Improved Invisibility: Whats up with that???

[FreeTheSlaves]

The fact that all of these capabilities are available in inexpensive potion form should make him all the more ashamed of himself.

I have this mental picture of a lonely 17th level fighter turning to booze and anti-depressants.

 

[Jhulae]

I'm starting this thread off with some scenarios to explain my intentions:

A wizard ventures into a battle with fightertype characters of his own level. His first action he uses to become 'improved invisible' as it is described in the 3.0 rules. The fightertype characters charges the square where they last saw the wizard, and he survives. The wizards next turn, he uses to levitate into the skies.
Now he is in fact invulnerable and capable of 'raining havoc' upon his enemys from the skies. The fightertype characters do not stand a chance. They can try to flee, but the wizard can choose to follow and finish the job!
-Or what about the party, who have some rounds to become powersuited, and who's wizard turns them all 'improved invisible'?
-Or the rougue, with lots of ranks in 'use magic device', who reads a scroll of 'improved invisibility' before entering the 'arena'. Now all his attacks is made as sneak attacks!

There is something sceriously wrong with this! What do you guys think, shoulden't this spell be house rouled out of the game? And by the way, it hasn't change much in the 3.5 version of 'greater invisibility'.

Um. First 'blocker', see invisibility. That right there allows havok to be 'rained' back at the mage. 3.0 SI was even better, as you could give it to all party members. 3.5, I believe, is just caster only.

2nd: Skill checks. Unless he's standing still, even someone with improved invisibility can be noticed by spot and/or listen. Also, unless they're flying, there's also blindsight, tremor sense, etc.

3rd: Readied actions. Since someone with improved invis. becomes visible for the action they cast their spells or attack, have all the archers (what? none of your party has ranged attacks? you get what you deserve then) ready an action to shoot the spellcaster when he becomes visible to 'rain his havok'.

Those are at least 3 different ways of overcoming that. Nevermind the fact that area of effect spells will nail him, invisible or not, and some have pretty good radii... Whoops, guess that's at least 4 ways.

 

[K'Plah Q'Houme]

Jhulae

You wrote:

3rd: Readied actions. Since someone with improved invis. becomes visible for the action they cast their spells or attack, have all the archers (what? none of your party has ranged attacks? you get what you deserve then) ready an action to shoot the spellcaster when he becomes visible to 'rain his havok'.

Where have you read that imp. invis. characters, become visible when performing attack actions. I looked this up in my books and couldent seem to find it anywhere. You are aware that i'm talking about 3.0 rules?
We have an excelent archer in our party lvl. 17 rogue and the problem about imp. invis. isn't in the 'relations' between PC and NPC/monster, but between the PC and the DM. Using imp. invis. in a 'smart' way could make the wizard, or the rogue (through use magic device) almost imposible to detcet and kill.
I have somewhat changed my opinion about the spell with the help of you guys, but I still think this spell should at lest be moved up a 'notch' on the spell slot list.

 

[Scion]

Remember that when being bombarded from on high, or from far away, it is time to hide! with -1/10' to spot checks you should be able to move around a little here and there without them having much chance to spot you

Although I do agree about improved invis, I changed the arcane version to match the psionic version (wherever/whenever that was) and make it go away on your second attack. That way you still had one freebee, but not hundreds!

 

[Jhulae]

Jhulae

You wrote:

Where have you read that imp. invis. characters, become visible when performing attack actions. I looked this up in my books and couldent seem to find it anywhere. You are aware that i'm talking about 3.0 rules?
We have an excelent archer in our party lvl. 17 rogue and the problem about imp. invis. isn't in the 'relations' between PC and NPC/monster, but between the PC and the DM. Using imp. invis. in a 'smart' way could make the wizard, or the rogue (through use magic device) almost imposible to detcet and kill.
I have somewhat changed my opinion about the spell with the help of you guys, but I still think this spell should at lest be moved up a 'notch' on the spell slot list.

If nothing else, you know exactly where the spell is coming from when it's being cast and only suffer a 50% miss chance to hit when you have a readied action... again, don't forget about area of effect spells, and the fact that something as simple as Glitterdust makes the 'invisible' mage visible, as well as blinding the mage if they don't make a saving throw.. Yep, that's right... A 2nd level spell completely renders a 4th level spell ineffective.. Oh.. and so does see invisibility.. I guess that's two then.

 

[Ranes]

If you're really into world-building consistency and verisimilitude, improved invis is the least of your worries. D&D is simply not the game for those who are worried about this sort of thing.

I agree. And yet I enjoy the challenge, because I am into world-building consistency and verisimilitude - and D&D. There are many aspects of D&D that don't withstand sustained scrutiny and extrapolation but it's my contention that they don't need to.

It's not that uncommon for a producer to interrupt a screenwriter who's making a pitch, to complain that a line doesn't work. And it's not uncommon for the screenwriter to respond with, "Imagine the way X would play it." There are moments in films that only work for that moment or for just a little longer than the length of the film. When people discuss a film they've seen, they often realise that certain aspects of the story didn't quite add up, things that didn't occur to them while they were watching the film. And any film that can camouflage its conceit for long enough to tell its story isn't that bad.

I try to use some of the screenwriter's tricks, in order to consolidate my desire to evoke a convincing world with the rules and assumptions of D&D. If I can justify the way things are in my campaign for as long as everyone is playing, then I don't care how much they can poke holes in it afterwards. It's not easy, as I can tell you know; I've looked at your D&D page. But I don't have to account for all the assumptions at once and I can get away with justifying counter-intuitive and even sometimes nonsensical D&D-isms by the way I deal with them on a case by case basis, tailored to the players.

Having said all that, I love your other reason for getting rid of improved invisibility - that it undermines perfectly good visuals. I'd have pasted that one into my sig, if I was the kind of poster who used sigs.