3E and Invisible Doors
R. Scott Rogers
person who finds my non-transparency model of Invisibility to be compelling.
A couple of thoughts.
1. The game designers almost certainly MEANT to write Invisibility such that
it renders objects transparent. Folks come up with a bunch of crap arguments
to this effect, and they almost always fail by relying on assumptions that
leap further from the text than my own. However, the behavior of invisible
objects in water or fog is compelling on this point. For an invisible object
to become visible underwater or in fog as a clear hole in the surrounding
medium, exactly as would a clear glass effigy, the spell must render the
object transparent and NOT invisible. If it was invisible, you wouldn't see
it in water or fog. If it was transparent, you would. And you do. So there.
Anyone else thinking of following me down the road of the One True
Invisibility Interpretation, and into the land of Interesting Magic, had
better be prepared to ignore this compelling hint as to the authors' intent.
If you actually care about author's intent, you pretty much have to accept
that Invisibility works just like a Romulan cloaking device, and is perhaps
the most mechanistic, mundane, and un-magical spell in the book.
2. That said, the authors did a really bad job of writing Invisibility. Even
with the most pro-transparency reading of the spell, we are still left with
instances where invisible things do not behave as would a fully transparent
thing. We know that sometimes invisible objects behave as if transparent (in
water) and other times they do not (wearing an invisible cloak). So to get
to transparency all the time, which I've already granted that the authors
almost certainly intended, we have to make some interpretive leaps. In other
words, assumptions.
3. And similarly, to get to transparency none of the time, we have to make
some interpretive leaps. In other words, assumptions.
4. And despite the inability of certain partisans to articulate their
assumptions in an effective manner, they could in a perfect world do so and
their assumptions would not stray far from the text. Neither do mine. Both
sets of assumptions result in simple, consistent game mechanics. To me this
really looks like a choice between sets of assumptions that work about as
well as one another and that both stray about the same distance from the
muddled text. So it boils down to an aesthetic choice of which set of
assumptions yield a more elegant conclusion. This is an aesthetic choice,
not subject to proof, and not particularly fruitful for further discussion.
And the plain fact is that most people want invisibility to work like it
does in the movies, where things becoming transparent can make for a really
cool special effect. On purely aesthetic grounds I do not prefer this
effect; it strikes me as overly mechanistic and therefore a poor fit for the
premodern magicalism of the DND setting. But this is a question of taste,
and while I have my preferences they are no more than that, and opposing
tastes on this point are no less valid than opposing tastes on the question
of, say, Coke vs. Pepsi.
I therefore strongly encourage anyone considering agreeing with me to think
long and hard about item 1. The authors almost certainly meant to write a
transparency spell despite failing to use the word transparency where doing
so would have made sense. Like in the spell's title. And almost everyone
would prefer to play in a setting where Invisibility means that a thing
becomes transparent, not that it cannot be seen. These factors weigh
strongly against adopting my interpretation, and you're probably better off
not doing so.
And to anyone considering arguing the point with me, I have just conceded
the validity of your best arguments. This all boils down to a clash of
interpretive assumptions based on a poorly written bit of text. I do not
mean to try to persuade anyone of my point, so there really is no argument
to be had over this subject within 3E. Trying to argue against me on this
point amounts to masturbation, since you've already won the argument with
(almost) everyone else, and I recognize the validity of your substantive
arguments and encourage anyone who does not yet agree with you to reconsider
in light of the strong evidence of authors' intent.
Just hoping we can move on to something more productive and less wasteful of
bandwidth, like you, you know, an alignment thread. ;-)
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
scott at madforjam.com
Rob Singers
words of wisdom
> For an invisible object
> to become visible underwater or in fog as a clear hole in the
> surrounding medium, exactly as would a clear glass effigy, the spell
> must render the object transparent and NOT invisible. If it was
> invisible, you wouldn't see it in water or fog. If it was transparent,
> you would. And you do.
The passage on DMG 79 that says that an invisible object shows up in
water due to the displacement is the one badly written clause.
If an object was transparent it would show up because of the different
refractive indices of the substances. However the clause doesn't say
this, it says displacement.
If you were to see the water be displaced as the invisible object entered
the water you would be able to target the invisible object because of the
disturbance of the waters surface. However once submerged it would be
harder to hit than the one-half concealment suggests. Likewise an object
with a different RI, certainly one meant to be "invisible", would also be
harder to target.
When you look at the effects of hiding, being blind, and the condition of
being invisible (and to that matter incorporate) and the fact that the
spell is an illusion it's obvious that an invisible object is not seen
and the spell achieves this by deceiving the mind. To insist that the
object becomes transparent is a leap to far.
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Ben Loomes
Transparency at the level where invisibility is now and maybe a proper
Somebody Else's Problem Invisibility spell that does all the stuff Scott is
talking about.
This would allow for the cool aspects of both interpretations to be used.
Oh... Do you think my level placements are correct then?
Would SEP be harder than transparency?
What about a spell that kind of shifts you out of phase with matter (a bit)
like in Star Trek, though I guess you couldn't interact with the
environment...?
Help.. to many options!!!
Ben
"R. Scott Rogers" <sc...@madforjam.com> wrote in message
news:BAE3CA01.105F2%sc...@madforjam.com...
Talen
<loomes...@ozemail.MAPSONcom.au> wrote:
>Would SEP be harder than transparency?
Affecting the minds of as many as a million people at any distance,
all at once, with no saving throw?
Yeah.
--
Talen
http://hypercrescendo.net/talen/
"First you take a drink, and then the drink takes a drink...
and then the drink takes you."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
The Gurus love you
Christopher Adams
>
> Affecting the minds of as many as a million people at any distance,
> all at once, with no saving throw?
>
> Yeah.
Heh. Something that occurs to me along the lines of the invisibility argument is
that it's not necessarily a mind-affecting spell just because you can't see an
invisible object (as opposed to its being transparent). If it changes the
physical properties of the object so that it can't be seen, then it's invisible.
I think the right answer is "whatever makes Invisibility work the way you want
it to in your game", but that's no fun.
--
Christopher Adams
SUTEKH Dysfunctions Officer 2003
Remove obvious spamblock to e-mail me.
I just would like to make it absolutely clear that both Jean-Luc Picard and
Professor Charles Xavier could KICK CAPTAIN KIRK'S BUTT.
- Patrick Stewart
Willie
only
> person who finds my non-transparency model of Invisibility to be
compelling.
>
> A couple of thoughts.
%<----------------SNIP-------------------
Funny you should bring up the subject of invisibility today. I just
watched one of my favorite movies Mystery Men. It is my favorite
for all the "powers" of the lesser heroes. And my favorite one is
the power to be invisible, as long as noone looks at me. This struck
a nerve when I thought about it in comparison to the invisibility spell
and effect in D&D. I have since played my invisibility spell in much
the same manner. I think of the spell as causing the targets (the rest
of the world) to miss seeing me. I am there, I could be seen if they
would just know where to look. The spell causes them to look just
to one side of me. This would also fix the one glaring problem I have
with the traditional invisibility 10' rad spell. what if you are carrying
something that extends past the radius.... would just the end of it be
seen?
My version would cause the target to look just to the side of me AND
my 21 foot ladder! hehe
Ariel Azia
> Somebody Else's Problem Invisibility spell that does all the stuff Scott
is
> talking about.
>
Transparency is transmutation, not illusion.
the SEPF should allow a will save, and should not work on constructs and
such.
i think that SEPF is nerfed to level 1, no?
Leif Ericson
that you can't see the object itself, just that you can see through
it. A sheet of green glass is transparent. You can see through it
and you can see it. Yes, something could become so clear that it
becomes invisible. But most transparent objects are visible.
Invisibility means you CAN'T see it!!!! In it's truest form, it means
that light does not bounce off the object and reflect to your eyes.
The water and fog arguement are irrelavant. It is comparing apples to
oranges. You may be able to see the hole in the water created by the
invisible object, but that does not mean that light is no longer
bouncing off the object. The object is still invisible...and you know
right where it is also!!!
Just because an object can ignore the effects of light does not mean
it can pass through solids and liquids without a trace. That is a
totally separate issue. A spell could be created that ignores the
effects of light only or a spell could be created to ignore the
effects of light and allow you to pass through solids and liquids
without a trace. Which spell are your characters casting?
In my world being hidden visually and pass through solids undetected,
you would have to cast Invisibility and Ethrealness. So to me,
Invisibility means that you cannot be seen but you may still be
detected by other means. You are still a solid. There is no mention
in the spell that your are completely undetectable and no longer a
solid.
"R. Scott Rogers" <sc...@madforjam.com> wrote in message news:<BAE3CA01.105F2%sc...@madforjam.com>...
Justin Bacon
>For an invisible object
>to become visible underwater or in fog as a clear hole in the surrounding
>medium, exactly as would a clear glass effigy, the spell must render the
>object transparent and NOT invisible.
First off, whatever lameass dictionary you're using should be thrown out as
quickly as possible. Your definition "invisible != transparent" has no
relationship to the definition used by the rest of the English-speaking world.
Second off, so the invisible object must be transparent, not invisible?
Hmmm....
>Anyone else thinking of following me down the road of the One True
>Invisibility Interpretation,
Didn't your driving instructor ever tell you not to go the wrong way on a one
way street?
>and is perhaps
>the most mechanistic, mundane, and un-magical spell in the book.
Right. Because things turn invisible in the real world all the time.
>2. That said, the authors did a really bad job of writing Invisibility. Even
>with the most pro-transparency reading of the spell, we are still left with
>instances where invisible things do not behave as would a fully transparent
>thing. We know that sometimes invisible objects behave as if transparent (in
>water) and other times they do not (wearing an invisible cloak).
I suppose, having drawn the strawman conclusion that the magical spell isn't
magical, you have generated some form of "legitimacy" for complaining that the
magical spell is magical. It's not a form of legitimacy the rest of us
recognize, but I'm sure you're happy with it.
>To me this
>really looks like a choice between sets of assumptions that work about as
>well as one another and that both stray about the same distance from the
>muddled text.
This is because (a) you are apparently incapable of reading the manual for
comprehension; and (b) you deliberately ignore anyone who replies to your
messages. Your "it must be one way or the other!" is a fallacy of massive
proportions, completely unsupported by the text. When you then attack the text
as "muddled" for not endorsing your fallacy, you just end up looking silly.
>Trying to argue against me on this
>point amounts to masturbation, since you've already won the argument with
>(almost) everyone else, and I recognize the validity of your substantive
>arguments and encourage anyone who does not yet agree with you to reconsider
>in light of the strong evidence of authors' intent.
...and then you resort to the final refuge of the coward.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
R. Scott Rogers
> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>> Trying to argue against me on this
>> point amounts to masturbation, since you've already won the argument with
>> (almost) everyone else, and I recognize the validity of your substantive
>> arguments and encourage anyone who does not yet agree with you to reconsider
>> in light of the strong evidence of authors' intent.
>
> ...and then you resort to the final refuge of the coward.
Coward? Justin, I know I got angry on your ass when you didn't deserve it in
the original thread. And I'm sorry, I really am. But this is uncalled for.
For one thing, it's absurd. If you think this sort of usenet discussion can
demonstrate courage or cowardice from anyone, well, you really need to step
away from the computer, get out in the world a bit, and grow the Anglo-Saxon
word up. Second, you attack my character for what, ceding a debate to you
and encouraging others to consider the strength of your argument? Thank
heavens I've never had a kid like you on the little league teams I coached.
If there's one thing I can't stand it's a sore winner. What an ass you make
yourself sound like. I'm sure it's not an accurate reflection of you; the
best evidence I have suggests that you're a decent chap and a smart one to
boot. I have my opinion on the subject of Invisibility, and so far you've
offered no counter-argument that I haven't heard before (except you offer
your counter-arguments poorly, such that they seem less convincing now than
before when you and others were actually trying. Fair enough, since you've
already won the freakin argument with everyone but me, and so have no need
to be particularly articulate).
And before you come back with some remark about how I'm failing to argue
against you on the substance of invisibility, and how this reflects
cowardice or whatnot, remember that A) I am deliberately not doing so, and
in fact have almost completely avoided discussing 3E Invisibility except to
correct those who disagree with you and to point out the strength and
validity of your arguments to others and B) You have so far failed to deal
with your own glaringly stupid equation of successful Hide checks with
transparency (ie seeing what is behind the hidden Ranger). So just cool it
on assessing my courage, OK?
John Wade
Justin Bacon
>From the letters of Justin Bacon (11/05/03 21:13):
>> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>> Trying to argue against me on this
>>> point amounts to masturbation, since you've already won the argument with
>>> (almost) everyone else, and I recognize the validity of your substantive
>>> arguments and encourage anyone who does not yet agree with you to
>reconsider
>>> in light of the strong evidence of authors' intent.
>>
>> ...and then you resort to the final refuge of the coward.
>
>Coward?
Yeah. Coward. Sorry. Continually voicing your opinion and then telling anyone
with a contrary opinion to shut the hell up is cowardice. If you don't want to
have a discussion, don't start the discussion. If you want to post your
thoughts, prepare to have other people question them.
>If there's one thing I can't stand it's a sore winner.
The only thing worse is a sore loser... which is apparently what you are.
You've now started two threads in the past two days with thinly veiled
criticisms of the Invisibility spell as it exists in the current edition of
D&D. Both times you've loudly proclaimed that you have no actual interest in
discussing the issue. Yet you keep hitting the Reply button... each time
proclaiming ever more loudly that anyone who dares to reply to your messages is
an immature, masturbating, ass.
I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Loren Davis
"R. Scott Rogers" wrote:
> A couple of thoughts.
> 2. That said, the authors did a really bad job of writing Invisibility.
Even
> with the most pro-transparency reading of the spell, we are still left
with
> instances where invisible things do not behave as would a fully
transparent
> thing. We know that sometimes invisible objects behave as if transparent
(in
> water) and other times they do not (wearing an invisible cloak). So to
get
> to transparency all the time, which I've already granted that the authors
> almost certainly intended, we have to make some interpretive leaps. In
other
> words, assumptions.
Huh? Where do you get the idea that "transparency all the time" and "SEP
field" are the only two possibilities? What about Bradd's suggestion of
B-movie invisibility, which is what I thought the authors meant, too?
Do you have any direct evidence for your position, or only arguments
against "transparency all the time" and the assertion of a dichotomy?
> 3. And similarly, to get to transparency none of the time, we have to
make
> some interpretive leaps. In other words, assumptions.
Didn't you just admit that the behavior of the spell in several different
situations is irreconciliable with this interpretation, and that anyone who
wants to agree with you had "better be prepared to ignore" it? That isn't a
valid interpretative leap.
> 4.Both sets of assumptions result in simple, consistent game mechanics.
To me this
> really looks like a choice between sets of assumptions that work about as
> well as one another and that both stray about the same distance from the
> muddled text. So it boils down to an aesthetic choice of which set of
> assumptions yield a more elegant conclusion.
Really? You want to make it possible to hide behind an invisible sheet in
the observer's own home and not be noticed. What was the simple, consistent
game mechanic for what happens in this situation: Mialee looks around the
room, vaguely noticing a portrait on the wall. While her back is turned,
Lidda stuffs the painting into a portable hole, and hangs an invisible
sheet in its place. Mialee later decides to examine the portrait in detail,
without touching it of course. What, specifically, does Mialee see?
Remember, you're arguing here that your interpretation is just as simple
and consistent as ours, that it doesn't require you to read any more
between the lines, and that it fits the spell description, which does not
allow the observer any sort of save or spell resistance check, as written.
For bonus points, relate your answer to the sheet's Hide check.
The other outstanding question that I'm aware of concerns the limits of the
illusion school of magic. The fact that illusion [shadow] spells explicitly
have real effects will convince any reasonable person that your
interpretation is too narrow. An even closer example: invisibility and
silence both belong to the illusion (glamer) subschool, at the same spell
level, so any restrictions on the capability of one must apply to the
other. In silence's area of effect, "[A]ll sound is stopped... no noise
whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area.... This spell
provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks...." If Jozan
were to put down a crystal vase, which has neither mind nor senses, in an
empty courtyard, cast silence on it, step thirty feet away, and then cast
shout, the vase would still be intact.
> And to anyone considering arguing the point with me, I have just conceded
> the validity of your best arguments. This all boils down to a clash of
> interpretive assumptions based on a poorly written bit of text. I do not
> mean to try to persuade anyone of my point, so there really is no
argument
> to be had over this subject within 3E.
I'll accept your stipulation that your conclusion is wrong. A few of your
specific arguments are still worth refuting in isolation, even if they
don't lead anywhere.
Die, Spammers, Die!
>
> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
> >
[...Justin's flame deleted]
>
> This is because (a) you are apparently incapable of reading the manual for
> comprehension; and (b) you deliberately ignore anyone who replies to your
> messages. Your "it must be one way or the other!" is a fallacy of massive
> proportions, completely unsupported by the text. When you then attack the text
> as "muddled" for not endorsing your fallacy, you just end up looking silly.
>
Justin, how do you reconcile the clear statement in the rules that
glamers and figments cannot produce real effects with your assertion
that Invisibility produces transparency, indubitably a real efffect?
--
Mike Cantrell
Credat Judaeus Apella.
Die, Spammers, Die!
>
[...]
>
> The other outstanding question that I'm aware of concerns the limits of the
> illusion school of magic. The fact that illusion [shadow] spells explicitly
> have real effects will convince any reasonable person that your
> interpretation is too narrow. An even closer example: invisibility and
> silence both belong to the illusion (glamer) subschool, at the same spell
> level, so any restrictions on the capability of one must apply to the
> other. In silence's area of effect, "[A]ll sound is stopped... no noise
> whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area.... This spell
> provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks...." If Jozan
> were to put down a crystal vase, which has neither mind nor senses, in an
> empty courtyard, cast silence on it, step thirty feet away, and then cast
> shout, the vase would still be intact.
>
This is a nasty problem then. Glamers and figments cannot produce real
effects. Sound is a real effect, especially sonic effects. You could
mask/distort sound (via illusion), but Silence (as a glamer) shouldn't
be able to block sonic effects. An Evocation or Abjuration would be more
appropriate. Much as glamers are unable to "illuminate darkness" (per
SRD), and thus the change of Dancing Lights from Illusion to Evocation.
Maybe this will get fixed in the rev.
--Mike
Loren Davis
"Die, Spammers, Die!" wrote:
> Loren Davis wrote:
> This is a nasty problem then. Glamers and figments cannot produce real
> effects.
Cite, please? I know of no such rule for glamers.
That said, there are several spells, such as Melf's acid arrow, which break
the rules of their school of magic.
Ben Sisson
<spamblox...@removeme2.netzero.net> (if that IS his real name)
conspiratorially whispered:
>This is a nasty problem then. Glamers and figments cannot produce real
>effects. Sound is a real effect, especially sonic effects. You could
>mask/distort sound (via illusion), but Silence (as a glamer) shouldn't
>be able to block sonic effects. An Evocation or Abjuration would be more
>appropriate. Much as glamers are unable to "illuminate darkness" (per
>SRD), and thus the change of Dancing Lights from Illusion to Evocation.
Ooh you touched on one of my longstanding complaints, and therein one
of my houserules - silence as written behaves exactly like you said -
it doesn't block Sonic effects. Or verbal component spellcasting. All
it does is make it inaudible - you can't hear the spell being cast. -2
to concentration due to having to speak without audio cues, though.
Also, Hush was the best season 4 Buffy episode. Hey, it's sort of
relevent.
--
Ben Sisson
"Blood is red, bruises are blue
When strangers come here, we run them through!
HARG! HARG! HARG!"
-The Thraddash, Star Control 2
Employed Norm
> Also, Hush was the best season 4 Buffy episode. Hey, it's sort of
> relevent.
Speaking of which, Buffy is the subject of the A&E Biography Wed at 8PM
Norm!
--
I'm full of tinier men!
All things being equal, fat people use more soap...
WWBBD - What Would Brian Boitano Do
Bradd W. Szonye
> Transparency is transmutation, not illusion.
Incorrect. Changes to a subject's nature or structure require
transmutation. If you only want to change its appearance, however, a
glamer is sufficient.
Illusions duplicate the effects of many other spell schools. It's a
collection of "pseudo-spells." Patterns are pseudo-enchantments. They
often accomplish the same things as enchantment spells, but they do it
by deceiving the target's mind instead of controlling it. Glamers are
pseudo-transmutations. They really do change the subject, but they can
only change sensory qualities of the object, like appearance. Glamers
"deceive" the eyes and ears of observers just as a disguise or
camouflage can.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Rob Singers
wisdom
>> This is a nasty problem then. Glamers and figments cannot produce real
>> effects.
>
> Cite, please? I know of no such rule for glamers.
PHB 158. Second paragraph of the definition of Figment.
Rob Singers
of wisdom
> Ariel Azia <spamspamsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Transparency is transmutation, not illusion.
>
> Incorrect. Changes to a subject's nature or structure require
> transmutation. If you only want to change its appearance, however, a
> glamer is sufficient.
That aside. A transparent object is still visible where as an invisible
object isn't.
Loren Davis
"Rob Singers" wrote:
> Loren Davis wrote:
> >> This is a nasty problem then. Glamers and figments cannot produce real
> >> effects.
> > Cite, please? I know of no such rule for glamers.
> PHB 158. Second paragraph of the definition of Figment.
This is obviously an error in context. It matches neither the definition of
the glamer subschool nor the illusion (glamer) spells themselves. The
authors must have meant to write "figments and patterns," as these are the
two subschools which actually do function the same way.
Since the only difference between a glamer and a figment is that a glamer
explicitly changes the qualities of an object, while a figment affects only
the minds of observers, your interpretation would make the entire subschool
redundant. Why, then, are no glamers mind-affecting spells? Why do none
allow the deceived creature spell resistance? Why don't the glamers in
question allow Will or Disbelief saves? How can Leomund's trap or screen
trick devices and spells, as well as people? How can mirage arcana include
fully detailed tactile elements? Why are mindless creatures immune to
figments and patterns, but not glamers?
R. Scott Rogers
> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>> From the letters of Justin Bacon (11/05/03 21:13):
>>> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>>> Trying to argue against me on this
>>>> point amounts to masturbation, since you've already won the argument with
>>>> (almost) everyone else, and I recognize the validity of your substantive
>>>> arguments and encourage anyone who does not yet agree with you to
>> reconsider
>>>> in light of the strong evidence of authors' intent.
>>>
>>> ...and then you resort to the final refuge of the coward.
>>
>> Coward?
>
> Yeah. Coward.
Justin, I do think that you need to question your own assumptions about
Usenet. If you believe that courage or cowardice can be found in so facile
and opaque a medium, and in a discussion devoted so such trivialities as the
minutia of game rules, then you simply have a deep misunderstanding of the
nature of the medium, the significance of DND, or the qualities of courage
or cowardice. But on to the mea culpa ...
> Sorry. Continually voicing your opinion and then telling anyone
> with a contrary opinion to shut the hell up is cowardice. If you don't want to
> have a discussion, don't start the discussion. If you want to post your
> thoughts, prepare to have other people question them.
Perhaps I have been unclear. I have not wished to avoid all discussion. I
have wished to avoid discussion of the old and settled issue of Invisibility
in 3E. I was, of course, foolishly optimistic that you and a couple of other
people would avoid the temptation to digital masturbation I provided. In my
original post, I basically said "A, which leads me to consider the
possibility of B," and attempted to discourage obviously unprofitable
discussion of A and encourage discussion of B. B is a topic or somewhat
limited and purely mechanical interest, while A is a topic that invites the
replaying of stale flame wars and much chest-beating. Of course you and a
few others would talk about A and not B, and I was a fool for hoping
otherwise.
Then, in further evidence of my poor judgment on the issue, I started a new
thread that I hoped would not actually turn into a thread - this one - where
I laid out my position on A and both acknowledged the strength and probable
validity of the pro-transparency argument and repeated my belief that the
argument had already been won by the transparency theory and on generally
sound grounds. I did this in large part because several people voiced
anti-transparency opinions, and I think they did so without adequately
understanding the spell or the interpretive arguments in favor of
transparency. I did it in small part because some of the defenders of the
transparency theory were not in good form and were failing to make their
case with, well, any skill whatsoever, and I did not wish anyone to be
swayed against transparency by its defenders' poor arguments.
Now, if saying "You've already won argument A, so please don't beat me up
over it again, but instead think about related argument B" makes me a sore
loser, well, I'll have to think about that. Maybe you're right. However, you
are wrong about sore losers being worse than sore winners; at least a sore
loser has an actual loss to complain about. ;-)
I regret that I got a bit personally upset at you for immediately trying to
refight what I'm calling argument A, and that I failed to keep my veneer of
jocularity on the issue. Honestly, I accept the transparency theory in my
actual playing of DND. I believe it is what the authors intended, and I tend
to give weight to authorial intent where it can be found. But the fact is
that the spell is poorly written, and a strict application of the words of
the spell require interpretive leaps to apply any single model of
application, or to know what the spell does in circumstances not specified
by the muddled text. You only get see-through doors if you believe that the
spell always makes things transparent but not strictly invisible. I simply
have an aesthetic dislike of the assumptions you have to make to get to this
result, and I prefer other, similarly minor, assumptions that yield
different, but similarly not-quite-what-the-book-actually-says and similarly
consistent, result. But I really do mean to keep my discussion of the matter
lighthearted, even if I have failed in your instance to do so.
The reader will note that, other than getting pissed off at Justin, the only
really serious replies I've given on the question of 3E Invisibility have
been to correct people who voice incorrect objections to the transparency
theory.
But I am sorry for making it too tempting to rehash the old and settled
arguments about invisible doors, and I am sorry for getting upset at Justin
for giving in to that temptation. I am further, and perhaps most of all,
sorry for actually typing an angry message in response to him. My bad all
around. I honestly do believe that the transparency theory of invisibility
has already won the argument; this is not a pose on my part to avoid
criticism but an honest acknowledgement of defeat in an old argument. I did
not wish to avoid further discussion of that point to shelter my fragile ego
but to avoid necessarily profitless discussion of a settled issue, and I
wish that I had been more clear about that. I originally meant the "don't
bother arguing this because you won't convince me and everyone else already
agrees with you" thing as a lighthearted way to acknowledge having already
lost the argument and discourage exactly what has happened to my original
thread.
Chalk my poor judgment up to the stress of not having played DND for almost
three months. I throw myself upon the mercy of the court, your honor.
Loren Davis
"Rob Singers" wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > Incorrect. Changes to a subject's nature or structure require
> > transmutation. If you only want to change its appearance, however, a
> > glamer is sufficient.
> That aside. A transparent object is still visible where as an invisible
> object isn't.
Nonsense. Invisibility to undead and invisibility to animals both work the
way you want invisibility to, and both are classified as abjurations, not
glamers.
In conversational English, "invisibile" simply means, "incapable by nature
of being seen," regardless of the cause. A clear, transparent gas is
"invisible." A microbe too small to be seen by the naked eye is
"invisible." The starship Bistromath is "invisible." At this point, you're
making completely vacuous distinctions, on top of the error of trying to
overrule a spell description solely on the basis of the spell name.
Rob Singers
of wisdom
> In conversational English, "invisibile" simply means, "incapable by
> nature of being seen," regardless of the cause. A clear, transparent
> gas is "invisible." A microbe too small to be seen by the naked eye is
> "invisible." The starship Bistromath is "invisible."
That's all just blah blah blah. Contrast invisible with transparent in
both conversation English and a dictionary. They are not identical.
> At this point,
> you're making completely vacuous distinctions, on top of the error of
> trying to overrule a spell description solely on the basis of the
> spell name.
What? Which deluded planet are you from? How am I over ruling the spell
description? I'm following the spell description and the relevant passages
from the DMG.
RTFM. DOn't make shit up.
Rob Singers
of wisdom
> This is obviously an error in context. It matches neither the
> definition of the glamer subschool nor the illusion (glamer) spells
> themselves. The authors must have meant to write "figments and
> patterns," as these are the two subschools which actually do function
> the same way.
>
> Since the only difference between a glamer and a figment is that a
> glamer explicitly changes the qualities of an object, while a figment
> affects only the minds of observers, your interpretation would make
> the entire subschool redundant. Why, then, are no glamers
> mind-affecting spells? Why do none allow the deceived creature spell
> resistance? Why don't the glamers in question allow Will or Disbelief
> saves? How can Leomund's trap or screen trick devices and spells, as
> well as people? How can mirage arcana include fully detailed tactile
> elements? Why are mindless creatures immune to figments and patterns,
> but not glamers?
I don't know the answer to those question and I probably agree with you.
Justin Bacon
>Justin, how do you reconcile the clear statement in the rules that
>glamers and figments cannot produce real effects with your assertion
>that Invisibility produces transparency, indubitably a real efffect?
PHB, pg. 158: "Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot
product real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot
cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or
provide protection from elements.
Even ignoring the fact that this is almost certainly an error (since figments
and patterns are like; not figments and glamers), I'm utterly puzzled why you
feel "I can't be seen" constitutes a real effect as defined in that passage.
Being invisible is no more a "real effect" than the illusionary cottage
described later in the paragraph.
Plus:
PHB, pg. 158: "A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it
look, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even DISAPPEAR." (emphasis
added)
And the very first definition of "disappear" in my dictionary reads:
"become INVISIBLE or unnoticeable" (emphasis added)
So why do I think glamers can create an invisibility effect? Because it says so
right in the definition of glamer.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Rob Singers
of wisdom
> And the very first definition of "disappear" in my dictionary reads:
>
> "become INVISIBLE or unnoticeable" (emphasis added)
>
> So why do I think glamers can create an invisibility effect? Because
> it says so right in the definition of glamer.
All very nice (and true) but that still doesn't explain why invisible =
transparent which I believe was the intent of his question.
Loren Davis
"Rob Singers" wrote:
> Loren Davis wrote:
> > In conversational English, "invisibile" simply means, "incapable by
> > nature of being seen," regardless of the cause. A clear, transparent
> > gas is "invisible." A microbe too small to be seen by the naked eye is
> > "invisible." The starship Bistromath is "invisible."
> That's all just blah blah blah. Contrast invisible with transparent in
> both conversation English and a dictionary. They are not identical.
That was a direct quote from my dictionary. Since you ask, transparency is
a form of invisibility, according to the same dictionary and every usage
I've heard outside of a few die-hards in these threads: a completely
transparent object scatters no noticeable amount of light, so it cannot be
seen. The vacuum of outer space is "invisible." Wells' Invisible Man,
because he's transparent, is "invisible."
This doesn't go in both directions. Since not all invisibility is
transparency, the two concepts aren't fully equivalent. That's irrelevant
to the claim you make: invisibility can mean transparency.
Please note that many "invisible" things can be seen under the right
circumstances. Air is "invisible," but air bubbles can be seen in water.
Bacteria are "invisible," but they can be seen under a microscope. Outer
space is "invisible," but can be seen by a microwave dish. The title
character in "Hollow Man" is "invisible," but can be seen in several ways.
The target of an invisibility spell is "invisible," but he can be seen by
detect magic, see invisibility, flour, and so on.
> Which deluded planet are you from? How am I over ruling the spell
> description? I'm following the spell description and the relevant
passages
> from the DMG.
You're trying to claim that the spell can't turn an object transparent
because it's named "invisibility." That's even more absurd than the claim
that Spell Resistance applies even to spells which are specifically immune
to it because it's named "Spell Resistance." It isn't even good
pseudo-science: a transparent object, such as an air bubble, can only be
transparent in water if it first displaces it, and an invisible object has
exactly the same interaction with other objects as an (equally dense and
cohesive) air bubble. Your interpretation is inconsistent with the game
rules.
Justin Bacon
>>> Coward?
>>
>> Yeah. Coward.
>
>Justin, I do think that you need to question your own assumptions about
>Usenet.
I'll revise. Since you keep hitting the "Reply" button you're clearly a
hypocrite, not a coward.
>Perhaps I have been unclear. I have not wished to avoid all discussion. I
>have wished to avoid discussion of the old and settled issue of Invisibility
>in 3E.
Then you shouldn't have posted about it. This is a discussion forum. If you
don't like people discussing what you post, no one is forcing you to stay.
>I regret that I got a bit personally upset at you for immediately trying to
>refight what I'm calling argument A, and that I failed to keep my veneer of
>jocularity on the issue.
This would ring a little truer if you weren't still throwing petty insults
around in this very post.
>You only get see-through doors if you believe that the
>spell always makes things transparent but not strictly invisible.
I honestly have no idea why you feel that a door I cannot see is not "strictly
invisible". It's invisible BY DEFINITION. Can you explain yourself?
I honestly have no idea why you feel that hiding behind an invisible boulder is
an effective tactic. Can you explain yourself?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Loren Davis
"Rob Singers" wrote:
> Loren Davis wrote:
[Snip reasons why it was probably supposed to be patterns, not glamers,
which are forbidden to "produce real effects the way that other types of
illusions can."]
> > Why are mindless creatures immune to figments and patterns,
> > but not glamers?
> I don't know the answer to those question and I probably agree with you.
Don't be so hasty to agree with everything I said. :) Mindless creatures
are actually immune to phantasms and patterns, but not figments, glamers or
shadows, and the silent image series of illusion (figment) spells aren't
classified as mind-affecting. Sorry.
Still, the fact remains that some glamers, notably silence and mirage
arcana, do produce physical effects, and the subschool description refers
to a change in the qualities of the target.
R. Scott Rogers
> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>>> Coward?
>>>
>>> Yeah. Coward.
>>
>> Justin, I do think that you need to question your own assumptions about
>> Usenet.
>
> I'll revise. Since you keep hitting the "Reply" button you're clearly a
> hypocrite, not a coward.
Ah, a fool's courage. I can accept that. ;-) And in order to make you
actually right about your charge of hypocrisy, I will actually now reply to
you on the subject of my deviant "just what the text says and no more"
theory of 3E Invisibility, which I have tried for the sake of consistency
not to do so far.
>> Perhaps I have been unclear. I have not wished to avoid all discussion. I
>> have wished to avoid discussion of the old and settled issue of Invisibility
>> in 3E.
>
> Then you shouldn't have posted about it. This is a discussion forum. If you
> don't like people discussing what you post, no one is forcing you to stay.
I cannot possibly be clearer than I was in the post you're replying to. I
simply hoped to direct responses to the bit of my post that is worth talking
about rather than the bit that is a dead letter. Have you, in fact, come up
with anything new to say to back up the transparency model? No, in point of
actual fact, you have not. So bravo on you, and bad on me for seeking to
encourage the conversation to go somewhere interesting.
>> You only get see-through doors if you believe that the
>> spell always makes things transparent but not strictly invisible.
>
> I honestly have no idea why you feel that a door I cannot see is not "strictly
> invisible". It's invisible BY DEFINITION. Can you explain yourself?
If something can be seen simply by changing the fluid in which it is
immersed, it is not invisible in the sense that you cannot see it. It is
invisible in the sense that you cannot see it as long as it remains immersed
in the right fluid, in this case air, which means we're talking about
something that is perfectly transparent, not something that cannot be seen.
It is a fine point, yes, but it is true nonetheless. True invisibility would
mean that if you immersed it in water you wouldn't see it; it would not look
like a hole in the water just as it does not look like a hole in the air.
> I honestly have no idea why you feel that hiding behind an invisible boulder
> is
> an effective tactic. Can you explain yourself?
Does the spell tell us what happens to an invisible door? No. It does not.
It tells us a bunch of other stuff, not all of which can be reconciled even
by the transparency theory, and we have to interpret from there. What we do
know is that the spell, as written, makes stuff disappear from view such
that it cannot be seen. But becoming transparent is only one of several ways
that one can become not visible while still being a Glamer. Not seeing a
thing and seeing through it are not quite the same thing. The game designers
almost certainly meant to make the spell do the latter, but the words they
wrote stopped at doing the former.
I do no understand why it is so impossible to accept the following when
faced with an invisible, closed door:
Player: "I look down the hallway. What do I see?"
DM: "You see a long corridor with rough stone walls and a floor of broken
clay tiles. A torch burns from a sconce at the far end of the hall."
In this implementation, the invisible door has disappeared from view. Full
stop. Why do we need to bring a Romulan cloaking device into it? (Answer:
because that's what the game designers meant, but didn't quite succeed in
writing what they meant.)
As to why I would prefer to be able to hide behind invisible stuff, well, I
just think that would be a neat effect, and strikes me as being more
interestingly magical than the Romulan cloaking device we currently have. I
have already said that this is a purely aesthetic matter. It is therefore
not subject to proof as you implicitly demand. Basically, if I have to
choose between a Romulan cloaking device and Harry Potter's cloak - which
makes itself look like whatever is behind it from every possible angle - as
long as I'm playing fantasy and not sci-fi I'll opt for the cloak, not the
machine. Purely a question of taste, and therefore undefendable.
Rob Singers
of wisdom
> You're trying to claim that the spell can't turn an object transparent
> because it's named "invisibility." That's even more absurd than the
> claim that Spell Resistance applies even to spells which are
> specifically immune to it because it's named "Spell Resistance."
It's patently obvious either you don't read what people write or you just
like making shit up.
> It
> isn't even good pseudo-science: a transparent object, such as an air
> bubble, can only be transparent in water if it first displaces it, and
> an invisible object has exactly the same interaction with other
> objects as an (equally dense and cohesive) air bubble. Your
> interpretation is inconsistent with the game rules.
WHAT RULES? What interpretation? You don't seem to be reading my posts.
Just because you write shit on Usenet doesn't make it true. Please quote
from the 3e core rules where it says Invisibility is equivalent to
Transparency and invisibility allows people to look through solid
objects. Invisibility in D&D 3e terms is "visually undetectable"
[DMG pg84]
Until you can quote that you're still talking shit, you're still making
things.
Wyrin
news:f5dsbvki6dv5bfcq9...@4ax.com...
> It has been brought to my attention that "Ben Loomes"
> <loomes...@ozemail.MAPSONcom.au> wrote:
>
> >Would SEP be harder than transparency?
>
> Affecting the minds of as many as a million people at any distance,
> all at once, with no saving throw?
>
If tramps and drunks can do it, dont see why I cant
Loren Davis
"Rob Singers" wrote:
> Loren Davis wrote:
> > You're trying to claim that the spell can't turn an object transparent
> > because it's named "invisibility." That's even more absurd than the
> > claim that Spell Resistance applies even to spells which are
> > specifically immune to it because it's named "Spell Resistance."
> It's patently obvious either you don't read what people write or you just
> like making shit up.
I refer to your post of the 11th in this thread.
> > It
> > isn't even good pseudo-science: a transparent object, such as an air
> > bubble, can only be transparent in water if it first displaces it, and
> > an invisible object has exactly the same interaction with other
> > objects as an (equally dense and cohesive) air bubble. Your
> > interpretation is inconsistent with the game rules.
> WHAT RULES? What interpretation? You don't seem to be reading my posts.
You wrote then:
"If an object was transparent it would show up because of the different
refractive indices of the substances. However the clause doesn't say
this, it says displacement.... When you look at ... the fact that the
spell is an illusion it's obvious that an invisible object is not seen
and the spell achieves this by deceiving the mind."
This is complete nonsense, of course. First, not all illusions are purely
mind-affecting spells. Illusions can and do have real effects. Those which
are mind-affecting are noted as [mind-affecting], allowing saves and spell
resistance if interacted with, and invisibility is not among them. It even
works on mindless creatures and has the physical effect of blocking gaze
attacks. It's a glamer, which changes the qualities of the target. Second,
"displacement" means pushing the water aside and taking its place. A
transparent object, such as an air bubble, would indeed show up in water
because, indirectly, of displacement: if it didn't displace the water, it
would just float transparently on top of the water. You can see air when it
displaces water, but not when it floats above the water's surface. An
invisible object behaves exactly like a transparent one, and not at all
like one which deludes the mind into not seeing it. This is not a
badly-written rule; it's how the spell is supposed to work, and it avoids a
whole slew of problems which the proponents of hiding behind invisible
rocks haven't come close to solving.
Your interpretation flies directly in the face of how the spell actually
works. A mind-affecting invisibility spell would not produce a human-shaped
transparent hole in water, or a visible aura under detect magic, or visible
light that comes from nowhere, nor would it work on mindless creatures, nor
would it work on a character who's actually figured out where the invisible
man is standing because he's coated in flour, nor would it work on someone
who saw the invisible man by using a spell which has worn off. It wouldn't
work on someone protected by mind blank, which blocks "all devices and
spells that detect, influence and read emotions and thoughts ... all
mind-affecting spells and effects...." But, it works in all those cases.
Hence, the object is transparent, and not "invisible" by your definition.
There are two invisibility spells which are mind-affecting, and do work the
way you propose for the invisibility glamer: invisibility to animals and
invisibility to undead. Both are abjurations, not illusions, and use
different game mechanics. For instance, they prevent the characters from
being "perceived" by any means, including hearing and smell, so the flour
or water tactics don't work. They work on mindless creatures. Invisibility
to undead allows a saving throw. Normal invisibility does none of these
things. This is more evidence that normal invisibility is not
mind-affecting. Your definition of invisibility is empirically wrong in a
D&D game world, and it would be trivial for an experienced mage to set up
an experiment which proves it.
> Just because you write shit on Usenet doesn't make it true. Please quote
> from the 3e core rules where it says Invisibility is equivalent to
> Transparency and invisibility allows people to look through solid
> objects. Invisibility in D&D 3e terms is "visually undetectable"
> [DMG pg84]
Except that the target isn't visually undetectable. If he jumps in a pool
of water, you can see him. If you cast any detect spell which his aura
pings, you can see him. If you drop a sack of flour on him, you can see
him. If you make a spot check with no magical or circumstantial aid
whatsoever, you can see him. However, even if you see him, the glamer isn't
broken for you thereafter, as a figment or pattern would be. (None of this
is true of the two invisibility variants which are actually mind-affecting
spells.) All of these examples, which are on page 78 of the DMG, destroy
your interpretation of invisibility as a mind-affecting spell which
prevents the observers from visually pinpointing his location.
Another example, previously mentioned: an invisible object must allow light
to pass through (hence, be transparent), or else the invisible object would
continue to cast shadows and reflections.
> Until you can quote that you're still talking shit, you're still making
> things.
I advise you to stop this name-calling, since it makes you look churlish
when you're right and foolish when you're wrong.
tussock
>
> It has come to my attention, through private e-mail, that I am not the only
> person who finds my non-transparency model of Invisibility to be compelling.
<blink, blink>
> A couple of thoughts.
>
> 1. The game designers almost certainly MEANT to write Invisibility such that
> it renders objects transparent.
Bollocks.
Transparent things don't absorb light, so transparent eyes cannot
see. For Invisability to be a form of transparancy it has to ignore a
whole bunch of physics, which is cool, but makes any logical arguments
about it moot.
<snip>
> If it was invisible, you wouldn't see
> it in water or fog. If it was transparent, you would. And you do. So there.
Being underwater *does not* allow you to be seen while invisable.
It does allow your position to be determined by visual means, much
like walking through mud or picking something up and making it go
invisable.
Really, the ability to detect through sight by influence on the
surrounding enviroment is fundamental to DnD invisability, note the Spot
check.
<snip>
> 3. And similarly, to get to transparency none of the time, we have to make
> some interpretive leaps. In other words, assumptions.
I assume magic, we already _know_ it doesn't behave like physics.
Also, transparency is really stoopid as an invisability method,
almost as bad as pretending it's mind effecting. But this is an old
flamewar, so I'll stop.
<snip>
> Just hoping we can move on to something more productive and less wasteful of
> bandwidth, like you, you know, an alignment thread. ;-)
Jezus was Evil.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Bradd W. Szonye
> This is a nasty problem then. Glamers and figments cannot produce real
> effects. Sound is a real effect, especially sonic effects.
I think the problem here is that your idea of "real effect" doesn't
match what the authors meant by it. I personally think sensory qualities
are "real," but the list of "real effects" in the illusion rules seem to
use more of a Platonic definition, where sensory qualities are merely
"superficial effects." Therefore, a glamer can change or suppress sounds
because they're "superficial," even though they're physically "real" (as
modern folks generally understand them).
> Maybe this will get fixed in the rev.
I doubt it, because they're *intentionally* using a non-physical
interpretation of "real" and "superficial."
Bradd W. Szonye
> Bollocks. Transparent things don't absorb light, so transparent eyes
> cannot see. For Invisability to be a form of transparancy it has to
> ignore a whole bunch of physics, which is cool, but makes any logical
> arguments about it moot.
Please, stop thinking like a modern physicist! The D&D illusion rules
use a world model more like Plato's than Maxwell's. This "physics" stuff
you're talking about isn't necessarily true in D&D, especially when
magic spells are involved.
CARRIER LOST
>> 1. The game designers almost certainly MEANT to write Invisibility such that
>> it renders objects transparent.
>
> Bollocks.
> Transparent things don't absorb light, so transparent eyes cannot
> see. For Invisability to be a form of transparancy it has to ignore a
> whole bunch of physics, which is cool, but makes any logical arguments
> about it moot.
magic, by its very nature, is not bound by physics or any other
modern science.
--
/\_-\ dr...@visi.com (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
<((_))> -----------------------------------------------------------------
\- \/ "Caffeine is your ally and sleep is for the weak." -- Jack
John Wade
Bollocks.
Transparent things don't absorb light, so transparent eyes cannot
see. For Invisability to be a form of transparancy it has to ignore a
whole bunch of physics, which is cool, but makes any logical arguments
about it moot.
Whilst I agree with you, and an invisibility spell which makes things
transparent is ridiculous, it is indeed the intent of the game designers
that that is what the spell does. When you've done laughing at them, rule
zero it. It certainly doesn't warrant argument.
Robert Singers
I get the feeling you're not understanding what I am saying.
Illusion magic works through deception. Either directly or
indirectly
on the victem of the spell. By victem I don't mean the target
(subject)
of the spell but those who suffer the effects of the spell.
In the case
of an invisibility spell observers are being decieved.
Specifically
their minds or senses are being decieved. This isn't some
huge leap
because this is what Illusions do - as oppossed to other
branches of
magic. This does not make them "[mind-affecting]" in terms of
a saving
throw.
To labour this point
"Illusion
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They
cause people
to see things that are not there, not see things that are
there, hear
phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
Illusions come
in five types: figments, glamers, patterns, phantasms, and
shadows."
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdschoolsofmagic.rtf
The spell is not a Transmutation. It is not changing a
[physical]
property of the subject.
> Second, "displacement" means pushing the water aside and
taking its
> place.
Yes. And to know displacement is happening you have to be in
a position
to view that the displacement is happening. If for example
you happened
to be on the bottom of the lake and something with the RI of
the water
entered the lake you would not be able to detect that
displacement is
happening. That is my point.
> A transparent object, such as an air
> bubble, would indeed show up in water because, indirectly,
of
> displacement: if it didn't displace the water, it would just
float
> transparently on top of the water.
That sentence is garbage. Objects entering water would
displace water true. This does not logically mean that their
properties change apart from the fact that they get wet.
> You can see air when it displaces
> water, but not when it floats above the water's surface. An
invisible
> object behaves exactly like a transparent one, and not at
all like one
> which deludes the mind into not seeing it.
Another garbage statement. You've pre supposed that
invisibility = transparency rather than proving that this
passage means what you're purporting it too.
> This is not a badly-written
> rule; it's how the spell is supposed to work, and it avoids
a whole
> slew of problems which the proponents of hiding behind
invisible rocks
> haven't come close to solving.
What problems? Hiding behind an invisible rock is exactly the
same as hiding behind a visible rock. Both are physical
objects acting as barriers. No difference.
To assume that an invisibility spell turns you into a window
is wrong. The spell discription and all passages on
invisibilty say that you can not see the subject NOT that you
see through the subject.
> Your interpretation flies directly in the face of how the
spell
> actually works. A mind-affecting invisibility spell would
not produce
> a human-shaped transparent hole in water, or a visible aura
under
> detect magic, or visible light that comes from nowhere, nor
would it
> work on mindless creatures, nor would it work on a character
who's
> actually figured out where the invisible man is standing
because he's
> coated in flour, nor would it work on someone who saw the
invisible
> man by using a spell which has worn off. It wouldn't work on
someone
> protected by mind blank, which blocks "all devices and
spells that
> detect, influence and read emotions and thoughts ... all
> mind-affecting spells and effects...." But, it works in all
those
> cases.
I never said it was mind affecting. I said like all
*Illusions* it is a spell of deception of the sense or mind.
> Hence, the object is transparent, and not "invisible" by
your
> definition.
No. That is not a logical assumption. It's a deliberate
attempt to be dishonest about what the 3e core rules say.
> There are two invisibility spells which are mind-affecting,
and do
> work the way you propose for the invisibility glamer:
invisibility to
> animals and invisibility to undead. Both are abjurations,
not
> illusions, and use different game mechanics. For instance,
they
> prevent the characters from being "perceived" by any means,
including
> hearing and smell, so the flour or water tactics don't work.
They work
> on mindless creatures. Invisibility to undead allows a
saving throw.
> Normal invisibility does none of these things. This is more
evidence
> that normal invisibility is not mind-affecting.
No it isn't.
> Your definition of
> invisibility is empirically wrong in a D&D game world, and
it would be
> trivial for an experienced mage to set up an experiment
which proves
> it.
Well you can't even create a logical argument to why it is
transparent so the poit is moot.
No they don't. I acknowledge those points. When the subject
of invisibility interacts with the enviroment in such a way
that the victem of the spell can't ignore their existance then
you follow the guidelines in the 3e core rules. This supports
what I'm arguing it doesn't distroy it. It certainly doesn't
support the subject being transparent.
Once again you're making shit up.
> Another example, previously mentioned: an invisible object
must allow
> light to pass through (hence, be transparent), or else the
invisible
> object would continue to cast shadows and reflections.
Don't be ridiculous. It's a magic spell that make people not
see you. Why is it so hard to believe the illusion includes
your shadow. They fact that shadows are not mentioned in any
of the text does not in anyway imply that the object becomes
transparent.
>> Until you can quote that you're still talking shit, you're
still
>> making things.
>
> I advise you to stop this name-calling, since it makes you
look
> churlish when you're right and foolish when you're wrong.
I really don't give a shit when people like you put words in
my mouth. If you want to have a discussion with me and not
have me get pissed at you don't attribute things to me that I
haven't said or quote things out of context.
Justin Bacon
So the intent of his question was something completely different than what he
actually asked?
Also: Buy a dictionary.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>The spell is not a Transmutation. It is not changing a
>[physical] property of the subject.
How is this relevant? Are you claiming that sight is not a sense? That being
able to see through an object is not a "sensory quality" of the object?
Because, otherwise, you're forced to admit that you're wrong when you claimed
that an illusion could not render something transparent.
>Objects entering water would displace water true.
So you admit you were wrong when you claimed that a transparent object would
not displace water.
>What problems? Hiding behind an invisible rock is exactly the
>same as hiding behind a visible rock. Both are physical
>objects acting as barriers.
I have my nose pressed up against a rock. The rock is occupying the entirety of
my vision. The rock is a visible barrier blocking out all other sight.
Someone casts invisibility on the rock. What do I see? Under your
interpretation I would see absolutely nothing, because the rock is still
blocking out all other sight (but I can't see the rock). If you can't see why
this causes complications, I suggest you go back and read my lengthy message
listing several dozen questions which this bogus interpretation of invisibility
fails to answer simply or easily. Perhaps you could even take a stab at
answering those questions, instead of blithely pretending they don't exist.
>To assume that an invisibility spell turns you into a window
>is wrong. The spell discription and all passages on
>invisibilty say that you can not see the subject NOT that you
>see through the subject.
I do not see the invisible object and I do not see whatever is behind the
invisible object, what *do* I see when I look at the invisible object?
There has to be an answer to this question because I, as a DM, have to be able
to describe a scene including an invisible object to my players.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert Singers
> So the intent of his question was something completely different than
> what he actually asked?
He asked
"Justin, how do you reconcile the clear statement in the rules that
glamers and figments cannot produce real effects with your assertion
that Invisibility produces transparency, indubitably a real efffect?"
You said (in summary)
"So why do I think glamers can create an invisibility effect? Because it
says so right in the definition of glamer."
No where did you address his question ie "that invisibility produces
transparency".
> Also: Buy a dictionary.
I have many. They tell me that Invisibility <> Transparency.
Also the PHB & DMG don't state Invisibility = Transparency.
Also: get a clue.
Robert Singers
> Robert Singers wrote:
>>The spell is not a Transmutation. It is not changing a [physical]
>>property of the subject.
>
> How is this relevant? Are you claiming that sight is not a sense? That
> being able to see through an object is not a "sensory quality" of the
> object?
No I'm not.
> Because, otherwise, you're forced to admit that you're wrong when you
> claimed that an illusion could not render something transparent.
No I don't.
>>Objects entering water would displace water true.
>
> So you admit you were wrong when you claimed that a transparent object
> would not displace water.
I never claimed that.
>>What problems? Hiding behind an invisible rock is exactly the
>>same as hiding behind a visible rock. Both are physical objects
>>acting as barriers.
>
> I have my nose pressed up against a rock. The rock is occupying the
> entirety of my vision. The rock is a visible barrier blocking out all
> other sight.
>
> Someone casts invisibility on the rock. What do I see? Under your
> interpretation I would see absolutely nothing, because the rock is
> still blocking out all other sight (but I can't see the rock). If you
> can't see why this causes complications, I suggest you go back and
> read my lengthy message listing several dozen questions which this
> bogus interpretation of invisibility fails to answer simply or easily.
> Perhaps you could even take a stab at answering those questions,
> instead of blithely pretending they don't exist.
Bullshit. More complete bullshit. The rock is now invisible you now see
what ever illusion the spell puts in it's place. RTFM
>>To assume that an invisibility spell turns you into a window
>>is wrong. The spell discription and all passages on
>>invisibilty say that you can not see the subject NOT that you see
>>through the subject.
>
> I do not see the invisible object and I do not see whatever is behind
> the invisible object, what *do* I see when I look at the invisible
> object?
Whatever the spell replaces it with. Invisibility is an *Illusion*. Do
you not comphrend Illusions in D&D?
> There has to be an answer to this question because I, as a DM, have to
> be able to describe a scene including an invisible object to my
> players.
So am I to take it you are completely unable to explain to your players
how any illusion works in D&D?
Chip Bell
news:Xns937A815C382A7rsingers@IP-Hidden:
> Bullshit. More complete bullshit. The rock is now invisible you now
> see what ever illusion the spell puts in it's place. RTFM
Which is... what, exactly? An illusion of whatever's behind the rock?
Robert Singers
> Robert Singers wrote
>
>> Bullshit. More complete bullshit. The rock is now invisible you now
>> see what ever illusion the spell puts in it's place. RTFM
>
> Which is... what, exactly? An illusion of whatever's behind the rock?
Personally I would describe the scene as if the invisible object wasn't
there with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see based on
the rest of the environment. For example if it was a 40' square room with
an invisable tomb in the middle I would describe it as a 40' square empty
room.
I would allow someone to hide behind an invisible object just as if the
object wasn't invisible. If they failed to hide then they are going to
effect the success of the spell just like the 10' rope.
For effects such as light and environmental interactions I would describe
exactly according to the conditions laid down in the PHB & DMG.
Justin Bacon
>> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>>>> Coward?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. Coward.
>>>
>>> Justin, I do think that you need to question your own assumptions about
>>> Usenet.
>>
>> I'll revise. Since you keep hitting the "Reply" button you're clearly a
>> hypocrite, not a coward.
>
>Ah, a fool's courage.
I'd like to apologize. I've been posting tired and with a frayed temper.
Looking back at my posts now I can see that I've been across as petulant. By
the same token, I hope you can understand that your posts seem unnecessarily
antagonistic towards and deprecating of anyone supporting the "invisible means
I see through you" interpretation.
>>> You only get see-through doors if you believe that the
>>> spell always makes things transparent but not strictly invisible.
>>
>> I honestly have no idea why you feel that a door I cannot see is not
"strictly
>> invisible". It's invisible BY DEFINITION. Can you explain yourself?
>
>If something can be seen simply by changing the fluid in which it is
>immersed, it is not invisible in the sense that you cannot see it.
The fact that you can see the liquid being displaced by an invisible object
does not mean you can see the invisible object -- just the water being
displaced. Similarly, the fact that you can see the flour coating an invisible
object does not mean that you can see the invisible object -- just the flour.
It's significant that the spell describes someone who "steps in a puddle" as
*detectable*, not *visible*. That's why you still stuff a miss chance against
an invisible character you have "detected" in this manner: Even if you know
where they are, you can't see them.
(Arguably, this miss chance could probably be negated entirely. For example, if
I were to turn someone invisible and then spray paint their entire body, there
would be little difference between my ability to see the spray paint coating
and a visible person. Even though I still can't see the invisible person, it
could probably be argued that the miss chance should be completely negated in
that situation.)
>True invisibility would
>mean that if you immersed it in water you wouldn't see it; it would not look
>like a hole in the water just as it does not look like a hole in the air.
Actually, based on the spell description (and the description of Invisibility
in the DMG), I'd say that an invisible creature *does* look like a hole in the
air. But since the vast majority of characters cannot perceive a hole in the
air, that's pretty much irrelevant. (By inference you can look at the ELH and
conclude that it requires a Spot check with a DC of 80 to see the hole in the
air.)
>> I honestly have no idea why you feel that hiding behind an invisible boulder
>> is an effective tactic. Can you explain yourself?
>
>Does the spell tell us what happens to an invisible door? No.
I'm not sure why you're changing the subject, but let me put it another way:
You and a friend are standing in an empty square room with a column in the
middle of it that runs from the ceiling to the floor. You cast Invisibility on
the column.
Under your interpretation, if I were to look in the direction of the column, I
wouldn't see the column. Nor would I see anything behind the column. So if I
stood in the corner of this room and looked towards the corner diagonally
opposite, I wouldn't see the column or the corner -- I would see a square room
with three corners. If my friend were to walk around this room, he would
disppear from view every time he crossed behind the column.
If nothing else, such an effect would be practically impossible to adjudicate.
But, more importantly, such an effect has no contextual or textual support in
the spell description. It's a fairly extreme effect, too. You'd think they'd
have mentioned it.
>I do no understand why it is so impossible to accept the following when
>faced with an invisible, closed door:
>
>Player: "I look down the hallway. What do I see?"
>DM: "You see a long corridor with rough stone walls and a floor of broken
>clay tiles. A torch burns from a sconce at the far end of the hall."
Superficially, that seems to work. But, as we've noted, it creates all sorts of
bizarre effects which now require special case adjudication. For example, let's
imagine a section of stone wall that pivots: It opens up a secret passage, but
it swings so that it blocks the passage.
So I'm looking down the hallway and I can't see this section of the wall
because its invisible. What do I see?
"A long corridor with rough stone walls."
Now the invisible wall pivots out, blocking out sight of the end of the
passage. What do I see after this has happened? I'm not sure. I can't see the
end of the corridor (since its blocked from sight entirely), so do I see a long
stone corridor which simply ends in nothing? You tell me.
Okay, how about this: I'm standing in a room looking at a torch. An invisible
character walks in front of the torch. Did the torch just disappear? When you
extend this logic outwards, the "invisible" character walking through a room is
suddenly *very* detectable through nothing more than casual observation:
Tables, chairs, paintings, torches -- everything in the room keeps appearing
and disappearing as the character walks in front of them!
If an invisible object blocks light (which it must under your interpretation),
then the invisible object casts a visible shadow. (It's got to be a visible
shadow, because otherwise the light is visible and I can see through the
invisible creature.)
>In this implementation, the invisible door has disappeared from view. Full
>stop. Why do we need to bring a Romulan cloaking device into it? (Answer:
>because that's what the game designers meant, but didn't quite succeed in
>writing what they meant.)
That's *exactly* what the game designers wrote. They just didn't anticipate
anyone being this ridiculous anal and supporting an interpretation of their
words WHICH MAKES NO SENSE.
>Basically, if I have to
>choose between a Romulan cloaking device and Harry Potter's cloak - which
>makes itself look like whatever is behind it from every possible angle - as
>long as I'm playing fantasy and not sci-fi I'll opt for the cloak, not the
>machine.
Harry Potter's cloak and the Romulan cloaking device both work in exactly the
same way. And neither works in the bizarre fashion you want the Invisibility
spell to work.
If I hung Harry's cloak across a doorway, I would be able to see through the
cloak and into the room beyond. Just like I can with an invisible door in D&D.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> 1. The game designers almost certainly MEANT to write Invisibility such
>that
>> it renders objects transparent.
>
> Bollocks.
> Transparent things don't absorb light, so transparent eyes cannot
>see. For Invisability to be a form of transparancy it has to ignore a
>whole bunch of physics, which is cool, but makes any logical arguments
>about it moot.
I think the whole use of the word "transparent" is becoming a ridiculous
strawman.
Simply put, the word "transparent" is being used to mean "I can see through an
invisible object". Attempting to construct strawmen out of it through an overly
anal interpretation is disingenuous at best.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
The designers mean for it to be transparent in the sense that "I can see
through it". You're attempting to apply a much broader definition of the word
"transparent". Which is disingenuous at best, but more likely the result of
stupidity.
JB
Chad Lubrecht
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Which is... what, exactly? An illusion of whatever's behind the rock?
>
>Personally I would describe the scene as if the invisible object wasn't
>there with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see based on
>the rest of the environment. For example if it was a 40' square room with
>an invisable tomb in the middle I would describe it as a 40' square empty
>room.
How does the spell know what the user expects to see? It would have
to read the minds of everyone present and somehow alter the rock's
sensory qualities so that it looks different to everyone present...
Sounds unlikely.
Robert Singers
>>Personally I would describe the scene as if the invisible object
>>wasn't there with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see
>>based on the rest of the environment. For example if it was a 40'
>>square room with an invisable tomb in the middle I would describe it
>>as a 40' square empty room.
>
> How does the spell know what the user expects to see? It would have
> to read the minds of everyone present and somehow alter the rock's
> sensory qualities so that it looks different to everyone present...
> Sounds unlikely.
The spell doesn't. The weighing is mine as a DM. I choose to go with
Invisibility -> Illusion -> Deception. I have no problem with different
observers being decieved in different ways.
It's like a slight of hand trick. People see what they're expecting to
see.
I don't need to Rule 0 transparency to make Invisibility work.
Ben Sisson
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> (if that IS his real name)
conspiratorially whispered:
And you are running it correctly.
--
Ben Sisson
"Blood is red, bruises are blue
When strangers come here, we run them through!
HARG! HARG! HARG!"
-The Thraddash, Star Control 2
Ben Sisson
<chad.l...@verizon.net> (if that IS his real name)
conspiratorially whispered:
>On 13 May 2003 01:06:25 GMT, Robert Singers
><rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which is... what, exactly? An illusion of whatever's behind the rock?
>>
>>Personally I would describe the scene as if the invisible object wasn't
>>there with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see based on
>>the rest of the environment. For example if it was a 40' square room with
>>an invisable tomb in the middle I would describe it as a 40' square empty
>>room.
>
>How does the spell know what the user expects to see?
The general environment around it. Funny thing about magic, it tends
to be magical. Illusions tend to be deceptive. Who'd have thunk it,
eh?
James Quick
Ben Sisson <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>Personally I would describe the scene as if the invisible object wasn't
> >>there with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see based on
> >>the rest of the environment. For example if it was a 40' square room with
> >>an invisable tomb in the middle I would describe it as a 40' square empty
> >>room.
> >
> >How does the spell know what the user expects to see?
>
> The general environment around it. Funny thing about magic, it tends
> to be magical. Illusions tend to be deceptive. Who'd have thunk it,
> eh?
You can do what you describe just fine, but what the other poster wrote,
the "with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see" is
impossible to do without making Invisibility Mind-Affecting, since you
have to get an idea of what the observer expects.
For example, if the observer had been in this room before, and expected
to see a tomb, the invisibility spell, if it can determine "what the
observers expect to see" should try to make the tomb invisible by
showing me what I expect, which is a tomb.
That don't work so good.
--
James Quick [][][] jamesqu...@hotmail.com
"Who's your dungeon master *now*?"
Robert Singers
> You can do what you describe just fine, but what the other poster
> wrote, the "with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see"
> is impossible to do without making Invisibility Mind-Affecting, since
> you have to get an idea of what the observer expects.
Yes but that weighting is mine as the DM, I'm not describing the spell
as working that way. I was describing how I would describe the scene
where there is an invisable subject. I'm sorry if I didn't quite explain
that properly.
It might just be me but often I have players who are just wandering
along waiting for the next fight and pay no real attention to their
surroundings. Quite often I tell them what they are expecting to see
and then ambush them etc so they learn the folly of not paying attention
to their surroundings when adventuring.
Other players are very good at observing their environment and this is
easy to tell beacuse they ask questions and ask you to explain things in
more detail.
> For example, if the observer had been in this room before, and
> expected to see a tomb, the invisibility spell, if it can determine
> "what the observers expect to see" should try to make the tomb
> invisible by showing me what I expect, which is a tomb.
>
> That don't work so good.
Yes I agree this wouldn't be good.
Loren Davis
"Justin Bacon" wrote:
> "R. Scott Rogers" wrote:
> I'd like to apologize.
Kudos.
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>I'd like to apologize.
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Justin?
>>>> You only get see-through doors if you believe that the
>>>> spell always makes things transparent but not strictly invisible.
>>>
>>> I honestly have no idea why you feel that a door I cannot see is not
>"strictly
>>> invisible". It's invisible BY DEFINITION. Can you explain yourself?
>>
>>If something can be seen simply by changing the fluid in which it is
>>immersed, it is not invisible in the sense that you cannot see it.
>
>The fact that you can see the liquid being displaced by an invisible object
>does not mean you can see the invisible object -- just the water being
>displaced. Similarly, the fact that you can see the flour coating an invisible
>object does not mean that you can see the invisible object -- just the flour.
Justin is correct.
>You and a friend are standing in an empty square room with a column in the
>middle of it that runs from the ceiling to the floor. You cast Invisibility on
>the column.
>
>Under your interpretation, if I were to look in the direction of the column, I
>wouldn't see the column. Nor would I see anything behind the column. So if I
>stood in the corner of this room and looked towards the corner diagonally
>opposite, I wouldn't see the column or the corner -- I would see a square room
>with three corners. If my friend were to walk around this room, he would
>disppear from view every time he crossed behind the column.
>
>If nothing else, such an effect would be practically impossible to adjudicate.
>
>But, more importantly, such an effect has no contextual or textual support in
>the spell description. It's a fairly extreme effect, too. You'd think they'd
>have mentioned it.
The more proper way to say what is happening is the character would
see whatever is behind the other three columns, most likely (unhidden
of course). It is what is expected to see. This doesn't require
mindreading of the new target, it's a reasonable extrapolation of what
the spell is doing. Honestly you can't boil a spell down to measuring
how extreme what it is doing in the actual physical sense is - some of
the lowest level spells have very complicated effects if they happened
from real world physics.
So what happens is you don't see the column, but what you are shown as
the corner behind the column is just an ordinary corner like the other
three you can see. Whether or not this is the case is another story.
Someone behind the column, with 100% concealment, cannot be seen. Your
friend walking around and behind it would be obvious when they
disappeared, and would tip the viewer that there is an illusion
present.
This explanation fits all the text description of invisibility and its
components.
>>I do no understand why it is so impossible to accept the following when
>>faced with an invisible, closed door:
>>
>>Player: "I look down the hallway. What do I see?"
>>DM: "You see a long corridor with rough stone walls and a floor of broken
>>clay tiles. A torch burns from a sconce at the far end of the hall."
>
>Superficially, that seems to work. But, as we've noted, it creates all sorts of
>bizarre effects which now require special case adjudication. For example, let's
>imagine a section of stone wall that pivots: It opens up a secret passage, but
>it swings so that it blocks the passage.
>
>So I'm looking down the hallway and I can't see this section of the wall
>because its invisible. What do I see?
>
>"A long corridor with rough stone walls."
>
>Now the invisible wall pivots out, blocking out sight of the end of the
>passage. What do I see after this has happened? I'm not sure. I can't see the
>end of the corridor (since its blocked from sight entirely), so do I see a long
>stone corridor which simply ends in nothing? You tell me.
You see what *appears* to be the end of the corridor. It's not really,
but in the case you just presented there would be no difference
between what you see and the reality behind the invisible wall. Other
than there is no gaping hole in the side wall in the illusionary
version (you'd be able to see it from the other side of the invisible
wall if I understand your setup correctly).
>Okay, how about this: I'm standing in a room looking at a torch. An invisible
>character walks in front of the torch. Did the torch just disappear?
No, because you saw the torch before it was hidden. However, what you
are seeing is not the real torch.
> When you
>extend this logic outwards, the "invisible" character walking through a room is
>suddenly *very* detectable through nothing more than casual observation:
>Tables, chairs, paintings, torches -- everything in the room keeps appearing
>and disappearing as the character walks in front of them!
Not if you saw them first. If they were hidden by an invisible target
*first* - effectively hiding behind an invisible wall except
interchange the person and the wall - then you wouldn't see them (just
like the person can hide behind an invisible wall, only this time the
chair is hiding behind an invisible person). If the invisible person
then moved, you would see them - and at that moment yes it would
become very obvious there was something odd afoot.
>If an invisible object blocks light (which it must under your interpretation),
>then the invisible object casts a visible shadow. (It's got to be a visible
>shadow, because otherwise the light is visible and I can see through the
>invisible creature.)
The illusion presented has identical light fixtures. Remember what you
are seeing is *not real*, therefore the illusion isn't adding or
allowing any light, it is replacing real light with illusionalry
light.
The invisible object *is* blocking light - but unless the target has
detected invisible in that vicinity *he can't tell the difference*,
because he is looking at an illusion.
>>Basically, if I have to
>>choose between a Romulan cloaking device and Harry Potter's cloak - which
>>makes itself look like whatever is behind it from every possible angle - as
>>long as I'm playing fantasy and not sci-fi I'll opt for the cloak, not the
>>machine.
>
>Harry Potter's cloak and the Romulan cloaking device both work in exactly the
>same way. And neither works in the bizarre fashion you want the Invisibility
>spell to work.
>
>If I hung Harry's cloak across a doorway, I would be able to see through the
>cloak and into the room beyond. Just like I can with an invisible door in D&D.
As long as the door was *open*.
Justin Bacon
>No where did you address his question ie "that invisibility produces
>transparency".
I've been arguing that I can see through an invisible object. I've decided that
the term "transparency" is being used as a strawman by people like you, who are
apparently incapable of debating in a mature, logical fashion.
>Also: get a clue.
Case in point.
>> Also: Buy a dictionary.
>
>I have many.
Then I suggest you look up the words "invisible" and "disppear" in them.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> How is this relevant? Are you claiming that sight is not a sense? That
>> being able to see through an object is not a "sensory quality" of the
>> object?
>
>No I'm not.
Cool. So you admit that I change the visual properties of an object with an
illusion.
>> Because, otherwise, you're forced to admit that you're wrong when you
>> claimed that an illusion could not render something transparent.
>
>No I don't.
...and now you're claiming that I *can't* change the visual properties of an
object with an illusion.
Make up your freakin' mind.
>> So you admit you were wrong when you claimed that a transparent object
>> would not displace water.
>
>I never claimed that.
Funny, it sure looked like you claimed it when you said:
"If an object was transparent it would show up because of the different
refractive indices of the substances. However the clause doesn't say
this, it says displacement."
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?K51422B84)
Make up your freakin' mind.
>> Someone casts invisibility on the rock. What do I see? Under your
>> interpretation I would see absolutely nothing, because the rock is
>> still blocking out all other sight (but I can't see the rock). If you
>> can't see why this causes complications, I suggest you go back and
>> read my lengthy message listing several dozen questions which this
>> bogus interpretation of invisibility fails to answer simply or easily.
>> Perhaps you could even take a stab at answering those questions,
>> instead of blithely pretending they don't exist.
>
>Bullshit. More complete bullshit. The rock is now invisible you now see
>what ever illusion the spell puts in it's place.
So... what illusion did the spell put in its place? Because if it's an illusion
of whatever's behind the rock, then I think we should all step back and give
you a big hand from being the Biggest Anal Retentive Idiot in the newsgroup.
"Nope, you can't see through the rock. You just see an illusion of being able
to see through the rock. Ayup, ayup, ayup..."
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>
>Personally I would describe the scene as if the invisible object wasn't
>there with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see based on
>the rest of the environment. For example if it was a 40' square room with
>an invisable tomb in the middle I would describe it as a 40' square empty
>room.
>
>I would allow someone to hide behind an invisible object just as if the
>object wasn't invisible. If they failed to hide then they are going to
>effect the success of the spell just like the 10' rope.
So you would see whatever was behind the invisible object... except for things
behind the invisible the object?
You're even stupider than I thought.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Loren Davis
"Robert Singers" wrote:
> "Loren Davis" said:
I'd like you to step back and perform a short mental exercise.
Pretend that we aren't talking about an "illusion" called "invisibility,"
but a "djana" called "horfel." Horfel makes an object fade away from
ordinary sight, but the object can still be seen in several different ways,
including immersion in water or heavy fog (the object then looks like an
air bubble). Horfel is a djana effect, which, according to the rulebook,
operates by actually changing some of the qualities of the object. Many
djana have real effects. Horfel is one of them; for instance, it blocks
gaze attacks, to name only one example. Horfel works even on creatures
which have no minds. There are other djana which do work by clouding the
mind, but they operate in a completely different way than horfel.
Furthermore, if horfel doesn't allow you to see through the affected
object, there's absolutely no hint as to what you would see instead. It
couldn't be whatever each observer expects to see, since the spell doesn't
belong to the one distinct subschool of djana which produces a personalized
image.
Any reasonable person would conclude from this that horfel does not work by
clouding the observers' minds, but rather by making the target appear like
the same volume of air. When we put aside our preconceived notions about
what "invisibility" and "illusion" mean, and look only at how these
concepts are defined in the rules, the conclusion becomes inevitable.
At most, by attempting to define "invisibility" so that it can't describe
"horfel," and "illusion" so that it can't describe "djana," you might
complain that these game concepts have misleading names. You could not
claim that they behave differently according to the book.
> >> WHAT RULES? What interpretation? You don't seem to be
> >> reading my posts.
> > You wrote then:
> > "If an object was transparent it would show up because of
> > the different refractive indices of the substances. However the
> > clause doesn't say this, it says displacement.... When you look at
> > ... the fact that the spell is an illusion it's obvious that an
> > invisible object is not seen and the spell achieves this by deceiving
> > the mind."
> > This is complete nonsense, of course. First, not all
> > illusions are purely mind-affecting spells. Illusions
> > can and do have real effects.
> I get the feeling you're not understanding what I am saying.
You said that all illusion spells affect minds or senses, even though you
yourself have recently admitted that this is not true (specifically, with
respect to silence). I replied that some illusion spells have real physical
effects. What didn't I understand about what you're saying?
> Illusion magic works through deception. [snip]
> Specifically their minds or senses are being decieved. This isn't some
> huge leap because this is what Illusions do.
In a D&D world, this claim is wrong. Shades. Mirage arcana. Silence.
Besides, transparency is a trick of the senses. It's no more of a "real
effect" than is change self.
> To labour this point
[Quotes a snippet of the SRD out of context]
This definition doesn't exclude transparency. It also isn't the limit of
what illusions can do, as the PH makes clear. The roof of a building
created by mirage arcana will keep out the rain. A creature which is the
effect of shades will inflict real wounds with its claws and teeth. A
silence spell will protect a glass goblet from shattering. You just
finished admitting that other glamers do, indisputably, have real effects.
If invisibility deceives the senses, it does so in the same way that
non-magical camouflage, sleight of hand, a mundane optical illusion or
stage makeup deceive the senses: it actually changes the object's
superficial qualities. This is how the PH describes glamers.
> The spell is not a Transmutation. It is not changing a
> [physical] property of the subject.
So what? It doesn't have to be.
> Yes. And to know displacement is happening you have to be in
> a position to view that the displacement is happening. If for example
> you happened to be on the bottom of the lake and something with the RI of
> the water entered the lake you would not be able to detect that
> displacement is happening. That is my point.
Stipulated: displacement is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
visibility in water. So what?
You have just stated that a truly invisible man would not leave a visible,
foot-shaped hole when he steps in water, and that a transparent man would.
You must now concede that the invisibility spell renders its target
transparent, like air, but not, by your definition, truly "invisible."
> > A transparent object, such as an air bubble, would indeed show up in
> > water because, indirectly, of displacement: if it didn't displace the
water,
> > it would just float transparently on top of the water.
> That sentence is garbage. Objects entering water would
> displace water true. This does not logically mean that their
> properties change apart from the fact that they get wet.
So what? The object is already transparent before it displaces the water.
What about it would need to change?
> > You can see air when it displaces
> > water, but not when it floats above the water's surface. An
> > invisible object behaves exactly like a transparent one, and not at
> > all like one which deludes the mind into not seeing it.
> Another garbage statement. You've pre supposed that
> invisibility = transparency rather than proving that this
> passage means what you're purporting it too.
I don't need to prove that invisibility and transparency are always the
same thing. That's your logical error. The question is completely
irrelevant to the issue of how this particular spell works.
I did provide several examples of how the spell would work differently
(like invisibility to animals and invisibility to undead) if it were
mind-affecting, and how it instead behaves as a transparent object. For
instance, only a transparent man would leave a visible, man-shaped bubble
in water, not one protected by a mind-affecting spell.
> > This is not a badly-written rule; it's how the spell is supposed to
work,
> > and it avoids a whole slew of problems which the proponents of hiding
> > behind invisible rocks haven't come close to solving.
> What problems? Hiding behind an invisible rock is exactly the
> same as hiding behind a visible rock. Both are physical
> objects acting as barriers. No difference.
But, what if the person knows for a fact that the rock is there, because
he's seen it a thousand times before in that spot, and expects to see it
there? According to every line of text you've quoted, he *still can't see
it.* Even if he walks up and trips over it, he gets no chance to disbelieve
or see through the illusion, which contradicts the way that *every* mental
illusion, including glamers such as change self which lack the
mind-affecting descriptor, works. What does he see instead?
You're objecting at the absence of the exact word "transparent," even
though it's what any native speaker would immediately think of when he
hears the word "invisible" (the word is normally used for transparent
objects in the real world) but you're willing to read between the lines
that an unlimited number of additional objects also become equally
invisible, but only from one direction? Where does the spell description
ever say *that?* You need absurd verbal contortions to describe what a
group sees when confronted with an invisible wall or blindfold. It's not a
phantasm, so it doesn't even produce a personalized mental image. There's
no disbelief save, or spell resistance, which a spell directly affecting
the observers' mind would allow. It would affect far more minds than any
spell of that level could be permitted to, outside of the spell's allowed
range, and it would even work on creatures who are explicitly immune to all
mental manipulation.
> To assume that an invisibility spell turns you into a window
> is wrong. The spell discription and all passages on
> invisibilty say that you can not see the subject NOT that you
> see through the subject.
As you are aware, this is incorrect. You explicitly can see the water or
mud on the other side of the man-shaped hole.
> I never said it was mind affecting. I said like all
> *Illusions* it is a spell of deception of the sense or mind.
A: This describes transparency. It's deception accomplished by changing the
qualities of the object.
B: Illusions can have real physical effects.
> > Hence, the object is transparent, and not "invisible" by
> > your definition.
> No. That is not a logical assumption.
It is, however, an irrefutable conclusion. I see no rebuttal to any of my
evidence.
> It's a deliberate attempt to be dishonest about what the 3e core rules
say
I refuse to dignify that with a response.
> > There are two invisibility spells which are mind-affecting,
> > and do work the way you propose for the invisibility glamer:
> > invisibility to animals and invisibility to undead. Both are
abjurations,
> > not illusions, and use different game mechanics. For instance,
> > they prevent the characters from being "perceived" by any means,
> > including hearing and smell, so the flour or water tactics don't work.
> > They work on mindless creatures. Invisibility to undead allows a
> > saving throw. Normal invisibility does none of these things. This is
more
> > evidence that normal invisibility is not mind-affecting.
> No it isn't.
Why isn't it?
> > Your definition of invisibility is empirically wrong in a D&D
> > game world, and it would be trivial for an experienced mage
> > to set up an experiment which proves it.
> Well you can't even create a logical argument to why it is
> transparent so the poit is moot.
Look up "moot," please.
> > Except that the target isn't visually undetectable. [snip examples]
> No they don't. I acknowledge those points. When the subject
> of invisibility interacts with the enviroment in such a way
> that the victem of the spell can't ignore their existance then
> you follow the guidelines in the 3e core rules. This supports
> what I'm arguing it doesn't distroy it. It certainly doesn't
> support the subject being transparent.
That's incorrect. You can detect the invisible object, visually, with a
spot check. It's not, by your definition, actually "invisible." If it were,
it would behave differently in all of those cases. Therefore, your
definition doesn't apply and is irrelevant to the discussion.
An invisible object does, in every instance, behave exactly as a
transparent object would (if we consider an item tucked into a pocket or
cloak to be part of the same transparent object). It does not behave the
way you want it to in any of those instances.
> Once again you're making shit up.
You just acknowledged all my points. You can't accuse me of making anything
up here.
> Don't be ridiculous. It's a magic spell that make people not
> see you.
It doesn't make people not see you, though. See previous post for examples.
> Why is it so hard to believe the illusion includes
> your shadow. They fact that shadows are not mentioned in any
> of the text does not in anyway imply that the object becomes
> transparent.
Because, if it didn't, the shadow could actually block a light source or
make something else impossible to see, allowing you to pinpoint the
position of the invisible object. The only way around this is for
invisibility to reveal what's behind the object's shadow, which brings you
back to square one: you've added a huge amount of complexity only to allege
that the spell turns the *shadow* transparent.
> > I advise you to stop this name-calling, since it makes you
> > look churlish when you're right and foolish when you're wrong.
> I really don't give a shit when people like you put words in
> my mouth. If you want to have a discussion with me and not
> have me get pissed at you don't attribute things to me that I
> haven't said or quote things out of context.
How, specifically, did I mischaracterize your position? I quoted exactly
the statements I was replying to, and you haven't claimed that you meant
anything different by them than what I thought. If I did misunderstand, it
was unintentional, and I'd be glad if you set the record straight.
Justin Bacon
>From the shadows, the mysterious tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) (if
>that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
>>R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>>> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>
>>I'd like to apologize.
>
>Who are you, and what have you done with the real Justin?
He's tied up in the corner. This way I'm free to continue my plans for world
domination, so long as no one discovers that I'm not really--
Damn.
>Justin is correct.
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Ben?
>The more proper way to say what is happening is the character would
>see whatever is behind the other three columns, most likely (unhidden
>of course). It is what is expected to see.
That's even weirder. Let's say that each corner of the room is painted a
different color. What color is the corner of the room behind the invisible
column? A random color? A color from one of the other corners? The actual color
of that corner? And would that color be the same no matter which corner I was
standing in? Would the fact that I've seen the room before the invisible column
was installed make a difference?
And once you get beyond this simplistic example, what constitutes "expected"?
If I walk into a room with an invisible object between me and the only other
door to the room... would I expect to see another door or not?
Plus, adjudicating the spell now requires that I keep precise track of where
the characters are standing. And, in most cases, will require a completely
different description of the room for each character.
>Your
>friend walking around and behind it would be obvious when they
>disappeared, and would tip the viewer that there is an illusion
>present.
This illustrates my point beautifully. That's *not* the answer I would have
expected given your interpretation. After all, if I see my friend walking
around the room I would *expect* my friend to remain visible. Why wouldn't he
as he walks behind the invisible column?
>>Now the invisible wall pivots out, blocking out sight of the end of the
>>passage. What do I see after this has happened? I'm not sure. I can't see the
>>end of the corridor (since its blocked from sight entirely), so do I see a
long
>>stone corridor which simply ends in nothing? You tell me.
>
>You see what *appears* to be the end of the corridor.
So the invisible wall... looks like a wall?
Or are you saying that I would be seeing a corridor equally as long the real
corridor... but which isn't actually the real corridor?
I find your interpretation utterly baffling. There is no clear, consistent way
to adjudicate the spell using your interpretation.
>No, because you saw the torch before it was hidden. However, what you
>are seeing is not the real torch.
Then why did my friend disappear behind the invisible column? Why does the room
disappear behind the invisible door?
And that's another good point: If I cast invisibility on a door, I don't expect
to see the door. I *would* expect to see the room beyond the door. So does the
spell just supply some random room which has no relationship to the actual room
beyond the door?
Or, even more to the point, if I cast invisibility on a door I wouldn't see the
door... but I *would* see the empty space where the door normally stands. And
if I see an empty space in a wall, I would expect to see a room beyond it. What
room does the spell provide for me to look at?
Let's say me and my buddies are all teleported into an empty stone room without
any doors. I cast invisibility on a wall of this room. What do I see? What do
my buddies see?
>Not if you saw them first. If they were hidden by an invisible target
>*first* - effectively hiding behind an invisible wall except
>interchange the person and the wall - then you wouldn't see them (just
>like the person can hide behind an invisible wall, only this time the
>chair is hiding behind an invisible person).
Okay, so I'm looking at my buddy standing next to an invisible boulder. I turn
my back on him. While I have my back turned on him, he ducks behind the
invisible boulder. I turn back to look at him. What do I see? Does it make a
difference he said, "I'm ducking behind this invisible boulder now!"
>The invisible object *is* blocking light - but unless the target has
>detected invisible in that vicinity *he can't tell the difference*,
>because he is looking at an illusion.
So the invisible object is conveying the illusion that I can see through it,
but I can't actually see through it? And, more than that, the illusion goes out
of its way to make sure that whatever I think I'm seeing through it is not the
reality of what lies behind it?
>>If I hung Harry's cloak across a doorway, I would be able to see through the
>>cloak and into the room beyond. Just like I can with an invisible door in
>D&D.
>
>As long as the door was *open*.
So an invisible cloak operates differently from an invisible door? I can look
through one and see the room beyond, but not the other? Why?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
First Prophet of Kaos
<sc...@madforjam.com> wrote:
>It has come to my attention, through private e-mail, that I am not the only
>person who finds my non-transparency model of Invisibility to be compelling.
Well, great minds think alike and fools congregate together.
>A couple of thoughts.
>
>1. The game designers almost certainly MEANT to write Invisibility such that
>it renders objects transparent. Folks come up with a bunch of crap arguments
>to this effect, and they almost always fail by relying on assumptions that
>leap further from the text than my own.
Keep crying, biotch.
>it in water or fog. If it was transparent, you would. And you do.
No you don't. You see evidence of it, but you don't actually see
*it.*
>Anyone else thinking of following me down the road of the One True
>Invisibility Interpretation, and into the land of
David Koresh.
>If you actually care about author's intent, you pretty much have to accept
>that Invisibility works just like a Romulan cloaking device, and is perhaps
>the most mechanistic, mundane, and un-magical spell in the book.
Bah. Fireball works like a bazooka, and Endurance is nothing more
than blood doping. There's dozens of spells that can be broken down
into 'mechanistic' styles if you so wish.
>2. That said, the authors did a really bad job of writing Invisibility.
Eat me, Webster.
>4. And despite the inability of certain partisans to articulate their
>assumptions in an effective manner,
Your momma sucks goat dick.
>And to anyone considering arguing the point with me, I have just conceded
>the validity of your best arguments.
Liar.
You've said, literally, that the arguments suck despite being based on
truth. (And I've tossed out a token flame for every instance of it
that I've caught.)
If you could somehow manage to avoid doing that, I would have politely
followed your request not to argue this point from the start.
--
Wahhh! I miss Saint Baldwin!
First Prophet of Kaos
<sc...@madforjam.com> wrote:
>From the letters of Justin Bacon (11/05/03 21:13):
>
>> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>> Trying to argue against me on this
>>> point amounts to masturbation, since you've already won the argument with
>>> (almost) everyone else, and I recognize the validity of your substantive
>>> arguments and encourage anyone who does not yet agree with you to reconsider
>>> in light of the strong evidence of authors' intent.
>>
>> ...and then you resort to the final refuge of the coward.
>
>Coward? Justin, I know I got angry on your ass when you didn't deserve it in
>the original thread. And I'm sorry, I really am. But this is uncalled for.
It's on par with the jabs you make while 'conceding' the point of
author intention.
In fact, it's somewhat preferable since it doesn't try to pass itself
off as something else.
Rob Singers
of wisdom
> How, specifically, did I mischaracterize your position? I quoted
> exactly the statements I was replying to, and you haven't claimed that
> you meant anything different by them than what I thought. If I did
> misunderstand, it was unintentional, and I'd be glad if you set the
> record straight.
Loren you are still putting words in my mouth
For example you said
"You said that all illusion spells affect minds or senses, even though
you yourself have recently admitted that this is not true (specifically,
with respect to silence). I replied that some illusion spells have real
physical effects. What didn't I understand about what you're saying?"
I never once discussed the silence spell. Once again you're confusing
what other people have posted with what I posted.
Statements like "what any native speaker would immediately think of" are
farcical given the international nature of the Internet. Statements
like "Any reasonable person" are also a crock of shit. If I were to
think along similiar lines I wouldn't conclude you are being reasonable.
However I'm guessing that you are and we're having a communication
difficulty.
I know from my job working for a US multinational that there are times
that me as a New Zealander is just not talking on the same wave length
as an Australian and both of us are going to have problems understanding
just exactly what an American may be talking about. Meanwhile the
American is probably just thinking what silly accents we have.
We all use the same words in different ways. For example to us a
bathroom is a room with a bath in it, the toilet (loo) is the room with
a toilet in it. A restroom would be logically somewhere you sit down
(to rest) but is understood as a euphimism for toilets. How well we
understand the words in different ways depends on our exposure to their
usage.
My whole argument is that Invisibility can be played as written without
having to read transparency between the lines. You accused me of over
ruling the spells description, in fact that's what the transparent camp
are doing. That's what I object to.
No one has yet quoted where it says that Invisibility equals
Transparency or anywhere in the spell description where it says that you
"see through" an invisible object.
I understand why people want to use a transparency model. It's the
simplest, and some one of the calibre of Justin Bacon obviously needs to
keep things simple. But why someone with such little imagination want's
to engage in this pass time I don't know.
The arguing in this thread has been extremely disingenuious. Take for
example my point that the invisibility illusions works by decieving the
senses of the victems of the spell by changing the sensory properties of
the subject of the spell. This is still true if the subject now has a
transparent sensory property.
When you also try and make points by broadly comparing different spells
in D&D you're going to find holes in the magic system big enough to
drive a bus through (maybe make that a bullette).
If you look at an RPG system with a tighter more consistant magical
paradigm like Ars Magic you find that invisibility is a Perdo Imagonem
spell. Basically Distroy Image. (However in ArM invisible people still
cast reflections :-})
To have a discussion about how it works and explore the possible ways
that it works then there has to be some fundamental agreement about what
the PHB & DMG say about invisibility. I don't see this happening in this
threat. There's far too much over ruling of what the text has to say by
people trying to make reasonable assumptions.
I hope you appreciate the length of this explaination because if you
google me on Usenet you'll find my natural inclination is more likely to
be just to call you an idiot and ignore you.
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Chris J. Whitcomb
"Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns937A8062C85B9rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> Also the PHB & DMG don't state Invisibility = Transparency.
The PHB states that an object dropped by an invisible creature becomes
visible. If it was dropped behind the creature it is still visible.
"Anything that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible, such as a
trailing rope."
If the intent was to block other things from view, it would have been
included in the spell description. Since the spell does not mention it
blocking the view of other items, I have to assume that anything not so
hidden is visible.
If you wish to house-rule it that it blocks the view of other
items/creatures/whatever then so be it... :)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.473 / Virus Database: 271 - Release Date: 04/17/03
Rob Singers
words of wisdom
> The PHB states that an object dropped by an invisible creature becomes
> visible. If it was dropped behind the creature it is still visible.
> "Anything that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible, such
> as a trailing rope."
>
> If the intent was to block other things from view, it would have been
> included in the spell description. Since the spell does not mention
> it blocking the view of other items, I have to assume that anything
> not so hidden is visible.
Thanks. That's a good point. However I'd like to point out that if
you're observing from the side the rope is trailing. If you're looking
up (in the direction of an invisible person) and the rope is hanging
down, it's still trailing.
As for the point about the dropped item. A dropped object hidden behind
an invisible object is not invisible, it's just hidden.
It's going to entirely ironic now if someone wants to argue hidden =
invisible because both imply something is not seen. :-)
My answer would be to walk forward and change your position relative to
the invisible person so you can see it ;-)
R. Scott Rogers
> Harry Potter's cloak and the Romulan cloaking device both work in exactly the
> same way. And neither works in the bizarre fashion you want the Invisibility
> spell to work.
>
> If I hung Harry's cloak across a doorway, I would be able to see through the
> cloak and into the room beyond. Just like I can with an invisible door in D&D.
[You make good points which I have snipped and saved, but they are still
based on assumptions from the text, and I don't see any profit in pitting
assumptions against one another on this settled matter, especially since you
still don't realize how much of your interpretation actually is a matter of
assumption rather than strict construction of the text itself. No big; like
I've said my commitment to the anti-transparency thing is largely a
non-serious aesthetic pose, and I really do not mean to argue against your
view. However, you did give me a couple of new points to ponder, so thanks.
But on to things that matter.]
You are wrong - wrong I tell you! - about Harry's cloak. Or at least my
memory of the text of the books differs from what you say. My copies are,
sadly, in a warehouse in Virginia at the moment, and I am thousands of miles
away. So I can't check this out, but hopefully others will confirm or deny
my memory on the point.
Romulan (or Klingon; didn't one of them steal the technology from the
other?) cloaking devices work more or less by bending light around the
cloaked object. For DND purposes, we can ignore the physics problem of how
one can see if one is always in the lee of passing light streams. But a
Romulan cloaking device is pretty much binary; it's either on or off. You
never see part of the ship sticking out of the field of effect.
My recollection of Harry's cloak is that it changes its appearance such that
it always looks like what is behind it - and from every angle. Thus the
cloak doesn't cease working when Harry opens a slit in it; an observer would
see Harry under the cloak exactly as if seeing into a slit in a
non-invisible cloak, but the bits of Harry covered by the cloak would remain
unseen. Being a magic device, it does stop working when no one is wearing it
at all.
To split hairs - who, me? - I suspect that the PHB authors had unclear ideas
of how Invisibility worked. Sometimes it seems to function like a Romulan
cloaking device; at other times it seems to work as if turning its target
into a perfectly transparent object.
A short list of ways it seems to me that Invisibility could be done:
1. Bend light around the target (Romulan cloaking device);
2. Make the target transparent (Invisible Man);
3. Make the target look like whatever is behind it (Harry's cloak);
4. Slip the target into an alternate dimension (the One Ring);
5. Abandon pretense to any model and just say the target cannot be seen; and
6. Affect the minds of observers to ignore the target (mind-affecting).
Nos. 1-3 and 5 can be Glamers; No. 4 and No. 6 cannot. Nos. 3 and 5 are the
only "true" invisibility; all the others simply offer circumstantially
limited unseeability. (But the circumstances to which they are limited are
common, so most of the time they'll produce the same effect.) No. 5 is very
abstract and hard to get one's head around; this is why I like it. It seems
magical. It is also, and I assume purely by accident, how the PHB authors
wrote the spell, at least in the first paragraphs. They go on in further
paragraphs to describe specific circumstances in which the spell behaves
much more like Nos. 1 and 2. No. 3 is really a form of camouflage, but it
has the advantage of being most amenable to magic-skill unification.
However, all but No. 4 CAN be implemented by using the Hide mechanic, if you
want to do that sort of thing.
Most people, it seems, believe that the 3E spell does some mix of Nos. 1 and
2; most who do not accept this view believe that the spell does No. 6. The
latter group is, of course, dead wrong, since No. 6 cannot be a Glamer. And
Sean K. Reynolds, like many others, assumes the false dichotomy that only
Nos. 1, 2, and 6 are possible. If you accept this, the fact that No. 6
cannot be the way the 3E spell works leaves Nos. 1 and 2 as the only
possible models. Reynolds therefore spends the bulk of his essay on the
subject demolishing No. 6, because once you accept his false dichotomy, No.
6's defeat proves Nos. 1 and 2. Reynolds, however, is wrong, since there are
at least three other possible models, two of which can be Glamers. This
insight doesn't change what the 3E spell was meant by its authors to be, but
it does open the possibility of different implementations of Glamer
Invisibility than the current mix of Romulan cloaking device and
transparency.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
scott at madforjam.com
Chris J. Whitcomb
space. Is air transparent? or more specifically, can you see through air?
tussock
<snip: nitpick ahead>
> You're objecting at the absence of the exact word "transparent," even
> though it's what any native speaker would immediately think of when he
> hears the word "invisible" (the word is normally used for transparent
> objects in the real world)....
Nope. IRL, IME, "invisible" is mostly used to describe bacteria and
other microbes (invisible to the naked eye), asteroids (invisible from
earth), and 'pretend' stuff (invisible friends).
I also really can't think of any transparent objects referred to as
"invisible". Calling something an "invisible window" would be rather
confusing to most listeners. They already know they can see through it
(it's a window, and not frosted or coloured) so why the obscure
adjective?
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
R. Scott Rogers
There is a word, but sadly they have not yet made a reverse-dictionary where
you can look up words by their definitions rather than the other way around,
describing the addition of adjectives to specify a word's original meaning.
A classic example is the phrase, "day game." Time was when all baseball
games were played in daylight. (As an aside, don't let anyone tell you
baseball is the only game without a clock. It might be now, but up until the
mid-1950s most games were played with a clock; it was called the sun. Games
not finished by nightfall were called.) So when the novelty of games played
at night under lights came along, the phrase "night game" was invented. But
soon most games were night games, and so it became necessary to use the
phrase "day game" to designate a game played in daylight. So now, in
baseball, the phrase "day game" means what the word "game" used to mean.
But of course your real point is correct. People rarely use "invisible"
purely as a synonym for "transparent." Stealth aircraft are said to be
"invisible to radar," but no one would ever say that they are "transparent
to radar." It is hard to think of a common usage of the word "invisible"
where people commonly interchange the word "transparent."
Furthermore, the word "transparent" has come to hold opposing meanings.
Sometimes it means invisible, as in "the water was transparent." This means
you don't see the water. Other times it means visible, as in "her motives
were transparent from the start." This means you do see her motives.
Similarly, things made transparent by the Invisibility spell are invisible
sometimes - when surrounded by a generally clear, gaseous fluid - but
visible sometimes - when surrounded by any other fluid.
I think the ideal Invisibility spell would be one where, if an Invisible PC
stood waist-deep in a lake on a chilly day, you would see neither an
air-colored hole in the water not a water-colored hole in the air. You would
not see the shape of the invisible PC at all in either medium. But you would
see the ripples in the water's surface caused by the PC's presence, and you
would see the steam from the PC's breath. If a fog suddenly blew in, you
would see the effects of the fog as it swirled and eddied around the person,
but you would not see a person-shaped hole in the fog. But this is a matter
of taste.
John Wade
"The designers mean for it to be transparent in the sense that "I can see
through it". You're attempting to apply a much broader definition of the
word
"transparent". Which is disingenuous at best, but more likely the result of
stupidity."
Lah di dah
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>Ben Sisson wrote:
>>From the shadows, the mysterious tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) (if
>>that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>>
>>>R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>>>> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>>
>>The more proper way to say what is happening is the character would
>>see whatever is behind the other three columns, most likely (unhidden
>>of course). It is what is expected to see.
>
>That's even weirder. Let's say that each corner of the room is painted a
>different color. What color is the corner of the room behind the invisible
>column? A random color? A color from one of the other corners? The actual color
>of that corner? And would that color be the same no matter which corner I was
>standing in? Would the fact that I've seen the room before the invisible column
>was installed make a difference?
Yes, it would make a huge difference, you would see the corner as you
remember it, minus specifics. Just in the general sense. If you
remember the corner specifically and directly, that would be enough
basis for suspecting an illusion present.
>
>And once you get beyond this simplistic example, what constitutes "expected"?
>If I walk into a room with an invisible object between me and the only other
>door to the room... would I expect to see another door or not?
It's only really relevent if the object behind the invisible object is
completely hidden. We don't worry about second by second positions.
Unless you specifically were watching for irregularities, it can be
assumed you see anything that's not 100% concealed at all positions
and the illusion fills it in when you can't for those that aren't.
>
>Plus, adjudicating the spell now requires that I keep precise track of where
>the characters are standing. And, in most cases, will require a completely
>different description of the room for each character.
There's no point doing this unless you see a need to deliberately
complicate the process. Just worry about things that are actually
hidden.
We took your first example with the caveats you provided (in the
directly opposite corner, no other vantage points possible), but if it
were an actual situation it would have been assumed the characters got
a look at the real opposite corner at some point of walking into the
room.
>
>>Your
>>friend walking around and behind it would be obvious when they
>>disappeared, and would tip the viewer that there is an illusion
>>present.
>
>This illustrates my point beautifully. That's *not* the answer I would have
>expected given your interpretation. After all, if I see my friend walking
>around the room I would *expect* my friend to remain visible. Why wouldn't he
>as he walks behind the invisible column?
Yes, I muffed this one. The proper answer would be, as long as your
friend didn't actually try to hide behind the column you see him or an
illusionary version of him at all times. This is the same as failing a
hide roll - you're not hiding perfectly and the other person can
detect you. If your friend tried to hide - and succeeded - he would no
longer be visible since you wouldn't expect to see him there.
>
>>>Now the invisible wall pivots out, blocking out sight of the end of the
>>>passage. What do I see after this has happened? I'm not sure. I can't see the
>>>end of the corridor (since its blocked from sight entirely), so do I see a
>long
>>>stone corridor which simply ends in nothing? You tell me.
>>
>>You see what *appears* to be the end of the corridor.
>
>So the invisible wall... looks like a wall?
>
>Or are you saying that I would be seeing a corridor equally as long the real
>corridor... but which isn't actually the real corridor?
If I understood your example correctly, you would be seeing an
illusionary corridor that looks like the real corridor, minus the
swung out illusionary wall. There's no reason to expect to see
anything else.
>
>I find your interpretation utterly baffling. There is no clear, consistent way
>to adjudicate the spell using your interpretation.
IMO, it is consistent in all situations.
>
>>No, because you saw the torch before it was hidden. However, what you
>>are seeing is not the real torch.
>
>Then why did my friend disappear behind the invisible column? Why does the room
>disappear behind the invisible door?
Illusions can't provide real otherwise unavailable information.
Therefore you can't see through the invisible door. What you see
depends on the situation, but the normal one would be you don't see
any door there at all. The room isn't "disappearing". You never saw it
in the first place.
>And that's another good point: If I cast invisibility on a door, I don't expect
>to see the door. I *would* expect to see the room beyond the door.
You'd only expect to see that if you saw the door *before* it went
invisible. In this special case, what you see beyond it is your memory
of the next room, if you've gotten a look at it before, or probably
just a plain room of the type you're standing in if you haven't.
Completely situational based, of course, but that's why the DM makes
the big bucks, to make those kind of calls....
> So does the
>spell just supply some random room which has no relationship to the actual room
>beyond the door?
Quite possibly, if you never saw the room behind the door before it
went invisible. You'd see "a room", without any real specifics.
Remember you can't actually stick your head in that room to check it
out fully anyways with a door in the way.
>
>Or, even more to the point, if I cast invisibility on a door I wouldn't see the
>door... but I *would* see the empty space where the door normally stands.
If you didn't know there was a door there, you'd see the wall
continued, not an empty space.
>Let's say me and my buddies are all teleported into an empty stone room without
>any doors. I cast invisibility on a wall of this room. What do I see? What do
>my buddies see?
You still see the wall. A stone wall will blow away the weight limits
on invisibility. You can't affect an entire stone wall except at very
small sizes at very high levels.
>>Not if you saw them first. If they were hidden by an invisible target
>>*first* - effectively hiding behind an invisible wall except
>>interchange the person and the wall - then you wouldn't see them (just
>>like the person can hide behind an invisible wall, only this time the
>>chair is hiding behind an invisible person).
>
>Okay, so I'm looking at my buddy standing next to an invisible boulder. I turn
>my back on him. While I have my back turned on him, he ducks behind the
>invisible boulder. I turn back to look at him. What do I see? Does it make a
>difference he said, "I'm ducking behind this invisible boulder now!"
Assuming 100% concealment, even if he tells you he's there, you can't
see him.
I think the example you actually want is, he's behind the boulder but
not from your vantagepoint. You turn and walk without looking at him
to where he has 100% concealment. In that situation you see what
*appears* to be him when you turn your head to look, but its just an
illusion without specifics. If he then changed his appearance, you
would *not* see this change.
>>The invisible object *is* blocking light - but unless the target has
>>detected invisible in that vicinity *he can't tell the difference*,
>>because he is looking at an illusion.
>
>So the invisible object is conveying the illusion that I can see through it,
>but I can't actually see through it?
Exactly!
> And, more than that, the illusion goes out
>of its way to make sure that whatever I think I'm seeing through it is not the
>reality of what lies behind it?
Of course not. In almost all the examples you've given the illusion
you see is very close to the reality. But not always, not exactly, and
minus specifics unless you were already specifically aware of them.
>
>>>If I hung Harry's cloak across a doorway, I would be able to see through the
>>>cloak and into the room beyond. Just like I can with an invisible door in
>>D&D.
>>
>>As long as the door was *open*.
>
>So an invisible cloak operates differently from an invisible door? I can look
>through one and see the room beyond, but not the other? Why?
Harry's cloak is not the same as D&D invisibility. Harry's cloak is
*not an illusion*. I answered the question you asked. :-p
Justin Bacon
>Yes, I muffed this one. The proper answer would be, as long as your
>friend didn't actually try to hide behind the column you see him or an
>illusionary version of him at all times. This is the same as failing a
>hide roll - you're not hiding perfectly and the other person can
>detect you. If your friend tried to hide - and succeeded - he would no
>longer be visible since you wouldn't expect to see him there.
So now the spell knows when someone is trying to hide and when they aren't?
>>So the invisible wall... looks like a wall?
>>
>>Or are you saying that I would be seeing a corridor equally as long the real
>>corridor... but which isn't actually the real corridor?
>
>If I understood your example correctly, you would be seeing an
>illusionary corridor that looks like the real corridor, minus the
>swung out illusionary wall. There's no reason to expect to see
>anything else.
So, even though I've never seen this hallway before, I would "expect" to see a
hallway just like the hallway I never knew existed?
What if I simply turn the wall at the end of an empty, dead-end hall invisible.
What do I see then?
This whole "the invisible wall looks like a wall because you were expecting to
see a wall" thing seems pretty bogus to me.
>>Then why did my friend disappear behind the invisible column? Why does the
>>room disappear behind the invisible door?
>
>Illusions can't provide real otherwise unavailable information.
>Therefore you can't see through the invisible door. What you see
>depends on the situation, but the normal one would be you don't see
>any door there at all. The room isn't "disappearing". You never saw it
>in the first place.
So I'm looking through an open doorway and an invisible door swings shut and
blocks my view of the room. According to your interpretation, I would continue
to see the room (after all, that's what I would "expect" to see). But shortly
thereafter my friend walks up and takes a peek at what I'm looking at. He
doesn't see a room (since he "never saw it in the first place"), he just sees a
blank section of wall.
This is consistent? This *doesn't* require me to offer a different description
of what each character sees? This *doesn't* require the illusion to somehow
read our minds and know what we "expect" to see?
More fun and games: I'm looking into a room where a fire is burning. The
invisible door swings shut. Am I still seeing the fire still burning in the
room I'm "expecting" to see?
I'm looking into a room where a fire is burning and my friend Joe is standing.
The invisible door swings shut. Am I still seeing the fire burning? Am I still
seeing Joe standing there?
And if the answer to these questions is "yes", what happens if Joe exits the
room by another door and walks up to me. Do I still see Joe standing in the
room? Or does he disappear because I'm no longer "expecting" to see him?
For many years I have lived in a castle. I know that this particular hallway
has an open doorway in it that looks into a room. Unbeknownst to me, someone
installs an invisible door in that previously open doorway. I walk into the
hallway. Do I see the open doorway I'm "expecting" to see? I'm now joined by my
guest Joe, who's never seen this hallway before in his life. Does he see the
open doorway?
>>Or, even more to the point, if I cast invisibility on a door I wouldn't see
the
>>door... but I *would* see the empty space where the door normally stands.
>
>If you didn't know there was a door there, you'd see the wall
>continued, not an empty space.
Which gets us back to the wonderful "the invisible wall looks like a wall"
logic. Why wouldn't I see the empty space? I didn't cast invisibilty on the
empty space. I cast invisibility on the door which occupies that empty space.
>>Let's say me and my buddies are all teleported into an empty stone room
without
>>any doors. I cast invisibility on a wall of this room. What do I see? What do
>>my buddies see?
>
>You still see the wall. A stone wall will blow away the weight limits
>on invisibility. You can't affect an entire stone wall except at very
>small sizes at very high levels.
Fine. It's a wooden wall. Stop dodging the question.
>I think the example you actually want is, he's behind the boulder but
>not from your vantagepoint. You turn and walk without looking at him
>to where he has 100% concealment. In that situation you see what
>*appears* to be him when you turn your head to look, but its just an
>illusion without specifics. If he then changed his appearance, you
>would *not* see this change.
By this logic, his facial expressions wouldn't change. Similarly, if I were to
look at a torch through an invisible person the flames wouldn't flicker.
>> And, more than that, the illusion goes out
>>of its way to make sure that whatever I think I'm seeing through it is not
the
>>reality of what lies behind it?
>
>Of course not.
So I do see the reality of what lies behind it?
>>>>If I hung Harry's cloak across a doorway, I would be able to see through
the
>>>>cloak and into the room beyond. Just like I can with an invisible door in
>>>D&D.
>>>
>>>As long as the door was *open*.
>>
>>So an invisible cloak operates differently from an invisible door? I can look
>>through one and see the room beyond, but not the other? Why?
>
>Harry's cloak is not the same as D&D invisibility. Harry's cloak is
>*not an illusion*. I answered the question you asked. :-p
I think you need to go back and check the thread. I was responding to the
assertion that the Invisibility spell works just like Harry's cloak.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert Singers
> It's really quite simple. Invisibility creates the illusion of an
> air-filled space. Is air transparent? or more specifically, can you
> see through air?
It's not quite that simple and I'll demonstrate why. Firstly you need
to remember that transparent means you see through something and
invisible means it's not visually detectable.
Imagine a broad grassy meadow with an apple tree in the middle of it. I
cast Invisibility on the apple tree.
If the spell simply makes the tree transparent or replicates what is
next to the object or as you say an air filled space you would still be
able to detect the tree by the hole in the shape of the root system into
the middle of the meadow. So in a strict sense it isn't invisible.
If you instead see a broad grassy meadow without the tree in it you are
seeing what the spell description and DMG text says you should see.
However people here are saying that the "filling in" of the environment
to deceive the observer would have to be mind-effecting and would
illicite a saving throw so it can't be how it works.
Justin Bacon
>
>[You make good points which I have snipped and saved, but they are still
>based on assumptions from the text,
Actually, in this case, it was questions regarding how your interpretation of
Invisibility should be implemented. It has pretty much zilch to do with the
actual text of the Invisibility spell.
>You are wrong - wrong I tell you! - about Harry's cloak. Or at least my
>memory of the text of the books differs from what you say. My copies are,
>sadly, in a warehouse in Virginia at the moment, and I am thousands of miles
>away. So I can't check this out, but hopefully others will confirm or deny
>my memory on the point.
It's possible you're making the mistake of thinking of Harry's cloak as *being*
invisible, and that Harry is therefore hiding behind the cloak when her wears
it. Not quite the case: When not being worn, the cloak is visible.
THE SORCERER'S STONE, pg. 201: "Harry picked up the shining, silvery cloth off
the floor. It was strange to the touch, like water woven into material."
When the cloak is put on, it confers invisibility -- although only to those
portions of the body covered by the cloak (as you note). But, once the
invisibility is conferred, people can see right through Harry (or whatever
portion of Harry's body happens to be invisible).
Now whether this works because the cloak is projecting whatever lies on the
other side of the cloak, or because it bends light around it (while magically
allowing Harry to see), or "just because" doesn't really matter in practice
(and doesn't seem to be defiend by the book). The point is that I can
effectively see what lies on the other side of the invisible object.
That means that Harry couldn't, for example, throw the cloak over Hagrid and
then hide behind the invisible Hagrid. Anyone looking in Hagrid's direction
would see right through him and see Harry hiding behind him.
If a door were to work by the same principles of invisibility, I could see
right through the door and observe what's on the other side of it. Again,
whether this is accomplished because light passes right through the door, light
bends around the door, or the door is projecting whatever exists on the other
side of it doesn't really matter: I can see through the door.
>1. Bend light around the target (Romulan cloaking device);
>2. Make the target transparent (Invisible Man);
>3. Make the target look like whatever is behind it (Harry's cloak);
Is there any effective difference between these methods, though? Assuming
they're operating perfectly. For example, the Romulan cloaking device creates a
distortion effect as the ship enters or leaves cloak (because the light isn't
being bent perfectly, yet). Similarly, we can see an imperfect version of "make
the target look like whatever is behind it" in PREDATOR and DIE ANOTHER DAY:
The projection isn't perfect from all angles, particularly when the object is
in motion.
But with all these methods, I can effectievly see through the invisible object
as if it wasn't there. Including doors I have never seen the other side of.
>4. Slip the target into an alternate dimension (the One Ring);
That would effectively be the invisibility conferred by ethereal travel.
>Nos. 3 and 5 are the
>only "true" invisibility;
I'm not sure what definition of "true invisibility" you're using.
>Most people, it seems, believe that the 3E spell does some mix of Nos. 1 and
>2;
As with most magic, I go with more of an effects-based approach: The spell
makes it possible for me to look through an invisible object as though it
wasn't there. The invisible object displaces liquids.
This means that Wizard #1's invisibility may involve bending light, Wizard #2's
invisibiltiy may be a projection method, and Wizard #3's may be perfect
transparency (light passes right through). But the effect of each is
essentially the same. (Similarly, magic missiles can look like anything the
caster wants in my game.)
I think the one clause of the spell which could definitely be clearer is the
whole "if you tuck an object inside your pocket, it turns invisible, too!".
Unfortunately, I'm not really clear how to make that clause clear. I want to
keep things like:
a) tucking a gem into your belt and sneaking out with it
b) throwing an invisible cloak over your head and disappearing
c) the contents of an invisible chest also being invisible
Without the endless weirdness caused by allowing a rogue to hide behind an
invisible boulder. (Because the minute you have invisible objects blocking
sight lines, you no longer have an invisible object. You've got a weird spatial
distortion which can be noticed by anybody even casually glancing around the
area.)
I might go with: "Any object picked up by an invisible creature also turns
invisible. Any object placed inside a closed, invisible container also turns
invisible."
That means I have to give up on B, but attempting to incorporate B gets weird,
again.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>Ben Sisson wrote:
>>Yes, I muffed this one. The proper answer would be, as long as your
>>friend didn't actually try to hide behind the column you see him or an
>>illusionary version of him at all times. This is the same as failing a
>>hide roll - you're not hiding perfectly and the other person can
>>detect you. If your friend tried to hide - and succeeded - he would no
>>longer be visible since you wouldn't expect to see him there.
>
>So now the spell knows when someone is trying to hide and when they aren't?
Of course not, Justin. The important thing is whether or not the
person is succeeding in hiding. If he's hidden, then the spell can't
give information otherwise unavailable, as per the spell description.
If he's not, then he's detectable and therefore not protected by the
invisible block to the extent you need.
>
>>>So the invisible wall... looks like a wall?
>>>
>>>Or are you saying that I would be seeing a corridor equally as long the real
>>>corridor... but which isn't actually the real corridor?
>>
>>If I understood your example correctly, you would be seeing an
>>illusionary corridor that looks like the real corridor, minus the
>>swung out illusionary wall. There's no reason to expect to see
>>anything else.
>
>So, even though I've never seen this hallway before, I would "expect" to see a
>hallway just like the hallway I never knew existed?
You would see "a hallway", nothing more. Careful examination, or
trying to walk down it, would of course trigger the disbelief rules
when you encountered the invisible wall. Probably an automatic
successful save, for that matter.
>
>What if I simply turn the wall at the end of an empty, dead-end hall invisible.
>What do I see then?
I doubt you can. If you can somehow get that wall invisible - and
there's no rule that states you can turn a *part* of something
invisible, only wholes - you'd be in a situation similar to the one
further below.
>
>This whole "the invisible wall looks like a wall because you were expecting to
>see a wall" thing seems pretty bogus to me.
Of course you are welcome to believe anything you like. This situation
has never come up for me so I am going on what I would do in
situations you describe to the best of my ability to translate it into
real game situations rather than hypotheticals.
>
>>>Then why did my friend disappear behind the invisible column? Why does the
>>>room disappear behind the invisible door?
>>
>>Illusions can't provide real otherwise unavailable information.
>>Therefore you can't see through the invisible door. What you see
>>depends on the situation, but the normal one would be you don't see
>>any door there at all. The room isn't "disappearing". You never saw it
>>in the first place.
>
>So I'm looking through an open doorway and an invisible door swings shut and
>blocks my view of the room. According to your interpretation, I would continue
>to see the room (after all, that's what I would "expect" to see). But shortly
>thereafter my friend walks up and takes a peek at what I'm looking at. He
>doesn't see a room (since he "never saw it in the first place"), he just sees a
>blank section of wall.
>
>This is consistent? This *doesn't* require me to offer a different description
>of what each character sees? This *doesn't* require the illusion to somehow
>read our minds and know what we "expect" to see?
This is an example of a situation causing a disbelieve saving throw at
+4 as per the rules. You make it more complex than it really is. It's
not the spell mixing with your mind. Your mind mixes with itself.
Illusions (glamers at least) aren't real.
>
>More fun and games: I'm looking into a room where a fire is burning. The
>invisible door swings shut. Am I still seeing the fire still burning in the
>room I'm "expecting" to see?
Once again, saving throw, possible automatic disbelief.
>I'm looking into a room where a fire is burning and my friend Joe is standing.
>The invisible door swings shut. Am I still seeing the fire burning? Am I still
>seeing Joe standing there?
You don't see Joe standing there, he has total concealment and is a
specific.
>For many years I have lived in a castle. I know that this particular hallway
>has an open doorway in it that looks into a room. Unbeknownst to me, someone
>installs an invisible door in that previously open doorway. I walk into the
>hallway. Do I see the open doorway I'm "expecting" to see?
Yes, though you would see nothing specific about the room beyond it.
Anything further including more direct observation of the room would
set off the disbelief rules.
>I'm now joined by my
>guest Joe, who's never seen this hallway before in his life. Does he see the
>open doorway?
No he sees a wall. Since this would be wrong to his friend, the saving
throw is now at +4 at worst, and automatic success when they interact
with it.
See, Justin, your (quite valid) problems with this interpretation are
actually accounted for in the rules. It is abstracted into the form of
the saving throws.
>
>>>Or, even more to the point, if I cast invisibility on a door I wouldn't see
>the
>>>door... but I *would* see the empty space where the door normally stands.
>>
>>If you didn't know there was a door there, you'd see the wall
>>continued, not an empty space.
>
>Which gets us back to the wonderful "the invisible wall looks like a wall"
>logic. Why wouldn't I see the empty space?
Technically you would see the empty space, but then the wall (not the
real wall, an illusionary figment) right behind it. Since the
difference here is measured in inches at most given the weight
restrictions, you wouldn't notice this until close examination, which
triggers the automatic successful save. Unless you had *really* good
eyesight and memory, godlike in fact. :-)
> I didn't cast invisibilty on the
>empty space. I cast invisibility on the door which occupies that empty space.
I simplified the answer. Only in very extreme circumstances would
someone be able to tell the difference without careful examination.
>>>Let's say me and my buddies are all teleported into an empty stone room
>without
>>>any doors. I cast invisibility on a wall of this room. What do I see? What do
>>>my buddies see?
>>
>>You still see the wall. A stone wall will blow away the weight limits
>>on invisibility. You can't affect an entire stone wall except at very
>>small sizes at very high levels.
>
>Fine. It's a wooden wall. Stop dodging the question.
The spell limits are very relevent to the answer, Justin. You are
assuming several things that the spell simply can't do, including
bypassing weight limits and trying to make only part of a solid object
invisible. It's why the spell *has* those limits.
>>I think the example you actually want is, he's behind the boulder but
>>not from your vantagepoint. You turn and walk without looking at him
>>to where he has 100% concealment. In that situation you see what
>>*appears* to be him when you turn your head to look, but its just an
>>illusion without specifics. If he then changed his appearance, you
>>would *not* see this change.
>
>By this logic, his facial expressions wouldn't change.
Careful examination. Probable automatic save.
> Similarly, if I were to
>look at a torch through an invisible person the flames wouldn't flicker.
Flickering flames is still general enough to get away with.
>>> And, more than that, the illusion goes out
>>>of its way to make sure that whatever I think I'm seeing through it is not
>the
>>>reality of what lies behind it?
>>
>>Of course not.
>
>So I do see the reality of what lies behind it?
No, Justin. I thought constructing fallacies was something you frowned
on, but this was classic bifurcation. :-p The illusion does not go out
of its way to make sure you're not seeing the reality of what's behind
it (your first statement). What you are shown may or may not resemble
reality *depending* on the specifics of whats behind it. It is *never*
actual reality - that would be transparency - but it may look more or
less exactly like reality, in which case you wouldn't be able to tell
the difference without close examination.
>
>>>>>If I hung Harry's cloak across a doorway, I would be able to see through
>the
>>>>>cloak and into the room beyond. Just like I can with an invisible door in
>>>>D&D.
>>>>
>>>>As long as the door was *open*.
>>>
>>>So an invisible cloak operates differently from an invisible door? I can look
>>>through one and see the room beyond, but not the other? Why?
>>
>>Harry's cloak is not the same as D&D invisibility. Harry's cloak is
>>*not an illusion*. I answered the question you asked. :-p
>
>I think you need to go back and check the thread. I was responding to the
>assertion that the Invisibility spell works just like Harry's cloak.
Well whatever was argued then, it doesn't. Harry's cloak does indeed
give transparency. But some things that would work with Harry's cloak
would not work with D&D invisibility. For one you can gain actual
information about things behind Harry's cloak (not eclosed by it,
behind it). This is directly opposite to the invisibility spell
description. Therefore the two operate on different principles.
First Prophet of Kaos
>"Talen" <ta...@spamspamspamspam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>news:f5dsbvki6dv5bfcq9...@4ax.com...
>> It has been brought to my attention that "Ben Loomes"
>> <loomes...@ozemail.MAPSONcom.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Would SEP be harder than transparency?
>>
>> Affecting the minds of as many as a million people at any distance,
>> all at once, with no saving throw?
>
>If tramps and drunks can do it, dont see why I cant
I get a saving throw against tramps and drunks.
--
When in doubt, RTFM.
First Prophet of Kaos
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Out from under a rock popped Chad Lubrecht and said
>
>>>Personally I would describe the scene as if the invisible object
>>>wasn't there with a weighting towards what the observers expect to see
>>>based on the rest of the environment. For example if it was a 40'
>>>square room with an invisable tomb in the middle I would describe it
>>>as a 40' square empty room.
>>
>> How does the spell know what the user expects to see? It would have
>> to read the minds of everyone present and somehow alter the rock's
>> sensory qualities so that it looks different to everyone present...
>> Sounds unlikely.
>
>The spell doesn't. The weighing is mine as a DM. I choose to go with
>Invisibility -> Illusion -> Deception. I have no problem with different
>observers being decieved in different ways.
>
>It's like a slight of hand trick. People see what they're expecting to
>see.
At the risk of beating the dead horse, you've once again neglected to
account for anything which is mindless.
You've also offered a situation that *should* bloody well have a
saving throw, to account for the likes of Randi who *can* see past a
slight-of-hand trick.
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>"Rob Singers" wrote:
>> Loren Davis wrote:
>
>> >> This is a nasty problem then. Glamers and figments cannot produce real
>> >> effects.
>
>> > Cite, please? I know of no such rule for glamers.
>
>> PHB 158. Second paragraph of the definition of Figment.
>
>This is obviously an error in context. It matches neither the definition of
>the glamer subschool nor the illusion (glamer) spells themselves. The
>authors must have meant to write "figments and patterns," as these are the
>two subschools which actually do function the same way.
>
>Since the only difference between a glamer and a figment is that a glamer
>explicitly changes the qualities of an object, while a figment affects only
>the minds of observers,
ITYM a pattern. Figments are not mind affecting.
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>"R. Scott Rogers" wrote:
>> 1. The game designers almost certainly MEANT to write Invisibility such that
>> it renders objects transparent.
>
> Bollocks.
> Transparent things don't absorb light, so transparent eyes cannot
>see. For Invisability to be a form of transparancy it has to ignore a
>whole bunch of physics,
Magic tends to do that by default. More accurately, most magic just
changes the rules of physics.
> Also, transparency is really stoopid as an invisability method,
You have a better one?
First Prophet of Kaos
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Out from under a rock popped Chris J. Whitcomb and said
>
>If the spell simply makes the tree transparent or replicates what is
>next to the object or as you say an air filled space you would still be
>able to detect the tree by the hole in the shape of the root system into
>the middle of the meadow. So in a strict sense it isn't invisible.
>If you instead see a broad grassy meadow without the tree in it you are
>seeing what the spell description and DMG text says you should see.
Except for the bit about "certain other conditions can render the
recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle.)" This bit more
closely conforms to the "hole in the shape of the root system" you
described above.
First Prophet of Kaos
<ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>Your
>>>friend walking around and behind it would be obvious when they
>>>disappeared, and would tip the viewer that there is an illusion
>>>present.
>>
>>This illustrates my point beautifully. That's *not* the answer I would have
>>expected given your interpretation. After all, if I see my friend walking
>>around the room I would *expect* my friend to remain visible. Why wouldn't he
>>as he walks behind the invisible column?
>
>Yes, I muffed this one. The proper answer would be, as long as your
>friend didn't actually try to hide behind the column you see him or an
>illusionary version of him at all times. This is the same as failing a
>hide roll - you're not hiding perfectly and the other person can
>detect you. If your friend tried to hide - and succeeded - he would no
>longer be visible since you wouldn't expect to see him there.
If he's trying to hide behind something that (from my POV) doesn't
exist, I would fully expect to still see him. (Unless I know that
he's a shadowdancer with the ability to pull off Hide in Plain Sight
type tricks.)
>If I understood your example correctly, you would be seeing an
>illusionary corridor that looks like the real corridor, minus the
>swung out illusionary wall. There's no reason to expect to see
>anything else.
There's no reason to expect to see that either. Especially if we
consider mindless beings, as they are incapable of having any
expectations in the first place.
Loren Davis
"R. Scott Rogers" wrote:
> "tussock" wrote:
> > Nope. IRL, IME, "invisible" is mostly used to describe bacteria and
> > other microbes (invisible to the naked eye), asteroids (invisible from
> > earth), and 'pretend' stuff (invisible friends).
I've always heard the term "imaginary friend" and not "invisible friend" If
you look up in this thread, you'll see that I brought up examples much like
your others earlier. The other large category that I can think of is the
metaphorical one: things or people that are ignored, such as Ralph
Ellison's _Invisible_Man_ or Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Although you might not spontaneously say "invisible window" becase you
consider it redundant, the same isn't true of other objects. (Although I'd
be more likely to say "clear window," I could see myself saying "invisible
window" to describe the confusion of a bird who keeps hitting one, or to
distinguish it from a stained-glass window.) Invisible ink is transparent
ink, the Japanese "invisiblity cloak" pictured at
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747591.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
is a transparency cloak, radon, a transparent gas, is "The Invisible
Intruder," and so on.
The main point, though, is that Robert Singers is trying to peddle a
definition of "invisible" that excludes *air.*
> But of course your real point is correct. People rarely use "invisible"
> purely as a synonym for "transparent." Stealth aircraft are said to be
> "invisible to radar," but no one would ever say that they are
"transparent
> to radar." It is hard to think of a common usage of the word "invisible"
> where people commonly interchange the word "transparent."
A quick web search reveals many.
> Furthermore, the word "transparent" has come to hold opposing meanings.
Sure, but it's clear from the context which one we're using at the moment.
> I think the ideal Invisibility spell would be one where, if an Invisible
PC
> stood waist-deep in a lake on a chilly day, you would see neither an
> air-colored hole in the water not a water-colored hole in the air. You
would
> not see the shape of the invisible PC at all in either medium. But you
would
> see the ripples in the water's surface caused by the PC's presence, and
you
> would see the steam from the PC's breath. If a fog suddenly blew in, you
> would see the effects of the fog as it swirled and eddied around the
person,
> but you would not see a person-shaped hole in the fog. But this is a
matter
> of taste.
These spells exist: invisibility to animals and invisibility to undead.
They're abjurations, not glamers, and use a different set of game
mechanics.
Rob Singers
wisdom
> The main point, though, is that Robert Singers is trying to peddle a
> definition of "invisible" that excludes *air.*
Actually no. I agree air is invisible. If you actually made an attempt to
associate posters with posts you'd know this.
Rob Singers
words of wisdom
> Except for the bit about "certain other conditions can render the
> recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle.)" This bit more
> closely conforms to the "hole in the shape of the root system" you
> described above.
So you think that if you made a tree invisible you'd be able to see a hole?
BlakGard
>cast Invisibility on the apple tree.
>
>If the spell simply makes the tree transparent or replicates what is
>next to the object or as you say an air filled space you would still be
>able to detect the tree by the hole in the shape of the root system into
>the middle of the meadow. So in a strict sense it isn't invisible.
Funny... Invisibility has always worked this way in every D&D game I've
ever played. For their not to be a hole in the shape of the root system, the
spell would need to be something other than what its description states.
>If you instead see a broad grassy meadow without the tree in it you are
>seeing what the spell description and DMG text says you should see.
Wrong.
>However people here are saying that the "filling in" of the environment
>to deceive the observer would have to be mind-effecting and would
>illicite a saving throw so it can't be how it works.
It would.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Loren Davis
"Rob Singers" wrote:
> Loren Davis wrote:
> > How, specifically, did I mischaracterize your position? I quoted
> > exactly the statements I was replying to, and you haven't claimed that
> > you meant anything different by them than what I thought. If I did
> > misunderstand, it was unintentional, and I'd be glad if you set the
> > record straight.
> Loren you are still putting words in my mouth
> For example you said
> "You said that all illusion spells affect minds or senses, even though
> you yourself have recently admitted that this is not true (specifically,
> with respect to silence). I replied that some illusion spells have real
> physical effects. What didn't I understand about what you're saying?"
> I never once discussed the silence spell. Once again you're confusing
> what other people have posted with what I posted.
Your contribution to that subthread was, "I don't know the answer to those
question [sic] and I probably agree with you."
Let's settle this, then: whether or not you were referring to that one
spell, as I thought, you will admit now that silence, another second-level
glamer, does have real, physical effects, right? The implications for your
case are obvious.
> Statements like "what any native speaker would immediately think of" are
> farcical given the international nature of the Internet. Statements
> like "Any reasonable person" are also a crock of shit. If I were to
> think along similiar lines I wouldn't conclude you are being reasonable.
> However I'm guessing that you are and we're having a communication
> difficulty.
It's hyperbole, but not by much. _The_Invisible_Man_ and Harry Potter are
much bigger international pop-culture icons than, say, the Shadow or the
Bistromath.
> My whole argument is that Invisibility can be played as written without
> having to read transparency between the lines.
Your case is, to be extremely charitable, not proven. Your alternative
model is logically inconsistent even with itself, not to mention the game
rules.
Please answer the following questions, or else admit that you don't have a
workable model:
Hesse the hermit lives by himself in the woods. He has a place for
everything in his cabin and keeps everything in its place. He firmly
believes that nothing will be moved while he sleeps, because nothing ever
is. He *expects* to see everything right where he left it.
A mischevious pixie sneaks in while he's sleeping and makes his pet cat
invisible. When Hesse wakes up, and hears the cat snoring in its favorite
spot, what does he see? If he sees what he expects to, he sees the cat.
But, the one point of agreement between us, the one irreducible point which
you've made the linchpin of your argument, is that an invisible object
*cannot be seen.* So, what does he see? How is the DM supposed to tell a
player what his PC thinks, anyway?
Now, what if the pixie had replaced Hesse's cat with a different, invisible
cat? Or cast displacement, also a glamer, to make it appear that the cat is
two feet to the side: what does Hesse see in the cat's true location?
Shouldn't it be the same thing as when the cat was invisible, and if not,
why the difference? (Displacement doesn't say that you "see through" the
real creature or that it's "transparent" either.) What if he'd removed the
cat, put a different cat in its place, and cast displacement on the second
cat? Since glamers don't produce individualized mental images, the answers
have to be exactly the same for anybody else who looks into the room,
including a total stranger wandering in from the rain or a creature with no
mind or expectations whatsoever. How aren't your answers "reading between
the lines" far more than transparency, which you now admit is the simpler
model?
> You accused me of over
> ruling the spells description, in fact that's what the transparent camp
> are doing. That's what I object to.
Your objection is not warranted.
> No one has yet quoted where it says that Invisibility equals
> Transparency or anywhere in the spell description where it says that you
> "see through" an invisible object.
Since the spell is stated to affect, not the minds of the observers, but
the superficial qualities of the target, this is how it must work. There
are several other lines of argument, such as the man-shaped air bubble,
which lead to the same conclusion.
> I understand why people want to use a transparency model. It's the
> simplest, and some one of the calibre of Justin Bacon obviously needs to
> keep things simple. But why someone with such little imagination want's
> to engage in this pass time I don't know.
No alternative model which works with the rules as written has been
proposed. Formulate one and I'll accept your conclusion that transparency
isn't the only way to read the spell. Mind-affecting invisibility isn't it.
The SEP isn't it.
Complexity is not a good thing in and of itself. An elegant, intuitive
ruleset is not proof of stupidity.
> The arguing in this thread has been extremely disingenuious. Take for
> example my point that the invisibility illusions works by decieving the
> senses of the victems of the spell by changing the sensory properties of
> the subject of the spell. This is still true if the subject now has a
> transparent sensory property.
This wasn't your point. You were, until recently, arguing against this
interpretation. For example, you wrote: "Illusion magic works through
deception. Either directly or indirectly on the victem of the spell....
This isn't some huge leap because this is what Illusions do - as oppossed
to other branches of magic.... The spell is not a Transmutation. It is not
changing a [physical] property of the subject." (Sic. The word "[physical]"
is in the original. By the way, don't do that.)
It made no sense to write "the spell achieves this by deceiving the mind"
and that this is obvious from the fact that it's an illusion if what you
meant is that the spell does change the physical properties of the object,
that it doesn't affect minds at all and that an illusion can produce
transparency. Anyway, if you now agree that this is the case, how was
pointing it out to you disingenuous? (IIRC, Bradd has priority.)
> When you also try and make points by broadly comparing different spells
> in D&D you're going to find holes in the magic system big enough to
> drive a bus through (maybe make that a bullette).
This shoots down your but-it's-not-a-transmutation argument, wouldn't you
say? Anyhow, glamers are allowed to have real effects. The one line which
suggests otherwise is an obvious editing error.
> I hope you appreciate the length of this explaination because if you
> google me on Usenet you'll find my natural inclination is more likely to
> be just to call you an idiot and ignore you.
You did ignore my arguments and insult my motives. May I infer that you
have no answer on the merits?
Loren Davis
"Rob Singers" wrote:
> Loren Davis wrote:
> > The main point, though, is that Robert Singers is trying to peddle a
> > definition of "invisible" that excludes *air.*
> Actually no. I agree air is invisible. If you actually made an attempt
to
> associate posters with posts you'd know this.
Previously in this thread, you've argued that "A transparent object is
still visible where as [sic] an invisible object isn't." You've also said
that a submerged invisible object can't have the appearance of an air
bubble, because then it wouldn't be "invisible." For instance: "If you were
to see the water be displaced as the invisible object entered the water you
would be able to target the invisible object because of the disturbance of
the waters surface. However once submerged it would be harder to hit than
the one-half concealment suggests." You then go on to state that a
substance with a different RI, such as a transparent air bubble, would
behave as described in the rulebook, but fail to draw the logical
conclusion.
You seem to have trouble remembering your own position.
Justin Bacon
>>So now the spell knows when someone is trying to hide and when they aren't?
>
>Of course not, Justin. The important thing is whether or not the
>person is succeeding in hiding. If he's hidden, then the spell can't
>give information otherwise unavailable, as per the spell description.
How does the spell know what information I have available to me?
And: "As per the spell description"? Where the heck does the spell description
say anything about "information otherwise available"?
>>So, even though I've never seen this hallway before, I would "expect" to see
a
>>hallway just like the hallway I never knew existed?
>
>You would see "a hallway", nothing more. Careful examination, or
>trying to walk down it, would of course trigger the disbelief rules
>when you encountered the invisible wall. Probably an automatic
>successful save, for that matter.
So now you're saying that an invisibility spell drops if I interact with it?
Read the spell description and try again.
>>What if I simply turn the wall at the end of an empty, dead-end hall
invisible.
>>What do I see then?
>
>I doubt you can. If you can somehow get that wall invisible - and
>there's no rule that states you can turn a *part* of something
>invisible, only wholes - you'd be in a situation similar to the one
>further below.
You're avoiding the question again. If I cast invisibility on a piece of a wood
and then set that piece of wood up as the wall at the end of hallway, what does
someone see when they enter that hallway?
>>This whole "the invisible wall looks like a wall because you were expecting
to
>>see a wall" thing seems pretty bogus to me.
>
>Of course you are welcome to believe anything you like.
Do you have any textual backing for your claim that an invisible wall looks
just like a wall?
>>I'm looking into a room where a fire is burning and my friend Joe is
standing.
>>The invisible door swings shut. Am I still seeing the fire burning? Am I
still
>>seeing Joe standing there?
>
>You don't see Joe standing there, he has total concealment and is a
>specific.
Just Joe disappears, though? Not the rest of the room? How can you possibly
justify that given your other answers?
C'mon, Ben. You've contradicted yourself about a dozen times in this thread,
now.
>I simplified the answer. Only in very extreme circumstances would
>someone be able to tell the difference without careful examination.
This is utterly bizarre. You're claiming that you can't tell the difference
between a doorway with a door in it and a doorway without a door in it?
>>>>Let's say me and my buddies are all teleported into an empty stone room
without
>>>>any doors. I cast invisibility on a wall of this room. What do I see? What
do
>>>>my buddies see?
>>>
>>>You still see the wall. A stone wall will blow away the weight limits
>>>on invisibility. You can't affect an entire stone wall except at very
>>>small sizes at very high levels.
>>
>>Fine. It's a wooden wall. Stop dodging the question.
>
>The spell limits are very relevent to the answer, Justin.
You've failed to answer the question twice now.
>> Similarly, if I were to
>>look at a torch through an invisible person the flames wouldn't flicker.
>
>Flickering flames is still general enough to get away with.
What, exactly, is your defining line for "general"? Your ruling seems to be
entirely ad hoc. "Call Ben Sisson and get a ruling" is completely worthless
when you're writing a rulebook.
>Well whatever was argued then, it doesn't. Harry's cloak does indeed
>give transparency. But some things that would work with Harry's cloak
>would not work with D&D invisibility. For one you can gain actual
>information about things behind Harry's cloak (not eclosed by it,
>behind it). This is directly opposite to the invisibility spell
>description.
Quote the section of the Invisibility spell which says "you cannot gain
information about things behind the invisible object".
Of course, you can't do that, because the spell doesn't say that.
And, finally:
>This is an example of a situation causing a disbelieve saving throw at
>+4 as per the rules.
RTM, Ben. Then come back and try answering every single question you dodged
this way in a legitimate fashion.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>If the spell simply makes the tree transparent or replicates what is
>next to the object or as you say an air filled space you would still be
>able to detect the tree by the hole in the shape of the root system into
>the middle of the meadow. So in a strict sense it isn't invisible.
You're claim that "because I can see a hole in the earth, I can see the tree"
is not only uncompelling and illogical, it is also directly contradicted by the
rulebooks:
DMG, pg. 79: "An invisible creature in water DISPLACES the water, REVEALING ITS
LOCATION."
Not only does an invisible creature or or object displace other substances,
other creatures can see the displacement.
Try again.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
tussock
>
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 02:31:54 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >"R. Scott Rogers" wrote:
> >> 1. The game designers almost certainly MEANT to write Invisibility such that
> >> it renders objects transparent.
> >
> > Bollocks.
> > Transparent things don't absorb light, so transparent eyes cannot
> >see. For Invisability to be a form of transparancy it has to ignore a
> >whole bunch of physics,
>
> Magic tends to do that by default. More accurately, most magic just
> changes the rules of physics.
That was kinda my point. It didn't come across well. Magic /not/
real. Too many people using real world comparisons to guess at the
outcome of the invisibility spell.
> > Also, transparency is really stoopid as an invisability method,
>
> You have a better one?
You can't see invisible things, even when you look right at them.
Even if you can see where they are you can't see them.
Invisible people can see. Invisibility does *not* make you immune to
light based attacks. Invisible objects still block line of effect for
spells, including damaging rays of light. You can also see what's behind
an invisible object, becuase there's /nothing else/ to be seen in that
direction.
Does non-magical light pass through a large invisible object? No,
becuase there's no good reason to have that light behave differently to
every other effect in the game.
Do they therefore cast a shadow? No, what's that got to do with
anything?
Can you see what's behind it? Yes, because what's behind it is the
only thing to be seen in that direction.
Those positions are contradictory IRL. BFD, ignore RL physical
assumptions and it works fine.
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>"R. Scott Rogers" wrote:
>> "tussock" wrote:
>
>> > Nope. IRL, IME, "invisible" is mostly used to describe bacteria and
>> > other microbes (invisible to the naked eye), asteroids (invisible from
>> > earth), and 'pretend' stuff (invisible friends).
>
>I've always heard the term "imaginary friend" and not "invisible friend" If
>you look up in this thread, you'll see that I brought up examples much like
>your others earlier. The other large category that I can think of is the
>metaphorical one: things or people that are ignored, such as Ralph
>Ellison's _Invisible_Man_ or Adam Smith's invisible hand.
>
>Although you might not spontaneously say "invisible window" becase you
>consider it redundant, the same isn't true of other objects. (Although I'd
>be more likely to say "clear window," I could see myself saying "invisible
>window" to describe the confusion of a bird who keeps hitting one, or to
Birds don't fly into windows because they can't see them, they fly
into windows because they *can* see the reflection of the sky in the
window.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ed Chauvin IV
>I'd like to apologize.
Justin, I'm just replying to this to make sure you're aware that
someone has apparently hacked into your account again.
Justin Bacon
>Mere moments before death, Justin Bacon hastily scrawled:
>>I'd like to apologize.
>
>Justin, I'm just replying to this to make sure you're aware that
>someone has apparently hacked into your account again.
Dammit.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert Singers
>>It's like a slight of hand trick. People see what they're expecting to
>>see.
>
> At the risk of beating the dead horse, you've once again neglected to
> account for anything which is mindless.
>
> You've also offered a situation that *should* bloody well have a
> saving throw, to account for the likes of Randi who *can* see past a
> slight-of-hand trick.
You're forgetting that if you show 10 people the same scene and ask them
five minutes later what they saw they will all tell you different things.
You're positing a D&D world where characters all experience situations
uniformly. That's a limitation of a computer game, it's not a limitation
to a DM.
Characters can see different things as a result of an illusion because
they are different people and the DM can describe scenes differently to
them based on the skills and the knowledge (s)he knows they have. This
can happen without the illusion being mind effecting.
If someone has prior knowledge of a scene where something has been made
invisible they are going to be one step closer to noticing that some
thing is not as it seems than someone who has never been there.
Something is mindless is going to see the scene as it is minus the
invisible object.
Robert Singers
> You're claim that "because I can see a hole in the earth, I can see
> the tree" is not only uncompelling and illogical, it is also directly
> contradicted by the rulebooks:
You're right. I have with some more though decided that you would indeed
see a hole. With the cavet that you'd have to have a line of sight that
allowed you to see the hole.
Ben Sisson
<ka...@ecn.ab.ca> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially
whispered:
>On Tue, 13 May 2003 17:00:36 GMT, Ben Sisson
><ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>Your
>>>>friend walking around and behind it would be obvious when they
>>>>disappeared, and would tip the viewer that there is an illusion
>>>>present.
>>>
>>>This illustrates my point beautifully. That's *not* the answer I would have
>>>expected given your interpretation. After all, if I see my friend walking
>>>around the room I would *expect* my friend to remain visible. Why wouldn't he
>>>as he walks behind the invisible column?
>>
>>Yes, I muffed this one. The proper answer would be, as long as your
>>friend didn't actually try to hide behind the column you see him or an
>>illusionary version of him at all times. This is the same as failing a
>>hide roll - you're not hiding perfectly and the other person can
>>detect you. If your friend tried to hide - and succeeded - he would no
>>longer be visible since you wouldn't expect to see him there.
>
>If he's trying to hide behind something that (from my POV) doesn't
>exist, I would fully expect to still see him. (Unless I know that
>he's a shadowdancer with the ability to pull off Hide in Plain Sight
>type tricks.)
The trick and the balance here is he has to be *successful* hiding
from someone who for all intents and purposes already knows he's
there. That takes some pretty beefy skill, like your shadowdancer.
The spell definition says illusions, which invisibility is, can't
provide information not otherwise available. Since if he successfully
hides, he wouldn't be seen, the only correct answer is he must be able
to hide behind an invisible object as long as the person is subject to
the illusion. As soon as the person is 100% aware of it, however, or
interacts with it, the illusion breaks. This is by far the most likely
situation of someone hiding behind an invisible object with someone
else looking.
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>Ben Sisson wrote:
>>>So now the spell knows when someone is trying to hide and when they aren't?
>>
>>Of course not, Justin. The important thing is whether or not the
>>person is succeeding in hiding. If he's hidden, then the spell can't
>>give information otherwise unavailable, as per the spell description.
>
>How does the spell know what information I have available to me?
>
>And: "As per the spell description"? Where the heck does the spell description
>say anything about "information otherwise available"?
It can't provide information (real effects) not otherwise available,
by definition. Pg 158, under figment, but it refers (specifically) to
glamers too. Note that the spell description continues to support this
when it talks about light sources.
>>>So, even though I've never seen this hallway before, I would "expect" to see
>a
>>>hallway just like the hallway I never knew existed?
>>
>>You would see "a hallway", nothing more. Careful examination, or
>>trying to walk down it, would of course trigger the disbelief rules
>>when you encountered the invisible wall. Probably an automatic
>>successful save, for that matter.
>
>So now you're saying that an invisibility spell drops if I interact with it?
>Read the spell description and try again.
Nothing in the spell description indicates invisibility isn't subject
to the same rules as all other illusions. Perhaps that is why you
don't agree with this interpretation - you aren't applying illusion
rules to invisibility.
If you can point out a specific direct ruling against this, feel free.
>You're avoiding the question again. If I cast invisibility on a piece of a wood
>and then set that piece of wood up as the wall at the end of hallway, what does
>someone see when they enter that hallway?
It was answered further down.
>>>This whole "the invisible wall looks like a wall because you were expecting
>to
>>>see a wall" thing seems pretty bogus to me.
>>
>>Of course you are welcome to believe anything you like.
>
>Do you have any textual backing for your claim that an invisible wall looks
>just like a wall?
The options are:
1. You see whatever's behind it
2. You see nothing
3. You see something but not something real.
Number 1 is directly excluded by glamer rules. Number 2 would make
using invisibility useless anytime something invisible would make
stuff behind it visibile. Therefore number 3 is the only solution that
still makes sense. YMMV.
>
>>>I'm looking into a room where a fire is burning and my friend Joe is
>standing.
>>>The invisible door swings shut. Am I still seeing the fire burning? Am I
>still
>>>seeing Joe standing there?
>>
>>You don't see Joe standing there, he has total concealment and is a
>>specific.
>
>Just Joe disappears, though? Not the rest of the room? How can you possibly
>justify that given your other answers?
Justin, at least try to follow along. *Everything* you see in that
room is an illusion. However just because its an illusion doesn't mean
it isn't *accurate*.
>
>C'mon, Ben. You've contradicted yourself about a dozen times in this thread,
>now.
You are welcome to believe that, if it makes you happy. I personally
believe I have been 100% consistent, you've just made occasional
mistakes in analyzing what I say, like right above.
>>I simplified the answer. Only in very extreme circumstances would
>>someone be able to tell the difference without careful examination.
>
>This is utterly bizarre. You're claiming that you can't tell the difference
>between a doorway with a door in it and a doorway without a door in it?
You're not slipping to snipping the context, are you? This had nothing
to do with the door. You asked what happens when you make the end of a
dead end hallway invisible.
>
>>>>>Let's say me and my buddies are all teleported into an empty stone room
>without
>>>>>any doors. I cast invisibility on a wall of this room. What do I see? What
>do
>>>>>my buddies see?
>>>>
>>>>You still see the wall. A stone wall will blow away the weight limits
>>>>on invisibility. You can't affect an entire stone wall except at very
>>>>small sizes at very high levels.
>>>
>>>Fine. It's a wooden wall. Stop dodging the question.
>>
>>The spell limits are very relevent to the answer, Justin.
>
>You've failed to answer the question twice now.
That's okay, you still have yet to provide evidence you can make just
a part of something invisible. I don't answer impossibles.
>>> Similarly, if I were to
>>>look at a torch through an invisible person the flames wouldn't flicker.
>>
>>Flickering flames is still general enough to get away with.
>
>What, exactly, is your defining line for "general"?
It's not specific information you couldn't have gotten otherwise.
>Your ruling seems to be
>entirely ad hoc. "Call Ben Sisson and get a ruling" is completely worthless
>when you're writing a rulebook.
I will keep that in mind.
>>Well whatever was argued then, it doesn't. Harry's cloak does indeed
>>give transparency. But some things that would work with Harry's cloak
>>would not work with D&D invisibility. For one you can gain actual
>>information about things behind Harry's cloak (not eclosed by it,
>>behind it). This is directly opposite to the invisibility spell
>>description.
>
>Quote the section of the Invisibility spell which says "you cannot gain
>information about things behind the invisible object".
>
>Of course, you can't do that, because the spell doesn't say that.
It says it in the descriptions of illusions, quoted above, Justin.
Justin, are you even aware that invisibility is a glamer?
>>This is an example of a situation causing a disbelieve saving throw at
>>+4 as per the rules.
>
>RTM, Ben. Then come back and try answering every single question you dodged
>this way in a legitimate fashion.
Considering your grotesque ignorance of what invisibility is, *and*
the rules governing illusions, I will ignore any further questions
that don't take it into acount.
Please, Justin... RTFM.