Hypothetical:
Fighter, a 10th level fighter, is fighting a dragon. Said dragon has both mage armor and shield active, making the dragon very hard to hit. After a round or two of having his sword skitter across the the dragon's hide, is it reasonable to clue Fighter in to the fact that the dragon is magically protected?
Shield specifically has a visual component that could be seen. Not so sure about mage armor but if the fluff that the GM is using for the campaign is that it does then I would guess the fighter would know some magic was in use, even if he doesn't know what magic that was.
Hypothetical:
Fighter, a 10th level fighter, is fighting a dragon. Said dragon has both mage armor and shield active, making the dragon very hard to hit. After a round or two of having his sword skitter across the the dragon's hide, is it reasonable to clue Fighter in to the fact that the dragon is magically protected?
Hrothgar held his shield fast against the dragon's swing. As the claws swept past, he brought his sword in underneath--only to have it skid over something invisible, hovering just over the dragon's well-padded hide.
Shield specifically has a visual component that could be seen.
Actually, the description of shield specifically says it is an invisible force.
Shield specifically has a visual component that could be seen.Actually, the description of shield specifically says it is an invisible force.
See it's funny how often people mistake invisible for something you can't perceive. You can still visually locate it, and thus it still has a visual component.
On further checking mage armor has something similar -- the field is tangible but invisible so it is something you could perceive.
See it's funny how often people mistake invisible for something you can't perceive. You can still visually locate it, and thus it still has a visual component.
I'm going to use this line next time a player cast invisibility, and believes that he cannot be seen.
See it's funny how often people mistake invisible for something you can't perceive. You can still visually locate it, and thus it still has a visual component.
I'm not sure I understand what you say. The field is invisible. You can't see it. There's no magic shimmer around the dragon or anything.
What you can see is the sword sliding of the hide or something. Or throw that orange through the room to your mate on the other side, just to see it hit the invisible guy in the head. You still don't see Mr. Invisible.
So maybe that's what you mean, if so, I agree with you. If not, then probably I don't :)
However even if the sword skitters over the dragon's skin, it might just be an indication of really tough dragonscales, not magic in itself. If you try to hack of his head and it gets "stuck" a milimeter away from his neck, then yeah, you probably figure out there's magic involved.
On the other hand anyone that goes up against a dragon and is surprised by magic being employed against them deserves to be eaten by them.
|
I'm going to use this line next time a player cast invisibility, and believes that he cannot be seen.
See it's funny how often people mistake invisible for something you can't perceive. You can still visually locate it, and thus it still has a visual component.
Well, I think what Abraham is trying to say is that if you hit the Shield, or Mage Armor, it is apparent that you didn't strike the target... much like if you hit a Steel Shield, or Banded Mail.
Even if the Mage Armor is, itself, and invisible force effect, when you strike it, you might be able to perceive a difference between hitting it, and penetrating into the soft squishy bits below.
With a high enough Perception check, you can notice an invisible creature.I'm going to use this line next time a player cast invisibility, and believes that he cannot be seen.
Yes you can, but Perception covers all your senses not just your sight.
You might catch a smell because he didn't brush his teeth this morning. Or because he used the extra fresh mint toothpaste. Or hear him breathe, or a twig snap under his feet. You might even see his footprints in the mud maybe.
But you will not be able to see the invisible person itself.
Even if the Mage Armor is, itself, and invisible force effect, when you strike it, you might be able to perceive a difference between hitting it, and penetrating into the soft squishy bits below.
+1
'touch' is a sense that is often underrated, yet we rely heavily on it. Invisible isn't imperceptible.
See also air and wind resistance, or the pull of a (held) magnet next to a piece of metal.
Yeah we are all on the same basic page -- something like flour on it would be noticeable, or a dust cloud or the sword sliding off it.
I would say that any attack that just barely misses would alert the fighter to some sort of magical deterrence. I've always imagined that attacks that miss by 3 or less are those that bounce off armor or shields. While other attacks are either parried or dodged.
Image if you will:
Glaven the fighter swings his mighty battle ax at the off balance wizard. Yet to his surprise rather than blood Glaven sees sparks as the weapon scrapes across some magical force.
Think of it when magnets repel each other, you cannot see it, but you can feel the force behind the repelling.
No,no, no "freaking magnets, how do they work?" meme need not apply.
|
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you.
Mage Armor: An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC
These are obvious effects, I can see needing to almost hit to notice a Mage armor effect, but shield stops the attack early.
To get specifics like bonus numbers and spell names:
Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
I usually state shield and Mage armor can be felt by anyone standing a few feet from the enchanted person as waves of heat, static, or force depending.
It seems to me that making "invisible" spells that obvious sort of contradicts the established mechanics for detecting spell auras using detect magic.
If 1st level spells put out that much energy, detectable by people lacking detect magic, Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft, why would the detect magic spell ever be necessary?
I usually state shield and Mage armor can be felt by anyone standing a few feet from the enchanted person as waves of heat, static, or force depending.It seems to me that making "invisible" spells that obvious sort of contradicts the established mechanics for detecting spell auras using detect magic.
If 1st level spells put out that much energy, detectable by people lacking detect magic, Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft, why would the detect magic spell ever be necessary?
Visible by someone looking I would say yes, I would say someone swinging their sword through it would have a very high chance to notice, on a hit, he would still feel some "invisible force" attempting to offset his swing. Much like someone firing an arrow would notice if the wind nearly blew his arrow off course. Shield would effect it about a foot away from the target, Mage armor I would say 2-3 inches. I think some are negating the "Surrounds the target" rather then "fortifies the target". If someone cast invisibility on a fighters full plate armor would you observe it on sight, probably not, when you swing your sword at him and it goes Clang an inch before it hits his skin, would you probably figure it out?
See, this why I'm getting slowly tired of those rule's heavy RPGs. Make a spellcraft check, the shield is invisible, no it is not, etc... In the good old times, it was the GM's job to be creative.
He could have said: "your sword strikes the dragon, or so it seems, but just an inch before its point would have pierced the scales, the blade suddenly stopped as" or "your hit the dragon with a good hard blow, but your swing unnaturally bounced back so that your blade comes dangerously close to your own hide..." or "or blade hits an previously unseen barrier, but with your strike, causes blue sparks to fly through the air."
the GM would give clues and the players would have to guess. but in these days the Gm seems to be the slave of the rules...
Back on topic:
If you consider the spell text rule mechanics, then yes the shield is invisible as described in the rules. Technically speaking, the fighter cannot see it (visually). Now, the fighter could be allowed to make a Spellcraft check (but only if he is trained in Spellcraft) to get a clue.
But could it perhaps be, that this is just for flavor? Well, if the shield is invisible, does it cackle with energy when hit?
the GM would give clues and the players would have to guess. but in these days the Gm seems to be the slave of the rules...
Have you ever seen a cop run a red light without his lights on? Speed? Etc?
Yeah same concept here in my opinion.
It's been a while since I was thinking of including a "Combat Level Check" in my house rules (base on the caster level check) basicaly: d20 + base att + wis bonus.
That's how I see a character figuring an opponents defence and offence capabilities: What is in the A.C.?(large amount of natural? presence of many smal one? Known specifics?) How was that damage made? (Many dice? Big Str? Other Bonus?)
I'm not sure how I'd go with the DC of each but after a swing at someone/thing with Mage armor and/or Force Shield I'd call for a Combat Level Check at DC 10 to mention "protective invisible forces" and DC 11 (level 1 spells) to specify shielding and armoring.
Has the fighter encountered a particular defensive buff before and is he NOT an idiot?
This is a good point look at his int or wisdom score. If they are in the single digits then I might say you have no idea why your sword isn't working. Or use small words so he can understand you... "Sword not work good"
Visible by someone looking I would say yes, I would say someone swinging their sword through it would have a very high chance to notice, on a hit, he would still feel some "invisible force" attempting to offset his swing. Much like someone firing an arrow would notice if the wind nearly blew his arrow off course. Shield would effect it about a foot away from the target, Mage armor I would say 2-3 inches. I think some are negating the "Surrounds the target" rather then "fortifies the target". If someone cast invisibility on a fighters full plate armor would you observe it on sight, probably not, when you swing your sword at him and it goes Clang an inch before it hits his skin, would you probably figure it out?I usually state shield and Mage armor can be felt by anyone standing a few feet from the enchanted person as waves of heat, static, or force depending.It seems to me that making "invisible" spells that obvious sort of contradicts the established mechanics for detecting spell auras using detect magic.
If 1st level spells put out that much energy, detectable by people lacking detect magic, Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft, why would the detect magic spell ever be necessary?
True, but irrelevant. Cranewing's point was that he allowed anyone standing close to a person with spells active were granted information regarding the presence of said spells without any active interaction with them.
I'm going to use this line next time a player cast invisibility, and believes that he cannot be seen.
See it's funny how often people mistake invisible for something you can't perceive. You can still visually locate it, and thus it still has a visual component.
Well, I think what Abraham is trying to say is that if you hit the Shield, or Mage Armor, it is apparent that you didn't strike the target... much like if you hit a Steel Shield, or Banded Mail.
Even if the Mage Armor is, itself, and invisible force effect, when you strike it, you might be able to perceive a difference between hitting it, and penetrating into the soft squishy bits below.
+2
Is the OP a bit dim?
The fighter could have a rank in spellcraft. This would allow checks to identify the ongoing spell.
Actually, Spellcraft only works if you witness the spell being cast. For ongoing spell effects already in place, you need Knowledge (arcana). Don't ask me why they did it that way. :/
The fighter could have a rank in spellcraft. This would allow checks to identify the ongoing spell.Actually, Spellcraft only works if you witness the spell being cast. For ongoing spell effects already in place, you need Knowledge (arcana). Don't ask me why they did it that way. :/
Should have been the SAME SKILL and cut down on the skill tax. Wizards and sorcorers only get 2+int mod.
I digress. /thread jack.