Visibility of Aid-ed points

[mrinku]

Yes. 12d is more intense.

 

It's two more!

 

As Nigel Tufnel might say.

[mrinku]

#9 brings up yet another question: Which power modifiers are visible, when a power is visible?  What about Power Frameworks?  Can someone "see" that a power is in a MP or VPP?  Can you "see" that a power is NND or Accurate or whatever?

 

It's all going to depend on those special effects, I guess

 

Power frameworks, however are meta constructs and can be indistinguishable from each other and powers bought normally. You would usually buy a bunch of trick arrow attacks as fixed slots in a Multipower, since that's typically the most efficient way, but if they were bought as single powers in a change-weapons-at-base VPP (where the multipower isn't allowed), they should look the same, really. The same would apply for an NPC whom a GM threw together on the fly and just listed the powers without putting them in a framework, or a player who did the same for some reason.

 

I'd say you can *guess* the possible details of an attack based on how bloody obvious it is (Foci obviousness can play a large part here, in particular). A two metre razor sharp harpoon isn't likely to be Stun Only or Area Effect (though it could be). Hand grenades are probably going to be limited indirect and range based on STR. A seven foot, orange woman with muscles on her muscles is probably not STR 8.

[Greywind]

So in a combat scene, you would tell the players the relative damage dice (That blast looks about 25% more intense than yours being 15d6 if my blast is 12d6)?

 

Can you tell the difference between a .22 firing and a .45?

[Surrealone]

So being down one of 100 STUN is obvious to all onlookers? Shouldn't being at -1 STUN be obvious, then? RAW says it's "more like he’s deeply Stunned", and that "he may even be on his feet, wobbly but still standing, as he tries to shake off the effects of the attack". Wow - that sounds a lot like: 

You can tell when a pair of boxers have suffered STUN damage ... and even BODY damage ... during their fight.  With that in mind, being down -1 STUN is something I feel -should- be obvious (unless bought IPE) ... but the degree of obviousness is something I would expect a GM to adjudicate with an appropriate PER roll modifier.  i.e. The untrained eye might never notice it, but it might stick out like a sore thumb to a trained physician who has worked in the boxing industry for 20 years.

 

 

 

So, since whether I am KOd is visible, it is impossible to fake being unconscious? No one should ever have to ask "is he dead", as being out of BOD is visibly obvious? That seems a lot more like a videogame with a health bar than the cinematic role playing promised by Hero.

Again, you're talking about obvious things whose degrees of obviousness need to be adjudicated by a GM based on circumstances (including training, situation, etc.).  Example: Is someone using Feign Death?  It takes a PER roll to spot its use ... to discern between death and the real thing ... just like it would take a PER roll to discern between the states of life and death in an unconscious and heavily bleeding individual.  And what are you observing?  Things such as whether: there still breathing activity (which applies to faking unconsciousness, too); the body is still warm; there is a pulse; etc.

 

Daredevil would be able to hear the still-beating heart, if present, in an unconscious and bleeding human ... so it'd be much more obvious to him than to, say, you or me -- as to whether someone was 'out of BOD' as you put it.  Daredevil would also likely note the faster breathing of someone faking unconsciousness (compared to the slower breathing of someone who is actually unconscious) using his hearing.  Likewise, a trained physician would note this much more readily than most people.  So the question isn't whether being out of BOD is obvious; the question is really to what degree it's obvious.  The same goes for faking unconsciousness.  This sort of thing is why we have GMs.

 

 

So in a combat scene, you would tell the players the relative damage dice (That blast looks about 25% more intense than yours being 15d6 if my blast is 12d6)?

Sure - if the onlooker had bought the appropriate sense with which the observation was made as Discriminatory, I would give a ballpark estimate.  If Analyze was also present, I would give exact numbers.  Why?  Because both paid to have that level of detail...

 

 

 

 

Can you tell the difference between a .22 firing and a .45?

I don't know if Hugh can (especially when he's being intentionally obtuse in order to defend his previous position -- despite that position not aligning with RAW) ... but I can.  Your example (which is a good one) plays right into degrees of observability ... where training would likely factor into a GM's adjudication.  Someone like me who has a LOT of firearms experience (and > 800 hours as a range safety officer on a manned range) can often distinguish between calibers and, thus, potential damage, by something as simple as the sound of the muzzle blast ... or, lacking sound, the amount of muzzle flash and muzzle flip.  Thus, it'd likely be easy for me to note ... whereas the untrained ear and eyes may not be able to tell.  (Arguably, I have Discriminatory in this case, where the untrained ear and eyes do not ... but with a good PER roll those untrained ears/eyes might be able to tell that the .45 was different/louder than the .22.)

 

Thus, using your example, Aid to a RKA (gun) is something I would expect to result in more noise, muzzle flash, and muzzle flip (which happens to cover 3 senses) when the Aided RKA (gun) is fired ... in addition to more observable BODY damage.  That said, I'd hope someone would have a sparkly on that .22 bullet if it was Aided up to a point where it was yielding .45 damage, as I think it -should- look special (unless the Aid's effect was bought IPE) since it's defying physics.

[Christopher R Taylor]

So in a combat scene, you would tell the players the relative damage dice (That blast looks about 25% more intense than yours being 15d6 if my blast is 12d6)

 

Not that specifically, just that it was a bigger blast, more powerful.

 

So, since whether I am KOd is visible, it is impossible to fake being unconscious? No one should ever have to ask "is he dead", as being out of BOD is visibly obvious?

 

No good GM tells anyone anything for certain on casual examination.  That looks like gold coins.  He sure seems dead.  The room appears to be empty.  With a paramedics roll, detect, or other similar power, I'd let people know more certainly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Can you tell the difference between a .22 firing and a .45?

Nope. Maybe a gun expert with a good PER roll can. More on that differentiation below. 

 

You can tell when a pair of boxers have suffered STUN damage ... and even BODY damage ... during their fight.  With that in mind, being down -1 STUN is something I feel -should- be obvious (unless bought IPE) ... but the degree of obviousness is something I would expect a GM to adjudicate with an appropriate PER roll modifier.  i.e. The untrained eye might never notice it, but it might stick out like a sore thumb to a trained physician who has worked in the boxing industry for 20 years.

The goalposts are using a Movement Power. It was Inobvious they had such a power, but the use of the power is Obvious.

 

A trained physician who has worked in the boxing industry for 20 years has skills and experience far beyond someone who can see a sparkly glow around someone who has been Aided. Attack powers are Obvious - they can easily be perceived by at least two sense groups, one of which is normally Sight. No PER roll is generally required [6e V1 p124]Even an Inobvious power tends to have effects that can be perceived without a PER roll. That's very different from "someone with PS: MD, specialized in Boxing Industry; 20 years' worth of experience spent on skill levels and complementary skills" is not the baseline.

 

Again, you're talking about obvious things whose degrees of obviousness need to be adjudicated by a GM based on circumstances (including training, situation, etc.).

The rules define Obvious and Inobvious.

 

Daredevil would be able to hear the still-beating heart, if present, in an unconscious and bleeding human ... so it'd be much more obvious to him than to, say, you or me -- as to whether someone was 'out of BOD' as you put it.

The goalposts are galloping now!

 

Daredevil has special skills which allow him, with an appropriate PER roll, to perceive things that are not Obvious, or even Inobvious, to a person with baseline human senses.

 

Sure - if the onlooker had bought the appropriate sense with which the observation was made as Discriminatory, I would give a ballpark estimate.  If Analyze was also present, I would give exact numbers.  Why?  Because both paid to have that level of detail...

All that was left to indicate the goalposts had ever been there was a faint plume of dust off in the distance...

 

RAW does not require any Discriminatory or Analyzing senses to perceive an Obvious or Inobvious power in action. By definition, if one must pay points for the ability to perceive something, it is not something which is Visible by default.

 

I don't know if Hugh can (especially when he's being intentionally obtuse in order to defend his previous position -- despite that position not aligning with RAW) ... but I can.

Please read pp 124 - 126 of 6e V1 so you will know what R are actually W. We'll wait. I will assume you did not know these rules, and not that you are being intentionally obtuse in order to defend your previous position.

 

Your example (which is a good one) plays right into degrees of observability ... where training would likely factor into a GM's adjudication.  Someone like me who has a LOT of firearms experience (and > 800 hours as a range safety officer on a manned range) can often distinguish between calibers and, thus, potential damage, by something as simple as the sound of the muzzle blast ... or, lacking sound, the amount of muzzle flash and muzzle flip.  Thus, it'd likely be easy for me to note ... whereas the untrained ear and eyes may not be able to tell.  (Arguably, I have Discriminatory in this case, where the untrained ear and eyes do not ... but with a good PER roll those untrained ears/eyes might be able to tell that the .45 was different/louder than the .22.)

Again, if it is not obvious to the typical casual onlooker, then it is not Visible/Obvious in accordance with the Hero System 6th Edition Rules As Written.

 

Thus, using your example, Aid to a RKA (gun) is something I would expect to result in more noise, muzzle flash, and muzzle flip (which happens to cover 3 senses) when the Aided RKA (gun) is fired ... in addition to more observable BODY damage.  That said, I'd hope someone would have a sparkly on that .22 bullet if it was Aided up to a point where it was yielding .45 damage, as I think it -should- look special (unless the Aid's effect was bought IPE) since it's defying physics.

More noise, muzzle flash and muzzle flip, and even a sparkly bullet, are not perceptible until the gun is fired. It seems you are now arguing the Aid impacts the visibility of the Aided power, and not that the lingering effects of the Aid itself are Visible.

 

 

Not that specifically, just that it was a bigger blast, more powerful.

OK, so what happens when we review the media coverage. We'll get Captain Blasty to fire off 10 d6 - is that bigger, or smaller, than the Blast the villain fires in the news report? OK, now 10d6 + 1, and so on until we narrow down the number of dice the bad guy is doing. We'll bring in EnhancementMan in case the bad guy has a bigger Blast than Cap does. Or do I see the POTENTIAL of the blast used, rather than the portion used? Can I see that Captain Blasty is deliberately holding back and could do way more damage than that if he wanted to?

 

No good GM tells anyone anything for certain on casual examination.  That looks like gold coins.  He sure seems dead.  The room appears to be empty.  With a paramedics roll, detect, or other similar power, I'd let people know more certainly.

If it requires such extra steps, then it does not meet the RAW standard of being Obvious, like an attach power. It is Inobvious at most, and perhaps not even that.

 

IPE tells us that moving from Obvious to Inobvious with IPE now requires the viewer to make a PER roll to perceive it when used. Any observer, not a trained physician or a firearms expert. The next step is not perceptible at all, but even there I question whether that is not the kind of thing trained experts with plenty of time can overcome.

[Christopher R Taylor]

If it requires such extra steps, then it does not meet the RAW standard of being Obvious, like an attach power. It is Inobvious at most, and perhaps not even that.

 

As I noted above, there's definitely reasons to change the perceptibility rules but I think you're inferring what the rules don't require unless I'm really misunderstanding you here.  

 

If someone is lying dead, they aren't exhibiting a power, they're just dead.  If someone is lying on the ground pretending to be dead, they're not exhibiting a power, they're just pretending to be dead.  If someone uses an images power to pretend to be dead, then the images are the power, and you're perceiving them in use. If someone is using mind control to make you think they're dead, hen they are using a mental power with its on perceptibility rules, and normal people can't tell.

 

Can I see that Captain Blasty is deliberately holding back and could do way more damage than that if he wanted to?

 

You can see that Captain Blasty used less power than last time, but not how much.  If he's never used the power before, you have nothing to compare to, so there's no relative difference.

 

Nope. Maybe a gun expert with a good PER roll can. More on that differentiation below. 

 

Trust me.  You hear a .22 go off and a .45 go off and you can tell the difference without any skill at all.  Its like the difference between dropping a book and dropping a stove.  Only a real expert can identify the guns but you can tell the difference instantly.

[Hugh Neilson]

As I noted above, there's definitely reasons to change the perceptibility rules but I think you're inferring what the rules don't require unless I'm really misunderstanding you here.  

Read 6e v1 p 124-126. I had them open while I wrote my post. Attack powers are Obvious - you can see them in use.

 

You can see that Captain Blasty used less power than last time, but not how much.  If he's never used the power before, you have nothing to compare to, so there's no relative difference.

The assertion I challenge is that you can see at a glance that it is more, or less, or exactly as, powerful as Frostlord, Electrocutioner, Killer Flame,and a hundred or two other characters, or that you can differentiate a Blast lightning bolt from a KA lightning bolt.

 

For that matter, might an attack which looks a lot stronger than it is be an SFX for a bonus to a PRE attack?

[Christopher R Taylor]

The assertion I challenge is that you can see at a glance that it is more, or less, or exactly as, powerful as Frostlord, Electrocutioner, Killer Flame,and a hundred or two other characters, or that you can differentiate a Blast lightning bolt from a KA lightning bolt.

 

Relative to each other, you can tell the rough power levels, in my campaign at least.  You can't get exact numbers, but you can go "wow that was powerful!" because that's how it works in the genre examples.  In comic books, movies, TV shows, literature, etc that's what the characters are able to do.  So you can do it in the game to the same degree and manner of effectiveness.  When in doubt go to the source material the game is simulating.

 

For that matter, might an attack which looks a lot stronger than it is be an SFX for a bonus to a PRE attack?

 

 

Absolutely; where appropriate I'd throw in another d6 for Captain Blasty using his most blasty blast to impress with.

 

Read 6e v1 p 124-126. I had them open while I wrote my post. Attack powers are Obvious - you can see them in use.

 

Sure, but my response was to post about a guy lying on the ground pretending to be dead:

 

 

So, since whether I am KOd is visible, it is impossible to fake being unconscious? No one should ever have to ask "is he dead", as being out of BOD is visibly obvious?

 

 

No good GM tells anyone anything for certain on casual examination.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sure, but my response was to post about a guy lying on the ground pretending to be dead:

That part of the discussion goes WAY back. It started with the suggestion that the effects of Obvious powers were themselves obvious, which suggests I can see how much BOD damage he took. If that is Obvious, so is whether or not he is dead.

 

You and I would both rule that whether the target is dead, knocked out, knocked prone or chose to fall prone is not obvious without excellent perception, extra time, etc. - it's not Obvious, no PER roll required, as the RAW define an attack power.

 

Similarly, I think a target hit by a gun can clutch the wound, double over and be believed severely injured - until he moves his hands and there's no blood - even if his rDEF is not purchased IPE. It would be a lot easier if they were, since he would then bleed like he had been shot.

[Greywind]

A .22 "pops". A .45 "booms". Trust me, you can tell the difference even if you don't have a lot of gun experience.

[mrinku]

There are skills that cover most of this sort of stuff too.

 

Acting for playing dead or faking a wound.

 

Various flavours of Analyze (especially for powers and martial arts) already cover getting info. 

 

Appropriate KS or PS as a complementary skill to the PER roll. That's what I'd use for the gunshot example, with maybe a bonus or penalty based on practical experience to sort out an armchair firearms expert from a combat veteran. The former may know all about the weapons but may not have heard them fired, so gets a penalty to the roll, while the latter might be able to judge distance as well as power. 

 

...and if it's something that character knows so well that it's obvious, they just get told.

 

"Okay Patrolman Singh, you hear a gunshot. Sounds like a large calibre handgun."

 

If the response is "Hmm. I really wonder if that was a .45 ACP or a .44 Magnum. Can I tell?" instead of "What direction?" make the fool waste a phase.

 

Is anything more really needed?

[mrinku]

A .22 "pops". A .45 "booms". Trust me, you can tell the difference even if you don't have a lot of gun experience.

 

My sum total firearms experience is an air rifle we owned when I was a teen and one day of firing .22 target pistols and shotguns at clay pigeons when I was in the Scouts, about 35 years ago.  I've got a great deal of book learning about firearms from my interest in history, but I can assure you that if a gun went off I'd confidently be able to identify it as probaby a car backfiring or firework, unless it was done in front of me.

[Christopher R Taylor]

It started with the suggestion that the effects of Obvious powers were themselves obvious, which suggests I can see how much BOD damage he took. If that is Obvious, so is whether or not he is dead.

 

 

Again, go back to the source. I will tell players that someone looks "slightly wounded" or "nearly dead", but without some special power to determine, they can't decide how much body they took or what percentage of their life is left.  Its based on the genre: the characters in this setting can tell if someone is harmed badly or not. If they want more specifics, they pay for detect or some such

[SteveZilla]

Thanks for all the discussion (which I am sure will likely continue ).  To clarify a little, my main goal was to understand if specifying a clearly noticeable and distinctly separate SFX for being under the influence of my own Aid (before using any boosted power) was worth a Limitation, or if that was how the power was supposed to be defined by default.

I have an electrical SFX brick/blaster.  Lightning Bolts and Ball Lightning.  One power I was considering was a "power up" (i.e., Aid to some of my powers).  I was wondering if, after the Aid is used and while the Aid points persisted, should he have an aura of "zap/crackle" sparks popping off - which is not present for any of his other powers.  From the RAW provided by Durzan Malakim, it would indeed appear to me that this should be the case, and is not a Limitation.

YMMV.  

[Durzan Malakim]

My reading of the Target Effect rules is that you know the quality of the effect not its quantity. So its obvious that an attack damages the target, that an aid boosts the target's power, and that an entangle restrains the target. It may not be obvious how much damage the target took, how many points of aid the target received, or how strong an entangle is without some basis of comparison or complementary skill to provide that information. So trained soldiers and police officers would probably know "that was a .45 caliber pistol" versus an unskilled person who might just know "that was a gun."

[SteveZilla]

That part of the discussion goes WAY back. It started with the suggestion that the effects of Obvious powers were themselves obvious, which suggests I can see how much BOD damage he took. If that is Obvious, so is whether or not he is dead.

 

You and I would both rule that whether the target is dead, knocked out, knocked prone or chose to fall prone is not obvious without excellent perception, extra time, etc. - it's not Obvious, no PER roll required, as the RAW define an attack power.

 

Similarly, I think a target hit by a gun can clutch the wound, double over and be believed severely injured - until he moves his hands and there's no blood - even if his rDEF is not purchased IPE. It would be a lot easier if they were, since he would then bleed like he had been shot.

While the effect of an Obvious power may be Obvious (it causes a wound with SFX-relate telltales, for instance), the _size_ of that wound (it was 12 BODY after defenses) would IMO not be Obvious.  Whether that 12 BODY wound actually killed the target would not be obvious because while it is arguable about the Obviousness of how much damage an Obvious power inflicted, the amount of BODY a target has is not.

 

Aside:  Personally, I find IPE on defenses very hard to justify in terms of stating the effect of an attack power to the attacker.  "I hit him until he's a red paste on the ground" - "Well, he's a red paste on the ground, but he get up again"...  0.o

[Hugh Neilson]

The example provided in the rules is a blob that looks like it takes a pile of damage, but it just keeps coming.

 

To the BOD example does a 12 BOD wound on an 8 BOD normal, a 15 BOD thug and a 40 BOD Super look the same? Does it matter whether it was inflicted by a gun, a laser, a lightning bolt, or a death spell? What about whether the attack was a normal attack, a KA or a Drain? And what about three days later, when the character has changed inti fresh clothes and the wound is lightly bandaged underneath?

 

None of these things strike me as obvious in the source material.

[PhilFleischmann]

I think it is obvious to anyone, even if they don't have a medical degree and even if they don't take a good amount of time to example someone, that they've had their head chopped off.  Any unskilled normal can tell the difference between a sucking chest wound and a small cut on the arm. Likewise people can tell the difference between someone's eyebrows being singed off and a black, charred lump of ash shaped like a person.

 

The possibility of something not being as it seems is a separate matter.  Yes, someone can play possum, or Simulate Death, or use Images or Mental Illusions etc., but even those possibilities demonstrate that some degree of information is in fact discernible (even if that information turns out to be false).  If it wasn't, no one would bother trying to deceive an onlooker.

 

Likewise, a person who has just woken up after a full night's sleep looks different from someone who has just run a marathon.

 

And the precise nature of what information can be determined (by simple, brief, unskilled observation) is up to the GM.  Some wounds or physical conditions may be obvious, while others aren't.  Internal bleeding may be just as fatal as an external wound, but might not be equally observable.  Likewise the physiology of the person may change what the injury looks like.  If Robotman is fatally short-circuited, you might have no idea that he's damaged at all.  Likewise that blue dot on the alien's forehead may not just be decoration - it may be an important weak spot.  A human whose makeup is smeared off isn't harmed, but if this particular alien species has their blue dot damaged, they instantly die.

 

"You can observe a lot by watching." -- Yogi Berra

[SteveZilla]

The example provided in the rules is a blob that looks like it takes a pile of damage, but it just keeps coming.

 

At some point the amount of damage it looks like it has taken (but hasn't because of DEF+IPE) it going to strain even the most gullible of players' belief.  If they hit that blob with an attack that would level a city, and would turn other blobs into a red (or green if copper-based) paste on the ground - and it appears to do the same here, yet the blob still keeps going...  What would you tell the players then?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'd call it special effect; if you want yourself to look powered up, okay.  Otherwise, you don't have to.  It might add a die to a presence attack maybe, but that's pretty much it besides looking cool.

[Hugh Neilson]

At some point the amount of damage it looks like it has taken (but hasn't because of DEF+IPE) it going to strain even the most gullible of players' belief.  If they hit that blob with an attack that would level a city, and would turn other blobs into a red (or green if copper-based) paste on the ground - and it appears to do the same here, yet the blob still keeps going...  What would you tell the players then?

Exactly what they see...the smeared Blob just keeps coming. What they make of it is up to them.

 

How do you described, differently, a battle where the 12d6 Blaster hits a 30 DEF, 35 STUN opponent three times, taking him to -1 STUN, and a battle where the same Hero hits a 20 DEF, 65 STUN opponent three times, taking him to -1 STUN? The mechanics are not necessarily obvious. That's why we chant the Hero Mantra that mechanics are divorced from SFX.

[Surrealone]

The goalposts are using a Movement Power. It was Inobvious they had such a power, but the use of the power is Obvious.

 

... SNIP ...

 

Attack powers are Obvious - they can easily be perceived by at least two sense groups, one of which is normally Sight. No PER roll is generally required [6e V1 p124]Even an Inobvious power tends to have effects that can be perceived without a PER roll. That's very different from "someone with PS: MD, specialized in Boxing Industry; 20 years' worth of experience spent on skill levels and complementary skills" is not the baseline.

 

 

The rules define Obvious and Inobvious.

 

... SNIP ...

 

 

Please read pp 124 - 126 of 6e V1 so you will know what R are actually W. We'll wait. I will assume you did not know these rules, and not that you are being intentionally obtuse in order to defend your previous position.

Again, if it is not obvious to the typical casual onlooker, then it is not Visible/Obvious in accordance with the Hero System 6th Edition Rules As Written.

 

... SNIP ...

 

OK, so what happens when we review the media coverage. We'll get Captain Blasty to fire off 10 d6 - is that bigger, or smaller, than the Blast the villain fires in the news report? OK, now 10d6 + 1, and so on until we narrow down the number of dice the bad guy is doing. We'll bring in EnhancementMan in case the bad guy has a bigger Blast than Cap does. Or do I see the POTENTIAL of the blast used, rather than the portion used? Can I see that Captain Blasty is deliberately holding back and could do way more damage than that if he wanted to?

 

... SNIP ...

 

IPE tells us that moving from Obvious to Inobvious with IPE now requires the viewer to make a PER roll to perceive it when used. Any observer, not a trained physician or a firearms expert. The next step is not perceptible at all, but even there I question whether that is not the kind of thing trained experts with plenty of time can overcome.

 

Pardon the delay in response, life has been quite busy.  With regard to the quoted portions, above:

1. The goalposts never moved. Your assertion that they did ... amuses me.
2. Yes, Attack Powers are Obvious.  So are Adjustment Powers (which means Aid, a la this discussion ... and Drain, a la the poison dart example).  And don't forget the target effect is, thus, Obvious for those Adjustment Powers (meaning the Aid's sparkly effect on whatever was Aided ... or the Drain's visible effects on whatever was Drained ... unless the appropriate IPE was purchased).
3. I'm already well-versed with the pages you referenced.  (I did go look, just to make sure.)  Aid and Drain being Adjustment Powers are, indeed, Obvious to casual onlookers per the section you cited.  Also per the section you cited, target effect (which RAW defines as "the effect of the Power on the target (e.g., it’s injuring him, it’s supposed to injure him but isn’t having much effect, it’s turning him into a frog, it’s weakening him...") is one of the things perceived when a power is perceived.  This, in short, means the target effect of an Aid (i.e. it's strengthening him, or his blast, or his movement) ... is by default perceivable as a result of the use of the (Obvious) Aid in question ... unless the GM rules otherwise or appropriate IPE has been purchased.
4. Per RAW, Captain Blasty's Blast ... when Aided ... will have a target effect of the Obvious Aid on it ... which lets people know the target effect (i.e. "the effect of the [Aid] Power on the target" per 6e1 p125 as well as the intensity (also defined on 6e1 p 125).  Someone with appropriate senses that are bought with Discriminatory/Analyze might know the actual dice totals if s/he saw Captain Blasty use the Blast both before and after the (Obvious) Aid.
5. IPE can also be used to conceal the target effect of the power (per 6e1 p339) -- something you seem to have neglected in the last portion of your quoted text, above.  Doing so with the appropriate IPE to the target effect means not even trained experts can perceive the effects of the Power.  Unless an Aid is bought with IPE to the target effect, its effects will, thus, be perceivable on a target, as the Aid is Obvious (since Adjustment Powers are Obvious and it's an Adjustment Power).  With GM permission, someone could, in fact, buy the Aid such that the Aid, itself, is Obvious, but the target effect of the Aid is IPE to the target and/or onlookers.  With regard to the original poster's question, I believe this would be the only case where the Instant use of the Obvious Aid would be perceivable while its target effect would not be perceivable (regardless of the Obviousness of the Aid).

 

Thus, I stand by my previous assertion that we're "talking about obvious things whose degrees of obviousness need to be adjudicated by a GM based on circumstances (including training, situation, etc.) as Aid and Drain are Obvious by default.  Precisely what is observed/perceived by a character will, of course, vary based on circumstances ... such as:

• a trained eye noting small details that an untrained eye misses when both eyes observe the same occurrence;
• partial cover;
• range and its accompanying modifiers;
• whether the perceiving character has Discriminatory/Analyze on the sense being used to make the observation;
• etc.
• etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, Attack Powers are Obvious.  So are Adjustment Powers (which means Aid, a la this discussion ... and Drain, a la the poison dart example).  And don't forget the target effect is, thus, Obvious for those Adjustment Powers (meaning the Aid's sparkly effect on whatever was Aided ... or the Drain's visible effects on whatever was Drained ... unless the appropriate IPE was purchased).

As defined by the rules, Obvious means the power is obvious when used. Anyone can perceive the various things perceivable about the power. After the power is used, its aftereffects are not defined as Obvious anywhere. That includes the STUN damage taken, BODY damage healed or Aided points, among a variety of other possibilities. Aid is an Instant power, so it is only Obvious for that instantaneous use.

 

Note that the Path is also Obvious - that would imply there is a trail between where the attacker was standing and where the target was standing (or that a trail between attacker and defender, should they move) also remains obvious until all effects of the power use has faded.

 

Per RAW, Captain Blasty's Blast ... when Aided ... will have a target effect of the Obvious Aid on it ... which lets people know the target effect (i.e. "the effect of the [Aid] Power on the target" per 6e1 p125 as well as the intensity (also defined on 6e1 p 125).  Someone with appropriate senses that are bought with Discriminatory/Analyze might know the actual dice totals if s/he saw Captain Blasty use the Blast both before and after the (Obvious) Aid.

Captain Blast is using a more powerful Blast than before. His Blast is Obvious when used. The Aid is not being used at that time, so being able to perceive that Cap's Blast was aided, and will fade away with time, rather than that he could have fired a more powerful blast earlier and chose not to, or that his blast has become more powerful since last you met, is not Obvious.

 

IPE can also be used to conceal the target effect of the power (per 6e1 p339) -- something you seem to have neglected in the last portion of your quoted text, above. Doing so with the appropriate IPE to the target effect means not even trained experts can perceive the effects of the Power. Unless an Aid is bought with IPE to the target effect, its effects will, thus, be perceivable on a target, as the Aid is Obvious (since Adjustment Powers are Obvious and it's an Adjustment Power).

When the Aid is used, yes. After it has been used, it is no longer "being used". It is also Obvious that a Power is being used. Applying your logic to this would suggest that whoever Aided Captain Blasty, with a "fade 5/day" Aid, will be clearly perceivable to have used that Aid (Activity; source) on Captain Blasty (target), where they were when he used it (Path), et al, over and above it remaining Obvious that Cap has been Aided.

 

Note that use of an Obvious power imposes a Stealth penalty. Are you suggesting that both Captain Blasty and the person who Aided him suffer that penalty until all the points fade?

 

When two possible interpretations exist, and one provides a ludicrous result, the other is usually the correct interpretation.