Invisibility

[prestidigitator]

Re: Invisibility

 

I disagree. Buying IPE for Invisibility is, on the face of it, absurd and counter-intuitive. It would make buying Invis vs a single or small set of senses a rather ill-advised exercise in point wasting from a mechanical / efficiency perspective.

 

The tell-tale for Invisibility isn't a sensory stimuli to three other senses besides the sense(s) Invis applies to, but rather the lack of sensory info presented to the senses Invis does apply to. Invisibility doesn't itself generate additional sensory affects which a character might want to apply IPE to hide like other END costing powers do such as buzzing, ozone-smelling, and so on..

 

So if a character is Invis vs Sight, but not sound, smell, etc then if another character detected their sounds, smells, etc but couldn't SEE them, they could infer invisibility.

 

 

I hate having to make forays into the FAQ, but this is actually covered so might as well include it:

 

Hmm. So you think an (limited, maybe) Invisibility to Hearing that made the user's feet glow a strange eerie color while allowing them to walk unheard would qualify for a Visible Limitation? (Just asking. I'm not sure myself, but it seems like a reasonable kind of SFX for such a power....)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisibility

 

The book says (5ER p192):

 

"By definition, Invisibility cannot cannot be perceived by any sense(s) it affects, and thus doesn't have to meet the 'perceivable by three sense groups' rule if it affects so many senses there aren't a total of three left - it only has to be perceived by the sense groups it doesn't cover"

 

To me that says that invisibility still has visible sfx, per the rules, but those visible sfx cannot include any sense that you are invisible to, so if you are invisible to sight the rule that one of the sfx has to be a targeting sense (i.e. generally sight for most campaigns) does not apply, which is why it is described as a partial exception.

 

I'd always read that as 'if your invisibility covers sight and hearing and at least one other sense then you effectively have IPE', but on a proper reading tesuji is right - you still need 3 senses to be visible - UNLESS you cover so many senses with your invisibility that there are not 3 left; there are 7 sense groups (if you count 'unusual' as a single sense group).

 

Now I'm completely with you that it doesn't make 'common sense', and, as both tesuji and I have said, we don't play it like that, but I'm pretty sure that is what the rules say.

 

It is worth comparing to, say, shapeshift, which I don't think even has that exception - which means that it still has to have sfx with three senses including sight and hearing making it obvious that a power is in use. If you actually played it that way it would often be useless without IPE. This is clearly something that needs looking at .

 

 

Edit: to cover one other point: the POWER has the sfx. Now you could suggest that the sfx are the sounds that the (sight) invisible character makes are the sfx, but that only works if the character makes sound all the while they are invisible, even if they are stationary and holding their breath, because the sfx of a power operate all the while the power is on. The point of sfx fro visible powers, as far as I can make out, is to make it obvious that a power is in use and who is using it. There is wide latitude as to how you do that, but you can't define the sfx as 'the sounds the character makes' and then have them stop making sound while the power is in use, because that is getting IPE for free.

[tesuji]

Re: Invisibility

 

FWIW in case i haven't been clear, I also agree that making invis buy IPE to not give itself away with the invis power itself having three senses of visibe sfx is absurd. I think one thing KS, SW and i all agree on is that. For me the easiest rule-based solution, unless you want to add exceptions for the invis power, is to make invis like AID - not cost endurance. That removes the three vis requirement altogether.

 

On another note- would i allow invis - silent feet glowing to get a lim for visible? Well not just for glowing feet, but if you include "magical aura" and say "smeel of burnt rose petals" so you cover three senses then sure. Those lims would come into play and affect you - like say when sneaking around a house at night, the glow serves as trouble or when the guards start to follow the strange smell, or when a detect magic ward goees off due to your spell.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Invisibility

 

"Characters should not normally buy Invisibility to the Touch Sense Group; simulate that ability with Desolidification" -- 5er page 192

 

 

"When Desolidified, a character cannot be touched, does not register on Sonar or Radar, and emits no scent." -- 5er page 147

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

So how much does Desolid itself cost after we subtract the cost of invisibility to the Touch group, sonar and radar, with no fringe?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisibility

 

So how much does Desolid itself cost after we subtract the cost of invisibility to the Touch group' date=' sonar and radar, with no fringe?[/quote']

 

 

That would be 33 points, but KS is just quoting the rule from the book, and I anticipate that he doesn't feel that it is an ideal solution either.

 

I think Hero needs to be a bit more robust about the touch group, and not so worried about it. All we need is to note that if you DO have touch invisibility it effectively stops working if you attack or do anything that woudl involve a gross manipulation of the object (and we need to have a seperate adder for shapeshift to allow actual - you know - shapeshifting). Also we should define better what touch covers: texture, consistency, temperature, size and shape, and that's about it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisibility

 

So how much does Desolid itself cost after we subtract the cost of invisibility to the Touch group' date=' sonar and radar, with no fringe?[/quote']

 

{shrug} Ask Steve; he's the author of the rules.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisibility

 

The rules themselves seem pretty clear to me and the FAQ's clarification that I previously quoted presents the same meaning I gained from the rules as written without benefit of the FAQ.

 

However, even allowing that the main rule's text on the subject is not as clear as it could be and is open to interpretation / misinterpretation (which is totally understandable), I think that the FAQ entry should in this case remove any such misinterpretation as it is very clear and even provides an example.

 

I put the FAQ entry in a quote block, maybe that made it harder to read or something. So, I'll try this again in simple bold:

 

FAQ

How does Invisibility interact with the “must be perceivable by three Sense Groups” rule?

 

Invisibility is an exception, at least in part, to the general rule. By definition, Invisibility cannot be perceived by any Sense(s) it affects, and thus technically doesn’t have to meet the “perceivable by three Sense Groups” rule if it affects so many Sense(s) there aren’t a total of three left. The “perceivable special effect” for it essentially becomes not, “Hey, look where that power’s coming from!” but something more akin to “there’s nothing there based on Sense So-And-So, so someone must be using Invisibility!” For example, if the Invisible Man has Invisibility to Sight Group, you could hear him moving around. Hearing something when you can’t see the source will, at least in some circumstances, clue you in that “someone’s invisible!” — and thus you perceive that the Power is being used.

 

Now, as always my position is that the rulebook is supreme, save only for official errata, and that FAQ entries are useful but I don't personally feel the need to implement FAQ items if they run counter to any strong feelings or long established practices I have based upon the main rulebooks text and my interpretation of it. So, if a particular GM were happy w/ their interpretation of Invis to mean that the normal power vis rules applied to it and were determined to continue to operate that way in their own campaigns then so be it and I support that.

 

However, with the disclaimer that individual GM's can do whatever they like out of the way, after reading the FAQ entry on this matter is there still any need for further argument? I say no, and leave the rest of you to it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisibility

 

That is a useful clarification, but it leaves me unsatisfied. The book rules seem to make it clear that you still need sfx, and the only extent of the exception is that you can not be perceived by a sfx that you are invisible to. It means you can, efffectively, turn off your sfx whilst still using a power, by being quiet. That's like saying that your force field's sfx are that stuff bounces away from 20cm in front of you i.e. it's cheating, or that the sfx for flying is that, you know, you're flying, and if you talk while you're flying it's obvious you are not on the ground.

 

By that definition, a power like armour, which is 0 END, and is thus not visible, should be almost impossible to describe: you'd look as if the shrapnel hadn't bounced off at all i.e. mangled.

 

Much better and cleaner to make invisibility a proper exception to the rule and simply say that it (and any sense affecting power) doesn't have visible sfx or even better, as tesuji suggests, dont make any exceptions but make invisibility a zero END power.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisibility

 

That is a useful clarification, but it leaves me unsatisfied. The book rules seem to make it clear that you still need sfx, and the only extent of the exception is that you can not be perceived by a sfx that you are invisible to. It means you can, efffectively, turn off your sfx whilst still using a power, by being quiet. That's like saying that your force field's sfx are that stuff bounces away from 20cm in front of you i.e. it's cheating, or that the sfx for flying is that, you know, you're flying, and if you talk while you're flying it's obvious you are not on the ground.

 

Um...you might want to go and reread the section on the visibility of powers. It's not as absolute as you seem to think it is, and leaves a great deal of latitude in the hands of the player and GM.

 

Specifically, its not impossible for FF even without IPE to not be any more visible to sight than "stuff bounces off" if the GM has agreed to allow the player to pick three other sense group effects or otherwise feels that it is fair and balanced and matches the SFX of the character. Would I allow it? Probably not, or I might require that four total sense group effects be declared to compensate for not including sight, or some other compromise if it seemed appropriate. But, that doesnt mean that some other GM couldnt allow it.

 

As far as flight, hovering off the ground is sufficient indication that someone is in fact flying as far as the Sight Group is concerned. As far as the talking bit you add on there, not sure where you are going with that one.

 

 

By that definition, a power like armour, which is 0 END, and is thus not visible, should be almost impossible to describe: you'd look as if the shrapnel hadn't bounced off at all i.e. mangled.

 

Actually, you could define the effects of Armor as "looking" like that if you wanted to. The game effect is it mitigates damage. If you want the character to _look_ like they took damage you could if you liked and the GM agreed on it.

 

Generally, most characters just look as if they took no visible harm from effects that are stopped, and diminished harm from effects that were not entirely stopped.

 

If the character is VISIBLY armored, like has steel skin or something, they get to take VISIBLE on their Armor (assuming they didnt define their damage mitigation with a different base power).

 

Much better and cleaner to make invisibility a proper exception to the rule and simply say that it (and any sense affecting power) doesn't have visible sfx or even better, as tesuji suggests, dont make any exceptions but make invisibility a zero END power.

 

I agree that Sense Affecting powers should be exempted from the normal visibility rules as they rarely interact well together and make little sense. I've actually argued for this very change many times in the past.

 

As far as Invisibility specifically, I personally feel like it works properly as described in the rulebook, though the passage vis a vis SFX / Sensory Effects could be clearer, and a callout specifically for IPE under Advantages and Adders should be added spelling it out in detail that IPE is not needed or appropriate for Invisibility itself, but is useful on a characters other powers to be used in conjunction with Invisibility. The text on that subject in the main body of Invisibility would, of course, be moved under this new header to keep it all together.

 

 

As far as making Invisibility 0 END by default I don't think thats necessary. At the very least it would require Invisibility to be costed higher; it's already too cheap as it is. And since Costs END could be applied to it, the discussion of its visibility would still need to be discussed any way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisibility

 

Um...you might want to go and reread the section on the visibility of powers. It's not as absolute as you seem to think it is' date=' and leaves a great deal of latitude in the hands of the player and GM. [/quote']

 

I've certainly mis-read, or mis-understood the rules in the past to mean that sfx have to be more obvious than they do, but the rules say that every END using (or otherwise visible) power has to have perceiveable sfx and that it has to be obvious that the character is using a power and where it is coming from. To my way of thinking, the word 'obvious' has its obvious meaning - when a power is in use anyone with the appropriate sense will know it without any kind of roll.

 

That means that all the time a power is in use it has to be perceivable and obvious from its sfx.

 

Specifically' date=' its not impossible for FF even without IPE to not be any more visible to sight than "stuff bounces off" if the GM has agreed to allow the player to pick three other sense group effects or otherwise feels that it is fair and balanced and matches the SFX of the character. Would I allow it? Probably not, or I might require that four total sense group effects be declared to compensate for not including sight, or some other compromise if it seemed appropriate. But, that doesnt mean that some other GM couldnt allow it.[/quote']

 

I meant, by that example, that the player defined the 'sight' sfx as 'stuff doesn't hurt me' and that was counted as one of the 3 sfx. I don't think either of us would allow that. the reason I would not allow that specifically is that, when stuff is not bouncing off, it is not obvious that a power is in use.

 

As far as flight' date=' hovering off the ground is sufficient indication that someone is in fact flying as far as the Sight Group is concerned. As far as the talking bit you add on there, not sure where you are going with that one. [/quote']

 

The talking bit was almost the point - I was drawing an analogy to the 'hearing' sfx of invisibility being the character making a noise. However, flight 'sight' sfx being 'flying is problematic too: you could be standing on the ground with your power activated and no one would know, so if 'the ground' was in fact a holographic illusion they woudl be comepletely unaware you were flying, whereas if the sfx were, to use an extreme example, jet boots, then they wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

Actually, you could define the effects of Armor as "looking" like that if you wanted to. The game effect is it mitigates damage. If you want the character to _look_ like they took damage you could if you liked and the GM agreed on it.

 

Generally, most characters just look as if they took no visible harm from effects that are stopped, and diminished harm from effects that were not entirely stopped.

 

If the character is VISIBLY armored, like has steel skin or something, they get to take VISIBLE on their Armor (assuming they didnt define their damage mitigation with a different base power).

 

The trouble with apparently taking damage is that you are getting something for nothing - an illusion that their attack is far more effective than it is, which may encourage them to keep using attacks which are actually ineffective.

 

Any power, whether visible or not should be detectable by the fact that it works, even if you can't necessarily detect exactly which power is operating: if someone reaches into a fire and pulls out a glowing iron ring, whithout any obvious discomfort they either have resistant ED or LS:Heat.

 

 

 

I agree that Sense Affecting powers should be exempted from the normal visibility rules as they rarely interact well together and make little sense. I've actually argued for this very change many times in the past.

 

As far as Invisibility specifically, I personally feel like it works properly as described in the rulebook, though the passage vis a vis SFX / Sensory Effects could be clearer, and a callout specifically for IPE under Advantages and Adders should be added spelling it out in detail that IPE is not needed or appropriate for Invisibility itself, but is useful on a characters other powers to be used in conjunction with Invisibility. The text on that subject in the main body of Invisibility would, of course, be moved under this new header to keep it all together.

 

 

As far as making Invisibility 0 END by default I don't think thats necessary. At the very least it would require Invisibility to be costed higher; it's already too cheap as it is. And since Costs END could be applied to it, the discussion of its visibility would still need to be discussed any way.

 

 

We are of a mind on invisibility (and other senses affecting powers) being subject to common rules removing the normal sfx rules either entirely or, perhaps, simply erquiring every sense affecting power to have one sfx, which can be something unusual, for instance, magical invisibility should always be detectable by detect magic.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisibility

 

I've certainly mis-read, or mis-understood the rules in the past to mean that sfx have to be more obvious than they do, but the rules say that every END using (or otherwise visible) power has to have perceiveable sfx and that it has to be obvious that the character is using a power and where it is coming from. To my way of thinking, the word 'obvious' has its obvious meaning - when a power is in use anyone with the appropriate sense will know it without any kind of roll.

 

Im not looking at the text, but as I recall there is specifically wiggle room for source vs effect and overall definition of sfx, and even an example about shooting a gun -- the gun is obvious, the sound it makes when it is fired is obvious, but the bullet itself isn't obvious -- and so on.

 

 

That means that all the time a power is in use it has to be perceivable and obvious from its sfx.

the definition of precisely what is perceivable and how overt it must be is the issue here, not that it must be perceivable.

 

I meant, by that example, that the player defined the 'sight' sfx as 'stuff doesn't hurt me' and that was counted as one of the 3 sfx. I don't think either of us would allow that. the reason I would not allow that specifically is that, when stuff is not bouncing off, it is not obvious that a power is in use.

 

All I require of FF's, specifically, is that its clear that the character benefits from some kind of damage mitigation so that those who might be interested in attacking them can inform their decisions accordingly. I.e. --> so long as it is reasonably conveyed that the character has some kind of damage mitigation, I don't really care about the specifics that much.

 

The talking bit was almost the point - I was drawing an analogy to the 'hearing' sfx of invisibility being the character making a noise. However, flight 'sight' sfx being 'flying is problematic too: you could be standing on the ground with your power activated and no one would know, so if 'the ground' was in fact a holographic illusion they woudl be comepletely unaware you were flying, whereas if the sfx were, to use an extreme example, jet boots, then they wouldn't.

 

Hold on, lets stop moving the target please.

 

"Talking" has nothing to do with flight generally, unless it had incantations throughout (or an approximation thereof), so its a bit of a non-sequitir.

 

As to the rest of it, are you saying you'd make Superman take IPE for his flight (ie, the by will alone type of superhero flight)? Because that sounds like the position from which you are arguing.

 

 

 

The trouble with apparently taking damage is that you are getting something for nothing - an illusion that their attack is far more effective than it is, which may encourage them to keep using attacks which are actually ineffective.

Well, the fact that the character doesnt, you know, pass out or die is probably a pretty good clue that the character is pretty tough. I think you are being way too retentive around this.

 

 

Any power, whether visible or not should be detectable by the fact that it works, even if you can't necessarily detect exactly which power is operating: if someone reaches into a fire and pulls out a glowing iron ring, whithout any obvious discomfort they either have resistant ED or LS:Heat.

 

No one is arguing against the detectability of sfx. To attempt to reel in this increasingly meandering tangent, the root discussion is around Invisibility and its relationship with SFX visibility and IPE and your feelings on why you don't like the implementation of it.

 

My point to you is, your comments seem rooted in an inflexible personal interpretation of an area of the rules that is specifically open to interpretation. SFX is a very malleable concept and deliberately so. What constitutes appropriate SFX varies greatly by character, concept, mechanical effect being justified, genre, and individual GM's comfort level.

 

I don't want to engage in a prolonged debate over what SFX are appropriate for concocted effects and what-ifs. I'm merely asking you to re-read the section of the rules and suggesting that your personal leanings in this direction are more restricted than the rules actually require.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Invisibility

 

I know that if a player wanted to add Touch to his (Sight) Invisibility, I'd allow them to stand up against a wall and not be felt. Would I let them block a passageway without being felt? No. Would I allow them to stand in the middle of a room and not be run into and felt? Maybe (SFX might be that others are automatically diverted around them without realizing it). Would it make them immune to a sword swung in their direction when an opponent gets suspicious? No. Would it protect them in any way from a collapsing roof? No. Would I make them link in Desolidification or Shapeshift? No. The simple solution would be fine with me. I'm not sure if it would be cost effective, but it would be an APPEALING solution as far as I am concerned. KISS.

 

As a slight aside, I've always wondered why Shapeshift and Invisibility are different powers. If you can make yourself look like "something else", isn't it a simple and natural extension to make yourself look like "nothing"? I'm not even sure one is necessarily more effective than the other. If you want to go unnoticed, Invisibility might be better. If you want to intimidate someone (e.g. by looking like some big scary beast), then Shapeshift might be better.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisibility

 

I know that if a player wanted to add Touch to his (Sight) Invisibility, I'd allow them to stand up against a wall and not be felt. Would I let them block a passageway without being felt? No. Would I allow them to stand in the middle of a room and not be run into and felt? Maybe (SFX might be that others are automatically diverted around them without realizing it). Would it make them immune to a sword swung in their direction when an opponent gets suspicious? No. Would it protect them in any way from a collapsing roof? No. Would I make them link in Desolidification or Shapeshift? No. The simple solution would be fine with me. I'm not sure if it would be cost effective, but it would be an APPEALING solution as far as I am concerned. KISS.

 

As a slight aside, I've always wondered why Shapeshift and Invisibility are different powers. If you can make yourself look like "something else", isn't it a simple and natural extension to make yourself look like "nothing"? I'm not even sure one is necessarily more effective than the other. If you want to go unnoticed, Invisibility might be better. If you want to intimidate someone (e.g. by looking like some big scary beast), then Shapeshift might be better.

 

Actually, some time ago I wrote up a big spiel on rolling all the Sense Affecting powers, which I lump Shape Shifting in with, into one power with adders and modifiers. A unified approach.

[tesuji]

Re: Invisibility

 

 

Im not looking at the text, but as I recall there is specifically wiggle room for source vs effect and overall definition of sfx, and even an example about shooting a gun -- the gun is obvious, the sound it makes when it is fired is obvious, but the bullet itself isn't obvious -- and so on.

Sounds good, i typically use that as a guidelines in fact - how detectable is it compared to a gun... if it is as troublesome as the perception of a gun is, then its sufficient.

All I require of FF's, specifically, is that its clear that the character benefits from some kind of damage mitigation so that those who might be interested in attacking them can inform their decisions accordingly. I.e. --> so long as it is reasonably conveyed that the character has some kind of damage mitigation, I don't really care about the specifics that much.

We differ there but thats fine of course. i think the specifics matter a great deal when i adjudicate sfx and percievability requirements.

As to the rest of it, are you saying you'd make Superman take IPE for his flight (ie, the by will alone type of superhero flight)? Because that sounds like the position from which you are arguing.

My answer would be ABSOLUTELY!!! I say this because i would not give the fiery guy or greem lantern glowy force field guy limitations for their flights, which are going to find, say, being stealthy while flying very difficult due to the three sense rules. (and before anyone says it - no - the occasional benefits of "i can glow and so we dont need torches" is NOT going to in most of my games equate or counterbalance the impacts of "cannot sneak while on fire" or "hmmm... guard smells smoke and so..." etc.)

 

Superman can when he wants to drift in slowly and quietly and hover right outside someone's window without giving himself away... whereas fiery guy really cannot do that.

 

there is a significant difference in the impact of visibility between "fiery trail, smoke, whooshing noise" guy's flight and superman's silent hovering and the former is more on par with "like a gunshot" than the latter, so i would charge supes IPE for his flight.

 

Then again, a much stickier question is IMO "would you charge superman IPE for his strength?" vs "would you give obviously super strong guys a visible limitation on their strength?" since, for instance, if a blue tighted flier came zipping in one might be inclined to grab him or to entangle him (both rather bad tactical choices when you find out about the kryptonian super-strength whereas if the musclebound obviously super-strong guy comes at you you are likely to not try such maneuvers and opt for other things.)

 

:-)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Invisibility

 

To me there's the Visibility of the Power, and the Visibility of the Effects Of The Power.

 

If you're flying, the very fact you're off the ground is an indicator you're flying, Flight itself does not need anymore indication it is active.

 

For things like Invisibility - just ignore the sense rule. It is - in this case - dumb, counter intuitive and would make the power so absolutely useless as to be absurd. The fix is that simple.

 

Invisibility Sight means people will hear your footfall, breathing if there isn't too much ambient noise, your clothes as they scrape against each other while you move, whatever. There can be enough clues to your presence that stating Invisibility itself must be perceivable nullifies the power completely.

 

Just removing the END Cost massively overpowers it to the other end so much as to make the solution worse than the problem, IMO.

 

 

The Three Sense Rule is to make sure you show some signs that the Power is manifesting - they don't have to come directly from the Power itself, just an overall effect that something is going on.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisibility

 

To me there's the Visibility of the Power, and the Visibility of the Effects Of The Power.

 

If you're flying, the very fact you're off the ground is an indicator you're flying, Flight itself does not need anymore indication it is active.

 

For things like Invisibility - just ignore the sense rule. It is - in this case - dumb, counter intuitive and would make the power so absolutely useless as to be absurd. The fix is that simple.

 

Invisibility Sight means people will hear your footfall, breathing if there isn't too much ambient noise, your clothes as they scrape against each other while you move, whatever. There can be enough clues to your presence that stating Invisibility itself must be perceivable nullifies the power completely.

 

Just removing the END Cost massively overpowers it to the other end so much as to make the solution worse than the problem, IMO.

 

 

The Three Sense Rule is to make sure you show some signs that the Power is manifesting - they don't have to come directly from the Power itself, just an overall effect that something is going on.

 

I'd quite like 'harder' rules about power visibility, but that the same time I'd be inclined to get rid of the 'three senses' rule.

 

At one level you have powers that are only obvious from effect: you don't die in space - pretty sure you've got life support, even though it is not 'obvious' or visible.

 

Next up we have powers that tell everyone that there is a power on, even if it is not currently doing anything: say you're wearing a space suit - it will be obvious that you have life support, even though you're currently in a normal atmosphere. They do not necessarily call attention to themselves. It is only really obvious to sight, and maybe touch, that you've got a space suit on, but no one who sees you is in any doubt that you have life support. So long as the power is obvious if you are being observed, this is the category for you.

 

Then we have powers that actually call attention to themselves, powers that you can't use whilst trying to remain hidden (at least not successfully remain hidden), like firing off your eye beams or your machine gun, or triggering your jet boots. If you use the power everyone gets a PER roll at +4 to become aware of the power (and if that means they would succeed on 11 or less, they automatically become aware of the power use, and the source of the power).

 

What I'd do is stick all 0 END powers in the first group, all attack powers in the third group, and all other powers in the middle group. You can take a limitation 'visible' to make group one powers into group 2 powers, a limitation 'obvious' to make group 2 powers into group 3 powers and a limtiation 'noisy' to make group 3 powers into something no one ever has to roll to perceive and which are detected at greater than normal range or are still detectable after use (like chemical fumes, for example).

 

You don't have to define the precise senses used to detect the powers, it is all based on visibility and obviousness - and it should be obvious from sfx anyway. For any power, even group one powers, there has to be some way, based on sfx to detect the power with a detect: magic, electricity, chemicals, gravomagnetic emanations; whatever. You don't have to define it, but the GM gets to make it up

 

You can take advantages: for +1/2 you get to move a group 3 power to group 2, and for +1/4 you get to move a group 2 power to group 1. For an additional +1/4 you can make a group 1 power completely undetectable (except by observation of effect).

 

If you want a visible power that doesn't obviously come from you, buy indirect.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Invisibility

 

Okay, so, I don’t have my book to double check this, so tell me if I’m way off base here.

 

One thing no one has mentioned in this discussion is the “fringe” that comes with invisibility, which must be bought off for total invisibility. My understanding of how invisibility works with regards to being detectable by three sense groups is similar to KS’s, I thought it was an obvious exception to the rule. My perception was that the Fringe which naturally limited the power essentially replaced the three senses rule for several reasons: 1) By definition, Invisibility is removing the ability to be sensed; hence logically it would be an exception to the perceivable power effect rule, 2) Having to buy off the Fringe effect seemed to replace the need to buy IPE (again, maybe I’m way off, but that’s what I remember thinking when I first read it), and 3) The book says that the Invisibility Power is a partial exception, and as KS has pointed out numerous times, the FAQ clarifies it (IMO) fairly clearly.

 

So, is my interpretation, or perhaps even my memory, ridiculously off base here? And if what I just said is not clear, forgive me, its 430AM and I’m at work…

[ghost-angel]

Re: Invisibility

 

It seems on base with how we use Invisibility, and have interpreted it from the book.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisibility

 

Fringe and IPE are not the same. Fringe means you have the predator effect: the invisibility is not perfect for the senses it covers. IPE means that the senses that it does NOT cover don't give it away.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Invisibility

 

I know they are not the same. My point is that Invisibility is an exception to the "senses that it does NOT cover" giving it away since the power, by definition, is the LACK OF BEING SENCED. Even if the book AND FAQ didn't state that this particular power is an exception, it would be a logical assumption by the very nature of the power, yet it seems fairly clear that it IS an exception, so what is the argument?

I never meant to imply that Fringe and IPE are the same, simply that the Fringe, and the need to buy it off, seems to replace the need for IPE on this particular power since the power is already an ovious exception to the senses rule.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Invisibility

 

For my own games, I ignore the rule of "Buy desolid instead of invisibility to touch".

 

As far as I'm concerned, invisibility to touch simply negates the sense of touch, nothing more. If a character were fully invisible (sight, hearing, smell, touch) and another character came into physical contact with them, it would be as if an invisible and intangible barrier were in their way. they couldn't feel a thing, their hand would simply seem to stop in mid-air.

In game terms, this simply means that the sense of touch couldn't be used to find an invisible opponent. Certainly the fact that the characters hand simply stops in mid-air is a clue, but there would be no sense of touch that immediately tells the character what it is they're "feeling". It would probably cause a lot of confusion on the part of the searcher.

 

An attack with IPE (touch) is possible also. This means that the attack can damage the target without the target immediately realising they've been hurt. I remember an instance when I was a kid and I suddenly felt wetness at the bottom of my pantleg, and it turned out I had a cut on my knee that went all the way down to the bone (I could see it) and my pantleg was soaked in blood. To this day I have no idea how it happened. Didn't feel it happend and didn't notice it unitl I felt the blood. An attack with IPE (touch) would be like that.

 

These situations aren't that complicated and only require a small bit of common sense and logic to make them workable in game terms. Not allowing Invisible vs Touch and forcing all such situations to be bought as Desolid is siimply...well, lazy...IMO.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Invisibility

 

While I get your point, I don't think it is really laziness. I think using Desolid with appropriate Limitations instead of Inv to Touch is suggested to reduce abuse from people trying to get extras from the cheaper, invisibility power. The fact that it takes MORE effort to use Desolid and apply Disads to it than it does to hand wave Touch into the Invisibility Power shows that it is not laziness, but some other concern for the rules being written this way.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Invisibility

 

While I get your point' date=' I don't think it is really laziness. I think using Desolid with appropriate Limitations instead of Inv to Touch is suggested to reduce abuse from people trying to get extras from the cheaper, invisibility power. The fact that it takes MORE effort to use Desolid and apply Disads to it than it does to hand wave Touch into the Invisibility Power shows that it is not laziness, but some other concern for the rules being written this way.[/quote']

 

 

I'm of a similar mind on this as well.

 

I imagine there could be some wonky interactions with a Damage Shield Advantaged attack power and a character with Invisibility vs. Touch.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Invisibility

 

While I get your point' date=' I don't think it is really laziness. I think using Desolid with appropriate Limitations instead of Inv to Touch is suggested to reduce abuse from people trying to get extras from the cheaper, invisibility power. The fact that it takes MORE effort to use Desolid and apply Disads to it than it does to hand wave Touch into the Invisibility Power shows that it is not laziness, but some other concern for the rules being written this way.[/quote']

 

 

I only think its "laziness" in the fact that it was an arbitrary ruling designed to shield GM's from the inevitable argument with their players who would think that Invisibility to Touch = Desolid. Myself, I simply say "no".

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Invisibility

 

I'm of a similar mind on this as well.

 

I imagine there could be some wonky interactions with a Damage Shield Advantaged attack power and a character with Invisibility vs. Touch.

 

Its not really wonky, just takes a bit of quick thinking. Whether or not it "activates" Damage Shield would depend on if the Damage Shield was activated by touch or was a continous field of damage around the character. Context matters.

 

The fact that Invisibility to Touch would give them a pass through powers activated by touch would be a benefit of the invisibility. They paid points for it, it should provide some benefit.