Invisibility

[TranquiloUno]

5 hours ago, Toxxus said:

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.

 

 

 

This is a good answer!

[dmjalund]

If you watch them turn invisible, it will be obvious that the focus is doing it. if you see someone as they appear from Invisibility, you can also tell the focus is responsible

 

If you can see the fringe effect you can also see the foucs and can tell it is causing the invisibility

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Simple solution if you want to go by RAW then what I would do is make a custom Adder -protected Foci 10pts. I based the idea on Res Pro having Adder Protects carries items and Invisibility Adder No Fringe and both are 10 pts.

[CptPatriot]

4 hours ago, Christopher said:

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

```

That is a naked buyoff.

2

 

Then let the player buy it Inobvious. Either way, the player gets to use the invisibility power, the only difference is now the player can hide the Inobvious foci under any conditions. At least buying multiple naked buyoffs is in the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish.

[dsatow]

4 hours ago, Christopher said:

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.

 

On your first point, I'd agree except a lot of armor is considered on by default and OIF.  If that were the case, then putting on a ring of invisibility would make your sword disappear but not the armor.

 

The problem with obvious focuses and invisibility and the clarification(?) is made by Steve Long.  Here (link) I ask about using an area of effect invisibility to cover an obvious focus.  Short answer is no, unless the GM makes a house rule.  This statement about OIFs/OAFs has been long standing with him.  

 

[dsatow]

40 minutes ago, cptpatriot said:

 

Then let the player buy it Inobvious. Either way, the player gets to use the invisibility power, the only difference is now the player can hide the Inobvious foci under any conditions. At least buying multiple naked buyoffs is in the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish.

 

The problem, in say Fantasy Hero, is that most of the magical objects are bought with gold while armor and weapons are made by the GM.

[Christopher]

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

  

On your first point, I'd agree except a lot of armor is considered on by default and OIF.  If that were the case, then putting on a ring of invisibility would make your sword disappear but not the armor.

  

The problem with obvious focuses and invisibility and the clarification(?) is made by Steve Long.  Here (link) I ask about using an area of effect invisibility to cover an obvious focus.  Short answer is no, unless the GM makes a house rule.  This statement about OIFs/OAFs has been long standing with him.  

  

I think i need some inventive interpretation to reconcile what the book and it's writer say here

 

The only way it might make some sense is:

- If you put the Obvious Focus Limitation on any Power, the Power itself becomes Perceivable. Defenses are normally Inobvious IIRC, but if you put them on a Obvious Focus "Armor" it becomes obvious that you got extra defenses.

- technically you aer "using" the Defenses power every second you wear the armor.

- " Invisibility doesn’t automatically make a character’s attacks or other powers Invisible as well (that requires the Advantage Invisible Power Effects; see 6E1 338). Using a perceivable power can expose an Invisible character’s position"

 

For me that mostly means that Superheroic Characters with Invisibility have to use a lesser version of Focus on ally their Persistent Powers.

And for heroic games this consideration either waived, all armors are declared inobvious (wich does not mater as they cost no points) or specific stealth armor is introduced (wich is build on Inobvious Focus). Consider using the Expanded Focus rules for the later to have some tradeoff even with the same Limitation values.

 

As for the Ring example:
Usually rings are a Inobvious Foci. They have to go out of their way (like glowing when in use) or be used for Perceivable Powers to become Obvious to begin with.

" If a Focus is Obvious, 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"

"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)."

 

Things can also be obvious/perceivable in different ways.

It is obvious that a sword can hurt you, even when it is not in use.

It is obvious* a gun can hurt you, even when it is not in use.

The power of the gun/sword is also perceiveable while in use.

A cane gun/sword would be Inobvious when not used. It can still be idenfied as usual for Inobvious stuf - usually any form of examination . And if you use it in sight, it becomes obvious the power came from the cane gun/this is a cane gun. And hte can sword becomes obvious when drawn (when ready weapon is used?).

 

 

*Only campaign average without special knowledge/complication applies for Obviousness. So let us ignore cases of time travel. "If a character buys an Inobvious Focus and lots of people eventually learn about it, he cannot “redefine” it as Obvious or the like. Obviousness depends primarily on the nature of the object, not on campaign events like characters’ secrets being revealed to the world."

[Scott Ruggels]

A GM doesn't have to follow the books.  If invisibility makes everyone invisible in the party as long as they stick within a 10m radius of the caster, then everyone and everything would be invisible. You guys tend to overthink things way to much.

[Toxxus]

10 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

A GM doesn't have to follow the books.  If invisibility makes everyone invisible in the party as long as they stick within a 10m radius of the caster, then everyone and everything would be invisible. You guys tend to overthink things way to much.

 

This. All. Day.

 

Does it make sense for the players? Is it simple and fun?  Done.

 

More hair-splitting technical crunch is not what HERO needs to grow its player base.

[mallet]

Is Steve's answer a change that has been made in the official errata? Because that is not how the Invisibility power is described in 6th Edition rule book. Like others have said the main points in the rules are: 

 

Quote

Invisibility covers not only a character’s person,
but his clothing and any equipment he carries
(including Foci and weapons; but see below).

 

And "below" in the power description the only other reference to Foci (apart from using weapons to attack) is:

 

Quote

Focus: 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.

 

So by the rules of 6th Ed, as written in the book, Foci are covered by Invisibility unless it is an Obvious Foci that is generating the Invisibility power, or if a Foci is being used to attack someone, in which case it appears on the segment the attack is made, then turns invisible again.  That means all other Foci, Obvious or Inobvious, turn invisible when the power is used and stay that way unless used to attack.

 

There is really no other way to interpret the rules as they are written. It is very specific in the book that all Foci, Obvious or not, are covered by the Invisibility power unless it is an Obvious Focus creating the power. 

 

So Steve's current answer has to be a change to the rules that should be addressed in the official errata (and maybe it is, I haven't read through the errata).

[Christopher]

On 3/3/2019 at 4:54 PM, mallet said:

Is Steve's answer a change that has been made in the official errata? Because that is not how the Invisibility power is described in 6th Edition rule book. Like others have said the main points in the rules are: 

Not really. Just a interpretation we have not thought about:

 

On 2/28/2019 at 11:42 PM, Christopher said:

The only way it might make some sense is:

- If you put the Obvious Focus Limitation on any Power, the Power itself becomes Perceivable. Defenses are normally Inobvious IIRC, but if you put them on a Obvious Focus "Armor" it becomes obvious that you got extra defenses.

- technically you aer "using" the Defenses power every second you wear the armor.

- " Invisibility doesn’t automatically make a character’s attacks or other powers Invisible as well (that requires the Advantage Invisible Power Effects; see 6E1 338). Using a perceivable power can expose an Invisible character’s position"

 

[clnicholsusa]

I think we're coming at this from the wrong angle. The answer to the question "Does Invisibility cover an obvious focus?" should be "why wouldn't it?"

As far as a focus goes, "obvious" does not mean "visible". If someone is cut with an invisible sword, they may not SEE the object, but they will know that the cut came from the object.

The book actually says, "If a Focus is Obvious, it’s clear to anyone looking at the character that the power comes from the Focus" (emphasis mine).

None of that indicates the observer can actually SEE the character, or the focus, just that it is clear the power comes from the focus.

[Toxxus]

7 hours ago, clnicholsusa said:

I think we're coming at this from the wrong angle. The answer to the question "Does Invisibility cover an obvious focus?" should be "why wouldn't it?"

As far as a focus goes, "obvious" does not mean "visible". If someone is cut with an invisible sword, they may not SEE the object, but they will know that the cut came from the object.

The book actually says, "If a Focus is Obvious, it’s clear to anyone looking at the character that the power comes from the Focus" (emphasis mine).

None of that indicates the observer can actually SEE the character, or the focus, just that it is clear the power comes from the focus.

 

That was my take as well.  The focus is obvious to anyone who can still perceive you.  Radar Sense, targeted hearing, etc.  But you ARE invisible and that has to cover your clothing and gear or things get ridiculous pretty quickly.

[Christopher]

2 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

That was my take as well.  The focus is obvious to anyone who can still perceive you.  Radar Sense, targeted hearing, etc.  But you ARE invisible and that has to cover your clothing and gear or things get ridiculous pretty quickly.

By RAW that is not how it works:
"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." 6E1 126

 

And after that, this rule is in effect:

"Invisibility doesn’t automatically make a character’s attacks or other powers Invisible as well (that requires the Advantage Invisible Power Effects; see 6E1 338). Using a perceivable power can expose an Invisible character’s position"

Note that your clothing does not provide a Power (if it does, treat it like armor). And gear other then armor is not "in use" every segment you wear it. Only when you actually use it.

 

With the usual Caveats of course: "As always, common sense, dramatic sense, and considerations of game balance should apply."

[dsatow]

On 3/6/2019 at 10:13 PM, clnicholsusa said:

I think we're coming at this from the wrong angle. The answer to the question "Does Invisibility cover an obvious focus?" should be "why wouldn't it?"

As far as a focus goes, "obvious" does not mean "visible". If someone is cut with an invisible sword, they may not SEE the object, but they will know that the cut came from the object.

The book actually says, "If a Focus is Obvious, it’s clear to anyone looking at the character that the power comes from the Focus" (emphasis mine).

None of that indicates the observer can actually SEE the character, or the focus, just that it is clear the power comes from the focus.

 

That is an interesting take on it.  I expands to an argument, is an obvious focus really limiting if it casts say a darkness around itself with personal immunity (or some sense to allow the user to see through it).  the answer would be yes, because those affected would see the focus generate the darkness before they could not see.  Or if you have a rifle, an obvious focus, but haven't used it, its still obvious its a rifle and what it will do.

 

The reason I  think Steve rules the way he does is because of the problem of everyone becoming invisible for cheap to counter the obvious limitation.  This is supposition on my part, but it is a valid point too.  When growth was too cheap, I noticed a lot of people buying one level of growth always on if the could mangle the idea into their concept.

[Toxxus]

On 3/7/2019 at 10:56 AM, Christopher said:

By RAW that is not how it works:
"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." 6E1 126

 

And after that, this rule is in effect:

"Invisibility doesn’t automatically make a character’s attacks or other powers Invisible as well (that requires the Advantage Invisible Power Effects; see 6E1 338). Using a perceivable power can expose an Invisible character’s position"

Note that your clothing does not provide a Power (if it does, treat it like armor). And gear other then armor is not "in use" every segment you wear it. Only when you actually use it.

 

With the usual Caveats of course: "As always, common sense, dramatic sense, and considerations of game balance should apply."

 

I agree that while invisible if you're lobbing death rays at people the death rays are visible.  The use of powers while invisible reveals those powers - not the invisible person.

 

I cannot agree that your clothing is visible while you're invisible because it is OIF - LS:  1 level of temperature resistance or that your shoes are visible because they are OIF - +1m running or 1rPD/1rED protection for your feet.

Even with the caveat that carried gear isn't visible unless the power is active makes no dramatic sense.  If invisible girl gets hit by an arrow her suit of armor becomes visible?  BARF!

 

I cannot get on-board with the idea that all of your gear is visible while you're invisible.  I even, counter to the rules, feel this way if the invisibility comes from an OIF.

 

If Invisible Girl has to hold her Snow Globe of Transparency to be invisible then I'd rule that anyone who sees her go invisible knows it was the snow globe.  Anyone who can still perceive her with other senses know it is the snow globe.

 

But the idea that there is a visible snow globe bouncing along with any other active gear she has is absurd.  Not a ruling I am of fan of and since I'm the GM in my games - not one I'll have to deal with nor inflict upon my players.

 

Besides, invisibility in HERO is much less painful than it is in games like D&D where the invisible party can move after attacking and leave you unable to counter attack effectively.  In HERO if they attack while invisible you know exactly where they until their next phase.

 

 

 

 

 

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

I cannot agree that your clothing is visible while you're invisible because it is OIF - LS:  1 level of temperature resistance or that your shoes are visible because they are OIF - +1m running or 1rPD/1rED protection for your feet. 

You intentionally picked a ludicrously low level of powers for your examples there. Please do not do that. Use realistic power builds with realistic Active Points for your example.

It is pretty hard to argue if you can not even make a serious example.

 

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

Even with the caveat that carried gear isn't visible unless the power is active makes no dramatic sense.  If invisible girl gets hit by an arrow her suit of armor becomes visible?  BARF! 

Your Armor Power would be visible everytime it is "in use". As in every second you wear the armor.

 

That aside, aiming for the impact point of blind fire is one way to defeat a cloak:

 

 

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

If Invisible Girl has to hold her Snow Globe of Transparency to be invisible then I'd rule that anyone who sees her go invisible knows it was the snow globe.  Anyone who can still perceive her with other senses know it is the snow globe. 

If the "snowglobe of Invisibiltiy" is a Obvious Focus, it would be Obvious for (nearly) everyone that it provides Invisibility. Even when not in use. That is a wierd Snowglobe of Inisibiltiy you got there.

But more likely it is a Inobvious Focus. Indeed this "learning what it does via 3rd party senses or Knowledge" something I explicitly mentioned above:

On 2/28/2019 at 11:42 PM, Christopher said:

"If a character buys an Inobvious Focus and lots of people eventually learn about it, he cannot “redefine” it as Obvious or the like. Obviousness depends primarily on the nature of the object, not on campaign events like characters’ secrets being revealed to the world."

 

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

Besides, invisibility in HERO is much less painful than it is in games like D&D where the invisible party can move after attacking and leave you unable to counter attack effectively.  In HERO if they attack while invisible you know exactly where they until their next phase.

Default Invisibiltiy in D&D is "breaks on Attack".

What you talk about is a very high level Invisibility. Something for CR's where enemies have coutnerspells or senses.

 

Also the moment of Visibility is technically only until the end of the Segment in wich they attacked.

You would know where to swing afterwards, but still suffer the penalties.

[Toxxus]

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

Your Armor Power would be visible everytime it is "in use". As in every second you wear the armor.

This just annihilates common and dramatic sense.  I could never run it this way in my games.  If you're invisible then you're invisible.

 

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

You intentionally picked a ludicrously low level of powers for your examples there. Please do not do that. Use realistic power builds with realistic Active Points for your example.

It is pretty hard to argue if you can not even make a serious example.

Yes, I did that intentionally to point out how ludicrous that approach is when taken to the logical conclusion.  I don't see how it helps, but if it makes you more comfortable we could say they are wearing a suit of plate armor (8 rPD/ 8 rED).  Are you suggesting the suit of armor would stay visible since it is always providing protection?  I would literally walk off a table for judgement call that bad and I've never had to walk off a table.

 

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

If the "snowglobe of Invisibiltiy" is a Obvious Focus, it would be Obvious for (nearly) everyone that it provides Invisibility. Even when not in use. That is a wierd Snowglobe of Inisibiltiy you got there.

But more likely it is a Inobvious Focus. Indeed this "learning what it does via 3rd party senses or Knowledge" something I explicitly mentioned above:

No, if the Snow Globe of Invisibility is an Obvious Focus then it would be obviously the source of the power when used.  Perhaps the character mutters a magic phrase while holding up the globe, which surges with magical energy, as they go invisible.  Anyone still able to perceive them would see the power emanating from the Snow Globe.

Having the Snow Globe remain visible on an invisible character would just be stupid.  Honestly, what part of that would make dramatic sense or be fun for your players or even be a reasonable expectation among them?

 

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

Default Invisibiltiy in D&D is "breaks on Attack".

What you talk about is a very high level Invisibility. Something for CR's where enemies have coutnerspells or senses.

Greater Invisibility is available at 9th level and it gets used a lot since it is so punishing in 5e.  Normal Invisibility and the See Invisibility spell come online at the same time (3rd level). 

 

What I've experienced between the two games is that in 5th edition D&D the invisible mage will lob something painful (like fireball) at the party which they cannot Counterspell (requires you to see the caster) and then move their full move distance, invisibly, after casting.  Hitting them in return is a very painful game of Battleship.  In my Fantasy Hero sessions if I use an invisible mage what will happen is the players with AoEs will pepper the exact hex they know the caster is in because the caster can't move after attacking.  It's a VERY different level of challenge created by the effect.

 

 

[Christopher]

20 hours ago, Toxxus said:

This just annihilates common and dramatic sense.  I could never run it this way in my games.  If you're invisible then you're invisible. 

I also agree that I would never run it this way.

It is however what RAW says.

It can be a sensible decision and against RAW at the same time!

 

20 hours ago, Toxxus said:

Yes, I did that intentionally to point out how ludicrous that approach is when taken to the logical conclusion

Ludicrous examples are at no point a "logical Conclusion".

 

20 hours ago, Toxxus said:

Having the Snow Globe remain visible on an invisible character would just be stupid.

Actually just writing up the Invisibilty Power with a Obvious Focus was stupid. The rules are unambigiously clear you should not do that.

Dunno why you insist trying to pull such things in any game, but it will not fly.

 

Invisibiltiy is a odd power in parts. It is Obvious that you are invisible now. Yet the power itself is not obvious.

Frodo wears the ring and goes invisible. Does the Ring need to be a obvious Focus for that? Or could it be inobvious?

[Hugh Neilson]

16 hours ago, Christopher said:

Invisibiltiy is a odd power in parts. It is Obvious that you are invisible now. Yet the power itself is not obvious.

Frodo wears the ring and goes invisible. Does the Ring need to be a obvious Focus for that? Or could it be inobvious?

 One example of an Obvious Focus is "a magic ring that glows whenever it’s used" - emphasis added - while an example of an inobvious focus is "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 being Obvious only when it is used is an Obvious focus, by RAW. 

 

The RAW notes that, when an obvious focus is used, "it’s clear to anyone looking at the character that the power comes from the Focus".  I agree it does not say "if the character is invisible to sight, the focus cannot be perceived by sight".  It also does not say "if a character is blind, or flashed to sight, or in a darkness field, or there is an opaque object between the Focus and the observer, then the focus is not perceived.  Use of powers such as Images or Mental Illusions could also disguise the focus". 

 

Should all of this be explicitly written into the rules?  Or is it your position that even a blind man can see that OIF armor, it shines through Darkness, cannot be obfuscated  by Mental Illusions or Images, and, if the fellow in Armor stands behind a 3' high wall, or peeks out from behind a tree, the armor worn on the parts of his body behind the wall/tree shine through and are immediately obvious? 

 

Gee, I wonder why the rules keep getting lengthier and lengthier as the author tries to explicitly detail each tiny aspect of every ability, and how they interact, so that every minor corner case can be covered.

 

The ability to detect a focus is based on one's senses.  Invisibility is a Sense-Affecting power.  Does common sense not tell us that the ability to perceive something using our senses is affected by a sense-affecting power?

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh I’ve read Steve’s answer and in this case, he is the one who has made more corner cases and confusion. The common acceptance is that if Invisibility is used on a knight per se, then unless otherwise denoted, that knight in armor is invisible regardless of the status of OIF and OAF of gear. I get his point that Obvious should be obvious and it’s a limitation by RAW. However now the RAW has created more hassle and confusion instead of it just being an exemption. I’ll note that it’s very rare in source material where the character is invisible but not his clothes.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd say the better answer is that sense-affecting powers affect the ability to perceive foci like they affect the ability to perceive everything else.  If a character's schtick is invisibility, that may be a case for Obvious being reduced in value as it will not be as limiting, but that's as far as I would take the issue.

 

Character invisible, foci invisible.  Powers still visible, to the extent they would otherwise be visible.  Power use imposes a -1/10 AP penalty on stealth for an Obvious power, but just having a focus invalidates invisibility entirely?  No, I don't think so.

 

You can''t see Gestures made by an invisible person, and you can't see a Focus worn by an invisible person.  Fair.  You must Incant outside Invisible to Hearing, and your Obvious powers are still Obvious when used while invisible.  Fair. 

 

Invisibility is invalidated entirely by an Obvious focus, but no other sense-affecting power is?  Not fair.

[Christopher]

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

One example of an Obvious Focus is "a magic ring that glows whenever it’s used" - emphasis added - while an example of an inobvious focus is "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 being Obvious only when it is used is an Obvious focus, by RAW.  

Then my and your interpretation of RAW disagree:
" A character who buys an Inobvious Focus must specify a certain power, Skill, or set of circumstances that allow an opponent to identify the Inobvious Focus (for example, a device built nto clothing would be detectable by a search or Infrared Perception; anyone with magic abilities could identify a magic necklace)."

Wich leads me too:

Inobvious Focus (Glows if Active making it Obvious it is the source, but not in a way that breaks Invisbility or Stealth).

Done.

 

Now if you put that on the "Snowglobe" thing, it would be obvious that it is the source of the Invisibiltiy when you are turning it on in someones sight.

But not obvious in a way that breaks Invisibility by any interpreation of RAW.