Power Discussion: Barrier

[Ternaugh]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Oh' date=' but they [i']can[/i] just move it. Please re-read the description of Barrier.

 

And just how fast can a Speedster get his "hamster ball" spinning? And how about a move-through using one?

 

JoeG

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

And just how fast can a Speedster get his "hamster ball" spinning? And how about a move-through using one?

 

All together now:

 

"Common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects!"

[lemming]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

I feel like designing Hamster Ball Team Alpha now.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

And just how fast can a Speedster get his "hamster ball" spinning? And how about a move-through using one?

 

JoeG

 

I've been considering just that sort of thing. While the rules say you can't really push people out of the way (at least with the "mobile" version), I see no reason you couldn't just consider it somewhere between an extension of the character (for running people over with a Move Through) and a Focus (for fighting over who is "holding" the ball). Might even grant a small AoE for Move Throughs, like picking up a large object. Hmm.

[Katherine]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Dumb Question: Can you apply other Defenses like Flash, Menta, Power or even Damage Negation to a Barrier?

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Oh' date=' but they [i']can[/i] just move it. Please re-read the description of Barrier.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant, I was thinking you were saying "move it so it no longer englobes them."

 

Okay, I still have some reservations about how hard Barriers are to destroy, but I've been persuaded that there's a lot of ways around one or to still do something while inside. Certainly some characters really are boned by being Englobed, but that's true of any power.

 

I'm going to give it some time as written. If it turns out to be a problem, I'll nerf it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Dumb Question: Can you apply other Defenses like Flash' date=' Menta, Power or even Damage Negation to a Barrier?[/quote']

 

Yes, any Defense may be purchased for Barrier.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

All together now:

 

"Common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects!"

 

 

Grr.

 

OK: Common sense: don't make an englobing barrier a globe, make it a cube. That should certainly slow down anyone without flight, teleport or tunneling - and I'm not just going to englobe people at random - I'm going to pick the most targets it will be most effective against.

 

Second, not everyone you englobe will be a brick, so not everyone will have the strength to break the anchor to the ground without breaking the barrier first.

 

Third I don't care if the englobed character has full DCV or can break out eventually: all I want to do is improve my teams odds against the other team - and fighting them one at a time improves those odds enromously.

 

Fourth: I don't know about you but i tend not to use 'Entangle' to hold a target still while I hit is - I use it to take a target out of the fight temporarily: it seems silly giving the target additional protection as a prelude to trying to damage him or her. Used in the same way, Barrier is more effective for many targets.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

It's also entirely possible that englobing people isn't the purpose of Barrier and it has a lot more than that put into the costing structure of it.

 

As a GM, if your primary reason to buy Barrier is just to englobe people I might be telling you that you want to purchase Entangle instead.

 

Or... I add a Body Limit along with PD/ED Limits, to Barrier. Perhaps the Body Score can be no more than 50% of the smallest purchased defense or something.

 

But you know, carry on.

 

I agree that Barrier has many cool uses other than englobing*, but englobing is attracting a lot of attention because it is apparently a horribly effective tactic. Sure there are all sorts of ways you could nerf it so that locking someone down is unquestionably best done with Entangle (which at the moment is in grave doubt).

 

Thing is this is a new edition and those considerations have to have gone through a design process. It is odd that these points were not considered then, or if they were, they were not addressed in the text.

 

There's no doubt that you can form a more impenetrable 'prison' with Barrier than you can with Entangle, which steals the schtick from Entangle. I can think of a number of ways to address that, but the point is it needs addressing.

 

In fact Entangle has been made less useful (it has lost its own Barrier ability), costs just as much, and has been put in at least partial shade by Barrier. There seems to be no quid pro quo. I think that is what bothers me most here: again it would have been easy enough to make Entangle more useful without necessarily upping the numbers, but a choice has been made not to.

 

 

 

*Need a base? Sure...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Dumb Question: Can you apply other Defenses like Flash' date=' Menta, Power or even Damage Negation to a Barrier? [/quote']

 

You can...although that may often be pointless. A Barrier is like a real wall. If you hit a real wall with (say) a ranged STR drain, that will have no effect on the wall and will not go through (a Body drain would damage it though). Walls can be made opaque, meaning that sight flash doesn't work, and you can not get a LOS with a mental power.

 

That makes PD and ED the most logical purchase, and other defences worth proportionally less for this sort of defence.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Hmm. Good points. My conclusion: Tunneling should be a lot cheaper. It doesn't care about Body. (Hmm. Tunneling with Penetrating....)

[Starlight]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

So I've just finished reading through the Barrier power write-up.

 

Did anyone else blink in amazement at this part of the write up?

 

"An attacker could use a Move By/Through to try to hit a target on the other side of a Barrier .... If his Attack Roll against the target on the other side of the Barrier fails, he stops dead at the edge of the Barrier but takes no damage from hitting it."

 

That's just... well, silly is the kindest word I can think of. So Cannonball in full out move-through mode charging at a 10m long 5m high Barrier flunks his roll to hit the nimble martial artist on the other side of the Barrier - and is brought to a dead stop with neither him nor the Barrier taking any damage?

 

And please, let's not hear the 'Dramatic and Common Sense' refrain yet once more. A silly rule is a silly rule. Telling me I can override it doesn't make it any less silly.

 

As far as the dismissable aspect is concerned I'm reminded of a house rule my group used back in the early days of Champions. We used two types of Force Wall. One was an instant fire-and-forget Force Wall rather like the new Barrier power. It was permanent. The other was a constant Force Wall which could be dismissed at will but would also go down if the creator moved out of line of sight, was knocked out or stunned, etc. That house rule is likely to be making a comeback.

 

I can see a One Way Transparent advantage for Barrier. I cannot see any sign of the old 5th edition transparent to PD/ED advantage. Did I simply miss it - or has it been removed?

 

If the gerenic transparent advantage is missing what would be a suitable advantage value to restore it by house rule? For a limited class of attacks (Matching the +1/2 One Way Transparent advantage) and for all attacks.

 

Transparent against all attacks? What possible use is that? How about a hi-tech air lock force wall, built as Barrier transparent to all attacks (except gaseous) in both directions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

I'll be interested to see how Barrier actually works out in game. A high BOD, DEF barrier will take time to get through. OK, so does a high BOD, low DEF entangle. It is, however, frustrated by teleportation, tunnelling and desolidification (instant escapes). Exotic and indirect attack powers seem quite beneficial (hey, I can stay in the barrier and attack you without being counterattacked - combine with TPort or Desolid and I can use your barrier targeted to englobe my teammate to defend me).

 

Since Barriers are real constructs, when that Brick breaks free, there should be lots of pieces around for him to throw at you.

 

The ultimate proof will be in the play - if battles start to revolve around englobing Barriers on both sides, maybe that will indicate some changes need to be made, but I want to see the issue become a problem before I conclude it is one. The Entangle approach may be the easiest answer - Barrier w/ no DEF and Barrier w/ 0 BOD become limitations, and you otherwise must maintain a minimum ratio of DEF to BOD or BOD to DEF.

[Starlight]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

I'll be interested to see how Barrier actually works out in game.

 

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong but the above implies that you, a SETAC member, never had a chance to see Barrier in use in a game?

 

I'd wondered, given the impressive speed with which 6th edition emerged after the 6th edition discussion forum was locked, how much time had been available for play-testing the changes. It would concern me greatly if the answer was little or none. In any large complex project, and the Hero System with roughly 800 pages in the core books certainly qualifies as such, it's almost a truism that the first iteration will be flawed. Often deeply flawed. There's even a saying regarding this in programming, 'Build the first version to throw it away'.

 

In general I'm more impressed with 6th edition, in my so far incomplete reading through of the books, than I expected to be. It is an improvement on 5th edition in my opinion. Numerous minor improvements and a few major improvements. So I'm not beating down on it. But there are more than a few rough edges that I would not have expected to see. Issues that play-testing should have caught.

 

Barrier is the roughest of those edges I've encountered so far. Great concept, of that there's no doubt, and the 7th edition version will probably be quite excellent. (cf. Megascale, introduced in 5th edition with some significant flaws. 6th edition Megascale is vastly improved.) In the current incarnation, however, it shows signs of rushed finalisation, a lack of objective thought about the fringe uses (such as englobing opponents rather than creating barriers) and a degree of uncertaincy over exactly where it stands within the underlying Instant/Constant meta-structure.

 

I don't want to be criticising. I want to be saying it's a fantastic achievement and I'm going to enjoy playing and running it. It is. I will. But if I see what appears to be a problem I'm not going to ignore it. This thread, the responses to points raised by others and myself, will help shape whatever house ruling is finally made in my group regarding Barrier. If these issues are not raised there can be no discussion about them.

[Beowulfe]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Unless I am missing something, a person in a globe is not "locked down". They can still move, and assuming it is round, they can roll it like a hamster ball as per the power description. So by englobing them with the low def high body example, you've just given them extra armor. Without the transparent advantage, damage is stopped both ways. Now mister brick can make move throughs with a lot more ease since he's got extra protection.

 

There are plenty of other powers that can remove a character from play:

entangle based on ego. a 3 DEF 3 Body will pretty much take most non mentalists out

teleport usable as attack, with megascale

extra dimensional travel, usable as attack

 

It all boils down to how the GM allows it. No matter how you plan for it, players will find another way you did not anticipate.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

So I've just finished reading through the Barrier power write-up.

 

Did anyone else blink in amazement at this part of the write up?

 

"An attacker could use a Move By/Through to try to hit a target on the other side of a Barrier .... If his Attack Roll against the target on the other side of the Barrier fails, he stops dead at the edge of the Barrier but takes no damage from hitting it."

 

That's just... well, silly is the kindest word I can think of. So Cannonball in full out move-through mode charging at a 10m long 5m high Barrier flunks his roll to hit the nimble martial artist on the other side of the Barrier - and is brought to a dead stop with neither him nor the Barrier taking any damage?

 

And please, let's not hear the 'Dramatic and Common Sense' refrain yet once more. A silly rule is a silly rule. Telling me I can override it doesn't make it any less silly.

 

............

 

Dramatic and common sense are on holiday. Please leave a message at the tone.

 

I had missed that one (grumbles about .pdfs...again) but I imagine it is a bit that was created for Force Wall, which worked a bit differently. Let me go and read it...

 

....blimey, that is daft. Another house rule then: assuming an intervening immobile Barrier, you do move through damage on it equal to velcoity you can build up before impact: STR etc as usual: if you do not break through, you take damage as if doing a move through that does no KB. If you do you can use the distance between the target and the Barrier to continue to accelerate and you hit the target if you make a normal roll to hit (and are still within FMove).

[m3nt0r]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

So I've just finished reading through the Barrier power write-up.

 

Did anyone else blink in amazement at this part of the write up?

 

"An attacker could use a Move By/Through to try to hit a target on the other side of a Barrier .... If his Attack Roll against the target on the other side of the Barrier fails, he stops dead at the edge of the Barrier but takes no damage from hitting it."

 

That's just... well, silly is the kindest word I can think of. So Cannonball in full out move-through mode charging at a 10m long 5m high Barrier flunks his roll to hit the nimble martial artist on the other side of the Barrier - and is brought to a dead stop with neither him nor the Barrier taking any damage?

 

And please, let's not hear the 'Dramatic and Common Sense' refrain yet once more. A silly rule is a silly rule. Telling me I can override it doesn't make it any less silly.

 

As far as the dismissable aspect is concerned I'm reminded of a house rule my group used back in the early days of Champions. We used two types of Force Wall. One was an instant fire-and-forget Force Wall rather like the new Barrier power. It was permanent. The other was a constant Force Wall which could be dismissed at will but would also go down if the creator moved out of line of sight, was knocked out or stunned, etc. That house rule is likely to be making a comeback.

 

I can see a One Way Transparent advantage for Barrier. I cannot see any sign of the old 5th edition transparent to PD/ED advantage. Did I simply miss it - or has it been removed?

 

If the gerenic transparent advantage is missing what would be a suitable advantage value to restore it by house rule? For a limited class of attacks (Matching the +1/2 One Way Transparent advantage) and for all attacks.

 

Transparent against all attacks? What possible use is that? How about a hi-tech air lock force wall, built as Barrier transparent to all attacks (except gaseous) in both directions.

 

corrected to:

 

"An attacker could use a Move By/Through to try to hit a target on the other side of a Barrier .... If his Attack Roll against the target on the other side of the Barrier fails, he stops dead at the edge of the Barrier but takes no damage from "hitting" it."

 

It probably means IMO that the attacker stops the Move By/Through attack as he sees the defender getting out of his trajectory,that's how i will apply this rule in my games.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

corrected to:

 

"An attacker could use a Move By/Through to try to hit a target on the other side of a Barrier .... If his Attack Roll against the target on the other side of the Barrier fails, he stops dead at the edge of the Barrier but takes no damage from "hitting" it."

 

It probably means IMO that the attacker stops the Move By/Through attack as he sees the defender getting out of his trajectory,that's how i will apply this rule in my games.

 

**Fluffle, huffle, duffle, harumph**

 

Bullet has a 60 metre move. He is aiming at The Human Target who is 50 metres away, but there is an intervening Barrier 30 metres from Bullet.

 

According to the rules, if his hit roll misses The Human Target (not likely - she LIKES being hit) he stops 20 metres away from her, with the Barrier still intervening.

 

Run the same thing again but take out the Barrier. This time when he misses, does he get the option of stopping?

 

No. He can not be sure 20 metres out if he's going to hit or not.

 

I'm ruling he crashed through/bounces off the Barrier and if he misses The Human Target, it may well be because he got a bit put off by having to smash through a wall, and got a boo-boo.

 

The only way he avoids any damage is if his roll to hit was so truly awful he wouldn't even have hit the Barrier

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong but the above implies that you' date=' a SETAC member, never had a chance to see Barrier in use in a game? [/quote']

 

I think the mandate of SETAC is vastly over-estimated. We did not see the books pre-release. Steve provided us with the items he wanted comments on, and we commented. In some cases, they were Q&A's ("how should we deal with killing attacks?"). In others, it was draft rules text (we saw the draft Barrier), sometimes multiple version.

 

However, I think using the rules in our own games would have violated the SETAC mandate by pre-releasing the information (although I suspect Steve might have OK'd someone specifically asking to playtest something).

 

I do not believe there would have been adequate time to playtest 6e, and I do not believe there would have been playtesting. That concerned me for a bit as well.

 

However, the more I considered it, the less I think any realistic playtesting period (that is, a period of time which would have been economically practical for DoJ - not a 6 month to 1 year delay of releasing 6e) would carry much benefit. Why? Because the playtesters would have been Hero Grognards, and we would likely have been rebuilding existing characters using the new rules. It's those not familiar with the way it's always been who will most likely find any problem issues. Those of us who've been playing for years will likely take some time to discover any abuses.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

They could have released the .pdf of 6e as a beta.

 

What?

[Ternaugh]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

They could have released the .pdf of 6e as a beta.

 

What?

 

You mean like Traveller 5?

 

JoeG

Edit: to be fair, T5 is really more of an alpha....

[Beast]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

from what you have discribed

 

1)in most cases yes

2)I would say you could just reapply the power to get it back up to full strength

if you have adjustable size and a large enough effect

you could in effect make layers(if that is allowed)

building up body like 5th ed entangle I'd say no let entangle have it's differences

3)costing end so you could push it

might have you define what your push looks like(all body,+1 pd ed the rest body,etc...)

4)entagle killer to some effect yes(you can get more targets and it will have a higher def and not subject to the whimms of dice

on the other hand using foci and haymakers are unhindered

where the 5th ed Force wall was overpriced to the point of being unusable

Barrier from 6th may have swung the cost the other way

A Barrier 13 PD/13 ED, 5 BODY (up to 3m long, 2m tall, and 1/2m thick), Non-Anchored(60 pts)makes a great defense in a 60 ap game

to be used as an entangle makes it much better that a regular entangle

you could hamster ball a target

or pick it up and really rattle their cage(think of an egg in a mason jar and shake it with a 60 str vs 13 def and 5 body

now of course the target could wait and use the attackers shaking as a throw to attack as a move through to bust out

 

IMHO the pricing should allow for 60 active full cover 720deg mobile 10 def (pd/ed)and 5 body

I think it should be bought usable as an attack to bring the def down to be more akin to entangle

otherwise it is a hard cage to break out of compared to entagle

 

The new power 'Barrier' has been highlighted as part of the 'taster posts' and is an interesting power - it has me wondering though, as to some of the application.

 

Barrier is an instant power, which is nice in that it becomes 'fire and forget' - you do not have to worry about maintaining it. That raises a couple of rules application concerns though:

 

1. Can you voluntarily turn it off? The book says you can make a Barrier that requires maintenance by adding the limitation 'Costs END'. That causes me...some concern. What, exactly is the effect of that? It turns off if you don't pay END, presumably - BUT it makes it really very awkward to then buy a 0 END version of Barrier that you can turn off at will (you need 'Costs END' and '0 END' which was - and as far as I know still is verboten). It also impacts on the second point, below...

 

2. Can you reinforce a Barrier? A barrier acts like a real wall - and can be built with BODY (it is a good idea to do so generally as Body is pretty cheap). Once it is damaged, can you reinforce it or do you need to build another wall? Given that walls are (minimum) 1/2 m thick - that may not always be practical.

 

If 'Costs END' means the barrier can be turned off, does it also mean it can be turned up? It is almost like making the Barrier 'constant' (at least in some respects) but using a limitation to do this.

 

That makes things a bit unclear.

 

On the positive side, Barrier looks REALLY useful for some concepts: it is (almost) a 'creation' power for Hero that does not rely on the Transform mechanic. I can think of a number of adders I'll almost certainly house rule: +5 to make the barrier thinner, +5 to make the barrier into very complicated shapes (say a virtually indestructible jewel box with a lock).

 

Barrier is also an Entangle killer: for the same points you can have a much more powerful barrier (small 'b') surrounding your enemy. Entangle will still be useful against martial artists (if you deny MA use tot he entangled) and some target's with an OAF. Also - and I'm not sure how this works - Barrier *should* be anchored to the ground, so you *possibly* can not englobe a character in the air - or if you can I'm not sure what effect it has.

 

There's also the issue that barriers are 'anchored' to the ground. I'm not clear what that would mean if you, for instance, set up an englobing barrier around a flier standing on sand - they may not be able to break through the barrier, but they could sure lift it out of sand.

 

Barriers, despite being 'real' do not appear to have 'mass' rules.

 

That might have clarified a number of issues if each 1mx1mx1/2m section weighed (say) 50 kg (with adders for making it lighter or heavier).

 

Interesting power - I see a lot of stimulating discussion

[Beast]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

+5 pts dissmissable seems to not have made it into HD6 or 6th ed

could it be in APG?

 

 

For Steve's answer to questions about dismissing Barriers' date=' see http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74783.[/quote']

[Beowulfe]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

The +5 was not an official rule more what Steve suggested if you wanted to do an adder for that. That being said, I would suspect there is a good chance it makes it into the APG.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Power Discussion: Barrier

 

+5 pts dissmissable seems to not have made it into HD6 or 6th ed

could it be in APG?

 

Probably not, as I think the APG was pretty much done when the question was raised. I'm pretty sure it was created to answer the question, not that it had been created and left out. It will possibly appear in a 6e FAQ at some point.

 

As for HD, just use a Custom Adder and rename it Dismissible.