Focus on visibility

[Sean Waters]

Here's one for you:

If a focus is obvious, does that mean that it is automatically visible, as part of the 'focus' limitation or is it OK to take the 'visible' limitation too (obviously it has to BE visible, it is a question though of how you get there):

Example:

Body armour 8pd/8ed Armour OIF (16 points)

or

Body armour 8pd/8ed Armour OIF and visible (14 points)

Now on the face of it the second one is just taking the michael, but the limitation for focus is the same for powers that are 'naturally' visible - presumably if you built personal protection with 8pd/8ed of 0 END force field, and focus does make the power automatically visible (and was thus less limiting for force field) it would be worth less as a limitation?

Whatcha think?

[prestidigitator]

I think a normally invisible Power with an Obvious Focus is visible to some extent, but may not have to be as fully visible as a normal Power. For example, it may not have to be fully visible and obvious to three Sense Groups, may be concealed (probably with difficulty) under clothing or whatever, etc. If the Power's use becomes known, or the Focus is seen, the nature of the Focus should probably become obvious.

For example, it might be possibly to hide chainmail under heavy, bulky clothing. If heavy exertion causes the chain to rattle, movement causes some of the mail to become exposed, or someone grabbing you feels the rough and resistant mail underneath your clothing, it is going to become obvious that you have armor on. That is an example that is more appropriate for heroic play, but you can probably extrapolate to examples that are supers-appropriate.

[ghost-angel]

For an Obvious Focus it is apparent the Focus is the source. On that alone I would say no.

But... It just has to be apparent the Focus is the Source of the Power. OIF: ring of armor. When active the Ring glows brightly showing it is active and a Power is being used. Armor is not readily visible so it may not be apparent that Armor is the Power being used.

If you add Visible then it would not only be obvious what the Power is (say, a magical energy suit of armor) but where it comes from (the Ring).

So ... built logically like that then yes, I would say an OIF can take Visible.

[Manic Typist]

But what about things that are tied to or affectd by invisibility?

Say an amulet that removes the fringe on Invisibility to normal sight?

Or a teleportation ring that you use while invisible to normal sight?

[ghost-angel]

They would, by definition, have to be Inobvious Focii since those show no indication of visiblity of use by default.

[Dust Raven]

I would say an Obvious Focus is by definition Visible and cannot take the extra Limitation. If you want the Power to be Visible but not be takawayable, you take the Visible Limitation; if you want the power to be takawayable but not Visible, you an Inobvious Focus (IIF or IAF). If you want it to be both, you take an Obvious
Focus (OIF or OAF)

[Manic Typist]

They would, by definition, have to be Inobvious Focii since those show no indication of visiblity of use by default.


Ok, but let's say the ring normally glowed etc when being used. Would this still be visible when my character was invisible........ because that would sort of defeat the point.

I guess inobvious is my best bet.

[ghost-angel]

Ok, but let's say the ring normally glowed etc when being used. Would this still be visible when my character was invisible........ because that would sort of defeat the point.

I guess inobvious is my best bet.
If you use an Obvious Focus then the Focus is Obvious when in use - so yes it would glow when you're invisible.

[ghost-angel]

I would say an Obvious Focus is by definition Visible and cannot take the extra Limitation. If you want the Power to be Visible but not be takawayable, you take the Visible Limitation; if you want the power to be takawayable but not Visible, you an Inobvious Focus (IIF or IAF). If you want it to be both, you take an Obvious
Focus (OIF or OAF)
All the wording on Focus says is that the "Focus is visibly the source" it does not convey anything about the Power itself, just that a Power is Obviously coming from the Focus.

[prestidigitator]

Ok, but let's say the ring normally glowed etc when being used. Would this still be visible when my character was invisible........ because that would sort of defeat the point.
I think that's wonky. No. At best it might reveal that there is something in the area by creating some diffuse light and generating a noise or something (perhaps giving a bonus to the use of Hearing as a Non-Targetting Sense to combat the character). Now, at the moment of activation (and maybe deactivation) the ring might glow brightly, showing others how it is the character becomes Invisibile. To offset the fact that it is not visible when in use, it may also be very reasonable for the GM to require that the ring give away its nature to some degree when it is not in use (it might glow slightly, fade in and out of visibility on the character's finger, etc.). Nullifying the benefits of Invisibility because the character takes an Obvious Focus is silly, as is disallowing an Obivous Focus for Invisibility.

[Erkenfresh]

Yeah, but invisibility specifically states that if an obvious focus is it's source, the focus remains visible. This is stated on page 193 of FRED. If invis did cover the obvious focus, you're getting a limitation that isn't much of a limitation. Yes, the focus could still be taken away but if that's what you want use a IAF or IIF.

[prestidigitator]

Yeah, but invisibility specifically states that if an obvious focus is it's source, the focus remains visible. This is stated on page 193 of FRED. If invis did cover the obvious focus, you're getting a limitation that isn't much of a limitation. Yes, the focus could still be taken away but if that's what you want use a IAF or IIF.
Ah. Does it? I'd forgotten that. Anyway, consider it thrown out in my house rules. What would be the point of such Invisibility? :rolleyes: As I expressed earlier, I think there are ways to make it worth the value of the Limitation. It just takes some creative GMing.

EDIT: How much does making the Focus Obvious really detract from the value of an HKA? How often does that in fact hamper the character, particularly if it is an Inobvious Focus, so it is both behind the character's defenses and you can't easily Disarm/Grab it?

[Erkenfresh]

What would be the point of such Invisibility? :rolleyes:

You should ask instead "what would be the point of using an obvious focus limitation on invisibility?" For a munchkin, there would be no point, but I think it can provide interesting role-playing situations. You'd simply see this ring floating by instead of the whole person. It also forces the wearer to be more cautious, keeping the focus out of plain sight until everyone's not looking, THEN cross the corridor.

[Sean Waters]

Yeah, but invisibility specifically states that if an obvious focus is it's source, the focus remains visible. This is stated on page 193 of FRED. If invis did cover the obvious focus, you're getting a limitation that isn't much of a limitation. Yes, the focus could still be taken away but if that's what you want use a IAF or IIF.


....which is a bit weird if you consider that invisibility makes powers that are normally visible invisible (unless being used to attack), for example your glowy force field can't be seen once you turn your invisibility on, even if your glowy force field is the product of a power placed in a OAF....

[schir1964]

....which is a bit weird if you consider that invisibility makes powers that are normally visible invisible (unless being used to attack), for example your glowy force field can't be seen once you turn your invisibility on, even if your glowy force field is the product of a power placed in a OAF....
Curious...

Could you quote this rule and give the reference of its location?

I've always thought that if you are using a visible power (costs endurance), that the SFX do not become hidden if you turn on Invisilibility, thus requiring Invisible Power Effects at some level.

Hmmmm.....

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

....which is a bit weird if you consider that invisibility makes powers that are normally visible invisible (unless being used to attack), for example your glowy force field can't be seen once you turn your invisibility on, even if your glowy force field is the product of a power placed in a OAF....
Exactly! Why shouldn't that apply to Invisibility itself?

[Sean Waters]

Curious...

Could you quote this rule and give the reference of its location?

I've always thought that if you are using a visible power (costs endurance), that the SFX do not become hidden if you turn on Invisilibility, thus requiring Invisible Power Effects at some level.

Hmmmm.....

- Christopher Mullins


The rules are not desperately helpful, but 5ER 192-193 covers this. On the one hand invisibility shouldn't make normally visible stuff invisibly, on the other hand it does. Force field is a specific example of when it might.

Whilst I'm all for GM discretion, I do wish the system would stick to its guns a little more sometimes.

[schir1964]

Exactly! Why shouldn't that apply to Invisibility itself?
I think that Invisibility has the Invisible Power Effects advantage built into its base cost. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Vanguard00]

Curious...

Could you quote this rule and give the reference of its location?

I've always thought that if you are using a visible power (costs endurance), that the SFX do not become hidden if you turn on Invisilibility, thus requiring Invisible Power Effects at some level.

Hmmmm.....

- Christopher Mullins
5ER 192:

Invisibility is a partial exception to the general rule that Powers that cost Endurance must be perceivable by three Sense Groups (see page 102). By definition, Invisibility cannot be perceived by any Sense(s) it affects, and thus doesn't have to meet the "perceivable by three Sense Groups" rule if it affects so many Sense(s) there aren't a total of three left--it only has to be perceived by Sense Groups it doesn't cover.

Later on the same page, however, it goes on to say:

But remember, being Invisible should not mean that a character gains access to a lot of Invisible Power Effects Advantages for free.
Paraphrasing now:
Invisibility covers Body-Affecting powers (stretching, growth, etc) except in GM-approved exceptions (such as Duplicates not being invisible). Invisibility doesn't necessarily cover movement powers, depending on special effects. Invisibility should cover power that are closely connected or related to the character's body, such as some uses of Force Field (emphasis mine).

It's essentially up to the GM what constitutes a fair measure of effectiveness for points spent, as opposed to a lot of freebies.

[schir1964]

The rules are not desperately helpful, but 5ER 192-193 covers this. On the one hand invisibility shouldn't make normally visible stuff invisibly, on the other hand it does. Force field is a specific example of when it might.

Whilst I'm all for GM discretion, I do wish the system would stick to its guns a little more sometimes.
Well, from a consistency point of view... (8^D)

Force Field isn't an exception. It requires some level Invisible Power Effects.

Now for the Focus part of this equation...

One of the things that the Focus limitation does, is grant an advantage of turning an Endurance Costing power into a power that Costs No Endurance.

So it would be conceivable to think that one could treat a Focus power like the Armor power. Turning on Invisibility would affect both the same.

Now what if the Focus Limitation were put on Invisiblity power itself...
Since Invisiblity has the Invisible Power Effects built into it, I could easily see the Focus itself carrying that ability over, since again, the Focus Limitation grants an advantage to any Endurance Costing power.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Now for the Focus part of this equation...

One of the things that the Focus limitation does, is grant an advantage of turning an Endurance Costing power into a power that Costs No Endurance.

- Christopher Mullins


Er...no it doesn't.

And focusses granting invisibility specifically are not covered by the invisiblity they grant, if they are obvious. Freaky, huh?

[schir1964]

Er...no it doesn't.

And focusses granting invisibility specifically are not covered by the invisiblity they grant, if they are obvious. Freaky, huh?
Doh!! I was thinking of Charges... (8^D)

So scratch what I said. I'll have to think more on this.

- Christopher Mullins

[Manic Typist]

Ok, now what about using a focus for a different power while invisible?

I can see my Amulet of Enhanced Invisibility glowing before I (along with my amulet) disappear, because, that makes the most sense to me. I shouldn't have to build the item to become invisible to, especially considering all that it does in this case is remove the fringe.

What if I activate my Ring of Teleportation WHILE I'm invisible?

For that matter, what if I wear Bracers of Strength under a long sleeved shirt?

These are OAF, that can, under certain circumstances, be IAF etc. What do you guys think about this?

[Dust Raven]

Ok, now what about using a focus for a different power while invisible?

I can see my Amulet of Enhanced Invisibility glowing before I (along with my amulet) disappear, because, that makes the most sense to me. I shouldn't have to build the item to become invisible to, especially considering all that it does in this case is remove the fringe.
I don't think a bright flash would really count as being visible. It's just part of the SFX of turning the Power on. As far as I'm concerned, if you see anyone using a Focus to turn Invisible, they should be allowed a PER roll to spot the use of the Focus.


What if I activate my Ring of Teleportation WHILE I'm invisible?
Depends on the SFX of the Teleportation and the nature of the Focus. The default is that whatever SFX of the teleport is is still completely visible (and should involve the Focus in some way). Might take someone knowledgable of magical rings or teleportation deviced to recognize the specific focus though, especially since it would only be seen for an instant.


For that matter, what if I wear Bracers of Strength under a long sleeved shirt?

These are OAF, that can, under certain circumstances, be IAF etc. What do you guys think about this?

I think it really depends on how the Focus is used in game. If the player deliberately and constantly conceals his foci, he should buy them as Inobvious, because that's the effect he's looking for. In fact, there's even a built in rule for Inobvious Foci for spotting them with a PER Roll, even though they are Inobvious (which means, they are just that, inobvious, not invisible). Anyone who looks will find the bracer hidden under the sleves.

The other way to handle it is for the GM to simply say that the item can't be effectively hidden while in use. So you hide a gun in a brief case, but it sounds really loud and has a rather distinctive muzzle flash when used, so it's still fairly obvious (enough to be an Obvious Focus despite it's innocuous appearance when not in use). The same can be done with the bracers. Either they are so bulky as to not fit under sleaves, or their use requires them to be worn on top of other clothing, or the bracers otherwise make themselves obvious when in use.

[prestidigitator]

I'm curious what people think about (non-Attack) Powers that are Linked to Invisibility (e.g. if this were applied to the Teleport mentioned above). Normally I wouldn't provide benefits due to the presence of a Limitation, but here where it might really be a judgement call in any case and the power is specifically designed to work with Invisibility....

Anyway, just curious about your thoughts. Would you require some IPE in this case? Would it really depend on SFX? What? I'm not entirely sure what my answer would be. :think:

[ghost-angel]

I think I would require IPE.. one of my characters is based on Invisiblity and has a womping high Naked Advantage so they can use various powers and equipment while invisible (as well as attack).