Improved Invisibility: Whats up with that???

[DarkMaster]

Here's some rules lawyer style trickery here:

Technically, the Invisibility spells are of the Glamer subschool of the illusion school.

All illusion subschools can be disbeleived.

Therefore, if you know that the wizard is there, you get a saving throw every time the wizard does something that would indicate that something is amiss, unless of course lightening bolts rain down from the cieling indoors all the time in your world.

If you can beat the saving throw, and communicate it to your allies, they get to save at +4 bonus.

If you can prove that there is definately something there, like, say, if you were being eaten by an invisible purple worm, you don't need a save at all.

IF you rule invisibility in that way, it doesn't seem nearly so bad, that is what I do. I've switched the durations ofr invis and improved invis though, because my ruling made improved invis look actually pretty useless when you factor in that it's much easier to deal with in my game.

Note that things that are naturally invisible, such as phantom fungus and aerial servants, are not bound by that ruling.

but that would switch the target of the spell from individual touch to everybody looking at the individual touch. Invisibility actually makes you invisible, not create to others the illusion that you are.

Big difference

 

[hong]

Depends on the DM and D&D is _fragile_ at all level if the DM wants.

And as DM, I can remove improved invis and get rid of that particular problem. As DM, do you prefer to change things to cause problems, or to solve them?

A first level wizard can easily die of a single blow from a kobold, don't tell me that this is not fragile the kobold is CR1/4

Why do you assume I like 1st level play?

Also in your example if the is able to hit the poor invisible wizard with critical attack, chances are it might kill him.

1-in-100 shots is no basis for a system of government. I mean, tactic to use in this situation.

 

[swrushing]

You can find a handwave for anything. However, some handwaves are better than others.

if you consider equipping (resources and abilities) NPCs with stuff appropriate for survival in the world they live in a "handwave" then you have a different understanding of that word than I.

Which is cool.

 

[hong]

if you consider equipping (resources and abilities) NPCs with stuff appropriate for survival in the world they live in a "handwave"

No, the process by which you arrived at your conclusion about the characteristics of the world they live in is handwaving.

I think I need to go back to rec.games.frp.dnd for awhile.

 

[DarkMaster]

And as DM, I can remove improved invis and get rid of that particular problem. As DM, do you prefer to change things to cause problems, or to solve them?

I don't know you hong and cannot judge you, but as a DM I try to change the least possible the rules and prevent problem by adapting scenario, instead of the rule. Everything except the rule (99%) depends on you. You know D&D is like a couple when you feel that all the rules break your game, maybe the problem is not with the rule but with your game.
Change what you can easily control before changing the rule. Rules are the last thing I change.

Why do you assume I like 1st level play?

I don't assume anything just let you know that if the DM is stupid the game is fragile at all level.

1-in-100 shots is no basis for a system of government. I mean, tactic to use in this situation.

True, that was just an example.

 

[hong]

I don't know you hong and cannot judge you, but as a DM I try to change the least possible the rules and prevent problem by adapting scenario, instead of the rule. Everything except the rule (99%) depends on you. You know D&D is like a couple when you feel that all the rules break your game, maybe the problem is not with the rule but with your game.

I'm not changing the rules. I'm removing a particular game element that I think is problematic. This is no more "changing the rules" than is saying that elves don't exist in this campaign, or that there's no such thing as the Blood War, for example. If you can't exercise even that sort of editorial control over a campaign, life would be pretty boring.

Change what you can easily control before changing the rule. Rules are the last thing I change.

You probably don't want to see the list of house rules for my current campaign, then.

 

[WizarDru]

No, the process by which you arrived at your conclusion about the characteristics of the world they live in is handwaving.

I think I need to go back to rec.games.frp.dnd for awhile.

Oh, yeah...like you'll find rational discussion there.

 

[swrushing]

No, the process by which you arrived at your conclusion about the characteristics of the world they live in is handwaving.

The conclusion about the world is derived from the info found in the three core rulebooks. That is, i presume, the source we draw from for DND rules discussions, barring clear statements to the contrary. That world is not shown as or intended to be a world friendly or survivable by non-magic resource elements in hostile situations. magic is an integral part of that world and NOT just a rare add on.

If we were in house rules or general rpg or the specific setting was defined, such as MIDNIGHT or CONAN where magic is not as ubiquitous and as assumed in the balances (MIDNIGHT for instance has an excellent section on how different things are with low magic and what a difference in challenge a little magic becomes for those more familiar with DND setting) then i would be making different conclusions.

If you wish to discuss spell changes for an assumed less frequent magic world, then perhaps another thread is in order. If so, my first suggestion would be for you to read midnight's section. In a no-magic-for-one-side or even low magic encounter, imp invis will be but one of many worries and by no means the most obvious at the level indicated.

heck, as i stated earlier, the fly spell alone will probably be sufficient against the murder of hill giants given their terrible ranged attacks. Maybe a shield spell for some extra ac.

 

[swrushing]

You probably don't want to see the list of house rules for my current campaign, then.

I will second this notion. I don't care to see your house rules either.

 

[WizarDru]

The conclusion about the world is derived from the info found in the three core rulebooks. That is, i presume, the source we draw from for DND rules discussions, barring clear statements to the contrary. That world is not shown as or intended to be a world friendly or survivable by non-magic resource elements in hostile situations. magic is an integral part of that world and NOT just a rare add on.

I hear the sound of an approaching horde of billions of chickens.

[shudder]