Force Field Is No Good?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Is that right? Aren't you taking the "continuing" out of "continuing charge?" This seems more like a "discontinuous charge' date='" which you should probably buy through and END battery or something.[/quote']

 

from 5er page 286:

 

Fuel Charges

Characters can also use Charges to represent the fuel that powers a vehicle, the supply of air provided by a gas mask, or the like. Generally, characters should only buy Fuel Charges for Movement Powers and other non-offensive abilities; they’re not intended for Attack Powers and the like.

 

Creating a Fuel Charge is a two-step process. First, buy the power with 1 Continuing Charge, with the Charge lasting for however long the power can continuously operate. For example, a vehicle might buy the Continuing Charge to last 1 Day, since it can operate for an entire day on one tank of fuel.

 

Second, reduce the value of the Limitation by ¼ (or, if Continuing Charges is an Advantage, increase it by ¼). This represents the fact that this type of power’s Continuing Charge can be turned off and on without losing any “operating time.” A Continuing Charge, once turned off , cannot be turned on again; it’s been used up. However, a Continuing Fuel Charge doesn’t work that way — the character can turn it on and off again. Each Phase of use counts as 1 second subtracted from the operating time. For example, suppose a gas mask (LS: Self-Contained Breathing) has 1 Continuing Fuel Charge for 5 Minutes. The base Limitation’s value is -2, reduced four steps to -¾ for Continuing Charges, and reduced another ¼ for Fuel Charges, for a fi nal value of -½. The gas mask works for a total of 5 Minutes, but the character can wear it for one minute, then turn it off and save the rest of its “fuel” for later.

[secretID]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

I'm not sure if you're summarizing your thoughts or the opinions collected here. I disagree with #1 and #6. I disagree with the "small niche" regardless of the other points, because I think all of that adds up to more than a small niche.

 

Like I said, I think it's kind of funny, because I've actually developed a prejudice against armor because it's never as good a fit as FF for my characters.

[TrickstaPriest]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Forcefield is better to put advantages on like hardened because it has a lower base point cost. People take forcefield because they don't want or need a persistent defense, and want to have their defenses in a power framework. Any power framework. Or the want to put something like RSR on it that will be greatly hindered by Armor's AP quick bloating. Putting Costs END on armor means you are going to be paying a lot of END through the nose due to the high AP.

 

Many combats don't last more than a turn or two, and I can easily put together a 12/12 FF that costs me only 2 END a phase. With many supers being at SPD 4 at 350, that's 8 END a turn... not a big concern unless I burn a lot of END a phase with other powers. Even if I do, a +1/4 advantage of Reduced END or Costs END (once a turn, to activate), cuts those costs down fast.

 

Your hangup is over END costs and nonpersistence... this isn't an argument of forcefield over armor so much as nonpersistent defenses (costing some END) vs persistent ones. You should probably always have ~something~ in persistent defenses. But frankly even with 0 END and persistent you save more points having a forcefield in an EC than buying armor separately (12/12 FF with +1 adv in a 24 pt EC is still 24 points itself... armor is 36). You don't like ECs, but it is not common to find a character without ANY framework, and with any type of framework the lower the AP for the powers you put in the better (usually); putting armor in a power framework is bulky and difficult compared to a FF.

I realize you could theoretically put nonpersistent and visible on armor to recoup some points, but that's irrelevant anyway since you wouldn't choose armor if you wanted nonpersistent visible defenses. There is no point in bringing it up unless you are trying to shoehorn armor into a place where it doesn't belong, or pull forcefields out of the frameworks they work so well in. People choose Forcefield when they want nonpersistent defenses, and although it vanishes some of the time it's often -well worth it- the rest of the time. Even though it's still cheap to get it persistent in a framework, it's even cheaper to just invest in 1/2 END and buy more of it to keep you from getting CON-stunned in the first place. Forcefields are very vulnerable to completely out-of-combat (and superhero ID) ambushes, but those (hopefully) should be rare anyway.

 

So Forcefield characters can be more fragile, but they make up for it with more points. Sure an armor-based brick would be more durable in many ways than a forcefield-based one, but there are a lot of things you are missing in that comparison. A forcefield brick would be able to afford more defenses, either backup Damage Resistance or Reduction to cover themselves when they are down, or more forcefield to be harder to CON-stun. It's probably the most common defense against NND, and it's a hard-sell to say that your 0 END persistent armor is a forcefield SFX. In an EC it's vulnerable to drains, but armor outside of it is vulnerable to getting bulldozed with damage (since it's more expensive to buy) or armor-pierced (since it has a high base-cost). Frankly characters shouldn't totally lose defenses when they are down, but buying a bit of backup Armor (4/4 armor, OIF) for 8 points isn't a bad deal... especially if you saved 15 with your forcefield. Nonpersistent defenses without anything else can get you killed though and I don't recommend it... but 3 points in Damage Resistance or a few extra PD and ED can make a world of difference there. That doesn't make your Forcefield secondary defenses; the defenses you only really need when you're ass is on the grill are the secondary ones.

 

If you are operating on your own, persistent defenses are a good idea, but having allies to keep you from getting 'ganked' when you are down is pretty important in either way. Solo work is messy and usually involves not being in a situation where you are risking CON-stun; however it does involve getting more persistent defenses if your GM is particularly sadistic. As a note... remember that when CON-stunned, when you recover on your next phase, you CAN abort even on that segment to a defensive action... like a Dodge + Raising Forcefield. If you are CON-stunned on your own anyway, a haymaker or called shot to the face will KO you (or CON-stun you again) even with armor... armor buys you extra time and a better chance to make it, but you'd need allies to cover for you anyway in the worst cases because if the first hit doesn't kill you, the second one will. If you get to a segment to abort first, there isn't much of a difference.

 

 

 

 

Armor is better when you want to take defenses not in a framework. Like... body armor. A lot of speedy characters I've built who don't have forcefields may have a mix of a bit of Combat Luck and a bit of actual armor (bought as Armor with foci). Armor is good when you want invisible persistent defenses that cost no END, and aren't thinking about things like Armor Penetrating or protecting people and objects you carry. But it doesn't actually get taken a lot because people DO use power frameworks often... when they don't, yes Armor is almost always the better choice. That's why people say it's a matter of the character... because it is about what build you pick.

 

Forcefield is much cheaper than Armor and is good when you frankly don't feel you need a lot of persistent defenses. With the points you save with a FF, too... you can invest in secondary defenses. I often buy extra raw PD and ED, resulting in more defenses anyway and making the character harder to CON stun, and I'd still have leftover points. I could buy 25% damage reduction and/or extra CON if I was making a brick. You could take power defense (even in your FF), an entirely other power, or anything else. Forcefield makes a great primary defense when paired with a secondary defense, and if you are too worried about END and persistent defenses you can buy it on its own with those traits. Or you can buy armor supplemented by a very-point-effective tiny forcefield. It's also very very cheap in AP compared to Armor and is great for mixed-defense builds. While it may cut you down a bit to buy a few powers in an EC, the point savings are almost abhorrent; it's not hard to add 5-10 points on power defense and cut most drains down to almost nothing. Forcefields have options. Armor doesn't, but it's good at the (few) things it does.

 

 

As a general note, I find I use them about A40/60F if I consider 'Combat Luck' a Forcefield (because it's nonpersistent), sometimes that layout on the same sheet. But that's because Forcefield is lighter and easy to work with while Armor is bulky and unwieldy and doesn't fit in with the other kids; it comes down to your build. If you build characters with defenses in frameworks, you will want forcefield almost always. If you don't, you'll usually want armor. It's not that complicated to agonize over. The big points are fitting FF in easily with your power frameworks because of FF's low AP and not buying what you don't need. You won't always do it that way.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

It looks like a good time to summarize.

 

1) Force fields should almost never be a primary defense.

 

2) Their lower active point cost makes them useful in some MPs.

 

3) They fit more comfortably into an EC.

 

4) They're more efficient than armor when you buy lots of disadvantages for them.

 

5) As a special case, they work great with "continuing charges," since that obviates their non-persistence.

 

6) In just about every other case, you're better off with armor.

 

In other words, force fields have their niche. It's just a small one.

 

The first point seems like the most important lesson. From reading sample characters, you'd think force fields were a viable alternative for your primary defense, but their non-persistence makes those characters fall like dominoes.

 

There are adders (protects carried objects) that are available to FF and not for armor.

 

You can push a Force Field. (in theory, if you bought your armor costing end, you could push that, too but you wouldn't get as much bang for the buck)

[Zed-F]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

I'm not sure if you're summarizing your thoughts or the opinions collected here. I disagree with #1 and #6. I disagree with the "small niche" regardless of the other points, because I think all of that adds up to more than a small niche.

 

Like I said, I think it's kind of funny, because I've actually developed a prejudice against armor because it's never as good a fit as FF for my characters.

 

I have to agree with this.

 

Moreover, approaching things from a standpoint of 'Armor is better because I can put munchkin lims on it more easily and I get more free perks out of the deal that would be expensive to purchase outright' is lame. You should be approaching it from a standpoint of 'what's more in-concept for my character?'

[Hierax]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

With the Reasoning from Effect logic it shouldn't matter which Power you buy.

 

If there was a single Defence Power then this wouldn't be a problem.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

I have to agree with this.

 

Moreover, approaching things from a standpoint of 'Armor is better because I can put munchkin lims on it more easily and I get more free perks out of the deal that would be expensive to purchase outright' is lame. You should be approaching it from a standpoint of 'what's more in-concept for my character?'

 

True. At the same time, however, the rules should be concept-neutral. It should not cost more to have a force field, nor should there be a price break for having a force field. The fact that:

 

- Armor, Visible, Nonpersistent costs the same as a Force Field and does not cost END

- Force Field, Invisible, 0 END, Persistent costs double the cost of Armor whileproviding the exact same mechanical benefits

 

is, in my view, not an appropriate result. A character whose concept calls for an invisible persistent force field (say, a Brainiac 5 force field belt, or the automated defense provided even an unconscious Green Lantern) should not have to pay double the points paid by a character whose concept calls for armor (say, in the form of steel-hard skin or a costume which simulates steel-hard skin).

[Zed-F]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

IMHO visible + non-persistent shouldn't really exist independently. They ought to be merged with Costs END to Activate.

[secretID]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

With the Reasoning from Effect logic it shouldn't matter which Power you buy.

 

If there was a single Defence Power then this wouldn't be a problem.

Can't argue with that, and with Hugh's point. I think there's a few issues, including:

- APs sometimes matter, caps aside

- adds and lims only come in quarter-point increments

- it's inherently impossible to balance, say no END with reduced END with END only to activate

- opinions (and games) differ regarding the value of, say, nonpersistent

 

At least some of that would be solved by just having one DEF power, as you say. I guess some people say similar things about just having "does damage" for attacks. I haven't been part of any of those discussions - I assume they're far more involved (evolved? devolved?) than the few points made here.

[poptoad]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

True. At the same time, however, the rules should be concept-neutral. It should not cost more to have a force field, nor should there be a price break for having a force field. The fact that:

 

- Armor, Visible, Nonpersistent costs the same as a Force Field and does not cost END

- Force Field, Invisible, 0 END, Persistent costs double the cost of Armor whileproviding the exact same mechanical benefits

 

is, in my view, not an appropriate result. A character whose concept calls for an invisible persistent force field (say, a Brainiac 5 force field belt, or the automated defense provided even an unconscious Green Lantern) should not have to pay double the points paid by a character whose concept calls for armor (say, in the form of steel-hard skin or a costume which simulates steel-hard skin).

 

Well said. Thank you.

 

Given the frequency with which you see force fields in the genre, I think it's odd that force fields in Champions are mostly a pretty bad deal. The advantages armor has -- persistence and 0 END -- are pretty good ones, particularly for a defense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Unfortunately, the problem is not Force Field. It is "0 END by default" vs "costs END by default". You get a -1/2 limitation for "Costs END", but you need to make a Constant power that costs END by default Invisible (+1), 0 END (+1/2) and Persistent (+1/2) to make it equivalent to a power that costs 0 END by default.

 

I wonder how often someone realizes that Aid has no visible SFX by default, since it does not cost END.

[poptoad]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Unfortunately' date=' the problem is not Force Field. It is "0 END by default" vs "costs END by default". You get a -1/2 limitation for "Costs END", but you need to make a Constant power that costs END by default Invisible (+1), 0 END (+1/2) and Persistent (+1/2) to make it equivalent to a power that costs 0 END by default.[/quote']

 

Isn't it pretty rare that a 0 END power and an END power are designed to do exactly the same thing, though? That's the case with armor and force field.

 

I wonder how often someone realizes that Aid has no visible SFX by default' date=' since it does not cost END.[/quote']

 

Probably about as often as people realize that armor is, by default, fully invisible. It's non-intuitive, given the name.

[secretID]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Probably about as often as people realize that armor is' date=' by default, fully invisible. It's non-intuitive, given the name.[/quote']

For me, I use armor either with OIF or as a quick way of doing DEF and resistance. In the first case, visibility is included, and in the second I don't really think of it as "armor" - it's just toughness.

 

This goes back to the question of whether you would ever build non-persistent, visible armor. I can certainly imagine it - Yuckman's skin exudes a film that instantly hardens. In that case, you'd say, "Wow - this is clearly a better deal than force field," but that's the exceptional case.

 

For your general point, I think you've established that FF is overpriced as compared to Armor - fairly easy to prove - but that isn't the same as saying that FF is rarely useful.

[AnotherSkip]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Yet Get armor in a focus and it adds the disad Visible for free...

 

mucho weirdness

[BNakagawa]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Yet Get armor in a focus and it adds the disad Visible for free...

 

mucho weirdness

 

Unless it's designed to look like regular clothing...

[secretID]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Unless it's designed to look like regular clothing...

Wouldn't that have to be IIF? For OIF, the source of the power has to be clear, no?

[Hierax]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Having both Forcefield and Armor breaks the Hero Game Metarule that a power shouldn't do what another power does. Another reason to go with a single DEF power.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Common Sense gets involved. It can be subtle.

 

You can still take Visible on a Power with a Focus - understanding that it is VISIBLE and not just noticeable.

 

IIF Armored Suit, the obvious effect that someone is wearing protection of some kind comes when they are shot and don't bleed all over the place. From an Armored Suit or a non-bulky vest under it... could be hard to tell.

 

But if I put on OIF - Powered Armor, sure you can assume it provides protection but the Obvious part is "Look I'm wearing Powered Armor" not "Look I have the Armor Power" if you then proceed to take Visible on your Armor Power on top of OIF Powered Armor you can bet I'll be desribing the flashes of light and/or cool sound effects of your Powered Armor stopping bullets.

 

While I am not an advocate of the "Matching Mechanics from Separate Powers" needs to match up perfectly, or even all that well, they should be close in effect most of the time. Especially with two Powers that so obviously start with the same Mechanic and in the same Category.

 

Two Defense Powers built out to near Mechanically Identical should come extremely close in real point cost. Force Field and Armor - for all the conceptual differences they bring to the table - are so offset from each other that there does seem to be a clear imbalance of thought.

 

Force Field biggest advantage is that it provides protection to carried items, and that it allows for exotic defenses. Whether or not this is enough to justify it being so costly to make it look like the Armor Power or not, I'm not really inclined to judge personally. Since I'm not writing the rules my "must make it right" instinct sort of wanders off to find a snickers bar while I simply sit down and make sure Game Play is fair.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Having both Forcefield and Armor breaks the Hero Game Metarule that a power shouldn't do what another power does. Another reason to go with a single DEF power.

 

There are some important differences that makes them two different Powers.

 

Otherwise your metarule is broken by:

PD/ED + Damage Resistance

Armor

Force Field

 

all three (or two + combo in the first case) do exactly the same thing.

The trick is that PD/ED + DamRes = Armor at a 1:1 Cost and provides the exact same Mechanics - Exact Same. Even more so that Armor and Force Field provide the same Mechanics.

 

Force Field protects carried items, and it provides exotic defenses.

 

Armor + Flash Defense + Power Defense + Mental Defense + "Protects Carried Items" (whatever this is worth as an Advantage instead of an Adder) = Force Fields provided Defenses.

 

It's when you get into the Endurance, Duration and Visibility issues that the two break down in equality.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

Isn't it pretty rare that a 0 END power and an END power are designed to do exactly the same thing' date=' though? That's the case with armor and force field.[/quote']

 

That's why the issue is highlighted by Armor and Force Field. However, any constant power that costs no END by default gets the same cost break for being Nonpersistent and Visible that it gets for Costs END, yet Costs END adds a further drawback to nonpersistence and visibility.

 

There are some important differences that makes them two different Powers.

 

Otherwise your metarule is broken by:

PD/ED + Damage Resistance

Armor

Force Field

 

That Metarule IS broken by PD/ED + Damage Resistance, Armor and Force Field. How would the actual game play (ignoring the cost of powers, which affects only character creation) be altered if we removed Armor and Force Field as powers, and instead had a series of examples of "Characteristics as Powers" using PD, ED and Damage Resistance?

 

Armor would then simply be an example of PD + ED + Damage Resistance - "Armored Hide +10 PD, +10 ED, Damage Resistance"; "Suit of Plate Mail - +8 PD, +8 ED, Damage Resistance, OIF". Force Field would similarly be "Force Field - +20 PD; +15 ED, Damage Resistance; Costs END".

 

This would not solve the fact that "Armor Up - PD + ED + Damage Resistance; Nonpersistent; Visible" would cost the same as an equivalent Force Field that costs END, of course. But it would not change anything but the AP of a force field. And the AP of Aid doesn't change just because it costs END.

 

Realistically, the three separate powers are holdovers from 1e, when the pricing was not as close. Damage Resistance could be purchased for 15 points (making half your PD and ED resistant) or 30 points (making all your PD and ED resistant). Force Field had the same mechanism it has now. Armor cost, IIRC, 5 points for 2 rDEF. I believe it was only in 4e that the three were rationalized to make Damage Resistance available on granular units of defense, such that +10 PD, Damage Resistant cost the same as +10 Armor.

 

All the rest are addons. There's no reason "protects carried items" could not be an adder, or an advantage, to defenses in general. The rules do not preclude Resistant exotic defenses (much to my disgust), allowing for such things as AVLD Killing Attacks that require a Resistant exotic defense, or AVLD - Resistant Smell Flash Defense.

 

It's when you get into the Endurance' date=' Duration and Visibility issues that the two break down in equality.[/quote']

 

Definitely the case -in fact, if this issue were resolved, there would be no difference between Force Field and Armor-Costs END. Given the decoupling of PD and ED as figured characteristics, maybe we could just trash PD, ED, Damage Resistance, Force Field and Armor. Defense is a power. You can buy Physical, Energy, Mental, Power and Flash defense. Everyone gets a base 2 Physical and Energy Defense. You can make Defense Resistant for 1/2 the defenses made Resistant - it's an Adder. You can Harden them with an advantage. You can make them Cost End with a limitation. Armor, Force field, etc. become examples of the Defense power.

 

Yes, it means we have a "power" that a lot of characters should buy. So what? We already have Running, Swimming and Leaping, don't we?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

I'm not disinclined to disagree, actually - I agree completely with all that.

 

We could take all the Defenses, wipe them off the table and come back with:

Physical

Energy

Power

Mental

Flash

 

Use Damage Resistance and Protects Carried (I'm inclined to say a 10pt Adder though as an Advantage at most a +1/4 Advantage) as modifiers. And Damage Reduction as the odd but useful puppy in the bunch.

 

And be done with it. Defenses would all then be Persistent, 0END by nature and even across the board.

 

While I have little use for Resistance Exotic Defenses; Resistance Smell Flash Defense could very well have a use in someone's game, somewhere, and I'm disinclined to remove an option because /I/ feel it's silly. It's the GMs job to police the games for AVLD Wonky Defenses, not the systems.

[Lairian]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

I'm not disinclined to disagree, actually - I agree completely with all that.

 

We could take all the Defenses, wipe them off the table and come back with:

Physical

Energy

Power

Mental

Flash

 

Use Damage Resistance and Protects Carried (I'm inclined to say a 10pt Adder though as an Advantage at most a +1/4 Advantage) as modifiers. And Damage Reduction as the odd but useful puppy in the bunch.

 

And be done with it. Defenses would all then be Persistent, 0END by nature and even across the board.

 

Generally, a good idea. Of course, by similar logic, we should be rolling EB and HA into one power (NA, or normal attack), and HKA and RKA into one as well (KA). Adders and Limitations then define which "flavor" of Defense, NA, and KA your character has. Begin with the abstract, and define entirely through Limits.

 

I admit the last assertion was a half-goad and a risk of off-topic, but if we're going to remove any "flavorings" and presumptions on the utility of powers inherant in their naming, it should be universally applied. And doing so may not be a bad idea (in fact, I'm in favor of this).

 

The main disadvantage in doing something of this nature is accessibility to new players. Its harder for a new player with no experience to go from "I want Hunter-Of-Criminals to wear super SWAT armor" to finding and modeling this via a combination of two powers (physical and energy defense) than to just look at the Powers list and say "Hey, look, Armor!". Similarly, a player generating Plasmid will have far more difficulty making the connection between "hurl a blob of superheated plasma" and Normal Attack (ranged +0) than "Energy Blast".

 

tl;dr: abstraction is great for points, but remember descriptive names help new players, regardless of redundancy.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

EB/HA were it not for the bizarre issue of STR I would agree.

 

HKA/RKA - they are rolled into one. Look in the book they are under Killing Attack with Hand To Hand and Range as essentially subsets. Ranged even has a truncated description that says "see previous entry" ... the only difference in the two is one has Strength Adds To Damage and the other has Ranged.

 

Neither of the above provide the disparity that Armor/Force Field do when emulating each other. In fact, HA prohibits emulating EB, though adding +1/2 Ranged back on brings it back to 5/D6 and KAs cost the same either way.

 

A decent comparison, and a nice thought. But does not cover the issue we are dealing with here in the remotest sense - which is an obvious and glaring discrepancy in Cost vs Utility of two identical Mechanical functions.

[Lairian]

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

 

A decent comparison, and a nice thought. But does not cover the issue we are dealing with here in the remotest sense - which is an obvious and glaring discrepancy in Cost vs Utility of two identical Mechanical functions.

 

Well, HA xd6 (hand attack -1/2, ranged +1/2) vs EB seems to be two models of a ranged normal attack at the same cost, but HA allows STR, and so is "better" mechanical effect for points, but as you say, that's going away from the issue being looked at. I admit in hindsight KAs were an irrelevant example.

 

My crux is that replacement of Powers with descriptive names limits accessibility to some degree, and should be kept in mind. Of course I wont argue that flavor should give points benefits, either.

 

Ideally, there is a flavorless Power that PD, ED, Armor, Flash, etc. are based off of, and so you can arrive at any other like power through use of Limits and Advantages, and at equivalent cost. Whether this flavorless Power is published or not, the Powers "Force Field" and "Armor" have use if nothing else as a "Start Here!" point for new players.