Why did Invisibility get the shaft?

[MerakSpielman]

If there were a metamagic feat that increased the duration of a spell by one category (from 1 round/level to 1 minute/level, or from 1 minute/level to 10 minutes/level) what would be the level adjustment? +1 level? +2?

 

[DarkMaster]

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.

I guess you adapt the history to your group, did that for years and never had a single TPK, so all my player were able to bring their character to very high level, with ressurection and stuff. I hated spending hours to roll new characters.
Now I don't care, they prepare their character in advance I approve them and we start. My adventure are already prepared, so they better cover all the bases.

 

[James McMurray]

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.

My players are pretty smart. They'll usually either commune to make sure the scout isn't going to backstab them, or they'll use zone of truth to question the scout. Sometimes both.

 

[dcollins]

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.

See the movie "Predator". Or cloaking ships in "Star Trek". Or cloaked units in "Starcraft". Or similar descriptions from the 1st Ed. AD&D DMG.

 

[Eldragon]

A lot of posters in this thread make the basic argument that "a wizard should not be able to use a spell to replace the skills of a rogue (or other sneaky type)".

This philosophy is TERRRIBLE! A Wizard's greatest asset is that she can cover for a missing aspect of the party in a pinch. Remove the wizard's ability to adapt and all you have left is someone who casts spells for hindering opponents in combat. It is this thinking that makes me so angry with 3.5. All the spells that allow the wizard to actually DO something besides cast magic missles and fireballs have been severely reduced in duration. Making them close to worthless for any purpose other than combat.

 

[Saeviomagy]

A lot of posters in this thread make the basic argument that "a wizard should not be able to use a spell to replace the skills of a rogue (or other sneaky type)".

This philosophy is TERRRIBLE! A Wizard's greatest asset is that she can cover for a missing aspect of the party in a pinch. Remove the wizard's ability to adapt and all you have left is someone who casts spells for hindering opponents in combat. It is this thinking that makes me so angry with 3.5. All the spells that allow the wizard to actually DO something besides cast magic missles and fireballs have been severely reduced in duration. Making them close to worthless for any purpose other than combat.

The wizard CAN still sub for a rogue in a pinch.

The problem is that you don't want the wizard to be able to substitute for EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. Hence 1min/level instead of removing the spell outright.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Did he really have to scout out the ENTIRE complex?

Couldn't he just have scouted out a bit, had the others advance, scouted a bit more etc? Keeps everyone involved a bit, and means the rogue doesn't get whomped as soon as someone spots him.

The problem with letting the wiz invis everyone is that the rogue then gets to do... nothing. The entire party scouts, and the rogue really doesn't get much of a benefit out of his ranks.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Unfortunately, this logic also says that if you do not have a party with these skills invested, you're significantly handicapped. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of having reasonably balanced parties, but sometimes that doesn't happen.

Yeah, I've seen this kind of thing happen before. A game without a cleric or rogue is still fun, just not balanced.

How many of us remember playing tense games in which a wizard had to do some scouting in a pinch, used invisibility to hide in a room, and then sweated it out while the opposing general went over battle plans in a small room where just about anybody could trip over the wizard at any time?

Disguise yourself as an officer - that's a 2nd-level spell. You might actually have to use your (possibly untrained) Bluff skill. Now, can you cast the spell before the general comes into the room or hears you casting? That could be a source of dramatic tension.

Or just hide behind a box... or make a Move Silently check and hide under the table (only do the latter if you were invisible at the time).

I just don't know what's going on with some of the design decisions. The nerfing of the buff spells (which I partly agree with) and invisibility seem designed to push toward making magic items for the same effect.

I think that statement would be more accurate when it comes to buffing than to invisibility. The ring requires you to chirp the command word every three minutes (Listen check DC 10 + 1/10 ft.) which means even a 1st-level human warrior with a Listen check of -1 might hear you. That's just the way I like it You can always invest in an elixir of hiding.

I can also see reducing the duration to 10 min/level or 1 flat hour. That way, the Eagle's Splendor might actually last the whole audience with the Duke rather than peter out after your opening statement.

Personally I would rather see the bard use his already high-Charisma score and skill to talk to the duke. I mean, why wouldn't everybody who wants to talk to the duke quaff the requisite potion?

Concerning the buff spell example where they could be usefull for particular situation. I think that the DM or the player or they (Wotc) should developed spell to handle these specific situations. Instead of having bull strength for all your warrior before the forced march, create a spell that allow forced march for 1hours/level. Same thing for eagle splendor instead of buffing Charisma just buff a certain skill for longer time.

Or do it this way. A spell that lasted 1 hour/level and gave you a +5 bonus to Diplomacy checks shouldn't be problematic.

 

[Staffan]

If there were a metamagic feat that increased the duration of a spell by one category (from 1 round/level to 1 minute/level, or from 1 minute/level to 10 minutes/level) what would be the level adjustment? +1 level? +2?

I'd put it at +3. It is definitely a lot stronger than Extend spell (+1), but mostly weaker than Persistent Spell (+4, but only works on a small number of spells). Since it can do some things Persistent can't (like change the duration in some cases to multiple days), I'd put it at +3.

 

[VirgilCaine]

The wizard CAN still sub for a rogue in a pinch.

The problem is that you don't want the wizard to be able to substitute for EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. Hence 1min/level instead of removing the spell outright.

Wizards who "sub" for other classes won't be able to act as a wizard as well as they might could otherwise. Invisibility does not negate sound or smell, Knock is not flawless, and if you use slots or scrolls for anti-lying or SM boost spells (both without conveniently applicable versions) you pay a price in something else--time, combat capability, something. And these

Even a high level wizard with lower-level spell slots "to burn" will suffer a disadvantage in combat if he uses his lower-level slots to prepare spells that negate lying or open doors or such.

The problem with letting the wiz invis everyone is that the rogue then gets to do... nothing. The entire party scouts, and the rogue really doesn't get much of a benefit out of his ranks.

The rogue will get lots of use out of his ranks in Move Silently. While the Ftr/Pal/Bbn/armored Clr blunders along loudly, and the Wiz/Sor/Drd tries amatuerishly to emulate the Rogue's whisper-soft movement, the Rogue will show a clear advantage.

The ideal class of a single character sent in to scout invisibly also is a Rogue (or Bard, Monk, Ranger, etc.). With Listen and Spot skills he can gather more information than a Wizard, and his Move Silently ranks make it a realistic possbility that he will be able to sneak past guards while relying on something other than luck.

Silence, you say? Wouldn't a 20' wide noiseless area be somewhat conspicuous to an alert sentry in proximity to the Invisible person?

Invisibility is not so difficult to defeat. It neither negates sound, nor smell. It does not prevent the disturbance of the surface being trod upon by the subject--mud, dust, dirt on the floor or in the air etc. would easily show an invisible spy.

See the Dungeon Masters Guide (1E, pp. 59-60). The section of The Hobbit describing Bilbo's experience in the elven forest city is more accessible and just as descriptive.

I disagree with the duration changes in 3.5. Some changes may be good, but lowering the durations on Invisibility and the Buff spells was not one of them.