Invisible Misses

[SpydirShellX]

I'm designing an attack that I want to have invisible misses.

 

Thus even when the attack misses it looks like it hits (unless it really misses by a lot). It has no effect when it misses, but the target and others wouldn't realize that it failed.

 

The weapon in this case is a flare projector - (a flash to sight group). However, even if the attack fails to hit the opponent, the blast still likely washes over them.

 

The character is a rather goof-ball character that pretends to be a far better superhero than he actually is... junk gear, a few martial moves, and a slightly better than normal human resistance to attacks.

[Vanguard]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

Sounds like it's just a SFX.

 

From the way my GM does things, as long as the SFX doesn't (or rarely) do anything, then you can have it do whatever you want it to do.

 

So I'd just define the SFX as the Flash of Light, Flame, Whipped Cream, etc still "hits" the target, just nothing happens.

 

Although, with a Flash, you can readily tell it failed, so I'm not exactly sure what effect you're trying to achieve.

[Zed-F]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

Hm, I guess it depends on how easy it is to fool people into believing the attack was effective in some fashion. I mean if the EB seems to hit but obviously causes no splash damage, or the flash seems to hit but obviously doesn't blind, such that all it takes is a basic PER roll to see through the illusion, then I'd call it SFX. But if it's actually harder to detect that the attack was ineffective than that, you'll probably want to build a linked Images power to grant the appearance of it having had some effect.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

Extra PRE defined as "Merciful Display Of Power"

 

Just follow up such failed Attacks w/ a PRE attack worded in such a way as to imply that it was a warning shot and the next one will really hurt if they don't surrender.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

It's just a special effect and as long as it has no mechanical importance it's just fine. it's not different than saying you toughness sfx is regen so in effectyou take the damage but super heal it example: 30 pd 45 stun 9 boby gets in effect you took no body 15 stun sfx you took 9 body and 45 stun but rapidly healed 30 stun and body very legal however if you actual ant to heal from damage that has been taken buy regen or healing.

[Vondy]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

So what is it you're saying: women aren't to be seen if they aren't married?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

I'm designing an attack that I want to have invisible misses.

 

Thus even when the attack misses it looks like it hits (unless it really misses by a lot). It has no effect when it misses, but the target and others wouldn't realize that it failed.

 

The weapon in this case is a flare projector - (a flash to sight group). However, even if the attack fails to hit the opponent, the blast still likely washes over them.

 

The character is a rather goof-ball character that pretends to be a far better superhero than he actually is... junk gear, a few martial moves, and a slightly better than normal human resistance to attacks.

 

This sounds like SFX, at least as long as there is an obvious difference between "passes close enough to bling" and "passes close enough to light up a bit, but not blind" and is apparent to anyone viewing the attack, hit or miss. If a miss looks just like a hit, then I'd consider that added utility worth an extra cost. One possible build is to buy the attack AoE 1 Hex Accurate, then add in an Activation Roll to simulate the fact that even with a nearly guarenteed hit it might not land just right and fail to blind the target, then add in an Images 1 Hex, Only To Create Light to mimic a successful hit and link it to the attack (so if the attack works, the Images isn't noticed becaust it's identical to the attack, and if the attack doesn't work, it looks like it does but has no effect).

 

Another possibility is to buy the original attack with IPE (limited, because the attack is actually perceivable), plus a similar Images Power as above.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

This sounds like SFX' date=' at least as long as there is an obvious difference between "passes close enough to bling" and "passes close enough to light up a bit, but not blind" and is apparent to anyone viewing the attack, hit or miss. If a miss looks just like a hit, then I'd consider that added utility worth an extra cost. One possible build is to buy the attack AoE 1 Hex Accurate, then add in an Activation Roll to simulate the fact that even with a nearly guarenteed hit it might not land [i']just right [/i]and fail to blind the target, then add in an Images 1 Hex, Only To Create Light to mimic a successful hit and link it to the attack (so if the attack works, the Images isn't noticed becaust it's identical to the attack, and if the attack doesn't work, it looks like it does but has no effect).

 

Another possibility is to buy the original attack with IPE (limited, because the attack is actually perceivable), plus a similar Images Power as above.[/quote

IPE is not really a good ideal because it would make the attack perceievable but yet it would get the advantage of being invisible such as reducing the DVC of the opponant which is a good effect but not what she's looking. GM's always talking about a limitation that's not disadvantaging is not a lim and worth 0 so it would be hypicritical to make someone pay for an advantage that's not advantageous. But hey, That's just my humble observation.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

Selective Area Of Effect.

 

It always hits the area, doesn't always hit the target in the area.

[zornwil]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

It sounds to me like the effect is to convince the individual "Hey, I keep getting hit, this is hurting, I have to do something!" They may not run away, but they, from the way I read it, will be convinced that this attacker can't miss them, no matter how they dodge or what else they do.

 

In that event and assuming the goal is to influence combat, I'd go with Mind Control. It shouldn't take too many dice just to make someone think they've been hit in ordinary circumstances.

[Black Rose]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

This is an insidiously beautiful idea, especially if you the GM roll the damage dice beind a screen: "The Amazing Sham-Man effortlessly smites you with yet another Faux-ton Blast, doing... [rolls dice] what's your Energy Defence again?"

 

"20, 14 resistant."

 

"Thanks. Okay, that means... hmm, looks like none got through on this blast."

 

"Whew, sweet!"

[Dust Raven]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

IPE is not really a good ideal because it would make the attack perceievable but yet it would get the advantage of being invisible such as reducing the DVC of the opponant which is a good effect but not what she's looking. GM's always talking about a limitation that's not disadvantaging is not a lim and worth 0 so it would be hypicritical to make someone pay for an advantage that's not advantageous. But hey, That's just my humble observation.

 

IPE was just a suggestion. My main point was that an attack that misses but still looks like it hits but did no damage should cost more than one that obviously misses. If it (nearly) always hits, regardless of the actions of the target, then targets will be less likely to waste time to avoid it and hope it just doesn't affect them. As long as they can tell dodging actually improves their chances of not being affected, there is no need to increase the cost in some way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Misses

 

So what is it you're saying: women aren't to be seen if they aren't married?

 

Medic!