OOC I

[OGRE MAGE]

Oops! I thought it kept going down the hallway for some reason.

[dmw71]

Please note, since I'd like to keep the explorations of each separate, I have created a new 'IV. The Witch Tower' thread and moved all relevant posts from the 'III. Belhaim' thread into it.

[dmw71]

Hopefully my absence of late expresses my disappointment with the lack of progress in this game. Last week the group encountered a door and, hoping to prevent a delay, I even voluntarily added: "an intial assessment of the door has it being both safe and unlocked."

That was five days ago.

Yes, it was suggested that the group explore what is beyond said door, but it wasn't until this morning that an actual action was taken to move the group along those lines.

Starting today, I expect everyone to return to the normal posting rate. If that is a problem for anyone, please let me know.

[Storm11]

Being a first level wizard with no hit points in a game with critical hits I think it unwise for the gnome to be up front.

There's only so many times you can say "Kassal keeps guard behind the group" before its a given right?

[Alethan]

Hopefully my absence of late expresses my disappointment with the lack of progress in this game. Last week the group encountered a door and, hoping to prevent a delay, I even voluntarily added: "an intial assessment of the door has it being both safe and unlocked."

That was five days ago.

Yes, it was suggested that the group explore what is beyond said door, but it wasn't until this morning that an actual action was taken to move the group along those lines.

Starting today, I expect everyone to return to the normal posting rate. If that is a problem for anyone, please let me know.

Apologies, Dave. I've been lax in my posting rate. I will make an effort to step it back up.

Al

[dmw71]

Subject: IV. The Witch Tower

He moves over to the chair and sits on it, making sure not to sit on the same spike Sparrow did.

To clarify, the chairs are impossible to sit in without taking minor damage.

I'll allow Sylvan (and everyone) a chance to decide whether or not they'll do as the crow commands.

[onlyme]

"!#$%^"

I was so close to having a snow day today. But, no... the rain line had to move 20-30 miles north and make me come in to the office...

(sorry, had to rant, back to the game...)

[AleBelly]

Well, I have a snow day today, but no power at home. Pick your poison...

[AleBelly]

Subject: IV. The Witch Tower

He moves over to the chair and sits on it, making sure not to sit on the same spike Sparrow did.

To clarify, the chairs are impossible to sit in without taking minor damage.

I'll allow Sylvan (and everyone) a chance to decide whether or not they'll do as the crow commands.

He'll still do it, especially since they're facing a hobbit demon now!

[dmw71]

Did the imp break its invisibility when it attacked Festus again?

The fact that this question was asked makes me think I missed something, or don't understand something, which is entirely possible (if not likely) since I have zero prior experience when it comes to invisibility. After doing a bit of research this morning, I'm leaning towards no, that the imp does not reveal itself.

Let's talk about it, though. Feel free to share your interpretations and thoughts.


Here is what I am basing my initial ruling on:
Dungeon Master Guide > Chapter 13 > Vision and Light > Invisibility > Detecting Invisible Creatures

Detecting Invisible Creatures
Invisible creatures and things are not detectable by normal sight or by infravision. They do not create any significant distortion or haze pattern that can be noted. However, invisible creatures aren't completely undetectable. First, things still cling to them. Flour thrown into the air is useful for this purpose, although it can be easily covered, washed off, or brushed away. Second, they do not leave invisible footprints. Again, flour on the floor is a good way to spot the movement of invisible creatures.

The effects of specific environments are more subtle. Fog and smoke do not reveal invisible creatures. Smoke and fog are filled with swirls and eddies, preventing the creature from being detected. Invisible creatures completely submerged in liquids are also concealed; there is no hollow space or "air bubble'' to reveal the creature's presence. At the surface, an invisible swimmer may be noticed by the observant as an unusual distortion of the waves.

Invisible creatures are not automatically silent. An invisible fighter in plate mail still clanks and rattles as he moves, a dead giveaway to most creatures. They still have scent, so creatures with keen noses can smell them. Indeed, blind, or nearly blind, creatures are unaffected by invisibility.

A detect magic shows only the presence of something magical without pinpointing it exactly. Thus, it cannot be used as a substitute for a detect invisible spell. Furthermore, while an actual light source may be invisible, the light emanating from it is not. This can reveal the location of an invisible character.

When the DM thinks there is minor but sufficient cause for a creature to detect an invisible character, a saving throw vs. spell should be made (secretly if the DM is checking for a player character). A minor cause might be a strange odor, small noise, an object that disappeared when it shouldn't have, or a strange reaction from another person (who has been pushed, kicked, poked, etc., by the invisible character). Such a saving throw should be allowed for each new event. A wolf would get a save when it detected a strange scent, then shortly after when it heard a stick break, and finally a last chance when the character drew his sword from his scabbard. Furthermore, the acuity of the creature's senses and its general intelligence can increase or decrease the frequency of checks, at the DM's discretion.

If the suspicious creature or character rolls a successful saving throw, he detects some small sign of the invisible foe's presence. He knows its general location, but not its exact position. He can attack it with a -4 penalty on his chance to hit. If the check fails, the creature or character is unaware of the invisible opponent until it does something else that might reveal its presence.

Of course, a revealing action (which could range from an attack to tripping over a pile of pots) immediately negates the need for a saving throw. In such cases, the character has a pretty good idea that something is not right and can take actions to deal with the situation.

Finally, even if an invisible character is suspected, this does not mean the character will be instantly attacked. The result, especially for less intelligent creatures, may only be increased caution. Having scented the intruder, the wolf bristles and growls, protecting its cubs. The rattlesnake will give its warning rattle. Even the orcs may only circle about warily, alert for an ambush.


The above doesn't state that the creature becomes visible, but its attack (revealing action) does negate the need for a saving throw (with the saving throw being used to "detect" an invisible creature in the first place). Because the group is aware that the imp is there, and knows this general location to focus their attacks (but not the exact position), any attack would be made with the standard -4 penalty on their to-hit roll.


Again, feel free to disagree. We can definitely discuss this before moving forward.

[AleBelly]

I think the question stems from rules that apply to items such as a ring of invisibility, where the wearer becomes visible after performing an offensive action (spell-casting, attack, etc.).

If I'm understanding your current thinking, we are fighting the imp with a -4 penalty to hit, correct?

[Alethan]

I think the question stems from rules that apply to items such as a ring of invisibility, where the wearer becomes visible after performing an offensive action (spell-casting, attack, etc.).

If I'm understanding your current thinking, we are fighting the imp with a -4 penalty to hit, correct?

Unless someone has some flour or a barrel of tar and a bag of feathers (which might be better applied to the dwarf, should we survive this...), I think we're fighting a creature with a -4 penalty. Anyone happen to know the AC for an Imp off the top of their head?

Not a good situation. :-\

[Storm11]

I only ask because coming from a 1st edition background the invisibility spell is automatically broken when an attack occurs. It says so in the spell description. As do items that confer invisibility. The improved invisibility spell (which is only a fourth level illusionist spell that only they have access to) is needed and specifically called out as not being cancelled when attacking.

Does this mean in second edition of we cast invisibility we remain hidden too?

Fine with whatever you rule as DM.

The imp's a/C is about 2ish I believe off hand. A great time for Faerie Fire

[dmw71]

If I'm understanding your current thinking, we are fighting the imp with a -4 penalty to hit, correct?

Correct.

I think the question stems from rules that apply to items such as a ring of invisibility, where the wearer becomes visible after performing an offensive action (spell-casting, attack, etc.).

The question is, I guess:
Is a monster's special ability like a spell?

[AleBelly]

I only ask because coming from a 1st edition background the invisibility spell is automatically broken when an attack occurs. It says so in the spell description. As do items that confer invisibility. The improved invisibility spell (which is only a fourth level illusionist spell that only they have access to) is needed and specifically called out as not being cancelled when attacking.

Does this mean in second edition of we cast invisibility we remain hidden too?

Fine with whatever you rule as DM.

The imp's a/C is about 2ish I believe off hand. A great time for Faerie Fire

Ha, yes. It would be.

[Alethan]

If I'm understanding your current thinking, we are fighting the imp with a -4 penalty to hit, correct?

Correct.

I think the question stems from rules that apply to items such as a ring of invisibility, where the wearer becomes visible after performing an offensive action (spell-casting, attack, etc.).

The question is, I guess:
Is a monster's special ability like a spell?

i.e. a monster that can become invisible at will any number of times per day, iirc.

So even if it does become visible after attacking, it can instantly become invisible at will (so, at the speed of thought). The characters might see the flash of the imp as it attacks, but it would once again become invisible.

[dmw71]

I only ask because coming from a 1st edition background the invisibility spell is automatically broken when an attack occurs. It says so in the spell description. As do items that confer invisibility.

It's actually the same in 2E (I looked that up this morning as well).

Does this mean in second edition of we cast invisibility we remain hidden too?

The 'Invisibility' spell will still be handled by the book.

---

Again, I guess it comes down to whether or not an ability is ruled as if it were a spell?

If I do change my interpretation here, this is what I'm thinking.

If an invisible creature attacks, it will become visible from the time it attacks, until the next time it acts (from their initiative slot in one round until its initiative slot in the following round).

While invisible, attacks made against an invisible creature will be made at -4. Attacks made against an invisible creature will be made without penalty.

[dmw71]

i.e. a monster that can become invisible at will any number of times per day, iirc.

So even if it does become visible after attacking, it can instantly become invisible at will (so, at the speed of thought). The characters might see the flash of the imp as it attacks, but it would once again become invisible.

"at will"

Those two simple words are what is really tripping me up.

[Alethan]

i.e. a monster that can become invisible at will any number of times per day, iirc.

So even if it does become visible after attacking, it can instantly become invisible at will (so, at the speed of thought). The characters might see the flash of the imp as it attacks, but it would once again become invisible.

"at will"

Those two simple words are what is really tripping me up.

Well, it is what sets this ability apart from a potion or spell or ring that performs a similar function.

Personally I've never seen a creature's innate ability to do something as having the same limitations as a device or spell that duplicates the ability.

I see it this way: Magic is often used to try and replicate the innate abilities of supernatural creatures. But it won't ever be as good as the ability it tries to copy. Invisibility spells and items have limits like uses per day and events that make you once again visible before full duration, staves and rods and wands have charges, spells require material components, etc.

[Storm11]

In first edition at will means without components and uninterruptible and useable as often as desired.

Not instantaneously.

It's still the creatures action for the round.

Spell like abilities usually conform to the spell with regards to how it works apart from the above in my experience.

But as always it's DMs prerogative to rule how they wish, as long as we all know and understand then whatever you rule is tickety boo