Which advantage to use for spontaneous combustion like power?

[Lollypopalopicus]

I am thinking of making a villain who uses things like hellfire, where they just lift their hand, and then the target(s) just bursts into flames, without a line of fire from him to the target, or from the ground. For multiple targets, just using area (selective) would work, but what should I use for a more powerful single target attack? Indirect? If so, should I go for the +3/4 or the +1? Or would invisible power effect be a better advantage?

[Nolgroth]

Just based on your brief description, I would say Indirect at the +1 level. 

[massey]

It might not need an advantage.  You don't have to pay points for the pure visual effect of there not being a line of flame between his hand and the ground.  Indirect is used for getting surprise bonuses, being harder to deflect, bypassing obstacles and walls, etc.

 

Is it obvious that he's the one doing it?  Then you don't need Invisible.  If he can't do it through walls and barriers, then I don't think you need Indirect.  It's just a cool effect.  Like a guy with wind powers who shoots you with an air blast.  Technically, you shouldn't be able to see it.  But in a comic book, you know there are going to be those wind lines that the artist draws so the reader can see it.  And somehow the characters know who is using it.  So it's not Invisible.

[Greywind]

Any power that uses END has to be noticed by 3 senses, I believe is how the rule book reads. Point of origin has to be defined. Point of impact has to be defined.

[DasBroot]

I'm with massey - so long as it's not functioning as an indirect attack or an invisible one then it's just a cool special effect. If the villain's hand glows as he uses it the attack meets all the criteria for being a standard attack.

 

Is it logical that a window will reduce the damage of this special effect? No. Will it unless you pay for indirect? Yes. 

[bigdamnhero]

Right - if you want him to be able to ignore/bypass walls & barriers, then you need Indirect. If you don't care about that, it's just sfx. And regardless of whether or not it comes from him, if it's obvious he's the one causing it you don't need IPE.

 

Sidebar: personally I'm not a fan of the cost structure for Indirect - I think anything beyond +1/2 is way overpriced for the benefit you get. I usually just go with: +1/4 for either Source or Path and +1/2 for both. But I guess it depends on your game.

[Crusher Bob]

Default is that powers have to be automatically perceiveable by at least two sense groups, and barring specific GM permission, one of those groups has to be the sight group.

 

So questions to ask yourself:

 

Ca this guy set people on fire, with no one having any idea that he did it? For example, If I'm in a room full of witnesses and shoot someone (barring the unreliability of human perception) then it is obvious to everyone that I shot that guy. If it would require a perception roll to notice that I shot that guy, then that would be an inobvious power. And if no one could associate me with the sudden fact that the guy other there now has bullet holes in him, then that is an invisible power.

 

So, could your guy stand in a crowd, set some people on fire, and not be noticed doing it? If so, he probably has some form of IPE. If not, then it's just SFX, and despite how the power 'looks' the game effect is still that people can easily notice who is responsible.

 

Indirect:

When you use 'line of fire' are you talking literally about a line of fire, like if you were using a flamethrower, or something similar? Or are you meaning to use the specific rule term 'line of effect'? Lacking a literal 'line of fire' may or may not be some form of IPE. Not needing a legal 'line of effect' is some form of indirect.

 

Can your guy set people on fire through things that normally block line of effect, but not line of sight, like a thick pane of armored glass?

 

It it harder for him to set people on fire that are in cover?

[Lucius]

If what you're trying to do is hit someone around a corner where you can't see them, then among other things you are going to need an Enhanced Sense of some kind with Targeting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks there's a lot of uncertainty here about what is actually wanted

[Lollypopalopicus]

Default is that powers have to be automatically perceiveable by at least two sense groups, and barring specific GM permission, one of those groups has to be the sight group.

 

So questions to ask yourself:

 

Ca this guy set people on fire, with no one having any idea that he did it? For example, If I'm in a room full of witnesses and shoot someone (barring the unreliability of human perception) then it is obvious to everyone that I shot that guy. If it would require a perception roll to notice that I shot that guy, then that would be an inobvious power. And if no one could associate me with the sudden fact that the guy other there now has bullet holes in him, then that is an invisible power.

 

So, could your guy stand in a crowd, set some people on fire, and not be noticed doing it? If so, he probably has some form of IPE. If not, then it's just SFX, and despite how the power 'looks' the game effect is still that people can easily notice who is responsible.

 

Indirect:

When you use 'line of fire' are you talking literally about a line of fire, like if you were using a flamethrower, or something similar? Or are you meaning to use the specific rule term 'line of effect'? Lacking a literal 'line of fire' may or may not be some form of IPE. Not needing a legal 'line of effect' is some form of indirect.

 

Can your guy set people on fire through things that normally block line of effect, but not line of sight, like a thick pane of armored glass?

 

It it harder for him to set people on fire that are in cover?

 

 

Right - if you want him to be able to ignore/bypass walls & barriers, then you need Indirect. If you don't care about that, it's just sfx. And regardless of whether or not it comes from him, if it's obvious he's the one causing it you don't need IPE.

 

Sidebar: personally I'm not a fan of the cost structure for Indirect - I think anything beyond +1/2 is way overpriced for the benefit you get. I usually just go with: +1/4 for either Source or Path and +1/2 for both. But I guess it depends on your game.

 

 

I'm with massey - so long as it's not functioning as an indirect attack or an invisible one then it's just a cool special effect. If the villain's hand glows as he uses it the attack meets all the criteria for being a standard attack.

 

Is it logical that a window will reduce the damage of this special effect? No. Will it unless you pay for indirect? Yes. 

 

 

If what you're trying to do is hit someone around a corner where you can't see them, then among other things you are going to need an Enhanced Sense of some kind with Targeting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks there's a lot of uncertainty here about what is actually wanted

 

Well, when I say line like a flame thrower, a lot of times I see fire powers described as shooting fire at someone, or launching a ball of fire that explodes, whereas this is just someone bursting into flames.

 

As for what I decided to use, based on the comments, I decided to go with indirect. Reason being is that the character is meant to be one of the top villains of the setting, and this is basically one of his main attacks, so I decided that it should be hard to stop, and went with an RKA rather than a normal blast. He has other abilities, including detecting life, so Indirect would suit it, and the intimidation factor would also suit the character given the theme.

[Lollypopalopicus]

Default is that powers have to be automatically perceiveable by at least two sense groups, and barring specific GM permission, one of those groups has to be the sight group.

 

So questions to ask yourself:

 

Ca this guy set people on fire, with no one having any idea that he did it? For example, If I'm in a room full of witnesses and shoot someone (barring the unreliability of human perception) then it is obvious to everyone that I shot that guy. If it would require a perception roll to notice that I shot that guy, then that would be an inobvious power. And if no one could associate me with the sudden fact that the guy other there now has bullet holes in him, then that is an invisible power.

 

So, could your guy stand in a crowd, set some people on fire, and not be noticed doing it? If so, he probably has some form of IPE. If not, then it's just SFX, and despite how the power 'looks' the game effect is still that people can easily notice who is responsible.

 

Indirect:

When you use 'line of fire' are you talking literally about a line of fire, like if you were using a flamethrower, or something similar? Or are you meaning to use the specific rule term 'line of effect'? Lacking a literal 'line of fire' may or may not be some form of IPE. Not needing a legal 'line of effect' is some form of indirect.

 

Can your guy set people on fire through things that normally block line of effect, but not line of sight, like a thick pane of armored glass?

 

It it harder for him to set people on fire that are in cover?

 

Well, when I say line like a flame thrower, a lot of times I see fire powers described as shooting fire at someone, whereas this is just someone bursting into flames.

 

As for what I decided to use, based on the comments, I decided to go with indirect. Reason being is that the character is meant to be one of the top villains of the setting, and this is basically one of his main attacks, so I decided that it should be hard to stop, and went with an RKA rather than a normal blast. He has other abilities, including detecting life, so Indirect would suit it, and the intimidation factor would also suit the character given the theme.

[bigdamnhero]

Well, when I say line like a flame thrower, a lot of times I see fire powers described as shooting fire at someone, or launching a ball of fire that explodes, whereas this is just someone bursting into flames.

Right, but while they're often described that way, the point is they don't have to be: it's up to you. You could define it as a Smart Flamethrower* that can shoot around obstacles; that would have Indirect. Alternately, you could define a Cause Spontaneous Combustion attack as being blocked by Barriers, etc (maybe because it uses nanites/phermones/whatever that still have to travel from A to , in which case it would not have Indirect.

 

The important thing in Hero is to separate out what's a mechanical effect vs what just sfx/visual description. Ask yourself how you want the power to work, rather than just what it usually looks like in other games. The two are often related, but they don't have to be - that's the beauty of Hero.

 

The downside is when you ask "How does this work?" questions around here, the answer you often get is "How do you want it to work?"

 

* Patent pending.