Force Wall Modification

[zornwil]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Did you just sum up 5th Edition as being "more customizable; less useful!" ?

 

I think you just identified my fundamental unease with the current incarnation of Hero like a bolt of greased lightning.

 

Von "wonders how lightning can be greased" D-Man

You'll be getting a cease-and-desist from Keith Curtis...

 

(PS - or should I say Keith "don't take my schtick" Curtis...)

[Vondy]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

You'll be getting a cease-and-desist from Keith Curtis...

 

(PS - or should I say Keith "don't take my schtick" Curtis...)

 

I frequently poke Kieth with shticks...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Did you just sum up 5th Edition as being "more customizable; less useful!" ?

 

I think you just identified my fundamental unease with the current Hero-Think like a bolt of greased lightning.

 

Von "wonders how lightning can be greased" D-Man

 

I might have done, although that wasn't really my intention. Your phrasing does concentrate the mind though.

[Utech]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

I think that Force Walls do what they do very well indeed. In general I think it is a poor idea for characters to rely on Force Wall as their only defense. But it can make a good one.

 

Consider this:

• Force Field Guy spends 30 points on a 15 rPD, 15 rED Force Field.
  
• Force Wall Guy spends 30 points on a 12rPD, 12 rED Self Only (-1/2), No Range (-1/2) Force Wall. (plus some points for Indirect on an attack power or STR)

A group of 6 mooks with .223 Bushmaster Submachine Guns shoots at them!

Damage from one bullet each (2d6K):

5 BODY 5 STUN

7 BODY 7 STUN

4 BODY 12 STUN

5 BODY 20 STUN

8 BODY 24 STUN

7 BODY 35 STUN

Neither FFG or FWG takes a single point of BODY damage from these gun toting thugs.

 

FFG, however, has taken 34 STUN. FWG has not taken a single point of STUN.

 

'Course the .223 Bushmaster is an Autofire weapon, so it may be that our heroes are hit more than 6 times. But FWG is not worried.

 

FWG is invulnerable -- at least as far as the .223 Bushmaster Submachine Gun is concerned. FWG can ignore any killing attack that does less than 2d6+1 damage and any normal attack up to 6d6 damage. Handy that.

 

FFG won't be taking BODY damage from any killing attack less than 3d6 or normal attacks up to 7.5d6 damage, but the STUN from these attacks may well be whittling him down.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Some valid points

 

However, taking both No Range and Self Only is double-dipping as they are effectively the same limitation.

 

Also, you are comparing a 60 active point power to a 30 active point power.

 

Here's an alternative comparison:

 

60 Force Field/Wall Powers: Multipower, 60-point reserve

6u 1) It's a FIELD!: FF (30 PD/30 ED) (60 Active Points) 6

4u 2) It's a WALL!: FW (12 PD/12 ED) (60 Active Points); Self Only (-½) 6

5u 3) It's BOTH!: (Total: 60 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) FF (15 PD/15 ED) (Protect Carried Items) (Real Cost: 40) plus Knockback Resistance -10" (20 Active Points); Linked (Force Field; -½), Costs Endurance (-½) (Real Cost: 10) 6

[JohnTaber]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Hi Utech: I know you understand this but... The model is great for smaller attacks but falls really short for larger attacks. Once FWG has his wall down he is naked to other attacks until it is restored. It also takes him a full action to restore it not just activating a power...at least that is what I recall from the rules.

 

Hi Sean: You idea of adding BODY is interesting. It...um...make FW look like entangle barriers. That might be a better comparison. 30 points of entangle vs 30 points of force wall.

[Robyn]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

However' date=' taking both No Range and Self Only is double-dipping as they are effectively the same limitation.[/quote']

 

I agree that they're double-dipping, but only once you've got Self Only; for No Range, you'd need to touch your target to put up a force wall around it.

[Questar]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

UaA requires that the power be applied to a target.

 

Using this build to target just a hex instead of an object/character all you end up with is a reinforced area of ground/floor that might support characters with multiple levels of Density Increase/Growth.

 

 

Hmmm... this bears thinking about. Don't you get to define the special effect of your power? Why couldn't you define this build as a hexside barrier? I mean, aside from the fact that the forcewall power already exists and players should be told to use that power for this particular effect. That's a good argument, but from a strictly theoretical point of view, why would this build be restricted to only reinforcing the ground?

[Robyn]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Hmmm... this bears thinking about. Don't you get to define the special effect of your power? Why couldn't you define this build as a hexside barrier? I mean' date=' aside from the fact that the forcewall power already exists and players should be told to use that power for this particular effect. That's a good argument, but from a strictly theoretical point of view, why would this build be restricted to only reinforcing the ground?[/quote']

 

Not "reinforcing" in purpose, but "protecting": the only exposed area of the ground is its top layer.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Some valid points

 

However, taking both No Range and Self Only is double-dipping as they are effectively the same limitation.

 

Also, you are comparing a 60 active point power to a 30 active point power.

 

Here's an alternative comparison:

 

60 Force Field/Wall Powers: Multipower, 60-point reserve

6u 1) It's a FIELD!: FF (30 PD/30 ED) (60 Active Points) 6

4u 2) It's a WALL!: FW (12 PD/12 ED) (60 Active Points); Self Only (-½) 6

5u 3) It's BOTH!: (Total: 60 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) FF (15 PD/15 ED) (Protect Carried Items) (Real Cost: 40) plus Knockback Resistance -10" (20 Active Points); Linked (Force Field; -½), Costs Endurance (-½) (Real Cost: 10) 6

 

Its not *totally* double dipping, since Force Wall by default is a one-hex barrier. No Range means you can't project it anywhere but touchrange. Self Only means you can't use it to shield anyone except yourself, even if they are in touch range.

 

OTOH, it is a tad questionable.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Its not *totally* double dipping, since Force Wall by default is a one-hex barrier. No Range means you can't project it anywhere but touchrange. Self Only means you can't use it to shield anyone except yourself, even if they are in touch range.

 

OTOH, it is a tad questionable.

 

Unless you have duplication, once you buy 'self only' it would not seem possible to use the power at range, so the 'no range' limitation is no longer a limitation and not worth anything.

 

OTOH, if you consider buying 'no range' first then 'self only' does add additional limits.

 

Following the general Hero meta-rules, you should follow the route that leads to the most expensive power, which would be the 'just self only' path.

 

To add one more thought: if 'self only' effectively incorporates 'no range' and other limtiations too, shouldn't it be more of a limitation than 'no range'?

[JamesG]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Its not *totally* double dipping, since Force Wall by default is a one-hex barrier. No Range means you can't project it anywhere but touchrange. Self Only means you can't use it to shield anyone except yourself, even if they are in touch range.

 

OTOH, it is a tad questionable.

 

I don't even find it questionable personally. With "No Range" you could create a one hex FoWa right in front of you that protects you and the targets behind you from attacks launched from more or less in front of you. Once you add "self only" you can no longer protect others, so it is a significant additional reduction over "no range" alone, and is thus worth an additional limitation.

 

Also note that if you are doing a "no range, self only" FoWa, you probably want to make it 2" so you can englobe yourself. With "no range" but not "self only" you could use a 2" FoWa to englobe an enemy in hand-to-hand range. But with "self only" you can't englobe enemies. Another factor pointing to "self only" being worth an additional limitation on top of "no range".

[JamesG]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Sean and I cross-posted, but I just looked something up. Page 70 of the Ultimate Brick includes a sample build of a FoWa with both "no range" and "self only". One of the variants of the Bulletproof power.

 

So it is legal to take both on the same power.

 

Actually that sample power also includes an additional -1/4 lim that the FoWa has a restricted shape (always surrounds char and conforms to his body). I would argue that this limitation DOES double dip with self only. But "officially" it is legit.

[schir1964]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Sean and I cross-posted, but I just looked something up. Page 70 of the Ultimate Brick includes a sample build of a FoWa with both "no range" and "self only". One of the variants of the Bulletproof power.

 

So it is legal to take both on the same power.

 

Actually that sample power also includes an additional -1/4 lim that the FoWa has a restricted shape (always surrounds char and conforms to his body). I would argue that this limitation DOES double dip with self only. But "officially" it is legit.

Unfortunately, the supplements can't be used as evidence for "book legal" builds, since Steve Long says that he won't enforce any rules restrictions beyond AP and Cost Calculations. So, just because you can find a build in a supplement done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is "book legal" via the Hero 5th Edition Revised set of rules.

 

Just A Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

I consider No Range and Self Only seperate personally (Actually, No range is almost required before Self Only can be taken)

 

Back to the Force Wall problem. With the cost as it stands (as was stated in the beginning) you spend 5 points for either of them to get 1 rPD & 1 rED.

 

I'd also like to note that the entangle barrier also can reduce damage in the same manner as the force wall (or so it seems). In order to damage a person defended by a Entangle barrier you have to go through it's DEF+BOD. And you can double up Entangle barriers in the same way as force field ones. Although if doing the optional rule, you only have to do one more damage to get through another hex of it. Although depending on how force field is defined, you only need to do damage at all to knock it all down. In that case the requirement for one extra body per hex is and advantage.

 

It does appear that the entangle doesn't block STUN damage (no entirely sure on this one... wording on 5ER p167-168 is slightly unclear on that.)

 

It seems to me that most of the advantages that the Force Field has are the from the advantages it can get. Backlash at range if englobing, damage shield and transparency, as well as the ability to move it a lot easier.

 

Still not in my opinion a better buy.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Personally I think the problem is this:

 

No Range and Self Only giive the same limtiation when 'self only' is clearly more limiting, and incorporates 'no range'.

 

The answer, to my mind, would be to up the limitation value of 'self only' to -3/4 UNLESS the power is no range to start off with (like Healing, for example).

 

Now the book disagrees with me, and this time it IS core rules: see Change Environment, p138 of 5ER, where it approves using both 'self only' and 'no range' on the same power. Personally I think a -1 limtiation is overcooking it a bit, but you may think otherwise.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Personally I think the problem is this:

 

No Range and Self Only giive the same limtiation when 'self only' is clearly more limiting, and incorporates 'no range'.

 

Hmmm...A Force Wall with no range which is not Self Only could protect targets close by, as well as the character himself. As such, it should be possible to buy No Range separate from Self Only, and adding Self Only further limits the power.

 

Could one have a Wall with Self Only that is NOT "No Range"? It would then be usable at any range, but would only stop attacks or creatures trying to get to or attack the character using the power. It would be a very strange ability which would use this combination. Maybe some sort of magical force wall which "senses" who an attack is directed at and only blocks the ones targeted at the user of the power. Perhaps it englobes the target and moves with him (a power that specifically prevents one opponent from targetting the caster of the spell). Unlikely power effect, but one I'm reluctant to dismiss as 100% impossible.

 

I would note that a Force Wall which is No Range (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2) with Feedback (-1/2) costs 1 point per defense and has the same mechanical effects as a Force Wall (other than the higher AP making it harder to adjust it, and the higher END cost), which seems appropriate to me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Hmmm...A Force Wall with no range which is not Self Only could protect targets close by, as well as the character himself. As such, it should be possible to buy No Range separate from Self Only, and adding Self Only further limits the power.

 

Could one have a Wall with Self Only that is NOT "No Range"? It would then be usable at any range, but would only stop attacks or creatures trying to get to or attack the character using the power. It would be a very strange ability which would use this combination. Maybe some sort of magical force wall which "senses" who an attack is directed at and only blocks the ones targeted at the user of the power. Perhaps it englobes the target and moves with him (a power that specifically prevents one opponent from targetting the caster of the spell). Unlikely power effect, but one I'm reluctant to dismiss as 100% impossible.

 

I would note that a Force Wall which is No Range (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2) with Feedback (-1/2) costs 1 point per defense and has the same mechanical effects as a Force Wall (other than the higher AP making it harder to adjust it, and the higher END cost), which seems appropriate to me.

 

 

I do like your stab at a force wall that is self only but at any range. Nice.

 

However we still run up against problems if the base power is something like 'succor' - being no range would be incorporated in the 'self only' limti there, unless you have any other cunning thoughts - ergo the value of the limtiations would vary with the powers they applied to.

 

The other thing about the 'no range feedback self only force wall' is that you can't attack through it either, so it is not quite analagous to a force field.

[Utech]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Hi Utech: I know you understand this but... The model is great for smaller attacks but falls really short for larger attacks. Once FWG has his wall down he is naked to other attacks until it is restored. It also takes him a full action to restore it not just activating a power...at least that is what I recall from the rules.

 

Howdy! Of course Force Wall is not nearly as good as Force Field when it comes to defending against multiple larger attacks. That's why sometimes it is good to have one. Sometimes good to have the other. Having both in a Multipower might be a very, very good idea.

 

As for the Self Only and No Range controversy...

 

5ER page 182 on the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation:

Such Force Walls usually also take the Limitation

No Range

(-1/2).

Can't get much more book legal than that.

[JamesG]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Unfortunately, the supplements can't be used as evidence for "book legal" builds, since Steve Long says that he won't enforce any rules restrictions beyond AP and Cost Calculations. So, just because you can find a build in a supplement done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is "book legal" via the Hero 5th Edition Revised set of rules.

 

Just A Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Can you provide a link to where Mr. Long said this? I know that we can not depend on Digital Hero for "book legal" builds, but I have always been under the impression that the actual books published by DOJ included "book legal" power builds. With the exception of the occasional mistake/typo etc, of course.

[Vondy]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Can you provide a link to where Mr. Long said this? I know that we can not depend on Digital Hero for "book legal" builds' date=' but I have always been under the impression that the actual books published by DOJ included "book legal" power builds. With the exception of the occasional mistake/typo etc, of course.[/quote']

 

They're pretty good about making sure the books are strictly legal (from the one's I've looked at), but some of the character builds do the exact things the rules advise you not to allow. That's not problematic in of itself from my perspective, but it does have a certain disjointed air to it. It doesn't bother me, per se, but it does mean some of those characters need a big stop sign thrown onto them.

[Robyn]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

It doesn't bother me' date=' per se, but it does mean some of those characters need a big stop sign thrown onto them. [/quote']

 

Thank you . . . now I'm seeing a literal stop sign, built as a Focus and with plenty of crushing damage

[schir1964]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

Can you provide a link to where Mr. Long said this? I know that we can not depend on Digital Hero for "book legal" builds' date=' but I have always been under the impression that the actual books published by DOJ included "book legal" power builds. With the exception of the occasional mistake/typo etc, of course.[/quote']

It was in a private email I had with him. I was asking about a character writeup in one of the supplements that had built one of the powers in way that the core rules forbid. He answered as I stated above.

 

I've heard he's also stated somewhere in the Rules section, but I can't say for sure.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

However we still run up against problems if the base power is something like 'succor' - being no range would be incorporated in the 'self only' limti there' date=' unless you have any other cunning thoughts - ergo the value of the limtiations would vary with the powers they applied to.[/quote']

 

In my view, some limitations should vary depending on the ability they are applied to. The first and foremost is "no figured characteristics". The value of a limitation should depend on the extent to which it limits the power.

 

If a power has range, and is "self only" it should also be given "no range", since that aspect of the power has also been nullified. If one character have a power with no range and get a -1/2 limitation, shouldn't the character who has the same power restricted to use on himself, clearly at No Range, get a larger limitation since his power is more restricted? Certain advantages have prerequisites (it can't be Persistent unless it's 0 END, and it can't be Inherent unless it's Always On, for example). Why can't a self only power have the No Range prerequisite if loss of the ability to affect others means an automatic elimination of range.

 

[And that way, if someone more clever than me comes up with a Self Only version where range applies, it's not precluded - you just take the one without the other.]

[Sean Waters]

Re: Force Wall Modification

 

In my view, some limitations should vary depending on the ability they are applied to. The first and foremost is "no figured characteristics". The value of a limitation should depend on the extent to which it limits the power.

 

If a power has range, and is "self only" it should also be given "no range", since that aspect of the power has also been nullified. If one character have a power with no range and get a -1/2 limitation, shouldn't the character who has the same power restricted to use on himself, clearly at No Range, get a larger limitation since his power is more restricted? Certain advantages have prerequisites (it can't be Persistent unless it's 0 END, and it can't be Inherent unless it's Always On, for example). Why can't a self only power have the No Range prerequisite if loss of the ability to affect others means an automatic elimination of range.

 

[And that way, if someone more clever than me comes up with a Self Only version where range applies, it's not precluded - you just take the one without the other.]

 

 

All we need is this:

 

Self only (when applied to a power with no range) -1/2

Self only (when applied ot a power with range) -1