Forums of the Megaverse®

dynosteve wrote:can the psionic power presence sense pick up the presence of someone using invisibility superior?

From Invisibility Superior description:

A powerful incantation that makes the spell caster invisible to all means of detection.

That seems to cancel all possible detection senses. Although the "examples" listed in the description don't mention psionics or magical methods. So I thing I'd leave to GM-call. I personally think Presence Sense should indeed notice the invisible person.

mobuttu wrote:

dynosteve wrote:can the psionic power presence sense pick up the presence of someone using invisibility superior?

From Invisibility Superior description:

A powerful incantation that makes the spell caster invisible to all means of detection.

That seems to cancel all possible detection senses. Although the "examples" listed in the description don't mention psionics or magical methods. So I thing I'd leave to GM-call. I personally think Presence Sense should indeed notice the invisible person.

Inaccurate.

The discription under Invisibility Simple clearly discribes the differences in RUE, and says, pointblank, that See the Invisible sees both Invisibility Simple and Superior, but you still have -2 to strike those with invisibility supieror even with see the invisibile.

I read both invisible spells and the presence sense power.
The 'I(S)' spell says it cloaks the user from all forms of detection, but then only lists mundane forms of detection for it's examples.
Following the first half of the text of the 'I(S)' spell, 'Presence Sense' would not pick up a being using I(S) to cloak itself.
Other then that I would call it to close to call and each GM would have to make their own choice on the matter.

I do not see why NS brought up 'See the Invisible' power. It seams she brought it up to support her opinion, but NS didn't state her opinion.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I read both invisible spells and the presence sense power.
The 'I(S)' spell says it cloaks the user from all forms of detection, but then only lists mundane forms of detection for it's examples.
Following the first half of the text of the 'I(S)' spell, 'Presence Sense' would not pick up a being using I(S) to cloak itself.
Other then that I would call it to close to call and each GM would have to make their own choice on the matter.

I do not see why NS brought up 'See the Invisible' power. It seams she brought it up to support her opinion, but NS didn't state her opinion.

I brought up the text of the invisibility Simple Spell, sinse it's note says plainly that See the inivisble applies to both. only the RUE version has that, it was ment to clarify it.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
I brought up the text of the invisibility Simple Spell, sinse it's note says plainly that See the inivisble applies to both. only the RUE version has that, it was ment to clarify it.

But the question was about the "Presence Sense" power, not "see the invisible".

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
I brought up the text of the invisibility Simple Spell, sinse it's note says plainly that See the inivisble applies to both. only the RUE version has that, it was ment to clarify it.

But the question was about the "Presence Sense" power, not "see the invisible".

The origional question was about both. the OP editied it later. At least i'm pretty sure I didn't misread it that badly...

Looks like there could of been a deletion edit. Ether that or Dsteve does not capitalize in his sentences.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I read both invisible spells and the presence sense power.
The 'I(S)' spell says it cloaks the user from all forms of detection, but then only lists mundane forms of detection for it's examples.
Following the first half of the text of the 'I(S)' spell, 'Presence Sense' would not pick up a being using I(S) to cloak itself.
Other then that I would call it to close to call and each GM would have to make their own choice on the matter.

That's what I said, wasn't it?

mobuttu wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I read both invisible spells and the presence sense power.
The 'I(S)' spell says it cloaks the user from all forms of detection, but then only lists mundane forms of detection for it's examples.
Following the first half of the text of the 'I(S)' spell, 'Presence Sense' would not pick up a being using I(S) to cloak itself.
Other then that I would call it to close to call and each GM would have to make their own choice on the matter.

That's what I said, wasn't it?

On the "the GM get to decide" part, yes we do agree.
On the "will presence sense feel them?" part, no, we do not agree.

What I see is that we are a hair's breadth apart from agreement. I gave more weight to what the was said, while you gave more weight to the list of examples.
*shrugs*
This is so close that I would not argue with a GM who chose to give weight to the examples to make his ruling.

Bard wrote:Q: I am looking for a book, not sure which one. I am looking for the one with a robot/power armor that looks like a mammoth or zoid like thing. I saw the picture and would like to buy the book that it is in. Anyone help me out?

South America Book 2.

You should start a new thread to ask these by the way, since it has nothing to do with the actual topic.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

mobuttu wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I read both invisible spells and the presence sense power.
The 'I(S)' spell says it cloaks the user from all forms of detection, but then only lists mundane forms of detection for it's examples.
Following the first half of the text of the 'I(S)' spell, 'Presence Sense' would not pick up a being using I(S) to cloak itself.
Other then that I would call it to close to call and each GM would have to make their own choice on the matter.

That's what I said, wasn't it?

On the "the GM get to decide" part, yes we do agree.
On the "will presence sense feel them?" part, no, we do not agree.

What I see is that we are a hair's breadth apart from agreement. I gave more weight to what the was said, while you gave more weight to the list of examples.
*shrugs*
This is so close that I would argue with a GM who chose to give weight to the examples to make his ruling.

Oh! Ups, sorry. True. I misread. I can also agree with you on your statement, btw.