I guess it just seems like common sense to me. If you can't hit me with a rock while my force field is up, it seems odd that you can throw popcorn into my mouth. And if you can't, why should I be able to?
And if eating doesn't apply, what about a syringe?
That's just how I see it.
I find spending 1pp for Precise on a Force Field to be reasonable, balanced, and at least infrequently useful. Granted, if the benefit never comes up--whether due to the player or the GM--I'd probably suggest swapping it out for something else. But it certainly fits with how we expect the "force field" descriptor to influence the Protection effect.
That, however, is a specific flaw with Devices (and still probably a complication) rather than a generic issue that justifies an extra. Nothing stops your Device from being put on in one action, force field or not.Armor is made up of separate parts. Helmet, breastplate, gauntlet, etc. You have to put each piece of armor on until you're completely armored. So you can be partially armored until you put it all on. The Iron Man movies show how Tony Stark has to "suit up," the armor assembling until he's fully-armored. That fact leads to scenes like in the first Avengers movie, when Loki's waiting for Stark at Stark Tower after he de-armors, then throws him out the window, and it was a race to get fully suited up before he went splat on the ground, since it takes time for the armor to assemble. Though I've been looking at Battlesuit builds and haven't seen this accounted for in a single published build I've looked at thus far. Battlesuits don't walk around in armor 24/7 (there have even been seen scenes of Doom shown putting his armor on; armored villains are already going to be armored whenever we see them because we see them when they're doing villainy, but heroes are shown doing things besides heroing, so we see them outside the suit doing things regular people do). In some Roll Call builds, I've seen this accounted for with the Activation flaw.
Except, again, the situations where that's actually useful seems vanishingly small. At least one of yours assumes a property of a force field not supported by the mechanics without additional modifiers for example.With a forcefield, however, there is no intermediate state. It's either raised or lowered. And that's what the Sustained modifier is for. But in M&M, you get what you pay for, no more, no less. Just like you have to pay for the Subtle modifier if you want the force field to be invisible, you'd have to pay for the ability to force field some parts of you and not others. Again, I refer to Concealment for precedent, p. 101 of the Hero's Handbook, where it says Concealment is normally all-or-nothing, and you need the Precise modifier to conceal some parts and not others. I also refer to Force Field in Ultimate Power, p. 158, where it says that the Selective power feat allows certain things to go through the force field while blocking others, so you can let a harmless effect through. In 3e, the Precise modifier does what the Selective power feat did in 2e, so you'd need that to allow a needle to pass through for an injection. Otherwise you'd have to completely lower it.
The only normal difference between Protection as skin armor and protection as force field, is that since the latter is Sustained its visible, will go down when you're knocked out, and can be power stunted and otherwise extra-efforted; any other modifications require flaws or at least complications, and are not a default.
That would seem to be reasonable. That would be a task requiring fine control, which the Precise modifier covers.[/QUOTE]
Requiring Precise makes sense to me, but I can see why some GMs may not require it due to the infrequency of it coming into actual game mechanics.
Everything you say makes sense, and given the disparity of costs between various powers and their effect on the game, I can see letting things like this go in favor of the player.