Hero system 7 ideas

[Duke Bushido]

52 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

"You betray yourself, old man."

 

 

 

 

Excellent example.

 

From 1:20 to 1:50, he is so uncertain as to which is which as to feint with two different copies.

 

So he is unable to tell the real from the illusion.  Considering that he watched the illusion being cast, and no one switched places, I'd suggest that INT isn't his best Characteristic, and it wasn't real difficult to get a roll high enough to make him believe the illusions were real, r identical to it.

 

Thirty seconds of wondering which was real.  Half a turn.

 

Perhaps PER roll after PER roll?  Still, he _immediately_ realized he couldn't tell fake from real: The illusion had overwhelmed his INT at first: it looked real to him. It wasn't util then that the PER rolls began: does this one react to a sword feint?   Does this one track my movement?  Oh-ho!  That one's doing the classic "sweat" thing!  But at no time did the others look less than real to him, else he wouldn't have needed the PER rolls.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, steriaca said:

So, why is Mystero's illusions different enough that we have to go the Images rout? Sure, everyone can perceive them. So what.

 

One of the APG has a great thing about "Based on Characteristics". It is a good thing to look over.

 

Should Images be kicked to the side? Honestly I don't know. But I will have a hard time convincing you that Images = Illusions, and you will have a tough time convincing me that Images, in there purest function <> Illusions.

 

So what?  So Mysterio clearly does not have to affect someone's mind in order to cause them to perceive his illusions.  Further, his illusions are opposed by the ability of those viewing them to detect flaws in the illusions he created, where a Mental Illusion enlists the mind of the target to perfect the illusion - he needs to know who he should create an image of, where a mental illusion will provide the target's image of the desired illusion.  Mysterio does not create radar images for Daredevil because he neither knows how, nor that there is a need.  A Mental Illusion will cause DD to perceive the illusion as radar outlines because he only thinks he is perceiving these things.

 

Chris uses the example of force field, armor and damage resistance as three methods of obtaining rDEF.  When we started this merry road, Damage Resistance made half of your defenses work against BOD of KAs and all against STUN for a flat 15 points.  30 points let the other half also block BOD.  Armor cost, as I recall, 5 points for 3rDEF.  Force Field was 1:1 and cost END.  Three different costs to do exactly the same thing.

 

When different abilities do exactly the same thing, why should they have different mechanics or different costs?  Mental Illusions and Images do not do the same thing, reasonably have different mechanics and work, at least for me, in their present incarnation.

 

Why should Mr. Fantastic be significantly tougher to affect with a sight and sound based image created by Mysterio than Wolverine, who notes that they do not smell right, or Daredevil's hyper-effective senses?  How does Mysterio fake out Wolvie's sense of smell, or Daredevil's hearing keen enough to detect a heartbeat?

 

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Why? 

 

Why does your ability to perceive affect the caster's ability to create? 

 

It doesn't.  He imposes the exact same penalty on everyone's PER rolls.  My ability to perceive affects my ability to perceive that the image is just that, and not the real thing.

 

Similarly, my DCV does not affect an opponent's ability to hit a moving target -it allows me to be a better-moving target that he is more challenged to hit.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

From 1:20 to 1:50, he is so uncertain as to which is which as to feint with two different copies.

 

So he is unable to tell the real from the illusion.  Considering that he watched the illusion being cast, and no one switched places, I'd suggest that INT isn't his best Characteristic, and it wasn't real difficult to get a roll high enough to make him believe the illusions were real, r identical to it.

 

 At 1:15 or so the caster is in the middle.  At 1:55 to 2:00, it is not the middle target who bleeds when struck with the sword.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Thirty seconds of wondering which was real.  Half a turn.

 

Perhaps PER roll after PER roll?  Still, he _immediately_ realized he couldn't tell fake from real: The illusion had overwhelmed his INT at first: it looked real to him. It wasn't util then that the PER rolls began: does this one react to a sword feint?   Does this one track my movement?  Oh-ho!  That one's doing the classic "sweat" thing!  But at no time did the others look less than real to him, else he wouldn't have needed the PER rolls.

 

Assuming that movie time is equal to Hero phases and segments is not always a good fit.

 

Clearly, his first PER roll did not reveal the image.  Had he rolled better on that first PER roll, perhaps he would have seen a flaw in the image sooner.  A later one did.  But it was a PER roll which revealed the illusion.  There is no compelling reason to view the exchange as a roll against INT (which achieved the same result against all present, I note).

[Duke Bushido]

Similarly, there is no compelling reason to view his initial confusion as a blown perception roll.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

Why should Mr. Fantastic be significantly tougher to affect with a sight and sound based image created by Mysterio than Wolverine, who notes that they do not smell right, or Daredevil's hyper-effective senses?  How does Mysterio fake out Wolvie's sense of smell, or Daredevil's hearing keen enough to detect a heartbeat?

 

 

Technically he wouldn't, unless he used images that targeted special senses as well as normal ones.  Which is how a smart illusionist works: they go after their target's special senses, because they'll tend to trust those more than usual senses

[Duke Bushido]

Per is derived from INT. 

 

 

So why would a smart person be harder to deceive? 

 

 

I tried to hint at that earlier, but it didn't get across: no matter which mechanic you prefer,  you are working against INT at the heart of it. 

 

The mechamic I prefer does it straight up and obviously, allowing the same opportunities for a Per roll to let the target see the truth, but is weighted a little better toward the caster having at least one successful Phase against the target.  It prevents the points invested in non mental illusion from becoming a complete waste of CP in games where special senses and high Per rolls (as I said before:  our typical supers

 

Screw this; I am not typing all this out with two thumbs. 

 

 

Hugh:  we are always going to disagree on the mechanic because we disagree how the power actually works. 

 

There is no resolving that; there is no right or wrong with that either.   We will have to agree to disagree and let it go. 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Technically he wouldn't, unless he used images that targeted special senses as well as normal ones.  Which is how a smart illusionist works: they go after their target's special senses, because they'll tend to trust those more than usual senses

 

Whether a character with special senses, or one whose sight and hearing are especially keen, it should be easier for someone with better perception to perceive the flaws in images/non-mental illusions.  Literally the only benefit those points spent on enhanced perception deliver is better perception, so when he is perceiving, he shoul;d get am advantage.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Per is derived from INT.

 

So why would a smart person be harder to deceive?

 

A person with better perception should be harder to deceive, whether that PER is derived from a 40 INT, or an 8 INT and +6 Enhanced PER.  Make the latter +10 Enhanced PER and he should be much tougher to trick with an image than the INT character.

 

Unlike a mental power, where straight EGO (willpower) determines both initial success and breakout, rolling against INT makes enhanced perception irrelevant to perceiving flaws in an image, and that does not fit right.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

So why would a smart person be harder to deceive? 

 

Well this seems to go without any need of explanation; being more intelligent makes you more difficult to fool or confuse, by definition.  However, if you have a problem with this concept, it seems like your problem is more with Perception being derived from INT rather than anything to do with the design of Images.  Honestly this doesn't seem like something you rationally arrived at so much as just a pet peeve you won't let go.

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

ing against INT makes enhanced perception irrelevant to perceiving flaws in an image, and that does not fit right.

 

Cats that can see in 3d being fooled - briefly in most cases, but not all; dogs with incredible olfactory receptors being befuddled by stuffed animals; ducks being lured to their deaths by decoys; people piling their cars up in ditches because "I thought I saw something." 

 

There is more at play in deception that how keen your senses are.  I totally agree that, once you regain your wits, your senses _are_ the method by which you determine (or ultimately fail to determine) that 'the thing' is fake. 

 

The only difference between our lines of thought, do far as I can determine, is that I tend to think people do _not_ pay full attention to their sensory input one-hundred percent of the time, and you do. 

 

There is no resolving this, as I don't see either of us changing our minds on this. 

 

I have never failed to mean it when I tell you that enjoy this kind of discussion with you, but I think we've reached an unreachable impass.  It's time to let it go and leave it to the snipers.   

 

Seriously though: I do have to run: Tuesdays and Thursdays are my busiest work days. 

 

Have fun! 

 

 

Duke 

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well this seems to go without any need of explanation; being more intelligent makes you more difficult to fool or confuse, by definition.  However, if you have a problem with this concept, it seems like your problem is more with Perception being derived from INT rather than anything to do with the design of Images.  Honestly this doesn't seem like something you rationally arrived at so much as just a pet peeve you won't let go.

 

Pattern recognition is a big part of what  we classify as "intelligence".  Note that I said "smart", not "high Hero INT".  A character with 50 INT should be no easier to fool than one with 10 INT and +8 Enhanced Perception.  But he is also no harder to fool.  And if he also took a complication like "imperceptive - minus 8 to PER rolls", he would be just as easily fooled by that image as a 10 INT person.

 

10 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Cats that can see in 3d being fooled - briefly in most cases, but not all; dogs with incredible olfactory receptors being befuddled by stuffed animals; ducks being lured to their deaths by decoys; people piling their cars up in ditches because "I thought I saw something." 

 

There is more at play in deception that how keen your senses are.  I totally agree that, once you regain your wits, your senses _are_ the method by which you determine (or ultimately fail to determine) that 'the thing' is fake. 

 

The only difference between our lines of thought, do far as I can determine, is that I tend to think people do _not_ pay full attention to their sensory input one-hundred percent of the time, and you do.

 

There is also more to your PER roll than how keen your senses are - that is why it is, by default, enhanced by INT.  All of those aspects which would affect being fooled by an illusion also affect spotting a concealed person, hearing an out of place sound - making a PER roll.  Having great hearing makes it easier to make a hearing PER roll, but so does paying attention to what you hear, and more rapidly and better interpreting it.

 

The fellow with +8 PER rolls still does not pay full attention 100% of the time - but he pays greater attention more of the time so that he succeeds in his PER roll a lot more often.

 

I would also note that you are equating INT with not being surprised or startled.  It seems like PRE attacks often surprise or startle, and they are not resisted by INT - your arguments might more logically imply resistance should be the same as resisting a PRE attack, which is typically PRE, but also often ruled to be EGO. 

 

Being quick to react, cool under fire and fast at adapting to surprises has never been the province of INT in Hero.

[Duke Bushido]

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well this seems to go without any need of explanation;

 

And was completely rhetorical. 

 

Having been asked more than once why I felt INT had anything to do with being tricked when it should be PER:  something whose based value is derived from INT.  :/   Yes; clearly  INT is unrelated in all ways to deception.  It's PER;  nothing at all to do with INT. 

 

Quote

 

 

being more intelligent makes you more difficult to fool or confuse by definition.

 

Yes.  That is my position. 

 

Quote

However, if you have a problem with this concept,

 

None whatsoever.  It's a drum I've been beating for several pages now. 

 

Quote

t seems like your problem is more with Perception being derived from INT rather than anything to do with the design of Images. 

 

Also no; that question was in response to the continuous "INT is not related; it should be something derived from INT" ; "yes; that's righ, because INT is not involved" -    the separation between INT and Pet that is somehow making sense to people.   Are they the same?  No; obviously not.  Are they closely relate?  Well, it's 9+(INT/5) plus whatever levels you've purchased, so.....   No? 

 

_That's_ what's driving me batty. 

 

Quote

Honestly this doesn't seem like something you rationally arrived at so much as just a pet peeve you won't let go.

 

Completely without sarcasm or malice, I hold the exact same opinion with regard to "immediate PER roll is the best mechanic to use.  It makes sense that Bloodhound Man should be able to totally ignore the most startling or skillfully-built Illusions 99.54 percent of the time with no regard for circumstance, focus, lapse of attention, or quickness of wit. "

 

But as stated numerous times, I am totally fine with folks disagreeing.  I just wanted to be sure you were disagreeing accurately. 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Having been asked more than once why I felt INT had anything to do with being tricked when it should be PER:  something whose based value is derived from INT.  😕  Yes; clearly  INT is unrelated in all ways to deception.  It's PER;  nothing at all to do with INT.

 

Duke. you're a pre-6e guy.  How about we change STUN damage from Mental Illusions to KO the target if it exceeds his BOD?  After all, Stun is derived, at least in part, from BOD, right?

 

And let's use DEX to hit with AoE attacks - after all, OCV is derived from DEX.

 

We have a specific mechanic used to determine whether characters accurately perceive things.  So why would accurately perceiving that they are seeing an artificial image, rather than the real thing, not be based on that mechanic?

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Completely without sarcasm or malice, I hold the exact same opinion with regard to "immediate PER roll is the best mechanic to use.  It makes sense that Bloodhound Man should be able to totally ignore the most startling or skillfully-built Illusions 99.54 percent of the time with no regard for circumstance, focus, lapse of attention, or quickness of wit. "

 

If Bloodhound Man can succeed on his PER roll 99.54% of the time, this indicates one of two things, or both in combination. 

 

Either Bloodhound Man has invested a lot of points in having a great PER roll, so he should be good at detecting false images.  If The Glob has massive rPD, we would not feel bad that a gun or a punch have little effect on him.

 

Or those images are pretty poor.  You can buy penalties to the PER roll.  Those images at their base level are spotted as false 62.5% of the time by an average person.  If Bobby Normal slugs The Glob, certainly don't expect his 2d6 from STR to have any effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

From another angle:

 

SmartAlec pays 30 points to have a 40 INT.  His PER roll is 17- and he gets the same roll for all INT-based abilities.

 

Tracker buys +10 to his PER rolls for 30 points.  His PER roll is 21- and his other int-based rolls are 11-.

 

Then we encounter Mysterio who projects realistic images.  FInally - thinks Tracker - I benefit from my points.

 

No, says Duke, in fact EVERY illusion Mysterio projects gets +30 points of effect more against you than against SmartAlec.  That also means that, if his images were good enough to momentarily fool SmartAlec, means you get -6 on your PER rolls, so you are down to 15- and he has 17-.

 

This is also a question of relative pricing, but I think Tracker's player would not be unreasonable to question the fairness of this result.

[Duke Bushido]

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Duke. you're a pre-6e guy.  How about we change STUN damage from Mental Illusions to KO the target if it exceeds his BOD?  After all, Stun is derived, at least in part, from BOD, right?

 

And let's use DEX to hit with AoE attacks - after all, OCV is derived from DEX.

 

I am.  Doesn't really relate to the rest of that, though.  It doesn't follow that not preferring one specific concept in a specific case has anything to do with other situations.  Though I expect you already know that.  Though if you're looking to expand on a conversation that we both know we're done with, I've always wanted to see something different than DEX alone determines your "initiative."  A separate characteristic?  I'm okay with that.  A figured characteristic?  Not necessary, but again: I'd be okay with it.  A base-10 Characteristic?  Sure.  A base-zero Characteristic?  Again; doesn't matter.  Just something that isn't simply "highest DEX acts first."  I understand they have the physical capacity to react faster, but what part of DEX implies that they can develop a plan of attack, no matter how simple, because their body is more agile?  Don't bother asking, though: I've not got the interest to develop the idea right now; it's just something that I have hoped for in every new edition, but never actually get it.

 

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

We have a specific mechanic used to determine whether characters accurately perceive things.  So why would accurately perceiving that they are seeing an artificial image, rather than the real thing, not be based on that mechanic?

 

I don't know if you have actually missed this, or, after that last crack, are being deliberately obtuse.  (Seriously: I'm not trying to call you on doing something, because I really can't tell: I'm looking for clarification.  While I've not known you to lose it in a genuine conversation before, I've also not known you to make wild associations, either.  Thus, after that "if INT is important because it's the base of PER then BODY is important because it's the base of STUN stuff above, I am really not certain that you aren't ignoring things on purpose.  Given your history, I'm going to assume you are no, but if I am wrong here, let me know so I can feel better about leaving questions unanswered).

 

Because I accept that-- given as how we are _both_ prone to the "wall of text" thing when something interests us, that you have missed this, so let me break down a rough sketch of the way I handle it:

 

Thief has pocketed a scrap of a note from the library that suggests there's a hidden vault in the catacombs beneath the keep.  During the night, Thief separates himself from the part and carefully explores the catacombs.  "The note says right here, in this very passage.  I want to examine this room closely to see if there are any signs of trap doors, hidden rooms, etc.  

 

The vault is hidden behind an Image of a wall in the hall itself leading to a wizard's lab.  The wizard's spell was cast with sufficient result to look real at Thief's INT.  However, Thief has consciously decided to examine this area closely.  Okay, Thief; make a PER roll.  

 

Thief nails the PER roll, and notices some tiny details: while the stones of the entire corridor have aged and grown damp and slightly moldy, there is a doorway-sized section of stone that lacks the  subtle age characteristics of the rest of the wall.  If he glances at it with the torch behind his eyes (not directly, obviously    ), he notices that the light doesn't reflect from this one section, either.  Cautiously, he puts his hand through the wall.....

 

Swordsman wakes, notices thief is missing, and sounds the alarm to the rest of the party. After a quick check confirms that none of their private possessions or the party's treasure from this adventure has gone missing along with thief, Swordsman concludes that Thief has been taken, and organizes a search.  As luck would have it, Swordsman walks down the very corridor with the fake wall. As the results of the wizard's casting were more than sufficient to make swordsman believe the Image, he doesn't give it a second thought: he is looking for Thief, after all, and the beast of villain that made off with him.  As he nears the end of the tunnel, he bashes down a locked door and discovers the wizard's lab, which he quickly searches, finding no sign of Thief.  Having come to the end of this tunnel, he retraces his steps and meets the party at an earlier intersection.  "I've found no sign of Thief, and it appears that none of you have, either.  However, I have found an old but-seemingly-well-stocked wizard's lab of some sort that may be of some value to you, Sorcerer.

 

Interested, Sorcerer decides there may be something in the lab that could help them with their search for Thief.  Swordsman leads the way, and soon they near the false wall.  The Image is _not_ sufficient to fool Sorcerer's INT: "Hold, Swordsman!  Have you yet sprung that trap ahead on our right?"

 

"I found naught but a worm-eaten door just beyond our torchlight; I have passed here twice and found not a single danger."

 

"Take great care, then, that you not set off a trap this passing, either.  The wall to your right is an illusion."

 

Swordsman is now paying full attention to his surroundings, and looking for _anything_; before he was merely interested in those things which might be sized or shaped like Thief or a creature capable of carrying Thief away.  He rolls perception, but, as his INT isn't anything special to begin with, and the only light being that of the torch, fails his roll.  "I see no image, Sorcerer.  Are you certain of what your eyes report?"

 

"Step forward, with care, two paces, and place pressure upon the stones."  Told precisely where to look, Swordsman gets another PER roll, with a bonus.  He takes the torch from Sorcerer and examines that portion of the wall.  The directions from Sorcerer and the improved lighting grant him a +4 to his PER roll.  Sadly, he flubs the roll, coming up eighteen.  "I have our history together that has taught me to trust you, Sorcerer, but I see not what you claim is here."

 

Swordsman steps up two paces, cautiously checking for trip wires, trap doors, concealed seams, the smell of boiling oil, the grinding of moving stones....  he draws his sword and crouches into a ready stance.  Gingerly, he guides the tip of his sword to wall in front of him, selects a spot between two stones, and watches four inches of his sword pass directly through the wall!  This discovery, combined with the other conditions, give him a +7 (which he wouldn't have actually needed if he hadn't flubbed the last two rolls), and like red springing from green in the eyes of a colorblind man (when the red is pointed out), his eyes widen in surprise as suddenly the image snaps to in his mind for what it is: he now sees it quite clearly as an Image, and is startled that he had not noticed it before.  Reading his sword once more, he springs through the false wall, ready to do battle, only to find Thief, unconscious on the floor, victim of a poison dart trap.  Fortunately for him, the poison had degraded somewhat over the years.  Still, he has a lot of explaining to do.

 

 

My whole point is that while I believe that PER rolls should work, no problem, I do _not_ believe that everyone is on full alert all the time.  There are way to many traffic accidents to support that idea. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

  If The Glob has massive rPD, we would not feel bad that a gun or a punch have little effect on him.

 

Because that would be his particular schtick.  As you point out below, being immune to images 2/3 of the time is _everyone's_ schtick, which becomes a problem for precisely the other reason you give below:

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Or those images are pretty poor.  You can buy penalties to the PER roll.  Those images at their base level are spotted as false 62.5% of the time by an average person.

 

We did that; moving on

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If Bobby Normal slugs The Glob, certainly don't expect his 2d6 from STR to have any effect.

 

Quite right.  Again, this is TheGlob's schtick, and not the schtick of 2/3 of the universe.  How would Bobby Normal feel about it if he had dropped 40 points on STR and discovered that he still can't even tickle 2/3 of the people in the world?

 

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

From another angle:

 

SmartAlec pays 30 points to have a 40 INT.  His PER roll is 17- and he gets the same roll for all INT-based abilities.

 

Tracker buys +10 to his PER rolls for 30 points.  His PER roll is 21- and his other int-based rolls are 11-.

 

Then we encounter Mysterio who projects realistic images.  FInally - thinks Tracker - I benefit from my points.

.

[excerpted for later]

 

This is also a question of relative pricing, but I think Tracker's player would not be unreasonable to question the fairness of this result.

 

 

Did Mysterion invest points in his power?  If so, why is it more unreasonable to screw him 98.62 percent of the time and 99.54 percent of the time respectively?

 

Would we even be having this conversation if we decided it was Mental Illusions modified with a "Based on CON" or "Based on INT?"  Why is one more right than the other?

 

And for what it's worth: I note and respect your comments on the pricing discrepancies of various builds, but if it's all the same to you, I'd rather not get into them.

 

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

[excerpt from above]

 

No, says Duke, in fact EVERY illusion Mysterio projects gets +30 points of effect more against you than against SmartAlec.  That also means that, if his images were good enough to momentarily fool SmartAlec, means you get -6 on your PER rolls, so you are down to 15- and he has 17-.

 

 

 

Several points here:

 

I don't say a damned thing in this case; the dice do.  

 

Second:

 

Now keep in mind comic book sources aren't the best references for me: I didn't read them as a kid, and I didn't read a lot of them at Jim's place (he collected comics; they were always laying about).  My "comic book knowledge" comes exclusively from handful of random comics -- say two or three a month-- from about 1980 to 1988 or so; then a couple of years of a similar situation during the mid-to-late 90s.  Comic book movies aren't much better, because I can count the number of them I've seen on my fingers.  Forunately,  a quick google confirmed that I have some idea who Mysterio is: Spiderman villain with a green costume / purple cape and a smoke-filled fishbowl for a helmet.   He uses special effects for illusions at super villain level (wow.  There has _got_ to be a better way to say that!   )  And has successfully fooled Spiderman with them, in spite of his having more than the usual number of senses.  He has deceived spiderman's Danger Sense successfully by simple deceiving Spiderman's eyes!  ("My spider sense is going off, but obviously there is something wrong with it, because there is no danger here" kind of thing and "This is incredibly dangerous!  Why isn't my spider sense going off?!)

 

I submit that it's because the illusion fooled his Intelligence: second-guessing and all that "This can't possibly be right!  Can't possibly be real!" stuff that goes with that.

 

Then the PER rolls begin.

 

And yes, absolutely: if that image was good enough to make you believe it was real, you're going to take a penalty for a moment or two.  The penalty doesn't stick with you for life-- or even a a full turn.  And there's an INT roll as well, just in case the player's can't figure out "it's an illusion and I don't _loiyk_ it!"  (hunh.  It only took like thirty-seven years, but I was finally able to use that in a sentence  ).   The moment the character (via player as character deducing the problem or INT roll) figures out "this isn't right" or "this isn't real," he can even get bonuses to his PER roll.  But I'm not starting off with an image built to fool them-- and powerful enough to fool them even if it's only for a half-phase) by allowing 2/3 of the universe to dismiss it out of hat and most supers to dismiss it 3/4 or more times.

 

At the end of the day, Tracker spent, as you pointed out, 30 points for a PER roll.  Excellent, he will be able to figure it out a lot sooner than someone else.  But if it beats his raw INT, it fools him for a moment.  Being out of it the very next Phase seems like a reasonable reward for his expenditure, without totally f'n over Mysterio, who dropped sixty points on Images.  Actually, with the PER roll is the only roll mechanic, it doesn't matter how much illusion he buys; he gets boned 2/3 of the time by every cellphone zombie in the local high school.

 

Which I don't deny may be more fair.  

 

Somehow.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

I don't know if you have actually missed this, or, after that last crack, are being deliberately obtuse.  (Seriously: I'm not trying to call you on doing something, because I really can't tell: I'm looking for clarification.  While I've not known you to lose it in a genuine conversation before, I've also not known you to make wild associations, either.  Thus, after that "if INT is important because it's the base of PER then BODY is important because it's the base of STUN stuff above, I am really not certain that you aren't ignoring things on purpose.  Given your history, I'm going to assume you are no, but if I am wrong here, let me know so I can feel better about leaving questions unanswered).

 

Quite simply, I am saying we are dealing with what someone perceives.  We have a mechanic specifically for perception, the PER roll (complete with enhanced perception and other enhanced senses).  It is derived, initially, from another mechanic, INT, which is broader, and which is not the sole determinant of perceptiveness.  So when we are adjudicating whether something is perceived, I believe we most appropriately use the mechanic specific to perception, not dig further back into a stat that influences it.

 

Since 6e eliminated Figured's, my other examples of using "what it was derived from" instead of the more specific mechanic, only apply pre-6e.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Thief has pocketed a scrap of a note from the library that suggests there's a hidden vault in the catacombs beneath the keep.  During the night, Thief separates himself from the part and carefully explores the catacombs.  "The note says right here, in this very passage.  I want to examine this room closely to see if there are any signs of trap doors, hidden rooms, etc.  

 

The vault is hidden behind an Image of a wall in the hall itself leading to a wizard's lab.  The wizard's spell was cast with sufficient result to look real at Thief's INT.  However, Thief has consciously decided to examine this area closely.  Okay, Thief; make a PER roll.  

 

Thief nails the PER roll, and notices some tiny details: while the stones of the entire corridor have aged and grown damp and slightly moldy, there is a doorway-sized section of stone that lacks the  subtle age characteristics of the rest of the wall.  If he glances at it with the torch behind his eyes (not directly, obviously    ), he notices that the light doesn't reflect from this one section, either.  Cautiously, he puts his hand through the wall.....

 

OR Thief does not, on a casual glance, notice the flaws in the image.  However, on careful examination (bonus to PER roll) and taking extra time (further bonus to PER roll), he is able to perceive the subtle inconsistencies.  Exact same results with mechanics focused on perceptiveness rather than INT.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Swordsman wakes, notices thief is missing, and sounds the alarm to the rest of the party. After a quick check confirms that none of their private possessions or the party's treasure from this adventure has gone missing along with thief, Swordsman concludes that Thief has been taken, and organizes a search.  As luck would have it, Swordsman walks down the very corridor with the fake wall. As the results of the wizard's casting were more than sufficient to make swordsman believe the Image, he doesn't give it a second thought: he is looking for Thief, after all, and the beast of villain that made off with him.  As he nears the end of the tunnel, he bashes down a locked door and discovers the wizard's lab, which he quickly searches, finding no sign of Thief.  Having come to the end of this tunnel, he retraces his steps and meets the party at an earlier intersection.  "I've found no sign of Thief, and it appears that none of you have, either.  However, I have found an old but-seemingly-well-stocked wizard's lab of some sort that may be of some value to you, Sorcerer.

 

Like Thief, Swordsman did not notice the flaws in the image on a casual glance.  Now, maybe he is kicking a loose rock down the hall, and it vanishes into that wall section instead of bouncing off (a PER roll of 3 - lucky him).  But  not in our example.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Interested, Sorcerer decides there may be something in the lab that could help them with their search for Thief.  Swordsman leads the way, and soon they near the false wall.  The Image is _not_ sufficient to fool Sorcerer's INT: "Hold, Swordsman!  Have you yet sprung that trap ahead on our right?"

 

"I found naught but a worm-eaten door just beyond our torchlight; I have passed here twice and found not a single danger."

 

"Take great care, then, that you not set off a trap this passing, either.  The wall to your right is an illusion."

 

Sorceror is not looking any more carefully than anyone else, and his eyesight is not great thanks to years of reading crabbed script by candlelight, but miraculously, he can detect subtle flaws that the Thief, constantly aware of his surroundings and looking for traps, has to search intensely for?  That seems like a poor mechanic to me.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Swordsman is now paying full attention to his surroundings, and looking for _anything_; before he was merely interested in those things which might be sized or shaped like Thief or a creature capable of carrying Thief away.  He rolls perception, but, as his INT isn't anything special to begin with, and the only light being that of the torch, fails his roll.  "I see no image, Sorcerer.  Are you certain of what your eyes report?"

 

"Step forward, with care, two paces, and place pressure upon the stones."  Told precisely where to look, Swordsman gets another PER roll, with a bonus.  He takes the torch from Sorcerer and examines that portion of the wall.  The directions from Sorcerer and the improved lighting grant him a +4 to his PER roll.  Sadly, he flubs the roll, coming up eighteen.  "I have our history together that has taught me to trust you, Sorcerer, but I see not what you claim is here."

 

Swordsman steps up two paces, cautiously checking for trip wires, trap doors, concealed seams, the smell of boiling oil, the grinding of moving stones....  he draws his sword and crouches into a ready stance.  Gingerly, he guides the tip of his sword to wall in front of him, selects a spot between two stones, and watches four inches of his sword pass directly through the wall!  This discovery, combined with the other conditions, give him a +7 (which he wouldn't have actually needed if he hadn't flubbed the last two rolls), and like red springing from green in the eyes of a colorblind man (when the red is pointed out), his eyes widen in surprise as suddenly the image snaps to in his mind for what it is: he now sees it quite clearly as an Image, and is startled that he had not noticed it before.  Reading his sword once more, he springs through the false wall, ready to do battle, only to find Thief, unconscious on the floor, victim of a poison dart trap.  Fortunately for him, the poison had degraded somewhat over the years.  Still, he has a lot of explaining to do.

 

Here we align. 

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

My whole point is that while I believe that PER rolls should work, no problem, I do _not_ believe that everyone is on full alert all the time.  There are way to many traffic accidents to support that idea.

 

To me, that is no more supported by using INT than by using PER rolls.  Some are better, some are worse, and anyone can be distracted (poor PER roll) or more attentive (bonuses).  Since only INT counts, our Sorceror is effectively never distracted in your model.  But he could roll a 6 with his base 13- PER roll (18 INT) while our Thief, with 10 INT and +4 Enhanced PER, could fail his roll when the dice come up 16, despite having better odds than Sorceror.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Because that would be his particular schtick.  As you point out below, being immune to images 2/3 of the time is _everyone's_ schtick, which becomes a problem for precisely the other reason you give below:

 

They are likely to spot a crappy image (no PER roll modifiers) 2/3 of the time.  How likely is it that a 2d6 punch will KO a target, or a 2d6 Mind Control will dominate his will?

 

For 15 points, that Image affects sight and sound (not that a wall needed sound).  Let's tack on Smell for 20 in total.  Invest another 15 (35 AP, not an unreasonable low to moderate power spell in a Fantasy game) and we tack on -5 to the PER roll.

 

Now, I could certainly be persuaded that the Images power should grant a penalty to the PER roll out of the gate.  Maybe solid, simple images like that wall should be a base -4, and multiple interacting images should be a base +2 (instead of the RAW 0 and +6).  I would also suggest that this is the modifier when the character interacts with the Image in some way (closely examining the wall; preparing to fight, or flee from, the illusory lion), so noticing the flaws in that wall as we just walk by should be a -3 penalty.  An 8- skill is good enough to earn a living, so needing an 8- PER roll to spot the image on a casual glance is not unreasonable.

 

But then, for that same 35 points, at 1d6 per 5 points, and assuming we paid 25 points for 5d6, +5 for Hearing and +5 for Smell, we average 17 on the roll.  Should that fool pretty much everyone?  7d6 of Mind Control will get a +10 result against characters of 14 or lower EGO.  How does that compare?

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Did Mysterion invest points in his power?  If so, why is it more unreasonable to screw him 98.62 percent of the time and 99.54 percent of the time respectively?

 

Now we are discussing the base power level and the cost of making it better, not the manner in which success or failure should be adjudicated.  We could make the Images work against BOD and have the same mathematical results, but I don't think either of us would consider that appropriate.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Would we even be having this conversation if we decided it was Mental Illusions modified with a "Based on CON" or "Based on INT?"  Why is one more right than the other?

 

We'd certainly be questioning the SFX that make basing the ability on those characteristics appropriate.  Just like I am asserting that being perceptive enough to avoid being fooled by an image should be resolved based on the game's mechanic for perceptiveness, based on the SFX of false images.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

I don't say a damned thing in this case; the dice do. 

 

FALSE - no matter what the dice roll is, when we compare it to SmartAlec's 40 INT and Tracker's 10 INT, it will succeed by 30 more points against SmartAlec than against Tracker.  Assuming every extra 5 points is -1 to the PER roll (just as excess points on a mental power penalizes the EGO roll), Tracker always faces a -6 greater penalty than SmartAlec assuming both are affected.  Your mechanic guarantees this 100%.

 

So, it is your mechanic that causes EVERY illusion Mysterio projects to get +30 points of effect more against Tracker than against SmartAlec.  That also means that, if his images were good enough to momentarily fool SmartAlec, Tracker gets -6 on your PER rolls, so he is down to 15- and SmartAlec remains at 17-. Tracker's much more focused investment in PER alone is less useful in a challenge based solely on what one perceives than Smart Alec's much more broadly useful investment of the same CP.

 

Mysterio in the comics and MCU has been portrayed two ways.  First, Spidey realizing the threat is not real because his SpideySense is quiet.  Second, IIRC, Mysterio  eventually figured out how to dampen the SpideySense (I may be wrong - I'm not a big time Spidey reader). 

 

An image can fool you - momentarily - because you fail the initial PER roll.  Or it may fool those who are less perceptive, but not you, Mr. Super-Senses, because you are so much more perceptive.  Either works for me.  SmartAlec is less affected by false images than Tracker is?  No, that does not work for me.  Tracker's schtick is perceptiveness, so his perceptions should be superior when faced with perceiving that an image is false.

 

[Duke Bushido]

24 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Here we align. 

 

 

 

I am afraid, my friend, that that's all either of us going to get.

 

The whole crux of our disagreement is that one of us believes people are actively paying attention to all their sensory inputs at all times.

 

The other does not.  I have pulled out of too many studies and given a hasty "hunh?" to someone standing next to me talking for a full minute before I was even aware of their presence.  Even at my age, I have better than 20/20 vision, and my peripheral vision is freaky acute with regard to clarity.  My hearing isn't what it used to be, but this isn't a recent phenomenon; I've been doing this my whole life.  I have ridden with too many people who suddenly asked "$@#$#!  Was that light green?!"  Anyone who has ever wanted to see a detail has had to actively look for it, put an active effort into finding it.  You have to focus on it.  

 

While I've never thought Maslow's hierarchy was as completely accurate as he did, there's a simple fact about paying attention:  The first thing you look for is where you're moving / what's moving toward you.  Then you look to see if it passes your definition safe.  Then you check for obstacles.  And at that point, you plot a course and run more or less on autopilot, moving your mind to the next job.  It's not that you have failed a perception roll; it's that your mind has decided "I have perceived enough for my needs here; moving on.  There is something else that pushes you to "look harder;" to go to that effort of a genuine PER roll.   For lack of any other reasonable option in game terms, I use INT.   I could use anything I want; I chose INT.  I can justify it any way I want, but I chose to justify it based on what I see in myself and the humans around me.

 

There is no amount of discussion either way that is going to change my thoughts on this, and I expect no amount of discussion is going to change your, either.  You may likely have been using the PER roll idea even when that wasn't the actual mechanic: truth be told, the reason I don't play later editions is because most of the changes don't feel so much like needed improvements as much as they feel like someone else's house rules.  (Well that, and the uptick of "no" for something that advertises itself focusing on the "you can do anything" pitch.  But that's not for this discussion, clearly.)

 

 

The only question here I think we can resolve is this:

 

Are we going to continue to hash this over and over again, getting nowhere and boring everyone else with our wall-of-text tendencies (the both of us ), or are we going to agree to disagree and let it drop?  It's the same honest offer as before; I just have a hard time not replying back to you because-- well you generally are great for discussing things: never ever seems to be personal, and you never really cross any lines.  The drawback is that it makes _not_ responding to you feel.... well, _rude_, to be honest, and I can't do that in light of the value I place discussing things with you in the first place.

 

 

Anyway, I have no idea what time zone you're in, and I stayed up way too late in the hopes you'd post.  I have _got_ to turn in.

 

 

'night, folks.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Meanwhile I don't think Images would need any changing in a 7th edition but I agree extremely with the idea that light should be in Change Environment, NOT Images.  But there needs to be a really cheap way to make little stuff like that work, as its kind of expensive in the game right now to reverse a -4 PER penalty for darkness.

[Chris Goodwin]

For a 7th edition, I would add something akin to Mutants and Masterminds' Feature.  A minor power defined by the player and GM working together, costing 1-10 points.  Something like a Power equivalent to a Perk.  

[Grailknight]

LIght should be part of Enhanced Senses. Just make it a + PER with Area and the SFX of Light.

[ScottishFox]

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I've always wanted to see something different than DEX alone determines your "initiative."

 

Here's an idea I'll be trying out on Saturday to spice up the initiative order a little while still giving the advantage to high DEX types.

 

Initiative order will be based on by how many points each character makes or fails their DEX roll with ties going to the character with the highest DEX.

 

Static initiative order is a little stale.

[mallet]

29 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Here's an idea I'll be trying out on Saturday to spice up the initiative order a little while still giving the advantage to high DEX types.

 

Initiative order will be based on by how many points each character makes or fails their DEX roll with ties going to the character with the highest DEX.

 

Static initiative order is a little stale.

 

In the Fantasy Game I run I have a house rule where each point of BODY damage a character has reduces their "Initiative" by 1. So a DEX 17 character with 4 points of BODY damage has a 13 for his/her Initiative order. 

I like to have it that damage to characters (pc and npc) have some effect on how well they are physically able to do stuff. 

 

Going a bit further, I also have that every 2 points of BODY damage reduces all Characteristic and Skill rolls by -1. Because if you have a  a major injury it'll obviously be distracting and painful to be performing other actions or concentrating on using skills. The Resistance talent can help negate these characteristic and skills penalties, but not the Initiative ones. If they have the time, out of combat, they can take an extra phase (to focus past the pain) and make an EGO roll. Every point they make their roll by, takes off 1 pt of the penalty. 

 

I've been tempted to come up with a similar rule that also effects their combat rolls, but haven't tested or implemented them yet. But my thinking was it would be the same as the skills roll one, but that might be a bit harsh, so maybe for every 3 BODY damage they get -1 to OCV and DCV. And again, I think I would allow Resistance to help negate some of the effect. 

[Duke Bushido]

"Let there be Light!" 

Illuminate 1 full hex: remove from the illuminated area all Per penalties related to darkness (lowercase 'd').  Adjust illuminated area as per Area of Effect rules.  Shadows remain, based on placement of light source.   Add "Indirect" to remove shadows. (with GM permission).

 

Cost for base 1 hex up for debate between player and GM.

 

Personally, I can't charge more than a point for a flashlight, so I'd have to reverse engineer a cost from OAFs resulting in a cost of 1.

 

[Duke Bushido]

32 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Here's an idea I'll be trying out on Saturday to spice up the initiative order a little while still giving the advantage to high DEX types.

 

Initiative order will be based on by how many points each character makes or fails their DEX roll with ties going to the character with the highest DEX.

 

Static initiative order is a little stale.

 

 

Now that seems interesting!  Sure, it adds another roll to combat, but I'd really like to know how that works out for you. 

[ScottishFox]

7 minutes ago, mallet said:

 

In the Fantasy Game I run I have a house rule where each point of BODY damage a character has reduces their "Initiative" by 1. So a DEX 17 character with 4 points of BODY damage has a 13 for his/her Initiative order. 

I like to have it that damage to characters (pc and npc) have some effect on how well they are physically able to do stuff. 

 

Going a bit further, I also have that every 2 points of BODY damage reduces all Characteristic and Skill rolls by -1. Because if you have a  a major injury it'll obviously be distracting and painful to be performing other actions or concentrating on using skills. The Resistance talent can help negate these characteristic and skills penalties, but not the Initiative ones. If they have the time, out of combat, they can take an extra phase (to focus past the pain) and make an EGO roll. Every point they make their roll by, takes off 1 pt of the penalty. 

 

I've been tempted to come up with a similar rule that also effects their combat rolls, but haven't tested or implemented them yet. But my thinking was it would be the same as the skills roll one, but that might be a bit harsh, so maybe for every 3 BODY damage they get -1 to OCV and DCV. And again, I think I would allow Resistance to help negate some of the effect. 

 

I also like grittier Heroic campaigns where you can't be at 25% of your maximum BOD score and be 100% functional.

 

I haven't implemented bleeding rules (I used to use those), but I have added wounding rules where a wound of 3+ BOD (before location adjustments) to a limb impacts your characteristics.

Arm wounds reduce OCV if they used to attack with and leg wounds reduce DCV and movement speed.

[mallet]

7 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I also like grittier Heroic campaigns where you can't be at 25% of your maximum BOD score and be 100% functional.

 

I haven't implemented bleeding rules (I used to use those), but I have added wounding rules where a wound of 3+ BOD (before location adjustments) to a limb impacts your characteristics.

Arm wounds reduce OCV if they used to attack with and leg wounds reduce DCV and movement speed.

 

I also used to use Bleeding and Injury rules, but actually found them a bit too harsh. Also we ended up dropping hit locations (I know, crazy, right, But it worked) because it slowed things down and also could be very deadly. 

For the style of game my table likes, we want it to be cinematic and fast moving, but still have some grit. The house rules I listed above give us that. Damage effects the character but in an abstract way, so we don't need to get down to which area was hit, if it took enough damage to be injured or severed, if they keep bleeding out, etc... 

We like it to be just base BODY and then how injured you are starts to reduce how good you can function. It works for us, but it might not be for everyone. We had a new player to our table that had been playing Fantasy Hero in another city before moving to our city, and he thought it was crazy at first, but he eventually came around to it and really likes it now.