Is this Munchkinism?

[archermoo]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

You are quite right, but the problem is that DS has not been costed, or possibly built quite right.

 

More accurately not built how you would've built it.

 

I don't see that it needs Range built into it until you are sensing danger to others. You are sensing danger, not the source of it. Though you do get the distance to the source. And can target the source if you roll well enough, but that's paid for.

 

It doesn't need to be a 10 point detect, because at base it can only detect dangers in combat. The list of dangers that you aren't already aware of while in combat is pretty short. Adding in the ability to detect dangers outside of combat bumps it up to a 10 point detect.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

More accurately not built how you would've built it.

 

I don't see that it needs Range built into it until you are sensing danger to others. You are sensing danger, not the source of it. Though you do get the distance to the source. And can target the source if you roll well enough, but that's paid for.

 

It doesn't need to be a 10 point detect, because at base it can only detect dangers in combat. The list of dangers that you aren't already aware of while in combat is pretty short. Adding in the ability to detect dangers outside of combat bumps it up to a 10 point detect.

 

Danger sense senses danger and the range to it, so the sense must be able to deal with range, but is not built with range. Targetting does not grant range, that is a seperate ability: a targeting sense with no range can only target something it you are in contact with.

 

As to the level of detect, well, a 5 point detect can detect an object or phenomena that significantly affects combat, but the examples given are all of a nature: metals aliens minds magic. An energy or object - something you could easily write a rule to identify.

 

To detect an abstract, like danger (or, to use the book example, enemies - a very similar concept) which could come from absolutely any source and will probably be something different every time it is detected you need a 10 point detect.

 

No, it is not how I would've built it: but then I'm not making up my example builds, they are straight out of the enhanced senses section of 5ER.

 

I mean, let us take an example - if you don't need range, then all you can detect is, in effect, the danger once it gets to you.

 

If someone is 100" away and fires an indirect shot that circles round and hits you from the other side, how can you possibly know where the damger came from - you'd at best know where it hit. With normal senses it would be too late by then.

 

I mean, if you don't need the range adder on a sense to detect something or someone 100" away, why do you need it at all?

[Psylint]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

Sean,

 

I think that's an interpretive problem. Take your example of the long range sniper with the funky indirect missile. Does that missile pose any danger to anyone or anything other than the target?

 

If not, then the danger is located at the target, and not the shooter.

 

As I recall, even a successful danger sense roll doesn't tell you where the origin of the danger is, such that you could attack it a full OCV. You need a superior roll for that. Particularly for Danger Sense that's intuitive, which never lets you act offensively on it, the range thing just doesn't come up, in my humble opinion.

 

Peace

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

Sean,

 

I think that's an interpretive problem. Take your example of the long range sniper with the funky indirect missile. Does that missile pose any danger to anyone or anything other than the target?

 

If not, then the danger is located at the target, and not the shooter.

 

As I recall, even a successful danger sense roll doesn't tell you where the origin of the danger is, such that you could attack it a full OCV. You need a superior roll for that. Particularly for Danger Sense that's intuitive, which never lets you act offensively on it, the range thing just doesn't come up, in my humble opinion.

 

Peace

 

A successful danger sense roll tells you the range to the target. Not sure how you can tell that if you can not sense something at range. Roll by half and you can target the danger*. If your interpretation is right then the danger is somewhere on your body surface. Not sure how targetting that will help

 

My view is that the danger is 100" away, but the damage is in contact with you **

 

Sensing damage is only going to be useful if you are precognitive, and even then we are straight into paradox - if it was not going to hit you then presumably you would not be able to sense it, but if you do sense it and successfully react, you were never hit, so you should not have been able to detect the danger that allowed you to avoid the damage.

 

I'm overthinking this, aren't I? Ignore that last paragraph: it is a paradox

 

 

 

* Except as you say for intuitive DS, but even with that you are supposed to know the range to the danger.

 

**It is like buying a detect for 'Stuff that is going to make me wealthy'. Would that not involve range? Apparently not - it is YOU who will be wealthy and the range to YOU is zero. The fact the thing you are actually detecting might be miles away is irrelevant. It still works fine.

 

If you word the detect cunningly enough you probably don't need any adders to the enhanced sense at all: Detect what I'm thinking about, the range to it, and the direction from me. Cool. I can detect whatever I can think of, and I got range and 360 degree sensing for free. Hmm. Now I feel all dirty. Did I do a bad thing?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

I'm actually leaning towards Sean here. If you don't attach Danger Sense to another Sense Group via the Simulated Sense Group Rules you should really add Ranged to it separately.

 

Either way, since you can't buy Invisibility to the Unusual Group (where Danger Sense sits at default) you can buy it to Danger Sense specifically.

[incrdbil]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

Given no further information it seems questionable. Density control has nothing related to traditional Danger sense. A Danger Sense defined by some aspect of special affect somehow affected by density might recieve a modifier to the roll. It seems more appropriate for that type of Danger Sense to have a limited effect limitation though. I mean, Invisibility vs Danger Sense, only vs danger sensses with a special effect of smell or motion detectiion is a pretty darn rare circumstance to the point -2 might not be a fair cost reduction.

 

 

But to me a blanket invisibility to any ype of Danger sense Sense isn't justified simply by saying 'density increase' powers. Limiting as above seems to produce a pretty useless power though.

[casualplayer]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

Maybe Intent to Harm radiates outward from the assailant and Danger Sense is like Passive Sonar? The quiet mind could make himself invisible to being detected.

 

Danger Sense (Detect quasi-mystical, unquantifiable thing) is a pain in the keister because it always mandates a SFX vs. SFX ruling that is always a GM's nightmare, especially when it involves inter-player conflict. It also wrecks a huge array of potential plotlines. Razzin', frazzin' stupid power.

[Comic]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

Question: Didn't the Vision have invisibility to Danger Sense?

 

Sorry, Cuestion.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

Question: Didn't the Vision have invisibility to Danger Sense?

 

Sorry, Cuestion.

 

 

Not that I'm aware of, but Venom was certainly invisible to Spiderman's DS.

 

Mind you it is rare in comics that we get any kind of decent explanation as to how such powers work anyway.

 

I wonder whether you could reduce the density of the danger you emanate until it is effectively desolid?

 

One (slightly) interesting thing you can do with DS is decide if it is passive or active. Generally I assume that it is passive - a sort of observation based intuition, but in worlds where anything is possible you might emit 'Peril Particles' and detect the ones that are reflected back at you...

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

If your desolid is defined as orienting your quantum states to all be perpendicular to our reality (or some such BS) whereby the hero effectively both exists and does not exist, I could see that POSSIBLY being a way to justify an invisibility to danger sense - if you don't truly exist in the portions of space-time that we use, perhaps you can't be perceived as a threat. Maybe if your Density Manipulation has to do with an ability to aggregate dark matter to yourself, or to become dark matter itself to a greater or lesser extent. 80% of the known universe is made of the stuff, and I'll be damned if I can figure out how Danger Sense would sense it, or even how it would be a danger.

 

Which brings me to another point. When desolid, what sort of danger are you? Would danger sense really include the prosepect of a mental attack? Depending on the SFX, I suppose.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

If your desolid is defined as orienting your quantum states to all be perpendicular to our reality (or some such BS) whereby the hero effectively both exists and does not exist, I could see that POSSIBLY being a way to justify an invisibility to danger sense - if you don't truly exist in the portions of space-time that we use, perhaps you can't be perceived as a threat. Maybe if your Density Manipulation has to do with an ability to aggregate dark matter to yourself, or to become dark matter itself to a greater or lesser extent. 80% of the known universe is made of the stuff, and I'll be damned if I can figure out how Danger Sense would sense it, or even how it would be a danger.

 

Which brings me to another point. When desolid, what sort of danger are you? Would danger sense really include the prosepect of a mental attack? Depending on the SFX, I suppose.

 

Actually that is a good point - if you are about to be hit with a mind control that inbstructs you to 'run away and hide', does that place you in any danger? Quite the opposite, perhaps - it is getting you out of danger, so presumably would not trigger your DS?

 

Similarly an attack power like telepathy - which allows the attacker to read your mind but not affect you other than by communication (and I assume that communication does not normally set off DS) causes no harm, and so again perhaps should not trigger the sense. Of course the information gained may be used to harm you but if so used that WOULD trigger the DS.

 

Now, has anyone got a worm compressor and a can welding kit?

[Alibear]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

One the PC's in my campaign has Danger Sense. After a hard day adventuring she likes nothing better than to have a long bath in the dark, kinda meditation thing to clear the mind.

 

The player really shit himself when he worked out the assassin hunting his character had invisibility to Danger Sense.

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

I guess the Spanish Inquisition had invisibility to Danger Sense...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

No one suspects them anyways.

[casualplayer]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

I heavily used Aaron Allston's The Blood in my old game and one of the things I did was give them all Danger Sense and Invisibility to Danger Sense. Just because I hate the grief caused by the power doesn't mean that I don't use it. Kept the players on their toes, especially when Commodore succumbed to the Blood madness.

[CorPse]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

I have a player that wanted to buy “Invisible to Danger Sense”. The character in question is not a mentalist but rather a character with density changing abilities. I disallowed the poser but my question to Herodom assembled is: Was it a Munchkin power build?

 

Yeah, without some very special SFX and reasoning this would get the big red stop sign from me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

In a world with superpowers, at best you need a tenous justification for any power at all.

 

To be honest, I don't see this as a game breaker.

 

Think about it.

 

If a villain has the power then presumably (although not necessarily) one or more of the PCs will have DS. The PCs in question get a little shaken, but triumph over adversity and you probably never have to bother running that schtick again.

 

If a PC has the ability, well, it is only going to be useful when a villain has DS, so the GM is still very much in charge of the action.

 

I can see it being one of those things that people with VPPs will be adding to their lists, but, unless the character is quesiton is invisible to practically everything else too (and they are n)ot, trust me) then they are detectable in exactly the same way as if they did not have invisibility to DS except, you know, with DS.

 

Really. Don't sweat this one too much, or if you are going to then at least do so productively:

 

"Er, sure you can have invisibility to DS but, er, leave the sfx to me, huh?"

 

Then you decide that the invisibility to DS is nothing to do with the density increase as such but it si part of the racial heritage of the Shi-Kazar, an alien race of shapeshifters. Odd because Earth has had no contact with the Shi-Kazar, and the PC has no inkling that they even exist, let alone that he is related tot hem. Someone does though...

 

Oh, and for all those cunning types who like to buy invisibility to all those cunning senses, can I suggest a new (unusual sense detect: Detect invisibility

[Talon]

Re: Is this Munchkinism?

 

In a world with superpowers, at best you need a tenous justification for any power at all.

 

To be honest, I don't see this as a game breaker.

 

I prefer slightly more justification that this...however that's not the biggest issue I have.

 

There are some players who, if they came to me (as GM) and asked for this power under these circumstances, I'd make it work (for example, in the creative manner you suggest in your post). In such a circumstance, the power would probably cause no problems at all. However, these kinds of players are the least likely to ask me for such a power.

 

In my experience, the kind of player who would ask for this is the kind of player who has trouble focusing on special effects and character concept over power and effectiveness. I find that granting this kind of request for this kind of player leads to trouble. (OTOH, if they can address the questions of SFX and the like, so much the better!) Because of this, my default answer is no; but I'm open to convincing.