Triggered Targeting

[g3taso]

I was thinking of mental powers, and was debating the merits of using trigger to automatically locate the originator (and target) of mental powers in LOS. As an automatic action, this could be immediate or take a few seconds (or 12) to fully work. Is this power useful?  I'm interpreting it to mean I automatically establish LOS with mental powers and their victims.   I'm 5e still, if that makes a difference.

 

Targeting with Mental Awareness, Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset; +1/4) (12 Active Points)

Targeting with Mental Awareness, Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset; +1/4) (12 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4)

[Surrealone]

4 hours ago, g3taso said:

I was thinking of mental powers, and was debating the merits of using trigger to automatically locate the originator (and target) of mental powers in LOS. As an automatic action, this could be immediate or take a few seconds (or 12) to fully work. Is this power useful?  I'm interpreting it to mean I automatically establish LOS with mental powers and their victims.   I'm 5e still, if that makes a difference.

 

Targeting with Mental Awareness, Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset; +1/4) (12 Active Points)

Targeting with Mental Awareness, Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset; +1/4) (12 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4)

Depends on how the trigger is defined -- which I don't see, above.  So what, specifically is the SFX and how are you defining the trigger?

[g3taso]

The trigger is "whenever a mental power is used", the action being....

 

I see what you mean.  Mental Awareness is already "triggered" by powers used in the vicinity. Duh!

 

If I had Targeting on Mental Awareness I could say "Whenever a mental power is used, target the originator and subject (if different) of that power", but I'd have to purchase Targeting for Mental Awareness.

[Surrealone]

Yup -- at which point, why pay for an advantage that gets you nothing beyond what buying Targeting for Mental Awareness does?

[g3taso]

Sometimes it's best to have fresh eyes on something

[g3taso]

you are awesome surrealone. Since you are apparently up and have already shown me the folly of my ways:

 

I See You:  Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) for up to 10 Active Points of Normal Sight (7 Active Points)

 

This isn't 360 degree vision, because you have to concentrate on an area. But seems fantastic.

[Surrealone]

19 minutes ago, g3taso said:

Since you are apparently up and have already shown me the folly of my ways:

 

I See You:  Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) for up to 10 Active Points of Normal Sight (7 Active Points)

 

This isn't 360 degree vision, because you have to concentrate on an area. But seems fantastic.

Most GMs would probably rule that this Indirect build is an attempt to duplicate N-Ray Perception for Normal Sight while dodging the drawback of N-Ray Perception (i.e. reasonably common substance that blocks it).  You shouldn't be able to buy something better than N-Ray Perception (i.e. no drawbacks) that does the same thing .... for less points ... right?  Moreover, if you want an Indirect sense, you should buy Clairsentience, right?

 

If you argued that point, then the discerning GM would likely go one step farther by shooting the build down based on a hardline interpretation of RAW.  Specifically, Indirect is an advantage intended to work on powers that require attack rolls (regardless of whether they target an individual/object or a hex), as evidenced by the verbiage littered throughout the description of Indirect found on 5er p260.  PER rolls aren't attack rolls... and perception of something isn't an attack action.  Thus, Indirect shouldn't be permitted on senses.  

 

[g3taso]

I agree. Since this is actually going to be a star wars (episode 4-6, not the kiddie stuff) kind of force power, I'm planning on limiting it by linking it to Danger Sense to provide those visions of stormtroopers coming in from the left that is part of space opera. Setting that worthy point aside, what do you think about the power itself? Essentially it provides the "director's shot" of that Imperial commander deploying troops to sector 18, or the evil Doctor saying "And now Princess, we shall discuss the location of your Rebel fleet" as he prepares to inject the diplomat from Alderaan.  I like it for style, not necessarily how it might be exploited best.

 

Bear with me. I'm gonna drop this and ruminate a bit. I'll repost if I get this straight in my head. I appreciate you feeding back though. The change in direction seems more flavorful and I want to consider it further.

[Surrealone]

54 minutes ago, g3taso said:

I agree. Since this is actually going to be a star wars (episode 4-6, not the kiddie stuff) kind of force power, I'm planning on limiting it by linking it to Danger Sense to provide those visions of stormtroopers coming in from the left that is part of space opera. Setting that worthy point aside, what do you think about the power itself? Essentially it provides the "director's shot" of that Imperial commander deploying troops to sector 18, or the evil Doctor saying "And now Princess, we shall discuss the location of your Rebel fleet" as he prepares to inject the diplomat from Alderaan.  I like it for style, not necessarily how it might be exploited best.

I think the concept is functional for the genre but that it should be done with Clairsentience.

[LoneWolf]

Normal sight is listed in the book as being worth 35 pts not 10.  That means your cost would be 26 pts not 7.  When applying an advantage to something with a fixed cost you need to pay the advantage on the whole power not just part of it.  For example if I want to put the advantage cost END only to activate on desolidification I have to pay it on the full cost of the power not just the first 10 points.  So since normal sight is listed as being worth 35 pts that is what you base the cost of the advantage on.

 

Since Clairsentience with the sight group is only 20 pts, it is not only a better way it is also cheaper.  It also has the advantage you will not need to spend any time trying to convince your GM to allow it.

[g3taso]

I had wondered how much sight cost.  I just went with it's worth as an adder to enhanced sense powers.

[Cassandra]

Perhaps a Damage Shield against Mental Powers.

[dsatow]

I would just use the adders.

 

Mental Awareness is a sense, so like any of your other senses, if you can make your perception roll you perceive it.  Tack on targeting so you can target with you mental awareness and maybe penetrating and your set to go.

[g3taso]

dsatow, as I understand it in 5e that would be a 10pt adder for a "normal sight" or 20pt for a sight (or other) group. How much would it cost to just add to mental awareness? 3pt?

I like the idea, as it is sort of an "autotarget" when someone uses a mental power (or has it used on them).

[Surrealone]

6 hours ago, g3taso said:

dsatow, as I understand it in 5e that would be a 10pt adder for a "normal sight" or 20pt for a sight (or other) group. How much would it cost to just add to mental awareness? 3pt?

I like the idea, as it is sort of an "autotarget" when someone uses a mental power (or has it used on them).

Per 5er p165 the cost to add the Targeting Sense modifier is 10 CP for a single sense and/or 20 CP for an entire sense group.  Thus, as Mental Awareness is a single sense, the unmodified cost to add the Targeting Sense modifier to it would be 10 CP.

 

Reminder:

Mental Awareness is one of two default members of the Mental Sense Group -- with the other default member of that group being Mind Scan.

 

Important:

Yes it costs more than Mental Awareness, itself, to make it a Targeting Sense.  And it should.  Why?  Because you can target more than just Mental Powers with it.  i.e. You can target your gun at the source of a Mental Power using your Targeting Mental Awareness while you happen to be Sight Group flashed by someone's flashbomb or while in pitch black a la a Darkness to Sight Group -- if you choose to do so.  If you want to only be able to use Targeting Mental Awareness to Target Mental Powers ... and your character is a 50/50% mix of equally potent (as determined by active point comparisons) mental and non-mental attacks (respectively), then I could see a -1 limitation being applicable on the Targeting Sense modifier, itself (e.g. Only for Targeting Mental Attacks, -1).  If your character is a 67/33% mix of equally potent mental and non-mental attacks (respectively), then that's probably closer to a -1/2 limitation.  If the mix is 75/25%, then it's likely a -1/4 limitation.  And if your character is a pure mentalist with little or no equivalent non-mental attacks, then that's no limitation at all.

 

You'd likely need to build your Targeting Mental Awarness as a compound power if you wanted to limit only the Targeting Sense aspect in this way -- since the base Mental Awareness cost shouldn't get the benefit of the cost break.  This s easy enough to do in Hero Designer.  Of course, that may not be necessary if you acquired Mental Awareness for free per 5ER's gratis granting of Mental Awareness when some other mental power is purchased; in that case you could just buy the Targeting Sense piece for it separately ... and limit it.

 

[dsatow]

6 hours ago, g3taso said:

dsatow, as I understand it in 5e that would be a 10pt adder for a "normal sight" or 20pt for a sight (or other) group. How much would it cost to just add to mental awareness? 3pt?

I like the idea, as it is sort of an "autotarget" when someone uses a mental power (or has it used on them).

 

In 6th ed, mental awareness is 5 points.

Penetrating is 10 points

Targeting is 10 points ( I believe the cost is the same for 5th on this point)

 

By definition, if you pay 5 points for mental awareness and 10 points for targeting,  if you can perceive it, you get target on that mental user, automatically.  Just like sight.  Since mental awareness and mind scan are in the same sense group, I'd allow you to target with the mental awareness if it had targeting and nothing was preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim.  This is why I note also penetrating.

 

Now you can make your sight penetrating in 6th (there is no N-ray in 6th), but it sounds like you want a mental power, not sight.  Note that a sight flash will derail your power design while a mental sense flash will derail mine.  From your description of the power, it sounded like this was some sort of psionic power like the Jedi use.

 

[Surrealone]

41 minutes ago, dsatow said:

 

By definition, if you pay 5 points for mental awareness and 10 points for targeting,  if you can perceive it, you get target on that mental user, automatically.  Just like sight.  Since mental awareness and mind scan are in the same sense group, I'd allow you to target with the mental awareness if it had targeting and nothing was preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim.  This is why I note also penetrating.

I don't follow this.  What does Mind Scan have to do with anything?  (Mind Scan, by its very definition, is Targeting -- check RAW if you doubt.  Thus, there's really no need to buy Targeting on the Mental Sense Group ... or on Mind Scan.)

 

Per RAW you need LOS to sense the source and target of a mental power with Mental Awareness ... and LOS effectively means the same as "nothing [is] preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim" (your words) ... if I read you correctly.  Hence my confusion on the above and why I seek clarification ... as Penetrating is only needed if you want your Mental Awareness to work through walls/barriers that would otherwise preclude LOS ... but that's not what your quoted text deals with, as it assumes/states "nothing [is] preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim".

[dsatow]

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

I don't follow this.  What does Mind Scan have to do with anything?  (Mind Scan, by its very definition, is Targeting -- check RAW if you doubt.  Thus, there's really no need to buy Targeting on the Mental Sense Group ... or on Mind Scan.)

 

Per RAW you need LOS to sense the source and target of a mental power with Mental Awareness ... and LOS effectively means the same as "nothing [is] preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim" (your words) ... if I read you correctly.  Hence my confusion on the above and why I seek clarification ... as Penetrating is only needed if you want your Mental Awareness to work through walls/barriers that would otherwise preclude LOS ... but that's not what your quoted text deals with, as it assumes/states "nothing [is] preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim".

 

I was just saying that mind scan doesn't require line of sight to target mental powers and that since they were in the same sense group, if you added targeting to mental awareness, I would allow you to target your mental powers using it if it had the adder targeting (basically similar to mind scan).

[Surrealone]

13 minutes ago, dsatow said:

 

I was just saying that mind scan doesn't require line of sight to target mental powers and that since they were in the same sense group, if you added targeting to mental awareness, I would allow you to target your mental powers using it if it had the adder targeting (basically similar to mind scan).

Put another way, you'd handwave free Penetrating for Targeting Mental Awareness ... such that walls and such didn't get in the way?

 

I'm not so sure I'd do that.  Here's why: Mind Scan searches for Minds (think of it as Detect One Specific Mind, right?) in a given area (i.e. inherently omnidirectional ... and even inherently megascaled unless bought with the No Range limitation) whereas Mental Awareness searches for the source/destination of Mental Powers not minds.  i.e. I think it makes sense to ignore barriers when looking for minds ... but to have to "see" (i.e. a la LOS) the actual entities with the minds if you want to see the mental powers emanate from or affect them.  (The LOS requirement is actually RAW, btw...)

 

Hey, if you want to give away another 10 points of Penetrating to those with Targeting Mental Awareness (on to of what you give away to Stretchers!), more power to you, but golly you're very giving as a GM.

[dsatow]

6 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Put another way, you'd handwave free Penetrating for Targeting Mental Awareness ... such that walls and such didn't get in the way?

 

I never said that.  In fact, I point out the costs for penetrating.  I would probably allow it to penetrate porous or not dense material at significant penalties as I would do, for example, with someone with targeting hearing targeting a person on the opposite side of a thin wall.  I stated the user might want penetrating on the sense exactly for this reason (though I will note I did not explicitly say they needed it).

[dsatow]

6 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I'm not so sure I'd do that.  Here's why: Mind Scan searches for Minds (think of it as Detect One Specific Mind, right?) in a given area (i.e. inherently omnidirectional ... and even inherently megascaled unless bought with the No Range limitation) whereas Mental Awareness searches for the source/destination of Mental Powers not minds.  i.e. I think it makes sense to ignore barriers when looking for minds ... but to have to "see" (i.e. a la LOS) the actual entities with the minds if you want to see the mental powers emanate from or affect them.  (The LOS requirement is actually RAW, btw...)

 

Mental awareness does not search.  Its not an active detect but a passive sense (6e1p211).  It allows you to detect the user and target of the mental power.

 

Mind scan and mental awareness are two different powers.  Mind scan allows you to search a large area, irrespective of normal barriers.  It's an active search.  Its designed to simulate mentalists going into a state and looking for people like Professor X in Cerebro.

 

Mental Awareness is a passive power.  A character can detect something if the can perceive it.  I think of it as a sort of mental pinging sound.  If you can hear the sound you detected it.  You can hear the normal sound through materials, but the materials provide penalties to hearing it.  I see mental awareness as possibly being seen through some light materials.  Range is a factor too, unlike mind scan which has megascale.

 

Hey, if you want to make players pay for every little thing over fun game play, more power to you, but golly you're very stingy as a GM.

 

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

Hey, if you want to make players pay for every little thing over fun game play, more power to you, but golly you're very stingy as a GM.

You assume that I GM; I don't ... which, of course, renders your response a bit silly.  But I happen to like silly from time to time, so...

 

That said, I'm accustomed to GMs who actually take seriously the 'you get what you pay for' approach that's germane to Champions/Hero System... meaning if it's something useful, a player either pays for it on the character sheet (or with money the heroic character earned/has) or goes without it ... under the GM's I've found to be the most consistent/fair in their rulings.  (And it just makes sense -- because if you give X value to player N via GM handwaving/fiat ... but fail to give the same value to players P, Q, R, S, and T ... that wasn't fair to players P, Q, R, S, and T ... in a game where supposedly 'you get what you pay for'.)

[dsatow]

7 hours ago, Surrealone said:

You assume that I GM; I don't ... which, of course, renders your response a bit silly.  But I happen to like silly from time to time, so...

 

That said, I'm accustomed to GMs who actually take seriously the 'you get what you pay for' approach that's germane to Champions/Hero System... meaning if it's something useful, a player either pays for it on the character sheet (or with money the heroic character earned/has) or goes without it ... under the GM's I've found to be the most consistent/fair in their rulings.  (And it just makes sense -- because if you give X value to player N via GM handwaving/fiat ... but fail to give the same value to players P, Q, R, S, and T ... that wasn't fair to players P, Q, R, S, and T ... in a game where supposedly 'you get what you pay for'.)

 

Actually, I didn't assume.  It's reversing your last comment on you.

 

First off, if I give an official ruling for player N, I'll give the same ruling to players P, Q, R, S, and T unless there is a clarification of the official rules.  Those I usually announce at the start of the game and I abide by that ruling from then on.  

 

Second, I have been a 'you get only what you pay for' GM.  What I've found is that this tends to change the game from a role playing game to a more tactical game.  This is fine if all your players want a more tactical game but it gets very aggravating to the characters who want to continue the story of the game.  Incidents occur where a player has not thought out all permutations of a build or where the effect is so slight it becomes inconsequential to the game or story.  In those times, arguing about whether one can use stretching to look around a corner breaks the flow and feel of the game from a story telling aspect.  If the player uses what is effectively a power stunt over and over again, I'll quietly ask them at the end of a session to buy a power more in line to the action.  Again, if you are playing a tactical game, which I played and GM'd for years, this isn't a problem as incidents like this come up from time to time.

 

Finally, I try to keep an open mind when I hear other viewpoints on the forum.  I like hearing arguments for or against a rule and people's opinions.  It can be frustrating when people take only partially your arguments or fixate on a single sentence without taking the whole argument into consideration.  I'd like to say I am a saint, and it's never happened to me, but that would be a lie and not very saintly.  While I am not a saint, I do strive to act like one.  Your last comment was meant as a light hearted joke, I assume, but can easily be taken as a backhanded insult, which is why I reversed the comment on to you.