What Happened to Force Fields?

[sporeworld]

Hey, folks. Quick Question:

What happened to "Force Fields"? Are they just characteristics now?

[Christopher]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Kinda:

Forcefields/Forcewalls are now "Resistant Protection"/"Barrier"'s with "cost endurance to maintain" or "non-persistent" limitation.

[sporeworld]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

I see.

So, 10 Points of Physical Defense bought with the modifier "Resistant" costs to same as 10 points of "Resistant Protection".

Doesn't seem to be any pros or cons about doing it either way. Unless I missed something...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Why should there be any pros or cons to doing it either way? The mechanical result is identical, so the cost is identical.

[The Main Man]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Yep. Having more than one way to skin a cat is one of the charms of HERO to me.

[Beast]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

you could also go with perceptible (-1/4 to -1/2 depending on degree)

[Christopher]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

I see.

So, 10 Points of Physical Defense bought with the modifier "Resistant" costs to same as 10 points of "Resistant Protection".

Doesn't seem to be any pros or cons about doing it either way. Unless I missed something...

Thedifference is Multipower Efficiency. With the 5E forcefield you could have 20 rPD for 20 Active Points and 20 Real Points.

In 6E the Real cost is still only 20, but it ties up a lot more multipower Reserve (30 Points).

 

Also note that Resistant Protection and Defenses with "Resistant" are not the same for adjustment powers. Forcefields and Armor at least tend towards being built as Resistatn Protection.

 

you could also go with perceptible (-1/4 to -1/2 depending on degree)

Wasn't that already part of costing endurance? Could be wrong with that however.

[Beast]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Where did I say "it needed it to cost Endurance"

You could have it just being visible when on ,and it's is self contained endurance wise

when on you can see it

when off it is not there(no resistant def)

this would be an instant on so OHID would not be a factor for use

 

 

[quote=Christopher;2348918

 

Wasn't that already part of costing endurance? Could be wrong with that however.

[sporeworld]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Yeah - I think Christopher answered my question. I wasn't sure why we needed the distinction of Resistant Protection when it could be emulated with Characteristics. I see reasons now.

Thanks.

[Christopher]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Where did I say "it needed it to cost Endurance"

You could have it just being visible when on ,and it's is self contained endurance wise

when on you can see it

when off it is not there(no resistant def)

this would be an instant on so OHID would not be a factor for use

The "book definition" for Forcefields is "Resistant Protection that costs Endurance". That is for example what you find as defense for some NND's.

 

I agree that Resistant Protection defined as Frocefiled should be possible.

[ghost-angel]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

There's two things - the book trying to emulate the old Forcefields Power - which is Resistant Protection with Costs Endurance.

 

And then there's splitting out the special effect forcefield, which could just be Resistant Protection with Visible.

 

One of the big reasons I'm glad it's gone as a Power is that 5th (and earlier) Editions did a horrible (HORRIBLE) job separating Mechanics and Special Effects of Forcefield. There were far far far too many instances of "NND, unless you had ED Forcefield" when it really meant "Resistant ED defined as a 'forcefield' of some kind" ... it really started to get on my nerves how often I saw that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

There's two things - the book trying to emulate the old Forcefields Power - which is Resistant Protection with Costs Endurance.

 

And then there's splitting out the special effect forcefield, which could just be Resistant Protection with Visible.

 

A lot of the source material "Force Fields" seem more mechanically to be Force Walls. The change to Resistant Defenses and Barriers relegates those two terms to SFX, which I consider an improvement.

[Beast]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

they are also generally visible too

but the great thing about Hero System in this case is you can define it as you want

it could be a skin tight FF that is invisible,self contained, blocks physical contact,but does not block either's sense of touch so you can kiss Rogue and not get your powers and memories sucked out of you

any special effect listed in the book is just a SUGGESTION on how to do it

it is not the only way

 

 

 

The "book definition" for Forcefields is "Resistant Protection that costs Endurance". That is for example what you find as defense for some NND's.

 

I agree that Resistant Protection defined as Frocefiled should be possible.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

The "book definition" for Forcefields is "Resistant Protection that costs Endurance". That is for example what you find as defense for some NND's.I agree that Resistant Protection defined as Frocefiled should be possible.

Don't 2 of the Champions have rDEF defined as "Forcefields" that don't cost END? If an NND defines forcefields as its defense that doesn't mean it has to be a power that costs END.

[sporeworld]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Yeah - I think of Miracleman's "Tinkerbell Effect" as a good example of that thin defining line. You can see him kind of shimmer or twinkle just a bit - that's how you know it's a force field. But when it comes to special effects (like Rogue's touch), it probably wouldn't be helpful. Maybe? Does a definintion of "Force Field" need to include an inability to touch or taste, for instance? Even if that's a 0 point modifier (has as many pros and cons). Or it a definition of violent or benign - if I clobber her with my FF-encrusted hand, no drain. But if she gently give me a hand-shake, I pass out. Am I on the right track?

[Christopher]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

they are also generally visible too

but the great thing about Hero System in this case is you can define it as you want

it could be a skin tight FF that is invisible,self contained, blocks physical contact,but does not block either's sense of touch so you can kiss Rogue and not get your powers and memories sucked out of you

any special effect listed in the book is just a SUGGESTION on how to do it

it is not the only way

 

Don't 2 of the Champions have rDEF defined as "Forcefields" that don't cost END? If an NND defines forcefields as its defense that doesn't mean it has to be a power that costs END.

I said:

Whever the book says "Resistant Protection that Cost Endurance" it means "Forcefield". That is how the boosk defined Forcefields.

 

I also said that this is partially wrong. It should be possible to define any Resistant Protection as Forcefield without the need to take Costs Endurance, Visible or anything else.

The same way it should be possible to define Resistant Protection that costs Endurance to not be a Force Field (but instead a summoned Armor that needs energy to be kept around).

 

So you are only telling me, what I already wrote. In the very post you cited.

 

Yeah - I think of Miracleman's "Tinkerbell Effect" as a good example of that thin defining line. You can see him kind of shimmer or twinkle just a bit - that's how you know it's a force field. But when it comes to special effects (like Rogue's touch)' date=' it probably wouldn't be helpful. Maybe? Does a definintion of "Force Field" need to include an inability to touch or taste, for instance? Even if that's a 0 point modifier (has as many pros and cons). Or it a definition of violent or benign - if I clobber her with my FF-encrusted hand, no drain. But if she gently give me a hand-shake, I pass out. Am I on the right track?[/quote']

That would be the "impermeable" Adder on 6E1 276. It's usually a +0.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Well, Rogue's power expressly has a limitation that it requires skin-to-skin contact, so that's probably not the best example.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

I said:

Whever the book says "Resistant Protection that Cost Endurance" it means "Forcefield". That is how the boosk defined Forcefields.

 

6e V1 references Force Fields a few times. At p20, it is noted the power has been removed, and Resistant Defense can be used to replace it.

 

p 183 provides a force-field belt which provides 6 DC's of Energy Damage Negation.

 

p 214 mentions X-Rey Vision not penetrating most force fields.

 

p 275 mentions a superhero's personal force field as an example of resistant defense, and refers to an END cost as a classic Superhero's force-field (the book commonly hyphenates the term). That and p 294 provide example force fields with Costs END and Perceivable (-0).

 

p 366 provides LAZER's RKA which is AP only against Force-Fields, and p 395 mentions force field powers in the context of unified power.

 

V2 mentions force fields in passing at p 158, p 165, and p 183.

 

On p 227, the sample character Maelstrom has 10/10 rDEF defined as a Force-Field. It is perceivable, but costs no END.

 

I also said that this is partially wrong. It should be possible to define any Resistant Protection as Forcefield without the need to take Costs Endurance' date=' Visible or anything else.[/quote']

 

Which it is - the force field belt doesn't even use the Resistant Protection mechanic.

 

The same way it should be possible to define Resistant Protection that costs Endurance to not be a Force Field (but instead a summoned Armor that needs energy to be kept around).

 

And nothing is stated in the rules to prevent this.

 

The example powers in the book are just that - examples. Maelstrom's force-field is also an example, and contradicts your statement that the books defined Forcefields as costing END. No other sample character has a force-field. Maelstrom also has an NND whose defense is rDEF which costs END. No explanation is provided, and my bias would be to change the defense to something more defined by SFX than mechanics.

 

I think your statement that the book defines Force-Field as resistant protection which costs END, or that "Resistant Protection that Cost Endurance" always means force-field, you vastly overstate the case.

[Christopher]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

I think your statement that the book defines Force-Field as resistant protection which costs END' date=' or that "Resistant Protection that Cost Endurance" always means force-field, you vastly overstate the case.[/quote']

You tried really hard to find a flaw, and thus never saw all the times I was right.

 

When the books says Resistant Protection that cost endurance, it means Forcefield. That is what I said. And the examples are:

6E1 275: multiple paragraphs, as you cited them.

6E1 276: The personal Force field belt

6E1 276: the Impermeable Adder wich is "most appropriate for Resistant Protection that costs END".

6E1 326 - gives as NND defense for the "Modulated Energy beam": "ED Resistant Protection that Costs Endurance". The 5E version of that NND the defense is: "Any type of Forcefield"

6E1 372 has a "Wall of Force", defiend as barrier, Cost Endurance to Maintain

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

You tried really hard to find a flaw, and thus never saw all the times I was right.

 

When the books says Resistant Protection that cost endurance, it means Forcefield. That is what I said. And the examples are:

6E1 275: multiple paragraphs, as you cited them.

6E1 276: The personal Force field belt

 

Must have missed the page break as I think I saw that with the p 275 stuff. The Omnishield Generator Belt immediately below looks a lot like a 5e Force Field construct, running on continuing charges.

 

I would suggest that 6e doesn't go out of its way to add new examples, but simply works in the old ones, so we don't see a lot of new uses for R Def Costs END. And why should we? The old Force Field examples do the trick.

 

6E1 276: the Impermeable Adder wich is "most appropriate for Resistant Protection that costs END".

 

Which may be, but need not be, a force field.

 

6E1 326 - gives as NND defense for the "Modulated Energy beam": "ED Resistant Protection that Costs Endurance". The 5E version of that NND the defense is: "Any type of Forcefield"

 

I would have much preferred a 6e example that also said "Any type of Force-field", but que sera, sera. And nowhere does it say that "Focus Through the Pain: +5 ED, Resistant, Costs END, requires an Ego Roll" would not defend against the Modulated Energy Beam. A 0 END Force-Field, however, would not stop the beam.

 

6E1 372 has a "Wall of Force"' date=' defiend as barrier, Cost Endurance to Maintain[/quote']

 

Which shows how one duplicates the 5e Force Wall in 6e. Pretty much anything removed from 6e got a construct/example to show how we do this in 6e.

 

The rules do not mandate "rDEF, costs END = Force Field" nor that all Force Fields sfx must cost END, and even provide one example of a Force Field built with Damage Negation rather than rDEF. I suspect, with years of history, Force Field SFX are the most common use of the construct, but that doesn't mean the rules are directed at all rDEF costing END being a force field, or all force fields being rDEF that costs END.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Yawn...huh what? Oh Force Field vs "force field".

 

Force Field the Power is gone, long live "force field" the SFX. Concept is king here; if the flavor is described as a "force field" then it is, regardless of the underlying _mechanic_ used to model the effect.

 

If an ability is intended to affect or not be affected by the concept of force fields, proper verbiage should be used. If an ability is not intended to affect or be affected by a specific _mechanic_, well first it's a bit inelegant / bad form, but secondly ok then but again proper verbiage should be used.

 

In the case of any confusion or cognitive dissonance during actual game play, liberally apply common sense / go with what feels right.

 

In the case of didactic argument for the sake of argument (pedantic, trenchant, or otherwise)...oh...right...it's already well under way...I'll just be going then...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Yawn...huh what? Oh Force Field vs "force field".

 

Force Field the Power is gone, long live "force field" the SFX. Concept is king here; if the flavor is described as a "force field" then it is, regardless of the underlying _mechanic_ used to model the effect.

 

Yup. No more "Mage ARMOR is a Force Field?"

[Balabanto]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Why should there be any pros or cons to doing it either way? The mechanical result is identical' date=' so the cost is identical.[/quote']

 

I will actually say there's a disconnect here and that it's not the same. It's rare that I jump into the ring on something like this, but allow me to explain.

 

The term "Force Field" as far as the game is concerned, meant a personal field that surrounds a character and protected him. Now, "Force Field" is a descriptive effect. This confuses older players, and makes newer ones ask why we use "Barrier" for one thing and "Force Field" for another.

 

Sticking with the old terminology may not have been as technically correct, but it sure makes things easier on the brain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

While I don't wholly disagree, the results of a player looking up Force Field to design the Fantastic Four's female member was never good. Confusion occurred quite a bit under the old model as many source material "Force Fields" were Force Walls in game terms.

[sporeworld]

Re: What Happened to Force Fields?

 

Thanks, guys. That all makes sense (well, enough sense) for us to muddle through. :-)