Who threw that?

[Sean Waters]

We’ve kicked this one round before but I thought I’d put it all together in one place for general consideration and comment. The idea is tidying up power visibility and IPE.

 

1. Targeting: of the normal human senses, both sight and touch are targeting, although, as touch is not ranged, this is of very limited use in most cases.

2. New adder for senses: locating, 5 points. This is like a watered down version of targeting: if a sense has locating, you can target with that sense on a successful PER roll. You will be at –1 to hit and ½ DCV against something you can only perceive through a locating sense. Normal hearing is locating.

3. New adder for senses: persistence, 5 points. Most sensations end as soon as they have occurred, but some senses can detect stimuli for some time after they have occurred, the most common examples being taste and smell. This adder has a whacking great STOP sign on it. Normal smell and taste is persistent.

4. Powers that use END have to be visible to at least three senses. Powers are detectable by observers and targets and the senses that can be used may or may not be the same. Most targets are also observers.

5. To determine the visibility to observers, pick 3 senses, one of which must be normal sight in most cases, and one of which can be an unusual sense, and distribute 6 points amongst those senses, ranging from –2 to +4. The normal sight visibility cannot be at a penalty. Those are the senses you can detect the power with, and the penalty or bonus to the PER roll to do so. A standard visibility profile would be Sight +2, Hearing +2, Unusual Sense (detect appropriate SFX) +2, but you could have, for example, Sight +4, Hearing -2, HRRH +4. A successful PER roll will allow the observer to identify the point of origin. With GM permission you can have more or less senses, but the bonus still has to be divided amongst them.

6. Powers are considered detectable at the point of origin and perception attempts take range penalties from there. If a ranged power is detectable along its entire range from point of origin to target then you can deduct 1 from the PER modifier for each affected sense (so a beam weapon detectable along its entire length by sight, but only at the point of origin by hearing and HRRH COULD be Sight +1, Hearing +2, HRRH +2.

7. Powers can also be detected by the target. Usually the target gets ONE sense (usually touch) at +6 in addition to the observer senses. Perceiving the attack allows you to perceive the point of origin of the attack. With GM permission you can pick more than one sense and divide the bonus between the senses.

8. You can buy a limitation: Loud -1/4 which gives you another +6 points you have to distribute, only half of which can be attributed to sight. Loud has no effect on target sensing, just observer sensing.

9. You can buy an advantage: Quiet +1/4 which reduces the TOTAL bonus to +0 (you can still detect with three senses, it is just not so easy).

10. You can remove ONE observer sense, and +2 bonus entirely from detection for a +1/4 advantage, or +1/2 for normal sight (so for +1 a power is totally invisible to observers).

11. You can remove the target detection sense for a +1/2 advantage, or remove the ability of the target to identify the source of the attack (but still be aware that they are being attacked) for +1/4. You can do this entirely separately from ‘power source visibility’.

12. Even if a power is bought the +1 ½ ‘invisible source and effects’ level, a target may still perceive that they are being attacked through secondary effects, such as loss of abilities, senses or sudden unexplained unconsciousness.

 

Now although this looks complex it isn’t really. Bottom line is that, unless you design it differently, a visible power can be perceived by 3 senses with a +2 PER roll.

 

Thoughts?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Who threw that?

 

No, that really is complex. Also Locating is redundant. All senses that aren't Targeting are "Locating" per the rules.

 

The bit about PER modifiers to perceive Powers seems far to rigid and complex to implement. What if I buy a "shadow blast" which I define as visible to normal sight, hearing and touch (a cooling effect in the area). Visibly, this appears to be a black beam striking from me to my target. Now if I also apply the Limitation "Only In Darkness" should I also have to buy your Quiet or even IPE because no one will ever see the beam? I don't think so. And regardless of what rule you do use to govern how it's bought, why should that rule then affect another player with a similar build, but doesn't put Only In Darkness? Or if the rules does affect that other player, why?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Who threw that?

 

No, that really is complex. Also Locating is redundant. All senses that aren't Targeting are "Locating" per the rules.

 

The bit about PER modifiers to perceive Powers seems far to rigid and complex to implement. What if I buy a "shadow blast" which I define as visible to normal sight, hearing and touch (a cooling effect in the area). Visibly, this appears to be a black beam striking from me to my target. Now if I also apply the Limitation "Only In Darkness" should I also have to buy your Quiet or even IPE because no one will ever see the beam? I don't think so. And regardless of what rule you do use to govern how it's bought, why should that rule then affect another player with a similar build, but doesn't put Only In Darkness? Or if the rules does affect that other player, why?

 

Visible power effects that are only used in situations where they are not visible are not visible power effects. Then again if the power which can only be used in darkness is visible and one of the sfx is a beam of shadow, it is visible even in darkness to my way of thinking: sfx don't modify the rules, they just help to add description. You can't avoid the rules of the game with sfx.

 

Locating should be in the system.

 

A basic sense would be able to detect the presence of whatever it detects within the area, a locating sense would detect the rough location and targetting the exact location. It is better definition, and so desireable. Normal smell, for example, is not locating. You can detect the source of a smell using it only by taking extra time and slowly homing in, but in a combat situation you would never be able to detect an invisible opponent well enough to dodge or target them using normal smell. Arguably, instead of 'locating' you could have a SUBTRACTOR - 'Slow' - sort of the opposite of rapid - it takes time to home in on something using the sense, but subtractors don't work well with senses.

 

The addition of specific numbers is again a definition thing: under this system anyone with positive intelligence can automatically detect a power being used next to them, and anyone with an 11- PER roll can detect a power being used within 8" of them, but you can change that to better define the power: a shadow beam would be less visible to sight but perhaps has a bigger effect on the temperature of the 'power signature.

[Damascan]

Re: Who threw that?

 

Sean,

 

I have to agree with Dust Raven that your rules would be complicating rather than clarifying. I see where you are coming from with the PER modifiers, and I could see it helping in certain situations or with players that tend to find loopholes in everything, but is it worth the effort all the time? Most of my players have a tough enough time with the rules as they stand without adding more.

 

Also, locating seems like a useless adder. As Dust Raven said, that's already incorporated in the rules. Couldn't you just buy an increase in your PER roll to achieve this effect? If you roll well, then you will find the stinker faster, right?

 

Persistence also seems strange to me --- why not just use Tracking? Tracking taste --- sort of bizarre, but why not? The Character would certainly detect lingering tastes this way, no?

 

I tend to go rules overboard myself, and as I said I like your PER roll modifier idea and I might use it from time to time, but I wouldn't want it to be a hard fast rule.

 

The rest of your changes would seem to be more cumbersome than worthwhile, but heck that depends on your players and how they act/react.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Who threw that?

 

Lite version.

 

All powers that use END normally or because of a limitation, or use contimuing charges have to be visible to 3 senses. You can detect the power with a PER roll at +2.

 

You can jiggle the PER rolls round a bit so long as the total remains the same.

 

You can buy an advantage or limtiation to make the power harder or easier to notice, without making it actually invisible.

 

You can buy an advantage to make a power visible to less senses.

 

You can define where a power is detectable from and by whom.

 

There is a standard configuration if you don;t want the bother.

 

If you don't like the extra bits for senses, fine, but you'll be building senses that look mechanicuially the same but actually do very different things - and I'm not just talking they detect different stuff.

 

Targetting is a 10 point addder. It seems sensible to have something at a lesser value.

 

Persistent is not necessary if you build your stimuli as long lived, but makes as much sense as having the 'ranged' adder - you could just define your stimuli's range and have done with it that way.

 

Anyway, clearly not a popular idea.

[Damascan]

Re: Who threw that?

 

Sean,

 

Two opinions is just that--- two opinions. Wait a bit --- we may be in the minority.

 

You are right, 10pts. for Targeting is a bit steep, especially for a Fantasy character. You got me thinking --- how would we reduce that PER roll to represent the imprecise targeting you are describing? Buy a negative PER skill level for that sense? That would seem the most likely, although it might not be the effect you are looking for since the character would be able to locate the stinker, for instance, but the quality of his sense of smell went down overall...

 

Sounds like you could use a Physical Limitation to cover the reduced Targeting capability you are looking for. It wouldn't be worth much, but it gets you the same effect.

 

I'm sure the gurus will chime in soon.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Who threw that?

 

Sean,

 

Two opinions is just that--- two opinions. Wait a bit --- we may be in the minority.

 

You are right, 10pts. for Targeting is a bit steep, especially for a Fantasy character. You got me thinking --- how would we reduce that PER roll to represent the imprecise targeting you are describing? Buy a negative PER skill level for that sense? That would seem the most likely, although it might not be the effect you are looking for since the character would be able to locate the stinker, for instance, but the quality of his sense of smell went down overall...

 

Sounds like you could use a Physical Limitation to cover the reduced Targeting capability you are looking for. It wouldn't be worth much, but it gets you the same effect.

 

I'm sure the gurus will chime in soon.

 

 

What I was aiming for is something like the mechanics you use for attacking/being attacked by an opponent invisible to sight i.e. when you are using a non-targetting sense, and introducing a mechanic to determine which senses could do this rather than have it as part of the power description for invisibility.

 

The trouble with reduced PER rolls is that perceiving things, especially in combat, is one of those hard to pull of things - either you make everyone do it all the time or you come up with special circumstances.

 

Now unless someone is in a situation where normal sight logically doesn't work (a darkness field, whilst flashed, etc) I generally do not require a roll. Now I vaguely recall a rule for PER rolls that if your adjusted roll is 11- or better you don't generally need to make a roll: that would mean that in darkness (not the power) which is -4 to sight PER, anyone with a 15- PER could see without making a roll.

 

However anyone with a lower total would need to roll, and they would either succeed - and attack without penalty - or fail and not be able to detect the opponent at all.

 

All seems a bit all-or nothing.

 

If you see what I mean

[Damascan]

Re: Who threw that?

 

Hmm. Regarding the all or nothing, there is undoubtedly room for creative license. In Fantasy Hero, for instance, an example is given of making your Spell roll really well resulting in, say, an added die of damage, while just barely failing the roll might mean that the spell works, just not as well as expected... Haven't you always played this with PER rolls? The better you make the roll, the more precise your 'sighting' is. If you play it this way, then it becomes less of an all-or-nothing and more of a shading from white to black...

 

I understand that you are trying to systemize it in a logical way, but maybe the best thing to do is to play it by ear...

 

Again, as in most cases, it depends on how you GM and how your players play.

 

There ---- can't get a much more inconclusive response than that, eh?

 

Not getting enough sleep, my PER rolls are way down...

[Dust Raven]

Re: Who threw that?

 

What I was aiming for is something like the mechanics you use for attacking/being attacked by an opponent invisible to sight i.e. when you are using a non-targetting sense, and introducing a mechanic to determine which senses could do this rather than have it as part of the power description for invisibility.

 

The trouble with reduced PER rolls is that perceiving things, especially in combat, is one of those hard to pull of things - either you make everyone do it all the time or you come up with special circumstances.

 

Now unless someone is in a situation where normal sight logically doesn't work (a darkness field, whilst flashed, etc) I generally do not require a roll. Now I vaguely recall a rule for PER rolls that if your adjusted roll is 11- or better you don't generally need to make a roll: that would mean that in darkness (not the power) which is -4 to sight PER, anyone with a 15- PER could see without making a roll.

 

However anyone with a lower total would need to roll, and they would either succeed - and attack without penalty - or fail and not be able to detect the opponent at all.

 

All seems a bit all-or nothing.

 

If you see what I mean

 

Is your Locating Adder supposed to make nontargeting senses able to roughly locate targets without a PER Roll? If so, then I can see how it would differ from the existing rules. I still think it's an unnecessary addition though. It's much easier to remember the difference between Targeting and Nontargeting senses, or rather, it's difficult enough without adding in some third category.