Post "gotchas" here

[JmOz]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Flashlights give you a PER Bonus, not Penalty - which is also in the purview of Images - to make something easier to detect. Not only does it not block LOS normally under this mode, it actively provides it.

 

With that, if you're trying to "see through" the Flashlight I'd rule it the same way I'd rule Images as I've been advocating: by SFX, in this case you would easily perceive the mechanism generating the light.

 

Just like with that reflecting bowl example, you determine the mechanism and can see around/through/past the image in a way to gain LOS past it should that be your desire.

 

Just to be a jerk...why is that the purview of images instead of Change Enviroment again...sorry, this always BUSTS my logic processes

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

So, no matter how bright the flashlight, if I make my PER roll (which apparently is automatic or nearly so), it will not impact my night vision, right? Normally, a brighter light makes it tougher to see through areas of darkness, but if I make my PER roll, the flashlight isn't supposed to interrupt my LoS, right?

 

Seems to me the easiest answer is to provide Change Environment with the ability to change illumination, and remove "create light" from the purview of Images. Since Images (light only) is a limitation, Images without limitations should be able to produce light. How a mentally projected hologram illuminates an area, and makes it possible for everyone to see what would otherwise be shrouded in darkness when the hologram projector doesn't actually know what's out there in the dark, becomes a good question. Maybe he should have taken "not to create light, -1/4".

 

Interesting. Examples for Change Environment use in both 5ER and 6E is the Stealth Suit, as a -4 PER Self Only CE. This could have been done with Images - except that Images only force a single PER Roll, then it no longer blocks LOS. Change Environment can force consecutive PER Rolls to maintain LOS. One thing that Change Environment cannot do, though, is create mobile illusions. Either of those Powers could be expanded to include elements of the other. Also, Change Environment, Darkness and Images already have related game effects, so these can maybe all be combined for ease of use if this frequently comes up, although Darkness is the only one with an absolute effect.

Personally, I think your suggestion here is a very good solution, and the relative costs can be analyzed to come up with a good value for an Advantage to Change Environment. The big problem is that Images is the more expensive power, so possibly Change Environment should be based on Images instead.

I think Steve Long commented that Change Environment can never be used to grant a benefit to rolls, but I may be incorrect on this.

 

By the RAW, though, I've pondered the hologram effect, and I think that the way to go when creating a semi-realistic hologram is to link another Power to it (possibly with Only to block LOS through Image at -1/2 to -1):

A completely opaque hologram or other Image would have a Linked Darkness;

A hologram or other Image that may not be absolutley opaque would have a Linked Change Environment (PER modifier appropriate to the difficulty to perceive through the Image - not necessarily the same as the Images PER modifier, which more or less only seems to apply to the difficulty of perceiving it as an illusion).

 

However, since Images (Only to create Light) always provides a positive PER modifier, I would assume that any Images used to increase PER modifiers negates any need to make PER rolls just to achieve/maintain LOS.

Example: A Change Environment effect defined as dense mist, reduces PER rolls by -3. Photon uses Images (Only to create Light) to create a +4 PER modifier, which cancels the need to make a PER roll for LOS purposes, in addition to giving a +1 to PER rolls through the Change Environment effect for other purposes.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Just to be a jerk...why is that the purview of images instead of Change Enviroment again...sorry' date=' this always BUSTS my logic processes[/quote']

 

Change Environment doesn't provide bonuses.

[ideasmith]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Just to be a jerk...why is that the purview of images instead of Change Enviroment again...sorry' date=' this always BUSTS my logic processes[/quote']

 

As far as I can tell, nostalgia for the pre-4th-edition way of handling light. (I might have a different answer if I saw any point in the no-positive-effects rule for Change Environment.)

[JmOz]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Change Environment doesn't provide bonuses.

 

I know the rule, I don't understand the reason FOR the rule...except to prevent it from making light (a bit tounge in cheek)...

 

I mean what is the difference between lowering someone's DCV, and rasing someone else's OCV?

 

It is a bad example, but you know TECHNICALY if you want to be able to change the weather to a nice sunny day from a cloudy day you would need a dispell CE instead of just a CE.

 

Just seems to me that CE should allow possitive effects as well as negative, it makes more sense...it also makes no sense to me that it is now single target instead of AE naturaly, but whatever

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

As long as your stated reason is "to be a jerk" I see no further reason, or have any further desire, to elaborate on the topic.

 

Do what you want in your own games, I've got problem with that.

[JmOz]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

As long as your stated reason is "to be a jerk" I see no further reason, or have any further desire, to elaborate on the topic.

 

Do what you want in your own games, I've got problem with that.

 

Sorry did not mean to offend, in all seriousness I would like to understand the reason why it was decided that CE should not give a positive effect. It does not make sense to me at all.

 

As for the jerk comment it was more in refrence to pointing out things I feel are stupid without trying to sugercoat it. Not to actualy upset anyone.

 

I am sorry if it in someway upset you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

in all seriousness I would like to understand the reason why it was decided that CE should not give a positive effect. It does not make sense to me at all.

 

I'm with JmOz on this issue. I see no reason why a CE can create a Field of Defenselessness that reduces the DCV of everyone within, but cannot create a Field of NonHositility where everyone's DCV is ehanced. Similarly, CE can penalize PER rolls, creating a Field of Obfustcation, but cannot create a Field of Clarity in which PER rolls are enhanced.

 

The DCV structure can be modified by negatively affecting its counterpart, OCV, but the PER roll cannot be. A Field of Surefootedness (bonuses to DEX rolls) seems no more subject to abuse than an Ice Slick that penalizes those rolls.

 

Modifying the temperature to be less harmful, or the weather to be more pleasant, both seem like positive effects, so CE is not prevented from positive effects, only direct bonuses. Can someone opine as to the compelling reason that CE should not be able to provide bonuses, in addition to penalties? I'm not seeing a good basis for this restriction.

 

In 1e, you could only Drain and Transfer characteristics. The inability to affect powers was viewed as a gap, and corrected in 2e. But we couldn't enhance someone's abilities, only reduce them. By 4e, we had Aid and Healing. "CE doesn't grant bonuses" isn't a reason CE shouldn't be able to grant bonuses. It's a hole in the system that should be fixed.

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Sorry did not mean to offend, in all seriousness I would like to understand the reason why it was decided that CE should not give a positive effect. It does not make sense to me at all.

 

As for the jerk comment it was more in refrence to pointing out things I feel are stupid without trying to sugercoat it. Not to actualy upset anyone.

 

I am sorry if it in someway upset you.

 

Personally, I interpreted it to mean you wanted a more detailed discussion on why CE should not give a positive effect.

 

Steve Long would probably not answer this (as it concerns design philosophy) except maybe to note it has to do with game balance issues:

negative adjustments generally levels the playing field for other PCs, while positive adjustment effects may probably be unbalancingly effective.

I don't claim to have extensively analyzed this statistically, but it would seem that it would be easier to just define positive adjustment effects as being the prerogative of other Powers such as Aid, instead of applying extra Advantages to Change Environment. It's also a matter of relative odds - instead of improving the capabilities of the other PCs you can reduce the capabilities of your opponents to the same degree without causing the same game imbalance issues; if you can provide cheap benefits using any Power, it will probably stack with other effects and escalate out of proportion until you find the only balance solution is to increase the cost of the original benefits. The positive adjustment Powers that exist are already pretty well balanced (and play-tested), and it is one of the most risky elements to change the costs of, game-balance-wise. Even if it seems clunkier at first, the safest bet is probably trying to build an effect from what exists, and summarize that under for easy reference rather than make up a temporary new rule to make the writeup briefer. This is especially true for effects that impact directly on combat, I would think, since those are the costs everything is balanced in respect to (apart from "scenario-breakers", but that would be an extensive issue in itself).

 

Disclaimer: Please not that I'm not intending to explain the rules to anyone - I'm sure you're all well versed in these - but I'd rather be overly verbose than be misunderstood.

 

That's my theory, but if anyone has a better one, I'm all ears.

[JmOz]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Personally, I interpreted it to mean you wanted a more detailed discussion on why CE should not give a positive effect.

 

Steve Long would probably not answer this (as it concerns design philosophy) except maybe to note it has to do with game balance issues:

negative adjustments generally levels the playing field for other PCs, while positive adjustment effects may probably be unbalancingly effective.

I don't claim to have extensively analyzed this statistically, but it would seem that it would be easier to just define positive adjustment effects as being the prerogative of other Powers such as Aid, instead of applying extra Advantages to Change Environment. It's also a matter of relative odds - instead of improving the capabilities of the other PCs you can reduce the capabilities of your opponents to the same degree without causing the same game imbalance issues; if you can provide cheap benefits using any Power, it will probably stack with other effects and escalate out of proportion until you find the only balance solution is to increase the cost of the original benefits. The positive adjustment Powers that exist are already pretty well balanced (and play-tested), and it is one of the most risky elements to change the costs of, game-balance-wise. Even if it seems clunkier at first, the safest bet is probably trying to build an effect from what exists, and summarize that under for easy reference rather than make up a temporary new rule to make the writeup briefer. This is especially true for effects that impact directly on combat, I would think, since those are the costs everything is balanced in respect to (apart from "scenario-breakers", but that would be an extensive issue in itself).

 

Disclaimer: Please not that I'm not intending to explain the rules to anyone - I'm sure you're all well versed in these - but I'd rather be overly verbose than be misunderstood.

 

That's my theory, but if anyone has a better one, I'm all ears.

 

Interesting, and I must think about what you have to say. I must say that it is a well thought out reason, while I am not sure I will agree with it upon reflection I must compliment you on a well thought out responce.

 

However I must add that even if I accept your point of view, I feel that images creating light is still off (Under your system using a +to PER with UBO and certain limitations makes more sense to me)

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Wow!

 

This has really taken off today!

 

I'd like to thank everyone for their participation, thoughts, and constructive comments. While it's easy enough to point to the book and say "that's why," it's inspiring to see folks willing to really discuss the details and to examine them against each other.

 

Thank you all; it's been more enlightening!

 

From my own experiences and some of the opinions and expressed and ideas discussed,

 

How does this sit with y'all:

 

All Images assumed to be "see-through" for meta-reasons allowing the possibility to not be deceived; work out the details in accord with your SFX. These translucent Images are successful in their deception because they are extremely well-detailed and life-like, modified perhaps by an innate "willingness to believe" on the part of the observer. Thus, successful PER rolls can indicate both "noticing one or more flaws that leads to the conclusion that this is a fake" and a general subconscious unwillingness to accept the existence of the Image that leads immediately to being able to see right through it.

 

Presented this way, the act of succeeding a PER roll does not in any way change the Image itself: it was already translucent in some manner; succeeding the PER check simply means that the observer has noticed that it is translucent. The Image may remain or vanish as is appropriate for its SFX, but will not impede any PER check that involves sensing "through" the image.

 

 

Opaque Images:

 

Images cannot be opaque purely on the basis of their SFX (as I have always played them. Based on this conversation, I am now reworking that). A truly Opaque Image is an image that will continue to appear real and solid, even though the observer recognizes it to be a fake. It will block LOS, etc, as though it were a real object, even though the observer may simply walk completely through the Image.

 

Opaque Images should be constructed as a Linked power between Images and an equivalent amount of Darkness, with the Darkness component serving to represent the opacity of the Image. The Darkness component of the Linked Power may be Advantaged or Limited as is appropriate to provide opacity to the Image.

 

Create Light:

 

This one I haven't toyed with too terribly much, but it's sort of a "backing up" of the Change Environment Power. It's not complete reversion, as I am not sold on the idea that it should be allowed to create advantages to the players (though really, if you Change Environment to "radiation field" and another player's powers perform better in radiation fields, you _have_ created an advantage of sorts), but I don't see any issue with allowing Change Environment (as Create Light) to remove a set number of negative Sight PER modifiers imposed by "natural" darkness. Countering the Darkness Power should be done with relevant powers such as Drain, Suppress, etc.

 

In this way, a penlight might serve to remove up to -1 or -2 PER (within it's Area of Effect, of course) from natural darkness, while a spotlight might serve to remove up to -10 PER from the same scenario.

 

 

 

Any thoughts? Particularly on the re-interpretation of Images, as that's what started this conversation.

 

Thanks again!

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Meant to include this above:

 

There has been one single statement in the course of this discussion that lead to me completely reinterpreting Images, and it was on page 19 of this discussion, post # 285:

 

 

Conditionally transparent by default, I'd say. Opaque unless PER Rolls is made.

 

If you've ever had the same issue that I had with Images vs "I made my roll; now I can see through it," then track that post down and Rep this guy!

 

Honestly, had that been explicitly stated years and years and years ago, it would have radically altered the use of Images throughout all my campaigns!

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

If you've ever had the same issue that I had with Images vs "I made my roll; now I can see through it," then track that post down and Rep this guy!

 

Honestly, had that been explicitly stated years and years and years ago, it would have radically altered the use of Images throughout all my campaigns!

 

Thank you, but to be perfectly honest I haven't actually gamed with the 5ER rules yet (got them last fall) and am still digesting 6E, so I was originally going by the non-explanation in 4th Ed, which only deals with how to detect an Image as being an illusion - my first reaction was to say Images did block LOS by default. It wasn't until it was brought up:

 

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?

 

and later expanded upon by him, by you, ghost-angel, SteveZilla and many others that I actually read through all of those Powers and related sections with intent to clear it up, that I posted that. But I'm glad if it helped clear anything up.

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Interesting, and I must think about what you have to say. I must say that it is a well thought out reason, while I am not sure I will agree with it upon reflection I must compliment you on a well thought out responce.

 

However I must add that even if I accept your point of view, I feel that images creating light is still off (Under your system using a +to PER with UBO and certain limitations makes more sense to me)

 

+PER benefits from Images creating Light would probably usually only apply to negative modifiers from Darkness and similar conditions; still, if you shine a +4 PER spotlight through a -3 PER fog from CE, the resulting remaining +1 would still help you spot Shrinker - currently small enough to have a -5 PER modifier, which becomes reduced to -4 PER. If it would be broad daylight, the +4 PER spotlight would probably negate the modifier. That is, if it was pointed toward Shrinker, her shadow might give her away, even though small. So it does have various benefits. Using a + to PER Rolls UBO (+5 INT only for PER Rolls per level of +1 PER?) would make everyone more perceptive, but would not affect the situation of having a negative PER modifier - which is what usually forces a PER Roll. Apart from having characters making PER Rolls to notice attacks from behind and such, a positive total PER modifier would usually mean everyone can perceive whatever it is, without making a PER Roll.

All of this might be slightly overanalyzing it, but it also depends on how you handle it in your game and how often you require (or secretly make) PER Rolls - some of these aspects, like constantly using the PER modifiers listed in the books, might slow the game down too much with no real benefit. As long as it works reasonable at construction time, go with what you decide.

I have never discussed this with anyone to this extent before, and it's been enjoyable, so thank you for bringing it up.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I think the correct answer is "Common Sense, Dramatic Sense, and Special Effects". I'm willing to leave it at that.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

+PER benefits from Images creating Light would probably usually only apply to negative modifiers from Darkness and similar conditions; still, if you shine a +4 PER spotlight through a -3 PER fog from CE, the resulting remaining +1 would still help you spot Shrinker - currently small enough to have a -5 PER modifier, which becomes reduced to -4 PER. If it would be broad daylight, the +4 PER spotlight would probably negate the modifier. That is, if it was pointed toward Shrinker, her shadow might give her away, even though small. So it does have various benefits. Using a + to PER Rolls UBO (+5 INT only for PER Rolls per level of +1 PER?) would make everyone more perceptive, but would not affect the situation of having a negative PER modifier - which is what usually forces a PER Roll. Apart from having characters making PER Rolls to notice attacks from behind and such, a positive total PER modifier would usually mean everyone can perceive whatever it is, without making a PER Roll.

All of this might be slightly overanalyzing it, but it also depends on how you handle it in your game and how often you require (or secretly make) PER Rolls - some of these aspects, like constantly using the PER modifiers listed in the books, might slow the game down too much with no real benefit. As long as it works reasonable at construction time, go with what you decide.

I have never discussed this with anyone to this extent before, and it's been enjoyable, so thank you for bringing it up.

 

Much, much rep for this. Great example.

[Tasha]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Yeah. And I'm still of the opinion that Aid and Healing really never needed to be separated. To create a non-cumulative version like Healing is now' date=' another limitation on top of [i']Only to Starting Values[/i] could have been added easily; and even another Limitation that boosted values Fade even below starting values. It'd keep the base version of the power(s) still dirt simple, instead of the quagmire we have now.

 

Agreed. I also wish the Healing was cumulative by default. Allow the individual GMs to decide whether Healing needs to have a limitation (ie non-cumulative and/or Extra time etc). I would rather default to everything being cumulative (it makes for a more consistant ruleset), and having limitations available to remove it when it make sense.

 

Also getting rid of Transfer was just annoying and clearly it was removed because it was a loophole in the healing being non-cumulative.

 

Yeah, Aid being seporated from Healing was another annoying thing about 5e. They should have stayed together. That's why the " only to starting values" limitation was added way back in FH 1.0

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I'm with JmOz on this issue. I see no reason why a CE can create a Field of Defenselessness that reduces the DCV of everyone within, but cannot create a Field of NonHositility where everyone's DCV is ehanced. Similarly, CE can penalize PER rolls, creating a Field of Obfustcation, but cannot create a Field of Clarity in which PER rolls are enhanced.

 

The DCV structure can be modified by negatively affecting its counterpart, OCV, but the PER roll cannot be. A Field of Surefootedness (bonuses to DEX rolls) seems no more subject to abuse than an Ice Slick that penalizes those rolls.

 

Modifying the temperature to be less harmful, or the weather to be more pleasant, both seem like positive effects, so CE is not prevented from positive effects, only direct bonuses. Can someone opine as to the compelling reason that CE should not be able to provide bonuses, in addition to penalties? I'm not seeing a good basis for this restriction.

 

In 1e, you could only Drain and Transfer characteristics. The inability to affect powers was viewed as a gap, and corrected in 2e. But we couldn't enhance someone's abilities, only reduce them. By 4e, we had Aid and Healing. "CE doesn't grant bonuses" isn't a reason CE shouldn't be able to grant bonuses. It's a hole in the system that should be fixed.

 

Definitely. Change Environment should be about...environmental changes. Beneficial and detrimental both. In fact, shouldn't it be just as easy to create bonuses as penalties? Why not? Interestingly, CE isn't even about environmental changes anymore; by default it affects a single target. Say what?

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I think the correct answer is "Common Sense' date=' Dramatic Sense, and Special Effects". I'm willing to leave it at that.[/quote']

 

That would be too easy.

 

jg

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Just to be a jerk...why is that the purview of images instead of Change Enviroment again...sorry' date=' this always BUSTS my logic processes[/quote']

 

I don't like it either, and proposed a modest reworking of Change Environment, Images, and introduced the concept of Light Levels in the 6e development forums. Steve Long obviously disagreed with me, and chose not to include my suggestions in the core rules. (I may post them as house rules after the APG comes out.)

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I don't like it either' date=' and proposed a modest reworking of Change Environment, Images, and introduced the concept of Light Levels in the 6e development forums.[/quote']

 

I'd like to see them, if you don't mind. It seems I'm going to end up going in a similar direction....

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Can someone opine as to the compelling reason that CE should not be able to provide bonuses' date=' in addition to penalties? I'm not seeing a good basis for this restriction.[/quote']

 

I cannot predict what you or others might find compelling -- I can only state what I find compelling.

 

In 1e' date=' you could only Drain and Transfer characteristics. The inability to affect powers was viewed as a gap, and corrected in 2e. But we couldn't enhance someone's abilities, only reduce them. By 4e, we had Aid and Healing. "CE doesn't grant bonuses" isn't a reason CE shouldn't be able to grant bonuses. It's a hole in the system that should be fixed.[/quote']

 

But with those "holes", they were resolved (usually) by introduction of a separate power (the 2e ability to Drain/Transfer Powers notwithstanding). And doesn't CE have a restriction similar to that in TK where TK cannot duplicate another power (Flight)? Bonuses to others is Bonus with Usable By Others currently.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Interestingly' date=' CE isn't even about environmental changes anymore; by default it affects a single target. Say what? [/quote']

 

I'm in favour of CE defaulting to a single target. Philosophically, I'd rather see powers start at the base as much as possible, and add advantages to become more powerful, than be saddled with a bunch of advantages by default, which must then be Limitation'ed away. Items like the Stealth Suit, for example, should not be such complicated builds.

 

[Now, if we can just remove Indirect from default Telekinesis and Invisible from default mental powers...]

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Yikes! *makes PRE Roll* *returns*

 

An anti-gotcha:

 

I was surprised to see the Hit Location STUNx column unaltered; I was almost expecting (after reading about the upcoming change of the Stun Multiplier to 1d3 and figuring out the averages on the Hit Location Charts) that particular column to disappear and simply be replaced by the N STUN values.

 

So I'll guess I'll still hurt more when you all eat me - assuming you're using the Hit Location Chart when you eat me. Am I in a Heroic Genre right now?

 

I just noticed this last night. (We have only played supers since I got the pdfs for 6e.) It seems like an oversight to me. It makes KAs that use the hit location chart more powerful than those that don't. I'm gonna do some numbers crunching and see how they compare, but I'm kind of disappointed by it that particular choice so far.

 

Caveat: With very small exceptions, I think 6e is awesome and a definite improvement of an alrerady great game.

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I more and more lean to the removal of HKA and renaming RKA simply "Killing Attack". If you don't want your killing attack to have Range, make it No Range. That's what you do with any other attack to remove its Range.

 

If you want it to be higher because you are strong, spend the points for a larger KA. That's what the guy with a 50 INT who wants to do more damage because he targets vital spots, or a guy with 35 DEX who wants to do more damage because he can attack with such great precision, does.

 

You could even put a Limitation on your KA, or your extra KA dice, that it Locks Out an equal amount of your STR. With no such limitation, it's quite all right to perform a Multiple Power Attack combining a Strike with your HKA and a Strike with your Strength, something I rarely see the guy with the claws consider.

 

Decoupling STR from HKA damage in this way feels to me like oversimplification for the sake of an intellectual exercise.

 

One obvious reason that this would be a bad move is that if your claw-wielding character's STR were affected (by a Drain or Aid, for example) then the KA would be unchanged. Common sense, dramatic realism, and special effect would all suggest otherwise.