Why did Invisibility get the shaft?

[drnuncheon]

If nobody wants to play a rogue

...or a ranger, or a monk, or a bard, or a cleric with the Trickery domain...

, I'm not going to make them. I just don't think they should be the only class that can function as an effective scout.

They're clearly not. Plus, the wizard has other ways to scout - wizardly ways known as divinations.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do if nobody wants to play a melee character? Move Tenser's transformation down to a first level spell so the wizards can pinch-hit there? If nobody wants to play a cleric, do you give the fighters magical healing abilities?

J

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Ah yes, another one on the big long list of boneheaded 3.5e changes.

In 3.0, with a 10 min/level duration, the spell could be used to sneak by the guards in a castle's gate, move into the keep, look around the duke's office, possibly listen to the secret council for a while (depending upon the caster level of course) and then sneak out over the wall. In 3.5, it's unlikely to last long enough to do more than get into the keep. (Provided you keep to the shadows anyway and wait for someone else to open the keep door so as to minimize the risk of detection, etc).

In neither system is it a proper replacement for hide except in the level 3-5 range. Past that, you need a good hide score in addition to invisibility if you want to avoid being seen. Magical (See Invis, etc) and mundane defenses (water, dogs, etc) against invisibility are to be expected--as are spot checks in the +10-+15 (can easily notice the presence of an invisible creature) range. If you want to actually be good at scouting in either edition, you need something better than Invisibility.

The change, like many of the 3.5 changes, was unnecessary and counterproductive--overcompensating for an imaginary problem.

 

[jgsugden]

Actually, many mages *do* have good move silently scores. Not outstanding, but enough to get past mediocre guards. Mages tend to have high dexterity and some of them even have extra bonuses from their familiar. All they need is a (cheap) set of elven boots to be good enough at moving silently to prowl around typical (listen 5 or less) guards. My sorcerer has a move silently of +14 at 12th level (elven boots, familiar, 22 dex (with a +6 enhancement item) with no ranks put in ... and that is *far* more than enough for him to sneak around against most foes. He makes a practice of hiding and moving silently most of the time ...

As for invisibility, they knew that changing the duration to 1 rd / lvl would prevent the use of invisibility for long term scouting. That was one of the reasons they did it. Scouting is the job of the rogue, bard or ranger (or perhaps the druid in wildshaped form). They wanted to reduce the ability of the arcane spellcaster to replace the party rogue.

The traditional role (1E and 2E) of the rogue/thief was to pick locks, find traps, sneak around, steal and provide one big hit in combat. A wizard can use knock to open locks, detect magic and summon monster spells to find traps, invisibility to sneak around, charm to steal and and most of their spells to deliver a big bout of damage in combat. I'm glad that they've taken steps to make the rogue/bard/ranger harder to replace with a wizard type character.

 

[Philip]

Invisibility:

1st Edition: Lasted until dispelled or the person did an offensive action.
2nd Edition: Lasted 24 hours or was dispelled or the person did an offensive action.
3rd Edition: Lasted 10 minutes/level or was dispelled or the person did an offensive action.
3.5 Edition: Lasted 1 minute/level or was dispelled or the person did an offensive action.
4.0 Edition: The Duration is concentration (to a maximum of 1 round/level)?



B

I think you are forgetting the utility of invisibility was seriously less in previous editions. In most practical cases invisibility just gave your opponents -4 on their to hit rolls.

When I saw 3rd edition, I was pleasantly suprised they made it a lot harder to deal with invisible creatures. Unfortunately, they made it so good that you were practically invulnerable when invisible, and that is a problem when it lasts too long. Especially because it is such a low level spell.

That has always been my main problem with DnD, mobility spells (invisibility, fly, ethereal jaunt) have a HUGE effect on gameplay. IMO they make adventuring less fun because they offer cheap solutions to many problems. I, for one, am glad they reduced the durations of these spells or bumped up their level (etherealness).

 

[Greyline]

Well at least now I know it wasn't just a typo.

It's bad enough that you can detect the presence (though not the exact location) of an invisible creature by rolling a spot check. I'd love to hear an explanation of that one.

And then there's this. If you are simply invisible, the DC to spot you is 20. But if you are hiding and invisible, you receive a +40 to your check if you remain still, and a +20 if you move around. Isn't the whole point of invisibility to hide? Okay, maybe not for inanimate objects.

I don't like the invisibility change. Invisibility was never a combat-oriented spell in my group. The change relegates it to very nearly a combat-only spell, so I doubt I'll ever use it again.

I agree with you almost completely, Merak. It's not completely useless, but it definitely becomes a last resort instead of a reasonable option. I do like DarkMaster's owl idea, though.

The question came up last night when the party (rog 3, ftr 2/rgr 1, wiz 3) wanted to sneak into a cave complex without splitting up, and the wizard realized that he and the fighter could be invisible for only 3 minutes, instead of half-an-hour. So what was intended as a group adventure became a solo adventure as they quickly realized their best bet was to send the rogue in to investigate and wait outside for his report. Great fun for the rogue, but a little too much thumb-twiddling for the other two.

I don't want invisibility to become a game-breaker, but I would like it to be relevant. For some odd reason, I'd like the effects of magic in my game to be, well, magical.

Greyline

 

[MerakSpielman]

...or a ranger, or a monk, or a bard, or a cleric with the Trickery domain...

OK, you made your point...

Just out of curiosity, what do you do if nobody wants to play a melee character? Move Tenser's transformation down to a first level spell so the wizards can pinch-hit there? If nobody wants to play a cleric, do you give the fighters magical healing abilities?

J

They can play whatever they want (the only restriction is no evil unless we've all decided to play that sort of campaign ahead of time). I just make the campaign. If they end up with a party without melee-tank-people or magical healing support, they have to figure out how best to overcome obsticles with the resources they have. Perhaps they will tend to find ways to avoid combat and excessive amounts of damage.

After a few campaigns, balanced parties get a bit boring.

 

[DarkMaster]

If nobody wants to play a rogue, I'm not going to make them. I just don't think they should be the only class that can function as an effective scout. If a mage wants to burn spell slots becoming an impromptu rogue (via silence, invisibility, knock, etc...) then why not let them? Why nerf the spells?

Then let them figure out the hard way like I did "TPK" until they realised by themselves that scout are as important as fighter, as cleric and at high level mage.

In one of my campaing the player wanted a cleric, a fighter, barbarian and a mage. None of them had scouting ability. I never said anything, I assumed that they are old enough to decide what is best for them. None of them at social skill either, so they got fooled by a high bluff rogue disguised as a priest of a good god. They entered the "church" to get their reward and felt in right into a well prepared ambushed, they all died. A rogue could have noticed that the guy was suspcsious (sense motive) and go in the church to investigate the church before going in. Then the party would have come prepared. Even without the sense motive they could had investigate a bit more before going in, but at the time no one had the skills.
Without a scout you end-up having your party fighting opponent that are almost always prepared and they are almost never prepared. They hear the plate armor fighter coming meter away and the party has no way of knowing what is front of them.

The next party was made of a Barbarian, a rogue, fighter, sorcerer and cleric (we had one new player). quickly the barbarian took ranger level.

There was someone mentioning hiring a scout, their opponent with little intelligence will quickly figure out that they always hire scout before going in and will make sure that the party hire the right scout before they attack their lair.

Never better served than by yourself.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think spells like invisibility ought to be higher level. 3rd level at least for basic invisibility (1 min/level), and 5th for improved invisibility (also 1 min/level).

 

[DarkMaster]

, balanced parties get a bit boring.

In my mind there are almost infinite way of having balance party especially in 3.X, multi-classing is made so easy.

 

[DarkMaster]

I think spells like invisibility ought to be higher level. 3rd level at least for basic invisibility (1 min/level), and 5th for improved invisibility (also 1 min/level).

Why??