How to build: Colt 24

[phoenix240]

Question for the OP.

 

Would pointing this gun at someone with Danger Sense trigger that ability?

 

HM

 

If they intend to use it on them, I'm imagine so. at least for most types and sfx of Danger Sense. Though some forms of it might now or not as well. 

[Lucius]

It's a gun. It looks like a gun.

 

It's Obvious.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary doesn't overthink things this much and it has two heads to overthink things with.

[phoenix240]

It's a gun. It looks like a gun.

 

It's Obvious.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary doesn't overthink things this much and it has two heads to overthink things with.

 

 

 

I think its a case of reasoning from effect and sfx. I'll lay out the details so everyone can see where I'm coming from and in case I left anything out.

 

The setting is the modern world as we know it. Magic is generally thought to be the stuff of myths , entertainment, conman and the mentally ill. 

 

It doesn't function as a gun but can be mistaken as one on a superficial examination with mundane senses and abilities. It has no bullets and couldn't fire them it it did.  There is no muzzle flash or even the most quiet of discharge or even recoil when used.to connect it to the user. it can be disarmed, stolen, dropped, etc in the course of fight without unusual effort. A metal detector would pick it up. Anyone can use it once they figure out how. 

 

Once its used on a target it has no further effect until they are injured/killed, no more than any other detailed replica/toy. One could stick it in their mouth and repeatedly pull the trigger and nothing will happen until the effect resets when the victim is effected. If some one looks at it,  as  its used or even immediately after use there's nothing about it that hints at what will happen in 24 hours to mundane means. 

 

 24 hours later the target suffers injury and when it happens there is only the most tenuous connection to the item in question.It can be deduced, assuming anyone thinks too. The injury inflicted when the target dies is resembles a bullet wound but there is no shell, no casings, no forensic links to the Colt 24, just a hole in the victim that looks like a gun shot. Which would be weird but I don't think it would be enough to make the leap of logic obvious. But that would be situational. 

 

The ability the Colt 24 provides is essentially "The Evil Eye" with a Focus. Since so much depends on the situation and context, I'd call the Focus Inobvious and its appearance a slx.

 

It reminds me of thr old "Thor's Hammer" or Iron Man's suit "A Focus isn't always a Focus" discussions. To some degree it varies depending on GM preference on how much the mechanics will shape the narrative or vice versa. 

[Hugh Neilson]

Let me take some liberties in rephrasing to set an alternative example for comparison. Use the exact same construct, except that the focus is a "magic wand" a la Harry Potter.

 

The setting is the modern world as we know it. Magic is generally thought to be the stuff of myths , entertainment, conman and the mentally ill. 

 

It doesn't function as a gun or similar weapon but can be mistaken as one on a superficial examination with mundane senses and abilities. It has no bullets and couldn't fire them it it did.  There is no muzzle flash or even the most quiet of discharge or even recoil when used.to connect it to the user. it can be disarmed, stolen, dropped, etc in the course of fight without unusual effort. A metal detector would not pick it up. Anyone can use it once they figure out how (the right gesture and incantation).

 

Once its used on a target it has no further effect until they are injured/killed, no more than any other detailed replica/toy. One could stick it in their mouth and repeatedly chant the invocation and nothing will happen until the effect resets when the victim is effected. If some one looks at it,  as  its used or even immediately after use there's nothing about it that hints at what will happen in 24 hours to mundane means. 

 

 24 hours later the target suffers injury and when it happens there is only the most tenuous connection to the item in question.It can be deduced, assuming anyone thinks too. The injury inflicted when the target dies is resembles a bullet wound but there is no shell, no casings, no forensic links to the wand, just a hole in the victim that looks like a gun shot. Which would be weird but I don't think it would be enough to make the leap of logic obvious. But that would be situational.

Is the wand no longer obvious, or is it the IPE (for which points were paid) that makes the actual power of the wand inobvious?

 

I don't think there is a right answer here, in part because we can only choose between "Obvious" and "Inobvious", not varying degrees. No doubt we would all agree that a magic necktie or signet ring that does nothing unusual, but allows the character to use this power, is Inobvious, and that a typical handgun, or a lightning bolt firing from the wand, make the focus Obvious. The question is where, between those extremes, the line is drawn.

 

EDIT: By RAW, I think I would have to agree that if it is anything less than fully obvious, the limitation is "inobvious", just as 13 charges means no limitation, even though 12 would be -1/4, and you would pay no more to have 16. That same logic would suggest that the slightest reduction from the definition of "Obvious" does not get the "Obvious" limitation. Maybe there should be a -3/4 limitation for something either fully Obvious or fully Accessible, and only partially meeting the second criteria.

[massey]

Well, it's really not that different from other Obvious Foci.  You say that it's clearly a prop gun when someone examines it closely.  But generally when a gun is pulled out, people don't have time to closely examine it.  In a short story or a book, there can be a big mystery about how Bob gets killed.  Nobody knows how it could have happened, because Bob was alone.  No one even thinks about the party last night, where Jim pulled out a fake gun and acted like he was going to shoot Bob.  They had a good laugh and went on with their evening.

 

You can do that sort of thing in a story, where you have full control of all characters and you've got months to choose your words exactly so it becomes revealed to the audience at the right time.  But it doesn't really work in an RPG because it involves keeping all the info from the players.  As soon as anybody says "oh yeah, at the party last night Jim pulled out a fake gun and acted like he shot Bob," players are going to immediately key in on that.  They are going to jump to "magic gun" in 0.2 seconds.  Mysteries are really hard to run, because most of us aren't mystery writers and you're either gonna say something that gives it away immediately, or you are going to leave out a necessary piece of information and the players are never going to solve it.

 

Actually using the magic gun against someone is going to have all the penalties associated with using a real gun.  You pull it out, people freak out.  Some do-gooder standing nearby might try to wrestle it out of your hands.  Cops are gonna treat it as real.  You can't take it through a metal detector.  People are going to take cover.  People are going to shoot back.  Even after you've made the shot, and it just makes a "click" sound (or makes no sound at all), people are going to keep attacking you / running away, because they don't have a good enough perception roll to realize that the gun didn't fire.  It has all the problems that an obvious focus has.  The only real advantage it has is that it gives penalties to Deduction rolls when people try to figure out what happened after the dude has been shot.  And to get that, you're paying points for Invisible Power Effects and Time Delay.

 

In real life, you could get arrested for even pointing a fake gun at people.  I've had clients who robbed stores using a BB gun.  They get prosecuted just the same as if it were real.  Now imagine that your assassin goes and points a gun at some Senator or something.  He runs off.  The cops are going to arrest him if they can find him.  Then they see it's a fake gun, they still probably hold him for a psychiatric evaluation.  Then the Senator dies the next day, from what looks like a gunshot wound in the same place where the crazy guy with the fake gun shot him?  Yeah they're gonna investigate that.  A LOT.

 

It'd be one thing if you had a Star Trek looking ray gun, that looked like it was a prop from the 60s.  And then 24 hours after you zapped somebody, they get flash-fried.  Nobody is going to be that worried about the guy in the spaceman suit who pointed the toy at you, it made a 'zap' sound, and then he says live long and prosper and wanders off.  It doesn't look like a real weapon, doesn't work like a real weapon, and doesn't cause a reaction in people like a real weapon.  But a real-looking gun is very different.

[massey]

EDIT: By RAW, I think I would have to agree that if it is anything less than fully obvious, the limitation is "inobvious", just as 13 charges means no limitation, even though 12 would be -1/4, and you would pay no more to have 16. That same logic would suggest that the slightest reduction from the definition of "Obvious" does not get the "Obvious" limitation. Maybe there should be a -3/4 limitation for something either fully Obvious or fully Accessible, and only partially meeting the second criteria.

 

Two words:  Time Bomb.

 

I've got a bag full of explosives.  I can set it on a timer and walk away.  The bomb then detonates, doing its bomb damage.  If anyone sees me walking around with it, it's an obvious bomb.  They haven't seen it explode yet, but they know that's what bombs do.  Upon close examination, a bomb tech may realize that what I'm carrying around isn't actually a real bomb.  That doesn't mean I'm going to be able to take it into a courthouse.  People are going to react as though the bomb were real.  It's obvious that it's supposed to be a bomb, just like it's obvious that this other thing is supposed to be a gun.

 

When it comes to actually using the magic gun, the guy has the full penalties of using a real gun.  People know to target the gun to disarm him.  People know that the effect is going to come from the gun.  They aren't having to figure out to target his sunglasses or anything like that.  Actually using it in combat, you have the full negative effects of using an obvious weapon.

 

The only benefit the guy gets is after the target is already dead, and people are trying to figure out what killed the person.  But at that point, it's no different than shooting from concealment.  In real murder cases, they don't always find the bullet in the body.  They don't always find shell casings.  They don't always have witnesses or know when the person died.  When you are seen pulling a gun on the guy, and then you run away, and the next day he winds up dead from a gunshot?  Guess who is suspect #1 baby.

[phoenix240]

Let me take some liberties in rephrasing to set an alternative example for comparison. Use the exact same construct, except that the focus is a "magic wand" a la Harry Potter.

 

 

Is the wand no longer obvious, or is it the IPE (for which points were paid) that makes the actual power of the wand inobvious?

 

I don't think there is a right answer here, in part because we can only choose between "Obvious" and "Inobvious", not varying degrees. No doubt we would all agree that a magic necktie or signet ring that does nothing unusual, but allows the character to use this power, is Inobvious, and that a typical handgun, or a lightning bolt firing from the wand, make the focus Obvious. The question is where, between those extremes, the line is drawn.

 

EDIT: By RAW, I think I would have to agree that if it is anything less than fully obvious, the limitation is "inobvious", just as 13 charges means no limitation, even though 12 would be -1/4, and you would pay no more to have 16. That same logic would suggest that the slightest reduction from the definition of "Obvious" does not get the "Obvious" limitation. Maybe there should be a -3/4 limitation for something either fully Obvious or fully Accessible, and only partially meeting the second criteria.

 

The binary aspect does make it more difficult. It comes down a judgement call. There's definitely a range. 

 

I'd say if the wand doesn't light up, glow or in some way indicate that its something something, its not Obvious. IPE makes its easier, perhaps much easier to conceal use of the ability so it doesn't automatically give away its use and the attacker's position or provide direct evidence. If it just looks like a stick than apparently the user has the power or doesn't need it to generate the effect to casual observers with no extraordinary ability to tell otherwise.

 

The setting matters. In a world were magic, curses, etc are common knowledge the Colt or the wand might be Obvious. The Col's appearance is going to problematic in some settings and situations. But if an Obvious Focus that provides Invisibility stays visible when the Power is activated even if 'logically' hat would in part or totally negate the Power I lean on the side of Inobvious in this context and combination of mechanics (IPE, Delayed Effect) and desired effects. The Colt 24 isn't, IMO, as limited as silenced and flash suppressed pistol. A wand or cursed remote control would be less obvious but the choice is binary. But those would be less able to be use for intimidation in most cases. 

 

IMO

[Hugh Neilson]

Maybe we should look at the rules.

 

If a Focus is Inobvious, it’s not immediately clear where the power comes from. Examples include disguised or concealed weapons (such as a cane-gun or a blaster hidden inside an

ordinary-looking glove) or a magic ring that gives no indications of its powers (it looks completely normal, doesn’t glow when its powers are used, and so forth).

So, is the toy gun more or less obvious than the cane-gun? Both presumably must be aimed at the target. The target is injured immediately by the cane gun, but not by the toy gun. But the cane is not out of place in a location where a gun, even a toy gun, would be.

 

Further,

 

If a character has an Obvious Focus that provides him with Invisibility, the Invisibility doesn’t cover the Focus.

So an obvious focus can indeed negate purchased invisible effects.

 

Here we go...

 

A Power bought with the Focus Limitation (6E1 376) is governed by the rules for the Obviousness of Foci. Even an Inobvious Power becomes Obvious if it’s generated by an Obvious

Focus.

I don't think that toy gun, as described, meets the criteria for an Obvious focus as set out by the RAW.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think its a case of reasoning from effect and sfx.

 

For the attack yes. For the focus, no.  The focus is defined by its nature.  If you buy a focus that looks like a deadly weapon, then its an obvious focus of a weapon, no matter what the special effects are.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree there is a need to reason from effect and SFX. If, reasoning from effect and SFX, it is not clear to onlookers that the power originates from the focus, then the only conclusion this reasoning can logically reach is that the focus is not Obvious.

 

This is no different than reasoning from the effect and SFX of a power that it is effortless to use means you do not slap a "Costs END" or "Increased END" or "Concentration" limitation on it. The effects you reason from drive the mechanics of the build.

[massey]

I agree there is a need to reason from effect and SFX. If, reasoning from effect and SFX, it is not clear to onlookers that the power originates from the focus, then the only conclusion this reasoning is that the focus is not Obvious.

 

This is no different than reasoning from the effect and SFX of a power that it is effortless to use means you do not slap a "Costs END" or "Increased END" or "Concentration" limitation on it. The effects you reason from drive the mechanics of the build.

 

Sniper rifle.  Obvious or inobvious?

[phoenix240]

Next up: a bottle of Malt liquor that can get anyone drunk for 24 hours straight. 

[Hugh Neilson]

Sniper rifle.  Obvious or inobvious?

Obvious. To quote the rules, "it’s clear to anyone looking at the character that the power comes from the Focus — no PER Roll is necessary. This is important, because opponents know where the power comes from and can attempt to disable the Focus or take it away. Some examples include most weapons (whose lethal capabilities are easily perceived), a magic ring that glows whenever it’s used, or a shield."

 

Neither the target of the sniper nor those in close proximity of the character are looking at him. However, if there are some time travelers on the grassy knoll behind the sniper (who gets the reference?), they can clearly see the sniper, and the sniper rifle is plain and obvious to them, no PER roll needed.

 

If the target's buddy has Telescopic Vision, and can see the sniper, then the OAF Sniper Rifle is clear and obvious to him as well.

[phoenix240]

Colt 24 Malt Liquor

 

Target Character becomes extremely drunk though there are no mechanical changes alterations are role play driven (however the character would act when drunk to an extreme extent ) and cosmetic(they look and act drunk to observers ). The lack of physical impairment can be a boon or a drawback.  

 

Using any Old wive's drunkness cure will snap the victim out of it immediately otherwise the effect ends in 24 hours.

 

Doesn't effect nonliving beings such as undead and robots (including A.Is). 

 

Effects are Invisible to typical sight, hearing, smell, etc but senses which detect magic or demonic energies could detect the initial "attack" and its lingering effect. There is no limit to the number of being that may be cursed at the same time but the gestures must be repeated for each one. 

 

User must pantomine (or actually take one, there is no effect but its very good Malt liquor) taking drink then "pour one out" for the intended target or get them to take a drink. The do not have to speak or directly indicate the target in anyway and can give drinks to bystanders which will tasty (if they like Malt liquor) but completely mundane. 

 

The bottle is normal and can be broken normally but will reform in the owners back pocket a day later. It never runs empty but the user is immune to intoxication from its contents. The contents are always pleasantly cold. The label is a common type of brand of Malt Liquor but worn and torn as if very old so difficult to read. The proof number might be 666 but its hard to tell. 

[Mister E]

Let me be the one, Transform (major) to a person with 24 hours to live. All or nothing. (Reverse if secret of the curse is learned)

 

:-)

X-D Movement UAA to universe where target has only 24 hours to live.

[Sean Waters]

Doc Democracy already said this but my take is that if you get a cost break for it being 'obvious' then it is i.e. when you point it, people treat it as a real weapon, which it is, and assume that it has done something unpleasant, even if the end result is not immediately obvious.  If something is obvious then an observer in game is going to believe that it is a deadly weapon and act accordingly.  This, however, is where you have to stop applying real world logic to the game mechanics. 

 

This would not stop you, for example, taking it on stage at a theatre and shooting an audience member, any more than it would stop you doing the same thing with a real gun: the difference is that it would be obvious there and then that you had fatally wounded someone.  Similarly you could hide the thing under a coat and shoot someone and it would not be obvious that you had done so, which would not be the case if it were a real gun.

 

Let us take it out of the realm of the mystical.  You remember the Russian spy killed with polonium delivered by umbrella?  I kid you not.  CLICKY

 

Would the umbrella be an obvious accessible focus?  It is certainly accessible, and it is certainly and obviously an umbrella; what is not obvious is that it houses a secret mechanism that makes it deadly.

 

I would say it is not obvious that it is a weapon, whereas if the weapon were a poisoned sword that had to be pulled out and used to stab the victim, that would be obvious, even if the effect of the poison were delayed.

 

If it is not obvious that it is a weapon then it will not be obvious that it is being used to deliver an attack (or, in game terms, that a power is being used through the umbrella).  That would suggest it is inobvious.

 

The fact that the Colt 24 looks like a weapon does not matter, it is still the umbrella.  It is illegal in many places to carry an imitation firearm in public, simply because people might think it is the real thing and act accordingly, but that does not mean that if you shoot someone with it anyone is going to think that you have killed them (and, as mentioned above you could hide it under a jumper or something anyway).  In fact it could easily be argued that powers with invisible and delayed effects should almost never get the 'Obvious' cost break.

 

Of course you COULD buy the Cost 24 as an invisible power delayed attack attack and get the IAF limitation and also buy it as +5 PRE for making threatening PRE attacks and get the OAF cost break.

 

This is all a lot simpler than it seems: is the power you want the cost break for obviously coming from the gun when it is used?  No?  Right, it is not obvious then, for that power.

 

I'm glad to see we've already suggested Transform and EMD: Doc, Mr E; you are both hilarious.