Ideas, Need Comments

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> Well, the Invisibility spell has been a traditional headache in D&D

Oh yeah!

> Anyway, Invisibility is not in any way mind-affecting, and does not in
> any way affect the senses of those who would normally see the
> invisible creature - it can`t be disbelieved or negated by anything
> short of special sensory abilities or spells.

OK, this may be the best way to see it. However, that would means it is
*not* an illusion spell, but rather an alteration spell, because it makes
a real, physical change which has nothing to do with fooling minds! I
could accept that, except that then it no longer makes sense for the
effect to cease as soon as you attack someone -- if you *really are*
transparent, then you ought to continue to be even after thwacking someone
with a sword. Only if your nonappearance is illusionary (i.e., you are
only fooling people into somehow not realizing that you`re actually
visible) does the "fades after the first offensive action" think make
sense.

> It doesn`t bend or distort light, or whatever other pseudo-scientific
> explanations people have concocted in the past - it simply makes the
> person subject to the spell completely invisible, transparent -
> whatever - impossible to perceive with normal sight (and darkvision
> and low-light vision, AFAIK),

IMO, "it makes you transparent" is no less "pseudoscientific" than "it
bends light". The in-game science of this fantasy world *includes* magic,
because magic exists and acts in predictable fashions. But that`s a
different debate. In any case, if it acts on the recipient, it is
alteration, not illusion -- if it`s illusion, it acts either on the senses
of the viewers (in which case it might be better to call it
enchantment/charm) or on the light in between (because there just ins`t
anything left to change).

> anyway. He can still be perceived by smell, hearing, touch, taste, and
> most of the extraordinary senses such as blindsight, tremorsense, etc.

Yes, that`s clear independent of the rest of the description / rules.

> Golems and undead are as much subject to the Invisibility spell as
> anyone else in the sense that they can`t see the invisible creature.
> They are also similarly "vulnerable" to silence - they cannot hear
> when there is no sound.

Which again requires invisibility to be alteration magic, not illusion
magic. Which is fine by me, but is also a change. I`d in fact prefer to
say that the two main existing invisibility spells (Invis and Improved
Invis) are of two different schools -- the 2nd level Invis is illusion,
because it goes away when you force yourself on people`s attention
(therefore all it does is help you pretend not to be visible) and the 4th
level ImpInvis is alteration, because it doesn`t (so you really do become
completely transparent); this might mean that golems, undead, and other
"mindless" creatures can see things affected by Invis(2) because they
cannot be fooled, but cannot see things affected by ImpInvis(4) because
the subject really is transparent.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

OK, this may be the best way to see it. However, that would means it is
*not* an illusion spell, but rather an alteration spell, because it makes
a real, physical change which has nothing to do with fooling minds!

'Illusion' doesn't necessarily mean fooling the mind directly - it's really enough to fool the eyes, right? Like, a stage magician doesn't go and mess with your mind - he just makes things appear different than they are. Anyway, I agree to an extent that there's a mix-up here about how the schools work - but, if you view magic a certain, pretty much every spell should belong to the alteration school. Good thing they renamed it transmutation, which generally has more narrow connotations. Anyway, the definition of an illusion (glamer) on page 158 in the PHB is pretty specific about what a glamer does - and invisibility neatly falls under it.

Just to quickly sum up, and to use some more pseudoscientific slang along the way (seems most apt anyway):

Figment - basically a hologram in the Star Trek sense if it's visual
Glamer - makes something look different, or not appear at all
Pattern - a hologram that makes people go dizzy and start saying and thinking groovy stuff - sort of like insta-hypnotism or a drug trip
Phantasm - this is the mental image that most seem to associate with illusions
Shadow - a semi-real effect

To go back to the stage magician example again, invisibility simply makes things not appear visible - it doesn't intrude on anyone's minds - though once found out, the illusion fades, which is pretty much the only thing separating it from what a transmutation version does. A lot of illusion spells never really dealt with the mind directly anyway, and they don't know - the thing is, once you know it's not real, you can ignore it - though, realistically, if it looked like a dragon before, I'd still say it'd be scary, even if you know it isn't real (even though the text says it just appears as a thine outline then).

[Birthright-L]

Ryan, what makes you beleive that illusions MUST have something to do
fooling the mind?

The general school description in the PH (p 158 my edition), stars with the
words "Illusions spells deceive the senses" - but I do not read that to
indicate that they have to affect the senes directly. As I read it, they can
affect the stimuli that senses react to.

In the description of figments, it clearly states that they do not affect
the mind. It goes on to say that they cannot create real thigs, like light.
I`d say that they can still bounce and alter exisiting light - much like
light reflecting off an object/creature is bent and altered in order to
produce the visual images that we see. Thus, an illusion is invisible in
absolute darkness, since it cannot illuminate itself, but the alteration to
light is otherwise real - and still an illuson spell.

Don`t ask me how this interacts with darkvision, which is supposed to be
able to see in the total absense of light - as long as that darkness is not
magically created. I suppose that whatever pseudo-light darkvision uses is
also affected by illusions.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

Spells from the Illusion school only work on the mind if they are [mind-affecting].

Darkvision allows you to see normally in the dark (up the the indicated distance) incuding any illusions affected by sight.

>
> Fra: Stephen Starfox <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
> Dato: 2003/05/08 Thu AM 08:24:13 CEST
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: Ideas, Need Comments [2#1075]
>
> Ryan, what makes you beleive that illusions MUST have something to do
> fooling the mind?
>
> The general school description in the PH (p 158 my edition), stars with the
> words "Illusions spells deceive the senses" - but I do not read that to
> indicate that they have to affect the senes directly. As I read it, they can
> affect the stimuli that senses react to.
>
> In the description of figments, it clearly states that they do not affect
> the mind. It goes on to say that they cannot create real thigs, like light.
> I`d say that they can still bounce and alter exisiting light - much like
> light reflecting off an object/creature is bent and altered in order to
> produce the visual images that we see. Thus, an illusion is invisible in
> absolute darkness, since it cannot illuminate itself, but the alteration to
> light is otherwise real - and still an illuson spell.
>
> Don`t ask me how this interacts with darkvision, which is supposed to be
> able to see in the total absense of light - as long as that darkness is not
> magically created. I suppose that whatever pseudo-light darkvision uses is
> also affected by illusions.
>
> /Carl
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 09:48, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1075
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> Well, the Invisibility spell has been a traditional headache in D&D rules, to
which this is a testament, I suppose. I remember that Sean K Reynolds had a rant
or an article about this on his site a while ago. It was an interesting read, and
I think I`d recommend it.

Not just invisibility but all illusion/phantasm spells. But, go on.

>
> Anyway, Invisibility is not in any way mind-affecting, and does not in any way
affect the senses of those who would normally see the invisible creature - it
can`t be disbelieved or negated by anything short of special sensory abilities
or spells. It doesn`t bend or distort light, or whatever other pseudo-scientific
explanations people have concocted in the past - it simply makes the person
subject to the spell completely invisible, transparent - whatever - impossible
to perceive with normal sight (and darkvision and low-light vision, AFAIK),
anyway. He can still be perceived by smell, hearing, touch, taste, and most
of the extraordinary senses such as blindsight, tremorsense, etc.

There was an interesting article in one of the Dragon Magazine issues
many many moons past regarding the various forms of invisibility, from
illusionary, to alteration to innate forms and so on.


>
> Golems and undead are as much subject to the Invisibility spell as anyone
else in the sense that they can`t see the invisible creature. They are also
similarly "vulnerable" to silence - they cannot hear when there is no sound.

Then why the spell "invisibility to undead"? Such a spell implies at
least some point of view where invisibility did not apply equally to
undead. Of course there`s good argument that non-corporeal undead don`t
even have eyes (or skin or noses or ...) so their "senses" as such are
different.


>
> I`d say golems can be turned invisible - if they are willing. The magic
immunity of golems is essentially equivalent to infinite or infallible spell
resistance. However, spell resistance can be voluntarily lowered to receive
beneficial effects. I`d consider it pretty likely that this`d be the case
with creators and the Repair Damage spells from Tome & Blood for instance -
"hey, golem, hold still and don`t try to resist while I repair your damage
here..." or "I`m gonna turn you invisible now, and it won`t hurt, k?" A
golem couldn`t be involuntarily turned invisible, however (i.e. generally,
invisibility will only work if the golem`s creator/master wants it to).



Okay, Golems "willing" I find a little hard to take. "Free Will" and
golems .... ???, but leaving the willing part aside, yes, I`ll accept an
invisible anything (even a rock for example). But how much intelligence
and reasoning ability does a golem have? - all descriptions usually
limit such to the performance of its actual "duty", and even then
golems are subject to being tricked.

But for magic resistance, and its cousin spell resistance. Resisting a
spell voluntarily is one thing, it`s obvious that if you can actively
resist that passive acceptance is also possible. But magic resistance,
the innate and possibly unconscious use of an ability is another
entirely.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Mark_Aurel wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1075
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> Well, the Invisibility spell has been a traditional headache in D&D rules, to which this is a testament, I suppose. I remember that Sean K Reynolds had a rant or an article about this on his site a while ago. It was an interesting read, and I think I`d recommend it.
>
>Anyway, Invisibility is not in any way mind-affecting, and does not in any way affect the senses of those who would normally see the invisible creature - it can`t be disbelieved or negated by anything short of special sensory abilities or spells. It doesn`t bend or distort light, or whatever other pseudo-scientific explanations people have concocted in the past - it simply makes the person subject to the spell completely invisible, transparent - whatever - impossible to perceive with normal sight (and darkvision and low-light vision, AFAIK), anyway. He can still be perceived by smell, hearing, touch, taste, and most of the extraordinary senses such as blindsight, tremorsense, etc.
>
Which would make the rule that Invisibility transfers you to the Spirit
World that has been used by Ryan? in his campaign impossible - how could
one smell and hear a creature in the Spirit or Shadow World from
Aebrynnis? Would then each time a shadow passes near you in the Shadow
World you make a Listen and Spot check to detect him? Would every being
on Aebrynnis get the Shadow Senses of Halflings in this way? And even
worse: Invisibilty makes you invisible but does not make you incorporeal
- but if you actually travel to the Spirit/Shadow World, could then
others pass through you without noticing you?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

Then why the spell "invisibility to undead"? Such a spell implies at
least some point of view where invisibility did not apply equally to
undead. Of course there`s good argument that non-corporeal undead don`t
even have eyes (or skin or noses or ...) so their "senses" as such are
different.

I have no idea why there's an Invisibilty to Undead or an Invisibility to Animals spell - it might have some obscure literary or movie origin. That said, those spells are Abjuration, not Illusion, which suggests a different modus operandi. This one's a bit trickier to peg than the regular Invisibility, though - but regular invisibility still affects undead, animals, constructs, whatever, the same as anyone else.

Regarding the eyesight of undead - as far as I'm aware, most undead are assumed to have the same basic senses as an ordinary human (basic assumption for all monsters, unless blurb or stats says otherwise) - at least for game purposes. Sure, they don't have eyes and ears, but in the real world, skeletons don't generally move about on their own without some muscle assistance either. They might not perceive things quite the same as humans, but they would seem to have the same range of senses simply for lack of evidence of anything else (otherwise, being undead would be a real weird experience - but, hey, they have to moan about something, right?).

Okay, Golems "willing" I find a little hard to take. "Free Will" and
golems .... ???, but leaving the willing part aside, yes, I`ll accept an
invisible anything (even a rock for example). But how much intelligence
and reasoning ability does a golem have? - all descriptions usually
limit such to the performance of its actual "duty", and even then
golems are subject to being tricked.

Depends. Savage Species introduced the concept of awakened constructs. My point was more that I'd say it's likely that the maker/master of a golem can order it to lower its resistance and be subject to a spell like invisibility or repair damage - or even awaken construct. They'd do it when ordered to by those who can, not under any other circumstance. Of course, with constructs who aren't equipped with an edition throwback ability have it somewhat easier.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:24 PM


> Which would make the rule that Invisibility transfers you to the
> Spirit World that has been used by Ryan? in his campaign impossible
> - how could one smell and hear a creature in the Spirit or Shadow
> World from Aebrynnis?

Events in the Spirit or Shadow worlds need not be a binary situation, where
one is either in or out of a single plane. We are acustomed to the idea of
a being which can materialize (take solid form) or just manifest (we can see
it, but not touch it). Why not a being which you could touch, but not see.
In a sense they are present in the material world, but manifesting in the
Spirit World.

There is no reason to change how invisibility works, just what it means.
Admittedly there is some change in terms of its application in the Spirit
World, but there is none in the material world.

And, BTW, I am the one who decided that Invisibility involves the Spirit
World. :-)

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> I have no idea why there`s an Invisibilty to Undead or an Invisibility
> to Animals spell - it might have some obscure literary or movie
> origin. That said, those spells are Abjuration, not Illusion,

I think the reason they exist is to give restricted invisibility powers to
those spellcasters who frequently deal with undead or animals but do not
normally have access to the more general invisibility spells (like clerics
and druids).


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Events in the Spirit or Shadow worlds need not be a binary situation,
> where one is either in or out of a single plane. Why not a being
> which you could touch, but not see.

Yes, exactly. As irdeggman said earlier in this thread,

> the shadow world is molded around the invisible creature such that he
> fades from sight in the "real world". Because of this envelopment
> [...] most (if not all) of the other effects and relationships with
> Invisibility to remain intact.

In this kind of invisibility, the caster wraps himself in a portion of the
spirit world, without leaving the material plane. Thus he can still be
touched, smelled, etc., but is sort of wearing a light-deflecting cloak,
which he has fashioned from the local spirit world. The reason this kind
of invisibility is dispelled by attacking when cast as a 2nd-level spell
but not a 4th-level spell is that holding on to your little envelope of
the spirit world takes concentration; then the in-game reason the
higher-level version is higher level is that it takes more magical energy
and spellcasting skill to form a spirit cloak which "sticks" to you well
enough that you don`t need to avoid making sudden, violent movements.
This works just fine. No mechanics changed, just color text.

Kenneth`s full system, though, is a rules change. I have no problem at
all with that, because it allows vastly greater adventure potential: note
the example of the druid fighting a parallel battle in the spirit world.
That kind of thing is really neat! It is a rules change, and not a tiny
one considered purely as a rule change; but what I said originally was

> it`s a *relatively* minor mechanics change, *relative to* the major
> story benefit which is gained from making it.

I added emphasis this time to make my point more clear: it is a change to
the rules, possibly a big one. However, the size of the mechanics change
is much smaller than the immense story gains made possible! The rule is
not "broken" -- it is made different, but it`s a very worthwhile change.
Any costs of altering the mechanics are more than repaid by the vastly
expanded storytelling options it provides.

> And, BTW, I am the one who decided that Invisibility involves the
> Spirit World. :-)

I think it`s a neat idea, and I`d be interested to play in a campaign
using Kenneth`s version of the spirit world. OTOH, it`s a big enough step
that to work out the full implications requires more effort than I can
afford at the moment, so I`m not planning to make this change IMC any time
soon. I think I may decide to eventually, but not just yet. =)


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.