Do you see?

[Sean Waters]

Question - how do you deal with powers and abilities and, for that matter, situations, that reduce PER rolls?

 

For example The Amazing Minnie has the power 'shrinking, and every level of shrinking she has reduces the PER roll of someone looking for (or at) her by 2.

 

That means that against a 10 INT opponent with no special senses etc, Minnie is at -2 to be seen (or otherwise perceived) when she has one level of shrinking on...reducing the PER roll of the person looking for her to 9-, and when she turns it all on, all 6 levels, she is -12 to PER, or a roll of -1 on 3d6. Good luck with that.

 

So, here's the question - at what point does someone HAVE to make a PER roll to see Minnie?

 

I've got it down to:

 

1. Never, unless she is actually trying to hide, using the stealth or concealment (or other appropriate) skill.

2. When she first enters the situation, and once she is 'acquired' they can track her until she leaves their PER volume.

3. Only if the roll to see her is under a certain value (under 11-, or under 3- or somesuch)

4. Something else.

 

You see, at some point, if the Amazing Minnie keeps on shrinking then she should be almost impossible to see even if you know where to look - but what is that point? When do PER penalties beceome, in effect, invisibility?

 

One 'fix' is that Minnie should remain unseen by anyone whose modified PER roll is under 8-*, unless they make a PER roll (so no one with a modified PER roll of or better need make a roll) - I have a feeling there is a rule like this somewhere, but I can't see it (failed PER roll). HOWEVER, once 'acquired' the perceiver gets a bonus to their PER roll of (say) +4, only to 'retain' the target i.e. to keep their modified roll above 8- so they do not need to roll every phase. Anything that gives away position - say a visible attack - allows the bonus to be applied.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

* I picked 8- because that is 'familiarity' level - and even with a 'familiarity' with normal sight you ought to be able to see something standing right in front of you.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Do you see?

 

My response to this is never.

 

If Minnie wants to be invisible then she has to buy invisibility.

 

You make a PER roll at the same time you'd make a PER roll to see anyone, its just that if you have to make a PER roll then it is at a much reduced value when Minnie is the one you want to see.

 

So. If you are distracted and Minnie enters the room and it is important that you see her then you may be asked to make a PER roll.

 

If you are in combat and she is trying to blindside you, you may be asked to make a PER roll.

 

If you are sitting in a room with everyone chatting, I would not expect you to have to make a PER roll to see or hear her....

 

 

Doc

[OddHat]

Re: Do you see?

 

Had this come up in play, with a shrinking / growing brick (Apache Chief / Atom homage).

 

Per Roll is required if the character is using Stealth or Concealment, as with any other character. Once he's no longer in a position where he can be stealthy (say just after launching a visible attack), no Per Roll is needed to spot him. That's how the official rules work on this as well.

 

It's not "logical" that someone the size of a gnat can be seen, and I would be pretty generous with my interpretation of how and when such a character can use Stealth or Concealment. Still, if he wants true invisibility, he needs to pay for it.

[Outsider]

Re: Do you see?

 

A typical housefly is 6-9mm long, and weighs in at 20 milligrams. That's the equivalent of between 7 and 8 levels of shrinking. They're not effectively invisible when buzzing about, and I dont think Minnie should be either.

 

If she is actively trying to sneak, she will be darned hard to see though. Even everyman stealth becomes pretty effective when your opponents have to take a -12.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do you see?

 

A typical housefly is 6-9mm long, and weighs in at 20 milligrams. That's the equivalent of between 7 and 8 levels of shrinking. They're not effectively invisible when buzzing about, and I dont think Minnie should be either.

 

If she is actively trying to sneak, she will be darned hard to see though. Even everyman stealth becomes pretty effective when your opponents have to take a -12.

 

I agree that when using an active power like flight, which (in Hero terms) is visible, a fly is relatively easy to spot in a quiet room. In less than ideal conditions, or if it lands (as you mention), then the same does not apply. It is certainly not invisible, but it might as well be if you can not actually see it.

 

Arguably landing and freezing could be using stealth or concealment, but generally they do not work if you are using them under direct observation (unless you allow a 'super skill use at a -10 penalty, or somesuch).

 

PER is one of those interesting areas of combat that generally is not worth sweating over too much - in practice keeping track of opponents is no easy task, but actually simulating it would mean at least one extra roll per phase, which is probably not worth it on balance.

 

What the rules say is that the character will notice anythign obvious, but anything inobvious, or in a combat or crisis sityation, may require a PER roll.

 

The question therefore is this: what is 'inobvious' - arguably, Minnie is not obvious when shrunk to the size of a house fly (or as she prefers, a very very small ballarina).

 

Clearly you don't want to be giving away freebies but with 60 points in shrinking, Minnie is -12 to be seen if a PER roll is required. Assuming that is a very difficult roll in most games, she is functionally invisible if she cannot be perceived even WITH a PER roll.

[OddHat]

Re: Do you see?

 

I'd say that using Stealth to become invisible while standing in the middle of an open space is a pretty much perfect example of the -10 to skill roll option in action; I'd definitely allow it for a character with Shrinking.

 

If Minnie had no Stealth skill, but was standing quietly in an open room, I'd probably require a PER roll to spot her. If she used an EB, Punch, Flight, or other Visible power or attack, she'd be automatically spotted until she had another chance to get out of her enemies LOS.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Do you see?

 

I agree with the above, i.e Shrinking does not force a PER Roll as this is not stated in the power's description. As a frame of reference, Change Environment states that it does force a roll to the affected stat (including PER) upon exposure to the power.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Do you see?

 

So maybe Minnie should buy Change Environment, no range, self only to impose a further -1 on the chance to see her AND force her opponents to be required to make a PER roll to detect her. That's way cheaper than Invisibility in forcing the PER roll.

 

It's also a precedent for the theory that, once a penalty applies to the roll, a roll becomes necessary, but I don't favour extrapolating to that extent.

 

The housefly example is a good one - try following that housefly around the room with the naked eye. It's not all that easy. One of the benefits of Shrinking - which Minnie has paid for - is a significant reduction of the likelihood she will be perceived. Yes, she could have bought invisibility to be imperceptible. She could have it with a fringe and get the benefits of her -12 to be perceived.

 

I'd be inclined to rule that someone trying to track her gets bonuses to PER rolls. I also like Sean's suggestion that an 8- roll can be considered an automatic success absent specific efforts to hide, and I would extend that to tracking her once she has been perceived. However, she can duck behind a lot of different objects to break that tracking, just like I can't track a normal-size character well if he ducks behind a parked car.

 

Shrinking costs significant points. It should grant benefits for those points.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Do you see?

 

Another option might be some form of Persistent or Uncontrolled Stealth (Linked to Shrinking) to force PER rolls if you wanted.

[Maur]

Re: Do you see?

 

And don't forget the penalties for distance that the spotter is suffering from.

[Chris-M]

Re: Do you see?

 

I don't think that you need to do anything more than use the rules as they exist now and just apply some reasonable adjudication.

 

PER isn't based merely on direct, knowing observation (I look, I see, I understand what I'm seeing) but, IMO at least, general awareness as well. That is, going back to the fly example, sometimes when you can't specifically see the fly in the "I now know exactly where it is" sense, you realize it's there via the "saw something out of the corner of my sense" even when it's not buzzing around. So now I know the fly is there somewhere and I can attempt to target it with a flyswatter on my next phase (the kitchen being a hotbed of Hero-style combat), but because it's small and hard to track, I will of course attack it at a hefty OCV penalty.

 

Along the same lines, you can perceive something tiny without having to see it -- it might be making noise or not holding as still as it thinks it is, etc. Stealth would of course change those parameters.

 

I would have no problem as a GM letting Minnie "hide in plain sight" by holding still and taking a -10 roll on the Everyman Stealth skill (if she doesn't have Stealth proper), although I might apply an even greater penalty if circumstances warrant it (e.g. she has a bright red costume and is clinging to a stark white curtain at roughly eye level).

 

And if she uses a visible power other than Shrinking in combat, no PER roll is required to perceive her.

 

As for when/how often others should roll to perceive her, I think it depends on the situation in the game session itself. Let's say Minnie wants to sneak into a security observation room where two guards are sitting, drinking coffee, and occasionally glancing at a bank of monitors. She wants to sneak past them and get to a computer to sabotage it, even though the manner of the sabotage is within their field of vision (i.e. she'll be in front of the computer and not behind it when she does this).

 

If this isn't supposed to be a particularly important or dramatic sequence, you could give the guards one PER roll for the whole scene. If they blow it Minnie gets to the computer and then makes whatever rolls she needs to make there, and then gets out. No fuss, no muss, the action keeps moving.

 

If you don't want to do it quite that off-handedly, you could give them separate PER rolls for when she sneaks in and moves to the computer, one for when she's working on the computer, and one for when she's trying to sneak back out of the room. If you want to really milk it for beat-by-beat drama, you could probably justify a couple more PER rolls in there somewhere, and make Minnie make a couple more Stealth checks -- whatever works for your dramatic sensibilities.

 

The odds aren't great that they'll perceive her regardless, so it is almost like Invisibility with a fringe effect anyway, but that's fine with me if she's dumped a lot of points into Shrinking and that's her main thing.

 

I have no idea if I came even remotely close to answering your question or not.

[Silbeg]

Re: Do you see?

 

Had this come up in play, with a shrinking / growing brick (Apache Chief / Atom homage).

 

Per Roll is required if the character is using Stealth or Concealment, as with any other character. Once he's no longer in a position where he can be stealthy (say just after launching a visible attack), no Per Roll is needed to spot him. That's how the official rules work on this as well.

 

It's not "logical" that someone the size of a gnat can be seen, and I would be pretty generous with my interpretation of how and when such a character can use Stealth or Concealment. Still, if he wants true invisibility, he needs to pay for it.

 

Gotta agree with you there.

Once in combat, there shouldn't be a need for a PER roll, unless the character does something to break LOS, etc. Otherwise Shrinking can definitely be overpoweringly annoying.

[Beast]

Re: Do you see?

 

until the character MAKES the effort to be unseen

unless they are are at a level of shrinking that gives no chance at a per roll

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do you see?

 

Sheesh have I been noticing flies today.

 

Now you see me, now you don't: Invisibility to Sight Group , Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); Activation Roll 13- (-3/4), Instant (-1/2), Linked (Shrinking; Greater Power is Constant or in use most or all of the time; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; Lesser Instant Power can be used in any Phase in which greater Constant Power is in use; -1/4) 30 Active, 13 real

 

So this power allows you to momentarily disappear (most of the time) when shrunk, breaking LOS and requiring a new PER roll to re-acquire. Useful when you already have shrinking.

 

Interestingly HD3 won't let you put 'self only' on CE, but I've been thinking - what makes shrinking a particularly cheap way of disappearing is that the PER penalty applies (presumably) to every sense. Every single one.

 

Now that almost makes this build worth while:

 

Just ignore me: Shrinking (4 levels), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Doesn't actually shrink or get any of the bonuses except the PER penalty; -1) 60 active, 30 real

Well, it would if it didn't come with a mandatory muchkin beating

[Beast]

Re: Do you see?

 

why not just use negative skill levels

 

Negative Skill Levels (-8 with [a group of similar Skills]Perception)

 

no end cost,no limitations to warrent a mandatory muchkin beating

 

 

Sheesh have I been noticing flies today.

 

Now you see me, now you don't: Invisibility to Sight Group , Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); Activation Roll 13- (-3/4), Instant (-1/2), Linked (Shrinking; Greater Power is Constant or in use most or all of the time; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; Lesser Instant Power can be used in any Phase in which greater Constant Power is in use; -1/4) 30 Active, 13 real

 

So this power allows you to momentarily disappear (most of the time) when shrunk, breaking LOS and requiring a new PER roll to re-acquire. Useful when you already have shrinking.

 

Interestingly HD3 won't let you put 'self only' on CE, but I've been thinking - what makes shrinking a particularly cheap way of disappearing is that the PER penalty applies (presumably) to every sense. Every single one.

 

Now that almost makes this build worth while:

 

Just ignore me: Shrinking (4 levels), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Doesn't actually shrink or get any of the bonuses except the PER penalty; -1) 60 active, 30 real

Well, it would if it didn't come with a mandatory muchkin beating

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do you see?

 

why not just use negative skill levels

 

Negative Skill Levels (-8 with [a group of similar Skills]Perception)

 

no end cost,no limitations to warrent a mandatory muchkin beating

 

Nice idea but NSLs do cost END and (for some reason) are negated by power defence, which might make for oddness.

[pinecone]

Re: Do you see?

 

Woah! Hot chick! : +X Pres, only to get target(s) to look away for a phase or so.....Breaks LOS no?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Do you see?

 

Interestingly HD3 won't let you put 'self only' on CE' date=' but I've been thinking - what makes shrinking a particularly cheap way of disappearing is that the PER penalty applies (presumably) to every sense. Every single one.[/quote']

 

Strange that HD3 wouldn't allow that, as Self Only is one of the listed Limitations *for* Change Environment in 5ER.

 

At first thought, I wouldn't apply the Shrinking modifiers to the PER roll for Danger Sense. You may be physically small, but you're still just as dangerous (if not more so).

 

I would have to think about whether they would apply (IMO) to Mental Senses (like Mind Scan or a Detect Minds).

[Chris-M]

Re: Do you see?

 

I would have to think about whether they would apply (IMO) to Mental Senses (like Mind Scan or a Detect Minds).

 

I would have thought that having a tiny brain is a disadvantage.

[Outsider]

Re: Do you see?

 

I would have thought that having a tiny brain is a disadvantage.

 

If the shrinker is losing 5 INT/EGO per level of shrinking, I could see that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do you see?

 

If the shrinker is losing 5 INT/EGO per level of shrinking' date=' I could see that.[/quote']

 

Oh please let that be in 6th ed.

 

As it stands, Shrinking gives a minus to PER rolls, so, technically, any PER roll takes the minus, but I can see the good sense in not applying it to certain detects, like danger sense, a lot of mental senses and, you know 'detect small things'.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Do you see?

 

And shouldn't Microscopic Sense offset the PER penalty to perceive a Shrunk character?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do you see?

 

And shouldn't Microscopic Sense offset the PER penalty to perceive a Shrunk character?

 

Having just researched this I can confirm that using a microscope doesn't make it any easier to spot a fly in the room.

[schir1964]

Re: Do you see?

 

Actually, the current system does handle this already, but it requires the GM to do some extra work.

 

The general rule for when a character is required to make a Perception Roll is when the sum total of all Bonuses/Penalties of Perception is negative, which becomes the penalty for the Perception Roll.

 

The catch here is that the GM has to go through the list of suggested Bonuses/Penalties and apply them for each applicable Sense to make the decision.

 

So a Human Sized Object in a Well Lit room will not have a negative sum total vs Normal Sight for the typical character. Thus no roll is needed.

 

Such things that can push the sum total into the negatives for Normal Sight are:

Low Lighting

Size Penalties

Camouflage (Includes color, contrast, shape, and motion matching)

 

The trick to making this process easy is to create a cross reference chart of bonuses/penalties which is based off a reasonable but arbitrary decision of what a Zero Sum Total represents perception-wise.

 

Anyone up to the challenge?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do you see?

 

Actually, the current system does handle this already, but it requires the GM to do some extra work.

 

The general rule for when a character is required to make a Perception Roll is when the sum total of all Bonuses/Penalties of Perception is negative, which becomes the penalty for the Perception Roll.

 

The catch here is that the GM has to go through the list of suggested Bonuses/Penalties and apply them for each applicable Sense to make the decision.

 

So a Human Sized Object in a Well Lit room will not have a negative sum total vs Normal Sight for the typical character. Thus no roll is needed.

 

Such things that can push the sum total into the negatives for Normal Sight are:

Low Lighting

Size Penalties

Camouflage (Includes color, contrast, shape, and motion matching)

 

The trick to making this process easy is to create a cross reference chart of bonuses/penalties which is based off a reasonable but arbitrary decision of what a Zero Sum Total represents perception-wise.

 

Anyone up to the challenge?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I was confident that I'd read something like that in the rules but I could not put my finger on it: I'll have to go have another look