Reading a scroll while invisible?

[Roland Delacroix]

No, you can't see anything while invisible. You are effectivelly blind. Since all light passes through you it does NOT get focused in your eyeball, hence no sight.

That's why you always cast Blindsight before invisiblity.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Without any rules to back me up I completely prefer the idea that an invisible player cannot seem themselves at all.

It removes one of the cheesiest items in the game. Namely the Improved Invisible flying mage casting fireballs.

 

[Ranes]

"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a light source can become so (thus the effect is that of light with no visible source)."

Invisibility description, PH p218

You are not blind, therefore. Nevertheless, as your gear becomes invisible when you do, you cannot read a scroll, unless you are already under the effect of See Invisibility (or you cast that spell whilst invisible... it's not an attack, so there's nothing to stop you, as long as you have it memorised).

Incoming cheese alert in the form of a squadron of flying mages with improved invisibility casting fireball...

Ranes

 

[Roland Delacroix]

"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a light source can become so (thus the effect is that of light with no visible source)."

Invisibility description, PH p218

You are not blind, therefore. Nevertheless, as your gear becomes invisible when you do, you cannot read a scroll, unless you are already under the effect of See Invisibility (or you cast that spell whilst invisible... it's not an attack, so there's nothing to stop you, as long as you have it memorised).
Ranes

Nonono, sure the LIGHT is not invisible. But YOUR eyes are. The way humans see light reflects off a surface then is gathered by the eyeball. It is focused by the lenses then projected upon the back of the eye. IF you are invisible the visible light instead of being reflected within your eye passes right through. Therefore, you are blind.

Do I qualify as a Rat Bastard DM yet?

 

[Ranes]

No, no, no. Further reading of the spell's description reveals a number of examples of actions a PC can undertake whilst invisible, without any requirement for See Invisibility but which would require the invisible character to be able to see, so I think you are misinterpreting the rule. If you maintain your viewpoint, would you allow the saving throw of None or Will negates (harmless object) to give you (the invisible character) the chance to disregard the spell the spell effect on a successful check?

Sticking by my interpretation for a moment (in that you are not blind but you can neither see yourself or your gear), I just looked at the DMG's rules for casting from a scroll. There's nothing to say you have to be holding the scroll. If you put it down, say on a table and secured it from rolling up by weighing down the ends of the scroll with suitable objects, you could read from the now visible scroll, whilst being invisible.

Ranes

Edited garbled question at the end of first paragraph.

 

[Ranes]

Roland, I'd like to come back to your physics. Yes, we see because light is reflected off an object onto our retinas. But that's not the whole story, is it? We sometimes see, not because light is reflected off an object but because objects sometimes emit light (which falls onto our retinas). Your justification for your argument is based on the idea that, because our retinas are invisible we don't see those photons landing on them. (I don't see why - ouch, pardon the pun - the visibility of our retinas should impede the photons but that's the way you want it.)

So how do photons escape an invisible light source? It seems that the nature of magic is just being a little bit unfair here, no?

Ranes

 

[BMF]

Sticking by my interpretation for a moment (in that you are not blind but you can neither see yourself or your gear), I just looked at the DMG's rules for casting from a scroll. There's nothing to say you have to be holding the scroll. If you put it down, say on a table and secured it from rolling up by weighing down the ends of the scroll with suitable objects, you could read from the now visible scroll, whilst being invisible.

Good idea. I'd allow that too.

now... grab a broom, close your eyes, extend both arms out at 45 degree angles to your body, and try to touch your opposite hand with the broom handle... quickly.

If I was PROFICIENT with a broom, yes I could.

 

[Thanee]

Without any rules to back me up I completely prefer the idea that an invisible player cannot seem themselves at all.

It removes one of the cheesiest items in the game. Namely the Improved Invisible flying mage casting fireballs.

That does not prevent this combination in any way...

Bye
Thanee

 

[mirzabah]

Nonono, sure the LIGHT is not invisible. But YOUR eyes are. The way humans see light reflects off a surface then is gathered by the eyeball. It is focused by the lenses then projected upon the back of the eye. IF you are invisible the visible light instead of being reflected within your eye passes right through. Therefore, you are blind.

This is a somewhat garbled version of the facts.

Vision relies on two things - refraction of light by the lenses of your eyes (and spectacles if you happen to need them) and absorption of light by the retinas in your eyes (For the sake of brevity, I'm taking as given the bits where the light energy is converted into nerve impulses which are in turn processed by the visual networks in the brain to yield qualia in whatever passes for awareness in the mind of the beholder ).

In order for something to be visible, it must reflect, refract, absorb and/or emit light in some fashion. If an object does any one of these things, then it is visible (to any creature sensitive to the affected wavelengths of light). If it does none of them, then it is invisible - and competely blind.

But all of this, while interesting, is completely irrelevant. The spell Invisibility is listed as Illusion (Glamer). Illusions affect perceptions, not reality. If you wanted to get all pseudo-technical, you could say that the subject is surrounded by a fog of magical energy which causes viewers to discount whatever it surrounds. Kind of like an SEP field.

The rules state that if "... the character casts the spell on someone else, neither the character nor the character's allies can see the subject ..." This says nothing about what happens if the character casts the spell on himself or herself (or itself), but the very fact that they go to the trouble of mentioning what happens when you cast Invisibility on something else, implies that you would normally expect the caster of a glamer to be immune to its effect. What they are saying, albeit elliptically is that it is the subject of an Invisibility spell that is immune.

In other words, the subject of an Invisibility spell can see itself and any equipment it carries. If you want to rule otherwise in your game, that's fine with me, but don't use fallacious arguments to back up your case.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

apparently the intended humor in Roland's irrelevent application of physics to this situation was lost on a few of you...