[Basic/Powers] Low or No Signature And Visible

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by weby

The second costs more points because it ia obviously more powerful *roll eyes*

It can be advantageous to be armored, yet not obviously geared with an intent for war.

[PK]

Originally Posted by scc

OK, Low or No Signature is B109 and Visible is P112. Both of these Modifiers effect whether or not your attack, power or other effect can be seen. The problem is what is and isn't effected. Low or No Signature says: 'An attack normally has a “signature”: a flash of light, a sound, etc.', so Innate Attack and probably Affliction and Binding as well, seems simple enough.

For attacks, a good general rule is that any advantage which uses the attack/defense roll mechanic is always obvious by default (even if you change this by adding Malediction), while an advantage which uses a Quick Contest is inobvious by default. I expound on this a bit in GURPS Thaumatology: Sorcery.

Unfortunately since buying MH1 I've been a bit confused on that front, PK used Low or No Signature several times on DR

Yes, and while I stand by it, part of me wishes I'd taken a less contentious approach.

First, it's important to note that attacks are not the only thing that can be obvious. Passive abilities can definitely be obvious; consider Extra Arms for one easy example. No Signature is not only used to remove an attack's report, but also to do things like making such passive advantages invisible or unnoticeable. To continue the example, Kromm has suggested "Extra Arm 1 (No Signature; Weapon Mount)" as a way to simulate a cinematic warrior's ability to hold a ready shield while still retaining full use of that arm.

So the question becomes, is Damage Resistance obvious? And I'd say that past a certain point, the realistic answer is clearly "yes." Someone with unmodified DR 6 has the equivalent of a hard, chitinous shell; their skin can repel small-arms fire and any hand-to-hand attack is likely to injure the person attempting it. (The sole exception to this seems to be the supers genre, which is its own weird and wonky thing.)

Thus, since Monster Hunters places such a high priority on stealth and fitting in, I felt that it was appropriate to take a realistically austere approach to DR and consider it to be visible. To my eye, in such a setting, humans can only have DR with Tough Skin without looking like freaks, and only a few levels at that:

DR 1 (Tough Skin): "She's got that leathered, biker skin. I guess she tans a lot."

DR 2 (Tough Skin): "Man, he looks like you could break a bottle over his head and he'd just glare at you."

DR 3+ (Tough Skin) or DR 1+ without it: "What the hell are you?"

Hopefully this makes sense. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to associate DR exclusively with superheroes and complained that GURPS Supers took a different approach. I don't see any issue there; we're talking about two unrelated genres with radically different approaches to the whole "secret identity" thing. Yet this seems to really bother some people. So while I still stand by it, in retrospect I would have taken a different approach (by bundling a UB into the cost of DR) simply to avoid that outcry.

I hope this makes sense.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by PK

Thus, since Monster Hunters places such a high priority on stealth and fitting in, I felt that it was appropriate to take a realistically austere approach to DR and consider it to be visible.

I think this is the default for RPGs, apart from DF/D&D and Supers. Most everywhere else, you'd want to avoid being obvious. You'd want to fit in. Not just MH, but also Action, or straight GURPS Fantasy, or almost anything else. Even outside of GURPS, e.g. the world of the Ars Magica RPG.

Visible armour makes you look tougher, less, and that has some strategic value, but ultimately invisible armour has, on average, a higher strategic value in the form of surprise, and of "stealth", of being able to take it with you into places where visible armour wouldn't be allowed or would attract a lot of attention.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by PK

For attacks, a good general rule is that any advantage which uses the attack/defense roll mechanic is always obvious by default (even if you change this by adding Malediction), while an advantage which uses a Quick Contest is inobvious by default.

There's a uFAQ entry, I think.

[PK]

Originally Posted by johndallman

There's a uFAQ entry, I think.

<ozymandias>

Agreed, which is why I asked Molokh to add it . . . this morning.

</ozymandias>

:)

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by PK

Agreed, which is why I asked Molokh to add it . . . this morning.

Durhhhh...

[scc]

So this is correct? I actually need No Signature on it?

Affliction(No Signature, +20%; Area Effect, +50%;
Disadvantage(Lecherousness(15)(Afflictor Only, -80%) [2]) +20%
Power Modifier:Magic, -10%; Onset (1 minute), -10%; Emanation, -20%; Always On, -10%) [14]

[Bruno]

If the idea is for people to not be able to tell who the caster was, you definitely need No Signature.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by scc

So this is correct? I actually need No Signature on it?

Affliction(No Signature, +20%; Area Effect, +50%;
Disadvantage(Lecherousness(15)(Afflictor Only, -80%) [2]) +20%
Power Modifier:Magic, -10%; Onset (1 minute), -10%; Emanation, -20%; Always On, -10%) [14]

If you don't want people to notice you are doing *something*, having a signature doesn't necessarily make it obvious what your power does, just that you are using one.

As an aside, I'm assuming this is a power that is supposed to make everybody around lust after you? I'd never let you have a -80% "afflictor only" cost break for that. I might even call it an enhancement.

[scc]

Yes it is supposed to make people lust after you, and -80% sounds about right for a Disadvantage that can only be triggered by one person, either that or it's a quirk