Invisibility to Hearing Group

[Tasha]

BTW the invisibility rules in 6e1 do mention Incantations and Gestures. 6e1pg 241
 

Gestures: Even though Gestures are normally supposed to be “clearly visible at a distance,” a character who’s Invisible to Sight Group can make Gestures without other characters seeing them or having them spoil his Invisibility.

 

Incantations: If a character speaks while Invisible to the Hearing Group, whether it’s Incantations or normal speech, other people can hear him speaking.

[Tasha]

Yes, Tasha.  I know.  That's how its done in Hero.  Which is why I asked should it?  Because strictly speaking it ought not stop incantations to merely be cloaked in a field of inaudibility.  It should only work to actually silence the character in some manner, not make them impossible to hear.

 

See, the problem we often run into on these boards is when someone speculates if things could be done differently or better, and someone else inevitably quotes the rulebook like a scripture reading as if that solves the issue.

 

Sorry that sounds REALLY like you are discussing House rules. 

 

Rules discussions should ALWAYS start from RAW. It's foolish to start from anywhere else. Why would you start from some idea you pulled out of your tail? You start from RAW and discuss why you think the rule is wrong and needs to be change or why a different interpretation is the one that is correct.

 

Yes reading the rules like "Scripture" often DOES solve the issue. It's why they are the RULES.

[Steve]

 

BTW the invisibility rules in 6e1 do mention Incantations and Gestures. 6e1pg 241

 

Gestures: Even though Gestures are normally supposed to be “clearly visible at a distance,” a character who’s Invisible to Sight Group can make Gestures without other characters seeing them or having them spoil his Invisibility.

 

Incantations: If a character speaks while Invisible to the Hearing Group, whether it’s Incantations or normal speech, other people can hear him speaking.

That says to me that the rules are consistent in this area. Both Darkness and Invisibility have no effect on Gestures, and Invisibility doesn't prevent Incantations from working because it doesn't stop speech. Gestures and Incantations are focusing tools for the wizard. He can feel himself making the Gestures even while invisible, but he needs to hear himself speak the Incantations. We don't see many mute or deaf spellcasters, and now we know why.

 

To take full advantage of this underlying structure in the rules, it sounds like Invisibility vs Sight combined with Darkness vs Sound (with Hole In The Middle) would allow undetectable spellcasting.

[eepjr24]

To take full advantage of this underlying structure in the rules, it sounds like Invisibility vs Sight combined with Darkness vs Sound (with Hole In The Middle) would allow undetectable spellcasting.

Plus IPE on the attack (the full +1 version if you want to be sure). 

 

So for double your AP on a spell plus 37 points in a Fantasy Hero game, you can cast (mostly) undetectably. Or you could just not takes Gestures and Incantations and use IPE. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yes reading the rules like "Scripture" often DOES solve the issue. It's why they are the RULES.

 

Well I'll keep in mind you aren't interested in discussing anything about how the rules might change, or should be different, since that doesn't seem to even be an option to you.

 

To take full advantage of this underlying structure in the rules, it sounds like Invisibility vs Sight combined with Darkness vs Sound (with Hole In The Middle) would allow undetectable spellcasting.

 

It would, but as a GM, I would say that character doesn't get any limitation for gestures or incantation, since they're limitations that don't actually limit them.

[Steve]

Plus IPE on the attack (the full +1 version if you want to be sure).

 

So for double your AP on a spell plus 37 points in a Fantasy Hero game, you can cast (mostly) undetectably. Or you could just not takes Gestures and Incantations and use IPE.

Yes, but if Gestures and Incantations are required spell limitations, it helps the squishy wizard.

 

Instead of IPE, some form of Indirect might work.

[Tasha]

Well I'll keep in mind you aren't interested in discussing anything about how the rules might change, or should be different, since that doesn't seem to even be an option to you.

 

Now I didn't say that at all. Just that we start from RAW, identify issues and then discuss solutions. Sometimes RAW works just fine, it's just finding the right part of the rules (ie our discussion on Gestures and Incantations. I am VERY happy to talk about ways to change the rules etc. JUST make sure that you make it clear that you are talking about your houserule or that you are talking about a rule variant or something you would like to change. Often YOUR posts go on like you are talking about RAW and it's not clear that you are talking about a different interpretation or a change to the existing rule.

 

I admit that I am dubious of House Rules. Having been burned by them quite a few times. Esp by ones not thought out enough by the GM that implemented them. I also like to work within RAW because that makes it easier for beginners to integrate into a group.

 

I have put forward the most radical rules changes of anyone here. So to say that I won't talk about rules changes is just disingenuous on your part.  

[eepjr24]

Yes, but if Gestures and Incantations are required spell limitations, it helps the squishy wizard.

 

Instead of IPE, some form of Indirect might work.

Indirect does not obscure WHO the source is, it only changes the source point of the power and / or the path. 6e1, 124 and 337 (bottom right). And it can get expensive as well. If you have some way to perceive that others do not, Indirect might still work, but it would be very situational.

[bigdamnhero]

Rules discussions should ALWAYS start from RAW. It's foolish to start from anywhere else..

Of course. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But the discussion doesn't have to end there.

 

Yes reading the rules like "Scripture" often DOES solve the issue. It's why they are the RULES.

Now this I completely disagree with. "Scripture" is perfect, unquestionable, unchangeable, and largely an end in itself. RPG rules are there to support telling a story. If changing the rules makes for a better story, then I say Valle Con Dios! One of the (many) things I love about Hero is that while some systems throw in an obligatory line about "you can change the rules if you want," Hero devotes an entire Chapter to how & when to change the rules to better fit your game. That's exactly what we're talking about here.

[Tasha]

Of course. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But the discussion doesn't have to end there.

 

Now this I completely disagree with. "Scripture" is perfect, unquestionable, unchangeable, and largely an end in itself. RPG rules are there to support telling a story. If changing the rules makes for a better story, then I say Valle Con Dios! One of the (many) things I love about Hero is that while some systems throw in an obligatory line about "you can change the rules if you want," Hero devotes an entire Chapter to how & when to change the rules to better fit your game. That's exactly what we're talking about here.

I didn't say that the discussion should end at RAW. Though if someone is asking a question, finding the answer in RAW does fulfill their need.

 

There is a place for discussion of rules. Just make sure that when we are talking about modifications to the rules we actually say that is what we are doing. Christopher sometimes goes off on a tangent, and when he's told that his opinion is not backed up by RAW. Then he says that he's talking about a Modification to the rules or his house rules. Which his post doesn't mention at all. This makes it VERY hard to discuss things with him because it feels like he's moving goalposts.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Christopher sometimes goes off on a tangent, and when he's told that his opinion is not backed up by RAW.

 

You'll notice though that I never say "the rules say this,"  I always frame it in terms of "this is how things should be."  Then when people respond with "the rules say this" I respond with, "that's nice, but this is the way it should be."

[Tasha]

You'll notice though that I never say "the rules say this,"  I always frame it in terms of "this is how things should be."  Then when people respond with "the rules say this" I respond with, "that's nice, but this is the way it should be."

 

But when you frame things like that, it's easy to misunderstand what you are saying. Which brings conflict that doesn't need to happen. Try to be clearer that you are talking about a variant of the rules. Also don't be surprised when people don't agree or ignore your ideas. Hell, I still think that the system could pare down a bunch of primary stats and not lose anything important. Most people either don't agree or don't even engage with the idea.

[mallet]

As a spin-off on this thread, but still involving Senses, Incantations, etc...

 

Does anyone think that when it comes to communication gear as presented in the books, that headsets should also be built with the Incantation limitation (or a similar limitation) since anyone using them to communicate must speak out loud for it to work? 

 

For example with the ones built using "Mind Link". Mind link is normally a silent (telepathic) way of communicating, but with a headset communicator the user has to speak vocally in order for the other person in the link to "hear his thoughts" so shouldn't this be worth an additional limitation as it could give away his position if he is trying to be stealthy or there will be times it will not work if he can't speak? 

 

Yes, almost all headset gear is built with the limitation: Affected as Radio and Hearing Group (and not mental group for Mind Linked based builds), but even in the books this is described as making the gear being effected by Darkness to Radio & Hearing groups (so they can be jammed, blocked, out of range, etc...) it doesn't take in to account that the user must also be speaking in order for them to work. 

 

As they are currently built (especially the mind link ones, but regular ones as well) in a sci-fi or super hero setting you could say that they mentally (ie, silently transmit thoughts/conversations via radio signals) and it costs the same as a dark champions type setting where the users have to speak, which doesn't seem correct as the extra inconvenience should probably be worth an extra limitation (possibly as Incantations)

 

So, should this actually be worth an extra limitation?

[Steve]

Perhaps adding Perceivable as a limitation?

[bigdamnhero]

Good point. We've usually treated them as requiring Incantations, so no reason not to take the Lim for it. Unless they're really high-tec subvocal mikes, which means the character doesn't have to speak out loud.

[Rhino]

As a spin-off on this thread, but still involving Senses, Incantations, etc...

 

Does anyone think that when it comes to communication gear as presented in the books, that headsets should also be built with the Incantation limitation (or a similar limitation) since anyone using them to communicate must speak out loud for it to work? 

 

For example with the ones built using "Mind Link". Mind link is normally a silent (telepathic) way of communicating, but with a headset communicator the user has to speak vocally in order for the other person in the link to "hear his thoughts" so shouldn't this be worth an additional limitation as it could give away his position if he is trying to be stealthy or there will be times it will not work if he can't speak? 

 

Yes, almost all headset gear is built with the limitation: Affected as Radio and Hearing Group (and not mental group for Mind Linked based builds), but even in the books this is described as making the gear being effected by Darkness to Radio & Hearing groups (so they can be jammed, blocked, out of range, etc...) it doesn't take in to account that the user must also be speaking in order for them to work. 

 

As they are currently built (especially the mind link ones, but regular ones as well) in a sci-fi or super hero setting you could say that they mentally (ie, silently transmit thoughts/conversations via radio signals) and it costs the same as a dark champions type setting where the users have to speak, which doesn't seem correct as the extra inconvenience should probably be worth an extra limitation (possibly as Incantations)

 

So, should this actually be worth an extra limitation?

 

That just came up last night.  The team all had HRRP headsets.  They used them to coordinate attacks.  The invisible character's location was revealed by him talking into the mike.

[Lucius]

Hell, I still think that the system could pare down a bunch of primary stats and not lose anything important. Most people either don't agree or don't even engage with the idea.

I think that's a good idea, but there are two important things that could be lost:

 

Some degree of backwards compatability, and a portion of die-hard fans.

 

It still might be worth it, if we ever have another edition.

 

 

As a spin-off on this thread, but still involving Senses, Incantations, etc...

 

Does anyone think that when it comes to communication gear as presented in the books, that headsets should also be built with the Incantation limitation (or a similar limitation) since anyone using them to communicate must speak out loud for it to work? 

 

For example with the ones built using "Mind Link".

As far as the ones built with Mind Link, what I think is that they should not be built with Mind Link.

 

But you may have a point about Incantations or Perceptible or some such Limitation being called for.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And an Incantation to Summon a Palindromedary

[Rhino]

I think radio headsets built with HRRP just allow others to hear you speak over the channel.  You still have to speak audibly to be heard.  That's just the nature of the power.  Mind Link would only be appropriate for those ultra advanced communication headsets that allow subvocalization.

[Tasha]

I think that's a good idea, but there are two important things that could be lost:

 

Some degree of backwards compatability, and a portion of die-hard fans.

 

It still might be worth it, if we ever have another edition.

The cool thing would be that if we went from the stats as they are and just used the bonus to the base roll they represent. You would end up with the numbers meaning the same thing. Without all of that fake granularity.

[massey]

I think radio headsets built with HRRP just allow others to hear you speak over the channel.  You still have to speak audibly to be heard.  That's just the nature of the power.  Mind Link would only be appropriate for those ultra advanced communication headsets that allow subvocalization.

 

I am going to disagree.  Basic HRRH, with no limitations, doesn't require any speech and doesn't make any noise.  You could be a robot, happily transmitting away, and no one would know.

 

The question is, does the normal special effect of "I have a communicator" require or justify a -1/4 visible/audible limitation?

 

I'd say that it's one of those times that a limitation could be taken, but it is not traditionally taken.  Most people don't think about taking the additional lim.  Here's how I would run the difference between the power constructions:

 

HRRH, OAF, visible -- This is a Star Trek style communicator.  People know what it is when they see it.  It's loud.  There's no good way to use the thing without people nearby knowing what you are doing, and hearing what is being said.

HRRH, OAF -- This is more like a cell phone.  It's still obvious what the thing is, but it's not on speakerphone.  It's possible to use it while being stealthy.  You can mumble or whisper into the thing and unless someone makes a Per roll, they won't notice.

HRRH, IAF, visible  -- This is a Star Trek TNG style commbadge.  People don't know what it is unless you clearly use it in front of them.  It's still loud though.

HRRH, IAF -- This is like a hearing aid with a subvocal microphone or something.

 

 

The necessity to speak at all is covered by the special effect of the power.  This is one of those situations where one special effect may have a situational advantage over another, but not to the degree that it is normally worth points. 

[bigdamnhero]

Seems like we're getting effect and mechanics backwards again. The question wasn't "Does HRRH/Mind Link require Incantations?" but "Should com links require audible speech to work, and if so does that warrant a Limitation?" Whether the Focus is Obvious or not is besides the point.

[Manic Typist]

...then I say Valle Con Dios!..

 

Point of information: This means "Valley with God!"

 

Vaya con Dios, however, probably meets your needs.

 

Not criticizing, just trying to be helpful.

[bigdamnhero]

Point of information: This means "Valley with God!"

Oops. Thanks. And I lived half my life in New Mexico surrounded by Spanish. I suck at languages; I can barely handle English most days.