Experiments in Character Construction

[wylodmayer]

Re: Expirments in Character Construction

 

Well, I get all that, and I'm fine with the Indirect IAF walking stick... he paid for the extra inscrutability in the form of the Active Point bump from Indirect. But what bothers me is that difference between the Inobvious... well, hell to keep the example as similar as possible, let's say:

 

1) An IIF Ring that shoots fire from it. It's Inaccessible because it's a ring, and it's inobvious because there's no way to tell by looking at it that it shoots fire. But when you use it, yup, the fire comes from the ring.

 

2) An IIF Ring that allows you to, say, breathe fire. It's Inaccessible because it's a ring, and it's inobvious because there's no way to tell by looking at it that it allows the wearer to breathe fire. But when you use it... well, crap, they still can't tell it's because of the ring.

 

The latter case seems less of a limitation than the former, yet - as far as I know - both qualify as IIFs. Something about this seems wrong. It seems as if there's a "missing" grade of "(in)obviousness" for lack of a better word.

 

Thoughts?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Expirments in Character Construction

 

Not missing per se. Possibly ill defined powers.

 

the first example, it's the ring that shoots fire, but to onlookers it may appear to be coming from the casters fist rather than directly from the ring. If it were obviously the ring then it would be an OIF. It's it's not obviously the ring, but always from the fist with the ring, I could see IIF.

[TheJudge]

Re: Expirments in Character Construction

 

Well, I get all that, and I'm fine with the Indirect IAF walking stick... he paid for the extra inscrutability in the form of the Active Point bump from Indirect. But what bothers me is that difference between the Inobvious... well, hell to keep the example as similar as possible, let's say:

 

1) An IIF Ring that shoots fire from it. It's Inaccessible because it's a ring, and it's inobvious because there's no way to tell by looking at it that it shoots fire. But when you use it, yup, the fire comes from the ring.

 

2) An IIF Ring that allows you to, say, breathe fire. It's Inaccessible because it's a ring, and it's inobvious because there's no way to tell by looking at it that it allows the wearer to breathe fire. But when you use it... well, crap, they still can't tell it's because of the ring.

 

The latter case seems less of a limitation than the former, yet - as far as I know - both qualify as IIFs. Something about this seems wrong. It seems as if there's a "missing" grade of "(in)obviousness" for lack of a better word.

 

Thoughts?

 

Your example 1) would be OIF not IIF because it's obvious the power comes from the Item.

 

In your 2nd example you would be right in saying it's IIF because it's not obvious.

 

Thus the beginning key words in any focus are either Obvious or Inobvious choose wisely young Padawan.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Expirments in Character Construction

 

Your example 1) would be OIF not IIF because it's obvious the power comes from the Item.

 

In your 2nd example you would be right in saying it's IIF because it's not obvious.

 

Thus the beginning key words in any focus are either Obvious or Inobvious choose wisely young Padawan.

 

People seem to be missing my question here. Make no mistake; this is not a simple lack of understanding of the Focus limitation. I've been playing this game since second edition, and I know my way around. I'm asking about something more fundamental. I'm gonna restate my question so that we're perfectly clear on this.

 

I was starting from the premise that "obviousness" was a function of whether it is obvious that the item is a focus for some kind of effect upon casual examination, without seeing it in action. For example, a gun is an obvious focus, given the right cultural knowledge, so is a wand, and a flamethrower. A ring that does not obviously have any powers before they are manifested would not be obvious in that sense, because you don't look at the guy wearing it and say, "hey, that ring does something." Not until, at least, he does it. I think we can all agree that it is "better" - i.e.: less of a limitation - to have a Focus that is inobvious in this sense because even if people search you, they may not think to remove it. It doesn't appear to DO anything when it's not, you know, actively doing something. But an obvious focus would; even when not being used, it would be clear that it is a focus of some kind. Again, that's the operative difference between a gun and a gun cane.

 

The last two posts seem to be arguing that obviousness has to do with obviousness when the power is being used. A ring that clearly shoots fire from it is, according to that theory, an Obvious focus because, well, the fire comes from the ring. And the initial wording of the Focus limitation *seems* to support this, speaking of "source of powers" and all.

 

But the gun cane is given as an example of an Inobvious focus!! Clearly, a gun cane is **obviously** firing a bullet - when it is being used. You use a gun cane to shoot someone, and people don't say - "Wow, where did that bullet come from, and why is he pointing his cane?" No, they say, "Oh, wow, he had a gun concealed in that cane."

 

We're dealing with two different shadings of the word "Obvious," and while one seems to be the kind endorsed by the rules - the interpretation given by the last two respondents to my question.

 

But the actual example given falls in line with the version of "obvious" I'm talking about.

 

The former is obviousness during/after power use. When you use the power, can people tell where it's coming from.

 

The latter is obviousness before power use. Can anyone tell by looking at this thing that it will be the source of some power.

 

Let's look at our example. I have a magic ring. It looks no different from any other ring. No one who can't detect magic or isn't paranoid about rings is gonna confiscate it from me when frisking me for weapons. It's just not ***obvious*** that this is something that will let me throw fire, unlike, say a flamethrower. They don't have to see it in use to know it's a Focus. I don't see how it's reasonable to classify this as an obvious focus, compared to other obvious foci. Furthermore, the given example of an inobvious focus, the gun cane, is "obvious" when used, so the magic ring that throws fire bolts from the ring seems a pretty clear case of an Inobvious Foci.

 

(That is to say, there's a clear disparity in the value of the limitation between an item that can be identified as a tool for throwing fire before it does so, and one that can't, even if that latter item can be so identified WHILE throwing fire)

 

But the rules also state that a ring which glows when used, say, is an Obvious Foci!

 

So how can a Gun Cane, which clearly SHOOTS A BULLET, be Inobvious, and a ring, which is completely inconspicuous except that it glows while being used, be Obvious?

 

It seems to me that there's a confusion in the rules about Obviousness. They claim that one item - a gun cane - is Inobvious, but another item which is obvious in the same way is Obvious!

 

I don't think I'm crazy here. There's more than one kind of obvious, and the two examples *from the book* seem to construe the term in opposite ways.

 

Thoughts?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Expirments in Character Construction

 

To quote 5ER:

 

"If a focus is obvious it is clear to anyone looking at the character that the Power is coming from the Focus."

 

If it's obvious the lightning bolt came from the mages ring, it's an Obvious focus.

 

That is all. Focus makes no implication or statement as to what the focus looks like when the Power is inactive.

 

In fact a "magic ring that glows" is an example given in the book for Obvious Focus.

 

Yes: a ring may be OIF.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Expirments in Character Construction

 

Yes: a ring may be OIF.

 

I'm well aware that the rules say such a ring is an Obvious focus.

 

I mentioned that in my post; if you didn't see it, please look again.

 

I can read rules.

 

The rules also later say that a gun cane is an Inobvious focus, which contradicts your example.

 

Thus, faced with an apparent ambiguity, I'm asking an interpretive question.

 

What vexes me is that an apparently identical situation - the gun cane - is listed as an Inobvious focus.

 

The ring and the gun cane both appear normal accoutrement until used.

 

Both are obviously the source of some power when used.

 

The ring is considered, thus, Obvious. When you use it, it gives some signal of being the source of the power.

 

Fair enough.

 

But the gun cane, even though this is not explicitly stated, would be an idential case. When used, it would be clearly the source of the Killing Attack.

 

Yet it is called Inobvious.

 

THAT is the problem I am having.

 

The section on the Obvious/Inobvious split is unclear. The rules say one thing; a notable example indicates something precisely the opposite.

 

And what I was inviting comment on was which of the two definitions of "obvious" should we be more interested in.

 

Should we decide all things which show themselves as a source of power when used are Obvious, even if some of those items are the sort of thing that could be openly worn or carried without alarming an enemy and some are not? That hardly seems fair. The two cases are not equivalent. It is to the detriment of the man who carries the gun that his Focus is something that would be confiscated upon sight, rather than something that would only be deemed dangerous once it is used.

 

The opposite interpretation, that an item is Inobvious unless it is clearly, to casual inspection, the bearer of some power contradicts what the rules seem to say.

 

But if examples are of any use, they are to show us how to apply the rules that are stated.

 

The rule that is stated would seem to indicate that the ring which throws lightning bolts is an Obvious focus.

 

The example of HOW TO APPLY THAT VERY RULE, in calling the gun cane Inobvious, contradicts that.

 

Which has precedence?

 

The bare rule itself? Or the example which is supposed to flesh out that rule and help us understand it?

 

THAT is what I am considering.

 

In other words,

 

Premise 1) The book claims a ring that throws lightning bolts is an Obvious Focus because when it throws the lightning bolts, you can tell it's coming from the ring.

 

Premise 2) The book also claims, less explicitly but just as definitely, that a gun can is an *Inobvious Focus*, even though we can and should presume that when it's shooting, you can tell that the shot is coming from the cane.

 

Conclusion) The definition of Obvious is thus unclear.

 

Restating Premise 1 is not an answer to the question at hand.

 

I know Premise 1.

 

If I didn't, it wouldn't be Premise 1, now, would it?

 

So telling me that doesn't help.

 

The questions at hand are: Is there really a contradiction in the case of the ring and the case of the gun cane? If so, is there a way to parse "obvious" that saves the rule for both? If not, which has precedence?

 

THESE are the questions.

 

This is not a simple rules enquiry.

 

This is something more subtle.

 

Thus, I opened it to the boards, for thoughtful analysis.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

If it's Inobvious the gun-cane is a gun, I'd say when fired it may not be obvious the bullet came from the gun-cane.

 

I can't make it any clearer. Interpret it however you want in your own games.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

If it's Inobvious the gun-cane is a gun, I'd say when fired it may not be obvious the bullet came from the gun-cane.

 

I can't make it any clearer. Interpret it however you want in your own games.

 

I think the issue here is due to the special nature of guns/bullets that HERO writeups usually fail to address.

 

Bullets should probably be considered IPE Sight Group. Whether or not the gun itself is visible during use is usually determined by whether it has a flash suppressor or not. This level of detail goes a long way toward answering another big argument about HERO combat. Characters can dodge bullets! If you make the bullets IPE the targets will be at 1/2 DCV (including any Dodge bonuses). However, most gun writeups in HERO do not bother to include IPE. And most GM's usually handle gunshots as if they did (whether as a conscious or unconscious decision).

 

What does all this mean in the argument of OIF vs. IIF for a gun-cane or a power-ring? I think that certain sfx tend to get more of a rules handwave than they accurately should.

 

It is almost* always going to be obvious that someone has a cane. *Unless they have it hidden under a trenchcoat which seems to defeat the purpose of concealing a gun within the cane!

 

It is NOT always obvious whether someone is actually wearing a ring.

 

I am describing non-combat situations. Why would such a small difference be significant? Let's assume a low-power/near-heroic setting where the heroes know that the villain has a special weapon (either a magic ring or a gun-cane). This villain has no special movement power and is trying to flee the city/country via a train station/airport. The heroes CAN reasonably be on the lookout for everyone carrying a cane (regardless of whether it also happens to be an inobvios gun as well). They CANNOT do the same for rings. The numbers are too high and the target too small. I think it just boils down to a sfx thing in the end.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

If it's Inobvious the gun-cane is a gun' date=' I'd say when fired it may not be obvious the bullet came from the gun-cane.[/quote']

 

Okay, well, that, at least, does answer the question I asked - you claim there is no conflict here because the cases are not, as I argue, identical. You hadn't made that clear at all in previous responses, and I appreciate the clarification.

 

But I have to ask, why would we want to say that it's not obvious that the bullet comes from the gun cane? I mean, from the perspective of common sense it seems that this is an impossible conclusion to reach. Imagine a gun-pen, a gun-camera, whatever you want - it seems that the disguise would only be good up until the weapon is fired. How could it be that the weapon could be used and someone looking right at it when it happens not know?

 

If we claim that they don't know because the gun-cane is Inobvious, aren't we putting the cart before the horse? Common sense and real world logic dictates that the use of the gun cane IS obvious to those looking at it when it is fired, and although we can never perfectly map reality on to the rules, we should at least try for as close a fit as we can get. Declaring that you can't tell the gun cane fired the bullet, despite every reason to believe you should be able to, because it's built as Inobvious seems to be asking for trouble.

 

Hyper Man brings up a good point about bullets and IPE. Nonetheless, we still assume that when guns are used, they give off a visible effect - someone watching the focus can tell it's being used. There's no obvious reason to assume that a gun cane wouldn't behave the same way - indeed, real such devices do so. I think I would have to say that an Inobvious gun cane would necessarily have to include flash suppressors and sound suppressors, or else it would have to be ruled Obvious to keep it consistent with the rules.

 

But even that doesn't address something that Hyper Man peripherially touched on. An inobvious ring seems as if it wouldn't require me to do anything unusual at all. I think about the Killing Attack it has in it, and the guy dies. Even an inobvious gun cane would have to be pointed in the right direction it seems. And that seems like it might be something of a give away. Is the difference small enough to be chalked up to SFX? Or should it impact the Obviousness of the focus?

 

Either way, following ghost-angel's line of argument to separate obvious from inobvious foci based solely on obviousness during use still leaves open the question of whether it's fair to buy a magic ring that glows when used as a so-called "obvious" focus, given that no one would ever suspect that it's anything other than jewelry *until* it's too late, in contrast with other obvious foci like guns.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

As far as the cybernetics argument goes, here's how I do Cybernetics in my cyberpunk setting:

 

Cybernetics Design

[wylodmayer]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

Cybernetics... oops. Yeah. I'll start a new thread for this other discussion. Sorry.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

I think the issue here is due to the special nature of guns/bullets that HERO writeups usually fail to address.

 

Bullets should probably be considered IPE Sight Group. Whether or not the gun itself is visible during use is usually determined by whether it has a flash suppressor or not. This level of detail goes a long way toward answering another big argument about HERO combat. Characters can dodge bullets! If you make the bullets IPE the targets will be at 1/2 DCV (including any Dodge bonuses). However, most gun writeups in HERO do not bother to include IPE. And most GM's usually handle gunshots as if they did (whether as a conscious or unconscious decision).

 

This is simply properly modeling what you're building.

 

I have no statement regarding whether IAF is approrpriate for a gun-cane in any given Campaign - only on how IAF works,

[CourtFool]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

Characters can dodge bullets! If you make the bullets IPE the targets will be at 1/2 DCV (including any Dodge bonuses).

 

People don't dodge bullets, they dodge a person's aim. I believe 'in combat' targets would still be at full DCV vs. IPE. I would have to double check on that.

 

If you want to deny target's their DCV against guns, knock yourself out. This will make gun play more deadly which may be exactly what you want. I prefer a more cinematic style.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

People don't dodge bullets, they dodge a person's aim. I believe 'in combat' targets would still be at full DCV vs. IPE. I would have to double check on that.

 

If you want to deny target's their DCV against guns, knock yourself out. This will make gun play more deadly which may be exactly what you want. I prefer a more cinematic style.

 

If IPE didn't cause a target to be at 1/2 DCV then the (+1/2) cost of the Advantage seems rather inflated don't you think?

 

Anyway, I wasn't arguing that this be a standard rule in anyone's game. I was just providing a way to use HERO mechanics to provide a more 'realistic' model of combat with guns. I personally prefer the more cinematic combats as well.

[bwdemon]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

Bullets aren't invisible, anyway. They're just tiny and move really fast (up to 2000mph?). Now look at how HERO models flash suppressors: IPE normal sight.

 

Food for thought.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

Bullets aren't invisible, anyway. They're just tiny and move really fast (up to 2000mph?). Now look at how HERO models flash suppressors: IPE normal sight.

 

Food for thought.

 

Bullets are imperceivable in flight using normal human senses.

 

Imperceivable = Invisible

[ghost-angel]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

Bullets are imperceivable in flight using normal human senses.

 

Imperceivable = Invisible

 

But you don't model the bullet. You model the gun firing the bullet. The bullet become the SFX which deliver the damage.

[CourtFool]

+½ to ignore DCV or ½ DCV...you decide

 

If IPE didn't cause a target to be at 1/2 DCV then the (+1/2) cost of the Advantage seems rather inflated don't you think?

 

Considering AoE, One Hex, Accurate, yes. I just never thought of it in terms of +½ to put target at ½ DCV. My gut reaction is to ban such application, but maybe it is not as bad as all that.

 

After reviewing the rules for Inability To Sense Opponent, I concede that I was wrong. Although I do not see the rules implicitly drawing the conclusion that Invisible Power Effects are the same as say Invisibility, I think it is a very logical conclusion.

[archermoo]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

If IPE didn't cause a target to be at 1/2 DCV then the (+1/2) cost of the Advantage seems rather inflated don't you think?

 

Not at all, and nothing in the description of IPE would lead me to believe that the target of an IPE attack is at 1/2 DCV. I'm curious where you got the impression that it does. IPE on an attack power is an advantage because it allows you to attack someone without them knowing where the power came from. Not because it increases your chances to hit them.

[archermoo]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

But you don't model the bullet. You model the gun firing the bullet. The bullet become the SFX which deliver the damage.

 

I always thought of it more as modeling what happens when you shoot someone. The gun and the bullet are both SFX. The actual power you purchased is the ability to do damage to other characters.

[CourtFool]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

IPE on an attack power is an advantage because it allows you to attack someone without them knowing where the power came from.

 

Much like the ½ DCV for inability to sense an opponent.

Just sayin'.

[CourtFool]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

Guns don't kill people. Bullets ripping through their bodies kill people.

[archermoo]

Re: +½ to ignore DCV or ½ DCV...you decide

 

Considering AoE, One Hex, Accurate, yes. I just never thought of it in terms of +½ to put target at ½ DCV. My gut reaction is to ban such application, but maybe it is not as bad as all that.

 

After reviewing the rules for Inability To Sense Opponent, I concede that I was wrong. Although I do not see the rules implicitly drawing the conclusion that Invisible Power Effects are the same as say Invisibility, I think it is a very logical conclusion.

 

I disagree. IPE doesn't make it impossible or even hard to sense your opponent. It only means that you have a harder time telling where the attack came from. So it would make it easier to make a surprise attack (which would get your target at 1/2 DCV) and then get away.

[archermoo]

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

 

Much like the ½ DCV for inability to sense an opponent.

Just sayin'.

 

IPE doesn't stop you from being able to sense your opponent. Invisibility does that.

[CourtFool]

Re: +½ to ignore DCV or ½ DCV...you decide

 

I disagree. IPE doesn't make it impossible or even hard to sense your opponent. It only means that you have a harder time telling where the attack came from. So it would make it easier to make a surprise attack (which would get your target at 1/2 DCV) and then get away.

 

IPE doesn't stop you from being able to sense your opponent. Invisibility does that.

 

 

What I am saying is that I see IPE allowing you to make surprise attacks. IPE != Invisibility