The PRE of something that isn't present

[Ockham's Spoon]

Here's the scenario: a character has an Images power that allows them to create convincing sight and sound illusions.  He is a nebbish little guy with a 10 PRE and no real combat skills, so when a gang of thugs is threatening to rough him up, he decides to make an illusion of a supernatural creature that has been terrorizing the city to scare them off.  The question is, how much PRE does the illusion get for purposes of scaring off the thugs?  How would you handle this?

[Ninja-Bear]

As a one time thing? Just let the illusion have the appropriate PRE. Now if he wants to do it repeatedly, how about linking PRE to illusions?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Your solution is quick, easy, and to the point.  I like that simplicity.  But...

 

This has always been an issue for me in the Hero system.  For a one time thing, I can hand wave it.  For repeated use, I need to buy a whole new ability.  From a balance standpoint I totally understand.  But the player says, "Hey the first time I used this it worked great because the monster has a 40 PRE.  Now I have to spend character points, and I only have enough to get a 30 PRE monster, so not only are those points tied up in a power I got for free earlier, it isn't even as effective." 

 

So there is part of me that would like to scale back the initial use of the ability or make it difficult which would make buying a power to represent the effect more palatable.  Would you base it on the active points in the Images?  Require a Power Skill roll?  Would it be a skill roll vs. PER roll?  How would you limit it so that what seems like a clever use of the power isn't discarded out of hand or penalized but still balance it so that spending points on it later makes sense?

[LoneWolf]

The PRE attack charts have some modifier that can be applied.  

 

+1d6 for exhibiting a power
+1d6 - +3d6 for violent action (assuming the illusion appears to be doing something violent)
+1d6 - +2d6 for appropriate setting
+1d6 - +3d6 for soliloquy (could be monster roaring or other appropriate vocalization)
+1d6 for target being surprised 
+1d6 - +2d6 for making an acting roll.

 

So potentially you have a +12d6 to the PRE attack.  If this happens while in combat you will get a -1d6 for being in combat.  If any of the characters have any physiological complications the bonus could go higher.  If this is a well-known monster and the caster can duplicate it well enough you could impose a 0 point psychological complication on the targets for an additional +1d6 - +3d6 bonus.  

 

If all the factors line up the PRE attack could go as high as 17d6 with a 10 PRE caster.  Chances are it is going to be a lot less, but it will still be enough to get the job done.  
 

[Ninja-Bear]

Well Ockham I did sorta answer on the fly. After I posted I did have more thought to the matter. I feel that depending on what image the guy created, he should be given that value of PRE for free. For example if he manifests a dragon a the Bestiary lists a dragon at 30 PRE then so be it. I don’t think it’ll hurt anything.

[Duke Bushido]

This slippery slope is the ugly side of HERO: the compulsion to map everything to a number because it can be mapped to a number.

 

Look closely at the mechanic for illusions, though: there are allowances for size, sound, movement, and- most importantly- how completely the target believes the illusion to be real.

 

There are no allowances for mapping the Characteristics or abilities of the illusion.  This makes sense, as the effect the illusion has is tied to the target's belief in its reality.  The more he believes it, the more impressive it is, at least to him.  If it is meant to be inspirational, the more real it is, the more inspiring it will be.  If it is meant to be scary, EGOx5 makes it soul-shreddingly terrifying.

 

The mechanic for it is, perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not, left enitirely to GM interpretation, with nods to psych limitations, level of success, complexity, repeated exposure to the same thing (via Peesence rules), etc. There is also leeway for making the illusion different, more or less tailored to the target, etc.  Statting it out will mean these things are 

 

If you insist that something be statted out, there is an entirely different mechanic for that:  summon a fully-statted illusory creature.  It will be an illusion, and the exact same thing, every time, with whatever unchanging characteristics are assigned to it.

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

P.s. I like Lonewolf’s breakdown of the bonuses. 

[LoneWolf]

Since this is an image not a mental illusion I don’t think the illusion should get everything the real creature gets.  Shapeshift can also be an illusion would you allow someone shapeshifting into a high PRE creature to automatically gain that creatures PRE?  This makes these types of illusions way to powerful.  I can end any combat by creating an illusion of a high PRE character without investing anything in my own PRE.  

 

A PRE attack may not even be needed.  If the thugs believe the illusion they should react to it as if it were real.  How would the thugs react if the creature actually showed up?  If they would flee when the creature show up, they should do the same for the image.  If they would hold their ground until threatened then maybe a PRE attack is appropriate.  If so simply adjust the PRE based on how they perceive the threat using the adjustments I brought up in my first post.   
 

[Duke Bushido]

You even have to define what PRE actually _is_, not just in terms,of the mechanics with which it is used, but is it something that is tied to the shape?   If an artist sculpted and painted one, is it automatically as "presencey" as the original thing?

 

Hiw much of its presence is derived from its basic appearance, how much from its mannerisms, hiw much from just "what is known" about the thing?  Can your  shapeshifter incorporate the right movements, sounds, reactions, actions, etc?  How much of the pre involves those things?

 

To use the over-used but relevant example of Batman, is he scary solely because he looks like Batman?

 

Or is there more to it than that?

 

 

On the other sise of the coin, if the PC buys enough dice of images to create a perfect image so flawless as to score a x4 or x5, what is he getting?  We have recently run through a thread about how exp3nsive that can be.  If he decides to forego the potential 16 dice of damage he could have bought as a blast to instead be extremly effective with images, what return is he getting if, when he gets high enough success, his effectiveness is hampered because we arent willing to let him kow someone without additional builds and expense?  If he needs a x4 to startle someone into a brief retreat, he gets nothing for x1, x2, or times 3.  Declaring that he needs additional expenditures to get the value of his x4 may not be just, and may instaed encourage him to just buy another fireball and kill it.

[archer]

23 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Well Ockham I did sorta answer on the fly. After I posted I did have more thought to the matter. I feel that depending on what image the guy created, he should be given that value of PRE for free. For example if he manifests a dragon a the Bestiary lists a dragon at 30 PRE then so be it. I don’t think it’ll hurt anything.

 

I'm going to create God every time. Or at least Zeus or Odin.  

 

Zeus shows up in a puff of smoke, "Hey, why are you messing with my illegitimate kid?"

 

 

More seriously, I've never given Images any attacks, PRE or otherwise. IMO, that's always been the role of Mental Illusions.

 

Images will show something. But each person reacts to it individually as appropriate for the image means to that person. If a dragon appears to be threatening, the person will rationally think about backing away or running away. But he doesn't get the irrational fear response that would come from a successful PRE attack or the dragonfear that comes off of a D&D dragon.

 

Likewise, if I created Images showing God in front of a group of people, some of them might automatically fall to their knees in worship. But others might rationally notice a lack of godly awe radiating from the figure even if it looks right and sounds right.

 

2 cents

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'd base the presence on the effectiveness of the illusion how well they believe it and how much they see through it.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'd base the presence on the effectiveness of the illusion how well they believe it and how much they see through it.

Yeah, I didn’t say it but that was part of what I was thinking too.

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

I'm going to create God every time. Or at least Zeus or Odin.  

Right and this type of thinking is a reason what there is Rules bloat in Hero. You may have been tongue and checking it but I see someone being so concerned that this might be abused that more rules must be thrust upon to make sure it doesn’t happen.

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, first for Duke:  As Light Illusions evolved into Images over the editions, the d6s compared to INT times # went away.  Unlike mental powers, it did not evolve into INT + #.  Images in later editions are adjudicated with PER rolls, with more complex images providing a bonus, and the ability to purchase penalties, as well as the various sense groups.  So Images to Sight, Hearing, Smell and Touch (the slime feels slimy - it still can't attack or hold an object up) costs 25 points, and might also add 15 points for a -5 penalty to PER rolls to notice some flaw in the image, then slap a +1/2 AoE on the whole thing to make it bigger than its base 1 cubic meter.  There's a 60 AP Images power.

 

Spending 60 points on Images and getting +90 PRE that Costs END out of the deal seems inappropriate at best.  I think Lonewolf's suggestion to use PRE modifiers instead is far better.  So how might I apply these?

 

On 3/13/2021 at 7:51 AM, LoneWolf said:

The PRE attack charts have some modifier that can be applied.  

 

+1d6 for exhibiting a power

 

Automatic if the character wants it.  Images is a Power, so that comes free like it does with Blast or Flight.

 

On 3/13/2021 at 7:51 AM, LoneWolf said:

+1d6 - +3d6 for violent action (assuming the illusion appears to be doing something violent)

+1d6 - +2d6 for appropriate setting
+1d6 - +3d6 for soliloquy (could be monster roaring or other appropriate vocalization)
+1d6 for target being surprised

 

All seem applicable.  I think I would base the soliloquy on the same bases as a normal PRE attack.  The Image may even lack sound, but "My friend here may think otherwise" could be a soliloquy.  Same for setting and surprise.

 

Perhaps, given the PER roll penalties go in two's, we allow +1d6 for Violent Action automatically, and you can have an extra +1d6 for each 2 points they fail the PER roll by, capped at +3d6 in total.  Or maybe we just allow the level of violence in the action, assessed normally, but you can add a +2 PER roll bonus for each added 1d6 of PRE attack you want on top of what you have already earned.  Making it more impressive makes it easier to spot a flaw.

 

You bought +xd6 PRE attacks linked to Images as well?  That will be a VERY impressive image!

[LoneWolf]

A high PRE is the ability to manipulate others and the ability to resist being manipulated by others.  It has absolutely nothing to do with appearance.  If something has the ability to cause fear by appearance that should be bought as striking appearance not PRE.   The character in the original post is trying to do exactly that.  He is also using images not mental illusions, that means he is the one controlling the illusionary creature and how it moves and reacts.  It make sense to use the characters PRE instead of the creatures.   The images are allowing him to get a PRE attack where he normally would not be able to.  He can also use the modifications appropriate to the illusion of the creature.  

 

I don’t know the specifics of the characters power, but look at the minimum needed to pull this off.  For 45 active points I can purchase images the sight and sound groups, with a-7 to the perception and a 4” radius area of effect.    The image is a single creature so that would probably be a complex image giving the thugs a adjusted -3 to their perception roll.   That means they will have a 74% chance of failing it. Most PC probably have higher than a 11< perception roll, but it increasing the penalty is not that expensive.  For 60 point I can have a -11 penalty to the roll which is going to get just about any character.  

 

Now think what could be done with that.  I create an image of some extremely high PRE character and use that to scare my opponents into submission.  I start with a 50 PRE and add situational modifiers.  That means I am rolling somewhere between 15d6 -20d6 for a PRE attack.  I have a 90% or better chance of affecting just about everything in the game.  And unless your character has a sky high PRE I have you cowering in fear.   That seems to be a bit much for a 60 point power.   If you base it off the characters PRE that drops down to 7d6 – 10d6 which is a little more reasonable. 

 

Characters should get what they pay for, but they should also pay for what they get.  I think archer was joking when he said he was going to create a god every time, but there is some sense to it.  Starting up with an image of a high PRE character would make tactical sense if the PRE was based on the PRE of the illusion.  
 

[archer]

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

 

 

Characters should get what they pay for, but they should also pay for what they get.  I think archer was joking when he said he was going to create a god every time, but there is some sense to it.  Starting up with an image of a high PRE character would make tactical sense if the PRE was based on the PRE of the illusion.  
 

 

I've played a con man mage who would definitely use Images to summon a god, particularly if it'd help fleece the gullible townsfolk in some manner or help win over some powerful patron.

 

His idea of a good time would be to leave the townsfolk penniless while blessing his name and writing letters of recommendation to the leaders of other towns attesting to his impeccable character.

 

I mean, he generally has to work hard to get that result. But it would certainly simplify the process if the local god would show up on schedule to personally vouch for him and PRE attack the marks into compliance.

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'd base the presence on the effectiveness of the illusion how well they believe it and how much they see through it.

 

While we aren't usually polar opposites, we disagree enough that it's always interesting to note where we agree. 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

OK, first for Duke:  As Light Illusions evolved into Images over the editions, the d6s compared to INT times # went away.  Unlike mental powers, it did not evolve into INT + #.  Images in later editions are adjudicated with PER rolls, with more complex images providing a bonus, and the ability to purchase penalties, as well as the various sense groups.  So Images to Sight, Hearing, Smell and Touch (the slime feels slimy - it still can't attack or hold an object up) costs 25 points, and might also add 15 points for a -5 penalty to PER rolls to notice some flaw in the image, then slap a +1/2 AoE on the whole thing to make it bigger than its base 1 cubic meter.  There's a 60 AP Images power.

 

Ah!  Thanks, Hugh.  I had forgotten that change in the newer editions (should any lurkers come along wondering how: I still play the old stuff, and like with anyone else, what's most familiar comes most readily to mind.   My mistake; my apologies.

 

So I took a moment to brush up on 6e Images, and frankly, it's even more effective: anyone blowing a perception roll believes the image to be real, period.  For a mere three points, the wielder can buy a -1 to that perception roll. Super-senses aren't really covered in-depth (can a person without IR vision create an image that fools IR vision, for example).  Batman types would be harder to fool, but typical bricks are going spend a lot of time attacking a decoy.  No real complaints there: if you buy a power, it should be good for something, after all.  There isn't much discussion of PER related to Images, but we may be able to infer from the statement that "a warrior, monster, policeman, or something else that should have a DCV, its DCV is whatever the character creating it wants it to have, subject to GM's permission."  [and the obligatory "emphasis added" here, followed by your obligatory "well, duh!s" here.     )

 

There is a much shorter statement that suggests too high a CV may even be a tip-off to the targets that "something isn't right" and allow them a bonus to their PER rolls.

 

_Personally_-- as in, there is nothing in the sacred texts to support this-- I would apply a casting penalty or sorts, or require the caster to lower his own DCV if he is attempting to assign his image a CV higher than his own:  it can't be easy to react faster than you are able to react; that smacks of intense concentration.  Again, just a personal thought, but it might be something I would consider applying should the caster (pardon the use of the term; it's just easier to type than "the guy who is using Images against his target(s)") should he wish to give his illusion an ferocity that he himself does not posses-- maybe require an Acting roll or something like that to ensure that he does nothing to blow the illusion: Godzilla skipping along the street; Superman giving someone the finger; Batman smiling-- that sort of thing.   However, I have not given that any thought at all; it's just a knee-jerk suggestion to allow a player and a GM to come to terms with a quibble.

 

For that matter, the caster's familiarity with the subject of his illusion may come into play; he may attempt to-- using the PER example-- give a creature a ferocity that it is not generally known to posses, creating a confusion that might add a point or two to opposing PER rolls.  Just a couple of thoughts.

 

 

And, as Lonewolf has already noted, there are existing PER modifiers such as display of power, violent action, etc that can be brought to bear to boost a Presence Attack.

 

At any rate, I have confessed to not using the rules set in question, and am going to bow out at this point.

 

 

You folks have a nice discussion. 

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

At any rate, I have confessed to not using the rules set in question, and am going to bow out at this point.

 

You folks have a nice discussion. 

 

So, among the best post on the thread, and its author disclaims the knowledge to be a good contributor.

 

Welcome to the Anti-Internet.

[Ockham's Spoon]

So maybe PRE is the wrong way to think about this.  Suppose instead of a monster, the illusionist creates a rapidly spreading fire.  Fire doesn't have any PRE, but rational people will flee from it.  As Lonewolf mentioned, having people react to what they think is there is a logical way to handle it.  The limit on the effectiveness of the power might be an INT check by the thugs - how likely is it that a fire broke out or a monster suddenly appeared.  The lower INT opponents (that is, gullible) fall for the illusion, but the master villain is too smart to fall for it.  The GM might impose a INT check penalty for a particularly believable illusion or a bonus for one that is less likely.  Of course if they make their PER check in the first place the gig is up, but if not the INT roll could help keep a simple illusion from getting out of hand.

[Duke Bushido]

On 3/14/2021 at 2:13 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

Spending 60 points on Images and getting +90 PRE that Costs END out of the deal seems inappropriate at best.  I think Lonewolf's suggestion to use PRE modifiers instead is far better.  So how might I apply these?

 

 

I wanted to comment on this last night, but didn't have the time to make sure my assumptions were correct, so I put it off until tonight, and find that I still don't have the time to really pull an in-depth math-up of Summon, but I would like to mention-- if anyone is thinking of the whole "summon Illusionary creature" I tossed out, that the 90 PRE, bought for the summoned McGuffin, tacks on a mere 18 points.   Same exact effect-- 90 PRE-- for less than a third of the 60 pts of Images.

 

Sure-- you may have to buy a few other things  [NOTE: what I wanted to check was where 6e stands on negative characteristics and 0 charactereristics, as an illusionary creature-- living entirely in my head, ordinarily, would have lots of Zero stats].

 

 

I have little doubt that by whatever time tomorrow I am able to check the board, Hugh or someone else quick with numbers and familiar with the rules will have explained why this isn't possible, so I am going to return to the sidelines.

 

Good night, folks.

 

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I wanted to comment on this last night, but didn't have the time to make sure my assumptions were correct, so I put it off until tonight, and find that I still don't have the time to really pull an in-depth math-up of Summon, but I would like to mention-- if anyone is thinking of the whole "summon Illusionary creature" I tossed out, that the 90 PRE, bought for the summoned McGuffin, tacks on a mere 18 points.   Same exact effect-- 90 PRE-- for less than a third of the 60 pts of Images.

 

Sure-- you may have to buy a few other things  [NOTE: what I wanted to check was where 6e stands on negative characteristics and 0 charactereristics, as an illusionary creature-- living entirely in my head, ordinarily, would have lots of Zero stats].

 

 

I have little doubt that by whatever time tomorrow I am able to check the board, Hugh or someone else quick with numbers and familiar with the rules will have explained why this isn't possible, so I am going to return to the sidelines.

 

Good night, folks.

 

 

Easily buildable, but this starts to get into GM approval territory very quickly. You could expect this power to be approved just as frequently any 90 PRE writeup will be. Just because you can build it doesn't mean that it fits the campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

An interesting observation on the Summon.

 

On that vein, the  biggest issue is the thematic "so, what exactly is this thing you Summon that has stats of 5, or even 1, and a 60 or 90 PRE - and ohh, look, a 1 EGO so it's easy for you to control, too"?  Just like the GM needs to assess whether you can, in fact, make an Illusion with 90 PRE.

 

No negative stats in Hero, but you can sell back stats, running, senses, etc.

 

Now, with an illusion, I (Caster) know it is an illusion, so the PRE has no impact on me.  My Summoned creature?  Well, if I control it, it's at a disadvantage - but it still has a massive PRE.  What if it decides to come looking for me when the Summon ends?

 

Of course, the Illusion is good for a lot more than just summoning up an impressive-looking, otherwise ineffectual beast.

[LoneWolf]

The big difference between summon and images is that the summon of a 90 PRE creature is that it is obvious what you are intending to do.  With a summon you have to build the creature to be summoned so the GM gets to see what you are doing and can and will veto anything he considers abusive.  It even recommends the GM do so in the description of summon.  With the image you have a fairly standard power that is not necessarily abusive, but can be in certain circumstances.  

 

I can build dozens of powers that are perfectly legal but completely abusive.  It is the GM’s responsibility to deal with these.  In some cases they can be modified to be acceptable, but in other cases a veto is the appropriate action.  
 

[Ninja-Bear]

9 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

I can build dozens of powers that are perfectly legal but completely abusive.  It is the GM’s responsibility to deal with these.  In some cases they can be modified to be acceptable, but in other cases a veto is the appropriate action.  
 

I’m going to disagree with your statement. If you are well versed enough to build highly abusive and still legal builds then it is also your responsibility to not not use them. The GM has enough on his or her plate why add more to it? 

[Ninja-Bear]

Couple more thoughts. Lonewolf I took your quoted words perhaps more negatively than you implied so just to be clear, if that is the case then the following is t directed at you but to those whom would accept the quote in the very negative that I read into.

 

With the “GM” responsibility remark is there any wonder why then the is bloat of Rules? If it is truly solely the GM’s responsibility then the average GM would like to know more how various Powers interact as so to keep balance and stop abuse. We have a varied Power and Flexible base which means that it is harder to cover all instances but if that is required then either there needs to be MORE RULES, especially edge cases or MORE NOs which will affect on how creative a character could be built.  Really part of allowing a player to build his own character is the trust that the player won’t abuse the rules. If a player wants to play the “well I know it’s abusive but I’ll see if I can sneak it in trick” then for fairness to other players the GM would either ban the player from the game or just say “here’s a list of 4 pre approved characters, choose one if you want to play.” I rather play to have fun. I have enough of disciplining my own kids, I don’t need to do that with players.

[LoneWolf]

I have been playing the hero system since it first came out and know the system very well.  I am also very analytical and tend to see ways to create something that other people don’t.   This means I tend to write up very effective characters.  That does not mean I create overpowered character, I go out of my way to avoid that.  If I am not running I often audit character for the GM to make sure there are no problems.   I also advise the other players on ways to improve their characters.  

 

Sometimes someone will build a power without realizing how powerful it can be.  At this point it is GM’s responsibility to deal with the situation.  My comment on being able to create an abusive power was directed at Duke Bushido’s comment about summoning up a creature with a 90 PRE.  To me that is an abusive power even if it is perfectly legal. If one of my players did something like that it would be hit with a veto.  

 

What it comes down to is just because someone can do something does not mean they should.  This is true in the game and in real life.