Slashdot Mirror
Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon
davaguco writes "It seems that we will finally be able to make ourselves invisible" It seems like this story resurfaces every few months and then gets submitted a zillion times so here it is. Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome.
The article doesn't have any pictures; one can be found here.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Apparently the story has the cloak of invisibility.
I want my Acme rocket roller skates!
I drank what? -- Socrates
To create a Somebody Else's Problem field? People are quite good at ignoring what they think isn't important (or what they don't want to recognize), so if you could find a way to convince people to ignore something, it would be just as effective as actual invisibility.
I really find it hard to believe that the "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." i just saw is accidental, some meta-humour by Taco perhaps?
I'll believe it when I see it.
yeah that 20% miss chance is awesome...no more sneak attacks from co-workers!
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
/dev/random
I bought 2 of these the other day. This guy on the street corner was selling 1 for $100, but he threw in a second for only $50.
Problem is, I can't seem to find where I put them....
Actually, according to D&D 3.5 rules, if you are invisible (as with improved invisibility), but are detected (ie enemies know where you are due to listen checks and/or maybe you just cast a spell, etc) you get a concealment bonus of 50%, which is better than that 20% evasion that you are talking about. So given a cloak of evasion or a cloak of invisibility, I would much rather have the invisibility, thank you very much. Even with regular invisibility I think it's a 25% concealment bonus -- still better than 20%.
From the end of TFA: So far the researchers have only worked through the mathematics to prove that the device is plausible. The practicalities of making one have yet to be solved.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Slashdotters already have the power of invisibility. They can snipe other users with impunity via the Anonymous Coward feature. ;)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
..too transparent..I think.
based on the article, wouldn't a mirror work just as well?
Sounds like a rehash of a phase conjugate mirror.
m
http://www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/pc_wave.ht
I believe the 20% miss chance is actually the Cloak of Minor Displacement. The Cloak of Displacement being a 50% miss chance..
How can anyone take this article seriously? It was the Romulans who had a cloaking device, not the Klingons.
I don't need no estinkin'
Jeepmeister
You pick up a tattered cape (K unpaid). Only $250 for you.
You put on the tattered cape.
Suddenly, you can see through yourself.
The nurse hits.
You can not remove the cloak, it seems to be cursed.
The nurse hits.
The floor is too hard to dig here.
Really attack Wengretik the shopkeeper?
Wengretik strikes at thin air.
The nurse hits.
Wengretik hits. Wengretik hits.
You die.
Do you realize how wrong that sounds?
Didn't Jack Bauer already employ the "hoodie of invisibility" a couple of weeks (hours?) ago when sneaking onto the airplane?
These people have looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Think cloaking from machines that are scanning on frequencies close to that of light... IR/laser. That is where this would come in handy. We know that IR_TRACKER_X looks on frequency (or frequencies) X, if we can cloak that frequency we can now move freely around the tracker.
Can the device be used to cloak Bush's low poll ratings. If not, he's not interested ....
See! It hides my true identity on Slashdot!
... to define and limit where these cloaks can and can not be used. Just think of the mischief that can be done with that gadget ! Crime. And other stuff.
Read radical news here
..to go to girls's bathroom invisible! And I will share the pics wich I will take with you if you give me the device. :)
I must not be a big enough nerd. I thought the cloak of evasion was something that helped you pay less taxes.
I can only imagine the power it would take to run a cloak like in Start Trek or Stargate, howerver certain concepts are here. For instance Active Camoflage. Granted it's not refracting light around the object, but it still gets the same result. I don't think we'll see a personal cloaking device, or for that matter one for a ship (where it makes it invisible) for a long time.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
I know it, and you know it.
No prototype has been built to demonstrate that it works for any real meaning of "invisible" whether optical, radar or what-have-you.
I'll believe it when I fail to see it.
Keep it away from future Dick Cheney hunting parties. He already shoots at people he can see, imagine the damage something like this could cause.
I assume it sounds wrong because he's talking about eating a mathematical constant right? ;D
most slashdotters can make themselves invisible simply by entering a room
(you're nodding your head right now, aren't you?)
> Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome.
No it isn't. It's better than nothing, but it's next to useless in an actual battle as something to maintain confidence in.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
When it is more than simple theory. They've worked it out mathmatically, but still have no idea of how they'll actually build it. There are no prototypes, or indeed any labwork. Even when they are done with it they stated it would only block one wavelength of light, and that is a short one. So if someone get's really close to you they might not be able to see you *as well* as they could when they were further away.
This still has some pretty interesting implications, but I'd like to see this theory proven before I'll get my hopes up.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
I, for one, welcome our... Hey! Where did they go?
20% chance to meet a miss and get laid with her?
Not bad, not bad...
Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.
Wouldn't that make the cloak appear like a big black void of light?? Making things "invisible" requires light from the objects behind the cloak to pass through it.
Or better yet, step away from the computer (just leave those mod points alone, they're too dangerous for you now).
Go upstairs.
Go outside.
And play.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Corn is no place for a mighty warrior.
MMPPI = Megnetic Multiplexing Photon Phase Inversion.
:P
Ya, I made it up. Sounds cool though, so it must work.
Life is not for the lazy.
"The military is extremely interested in this..."
This would be fine, so long as when they shoot, they are temporarily visible (just to be fair).
http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/tng/tng7/the_pegas us.htm/
The BBC also has its own article on it here.
and why not a cloak of immolation?
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
Me is confused
"Effectively, they are making a piece of space seem to disappear, at least as far as light is concerned."
And then
Prof Pendry said the technology has great potential for hiding objects from radar
So they've figured out how to bend light for optical camo. Neeto. Now how in the hell does this have anything to do with radar?
Flying cars, inviso-fabric, moonbases, robo-wives... all sound great but just let me know when this stuff has actualized rather than telling me "it's on the way". Otherwise I'll have to start rooting around 20-30 year old issues of Popular Mechanics finding the exact same stories over and over and post them as "well, if it was just around the corner in 1976 it's sure to be here by now!" stories.
From the article:
... :)
The cloaking device relies on recently discovered materials used to make superlenses that make light behave in a highly unusual way. Instead of having a positive refractive index - the property which makes light bend as it passes through a prism or water - the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards.
Trust scientists to come up with a complicated term for "mirror"
If it only blocks one wavelength of light, you just paint the object that colour.
http://math.stanford.edu/~applmath/spring06/graeme .htm
"The hope of using cloaking to see the interior of an object by making half of it invisible remains an intriguing possibility."
Can you seen me now? .... no? good.
Can you see me now? .... no? Good.
Can you see me now? .... no? Good.
My Dad worked on creating "custom fog" for the Navy. He studied propagation, e.g. this civilian paper. Then he developed a method of modifying droplet size distribution in fogs over the ocean. The end product (details classified) allows ships to create a fog bank on demand over large bodies of water (within 1 or 2 hours) that blocks enemy frequencies, but has "holes" for friendly scanner frequencies. The details include taking temperature/humidity/droplet profiles by altitude of the atmosphere over the target area.
can i delete a comment? hahaha
Just to set the record straight, invisibility gets dispelled every time you pick up an object or open a door. On the other hand, 100% Chameleon doesn't have the vulnerability. So, to eliminate the confusion, it is better to refer to the effect as the chameleon effect, not invisibility.
Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
Until that Cloak of Invisibility surfaces,
I just want a Cloak of Evading Meetings (and Pointless Questions)
Apparently a big stack of papers on your desk, or carrying a notepad and looking concerned doesn't quite do it anymore.
(For those RPG players who need a number)
Cloak of Evading Meetings gives a +40% chance to Completing Projects, and a +25% chance to Leaving On Time.
*sigh*
BBC News also has an article on this from a spaceship cloaking perspective:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4968338.stm
Just ask Harry Potter, he's got an invisibility cloak. And a magic wand. And sends messages via owl.
Invisibility cloak. What a bunch of morons.
...will enable you to see it. Hope it works in the so called reality too..
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I saw the technology at the Wired Nextfest in San Francisco, about a year ago.
If you're standing, looking straight on to the "invidible item" it sorta works.
Otherwise, there's a fair amount more work to be done.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I'm sure said technology has already been done before multiple times, if not by our government in secret studies, then by some crazy independent garage scientist that NSA was monitoring and threatened/apprehended before (s)he was able to go public.
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
This is a nifty idea. But how can this be considered invisible?
For invisibility, should the images of the objects behind the invisible object be seen to the eyes of the beholder?
If not, how can this be considered invisible? It will be a square where nothing is there, but not invisible. It is visible in the sense that a person can sense the object being there.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
All of these "cloaking" stories suffer from basically the same problem. Making something invisible is much, much more complicated than blocking light, or cancelling light, or anything like that.
The article says, rather imprecisely, "when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible."
But "erasing" the light reflecting off an object doesn't make it invisible, any more than painting a car black... even matte black... makes it invisible.
In a dark room, if you cover a light with a black box it becomes invisible. When viewing a star from the earth, if it is occulted by, say, the moon passing between you and the object, it becomes invisible. If I pull a red cloak over myself, covering myself completely, you can no longer see me. You cannot tell who I am and if I stand very still perhaps you cannot tell that I am not a statue, so, in a sense, I have become invisible.
But, to become invisible in the sense of H. G. Wells' "The Invisible Man," or a Star Trek cloaking device, or James Bond's invisible car, or what have you, requires much more than "not being able to see" the object. It means not being able to detect the presence of the object... under real-world lighting conditions, with real-world scenes _behind_ the object, and from more than one vantage point at the same time.
That last one is the problem with many of these schemes. It doesn't do any good to make an object invisible when viewed by your right eye if there are "matte lines" around it when viewed with your left eye. It doesn't do a lot of good to make an object invisible as viewed from one soldier if it is visible to everyone else in the platoon.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Well done. Well done. Too funny.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
Condensed Matter, abstract cond-mat/0502336: Achieving Transparency with Plasmonic Coatings
There is not enough information in the Guardian article to judge whether the approaches to transparency are similar or not. It is definitely interesting to note that there are at least these two fairly mature theoretical research/engineering projects underway.
Who has not had a dream of having the power of invisibility? Such a power could be fun, useful, and dangerous. If it were invented, how would people use it? How would governments use it? Although the research is early stage and there are practical bugs for implementation, the science and general engineering are good and it is only a matter of time before such a device is demonstrated.
Here are additional references on the nanoplasmonic research:
PDF: Nanofocusing_in_Tapered_Plasmonic_Waveguides
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
http://www.thegreenhead.com/technology/2004/05/jap anese-scientist-invents.php
"A professor at the University of Tokyo has developed an optical camouflage system that makes a special reflective material seemingly disappear, including the wearer! The picture on the coat is made by a viewfinder which puts together the moving images behind the wearer. It's hoped the technology will be useful for surgeons to be able to see through their hands and tools and also for pilots so the cockpit floor will be transparent for landings."
Hollywood is always one step ahead. We had invisible cars years ago. Just wait until we have time travel - slight time travel mind you maybe +/- 60 seconds.
Here is the paper in question, although I don't know if it requires an institutional subscription to download. Partial citation: G. W. Milton & N. A. Nicorovici, "On the cloaking effects associated with anomalous localized resonance", Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2006).
Yeah, but it doesn't work against constructs or undead, which is why I'll take my epic level cloak of elvenkind any day of the week.
Miss chance is miss chance no matter what you are and is only negated by something like True Seeing. Perhaps you're thinking of critical hits and sneak attacks, which do not apply to constructs or undead.
It works like this. At work I can be "putting out a fire" (a phrase to describe a crisis rush job) and talking to someone about what needs to be done, perhapos the person I'm putting the fire out for. But even then the floor sweeper person (the lowest position at the company) can step up to us and all the sudden I'm wearing a cloak. Attention shifts from the person I'm talking with, to that person and the floor sweeper.
Now all I have to do is figure out how to make money off this cloak...
I would like to order 6 of your Slashdot invisble cloaks for the IT department so we are not hampered in the hallways by the dreaded "quick question" about the user's home PC.
One would think that the huge lens floating near the invisible person is a huge giveaway. :P
Hmmm... Let's just see about that. [ racks Remington 870 slide ]
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
All of my clothing in high school must have been made of this material.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
Captain: Engage the NIRF* (*Negative Index of Refraction Fractalizer)
Executive Officer: NIRF engaged, Sir
Captain (ducking): WTF* is that? (*What The F**K) (**uc)
Flight Officer: Flight deck to Bridge - I think we just got buzzed- by a Japanese Zero!
Captain: Let's go out and win WWII!
In the case of large vehicles/transports in a huge space (suggested by their Star Trek reference), magnetic invisibility is probably most important. And it's my understanding that magnetic cloaking devices do exist for some navy vessels -- systems of magnetometers attached to large electromagnets designed to cancel out the magnetic field.
TFA doesn't clarify if we can see objects on the other side of what is being hidden. If someone were to place a cloaked object between my eyes and the computer screen, would I still be able to read Slashdot?
Half the time I'm right, the other half you're wrong.
This will go well with my Boots of Escaping!
Blizzcon cosplayers will never be the same. "Ghost reporting"
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
There's a well timed lecture at Caltech on the subject:0 3&template=ist-all
http://today.caltech.edu/eas/item?calendar_id=617
It's interesting to note that one of the applications of this technology could be a device that allows you to see the insides of an object by making portions of it invisible.
Japanese have already made big mileage on something that does not have magnifying glass anywhere near.
But 100% the most use would be made by guerillas i guess, in various parts of the world.
Read radical news here
Spock:
It's light, Jim! But not as we know it. Not as we know it, not as we know it. It's light, Jim! But not as we know it, Captain.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
You mean that Anonymous Coward is not a real user? I thought he was a hopeless geek with no life posting full-time on slashdot!
Here's the rocket...
e tail/acme.htm
http://www.fliskits.com/products/rocketkits/kit_d
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Can I ask wtf you're talking about?
Just the perfect tool for you lame-ass geeks. Reminds me of that Simpsons' episode when the obese comic book connoisseur trips and falls in an ice rink.
Except it looks kind of like a dinner fork and it works more on the premise of making everyone around you blind. Same result though....
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Well, it will make you invisible in the dark...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Im a hunter and I would roll on this.
Ride a motorcycle, no one ever sees me.
(when driving their SUV, eating, chatting on a cell phone, and checking on their kids in the back seat)
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I think you are thinking of transpatency. Invisibilty means simply that something cannot be seen. You, for example are invisible to me since I cannot see you.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
At least to women anyway, I smile and say hello and they don't seem to see me. Go figure. :-P
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
Susumu Tachi from the University of Tokyo has a much better "invisibility cloak" -- and there ARE pictures of this one in action. It is actually called Optical Camouflage as an image is projected onto the target.
Just putting on a normal cloak, assuming it's not translucent, would make you invisible by your definition. Somehow I think you miss the point.
I don't know about this now-you-see-me-now-you-don't stuff, but....
Accoring to TFA, these lenses cancel incoming electromagnetic waves, allowing instruments to function in harsh EM environments. TFA mentiones using them in an MRI chamber or for stealh from radar.... but what might be even more interesting to the military would be if this can block EM from...a nuclear explosion?
Suddenly it's possible to harden military electronic equipment from the EMP caused by a nuclear blast - any vehicles, ship, aircraft, spy satellite could benefit from such types of shielding. Even if this doesn't pan out as some Wonder Woman Invisible Jet(tm) thingy, it might still be quite useful to the military.
Yes, in the article they said that they haven't yet worked out a way to make the blanket itself invisible. Heck, I have a quilt that my grandmother made me that will make me disappear. If only I could somehow make the quilt invisible itself. Maybe I should post an article and submit it to slashdot...
Gives a whole new meaning to "the fog of war"...
-Joe
Lose = not win
Invisible cars... *snap* that explains it! Here it is, after the year 2000 and I'm always wondering, where are all the flying cars? They must be invisible. So simple an explanation... I wonder why it never occured to me before...
But seriously, the biggest problem with traditional invisibility is that the user would be blinded, as any photon sensed by the user is one not passed through. The third biggest problem would be non-invisible surroundings like dust, clouds, water, etc.
Second biggest, though, is that any non-magical "cloak" would have to operate slower than c. In normal transparent materials this happens too, causing the effect we call refraction. Thus the user of such a device would appear as a large, irregular lens. I'd love to see a raytraced short of just what this would look like.
(I really don't remember Bond having an invisible car. What film was that?)
--
I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
What I meant was that when most people think invisibility they actually mean transparency thats all. You are in(meaning not)visible beneath you cloak. I cannot see you I see your cloak. I never said it was useful for evasion.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Oh, they're babbling about Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons rules. As was said in an earlier comment, "Nothing to see here. Move along."
this
What?
Going with the general spirit of dorkiness in the rest of this discussion, I'll point out that Bond had no invisible car and that you're most likely thinking of Wonder Woman's plane.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
That's what I thought this story was going to be about. The Tokyo professor is so far ahead of these Utah-Syndey losers... He actually has a working prototype!
Invisibility is too hard to maintain. Its the "Somebody Else's Problem Field" that allows most things to go unnoticed.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I tried to buy one of these but all I got in the mail was an empty box...
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Well, they make it imprecise because the journalist and/or most readers quite often don't have the technical capability to grasp many of these rather involved concepts in a short article. But the article did give a hint in that it leverages a negative index of refraction. It basically "bends" light around something. For something to 'appear', light has to bounce off it or be emitted from it, and then enter a detector/your eye/whatever. If it never gets the "light bouncing off of it" part, then it's invisible.
And either way, even a 99% invisibility is a HUGE advantage. Think of things like an octopus. It's not invisible, but it can be damn hard to see. If you aren't knowing what you're looking at against a very plain backdrop, it's as good as being completely invisible.
In short, you're shortsighted and rather uninformed. Please remedy that before posting this kind of tripe again.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
FTFA: "the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards."
A lightsaber?
I may not understand this fully, but could they make somewhat of an ellipse from this lens ane put a hilt on it? That'd be pretty cool.
Holy shit, there was an invisible car!
"Co-producer Michael Wilson of EON Productions said the invisible car in "Die Another Day" had begun to dip the hugely successful movie series into the realm of the unbelievable."
Never saw that one. Now I'm REAL glad.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Die Another Day.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I think the pics here are applicable to this story. http://www.defensereview.com/article850.html
Come out with your cloak up, asshole!
DPBS is right. If light could be bent AROUND an object, it would be invisible or nearly invisible. That's seemingly the idea behind this experiment, using the properties of a lens to bend reflected light around an object. Water bends light, crystals bend light, the idea here is to bend the light outside of the lens. I can see how it could be possible, and perhaps with the right technology might not require "power" as the cloaking device seems to. It's all about the reflective qualities of light and how to bend light around an object that would otherwise block it. By bending light around an object, I wouldnt see the object, I'd see what's behind it. Or failing that, I would see the object in a different space other than it actually occupied. It's already a well known fact that gravity can bend light. The question here is can it be done on a controlled basis?
Leaving work at 3:00 is looking like a possibility today ...
Invisible can merely be concealed in such a manner as to not be detectible to the eye. Transparent allows light to pass through without distortion. Although this sounds more translucent, light passes through with slightly noticible effect.
Main Entry: invisible
Pronunciation: (")in-'vi-z&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin invisibilis, from in- + visibilis visible
1 a : incapable by nature of being seen b : inaccessible to view : HIDDEN
2 : IMPERCEPTIBLE, INCONSPICUOUS
3 a : not appearing in published financial statements b : not reflected in statistics
BOOTS OF ESCAPING!!!!
Now I can sneak into the girls bathroom....
"But 100% the most use would be made by guerillas i guess, in various parts of the world."
In other news chimpanzees invent a time travel device.
Oh I see Guerillas.... not Gorillas....
I couldn't tell they were behing the lens.
what I want is a cloak of evasion that would make me pay less taxes
Cloak of Stupidity Already Here!
"So far the researchers have only worked through the mathematics to prove that the device is plausible. The practicalities of making one have yet to be solved."
c hers-invent-completely-transparent-material/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/japanese-resea
If hiding behind a lens is "cloaking"
Then so is hiding behind a wall
I worked with an Army version. They use smoke generators whichare simply a turbine engine with diesel oil spray-injected into the hot exhaust stream. Next they can add very small brass flakes to the oil and make the "smoke" block IR wavelenghts too.
Call me when they invent a Potion of Attracting Women.
Well, no kidding, but the article didn't say "absorbs all the light", it went out of its way to use the obviously ambiguous term "essentially erased". This is a clue that there's more to be understood here than they're willing to put into a short and lay-person article. IIRC about two years ago negative indices of refraction had only been achieved in the infra-red spectrum, but that may have changed by now.
What's important here isn't whether or not this technology would really work. What's important is how much money we can get from the DOD to research its feasibility.
...I'll believe it when I see it!
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
People do mean sci-fi invisible when they think invisible, i.e. no light interacts with the invisible object. Not mere transparency.
had begun to dip the hugely successful movie series into the realm of the unbelievable....
And a giant solar laser the size of an SUV didn't?
Or the fact that all Bond has to do to get laid is wink the right way? And the women are sober!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Chuck Norris can become invisible by intimidating light to not reflect off him.
What they describe as invisible sounds like black to me. Simple solution, shoot that black thing. The best use suggested in TFA is for radar systems that depend on the echo to spot targets. No echo, no target, the signal must've went into space. The problem would be that spot that just cast no return rays through the surrounding mountains that always return signal. Also, hasn't current stealth technology already done this? What happened to the rumored fiber optic suit that displayed light from the opposite side of the covered object so that it was "predator" visible but hard to see or aim at? I think the best invisibilty I've seen was a bobcat sunning in my back yard that I didn't notice until it moved, and the now dead rabbit I also didn't see until it was pouced upon probably assumed it materialized from thin air...otherwise why didn't it run? I was out there smoking for at least 5 minutes before I spotted the 40 lb killing machine. The rabbit didn't even see it while it slinked behind a nearby tree. True I was probably not paying that close attention initially..but damn "if it were a snake it would've bit me."
I'm tired of these headaches, Hobbes?
Maybe they will develop invisibility cloaks but you should be aware that only wizards and witches will be able to use them, not filthy muggles!
They aren't talking about any D&D rules that I'm aware of...and I play 3.5e on a weekly basis.
'the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards'
Sounds suspiciously like a mirror to me..... Sure we've had those for a while.
I'm not sure which comment you are confused on so....
Per player's handbook 3.5
pg 50 A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies--undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks.
pg 50 A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment (see page 152) or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
so any miss chance will negate a sneak attack...it is the first comment in the thread that makes no sense. a miss chance is a miss chance.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
That's an excellent countermeasure for a stationary or slow moving vehicle but this new technology has the potential to work at higher speeds... think about aircraft and missiles. They could be blanketed in this material and then have free range of motion. Very cool.
..., looking for superlenses_init function, nothing found though.
...it is the first comment in the thread that makes no sense. a miss chance is a miss chance.
The post I replied to stated that the 20% miss chance provided by the cloak of evasion does not work against constructs or undead. I was simply saying that "Miss chance is miss chance no matter what you are" and so the fact that they are undead or constructs does not make any difference, they are still subject to the same chance to miss as anything else. Does that not make sense?
They aren't talking about any D&D rules that I'm aware of...and I play 3.5e on a weekly basis.
m #cloakofDisplacementMinor
c oncealment
c k
Seriously? I play 3.5 and these are all rules as can be found in the SRD. You may want to look into some of them as they could be a great boon to your chatacter.
Minor Cloak of Displacement:
http://d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.ht
20% miss chance, under concealment:
http://d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#
True Seeing:
http://d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueSeeing.htm
Sneak Attacks:
http://d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#sneakAtta
I wonder if any of them can withstand the +5 lenses of seeing that I wear every day?
sudo ergo sum