Spells - Invisibility and Legacy

[BryonD]

So, we've talked about Invisibility and stealth.

Has anyone ever been really bugged by the invisible until an attack is made trope? It is such an established piece of D&D history, that it seems to not even bring about comment. People will debate on and on what constitutes an attack and what does not, but no one seems to question the rule in the first place.

There is probably some clever story I've never heard that explains exactly why it works this way. But I've always assumed it was because Gary and co wanted invisibility to be readily accessible (and that probably because Frodo had, so everyone else wanted it), so it needed to be low level. But it is just flat out too good at second level. So, throw in a one attack off switch and it is all good. But isn't that odd?

Is there a better way? Obviously, you could just ban Invisibility and rename Improved Invisibility as simple Invisibility.

But is there a better way to keep it second level?

 

[booboo]

id love to see spells moved to more appropriate levels. also if you move a spell you could have two spells greater/lesser so you could fill the vacant place.

 

[BryonD]

I am very on board to the idea of diminished and heightened versions of lots of spells.

If Invis becomes level 3 as is and a diminished level 2 spell takes the slot, then that is a straight nerf. And that is not my preference. Admittedly, any change could be called a nerf or a buff whether the designer thinks it is or not.

But my hope here is to find an alternate, quality version of invisibility that works at level 2 and also doesn't get quite so gamist in how it is balanced.

Then we pile a diminished and heightened version on top.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A 3rd level version of invis. that diminishes to the current (nerfed) version at 2nd level and heightens to the current Improved Invis.

Broadly speaking, is that on or off the table?

 

[BryonD]

A 3rd level version of invis. that diminishes to the current (nerfed) version at 2nd level and heightens to the current Improved Invis.

Broadly speaking, is that on or off the table?

100% on.
As long as a L2 basic Invis is still in play, it is all good.
And having the existing spell be a diminished form of a base spell 1/2 way between invis and improved invis make a lot of sense.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

100% on.
As long as a L2 basic Invis is still in play, it is all good.
And having the existing spell be a diminished form of a base spell 1/2 way between invis and improved invis make a lot of sense.

You know, I'll have to check how AU/AE does the diminished versions. I don't know if you can actually cast the diminished version unless you can cast the normal version.

In other words, at 5th level caster, when you have access to the 3rd level Invis. spell, you can cast the diminished version with a level 2 slot.

Assuming that's how it works-- I'm not comfortable pushing off invisibility to 5th level.

To answer your original question, by the way-- yes, it's obviously about game balance.

If you'll permit me to just think out loud.... I wonder what would happen if the attacking weapon became visible, but not the attacker? The defender could then pinpoint the attacker's square (aiming at the weapon), but still suffer a 50% miss chance; or the attacker could drop his now-visible weapon and hustle off.

 

[BryonD]

You know, I'll have to check how AU/AE does the diminished versions. I don't know if you can actually cast the diminished version unless you can cast the normal version.

In other words, at 5th level caster, when you have access to the 3rd level Invis. spell, you can cast the diminished version with a level 2 slot.

Assuming that's how it works-- I'm not comfortable pushing off invisibility to 5th level.

Been a while for me as well. And this is a good point that didn't occur to me before. However, that doesn't mean you have to be a slave to it. Maybe a more flexible system can be developed. Not saying it can, just staying open minded for the short term.

To answer your original question, by the way-- yes, it's obviously about game balance.

If you'll permit me to just think out loud.... I wonder what would happen if the attacking weapon became visible, but not the attacker? The defender could then pinpoint the attacker's square (aiming at the weapon), but still suffer a 50% miss chance; or the attacker could drop his now-visible weapon and hustle off.

Yeah, though it still forces the question of "how did the spell know that the weapon attacked?", and "What if you cast fireball?" (obviously in the fireball case, it just works the same as now.)

One thing about invisibility is that it needs to have a decent duration. It is an odd bird in that the weak version has a much longer duration. L2 is the sneak version of the spell and L4 is really a very different combat version. (This would complicate the H/D relationship)

What if the L2 version only permitted 1 action per caster level. But moving at half speed (consistent with Stealth with no penalty) does not count as an action. Thus you can stand still or move slowly for hours on end, consistent with the intent of the spell, only even better as long as you are very limited in actions.

I'm free-wheeling so far......
It seems that not being able to climb without burning out the spell cuts against the intent.
But it does catch my desire to have the spell not know or care what your behavior is, it simply knows if you are doing *anything* beyond walking slowly. (Maybe climb is ok as long as you can take 10...)

It functions as a very poor man's improved invis. At CL4 it lasts for 2 rounds of full attacks, but it only gains 1 round every other level.
The half speed thing fits your desire to make the rogue preferable. The target is going to want to conserve actions, and moving at half speed fits with Sneak checks to remain quiet, which the rogue will be far superior at.

Probably numerous pros and cons that don't spring to mind.

 

[GlassJaw]

You know, I'll have to check how AU/AE does the diminished versions. I don't know if you can actually cast the diminished version unless you can cast the normal version.

I don't remember either off the top of my head but essentially, aren't they the same as "lesser" and "greater" versions of spells?

Why not just give the lesser and greater "treatment" to more spells and increase the spell list accordingly?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I don't remember either off the top of my head but essentially, aren't they the same as "lesser" and "greater" versions of spells?

Why not just give the lesser and greater "treatment" to more spells and increase the spell list accordingly?

The mechanic is starkly different. Diminished and heightened versions of spells allow the caster to ready one spell but cast up to three different versions of it depending on his need, powering each with a different level spell slot.

It's very versatile and, hence, very powerful, and frankly I'm not sure that the Trailblazer casters need it!

 

[Elephant]

Yeah, though it still forces the question of "how did the spell know that the weapon attacked?", and "What if you cast fireball?" (obviously in the fireball case, it just works the same as now.)

It doesn't, any more than a thermos "knows" that it's keeping coffee hot rather than lemonade cold.

It makes you, your clothes, and your gear invisible. The blood of your target, OTOH, runs down the invisible blade, clearly pinpointing your location. As for the fireball? It looked like it appeared out of thin air. But now you have a great idea of where that pesky caster is...