Invisible Doors Revisited...
Christopher Burke
closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the ability
to cast Invisibility on an object.
Question 1 - Was there ever any answer given to what does happen ?
Question 2 - What other changes to the spell would balance out its inability
(in our game) to be cast on objects (e.g. longer duration, lower level etc) ?
Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on an
illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know is
illusory ?
--
---
/* Christopher Burke - Spam Mail to cra...@hotmail.com
|* www.craznar.com -
\* Real mail to cburke(at)craznar(dot)com
Andy
"Christopher Burke" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns925F15EE75BE6...@61.9.128.12...
> My GM still hasn't determined what happens when you cast invisibility on a
> closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the
ability
> to cast Invisibility on an object.
>
> Question 1 - Was there ever any answer given to what does happen ?
> Question 2 - What other changes to the spell would balance out its
inability
> (in our game) to be cast on objects (e.g. longer duration, lower level
etc) ?
> Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on
an
> illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know
is
> illusory ?
The Stronghold Builders book has a whole section given to uses of spells,
one of which is a fairly lengthy and insightful description of Invisibility.
Basically, an object that is made invisible disappears and no longer impedes
vision. A stone block, made invisible, would disappear and allow people to
see past it, walk into it by accident or whatever.
The guidebook uses the idea of invisible stonework around arrow slits to
give the archer perfect vision whilst retaining a high level of cover. His
area of attack is still limited of course. A door made invisible would
allow people to see through it. An adamantine case around an object, if
made invisible would be perfect in a museum allowing people to look but not
touch. They also suggest large walls made invisible to sit behind safely in
a throne room. Using localised invisibility on spots on the wall would
supply windows that can't be opened by any thief, and making the roof
invisible would give you an excellent skylight. These are all things the
book suggests and details how the writers perceive Invisibility.
The biggest problem is the term 'Illusion' for the school, it actually has a
very real effect... If your DM has a problem with the illusory angle the
simplest change would be to change it to a Transmutation spell.
Isaac
Hunter
wrote:
Except the illusion is of nothing being there. It is just the converse
of an illusion of an object that isn't there.
Andy
"Hunter" <cypher...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3d4abc3d...@news-server.tampabay.rr.com...
Removing a property (opacity) from an object is not an illusion, surely? If
I do it to a layer in photoshop I'm affecting the layer itself, although the
end result may be an illusion. I wouldn't change it as it's not worth the
effort, but in hindsight I still go with transmutation.
Isaac
Yellow Dreamer
wrote:
>Removing a property (opacity) from an object is not an illusion, surely? If
>I do it to a layer in photoshop I'm affecting the layer itself, although the
>end result may be an illusion. I wouldn't change it as it's not worth the
>effort, but in hindsight I still go with transmutation.
By this reasoning any spell is a transmutation, as you can always
observe a "change" in the environment.
IMHO illusions shouldn't cease to exist if you make your save. I.e.
you know it's fake, but you don't know what's behind it. The sensory
input always should be real, even if it's only mimicked by a spell.
--
YD
Kershek
getting...@virgin.net says...
> > Except the illusion is of nothing being there. It is just the converse
> > of an illusion of an object that isn't there.
>
> Removing a property (opacity) from an object is not an illusion, surely? If
> I do it to a layer in photoshop I'm affecting the layer itself, although the
> end result may be an illusion. I wouldn't change it as it's not worth the
> effort, but in hindsight I still go with transmutation.
How is this any different from making a person invisible?
Hunter
wrote:
>
But that isn't truly being changed (the exact mechanism is never
stated). The best IMO mechanism is that a field is created that
surrounds the object that makes it appear to be not there. This
accounts for all the effects associated with Invis.
> If I do it to a layer in photoshop I'm affecting the layer itself, although the
>end result may be an illusion.
But you aren't affecting the layer, you are cloaking it with a virtual
layer.
> I wouldn't change it as it's not worth the
>effort, but in hindsight I still go with transmutation.
>
All a matter of how you look at it.
R. Scott Rogers
> My GM still hasn't determined what happens when you cast invisibility on a
> closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the ability
> to cast Invisibility on an object.
>
> Question 1 - Was there ever any answer given to what does happen ?
> Question 2 - What other changes to the spell would balance out its inability
> (in our game) to be cast on objects (e.g. longer duration, lower level etc) ?
> Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on an
> illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know is
> illusory ?
The consensus answer, after much argument that convinced even me, was that
the Invisibility affects things as if it was a Transmutation spell that
rendered the thing effectively transparent. Despite my championing of a
different answer that actually took the words of the spell seriously, this
is almost certainly correct and is the answer provided by the Stronghold
book.
However, the fun answer is that the spell works as it is written, which
requires the use of some imagination. An invisible closed door simply cannot
be seen. You look down the hallway, and the DM describes the hallway to you
as if the door, or any interruption in the wall whatsoever, wasn't there. A
partially open door, however, becomes effectively transparent, except that
anything completely hidden behind it cannot be seen. This would seem not to
be the correct answer, but it is the more entertaining option, the one that
requires the most imagination and is, therefore, more truly magical. ;-)
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
Anivair
>one of which is a fairly lengthy and insightful description of Invisibility.
And in all realist, just a quick glance in the general direction of permanancy
should have answered this question in the first place (since you can make
object permanantly invisible with it).
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Dastardly
> "Christopher Burke" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns925F15EE75BE6...@61.9.128.12...
>
> The biggest problem is the term 'Illusion' for the school, it actually has a
> very real effect... If your DM has a problem with the illusory angle the
> simplest change would be to change it to a Transmutation spell.
Not necessarily. A fairly simple means of making it an illusion that
doesn't change a single property of the underlying object, is that
invisibility creates a 360 degree 3D image of whatever is on the
opposite side of the object that is "invisible". Sort of like if you
put a video camera on one side of a wall, and a flat screen LCD on the
other side. You would see what is on the other side of the wall,
effectively making the wall invisible. Of course, Invisibility is a
lot more effective, but same concept.
Dastardly
Jason Tamez
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>However, the fun answer is that the spell works as it is written, which
>requires the use of some imagination. An invisible closed door simply cannot
>be seen. You look down the hallway, and the DM describes the hallway to you
>as if the door, or any interruption in the wall whatsoever, wasn't there. A
>partially open door, however, becomes effectively transparent, except that
>anything completely hidden behind it cannot be seen. This would seem not to
>be the correct answer, but it is the more entertaining option, the one that
>requires the most imagination and is, therefore, more truly magical. ;-)
Yeah, that was the "fun" that created the most arguments the last time
this thread rolled around.
I think that a Silent Image would be better used to make a door
"disappear" into a wall. Invisibility should make it invisible.
-- Jason
(replace the nonsense with druid816 to email me)
Christopher Burke
news:91hmkuofmgae4ek3q...@4ax.com:
> I think that a Silent Image would be better used to make a door
> "disappear" into a wall. Invisibility should make it invisible.
The question is what does invisible mean ... if you are consistent then it is
nothing to do with light (because then an invisible person couldn't see).
Sir Bob
This is the problem that arises when you ignore the subschool
descriptor. Hint: not all illusions actually create images of things
that aren't really there. The subschool *matters*.
- Sir Bob.
D.J.
] requires the use of some imagination. An invisible closed door simply cannot
] be seen. You look down the hallway, and the DM describes the hallway to you
] as if the door, or any interruption in the wall whatsoever, wasn't there. A
Uhm, just stopping by this thread to point out I'm not going to
comment on any of it.
JimP.
Wayne Shaw
<cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jason Tamez <thisisnota...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:91hmkuofmgae4ek3q...@4ax.com:
>
>> I think that a Silent Image would be better used to make a door
>> "disappear" into a wall. Invisibility should make it invisible.
>
>The question is what does invisible mean ... if you are consistent then it is
>nothing to do with light (because then an invisible person couldn't see).
That assumes magic is required to work symmetrically. Given the
selective operancy of many spells, that's certainly not a jump I'm
willing to make.
Mark Green
When you turn a person invisible, you do it so that person can't be
seen. So you could create an illusion of empty space, etc. that
covers them, and nobody could see the person.
But when you turn a door invisible (as an adventurer) you do it so
you can see what is behind the door without risking opening it. In
this case creating an illusion of a hallway, or a wall, that covers
over the door DOES make the door invisible but it doesn't meet your
goal: you want to be able to see what *really is* behind the door, not
to see an illusion of something you made up.
Bradd W. Szonye
> An adamantine case around an object, if made invisible would be
> perfect in a museum allowing people to look but not touch.
I thought items disappeared when you put them in a closed invisible box?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Bradd W. Szonye
> Removing a property (opacity) from an object is not an illusion,
Changing or removing sensory properties from an object is explicitly one
of the things an illusion can do in D&D.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Andy <getting...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> An adamantine case around an object, if made invisible would be
>> perfect in a museum allowing people to look but not touch.
>
>I thought items disappeared when you put them in a closed invisible box?
The bottom of the box need not be invisible. There need not even be a bottom.
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
Bradd W. Szonye
>> box?
Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> The bottom of the box need not be invisible. There need not even be a
> bottom.
Gotcha. Then again, what's to stop somebody from picking up the box if
you do it that way? I guess you could use an adamantine cage.
Peter Seebach
Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Question 1 - Was there ever any answer given to what does happen ?
Yes. We asked the sage, and he said "obviously, it doesn't block line
of sight; it's invisible!". What happens is, the target of the spell is
given the visual properties of air - meaning that you can identify the
location of an invisible creature in water or mud, because you can see
"bubbles" where it's standing. I believe the sage was doing his best to
express "how fucking stupid can you people be" politely; the answer is
patently obvious from the examples given.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, 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/
Peter Seebach
Andy <getting...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Removing a property (opacity) from an object is not an illusion, surely?
RTFM. Look up "glamer" as a subset of illusion. Illusions can alter any
of the sensory qualities, or remove them. Removing a sensory property is
PRECISELY what the book says a glamer does!
Not all illusions are entirely "unreal" in their effects; shadow spells
really do change the world.
RTFM, specifically, PHB3 p. 158, under the blue-heading "ILLUSION", under the
bold paragraph heading "glamer".
Peter Seebach
Mark Green <mark....@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> When you turn a person invisible, you do it so that person can't be
>seen. So you could create an illusion of empty space, etc. that
>covers them, and nobody could see the person.
Unless the person was standing in water, in which case, you'd see the
"bubble" of their displacement. Good clue to how the spell works?
Peter Seebach
>the Invisibility affects things as if it was a Transmutation spell that
>rendered the thing effectively transparent. Despite my championing of a
>different answer that actually took the words of the spell seriously, this
>is almost certainly correct and is the answer provided by the Stronghold
>book.
And yet, it's strangely 100% consistent with the description of the spell
as a "glamer", and takes the words of the spell quite seriously; you see what
you would see if the object had "vanished" in the sense of "been removed from
the picture and replaced by air".
Ed Chauvin IV
>> Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
>>> I thought items disappeared when you put them in a closed invisible
>>> box?
>
>Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> The bottom of the box need not be invisible. There need not even be a
>> bottom.
>
>Gotcha. Then again, what's to stop somebody from picking up the box if
>you do it that way? I guess you could use an adamantine cage.
You lock the invisible box to the visible "lid", or even fasten it permanently
unless you want to be able to access the item for cleaning and such.
Brandon Blackmoor
news:3d4c9dad$0$79563$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> In article <Xns925F15EE75BE6...@61.9.128.12>,
> Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Question 1 - Was there ever any answer given to what does happen ?
>
> Yes. We asked the sage, and he said "obviously, it doesn't block line
> of sight; it's invisible!". What happens is, the target of the spell is
> given the visual properties of air - meaning that you can identify the
> location of an invisible creature in water or mud, because you can see
> "bubbles" where it's standing.
This is the most obvious answer, but I suppose it's good to have an
"official" answer to placate the obtuse.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2002-08-04
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
>>> I thought items disappeared when you put them in a closed invisible
>>> box?
>
>Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> The bottom of the box need not be invisible. There need not even be a
>> bottom.
>
>Gotcha. Then again, what's to stop somebody from picking up the box if
>you do it that way? I guess you could use an adamantine cage.
Make six adamantium slabs. Make five of them invisible. Join them in
some fashion. Adamantium box, invisible on five sides, sealed on all.
Robert Baldwin
<cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My GM still hasn't determined what happens when you cast invisibility on a
>closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the ability
>to cast Invisibility on an object.
When in doubt, screw the players. <sigh>
>Question 1 - Was there ever any answer given to what does happen ?
Yes.
>Question 2 - What other changes to the spell would balance out its inability
>(in our game) to be cast on objects (e.g. longer duration, lower level etc) ?
Given your DM, why would you expect *any* help?
>Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on an
>illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know is
>illusory ?
No effect.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Hong Ooi
Neither am I.
--
Hong Ooi | "I had to fight in the Arena to become
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | Archmaster of my House."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- Q.
Sydney, Australia |
Ed Chauvin IV
Now if only we could get them to hold still long enough to be "placated".
Jason Tamez
Baldwin) wrote:
>>Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on an
>>illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know is
>>illusory ?
>
>No effect.
And probably a chance to disbelieve, since you have to touch the
object to cast the spell.
Gordon Emore
Yellow Dreamer wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:30:22 +0100, "Andy" <getting...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Removing a property (opacity) from an object is not an illusion, surely? If
> >I do it to a layer in photoshop I'm affecting the layer itself, although the
> >end result may be an illusion. I wouldn't change it as it's not worth the
> >effort, but in hindsight I still go with transmutation.
>
> By this reasoning any spell is a transmutation, as you can always
> observe a "change" in the environment.
>
> IMHO illusions shouldn't cease to exist if you make your save. I.e.
> you know it's fake, but you don't know what's behind it. The sensory
> input always should be real, even if it's only mimicked by a spell.
According to the book, they don't. They're still there, just the person who made
their save can force himself to see through it.
Gordon
Dastardly
> Jason Tamez <thisisnota...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:91hmkuofmgae4ek3q...@4ax.com:
>
> > I think that a Silent Image would be better used to make a door
> > "disappear" into a wall. Invisibility should make it invisible.
>
> The question is what does invisible mean ... if you are consistent then it is
> nothing to do with light (because then an invisible person couldn't see).
Well, this is magic, so I say that magic can sample light without
actually interrupting it. Therefore, think of invisibility as a
shroud around the object, that let's light in from the outside, but
doesn't let light out from the inside. as the light enters the shroud
it is sampled and an exact duplicate of that incoming light is created
on the opposite side of the object shrouded. Effectively rendering the
shrouded object transparent without actually changing a physical
property of the object. Note, this is inconsistent with quantum
physics, but of course it is magic. ;-)
Dastardly
Silvas Silvanus
> My GM still hasn't determined what happens when you cast invisibility on a
> closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the
ability
> to cast Invisibility on an object.
... no offense to your DM, but has he read the spell description?
Range: Personal or Touch
Target: You or a creature or *object* weighing no more than 100 lb./level
The creature or object touched vanishes from sight, even from darkvision.
[...]
Quite obviously, the door vanishes, allowing a person to see into any
adjacent room as though the door was not there at all (commonly called an
Illusion). I think your DM has issues when dealing with illusion spells. I
can't blame him; I hate them, myself... BUT, if he's seriously having as
much trouble with invisibility as you claim he is, I would sit him down and
explain to him that you can't see an invisible object. If you could, it
wouldn't be invisible...
> Question 2 - What other changes to the spell would balance out its
inability
> (in our game) to be cast on objects (e.g. longer duration, lower level
etc) ?
Hmm... if the range is Personal only, I don't see why making it one level
lower would be *bad*... but it's only a 2nd level spell! I'd seriosuly walk
your DM though the spell description. There's no need of his limiting the
spell based on his inexperience alone.
> Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on
an
> illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know
is
> illusory ?
It would become invisible, of course. If a person does not realize an
object is illusory, the object is in all aspects "real" to the viewer.
Hence, the viewer would expect his spell to react normally to said illusory
door. Making illusions invisible might be fun (and confusing).
- Dru
R. Scott Rogers
>
> "Christopher Burke" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns925F15EE75BE6...@61.9.128.12...
>> My GM still hasn't determined what happens when you cast invisibility on a
>> closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the
> ability
>> to cast Invisibility on an object.
>
> ... no offense to your DM, but has he read the spell description?
>
> Range: Personal or Touch
> Target: You or a creature or *object* weighing no more than 100 lb./level
>
> The creature or object touched vanishes from sight, even from darkvision.
> [...]
>
> Quite obviously, the door vanishes, allowing a person to see into any
> adjacent room as though the door was not there at all
This presumes, of course, that the only way for a door to vanish is for it
to become transparent. The illusion, in that case, is not that the door
can't be seen, it's that the door looks like whatever is behind it from any
angle. It may be sensible and even intuitive that the door becomes
effectively transparent, but it is not obvious. All the spell says is that
it "vanishes from sight." How it does so is a further question that is not
"obviously" solved by the spell description. There are any number of ways a
thing might "vanish from sight," and the only necessary effect that follows
from the spell description is that you can no longer see the thing. What you
do see is a further question that is not, strictly speaking, answered by the
spell description in this case.
<snip>
>> Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on an
>> illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know is
>> illusory ?
>
> It would become invisible, of course. If a person does not realize an
> object is illusory, the object is in all aspects "real" to the viewer.
> Hence, the viewer would expect his spell to react normally to said illusory
> door. Making illusions invisible might be fun (and confusing).
Of course. Er, um, I mean, why? If I believe that the illusory door exists
and I shoot an arrow at it, do I see the arrow go through the door or do I
see it hit the door and stop? As long as it's an Illusion (glamer), I have
to see the arrow go through the door. If the illusion made me see the arrow
hit the door and stop, the door would be a mind-affecting spell, which
Illusion (glamer) is not. Why should casting a spell on something that
doesn't exist have any more of an effect than shooting an arrow at it?
I can see my way to the conclusion that the door becomes invisible, but not
through your reasoning. Seems to me it would just be a special case where
the spells act on one another like Darkness on Daylight.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
guppy
> My GM still hasn't determined what happens when you cast invisibility on a
> closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the ability
> to cast Invisibility on an object.
>
> (in our game) to be cast on objects (e.g. longer duration, lower level etc) ?
> illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know is
> illusory ?
The problem with the controvercy is that invisibility is a spell cast
on an object, but which does not affect the object, but rather affects
creatures who perceive the object.
If you ask me, it's one of those "you're thinking too hard" problems.
It's obvious to me that invisibility, if it can be cast upon objects,
should make it possible to see objects on the other side of the
invisible object, just as though the invisible object weren't there.
In fact, that's my preferred definition of invisibility. It's not an
effect that makes you able to see through something (that's what I'd
call "transparency"); rather, it's an effect that makes you able to
not-see an object, as though it wasn't there.
It doesn't grant super-natural x-ray vision to do this; it doesn't
have to have a rational, scientific explanation. It just works,
because it's magic. The thing becomes invisible, and anyone who is
affected by the spell can now see through the object, as though the
object is not there. Creatures who cannot be affected by invisiblity
obviously cannot use Invisibility to create peepholes through solid
objects such as doors and walls, but anyone who is subject to the
effect of the spell should.
As far as casting Invisibility on an illusion of a door, I'd say that
the effect basically should be to cancel out the visual effect of the
illusion. If the illusion is of a type that incorporates tactile,
auditory, olfactory, and heat illusions, then those are still in
effect, and may convince someone that there is an invisible door still
there. Otherwise, if the illusion is only of the visual appearance of
a door, casting invisibility on it makes the illusion go away. You
can now walk right through the door, just as though there was no door,
just as you could if you tried to walk through an illusion of a door
that did not include the solid tactile illusory sense data of a door,
because there isn't a door there.
If the Invisibility spell were to wear off or be disspelled, and the
illusion of the door still had some duration left, the door would
reappear once the Invisibility effect wore off.
I find it hard to believe that people have this much trouble with the
rule. It doesn't seem all that hard.
----guppy
R. Scott Rogers
> Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns925F15EE75BE6...@61.9.128.12>...
>> My GM still hasn't determined what happens when you cast invisibility on a
>> closed door (i.e. what do you see), so tonight he just disabled the ability
>> to cast Invisibility on an object.
>>
>> Question 1 - Was there ever any answer given to what does happen ?
>> Question 2 - What other changes to the spell would balance out its inability
>> (in our game) to be cast on objects (e.g. longer duration, lower level etc) ?
>> Question 3 - What would the effect of casting invisibility (unmodified) on an
>> illusory closed wooden door which the caster of invisibility doesn't know is
>> illusory ?
>
> The problem with the controvercy is that invisibility is a spell cast
> on an object, but which does not affect the object, but rather affects
> creatures who perceive the object.
Not true. Invisibility is an Illusion (glamer) spell. Illusion (glamer)
spells do not affect the minds of anyone who might see them; they affect the
things they're cast upon. Illusion (glamer) spells alter the sensory
characteristics of things.
> If you ask me, it's one of those "you're thinking too hard" problems.
> It's obvious to me that invisibility, if it can be cast upon objects,
> should make it possible to see objects on the other side of the
> invisible object, just as though the invisible object weren't there.
>
> In fact, that's my preferred definition of invisibility. It's not an
> effect that makes you able to see through something (that's what I'd
> call "transparency"); rather, it's an effect that makes you able to
> not-see an object, as though it wasn't there.
Again, you're wrong on the narrow point you use as the basis for
understanding invisibility. The spell has no effect on YOU in this instance.
It affects the door. If you see through an invisible door as if it was not
there, then transparency is the only model that allows the spell to be an
Illusion (glamer) spell.
> It doesn't grant super-natural x-ray vision to do this; it doesn't
> have to have a rational, scientific explanation. It just works,
> because it's magic. The thing becomes invisible, and anyone who is
> affected by the spell can now see through the object, as though the
> object is not there.
To continue, no. Dead wrong. No one is affected by the spell. Those who
happen upon an invisible door see through it because the visual
characteristics of the object have been altered to be transparent rather
than opaque.
> I find it hard to believe that people have this much trouble with the
> rule. It doesn't seem all that hard.
It might seem harder if you took a moment to read the definitions of the
game's terms. You'd probably reach much the same effective conclusions, but
you very much misunderstand the "hows" of it.
Will
upon a wall. So if some cast invisibility at the door they would actually be
casting at the wall. Therefore it would appear to anyone subject to the
invisibility spell that the "door" is now gone. When it is really the wall
that appears gone.
If the characters in question are trying this in order to see if it is
really a door or just an illusion would probably decide that is indeed a
door.
"R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B98054E3.40C83%sro...@mindspring.com...
Jason Tamez
>I think I understand what you are saying. The illusion of the door was cast
>upon a wall. So if some cast invisibility at the door they would actually be
>casting at the wall. Therefore it would appear to anyone subject to the
>invisibility spell that the "door" is now gone. When it is really the wall
>that appears gone.
>
>If the characters in question are trying this in order to see if it is
>really a door or just an illusion would probably decide that is indeed a
>door.
Actually, the spell would fail since it had no actual "target". You
can't affect a glamer.
Furthermore, since you have to touch the object to cast invisibility,
you'd probably be tipped off when your hand passed through the "door"
or found the wrong sort of texture beneath it.
Ed Chauvin IV
>The problem with the controvercy is that invisibility is a spell cast
>on an object, but which does not affect the object, but rather affects
>creatures who perceive the object.
No, the problem is that some people *think* that Invisibility affects creatures
who perceive the object. The rules state clearly that it affects the object and
makes it Actually Invisible®.
>If you ask me, it's one of those "you're thinking too hard" problems.
You're right though, it's definitely an overthinking problem.
Mornir
<edc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
<sa'snip- what is the Invisibility spell doing?>
>No, the problem is that some people *think* that Invisibility affects creatures
>who perceive the object. The rules state clearly that it affects the object and
>makes it Actually Invisible®.
I don't see what's so difficult. The spell, when casts on the
object, shows whatever's beyond it. You can call it a very tailored
image if you like. In 'RL' terms, a magically generated self-morphing
hologram. Or something along those lines, anyway. A 'field' if you
will. Changing the actual target would be Improved Invis, IMO.
--
<Mornir - mor...@despammed.com - http://www.livejournal.com/~booklog/>
guppy
> Again, you're wrong on the narrow point you use as the basis for
> understanding invisibility.
You're right that I'm not well versed on the book definitions (at
least in 3e, and it was a mess in prior editions) so my ideas may not
be kosher with the official stance. I'll concede any point you may
make on that basis.
> The spell has no effect on YOU in this instance.
> It affects the door.
Not to be argumentative, but we may say that the spell *does* affect
me. If I can't see something that's there and normally visible, then
that affects me. It doesn't CHANGE me, but it affects me. You might
say that the spell affects me indirectly, or that the effect of the
spell affects me, while the spell itself doesn't directly affect me.
It's more of a semantic issue than anything, really. I suppose I
could also say that a "Heal" spell cast on an opponent "affects" me in
this way, as it undoes all the work I'd done to deal damage to him.
So this line of thinking can get silly if taken to extremes.
> If you see through an invisible door as if it was not
> there, then transparency is the only model that allows the spell to be an
> Illusion (glamer) spell.
Transparency is insufficient. Glass is transparent, but it is not
invisible. Air is likewise transparent, but it is also invisible. For
invisibility to be truly invisible, there should be no perceptible
reflection, glare, or refraction. Otherwise, there would still be
some visible effects, and the spell would be more appropriately named
"Reduce visibility".
In order to achieve true invisibility, you must have the precise
transparency that matches seamlessly with the surrounding medium.
This is an interesting insight, as it means that some of the
traditional limitations of the usual invisibility spell might possibly
be overcome. For example, under standard Invisibility, the recipient
of the spell would leave an empty outline if standing in water. If
immersed completely in water, I would imagine that the effect of the
spell would be to reveal a glimmering air-like pocket in the exact
shape of the invisible creature, because the spell is designed to mask
the appearance of an object in an airy medium. This effect, though
beautiful, is not practical for aquatic invisibility. So perhaps
aquatic spellcasters have researched their own version of Aquatic
Invisibility which makes the affected target take on the same
transparency properties of water. Similar spells could be researched
for cloudy or dusty situations. Perhaps several of these effects
could be stacked into a single spell, which we could perhaps call
"Enhanced Invisibility".
----guppy
R. Scott Rogers
> "R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<B98054E3.40C83%sro...@mindspring.com>...
>> The spell has no effect on YOU in this instance.
>> It affects the door.
>
> Not to be argumentative, but we may say that the spell *does* affect
> me. If I can't see something that's there and normally visible, then
> that affects me. It doesn't CHANGE me, but it affects me. You might
> say that the spell affects me indirectly, or that the effect of the
> spell affects me, while the spell itself doesn't directly affect me.
> It's more of a semantic issue than anything, really. I suppose I
> could also say that a "Heal" spell cast on an opponent "affects" me in
> this way, as it undoes all the work I'd done to deal damage to him.
> So this line of thinking can get silly if taken to extremes.
Your interaction with the door is affected, yes. But the spell itself does
not affect you. It does nothing to you. It does what it does to the door.
Specifically, since it's an Illusion (glamer) spell, Invisibility alters the
sensory characteristics of the door such that it cannot be seen. The spell's
"effect" on the viewer is no different than the effect that would be
generated by just painting the door a different color. The door just looks
different -- in this case invisible.
>> If you see through an invisible door as if it was not
>> there, then transparency is the only model that allows the spell to be an
>> Illusion (glamer) spell.
>
> Transparency is insufficient. Glass is transparent, but it is not
> invisible. Air is likewise transparent, but it is also invisible. For
> invisibility to be truly invisible, there should be no perceptible
> reflection, glare, or refraction. Otherwise, there would still be
> some visible effects, and the spell would be more appropriately named
> "Reduce visibility".
Transparent means "transmitting light rays so that objects on the other side
may be distinctly seen; capable of being seen through; neither opaque nor
transluscent."* To the extent to which a pane of glass can be seen, it is
not transparent. There is, simply, no other word that more accurately
describes the condition of being invisible such that you see right through
the thing as if it didn't exist than the word "transparency."
*WNW IV
So if the spell really does make a door vanish from sight such that you see
through it as if it was an empty doorframe, then the spell works on the
principle of effective transparency. Any other description of that effect is
a less accurate euphemism.
> In order to achieve true invisibility, you must have the precise
> transparency that matches seamlessly with the surrounding medium.
> This is an interesting insight, as it means that some of the
> traditional limitations of the usual invisibility spell might possibly
> be overcome. For example, under standard Invisibility, the recipient
> of the spell would leave an empty outline if standing in water. If
> immersed completely in water, I would imagine that the effect of the
> spell would be to reveal a glimmering air-like pocket in the exact
> shape of the invisible creature, because the spell is designed to mask
> the appearance of an object in an airy medium. This effect, though
> beautiful, is not practical for aquatic invisibility. So perhaps
> aquatic spellcasters have researched their own version of Aquatic
> Invisibility which makes the affected target take on the same
> transparency properties of water. Similar spells could be researched
> for cloudy or dusty situations. Perhaps several of these effects
> could be stacked into a single spell, which we could perhaps call
> "Enhanced Invisibility".
This is an interesting point. The traditional limitations you describe still
exist in 3E, which points to a hole in the effective transparency theory
that everyone, including the Sage, adopts. More accurately, the spell can be
said to alter the visual characteristics of things to be identical to air,
as if the spell paints the door in Sherwin Williams air-colored paint. If
the effect of the spell really is as described in the spell description
("vanishes from sight"), then there would be none of this claptrap about
creating a visible hole in water. That's not vanished from sight. The spell
really does need to be rewritten, since its effects are clearly not those
that would result from a strict application of the spell description.
Which is all just a way of saying that the application and effects of
Invisibility to unusual cases like a closed door or casting on an illusory
object are not necessarily "obvious," since the spell officially does not
function as the spell's description claims it does.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I don't see what's so difficult. The spell, when casts on the object,
> shows whatever's beyond it. You can call it a very tailored image if
> you like. In 'RL' terms, a magically generated self-morphing
> hologram. Or something along those lines, anyway. A 'field' if you
> will. Changing the actual target would be Improved Invis, IMO.
It's much simpler than that. The spell merely takes away the door's
"opaqueness" sensory property, replacing it with the "as transparent as
air" sensory property. Which makes it appear to vanish.
R. Scott Rogers
I just wish that the spell description would say as much. It's a pretty
specific and sensible effect that would have been oh-so-easy to write into
the spell description in so many words. Would have eliminated much
ambiguity.
The way I understand it, if I cast Invisibility on a 2x2 box and set the box
on a 5x5 table, I see the table as if there was no box on it. (Unless the
table is underwater, in which case I see it with a 2x2 air bubble resting on
top.) If I take a 1x1 parchment and put it inside the closed box, the
parchment cannot be seen. If I take a 1x1 parchment and put it on the table,
partly under the box, the paper remains wholly visible and I see the paper
on the table as if the box was not present.
Questions:
1. Is it correct that a 1x1 parchment wholly covered by the box remains
visible? Why, given that it is just as obscured from view by the box as the
paper inside the box?
2. Is there any good reason, other than "the spell says so," why the
parchment inside the box becomes obscured from view? If I could construct a
box of air, and I then placed a parchment inside the box and closed it, I
would see the parchment.
3. If only the outside surfaces of a thing assume the property of
non-opacity, when I open the box and look inside, will I see the inside of
the box as well as the parchment?
4. If I throw the box at someone, does it become visible? How about if it
hits and does damage?
Hunter
Yes.
> Why, given that it is just as obscured from view by the box as the
>paper inside the box?
IMO, because the 'field'* needs to surround the paper to make it
invisible.
>2. Is there any good reason, other than "the spell says so," why the
>parchment inside the box becomes obscured from view?
The 'field' is now surrounding the parchment.
> If I could construct a box of air, and I then placed a parchment inside the box and closed it, I
>would see the parchment.
>
>3. If only the outside surfaces of a thing assume the property of
>non-opacity, when I open the box and look inside, will I see the inside of
>the box as well as the parchment?
Not when you open it. The field is on all external surfaces, the inside
surfaces are now external. If you were inside a closed invisible box,
you might be able to see the walls of the box.
*The field theory of invisibility: Invisibility envelopes the target
with a field that makes it look like air. The field envelopes anything
that it surrounds, but will only extend for a limited distance from the
center of the target.
Sir Bob
> "R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<B98054E3.40C83%sro...@mindspring.com>...
>
> > Again, you're wrong on the narrow point you use as the basis for
> > understanding invisibility.
>
> You're right that I'm not well versed on the book definitions (at
> least in 3e, and it was a mess in prior editions) so my ideas may not
> be kosher with the official stance. I'll concede any point you may
> make on that basis.
>
> > The spell has no effect on YOU in this instance.
> > It affects the door.
>
> Not to be argumentative, but we may say that the spell *does* affect
> me. If I can't see something that's there and normally visible, then
> that affects me. It doesn't CHANGE me, but it affects me. You might
> say that the spell affects me indirectly, or that the effect of the
> spell affects me, while the spell itself doesn't directly affect me.
> It's more of a semantic issue than anything, really. I suppose I
> could also say that a "Heal" spell cast on an opponent "affects" me in
> this way, as it undoes all the work I'd done to deal damage to him.
> So this line of thinking can get silly if taken to extremes.
<snip>
Looking at an invisble object "affects" you in the same way that a
falling rock dislodged by an Earthquake spell "affects" you - i.e.
you're affected by a consequence of the spell (i.e. the presence of
light that otherwise would have been blocked by the object, etc.), not
the spell itself.
- Sir Bob.
Sir Bob
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:30:22 +0100, "Andy" <getting...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Removing a property (opacity) from an object is not an illusion, surely? If
> >I do it to a layer in photoshop I'm affecting the layer itself, although the
> >end result may be an illusion. I wouldn't change it as it's not worth the
> >effort, but in hindsight I still go with transmutation.
>
> By this reasoning any spell is a transmutation, as you can always
> observe a "change" in the environment.
<snip>
All the illusions could be reclassified. For example, since Illusion
(phantasm) spells affect the subject's mind to alter his perceptions,
they could technically be reclassified as Enchantments. Likewise,
since Illusion (glamer) spells (like Invisibility) alter the actual
sensory properties of an object, they could technically be
reclassified as Transmutations. However, D&D makes the decision to
group purely sensory effects together in their own school. Sure, it's
an arbitrary distinction, but it's the way it works. Deal.
- Sir Bob.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> "opaqueness" sensory property, replacing it with the "as transparent
>> as air" sensory property. Which makes it appear to vanish.
R. Scott Rogers <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I just wish that the spell description would say as much. It's a
> pretty specific and sensible effect that would have been oh-so-easy to
> write into the spell description in so many words. Would have
> eliminated much ambiguity.
Well, hindsight is 20/20, you know. I doubt that the designers
anticipated so much grumbling about such an "obvious" spell. After all,
most players do seem to interpret the spell so that it works like
"Invisible Man" effects: You become transparent, but you still leave
footprints in mud, and stuff you pick up doesn't become invisible unless
you put it in your pocket.
> The way I understand it, if I cast Invisibility on a 2x2 box and set
> the box on a 5x5 table, I see the table as if there was no box on it.
> (Unless the table is underwater, in which case I see it with a 2x2 air
> bubble resting on top.)
Right. Likewise, if there's a tablecloth, a pillow, or dust on the
table, you'll probably see signs of the box's presence. Most likely, a
casual observer will think, "There was a box sitting on this table not
long ago."
> If I take a 1x1 parchment and put it inside the closed box, the
> parchment cannot be seen. If I take a 1x1 parchment and put it on the
> table, partly under the box, the paper remains wholly visible and I
> see the paper on the table as if the box was not present.
Right, although there might be a crease in the parchment at the edge of
the box. Again, it'll look like there was a box sitting on the material
a few moments ago.
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is it correct that a 1x1 parchment wholly covered by the box remains
> visible?
I think so.
> Why, given that it is just as obscured from view by the box as the
> paper inside the box?
For the same reason that the Invisible Man can hide an object by putting
it in his pocket but not by sitting on it. That is, it's a quirky
"magical" effect; it follows the letter of the spell's description
rather than what seems to "make sense" to our physical intuition. In
this case, the magical effect is that you can hide new things, but only
if you put them inside of something that's already invisible. Picking up
or sitting on an object doesn't make it invisible, because that's not a
part of the magical effect.
While that may sound counterintuitive, it's not much different from
saying that magic missiles can only hurt creatures, not objects. Why?
Because the spell was only designed to target creatures. Likewise,
invisibility spells were designed so that they can only hide new objects
if you enclose them; sitting on them doesn't work.
So why create a spell that works in this strange way? Well, it's less
likely to give away the illusion, for one thing. Invisibility wouldn't
be very helpful if every leaf or bit of debris you step on became
invisible. You'd leave obvious footprints even on dry ground.
> 2. Is there any good reason, other than "the spell says so," why the
> parchment inside the box becomes obscured from view?
Nah. It's because the spell says so. Partly that's because it's a useful
effect. Unlike the "invisible footprints" above, making stuff invisible
when you put it in your pocket is actually helpful. Also, it's what most
players will expect from Invisible Man stories. If the invisible man
picks up a knife, you can see it, but if he tucks it under his cloak,
you can't. You can see what's behind him and beneath him, but not what's
inside his clothing or body.
A few Invisible Man stories make it so that you can see the food going
down as he eats it, but that's really only done for comedic effect.
> If I could construct a box of air, and I then placed a parchment
> inside the box and closed it, I would see the parchment.
Tsk tsk! Arguing from a false premise. *grin*
> 3. If only the outside surfaces of a thing assume the property of
> non-opacity, when I open the box and look inside, will I see the
> inside of the box as well as the parchment?
Nope, because the inside of the box is now an "outside surface." Sure,
it's "inside" the box, but it's still exposed to the outside. A trickier
question is "How open does the box need to be?" Do the contents become
visible as soon as you open the box a tiny crack, or do you actually
need to open it wide enough that you would see the object inside anyway?
I'd argue for the latter interpretation; something similar comes up with
concealing an object under a cloak. It's not completely concealed from
all angles, but a casual observer wouldn't normally be able to see it.
Yes, the boundaries are a little fuzzy. Why does something become
invisible when you put it under your cloak, but not under your foot? I
think the trick here is to ask whether the object is intuitively
"inside" something else. That is, people think of "under a cloak" as
being "inside" your clothing, but "under your shoe" is not. While that's
really weird from the physical point of view, that's *exactly* the kind
of "symbolic" rule that magic spells use.
> 4. If I throw the box at someone, does it become visible? How about if
> it hits and does damage?
Not unless the box does the attacking. Again, it's a "symbolic"
interpretation instead of a "physical" one.
Peter Seebach
>visible? Why, given that it is just as obscured from view by the box as the
>paper inside the box?
Think of it as a boundary of invisibility immediately surrounding the box, and
affecting only things inside its boundary.
>2. Is there any good reason, other than "the spell says so," why the
>parchment inside the box becomes obscured from view? If I could construct a
>box of air, and I then placed a parchment inside the box and closed it, I
>would see the parchment.
The same reason that you can't see the wood just *under* the surface of a
wooden box. Anything that's enclosed by the boundaries of the invisible thing
is invisible.
>3. If only the outside surfaces of a thing assume the property of
>non-opacity, when I open the box and look inside, will I see the inside of
>the box as well as the parchment?
Yup.
>4. If I throw the box at someone, does it become visible? How about if it
>hits and does damage?
Interesting question. I might well say "no".
-s
--
Copyright 2002, 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/
Christopher Burke
news:3d5c41dc$0$79564$3c09...@news.plethora.net:
>>2. Is there any good reason, other than "the spell says so," why the
>>parchment inside the box becomes obscured from view? If I could
>>construct a box of air, and I then placed a parchment inside the box and
>>closed it, I would see the parchment.
>
> The same reason that you can't see the wood just *under* the surface of
> a wooden box. Anything that's enclosed by the boundaries of the
> invisible thing is invisible.
So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure the
contents of the room ?
Brandon Blackmoor
invisible.
>
> So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure the
> contents of the room ?
No: the door vanishes, i.e. is made transparent. An invisible room-sized box
would obscure the contents, though.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2002-08-15
Christopher Burke
news:ajhg64$1b89em$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de:
>> So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure
>> the contents of the room ?
>
> No: the door vanishes, i.e. is made transparent. An invisible room-sized
> box would obscure the contents, though.
So the door becomes 'air like' but the box does not.... you can see through
the door... but not through the box.
This is the very inconsistancy that my DM is having an issue with.
Imagine an invisible door on a room (allowing us to see the gold statue
inside)... imagine that the door gradually increases in coverage until it
covers the entire room.
At what point of coverage does the gold statue suddenly disappear ?
i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through) become
an invisible box (which you can't see through).
Wayne Shaw
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>3. If only the outside surfaces of a thing assume the property of
>non-opacity, when I open the box and look inside, will I see the inside of
>the box as well as the parchment?
I think the spell has too issues; space and connection. It only
effects the space of a single object, and only things that were
connected with that space at the time you cast the spell.
Brandon Blackmoor
>>
>> No: the door vanishes, i.e. is made transparent. An invisible room-sized
>> box would obscure the contents, though.
>
> So the door becomes 'air like' but the box does not.... you can see
through
> the door... but not through the box.
No, the box becomes invisible, i.e. transparent.
> This is the very inconsistancy that my DM is having an issue with.
What inconsistency? Is it invisible? Then you can see through it. Is
something behind it, i.e. *outside* of it? Then you can see that something.
Is something *inside* of it? Then the something is invisible, too.
> i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through)
become
> an invisible box (which you can't see through).
When it becomes a *closed* invisible box. FYI, if you ask what constutes
being "closed", or what a "box" is, I am not going to answer. This is very
simple, and I think it's possible that you are only pretending not to
understand it.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2002-08-15
Hunter
<cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>news:ajhg64$1b89em$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de:
>This is the very inconsistancy that my DM is having an issue with.
>
>Imagine an invisible door on a room (allowing us to see the gold statue
>inside)... imagine that the door gradually increases in coverage until it
>covers the entire room.
>
>At what point of coverage does the gold statue suddenly disappear ?
>
>i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through) become
>an invisible box (which you can't see through).
When it encloses the entire room from all sides including top and
bottom.
Peter Seebach
Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> a wooden box. Anything that's enclosed by the boundaries of the
>> invisible thing is invisible.
>So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure the
>contents of the room ?
No, dimwit. Is the room *INSIDE* the door? No, it is *on the other side of
the door*.
Inside an invisible thing -> hidden by it, and invisible.
Beyond an invisible thing -> not hidden by it.
Peter Seebach
Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So the door becomes 'air like' but the box does not.... you can see through
>the door... but not through the box.
You can, indeed, see through the box - to what is *BEYOND* the box. Not
what is *inside* it.
>Imagine an invisible door on a room (allowing us to see the gold statue
>inside)... imagine that the door gradually increases in coverage until it
>covers the entire room.
>At what point of coverage does the gold statue suddenly disappear ?
When the door *SURROUNDS* the room.
>i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through) become
>an invisible box (which you can't see through).
It never does. You're confused.
You *ALWAYS* see through an invisible thing. That is, you see as though
there were nothing at all between the near side and the far side of the
invisible thing.
Anything *between* those sides is, of course, made invisible by the
invisibility.
Imagine that you're doing it as a raytracing thing. Imagine an infinitely
thin film over the "invisible" thing. When you hit that film, you start just
moving in a straight line as though you were going through air, until you hit
that film again. Then you start reacting to objects normally.
So, box: You hit one outside edge of the box; you are now ignoring
everything. You pass through the side of the box you hit - no film, so you're
still ignoring everything. You hit the contents... no film, so you're still
ignoring everything. You hit the other side... and then you hit the film, and
you record the next object you hit.
By contrast, if you're talking about, say, a paper *UNDER* the box... that'll
be that "next object you hit" after the second encounter with the film.
See?
R. Scott Rogers
> In article <Xns926C6A0B65732...@61.9.128.12>,
> Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through) become
>> an invisible box (which you can't see through).
>
> It never does. You're confused.
Well, now, you could take the invisible door, smash it up, and use the wood
to build yourself a box. I would advise being very careful with the power
tools while working on the invisible wood, though. Also, I'd walk very
gingerly around my workshop with all that invisible sawdust to slip on.
> You *ALWAYS* see through an invisible thing. That is, you see as though
> there were nothing at all between the near side and the far side of the
> invisible thing.
Unless it's underwater. Then you see it as if there was something there, but
that something was made of air, not water. If the spell description would
only say, instead of "vanishes from sight," which has many possible
interpretations, "becomes transparent, as if made of air," it would all work
and there would be no room for most of the kind of uncertainty the spell as
written contains.
What if I make my 2x2 box, but construct it as a 5-sided cube with no lid,
and then turned it open-side down on the table so that it completely covered
the 1x1 parchment? If this was an invisible cloak, it would, er, clearly
contain me such that I would also be invisible. The spell description says
so. Should the box then also obscure the parchment? What if the panel that
is now the top of the box is hinged and I open it up, drop a sheet of
parchment in, then close it? Isn't the table, in this instance, effectively
the bottom of the box, just as the floor is effectively the bottom of the
cloak?
Here's where I think the spell begins to break: the whole idea of things
becoming invisible by being contained within the invisible thing. I would
have made it such that the thing is visible to the extent that it would be
visible if the spell was not in effect. So the paper under the box is fully
visible, since you can see it anyway. But the paper completely covered by
the box is like the dagger slipped in your invisible cloak -- it's
completely obscured from sight, and therefore also invisible. Similarly,
anyone who could see into the cloak would see the knife floating in the air,
while anyone who could not see into the pocket would see nothing. In other
words, invisibility should provide cover under limited circumstances.
Christopher Burke
@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de:
>> i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through)
> become
>> an invisible box (which you can't see through).
>
> When it becomes a *closed* invisible box. FYI, if you ask what constutes
> being "closed", or what a "box" is, I am not going to answer. This is very
> simple, and I think it's possible that you are only pretending not to
> understand it.
And why is a 'closed' box different from an 'open' box.
Christopher Burke
>
>>So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure the
>>contents of the room ?
>
> No, dimwit. Is the room *INSIDE* the door? No, it is *on the other
> side of the door*.
>
> Inside an invisible thing -> hidden by it, and invisible.
> Beyond an invisible thing -> not hidden by it.
OK fuckwit .... answer my question.
Christopher Burke
>>i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through)
>>become an invisible box (which you can't see through).
>
> It never does. You're confused.
So given one never changes to the other... which is wrong the invisible door
or the invisible room....
I think you slipped a gasket
R. Scott Rogers
> "Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in news:ajhi7d$1bo4of$1
> @ID-97660.news.dfncis.de:
>
>>> i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through)
>> become
>>> an invisible box (which you can't see through).
>>
>> When it becomes a *closed* invisible box. FYI, if you ask what constutes
>> being "closed", or what a "box" is, I am not going to answer. This is very
>> simple, and I think it's possible that you are only pretending not to
>> understand it.
>
> And why is a 'closed' box different from an 'open' box.
The simple answer is that, if the box was closed, you wouldn't see whatever
was inside the box if the box was visible. So you continue to not see the
contents when the box becomes invisible. In order to simplify the game, no
doubt, because someone could see the contents of the visible box when it is
open, everyone can see its contents when it is invisible. That way you don't
have to worry about figuring out how much cover or whatever the invisible
box offers.
CARRIER LOST
> And why is a 'closed' box different from an 'open' box.
gawddamn. don't they teach you kids ANY topology in school anymore?
--
/\_-\ dr...@visi.com (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
<((_))> -----------------------------------------------------------------
\- \/ "Caffeine is your ally and sleep is for the weak." -- Jack
Ed Chauvin IV
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote in
>news:3d5c4ca6$0$79559$3c09...@news.plethora.net:
>
>>
>>>So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure the
>>>contents of the room ?
>>
>> No, dimwit. Is the room *INSIDE* the door? No, it is *on the other
>> side of the door*.
>>
>> Inside an invisible thing -> hidden by it, and invisible.
>> Beyond an invisible thing -> not hidden by it.
>
>OK fuckwit .... answer my question.
He did answer your question, retard. "No."
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>*The field theory of invisibility: Invisibility envelopes the target
>with a field that makes it look like air. The field envelopes anything
>that it surrounds, but will only extend for a limited distance from the
>center of the target.
Now if you could only unify this field theory with the rest of magic...
Christopher Burke
news:B981F87F.40EC8%sro...@mindspring.com:
>
> The simple answer is that, if the box was closed, you wouldn't see
> whatever was inside the box if the box was visible. So you continue to
> not see the contents when the box becomes invisible. In order to
> simplify the game, no doubt, because someone could see the contents of
> the visible box when it is open, everyone can see its contents when it
> is invisible. That way you don't have to worry about figuring out how
> much cover or whatever the invisible box offers.
OK - it is a game mechanics issue, not a logic issue.... I'm fine with that
and that is how I have played it...
Bradd W. Szonye
> OK - it is a game mechanics issue, not a logic issue.... I'm fine with
> that and that is how I have played it...
It's partly game mechanics and partly "magical thinking." Think about
the way magic works in folklore -- it's all about symbolism and
loopholes. Trying to make magic "sensible" in a logical, physical way is
not really a good idea; it sucks the magic out of it. Unfortunately, a
lot of people have trouble thinking that way.
FWIW, Scott's suggestion that an invisible door would "vanish" by
blending into the surrounding walls is another good example of magical
thinking. It's not the way invisibility is supposed to work in D&D, but
it's a reasonable alternative.
Peter Seebach
Christopher Burke <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So given one never changes to the other... which is wrong the invisible door
>or the invisible room....
>I think you slipped a gasket
There is no size at which a flat surface becomes a box. Perhaps if you had
asked which *topological* qualities would constitute a "change", you would
have gotten a useful answer.
An invisible flat thing fifty-eight miles across does not keep you from seeing
the things behind it.
An invisible box one inch on a side can hide its contents.
There's the key: CONTENTS.
Peter Seebach
I did, several times.
The contents of an invisible thing cannot be seen.
Things outside an invisible thing can be seen as if the invisible thing
were not present at all.
It's just that simple.
Nockermensch
> In article <B9818A9C.40DFE%sro...@mindspring.com>,
> R. Scott Rogers <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >4. If I throw the box at someone, does it become visible? How about if it
> >hits and does damage?
>
> Interesting question. I might well say "no".
Then what game benefits would someone gain by wielding an invisible
weapon?
@ @ Nockermensch, for further consideration, imagine that the wielder
could see the weapon (she casts see invisibility)
guppy
> The way I understand it, if I cast Invisibility on a 2x2 box and set the box
> on a 5x5 table, I see the table as if there was no box on it. (Unless the
> table is underwater, in which case I see it with a 2x2 air bubble resting on
> top.) If I take a 1x1 parchment and put it inside the closed box, the
> parchment cannot be seen. If I take a 1x1 parchment and put it on the table,
> partly under the box, the paper remains wholly visible and I see the paper
> on the table as if the box was not present.
That's pretty much my understanding, too, and it could conceivably
give rise to some paradoxes.
"Invisibility" sometimes *seems* to act like a "coating" that applies
to the outside surface of an object. Yet if this were true, then
strictly speaking casting Invisibility on a person ought to result in
a horrifying and ghoulish apparently skinless person whose inner
organs *are* plainly visibile. It's befuddling. Most of the time,
the invisibility seems to permeate the object, and it needs to in
order not to be useless.
I like the idea of an invisible person getting wounded and then seeing
visible blood coming out of the gash, the apparent effect being that
the very air itself is bleeding. I like the idea of someone yawning
and having the inside of their mouth become visible. I like the idea
of an object being picked up by someone visible and remaining visible,
apparently floating about as though carried by a ghost. I also like
the idea of an invisible character picking up an object and having the
object disappear. And I like wondering about what happens if you cast
invisibility on a light source. Do you have disembodied light? Does
the emitted light take on a property of invisibility, effectively
rendering it a non-light source? Or can only invisible people see the
light? If you're invisible, can you see other invisible creatures?
Or can you only see yourself? *Can* you see yourself?
Basically, I see these questions as a good thing. Let the players
experiment. Come up with plausible explanations and effects, and try
to keep them consistent. When an inconsistency inevitably comes up,
don't let it harm the suspension of disbelief; rather, chalk it up to
magic being a mysterious and uncontrollable, unpredictable force that
is not very well understood, and which has its own whims and fancy, a
mind of its own, and is *not* a surrogate for predictable science and
technology.
I think that for campaign flavor, and interesting storylines, it'd be
really great if there was no "standard" or "generic" invisibility, but
that there were many independently developed versions of it researched
by various mages. Depending upon the crafter who cast the spell, the
invisibility would work differently. This would keep players on their
toes, keep them guessing, keep them searching for better types, and
make them want to find different types that are more or less suited to
different applications.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is it correct that a 1x1 parchment wholly covered by the box remains
> visible? Why, given that it is just as obscured from view by the box as the
> paper inside the box?
My own personal theory on this is that invisibility does *not* work as
a "coating", as I described above. The way I see it, there's an
"ownership" or "belonging" or "containing" attribute. For objects in
close proximity to the invisible object, the spell must decide whether
the object is owned, belongs to, or is contained by the invisible
object. If it is, then it becomes invisible as well. If it does not,
then it remains visible.
> 2. Is there any good reason, other than "the spell says so," why the
> parchment inside the box becomes obscured from view? If I could construct a
> box of air, and I then placed a parchment inside the box and closed it, I
> would see the parchment.
I think the "containment" theory works well as an explanation. Just
what is contained and what isn't may be difficult in some situations
to determine, and may even seem arbitrary.
> 3. If only the outside surfaces of a thing assume the property of
> non-opacity, when I open the box and look inside, will I see the inside of
> the box as well as the parchment?
You might. I like the idea of this for certain applications of
Invisibility. For others, I don't. I'd say allow it as a variant
version of the spell, or possibly as an option that can be toggled by
the spell caster at the time of casting.
> 4. If I throw the box at someone, does it become visible? How about if it
> hits and does damage?
Hmm. The *box* technically isn't attacking, so I'd be inclined to
think that it remains invisible. But I could see arguments going both
ways on this. If you've got the "coating" type of invisibility, it's
got an invisible coating, maybe some of that coating gets rubbed off
where the impact knocked some of it loose, and you can see the object
where the coating got scratched off.
I guess to conclude, I think the specific mechanics of Invisiblity can
be very interesting and fun to play with. There's no reason to limit
ourselves and standardize, although for the sake of fairness there
ought to be some clearly defined and consistent effects for a given
spell, or else the players will balk. Don't limit yourself to
thinking about it scientifically or with rigid over-rationalization.
Let magic do its work, break laws and defy common sense or logic, so
long as it's fun and makes the game better. That's what it's for.
----guppy
guppy
> se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote in
> news:3d5c41dc$0$79564$3c09...@news.plethora.net:
>
> >>2. Is there any good reason, other than "the spell says so," why the
> >>parchment inside the box becomes obscured from view? If I could
> >>construct a box of air, and I then placed a parchment inside the box and
> >>closed it, I would see the parchment.
> >
> > The same reason that you can't see the wood just *under* the surface of
> > a wooden box. Anything that's enclosed by the boundaries of the
> > invisible thing is invisible.
>
> So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure the
> contents of the room ?
No; the invisibility field does not extend to the contents of the
room. Therefore, they are visible, and not concealed by the invisible
door.
----guppy
guppy
> This is the very inconsistancy that my DM is having an issue with.
>
> Imagine an invisible door on a room (allowing us to see the gold statue
> inside)... imagine that the door gradually increases in coverage until it
> covers the entire room.
>
> At what point of coverage does the gold statue suddenly disappear ?
>
> i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through) become
> an invisible box (which you can't see through).
At the point the invisible door contains the object.
--guppy
R. Scott Rogers
If all you have is the spell description, it's exactly how Invisibility
would work. But then the PHB and the DMG go on to require the very (IMHO, of
course) non-magical "Invisibility is just another blue-screen effect and you
see through everything like a meteorologist wearing a green blazer in front
of the weather map" mechanics that are not the necessary (or even, it seems
to me, possible) outcome of the spell as written.
But perhaps the effect that I think is the logical outcome of the spell as
it is written is actually an Illusion (phantasm).
guppy
> "Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in news:ajhi7d$1bo4of$1
> @ID-97660.news.dfncis.de:
>
> >> i.e. at what point in time does the invisible door (can see through)
> become
> >> an invisible box (which you can't see through).
> >
> > When it becomes a *closed* invisible box. FYI, if you ask what constutes
> > being "closed", or what a "box" is, I am not going to answer. This is very
> > simple, and I think it's possible that you are only pretending not to
> > understand it.
>
> And why is a 'closed' box different from an 'open' box.
I'd be inclined to say that it would depend on what side of the box
you're looking at. If you're looking directly into the opening, then
probably you could see the object inside. You might even see the
inside walls of the box, depending on the exact details of how the
spell works.
On the other hand, if you looked from the outside of the box, but were
not looking in the opening, but rather looking at one of the solid
sides of the box, then probably the object contained within would
still be invisible. I can see that this might give rise to some
paradoxes. But I'm tempted to say that paradoxes can be a fun part of
the game. Paradoxes encourage curiousity and thinking and creativity.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have M.C. Escher-like quandaries
come up as real situations in a fantasy game. And more importantly,
it's fun. A good DM has to be on his toes to smoothe out
inconsistencies where reality gets warped a bit too much, but the
players have to be willing to make that leap outside of logic with
him.
--guppy
Overdose Underpants
> For the same reason that the Invisible Man can hide an object by putting
> it in his pocket but not by sitting on it. That is, it's a quirky
> "magical" effect; it follows the letter of the spell's description
> rather than what seems to "make sense" to our physical intuition. In
> this case, the magical effect is that you can hide new things, but only
> if you put them inside of something that's already invisible. Picking up
> or sitting on an object doesn't make it invisible, because that's not a
> part of the magical effect.
What if it's a small object, and you're naked when you sit down, and ...
Erm ...
Never mind.
Wayne Shaw
<cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>news:ajhg64$1b89em$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de:
>
>>> So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure
>>> the contents of the room ?
>>
>> No: the door vanishes, i.e. is made transparent. An invisible room-sized
>> box would obscure the contents, though.
>
>So the door becomes 'air like' but the box does not.... you can see through
>the door... but not through the box.
You can see through the box; just not into it. The box as an entity
is transparent _including it's contents_.
Brad Murray
N> Then what game benefits would someone gain by wielding an invisible
N> weapon?
Holy crap, talk about covering old ground. Not only does this thread
not go anywhere, it goes the same nowhere it went every other time
it's happened. How about we all just read the last incarnation on
Google and not do this again? The deja vu is making me dizzy.
--
Brad Murray * And yet [love is] a source of anguish, of misery, of
Perl Geek * torment, of unhappiness, of conflict, madness, murder,
VSCA Founder * war. Half of wisdom is learning to tiptoe in the
Magnet Oper * presence of eros. -- Joseph Tussman
Paul Haggerty
>
> "Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:ajhg64$1b89em$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de:
>
> >> So under the same mechanism, the invisible door continues to obscure
> >> the contents of the room ?
> >
> > No: the door vanishes, i.e. is made transparent. An invisible room-sized
> > box would obscure the contents, though.
>
> So the door becomes 'air like' but the box does not.... you can see through
> the door... but not through the box.
>
>
> Imagine an invisible door on a room (allowing us to see the gold statue
> inside)... imagine that the door gradually increases in coverage until it
> covers the entire room.
>
> At what point of coverage does the gold statue suddenly disappear ?
>
> an invisible box (which you can't see through).
>
> ---
> /* Christopher Burke - Spam Mail to cra...@hotmail.com
> |* www.craznar.com -
> \* Real mail to cburke(at)craznar(dot)com
It's a topology problem.
An item becomes invisible if it's covered in such a way that there
is no vector ANYWHERE that can reach it without passing through the
invisible item.
A leaf in a closed invisible box can not be seen from any angle which
does not include the surface of the box, thus it's invisible.
A leaf under a boot can be seen from any angle that does not pass
through the boot, and thus is visible.
An invisible door that grows in size (and shape) will cause the
golden statue to vanish at the point when there is no possible
vector between the observer and the statute that does not pass
through a bit of the door. I.E. when the door becomes topologically
closed.
Of course, just to be difficult, we have to assume that the spell
doesn't count keyholes, or peepholes, as "visibility vectors", but
as a part of the item itself.
--
Paul Haggerty
Science and Technology Corporation
NESDIS/NOAA
Phone: 301-457-5255 x142
E-mail: Paul.H...@noaa.gov
Bradd W. Szonye
>> blending into the surrounding walls is another good example of
>> magical thinking. It's not the way invisibility is supposed to work
>> in D&D, but it's a reasonable alternative.
R. Scott Rogers <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> If all you have is the spell description, it's exactly how
> Invisibility would work.
I disagree. The creature or item touched "vanishes from sight." To me,
that means that it disappears entirely. Changing the target's appearance
so that it is still visible but unidentifiable is not "vanishing."
> But then the PHB and the DMG go on to require the very (IMHO, of
> course) non-magical "Invisibility is just another blue-screen effect
> and you see through everything like a meteorologist wearing a green
> blazer in front of the weather map" mechanics that are not the
> necessary (or even, it seems to me, possible) outcome of the spell as
> written.
How is it not possible? "Items dropped or put down by an invisible
creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the
clothing or pouches worn by the creature." That closely describes the
way that invisibility often works in science fiction movies.
Note one subtlety of the mechanics: If you're already holding a knife
when you turn invisible, the knife is invisible too. If you pick up a
visible knife, it doesn't become invisible unless you tuck it into your
clothing. After doing that, I think the knife remains invisible, even if
you draw it again, but I'm not sure.
On re-reading the spell, I noticed that there's no similar rule for
objects in an invisible box. Indeed, "If the recipient is a *creature*
carrying gear, the gear vanishes, too," (emphasis mine). There is no
similar rule for objects that contain gear.
Unless there's an extended explanation elsewhere, I would rule that you
*can* see the contents of a box after you cast invisibility on the box.
Likewise, if you put a key into an invisible box, you can see the key
even after you close the lid. The rules for objects are different from
the rules for creatures. (This means that you can't hide a bunch of
creatures in an invisible sack.)
If you really want to get technical about it, an object *only*
disappears if an invisible creature tucks it into his clothing or
pouches -- boxes, quivers, and other containers don't count. Note that
you can hide a pebble by putting it in your pocket, but you can't hide
it merely by closing your fist around it. Thus, it's a good idea to wear
a cloak or robes if you're invisible. This is a quirky restriction, but
I like it.
> But perhaps the effect that I think is the logical outcome of the
> spell as it is written is actually an Illusion (phantasm).
Nah, it's clearly a glamer. It only affects a single object or creature,
including anything the creature is wearing or carrying. There's a
special exception for putting things in your pockets or under your
cloak. That's still a glamer, though: The illusion "rubs off" on
anything you hide in your clothing.
Bradd W. Szonye
> It's a topology problem.
>
> An item becomes invisible if it's covered in such a way that there is
> no vector ANYWHERE that can reach it without passing through the
> invisible item.
That's what I thought too, but it's incorrect.
The creature or object touched vanishes from sight, even from
darkvision. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, the gear
vanishes, too .... Items dropped or put down by an invisible
creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into
the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.
Note that carried objects only vanish if a creature carries them.
Likewise, objects only become invisible when a creature specifically
tucks them into clothing or pouches -- not bags, boxes, or quivers.
If you cast invisibility on a chest, the chest disappears but the
contents remain visible. If you put an object into an invisible box, the
object stays visible even if you close the box.
If you cast invisibility on a man, his clothing and gear disappear. If
he picks up a pebble, the pebble remains visible, even if he closes his
fist around it. If he puts the pebble in a sack, it remains visible. If
he puts it in his pocket, tucks it under his cloak, or drops it into his
belt-purse, it vanishes.
It has nothing to do with topology; it's a "symbolic magic" rule.
Visible objects *only* disappear when an invisible creature specifically
hides them somewhere in his clothing, including small, worn containers
like pouches.
guppy
> cmsk...@hotmail.com (guppy) wrote in message news:<d8baa55b.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>>Not to be argumentative, but we may say that the spell *does* affect
>>me. If I can't see something that's there and normally visible, then
>>that affects me. It doesn't CHANGE me, but it affects me. You might
>>say that the spell affects me indirectly, or that the effect of the
>>spell affects me, while the spell itself doesn't directly affect me.
>>It's more of a semantic issue than anything, really. I suppose I
>>could also say that a "Heal" spell cast on an opponent "affects" me in
>>this way, as it undoes all the work I'd done to deal damage to him.
>>So this line of thinking can get silly if taken to extremes.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Looking at an invisble object "affects" you in the same way that a
> falling rock dislodged by an Earthquake spell "affects" you - i.e.
> you're affected by a consequence of the spell (i.e. the presence of
> light that otherwise would have been blocked by the object, etc.), not
> the spell itself.
Yes, very good that is precisely what I meant. I like your succinct way
of stating that much better than what I was saying.
----guppy
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Note that carried objects only vanish if a creature carries them.
>Likewise, objects only become invisible when a creature specifically
>tucks them into clothing or pouches -- not bags, boxes, or quivers.
I think that might be an overly legalistic reading, Bradd; it's not
clear to me that that clause was supposed to be exaustive.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Note that carried objects only vanish if a creature carries them.
>> Likewise, objects only become invisible when a creature specifically
>> tucks them into clothing or pouches -- not bags, boxes, or quivers.
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
> I think that might be an overly legalistic reading, Bradd; it's not
> clear to me that that clause was supposed to be exaustive.
I think it's more of a sensible reading. There's nothing to suggest that
you can use anything but clothing and clothing-like containers to pull
off the "make new things invisible" trick. It avoids possible abuses
(like the invisible sack full of fighters trick) and also avoids some
ambiguity.
For example, you can make an object invisible by tucking it into your
cloak or your shirt. Those aren't closed containers! It's not a big deal
as long as you stick to worn clothing, but it gets really messy if you
try to apply it to other containers. Do I need to shut a box *all* the
way to make its contents invisible, or do I just need to close it *most*
of the way?
The most important thing, though, is that the clothing limitation means
that you can only hide fairly small objects unless you were carrying
them when the spell was cast. You can't steal everything in a room just
by carrying an invisible box in with you.
OK, there's one other important thing: You can't turn creatures
invisible by putting them in your pockets; that only works on objects.
Your invisibility only extends to your gear (and your familiar); you
can't make other PCs or creatures invisible, not even if you reduce them
and put them in a box. Heh, maybe that's why you get a Spot DC to notice
invisible creatures: You can still see the mites.
HADSIL
:-)
Gerald Katz
I Love New York!
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>> Note that carried objects only vanish if a creature carries them.
>>> Likewise, objects only become invisible when a creature specifically
>>> tucks them into clothing or pouches -- not bags, boxes, or quivers.
>
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>> I think that might be an overly legalistic reading, Bradd; it's not
>> clear to me that that clause was supposed to be exaustive.
>
>I think it's more of a sensible reading. There's nothing to suggest that
>you can use anything but clothing and clothing-like containers to pull
>off the "make new things invisible" trick. It avoids possible abuses
>(like the invisible sack full of fighters trick) and also avoids some
>ambiguity.
It's the backpack type examples being excluded I have some issues
with. Or even a closed quiver.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> There's nothing to suggest that you can use anything but clothing and
>> clothing-like containers to pull off the "make new things invisible"
>> trick. It avoids possible abuses (like the invisible sack full of
>> fighters trick) and also avoids some ambiguity.
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
> It's the backpack type examples being excluded I have some issues
> with. Or even a closed quiver.
Well, if your backpack has pouches, you're set! Honestly, I think it's
limited to articles of clothing to avoid the kinds of abuses people have
mentioned in this thread. You could probably relax the restriction a bit
without problems, but I'd be reluctant to allow "any container I'm
carrying."
One thing I'm not sure about: Does the item become part of your
"invisible carried gear" after you put it in your pocket, or does it
only disappear temporarily? That is, if you put a rock in your pocket,
it becomes invisible; is it still invisible if you take it out of the
pocket?
Hunter
Just put them under your invisible cloak.