Invisible creatures detectable with a Spot DC20?

[Nareau]

The problem with giving a straight +20 to hide checks is that your average heavy armor type is going to have a -8 armor check penalty (from full-plate and large shield). Any rogue worth his salt is gonna be able to pinpoint this guy much more easily than he should. Especially once you hit mid to high levels. Even at 5th level, your average rogue is going to have a +11 spot check. That gives him almost even odds to be able to pinpoint the square of his adversary by sight...certainly not what I'd call invisibility.

So maybe it'd give them a +20 to hide checks, and it negates the any negative dex modifiers and armor penalties. Seeing as how the armor is going to be invisible, I don't see how wearing plate-mail is going to make you less invisible.

Of course, you're not silent. So a good listener can still detect you by your clanking around.

I personally envision the Invisibility spell as LoTR invisibility, not Predator invisibility; ie, not something an attentive person can just "see through".

 

[Taloras]

On the subject of sneak attacking invisible...if you have blindsight, does this give you enuf info to sneak attack?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'd think it would, since it completely removes the need for Spot or Listen checks on any creature within range. I think you'd get enough of the shape to be able to Sneak Attack the creature-- though, if it's undead or a humanoid construct, you might not recognize that until too late.

 

[kreynolds]

On the subject of sneak attacking invisible...if you have blindsight, does this give you enuf info to sneak attack?

Yes. Blindsight allows you to see just as well as a sighted creature, and darkness and invisibility are irrelevant.

 

[Chacal]

Probably OT but, if you are invisible but in the middle of a small river, or walking into snow, how would you rule the invisibility ?

Chacal

 

[kreynolds]

Probably OT but, if you are invisible but in the middle of a small river, or walking into snow, how would you rule the invisibility ?

Low Spot DC to pinpoint location. That's what I've done before.

 

[Nareau]

I'd rule that the spell makes you invisible--it doesn't make the effects of you invisible. So if you stood in a stream, you'd displace the water just like a rock, and people could see the water flow around you. If you walked in the snow, people could see your footprints.

However, if you dove into a pool of water, you'd be invisible down in the depths (instead of appearing as a human-shaped air-bubble). If you stood in a bank of fog, you'd be invisible. It's magic that makes you invisible...not some space-warping technology, not a fibre-optic suit, not some index of refraction changing doohickey.

To get this thread back on topic, I'd certainly allow spot checks to detect the effects created by an invisible entity where appropriate. If you're poking around in a dusty tomb, there's a chance you might be able to see the invisible guy's footprints. But that'd be real hard. However, spotting the disturbance in the water as the invisible guy splashes around in it wouldn't be too hard.

Spider

 

[Golandrinel]

However, if you dove into a pool of water, you'd be invisible down in the depths (instead of appearing as a human-shaped air-bubble). If you stood in a bank of fog, you'd be invisible. It's magic that makes you invisible...not some space-warping technology, not a fibre-optic suit, not some index of refraction changing doohicke.

Although ... would you cast a shadow? Water does do funny things to light. Stick a sheet of glass into water and see if a shadow appears...

(and anyhow ... if you didn't have water breathing you'd soon see your own air bubbles bobbling up to the surface..

 

[Darklone]

I think walking in snow (assuming that not already an army of elven rangers ran through) would need a spot check DC 0.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Spider - I agree with you to some extent. That's why I suggested, or meant to suggest, that you should use a base of either 20 or a hide check, whichever was better.

Actually, revisiting it, it should probably be a flat +40 circumstance bonus to hide checks and no additional effect. That means that someone not trying to hide (normally dc 0) would get 40 (ie - the same as the rules are now). Someone hiding in some convenient shadows would be able to increase that.

Personally, I think +20 is good enough. It's enough that it's a sizeable bonus, and it's enough that a warrior could move around unseen in most situations (on average, even someone in full plate would be getting a spot DC of 22). I think allowing rogues to maintain their position as kings of stealth, even in light of spells like invisibility is a good thing, not a bad thing.