Fortune
Nov 28 2006, 11:41 AM
So, we have the Improved Invisibility Spell ...
Type: P / Test: Opp [Int] / Range: LOS / Dur: S / Drain: [F/2] + 1
This is a Single Sense Spell, specifically affecting sight.
Let's say that I want a Multi-Sense version of this Spell, basically Physical Non-Detection. To find the Drain Value, I would only have to remove the Single Sense modifier from the above Spell (-2), and add the Multi-Sense modifier (+0), making the stat-line ...
Type: P / Test: Opp [Int] / Range: LOS / Dur: S / Drain: [F/2] + 3
This Spell would mask all audible, visual, olfactory, (and technically even taste and touch) traces of the subject.
Is this right, or am I missing something?
The Jopp
Nov 28 2006, 11:55 AM
QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 28 2006, 11:41 AM) |
So, we have the Improved Invisibility Spell ...
Type: P / Test: Opp [Int] / Range: LOS / Dur: S / Drain: [F/2] + 1
This is a Single Sense Spell, specifically affecting sight.
Let's say that I want a Multi-Sense version of this Spell, basically Physical Non-Detection. To find the Drain Value, I would only have to remove the Single Sense modifier from the above Spell (-2), and add the Multi-Sense modifier (+0), making the stat-line ...
Type: P / Test: Opp [Int] / Range: LOS / Dur: S / Drain: [F/2] + 3
This Spell would mask all audible, visual, olfactory, (and technically even taste and touch) traces of the subject.
Is this right, or am I missing something? |
Yup, that is correct, and that is what I would call REAL invisibility.
Technically I would call it "ghost" if you remove touch as well.
Say, isn't astral perception a "sense" Remove that as well...

Se the following examples of spells:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...topic=15262&hl=
Fortune
Nov 28 2006, 12:24 PM
QUOTE (The Jopp) |
Technically I would call it "ghost" if you remove touch as well. |
I actually seriously considered naming it
Ghost, but figured people would bitch.

QUOTE |
Say, isn't astral perception a "sense" Remove that as well... |
In all seriousness, would this actually be an option?
Thanks for the link. I think I might have missed that when you first posted it.
Ryu
Nov 28 2006, 01:08 PM
Astral perception is a sense, and can be removed if the target is valid (astral observers are not a valid target for physical spells if I´m not mistaken).
That said, I´d not allow a custom spell to remove more than one sense.
The Jopp
Nov 28 2006, 01:12 PM
So one COULD add a mana spell that removes ASTRAL perception that would make one invisible to spirits...
That way it would be balanced since all other kinds of detection exists.
toturi
Nov 28 2006, 01:14 PM
Well, just don't do it when a magician of a Logic+Willpower tradition comes around. An moving seemingly unattached spell is a giveaway.
The Jopp
Nov 28 2006, 01:22 PM
QUOTE (toturi @ Nov 28 2006, 01:14 PM) |
Well, just don't do it when a magician of a Logic+Willpower tradition comes around. An moving seemingly unattached spell is a giveaway. |
Well, the question is if it IS invisible. A mana based illusion spell targetted on me would technically make my astral form "invisible" to anyone with astral vision - ditto for the spell as it is also part of the astral invisibility.
It is an illusion and thus fools the MIND that there is nothing there no matter how blaringly obvious one can actually be THEY do not see me since I send a "See-Me-Not" message.
------
The unbalancing and scary thing would be a Force 10 spirit with Astral invisibility sneaking up on the team and then materialize...
Eryk the Red
Nov 28 2006, 02:36 PM
The issue is that you could theoretically be invisible, but the spell aura is not. You could be completely invisible, even to astral observers, but astral observers would still see that spell aura floating there. The spell can't make itself invisible. To prevent astral observers from seeing the aura, you'd have to cast some kind of sense removal on them. (There could conceivably be an illusion spell that creates a sort of limited sense removal where the target no longer perceives spell auras I suppose... but that'd have to be subject to GM approval. I probably would give it at least the same drain as full sense removal, because the target is not necessarily aware of the change.)
The Jopp
Nov 28 2006, 02:51 PM
QUOTE (Eryk the Red) |
The issue is that you could theoretically be invisible, but the spell aura is not. You could be completely invisible, even to astral observers, but astral observers would still see that spell aura floating there. The spell can't make itself invisible. To prevent astral observers from seeing the aura, you'd have to cast some kind of sense removal on them. (There could conceivably be an illusion spell that creates a sort of limited sense removal where the target no longer perceives spell auras I suppose... but that'd have to be subject to GM approval. I probably would give it at least the same drain as full sense removal, because the target is not necessarily aware of the change.) |
That depends on how you word the definition and the description of the spell…
If the spell removes any trace of the target AND the active spell from the perceivers mind by fooling them by telling them that the person with an active spell isn’t there then it would work.
Mistwalker
Nov 28 2006, 04:26 PM
Hmm, what about masking and improved masking (can't remember the term right now)? With the improved masking, you can hide active foci, substained spells, etc..
Or if it too much of a head ache, make it an illusion of some kind (astral wind, swirl, etc...).
Hmm, doesn't conceal spirit power work something like that?
Or do people play that conceal only works on the mundane plane?
laughingowl
Nov 29 2006, 12:28 AM
QUOTE |
A mana based illusion spell targetted on me would technically make my astral form "invisible" to anyone with astral vision - ditto for the spell as it is also part of the astral invisibility. |
Nope. The spell makes the 'target' invisible which would be you. THe 'spell' would be visible.
Even if you cast another spell, on the spell, the second spell would be visible.
It would add protection from being attacked, but it would still be noticable SOMETHING was there. (think being invisible, while standing in waste deep water. YOU might not be seen, but there is clearly something keeping the water from filling in a waste deep hole.
Now:
the 'ghost' spell and extended masking, would be pretty much impossible to detect without sufficient counterspelling and/or an initiate good enough to pierce the masking.
laughingowl
Nov 29 2006, 12:36 AM
Hmm also wouldnt it take two spells: One cast on the physical plane and one astrally.
IT is impossible for a spell to effect somebody on a different plane.
So if you cast 'ghost' while on the physical plane, then people, cameras, mages, what ever coudlnt see you (this would include manifested spirits).
However, things on the astral (projecting or even percieving mages, non-manifested spirits, etc) would still see the:
1) 'aura of the person (they are totally uneffected by a spell on the 'physical' plane)
2) the aura of the 'spell'
Now if you cast the spell while on the 'astral'. To those present in the astral your would be invisible. (and presumably if sustained, you would stay invisible even if you came back to the physical plane, however, the spell is 'astral' so can only effect those on the astrals.)
However to anyone on the physical plane you would be visible (since a spell cast on the astral can not effect them).
So to be 'completely' invisible.
1) Cast 'ghost' on yourself while on the physical plane.
2) Cast 'ghost' on yourself while astral.
3) Have Extended Masking and be atleat Initiate 2 (to block both spell aura's).
At this point to notice you.
Anything on the 'physical' would have to defeat #1
Anything on the 'astral' would have to defeat #2.
An initate (or something else that can peirce the masking) would have a chance to pierce the masking and possibly notice #3 (the spells)
Mr. Unpronounceable
Nov 29 2006, 06:03 PM
QUOTE (laughingowl) |
So if you cast 'ghost' while on the physical plane, then people, cameras, mages, what ever coudlnt see you (this would include manifested spirits). |
Actually, you'd need 2 versions of the spell - one physical (to work against those cameras and sensors) and one mana (since physical spells don't work on the astral)
djinni
Nov 29 2006, 06:54 PM
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable @ Nov 29 2006, 01:03 PM) |
Actually, you'd need 2 versions of the spell |
why are you creating a new version of the
Remove [sense] spells?
Mr. Unpronounceable
Nov 29 2006, 07:41 PM
I'm not planning to - I was merely pointing out that it would require both a physical and a mana version of the non-detection spell to implement laughingowl's plan to achieve total non-detectability.
Ryu
Nov 30 2006, 12:03 PM
1.) We are discussing variants on invisibility. Remove sense does work for some applications, but sure does tell every target that something is amiss.
2.) I´d make the spell itself invisible to the affected target for free. Otherwise it would end in one evil laugh and several attempts to hurt me.
You would not need two spells, as you can walk around dual natured without fear.
Mr. Unpronounceable
Nov 30 2006, 08:21 PM
But a mana spell can not affect an unliving object (cameras) and a physical spell can not affect astral beings - so yes you would need two different spells.
Ryu
Nov 30 2006, 08:56 PM
I was wrong. I just thought that one spell to remove astral sight is enough and forgot about the technical angle.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.