Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

So here is a question on the IPE debate...

 

Do folk think that IPE, "only to make power invisible while Invisibility power is also active" is a sufficently limited circumstance to warrant using the +1/4 version of IPE?

 

It would be a cleaner build than using a higher level of IPE, with Linked to Invis, only on the cost of the advantage.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

What kind of skills do you suppose Captain Marvel (aka Billy Batson) has?

 

PS: Radio Talk Show Host

KS: Grade School

 

 

Oh... and HOW ABOUT THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON!

 

Just take a huge list of knowledges and or critical analysis skills...

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Oh... and HOW ABOUT THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON!

 

Well, I assumed that, as with the strength of Hercules, the courage of Achiiles, and so forth, Billy would not have that when he isn't Captain Marvel. And the point was what skills does Billy have.

 

It isn't a big deal, I was just pointing out that there are conceptions -- rare conceptions -- where it makes sense for the normal ID to be pretty much a null, skills-wise. Even so, I would discourage a player from making such a character, because I think the game would be better served if a character's normal ID is actually a useful and interesting person.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

An aside to the group as a whole (from another thread): The combination of Invisivbility and Desolid is the classic stealth/reconnaissance character, at kleast in SUpers games. Am I the only one who never previously recognized that, when such a character activates his Desolid, he immediately becomes visible to three sense groups. I don't think I've ever seen such a character take IPE on his Desolid!

 

Do most of us just accept the "invisible or incorporeal, not both" result, or do we forget that Desolid is a visible power?

Fifth Revised Page 193

"Typically Invisibility covers Body-Affecting Powers"

 

couple of paragraphs down

 

"Similarly, in most cases Invisibility should cover Powers that are closely connected or related to a character's body such as some uses of Force Field."

[Phil]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Oh... and HOW ABOUT THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON!

 

Just take a huge list of knowledges and or critical analysis skills...

Having never read Captain Marvel, I can't really say, but surely the wisdom of Solomon is all about judgement, and nothing to do with knowledge? If anything, the wisdom of solomon is the very antithesis of knowledge, it is principle-centred decision making coupled with a prophetic insight of human nature.

[Agent X]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

So here is a question on the IPE debate...

 

Do folk think that IPE, "only to make power invisible while Invisibility power is also active" is a sufficently limited circumstance to warrant using the +1/4 version of IPE?

 

It would be a cleaner build than using a higher level of IPE, with Linked to Invis, only on the cost of the advantage.

For attack powers or body-affecting powers?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Do folk think that IPE' date=' "only to make power invisible while Invisibility power is also active" is a sufficently limited circumstance to warrant using the +1/4 version of IPE?[/quote']

 

Hmm. Maybe, but definitely not if the Power is also Linked.

[Fenixcrest]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I would ditto this' date=' I mean really taking the Invisibility power AND Desolid should make you both, without your Desolid somehow betraying your position to most senses. There are other ways around this from a game level (such as Detects and Mental senses and so on, just depending on the SFX and the configuration). I think the rule that Invisibility normally makes the Body Affecting powers invisible makes sense. It shouldn't obscure that you just fired an Energy Blast or the like (unless you get nasty and buy IPE on the EB as well, which I've done for a villain or two). I don't generally think it should affect Movement Powers unless, as noted, they have some "extra" visibility issue. Personally, I wouldn't normally think of a Force Field as appearing on an Invisible character, though I can understand why and how some would.[/quote']

 

I think the force field would depend on effects, and whether the invisibility has a fringe. If it's a bright, shiney, glowy aurora-borealis sort of force field, then I think it would at least show up if the invisibility had a fringe. However, it the force field was defined as "a blood red karate gi that forms onto my body from thin air" or the like, I would say invisibility covers it up. At any rate, you might go visible briefly when you activate a power, but I think you'd vanish again once it's up and running.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Having never read Captain Marvel' date=' I can't really say, but surely the wisdom of Solomon is all about judgement, and nothing to do with knowledge? If anything, the wisdom of solomon is the very antithesis of knowledge, it is principle-centred decision making coupled with a prophetic insight of human nature.[/quote']

 

And how does one have principled decision making without knowledge to reference and compare those decisions to? Are we talking some mystical "I just know" kind of crap?

 

Not wisdom to me... just hooey. Wisdom exists by taking knowledge and experience and extrapolating it with critical thinking to make judgments on new situations.

 

If you are truly playing a character who knows nothing... but somehow always makes the right decision based on divine intuition... well that is an NPC run by the GM... or at least the player is always looking to the GM to say "Tell me what to do" Essentially an unplayable character type. Prophetic insight (not a real world concept) essentially boils down to the player turning to the GM at critical moments and waiting to be spoonfed "the right answer.

 

Not something I'd consider wisdom... but being a puppet.

[zornwil]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I think the force field would depend on effects' date=' and whether the invisibility has a fringe. If it's a bright, shiney, glowy aurora-borealis sort of force field, then I think it would at least show up if the invisibility had a fringe. However, it the force field was defined as "a blood red karate gi that forms onto my body from thin air" or the like, I would say invisibility covers it up. At any rate, you might go visible briefly when you activate a power, but I think you'd vanish again once it's up and running.[/quote']

Mostly agreed, I would do the same except that for the fringe version if the "aurora borealis" FF (nice idea for a FF by the way, some sort of magnetic force field that creates lights from the intensity of the magnetism or such) were the character's natural body doing that I'd probably allow the fringe to be affected in color/tone but not any greater than the normal Invisibility fringe.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I think the force field would depend on effects' date=' and whether the invisibility has a fringe. If it's a bright, shiney, glowy aurora-borealis sort of force field, then I think it would at least show up if the invisibility had a fringe. However, it the force field was defined as "a blood red karate gi that forms onto my body from thin air" or the like, I would say invisibility covers it up. At any rate, you might go visible briefly when you activate a power, but I think you'd vanish again once it's up and running.[/quote']

 

I don't like the idea of a significant variance in the utility of a power with no compensating dsifference in cost. If both of the above PC's have purchased invisibility (the first as a warping of light by his magnetic powers, and the second by clouding men's minds), it seems unreasonable that one of the two characters can use their force field while invisible without impairing their ability to remain unseen, but the other cannot. Both spent the same points on Force Field and Invisibility, and both shyould get the same game effects.

 

Whether the default should be "invisibility covers your force field" or "invisibility does not cover your force field" is a good question. Perhaps powers should be classified by type for this purpose. Some powers would be affected by invisibility automatically (I would include Growth, Stretching, Shrinking, DI and Desolid in these groups) to the extent the senses by which the power is perceivable are covered by the invisibility. A second group (maybe including force field) would still be visible by dewfault, but an adder to Invisibility should exist to make these self-affecting powers invisible. IPE would remain for the third category of powers, mainly attack powers.

 

This leads to a consideration of IPE for powers which could be rendered invisible, however. Should the existing advantage be an adder instead? If you can cover your force field with Invisibility for (say) 10 points, why should it cost more to make it invisible even if you are visible?

[Agent X]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I don't like the idea of a significant variance in the utility of a power with no compensating dsifference in cost. If both of the above PC's have purchased invisibility (the first as a warping of light by his magnetic powers' date=' and the second by clouding men's minds), it seems unreasonable that one of the two characters can use their force field while invisible without impairing their ability to remain unseen, but the other cannot. Both spent the same points on Force Field and Invisibility, and both shyould get the same game effects.[/quote'] I tend to agree. Perhaps a limitation on the Force Field or the Invisibility should be used for Aurora Borealis Person. Since it's the nature of the Force Field that makes it defy the "body-affecting" status for invisibility, I suppose I would place a -1/4 limitation on the force field: Extremely Visible or somesuch.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I tend to agree. Perhaps a limitation on the Force Field or the Invisibility should be used for Aurora Borealis Person. Since it's the nature of the Force Field that makes it defy the "body-affecting" status for invisibility' date=' I suppose I would place a -1/4 limitation on the force field: Extremely Visible or somesuch.[/quote']

 

Making this equal tpo the "visible" limitation would seem a reasonable approach.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Perhaps powers should be classified by type for this purpose.

 

I go by the table on page 129 of H5R: if it says "Self Only", then Invisibility covers it. I don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than that. This whole "body-affecting" thing is an unnecessary complication.

[Brainstorm]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

While it is true that an Invisible character gets less out of a "trail of fire" Flight than a "flapping wings" Flight and less out of a "dazzling halo" Force Field than a "subtle haze" Force Field (assuming the GM at hand draws the "common sense, dramatic sense, and game balance" line for Invisibility's scope in the middle of those pairs of examples,) that does not mean that one is truly inferior to the other. I believe that most characters with Invisibility, and certainly any designed around a stealth theme, would tend to have powers with subtle SFX. Yet in making that choice I also believe they would forfeit that +1d6 bonus to PRE attacks supported by a display of Power, and from a roleplaying perspective I imagine Normals would be less impressed by subtle Powers than spectacular Powers.

 

Likewise, I could see penalizing even non-Invisible efforts at sneaking or hiding while a spectacular Power was active and offering a bonus to skills like Oratory or Interrogation when such Powers are flaunted appropriately. Likewise, subtle Powers would normally not be of much use impressing onlookers but they normally would not undermine attempts to be sneaky either. I do not dispute that some people are likely to view the tactical value of stealth as more important than the social value of spectacle, and I suspect the reverse is true as well. Ultimately, the usefulness of each may vary from campaign to campaign. If there is balance between violence and social interaction, then a team/party may be best served by having at least one stealthy character and at least one showboat, and balance is probably best served by making judgement calls as suggested on the 5ER 193. On the other hand, in a campaign where social interactions do not go beyond thin narrative to string together a series of combats, stealth will tend to be more valuable, and in campaigns where extensive roleplaying unfolds between rare exercises of violence, the reverse may be true. In any case, I imagine the bias would have to be truly extreme to justify making Self Only Powers with subtle SFX require IPE to be activated without undermining Invisibility.

 

Regards,

Brainstorm

[Agent X]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I go by the table on page 129 of H5R: if it says "Self Only"' date=' then Invisibility covers it. I don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than that. This whole "body-affecting" thing is an unnecessary complication.[/quote'] I agree. But if someone wants to define the sfx of their force field as defying their invisibility then they can buy the limitation on the force field.

[zornwil]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I tend to agree. Perhaps a limitation on the Force Field or the Invisibility should be used for Aurora Borealis Person. Since it's the nature of the Force Field that makes it defy the "body-affecting" status for invisibility' date=' I suppose I would place a -1/4 limitation on the force field: Extremely Visible or somesuch.[/quote']

Good point, that would make the most sense to me.

 

Though in the real world, most players are pretty quick (and eager) to say, "Don't I get a Limitation for this crazy Aurora Borealis Force Field!?"

[prestidigitator]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Whatever. SFX can have some situational effects on powers. Some might make them visible when the character is Invisible, some may not. The one that remain (partially?) invisible might have benefits in situations where the other Power doesn't. Just use common and dramatic sense, and keep an eye on balance. The cases where I would be very inclined to make things visible are those in which the player is clearly trying to abuse the situation anyway.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

I agree. But if someone wants to define the sfx of their force field as defying their invisibility then they can buy the limitation on the force field.

 

Oh, certainly. I actually knew a guy who created a character that did exactly that.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

So here is a question on the IPE debate...

 

Do folk think that IPE, "only to make power invisible while Invisibility power is also active" is a sufficently limited circumstance to warrant using the +1/4 version of IPE?

Yes.

 

It would be a cleaner build than using a higher level of IPE, with Linked to Invis, only on the cost of the advantage.

 

The thought of something this complicated to get around a rule makes my head hurt. Use the first option.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

 

The thought of something this complicated to get around a rule makes my head hurt. Use the first option.

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well.

I haven't had cause to worry about this much, but it seemed to be a reasonable way to write up a power that is normally visible, but that is invisible when the character is.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

So here is a question on the IPE debate...

 

Do folk think that IPE, "only to make power invisible while Invisibility power is also active" is a sufficently limited circumstance to warrant using the +1/4 version of IPE?

 

It would be a cleaner build than using a higher level of IPE, with Linked to Invis, only on the cost of the advantage.

Hmm. I don't know. Probably not for Attack Powers.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Hmm. I don't know. Probably not for Attack Powers.

I dunno... I'd probably let it slide, but in the case of an attack power I'd certainly only let it apply to one sense. IN the case of a non attack power, I'd most likely let the IPE render the power "as invisible" as the invisibility that has been purchased

[Wilfred_Death]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

An aside to the group as a whole (from another thread): The combination of Invisibility and Desolid is the classic stealth/reconnaissance character, at least in Supers games. Am I the only one who never previously recognized that, when such a character activates his Desolid, he immediately becomes visible to three sense groups. I don't think I've ever seen such a character take IPE on his Desolid!

 

Do most of us just accept the "invisible or incorporeal, not both" result, or do we forget that Desolid is a visible power?

 

I always rely on using a slightly variant understanding of Visible / Invisible to what most people would assume to be meant by these. I kind of take it to mean 'detectable'.....

In the rules it states for Desolidification:

"When desolidified a character can not be touched, does not register on sonar or radar, and emits no scent."

 

So If "we" put Mr. Mysto in our laboratory, and say: "Mr Mysto, kindly activate your powers now."

The Lab technicians report:

"The Carving Knife goes right through him", "Our X Wave Generator thingy can no longer detect him" and "At Last, his awful B.O. is gone"

The Lab then puts down 3 Check Marks

Power Tests against : Touch, EMag, and Smell

Results: Power Usage Is Detectable By 3 Sense Groups.

Read as Power Is Visible to 3 Sense Groups.

Mr Mysto is not to be fined for violating the "Visible to 3 Senses Rule #45678"

 

This power is not Neccessarily Visible to Sight, so without 'Testing', just looking at Mr Mysto does not 'reveal' his power, unless he walks through a wall ( In which case it is visible to 4 Senses )

 

If Mr. Mysto had Invisibility to Touch IPE on his Desolidification. When The Technician stabbed him with a knife, it would have to 'feel like' he just stabbed someone, Mr. Mysto would not be harmed however.

 

Then Mr Mysto Demontrates his "Invisibility To Sight" , which due to 'Cosmic Ordering' is always considered to occur after desolidification for purposes of observational effect.

 

Now the Technicians report the same as above but also report that they can no longer 'See' the subject.

 

For most other powers, as to whether Invisibility covers them up 'for free' that depends on a number of things. Mainly How 'Visible' they are by themselves in the first place.

 

Take For Instance Mr. Mysto's Personal Armoured Battle suit ( ie. he paid Character Points for it )

Normally ( although I don't think it's officially required ) That is visible to Sight, Touch, Hearing, Smell & etc....

In Other words when the Technician bops Mr Mysto with his Mace, There is an audible thunk, the mace 'stops' (touch), and some of Mr Mysto's B.O. is blocked by the armour.

 

If he then desolidifies, I allow that his personal Armour goes desolid with him, as it is a personal focus.

If he just goes invisible, the armour is invisible as well, but only to the senses that Mr. Mysto's Invisibility specifically works against.

 

If he Desolidifies and goes Invisible. He and his armour can travel through barriers.

 

As For Force Fields. Well that usually depends on how they are bought.

Firstly there is usually some 'Reason' why they are different from armour.

This is mostly taken to mean that they are more like a 'Shield' around your body, at least a few cm away, rather than next to the skin like armour.

 

Also the senses they are 'Visible' to might be slightly different than those for Armour.

In My Fantasy Games, almost all Force Fields have a 'Visible' Limitation - because they are especially visible to sight, and 'The Magic Sense'

 

So Normally if Mr Mysto goes Desolid and Invisible, and then turns on ( his now redundant ) force field, It IS Visible.

So in the example laboratory, the technicians can 'see' this glowing human shape of his forcefield. Mr Mysto must buy IPE vs Normal Sight if he does not want this.

 

Perhaps Mysto likes it this way, If his team mates line up exactly behind him they are going to suffer less damage from bullets that strike Mysto's Force Field. The .50Cal AP rounds that penetrate the Force Field can not harm the Desolid Mysto.....

 

So Invisibility would cover Density Increase and such powers, but only make them 'Invisible'. They still show up to the appropriate 3 Senses, unless any of them are masked by the Specific version of invisibilty.

 

For Invisibility & Density Increase and such, The Guy stands on a Technicians foot, he gets : A Bruise ( Sight ), Feels Pain ( Touch ), and hears the crack of his phalanges breaking ( Sound ), but he can't 'see' Mr. Mysto.

 

For Any and all powers, that if used by a Character without Desolidification and Or Invisibilty, that would be 'detectable' or Visible to 3 or more senses, They still remain visible to those 3 or more senses, when the character goes Desolid and or Invisible.

 

If someone wants his powers undetectable then they must pay and pay for the IPE..

 

This probably don't make sense to you, but we play that way here, and it works O.K.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Power Tests against : Touch, EMag, and Smell

Results: Power Usage Is Detectable By 3 Sense Groups.

Read as Power Is Visible to 3 Sense Groups.

Mr Mysto is not to be fined for violating the "Visible to 3 Senses Rule #45678"

Except the wording is "Percievable by 3 Sense Groups" which implies the Sense Group must work to "notice" the Power.

 

Semantics, sure, but Semantics are very important. Especially in a language with over 50 ways of saying "large" and all of them slightly different. I say "Percievable" and "Detectable" in this case are not interchangeable very easily.

 

[illustrate point with ridiculous exmple]

LARGE - thesaurus:

1) a large house | large numbers of people big, great, huge, sizable, substantial, immense, enormous, colossal, massive, mammoth, vast, prodigious, tremendous, gigantic, giant, monumental, stupendous, gargantuan, elephantine, titanic, mountainous, monstrous; towering, tall, high; mighty, voluminous; king-size(d), economy-size(d), family-size(d), man-size(d), giant-size(d); informal jumbo, whopping, mega, humongous, monster, astronomical, ginormous

2) a large man big, burly, heavy, tall, bulky, thickset, chunky, strapping, hulking, hefty, muscular, brawny, solid, powerful, sturdy, strong, rugged; full-figured, buxom; fat, plump, overweight, chubby, stout, meaty, fleshy, portly, rotund, flabby, paunchy, obese, corpulent; informal hunky, roly-poly, beefy, tubby, well-upholstered, pudgy, well-fed, big-boned, corn-fed

3) a large supply of wool abundant, copious, plentiful, ample, liberal, generous, lavish, bountiful, bumper, boundless, good, considerable, superabundant

4) he measure has large economic implications wide-reaching, far-reaching, wide, sweeping, large-scale, broad, extensive, comprehensive, exhaustive

[/illustrate point with ridiculous exmple]