Improved Invisibility: Whats up with that???

[Hypersmurf]

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.

You can only disbelieve an illusion if the stat block states "Will disbelief" or if the spell text provides a specific mechanic.

From the 3E Main FAQ:
Older editions of the game listed the silence spell in the
Alteration school, but now silence is part of the Illusion
school. Does this mean that anyone in the area of effect can
try to disbelieve the spell, negating most of its effect for
enemy spellcasters?
No, if you could disbelieve a silence spell, its save listing
would be “Will disbelief.” Silence removes all noise in its area
and nobody gets a save against that. If the spell is actually
targeted on a creature or on a creature’s equipment, that
creature gets a Will save to negate the spell. If the save
succeeds, the spell fails and the area is not silenced.

Notice that Silence is also Illusion (Glamer).

As has been noted, the save for Invisibility is if someone casts it on you, and you don't want to be invisible. It's not a chance to disbelieve.

-Hyp.

 

[DarkMaster]

You can only disbelieve an illusion if the stat block states "Will disbelief" or if the spell text provides a specific mechanic.

From the 3E Main FAQ:
Older editions of the game listed the silence spell in the
Alteration school, but now silence is part of the Illusion
school. Does this mean that anyone in the area of effect can
try to disbelieve the spell, negating most of its effect for
enemy spellcasters?
No, if you could disbelieve a silence spell, its save listing
would be “Will disbelief.” Silence removes all noise in its area
and nobody gets a save against that. If the spell is actually
targeted on a creature or on a creature’s equipment, that
creature gets a Will save to negate the spell. If the save
succeeds, the spell fails and the area is not silenced.

Notice that Silence is also Illusion (Glamer).

As has been noted, the save for Invisibility is if someone casts it on you, and you don't want to be invisible. It's not a chance to disbelieve.

-Hyp.

Thanks I was about to review my way of playing.

 

[hong]

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.

World building is an integral part of D&D as it is played.

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.

Magic is as integral to the world as I and the other people in my group want it to be. And besides, how on earth did you go from getting rid of one spell to getting rid of all spells?

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.

I couldn't give a damn about low magic. Just because I don't like THIS spell doesn't mean I don't like ALL spells.

If you wish to discuss spell changes for an assumed less frequent magic world, then perhaps another thread is in order.

We can discuss it right here. If you don't like it, don't read it.

If so, my first suggestion would be for you to read midnight's section.

I couldn't give a damn about Midnight either.

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.

So get rid of one of the worries.

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.

Did I tell you I got rid of fly as well?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Did I tell you I got rid of fly as well?

And Shield, and hill giants.

I understand he still has ranged attacks, but they've been house-ruled into unrecognisability.

(Well, that's what I heard.)

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Or to say you can't trip or disarm because I feel it's broken.

And in fact, they ARE broken. Attack forms that bypass the hit point mechanic are essentially variations on called shots, which do bad things to the integrity of D&D's combat model. But that's an issue for another thread.

Remember that Improved invisibility is a 4th level spell and should be powerfull.

Power has nothing to do with it. Did you even read what I said about improved invis changing the tactical/strategic/logistical balance of the game?

If as a DM you cannot handle PCs above 7th level without tweaking the rule than thats another story.

Yes, yes, your TEN-INCH TITANIUM PENIS is THAT big. I believe you.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Back to the original point, what's the difficulty with D&D combat being like magic deck construction? As I recall, Magic was a rather fun game. And a good player could beat a player with a better deck from time to time.

Actually, the problem doesn't stop at Improved Invisibility. (And improved invisibility only solves the hill giant encounter if the party knows where the hill giants are and that they DON'T have a way of beating invisibility ('cause if they do, sending the wizard out alone is sending the wizard to his death); if the rest of the party is there, the hill giants can pound THEM just fine. (Which, incidentally is why it's very rarely a good idea to cast Improved Invisibility on the party tank--as a wizard found out in a game I was playing a while back. Once you remove the obvious target, the less obvious targets move up on the list)). A party on horseback with mounted archery will annihilate slower opposition on an open plane. Even if that opposition is a 20th level fighter, if he doesn't have good ranged attacks or a means of upping his movement to catch up with the horses or escaping (like a potion of invisibility), he's toast. As D&D characters increase in level, their tactics change forcing their opponents to adapt and their opponents change forcing them to adapt. At 3rd level, energy resistance isn't such a big deal; by 12th level, you want to have some way of dealing with area effect spells. At first level, a single longsword is probably all your character needs. By 15th level, you probably want a cold iron longsword, a silver longsword, and a magic adamantine longsword (or silversheen). Etc. Etc. Invisibility is simply one of the tactics that high level characters have to learn how to deal with.

And Hong, while it may be unsatisfactory to not be able to describe the appearance of the Ghaele to your players, remember two things: 1. Nobody said every encounter has to use invisibility. Predator where the foe is often invisible is a comparable movie to The Terminator where the foe is very visible and there's room for both kinds of encounters and descriptions. 2. Think of the moment when you DO get to describe the invisible creature--the PCs have been fighting something they can't see; the moment when they do see it and realize what they are facing can be as dramatic as the initial appearance of a bad guy.

 

[hong]

And Shield, and hill giants.

Shut up you, or the party will be facing a kaiju smurf within two sessions.

 

[hong]

Back to the original point, what's the difficulty with D&D combat being like magic deck construction? As I recall, Magic was a rather fun game. And a good player could beat a player with a better deck from time to time.

Because I don't like Magic. And because I don't like excessive emphasis being placed on getting the right combinations of this Ex ability, that Su ability and the other Sp ability, before people have even got to the gaming table. And I say that as someone who LIKES the gearhead aspect of 3E.

Invisibility is simply one of the tactics that high level characters have to learn how to deal with.

Why? Just because something appears in the rules, why does this automatically mean it must make an appearance in the game? Why does the book trump individual preference?

There are rules for laser rifles in D&D. Does this mean that laser rifles are just one of the things that characters have to learn to deal with?

And Hong, while it may be unsatisfactory to not be able to describe the appearance of the Ghaele to your players, remember two things: 1. Nobody said every encounter has to use invisibility. Predator where the foe is often invisible is a comparable movie to The Terminator where the foe is very visible and there's room for both kinds of encounters and descriptions. 2. Think of the moment when you DO get to describe the invisible creature--the PCs have been fighting something they can't see; the moment when they do see it and realize what they are facing can be as dramatic as the initial appearance of a bad guy.

Feh. I can do that just fine with normal invisibility.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Think of the moment when you DO get to describe the invisible creature--the PCs have been fighting something they can't see; the moment when they do see it and realize what they are facing can be as dramatic as the initial appearance of a bad guy.

Yeah... like the moment when we got to see the flying invisible Fire Giant Monk covered in magical tattoos.

We knew there was something punching people for several tens of points of damage, six times a round... we just weren't sure what until the Dispel Magic finally got past the "SR-like effect" that the giants' castle used to automatically suppress any hostile spellcasting, and dropped his invisibility.

And we all thought "Oh, goody."

Shut up you, or the party will be facing a kaiju smurf within two sessions.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, and guys...

... well, I'm sure you've all heard it before.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)