Flying while invisible

[Ravellion]

4. House ruling to pre-empt a character's abilities sucks...

It isn't to pre-empt his abilities. the rest of the group consists of a bladesinger, a sorcerer and a shaper, all with access to invisibility. I am shooting my NPCs in the foot as well. With a spell that is meant to 100% avoid being seen, it just doesn't make sense that a spot check will do. What's next? Spot checks in Magical Darkness?

Rav

 

[Ravellion]

From the SRD:

"The creature or object touched vanishes from sight, even from darkvision. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, the gear vanishes, too. If the character casts the spell on someone else, neither the character nor the character's allies can see the subject, unless the character can normally see invisible things or employ magic to do so."

Also from the SRD:

"A Spot check result of greater than 20 can generally let the character become aware of an invisible creature near the character (though the character can't actually see it)."

To me, this seems contradictory even though Spot specifically mentions the invisibility. A Wisdom check of DC 20 seems much more sensible - or of course a lisen check. If my players knew of this rule, they would no longer put even a single point into listen.

Rav

 

[mmu1]

I don't think it's contradictory at all - you might be invisible, but you still leave footprints, stir up dust, and disturb your surroundings in some minute way because of the air your displace.

A house rule that adds circumstance modifiers based on the surroundings would make sense - like a bonus to notice the presence of an invisible creature in a situation where their movements will definitely affect the enviroment (like walking on sand, through a very dusty room, or any surface that'll deform when someone steps on it like grass or a carpet), and a large penalty if they're walking through the middle of a spotless marble floor... But it definitely doesn't make any sense to rule that Spot can't possibly make you aware of an invisible creature, or replace it with a wisdom check - they're not ethereal, after all.

And there's nothing to stop an invisible creature from making Hide checks, to make the signs of their passing harder to spot.

 

[Ravellion]

I think IMC circumstance modifiers to spot in this case would be applied more often than not... Your right in a way though... still, all these things are more "he's over there" than "there's somebody around". So I'd prefer a more black and white "You see him, he's stirrig up dust" or "you don't see him at all."

Even if you'd make an unspecific description it will give too much away.
"the dust in the room is stirring, somebody is invisible in this room"
"Is the dust stiiring in the North end of the room?"
"No"
"South?"
"Er.. yes."
"Is it stirring here *points at battle map*"
"No"
"Five feet further?"
"Yes"
"I guess that's the square I am going to make an attack on then. Full attack, rapid shot with my bow of impact"

Just saying: "You see dust stirring up, but do not see where" Is a contradiction in terms. You always see stuff at a location. Unless you have no steroscopic vision.

Rav

 

[mmu1]

I think you're trying too hard to be difficult about this...

Unless you're in a situation where this would be terribly obvious (a layer of dust 1/4" thick that hasn't been disturbed in centuries, and something is leaving obvious footprints) there's no way anyone can force you to specify a 5' square unless they make a pretty damn high spot check.

There's someone invisible in the room? Fine, "A cloud of dust is slowly drifitng away from one of the room's many moth-eaten tapestries, as if it had been recently disturbed by someone's passing." If the players want to metagame and start blasting away at specific 5' squares, let them waste their time... What does dust know about 5' squares? There's no guarantee they'll pick the right spot.