Cloak of Invisibility: Best item in the game?

[Zurai]

Zurai, you didn't respond to this one. Is Destil incorrect about this being a viable counter to the Cloak?

It is in a solo situation, assuming Invisi-Ranger doesn't just pop all the minions in two rounds of attacks from 45 squares out. In a situation where the entire group, or even a significant portion of the group, is using their Cloaks, it's really not a counter at all.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I'm sure if I had a chance to study the books I could see where the invisibility could be overcome. . . but its really a moot point.

As others have mentioned, this will be a solo encounter because Orcus will kill the rest of the party. If for some reason he is unable to effectively combat the ranger at that point (which I find unlikely), he will simply leave until he can arrange a battle more tactically advantageous for himself.

That's going to be true of any powerful intelligent monster - ESPECIALLY one as smart as Orcus.

The whole "ranger can solo orcus" thing is theorycrafting that has little to nothing to do with actual gameplay.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Incorrect. The rules for Invisible creatures are separate from the rules for creatures using Stealth to hide. If they wanted all of the same conditions to apply, they would have just said "Because an Invisible creature has total concealment, it may use the Stealth skill even if it doesn't have cover or concealment otherwise" (or something similar). Instead, they give a third of a page to explain how Invisibility works. In actuality, there are a lot of changes to the rules for invisible creatures. It's only a minor action to actively search for them, you don't have any idea of the distance to them unless you beat their check by 10, you can never target them directly, and attacking doesn't automatically unstealth them.

Well just about everything you said there was blatantly incorrect. The first line in the second paragraph on page 280 of the PHB where it describes "how to target what you can't see" says in bold letters Invisible creature uses Stealth. Sounds like they are using stealth there, a skill that has a very specific description. That little subsection does not say anything whatsover about having special rules as it is simply restating a portion of the stealth skill description having to do with creatures with total concealment. Are you implying that that little blurb is the ONLY way to target an invisible creature? I don't see anything on page 280 that mentions tremorsense? Yet apparently that works. Of course it does.

In order for a creature to be unable to target you it must be unable to see and hear you. Invisibility takes care of the see part but Stealth, the skill, takes care of them hearing you. If you stand there and shout, they will know what square you are in, it does not even take a perception roll. Or since that isn't mentioned on page 280 is that not the case?

And the "Rules for Invisible Creatures" you seem to mention as being a separate set of guidelines do not exist. It does in fact state that all invisibility is is just another example of total concealment. There are no separate rules for being invisible that fall outside the guidelines of full concealment. There are 3 effects listed under invisible though: 1) You can't be seen by normal forms of vision, 2) you have combat advantage against an enemy that can't see you (which is different than mere stealth, but that's another thread), and 3) You don't provoke OA from enemies that can't see you. That's it. If you want to not be heard, its a stealth vs perception check using full concealment guidelines that's it. And it clearly states that attacking or shouting negates any stealth effects.

Peace! I'm out.......

 

[Zurai]

The first line in the second paragraph on page 280 of the PHB where it describes "how to target what you can't see" says in bold letters Invisible creature uses Stealth. Sounds like they are using stealth there, a skill that has a very specific description. That little subsection does not say anything whatsover about having special rules as it is simply restating a portion of the stealth skill description having to do with creatures with total concealment.

It's an additional use of the Stealth skill that can only be used in special circumstances (namely, while invisible or otherwise unable to be seen). The rules in the sidebar are not identical to the rules in the Stealth skill sidebar in the Skills section. I've already pointed out the differences, which you choose to ignore while erroneously stating that they're identical. By the way, it's page 281.

Are you implying that that little blurb is the ONLY way to target an invisible creature? I don't see anything on page 280 that mentions tremorsense? Yet apparently that works. Of course it does.

Of course it does - Termorsense specifically says it does. "You can perceive creatures ... touching the ground or another shared surface ... without needing to make a Perception check". Similarly, Truesight says "Automatically sees through Illusions within line of sight".

Tremorsense and Truesight are exceptions to the rules. I was going to say Blindsight as well, but actually that's not true: It specifically says "making Perception checks as normal", which means the Tarrasque also falls to a Cloak of Invisibility.

In order for a creature to be unable to target you it must be unable to see and hear you.

Can you please cite the source for this? As far as I know, only creatures with Blindsight can target by sound rather than sight.

 

[gnfnrf]

Tremorsense and Truesight are exceptions to the rules. I was going to say Blindsight as well, but actually that's not true: It specifically says "making Perception checks as normal", which means the Tarrasque also falls to a Cloak of Invisibility.

I'm not sure where you are quoting from, but DMG p. 67 is pretty clear that blindsight ignores invisibility.

Also, I see no indication that invisibility hides the physical effects of your attacks (such as bolts of energy from a wizard, or arrows from a ranger.) You can't be seen, but your attacks still can. Granted, there are no specific rules to determine the location of an archer from the angle of an arrow, but that is what the DM is for.

Lastly, a creature can physically search the battlefield by moving around. It cannot enter the invisiranger's square, so when it fails to move, it knows where the ranger is (or nearly so, depending on its size).

As for the comparison between the cloak and the scarab of invulnerability:

For solo adventuring, the cloak is much better. For a party, the scarab is. Rather than just removing one character from the target list (and providing a minor offensive advantage), the scarab actually lowers the total damage output of the bad guys, making it more likely that the part will win. Magic item levels, of course, are based on their usefulness to a party, not a single adventurer.

---
gnfnrf

 

[Liebot]

Why does this conversation even need to take place? Any DM worth his or her salt isn't going to allow a PC to be permanently invisible with no repercussion.

 

[Zurai]

Why does this conversation even need to take place? Any DM worth his or her salt isn't going to allow a PC to be permanently invisible with no repercussion.

1. It's not permanent. It lasts for one encounter, 5 minutes, or until struck by a targeted attack.
2. It's important because DMs shouldn't have to go out of their way to counteract an overly powerful item. There shouldn't be broken items.

 

[Liebot]

Oh ok, didn't see the item's details in the thread. What are the specifics of a targeted attack? For instance, if the invisible person is caught in an area attack, are they made visible?

 

[Zurai]

I'm not sure where you are quoting from, but DMG p. 67 is pretty clear that blindsight ignores invisibility.

I was quoting the Blindsight rules from the MM. A sidenote, but that's an annoyance I have with 4E: You have to cross-reference all 3 books manually to find the full rules for something. The PHB doesn't mention tremorsense, truesight, or blindsight as foils for invisibility. The DMG lists tremorsense and blindsight as specific foils but doesn't list truesight. The MM says that truesight and tremorsense work but blindsight just gives them a normal perception check. You can't get the whole story without looking in all three books. Grrrr.

As for the comparison between the cloak and the scarab of invulnerability:

For solo adventuring, the cloak is much better. For a party, the scarab is. Rather than just removing one character from the target list (and providing a minor offensive advantage), the scarab actually lowers the total damage output of the bad guys, making it more likely that the part will win. Magic item levels, of course, are based on their usefulness to a party, not a single adventurer.

Scarabs work for two turns - you basically have to know that the enemy is going to unleash Hell on you in the next chance it gets to attack you. Cloaks work for the entire fight. I respectfully submit that being untargetable for an entire fight is going to be more useful, on average, to either a solo character or a member of a party, than taking no damage from a single pre-determined round of attacks.

 

[Zurai]

Oh ok, didn't see the item's details in the thread. What are the specifics of a targeted attack? For instance, if the invisible person is caught in an area attack, are they made visible?

Nope. Only attacks with a range of melee or ranged will remove the invisibility. Those attacks never include an area of effect - they always target individual creatures, objects, or squares (in the case of invisible creatures).