Images vs. Detect: who wins?

[gojira]

So I've got a question that isn't covered directly by the rules. An illusion (Images) covers an object. A character has a Detect for what the illusion is covering. Who wins?

 

Assume the Detect is sight based, and the illusion also creates Images to sight. An example might be an illusion that covers a secret door, and a character has Detect Secret Doors.

 

What I'm actually trying to do is make goggles that see through fairy glamor. Normally, the fae disguise themselves with a glamor, but these science based goggles can see right through it (the goggles have "Detect Fae." Assume it has at least Discriminatory and Targeting). This is also one of those annoying situations where both effects should be absolute. The glamor should always work, unless you have some sort of counter-spell, special item (like rowan berries), or these goggles.

 

Any thoughts how best to handle this? Note I don't want the glamor dispelled, I just want the goggles to see through it.

[Tasha]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

So I've got a question that isn't covered directly by the rules. An illusion (Images) covers an object. A character has a Detect for what the illusion is covering. Who wins?

 

Assume the Detect is sight based, and the illusion also creates Images to sight. An example might be an illusion that covers a secret door, and a character has Detect Secret Doors.

 

What I'm actually trying to do is make goggles that see through fairy glamor. Normally, the fae disguise themselves with a glamor, but these science based goggles can see right through it (the goggles have "Detect Fae." Assume it has at least Discriminatory and Targeting). This is also one of those annoying situations where both effects should be absolute. The glamor should always work, unless you have some sort of counter-spell, special item (like rowan berries), or these goggles.

 

Any thoughts how best to handle this? Note I don't want the glamor dispelled, I just want the goggles to see through it.

 

Perhaps by adding 4-6 levels with Detect Fae as part of the Goggles. That way you have enough Levels to pierce many illusions on top of the Detect.

 

ie

10 Detect Fae: Detect A Large Class Of Things and Each Extra Thing or Class of Things +8 Per (Sight Group) (23 Active Points); OAF Fragile ( Goggles; -3/4)

[randian]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

I believe the answer is clear in 6E: Images always wins if the subject fails their perception roll. The Detect isn't absolute, it is always affected by Images for its sense group. An Image of a box surrounding a person fools Detect Person. As far as that sense is concerned it's a box, not a person.

[Leeland]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Hmm, you could build the detector on a sense that isn´t normaly covered by images

 

Detect Fairies (Smell)

- Range

- Discriminatory

- Targeting

 

"I smell elvenblood around here!"

[Lucius]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Make the Detect its own Sense, not part of the Sight Group.

 

Then put a Limitation on it that it's effected by Flash, darkness (and Darkness) etc. like Sight.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Detect Palindromedary

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Or give the glamor a Limitation (maybe -0 or -1/4 if they are common) that the illusion doesn't fool technical methods of seeing through it.

[psyber624]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Randian is right, this isn't a clear case of always wins in either direction. This is all about a PER Roll. Some GM's might reward a bonus to the PER roll to see through the illusion based upon the specifics of the powers involved(which modifiers it takes, relevant senses, how the Images power was built, etc.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Do you want the goggles to always work, or just usually work? I mean, you can create a sense that detects Faerie Glamour if you like. Of course that would not help you see THROUGH the glamour. Mind you buying 5 levels with your normal sight (Only to see through Faerie Glamour Images) would, at least most of the time - and to be honest if you fail with 5 extra levels you would have failed the base perception roll to spot whatever it was you were looking for anyway.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

As others have pointed out "detect fae" will not help you see through a "glamor" (image), it will just let you know one is there. Perhaps institute the "Absolute Effect rules" here. All fairy glamors have to be built with at Lear -x to PER and always work (against humans, perhaps other fae still get a chance to see through?), while any means to see through them provides + (x+2) PER, Only to see through glamors, and always work.

[gojira]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Perhaps by adding 4-6 levels with Detect Fae as part of the Goggles. That way you have enough Levels to pierce many illusions on top of the Detect.

 

This is more or less what I was thinking. Give the Image enough levels so that it "always works" and rolls can be ignored in most circumstances. Give the goggles enough levels to counter that. Then it could be considered an even Perception roll, and even "obvious" under some circumstances. Just like you don't need to roll to see a '67 Chevy right in front of you.

 

Hmm' date=' you could build the detector on a sense that isn´t normaly covered by images[/quote']

 

Make the Detect its own Sense, not part of the Sight Group.

 

Then put a Limitation on it that it's effected by Flash, darkness (and Darkness) etc. like Sight.

 

Hmm, perhaps. I'll think about that.

 

Or give the glamor a Limitation (maybe -0 or -1/4 if they are common) that the illusion doesn't fool technical methods of seeing through it.

 

Yes that's an idea too. I like this a little better, it seems to flow better with what I have in mind.

 

Randian is right' date=' this isn't a clear case of always wins in either direction. This is all about a PER Roll. Some GM's might reward a bonus to the PER roll to see through the illusion based upon the specifics of the powers involved(which modifiers it takes, relevant senses, how the Images power was built, etc.)[/quote']

 

Yes, I was thinking this way as well. In obvious circumstances, allow the goggles to just see the fae. If you're scanning a crowd, you have to roll. But if you have a fae right in front of you, it's obvious.

 

Do you want the goggles to always work' date=' or just usually work?[/quote']

 

Always work. Like infrared goggles, they just work.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

...

Always work. Like infrared goggles, they just work.

 

Detect does not always work. RAW, if you have a better than 11- chance of perceiving something, you do. Buy an unusual sense that works like sight (costs about 30 points, depending on how you buy it) then limit is so that it only works against glamours see (depends: -1/2, maybe -1) OR just add loads to your sense (only to see through Faerie Glamour -2 (depending on how common it is compared to other stuff)). I'd go with that one.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Another option would be to just limit the Images.

 

32 Sight Group Images, +/-10 to PER Rolls (40 Active Points); Limited Effect Normal Sight (A Sense-Affecting Power with this Limitation only affects one or two Senses in a Sense Group, rather than the entire Sense Group.; -1/4)

 

Now a Detect based on any special vision ability will work (IR, Ultraviolet, etc...).

[gojira]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Buy an unusual sense that works like sight (costs about 30 points' date=' depending on how you buy it)[/quote']

 

I'm using Champions Complete, btw. I've always found the RAW for Detect and Enhanced Senses to be rather confusingly written (regardless of edition), even though I understand the basic concept it's trying to describe.

 

First, Detect is by default in the Unusual Sense Group, correct? That's what it says on p135 of CC. So let me add up the points:

 

Detect: Class of Things: Fae (5 points) + Range for a Single Sense (5 points) + Sense (2 points) + Targeting for a Single Sense (10 points).

 

5 + 5 + 2 + 10 = 22 points. Then I'm going to arbitrarily say that +10 points of Perception is enough to counter Fae Images. 32 points base total. OIF Fragile on top of that.

 

(I think the only complaint with CC at this point is that on page 134 where it says there are six sense groups and lists them, it should say seven and list "Unusual Sense Group" too.)

 

So if I use a "Simulated Sense Group" of Sight, then I think the +Perception is clearly needed. But if I leave the Detect as an Unusual Sense, then I'm not sure it is, since Fae Images would not have Detect Fae as part of their Images (in my game world.)

 

Thoughts? Discussion?

 

OR just add loads to your sense (only to see through Faerie Glamour -2 (depending on how common it is compared to other stuff)). I'd go with that one.

 

This would work too. Hmm, so what's the difference, RAW-wise, between a Detect and just a load of +Perception? Because just the +Perception seems a lot cheaper.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

(I think the only complaint with CC at this point is that on page 134 where it says there are six sense groups and lists them' date=' it should say seven and list "Unusual Sense Group" too.)[/quote']

 

FWIW, I did that intentionally. It seemed odd to me to describe an "Unusual Sense Group," then turn right around and explain that it wasn't really a group, because the senses in it couldn't be affected as a group. Really, there is no Unusual Sense "Group;" there's just an Unusual Sense List.

[gojira]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Hmm, I can see that. I still think something could be clarified on the top of page 135 where you do mention "the Unusual Sense Group." Maybe that sentence could read: "Sense-Affecting Powers, Sense Modifiers, and the like cannot be bought to apply to these unusual senses."

 

I'm still a little unclear what that means though. I did buy three Sense Modifiers (Range, Sense, and Targeting) for my Detect, so I'm really confused about that part of the statement I quoted above, because I thought that was exactly what they were there for.

[psyber624]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

I believe it means you can't buy, for instance, Flash, Images, Shapeshift, etc vs the "Unusual Sense Group" and suddenly be able to affect any and all detects that aren't part of a simulated sense. you also can't buy Analyze (for example) at the 10 pts level to affect the "Unusual Sense Group". If you had 3 different Detects, none of which were built with Simulated Sense Groups, you would have to buy Analyze (or any other modifier) at the +5 level for each one of them.

 

As far as the value of your detect, a "Detect Fae" allows you to know if something is a Fae, or of Fae origin possibly (depending on how you defined it). Also note if you are placing your Detect Fae in the simulated Sight group you do not need to pay for Range, Sense, or Targeting (they are provided by the group) so your detect is only 5 pts (not 22 before the perception bonuses) You also get discriminatory for free as well.

 

Of course part of the problem is that a "Detect" is not really a counter to Images (especially if you place it in a Simulated Group that the Images power affects).

 

If all your power does is let you see through Fae glamor then simply buy it as +5 PER (Only to see through Fae Glamor, -2). If they glamor power is bought with -'s to PER rolls you may have to increase the amount of PER you buy of course.

 

If your power allows you to do more than just see through Fae glamors then you might want a detect (I.E. if it allows you to know there is a fae present, if it works on "fae made" items or can also detect fae magic), and you could then buy the bonus PER for this Detect instead of normal sight (with the same limitation if you wished.)

 

And finally, a GM may decide that a Detect Fae would indicate that an image was Fae unless the images was specifically designed to conceal that fact. You wouldn't automatically be able to tell that it was an image, and you wouldn't be automatically able to see through it, but you would know it was Fae (again, at GM's option).

[gojira]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

I believe it means you can't buy' date=' for instance, Flash, Images, Shapeshift, etc vs the "Unusual Sense Group" and suddenly be able to affect any and all detects that aren't part of a simulated sense[/quote']

 

Ah, right. It was late when I wrote that and I hadn't thought about it clearly.

 

Of course part of the problem is that a "Detect" is not really a counter to Images (especially if you place it in a Simulated Group that the Images power affects).

 

Why not? If I buy Ranged, Sense, and Targeting for the Detect, and the Images doesn't work against Detect Fae (it won't), how does that not 100% counter the Images? Assume I'm using the Unusual Sense category here.

[psyber624]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

A Detect is just that, a Detect. It may allow you to in some ways see "around" an image but it does not counter it. If an image is "sight group only" the fact that an image of a crying baby makes no sound is a clear indication that it may not be a real baby, but the image doesn't just "disappear" for you once you realize that. It would still require a PER roll for your Sight to pierce a Sight based image (of course a GM should probably give you a bonus to your PER roll since you have good reason to suspect that something is an image).

 

A "Detect Fae" bought as an unusual sense would tell you that a Fae Glamor was of Fae origin. If it was bought with Discriminatory it might even tell you that its a Fae Glamor. That doesn't however allow you to see through it. And if this is bought as an unusual sense (and not Simulated Sight) then PER Bonuses bought for it would not apply to your attempt to see through it. All it would do is tell you "There is something Fae about this" with more information based upon other modifiers.

 

Seeing through an Image affecting the Sight Group requires a PER roll with some sense (or Detect) that is affected by it. That is where things get weird of course.

 

If your "Detect Fae" is in Simulated Sight Group the Images power (if bought to affect the Sight Group) will affect your power as well. Therefore a GM may rule that you cannot detect that it is of Fae origin without a PER roll. Of course the flip side of the coin is that your Sight Based Detect now has a chance to allow you to see through the Sight Group Based Images with a PER roll (and you can use any PER bonuses bought with this detect for this effect as well, unless your GM rules otherwise).

[Greywind]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Or a "Detect Fae" would only let you know that a Fae was in the area. Not necessarily what they were doing/had done, magic or otherwise. That might actually require a "Detect Magic" ability.

[psyber624]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

I think it would depend on what points cost you bought your "detect fae" at and how you defined it.

 

Detect Fae isn't really specific enough to know what exactly it should allow.

 

For instance, A 3 pt version might just detect the presence of a Fae, a 5 pt might add in active Fae magic, and 10 pts might add anything fae constructed or related or possibly even more passive Fae magics.

 

Of course that is up to the player (to define what all he wants it to detect) and the GM (to tell him what it costs).

[gojira]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

I think it would depend on what points cost you bought your "detect fae" at and how you defined it.

 

Um, did you read what I wrote? Honestly this is kind of frustrating when I feel I'm asking about a specific power build that I posted, and folks seem to go off and talk why-fors and whither without even bothering to comment on the question asked.

 

This one:

 

Detect: Class of Things: Fae (5 points) + Range for a Single Sense (5 points) + Sense (2 points) + Targeting for a Single Sense (10 points) = 22 points total.

 

5 pt might add in active Fae magic, and 10 pts might add anything fae constructed or related or possibly even more passive Fae magics.

 

I read the 5 point Detect as "a class of things" and took that to mean the Fae themselves. Not their magic, or constructs or anything related to Fae, just their physical bodies. The Fae critter itself.

[psyber624]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Ahh, see your original power description did not include all that. All it says is "Detect Fae" which can mean different things to different people. I simply didn't understand your intention was to have a power that only allowed you to detect a member of a Fae Race.

 

If that is what you are defining your power as then a sight based image probably has no effect on your power at all (and vice versa). You will detect a being is Fae, or that a Fae is present in the area, even if they are using a glamor. But that is all it will tell you. Unless of course the Fae you are talking about have built their glamor specifically to disguise their Fae nature. Of course I have no idea what the powers of the Fae you are talking about are, so I am left to generalize and hope that my answers can encompass your situation.

 

Please understand that I am not psychic, all I have to go by is what you put into your post.

[gojira]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

Right-o. I did make two posts after the first that refined what I had asked, based on the replies I got to that point. I assumed that folks had read the replies. So that mystery is solved.

 

I also mentioned in those later posts that I was assuming fae Images didn't buy Images vs. Detect Fae, but no worries there.

 

That brings up another thought. Let's say I have a Detect with a Special Effect. For example, this Detect Fae might work by sensing the far ultraviolet range, which isn't part of normal sight, and fae glamours don't affect (by GM fiat). But they might develop a spell that does produce Images vs that range of light, but ONLY for that particular SFX, far UV. So I might want to think about that too. Because other means of "Detect Fae" (scent, magic counter doo-hickey, magnetic imaging, gravity waves, bouncing tachyons off the main deflector dish, etc.) might not be effected.

 

Something like:

 

Detect Anything, 10 points, SFX: Far UV (Custom Limitation: Flashed As Far UV -1) = 5 points. Then add the rest of the Adders on that, as required. This would let you see anything visible under UV, but would also limit you to anything that blocked far UV or flashed it.

 

Thoughts?

[psyber624]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

-1 limitation for a power based upon the fact that it can be flashed as a sense that does not exist RAW doesn't work for me. Not to mention the fact that it can already be flashed as Far UV normally (if someone buys a FLash power for that specific unusual sense "Far UV". Even if you base a detect on Sight (which is a very normal flash) without putting it in the sight group it wouldn't be -1 (RAW it would be -1/4 for "Affected as another sense, much more common)

 

Also, isn't there an Ultraviolet vision power that already allows you to detect Ultraviolet light? Unless you are stating that you do not believe that covers Far UV.

 

And I do apologize for loosing track of what your intentions were. I don't usually reread an entire thread every time a new post is added so I probably forgot over the course of this thread some of the information that was posted previously.

[gojira]

Re: Images vs. Detect: who wins?

 

-1 limitation for a power based upon the fact that it can be flashed as a sense that does not exist RAW doesn't work for me.

 

Yeah, I guess I was thinking that you could potentially Flash a whole bunch of things with "Far UV," so it would be a big limitation to be part of the frequency band. Given different campaign and milieu assumptions however I could definitely see less of a limitation.

 

Also, isn't there an Ultraviolet vision power that already allows you to detect Ultraviolet light? Unless you are stating that you do not believe that covers Far UV.

 

Yeah, the UV that some animals see is really close in wavelengths to regular light. Far UV covers a lot of wavelengths and is also pretty damaging to organics (think bad sunburn). I don't think you could physically see the far UV.

 

And I do apologize for loosing track of what your intentions were. I don't usually reread an entire thread every time a new post is added so I probably forgot over the course of this thread some of the information that was posted previously.

 

No worries, and sorry if I sounded testy (which I suppose I was). I was having trouble following what folks were saying relative to where I thought the conversation was at.