Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Force Shield Belt

  1. #11
    Hierophant kenseido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Olathe, Kansas
    Posts
    7,132

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    Quote Originally Posted by Ysariel View Post
    But a force field can protect only specific parts of the body, since you suggested the force field goggles example yourself. So I feel that the question isn't whether a force field can do this, but whether players should be charged precise for it.
    I do think Precise is necessary to only have part of a Force Field on or off. A Precise Force Field would let you eat while still leaving the whole force field up protecting the rest of you. Without Precise, you would have to take the whole thing down to eat.

  2. #12
    Keeper of Secrets JDRook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,297

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    Quote Originally Posted by kenseido View Post
    I do think Precise is necessary to only have part of a Force Field on or off. A Precise Force Field would let you eat while still leaving the whole force field up protecting the rest of you. Without Precise, you would have to take the whole thing down to eat.
    The point is that the inability to eat while a force field is on is an assumption that is not supported anywhere in the rules. Permanent Protection is never assumed to work like this, either, and Removable Protection (ie Armor) is often considered sectional by default, requiring no extra to take off a helmet or glove. Not being able to eat is a decent Quirk, but I see no reason for the ability to eat while protected to require an Extra.
    My old Atomic Think Tank thread
    My current character thread: The Sound of my Eyebeams

    I will build characters in HeroLab for you! Send me your finished design or even your original concept!

  3. #13
    Hierophant kenseido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Olathe, Kansas
    Posts
    7,132

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    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.

  4. #14
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    791

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    Quote Originally Posted by kenseido View Post
    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 tend to agree. Descriptors aren't just supposed to be meaningless, interchangeable labels; they should add some degree of real flavor to effects. A fire blast should be able to do things that an ice blast can't, and vice-versa, and at times that may mean one might need a minor extra to be able to do what the other can do for free.

    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.
    My builds can be found in the Roll Call forum here. And, here's the latest version of The Cast.
    Currently playing in: Identity Lost and The Merge: Prologue to Annihilation.

  5. #15
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    Quote Originally Posted by Demiurgos View Post
    But, to take a combat situation, say the Gadgeteer is engaging the enemy with some teammates. They're behind cover and he's up front because he has a blaster and a forcefield. Say he has something else on his person that might help, but he can't get it because he's busy blasting the enemy. He can tell a teammate to get whatever it is and tell them wherever it is on his person, and since he has the Precise modifier, his teammate can reach through the forcefield to get whatever it is while his forcefield is still blocking any return fire from the enemy.
    This assumes a force field makes you immune to, for example, being pickpocketed or disarmed. It doesn't. If you want that kind of force field, you have to go the Create Object bubble method or buy some kind of extra.

    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.

    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]

  6. #16
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    Quote Originally Posted by kenseido View Post
    I do think Precise is necessary to only have part of a Force Field on or off. A Precise Force Field would let you eat while still leaving the whole force field up protecting the rest of you. Without Precise, you would have to take the whole thing down to eat.
    Not unless it has a flaw it shouldn't. It shouldn't have any intrinsic flaws that skin armor doesn't.

  7. #17
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    Quote Originally Posted by kenseido View Post
    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.
    That's as easy as one being low energy and the other not.

  8. #18
    Hierophant kenseido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Olathe, Kansas
    Posts
    7,132

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    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.

  9. #19
    Keeper of Secrets Ysariel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,896

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    Quote Originally Posted by kenseido View Post
    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.
    Some simplification is needed for ease and fun of play. That's why battlesuits don't give total cover, and airtight force fields don't shut off your sense of smell. Trying to rigorously model every little facet of a power overcomplicates things. Rare situations where descriptors suggest that powers should interact differently than the effects say they should can be handled by a power loss or vulnerability complication for the disadvantaged side. Game masters are vigilant about insisting that highly situational disadvantages are complications instead of flaws and limits, so the same standard should be applied to very situational benefits not worth 1pp; it's a complication if you don't have the benefit when it does turn out mechanically relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush View Post
    I tend to agree. Descriptors aren't just supposed to be meaningless, interchangeable labels; they should add some degree of real flavor to effects. A fire blast should be able to do things that an ice blast can't, and vice-versa, and at times that may mean one might need a minor extra to be able to do what the other can do for free.
    I'm fine with powers having little perks based on descriptor, like being able to light a cigarette with 1 rank of fire blast but not ice blast, provided they're 1) minor and have little or no game mechanical effect, and 2) different descriptors of the same effect remain roughly equal overall. I feel that anything that actually affects mechanics should be on the sheet, and anything that doesn't, shouldn't. Occasional edge cases can be left to complications and GM fiat. Otherwise, if carried too far, I think it gets hard to rule in a consistent and fair way what powers can do what.

  10. #20
    Hierophant kenseido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Olathe, Kansas
    Posts
    7,132

    Re: Force Shield Belt

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •