How visible is visible?

[kafeennite]

The rules say that in general powers that normally use endurance are visible to three senses. The question is just how visible is that. My character (a mentalist) has a force field and flight as powers. I interpret the rule that powers are visible to mean that in normal situations if someone can perceive my character that they would be able to see perhaps a fringe around my character that indicates the presence of a forcefield and some other hazy affect that indicates I am flying (as if the fact that I'm 10 m up wasn't enough of a clue), but, that these special affects neither enhance or detract from the ability of others to perceive me.

 

So lets look at a specific example I am hovering in a night sky some twenty meters above a combat doing nothing to attract attention. So I would think I'm pretty hard to see (darkness, range etc.), but, I am being told that anyone within sight gets a very substantial bonus to perceive me simply because I am using powers.

 

Consider another example. A character has shrinking which gives a modifier to perception based on how much shrinking you have, However, if using a power makes one more visible than normal - the shrunken character is actually easier to perceive than at full size.

[Steve Long]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

Given the tone of your question, I suspect you're looking for a discussion with fellow fans rather than asking a strict rules question, so I've moved this to the Discussion board.

 

My quick answer: your question seems to be based on 5th Edition or older rules. If you check out 6E1 124-26, you'll find that the rules for perceiving Powers have changed slightly and are much better explained.

[Christopher]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

So lets look at a specific example I am hovering in a night sky some twenty meters above a combat doing nothing to attract attention. So I would think I'm pretty hard to see (darkness, range etc.), but, I am being told that anyone within sight gets a very substantial bonus to perceive me simply because I am using powers.

 

Consider another example. A character has shrinking which gives a modifier to perception based on how much shrinking you have, However, if using a power makes one more visible than normal - the shrunken character is actually easier to perceive than at full size.

Would you still be hard to see if you fire a lightning bolt? Or are sorounded by a fireshield? Both are exampels of obvious powers. So when you buy your flight obvious, then it should be clearly visible in normal darkness and allow pinpointing a shrunken chracter - or is not worth any limitation value (since you are obviously not hindered by it being obvious).

[Christopher]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

Note that "visible by three sense groups" only applies when you make the power cost endurance to maintain, not when costs endurance by default.

Movement Powers are by default Inobvious (6E1 126) and cost endurance per use not to maintain. But it is obviosu that the person moves. You might not but able tell if the character is running along that surface if he is flying and moving his leg's to face running (Concealment roll with normal penalty for using Inobvious Power with that many AP).

 

Flight 30m (30 AP), Cost Endurance to Maintain (-1/2) means you have to pay 3 END every phase just to remain ready to use it. You still have to pay for the movement per phase used seperately (inlcuding the 1 m to hover).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

As Steve alludes to, this depends on the edition you are using. 6e rules depart from the 5e rules. Under 5e, if your power costs END to use, by default or by limiting it with Costs END, it must be visible to three sense groups. A Force Field might glow, crackle and be detectable by radar, and your Teleportation might create a puff of sulphuric smoke (sight and smell) as you disappear with a *bamf*.

 

If you wanted Flight and a Force Field that were not so readily noticable, you would have to pay the points to add the Invisible Power Effects advantage.

 

Many groups did not rigorously enforce these rules, instead deciding that movement powers in use were sufficiently visible in that you could see he was flying, and hear and feel the breeze as he whooshed by.

 

I think most gamers assumed that Invisibility and Shrinking (and other abilities that influence perception) were an exception to the rule. However, pre-6e, that character hovering over the battlefield was obvious - force fields and flight were, by default, "Human Torch Style" very obviously in use. In 6e, movement powers have shifted to the Superman-style default - you can fly stealthily, and would not be so obvious 20m above the battlefield. I believe defensive powers are also inobvious by default in 6e.

 

Perhaps the OP might clarify what edition we are discussing - perhaps you are playing 6e, but the GM has not read up on the changes to perceptibility. If you are playing 5e or prior, his comments are consistent with the rules as written - being less than clearly detectable when using a power that costs END is expensive in prior editions

[Manic Typist]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

He also seems to be inquiring about what level of bonus to PER others should receive to notice the character due to his use of this power.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

I'm pretty sure at the old 5e default, the answer was "he's obvious - no hiding it". Of course, that only means a positive modifier, so it should become less likely at further ranges. I'd probably go with +5, which leaves a +1 (hard to miss) out to 32 meters/16".

[Hyper-Man]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

Sound of one hand clapping

[Christopher]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

He also seems to be inquiring about what level of bonus to PER others should receive to notice the character due to his use of this power.

I would say:

It looses the bonus of darkness (is actively countering the effect).

And recieves the maximum contrast penalty (Extremely high contrast (e.g., a lighted object in darkness) +5)

 

So instead for being at -4 for total darkness the perception roll would be at +5. (ironically at day it would be a +1 or +2 at tops; using night vision might also mean you recieve the lower bonus instead). All other modifiers as usual.

 

When he tries to actively hide the use of a power it's the penalties above plus the ones noted on 6E1 125 und "stealth and power use".

[kafeennite]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

This question does come out of version 5 - which did not approach this question as clearly as version 6. Still i think that just comparing equivalent powers has to say that the visible nature of powers cannot provide a bonus or penalty on perception of the character.

Consider that if you buy armor 10PD/10ED it costs you 30pts for resistant defense that costs no endurance and therefore by definition has no visible power effects. So now if you buy the same 10PD/10 ED as a force field and buy it down to no endurance it also costs 30 pts, but the arguments given to with respect to assigning a perception penalty the character must take invisible power affects to achieve the same result as armor and that would make force field twice as expensive as armor for the same affect - I am sure that is not the intention.

It is not a matter of wanting an advantage - it is a matter of parity. If the two affects provide the same protection at the same cost essentially the difference is one of character style and that should not carry a penalty. Therefore Force field should be no more visible than armor and not affect perception.

The text in the book says that it should be perceivable - that means only that if another character can see the character they can tell that they are using a force field - it does not say you light up the room.

[Starcloud]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

Armor is usually visually obvious, can be touched, can depending on the definition be heard, or possibly detectable by disturbances in the magnetic field, etc. It's typically obvious when someone is Armored.

Force Field should be the same. A faint glow around the character, a shimmer, something that says "There's an effect going on here." It *doesn't* have to carry bonuses to override environment penalties to perception.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

Furthermore, by SFX alone, I'd say a force field is more likely than armor to be able to justify not being visible.

[Christopher]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

Furthermore' date=' by SFX alone, I'd say a force field is more likely than armor to be able to justify not being visible.[/quote']

Aside from the Invisible Forcefield of the Invisible Women, I'd say they tend to glow in various colors.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How visible is visible?

 

This question does come out of version 5 - which did not approach this question as clearly as version 6. Still i think that just comparing equivalent powers has to say that the visible nature of powers cannot provide a bonus or penalty on perception of the character.

Consider that if you buy armor 10PD/10ED it costs you 30pts for resistant defense that costs no endurance and therefore by definition has no visible power effects. So now if you buy the same 10PD/10 ED as a force field and buy it down to no endurance it also costs 30 pts, but the arguments given to with respect to assigning a perception penalty the character must take invisible power affects to achieve the same result as armor and that would make force field twice as expensive as armor for the same affect - I am sure that is not the intention.

 

To me, this gradually grew within the rules iterations. Even the 1st Ed required powers that cost END to be visible to three sense groups. By 5e, though, Armor, Visible (-1/4), Nonpersistent (-1/4) cost the same as Armor, Costs END (-1/2). Removal of Force Field as an independent power, and changes to the visibility rules, have at least improved the situation, although I'd say it's still not perfect.

 

As well, at least in my view, Invisible Power Effects was priced on the basis that an undetectable attack power is a huge advantage, and the price was not reduced for non-attack powers where the advantage is less valuable.

 

The text in the book says that it should be perceivable - that means only that if another character can see the character they can tell that they are using a force field - it does not say you light up the room.

 

The Visibility rules have been a source of some debate (should Superman have IPE on his flights? it's nowhere near as obvious as, say, the Human Torch). I think 6e overall improved the perceptibility rules considerably, and your group might want to look at importing some of those rules. However, playing 5e by rules as written, I'd have to agree with your GM on how the rules work. Consider suggesting your character buy "Armor, non-persistent" instead of "Force Field" - SFX of either can be identical, so that would save you some END while resolving the visibility issue there. As to flight, IPE might be be the only option if you're playing by official 5e rules.

 

Armor is usually visually obvious' date=' can be touched, can depending on the definition be heard, or possibly detectable by disturbances in the magnetic field, etc. It's typically obvious when someone is Armored.[/quote']

 

I disagree. A Kryptonian might well buy "Steel Hard Skin" as armor. The Thing will buy Armor defined as rocky plates AND take a Distinctive Features complication/disadvantage. By the rules, Armor is not visible. As well, Armor is nothing more than PD and ED, advantaged with Resistant, purchased as a power. If Armor (a 0 END power) is visible by default, then Damage Resistance. also a Power to convert PD and ED to resistant defenses, should also be visible by default. Many characters in the course material who are not obviously bulletproof are bulletproof.

 

I also note Combat Luck does not have IPE. It is constructed as Armor.