Stacking force walls

[Sean Waters]

Force walls bug me: you can acticate more than one, but they can't stack? They have DEF but no BODY yet they are supposed to be like real walls?

 

Here's a fix I thought of whilst walking the dog this evening - not playtested, the dog is rubbish at role playing.

 

Force Wall, rules amendments:

 

You can only have one force wall active at once, unless you buy the advantage 'stacking' (aka multiple activation). For a +1/2 you can activate 2 walls at once and, if you place one behind the other, they stack. Force Walls are considered partialy indirct - you can activate one THROUGH another. Each +1/2 doubles the number of walls you can erect. You can still only put one up per phase unless you also buy the advantage 'autofire' (which CAN be applied even thoug FW is not technically an attack power).

 

Thus, for example, you could have a 12/12 FW for 60 points (12/12 against a single hit) , or 2 x 8/8 FWs (16/16 against a single hit) or 8 x 6/6 FWs (48/48 against a single hit) or 32 x 4/4 FWs (128/128 against a single hit)...I'd be inclined to reign over enthusiastic players in there, if not before....

 

What do you think?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I think the biggest problem with allowing 1 character to have the ability to create multiple Force Walls that stack no matter how you cost it is that the character will now have the ability to create 2 (or MORE) layers of defense that opponent(s) have to break each and every layer in 1 phase in order to inflict damage. Otherwise you can always recreate at least 1 new layer of defense on your next phase.

 

Give that ability to a character with an Indirect attack and he might NEVER take damage in a combat.

 

HM

[austenandrews]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Doesn't Entangle already do the same thing?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I don't have 5ER, so I don't know if it specifically forbids stacking of Force Walls. If so, this is rather more stringent than the ruling in the old rules FAQ:

 

Q: Since Force Wall is a Constant Power, could a character establish multiple concentric Force Walls to protect himself (or someone else)?

 

A: Subject to the GM’s discretion, yes — though in some cases (like forming a Force Wall dome or bubble around someone) the Force Wall has to be big enough to keep establishing larger and larger walls. Since this could obviously unbalance the game pretty quickly, the GM should control or forbid it as he sees fit. If the power is constructed to prevent significant abuse (e.g., each Force Wall costs a lot of END, or requires a lot of Extra Time to create), it’s a lot less of a potential problem than if the character has a 0 END Force Wall he can create as a regular Action.

 

The ruling was already cautionary as far as allowing this, so perhaps Steve decided to be more definitive in 5ER?

 

For my part I'm not sure I would want to limit a character to having only one Force Wall active at a time, with or without an Advantage, seeing as this is contrary to the way other Constant Powers function. Keeping the Force Walls from stacking seems reasonable to me, but allowing a character to set up multiple Force Walls on successive Phases - at different locations, or adjoining ones to cover a larger area or form a globe - also seems like a reasonable use of a Constant Power.

 

OTOH I have toyed with the idea of requiring Constant Powers to take a 5-point Doubling Adder, like other such Adders, for successive uses of the same Power; e.g. 5 points for two successive uses, 10 points for four, etc. It might help reign in some of the potential abuses of powers like Force Wall or Suppress. This is much like your Advantage suggestion, Sean, but IMHO an Advantage would be more expensive in most cases than this capacity warrants.

 

I've also considered harmonizing Extra Limbs with this construct by turning it into an Adder for Strength, and allowing successive uses of Strength in much the same manner as above. IMO some of the Limitations on Strength allowed for with Extra Limbs would make more sense if the EL were added directly to the cost of STR. You could still keep the current cost and construction for Extra Limbs just by making it a Naked Adder.

 

I haven't had much opportunity to test this in play, other than with a creature in a fantasy game with TK defined as multiple tentacles. I used the Adder approach to define the number of tentacles, i.e. the number of uses of TK it could keep going simultaneously. That wasn't enough exposure to draw any conclusions from, though.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

 

Multiple Force Walls

 

Although Force Wall is a Constant Power, a character cannot use it multiple times to provide himself with multiple protection - with concentric circle (assuming the force wall is long enough) or rows of Force Walls, for excample - unless the GM specifically permits him to.

 

Then goes on for a bit explaining what the GM should require the player to do if he chooses to allow it, such as taking multiple actions, paying multiple END costs, requiring enough inches of FW and requiring the forcewall to be Indirect if you don't set things up right.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

The trouble with the way it is at the moment is the lack of definition. I mean I can see the situation where, even though the player is not deliberately setting up multiple force walls, a shot is aimed that passes through two or more. It just makes no sense that you hcan have the protection of multiple force walls only if you get it accidentally.

 

Moreover the ability to create multiples negates, to an extent, the need to buy large force walls - a dome made of a dozen force walls in 'panes' is better in many ways than a single dome - it needs 12 hits to take it down completely.

 

Making the charcter pay for is as an adder or advantage means everyone knows where they stand.

 

The problem with an adder is I don't think it costs enough: doublings rapidly make the total DEF of a wall extremely high. To take a 60 point FW (12/12) you could have 2 at 11/11, 4 at 10/10, 8 at 9/9 and so on...

 

Entangle does not do the same thing - it can be used to make barriers but not as an ersatz personal force wall: I'd consider 'Entangle (does not entangle)' to be pushing it too far.

 

Hyper Man points out that FW can become invulnerable quickly: well impenetrable to a single shot, yes, but I don't mind too much, so long as you keep an eye on it. You might rule, for instance that creating a second or subsequent FW is a half phase action, which should limit the abuse somewhat, and weaker FWs can easily take enough damage for two or more to go down at once, thus meaning the defencder will always be fighting a losing battle...

 

The other multiple FW control might be doubling the cost of 0 END to +1, much like autofire cost doubles for more advantageous powers. 0 END is the real danger here - potentially allowing thousands of FWs to be created for little effort....OTOH it should not be too bad if you enforce active points limits - even at +1/2 for 0 END (and using an advantage for mulltiple walls), instead of a 12/12 FW, for the same points you would get 2x 6/6, or 8x4/4 - much more reasonable!

[OddHat]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I wouldn't let a character throw up unlimited force walls in a single phase any more than I'd let him fire unlimited energy blasts. At most, I might let him try a Rapid Fire maneuver to throw up two force walls at once, at a -2 to hit for each and paying full end cost (if any) each time. If this would take him past the defense limits of the campaign, I wouldn't allow it.

 

0 End Autofire force walls could be a problem, but then so could 0 End Autofire Ego Attacks. There are some power builds that are not appropriate for some campaign; this is the same kind of call we make all the time.

 

Entangle: Only To Form Barriers may be a better way of handling this. For some special effects, dropping Force Wall entirely in favor of Entangle might be best.

 

I guess I see this more as a campaign style problem than a rule mechanics problem.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Not that I have thought this out thoroughly, but perhaps the problem with stackable forcewalls (and TKs from another thread) is really how constant powers are handled. Force Field is a constant power, but I wouldn't allow characters to stack those, why allow stackable Force Walls? I don't think I am thrilled with the idea of multiple Suppress powers by one character either; sure it may be self-limiting from an END and PHA standpoint, but I think it tends to invite abuse, or at least constructs that are cumbersome and difficult to analyze as to the potential effect.

 

I think if the player wants multiple Forcewalls I would allow them to separate a single forcewall into two weaker ones (you can have one 10/10 wall or two 5/5 walls or whatever). A similar construct could be done for other constant powers. This especially makes sense (to me) if you are using a Multipower; your Forcewall slot is already in use, you couldn't then switch to an Energy Blast without dropping the Forcewall, why should you be able to set up another Forcewall?

 

Granted this would change the mechanics of constant powers, but I think it would make them easier to handle. So what do you think, is the problem Force Wall or just how constant powers are handled?

 

______________________________________________________________

"Nobody must know my name, for nobody would understand, and you kill what you fear, and you fear what you don't understand." - The Guide Vocal from The Duke's Travels

[Edsel]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I don't have 5ER' date=' so I don't know if it specifically forbids stacking of Force Walls.[/quote']

It does, 5ER page 180, first paragraph.

However it also states that perhaps specific exceptions could be granted by the GM. Frankly I can think of no case in which I would allow it so I consider this to be a non-issue.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

My biggest problem with this is not the stacking aspect pre se but the fact that you suggest that putting one 10 DEF Force wall next to a second one and achieve a 20 DEF force wall. How does increasing the number of force walls increase the DEF of the wall? I'd have thought that the stacking might add some BODY to the wall. So rather than the wall go down on the DEF being overcome it simply loses some BODY.

 

What if the stacking added 2 BODY to the Force wall per stacked wall? That way you could begin building up your force wall.

 

My question would be how much END would you spend for each wall and would you have to continue paying that as the layers were blown away?

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

The problem to my mind is that if you are ALLOWED to have two walls up at once there will be someine of fire that passes through both, so it may rarely be as issue but it is a logical inconsistancy.

 

Doc Democracy makes a good point: should FW be purchaseable with a BODY component?

 

Of you are going to change how constant powers work, that may well have some cost implications across the board.

 

Stacked FWs DO NOT, and I'm not suggesting they should add DEF, they are seperate walls that an attack would have to penetrate. What I am suggesting is that if you pay points then you should be able to stack - paying for utility.

 

Entangle can not create a personal englobing FW that moves with you - and entangle can not be turned off when you want to and....it just works completely differently.

[OddHat]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Doc Democracy makes a good point: should FW be purchaseable with a BODY component?

 

Like Entangle, only to create Barriers?

 

Entangle can not create a personal englobing FW that moves with you -

 

Mobile and Personal Immunity maybe?

 

and entangle can not be turned off when you want to and

 

Handcuffs are an Entangle, and you can turn them off any time you want to.

 

....it just works completely differently.

 

Maybe that's a problem?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

The trouble with the way it is at the moment is the lack of definition. I mean I can see the situation where' date=' even though the player is not deliberately setting up multiple force walls, a shot is aimed that passes through two or more. It just makes no sense that you hcan have the protection of multiple force walls only if you get it accidentally.[/quote']

 

Well, considering that for a person to gain the direct defensive benefits of two or more Forcewalls they would have to be in a line between the character with the Forcewall Power, and another who was aiming directly at the first character, IMO the chances of this happening accidentally are so slim as to not justify changing the rules to accomodate the possibility. Now it is possible that a shot not aiming at the character might pass through more than one Force Wall by accident, if you're using the optional Missed And Random Shots rules. Even in that rare case, though, while the player with the Force Wall loses that protection generally until he can set the Force Wall up next Phase, he isn't damaged by the attack since it wasn't aimed at him. Again, I can't see this happening often enough to justify the extra effort and expense of changing the rules.

 

 

Moreover the ability to create multiples negates' date=' to an extent, the need to buy large force walls - a dome made of a dozen force walls in 'panes' is better in many ways than a single dome - it needs 12 hits to take it down completely.[/quote']

 

 

Except that you would need multiple attack Actions to create a large FW out of adjacent smaller ones, which is time-consuming and therefore tough to pull off during combat, especially if your attackers are able to generate enough damage to knock down each FW as soon as you raise it. Of course there are options which allow you to raise multiple FW faster, such as the Rapid Fire Maneuver - which suggests limiting the number of shots per Phase to two or three, and is an optional Maneuver anyway - or allowing the FW to be bought with Autofire, which is expensive enough to be a fair purchase, especially if the character wants Reduced Endurance for it.

 

Also, while a domed multi-section FW would need 12 hits to bring down completely, one successful hit will still leave a one-hex hole for anyone to shoot through until it can be plugged again. IMHO the benefits of allowing this don't outweigh the drawbacks, although I do support an Adder or Advantage to regulate the number of successive uses.

 

 

Making the charcter pay for is as an adder or advantage means everyone knows where they stand.

 

The problem with an adder is I don't think it costs enough: doublings rapidly make the total DEF of a wall extremely high. To take a 60 point FW (12/12) you could have 2 at 11/11, 4 at 10/10, 8 at 9/9 and so on...

 

I really do think that stacking Force Walls as a deliberate tactic is reasonable to ban, and again, the chance of it happening by accident is too small to worry about.

 

Of course I have to stick a big IMHO and YMMV in front of all that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Couple of points, addressed tot he assemble at large....:

 

1. You can't stack force fields.

 

2. I never understood why entangle made barriers, except that spiderman used to do it a lot. Should be a seperate power or incorporated into FW IMO. Seems like an anachronism now.

 

3. The question of stacking force walls would not arise if the rules were clear, and it is easy to be clear on this one. I'm simply suggesting that the base state of the power is (should be) that you can only have ONE FW active at a time unless you pay more points to have ore than one active. What's wrong with that?

[OddHat]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

2. I never understood why entangle made barriers, except that spiderman used to do it a lot.

 

Special effects issue. If you entange someone by putting them in a block of X DEF X Body material, it's intuitive that you could just drop a block of the material and then hide behind it.

 

Should be a seperate power or incorporated into FW IMO.

I agree that FW and Entangle should probably be one power.

 

3. The question of stacking force walls would not arise if the rules were clear, and it is easy to be clear on this one. I'm simply suggesting that the base state of the power is (should be) that you can only have ONE FW active at a time unless you pay more points to have ore than one active. What's wrong with that?

 

I thought you came here for an argument?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I thought you came here for an argument?

 

Yes, but only the 5 minute one: I'm going to bed

[caris]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

My biggest problem with this is not the stacking aspect pre se but the fact that you suggest that putting one 10 DEF Force wall next to a second one and achieve a 20 DEF force wall. How does increasing the number of force walls increase the DEF of the wall? I'd have thought that the stacking might add some BODY to the wall. So rather than the wall go down on the DEF being overcome it simply loses some BODY.

 

What if the stacking added 2 BODY to the Force wall per stacked wall? That way you could begin building up your force wall.

 

My question would be how much END would you spend for each wall and would you have to continue paying that as the layers were blown away?

 

 

Doc

 

I think that this would require a serious reconsideration of the breaking things rules, particularly in how they apply to walls.

 

What you are describing is similar how multiple uses of Entangle would work if you targeted the exact same location every time or if you were to make a wall thicker. It doesn't cover what happens when you place an additional Entangle or wall of the same material some distance behind the first wall. So the question would be, why couldn't I have a second Force Wall X distance from the first that would act like a second Entangle or a second steel door would?

[CBikle]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Your suggestion makes sense, but I think it'd lead to game-imbalance.

 

The idea of giving Force Walls body is interesting, but I'm not necessarily sure it fixes anything.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I thought of a place I would allow the stacking of Force Walls to decent effect: Sci Fi Space Ship Shields, each FW represents a level of shield defence. As they drop you're lost x% of your shields, thus leading to the whole "Shields at 50%!" statment as you're being pounded by the alien mothership.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

I thought of a place I would allow the stacking of Force Walls to decent effect: Sci Fi Space Ship Shields' date=' each FW represents a level of shield defence. As they drop you're lost x% of your shields, thus leading to the whole "Shields at 50%!" statment as you're being pounded by the alien mothership.[/quote']

 

That is usually accomplished with Ablative Force Wall.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Usually yes.

 

But it is a concept I would allow into a game as an alternative to Ablative, which I've never liked to begin with.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

But ablative does not work that way - it gives reducing activation rolls - or the rather difficult to apply '-5 points' option. Stacked walls seems much cleaner.

 

I can also see it with mystical defences tht may take some time to set up then get worn down in battle by attacks.

 

SO:

 

1. should we be considering the possibilities of stacking walls, and

2. what should it cost?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Under certain circumstances, yes they should be able to stack.

 

It should not cost anything - even per the Rules As Is it's allowable just with GM Permission and a warning of watching it for abuse (reference Steve's answer in the Steve Forum).

 

I would that in order to do it they must be "erected properly" and built specifically to work in succession:

 

The outmost wall must be built to fit around the inner walls, going down concetrically. I would, for a SH Ship Shields concept, go with an equal Active Point Leveling system, or close at least without getting out of hand on inner walls. The outermost wall (edge of the shields) are the weakest but also the largest. Thus it's easier to penetrate outer shields, and gets successively harder to penetrate lower shields. I'd also not let them be put up inside out but outside in, you can't raise shields beyond the current outermost shield placed up (I would disallow Indirect on FW bring used for this purpose, and this purpose alone).

 

Continuing with the Ship's Shields as the a battle wears on the outershields may be breached, but cannot re-erected without taking down all the shields. Specifically for this purpose I would add that raising a shield would constitute a half phase action thus a ship could not "reset" it's shields every phase.

 

I see enough give and take to effectively neutralize any advantage or limitations imposed and work it as Concept.

 

I'll leave other applications to other people. I like the mystical defences example from Sean as well. Would work well for a Wizard Duel.

[braincraft]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Why is it a problem to spend 100 points on two 10 DEF Forcewalls stacked one after the other, and not to spend that same 100 points on a single 20 DEF Forcewall?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Stacking force walls

 

Why is it a problem to spend 100 points on two 10 DEF Forcewalls stacked one after the other' date=' and not to spend that same 100 points on a single 20 DEF Forcewall?[/quote']

 

I don't think your example is what everyone is referring to as "stacking".

 

I think the issue is with taking one instance of Forcewall, say 10PD /10ED with enougn extra width to potentially allow it to curve into a giant "U" where the character is "stacking" both ends of the "U" between himself and an attacker.

U

Considering that it only takes an extra 5" of width to fully englobe a group of hexes imagine having an effective 20PD /20ED Forcewall facing 1 direction for 60-80 Active points if "stacking" of this manner were to be allowed in the rules.

 

HM