I could be wrong here, but having recently had a discussion of invisibility, it got me wondering about why Invisibility Purge from 3rd edition never made it into the 5e rules. Her
For reference, here is a copy of the Invisibility Purge from the 3E D&D Wiki page.
"The character surrounds his or herself with a sphere of power with a radius of 5 feet per caster level that negates all forms of invisibility. Anything invisible becomes visible while in the area."
This got me thinking about the current spells available to get rid of the benefits of invisibility: Faerie Fire and See Invisibility. The former is only on Artificer, Druid and Bard spell lists. The latter is on the lists of Artificers, Bard, Wizards and Sorcerers.
It feels like we're missing something in terms of anti-invisibility abilities. How so? Well, while Faerie Fire is a great spell for debuffing enemies who are invisible or that have a high AC, it's AoE effect prevents you from safely using it around allies. Notably, it also has Zero effect on invisible objects, since it only affects creatures. On the other hand, we have the higher level See Invisibility, which affects only the caster. This has the drawback of not being able to "share the know" of visible-ing the invisible creature or object, meaning that the invisible creature or object is still difficult for the rest of the party to get rid of without good improvising. So while See Invisibility allows a person to detect invisible objects and creatures, it's bad for the action economy since the people who can effectively kill invisible creature are the martials because they get more attacks per round starting at 5th level. (Valor and Sword Bards being a notable exception to this.) Since See Invisibility is not on the Cleric or Druid spell lists, that means an Artifier or Bard player must save their spell slot for a rather situational spell. IOW, this is almost a "never picked" spell unless the DM gives this to the party Wizard or the DM telegraphs to the party that they are going to be fighting a bunch of invisible creatures far in advance.
The question is: Is this lack of all-utility anti-invisibility spells that don't debuff allies a design Flaw or a design Feature?
I think it's because invisibility got heavily nerfed compared to older editions. In 3rd Edition, you had to pass a Listen check just to know that the invisible creature was there, which did not automatically let you know where the invisible creature was. You had to pass a very difficult check in order to actually locate them, otherwise you were forced to guess which space they were in in order to attack them. And even if you guessed correctly, there was a flat 50% chance that your attack would automatically miss them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think Invisibility and its attendant ways of detecting an Invisibile creature are fine as is. Its just worth remebering that Invisibility does not mean undetectable, you can still hear, feel and smell an invisible creature. You can still use active and passive Percedption checks to find their approximate location, you just fail any check that involves sight as per the Blinded condition and have disadvatange on your attack rolls.
The answer to not having a way to detect invisible things is to be creative, even if that just means walking around a room waving a weapon about until you bump into something you can't see and then trying to hit whatever it was.
Aside from See Invisiblity you also have True Seeing for magical ways to get around Invisible things and there are various ways of getting around having disadvatange on your attack rolls or ability checks so I don't think there is too much need for anythign else, I might be wrong....I've got an encounter I have been wanting to use for a while involving Skulks which I think is going to be a good test of my players creativity for getting around invisibility so time may well cause me to rethink this stance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
I think it's because invisibility got heavily nerfed compared to older editions. In 3rd Edition, you had to pass a Listen check just to know that the invisible creature was there, which did not automatically let you know where the invisible creature was. You had to pass a very difficult check in order to actually locate them, otherwise you were forced to guess which space they were in in order to attack them. And even if you guessed correctly, there was a flat 50% chance that your attack would automatically miss them.
Since i never played 3E, what is the mathematical diff between a 3e Listen check and a 5e Perception check?
I think it's because invisibility got heavily nerfed compared to older editions. In 3rd Edition, you had to pass a Listen check just to know that the invisible creature was there, which did not automatically let you know where the invisible creature was. You had to pass a very difficult check in order to actually locate them, otherwise you were forced to guess which space they were in in order to attack them. And even if you guessed correctly, there was a flat 50% chance that your attack would automatically miss them.
Since i never played 3E, what is the mathematical diff between a 3e Listen check and a 5e Perception check?
Well, for starters, 3E had significantly more skills than 5E. What's called Perception in 5E was split into two skills in 3E: Spot and Listen (similarly, Stealth was split into Hide and Move Silently).
In 3E, accuracy was unbound. You got skill points whenever your character gained a level. At 1st level, you could put a maximum of 4 points into a single skill, and you could raise it by one point every level after that. However, some skills were class skills, and others were cross-classed. The difference was that cross-classed skills only got a +1 for every 2 points you spent on them, while class skills were 1 for 1.
So, because of this, modifiers tended to increase rapidly. And there were all sort of conditional modifiers for things as well. So to detect an invisible creature, you could either make a Listen Check opposed to its Move Silent check, which if you won would tell you the general area that the invisible creature was in but not their exact space (so you had to guess), or you could make a Spot check at a big penalty that would tell you the exact space. Due to the penalty (I want to say it was at a -20 to the roll), it was almost impossible for most characters to succeed.
This meant that if there was an invisible character, you were usually stuck trying to guess their actual location. And as I said previously, if you did know where they were, all your attacks had a flat 50% chance of missing automatically regardless of what you rolled to hit. It was much more punishing than the current system where you've got disadvantage on attacks but still know exactly where the target is unless they make a Hide check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Since i never played 3E, what is the mathematical diff between a 3e Listen check and a 5e Perception check?
The problem was less the difficulty of the task (equal to the target's move silently check, or zero if fighting or otherwise not trying to be stealthy, +1 per 10' distance) than the fact you had to beat the DC by 20 to actually determine the location of the creature.
To me, the current see invisibility seems much stronger than the 3e spell. Its a lower level, it's range is sight, so as far as you can see, it extends into the ethereal plane. The 3e version was a higher level spell and only suppressed it while they were adjacent to you. Granted everyone could see them, but still, I'd take the 5e version.
FWIW, Branding Smite also negates invisibility. And True Seeing as an above poster said. I'd be willing to bet there's some more odds and ends out there that do so.
Also, in the current edition, if you think there’s an invisible creature around you can attack it and all you suffer to the attack roll is disadvantage. Invisibility is nowhere near as powerful as it used to be.
Also, in the current edition, if you think there’s an invisible creature around you can attack it and all you suffer to the attack roll is disadvantage.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss
Well sure, if they aren’t actually where you attack, then you miss. That only makes sense. But considering how much easier it is to locate an invisible creature this edition. You don’t actually need to know where the creature is. You just have to guess right, and that’s pretty easy this edition. Heck, a high enough passive perception score is enough for that if the invisible creature rolls low enough on their Stealth check.
To me, the current see invisibility seems much stronger than the 3e spell. Its a lower level, it's range is sight, so as far as you can see, it extends into the ethereal plane. The 3e version was a higher level spell and only suppressed it while they were adjacent to you. Granted everyone could see them, but still, I'd take the 5e version.
FWIW, Branding Smite also negates invisibility. And True Seeing as an above poster said. I'd be willing to bet there's some more odds and ends out there that do so.
Methinks See Invisibility would be much better if you could cast it on someone else. Since the classes which get that spell typically only get one attack per round (except S.Bard and V.Bard). Granted, only Clerics in 3e had Invisibility Purge on their spell list, it still benefited the whole party trying to capture/kill that invisible creature.
I would note that dispel magic does not require you to see your target.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dispel Magic does not seem to work on innate invisibility or items that grant invisibility. An Invisible Stalker, for instance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dispel Magic does not seem to work on innate invisibility or items that grant invisibility. An Invisible Stalker, for instance.
That's true, but it does work on creatures that have the ability to cast invisibility, which there are quite a few of.
Also, in the current edition, if you think there’s an invisible creature around you can attack it and all you suffer to the attack roll is disadvantage.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss
That bold part only comes into play if they are invisible *and* hidden though.
The other issue is there is a cost-to-opportunity ratio to consider. If the hostile creatures all have invisibility via spell, but their numbers are > the PC's 3rd level spell slots, Dispel Magic becomes an expensive solution to the problem. Or similarly, if the hostiles can reapply Invisibility to themselves without limit and have numbers greater than 1/2 the # of party members, that also tends to make Dispel Magic expensive.
A related issue I'm seeing is how do smart monsters deal with the PCs' invisibility? Sure, some of the higher tier creatures might have blindsight or truesight, but there are plenty of Tier 2 and 3 monsters that don't and also lack any countermeasures whatsoever. Some examples include the Efreeti, spellcasting genies with 16 INT and invisibility themselves but no counters to the PCs' invisibility. Or the Rakshasa, spellcasting manipulators that also lack any means of dealing with party invisibility. While it's entirely understandable that individual monsters would not have a direct counter, if there are societies of such intelligent monsters, it's kinda weird if none of them develop defenses to what is undoubtedly one of the most common tricks in the (PH)book.
The other issue is there is a cost-to-opportunity ratio to consider. If the hostile creatures all have invisibility via spell, but their numbers are > the PC's 3rd level spell slots, Dispel Magic becomes an expensive solution to the problem. Or similarly, if the hostiles can reapply Invisibility to themselves without limit and have numbers greater than 1/2 the # of party members, that also tends to make Dispel Magic expensive.
In my experience, these scenarios simply don't happen. Invisibility on mooks is basically nonexistent.
it's kinda weird if none of them develop defenses to what is undoubtedly one of the most common tricks in the (PH)book.
Player characters are usually supposed to be pretty rare. (I would argue that this argument falls flat when you have spellcasting services available for purchase, which is pretty common especially for resurrections and identifications, and when a bunch of famous Faerun NPCs are running around with 20 Wizard levels, but when has consistency ever gotten in the way of a claim about D&D's basic assumptions?)
The other issue is there is a cost-to-opportunity ratio to consider. If the hostile creatures all have invisibility via spell, but their numbers are > the PC's 3rd level spell slots, Dispel Magic becomes an expensive solution to the problem. Or similarly, if the hostiles can reapply Invisibility to themselves without limit and have numbers greater than 1/2 the # of party members, that also tends to make Dispel Magic expensive.
In my experience, these scenarios simply don't happen. Invisibility on mooks is basically nonexistent.
On the contrary, Imps, Quasits, and Sprites all have limitless Invisibility. And that's just in the PHB! Doubtless there are several other fey creatures and monstrosities with invisibility powers that don't require spell slots.
The "PCs are supposed to be pretty rare" argument is a cop-out, IMHO. It encourages sloppy world-building and lore-writing that has lead us, more broadly speaking, into series after series of bad Isekai anime where OP heroes always win just because they are the protagonists. Please keep that dreck (and its associated PC-centric meta-power fantasy) away from this discussion.
I could be wrong here, but having recently had a discussion of invisibility, it got me wondering about why Invisibility Purge from 3rd edition never made it into the 5e rules. Her
For reference, here is a copy of the Invisibility Purge from the 3E D&D Wiki page.
"The character surrounds his or herself with a sphere of power with a radius of 5 feet per caster level that negates all forms of invisibility. Anything invisible becomes visible while in the area."
This got me thinking about the current spells available to get rid of the benefits of invisibility: Faerie Fire and See Invisibility. The former is only on Artificer, Druid and Bard spell lists. The latter is on the lists of Artificers, Bard, Wizards and Sorcerers.
It feels like we're missing something in terms of anti-invisibility abilities. How so? Well, while Faerie Fire is a great spell for debuffing enemies who are invisible or that have a high AC, it's AoE effect prevents you from safely using it around allies. Notably, it also has Zero effect on invisible objects, since it only affects creatures. On the other hand, we have the higher level See Invisibility, which affects only the caster. This has the drawback of not being able to "share the know" of visible-ing the invisible creature or object, meaning that the invisible creature or object is still difficult for the rest of the party to get rid of without good improvising. So while See Invisibility allows a person to detect invisible objects and creatures, it's bad for the action economy since the people who can effectively kill invisible creature are the martials because they get more attacks per round starting at 5th level. (Valor and Sword Bards being a notable exception to this.) Since See Invisibility is not on the Cleric or Druid spell lists, that means an Artifier or Bard player must save their spell slot for a rather situational spell. IOW, this is almost a "never picked" spell unless the DM gives this to the party Wizard or the DM telegraphs to the party that they are going to be fighting a bunch of invisible creatures far in advance.
The question is: Is this lack of all-utility anti-invisibility spells that don't debuff allies a design Flaw or a design Feature?
I think it's because invisibility got heavily nerfed compared to older editions. In 3rd Edition, you had to pass a Listen check just to know that the invisible creature was there, which did not automatically let you know where the invisible creature was. You had to pass a very difficult check in order to actually locate them, otherwise you were forced to guess which space they were in in order to attack them. And even if you guessed correctly, there was a flat 50% chance that your attack would automatically miss them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think Invisibility and its attendant ways of detecting an Invisibile creature are fine as is. Its just worth remebering that Invisibility does not mean undetectable, you can still hear, feel and smell an invisible creature. You can still use active and passive Percedption checks to find their approximate location, you just fail any check that involves sight as per the Blinded condition and have disadvatange on your attack rolls.
The answer to not having a way to detect invisible things is to be creative, even if that just means walking around a room waving a weapon about until you bump into something you can't see and then trying to hit whatever it was.
Aside from See Invisiblity you also have True Seeing for magical ways to get around Invisible things and there are various ways of getting around having disadvatange on your attack rolls or ability checks so I don't think there is too much need for anythign else, I might be wrong....I've got an encounter I have been wanting to use for a while involving Skulks which I think is going to be a good test of my players creativity for getting around invisibility so time may well cause me to rethink this stance.
Since i never played 3E, what is the mathematical diff between a 3e Listen check and a 5e Perception check?
Well, for starters, 3E had significantly more skills than 5E. What's called Perception in 5E was split into two skills in 3E: Spot and Listen (similarly, Stealth was split into Hide and Move Silently).
In 3E, accuracy was unbound. You got skill points whenever your character gained a level. At 1st level, you could put a maximum of 4 points into a single skill, and you could raise it by one point every level after that. However, some skills were class skills, and others were cross-classed. The difference was that cross-classed skills only got a +1 for every 2 points you spent on them, while class skills were 1 for 1.
So, because of this, modifiers tended to increase rapidly. And there were all sort of conditional modifiers for things as well. So to detect an invisible creature, you could either make a Listen Check opposed to its Move Silent check, which if you won would tell you the general area that the invisible creature was in but not their exact space (so you had to guess), or you could make a Spot check at a big penalty that would tell you the exact space. Due to the penalty (I want to say it was at a -20 to the roll), it was almost impossible for most characters to succeed.
This meant that if there was an invisible character, you were usually stuck trying to guess their actual location. And as I said previously, if you did know where they were, all your attacks had a flat 50% chance of missing automatically regardless of what you rolled to hit. It was much more punishing than the current system where you've got disadvantage on attacks but still know exactly where the target is unless they make a Hide check.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The problem was less the difficulty of the task (equal to the target's move silently check, or zero if fighting or otherwise not trying to be stealthy, +1 per 10' distance) than the fact you had to beat the DC by 20 to actually determine the location of the creature.
To me, the current see invisibility seems much stronger than the 3e spell. Its a lower level, it's range is sight, so as far as you can see, it extends into the ethereal plane. The 3e version was a higher level spell and only suppressed it while they were adjacent to you. Granted everyone could see them, but still, I'd take the 5e version.
FWIW, Branding Smite also negates invisibility. And True Seeing as an above poster said. I'd be willing to bet there's some more odds and ends out there that do so.
Also, in the current edition, if you think there’s an invisible creature around you can attack it and all you suffer to the attack roll is disadvantage. Invisibility is nowhere near as powerful as it used to be.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not correct. The actual rule is
Well sure, if they aren’t actually where you attack, then you miss. That only makes sense. But considering how much easier it is to locate an invisible creature this edition. You don’t actually need to know where the creature is. You just have to guess right, and that’s pretty easy this edition. Heck, a high enough passive perception score is enough for that if the invisible creature rolls low enough on their Stealth check.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Methinks See Invisibility would be much better if you could cast it on someone else. Since the classes which get that spell typically only get one attack per round (except S.Bard and V.Bard). Granted, only Clerics in 3e had Invisibility Purge on their spell list, it still benefited the whole party trying to capture/kill that invisible creature.
I would note that dispel magic does not require you to see your target.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dispel Magic does not seem to work on innate invisibility or items that grant invisibility. An Invisible Stalker, for instance.
That's true, but it does work on creatures that have the ability to cast invisibility, which there are quite a few of.
That bold part only comes into play if they are invisible *and* hidden though.
I would also like to point out in second level spells there is a See invisibility.... same level as invisibility
The other issue is there is a cost-to-opportunity ratio to consider. If the hostile creatures all have invisibility via spell, but their numbers are > the PC's 3rd level spell slots, Dispel Magic becomes an expensive solution to the problem. Or similarly, if the hostiles can reapply Invisibility to themselves without limit and have numbers greater than 1/2 the # of party members, that also tends to make Dispel Magic expensive.
A related issue I'm seeing is how do smart monsters deal with the PCs' invisibility? Sure, some of the higher tier creatures might have blindsight or truesight, but there are plenty of Tier 2 and 3 monsters that don't and also lack any countermeasures whatsoever. Some examples include the Efreeti, spellcasting genies with 16 INT and invisibility themselves but no counters to the PCs' invisibility. Or the Rakshasa, spellcasting manipulators that also lack any means of dealing with party invisibility. While it's entirely understandable that individual monsters would not have a direct counter, if there are societies of such intelligent monsters, it's kinda weird if none of them develop defenses to what is undoubtedly one of the most common tricks in the (PH)book.
In my experience, these scenarios simply don't happen. Invisibility on mooks is basically nonexistent.
Player characters are usually supposed to be pretty rare. (I would argue that this argument falls flat when you have spellcasting services available for purchase, which is pretty common especially for resurrections and identifications, and when a bunch of famous Faerun NPCs are running around with 20 Wizard levels, but when has consistency ever gotten in the way of a claim about D&D's basic assumptions?)
On the contrary, Imps, Quasits, and Sprites all have limitless Invisibility. And that's just in the PHB! Doubtless there are several other fey creatures and monstrosities with invisibility powers that don't require spell slots.
The "PCs are supposed to be pretty rare" argument is a cop-out, IMHO. It encourages sloppy world-building and lore-writing that has lead us, more broadly speaking, into series after series of bad Isekai anime where OP heroes always win just because they are the protagonists. Please keep that dreck (and its associated PC-centric meta-power fantasy) away from this discussion.