Light Effects

[redsash]

59 minutes ago, dsatow said:

As a side note, while I personally will allow an AoE to center and target an individual and thus allow movement, the RaW says that your construct requires the mobile advantage +1/2 for the area of effect, unless it is cast on a stationary object.  ( I had an argument a year or two ago where the other poster said that allowing the movement for free was too big of an advantage )

 

"Ordinarily a Constant Area-affecting power cannot move once established, unless it has the No Range Limitation so that it “sticks to” the character
generating it and moves as he moves (see 6E1 127)"

 

I buy the Flashlight AoE No Range Cone as Mobile so you can swing it without moving.

[redsash]

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

Assuming a negative modifier at 3 pts per -1.  A -9 darkness according to your design is 27 active points.

 

Where does the -9 come from?

 

You only need to dispel 12 AP for Change Environment -4 Sight Perception

 

Was it the long-range modifier I mentioned? That includes a "+5 extreme contrast" circumstance bonus for showing up as  a bright spot of day in a dark night.

[Duke Bushido]

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

 

That acceptable, but the question I would then ask on the flashlight why did you confine it to one hex?  If you wanted the light radius to have an even larger effect, why not 4m radius?  Its costs the same and you can also buy reduced by range to reflect dimming.

 

Excellent question!

 

I say excellent, because it comes to the crux of the problem creating a hard mechanical simulation of light. Well, portable light.

 

If I've got a 4D maglight (that's batteries; not dice   )-- the kind I made sure my wife carried when her job required her to park in an unlighted parking garage; the kind commonly known as "police-issue skull bats" (which is both why they carry them on their shoulders as they do and why I taught my wife to do the same), I can cast-- let's say I can reasonably expect to create a 4-meter pool of light on the floor in front of me.  If I shine it at a wall twenty feet away, I can expect to create a 4-meter pool of light on that wall.  To that end, I can buy a 4m your-model-of-light-here and call it a day.

 

Then I back up two meters.  Or three.  Or perhaps I'm not civilized, and back up a full one-hundred-and-forty-four of God's inches.   My light pool is still 4m, because "you get what you pay for," and I paid for four unholy meters  ( ) .   Does the cone get narrower as I back up?  I know that there is an adjustment for that, but if I don't use it, the pool should become much larger. light is projected as a cone.  When I back up, there is more room for the cone to 'continue on,' for lack of the proper term of geometric continuance, and the "base" of the cone projected agains the wall should become much, much larger.  If I get higher (which is why the work lights I used as another example have telescoping poles), the pool on the floor will expand in size as well.   

 

Yes; this can be modeled with current rules by purchasing 120 meters (or whatever you find is appropriate) of area, limited by your distance from something that stops the light.  But even then, you are not badly limiting the pool.  Limiting; yes.  But not much.  Should the cone be wider than the thing blocking it's path (and if it's not a confined space, back up until the cone _is_ wider), you will get a whatever-maximum-size-you-bought sized cone with a shadow in it.  It's light.  It won't stop on it's own.  It will continue to spread and diffuse to a point of uselessness for the person using the flashlight, but even then, it will be visible to an observer in the dark at truly obscene distances, far beyond points x 5 meters.  For an example, I point to the stars and don't even attempt to any actual distances (because I don't know them, and because I think we can all agree that it's somewhere beyond the edge of the battle map).  Certainly, that's a lot of light at the source, but still.......   What's that military saw about seeing the glow of a cigarette draw for a mile or so?  (I grant that you probably have to be looking for it, but it's one of the ways I used to locate my father in the woods when I was growing up).

 

HERO abhors an absolute, and light is pretty close to that very thing.

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

 

And the rules state you can't shoot an image through an object in the way (people hiding in the shadows between you and the target)

 

Honestly, Sir, that is the _only_ thing I _like_ about using Images.  Since it doesn't say that you can't cast a cone of Image around the periphery of said obstruction, you are effectively creating a shadow.  All you have to do is accept that if I am casting a 4-meter image, the cornstalk in front of me doesn't block the whole thing.  You don't really even need handwaving:  just interpret that Images is "cast" along some sort of cone of force, and you're there.  At least for the final placement of the image.  You still need to figure of your 4 meters includes the cone or not (be weird if it didn't), and how to handle the effectively-infinite range and expansion of the final light pool.

 

As I type this, it occurs to me that you could define a maximum pool size-- sort of a point where the the photons are so diffuse as to make further diffusion of the light be of decreasing value-- losing one PER bonus per x hexes until there just aren't any left to lose.  That would work.  But for anything bigger than a penlight, it's not going to be cheap at all.  It's going to be a bit stifling at just a penlight's worth of light, honestly.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

Personally, I don't believe any game system models real life properly nor would we want to.

 

You're singing to the choir, my friend.  I don't think it does, either.  I don't think it _can_, and for the most part, I don't think it _should_!  I play games because real life isn't typically exciting.  The most exciting thing I did all day today was dress down some idiots for making the same mistakes over and over, help another idiot pull his ten-wheeler out of the ditch I had ten minutes previously told him would not support his truck, and file an accident report for a kid who managed to shoot himself dead between the eyes with a framing nailer.  (yeah... don't ask; I could begin to explain it without pictures).  That was actually a bit less exciting than it sounds because he was the _second_ kid to manage to pull that off in the last six months.  (The first will forever bear the nickname "Headshot.")  I don't really want to model real life too terribly accurately, because it's tedious, and tedious reduces fun.  Recall above that I mentioned being totally fine with "it's a -2 PER kind of dark in there" and "of course you can see; you have a flashlight."  This exercise, as I have time to participate, is mainly for amusement.    (Of course, I am also the guy who says "screw images; I'm using Change Environment," because at the end of the day, adding light is changing the environment.  Hell, adding Images is changing the environment, but I've no interest in chasing that particular rabbit, even for entertainment.

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

Yeah, its stupidly expensive and if you pay the points for it, it'll probably take a shotgun blast and still work unless you make it a fragile focus.  If you think a halide light is bad, there's the concept of a smart phone which probably costs more than some of my characters. 

 

We had a thread on that, too-- and probably several during any one of my prolonged absences.  I'm the guy who sees no more value to modeling those than to modeling a flashlight.  Of considerably amusement to me, though, is that there _are_ rules for modeling them: they are under "bases" and "vehicles."  Take any of those computers, add HRR to and from, viola.   (Nope; I don't model those, either, beyond HRR)

 

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

Again, the current game design isn't perfect.  I like the idea from the smart phone cost argument in an old thread which says to call the light as a perk of 1-5 points based on how useful it is, but then again, I am not HERO games so that would just be implemented as my own house rule.

 

I'm not HERO Games either.  You can tell by the size of the rules books.  

 

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

That's acceptable, but again this could be simulated by a modifier as assigned by a GM or as a 0 point advantage/limitation.  I think that is my biggest issue to this argument with drain/suppress/aid on a modifier is that the game doesn't really support it at all.

 

I agree on all counts.

 

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

Its not in any supplement in any form I can think of (not just in reference to light but with anything) which given 35 years of publication and variations from HERO games is a pretty good warning bell.

 

I agree.  To the point of making effectively the same comment regarding it's telltale omission.

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

You still see the image with the Images mechanic, you just aren't fooled by the image.*  Disbelieving and it going away is a mental illusions thing.

 

Fair enough.  However, Images still allows me to make an INT roll and realize that the light is fake.

 

The light isn't fake.

 

16 hours ago, dsatow said:

Off subject: Reminds me of a game a long time ago where a hero using Images made a villain look like another hero.  The lieutenants of the villain stumbled in and the first one blasts the villain having failed his Int roll.  The second lieutenant blasted the hero and basically said "The hero would never wear them socks with those shoes.  Total fashion faux pas."  the hero later seduced the lieutenant.

 

 

  That's beautiful.

 

 

Now Sir, I have a question for you-- it's a sincere question, and a joyous one  (I got off a bit early today; I only had to put in twelve hours, so I'm in a remarkably good mood   ).

 

I have agreed with everything you have said.  There may be other guys on this thread who agree with you.  A quick skim of the thread suggests I may well have been the most vocal about my actual position (though, again, I think this will be a fun exercise to try, regardless of my own opinions on the validity of it it), and I've made it pretty clear that, other than the suitability of Images, I am coming from more or less the same place you are.

 

All that being said, why are you addressing these grievances to _me?_   

 

 

Duke

 

 

 

 

[redsash]

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

People in this thread are explicitly talking about changing the rules.  I am explicitly talking about a construct (left to the creation of the model-maker) that permits "Egads!  It's so dark even I, Hyper-Eye Man, can't see!" "Foolish surfacer, we can!".  I recognize that your stance is "You cannot", but that's a failure of your model in my opinion. 

 

I think we may be talking about different things.

 

According to the rules, in an underground pit with no visible light you can use IR perception to see (given a GM who knows some physics), or build a non-Sight based power to do it. (Call it Darksyte to avoid the trolls 🙂 

 

If you want impenetrable darkness, that's a power with very explicit limits and behavior. The power description specifically covers the situation you refer to.

[redsash]

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

 

There is another issue with the construct in that dispel is an instant and all or nothing

 

It's bought as Costs End to Maintain, making it effectively Constant (as the Drain-based Suppress). I considered the +1/2 Advantage Constant but here it's really a limitation any way I look at it.

 

 

Quote

Per dispel 6e1p193, the power once shut off can be restarted. Theoretically, that would mean you would instantly negate the darkness and then, the next segment or at the bottom of the segment the darkness would restart since the darkness is a natural state. 

 

I could also argue (from the same page) that theoretically, the negated darkness will never come back on without an actor, but then it wouldn't behave right either!

 

But since the Dispel is constant (while Gandalf spends End or the torch burns or whatever) then theoretically they still both remain active. AoE costs cancel out because both powers handle it the same way. So whichever has the most AP/effect wins.

 

 

 

Quote

Since its all or nothing, that means if its too dark, the power does nothing. 

 

But natural darkness is at most -4 or 12 AP, so the 13 points of standard effect from 4d6+1 covers it. Or yes, make Gandalf roll by all means. It just doesn't get any darker naturally without passing that "No Light" threshold which we have already beat with SFX.

 

Still, here is the real flaw! You are first to find it!         😄

 

The fade-off torch effect won't work because my made-up Change Environment model has that 12-point threshold. As soon as the Explosion effect falls off to below that it's completely gone. That is, you don't get the -1 at 5-8, -2 at 9-12, -3 at 13-16m. Just full light out to 4m then -4.

 

Except that I'm GM and I made that part up just to get a reasonable Active Point target so I'm going to say it works like that!

 

Also as you say an EB would probably do it              😉

 

 

Quote

Drain would not work well either as once the light left the area, the light would still be present for at least 12 seconds after the character disappears.  The Suppress construct is Drain with the Cost End to maintain limitation.

 

Yes we went through that back on page 3 of this thread 🙂

 

Drain has many more flaws besides. The sniper scenario is a killer. You can do it but it drives the cost way up, worse than Images.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, redsash said:

Ah thanks!

 

Still, I would allow IR but not UV to see in a cave, no matter what sense organ you're using to pick up those wavelengths. No starshine down there but bodies radiate  heat and rocks reflect it just fine.

 

Normal darkness, sure.  That is the kind of darkness  CE, penalty to the sight sense would generate.

 

Darkness power or CE with penalties to the entire Sight Group?  Then IR vision or UV vision does not work as it is part of the sight group, but IR perception not using the simulated senses rule (and therefore not getting the range, etc. of sight for free) would work just fine.

 

UV detects ulttraviolet light, so in a cave with no UV light, there is nothing to detect.  It is as helpless as normal vision with no normal light to detect.

[Chris Goodwin]

25 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

UV detects ulttraviolet light, so in a cave with no UV light, there is nothing to detect.  It is as helpless as normal vision with no normal light to detect.

 

Unless there were, I don't know, some kind of power that could generate UV light... 

 

Any idea what we might use for that?

[Chris Goodwin]

In all seriousness, what about Active vs. Passive Senses (6e1 p. 210)?  Active Sonar is the one we see most often, but why not Active Normal Sight?  (Or, to answer my rhetorical question above, Active UV Vision?)

 

(For starters, that would leave a lot up to the GM.)

[PhilFleischmann]

4 hours ago, dsatow said:

Dispel 5d6 = 15 * 1.75 = 26 / 2 = 13

Dispel 9d6 = 27 * 1.75 = 47 / 2 = 23

Suppress 5d6 = 50 * 1.75 = 87 / 2 = 43

Suppress 9d6 = 90 * 1.75 =  157 / 2 = 79

Are these numbers correct?  Dispel is 3 points per die and Suppress is 10 points per die in 6e?  IDHMBIFOM, but IIRC, in 5e, Dispel was 3 and Suppress was 5.

 

As a general rule, I would not allow Dispel or Suppress (or Drain for that matter) to work against natural conditions.  Those are meant to work against Powers.  The sun going down is not a power.  You going into a room with no light is not a power.

 

And to see in the underground cave, IR is somewhat useful, but it doesn't model everything we might want.  We might want to be able to see all the objects in the cave, even if they don't radiate any body heat, even if everything in the cave is the same temperature.

 

Now an ACTIVE UV Vision might be the perfect solution in a cave (or closed room).  Your eyes emit UV light which then reflects off of things so you can see them.  The drawback is that anyone else with UV Vision (even Passive) can see just as well, and especially, can see you as a bright source of light.  This lets you see, but it doesn't create light for anyone else to see who doesn't have UV Vision.

 

OTOH, you could define your Regular Sight sense as Active, and then your eyes emit visible light, which you (and everyone around you) can see.  In 5e, the Active/Passive choice for a sense had no cost difference, because they felt the advantages and disadvantages cancelled each other out.  Assuming this is still the case in 6e, then Creating Light by making your normal sight an Active sense, might be free!  The drawback is that your eyes (or some other body part) visibly glows.  Other people might laugh and call you names, and not let you join in any reindeer games.  Of course, this Active Sight might (should) be considered a different sense, and therefore must be bought from scratch.  How much does Normal Sight cost?*  And is it different if you make it Active instead of Passive?

 

If it's expensive to do this, then you can buy this Active Sight through a Focus, call it a "flashlight" or a "lantern".  Limit to reflect that it works in a smaller area than normal sight in daylight.  It can be an OAF Lantern or Flashlight, or it can be an OIF built into the chest of your power armor suit.

 

And I think that does everything we want it to, and nothing we don't.  It doesn't see through smoke/fog, or through opaque objects, it's still subject to Flash and stopped by the Darkness power, because it works just like normal sight, except it's active.

 

*Normal Sight should cost exactly as much as the Physical Complication: Blindness gives you.  25 points?  So 12 points for a daylight-equivalent lantern, 17 points for a built-into-power-armor daylight-equivalent lantern.  Considerably less than that for the much smaller area lit, and/or for the narrower angle of vision than a flashlight provides (maybe call it 60 degrees for a flashlight, as opposed to 120 degrees for normal daylight sight.

[Lee]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Quote

Personally, I don't believe any game system models real life properly nor would we want to.

 

You're singing to the choir, my friend.  I don't think it does, either.  I don't think it _can_, and for the most part, I don't think it _should_!

 

I agree with Duke and dsatow here. The quotes are for emphasis.

 

Anytime you are creating a simulation (or model if you prefer), you must make some simplifying assumptions. If you could recreate reality without making some simplifying assumptions, you wouldn't be creating a simulation/model--you'd be creating...well...reality. 

 

The trick is to find out what you can simplify (or take out) and still create an accurate enough simulation.

 

It reminds me of the old physics joke where a farmer goes to his physicist friend and asks them if they can find a solution so that his cows give more milk. The physicist goes away for a couple of days and comes back saying that they have a solution, but it only works for spherical cows in a vacuum.

 

While the gist of the joke is that cows aren't spherical or live in a vacuum, the reality (pardon the pun) is that, if the shape of the cow and its respiration isn't important to how much milk it gives, then the model could be valid. (I realize a cow that can't breathe, like one in a vacuum, isn't likely to give milk, but if the breathing doesn't contribute to how much milk it produces (only keeping it alive), breathing can be removed from the model and being in a vacuum doesn't matter (in this case).)

 

So, it seems to me that the crux of the problem is what simplifying assumptions you can or need to make regarding darkness and light and whether or not the model it produces is good enough for what you're trying to model. It's not likely we will ever find the perfect solution--just one that's good enough for an individual GM or their table.

 

Lee

[Chris Goodwin]

Doing a bit of comparison... 

• Change Environment:  -1 to PER costs 2 points for one Sense or 3 points for one Sense Group
• Enhanced Perception:  +1 to a character's PER costs 1 point for +1 to one Sense, 2 points for +1 to one Sense Group, or 3 points for +1 to all Sense Groups
• Nightvision:  5 points, for +4 against natural darkness penalties.  
• Images:  +/-1 to viewers' PER costs 3 points regardless of what Senses/Sense Groups, which are bought separately (10/Targeting Group, 5/Nontargeting Group, 5/Targeting Sense, 3/Nontargeting Sense)

CE is single target; Images is a base 1 cubic meter.  It's assumed that both of these will be bought with Area of Effect if needed.  I'm ignoring the Darkness Power as I don't think it's relevant.  

 

For Images, my assumption is that if it's used for light, it acts as a spotlight effect in whatever its area is (thanks to Phil for that, btw).  If the AoE you've bought it to is bigger than the area you're in, it will illuminate the entire area (i.e. room lights).  

 

Which is good, and all, except that as @dsatow and others have pointed out, it's expensive for what it does.  I'm not certain that it's worth the points for something that we're pretty sure is free (points-wise) as a "standard" item (battery powered flashlight, burning firebrand torch, lantern or lamp of whatever tech level, etc.).  

 

I'm inclined to just go with my original instinct: a custom Power.  Maybe 1-5 points for the ability to create light on demand as a Power (spell, etc.), which can be built through a Focus if desired, but a light source of some kind (torch, flashlight, etc.) is usually free, points-wise.  And if you already have light-based Powers, using them like a flashlight is as free as a character with flame powers using them to light a candle.  (Analogously, a character with sonic powers can act as a "sonar flashlight" for Sonar, infrared likewise with IR light, and so on.)

[Doc Democracy]

34 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I'm inclined to just go with my original instinct: a custom Power.  Maybe 1-5 points for the ability to create light on demand as a Power (spell, etc.), which can be built through a Focus if desired, but a light source of some kind (torch, flashlight, etc.) is usually free, points-wise.  And if you already have light-based Powers, using them like a flashlight is as free as a character with flame powers using them to light a candle.  (Analogously, a character with sonic powers can act as a "sonar flashlight" for Sonar, infrared likewise with IR light, and so on.)

 

You know.  After all the discussion I am just about convinced of the use of images.  The images provide a pool of light.  I think that the image could be bought restrainable - if you get in the way of the beam of light you prevent it reaching the area intended.  What I also think is necessary is that all the concern folk have about fading edges and ruined night vision and snipers should be folded into the SFX of the power.  The SFX are separate from the game effect. 

 

So.  Images get you the defined effect in a defined area.  Everything else is a GM judgement call based on the impact of the SFX.  You reckon that the pool of light gives a reduced effect close to that pool?  Fine, small improvement to PER rolls.  A sniper several hundred feet away and out of the defined area of effect?  well the SFX of pool of light make anyone within the effect fully visible to people a distance away, just like a real lantern would.

 

I am actually totally sold on images for the very first time.  Would just like everyone to know that an argument on the internet has actually changed an opinion!!!

 

Doc

[Duke Bushido]

58 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 A character with sonic powers can act as a "sonar flashlight" for Sonar, infrared likewise with IR light, and so on.)

 

Thanks for that! 

 

As long as I've been playing, and in as many groups and with dozens of people in and out over the decades, I don't think that has ever occurred to any of us. 

 

Neat! 

 

[Doc Democracy]

28 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Thanks for that! 

 

As long as I've been playing, and in as many groups and with dozens of people in and out over the decades, I don't think that has ever occurred to any of us. 

 

Neat! 

 

 

At need, you could simply shout and use your sonar to see where the sound waves bounce.  It would be a bit "noisy" as the sound would not be clean and pure but it would work as long as the sound could be maintained....like using a flickery candle rather than a decent electric light.

 

Doc

[Duke Bushido]

Oh yes; we've done that.  It's the "steady sound of a super power with sonic sfx" that never struck us. 

 

The things you learn.... 

[Grailknight]

Images is not very expensive for just creating light in any thing but the first hex

 

It cost 12 real points for a 4m radius for 22 you can cover a football stadium. This is without any limitations whatsoever and ignoring the fact that in anything but a Supers game it will be free equipment.

 

I'm not seeing the problem here

[PhilFleischmann]

I'm reminded of the "Building a Toilet" thread from many years ago.

 

What do you think of my Active Sight idea?  If you're Batman (bitten by a radioactive bat at a science demonstration, and given the powers of a bat), your Active Sonar pings can be used by anyone around you who has a Passive Sonar.  If you emit light (by yourself, or through a Focus), anyone else with Passive Sight (such as a normal, non-blind human) can use that emitted light to see.

 

So if Normal Sight costs 25 points (the points that you'd get from blindness), that's the base cost for the equivalent of daylight.  Then you can limit it to make it reasonably priced, as well as realistic.  How much of a limitation should it be to only light up an area the size of a football stadium, as opposed to an entire planetary hemisphere?  How much more of a limitation for a few meter circle, like a campfire?  Or a narrow cone, like a flashlight?  And of course, you also get the Focus limitation as appropriate.

[dsatow]

First off I am going to apologize for the length of this post and the multiple responses.  I should break it up, but I think they all flow together.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 3:53 PM, redsash said:

 

Where does the -9 come from?

My apologies.  This came from an argument from Phil (Saturday at 12:02 AM) and Gnome(Friday at 08:14 PM) on page 3.  Both were arguing for the adjustment power based penalties to be increased and I incorrectly assumed you to agree with the larger penalty.  I was wrong.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 4:31 PM, redsash said:

Except that I'm GM and I made that part up just to get a reasonable Active Point target so I'm going to say it works like that!

Which is a GM decision and not a rule of the game.  IE: a House rule.  This was my argument which got down voted.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 4:31 PM, redsash said:

I could also argue (from the same page) that theoretically, the negated darkness will never come back on without an actor, but then it wouldn't behave right either!

Actually, not really, since the argument for using adjustment powers is that the absence of light(the actor) which generates the penalties to be drained, then unless there is light, the absence of light generates the penalties again.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 4:31 PM, redsash said:

But natural darkness is at most -4 or 12 AP, so the 13 points of standard effect from 4d6+1 covers it. Or yes, make Gandalf roll by all means. It just doesn't get any darker naturally without passing that "No Light" threshold which we have already beat with SFX.

 

Still, here is the real flaw! You are first to find it! 

I'll explain why I am reiterating something people have already stated in a minute.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 4:00 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I have agreed with everything you have said.  There may be other guys on this thread who agree with you.  A quick skim of the thread suggests I may well have been the most vocal about my actual position (though, again, I think this will be a fun exercise to try, regardless of my own opinions on the validity of it it), and I've made it pretty clear that, other than the suitability of Images, I am coming from more or less the same place you are.

 

All that being said, why are you addressing these grievances to _me?_   

1) Unless I directly quote you, it's mostly not directed to you or any single person.  It's more of an annoying general discussion.

2) Every so often a good gem of an idea gets floated out there.  Most of the people I game with are pretty smart.  Smart enough to try to break/find fault with a hastily conceived house rule to their benefit.  If I argue the idea here, there are a dozen other smart GMs who can come up with an answer beyond just the old "I say so".  If not, I try to think up a way to counter the flaw if the flaw is not too major.  Usually, though the flaw is too obnoxious to overcome simply and cleanly.

3) I will sometimes repeat answered items because of several reasons.

   a) The same arguments that spawned the problem get mentioned again or are ignored and not solved.

   b) Just to remind people by summarizing the situation.

   c) Some of the posts are so god damn long it feels like read a thesis.  I'll forget some of the items being argued.  I'm no spring chicken and 35 years of HERO gaming is bound to take a toll.

   d) Lately, the world seems to be if you don't constantly bring up the problems, people think you agree with them and their solutions, even if the solution isn't something you agree with.  So, I try to be cordial and reiterate my position.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

1) Unless I directly quote you, it's mostly not directed to you or any single person.

 

Certainly; the unofficial, uncodified, never-addressed-by-Abigal_van_Buren-or-anyone-pretending-to-be-her etiquette that has arisen from message boards over the years agrees with you, and I understand it completely.

 

My confusion was that you _did_ quote me.   Five times.  Only me.  Prior to every question you asked.  

 

I trust you understand my confusion.

 

 

 

 

Quote

2) Every so often a good gem of an idea gets floated out there.  Most of the people I game with are pretty smart.  Smart enough to try to break/find fault with a hastily conceived house rule to their benefit.  If I argue the idea here, there are a dozen other smart GMs who can come up with an answer beyond just the old "I say so".  If not, I try to think up a way to counter the flaw if the flaw is not too major.  Usually, though the flaw is too obnoxious to overcome simply and cleanly.

3) I will sometimes repeat answered items because of several reasons.

   a) The same arguments that spawned the problem get mentioned again or are ignored and not solved.

   b) Just to remind people by summarizing the situation.

   c) Some of the posts are so god damn long it feels like read a thesis.  I'll forget some of the items being argued.  I'm no spring chicken and 35 years of HERO gaming is bound to take a toll.

   d) Lately, the world seems to be if you don't constantly bring up the problems, people think you agree with them and their solutions, even if the solution isn't something you agree with.  So, I try to be cordial and reiterate my position.

 

 

Seems reasonable.  Which means I'll be looking over my shoulders for the next few days....  Reasonable action on the internet is always... unsettling...    

 

Seriously, though:

 

I am in the conversation because it's fun.  I have house rules that handle this, and have had for years, and when all this is said and done, I admit up front that I will most likely continue using them.  For anyone who wonders why-- this is not to be argumentative; it's to be explanatory-- it's because I disagree with a considerable number of the suppositions upon which we are basing the model.  For example, I disagree with -5 being "no sight PER roll possible;"  I place that limit much higher (lower?) than 5, simply because that gives a baseline normal human a a 6 or less to see whatever it is he wants or needs to see.  That's just a touch under five percent.  Yes; them's crap odds, but they are still there.  However, I am not going to argue using -5, as I'm more interested in what this experiment may reveal, through either success or failure.  What's the old saw about not failing, but finding multiple things that don't work?  Either way, you learn something.    .  I'm good with that.

 

 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

9 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

CE is single target; Images is a base 1 cubic meter.  It's assumed that both of these will be bought with Area of Effect if needed.  I'm ignoring the Darkness Power as I don't think it's relevant.  

 

For Images, my assumption is that if it's used for light, it acts as a spotlight effect in whatever its area is (thanks to Phil for that, btw).  If the AoE you've bought it to is bigger than the area you're in, it will illuminate the entire area (i.e. room lights).  

 

Which is good, and all, except that as @dsatow and others have pointed out, it's expensive for what it does.  I'm not certain that it's worth the points for something that we're pretty sure is free (points-wise) as a "standard" item (battery powered flashlight, burning firebrand torch, lantern or lamp of whatever tech level, etc.).  

 

 

 

There are shades of T-form.

 

Perhaps it's not without merit to consider shades of CE as well...

 

minor CE-- things like adding light; changing colors

 

CE: adding special effects-- "radioactive background?!  My powers won't work here!"

 

Major: enforcing penatlies (ala Darkness), adding boons, etc.

 

 

Just a thought, mind you.

 

[dsatow]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Certainly; the unofficial, uncodified, never-addressed-by-Abigal_van_Buren-or-anyone-pretending-to-be-her etiquette that has arisen from message boards over the years agrees with you, and I understand it completely.

 

My confusion was that you _did_ quote me.   Five times.  Only me.  Prior to every question you asked.  

 

I trust you understand my confusion.

Guess I owe you an apology.  I might have been replying and went off track, but don't remember.  Sorry about that.

[Duke Bushido]

No; an apology is not necessary: you didn't offend me.  You confused me, which the clarification has resolved.  So I owe you a thanking.  ;l

 

Thank you. 

 

[PhilFleischmann]

Upon further reflection (pun not intended, but intentionally not avoided) there's a mistaken assumption in my Active Sight idea:  It shouldn't give the equivalent of full daylight.  After all, the bat's active sonar is still limited by the bat's normal hearing perception range.  It can't "sonar-see" things miles away.  Likewise, Active Sight would only illuminate in accordance with the character's normal visual acuity.  Reasonably, it would only reach the limit of where his PER roll range penalties would become large enough to be beyond what he would normally be expected to perceive.  So if the "Dark Night" modifier is -4, beyond which sight is essentially useless, then a range modifier of -4 would also be a reasonable limit to active sight's illumination.  This would be 32 meters (at least that's what it was in 5e, and I assume that hasn't changed*).  This can be increased with the Telescopic adder to the sense (or possibly by other modifiers, even just plain enhanced vision).

 

And the Active option for Sight could almost be thought of as a Naked Advantage - except for the fact that it isn't an Advantage.  But I thought of another way to cost it, which seems reasonable to me:  Since normal Sight costs 25 points (and you get it for free), and Active Sight costs the same, you could have these two senses in a Multipower for which you've already "paid" the 25-point pool cost.  Then each slot costs 2.5 points to switch back and forth between Passive and Active.  Thus a total of only 5 points** before we've even applied limitations such as Focus (though it should be noted that such limitations would be applied only to the second slot, so for example, a -1 limitation would make this cost 2.5 + (2.5/2) = 2.5 + 1.25 = 3.75 points**).  Another limitation to consider is Costs END, to make it run off your power armor's END Reserve, for example.

 

* However, this does imply that trying to see something 32 meters away in broad daylight is equivalent to trying to see something right in front of you in a dark night.  Does that seem reasonable?

 

** Depending on how you want to round those fractions.  I don't think I'd have a problem if you wanted to round them down so that it only costs 4 points, and the -1 limitation (such as OAF) version would only cost 3 points.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, PhilFleischmann said:

* However, this does imply that trying to see something 32 meters away in broad daylight is equivalent to trying to see something right in front of you in a dark night.  Does that seem reasonable?

I've always felt that HERO should have used -1 steps for range instead of -2 steps.  Right now, being even one range bracket out is so punishing that "ranged" characters feel like they're not really capable of any actual ranged combat. 

Making it -1 steps gives you a 128m distance for a -4 penalty, which seems a lot more reasonable.  From my experience blundering around in dark rooms and going on hikes, seeing something man-sized and hidden in the dark is about as hard as seeing it a football field away.  Or at least they feel like they take similar amounts of time spent going "Wait, where is it?  No really, where?". 

[Duke Bushido]

You know what I like about Chris's 1d6 Blast suggestion? 

 

It reminds me that we give away light for free. 

 

"what three senses (two, for 6e players) can detect your EB?" 

 

Well, it's a bolt of lighting, so I was thinking a brilliant arc of electricity, an electric 'sizzle' noise, and the smell of burnt ozone. "

 

Got it; it appeals to four senses. 

 

No; that's three. 

 

Does it hurt when you get hit with it? 

 

Of course it does!  It's lightning! 

 

Touch is a sense. 

 

Fine.  So I'll drop-

 

No; you don't have to drop one.  You can have all you want.  But if you drop touch, you're wasting a lot of points. 

 

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you? 

 

"_No, he's just smug about pointless crap.  You'll get used to it-_" 

 

Knock it off, Mark!   Anyway, Loren, tell me about your other powers... 

I

(f I wasn't jonesing so hard for a game....) 

 

Later:  

 

Yes; you recognize the voice talking into the radio.  That shadowy figure in the darkness is definitely him. 

 

I take my time; he doesn't know I'm here.  I really line up the shot, making sure I stay focused squarely on him. 

 

Roll to hit. 

 

SWEET!  Got a seven! 

 

The warehouse flashes for the briefest instant into crisp, clear focus, instantly yet briefly filled with a flicker of brilliant light as your lightning strike sizzles through the space between you,- for the briefest instant, you can see he is not alone! Then you mighty zigguraut of untamed electrons strikes Doctor Nair Duwell perfectly in the chest!  The scent of burnt ozone reaches you just about the same time his screams of rage ring in your ears-

 

Wait:  what did you say? 

 

The scent of burnt ozo-

 

No; before that

 

That shadowy figure is definitely him? 

 

You said " The warehouse flashes for the briefest instant into crisp, clear focus, instantly yet briefly filled with a flicker of brilliant light." 

 

Yes...?

 

Take it back. 

 

Excuse me? 

 

Take it back. 

 

.. Uuuuuhhhh..... _whyyyy_? 

 

Because it can't.  I don't have Images. 

 

What the hell are-

 

You said that I have to buy images to make light! 

 

Yeah, sure, but that's to have light that actually, you know, lasts more than two eyeblinks! 

 

What about Terri?  You said that "the glow of her forcefield was sufficient enough to let her sneak through here without banging into stuff.  Why? 

 

It glows!  When she built her character, she specifically said" soft yellow glow from the forcefield!"  Glow means light! 

 

She doesn't have images, either! 

 

Dude, it just makes sense that if it glows she would be able to see what she is stepping on or into, right? 

 

I want a flashlight 

 

You sure?  That's like thirty-two pointa.  Have you banked 32 points? 

 

Fine.  Can I kind of cycle my lightning, like arc it between my fingers or something?  

 

Sure!  Presence Attack? 

 

No,  I want to see if I can generate enough light this way to read the blotter on this desk; I'm hoping it might name the buyer. 

 

Oh sure, that could work!  Make a Power Skill roll. 

 

Hi-yeah!  Nat 3, Baby! 

 

You are able to modulate your electrical powers so cleanly and perfectly, what with that 3, that it's almost like to had a hand-held arc light.  You have manged to chase almost all the shadows back to the edges of the room or into the shadows under the desk or across the filing cabinets... 

 

Yeah.  So how much was that flashlight? 

 

Thirty-two points.  Want to save up for it? 

 

Nah...   I think I'm good.... 

 

You know what I like about Phil's astute observation that normal sight should cost the same as blindness? 

 

The reminder that for twenty-five points, I shoukd be able to see from where I stand to the horizon with no penalties other than range. 

 

Ever wonder what that area was?  You science guys probably already know that it's about 3.1 miles to the horizon at sea level.  That means in sweeping from the horizon dead ahead to the horizon over your left shoulder, you have taken in, in a glance, 9.61 square miles. 

 

Figuring your peripheral vision to stop just a tiny bit before your shoulders, let's say you can stand staring forward and potentially perceive 4/3 of that (2/3 of the left and right fields.  A quick Google suggests your periphery is a bit more than what I am suggesting, but I'm trying to keep this simple. I am also not going to suggest getting in an airplane thousands of feet above the Earth and noticing that you can _still_ see to the horizon). 

 

4/3 of 9.61 is 12.8133333 etc. Square miles. 

 

This gives us the handy round figure of thirty-three million, one-hundred eighty-six thousand, three-hundred and eighty point nine-eight-two-eight. 

 

You know, I'm feeling like we should round in the character's favor here. Let's just call it an even 33,186,390 square meters. 

 

So we divide that by the twenty-five points we "sort-of-paid for not being blind? - - and we see that a single point spent on light should allow us to illuminate one-and-one-third _million_ square meters. 

 

It's no _wonder_ we give that crap away for free!   We'll have to start burning off the surplus if we expect it to ever be worth anything at all! 

 

Which takes me back to Chris's other suggestion:  if you really want to charge for it, charge somewhere between 1 and 5 pts.  Personally, if you spent a _whole point_ for the ability to light up a 10m X 10m room, you got _screwed_....