Topic: Ranger tracking spells v. invisibility

[mtpnj]

A few of the ranger tracking spells say that the Ranger gets a visual image of what passed by on the path or a visual image of what left the track.  What if the person is invisible.  Actually had someone play a ranger after all these years and wants to use his spells.

[providence13]

For my games, it would be as if the Ranger were looking at the invisible person. So use standard invisibility rules. The DR to notice is based on size of field and speed.

What if the person wore a disguise? Should the spell that allows you to see what made the track cut through the disguise? I don't think it would, so it wouldn't cut through invisibility, imho.

[yammahoper]

Divination magic can see through a disguise.  The question is do you as GM feel it should?

If you wish to allow the ranger to see through the spell, at least partially, I would have the invisible spell resist the ranger spell.  So if the invisible spell is cast by a level 15 NPC and the ranger is level 1, then the invisibility spell resist a level one attack.  Assuming failure, I would give a very vague description for failure between 1-50: perhaps the sex and race of the invisible foe, but cloak everything in generalities.  In fact, I would demand the ranger make a Sd based concentration check to get the race, then probably another to get the race (unless the 1st mnv was hugely successful).  If the invisibility spell fails by 51-100, I would give the race for free, and roll for the other, and allow one other roll for one other piece of information.  If the spell failed its rr by more than 100, then the ranger sees clear through the invisibility.

Or tell them he sees a shimmering image go by, with the rr to determine if the ranger can make out the basic size and shape of the foe via its fringe.  It may be the better the player, the less information you need to hand out.  As always, your call Mr. GM.

[arakish]

The one time this happened for me, I ruled that the Ranger saw what was making the tracks as if he/she were watching a videotape.  Since the one leaving the tracks was invisible, all the Ranger was an invisible something leaving tracks behind.  Kind of like the footsteps you see being made by an invisible whatever in the movies.

Basically, my ruling is that the spell is a "tracking" spell, not a "divination" spell.  Thus, the Ranger could not tell what was making the tracks, only that something invisible was.  However, if the Ranger looked hard enough (read as, rolled high enough), I would rule that the Ranger could see the "fringe" effect, thus would be able to see a rough shape of what was leaving the tracks.

On the disguise part, I would rule that a Ranger would see the disguised whatever leaving the tracks, but not see through the disguise.  That takes a different spell.  But that is my opinion.

rmfr

[VladD]

I think the ranger gets the information based on what he reads in the tracks. So if he sees huge tracks made by a lizardy type creature and spots burned patches nearby, then he would see the specific dragon in his mind's eye. Furthermore; if the creature was merely shapechanged to a dragon, he would still see the dragon. Because it is nature/ the god of tracking/ divine magic making him see it; a simple invisibility or a wide cloak and hood won't fool them. (or a good tracker for that matter; those guys are amazing!)

[RandalThor]

I think that the lower level invisibility spells are not very powerful, so if that is what the tracked being was using, then the Ranger should see through it - invisibility can be powerful, we don't need to make it even more so. Now, if the invisibility was of a higher level (say 10+), then it could still work against the tracking spell.

Of course, this all depends on if the tracking spell gives an image of the type of creature or the exact creature. If the tracking spell is just giving an image of the type of creature, then the invisibility is ignored as the actual tracked creature is not really being affected. If the tracking spell is going after the actual being that is tracked, then figure out which spell is more powerful (higher level, more powerful/skillful spell-caster), and/or maybe make a spell RR between the spells. (Or, just say it does or doesn't work for your own reasons - i.e. game/story reasons.)

[providence13]

It is interesting to read how other GM's use these spells.

This reminds me of "Can I stab someone while wearing a wig and a false mustache to avoid Death's Tale? I". 

Just providing a "visual image of who/whatever left a track" sure sounds like a trail cam, deer stand cam or any number of devices people use in the woods to take a picture of animals. The critter walks through the beam/sensor/etc. and the hidden box takes a photo.

For Path's Tale, the camera has been taking pictures for 1hr/lvl. This spell is cast on the path itself.

Tracks Lore shows an image (of the being that made the track) but also grants a bonus to tracking them in the future and 'origin'; a general idea of where they're from.

Passing Lore is the most interesting spell here, imho. Not only does it give an image of the being passing that point, but it also gives a "sound" of the being. Does this refer to sounds the being can make? I don't think so. I think it just adds a micro phone to the trail cam.
  How much sound? Well, it takes 1 rnd to play back the sound and view the image. IMHO, you have 1 rnd worth of recorded sound (6-10 sec) to go with the snap shot.

So the big question is, what if something were drowning out the sound? If the spell is cast on a rock beside a loud waterfall within 50ft of a heavily used trail, would you hear anything but the waterfall?  Can a dragon roar cover the sound image of the person?
  Do you say the spell captures the sound image of the being making the track OR sounds associated with the time of the track.

I feel that answering this question could help resolve the original poster's query.

Have fun everyone. For my games, I'm sticking with Trail Cam. Trail Cam with a plaster cast. Trail Cam with a plaster cast and a microphone. This doesn't change any of my existing game rules. The spells can't cut through Invis, Groucho Glasses or fog horn, but you have the standard chance/DR to notice; just as if you were standing there.

[arakish]

Have fun everyone. For my games, I'm sticking with Trail Cam. Trail Cam with a plaster cast. Trail Cam with a plaster cast and a microphone. This doesn't change any of my existing game rules. The spells can't cut through Invis, Groucho Glasses or fog horn, but you have the standard chance/DR to notice; just as if you were standing there.

My point exactly.  However, I did like the rest of your description.  Thanks.

rmfr

[yammahoper]

One note on disguises: most are designed to take advantage of peoples assumptions.  They see a soldier, its a soldier.  Close inspection of a disguise will almost always reveal it as a disguise.

Thus spells tend to see through disguises.  Disguises are not designed to stand up to normal inspection, let alone magical inspection.

Some disguises are better than other, such as facade and shape shifting spells.  If it is imperitive to fool divination spells, these are better to rely on.

[providence13]

spells tend to see through disguises.  Disguises are not designed to stand up to normal inspection, let alone magical inspection.

Some disguises are better than other, such as facade and shape shifting spells.  If it is imperitive to fool divination spells, these are better to rely on.

I can see this to a degree.
When I wear UV beta blocking sunglasses, (now with retsin)  I can see the difference between grass, dead grass, left out water hose and dog toys I'm about to run over with the lawnmower. Without the special shades, I just see my back yard. Also, every cell phone I've ever had uses some sort of image enhancement on the camera. Low-lite, light enhancement, whatever. It can pick up details that I might otherwise miss because of poor lighting, whatever.
I'll grant these spells might be similar.
With that said, I might give you one DR easier to notice details about the image, pick out a disguise, etc. I feel that's generous.

[jaranka]

Invisibility and Unseen spells are also effective in concealing a character from evocation magic. The ability to perceive invisible targets is explicitly disallowed (unless perceiving invisibility is a natural ability of some race in the GM's world).

Although this comes from the Mentalism Companion, I believe it was a general discussion of the nature and limitations of all manner of divination spells.  This section in particular had to do with evoking the past.

[RandalThor]

Disguises are not designed to stand up to normal inspection,

Uh, actually, that is exactly what they are supposed to stand up to: normal inspection. Normal inspection is a quick glance, a short look, usually with the assumption nothing is wrong, and will work fine if nothing trips the inspectors suspicions - which is how a good disguise is supposed to work, with the inspectors assumptions.

It is the following statement that is more accurate.

Close inspection of a disguise will almost always reveal it as a disguise.

[yammahoper]

Disguises are not designed to stand up to normal inspection,

Uh, actually, that is exactly what they are supposed to stand up to: normal inspection. Normal inspection is a quick glance, a short look, usually with the assumption nothing is wrong, and will work fine if nothing trips the inspectors suspicions - which is how a good disguise is supposed to work, with the inspectors assumptions.

It is the following statement that is more accurate.

Close inspection of a disguise will almost always reveal it as a disguise.

I'm guessing we have different definitions of the word INSPECTION.  Normally, just looking at something does not fit the definition of inspection. 

Inspection: noun 1. the act of inspecting or viewing, especially carefully or critically: an inspection of all luggage on the plane. 2. formal or official viewing or examination.

Not casual observation, which is what you describe.

[RandalThor]

No, I guess we weren't. I was thinking you were meaning normal observation, and my own experience with "inspections" in the USMC. (Very perfunctory, usually.)

But, let me be more clear: A good/professional disguise is supposed to pass normal inspection. Even the TSA screeners don't go "all-out" for every peeson that comes through, they get bored and it becomes monotonous, so they do not (cannot many neurologists would say) stay fully focused and go on "auto-pilot" much of the time. Only when something - usually subconcious on their part - doesn't jive with their inspection-program do they come back to full awareness and begin to really inspect. Heck, the most intense scrutiny I have ever had going through security at an airport was in China, and it still took all of 2-3 seconds for the security individual to check out me and my passport, stamp it and let me pass. Everything seemed in order (and was), so no subconcious cues were triggered to make them suspicious (other than the normal level of suspicion of a westerner) and, poof off I went to my next destination. Now, one can make the argument that those aren't true inspections, and I don't think I would completely disagree, but it is in their job description to "inspect" everything that goes through. I just think you are not including the human factor in the word, and how it is implemented.

It is the quick, just not looking like yourself type of disguise that will have next to no chance of surviving an inspection.

But, back on-topic: I still think that an RR is in order, eventhough I would rather limit the number of rolls during a game, it seems only fair to give the invisible person a chance. But, something to consider: is the tracking spell affecting the individual or the area the individual passed through? If it is the individual, do they get an RR as it stands now? Because they should, shouldn't they? If it affects the area, which would bypass an RR

Instead of all that, how about the Ranger makes a spell-casting roll and the success determines if it is able to pierce the invisibilty spell? A normal success doesn't, but an Absolute and/or Unusuall Success does. One roll to rule them all..... The invisibilty might, or might not modify the spell-casting check, but if you are already calling for an Absolute or higher success, then it probably shouldn't.