Topic: Invisibility

[ironmaul]

Marc, that's a bit strange... and scary!

Is there a "bad touch" crit table?
No, never mind... there probably is.....

That's how I would control Invisibility. Makes the GM's life a lot easier.
 I do not know what crit type it used but I would think it would be nether or some other viscous one from one of the RoCo's, it was just how his world worked. I guess you could think of it like in LotR when Frodo put on the ring and the ring wraiths could see him more clearly. So in his game you go invisible and suddenly all the bad things in his world, daemons, devils, etc suddenly can see you and pluck you away to where ever they want to take you.
 All in all no one took the invisibility spell lists or if they had a list that had it on it then they simply did not use it unless it was sure death.
MDC

Marc, that's a bit strange... and scary!

Is there a "bad touch" crit table?
No, never mind... there probably is.....

 I do not know what crit type it used but I would think it would be nether or some other viscous one from one of the RoCo's, it was just how his world worked. I guess you could think of it like in LotR when Frodo put on the ring and the ring wraiths could see him more clearly. So in his game you go invisible and suddenly all the bad things in his world, daemons, devils, etc suddenly can see you and pluck you away to where ever they want to take you.
 All in all no one took the invisibility spell lists or if they had a list that had it on it then they simply did not use it unless it was sure death.
MDC

[Nders]

Where is that rule? I haven't read that before.
We understand the rules that every single time you try to run , you lose the spell, 100% . Not running and then stop like someone said before, just running x2pace.

precisely! I have never seen the rule Arioch is refering to either and I would like to know in wich version of spell law it is if anybode can tell me.

[providence13]

Any solid material that enters the fringe effect will blur slightly/seem to be out of focus...
Potential observers may make an Alertness/Observation maneuver to see if they notice the fringe effects...
Absurd 1" rad moving at a walking pace
Sheer Folly 1" radius moving faster than walking
Extremely Hard 1' rad moving at a walking pace
Very Hard 1' rad moving faster than walking
Hard 10' rad moving at a walking pace
Medium 10' rad moving faster than walking.

If invisibility is not moving is not moving, there is an additional -20 modifier.
If the observer is w/in 10', there is an additional +20 modifier.

Attacks against invisible targets are at least -50. Attacker must first detect target first.
Invisibility is a useful and powerful spell. ...lasts 24 hrs or until target attacks OR is struck by a violent blow.
Often an invisible being attempting a MM has a chance of bumping into something, or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing.....We suggest that a "visibility" roll (% open) be made and modified based on difficulty of MM. Easy (+2), Light (+5), Med (+10), Hard (+15), Very Hard (+20), X-Hard (+25), SF (+40), Absurd (+50). The target becomes visible if the roll is over 100.... if the character "falls" or "falls down" due to result of MM, he automatically becomes visible. If the result is "fail to act" or "freeze" no visibility roll is required.

That's all I could find!

[Nders]

grand! Where did you find it?

[Vince]

That's true Providence13, but we understand that this talk about perception; IF you find a way to move faster than walking without breaking the spell. In other words, this doesn't say you can run faster than walking without losing the invisibility; it says for example that you can cast a fly spell and move flying faster than walking.

So if you fly faster than walking in the sky, then you can use this rule if you want. Take notice about this:

Any solid material that enters the fringe effect will blur slightly/seem to be out of focus

 
 So if a tree, wall, or something is in the way of the observer , he will more probability to detect the invisible one.

[vroomfogle]

In order to reign in uncontrolled usage of Haste in my games I have a house rule where you take Stress criticals after being hasted for more then 5 rounds in a day (not continuous).   It starts with an A for round 6 then increases a severity each round. (after you get to E you take E+A, E+B, etc.)

Another way to control Invisibility, or in fact any target affecting utility spell would be something similar.  Perhaps the inherent use of magic on life can have severe stressful physical effects for anything longer then short term.     The nice thing about this rule is that it explains a general framework for limiting magic across the whole setting rather then having to fix things spell by spell.     By limiting magic by duration to short (or medium) time intervals you greatly decrease effectiveness of utility spells without impacting most destructive/healing/etc. spells.    And it preserves the usefulness of knowing the equivalent skills.

Stress criticals are relatively harmless starting with A, but once you approach E's they can get quite nasty.   You wouldn't even have to use Stress criticals you could take straight hits every round.   Or perhaps it's exhausting, or mentally draining instead thereby sapping Exhaustion Points (if you use them), or even Power Points to keep spells going rather then using a fixed duration.  You could even use Mana or Void crits depending on how you want to explain the phenomena. 


I personally have not had a problem with Invisibility, but I also house rule that casting any spell or moving faster then a run breaks it, so the 24 hour duration never really comes into play.

[providence13]

These are only my interpretations...

Let's never forget Power Perception, Attunement, Situational Awareness: Hide and Seek for the one visible, or even a high Presence stat of the one invisible.

Mediums the world over often state "I sense a presence." Unless you can quiet your mind, by spell or meditation, you still have a high Presence, IMHO. This could be a penalty to any chance to be hidden...

Some people are more intuitive than others... High Intuition stat should give a nice bonus for detecting "presences."

Many casters and the more powerful creatures (in my experience) have some form of Power Perception. This always kept our magic to the minimum required... The last thing you want is to attract the attention of something that the party isn't tough/smart enough to handle!
MDC, this sounds a bit similar to what you're talking about.


So if a tree, wall, or something is in the way of the observer , he will more probability to detect the invisible one.
Vince, I agree... and 10' sounds like the distance that we are talking about. At 10' the bonus is +20 (pretty high..).That's if they are stationary. Now scale that however you like... maybe at 1' the bonus is +50 (or 30, 40, 90 whatever number you like). Once you have a scale, then find the +/- at any distance. It could be that at 20' the bonus is still +10... Whatever your scale.

The suggested rule, to me, reads that you don't "break" the spell. You are noticed if you roll a "Falls" OR "Falls Down" on the MM table. If you roll either of these two, you're seen; not invisible any more.
If you "attack" OR are "struck by a violent blow", then you're visible.
You may, however, perform any maneuver you like while invisible! IMO, these are implied by the different penalties for different MM.
You may move faster than a walking pace..(I never took this to be anything more than "move." Any way you move- on a boat, riding a shark, on a kite, running, flying... moving doesn't "break the spell."
Moving invisibly, does (!) make it much easier to see you. The modifier is based on the difficulty of your maneuver. "If" they can now see you... then you're not invisible.

Nders,
I found that in the back of the "Of Mentalism" book; first thing I grabbed.

Another way to control Invisibility, or in fact any target affecting utility spell would be something similar.  Perhaps the inherent use of magic on life can have severe stressful physical effects for anything longer then short term.   
Vroomfrogle, This reminds me of Mythus' magick system. It's basically radiation that is everywhere in many forms. Many people can control Heka, Baraka, Vril, Magic, but the more you do, the less likely you are going to have children. So a kingdom that has tons of magic, won't have many casters or even soldiers! IIRC.. 

[Arioch]

grand! Where did you find it?

You can find it in RMC spell law on page 80 and in RMFRP spell law (any of the three) under the "invisibility" chapter.

That's true Providence13, but we understand that this talk about perception; IF you find a way to move faster than walking without breaking the spell. In other words, this doesn't say you can run faster than walking without losing the invisibility; it says for example that you can cast a fly spell and move flying faster than walking.

This is a HR: by the core rules you can run without losing the invisibility, otherwise it would have been clearly stated that you cannot.
BTW, Fly+Invisibility is one of my most hated spell combos  

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Ok, but this is a HR, as SL clearly states that only moving manoeuvres have a chance of breaking invisibility.

Wrong. The RM2 SL spell (p77) clearly states: "until 24 hrs pass or the object is struck by a violent blow (being hit by a weapon, falling, etc.) or the object makes a violent move."

To what you're probably referring are the special notes about invisibility (p33) that say "This type of spell normally lasts 24 hours or until the target attack or until the target is struck by a violent blow. Often an invisible character (or creature) attempting a moving manoeuvre has a chance of bumping into something or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing. In such a case after the manoeuvre roll, we suggest that..." It clearly doesn't state at all that "only moving manoeuvres have a chance of breaking invisibility", all the contrary. It states that any violent move has a chance of breaking invisibility and because any moving manoeuvre "has a chance of bumping into something or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing", meaning a chance of being a "violent move", then it should need a roll to be made. SL then gives suggestions to handle such a situation.

You can find it in RMC spell law on page 80 and in RMFRP spell law (any of the three) under the "invisibility" chapter.

Ah! That may be why you and I disagree then. RM2 states what I quoted previously...

This is a HR: by the core rules you can run without losing the invisibility, otherwise it would have been clearly stated that you cannot.

The point is that, according to RM2, you have a chance of losing the invisibility each round you run~

[rdanhenry]

RMSS, section 7.1.10, "Invisibility", prior to listing the suggested chances of becoming visible when making a maneuver states "Often an invisible character (or creature) attempting a moving maneuver has a chance of bumping into something or taking a jarring blow due to stumbling or landing." (p. 227) This version of Spell Law is clear that only moving maneuvers are intended (although the GM may rule exceptions; these are merely recommendations).

My RM2 Spell Law (Stock #1200) does not discuss invisibility on p. 77. That's half of the Illusionist spell lists. It does discuss invisibility on p. 24, section 13.91. This discussion also does specific "a moving maneuver" before offering chances of becoming visible.

In all cases, circumstances may modify the chances (a forest full of branches being blown about in a strong wind would greatly increase the chance, whereas a soft, sandy dune would decrease the chance). In no case is there any suggestion that movement faster than a walk should cause automatic visibility, although one will normally need to make a moving maneuver and risk bumping into something.

In RMSS/FRP, Situational Awareness: Invisibility might be developed to help avoid such collisions.

[markc]

 You could always house rule it so any blow will up set the spell. ie rain, heavy wind, fog, etc.
MDC

[providence13]

It's funny that we all play the same game; with minor variations.

[mibsweden]

It's funny that we all play the same game; with minor variations.

Ah that is the beauty of Rolemaster!

[Arioch]

It's funny that we all play the same game; with minor variations.

Ah that is the beauty of Rolemaster!

And its curse, we need 3 pages of discussion to understand that we were referring to different set of rules! 
I love that customizability of RM, but surely a unified version would make easier for us to understand each other...

[mibsweden]

Ah of course you are right Arioch, a unified version is desperately needed. Hopefully next RM version will fix that problem, sometime 2013 or so

[ironmaul]

Amen.

[kevinmccollum]

Do you think they can have a unified version of a game as varied in style as RMFRP and RM2?

[ironmaul]

Yes, I think they can.

[mibsweden]

Three stages of difficulty (if I may go a bit OT):

1. RMX-like complexity. Only primary RM2/RMC skills, unified attack tables för slashing/crushing/piercing/bults/ball etc. All 10 stats still though/or maybe just maybe cut down to 6 or 8. Cut down professions to maybe Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage, Mentalist. Ok, maybe a few more, but theese should be the base. Spell wise only use profession base lists and maybe, just maybe a selection of open/clesed lists.

2. RM2/RMC-like complexity. Secondary skills, Full complement of professions, Arms Law, Spell Law.

3. RMSS-like complexity. Full set of RMSS skills. Well maybe cut down a litte, but since this would be the advanced version maybe cutting down on skills should not be needed. Arms Law with maybe Combat Companion options, Spell Law with maybe some extra professions.

The hardest part would be to make skill categories, which I think is a very good idea, work seamlessly in all three versions. Removing skill categories could be an option I guess.

[providence13]

The ideas of streamlining RM would make it easier to discuss topics.
I'll bet, many of us would resist the change.

As is evident here, people have requirements and expectations of what their RM is and should be! 
Even Invisibility is a lively discussion; thankfully!

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Yet, I have a (related) question...
Why do you think "attacking" causes the spell to be broken?
Of course, hitting someone will assuredly make your position known. If the spell functions as the "somebody elses problem field", it's not your problem until it is!

But what if you miss? How much activity/"violent blow" action is releasing an arrow?
Now I'm not playing an archer/ranger or anything. Nor am I trying to make bows the "even more uber weapon."
Just on a discussion point of view... isn't throwing a dart more "violent."
My point with the arrow is....what if you miss. The arrow is so fast and the archer could be hidden in trees, invisible, etc. Just because you hear a rattle of an arrow (if the character has the experience to know what that sounds like). What if it hits soft dirt? Why would you be visible?

If it is intent, this (to me) supports my  "Presence" idea. IMO, Presence is "focused" when you attack... for lack of a better phrase. In turn, a high Presence would make it hard to hide.... sure, some of it is stature; as per Dwarf/Halfling penalties and High Men bonus (some of this could be mindset, however.)

I believe this has a bearing on the Invisibility discussion. I am not trying to make it more powerful!

As it stands, you get one good attack, before "breaking the spell." If your attack is pushing a button/pulling a lever/triggering a crossbow/releasing an arrow, is it intent & anger.... the opponents Intuition (I like this too..), the mental fortitude to concentrate on "you don't see me" when you interact with someone.....

Hey, just typing and thinking.....The spell lasts 24 hrs, but when you interact with someone, and try not to be seen, you have to concentrate. This would make it "a bit" harder to be Invisible all day....
hmmm....