Monsters attack me when I'm in stealth mode.

[Varcharamir]

I made a warlock/shadowDanser who specialize in stealth. When I cast Chilling Tentales on group of monsters - they get damaged and begin to directly attack me even though they have no ability to see me in stealth. This is not fair! Im ok with invisibility going off as I do attack and damage creatures, but why should they suddenly get the abylity to see through my stealth? Please fix this somehow.

[Sun Wukong]

AoE effects break stealth. Otherwise a high stealth character could just spam AoE, and wait for AI to kill itself, since the mobs struggle to move away from an AoE effect on their own.

[Tsidkenu]

Pick Retributive Invisibility as one of your Dark Invocations and I believe this will no longer be a problem, although I've never played a warlock so I cannot say for certain.

I'm also supposing that by the time you can pick Retributive Invisibility, Chilling tentacles will expire in their general usefulness.

[Varcharamir]

As far as I know Retributive Invisibility acts like a Greater Invisibility spell in here so its no use...

[Cenerae]

Could try casting The Dead Walk and trying to use it as a distraction, if your character is willing to do that sort of thing.

No harm in dropping it in the tentacle mass since you can just resummon it when it dies.

[Deathgrowl]

I made a warlock/shadowDanser who specialize in stealth. When I cast Chilling Tentales on group of monsters - they get damaged and begin to directly attack me even though they have no ability to see me in stealth. This is not fair! Im ok with invisibility going off as I do attack and damage creatures, but why should they suddenly get the abylity to see through my stealth? Please fix this somehow.

Wait, I may not understand you correctly: Are you saying that it's unfair for mobs to see you when you attack them?

As far as I know Retributive Invisibility acts like a Greater Invisibility spell in here so its no use...

I don't understand this reasoning. Greater Invisibility (and also indeed Retributive Invisibility) keep you invisible while attacking. How is that no use for what you're asking here?

[Sun Wukong]

Because in stock NWN2, warlock has some AoE damage abilities that do not break invisibility. Hence you can just spam them, and spam them, without taking any damage in turn.

[NeonAvenger]

I don't understand this reasoning. Greater Invisibility (and also indeed Retributive Invisibility) keep you invisible while attacking. How is that no use for what you're asking here?

In stock NWN2 when you attack while under Greater Invisibility you lose the invisibility but have 50% concealment for the remainder of the duration.
Retributive Invisibility works "correctly" in that you remain invisible the whole time.

From what I've read most servers patch one or the other to make the effects consistent. I never really used either spell so I have no idea if either option has been done here.

[Deathgrowl]

I don't understand this reasoning. Greater Invisibility (and also indeed Retributive Invisibility) keep you invisible while attacking. How is that no use for what you're asking here?

In stock NWN2 when you attack while under Greater Invisibility you lose the invisibility but have 50% concealment for the remainder of the duration.

No, no. You become partially visible for one round. It reapplies again if you don't continue to attack. Hostile action gives indication of where you are.

Can you imagine how ridiculously OP it would be if you could attack and no one could notice you?

[Incarnate]

It actually don't make sense mechanic-wise that invisibility or other stealth mechanics would break as a result of passive damage being applied to monsters from an offensive spell/invocation cast prior to becoming invisible/stealthed.

1st Example:
Say I cast Chilling Tentacles, then I cast a spell or use an ability that grants me full invisibility.
Chilling Tentacles should now be passively dealing damage on its own, and as a long as I make no hostile action the invisibility should remain in place, and even a concentration check wouldn't count as a hostile action. However, should I re-cast the Chilling Tentacles, then the invisibility would break, in case of greater invisibility it would be suppressed for that round but reapply automatically the following round.

2nd Example:
Say Chilling Tentacles was a targettable entity, then for instance I could cast greater invisibility on it, which would make it invisible, until it makes a hostile action, which it does as soon as anyone is in its area of effect, invisibility effect would then re-apply but break almost immediately after because it would be making another hostile action as per the invocation's description. The point with the example, targettable or not, this is the one that is making the hostile action, not the character who cast it.

3rd Example:
I set a trap and cast invisibility on myself and wait for someone to go into the trap, once it triggers I should remain completely undetected and still invisibility, as long as the duration of the spell hasn't expired.

In all three examples why my invisibility effect shouldn't break when an AoE effect applies damage to monsters or characters, simply because I'm not the one making a hostile action - what counts is physically taking a hostile action.

[Cenerae]

It actually don't make sense mechanic-wise that invisibility or other stealth mechanics would break as a result of passive damage being applied to monsters from an offensive spell/invocation cast prior to becoming invisible/stealthed.

It makes perfect sense from a balance standpoint, however. While strictly speaking you might be able to get away with it mechanically, being able to kill things without them even getting a chance to react to it would be some serious level of BS. Even HIPSers aren't *that* cheesy.

[Varcharamir]

Could try casting The Dead Walk and trying to use it as a distraction, if your character is willing to do that sort of thing.

No harm in dropping it in the tentacle mass since you can just resummon it when it dies.

This one sounds nice, I'll try it out later.

I don't understand this reasoning. Greater Invisibility (and also indeed Retributive Invisibility) keep you invisible while attacking. How is that no use for what you're asking here?

In stock NWN2 when you attack while under Greater Invisibility you lose the invisibility but have 50% concealment for the remainder of the duration.

No, no. You become partially visible for one round. It reapplies again if you don't continue to attack. Hostile action gives indication of where you are.

Can you imagine how ridiculously OP it would be if you could attack and no one could notice you?

If the spell really reapplies again it could be of a value. Although I cant remember it to act in such a manner.

[wangxiuming]

Having played a warlock for almost a year on the server now - and also having just tested the invocation - Retributive Invisibility does not reapply invisibility on its own after an attack. You keep the concealment, but once you attack, your invisibility is gone and you will be noticed by monsters. You will need to recast the spell to become invisible again.

[Incarnate]

It actually don't make sense mechanic-wise that invisibility or other stealth mechanics would break as a result of passive damage being applied to monsters from an offensive spell/invocation cast prior to becoming invisible/stealthed.

It makes perfect sense from a balance standpoint, however. While strictly speaking you might be able to get away with it mechanically, being able to kill things without them even getting a chance to react to it would be some serious level of BS. Even HIPSers aren't *that* cheesy.

Both yes and no, as there ways to counter it, especially if its PvE.

[Sun Wukong]

In PnP, you can just make a 'guess' and swing around your swords and land a hit on the invisible fellow even through that 50% miss chance.

NWN2 does not work anywhere like that. If the engine says you cannot see something, you cannot hit it without using some AoE ability.