Invisible

[DracoSuave]

Here's the problem, its not fluff, its the FREAKING WORD THEY USE TO DEFINE IT. Nobody reasonable can look at the predator while hes in stealth mode and go "ZOMG ITS INVISIBLE"

I feel Invisible is not what it should be in this edition. Invisibility should be a much higher level spell/ability, and should automatically grant everything "hidden" does.

I don't understand.

Invisible does not mean 'Silent, I cannot hear you, I do not see your footsteps, cannot be sniffed out, and you are completely undetectable.'

I looked it up twice.

It means 'Unable to be seen.'

If you want invisible, inaudible, trackless, undetectable, then you want the full monty; a stealth check.

But, to the OP:

If you are invisible and you have not succeeded on a Stealth check, or you're making noise, talking to others, all sorts of other things, than you are still locatable.

Invisibility is not, (and frankly, never has been in any edition of the game), perfect stealth. Invisibility DOES allow you -5 to be hit, combat advantage, and total concealment. Stealth is a LOT easier when invisible.

HOWEVER. Invisibility is NOT the same as being undetected, as you're dealing with more than 1 sense.

4e doesn't have an equivalent to what you call "normal" (3e) invisibility. It's all effectively "minor" invisibility.

Third edition invisibility never meant undetectable either, nor did it even affect checks pertinent to that. Being invisible never affected Listen checks, did they? It just happens that making sound automatically reveals your location under the new perception rules. So being invisible, not meaning automatically silent, means your location can still automatically be revealed.

Being behind total cover or obstacles doesn't auto-hide your location either if you're making battle cries or swinging weapons and smacking against shields or armor or reciting spells, the stuff you usually do in battle by default.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't even see why you have to insist that invisibility is anything more or less than that you can't be seen. 4e simply has a more refined, and workable, set of mechanics for it than 3.x did. Invisibility doesn't grant you perfect undetectability and why should it? People can still hear you, smell you, see your footprints, feel the air move when you move around, and possibly see other effects like swirling smoke or fog etc that may happen when you move.

When you hide and you're invisible, which is very easy to do, then you become a lot more difficult to detect. If someone is already alert to your presence then they may well search for you with active Perception checks. Otherwise they don't and unless you blow your stealth roll or come up against something with special senses or high Perception you remain undetected. As long as a PC moves at a speed of 2 or less its usually pretty hard for them to be found out.

For that matter a PC with long duration invisibility can simply walk around and make a bunch of stealth checks to hide until he gets one he likes and then simply never exceed a speed of two and keep that check for as long as he can remain invisible. That can be quite a while in some cases.

There simply is no issue here. Nor would it ever make sense to have a "superior invisibility". A character could combine invisibility with silence and various rogue utilities to be harder to detect, but there is no such thing as impossible to detect. That's just a design decision that was made in order to mitigate the effects of the power from becoming another DM plot buster, which is a very annoying aspect of a lot of older-E powers.

 

[Turtlejay]

All this reference to Predator is unfortunate, there are better examples of invisiblity out there. Harry Potter had an invisibility cloak. IIRC, he was still careful to not get caught. He left footprints. In the 6th movie he was caught by Draco and roughed up, despite his 'invisibility'. Then there is the One Ring. And even better, Han Solo's trick to escape the Empire after the asteroid belt scene in The Empire Strikes back. Not invisible, but hidden.

Hidden does not mean more invisible, and invisible does not mean less hidden. Mechanically they might equate that way. Getting hung up on examples does not change the fact that the terminology is apropriate to the condition.

Jay

 

[DracoSuave]

All this reference to Predator is unfortunate, there are better examples of invisiblity out there. Harry Potter had an invisibility cloak. IIRC, he was still careful to not get caught. He left footprints. In the 6th movie he was caught by Draco and roughed up, despite his 'invisibility'. Then there is the One Ring. And even better, Han Solo's trick to escape the Empire after the asteroid belt scene in The Empire Strikes back. Not invisible, but hidden.

Hidden does not mean more invisible, and invisible does not mean less hidden. Mechanically they might equate that way. Getting hung up on examples does not change the fact that the terminology is apropriate to the condition.

Jay

Yeah, Predator's camo is closer to the Warlock's concealment ability than invisibility.

Regardless, the Harry potter example is a good one. Footsteps, those kids'd make everywhere in the snow. They weren't completely undetected... and if they spoke, they were heard.

'But my character'd be quiet if invisible!' Then he'd be making a stealth check to reflect that, and all is good in the world.

This concept that invisible characters wouldn't be making stealth checks is... facepalm-worthy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Third edition invisibility never meant undetectable either, nor did it even affect checks pertinent to that. Being invisible never affected Listen checks, did they? It just happens that making sound automatically reveals your location under the new perception rules. So being invisible, not meaning automatically silent, means your location can still automatically be revealed.

Being behind total cover or obstacles doesn't auto-hide your location either if you're making battle cries or swinging weapons and smacking against shields or armor or reciting spells, the stuff you usually do in battle by default.

As far as I'm aware, listen checks did not allow you to determine the location of a hidden/invisible creature in 3e, only their presence (ie., you hear breathing; you're pretty sure there's someone hiding or invisible nearby). Only a spot check could pinpoint the square a hidden target was in (AFAIK). At least in our games, Improved Invisibility + Fly was a very hard combination to beat. Just cast and move; you were almost impossible to pinpoint, and practically invulnerable even before the 50% miss chance. Toss in Silent Spell and you didn't even have to move.


It doesn't make sense to me that an invisible creature would be so easy to detect unless there were some consistent, minimal, visual trace. Most mages don't wear clod stompers, so their footsteps won't necessarily be easy to detect in the midst of a noisy battle. Not every battlefield can be so heavy with dust that it leaves footprints (the King's anteroom will likely be quite clean, for example). Given the convenience of cantrips, it's unlikely that the average wizard will smell so bad as to give away his position. If the mage avoids walking near anyone, they can't feel him brush past or stir the air.

Yet it isn't very easy for an invisible Wizard to move about undetected (particularly without Stealth Training). In 3e, invisible creatures received enormous Hide bonuses ranging from +20 to +40! In 4e, there's no bonus beyond the capability to become hidden. Don't get me wrong, that's how I think it ought to be. It's just that, IMO, the mechanical change makes the most sense when accompanied with a fluff alteration (invisibility is no longer a perfect visual obfuscation).

If the above doesn't disconcert you then, as I said before, think of it as you will. I wasn't suggesting that mine was an official response. It is merely my own interpretation, offered in the possibility that it might be helpful to someone.

 

[DracoSuave]

As far as I'm aware, listen checks did not allow you to determine the location of a hidden/invisible creature in 3e, only their presence (ie., you hear breathing; you're pretty sure there's someone hiding or invisible nearby). Only a spot check could pinpoint the square a hidden target was in (AFAIK). At least in our games, Improved Invisibility + Fly was a very hard combination to beat. Just cast and move; you were almost impossible to pinpoint, and practically invulnerable even before the 50% miss chance. Toss in Silent Spell and you didn't even have to move.

You could use a Listen check to determine approximate distance and direction of a creature. That's good enough with enough of a check to determine distance.

And I don't recall 'Fly' being an automatically silent form of transportation, but that's personal preference really. The description doesn't mention silence in any form.

It doesn't make sense to me that an invisible creature would be so easy to detect unless there were some consistent, minimal, visual trace.

He's not so easy to detect. He has total concealment, which means any time he spends any move action he can go Hidden. This costs him nothing to do, and is only broken if he attacks, or is not silent, or an attempt is made for him and another creature to occupy the same space. These are all trivial things to do.

Most mages don't wear clod stompers, so their footsteps won't necessarily be easy to detect in the midst of a noisy battle.

That's why characters in leather or cloth get no penalty to their stealth checks that, as noted above, they get to make as part of their move action automatically when invisible.

Not every battlefield can be so heavy with dust that it leaves footprints (the King's anteroom will likely be quite clean, for example). Given the convenience of cantrips, it's unlikely that the average wizard will smell so bad as to give away his position. If the mage avoids walking near anyone, they can't feel him brush past or stir the air.

And if he's trying not to give away his position, chances are he is being quiet. And if he is, he makes his stealth check.

Either he's making his stealth check, or he is not. And if he's making stealth checks, he's trying not to be noticed. And if he is not, then he is NOT trying not to be noticed. There's no middle ground here.

Yet it isn't very easy for an invisible Wizard to move about undetected (particularly without Stealth Training). In 3e, invisible creatures received enormous Hide bonuses ranging from +20 to +40! In 4e, there's no bonus beyond the capability to become hidden.

The capacity to become hidden -anywhere- at -anytime- provided you meat the requirements. Meaning not needed terrain. That's -huge-. And it's not difficult to be undetected. It's just not perfect. The wizard who is using invisibility regularly would probably have Stealth Training. He's clearly wanting to be undetected, so he'd take training in the skill that bolsters his non-detection. He could even fluff it as magics that pad his footsteps, etc.

Don't get me wrong, that's how I think it ought to be. It's just that, IMO, the mechanical change makes the most sense when accompanied with a fluff alteration (invisibility is no longer a perfect visual obfuscation).

I find accepting the fact that invisibility means 'You are unseen' to be completely acceptable. I've always found the reliance of invisibility to mean 'undetectable' to be a complete crock, so the new rules actually make -more- sense to me. Invisibility is -still- damn powerful, it's just not 'autowin' and requires a little bit more effort on the part of the player. Or rather, SOME effort.

If the above doesn't disconcert you then, as I said before, think of it as you will. I wasn't suggesting that mine was an official response. It is merely my own interpretation, offered in the possibility that it might be helpful to someone.

Fair enough.


But regardless, one thing to consider.


You have the exact same chance to make your stealth check if you are invisibile as you'd get if you were completely hidden behind a brick wall.

In both cases, you cannot be seen.

Think about that.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You could use a Listen check to determine approximate distance and direction of a creature. That's good enough with enough of a check to determine distance.

And I don't recall 'Fly' being an automatically silent form of transportation, but that's personal preference really. The description doesn't mention silence in any form.

It isn't in the Fly spell description but, IIRC, there's an description of magical flight somewhere that explains that it is silent. Sorry I can't be more precise, but it's been ages since I last played 3e.

He's not so easy to detect. He has total concealment, which means any time he spends any move action he can go Hidden. This costs him nothing to do, and is only broken if he attacks, or is not silent, or an attempt is made for him and another creature to occupy the same space. These are all trivial things to do.



That's why characters in leather or cloth get no penalty to their stealth checks that, as noted above, they get to make as part of their move action automatically when invisible.



And if he's trying not to give away his position, chances are he is being quiet. And if he is, he makes his stealth check.

Either he's making his stealth check, or he is not. And if he's making stealth checks, he's trying not to be noticed. And if he is not, then he is NOT trying not to be noticed. There's no middle ground here.



The capacity to become hidden -anywhere- at -anytime- provided you meat the requirements. Meaning not needed terrain. That's -huge-. And it's not difficult to be undetected. It's just not perfect. The wizard who is using invisibility regularly would probably have Stealth Training. He's clearly wanting to be undetected, so he'd take training in the skill that bolsters his non-detection. He could even fluff it as magics that pad his footsteps, etc.



I find accepting the fact that invisibility means 'You are unseen' to be completely acceptable. I've always found the reliance of invisibility to mean 'undetectable' to be a complete crock, so the new rules actually make -more- sense to me. Invisibility is -still- damn powerful, it's just not 'autowin' and requires a little bit more effort on the part of the player. Or rather, SOME effort.

The average wizard does not have a high dex and won't be trained in stealth. Since he has to beat the highest passive perception of all the enemy creatures, the odds aren't that good that he'll be able to become hidden. Sometimes I found it difficult enough to become hidden when I played my Assassin!

Despite that, I find it hard to believe that even an untrained wizard would try to sneak around stomping his feet and singing a jaunty tune, all because he didn't roll exceptionally well for stealth. It doesn't make sense to me that someone could be completely invisible and still easily spotted through the fog of war.

The ranger noticing a shimmer in the air makes a lot more sense to me than him scanning the entire room and managing to pick out the only pair of footprints unaccounted for in the chaos. You might not need or even like it, but for me that subtle change transforms something irksome into something I can be happy with.

As I said, I don't disagree with the design decision (in fact, I like it a lot). I hate the concept of 'auto-win' myself. I was merely pointing out the change, for the purpose of comparison.

Fair enough.


But regardless, one thing to consider.


You have the exact same chance to make your stealth check if you are invisibile as you'd get if you were completely hidden behind a brick wall.

In both cases, you cannot be seen.

Think about that.

The big difference is that, in the case of hiding behind the brick wall, I would apply circumstance modifiers based on the quality of concealment and various other factors. A big, solid wall would grant a bonus because it completely blocks sight and dampens any noise as well. With an invisible character, there usually aren't any situational modifiers to apply, because invisible is just invisible.

I appreciate the food for thought though! When I initially read it, I seriously reexamined whether I ought to change my stance on the matter.

 

[Nytmare]

An invisible person does not need to be trained in stealth to be able to move around undetected. They need to start off hidden and then move no more than two squares a round.

If you're right in the middle of duking it out with someone and you suddenly turn invisible, they know that you're there, and have the chance of noticing where you go when you move off.

If they don't know that you're there, and have no need to start actively looking for you, (and as long as their base perception doesn't blow your base stealth out of the water) you can mosey right on in and tip-toe circles around them without fear.

 

[DracoSuave]

The average wizard does not have a high dex and won't be trained in stealth.

To the first: Bullocks. Dex is a secondary stat for some wizards. To the second, no most wizards are not.

But we're not talking about most wizards, we're talking about a wizard who uses invisibility on a regular basis. Which is NOT most wizards.

Since he has to beat the highest passive perception of all the enemy creatures, the odds aren't that good that he'll be able to become hidden. Sometimes I found it difficult enough to become hidden when I played my Assassin!

Dexterity isn't the big determining factor in that, not until high levels. The main determining factor on ability to go hidden is training in the stealth skill.

And if a wizard's specialized in invisibility, that's what he's gonna do.

I refuse to accept any character-design argument that states that someone who specializes in the art of sneaking around isn't going to take the ability to sneak around. If you want the ability, you take the skill that reflects it. I happen to feel strongly that to do otherwise is thier -bad roleplaying- or a character concept that purposefully is designed to shoot itself in the foot (i.e. he's bad at stealth but has invisibility for irony's sake).

Despite that, I find it hard to believe that even an untrained wizard would try to sneak around stomping his feet and singing a jaunty tune, all because he didn't roll exceptionally well for stealth. It doesn't make sense to me that someone could be completely invisible and still easily spotted through the fog of war.

It doesn't make sense that someone completely ignorant to the hows and ways of being trackless, being silent, and being unnoticed would be able to cast a spell that ONLY MAKES HIM UNSEEN and somehow that one single thing can outdo all his other senses and trump everything else in the game that is designed to spot people who actually -train in those skills.-

The ranger noticing a shimmer in the air makes a lot more sense to me than him scanning the entire room and managing to pick out the only pair of footprints unaccounted for in the chaos. You might not need or even like it, but for me that subtle change transforms something irksome into something I can be happy with.

It's not finding one pair of footprints. It's finding sets of footprints forming themselves while the sound of shoes scuffle in that unknown direction while someone murmers his arcane mojo under his breath.

HUGE difference.

As I said, I don't disagree with the design decision (in fact, I like it a lot). I hate the concept of 'auto-win' myself. I was merely pointing out the change, for the purpose of comparison.

Bear in mind, the ones usually -making- their perception checks are those trained in it. That means characters that have talent and skill in peering past the fog of war, yadda yadda. In other words, the ones finding you are the ones who have -exactly the skill you mentioned before.-

The big difference is that, in the case of hiding behind the brick wall, I would apply circumstance modifiers based on the quality of concealment and various other factors. A big, solid wall would grant a bonus because it completely blocks sight and dampens any noise as well. With an invisible character, there usually aren't any situational modifiers to apply, because invisible is just invisible.

Blocking the sight is what permits the roll to begin with. Dampening the noise IS a factor... which means you relent that noise is, in fact, a factor.

I appreciate the food for thought though! When I initially read it, I seriously reexamined whether I ought to change my stance on the matter.

No problem.

 

[Starfox]

Also, you may want to note that Eyebite will not allow you to become hidden under most circumstances. Eyebite only causes you to become invisible against one target. However, you need total concealment against all enemies in order to become hidden (any enemy who sees you can point out your square to his allies as a free action, which can be done even when it isn't his turn). This also applies when your Stealth check beats the passive Perception of some, but not all, enemies.

Is this an actual rule or a house ruling? Because I've been trying to find this out, and to me the rules suggest that you can be hidden to some enemies and not to others.

By my reading, Eyebite warlock are in a very good position. Blind the target, hide to that target and move 3 squares while the target is blind. Get concealment until the end of your next turn. At the start of your next turn, you become visible to the target, but you are still hidden. By your reading, this would only work against a lone enemy, as any friends present can point you out.