Disbelieving Invisibility?

[Darklone]

Just my 2c:
Use invisibility like the predator camoflage in the first movie with Schwarzenegger. If you describe it like that, everyone will understand why you CAN spot him (it's not easy, fella) and why you can't disbelieve it.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

The whole "disbelieve" thing comes from 2E, maybe earlier. Back then you could pretty much choose to disbelieve anything so long as you said, "I disbelieve."

It's different in 3E. You have to actually have a basis (interaction) for disbelief in 3E and the save is a result of the interaction.

 

[irdeggman]

The whole "disbelieve" thing comes from 2E, maybe earlier. Back then you could pretty much choose to disbelieve anything so long as you said, "I disbelieve."

Except for invisibility. IN 2nd ed, well actually pretty much since it was created Invisibility has always caused a lot of discussion. It has historically been treated more like an Alteration spell than an Illusion.

It's different in 3E. You have to actually have a basis (interaction) for disbelief in 3E and the save is a result of the interaction.

Yup - the mechanics are a lot more "spelled out" in 3.5 than in any earlier edition.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

I still don't get why disbelief even comes up -- just because invisibility is an illusion spell? And even if one could disbelieve, what would be the proposed result -- the invisible person becomes visible?

According to the PHB's description of the five sub-types of illusions, only figments and phantasms "go away" if the save is made, though a translucent outline would remain. But glamers don't work this way. As another example, if one were to use disguise self (a glamer that actually does allow a save if interacted with) to turn one's skin blue, others could save to recognize the illusion; however, the illusion doesn't disappear -- those who made their saves would just know what they are looking at is an illusion. In the case of invisibility, no save is necessary to know that the invisible person is...invisible.

 

[insanogeddon]

Uber

Rules are rules. Its an illusion/glammer. If someone interacts with an invisible thing thru hitting the 50% miss, seing a fire ball go of and the tell tail gap etc then a save is in order. Thus it helps to have MS or Hide, thus again rogues have shtick.

My concern with the spell has always been the epic divination component.. casting invis on objects is great to make plank ways and bridges npcs attacked in their homes can utilise automatically thru long practice to escape without checks it does make issues.

Player casts invisibility on a door: can one view the room? Illusion... disbelieve... AHhhhhhrgh

 

[Herzog]

Rules are rules. Its an illusion/glammer. If someone interacts with an invisible thing thru hitting the 50% miss, seing a fire ball go of and the tell tail gap etc then a save is in order.

No.

SOME Illusions allow saves to disbelieve. If they do, the spell description says so. The section about saving throws to disbelieve illusions is only relevant to Illusions that actually allow this saving throw.

Illusions that do NOT have such a saving throw (such as Invisibility) can not be disbelieved.

Magically (pun intended) adding saving throws to spells that have none is adding rules, not interpreting them.

Nowhere does it say that ALL illusions can be disbelieved.

 

[insanogeddon]

I learnt colllawing : o

Invisibility

Illusion (Glamer)

Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2, Trickery 2 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal or touch Target: You or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lb./level Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) or Yes (harmless, object)


Seems it has a target, it gets a save (harnmless) as it doesn't damage.
SR even Applies. It seems to indicate some illusions get instant saves but ALL can be disbelieved once interacted with.... thats really the point over older editionas and there wonderfully broken illusion shnanagans..

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

My question is if it cannot reproduce real effects and isn't a divination how can I cast it on a door and see the entire contents of a room as if the real door was not there......

 

[Herzog]

Seems it has a target, it gets a save (harnmless) as it doesn't damage.

The saving throw in case of invisibility is for the target of the illusion, in this case the person or object to become invisible, NOT the one's (not) seeing the illusion.

The range for invisibility is: personal or touch. Do you also think everyone to observer the illusion (invisibility) has to be touched before they fail to see the creature or object made invisible?

There is no saving throw for those observing the illusion. Therefore interacting or not interacting has the same result: no save.

Illusions that DO have a saving throw for the observer, however, state it as Save: Will disbelieve (if interacted with). Meaning you DON'T get the save if you have no reason to believe there is an illusion.

My question is if it cannot reproduce real effects and isn't a divination how can I cast it on a door and see the entire contents of a room as if the real door was not there......

It's magic

But seriously, the biggest flaw here is probably that everyone sees all illusions as 'creating something that isn't there'. While true for most illusions, some (invisibility) work slightly different. Maybe they shouldn't have been clasified as illusion, but since they influence the senses, why not?

 

[insanogeddon]

Bah

The 'its magic' reply is as satisfying as a tofu and eggs for breakfast !

I love using invis. as a divination technique.. also hilarious when enemies charge, or blast only to have their spells wasted and their charges end in some d6 worth of door headbutting damage. Its just shivers my sense of reality each time.