Questions about Innate Attack (Wall)

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Do Walls follow the general GURPS trend of having each hex be essentially a 1 yard wide by 4 yard tall hexagonal prism?

Anyone know a page for the "4 yards" thing?

B101 "area is a circle 2 yards in radius (and 12’ high, should volume matter)" is the closest that comes to mind (3f per yard x 4 yards = 12ft)

Originally Posted by Varyon

When a Wall is defined as being rigid, how difficult should it be to climb it?

Whatever it is, I'm thinkin should be specified at creation as possibly a 0pt feature (ie can't modulate for convenience)

If they're super-slippery you get the benefit of "my enemies can't easily climb over it" but the drawback of "I can't use it as a ramp to climb over my enemy's wall"

Originally Posted by Varyon

Would it be appropriate for such Walls built from Cutting/Impaling attacks to risk cutting the character as they climb?

Conceptually yes but it feels like something one ought to pay points for.

If we had rules for accidentally cutting yourself when grabbing cutting weapons by the blade we could maybe apply those to people who grab walls?

Originally Posted by Varyon

And how would we adjust difficulty, if there's one character who makes walls of rough stone and another who makes them of mirror-polished metal?

An all-around interesting idea to make everything more expensive and harder to buy would be to require the "Create" advantage to be linked to whatever innate attacks you buy.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yet another for rigid walls would be weight. Should walls be considered as having a weight, and if so, how much? Is this a case where we should simply back-calculate from HP, assuming a homogenous target?

Sounds like the best approach.
Plus then you'd know how much to charge for Create :)

Originally Posted by Varyon

PK had a great suggestion here for determining how much weight a Wall can support, but it also seems like a terribly strong foe might be able to pick up and throw a Wall aside, rather than smashing through it, so a weight for the actual Wall might be appropriate.

Yeah, although there should also be some way of anchoring your wall to heavier objects so that it can't be lifted w/o lifting what it's anchored to or breaking the anchorage.

Perhaps a linked Binding?

Originally Posted by Varyon

And how about hybrid walls - say, a wall of crushing force that deals damage to those who try to pass through it and requires them to physically break through? I think the RAW would be to build two different Wall abilities and Link them together, but would it be legal to have them exist in the same hexes?

It's conceptually pretty weird.

As a start, instead of "crushing and crushing" we could think of something a bit different like "a crushing rigid wall and a burning permeable wall".

Firstly: what would actually stop the rigid/crushing wall HP/DR from taking damage from the burning? Would you need to make sure your rigid wall had adequate DR to avoid self-destruction from the burning damage?

If you wanted something like "a flaming wall appears inside the gap if you bust a hole through the rigid wall" possibly something like "Triggered Delay" enhancement? That would avoid the problem of coexisting.

To get the effect of "my rigid wall is on fire" I think maybe you could just set the flaming wall just outside the boundary of the rigid wall so that it burns those climbing it but does not burn the wall itself.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Related to that, how about transparency? Is transparency/opacity a Feature? What about a Wall that is, say, opaque to visual light, but transparent to IR?

I would assume that like other innate attacks they are obvious (visible) unless you take No Signature.

Originally Posted by Varyon

EDIT: From the other thread, do walls - be they permeable or rigid - require contact with the ground, or could they be made to simply hover in the air until they expired or were destroyed?

Originally Posted by Varyon

And one I had initially forgotten about - do walls have a minimum thickness

*checking B109
"a three-yard-long by one-yard-wide wall per yard of radius in your area"

Length/Width seem like the footprint (9ft x 3ft = 27 square footage) while for HEIGHT presumably B101's "4 yards tall" thing takes effect (though I don't know how that works indoors with low ceiling)

To modulate the measurements of your wall I think you would need either Selectivity (choose how many levels of Area Effect you are using) or maybe Selective Area.

Selective Area lets you omit hexes within AE normally, so having it allow you to lessen the length or width or height of your wall sounds reasonable.

"thickness" I guess would be the lesser of the two footprints, so "one yard wide" could be perceived as the thickness of the wall?

I never remember how 3x1 multiplies for multiple yards of radius, I think some examples in Powers clarified it?

P147 "The barrier is 6 yards long and 1 yard thick, arranged in any shape the user likes" for 2y AE seems to mean "you get a pair of 3ft-long walls (1 yard "thick" = 1 yard "wide") but I think they need to be attached together.

S44 "3 yards x 2 yards" appears to show that instead of "tip to tip" you could layer them "face to face" to maybe a wall twice-as-thick instead of twice-as-long.

Only thing I'm not sure about comparing S44 and P147 is if Wall-makers need to specify this arrangement and it's fixed, or if they can freely fluctuate between 3x2 and 1x6.

Sorcery: Protection and Warning Spells really confuses things for me and seems to work against the "assume that the wall is three dimensional and four yards high" approach.

PAWS pg 7 "Force Wall":
"a maximum area of six square yards, with each additional level doubling that"
" Force Wall 3 has a limit of 24 square yards, allowing the sorcerer to conjure a wall six yards long by four yards high, 12 yards long by two yards high"

We're talking 'area' (2 dimensions) instead of 'volume' (3 dimensions) and it's talking about "high" and "long" which makes the wall seem two-dimensional (no thickness whatsoever) which seems to contradict P147's "Long and Thick" which does not use height as one of the specific dimensions.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

Anyone know a page for the "4 yards" thing?

B101 "area is a circle 2 yards in radius (and 12’ high, should volume matter)" is the closest that comes to mind (3f per yard x 4 yards = 12ft)

That is indeed the reference.

Originally Posted by Plane

Whatever it is, I'm thinkin should be specified at creation as possibly a 0pt feature (ie can't modulate for convenience)

Yeah, this is largely what I ultimately decided on (see later in the thread), although I felt once you're at -4, it's not something you're going to be using as a climbing aid, so further penalties are worth a (small) price increase. Being able to shift it around for each use of the ability (to represent making it sheer as opposed to building a ladder into the side) makes sense, so a further Enhancement for that follows (I think it's useful enough that simply rolling it into Wall +60% is inappropriate). Something I didn't note before is that you can probably make each side of the wall different... although that might call for another Enhancement for fairness (so you can make it easy to climb from your side, but hard from the other).

Originally Posted by Plane

Conceptually yes but it feels like something one ought to pay points for.

And so one does - a Crushing Wall has a base cost of [5], while Cutting Walls have a base cost of [7] and Impaling ones have a base cost of [8].

Originally Posted by Plane

An all-around interesting idea to make everything more expensive and harder to buy would be to require the "Create" advantage to be linked to whatever innate attacks you buy.

No, no, and also no. Create is horrendously expensive (and has weird rules around how long its constructs last), largely because it has such wide versatility. Massively boosting the cost of Wall by Linking it to Create (and honestly, boosting the cost of Create by Linking it to Wall - Create can already make walls just fine) isn't desirable or necessary.

Originally Posted by Plane

Yeah, although there should also be some way of anchoring your wall to heavier objects so that it can't be lifted w/o lifting what it's anchored to or breaking the anchorage.

Perhaps a linked Binding?

That's... not a bad idea. I'd put a Limitation on the Binding that it only serves to make the Wall harder to detach from an anchor point (normally, wherever the Binding was, anyone who was in contact with that hex/those hexes would be stuck fast by the Binding).

Originally Posted by Plane

It's conceptually pretty weird.

As a start, instead of "crushing and crushing" we could think of something a bit different like "a crushing rigid wall and a burning permeable wall".

Eh, if a wall of crushing force doesn't work for you conceptually, consider putting DKB, NBT, and NW on the permeable portion of the Wall - it's a physical barrier that also pushes attackers back.

Originally Posted by Plane

Firstly: what would actually stop the rigid/crushing wall HP/DR from taking damage from the burning? Would you need to make sure your rigid wall had adequate DR to avoid self-destruction from the burning damage?

Linked abilities shouldn't interfere with each other, so I'd treat the Rigid portion as being immune to the Permeable portion at no charge. If that doesn't work for you, consider a +5% or +10% Enhancement (compared to Selective Area +20%).

Originally Posted by Plane

I would assume that like other innate attacks they are obvious (visible) unless you take No Signature.

Absolutely (and No Signature shouldn't make the Wall invisible, just prevent it from being obvious that you made it, and leave no evidence behind of its existence once it vanishes or destroyed; you need Sneak Attack to be truly invisible, as that results in someone running into it because they didn't know it was there). The question is more if the Wall should obscure vision.

Originally Posted by Plane

Only thing I'm not sure about comparing S44 and P147 is if Wall-makers need to specify this arrangement and it's fixed, or if they can freely fluctuate between 3x2 and 1x6.

I personally feel that Wall +30% should let you setup the Wall in any pattern you'd like, but only when designing the power - if your Wall is a chevron, it will always be a chevron (although if you later add more Area Effect, you can designate where the new sections show up when buying that... but then those are locked in place as well). Wall +60%, however, allows you to set it each time you use the power.

Originally Posted by Plane

Sorcery: Protection and Warning Spells really confuses things for me and seems to work against the "assume that the wall is three dimensional and four yards high" approach.

PAWS pg 7 "Force Wall":
"a maximum area of six square yards, with each additional level doubling that"
" Force Wall 3 has a limit of 24 square yards, allowing the sorcerer to conjure a wall six yards long by four yards high, 12 yards long by two yards high"

We're talking 'area' (2 dimensions) instead of 'volume' (3 dimensions) and it's talking about "high" and "long" which makes the wall seem two-dimensional (no thickness whatsoever) which seems to contradict P147's "Long and Thick" which does not use height as one of the specific dimensions.

Innnnnteresting. I don't have that particular book, but it does indeed contradict previous books - and a previous Krommpost. I see three ways to consolidate, here.

Errata: The author made an error, here, and the editor failed to catch it. Seeing as we're dealing with RPK and Kromm, respectively, I... kinda doubt this one, but it's certainly possible. They're only human, after all.

Authorial Intent / Specific Trumps General: RPK decided that, for his Force Wall spell, he'd just ignore the 4-yard height (in no small part because that gives a lot of square yards), and just use the 3x1 for each yard of radius, making the Wall completely planar, with no thickness to speak of. This is more likely.

The Cost of Versatility: As I parenthetically alluded to above, using the 4-yard height for something that is planar and allows you to freely adjust its dimensions gives you a lot of square yardage to work with. So, RPK decided that versatility was worth basically cutting the available square yardage to a quarter of normal (which would require two levels of Area Effect to make up for). If this is indeed the case, that has serious implications for the topic of this thread, as it means we either have to stick with Walls that are 4 yards high (and, I'd argue, don't have the option of laying them on their sides), or we get 1-yard high Walls that can be stacked however we'd like (and lain on their sides, if thinner than a full yard).

Honestly... that last one does have some appeal. I was feeling that allowing one to freely shift around the height might give too much to work with. However, my inclination would be more to cut it in half rather than into 4ths.

Of course, thinking about that led me somewhere else:

Originally Posted by Varyon

Spreading Out; Bulking Up: I think being able to spread out to cover a larger area by reducing DR and HP by an appropriate factor (half DR and HP to cover twice as many hexes) is balanced; note doubling your number of Wall Units (to steal a useful term from Kelly Pedersen; hereafter abbreviated WU) makes a full-hex wall take up half a hex or a half-hex wall only take up the border, and tripling WU's makes any Wall only take up the border (border-thickness walls just stay border-thickness).

But... what about doing this in reverse? Could you have two half-hex WU's take up a full hex (meaning an attack has to get through both to cross the hex), or any number of border-thickness WU's fill up a hex? Honestly, I feel this wouldn't really break anything. Note, however, that if you're using Wall multiple times to create such layered defenses, each is assessed separately, not all together - if you stack 3 WU's that each have DR 6 and HP 1, doing it as part of one use of Wall results in a DR 18, HP 3 Wall, while creating three such Walls with separate Maneuvers just creates 3 Walls that each have DR 6 and HP 1.

In either case, you must set any thinning out/bulking up upon creating the ability if you have Wall +30%, but can change this upon use if you have Wall +60%.

Having given it further thought, I've changed my mind about Bulking Up - you can layer Walls behind each other, even in the same hex (thickness permitting), but these are explicitly different Walls, you cannot combine their DR and HP (or damage, if permeable). The reason for this is simple - with the way I previously suggested, the most efficient way to build a Wall is to do so with a 1-point attack, then just buy Area Effect to double it for each level. Need a 6x4 yard (length*height) Wall that has DR 90 and HP 60? Normally that would be Innate Attack 30d cr (Area Effect 2 yards +50%; Persistent +40%; Wall +30%) [330]. With Bulking Up in play, you could manage it with Innate Attack 1 cr (Area Effect 128 yards +350%; Persistent +40%; Wall +30%) [32.5] - less than 1/10th the cost (exactly 1/10th when you round up) - and have WU's to spare. Without Bulking Up, but allowing for layering, you can manage the same Cover DR of 105 with the latter build, but as it's made up of 105 layers of basically DR 1, HP 0 Walls, that ends up fully Ablative (granted, that is a bit more of a discount than Ablative usually gives, but I'd say not egregiously so). This would arguably have even more of an impact on permeable Walls - a single 30d cr wall of crushing force (or wall of flame, if you prefer - it's the same cost) will reduce even a rather heavily-armored human into bloody pulp in a matter of seconds, while 105 layers of 1 point cr walls will do the same to an unarmored human but simply having DR 1 will make you immune.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That is indeed the reference.

Working with 2x2 (2 yards wide, 2 yards high, 1 yard thick) blocks while using a hex map works rather well. Naturally it's less important with the +30% version since it only do a single shape (defined when you purchase the ability). However, it's really useful to keep the 60% (defined each time you use it) from turning into a math exercise.

It's less area (4cy rather than 6cy), but I find multiples of 2 friendlier to work with and would rather make the difference up in side benefits. Also, I allow Wall to be taken without Area (since the first level multiplies it by 2 anyway).

<snip climbing discussion>

I usually consider that a special effect unless you can change it. At that point it's a very minor enhancement that I'd roll into Selective Effect if that's being taken anyway.

No, no, and also no. Create is horrendously expensive (and has weird rules around how long its constructs last)

Agreed.

That's... not a bad idea. I'd put a Limitation on the Binding that it only serves to make the Wall harder to detach from an anchor point (normally, wherever the Binding was, anyone who was in contact with that hex/those hexes would be stuck fast by the Binding).

Seems unnecessary. I've always considered it a special effect to define walls as either
a) constructs that can't move (need to be destroyed)
or
b) physical objects (mass based on HP) that work like any other objects.

Absolutely (and No Signature shouldn't make the Wall invisible, just prevent it from being obvious that you made it, and leave no evidence behind of its existence once it vanishes or destroyed; you need Sneak Attack to be truly invisible, as that results in someone running into it because they didn't know it was there). The question is more if the Wall should obscure vision.

Yes, I tried allowing No Sig invisible walls. It was definitely too cheap for the benefits. Invisible attacks should be a type of Cosmic for sneak attacks that remove your active defenses.

As for obscuring walls, I've always considered that a special effect if the opaqueness was defined during ability creation.

I personally feel that Wall +30% should let you setup the Wall in any pattern you'd like, but only when designing the power - if your Wall is a chevron, it will always be a chevron (although if you later add more Area Effect, you can designate where the new sections show up when buying that... but then those are locked in place as well). Wall +60%, however, allows you to set it each time you use the power.

That's how I've always played it.

Having given it further thought, I've changed my mind about Bulking Up - you can layer Walls behind each other, even in the same hex (thickness permitting), but these are explicitly different Walls, you cannot combine their DR and HP (or damage, if permeable).

I've always treated them as explicitly different walls with their own stats for destruction/damage allowing you to blow through one at a time. Of course, I also treat each 2x2 section as its own as well for damage purposes which allows them to last longer if you're using them as shields or structures. If your whole wall is destroyed when any section is destroyed, that's a limitation.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by naloth

Working with 2x2 (2 yards wide, 2 yards high, 1 yard thick) blocks while using a hex map works rather well. Naturally it's less important with the +30% version since it only do a single shape (defined when you purchase the ability). However, it's really useful to keep the 60% (defined each time you use it) from turning into a math exercise.

Are you suggesting using 2x2x1 blocks rather than the 4x1x1 blocks Wall normally uses (effectively doubling width by halving height)? Or are you saying to reduce the height from 4 yards to 2 yards, and mostly just handle it in 2x2x1 blocks?

Originally Posted by naloth

I usually consider that a special effect unless you can change it. At that point it's a very minor enhancement that I'd roll into Selective Effect if that's being taken anyway.

Rolling the ability to set it upon using the Wall into Selective Effect (rather than making it its own Enhancement) probably isn't a bad idea, honestly. I do feel that a worse penalty than -4 to Climbing should be worth points, but maybe that's just being nitpicky.

Originally Posted by naloth

Seems unnecessary. I've always considered it a special effect to define walls as either
a) constructs that can't move (need to be destroyed)
or
b) physical objects (mass based on HP) that work like any other objects.

To be clear, I'm actually suggesting Walls be handled as you describe, with the option to choose if it's (a) or (b) upon creating the ability. Plane's suggestion for Binding is something I might be inclined to use for a case where I want to build a Wall to function like (b), but be more difficult to shift around than its HP (and thus weight) indicates.

Originally Posted by naloth

Yes, I tried allowing No Sig invisible walls. It was definitely too cheap for the benefits. Invisible attacks should be a type of Cosmic for sneak attacks that remove your active defenses.

There's actually a Surprise Attack Enhancement (which I've been misnaming "Sneak Attack" in the thread) in PU4: Enhancements. I can't check my books at the moment (used the free preview to check the name), but it's one that makes the attack harder to detect in such as way that you may be denied an Active Defense. I think it does this by attacking from outside your range of vision, but repurposing it for invisible Walls seems appropriate.

Originally Posted by naloth

As for obscuring walls, I've always considered that a special effect if the opaqueness was defined during ability creation.

There are two issues with this, I feel. The first is that it allows you to basically grab Obscure 10 (Vision; Extended; Ranged) as a free "gimme" with your Wall (even a weak, 1 point Wall could work here). The second is that you may want a Wall that obscures more than just vision (like my suggestion of a sound-proof or scent-blocking one, or one that blocks some flavor(s) of Detect, or whatever), or you may want to be able to define what wavelengths of light it's opaque to. Obscure lets you do all that.

Originally Posted by naloth

I've always treated them as explicitly different walls with their own stats for destruction/damage allowing you to blow through one at a time. Of course, I also treat each 2x2 section as its own as well for damage purposes which allows them to last longer if you're using them as shields or structures. If your whole wall is destroyed when any section is destroyed, that's a limitation.

My intent is to treat each 1x1 section as its own thing (although attacks that naturally hit more than one assess them together - an SM+0 character using Slam to break through a Wall is going to leave a 2x1 hole). I'm considering having the loss of an adjacent section reduce current DR and HP by half, but am undecided.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

There are two issues with this, I feel. The first is that it allows you to basically grab Obscure 10 (Vision; Extended; Ranged) as a free "gimme" with your Wall (even a weak, 1 point Wall could work here). The second is that you may want a Wall that obscures more than just vision (like my suggestion of a sound-proof or scent-blocking one, or one that blocks some flavor(s) of Detect, or whatever), or you may want to be able to define what wavelengths of light it's opaque to. Obscure lets you do all that.

Given the usual cost between an Innate Attack with wall and Obscure I really don't consider a bit of vision blocking a big deal. A bit of vision blocking isn't an unbalanced special effect with a high cost ability. If it really worries you a house rule that you as GM will reject any a larger vision penalty than the number of dice in the IA nicely prevents what you seem to worry about. A 1d flaming wall might only be a -1 to peer through but a 10d+ flaming wall blazes enough to block vision entirely.

In any case a 1 point solid wall (which is what -- a fractional pi- attack with enhancements?) doesn't cover much, is a wall rather than area, and is destroyed by anything more powerful than a sneeze. I just don't see it upsetting game balance. The value of obscure is to coat an area in a field that can't easily be gotten rid of. Sure, you can do Wall on Obscure, but I would only consider linking it with a damage field (perhaps a sonic wall that captures noise) that can't be easily destroyed. If you wanted to create an area inside a wall construct where you couldn't even create light or sound, then link obscure.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by naloth

Given the usual cost between an Innate Attack with wall and Obscure I really don't consider a bit of vision blocking a big deal. A bit of vision blocking isn't an unbalanced special effect with a high cost ability. If it really worries you a house rule that you as GM will reject any a larger vision penalty than the number of dice in the IA nicely prevents what you seem to worry about. A 1d flaming wall might only be a -1 to peer through but a 10d+ flaming wall blazes enough to block vision entirely.

I was thinking more along the lines of if you allow it to be completely opaque at any level, at no cost. Obscure has a 2-yard radius by default, and roughly speaking an opaque Wall with a given nominal radius (from its level of Area Effect) will have a comparable effect to Obscure with that radius. Walls, unlike base Obscure, are ranged in nature, and they would generally be opaque to those with Infravision, Ultravision, and regular vision. So, an opaque Wall is somewhere along the lines of comparable to Obscure 10 (Extended, IR and UV +40%; Ranged +40%) [36]. That's obviously too good to get for free with a low-level Innate Attack, but your "free -1 per 1d" suggestion isn't too shabby - a 10d crushing attack (what I'd expect most rigid Walls to be made from), made into a Wall, would be 10d cr (Area Effect 2 yards +50%; Persistent +40%; Wall +30%) [110] (or [125] with Wall +60%). Considering the Obscure effect doesn't affect the whole area (it just blocks vision from either side of the Wall, it doesn't prevent those within the enclosure from seeing each other), only lasts 10 seconds (longer with Persistent on the IA, but that of course costs more; Obscure basically lasts as long as you want it to, so long as you are within range), and can be destroyed (Obscure generally can't), that's probably fair.

Originally Posted by naloth

In any case a 1 point solid wall (which is what -- a fractional pi- attack with enhancements?)

Sorry, that wasn't a Wall that cost [1], but rather a Wall built on a 1 damage Innate Attack. Innate Attack 1 cr (Area Effect 2 yards +50%; Persistent +40%; Wall +30%) costs [2.75], rounded up to [3]. Letting that be opaque would be a bit much, I feel. Sure, it's a sizable limitation that pretty much any damage would destroy it (and the other things that make an Opaque Wall not quite as good as Obscure), but -92.5% to cost is overstating things.

However, I just thought to look up Illusion in Powers. That costs [25], can more-or-less perfectly mimic Obscure 10 (with Selective Area and Selectivity to boot, plus it's both vision and sound; note the description explicitly notes it can block vision), in addition to having plenty more functionality. So maybe allowing even the above ultra-cheap Wall to be opaque isn't such a big deal.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

However, I just thought to look up Illusion in Powers. That costs [25], can more-or-less perfectly mimic Obscure 10 (with Selective Area and Selectivity to boot, plus it's both vision and sound; note the description explicitly notes it can block vision), in addition to having plenty more functionality. So maybe allowing even the above ultra-cheap Wall to be opaque isn't such a big deal.

Illusion is a fun and typically underrated power. You can't quite do all the tricks that Obscure will allow (such as creating a zone of silence) but you can get close.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by naloth

In any case a 1 point solid wall (which is what -- a fractional pi- attack with enhancements?) doesn't cover much

Dice of crushing damage doesn't affect the area covered, only the DR and HP. It's the levels of AE you buy which affects the hexes your wall can stretch.

In basic set that's 2y for +50% though there was some later expansion which had a 1y for +25% option for AE.

Normally you can take "Bombardment" for AE... would that make any sense for Wall?

I'm thinking maybe for Permeable (a wall with a CHANCE to damage those walking through) but I can't see how it would work w/ Rigid. Perhaps a wall with only a random chance of applying it's DR/HP to targets who walk through?

If you could do a "Bombardment Rigid Wall" then I could see making that either "a wall which flickers" (sometimes 100% transparent, other times 100% opaque) or "a wall which fluctuates" (always visible, but rearranging w/ holes you can see through all the time).

Given the option exists for this to take up an entire hex it seems like maybe to have it restrict vision you ought to buy an appropriate level of Obscure?

Otherwise, while it shouldn't be undetectable (invisible ala No Signature or even Low Signature) it should probably not obscure vision rolls in any way, like just being a "obvious glowing green wall you can see through fine but you know it's there in your way".

The same would probably apply to other stuff, like if I create a Binding on the floor "you're walking in quicksand" it shouldn't actually hide what is actually on that floor (like some magical inscription on a carpet that someone is searching for).

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

Dice of crushing damage doesn't affect the area covered, only the DR and HP. It's the levels of AE you buy which affects the hexes your wall can stretch.

I thought he meant 1 character point instead of 1 point of damage. I'm not even sure a 1 dmg wall is even valid (DR1 and 0 HP?). A 1d wall is fairly useful but it's not inexpensive if you take on lots of enhancements.

In basic set that's 2y for +50% though there was some later expansion which had a 1y for +25% option for AE.

That doesn't really make sense in the context of Wall since you multiply the base size by the radius (x1 = same as you started with). You might as well just allow Wall to be taken without Area for a x1 size.

Normally you can take "Bombardment" for AE... would that make any sense for Wall?

I wouldn't mind using that for a certain amount of flickering. Of course, I don't build traits by "gee what should this do" (nor does the system really encourage that mentality). Instead, I envision an ability and try to find which traits fit properly.

Given the option exists for this to take up an entire hex it seems like maybe to have it restrict vision you ought to buy an appropriate level of Obscure?

Like I said above, I don't think it's an unbalancing special effect. You're either paying a fair number of points already for the wall, cheap rigid walls are fairly easy to destroy, and low damage walls can be restricted by GM fiat from being unbalancing.

The same would probably apply to other stuff, like if I create a Binding on the floor "you're walking in quicksand" it shouldn't actually hide what is actually on that floor (like some magical inscription on a carpet that someone is searching for).

If you can turn the floor into quicksand, I wouldn't have an issue with a carpet being sucked in (needing to be freed before being read). It's similar to "bind" wrapping everything in cobwebs or vines. It creates a physical binding that prevents interacting with the target or target area.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by naloth

I thought he meant 1 character point instead of 1 point of damage. I'm not even sure a 1 dmg wall is even valid (DR1 and 0 HP?).

A 1-damage Rigid Wall would be up to the GM as to what stats it had, if it were even allowed. One could easily interpret the Wall rules (3 DR and 0.5 HP, round up, per 1d) as requiring you to purchase the ability only in full multiples of 1d (1d, 2d, 3d, etc), or go with my suggestion that Walls give Cover DR equal to their average damage roll*, and distribute the Cover DR between personal DR and HP as appropriate (1 damage would be DR 0.86 and HP 0.14 by default, which I'd be comfortable rounding to DR 1 and HP 0; note under my suggestion you could simply choose between DR 1 and HP 0 or DR 0 and HP 4).

*It could be interesting to actually roll damage, rather than going with the average, to determine how effective a Wall is. This would represent a character with powers that are a bit unpredictable. You'd probably decide beforehand how to distribute the Cover DR between DR and HP.

Originally Posted by naloth

That doesn't really make sense in the context of Wall since you multiply the base size by the radius (x1 = same as you started with). You might as well just allow Wall to be taken without Area for a x1 size.

Nah, I think charging the +25% is still appropriate. Consider these two builds:

Burning Innate Attack (Area Effect +25%; Persistent +40%) [8.25]/level
vs
Burning Innate Attack (Persistent +40%; Wall +30%) [8.5]/level

Both of these create a flame that lasts 10 seconds. For the first, the flame fills a single hex. For the second, the flame fills that same hex, and also fills two adjacent hexes, for only a relative +5% Enhancement, compared to the first.

With that said, however, it seems inappropriate that Area Effect, 1 yard +25% + Wall +30% costs +5% more than Area Effect, 2 yards +50%, given the former is basically the latter with 4 hexes removed. Honestly, given how much of the area is removed for Wall, part of me feels it overcharges. I'll revisit that later in the post.

Originally Posted by naloth

I wouldn't mind using that for a certain amount of flickering. Of course, I don't build traits by "gee what should this do" (nor does the system really encourage that mentality). Instead, I envision an ability and try to find which traits fit properly.

Yeah. If I wanted a Wall that flickered, however, I'd probably give it a Dodgeable Limitation, which I think would be somewhere between -10% and -20%. A character can attempt to get through during a flicker with a Dodge roll - success means they make it through without issue, Failure means they either collide with the Wall (if rigid) or take full damage while going through (if permeable). If trying to get an attack past the wall, I'd still have them roll against Dodge (it's a decent measure of reflexes in combat), but give them the option of taking a penalty to the attack to boost this roll, at a rate of -2 to attack for +1 to Dodge (so a better combatant can get an attack through more effectively). Or maybe it would be more appropriate to let them just roll against 3+(Weapon Skill)/2? I think I like the former better - it's essentially "Deceptive Attack to get past the shields." If I wanted one that didn't just "flicker," but was unstable enough one could actually walk through it without damage (or shoot through it without the shot being intercepted) accidentally, I'd go with Bombardment. If I wanted both (you can luck out and get through without issue, and you can also rely on your reflexes to get through), I'd apply both Limitations.

Originally Posted by naloth

Like I said above, I don't think it's an unbalancing special effect. You're either paying a fair number of points already for the wall, cheap rigid walls are fairly easy to destroy, and low damage walls can be restricted by GM fiat from being unbalancing.

I'm actually thinking of a middle ground between the high cost of a linked Obscure and the no-cost of just making it part of Wall (largely because I like the idea of Walls being able to block senses other than sight - sound, Detect Magic, etc - as well as being able to block different wavelengths of light - visible vs IR vs UV, but would like this to have a cost associated... but linked Obscure is too much). This would be simple - take the appropriate Obscure with the same level of Area Effect and Wall, and the same Duration... and then pay 1/5th cost for it. Should probably also require Ranged and to match the Range of the Wall while I'm at it. It may be appropriate to take Stealthy for Walls that block sound and smell - by default, Obscure prevents using a sense by essentially overwhelming it, so Obscure (Sound) should produce a lot of white noise and Obscure (Smell) should produce a strong odor.

...

As for the cost of Wall, compare Selective Area. This gives you more hexes to play with (only +1 for a two yard radius, but far more for larger radii) for a markedly lower cost (+20% instead of +60%), with the caveat that you can't make hexes outside of your nominal radius with Selective Area, while you can do so (provided you stay within Range*) with Wall. Wall also lets you make a Wall rigid - but as it gives no discount for making a permeable one, this clearly doesn't factor into its price (or if it does, permeable Walls are a bad deal). It's also odd that Wall for a 2-yard AE gives you enough hexes to cover the borders of a 2-yard AE, but larger AE's give you far less - 4 yards is enough to cover the borders of a 3-yard radius, 8 is enough for 5-yard borders, 16 is enough for 9-yard borders, 32 is enough for 17-yard borders, and so forth. Essentially, the equation here would be AE/2+1 yards.

I'm starting to think it might be more appropriate to make Wall actually a +0% modifier; you can choose either a Static Wall, which is like the +30% version (you have to set locations/orientations when you create the power), or Dynamic Wall, which is like the +60% version (you set locations/orientations when you use the power). Both are worth +0%; Static Walls have a number of hexes equal to the border of their nominal AE - you can calculate this as 6*(AE-1) - while Dynamic Walls have half this number - 3*(AE-1). For a 2-yard AE, that's 6 and 3, respectively; for 4-yard AE it's 18 and 9, for 8-yard AE it's 42 and 21, and so forth. Note this does mean a 1-yard AE generally cannot be made into a Wall (it gives you 0 hexes to work with), although I'd make an exception and allow it - a 1 yard AE that is made into a Wall simply creates a 1 hex Wall.

*I'm actually not certain how Walls work in this regard. Can they go anywhere, even outside of your Range, so long as they're continuous?