Beating invisibility

[Pielorinho]

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.

First, no, you're not sorry, or else you wouldn't have said it. Secondly, no, nobody had to say it. Third, perhaps you've forgotten agreeing to the rules for this forum, but those rules explicitly forbid insulting other posters. Please let me know whether you intend to start following those rules; if you don't, please email me, at siuloir@mindspring.com.

Finally, Hong, I do hope you'll resist the temptation to respond in kind.

Daniel

 

[maddman75]

I personally see nothing wrong with tossing a problematic spell or ability. Much like Hong, I need things to look good and make some kind of sense. For instance, Shadowdancers are banned - as well as anything with the Hide In Plain Sight ability. It doesn't exist, it makes no sense. You can't hide in plain sight unless you're invisible. If you're invisible, say so instead of using the Hide mechanic. It makes no sense - if someone makes their spot check against HIPS I have no idea how to describe that to the group other than 'now you see him. But the others can't.' Some people have no trouble with this, but I find it highly distasteful.

And some have suggested that the DM needs to work within the rules to challenge the players rather than ban them. This presumes that the point of the game is for the DM to challenge the PCs. It is not for me. If it is for you, that's great. But not everyone plays that way. My main concerns are telling a good story and presenting a consistant world. If a spell, class, or ability interferes with either of those goals, its gone, baby. Challenging the characters mechanically is irrelevent.

 

[Mystery Man]

Regarding the banning of the spell, as Joey would say "The discussion is moo"

Lets get it back on topic in regards to making it more challenging. There are a lot of great suggestions so far. If no one can think up any more we'll just go ahead and let the thread die.

Thanks to those who offered up some nuggets of wisdom.

 

[jmucchiello]

Ultimately greater invis is just another D&Dism with no major reason to exist, beyond how it's always been in the rulebooks.

I have to disagree with this. Greater Invis is more like traditional invisibility than the normal spell. The normal spell "I'm invisible unless I attack someone" is the D&Dism. Most people would assume that invisibility makes you invisible no matter what you do. It is a gamism that D&D's Invisibility ends as soon as you attack someone.

But then I'm still annoyed that spells don't last forever like they use to....

 

[Hypersmurf]

By banning Greater Invis do you not then open the door for banning all "Greater" spells?

Heh. The amusing thing about asking hong "Well, does that mean you've banned this, too?" is that the answer is usually "Yes".

I mean, he's banned wizards.

-Hyp.

 

[Mark Chance]

Undead have no special ability to overcome invisibility just because they are undead. Glamers are not mind-affecting spells.

In addition to all of the magical and special sensory means of overcoming invisibility, greater or otherwise, that have been mentioned, there is also rather common Listen check. To quote the SRD:

A creature can use hearing to find an invisible creature. A character can make a Listen check for this purpose as a free action each round. A Listen check result at least equal to the invisible creature’s Move Silently check result reveals its presence. (A creature with no ranks in Move Silently makes a Move Silently check as a Dexterity check to which an armor check penalty applies.) A successful check lets a character hear an invisible creature “over there somewhere.” It’s practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature. A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location.

Note the hyperbole in the second to the last sentence. It's not practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature in certain circumstances. An invisible spellcaster, for example, is going to have to at least talk with a strong tone of voice to cast spells (barring Silent Spells). This is a DC 0 Listen check, not counting modifiers for range (-1 per 10 ft.) or barriers.

Since we're talking about a sorcerer able to cast greater invisibility, let's assume an 8th-level party. Now consider the first CR 8 monster I found in the MM: an efreeti. This creature has Listen +15. It can probably make the Listen check to pinpoint the invisible sorcerer's location easy enough. Sure, it still must contend with the 50% miss chance, but that's okay. Two 12th-level scorching rays (one Quickened, one as a standard action) ought to at least get the sorcerer's attention.

In short, greater invisibility is far from a game killer. There are plenty of counters written into the rules.

 

[schnee]

I thought the entire point of mid-to-high-level play was to bring in odd mechanics that went far beyond regular HPs and attacks and such.

Umber Hulk. Ooh, that Confusion ability just nerfed those insane BAB. What do you do? Use non-melee tactics? Risk being taken out for the duration of the battle to get one round of full attack against a beastie with a not-so-good AC?

Displacer Beast. Darn, another beastie that nerfs melee and archers big time. They're fast and have reach, so they can smack you around, even tumblers. Put two of 'em in a medium-sized room and your casters will be forced to cast defensively or risk Concentration checks - whoops, now the miss percentage is suddenly on spells as well as combat. This will string the combat along longer than otherwise.

Succubus. Whoops, one of your party is charmed, and refuses to fight, while the allies she gated in are whipping up on your other part members. One entire set of abilities at your disposal is now nerfed. Better solve it using other tools!

Beastie with massive SR? Hope you have high BAB, or Melf's Acid Arrow!

Spells are the same way. Haste/Slow. Hold/Remove Paralysis. Charm/Break Enchantment. Entangle/Freedom of Movement. There's always a tactic and a 'trump' or 'nerf' for that tactic.

Is Inviso too good? Does it have too few counters so it requires meta thinking to make challenging? Don't have that answer.

 

[shilsen]

Undead have no special ability to overcome invisibility just because they are undead. Glamers are not mind-affecting spells.

In addition to all of the magical and special sensory means of overcoming invisibility, greater or otherwise, that have been mentioned, there is also rather common Listen check. To quote the SRD:



Note the hyperbole in the second to the last sentence. It's not practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature in certain circumstances. An invisible spellcaster, for example, is going to have to at least talk with a strong tone of voice to cast spells (barring Silent Spells). This is a DC 0 Listen check, not counting modifiers for range (-1 per 10 ft.) or barriers.

Since we're talking about a sorcerer able to cast greater invisibility, let's assume an 8th-level party. Now consider the first CR 8 monster I found in the MM: an efreeti. This creature has Listen +15. It can probably make the Listen check to pinpoint the invisible sorcerer's location easy enough. Sure, it still must contend with the 50% miss chance, but that's okay. Two 12th-level scorching rays (one Quickened, one as a standard action) ought to at least get the sorcerer's attention.

In short, greater invisibility is far from a game killer. There are plenty of counters written into the rules.

I agree. In my experience, the primary advantage of greater invisibility is for the 50% miss chance and to make targets lose their Dex bonus (esp. for rogues). There are so many counters out there within the RAW, including the basic Listen check, that it's never been any kind of a problem.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

3 rounds and he's down!

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.

I doth protest, but perhaps we are merely dicing semantics.

Unless an entire area is invisible or on another plane of existence you can study it.

Therefore, you can scan for auras in a zone that may (or may not) contain magically-enhanced invisible creatures. I simply do not see a "line of sight" issue here.

However, as I have conceded before, by the time you actually pinpoint the aura (3 rounds) it may indeed be too late.

I guess that's why our group calls detect magic the poor mage's see invisibility.

 

[Kareyev]

Mark, I was thinking of the listen rule as well. Seems Eric taught you well. +30 something listen score indeed!