Topic: A couple of queries re Invisibility

[RandalThor]

I'm okay with that, but the question arises...

...does it supersede the Sense Magic talent? I mean, if the energy it maps is local magic flow you'd think so, huh?

Well, it can be a specialized form of Sense Magic, like Sense Essence, or Sense Mentalism, etc...

I'm okay with that too, but when you're so far underground there's nothing but IR, it's still infravision for all practical purposes.

Well then, that is how it would be done in that situation. In an outdoor situation, under a clear night with a half-moon (mind out of the gutter people!), it would act like a more powerful nightvision, but with the infravision in there for added detail.

This is the problem with trying to get scientific with magic. (I am guilty of it, too.) It's magic. The way I have always looked at magic is that it is more about the intent of the spell-caster, than about details and fitting in with a technical/scientific explanations. What do I want to do with the magic, this time. Of course, the reason I use formulaic spells is because that is how I learned to get that effect. Maybe, as a mage gets higher in skill/level they start to figure out this concept, which is why a lot of those 50th level "spells" allow them to go round-to-round changing the magic to perform different spell effects form those earlier on the list. Maybe there should be a 100th level spell (no list, just keep purchasing ranks, getting nothing for them until they get that 100th rank...) that allows them to switch, round-to-round, drawing from all their spell lists.

[GrumpyOldFart]

This is the problem with trying to get scientific with magic. (I am guilty of it, too.) It's magic.

Sure. The reason people do it anyway, even those of us who know better, is because its behavior (whatever form of magic you're using) has to be consistent. You can say "it's magical fire" or "it's magical flight" all you want, but the game mechanic is going to treat it as if the normal behavior of fire or wind or gravity still applies. "Magical fire" doesn't mean it will burn a steel plate, or burn upwind, or be impossible to smother out, unless the particular spell specifically says so. See? "Magical" or not, most of the normal assumptions regarding _____ are still going to be in play in the game mechanics and the GM's treatment of it.

Same with vision. No, you don't have to assume that it makes no change in the normal behavior of light. But if you don't, either

1. You have to specifically define how it changes the normal behavior of light.

2. You have to define it by some other means of "seeing", either by the normal rules for another energy form or a set of rules you define, so your players have something more specific to work with than just the wide open "it's magic", or

3. Be prepared to have players get angry because they consider you capricious and inconsistent. Why would anyone spend the PPs, risk the fumbles, advertise to his enemies ("There's the mage, get him!") if he can't get reasonably predictable results?

[RandalThor]

In that case, maybe Darkvision, should be done away with. Call them, Infravision, Ultravision, Gammavision, etc... if you feel the need to go the scientific route. (Doesn't quite give it the same feel desired for most fantasy games, but......)

And be prepared when you do, for those players who are better scientists than you to come along and rip the hell out of it and use it and abuse it in totally unforeseen ways - making that 2nd level spell more powerful than some 20th level ones. (In other words: no matter how well or little you explain things, there will be players who see it differently and who may not be totally satisfied.)

And I still say it is about intent. The Darkvision spell is intended to allow the user to see through darkness (even magical darkness, to a degree), no matter how that darkness came about: overcast night, underground, etc.. (It isn't to help you see through a blind fold - that is a totally different spell.)

[GrumpyOldFart]

I'm not saying it has to be scientifically accurate, I'm saying that the game mechanics tend to assume "earth like" environments. So whatever rules you use, scientific or otherwise, you have to fully define where and how it differs from "earth like", otherwise "earth like" is what GMs and players both will tend to default to.

And be prepared when you do, for those players who are better scientists than you to come along and rip the hell out of it and use it and abuse it in totally unforeseen ways...

Absolutely. That's not the fault of science, or trying to define something in terms of science. That's the result of a discrepancy between "normal, earthlike" and the GM's concept that was either ill-defined or, more likely, not defined at all. That's caused by the scientist being able to take "normal, earthlike" to a greater level of detail than the GM. A cleric played by a theologian would probably present similar problems.

You see? You don't have to use the scientific explanation, but if you don't you have to find something to replace it with that works with the "normal, earthlike" science you decided to leave alone, because that's what the non magical part of the game mechanics defaults to.

In the end, how well it works is the only standard that matters.

[RandalThor]

Reading the talent, Darkvision it says that the character can see in total darkness (how far depends upon if it is greater or lesser), and twice as far as normal with a particular light source. It doesn't say how that "total darkness" came about, so it doesn't matter - except when it is magical. I will assume it doesn't work on magical darkness. (Only things that say they work in magical darkness work, imo.) The Improved Vision (see up to 100' in total darkness) option under the Night Vision spell would work the same, as far as I am concerned. Don't concern yourself so much with the how, because that is by: Grabbing a wine soaked chicken foot, waving it around (right hand), while hopping on your left foot in a counter clockwise direction (if you are above the equator, otherwise clockwise), saying "Honk-Bonk-Donkitty-Blip!" 5-times, and wacking the target of the spell on the forehead with the chicken foot. It's a frikkin spell! The how is through magic, by definition: unknown and incomprehensible. It may not "make sense" to our scientific/technical minds (as a world of mundanes (I think  ) we don't naturally think "magically" so we try to force it into a technical definition), but, if the spell says this, it is this. Not this and that just because that makes sense through a scientific/technical approach.

Are there spells and abilities that could use a bit more explanation? Yup. Can you assume that it operates "normally" in ways not specifically noted? Of course. Does that mean you are right? No. (Unless you are the GM.)

Using the magical fire mentioned above, if it says it does damage, then you can assume it does damage "across the board" - unless it says it only hurts feathers. (Or whatever.) Can it start a regular fire to keep burning after the spell is done? Maybe. Ask the GM at the time. Will it be able to do that every time? Maybe. Ask the GM every time. In other words: don't treat magic like science, because its not.

[Thom @ ICE]

Except Dark Vision is not entirely a spell - it is a racial ability.  And as a racial ability, it does not require special casting efforts, but rather it is simply something that everyone of that genetic code can do.  Can in be magically based? Certainly, since many racial abilities are tied to magic.

I do support your comment though that Dark Vision should be eliminated...

Please identify any book, short story, movie or play in which one of the creatures has "Dark Vision" as it is described in the book... I can't think of any. 

Underground creatures either are generally blind, but possess radar-like abilities, or else they are gifted with incredible versions of Night Vision (using even the faintest of light sources such as lichen to provide them enough light to see by), or they have heat vision.

Perhaps the tweaking of HARP needs to replace Dark Vision with the enhanced Night Vision, or  Heat Vision, or Radar Vision.

[RandalThor]

I do support your comment though that Dark Vision should be eliminated...

I said maybe.... thinking about it more makes me think that it shouldn't be eliminated - from a fantasy game. HARP SF, sure, go with hyperspectral and such, it is more of a science-based game.

Really, the only question you need to answer is this: Is it totally dark, yes or no? Not: How is it totally dark? Underground, heavy overcast night under quadruple canopied rain-forest, interior castle room with no light source, etc... None of that matters. Just: is it totally dark, yes or no? The only time it matters is if it is magical darkness, as I don't think the racial ability gives you the ability to see through magical darkness. (An option under the spell Night Vision, can give the ability to see in magical darkness, though.)

It is a simple, non-scientific, cause and effect, because those that made the spells in the first place weren't scientists, they were likely fairly primitive...not thinking in wavelengths and such. That is us putting our own technical spin on things because it is easier for us to understand than: "Its magic, and that is just how it works." When: It is magic, and that is just how it works.

The spell option works exactly the same way, only allows you to see a greater distance, and for a limited duration.

I truly think that is in a case of trying to over think it. To make it fit in to modern scientific ideology, when it is magic, ultimately unexplainable. So long as the in-game effects are consistent, there should not be much of a problem. That is part of the fun of magic, its mysteriousness. We don't know exactly how it does what it does, but it does it, and it can do some extremely amazing things in the "hands" of a skilled user. (In game, of course.)


*Exactly how far depends upon whether it is Greater or Lesser Darkvision.

[Thom @ ICE]

Don't worry - just because I might voice an opinion, that is still far from any definitive system change. The issue is that as a GM people need to be able to understand how it works in general concept in order to handle situations that arise form the players, otherwise you run into inconsistent rulings and answers like, "Because I said so..."

[choc]

Chapter 9 (page 75) has a section on invisibility, but to answer your specific questions (noting that this is my personl interpretation) -
2 - Blind fighting will work against Invisibility, and I would also allow it as a Light Maneuver base (-80 instead of -100) because in the case of Invisibility only the target is invisble, while in Blind Fighting everything is. This allows the combatant some ability to expect certain moves and maneuvers by his foe or use walls or objects to block other moves.

I would say close your eyes then and use the full blindfighting bonus

[RandalThor]

I would say close your eyes then and use the full blindfighting bonus

Nice.