Improved Invisibility: Whats up with that???

[swrushing]

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

[shudder]

I see your billion chickens and raise you a billion walruses.

 

[Zhure]

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

IYKWIM,AITYD

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

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

Read the SRD or the PHB. It says Illusion: Glamer.

All illusions can be disbelived, the spell description at the beginning of the magic chapter says so. If you interact with the invisible mage, you get a save.

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.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

Also . . . .

Invisibility, Greater
Illusion (Glamer)

The rules seem to support my rulings, that interacting with illusions gives the user a saving throw. That includes the glamer subschool. Now, if the invisible wizard didn't interact with the players at all, they players obviously don't get a save, making it ideal for spying. But each and every time you get hit by something invisible, you get a will save to disblieve.

Furthermore, the glamer subschool is described as thus:

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.

All glamers affect an object, making it seem different. Note that it makes it eem different. You aren't invisible, it just tricks the eyes into thinking you are not there. That is how glamers work.

 

[DarkMaster]

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.

Or to say you can't trip or disarm because I feel it's broken. Remember that Improved invisibility is a 4th level spell and should be powerfull.
If as a DM you cannot handle PCs above 7th level without tweaking the rule than thats another story.

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

It would just confirm what I said above.

 

[DarkMaster]

Read the SRD or the PHB. It says Illusion: Glamer.

All illusions can be disbelived, the spell description at the beginning of the magic chapter says so. If you interact with the invisible mage, you get a save.



Also . . . .



The rules seem to support my rulings, that interacting with illusions gives the user a saving throw. That includes the glamer subschool. Now, if the invisible wizard didn't interact with the players at all, they players obviously don't get a save, making it ideal for spying. But each and every time you get hit by something invisible, you get a will save to disblieve.

Furthermore, the glamer subschool is described as thus:



All glamers affect an object, making it seem different. Note that it makes it eem different. You aren't invisible, it just tricks the eyes into thinking you are not there. That is how glamers work.

After reading your arguments and the invisibility spell description in the SRD I've got to agree, making Hong points less and less viable

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

Ah, thanks.

you'd be surprised how many people don't rule Invisibility hardcore like I do though, it's an easy thing to miss.

 

[Zhure]

Since the target is 'you' or an object or another character, the target gets the will save, not the viewers. There's no will save to see an invisible target.

c.f. multiple lack of references in the DMG and PHB regarding making saves vs the invisible condition.

Greg

 

[Staffan]

Read the SRD or the PHB. It says Illusion: Glamer.

All illusions can be disbelived, the spell description at the beginning of the magic chapter says so. If you interact with the invisible mage, you get a save.

Unless the spell provides a saving throw, you can't roll a save to disbelieve it. Compare this quote from hallucinatory terrain: "Saving throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)" with this one from greater invisibility: "Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)". Invisibility only gives the recipient a saving throw to not become invisible in the first place, it doesn't give any save to observers.

All glamers affect an object, making it seem different. Note that it makes it eem different. You aren't invisible, it just tricks the eyes into thinking you are not there. That is how glamers work.

"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." Note the total lack of anything mind-affecting there. It changes the subject's sensory qualities, not observers' impression of the sensory qualities.

For a longer discussion of this, see http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html

 

[Coredump]

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.
All glamers affect an object, making it seem different. Note that it makes it seem different. You aren't invisible, it just tricks the eyes into thinking you are not there. That is how glamers work.

No, it does not say 'seem different', it says it "Seems to dissappear". It *is* different, but it only *seems* to disappear.

Read the definition again, it says it *changes* (not seems to change) the subjects senory qualities. The subject used to be loud, is now quiet, used to have smooth skin, now has feathers. Used to reflect light and be visible, not passes light through and is invisible.
This turning invisible makes it *seem* as if he disappeared. But if you walk over, you will see he only seemed to disappear, and is actually still there, but invisible.

The definition only states changes to the subject, not those watching the subject. Sure, you can disbelieve that he actually disappeared (ala teleport), but he really is 'changed', as the definition states.


edit: okay, new rule. No one can post while I am still typing.

 

[Philip]

I have no idea what the problem is. Even a 1st lvl fighter can negate the wizard's invisibility. Just bring along a bag of flour, bucket of paint, a sheet of bedlinnen, whatever. It's not foolproof, but gives someone a decent chance.

You all seem to be stuck on finding magical or rules solutions to the problem. Just get some newbie players and confront them with invisible opponents. You will see how many nifty solutions they come up with to counter the invisibility.