Alternate Blindness/Deafness

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

Sorry' date=' you're right, you did - but I don't see (if you'll pardon the pun) - how this works. [b']For that matter I don't see why Darkness needs different AoE rules to everything else. [/b]The thing is you hit someone with an effect that affects the area around them. You're using UAA to make it stick to them, but I still don't understand what part of the construct means that people can see the affected target. 'Selective' allows you to only hit the target - so noone else standing nearby had darkness 'stuck' to them - but they will still be affected by it if they want to look into, out of or through the area. The only way you can ignore Darkness is if you have Personal Immunity to it, and there's no way to give that to 'everyone but the target'.

 

As an aside, I'd probably not allow the construct even if it did do what you suggest because it is too cheap for the effect: blinding someone for 25 points until they apply countermagic sounds over powerful - Daltwisney was concerned about draining senses being unbalancing and this is cheaper, lasts longer and has no real defence at all.

 

You do still need to hit the target (Selective adds a to hit roll), and the "defense" is having compensatory enhanced senses. At a 25 point cost, I believe that could be as simple as UV or IR vision. But it does seem quite powerful.

 

I've emphasized your comment aboout AoE. Darkness dates back to the 1st edition. With the advent of Change Environment, has it outlived its usefulness? Isn't making it dark, or silent, or fragrance-free, over an area really another change to the environment? With that in mind, perhaps Darkness should be removed as a separate power and blocking out senses or sense groups should be added to Change Environment. "Darkness" then becomes a name for a CE build.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

You do still need to hit the target (Selective adds a to hit roll), and the "defense" is having compensatory enhanced senses. At a 25 point cost, I believe that could be as simple as UV or IR vision. But it does seem quite powerful.

 

I've emphasized your comment aboout AoE. Darkness dates back to the 1st edition. With the advent of Change Environment, has it outlived its usefulness? Isn't making it dark, or silent, or fragrance-free, over an area really another change to the environment? With that in mind, perhaps Darkness should be removed as a separate power and blocking out senses or sense groups should be added to Change Environment. "Darkness" then becomes a name for a CE build.

 

Given the general rejection of absolutes in the Hero system, I was a little surprised that Change Environment didn't replace Darkness in 6E, although I can see the practicality of the absolute loss of a sense as opposed to just a really big negative PER modifier.

 

I think that Armitage has constructed a very nice Blindness/Deafness power, although I confess I think I would probably go with a continuous NND Flash at 0 END with IPE, if only because it seems to me to be a bit more straight forward.

[Armitage]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

The sad part is that, after all of this debate, I suddenly came up with a much better way do this that uses standard rules and much more closely emulates the source material.

 

As you may recall, my original points were:

1. d20 has a 2nd-level (45 Active Points) wizard spell that can cause blindness or deafness.

2. Permanent blindness or deafness is typically created using Transform in Hero System.

3. It is all but impossible to affect a target in 1 Phase with a 45 AP Transform.

 

Today at work it occurred to me that I might be able to use the same method that Steve used to create a non-Autofire Magic Missile in Digital Hero #2, although it's a little questionable in terms of special effect.

 

Blindness/Deafness: (Total: 45 Active Cost, 26 Real Cost) Severe Transform 2d6 (Healthy creature into sensory impaired creature, Healed by specialized restorative magic), Improved Results Group (Blind or Deaf; +1/4) (37 Active Points); Incantations (-1/4), Limited Multiple Attack (can only target a single creature, a maximum of three times; -1/4), Limited Target (living creatures with conventional sensory organs; -1/4), All Or Nothing (per Multiple Attack; -1/4) (Real Cost: 18) plus +4 with Blindness/Deafness Multiple Attack (Real Cost: 8)

 

Or, if using a Vancian Magic system.

Blindness/Deafness: (Total: 45 Active Cost, 19 Real Cost) Severe Transform 2d6 (Healthy creature into sensory impaired creature, Healed by specialized restorative magic), All Charges Must Be Used In One Phase (-0), Improved Results Group (Blind or Deaf; +1/4) (37 Active Points); 3 Charges (-1 1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Limited Multiple Attack (can only target a single creature, a maximum of three times; -1/4), Limited Target (living creatures with conventional sensory organs; -1/4), All Or Nothing (per Multiple Attack; -1/4) (Real Cost: 11) plus +4 with Blindness/Deafness Multiple Attack (Real Cost: 8)

 

Magic Missile actually is an attack launched multiple times. Using Multiple Attack here seems kind of cheesy.

It effectively does an average of 21 Transform damage, enough to affect an average person.

In d20, a large and powerful creature will have a high Fortitude Save and be harder to affect. In Hero, a large and powerful creature will have high BODY and/or Power Defense and will be harder to Transform, especially since this construct effectively triples any Power Defense against the final effect.

I reduced the value of All Or Nothing since it applies to the entire Multiple Attack instead of each individual attack.

 

Constructing it as a straight 6d6 Transform with 1/2 DCV Concentration, Extra Time and x2 Reduced Penetration would be 112 AP and 34 RP and cost 1 more END, so there's definitely a balance issue with this.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

As an aside, I'd probably not allow the construct even if it did do what you suggest because it is too cheap for the effect: blinding someone for 25 points until they apply countermagic sounds over powerful - Daltwisney was concerned about draining senses being unbalancing and this is cheaper, lasts longer and has no real defence at all.

 

On the other hand, 25 active points is really easy to dispel, and since it's uncontrolled it's targeted at DCV 3 and the caster's Power Defence doesn't apply, and as Hugh pointed out the defence is having compensatory enhanced senses.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

Given the general rejection of absolutes in the Hero system' date=' I was a little surprised that Change Environment didn't replace Darkness in 6E, although I can see the practicality of the absolute loss of a sense as opposed to just a really big negative PER modifier.[/quote']

 

Actually, I was thinking of a CE function that blocks a given sense/sense group in its entirelty in the area, thus replacing Darkness.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

6E1 209:

"The Cost of Standard Senses...

Characters cannot use these costs for Adjustment Powers. A character cannot, for example, render another character blind by Draining his Normal Sight."

I don't see why not. I've been allowing this in my games for years and find it works quite well.

 

There is a defence of course, Power Defense, as with any Drain.

 

And to truly blind someone, you have to drain *ALL* their sight - if the target has any enhanced vision, those powers have to be drained first. Just like if you were draining STR or anything else - it takes more effort to Drain a 100 STR down to 0 than it does to drain 10 STR down to 0. Likewise it takes more to Drain IR+UV, +5 levels Telescopic, +5 Enhanced Vision, +X-Ray Vision, and Normal Vision, than it does to just Drain Normal Vision.

 

And you should probably let it work (both Draining and recovering) gradually - e.g. Drain half of sight means they make PER rolls at -3, or something like that.

 

Has the slower fade rate cost been changed in 6E?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

On the other hand' date=' 25 active points is really easy to dispel, and since it's uncontrolled it's targeted at DCV 3 and the caster's Power Defence doesn't apply, and as Hugh pointed out the defence is having compensatory enhanced senses.[/quote']

 

Hugh suggested UV or IR would do it - they won't - this is sight group darkness - so you'd need an entirely different targeting sense. That is pretty rare - especially in a Fantasy game.

 

If you have a dispel handy, fine, that works - but it assumes you do, and that is far from inevitable - and even if you do that is an attack action you're using up - particularly valuable in combat - rather than doing something else.

 

This is a power that makes you a sitting duck, that the majority of targets can do nothing about , and have no defence to and it costs 25 points.

 

Come on....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

Actually' date=' I was thinking of a CE function that blocks a given sense/sense group in its entirelty in the area, thus replacing Darkness.[/quote']

 

 

Do you think that penalties to the PER roll (at least under current rules) is a good way to model darkness, because I don't. Someone with high INT can see better in the dark? Why?

 

CE is turning, quietly, into something worse than EDM and Transform - is there nothing it can not accomplish? At present CE can not 'block' a sense just make it more difficult to use (and, personally, I'd rather see all sense affecting that requires a PER roll done by Images. It just makes more sense.), although, having said that, -10 on PER rolls only costs 30 points, and by then you'd getting darn close to the absolute effect rule becoming relevant.

 

I think the whole area needs looking at. I think there should be a way for someone with sufficient LIGHT power to overcome someone with insufficient DARK power, without having to build some sort of 'dispel'. I think there should be a way to have a shell of darkness which prevents the passage of light but does not porevent light being used inside to see (we CAN do that with darkness and 'hole in the middle' - but I mean we need to eb able to preserve the ability to do that). I think a more unified approach to sense affecting powers would be a good thing. I definitley think CE shouldn't be the go-to power for that one.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

The sad part is that, after all of this debate, I suddenly came up with a much better way do this that uses standard rules and much more closely emulates the source material.

 

As you may recall, my original points were:

1. d20 has a 2nd-level (45 Active Points) wizard spell that can cause blindness or deafness.

2. Permanent blindness or deafness is typically created using Transform in Hero System.

3. It is all but impossible to affect a target in 1 Phase with a 45 AP Transform.

 

Today at work it occurred to me that I might be able to use the same method that Steve used to create a non-Autofire Magic Missile in Digital Hero #2, although it's a little questionable in terms of special effect.

 

Blindness/Deafness: (Total: 45 Active Cost, 26 Real Cost) Severe Transform 2d6 (Healthy creature into sensory impaired creature, Healed by specialized restorative magic), Improved Results Group (Blind or Deaf; +1/4) (37 Active Points); Incantations (-1/4), Limited Multiple Attack (can only target a single creature, a maximum of three times; -1/4), Limited Target (living creatures with conventional sensory organs; -1/4), All Or Nothing (per Multiple Attack; -1/4) (Real Cost: 18) plus +4 with Blindness/Deafness Multiple Attack (Real Cost: 8)

 

Or, if using a Vancian Magic system.

Blindness/Deafness: (Total: 45 Active Cost, 19 Real Cost) Severe Transform 2d6 (Healthy creature into sensory impaired creature, Healed by specialized restorative magic), All Charges Must Be Used In One Phase (-0), Improved Results Group (Blind or Deaf; +1/4) (37 Active Points); 3 Charges (-1 1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Limited Multiple Attack (can only target a single creature, a maximum of three times; -1/4), Limited Target (living creatures with conventional sensory organs; -1/4), All Or Nothing (per Multiple Attack; -1/4) (Real Cost: 11) plus +4 with Blindness/Deafness Multiple Attack (Real Cost: 8)

 

Magic Missile actually is an attack launched multiple times. Using Multiple Attack here seems kind of cheesy.

It effectively does an average of 21 Transform damage, enough to affect an average person.

In d20, a large and powerful creature will have a high Fortitude Save and be harder to affect. In Hero, a large and powerful creature will have high BODY and/or Power Defense and will be harder to Transform, especially since this construct effectively triples any Power Defense against the final effect.

I reduced the value of All Or Nothing since it applies to the entire Multiple Attack instead of each individual attack.

 

Constructing it as a straight 6d6 Transform with 1/2 DCV Concentration, Extra Time and x2 Reduced Penetration would be 112 AP and 34 RP and cost 1 more END, so there's definitely a balance issue with this.

 

 

Interesting approach but I can hear alarm bells ringing here

 

You'd buying a 6d6 transform there piecemeal.

 

I'm not sure how frequent Power Defence is likely to be in the game world, and if it is common then 3x2d6 is a LOT worse than 1x6d6 so I'd be happier to let you get away with it (if not actually happy) BUT otherwise you at you're getting there is a 6d6 (75 AP before you add advantages)all or nothing attack for the cost of +4 OCV.

 

OK. Looking at it again, even with the concerns I have above, if you'd normally hit on 11-, your chance of making 3 successful rolls to hit one after the other is less than 25%. That mollifies me a bit, but it still seems like a point saving excercise rather than a model for a particular concept.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

I don't see why not. I've been allowing this in my games for years and find it works quite well.

 

There is a defence of course, Power Defense, as with any Drain.

 

And to truly blind someone, you have to drain *ALL* their sight - if the target has any enhanced vision, those powers have to be drained first. Just like if you were draining STR or anything else - it takes more effort to Drain a 100 STR down to 0 than it does to drain 10 STR down to 0. Likewise it takes more to Drain IR+UV, +5 levels Telescopic, +5 Enhanced Vision, +X-Ray Vision, and Normal Vision, than it does to just Drain Normal Vision.

 

And you should probably let it work (both Draining and recovering) gradually - e.g. Drain half of sight means they make PER rolls at -3, or something like that.

 

Has the slower fade rate cost been changed in 6E?

 

I agree...but...at present only individual senses have a point cost: sense groups do not, meaning there would be no way at present to work out what you need to drain a sense group.

 

Maybe we need a new power, or we need to look at 'darkness' again:

 

Sense Block

 

Ranged

Costs END

Sense affecting attack power

Instant

 

You can prevent an opponent using a specific sense or sense group (chosen when you purchase the power) for one phase. This is a power that will often be bought with duration and area modifiers. Note that this power only prevents sensing by the target or inside the AoE - it does not actually block what is being sensed. To prevent sensing through or from outside the area, apply a +1/4 advantage 'Changed target: AoE'.

 

Targeting sense group: 40

Targeting sense: 20

Non-targeting sense group: 20

Non-targeting sense: 10

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

Hugh suggested UV or IR would do it - they won't - this is sight group darkness - so you'd need an entirely different targeting sense. That is pretty rare - especially in a Fantasy game.

 

Oh, I forgot that Darkness works on whole sense Groups. I was thinking that it only blinded Normal Sight, so you're right that this is too cheap.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

I'd just like to apologise to Armitage if I seem to be ragging on him and his inventive creations. I hope the criticism is constructive - it is intended to be

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

I agree...but...at present only individual senses have a point cost: sense groups do not' date=' meaning there would be no way at present to work out what you need to drain a sense group.[/quote']

Sure there is, just Drain all the senses in the group. An Advantage to Drain will do it: +1/4 for "Drain any one Sight Group Sense, one at a time" or a larger Advantage to Drain more than one at a time.

[Armitage]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

I'd just like to apologise to Armitage if I seem to be ragging on him and his inventive creations. I hope the criticism is constructive - it is intended to be

 

Oh absolutely. My problem stems from trying to create my own versions of some of Killer Shrike's work, adapting the concepts of d20 to Hero.

I end up with 5th-level spells (90 AP) that actually cost 15 AP when converted straight, or 3rd-level spells (60 AP) that cost 100+ AP. Trying to work around the differences sometimes breaks things.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

Do you think that penalties to the PER roll (at least under current rules) is a good way to model darkness' date=' because I don't. Someone with high INT can see better in the dark? Why?[/quote']

 

They could reasonabloy model dim lighting. Higher INT also allows someone to better diferentiate three types of cologne and to determine which direction that footstep was in. They can see better in dim light because perception has been linked to INT. Whether PER and INT should be separated is another (and a valid) topic. But no amount of enhanced vision lets a person see in total darknes, so PER rolls are not a good way to model that.

 

CE is turning' date=' quietly, into something worse than EDM and Transform - is there nothing it can not accomplish? At present CE can not 'block' a sense just make it more difficult to use (and, personally, I'd rather see all sense affecting that requires a PER roll done by Images. It just makes more sense.), although, having said that, -10 on PER rolls only costs 30 points, and by then you'd getting darn close to the absolute effect rule becoming relevant.[/quote']

 

We use changing environment to raise or lower the temperature, raise or lower the lighting, make the floor slippery, etc. If we didn't already have a darkness power, would we no think "raise or lower the ambient lighting" belongs in change environment? From there, making other senses inaccessible also seems like CE. Of course, Duplication is just a variant of Summoning and Resistant Defense is just PD+ED+Resistant, so we have precedent for powers that probably are variants of other abilities being separate powers. [Growth and Shrinking are just a whole pile of Linked Abilities that Cost END and have a side effect.]

 

But if "lighting" were a CE effect, then dropping the ambient lighting by 5 steps (say to make it completely dark) would reasonably be offset by increasing the ambient lighting by 3 steps to result in a dimily lit area.

 

Of course, then we get into SFX. How does you making it lighter allow people to better see through, for example, intense fog or a swarm of insects so think they block out your vision?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

Sure there is' date=' just Drain all the senses in the group. An Advantage to Drain will do it: +1/4 for "Drain any one Sight Group Sense, one at a time" or a larger Advantage to Drain more than one at a time.[/quote']

 

 

Excellent point well made

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

They could reasonabloy model dim lighting. Higher INT also allows someone to better diferentiate three types of cologne and to determine which direction that footstep was in. They can see better in dim light because perception has been linked to INT. Whether PER and INT should be separated is another (and a valid) topic. But no amount of enhanced vision lets a person see in total darknes, so PER rolls are not a good way to model that.

 

We can argue about whether INT and PER should be linked elsewhere (I don't think they should, and I know you can theoretically buy +INT (Not to affect PER) but that is messy) but we agree that -PER does not do 'total darkness' right: in Hero that is currently -4 PER. I'm not down with that.

 

 

We use changing environment to raise or lower the temperature' date=' raise or lower the lighting, make the floor slippery, etc. If we didn't already have a darkness power, would we no think "raise or lower the ambient lighting" belongs in change environment? From there, making other senses inaccessible also seems like CE. Of course, Duplication is just a variant of Summoning and Resistant Defense is just PD+ED+Resistant, so we have precedent for powers that probably are variants of other abilities being separate powers. [Growth and Shrinking are just a whole pile of Linked Abilities that Cost END and have a side effect.']

 

But if "lighting" were a CE effect, then dropping the ambient lighting by 5 steps (say to make it completely dark) would reasonably be offset by increasing the ambient lighting by 3 steps to result in a dimily lit area.

 

Of course, then we get into SFX. How does you making it lighter allow people to better see through, for example, intense fog or a swarm of insects so think they block out your vision?

 

That is why i'd rather do it with IMAGES than CE: Images already affects PER rolls, and there is always confusion over why CE can not create light when it can create lack of light. I'd have the ability to use one form of images (shadows) against another (light) and simply use the final modifier when you add then together. For clouds of insects or fog, make the images NND: light will not dispel fog (or any particle based darkness), but a fireball or gust of wind will

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

That is why i'd rather do it with IMAGES than CE: Images already affects PER rolls' date=' and there is always confusion over why CE can not create light when it can create lack of light. I'd have the ability to use one form of images (shadows) against another (light) and simply use the final modifier when you add then together. For clouds of insects or fog, make the images NND: light will not dispel fog (or any particle based darkness), but a fireball or gust of wind will [/quote']

 

To me, images should call up an image of something that isn't there, not make it easier to see something that is already there. It should be illusion, not illumination. The CE dichotomy is easily fixed by alowing it to improve rolls, not just penalize them, making it possible for better illumination to offset penalties for poor lighting, and excessive illumination to impose penalties of its own.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

To me' date=' images should call up an image of something that isn't there, not make it easier to see something that is already there. It should be illusion, not illumination. The CE dichotomy is easily fixed by alowing it to improve rolls, not just penalize them, making it possible for better illumination to offset penalties for poor lighting, and excessive illumination to impose penalties of its own.[/quote']

 

IMAGES is just a way of changing the PER roll of someone, or making that PER roll perceive something other than what is 'actually' there. Shift changing PER over to IMAGES and you solve a lot of the isses that cause apparent contradiction with CE.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

IMAGES is just a way of changing the PER roll of someone' date=' or making that PER roll perceive something other than what is 'actually' there. Shift changing PER over to IMAGES and you solve a lot of the isses that cause apparent contradiction with CE.[/quote']

 

How do images simply reduce PER rolls, rather than reducing the PER roll to detect an image is something other than it appears to be? That seems to me to be the purview of "change enviuronment" or, perhaps, a more narrowly described "impose penalty" power, and a "bestow bonus" power. Maybe we need to break CE down between causing rolls to be required and imposing penalties on all rolls of a given type.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

 

How do images simply reduce PER rolls' date=' rather than reducing the PER roll to detect an image is something other than it appears to be? That seems to me to be the purview of "change enviuronment" or, perhaps, a more narrowly described "impose penalty" power, and a "bestow bonus" power. Maybe we need to break CE down between causing rolls to be required and imposing penalties on all rolls of a given type.[/quote']

 

Create an image of 'nothing': if you are able to make your PER roll, you can 'see through it' - that does 'dim light' pretty well.

 

One thing we would need though, however we do it, is the ability to 'obscure in depth' if you create a light fog then that cuts down visual range: you might be able to se through 1 hex (of we still had hexes) of it, possibly 2, but not 4 and definitely not 8. One way to do that would be to have a cheaper modifier that affects range modifiers.

 

Hmm. I'm waffling: must get some sleep