Crashing Through Plate Glass

[Cantriped]

Can the glass (regular) have fragile from focus put on it?

I don't think so, the Object and Foci rules don't really interact with one another. Foci don't actually have BODY scores at all (not even a score of 0). Instead they lose an associated Power each time they would have suffered BODY Damage. Conversely, Objects don't always have powers associated with them. For example, a single brick might have a BODY, rPD, and rED value based on its mass and durability, but it doesn't have any Powers associated with it to define those values, and any damage you can do by throwing said brick is simply a result of the mechanics of your Strength score interacting with the rules for the object's BODY and rPD.

 

That being said, there isn't anything stopping you from defining a given Object as having 0 BODY and only 1 rPD/1 rED. During play. such an Object would be almost indistinguishable from a Fragile Focus with only one associated power.

[Ninja-Bear]

Canteipes have you considered that CC is wrong. That is should be an errata. Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time that Hero products have errors, nor the last either.

[Cantriped]

Nope, not once (at least not about this subject). I have (almost) complete faith in the mechanical perfection of CC/FHC.

 

The odd interactions between Foci and Objects we are talking about have been basically the same for numerous editions. So I am sure they are "functioning as intended". That doesn't mean I necessarily like the interaction between Foci and Object though... I am actually rather fond of the Expanded Foci rules from APG II 115 because they demonstrate an attempt to make the rules for Objects and Foci more consistent with one another. I was so fond of them that I wrote a similar, but much simpler, set of house rules for defining the Size, Mass, and BODY of Foci that don't involve so much finicky math; using the rules for determining the BODY of Objects as its basis.

[Hugh Neilson]

To the question of a 0 BOD barrier, if that option were absent, the old Force Wall could not be replicated.

[Tasha]

To the question of a 0 BOD barrier, if that option were absent, the old Force Wall could not be replicated.

What would be the real difference between a 12 def forceWall and a 10 def 1 body Barrier? They work the same way and take the same damage to break down.

[Lucius]

What would be the real difference between a 12 def forceWall and a 10 def 1 body Barrier? They work the same way and take the same damage to break down.

What happens when I do 11 damage to a 12 DEF Forcewall? What happens if I do 11 damage to it again?

 

What happens when I do 11 damage to a 10 DEF 1 BOD Barrier? What happens if I do 11 damage to it again?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to link Images to Hearing to that Forcewall

[Cantriped]

What would be the real difference between a 12 def forceWall and a 10 def 1 body Barrier? They work the same way and take the same damage to break down.

That doesn't even remotely math.

A 12 DEF, 0 BODY Barrier must suffer 13 BODY to break through. A 10 DEF, 1 BODY Barrier must suffer 11 BODY to break through. There is also the fundamental mechanical difference between Force Walls and Barriers: When you exceed the DEF of a Force Wall, the entire wall breaks. When you exceed the DEF+BODY of a Barrier, only a 2m square section  of the wall breaks. You would have to apply an additional Limitation to make larger 0 BODY Barriers function exactly like Force Walls

[dsatow]

IIRC, any barrier with 0 Body does not maintain after the character stops paying end for it.  While if the barrier has at least 1 Body, the barrier sticks around.

[dsatow]

BTW: Many of my objects in my world have susceptibilities and vulnerabilities.  For example, styrofoam has 3/3 nonresistant def and 1 Body but has a susceptibility to acetone.

[Cantriped]

 

IIRC, any barrier with 0 Body does not maintain after the character stops paying end for it.  While if the barrier has at least 1 Body, the barrier sticks around.

CC/FHC doesn't say anything like that. Barrier is an Instant Power and by default the walls it creates linger until they are breached.

Barrier meant to simulate a Force Wall takes Costs END To Maintain, and a Limited modifier to make the entire wall collapse if breached.

 

[dsatow]

 

 

CC/FHC doesn't say anything like that. Barrier is an Instant Power and by default the walls it creates linger until they are breached.

Barrier meant to simulate a Force Wall takes Costs END To Maintain, and a Limited modifier to make the entire wall collapse if breached.

 

 

I stand corrected.

[Hugh Neilson]

What would be the real difference between a 12 def forceWall and a 10 def 1 body Barrier? They work the same way and take the same damage to break down.

After a 12 BOD hit, the 12 DEF, 0 BOD barrier is still standing and the 10 DEF 1 BOD barrier is punctured.

 

6e indicates "An attack or attacks that does enough BODY to reduce a Barrier to 0 creates a 2m wide, 2m high, 2m deep hole in the Barrier; the entire Barrier doesn’t collapse or vanish. (However, if a Barrier’s created with 0 BODY, then doing even a single point of BODY damage to it at any place causes the entire Barrier to collapse.)"

 

So a 0 BOD Barrier, when breached, is destroyed entirely.

[Cantriped]

It is strange that CC/FHC don't include that clause about the entire Barrier collapsing. Another item to add to the list of Stealthy revisions I suppose. In that case Dsatow was actually correct isofar as 6th edition core is concerned.

[Tasha]

It is strange that CC/FHC don't include that clause about the entire Barrier collapsing. Another item to add to the list of Stealthy revisions I suppose. In that case Dsatow was actually correct isofar as 6th edition core is concerned.

Pretty sure that is Derek forgetting to put that in, rather than an official rules change. Because doing that would make it impossible to use it to recreate Force Walls from previous editions. Also it creates a rules hole. ie If you can buy Zero Body Barriers wouldn't they then automatically have 2m x 2m x2m Hole in them? The rules as stated say "When a Barrier’s BODY has been reduced to 0, that creates a 2m wide, 2m high, 2m deep hole in it, and that hole remains in it for the rest of the Barrier’s existence. If the Barrier is smaller than that, it’s destroyed; if it’s larger, the rest of it remains.". Which is why I will default to 6e1 clearer rules.

[Cantriped]

Pretty sure that is Derek forgetting to put that in, rather than an official rules change. Because doing that would make it impossible to use it to recreate Force Walls from previous editions. Also it creates a rules hole. ie If you can buy Zero Body Barriers wouldn't they then automatically have 2m x 2m x2m Hole in them? The rules as stated say "When a Barrier’s BODY has been reduced to 0, that creates a 2m wide, 2m high, 2m deep hole in it, and that hole remains in it for the rest of the Barrier’s existence. If the Barrier is smaller than that, it’s destroyed; if it’s larger, the rest of it remains.". Which is why I will default to 6e1 clearer rules.

Two things:

The first being that you can still use a Conditional or Limited modifier to achieve the simulation. That is exactly the sort of thing Catch-All Limitations are for. The second being that the "clearer" 6th edition rules have the almost exact same clause about being 'reduced to 0 BODY' that CC/FHC does; the key word there being "reduced". A Barrier that starts with 0 BODY doesn't automatically collapse because it's BODY hasn't been "reduced" yet.

[Tasha]

BTW CC and FHC ARE a subset of the 6e rules. They aren't considered a different version of the rules.

Yes you can use limitations to achieve the same thing. BUT, doing it that way makes every published 6e character with 0 body Barriers work differently than their creators meant. Which means that CC/FHC doesn't achieve that 100% compatibility that is implied. So again 6e1 IMHO is the Authoritative version of the rules here. Which is backed up by Steve ONLY answering questions using 6e1&2

[Hugh Neilson]

Pretty sure that is Derek forgetting to put that in, rather than an official rules change. Because doing that would make it impossible to use it to recreate Force Walls from previous editions. Also it creates a rules hole. ie If you can buy Zero Body Barriers wouldn't they then automatically have 2m x 2m x2m Hole in them? The rules as stated say "When a Barrier’s BODY has been reduced to 0, that creates a 2m wide, 2m high, 2m deep hole in it, and that hole remains in it for the rest of the Barrier’s existence. If the Barrier is smaller than that, it’s destroyed; if it’s larger, the rest of it remains.". Which is why I will default to 6e1 clearer rules.

 

 

BTW CC and FHC ARE a subset of the 6e rules. They aren't considered a different version of the rules.

 

Yes you can use limitations to achieve the same thing. BUT, doing it that way makes every published 6e character with 0 body Barriers work differently than their creators meant. Which means that CC/FHC doesn't achieve that 100% compatibility that is implied. So again 6e1 IMHO is the Authoritative version of the rules here. Which is backed up by Steve ONLY answering questions using 6e1&2

Agreed. I also recall Derek stating that the only change in the rules from 6e to CC was removal of "categories of minds". Slimming the book down meant removing a lot of rulings, interactions and explanations. I would classify "0 BOD means any breach collapses it" was one of these "corner case casualties".

 

Gamers are a funny bunch. We want the rules slimmed down to be more accessible. But we want every possible occurrence, combination and interaction of rules spelled out in detail. You can't have both - more detail equals more word count.

[Cantriped]

BTW CC and FHC ARE a subset of the 6e rules. They aren't considered a different version of the rules.

 

Yes you can use limitations to achieve the same thing. BUT, doing it that way makes every published 6e character with 0 body Barriers work differently than their creators meant. Which means that CC/FHC doesn't achieve that 100% compatibility that is implied. So again 6e1 IMHO is the Authoritative version of the rules here. Which is backed up by Steve ONLY answering questions using 6e1&2

Yeah... in name only. CC/FHC failed to achieve 100% backwards compatibility by a pretty significant margin. Between imploding skills and removing classes of minds most of the 6th edition characters cannot be converted to CC/FHC with their original values intact... Which I generally consider a basic prerequisite for two rulebooks to be considered members of the same ruleset.

I consider CC/FHC to be more like the Hero System 6.5th Edition. You can certainly use some of the old assets and supplements without modification, but not enough to call them the same edition. I recognize I hold a minority opinion on the subject, which is amongst the reasons why I cite which 'edition' I'm using when I post here, just like people posting using their 4th and 5th edition rules do.

[Tasha]

   Agreed. I also recall Derek stating that the only change in the rules from 6e to CC was removal of "categories of minds". Slimming the book down meant removing a lot of rulings, interactions and explanations. I would classify "0 BOD means any breach collapses it" was one of these "corner case casualties".

 

Gamers are a funny bunch. We want the rules slimmed down to be more accessible. But we want every possible occurrence, combination and interaction of rules spelled out in detail. You can't have both - more detail equals more word count.

The problem with CC is that there seems to be an assumption that players KNOW the older rulesets. Most of us who have played older rulesets would have just assumed those rules things work like previous editions. Which IMHO lead to mechanics that don't include basic rules like "When a Zero Body Barrier takes damage it's completely destroyed". That's a BASIC foundational rule for the power and it's never spelled out. I find that in CC time and time again, where basic mechanics seem to be implied, but never put down in plain english. Which IMHO makes CC one of the weakest Editions. (FHC's rules were copy pasted from CC and not changed in any substantial way). I am wondering if perhaps 5e might have been a better starting place for CC, Just adding in the changed 6e mechanics.

[Ninja-Bear]

Btw Steve Long once gave me a workable answer I had for 6th ed Basic.

[Cantriped]

The problem with CC is that there seems to be an assumption that players KNOW the older rulesets. Most of us who have played older rulesets would have just assumed those rules things work like previous editions. Which IMHO lead to mechanics that don't include basic rules like "When a Zero Body Barrier takes damage it's completely destroyed". That's a BASIC foundational rule for the power and it's never spelled out. I find that in CC time and time again, where basic mechanics seem to be implied, but never put down in plain english. Which IMHO makes CC one of the weakest Editions. (FHC's rules were copy pasted from CC and not changed in any substantial way). I am wondering if perhaps 5e might have been a better starting place for CC, Just adding in the changed 6e mechanics.

I really think CC/FHC just needed a few extra editing passes to ensure it didn't omit anything important for the sake of brevity.

My #1 annoyance with CC/FHC is that both books omit the Wind Levels Table (which is necessary for defining the Wind Levels combat effect of Change Environment). Closely followed by the omission of the Character Ability Guidelines Table (which would have made learning and using said rulesets much easier for their target audiences: New Hero System Players).

 

Regarding the '0 BODY Barrier Collapse Clause'; upon reflection I can see an argument for that omission being purposeful (although admittedly it probably wasn't), or at least beneficial to CC/FHC as independent rulesets. I don't really see that clause as being "Basic" or "Foundational" to a power that is described as creating 'walls'. That clause imposes a far more significant disadvantage than the 2 active point difference between a 0 and 2 BODY Barrier indicates it should. I am currently unable to think of a single situation where having your entire barrier collapse due to a breach is advantageous to the character who placed it. So it should be a limitation, and not some arbitrary rule attached to the Barrier's BODY score. As a limitation I doubt it is worth more than -1/4 though, and even then it is only worth -1/4 if the barrier is actually large enough not to collapse from a single breach anyway, but as a limitation it would allow you to more easily create interesting constructs such as an "Ablative Force Wall" (which has little to no DEF but an extremely high BODY score, and yet still collapses when breached regardless of its size).

[dsatow]

So I asked and was answered in the "Ask Steve Questions" section of the forums

(http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/95394-fun-with-fragile-objects/)

 

So here are the questions:

1. Can an object have 0 Body?  
2. Can an object have 0 Defense (resistant or otherwise)?
3. Can object have 0 pd/ed and 0 Body?
   1. Does something like rice paper wall used in feudal japan for example have 0/0?
4. If an object must have 1 pd/ed or 1 Body, can it have susceptibility or vulnerabilities?
5. Can a barrier have 0 Body?  Are there any inherent restrictions (like does it last after creation without a character maintaining it)?

Here is his reply:

1. An object cannot have 0 BODY. If it exists it has to have at least 1 BODY, no matter how fragile.

 

2. An object (or a character, for that matter) can have 0 PD or 0 ED.

 

3. The GM can assign an object a “Vulnerability” or “Susceptibility” if he wishes.

 

4. A Barrier can have 0 BODY. By definition, a 3-point purchase gets you a Barrier with 0 BODY and no defenses. It’s largely meaningless, since it stops nothing, but it might look pretty

[Cantriped]

Hmm, such a unexpected (and contradictory) answer to the first question.

The Object BODY Table (6e2 172), ostensibly penned by Steve Long himself, has eight entries which are explicitly defined as having 0 BODY; Complex Objects weighing 3.2 kg or less. and Nonliving Objects weighing 800 kg. or less. The written rules for determining Object BODY in Champions and Fantasy Hero Complete also match the values given on the aforementioned table, and both explicitly note that the minimum value is 0 (CC 142; FHC 167). Likewise the Wall BODY Table (6e2 172; CC 142; FHC 167) has four entries which imply (though don't explicitly state) that walls of certain materials and thicknesses also have 0 BODY (although what else you are supposed to assume "---" means in lieu of a numerical value in this context I am unsure).

 

So either Steve Long (circa 2009) was wrong, or Steve Long (circa 2017) is wrong. Thankfully none of this really affects me since he won't touch CC/FHC with a 3.048m Pole, but I wonder if we can expect another half-baked 'Errata' on this like the one that cropped up after the last Healing debate I participated in.

[dsatow]

I don't think its contradictory.  Steve specifically notes an object has 1 body.  What this implies is that an object with 1 Body is destroyed if it takes 2.  

 

This gives you the effect of breaking a piece of a statue (say an arm) might be 5/10 with 5 BODY, but if the whole statue has 2 BODY, just doing 4 BODY breaks the whole statue.  As an example wood should have 1 BODY and 2 Defense, but this art object probably had less.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/museum-cctv-captures-moment-man-breaks-rare-wooden-clock-by-accidentally-knocking-it-off-wall-a7064431.html

[Cantriped]

I'm not sure what makes you erroneously think otherwise, but Steve's answer quoted above blatantly contradicts the RAW in multiple editions he had a hand in writing (aka both 5th and 6th edition), as well as both CC and FHC (see 5eR 449, 6e2 172, CC 142, or FHC 167).

 

If Objects could not have 0 BODY, than the Object BODY Tables in both 5th and 6th edition would have listed "1 BODY" for objects weighing 800g or less and complex objects weighing 3.2kg or less. However it does not, it lists "0 BODY" for all eight of these entries in both documents. There is also no rules text supporting the assertion that Objects must have at least 1 BODY in 5th or 6th editions (that I've found). However, there is rules text in CC/FHC explicitly stating that the minimum BODY score for Objects is 0 (CC 142; FHC 167).

Likewise, if Walls could not have 0 BODY the Wall BODY Tables in both 5th and 6th editions would have listed "1 BODY" for Stone 16mm thick or less and wood 4mm thick or less. However it does not, it lists "---" for all four of these entries in all four documents.

 

Steve Long (circa 2017) is incorrect according to Steve Long (circa 2004 and 2009).