I am playing a mage in our game and plan on doing something kind of new with some illusions. I am going to quicken an invisibility to myself and then put a trid phantasm in a sustaining focus. That way I can still appear to be there when it is helpful to me. I was wondering how this would work during combat.
Assuming people don't resist either spell, then they will see the form of me that I control with my phantasm. So if I misplace this compared to my true location, they would be firing at nothing. This also got me to thinking about invisibility. What would the chance be of getting hit by random fire? And if there was a spellcaster there, but not astrally active, then would his spells be able to hit me, since he didn't have a true LOS?
Full Version: what you see is not what you get
Oh I'm sure your GM is going to LOVE this...
I do what I can...
Besides, he has played under me in the past and he is one of the most difficult players I have ever had. He constantly pushed the boundries, but made the game more fun, so I am hoping to do the same for him.
Besides, he has played under me in the past and he is one of the most difficult players I have ever had. He constantly pushed the boundries, but made the game more fun, so I am hoping to do the same for him.
I think it's extreamly clever. However, I imagine Trid Phantasm as always staying in the same general area... not able to walk about with you. If it is, though, it should work.
JaronK
JaronK
If I remember correctly, Trid phantasm is manually controlled, you could direct it, but the moment you didn't it would simply continue with the last orders (which will either do a loop or stop or go on until it goes outside your range). You can certainly try, but eventually a smart person is going to realize how oddly you're acting, and react accordingly.
well, at the least, it's preset, so if you can't manually change how it works, you have limited time before the oddities are noticed
well, at the least, it's preset, so if you can't manually change how it works, you have limited time before the oddities are noticed
Dude, what about a double image spell? The invisibility would be targeted on yourself and if you cast the double image first...
I thought about double image, but trid phantasm, has so many more possibilites.
Rules wise, assuming that they don't resist the spells and realize something is up, they'll be shooting at the Blind Fire penalty. Random shots shoudl only be considered if your GM is sadistic or if you're playing with minis. Also, a truly evil GM may start having the guards respond with suppressive fire, which will hit you.
IIRC, a dual-percieving mage can still target you with spells, as he has LOS on your physical body; it's just that his mind is blocked from seeing you. But don't worry, dual-perception has its own disadvantages, such as becoming vulnerable to the Watcher Attack Pack™ strategy.
IIRC, a dual-percieving mage can still target you with spells, as he has LOS on your physical body; it's just that his mind is blocked from seeing you. But don't worry, dual-perception has its own disadvantages, such as becoming vulnerable to the Watcher Attack Pack™ strategy.
I'm not sure what benefit you hope to get from the Trid Phantasm, but with it you're more likely to get hit by grenades, shotgun blasts, area-affect elemental manipulation spells, stun gas and suppressive fire, than if you are simply invislble.
It seems like you'd just be better off dropping the physical mask once combat starts. For the rest of the time, I can't see why it would be a problem, but you're going to want a focus or something, otherwise everyone will think you're always on drugs (-2 to all TN's is kind of harsh).
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| I'm not sure what benefit you hope to get from the Trid Phantasm, but with it you're more likely to get hit by grenades, shotgun blasts, area-affect elemental manipulation spells, stun gas and suppressive fire, than if you are simply invislble. |
He's trying to get around the disadvantages of making himself permanantly invisible.
I'd rule that the trid phantasm could not be effectively used in this way. You'd need constant control over it, which would be hard to do when _you_ aren't the one sustaining the spell any more - it's being handled by the focus.
This reasoning is based on my interpretation of how sustained spells work. I reason that part of the distraction of sustaining a spell is the actual control of the spell. You can give up the distraction by having a focus sustain it for you, but that also means that the focus is the thing doing the control. And it's not like the focus is intelligent or anything.
The upshot is that with this interpretation, you can use foci to easily sustain spells that don't require any kind of concious control, or that can be pre-set with particular settings. Spells where you want control are best handled personally.
So Invisibility is a good candidate for a sustaining focus.
So is Armor, or Detect Bullets, or the like.
Levitate could be problematic, unless you want to be towed around like a balloon.
Illusions could also be a pain, if you want an illusion that is more than a static image.
good thoughts on the control from the focus, I have foucsed Conc. edge so Maybe I will keep it up myself and center it away. I talked to my GM and he says untill they know that someone invis is there and that my illusion is not real he would give me a friend in melee bonus when using my staff. I was thinking that even if you knew it was not real, it would be damn hard to target someone invis, while ignoring the person that you see "really" attacking you. More of an RPing concept than actual game bonus.
| QUOTE (Brazila) |
| I am playing a mage in our game and plan on doing something kind of new with some illusions. I am going to quicken an invisibility to myself and then put a trid phantasm in a sustaining focus. That way I can still appear to be there when it is helpful to me. I was wondering how this would work during combat. |
So basically your wanting a cloak of displacement from one of those other games
Cool idea to find a way to bring it across... So what else can we nick.....
I didn't think of it that way, but I have been known to play that other game so, it is likely that I was influenced by said item.
I've had at least one NPC mage just use "displace". Custom spells are swell.
| QUOTE |
| I talked to my GM and he says untill they know that someone invis is there and that my illusion is not real he would give me a friend in melee bonus when using my staff. I was thinking that even if you knew it was not real, it would be damn hard to target someone invis, while ignoring the person that you see "really" attacking you. |
If you're invisible, everyone is at +4 to hit you in melee. If all you're getting is a measly 1-point friend-in-melee bonus from your GM, I'd lose the phantasm.
| QUOTE |
| Levitate could be problematic, unless you want to be towed around like a balloon. |
ack!
I dunno, THAT is where I see issues with determining control, pseudo control, and no control. It's one thing to have a focus keep you afloat, it's another to now become unable to guide your flying because you use a focus. A focus is almost like a drivers license in that you don't have to worry about suddenly getting pulled over and yanked out for illegal driving (whereas yanked out for levitate is panicking, losing your control, nad plummetting to the ground).
*ponders more*
Actually a focus is nothing like that IMHO. A focus completely sustains the spell independant of you. You have nothing longer to do with it. I run it as stated above, that after it's tossed in a focus the mage no longer has any direct control over it.
People who claim that the magician loses control of his spells when they place them in a sustaining focus have little to base that decision on in the rules. All a sustaining focus does is sustain the spell for you so that you don't have to maintain concentration on keeping it running; it basically just keeps pumping the mana through to keep the spell up. The spell is still under the control of the magician who cast the spell.
At most you could argue that the magician has to be in contact with the sustaining focus in order to continue to have control of the spell, but even that isn't supported by the rules (especially since they can deactivate the spell at any time, even when not in contact or LOS of the focus -- which wouldn't be possible if this whole "no longer under their control" concept was accurate).
At most you could argue that the magician has to be in contact with the sustaining focus in order to continue to have control of the spell, but even that isn't supported by the rules (especially since they can deactivate the spell at any time, even when not in contact or LOS of the focus -- which wouldn't be possible if this whole "no longer under their control" concept was accurate).
I don't pretend for that to be the rules, I'm just saying that's how I do it. My players like that rule.
Actually, the target of the spell must maintain contact with the sustaining focus at all times. Losing contact makes the spell go away. Other than that, I agree with DR. Funk. The sustaining focus maintains it without you having to concentrate on it, it doesn't say you can't concentrate on it.
Hmm... interesting question.
It does state "without attention or concentration on the part of the caster", so the question isn't whether the focus disallows any control of the spell (without attention or concentration implies to me that the caster can completely ignore the spell and it keeps working; hence no control) but whether or not a magician could retake that control (perhaps getting the TN penalty again, or at least half of it, since he must reasonable maintain some concentration to direct a spell?) and whether or not the magician has to be in contact with said focus to do so.
It does state "without attention or concentration on the part of the caster", so the question isn't whether the focus disallows any control of the spell (without attention or concentration implies to me that the caster can completely ignore the spell and it keeps working; hence no control) but whether or not a magician could retake that control (perhaps getting the TN penalty again, or at least half of it, since he must reasonable maintain some concentration to direct a spell?) and whether or not the magician has to be in contact with said focus to do so.
I am perhaps less rigid than the GMs that posted earlier on this thread. I allow the spellcaster to decide, at the time of casting, whether he wants to control the spell or he wants the person he cast it on to control it.
For example, if a shaman casts Levitate on an unconscious body, he obviously wants to retain control of it. If he casts levitate on the Samurai, he may wish the Samurai to have control of it. In either case, putting it in a Sustaining Focus, in my game, does not take away the control.
For example, if a shaman casts Levitate on an unconscious body, he obviously wants to retain control of it. If he casts levitate on the Samurai, he may wish the Samurai to have control of it. In either case, putting it in a Sustaining Focus, in my game, does not take away the control.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| I allow the spellcaster to decide, at the time of casting, whether he wants to control the spell or he wants the person he cast it on to control it. |
I'd never let anyone except the caster control the spell. And I'm divided on how to treat sustaining foci after reading this thread. It requires some consideration...
| QUOTE (snowRaven) |
| I'd never let anyone except the caster control the spell. |
That's a very reasonable choice for sustained manipulation spells. I kind of like my way, and it is in line with Detection spells, where a subject who receives a new directional sense can control it himself.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| That's a very reasonable choice for sustained manipulation spells. I kind of like my way, and it is in line with Detection spells, where a subject who receives a new directional sense can control it himself. |
Hmmm, well for most detection spells it wouldn't matter one way or the other. Either they work on an area (like the 'Detect ...' spells, Combat Sense), work 'automatically' (like Analyze Truth, Enhance Aim), use an existing sense in an improved way (Night Vision), or the spell description mentions what the subject of the spell must do (Clairaudience/-voyance, Mindlink).
As far as I can tell the only detection spells where it becomes an issue is Analyze Device, Analyze Magic, Translate, and Diagnose.
But fair, I do concede that my strict ruling dosn't quite pertain to Detection spells. Then again, no other spell category mentions a subject controlling any part of the spell. If fact, for double image it is specifically stated that 'the caster has limited control of the double and can adjust it's movement'. For levitate it says fairly plainly that it's the caster that controls movement - living beings may resist.
(Checking over the rules to make sure I didn't miss anything, I see that the magic rules are in sore need of an overhaul - the words 'target' and 'subject' are used interchangeably in several places...)
Reading up on the rules, however, I must say that a caster should be allowed to control a spell sustained by a focus or an elemental - likewise should a suject be allowed his or her usual control over the spell (valid for certain detection spells) regardless of the means of sustaining.
I've got a simple question about Trid Phantasm. The main book says it's just a visual illusion, almost all people I know use it as a multi sensual illusion. You can see it, taste it, feel it, smell it, hear it.
I don't think that this or any other spell covers so many senses. What do you think?
I don't think that this or any other spell covers so many senses. What do you think?
| QUOTE (AngelGabriel) |
| I've got a simple question about Trid Phantasm. The main book says it's just a visual illusion, almost all people I know use it as a multi sensual illusion. You can see it, taste it, feel it, smell it, hear it. I don't think that this or any other spell covers so many senses. What do you think? |
I was disappointed when I noticed that too. I can still think of a lot of clever uses for the spell, they're just a little more limited now that I know you can't touch, hear, smell, or taste it.
I'll probably try to get my GM to make it a mulitsensual spell even if it means reducing the maximum size of the illusion.
Well you have other issues, IIRC all the Phantasm series of spells are Voluntary target only...
No, entertainment spells require voluntary targets, phantasms can affect unwilling targets.
Okay thanks, I always get those backwards. 
Several detection spells like Clairvoyance are directed/directional. I give control to the person who has received the new sense.
Regarding who controls a sustained spell. Consider, as a GM, what you want to have happen in the game with a one-use Flying Carpet (expendable anchored focus with levitate), a one-use Witch's broom (same), a reusable Bomb Disposal focus (anchoring focus with Magic Fingers), a one-use Potion of Control Animal, a one-use Potion of Shape Earth, or a one-use Bracer of Redirect. In all these cases, I as a GM, want the person using the anchoring item to have control of the spell.
Regarding who controls a sustained spell. Consider, as a GM, what you want to have happen in the game with a one-use Flying Carpet (expendable anchored focus with levitate), a one-use Witch's broom (same), a reusable Bomb Disposal focus (anchoring focus with Magic Fingers), a one-use Potion of Control Animal, a one-use Potion of Shape Earth, or a one-use Bracer of Redirect. In all these cases, I as a GM, want the person using the anchoring item to have control of the spell.
Opinions vary. I don't want anyone to control anchored spells. They are autonomous. That's why objects like that don't exist in my games. IMHO any spell that requires control is not really usable as an anchor.
I just wanted to add, that I finally got to use this combo. We have a new PC in our group and his character made the boast that he could kill anyone that he got in arms reach of. I questioned him on it and he offered to spar with me to prove his skill. He used closed combat to get inside my staff's reach, and would have gotten like 19 successes( he is a melee munchkin) if it were not for the spells. Instead my GM said "resist 4D stun" and he was trying to tell him the damage was way higher. You should have seen the suprise on his face when the GM explained he was the one soaking...A true Kodak moment.
I always assumed only the caster had any control over a spell. Directional sense from detection spells granted to another would be of fixed alignment based on part of there body. normally in front of there face.
I believe a caster has full control over a spell in a sustaining focus but if he wants to exorcise fine control he would need to spend some type of action. In the case of a levitate spell on himself it would be his movement action. In the case of a magic fingers spell making an attack it would be a complex action (as if he had made the attack). In the case of a trid phantasm trying to mimic every aspect of the way a person moves convincingly I would say almost his full concentration. If you want to fight at all your going to need to drop control of the image. It will ether stand there or follow its last command.
Edward
I believe a caster has full control over a spell in a sustaining focus but if he wants to exorcise fine control he would need to spend some type of action. In the case of a levitate spell on himself it would be his movement action. In the case of a magic fingers spell making an attack it would be a complex action (as if he had made the attack). In the case of a trid phantasm trying to mimic every aspect of the way a person moves convincingly I would say almost his full concentration. If you want to fight at all your going to need to drop control of the image. It will ether stand there or follow its last command.
Edward
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.