Invisibility -- In-Game Explanation for No Attacking?

[mmadsen]

For game-balance reasons, the Invisibility spell ends as soon as you "attack". What that means is a bit vague. Anyway, does anyone have a good in-game explanation for why this would be? How does the wizard explain to his companion that the spell only lasts until he attacks someone?

Some explanations almost make sense. For instance, attacking someone certainly shatters any illusion that you're not there -- except that attacking and missing still ends your invisibility. Banging on a drumset should shatter the illusion at least as well as swinging at someone, but it doesn't. Further, sneaking up on someone and killing them silently might undo your invisibility to people in the same room, but what if you're alone, and you walk into the next room? Should you be visible to those people?

Certainly we can give the facile answer -- it's magic! -- but that doesn't help anyone suspend disbelief. The rule jumps out so glaringly as a game mechanic, not a model of some mystic power.

Has anyone tweaked Invisibility to have a more plausible explanation? One that achieves game balance a bit more elegantly? (On that note, I really like Oriental Adventures' Chameleon spell: +10 to Hide. It makes sense.)

 

[Kibo]

Ultimately I think it's unimportant unless you're writing a book. But one option I might go with is that regular invisibility is a type of glamor that you radiate that doesn't make light go through you but gifts one with a certain stillness that causes things to fail to realize they saw/see you. And that the willfull sheding of blood, that hardness of heart and concience in the moment before you draw blood breaks that.

 

[RSKennan]

I agree. It does seems like a game mechanic concern, more than a story one. I haven't come up with any solutions, just forced myself to ignore it. Maybe an attack or overt manipulation of the environment (ie the drum example or perhaps passing in front of a light source) should give everyone who witnesses it a save to disbeleive? This could be explained as invisibility being imperfect. There might always be a distorted penumbra around an invisible body; an action gives people the chance to focus on it. Being invisible at night or in fog etc. might make the save more difficult. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure someone else could figure out a better way.

 

[Balgus]

I have always thought of it as a better version of hide skill. You stay completely motionless, iunder cover waiting your time. When the target gets close enough, you jump out from cover and attack.

Same with Inv spell. You use the spell to hide. When you are in position, you shed the spell's cover to strike.

 

[Tonguez]

Invisibility = you 'bend light'/convert visible light to ultraviolet or somesuch

or

Invisibility = you 'cloud mens minds' so they beleive you are not there

or

Invisibility = You become ethereal

Answer 1 - the act of attacking causes the light to shimmer in such away that your body is outlined and thus visible (though initially blurred - like Predator 1) but suffienct to essentially break the spell

Answer 2 - the attack means that the target no longer beleives the illusion (the drums are different since in a world of ghosts (like our own) people are conditions to accept mysterious noises but not mysterious sword strikes!)

Answer 3 - you can not be ethereal and attack

Answer 4 - Attacking breaks the spellusers concentration and thus the spell

 

[Crothian]

I've always used the answer of it's magic, and that's the limit of the spell. Not much of magic and the way it works has ever been defined so I never really bother to try.

 

[Jeph]

nvisibility = You become ethereal

Okay, this one just plain doesn't work, balance-wize. It lasts 100 times as long as Etherial Jaunt, a higher level spell, and provide, basically, the same effects.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

My reasoning: Back when magic was still in heavy development, a very powerful wizard found a way to become invisible for a much longer time at an even lower way than the one which was standardly accepted (what we now know as "Improved Invisibility")... Realizing that this could be a life-saving tool, he wanted to release it to the public, but did not want it to be exploited... So, he designed into the spell certain limitations which triggered its limitations, and made that such an integral part of the spell's mechanics that it was nigh impossible to reverse engineer.

Of course, that's so long as I bother having a reasoning. Personally, I'm just too lazy to redesign the whole magic system so that it makes a decent amount of in-game sense. I mean, to the point that magic ever can...

 

[skymage]

i like the idea that magic is lawful and therefor would want fairness as part of the law of magic. that's why first level spells don't grant wishes or why magic items cost exp.

i like the idea that the creator of the spell is lawful and made the spell with the built in flaw. that is a good explaination too.

maybe magic is chaotic and the one attack ending the spell just happened to be a side effect of invisibility. and the higher the spell the more control the creator of the spell has. which is where improved invisibility.

or it could be magic just has limits. out of game we call them levels in game they are limits.

or you can make your own reason. my favorite is magic is lawful neutral and all it wants is fairness.

 

[LostSoul]

The best explanation I've seen had something to do with the spirits that grant the spell being "wussies" who run away when you do something violent, or potentially so (thus ending the spell).