220 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
220 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
***********[ DE RE INVISIBILITAS: A DM'S ENCYCLICAL ]*************
|
|
|
|
"That I might drink, and leave the world unseen,
|
|
And with thee fade away into the forest dim."
|
|
- Keats, TOde to a NightingaleU
|
|
|
|
Recently, questions have been raised in my campaign concerning the role
|
|
of invisibility, especially when combined with spells and items which
|
|
hinder magical detection. This treatise is designed to serve as a final
|
|
ruling and an advisory, in order that characters in my campaigns may
|
|
conduct themselves accordingly. It is being posted to CompuServe in an
|
|
effort to assist DMs who may be experiencing similar difficulties.
|
|
|
|
The rulings herein draw heavily from the PHB2 and DMG2 spell and
|
|
magic item descriptions. An article in Dragon Magazine #105 also proved
|
|
helpful in places, but the most useful sources (as always) were simply
|
|
sufficient thought, some common sense, and concern for play balance.
|
|
Naturally, this source is only an advisory and its status thus rests solely
|
|
with its perceived elegance and persuasive power; having said that, I
|
|
hope that you like it.
|
|
|
|
The 'Net being what it is, I would certainly encourage any thoughts, return
|
|
posts, and debates concerning these rulings. They withstood the "Sean
|
|
Copeland test," so I'm pretty confident of their soundness, but I'm always
|
|
interested to see how others react and to listen to their opinions. My time
|
|
is a little tight right now, but if you have a question, leave me a message
|
|
via the Forum and I promise to respond.
|
|
|
|
--"Thalion Envinyatar"
|
|
(Joseph Katzman: 72427,3033 / Joe_Katzman@mail.magic.ca)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
& INVISIBILITY IN GENERAL:
|
|
|
|
Invisibility does not actually cause its recipients to disappear; for that,
|
|
one must use dust of disappearance. Think of it instead as a more
|
|
powerful form of the Sanctuary spell, which encourages others not to pay
|
|
attention to some of the things which they do in fact perceive through
|
|
their visual organs. If youUve ever driven through a stop sign or been
|
|
asked what colour a pretty girlUs shoes were, you understand how this
|
|
phenomenon works. Filtering for significance is a natural trait, inherent
|
|
in all creatures; invisibility just gives it a helping hand.
|
|
|
|
Several logical consequences flow from this definition:
|
|
|
|
% Invisible persons are not fooled, and can see themselves; ditto for a
|
|
spell-caster who casts the spell on another being.
|
|
|
|
% Invisibility is not proof against magical traps, etc., which have no
|
|
TattentionU to divert. Sort of like Tthe camera never lies.U Ditto for mindless
|
|
creatures like skeletons or automata (e.g. Golems).
|
|
|
|
% Since invisibility relies on diverting attention and perception, detect
|
|
magic spells will NOT reveal an invisible character. The spell imparts the
|
|
data, but the caster filters it out as inconsistent unless the invisibility can
|
|
be overridden somehow. The same is true for infravision and ultravision,
|
|
but not for wavelengths which are higher or lower in the electro-magnetic
|
|
spectrum.
|
|
|
|
% Beings with more than 10 HD and 13 Int., however, have an automatic
|
|
chance to detect invisible creatures, expressed as a saving throw vs. spell.
|
|
Presumably, those beings which save successfully find that the spell is
|
|
unable to completely override their inherent strength and mental acuity,
|
|
though the spell still functions and may succeed against others. Note that
|
|
this does not usually allow them to RseeS the character, however; instead,
|
|
itUs sort of like the Ttip of the tongueU phenomenon with words - they know
|
|
that something is there, but canUt quite place it. Hence the -4 to AC and
|
|
+4 on saves.
|
|
|
|
% Creatures who rely on other senses besides sight do not have their
|
|
other sense data filtered, and may perceive invisible creatures more
|
|
easily; indeed, in some cases (bats, scorpions, et. al.) they may not be
|
|
aware that the creature is supposed to be invisible at all. Less powerful
|
|
beings with great sensory acuity may also get saving throws, as noted
|
|
above. Presumably, those who make their saves are paying attention to
|
|
this other sensory data, and the cognitive dissonance this creates allows
|
|
them to detect that something is amiss.
|
|
|
|
Being attacked , however, is a pretty hard message to ignore, and will
|
|
trigger certain deeply embedded defensive responses even if the attack
|
|
does not register at the conscious level. Engaging in such activities thus
|
|
draws opponentsU attention to you in such a decisive fashion that
|
|
invisibility becomes ineffective immediately thereafter. Overwhelmed by
|
|
the metal backlash, the RscreenS then collapses.
|
|
|
|
Finally, it should be noted that Magic Resistance is no more effective
|
|
against invisibility than it is against other forms of illusion. It confers NO
|
|
benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
& IMPROVED INVISIBILITY:
|
|
|
|
A more advanced form of invisibility, whose greater power is aimed at
|
|
the maintenance of the perceptual screen despite actions (like attacks)
|
|
which would cause the less powerful version to collapse. Think of it as a
|
|
steady barrage of reassuring suggestions aimed at a variety of conscious
|
|
levels, rather than a single suggestion aimed at the conscious level.
|
|
|
|
Of course, this power has a price, in that the spell has a definite duration
|
|
and will burn itself out much sooner (rounds instead of 24 hrs.). In
|
|
addition, it is never completely effective, as the results of attacks and
|
|
other sense data still register in the victimUs mind. As such, it is possible
|
|
for suspicious opponents to partially override its effects in the same
|
|
fashion as an active invisibility dweomer Rafter the invisible character
|
|
has made his presence knownS [PH 2, 159].
|
|
|
|
The spellUs greater breadth and comprehensiveness also provide benefits
|
|
against creatures which would normally be able to detect invisible
|
|
opponents, reducing their saving throw categories by 2 HD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
& DUST OF DISAPPEARANCE:
|
|
|
|
The real thing. Actually bends the electro-magnetic spectrum around the
|
|
individual, thus causing them to disappear from electro-magnetic
|
|
perception entirely. Think of it as a sort of super-stealth technology,
|
|
which unfortunately tends to Rflake offS with time (2-20 turns if sprinkled
|
|
haphazardly, 11-20 turns if carefully applied).These properties give Dust
|
|
of Disappearance several advantages which invisibility does not have, but
|
|
there are limitations. While Detect Invisibility spells are ineffective,
|
|
spells which actually augment perception instead of just enhancing it (i.e.
|
|
Detect Evil, True Sight) will function properly. Furthermore, the recipient
|
|
still gives off some information. If you roll in a dunghill and then sprinkle
|
|
the dust on, you still stink. If you walk on dry leaves, you still make noise.
|
|
If you walk at all, you still create vibrations in the ground which some
|
|
creatures (esp. snakes and scorpions) can detect. Admittedly, all of these
|
|
factors can be mitigated by prior preparation, but they are not conferred
|
|
automatically.
|
|
|
|
One final note: a dragonUs ability to detect invisible creatures in its lair is
|
|
a function of its deep attunement with its immediate environment. A
|
|
creature using the dust would thus be detected as present, though the
|
|
dragon may not be able to tell who or what it is. A similar principle holds
|
|
true for those using Commune With Nature spells, unless the dust was
|
|
applied within the spellUs radius; in that case, the act of application may
|
|
well be revealed, and appropriate conclusions drawn thereafter concerning
|
|
any Runidentifiable effects.S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% DETECT INVISIBILITY:
|
|
|
|
This spell relies primarily on improving the recipientUs perceptual filters
|
|
and concentrating their attention in order to enable them to notice
|
|
invisible, out-of phase, or concealed creatures. As noted in the PH 2,
|
|
pg.141, however, it does not confer the ability to see through physical
|
|
objects such as a door or even a boulder, though hiding in underbrush
|
|
would cause one to be revealed. Note that this allows the recipient to
|
|
clearly see such creatures as if they were not invisible or hidden at all!
|
|
Magic resistance offers NO protection, as this spellUs power is focused
|
|
exclusively upon its caster.
|
|
|
|
It would appear that most creatures have some latent ability to perceive
|
|
the ethereal, as evidenced by dreams and by some peopleUs stronger
|
|
innate sensitivity to ghosts, spirits, and things supernatural. Except for
|
|
these rare individuals, however, such abilities appear to operate below
|
|
the threshold of consciousness. This spell brings them to the fore,
|
|
allowing its recipients to clearly see ethereal or out-of-phase creatures.
|
|
|
|
The parallel ability to detect astral creatures and even perceive their
|
|
silver cords by means of this spell is a matter of some interest and debate
|
|
among sages. Some theorize a subconscious innate ability similar to that
|
|
which applies to ethereal things, though they have difficulty pointing to
|
|
any analogous RcommonS experiences. Others argue that this dearth of
|
|
analogies is proof that the spell must actually augment perceptions in
|
|
certain limited ways. Research continues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
% DIVINATORY INVISIBILITY: NON-DETECTION
|
|
|
|
An extremely useful spell for those who value their personal privacy but
|
|
have not yet achieved Mage-class status as a Master of the Third Circle;
|
|
indeed, several wizards have been known to use this spell in combination
|
|
with Extensions in order to provide continuous coverage.
|
|
|
|
Casting this spell provides complete resistance to scrying of all sorts, as
|
|
well as spells like ESP and most other detection or divination-type spells.
|
|
In my campaigns, it also prevents aura readings like know alignment (just
|
|
as the amulet and many similar items are known to do), although the
|
|
resulting Rnull readingS often does at least as much to provoke suspicion
|
|
as any information which may otherwise have resulted. In general,
|
|
therefore, it is most effective against spells like Detect Evil and Detect Lie,
|
|
which normally provide information only if their conditions are violated.
|
|
|
|
Non-detection is not foolproof, however. Contact Other Plane may result in
|
|
useful information if the being contacted is sufficiently powerful (5%
|
|
chance, +5% per plane removed), and a Commune spell is always effective
|
|
if the matter is one which concerns the religion. True Seeing/ True Sight
|
|
spells are also effective (except with respect to aura readings), as their
|
|
power is generally sufficient to overcome the spellUs barriers. Finally,
|
|
Divinations and other prophetic spells may work if the non-detection
|
|
caster fails a saving throw vs. magic.
|
|
|
|
Of particular interest, however, are this spellUs known interactions with
|
|
Invisibility of all types. Since Detect Invisibility largely affects the caster,
|
|
it remains effective even against a being cloaked by non-detection.
|
|
Nevertheless, a subtle interaction between divinatory and perceptual
|
|
invisibility appears to exist, as evidenced by the fact that such creatures
|
|
cannot be clearly seen for what they are unless more powerful magics like
|
|
True Seeing are employed. Detect Invisibility, therefore, will only reveal
|
|
general details (rough size and build, biped or not, humanoid or
|
|
monstrous, etc.). Rogues often find this result extremely convenient, as do
|
|
assassins. Treat this special effect just like the natural detection ability of
|
|
certain powerful creatures, therefore, albeit with a 100% chance of
|
|
success.
|
|
|
|
One other extremely valuable aspect of this spell is its ability to foil
|
|
magical traps whose triggers are based on inherent traits rather than
|
|
effects. A glyph designed to detonate in the presence of good clerics or
|
|
elves, for example, would remain inert, while one triggered by crossing at
|
|
threshold without speaking its name would remain effective. This
|
|
weakness can be alleviated somewhat by employing negative conditions
|
|
(i.e. Rany non-evil beingS), though this has the disadvantage that cloaked
|
|
creatures who do fit the requirements will then become vulnerable.
|
|
|
|
*********
|
|
JOE KATZMAN, 1994;
|
|
|