PER Rolls with Mental Invisibility

[g3taso]

My question is: How may I penalize the PER roll that reduces the penalties for someone who can't perceive me with a targeting sense?

 

Background:

1.     According to the 5E rules pp422 under Inability to Sense an Opponent, "If a character can make a PER Roll with a Nontargeting Sense (a Half Phase Action) to perceive a particular target, then against that target only he is at -1 DCV, ½ OCV when attacked or attacking in HTH Combat, and full DCV, ½ OCV when attacked from or attacking at Range. Against all other targets he is affected by the standard “lack of Targeting Sense” modifi ers described above."

 

2.    The character has this defense against mental attacks:  Impregnable Mind:  (Total: 45 Active Cost, 30 Real Cost) Invisibility to Mental Group , (0 END; +1/2) (15 Active Points) (Real Cost: 15) plus Invisibility to Sight Group , (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); Only To Prevent LOS For Mental Powers (-1) (Real Cost: 15)

 

So as I understand it, with this defense I am invisible to the mental group as well as having LOS granted be being able to actually see me. My question is how I might go about penalizing that PER roll. Examples or suggestions would be awesome.

[Doc Democracy]

Hmm. So, to the mentalist, the character is visible to his sight but cannot target his mental powers through sight? That would, for his mental powers, make sight a non-targeting sense, I think.

 

If the mentalist can make a sight PER roll the. That would render the mentalist at full DCV and 1/2 ECV against that opponent at range. If the PER roll is failed then the full penalties for being unable to sense his opponent.

 

Doc

[g3taso]

Hmm. So, to the mentalist, the character is visible to his sight but cannot target his mental powers through sight? That would, for his mental powers, make sight a non-targeting sense, I think.

 

If the mentalist can make a sight PER roll the. That would render the mentalist at full DCV and 1/2 ECV against that opponent at range. If the PER roll is failed then the full penalties for being unable to sense his opponent.

 

Doc

So if Bob the Mentalist attempts to establish mental lock on the character it's as if he was blind. Even if he can plainly see me, he still can't lock on. But he can make a PER roll to establish lesser penalties for himself. Is it possible to screw that PER roll for him by making it harder or something?

[Doc Democracy]

Yeah, don't limit your invisibility to LOS only...

 

You can pay more and more points. At some point it will be more effective to buy levels with mental combat and/or mental defence....

[Surrealone]

Doc's response is spot-on.

[Lucius]

1.     According to the 5E rules pp422 under Inability to Sense an Opponent, "If a character can make a PER Roll with a Nontargeting Sense (a Half Phase Action) to perceive a particular target, then against that target only he is at -1 DCV, ½ OCV when attacked or attacking in HTH Combat, and full DCV, ½ OCV when attacked from or attacking at Range. Against all other targets he is affected by the standard “lack of Targeting Sense” modifi ers described above."

This mentions HTH combat and attacking at range, but nothing specifically about mental powers.

 

I'm not sure this even applies to mental powers. Meaning, it might not be possible to overcome the defense you describe with a nontargetting sense PER roll.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says radar and sonar still spot you just fine.

[g3taso]

You know, that never occurred to me. I just assumed there was a ECV equivalent, since it's always been a "oh, and ECV combat works the same way" kind of situation

[Lucius]

You know, that never occurred to me. I just assumed there was a ECV equivalent, since it's always been a "oh, and ECV combat works the same way" kind of situation

And you may be right. I didn't really research my answer and it could be totally wrong.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says I often am.

[mrinku]

Your basic problem here is that Sight is a targeting sense. The roll to detect the target with a non-targeting sense (i.e. hearing) doesn't even come up. They CAN detect them, attack them with a normal ranged attack that uses OCV etc.

 

Also, Invisibility just shuts down senses, not attack powers as such. This would block Mind Scan and Mental Awareness, but I don't see that it would affect Mentally based Blasts, Telekinesis, etc any more than normal Invisibility would shut down OCV based Blasts, Telekinesis etc for a character with a second targeting sense other than sight.

 

"Invisibility only to prevent LOS for Mental Powers" might switch off LOS and force the Mental power to use normal range rules. Or, you might be better off with buying an extra +5 DMCV for 15 points, or whatever the appropriate CSLs are used for that in 5e.

[massey]

Ultimately, I think Lucius is right. Mental powers require a line of sight. With an Energy Blast or an RKA, if I hear a sound, I can just point in that direction and blast away. Maybe I'll hit something and maybe I won't. Can't do that with Mental Illusions. You have to "lock on" with a targeting sense first.

[Surrealone]

Ultimately, I think Lucius is right. Mental powers require a line of sight. With an Energy Blast or an RKA, if I hear a sound, I can just point in that direction and blast away. Maybe I'll hit something and maybe I won't. Can't do that with Mental Illusions. You have to "lock on" with a targeting sense first.

 

This recently (within the last two weeks) came up in a game I play in. Our GM adjudicated that if an attacking mentalist who had been blinded ... or was otherwise unable to perceive the target ... had a good idea of where the target was located (e.g. just inside the elevator someone heard ding, straight down a long hallway, somewhere to the attacker's right within HTH range, etc.) then the attacker treated his power just like other ranged powers.  i.e. Full DCV and half OCV (or, in this case, half OMCV) if a PER roll was successfully made with a non-targeting sense.  The players all agreed that was reasonable, especially given that negatives to the PER roll for range apply. 

 

The thinking was that one should be able to roughly aim a Mental Blast much like one does a Blast.  Do note that Mental Blast is a bit different from Telepathy, Mind Control, Mental Illusions, and Mind Scan, as it's the only one of the bunch that does direct damage and it's also the only one of the bunch that does not generate an effect roll which is compared to EGO to determine outcome.  In short, Mental Blast is an outlier that probably deserves special treatment -- allowing for rough aim and maybe, just maybe, even allowing it to be spread (if a GM agrees, of course; there are certainly plenty of anime tropes in which mental blasts are roughly aimed and/or spread).

 

That said, if a mentalist is blind ... and his/her target is sitting across the table from him/her handcuffed to a desk in a police interrogation room ... and the mentalist makes a non-targeting PER roll to hear the cuffs (which lets him/her know where the target is) ... why wouldn't any of the mental powers be reasonable to treat similarly?  LOS because RAW seems pretty ... arbitrary ... given the scene I just described.  Obviously we're in a gray area, here, where different GMs will treat mental powers differently -- depending on how common they are in the game and how much they want to stick it to mentalists.

 

Personally, I think it's completely reasonable that a mentalist's abilities should be treated the same as other ranged powers in cases where s/he has a good idea of where the target is, can't perceive the target, but makes a non-targeting PER roll to crystalize position.  After all, mental powers ARE ranged.  Thus, I just don't see a need to punish mentalists for having ranged powers that are slightly different from a flying energy projector's... or because the game authors failed to think of that particular situation for mentalists and add clarity to the rules when discussing it in the context of HTH and other ranged powers.

 

That said, it's certainly an edge case.  People move in combat -- so unless the target is Entangled or otherwise stuck in position, once a mentalist is blind or unable to perceive a target, there's generally a very limited window of opportunity for the non-targeting PER roll ... due to movement, alone, eliminating the mentalist's 'good idea' of the position of a target.  Heck, spin the mentalist around in circles and leave everyone else in place ... and that 'good idea' of position is lost if the mentalist reacts to being spun in circles like most humans do.

[Hugh Neilson]

The thinking was that one should be able to roughly aim a Mental Blast much like one does a Blast.

Why? A Blast has a physical presence. Perhaps the better answer is that a "Mental Blast" which is aimed much like a Blast should be purchased as a Blast which acts against Mental Defense.

 

Do note that Mental Blast is a bit different from Telepathy, Mind Control, Mental Illusions, and Mind Scan, as it's the only one of the bunch that does direct damage and it's also the only one of the bunch that does not generate an effect roll which is compared to EGO to determine outcome.

By the same logic, a Blast is different from an Entangle and a Flash, but that does not mean the rules for targeting them are, or need to be, different. Again, those "mental blasts" which can be roughly aimed and spread are, perhaps, not mental blasts at all, but blasts which affect Mental Defense. The special effects do not dictate the mechanics.

 

Do the rules penalize mentalists by requiring LOS? I think they provide the advantage LOS Range to all mental attacks, an advantage that, when placed on any power, result in the inability to "fire blind". LOS is a caution advantage costing +1/2, while No Range Modifiers lacks the caution, but is also +1/2. Oddly, placing a range modifier on a mental power is only a -1/4 limitation, perhaps because it retains the "cannot fire blind" drawback.

 

We could also allow the mentalist choose to have No Range Modifier instead of LoS, rather than require a limitation removing LoS Range and an Advantage for No Range Modifier.

 

One issue with mental powers is that they bundle a lot of advantages in - "can be targeted with Mind Scan", "LoS Range" and "IPE" - without really bearing the full cost of these advantages. When we try to Limit them and remove these advantages, or change the advantages around, pricing becomes problematic. When a mentalist tries to take full advantage of these advantages (Mentalist Sniper", we call them Munchkins and slam them down. The mental power construction rules perhaps need a re-think.

[Surrealone]

Why? A Blast has a physical presence. Perhaps the better answer is that a "Mental Blast" which is aimed much like a Blast should be purchased as a Blast which acts against Mental Defense.

The answer to your question was already provided, above, before you ever asked it.  (Hint: It came in the rest of the paragraph that you neglected to quote when asking this question.)  Are there other ways to buy it?  Sure.  But our GM ruled as he did for the NPC mentalist that was attacking .... and no one hand a problem with it -- because it was, indeed, reasonable for the aforementioned reasons ... and it made for good cinematic/dramatic effect.

 

 

One issue with mental powers is that they bundle a lot of advantages in - "can be targeted with Mind Scan", "LoS Range" and "IPE" - without really bearing the full cost of these advantages. When we try to Limit them and remove these advantages, or change the advantages around, pricing becomes problematic. 

So you would have balked at the GM's sense of cinematic/dramatic effect based on your disagreement with ... cost/pricing?  If so, I think I'm glad I don't play in the same games you do...

 

 

 

When a mentalist tries to take full advantage of these advantages (Mentalist Sniper", we call them Munchkins and slam them down. The mental power construction rules perhaps need a re-think.

Well, if name-calling is your thing, by all means, show the world your need to feel superior by way of putting others down.  That aside, I personally don't see any need for a rethink on the costs of mental powers given the freebie breakout rolls that all targets gets -- rendering most mental powers far more all/nothing than they were before the introduction of breakout rolls.  Now if breakout rolls were to become an optional limitation for mental powers as part of a re-pricing exercise, there may be some merit to one.

 

But this is way off topic...

[mrinku]

Hmm... this is 6e, but according to CC, Mental Group isn't even a Targeting sense. Mind Scan provides its own abilities to use Mental Powers on targets it finds, and it's pretty solid that Invisibility to Mental group would protect against this. Being able to see the target and thus target them wouldn't allow Mind Scan to get a lock on, any more than targeting an invisible plane with Radar would allow you to read the markings on its fuselage.

 

And this text from CC p48 seems relevant:

 

"The Range of Mental Powers is Line of Sight (LOS), though don't take this too literally; LOS for Mental Powers can be established with other Targeting Senses too if a character has one."

 

(It goes on to require that the alternate targeting sense needs to be inherent to the character - binoculars are out but natural Telescopic Vision is allowed, plus you can't use Clairsentience to establish LOS.)

 

I'm sort of coming around to the OP's idea now. But he actually had it backwards... Sight is the default targeting sense used for mental powers, with Mind Scan as an extra way of getting lock. Buying up DMCV and Mental Defense is still more elegant, IMHO.

[Hugh Neilson]

The thinking was that one should be able to roughly aim a Mental Blast much like one does a Blast.  Do note that Mental Blast is a bit different from Telepathy, Mind Control, Mental Illusions, and Mind Scan, as it's the only one of the bunch that does direct damage and it's also the only one of the bunch that does not generate an effect roll which is compared to EGO to determine outcome.  In short, Mental Blast is an outlier that probably deserves special treatment -- allowing for rough aim and maybe, just maybe, even allowing it to be spread (if a GM agrees, of course; there are certainly plenty of anime tropes in which mental blasts are roughly aimed and/or spread).

 

 

Why? A Blast has a physical presence. Perhaps the better answer is that a "Mental Blast" which is aimed much like a Blast should be purchased as a Blast which acts against Mental Defense.

 

The answer to your question was already provided, above, before you ever asked it.  (Hint: It came in the rest of the paragraph that you neglected to quote when asking this question.)  Are there other ways to buy it?  Sure.  But our GM ruled as he did for the NPC mentalist that was attacking .... and no one hand a problem with it -- because it was, indeed, reasonable for the aforementioned reasons ... and it made for good cinematic/dramatic effect.

No, actually, it was not. Mental Blast targets exactly the same way as Telepathy, Mind Control, et al. Why should it target differently? If it is intended to target differently, more like a physical attack, why not build it using mechanics that target that way?

 

 

So you would have balked at the GM's sense of cinematic/dramatic effect based on your disagreement with ... cost/pricing?  If so, I think I'm glad I don't play in the same games you do...

I am questioning the reasoning. A player who purchased a Blast that affects Mental Defense, and has No Range Modifier, might think the fact he does not get free IPE and targeting using mental CVs is a bit unfair, when if the Mental Blast gets to do everything his power does, plus more, for the same cost. I am also, however, questioning why this is any more "cinematic/dramatic" than a blinded mentalist being unable to target enemies because their ability to target is based on establishing a line of sight. It does, however, seem reasonable to add a "-0 limitation" for mental powers to have No Range Modifier instead of LoS range - both are +1/2 advantages, each working a bit differently than the other.

 

Well, if name-calling is your thing, by all means, show the world your need to feel superior by way of putting others down.

Try posting a mentalist sniper build and watch the response. To me, it would be simpler for mental powers to be visible by default, and perhaps even have normal range modifiers by default than to add  a bunch of free advantages, then slap players down when they try to leverage those advantages.

 

That aside, I personally don't see any need for a rethink on the costs of mental powers given the freebie breakout rolls that all targets gets -- rendering most mental powers far more all/nothing than they were before the introduction of breakout rolls.  Now if breakout rolls were to become an optional limitation for mental powers as part of a re-pricing exercise, there may be some merit to one.

That might be more persuasive if you were not identifying the one mental attack power that lacks breakout rolls as your outlier that should get special privileges.

 

The OP wanted a way to avoid exposure to mental powers by invisibility to the sense with which they are targeting. If he had paid for that ability, I can see him reasonably being put out if the GM then says "well, mentalists can fire blind even though the rules don't allow it".

 

The challenge to most questions on the appropriateness of the mechanics of mental powers is the lack of any real world baseline. We can't really assess whether it should be possible to fire blind or spread a mental power, nor whether it should be visible, or harder to lock on at range, as we have no real world baseline against which to evaluate the game mechanics.

 

Why shouldn't my characters' eyebeams have LoS range? They fire directly where I am looking! The only answer is "because you did not pay for LoS range". The mentalist did not pay for the ability to fire blind. Would it be the end of the world to let them do so? Not really - it does not come up that often - but it seems unfair to any other character who is not getting similar "get out of your power's mechanical limitations free" cards.

[massey]

I don't have any problem with a GM making campaign-specific rulings.  Especially when I read about them on the internet, that means that 99% of the time, I'm not playing in that campaign.  I don't know what kind of characters the players in that game are playing.  I don't know what the "feel" of the game is.  I don't know if anybody is getting screwed on the rules interpretations.

 

The only thing I want people to keep in mind is what the normal rules are versus their house rules.  Sometimes people forget, and they show up saying "well of course you can't do that", when it turns out that's just their house rule.  In this situation, I think the original poster's question of people making a nontargeting perception roll to use a mental power is addressed by the base rules (i.e., they can't target you that way, period).  House rules that change that are fine, just so long as you know that's what you're doing.

 

Bob the Mentalist getting blinded, and lashing out with his Psychic Blast can be perfectly in genre, so I don't have a problem with a GM letting somebody do that.  Just know that that's not normally how it works, so don't expect other people to treat it the same way, and don't expect to see an official rule on how it functions (because it normally doesn't).

[Doc Democracy]

OK, so I did it. I actually went and read the rule book. I only come here because I am forced to do this so often! :-)

 

"At the GM's option, a character with a Mental Power may make a successful mental attack even when he does not have LOS. If the character attacks a target he cannot perceive, but of whose location he's reasonably sure, halve his OMCV . If he lacks LOS but has a fairly precise idea of where a target is (for example, he knows someone's hiding in a particular closet or the trunk of a car), his OMCV might only suffer a -1 to -3 penalty. To use this rule, the character must have some reasonable idea of the location of the target mind — he can't just lash out at random, hoping to hit something with half OMCV . The GM determines whether a character can attempt an attack when he lacks LOS." 6th Ed, vol 1, p149

 

The key words here are "at GM's option". So these are RAW but only if that is the way the GM wants to play it.

 

Doc

[Surrealone]

I am questioning the reasoning. A player who purchased a Blast that affects Mental Defense, and has No Range Modifier, might think the fact he does not get free IPE and targeting using mental CVs is a bit unfair, when if the Mental Blast gets to do everything his power does, plus more, for the same cost. I am also, however, questioning why this is any more "cinematic/dramatic" than a blinded mentalist being unable to target enemies because their ability to target is based on establishing a line of sight.

The reasoning is that's how the GM elected to play it with regard to a blind NPC mentalist ... because he felt it was cinematically appropriate.  Apparently his ruling was not just ad-hoc, but also based on the RAW Doc cited.  ( I had no idea -- and am appreciative of the citation!)

[Hugh Neilson]

I note that the RAW option does not differentiate between the various mental attacks - Mental Blast is not singled out as different from Mind Control, Telepathy or Mental Illusions in this regard. That is at least more consistent.