Invisibility Spell

[warlock1971]

Hope you guys can help me, I may be completely missing it but I can't seem to locate an Invisibility Spell in the Legend Rule Book. Is there one?

[Old timer]

No there is no invisibility spell in the legend core rule book. Do not know if this spell exist in any other legend book or fan work. There are spells that enhance stealth, like bandits cloak, but no actually invisibility spell.

[warlock1971]

Thanks O-T, so I haven't gone mad, yet.

[alex_greene]

You're correct. There is no invisibility spell, or anything resembling one, in either Legend Core Rulebook, Arcania of Legend: Blood Magic or any of the other official Legend sourcebooks.

I suppose the closest could be Bandit's Cloak, but maybe there could be some variant of the sorcery Phantom (Sense) spell, or my variation Phantasm, which, instead of creating an illusion of something that is not there, cloaks the character from view or which otherwise obscures the character (e.g. affects a maximum of 3 INT per point of Intensity, applies a penalty of -10% to Perception rolls per point of Intensity) and obscures the perceptions of something which is.

[warlock1971]

Thanks for the advice Alex, I like that.

[Lord High Munchkin]

Invisibility was a "battle magic" spell in Chaosium's RQ1 & RQ2... it was eventually realised to be a "bad idea" as it was universally misused, and really didn't fit the ethos nor setting of the game.

That said, if you want such a spell, add one. Be aware it is a potentially problematic addition though.

[alex_greene]

It might not have fitted the ethos of RQ I and II, but there are different games now, and Legend is one of them - with a whole different ethos all of its own. An ethos determined by the Games Master and, if it is fitting and enjoyable, shared by the players.

Legend doesn't have to be all Boris Vallejo pastiches with prog rock by Yes and Genesis blasting over the speakers. Magic in these games has evolved a long way past the D&D idea of "clerics heal, magic users are spelltillery, bards ... waste time singing."

Thanks, Elan, for destroying any credibility bards may ever have had, ever.

[dreamer_prophet]

Legend doesn't have to be all Boris Vallejo pastiches with prog rock by Yes and Genesis blasting over the speakers

What about Rush? Surely it must be about Rush!

[Da Boss]

I came up with this for my WIP pack which could be adpated.............

Ghost Shroud (Touch, 3MP) AKA Invisibility, Veil of Secrecy
Casting Time: 5 CA,
This spells allows the invoker to turn an single object or living creature of up to 3 SIZ invisible. Each additional MP used when the Spell is cast allows an additional 3 SIZ to be incorporated or increases the spells duration by D10 rounds (the GM may wish to roll this secretly). If the spell is cast on a living creature - that the creature will break the spell if they move quicker than a walk, speak, perform some form of athletic manoeuvre or attack something. This spell does not prevent sounds or other sensory information being transmitted by the target and creatures that do not rely on sight are not effected by the spell. Any attacks on the invisible target are at 1/4 normal skill chance unless the target is otherwise exposed.

[Mankcam]

What about Rush? Surely it must be about Rush!

...or Journey, at least!
('Don't Stop Believin' blasting through my Orlanthi-styled mullet)

[Loz]

What about Rush? Surely it must be about Rush!

Well, of course it is. Everything is about Rush.

And Jethro Tull.

[alex_greene]

I came up with this for my WIP pack which could be adapted ...

Try the following Common Magic spells:-

Ghost Cloak
Concentration, Duration 5, Magnitude 1, Progressive, Ranged, Resist (Resilience)
This spell obscures the caster, or one target, from sight. At Magnitude 1, only sight is masked; each extra Magnitude obscures one other sense, such as hearing, touch etc.

This spell has one drawback; the spell cannot mask the shadows, footprints or reflections of whomever it cloaks. Characters fighting someone cloaked by this spell can spend 1 CA to make a Perception test to detect the cloaked person by these unmaskable traces. If the Perception test is a critical success, the cloak is dispelled for all those concealed by it.

Anyone unwilling to be rendered invisible may resist this spell with Resilience.

Ghost Shroud
Area 10 metres radius, Concentration, Duration 5, Magnitude 2+, Progressive, Ranged, Resist (Resilience)
This spell obscures one designated target per point of Magnitude from sight. This spell is learned at a minimum Magnitude of 2. At this Magnitude, only sight and hearing are masked; each extra Magnitude obscures one other sense, such as touch, Life Sense etc.

This spell has one drawback; the spell cannot mask the shadows, footprints or reflections of whomever it cloaks. Characters fighting people cloaked by this spell can spend 1 CA to make a Perception test to detect such cloaked people by these unmaskable traces. If the Perception test is a critical success, the cloak is dispelled for all those concealed by it.

Anyone unwilling to be rendered invisible may resist this spell with Resilience.

[Lord High Munchkin]

So what happens if a mage casts this spell on a flunky, the mage concentrates like crazy from a safe distance while the flunky sneaks up and stabs an unsuspecting target viciously (all the while the mage retains concentration)?

I can see some nasty loopholes in this that would allow potential abuse.

[alex_greene]

So what happens if a mage casts this spell on a flunky, the mage concentrates like crazy from a safe distance while the flunky sneaks up and stabs an unsuspecting target viciously (all the while the mage retains concentration)?

I can see some nasty loopholes in this that would allow potential abuse.

It doesn't say the caster is concentrating - only the character.

If the caster cloaked himself (or the spell came on an enchanted item such as a ring), this would be true - but cast on a flunky, the flunky is the one who has to concentrate to remain undetected.

I do think these things through, you know.

[Lord High Munchkin]

So what happens if a mage casts this spell on a flunky, the mage concentrates like crazy from a safe distance while the flunky sneaks up and stabs an unsuspecting target viciously (all the while the mage retains concentration)?

I can see some nasty loopholes in this that would allow potential abuse.

It doesn't say the caster is concentrating - only the character.

If the caster cloaked himself (or the spell came on an enchanted item such as a ring), this would be true - but cast on a flunky, the flunky is the one who has to concentrate to remain undetected.

I do think these things through, you know.

So, you are proposing that the sneaker must be the one that concentrates... on what? They might not even know the spell (or any magic for that matter). How does the information on what to concentrate on get passed over to the flunky? What if the flunky already is concentrating on maintaining another unrelated spell?

[alex_greene]

So, you are proposing that the sneaker must be the one that concentrates... on what? They might not even know the spell (or any magic for that matter). How does the information on what to concentrate on get passed over to the flunky?

On moving at no more than walking pace and not attacking anybody; just as much as an invisible caster would if he'd done a selfie.

A good way of thinking of this would be if the caster gave the flunky a mnemonic phrase to recite in his head, over and over, like a mantra, to be maintained for as long as needed until he was out of danger. The caster spent the Magic Points; but the flunky is the one who runs the maintenance mantra in his head, just as much as the caster would. And just as much as a Divine priest would, if he had Extension cast on another spell.

What if the flunky already is concentrating on maintaining another unrelated spell?

I thought you said the flunky didn't know any magic?

If he was capable of concentrating on another spell, he would be capable of concentrating on this one. It all depends on which spell the flunky wants to maintain.

Otherwise, if the caster had some other Concentration spell cast on the flunky, such as Flight, the caster might as well think ahead and cast Combine to give the flunky both Flight and invisibility at the same time - the time of casting - requiring only the one maintenance mantra to sustain the effects.

[Lord High Munchkin]

If the flunky does something to temporarily stop concentrating, after acting can he then start up the concentration again and thus disappear again?

[Old timer]

Nice ideas, but it would of been nice to also state for the spells to work you are changing how common magic works, for as RAW, the caster of the spell is the one who concentrates on it, not the recipient. So under RAW, Lord High Munckin concerns are valid.

[alex_greene]

If the flunky does something to temporarily stop concentrating, after acting can he then start up the concentration again and thus disappear again?

If the onus were on the third party to maintain the spell, no. Clearly not. Any more than it would be if it were the caster applying the spell to himself.

The concentration requirement was only put in for the sake of game balance; a cloaked character cannot fight while invisible, the same way that Star Trek established that cloaking devices require so much power from the ship's engines that they cannot fire weapons. There is always one clause; one catch which breaks the spell. Gollum, for instance, tracked down Frodo by following his fresh footprints in the dirt. Bilbo discovered that the One Ring doesn't mask his own shadow (something not brought up subsequently in The Lord of The Rings).

The concentration part isn't required; your invisibility spell could be written to work just fine even if the caster or a third party were running around you with nothing on, screaming and smacking you about the face repeatedly with a large wet fish. There might not be any kind of spell-breaking clause. The invisibility spell might work absolutely flawlessly - Greek legend had the Ring of Gyges, which was a flawless cloaking device, and the original Ring of Invisibility.

Game balance could require that the invisibility spell include a whole different weakness, such as the aforementioned shadow, or perhaps that the spell ends if the cloaked person is exposed to some common element such as being exposed to water, or the cloaked person suffers pain equivalent to at least 1 Hit Point in damage, etc. If game balance demands a clause that breaks the spell, the Gamesmaster could select that clause when devising and writing down an invisibility spell. He could generate a requirement for such a clause for any and all spells; find the clause, break the spell automatically.

[Loz]

Nice ideas, but it would of been nice to also state for the spells to work you are changing how common magic works, for as RAW, the caster of the spell is the one who concentrates on it, not the recipient. So under RAW, Lord High Munckin concerns are valid.

Old Timer is right. The mechanics of this spell break the RAW for not just Common Magic, but all the Legend magic systems, just to accommodate an exception.

In all spells that are capable of being cast on another, the concentration is the onus and responsibility of the person who knows and casts the spell - not the recipient. Common Magic spells are meant to be simple, everyday cantrips and charms used personally. The description of the Concentration trait is specific: 'Concentrating on a spell is functionally identical to casting the spell, requiring the spellcaster to continue to chant and ignore distractions.' Nowhere does this description shift the concentration requirements to the recipient.

The concentration requirement was only put in for the sake of game balance; a cloaked character cannot fight while invisible, the same way that Star Trek established that cloaking devices require so much power from the ship's engines that they cannot fire weapons.

Yes, I completely agree. But you have redefined the Concentration trait for this specific spell. You should reword the spell very carefully, if you expect it to be used outside of your own games, to show that...

a) Concentration for this spell is an exception to the RAW
b) its very clearly the recipient of the spell who becomes responsible for concentrating
c) A rationale for how this transference of responsibility comes about
d) Why a similar form of Concentration should not be applied to every spell in Legend

I do think these things through, you know.

Unfortunately, on this occasion, not far enough.