Topic: Invisibility

[Arioch]

Ok, I feel that the Invisibility spell is a little too powerful in RM, at least for a 4th level spell. I'd like to tone it a little down, without making it useless.
Before going on note that I use all the suggestions on Invisibility in Spell Law (maneuvers to move around, rolls to notice someone Invisible, etc), but I still think that's too powerful.

A solution to this problem could be moving Invisibility up in the Invisible Ways list, or maybe shortening its durations (from 24h to 1min/level or something like that), but that imho would make the list too weak, expecially at low levels.
So maybe it would be better to raise the level of Invisibility spell (at least of a couple of levels), but also add new low-level spells, for example Blur or Hues...

[dutch206]

How about moving the 24 hour spell up to about tenth level and introducing lower-level versions like one round per level, one minute per level, and one hour per level?

[mibsweden]

Personally I think the spell is fine as is. Maybe, just maybe a move to 5th pr 6th level would be feasible, but really not necessary imo. If you had to change anything, change the duration to perhaps 10 min/level. But as I said (wrote?)  , I think the spell is fine as is.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Yeah, I don't mind Invisibility as written either...

[rdanhenry]

In what way have you found it too powerful?

[Arioch]

In what way have you found it too powerful?

It's an incredibly versatile spell and it's duration of 24h makes it really too strong imho. I mean, it only costs 4 PPs!
It completely replaces the hiding skill: all you have to do is standing still and people will have to pass a Sheer Folly awareness maneuver only to notice that there's someone invisible there (they'll still have a -50 to their attack rolls, to which the caster can add bonuses from other spells without breaking the invisibility). Combined with fly or other moving spells it's even worse.

[ictus]

I think invisibility works fine as is, as long as you are quite ruthless with things like movement and actions as well as how far away from the body it extends...

It's all down to how you play it as a GM....

[rdanhenry]

In what way have you found it too powerful?

It's an incredibly versatile spell and it's duration of 24h makes it really too strong imho. I mean, it only costs 4 PPs!
It completely replaces the hiding skill: all you have to do is standing still

Yes, but as soon as you actually want to do something, you'll need to be Stalking and while being invisible is something of an advantage, it does not make you silent. Anyone with a dog can find you easily if you haven't got some skills to back up your magic. You need to be careful where you choose to stand still, because if you are blocking someone's way, they'll find you. It is good for hiding when humans are looking for you, but if something which pays attention to smell is involved (dogs, orcs, vulfen, etc.) it helps only a little. It isn't very useful in large structures, because being invisible doesn't let you open a door without it being noticed. Not to mention that bumping into something makes you visible, so move carefully.

You cannot attack without becoming visible, there are numerous magical opportunities to detect you, it does not hinder the use of other senses (and this can be exploited as simply as training dogs to alert you to smelled but not seen persons), and you can't even pick anything up, unless you cast more spells to make it invisible. The 24 hour duration (assuming nothing happens to cancel it before then) does stand out, but only because Rolemaster spells usually have such short durations.

You still have not given an actual example of use where you found it too powerful.

[Ecthelion]

We also have a House Rule regarding the Invisibility spells. You can find it in the RM House Rules document on my homepage.

[Arioch]

rdanhenry: a dog or something similar will find you even if you're using your hiding skill, unless you take special measures. Similarly there are few occasions in which you can attack someone staying hidden. And for magical means to detect you, there are magical means to detect people hiding with or without invisibility. Things you pick up do not become invisible... unless you cast an unseen spell on them (an action that does not break your invisibility).
Sure you have to pay attention when you're moving, but that's the only real limitation.

We also have a House Rule regarding the Invisibility spells. You can find it in the RM House Rules document on my homepage.

Thanks, I'll check them out.

[rdanhenry]

rdanhenry: a dog or something similar will find you even if you're using your hiding skill, unless you take special measures.

On the other hand, if you not trying to stay invisible, you have more options. And if your stealth is skill based, you probably know some of the tricks for dealing with dogs and such. Furthermore, being invisible is much more suspicious than not being invisible. You can maybe talk your way out of a situation if you weren't so blatantly sneaking.

  Similarly there are few occasions in which you can attack someone staying hidden.

Silent Kill. Remember, it isn't just that the person you are attacking knows you are there now. Your spell is gone. If you come out of hiding, it is trivial to go back. Casting Invisibility a lot drains PPs and risks spell failure (although, admittedly, the non-combat spell failure table isn't so bad).

And for magical means to detect you, there are magical means to detect people hiding with or without invisibility. Things you pick up do not become invisible... unless you cast an unseen spell on them (an action that does not break your invisibility).

But if you are using invisibility, there's no way anyone will consider you possibly innocent if you are found in anything remotely like a secure area. Whereas a Thief may attempt the "Whoops! I must have really taken a wrong turn!" ploy if he wanders into the wrong part of the castle and mistimes opening a door.

Items not becoming invisible when you pick them up was exactly my point. You either cast another spell (not "automatically" either, unless you are either a Mentalist or don't mind risking being heard) or you give up on picking the item up. Which means if you want to steal something, this is a real disadvantage.

Sure you have to pay attention when you're moving, but that's the only real limitation.

And if anyone is using any of the several spells to see invisible beings and you don't manage to blend in so that he doesn't realize you are invisible, you are instantly considered a thief or spy and probably executed on the spot, since you were being so blatant in your intent, whereas the various non-magical methods will typically at least present some opportunity to stall.

You need more spells to steal anything. If you are trying to evade a search, you need to stay in place, unless you can also Stalk -- the real advantage is those characters that combine stealth skills with the stealth-enhancing spells. They really are super-sneaky. Without stealth skills to back it up, invisibility is a good spell, but rather limited. In the low-magic world, where people are unlikely to suspect invisibility, it is certainly powerful, but in a high-magic world, the average soldier will know half a dozen tricks to handle it. But in a low-magic world, any fourth level spell is powerful.

[pastaav]

Make casting spells be something that breaks invisibility...should work like a charm to limit abuses of invisibility.

[providence13]

(Douglas Adams had the "somebody else's problem field.")

The fact that you can't be seen is quite "clear" on intent.
The fact that you can't be seen unless you attack makes the definition a bit looser.
Sure, you could say that the hostile intent/sudden moves break/distort the field, but can't you move normally while invisible? It sounds like a dead run could also break the spell.
Can you jog while invisible?

I guess if the person who "would" see you, normally, can reasonably say, "that's not my problem," then you stay invisible!

[rdanhenry]

RMSS Spell Law has a chance for Invisibility to be broken any time you make a Moving Maneuver with a difficulty greater than Routine.

[providence13]

RMSS Spell Law has a chance for Invisibility to be broken any time you make a Moving Maneuver with a difficulty greater than Routine.

Was not aware...good rule! 'Need to hit the books (after I clean the house, of course..).

I would like the fact that even if you fumble, you could catch yourself so as not to alert someone... but that partial success is in the tables.

Still, the duration is long! Can someone comment on why?

[providence13]

Make casting spells be something that breaks invisibility...should work like a charm to limit abuses of invisibility.

This is a good rule.. IMHO, a Spell Mastery roll could still cause it to be quite, or soften its impact.

[Arioch]

Make casting spells be something that breaks invisibility...should work like a charm to limit abuses of invisibility.

The could be a good idea...and maybe make a moer powerful version that let you cast spells remaining invisible at higher levels.

[Arioch]

On the other points:

1) Sure, if you are caught stalking you may, in some occasion, try to talk yourself out of the situation. If you're caught with you invisibility it may be harder convince someone that you weren't doing anything wrong. OTOH you can immediatly re-cast invisibility on you as soon as you are caught, even if someone is watching you, which something impossible to do using the stalking skill.

2) Silent Kill can be combined also with invisibility as can other spell, like Silence (much more effective than Silen Kill). Sure, it costs PPs, but the 24 h duration of Invisibility makes possible for you to sleep remaining invisible and recovering you PPs...

And sure, a PC with a lot of ranks in Stalking, Hiding, Ambush, Silent Kill and other skill will be better at skulking around than a PC with just invisibility... but that doesn't sound a fair comparison to me.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Just a note but being invisible only seems useful to us human beings. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of animals (hence probably magical beasts) relies on so many other senses that only being invisible wouldn't do much against them (and in the case they rely on sight, theirs is so much better than the human sight that the "fringe effect" would appear obvious to them). Of course, the question could be how often would people use animals rather than plain human guards but my answer would be: there's no invisibility IRL, yet how often does people rely on, say, dogs instead of just human guards?

So, no, invisibility isn't so powerful to me.

[Arioch]

Of course, the question could be how often would people use animals rather than plain human guards but my answer would be: there's no invisibility IRL, yet how often does people rely on, say, dogs instead of just human guards?

This has already been adressed in the previous posts but:
- dogs and similar animals will be able to detect you, but will still have a -50 penalty if they're trying to attack you (and, given that a dog has a OB of 50...)
- you're assuming that dogs and other animals used as guards are smart enough to realize that if they smell something but they can't see it, there's someone invisible around.
- dogs and similar makes harder to sneak around for all characters, not only for invisible ones.
- is dropping pepper on the ground considered an attack action?  
- humans and other humanoids are quite common (at least in my campaigns) and being able to not being seen by them is still a great advantage, even with dogs around
- invisibility is not only used to fool guards, it can be used in a lot of other situations, its only limit is the caster creativity (and, since the spell description is extremely vague, the GM must rely on various HR to avoid abuses)