| From: | Wagemage wagemage@**.rr.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Invisibility question... |
| Date: | Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:25 -0400 |
NPCs
>>being magic conscious, put a bag on his head, nothing special, just a
nylon
>>camping bag.
>> He wanted to know if he could cast invisibility on the bag or perhaps
>>himself and thus be able to see through it.
>
>I would rule that he couldn't cast any spell on the bag because he couldn't
>see it (it's awfully dark in there). If the bag did let some light in I
>would allow him to target it, but with a severe penalty because he wouldn't
>be able to focus on the bag (to close to his eyes).
I tend to disagree (to my own detriment in this case), all he COULD see
was the bag. And it wasn't really tight or anything (since they didn't want
him to suffocate).
>On the off chance he managed to cast invisibility on the bag (the bag let
>some light in and he succeeded despite negative modifiers) I would allow
>him to see through the bag. My view of invisibility is that the spell
>creates an illusion for the perceiver. In the mage's case the spell would
>create an illusion of the environment outside the bag. Having said that, I
>would not allow the mage to target anybody/thing outside the bag, because
>he isn't really seeing them with his own eyes, but seeing them through the
>eyes of the invisibility/illusion spell.
This was a thought we considered too. If he cast the regular invis spell
he would have seen what he ~expected~ to see outside the bag, based on his
own expectations. This brought up a whole discussion of magical,
self-controlled virtual reality, since you are making the world appear as
you "expect" it to. Very odd.
However, in this case all he had was *Improved* invisibility, which is a
physical effect so the whole magical VR thing was moot in this case
(although still an interesting thought problem).
Basically I told him no because it threw off my plans and would set a
dangerous precedent. But I have no real reason why, not that I need one, I'm
the GM.
