invisibility, again

[Regas]

I personally think we've taken the whole witch hunt on invisibility a bit far, excepting of course actual witches (and warlocks) that use perma invis, with the ability to reload ad-noisome. That was the real abuse in my mind, the rest isn't so far from nwn1. Hell, I assume everyone knows that invis in combat only grants 50% concealment, so it isn't really that great at making a getaway anyway; it doesn’t break the user out of combat. Kill or restrict walk unseen, keep it out of CvC, the rest isn't such a big deal. There's a point of diminished return in trying to script realism into something that is fantasy to begin with .

[paazin]

Using invis the way some players do (and I'm speaking of experience in other PWs, not here) to cross scores of miles of countryside without ever having to worry about encounters, otoh, is a more serious thing, as it is basically an exploit on the in-game timer vs. the "your spell would have fizzled long ago, buddy" reality factor.

I don't think that is a super-huge factor? Our areas are large enough that I'd suspect most invisibility castings would run out before the person would get too far.

How long does it take to get from Rivermoot to, say, Sundabar? My guess is way more than the 3 minutes a scroll or potion lasts.

[Blindhamsterman]

a wizard of reasonable level could however get from Rivermoot to High Hold without much effort, I guess thats the kind of thing Happycrow was getting at.

[Happycrow]

Basically yes.
It seems to me that avoiding monsters is sort of what the whole invisibility spell is about. Leastways, that's what I learned from Tolkien when I was 8...

[hollyfant]

So, we add:

• No entering travel maps or otherwise downscaled areas with invisibility active, nor any castings of it while there.

Does that cover everything now?

[*]No using invisibility to circumvent any monster, NPC or PC if you pass within... thirty feet? Fifty minus your Move Silently skill? ...without DM supervision.

How would this work for the old use of an invisibilty potion, whereby a character is about to get killed in melee, so drinks an invis potion to escape?

That would then not be permitted, except when supervised by a DM. These suggestions are still nerfs, alas. Use a potion of Expeditious Retreat instead.

Kill or restrict walk unseen, keep it out of CvC, the rest isn't such a big deal.

Warlocks are all about the "pew-pew". They have an incredibly limited repetoire of invocations, but an infinite number of uses (for most). However, apart from the costs that is not really different from a bard with a Wand of Invisibility. Banning Walk Unseen while "allowing" abuse of the same by other classes is, in my opinion, not the way to go. Especially when you consider the many bugs that invocations have - there are only so many useful ones a warlock can pick to begin with.

[Blindhamsterman]

walk unseen has infinite uses, so simple, ban invisibility wands, allow potions (and allow the use of them to get out of a sticky situation, its the only reason most people currently used it anyway)

Walk unseen is considered broken because it can be cast as many times as the user likes perhaps a restriction of x/day for it would make it more fair.

and, we need potions of expeditious retreat before we suggest people use them
Personally I'd say its better to keep the number of restrictions on it lower, but go with the previous suggestion of a token or exp hit when used so the player has to explain why they used it.

[Mick]

Even if we had potions of expeditious retreat, it is a poor substitute. Hard to outrun arrows, bolts and throwing axes.

[Regas]

Sorry, but I have to disagree about the Bard analogy. A wand of invisibility costs 11,250 gold fully charged (something that I've never even seen IG). If said bard had this wand and attempted to use it the same way a Warlock uses walk unseen then he would do so at a dear cost. More to the point, many of us have seen abuse of invis from Warlocks. Especially the silly bit where they use the engine to stand next to you and whisper in your ear, untouched by the rules that should allow other pcs to get to them with a 50% concealment roll. This ability under Warlock is a major exploit; I've seen players abuse it IG and validating the abuse because Warlocks are so limited is silly.

[paazin]

[*]No using invisibility to circumvent any monster, NPC or PC if you pass within... thirty feet? Fifty minus your Move Silently skill? ...without DM supervision.

How would this work for the old use of an invisibilty potion, whereby a character is about to get killed in melee, so drinks an invis potion to escape?

That would then not be permitted, except when supervised by a DM. These suggestions are still nerfs, alas. Use a potion of Expeditious Retreat instead.

This the whole point of why people buy the potion.

If an ogre is charging at you while you have 10 hp left and the choice is either down a potion or play tourist in the morgue, I don't think many people would think twice rules be damned.

[hollyfant]

Okay, but what's the alternative? Ban Walk Unseen and leave it at that?

[paazin]

walk unseen has infinite uses, so simple, ban invisibility wands, allow potions (and allow the use of them to get out of a sticky situation, its the only reason most people currently used it anyway)

Walk unseen is considered broken because it can be cast as many times as the user likes perhaps a restriction of x/day for it would make it more fair.

I'd say if someone had to cast walk unseen once every few minutes rather than having it be 24 hr it'd be a reasonable "nerf"

According to the sourcebooks the spell shouldn't be 24 hr anyway, it's just invisibility as per the level the person is (meaning a few minutes)

[Regas]

This would actually fix the issue as long as the pc couldn't just 'stay under' by re-evoking walk unseen while invisible; alternately, if for technical or other reasons it isn't desirable to force the pc to 'surface' then maybe we should consider a limit on the number of used per day, scaled to level. If we set the duration to the mins per level of the warlock (even by a factor of two or three) then it will line up nicely with the third level spell, and be a bit more balanced IG.

[Blindhamsterman]

i agree, make walk unseen work as invisibility (1min/level) with a number of casts per day equal to level+1 or similar. Still makes them better at doing such things than a wizard, possibly not as good as a sorc who knows invis.

and for invisibility just require a player sends a short PM if they do need to use it while not in a DM event (DM event includes CvC as it should always involve a DM anyway), just two lines saying where they cast it and why, I expect most of the time the reason will be 'because the big mean ogre was about to squish me' or similar. Adding too many rules and stipulations will just make for a hard time on DMs trying to pilice it.

The only other thing I can think of, would be, make Invisibility grant a concealment bonus and +20 to Hide tests, then if someone uses it they still need to use the 'hide/movesilently' Mode to actually be invisible. infact this would probably be a fairly elegant way of handling invisibility...

[Brokenbone]

i agree, make walk unseen work as invisibility (1min/level) with a number of casts per day equal to level+1 or similar. Still makes them better at doing such things than a wizard, possibly not as good as a sorc who knows invis.

and for invisibility just require a player sends a short PM if they do need to use it while not in a DM event (DM event includes CvC as it should always involve a DM anyway), just two lines saying where they cast it and why, I expect most of the time the reason will be 'because the big mean ogre was about to squish me' or similar. Adding too many rules and stipulations will just make for a hard time on DMs trying to pilice it.

The only other thing I can think of, would be, make Invisibility grant a concealment bonus and +20 to Hide tests, then if someone uses it they still need to use the 'hide/movesilently' Mode to actually be invisible. infact this would probably be a fairly elegant way of handling invisibility...

I'd thought of +99 to hide as well (+20 just wouldn't cut it), but what does that do to the half-dozen spells that "bust" invisibility? True Seeing, Detect Invisible, dust of appearance, stuff like that? Invalidates them pretty much...

[Blindhamsterman]

give them all a bonus to spot checks equal to the bonus to hide checks invisibility and its relatives would get?

Currently, if I cast see invisibility or blindsight, im pretty sure i can see hidden creatures (using Hide) anyway, blindsight I know definitely works that way, would have to test see invisibility and the others though.