Unnoticeability

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

I think of unnoticeability as hopped up Stealth Talent or a family member of Invisibility. They are invisible as in you don’t see them, but also not hear them, smell them, feel them…

Its almost a form of mass hypnosis in that the victims blot out what is going on. So perhaps they actually do hear the perpetrator singing Bohemian Rhapsody with a NY noisemaker going (as Plambeck suggests), but the victim actually does hear it very muffled and attributes it to something far off in distance or another person nearby. Maybe he was bumped by the perpetrator, but the victim thought he just stumbled or his muscles cramped. Maybe he smells the perpetrator’s garlic breath and thinks that the restaurant’s ragu is going to be delicious today.





I would say that Wilma blew it this encounter and if the perpetrator doesn’t do anything wild, Fred can point all he wants and Wilma will not get it. She might think that Fred is pointing out something farther down the road, or at a nearby mouse, etc.

Perhaps as much hooting as Fred is doing, Wilma might make a roll again, and if she succeeds, she may get a ‘corner of the eye’ feeling that she is missing something, but still can’t SEE it.

I rather like that second paragraph. Fun!

I think that Wilma will notice Fred getting affected by something. Fred is convulsing and perhaps there is blood spilling out. She will react to what is happening to Fred, but she won’t notice the perpetrator if she failed her roll. She might assume an invisible being is attacking him or perhaps he is getting hit from a prodd. If she goes over to help Fred and bumps into the perpetrator, she may think that she is just clumsy or hysterical at Fred’s convulsion.



I believe the unnoticeability is per incident. I recall that the spell has a 3 to cast and plus 1 each turn it is maintained. That would be a short unnoticeable time.

That is how the spell works, but Golems have an innate Unnoticeability.

Incidentally, I read Weisel's The Golem last week. A short, enjoyable read. He describes the golem as "invisible". I really like that Shadekeep went with "Unnoticeable". It's a spell that doesn't get a lot of attention and it's just more interesting than literal invisibility.

What will Fred think about his unnoticeable thrashing? He will know that he got a thrashing, but he won’t know how it happened. He will probably think someone sideswiped him and he couldn’t see who before he went down.

If Fred is attacked, Fred definitely notices the attacker.

Originally Posted by ITL 30

If an “unnoticeable” figure attacks someone, the one
attacked will notice it.

I think I had lately been swayed by the view that if an Unnoticeable person does something really, well, noticeable, everyone gets another chance to notice the noticeable thing the Unnoticeable person did (to put it simply). What you wrote here is more in line, however, with my initial impressions of Unnoticeability and it reminded me why I wanted it to be so effective.

It's an IQ 15 spell. It ought to be better than invisibility. If each time I do something out of the ordinary, everyone gets another chance to see me, then it's not really all that good. I agree that if folks have failed their roll, you can sing Bohemian Rhapsody, with no additional roll.

I still lean towards you getting another roll if an ally is pointedly directing your attention to the Unnoticeable (and Unnoticed) guy. Though your stricter interpretation (the corner-of-the-eye thing) really does add some nice flavor.

[phiwum]

I just looked at the instructions for the latest solo adventure, The Warlock's Workshop, and noticed this instruction regarding Unnoticeability:

If an instruction asks if you “are unnoticeable,” you need-
ed to have become unnoticeable before you turned to that
instruction. Because of Unnoticeability’s 1/turn maintenance,
you need to choose to do that right before moving to each
location, [HILITE]since the spell has no effect on people who notice
you before you cast it.[/HILITE] Instructions offering unnoticeability
will also provide the IQs of people for whom you must roll 4/
IQ – if they notice you, you must take another option!

I suppose that since this is an official TFT publication, the highlighted must also be official, though it's not explicit in the spell description. This makes Unnoticeability weaker than Invisibility in one way: you can't effectively cast it in battle very easily.

[hcobb]

Unnoticeability's mind control makes it more useful against ogres and slimes than invisibility as all of your enemies will avoid entering your hex.

[phiwum]

Expensive spell just to avoid a slime, but you're right that they'd see right through Invisibility[1] but I guess they'd be hornswaggled by Unnoticeability.

If, that is, IQ 0 things really "notice" anything in the usual sense. I guess one could make an argument against that, but the fact that they have some telepathic sense and move towards a target is pretty good argument for it.

[1] Yeah, I wrote it. I'm not proud.

[Peter von Kleinsmid]

Invisibility and Unnoticeability are different effects with different imperfections, rather than one being better than the other.

Just to name a few advantages of Unnoticeability, it isn't countered by Mage Sight, puddles, tall grass, or people listening in quiet places, and it doesn't stand out if someone does notice you or the spell wears off, as long as you're not being conspicuous (compared to the appearance of someone who was invisible a moment before).

[phiwum]

A lot of this thread has been about comparing advantages and disadvantages of each spell, but I like your point, Peter, about the spells wearing off. Becoming visible and being noticed are pretty different.

[hcobb]

Is Unnoticeability immune to the adjacency rule at ITL 105 (b)?

[phiwum]

I'd say so. The two conditions mentioned are Invisibility and Shadow. Furthermore, it's mentioned in the Unnoticeability text that the figure is noticed by anyone he attacks. Now, of course, you could attack from a distance, so that doesn't quite imply that you aren't noticed when adjacent, but I tend to think it suggests so.