Sean Waters Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 It seems to me that IPE and indirect overlap a bit. If an attack can start anywhere and go in any direction it is not going to be obvious that the character is the one using the power, even if it is obvious that a power is in operation. Anyone found that to be a problem (or an opportunity...)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE It seems to me that IPE and indirect overlap a bit. If an attack can start anywhere and go in any direction it is not going to be obvious that the character is the one using the power, even if it is obvious that a power is in operation. Anyone found that to be a problem (or an opportunity...)? You do cast about for problems dont you. I think this one is scraping the barrel though! There is not a lot of mechanical overlap. IPE is essentially a mechanic for hiding the fact that a power is in use. Indirect is essentially a mechanic for allowing a power to originate somewhere away from the character. I would say that there should always be a clue that a character is using a power even if there is no direct link between the character and the power. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesuji Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Well yes and no... an invisible attack raises a lot of problems, including lots of surprise options. Can you block or deflect an attack you cannot percieve coming? Nope? or maybe yes but at the penalty for invisible targets? But on the other hand an attack thats very visible just coming from a strange direction is blockable. also... Big difference between "my stretched hands swing around and come at you from behind the cover" and "my invisible blast still has to deal with the cover you are hiding behind". etc... invisible seems to have some benefits but the indirect has others, making them in my book a nice pair of options with different benefits. the two different options both might be used for the same thing - hiding the source - but they do so much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Characters can perceive who is generating an Indirect Power, says so on page 260. Assuming they're looking in the right direction; but that's true of any Power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Split Decision Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Yep, this one is not really an issue IMO. However, it may be a question of, which one applies to your power? I can imagine effects which might be simulated by either one of these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE I've seen suggestions for powers where, for instance, an attack with indirect burrows through the ground and attacks up through the surface, which makes it difficult to logically see where the attack is actually coming from, even though this seems like a perfectly valid use of 'indirect'. How would you rule that? Require IPE as well, or just say that, despite 'appearances' the source of the power is obvious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper-Man Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE I've seen suggestions for powers where, for instance, an attack with indirect burrows through the ground and attacks up through the surface, which makes it difficult to logically see where the attack is actually coming from, even though this seems like a perfectly valid use of 'indirect'. How would you rule that? Require IPE as well, or just say that, despite 'appearances' the source of the power is obvious? In your example above it will still be obvious that the character is using an ability even if the source direction of the actual attack may cause 'suprise' on the target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper-Man Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Let's examine Telekinesis for a moment. TK already has some 'indirect' qualities by default. Terra from the Teen Titans could 'move earth' and the only visible effect was usually her hands glowing. When Green Lantern moves objects with his power ring there is also an obvious connection between the ring and object as well. Either Terra has a Limited IPE or GL has an 'extra' Visibility Limitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE I think we could benefit from a somewhat less defined (yes, this is still me) version of power visibility. I think the important factor is that, if a power is visible, no one is in any doubt who is using it, whether the effect is visual, sonic, olfactory or just a creepy feeling that someone has just walked over your grave. Given the limited combat effects of IPE I definitely think it costs too much. I'd probably go with something like this: 1. Any power that uses END is normally perceivable with normal senses when in use, and is considered VISIBLE. This means that someone observing the character or the power they are using will know that they are the ones using the power. 2. For +1/4 you can have a power that is DETECTABLE: an observer needs to make a PER roll to 'connect' the power and the power user. 3. For +1/2 a power is not visible at all to observers, although special senses might still detect the power, and is considered INVISIBLE. 4. For +1 a power is not detectable even by the person it is affecting. 5. For -1/4 a power can be noisy. When in use, it attracts the attention of people nearby even if they were not observing the character or the power. A power that is normally not visible can be made DETECTABLE or VISIBLE for -1/4 and noisy for -1/2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE I've seen suggestions for powers where, for instance, an attack with indirect burrows through the ground and attacks up through the surface, which makes it difficult to logically see where the attack is actually coming from, even though this seems like a perfectly valid use of 'indirect'. How would you rule that? Require IPE as well, or just say that, despite 'appearances' the source of the power is obvious? If a Target is watching the Attacker they would logically see them initiating the attack - possibly throwing/shooting/planting/pointing something into the ground at their feet... then it burrows off and comes up where it comes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rauer Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE I've seen suggestions for powers where, for instance, an attack with indirect burrows through the ground and attacks up through the surface, which makes it difficult to logically see where the attack is actually coming from, even though this seems like a perfectly valid use of 'indirect'. How would you rule that? Require IPE as well, or just say that, despite 'appearances' the source of the power is obvious? If I were the GM and the power were bought Indirect as you describe, with no level of IPE, then I would say that a line of disturbed dirt moves from the originator toward the target, or something to that effect. That would keep the power "visible" while also allowing the power to utilize Indirect to bypass objects and Force Walls and such. That being said, I have lost my rulebook and can't look up both advantages to read them in detail so my response is less RAW and more "what makes sense to me at first look." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE If I were the GM and the power were bought Indirect as you describe' date=' with no level of IPE, then I would say that a line of disturbed dirt moves from the originator toward the target, or something to that effect. That would keep the power "visible" while also allowing the power to utilize Indirect to bypass objects and Force Walls and such.[/quote'] Exactly. Rep for the new guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE If I were the GM and the power were bought Indirect as you describe' date=' with no level of IPE, then I would say that a line of disturbed dirt moves from the originator toward the target, or something to that effect. That would keep the power "visible" while also allowing the power to utilize Indirect to bypass objects and Force Walls and such.[/quote'] That removes the indirect idea IMO. However ripples of dust in a circle homing in on the character targetted would work as well to indicate an attack. You might also do it using other senses - increased temperature - noise etc etc. Anything might indicate the incoming attack - nothing should necessarily link it to the power user - except for the fact that it happens as the power user is obviously using a power that is not obviously emanating from his location. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Typist Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE I disagree. I think it can obviously emanate from his location: it just has to strike from a different angle than a more or less straight line from the character. A Stretching hand attack is an excellent example of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE The book is pretty clear - it is still Obvious who is generating the Power, i.e. the Source is NOT hidden in any way. Indirect just means the Power doesn't emanate from the Attacker's position, not that it obscures who is responsible for the Power. Of course, if you're facing the wrong direction and don't SEE the Attacker, that's just the way the cookie breaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE I disagree. I think it can obviously emanate from his location: it just has to strike from a different angle than a more or less straight line from the character. A Stretching hand attack is an excellent example of this. Indirect has a couple of layers - one of the things it can do is dictate point of origin - where the power appear from before striking the target. We can both be right here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Typist Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Indirect has a couple of layers - one of the things it can do is dictate point of origin - where the power appear from before striking the target. We can both be right here! Oh, I agree with this. If you wanted the attack to just materialize out of stage left, I´d be completely fine with it. I just thought the provided example worked that´s all, especially considering the SFX invoked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Some 'indirect' sfx are problematic. One example (it may even be in the book) is a flying weapon platform that can circle round behind a target. You'd have to work quite hard to make it obvious that a particular character is controlling it. That sounds like an example where there is some overlap, perhaps requiring some IPE and some Indirect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Perhaps. It does come down to properly modeling exactly what is going on. If the guy is holding a Remote Control it could be blindingly obvious to someone they're controlling the flying weapons platform . . . On the other hand, if it's mental control designed to hide the user safely then IPE is likely appropriate to correctly model the SFX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Perhaps. It does come down to properly modeling exactly what is going on. If the guy is holding a Remote Control it could be blindingly obvious to someone they're controlling the flying weapons platform . . . On the other hand, if it's mental control designed to hide the user safely then IPE is likely appropriate to correctly model the SFX. True. Even with mental control though, the weapons platform would still be visible, so IPE seems somewhat inappropriate - all it is doing is making the link between the attacker and the attack invisible, not the attack itself. I'd probably require it to either be built as a focus or a physical manifestation rather than IPE, so that it can be targeted and destroyed and it will then be obvious if the character launches another. It's all so confusing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE IPE: Visible SFX, Invisible Source is worth half value. The book even suggests coupling this with Indirect to fully hide the source of the power, but not the Effects/SFX of the Power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE IPE: Visible SFX, Invisible Source is worth half value. The book even suggests coupling this with Indirect to fully hide the source of the power, but not the Effects/SFX of the Power. So, not that confusing then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Re: Indirect and IPE Well, I can see where there could be a perceived overlap - and I think Steve did too, so that paragraph was place in the rules to remove any ambiguity. It's certainly a tricky area to work around and with, I'll give it that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.