Armour has a fixed SFX?

[GAZZA]

Cruising around reading some of the other threads, I saw a couple of references saying that Armour was a bad power, that it had fixed sfx, that it couldn't be used in place of Force Field, and so forth...

 

I'm not seeing anything like that in 5RE. It does say that you can't buy (eg) Mental Defence or Power Defence as Armour, but those aren't particularly common for a Force Field either. Because it doesn't cost END you have that stupid EC rule that would prevent sticking it in, but that's more of EC problem than an Armour problem.

 

What am I missing here?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Like every other power in Hero, the sfx are up to you. If I want to buy a completely invisible, 0 END force field (sfx, not power) I'd do it with armour. Hell, I'd do it with armour if I just wanted it at 0 END, in all likelihood.

 

Armour is a persitent power but even they can be switched on and off at will.

 

You can't buy exotic defences as armour, as you can for FF but you do not need to: buy armour, power defence, mental defence and flash defence and link them if you want them to be the same 'power'.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Like every other power in Hero' date=' the sfx are up to you. If I want to buy a completely invisible, 0 END force field (sfx, not power) I'd do it with armour. Hell, I'd do it with armour if I just wanted it at 0 END, in all likelihood.[/quote']

100% agreement. I've done it this way many times. Heck, every time I see a 0 END Force Field on a published character I cringe.

 

Even the whole "can't switch to be a 14 PD/0 ED one round and 7 each the next" is a trivial Multipower:

 

Multipower "Variable Persistent Invisible Force Field" 30 point reserve [30]

20 PD/0 ED Armour [6-m]

0 PD/20 ED Armour [6-m]

 

and just split the slots however you like. I just can't see why Armour is an inherently bad power, and that seemed to be what people were saying (as an aside) on http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50759

 

Of course you can duplicate it with PD, ED, and Damage Resistance - was that the point?

[Karmakaze]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Right now I am playing a character that generates a pseudo-solid energy field (not entirely unlike the stuff Green Lanterns make constructs out of). Most of the power stunts are in a multipower, but I pulled some "Armor" out as a standalone. The SFX is a personal protective energy field summoned by an act of will, which kind of says force field as a description. It's bought as Armor because (a) I didn't want to lose all protection if she was knocked unconscious, and ( I didn't want to have to deal with END tracking for her base-level defenses. (It's a standalone because I wanted some defenses left even if the entire multipower got devoted to something else, kind of in the same vein as 'combat luck')

[Mister E]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

I think the lesson to be learned from the Armor/Force Field powers, is that the system is more flexible than commonly presumed for a game.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Right now I am playing a character that generates a pseudo-solid energy field (not entirely unlike the stuff Green Lanterns make constructs out of). Most of the power stunts are in a multipower' date=' but I pulled some "Armor" out as a standalone. The SFX is a personal protective energy field summoned by an act of will, which kind of says force field as a description. It's bought as Armor because (a) I didn't want to lose all protection if she was knocked unconscious, and ( I didn't want to have to deal with END tracking for her base-level defenses. (It's a standalone because I wanted some defenses left even if the entire multipower got devoted to something else, kind of in the same vein as 'combat luck')[/quote']

 

I've done the exact same thing (armor as ring defense of last resort) with my GL-clone. The Multipower/VPP construct is the hard part.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Here's a comparitive example between Armor and Force Field.

 

60 I Can't Believe It's Not Armor! 1: Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=0

40 I Can't Believe It's Not Force Field! 1: Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2) - END=6

 

50 I Can't Believe It's Not Armor! 2: Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (50 Active Points) - END=4

48 I Can't Believe It's Not Force Field! 2: Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) - END=6

 

50 I Can't Believe It's Not Armor! 3: Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (50 Active Points) - END=2

48 I Can't Believe It's Not Force Field! 3: Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Costs Reduced Endurance (1/2 END); -1/4) [Notes: Custom Limitation. END cost should display 3.] - END=6

[Bloodstone]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Here's a comparitive example between Armor and Force Field.

 

60 I Can't Believe It's Not Armor! 1: Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=0

40 I Can't Believe It's Not Force Field! 1: Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2) - END=6

 

50 I Can't Believe It's Not Armor! 2: Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (50 Active Points) - END=4

48 I Can't Believe It's Not Force Field! 2: Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) - END=6

 

50 I Can't Believe It's Not Armor! 3: Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (50 Active Points) - END=2

48 I Can't Believe It's Not Force Field! 3: Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Costs Reduced Endurance (1/2 END); -1/4) [Notes: Custom Limitation. END cost should display 3.] - END=6

 

You forgot that Armor is Persistent and Invisible by default

[Steve]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

You forgot that Armor is Persistent and Invisible by default

 

So does that make Armor under-priced compared to Force Field?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Cruising around reading some of the other threads, I saw a couple of references saying that Armour was a bad power, that it had fixed sfx, that it couldn't be used in place of Force Field, and so forth...

 

I'm not seeing anything like that in 5RE. It does say that you can't buy (eg) Mental Defence or Power Defence as Armour, but those aren't particularly common for a Force Field either. Because it doesn't cost END you have that stupid EC rule that would prevent sticking it in, but that's more of EC problem than an Armour problem.

 

What am I missing here?

Armor can have any SFX that you like that makes sense for a particular character.

[bwdemon]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

So does that make Armor under-priced compared to Force Field?

 

Which would you consider efficiently priced: Force Field or Armor? I lean toward Force Field being efficiently priced. Armor (as itself or as PD & ED with Damage Resistance) is inefficiently low in price. Both PD & ED offer a huge benefit at a natural cost of 1:1 if non-resistant or 3:2 if resistant.

 

If Armor is supposed to be a persistent Force Field, then the basic end-using Force Field should cost half of what Armor does. If you agree that Armor is inefficiently low in price, then Armor should cost 2:1. If you believe that Force Field is inefficiently overpriced, then drop Force Field to 1:2.

 

What about the invisibility issue? There's the rub. How invisible is Armor? All senses? That's a +1 modifier for free! Just to sight? Still a +1/2 modifier. Make it visible source? You're down to +1/2 or +1/4, but free is free. Making Armor visible would make it inefficient compared to natural PD & ED with Damage Resistance. Maybe make all powers visible unless otherwise stated? That seems to clear it all up (Damage Resistance is a power, after all).

 

So, the fix is to ignore the bit about Armor being invisible and to either double its base price or halve Force Field's base price. Right? Not quite...

 

Then we look at PD & ED. Knowing that Armor should cost twice as much as Force Field and with Armor being equal to Damage Reduction and additional PD/ED, we run into that issue. You still have PD & ED being underpriced. Bump those up to 2:1. That takes Armor up to 3:1. Force Field becomes 3:2 and we're all set!

 

Welcome to House Rule Hell

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

You forgot that Armor is Persistent and Invisible by default

 

Actually I didn't.

 

Those properties go away as soon as any form of Costs End Limitation is applied to it.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

The thing about Force Field is that the base Power is less expensive than Armor. While 10 PD/10 ED Armor and 10 PD/10 ED FF, 0 END cost the same, once you start adding Advantages to them - Hardened, Usable On Others, and so on - FF ends up being cheaper. That's one benefit to using it that balances the advantages of Armor.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

I think that Armor's priced perfectly. Here's why.

 

As has been pointed out, Armor is the same as rPD/rED.

 

1 rPD/1 rED = Armor 1/1. Perfectly equivalent, even in that PD/ED is Persistent and Invisible for free. Or, at least, the last time I heard I didn't drop to PD/ED 0 when I got knocked out!

 

Force Field, by contrast, is rPD/rED... bought with Costs Endurance (-1/2).

 

Unfortunately, it's also bought with Nonpersistent (-1/2) and Fully Visible (-1/2 at least... at work, don't have my books with me).

 

So I'd say it's Force Field that's overpriced... but making it any cheaper might be a problem all on its own.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Armour is not normally detectable at all, as it has no visible special effects. Most armour that we actually build for characters, stuff that actually looks like rocky skin, or whatever, should take the 'visible' limitation.

 

When I say 'not normally detectable', you can always detect it by inference: fire that 4d6 RKA off at Joe Normal and if the JN is still in one piece he probably has armour, and probably is not Joe Normal .

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Armour is way, way better than Force Field except in one important respect: FF is easier to get into frameworks and under active points limits at a higher protection value.

 

If you have a 60 AP game, that's 20/20 Armour or 30/30 FF, then it is all down to whether the STUN or the END give out first....

 

You dont buy 0 END FF in a game with Armour, nor do you buy invisible FFs. FF is, or perhaps should, be quite a rare power, but a doozy when it is used properly.

 

One thought/option:

 

60 point Protection MP

6u 20/20 Armour

6u 30/30 FF

 

Basically you run the armour as your normal protection, END free and invisible, but if you need the boost your protection you overload the defences, they start to tire you and start to glow...

 

Weird. Can't recall seeing that build on an official product character.

[bwdemon]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

FF shouldn't be a rare power - or at least it shouldn't solely because Armor is available. Force Field should be used when players want the power to represent a force field. Armor should be used when players want a power to represent armor.

 

Using another power just because it gives the same or better results at a cheaper price smacks of imbalance and conscienceless min/maxing. Slapping a differen't power's SFX on it doesn't make the problem go away.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

FF shouldn't be a rare power - or at least it shouldn't solely because Armor is available. Force Field should be used when players want the power to represent a force field. Armor should be used when players want a power to represent armor.

 

Using another power just because it gives the same or better results at a cheaper price smacks of imbalance and conscienceless min/maxing. Slapping a differen't power's SFX on it doesn't make the problem go away.

 

Don't think of them as Armour and Force Field, think of them as Defence Power Blue and Defence Power Green, then it gets a lot easier to use the one that works best for whatever you are building, without getting hung up on power labels. No power in Hero comes with sfx (OK, that's not entirely true, but it SHOULD be). It isn't minimaxing. It might be minim axing. That could be me playing the piano though. Oh I don't know.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

FF shouldn't be a rare power - or at least it shouldn't solely because Armor is available. Force Field should be used when players want the power to represent a force field. Armor should be used when players want a power to represent armor.

 

Using another power just because it gives the same or better results at a cheaper price smacks of imbalance and conscienceless min/maxing. Slapping a differen't power's SFX on it doesn't make the problem go away.

 

You mean the way that players shouldn't use "Energy Blast" for anything other than shooting laser beams?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

Cruising around reading some of the other threads, I saw a couple of references saying that Armour was a bad power, that it had fixed sfx, that it couldn't be used in place of Force Field, and so forth...

 

I'm not seeing anything like that in 5RE. It does say that you can't buy (eg) Mental Defence or Power Defence as Armour, but those aren't particularly common for a Force Field either. Because it doesn't cost END you have that stupid EC rule that would prevent sticking it in, but that's more of EC problem than an Armour problem.

 

What am I missing here?

 

You're not missing anything. The people saying Armor has a fixed SFX are wrong.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

The thing about Force Field is that the base Power is less expensive than Armor. While 10 PD/10 ED Armor and 10 PD/10 ED FF' date=' 0 END cost the same, once you start adding Advantages to them - Hardened, Usable On Others, and so on - FF ends up being cheaper. That's one benefit to using it that balances the advantages of Armor.[/quote']

 

I think they are essentially the same power built from 2 different starting points (costing 0 END or normal END). Everything else balances out.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

I think this was first pointed out on USENET or AOL about 15+ years ago.

 

 

Keith "Strength is underpriced too, while you're at it" Curtis

[bwdemon]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

I don't know about you, but when I think "Armor" I get a pretty specific set of images in my mind. When I think "Force Field" I get another very specific set of images in mind. If you don't want to break it up into those images, then don't bother naming either.

 

If it's just Defense Power Blue and Defense Power Green, then there is no need to name them at all. Since Defense Power Green sucks, you can go ahead and take it out of the game altogether without any problem. Once you've done that and realize that Defense Power Blue is the same as Defense Stat, you get rid of Defense Power Blue and you're where you should be.

 

In other words, you should just have PD & ED with appropriate modifiers, draft SFX as necessary, and eliminate Armor and Force Field. This would be great, but HERO separated all this out into PD, ED, Damage Resistance, Armor, and Force Field.

 

Defenses in the HERO system could be simplified and achieve greater balance, neither of which are bad things. Instead of looking at what they've always had and how it's always been structured, look at what is available and how everything could be simplified/balanced around it.

 

20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), SFX: Tough Skin

20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), SFX: Invisible Force Field

 

20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), SFX: Metal Skin

20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), SFX: Glowing Force Field

 

20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), Costs END (+1/2), SFX: Metal Skin

20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), Costs END (+1/2), SFX: Glowing Force Field

 

The above are examples of how it should work. These are balanced (at least among themselves) and uncomplicated. Instead, we have PD, ED, Damage Resistance, Armor, and Force Field clogging up the works and Force Field is built on an entirely different (and inefficiently expensive) cost structure.

 

Energy Blast is a blast of energy. That can be any type of energy, which makes it incredibly broad even without going into the superheroic variants. I'd rather it be called something like Ranged Attack or Blast, but Energy Blast is sufficiently wide open to allow for a lot of SFX.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

I don't know about you' date=' but when I think "Armor" I get a pretty specific set of images [b']in my mind[/b]. When I think "Force Field" I get another very specific set of images in mind.

 

Then that's where the problem resides. Frankly, my mental image of "armor" is of a self-contained removable structure, but I wouldn't insist that all armor be built with a focus.

 

Of course, the character I mentioned before has a force field in the multipower too. (Thanks for whoever pointed out that technically, I should have bought the armor as 'visible'). Mechanically, that combination mimics the sfx I want perfectly (a certain amount of protection on an instinctive level that doesn't require conscious effort, and then an ability to apply additional defense that does require direct focus) so why get hung up on nomenclature.

[bwdemon]

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

 

It was important enough to break the two apart and give them different costs and their own names. I don't think that was the best decision in the first place, but it's better than having someone call a cat a dog and stating that it's okay because, when you boil it down, they're both mammals and names aren't important anyway.

 

For the record, my image of armor isn't necessarily tied to a focus, but it is interesting that you mentioned that...

 

If a new player tells you that they're making a character with an invisible force field and you see that they've chosen Force Field with IPE to do this, do you explain to them that they should take Armor instead and then just call the armor a force field?

 

To me, that makes the game look bad. It outright says that one power is better than another, so much so that you should ignore the name of the power altogether in pursuit of that last point. It admits imbalance and embraces it. That's not a good state of affairs. Which is why I would propose simplification.