reading attack vs invisible caster

[Isollae]

Ice Bear, Invisibility is an Illusion spell (glamour if I recall correctly) That means you can save against it (disbelieve). that means hes not visible to you any more. But you have to have a reason, and if you have assistance you get bonuses to the save.

as for 'cutting the rope', what rope, I just said open the cage. but this is important. it shows a tendancy to look deeper into the game then the game is designed for. Personally I think the people that wrote this game should have played less Diablo but thats just me.

iso
"...Who you callin 'scruffy lookin'?"

 

[IceBear]

Ice Bear, Invisibility is an Illusion spell (glamour if I recall correctly) That means you can save against it (disbelieve). that means hes not visible to you any more. But you have to have a reason, and if you have assistance you get bonuses to the save.

as for 'cutting the rope', what rope, I just said open the cage. but this is important. it shows a tendancy to look deeper into the game then the game is designed for. Personally I think the people that wrote this game should have played less Diablo but thats just me.

iso
"...Who you callin 'scruffy lookin'?"

Please see Sean Reynold's rant on this - you cannot disbelieve invisiblity. It's a glamer that actually affects light - not you. There is no save against it. I agree that they should never have called it an illusion (I think it was for historical reasons with illusionists), but Sean's argument is quite compelling.

Sorry, open the cage (though how that causes something to fall on the PCs and kill them I'm not clear), but as you see in the desciption you could trigger a trap (which could drop something on someone and kill them) and remain invisible.

Don't know what this has to do with Diablo. BTW - I dislike your implication that I can't think for myself. I've been playing this long enough (long before I had these message boards for people to tell me what's right and wrong so I had to think for myself). In this case the rules are quite clear. It has to be a direct attack to cause the invisibility to drop. If you allow indirect damage to drop invisibility (a la a summoned monster) then you are clearly using house rules as that is directly against the spell description.

Here's the link:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html

IceBear

 

[jontherev]

Why?



Why?



Why?

The Sage advice I'm talking about was posted here somewhere, I think by Kreynolds. Perhaps invoking his name will help fill out my lack of details. However, if you don't use Sage Advice, the choice is up to you how you rule Invisibility.

 

[The Souljourner]

quote: Originally posted by The Souljourner

If he were visible when his attack went through, he wouldn't get the benefit.

Originally posted by Hong
Why?

Because he would be visible and therefore the target would be able to use his dexterity against the attack from the visible attacker, and therefore would not qualify as a target for a sneak attack.

Either you're visible while you're attacking, and your opponent gets to use his dex, or you're invisible while you're attacking and your opponent doesn't get his dex. These are your options, they are clearly spelled out in the rules. I don't see anywhere in the combat modifiers "attacker just turned visible after having been invisible".

-The Souljourner

 

[Isollae]

sorry Ice Bear, I didn't mean to imply any lack of self thought, and if you infered any, that this responce rectifies any error.

as for the Diablo comment....have you played....if you have, have you ever noticed the stark similarities between D20 and Diablo 2? I am not alone in this but i think that it is not a discusion for THIS message thread.

and your right about the door... my bad.

and as for renolds....well thats why DM's hate it...me to actually...

iso
"...are you a good witch or a bad witch?"

 

[IceBear]

sorry Ice Bear, I didn't mean to imply any lack of self thought, and if you infered any, that this responce rectifies any error.

as for the Diablo comment....have you played....if you have, have you ever noticed the stark similarities between D20 and Diablo 2? I am not alone in this but i think that it is not a discusion for THIS message thread.

and your right about the door... my bad.

and as for renolds....well thats why DM's hate it...me to actually...

iso
"...are you a good witch or a bad witch?"

d20 can be as much like Diablo 2 as the DM allows. This really isn't any different than it used to be. Yes, I know many people have looked at the 3E rules and saw the room for abuse and munchkinism a la Diablo 2. I have found, that in practice, it doesn't happen. Granted I DM a mature group that has been gaming since 1st Edition and if we find something cheesy in the rules we tend not to abuse it. So, I don't find this a fault so much of the d20 System (didn't we want a system that gives more freedom than 2nd Edition? Well, with freedom comes more room for abuse - that's the price. It's up to the group to tone down the abuse where they can, and as they like).

As for the whole invisiblity thing - change it to a Transmutation spell or something if you want. Glamers really fit better in Transmutations than Illusions.

IceBear
IceBear

 

[drnuncheon]

Ice Bear, Invisibility is an Illusion spell (glamour if I recall correctly) That means you can save against it (disbelieve).

According to the rules as written, you may save (disbelieve) if you study the effect closely (which you can't, because you can't see it) or interact with it in some way - from the examples, that would basically mean touching the invisible person and being able to realize 'hey! there's a person here where there ought to be empty space!'

That said, I think that invisibility is an exception to the general rule about disbelief - otherwise improved invisibility would be worthless. Someone stabbing you in the kidney would surely be 'incontrovertible proof' that there was an invisible person about, thus letting you save without a roll (assuming you survive).

J

 

[IceBear]

Actually, I think ALL Illusion spells that you can disbelieve has "Disbelief" mentioned in the Saving Throw. Invisibility isn't one of them.

Glamers are just weird. They appear to REALLY change the sensory qualities of the target of the spell. I could cast a glamer on a rough rock to make it feel smooth and it would feel smooth. From all the examples of glamers that I've seen you couldn't disbelieve it, as the rock really has become smooth to the touch.

It's like Silence. It's a glamer, and if someone casts it on your magic user he couldn't just disbelieve it and start casting spells again, the sound waves have been nullified for the duration of the spell. That's why it really seems to fit better as a Transmutation spell.

IceBear

 

[Isollae]

I think one of the problems that most people have with invisibility is that (and we're going back to 1st and 2nd here) it was part of the illusion/phantasm sphere. whili they tried to clean it up in 3E its the Phantasm part that always makes it messy. here are a few reasons why i believe this happens.

first is that 1-3rd level spells were only supposed to alter the basic perseptions of the players environment. it is the ability to pierce these simple perceptions that make these spells weaker.

second is that 4th and higher begins encorperating phantasms. a little bit of smoke to give the mirror some room to work.

third is that most people started campaings at 1st level they got bored with the game by 5th level and never really got into the more powerfull stuff. and the people that started mid level typically went after the more flashy stuff.

how many people have built an illusionist up from 1st to 20th
the hard way? How many have built a Transmuter up?

and since 3E is an extension of the original concept this philosophy continues. the idea that there is a fundmental shift in spell power after 3rd is consitant on both the divination AND arcane charts. although i will admit that its much better now that there are not 2 diferent spells with the same name.

last is a regurgitation from earlier....I believe caution should be exercised when when giving TOO much power to a low level spell. cus when the 7th level version comes around BAM! right in the kisser.

which brings us back to the begining.... does the invisibility go away before or after he begins casting the attack spell.

my opinion is that its goes away During the casting. not before or after (althought this amounts to the same as before). I feel this makes the most sense logicly as well as Dramaticly. since it is the action that causes the spell to disapate then it should disipate AS the action takes place.

iso
"...more human then human..."

 

[jontherev]

Ah! Here it is...

Q:I have a question about the invisibility spell. The description states that if you attack a target, the spell is cancelled. An invisible attacker always receives a bonus to hit a target, unless they have blindsight or something similar. So my question is this; If you are under the effects of invisibility, and you have three attacks at +16/+11/+6, do you gain the usual bonus to hit with the first attack, all of the attacks, or none of the attacks?

A:All of them. (Note you have to use the full attack action to make all those attacks, so your opponent must be close by.)

Copied and pasted from this thread. It's an email reply I think, not actual Sage Advice. Use it or not.