Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Invisibility query
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Invisibility query
    Author Message
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:23 pm  
    Invisibility query

    OK, here's another one for you all out there, irrespective of edition (I think), although this may pertain more to the 1st and 2nd edition players, as I am totally ignorant of 3rd edition+ rules and regulations. Your interpretation IS sought, and I hope to hear from my trusty, sagacious barbarian friend out there, as well! Smile

    Is it possible with the 2nd lvl illusion spell, Invisibility, to render objects and things unseen, too? The Range says, "Touch," while the Area of Effect says, "Creature touched." I am under the impression that it is possible to cast this spell on things...

    Cast your vote!

    thanks in advance,

    -A very visible Lanthorn
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 30, 2007
    Posts: 71
    From: Nevond-Nevnend, Duchy of Tenh

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:59 pm  

    Third edition says "creature or object touched", no doubt about that one at all, mt guess is the same pretty much was implied in the earlier rules, but just never stated.
    _________________
    Servant of Azmekidom the Most Prudent Despot, The Unapproachable One
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:30 pm  

    Excellent! Good to know.

    Thanks, sir!

    Anyone else?
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:55 pm  

    Lanthorn,

    This is one case where the spells description does not account for your question unless you read further. The 2E rules state raange Touch and Area of Effect as Creature touched. Which can be slightly confusing. However the spell does not just make the creature invisible but all his geear and equipment he is currently carrying. So in this case we can assume that inanimate objects can be made invisible since equipment and gear carried are affected by the spell. 3rd edition clarified this oversight.

    Later

    Argon
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 31, 2004
    Posts: 27


    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:36 pm  

    I believe the 1e/2e rules were written as intended - the invisibility spell only worked on the creature touched - as well as his gear. The spell description strongly implies that the spell does not affect an inanimate object unless it is in the possession of the "creature touched" - simply setting such an invisible object down somewhere renders the object visible again.

    Nothing in the 1e/2e rule books - including several variations on the invisibility spell - indicate that the spell should affect objects. The fact that numerous Sage Advice questions, an article on invisibility ("Seeing is Believing" in Dragon 105), and a letter column (in Dragon 108), did nothing to alter the original stance of the spell seems to further strengthen the accuracy of that original intent.

    All that said, it is perfectly reasonable to allow the invisibility spell to work on an object touch if you were so inclined (I would). Although it might be helpful to quantify how big of an object a single invisibility spell might affect.

    -Pesh
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:42 pm  

    Wondrous!!!! Happy

    Peshkauri, Argon old friend, this is exactly the type of discussion I wanted! I know that an invisible creature's (or character's) gear (equipment, armor, weapons, etc) is rendered the same if carried, and I recall that released items become visible...what I was getting at was if a mage could cast such a dweomer upon, say, his/her spellbook (!) or some other item, and leave it behind, unseen to all other eyes...

    I gather the answer would be, Yes.

    Or am I mistaken?

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2715
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:45 pm  

    Technically, I believe Peshkauri is correct with respect to 1st & 2nd edition. However, this shouldn't prove too much of a problem as any wizard that successfully learns to cast the Invisibility spell should have little trouble researching a slightly altered version that works upon inanimate objects instead of/in addition to creatures.

    SirXaris
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:00 pm  

    I suppose if an item were rendered invisible it would only be good for 24 hrs, as the duration states.
    Any one have anything else to share before I move on to my next query?

    -Lanthorn the Inquisitor
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 31, 2004
    Posts: 27


    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:03 pm  

    It's not really a matter of being mistaken, Lanthorn.

    According to the written "rule" of the 1e/2e game, a magic-user would not be able to turn his spellbook (as an example) invisible unless he was carrying that spellbook when he turned himself invisible (whereupon it would be rendered invisible only because he was made invisible). He could not (by the letter of the written rules) cast that spell on the book and leave it somewhere unattended.

    However...

    It is your game, so you can certainly have that magic-user turn his spellbook invisible if you so desire. As long as the DM says it is so, it is so (and if you are the DM, it just makes it that much easier). :)

    -Pesh
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 31, 2004
    Posts: 27


    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:05 pm  

    Lanthorn wrote:
    I suppose if an item were rendered invisible it would only be good for 24 hrs, as the duration states.
    Any one have anything else to share before I move on to my next query?

    -Lanthorn the Inquisitor


    If your PC is able (and willing to pay the price) the invisibility spell could always be enhanced with a permanency spell. ;)

    -Pesh
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:21 pm  

    Pesh, thanks for the input. As far as game interpretations and resolutions go, I typically try to get player buy-in. This does two things:

    1) It is more democratic and people tend to respond better to that than a heavy-handed, autocratic, "My game, my rules" kinda approach

    2) It shows respect to your players, and many of mine are just as experienced as I am, both as DMs and PCs.

    Many times I have to settle for an impasse on certain topics. You cannot win them all. However, don't misinterpret my stance. I VERY much enjoy hearing the suggestions, ideas, and interpretations you ALL have brought forth.

    with respect,

    -Lanthorn
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 07, 2003
    Posts: 636


    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:02 am  

    I think the problem might be that a person rendered invisible would soon be visible again. An object rendered invisible would remain forever invisible and that is an effect that was reserved for a higher level spell. If as you say they expressly limited duration to 24 hours then that issue isn't so much of a problem. I would generally rule that objects carried remain invisible until set down. Objects picked up can be rendered invisible if hidden inside another invisible object (under a cloak, in a pouch, swallowed etc). My players never had a problem with this and it can lead to some fun role-playing.

    They stole the body of the Prince of Keoland from a massive giant procession (they were going to place the body on display in Gorna) by concealing it under an invisible fighter's elven cloak and distracting the giants when the group's changleling warlock (shielded from the giants' perception by shadow walking) impersonated the prince and flew off.

    This was played out as a sort of mission impossible 4E skill challenge but the point is that the players worked within the fictional limits and had great fun.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3836
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:47 am  

    Only works on a targeted creature(and whatever it is carrying/wearing). There are instances of invisible objects though, so you could instead to choose to have the spell target 1 creature/object, but may also want to limit the size of the object so as to avoid having some "clever" character turn the Oerth invisible. Laughing

    You could also make invisible object a completely separate spell with its own parameters(those spell research rules are there to be used). Wink
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:41 am  

    Indeed a good point (size limit).
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:13 am  

    Lanthorn,

    Peshkauri has read the spell correctly and as it reads one would assume creature touched only. I can't say this is wrong because the description never really takes objects in effect unless they were carried or picked up. It never mentions what happens if the spell is attempted on an object itself.

    With that said yes I would agree with Cebrion that objects can be made invisible provided they are no larger than man-sized. Note lets say a tripwire is made invisible once it is tripped and unleashes blades it should be come visible or if it leads to tripping into a pit trap. However if all it does is trip a person it can remain invisible as tripping was not considered an attack in 1e/2e. #rd edition has this as a combat option and therefore it would be considered an attack in 3e/3.5e.

    Later

    Argon
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 04, 2008
    Posts: 75


    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:42 pm  

    Not specifically pertaining to the original question....but am I the only one who thinks that the duration for Invisibility (i.e. FOREVER until an attack is made) is more than a little ridiculous for a 2nd level spell?

    Ahem....sorry; now returning to the original subject....

    I think I would just create a new spell: "Invisible Objects"; and have it apply specifically to only objects....perhaps the size could be a function of level of caster....maybe up to 10 or 20 pounds per caster level? I don't know; just thinking out loud here....
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:19 pm  

    Hiya Gents,

    I thought the duration limit was 24 hrs, period.

    -Lanthorn

    (Argon, Max, did you two get my PMs? Cebrion, I sent you one, too.) Question
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 04, 2008
    Posts: 75


    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:39 pm  

    I just looked up the spell in both 1st and 2nd Editions...

    In first; it's pretty much permanent until an attack is made or dispelled; in 2nd; it's a maximum of 24 hours.

    I think even 24 hours is ridiculously long...I think I'd house-rule it to last 1 hour per level....I think that'd be fair....

    Lanthorn: I didn't receive a PM....
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 13, 2001
    Posts: 64
    From: Stockholm, Sweden

    Send private message
    Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:55 pm  

    I agree that an essentially permanent invisibility from a 2nd-level spell is a bit powerful. Probably it never became a problem in the original campaign. The 24-hour limit was probably needed to clarify the intention of the spell. IMO it should be an even shorter duration, something like 1-4 hours plus 2 turns per level - nothing like a little randomness to heighten the tension!
    _________________
    Never say blip-blip to a kuo-tua
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3836
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:12 am  

    Argon wrote:
    With that said yes I would agree with Cebrion that objects can be made invisible provided they are no larger than man-sized.

    I am not saying that the spell affects objects at all, just that, instead of creating an entirely new invisible object spell, one can just alter the standard invisibility spell so that it can instead be cast specifically upon an object too, which it normally can't be.

    [peruses some books... Laughing]And maxvale76 is very correct. 1E duration- remains in effect until cancelled; 2E duration- 24 hours, or until cancelled.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2715
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:13 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    Argon wrote:
    With that said yes I would agree with Cebrion that objects can be made invisible provided they are no larger than man-sized.

    I am not saying that the spell affects objects at all, just that, instead of creating an entirely new invisible object spell, one can just alter the standard invisibility spell so that it can instead be cast specifically upon an object too, which it normally can't be.


    Wouldn't it have been great if someone had thought of this earlier in the thread? ...

    SirXaris wrote:
    Technically, I believe Peshkauri is correct with respect to 1st & 2nd edition. However, this shouldn't prove too much of a problem as any wizard that successfully learns to cast the Invisibility spell should have little trouble researching a slightly altered version that works upon inanimate objects instead of/in addition to creatures.

    SirXaris


    Wink
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 17, 2009
    Posts: 11
    From: Cauldron

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:57 am  

    You could always animate the object and then cast invisibility on it, or else tell your NPC bearer (who, like Nodwick, does not use the encumbrance rules) that the object is loot and cast the spell on him after he picks up the object. Should work on the Oerth, too. Laughing
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2011
    Posts: 97


    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:11 am  

    And lets be honest, anytime a player is inspired to make a new spell is a good one. In the 10 or so years I have DMed I have never had a player want to make a new spell before. I even tell the PC's at the start of game that I am more than willing to let them research spells.

    They just haven't come up with anything new. Invisible objects could be a very fun trap to put in a dungeon, could see all sorts of applications. Maybe I will use that for my next game. -Ponders-
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:15 am  

    Hello all,

    My current, main player has mentioned research spells, describing what effects he'd like, but thus far, his mage character hasn't had time, or money, to do so. "Life" in the campaign world seems to have him too busy (poor thing is now a zombie serving in the undead retinue of 'the enemy' in our current campaign, so that kinda puts a damper on spell research...).

    As for invisible traps, etc... GREAT idea. Evil Grin Of course, I would rule they are only good for 24 hrs' duration, or until sprung. But, that's just me.

    until next time,

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:14 pm  

    OK, just to make you all even more frustrated with me... Laughing

    Since Invisibility is an illusion/phantasm spell that works on the mind of the affected creature...

    1) Does it work on creatures, things, or constructs that technically have no minds of which to speak (such as the minor undead, golems, etc.)?

    2) Does magic resistance (see other post) come into play? If it does, does this mean that magic resistance applies to things like Phantasmal Force and its related spells (the Improved variety and the like)?

    -Lanthorn, clearly NOT an Illusionist
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2715
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:04 pm  

    Lanthorn wrote:
    OK, just to make you all even more frustrated with me... Laughing

    Since Invisibility is an illusion/phantasm spell that works on the mind of the affected creature...

    1) Does it work on creatures, things, or constructs that technically have no minds of which to speak (such as the minor undead, golems, etc.)?


    In 3.5, undead usually have darkvision. Thus, it can be inferred that they see magically and there is no reference stating that invisibility does not work on them that I am aware of. I don't recall if a description of the visual ability of such undead exists in AD&D or 2nd ed., but I do know that in the module, Isle of the Ape (AD&D), it specifically states that Invisibility spells and other illusions automatically fail against the dinosaurs that may be encountered due to a combination of their low intelligence and reliance upon senses other than sight. That may be helpful.

    Quote:

    2) Does magic resistance (see other post) come into play? If it does, does this mean that magic resistance applies to things like Phantasmal Force and its related spells (the Improved variety and the like)?


    Magic Resistance should apply the first time a resistance creature has a chance to 'see' the invisible creature or object. The result of that first encounter determines if the spell works against the resistant creature or not for its duration.

    SirXaris
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2011
    Posts: 97


    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:18 pm  

    I admit these are things for 3.0+ but they talk about this subject, and how things worked in 2nd edition in fact. You might glean something useful out of it, who knows.

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

    http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/undeadseethroughillusions.html
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:52 pm  

    Iressi, thanks for the very amusing reading material! You had me chortling. Cool There are some great logical arguments in there.

    SirXaris, to my knowledge, there is nothing in 2e that specifies the perceptual abilities of the undead.

    Question: do ALL zombies and skeletons have infravision (I think it is called darkvision in 3e), even if they were humans in life??? What about animal minor undead? hmmmm....

    As for certain critters being immune to Invisibility due to low Intelligence on "Isle of the Ape," well, I would think that would hinder them! There's a table, after all, in the DMG that cross-references Intelligence with HD and a % to pierce through invisibility. The HIGHER the Int and/or HD, the easier it is! So a stupid critter has a HARDER time to pierce the illusion (but a stupid, BIG one has a chance, however small).

    That said, many animals (theoretically dinosaurs, too) wouldn't necessarily rely on vision alone, but a vast array of keen senses (it is hypothesized that T rex had a keen sniffer given the structure of its brain cast) which could make invisibility difficult, or a moot point. However, I would not necessarily make it impossible.

    Furthermore, there's the 1st lvl (!) priest spell of the Animal sphere called "Invisibility to Animals" which may be partly misleading, b/c it seems to cloak you FULLY from the perceptions of any animal...INCLUDING a T rex (says so in the description!). That seems contradictory to the "Isle of the Ape" statement. I'd use common sense and a bit of zoological knowledge on this one.

    Thank you all for your continued posts on this thread! Tis much appreciated.

    -Lanthorn, Zoologist


    Last edited by Lanthorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Mar 05, 2007
    Posts: 290
    From: The Pomarj

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:05 pm  

    maxvale76 wrote:

    I think I would just create a new spell: "Invisible Objects"; and have it apply specifically to only objects....perhaps the size could be a function of level of caster....maybe up to 10 or 20 pounds per caster level? I don't know; just thinking out loud here....


    Several years ago, I found a Ship Invisibility spell (on a site for 2nd edition Spelljammer). I'd have to look up the file I made for those spells, but I think it was a higher level spell, like 5th level maybe. So, some kind of Item Invisibility spell limited to the aforementioned 10 or 20 pounds per level, I could see that as another 2nd level spell, 3rd at most.

    As fr the duration issue I saw mentioned in other replies. I've had a similar issue with Continual Light. Here we got a 3rd level priest/2nd level wizard (in 2nd edition) spell, that is permanent unless dispelled. Why wouldn't everyone have a continual light thing or two laying around? OK, maybe the poorest of peasants might not have them, but what's to stop some 3rd level wizard from "selling" the spell to everyone in town? Just bring him the thing you want lit, give him some coins, and in a week, you could have one for every room of your house.

    Back to topic. I may have to consider changing the 24 hour duration for my own game. But then, it hasn't been that big an issue in any of the games I've been in.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3836
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:19 pm  

    The unlimited/24 hour durations were never a big deal for us, as either the wizard is going to eventually do something to break it, or some enemies will either catch on or notice them in any number of ways(even when they don't always intend to).
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2011
    Posts: 97


    Send private message
    Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:38 am  

    As far as Continual Light goes something you might consider is taking a page from 3.0/3.5 in that edition Continual Flame (They decided to change the name for some reason) has a expensive component (50 GP worth of ruby dust) which means the only people that might be able to afford something like that are wealthy merchants, and nobles.

    You can even make the component more expensive if you think that is too cheap. That way its still in the game, and provides for higher level adventurers the ability to have light without worrying about getting oil or fires while the sort of low magic medieval fantasy feel is maintained.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:34 am  

    Regarding illusions/phantasms vs. Magic Resistance, I need to crack open my DMG and PH again to refresh my memory when it applies and when it doesn't.

    Illusions are ALWAYS the trickiest school to handle, even without MR involved...

    OK, I see now that "Invisibility" would work on even minor undead (I guess, Illusions in general, too), but what about golems? I gather the collective answer will be "Yes" for pretty much the same reason, but I am open to hear what you all have to add.

    BW, don't forget that having a blazing globe of light can cause all sorts of logistical issues (firstly, blinding oneself by accident, at least for a few rounds...secondly, making yourself a beacon to everything... and also, making it difficult to sleep unless placed in a "lightproof" container). But, perhaps that is for a separate post....

    -Lanthorn, Illuminator[/i]
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Mar 05, 2007
    Posts: 290
    From: The Pomarj

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:31 pm  

    To expand on my post from last night, and reply to some new posts:

    I remember playing in campaigns with several characters able to d invisibility, either with the spell, or an ability from a magic item. Those able to would do this at the start of the day (we we begun traveling) when we were headed to some location. The idea was to hide our numbers somewhat so if we got ambushed, there'd be some surprise factor when the "other half of the group" jumped into the battle. And, if we had a day of no encounters (it didn't happen often, but it did happen), no biggie, they just redo the spell in the morning when we hit the trail again.

    Now, about the Continual Light thing I started here, players with a late 20th century perspective can find ways around the issue of a light always being on. For the adventurer, the CL is placed on the end of a stick, which is affixed into a scroll tube or something similar, so the glowing part is inside the tube. Add a cone of reflective metal such as silver and bingo, a magical flashlight. To "turn it off", simply put the cap on (the cap being tethered to the tube with a cord or chain so it doesn't get lost.
    For home use, the CL is placed on the end of a similar stick, but this is made to slide up and down in an upright tube, sort of like those deadbolt locks. A funnel of cloth or something is attached around the top where the glowing part wold be when in the "on" position, and you have a lamp.
    The idea of a material component that costs, that might be the catch.

    I'm not sure my typed words adequately describe it, but I'm sure you get the basic idea. Of course, it's easy for a player in the 20th (or 21st now) century to think of these things. I've believed for a while now that many things we have were invented later than they could have been, simply because nobody thought of them earlier. For example: the wheelbarrow wasn't invented until around the 12th century, if I remember right. But almost anyone from our time, if somehow sent back in time to ancient Greece or Egypt, would have little trouble "inventing" it with the technology of those eras. (I know, I'm digressing now)

    Back to invisibility: In Dragon 76, in the writeup for the Death Master NPC class, there was a description for a magic item called Eyes of the Undead, which allowed the wearer to see the life force of live creatures. It superseded infravision and normal sight. I'd imagine undead see things in a similar way. This would also bypass illusions I imagine.
    Vampires might be a special case since they do have bodies, including eyes. Possibly they have the ability, but can turn it on and off as needed.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:40 pm  

    BW, your clever ideas on Invisibility my players and I have used to full effect whenever possible. If we suspect combat, there's typically a Flying and Invisible mage or two to be ready, just in case. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have a small group unseen, but it gets tricky when you have to stay clustered together in tight quarters.

    Maybe I'll open a Post just on undead sometime in the near future, given all the questions and answers flying around in regards to them...unless you want to beat me to the punch, that is!

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2715
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:19 pm  

    Regarding Continual Light:

    I conceived of the flashlight idea a long, long time ago, just as you describe it, but using a small pebble inside the tube instead of a stick. Happy I'm sure I'm not the first either, nor will we two be the last.

    Sir Xaris learned that Continual Light is an invaluable spell when adventuring against Drow in the D1-3 modules. He and his companions cast Continual Light on a new pebble each day until they each carried 10-20 of them in a belt pouch reserved for just such a purpose. When the party encountered a group of hostile Drow (and when weren't they hostile?), several of them would grab a handful of those pebbles from their belt pouch and throw them toward the Drow. This would hinder the Drow and there would be so many of them that there usually weren't enough Drow to cancel/dispel all of them and leave the party in darkness. Cool

    If you check out my Sanctigaard, et al article, you'll notice that Sir Xaris' stat block includes a belt pouch with 10 Continual Light rocks as part of his Possessions. Smile

    SirXaris
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:05 pm  

    Clever tricks. I think I, too, have done similar feats. I've also Silenced a coin and hurled it into a room known to have a cleric or mage. You just gotta get within 15 feet is all. Wink
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 06, 2011
    Posts: 32
    From: Roanoke, VA

    Send private message
    Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:25 pm  

    I had an issue like this come up in a game I was running. A PC cast invisibility on a closed wooden door. The player argued that they should then be able to see in the next room since they door had vanished from sight. This would make invisibility an extremely powerful spell allowing you to see through walls, doors, etc.

    In 3.5 D&D invisibility is a second level arcane Illusion spell or a second level divine trickery spell. It appears to be mind affecting since the target simply vanishes from sight. Further, if the target were physically changed in some way (like becoming transparent), the spell would be of the alteration school instead of illusion. The spell does note that the target becomes undetectable by darkvision. However, other powerful visions, such as lifevision, seem to remain unaffected. The spell does not say the person or item becomes transparent only that is vanishes from sight.
    I ruled differently than the player wanted. I told the players that they could not longer find the door they once knew was there. I used this example.

    Ever leave your keys on the kitchen table and in a rush or dumb moment could not find them? They are right there on the table in front of you, yet your eyes skip over them or your mind does not perceive them. Then your wife, child, friend, whatever reaches right down and picks them up and hands them to you. You feel dumb because you could not see what was right in front of you. This is how I see Invisibility working. The target does not become transparent, others simply cannot perceive they are there. They can see items around the target, just like you could see your coffee mug, but they cannot find the target of the spell. Just like you could not find your keys. In my adventure the party members could no longer find the door the spell was cast on. Their eyes simply skipped over the door seeing only the wall. Just as you could see the kitchen table, but not your keys.

    After the adventure I presented a group of RPGA judges and event coordinators with the situation and my solution. They agreed with my ruling saying that to rule as the players wanted would have made Invisibility an overly powerful second level spell, and that my reasoning behind he ruling and description of the effects and why was every well done.

    Hope this is helpful. Iíd like to hear your opinions on my logic and ruling.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:32 pm  

    Shield2099, I like your logic. Thankfully, I don't frequently lose my keys (my wife does, though, much to our mutual dismay), but your example resonates well in my mind. Thanks for your input! I hope to hear more from you on my other posts and look forward to your insights.

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2715
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:20 am  

    shield2099, I like your reasoning very much and it is right on the money with respect to the power of the spell.

    The only issue I see with it, as far as canon is concerned, is that in one of the editions (can't remember which), Invisibility, as an Illusion, is specifically described as bending light in order to trick the vision into missing the Invisible creature.

    Can your reasoning be reconciled with that specific description of how the spell works.?

    SirXaris
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 06, 2011
    Posts: 32
    From: Roanoke, VA

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:25 am  

    SirXaris wrote:
    shield2099, I like your reasoning very much and it is right on the money with respect to the power of the spell.

    The only issue I see with it, as far as canon is concerned, is that in one of the editions (can't remember which), Invisibility, as an Illusion, is specifically described as bending light in order to trick the vision into missing the Invisible creature.

    Can your reasoning be reconciled with that specific description of how the spell works.?

    SirXaris


    This description must be from an older edition. It is not 3.5. Sounds like 2nd edition or before. I would have to dig out my 2nd edition books to check.

    Ok, first this description is the same as a Romulan Clocking Device from Star Trek. The power needed to bend light around an object is immense. Consider the Star Trek example. It took the full power of a starship to generate that kind of field. Letís say a second level spell has that kind of power, (never mind that a transporter would be the superior to Teleportation Circle, a 9th level spell with a casting time of 10 minutes as apposed to the 10 seconds it takes to beam someone up or down, and less powerful than the cloaking device in the Star Trek universe.)

    There are examples of spell that deal with manipulating light. The spell Light is 0 level Evocation spell. This has the power of a flashlight. Dancing lights is a 0 level Evocation spell. This has the power of several small flashlights. Both these and spells light Daylight create light out of thin air. Consider the spell Darkness second level Evocation spell. This deals with eliminating light. Then you have prismatic spry a 7th level Evocation spell and prismatic wall or sphere 8th and 9th level Evocation spells. These also specifically mention controlling light to create affects. Something akin to a death ray or force field. Some argue that Color Spray a 1st level Illusion spell deals with light. But in the description of color spray only a spray of colors is mentioned. Nothing about light beams. Also the spell clearly states mind affecting. Other illusion spells that deal with changing the environment clearly state how this change is taking affect. In the case of Project Image a 7th level Illusion spell, the description notes that you are taping into the power of the Shadow Plane to create a semi-real image. This shows than when a spell changes the physical world the spell effects take note of it.

    The spell discretion you are using would allow the door in my example to become transparent. It would also be a much more powerful spell than invisibility. It would also need to make clear what kinds of vision rely on light, and how other visionís rays would be affected by such a powerful force (lifevision, darkvision, earth vision, etc). I would also say the spell is likely misclassified. Illusion spells tend to be mind-affecting or drawn on the plane of shadow to make a simi-real physical change. Most spells that affect light, creating it, eliminating it, bending it, changing it, focusing it, are all Evocation spells. Clearly Evocation has some kind of connection to light rays. Evocation also controls fire and lighting. Evocation appears to deal with most power sources. I would say that version of Invisibility would have to be a much higher level spell of the Evocation school.

    Adam
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:59 pm  

    I love how Adam ("Shield") integrated Star Trek (with its own gaming system and fanbase, likely many of us included...partly myself, I'll admit, though I am bigtime into Star Wars) into our Greyhawk conversation. To toss another gaming system reference in, I award Adam with 15 pts of Karma to use as he desires.

    (The first responder to correctly figure out to what game I am referring gets 15 Karma as well!)

    -Lanthorn, DorkLord (NO, I am not changing my Avatar!) Wink
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 06, 2011
    Posts: 32
    From: Roanoke, VA

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:24 pm  

    I don't know which system Karma points are in. They were in Fallout 3 the video game. I'd like to invest my Karma points toward paying off my student loans.

    Karma points sound like they may be from Five Rings RPG but I know very very little about that system.

    What I don't want is Taint points. No no no. I like my alignment where it is.

    Adam
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:11 pm  

    HAHAHAHA!!! Laughing Shield, you are a funny one! Sorry about those student loans. I hope a friendly cleric can Regenerate the arm (and leg?) that you cut off to pay for those loans! I just completed my Master's in Education, so I can understand your pain.

    Those other systems may use Karma points, but not the system I had in mind. Good guess... I give you honorary 15 Karma for use of humor (the game system would too! that's a hint).

    -Lanthorn the Laughing
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.39 Seconds