6 comments:

Timeshadows said...

Hi,

I am curious: Where does it say that characters are Invisible to their own eyes?

May 22, 2009 at 8:22 AM  

R said...

Hi as well. I just wanted to list two of the things that the Wizard's Handbook has to say about Invisibility (under the Spell Commentary section in Chapter 7).

(1) "The invisible character can always see himself; in effect, he automatically
disbelieves the illusion."

(2) "All objects on the invisible subject's person are also invisible." - which makes me think that you cannot stick mud or powder to them.

I forget where (it may have been a monster with the ability to turn invisible), but I remember something about smoke or fog not revealing invisible beings because the swirls and mists are in constant movement and don't accurately outline the invisible entity (such that the displaced fog or mist wouldn't be an actual silhouette and thus not necessarily give away the invisible being's position).

Great site, by the way.

May 22, 2009 at 9:22 AM  

RipperX said...

Timeshadow: This is a 2e core rule found on page 120 in the Dungeon Master Guide. As with all 2e, if a spell description says differently then the spell description is used instead, but as a general rule, the invisible person can't see itself.

R: Welcome to the blog! You bring up a great point. Many of the Complete Handbook series changed what was core . . . or at least tried to. All of the information in them is optional, and all up to the Dungeon Master's ruling if they are used or not.

Lately I've been on a Core Rules supersedes all other rules, kick. I still use some of the information found in the Complete Handbook series, as long as it doesn't conflict with the core rules laid out in the DMG or the PHB. That is just me! If you prefer this to the core rule because you feel that it is a better rule, then by all means use it.

May 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM  

Brooser Bear said...

You have to separate real invisibility, a la The Invisible Man from the illusion of invisibility. A truly invisible man will be blind, since his retina will be invisible, rods and cones in his eye would be transparent and hence won't function physiologically, making the invisible man blind.

Second type of invisibility woukld be the illusion of invisibility, in which case, the guy would not be invisible to himself, and visible tracks and visible outlines inthe moke would deopend on the strength and success of the spell that was cast.

But there is a this type of invisibility, a Psonic Invisibility, if you will, from the Martian Chronicles and that can be possibly be employed by Mind Flayers and such. There is no illusion of invisibility, instead the so called Invisible creature works on the mind/s of the victims so that victim mind does not see the Mind Flayer or maybe sees a fair maiden offering to press the hero's heas to her bosom, of course the fool won't see the tentacles waiting in eager anticipation to burrow to that bone marrow of the fool's medulla oblongata... In this case the invisible being shall not leave any tracks and no mud will stick to it, since the illusion is not cloakign the object, rather it exists in the mind of hmmm... that hero?

May 23, 2009 at 5:52 AM  

RipperX said...

My problem with invisibility is that it can involve too many rules. I go more for all encompassing core rules that cover a variety of situations. Science and Magic do not mix, science says that an invisible person couldn't see, however it also states that a person cannot be invisible. Magic is magic, it is predictable but it has rules all of its own, completely independent from science.

Besides, this is a fantasy game, if we over-think everything then it will suck the fun right out of it.

May 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM  

Brooser Bear said...

Good point about overthinking, but...
the purpose is not game mechanics but the story. Deeper logic makes for a more vivid story that arises of that setting.

With regards to magic, don't you think that if the D&D Wizards discovered the Scientific Method (and there is no reason why a bunch of wizards wouldn't stumble ypon it), then D&D magic would not longer be the magic, but science of the D&D, and the magic weapons would be the high technology of D&D.

So, magic would have to be different from science. Mystical, illogical, unpredictable, unlike alien technology in that it does not sit passively there, waiting to be analyzed.Out of which the magic users try to gleam scraps of useful knowledge that manifests itself as spells. In play, magic is best exemplified by NPC wizards, like the Planescape's Lady Of Pain never get involved in the play, but are there showing off what power they can do (which goes beyond the AD&D spell lists). I have Zen spouting Kenku, who recite Koans with magical effects and elders of the native villages, some of whom have converted to Chrtistianity, who have the power of the Word to undo werewolves, head off storms, and destroy the undead. Part of play, not covered by game mechanics, sets up the setting's atmosphere.

May 24, 2009 at 9:37 AM