Disbelieving Invisibility?

[Walking Dad]

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

Ok, you know the guy didn't disappear... Not that will help hitting him.

 

[Deset Gled]

For reference, here is SKR's rant on why Invisilibity is not a mind affecting spell: If Invisibility is Mind-Affecting, I'll Kill Myself

I agree with him.

 

[slwoyach]

That's not why you can't disbelieve invisibility.

You can't disbelieve invisibility because the spell allows a "Will negates" saving throw, not a "Will disbelief" saving throw like silent image does. See PHB, page 177:

Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.

Who is the subject of an invisibility spell? The recipient. So only the recipient gets to make a saving throw, and it's to negate the spell's effect (which is to cause invisibility).

Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the effect.

Who is the subject of a silent image spell? Anyone perceiving the effect. So they get to make a saving throw if they interact with it, and it's to disbelieve the effect (which is the illusionary image).

Jack Simth explained this above, but apparently it didn't register.

There's no question that RAW there is no save for disbelieve. I question whether or not this is a good rule. Once an invisible creature begins interacting with the world (such as picking up a vase) it makes sense to me that there should be a save.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

You know, I've never thought about it but maybe you should be able to disbelieve. It's not like the character really vanishes, he's still there. It's the same basic principle as silent image.

Silence is also an illusion (glamer) -- you wouldn't allow someone a save to disbelieve this, would you?

Just because both are illusions doesn't mean they should be handled the same. One's a glamer (invisibility), one's a figment (silent image). Glamers generally change the sensory perception of something that is there (blur, displacement, etc.), while figments generally produce an image/sound/etc. of something not actually present (ghost sound, mirror image, etc.). If you scan through the PHB, you'll see that glamers generally do not allow a save (exceptions being things like disguise self, which is more of a reflection of the limitations of the spell than anything else), while figments generally do allow a save once interacted with.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

That's not why you can't disbelieve invisibility.

I know that's not the rules text for why you can't disbelieve invisibility; that was already covered. I was trying to explain the rationale as to why the rules are as they are, to respond to posts like this:

There's no question that RAW there is no save for disbelieve. I question whether or not this is a good rule. Once an invisible creature begins interacting with the world (such as picking up a vase) it makes sense to me that there should be a save.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I know that's not the rules text for why you can't disbelieve invisibility; that was already covered. I was trying to explain the rationale as to why the rules are as they are, to respond to posts like this:

Ah. Well, I don't think the rationale you offered has anything to do with why the rules are as they are...but carry on, then!

 

[irdeggman]

There's no question that RAW there is no save for disbelieve. I question whether or not this is a good rule. Once an invisible creature begins interacting with the world (such as picking up a vase) it makes sense to me that there should be a save.

Ahh but that is how you determine which square the invisible foe is in in the first place. If you do not have an idea of the square then you have no chance of hitting him in the first place.

If the invisible creture is picking someting up then you automatically know which square they occupy and can thus make an attack. Of course they still have total conealment and you have a 50% miss chance. But if you don't know where they are you have a 100% miss chance if you attack an unoccupied square.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Ah. Well, I don't think the rationale you offered has anything to do with why the rules are as they are...but carry on, then!

Actually, I think he essentially got it right , though I would phrase it differently: one's a glamer, one's a figment. Sure, both are illusions, but...so what? Not all illusions allow a save.

In any case, what exactly would the character be trying to disbelieve? It's not like a silent image where we aren't sure whether the dragon is real or not. We know that the enemy is invisible.

 

[slwoyach]

Silence is also an illusion (glamer) -- you wouldn't allow someone a save to disbelieve this, would you?

Just because both are illusions doesn't mean they should be handled the same. One's a glamer (invisibility), one's a figment (silent image). Glamers generally change the sensory perception of something that is there (blur, displacement, etc.), while figments generally produce an image/sound/etc. of something not actually present (ghost sound, mirror image, etc.). If you scan through the PHB, you'll see that glamers generally do not allow a save (exceptions being things like disguise self, which is more of a reflection of the limitations of the spell than anything else), while figments generally do allow a save once interacted with.

I'm not allowing invisibility to be saved against either, yet. But now that someone has brought the question up I definitely see the logic of there being a saving throw. If something happened that made it obvious that magical silence might be at work, yes I would.

Ahh but that is how you determine which square the invisible foe is in in the first place. If you do not have an idea of the square then you have no chance of hitting him in the first place.

If the invisible creture is picking someting up then you automatically know which square they occupy and can thus make an attack. Of course they still have total conealment and you have a 50% miss chance. But if you don't know where they are you have a 100% miss chance if you attack an unoccupied square.

The reason I think there should be a save is that an illusion is being used to conceal something. Why should there be a save against some illusions but not others. It's like an area of effect spell damaging spell not allowing a saving throw when fireball does. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Actually, I think he essentially got it right , though I would phrase it differently: one's a glamer, one's a figment. Sure, both are illusions, but...so what? Not all illusions allow a save.

If that's what he was saying, then I didn't understand him at all, because that's precisely correct.