Christopher R Taylor

Yes, Tasha. I know. That's how its done in Hero. Which is why I asked should it? Because strictly speaking it ought not stop incantations to merely be cloaked in a field of inaudibility. It should only work to actually silence the character in some manner, not make them impossible to hear. See, the problem we often run into on these boards is when someone speculates if things could be done differently or better, and someone else inevitably quotes the rulebook like a scripture reading as if that solves the issue.

Based on the trailer Part Two is more of his amazing ghost-like ability to walk straight in the front door and shoot everything that moves. I'm starting to think the Russian thing about Baba Yaga was just to scare the kid, not because John Wick was in any way remotely stealthy.

I had a lot of fun playing a character called Zoo Boy, a sidekick from WW2 that could turn into any American animal. In truth he could turn into any animal, but his psych complications made him only choose American ones. He got pulled into the future by a temporal storm and was really out of place in modern America.

I'm certain that's where they came from. Here's where we run into a problem. Because in D&D they have a silence spell that causes people to be silenced, not inaudible. I know that sounds the same but its not; darkness is merely an area where a sense doesn't work (hearing in this case), not an area where you cannot speak. Darkness vs sound can be a sonic emitter that makes it impossible to hear anything else -- darkness is very aggressive in that its clearly perceptible and obvious what's causing the blackout. So should darkness stop incantations? It always has in Hero, because it seems like the proper build, but is it? Or would another build make more sense? I struggled with this building my Codex, because the concept of a loud area silencing casters just didn't make sense to me. But there isn't really an easy or obvious alternative. In 5th edition, where there was both Suppress and Steve's notes on buying senses and basic abilities for points, you could actually build, literally, a silence effect: Suppress speech. That's not exactly kosher in the new rules.

Could just be as simple as DCV: they just don't want to harm her so they swing wide. An enormous presence attack to get people to not bother you could work, too.

One of my favorite characters is Captain Invincible, who I play up larger than life with a huge booming hero voice. He's basically dumb and easily fooled but has all the defenses possible, hardened at least once, etc. He's nearly impossible to hurt, just not much on offense at all.

The way you want to read this rule, you're saying gestures stop working when nobody is looking or they're behind something. That's just plainly not how the limitation is meant to work.

the active point value of a 10d6 Ap attack is pretty huge for many campaigns, so I'd be careful with that, and there are some concerns about the damage total based on advantages added to Strength (as a GM you can easily rule that an armor piercing attack is not normal, so you'd need the added advantage to armor piercing which greatly increases its cost).

You don't need to -- as others have noted you prorate the advantage into your strength damage like with killing attacks. However, if you do buy the advantage on your strength, you'll get more bang from it.

This is an accurate statement, but it does not, I believe reflect what the rules are saying. The rules do not mean "gestures must always be visible to everyone or they do not work" but rather "gestures must be of a nature that is ordinarily visible and distinct." In other words, as Whitekeys notes about the pistol vs steampunk device, they have to be a motion that is not only able to be restrained, but clearly doing something out of the ordinary to all observers. If everyone closes their eyes, thus rendering the gestures not visible, they are not negated. If you're behind a crate, blocking off vision of your gestures, they still work. If you're in a darkness field, you still gesture. In other words, the limitation is not based on the capability of others to see what you're doing, but upon the kind of movements you're making. Which brings us to incantations and the same concepts. Just because something blocks off your incantations somehow (a soundproof room, a deaf person, a more enormous sound overwhelming your voice) does not mean you did not incant. Again, its not based on the capability of others to hear you, but upon the kind of sounds you're making. If you are actually prevented from making any sounds, then you cannot use incantations - which brings us back to my basic complaint that "darkness vs sound" does not necessarily mean you cannot and did not incant, it just means nobody could hear you do it. The same with invisibility. Again, I'll state for the last time, that if someone regularly and routinely has the ability to become inaudible (invisibility vs sound), then I'd rule their incantations to be of no limitation value. They have taken a limitation that does not actually limit them. See I'm trying to approach this from a rules toolkit perspective, not a "how its always been done" or "this is how it works in other games" perspective. What do the different components mean and how should they interact?

Instead of leveling everyone up all at once like I have before every expansion I'm tightly focusing on one character and working on him. He's getting revered in every faction and working on the fox mount quest finally (got an invite in a box in Suramar at the end of the "train our army" scenario).

Indeed, which is why I'd say someone who is regularly inaudible would get no limitation from incantations. However, there's nothing about invisibility vs sound that should cause them to not work, any more than gestures while invisible. Remember, seeing Joe the Wizard start waving his arms around in complex patterns means he's casting a spell, and people respond to that by the visual clue, its not just restraint.

That's not exactly accurate. I said their attacks are invisible when adjacent to or attached to the character. Any effects at any distance becomes visible. Someone shoots an arrow the bow is invisible, but the arrow becomes visible when it is away from the bow and the character, for example. Its a question of the personal effect of invisibility being negated or not. I say its not negated by attacking, whether you have a focus or not. Your invisibility makes you invisible. Its like having inaudibility, you can still use incantations (it doesn't make you mute, just inaudible) but nobody can hear them because nobody can hear anything they do. As a GM I'd be at best skeptical of a character that bought both -- if its a constant or regular thing, those incantations lose their limitation -- but tha'ts how it works as I see it. Its just like gestures and invisibility. Just because you have gestures doesn't make your arms suddenly show up when you use a power that requires them.

For most definitions, just an area effect with selective works fine -- or even without selective. What's really the difference between an area filled with energy, and an area with energy that arcs between to strike each target? It gets a bit more complicated if the damage is reduced after each strike, though. You could probably use an explosion variant; full damage first target, -1 DC for each subsequent target.

You have to break the power down into what it does. Does it hit a bunch of people in an area? Does it hit a limited number of targets? Does it hit targets and weaken each time it hits, over a time period? Once you have the basic concept down you can start to design it. For me the toughest build was one called "sparks" from the Might & Magic series: the spell in play fired off a dozen or so lightning balls the size of tennis balls into an area like a fan in front of you. Each time one hit, it did damage, and they would bounce about randomly for a few seconds. If you could pin someone in a corner, you'd hammer them with the whole basketfull, but usually it would only hit once or twice on each target. Because the balls were bouncing around you had no guarantees anyone would be hit, but you could concentrate them very powerfully on a target in a contained space so they would get hammered. Its a sort of uncontrolled autofire, with no idea who's going to be hit or how many times.

I've always required a mounted combat familiarity to fight from horseback (1 point), and you only need a riding roll to do any non-standard combat maneuver, to do something fancy, or to control the pet after a presence attack etc.

Well, there's less of a reason. There's still value to it; the fire blast doesn't look flamey on your hands, but the flamethrower gush hitting your target still is visible. But if someone buys invisibility, they're invisible. It seems kind of obvious to me.

I agree its a D&Dism that never got really cleared up. And in my campaign, if you paid the points to be invisible and you lack some modifier that makes it act differently, then you stay invisible the whole time the power is on. It doesn't flicker on and off depending on a focus or when you attack, or whatever. It just sucks to fight people who are invisible as you would expect it would. Being invisible is very powerful.

I don't even worry about it. One of the first basic themes of Superheroes in comics is they have a costume. So they get a costume, and who cares how?

Yeah I dealt with that above. Invisibility vs sound (Inaudibility) costs less not because it isn't against a targeting sense, but because it is against a sense that is very rarely targeted -- like all things in Hero, the lower the value and more narrow the applicability, the cheaper.

Well the footsteps you leave behind in the snow are outside your range as well. the truth is, invisibility vs sight has range effects as well. The item I put in my pocket or hold in my hand is invisible. When I throw it or put it down away from me, its not. Same deal with inaudibility; I can trigger sounds distant from my immediate personal influence but not that I'm holding or contacting. InVISibility can leave long lasting marks. InAUDibility is always transitory and short term, so its effects are different.

In the 90s she'd be XXXTREME!!!!

Someone very close or with an exceptional perception roll can hear faint noises or echoey sounds; the silence isn't perfect. Stepping on a long branch and the dry leaves rustling.

Sure, and that's valid and according to the rules. Its just that they paid points to be invisible. Which is the entire point of the power: to act and move without being sensed. So I think that should cover the source of their powers, if not the effects.

I agree, vs resistant defenses is really kind of broken when it comes to AVAD and normal attacks. Basically simulating killing attacks costs many times as much as the KA its self. Which means the rule doesn't work. Probably making it a +1/4 and not require buying "Does body" for normal attacks would work best.