DO NOT USE INVISIBILITY

[Brokenbone]

The interaction of that posted Admin-level ruling with our CvC rules is going to be interesting, isn't it?

Can initiate CvC without a DM. Can't escape CvC invisibly without a DM.

Pick who you play with wisely.

[kid]

a-meh-n.

[loulabelle]

Okay, at the risk of sounding noobish here, please can someone explain to me what's wrong with invisibility that we're aren't allowed to use it? (If there's a post on the forum I'm failing to find, sorry in advance and please point me to it.)

Thanks.

(Carrying an Invisibility Potion is kinda my non-combat oriented pc's backup plan at all costs...)

[t-ice]

Well, I'm sure someone with more complete knowledge can fill this up, but the gist of the invis problem is that invis PCs cannot be detected by anything or anyone. (Apart from see invis, and true seeing). No listen vs move silently checks, or anything of the sort, no blacked-out forms of things you don't see but detect otherwise. So PC invis is more like ethrealness, with some added bonuses (to-hit, sneak attack). PCs can still detect invisible NPCs as before, though.

And BB, it's certainly not only invis potions that breaks unwanted, un-DMd CvC by the rules. All you need is someone wearing medium or heavy armor and a chase.

[danielmn]

T hits the nail on the head. Along with listen checks, there are things like Survival rolls/tracking to be considered. The posted Admin Rule has been in effect for almost a year. The posted Admin Ruling is the first case in which Invisibility has been used to escape a potential conflict that has been brought to the attention of the PA. Know that the CVC rule is an issue on the PA's desk and it will be dealt with in a timely manner, so there may be adjustment to that in the near future.

[Brokenbone]

The invisibility "rule" and the sort of nebulous "try to get a DM for CvC but if it's heat of the moment... chips fall where they may" type rules (or are they more "thoughts" than "rules"?) just have a weird interaction. It's in part why Rotku had all those polls about "never ever" through DM-moderated in various ways, to complete "free for all", cool if some kind of more clear cut rule will come out of it during this PA term. By no means is it a critique, it's just a "wow, two rules don't mix so hot at the moment" type issue.

[danielmn]

"Pending confirmation from the DMA, TA and standards on a now proven bug any use of any inivisibility effect is to be considered as an exploit on BG and TSM leading to further investigation."

I, as a player, certainly took such to be a Ruling, backed by the DMA, which I never broke as a player. I still do as PA. I also take the CVC RULE to be a rule as well, and not a thought to be ignored on a whim. In a roundabout way, yes they clash. This is realized. It will be handled. If anyone has any further questions, don't hesitate to post.

[I-KP]

IMO if CvC is initiated without DM presence and it becomes apparent to those involved that the conflict will likely touch elements that can’t be resolved solely within the engine itself (not just Invisibility) then all parties should agree to OCCly break off the engagement until a DM is available. For some, one-shot invisibility tricks comprise most if not all of a non-combat character's repertoire to attempt to escape from a sticky situation, and to have that ability granted in one branch of ALFA’s rules but then taken away within another seems a little absurd. Honestly, if I had a character that relied on an invisibility trick to save their life and there was no DM online to adjudicate a CvC event, and an OOC agreement to break off wasn’t achieved, I’d use that trick anyway and be damned with the strike.

[danielmn]

I am heartily glad there are strong feelings on the issue, as I too have had strong feelings about it for a year now. Perhaps one of you kind souls would be willing to get with our tech team and donate your time souly to fix this issue! It is what is truely needed, after all.

Barring that, if you ask for an OOC pause to use such and are not granted such for use of invisibility, that is something the DM Team will have to consider in a reveiw of the events.

Barring that IK, if someone is relying on invisibility to escape a cvc situation, then they should also be relying on a move silently check opposed to a listen check. I would encourage such.

[I-KP]

Barring that IK, if someone is relying on invisibility to escape a cvc situation, then they should also be relying on a move silently check opposed to a listen check. I would encourage such.

Exactly but without a DM present it's bound to get awkward really, really quickly.

[Regas]

http://www.alandfaraway.org/forums/view ... =3&t=47115

Please refer to the above link for the current official policy on using Invisibility (in case you missed it in the main forums).

Thanks,

Reg

[oldgrayrogue]

Dan, as an interim measure while the conflict between the rules is worked out, can we have a rule that an OOC request for DM moderation of CvC by a player must be honored by other players involved, and to ignore such a request subjects one to sanctions? This would address any issues, at least temporarily.

[Brokenbone]

"Time out!"

Lots of games (or sports) have it. Essentially "time out... until we get a referee to oversee this." Which then could involve any tactic the DM was prepared to hand manage, invisibility / listening for 'em included.

[Zelknolf]

I believe that OGR's request is to just put that in writing, so there is recourse if another player fails to respect the time out, given that (as I-KP points out) most players' "panic button" is a combination of invisibility and fleeing.

Though that might already be covered by this:

what if for instance my character swallowed a potion of invisibility to get out of a lethal situation, would that be considered cheating?

Ideally no, but your PC shouldnt be robbed of this opportunity to escape. We are still playing this by ear for the moment.

For now id continue to use this action (though I can only speak for BG), make the DMs aware of it and if we think its necessary the situation can be re-played.

Same applies to TSM and all Live servers.

[danielmn]

"Invisibility in NWN2 has been thoroughly broken since the last OEI patch. Ever since the extent of this breakage was discovered the use of Invisibility, whether by spells, potions, devices, or spell-like abilities (i.e., Walk Unseen) without the presence of a live DM to adjudicate the situation has been ruled an exploitable bug in situations involving CvC whether lethal or non-lethal, and in hunting spawns. It may be used during DMed plots or to escape a dangerous scripted (spawned) situation."

In no way does calling a time out, to look for a dm, conflict with this at all. What's more, if a dm can't be found, and the situation plays out, as mentioned above, the dms can reveiw the situation and if the HDM/DMs feel it appropriate, roll back the encounter so these types of situations can be played out.