Why do so many DMs hate their players?
Bryan J. Maloney
The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
Why do so many DMs appear to hate their players? If players in a
campaign I run manage to come up with a spiffy idea, I let them benefit
from it (until they do it so many times that everybody else knows about
it, too). I'm not such an egotist that I feel offended at being
"outsmarted", nor am I such an egotist that I feel offended if my "plot"
gets violated by a player who DARES not to merely be a puppet.
So what's wrong with just having a simple result for an idea that
benefits the players' characters? My intentionally tricky bits are
sufficiently maddening--why go out of my way to piss all over the
players?
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Christopher
news:bjm10-4D5FF8....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
If the "invisible door" thread, I argued that the door would disappear, and
that you would see just a wall. The reason for this is simple (well, not
really -- it took me a while to explain it in the thread). However, the
reason is based on my interpretation of what is in the PHB.
If players come up with a really great way of doing something (mine recently
managed to avoid a whole level of my dungeon), I think they should be
rewarded. However, they must follow the rules, at least to some extent.
Without rules, there isn't much of a game -- that's what a game is. A
clever solution then, is one that works within the confines of the rules to
gain an advantage or a victory with little or no loss.
Coming with such solutions are what make a game fun -- the football coach
calls plays; the chess player uses the movement restrictions of the pieces
to create a situation that cannot be escaped by his opponent with out
sacrificing material; the Magic: The Gathering player puts together
unstoppable card combinations that had not been considered when the cards
were created.
I don't hate my players at all, and they foil me all the time. (Of course,
it's 4 heads against one......or that's my excuse anyway :-)
-Chris.
Francis Dickinson
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
>Why do so many DMs appear to hate their players?
Because the human nature is quite competative and an me vs him
mentality is very easy to fall into.
> If players in a
>campaign I run manage to come up with a spiffy idea, I let them benefit
>from it (until they do it so many times that everybody else knows about
>it, too). I'm not such an egotist that I feel offended at being
>"outsmarted", nor am I such an egotist that I feel offended if my "plot"
>gets violated by a player who DARES not to merely be a puppet.
I have been thrown out of one game for doing such. Admittedly I made
the entire plot redundant by killing most of the principal bad guys
(and setting up the strongest remaining to take the rap for the deed)-
but come to think of it that GM did not bear a grudge in the
slightest- he just thought he couldn't cope with a player who thought
of things like that (collapsing the very sturdy roof of a building,
poisoning them (Iocane gambit- I was immune to that poison and even
shared a drink with them) and character assasination amidst a group
that were trying direct methods). I think that another part is that
DMing is a hard job and irritatingly clever players only make it
harder.
>So what's wrong with just having a simple result for an idea that
>benefits the players' characters?
Letting the players get out of hand (I haven't GM^H^HDMed recently
because I am too lenient at times).
>My intentionally tricky bits are sufficiently maddening--why go out of
>my way to piss all over the players?
Assuming it would actually work. That was what was being checked by
the DM in the mentioned thread- would it work. He thinks it wouldn't
but wanted to check that he was correct as the rules are written (I
disagree with him, but agree with his question being posed if
uncertain).
Francis
Grandmaster E
the DM who tries his hardest to kill the PCs to the DM who frowns when the
PCs take down the dragon with a lucky shot when the DM was expecting the
dragon to inflict a couple of casualties.
DMs usually have a plan or scope where they figure the plot should turn
out and when brainy PCs come up with something clever to thwart the DMs
plans - he will punish them somehow or "force" them back into the mold.
A good DM rolls with the PCs clever ideas and doesnt get disappointed
when his PCs outsmart his NPCs. Improvisation is crucial a lot of times for
this DM.
The door invisibility thing is a wonderful idea like I said earlier and
a good DM will roll with the punches.
An enemy spellcaster could caster an illusion for the PCs to view making
the room appear empty or cast darkness or a hundred things, there is nothing
so bad as letting the PC see through the dang door.
Maybe it makes the trap on the door invisible too...maybe its locked and
the rogue now has to pick invisible tumblers at a DC 30 hehe.
These DMs with the adversarial attitude towards PC will grow out of it
over time as they gain experience or maybe vent their frustrations by being
a PC once in a while.
The bottom line is to have fun.
Grandmaster E
Canuck DM
The bottom line is to have fun.
Bryan J. Maloney wrote in message ...
Kim Robin Holm
things in an easy way. I think it's great that they do these things, but
they have a tendency to take the sceme to the limit. They ařřways try to
press as much GP ot whatever they're trying to get out of it. I can't let
the same trick work over and over again so I have to think of some way to
foil their plan. This is not because why I hate my players, I just don't
want first level players to have an unlimited source of GP etc.
Kim Robin Holm
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-4D5FF8....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Brad Prentice
confrontational way.
However, what benefits the characters doesn't always make the game more
fun -- which is very common reason IME for a DM to stonewall on an issue
like this. The invisible door thing is a perfect example -- see-through
doors would blow away lots of story/challenge elements that would otherwise
be fun. Especially if, once the trick were discovered, it was used all the
time. As a PC I would even begrudge such a workaround -- it just makes the
game less fun. Of course, people can compensate for this ... or some people
find this more fun ... but basically all I'm saying is what's good for the
PCs isn't necessarily good for the game, and this is *sometimes* why DMs
make moves like this.
Just like the power of flight sometimes closes off all kinds of potential
adventures or requires DMs to do cartwheels to keep up the challenge (like
in an adventure involving climbing, a maze, etc.). Or alignment detection.
Or really high spot/listen scores (from another recent thread). Sometimes
the counterbalance of "well, the NPCs can do it too" just isn't enough.
Brad P
Bryan J. Jonker
: The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
: Why do so many DMs appear to hate their players? If players in a
: campaign I run manage to come up with a spiffy idea, I let them benefit
: from it (until they do it so many times that everybody else knows about
: it, too). I'm not such an egotist that I feel offended at being
: "outsmarted", nor am I such an egotist that I feel offended if my "plot"
: gets violated by a player who DARES not to merely be a puppet.
The GM has to make a judgement call - does Invisibility work by bending
light rays, by changing the object so it matches its background, or by
mentally fooling the viewers. Once the GM has made that call, then
everything else falls into place. Hate, or the lack of it, has nothing to
do with it. Where specifically does anyone say they hate their players?
You also raise an interesting point: you say you let the
players/characters benefit from the spell until they do it so many times
that everybody else knows about it. At that point, how do you
realistically take away their new toy? That may be the reason, more than
anything - some beginning GMs may feel like if they can't stop the players
from using a toy once, they'll use the toy to their advantage every time.
Of course, this is conjecture.
Hekate Trismegista
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> So what's wrong with just having a simple result for an idea that
> benefits the players' characters? My intentionally tricky bits are
> sufficiently maddening--why go out of my way to piss all over the
> players?
That's a good question. I used to game with an adversarial GM whose
favorite response to a clever idea was to change the rules to make it
impossible.
Before anyone asks, the operative words are "used to."
--
Watch This Space | res0...@verizon.net | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "No turning on the lights in the evil room,
dammit!" | -- http://www.sluggy.com
Phaenar
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-4D5FF8....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Sorry I can't find the original post on my newsserver, but if a [3e] player
is complaining about not being allowed to cast Invisibility on a door that's
a valid complaint! The DM is wrong. The spell clearly says the target is
the caster or another creature or object weighing no more than 100lb per
caster level. It's a great idea on the player's part. My players have
defeated my well laid plans too many times to count with such great, valid
ideas. Invisibility on a door is one that I would allow and make do with
the results, however inconvenient for me. The book rule seems clear to me
and in such cases the DM just has to run with it.
Phaenar
"Grandmaster E" <blac...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:qa7U7.31705$%Q1.55...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> A lot of us DMs have an adversarial approach towards PCs, this varies from
> the DM who tries his hardest to kill the PCs to the DM who frowns when the
> PCs take down the dragon with a lucky shot when the DM was expecting the
> dragon to inflict a couple of casualties.
Hahah, I recall once ages ago a dragon had
chewed/slashed/crushed/incinerated an entire adventuring party with the
exception of one badly beaten survivor. The dragon himself was seriously
but not fatally wounded but reasoned it was time to make a departure to his
secret cave and heal up. The dragon reasoned that since this one adventurer
had survived he could still be very dangerous, and the dragon knew that he
himself was on his last legs.
Well, the dragon had the advantage of speed on his side but the surviving PC
came up with a way to catch up with the dragon and I was very annoyed but in
the end the player was right _and_ he was really putting himself on the
line. The PC was all by himself and seriously hurt too. It came down to an
initiative roll and the player won and killed the dragon with a lucky shot.
Very annoying as I said.
Later the other party members were reincarnated/ressurected and the three of
them proudly wear dragon hide armor as a result of that player's elan. But
if he had lost the battle, the entire adventure party would have been
forever lost as a result. Bear in mind they were uber high level for 1e,
we're talking about 18th level. It was a serious risk/reward situation and
these players all had a lot of mettle. They would not have complained an
iota if they had all died and had to roll up 1st level characters. And if
you're thinking 1e Dragons were wimps there were some articles in Dragon
Magazine that seriously beefed them up and I used all those suggestions and
more of my own. All my dragons were much more akin to the 2e/3e versions --
rightly powerful and feared foes.
> DMs usually have a plan or scope where they figure the plot should
turn
> out and when brainy PCs come up with something clever to thwart the DMs
> plans - he will punish them somehow or "force" them back into the mold.
> A good DM rolls with the PCs clever ideas and doesnt get disappointed
> when his PCs outsmart his NPCs. Improvisation is crucial a lot of times
for
> this DM.
> The door invisibility thing is a wonderful idea like I said earlier
and
> a good DM will roll with the punches.
Exactly. Part of the DM's job is to be able to run with the ball. Time to
roll up an actual treasure horde for a huge, ancient dragon.
> An enemy spellcaster could caster an illusion for the PCs to view
making
> the room appear empty or cast darkness or a hundred things, there is
nothing
> so bad as letting the PC see through the dang door.
>
> Maybe it makes the trap on the door invisible too...maybe its locked
and
> the rogue now has to pick invisible tumblers at a DC 30 hehe.
>
> These DMs with the adversarial attitude towards PC will grow out of it
> over time as they gain experience or maybe vent their frustrations by
being
> a PC once in a while.
>
> The bottom line is to have fun.
>
Well said.
> Grandmaster E
> Canuck DM
>
Phaenar
"Brad Prentice" <bpre...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:9vqvh0$gs6$1...@panther.uwo.ca...
> > The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
> > Why do so many DMs appear to hate their players? If players in a
> > campaign I run manage to come up with a spiffy idea, I let them benefit
> > from it (until they do it so many times that everybody else knows about
> > it, too). I'm not such an egotist that I feel offended at being
> > "outsmarted", nor am I such an egotist that I feel offended if my "plot"
> > gets violated by a player who DARES not to merely be a puppet.
> >
> > So what's wrong with just having a simple result for an idea that
> > benefits the players' characters? My intentionally tricky bits are
> > sufficiently maddening--why go out of my way to piss all over the
> > players?
> >
> Essentially, I think you're right -- lots of DMs do this in a
> confrontational way.
>
> However, what benefits the characters doesn't always make the game more
> fun -- which is very common reason IME for a DM to stonewall on an issue
> like this. The invisible door thing is a perfect example -- see-through
> doors would blow away lots of story/challenge elements that would
otherwise
> be fun. Especially if, once the trick were discovered, it was used all
the
> time.
I disagree. No matter how many spells your wizard has there are a lot more
doors. How do you really know this is the door to use the spell on? Using
it on this door removes the spell from the players arsenal for other uses.
It's a fair trade IMHO.
Also, in the past I have had lots of areas of my dungeons enchanted to
protect against spells, similar to spell traps and such, to prevent magical
scrying or manipulation. But such areas are very rare and usually guard
ancient or holy places as part of a greater warding system.
> As a PC I would even begrudge such a workaround -- it just makes the
> game less fun. Of course, people can compensate for this ... or some
people
> find this more fun ... but basically all I'm saying is what's good for the
> PCs isn't necessarily good for the game, and this is *sometimes* why DMs
> make moves like this.
Well there is a flipside to this. Supposing there was a powerful,
intelligent monster behind the door? Peek-a-boo! I see you too, and know
I'm opening the door to my chambers and coming out to deal with you. And if
players argue the door is invisible, it's no different than finding an
opening it in the dark. The occupant would be well familiar with the door
and could easily feel his way to find the lock/latch.
RuralQLDcc
Rules Lawyers versus people who play to the spirit of the rules. There is a
major difference between sitting down, analysing a rule and extorting it for
all it is worth. IMO the rules are there for a guideline and you read,
them, get the feel for how it was intended and implement it.
Invisibility on a door is a fantastic idea! If a character wants to use up
their slots preparing (or casting) these spells then they should receive the
full benefit of the spell as intended, which is to make it go invisible.
This is a fantasy role playing game. You do not need to work out the
physics of a spell simply because it is magic. And even if it does reflect
light rays, remember there are just as many light rays hitting the thing
from the gap behind the door as there is from the parts touching the walls.
I have been guilty of this in the past, however, I now recognise the bits I
enjoy most about DMing are the parts where the player "outsmarts" my plans.
Sometimes I use their own tactics back at them! The spirit of role playing
is to have fun. Some players like getting bogged down in rules and design a
character that would make Zeuss look like a pussy based on combinations that
work together etc. I cannot play in this style. My games are based on
themes and the spirit of an adventure is very important to our group.
Getting bogged down by rules would be my groups number 1 hate.
Play to have fun. bend the rules if they do not exactly match your ideas.
Do this for the players as well as your NPC's. Play with the intention of
having fun and use the rules as a guideline. Remember, the action is in
your head (unless you LARP) and therefore things do not necessarily need to
work the same as they do in real life. I feel we have taken a step back if
we are arguing about how ainvisibility cloaks its targets. If we were
playing Traveller or Mechwarrior, fair cop but DnD - It is MAGIC!
Cheers
Ranting Renquist
"Phaenar" <pha...@yahhoo.com> wrote in message
news:rY7U7.172999$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Bryan J. Maloney
<rY7U7.172999$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Phaenar" <pha...@yahhoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry I can't find the original post on my newsserver, but if a [3e]
> player
> is complaining about not being allowed to cast Invisibility on a door
> that's
> a valid complaint! The DM is wrong. The spell clearly says the target
It's not a matter of a complaint. Someone asked what might happen if
PCs cast invisibility on a door. Many of the answers seem to have been
written with the "let's screw the players" paradigm behind them.
Bryan J. Maloney
<cara...@darkisp.net> wrote:
> My players often comes up with some sort of plan to make money or get
> other
> things in an easy way. I think it's great that they do these things, but
> they have a tendency to take the sceme to the limit. They ařřways try to
> press as much GP ot whatever they're trying to get out of it. I can't let
> the same trick work over and over again so I have to think of some way to
> foil their plan. This is not because why I hate my players, I just don't
> want first level players to have an unlimited source of GP etc.
There is a difference between imposing a reasonable limit (like
diminishing returns) and what I'm talking about. I'm referring to
things that sometimes look to be nothing less than vindictive--where DMs
feel proud about how they manage to screw over their players or channel
the PCs into the result that THEY have predetermined.
Bryan J. Maloney
<jon...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
> You also raise an interesting point: you say you let the
> players/characters benefit from the spell until they do it so many times
> that everybody else knows about it. At that point, how do you
> realistically take away their new toy?
Somebody is going to hear about it, and it will lose any surprise value.
Somebody else is going to devote time and effort to come up with a
counter. Consider the interruption action on combat biplanes. It was a
German secret--but only for a while.
I've never had a player manage to obliterate a campaign merely by having
a clever idea. A money-making scheme? SOMEbody is going to notice the
cash flow and copy it--which gives me an excuse for NPC rivals to come
up with a different twist to it. A superkewl combat tactic? If they
forevermore leave no survivors and never fight in front of any
witnessess, then nobody will ever hear of it--hardly likely.
Flexibility isn't all that hard to do.
Varl
> > Sorry I can't find the original post on my newsserver, but if a [3e]
> > player
> > is complaining about not being allowed to cast Invisibility on a door
> > that's
> > a valid complaint! The DM is wrong. The spell clearly says the target
>
> It's not a matter of a complaint. Someone asked what might happen if
> PCs cast invisibility on a door. Many of the answers seem to have been
> written with the "let's screw the players" paradigm behind them.
If one of my answers in that thread was interpreted by you to be in this
form, it wasn't intended that way. And despite everyone else's attempt
to turn away from an actual answer to the question, they'd rather
suggest as a solution that says it's fixed in 3e already by the removal
of Glassee and that it seemed I was out of line by bringing up the
Glassee snafu. I read the initial post by Mr. Wade, and nowhere in his
question or header is it indicated that his question was a 3e one. Trust
me, if it were, I'd have stay well away from that.
As for screwing the players, that would only occur if the invisible door
could be seen through if cast by *NPCs*. Since all creatures imc see
something other than what's beyond, no one's getting screwed.
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
Helpful GM
I think you're reading more into it than there is. The fact is, the 3e
invisibility spell won't show you what's behind the door, by core rules
(more on that, below.) In my game, I ROOT for the players -- I WANT
them to do well -- but I don't cheat on their behalf; if they screw up,
they live with the consequences. This is because our group feels that,
over all, things are more fun this way. Sure, it might suck in the
moment but, overall, we prefer it (players and DM.) Others might prefer
a more "oh, just let us get away with it" approach, and that's fine --
but I think it's a mistake to assume malice on the parts of the DMs just
because they stick to the rules. When I read words like yours, above,
it strikes me the same way as if the original question was:
* Imagine my BAB is +2 and I have a standard longsword and
I'm up against a monster with AC 17. I roll an 11, but I'm
really-really-really pissed, so I'm really mad at him. I
think I should hit, but my DM says no.
and you replied
* I don't see why DMs hate their players so much...
I know that's not the same thing, I'm just saying that's how it reads.
Sure, you guys can play your game any way you want, but it's not
unreasonable for DMs to interpret the rules the way they were intended,
which does not allow certain things to happen, even if the players
really-really want it.
...And that sucks, a little, cuz this sort of creative thinking *IS*
very cool. It's just that it doesn't have the desired effect, in this
case. If it were me, I'd try to think of some way to reward the players
for creative thinking, without altering the fact that they won't be able
to see what's on the other side of the door. One thing I MIGHT do is to
have whatever's on the otherside express surprize at seeing the door
disappear, potentially giving away their position and/or number. I'm
not sure, that's off the top of my head, but that's the kind of thing I
mean by "reward without changing the spell."
Btw, here's a letter from a DM I respect in response to the original
question:
---
[much prior discussion among several smart friends snipped]
I don't think there are any wrong interpretations here. Play the one
you think is the most fun.
However, I do believe a world is entirely self consistent when it is
impossible for a character to learn something he or she doesn't know
by creating an illusion.
How would you draw a picture of a yoobing wurbelh ?
How would a character craft an illusion which shows one ?
Not possible with Glamers or Figments. It is possible with Patterns
or Phantasms because then you don't create one, you simply warp my
mind into believing I see one.
Even with patterns and phantasms you still don't LEARN anything,
unless you also use magic to read my mind.
If you can use a Glamer to learn what's behind a closed door, why
can't you use a Glamer to craft an illusion of what I'm thinking ?
Say "Silent Image" or the more powerful "Major Image" spells ? Which
nobles are plotting against the king ? The spell description says I
can create an image of anything I can visualize, so why can't I
discover which elements the monster is resistant to ? I can
visualize fire, lightning, acid, cold ... Where does it end ?
*THAT* is why you need divination magic. Not just because Ben says
so. Mind reading magic is, coincidentally, divination magic.
The door is still there. It exists. If you run into it, you'll
bounce off it. I can find no reason why the photons on the other
side of the door do not also bounce off of it, there by making it
impossible for you to see anything on the other side of the door as
none of those photons ever reach the players.
The door is unseeable, not transparent. The spell description
carefully avoids saying anything other than that the subject cannot
be seen.
That players don't get to use lower level spells to do things
intended in spirit for higher level spells is just an added bonus.
-Ben
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, ever purchase any product from
any company which gathers addresses from the usenet; period.
Peter Seebach
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>I think you're reading more into it than there is. The fact is, the 3e
>invisibility spell won't show you what's behind the door, by core rules
>(more on that, below.)
So, if I'm invisible, and I walk in front of a painting, you can't see the
painting, but somehow you are magically prevented from wondering why you
can't see it?
Silly!
The only way you can make invisibility remotely consistent is to say that
invisible things are temporarily completely transparent, and that you can,
of course, see through them. The alternative makes it totally impossible
for an "invisible" person to not be detected in a cluttered room, as you
would see a moving patch of "I can't see through that spot right there"
walking around the room.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Bill_Leary
news:rY7U7.172999$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> news:bjm10-4D5FF8....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
> > Why do so many DMs appear to hate their players? If players in a
> > campaign I run manage to come up with a spiffy idea, I let them benefit
> > from it (until they do it so many times that everybody else knows about
> > it, too). I'm not such an egotist that I feel offended at being
> > "outsmarted", nor am I such an egotist that I feel offended if my "plot"
> > gets violated by a player who DARES not to merely be a puppet.
> >
> > So what's wrong with just having a simple result for an idea that
> > benefits the players' characters? My intentionally tricky bits are
> > sufficiently maddening--why go out of my way to piss all over the
> > players?
>
> Sorry I can't find the original post on my newsserver,
Here you go:
* 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
> but if a [3e] player
> is complaining about not being allowed to cast Invisibility on a door
> ((..omitted..))
It wasn't. The entire question is "what happens" not "can they do this."
> My players have
> defeated my well laid plans too many times to count with such great, valid
> ideas.
I agree. I *LOVE* it when they come up with a solution I'd never
considered. It helps me build better challenges in the future. I always
reward (XP) creativity like this.
I haven't seen anything in this thread (unless I missed a message or two)
which indicates DM hatred of players. On teh contrary, most of the
discussion has been how to play out the effects of the spell and how to
rationalize those effects in a consistent manner. The very stuff of good
DM'ing. I've enjoyed that thread a lot. It challenged my ideas, changed my
mind about the effect, challenged that and changed my mind again. Great
fun.
- Bill
Bill_Leary
> It's not a matter of a complaint. Someone asked what might happen if
> PCs cast invisibility on a door. Many of the answers seem to have been
> written with the "let's screw the players" paradigm behind them.
I either missed something outright, or took it differently. It seemed that
the entire discussion was "what happens, and why" and in some of the ideas
on "what happens" some interesting effects (which could be use for or
against PCs or NPCs) came up.
The only thing I saw that might be "screw the players" would be if you ruled
radically on the effect and didn't tell the players what you'd ruled. If,
for example, you took the "you see what you think you'd see" approach, but
didn't TELL them that this was how you'd ruled that invisibility worked,
that would be a royal screw.
- Bill
Ed Chauvin IV
>In article <9vqvjh$2iq$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org>, "Bryan J. Jonker"
><jon...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>
>> You also raise an interesting point: you say you let the
>> players/characters benefit from the spell until they do it so many times
>> that everybody else knows about it. At that point, how do you
>> realistically take away their new toy?
>
>Somebody is going to hear about it, and it will lose any surprise value.
>Somebody else is going to devote time and effort to come up with a
>counter.
Duh. 2 doors. Problem solved.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Marc Q
group, of setting a bad precedence, of having the story go an unexpected
way, of having your one "cool idea for the evening" thwarted and being left
with nothing to show for the night.
The sorts of things that people take as refs being anti-player are better
looked at as refs feeling threatened. Of course, they shouldn't take it that
way but it takes some confidence and experience to get over these urges as a
ref. And recognizing it for what it is can make the process of getting over
this behavior go faster. Accusing the poor ref of hating his or her players
is just going to make the fear factor worse.
You are quite correct that in the long run it is best to go with the flow,
let the players' great ideas work as much as is reasonable and adapt. But
this is not a simple skill for a ref and many get the willies at anything
that forces them to depart from what they have planned out. So when the
players create a cool way to see through the door and the ref's entrire plan
for a challenging evening goes out the window, don't be surprised if many
take the unfortunate tactic of throwing up a roadblock.
Again, I'm not justifying the action of the ref in this case, just trying to
diagnose the problem so that it can be more easily overcome.
And yes, I can remember doing just this sort of thing as a ref in my younger
days. I can also remember the liberating feeling as a ref when I decided to
err in favor of the players on these sorts of rulings and just prepare more
contingencies. Which brings up a good point: a little contingency planning
on a ref's part can go a long way to giving you the depth of material to
deal with unexpected actions from the player. It is best not to have
scenarios that depend entirely on the players doing exactly one thing ;-)
--
Marc
http://www.four-hands.com/Marc_n_Renee/index.htm
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-4D5FF8....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
D.J.
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
[]The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
I don't hate my players.
I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
For the players to cast Invisibility on a door, and then expect to
see thru the door and see whats actually behind it, they fooled
themselves.
If the players are new to the game, I would explain to them the
spell doesn't work that way.
[]So what's wrong with just having a simple result for an idea that
[]benefits the players' characters? My intentionally tricky bits are
[]sufficiently maddening--why go out of my way to piss all over the
[]players?
I let the players do lots of things that benefit them, but I don't
let them use a spell and expect it to give a different result than
it actually gives.
I've allowed the players to come up with things I believe wont work.
Like Holy Water arrows. Small ceramic holders on the head of an
arrow, filled with Holy Water. Fire it at Undead. Does half damage
of a vial of Holy Water. I didn't think it would work as it would be
too unbalanced, but the guy explained how he would do it. I then
allowed it.
If a player makes an honest mistake, I'll point that out. If the
players come up with a way to bend the rules, and I understand and
accept the way they say it should work, I let them do it.
But I have had other players who go out of their way to bend the
rules of the game in such a way as its nothing but cheating, or
trying to 'test' the DM by seeing if they can raise my blood
pressure.
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.
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
[]There is a difference between imposing a reasonable limit (like
[]things that sometimes look to be nothing less than vindictive--where DMs
[]feel proud about how they manage to screw over their players or channel
[]the PCs into the result that THEY have predetermined.
I know some vindictive DMs. Most players rarely game with them more
than once or twice.
I've had players completely foil my well made traps, I gave the one
who came up with the ideas on thwarting the taps, extra XPs. The
other players liked the way I handled that.
I create a dungeon, and paths to the treasure, with monsters and
traps in between. If the players work it out, I don't get upset.
I have had a few game groups figure out a different method of
finding things than I expected, I learned from that and so did the
NPCs. I did better next time. And so did the players.
Daysleeper
where killing goblins, and my big bad smelling orc where leading them (the
goblins). The player ran rught past 3 goblins, only being hit once, and
scored a critical opn the orc, almost rolling max damage with his
greatsword. This killed my big bad smelling orc, the goblins moral failed,
and my plan was effectivly ruined! I gave the player a hard time the rest of
the session, but I never killed him... After the game there where nothing
between us... he said he would have done the same to me, if the possitions
were reversed....
That is the only time I have hated a player.... Normally I reward then for
taking initiatives and comming up with good ideas... As any GM should...
Daysleeper
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-4D5FF8....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
HADSIL
My philosophy as well. I'm fortunate to have a GM who thinks that way as well.
I have benefited from it yet I know I can't abuse it. For example, in
Desperate Situations or Real Dramatic Moments, he will let me channel my
character's Luck Domain ability, if I haven't used it yet that game day, to
another party member. He never ruled whether or not I could do it anytime in
any situation, yet I never asked to do it anytime in any situation. Neither do
other players ask for it. We "just know" when the Right Moment is for dramatic
bending of the rules.
As for clever ideas, the GM says keep them coming. I too think invisibility on
a door is terrific. The door is invisible. The PCs can see inside. If anyone
is inside they can see the PCs. Whether they know the door is invisibile could
require a Spellcraft check on their part. GMs take great care to surprise the
party. To make common monsters tougher, GMs create circumstances that give
them bonuses of some sort or another. Since it is only fair that what ever is
avaialble to the PCs (Feats, Spells, etc.) is available to the Bad Guys, it is
equally fair that what ever is available to the Bad Guys (GM's special
circumstances for bonuses) be equally available to the PCs should they come up
with such clever ideas and tactics.
So yes, if by some miracle the party finds a way to sneak into the Great Wyrm
Red Dragon's lair and kill the monster in its sleep and carry away all its
treasure, then by golly they do so and hooray for them! And if Invisibility on
a door led to this, big deal.
Gerald Katz
Twin Towers forever!
HADSIL
>However, what benefits the characters doesn't always make the game more
>fun -- which is very common reason IME for a DM to stonewall on an issue
>like this. The invisible door thing is a perfect example -- see-through
>doors would blow away lots of story/challenge elements that would otherwise
>be fun. Especially if, once the trick were discovered, it was used all the
>time. As a PC I would even begrudge such a workaround -- it just makes the
>game less fun. Of course, people can compensate for this ... or some people
>find this more fun ... but basically all I'm saying is what's good for the
>PCs isn't necessarily good for the game, and this is *sometimes* why DMs
>make moves like this.
>
>Just like the power of flight sometimes closes off all kinds of potential
>adventures or requires DMs to do cartwheels to keep up the challenge (like
>in an adventure involving climbing, a maze, etc.). Or alignment detection.
>Or really high spot/listen scores (from another recent thread). Sometimes
>the counterbalance of "well, the NPCs can do it too" just isn't enough.
>
>Brad P
>
>
>
of a "cool idea" of using a spell normally cast upon himself or another party
member to sneak around or run away to instead use it as a means to gain
information. So what if they do this all the time? Presuing a GM allows this,
they found something that works and keep doing it. That's what you're supposed
to do.
This particular idea has its own self-imposed limitations. For one things, the
party has a limited amount of Invisibility. A spellcaster is not going to
dedicate all his second spells to it, and even a wand has limited charges.
Because of this, they must choose wisely. They can't do this for *every* door
they see. They have to decide on which doors they think they need to see
through. Will it be to the hidden treasure room? Will it be to the lavatory?
(It would be a terrible GM to when the party picks the Right Door, the GM
immediately changes the room into garbage heap.)
Clever thinking should be encouraged, not discouraged. Just as GMs let the
chips fall where they may when players do "something stupid", if the GM cannot
handle situations where the players do something really clever to successfully
complete the adventure in a quick and very rewarding way, then that GM should
not be GM in the first place.
Gorg Huff
wrote:
>I don't hate my players.
>
>I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
>to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
Granted. But if they use it to create a loaf of bread then use
chunks of the bred to shove into a crack in the wall so they would
stay warm. Or to bate hooks for fishing, That's not cheating it's
innovative thinking. Letting them do it and in the morning telling
them hey have all caught colds because the spell was not designed for
that. Now that's cheating.
>For the players to cast Invisibility on a door, and then expect to
>see thru the door and see whats actually behind it, they fooled
>themselves.
No it's the reasonable interpretation in line with the rules that
if something is invisible you can see threw it. If your the particular
games rules differ form that. Then presumably, the characters, that
live in that world, as distinct from the player who only play there.
The "characters" would know that about how the spell worked form the
process of learning to cast the spell. The "players" had no access to
that information. For the players to "Fool themselves" in this case
Requires that The DM effectively changes how the spell works after it
is cast. In effect the DM here what ever the intent changed game
reality to punish innovation. Making the game in the long run less
fun for every one. Deciding that the spell would work in a different
way then the players obviously thought it was going to. Was a DM call
if in my view the wrong one. Not telling the players something their
characters would obviously know. Was just plane bad DMing.
Gorg
Horsepool
And it kinda is GM on Players at times.
The GM presents a problem, and the players must solve it.
sounds like a chalange to me. and the GM has to quickly think up
something to foil the players plans, using nothing but the rules and
stuff that makes sence (none of this out of no where sh*t).
then the players try another solution. the trick is to pass notes and
keep the GM in the dark untill the plan is mostly underway.
if the GM is clever another attempt killed, and back to the drawing
board. At least thats my take on it, i dunno, i might of the wrong
idea, but thats the way i see it.
Just another game of competition. and there are winners. those who
live and can say "I did this! we kick ass!".
the next week, another problem another battle of smarts.
Horsepool
"You open the box, contained within is a larger box."
Bill_Leary
> However, casting Invisibility on a door *is* the fun. The player just
thought
> of a "cool idea" of using a spell normally cast upon himself or another
party
> member to sneak around or run away to instead use it as a means to gain
> information.
Couldn't you just hear the little gears grinding around in the head of the
one who thought of that? I can see it now. The player is flipping through
the book and sees "Invisibility" and reads that first paragraph where it
says "The creature or object..." and does a full screeching stop and come
back. "...or object..." ? Hmmmm. And the idea just stick in their head
until they come to this door and someone says "We really need to know what's
on the other side before we open this." and the one with the idea says "Hey
guys, how about..."
Great gaming experiences. I know _I've_ been rereading some spell
descriptions with a new view on how to use them.
- Bill
William Lessard
>
> Mere moments before death, Bryan J. Maloney hastily scrawled:
> >In article <9vqvjh$2iq$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org>, "Bryan J. Jonker"
> ><jon...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
> >
> >> You also raise an interesting point: you say you let the
> >> players/characters benefit from the spell until they do it so many times
> >> that everybody else knows about it. At that point, how do you
> >> realistically take away their new toy?
> >
> >Somebody is going to hear about it, and it will lose any surprise value.
> >Somebody else is going to devote time and effort to come up with a
> >counter.
>
> Duh. 2 doors. Problem solved.
>
> Ed Chauvin IV
>
>
Actually there is a simple solution to this.
The spell reads 100/lbs a level. Now we have a door that is 10' tall, 4'
wide and 2' thick. Now the players cannot see how thick the door is but
it is also made of iron primarily. How much do you think that is going
to weigh? Or some other heavy item. Lets take a guess and say 1 ton. To
those who would counter with how do you open it that is easy. It is very
possibile to counterbalance it in such a way that the door opens easily
rather than be impossible to move. So we have a 2000/lb door and a
sorcerer or wizard at 10th level. The invisibility spell will not affect
the door. It is beyong the 100/lb a level restriction.
Heck you could have a wood door - or what looks like a wood door - and
have it too heavy to be affected. I think realistically most doors in
dungeons are more like today's security doors or real wood doors
normally and those are over 100/bls. But then again the issue then
becomes what level of spellcaster. For Invisibility a 3rd level spell
the sorcerer needs to be 6th level to cast it. So minimum weight is
600/lbs. That really isnt that hard to hit for a door.
Just a different look on it. Invisibilty sphere might be better. Though
the wording makes me wonder. "As invisibility, except this spell confers
invisibility upon all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient. The
center of the affect is mobile with the recipient.
Depends on how you define recipient I guess. In this case you get an
Invisible door and the monsters that stand just inside the door gain
invisibility so player sees nothing other than the room. Just a thought
there.
Bramage
--
Fraternally
William Lessard
Ezekiel Bates Lodge AF&AM Attleboro Mass
Wayne Lodge #112 F&AM Michigan
Master Mason
Royal Arch Mason
Humble (usually) student of life
Do one good selfless act for a fellow human every day
Taoist
Federal Law allows for compensation of upto $500 per unsolicited E-mail.
Any person or company sending me e-mail soliciting any service or
product agrees
to this per e-mail charge of $500.
D.J.
Gorg Huff <GH...@Austin.RR.com> wrote:
[]On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:27:02 -0600, D.J. <dji...@cheesedatasync.com>
[]wrote:
[]
[]>I don't hate my players.
[]>
[]>I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
[]>to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
[]
[] Granted. But if they use it to create a loaf of bread then use
[]chunks of the bred to shove into a crack in the wall so they would
[]stay warm. Or to bate hooks for fishing, That's not cheating it's
[]innovative thinking. Letting them do it and in the morning telling
[]them hey have all caught colds because the spell was not designed for
[]that. Now that's cheating.
Thats funny as I wouldn't do that.
I have no problem with using the spell for breat then using that
bread to fish with or making a room less 'breezy'.
Thats not making the spell do something the spell can't.
Create Food spell is used to create food. What the characters do
with it after that has nothing to do with the spell.
[]>For the players to cast Invisibility on a door, and then expect to
[]>see thru the door and see whats actually behind it, they fooled
[]>themselves.
[]
[] No it's the reasonable interpretation in line with the rules that
[]if something is invisible you can see threw it. If your the particular
[]games rules differ form that. Then presumably, the characters, that
[]live in that world, as distinct from the player who only play there.
[]The "characters" would know that about how the spell worked form the
[]process of learning to cast the spell. The "players" had no access to
[]that information. For the players to "Fool themselves" in this case
[]Requires that The DM effectively changes how the spell works after it
This morning I asked one of my players about casting Invisibility on
a door. The player was astounded that anyone would think it made it
transparent. The player knew it was an illusion of an invisible
door.
[]is cast. In effect the DM here what ever the intent changed game
[]reality to punish innovation. Making the game in the long run less
[]fun for every one. Deciding that the spell would work in a different
[]way then the players obviously thought it was going to. Was a DM call
[]if in my view the wrong one. Not telling the players something their
[]characters would obviously know. Was just plane bad DMing.
I have no problem with innovative players as most of my long term
players are innovative. They just don't try to make spells do things
the spells are incapable of doing.
Peter Seebach
Bill_Leary <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Here you go:
>* 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
They would obviously see what's on the other side of the door, because
everyone can see through an invisible creature or object. Furthermore,
whatever's on the other side of the door would see them - this covers the
"less powerful than clairvoyance" problem.
Peter Seebach
D.J. <dji...@cheesydatasync.com> wrote:
>I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
>to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
Right.
>For the players to cast Invisibility on a door, and then expect to
>see thru the door and see whats actually behind it, they fooled
>themselves.
Where do you get this deranged notion?
>If the players are new to the game, I would explain to them the
>spell doesn't work that way.
So, how exactly *DOES* it work? Does an invisible person standing in a
doorway *ALSO* prevent people from seeing into (or out of) the room?
This ruling is simply totally incompatible with a common sense application
of the term "invisibility". If you can't see it, the world looks the way
it would if the object or creature simply didn't exist - so, if it's a door,
you see through the doorway exactly as you would if there were no door.
Aaron Day
>
> This morning I asked one of my players about casting Invisibility on
> a door. The player was astounded that anyone would think it made it
> transparent. The player knew it was an illusion of an invisible
> door.
This thread continues to astound me. Exactly why did your player think
that Invisibility creates an "illusion of an invisible object" rather
than actually making the object invisible? Its called "Invisibility"
BTW. If I wanted to create the illusion of an invisible door, I'd use
the first level spell "Silent Image". In fact, Silent Image is better
because it works at long range and last indefinitely.
Aaron
Jackhammer John
>: The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
>: from it (until they do it so many times that everybody else knows about
>: it, too). I'm not such an egotist that I feel offended at being
>: gets violated by a player who DARES not to merely be a puppet.
>
>light rays, by changing the object so it matches its background, or by
>mentally fooling the viewers. Once the GM has made that call, then
>everything else falls into place. Hate, or the lack of it, has nothing to
>do with it. Where specifically does anyone say they hate their players?
>
>You also raise an interesting point: you say you let the
>players/characters benefit from the spell until they do it so many times
>that everybody else knows about it. At that point, how do you
>anything - some beginning GMs may feel like if they can't stop the players
>from using a toy once, they'll use the toy to their advantage every time.
>Of course, this is conjecture.
>
>
>
>
Well, I hope my players don't pick on this idea. There are some options. The
door could have a Spell Resistance if someone didn't want anyone looking in.
Also, you could play around with the weight. It says that the object can weigh
no more than 100 lbs per level. Also, since the caster has to touch the door to
cast the spell, perhaps the door is booby trapped. Can a door be enhanced with
Spell Turning or Glyph of Warding or Energy Drain? hmmm.
========================================
Jackhammer John
"Sometimes the question is more important than the answer."
Gorg Huff
wrote:
>
>Gorg Huff <GH...@Austin.RR.com> wrote:
>[]On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:27:02 -0600, D.J. <dji...@cheesedatasync.com>
>[]wrote:
>[]
>[]>I don't hate my players.
>[]>
>[]>I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
>[]>to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
>[]
>[] Granted. But if they use it to create a loaf of bread then use
>[]chunks of the bred to shove into a crack in the wall so they would
>[]stay warm. Or to bate hooks for fishing, That's not cheating it's
>[]innovative thinking. Letting them do it and in the morning telling
>[]them hey have all caught colds because the spell was not designed for
>[]that. Now that's cheating.
>
>Thats funny as I wouldn't do that.
Any more then I, or any sane player that I can think of, would try
to use Create Food to make holiday Ballons.
>
>I have no problem with innovative players as most of my long term
>players are innovative. They just don't try to make spells do things
>the spells are incapable of doing.
For any spell in the game there are things that it clearly can be
used for, things that it clearly can't be used for and a wide range of
things that it might or might not be used for. Depending on
interpretation. In the case of the use of invisibility on a door so
the party can see thru it. Two things are apparent. One the Players
think that is the way the spell will work. If they didn't think that
they would not have cast the spell for that reason. And two the sort
of experimentation and practice necessary in learning and using the
spell for other things would certainly make it clear to the,
Characters especially the wizard or sorcerer that cast it, whether it
would in fact work that way in that gaming world. Given those to
thing if the DM is going to decide that the spell does not in fact
work that way. It is incombant on the DM for game consistancy as well
as fairness to give warning that the Player interpration differs from
the DMs.
(And by the by apparently most of the DM's posting here would rule
that if the door becomes invisible you can see through it. Some would
rule that the spell would not work on the door becasue the door is
part of the building. So "It's invisable but you can't see thru it."
can hardly be considered the only interpretation.)
Gorg
Ross Ridge
> This thread continues to astound me. Exactly why did your player think
> that Invisibility creates an "illusion of an invisible object" rather
> than actually making the object invisible?
Because as has had been said previously, it is an "Illusion (Glammer)"
spell. It's not a transmutation, and so doesn't actually change the object.
It doesn't become perfectly transparent the same way Gaseous Form makes the
subject translucent. (Or Etherealness makes the the subjects ethereal). In
other words, it in fact doesn't make the object invisible it just makes it
appear to be because that's all Illusion spell can do.
In most cases this subtle distinction doesn't matter, and in fact
"invisiblilty" as used by D&D means "the illusion of being perfectly
transparent" (or perhaps a bit more pricisely, "the glamer of visually
appearing not to be there"). Apparently the problem that some people are
having that is that this illusion is perfect. That from any any angle and
under any circumstances, even as they change, the spell is able to maintain
the illusion of being able to see through the object as if it wasn't there.
But the fact is the spell is able to maintain perfect illusion.
Ross Ridge
Helpful GM
GH...@Austin.RR.com wrote:
> In the case of the use of invisibility on a door so
> the party can see thru it. Two things are apparent. One the Players
> think that is the way the spell will work. If they didn't think that
> they would not have cast the spell for that reason. And two the sort
> of experimentation and practice necessary in learning and using the
> spell for other things would certainly make it clear to the,
> Characters especially the wizard or sorcerer that cast it, whether it
> would in fact work that way in that gaming world.
This is an important point. If the players are new to the world (or
this corner of it), then they don't KNOW what would happen. In my game,
if a player said
"If I cast invisibility on this door, will I be able to see
through it?"
I'd say
"Dunno, I've never cast invisibility on a door, before."
I might give them a Kn:Arcana or Spellcraft check and then on a low or
high roll either tell them
"...but you can't think of any reason why not"
or
"...but you think it probably wouldn't, given your
past researches"
but even that isn't a guarantee. In Helpful-World, the main thing is
that it's consistent. If it didn't work yesterday, it won't work today,
and if it doesn't work for players, then NPCs can't try the same trick,
successfully. (Barring circumstances which change the outcome, but
that's still gotta be consistent.)
The DM plays "the rest of the world" -- ideally, impartially, with
perhaps a slight bend toward "...for a better story", but is neither
pro-PC nor anti-PC. He just adjudicates the world as he feels it would
react, naturally.
Back to the original topic of this thread, I think it's rediculous that
some players play with DMs who hate them. I understand that people
learn & grow -- but it's not THAT complicated to play a fun game without
it being a big power struggle. After about 14 yrs old, the concept of
"win-win" should be a familiar one, and one's own sense of fun doesn't
have to come from the defeat of another -- especially a defeat that's
arranged by biasing the referee.
IMO, of course. Some people like that sort of thing.
Michael A. Norville
objects, if you're still in 2E or 1E.
Question: Was this because the question has never come up? Or have you
always made it clear that Invisibility was an illusion of whatever's on
the other side of it?
Also; if it fills in what a person expects to see, why wouldn't they
expect to see a door?
In addition, isn't this opening the door (no pun intended) to far more
abuse by players? For example, the Magic Mask trick (cast it on a
balaclava type mask and wear it, making you look like anybody the wearer
expects) the Mass Invisibility 1/2 trick (cast it on something wide, or
on yourself and wear a big cloak, then let your friends hide behind
you), the TV trick (explain that you've got a crystal ball inder a
cloth, then pull away the cloth. Under it, there's an Invisible bowling
ball. Yeah, it'll be invisible, but they'll see an invisible crystal
ball through it anyway. Coach the victim into seeing whatever you want
by describing it to them in great detail. No saving throw, remember?)
Variations abound.
Basically, you've got a great localized Illusion spell on top of it's
Invisibilty function. . .
> []is cast. In effect the DM here what ever the intent changed game
> []reality to punish innovation. Making the game in the long run less
> []fun for every one. Deciding that the spell would work in a different
> []way then the players obviously thought it was going to. Was a DM call
> []if in my view the wrong one. Not telling the players something their
> []characters would obviously know. Was just plane bad DMing.
>
> I have no problem with innovative players as most of my long term
> players are innovative. They just don't try to make spells do things
> the spells are incapable of doing.
For Invisibility it's apparently debatable in 1e/2e, much less so for
3E.
D.J.
Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote:
[]This thread continues to astound me. Exactly why did your player think
[]that Invisibility creates an "illusion of an invisible object" rather
[]than actually making the object invisible? Its called "Invisibility"
[]BTW. If I wanted to create the illusion of an invisible door, I'd use
[]the first level spell "Silent Image". In fact, Silent Image is better
[]because it works at long range and last indefinitely.
Ross' explanation tells it better than I have been able to do.
And I read your post of the 3E version if the spell.
Its still an illusion of an invisible door, not an actual invisible
door.
D.J.
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
[]In article <iu332ugdeu24t9hli...@4ax.com>,
[]D.J. <dji...@cheesydatasync.com> wrote:
[]>I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
[]>to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
[]
[]Right.
[]
[]>For the players to cast Invisibility on a door, and then expect to
[]>see thru the door and see whats actually behind it, they fooled
[]>themselves.
[]
[]Where do you get this deranged notion?
A Galmer is the illusion of something, not an actual thing.
An illusion of an invisible door doesn't make the door invisible.
It 'looks like' its invisible, its not actually invisible.
If someone decided to disbelieve the invisibility, and they made
their saving throw, they would realize the door wasn't invisible.
[]>If the players are new to the game, I would explain to them the
[]>spell doesn't work that way.
[]
[]So, how exactly *DOES* it work? Does an invisible person standing in a
[]doorway *ALSO* prevent people from seeing into (or out of) the room?
Hmmm. This could get rather complicated, but not if the invisible
being/character was an exact fit for the doorway.
[]This ruling is simply totally incompatible with a common sense application
[]of the term "invisibility". If you can't see it, the world looks the way
[]it would if the object or creature simply didn't exist - so, if it's a door,
[]you see through the doorway exactly as you would if there were no door.
I've read the 1E and 2E versions of invisibility and someone posted
the 3E version. All versions talk of an illusion of invisibility.
Not an actual invisibility.
If a door is illusioned to be invisible, its still there.
D.J.
Gorg Huff <GH...@Austin.RR.com> wrote:
[]On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:31:08 -0600, D.J. <dji...@cheesedatasync.com>
[]wrote:
[]>Gorg Huff <GH...@Austin.RR.com> wrote:
[]>[]On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:27:02 -0600, D.J. <dji...@cheesedatasync.com>
[]>[]wrote:
[]>[]>I don't hate my players.
[]>[]>
[]>[]>I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
[]>[]>to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
[]>[]
[]>[] Granted. But if they use it to create a loaf of bread then use
[]>[]chunks of the bred to shove into a crack in the wall so they would
[]>[]stay warm. Or to bate hooks for fishing, That's not cheating it's
[]>[]innovative thinking. Letting them do it and in the morning telling
[]>[]them hey have all caught colds because the spell was not designed for
[]>[]that. Now that's cheating.
[]>
[]>Thats funny as I wouldn't do that.
[]
[] Any more then I, or any sane player that I can think of, would try
[]to use Create Food to make holiday Ballons.
But... I see the remarks of making a door actually transparent with
the illusion of invisibility the same way. It don't work that way.
[]>I have no problem with innovative players as most of my long term
[]>players are innovative. They just don't try to make spells do things
[]>the spells are incapable of doing.
[]
[] For any spell in the game there are things that it clearly can be
[]used for, things that it clearly can't be used for and a wide range of
[]things that it might or might not be used for. Depending on
[]interpretation. In the case of the use of invisibility on a door so
[]the party can see thru it. Two things are apparent. One the Players
[]think that is the way the spell will work. If they didn't think that
[]they would not have cast the spell for that reason. And two the sort
[]of experimentation and practice necessary in learning and using the
[]spell for other things would certainly make it clear to the,
[]Characters especially the wizard or sorcerer that cast it, whether it
[]would in fact work that way in that gaming world. Given those to
[]thing if the DM is going to decide that the spell does not in fact
[]work that way. It is incombant on the DM for game consistancy as well
[]as fairness to give warning that the Player interpration differs from
[]the DMs.
Thing is, I got a number of compliments for my consistency from the
players. There were a few players who tried to do things even Conan
couldn't. Then got upset I wouldn't allow it. They had tried the
same things in other campaigns, and got upset their Dex 6 character
wasn't allowed to do things requiring a Dex of 18 or better.
There were times I didn't allow something in the heat of battle.
Later, after we all left the store/wherever, I thought it over and
there are several times where I reversed myself. I decided in those
instances the action was allowable, or the character didn't die, or
the sword wasn't broken. etc.
But the reason the player gave me had to make sense in the context
of the game and the game rules.
[] (And by the by apparently most of the DM's posting here would rule
[]that if the door becomes invisible you can see through it. Some would
[]rule that the spell would not work on the door becasue the door is
[]part of the building. So "It's invisable but you can't see thru it."
[]can hardly be considered the only interpretation.)
I think a number of folks believe that an illusion of invisibility
makes something transparent. Thats false. No actual transparency
exists. Its the illusion of tranparency.
D.J.
"Michael A. Norville" <mnor...@usfamily.net> wrote:
[]> This morning I asked one of my players about casting Invisibility on
[]> a door. The player was astounded that anyone would think it made it
[]> transparent. The player knew it was an illusion of an invisible
[]> door.
[]>
[]Apparently he didn;t know you could only cast it on creatures and not
[]objects, if you're still in 2E or 1E.
I've read the 3E version of it as well. It says Glamer. Thats an
illusion of somethng, not an actual something.
[]Question: Was this because the question has never come up? Or have you
[]always made it clear that Invisibility was an illusion of whatever's on
[]the other side of it?
The spell description says its an illusion, that the Glamer part.
[]Also; if it fills in what a person expects to see, why wouldn't they
[]expect to see a door?
I use what the players say out loud to determine what they see.
[]In addition, isn't this opening the door (no pun intended) to far more
[]abuse by players? For example, the Magic Mask trick (cast it on a
[]balaclava type mask and wear it, making you look like anybody the wearer
Someone else mentioned this earlier, and I would have a good
chuckle, but its seems like players grasping at straws.
[]> I have no problem with innovative players as most of my long term
[]> players are innovative. They just don't try to make spells do things
[]> the spells are incapable of doing.
[]
[]For Invisibility it's apparently debatable in 1e/2e, much less so for
[]3E.
Someone posted the 3E verison of the spell. Its still Glamer type,
an illusion.
Aaron Day
>
> se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> []In article <iu332ugdeu24t9hli...@4ax.com>,
> []D.J. <dji...@cheesydatasync.com> wrote:
> []>I wouldn't expect, and neither should my players, to use Create Food
> []>to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
> []
> []Right.
> []
> []>For the players to cast Invisibility on a door, and then expect to
> []>see thru the door and see whats actually behind it, they fooled
> []>themselves.
> []
> []Where do you get this deranged notion?
>
> A Galmer is the illusion of something, not an actual thing.
"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."
Your confusing the spell school, Illusion, with what the spell does.
There are many Illusion spells that have actual effect. If an
Illusionist casts Shadow Walk, an Illusion spell which allows you to
teleport in a shadow, the effect is very real.
> An illusion of an invisible door doesn't make the door invisible.
But it would still be an illusion of what's on the other side.
> If someone decided to disbelieve the invisibility, and they made
> their saving throw, they would realize the door wasn't invisible.
"Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an
illusion effect usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as
illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some
fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false,
but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline."
If someone disbelieves an Invisibility, he may know that something is
there, but that doesn't let him see it. Only Figments and Phantasm are
affected that way. The character merely knows that something is amiss.
"You must unlearn what you have learned"
Aaron (sick to death of 2e)
D.J.
Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote:
[]"D.J." wrote:
[]> A Galmer is the illusion of something, not an actual thing.
[]
[]"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."
[]
[]Your confusing the spell school, Illusion, with what the spell does.
I have read the 2E players book sitting next to my computer, but I
haven't played or DMed 2E. I have played and DMed 1E. I don't much
about 'spell schools' never having read about them.
[]There are many Illusion spells that have actual effect. If an
[]Illusionist casts Shadow Walk, an Illusion spell which allows you to
[]teleport in a shadow, the effect is very real.
Ah, but what if someone disbelieves the Shadow Walk is working for
them ? I'll bet the spell fails.
[]> An illusion of an invisible door doesn't make the door invisible.
[]
[]But it would still be an illusion of what's on the other side.
I fully agree as thats what I've been saying all along.
[]> If someone decided to disbelieve the invisibility, and they made
[]> their saving throw, they would realize the door wasn't invisible.
[]
[]"Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an
[]illusion effect usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as
[]illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some
[]fashion.
[]
[]A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false,
[]but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline."
[]
[]If someone disbelieves an Invisibility, he may know that something is
[]there, but that doesn't let him see it. Only Figments and Phantasm are
[]affected that way. The character merely knows that something is amiss.
I understand all of that. And thats how I conduct invisibility and
disbelieving.
Some of my players had played in too many 'killer dungeons' before
paying in my campaign and always disbelieved lots of things.
They were actually more likely to spot the few illusions the
monters/NPCs used.
[]"You must unlearn what you have learned"
[]
[]Aaron (sick to death of 2e)
I only mentioned 2E as I checked the PHB for 2E, but I've never
played it.
Peter Seebach
Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Because as has had been said previously, it is an "Illusion (Glammer)"
>spell.
So? They've had to change spells in the past for having the wrong types
for their obvious functions.
>It's not a transmutation, and so doesn't actually change the object.
No one said it did; it's just that it makes light move as though the object
were transparent.
>It doesn't become perfectly transparent the same way Gaseous Form makes the
>subject translucent. (Or Etherealness makes the the subjects ethereal). In
>other words, it in fact doesn't make the object invisible it just makes it
>appear to be because that's all Illusion spell can do.
To make something appear to be invisible, you must make it invisible;
otherwise, there are gaping holes in reality.
>appearing not to be there"). Apparently the problem that some people are
>having that is that this illusion is perfect.
Close to it - consider the difficulty of spotting invisible creatures.
>That from any any angle and
>under any circumstances, even as they change, the spell is able to maintain
>the illusion of being able to see through the object as if it wasn't there.
>But the fact is the spell is able to maintain perfect illusion.
You presumably mean "unable". So, in your game, there is a GUARANTEE that
I will immediately notice when an invisible person stands in a doorway,
because I can't possibly see around him.
Boy, that really fits the genre.
An illusion (glamer) can change the sensory qualities of an object - even
though it's not a transmutation.
Peter Seebach
D.J. <dji...@cheesydatasync.com> wrote:
>I've read the 3E version of it as well. It says Glamer. Thats an
>illusion of somethng, not an actual something.
It "changes the sensory qualities of a thing". If I make you look blue, you
are *ACTUALLY* reflecting blue light - even though you aren't really blue.
If I make a glamer of a prism, it *ACTUALLY* refracts light - because
otherwise, I haven't really changed its sensory qualities, which is
*precisely* what a glamer does.
>Someone posted the 3E verison of the spell. Its still Glamer type,
>an illusion.
Right. So, it changes the sensory qualities of the thing its cast on -
possibly, for instance, making the thing look like it's made out of air.
Peter Seebach
Right. There is an *ILLUSION* that the door is gone, but in fact, the
door is still there.
>An illusion of an invisible door doesn't make the door invisible.
But invisibility is not an 'illusion of an invisible door' - it's changing
the door's sensory qualities so it's invisible.
>It 'looks like' its invisible, its not actually invisible.
Of course it is! That's what the spell *DOES*.
>[]So, how exactly *DOES* it work? Does an invisible person standing in a
>[]doorway *ALSO* prevent people from seeing into (or out of) the room?
>Hmmm. This could get rather complicated, but not if the invisible
>being/character was an exact fit for the doorway.
In other words, the concept is hopelessly broken. You can't consistently
claim one thing if the door fills the entire doorway, and another thing for
a person standing in the doorway.
>I've read the 1E and 2E versions of invisibility and someone posted
>the 3E version. All versions talk of an illusion of invisibility.
>Not an actual invisibility.
What exactly do you think the difference is? Invisibility is the illusion of
not being present.
>If a door is illusioned to be invisible, its still there.
Right. The door *STILL EXISTS*, but *CANNOT BE SEEN AND HAS NO EFFECT ON
VISION*. You can see through it.
Bill Beasley
"D.J." <dji...@cheesedatasync.com> wrote in message
news:iu332ugdeu24t9hli...@4ax.com...
>
> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> []The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that question.
> []Why do so many DMs appear to hate their players? If players in a
>
>
> to create a sea chest of holiday ballons. The spell doesn't do that.
>
> see thru the door and see whats actually behind it, they fooled
> themselves.
>
> spell doesn't work that way.
And, unless you've changed the spell for campaign concerns, you'd be wrong.
Perhaps you should read the 3e definition of Invisibility? And then go read
the section on what a 'glamer' type illusion actually does. When you've
done that, get back to me.
>
> []So what's wrong with just having a simple result for an idea that
> []benefits the players' characters? My intentionally tricky bits are
> []sufficiently maddening--why go out of my way to piss all over the
> []players?
>
> I let the players do lots of things that benefit them, but I don't
> let them use a spell and expect it to give a different result than
> it actually gives.
Then the invis the door issue shouldn't be a problem in 3e.
>
> I've allowed the players to come up with things I believe wont work.
> Like Holy Water arrows. Small ceramic holders on the head of an
> arrow, filled with Holy Water. Fire it at Undead. Does half damage
> of a vial of Holy Water. I didn't think it would work as it would be
> too unbalanced, but the guy explained how he would do it. I then
> allowed it.
>
> If a player makes an honest mistake, I'll point that out. If the
> players come up with a way to bend the rules, and I understand and
> accept the way they say it should work, I let them do it.
>
> But I have had other players who go out of their way to bend the
> rules of the game in such a way as its nothing but cheating, or
> trying to 'test' the DM by seeing if they can raise my blood
> pressure.
>
> JimP.
Which this shouldn't be. Invisibility in 3e is specifically designed to
make the target 'vanish from sight' by changing the sensory properties of
said target. It doesn't make anyone think anything. It actually makes the
target invisible.
Bill Beasley
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:ivpU7.72298$F96.10...@news.tor.primus.ca...
> "Aaron Day" <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote in message
> > This thread continues to astound me. Exactly why did your player think
> > that Invisibility creates an "illusion of an invisible object" rather
> > than actually making the object invisible?
>
> Because as has had been said previously, it is an "Illusion (Glammer)"
> spell. It's not a transmutation, and so doesn't actually change the
object.
Perhaps you should reread what a glamer is. From the SRD/PHB, I'll repost
it here:
"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, it *does* actually change the target object's sensory qualities, by
making it look invisible, seeming to disappear. How hard is this to grasp?
> It doesn't become perfectly transparent the same way Gaseous Form makes
the
> subject translucent. (Or Etherealness makes the the subjects ethereal).
In
> other words, it in fact doesn't make the object invisible it just makes it
> appear to be because that's all Illusion spell can do.
Wrong. See above.
Aaron Day
> []There are many Illusion spells that have actual effect. If an
> []Illusionist casts Shadow Walk, an Illusion spell which allows you to
> []teleport in a shadow, the effect is very real.
>
> Ah, but what if someone disbelieves the Shadow Walk is working for
> them ? I'll bet the spell fails.
I hope your joking.
> []> An illusion of an invisible door doesn't make the door invisible.
> []
> []But it would still be an illusion of what's on the other side.
>
> I fully agree as thats what I've been saying all along.
Ok, I have two doors. One is actually invisible (say, from a Wish) and
the other is an illusion of an invisible door (from your version of
Invisibility). What is the difference? Can I see with 100% accuracy
through both of them? If not, WHY?!
Aaron
Hekate Trismegista
"D.J." wrote:
>
> Its still an illusion of an invisible door, not an actual invisible
> door.
So,
Why do you hate your players?
--
Watch This Space | res0...@verizon.net | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "No turning on the lights in the evil room,
dammit!" | -- http://www.sluggy.com
Helpful GM
Beasley" <kristin...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > If the players are new to the game, I would explain to them the
> > spell doesn't work that way.
> And, unless you've changed the spell for campaign concerns, you'd be
> wrong.
No, he'd be right. At your suggestion, I read the book...
> Perhaps you should read the 3e definition of Invisibility? And then go
> read the section on what a 'glamer' type illusion actually does. When
> you've done that, get back to me.
Perhaps you should read the invisibility spell, and the section on
glamer, in the 3e Core Rule books. When you've done that, get back to
us.
Damn, Bill -- are you ALWAYS this pig-headed?! When this started, I was
open to the idea that there were multiple interpretations, but now that
you and others on the "the door is like glass" side of the fence have
been pushing things so closed-mindedly, I've actually gone back and read
the relevant text. Here's one for you:
"A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities..."
> > I let the players do lots of things that benefit them, but I don't
> > let them use a spell and expect it to give a different result than
> > it actually gives.
> Then the invis the door issue shouldn't be a problem in 3e.
Of course not. He just tells them, correctly, that they are under the
illusion that the door is invisible, but that they can't see what's
inside the room. (A perfectly valid alternate explanation would be that
they see what they expect to see, such is the nature of illusion.)
> Which this shouldn't be. Invisibility in 3e is specifically designed to
> make the target 'vanish from sight' by changing the sensory properties of
> said target. It doesn't make anyone think anything. It actually makes
> the target invisible.
Right. Nowhere does it say anything about "transparant" -- only that
the thing vanishes from sight.
And, really, it's ok that you play differently -- it's just annoying
that you're so stubborn that perfectly valid (preferred, in my book, but
who am I to tell you how to play YOUR game?!) readings are so blatantly
wrong.
It's like listening to a little kid scream "but I WANT it to be that
way!!!"
Helpful GM
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "D.J." wrote:
> > Its still an illusion of an invisible door, not an actual invisible
> > door.
> So,
> Why do you hate your players?
Heh. "Mom made me eat my vegetables, wouldn't let me pig-out on
chocoate instead of dinner and brush my teeth every night before bed.
Why did she hate me, so?"
As you grow, you will learn that others not giving you every little
thing that you want does not equate to their hating you.
So, why do you hate your girlfriend/wife/dog? ;)
incrdbil
wrote:
>[]Where do you get this deranged notion?
>
>A Galmer is the illusion of something, not an actual thing.
>
>An illusion of an invisible door doesn't make the door invisible.
>
>It 'looks like' its invisible, its not actually invisible.
>
>If someone decided to disbelieve the invisibility, and they made
>their saving throw, they would realize the door wasn't invisible.
When you've completed a literacy program, purchased the rules in
question, actually read them, please return to the discussion to issue
your retraction. Thank you.
>
>If a door is illusioned to be invisible, its still there.
The only correct statement you have made. It's properties as a
physical barrier for movement purposes are not affected. however,
it's visual properties are affected by the spell--which does not
magically read the minds of all those present and present another
image. Invisibility does just that--renders things invisible, but not
by replacing the object with the image of somethign else, or creating
false images of the line of sight leading through the invisible
object.
Peter Seebach
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>Perhaps you should read the invisibility spell, and the section on
>glamer, in the 3e Core Rule books. When you've done that, get back to
>us.
Having read them, I am completely convinced that it is not merely possible,
but *necessary* that invisibility actually makes things invisible.
> "A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities..."
Right, such as "can I see this".
>> Then the invis the door issue shouldn't be a problem in 3e.
>Of course not. He just tells them, correctly, that they are under the
>illusion that the door is invisible, but that they can't see what's
>inside the room.
Wrong. If it's invisible, the world appears as though the object isn't there.
Remove the door - you can see through it.
Make the door *APPEAR* to be gone - you must see exactly what you would have
seen if it had *actually* been gone, because it's invisible.
>Right. Nowhere does it say anything about "transparant" -- only that
>the thing vanishes from sight.
Right. And, and this is the cool part, if you can't see it, then *SOMETHING*
must fill up that part of your vision.
>And, really, it's ok that you play differently -- it's just annoying
>that you're so stubborn that perfectly valid (preferred, in my book, but
>who am I to tell you how to play YOUR game?!) readings are so blatantly
>wrong.
The reading you quote is inconsistent with game logic. You're adding another
level of "illusion". You're making it into an illusion of an illusion, which
is wrong. Invisibility changes the sensory qualities of the door; it no
longer affects the movement of light.
You keep playing with this "illusion of invisibility", having forgotten that
invisibility *ITSELF* is the illusion!
Phaenar
"Bill_Leary" <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:6seU7.19505$Sj1.11...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> "Phaenar" <pha...@yahhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rY7U7.172999$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bjm10-4D5FF8....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > > The whole invisibility vs. a door thing has led me to ask that
question.
> > > Why do so many DMs appear to hate their players? If players in a
benefit
> > > from it (until they do it so many times that everybody else knows
about
> > > it, too). I'm not such an egotist that I feel offended at being
> > > "outsmarted", nor am I such an egotist that I feel offended if my
"plot"
> > > gets violated by a player who DARES not to merely be a puppet.
> > >
> > > benefits the players' characters? My intentionally tricky bits are
> > > sufficiently maddening--why go out of my way to piss all over the
> > > players?
> >
>
> Here you go:
> * 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
Thanks much!
More below.
>
> > but if a [3e] player
> > is complaining about not being allowed to cast Invisibility on a door
> > ((..omitted..))
>
> It wasn't. The entire question is "what happens" not "can they do this."
>
> > My players have
> > defeated my well laid plans too many times to count with such great,
valid
> > ideas.
>
> I agree. I *LOVE* it when they come up with a solution I'd never
> considered. It helps me build better challenges in the future. I always
> reward (XP) creativity like this.
>
> I haven't seen anything in this thread (unless I missed a message or two)
> which indicates DM hatred of players. On teh contrary, most of the
> discussion has been how to play out the effects of the spell and how to
> rationalize those effects in a consistent manner. The very stuff of good
> DM'ing. I've enjoyed that thread a lot. It challenged my ideas, changed
my
> mind about the effect, challenged that and changed my mind again. Great
> fun.
Well in the case of this argument I read the description of the Invisibility
spell and it doesn't talk specifically about innanimate objects; however, in
another part of this thread I believe it was Peter Seebach who said that if
you don't allow people to see through invisible objects/creatures as if they
were not there then invisibility would be a dead give away. Imagine try
walking through a crowded room, as he put it, and everyone would notice that
things are vanishing and reappearing!
I 100% agree, sorry if it was someone else not Peter. As DM, you just have
to run with it. Someone else also pointed out that Invisibility does not
grow on trees. Mages don't get all that many spells so if they prepare and
use them this way it means they forfeit either some other use of the spell,
or some other spell. So its a trade off for the player too.
To me, as DM and being "fooled" by my players' ingenuity time and again it
has given me a much greater understanding of the game and so, as you say,
next time I am better prepared to role-play the NPC mage because I'm
learning tricks from what all my players are teaching me.
>
> - Bill
>
>
>
Aaron Day
>
> Damn, Bill -- are you ALWAYS this pig-headed?! When this started, I was
> open to the idea that there were multiple interpretations, but now that
> you and others on the "the door is like glass" side of the fence have
> been pushing things so closed-mindedly, I've actually gone back and read
> the relevant text. Here's one for you:
>
> "A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities..."
I fail to see how this supports your viewpoint. The door's sensory
qualities have changed. The door has changed. Note that nowhere does it
care about what a character viewing it "expects".
> > Then the invis the door issue shouldn't be a problem in 3e.
>
> Of course not. He just tells them, correctly, that they are under the
> illusion that the door is invisible, but that they can't see what's
> inside the room. (A perfectly valid alternate explanation would be that
> they see what they expect to see, such is the nature of illusion.)
Ok, show me another illusion spell whose effect depends on "what they
expect to see". That is certainly not the nature of D&D illusion spells.
In the description of the spell, a torch made invisible will still emit
light. This is undeniable since its listed in the spell description. How
can this be, under your interpretation, unless all characters "expect"
light to be shining from out of nowhere wherever they go?
> > Which this shouldn't be. Invisibility in 3e is specifically designed to
> > make the target 'vanish from sight' by changing the sensory properties of
> > said target. It doesn't make anyone think anything. It actually makes
> > the target invisible.
>
> Right. Nowhere does it say anything about "transparant" -- only that
> the thing vanishes from sight.
If it isn't transparent, then you can see it (or see something). How can
something you can see be described as "vanishes"?
Aaron
incrdbil
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> "A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities..."
>
>Of course not. He just tells them, correctly, that they are under the
>illusion that the door is invisible
no--the characters are not under an illusion. The characters have not
been affected by the spell. The door has been affected by the spell--
It's invisible. Does the spell mention creating flase images based on
surroundings, reading minds etc? No
but that they can't see what's
>inside the room. (A perfectly valid alternate explanation would be that
>they see what they expect to see, such is the nature of illusion.)
Reread glamer, and the spell. It altrs the subject of the spell--it
does not change the perceptions of others, it changes the subject.
>
>And, really, it's ok that you play differently -- it's just annoying
>that you're so stubborn that perfectly valid (preferred, in my book, but
>who am I to tell you how to play YOUR game?!) readings are so blatantly
>wrong.
that's only because they are. It's the sort of way a math major might
not agree 2+2= peanut butter.
>
>It's like listening to a little kid scream "but I WANT it to be that
>way!!!"
No, it's listening to the unbelieving reaction of someone who reads
the rules, and applies common sense when faced with a response that
seems unbelievable.
In fact, I think your position must be an illusion. Someone roll my
attempt to disbelieve.
>
Hekate Trismegista
Helpful GM wrote:
>
> Heh. "Mom made me eat my vegetables, wouldn't let me pig-out on
> chocoate instead of dinner and brush my teeth every night before bed.
> Why did she hate me, so?"
False analogy. "Mom's" rules in this example are not arbitrary. Your
ruling on invisibility *is*.
> As you grow,
Condescension poorly suits you.
> you will learn that others not giving you every little
> thing that you want does not equate to their hating you.
This is true, but not giving others what is fairly theirs is at least
indicative of some degree of antipathy. So, why do you hate your players
so much you will deny them the benefits of a clever use of a spell? What
harm does it do to allow your players to be able to see what's on the
other side of an invisible door? What is the need for the gyrations and
mutilations of logic and reason that you've expressed on this thread
just to keep your players from getting the benefit of their actions?
> So, why do you hate your girlfriend/wife/dog? ;)
You realize that "Hekate Trismegista" is a feminine name, right?
Peter Seebach
Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote:
>Ok, show me another illusion spell whose effect depends on "what they
>expect to see". That is certainly not the nature of D&D illusion spells.
Phantasmal Killer. ;-)
Aaron Day
>
> >Ok, show me another illusion spell whose effect depends on "what they
> >expect to see". That is certainly not the nature of D&D illusion spells.
>
> Phantasmal Killer. ;-)
Did this spell used to have such an effect? Right now its just a
"shadowy shape."
Aaron
Peter Seebach
>> Phantasmal Killer. ;-)
Yeah, it used to take the form of your worst nightmare. I think some of the
psi powers may still do that. Hmm. Read the description again. "You create
the phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject."
Aaron Day
>
> In article <45E2807BEB459A57.BEE6D0B2...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote:
> >Peter Seebach wrote:
> >> >Ok, show me another illusion spell whose effect depends on "what they
> >> >expect to see". That is certainly not the nature of D&D illusion spells.
>
> >> Phantasmal Killer. ;-)
>
> >Did this spell used to have such an effect? Right now its just a
> >"shadowy shape."
>
> Yeah, it used to take the form of your worst nightmare. I think some of the
> psi powers may still do that. Hmm. Read the description again. "You create
> the phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject."
Ah, flavor text ommited from the SRD. Its still not "the most fearsome
creature the subject expects to see"
Aaron
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>I think a number of folks believe that an illusion of invisibility
>makes something transparent. Thats false. No actual transparency
>exists. Its the illusion of tranparency.
I think you're too hung up on the spell's School. It's obvious from the name of
the spell and the description that it makes creatures and objects become
invisible.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>Just a different look on it. Invisibilty sphere might be better. Though
>the wording makes me wonder. "As invisibility, except this spell confers
>invisibility upon all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient. The
>center of the affect is mobile with the recipient.
>Depends on how you define recipient I guess.
>In this case you get an Invisible door
Only if the door is a creature.
> and the monsters that stand just inside the door gain
>invisibility so player sees nothing other than the room. Just a thought
>there.
David Johnston
>
> Helpful GM wrote:
> >
> > Heh. "Mom made me eat my vegetables, wouldn't let me pig-out on
> > chocoate instead of dinner and brush my teeth every night before bed.
> > Why did she hate me, so?"
>
> False analogy. "Mom's" rules in this example are not arbitrary. Your
> ruling on invisibility *is*.
Well, no. It's based on the theory that invisibility as per that spell
isn't transparency but rather an illusion that the door isn't there.
It may be arbitary, but only in the sense that any attempt to impose
consistency on D&D is arbitrary. Personally, I'm inclined to think
that when you look at an invisible door, you see nothing. You
overlook the door entirely, same as you can't seem to see any
other invisible object. At least in theory. In practice,
since a door isn't a separate object, you couldn't cast the
regular spell on it at all.
Hekate Trismegista
David Johnston wrote:
>
> Well, no. It's based on the theory that invisibility as per that spell
> isn't transparency but rather an illusion that the door isn't there.
> It may be arbitary, but only in the sense that any attempt to impose
> consistency on D&D is arbitrary. Personally, I'm inclined to think
> that when you look at an invisible door, you see nothing. You
> overlook the door entirely, same as you can't seem to see any
> other invisible object. At least in theory. In practice,
> since a door isn't a separate object, you couldn't cast the
> regular spell on it at all.
The problem with that interpretation is that it makes invisibility a
mind-affecting spell without a saving throw. You could stand in front of
10,000 people and with a second level spell, you've affected 10,000
minds.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Well, no. It's based on the theory that invisibility as per that spell
> > isn't transparency but rather an illusion that the door isn't there.
> > It may be arbitary, but only in the sense that any attempt to impose
> > consistency on D&D is arbitrary. Personally, I'm inclined to think
> > that when you look at an invisible door, you see nothing. You
> > overlook the door entirely, same as you can't seem to see any
> > other invisible object. At least in theory. In practice,
> > since a door isn't a separate object, you couldn't cast the
> > regular spell on it at all.
>
> The problem with that interpretation is that it makes invisibility a
> mind-affecting spell without a saving throw. You could stand in front of
> 10,000 people and with a second level spell, you've affected 10,000
> minds.
>
You can do the same thing with any illusion. They are all mind affecting
spells, and as long as the illusion is inobvious, you can affect a crowd
of any size. Of course if you do treat invisibility as an illusion, once
people become aware that there is an invisible thing around, then disbelief
immediately takes over, and it becomes invisible.
Hekate Trismegista
Let me underline "without a saving throw." There's no way to resist the
effects. Other illusions can be disbelieved or resisted. Invisibility
cannot. This is a moot point because invisibility does not affect the
mind - it is not obfuscate a la Vampire - it is a glamer, which is
clearly defined in the PHB.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Hekate Trismegista wrote:
> > >
> > > David Johnston wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, no. It's based on the theory that invisibility as per that spell
> > > > isn't transparency but rather an illusion that the door isn't there.
> > > > It may be arbitary, but only in the sense that any attempt to impose
> > > > consistency on D&D is arbitrary. Personally, I'm inclined to think
> > > > that when you look at an invisible door, you see nothing. You
> > > > overlook the door entirely, same as you can't seem to see any
> > > > other invisible object. At least in theory. In practice,
> > > > since a door isn't a separate object, you couldn't cast the
> > > > regular spell on it at all.
> > >
> > > The problem with that interpretation is that it makes invisibility a
> > > mind-affecting spell without a saving throw. You could stand in front of
> > > 10,000 people and with a second level spell, you've affected 10,000
> > > minds.
> > >
> >
> > You can do the same thing with any illusion. They are all mind affecting
> > spells, and as long as the illusion is inobvious, you can affect a crowd
> > of any size. Of course if you do treat invisibility as an illusion, once
> > people become aware that there is an invisible thing around, then disbelief
> > immediately takes over, and it becomes invisible.
>
> Let me underline "without a saving throw." There's no way to resist the
> effects.
There's no way to resist the effects of a plausible illusion either.
But of course IF one had the ambition to impose that kind of consistency on
D&D, the next step would be to replace the "automatically reappears if attacking"
rule with a "You can disbelieve invisibility if the invisible person gives
theirself away" rule.
Aaron Day
>
> You can do the same thing with any illusion. They are all mind affecting
> spells, and as long as the illusion is inobvious, you can affect a crowd
> of any size. Of course if you do treat invisibility as an illusion, once
> people become aware that there is an invisible thing around, then disbelief
> immediately takes over, and it becomes invisible.
Disbelieving an Invisibility does not make the invisible thing visible again.
Aaron
Bill_Leary
> Well in the case of this argument I read the description of the
Invisibility
> spell and it doesn't talk specifically about innanimate objects;
In 1E and 2E it can only be applied to "creatures." In 3E it works on
objects too. There's been a bit of confusion as to which version of the
spell individual people are talking about. The original poster didn't say,
but I think most of us assumed 3E, some others assumed 2E.
- Bill
Bradd W. Szonye
> "A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities..."
Right. Invisibility glamers change the sensory qualities of objects so
that they're transparent.
> Of course not. He just tells them, correctly, that they are under the
> illusion that the door is invisible, but that they can't see what's
> inside the room.
That would defeat the purpose of invisibility, which is to escape
detection. Using the "obscuring" definition of invisibility leaves the
subject detectable; thus, it's obviously an incorrect interpretation.
> (A perfectly valid alternate explanation would be that they see what
> they expect to see, such is the nature of illusion.)
This one is even more wrong: This kind of mind-affecting illusion would
have the [Mind-Affecting] descriptor, and undead would be immune to it.
> Right. Nowhere does it say anything about "transparant" -- only that
> the thing vanishes from sight.
There are only three ways to vanish (become transparent, leave the area,
or obscure yourself). Two of them are wrong: this isn't a teleportation
spell, and obscurement would leave you detectable.
> And, really, it's ok that you play differently -- it's just annoying
> that you're so stubborn that perfectly valid (preferred, in my book,
> but who am I to tell you how to play YOUR game?!) readings are so
> blatantly wrong.
I think you're going out of your way to rationalize screwy
interpretatons in a misguided attempt to help people "get along." Most
of the alternate interpretations are precluded by the rules -- for
example, invisibility *can't* be Mind-Affecting, because that doesn't
show up in the spell description.
> It's like listening to a little kid scream "but I WANT it to be that
> way!!!"
No, it sounds more like you're pleading, "Why can't we all get along?"
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard, Cupertino Phone: 408-447-4832
Brandon Blackmoor
news:HelpfulGM-2A443...@ca.news.verio.net...
>
> Of course not. He just tells them, correctly, that they are under the
> illusion that the door is invisible, but that they can't see what's
> inside the room. (A perfectly valid alternate explanation would be that
> they see what they expect to see, such is the nature of illusion.)
Some illusions: yes. Invisibility: no, not now, not ever.
That being said, you should feel free to make Invisibility do whatever you
want in your game. Hey, maybe in your game, Invisibility can make things
look like blue orangutangs!
"I cast Invisibility on the door."
"OK. It now looks like a blue orangutang is standing in the doorway."
What fun!
Me, I'll go with what the book says; it's less trouble (and not so
infernally stupid)
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-12-20
Peter Seebach
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Well, no. It's based on the theory that invisibility as per that spell
>isn't transparency but rather an illusion that the door isn't there.
What exactly do you think "the illusion that the door isn't there" should
look like? It's not a mind-affecting spell, so it can't depend on what
anyone thinks.
>It may be arbitary, but only in the sense that any attempt to impose
>consistency on D&D is arbitrary. Personally, I'm inclined to think
>that when you look at an invisible door, you see nothing. You
>overlook the door entirely, same as you can't seem to see any
>other invisible object. At least in theory.
So, if I'm reading a book, and an invisible person waves his hands in front
of the book, I can't see the book, but I definitely won't notice that it's
suddenly impossible for me to read, but of course I can't actually *see the
book*?
Nonsense. Invisibility means effective transparency.
Peter Seebach
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>You can do the same thing with any illusion. They are all mind affecting
>spells,
Utter nonsense. Read the descriptions again. Glamer spells *ACTUALLY CHANGE
THE SENSORY QUALITIES OF THEIR SUBJECTS*. They are changing light, sound,
and the like, not minds.
Peter Seebach
It's pretty close in the full text; I abbreviated, assuming you had the book
handy.
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> but I think most of us assumed 3E, some others assumed 2E.
It's reasonable to assume someone is referring to the current version of the
rules, if it's not stated otherwise.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-12-20
Gorg Huff
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <d9342u8sbua12p7c4...@4ax.com>,
>GH...@Austin.RR.com wrote:
>
>> In the case of the use of invisibility on a door so
>> the party can see thru it. Two things are apparent. One the Players
>> think that is the way the spell will work. If they didn't think that
>> they would not have cast the spell for that reason. And two the sort
>> of experimentation and practice necessary in learning and using the
>> spell for other things would certainly make it clear to the,
>> Characters especially the wizard or sorcerer that cast it, whether it
>> would in fact work that way in that gaming world.
>
>This is an important point. If the players are new to the world (or
>this corner of it), then they don't KNOW what would happen. In my game,
>if a player said
> "If I cast invisibility on this door, will I be able to see
> through it?"
>
>I'd say
>
> "Dunno, I've never cast invisibility on a door, before."
Here we thoroughly disagree. The Player Won't know. But the
Character that learned the spell that has cast it hungered of times
Will. (For every spell casting that is done on stage, in role play,
there must be ten or so that are cast of stage, in the periods that
are covered by. "You spend the next six months in town working on your
spells practicing with the guard or what ever while you wait for the
snow in the high pass to melt.") This basic knowledge of how magic
works especially their own magic that they have wosks is part and
parcle of the magic using character. To deny the player that knowledge
is the equilivent of denying a fighter character his atack bonus
becasue the player does use a long sword.
>I might give them a Kn:Arcana or Spellcraft check and then on a low or
>high roll either tell them
>
> "...but you can't think of any reason why not"
>or
> "...but you think it probably wouldn't, given your
> past researches"
That is about the bare minium. Given that we are talking about how
a spell that the player has been using works every time she used it
before.
>but even that isn't a guarantee. In Helpful-World, the main thing is
>that it's consistent. If it didn't work yesterday, it won't work today,
>and if it doesn't work for players, then NPCs can't try the same trick,
>successfully. (Barring circumstances which change the outcome, but
>that's still gotta be consistent.)
The problem is at it't base the statement "You know how the cast
the spell and have cast it before but you don't know what it does is
not consistent." When I cast magic mouth on something that doesn't
have a mouth. I know the mouth appears but what color are it's lips. I
the player don't know but I the character must. Even if they aren't a
consistent color, they are color of the object the spell is cast on,
or they are whatever color the caster wants them to be. It's still
something that the character knows but the player can only guess at.
And most of the time it doesn't matter, until for some reason either
unusual circumstances or an innovative spell use suddenly it does.
Gorg
Michael A. Norville
(cough)Bullsh*t(/cough)
You can dispbelieve all you want. Invisible boy can runup and down the
aisle shouting "Hey, y'all, I'm INVISIBLE!" But no matter how hard he
tried, no one could see him (sniff).
Another problem with the spell is thatit's schizophrenic. It bends the
minds, but they canstill hear the person. If it was supposed to make
them unobtrusive, why not to hearing as well. Why doesn't improved
Invisibility make them unobtrusive to ALL the senses? Why can't the
invisible person see himself?
Sheesh.
> But of course IF one had the ambition to impose that kind of consistency on
> D&D, the next step would be to replace the "automatically reappears if attacking"
> rule with a "You can disbelieve invisibility if the invisible person gives
> theirself away" rule.
Requiring yet another rule-O to deal with the unescessary rule-0. It
just keeps getting messier.
Bill Beasley
"Helpful GM" <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:HelpfulGM-2A443...@ca.news.verio.net...
> Beasley" <kristin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > If the players are new to the game, I would explain to them the
> > > spell doesn't work that way.
>
> > And, unless you've changed the spell for campaign concerns, you'd be
> > wrong.
>
> No, he'd be right. At your suggestion, I read the book...
How so? He's not right, unless he changes the rules to make himself right.
>
> > Perhaps you should read the 3e definition of Invisibility? And then go
> > read the section on what a 'glamer' type illusion actually does. When
> > you've done that, get back to me.
>
> Perhaps you should read the invisibility spell, and the section on
> glamer, in the 3e Core Rule books. When you've done that, get back to
> us.
>
> Damn, Bill -- are you ALWAYS this pig-headed?!
Only when I'm right.
> When this started, I was
> open to the idea that there were multiple interpretations, but now that
> you and others on the "the door is like glass" side of the fence have
> been pushing things so closed-mindedly, I've actually gone back and read
> the relevant text. Here's one for you:
>
> "A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities..."
And...? This proves exactly what we've been saying. The glamer of
Inivs(the spell) changes the subject's(the door's) sensory qualities, since
the subject is actually the target.
>
> > > I let the players do lots of things that benefit them, but I don't
> > > let them use a spell and expect it to give a different result than
> > > it actually gives.
>
> > Then the invis the door issue shouldn't be a problem in 3e.
>
> Of course not. He just tells them, correctly, that they are under the
> illusion that the door is invisible, but that they can't see what's
> inside the room. (A perfectly valid alternate explanation would be that
> they see what they expect to see, such is the nature of illusion.)
This is only valid if he, as the DM making the rules, changes the *actual*
rules listed in the PHB/SRD for 3eD&D. If he is ruling as per the rules,
then the 'invis but you can't see what's in the room' ruling is *wrong*.
>
> > Which this shouldn't be. Invisibility in 3e is specifically designed to
> > make the target 'vanish from sight' by changing the sensory properties
of
> > said target. It doesn't make anyone think anything. It actually makes
> > the target invisible.
>
> Right. Nowhere does it say anything about "transparant" -- only that
> the thing vanishes from sight.
So, what do you see where the 'invisible' person/object is located?
>
> And, really, it's ok that you play differently -- it's just annoying
> that you're so stubborn that perfectly valid (preferred, in my book, but
> who am I to tell you how to play YOUR game?!) readings are so blatantly
> wrong.
I'm simply telling you what the rules say. Did you miss my preface on 'if
you've changed the rules for your campaign' bit? Let me restate it for you,
if you missed it. If you want to change the core rules to make you right
wrt your interpretation on the Invis spell, feel free. I don't mind. But
don't tell me that the rules in any way, shape, or form support your
definition *as written*. Because they don't. Please show me, with actual
rules quotes, where the rules, as written, make the object 'invisible, but
not transparent'.
>
> It's like listening to a little kid scream "but I WANT it to be that
> way!!!"
>
Are you trying to insult me?
Gorg Huff
<rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Because as has had been said previously, it is an "Illusion (Glammer)"
>spell. It's not a transmutation, and so doesn't actually change the object.
There it is that is the key. "Illusion (Glammer)" Does actually
change the object specifically it changes the objects sensory
qualities page 158 PBH.
Gorg
William Lessard
> Another problem with the spell is thatit's schizophrenic. It bends the
> minds, but they canstill hear the person. If it was supposed to make
> them unobtrusive, why not to hearing as well. Why doesn't improved
> Invisibility make them unobtrusive to ALL the senses? Why can't the
> invisible person see himself?
>
> Sheesh.
>
You can chock it up to "its magic" Reading through the spell
description, it also states that for example a PC is holding a torch
(light source of some type) that you can see the effects of the light
source even if you cannot see the source itself. IE: I am invisible
walking through a dark tunnel with a torch so I can see. The creatures
see a moving point of illumination. Not the source but the effects
across the area.
Bramage
--
Fraternally
William Lessard
Ezekiel Bates Lodge AF&AM Attleboro Mass
Wayne Lodge #112 F&AM Michigan
Master Mason
Royal Arch Mason
Humble (usually) student of life
Do one good selfless act for a fellow human every day
Taoist
Federal Law allows for compensation of upto $500 per unsolicited E-mail.
Any person or company sending me e-mail soliciting any service or
product agrees
to this per e-mail charge of $500.
Michael A. Norville
>
> "Michael A. Norville" <mnor...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> []> This morning I asked one of my players about casting Invisibility on
> []> a door. The player was astounded that anyone would think it made it
> []> transparent. The player knew it was an illusion of an invisible
> []> door.
> []>
> []Apparently he didn;t know you could only cast it on creatures and not
> []objects, if you're still in 2E or 1E.
>
> I've read the 3E version of it as well. It says Glamer. Thats an
> illusion of somethng, not an actual something.
>
Read it again. The writeup of glamer, not just the title. It changes the
sensory qualities of a subject. Changes them. Changes them. It doesn't
affect the mind of the observers. It changes the qualities of the
target. Changes them. Changes them.
If you took a picture of an invisble person. . . the film would develop
a picture of what's behind them. It's more consistent. Mkes more sense.
Changes them.
:-)
> []Question: Was this because the question has never come up? Or have you
> []always made it clear that Invisibility was an illusion of whatever's on
> []the other side of it?
>
> The spell description says its an illusion, that the Glamer part.
>
> []Also; if it fills in what a person expects to see, why wouldn't they
> []expect to see a door?
>
> I use what the players say out loud to determine what they see.
>
> []In addition, isn't this opening the door (no pun intended) to far more
> []abuse by players? For example, the Magic Mask trick (cast it on a
> []balaclava type mask and wear it, making you look like anybody the wearer
>
> Someone else mentioned this earlier, and I would have a good
> chuckle, but its seems like players grasping at straws.
>
Umm.. . why? Because it's a Good Idea that doesn't fit in your "can't
let the players get too creative or they might wreck my perfectly
crafted adventure box?" Come on. Why wouldn't it work? It'd be funny, if
they did it with too many people in the room.
"Isn't that the count?"
nah. It's his brother."
"Why's he bald."
"He's got a head of hair, you doofus."
"Oh. Yeah. I see it now."
> []> I have no problem with innovative players as most of my long term
> []> players are innovative. They just don't try to make spells do things
> []> the spells are incapable of doing.
> []
> []For Invisibility it's apparently debatable in 1e/2e, much less so for
> []3E.
>
> Someone posted the 3E verison of the spell. Its still Glamer type,
> an illusion.
Did you read the description of Glamer. I believe that's been posted
too.
Gorg Huff
wrote:
>I've read the 1E and 2E versions of invisibility and someone posted
>the 3E version. All versions talk of an illusion of invisibility.
>Not an actual invisibility.
>
>If a door is illusioned to be invisible, its still there.
Sight Please. Any where in any D&D book where it says "illusion of
invisibility"
Gorg
William Lessard
>
> And...? This proves exactly what we've been saying. The glamer of
> Inivs(the spell) changes the subject's(the door's) sensory qualities, since
> the subject is actually the target.
>
>
> rules listed in the PHB/SRD for 3eD&D. If he is ruling as per the rules,
> then the 'invis but you can't see what's in the room' ruling is *wrong*.
>
>
>
> >
As for the bottom line in this case I agree with Beasley on this. Maybe
if the arguement was worded this way.
The door through illusion no longer is viewed by the players. As far as
they are concerned it does not exist. This is Magic so logic does not
hold up for real world thinking. The magic removes the door from sight
through illusion and such that the players and creatures as well that
would view the area of the door do not see it. They see the world as it
would be if the door is not there. Nature of Magic is paradox anyways.
No rational explanation can support magic anyways.
Bramage
Still likes the word story over anything else.
D.J.
"Bill_Leary" <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
[]In 1E and 2E it can only be applied to "creatures." In 3E it works on
[]objects too. There's been a bit of confusion as to which version of the
[]spell individual people are talking about. The original poster didn't say,
[]but I think most of us assumed 3E, some others assumed 2E.
I got my books out and looked at 1E and 2E spell descriptions.
Someone posted the 3E description.
I do see that the 3E description is rather vague as to how to deal
with objects with invisibility on them, the only bit seems to be the
100 pounds/level of the caster limit.
By now, its obvious that all of us that DM will make a decision that
each of us are comfortable with to use in our campaigns.
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.
Hekate Trismegista <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
[]"D.J." wrote:
[]> Its still an illusion of an invisible door, not an actual invisible
[]> door.
[]
[]So,
[]
[]Why do you hate your players?
I don't, thats your misinterpretation.
Varl
> > but I think most of us assumed 3E, some others assumed 2E.
>
> It's reasonable to assume someone is referring to the current version of the
> rules, if it's not stated otherwise.
Heh. I don't know why, but I just find this funny. Heh. It must be the
Courvoisier. Is this now a part of this newsgroup's charter? It wouldn't
surprise me if it were.
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
D.J.
Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[]Mere moments before death, D.J. hastily scrawled:
[]>
[]>I think a number of folks believe that an illusion of invisibility
[]>makes something transparent. Thats false. No actual transparency
[]>exists. Its the illusion of tranparency.
[]
[]I think you're too hung up on the spell's School. It's obvious from the name of
[]the spell and the description that it makes creatures and objects become
[]invisible.
I have never run 2E games. Therefore I don't know about spell
schools. I got out my player books for 1E and 2E and read the spell
descriptions. I've only played and DMed 1E. But, I did ask one of my
players who has played both 1E and 2E. The player agrees with me.
And no, the player doesn't think I'll do something to the player's
characters if I get a disagreement. I wont either.
D.J.
[]> I've read the 3E version of it as well. It says Glamer. Thats an
[]> illusion of somethng, not an actual something.
[]Changes them.
[]
[]:-)
:-)
[]Umm.. . why? Because it's a Good Idea that doesn't fit in your "can't
[]let the players get too creative or they might wreck my perfectly
[]crafted adventure box?" Come on. Why wouldn't it work? It'd be funny, if
[]they did it with too many people in the room.
Nope. I don't DM that way. I've allowed the players use of ideas I
didn't think were workable, but their explanatin of how they could
get it to work made sense. Like the Holy Water arrows I mentioned
earlier.
[]Did you read the description of Glamer. I believe that's been posted
[]too.
Yes. I read both the definition of Glamer and Invisibility for 3E.
It seems to me that each of us will DM this however we feel
confortable DMing it. Just like so many other things about AD&D/D&D,
the books say something ambiguous or vague, we make a ruling.
Gorg Huff
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> "A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities..."
Finish the sentence. "making IT look, feel, taste, smell, or sound,
like something else, or even seem to disappeared." What is effected is
the subject of the spell in this case the door. Not the eye or the
mind of the viewer. It may not be disbelieved because an actual change
in the sensory quality of the subject has taken place. So to reproduce
the visual effect of invisibility simply remove the invisible object
from view because what you will see if it is made invisible is what
you would see if it weren't there. the Illusion is that it is there
but looks like it isn't.
Gorg
Gorg Huff
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>It's like listening to a little kid scream "but I WANT it to be that
>way!!!"
Yes it certainly is.
Gorg
D.J.
Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote:
[]"D.J." wrote:
[]> []There are many Illusion spells that have actual effect. If an
[]> []Illusionist casts Shadow Walk, an Illusion spell which allows you to
[]> []teleport in a shadow, the effect is very real.
[]>
[]> Ah, but what if someone disbelieves the Shadow Walk is working for
[]> them ? I'll bet the spell fails.
[]
[]I hope your joking.
I was 'sort of joking' or semi-joking. Which also means I was also
partialy serious.
But what would happen if someone disbelieved while they Shadow
Walked ? This could lead to 'interesting' affects. Well, interesting
for those not Shadow Walking, the character who disbelieved they
were Shadow Walking might not like the results. This has
possibilities.
[]> []> An illusion of an invisible door doesn't make the door invisible.
[]> []
[]> []But it would still be an illusion of what's on the other side.
[]>
[]> I fully agree as thats what I've been saying all along.
[]
[]Ok, I have two doors. One is actually invisible (say, from a Wish) and
[]the other is an illusion of an invisible door (from your version of
[]Invisibility). What is the difference? Can I see with 100% accuracy
[]through both of them? If not, WHY?!
A Wish is a much more powerful spell than the Invisibility spell.
A Wish could be worded in such a way as to make the door actually
transparent.
The Invisibility spell doesn't have that sort of felxibility and
does not make the door transparent.
Obviously others will disagree with this.
D.J.
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
[]When you've completed a literacy program, purchased the rules in
[]question, actually read them, please return to the discussion to issue
[]your retraction. Thank you.
So if you can't convince someone resort to idiotic behavior ?
I've read thousands of books on many different subjects. I presently
have 1,000 books in my house; science, carpentry, WW 2, science
fiction, gaming books, etc.. Your claim is absurd and idiotic.
I just like to read. Its one of my major forms of entertainment.
[]>If a door is illusioned to be invisible, its still there.
[]
[]The only correct statement you have made. It's properties as a
[]physical barrier for movement purposes are not affected. however,
[]it's visual properties are affected by the spell--which does not
[]magically read the minds of all those present and present another
A spell cannot read minds and I never claimed nor stated a spell
does such a thing.
[]image. Invisibility does just that--renders things invisible, but not
[]by replacing the object with the image of somethign else, or creating
[]false images of the line of sight leading through the invisible
[]object.
The minds of the characters see something, but not the door nor
anything actually behind the door.
I've read about people who were voluntairily placed in rooms which
absorb all sounds. The people, well one person at a time in the
room, had sensory illusions of beings and sounds that did not exist.
Like squirrels marching over a hill with sacks of grain over their
shoulders, singing nonsense songs. Some of these illusions were
bland, other people had almost Technicolor illusions due to the
sensory deprivation.
Therefore, its obvious that the mind does not need the spell to
'control them'. The mind will provide info of objects, beings, and
sounds that aren't necessarily there.
Aaron Day
>
> []Ok, I have two doors. One is actually invisible (say, from a Wish) and
> []the other is an illusion of an invisible door (from your version of
> []Invisibility). What is the difference? Can I see with 100% accuracy
> []through both of them? If not, WHY?!
>
> A Wish is a much more powerful spell than the Invisibility spell.
>
> A Wish could be worded in such a way as to make the door actually
> transparent.
> The Invisibility spell doesn't have that sort of felxibility and
> does not make the door transparent.
The Invisibility spell isn't flexible at all. ALL it can do is make an object transparent to everyone (including the caster).
How can something be invisible and NOT be transparent?
Aaron
Aaron Day
>
> Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> []Mere moments before death, D.J. hastily scrawled:
> []>
> []>I think a number of folks believe that an illusion of invisibility
> []>makes something transparent. Thats false. No actual transparency
> []>exists. Its the illusion of tranparency.
> []
> []I think you're too hung up on the spell's School. It's obvious from the name of
> []the spell and the description that it makes creatures and objects become
> []invisible.
>
> I have never run 2E games. Therefore I don't know about spell
> schools. I got out my player books for 1E and 2E and read the spell
> descriptions. I've only played and DMed 1E. But, I did ask one of my
> players who has played both 1E and 2E. The player agrees with me.
> And no, the player doesn't think I'll do something to the player's
> characters if I get a disagreement. I wont either.
Ask this player what would happen if cast Invisibility (1e) on a person. Does that person become transparent? I've read the 1e description and, from that description, you would have to say yes.
Aaron
RuralQLDcc
Just kidding...
Renquist
"Gorg Huff" <GH...@Austin.RR.com> wrote in message
news:fn652ukiaoq829cv9...@4ax.com...