Tasha

I didn't say that the discussion should end at RAW. Though if someone is asking a question, finding the answer in RAW does fulfill their need. There is a place for discussion of rules. Just make sure that when we are talking about modifications to the rules we actually say that is what we are doing. Christopher sometimes goes off on a tangent, and when he's told that his opinion is not backed up by RAW. Then he says that he's talking about a Modification to the rules or his house rules. Which his post doesn't mention at all. This makes it VERY hard to discuss things with him because it feels like he's moving goalposts.

I also didn't realize that we were talking about the Pokemon as they appeared in the CCG. I am used to the various GameBoy versions of the creatures.

Now I didn't say that at all. Just that we start from RAW, identify issues and then discuss solutions. Sometimes RAW works just fine, it's just finding the right part of the rules (ie our discussion on Gestures and Incantations. I am VERY happy to talk about ways to change the rules etc. JUST make sure that you make it clear that you are talking about your houserule or that you are talking about a rule variant or something you would like to change. Often YOUR posts go on like you are talking about RAW and it's not clear that you are talking about a different interpretation or a change to the existing rule. I admit that I am dubious of House Rules. Having been burned by them quite a few times. Esp by ones not thought out enough by the GM that implemented them. I also like to work within RAW because that makes it easier for beginners to integrate into a group. I have put forward the most radical rules changes of anyone here. So to say that I won't talk about rules changes is just disingenuous on your part.

Sorry that sounds REALLY like you are discussing House rules. Rules discussions should ALWAYS start from RAW. It's foolish to start from anywhere else. Why would you start from some idea you pulled out of your tail? You start from RAW and discuss why you think the rule is wrong and needs to be change or why a different interpretation is the one that is correct. Yes reading the rules like "Scripture" often DOES solve the issue. It's why they are the RULES.

BTW the invisibility rules in 6e1 do mention Incantations and Gestures. 6e1pg 241 Gestures: Even though Gestures are normally supposed to be “clearly visible at a distance,” a character who’s Invisible to Sight Group can make Gestures without other characters seeing them or having them spoil his Invisibility. Incantations: If a character speaks while Invisible to the Hearing Group, whether it’s Incantations or normal speech, other people can hear him speaking.

I don't believe that the gestures must be seen for them to work. They would work if the PC was behind a wall or other obstacle. Also unlike Incantations which DO say that a Sound Silence spell would set off the limitation, Gestures doesn't mention anything about being seen. It only mentions being restrained or damaged as being what stops incantations. I just asked Steve if being invisible or in Darkness prevented powers using gestures from working.

So do powers with Gestures work while the PC is invisible vs sight or in a Darkness vs sight field? sorry to bother you Steve, Found the right rule Gestures: Even though Gestures are normally supposed to be “clearly visible at a distance,” a character who’s Invisible to Sight Group can make Gestures without other characters seeing them or having them spoil his Invisibility. Incantations: If a character speaks while Invisible to the Hearing Group, whether it’s Incantations or normal speech, other people can hear him speaking. I should have read the WHOLE section on Invis

Because it NOT clear at all that you were talking about houserules. You will notice when I switch to my Opinion I DO say In My Opinion (or IMHO) or in my game etc. If you don't make it clear that you are talking about a houserule or a proposed change to the rules, then don't be surprised when people point out RAW and what they think is RAI. Also, when you do have a rule change proposal, expect that some people will disagree with you.

Incantations specifically can't be used in a Sound Darkness field (6e1 pg 381) "To use Incantations, a character must be able to speak freely and clearly — if he’s gagged or has his mouth full, he can’t activate and/or use the power. It’s also impossible to use the power while in a silence field (see Darkness)." This is very explicit and supports my RAI argument. The Potterverse wands and the gestures used are able to be seen from pretty far away which IMHO fulfills the Gestures requirement. I don't believe that a PC must windmill their arms to fulfill the gestures requirements. Just a waving of the hands that can be seen from a decent distance away. Darkness vs sight doesn't prevent gestures or it would be called out specifically in the text like Incantations. Also, keep in mind that this is a +1/4 limitation so as long as the gestures aren't easy to hide or too subtle to see from 5-8m away then I would be willing to let them slide.

I think that RAI for Incantations is to simulate the behavior seen in D&D where Casters in a "Silence" spell (aka Darkness vs Sound) can't cast spells with Verbal Components to them. RAI for Gestures is to give clearly understood body language that tells someone at a glance that the Caster is about to cast a spell. It's probably a bit underpriced given that restrainable is worth a -1/2 Limitation and Gestures is Restrainable + Caster Telegraphs when they are going to use this ability. So gestures work in a Darkness field because SOMEONE who has perception that can see though the Darkness can see the gestures and know that an ability is about to be used. Also keep in mind that Gestures and Incantations are built for non Superheroic Games (The books even say so).

gestures is more about being restrainable than being seen, but seeing the person waving their arms is a factor. With Incantations, Off the top of my head I would say that the incantations must be audible for them to work. So to work they would have to be outside of the Invisibility. ie like when an invisible person wants to shout a warning to a teammate. They allow their self to be heard.

If you get into Fantasy Hero or other 6e Heroic Games (ie Fantasy Hero). Picking up HS Equipment Guide is also nice. It's cool for Champions too to show how "mundane" equipment, armor and weapons are built.

All of the Mechanics from Ninja Hero are in HSMA updated to work with the Martial Arts already in 6e (6e1&2/CC/FHC). The MA element builder is fleshed out better in HSMA, and there are way more prebuilt Martial Arts Abilities. The setting stuff for running a MA campaign is in Mike Surbrook's 5e Ninja Hero (available in the Online Store).

Christopher said that in his games that an invisible character's attacks would be invisible as well. In your Darkness example, The attack isn't technically invisible. It becomes perceptible once it leaves the confines of the darkness. Like with invisibility, the attack would become visible once it leaves the darkness. Also darkness is a bit different than invisiblity. In that it's a "visible" field of whatever that doesn't allow certain types of perception to happen. I guess you could buy IPE for Darkness and make yourself an AOE Invisibility/ and Blindness field. By what RAW says, Swords and other Obvious Foci are visible. Which I would houserule away (though I probably would suggest that invisible suit person should probably buy the suit as an IIF and not an OIF). Also, Blasts and RKAs should be Perceiveable ie you should be able to track back to who made the shot. Which IS the point of making people define what senses can see the attack. Melee isn't as much of an issue because when someone is hit they have a basic idea of where the hit came from. Heck, there are even talents that give bonuses for figuring that out. IMHO it's far more important for Ranged attacks to define where they are coming from. BTW this rationale is IMHO why PCs effected by otherwise invisible Mental Powers always know who is initiating the attack.

It is certainly your houserule, but I also pointed out how it penalizes people who do take IPE. Also, how it allows someone with Obvious Foci to get around their limitation. Whatever works for your campaign. BTW the character would still be invisible, but their attack would be visible as per RAW. which would give the target and others a better chance to see the Invisible person.

I didn't think that Pokemon abilities were that complicated. Really just 4 powers and the critters being pretty similar otherwise.

the problem with that is that it makes IPE totally worthless. There absolutely zero reason for an Invisible person to have it. Which sucks if I am playing a sniper who uses IPE on my Rifle and Invis to Sight and sound guy get the same thing for 30pts plus they are invisible. Which is why I would make the non IPE power visible. This becomes even more important if we are using power point ceilings. So the Sniper has a less powerful attack in DC than the Invisible person if both are at the PP cap. Which is NOT fair at all. The problem is magnified even further if the Invisible person has an OBVIOUS Focus. Suddenly attacks coming from the Focus isn't being penalized with the Limitation.

IMHO I would do it with a bit of Shape Shift with a BIG Variable Power pool. Remember that sometimes the "obvious" build that doesn't quite work isn't the right one. I would require the player to spec out the powers in the pool that vary between "forms".

The old boards were archived and are still searchable. The links are broken because the archived discussions have different URLs.

Instead of saying "No", I would say "No, but" Which is to say, I would ask what the Player is going for with their "Hunted by Klingons". It may be that they just want a Strong, Warrior oriented group for the PC's to be hunted by. Which gives me a way to give them what they want without compromising my vision of what the game us about. IMHO all Complications give the GM an idea of what the Player is looking for in the game. Even Complications that on their face don't fit the campaign.

The example in 6e1 is VERY clear on the issue. "Example: Hemdring the Stern, SPD 4, has a magical Ring Of Invisibility (Invisibility to Sight Group, No Fringe). When he uses his Ring, he becomes Invisible; so do his clothing, armor, and sword. On Phase 3, when Hemdring attacks a goblin with his sword, the sword appears out of thin air and cleaves the goblin in two! (Other goblins who make a PER Roll can now attack Hemdring at only -1 OCV; see 6E2 7.) At the end of Segment 3, Hemdring’s sword fades from view, since it’s once more covered by his Invisibility until he uses it to attack again." Bolding of Emphasis is mine. Examples like this is what make 5ER and 6E (I and II) So valuable. No wondering what Steve meant. He spells it out in an example. To Christopher. RAW is the following re: Invisible people attacking "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." Also this later in the writeup re: Obvious foci and Invisible characters. "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." Like I said, as a houserule I would allow an obvious focus to be invisible until it's used. Where it would become visible or some part of it would be visible. The PC on their phase could as a Zerophase action put the invisibility over the foci again. Because as RAW it would be impossible to buy an Armor Suit that gave Invisibility. I would be ok as GM to make it obvious when the power is activating (and being turned off) that the effect comes from the suit.

As a GM I usually assume that Superhero Fashion are built of something like Reed Richards' Unstable Molecules (which he DID share with all of the Heroes in the MU). As a Player I usually assume the same thing. I do have a character who's costume is made of magic One who has special Nanotech that keeps her and her Costume looking great I even have a PC who fights crime totally naked. (Though she's a big Housecat ie like a Savannah cat, only with totally black fur, and a uplifted brain) Oh I guess I have another PC who fought crime naked, they were an insectoid warrior from a high magic world That doesn't even count the Powered Armor Suits (both Technological and Magical) It's one of those things that I don't consider to be important or fun. So I ignore it. Heck even when I am playing Heroic level games we tend to handwave/ignore damage to clothing/armor. I guess if one of the PC's had unluck and we wanted to do something funny with a bad roll.

So no you didn't cover it. It's obvious that you haven't read the rule. 6e1 pg 236 CCpg 72 and 5ER pg 192 Yes, but SOMETIMES it IS a Targeting sense. ie Sonar, and it is possible to buy Hearing with the Targeting Adder. In 6e you would have to spend 20 points to be invisible to Targeting Hearing Senses. Though once you are invis to one Targeting sense group you can get others for 10pts each. So to know if the PC is invisible to Sonar and other Hearing Targeting senses, you would have to know how the PC bought their invisibility to sound. Whether they bought invis to a Targeting or a Non Targeting sense. It has Zero to do with Rarity.

re Sonar. Because it's a Targeting Sense, the Invisible person must have Invisible vs a Targeting Sense (20pts per sense, vs 10 pts per non targeting sense) to remain invisible to Sonar. Invis to hearing Otherwise makes the person not make noise. both to body noises that would be picked up by ultrasonic and telescoping hearing and the noises they make by walking etc. Not sure that I LIKE how Invisibility is bought Targeting vs Non Targeting in 6e. I think I liked buying it vs the Rarity of the Sense more. Targeting vs non targeting makes for a very expensive power. It also causes anomolies in things like RADAR ie isn't radar pretty much ALWAYS a targeting sense?

Since the Shield is a defensive power it's not game breaking for it to not make sound when struck. It is pretty game breaking for someone who doesn't have Invisible power effects to be able to hit someone without that person seeing the attack. I have no issue with someone with a Obvious Attack Focus to keep that item invisible before it's used, but the defender MUST be able to see the attack to know where it originated from. Even Mental Powers which are invisible ex for the person being attacked work that way.