ruckus," or signature. If you want to buy the Power with the Nonpersistent Limitation, cool, but the rules are pretty clear that if a Power costs END, or if you buy it to cost END, it has three Visible Power Effects unless you purchase "Invisible Power Effects."

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Yes, which is why I wouldn't buy it with costs end.

[Shike019]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Wouldn't this work??

 

Damage Resistance (10 PD/10 ED) (10 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2)

 

(I'm still a little new at HERO system)

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Wouldn't this work??

 

Damage Resistance (10 PD/10 ED) (10 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2)

 

(I'm still a little new at HERO system)

The problem isn't your choice of powers. The problem is in the rules itself. When you put the Costs Endurance limitation on a power it automatically becomes visible. So your damage resistance can be. The problem is there should be a way to need to pay endurance but not lose the invisibility of the power if the player so wished. Perhaps a -1/4 costs end limitation, or even a -0 would do the trick.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Yes' date=' which is why I wouldn't buy it with costs end. [/quote']

 

Using a "Uses END" Limitation as you suggested earlier -- an alternate way to have the Power cost END -- is skirting the rules, then. Even with that, I say it should still have visible Power effects. As always, the GM can do what he wants, but I say he has to pay for Invisible Power Effects if he wants the Power to use END.