|[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse

I just *LOVE* topics like this sometimes. They make me think...

And *anything* to avoid more 4e discussion for a short while:

On Mar 11, 11:31 am, Justisaur <justis....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:34 am, Alcore <alc....RemoveThis@uurth.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > What?  You have something against sliding glass patio doors that are
> > *really* clean?
[snip]
>
> There's 3 ways of looking at it IIRC.
>
> 1) The door is see-through ala your glass patio door.  This of course
> makes too much sense for "magic" so it obviously can't be right.
>
> 2) The door somehow just can't be seen, like a blind spot.  You don't
> even notice a door is there, and the walls around appear to be one.
> You can't see through it, because you don't know it's there.  This is
> strange so it might be magic.

This is also sometimes called a "Somebody Else's Problem" or "SEP"
field. If you've ever read "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
books, you'll know what I'm talking about.

> 3) Invisibility is an illusion.  That means your door looks like
> whatever you would expect to see beyond it, or whatever whoever cast
> it wanted you to see.  You aren't actually seeing the room/hallway/
> outdoors that's beyond the door, so you get a big surprise when you
> open the invisible door and find 6 Orcs ready to chop you to bits.
> This is obviously the right interpretation because it makes no sense
> unless you say "It's magic!".

Otherwise known as the spell "Programmed Illusion".


For me, the problem comes down to a series of questions that define
things for me:

1. Does a (freestanding) invisible object cast shadows?

2. Does a (freestanding) invisible object block Line-Of-Sight?

3. Is Invisibility (it is tagged as Illusion{Glamer}) Mind-
affecting? (Asked differently: Do the state of mind and expectations
of the observer have anything whatsoever to do with what will be
seen?)

4. Are the results of Invisibilty dependent on Caster Intent?

5. Is Invisibility required to be Omnidirectional?

For me, the answer to all 5 of these questions is "No". As a result,
I drift naturally into the "Invisibility works like Harry Potter's
Cloak" answer.

For me, the result of how that affects something like a closed door
then follows naturally.

Note what happens to Harry's feet when they stick out below the hem of
the cloak (or any other part of him is exposed): To an observer
located *above* Harry, it's pretty clear that they wouldn't see
anything but floor. The only way to see Harry's feet (or other
exsposed part) is if your line of sight doesn't pass through any part
of the cloak.

To function, you don't need both an "entry" and an "exit" point for
light to pass through. The cloak is able to project the image of what
lies beyond Harry even if he would be visible from that direction...
(and therefore be blocking the line of sight for the light rays to
pass through). In other words, the cloak isn't functioning as a
transparent pane of glass. The image seen from a protected direction
does not have to have "passed through" the protected space/object, but
is generated at the surface of the cloak. From above, the cloak shows
floor. From the sides, you can see his feet sticking out if he
doesn't hunch down closer to the floor. If he sticks his head out of
the cloak you see whatever parts don't have cloak in front of them....

Of course, the consequence of all this is that it is possible to
construct doors (or walls) that are only invisible from one side,
working somewhat like a two-way mirror. It's the perfect way for
lookouts to watch something without themselves being watchable. They
can see through the invisible object from their side, and from your
side all you see is the object since it's not invisible. I would,
however, make a version of Invisibility that works like this a higher
level spell.

While I'm OK with "Illusion {Glamer}" for this set of properties, I do
sometimes think (oddly enough) that "Divination" might be more
appropriate, since an invisibility effect "knows" what to display...
even if it's own "view" of the situation might be blocked.

OK..

Let's see if this starts an argument^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discussion....

Gene P.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

Keith Davies wrote:
> tussock wrote:
<snip>

>>>> Zombies are 'z's, 'Z's are Zephyr hounds; what game are you
>>>> playing?
>>>
>>> nethack. 'z' is zruty.
>>
>> Heathen. 'Tis the big P who's the true enemy of our @s.
>
> Puddings? Puddings are harmless if you ignore them.

No, not /Puddings/, they're 'j's, and once you get down a few levels
you'll find a few that are far from harmless.

>> Yep. As far as I can figure, it's slightly easier to both fall into
>> and escape from, and covers the tri-flank without an extra rule. In
>> most cases the top one there plays the same as an opposites-only flank.
>
> I'll think about it.

See Rick Pickul's reply there; far more sensible, even if I would
make it 135 degrees for my own sense of being arbitrarily different.

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

tussock <scrub.RemoveThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>>> Zombies are 'z's, 'Z's are Zephyr hounds; what game are you
>>>>> playing?
>>>>
>>>> nethack. 'z' is zruty.
>>>
>>> Heathen. 'Tis the big P who's the true enemy of our @s.
>>
>> Puddings? Puddings are harmless if you ignore them.
>
> No, not /Puddings/, they're 'j's, and once you get down a few levels
> you'll find a few that are far from harmless.

'j' is jellies. Those're harmless unless you run into them. Attack
them from a distance, you'll be just fine.

'J' is a jabberwock. Scary early on (fast flier), nice mount if you can
make it happen.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.RemoveThis@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

Alcore wrote:

> I just *LOVE* topics like this sometimes. They make me think...

Allow me, good sir.

> For me, the problem comes down to a series of questions that define
> things for me:
>
> 1. Does a (freestanding) invisible object cast shadows?

Of course not, though they do block light effects if there's no way
for it to flow around, due to them continuing to block line of effect.
Shadows only spread into the world in places that can't see the light.

> 2. Does a (freestanding) invisible object block Line-Of-Sight?

Of course not, you see the first seeable thing in each direction,
even the shadowed or darkened things that you can't see properly without
low light or darkvision.

> 3. Is Invisibility (it is tagged as Illusion{Glamer}) Mind- affecting?
> (Asked differently: Do the state of mind and expectations of the
> observer have anything whatsoever to do with what will be seen?)

Glamors are explicitly not mind-affecting. Invisibility literally
makes things become not able to be seen.

> 4. Are the results of Invisibilty dependent on Caster Intent?

Obviously not, see #3.

> 5. Is Invisibility required to be Omnidirectional?

It's not directional at all, seeability is a binary state,
invisibility setting it to not.

> For me, the answer to all 5 of these questions is "No". As a result, I
> drift naturally into the "Invisibility works like Harry Potter's Cloak"
> answer.

Bah. Harry's cloak is a cheap and nasty blue-screen effect. /Real/
invisibility is quite different.

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse