Incantation Blocker

[Steve]

This is a bit of whimsy I came up with after reading through the thread on using Change Environment (Suffocation) to block abilities with the Incantations limitation.

 

The spell blocks Incantations from working but the spellcaster and those nearby don't notice anything wrong (the Invisible Power Effects Advantage).

 

Incantation Blocker:  Darkness to Hearing Group 1m radius, Persistent (+1/4), Mobile (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Difficult To Dispel (x4 Active Points; +1/2), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible, effects of Power are Invisible to both target and other characters; +2) (14 Active Points); Time Limit (1 Minute; -2). Real Cost: 5 points.

 

I'm not sure if I have it written up right. The intent is to drop it on a target and have the spell move with them until it fades from Time Limit.

[eepjr24]

I think you wrote it up correctly. As a GM I would probably make you specify some defense that was reasonably inexpensive. I am not sure that "the caster and those nearby don't notice anything wrong" would be correct. They would think he was incanting correctly, but that perhaps something else was interfering with the spell. It would not create illusionnary fireballs if he cast a fireball spell, for instance. Nor would the caster think he was understanding Troll speech if he cast a Universal Translator spell. He would just not know that a hearing darkness was the reason.

 

- E

[Steve]

I haven't used this advantage before, but would Mobile lock it on to its target and move the effect with them? I'm wondering if I need something like Uncontrolled on it.

[Greywind]

[eepjr24]

I haven't used this advantage before, but would Mobile lock it on to its target and move the effect with them? I'm wondering if I need something like Uncontrolled on it.

There are two options for Mobile, one of them allows you to move it independently (12m per phase), the other is to attach it to something that it moves with. Uncontrolled is not needed.

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

Again, its odd to me that making an area quiet should necessarily shut off incantations.  Just because you're making no noise doesn't mean you aren't incanting, it seems to me.  The GM would be the one to decide, but it strikes me that stopping someone from incantations would be more like a gag or an entangle on the target's mouth.

[eepjr24]

Again, its odd to me that making an area quiet should necessarily shut off incantations.  Just because you're making no noise doesn't mean you aren't incanting, it seems to me.  The GM would be the one to decide, but it strikes me that stopping someone from incantations would be more like a gag or an entangle on the target's mouth.

As odd as it may seem, it is RAW. A GM can make or change whatever rules they like.

 

- E

[Steve]

I think you wrote it up correctly. As a GM I would probably make you specify some defense that was reasonably inexpensive. I am not sure that "the caster and those nearby don't notice anything wrong" would be correct. They would think he was incanting correctly, but that perhaps something else was interfering with the spell. It would not create illusionnary fireballs if he cast a fireball spell, for instance. Nor would the caster think he was understanding Troll speech if he cast a Universal Translator spell. He would just not know that a hearing darkness was the reason.

 

- E

Taking off the IPE advantage drops the final cost to 3 points. If the Time Limit limitation is taken off, it becomes a permanent (until dispelled) silencing spell for 10 points. That seems a reasonable cost.

[Christopher R Taylor]

As odd as it may seem, it is RAW. A GM can make or change whatever rules they like.

 

 

Yes, I know.  I was just suggesting that a rule change may be in order and perhaps that might be something to consider.  I mean, you can't take a 3 point power and immobilize people's arms from gestures, you can't use a 3 point power to negate concentration, etc.  Seems like some parity and logic might be in order.

[eepjr24]

Like I said, I would probably make you define a defense / way to turn it off. That's part of why I don't allow 0 END on spells in my FH campaigns. =)

 

- E

[eepjr24]

Yes, I know.  I was just suggesting that a rule change may be in order and perhaps that might be something to consider.  I mean, you can't take a 3 point power and immobilize people's arms from gestures, you can't use a 3 point power to negate concentration, etc.  Seems like some parity and logic might be in order.

True, you can do that without spending any points at all with a combat maneuver or any attack. 

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

True, you can do that without spending any points at all with a combat maneuver or any attack. 

 

And if you want to build a power to do so, what would it cost?  I swear people take stuff personally on here like suggesting something might not be perfect is like you kicked their cat

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, I know.  I was just suggesting that a rule change may be in order and perhaps that might be something to consider.  I mean, you can't take a 3 point power and immobilize people's arms from gestures, you can't use a 3 point power to negate concentration, etc.  Seems like some parity and logic might be in order.

You don't have to buy anything special to disrupt concentration. Even if you did, the reduced DCV while concentrating is more than sufficient to justify the limitation. It's not so much "I must concentrate and you can disrupt that to spoil my spell" as in D&D - it's "I canot effectively avoid opposing attacks when I cast a spell, so I am an easy target for opposing fire". The DCV reduction is the real limitation.

 

And if you want to build a power to do so, what would it cost?

Change Environment to force the target - anyone trying to make gestures must make a STR roll at -X or fail to make those gestures. Blocks more than spells, though.

 

I could build a pretty effective Grappler by moving starting stats around to generate a 1 point Summon, but it will only start Grappling you next turn.

 

A small Barrier which surrounds the fingers would have to be broken before the Gestures can be made. A small Triggered Entangle would do the same - you can't make those careful gestures while using even your Casual STR to break the threads tying up your fingers.

 

I don't think it would be that tough getting a power intended to block Gestures down to a few points. But it's much easier to just Grab the spellcaster. Or toss a net over him.

 

I swear people take stuff personally on here like suggesting something might not be perfect is like you kicked their cat

I find some people take their own opinions so seriously they cannot fathom the possibility that anyone could understand what they are saying, yet still disagree with them.

[eepjr24]

And if you want to build a power to do so, what would it cost?  I swear people take stuff personally on here like suggesting something might not be perfect is like you kicked their cat

<shrug> I don't take much of anything personally anymore. Unless you kick my cat! =P

 

I get that immobilizing someones arms would take more points, but it generally does a lot more than stop them from Gestures. I know that speech has other uses as well. And I would not be opposed to more granularity around senses and darkness. Specifically, I think it is probably not fair to have someone spend points on adding analyze and dimensional to their sense of smell to have it thwarted by a 3 point darkness.

 

I do tend to call out the rules because many people read things here by those with a lot of posts as something that is in the rules. Please don't think I am trying to kick your cat.

 

- E

[g3taso]

The effect of this spell is not that the no-sound zone prevents the spell working because those outside cannot hear it, but because the words weren't spoken at all. That being said, I'm not sure how IPE will prevent that enemy caster (and you) from noticing somehow that his spells aren't working. 

 

A 1-minute limit is really saying "shut that caster down for the entire combat" and that's cool, although I would probably do it with continuing charges if possible. The really intriguing part of this spell is the secondary effect.  That enemy caster is obviously going to realize his spells aren't working, and will therefore concentrate his efforts of dispelling it. Whether he cannot dispel it and is powerless or whether he spends time trying to dispel it (and not attacking you) still leaves you with the net effect of nobody is trying to fight you.  Heck, even allied casters of that enemy mage will probably be spending Phases attacking that silence spell and not you.

[Christougher]

I'm not sure what 6E Mobile says, but in 4E/5E, Usable Against Others/Usable as Attack was required to make the effect stick to the target as they moved.

 

Chris.

[Christougher]

In a vein similar to the OP, I have a fantasy world with four different types of magic.  I'm looking for suggestions of other silence type spells to hamper or disable other forms of spellcasting, by specifically targetting a Limitation.

 

I'm avoiding the Penetrating RKA for focus breaking in favor of things like Juggle (Teleport AOE Hex Autofire) making it much harder to cast when you don't know where that focus went.  

 

Chris.

[Netzilla]

In a vein similar to the OP, I have a fantasy world with four different types of magic.  I'm looking for suggestions of other silence type spells to hamper or disable other forms of spellcasting, by specifically targetting a Limitation.

 

I'm avoiding the Penetrating RKA for focus breaking in favor of things like Juggle (Teleport AOE Hex Autofire) making it much harder to cast when you don't know where that focus went.  

 

Chris.

 

If all you're looking for is to make it harder to cast, Hugh Nelson had a pretty good suggestion on another thread:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93779-suffocation-change-environnement/page-4?do=findComment&comment=2522911

I suppose one could also designate the CE effect to be an "anti-casting" zone - make an Ego Roll (INT roll; Magic Skill Roll) at -X or your casting fails.

[DasBroot]

Again, its odd to me that making an area quiet should necessarily shut off incantations.  Just because you're making no noise doesn't mean you aren't incanting, it seems to me.  The GM would be the one to decide, but it strikes me that stopping someone from incantations would be more like a gag or an entangle on the target's mouth.

 

So someone who takes invisibility:normal hearing could slap incantations on anything they wanted and never have to worry about it?

 

Better yet make their OWN darkness - normal hearing (cheaper).

 

(The same arguments could be made for gestures. Or obvious focus.)

[eepjr24]

If all you're looking for is to make it harder to cast, Hugh Nelson had a pretty good suggestion on another thread:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93779-suffocation-change-environnement/page-4?do=findComment&comment=2522911

Assuming that casting in that campaign requires an INT or EGO roll. Otherwise you could make them take an INT or Ego roll but not force the spell to fail. What effect it had would be entirely up to the GM.

 

- E

[eepjr24]

So someone who takes invisibility:normal hearing could slap incantations on anything they wanted and never have to worry about it?

 

Better yet make their OWN darkness - normal hearing (cheaper).

 

(The same arguments could be made for gestures. Or obvious focus.)

 

Incantations, 6e1, pg 381

 

A character can use a power with Incantations only if he speaks loud phrases that are audible at a distance and are obviously out of the ordinary ... To use Incantations, a character must be able to speak freely and clearly

So invisibility would ruin it, as would darkness to hearing.

[Netzilla]

Assuming that casting in that campaign requires an INT or EGO roll. Otherwise you could make them take an INT or Ego roll but not force the spell to fail. What effect it had would be entirely up to the GM.

 

- E

 

Well, if you look at the thread it was originally pointed to, I made the same observation until it occurred to me that this is basically the same construction as the Ice Sheet power on pg 172 of Champions Powers.  Normally a DEX Roll isn't required for walking but the CE forces one anyway.  The same logic would apply for the anti-magic effect.

[eepjr24]

Well, if you look at the thread it was originally pointed to, I made the same observation until it occurred to me that this is basically the same construction as the Ice Sheet power on pg 172 of Champions Powers.  Normally a DEX Roll isn't required for walking but the CE forces one anyway.  The same logic would apply for the anti-magic effect.

 

 

I think this is the section you are referring to:

 

The GM rules that anyone moving on the ice sheet has to make a DEX Roll at -4, or a Breakfall roll at -2, each Phase to remain standing. (Characters with the Icewalking form of Environmental Movement are immune to this CE’s effects.)

 

If so, sure the GM can rule that and I would probably agree to something like that in my games. Because it makes sense for how moving interacts with ice. However, I would not draw the same conclusion by default in a game (like my current FH campaign) where spell casting requires no rolls unless a limitation on the spell says otherwise. If the spell has it, sure you can force them to have a penalty.

 

Otherwise, why would it stop there? In Champions games can I force Mentalists to fail by have a CE with -4 EGO rolls? Bricks powers fail unless they make a STR roll at -4? Martial arts fail unless you make a Dex roll at -4?

 

I think you need to decide what works for your games, but that one does not make sense to me. Anti-magic effects are much better bought as either Damage Negation or Dispels for my money.

 

- E

[Hugh Neilson]

If applicable, the combat effect includes forcing an affected character to make at least one Characteristic, Skill, or PER Roll. For example, if a character is hit with a Change Environment that imposes a -3 to DEX Rolls, it doesn’t just affect any DEX Rolls he has to make for other reasons — he has to make a DEX Roll when hit, at the listed penalty. (The same would apply if he entered an

Area-affecting -3 to DEX Rolls CE.)

So a CE which forces a DEX roll to maintain footing on that slippery ice is not all that different from a CE that forces an EGO or INT roll to be able to cast a spell.

[Grailknight]

I think this is the section you are referring to:

 

If so, sure the GM can rule that and I would probably agree to something like that in my games. Because it makes sense for how moving interacts with ice. However, I would not draw the same conclusion by default in a game (like my current FH campaign) where spell casting requires no rolls unless a limitation on the spell says otherwise. If the spell has it, sure you can force them to have a penalty.

 

Otherwise, why would it stop there? In Champions games can I force Mentalists to fail by have a CE with -4 EGO rolls? Bricks powers fail unless they make a STR roll at -4? Martial arts fail unless you make a Dex roll at -4?

 

I think you need to decide what works for your games, but that one does not make sense to me. Anti-magic effects are much better bought as either Damage Negation or Dispels for my money.

 

- E

 

This is the reasoning I was using in the Suffocation Thread. I guess I should have expressed myself better.

 

It's not the penalty to a required roll, it's the ability to force a roll at penalties where one wasn't required before.

 

Basically this gives CE the ability to give any of the targets powers the Requires a Roll Disadvantage at penalties. At -1 per 3 points, that's a 9 or less roll to any 50 Active Point power(more for smaller powers) for 30 Active points of CE.

 

I think that's out of the scope of CE and more inline with a Severe Transform.

 

So a CE which forces a DEX roll to maintain footing on that slippery ice is not all that different from a CE that forces an EGO or INT roll to be able to cast a spell.

 

Mechanically, there is no difference by RAW and there should be when that EGO or INT roll was not part of the target's powers. If A paid full points for his powers then B shouldn't be allowed to put a Disadvantage on them without paying for it. CE is too cheap, it should be a Transform.