Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Using a "Uses END" Limitation as you suggested earlier -- an alternate way to have the Power cost END -- is skirting the rules' date=' 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 [i']Invisible Power Effects[/i] if he wants the Power to use END.

I just disagree. The fact that the power now costs endurance every phase seems to more then justify a -1/2 limitation by itself. Making the power visible [-1/4] and non-persistent [-1/4] makes cost end too limiting for its value, IMO.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I just disagree. The fact that the power now costs endurance every phase seems to more then justify a -1/2 limitation by itself. Making the power visible [-1/4] and non-persistent [-1/4] makes cost end too limiting for its value' date=' IMO.[/quote']

 

Well, we'll never know why they wrote the book that way -- Steve won't answer design philosophy questions. Why do you thnk that, by the way? Don't you think they wrote thye rules that way (after all, they specifically mentioned Armor) for a reason? I'm only asking you since we'll never hear from Steve, and I'm really curious.

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Well' date=' we'll never know why they wrote the book that way -- Steve won't answer design philosophy questions. Why do you thnk that, by the way? Don't you think they wrote thye rules that way (after all, they specifically mentioned Armor) for a reason? I'm only asking you since we'll never hear from Steve, and I'm really curious.[/quote']

You need to remember that most of the Hero rules are 24 years old. There have been new things added to the rules but the core rules themselved have undergone little change over those years. Costs end is listed at -1/2 because it was always listed at that value. George M and Steve P assigned value to the limitations based on the rules at each point in time. When cost end was created there was no non-persistent and visible limitation. Part of Steve L's design philosophy was to change as little as possible but there are really a great many things which do not make proper numerical sense.

 

As for the example, I don't believe Steve gave any thought about choosing armor over life support. He just used an example. Just as a point of reference, Nighthawk's costume, in Champions, is called an invisible force field but it was purchased as armor.

[Lanith]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

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?

 

If I remember correctly the Armor power isn't invisible by default. It doesn't cost you endurance and you don't have a bright blue glow about you, but that doesn't mean it's invisible.

To my reading it sounds more like you're trying to purchase extra defenses (call it armor, call it a FF, call it extra PD/ED; it's just extra defenses) that cost endurance. The problem is that the way Hero has defined the "Costs Endurance" disadvantage is that this automatically makes a power "visible".

I know that in 4e, it was explained that you could purchase a power with Charges to simulate Endurance costs. ie: "I can only do this for about 30 seconds a day. It's just that strenuous."

You might try looking into Continuing Charges, that might work within the rules enough to make your power, and still give you enough flexability.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I never liked the required dependency between Costs End and being visible. The reverse certainly isn't true: a Power bought with Reduced End Cost: 0 End doesn't become invisible; you have to buy that seperately! So I allow a Power that is normally Invisible and costs 0 End to appy both Costs End and Visible if this is the case, and I don't make a Power visible automatically if it has Costs End.

 

Of course, I do a number of other freakish things, like allowing Charges an extra -1/2 for Powers that normally cost 0 End and allowing a Costs 1/2 End Limitation for -1/4. So I'm wierd.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the visibility/invisibility of powers is a completely different issue for attack powers and non-attack powers. IPE is expensive, and rightly so, for attack powers - your target doesn't know where the attack is coming from - tactically very useful. But what is the advantage to IPE on a non-attack power such as FF? Does your opponent think he's hurting you when he really isn't? If so, that's maybe worth +1/4 at the most. But that doesn't seem to be what the concept being descibed here is.

 

I'd like to see the flipside of the standard limitation rule actually printed in the rulebook: An Advantage that doesn't provide an advantage shouldn't cost any points. That appears to be what's going on in this case. Just because there's no shiny, sparkly colors when Plasticine Man hardens his skin, doesn't mean that he's getting the tactical advantage implied by IPE, and therefore, it shouldn't cost extra.

 

In conclusion: Just buy it like a regular Force Field - no Advantage, no Limitation.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

If I remember correctly the Armor power isn't invisible by default. It doesn't cost you endurance and you don't have a bright blue glow about you' date=' but that doesn't mean it's invisible.[/quote']

 

Actually Armor is specifically not Visible and can take the Visible Limitation.

 

The Power is misnamed. It should be called Damage Mitigation or some other SFX-neutral term.

 

 

 

A common source of the confusion: most people take Armor thru a Focus, and the Focus is visible.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

You need to remember that most of the Hero rules are 24 years old. There have been new things added to the rules but the core rules themselved have undergone little change over those years. Costs end is listed at -1/2 because it was always listed at that value. George M and Steve P assigned value to the limitations based on the rules at each point in time. When cost end was created there was no non-persistent and visible limitation. Part of Steve L's design philosophy was to change as little as possible but there are really a great many things which do not make proper numerical sense.

 

As for the example, I don't believe Steve gave any thought about choosing armor over life support. He just used an example. Just as a point of reference, Nighthawk's costume, in Champions, is called an invisible force field but it was purchased as armor.

 

 

True. In my opinion FF and Armor should be combined into a single Damage Mitigation Power with options that allow either configuration. This has been discussed in previous threads.

[Lanith]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Good call, KS! Now that I thought back on it I've always used "Armor" as a focus. I think the name of the power gets stuck in my head and I always mentally see a physical object.

 

But, isn't the cost to buy increased PD/ED and Damage Resistance the same as Armor? I'll have to check my math. (This is getting too confusing for me, I'll think it over again when I get some sleep.)

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

True. In my opinion FF and Armor should be combined into a single Damage Mitigation Power with options that allow either configuration. This has been discussed in previous threads.

Yep, here were my thoughts on it last year:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=487048&postcount=7

[MitchellS]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the visibility/invisibility of powers is a completely different issue for attack powers and non-attack powers. IPE is expensive, and rightly so, for attack powers - your target doesn't know where the attack is coming from - tactically very useful. But what is the advantage to IPE on a non-attack power such as FF? Does your opponent think he's hurting you when he really isn't? If so, that's maybe worth +1/4 at the most. But that doesn't seem to be what the concept being descibed here is.

 

I'd like to see the flipside of the standard limitation rule actually printed in the rulebook: An Advantage that doesn't provide an advantage shouldn't cost any points. That appears to be what's going on in this case. Just because there's no shiny, sparkly colors when Plasticine Man hardens his skin, doesn't mean that he's getting the tactical advantage implied by IPE, and therefore, it shouldn't cost extra.

 

In conclusion: Just buy it like a regular Force Field - no Advantage, no Limitation.

Our house rule for IPE is: +1/4, one sense. +1/2 all senses. We just don't find IPE to be as useful as you do.

[Just Joe]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Now' date=' 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.[/quote']Interesting. I had either forgotten this or failed to notice it in the first place.

 

Any attempt to get around this fact is rules-skirting -- which is fine if that's what you want to do' date=' but Steve obviously had Armor in mind specifically when he wrote (or edited) that paragraph.[/quote']This is not particularly important to me. I don't want to tinker much, but I still care more about the general principles behind the rules than I do about each specific rule. I'm not rules-skirting to gain an unfair advantage; I'm doing it to achieve fairness.

 

The further discussion by others has also been interesting, though I'm satisfied with my earlier decision as to how to handle the situation.

[JmOz]

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

 

Our house rule for IPE is: +1/4' date=' one sense. +1/2 all senses. We just don't find IPE to be as useful as you do.[/quote']

 

I like this, but feel that for a attack power it is too cheap. So I would suggest that this is the starting point, and x2 for attacks, or even the current system...