Total Darkness Sight

[SpydirShellX]

I'm trying to create an ability to see into total darkness. In other words, it will work on Darkness powers defined as creating pitch black. It would not function against smoke. However except for being able to see in pitch black, it functions as a normal sight group.
It is caused by a device that emites a special light that only the wearer can see reflected (or people with special equipment).

My first thought was to define it as part of the unusual sense group and then give it Restrainable(By flashes or darkness without SFX of darkness) (-1/4). However, this seems problematical because it is aready a focus.

My second idea is to buy a vision group power, identical to normal vision with active added on. (I don't add active to normal vision since that would mean other characters could see the light from it) This would first require me to rule as a GM that the SFX of active would work against the SFX of total darkness.

I don't really like either of the two solutions. On requires me to put both restrainable and a focus limitation on the object, and the other to make a GM ruling on SFX. Any suggestions?

[Robyn]

I'm trying to create an ability to see into total darkness. In other words, it will work on Darkness powers defined as creating pitch black.

Sounds like a Dispel/Suppress, only for yourself, only against Darkness powers with the SFX of creating pitch black, Linked to your nightvision.

I want, logically, to simply put Armor-Piercing on the nightvision and call it a day, but my reading of the rules tells me that it doesn't work that way.

[Bloodstone]

Sounds like a Detect built to model sight (Targeting, Descrim, Range and so forth), only defined as an Unusual sense group instead of the Sight Group.

[schir1964]

Sounds like a Detect built to model sight (Targeting, Descrim, Range and so forth), only defined as an Unusual sense group instead of the Sight Group.
Ditto, with the addition of perhaps "Simulated Sense".

- Christopher Mullins

[pinecone]

Not sure but on first blush I might say spend 3 points for see "Bogus particles"..... same as Ultra or Infra vision the OIF it...cost 2 points the lims on what and how you use it are SFX of "Bogus particles"

[Sean Waters]

Wel I've thought about this and there are issues.

First off seeing in darkenss is done in-system by Nightvision: +4PER against darkness modifiers. For some reason (well, game balance) that doesn't work in total darkness created by a power. Pah.

You can build a 10 point detect (see stuff in darkenss) and make is (as already suggested) a simulated sense. Same problem occurs: a sense shouldn't really, from a mechanics POV overcome another power like darkness, although you can (from an SFX POV) give that one an argument.

The problem is that darkness (the power) uses a sense group, so 'seeing in darkness' doesn't overcome darkness if the group it affects is sight and you've used simulated sense.

OK, so you can build sight without the simulated sense, calling it an unusual sense group, and that will cost you:

10 point detect (physical objects)
10 targetting
2 Sense
5 range
5 discriminatory

(32 points)

The sense is blocked by light and physical objects, just as normal sight is blocked by darkness and physical objects.

To be honest that is the fairest way to do it without muullarkey about adjustment powers, which is just going to be hard to manage.

[schir1964]

To be honest that is the fairest way to do it without mallarky about adjustment powers, which is just going to be hard to manage.
Ditto. I hadn't checked the simulated sense rules and that's why I said "perhaps".

- Christopher Mullins

[SpydirShellX]

OK, so you can build sight without the simulated sense, calling it an unusual sense group, and that will cost you:

10 point detect (physical objects)
10 targetting
2 Sense
5 range
5 discriminatory

(32 points)


OK, that's sorta what I've been thinking, but how do I represent that the sense is still affected by flashes and some SFX of darkness? My idea of restrainable at the (-1/4) level (not against entangles or grabs) to represent that it it can be stopped by some SFX of darkness and flashes doesn't work with the fact the the device is a focus.

[schir1964]

OK, that's sorta what I've been thinking, but how do I represent that the sense is still affected by flashes and some SFX of darkness? My idea of restrainable at the (-1/4) level (not against entangles or grabs) to represent that it it can be stopped by some SFX of darkness and flashes doesn't work with the fact the the device is a focus.
Most GMs would let matching SFX powers interact accordingly (no modifier needed), but I think there is a limitation that allows you define "additional" things that the sense can be affected by outside of matching SFX. My book isn't handy.

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

OK, that's sorta what I've been thinking, but how do I represent that the sense is still affected by flashes and some SFX of darkness? My idea of restrainable at the (-1/4) level (not against entangles or grabs) to represent that it it can be stopped by some SFX of darkness and flashes doesn't work with the fact the the device is a focus.
I wouldn't call it "Restrainable" at all. Yes, it's the Unusual Sense group (targeting, ranged, active, etc.), but just give it a limitation "Not through dense smoke or similar particulate matter," say -1/4, maybe even -1/2 since smoke is a very common SFX for Darkness. Would there be some other SFX of Darkness/Flash that would also stop the sense? There's also the "Affected as additional sense" limitation (I may not have the name right). That way, it can still be affected by Flashes of normal sight.

[Sean Waters]

OK, that's sorta what I've been thinking, but how do I represent that the sense is still affected by flashes and some SFX of darkness? My idea of restrainable at the (-1/4) level (not against entangles or grabs) to represent that it it can be stopped by some SFX of darkness and flashes doesn't work with the fact the the device is a focus.

This build is how I'd create sight. You can define it how you like. If you were building sight then it would perceive light between certain frequencies.

If you want to see in the dark, then just make stuff up. Claim that the universe is permeated by darkons, a sort of anti-photon and that you can see them.

I mean normal sight doesn't take a limtiation because you can not see through smoke or because someone can poke you in the eye and blind you.

DarkSight is exactly the same: you are defining what it can and can't see through. I mean you can't see in darkness because there is no light. You can't see in smoke, even if there is light, because there is something in your way - solid matter int he form of particulate carbon in aerial suspension.

Now I can see the argument for applying a limtiation because, although it is an unusual sense group, some things that have an effect on the sight group will also effect it (a poke in the eye, smoke sfx darkness to sight) so that is basically what Phil said.

Thanks Phil :)

[Hoovdog]

Wel I've thought about this and there are issues.

First off seeing in darkenss is done in-system by Nightvision: +4PER against darkness modifiers. For some reason (well, game balance) that doesn't work in total darkness created by a power. Pah.

You can build a 10 point detect (see stuff in darkenss) and make is (as already suggested) a simulated sense. Same problem occurs: a sense shouldn't really, from a mechanics POV overcome another power like darkness, although you can (from an SFX POV) give that one an argument.

The problem is that darkness (the power) uses a sense group, so 'seeing in darkness' doesn't overcome darkness if the group it affects is sight and you've used simulated sense.

OK, so you can build sight without the simulated sense, calling it an unusual sense group, and that will cost you:

10 point detect (physical objects)
10 targetting
2 Sense
5 range
5 discriminatory

(32 points)

The sense is blocked by light and physical objects, just as normal sight is blocked by darkness and physical objects.

To be honest that is the fairest way to do it without muullarkey about adjustment powers, which is just going to be hard to manage.

It seems to me that this is just the inverse of normal sight. Therefore it should cost the same as sight as if your charecter had to buy the sight for himself it would just work in darkness rather then light. The best place to look to find out if this theory works is to look at disadvantage blindness. its a 25 point disadvantage. Which implies (in my opinion) that if one was to build sight it would cost them 25 points. Some quick calculator work tell me that there is a -1/4 limitation built in. That bring the cost of the darkness seeing power down to 24 which seems more in the ball park besides the fact that how offten is there going to be pitch darkness? If thats the case the ability should be worth less then sight would if you built it on your own. I may be wrong but thats just how i think it should work.

[Chessack]

OK, so you can build sight without the simulated sense, calling it an unusual sense group, and that will cost you:

10 point detect (physical objects)
10 targetting
2 Sense
5 range
5 discriminatory

(32 points)

The sense is blocked by light and physical objects, just as normal sight is blocked by darkness and physical objects.

To be honest that is the fairest way to do it without muullarkey about adjustment powers, which is just going to be hard to manage.

Yup.

This is how we do "Classic N-Ray Vision" in my campaign (i.e., old-school N-ray, which was an unusual sense, not a sight sense). I give players the option of buying it the "5th edition way", and making it a sight sense, but then it gets blocked by anything that blocks Sight senses... Or buying it for 32 pts and keeping it "Unusual", and then it is only blocked by something that for +5 points "blocks N-Ray." And since N-Ray has to define one thing that it can't see through, you're all set with the blockage business.

C

[Sean Waters]

It seems to me that this is just the inverse of normal sight. Therefore it should cost the same as sight as if your charecter had to buy the sight for himself it would just work in darkness rather then light. The best place to look to find out if this theory works is to look at disadvantage blindness. its a 25 point disadvantage. Which implies (in my opinion) that if one was to build sight it would cost them 25 points. Some quick calculator work tell me that there is a -1/4 limitation built in. That bring the cost of the darkness seeing power down to 24 which seems more in the ball park besides the fact that how offten is there going to be pitch darkness? If thats the case the ability should be worth less then sight would if you built it on your own. I may be wrong but thats just how i think it should work.

Well, actually...normal sight is not built with discriminatory (although it clearly should be), so the actual cost should be 27 points and they just seem to have forgotten to add in 'sense' too. I think that they tell you it is a 25 point disadvantage because they don't like disadvantages that don't end in a 5 or a 0 if they can help it.

[Dust Raven]

I'm going out on a limb here, but how about this:

Buy a Naked Advantage Personal Immunity for Darkness. Granted, this might seem pointless if you don't actually have Darkness, and might even seem like cheating if you intend to use it against everyone else's Darkness, but it will work. It doesn't work versus everyone's Darkness, just those Darkness Powers with "total darkness" as the SFX. The range of the effect is based on the Active Points the IP is good for. For example, if the character buys PI for 30 Active Points of Darkness, he can see through 3" of Darkness with the "total darkness" SFX. If the Darkness has a +1/2 Advantage, he can only see through 2" of that Darkness. The further he can see, the more he pays for the Naked Advantage.

It might not be book legal, but it's a place to start for assigning a point cost to a 'fair' method of ignoring a Power based on SFX.

[Brainstorm]

Normal Sight gets free modifiers for being in the Sight Group. However, it is pretty common with 5ER's Darkness to buy it against the Sight Group. Thus it makes sense to build something more expensive than Sight in exchange for being able to work with the Unusual Sense Group (a.k.a. the "not really a group" Group.) Basically, someone would have to specifically build their Darkness to inhibit your Sense in order for it to be effective. If the idea that this could also pierce smoke, fog, et al. is problematic (and considering the modest intention of this Power in the first place,) I think a fair GM would offer a decent value to the "only in darkness" Limitation (which would still make the Power good for night vision) or a high value for an "only in darkness-based Darkness" Limitation (which would make it nothing more than an antidote to a single form of Darkness Power.)

However, I chimed in on this thread in part because I had a funny thought when I first read the original post. Would it be possible to make Images with Invisible Power Effects? The idea would be to implement Images as a light source, then add that advantage so that others could not see the light. I'm inclined to rule that even if the light source is invisible, the area illuminated would be illuminated to all onlookers -- not just the individual exercising this Power. Also, Images have END cost and most likely are not going to be a cheaper build than a special Sense. Still, I was curious if there were any arguments for Invisible Power Effects Images that created illumination exclusively useful to the individual who deploys the Images.

Regards,
Brainstorm

[Sean Waters]

I'm going out on a limb here, but how about this:

Buy a Naked Advantage Personal Immunity for Darkness. Granted, this might seem pointless if you don't actually have Darkness, and might even seem like cheating if you intend to use it against everyone else's Darkness, but it will work. It doesn't work versus everyone's Darkness, just those Darkness Powers with "total darkness" as the SFX. The range of the effect is based on the Active Points the IP is good for. For example, if the character buys PI for 30 Active Points of Darkness, he can see through 3" of Darkness with the "total darkness" SFX. If the Darkness has a +1/2 Advantage, he can only see through 2" of that Darkness. The further he can see, the more he pays for the Naked Advantage.

It might not be book legal, but it's a place to start for assigning a point cost to a 'fair' method of ignoring a Power based on SFX.


Well something similar came up recently:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47495 and
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49556

Part of the objection was that personal immunity would not apply to YOU it would apply it to the power and to the person wielding it, on whom the power would have to be targetted. I suppose technically it should be possible built with UAA, range and so on, but then it gets expensive, especially as darkness is not that commona power. Also it would not really apply to 'natural' darkness, although I suppose you could give that a nominal value, see below :).

The problem with this approach is also this: two idential darkness powers with identical sfx only the second is of a much larger raduis: a personal immunity can only apply to the points it is bought for, so it would mean that you can see in a small area of total darkness, but not in a big one, even if you are standing near the edge.

Still, it is a creative approach :thumbup:

[Sean Waters]

Normal Sight gets free modifiers for being in the Sight Group. However, it is pretty common with 5ER's Darkness to buy it against the Sight Group. Thus it makes sense to build something more expensive than Sight in exchange for being able to work with the Unusual Sense Group (a.k.a. the "not really a group" Group.) Basically, someone would have to specifically build their Darkness to inhibit your Sense in order for it to be effective. If the idea that this could also pierce smoke, fog, et al. is problematic (and considering the modest intention of this Power in the first place,) I think a fair GM would offer a decent value to the "only in darkness" Limitation (which would still make the Power good for night vision) or a high value for an "only in darkness-based Darkness" Limitation (which would make it nothing more than an antidote to a single form of Darkness Power.)

However, I chimed in on this thread in part because I had a funny thought when I first read the original post. Would it be possible to make Images with Invisible Power Effects? The idea would be to implement Images as a light source, then add that advantage so that others could not see the light. I'm inclined to rule that even if the light source is invisible, the area illuminated would be illuminated to all onlookers -- not just the individual exercising this Power. Also, Images have END cost and most likely are not going to be a cheaper build than a special Sense. Still, I was curious if there were any arguments for Invisible Power Effects Images that created illumination exclusively useful to the individual who deploys the Images.

Regards,
Brainstorm

An interesting approach, and I was thinking of something a little similar, but the problem is that images do not overcome darkness (the power), even if not IPE. I can see no problem witht he 'personal illunimation' in theory, but it might be hard to explain in practice.

My twist on it was a supression field against darkness, IPE (so, in effect, the darkness is only supressed for you). This has some of the problems attached that I mentioned in replying to Dust Raven, specifically that it is harder to see in a large area of darkness than a small one, and also it would be harder to see ina field that supressed sight AND hearing than one that just supressed sight - which makes no sense.

For the cost, I think the unusual group enhanced sense is the way to go.

[Hoovdog]

Well, actually...normal sight is not built with discriminatory (although it clearly should be), so the actual cost should be 27 points and they just seem to have forgotten to add in 'sense' too. I think that they tell you it is a 25 point disadvantage because they don't like disadvantages that don't end in a 5 or a 0 if they can help it.


At least that clears up that question.

[TaxiMan]

Why isn't there a DEF vs. the unusual attack "Darkness"? Defenses are supposed to be cheaper than the attack.

Since Darkness doesn't have Xd6, how about saying Darkness DEF works against Darkness that has an AP < 1.25 * <points spent on Darkness DEF>? Or figure some other reasonable cost.

[Robyn]

Why isn't there a DEF vs. the unusual attack "Darkness"?

Because that would violate the meta-rule that there are no absolutes in HERO.

HERO doesn't handle absolutes very well. Just remember to always apply that rule, and you can never go wrong.

"But . . . "

Never go wrong ;)


Defenses are supposed to be cheaper than the attack.

If that were always true, then it would be cheaper to buy powers that prevented everyone else from doing anything than it would be to buy powers for doing things oneself, and noone would ever get anything done :p

[TaxiMan]

OK, I'll buy that defenses aren't supposed to be absolute. I tried side-stepping that by proposing Darkness DEF based on AP in Darkness, but knew that was pretty lame.

However, re: DEF is supposed to be cheaper than Attacks, this:


If that were always true, then it would be cheaper to buy powers that prevented everyone else from doing anything than it would be to buy powers for doing things oneself, and noone would ever get anything done :p

threw me. I don't understand what the words mean. I can read each one on its own, but when strung together - ?? Are we talking about buying PD, AOE or something? Color me lost.

[Sean Waters]

It has long been canon in Hero that defences are cheaper than attacks, so, theoretically, if you spend the same on an attack and the defence for it you should be invulenrable, or thereabouts to the attack: 60 points spent on EB (fire blast) will get you a 12d6 attack that will never get through the 60 ed you could buy for the same price.

Where Robyn's otherwise excellent argument shows a chink or two is the point that there are enough different attack types that you will never buy them all, or be able to afford to, and so you will never, by the same token, be able to afford to buy all the defences.

Even then there are exceptions: let me intorduce you to the killing attack: for the 60 points you spend on a 4d6 RKA you can buy 40 points of energy armour: that will not be enough to guarantee you immunity to the attack, not by a long chalk.

Anyway, the point is that if defences were genuinely that much cheaper than atatcks you could buy an invulnerable* character, and you can't.



*Sorry, Lucius.

[TaxiMan]

Ah, I understand. My point was that Darkness is sorta an attack and should have some cheap defense. I suppose some weird sense fits that bill in a way.

[Robyn]

OK, I'll buy that defenses aren't supposed to be absolute. I tried side-stepping that by proposing Darkness DEF based on AP in Darkness, but knew that was pretty lame.

I had the same thought. (See post #2 on this thread.)


Where Robyn's otherwise excellent argument shows a chink or two is the point that there are enough different attack types that you will never buy them all, or be able to afford to, and so you will never, by the same token, be able to afford to buy all the defences.

You can, on the other hand, buy Suppress/Dispel of some sort. Since defenses capable of blocking the maximum effect an attack can have will always be cheaper than the attack, those saved points can be used on a literally "stop" power.