Barrier Issue

[Doc Samson]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

I would be naturally suspicious of someone with that power

 

Can I hear a Booya?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

You can not use Barrier to exert force' date=' so whilst it would be a GM call, I'd suspect not, at least technically - however it is such a good idea it would be wrong to disallow it [/quote']

If Barriers can't exert force, how can they be barriers? I would have thought Steve would want to learn at least the very basics of physics before writing 6E.

 

If a small child is leaning against my Barrier, I can't move it? Does air resistance stop it also? Can I create a big flat barrier and wave it like a fan?

 

Right now, you are exerting force on the chair you're sitting on. And the chair is exerting an equal force back to keep you off the floor. Assuming the chair is study enough, it can keep exerting this force indefinitely. However, if you exert a big enough force on the chair, you can break it.

 

Barriers must be able to exert force, otherwise they might as well be wet tissue paper.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Tenser's Floating Disc that can be broken by force: Barrier

 

Tenser's Floating Disc that cannot be broken by force Telekinesis.

 

Remember - objects that are placed on a Barrier designed to carry something exert their weight in STR Damage every Segment. Don't build it with enough DEF and it will crack under weight alone.

Shouldn't be a problem. 2 DEF is enough to hold 100 kg. 6 DEF holds 1600 kg. But even that seems like too much damage for a steady weight to do. There's a big difference between a steady pressure and a sudden impact. You can drop a 1 kg rock on soda can and crush it, but if you're careful, a soda can will support your entire body weight (well, depending on how big you are, I guess). Likewise, a truck bed might be capaple of holding a ton of cargo without being damaged, but it can be destroyed if that ton of cargo is dropped on the truck bed from a sufficient hieght.

 

As a rough house rule, I'd say that a stationary weight on a barrier only does half its wieght in STR damage (equivalent to its "Casual STR").

 

The book cautions against using Barrier as a cheap TK, as well.

Fair enough. I have a problem with it as well. It seems a bit too much to get a free "TK, Only Affects My Barriers" for the price of Mobile. How much is Mobile anyway? Is it an Adder or an Advantage?

 

For Tenser's Floating Disc, it's probably better to just by TK with Physical Manifestation.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Well, a dropped/moving weight could probably add damage due to the equivalent of an uncontrolled Move Through. That means you wouldn't have to decrease the amount of crushing damage done by the object's base weight.

 

As for a barrier not being able to exert force, I think we all basically understand the difference. While a barrier can resist being moved with just about whatever force is necessary (unless it is enough to break or dislodge the barrier), it cannot be moved freely in such a way as to force significant objects or characters to move as well (though personally I'll probably allow a character to use a barrier that it centered on and moves with himself to use it to perform a Shove/Move By/Move Through with his normal Strength, like you could with a Vehicle). From a physical perspective it may not make complete sense, but from the perspective of game system balance I bet we can all appreciate the difference pretty readily (this coming from a physicist). And I think there are enough ways to include such an active force when we really want one (e.g. Telekinesis).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

If Barriers can't exert force, how can they be barriers? I would have thought Steve would want to learn at least the very basics of physics before writing 6E.

 

If a small child is leaning against my Barrier, I can't move it? Does air resistance stop it also? Can I create a big flat barrier and wave it like a fan?

 

Right now, you are exerting force on the chair you're sitting on. And the chair is exerting an equal force back to keep you off the floor. Assuming the chair is study enough, it can keep exerting this force indefinitely. However, if you exert a big enough force on the chair, you can break it.

 

Barriers must be able to exert force, otherwise they might as well be wet tissue paper.

 

 

Barriers are supposed to be anchored, so they act like a wall or surface. They get their non-movingness from the surface they are anchored to (which begs the question: is there much point in creating a 20/20 Barrier on sand?).

 

The non-anchored adder allows you to create a barrier then pick it up and move it around.

 

The mobile advantage allows you to move a barrier - but not use it to exert force - which is all about game balance, not physics. It was always the same with Force Wall.

 

I think it could have been done differently, certainly, but the basic shape of the power is not really a problem - just the details.

[EverKnight]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

The main problem I feel Barrier has is to do with englobing. According to the rules a barrier can be used to englobe if either the length or the height are 4m. This means that a barrier with a minimum surface area of 4 sq. metres will surround someone including top and bottom. There are further rules if the barrier forms a sphere.

 

Now, if I remembered and applied the formulas correctly, and ignoring the thickness of the barrier for simplicity, I calculate that 4 sq. metres will form a sphere with a diameter a little over 1m or a 2m tall cylinder that is a little over 0.5m wide. This seems to me to be a very small space in which to surround someone, especially if you are trying to englobe an opponent.

 

If we take what I feel would be a more realistic minimum of a sphere with a 2m diameter then we end up with a surface area just over 12 sq. metres. I am tempted therefore to rule that barriers can only englobe when the length multiplied by the height is 12 or more. Incidentally the 2m tall cylinder is now 1.4m wide.

 

How much difference this would make I don't know as it need only cost 2 points more on the size of the barrier but at least I would believe that the barrier could comfortably surround someone.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Well' date=' a dropped/moving weight could probably add damage due to the equivalent of an uncontrolled Move Through. That means you wouldn't have to decrease the amount of crushing damage done by the object's base weight.[/quote']

Well, you don't *have* to do anything, but it just strikes me as completely unrealistic and implausible that a stationary 100 kg object is doing 2d6 damage to whatever it's resting on every segment.

 

As for a barrier not being able to exert force, I think we all basically understand the difference. While a barrier can resist being moved with just about whatever force is necessary (unless it is enough to break or dislodge the barrier), it cannot be moved freely in such a way as to force significant objects or characters to move as well (though personally I'll probably allow a character to use a barrier that it centered on and moves with himself to use it to perform a Shove/Move By/Move Through with his normal Strength, like you could with a Vehicle).

So I can pick up a large flat object of opportunity and push things and people around with it, but if it's a large flat object created with the Barrier power, then I can't?

 

If BarrierMan creates an unanchored barrier, and Strongman pushes it with his 60 STR from one side, he can do so. But if Joe Milquetoast is standing on the other side with his 5 STR, Strongman can't move the barrier, because it can't exert force. WTF?

 

I don't think I'm asking for too much here. I recognize that certain laws of physics can and must be broken for the sake of the game, but this isn't relativity effects near the speed of light, this is just basic force moving an object. It not only doesn't make sense from a physics perspective, it doesn't make sense from a rules perspective.

 

The mobile advantage allows you to move a barrier - but not use it to exert force - which is all about game balance' date=' not physics. It was always the same with Force Wall.[/quote']

And it didn't make any sense with Force Wall either. I was hoping the nonsense would have been eliminated (or at least reduced) in 6E.

 

I think it could have been done differently, certainly, but the basic shape of the power is not really a problem - just the details.

Yes, but the details matter. The details actually come up in the game. It's not rocket science. It's object-pushing-object. Cavemen understood it.

 

-----

 

OK, to me, the problem seems to come from the Mobile Advantage, and what it means. IMO, the solution is to let an Unanchored Barrier act like any other unanchored object of opportunity - you can exert force with it. but of course that force is exerted by the character who is actually moving the barrier. In my example above, it's Strongman's 60 STR that is exerting the force. Joe Milquetoast is swept away like a cow by a train. Of course, if Joe has just finished drinking a Potion of Ridiculous Strength, Strongman may have a contest on his hands.

 

For the Mobile Advantage, something needs to be defined as to how the barrier moves and what STR it can posess for the purpose of pushing things as it moves. It seems that as the rules are currently written, Mobile means the user has essentially TK that only moves the barrier. *That's* the problem. Mobile should be defined as "It moves with Me (or with the "target" I've englobed/protected)". That way, the STR of the movement is the STR of the character moving the barrier.

 

With 6E, the Barrier Power essentially added the option of buying BODY for a Force Wall. Perhaps we should allow buying STR for it as well.

 

Whatever we, as individual players/GMs decide, it just has to be defined how the barrier moves and how it deals with other objects in its path when it moves, when the Mobile advantage is purchased.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Objects exert their full weight on another object given the application of direct downward force (gravity) being constant. However you model that is up to you, honestly, but an object that exerts for weight on a second object than the second object can hold will eventually just break it. Possibly not quickly, but eventually.

 

without getting into surface area distribution of mass and all that... the entire process of modeling weight, damage, defenses and body of objects is utterly abstract and the one in the book is as good a guideline as any, IMO. I find the whole idea of "unrealistic" and "realistic" measured in terms of Strength Damage to be utterly rediculous.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Well' date=' you don't *have* to do anything, but it just strikes me as completely unrealistic and implausible that a stationary 100 kg object is doing 2d6 damage to whatever it's resting on every segment.[/quote']

 

That is actually pretty reasonable, but I'd rule that crushing damage is always standard effect (for Body, at least) and can be resisted/neutralised with STR. That means objects will either be able to hold the weight or not (if Mass Damage does not exceed PD) and most living things are not going to take damage from having weight on them they could lift anyway.

 

 

So I can pick up a large flat object of opportunity and push things and people around with it, but if it's a large flat object created with the Barrier power, then I can't?

 

If BarrierMan creates an unanchored barrier, and Strongman pushes it with his 60 STR from one side, he can do so. But if Joe Milquetoast is standing on the other side with his 5 STR, Strongman can't move the barrier, because it can't exert force. WTF?

 

IMO a barrier is a real object so if it is not anchored, or a bit is broken off, you can use it to exert force just like you could with any other object.

 

What you can not do is move it about without touching it and use that to exert force: the power itself doesn't come with a push.

 

You can not use Barrier to create some sort of skintight exosuit - well you can, perhaps, but you would never be able to change the shape fast enought o make it useful, and as a wall, it is anchored to SOMETHING. I'd have preferred to not see 'mobile' as an adder and instead make people buy limited TK to move their barriers around.

 

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

 

 

And it didn't make any sense with Force Wall either. I was hoping the nonsense would have been eliminated (or at least reduced) in 6E.

 

If it did not make sense then you were probably using th ewrong power to model the effect you were after.

 

 

Yes' date=' but the details matter. The details actually come up in the game. It's not rocket science. It's object-pushing-object. Cavemen understood it.[/quote']

 

I agree, but then we are not operating in a world with actual physics as the base ruleset. You can always HausRhul that you can not take the 'mobile' advantage and have to use TK (or brute STR) to move your barriers around.

 

-----

 

OK, to me, the problem seems to come from the Mobile Advantage, and what it means. IMO, the solution is to let an Unanchored Barrier act like any other unanchored object of opportunity - you can exert force with it. but of course that force is exerted by the character who is actually moving the barrier. In my example above, it's Strongman's 60 STR that is exerting the force. Joe Milquetoast is swept away like a cow by a train. Of course, if Joe has just finished drinking a Potion of Ridiculous Strength, Strongman may have a contest on his hands.

 

For the Mobile Advantage, something needs to be defined as to how the barrier moves and what STR it can posess for the purpose of pushing things as it moves. It seems that as the rules are currently written, Mobile means the user has essentially TK that only moves the barrier. *That's* the problem. Mobile should be defined as "It moves with Me (or with the "target" I've englobed/protected)". That way, the STR of the movement is the STR of the character moving the barrier.

 

With 6E, the Barrier Power essentially added the option of buying BODY for a Force Wall. Perhaps we should allow buying STR for it as well.

 

Whatever we, as individual players/GMs decide, it just has to be defined how the barrier moves and how it deals with other objects in its path when it moves, when the Mobile advantage is purchased.

 

 

Actually there's quite a bit of difference between FW and Barrier: not just added Body goodness. Personally I do not like the way the power is instant, but 'mobile' (that damn advantage again) allows you to maintain control over it...that is an attribute of a constant power.

 

If I'd been scratch building Barrier, I'd have done it as an Artefact Creation power, including rules for mass and MUCH more complex shapes, better definition of how anchoring works: you could build a wall or a sword or a lockpick, or create an anvil over the villain's head. Missed opportunity.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

That is actually pretty reasonable' date=' but I'd rule that crushing damage is always standard effect (for Body, at least) and can be resisted/neutralised with STR.[/quote']

Yeah. Standard Effect helps aleviate the problem somewhat, and it certainly makes more sense. How would a stationary object do varying amounts of damage each segment? But it still seems too high.

 

IMO a barrier is a real object so if it is not anchored, or a bit is broken off, you can use it to exert force just like you could with any other object.

 

What you can not do is move it about without touching it and use that to exert force: the power itself doesn't come with a push.

Agreed.

 

You can not use Barrier to create some sort of skintight exosuit - well you can, perhaps, but you would never be able to change the shape fast enought o make it useful, and as a wall, it is anchored to SOMETHING. I'd have preferred to not see 'mobile' as an adder and instead make people buy limited TK to move their barriers around.

Also agreed.

 

If it did not make sense then you were probably using the wrong power to model the effect you were after.

How would you know what power I was using or what I was trying to model? I didn't specify anything. The official rule was that Force Walls can't support any weight. So all you have to do to take one down is lean against it. That makes no sense regardless of what you're trying to model. (Unless you're trying to model wet tissue paper, but that's pretty darned expensive for tissue paper!)

 

I agree, but then we are not operating in a world with actual physics as the base ruleset.

I think we are. Any RPG with a good degree of crunch has a good "sim" element. What's all the crunch for if we're not trying to make a world with some modicum of verisimilitude?

 

Actually there's quite a bit of difference between FW and Barrier: not just added Body goodness.

Yes, of course. I didn't mean to imply that that was the *only* difference.

 

I think my house rule will be that Mobile must be defined as moving in a fixed way, such as with a particular target, in which case it exerts force based on the STR of the target. And I'd probably let that "fixed way" be chosen as the power is used. Another "fixed way" would be to simply move in a straight line at a steady rate. And if you want to be able to move it around at will, you need to buy limited TK - and I'd allow the mass of the barrier to be ignored - you get the full STR of the TK to apply force.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

OK' date=' to me, the problem seems to come from the Mobile Advantage, and what it means. IMO, the solution is to let an Unanchored Barrier act like any other unanchored object of opportunity - you can exert force with it. but of course that force is exerted by the character who is actually moving the barrier. In my example above, it's Strongman's 60 STR that is exerting the force. Joe Milquetoast is swept away like a cow by a train. Of course, if Joe has just finished drinking a Potion of Ridiculous Strength, Strongman may have a contest on his hands.[/quote']

 

Oh. Okay. I think I agree with you then. I'll probably let someone pick up the Barrier and use his own Str to push someone around with it, essentially in hand-to-hand (hence my mention of the Shove/Move By/Move Through maneuvers above). But if they're just taking advantage of the Mobile Adder to float the Barrier around, it won't exert enough force by itself (without the character's own Str to back it up) to push around any significant objects/characters. I think we need to be a little careful not to let a Barrier become a cheap form of Area of Effect on the character's Str, so as always I'll be watching to make sure it isn't abused that way.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

The main problem I feel Barrier has is to do with englobing. According to the rules a barrier can be used to englobe if either the length or the height are 4m. This means that a barrier with a minimum surface area of 4 sq. metres will surround someone including top and bottom. There are further rules if the barrier forms a sphere.

 

Now, if I remembered and applied the formulas correctly, and ignoring the thickness of the barrier for simplicity, I calculate that 4 sq. metres will form a sphere with a diameter a little over 1m or a 2m tall cylinder that is a little over 0.5m wide. This seems to me to be a very small space in which to surround someone, especially if you are trying to englobe an opponent.

 

If we take what I feel would be a more realistic minimum of a sphere with a 2m diameter then we end up with a surface area just over 12 sq. metres. I am tempted therefore to rule that barriers can only englobe when the length multiplied by the height is 12 or more. Incidentally the 2m tall cylinder is now 1.4m wide.

 

How much difference this would make I don't know as it need only cost 2 points more on the size of the barrier but at least I would believe that the barrier could comfortably surround someone.

 

Well, the surface area of a sphere is... [EDIT: As pointed out below, this idiot had too little sleep, or something. NVM. Confusing falsehood redacted. ]. I would personally require different sizes for smaller or larger targets though. That 4m^2 Barrier isn't going to work on a giant, and is overkill for an ant (though perhaps the minimum size requirement isn't as big a deal for small targets).

[phookz]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Well' date=' the surface area of a sphere is (4/3)(pi)r^2. A 1m [i']radius[/i] (2m diameter) sphere has a surface area of about 4.2m^2, so I think it is reasonable to englobe a normal (2m tall, 0.5m long and wide) target in a 4m^2 Barrier. I would personally require different sizes for smaller or larger targets though. That 4m^2 Barrier isn't going to work on a giant, and is overkill for an ant (though perhaps the minimum size requirement isn't as big a deal for small targets).

 

I believe that's the equation for the volume of a sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2, or pi*d^2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere). So your 1m radius sphere has a surface area of 12.56m. The mentioned 4m^2 area would only cover a sphere with a radius of about .56m. You could probably englobe someone in that, but it would be a tight fit, might be easier to use a woodchipper first.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

I believe that's the equation for the volume of a sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2' date=' or pi*d^2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere). So your 1m radius sphere has a surface area of 12.56m. The mentioned 4m^2 area would only cover a sphere with a radius of about .56m. You could probably englobe someone in that, but it would be a tight fit, might be easier to use a woodchipper first.[/quote']

 

HA! Right you are. Boy, was that a goof. LOL. I guess I needed a little more sleep. (In fact, the volume of a sphere is also proportional to the cube of the radius, so I was doubly screwed up there.) Sorry about that. Hmm. So yeah, I guess I'd have to agree with you. And in any case the area of the Barier should have to go up with the square of the linear size of the creature (assuming size is increased in all dimensions equally as usual). So doubling the height of the target should require that the area of the Barrier go up by four.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Rather than mucking about with curved surfaces, and given you need SOME wiggle room, why not determine minimum englobement dimensions with cuboids?

 

Normal human has to be at least 4m to go around (4 sides of a square - never mind you are only 1/2 m thick - wiggle room) and 2m high (we'll assume top and bottom close off from the excess width bits).

 

Target is 20m tall and 10m wide? You need 40mx20m barrier.

 

Not as accurate, much MUCH easier.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Since Englobing doesn't need to be a sphere.... kicking out a 4m x 1m square around a target generally works.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Well, a sphere has the largest surface area per unit volume so really you're only going to need more area for other shapes, though I guess it depends on how we decide on the fundamental length.

 

In any case, for a cubic shell I'd still want to see at least 2m on a side, which would be 6*2m*2m=24m^2. If you really insisted on a rectangular prism 1m along each horizontal side and 2m tall (come on; people are assumed to be 2m tall by default in the system!), it'd be 4*1m*2m+2*1m*1m=10m^2. Both of those are at least twice the area of the minimum size stated by the book.

 

I think I'm going to go with taking the target's maximum length characteristic (that way it'll work for unusual shapes, vehicles, etc.) and require at least as much area as a sphere with that diameter would have. So calling the length L, the approximate minimum area would be 3*L^2. For optional complexity I might require that the thickness of the Barrier be added to L for purposes of calculating that minimum area.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

I think the problem just lies in the fact that one side can be 1m.

 

I would just change it, either width or height has to be 4m and either width or height has to be 2m.

 

The issue arises when you realize that FW in 5E was 1" Tall by default, and Barrier is 1m tall by default - half the height it previously was.

 

1m to a side (4m total, call it long) + 2m to the other side (call it tall) should be enough to englobe a person in a rectangle, a tight rectangle, but still enough.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Well, a sphere has the largest surface area per unit volume so really you're only going to need more area for other shapes, though I guess it depends on how we decide on the fundamental length.

 

In any case, for a cubic shell I'd still want to see at least 2m on a side, which would be 6*2m*2m=24m^2. If you really insisted on a rectangular prism 1m along each horizontal side and 2m tall (come on; people are assumed to be 2m tall by default in the system!), it'd be 4*1m*2m+2*1m*1m=10m^2. Both of those are at least twice the area of the minimum size stated by the book.

 

I think I'm going to go with taking the target's maximum length characteristic (that way it'll work for unusual shapes, vehicles, etc.) and require at least as much area as a sphere with that diameter would have. So calling the length L, the approximate minimum area would be 3*L^2. For optional complexity I might require that the thickness of the Barrier be added to L for purposes of calculating that minimum area.

 

 

Smallest area for unit volume, surely.

 

You need more sleep

[phookz]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

I think the problem just lies in the fact that one side can be 1m.

 

I would just change it, either width or height has to be 4m and either width or height has to be 2m.

 

The issue arises when you realize that FW in 5E was 1" Tall by default, and Barrier is 1m tall by default - half the height it previously was.

 

1m to a side (4m total, call it long) + 2m to the other side (call it tall) should be enough to englobe a person in a rectangle, a tight rectangle, but still enough.

 

I'd agree with that. It would be a tight fit, but nobody said it had to be comfortable. If you assume a person is 2m tall and needs about .5m for width and height, you would need a total of 4.5 square meters to cover them, but that's a squared off rectangle, and people aren't squared off - there's probably 20% that could be saved there by cutting corners and whatnot.

 

But still, using a woodchipper first might be perfect for a Dark Champions (really Dark) game

[Sean Waters]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Presumably, as Barrier applies no force, you can avoid being englobed by a 'minimum size' Barrier by sticking your arms out?

[phookz]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Woodchipper won't care what your arms are doing

[Sean Waters]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Woodchipper won't care what your arms are doing

 

Barrier chips no wood.

 

EDIT: I have no idea what I meant by that, so if any of you feel the same, and were in any way concerned you were missing something clever, you weren't

[prestidigitator]

Re: Barrier Issue

 

Smallest area for unit volume, surely.

 

You need more sleep

 

Gah! This isn't my lucky thread.