Post "gotchas" here

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I think you're grossly misinterpreting the Power, myself.

 

There's not additional house rules needed. If you're putting Images on a solid object and you perceive trough them, then you see the object beyond it. And I also think using the Degree Of Success as a good guideline to boot.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

If I'm going to house rule anything' date=' it'll probably just be that basic Images [i']can[/i] block LOS even if the Per roll is made.

 

Been working that way for us for roughly twenty years. Haven't had any real issues.

 

Of course, we differentiate by SFX: if it's a mental-based "I make you think you see something," then a successful PER check gives you the option to see it or not see it, as you choose, for as long as the Illusion is active. You know: like opting to shake you head a second to clear the spiders from your peripheral vision after you've been writing for three or four hours.

 

If it's light-based or otherwise based on putting something "real" in front of the character, then yes: of course it blocks their LOS. Knowing that the woman in front of you is really a well-done mannequin doesn't make her suddenly disappear. It turns her into a well-done mannequin.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Been working that way for us for roughly twenty years. Haven't had any real issues.

 

Of course, we differentiate by SFX: if it's a mental-based "I make you think you see something," then a successful PER check gives you the option to see it or not see it, as you choose, for as long as the Illusion is active. You know: like opting to shake you head a second to clear the spiders from your peripheral vision after you've been writing for three or four hours.

 

If it's light-based or otherwise based on putting something "real" in front of the character, then yes: of course it blocks their LOS. Knowing that the woman in front of you is really a well-done mannequin doesn't make her suddenly disappear. It turns her into a well-done mannequin.

 

Yeah. Same really. SFX and circumstance. There even may be a case where making the Per roll might mean you can't see the illusion (except perhaps for being able to tell something odd is happening), which could actually inconvenience you because you don't know what you're friends are supposed to be reacting to/interacting with. It's a case where I don't feel an official, concrete decision needed to be made. Let creative judgement take care of it.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I don't know if this is really a gotcha or not' date=' but if you make your Per roll to spot that Images are fake, they can't block your Line of Sight. How the heck spotting that a wall isn't textured well enough to be a real wall lets you somehow suddently detect the light coming through it is beyond me. Knowing something is fake and stopping it from having any affect on your senses are two wildly different things in [i']my[/i] mind. So we're going to have to start linking some Darkness into most of our Images powers now, or what?

This is how it worked in 5e (or at least 5ER) so no, this is not a "gotcha".

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

This is how it worked in 5e (or at least 5ER) so no' date=' this is not a "gotcha".[/quote']

 

Ah. Okay. Maybe I just (conveniently?) forgot about that or missed it.

[archermoo]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

My take had always been that the "Images that you can see past don't block LOS" rule was a game balance rule. To stop someone who just wanted to block people's LOS from buying a large Images power and not caring about paying the points to make it believable.

 

And to the best of my recollection (which can certainly be spotty) this has been the way Images has always worked.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

This is how it worked in 5e (or at least 5ER) so no' date=' this is not a "gotcha".[/quote']

 

My first post in the thread mentions "from previous editions", not just 5E.

[archermoo]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

My first post in the thread mentions "from previous editions"' date=' not just 5E. [/quote']

 

Well, in this particular instance I'm almost certain it predates 5e. And as I mentioned in my previous post I think it has always been this way.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Really, it shouldn't have caught anyone off guard. If you see through an Images masking something it doesn't block line of sight to that something - not turn it magically invisible so you can suddenly see through walls if the Images makes a stone wall look wood. I don't understand how that could be misinterpreted, but oh well.

[archermoo]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Really' date=' it shouldn't have caught anyone off guard. If you see through an Images masking something it doesn't block line of sight to that something - not turn it magically invisible so you can suddenly see through walls if the Images makes a stone wall look wood. I don't understand how that could be misinterpreted, but oh well.[/quote']

 

g-a, I think you are missing something. I don't think people are assuming it means that if you put up an Image over something that already blocks your LOS that you will no longer have your LOS blocked if you can see through the Image. I think it devolves to the understanding of how you see "through" Images.

 

The description on 6e1 p237 under the Perceiving the Image section says that if you make your perception roll you still see the image, but you realize something is not right about it. If the Image blocks your LOS if you don't make your Per roll, how is it less opaque because you notice that the brick pattern repeats itself unrealistically?

 

As I said before my take had always been that it was a game balance issue, so I have no problems with it. But I can certainly see why some people would.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Like Archermoo, I see the balance issue and the logic issue.

 

So you know the holographic projection of a solid wall is not real. How does that alone enable you to see through it? I know movie SFX, including those 3d images jumping off the screen, are not real, but I can't see through them.

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I would personally think it's reasonable for Images to be able to block LOS if it is defined as being able to do this, since Images have been used frequently for "limited invisibility" - especially the -x to PER rolls vs Magic "No Magic Here" and vs Sight "Only to Simulate Empty Space".

From that interpretation, Images of a brick wall would block LOS as well as a real one. If a "Doll Mannekin Image" is perceived to be an illusion, it would still not block LOS more than a real doll mannekin. An Image of a hole in the ground could still be put over a real hole in the ground specifically to trick anyone detecting it as an illusion, to be really sneaky.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

An Image of a hole in the ground could still be put over a real hole in the ground specifically to trick anyone detecting it as an illusion' date=' to be really sneaky. [/quote']

 

Thanks!

 

I think I'm going to have to throw that into a Fantasy game a couple of times.

 

Thanks again! I'd been running dry on simple traps and security measures.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

That's like using Images to create the image of an invisble man.

 

....or to create the sound of one hand clapping.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Seeing through the images means you see things as they really are.. so seeing through an image of a hole over a hole means you see a hole; and not seeing through the image means you see a hole . . .

 

There's something being lost in translation I think.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Seeing through the images means you see things as they really are.. so seeing through an image of a hole over a hole means you see a hole; and not seeing through the image means you see a hole . . .

 

There's something being lost in translation I think.

 

NO! Nothing says you see things as they really are. Recognizing something as fake is not the same thing as perceiving it as it really is. Think of someone wearing a skin mask, like they do in the movies. Even if you succeeded in a roll to notice that what you see is not the person's real face (recognize that they are wearing the mask), it does not mean you know what they do like under the mask. Likewise with Images:

 

Observers can attempt to perceive an Image as just that — an image, not real — by succeeding with a PER Roll.

...

The more complex the Image, the greater bonus a viewer gets to recognize the Image as fake.

...

If an observer fails his modified PER Roll, he believes the Image is real. If an observer’s modified PER Roll succeeds, he perceives the Image, but he also detects some flaw that makes him doubt the Image is real. Even if the observer isn’t sophisticated enough to know about Images, he at least knows that what he perceives isn’t right. Images that have been spotted as fake do not disappear; rather, the observer can tell the Image is fake and acts accordingly.

...

If he fails the PER Roll, he believes the Image is real, and it blocks his LOS if appropriate. For example, an illusion of a wall would block LOS beyond the wall, but an illusion of a group of men fighting probably would not.

 

If the character makes his PER Roll, he knows the Image is not real, and it doesn’t block his LOS, even if the Image doesn’t just “fade away.” The GM could require him to make a PER Roll each Phase, using the Image’s PER Roll modifier (if any), to maintain LOS, the same way he would if any other obstruction was interfering with the character’s effort to maintain LOS.

 

(Emphasis added.)

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Does the book actually use the words "see though" when referring to what happens when the viewer discovers it is not real?

 

EDIT: Prestidigitator answered my question for me. Thanks!

 

But does this mean that for large-scale (like terrain/structures) Images, it should automatically be allowed to block LoS for the affected Sense Groups?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

And further down it also states:

 

If the character makes his PER Roll, he knows the Image is not real, and it doesn’t block his LOS, even if the Image doesn’t just “fade away.”

 

And FYI, this text appears to be unchanged from 5er.

 

Anyway, "doesn’t block his LOS" seems equivalent to "sees through" to me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I guess.... I just don't see what the concern is.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Seeing through the images means you see things as they really are.. so seeing through an image of a hole over a hole means you see a hole; and not seeing through the image means you see a hole . . .

 

There's something being lost in translation I think.

 

Not really. There are a couple of takes on this:

 

1 ) you're going by the interpretation that not being deceived by the illusion means you see through it. That's completely within the rules, of course, and there's no reason that you can't play it that way.

 

Also within the rules (up to 5e, anyway) is the possibility that not being deceived by the illusion means that you're not deceived by the illusion. It means that you recognize it as an illusion, but it's still there, whatever it might be. For smoke and mirrors type light-based illusions, this is the more practical approach to me.

 

For instance, I _know_-- ie, I was was not deceived-- by the illusion that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear. It didn't for one instant believe that it was really gone. However, knowing that did _not_ make me able to see the Statue of Liberty.

 

Now we can call that "looking in the wrong place," if we want to quibble, and I grant that maybe it was a bad example. So let's go with funhouse mirrors.

 

"Illusions: Distorted reflection of anything in front of the mirror; Trigger: Someone must both stand in front of the mirror and and observe the reflection. Requires source of light. 0 END. OAF, Always On; Persistent."

 

I _know_ it's a mirror. I _know_ that the reflection I'm seeing isn't actually an accurate reflection of my twisted and disfigured body. But that doesn't change the fact that I _see_ that; it simply means I don't fall for the illusion.

 

Holograms are the same. Ooh-- they're actually probably better as examples. Who was the hologram in Red Dwarf? Was it Arnold something? At any rate, everyone _knew_ he was a hologram; he even had a big sign on his forehead. However, they still saw him as what he was, and not the floating spherical projector from which the illusion was cast.-- err, projected. Oops: genre-mixing!

 

As noted above, some of us play Illusions this way: knowing that it's fake doesn't _necessarily_ allow you see through it.

 

 

The other way of going with Prestidigitator's hole-on-a-hole idea is that either Detecting Magic-- not necessarily "beating the illusionist," but simply using your Detect Illusions" or "Detect Magic" or "Detect Trap" senses would no doubt find an illusory pit in the floor.

 

"Oh-ho!" says cocky TrapMaster, Second Class. "Some crafty sorcerer has placed an illusory pit in the floor to encourage us to avoid this passage! Clearly, there's something down here worth investigating! Charge forward, men!"

 

Or suppose someone is simply not fooled by the illusion. "You can see the shimmer and aura of magic about the edges. And look! The illusion of depth is poor! The hole in the center actually seems to cast light faintly! Come on, men! Don't be fooled!"

 

And that's what makes it a potentially amusing trap, at least to me. Again, if you're playing that not being fooled by an illusions grants an automatic ability to see through it, then it won't work the same way for you.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Sorry, Gents.

 

I started typing that up earlier, got interrupted, came back and finished it, but I see it's already been done in while I was away....

 

Sorry. I'm really not trying to flog a dead horse here....

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

There's a difference between knowing an illusion is in effect, and being able to see the effects of the illusion.

 

If I walk into a room and know someone has place an illusion to hide several small objects on a table, does not mean I automatically see the objects. But if I make my Perception Roll and see the illusion itself as fake, I don't see why it would continue to obscure my vision of the small objects.

 

Otherwise - why make a Perception Roll against the Images?

 

As proposed here it seems to me they would end up working a lot like Mental Illusions with no Breakout Roll - always present, always obscuring my vision somehow.

 

So - no, I don't buy that interpretation for a second. If you make the PER Roll you may still see the Illusion, but you also see past it. Flat out.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

There's a difference between knowing an illusion is in effect, and being able to see the effects of the illusion.

 

If I walk into a room and know someone has place an illusion to hide several small objects on a table, does not mean I automatically see the objects. But if I make my Perception Roll and see the illusion itself as fake, I don't see why it would continue to obscure my vision of the small objects.

 

Hiding things in plain view is a little iffy because it steps on Invisibility's toes, but let's say you make it appear as if the table were thicker, and the new tabletop obscures the objects. Making your Per roll might allow you to see that there is a strange change in texture between the fake tabletop and the rest of the table, or that the top of the table looks a bit odd and lumpy; clues that something just isn't right and you should investigate further. It doesn't necessitate that you be able to see clearly that there is a cup, a feather, and a knife on the table.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

That is completely and clearly in the realm of SFX, Common Sense and a whole host of Non-Mechanics stuff.

 

Why wouldn't seeing illusion as an illusion allow you to see what it is obscuring?

 

Images has nothing to do with that question. It's a Mechanic. At best, degree of success on the Perception Roll determines exactly how much you notice is off and to what degree you see beyond it to the real thing.

 

I see nothing in Images that says it remains to obscure your vision when you make the PER Roll to see it for what it is. Otherwise it'd be EXACTLY like Invisibility, or perhaps Shape Shift, or even more like Mental Illusions with no Break Out Roll.

 

Again, what's the point of a PER Roll if it doesn't actually allow you to Perceive things as they really are?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I would make the Images exactly as obscuring as the PER roll penalty. If you can tell it's an illusion, you need to make another PER roll at the purchased penalty to actually see what it's hiding. Otherwise, you can tell it's fake but you can't see "through" it.