Invisibility

[dsatow]

So, I am a bit stuck.  Invisibility is a classic shtick in fantasy.  Targets are turned invisible all the time.  But the rules currently say that obvious focuses are always visible despite being turned invisible.  So I was thinking of an advantage on invisibility which turns all obvious focuses the characters is wearing invisible too.  Probably a +2 advantage.  I wanted to hear what other GMs think of this.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

I'd throw in a naked buyoff of Obviousness of foci. 

 

[dsatow]

1 hour ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I'd throw in a naked buyoff of Obviousness of foci. 

 

 

But naked buy offs only work on one power at a time and only one type of power.

[dsatow]

Maybe I am going about this the wrong way.  Maybe a different ruling that invisibility will cover inactive obvious focuses and when they activate, characters for a split second see the obvious focus and can target it if they have a delay.  Which sounds better, the advantage or the rule change for brief activations?

[TranquiloUno]

Is it an issue in your game?

Like a bunch of PCs\NPCs with OAFs and Invis jackin' up your plans?

 

I can see the reasoning\read the rules about Obv focii but if it doesn't fit the genre or isn't interesting or fun: Dump it!

 

How much is it coming up though? What sort of player cheese is this oriented around? 

 

I'd just (well...I do, so...) make Invis work like I want it to and ignore the focus rules. 

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

16 minutes ago, dsatow said:

But naked buy offs only work on one power at a time and only one type of power.

Group Naked Buyoff? 

 

Or if you want to be a right and proper rules-lawyer, Darkness, Personal Immunity, Invisible Power Effect. 

[drunkonduty]

You had me at naked groups.

[clnicholsusa]

Let's not go there. The last time I had to buy off a naked group was a really bad week for me.

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

is it an issue in your game?

Like a bunch of PCs\NPCs with OAFs and Invis jackin' up your plans?

 

I would think it is is.  That fighter who gets made invisible but his sword remains visible....  :-). Kinda takes away the whole surprise thing...

[dmjalund]

if a focus is obvious and visible when the person is invisible, the obvious limitation should be greater than usual.

[Doc Democracy]

It would mean that invisibility could not, practically, be bought through an obvious focus...

[Doc Democracy]

Saw Steve's response and I think I will be ignoring it.  I just thought that if I had a bunch of characters and one had armour bought with the focus limitation and another had bought it without, for whatever (possibly bogus) reason the player had come up with, then when the mass invisibility spell is cast, one suit of armour is invisible and the second one is not.  That would not be consistent enough for me.  I am more content to make judgement calls about what is personal kit and what is beyond the scope of the magic.

[BoloOfEarth]

In a fantasy (heroic level, with characters not paying points for equipment, so they can't actually make that OAF sword as IAF or the OIF armor as IIF), I'd consider an Advantage on Invisibility to be appropriate.  Heck, it might make sense in a Champions game as well -- if you make Ninja Man's katana an IAF, that means it's even Inobvious when he's not invisible, which doesn't make a lot of sense.  And to be honest, I don't think I'd want to wade through the muck of figuring out costs to have a conditional focus (OAF only when not invisible, IAF only when invisible), if that's even a thing.  Or going through the time and aggravation to figure out naked costs of buying down each and every focus only when Invisibility is active.

[Toxxus]

I'd personally rule that if you're invisible the Obvious Foci is only going to be obvious to people that can still see you.  So while Bob and Sue can't tell where your power comes from Red-Horned Blindsense Man can and he promptly performs a ranged disarm with his improbably little throwy club things.

 

Punishing the player by having their Foci visibly floating along while they are invisible effectively makes their invisibility not a thing.

 

 

[CptPatriot]

How about buying off the Focus limitation as a power, linking it to the Invisibility power? 

[Hugh Neilson]

If the character is wearing or wielding an Obvious focus in a darkness field, does the focus shine through? 

 

Does a Flashed character still perceive those Obvious foci?

 

Obviously not.

 

I think sense-affecting powers override the obviousness of the focus.  If we have Captain Cheesy trying to get around his foci limitations because he has Invisibility, we can simply reduce the value of his limitation as his LimburgerObvious is clearly less limiting.

[BoloOfEarth]

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If the character is wearing or wielding an Obvious focus in a darkness field, does the focus shine through? 

 

Does a Flashed character still perceive those Obvious foci?

 

Obviously not.

 

I think sense-affecting powers override the obviousness of the focus.  If we have Captain Cheesy trying to get around his foci limitations because he has Invisibility, we can simply reduce the value of his limitation as his LimburgerObvious is clearly less limiting.

 

This.  So much this.  Thank you for putting it in that perspective.  I rescind my prior comment about an Advantage on Invisibility.

 

As Toxxus said, if a character can perceive the invisible character, he'll also perceive the obvious focus and can act on that knowledge (damage it, disarm the ninja, etc.).  Otherwise, it shouldn't be obvious until the character becomes visible again.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

The verisimilitude argument depends on why the focus is obvious. 

A sword or suit of plate are obvious because their function is evident from their form.  Invisibility should, clearly, conceal this. 

Unless magic item identification is trivial for even the most uneducated, an OIF Ring of Protection must be obvious by some other means, such as glowing or humming or shooting tiny magical shield-bullets.  I see no reason why invisibility would conceal any of these. 

[bigbywolfe]

33 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

The verisimilitude argument depends on why the focus is obvious. 

A sword or suit of plate are obvious because their function is evident from their form.  Invisibility should, clearly, conceal this. 

Unless magic item identification is trivial for even the most uneducated, an OIF Ring of Protection must be obvious by some other means, such as glowing or humming or shooting tiny magical shield-bullets.  I see no reason why invisibility would conceal any of these. 

I see no reason why Invisibility WOULDN'T conceal any of those. If my character has the Distinctive Feature "softly glows" due to magic or irradiation does that mean  he can never benifit from being turned invisible? Why does one SFX get punished? Why does magic Invisibility not trump magical visibility?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Just now, bigbywolfe said:

I see no reason why Invisibility WOULDN'T conceal any of those. If my character has the Distinctive Feature "softly glows" due to magic or irradiation does that mean  he can never benifit from being turned invisible? Why does one SFX get punished? Why does magic Invisibility not trump magical visibility?

Invisibility has no impact on the user's ability to use Images, such as Images to create light, such as a torch or lantern.  Therefore Invisibility lets light out.  Therefore a glowing ring (or character) is still glowing.  You'd need a Darkness construct to snuff that. 

Invisibility to Sight Group would do jack about a ring that hums.  That's sound.  That'd be a inaudibility spell. 

Invisibility doesn't make the SFX of your powers stop being obvious so the SFX of "ring is obvious because it shoots tiny magical shields" remains obvious.  Again, Darkness construct. 

 

To side-track over to the glowing character, depends on what level of concealability you bought the DF at.  If it's Not Concealable, then it's not concealable.  If it's Concealable, then it's concealable. 

 

I do agree the the verisimilitude argument causes a concept superiority issue and I'd just run Invisibility as "Buy off all your OXF to IXF unless you want them giving you away" regardless of SFX.  I'm just poking holes in the verisimilitude argument because I feel it's based on an incomplete analysis. 

[Christopher]

12 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Group Naked Buyoff?  

 

Or if you want to be a right and proper rules-lawyer, Darkness, Personal Immunity, Invisible Power Effect. 

The rules that introduce hte Buyoff (APG 1 I think), explicitly exclude it for groups of powers.

 

2 hours ago, cptpatriot said:

How about buying off the Focus limitation as a power, linking it to the Invisibility power? 

That is a naked buyoff.

[Christopher]

14 hours ago, dsatow said:

But the rules currently say that obvious focuses are always visible despite being turned invisible

Except it does not say that at all?

" Invisibility to Sight Group covers a character’s fists when he punches someone (or the like) using just his STR (and related abilities, like Martial Arts). But it doesn’t make his weapons-based attacks Invisible — that requires the Invisible Power Effects Advantage. As long as the character just holds the weapon and doesn’t use it, his Invisibility covers it. "

 

The only thing even remotely like this is:
" If a character has an Obvious Focus that provides him with Invisibility, the Invisibility doesn’t cover the Focus. Only Inobvious Foci are covered by the Invisibility they generate."

And that only means "a focus on the Invisibiltiy Power should at tops be a inobvious one".

 

Everything else is how Perceivable Powers interact with Invisibility. And there is some overlap with Percievability of a Power and a Focus.

[bigbywolfe]

Invisibility to the hearing sense group would still cover the ring. No one has argued invisibility to sight would stop a sound, you using that as an example in the first place is a complete non sequitur from the topic.

You state:

"Invisibility doesn't make the SFX of your powers stop being obvious so the SFX of "ring is obvious because it shoots tinymagical shields" remains obvious.  Again, Darkness construct."

Well, per the rules the SFX of a mundane weapon like a sword  is that it is an Obvious Focus of a Power. You are arbitrarily granting some SFX a bonus over others, regardless of your attempts to justify it.

Also, nowhere in the rules does it state that the Images Power produces light (unless you are specifically building a light power). Claiming the "light escapes Invisibility" is a nonsense arguement based on your idea of certain SFX and had nothing to do with the rules of the game or how Powers are actually described as working.

EDIT: Also, claiming someone with a Distinctive Feature can't be turned Invisible is just crazy to me. I don't even know how to approach that. By your own standard someone with the Distinctive Feature:  "12 foot Lizardman", Not Concealable (no Ninja Turtles trench coat is going to hide this guy) could not be turned Invisible.

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 minute ago, bigbywolfe said:

Well, per the rules the SFX of a mundane weapon like a sword  is that it is an Obvious Focus of a Power. You are arbitrarily granting some SFX a bonus over others, regardless of your attempts to justify it.

I have no interest arguing with someone who is misrepresenting my position.  If you'd used the rules I said I'd use to show I was favoring some SFX I'd respond with an argument but you're not so I'm not wasting time on you. 

 

 

[Toxxus]

Honestly, if I used invisibility in a Heroic setting and the GM told me that my armor, weapons, backpack, rope, etc. all did NOT turn invisible because they are built as Obvious Foci I would walk off the table and find a new GM.

 

That interpretation of the rules does nothing to enhance the fun of the players.

 

We could continue on with the torture of the rules:

* Your clothing doesn't disappear because it is OIF life support vs. 1 temperature level of cold.

* Your shoes don't disappear because they are OIF +1 Running / 1rPD/1rED area 18 only.

etc.

 

Horrible.