Invisible Armor

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

'Visible' (or 6e Obvious) in the context of defences simply means that it is obvious that the person you are looking at has defences - that is the conclusion that most observers would reach.

 

Inobvious means that a power in use is obvious on a PER roll - the problem is it is not really clear if that applies all the time for defences (Even just standing there you could see there was something not right, if you looked closely enough - his skin appeared tough and leathery, and it did not bend and fold right at the joints - anyone in th eknow could tell that he was a mutant and that it would probably be hard to make him bleed...) OR just when the defences actually stop an attack (He looked like a normal guy, and my knife went through his tuxedo clean as you please, but then hit something and skittered across his chest. At first I thought he must be wearing a vest, but the torn clothing showed skin, with just the faintest scratch where it had stopped the blow. This guy was a meta...).

 

Under 5e you could not tell if someone had the Armor power except by sticking them with a needle and seeing if it bent, as powers that did not cost END were not normally visible. I'm assuming the intention is not to change that under 6th.

 

I'm not sure how Invisible works for defences - well I know the official line but I can not make that make sense in my head, dammit.

[casualplayer]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

Wolverine appears normal (excluding the claws and weird hair)' date=' yet when he gets shot/stabbed, his flesh very quicly rearranges back to an undamaged state. This would IMO be a good candidage for Visible Resistant Defenses, the SFX being "I heal back super fast".[/quote']

 

And I would actually say that this is Inobvious Resistant Defenses because since Wolverine looks like meat opponents are much more likely to squander shots on him that he will just shrug off rather than pick a soft target where their shots might do some real lasting damage. If his adamantium bones peeked through at points on his body, giving people a PER Roll to go "Hey, guy's got a metal skull, let's shoot Cyclops instead" then I would say his defenses are Obvious. And if his metal bones were indistiguishable from normal shy of surgery I would say Invisible.

 

In the X-movie the cop covered Wolverine precisely because he didn't know his shot couldn't do squat, well, and the claws sticking out of the back of his hands. That's an advantage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

OK - question - if you buy Resistant protection for a character does anyone think that an observer should be able to tell that they have RP if the character is standing in a pair of trunks in front of them? No punching/shooting/stabbing allowed - just normal senses at a range of a couple of metres.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I don't, does anyone else? The RP isn't in effect, even if it's activated, unless your being attacked. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy perceivable for RP that looks like a suit of armour.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

OK - question - if you buy Resistant protection for a character does anyone think that an observer should be able to tell that they have RP if the character is standing in a pair of trunks in front of them? No punching/shooting/stabbing allowed - just normal senses at a range of a couple of metres.

 

Unless it has been made obvious in some way, no.

 

For Example:

RP, basic - no

RP, visible (Rock skin) - yes

RP, Costs End (Force field) - yes

RP, Focused (Armor) - yes/maybe (Obvious or Inobvious Focus)

 

For basic RP, if you are attacked, then the fact you took less damage is most likely obvious, but could be due to RP, Damage Negation, Damage Reduction. It wouldn't necessarily reveal why you took less damage, just that it was somehow reduced.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

.................

 

If you are attacked, then the fact you took less damage is most likely obvious, but could be due to RP, Damage Negation, Damage Reduction. It wouldn't necessarily reveal why you took less damage, just that it was somehow reduced.

 

I agree - but I'd argue that it is never going to be obvious what power you are using to protect yourself - it will always be just that there is 'some sort of defensive power in operation' - or simply 'the attack does not do as much effect as it should' - which is all about observation of effect.

 

Now when I say 'it does not have as much effect as it should' I'd then argue that can work in various ways -you might see and feel the attack bounce off, or it might just seem to pass through the target, or it might cause a minor wound when a major one would be expected or - possibly - the wound instantly heals. Sure someone MIGHT think that was regeneration in operation (LOTS of regeneration) but I do not think that matters - the point is some sort of defensive power is clearly in operation, and the mechanism is irrelevant.

 

Looking then at the next logical step - whether you can make the effect invisible - well, that seems like a difficult thing to do, just with IPE.

 

An example: remember the 'Noisy Cricket' gun from MIB?

 

What if that was used to shoot someone who had invisible defences enough to completely negate the damage?

 

Someone familiar with the weapon would expect to see a lot of damage. Someone unfamiliar with it - seeing a weedy little gun - would not expect a lot of damage. What do the observers see?

 

THAT is why I've very much against the official rule that you can use IPE to look like you are taking damage from an attack - because what damage you 'should' be taking is often very subjective.

 

I have a friend who played a character in Golden Heroes, years ago, called 'Captain Lemming' and he was virtually immune to physical damage but took energy damage just fine thank you. Villain beating on him had both physical and energy attacks, but started with physical attacks. Captain Lemming was taking no damage but put on an act that he was suffering badly - so the villain did not switch attacks.

 

I'm not against artifice - and it worked there because of the particular circumstances - but I do not see how IPE could cope with making the apparent effect of damage manifest itself when that will vary from individual to individual.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

Thanks for Killer Shrike for pointing out the example on 6.1.338 - the Blob Monster is an interesting one - I'd not allow that personally because I think there is a big difference between 'not being able to perceive a power' and 'being fooled into thinking something is happening that is not' - but them's the rules...

 

The problem I have is that the rules make - pr purpose to make - the EFFECT of a power invisibly, or undetectable. By that token you should be able to make an attack IPE and, even though you kill your target, they don't fall over or 'apparently' die.

 

I'm pretty use a house rule is needed here.

 

Movement Powers: Movement Powers are Inobvious. However, when they’re in use it becomes Obvious that the character is moving somehow, and thus usually Obvious what sort of Movement Power he’s using. Even when a Movement Power’s not in use there may be Obvious manifestations of the means of movement (for example, if a character has wings, it’s Obvious that he can fly). A character can buy Invisible Power Effects to, for example, make his movement silent (Invisible to the Hearing Group), but he can’t use that Advantage to hide the fact that he’s moved from Point A to Point B.

 

Emphasis mine. I'm sure the same thing applies to hiding the fact that you've killed someone, although making it so that other people can't tell he's dead till they check his pulse seems reasonable.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

An example: remember the 'Noisy Cricket' gun from MIB?

 

What if that was used to shoot someone who had invisible defences enough to completely negate the damage?

 

Someone familiar with the weapon would expect to see a lot of damage. Someone unfamiliar with it - seeing a weedy little gun - would not expect a lot of damage. What do the observers see?

 

I don't think that this even matters, if you make the effect of your defence invisible then it looks like it did the exact amount of damage it's sfx and roll suggest regardless of whether the observer knows what the damage is supposed to look like.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I agree - but I'd argue that it is never going to be obvious what power you are using to protect yourself - it will always be just that there is 'some sort of defensive power in operation' - or simply 'the attack does not do as much effect as it should' - which is all about observation of effect.

 

I think you are arguing the same side that I am. If someone was that adamant about having it look like they took lots of damage from an attack that was not particularly affecting them, I'd suggest they buy some sort of Mental Illusions Damage Shield, set effect, even possibly with IPE (so even once the victim broke free, he wouldn't realise he'd been duped, just that the 'damage' had disappeared).

[Daltwisney]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I don't think that this even matters' date=' if you make the effect of your defence invisible then it looks like it did the exact amount of damage it's sfx and roll suggest regardless of whether the observer knows what the damage is supposed to look like.[/quote']

 

This reminds me of a player MANY years ago (sometime the early/mid '80's) who was trying to make argument for buying Invisibility with IPE. "I'm invisible, but when you look at me, you don't realise you can't see me."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I don't think that this even matters' date=' if you make the effect of your defence invisible then it looks like it did the exact amount of damage it's sfx and roll suggest regardless of whether the observer knows what the damage is supposed to look like.[/quote']

 

 

Well, one of the reasons I picked the Noisy Cricket as an example is that it does scads of KB: what if, instead of RP you had IPE Damage Negation? IPE KB Resistance? How do you handle that?

 

You could say 'well, that's different' - and it is - BUT I'd counter with 'the principle should remain the same if it is sound to begin with'. I don't think it is.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I think you are arguing the same side that I am. If someone was that adamant about having it look like they took lots of damage from an attack that was not particularly affecting them' date=' I'd suggest they buy some sort of Mental Illusions Damage Shield, set effect, even possibly with IPE (so even once the victim broke free, he wouldn't realise he'd been duped, just that the 'damage' had disappeared).[/quote']

 

 

We are arguing the same side, but I like to argue

[SteveZilla]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

Unless he's wearing a winter coat that completely hides his skin' date=' in which case one might believe him impervious to all attacks.[/quote']

 

I'd handle that in a similar fashion to the bolded portion of Sean's post, below.

 

'Visible' (or 6e Obvious) in the context of defences simply means that it is obvious that the person you are looking at has defences - that is the conclusion that most observers would reach.

 

Inobvious means that a power in use is obvious on a PER roll - the problem is it is not really clear if that applies all the time for defences (Even just standing there you could see there was something not right, if you looked closely enough - his skin appeared tough and leathery, and it did not bend and fold right at the joints - anyone in th eknow could tell that he was a mutant and that it would probably be hard to make him bleed...) OR just when the defences actually stop an attack (He looked like a normal guy, and my knife went through his tuxedo clean as you please, but then hit something and skittered across his chest. At first I thought he must be wearing a vest, but the torn clothing showed skin, with just the faintest scratch where it had stopped the blow. This guy was a meta...).

 

...

 

I'm not sure how Invisible works for defences - well I know the official line but I can not make that make sense in my head, dammit.

 

I agree that its a tricky proposition at best, and possibly better done with another power altogether.

 

And I would actually say that this is Inobvious Resistant Defenses because since Wolverine looks like meat opponents are much more likely to squander shots on him that he will just shrug off rather than pick a soft target where their shots might do some real lasting damage. If his adamantium bones peeked through at points on his body' date=' giving people a PER Roll to go "Hey, guy's got a metal skull, let's shoot Cyclops instead" then I would say his defenses are Obvious. And if his metal bones were indistiguishable from normal shy of surgery I would say Invisible.[/quote']

 

I'd call Wolverine's "defenses" inobvious, but not invisible, because we do see him take damage -- and get better. They aren't Visible because his appearance doesn't shout "I am really really hard to hurt" the way Colossus does. But also, they aren't Invisible because we do see the "and get better" part. I might also use that as an opportunity, and say something like "You deal a massive blow to his (arm/leg/chest/head), and before his flesh had a chance to close the wound you glimpse a glint of metal where there should be bone."

 

After all, normally you can't tell *anything* about someone else's bones (other than that they likely have them).

 

OK - question - if you buy Resistant protection for a character does anyone think that an observer should be able to tell that they have RP if the character is standing in a pair of trunks in front of them? No punching/shooting/stabbing allowed - just normal senses at a range of a couple of metres.

 

I think Bodkins and (especially) Daltwisney nailed it.

 

I don't' date=' does anyone else? The RP isn't in effect, even if it's activated, unless your being attacked. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy perceivable for RP that looks like a suit of armour.[/quote']

 

Unless it has been made obvious in some way, no.

For Example:

 

RP, basic - no

RP, visible (Rock skin) - yes

RP, Costs End (Force field) - yes

RP, Focused (Armor) - yes/maybe (Obvious or Inobvious Focus)

 

For basic RP, if you are attacked, then the fact you took less damage is most likely obvious, but could be due to RP, Damage Negation, Damage Reduction. It wouldn't necessarily reveal why you took less damage, just that it was somehow reduced.

 

I don't think that this even matters' date=' if you make the effect of your defence invisible then it looks like it did the exact amount of damage it's sfx and roll suggest regardless of whether the observer knows what the damage is supposed to look like.[/quote']

 

I'd like to add that as potentially wonky sounding as an IPX defense is, IPX on Knockback Resistance is more so for the simple fact that it cannot hide that he was knocked back less (or not at all) -- because it cannot hide the movement (or lack thereof) of the character.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

..........................I'd like to add that as potentially wonky sounding as an IPX defense is' date=' IPX on Knockback Resistance is more so for the simple fact that it cannot hide that he was knocked back less (or not at all) -- because it cannot hide the movement (or lack thereof) of the character.[/quote']

 

So you can have invisible RP but not Damage Negation?

 

I'd rather work from a core principle that 'invisible power effects' has no real applicability to Defence Powers and if you want to fool someone into thinking something HAS happened when it has not, then you need a 'fooling' power - like Images or similar.

 

I'm not worried about IPE making people think that has NOT happened when it has - which is what it is for IMO.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I dunno. I haven't seen any of the rules for Damage Negation, having not gotten 6E yet.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I dunno. I haven't seen any of the rules for Damage Negation' date=' having not gotten 6E yet.[/quote']

 

DN ignores KB too.

 

Reading what I wrote earlier, I find I agree with myself. I'm happy for an 'invisible power' to make it appear NOTHING has happened, even though something has. I'm a whole lot less happy about it being the other way around.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

In this case it's still making it look like nothing has happened; it's making it look like the damage hasn't been reduced even though it has. Although, I agree with SteveZilla that you can't hide the fact that you've reduced the knockback.

 

Also, earlier in this thread I posted an IPE DN build, would anyone like to share their opinion on that build in particular?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

This reminds me of a player MANY years ago (sometime the early/mid '80's) who was trying to make argument for buying Invisibility with IPE. "I'm invisible, but when you look at me, you don't realise you can't see me."

 

To me, this sounds like the perfect way to represent "super-stealth". Normally, if you DO manage to see someone who is invisible-with-fringe, you can easily tell that they're invisible--it's obvious, you're looking right at them and all you can see is a blur or a ripple (the Predator from the series of the same name being the most obvious example). Therefore, once you do spot them, you know that they have invisibility.

 

On the other hand, if someone had invisibility, IPE, then it would function the same way--they'd be completely invisible at a distance, and if you were close enough, you'd get to roll to see if you noticed the "fringe". The difference is, when you finally see them, you can't tell that they're using an invisibility power. Instead, you're just left to wonder why you hadn't noticed them before. "How long have you been standing there?"

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

Ooh! That is an absolutely brilliant way to build a "Not My Problem" field. In addition to the Havelock Vetinari styled stealth that you described.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

In this case it's still making it look like nothing has happened; it's making it look like the damage hasn't been reduced even though it has. Although, I agree with SteveZilla that you can't hide the fact that you've reduced the knockback.

 

Also, earlier in this thread I posted an IPE DN build, would anyone like to share their opinion on that build in particular?

 

 

Well it depends what you want the IPE to do: if it causes some injury but it is clearly not that bad, I don't have a problem with that, but then I do not think it requires IPE either.

 

So - let me ask you this: if you build a vault door with IPE defences, does it look like it has been smashed through even when it is fine?

 

Also - on the wound thing - generally attacks have to be visible to 3 senses, but wounds can be 'visible' to all senses, potentially. IPE, used to fool someone into thinking that their attack worked more effectivelty than it actually did is getting 'freebie senses' fooled.

 

It just seems too problematic to deal with it that way. I don't mind the power being invisible, I suppose I do mind the effects of the power being invisible. It is like saying IPE on movement powers makes it look like you are standing still over here when in fact you are elsewhere; that is specifically frowned upon by the rules, but I see no real difference between that and using IPE on defences to make it look as if something that has happened has in fact not happened.

 

Say a character takes all of his defences IPE, and gets hit by a 6d6 killing attack. Without his defences the attack would kill him. What does the attacker see?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

Well it depends what you want the IPE to do: if it causes some injury but it is clearly not that bad, I don't have a problem with that, but then I do not think it requires IPE either.

 

So - let me ask you this: if you build a vault door with IPE defences, does it look like it has been smashed through even when it is fine?

 

Also - on the wound thing - generally attacks have to be visible to 3 senses, but wounds can be 'visible' to all senses, potentially. IPE, used to fool someone into thinking that their attack worked more effectivelty than it actually did is getting 'freebie senses' fooled.

 

It just seems too problematic to deal with it that way. I don't mind the power being invisible, I suppose I do mind the effects of the power being invisible. It is like saying IPE on movement powers makes it look like you are standing still over here when in fact you are elsewhere; that is specifically frowned upon by the rules, but I see no real difference between that and using IPE on defences to make it look as if something that has happened has in fact not happened.

 

Say a character takes all of his defences IPE, and gets hit by a 6d6 killing attack. Without his defences the attack would kill him. What does the attacker see?

 

Congratulations, Sean. You have convinced me that for an "I'm more wouned than I really am" effect it requires something different than IPE on one's non-visible defenses. The Vault Door argument, and this latest comparison to IPE on movmenet powers, are what convinced me.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

To me, this sounds like the perfect way to represent "super-stealth". Normally, if you DO manage to see someone who is invisible-with-fringe, you can easily tell that they're invisible--it's obvious, you're looking right at them and all you can see is a blur or a ripple (the Predator from the series of the same name being the most obvious example). Therefore, once you do spot them, you know that they have invisibility.

 

On the other hand, if someone had invisibility, IPE, then it would function the same way--they'd be completely invisible at a distance, and if you were close enough, you'd get to roll to see if you noticed the "fringe". The difference is, when you finally see them, you can't tell that they're using an invisibility power. Instead, you're just left to wonder why you hadn't noticed them before. "How long have you been standing there?"

 

Ooh! That is an absolutely brilliant way to build a "Not My Problem" field. In addition to the Havelock Vetinari styled stealth that you described.

 

I am not sure I udnerstand the underlying concept, so it is difficult for me to reason back from there. Why not just use No Fring Invisibility? If they can't See/Hear/Smell/Unusual Sense* you as you walk past, how could they know they are not seeing you?

 

*The Unusual Sense "Group" is IMO the biggest problem to this idea.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

I've thought of using invisible Invisibility to do the bit where Morpheus walks though a crowd in a straight line and everyone avoids him but sort of does it unconsciously.

 

Then again, I got to thinking 'well if he was not invisible they'd probably bump into him anyway', so being invisible shouldn't stop them walking into him.

 

Then I thought about something else.

[dmjalund]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

Then again, I got to thinking 'well if he was not invisible they'd probably bump into him anyway', so being invisible shouldn't stop them walking into him.

 

Then I thought about something else.

 

sounds like a special effect of Desolid myself

[Sean Waters]

Re: Invisible Armor

 

sounds like a special effect of Desolid myself

 

That's what I thought, but then I thought 'what a complicated build that is for such a simple effect' and gave him a 3 point skill 'Crowdwalking'.