03-08-2020, 09:51 AM | #11 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
Quote:
There's 3 basic verisons... Invisibiility (Affects Machines +50%) [60]Any indecision about whether AM is a prereq for MO would be settled by Powers 57: The best optical camouflage has Affects Machines (+50%) instead of Machines OnlyI guess we could also look at "Doesn't Affect Non-Machines" as a -100% limitation put on top of Affects Machines +50%? It seems like affecting machines is worth twice as much as affecting non-machines, which might be based on our modern world. In a setting where there are more machines to avoid than people (or where people rely on viewing each other through video HUDs) avoiding machines might actually be MORE important... |
|
03-08-2020, 10:39 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
Quote:
|
|
03-08-2020, 12:18 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: England
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
I'm never sure whether Obscure 10 (Vision; Defensive, +50%; Stealthy, +100%) [50] is a better choice than Invisibility; it automatically affects machines, and doesn't require "Can Carry Objects". The counterbalance seems to be that default sense coverage (without Extended) for Obscure (normal vision) is less than Invisibility (all EM radiation) though.
|
03-08-2020, 01:18 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
Invisibility first appeared as a racial advantage (in Aliens, Blood Types, maybe others) which explain the default "always on", I think.
Quote:
Invisibility to normal sight / EM spectrum. [40] Cannot be photographied, but otherwise detectable by mechanical devices. Invisibility to machines [20] Cannot be photographied or be detected by a machine sensors. Intended for supernatural creatures that can be "seen" by human, but not by machines. Also a racial advantages usually, so always on by default. In 4e, the 2 were merged, with ItM becoming a +50% enhancement instead, but otherwise, it wasn't changed much from it's 3e root. Recreating the advantage to be more generic isn't difficult, as Aesir32 did above, or even from scratch using Obscure, as Crystalline_Entity suggest. Last edited by Celjabba; 03-08-2020 at 01:26 PM. |
|
03-08-2020, 03:01 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
and half the cost, since it's "instead of" and not "in addition to" it looks like it's not -50 cancelling out +50 as a 0% modifier.
|
03-08-2020, 05:24 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vermont
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
Quote:
Invisible, by contrast, is absolute and binary--either someone has See Invisible or the don't.
__________________
My ongoing thread of GURPS versions of DC Comics characters. |
|
03-08-2020, 06:53 PM | #18 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
"Ten levels will block the sense completely." If you have 10 levels, it doesn't matter how much PER they have or how many levels of Acute Vision, they don't get to roll.
Last edited by NineDaysDead; 03-08-2020 at 08:33 PM. |
03-08-2020, 07:12 PM | #19 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
I don't think Obscure has a rival "See Invisible" counter-ability either, right?
|
03-08-2020, 11:55 PM | #20 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Better rules for Invisibility?
One thing is that Obscure creates a zone, so anyone can hide in it, friend or foe. Also, even though Stealthy stops someone from spotting the field, being unable to spot terrain features that are inside the field should allow people to realise an Obscure zone is there.
If the Obscure has a source Detect [source] should allow finding even a Stealthy Obscure.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." Last edited by Rupert; 03-09-2020 at 12:00 AM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|