Turning the door invisible
John Wade
invisible. (It's a lower level spell than clairvoyance) - Because
Invisibility is an illusion, would they really see what was on the other
side of the door, or just what they expected to see?
Joe Wells
In 3e /Invisibility/ is an Illusion (Glamer). Were it a Figment (which
changes the viewer's perception) I'd say the PCs see what they wanted to
see. But a Glamer changes the sensory qualities of the subject. So I
think they would really see what's on the other side.
--
Hello, my name is Joe Wells, and I am a munchkin.
-MA meeting 4/11/93
Varl
The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it. If one of
them were to attempt to walk through the "opening", they'd get a bloody
nose after bashing into the face of it. It's still a real door.
Invisibility isn't a solid object transparency creator, it's a spell
which makes those who believe it not see the object or person in
question. So, the door would not be there for those who cannot see it,
but for some strange reason, they can't see what's beyond. :)
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
Erik Comtois
covered with
flour to keep track of it. So following this resonning, and knowing that
light cannot be invisible,
I would say that turning a door allows a character to see through it.
"John Wade" <jo...@sendmeavirus.com> wrote in message
news:3c1fd34e$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Christopher Burke
> The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
> transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it.
WTF.
So you are saying that a person who is invisible is readily recognisable by
the fact that I cannot see through him.
?????
--
---
/* Christopher Burke - Spam Mail to cra...@hotmail.com
|*
\* Real mail to cburke(at)craznar(dot)com
Bill_Leary
news:Xns917C767E...@130.102.2.1...
> Varl <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in news:3C1FEE52...@premier1.net:
> > The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
> > transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it.
>
by
> the fact that I cannot see through him.
I don't think so.
What he seems to be saying is that the viewer (the person looking at the
invisible character) "fills in" the background they would see if the
character were not there. Or, more correctly, THINK or BELIEVE they would
see.
Now, that presents an interesting concept.
Try this scenario on for size. You've got a plain old room with a wall safe
at chest height to your character. He stands in front of the wall safe and
casts invisibility on himself. Now, an NPC#1, who's never been in the room
before, comes in and looks around. Will the NPC#1 see the wall safe? If we
take this concept of invisibility, no, he won't because he'd have no reason
to "fill in" the background with a wall safe so he'll see a plain bit of
wall. But if we have an NPC#2, who's seen the room before, and knows where
the safe it, he would see it.. Now, Mr. Invisible moves and exposes the
wall safe. From NPC#1's point of view, the safe suddenly appeared. Or,
perhaps, the illusion is maintained and he doesn't see the safe?
Interesting angles here.
Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell works, I
expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would appear to merge to
cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell, I expect you'd fill in
something that you thought might be there.
For what it's worth, I've just re-read the spell and I have to agree with
this interpretation, but that's just my call, of course. Your Adventuring
May Vary.
When we did AD&D1 we always played that the spell somehow bent light around
the invisible creature or object so you COULD see behind it, with all that
implies. I've just looked up Invisibility in my AD&D1 PHB and find that
it's classed as Invisibility / Phantasm in that book, so this "light
bending" interpretation wasn't really correct.
What the players in the example really wanted was Glassee (make objects as
transparent as glass) which it appears didn't make it into D&D3.
- Bill
Bryan J. Jonker
: Varl <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in news:3C1FEE52...@premier1.net:
:> The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
:> transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it.
: WTF.
: So you are saying that a person who is invisible is readily recognisable by
: the fact that I cannot see through him.
Not too useful as an invisibility spell, eh, if they can't see through
you.
I'd note that not only can you see through the door, but anyone on the
other side of the door can see you. Also, can you save versus magic to
negate the effects of invisibility? A cruel GM may ask the players to save
to see if they disbelieve the illusion (not that *I'd* do that, or
anything).
Christopher Burke
news:W7TT7.18017$Sj1.10...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net:
> For what it's worth, I've just re-read the spell and I have to agree
> with this interpretation, but that's just my call, of course. Your
> Adventuring May Vary.
Compare it with 'Silence' which is also Illusion (Glamer).
Give it actually stops sound from working (it doesn't just stop you from
hearing it).... I would suggest it is possible for an Illusion (Glamer)
spell to actually alter its target area/object to facilitate the spell.
I would therefore suspect that Invisibiliy also actually alters the
target to make it 'not seeable' as opposed to altering the viewers to
make it 'not seen'.
D_Jim
Christopher wrote:
>Varl <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in news:3C1FEE52...@premier1.net:
>
>> The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
>> transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it.
>
>WTF.
>
>So you are saying that a person who is invisible is readily recognisable by
>the fact that I cannot see through him.
>
>?????
No, its a solid door with Invisibility cast on it. The door is
still solid. But to the players who cast the spell, the door
appears to be invisible.
They thought it would enable them to see through the door and
spot any monsters, treasure, traps, etc. beyond the door. They
fooled themselves.
JimP.
--
djim55 atty datasync dotty com Disclaimer: Standard
"Utopia does not exist."
http://www.crosswinds.net/~drivein/ drive-in movie theaters update Sep 11,2001
http://www.datasync.com/~djim55/index.html
Christopher Burke
news:9vov9...@drn.newsguy.com:
>>WTF.
>>
>>So you are saying that a person who is invisible is readily
>>recognisable by the fact that I cannot see through him.
>>
>>?????
>
> No, its a solid door with Invisibility cast on it. The door is
> still solid. But to the players who cast the spell, the door
> appears to be invisible.
>
> They thought it would enable them to see through the door and
> spot any monsters, treasure, traps, etc. beyond the door. They
> fooled themselves.
So if there was a real window next to an invisible door, the invisible door
would show different room contents than the window (assuming they looked
through the door first)....
I think that is a problem just waiting to happen.
Invisibility should be played the same as Silence - it actually changes
things, not just perceptions.
Thornhammer
"John Wade" <jo...@sendmeavirus.com> wrote in message
news:3c1fd34e$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
I'd just go with the 'classic' invisibility: It is like the door just isn't
there. Of course, that six-pack of necromancers on the other side of the
door can see the party just fine, too.
Coming from a DM perspective, though, having the party see what they expect
to see would be a lot more fun. :)
-Thornhammer
R. Scott Rogers
Caesar Bill_Leary, that
> "Christopher Burke" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns917C767E...@130.102.2.1...
>> So you are saying that a person who is invisible is readily recognisable
>> by
>> the fact that I cannot see through him.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> What he seems to be saying is that the viewer (the person looking at the
> invisible character) "fills in" the background they would see if the
> character were not there. Or, more correctly, THINK or BELIEVE they would
> see.
>
> Now, that presents an interesting concept.
>
> Try this scenario on for size. You've got a plain old room with a wall safe
> at chest height to your character. He stands in front of the wall safe and
> casts invisibility on himself. Now, an NPC#1, who's never been in the room
> before, comes in and looks around. Will the NPC#1 see the wall safe? If we
> take this concept of invisibility, no, he won't because he'd have no reason
> to "fill in" the background with a wall safe so he'll see a plain bit of
> wall. But if we have an NPC#2, who's seen the room before, and knows where
> the safe it, he would see it.. Now, Mr. Invisible moves and exposes the
> wall safe. From NPC#1's point of view, the safe suddenly appeared. Or,
> perhaps, the illusion is maintained and he doesn't see the safe?
> Interesting angles here.
This makes a certain sort of sense, although it means that a halfling can
hide behind an invisible human. That's a truly wicked concept that I'm going
to have to spring on my DM and see what he thinks.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
sro...@mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
R. Scott Rogers
Caesar Christopher Burke, that
> "Bill_Leary" <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote in
> news:W7TT7.18017$Sj1.10...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net:
>
>> For what it's worth, I've just re-read the spell and I have to agree
>> with this interpretation, but that's just my call, of course. Your
>> Adventuring May Vary.
>
> Compare it with 'Silence' which is also Illusion (Glamer).
>
> Give it actually stops sound from working (it doesn't just stop you from
> hearing it).... I would suggest it is possible for an Illusion (Glamer)
> spell to actually alter its target area/object to facilitate the spell.
>
> I would therefore suspect that Invisibiliy also actually alters the
> target to make it 'not seeable' as opposed to altering the viewers to
> make it 'not seen'.
But it can be "not seeable" but still not be invisible. Think of a Star
Trek-style holograph of a wall that covers an opening in the wall. To the
observer, the opening is "not seeable," given that one sees wall instead of
opening. This is the Buddhist koan of the invisible hole. Now replace that
opening with a door, a brightly and intricately painted door. The door is
also "not seeable." It's an invisible door, but it's not transparent, and
the spell (Summon Holodeck I) affects only the door, not the viewer.
D_Jim
Thornhammer wrote:
>Coming from a DM perspective, though, having the party see what they expect
>to see would be a lot more fun. :)
Some of the folks in my game store campaigns couldn't seem to
stop themselves from giving suggestions as to what was behind
the door their characters were about to open.
So, I let them open the door, and see an illusion of the "I'll
bet there are a thousand red dragons behind the door !" statement
they spouted before the door was opened.
Upset themselves for some reason. :-)
The folks who gamed at my house decided such statements
were not a way for their characters to survive...
The Amethyst Dragon
While invisibility is illusion magic, it just involves bending of
light. What the party sees is really there. Just keep in mind that
anything on the other side of the door can see them too.
-The Amethyst Dragon
www.amethyst-dragon.com
Bill Beasley
"R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B84584CD.29F3B%sro...@mindspring.com...
> But it can be "not seeable" but still not be invisible. Think of a Star
> Trek-style holograph of a wall that covers an opening in the wall. To the
> observer, the opening is "not seeable," given that one sees wall instead
of
> opening. This is the Buddhist koan of the invisible hole. Now replace that
> opening with a door, a brightly and intricately painted door. The door is
> also "not seeable." It's an invisible door, but it's not transparent, and
> the spell (Summon Holodeck I) affects only the door, not the viewer.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Scott
See this counterpoint
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
Christopher Burke
$Hz.9...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net:
> See this counterpoint
> http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
>
Makes sense to me.... same with Silence spell (also a Illusion (Glamer)).
Gorg Huff
wrote:
>Compare it with 'Silence' which is also Illusion (Glamer).
>
>Give it actually stops sound from working (it doesn't just stop you from
>hearing it).... I would suggest it is possible for an Illusion (Glamer)
>spell to actually alter its target area/object to facilitate the spell.
>
>I would therefore suspect that Invisibiliy also actually alters the
>target to make it 'not seeable' as opposed to altering the viewers to
>make it 'not seen'.
Think of it as a perfect image of whatever is on the far side of the
invisible object being projected from the near side. That is the way
that best fits the description. Other ways of interpreting, what the
spell is doing, like it's clouding the mind of the viewer would not
have the drawbacks that the spell has. like the effect of standing
puddle and leaving a foot size whole where the invisible foot has
displaced the water. A glamer spell changes the 'subjects' sensory
qualities. ranter then effecting the mind of the observer. see page
158 of the players hand book.
Given that. It's a good trick and the players should be able to see
what is on the other side of the door. and what is on the other side
of the door should be able to see them as though the Door were not
there. It should look to whatever is on the other side as though the
door disappeared. "Oh my god they just disintegrated the door."
If however you want to be cruel the door is attached to the wall,
arguably a part of the wall. And the wall is probably too big to be
made invisible.
Gorg
Gorg Huff
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>This makes a certain sort of sense, although it means that a halfling can
>hide behind an invisible human. That's a truly wicked concept that I'm going
>to have to spring on my DM and see what he thinks.
Yes. unfortunately it is in direct conflict with what the books
say. Of course you can always through out that section of the books.
Gorg
Kaos
<Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell works, I
>expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would appear to merge to
>cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell, I expect you'd fill in
>something that you thought might be there.
Larry Niven's depiction of hyperspace travel and the 'blindspot.'
All characters who see this happen must make a will check or go
insane...
--
Can't tell one side from the other...
they're all jerks.
Darrell Hiebert
Erik Comtois wrote:
>
> There is a passage on p79 of the DMG which states that an object can be
> covered with
> flour to keep track of it. So following this resonning, and knowing that
> light cannot be invisible,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Damn, now I'm going to have to rethink all my past Physics classes.
> I would say that turning a door allows a character to see through it.
>
> "John Wade" <jo...@sendmeavirus.com> wrote in message
> news:3c1fd34e$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > In order to see what was on the other side of a door, the party turned it
> > invisible. (It's a lower level spell than clairvoyance) - Because
> > Invisibility is an illusion, would they really see what was on the other
> > side of the door, or just what they expected to see?
> >
> >
--
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures,
will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend
the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage
Hong Ooi
wrote:
They see the other side of the door.
They must then make Will saves or be stunned next round on account of
witnessing the aberration of rational time-space that allows one side of
the door to become invisible while the other side remains visible.
--
Hong Ooi | "...on account of witnessing the
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | aberration of rational time-space
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | that allows the ram to ram himself"
Sydney, Australia | -- RSR
Chris French
Varl wrote:
The flaw with this theory is that if you can see whats beyond
the invisible person object them the item fails to meet the basic
criteria of being invisible: being undetectable by visual means.
If you can see beyond/through an invisible person and that person
you'd seen a moving form that block your view of differnt objects.
Under this interpritation the spell would be completely worthless
for its intended use.
Chris
Bill_Leary
news:B84583F3.29F39%sro...@mindspring.com...
> And it came to pass on 12/18/01 9:41 PM, that there went out a decree from
> Caesar Bill_Leary, that
If I'm a Caesar I want...
Never mind, I'd just get in trouble with that.
> > "Christopher Burke" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns917C767E...@130.102.2.1...
>
> >> So you are saying that a person who is invisible is readily
recognisable
> >> by the fact that I cannot see through him.
> >
> > I don't think so.
> > ((..omitted..))
> > perhaps, the illusion is maintained and he doesn't see the safe?
> > Interesting angles here.
>
> This makes a certain sort of sense, although it means that a halfling can
> hide behind an invisible human. That's a truly wicked concept that I'm
going
> to have to spring on my DM and see what he thinks.
Be sure you read the rest of the thread before trying that. There are some
good counters to what I said. For that matter, I got to wondering about it
myself after I went off-line for the evening.
- Bill
Bill_Leary
news:7qg02ugrmol2udsoi...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:41:58 GMT, "Bill_Leary"
> <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell
works, I
> >expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would appear to merge
to
> >cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell, I expect you'd fill
in
> >something that you thought might be there.
>
> Larry Niven's depiction of hyperspace travel and the 'blindspot.'
Not quite what I meant. The "blind spot" stretches the existing image to
fill the space. What I was saying was that your mind would provide an image
to fill the space. That is, the bricks on the left and right wouldn't
streatch over to the fill the space, but rather you mind would provide more
bricks.
> All characters who see this happen must make a will check or go
> insane...
But... perhaps a spell which would cause this effect, and with this possible
side effect, could be interesting. I suppose you could use a Will Save to
survive it?
- Bill
Bill_Leary
news:9vp34k$7ha$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> I'd just go with the 'classic' invisibility: It is like the door just
isn't
> there. Of course, that six-pack of necromancers on the other side of the
> door can see the party just fine, too.
Nicely put.
> Coming from a DM perspective, though, having the party see what they
expect
> to see would be a lot more fun. :)
Be interesting to see how this could be run on a repeating basis. I had an
effect similar to this one time, and it was a blast to play it out (the
players loved it) but it wasn't easy to run it with the characters each
seeing different things but still able to see each other and talk about what
they were seeing.
- Bill
Bill_Leary
> "Bill_Leary" <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote in
> news:W7TT7.18017$Sj1.10...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net:
>
> > For what it's worth, I've just re-read the spell and I have to agree
> > with this interpretation, but that's just my call, of course. Your
> > Adventuring May Vary.
>
> Compare it with 'Silence' which is also Illusion (Glamer).
>
> Give it actually stops sound from working (it doesn't just stop you from
> hearing it).... I would suggest it is possible for an Illusion (Glamer)
> spell to actually alter its target area/object to facilitate the spell.
>
> I would therefore suspect that Invisibiliy also actually alters the
> target to make it 'not seeable' as opposed to altering the viewers to
> make it 'not seen'.
Yeah, I was thinking about that one and "Hallucinatory Terrain" last night
after I'd gone off-line.
In the first paragraph of the Invisibility spell it says "...unless you can
normally see invisible things..."
So, on the one hand it seems that if the signal were actually altered there
should be no way anyone or anything could see it since there would be no
signal to process at the receivers end.
But, on the other hand, consider also "Invisibility Purge" where it says
"Only creatures with no visible form, such as an invisible stalker, remain
invisible." This implies to me that the visual signal is un-altered. It's
the ability to perceive that signal is changed.
But on the other other hand, reading the section on Illusion under Schools
of Magic seems to support your view. Some sub-classes are clearly denoted
as being mind effecting. By implication, the others aren't. So, this would
indicate that the signal delivered to the senses of others is actually
modified in some way. The note under Figment about everyone seeing the
same, rather than a personalized, illusion is telling here. The description
under successful saving throws seems to further support this. If you've
saved you still see a faded version of the illusion, but can also see the
reality. This would also seem to clarify why some people can see invisible
objects. It would appear that both the real and the illusion images are
being sent. If you save, or you're capable, you can sort out which one is
the truth and see that instead. It seems that given this there should be an
ability to hear silenced things too, though.
And, before I hit "send" on this message I read forward in the thread and
saw this:
> See this counterpoint
> http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
This makes pretty much the same points.
- Bill
Kaos
<Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>"Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:7qg02ugrmol2udsoi...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:41:58 GMT, "Bill_Leary"
>> <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell
>works, I
>> >expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would appear to merge
>to
>> >cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell, I expect you'd fill
>in
>> >something that you thought might be there.
>>
>> Larry Niven's depiction of hyperspace travel and the 'blindspot.'
>
>Not quite what I meant.
Perhaps not, but I find this one more appealing.
Even though neither seems to be 'the truth.'
>> All characters who see this happen must make a will check or go
>> insane...
>
>But... perhaps a spell which would cause this effect, and with this possible
>side effect, could be interesting. I suppose you could use a Will Save to
>survive it?
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Elves (like Puppeteers) are immune, of course.
Bryan Maloney
> John Wade wrote:
>>
>> In order to see what was on the other side of a door, the party turned
>> it invisible. (It's a lower level spell than clairvoyance) - Because
>> Invisibility is an illusion, would they really see what was on the
>> other side of the door, or just what they expected to see?
>
> The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
> transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it.
Which means that an invisible monster or character should be AS EASY TO HIT
IN COMBAT AS A VISIBLE ONE. After all, they "appear transparent", but you
can't see through them, so there is now this "transparent" thing that you
can't see through--and if you can't see through it, then you CAN SEE IT!
> nose after bashing into the face of it. It's still a real door.
> Invisibility isn't a solid object transparency creator, it's a spell
Why not?
> which makes those who believe it not see the object or person in
Then it should be a "charm" category spell.
--
"Why then did the passengers on the plane that went down near Pittsburgh
decide to resist the hijackers and prevent them from completing their
mission? Because they knew: their relatives had told them by cell phone that
the World Trade Center had already been attacked by hijacked planes. They
were armed with final awareness of the nature of the evil they faced.
So armed, they could act. So armed, they did."
--Time Magazine
Bryan Maloney
news:7qg02ugrmol2udsoi...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:41:58 GMT, "Bill_Leary"
><Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell
>>works, I expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would
>>appear to merge to cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell,
>>I expect you'd fill in something that you thought might be there.
>
> Larry Niven's depiction of hyperspace travel and the 'blindspot.'
>
> All characters who see this happen must make a will check or go
> insane...
Making invisiblity a very powerful attack spell.
Bryan Maloney
news:9vou9l$fj9$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org:
> I'd note that not only can you see through the door, but anyone on the
> other side of the door can see you.
That's how I'd rule.
Bryan Maloney
> Invisibility should be played the same as Silence - it actually changes
> things, not just perceptions.
Especially since that his how the rules define the spell. If the DM decides
to alter the rules as written, it is the DM's responsibility to INFORM THE
PLAYERS OF THIS BEFORE THEY ATTEMPT THE ACT, if the DM has the tiniest shred
of honor, of course.
Bryan Maloney
news:5om02u4ncie1aojma...@4ax.com:
> They must then make Will saves or be stunned next round on account of
> witnessing the aberration of rational time-space that allows one side of
> the door to become invisible while the other side remains visible.
Imagine the combat possibilities for such a spell...
Varl
> > So you are saying that a person who is invisible is readily recognisable
> by
> > the fact that I cannot see through him.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> What he seems to be saying is that the viewer (the person looking at the
> invisible character) "fills in" the background they would see if the
> character were not there. Or, more correctly, THINK or BELIEVE they would
> see.
Thank you Bill. I was going to reply earlier in the thread, but you got
it. :)
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
Varl
> What the players in the example really wanted was Glassee (make objects as
> transparent as glass) which it appears didn't make it into D&D3.
Exactly. For those wanting something more than invisibility, where the
object actually *is* transparent, Glassee. If we say Invisibility can
make objects transparent see through items, Glassee pretty much tanks as
a useful spell imo.
Varl
> > No, its a solid door with Invisibility cast on it. The door is
> > still solid. But to the players who cast the spell, the door
> > appears to be invisible.
> >
> > They thought it would enable them to see through the door and
> > spot any monsters, treasure, traps, etc. beyond the door. They
> > fooled themselves.
Exactly. This is how we run Invisibility, too.
> So if there was a real window next to an invisible door, the invisible door
> would show different room contents than the window (assuming they looked
> through the door first)....
Yes, that's the whole point of illusions; they trick your mind into
believing something else than what actually is, and the last time I
checked, Invis is an illusion/phantasm.
> I think that is a problem just waiting to happen.
>
> Invisibility should be played the same as Silence - it actually changes
> things, not just perceptions.
Then I'd like to hear how you particularly handle the difference weighed
between Invis and Glassee, especially if Invisibility does the exact
same thing Glassee is supposed to do, and is what, 4 spell levels lower.
No one's ever going to prep and cast Glassee if Invisibility does what
Glassee is supposed to do. YMMV.
Varl
> > The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
> > transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it.
>
> Which means that an invisible monster or character should be AS EASY TO HIT
> IN COMBAT AS A VISIBLE ONE. After all, they "appear transparent", but you
> can't see through them, so there is now this "transparent" thing that you
> can't see through--and if you can't see through it, then you CAN SEE IT!
Heh. Circular arguments are so much fun. Just make a ruling that they
either can see through the door (one which I wouldn't ever endorse,
since that completely deletes the need for higher level spells such as
Glassee) or they see an illusion of what they *think* they see, such as
a wall, a wall beyond the door opening, an empty closet, whatever. But
to allow them to see through the door seems to me to be far beyond what
the Invisibility spell should be capable of performing.
> > nose after bashing into the face of it. It's still a real door.
> > Invisibility isn't a solid object transparency creator, it's a spell
>
> Why not?
Glassee.
> > which makes those who believe it not see the object or person in
>
> Then it should be a "charm" category spell.
I believe that's what the phantasm aspect of it is all about.
Bill_Leary
news:3C20A3A9...@premier1.net...
> Then I'd like to hear how you particularly handle the difference weighed
> between Invis and Glassee, especially if Invisibility does the exact
> same thing Glassee is supposed to do, and is what, 4 spell levels lower.
> No one's ever going to prep and cast Glassee if Invisibility does what
> Glassee is supposed to do. YMMV.
Did you find Glassee in 3E somewhere?
I gave the PHB a gander last night and didn't find it.
Perhaps Glassee was eliminated because they figured Invisibility would cover
the same ground?
- Bill
Aaron Day
>
> Bill_Leary wrote:
>
> > What the players in the example really wanted was Glassee (make objects as
> > transparent as glass) which it appears didn't make it into D&D3.
>
> Exactly. For those wanting something more than invisibility, where the
> object actually *is* transparent, Glassee. If we say Invisibility can
> make objects transparent see through items, Glassee pretty much tanks as
> a useful spell imo.
Am I missing something? WTF is Glassee? (more importantly, who cares if
its a useful spell)
Aaron
Aaron Day
>
> > So if there was a real window next to an invisible door, the invisible door
> > would show different room contents than the window (assuming they looked
> > through the door first)....
>
> Yes, that's the whole point of illusions; they trick your mind into
> believing something else than what actually is, and the last time I
> checked, Invis is an illusion/phantasm.
Check again.
Aaron
Kaos
>Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:7qg02ugrmol2udsoi...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:41:58 GMT, "Bill_Leary"
>><Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell
>>>works, I expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would
>>>appear to merge to cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell,
>>>I expect you'd fill in something that you thought might be there.
>>
>> Larry Niven's depiction of hyperspace travel and the 'blindspot.'
>>
>> All characters who see this happen must make a will check or go
>> insane...
>
>Making invisiblity a very powerful attack spell.
Yes, well it's not like it's really out of line compared with the
unstated meaning of Improved Invisibility - "Rogue gets to butcher
people for 1 minute per level of the wizard."
I mean, this at least gives you a saving throw and requires a door (or
other such item;) the other simply lets you look stupid while your
hitpoints disappear very quickly, and only requires a rogue.
Bryan J. Jonker
: Erik Comtois wrote:
:>
:> There is a passage on p79 of the DMG which states that an object can be
:> covered with
:> flour to keep track of it. So following this resonning, and knowing that
:> light cannot be invisible,
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Damn, now I'm going to have to rethink all my past Physics classes.
I wrote up a GURPS Technomancer magic item that cast an Invisibility spell
on a laser - it still existed, but the laser could move through anything
and wasn't affected by anything (except, of course, any "dispell magic"
spells). Fun theory, even if it was blatant Star-Trek science.
Stephenls
> Exactly. For those wanting something more than invisibility, where
> the object actually *is* transparent, Glassee. If we say Invisibility
> can make objects transparent see through items, Glassee pretty much
> tanks as a useful spell imo.
Which pretty much explains why it was cut from 3e.
--
Stephenls
Geek
We wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for your stupid evil.
--Jhonen Vasquez
Kaos
wrote:
Glamer. Affects the subject, not the observers of the subject.
R. Scott Rogers
Caesar Bill Beasley, that
>
> "R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:B84584CD.29F3B%sro...@mindspring.com...
>> But it can be "not seeable" but still not be invisible. Think of a Star
>> Trek-style holograph of a wall that covers an opening in the wall. To the
>> observer, the opening is "not seeable," given that one sees wall instead
> of
>> opening. This is the Buddhist koan of the invisible hole. Now replace that
>> opening with a door, a brightly and intricately painted door. The door is
>> also "not seeable." It's an invisible door, but it's not transparent, and
>> the spell (Summon Holodeck I) affects only the door, not the viewer.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Scott
>
>
> See this counterpoint
> http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
Not a counterpoint at all. I do not read this proposed interpretation of
Invisibility to be mind-affecting. I'm sorry if I was unclear when I wrote
above, "affects only the door, not the viewer." That the spell affects the
target and not the minds of all viewers does not require that the invisible
target becomes transparent.
Also, SKR concludes by saying:
"Invisibility doesn't affect minds. It affects light. It affects the light
around the target creature. That's why it is a "Target: You or a creature
[touched]" spell instead of a "Target: everyone in line of sight" spell."
Well, no, actually it doesn't affect the light. Or at least nowhere is the
spell said to affect the light around the target creature. No, the spell
affects the target creature itself. That's why it is not a "Target: the
light around a target" spell.
Furthermore, Invisibility does not render light invisible. If light is
really being bent around the target as SKR describes, a light source on the
person of the target would itself be invisible and cast no light. However,
the spell is quite clear that an invisible light source continues to cast
light. This cannot be so if the spell is bending light around the object.
I've never understood why a transparently invisible person, which is how I'd
always imagined invisibility to work, would become visible when he attacks
another person. But the unseeable invisibility model explains this quite
well -- you stop not seeing the thing when it hurts you.
I don't know if I'm wholly sold by this interpretation, but it does seem to
fit the spell description more closely than my own idea of transparency.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
sro...@mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
R. Scott Rogers
Caesar Bryan Maloney, that
> Varl <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in news:3C1FEE52...@premier1.net:
>
>> John Wade wrote:
>>>
>>> In order to see what was on the other side of a door, the party turned
>>> it invisible. (It's a lower level spell than clairvoyance) - Because
>>> Invisibility is an illusion, would they really see what was on the
>>> other side of the door, or just what they expected to see?
>>
>> The door would now be invisible to them, which despite appearing to be
>> transparent, still shouldn't allow them to see through it.
>
> Which means that an invisible monster or character should be AS EASY TO HIT
> IN COMBAT AS A VISIBLE ONE. After all, they "appear transparent", but you
> can't see through them, so there is now this "transparent" thing that you
> can't see through--and if you can't see through it, then you CAN SEE IT!
Not so. The opposite of "visible" is not "transparent." Transparent is one
possibility for how a thing might be unseeable. But not the only possible
one. Certain kinds of octopi can render themselves essentially invisible,
but they do so by assuming the appearance of the background, not by becoming
clear. They are, in fact, opaque and invisible.
Then there's Harry Potter's cloak in the movie. That cloak does not "bend
light" or anything that would render the wearer optically transparent. It
just assumes the color and shape of the background. What's exceptional about
the cloak, compared to the octopi, is that it does this in every direction
of all three dimensions at once, even while moving. Watch closely the scenes
where Harry dons the cloak, and you'll see that it assumes the appearance of
the background. Also, there are times when the underside of the cloak
becomes visible, revealing those underneath. Finally, Harry can see out from
inside the cloak. If the light is being bent, this is not possible. If only
some of the light is bent, so that the invisible person can see dimly, then
the "invisible" person becomes a visible dark smudge in the air.
Also, the transparency theory of invisibility raises the following follow-up
to the door question: Does the light in the room spill out into the hallway
on account of the door's invisibility? This would mean that the effect is
visible to those who can't see the door, such as someone far down a
perpendicular hallway.
Anyway, invisible is not necessarily synonymous with transparent. Or,
rather, transparent and visible are not binary states of visibility.
Grandmaster E
Bryan Maloney wrote in message <9vq714$29q$7...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
>"Bryan J. Jonker" <jon...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in
>news:9vou9l$fj9$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org:
>
>> I'd note that not only can you see through the door, but anyone on the
>> other side of the door can see you.
>
>That's how I'd rule.
>
Some DMs or PCs are trying to apply too many laws of physics to magic
spells. Make the door invisible to all who see it. This is a magic spell
physics may or may not apply.
Some stupid kobolds could charge the group and do a "Wile E. Coyote" on
the invisible door...
The player of thought of this application had a clever moment so give him
some credit.
Grandmaster E
Canuck DM
Bill Beasley
<snip>
>http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
>
> Not a counterpoint at all. I do not read this proposed interpretation of
> Invisibility to be mind-affecting. I'm sorry if I was unclear when I wrote
> above, "affects only the door, not the viewer." That the spell affects the
> target and not the minds of all viewers does not require that the
invisible
> target becomes transparent.
>
> Also, SKR concludes by saying:
>
> "Invisibility doesn't affect minds. It affects light. It affects the light
> around the target creature. That's why it is a "Target: You or a creature
> [touched]" spell instead of a "Target: everyone in line of sight" spell."
>
Based on this, one could actually argue that you couldn't even turn the door
invisible in the first place (i.e., the spell 'fizzles'), because the door
isn't a 'creature', it's an 'object'.
> Well, no, actually it doesn't affect the light. Or at least nowhere is the
> spell said to affect the light around the target creature. No, the spell
> affects the target creature itself. That's why it is not a "Target: the
> light around a target" spell.
>
It's listed as an 'Illusion[glamer]' spell, and glamer is defined as "A
glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel,
tasted, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear." p
158, PHB.
> Furthermore, Invisibility does not render light invisible. If light is
> really being bent around the target as SKR describes, a light source on
the
> person of the target would itself be invisible and cast no light. However,
> the spell is quite clear that an invisible light source continues to cast
> light. This cannot be so if the spell is bending light around the object.
>
> I've never understood why a transparently invisible person, which is how
I'd
> always imagined invisibility to work, would become visible when he attacks
> another person. But the unseeable invisibility model explains this quite
> well -- you stop not seeing the thing when it hurts you.
To be this, the spell would have to be an 'illusion[phantasm]' spell.
Phantasms create a mental image. To be the 'unseeable' invisibility, it
would have to fall under this. It doesnt. Clearly, based on the spell
description, the spell is designed to actually change the physical
properties of the target/creature. The only viable argument against turning
a door invisible is that the door isn't a creature, but an object instead.
If you want to house rule invisibility into the 'unseeable' vs. actually
'invisible', that'd be a house rule. I'm neither here nor there on that,
but I prefer to stick with the core rules unless my campaign needs to veer
away.
As written, the invisibility spell actually makes the target transparent.
It's not a mental effect, despite what some were saying upthread. That's
why I posted the link, since he said it better and in more detail than I was
able to at the time.
Bill Beasley
> Yes, well it's not like it's really out of line compared with the
> unstated meaning of Improved Invisibility - "Rogue gets to butcher
> people for 1 minute per level of the wizard."
>
> I mean, this at least gives you a saving throw and requires a door (or
> other such item;) the other simply lets you look stupid while your
> hitpoints disappear very quickly, and only requires a rogue.
Which can be negated by the application of a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust.
Bill Beasley
> Bill_Leary wrote:
>
> > What the players in the example really wanted was Glassee (make objects
as
> > transparent as glass) which it appears didn't make it into D&D3.
>
> Exactly. For those wanting something more than invisibility, where the
> object actually *is* transparent, Glassee. If we say Invisibility can
> make objects transparent see through items, Glassee pretty much tanks as
> a useful spell imo.
Note that Invisibility is an 'Illusion[glamer]' spell, and glamers actually
change the physical properties of the object.
"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it
look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to
disappear."
Thus, the invisibility spell does actually turn something transparent. It
does not make people *think* that the invisible creature is invisible. It
actually makes them invisible. Regarding Glassee, I can't seem to find it
in 3e any more. Is it listed under a different, new name?
Bill Beasley
> Christopher Burke wrote:
<snip>
> Then I'd like to hear how you particularly handle the difference weighed
> between Invis and Glassee, especially if Invisibility does the exact
> same thing Glassee is supposed to do, and is what, 4 spell levels lower.
Glassee doesn't exist anymore. That problem's solved.
> No one's ever going to prep and cast Glassee if Invisibility does what
> Glassee is supposed to do. YMMV.
Invisibility is now an 'illusion[glamer]' spell.
"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it
look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to
disappear."
From the SRD, and page 170 of the phb.
Bill Beasley
<snip>
>
> Not so. The opposite of "visible" is not "transparent." Transparent is one
> possibility for how a thing might be unseeable. But not the only possible
> one. Certain kinds of octopi can render themselves essentially invisible,
> but they do so by assuming the appearance of the background, not by
becoming
> clear. They are, in fact, opaque and invisible.
From the SRD for the Invis spell"
"The creature or object touched vanishes from sight, even from darkvision. "
First line of the spell. Vanishes from sight. Also note that the spell is
a 'glamer' and the definition of a glamer is:
"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it
look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to
disappear."
Thus, the actualy sensory (visible) properties of the door are being
changed. The door actually becomes invisible. The spell doesn't make
people think that the door is invisible, nor does it create a blank spot.
The spell doesn't even mention becomeing 'clear', it makes the target
actually vanish from sight. Vanish from sight=can see right through where
the object is.
>
> Then there's Harry Potter's cloak in the movie. That cloak does not "bend
> light" or anything that would render the wearer optically transparent. It
> just assumes the color and shape of the background. What's exceptional
about
> the cloak, compared to the octopi, is that it does this in every direction
> of all three dimensions at once, even while moving. Watch closely the
scenes
> where Harry dons the cloak, and you'll see that it assumes the appearance
of
> the background. Also, there are times when the underside of the cloak
> becomes visible, revealing those underneath. Finally, Harry can see out
from
> inside the cloak. If the light is being bent, this is not possible. If
only
> some of the light is bent, so that the invisible person can see dimly, the
n
> the "invisible" person becomes a visible dark smudge in the air.
Irrelevant, we're discussing a 3e spell, not a harry potter spell.
>
> Also, the transparency theory of invisibility raises the following
follow-up
> to the door question: Does the light in the room spill out into the
hallway
> on account of the door's invisibility?
Yes.
This would mean that the effect is
> visible to those who can't see the door, such as someone far down a
> perpendicular hallway.
>
Exactly. Invisibility doesn't affect the people viewing the target, it
actually affects the target. By making it 'vanish from sight'.
> Anyway, invisible is not necessarily synonymous with transparent. Or,
> rather, transparent and visible are not binary states of visibility.
While this is true, it has nothing to do with the discussion on whether you
can actually see through where the invisible person is standing. By
definition, invisibiltiy makes you 'vanish from sight'. It doesn't make
people think you're not there. Nor does it create a blank spot. Nor does
it make you blend with the background. It actually makes you 'invisible'.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Scott
>
Bill Beasley
> Bryan Maloney wrote:
<snip>
> Heh. Circular arguments are so much fun. Just make a ruling that they
> either can see through the door (one which I wouldn't ever endorse,
> since that completely deletes the need for higher level spells such as
> Glassee)
Which does not exist anymore.
or they see an illusion of what they *think* they see, such as
> a wall, a wall beyond the door opening, an empty closet, whatever. But
> to allow them to see through the door seems to me to be far beyond what
> the Invisibility spell should be capable of performing.
"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it
look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to
disappear."
The phb/SRD definition of what Invisibility is. It's an Illusion[glamer]
spell. It does not affect the minds/perceptions of the viewer.
>
> > > nose after bashing into the face of it. It's still a real door.
> > > Invisibility isn't a solid object transparency creator, it's a spell
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Glassee.
>
Which doesn't exist in 3e anymore. Problem solved.
> > > which makes those who believe it not see the object or person in
> >
> > Then it should be a "charm" category spell.
>
> I believe that's what the phantasm aspect of it is all about.
RTM. It's not a phantasm. It's a glamer.
JDJarvis
> John Wade wrote:
>
> > In order to see what was on the other side of a door, the party turned it
> > invisible. (It's a lower level spell than clairvoyance) - Because
> > side of the door, or just what they expected to see?
>
>
> changes the viewer's perception) I'd say the PCs see what they wanted to
> see. But a Glamer changes the sensory qualities of the subject. So I
> think they would really see what's on the other side.
Yep It is a glamer so it (the glamer) effects how the rest of the
universe relates to the object (nothing can see it) it has nothing to
do with how anything thinks about the object or what is actually
behind the object.
But, does this mean you can see into the room beyond if it was unlit?
Torchlight passes through it now right or wrong? If torchlight doesn't
pass through it does darkvision work? arrgghhhh.
If the pc's really want to burn an invisibility spell to see through
the door until i find out otherwise or get damn sick of it as a DM
I'll let them. things that will suck for the characters though:
How do we open the door? (feel around but that is slower then finding
the visible handle)
Don't forget to search for traps before you turn the door invisible.
I hope the door is unlocked. Sure it is pickable but it will be
trickier.
The monsters/foes can now see the charcters. In the very least they
will notice no door.
A way to solve some problems if "invibling the door" is frequent is to
put curtains over door ways in areas with inhabitants that are invible
savy. Sure the door is invisible but the curtain isn't.
Gorg Huff
>Then I'd like to hear how you particularly handle the difference weighed
>between Invis and Glassee, especially if Invisibility does the exact
>same thing Glassee is supposed to do, and is what, 4 spell levels lower.
>No one's ever going to prep and cast Glassee if Invisibility does what
>Glassee is supposed to do. YMMV.
The Glassee spell is not in 3E. In 2E Invisibility must be cast on
a Creature so you can't cast it on a Door or a rock. Even in 3E you
can't cast invisibility on a section of wall because generally a Wall
weighs more then 100 lb per level and is part of a larger structure.
And of course Glassee makes a section of something invisible only from
one side you can see them but they can't see you. So while this use of
invisibility works on the specific case of the door it does not work
in the general case of the section of wall. You could also prevent the
spell from working on the door by concluding that the door was part of
the building that is to say not separate enough from the building to
be considered a separate object needed for the spell too work.
However if I were researching the Glassee spell for 3e I would
indeed make it lower level then it is in 2E and give it a longer
duration.
I would probably make it a 3nd level spell with a duration of one
Hour per level. and a more flexible viewing aria
Gorg
Bryan J. Maloney
<ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2001 14:07:44 GMT, Bryan Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >news:7qg02ugrmol2udsoi...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:41:58 GMT, "Bill_Leary"
> >><Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell
> >>>works, I expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would
> >>>appear to merge to cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell,
> >>>I expect you'd fill in something that you thought might be there.
> >>
> >> Larry Niven's depiction of hyperspace travel and the 'blindspot.'
> >>
> >> All characters who see this happen must make a will check or go
> >> insane...
> >
> >Making invisiblity a very powerful attack spell.
>
> Yes, well it's not like it's really out of line compared with the
> unstated meaning of Improved Invisibility - "Rogue gets to butcher
> people for 1 minute per level of the wizard."
But he has to do it one at a time. Your "use" of invisibility makes it
a mass attack spell.
Party is jumped by a whole gang of something. The mage turns a door or
similar item behind them invisible. Since the bad guys can't help but
look in its direction...
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Bryan J. Maloney
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Then there's Harry Potter's cloak in the movie. That cloak does not "bend
> light" or anything that would render the wearer optically transparent. It
> just assumes the color and shape of the background. What's exceptional
> about
> the cloak, compared to the octopi, is that it does this in every
> direction
> of all three dimensions at once, even while moving. Watch closely the
At which point, the invisible door would assume the appearance of
whatever was behind it, being essentially transparent.
> Also, the transparency theory of invisibility raises the following
> follow-up
> to the door question: Does the light in the room spill out into the
> hallway
> on account of the door's invisibility? This would mean that the effect is
> visible to those who can't see the door, such as someone far down a
> perpendicular hallway.
Sure. I've got no problem with that.
R. Scott Rogers
Caesar Bill Beasley, that
>> Well, no, actually it doesn't affect the light. Or at least nowhere is the
>> spell said to affect the light around the target creature. No, the spell
>> affects the target creature itself. That's why it is not a "Target: the
>> light around a target" spell.
>
> It's listed as an 'Illusion[glamer]' spell, and glamer is defined as "A
> glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel,
> tasted, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear." p
> 158, PHB.
But that something else which an Illusion [Glamer] makes the target look
like might either be "the background" or "air." In neither case is the flow
of light itself altered.
> As written, the invisibility spell actually makes the target transparent.
> It's not a mental effect, despite what some were saying upthread. That's
> why I posted the link, since he said it better and in more detail than I was
> able to at the time.
First off, it doesn't have to make you transparent to remain an Illusion
[Glamer]. It could make you look like the background. Heck, a changed
sensory quality could simply make you unable to be sensed by sight, which
opens the door to the idea that started the thread. And SKR did not, in
fact, argue in favor of transparency. He argued against mind-effectivity.
Disproving one does not demonstrate the other.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
R. Scott Rogers
Caesar Bill Beasley, that
> Vanish from sight=can see right through where
> the object is.
This particular statement is not true. An octopus can vanish (through
exactly the sensory-quality-altering process described as "Glamer") from
sight but you don't see right through where the octopus is.
>> Then there's Harry Potter's cloak in the movie. That cloak does not "bend
>> light" or anything that would render the wearer optically transparent. It
>> just assumes the color and shape of the background.
>
> Irrelevant, we're discussing a 3e spell, not a harry potter spell.
It's an alternate model to the transparency theory that happens to fit
within the 3E version of invisibility. It also makes more sense that SKR's
Star Trek argument about light-bending.
>> Anyway, invisible is not necessarily synonymous with transparent. Or,
>> rather, transparent and visible are not binary states of visibility.
>
> While this is true, it has nothing to do with the discussion on whether you
> can actually see through where the invisible person is standing. By
> definition, invisibiltiy makes you 'vanish from sight'. It doesn't make
> people think you're not there. Nor does it create a blank spot. Nor does
> it make you blend with the background. It actually makes you 'invisible'.
You're invisible because you're invisible, and you're transparent when
invisible because invisible means transparent? Nice arguments you've got
there, chief.
Not even your oft-repeated (the seventh time was a bit much, actually)
quotation of the definition of Glamer requires that invisibility equals
transparency.
I'm leaning toward a reading of invisibility, the spell, that makes the
target appear to be made of air. This allows for the whole
visible-shape-when-covered-with-powder thing and the existence of a
foot-shaped hole in a puddle. But a background-emulating version is just as
plausible given the game text.
Jordan Wolbrum
Bill_Leary wrote:
> Now, that presents an interesting concept.
>
> Try this scenario on for size. You've got a plain old room with a wall safe
> at chest height to your character. He stands in front of the wall safe and
> casts invisibility on himself. Now, an NPC#1, who's never been in the room
> before, comes in and looks around. Will the NPC#1 see the wall safe? If we
> take this concept of invisibility, no, he won't because he'd have no reason
> to "fill in" the background with a wall safe so he'll see a plain bit of
> wall. But if we have an NPC#2, who's seen the room before, and knows where
> the safe it, he would see it.. Now, Mr. Invisible moves and exposes the
> wall safe. From NPC#1's point of view, the safe suddenly appeared. Or,
> perhaps, the illusion is maintained and he doesn't see the safe?
> Interesting angles here.
I think NPC#1 just "happens to notice" the safe now and doesn't find it strange
at all. The thing about invisibility, IMO, is that it tricks you into not
seeing the object. Your vision doesn't change, you just simply fail to process
the invisible thing or person. This way, there's no physics involved at all.
> Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell works, I
> expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would appear to merge to
> cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell, I expect you'd fill in
> something that you thought might be there.
I think invisible doors would just be so jarring that you'd know something was
up. Kind of like someone with just an invisible arm. It doesn't look like
someone missing an arm, it looks like something strange is happening. I think
it's too powerful for a second level spell if it's able to function normally in
bizarre circumstances. If it looks wrong enough, nobody is going to believe it.
IMC, this won't make the door visible. It will just make it clear that there's
something there, even if you can't see it.
-JW
Bill Beasley
> And it came to pass on 12/19/01 12:44 PM, that there went out a decree
from
> Caesar Bill Beasley, that
>
> >> Well, no, actually it doesn't affect the light. Or at least nowhere is
the
> >> spell said to affect the light around the target creature. No, the
spell
> >> affects the target creature itself. That's why it is not a "Target: the
> >> light around a target" spell.
> >
> > It's listed as an 'Illusion[glamer]' spell, and glamer is defined as "A
> > glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look,
feel,
> > tasted, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."
p
> > 158, PHB.
>
> But that something else which an Illusion [Glamer] makes the target look
> like might either be "the background" or "air." In neither case is the
flow
> of light itself altered.
>
Ok. I'll give on the 'bending light' theory. Invis doesn't specifically
bend light. Light simply flows through the area where you are, unaffected
by you, due to magic.
> > As written, the invisibility spell actually makes the target
transparent.
> > It's not a mental effect, despite what some were saying upthread.
That's
> > why I posted the link, since he said it better and in more detail than I
was
> > able to at the time.
>
> First off, it doesn't have to make you transparent to remain an Illusion
> [Glamer]. It could make you look like the background.
Which makes you 'effectively' transparent.
Heck, a changed
> sensory quality could simply make you unable to be sensed by sight, which
> opens the door to the idea that started the thread.
Which is what it does. And when you can't be sensed by sight, what's behind
you *can*. Unless you'd rather that everything behind you is invisible, and
thus all that people who look at an invisible character can see is a big
gaping hole in space? Wouldn't that effectively render Invs useless?
And SKR did not, in
> fact, argue in favor of transparency. He argued against mind-effectivity.
> Disproving one does not demonstrate the other.
You're right. However, all signs and definitions point to 'effective'
transparency.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Scott
>
Bill Beasley
> And it came to pass on 12/19/01 1:05 PM, that there went out a decree from
> Caesar Bill Beasley, that
>
> > Vanish from sight=can see right through where
> > the object is.
>
> This particular statement is not true. An octopus can vanish (through
> exactly the sensory-quality-altering process described as "Glamer") from
> sight but you don't see right through where the octopus is.
>
We're not arguing 'real life'. It's magic. Magic makes the target
effectively transparent, by making them vanish from sight. Otherwise, the
Invis spell is useless for what it's designed.
> >> Then there's Harry Potter's cloak in the movie. That cloak does not
"bend
> >> light" or anything that would render the wearer optically transparent.
It
> >> just assumes the color and shape of the background.
> >
> > Irrelevant, we're discussing a 3e spell, not a harry potter spell.
>
> It's an alternate model to the transparency theory that happens to fit
> within the 3E version of invisibility. It also makes more sense that SKR's
> Star Trek argument about light-bending.
I'm not too worried about the 'light bending' argument. It's magic. It
doesn't have to make sense. It just is.
> >
> > While this is true, it has nothing to do with the discussion on whether
you
> > can actually see through where the invisible person is standing. By
> > definition, invisibiltiy makes you 'vanish from sight'. It doesn't make
> > people think you're not there. Nor does it create a blank spot. Nor
does
> > it make you blend with the background. It actually makes you
'invisible'.
>
> You're invisible because you're invisible, and you're transparent when
> invisible because invisible means transparent? Nice arguments you've got
> there, chief.
It's magic. That better? You're invisible because the spell magic makes
you invisible. And you're transparent because, by making you invisible, the
spellmagic also makes you transparent.
>
> Not even your oft-repeated (the seventh time was a bit much, actually)
> quotation of the definition of Glamer requires that invisibility equals
> transparency.
When you 'vanish from sight' by 'magic', what do the people looking at you
see? A big, gaping hole in space? No, they see what's behind you. And not
what they *think* is behind you, what is really behind you. Why? Because
it's magic, and it makes you invisible. As if you weren't there. Vanished
from sight.
>
> I'm leaning toward a reading of invisibility, the spell, that makes the
> target appear to be made of air. This allows for the whole
> visible-shape-when-covered-with-powder thing and the existence of a
> foot-shaped hole in a puddle. But a background-emulating version is just
as
> plausible given the game text.
What I'm mainly arguing against is the thought that the onlookers somehow
see something other than what's behind the target of the invisiblity spell.
If that's not what you're arguing, then disregard my whole attempt to
convince you :).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Scott
Bill Beasley
"Jordan Wolbrum" <jwol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3C20E70E...@optonline.net...
>
>
> Bill_Leary wrote:
>
> > Now, that presents an interesting concept.
> >
> > Try this scenario on for size. You've got a plain old room with a wall
safe
> > at chest height to your character. He stands in front of the wall safe
and
> > casts invisibility on himself. Now, an NPC#1, who's never been in the
room
> > before, comes in and looks around. Will the NPC#1 see the wall safe?
If we
> > take this concept of invisibility, no, he won't because he'd have no
reason
> > to "fill in" the background with a wall safe so he'll see a plain bit of
> > wall. But if we have an NPC#2, who's seen the room before, and knows
where
> > the safe it, he would see it.. Now, Mr. Invisible moves and exposes the
> > wall safe. From NPC#1's point of view, the safe suddenly appeared. Or,
> > perhaps, the illusion is maintained and he doesn't see the safe?
> > Interesting angles here.
>
> I think NPC#1 just "happens to notice" the safe now and doesn't find it
strange
> at all. The thing about invisibility, IMO, is that it tricks you into not
> seeing the object.
It makes the target 'vanish from sight', and as a glamer type illusion, it
changes the sensory (visual) properties of the target (the invisible
creature/object). While this effectively tricks you into not seeing the
object, it doesn't affect anyone's mind.
> Your vision doesn't change, you just simply fail to process
> the invisible thing or person.
Your vision doesn't change, but the sensory properties of the object do
change (visual, specifically). That's why invisibility doesn't work on
someone with blindsight: the spell doesn't 'trick' them, because they
aren't using visual receptors to view the invisible creature/object.
Invisibility only changes the visual properties of the subject of the spell.
It has direct effect on anyone else.
> This way, there's no physics involved at all.
Well, that's because it's magic, and not physics.
>
> > Getting back to the invisible door, if you understand how the spell
works, I
> > expect you'd see "nothing" somehow. Maybe the wall would appear to merge
to
> > cover the door. If you didn't understand the spell, I expect you'd fill
in
> > something that you thought might be there.
>
> I think invisible doors would just be so jarring that you'd know something
was
> up.
Why? If the door isn't there, that's not so jarring that you'd know
something's up? How is that different if the door appears to not be
there(by being made invisible)?
Kind of like someone with just an invisible arm. It doesn't look like
> someone missing an arm, it looks like something strange is happening.
Which is different than the door being invisible. Now, if you could make
small portion of the door invisible, and not the rest of the door, then
that'd be analogous(sp).
I think
> it's too powerful for a second level spell if it's able to function
normally in
> bizarre circumstances. If it looks wrong enough, nobody is going to
believe it.
It's not a believablity issue. Illusion[glamer] spells can't be
disbelieved, since they don't directly affect anyone's senses. All that the
invisibility spell is doing is removing the visual sensory property from the
door. It doesn't have any direct effect on Joebob the Fighter standing next
to the door. It has the incidental effect of Joebob not being able to
visually sense the door.
>
> IMC, this won't make the door visible. It will just make it clear that
there's
> something there, even if you can't see it.
Then that's a Rule0 change that you sould inform your players of *before*
they have a chance of using the spell. Your change is a significant
difference from the rules as written.
>
> -JW
incrdbil
wrote:
>Think of it as a perfect image of whatever is on the far side of the
>invisible object being projected from the near side. That is the way
>that best fits the description. Other ways of interpreting, what the
>spell is doing, like it's clouding the mind of the viewer would not
>have the drawbacks that the spell has. like the effect of standing
>puddle and leaving a foot size whole where the invisible foot has
>displaced the water. A glamer spell changes the 'subjects' sensory
>qualities. ranter then effecting the mind of the observer. see page
>158 of the players hand book.
I have to agree--the spell would do nothing other than alter the
object--not create random images, or pluck thoughts out of the minds
of others as a suggestion. the door would be rendered invisible. Keep
it simple. If something is invisible, it does not block line of sight,
you can see right through it.
>
>Given that. It's a good trick and the players should be able to see
>what is on the other side of the door. and what is on the other side
>of the door should be able to see them as though the Door were not
>there. It should look to whatever is on the other side as though the
>door disappeared. "Oh my god they just disintegrated the door."
Absolutely. a little creative acting might just scare an unwary party
victim to this trick. "My god, he can cast disintegrate! run for your
lives!"
>
incrdbil
>
>Heh. Circular arguments are so much fun. Just make a ruling that they
>either can see through the door (one which I wouldn't ever endorse,
>since that completely deletes the need for higher level spells such as
>Glassee) or they see an illusion of what they *think* they see, such as
>a wall, a wall beyond the door opening, an empty closet, whatever. But
>to allow them to see through the door seems to me to be far beyond what
>the Invisibility spell should be capable of performing.
Relly? The spell turns the door invisible. That's not beyond it's
intent. turn a human invisible. Are you saying you can't see through
him? You couldn't see a person behind him following him?
Hey, put the big fat guy at the head of the army, line up behind him,
and cast invisibility! New stealth tactics.
Christopher
"Bill Beasley" <kristin...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Pl4U7.235$D92.3...@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net...
>
> "R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:B8462EC8.29FFD%sro...@mindspring.com...
> <snip>
> > "Invisibility doesn't affect minds. It affects light. It affects the
light
> > around the target creature. That's why it is a "Target: You or a
creature
> > [touched]" spell instead of a "Target: everyone in line of sight"
spell."
> >
>
> Based on this, one could actually argue that you couldn't even turn the
door
> invisible in the first place (i.e., the spell 'fizzles'), because the door
> isn't a 'creature', it's an 'object'.
Actually, the 3e spell description specifically states that the target may
be "The character or a creature or object weighing no more than 100
lb./level." Therefore, the door is a valid target if the weight requirement
is satisfied.
>> <snip argument about bending light>
> >
> > I've never understood why a transparently invisible person, which is how
> I'd
> > always imagined invisibility to work, would become visible when he
attacks
> > another person. But the unseeable invisibility model explains this quite
> > well -- you stop not seeing the thing when it hurts you.
>
> To be this, the spell would have to be an 'illusion[phantasm]' spell.
> Phantasms create a mental image. To be the 'unseeable' invisibility, it
> would have to fall under this. It doesnt. Clearly, based on the spell
> description, the spell is designed to actually change the physical
> properties of the target/creature. The only viable argument against
turning
> a door invisible is that the door isn't a creature, but an object instead.
> If you want to house rule invisibility into the 'unseeable' vs. actually
> 'invisible', that'd be a house rule. I'm neither here nor there on that,
> but I prefer to stick with the core rules unless my campaign needs to veer
> away.
>
> As written, the invisibility spell actually makes the target transparent.
> It's not a mental effect, despite what some were saying upthread. That's
> why I posted the link, since he said it better and in more detail than I
was
> able to at the time.
>
Well, actually, no. The target does not become transparent at all. Reread
the description, in the PHB or SRD, of what happens when the target (a
creature in this case) picks up a visible object. It states that the object
remains visible unless tucked inside a coat or pocket of the invisible
creature. If the target were truly transparent, the visible object would
remain visible regardless of where it was stored. Clearly then, the spell
must have some other effect.
[warning: long winded explanation follows -- skip to the summary at the end
if you want]
My favourite interpretation after reading this thread, and rereading the
spell description, is that those believing the spell succumb to the illusion
and thus are tricked into filling in the background themselves. The spell
is not perfect -- it requires failure of a WILL save in order to be
believed. Therefore, it becomes simple to adopt the "you see what you think
you should see" rule. However, in order for this to work well and follow
some sort of logic (like magic is logical anyway), the concept of the "WILL
save to disbelieve" becomes important.
Consider these situations:
- People are standing in a room. An invisible creature walks into the room
and passes between two people. The two people make saving throws. If they
fail, they succumb to the illusion, and are convinced, based on what they
were looking at, that they could still see their friend standing in front of
them.
- If an invisible creature is "blocking the wall-safe" when someone enters
the otherwise empty room, failure of the saving throw means that the person
believes they see an empty room -- no wall-safe. If the invisible creature
then moved, causing the wall-safe to suddenly appear, the person observing
the room would make a WILL save versus the invisibility spell. Failure of
this save means that the person is still dazzled by the illusion of the
creature's invisibility spell, regardless of the fact that they're pretty
sure they just saw a safe materialize out of thin air.
Now, by considering the timing of the WILL saves in the above examples, one
can see how the two concepts, "WILL save to disbelieve the illusion" and
"you see what you think you should see" can be combined to form some logical
explanation of the invisibility spell's effects.
However, in actual game-play, one must only _imagine_ that this is the order
of events. When a group of PCs enter a room, it is not normally important
to determine exactly where everyone is, or what direction they are looking
etc. It _is_ normal for the DM to simply give a description of the room.
Playing out all the details for the timing of WILL saves would be tedious
(not to mention alert the players). Therefore, a simpler mechanic is used:
"When confronted with the spell, a saving throw is made, the failure of
which causes you to believe what you are seeing is really what's there, and
what's not there".
Now, in the case of the wall-safe: If a player or creature wanted
specifically to hide the wall safe while they were invisible, and declared
they would block it completely with their cape, I might be tempted to adapt
things a bit. People entering the room must succeed at their WILL saves or
see an empty room. Then, I may allow another saving throw attempt if the
invisible player moved enough to reveal the safe, but that would be a
situational judgement call at the game table.
So, what about the door? Well, the best magically created optical (not mind
controlling) illusion would have to be this: The door disappears; there is
only a wall now.
Invisible things are not transparent (as per the description of the spell
with regards to picking up items). They do not bend light (how could light
bend around a door, the frame is in the way, and besides, "invisibility"
doesn't affect light sources). They do not affect anyone's mind directly
(the spell is an illusion and targets the thing to be made invisible).
Therefore, it must be a magical optical illusion of some sort.
To summarize: The invisibility spell magically creates an optical illusion.
The method is not understood, but the results are clear (pun intended):
Observers failing to disbelieve the illusion will see what they think they
would see were the invisible object truly not to exist. Therefore, objects
or persons in a room will seem transparently invisible, doors will look like
the wall, and coverings over pits will look like the floor.
It's "magic"! Isn't that explanation enough?
-Chris.
incrdbil
>Exactly. For those wanting something more than invisibility, where the
>object actually *is* transparent, Glassee. If we say Invisibility can
>make objects transparent see through items, Glassee pretty much tanks as
>a useful spell imo.
Is their a reason you keep using a spell not found in 3e as a point in
a discussion of how 3e rules effect invisibility?
incrdbil
<jwol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>I think invisible doors would just be so jarring that you'd know something was
>up.
What, a section of wall is missing? What's so jarring about that?
Kind of like someone with just an invisible arm. It doesn't look like
>someone missing an arm, it looks like something strange is happening. I think
>it's too powerful for a second level spell if it's able to function normally in
>bizarre circumstances. If it looks wrong enough, nobody is going to believe it.
Invisibility doesn't need the belief. read up on 'glamer'
>
>IMC, this won't make the door visible. It will just make it clear that there's
>something there, even if you can't see it.
>
So, in your campaign, invisibility won't function within it's normal,
stated, capabilities. Well hey, that's ok for your game, but you
might want to mention this to players first.
>
>
>
Francis Dickinson
<jon...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>Darrell Hiebert <wicked...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: Erik Comtois wrote:
>:>
>:> There is a passage on p79 of the DMG which states that an object can be
>:> covered with
>:> flour to keep track of it. So following this resonning, and knowing that
>:> light cannot be invisible,
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>: Damn, now I'm going to have to rethink all my past Physics classes.
>
>I wrote up a GURPS Technomancer magic item that cast an Invisibility spell
>on a laser - it still existed, but the laser could move through anything
>and wasn't affected by anything (except, of course, any "dispell magic"
>spells). Fun theory, even if it was blatant Star-Trek science.
It of course passes straight through the target as well as everything
else. The only real use I can see for this is for an operative to be
able to call in artillery- aims his rangefinder at a target then casts
an area version of dispell magic around the target- the main laser
passes through everything until it reaches the dispell spell when it
stops passing through things and hits its target.
Francis
Dave Butler
>My favourite interpretation after reading this thread, and rereading the
>spell description, is that those believing the spell succumb to the illusion
>and thus are tricked into filling in the background themselves. The spell
>is not perfect -- it requires failure of a WILL save in order to be
>believed.
Interesting. Is this an analysis of a version of the spell prior to
3rd edition? My reading of the current version is that the will save
is to prevent being turned invisible.
--
--DcB
R. Scott Rogers
Caesar Christopher, that
> My favourite interpretation after reading this thread, and rereading the
> spell description, is that those believing the spell succumb to the illusion
> and thus are tricked into filling in the background themselves. The spell
> is not perfect -- it requires failure of a WILL save in order to be
> believed. Therefore, it becomes simple to adopt the "you see what you think
> you should see" rule. However, in order for this to work well and follow
> some sort of logic (like magic is logical anyway), the concept of the "WILL
> save to disbelieve" becomes important.
But Invisibility is not disbelievable, and there are not WILL saves in its
use.
> Invisible things are not transparent (as per the description of the spell
> with regards to picking up items). They do not bend light (how could light
> bend around a door, the frame is in the way, and besides, "invisibility"
> doesn't affect light sources). They do not affect anyone's mind directly
> (the spell is an illusion and targets the thing to be made invisible).
> Therefore, it must be a magical optical illusion of some sort.
That's the thing. A good optical illusion can trick the eye as an inherent
quality. I think that a Rainbow would qualify as an Illusion [Glamer], given
that it is an illusory image that is not dependent on the viewer. If we can
be forced to see something that is not there, why not be forced to not see
something that is there? If Invisibility functions as a sort of
anti-rainbow, then the invisible object need not be transparent or
effectively transparent.
Consider the following analogy, which I believe fits within the realm of
Illusion [Glamer]: High-altitude bombers were visible from the ground during
the day in WWII as a dark spot in the sky. First the Air Force painted the
planes' bellies sky blue, but the problem persisted. An airplane is simply
darker than the sky, which is a source of diffused light. So then the Air
Force tried mounting bright lights on the bombers' bellies. Presto! The
bombers were no longer visible from below. So the bombers were made
invisible by altering their sensory qualities but they did not become
effectively transparent.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
Lee Harris
"incrdbil" <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote in message
news:3c20ede5...@usenet.flinthills.com...
Bryan J. Jonker
: On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:47:41 +0000 (UTC), "Bryan J. Jonker"
: <jon...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
:>I wrote up a GURPS Technomancer magic item that cast an Invisibility spell
:>on a laser - it still existed, but the laser could move through anything
:>and wasn't affected by anything (except, of course, any "dispell magic"
:>spells). Fun theory, even if it was blatant Star-Trek science.
: It of course passes straight through the target as well as everything
: else. The only real use I can see for this is for an operative to be
: able to call in artillery- aims his rangefinder at a target then casts
: an area version of dispell magic around the target- the main laser
: passes through everything until it reaches the dispell spell when it
: stops passing through things and hits its target.
Right - it was for communications - one section had the apparatus (laser
plus spell) and the other had the dispell magic. By varying the pulse, you
got communication w/no need for line of sight or signal degradation.
Difficult to detect or block, as well.
Sir Bob
> "Christopher Burke" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns917C8693...@130.102.2.1...
> > "Bill_Leary" <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote in
> > news:W7TT7.18017$Sj1.10...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net:
> >
> > > For what it's worth, I've just re-read the spell and I have to agree
> > > with this interpretation, but that's just my call, of course. Your
> > > Adventuring May Vary.
> >
> > Compare it with 'Silence' which is also Illusion (Glamer).
> >
> > Give it actually stops sound from working (it doesn't just stop you from
> > hearing it).... I would suggest it is possible for an Illusion (Glamer)
> > spell to actually alter its target area/object to facilitate the spell.
> >
> > I would therefore suspect that Invisibiliy also actually alters the
> > target to make it 'not seeable' as opposed to altering the viewers to
> > make it 'not seen'.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking about that one and "Hallucinatory Terrain" last night
> after I'd gone off-line.
>
> In the first paragraph of the Invisibility spell it says "...unless you can
> normally see invisible things..."
>
> So, on the one hand it seems that if the signal were actually altered there
> should be no way anyone or anything could see it since there would be no
> signal to process at the receivers end.
>
> But, on the other hand, consider also "Invisibility Purge" where it says
> "Only creatures with no visible form, such as an invisible stalker, remain
> invisible." This implies to me that the visual signal is un-altered. It's
> the ability to perceive that signal is changed.
<snip>
An equally valid interpretation would be that Invisibility Purge
merely reinstates the subject's "natural" visual signal. Given that,
if the subject naturally *has* no visual signal as to is presence...
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Christopher
news:AW6U7.89669$KT.22...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Oops..... I didn't read the saving throw entry properly. You're right: The
WILL save is to resist becoming invisible.
Christopher
> And it came to pass on 12/19/01 2:35 PM, that there went out a decree from
> Caesar Christopher, that
>
> > My favourite interpretation after reading this thread, and rereading the
> > spell description, is that those believing the spell succumb to the
illusion
> > and thus are tricked into filling in the background themselves. The
spell
> > is not perfect -- it requires failure of a WILL save in order to be
> > believed. Therefore, it becomes simple to adopt the "you see what you
think
> > you should see" rule. However, in order for this to work well and
follow
> > some sort of logic (like magic is logical anyway), the concept of the
"WILL
> > save to disbelieve" becomes important.
>
> But Invisibility is not disbelievable, and there are not WILL saves in its
> use.
You're right. I've misread the purpose of the saving throw.
The analogy pretty much follows what I said in my summary: "The
invisibility spell magically creates an optical illusion.....Observers
failing to disbelieve the illusion will see what they think they
would see were the invisible object truly not to exist."
The people on the ground are not seeing what is above the plane. They see a
likeness of what might be seen if the plane didn't exist. This is why I
think the door would just look like part of the wall -- well, that and the
spell description does clearly imply that invisible things are not
transparent.
-Chris.
razoredge
> > other side of the door can see you.
>
> That's how I'd rule.
I agree. *nods*
Razor
Gorg Huff
where X is hcl> wrote:
>Well, actually, no. The target does not become transparent at all. Reread
>the description, in the PHB or SRD, of what happens when the target (a
>creature in this case) picks up a visible object. It states that the object
>remains visible unless tucked inside a coat or pocket of the invisible
>creature. If the target were truly transparent, the visible object would
>remain visible regardless of where it was stored. Clearly then, the spell
>must have some other effect.
Yes, quite correct. However missing, the point of the argument. For
the argument to work the object or individual made invisible by the
spell need not be literacy transparent it can be 'painted' with an
image of what is behind it producing effective transparent and thus
allowing the meat of the argument to stand.
>[warning: long winded explanation follows -- skip to the summary at the end
>if you want]
>
>My favourite interpretation after reading this thread, and rereading the
>spell description, is that those believing the spell succumb to the illusion
>and thus are tricked into filling in the background themselves. The spell
>is not perfect -- it requires failure of a WILL save in order to be
>believed.
Actually it reads None or Will negates (object harmless) . In
looking at the spell and the other like spells it seems to me that the
will negates refers to the subject or subjects owner in the case of an
object having the option of negating the spell if cast on them or
their property. So the bar maid that has it cast upon her dress has a
chance of negating the spell. The observer who is not directly
effected by the spell does not have the option of negating by will.
Note it does not say Will negates (disbelief) as does illusionary
terrain. If the object is not owned it gets no save becasue the spell
is not cast on them. The 'observer' of the invisible object gets no
saving through to see it but can detect it in other ways Glitterdust,
chalk powder, the sound it makes, and so on.
> Therefore, it becomes simple to adopt the "you see what you think
>you should see" rule. However, in order for this to work well and follow
>some sort of logic (like magic is logical anyway), the concept of the "WILL
>save to disbelieve" becomes important.
No. Even with a will save allowed to the observer. that still goes
to far. It unavoidably makes it a mind effecting spell. which
according to books it simply is not.
>Consider these situations:
>- People are standing in a room. An invisible creature walks into the room
>and passes between two people. The two people make saving throws. If they
>fail, they succumb to the illusion, and are convinced, based on what they
>were looking at, that they could still see their friend standing in front of
>them.
No. Again even if will save were allowed to the observer. it would
not be allowed then. The broadest reasonable interpretation of None or
will save requires a clue before the will save a touch noting the
displaced water on as the invisible person walks through a puddle.
Something to clue them that there is something to save against.
>Invisible things are not transparent (as per the description of the spell
>with regards to picking up items). They do not bend light (how could light
>bend around a door, the frame is in the way, and besides, "invisibility"
>doesn't affect light sources). They do not affect anyone's mind directly
>(the spell is an illusion and targets the thing to be made invisible).
>Therefore, it must be a magical optical illusion of some sort.
No the subject and their gear become effectively a cloak of
invisibility what is with in the cloak is invisible what is not is
not. The clocking effect can be achieved in any number of ways. I
still like the one I started with. an image of what is behind the
invisible object is placed on the front surface. There is no need for
it to effect the mind of the observer any more then a Mirror does the
mirror simply reflects the image it does not effect the mind. slip
something behind the mirror and it disappears draw it out form behind
the mirror and it reappears. an LSD tab on the tung of the person
looking in the mirror is not required to make it work.
Gorg
Michael A. Norville
>
> Bill_Leary wrote:
>
> > What the players in the example really wanted was Glassee (make objects as
> > transparent as glass) which it appears didn't make it into D&D3.
>
> Exactly. For those wanting something more than invisibility, where the
> object actually *is* transparent, Glassee. If we say Invisibility can
> make objects transparent see through items, Glassee pretty much tanks as
> a useful spell imo.
>
Could someone perhaps post the descriptions of BOTH of these spells (2e
only, as Glassee is not in 3E and therefore the logic behind this
--IMO-- applling ruling is probably unnecessary).
Jordan Wolbrum
incrdbil wrote:
>
> >I think invisible doors would just be so jarring that you'd know something was
> >up.
>
> What, a section of wall is missing? What's so jarring about that?
But there isn't anything behind this missing section because you can't see through
it.
>
> Kind of like someone with just an invisible arm. It doesn't look like
> >someone missing an arm, it looks like something strange is happening. I think
> >it's too powerful for a second level spell if it's able to function normally in
> >bizarre circumstances. If it looks wrong enough, nobody is going to believe it.
>
> Invisibility doesn't need the belief. read up on 'glamer'
When I see "nobody will believe," I am not talking about dispelling the spell. I'm
talking about people realizing right away that this object has been enchanted to be
invisible.
> So, in your campaign, invisibility won't function within it's normal,
> stated, capabilities. Well hey, that's ok for your game, but you
> might want to mention this to players first.
It does function precisely as specified.
Does invisibility grant transparancy (allowing you to see things behind the invisible
target), or simply modify the object so that it doesn't reflect against the retinas
of sighted creatures (or some similar effect)?
I would say that its the second one. If I draw an optical illusion onto a piece of
paper, I'm creating a set of properties in an object that take advantage of the
nature of the human mind.
Invisibility works in much the same way in my campaign. I'm turning myself (or an
object) into an optical illusion. Once that happens, your mind does all the work for
me. However, if I create this effect in too contrary a manner, your mind will adjust
and you'll know something's up. In other words, if I cast invisibility on a wooden
board covering a window, and you look through the "fake window" and a real window
simultaneously, you will be suspicious when the two do not match. You won't see the
board, you are just more likely (perhaps a notice check?) to realize that something
isn't right.
I don't see this as at all contrary to the 3ed D&D rules.
-JW
Gorg Huff
where X is hcl> wrote:
>The people on the ground are not seeing what is above the plane. They see a
>likeness of what might be seen if the plane didn't exist. This is why I
>think the door would just look like part of the wall -- well, that and the
>spell description does clearly imply that invisible things are not
>transparent.
>
>-Chris.
>
But if the plane flies under a dark cloud it becomes visible unless
the belly light is adjusted to mach what is behind it. so the
invisibility spell must adjust to what is behind it to work. So you
see what is behind it anything else adds unnecessary complexity to the
spell interpretation and requires the spell to effect the mind which
the books say it does not.
Gorg
Varl
> Is their a reason you keep using a spell not found in 3e as a point in
> a discussion of how 3e rules effect invisibility?
Yeah, because this isn't a 3e exclusive thread.
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
nyghtmaer
"John Wade" <jo...@sendmeavirus.com> wrote in message
news:3c1fd34e$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> In order to see what was on the other side of a door, the party turned it
> invisible. (It's a lower level spell than clairvoyance) - Because
> Invisibility is an illusion, would they really see what was on the other
> side of the door, or just what they expected to see?
I'd say that the spell would fizzle since there is a weight limitation to
objects affected by invisibility. Since the door is part of the structure
its weight would equal the weight of the whole structure. If the door had
not been attached to the doorway first then the spell would work.
If you allow the weight limitation to be factored by just the weight of the
door, then the spell would work but would also make a 10 foot section on
each side of the door invisible since the wall is attached to the door. This
would also negate the need for the spell Mirage Arcana.
In order to affect non freestanding structure parts you would need Mirage
Arcana.
Sandrue Zorastryl
Shadow Adept
Anivair
> Bryan Maloney wrote:
> Heh. Circular arguments are so much fun. Just make a ruling that they
> either can see through the door (one which I wouldn't ever endorse,
> since that completely deletes the need for higher level spells such as
> Glassee) or they see an illusion of what they *think* they see, such as
> a wall, a wall beyond the door opening, an empty closet, whatever. But
> to allow them to see through the door seems to me to be far beyond what
> the Invisibility spell should be capable of performing.
The problem with this ruling is that Glassee isn't a spell anymore.
It's not in the book. The ability is obviously something that should
be available to casters outside the realm of a wish spell, so I'd say
invisibility may do the trick. Or maybe improved invisibility.
later,
~Anivair
Anivair
> There is a passage on p79 of the DMG which states that an object can be
> covered with
> flour to keep track of it. So following this resonning, and knowing that
> light cannot be invisible,
Which, interestingly enough is contrary to the spell description which
states that anyhting on your person or entering your person becomes
invisible.
later,
~Anivair
Anivair
> They see the other side of the door.
>
> They must then make Will saves or be stunned next round on account of
> witnessing the aberration of rational time-space that allows one side of
> the door to become invisible while the other side remains visible.
Which is fine except that if that were teh case you would have to make
a similar save anytime an invisible oerson crossed your path because
whether you know it or not you're seing an impossibility. Further,
it's not nearly impossible. Seeing images that are actually skewed
and bent out of reality doesn't make you crazy at all. Ask anyone
with glasses.
later,
~Anivair
Chris French
Varl wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>
>>
> Then I'd like to hear how you particularly handle the difference weighed
> between Invis and Glassee, especially if Invisibility does the exact
> same thing Glassee is supposed to do, and is what, 4 spell levels lower.
> No one's ever going to prep and cast Glassee if Invisibility does what
> Glassee is supposed to do. YMMV.
>
>
Off the top of my head Glassee has one huge advangate... it is (or maybe can be) oneway.
Also of note it is nolonger in 3ed at all
Chris
Joe Wells
> Joe Wells <josep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C1FD9F...@yahoo.com>...
>>In 3e /Invisibility/ is an Illusion (Glamer). Were it a Figment (which
>>changes the viewer's perception) I'd say the PCs see what they wanted to
>>see. But a Glamer changes the sensory qualities of the subject. So I
>>think they would really see what's on the other side.
> But, does this mean you can see into the room beyond if it was unlit?
> Torchlight passes through it now right or wrong? If torchlight doesn't
> pass through it does darkvision work? arrgghhhh.
Light would have to pass through an invisible object / critter or else
it would cast a shadow. That would make the typical invisible rogue
creeping up for a sneak much easier to spot.
> If the pc's really want to burn an invisibility spell to see through
> the door until i find out otherwise or get damn sick of it as a DM
> I'll let them. things that will suck for the characters though:
> How do we open the door? (feel around but that is slower then finding
> the visible handle)
> Don't forget to search for traps before you turn the door invisible.
> I hope the door is unlocked. Sure it is pickable but it will be
> trickier.
Since 3e /Invisibility/ is dismissable (Duration: 10 minutes/level (D))
I don't think any of that is a problem.
> The monsters/foes can now see the charcters. In the very least they
> will notice no door.
Of course! Wackiness is sure to ensue.
> A way to solve some problems if "invibling the door" is frequent is to
> put curtains over door ways in areas with inhabitants that are invible
> savy. Sure the door is invisible but the curtain isn't.
Yeah, that should work. But what a pain for the inhabitants.
--
Hello, my name is Joe Wells, and I am a munchkin.
-MA meeting 4/11/93
Chad Lubrecht
>incrdbil wrote:
>
>> Is their a reason you keep using a spell not found in 3e as a point in
>> a discussion of how 3e rules effect invisibility?
>
>Yeah, because this isn't a 3e exclusive thread.
Ah, but in 2nd edition invisibility could only be cast on creatures,
so Glassee is stiil usefull.
Bill_Leary
news:3C211B...@usfamily.net...
> Could someone perhaps post the descriptions of BOTH of these spells (2e
> only, as Glassee is not in 3E and therefore the logic behind this
> --IMO-- applling ruling is probably unnecessary).
Sorry, I don't have 2E, but I hear 1E is pretty much the same.
Invisibility (Illusion/Phantasm)
Level: 2 (Magic User)
Range: Touch
Duration: Special
Area of Effect: Creature touched
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 2 segments
Saving Throw: None
Explanation/Description: This spell causes the recipient to vanish from
sight and not be detectable by normal vision or even infravision. Of
course, the invisible creature is not magically silenced with respect to
noises normal to it. The spell remains in effect until it is magically
broken or dispelled, Infravision the magic-user or the other recipient
cancels it or until he, she or it attacks any creature. Thus, the spell
caster or recipient could operate doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, etc., but
if any form of attack is made, the invisible creature immediately becomes
visible, although this will allow the first attack by the creature because
of the former invisibility. Even the allies of the spell recipient cannot
see the invisible creature, or his, her, or it's gear, unless these allies
can normally see invisible things or employ magic to do so. Note that all
highly intelligent creatures with 10 or more hit dice, or levels of
experience, or the equivalent in intelligence/dice/levels, have a chance to
automatically detect invisible objects. The material components of the
invisibility spell are an eyelash and a bit of gum arabic, the former
incased in the later.
The DMG adds 6 paragraphs and a table of additional explanation, including
how to detect invisibility. I'll type all in only if you really need it.
It basically covers the same ground that's been talked about here about side
effects (sound and odor continue, dust could be stirred up or foot prints
left behind, and so on).
Glassee (Alteration)
Level: 6 (Magic User)
Range: Touch
Duration: 1 round per level
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 round
Saving Throw: None
Explanation/Description: By means of this spell the magic-user is able to
make a section of metal, stone or wood as transparent as glass to his gaze,
or even make it into transparent material as explained hereafter. Normally,
up to four inches of metal can be seen through, stone up to 6' thick can be
made transparent, and 20' of wood can be affected by the glassee spell. The
spell will not work on lead, gold or platinum. The magic user can opt to
make the glassee apply to himself or herself only, and apply it up to once
per round while the spell duration lasts; or the caster can actually make a
transparent area, a one-way window, in the material affected. Either case
gives a viewing area 3' wide by 2' high. The material components of the
spell is a piece of crystal or glass.
The DMG adds "The strength of the glassy area is the same as that of the
original material."
It appears that 3E combines and alters these two spells. In 1E, at least,
Invisibility applies only to creatures, not objects (unless the objects are
in the possession of a creature). It's also a Phantasm sub-class rather
than Glammer as in 3E.
- Bill
Bill_Leary
news:cf2f12ef.01121...@posting.google.com...
> An equally valid interpretation would be that Invisibility Purge
> merely reinstates the subject's "natural" visual signal. Given that,
> if the subject naturally *has* no visual signal as to is presence...
Good call.
But dispite all the ideas tossed around, including my own distractions, I
think I'm going to pretty much stick to what we've done for years.
Basically, if it's invisible you can see through it like it wasn't there.
If you have an ability to override invisibilty, you can see it. If I need a
logical basis for that, I'll probably just fall back on "because" or
"because it's magic."
- Bill
Bill Beasley
"nyghtmaer" <oakl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:OL9U7.8930$gw3.5...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
This would be a DM call either way. Is the door an 'object'? Some say yes,
other say it's part of an object(wall). I'm in the 'door's an object' camp.
If it can be removed from where it is, it's an object. Doors can be
removed. Walls can't. (ok, given enough time, yes, walls can be removed.
but you can't just take the hinges off of a wall, and remove it. DM draws
this line, IMO).
>
> Sandrue Zorastryl
> Shadow Adept
>
>
Bill Beasley
"Anivair" <Ani...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a7dcfe21.01121...@posting.google.com...
By this logic, does everything behind you seem invisible? No. That'd be a
useless spell. It makes the user invisible. Special case: User's
gear/anything the user picks up. Since the door can't pick up anything, and
doesn't have any 'gear', it makes the door invisible.
gr...@arduin-delos.com
wrote:
>In order to see what was on the other side of a door, the party turned it
>invisible. (It's a lower level spell than clairvoyance) - Because
>Invisibility is an illusion, would they really see what was on the other
>side of the door, or just what they expected to see?
That's one nice thing about the ever-shifting mana fields of Delos. I'd
just roll for it again, each time they tried it. Different atmospheric
conditions may give different results each time. Iffy spells tend to
fumble, too: wrong target, half effect, backfire, etc.
And they'll never know whether they're seeing what is really there, or what
they expect ... or what some NPC with magic-detection has set up ... or a
real basilisk or medusa or Symbol of Affect....
As someone said, either way you rule, if you're consistent, the players
could use it powerfully: make a rock invisible and hide their assassin
behind it etc.
As for frustrating the players, the first time they do something clever,
they get bonus on the spell result roll. If they keep using it till it
becomes a bore or starts to unbalance the game, that depletes the
particualr element of mana needed for the spell, so it begins giving
erratic results (higher fumble percentage) or the local mana runs out and
no such spell will work for a while.
Graf
-----------------------------------------------------
Graf D.V.B.G.S. Posvalsky of Delos -- "Arduin Lives!"
Grimoires IV-VIII at http://www.arduin-delos.com or http://www.dragontree.com
Also Dragon Tree's World of Delos 'grimoires' -- all universally compatible.
D.J.
Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[]D_Jim <dji...@webcheesydatasync.com (Jim)> wrote in
[]> No, its a solid door with Invisibility cast on it. The door is
[]> still solid. But to the players who cast the spell, the door
[]> appears to be invisible.
[]>
[]> They thought it would enable them to see through the door and
[]> spot any monsters, treasure, traps, etc. beyond the door. They
[]> fooled themselves.
[]
[]So if there was a real window next to an invisible door, the invisible door
[]would show different room contents than the window (assuming they looked
[]through the door first)....
Oh, I think they would see different things.
[]I think that is a problem just waiting to happen.
Yup. Some characters who looked thru the window first are going to
see different things than the characters who 'look' thru the
Invisible door.
It could even be set up that way, by an evil wizard. Some sort of
permanent invisibility on the door. Add in sound affects and some
rubble and various items outside the door, and the scene is set for
party disolution if they get to arguing about 'which is the factual
view'. Or while they are arguing, attack them. Hmmm. I'll have to
use that idea the next time I run a game.
Or did you mean 'cause problems' in a different way ?
[]Invisibility should be played the same as Silence - it actually changes
[]things, not just perceptions.
I don't get that from the descriptions in 1E, are they changed
spells in later editions ?
JimP.
--
djim55 at tyhe datasync dot com. Disclaimer: Standard.
Updated: September 2, 2001
http://www.drivein.crosswinds.net/ Drive-In Movie Theatres
Registered Linux user#185746
D.J.
Erik Comtois <er...@iq.ca> wrote:
[]There is a passage on p79 of the DMG which states that an object can be
[]covered with
[]flour to keep track of it. So following this resonning, and knowing that
[]light cannot be invisible,
[]I would say that turning a door allows a character to see through it.
Light is invisible. Dust particles can show you where light happens
to be.
Joseph Oberlander
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:38:34 -0000, "John Wade" <jo...@sendmeavirus.com>
> wrote:
> As for frustrating the players, the first time they do something clever,
> they get bonus on the spell result roll. If they keep using it till it
> becomes a bore or starts to unbalance the game, that depletes the
> particualr element of mana needed for the spell, so it begins giving
> erratic results (higher fumble percentage) or the local mana runs out and
> no such spell will work for a while.
What a twink.
Why is it that all GMs have to bend to players rolls to suit their
games rather than having some consistency? If the players come up
with a novel solution to a problem, then it should work consistently.
Having wild magic all over the place at random times - it sounds
like this world of yours needs serious rules and re-thinking as
everything is essentially like casting limited wish.
How about being a good GM and just giving them different scenarios
instead of different results?
gr...@arduin-delos.com
<josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>gr...@arduin-delos.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:38:34 -0000, "John Wade" <jo...@sendmeavirus.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> As for frustrating the players, the first time they do something clever,
>> they get bonus on the spell result roll.
Of course the rationale there could be that on the first time, with a
bright idea in mind, they would do an extra good job of the casting.
Alternatively, a passing god might smile.
>>If they keep using it till it
>> becomes a bore or starts to unbalance the game, that depletes the
>> particualr element of mana needed for the spell, so it begins giving
>> erratic results (higher fumble percentage) or the local mana runs out and
>> no such spell will work for a while.
/snip/
Have you ever heard of "Percent and Fumble" magic systems? :-)
>Having wild magic all over the place at random times - it sounds
>like this world of yours needs serious rules and re-thinking as
>everything is essentially like casting limited wish.
Actually, yes, that's one theory of how magic works here.
However, mostly it works kind of like a sailboat in a hurricane -- the mage
raises the sail but the winds dispose. :-)
Hong Ooi
>Which is fine except that if that were teh case you would have to make
>a similar save anytime an invisible oerson crossed your path because
>whether you know it or not you're seing an impossibility. Further,
>it's not nearly impossible. Seeing images that are actually skewed
>and bent out of reality doesn't make you crazy at all. Ask anyone
>with glasses.
Excuse me! _I_ have glasses.
Why are you all looking at me like that?
Hong "non-Euclidean geometries abound" Ooi
--
Hong Ooi | "...on account of witnessing the
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | aberration of rational time-space
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | that allows the ram to ram himself"
Sydney, Australia | -- RSR
Michael A. Norville
The sound you hear is that of several DM's jaws dropping open as the
re-read Glassee and Invisibility.
I know some people are not going to have their minds changed about this
whole Inivisbilty <> transparency canard. So here are a few suggestions
to players who want to have some fun with it.
Supply one character with a LARGE cloak that has stiff rods along each
edge. Cast invisibility on him. have him spread out the cloak, like
Batman or Dracula. The other characters can hide behind him, staying
real close or holding onto a rope or something. Instant Mass Invisbilty
spell (one way only). :-) If your DM lets you put Invisibility on
onjects, invest in blankets and/or large, light panels of wood for
similar effects.
If your DM still allows you to cast Invisibilty on objects, invest in a
bunch of masks. Cast Invisibility on the masks. With suitable
accessories (the right clothes, etc), you can look like anything the
viewers expect you to look like. A great Mask of Disguise.