Light Effects

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

 

makes sense (did it again)  

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

 

Well, if we fall back to "its the comics" a lot of things can be forgiven.  I don't mind suspending belief due to the comic/cinematic nature of the game but there comes a point where you have to say "Oh come on! there was no way he could be able to do that!!"

 

I agree with you there.  Personally, I think that point is well below -4 PER, but the rules say -4, and I think we've agreed to carry on this experiment accepting -4, so I am not going to quibble it here.

 

 

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

 It just felt a bit cheesy that Mr SuperScientist dumps all his points into Int and is just as observant as a someone that's mildly intelligent but poured a crap ton of points into Per with the explanation that he's trained for years to be observant of his surroundings.  Yet MR S is just as perceptive because he's smart. 

 

If Mr. S has dumped points into---

 

well, let's back up a bit:

 

First:  Do we agree that one _can_ be a super-scientist without a 30 INT?  Or  20 INT?   Or even a 15, for that matter?

 

Do we agree that INT models something other than the ability to create and hold a coherent thought?  Most players I've ever met (HERO Players, anyway) will buy up INT _not_ because their character is a scientist, but because their character is quick-witted-- which they express by selecting a large quantity of (usually unrelated but convenient-for-adventuring) INT-based skills, using their higher INT to gain a leg-up on those very skills.  In fantasy campaigns, I have run games for a surprising number of high INT not-magic-users.  Honestly, in _lots_ of genres.  

 

[Digression, and I've caught it ahead of time, and I'm going to do it anyway.  Clearly there is a physical component to addiction of this nature.    

 

Typically, under Figured Characteristics rules, _all_ my characters end up with higher base ED than base PD.  It makes _no_ logical sense.  None!  But I have a problem, you see:  while I don't see every adventurer as being remarkably strong, I _do_ tend to see them as remarkably _robust_ and _hearty_.  Because of that, I tend to have high-CON characters.  Before anyone accuses me of playing to the "stunning" rules, I'd like to remind the house at large that as a general rule, I don't use them.  Seriously.  Say what you want about their necessity, I have found over the years that they, like the hit chart, tend to slow combat down, and HERO has enough issues with that already.  No: don't tell me it doesn't slow it down much because all you have to do is compare to CON, etc, because that is _not_ all there is to it:  achieving a Stunned condition becomes a tactical issue (give it out like syphilis, but go to crazed lengths to avoid catching it yourself), and one more thing that players take their time mulling over.  So I ditched them, many, _many_ years ago.  Bad guys get stunned when it feels right, if it feels right, period.  Good guys only get stunned when I'm saving them from getting killed, and even that doesn't happen often.  I don't use knockdown / knock back, either-- save for getting hit with a truck or something where it's just unavoidable-- for much the same reason.  Someone _declares_ and attempt to knock someone back or down, we do it.  Otherwise, skip it.

 

Digression complete]

At any rate, there are concepts that are perfectly valid that we don't really think about:  the normal INT super-scientist.  It's perfectly valid:  his results are the work of _vision_ and _dedication_ and the diligently-learned skills and knowledges he possesses.  No one has suggested, so far as I know, that a 15 INT is "twice as smart" as a 10.  

 

I'm not entirely sure why so many "super-scientist" examples have the INT scores they do, to be honest with you, save that INT isn't the best-defined characteristic there is.  It's well-talked-about in every edition of the game, but unless something radical happened in 6, it's not extremely well-defined.

 

So in the case of Mr. S, I would posit that his ability to "perceive through analysis and understanding of the indistinct things he sees" _does_ make sense, because someone has decided that he is unusually quick-witted by purchasing him a larger INT, netting him a larger base PER (which, again, is sort of justified by his quick-thinking, which makes the higher base PER seem appropriate.)  Mr. "I have some nifty goggles" guy is getting the same information from his environment, but he's doing it directly, by actually looking for / at the things around him instead of "figuring them out nigh-instantly because he understand what should be what."

 

The key to this making sense is not re-writing anything, or even re-interpreting everything, really, but intentionally _breaking_ that INT score = IQ or INT score = education link that so many people tend to make.  That's all.

 

The last time I checked (and I don't know if this still holds true in 6e-- remember that I've only read that once, and never re-read it because reading it the first time was such an unpleasant chore), one could buy enough INT to get a +1 in all INT skills and in PER.  For just -- what?  one point less?-- one could buy a skill level for "INT-based skills" for... was it about one point less?  They wouldn't get the PER bonus that seems to be something of a sticking point here.

 

Perhaps we should more routinely build scientists this way.  Reserve high-INT for that character who thinks faster, or makes more radical logic leaps, yet tends to be spot-on about them.

 

Hope something there helped.

 

 

Hope that helps.

 

[Vanguard]

@Duke Bushido

 

Helps a ton.

 

I would posit, unless I'm misunderstanding your digression, that the split of figured stats was done exactly for the reason you digressed about.  To make a Robust character that didn't have an arse load of stun.

 

The interpretation of Int is, I agree, largely to blame.  And in the groups I've played it has been interpreted as being your intellectual capacity.  Which is what cause my disconnect and irritation.  And it is a "me" issue really. Since I did mention before, and you so kindly refrained from pointing out, that the Mr S DID pay points for his Int.  just as Mr Perception paid for is increased perception.  So both of them are getting what they paid for. . . 

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Perhaps we should more routinely build scientists this way.  Reserve high-INT for that character who thinks faster, or makes more radical logic leaps, yet tends to be spot-on about them.

 

 

*I* would be more than happy to do this but I have a feeling there'd be push back.  

 

Just like in or Gatecrashers Heroic game, the guy playing the sniper wanted to "be really quick with his rifle". So he pushed his Dex to near superhuman levels, instead of just buying lightning reflexes with Rifles.

 

And with that. I'll stop derailing the thread. /salute

[PhilFleischmann]

Thread Drift!

 

I generally would expect a Super-Scientist to have a high INT, because that's what studying science does.  Just like I would expect a super-fighter to have high STR.  If you spend years of your life in physical combat training exercises, your muscles are going to get stronger.  Likewise, if you spend years studying science, your brain is going to get stronger.

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Thread Drift!

 

 

Well,  "yes" and "no."  It's an attempt to approach and resolve one of the problems of the "PER penalties as the only model for the absence of light" and a problem that creates because of how a character's raw PER is calculated.

 

There is the potential to address this problem by simply better-defining that which the PER is based on.  It's a niche problem, so there will be things in the discussion of the problem that do not apply to all characters evenly.

 

I'm not sure of a better way to resolve it.  

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Thread Drift!

 

I generally would expect a Super-Scientist to have a high INT, because that's what studying science does.  Just like I would expect a super-fighter to have high STR.  If you spend years of your life in physical combat training exercises, your muscles are going to get stronger.  Likewise, if you spend years studying science, your brain is going to get stronger.

This is why there is a problem though. Hero system defines INT as not smarts per se but the how quickly one can process information. The example in one of the editions is that a Super smart person can have a 8 INT but a lot of skills at a high roll.  This is why a Speedster can justify a really high INT. It’s not that he’s smart just that he can think more quickly than the average person. So in this context,  PER tied to INT makes sense. The quicker you can analyze info (especially in a combat situation) the better you can perceive the world around you.

[PhilFleischmann]

8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

This is why there is a problem though. Hero system defines INT as not smarts per se but the how quickly one can process information.

I don't really see what the difference is.  You can't process information if you don't have any.  It's possible someone could have a 20- roll in "KS: Soft Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature" without having any knowledge whatsoever about how real science works, or real history, or any other useful information about the real world.  But even that knowledge of literature is something, and it indicates some level of intelligence.

 

8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

The example in one of the editions is that a Super smart person can have a 8 INT but a lot of skills at a high roll.

Which to me, would indicate that the person who constructed the character has a low INT.  100% of everyone I've ever played HERO games with uses INT to mean intelligence, regardless of whatever vague and confused explanation the rulebooks might give.

 

8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

This is why a Speedster can justify a really high INT. It’s not that he’s smart just that he can think more quickly than the average person. So in this context,  PER tied to INT makes sense. The quicker you can analyze info (especially in a combat situation) the better you can perceive the world around you.

Completely agreed.

[Duke Bushido]

7 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I don't really see what the difference is.  You can't process information if you don't have any. 

 

What knowledge does the INT score provide?

 

Quote

It's possible someone could have a 20- roll in "KS: Soft Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature" without having any knowledge whatsoever about how real science works, or real history, or any other useful information about the real world.  But even that knowledge of literature is something, and it indicates some level of intelligence.

 

Memory is not a function of intelligence.  Computers remember everything.  Morons remember everything.  The only connection is tenuous: Intelligence can use what it remembers to make new knowledge.  Intelligence isn't required to record things.

 

 

Quote

 

Which to me, would indicate that the person who constructed the character has a low INT. 

 

 

You guys have fun with the rest of this thread; I'm done here.  I don't find anything particularly productive about insulting the guys who wrote the books or the people behind the various characters.  I mean, I have a _passionate_ dislike of the newer editions, but I've never been tempted to hold them against Steven, even in the least: he did something I couldn't:  he found the backing and the wherewithal to keep the game alive.  Plus, I hear he's actually a really great guy.  I expect similar things can be said of all the contributing authors all the way back to that first group cribbing from the Fantasy Trip and Superworld.

 

 

Quote

100% of everyone I've ever played HERO games with uses INT to mean intelligence, regardless of whatever vague and confused explanation the rulebooks might give.

 

One-hundred percent of all human beings will be wrong about something at some point.  Elections, surveys, and sometimes even sports and recreation demonstrate that this can occur individually, or simultaneously in obscenely large groups.  

 

 

Over the years, I have lost track of how many times I have been told that, because I don't always use a particular rule or make a particular call, I am wrong because I am not using the rules as they are written.  It doesn't bother me-- seriously.  It doesn't; I'm having fun with my friends, and not looking for validation from strangers.  I have lost track of most of the people who have told me that I am having fun wrong because I am not following the letter of the rules.  Most of them.

 

 

I don't think there is anything to be gained by continuing to follow this thread, because I don't think we are all going to agree to accept the various suggestions that any of us might offer, or even be able to agree on a set of parameters to the problem or an angle from which to approach it.  And that's fine, really: I have no doubt that we all already have something that works for us anyway.  Still, I hope those of you that remain are able to create something new.

 

Have fun with it!

 

 

Duke

 

 

 

 

[Sean Waters]

On 1/9/2020 at 8:14 PM, redsash said:

 

Complete lack of light allows no perception checks. A "Dark Night" allows checks at -4.

 

 

Smart people can not see any better at night than I can either.

[Sean Waters]

On 1/9/2020 at 8:14 PM, redsash said:

 

Yes, I think I saw that build thirty years ago. Not very scalable: think candles vs spotlights.

 

 

That's pretty dismissive, especially given that the build you then suggest is very similar.

Still it got me thinking.

Maybe the problem is not that we need a power to do this – or at least not JUST that we need a power to do this, it is that the system rules for what darkness is are fundamentally inadequate.

Perhaps we need to define levels of darkness or, more usefully, levels of light (or other form of energy).

 

Light Level 0 means there is no visible light at all.  Anyone relying on visible light can not see at all and in combat all opponents are effectively invisible.

Light Level 1 means there is some ambient illumination.  You can sense objects but no detail.  You can not see in colour.  You can sense quick movement and you can move through an area slowly without too much hazard but you may not be able to see some hazards unless there is sufficient contrast.  Perception rolls are at -4.  You can counter this penalty by traking extra time.  All combat is at a penalty of -3 OCV/DCV or the same as for invisible opponents – whichever is better.

Light Level 2 means there is dim illumination.  You can see rough detail but it takes longer then usual.  You can see colours dimly.  Perception rolls are at -2.  You can counter this penalty by taking extra time.  All combat is at -2 OCV/DCV or the same as for invisible opponents – whichever is better.

Light Level 3 means deep shadow or low level indoor lighting.  You can see normally but all perceptions checks are at -1.  You can counter this penalty by taking extra time.  All combat is at -1OCV/DCV.

Light Level 4 means bright daylight.

Higher levels of illumination cause negative affects and should be built as attacks.

 

You can acclimatise your vision to an extent.  If you spend a minute at Light Level 2 then you can see as if it were Light Level 3, and a minute in Light Level 3 you can see as if it were light level 4.  Any bright light (for example the flash of an energy blast) means you lose your night sight.  You can not acclimatise more than one level of illumination.

 

Visible SFX that generate light act as a brief flash of Level 4 illumination.  This is normally too quick to detect detail (unless you have Rapid Sense).

 

Light in a given area will illuminate adjacent areas: 4m at one level lower, then a further 8m at one level lower then 16 m at one level lower than that.

 

You can use Change Environment to increase or decrease Light Levels, in the same way you can change temperature levels.  You can also change the level of other energy in a similar manner.

 

TALKING POINT: You can also make energy levels negative.  This does not have any increased effect on perception or combat, but means that some light sources will not work or not work at full efficacy.  This trespasses into the Darkness Power a bit.  I do not care, but you might.

 

So that is a bit rough and ready, but might make a decent basis for discussion.

 

EDIT: you could then build Night Vision as 2 points to increase your personal light perception level by 1, starting at Light Level 1 (you still can not see in total darkness) and an additional 3 points to start at Light Level 0.

 

So for 4 points you could see at Light Level +2, but still not see in Light Level 0 (Total Darkness), or for 5 points you could see at Light Level +1 starting from Total Darkness.  And so on.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Phil I’m not arguing that people have been using INT score as well intelligence forever. I was just pointing out though that by the game’s definition perception makes more sense.

[Ninja-Bear]

Sean I agree with you too that total darkness say a cave, you get no chance to roll.

[Ninja-Bear]

It me walking this morning that I think I “see” some of the disconnect or complaint with the -4 PER. I have this feeling that say that if a player makes his roll, then he can see as well into the dark night as bright light but is that what the rules are really saying? I believe the PER roll is more for a character to be able to see shapes and some movement and the character isn’t at reduced CV modifiers but that’s different than saying that you can see everything as in daylight.  For example I forgot to bring my flashlight when walking my dog at darkest night in the local cemetery. I make my PER roll what do I see? I can make out the driveway around the graves. I can make out most of the bigger tombstones. That doesn’t mean I can read the tombstones themselves. Hell some of them in broad daylight being so old are hard to read.  I think of this similar to the other enhanced senses. Player  “I have IR vision can I read that sign at night?” GM umm....no the words  doesn’t radiate heat in a way to read them”. GM to player 1 (in broad daylight) “ok you see a plain piece of wood” GM to player 2 “ you see in UV the words welcome friend”.  I think we should look common and dramatic sense as to what making your PER roll entails.

[redsash]

5 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

Smart people can not see any better at night than I can either.

 

There are at least three things going on during any act of perception: the physical sense organs (35 points for sight in this case according to Hero) the processing of sensory data through your central nervous system (INT) and what I might call inspiration or intuition, which has no real equivalent in Hero other than maybe a Luck check if the GM thinks its appropriate.

 

Lacking common psych lims, smart people will tend to be more observant no matter what the light level because they have more efficient sensory processing. 

 

As a real-life anecdote, I had a friend once compliment me on my intelligence because I habitually close one eye around light sources when it's dark, so only one of my pupils dilated, preserving the night vision on one side. As a result my sight PER was way better than his around and about the campfire. Old pirate trick. 

 

 

 

[redsash]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

That's pretty dismissive, especially given that the build you then suggest is very similar.

 

Apologies for being terse, sometimes I have to type fast with kids hanging on my arm.

 

Again the  EB idea has been explored here and elsewhere, also the light level thing. (Yes Hero has not thought illumination through.)

 

I don't find EB useful because again it doesn't scale and it's too cheap given that NightVision costs 8AP and CE: Darkness -4 costs 12

 

Images actually does it right for most things but it's twice the cost (yes you get a -1 Limitation but your AP is still 27 points!) That Radiate power (or should it be "Illuminate?") was based on a price of Images/2, which works out to 14AP to light up a single object as if it were in daylight. It shares some behavior with CE and Dispel, though, and really needs to be a separate power.

 

Still models as an attack power though; that's bang-on.

 

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

Still it got me thinking.

 

 

Point of the exercise 🙂

 

I was also thinking further, and I would make edits. For one thing, why does the light (in my power description) not help against *all* CE sight perception penalties? You can see a lighthouse through the fog or even snow. An Image in a CE: snow storm would still be visible at whatever bonuses bought with the images minus whatever penalties bought with the CE. Certainly we get no limitation for it: the -1 for "light only" is the same as the -1 for "single image only": says nothing about how it interacts with other powers.

 

Also on further thought the Darkness power would be better named "Opaque Area" (although I see why they didn't go with that 🙂

 

[PhilFleischmann]

19 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

What knowledge does the INT score provide?

None.  It's the other way around.  Knowledge provides intelligence.  Just like exercise provides strength.  At least in real life.  In the HERO System, all abilities are bought a-la-carte.  So you can be bit by a radioactive frog and gain super-strength, without having engaged in any physical exercise or having developed any physical skills.  In real life, you don't become intelligent without studying something - without exercising your brain against the acquisition of knowledge.  But of course, you could still be bitten by a radioactive pigeon and gain super-intelligence, without having any intelligence-based skills, if you want.

 

I am operating under the assumption that real-life is relevant.  It's not required for everything to be realistic, but it is one principle to take into consideration.

 

And if you're building a HERO character that has KS's, SS's, and Intellect Skills, all bought up to 20-, but you've only got an 8 INT, then you're building your character very inefficiently, and there's really no need for you to do that.  I suppose it's fine for an NPC, but assuming you want this character to be successful at whatever the adventure requires, this is not the way to go.

 

3 hours ago, redsash said:

There are at least three things going on during any act of perception: the physical sense organs (35 points for sight in this case according to Hero) the processing of sensory data through your central nervous system (INT) and what I might call inspiration or intuition, which has no real equivalent in Hero other than maybe a Luck check if the GM thinks its appropriate.

I assume this is a change in 6e.  In 5e, it was 25 points (p228).  Not that it's a big deal, but it should be noted.

 

And INT - through whatever skills are relevant to the situation - also has a very important effect on perception.  It let's you focus on what's important, and filter out what's not.  It's not just attention to detail, but the selection of the details to pay attention to.  A highly skilled martial artist, for example, isn't necessarily paying attention to his opponent's hairstyle or clothes, but his stance - where he's placing his feet, which way he's leaning, etc., so he can correctly predict what move he's going to make.  This seems to me to be a function of both Intelligence and Perception, working so closely together, that it's hard to separate them.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, PhilFleischmann said:

None.  It's the other way around.  Knowledge provides intelligence. 

 

 

This isn't the political thread (and I'm not crazed enough to even look there, let alone post in it), so I'm not going to call anyone or anything out.  Hell, you don't even need politicians.  Surely you have coworkers of some sort.

 

At any rate, what you suggest there is not even remotely supported by the evidence available in the world.  We all know some extremely well-versed idiots of one stripe or another.

[Doc Democracy]

I was so determined not to wade back into this....

 

...but I cannot resist getting on my old hobby horse.  The reason we have so much problem agreeing on this in game terms is because we cannot agree in real life.

 

As far as HERO goes, I think we would be in a better place without characteristics, they smear across skills and powers and are the source of our problems.

 

We say intelligence and, depending on context, we mean sharpness of mind, perspicacity, understanding, knowledge or a range of other things. 

 

Personally I would get rid of characteristics from the system.

 

There.  Said it.  Am going to retreat to watching again. 😄

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

Ok cause you want to get rid of characteristics, I’m calling you a heretic and getting the torches and pitchforks! Joking!

 

Btw there is a statement stemming back to 3e (and I’ll guess even the first) that you can change the rules to suit your taste in gaming. (This ain’t aimed at you Doc cause I know you know it’s more of a general statement.) LORD knows it took me awhile to understand that!

[Doc Democracy]

You will be the third bunch of yokels with pitchforks this week!  😁

[Duke Bushido]

43 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

You will be the third bunch of yokels with pitchforks this week!  😁

 

 

Well, yes.

 

But we've got _ours_ turned right way 'round  

 

 

[Solitude]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I was so determined not to wade back into this....

 

...but I cannot resist getting on my old hobby horse.  The reason we have so much problem agreeing on this in game terms is because we cannot agree in real life.

 

As far as HERO goes, I think we would be in a better place without characteristics, they smear across skills and powers and are the source of our problems.

 

We say intelligence and, depending on context, we mean sharpness of mind, perspicacity, understanding, knowledge or a range of other things. 

 

Personally I would get rid of characteristics from the system.

 

There.  Said it.  Am going to retreat to watching again. 😄

 

Doc

The problems all really come down to what people want to do with powers.

 

If people would just play games about foraging enough nuts and berries to stay alive,  and finding a way not to freeze when it's cold then every thing would make perfect sense,  as Gaia intended.

 

We should just be trying to make better pointed sticks, not glow like fires in the sky.

And the rules are cluttered up because we have added all this nonsense to nouns and verbs.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

You will be the third bunch of yokels with pitchforks this week!  😁

Ok how about tarred and feathered then? See I’m reasonable. 😁

[Doc Democracy]

A change is as good as a rest. 🙂

[Sean Waters]

20 hours ago, redsash said:

 

There are at least three things going on during any act of perception: the physical sense organs (35 points for sight in this case according to Hero) the processing of sensory data through your central nervous system (INT) and what I might call inspiration or intuition, which has no real equivalent in Hero other than maybe a Luck check if the GM thinks its appropriate.

 

Lacking common psych lims, smart people will tend to be more observant no matter what the light level because they have more efficient sensory processing. 

 

As a real-life anecdote, I had a friend once compliment me on my intelligence because I habitually close one eye around light sources when it's dark, so only one of my pupils dilated, preserving the night vision on one side. As a result my sight PER was way better than his around and about the campfire. Old pirate trick. 

 

 

 

 

I agree and have previously argued that Perception should be a 2 stage test: 

 

1. Roll to see if you can actually sense something.

2. Roll to see how you interpret or understand that.

 

I absolutely agree that the second one would benefit from high intelligence, or skills appropriate to the situation, such as AK: The Wilderness.

 

I don't think it works anywhere near as well rolling them into one.  For example, Smart but Deaf could ask Stupid but Acute Hearing: can you hear a slightly high pitched hissing?  Smart but Deaf can't, Stupid but Acute Hearing can but had not appreciated the significance of it, assuming it was just part of the background noise.

 

A better example is my wife.  She's vacuuming downstairs and I can hear the vacuum straining.  She carries on vacuuming.  I run down and unblock the vacuum hose.

 

She's smarter than me and at least as perceptive, but never seems to pick up on that sort of thing.  We've both got (say) Perception 11-, but I've got the skill: There's Something Wrong with the Vacuum 12- and she does not even have it as a Familiarity.

 

Conversely, I can see washing up, I just don't process it as something important, at least until she gives me the Smart Pigeon.  I associate that immediately with danger.

 

To stretch a point, the Pirate Trick (most pirates were not blind in one eye) is part of the PS: Pirate thing. They know to do it because they have been taught to do it not because they were all smart.  Allowing separate Perception and understanding checks (appropriate skill or default INT check) models that better.

[Ninja-Bear]

Sean I was thinking about this last night going into work. I noticed the moon then a very straight cloud then the lights of an airplane. If I didn’t know what could cause the abnormally straight cloud, I would’ve thought “wow what an unusually straight cloud”. Also the lights clued me in that it wasn’t a UFO or a helicopter I have know idea what size airplane it was for sure. (I’m still amazed on how far the craft was from me and I could see the lights.)  So yes just cause you can make a PER roll doesn’t mean that you automatically know all the details.