D&D 3E/3.5 3.5E Ring of Invisibility

I'd let my players make/find a ring of greater invisibility.

Of course, it'd cost 224,000 gp. And by the time you can afford that, 90% of your opponents can see through it.

But hey.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Arguably a ring of greater invisibility isn't as good as a ring of blinking though, which is right in there at the moment - the real killers with improved invis are rogues, and with blinking they get a somewhat superior form of it... despite the 20% miss chance their sneak attack can't be foiled by blindfighting (arguably by blindsight too? Bat echolocation finds it as hard to keep track of them, for instance) plus there are the nifty benefits of half damage from area attack spells, half damage from falls and a good chance of being able to walk right through doors. Plus the ability to attack things on the ethereal plane! Compared to that greater invisibility doesn't look so, uh, great IMO :)
 

Fester said:
Invisibility is made permanent using the "permanancy" spell, which does exactly what it says on the tin.

Uh... Permanency isn't used in item creation in 3E or 3.5.

It used to be part of the item creation process (along with Enchant an Item) in 1E. Not sure about 2E.

But notice the prerequisites for making a Ring of Invisibility? The Forge Ring feat, and the Invisibility spell.

Also, Permanency can only be applied to invisibility cast on an object, not a person. But even if you allowed it, it costs 1000xp each time. An uncharged item with an ability that costs 1000xp to use adds 500,000gp to the base price.

Using Permanency in your Ring of Invisibility would be a Bad Idea.

-Hyp.
 

Plane Sailing said:
I never said that it used to be better in the game, I was still talking about the icon ring. You know, the One Ring?

ObPedanticNit:

From what I remember, the One Ring did not make you invisible, it transposed you in to an alternate spiritual realm, which mapped into the physical world. I don't have a specific quote for this, but I seem to remember Elves as well as the Nazgul being able to see into this realm, and actually having physical presences there as well.
 

Rogue can't sneak attack while blinking, because everything around him has effective concealment. Unless he had some attack that could be used as ethereal creature to affect material things.

Unfortunately, I don't know of _any_ items or effects that would allow it. Remember that incorporeal is not the same as ethereal...
 


James McMurray said:
Blink is amiss chance, but it is not concealment. A Rogue can use SA just fine while blinking (although he'll miss some).

Right. You can see from the ethereal plane to the material; you can't see from the material to the ethereal (unless you can see invisible).

So when the Rogue blinks out, he is effectively invisible, and on the ethereal plane. That's why someone who can strike ethereal creatures still has a 20% miss chance due to concealment - sometimes the rogue is invisible.

On the other hand, someone who can see invisible but who cannot strike ethereal creatures also has a 20% miss chance... but it is not due to concealment. It's because sometimes the rogue is on another plane that the attacker can't reach.

The rogue can always see his opponents (since when he's material, they're right there, and when he's ethereal, he can see the material plane within 60 feet), but he still has the problem of sometimes being on another plane. Thus, he has a miss chance... but since it's not a miss chance due to concealment, his sneak attacks are not disallowed.

-Hyp.
 


Vargo said:
ObPedanticNit:
From what I remember, the One Ring did not make you invisible, it transposed you in to an alternate spiritual realm, which mapped into the physical world. I don't have a specific quote for this, but I seem to remember Elves as well as the Nazgul being able to see into this realm, and actually having physical presences there as well.

Hmm. Don't remember this from the books, but then I have only read them a dozen or so times over the years, so I may well have to take another look at the Weathertop chapter.

Wouldn't put it past Peter Jackson to make something up, though. :eek:
 

robberbaron said:
Hmm. Don't remember this from the books, but then I have only read them a dozen or so times over the years, so I may well have to take another look at the Weathertop chapter.

Wouldn't put it past Peter Jackson to make something up, though. :eek:

Nope, predated the films. I think it was mentioned in the Silmarillion somewhere...
 

Remove ads

Top