Invisibility -- In-Game Explanation for No Attacking?

mmadsen said:
I wouldn't want to take away all low-level invisibility; invisibility is a staple of the genre.

Exactly, and exactly why it was ported from OD&D/1st edition/2nd edition. It really hasn't changed much despite balance issues, because it has remained that way since the mid 1970's.

As far as explanatons go, it doesn't have to be elaborate, because as Dr. Rictus says, magical laws don't have to obey physical ones. It can follow laws of consumption, as well.

Why is a reconditioned car part less expensive than a new one? Why are pennies no longer pure copper, any more? Why do some companies build items "just strong enough" rather than "as strong as they can possibly make it?" Answer: due to materials substitution in the creation process, and using cheaper brand names/manufacture processes/what have you, the end product is cheaper. When you don't need "the biggest and the best", then it can save money by using substandard, but "good enough" parts.

By installing the "attack clause" in the "magickal defintion" of the spell, you get by with a spell that is not nearly as complex, does not tap as much energy, and lasts longer. Whether by spirits or by ley lines, it makes no difference; it costs less in terms of magical energy and proficiency to make a spell that is less effective. Hence, it goes poof the minute violence is directly inflicted upon someone. Violence itself (not newtonian action-reaction stuff, but inflicting harm) perhaps carries a metaphysical energy all its own, and all glamers must counteract that. If you don't install the necessary "code" to handle violence upon the illusion, then it can't handle it, and it "breaks" A 2nd level spell's "error handler" is not as efficient as a 4th level one. :D

Now, what would be the level of a spell that turned you invisible for 10 minutes per level, AND withstood attacking someone? possibly 8th or 9th level. Want an unbeatable combination? how about a wizard that casts both mind blank AND an 8th level spell that acts as improved invisibility, except for 24 hours? Talk about tuning out, turning off, and dropping out! No one could find you - possibly EVER!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Klaus said:
If you want to be reeeeeeally specific about this...

"Remember, Krusk, if you attack, the invisibility ends."

"Huh? Why, Mialee?"

">sigh< The spell envelopes you in a thin illusion that makes all kinds of light go 'around' you, so no one will see you there. But it's not a very powerful spell, and the invisibility 'sheet' isn't very thick, so a single offensive action ruptures the spell's magical weave. Were it an 'improved' version of the spell, the 'sheet' would be thick enough to endure any attacks you make, only disappearing after time itself had gnawed away the weave..."

"SO sorry I asked."

The above is the only good in-game explenation, I have seen so far in this thread.
 

AGGEMAM said:
The above is the only good in-game explenation, I have seen so far in this thread.

It doesn't explain why you can do anything as long as it's not an "attack". (You can Summon a monster, but not cast a Magic Missile...)

What's wrong with my explanation? :)
 

Iku Rex said:
What's wrong with my explanation? :)

Ok, I should have been more specific, the quote from Klaus, is the only in-game explenation in this thread.

In-game explenation means something that two characters might say to eachother when trying to explain something.
 

I don't think there is an answer, other than "I don't know; that's just the way the spell works. I might be able to tell you when I can cast Improved Invisibility."
 

Well, stop the presses and call me Sally: I'm agreeing not only with Snoweel but also with Hong!

In fact, I've used the spirit-magic explanation in my campaign for the past four years, and it works wonderfully. For me, wizard-magic is a set of ritualized bargains that wizards have struck with spirits; sorcerers have a personal relationship with these same spirits. And low-level invisibility is granted by, say, moth-spirits that delight in sneakiness but that abhor violence; thus, they leave the caster as soon as that caster performs anything comparable to an attack.

Spirit-magic gives a great in-game explanation, too. Is any spell acting in an illogical or bizarre fashion with seemingly arbitrary restrictions? Blame the spirits.

Daniel
 

In game?

What about:

Isawa Trevor: Now remember Brian-san, if you attack, the invisibility will stop and the Oni will be able to see you.

Shiba Brian: Why Trevor-sama?

Isawa Trevor: Because the little magical spirit that is causing you to be invisible is a ****ing gutless little **** and will **** itself and flee the minute it senses your attempt to harm the Oni.

Shiba Brian: Ok.
 

mmadsen said:
For game-balance reasons, the Invisibility spell ends as soon as you "attack". What that means is a bit vague. Anyway, does anyone have a good in-game explanation for why this would be? How does the wizard explain to his companion that the spell only lasts until he attacks someone?

Has anyone tweaked Invisibility to have a more plausible explanation? (By the way, I really like Oriental Adventures' Chameleon spell: +10 to Hide.)

I didn't really feel like reading this whole thread, but it's an excellent question. Here's what I do.

Regular (not improved) invisibility works sort of like a flickering hologram. This description works even better (I think) when using a ring or cloak of elvenkind. When a person attacks, they disrupt the weak illusion that hides them, and they *flicker* back into visibility.

I think it lends something of an anime feel to the whole game, which my players like.
 

AGGEMAM said:


Ok, I should have been more specific, the quote from Klaus, is the only in-game explenation in this thread.

In-game explenation means something that two characters might say to eachother when trying to explain something.


Apprentice Greebus: "Master, why does the invisibility enchantment end when I attack a foe?"

Master Erasmus: "Because Boccob the Uncaring decreed on the day the multiverse was born that the spell would work that way. Now shut up and sweep..."
.
.
.
Good enough? ;)
 

As far as explanatons go, it doesn't have to be elaborate, because...magical laws don't have to obey physical ones.

Magical laws certainly don't obey physical laws, but, as I said before, a good "fairy tale" spell makes some kind of primal (if not scientific) sense; it's contingent on something that seems relevant.

For instance, an invisibility spell might only work as long as you try to remain stealthy (a la Chameleon, from Oriental Adventures) or, in an ironic twist, only until you try something sneaky.

The "no attacking" rule might make sense if each spellcaster had a different taboo, and that was one of them, or if each spirit you conjured up had a random taboo, and you got stuck with that limit on your invisibility once in awhile.

As it stands though, the no-attacking rule jumps out as an obvious game-balance limit. Certainly there have to be such game-balance limits, but they shouldn't seem so jarringly artificial.
 

Remove ads

Top