Scrying Resistance

[Black Rose]

I've looked through the forums for an answer but not found it. Here's the question:

 

"How do I make it harder (PER penalties) to "scry" a character and/or an area?"

 

Based on writeups I've seen here, Darkness to Clairsentience is popular. But I don't want to blackout the character/area to Clairsentience (and is that even legal?), I want a penalty to PER rolls to sense a character/area provided the Special Effect of that sensing is "scrying". Granted, most of the time that would be using Clairsentience, but it might also be Mind Scan, or something else I haven't considered.

 

Thoughts?

[Hugh Neilson]

If you want to change the environment so that it is harder to scry, it seems like Change Environment would be a good starting point.

[steriaca]

Darkness works.

Change Environment works.

Invisibility to Clairvoyance works for an individual only. It doesn't exactly pose a penalty except to "see" through a fringe.

Illusions might work to create false scrying.

[Derek Hiemforth]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If you want to change the environment so that it is harder to scry, it seems like Change Environment would be a good starting point.

 

Change Environment is also better than Darkness for this purpose because Darkness doesn't penalize perception... it prevents it.  I would use Change Environment with the PER penalties bought per Sense Group, but instead of the Sense Group being defined as "Sight" or "Hearing" or the like, the Sense Group would be "Scrying Senses."  This eliminates the need to guess whether the scrying power is built using Clairsentience or Mind Scan (or whatever other sense, as long as the special effect is "scrying").

[Utensil]

In D&D and many fantasy settings Scrying is the following:

• Mind Scan: Find the subject (for those spells that find such a person)

• Clairsentience: See & Hear such person and that persons surroundings.

 

This "counter" this scrying one only need to prevent Mind Scan as the Clairsentience is linked to the success Mind Scan and the Mind Scan is all or nothing success.

 

OR

• Clairsentience: See some place far away as you if you in that place.

 

This would be countered by Darkness in the area.

If one wants to see the "Place" and all that is present in area but not intended target then that person protected from Clairsentience is Invisibility to "Clairsentience"

But one would notice the oddity of someone say conversing to protected person and thus looking like they are talking to 'an imaginary person'.

 

OR

• Change Environment with minus to Perception in protected area.

 

This would result in Mind Scan having more difficulty locking onto said subject.

And Clairsentience in Area would show everything heavily 'distorted', but this distortion would alert such a person protection spell present.

 

>>>

 

Perhaps best way to write it up if one does no want to have a distortion effect of Change Environment is as follows:

Invisibility to Clairsentience Group and Mind Scan , No Fringe ... Active Cost 35 and costing 3 END per phase.

 

Naturally one would have to have Game Masters approval for using Invisibility this way.

 

But this is just my opinion. After all this form of invisibility would not prevent someone standing in front of protected person from seeing the protected person.

 

 

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Utensil said:

In D&D and many fantasy settings Scrying is the following:

• Mind Scan: Find the subject (for those spells that find such a person)

• Clairsentience: See & Hear such person and that persons surroundings.

 

This "counter" this scrying one only need to prevent Mind Scan as the Clairsentience is linked to the success Mind Scan and the Mind Scan is all or nothing success.

 

OR

• Clairsentience: See some place far away as you if you in that place.

 

This would be countered by Darkness in the area.

If one wants to see the "Place" and all that is present in area but not intended target then that person protected from Clairsentience is Invisibility to "Clairsentience"

But one would notice the oddity of someone say conversing to protected person and thus looking like they are talking to 'an imaginary person'.

 

OR

• Change Environment with minus to Perception in protected area.

 

This would result in Mind Scan having more difficulty locking onto said subject.

And Clairsentience in Area would show everything heavily 'distorted', but this distortion would alert such a person protection spell present.

 

>>>

 

Perhaps best way to write it up if one does no want to have a distortion effect of Change Environment is as follows:

Invisibility to Clairsentience Group and Mind Scan , No Fringe ... Active Cost 35 and costing 3 END per phase.

 

Naturally one would have to have Game Masters approval for using Invisibility this way.

 

But this is just my opinion. After all this form of invisibility would not prevent someone standing in front of protected person from seeing the protected person.

 

 

 

By RAW, you'd need Invisibility to all Sense Groups with a Limitation for only vs Clairsentience and Mind Scan.

[Ockham's Spoon]

I think Change Environment is probably the way to go, but you could also use Images vs. Scrying Senses, Only to Conceal from Scrying Senses, and then set the PER modifier to whatever level of concealment you want.  This would be similar to a chameleon ability, but oriented toward scrying senses instead of sight.

[Christopher R Taylor]

steriaca runs own the list well.  You can use a variety of different options for different effects, but for the original post as I read it Change Environment seems to most closely apply.

[LoneWolf]

Depending on the setting the GM may create a separate sense group for certain things.  For example, in a Fantasy Hero or other magic heavy game the GM could create a mystic sense group and require certain spells or abilities to be from this sense group.   Most often these senses would normally be part of the unusual group, but it may make sense to split them off.  In some cases, it will even change the default sense group of a power. I can see requiring a mind scan spell to be part of the mystic sense group instead of mental.   

 

If the GM does something like this, it becomes a lot easier to block a lot of things.  That is actually not a bad thing as it makes it easier to defend against a lot of things that would otherwise be hard to defend against.  
 

[unclevlad]

It also makes it easier to detect them, and only them.  It might need a bit of care to avoid being *too* good.  Magesight's not uncommon for fantasy...the ability to see spell constructs.  That may or may not cover scrying;  it might catch a Wizard Eye spell where there's the inobvious, but detectable, sensor, but not scrying through a crystal ball.

[Black Rose]

A lot of the stuff below is for my own use; apologies if it bores/confuses anyone.

 

Based on things suggested above, for my setting I think it's best to define a "Scrying Powers" category and say, "If you're doing anything that I-the-GM consider scrying, regardless of the means (Clairsentience, Enhanced Senses, Mind Link, Mind Scan, whatever), I'm calling it a Scrying Power, and it falls into the Scrying Sense Group."

 

For my purposes, I'm going to use:

Change Environment to simulate scrying resistance, for individuals, objects, or locations

Invisibility to simulate "immunity to scrying"

Images to simulate scry-spoofing

 

Mind Link and Mind Scan, when used as scrying (as opposed to being some psionic thingie) will not be considered Mental Powers in this case and fall under the "Scrying Powers" category.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The main concern with darkness is that its perceptible; you cannot use darkness unless its something that actively and perceptibly covers the area in question.  As I understand and read the rules, Darkness vs sound isn't silence, its so loud you cannot hear (like darkness vs sight is so dark you cannot see into it).  Darkness vs smell is a scent that overpowers all other smells, etc.  So you'd have to buy it invisible in some manner to keep it from being annoying to everyone in the area, or a limitation to make it only work against Clair sesnes, for example.

 

Incidentally, this is why I don't like the idea of using darkness vs sound to stop spellcasting.  They're still able to say the words, its just not audible.

[unclevlad]

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The main concern with darkness is that its perceptible; you cannot use darkness unless its something that actively and perceptibly covers the area in question.  As I understand and read the rules, Darkness vs sound isn't silence, its so loud you cannot hear (like darkness vs sight is so dark you cannot see into it).  Darkness vs smell is a scent that overpowers all other smells, etc.  So you'd have to buy it invisible in some manner to keep it from being annoying to everyone in the area, or a limitation to make it only work against Clair sesnes, for example.

 

Incidentally, this is why I don't like the idea of using darkness vs sound to stop spellcasting.  They're still able to say the words, its just not audible.

 

Lemme start with the last:  I suspect Gygax had Silence 15' Radius stop spellcasting to 

a)  make the verbal component mean something, and

b)  so he could mess with the players.

 

I don't think anyone would much argue that a spell with a somatic component wouldn't work if the caster's tied up.  A silence field is about the best you'll get, to inhibit the verbal.  

 

I don't see, tho, that darkness to sound only represents a cacophony that drowns out everything else.  Nothing in the power reads that way to me.  A vacuum blocks all sound;  granted, it should have other game effects as well, but it does serve to stop sound.  Darkness to sight can be a complete lack of light...or suddenly creating a brightness like the sun.  One's denying, one's overloading.  Why should sound only be overloading?

 

Last:  Darkness can be to any sense group.  Darkness to the Radio Group?  A Faraday cage.  Does it stop the sight group?  Nope.  Sound group?  Definitely not.  Is it noticeable to any other sense?  Nope.  For that matter, blocking *all* light for a Sight Darkness field doesn't interfere with hearing.  Darkness is perceivable to the sense group to which it applies...not necessarily to anything else.

 

One thing that RAW does not allow, is soundproofing to act as Darkness.  High-end turntables...remember those?...were often placed on high-density foam mats, that absorbed vibration.  Cork is a great soundproofing material;  its structure, I think, disrupts vibrational transmission.  So, in reality you can incorporate these materials into a room's surfaces, and no one can hear your conversations in the room...nor can you hear what goes on outside.  But you can speak perfectly normally inside the room...and that's not allowed with Darkness.

 

Offhand, I think Black Rose's solution should work fairly well.  Maybe need some tweaking...Mind Link doesn't allow sense sharing.  That requires Clairvoyance.  So entering an anti-scry area, and having that stop the mind link?  Not sure about that.  Stop the Clairvoy (using the senses of another)...yeah, no problem.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I don't see, tho, that darkness to sound only represents a cacophony that drowns out everything else.

 

Well, maybe you could define how a darkness vs sight blocks off sight without being something that is visibly preventing seeing into the area, then?  Because this is how the rules state it:

 

Quote

A character with Darkness can create a field that’s impervious to one Sense Group (usually the Sight Group). Some examples of Darkness include
smoke grenades... and blinding fields of impenetrable blackness... Darkness makes the covered area impenetrable by the Senses it affects.

 

It doesn't make the senses not work, like flash, it just makes effects that are perceived by that sense impossible to sense. Darkness vs every other sense group in conception is a field that overwhelms and blocks off that sense (a cloud of darkness, a powerful smell etc).  Why wouldn't darkness vs sound just be a very loud noise, in the same exact manner?

 

I left off one example they gave (the first elipsis) because it presumes that darkness to hearing eliminates speech.  It does no such thing, it simply makes that speech not penetrate the darkness field.  They're still speaking, its just not audible to anyone else.  Just like a flashlight still works in a darkness field, it just cannot be perceived.  

 

To me, what is being attempted here is mistaken.  Darkness doesn't stop incantations, it makes incantations inaudible in that field.  What is needed is another power like "silence" or something that actually prevents something from being used, rather than from being perceived.  Unless your incantation has to be heard by some outside source "By the dread Dormammu!" who then grants power, it should still work in a darkness field vs sound.  The only argument that it would not work this way is "um, we don't have another mechanic to represent this effect."

 

Incidentally how would I build a silence spell?  Flash vs voice.  Technically according to the rules, its a sense.

[dmjalund]

you;d have to answer the question is why do spells require an incantation. is it so a god or spirit can hear and respond? if so anything that stops that being from hearing the incantation would probably stop the spell

[unclevlad]

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Darkness vs every other sense group in conception is a field that overwhelms and blocks off that sense (a cloud of darkness, a powerful smell etc).  Why wouldn't darkness vs sound just be a very loud noise, in the same exact manner?

 

No.  This is the error.  Blocks, yes...but nowhere does it say overwhelms.  "Impenetrable blackness" can simply mean all light is repulsed in the field.  That doesn't overwhelm sight;  it prevents the medium.  Darkness vs. sound *could be* a cacophony, but it could also be simply a vacuum.  No medium for sound to propagate.  The text specifically says "some examples" so requiring this to be a blanket characterization is not supported.

 

I'd also say that you're trying to compel a narrow interpretation, and one that works to achieve the effect, onto a Hero power...and that's anathema to Hero itself.  Isn't "impossible to hear anything because it's so loud" part of the SFX?  Abstract powers are SFX-agnostic, so sure, it could be because it's too loud, or it could be because all sound is denied.

 

11 hours ago, dmjalund said:

you;d have to answer the question is why do spells require an incantation. is it so a god or spirit can hear and respond? if so anything that stops that being from hearing the incantation would probably stop the spell

 

There is a Limitation, Incantations.  It dictates that there are conditions that make it impossible to activate a power...such as being gagged, or being inside a Darkness (Sound) field.  Incantations in RAW has 2 parts:

1.  Power activation is normally invisible.  It becomes obvious to hearing.  (Just as Gestures becomes obvious to sight.) 

2.  It is a form of Conditional Power:  "this power does not work when..." 

 

Making activation obvious is generally not worth a limitation.  It simply doesn't come into play.  Activating a power is an atomic action that can't be interrupted or disrupted...unless there is a separate time-based limitation, and that's got its own value.  Yes, Incantations + Extra Time is a case where the limitations amplify each other, but Incantations does not imply Extra Time.  It does also imply that Incantations is a poor choice for powers that would be Inobvious or Invisible...but again, that's an application question.  Overall, this aspect is not worth a limitation in many cases.  The major reason why Incantations is worth a limitation at all, is the conditional power.  These establish the When conditions.  What you're talking about is Why...but that can't remove conditions established by the When, it can only add new ones...and that becomes SFX-related, and tied to the specific power.

 

Also, the rules give an indication of Why.

 

Quote

To use Incantations, a character must be able to speak freely and clearly — if he’s gagged or has his mouth full, he can’t activate and/or use the power. It’s also impossible to use the power while in a silence field (see Darkness). If he takes damage or is adversely affected by any power that requires an Attack Roll or MCV Attack Roll while he’s Incanting, the power doesn’t turn on or immediately turns off.

 

The bold text sections comprise the core When clauses.  They are *separate* clauses.  The first is obvious but pretty rare...and won't happen in combat barring an odd effect.  The second clause is such that you can't wrap yourself up in a silence field and thereby render the limitation moot.  The limitation is worth something because the activation must be Obvious.  If you strike that?  You can't activate the power.  The damage clause relates back to "freely and clearly".  You take damage, you say OWWW...and that's not speaking your incantation clearly.   There are 2 major cases:  first, for Extra Time, and second, to handle the additional Limitation for a Constant power (Incants Throughout).  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

it could also be simply a vacuum.  No medium for sound to propagate

 

 

A vaccuum would have profoundly more significant effects than no sound, that's a pretty bad example.

 

It’s also impossible to use the power while in a silence field (see Darkness)

 

Yes, that's added into incantations in later editions, because the writers of the rules presumed that darkness vs sound blocks incantations.  I am arguing that is a faulty ruling because being unable to be heard is not the same thing as being unable to speak.  Take a look at that first clause you quoted: 

 

Quote

must be able to speak freely and clearly

 

Nothing about that argues that someone cannot be heard.  It only says that they cannot speak. as in being gagged, etc as described.  Darkness is by its very definition is active, its not passive, its a field that prevents a sense from being perceived, not used. 

 

I agree with dmjalund's statement about it depending on whether the sound has to be heard or not; priests, for example have to be audible to speak their prayers, but mages do not because they are not appealing to a higher authority.  The incantations are part of the recipe for controlling magic.  Anyway, that's how I run things in my games.

[unclevlad]

Then you are allowing me to circumvent a limitation easily.  Darkness to Sound, 0 END, no range.  5 points.  For that, I get a -1/4 limitation on arbitrarily large attack powers.  It ties back to the point that Incantations is required to make the power activation obvious, per the first paragraph of the description.

 

The rules are badly organized.  Your reading is that the When clause is based solely on the "speak freely and clearly" and everything else is tied to that.  That is not correct;  it's one of them.  If the clauses were written as bullet lists, a la

 

--speak freely and clearly

--doesn't work in a silence field

--interrupted by damage

 

it would be more apparent that they're unrelated to each other, as they all have separate reasons.  

 

So, are you saying spellcasters can only take Incantations if their spell is appealing to some Other Power?  Recognize:  that has nothing to do with the RAW mechanics of Incantations.  That's a restriction YOU are adding as to when it *can be* taken.  You're conflating story and mechanical elements.  That's fine for your campaign, but DON'T assume that's part of the rules.

[Duke Bushido]

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

I don't see, tho, that darkness to sound only represents a cacophony that drowns out everything else. 

 

Agreed.  Declaring it to be an overwhelmingly loud noise is completely valid, of course, but that is for the player to decide, as it falls under assigning a special effect.

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Offhand, I think Black Rose's solution should work fairly well. 

 

 

Agreed., they seem well-thought-out and practical.

 

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Maybe need some tweaking...Mind Link doesn't allow sense sharing.  That requires Clairvoyance.  So entering an anti-scry area, and having that stop the mind link?  Not sure about that.  Stop the Clairvoy (using the senses of another)...yeah, no problem.

 

 

This goes,back to is teleport a mental power.

 

Black Rose has clearly,defined that in this campaign, Mind Scan is a form of Scrying.  It doesnt matter what the mechanics are or what they act against: they are subject to the limitations of Scrying,l.  So long as this is an established-up-feont campaign rule, I have zero issues with this.

 

 

 

 

 

[BoloOfEarth]

In a past Champions campaign of mine, a player character (Nexus) had precognitive and retrocognitive Clairsentience (Sight and Hearing).  The players got to rely on that a little too much ... to the point that a DEMON Morbane created a "no-scrying powder" to block her visions - Darkness to Clairsentience.  So when the heroes were investigating a murder and Nexus used her "Spirt Sense" to try to watch the murder and see who the murderer was...  she was rewarded with a view of static from a few minutes before the murder until a few minutes afterward.

 

He also created a false visions orb (Images to Clairsentience Sight and Hearing, AoE), basically showing her what happened at a given location but in an alternate universe (like in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or in a world where dinosaurs survived and evolved).

 

But the more irritating to her was when that same villain (knowing she was going to later scry the scene of several crimes) didn't block the visions but instead took breaks from doing the crimes to verbally taunt her.  (He also had a crystal that detected scrying, so he knew when she was tuning in.)   The fact that he could monologue at her and she couldn't respond... oh, it was delicious.  Man, she hated that guy!

 

(Note that messing with her Clairsentience was not a frequent thing, just that one villain doing it during adventures involving him.  Doing that constantly to her would have been a *bleep* move on my part.)

[Ninja-Bear]

It was mentioned up thread and for my two cents, Change Environment first came to mind to what you want @Black Rose. 

[Duke Bushido]

A lot of campaign design and powers design quesrions can be answered by simplifying what you are wanting.

 

At its most basic level, what is Clairsentience?

 

It is a means of perception- it is akin to a kind of sense.

 

What blocks or interferes with senses?

 

For my money, I am in the Change Environment camp, which seems to be approved by Black Rose.