Invisibility and Armor (Spells) Options

[Lebo77]

So the armor spell surrounds the target with a glowing aura.

What happens when that same target is also invisible?

Is the aura invisible?

- Lebo77

[Trax]

I guess either the invisibility spell hides the glowing aura, or you get a "Master Jedi" type aura. Visible, but completely see through. Either it depends on the interpretation of your GM, or you just go with the fact that the spell is meant to make you completely unseen, so no visible auras either.

[James McMurray]

I believe the spell specifies that it doesn't suppress light sources, but I could be wrong. I would have the character glow but still be invisible.

[PlainWhiteSocks]

Improved inviso warps light (wierd term). I would guess that means the light comming from the armor spell too.

It could also be interpreted as depending on whch spell was cast first. i.e. If the armor spell is cast first then it is invis, otherwise not.

[Zen Shooter01]

I'd rule that you get a glowing outline. Otherwise, this spell combo would be such an 800 pound gorilla that it would dominate all sorcerous tactics.

[Lagomorph]

[Clyde]

If the players can do it, the NPCs can, too.

I'd be inclined to rule that your light sources are visible, though. Just because the idea of a glowing light coming from absolutely nothing provides a cool looking visual image. . . .

[Garrowolf]

The invisiblity covers all visibility of the person.
Personally I use a version of invisibility that is multisense so it includes sound.

[hyzmarca]

I prefer that light sources are invisible but they still provide visible illumination. If you make a lam invisible then you can't see any of the light from the lamp, but you can still see everything that the lamp's invisible light shines on.

[Garrowolf]

I think that I would make it dependant on the type of invisibility it is. For the mana version then yes your light works just fine. If it is the improved invisibility I would increase the threshold by one for the mage to allow the light to get out of the effect but also I would decrease the penalty to notice the invisible person because of this strange light effect.

Besides as long as you have low light goggles why bother with the lamp in the first place? The only place you are going to have absolute darkness is a sealed room and then you have a different situation anyway.

[Big D]

[Ryu]

I´d go with Clyde. Light leaving the area of effect is clearly visible.

If you rule it the other way, flashlights don´t do much for invisible characters.

[knasser]

[Garrowolf]

You could make the glow a choice of the player. They could make any spell they want glowing or not. I could see it adding to intimidation checks.

[Fortune]

The glow is there for at least one reason. To help curb silly mages from wandering around 24 hours a day with Armor locked on.

[Garrowolf]

Why do you care if they sustain it all the time? It just means that they are -2 to do everything and they have to keeep on making willpower tests to maintain concentration. It also means that they are not resting or relaxing so they will start getting cranky and irritable. They will also be distracted and won't notice things as easily after a while. Start giving them stun damage as fatigue for focusing that long on something.

They will end up drooling idiots trying to keep this one spell going. Let them do it a few times and watch them change their mind. It will be funny to watch.

[Slithery D]

Oh, please Armor is the first thing to be put on a sustaining focus. Mages can get armor on top of their regular armor. Is it too much to ask that as a downside it be visible as such?

Any intelligent mage will prefer Combat Sense and Deflection anyway, so the dumb ones deserve to be punished.

[Garrowolf]

Actually one of the house rules I use limits foci. Add all the ratings of your foci together. For each time you could divide your magic rating into it you get a +1 to the drain codes of all spells you cast because all of your foci are interfering.

[Ryu]

The age-old problem of one houserule facilitating another... Yes, if active foci are a problem, armor does not have to glow.

The main effect of armor glow is in combat, where the mage is apparently easy to recognise. In a long gone group of mine, we used to cast armor on a samurai, but not on the mage. Less shooting of the mage, more shooting of the tank. GMs can do this, too. Thanks for the reminder I guess.

I do like effects like armor glow because it makes magic visible. If you don´t have such effects, spells just change numbers. Fireball is an age-old mainstay because of the fire involved, not because of the killing. Other spells do that better.

[Fortune]