Suffocation (Change Environnement)

[eepjr24]

...OK let me repeat.

Darkness vs sound is find as written.  The cost is acceptable to me, as it is a minor effect.

Silencing people is another story entirely, and quite powerful.  That should cost more than 3 points.

Is that more clear now?  Not hearing: talking.  A separate power, because being quiet doesn't mean you didn't incant.

Per the rules forum, darkness versus hearing stops speech, talking or however you'd like to reference it.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93787-stopping-speech/?hl=darkness

 

- E

[Grailknight]

The text of CE forces a roll but does not give the consequences of that forced roll.  My interpretation is that it does not include the potential failure of passive CHAR. Lacking word of Steve, I concede that your interpretation is equally valid. By your interpretation, just for one example, you could have a CE that says that a targets CON doesn't function and they would then be Stunned by any subsequent attack that did damage. I don't think CE should be an AVAD Suppress against any CHAR that instantly takes that CHAR to 0 regardless of value but that's the interpretation you're advocating.

[eepjr24]

The text of CE forces a roll but does not give the consequences of that forced roll.  My interpretation is that it does not include the potential failure of passive CHAR. Lacking word of Steve, I concede that your interpretation is equally valid. By your interpretation, just for one example, you could have a CE that says that a targets CON doesn't function and they would then be Stunned by any subsequent attack that did damage. I don't think CE should be an AVAD Suppress against any CHAR that instantly takes that CHAR to 0 regardless of value but that's the interpretation you're advocating.

You might want to quote what/who you are answering here, it is not at all clear.

 

Also, you might want to read APG1, p83: CHANGE ENVIRONMENT: STUNNING (STOP SIGN)

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

Per the rules forum, darkness versus hearing stops speech, talking or however you'd like to reference it.

 

 

I guess I'm gonna just bow out of this discussion since people don't seem to understand what I'm writing.

[eepjr24]

I guess I'm gonna just bow out of this discussion since people don't seem to understand what I'm writing.

What I hear from you is that you disagree with the cost of stopping someone from talking. I get that and I might at some point agree with you, have to play it a few times and see. My only point was that according to the rules forum it is currently costed at 3 points.

 

- E

[Steve]

I guess I'm gonna just bow out of this discussion since people don't seem to understand what I'm writing.

I think people are understanding you fine, but you don't seem to like the answers you're getting. It seems to me to be a difference between intent and physical reality. Let me explain what I mean.

 

If you move your lips but no sound emerges, is it still a successful incantation? If Darkness stifles the sounds you're trying to make, is it still a successful incantation?

 

I'm of the opinion that the answer is no to both questions. Since we are talking about what is usually a -1/4 Limitation on a spell, Darkness versus Hearing seems to fit the bill for silencing a spellcaster without getting into funky builds involving other powers like Change Environment or Transform.

 

Does the world need to hear the incantation for the spell to work, or does it still work if the spellcaster only hears it in their own mind as they try to incant?

 

If a wizard can't make a sound that anyone else can hear, can they cast a spell that requires Incantations? No seems to be the correct answer here to me.

[Netzilla]

I think people are understanding you fine, but you don't seem to like the answers you're getting. It seems to me to be a difference between intent and physical reality. Let me explain what I mean.

 

If you move your lips but no sound emerges, is it still a successful incantation? If Darkness stifles the sounds you're trying to make, is it still a successful incantation?

 

I'm of the opinion that the answer is no to both questions. Since we are talking about what is usually a -1/4 Limitation on a spell, Darkness versus Hearing seems to fit the bill for silencing a spellcaster without getting into funky builds involving other powers like Change Environment or Transform.

 

Does the world need to hear the incantation for the spell to work, or does it still work if the spellcaster only hears it in their own mind as they try to incant?

 

If a wizard can't make a sound that anyone else can hear, can they cast a spell that requires Incantations? No seems to be the correct answer here to me.

 

Frankly, these questions are as old as D&D's Silence spell.  I remember an editorial column back in the day talking about why a Silence spell blocked spellcasting but being near a loud waterfall didn't.  So, really, this goes beyond mechanics and into the metaphysics/sfx of what the Incantations are actually doing.

[eepjr24]

Frankly, these questions are as old as D&D's Silence spell.  I remember an editorial column back in the day talking about why a Silence spell blocked spellcasting but being near a loud waterfall didn't.  So, really, this goes beyond mechanics and into the metaphysics/sfx of what the Incantations are actually doing.

Interesting. I would actually rule that a loud waterfall would prevent casting that required Incantations, do others interpret this differently?

 

6e1, 381, emphasis mine:

A character can use a power with Incantations only if he speaks loud phrases that are audible at a distance and are obviously out of the ordinary

[Netzilla]

Well, a loud enough sound will overcome a waterfall's roar, which is not the case for Darkness (one of Hero's few 'absolutes'). So, it can be argued that they aren't mechanically equivalent. Basically, Darkness prevents sound, while the waterfall overpowers it. In most cases, it's a distinction without a difference. In this case, it could matter (again, depending on campaign metaphysics/sfx reasoning).

[Hugh Neilson]

The text of CE forces a roll but does not give the consequences of that forced roll.  My interpretation is that it does not include the potential failure of passive CHAR. Lacking word of Steve, I concede that your interpretation is equally valid. By your interpretation, just for one example, you could have a CE that says that a targets CON doesn't function and they would then be Stunned by any subsequent attack that did damage. I don't think CE should be an AVAD Suppress against any CHAR that instantly takes that CHAR to 0 regardless of value but that's the interpretation you're advocating.

Emphasis added. Who wrote the APG, including Suffocation as a 20 point effect for CE and the 40 point Target Stunned effect? I think we already have "the word of Steve". An area filled with water, or an atmosphere lacking oxygen, are environments which carry the "suffocation" result. That, to me, is why this became part of CE. Much like wind levels or temperature levels, neither of which are otherwise represented by an easy mechanical build.

[Steve]

I'd allow casting even if a loud sound prevented anyone else from hearing the incantation, but I would probably assign a skill roll penalty due to loud, distracting sounds.

 

D&D's "Silence 15' Radius" spell was a great way to deal with annoying spellcasters. That's a magical Darkness versus Hearing to me.

[eepjr24]

Well, a loud enough sound will overcome a waterfall's roar, which is not the case for Darkness (one of Hero's few 'absolutes'). So, it can be argued that they aren't mechanically equivalent. Basically, Darkness prevents sound, while the waterfall overpowers it. In most cases, it's a distinction without a difference. In this case, it could matter (again, depending on campaign metaphysics/sfx reasoning).

Hrm. True. I would probably allow incantations on a case by case basis. But Darkness verses sound does not have to be silence, either. It could well be white noise or enough volume to prevent other things from being heard.

[Steve]

The difference would be a natural effect versus a magical one, I think.

[Hugh Neilson]

I suppose one could also designate the CE effect to be an "anti-casting" zone - make an Ego Roll (INT roll; Magic Skill Roll) at -X or your casting fails.

[Netzilla]

I suppose one could also designate the CE effect to be an "anti-casting" zone - make an Ego Roll (INT roll; Magic Skill Roll) at -X or your casting fails.

Not sure how you'd cost that. On the other hand, if you already require a casting roll, using CE to create a penalty to the roll is pretty straight-forward.

[Netzilla]

I suppose one could also designate the CE effect to be an "anti-casting" zone - make an Ego Roll (INT roll; Magic Skill Roll) at -X or your casting fails.

 

 

Not sure how you'd cost that. On the other hand, if you already require a casting roll, using CE to create a penalty to the roll is pretty straight-forward.

 

Actually, now that I think about this, I guess it's not really any different that CE with a DEX Roll penalty automatically requiring a DEX Roll to avoid falling over.

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually, now that I think about this, I guess it's not really any different that CE with a DEX Roll penalty automatically requiring a DEX Roll to avoid falling over.

That was my thinking. We had a recent discussion on a "Fog of Apathy", with one build being a CE - Ego roll to avoid apathetically standing around doing nothing.