RPM Invisibility rituals

[qchap]

I've also been always concerned about the Transmogrification spell and the "You don't pay for Altered Traits for the Transform effect, unless it's positive template". So, turning my enemy into a slug would be "Greater Transform Body (8) + Duration, 10 minutes (1) + Range, 20 yards (6) + Subject Weight, 300 lbs. (3). 54 energy (18×3)". And it's effectively a "save or die" spell, because I can kill the slug after the encounter with my bare foot. Transmogrification with an area of effect wouldn't be much more expansive, but would solve entire encounters, unless enemies have some counter-magic or very high resistance.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by qchap

And it's true to a lot of disadvantages, maybe even to the majority. Spells like Deafness, Lame, Quadriplegic, or even Kleptomania - nothing is under the subject's control. Shouldn't I use Altered Traits for them, as well for almost any other disadvantage?

In these cases the last two bullets seem to be relevant. There are general GURPS rules for what happens if you suddenly can't see, or when fighting something you can't see. These rules are independent of traits. There's no rules for what happens if you are suddenly a kelptomaniac other than Kleptomamia. That said just forcing someone to steal something is just Control Mind without Altered Traits.

A lot of other advantages are not "controlled" too, similar to Invisibility. I can't turn off my DR even if I want to suicide. So I don't use Altered Traits for it? Regeneration is not controlled, and I could give it to someone performing ritual self-harming, so he couldn't finish his ritual (evil laugh). So, I don't use Altered Traits for it either, right? Seems really weird.

The last two bullets seem relevant here too, Ghost-Shirt uses Altered Trait because Damage Resistance with Force Field and Limited only makes sense as a trait with those modifiers. Resurgence doesn't use Altered Traits because it defines a regenerative effect without reference to Regeneration.

[qchap]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There are general GURPS rules for what happens if you suddenly can't see, or when fighting something you can't see. These rules are independent of traits. There's no rules for what happens if you are suddenly a kelptomaniac other than Kleptomamia. That said just forcing someone to steal something is just Control Mind without Altered Traits.

Makes sense, but still not too clear for me. One Arm seems like something general, but I think the rules for it are mostly in the disadvantage. Is temporary removing an arm is an Altered Trait or just spell effect?

Mute's rules are also mostly in the disadvantage and are not used anywhere else in general rules I can remember. So, you should pay for it, right? So, making someone mute would be more expensive, then making them blind. Seems wrong.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Ghost-Shirt uses Altered Trait because Damage Resistance with Force Field and Limited only makes sense as a trait with those modifiers. Resurgence doesn't use Altered Traits because it defines a regenerative effect without reference to Regeneration.

For those spells it's true, yes. I am trying to think more general.
Say, I want to toughten my skin with Lesser Strengthen Body. +2DR with tough skin is implicit to it, and it's not under the subject's control.

High Pain Threshold has some rules in different places all over GURPS, it's implicit to making the subject feel less pain with Lesser Destroy Body, and it's not controlled by the subject - I could give it to some masochist and he'll be upset. Don't I pay Altered Traits for it?

Extra Arm also has some rules outside of the advantage, and it's implicit to growing an arm with a Greater Transform Body effect. But it's under the subject control, so you should pay for Altered Traits for it, right?

So, giving Invisibility would be cheaper then growing an extra arm, even if the former is more expansive as an advantage and arguably is more useful in a lot of situations.
I've always thought of Altered Traits modifier as a matter of balance, and if I'd use it selectively, it'd fail it's job. Something about it seems wrong.

Other examples like Flight, Telekinesis or Telepathy are obvious:
If you don't add the Flight Altered Trait, then it's not a Flight - it's Telekinesis, and you could use Levitation for yourself - it takes concentrate maneuvers. So, adding Flight is more expensive, but better for the flight.
If you don't add the Telekinesis Altered Trait, than you can move only the subject of the spell, and can't throw it for damage (unless you paid for Damage). You also pay for moving speed, range and weight. If you add Telekinesis Altered Trait, you'd be able to move and throw any object for the duration of the spell. So, again, it's more expensive, but mostly better.
It's very similar for the Telepathy. Without Altered Trait you can communicate only with the subject; with it - with anyone.

Invisibility doesn't seem to follow the same pattern, as doesn't Blindness (and Deafness, and Mute and so on).

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by qchap

.1) What path and effect should I use? I think this part of the question is not too difficult, and I have some options: Greater Destroy Energy (for removing the ability of light to reflect), Greater Control Energy (for making light to go around the subject), Greater Transform Body (for giving the subject superior chameleon-like skin), Greater Transform Matter (similar, but for matter). Do I miss something (e.g. could I Greater Destroy Matter to give it "partial destruction"-can't be seen? Same for Body)? Or maybe some of the effects I listed are wrong?

You could use all of them.

Originally Posted by qchap

2) Do I need Altered Traits (Invisibility)? I know the rule of thumb is that you don't need Altered Traits if the subjuct doesn't get control of the advantage. And I understand how It works with something like Flying (giving subject Flying gives it ability to fly, but using only spell effect just lets the caster move it). But I don't understand what should it mean with Invisibility, which is not controllable by default.
If I give an inanimate object Invisibility, it really don't sound like Altered Traits.
If I give someone non-switchable Invisibility, it could harm the subject a lot, because he doesn't get control of it. So it kinda sounds like it doesn't need Altered Traits for it.
But if I give it to my ally rogue, he don't need any control to make advantage of it.
And if I give it to myself, I don't get the control over Invisibility, but I don't need it, because I have control over the spell, which is about the same.
Someone could rule that in some cases it needs Altered Traits, and in some - don't. But then it would become different spells, which is wierd.
Of course, giving switchable Invisibility does need Altered Traits, am I right?
Now, if the answer is "you need Altered Traits for non-switchable Invisibility" (or when I need Altered Traits fot switchable one), then I also need to add the "Can Carry Objects" enhancement (if it's done via Greater Destroy Energy), right? Are "No encumbrance" and "Heavy encumbrance" variants count as different spells?

Yes. You need Altered Traits on this. Look at Sylph Form - it gives Body of Air. General note on transformations is that for most of them that are beneficial you use Altered Traits. For transfigurations like turning someone into a toad - you don't.

Originally Posted by qchap

First is Invisibility spell from Dungeon Fantasy 19 on p27 (yes, I know that Incantation Magic is different system, but I think I can take some thoughts about how RPM works from it). It uses Control Elementalism (which I would translate as Greater Control Energy for RPM in this case) and adds Altered Traits, Invisibility (Can Carry Objects, Heavy Encumbrance, +100%). So, it uses the Altered Traits route, even for non-switchable Invisibility.

Yes. Correct. Elementalism would default to Path of Energy in basic RPM

Originally Posted by qchap

Second one is from Pyramid 3-114 p23, called Nightdrinker’s Gift. It gives Flying and Invisibility. It does use Altered Traits for Flying (because it would be controlled by subject, and if the subject is the caster - at least he wouldn't need to concentrate to move himself in the air), but does not use Altered Traits for Invisibility, using only Greater Control Energy for it. The difference between the two spells really confused me.

I would have required Altered Traits myself.

Originally Posted by qchap

And one bonus question, connected to Nightdrinker’s Gift spell. Greater Control Body is what used there for flying - and I understand why it could be used this way. But could I use Greater Control Energy for Flying? Flavoring it by controlling the kinetic energy of the already-moving object (body), so I don't need to Create it first?

Hmmm. Maybe. Flying/TK should almost always use the Path that affects them.

Originally Posted by qchap

And for moving inanimate objects, could I use Greater Create Energy + Greater Control Energy, for first moving the object in some way, and than gaining control of the motion? Or would the Create effect be Lesser here?

See above.

[sir_pudding]

Altered Traits if it benefits you is an easier test, for sure.

[qchap]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Yes. You need Altered Traits on this.

I think so too, thanks!

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Flying/TK should almost always use the Path that affects them.

For me it seems that Path of Energy is nearly perfect to do the exact Telekinesis as it is - some external power moving an object. And there is an example in the RPM book that you can launch an object in the air - wouldn't some more control make it exact Telekinesis?

[qchap]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

General note on transformations is that for most of them that are beneficial you use Altered Traits. For transfigurations like turning someone into a toad - you don't.

I know it, but turning anyone into a frog is basically winning him in the fight. Why is it cheaper then to impose any other disadvantage, like the said Blindness (if I am right and you need Altered Traits for Blindness, of course)? Is it only because of how bothersome would be to calculate templates?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by qchap

I think so too, thanks!

Groovy

Originally Posted by qchap

For me it seems that Path of Energy is nearly perfect to do the exact Telekinesis as it is - some external power moving an object. And there is an example in the RPM book that you can launch an object in the air - wouldn't some more control make it exact Telekinesis?

You could. I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by qchap

I know it, but turning anyone into a frog is basically winning him in the fight. Why is it cheaper then to impose any other disadvantage, like the said Blindness (if I am right and you need Altered Traits for Blindness, of course)? Is it only because of how bothersome would be to calculate templates?

There are a couple of schools of thought on that. Mine is because I want to keep it simple. you could come up with a frog template and do that...but that's time you can't get back. You could add an Alternate Form as a modifier and assume most small animals are 0 points. You could do any number of things.

[qchap]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

There are a couple of schools of thought on that. Mine is because I want to keep it simple. you could come up with a frog template and do that...but that's time you can't get back.

Ok, so the main reason is simplicity, and if mass slugification would become a problem in my games, I could rule something with disadvantageous templates. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

You could. I wouldn't.

Is it because of some balance concerns or something else? For now it seems logical for me to allow it, and I don't really see anything unbalancing. I want to understand the reasons behind your opinion to make my own decision.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by qchap

Is it because of some balance concerns or something else? For now it seems logical for me to allow it, and I don't really see anything unbalancing. I want to understand the reasons behind your opinion to make my own decision.

It messes with play balance when you can have one Path do the things other Paths are supposed to do. There are no reasons except that I tried it in game and it made an issue.