Invisibility question

[entr0py]

I'm inclined to agree with Silveras -- and thus change my original position on this issue. The qualifying factor in this action is intent. This puts more burden on the DM, because determining intent is often more grey than black and white. But our DM can handle it.

 

[Abraxas]

BoVD

This was another, separate issue I had with the incident - using a source not available to the PCs to circumvent the restrictions on invisibility.

 

[Vrecknidj]

This has given me an interesting idea for a wizard/rogue prestige class that focuses on invisibility. Make the prerequisites a few ranks in Hide and the ability to cast invisibility, and then include class abilities that, for example, allow the caster to remain invisible for a few rounds after an attack . . . .

Dave

 

[Thanee]

Isn't Greater Invisibility supposed to do that?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Coredump]

BoVD

This was another, separate issue I had with the incident - using a source not available to the PCs to circumvent the restrictions on invisibility.

Okay, I really can't stand this type of reasoning.

Gee, the players don't know *everything* that can be done in the world? And that is a problem? huh?
And the source wasn't available to the "PC's"?? Of course not, the player *characters" live in a fantasy world, and I don't think there is an equipment list anywhere that lists WoTC books as available to characters.

Now, if you are complaining because the *players* didn't have access...
Why does it matter what the players know? Since the characters wouldn't know it anyway? And you wouldn't want to metagame that knowledge, would you?

My players better believe that there are spells, creatures, abilities, etc. that they are not aware of, and combinations that they will not expect.


Getting hit by stuff you didn't expect is part of the game... it is part of life... You are in a Role Playing Game, not a chess match.

 

[Abraxas]

Okay, I really can't stand this type of reasoning.

Gee, the players don't know *everything* that can be done in the world? And that is a problem? huh?
And the source wasn't available to the "PC's"?? Of course not, the player *characters" live in a fantasy world, and I don't think there is an equipment list anywhere that lists WoTC books as available to characters.

Now, if you are complaining because the *players* didn't have access...
Why does it matter what the players know? Since the characters wouldn't know it anyway? And you wouldn't want to metagame that knowledge, would you?

My players better believe that there are spells, creatures, abilities, etc. that they are not aware of, and combinations that they will not expect.


Getting hit by stuff you didn't expect is part of the game... it is part of life... You are in a Role Playing Game, not a chess match.

Nice completely OT hijack

I can't stand it when people get all indignant about something when they have completely missed the point. I could care less that there are things I don't know about or that my characters don't know about - happens all the time and I don't sweat it. Hell it makes the game fun.

Unlike you, apparently, I don't use a separate set of rules for the PCs and NPCs. If the NPCs can do something so can the PCs. Whether or not they will want to do it is where the roleplaying comes in.

In this case it amounted to little more than the DM saying my NPC doesn't turn visible because I don't want him to. I don't play that way, and I don't like to be in games played that way. If you play a different way, so be it - but a little less condecension goes along way bucko.

Enjoy your game.

Back OT - the DM has been talking things over and has decided that the use of damning darkness in this case should have caused mr. flying wizard to become visible. Hurray for our side.

 

[Coredump]

Unlike you, apparently, I don't use a separate set of rules for the PCs and NPCs. If the NPCs can do something so can the PCs. Whether or not they will want to do it is where the roleplaying comes in.

Nope, two different things. Sure, it might work just the same for PC's or NPC's, but the PC's may not know about that particular spell, or have access to that PrC, or been to the part of the world that makes that particular potion, etc. etc.

Maybe the DM has ruled that those spells are only available in certain areas, or certain magical guilds, etc. So sure, the rules work the same, your character just doesn't know about them.

 

[FireLance]

Sorry, Abraxas, but I agree with your DM's original decision that uncovering or dropping a coin with damning darkness would not cause you to become visible. Check out the description of the invisibility spell:

Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.

To me, dropping a coin with damning darkness is along the same lines as destroying a rope bridge when your enemies are on it, or remotely triggering a trap.

 

[Abraxas]

Nope, two different things. Sure, it might work just the same for PC's or NPC's, but the PC's may not know about that particular spell, or have access to that PrC, or been to the part of the world that makes that particular potion, etc. etc.

Maybe the DM has ruled that those spells are only available in certain areas, or certain magical guilds, etc. So sure, the rules work the same, your character just doesn't know about them.

Sorry, you weren't at the game - that wasn't what was going on. That wasn't what the disagreement was about.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

Sorry, Abraxas, but I agree with your DM's original decision that uncovering or dropping a coin with damning darkness would not cause you to become visible. Check out the description of the invisibility spell:

To me, dropping a coin with damning darkness is along the same lines as destroying a rope bridge when your enemies are on it, or remotely triggering a trap.

The real problem seems to be that the caster created a (lasting ) spell with an AoE at a moment where no foe (to be hampered/affected by it ) was in the AoE, hence the caster staying invisible.
He THEN (actively) worked at moving said harmful effect onto the PCs/foes, affecting them. As he was not actively casting a spell, he would, by the letter of the rules stayed invisible. And I wouldn't mind ruling this way, if it had been the PCs who, of their own volition, put themselves into harm's way , like by walking into an area of Acid Fog just created in front of them as a detterent

BUT...

To my mind the caster created a temporary AoE weapon, akin to Alchemist fire through his use of "Dooming Darkness". He then used his creation to attack the PCs with it (by actively bombing/dropping itonto them ) - which would be an attack action (or just what would you label it if he had dropped a barrel-worth of Alchemist Fire onto the self-same PCs ? ), as the AoE is being harmful to the PCs (at least to his mind ). Would you honestly differentiate in such a way that a (existing) spell AoE can be moved/dropped onto PCs without breaking invisibility, while some mundane matter might not ? Both would be an attack with a grenade type weapon to my mind.

Smells broken.

As for PC/GM access to rules. I actually don't mind (and also GM that way ) that access to magic, rules, classes and feats from certain books/publications, while permissible to the GM is limited/prohibited to players - as long as the game stays fun (hence "fair"). IMCs access to Libris Mortis, BoVD, BoED and some parts of other books are simply limited to certain groups, factions and even cultures. And unless the PCs actively seek to acquire or qualify for such knowledge ingame (and never at character generation), it might at some time become available or not.
While the GM is free to use it in the conception of his adventures, plots, and storyline. The real world is fair, evenly balanced or its possibilities clearly described, so why should a created world be ?