Riding an invisible mount

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

There's a difference between a fair ruling - "You do not become invisible again when you mount your invisible riding dog" - and an unfair ruling - "You're invisible, but the bugs living in your hair aren't. Maybe you should wash next time?"

In case you missed it, you made the second.

 

[andargor]

Are you saying that when a wizard becomes invisible the toad in his pocket stays visible? Looks like it's just floating there?

If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour fell off or blew away). An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible.

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.

Although these quotes only pertain to objects (creatures are not mentioned), it would be straightforward to extend it to familiars or small creatures. They would however have to be covered by the creature using invisibility to themselves become invisible. As was mentioned above, familiars just need to share the spell, and don't require being covered.

So you could house rule as follows: the dog has a big blanket on it. When it goes invisible, the paladin can hide under it. Whether he sees anything is up to you, but charging while in this state is going to prove difficult.

The microbe and bacteria bit is just silly.

Andargor

 

[apesamongus]

OK. I ran it your guys way last night, and all of my players are pretty upset.

They think that invisibility isn't much good if the head lice, tape worms, dust mites, and bacteria inhabiting their body remain visible,

If you actually ran things that way, you should never be allowed to DM ever again. That's just being a jerk.

 

[Lamoni]

If you actually ran things that way, you should never be allowed to DM ever again. That's just being a jerk.

He did say THEY think. Before we jump to conclusions, I think that it is just as fair to assume that he didn't run it that way, but the players brought up the head lice to make a counter-example so they would get back their old invisibility.

To the original poster... If you show them the quotes that andargor posted, I think it will make it clear to them that the rider shouldn't become invisible again. Now the blanket idea is one way around that. Let the player hide under the blanket and he'd also be invisible. I just wouldn't let a player get back on the mount and under the blanket with a simple move action. It would take at least a full-round action to locate the mount by touch, figure out where the corner of the blanket was and climb underneath. Plus, while under the blanket the player wouldn't be able to see anything so that might not be the best option.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Although these quotes only pertain to objects (creatures are not mentioned), it would be straightforward to extend it to familiars or small creatures. They would however have to be covered by the creature using invisibility to themselves become invisible. As was mentioned above, familiars just need to share the spell, and don't require being covered.

So you could house rule as follows: the dog has a big blanket on it. When it goes invisible, the paladin can hide under it. Whether he sees anything is up to you, but charging while in this state is going to prove difficult.

The microbe and bacteria bit is just silly.

Sounds reasonable enough to me. Sure the Paladin might be able to maneuver or run away, but attacking while hiding under a blanket is not going to happen. He is foregoing the mount's attack. He is going to spend a move action to hide or take the blanket off himself.

To my mind, the big advantage to this tactic is it makes targetting the mount a bit more difficult.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

invisibility is a 1 person spell...

1 person and their gear turn inviso. Another person hiding under your cloak, or behind you will not have any cover period. I dont understand the arguement? Read the spell its very plain 0 room for arguement. If you hide behind something completly transparent ie looks like air, then you are hiding behind something completly transparent...and the last time I checked trying to hide behind air doesnt work out to good.

So hiding under an inviso blanket would offer you 0 cover as far as the eyes are concerned. But the blanket would function like a normal blanket otherwise.

ThornCrest




Its not invisibility sphere, even if so if you leave the are and return it doesnt make you inviso again? And thats inviso sphere.

So riding an inviso mount would look strange to say the least because the rider would be in plain view..

 

[Tobold Hornblower]

Of course I didn't really have the walking frame of lice and bacteria. :\

The blanket deal makes perfect sense for getting back on the mount situation, and seems clear within the rules. Thanks.

I wish there was a better rules for the rider on the mount than "If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, the gear vanishes, too." It still seems to my that a rider is like carried gear and should vanish. And I'm back to being stuck about what to do when the rider attacks. It actually didn't matter last night, since they fought a dragon who didn't need to see them. But I want to figure out something or come up with better rules for to change my previous ruling that the rider disappears.

A now dead PC in my game used to have an awakend snail that road around on her shoulder. Sure seems like the snail should become invisible, same as the lice.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The blanket deal makes perfect sense for getting back on the mount situation, and seems clear within the rules. Thanks.

No, it isn't. Only one creature is affected by Invisibility. As was already pointed out, if the human wizard turns invisible, can the halfling druid hide under his cloak to also become invisible? The answer is no. Only objects can become invisible by being hidden away in one's clothing.

Does the wizard's familiar therefore remain visible when the wizard turns invisible? Yes, if the wizard only casts Invisibility on himself. But since a wizard can share his spell with his familiar, and since the familiar is naturally going to remain within 5', the spell will never be broken. That's what Share Spells is for, to prevent such a situation.

I wish there was a better rules for the rider on the mount than "If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, the gear vanishes, too." It still seems to my that a rider is like carried gear and should vanish.

I disagree. What you want is two castings of Invisibility for the price of one. There's a cost to having a mount that helps balance out the advantages. One of them is the fact that a mount is a separate creature, and must be separately buffed. Paladins get an advantage here since they also gain Share Spells but, as another poster noted, that only works for buffs the Paladin casts himself.

And I'm back to being stuck about what to do when the rider attacks. It actually didn't matter last night, since they fought a dragon who didn't need to see them. But I want to figure out something or come up with better rules for to change my previous ruling that the rider disappears.

The rider does not disappear. And even if you generously ruled that he does, the spell is certainly broken when the rider attacks. If the spell weren't broken, you would in essence be lowering Greater Invisibility two spell levels for mounted combatants. Instead of casting Greater Invisibility (a 4th-level spell) on themselves to attack while remaining invisible, they could just cast Invisibility (a 2nd-level spell) on their mount, and still attack while remaining invisible.

A now dead PC in my game used to have an awakend snail that road around on her shoulder. Sure seems like the snail should become invisible, same as the lice.

I would rule that it did. It's Awakened, and therefore a seperate creature. Parasites are not.

 

[andargor]

The blanket deal makes perfect sense for getting back on the mount situation, and seems clear within the rules. Thanks.

Well, I mentioned that you could house rule such an arrangement in your campaign if it made sense, if it was balanced in your setting, and if it made it fun for everyone (the latter being the most important).

So, I agree with Pendragon, and the others, that normally this wouldn't work. It may be fun to do it that way, however.

Andargor