Turning Invisible at Will?

[Nekira Sudacne]

Invisibility simple.

[MurderCityDisciple]

Cool...
Cuz I had the same question to ask...going to bring Brodkil into my game soon. And they have invisibility at will ability. Nekkie is so sagacious.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Invisibility simple.

NS is correct. This is the canon answer.

No I don't remember where in the books it says this, cause I am not a "Brian". (KotDT)

[MurderCityDisciple]

In the listing for Invisibility (Simple) it says neither version is cancelled when the invisible character makes an aggressive action, but Invisibility (Superior) says it drops when he/she/it does.

Typical Palladium contradictory rules double speak.

So which is right?

[drewkitty ~..~]

The text for In (Sup) is correct for In (Sup).

[MurderCityDisciple]

The text for In (Sup) is correct for In (Sup).

Wouldn't being able to cast spells and whoop arse while being invisible be superior to not being able to?

Eh...oh well.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The text for In (Sup) is correct for In (Sup).

Wouldn't being able to cast spells and whoop arse while being invisible be superior to not being able to?

Eh...oh well.

If a mage was In.(sup) and casting a attack spell, they would become visible when they finished casting the spell.

In the listing for Invisibility (Simple) it says neither version is cancelled when the invisible character makes an aggressive action, but Invisibility (Superior) says it drops when he/she/it does.

Typical Palladium contradictory rules double speak.

So which is right?

Big difference in the spells:

Invis: Simple - only makes you unseen but you can still be detected by scent, footprints, thermographic, and radar.

Invis: Sup - can't be detected by any means except magic or psionics. That's why you become visible when you attack.

There is no text in the "See the Invisible" spell that specifically says it sees In.(sup) like does the Psi power "See the Invisible". (RUE 2nd printing) So it excluding any specific exception, In.(sup) is undetectable by any means of detection, just as the text of the spell says.

[Nekira Sudacne]

You might rule that gods or ancient dragons tend to have an improved spell that lets them see the invisible, but I don't see why you would rule that the spell for some reason works differently based on the kind of being it is?

[Nekira Sudacne]

You might rule that gods or ancient dragons tend to have an improved spell that lets them see the invisible, but I don't see why you would rule that the spell for some reason works differently based on the kind of being it is?

Well, because some powerful creatures can shrug off spell effects, so I thought that would make sense.

Well, it dosn't appear to make sense based on my knowlage of how palladium magic works. there are specific exceptions here and there (house of glass), but in general, magic is one of the few things that works normally on gods. most times their only defense is a naturally high bonus to save.

but to my knowlage, there's no spell in the game that has an imporved effect based solely on what type of being is /casting/ it, sinse the way magic works is very formulaic. X spell has Y effect modified by casters Z level, and maybe some other odd bits here and there.

One of the things I tend to like about palladium is the compartive mortal-ness of gods and lovecraftian horrors. yes, they are amazingly power, and yes they tend to have some spectaular natural abilities. but the vast majority of them study magic because it does things they can't otherwise do, and at the end of the day their fire ball or magic net spell is no better than yours except for being a higher level.

Just my take on the whole gods and magic issue

[Grell]

Cool...
Cuz I had the same question to ask...going to bring Brodkil into my game soon. And they have invisibility at will ability. Nekkie is so sagacious.

I tremble for your players. I'd rather face a partial conversion Brodkil any day rather than an invisible one (or ten).

[42dragon]

On a related note. Sorry if this has been answered I the search results were too numerous to be of much help.

Now that there is a difference in what level of invisibility the spell "See the Invisible" can see. What about supernatural or magic creatures natural ability to see the invisible? Can a being with the natural ability to see the invisible see Invisibility: superior or just simple?

[Nekira Sudacne]

any kind of see the invisible can see invisibility superior. the only thing invisibility superior does to see the invisible is that hte figure is still hazy (only -2 to strike parry or dodge)

[Witchcraft]

using mystic invisibility (merc adv.) in conjunction with invis superior -- now you're really talkin' about not being seen. I think you can still be tracked by "scent" but as far as I know you can't be seen by "see the invisible" or something like a psi-stalker's sense supernatural...unless, of course, I'm mistaken.

[Glistam]

For extra fun just combine Mystic Invisibility with Regular Invisibility. Great vs. Everything except for opponents using tech or that have racial abilities for radar, thermal vision, etcetera.

[Nekira Sudacne]

using mystic invisibility (merc adv.) in conjunction with invis superior -- now you're really talkin' about not being seen. I think you can still be tracked by "scent" but as far as I know you can't be seen by "see the invisible" or something like a psi-stalker's sense supernatural...unless, of course, I'm mistaken.

No, your correct, it explictly also negates magical or psionic forms of sight

[Tor]

If a mage was In.(sup) and casting a attack spell, they would become visible when they finished casting the spell.

I always wondered the limit here. Is summoning a Shadow Beast an attack spell that would cancel it, by its own nature? Or would it only cancel when you order your Beasts to attack?