Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

[David Johnston]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

I don`t understand the distinction. If one Ninja can learn this power why cant he teach it to others?

 

It's not about whether he can teach. It's about whether they can learn. Being so good at stealth that even a card-carrying genuine psychic is oblivious to your approach strikes me as a rather advanced discipline rather than standard training for mooks in pyjamas.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Well that depends on how much Luck you get. A single Luck success is "Your assassin steps on a twig alerting you to his presence". 4 or so successes is "Your assassin falls on his shortsword without you even noticing".

Well, one of the big disadvantages of Luck is that it's left very much up to the GM. Danger Sense is not. So if you want it to be at all reliable....

[prestidigitator]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Ninja Assassins who've mastered this technique would no doubt' date=' be invisible to danger sense.[/quote']

Why? If the SFX of my Danger Sense is very limited precognition it shouldn't matter one whit what my attacker's mentality is. What I'd say is that a blanket Invisibility to Danger Sense should never be bought; there should always (or very, very, very nearly always) be some kind of Limitation reflecting a restricted set of SFX.

[pinecone]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

I think I'd just be a little careful with it. Some SFX of Danger Sense and Invisibility to such just don't make sense. For example' date=' some versions of Danger Sense might be luck-based (things just conspire so that the character perceives something out of place and/or happens to move in such a way as to be just as hard to hit as in normal combat), and if the Invisibility has the SFX of hiding the attacker's intentions it doesn't seem it should work against the DS. Is such a dramatic ruling fair to either party given the points spent and the concepts? Tough call. I think it tends to factor into DS/Invisibility quite commonly for some reason, probably because the SFX of these tend to have such a big variance.[/quote']

 

I have no problem with Invis to Danger sense, but I also treat SFX very seriously so "lucky coincidence" "virtual" danger sense would likely work anyway, though it Might take a power roll or a luck roll depending on the exact interaction...

[Kevin Schultz]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Why? If the SFX of my Danger Sense is very limited precognition it shouldn't matter one whit what my attacker's mentality is. What I'd say is that a blanket Invisibility to Danger Sense should never be bought; there should always (or very' date=' very, very nearly always) be some kind of Limitation reflecting a restricted set of SFX.[/quote']

 

Well, I suppose you could justify it (in a Champions game) in that the character is so highly skilled that the skill is merely a pathway to true enlightenment, and as such has trancended mortal perceptions and is starting to become a metaphysical Truth/Facet of Existence.

 

However, that's a SFX in and of itself, albiet one that matches up perfectly with the game mechanics.

 

That being said, I like the idea of requiring that Danger Sense (As well as other Detects, to be honest) defined in terms of another Perception Group. For example, I have a character whose powers allow him to mask himself psychically - in terms of game mechanics, that's Invisiblity to Mental and mystic senses. However, technically that's ALSO invisibility to all other forms of detection, but only if they're defined as psychic. Which, to be honest, is kind of a pain to cost out. (Full Invisibility to Everything costs, what, 80 active points?)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

(Full Invisibility to Everything costs' date=' what, 80 active points?)[/quote']

More actually.

Since you can't buy Invisibility: Detect, you have to buy it vs Specific Detects.

 

Here's my characters Invisibility, it's about as Absolute as you can get. It's two powers.

 

The Chosen One From A Thousand Years Hence: Invisibility to Mental Group , No Fringe, Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (45 Active Points); Always On (-1/2) [45 AP, 30RP]

Ghost: Invisibility to Sight, Hearing, Radio, Smell/Taste and Mystic Groups, Danger Sense, Combat Sense, Detect Dimensional Effects, Spatial Awareness, Detect Humans, Detect Livings Things, Detect Mutants, Detect Soul, Detect Lifeforce and Detect Aura , No Fringe, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (123 Active Points) [82 AP before Reduced END]

 

You can't (aren't supposed) to buy Invisibility:Touch Group, so there's always just feeling around in the dark or Touch; Ranged to find them.

 

The special effects are the character slips sideways into the space Between dimensions. Their mind/subconcious is another dimension unto itself that also exists Between dimensions (hence the Chosen One power).

 

I suppose if you had Transdimensional on your Danger Sense you might be able to detect them, but techincally since I've bought Invisibility specifically against that you shouldn't be able to - GM Call there.

 

Every once in a while the GM creates a new Detect that finds me and causes me no end of issues for a session or two then the Invisibility expands to cover it. Oh, and this IS the characters defense, they have 10rPD in a world where 4-6 Killing dice are common.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

You can't (aren't supposed) to buy Invisibility:Touch Group' date=' so there's always just feeling around in the dark or [i']Touch; Ranged[/i] to find them.

Well, that's because you forgot the Desolidification.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Well' date=' that's because you forgot the Desolidification. [/quote']

If only... the GM has expressly forbidden me from taking that power at this point.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Why? If the SFX of my Danger Sense is very limited precognition it shouldn't matter one whit what my attacker's mentality is. What I'd say is that a blanket Invisibility to Danger Sense should never be bought; there should always (or very' date=' very, very nearly always) be some kind of Limitation reflecting a restricted set of SFX.[/quote']

 

That could easily be said about all kinds of Invisibility that's bought versus a specific sense rather than a sense group. For example, not too long ago I had a character that had a funky sense bought as Spatial Awareness. She has the ability to reach out using the darkness surrounding her to be aware of her surroundings. However, there were two characters in the group who had Invisibility specifically bought versus Spatial Awareness. According to the SFX of the Insivibilities and the Spatial Awareness, she should be able to still see one of the characters but not the other. Perhaps I should have each of those character buy their Invisibility differently. I don't though. I just let SFX rule the day. For the most part, their Invisibility works versus all forms of Spatial Awareness, save this one for just the one character. Hardly worth a Limitation with a value higher than -0.

 

Maybe it's the same way with Danger Sense. Compare the SFX of the Invisibility to the SFX of the Sense and see who wins. If the Sense wins out more, either the Sense or the Invisibility should be bought differently (either as a different Sense, or as a Limitation on the Invibility).

[David Johnston]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Why? If the SFX of my Danger Sense is very limited precognition it shouldn't matter one whit what my attacker's mentality is. .

 

I disagree. If your SFX is precognition then the right state of mind might make whether he'll attack to be uncertain enough that that your danger sense draws a blank.

 

However it's possible that invisibility should be purchased versus special effect, not power. Thus you could have Invisibility Versus Magic, which would make you immune to magical detects, clairvoyance, divinition, et cetera...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

However it's possible that invisibility should be purchased versus special effect' date=' not power.[/quote']

Err...maybe...but going with the usual sense of building the Invisibility and then giving it appropriate Limitations for restricting SFX interactions feels better to me. It's a lot more consistent for a Sense-Affecting Power. That it is so costly? Hmm...don't know. Maybe Invisibility is just too expensive, or should have its Sense Adder prices reduced a little or something. Beats me.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

That could easily be said about all kinds of Invisibility that's bought versus a specific sense rather than a sense group. For example, not too long ago I had a character that had a funky sense bought as Spatial Awareness. She has the ability to reach out using the darkness surrounding her to be aware of her surroundings. However, there were two characters in the group who had Invisibility specifically bought versus Spatial Awareness. According to the SFX of the Insivibilities and the Spatial Awareness, she should be able to still see one of the characters but not the other. Perhaps I should have each of those character buy their Invisibility differently. I don't though. I just let SFX rule the day. For the most part, their Invisibility works versus all forms of Spatial Awareness, save this one for just the one character. Hardly worth a Limitation with a value higher than -0.

 

Maybe it's the same way with Danger Sense. Compare the SFX of the Invisibility to the SFX of the Sense and see who wins. If the Sense wins out more, either the Sense or the Invisibility should be bought differently (either as a different Sense, or as a Limitation on the Invibility).

Yeah. Unusual Senses just seem to be annoying this way. They tend to have pretty specific SFX that very, very often raise questions of SFX interaction. But with the way we think about perception maybe it is unavoidable.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

However it's possible that invisibility should be purchased versus special effect' date=' not power. Thus you could have Invisibility Versus Magic, which would make you immune to magical detects, clairvoyance, divinition, et cetera...[/quote']

While the idea has merit... given the sheer mind boglingly number of possibly SFX you'd have to change how Inivisbility is costed. Moving to a falt Cost for base Invisibility, with Advantages for extra SFX (like adjustment powers).

 

But then, what SFX is "sight" which is the classic Invisibility.

 

No, I think vs. Senses makes more sense (no pun intended.. ).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Well, maybe it could be done like this:

 

1 reasonably common SFX or a targeting sense: same cost

 

Broader groups of SFX: +Advantage, like Adjustment Powers if SFX based; Additional sense groups: +Adders, if Sense-based.

 

Less common SFX might warrant a Limitation on the base cost.

 

That way you'd have sort of parallel costs, but both based of the same root cost.

 

For SFX example:

 

Invisible to SFX: Magic (reasonably common)

 

Invisible to SFX: Mechanical/eletronic devices (reasonably common) -- in other words, cameras couldn't see or record the character's presence, but people would see them normally.

 

Invisible to SFX: Recording devices (more narrow, deserves a limitation) -- a video surviellance camera would still show the character to anyone watching the screen in realtime, but a review of the tape later would not show the character.

 

That sort of thing.

[pinecone]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Well, maybe it could be done like this:

 

1 reasonably common SFX or a targeting sense: same cost

 

Broader groups of SFX: +Advantage, like Adjustment Powers if SFX based; Additional sense groups: +Adders, if Sense-based.

 

Less common SFX might warrant a Limitation on the base cost.

 

That way you'd have sort of parallel costs, but both based of the same root cost.

 

For SFX example:

 

Invisible to SFX: Magic (reasonably common)

 

Invisible to SFX: Mechanical/eletronic devices (reasonably common) -- in other words, cameras couldn't see or record the character's presence, but people would see them normally.

 

Invisible to SFX: Recording devices (more narrow, deserves a limitation) -- a video surviellance camera would still show the character to anyone watching the screen in realtime, but a review of the tape later would not show the character.

 

That sort of thing.

 

That sounds good I personally would have little problem with aSFX invisability instead of a sense, but costing it be ballenced is a mutha...I'd likely "default" it as the same as sight, plus a little more for very broad SFX like say "technology" or "magic"...

[David Johnston]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

While the idea has merit... given the sheer mind boglingly number of possibly SFX you'd have to change how Inivisbility is costed. Moving to a falt Cost for base Invisibility, with Advantages for extra SFX (like adjustment powers).

 

But then, what SFX is "sight" which is the classic Invisibility.

 

 

Light.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Danger Sense vs. Invisibility (and vice versa)

 

Just to toss this out there, Body Heat Control (USPDII p13) is a somewhat non standard Invisibility power. Instead of being invisible to a given Sense Group, the character is invisible to a given Infrared Perception, regardless of what Sense group it's purchased for.