Images and Invisibility

[CoreBrute]

I have a player who has spent 60 points on Images, but has been using it to appear invisible (The image of nothing but air). The game is 5th edition, but I want to know if the following power can be used to appear invisible:

 

60 Images (Sight Group, Normal Hearing, -9) 4" Radius

 

What is your view? Can he use it so he can, as he puts it : "I craft an Image of perfect transparency around myself"

 

And does it say anywhere in the rules that would help define this for me.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

Personally, I'd never allow this. I wouldn't allow an image of "transparency" since transparency isn't an image...or put another way; what does "transparency" look like? If he wants invisibility, he should buy invisibility. But that's just me.

[CoreBrute]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

I know, that's what I thought. But here's his argument (It's a pbp game):

 

I firmly disagree with your interpretation. A more pedantic way of putting "I disappear" is "I craft an Image of perfect transparency around myself" - which is a high-complexity image, but it is bizarre to suggest that that cannot be done (is it also impossible to make an image of glass? to include empty air in an image?).

 

It's an incredibly expensive power; off the top of my head, about three times more expensive than invisibility (with a commensurate endurance cost, too), and much easier to bypass (good PER rolls can always detect it).

 

 

An Images field projected over an area should not care about what is already there - and it certainly should not care about whether it's making the user or someone else invisible (as your "buy invisibility" suggestion suggests - if Images is ruled insufficient, the character needs a truly massive amount of Invisibility, Usable As Attack to be able to make things disappear - and it's pretty pathetic to not be able to convince people something just disappeared with illusions. What kind of lame illusionist can't make an elephant disappear?)

[mayapuppies]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

Well, there's nowhere in the RAW that says it can't be done, but depending on the "transparent image" he's replicating (i.e. the surrounding terrain/environment) I'd certainly apply a rather large modifier to the PER roll. There are a lot of moving parts in your typical background scene...even (if not especially) in an open field.

[Greywind]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

Have someone with senses like Wolverine's or Daredevil's rip him a new one...

[Rapier]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

Ok, there is two things here that I see.

 

The first is easy. You've got a character with a nifty power. He comes up with a really cool concept of how to use that power that isn't, strictly, legal. In this case he wants to use Images to make himself Invisible. Maybe they need to sneak past a guard to get into the supebase. So you have him make a Power Skill roll, which he succeeds pretty well. So you allow him to use Images to make himself invisible. That's all kosher. In fact, that kind of 'outside the box' thinking should be rewarded.

 

The second gets a bit more complicated. A couple sessions later, he wants to do it again. Twice. Then he wants to turn the whole party invisible. Now what.

 

It is possible for you to look at this and say 'well, he's spent more points on Images than Invis so maybe that's ok.' That is totally your option. But it is not what I would do. It's ok to use a power in a new and interesting way that isn't strictly legal, but it should be rare. Once he begins to use that power in that non-legal manner with any kind of frequency, he should purchase it. This is what I would do. Make him buy the Invis. But you can even make it cheap!

 

Drop them in a MultiPower. The first slot is his Images and the second slot is Invis (maybe even UAA). This would make it so that he gets the extra Invis power, and doesn't have to pay an arm and a leg for it.

[shadowmage87]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

This isn't illegal according to the rules, but the justification is hinky. An "image of transparency" doesn't make sense. An "image of the stuff that's behind me," however, is a justifiable SFX.

 

That said, it would be much cheaper and easier on your PC (who seems to be confusing mechanics with SFX given his argument against you) to by Invisibilty, Sight Sense Group; Usable as Attack; probably the limitation Bright Fringe to represent the apparent ease with which this power is detected.

[Nevenall]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

My personal take as a GM would be to allow it freely. For one thing I like to encourage creative uses of powers because it makes it more fun for everyone. For another thing, Images can be a difficult power to get your points worth from as it is. In many circumstanced 60 points of Blast is going to be a lot more useful then 60 points of Images.

 

As your player mentioned there are several things about Images which makes it less useful then Invisibility. One being cost, another being that the Image is always detectable as an illusion. Also, the default rule for AOE powers is that they you cannot move the power once it's established, which means that this character can make himself sort of invisible, but can't move outside the 4" radius of the power without becoming visible again.

 

Also, I don't see much of a difference between using Images for light and using it for transparency.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

Speaking as a GM, I agree with Nevenall. I might adjust the Images' PER penalty if his "transparency" (as shadowmage87 said, he's actually replicating the image of the things on the opposite side from the viewer) is being viewed from multiple angles or if there's particularly complex things going on behind the illusion. But I'd allow it.

 

I'll also note that the Image to Normal Hearing wouldn't completely cancel the noises he (or anybody in the radius) makes; at best, he could create "white noise" to muffle it. So he'd / they'd still want to make stealth rolls to avoid getting heard.

 

And as Nevenall pointed out, the power isn't mobile. He could drop it and re-establish it a little further away. Maybe require a Power skill roll to keep from "blinking" in and out for long enough to be easily spotted.

[Ice9]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

On the one hand, this doesn't seem unbalanced, given the high cost and limited use (especially the fact that it isn't mobile by default, and even if made mobile, the caster would have to ready actions to move it in sync with the target).

On the other hand, "transparency" doesn't seem like something you could make an image of - or rather, that image would be like a clear plastic bag, not concealing the contents.

 

Simple solution - 70 points is enough to get Invisibility (Sight), Usable as Attack, Ranged, AoE (16m Radius).

Stick that in a Multipower with the Images, put a limitation for detectability on it, and you're good to go. Total additional cost: 20 points if the Invisibility isn't already in a Multipower, 14 if it is, 4 if the reserve is already 70 points. If going this way, I'd let him do it with a power roll the first couple times, and then start putting XP into it (but he could still use it while he was paying for it, at an increasingly easy power roll).

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

I do wonder: how would you write this up as Invisibility instead? With AOE (Nonselective) and Usable as Attack? Would the Usable as Attack also require additional targets and/or mass? If so, how much?

 

My take on it:

Invisibility to Sight Group and Normal Hearing (23 points), AOE radius, nonselective (+3/4), Usable as Attack (+1), Ranged (+1/2) = 75 points.

 

Technically, this would allow someone to leave the radius and still remain Invisible, but it also doesn't grant additional targets/mass (unless the AOE does this intrinsically). As a GM, I'd rule the AOE advantage would allow the user to cover up to 8 targets (himself included) or 8x Mass, which is what that same Advantage's worth from the AOE would grant if instead applied as Usable on Others' additional targets/mass. However, I'd also rule that the targets would need to remain within the AOE radius to remain invisible.

 

Edit: this is what I get for taking too long to type this up.

[Rapier]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

And not that you really never further fodder for your responding argument, however this is the same argument as purchasing:

 

4d6 Major Transform, Live Person to Dead Person.

 

It's more effective because fewer people have Power Defense, and even if they do it's in smaller doses. This is expressly forbidden in the rules. There is a Power called Invisibility for a reason. WHY is he so adamant in not purchasing the Invis? When MPed it is only going to cost him a handful of points.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

I'm going with Rapier on this. It's very cool to do it once, but if he wants to keep doing it, buy the multipower.

 

However, if you allow it anyway, Images is not Invisibility. At best, this particular Images power gives a -9 to a witness's Perception roll, whereas Invisibility means the character can't be seen at all unless the witness is close enough to see the fringe, and even that only tells you there's something there. A character that makes a good Perception roll against the Images can see that it's a human in plate armor, an elf in chain mail, and a robed female human with red hair carrying a staff, even from 100 yards away. If it was Invisibility, there would be no roll at all at that distance.

[dmjalund]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

I am reminded of the quote "Don't send a duck to do a camel's job"

 

in this case there is a difference between Images invisibility and the power Invisibility

 

Images invisibility is harder in a complex/busy environment - Invisibility has no difficulties

 

Images can actually fail (in this case fail to hide the person).

 

Also - If it is a particular use of a more general power of invisibility, the character would need to have the equivalent of 360degree vision to attain the information of his surrounds so he can 'paint' them on the objects/people he is trying to hide

[Rapier]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

Also - If it is a particular use of a more general power of invisibility' date=' the character would need to have the equivalent of 360degree vision to attain the information of his surrounds so he can 'paint' them on the objects/people he is trying to hide[/quote']

 

This actually does beg the question: Does Images provide a 360 degree image? If I create an image of a 8' tall pomegranate, does that pomegranate appear to be an actual object if I walk around it? Or is it a flat image facing one direction?

 

While I'm not sure I've ever actually read anything that specifies it, I believe that the lack of mention of such a requirement speaks volumes. Images is capable of creating an entirely full and realistic image viewable from all sides. How you get to that point is a SFX kind of thing.

 

However, I think you have hit a nail a bit on the head. If the character wants to create an image of the objects and scenery around him in a field (thus appearing to disappear and achieving this "Images Invisibility"), that is an extremely difficult thing to do. Not only will the image have to be updated constantly but very quickly. I believe that this is such a difficult thing to accomplish that some bonuses for those affected (or maybe you might call it penalties for the Images penalties). Simply because you can create an image appear in thin air of a purple and pink polka dotted polar bear, doesn't mean someone will necessarily believe it's real. I think trying to reproduce accurately and timely copies of your surroundings would be worth at the very least a +4 bonus (if not more) to everyone to notice that 'something just isn't right about that spot over there.'

[Greywind]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

Images, at best, I've always painted as "free-standing holograms". Full 3-D. I've always seen it stemming from the likes of Illusionist spells.

[Lucius]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

 

An Images field projected over an area should not care about what is already there - and it certainly should not care about whether it's making the user or someone else invisible (as your "buy invisibility" suggestion suggests - if Images is ruled insufficient, the character needs a truly massive amount of Invisibility, Usable As Attack to be able to make things disappear - and it's pretty pathetic to not be able to convince people something just disappeared with illusions. What kind of lame illusionist can't make an elephant disappear?)[/b]

 

I think he has a point. Any time you use visual Images, you impose an illusionary image over what is already there.

 

Well' date=' there's nowhere in the RAW that says it can't be done, but depending on the "transparent image" he's replicating (i.e. the surrounding terrain/environment) I'd certainly apply a rather large modifier to the PER roll. There are a lot of moving parts in your typical background scene...even (if not especially) in an open field.[/quote']

 

I was going to ask how this differs from any other Image – but perhaps I'd be wrong, and you're right that this needs to be said. It sounds simple, but it's really a complex Image and should have the right penalties.

 

My personal take as a GM would be to allow it freely. For one thing I like to encourage creative uses of powers because it makes it more fun for everyone. For another thing, Images can be a difficult power to get your points worth from as it is. In many circumstanced 60 points of Blast is going to be a lot more useful then 60 points of Images.

 

As your player mentioned there are several things about Images which makes it less useful then Invisibility. One being cost, another being that the Image is always detectable as an illusion. Also, the default rule for AOE powers is that they you cannot move the power once it's established, which means that this character can make himself sort of invisible, but can't move outside the 4" radius of the power without becoming visible again.

 

Also, I don't see much of a difference between using Images for light and using it for transparency.

 

Well, I see a difference – namely that this use makes more sense to me than using Images for light. I mean, what the heck?

 

But just because one odd use is sanctioned doesn't mean we shouldn't consider other uses on their own merits.

 

Considering this one, you're right that it's not mobile by default, and is vulnerable to perception rolls.

 

 

Speaking as a GM, I agree with Nevenall. I might adjust the Images' PER penalty if his "transparency" (as shadowmage87 said, he's actually replicating the image of the things on the opposite side from the viewer) is being viewed from multiple angles or if there's particularly complex things going on behind the illusion. But I'd allow it.

 

I suspect there's going to be a spectrum of opinion on that. On the one hand, Images is visible by default 360 degrees, and has listed modifiers for complexity. On the other, normally Images doesn't really have to replicate the background, whereas this use does...

 

I'll also note that the Image to Normal Hearing wouldn't completely cancel the noises he (or anybody in the radius) makes; at best, he could create "white noise" to muffle it. So he'd / they'd still want to make stealth rolls to avoid getting heard.

 

Good point.

 

Perhaps what the player wants is Darkness to sight and hearing to create “blank canvas / dead air” and block out the reality, Linked to the Images power that imposes his own version of reality.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Conspicuous by its absence – or is it?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

I see this as a sfx thing; is the power truly making the person invisible (in which case buy Invisibility) or are they just masking their presence with an illusion? I would allow either if it made sense for the sfx of the power. A ghost might be truly invisible, but a Shadow Cloak might just let you blend into the background. I have had characters use Images for "cloaking" devices and for chameleon abilities where they are not strictly speaking Invisible, just hard to spot (I have also used extra levels for Stealth and Concealment for the same purpose). I find that appropriate since they are much better concealed if they don't move (which would increase the "complexity" of the Image and give a bonus to the onlooker's PER roll). But if someone wanted to build Frodo's ring, that would be Invisibility.

 

As far as making an AoE invisibility with an Images power, I would allow that too, with the realization that for the level of complexity involved in anything but a static scene the onlookers are going to get a pretty good bonus to their PER rolls (+8 or more). If the character wants the utility of real Invisibility they should buy it that way, but if they want the flexibility of Images and can settle for a weak invisibility, that's fine with me.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

There is a Power called Invisibility for a reason.

 

About a decade back (geez, I'm showing my age), I had an argument online with Champsguy about his writeup for a character whose body was almost entirely covered with incredibly tough chitinous plates. While the character *did* have some Armor, the bulk of his nigh-invulnerable defense was bought as... many levels of DCV. His argument was that the SFX of the character's high DCV was that targeted shots actually hit and deflected off the plates rather than missing completely. A highly-accurate person could hit him in a spot not covered by the plates, and the plates didn't do much to counteract AOE and Explosion attacks.

 

It took me a while to see that Champsguy really wasn't wrong. It was just a different way of looking at things, and in retrospect, an almost elegant solution IMO.

 

As my boss likes to say, "There's many ways to get to Toledo." That's one of the great things about the HERO system. You ask three people how to draw up a power effect, and you'll probably get five different versions.

 

"My character fires a radiation blast." Does that have to be a straight Blast? NND? Maybe a Drain?

 

"He generates a light so bright, people can't see through it." A continuous AOE Flash, you say? Or perhaps a Darkness field?

 

I think the "Images as pseudo-Invisibilty" idea is self-limited enough by (1) lack of mobility, (2) penalties due to complexity, and (3) other limitiations [inability to completely cancel noises]. But then, it's not my game. This is just my opinion, and my reasons.

 

As to another point, I disagree that the character would require 360-degree vision to generate the illusion. Would you require it for the person who bought himself Invisibility? If not, why for one and not the other? I'd consider it part of the penalty for Images' complexity.

[dmjalund]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

As to another point, I disagree that the character would require 360-degree vision to generate the illusion. Would you require it for the person who bought himself Invisibility? If not, why for one and not the other? I'd consider it part of the penalty for Images' complexity.

You'd have to decide where the character is getting the information for his images. He could theoretically memorize an object or person, but he could not memorize something which is current\ly there and dynamically changing.

With Invisibility - because it is ONLY invisibility and has no difficulty roll, it is more appropriate to assume the power does this for you (Nothing gets memorized in the default concept of invisibility, just light bends in a convenient fashion)

[Doc Samson]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

I don't think the power can do this.

 

Images creates an illusion, it does not replace or cover another character's or object's appearance. To change his own appearance the character should buy Shapeshift (which I would allow to appear as air in air, water in water, ect.). If the character creates an image of air (which is invisible) around him, then everyone would see him through the invisible image. If he wants to use an Image to hide behind, he should choose something that cannot be seen through (like a tree).

 

If you are saying that the character is creating an image of whatever is behind him and placing it in front of him, then this may work but only to a character facing that direction. Also there would likley be a +6 penalty to PER rolls as this would constitute "Multiple, Interacting Images".

[GoldenAge]

Re: Images and Invisibility

 

I think the "Images as pseudo-Invisibilty" idea is self-limited enough by (1) lack of mobility' date=' (2) penalties due to complexity, and (3) other limitiations [inability to completely cancel noises'].

 

Agreed!