Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Arioch on June 27, 2009, 05:21:16 AM
-
Ok, I feel that the Invisibility spell is a little too powerful in RM, at least for a 4th level spell. I'd like to tone it a little down, without making it useless.
Before going on note that I use all the suggestions on Invisibility in Spell Law (maneuvers to move around, rolls to notice someone Invisible, etc), but I still think that's too powerful.
A solution to this problem could be moving Invisibility up in the Invisible Ways list, or maybe shortening its durations (from 24h to 1min/level or something like that), but that imho would make the list too weak, expecially at low levels.
So maybe it would be better to raise the level of Invisibility spell (at least of a couple of levels), but also add new low-level spells, for example Blur or Hues...
-
How about moving the 24 hour spell up to about tenth level and introducing lower-level versions like one round per level, one minute per level, and one hour per level?
-
Personally I think the spell is fine as is. Maybe, just maybe a move to 5th pr 6th level would be feasible, but really not necessary imo. If you had to change anything, change the duration to perhaps 10 min/level. But as I said (wrote?) :D, I think the spell is fine as is.
-
Yeah, I don't mind Invisibility as written either...
-
In what way have you found it too powerful?
-
In what way have you found it too powerful?
It's an incredibly versatile spell and it's duration of 24h makes it really too strong imho. I mean, it only costs 4 PPs!
It completely replaces the hiding skill: all you have to do is standing still and people will have to pass a Sheer Folly awareness maneuver only to notice that there's someone invisible there (they'll still have a -50 to their attack rolls, to which the caster can add bonuses from other spells without breaking the invisibility). Combined with fly or other moving spells it's even worse.
-
I think invisibility works fine as is, as long as you are quite ruthless with things like movement and actions as well as how far away from the body it extends...
It's all down to how you play it as a GM....
-
In what way have you found it too powerful?
It's an incredibly versatile spell and it's duration of 24h makes it really too strong imho. I mean, it only costs 4 PPs!
It completely replaces the hiding skill: all you have to do is standing still
Yes, but as soon as you actually want to do something, you'll need to be Stalking and while being invisible is something of an advantage, it does not make you silent. Anyone with a dog can find you easily if you haven't got some skills to back up your magic. You need to be careful where you choose to stand still, because if you are blocking someone's way, they'll find you. It is good for hiding when humans are looking for you, but if something which pays attention to smell is involved (dogs, orcs, vulfen, etc.) it helps only a little. It isn't very useful in large structures, because being invisible doesn't let you open a door without it being noticed. Not to mention that bumping into something makes you visible, so move carefully.
You cannot attack without becoming visible, there are numerous magical opportunities to detect you, it does not hinder the use of other senses (and this can be exploited as simply as training dogs to alert you to smelled but not seen persons), and you can't even pick anything up, unless you cast more spells to make it invisible. The 24 hour duration (assuming nothing happens to cancel it before then) does stand out, but only because Rolemaster spells usually have such short durations.
You still have not given an actual example of use where you found it too powerful.
-
We also have a House Rule regarding the Invisibility spells. You can find it in the RM House Rules document on my homepage.
-
rdanhenry: a dog or something similar will find you even if you're using your hiding skill, unless you take special measures. Similarly there are few occasions in which you can attack someone staying hidden. And for magical means to detect you, there are magical means to detect people hiding with or without invisibility. Things you pick up do not become invisible... unless you cast an unseen spell on them (an action that does not break your invisibility).
Sure you have to pay attention when you're moving, but that's the only real limitation.
We also have a House Rule regarding the Invisibility spells. You can find it in the RM House Rules document on my homepage.
Thanks, I'll check them out.
-
rdanhenry: a dog or something similar will find you even if you're using your hiding skill, unless you take special measures.
On the other hand, if you not trying to stay invisible, you have more options. And if your stealth is skill based, you probably know some of the tricks for dealing with dogs and such. Furthermore, being invisible is much more suspicious than not being invisible. You can maybe talk your way out of a situation if you weren't so blatantly sneaking.
Similarly there are few occasions in which you can attack someone staying hidden.
Silent Kill. Remember, it isn't just that the person you are attacking knows you are there now. Your spell is gone. If you come out of hiding, it is trivial to go back. Casting Invisibility a lot drains PPs and risks spell failure (although, admittedly, the non-combat spell failure table isn't so bad).
And for magical means to detect you, there are magical means to detect people hiding with or without invisibility. Things you pick up do not become invisible... unless you cast an unseen spell on them (an action that does not break your invisibility).
But if you are using invisibility, there's no way anyone will consider you possibly innocent if you are found in anything remotely like a secure area. Whereas a Thief may attempt the "Whoops! I must have really taken a wrong turn!" ploy if he wanders into the wrong part of the castle and mistimes opening a door.
Items not becoming invisible when you pick them up was exactly my point. You either cast another spell (not "automatically" either, unless you are either a Mentalist or don't mind risking being heard) or you give up on picking the item up. Which means if you want to steal something, this is a real disadvantage.
Sure you have to pay attention when you're moving, but that's the only real limitation.
And if anyone is using any of the several spells to see invisible beings and you don't manage to blend in so that he doesn't realize you are invisible, you are instantly considered a thief or spy and probably executed on the spot, since you were being so blatant in your intent, whereas the various non-magical methods will typically at least present some opportunity to stall.
You need more spells to steal anything. If you are trying to evade a search, you need to stay in place, unless you can also Stalk -- the real advantage is those characters that combine stealth skills with the stealth-enhancing spells. They really are super-sneaky. Without stealth skills to back it up, invisibility is a good spell, but rather limited. In the low-magic world, where people are unlikely to suspect invisibility, it is certainly powerful, but in a high-magic world, the average soldier will know half a dozen tricks to handle it. But in a low-magic world, any fourth level spell is powerful.
-
Make casting spells be something that breaks invisibility...should work like a charm to limit abuses of invisibility.
-
(Douglas Adams had the "somebody else's problem field.")
The fact that you can't be seen is quite "clear" on intent.
The fact that you can't be seen unless you attack makes the definition a bit looser.
Sure, you could say that the hostile intent/sudden moves break/distort the field, but can't you move normally while invisible? It sounds like a dead run could also break the spell.
Can you jog while invisible?
I guess if the person who "would" see you, normally, can reasonably say, "that's not my problem," then you stay invisible! :)
-
RMSS Spell Law has a chance for Invisibility to be broken any time you make a Moving Maneuver with a difficulty greater than Routine.
-
RMSS Spell Law has a chance for Invisibility to be broken any time you make a Moving Maneuver with a difficulty greater than Routine.
Was not aware...good rule! 'Need to hit the books (after I clean the house, of course..). :P
I would like the fact that even if you fumble, you could catch yourself so as not to alert someone... but that partial success is in the tables.
Still, the duration is long! Can someone comment on why?
-
Make casting spells be something that breaks invisibility...should work like a charm to limit abuses of invisibility.
This is a good rule.. IMHO, a Spell Mastery roll could still cause it to be quite, or soften its impact.
-
Make casting spells be something that breaks invisibility...should work like a charm to limit abuses of invisibility.
The could be a good idea...and maybe make a moer powerful version that let you cast spells remaining invisible at higher levels.
-
On the other points:
1) Sure, if you are caught stalking you may, in some occasion, try to talk yourself out of the situation. If you're caught with you invisibility it may be harder convince someone that you weren't doing anything wrong. OTOH you can immediatly re-cast invisibility on you as soon as you are caught, even if someone is watching you, which something impossible to do using the stalking skill.
2) Silent Kill can be combined also with invisibility as can other spell, like Silence (much more effective than Silen Kill). Sure, it costs PPs, but the 24 h duration of Invisibility makes possible for you to sleep remaining invisible and recovering you PPs...
And sure, a PC with a lot of ranks in Stalking, Hiding, Ambush, Silent Kill and other skill will be better at skulking around than a PC with just invisibility... but that doesn't sound a fair comparison to me.
-
Just a note but being invisible only seems useful to us human beings. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of animals (hence probably magical beasts) relies on so many other senses that only being invisible wouldn't do much against them (and in the case they rely on sight, theirs is so much better than the human sight that the "fringe effect" would appear obvious to them). Of course, the question could be how often would people use animals rather than plain human guards but my answer would be: there's no invisibility IRL, yet how often does people rely on, say, dogs instead of just human guards?
So, no, invisibility isn't so powerful to me.
-
Of course, the question could be how often would people use animals rather than plain human guards but my answer would be: there's no invisibility IRL, yet how often does people rely on, say, dogs instead of just human guards?
This has already been adressed in the previous posts but:
- dogs and similar animals will be able to detect you, but will still have a -50 penalty if they're trying to attack you (and, given that a dog has a OB of 50...)
- you're assuming that dogs and other animals used as guards are smart enough to realize that if they smell something but they can't see it, there's someone invisible around.
- dogs and similar makes harder to sneak around for all characters, not only for invisible ones.
- is dropping pepper on the ground considered an attack action? ;D
- humans and other humanoids are quite common (at least in my campaigns) and being able to not being seen by them is still a great advantage, even with dogs around
- invisibility is not only used to fool guards, it can be used in a lot of other situations, its only limit is the caster creativity (and, since the spell description is extremely vague, the GM must rely on various HR to avoid abuses)
-
This has already been adressed in the previous posts but:
- dogs and similar animals will be able to detect you, but will still have a -50 penalty if they're trying to attack you (and, given that a dog has a OB of 50...)
Would they? I've always assumed the penalty given was based on creatures relying mainly on sight (e.g. human beings). I mean, a lot of animals are actually almost blind and rely on sound, smell, vibration, etc. Why would they have any kind of penalty against something they don't see? According to the wording in the rules, they would...
- you're assuming that dogs and other animals used as guards are smart enough to realize that if they smell something but they can't see it, there's someone invisible around.
...well, yes. It's the principle of "relying on senses other than plain sight". They'd probably realise there's something and react (attack?) accordingly.
- humans and other humanoids are quite common (at least in my campaigns) and being able to not being seen by them is still a great advantage, even with dogs around
Well, thanks for it otherwise invisibility would be useless. That's not the point. The point is that it's not so powerful than other make it sound; no more than Leaping, or Long Door, or any other spell.
invisibility is not only used to fool guards, it can be used in a lot of other situations, its only limit is the caster creativity (and, since the spell description is extremely vague, the GM must rely on various HR to avoid abuses)
And? It affects only one sense, and people relying mainly in that sense. What you're trying to tell me is that it's a useful spell, something with which I don't disagree. You don't prove me in any way how it's "too" powerful.
I mean, being invisible wouldn't prevent you from falling into traps, or open doors for you. Heck, someone merely bumping you would remove your invisibility, preventing you from being invisible in crowded areas.
-
Attacks against invisible targets are modified by at least -50, unless the attacker can See Invisible. However, the invisible target must be detected in some way before an attack can even be attempted (via the fringe effect, Detect Invisible, some disturbance, mental detection, etc.).
So yes, dogs would still get the -50 to their attacks, this is just one of the cases where GM have to use a HR of some sort to prevent abuses.
Why would they attack something thay cannot see?
Movement spells like Long Door are much more powerful than invisibility, I think I'll open a thread about them, too ;D
What you're trying to tell me is that it's a useful spell, something with which I don't disagree. You don't prove me in any way how it's "too" powerful.
As I've said before, I think that what's makes it too powerful is it's duration, not the fact that it makes you invisible. 24 hours for 4 PPs are just too much IMHO.
-
Movement spells like Long Door are much more powerful than invisibility, I think I'll open a thread about them, too ;D
Well, we know you just have a problem with magic anyway...
-
Well, the way I see it...
Invisibility could get it's long duration by being so incredibly passive.
It doesn't transport you, provide any info at all, cause damage, cause an effect on others, etc.
Following RM "rules for spells," It maintains a natural progression of escalating power levels based on skill ranks.
At low levels, there is even a decent chance someone will notice your distortion, especially when you move. There have been enough Predator movies for us all to picture this distortion. :)
24 hrs is still a long time. ;D
While I'm not arguing that we have "invisibility" in real life, we are getting really close!
In the US, scientists have been able to get microwaves to bend around a device (2-d tabletop) with minimal distortion and IIRC, Stuttgart has done something similar with infra-red!
Of course if you 'Tube "invisibility cloaks", you'll find some neat TV fabrics that come close.
-
Honestly, even I restrict the use of the Invisible Ways list in my game. Not necessarily because the spells are "too powerful" but simply for social/political reasons. No king/duke/earl/baron/mayor/village chief wants anyone running around invisibly. It is simply too dangerous to the powers that be. Any caster that obtains that list legally, has to undergo a certain amount of brainwashing and magical conditioning to get it. And of course a small licensing fee......
-
Indeed. If someone is running around invisible, how do we know he isn't naked!
However, -50 to attack is not that big a penalty. By 4th level, the skill-using stealthy Arms or Semi character will have a better parry. Invisibility is better against crowds, but parry is better facing a guard or two in a corridor.
None of this is to say that invisibility isn't useful, but it is hardly a perfect tool, even without anyone able to see invisibility. And while Invisibility starts at 4th level on a Closed Essence list, See Invisible is 5th level on an *Open* Essence list. If your average inhabitant of your world is only 2nd or 3rd level that's not much of an issue, but then a 4th level spell should be impressive. But with a more reasonable spread of level, it means there are probably quite a few more people running around able to see the invisible than able to become invisible. It also is going to be a popular spell to imbed in magic items. The longer duration of Invisibility balances this somewhat.
-
Indeed. If someone is running around invisible, how do we know he isn't naked!
Yep: naked, octogenarian spell casters going around invisible with the only purpose of leaving disturbing images in the mind of those casting "see invisible"...
-
Yep: naked, octogenarian spell casters going around invisible with the only purpose of leaving disturbing images in the mind of those casting "see invisible"...
MUAHAHAHAHA! :D
-
If you can see an octogenarian naked spell caster running down the street, follow them. Run after them as fast as you can. Whatever they're running from, you don't stand a chance against!! ;D
-
This topic has been discussed a few times, bacause it seems unbalanced in a lot of "houses". But is not, it's not an invisibility like the movie "Hollow Man", is more like "Predator". So anyone can walk towards you easily without being detected.
And the proof is the radius, the higher the spell is the lower the radius of invisibilty around the body is. So lower levels spells move a big amount of space, that is highly noticiable. Also is very easy to lose, moving, running, fighting, etc. Invisible is good to help to stalk, but you have still the sound, and other things.
-
And the proof is the radius, the higher the spell is the lower the radius of invisibilty around the body is. So lower levels spells move a big amount of space, that is highly noticiable. Also is very easy to lose, moving, running, fighting, etc. Invisible is good to help to stalk, but you have still the sound, and other things.
My main problem with the spell is its duration... 24h are simply to much for a 4th level spell. Invisibility would still be a useful spell with a duration like 1min/level or even 10min/level and would be more balanced IMHO.
-
My main problem with the spell is its duration... 24h are simply to much for a 4th level spell. Invisibility would still be a useful spell with a duration like 1min/level or even 10min/level and would be more balanced IMHO.
But it's easily broken! You stumble? Badaa-am! No more invisibility! You suddenly jerk off the way of an incoming person? Badaa-am! No more invisibility! You run and suddenly stop? Badaa-am! No more invisibility! If you lower its duration to the duration of any other spell ("1 min/level or even 10 min/level"), then you should remove as well the many ways to cancel it.
-
Not so easily, according to rules in Spell Law, even performing an Absurd moving maneuver has only a 50% chance of breaking invisibility, most maneuvers will have a 10-20% chance. Performing static maneuvers or stopping from running will not break invisibility.
If the caster just keep moving normally it'll be really easy to keep the invisibility going for all the day (how many times do you stumble into objects/people or fall in one average day?).
-
If the caster just keep moving normally it'll be really easy to keep the invisibility going for all the day (how many times do you stumble into objects/people or fall in one average day?).
Sure, but I doubt someone would use invisibility for an average situation. As for the suggested percentile, I fail to see how striking a blow can be a more violent action than suddenly stopping while dashing, for instance --or jumping from a 2 metres high wall. The way I understand it, the percentiles given in SL are under the logic any manoeuvre, including the non-obviously violent ones, can cause an instantaneous (thus almost imperceptible) yet violent enough shock to cancel invisibility. For instance, the vibrations caused by riding a horse may not feel as obviously violent as receiving a punch, yet still hold a chance of breaking the invisibility spell.
As for bumping into people, well, I usually try to avoid doing so and so are people. If they're not seeing me, I'm pretty sure the chances of them bumping me increase a hundredfold.
-
(...)
(Sorry, I quoted instead of modifying)
-
The person who taught me RM2 had a special disadvantage for users of invisibility spells. You had a chance each round of dissapearing and going to a very bad place. In out group non of us found out but the old timers in the game said it was a very bad place.
MDC
-
Marc, that's a bit strange... and scary!
Is there a "bad touch" crit table?
No, never mind... there probably is..... :-X
-
Marc, that's a bit strange... and scary!
Is there a "bad touch" crit table?
No, never mind... there probably is..... :-X
I do not know what crit type it used but I would think it would be nether or some other viscous one from one of the RoCo's, it was just how his world worked. I guess you could think of it like in LotR when Frodo put on the ring and the ring wraiths could see him more clearly. So in his game you go invisible and suddenly all the bad things in his world, daemons, devils, etc suddenly can see you and pluck you away to where ever they want to take you.
All in all no one took the invisibility spell lists or if they had a list that had it on it then they simply did not use it unless it was sure death.
MDC
-
As for the suggested percentile, I fail to see how striking a blow can be a more violent action than suddenly stopping while dashing, for instance --or jumping from a 2 metres high wall. The way I understand it, the percentiles given in SL are under the logic any manoeuvre, including the non-obviously violent ones, can cause an instantaneous (thus almost imperceptible) yet violent enough shock to cancel invisibility.
Ok, but this is a HR, as SL clearly states that only moving maneuvers have a chance of breaking invisibility.
I prefer leaving the chances of breaking invisibility as they are and readucing duration, rather than keeping duration and incrementing the chances that invisibility will break.
As for bumping into people, well, I usually try to avoid doing so and so are people. If they're not seeing me, I'm pretty sure the chances of them bumping me increase a hundredfold.
hundredfold seems an exaggeration to me, it would mean that invisible PCs are a sort of magnet for other people! ;D
The person who taught me RM2 had a special disadvantage for users of invisibility spells. You had a chance each round of dissapearing and going to a very bad place. In out group non of us found out but the old timers in the game said it was a very bad place.
MDC
Nasty! ;D
-
Not so easily, according to rules in Spell Law, even performing an Absurd moving maneuver has only a 50% chance of breaking invisibility, most maneuvers will have a 10-20% chance. Performing static maneuvers or stopping from running will not break invisibility.
If the caster just keep moving normally it'll be really easy to keep the invisibility going for all the day (how many times do you stumble into objects/people or fall in one average day?).
Where is that rule? I haven't read that before.
We understand the rules that every single time you try to run , you lose the spell, 100% . Not running and then stop like someone said before, just running x2pace.
-
Marc, that's a bit strange... and scary!
Is there a "bad touch" crit table?
No, never mind... there probably is..... :-X
That's how I would control Invisibility. Makes the GM's life a lot easier.
I do not know what crit type it used but I would think it would be nether or some other viscous one from one of the RoCo's, it was just how his world worked. I guess you could think of it like in LotR when Frodo put on the ring and the ring wraiths could see him more clearly. So in his game you go invisible and suddenly all the bad things in his world, daemons, devils, etc suddenly can see you and pluck you away to where ever they want to take you.
All in all no one took the invisibility spell lists or if they had a list that had it on it then they simply did not use it unless it was sure death.
MDC
Marc, that's a bit strange... and scary!
Is there a "bad touch" crit table?
No, never mind... there probably is..... :-X
I do not know what crit type it used but I would think it would be nether or some other viscous one from one of the RoCo's, it was just how his world worked. I guess you could think of it like in LotR when Frodo put on the ring and the ring wraiths could see him more clearly. So in his game you go invisible and suddenly all the bad things in his world, daemons, devils, etc suddenly can see you and pluck you away to where ever they want to take you.
All in all no one took the invisibility spell lists or if they had a list that had it on it then they simply did not use it unless it was sure death.
MDC
-
Where is that rule? I haven't read that before.
We understand the rules that every single time you try to run , you lose the spell, 100% . Not running and then stop like someone said before, just running x2pace.
precisely! I have never seen the rule Arioch is refering to either and I would like to know in wich version of spell law it is if anybode can tell me.
-
Any solid material that enters the fringe effect will blur slightly/seem to be out of focus...
Potential observers may make an Alertness/Observation maneuver to see if they notice the fringe effects...
Absurd 1" rad moving at a walking pace
Sheer Folly 1" radius moving faster than walking
Extremely Hard 1' rad moving at a walking pace
Very Hard 1' rad moving faster than walking
Hard 10' rad moving at a walking pace
Medium 10' rad moving faster than walking.
If invisibility is not moving is not moving, there is an additional -20 modifier.
If the observer is w/in 10', there is an additional +20 modifier.
Attacks against invisible targets are at least -50. Attacker must first detect target first.
Invisibility is a useful and powerful spell. ...lasts 24 hrs or until target attacks OR is struck by a violent blow.
Often an invisible being attempting a MM has a chance of bumping into something, or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing.....We suggest that a "visibility" roll (% open) be made and modified based on difficulty of MM. Easy (+2), Light (+5), Med (+10), Hard (+15), Very Hard (+20), X-Hard (+25), SF (+40), Absurd (+50). The target becomes visible if the roll is over 100.... if the character "falls" or "falls down" due to result of MM, he automatically becomes visible. If the result is "fail to act" or "freeze" no visibility roll is required.
That's all I could find! :)
-
grand! Where did you find it?
-
That's true Providence13, but we understand that this talk about perception; IF you find a way to move faster than walking without breaking the spell. In other words, this doesn't say you can run faster than walking without losing the invisibility; it says for example that you can cast a fly spell and move flying faster than walking.
So if you fly faster than walking in the sky, then you can use this rule if you want. Take notice about this: Any solid material that enters the fringe effect will blur slightly/seem to be out of focus
So if a tree, wall, or something is in the way of the observer , he will more probability to detect the invisible one.
-
In order to reign in uncontrolled usage of Haste in my games I have a house rule where you take Stress criticals after being hasted for more then 5 rounds in a day (not continuous). It starts with an A for round 6 then increases a severity each round. (after you get to E you take E+A, E+B, etc.)
Another way to control Invisibility, or in fact any target affecting utility spell would be something similar. Perhaps the inherent use of magic on life can have severe stressful physical effects for anything longer then short term. The nice thing about this rule is that it explains a general framework for limiting magic across the whole setting rather then having to fix things spell by spell. By limiting magic by duration to short (or medium) time intervals you greatly decrease effectiveness of utility spells without impacting most destructive/healing/etc. spells. And it preserves the usefulness of knowing the equivalent skills.
Stress criticals are relatively harmless starting with A, but once you approach E's they can get quite nasty. You wouldn't even have to use Stress criticals you could take straight hits every round. Or perhaps it's exhausting, or mentally draining instead thereby sapping Exhaustion Points (if you use them), or even Power Points to keep spells going rather then using a fixed duration. You could even use Mana or Void crits depending on how you want to explain the phenomena.
I personally have not had a problem with Invisibility, but I also house rule that casting any spell or moving faster then a run breaks it, so the 24 hour duration never really comes into play.
-
These are only my interpretations...
Let's never forget Power Perception, Attunement, Situational Awareness: Hide and Seek for the one visible, or even a high Presence stat of the one invisible.
Mediums the world over often state "I sense a presence." Unless you can quiet your mind, by spell or meditation, you still have a high Presence, IMHO. This could be a penalty to any chance to be hidden...
Some people are more intuitive than others... High Intuition stat should give a nice bonus for detecting "presences."
Many casters and the more powerful creatures (in my experience) have some form of Power Perception. This always kept our magic to the minimum required... The last thing you want is to attract the attention of something that the party isn't tough/smart enough to handle!
MDC, this sounds a bit similar to what you're talking about.
So if a tree, wall, or something is in the way of the observer , he will more probability to detect the invisible one.
Vince, I agree... and 10' sounds like the distance that we are talking about. At 10' the bonus is +20 (pretty high..).That's if they are stationary. Now scale that however you like... maybe at 1' the bonus is +50 (or 30, 40, 90 whatever number you like). Once you have a scale, then find the +/- at any distance. It could be that at 20' the bonus is still +10... Whatever your scale.
The suggested rule, to me, reads that you don't "break" the spell. You are noticed if you roll a "Falls" OR "Falls Down" on the MM table. If you roll either of these two, you're seen; not invisible any more.
If you "attack" OR are "struck by a violent blow", then you're visible.
You may, however, perform any maneuver you like while invisible! IMO, these are implied by the different penalties for different MM. ;)
You may move faster than a walking pace..(I never took this to be anything more than "move." Any way you move- on a boat, riding a shark, on a kite, running, flying... moving doesn't "break the spell."
Moving invisibly, does (!) make it much easier to see you. The modifier is based on the difficulty of your maneuver. "If" they can now see you... then you're not invisible. ;D
Nders,
I found that in the back of the "Of Mentalism" book; first thing I grabbed.
Another way to control Invisibility, or in fact any target affecting utility spell would be something similar. Perhaps the inherent use of magic on life can have severe stressful physical effects for anything longer then short term.
Vroomfrogle, This reminds me of Mythus' magick system. It's basically radiation that is everywhere in many forms. Many people can control Heka, Baraka, Vril, Magic, but the more you do, the less likely you are going to have children. So a kingdom that has tons of magic, won't have many casters or even soldiers! IIRC..
-
grand! Where did you find it?
You can find it in RMC spell law on page 80 and in RMFRP spell law (any of the three) under the "invisibility" chapter.
That's true Providence13, but we understand that this talk about perception; IF you find a way to move faster than walking without breaking the spell. In other words, this doesn't say you can run faster than walking without losing the invisibility; it says for example that you can cast a fly spell and move flying faster than walking.
This is a HR: by the core rules you can run without losing the invisibility, otherwise it would have been clearly stated that you cannot.
BTW, Fly+Invisibility is one of my most hated spell combos ;D
-
Ok, but this is a HR, as SL clearly states that only moving manoeuvres have a chance of breaking invisibility.
Wrong. The RM2 SL spell (p77) clearly states: "until 24 hrs pass or the object is struck by a violent blow (being hit by a weapon, falling, etc.) or the object makes a violent move."
To what you're probably referring are the special notes about invisibility (p33) that say "This type of spell normally lasts 24 hours or until the target attack or until the target is struck by a violent blow. Often an invisible character (or creature) attempting a moving manoeuvre has a chance of bumping into something or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing. In such a case after the manoeuvre roll, we suggest that..." It clearly doesn't state at all that "only moving manoeuvres have a chance of breaking invisibility", all the contrary. It states that any violent move has a chance of breaking invisibility and because any moving manoeuvre "has a chance of bumping into something or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing", meaning a chance of being a "violent move", then it should need a roll to be made. SL then gives suggestions to handle such a situation.
You can find it in RMC spell law on page 80 and in RMFRP spell law (any of the three) under the "invisibility" chapter.
Ah! That may be why you and I disagree then. RM2 states what I quoted previously...
This is a HR: by the core rules you can run without losing the invisibility, otherwise it would have been clearly stated that you cannot.
The point is that, according to RM2, you have a chance of losing the invisibility each round you run~
-
RMSS, section 7.1.10, "Invisibility", prior to listing the suggested chances of becoming visible when making a maneuver states "Often an invisible character (or creature) attempting a moving maneuver has a chance of bumping into something or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing." (p. 227) This version of Spell Law is clear that only moving maneuvers are intended (although the GM may rule exceptions; these are merely recommendations).
My RM2 Spell Law (Stock #1200) does not discuss invisibility on p. 77. That's half of the Illusionist spell lists. It does discuss invisibility on p. 24, section 13.91. This discussion also does specific "a moving maneuver" before offering chances of becoming visible.
In all cases, circumstances may modify the chances (a forest full of branches being blown about in a strong wind would greatly increase the chance, whereas a soft, sandy dune would decrease the chance). In no case is there any suggestion that movement faster than a walk should cause automatic visibility, although one will normally need to make a moving maneuver and risk bumping into something.
In RMSS/FRP, Situational Awareness: Invisibility might be developed to help avoid such collisions.
-
You could always house rule it so any blow will up set the spell. ie rain, heavy wind, fog, etc.
MDC
-
It's funny that we all play the same game; with minor variations. ;)
-
It's funny that we all play the same game; with minor variations. ;)
Ah that is the beauty of Rolemaster! :)
-
It's funny that we all play the same game; with minor variations. ;)
Ah that is the beauty of Rolemaster! :)
And its curse, we need 3 pages of discussion to understand that we were referring to different set of rules! ;D
I love that customizability of RM, but surely a unified version would make easier for us to understand each other...
-
Ah of course you are right Arioch, a unified version is desperately needed. Hopefully next RM version will fix that problem, sometime 2013 or so :)
-
Amen.
-
Do you think they can have a unified version of a game as varied in style as RMFRP and RM2?
-
Yes, I think they can.
-
Three stages of difficulty (if I may go a bit OT):
1. RMX-like complexity. Only primary RM2/RMC skills, unified attack tables för slashing/crushing/piercing/bults/ball etc. All 10 stats still though/or maybe just maybe cut down to 6 or 8. Cut down professions to maybe Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage, Mentalist. Ok, maybe a few more, but theese should be the base. Spell wise only use profession base lists and maybe, just maybe a selection of open/clesed lists.
2. RM2/RMC-like complexity. Secondary skills, Full complement of professions, Arms Law, Spell Law.
3. RMSS-like complexity. Full set of RMSS skills. Well maybe cut down a litte, but since this would be the advanced version maybe cutting down on skills should not be needed. Arms Law with maybe Combat Companion options, Spell Law with maybe some extra professions.
The hardest part would be to make skill categories, which I think is a very good idea, work seamlessly in all three versions. Removing skill categories could be an option I guess.
-
The ideas of streamlining RM would make it easier to discuss topics.
I'll bet, many of us would resist the change. ;D
As is evident here, people have requirements and expectations of what their RM is and should be! ;)
Even Invisibility is a lively discussion; thankfully!
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Yet, I have a (related) question...
Why do you think "attacking" causes the spell to be broken?
Of course, hitting someone will assuredly make your position known. If the spell functions as the "somebody elses problem field", it's not your problem until it is!
But what if you miss? How much activity/"violent blow" action is releasing an arrow?
Now I'm not playing an archer/ranger or anything. Nor am I trying to make bows the "even more uber weapon."
Just on a discussion point of view... isn't throwing a dart more "violent."
My point with the arrow is....what if you miss. The arrow is so fast and the archer could be hidden in trees, invisible, etc. Just because you hear a rattle of an arrow (if the character has the experience to know what that sounds like). What if it hits soft dirt? Why would you be visible?
If it is intent, this (to me) supports my "Presence" idea. IMO, Presence is "focused" when you attack... for lack of a better phrase. In turn, a high Presence would make it hard to hide.... sure, some of it is stature; as per Dwarf/Halfling penalties and High Men bonus (some of this could be mindset, however.)
I believe this has a bearing on the Invisibility discussion. I am not trying to make it more powerful! :)
As it stands, you get one good attack, before "breaking the spell." If your attack is pushing a button/pulling a lever/triggering a crossbow/releasing an arrow, is it intent & anger.... the opponents Intuition (I like this too..), the mental fortitude to concentrate on "you don't see me" when you interact with someone.....
Hey, just typing and thinking.....The spell lasts 24 hrs, but when you interact with someone, and try not to be seen, you have to concentrate. This would make it "a bit" harder to be Invisible all day....
hmmm....
-
About what you ask Providence:
IMHO, if you make yourself invisible with a crossbow, so you and the weapon are invisible in the moment you shoot the crossbow, the violent movement that makes the arrow fly will "break" the spell.
But if you are invisible, but the crossbow is not (you get the crossbow after the spell), i suppose you will not lose the invisibility because your body surrounded by the spell haven't moved violently(only pushed a trigger).
In the same line i suppose you can cast an normal invisibility on the person , and an additional "Unseen spell" in the crossbow; so after you shot, only the unseen spell loses his invisibility. So you are still invisible, but the crossbow can be seen in the air.
This is the idea of invisibility i have, like a tiny "cloak" that needs to be cohesioned in all the surface of the "cloak" to remain stable and working.
-
My RM2 Spell Law (Stock #1200) does not discuss invisibility on p. 77.
This referred to the Invisibility Ways spell list, that states the termination conditions for any Invisibility spell.
In no case is there any suggestion that movement faster than a walk should cause automatic visibility, although one will normally need to make a moving maneuver and risk bumping into something.
Yup, that's to what I was referring when writing "you have a chance of losing the invisibility each round you run" (not automatic, just "a chance"). According to RM2 rules, starting from a Run speed, one ought to roll a moving manoeuvre of Easy difficulty, which has, according to the invisibility rules, 2% of terminating the spell (5% for sprint, 10% for fast sprint and 15% for dash --for each round!).
-
Why do you think "attacking" causes the spell to be broken?
IMHO it's simply a metagaming solution, because otherwise the spell would have been too strong. You can justify it with any reason that fits the fluff of your gaming world.
The spell lasts 24 hrs, but when you interact with someone, and try not to be seen, you have to concentrate. This would make it "a bit" harder to be Invisible all day....
Depends in what you mean with interacting with someone. For example, is something like pickpocketing included? Because concentration would be highly penalyzing for similar actions (as it cuts down your activity to 50%)...
-
Out of curiosity, why has everyone assumed the target can see, through normal sight, out of the radius?
IF light is being bent around the caster, then the caster is in darkness. He needs a pre-cast Presence or something to "see".
If its a Mentalism version we use the "somebody elses problem" approach. Visible, but un-important.
-
Out of curiosity, why has everyone assumed the target can see, through normal sight, out of the radius?
IF light is being bent around the caster, then the caster is in darkness. He needs a pre-cast Presence or something to "see".
If its a Mentalism version we use the "somebody elses problem" approach. Visible, but un-important.
The above in the approach I use but I get tired of repeating it.
MDC
-
Out of curiosity, why has everyone assumed the target can see, through normal sight, out of the radius?
IF light is being bent around the caster, then the caster is in darkness. He needs a pre-cast Presence or something to "see".
If its a Mentalism version we use the "somebody elses problem" approach. Visible, but un-important.
Fornitus, you make and excellent scientific point!
IMO, The shimmer/distortion results from not being totally invisible. So, you're kind of looking through a funhouse mirror. It's distorted so much that the image isn't a recognizable pattern, at first. Perhaps the same magic that distorts/bends the image one way, focuses it on the other side. This way, the one invisible can still see normally... If that's how you play it. Shadowy, black and white, etc, would be fun too!
Once a "danger" is perceived, the distortion can be "cleaned up" because our brains spend more processing power on image/sound/sensory recognition. We focus more on the threat.
Just a thought.
-
The person who taught me RM2 had a special disadvantage for users of invisibility spells. You had a chance each round of dissapearing and going to a very bad place. In out group non of us found out but the old timers in the game said it was a very bad place.
MDC
Hey! I like this!
When Invisible, you are actually on another plane/world/reality. When you turn visible again, you come back to the "real" world/your plane. Getting stuck in that "other" world is a possibility! And what if something else sees you on the other plane/reality?.... something hungry....
-
And what if something else sees you on the other plane/reality?.... something hungry....
This sounds like one of those players vs the GM games! ;D
-
This sounds like one of those players vs the GM games! ;D
Does it?
Sounds like a really good adventure hook to me.... ;)
-
RWW,
No, no. I would like to play in the game. ;D
A while back I was in a game that was us vs. him.
All the players were kinda rude....in a civil, but curt way. I couldn't figure out why until we played a few times.
The GM was an absolute rules lawyer and for the players to "play", they would have to restate (fight/argue) with the GM. "Well, since you stated during this game that was how it was.... then is it the same way now?"
If I can only move X and then perform Y, how can they act A, move B and perform C....details unimportant, but hopefully you see what I mean.
So he was basically altering game to oppose the players but the rules seemed to change when they tried to do it. What ever the issue, everyone was on edge for having to fight as players for the same things every other game. Only the encyclopedic (change on a whim) rules layer GM had any fun, IMO.
I dropped after a few games. I decided that I shouldn't have to fight (the GM) to have fun.
Your post reminded me of something he might do.... but the opponents wouldn't have that problem for whatever "reason." :)
GM: "What you didn't know was that the orc sorcerer made a pact with the extraplaner blah, blah, to blah."
There was always a "reason". ???
-
ie the GM is supposed to be the invisible one at the table.
MDC
-
I apologize for being snarky and misunderstanding you.
-
ie the GM is supposed to be the invisible one at the table.
MDC
Yes but remember the fringe effect! :D
-
Now that I think of it, GM's produce a "somebody else's problem field."
Sometimes they are slightly out of focus, but unless they're rolling dice, it's not my problem! 8)
While two sneakers were scouting ahead the other night, the rest of the party starts into loud, totally unrelated banter. Now, of course, we weren't there (ahead with the scouts), but they were having problems hearing the GM! I finally bellowed "If we pay attention now, we don't have to waste time repeating what they see!" This would be different if they came back with false info (Uh..no, the treasure room was empty..chink, chink), but most of us have been around and can keep Character/Player knowledge separate.
That group games 1/month. Any "friendly conversation" should be said as if in a freakin' library, as far as I'm concerned. :)
-
Related,
Would an invisible spider climber be even harder to detect because you just don't normally look on walls or ceilings.
On the same Profession, how about Detect Active Power? You can't see them but you detect the magic?
-
In AD&D invisibility is gone with more actions, not only attack ones, and the duration is lesser (I think), so you could use these points, the duration could be something like 10 min/lvl.
About the actions, don't limit only to spell casting for invisibility finish because semi or non spell users can use invisilibity too by their own or by items. Then all possible users should have the same dis/advantages, so if you do that casting a non-attack spell finish the invisibility, then doing things like draw weapon, lock pick or having a weapon in hand (if not is the trap to evade the draw weapon) the invisibility finish too.
But I like the invisibility with the current description.