Images and obvious foci question

[FOUNDATION]

I checked the FAQ and couldn't find anything on this specific case. This is a two-part question.

 

1) can Images be used "on self"? An example would be to make armor look like normal clothes. Buy the images down to zero END and make it persistant and you have a suite of armor that always looks like regular clothes (just don't look at it too hard, listen closely or try to touch it). The reason I ask this question is that I understand Images is normally supposed to affect a fixed area whose area does not move (even if the image within the area does). In the case of the above-mentioned armor, though, it will continue to be on the same area, but that area itself (the character's body) will move.

 

2) If this is not allowed, then this part of the question can be ignored. If it *is* allowed, then (using the above armor example), what if the armor is bought as an OIF? Without a perception roll, the armor is not terribly "obvious" anymore. It seems to me that this is the definition of "inobvious" now. The counter-argument, though, it that someone (with OIF armor) who can turn invisible (sight group) for long periods of time (bought to 0 End) still has his OIF armor even though his armor is now anything but obvious.

[Lord Liaden]

1) I've seen plenty of self disguise-type constructs using Images under 4E. IIRC according to FREd a Continuous Area of Effect Power that's centered on the user will move with him automatically. That said, it's probably more efficient to use Shape Shift to the appropriate Sense Groups for a disguise power, since there's no Perception Roll associated with it.

 

2) The FAQ has lots of details on Invisibility related to Foci, but in the specific case of Images (and I will assume this covers this instance of Shape Shift as well), while an Obvious Focus will have something going on that indicates that some Power is being used, it won't necessarily be apparent that it's Images, or that the Image is coming from the Focus. Depending on how unusual the Image is, an observer may be able to draw that conclusion, though.

[dugfromthearth]

I can have clothes that provide 20def OIF

or armor that provides 20 def OIF

 

as long as it is clear that what I am wearing is providing me the protection, what exactly it looks like shouldn't be an issue for that.

 

If the image prevents people from telling that my armor/clothes are protecting me then it is IIF.

 

remember that a limitation that isn't limiting isn't a limitation.

 

If you are able to easily avoid a limitation then you get no points for it (or reduced).

[bjbrown]

Edited: Completely removed because I didn't read carefully and provided a detailed answer to a question that no one asked.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Images and obvious foci question

 

Originally posted by FOUNDATION

2) If this is not allowed, then this part of the question can be ignored. If it *is* allowed, then (using the above armor example), what if the armor is bought as an OIF? Without a perception roll, the armor is not terribly "obvious" anymore. It seems to me that this is the definition of "inobvious" now. The counter-argument, though, it that someone (with OIF armor) who can turn invisible (sight group) for long periods of time (bought to 0 End) still has his OIF armor even though his armor is now anything but obvious.

 

If this is all the Images does, then why not just buy it IIF? Or, if the Images don't disquise the armor as armor (only make it look like clothes), then you could just say the armor is enchanted to look like clothes and not even spend any points because it's just SFX.

[FOUNDATION]

The goal here (of using images) was to be able to always wear the armor (and get its benefit) while, at the same time, blending into the background (at least, when people fail their modified perception rolls) when not in "hero mode" - seeing as how his armor would then look like normal clothes. Then, when in "hero mode" (and wanting to be noticed as such) he can turn the images off and hear everyone shout... tada! "It's super dude in armor!"

 

It makes more sense (in the case of this particular character) that his armor is an obvious (as opposed to inobvious) focus. The purpose of the images is to cover up the "obviousness" of the obvious focus - effectively making it an inobvious focus while getting the point benefit of an obvious focus.

 

One of the key points here is that the armor provides several abilities (i.e. multiple powers) - all of which are bought via OIF armor. The Images are bought through a separate OIF - but when the images are on, all of the foci are covered - so none of them are obvious any longer (but are still getting the point benefit of being obvious).

 

My bottom-line questions (question #1 of 2) is whether people think this is an abuse. For those who do think it's an abuse (and I'm *kind of* inclined to think it is), what about people who are invisible and have Obvious foci? They, too, are no longer obvious (except for certain weapons as they are being used in an attack). The point being, (question #2 of 2) if using images to cover all your obvious foci is an abuse, how come using invisibility to cover all your obvious foci is not?

[Lord Liaden]

One point I could use clarification on is whether you see the Images Power concealing the armor and the use of its Powers when the armor is in use, or just making the armor appear to be something else when its Powers are not in use. If the latter, this is IMHO really no different from hiding a gun under your coat: it's not apparent until you use it, but once you do it's obvious that a bullet is being fired and where it's coming from, hence it can legitimately take the Obvious Limitation.

 

If you want the use of the Powers to be concealed as well, though, the issue becomes more complicated. Part of it, I think, is how easily and effectively the Power use can be hidden. Images isn't a perfect disguise - a Perception roll can see through it, and the more dynamic the actions you take, the easier the Images are to see through. You have to invest more points in it to bring down an opponent's Perception in that case. In effect, you're "buying off" the Obvious Limitation through investment in another Power. But if anything interferes with that Power (Focus breaking/ Dispel/ Drain/ Suppress/ Enhanced Sense that it doesn't cover), that concealment benefit is lost and the Focus becomes effectively Obvious again. I would say that this applies to concealing Invisibility as well.

 

I reiterate, though, that if you buy Images as an Obvious Focus (whether part of the Armor or a separate Focus is immaterial), it's going to be apparent when the Images are in use that something unusual is going on, even if it's not apparent that the armor is being concealed or that that concealment is coming from the Focus. There would be a lightshow around the Images Focus, and/or a strange sound, smell, mental emanation, whatever. If you don't want that to happen then the Image Focus should be bought Inobvious.

[FOUNDATION]

Clarification:

 

The use of images is intended to conceal all foci (within the "clothes" area of the person) when in use AND when not in use. This includes the obvious images focus itself (5th ed says you can do this, but that others *may* get a +1 (or more) to their perception roll). Obviously, their powers will not be concealed. In other words, the character's "clothes" will still appear to afford the same apparent level of protection as does his armor, he'll still appear to be running really fast if he uses his enhanced running (purchased through his armor), etc.

 

From what I saw in the FAQ, when a character is invisible, obvious foci are invisible as well - unless they use a focus (such as a sword) in an attack (the sword then becomes visible for that phase).

 

So from what it sounds to me like you saying, and given the above clarifications, you don't think that hiding obvious foci behind and image (in this manner) is unreasonable?

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by FOUNDATION

So from what it sounds to me like you saying, and given the above clarifications, you don't think that hiding obvious foci behind and image (in this manner) is unreasonable?

 

All things considered, no, I don't.

 

But that's just me. I'm sure the nay-sayers will be along presently.

[pinecone]

To me ,based on what you descibe this sounds like OHI -1/4 not OIF,but I conceal it till I want it.....problem solved and no need for a Images power at all....though you are much more vulnrable in "billy batson" mode, you are also protected from being seen through by poindexders with lots o' Int and being detected by everyone who bumps or brushes past you.....

[FOUNDATION]

Alas, the player wants images. He wants the armor to always be active (which kills the "only in hero ID" option) and, though aware of the inherent drawbacks to using images (as it has been previously described), is willing to go with it anyhow.

[prestidigitator]

I agree that this can be an OIF. This just means that when the character is hit with a weapon, it is obvious that there is obviously something strange about his clothes, and it is them--and nothing else--that are providing the unexpected protection. Remember that Armor is actually Persistent, so it actually doesn't need Visible Power Effects. It is only the obviousness of the focus that requires some visibility, so in a sense this power can be less visible than other powers that have obvious foci.