Invisibility scaling with CL

[Louvaine]

As a rogue I invest in Hide and Move Silently to be unseen. As a wizard I invest CL and possibly feats (extend spell) and spell slots to be unseen.

For someone to see through my Hide and Move Silently, that someone has to invest in Spot and Listen. For someone to see through Invisibility, that someone has to drink potion of Blindsight or See Invisibility, or use a wand. Or scroll.

Invisibility is way too easy to counter. A wizard of 30th level has the same chance at being hidden as wizard of 3rd level. Granted, duration makes it easier in long run. I propose there is caster check involved, similar to that of a Spell Penetration vs. Spell Resistance, when attempting to see through an illusion like Invisibility.

No more seeing through Epic Illusionist's trademark spell with a mere 160 GP*. If you want to see through it, you'll have to invest at least CL (be that on a scroll or your own). Just like investing in Spot to see through Hide, you'll have to mirror investment illusionist makes to remain hidden, if you want to see them.

I have no idea if this is mechanically possible. Just a thought I had. Spell Focus (Illusion) line of feats is certainly weak enough to be ignored. This could be a way to bring attention to less popular schools of magic.

*Wand of See Invisibility costs 4,500 GP to craft, bone wand costs 3,500 GP to buy. 8,000 GP divided by 50 charges means that 1 charge is "worth" 160 GP. Laughable amount of gold.

[Rhifox]

I disagree. Invisibility abides by the same rules as all illusions: It is largely perfect unless someone is given cause to suspect there's something wrong. Invisibility is perfect, unless you give your target reason to suspect you are there.

IMO the only issue with invisibility is that people can and do run around with Extended True Seeing all day because of us having such a high level cap. I kind of feel See Invis, Blindsight, and True Seeing should maybe be made 6 sec/CL spells instead of 60 seconds. Like C&C and Amplify, it should be something you use when you suspect trickery is afoot, not a passive buff. Then again, in pnp you can make See Invisibility permanent with a 5th level spell... so, maybe it's fine.

[Louvaine]

I mean, it's still all too easy to metagame and cast True Seeing on yourself just because your nose itches, but I'll take it. Your approach would make me happier, because it would require constant investment to keep seeing through illusion. It's a step in right direction, if you ask me.

Magic being so easily available through wands is another topic in itself.

[OSG]

Can you also clarify how invis and other illusions should interact with non-detection and spells like blindsight and true sight?

It seems to me non-detection might allow a very high dc mage to avoid being detected when invisible against these sorts of spells?

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=Non-Detection

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=True_Seeing

The true seeing description literally says it observes and rolls against non-detection in our own wiki. I'm curious if this is working properly? If it is, then would the cl level of the true sight be used in the check? If this is working or can be made to work ig would this solve the issue?

Note, blind sight is not a divination, and so would help overcome non-detection?

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=Blindsight

[JustAnotherGuy]

The issue with invisibility as it is now, is it is not subject to listen rolls to hear footfalls, breathing, or rustling clothing. Or spot rolls to see indentations in the grass, branches moving against the direction of the wind. We have no scent to identify a person being around.

So as it stands right now, I think it's perfect as is. Give invisibility more counters, and I think then we could have a discussion on how easy it is to counter. But right now, there's only a couple counters, when there should be more.

[Rhifox]

Can you also clarify how invis and other illusions should interact with non-detection and spells like blindsight and true sight?

It seems to me non-detection might allow a very high dc mage to avoid being detected when invisible against these sorts of spells?

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=Non-Detection

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=True_Seeing

The true seeing description literally says it observes and rolls against non-detection in our own wiki. I'm curious if this is working properly? If it is, then would the cl level of the true sight be used in the check? If this is working or can be made to work ig would this solve the issue?

Note, blind sight is not a divination, and so would help overcome non-detection?

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=Blindsight

An interesting point. Jeremy Crawford did clarify awhile back that non-detection does block true seeing. That's technically for 5e, but RAW 3.5 also implies it.

Might be something we could look at implementing.

[Louvaine]

The issue with invisibility as it is now, is it is not subject to listen rolls to hear footfalls, breathing, or rustling clothing. Or spot rolls to see indentations in the grass, branches moving against the direction of the wind. We have no scent to identify a person being around.

So as it stands right now, I think it's perfect as is. Give invisibility more counters, and I think then we could have a discussion on how easy it is to counter. But right now, there's only a couple counters, when there should be more.

Are you saying that Invisibility is too powerful? When it can literally be seen via use of 160 gold? And that it's not enough? You want more ways to counter it? Is that what I'm reading here?

[JustAnotherGuy]

The issue with invisibility as it is now, is it is not subject to listen rolls to hear footfalls, breathing, or rustling clothing. Or spot rolls to see indentations in the grass, branches moving against the direction of the wind. We have no scent to identify a person being around.

So as it stands right now, I think it's perfect as is. Give invisibility more counters, and I think then we could have a discussion on how easy it is to counter. But right now, there's only a couple counters, when there should be more.

Are you saying that Invisibility is too powerful? When it can literally be seen via use of 160 gold? And that it's not enough? You want more ways to counter it? Is that what I'm reading here?

No. I'm saying exactly what I said in my post that you quoted.

So as it stands right now, I think it's perfect as is.

What I did say is that if we made invisibility harder to counter, we should play it right. Let someone listen to hear footfalls, or spot to see evidence of an invisible person nearby. I will go further to add that I do think a level 7 spell (True Sight for Druids) should not be nerfed because it overcomes a level 2 spell.

IMO the only issue with invisibility is that people can and do run around with Extended True Seeing all day because of us having such a high level cap.

To counter this, An extended True Seeing costs a level 8 slot for druids. Even a regular True Seeing is a level 7 slot.

I'm one of those who keeps it on nearly perpetually. But it makes complete and total sense for my toon to do that, for two main reasons. He's constantly around other druids who are shifted into animals. And secondly, he's twice seen known necromancers who have tried to kill him sneaking around polymorphed. But even my toon does not have enough slots to keep it on himself an entire reset (and I'm not one that will simply rest in the middle of RP just so I can recast wards).

But, as Rhifox said already:

Then again, in pnp you can make See Invisibility permanent with a 5th level spell.

We already don't have persistent spells on the server, which nerfs a lot of the spells from PnP. Further nerfing the spells would be a bad move, in my opinion. Persistent See Invisibility would be the same slot as a Druid's extended True Sight. So on our server, the ability to see invisible people is already nerfed from 24 hours with one cast, to 1 hour per cast.

[Louvaine]

The issue with invisibility as it is now, is it is not subject to listen rolls to hear footfalls, breathing, or rustling clothing. Or spot rolls to see indentations in the grass, branches moving against the direction of the wind. We have no scent to identify a person being around.

This indicates you think it's too powerful. You then go on to say it's perfect. Pardon me for being confused.

True Seeing can be used on a wand. So can be Blindsight. So can be See Invisibility. There are also potions of those spells available. All this can also be said for Invisibility, showing us how little investment in magic means when it comes to spying. By the way, when was the last time you scried? I usually just see it as metagame sensor. Don't get me started.

My problem with Invis vs. True Seeing/Blindsight isn't that your druid can see through my wizard's invisibility. It's that my invisibility is just as weak as assassin's and your true seeing is just as weak as a wand. You want to see invisible? Make effort. Pay 7th level slot. I'd be happy to pay 9th if it meant Invisibility would be more reliable than a wand.

I don't think what I suggest can be implemented, by the way. What do I know. I'm just sharing my thoughts. Hope that much is clear.

Edit. Scent, as close as it's implemented right now. Something to maybe help your paranoia RP.

[Rhifox]

My problem with Invis vs. True Seeing/Blindsight isn't that your druid can see through my wizard's invisibility. It's that my invisibility is just as weak as assassin's and your true seeing is just as weak as a wand. You want to see invisible? Make effort. Pay 7th level slot. I'd be happy to pay 9th if it meant Invisibility would be more reliable than a wand.

... Emmanuel is using level 8 slots for Extended True Seeing. Way more than the level 2 slot (or level 3 extended) you're spending on Invisibility.

And wanded True Seeing isn't a problem, no one is going to keep that up 24/7.

[Louvaine]

I think it may just be me thinking Invis is too weak. That's fine.

[Truthiness]

Currently, invisibility (a level 2 spell), counters high investment into spot/listen unless the detector has see invis/true seeing up. This is a bit crazy as you don't silence your footsteps with invisibility, and pnp has some 20 DC spot check to notice somebody is invisible nearby. So in that regard, invisibility is more powerful on the server than it should be for a level 2 spell. In addition, someone usually has to suspect someone is around invisible (or just be paranoid) to use their wand of true seeing/see invis, just like it is for a c&c wand, so I think it's balanced in terms of that.

However, non-detection should counter true seeing/see invisibility, as they are divination spells. Since you are capable of reaching 51+ DC on non-detection with the right build, this would make some abjuration focused red wizard the best sneak on the server. So if this were ever changed, then there would definitely need to be spot/listen checks (against hide/ms checks) to notify you if someone invisible is around, like it would be in pnp.

[mastajabba]

The issue with invisibility as it is now, is it is not subject to listen rolls to hear footfalls, breathing, or rustling clothing. Or spot rolls to see indentations in the grass, branches moving against the direction of the wind. We have no scent to identify a person being around.

So as it stands right now, I think it's perfect as is. Give invisibility more counters, and I think then we could have a discussion on how easy it is to counter. But right now, there's only a couple counters, when there should be more.

This 100%. Specially since sneaks are also Meta all to heck. Specially when you cross a AT and your in over 100 hide mid 70’s move silently yet there is a two second fire works display when you cross an area transfer buffed.

[c2k]

Invisibility, as coded in NWN2, used to have listen checks. But it was so buggy and truly defeated the purpose of the spell, because while you should "hear footsteps nearby", you would see the character running around.

Probably an IC fix could be to send a message to people who pass their Listen vs. Move Silently check if the invisible character gets in ranged, but tbh, Invisibility is fine where it is.


I should also note there is nothing you can do to sneak up on a Druid, because they are among the best spotters in the game, invis or with the usual Hide/MS. The server favors spotters in an equal Spotter vs. Sneak matchup.

[Ewe]

In PnP I usually just cast Invisibility on myself and then Silence spell. This made it so I could walk around without making noise for listen checks.

As others mentioned, Invisibility spell is more lenient in NWN2 because it forgoes the normal listen checks.

The whom can see through what and whom and when debate is endless, I have no interest in changing the current mechanics.

Moreover, invis pots are nice to have to get low levels to areas for RP and so on. It's a convenient feature.