Rules that make no sense, make the most sense

[zslane]

I suppose you could write it up as Invisibility, Only to Creatures Capable of "Taking Interest" In Another Creature. Not sure how much that Limitation is worth, but I guess it would work okay. The thing is, normally you are invisible only to those looking at you where you stand; here you are asking that photographs preserve your invisibility no matter who looks at them, no matter when they look at them, and no matter where in the universe the photographs are. Your visibility in photographs is supposed synchronize with your payment of END? I kind of feel this stretches the impact of special effect too far for comfort.

[Hugh Neilson]

Okay, so because comic books are a visual medium, often even "invisible" things are drawn.  Swirling lines can indicate a gust of wind, a thin or dashed black (or blue, in this case) outline can indicate an invisible barrier, etc.  The reader gets to see something on the page so they know what is going on.  We understand the need for this visual effect and we know that the characters within the story may not be able to see what we can see.  This is actually different from film, where motion, music, and other camera effects can let us know something is happening without specifically showing it.  There is a different expectation within the two mediums.

 

In the above picture, the Invisible Woman is in sort of an action pose, and there are blue lines coming from her to show she is using her power.  So this is actually a great example of building a character to get the in-game effect you want.  You have to ask yourself -- do the enemies know she is using a power?  can they perceive it in some way?  do they receive combat penalties such as reduced DCV when they are attacked with the power?  However you answer those questions will determine whether the character should have IPE.

 

As I remember the character, she should have that advantage.  It's certainly the way I've always thought of the character.  Perhaps your idea of the character is different.  If it's always obvious that she's using a force field, or shooting someone with a force blast (perhaps it looks like a big sheet of glass, or maybe light glints off of it, or you can see dust get trapped against it), then maybe she doesn't need IPE on the power.  I always thought she had it because the handful of FF comics that I read seemed to show that bad guys were routinely surprised when they ran into one of her force fields.  But your mileage may vary.  If you want Sue Storm to sit there and act as a traditional blaster on the field, then you might not need that power.

 

I just never saw evidence that the Star Wars characters would be required to buy IPE to explain the benefits they got in the first three movies.

 

Sue has taken down the Hulk by putting a force bubble around his head and waiting for him to pass out from lack of air.  If the bubble were visible, I doubt that would have worked.

 

Why do we assume the power must be detectable by sight?  Normally, they are perceptible to Sight and Hearing, but that is not always the case.  What sense groups are Jedi Force Powers detectable by?  I suggest one is a Force Sense.  I'm not sure what I would pick for the second, but it does seem the only stealthy use of Jedi TK was with C-3P0.  Maybe Luke made a Power Skill roll with his Force Powers to add Inobvious (to sight) to his TK briefly, or he Pushed to add the extra character points (as a GM, I would allow this in the right circumstances).  Maybe he just made the Stealth roll permitted when using an Obvious power, with the -1/10 AP penalty.  It only happened once in the whole campaign so there could be lots of explanations. 

 

I suppose you could write it up as Invisibility, Only to Creatures Capable of "Taking Interest" In Another Creature. Not sure how much that Limitation is worth, but I guess it would work okay. The thing is, normally you are invisible only to those looking at you where you stand; here you are asking that photographs preserve your invisibility no matter who looks at them, no matter when they look at them, and no matter where in the universe the photographs are. Your visibility in photographs is supposed synchronize with your payment of END? I kind of feel this stretches the impact of special effect too far for comfort.

 

So, wait, would you also rule that a character with Invisibility to Sight Group is visible in a photo as soon as he stops paying END, and needs Megascale range to disappear from a Youtube video when he was filmed battling while Invisible?  If he was using Invisibility when the photo was taken, he is invisible in the photo.  If the photo was taken while he was visible, you can see him in the photo.  The SFX are irrelevant.

[zslane]

Sue has taken down the Hulk by putting a force bubble around his head and waiting for him to pass out from lack of air. If the bubble were visible, I doubt that would have worked.

Well, the Hulk has also been shown capable of jumping through the vacuum of space without incident, so clearly he doesn't need air to survive, much less remain conscious. Which contradictory demonstrations of these characters' powers are we going to accept as canon for the purposes of these debates?

 

Why do we assume the power must be detectable by sight? Normally, they are perceptible to Sight and Hearing, but that is not always the case. What sense groups are Jedi Force Powers detectable by? I suggest one is a Force Sense.

We assume that because it is the assumed default according to the RAW. Being perceivable by Force Sense would be the "third Sense connected to the power's special effect" that the power must also have in addition to Sight and Hearing (by default). Force Sense can't be a substitute for Sight and Sound all by itself. Unless you are House Ruling that requirement away, which is fine, but such changes should be cleared labelled as non-standard.

 

So, wait, would you also rule that a character with Invisibility to Sight Group is visible in a photo as soon as he stops paying END?

No, because while such a character is invisible he doesn't imprint on the photo in the first place.

[Greywind]

Well, the Hulk has also been shown capable of jumping through the vacuum of space without incident, so clearly he doesn't need air to survive, much less remain conscious. Which contradictory demonstrations of these characters' powers are we going to accept as canon for the purposes of these debates?

Depends on when each happened in their histories. Sue's trick I recall being in the late 70s. When did Hulk survive in space? I also recall Hulk passing out from lack of air while riding on the back of a fighter in his first movie.

[Lucius]

It's not so much that it's Limited (in fact, it doesn't sound very Limited) but that you have to buy Invisibility to EVERYTHING. Mind Control (Ignore me and forget me) or Mental Illusions (I don't exist) would probably be cheaper, come closer to the described effect, and allow for exceptional minds that can retain awareness of the character.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks, what was the topic again?

[Lucius]

No, because while such a character is invisible he doesn't imprint on the photo in the first place.

So what if my character is visible but can't be photographed?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What if my palindromedary can be photographed but not photoshopped?

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, the Hulk has also been shown capable of jumping through the vacuum of space without incident, so clearly he doesn't need air to survive, much less remain conscious. Which contradictory demonstrations of these characters' powers are we going to accept as canon for the purposes of these debates?

The Hulk has been pretty consistently shown to be capable of holding his breath for a long time (if he thinks about it), but does require air to survive, so gas attacks, suffocation, etc. have been viable tactics.

 

Which version of Jedi should we use? One suggestion has been the one whose TK is always obviously sourced with the Jedi, with the sole exception of lifting C-3P0, once in the campaign.

 

 

We assume that because it is the assumed default according to the RAW. Being perceivable by Force Sense would be the "third Sense connected to the power's special effect" that the power must also have in addition to Sight and Hearing (by default). Force Sense can't be a substitute for Sight and Sound all by itself. Unless you are House Ruling that requirement away, which is fine, but such changes should be cleared labelled as non-standard.

The 6e rules default to powers being perceivable by two sense groups by default. Absent a GM ruling otherwise, one must be sight. Typically, the other is hearing. Many are also perceivable by other sense groups based on SFX, but this is not required, and may also merit a limitation, but not usually. Three sense groups is not required, however. [6e v1 p 124]

 

Force Sense plus one other Sense Group is a clear de minimis requirement. As pointed out by other posters, however, it seems that the user of Jedi TK is typically pretty obvious and visible. Use of a power while using Stealth is specifically possible under the rules, although penalties are imposed to the stealth roll. Jedi powers are also perceivable by Force Senses when not in use, it appears (Vader senses Obi-Wan; "The Force is strong in this one" when dogfighting with Luke).

 

Jedi TK seems a lot more like a mental power than a physical one. It's also limited - no one uses it to Punch at range, and the C-3P0 example is the only time anything resembling a Grab was used. Yet Vader can choke over a comlink - why does he never use that very potent ability against one of the main characters? No Jedi ever seems to use TK directly against another Jedi. Force Powers would need to be very well defined in a Star Wars game, and probably would involve some handwaving (gets this, loses that, combines to -0).

 

No, because while such a character is invisible he doesn't imprint on the photo in the first place.

 

So why is the character whose SFX is "too boring to be noticed" mechanically different? If he was Invisible when the picture was taken, he is to boring to be noticed in the picture.

 

So what if my character is visible but can't be photographed?

"Only invisible to electronics" is another great example, Lucius. I would say that the character does not appear in the photo if he was invisible when it was taken, not that he appears and vanishes in the picture depending on whether he is presently spending END to be invisible.

[zslane]

As pointed out by other posters, however, it seems that the user of Jedi TK is typically pretty obvious and visible.

 

So why is the character whose SFX is "too boring to be noticed" mechanically different? If he was Invisible when the picture was taken, he is to boring to be noticed in the picture. "Only invisible to electronics" is another great example, Lucius. I would say that the character does not appear in the photo if he was invisible when it was taken, not that he appears and vanishes in the picture depending on whether he is presently spending END to be invisible.

Re: The user of Jedi TK -- again, IPE is not bought on a character, it is bought on a power. The obviousness and visibility of the user has no bearing on whether or not a power is visible. For some reason the two continue to get conflated, and it is only serving to confuse matters needlessly. The visibility of the user (and/or his target) can not serve to meet the Sense requirements of powers that cost END.

 

As for the mechanical differences between being too boring to be noticed and being invisible by its conventional definition, I can only suggest you use it in game for a while, and then maybe you'll appreciate the difference. Then again, maybe not, in which case the difference really doesn't matter for you and your campaign. *shrug*

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The user of Jedi TK -- again, IPE is not bought on a character, it is bought on a power. The obviousness and visibility of the user has no bearing on whether or not a power is visible. For some reason the two continue to get conflated, and it is only serving to confuse matters needlessly. The visibility of the user (and/or his target) can not serve to meet the Sense requirements of powers that cost END.

If it is obvious that the character is the source of the attack, then the attack is visible. The classic mentalist sniper is quite visible - he simply stands somewhere inconspicuous and uses his invisible attacks. No one seems to realize Professor X is manipulating their minds, but he himself is not invisible. If the character always touches his fingers to his temples and glares at his target when attacking (ie he must do so) that would be a visible attack. You know he is making the attack.

 

As for the mechanical differences between being too boring to be noticed and being invisible by its conventional definition, I can only suggest you use it in game for a while, and then maybe you'll appreciate the difference. Then again, maybe not, in which case the difference really doesn't matter for you and your campaign. *shrug*

There are no mechanical differences. The mechanic is invisibility. Any differences are due to special effects. Of course, we can create mechanical differences through advantages and limitations, adders, etc., but the SF of two identical power builds are not mechanical differences.

[zslane]

If the character always touches his fingers to his temples and glares at his target when attacking (ie he must do so) that would be a visible attack.

I don't believe this is correct. The gestures involved in an attack with the Gestures limitations are not a "visible effect" of the power as it pertains to fulfilling the Sense requirements of a power's fx. They are merely the gestures that fulfill the requirements of the Gestures limitation. If the character is hiding in a closet and touches his temples (as he must do) and attacks with his psionic blast (or whatever), then his compulsory gesture is hardly making it a visible (or obvious) attack. The gesture itself can not serve as a visible power effect since the gesture is not always visible under all conditions (nor is the attacker, which is why the attacker can't be a component of the visible power fx either).

[Grailknight]

I don't believe this is correct. The gestures involved in an attack with the Gestures limitations are not a "visible effect" of the power as it pertains to fulfilling the Sense requirements of a power's fx. They are merely the gestures that fulfill the requirements of the Gestures limitation. If the character is hiding in a closet and touches his temples (as he must do) and attacks with his psionic blast (or whatever), then his compulsory gesture is hardly making it a visible (or obvious) attack. The gesture itself can not serve as a visible power effect since the gesture is not always visible under all conditions (nor is the attacker, which is why the attacker can't be a component of the visible power fx either).

 

Gestures are a poor example but Hugh's point is still valid.

 

Attacking from stealth is not invisible, you get a modified perception roll to notice the attack. If you fail you don't perceive the attack your buddy who did make his roll knows exactly what's coming. 

 

The Jedi TK has questionable visibility of its source(I would accept the GM stating you know the attacker but others ... aren't so agreeable) but it fails the test of having a visible effect on its source, add that and it is visible. But if the Jedi is hidden and beats your Perception with his Stealth his first attack will be against a lowered DCV. 

 

This does raise the questions of what bonuses to perception an attack triggers and when do you  perceive the hidden attacker? ( I'd give full DCV to the target after the first attack but would not allow a counterattack until you made the Perception check or a second attack was made)

 

Lastly, special effects have no mechanical effect in Hero beyond flavor and game mechanics have no set special effects. A power is invisible because you paid for the advantage, if you didn't then player and GM should define what sense groups it is obvious in.

[zslane]

Being able to see the attacker and being able to see an attack power are two separate things. A visible attack can help someone perceive a less-than-openly-visible attacker. But an invisible attacker does not confer any invisibility to his powers. Only IPE does that.

[Grailknight]

Being able to see the attacker and being able to see an attack power are two separate things. A visible attack can help someone perceive a less-than-openly-visible attacker. But an invisible attacker does not confer any invisibility to his powers. Only IPE does that.

 

Completely agree. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't believe this is correct. The gestures involved in an attack with the Gestures limitations are not a "visible effect" of the power as it pertains to fulfilling the Sense requirements of a power's fx. They are merely the gestures that fulfill the requirements of the Gestures limitation. If the character is hiding in a closet and touches his temples (as he must do) and attacks with his psionic blast (or whatever), then his compulsory gesture is hardly making it a visible (or obvious) attack. The gesture itself can not serve as a visible power effect since the gesture is not always visible under all conditions (nor is the attacker, which is why the attacker can't be a component of the visible power fx either).

I never said the attack had the Gestures limitation. "Touching hands to temples" is no more restrictive than any other "point of origin" power. The gestures are not going to be impaired by encumbrance or confined spaces, and are not subject to disruption by being attacked. And, of course, we are not necessarily discussing the Heroic Campaign to which they are most appropriate. However, it does seem like gestures "that are obviously out of the ordinary" renders an IPE ability less than invisible.

 

The rules require an attack power meet the following requirements:

 

- perceived by a minimum of two sense groups, one of which is sight (absent GM permission - we have sight here) and the other typically hearing (this one may be inaudible, but is perceivable by mental senses, one assumes).

 

- activity is perceivable (check - we can tell a power is being used)

- source is obvious (check)

- target is obvious (check - the person glared at)

- path (good question - I suggest this example is at least as obvious as a bullet from a gun - the TK shove path can be extrapolated from the direction the target flies back in, so more obvious than the gun, really)

- special effect (a blast of force which knocks its target back seems obvious - it's certainly clear watched on the screen)

- intensity (I wonder how many of us actually describe the level of power of attacks - seems no more or less than any other TK power)

- effect on the target (there he goes, sailing backwards)

- effect on the user (again, I wonder how many of us describe the visible tiring of the character when he uses an END using power)

 

If the character is hiding in a closet, then he has to make the same Stealth roll, with the same penalties, as anyone else to remain undetected when using his visible power. The mechanics do not say use of the power must immediately disclose the presence of the character, but that use of the power imposes a penalty on Stealth rolls. If you can't use stealth at all, perhaps this power has a Perceivable limitation.

 

Now, if the player wanted IPE Force Powers, that's fine too. Pay the extra points, get the mechanical advantage and you are less obvious using the power. Presuming our sample Jedi Power is visible to Force Senses and Sight, making the Sight Inobvious for a +1/4 advantage seems like a possible approach. Now, a PER roll will often be required to ID the Jedi as the source of the Force Shove. But it seldom seems difficult in the source material, and the few occurrences (C-3P0, for example) seem like they are as easily explained by Power Skill, Stealth rolls, a variation on Pushing, use of a Hero Point or simple artistic license. Or, I suppose, IPE on only a minor portion of the power - 10 STR is enough to move a normal weight being.

[zslane]

I never said the attack had the Gestures limitation. "Touching hands to temples" is no more restrictive than any other "point of origin" power.

My mistake. When you proposed, parenthetically, that he "had to do so" (touch his temple), I read that hard requirement as a Gestures limitation. And it is restrictive in the sense that if his hands are tied behind his back, he can no longer use his TK. That sounds an awful lot like a classic Gestures limitation to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

A character whose point of origin for his power is his hands is pretty disadvantaged when they are tied behind his back. In fact, tie Wolverine's forearms together behind his back or just handcuff him) and he should be at a significant disadvantage.

 

But I definitely see where you could view my description as Gestures.

[zslane]

Well, Wolverine is put at a disadvantage when you tie him up because his focii are in his hands. It is in the nature of focii that binding them often makes them unusable, and that's part of the reason they are a Limitation and not merely part of the "costume".

 

Gestures can be anything from a complicted series of hand movements, a simple dance step, or touching one's temples. Classic wizard limitation.

 

Now, in most cases of TK I see on tv, the user throws around silly hand gestures because producers/directors don't think viewers will understand what's going on if they don't do that. Consequently, I don't regard them as absolutely necessary for the power to work in most cases. If anything, those characters are burdened with a -0 "Silly Unnecessary Theatrical Gesture" limitation, not a real Gestures limitation. Maybe that's what Force TK is also...?

[massey]

Well, Wolverine is put at a disadvantage when you tie him up because his focii are in his hands. It is in the nature of focii that binding them often makes them unusable, and that's part of the reason they are a Limitation and not merely part of the "costume".

 

Gestures can be anything from a complicted series of hand movements, a simple dance step, or touching one's temples. Classic wizard limitation.

 

Now, in most cases of TK I see on tv, the user throws around silly hand gestures because producers/directors don't think viewers will understand what's going on if they don't do that. Consequently, I don't regard them as absolutely necessary for the power to work in most cases. If anything, those characters are burdened with a -0 "Silly Unnecessary Theatrical Gesture" limitation, not a real Gestures limitation. Maybe that's what Force TK is also...?

 

 

 

I saw Star Wars when I was a kid.  Like, a little kid.  At no point in the trilogy was I ever confused, in even the slightest bit, about who was using the Force and what they were doing.  Luke did this, Vader did that, Yoda did the other thing.  Using only my sight and hearing, I was able to easily determine what was happening and who was responsible.  

 

In the film, this is done through those "silly unnecessary theatrical gestures".  When you're tied up or something, you have to close your eyes and furrow your brow in concentration.  It's not Gestures, because it doesn't technically require your hands to be free.  It would, however, generally require something that makes it clear who did it.  That's what the silly gestures are -- they are the visible component of the power.  To me, anyway.

[zslane]

That's what the silly gestures are -- they are the visible component of the power.  To me, anyway.

To you (and your house rules) perhaps, but not to the RAW. In order for the silly gestures to be visible (i.e., a "visible component"), the character has to be in plain sight as well. If he or she isn't, then neither are his silly hand gestures or furrowed brow. How else, then, is the power supposed to be visible? The RAW requires that the power still be visible to three Senses/Groups, two of them common, even when the user of the power is not.

 

Another example, Luke is hiding behind a cargo container and using his Force TK to tap on the security panel of a ship across the loading bay in order to unlock it. According to the RAW, there must be something that makes it clear to anyone looking at the intervening space between them that TK of some kind is being used, the origin of which is tucked behind a cargo container and the other end of which is somewhere on the ship (even though the security panel may not be within plain view). In fact, nobody may realize which end of the TK is the source and which end is the target given that neither are easily discernable. But the fact that TK is "happening" must still be evident beause its power fx are visible to three Senses.

[bigbywolfe]

Well, Wolverine is put at a disadvantage when you tie him up because his focii are in his hands. It is in the nature of focii that binding them often makes them unusable, and that's part of the reason they are a Limitation and not merely part of the "costume".

 

Gestures can be anything from a complicted series of hand movements, a simple dance step, or touching one's temples. Classic wizard limitation.

 

Now, in most cases of TK I see on tv, the user throws around silly hand gestures because producers/directors don't think viewers will understand what's going on if they don't do that. Consequently, I don't regard them as absolutely necessary for the power to work in most cases. If anything, those characters are burdened with a -0 "Silly Unnecessary Theatrical Gesture" limitation, not a real Gestures limitation. Maybe that's what Force TK is also...?

Wolverine ' claws are not foci and are not worth any Focus or Restrainable Limitation. All Powers require a source point defined when bought, his claw's source point is his hands, just like Cyclops' beams source is his eyes.

[zslane]

I have no problem with that. It just means that he still gets to use his claws when restrained. No biggie. But if someone believes Wolverine can't use his claws when restrained, then he believes in a version of Wolverine in which the claws are a restrainable focus.

[Greywind]

Wolverine used his claws just fine when Magneto restrained him. Going through his own body probably hurt like a bitch, but he got free.

[massey]

To you (and your house rules) perhaps, but not to the RAW. In order for the silly gestures to be visible (i.e., a "visible component"), the character has to be in plain sight as well. If he or she isn't, then neither are his silly hand gestures or furrowed brow. How else, then, is the power supposed to be visible? The RAW requires that the power still be visible to three Senses/Groups, two of them common, even when the user of the power is not.

 

Another example, Luke is hiding behind a cargo container and using his Force TK to tap on the security panel of a ship across the loading bay in order to unlock it. According to the RAW, there must be something that makes it clear to anyone looking at the intervening space between them that TK of some kind is being used, the origin of which is tucked behind a cargo container and the other end of which is somewhere on the ship (even though the security panel may not be within plain view). In fact, nobody may realize which end of the TK is the source and which end is the target given that neither are easily discernable. But the fact that TK is "happening" must still be evident beause its power fx are visible to three Senses.

 

Well... except..  Last I checked, TK was presumed to have Indirect included to a certain degree.  If it still does (and if it doesn't come with it naturally, Luke has to buy it), then the Indirect is going to shield anyone at the point of origin from the view of those at the endpoint of the power.  Luke can be standing back there behind those crates with a big glowing purple aura around his head, doing the Macarena, or any other kind of thing and no one is going to see him, because of the Indirect.

 

There's a specific example in the 5th edition book talking about how a bullet counts as visible, even though most people can't see its path in flight.  I think the same applies here.

 

This really isn't any different from a million other scenarios in Champions where someone buys a power, and other people become worried that he will try to use it in an abusive manner getting advantages he didn't pay for.  Let's say that Power Armor Dude wants to buy Flight through his Focus.  He purchases 15" of Flight, x8 noncombat, OIF.  He defines this as "boot jets".  The GM says "hold on, if you have boot jets, you've got to buy a no range RKA as well, because you might burn people with them".  As long as the player never tries to do that, he doesn't have to pay for it.  As long as Luke's player doesn't try to take advantage of the "weird gestures is visible" sfx, it's no problem.

[bigbywolfe]

I have no problem with that. It just means that he still gets to use his claws when restrained. No biggie. But if someone believes Wolverine can't use his claws when restrained, then he believes in a version of Wolverine in which the claws are a restrainable focus.

First of all you generally can't put Restrainable and Focus on the same Power without GM permission and a dang good reason.  Second of all, Wolverines claws are not removable and thus are not Foci, period.  Thirdly, not being able to use a Power that shoots out of your hand effectively when handcuffed does not make that Power Restrainable, That is simply part of choosing the Point of Origin for the Power.

6E1, pg 126:

For instance, when a character

buys a Blast, the attack might come from the

character’s fingertips, eyes, forehead, or a weapon

such as a blaster pistol. Each point of origin has its

own benefits and drawbacks (an eyebeam is easy

to aim, but it’s hard for a character to use it to free

himself if his hands are tied behind his back).

Wolverine could use his claws against some forms of restraint and not against others.  Just like every other character with powers that come from their hands.

[Grailknight]

To you (and your house rules) perhaps, but not to the RAW. In order for the silly gestures to be visible (i.e., a "visible component"), the character has to be in plain sight as well. If he or she isn't, then neither are his silly hand gestures or furrowed brow. How else, then, is the power supposed to be visible? The RAW requires that the power still be visible to three Senses/Groups, two of them common, even when the user of the power is not.

 

Don't confuse a specific instance with RAW. Your interpretation makes it impossible to attack from stealth without everyone present automatically seeing the attacker. Since RAW contains rules for unseen attackers that don't assume invisible powers or characters, i have to disagree with your interpretation. 

 

Another example, Luke is hiding behind a cargo container and using his Force TK to tap on the security panel of a ship across the loading bay in order to unlock it. According to the RAW, there must be something that makes it clear to anyone looking at the intervening space between them that TK of some kind is being used, the origin of which is tucked behind a cargo container and the other end of which is somewhere on the ship (even though the security panel may not be within plain view). In fact, nobody may realize which end of the TK is the source and which end is the target given that neither are easily discernable. But the fact that TK is "happening" must still be evident beause its power fx are visible to three Senses.

 

There is something that is clear to anyone watching the security panel. The buttons are pressing on their own and the door opens. You get a perception roll opposed by the hidden character's stealth to see something else. In fact you'd get that perception roll even if the power was invisible because the TK'er didn't make himself invisible, he just hiding.