07-15-2019, 08:18 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
Invisibile+insubstantial
A dungeon has a chasm spanned by an invisible, insubstantial bridge. A See Invisible spell will reveal the bridge. Will the caster be able to tell that it is insubstantial without testing it (by stepping onto it perhaps)?
__________________
Leave this space blank. |
07-16-2019, 07:10 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: earth....I think.
|
Re: Invisibile+insubstantial
Yes, not to be a mean one, I would play it as they taking a cautious step only to have their hand go through the rail and then they step away again.
|
07-16-2019, 07:51 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Saint Paul, MN
|
Re: Invisibile+insubstantial
It's up to you. DFRPG doesn't define the term "insubstantial" in mechanical terms. It is most often applied to spirits, which traditionally can range from being entirely invisible to appearing solid. So it's up to you how tricky you want the trap to be.
You may also want to decide whether Astral Vision (Spells, p. 42) would see the bridge. An interesting wrinkle would be to make it some sort of spirit bridge, insubstantial to material creatures; a clever way to cross might be to cast Affect Spirits (p. 59) on PC armor (including boots). This would cost a lot of FP, but depending on the other hazards of the chasm, it might be the safest way. (Perhaps things attack people trying to cross unless they are on the bridge?) |
07-17-2019, 07:52 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Invisibile+insubstantial
It seems to me like there’s a very real chance an invisible insubstantial bridge isn’t functionally different from no bridge.
__________________
Per-based Stealth isn’t remotely as awkward as DX-based Observation. |
07-17-2019, 10:39 AM | #5 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
|
Re: Invisibile+insubstantial
Quote:
In this case it's functionally* identical to the Illusionary Bridge, that appears to be there but isn't. And I'd rule on it depending on the exact circumstance that caused the interaction: A cautious Character gets a Perception check to notice the bridge isn't actually there and stop themselves from committing, fail it and they get a DX check to save themselves as they fall. An incautious Character gets nothing (if they have Danger Sense I'd give them DX save). * Yes, I know that the Invis+Insub Bridge is a bridge that doesn't appear to be there and isn't there except in a very specific circumstance, whereas the Illus Bridge only appears to be and isn't there at all. But if designed as a trap they are basically the same. If the Invis+Insub Bridge is a puzzle, that changes the paradigm slightly, but not how I'd rule. |
|
07-18-2019, 12:49 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Invisibile+insubstantial
|
07-22-2019, 02:13 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
|
Re: Invisibile+insubstantial
This seems like an insanely niche use of magic and I suspect the players in your group that use see invisible will also be pretty annoyed by it. If you make a bridge invisible one would imagine it's so you can use it and others won't. If you make a bridge insubstantial it would be to trick others to walk on it. Doing both would cancel the use of doing either.
And the mage who sees invisible is going to know it's insubstantial because once they announce that they see an invisible bridge here, the rest of the party will look down that chasm and someone is definitely going to toss a stone out on the invisible bridge before stepping into oblivion and say "No, that's not what you're seeing.." |
|
|