massey Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 So, do you let a character who can "hear" the gunshot but didn't see the shooter or the muzzle flash get full DCV or make an attempt to Dodge the attack? Note that some bullets go FASTER than the speed of sound (they could potentially arrive at the target before the sound they made leaving the gun that fired them). And what happens if my Jedi happens to wear some type of invisibility cloak? Sure seems like he would be getting IPE on his TK "for FREE". You are overcomplicating things. Until the Jedi buys an invisibility cloak, it's not an issue. It is obvious who is using the power and what the effect is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 Or I could wear an invisibility cloak and pick up an object with my hand. Does my STR need Invisible Power Effects? The object obviously moves, but my hand remains unseen. Lucius Alexander Invisible Palindromedary Effects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 So, do you let a character who can "hear" the gunshot but didn't see the shooter or the muzzle flash get full DCV or make an attempt to Dodge the attack? Note that some bullets go FASTER than the speed of sound (they could potentially arrive at the target before the sound they made leaving the gun that fired them). What if the attack was a visible blast hitting the target from behind? What if the beam came from a few kilometers away but moved as fast as a bullet? Kinda like a Superpowered Sniper Rifle. Guns aren't that special. Jedi Telekinesis is not that special. Your example is not about being aware of the attack. But being aware of the Attacker. If I am not aware of the attacker, I am at half DCV. An invisible character using an obvious power in sight does not have me "unaware". You still have to blind-side the target to get the half DCV bonus or use other tactics (like waiting when the target has used it's action for that phase) to get any benefit from being invisible in combat. As a sidenote, batman CAN totally hear the gun being fired behind him, as long as he is aware of the shooter: Looks like not even the source material authors want to open that can of worms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 And as for Jedi, refer to the fight between Vader and Luke just prior to Luke losing his hand. Vader just stood there. There were no obvious gestures on Vader's part. If they had been in a crowded area, how would you have known it was Vader tossing the stuff at Luke? THAT would be Invisible Power Effects. Hyper-Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 And as for Jedi, refer to the fight between Vader and Luke just prior to Luke losing his hand. Vader just stood there. There were no obvious gestures on Vader's part. If they had been in a crowded area, how would you have known it was Vader tossing the stuff at Luke? THAT would be Invisible Power Effects. But he had not bought his TK with IPE. So it was still obvious for us and the person he targeted. In fact if Vaders PC would have tried that in a crowded area the GM would propably have INSISTED on there being Gestures as he did not buy it with IPE.* It does not make sense that firing a firearm** or using Jedi Telekinesis** from Invisibility breaks your stealth to a degree where the target has full DCV. It does not have to. It only has to make balance. Another good example for "Rules that make no sense, make the most sense": Shooting a gun from Invisibility while in sight range and angle of the target. *The rules of making stuff clear to the viewer match the rules about making stuff obvious to the characters, if it is within theier sensory field. **That you did not buy with IPE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 By default, attack powers must be perceptible to normal senses. Usually that means you can see and hear them, but other possibilities exist, so long as they are fairly "obvious" to anyone within sense range. If an attack power is not going to be perceptible to at least one normal sense, it must be bought with IPE. As strange as it may seem for TK to have visible power fx, by default it does, whether it is wavy lines of energy, a spray of sparkles, or translucent tentacles. Anime is a perfect examplar because it, perhaps more than any other form, fully embraces this principle. If anyone is uncertain as to how Hero System powers should "look and feel" without IPE, think of Anime. Darth Vader's TK is "traditional" in a non-comic-book (non-Champions) way; there are no perceptible power fx. One could even argue that when he Force-choked Admiral Motti, the hand gesture was for purely dramatic effect, not required as per Gestures Limitation. The definition of "perceptible power fx" is not that someone with half a brain could figure out, from context, that someone is using a power. Powers that use END are flashy and obvious: Nightcrawler's "bamf" is a good example; he doesn't just blink out without a trace. His Teleportation is easily perceptible to three normal senses as per the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 I think the gestures aspect, both Vader and Maul, helped their focus. Vader was going for a small area effect, while Maul just needed it, probably due to not as much training as Vader had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 The truth is, you can't perfectly model the real world, or most types of fiction, with an unchanging power writeup in Hero. Sometimes, a gun/telekinesis/whatever should be purchased with Invisible Power Effects. Sometimes it should not. It depends upon how it is intended to be used in the game. It is important to remember that the visual appearance of the power (the "special effect") is not necessarily the final word on how the power is constructed. For instance, when Darth Vader is Force-throwing objects at Luke at the end of Empire, it is not necessary for the power to have IPE. We can see Vader standing there. Luke can see him standing there. We can see the objects that Vader is using. So can Luke. We know Vader is manipulating the objects. So does Luke. Luke is receiving his normal DCV against the attacks directed against him. As far as the game mechanics are concerned, Vader is receiving none of the benefits that normally come with Invisible Power Effects. Everyone in the encounter knows what is happening and who is doing it. If there was a big yellow glowing hand that stretched out from Vader to the objects, it would look stupid, but game-wise there would be no difference in the outcome of the fight. Even if Vader was doing the same thing in a crowded shopping mall, none of those things would change. He is still a 7 foot tall guy in black armor, and one of the 4 people in the galaxy at that point who know how to use the Force. These things are known to the audience and the characters. The setup of the world at that point prevents Vader from having to spend extra points. You could build it with Invisible Power Effects, but you don't have to. However, we do see an example of what may be Invisible Power Effects later in the series. When Luke lifts C-3PO in the air and terrifies the Ewoks, he is clearly taking advantage of the benefits of Invisible Power Effects. He is disguising the source of the power. The Ewoks believe that 3PO is the one using the abilities, and they are about to be struck down by his divine magic. This might be Invisible Power Effects, or it might be a benefit of the fact that Telekinesis is sort of innately Indirect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 You know it's Vader because he's the ONLY ONE there with Luke. Full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Disagree. You know it is Vader because he is one of two bad guys in the universe who can use the Force. If 10 storm troopers were there, we would still know it was Vader. Add Jar Jar Binks and Wicket. We still know it was Vader. Let 3PO and Boba Fett walk by. Still obviously Vader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 The rule that a power costing END must have fx perceptible to more than one sense is not (situationally) context-dependent. It is an intrinsic part of the power regardless of whether or not the user is hiding in a crowd or standing alone in a set of villainous black armor. The power has visible power fx or it doesn't. The "obviousness" of the user is irrelevent. As such, the telekinetic powers of the Force have no visible fx in the Hero System sense of that term. Force TK has IPE no matter what the situational context is. The important thing to realize is that Vader could easily use his Force TK from a hidden position, with nobody knowing what is causing the objects to fly around. That means his Force TK has IPE. The fact that he often chooses to step out and fight in the open does not suddenly render his Force TK "visible". Hyper-Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 The rule that a power costing END must have fx perceptible to more than one sense is not (situationally) context-dependent. It is an intrinsic part of the power regardless of whether or not the user is hiding in a crowd or standing alone in a set of villainous black armor. The power has visible power fx or it doesn't. The "obviousness" of the user is irrelevent. As such, the telekinetic powers of the Force have no visible fx in the Hero System sense of that term. Force TK has IPE no matter what the situational context is. The important thing to realize is that Vader could easily use his Force TK from a hidden position, with nobody knowing what is causing the objects to fly around. That means his Force TK has IPE. The fact that he often chooses to step out and fight in the open does not suddenly render his Force TK "visible". Of course it's context dependent. The obviousness of the user is the whole point. You could decide that the visual aspect of his Force TK was the slow, unsteady, floaty effect that they used in the movies. It might require a raised hand or eyes closed in concentration. But you don't have to -- it's obvious because the rules say it is obvious. Can your character see? Then you can tell who it is. What it looks like is unimportant. Player: Who is using the power? GM: It's that guy over there, in the black cape and hood. Player: How can I tell? He's standing in a crowd. GM: You can just tell. It's definitely that guy Annoying Player: But how do I know that? Exasperated GM: Ominous theme music is playing and the camera focuses in on him. Ndreare 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm pretty sure that when it comes to the visual fx of a power, only the obviousness of the power itself is at issue (the state of the user/wielder is a separate, orthogonal concern). The reasons behind making a power's fx visible by default in the game are myriad, but do not in themselves govern whether or not a power has them. In fact, I believe you may have it backwards. The concealed state of an attacker can not render a power concealed by some wierd transitive property, rather, a power will "give away" a concealed attacker by virtue of its (compulsory) flashiness. If a character wants to be able to attack and not be obvious that they are doing so, they must be adequately concealed and the attack power must have IPE. Otherwise, it will be obvious to anyone within sense range of either the attacker or the perceivable fx of the power who is attacking and with what (assuming they recognize the fx). Other factors, like Indirect, can muddy the waters a bit, but Indirect isn't really meant to be a substitute for IPE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm pretty sure that when it comes to the visual fx of a power, only the obviousness of the power itself is at issue (the state of the user/wielder is a separate, orthogonal concern). The reasons behind making a power's fx visible by default in the game are myriad, but do not in themselves govern whether or not a power has them. In fact, I believe you may have it backwards. The concealed state of an attacker can not render a power concealed by some wierd transitive property, rather, a power will "give away" a concealed attacker by virtue of its (compulsory) flashiness. If a character wants to be able to attack and not be obvious that they are doing so, they must be adequately concealed and the attack power must have IPE. Otherwise, it will be obvious to anyone within sense range of either the attacker or the perceivable fx of the power who is attacking and with what (assuming they recognize the fx). Other factors, like Indirect, can muddy the waters a bit, but Indirect isn't really meant to be a substitute for IPE. But the power is obvious. Objects are floating through the air. A glowing field around them doesn't make it more obvious what is happening. I agree that a concealed attacker doesn't make the power concealed. If Darth Anonymous is standing in a crowded marketplace and uses his Force telekinesis to move an object, unless he has purchased IPE, the players will immediately be able to turn and identify him as the source of the effect. Cinematically, they will turn their heads around, looking around them, and then will see him and realize that he's the one who did it. In the real world you might have no way to connect the mysterious power with the source, but in the game it is easy to do so. Let's look at this differently. If I have a Force Field, I can define it as looking like anything I want. If I want a fiery body like the Human Torch, that is fine. That can be what my Force Field looks like. But I can't burn anyone with it unless I buy it as a Damage Shield, or other similar construct. I can wrestle a baby snowman and my fire will just move out of the way or something. I am still protected, I still get the benefit of my powers, but I don't get new powers for free simply due to creative power construction. This sort of "game logic" has always existed in Champions. It might hurt your head, you may not like seeing it, and in your campaign you might decide that you don't want to see that -- if a player buys certain types of powers then you might require that he buy other related powers as well. But that's in your campaign. The game rules don't require it. Similarly, a flying character doesn't have to leave a fiery trail or have wings. You can see him floating there. There doesn't have to be an obvious means of how it happens. It doesn't have to make sense in real world physics. It is clear that he is flying. My long-winded point is this: A power can be "invisible" by normal real world definitions, and still be "visible" in game terms, as long as it gets none of the benefits of IPE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndreare Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Of course it's context dependent. The obviousness of the user is the whole point. You could decide that the visual aspect of his Force TK was the slow, unsteady, floaty effect that they used in the movies. It might require a raised hand or eyes closed in concentration. But you don't have to -- it's obvious because the rules say it is obvious. Can your character see? Then you can tell who it is. What it looks like is unimportant. Player: Who is using the power? GM: It's that guy over there, in the black cape and hood. Player: How can I tell? He's standing in a crowd. GM: You can just tell. It's definitely that guy Annoying Player: But how do I know that? Exasperated GM: Ominous theme music is playing and the camera focuses in on him. Simply awesome. I love this and have been in this situation before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 But the power is obvious. Objects are floating through the air. A glowing field around them doesn't make it more obvious what is happening. My long-winded point is this: A power can be "invisible" by normal real world definitions, and still be "visible" in game terms, as long as it gets none of the benefits of IPE. I think you may be a bit too fixated on the notion of obviousness. The rules don't have much to say about what constitutes "obvious", except perhaps in the section on Focii, where it becomes an actual game term. END-costing powers are not merely supposed to be "obvious", they must be perceptible by normal Senses. The rules have quite a lot to say about what constitutes a Sense, what the "normal" senses are, and how they work. A power must be perceptible (I try to stay away from the word "visible" because that is restricted to the Sight sense group for the purposes of this discussion) to those things which the Hero System defines as a Sense. Objects floating through the air are visible, yes, but the power that is making them float may not be, and if not, it requires IPE. If a character could ever use his END-costing power in such a way that you can't tell he is using it, then it must have IPE. And by being able "to tell he is using it", that means perceptible to normal senses (at least one, usually more) even/especially if/when you can't perceive the user or the target. You can think of this as a subject-verb-object chain: the attacker is the subject, the power is the verb, and the target is the object. IPE relates exclusively to the verb in this analogy, and it doesn't matter how visible or "obvious" the subject or object are. If the verb itself isn't perceptible to normal senses, then it must be bought with IPE. There are too many ways for an observer to misinterpret objects simply floating in space: perceptible power fx are meant to eliminate such situational ambiguity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I think you may be a bit too fixated on the notion of obviousness. The rules don't have much to say about what constitutes "obvious", except perhaps in the section on Focii, where it becomes an actual game term. END-costing powers are not merely supposed to be "obvious", they must be perceptible by normal Senses. The rules have quite a lot to say about what constitutes a Sense, what the "normal" senses are, and how they work. A power must be perceptible (I try to stay away from the word "visible" because that is restricted to the Sight sense group for the purposes of this discussion) to those things which the Hero System defines as a Sense. Objects floating through the air are visible, yes, but the power that is making them float may not be, and if not, it requires IPE. If a character could ever use his END-costing power in such a way that you can't tell he is using it, then it must have IPE. And by being able "to tell he is using it", that means perceptible to normal senses (at least one, usually more) even/especially if/when you can't perceive the user or the target. You can think of this as a subject-verb-object chain: the attacker is the subject, the power is the verb, and the target is the object. IPE relates exclusively to the verb in this analogy, and it doesn't matter how visible or "obvious" the subject or object are. If the verb itself isn't perceptible to normal senses, then it must be bought with IPE. There are too many ways for an observer to misinterpret objects simply floating in space: perceptible power fx are meant to eliminate such situational ambiguity. I think I've explained myself pretty well on this. I don't think you and I are ever going to agree. Things don't have to be perceptible in a "real world" sense to be perceptible in a "game rules" sense. There are zero ways for an observer to misinterpret objects floating in space if you do not purchase IPE (unless they fail a perception roll of course -- just because they have the ability to perceive it does not mean they are paying the least bit of attention). Example 1 -- With IPE: GM: There is an object floating in the air. Player: What is holding it up? GM: You don't know. Example 2 -- Without IPE: GM: There is an object floating in the air. Someone is holding it aloft with the Force. Combative Player: How can I tell that? Is it glowing? GM: No. Combative Player: Then how can I tell it's the Force? My character thinks that there must be a reverse gravity field here. Anything other than the Force. GM: No. Your character knows that it is the Force. Combative Player: But how do I know it? It isn't glowing or anything. I don't have any special senses. I shouldn't be able to tell what is holding it up. GM: Your character knows that it is the Force because I told you. Combative Player: But... GM: Lose 5 XP. -- In the end, we are talking about a narrative game. We are not talking about real life. Everything your character "sees" or "hears" is determined based upon what other human beings tell you. It doesn't make any difference if the fake superpower that the fictional character is using is described as glowing red, or green, or has no appearance at all. In every situation, the GM has to tell you "XYZ happens, and then you see this." Invisible Power Effects allows the use of powers to stay secret. That is its purpose, so that you can't tell that the person is doing anything unusual. If it isn't IPE, then you can tell the person is doing something. It doesn't matter if it glows or not, you can just tell that it's him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grailknight Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Zslane, I think you're conflating invisible and unnoticed in this instance. If X has a power with the sfx of "floating objects suspended by an unseen force" then it may or may not be IPE. The determining factor is how the power reacts with your DCV mechanically. If you are always at reduced DCV, then it's IPE. If your DCV is only reduced by surprise, stealth, flash or darkness then it's a normal power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 And it also has to be obvious, the source has to be readily perceivable, as does the target/effect. If someone can sit and drink tea without the power effect being noticed at the source, then there is some type of obfuscation going on. I'm not talking about the invisible kind, either. WHAT’S PERCEIVEDAs a general guideline, characters define whattheir Powers look and sound like. “Perceivable”can mean many things, from the perceptibility ofthe actual power itself (for example, a blue energybeam that projects from the character’s handsand hits the target) to just the source of the Powerbeing perceivable (for example, few characters canperceive a bullet in flight, but they can all see thegun, hear the shot, smell the gunpowder, and seethe bullet hole in the target). However, unless theGM rules otherwise, a character who can perceivea Power can determine the following about it: Activity: that the Power is being used the Source: which character, device, or the likeis using the Power (or in other words, is the“source” of it, or who/what is “generating” it) the Target: which character, object, or area isthe target of the Power (if it has a target) the Path: which direction the Power is travelingor being projected along (if applicable) the Special Effect: the special effect of the Power(e.g., that it’s a Fire Bolt, a weapon or device ofsome sort, a spell, a martial arts stunt...) the Intensity: the approximate intensity of thePower (he can’t tell how many dice or ActivePoints it has, but it’s usually obvious that, forexample, a Blast 12d6 is “stronger” or “morepowerful” than a Blast 8d6) the Target Effect: the effect of the Power onthe target (e.g., it’s injuring him, it’s supposedto injure him but isn’t having much effect, it’sturning him into a frog, it’s weakening him...) the Source Effect: the effect of the Power on the character or object using it, if any (e.g., he’ssuffering painful “feedback” [in game terms,the power has a Side Effect], he’s becomingtired as he maintains it [it’s a Constant Powerthat costs END]) The GM has the final say on how perceivable aPower is, and what characters can perceive aboutit, based on common sense, dramatic sense, gamebalance, and other factors. And if the extent of knowing who is doing it, is the GM saying "because I told you it was" with no other explanation is a GM I won't play with again after I pack my stuff up and walk out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 And if the extent of knowing who is doing it, is the GM saying "because I told you it was" with no other explanation is a GM I won't play with again after I pack my stuff up and walk out. This. Powers have to be percievable by multiple SENSES and how senses work are outlined in the rules. Because I told you so is not really in keeping with the rules and would be pointlessly annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 And it also has to be obvious, the source has to be readily perceivable, as does the target/effect. If someone can sit and drink tea without the power effect being noticed at the source, then there is some type of obfuscation going on. I'm not talking about the invisible kind, either. And if the extent of knowing who is doing it, is the GM saying "because I told you it was" with no other explanation is a GM I won't play with again after I pack my stuff up and walk out. If you find yourself identifying with the role of "combative player", then I would smile and wave goodbye. In a pseudo-mystical game setting like Star Wars, "you sense that this is true" is a perfectly valid answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grailknight Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 And it also has to be obvious, the source has to be readily perceivable, as does the target/effect. If someone can sit and drink tea without the power effect being noticed at the source, then there is some type of obfuscation going on. I'm not talking about the invisible kind, either. And if the extent of knowing who is doing it, is the GM saying "because I told you it was" with no other explanation is a GM I won't play with again after I pack my stuff up and walk out. OK, I concede that this example does not satisfy the Source Effect requirement. It does not necessarily mandate IPE because the effect can be achieved with acting, sleight of hand, ventriloquism. or other means but these all will give you an opposed Perception roll at the very least. Without one, you'd have every right to call the GM on it. It does meet every other point, even SFX and Source. Let the GM keep some mystery in hand here and trust that it will be revealed when the time is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 If you find yourself identifying with the role of "combative player", then I would smile and wave goodbye. In a pseudo-mystical game setting like Star Wars, "you sense that this is true" is a perfectly valid answer. Only if the GM is an asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper-Man Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 IF we are going to say that Jedi/Force TK does not need IPE then what do we now do with characters like Green Lanterns and Starman with clearly glowing TK? Do they now qualify for an additional Visibility Limitation? If not, I see a damn good argument for it. bigbywolfe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Only if the GM is an asshole. Language, son. IF we are going to say that Jedi/Force TK does not need IPE then what do we now do with characters like Green Lanterns and Starman with clearly glowing TK? Do they now qualify for an additional Visibility Limitation? If not, I see a damn good argument for it. I don't see why. If we are treating Jedi/Force TK the same as any other power, why wouldn't we do the same for GL? A perception roll is a perception roll. Of course if you wanted to take a limitation for extra visibility, knock yourself out. The point is that what the power looks like does not necessitate it following particular game mechanics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.