Invisibility to Hearing Group

[Tasha]

gestures is more about being restrainable than being seen, but seeing the person waving their arms is a factor.

 

With Incantations, Off the top of my head I would say that the incantations must be audible for them to work. So to work they would have to be outside of the Invisibility. ie like when an invisible person wants to shout a warning to a teammate. They allow their self to be heard.

[eepjr24]

With Incantations, Off the top of my head I would say that the incantations must be audible for them to work. So to work they would have to be outside of the Invisibility. ie like when an invisible person wants to shout a warning to a teammate. They allow their self to be heard.

Correct. 6e1, 381

A character can use a power with Incantations only if he speaks loud phrases that are audible at a distance and are obviously out of the ordinary

[Christopher R Taylor]

Indeed, which is why I'd say someone who is regularly inaudible would get no limitation from incantations.  However, there's nothing about invisibility vs sound that should cause them to not work, any more than gestures while invisible.  Remember, seeing Joe the Wizard start waving his arms around in complex patterns means he's casting a spell, and people respond to that by the visual clue, its not just restraint.

[eepjr24]

Indeed, which is why I'd say someone who is regularly inaudible would get no limitation from incantations.  However, there's nothing about invisibility vs sound that should cause them to not work, any more than gestures while invisible.  Remember, seeing Joe the Wizard start waving his arms around in complex patterns means he's casting a spell, and people respond to that by the visual clue, its not just restraint.

Gestures don't work if they cannot be seen, by RAW. 6e1, 381

Gestures must be clearly visible at a distance and cannot be useful for any purpose other than activating that specific power

If you are invisible, the gestures are by definition not visible.

 

- E

[TheDarkness]

On the incantation front, for thematic reasons, I would rule out inaudible audibles as fulfilling the role. In other words, in my iteration(but not others, so this is totally campaign specific) you are making an incantation for the powers that be to hear, even if those powers are just the ebb and flow of magic, to hear and respond. As far as RAW, I would say it's a no, if it's not audible, and the spell has audible components, it can't work. I can see the counter-argument outside of a RAW perspective, but if you save the points for the disadvantage, and can often get around it, that's not ideal.

 

In regards to the invisible but obvious focus, I would say that the point of solution to this problem is not in how invisibility works, but in how the point savings for limitations work. If a significant portion of the time, the obvious focus is not even visible, then it should not get the full point savings.

 

As to suddenly appearing weapons for attacks from invisibility, I'm on the front of not accepting this particular approach; the number of campaigns in which this becomes a gigantic elephant in the narrative is significant enough to make it a rather clumsy solution to the problem. That said, I also am not averse to making an attack made by an invisible character reveal their location at the time of the attack to some extent TO THOSE WHO ARE IN A POSITION TO SEE THEM. But there is absolutely no reason for the weapon to become visible. As GM, I would simply say, the those who are in a position to see, "suddenly, an arrow pierces Yarol's thigh, there are only three points in sight where an archer might hide, and you note, for a brief instant, something, you can't say for sure if it's a motion or a shape, in the balcony to your left."

[whitekeys]

Correct. 6e1, 381

I have to disagree. The write up on Gestures says something similar, that characters must make "out of the ordinary" movements. I felt that Steve wanted people to know that the Gestures had to be something specific and relevant to the power, portraying that the power is being used. For example, pulling the trigger on a gun does not warrant the Gestures limitation, but if it was a large Steampunk electro-shocker that required continual cranking, it would have Focus and Gestures (requires both hands, gestures throughout.) If you were prevented from making cranking motions, it would render the power useless. If you roll really good on Stealth, and no one can see you, can you use Gestures to activate powers?

 

Similarly for Incantations. It's not necessarily about the loudness or the audibility of the Incantations, it's simply that you have to say something specific and obvious for the power to work. Gandalf whispers to butterfly to Summon the Eagles. If we was prevented from speaking that specific thing, through a gag, or my magical muting, the power would not have worked. If you're Invisible to Hearing, you still get to say things, loudly or not, it's just that other people can't hear them. If you're in a soundproof room and no one can hear you, can you not use Incantations to activate powers? 

 

IT's the same effect, is it not? It's not whether or not you are being heard, but that you are making the sounds.

 

EDIT: I mean, I don't disagree with Steve's rules, I'm just giving another interpretation, despite how clear it might seem to others. It's the "spirit" of the rules.

[whitekeys]

Actually, come to think of it, the science of sound here might give us some clues. Sound can be described as "pressure variations", or waves, travelling through a substance, usually gas or liquid, which are interpreted by the nerves in the cochlea. How do we envision 

 

It would depend on the special effect of the Invisibility power. Are you in a person-sized sound-dampening field? Or does your body gel and mold over each surfaces it touches, ensuring no pressure changes are produced? Do you emanate some kind of pressure-stabilizing force, somewhat like how a black hole sucks back light? Or do you mentally suppress the ability to hear certain frequencies and oscillations in the ears of people around you? Then it would be up to the GM to decide, based on common sense, dramatic sense, and game balance, whether that falling wrench made a noise or not. 

[TheDarkness]

I have to disagree. The write up on Gestures says something similar, that characters must make "out of the ordinary" movements. I felt that Steve wanted people to know that the Gestures had to be something specific and relevant to the power, portraying that the power is being used. For example, pulling the trigger on a gun does not warrant the Gestures limitation, but if it was a large Steampunk electro-shocker that required continual cranking, it would have Focus and Gestures (requires both hands, gestures throughout.) If you were prevented from making cranking motions, it would render the power useless. If you roll really good on Stealth, and no one can see you, can you use Gestures to activate powers?

 

Similarly for Incantations. It's not necessarily about the loudness or the audibility of the Incantations, it's simply that you have to say something specific and obvious for the power to work. Gandalf whispers to butterfly to Summon the Eagles. If we was prevented from speaking that specific thing, through a gag, or my magical muting, the power would not have worked. If you're Invisible to Hearing, you still get to say things, loudly or not, it's just that other people can't hear them. If you're in a soundproof room and no one can hear you, can you not use Incantations to activate powers? 

 

IT's the same effect, is it not? It's not whether or not you are being heard, but that you are making the sounds.

 

EDIT: I mean, I don't disagree with Steve's rules, I'm just giving another interpretation, despite how clear it might seem to others. It's the "spirit" of the rules.

Total geek thing I'm about to say. really has nothing to do with the argument.

 

Gandalf almost never used powers. He absolutely never used his full power, because he took an oath not to and took the form of an old man to limit even the possibility.

 

Everyone who was good loved Gandalf because he was so good. He treated the great and the small kindly, and was alone in recognizing the part of the small in the coming war.

 

I'm pretty sure he did not cast a spell, but simply spoke in words the butterfly would understand. In which case, silence would have made it not work.

 

I think controlling anything was against Gandalf's very nature. He trusted in virtue to win the day. He trusted that the butterfly would carry his message.

 

/nerd rant

 

On the rules discussion, I'm not disagreeing with you, I can see what you mean.

[TheDarkness]

Actually, I will say, for incantations, the value for the disadvantage is that people will hear you and it will take time. But the fact that people will hear you is the larger value, even if(possibly especially if) the duration of the incantation is long.

[whitekeys]

Actually, I will say, for incantations, the value for the disadvantage is that people will hear you and it will take time. But the fact that people will hear you is the larger value, even if(possibly especially if) the duration of the incantation is long.

 

I think I might be saying that the essence of the Incantations limitation is that you need to have the use of your voice and the ability to form words, the capability of remembering the specific incantation of the power, and other things required for that process. Additionally, people will hear you, the power will become more obvious, etc., as a result of using a power with Incantations. However, just because those latter two are negated for whatever reason, does not render the power useless or not able to be activated. Only negating the former requirements would render the power useless or not able to be activated.

[bigdamnhero]

Interesting point re Gestures & Incantations. I've always played it that silence blocks Incantations but Darkness/Invisibility doesn't block Gestures. But to be honest I'm not sure I ever thought about it too deeply. Partly that's based on how those tropes are usually played in genre. To me, the key point for Gestures is that you have to use your hands, which means you can't use them for something else. While the rules do specify "clearly visible at a distance" I always interpreted that as referring to the size & nature of the Gestures, rather than referring to the target's perception of them.

 

Incantations seem to be more about not just being able to speak, but about others being able to hear you, but I don't know if I can defend that position mechanically. It can depend on sfx tho: in some works (Dresden Files comes to mind) the spoken component is more about helping to focus the caster's thoughts, which implies it doesn't matter if anyone else can hear it or not. But in other works, the words are actually invoking supernatural powers, calling on demons and so forth, which would imply that if the demons can't hear you, they can't respond. And of course some sfx require/imply that the words are spoken for the target's ears, like non-telepathic Mind Control, which would obviously be blocked by silence, or even Flashed Hearing.

[whitekeys]

Interesting point re Gestures & Incantations. I've always played it that silence blocks Incantations but Darkness/Invisibility doesn't block Gestures. But to be honest I'm not sure I ever thought about it too deeply. Partly that's based on how those tropes are usually played in genre. To me, the key point for Gestures is that you have to use your hands, which means you can't use them for something else. While the rules do specify "clearly visible at a distance" I always interpreted that as referring to the size & nature of the Gestures, rather than referring to the target's perception of them.

 

Incantations seem to be more about not just being able to speak, but about others being able to hear you, but I don't know if I can defend that position mechanically. It can depend on sfx tho: in some works (Dresden Files comes to mind) the spoken component is more about helping to focus the caster's thoughts, which implies it doesn't matter if anyone else can hear it or not. But in other works, the words are actually invoking supernatural powers, calling on demons and so forth, which would imply that if the demons can't hear you, they can't respond. And of course some sfx require/imply that the words are spoken for the target's ears, like non-telepathic Mind Control, which would obviously be blocked by silence, or even Flashed Hearing.

 

That interpretation (of Gestures), while I see your point, feels to me like Steve is forcing a kind of special effect onto us. I mean... are the only Gestures available to me waving my arms in large motions? Harry Potter's wand flicks are pretty small... And any of those powers (actual examples are escaping me now) where you gather a ball of energy in front of your chest, and then direct it... seems like a reasonable Gesture. And like you said... you need to have use of your hands and arms, so if you can't encircle your hands around that ball of power, you don't get to use the power. I feel like Steve just wanted to encourage us to make a specific movement that related the use of the power, so that we didn't think any ol' motion would do - like pulling the trigger on a gun. And SPECIFIC motion, too, to keep it a separate limitation from Restrainable.

 

Good points about Incantations. ...Always with the special effects...

 

EDIT: And speaking of Restainable, it's even more so an argument for my position, being that there are no similar Limitations to Incantations that you could suggest someone take instead if they didn't want to shout. I could see someone about to say "..all those examples should be Restainable" but what are you going to say about Incantations? It's the only speaking related limitation.

[TheDarkness]

I think I might be saying that the essence of the Incantations limitation is that you need to have the use of your voice and the ability to form words, the capability of remembering the specific incantation of the power, and other things required for that process. Additionally, people will hear you, the power will become more obvious, etc., as a result of using a power with Incantations. However, just because those latter two are negated for whatever reason, does not render the power useless or not able to be activated. Only negating the former requirements would render the power useless or not able to be activated.

I agree, in many cases, the power shouldn't be rendered useless. BUT, unless one is in a game where memorization of spells has a substantial role, and even then, once they are memorized, this has no limiting effect, whereas being heard and seen as conspicuous and a potential unknown threat in combat will always be a big deal that should be worth points.

 

So, if the limitation in that sense is bypassed, it is not my argument that this should not be allowed, but that the limitation should be worth less in that case, just as any limitation that will often not apply to the power should be worth less.

 

For example, if two spell casters have a similar spell, one in which the spell must be audible, one in which it merely must be spoken, and both have a silence field, the first character should get a greater cost benefit from the incantation limitation. The question is, does the limitation's benefit in RAW represent the first spellcaster, or the second. If the first, then the second should not get the full value of the limitation, if the second, then he or she should get more than the RAW value.

[whitekeys]

I agree, in many cases, the power shouldn't be rendered useless. BUT, unless one is in a game where memorization of spells has a substantial role, and even then, once they are memorized, this has no limiting effect, whereas being heard and seen as conspicuous and a potential unknown threat in combat will always be a big deal that should be worth points.

 

So, if the limitation in that sense is bypassed, it is not my argument that this should not be allowed, but that the limitation should be worth less in that case, just as any limitation that will often not apply to the power should be worth less.

 

For example, if two spell casters have a similar spell, one in which the spell must be audible, one in which it merely must be spoken, and both have a silence field, the first character should get a greater cost benefit from the incantation limitation. The question is, does the limitation's benefit in RAW represent the first spellcaster, or the second. If the first, then the second should not get the full value of the limitation, if the second, then he or she should get more than the RAW value.

 

Memorization may not be an issue in most campaigns, but it provides something to be attacked, just like a Focus or a power that is Restrainable provides a target for enemies attacks. Gagging, Draining someone's INT, or using mental attacks to slur someone's speech, and the list goes on. Or is it just a special effect? Fire powers don't work underwater, but there's no limitation value for that. Hmm....

 

The context is important. If you were in a campaign setting where everyone was deaf, or where ubiquitous aliens didn't have a sense of hearing, then it probably wouldn't be worth a limitation. But generally, with Darkness, sound-proof rooms, etc., we're talking about certain circumstances. The GM would have to decide how unbalancing any of these combinations of powers and limitations would be. If your main superpower is invisibility, it might not work to have Gestures put on all your other powers, regardless of how you define Gestures. But maybe you're only invisible once in a while when you happen upon a potion. Then I wouldn't see any reason to render other Gestures powers useless... it would have the reverse effect of nullifying any benefit of Invisibility for your character.

 

But I think the topic from earlier was whether or not people, or the target specifically, or anything at all, needed to hear you, or be cognizant of your speech, in order for Incantation powers to WORK (not be worth a limitation).

[TheDarkness]

Memorization may not be an issue in most campaigns, but it provides something to be attacked, just like a Focus or a power that is Restrainable provides a target for enemies attacks. Gagging, Draining someone's INT, or using mental attacks to slur someone's speech, and the list goes on. Or is it just a special effect? Fire powers don't work underwater, but there's no limitation value for that. Hmm....

 

The context is important. If you were in a campaign setting where everyone was deaf, or where ubiquitous aliens didn't have a sense of hearing, then it probably wouldn't be worth a limitation. But generally, with Darkness, sound-proof rooms, etc., we're talking about certain circumstances. The GM would have to decide how unbalancing any of these combinations of powers and limitations would be. If your main superpower is invisibility, it might not work to have Gestures put on all your other powers, regardless of how you define Gestures. But maybe you're only invisible once in a while when you happen upon a potion. Then I wouldn't see any reason to render other Gestures powers useless... it would have the reverse effect of nullifying any benefit of Invisibility for your character.

 

But I think the topic from earlier was whether or not people, or the target specifically, or anything at all, needed to hear you, or be cognizant of your speech, in order for Incantation powers to WORK (not be worth a limitation).

I agree with you. As far as whether they work, I don't really have an issue, it seems highly situational to the story reason for the incantation. I don't see a big issue with this. But it is important that, if the situation that allows it is common enough, then the disadvantage should be worth less of a discount. This is relevant, because it has already been discussed how balance can be affected, points value is the prime representative for this game balance. We're not really disagreeing on this, I know.

 

So, in a fantasy game, if a spell caster and a cleric have the same power(spell), but the cleric can do it while under silence, and the spell caster cannot, there will be a different point value.

 

Further, I still contend the points for gesture and incantation are due to making one's self a conspicuous target far more than other factors. This seems implied in the rules, which seem, in both cases, to reference the conspicuousness of each as a prerequisite. If there is no reason the spellcaster would need to make themselves conspicuous due to another power, whereas other players do not have the ability to do so but received the same discount from the disadvantage, it seems off to me. Either the player with the invisibility should get less for the gesture disadvantage, or those without should get more.

[TheDarkness]

In short, yes, I'm not arguing whether it should work, but, if one allows it to work, how it affects point balance, and it does affect it, as was brought up earlier.

 

Now, one might deem it's a minor thing worth negligible points, and the power should work. At which point, what is the discount for players for whom it DOESN'T work. This seems like the wrong way to go about it, as the people casting spells from silence are going to be fewer than the rest, so making their discount greater increases everybody's work except those who have the silence. Especially since the RAW seem to imply that the effect MUST BE conspicuous. That seems to be the default rule, so it would be simpler to say that, if one wants to cast spells from silence, then the incantation limitation will be worth less points not simply based on frequency, but based on balance.

[TheDarkness]

As an example, in my own games, one who becomes, of their own volition invisible or silent is neither to themselves, and so could probably do such spells. However, if made silent by another, they could not do incantations. I've actually never thought about whether invisibility would nullify spell gestures in the same way. Probably because people don't usually make their enemies invisible, although this would be a nice twist. BUT, since everyone is under the same spell rules, balance is not a huge issue. They all pay the same.

 

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. By the rules, if it's not conspicuous, it's neither an incantation or a gesture. Which rules out invisible gestures or silenced incantations as an option for having either limitation placed on them for points. If you can chant the words in an inconspicuous way, it simply isn't incantation by RAW. If you can make the gesture in a way that is not conspicuous, it simply isn't gesture by RAW. BUT, house rules wise, I think there are a lot of cases for each.

 

Simply put, taking the disadvantage is saying 'This power literally cannot work without fulfilling this criteria, EVER.' To then have that not be true, no matter how rarely it's applied, brings the use of the disadvantage into question.

[TheDarkness]

Whitekeys, sorry about the wall of text, I'm in China and most of my days are spent speaking Chinese. I sometimes forget that just because I have the chance to use my mother tongue, doesn't mean I have to keep doing so ad infinitum!

[Hugh Neilson]

Gestures don't work if they cannot be seen, by RAW. 6e1, 381

If you are invisible, the gestures are by definition not visible.

 

I question this interpretation. Does that mean I cannot Gesture in a field of darkness? What about on a foggy day, where visibility is limited so the gestures cannot be seen "at a distance"?

 

Can my enemies neutralize my casting ability by closing their eyes? Is it neutralized if they are flashed, or if they are blind (the Bat-People of Krindor might be blind and perceive by sonar).

 

By contrast, I think the only real limiting thing about incantations is that they are audible. If they can be used in a Silence field, can they also be used if gagged? I can subvocalize even when gagged , and that's more audible than complete silence.

 

Gestures should also be less limiting than Restrainable, should they not? One handed gestures are a lower limitation, and two handed gestures are the same limitation, but prevent you carrying a shield and a weapon.

 

I don't know, like at least one other poster, that I have ever considered this too deeply, beyond what source material seems to suggest and the limitation value relative to its implications, though.

[whitekeys]

Whitekeys, sorry about the wall of text, I'm in China and most of my days are spent speaking Chinese. I sometimes forget that just because I have the chance to use my mother tongue, doesn't mean I have to keep doing so ad infinitum!

 

It's cool, theDarkness! I just went to bed because it's late here and I'm tired, yo. But now it is morning!

 

It's a special effect, to me. For example, perhaps your incantation is a whispered phrase of an ancient language. Despite being whispered, though, it still carries on the wind to the ears of [who ever the GM decides needs to hear it], like the target or the surrounding folk. If what I say here is true, then it's a poorly worded rule in the book, to describe it as loud and therefore audible at a distance. You make excellent points about the cost relative to the special effect.

 

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying I have a hard time believing Steve is forcing that kind of a special effect onto the limitation.

 

Is it true that Gestures and Incantations were, in large part, put into the book on the influence of wizardry from other genres? If so, perhaps it needs to be updated in future editions to be more clearly defined for other genres. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

If you are invisible, the gestures are by definition not visible.

 

This is an accurate statement, but it does not, I believe reflect what the rules are saying.  The rules do not mean "gestures must always be visible to everyone or they do not work" but rather "gestures must be of a nature that is ordinarily visible and distinct."

 

In other words, as Whitekeys notes about the pistol vs steampunk device, they have to be a motion that is not only able to be restrained, but clearly doing something out of the ordinary to all observers.  If everyone closes their eyes, thus rendering the gestures not visible, they are not negated.  If you're behind a crate, blocking off vision of your gestures, they still work.  If you're in a darkness field, you still gesture.

 

In other words, the limitation is not based on the capability of others to see what you're doing, but upon the kind of movements you're making.

 

Which brings us to incantations and the same concepts.  Just because something blocks off your incantations somehow (a soundproof room, a deaf person, a more enormous sound overwhelming your voice) does not mean you did not incant.  Again, its not based on the capability of others to hear you, but upon the kind of sounds you're making.

 

If you are actually prevented from making any sounds, then you cannot use incantations - which brings us back to my basic complaint that "darkness vs sound" does not necessarily mean you cannot and did not incant, it just means nobody could hear you do it.  The same with invisibility.

 

Again, I'll state for the last time, that if someone regularly and routinely has the ability to become inaudible (invisibility vs sound), then I'd rule their incantations to be of no limitation value.  They have taken a limitation that does not actually limit them.

 

See I'm trying to approach this from a rules toolkit perspective, not a "how its always been done" or "this is how it works in other games" perspective.  What do the different components mean and how should they interact?

[eepjr24]

This is an accurate statement, but it does not, I believe reflect what the rules are saying.  The rules do not mean "gestures must always be visible to everyone or they do not work" but rather "gestures must be of a nature that is ordinarily visible and distinct."

 

In other words, as Whitekeys notes about the pistol vs steampunk device, they have to be a motion that is not only able to be restrained, but clearly doing something out of the ordinary to all observers.  If everyone closes their eyes, thus rendering the gestures not visible, they are not negated.  If you're behind a crate, blocking off vision of your gestures, they still work.  If you're in a darkness field, you still gesture.

 

In other words, the limitation is not based on the capability of others to see what you're doing, but upon the kind of movements you're making.

You are entitled to that opinion, obviously. =) But this text seems very clear to me and does not agree with that interpretation:

Gestures must be clearly visible at a distance and cannot be useful for any purpose other than activating that specific power

[eepjr24]

That interpretation (of Gestures), while I see your point, feels to me like Steve is forcing a kind of special effect onto us. 

Steve is not forcing anything on you. If you don't think your motions meet that criteria, don't take the limitation. If you think what you are doing warrants a limitation, there is always limited power, which will do whatever you decide it will do in your game. But the official rules are there so that people will have a standard set of things that are agreed upon for that limitation. What Steve has done is give us a standard value for the limitation described in the book. You are welcome to say you wiggle your fingers behind your back or in a way that does not draw attention, but that is probably not worth a -1/4.

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

You are entitled to that opinion, obviously. =) But this text seems very clear to me and does not agree with that interpretation

 

The way you want to read this rule, you're saying gestures stop working when nobody is looking or they're behind something.  That's just plainly not how the limitation is meant to work.

[Hugh Neilson]

The way you want to read this rule, you're saying gestures stop working when nobody is looking or they're behind something.  That's just plainly not how the limitation is meant to work.

Yup. If you read the RAW in that restrictive manner, cranking electrical gun does not qualify either. Kids use the same motion with windup toys, the organ grinder uses it to make the monkey dance, and it's used to keep the rotisserie turning so the chicken cooks evenly. So those genstures can be useful for a purpose other than activating that specific power. Really, all I have to do is slap Gestures, -0 on a small power I purchase with xp, defined as the same gestures you use to activate your power, and your limitation must go away, as your gestures are used to activate a different power as well.

 

While either read can be supported with the words as written, the interpretation which leads to the most absurd results is typically the wrong one.