Beating invisibility

[Victim]

Well, in the wide open space you mention, there's only one counter to Greater Invisibility. Only See Invis has the range to function at long ranges, since it's based off normal vision instead of having a limited range. Glitterdust, Faerie Fire, and Invisibility Purge all require that the invisible guy be localized to a small area. True Seeing is only good out to 120 ft. Similarly, most blindsight has fairly short range (with the notable exception of dragons).

And See Invis is personal range only.

 

[Mystery Man]

There is a spell in FR that allows you to detect magic without having to concentrate. Can't remember the name of it off-hand.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

But you _do_ have to go outside the rules, _if you don't have magic_.

There are a number of reasons I dislike greater invis.

- The classic ways to deal with it all assume the availability of magic. However, D&D by its very design limits this magic to only a subset of classes and certain monsters. If you're anyone else, you have to work at it: either get levels in a spellcaster class, or get a magic item, or have a friend handy. D&D is a lot like rock-paper-scissors, where you have to have counter X for tactic Y, or you're screwed. Greater invis isn't the only thing responsible for this, of course, but it's one of the biggies for sure. I don't like this sort of feel. It limits the sort of encounters you can come up with, and is just another factor to have to take into account. While I'm a confirmed gearhead when it comes to building monsters and NPCs, there's still a limit to how much I want to have to store in my headspace.

Uhm..hmm... so wait... you have no magic in your world but a guy who can cast 4th level spells? C'mon man. So the characters have a bit of an easier time (or rougher time) when there aren't any casters in the opposing force. You don't need to tailor every encounter to make things ultra challenging. I've always found it much more suspensful to make an encounter or two go a bit easier and then throw a band of mages or some such at them. Of course then I guess you should ban grappling since mages stand no chance against that! Finally, you DON'T have to have magic to defeat invisibility. Water, scent able animals, mud, dust, spot checks, blindfighting, and tons of other options are available. It makes it more difficult yes, but nowhere near impossible.

- This ties into the issue of player skill as well. D&D is a complicated game when all the bells and whistles are turned on, and it's easy, if you're inexperienced or not into character optimisation, to get in over your head. In this situation, a party that doesn't know how to handle greater invis could easily be TPKed by a single flying, invisible sorc. I'd rather not risk getting into that situation if I can help it.

Or DM skill... Sorry, but somebody has to say it. It's not an easy job and it only shows weakness if you go around banning things simply because it's hard to think.

Oh... and any party as green as the one you're describing could be killed by a plain old flying sorc. No invisibility required. Fireball has a minimum range of 600 feet which is outside >5< bow ranges!!! If the party doesn't get smart and the DM doesn't think to challenge them appropriately then yeah..this is going to come up every time regardless of a single spell.

- From a world-building perspective, it stretches credibility to say that every group of giants, orcs or other monsters, or at least every significant villain, should be able to deal with invis. Now you can certainly say that in a world where the spell exists, people would have figured out ways to handle it, but that's just begging the question. Ultimately greater invis is just another D&Dism with no major reason to exist, beyond how it's always been in the rulebooks.

It does indeed. If everyone had a cure for it then it would be a lower level spell. Are you saying that there's an army of 7th level wizards out there casting improved invisibility on hordes of people??? No race has developed an "invisibility solution" as it were. Blindsense animals just live where there is no light or live without visual organs, dragons are just highly evolved, tremorsense creatures just "see" differently. None of it is because of a evolutionary fear of invisibility. It's a rare thing to have an invisible mage running about and even then there's NOTHING he can do that would threaten an entire race by being invis for a minute or so.

As for the "history" of invisibility, specifically greater invisibility, there are MANY examples in myth and legend. Heroes of all forms escaped captors when the gods made them invisible to their enemies. The Helm of Hades is present throughout the entirety of Greek legend and I daresay is the main source for an improved invisibility. I could keep going on, but I'm sure you get the point???

- From a more personal perspective, I'm a visually oriented gamer. I think of things in terms of how they look, and from that point of view, greater invis is just anticlimactic. Getting fireballed out of nowhere or sliced to bits by nothing in particular just doesn't look good, mang.

Note that I don't have anything against normal invis, only the greater variant. Sneak around all you like. Combat, however, is something else.

Er.. that makes no sense. "Getting fireballed out of nowhere" being bad but "I don't have anything against normal invis". I mean c'mon. At least make your feeble defense of your bad decision a challenge to pick apart. If you want invisibility out, like I said... it is your game, but don't come to us seeking sympathy and definitely not seeking approval for your bad choices.

I also don't have anything against lots of magic, per se. My current campaign is high magic for sure, with people flying around, wind walking, dim dooring, etc. Fireballs and cones of cold are all over the place. That doesn't mean I use everything in the books, though.

So basically all your mages are megalomaniacal blasters? Yeah... get rid of all that divination and enchantment crap right?

Seriously... if you just want to make your job easier as a DM then let somebody else take the reigns. Don't subject your poor players to your own little fiats whenever you can't be called upon to do a little extra work to challenge them.

Feyd

 

[The Thayan Menace]

What About Detect Magic?

I am willing to concede that perhaps my speed reading skills have atrophied over the summer and I may have missed this part of the thread, but I cannot believe that no one here mentioned detect magic as a countermeasure.

All invisibility spells are magical; therefore they glow (from the caster's perspective) when subjected to this spell.

Unless someone uses misdirection, or some other funky anti-detection voodoo, a simple casting of detect magic allows even a 1st level wizard's apprentice to spot invisible opponents.

 

[Ozmar]

But you _do_ have to go outside the rules, _if you don't have magic_.

Well, yeah, I s'pose. Kind of like you would have to go outside the rules to protect yourself against other magical spells or effects if you didn't have magic.

But even there, I don't think there is a clear distinction here. Scent, blindsight, tremorsense and really good hearing - are these "nonmagical"?

In any case, I really don't see that as a valid point. Invisibility is a magical effect, and there are many magical counters to it. Thus, the rules support a balance of powers vis-a-vis invisibility. If you disallow the magical counters (by arguing that invisibility is "unbalanced" if you "don't have magic"), then you're not really addressing the balance issue within the context of the whole ruleset. That's like taking one weight off of the scale and then saying "look how unbalanced this is".

- The classic ways to deal with it all assume the availability of magic.

Which is, of course, the default assumption of D&D. Not that you can't change that if you want, but it seems silly to me to discount this assumption. If you want to tip the apple cart, go for it! But don't say: "look how bad this is now that I've tipped the cart."

However, D&D by its very design limits this magic to only a subset of classes and certain monsters. If you're anyone else, you have to work at it: either get levels in a spellcaster class, or get a magic item, or have a friend handy. D&D is a lot like rock-paper-scissors, where you have to have counter X for tactic Y, or you're screwed. Greater invis isn't the only thing responsible for this, of course, but it's one of the biggies for sure. I don't like this sort of feel. It limits the sort of encounters you can come up with, and is just another factor to have to take into account. While I'm a confirmed gearhead when it comes to building monsters and NPCs, there's still a limit to how much I want to have to store in my headspace.

I have heard this before, and I completely agree that there is a certain element of "rock-paper-scissors" to D&D. "If I have protection from evil, then you can't possess me: nyah nyah nyah! " Similarly, you can't find scry on me if I have mind blank. But my discern location trumps your mind blank. Well my "I hide from everyone" trumps your discern location. Oh yeah, well my "I find you so there" spell trumps your "I hide from everyone" spell! Etc...

Some people don't like this aspect. I understand that. I've never had a real problem with it. I just see it as a necessary effect for balancing the escalation of power in a simple manner. There are several ways to adjust for this, but I've never really felt the need.

- This ties into the issue of player skill as well. D&D is a complicated game when all the bells and whistles are turned on, and it's easy, if you're inexperienced or not into character optimisation, to get in over your head. In this situation, a party that doesn't know how to handle greater invis could easily be TPKed by a single flying, invisible sorc. I'd rather not risk getting into that situation if I can help it.

Agreed, and that's fine. It seems like a valid reason to nerf it in your own game. I probably wouldn't, but might avoid using a "certain kill" tactic against inexperienced players, but that's just me.

- From a world-building perspective, it stretches credibility to say that every group of giants, orcs or other monsters, or at least every significant villain, should be able to deal with invis. Now you can certainly say that in a world where the spell exists, people would have figured out ways to handle it, but that's just begging the question. Ultimately greater invis is just another D&Dism with no major reason to exist, beyond how it's always been in the rulebooks.

Potayto, potahto. I find some implications of the D&D rules to be credible (cf. Eberron) and others to be less credible. YMMV and all that. I disagree that greater invis has no major reason to exist - it seems like a natural area for magical research: if I can turn invisible, but the spell ends whenever I attack someone, then I'd like to research a spell that overcomes this limitation. But again, that's just our different viewpoints on "credible" worlds.

- From a more personal perspective, I'm a visually oriented gamer. I think of things in terms of how they look, and from that point of view, greater invis is just anticlimactic. Getting fireballed out of nowhere or sliced to bits by nothing in particular just doesn't look good, mang.

Cool. Works for you.

Note that I don't have anything against normal invis, only the greater variant. Sneak around all you like. Combat, however, is something else.

I also don't have anything against lots of magic, per se. My current campaign is high magic for sure, with people flying around, wind walking, dim dooring, etc. Fireballs and cones of cold are all over the place. That doesn't mean I use everything in the books, though.

Sounds to me like this is just a flavor issue. You don't like chunky greater invis-flavored peanuts in your D&D sundae. Cool. Works for you. I like 'em, but both sundaes work.

Ozmar the Abuser of Metaphors

 

[Ozmar]

I am willing to concede that perhaps my speed reading skills have atrophied over the summer and I may have missed this part of the thread, but I cannot believe that no one here mentioned detect magic as a countermeasure.

All invisibility spells are magical; therefore they glow (from the caster's perspective) when subjected to this spell.

Unless someone uses misdirection, or some other funky anti-detection voodoo, a simple casting of detect magic allows even a 1st level wizard's apprentice to spot invisible opponents.

Probably no one mentioned it b/c its a pretty sub-par tactic. It will take you at least 3 rounds to pinpoint an invisible person, and he'll probably move before you find him, forcing you to start over.

Round 1: presence of magical auras. "Yep! There's an aura. Its somewhere in that 60-ft arc. Ow! Someone cast a spell on me!"
Round 2: number and strength of auras. "Hmmm... there's 38 auras of various strengths. That guy is somewhere in there, and he's got tons of potions or we're way out of our league! Ow! Another spell!"
Round 3: location of auras. "32 of those auras are right over there by that door. Get him guys! Ow! That hurts!" (Now the invisible mage moves 30 feet.) "Hey wait, now I'm only detecting 6 auras, and they're all on you guys. Where'd he go?"

Its not the most effective tactic, but it could work in a pinch. It might work best for locating the invisible mage after you knock him out with area attack spells.

Later!
Ozmar the Invisible Poster

 

[Mystery Man]

I am willing to concede that perhaps my speed reading skills have atrophied over the summer and I may have missed this part of the thread, but I cannot believe that no one here mentioned detect magic as a countermeasure.

All invisibility spells are magical; therefore they glow (from the caster's perspective) when subjected to this spell.

Unless someone uses misdirection, or some other funky anti-detection voodoo, a simple casting of detect magic allows even a 1st level wizard's apprentice to spot invisible opponents.

You have to see something and concentrate on it to detect it's magical aura.
Arcan sight (and it's not an FR spell I was wrong) is the spell that allows you see magical auras without concentrating.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Detect Magic in da Haus!

You do not have to "see something" before using detect magic. After all, the spell has a 60 foot cone-shaped emanation.

Still, you do have to concentrate (a standard action) to use it effectively.

However, it only takes one free action to point and say, "He's over there guys!"

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Detect Magic: 3 Rounds & You're Dead (Damn ....)

Probably no one mentioned it b/c its a pretty sub-par tactic. It will take you at least 3 rounds to pinpoint an invisible person, and he'll probably move before you find him, forcing you to start over.

I admit that you have a point here; time to pump those Listen and Spot skills.

 

[Mystery Man]

You do not have to "see something" before using detect magic. After all, the spell has a 60 foot cone-shaped emanation.

Still, you do have to concentrate (a standard action) to use it effectively.

However, it only takes one free action to point and say, "He's over there guys!"

Indeed within that cone you'll detect the presence of magic, but "The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject." you do have to see it to study it.