Cloak of Minor Displacement & friendly spellcasting

[Furby076]

I don't think "willing target" extends to automatic, ie. non-suppressable, effects created by magic items.

You can't suppress a lot of defensive abilities like deflection bonuses from magical items. They are always on.

I hadn't planned to go that far, but since you want to propose that rule ...

I know you were kidding, but you should - it's whats going on. Spells like mirror image, invis, displacement, etc have been ignored for beneficial abilities since 1e. It's one of those assumed things, hence not spelled out. Your rule is changing the intentions of the rules.

That last sentence implies some level of cooperation from the "willing targets." I'd say that if you're touching a willing target, you can touch him automatically, since these rules for touch spells don't specify that you must hit the willing target's touch AC. This same concept of a cooperative recipient would mean that you can automatically touch a willing target who is blurred, displaced or has concealment.

I agree. It's the person saying "no I'm slightly to the left" or "I'm the 2nd mirror image" or in case of invisibility "I'm right in front of you"

EDIT: And if willing does not extend to suppressing non-suppressible abilities, then do you remove a PC figure from the battle mat? Do NPCS/PCs run into said PC who goes invisible?

In all of the DnD games, with all of the DMs I have played with (well over 10-15) never once has this been a rules contention.

In memory of Gary Gygax, has anyone ever seen (or gotten a transcript) one of his games? If so, how did he handle it?

 

[shilsen]

I know you were kidding, but you should - it's whats going on.

Okay.

Spells like mirror image, invis, displacement, etc have been ignored for beneficial abilities since 1e.

Not in my games. It hasn't come up in this one, mainly since our mage doesn't do illusion spells, but when it has come up I would absolutely apply miss chances from mirror images and invisibility if someone was trying to target a PC with beneficial spells. Invisibility would automatically prevent spells you need line of sight for too, such as haste.

It's one of those assumed things, hence not spelled out. Your rule is changing the intentions of the rules.

That's a matter of interpretation, since the books don't say what the intention of a rule is, so it's up to individual opinion.

And if willing does not extend to suppressing non-suppressible abilities, then do you remove a PC figure from the battle mat?

No, but I expect players to RP the fact that their PCs can't see the character.

Do NPCS/PCs run into said PC who goes invisible?

If going through the same square possibly, though not very likely.

In all of the DnD games, with all of the DMs I have played with (well over 10-15) never once has this been a rules contention.

But then nobody did things to you with gnomes either

In memory of Gary Gygax, has anyone ever seen (or gotten a transcript) one of his games? If so, how did he handle it?

No idea, but it's not like I'd care. I'm very grateful to Gygax for inventing D&D, but I think it's safe to say that my DMing philosophy disagrees drastically from his.

 

[irdeggman]

Could the character automatically touch his ally if said ally was invisibile?

How about in total darkness? Darkness?

The invisible issue has been around since 1st ed with the same ruling - you can't see them period.

In 3.5 all the effects are the same (either total concealment or concealment).

 

[Jhaelen]

Spells like mirror image, invis, displacement, etc have been ignored for beneficial abilities since 1e. It's one of those assumed things, hence not spelled out. Your rule is changing the intentions of the rules.

Ah, really? I think YOU must be kidding. I've never run things like that. My players always understood they're putting themselves at a risk if they're hiding or becoming invisible if their allies cannot see them.

It recently came up in one of my games when the shadowdancer was hiding 'in the cleric's shadow' and the cleric was hit by an AE spell which happened to affect the shadowdancer as well (rolling a lousy saving throw). The shadowdancer went down but couldn't be healed since the cleric couldn't see him. He was eventually saved by the psion using touchsight.

How do you rule it when a wizard casts a fireball on himself? Does it affect the wizard? Does it affect nearby allies? It's really the same situation.
Some spell effects only affect allies, some only affect enemies and some affect anyone equally. It's right in the description. If you like to play your games without friendly fire you can do so, but I think it affects game balance if you ignore negative side-effects of spells/powers.

 

[shilsen]

Ah, really? I think YOU must be kidding. I've never run things like that. My players always understood they're putting themselves at a risk if they're hiding or becoming invisible if their allies cannot see them.

I've been discussing this with AviLazar via email too, and apparently his previous DMs universally handwaved away protective spells from having an effect on allies. Seems weird to me, but then lots of things people do seems weird to me. Interestingly, this campaign has been going on for 3 years and this issue has never come up. The PC wizard is an alienist with illusion among his banned schools, and the PCs have never been that sneaky, and while I take these things into account when NPCs use such spells, most of the time PCs don't see it. Ah well, better late...

 

[KarinsDad]

You can't suppress a lot of defensive abilities like deflection bonuses from magical items. They are always on.

True.

I know you were kidding, but you should - it's whats going on. Spells like mirror image, invis, displacement, etc have been ignored for beneficial abilities since 1e. It's one of those assumed things, hence not spelled out. Your rule is changing the intentions of the rules.

Not true. I have played every edition that ever came out. Invisible PCs are still invisible to their fellow PCs. Ditto for every other defensive spell unless the spell or rules state otherwise.

I agree. It's the person saying "no I'm slightly to the left" or "I'm the 2nd mirror image" or in case of invisibility "I'm right in front of you"

No, it's not. If the PCs can hear a PC say "I'm right in front of you", so can an NPC.

EDIT: And if willing does not extend to suppressing non-suppressible abilities, then do you remove a PC figure from the battle mat? Do NPCS/PCs run into said PC who goes invisible?

Typically, it is just like Bull Rush. The Invisible PC avoids the moving NPC who cannot see him. In the DMG, it states to adapt similar rules when a situation comes up for which no rule exists.

In all of the DnD games, with all of the DMs I have played with (well over 10-15) never once has this been a rules contention.

Bizarre. I cannot remember a DM in any game in over 30 years who allowed defensive illusion spells to not affect fellow PCs.

I don't think "willing target" extends to automatic, ie. non-suppressable, effects created by magic items.

It does if the item affects a touch attack roll because there is no touch attack roll for an allied touch spell.

You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Course, this means that if one tries to touch 6 friends in a single round, there is an implication that 5 touch attack rolls are needed.


To rule on Invisibility, other rules are needed:

Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.

...

You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.

...

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. A creature who is holding still is very hard to notice (DC 30). An inanimate object, an unliving creature holding still, or a completely immobile creature is even harder to spot (DC 40). It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Spot check, and even if a character succeeds on such a check, the invisible creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).

...

A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature's location.

...

A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature’s current location.

In order to target a spell, a creature needs to pinpoint its target. If the target is invisible, it requires a grope to find it (or a very high Spot or Listen roll).


Mirror Image and Displacement are less clear and can even be read literally to not protect the PC from allies. For example, Mirror Image discusses defense versus enemies.

However, such literal rulings are where DM adjudication comes into play. It's one thing to allow automatic touch against Deflection bonuses. It's another to have visual illusions such as Invisibility, Displacement, and Mirror Image not affect allies. That's a bit silly and disrupts suspension of disbelief. At least for some people.

 

[Furby076]

R.i.p.

R.I.P.


Would someone like to say a eulogy?

 

[shilsen]

R.I.P.


Would someone like to say a eulogy?

What? It just so happens that Gareth here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.

 

[Nail]

Spells like mirror image, invis, displacement, etc have been ignored for beneficial abilities since 1e. It's one of those assumed things, hence not spelled out.

Where do you get that idea?

3.xe spells out how you resolve touching an ally with a spell. Armor class is ingnored for that purpose.

In the cases of Invisibility, Mirror Image, or Displacement, it's not AC we're discussing. It's Miss Chance. Miss Chance doesn't depend on the creature --> It depends on other circumstances.

 

[irdeggman]

What? It just so happens that Gareth here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.

No "He's resting, he's not dead."