A question about invisibility. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Drachasor

2013-07-27, 12:38 PM

Standard listen checks can reveal that there's something moving in a square or in a direction. Spot checks might notice something getting disturbed, etc, etc,.

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. A creature who is holding still is very hard to notice (DC 30). An inanimate object, an unliving creature holding still, or a completely immobile creature is even harder to spot (DC 40). It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Spot check, and even if a character succeeds on such a check, the invisible creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).

Take a look at the Special Abilities section on the srd. It goes over this. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)

Btw, you didn't need a new thread, you could have just posted in the old one.

That said, the creature REMAINS invisible unless they break their invisibility, it gets dispelled, etc, etc. There's no check anyone can make to ignore invisibility -- you either have a special ability, spell, or the like that let's you ignore invisibility or you don't. Most often you do not.

ideasmith

2013-07-29, 08:53 AM

how do you plan on studying something you cant see?

By using senses other than sight; by noting interactions with other things that I can see; by causing interactions with other things that I can see.

Edit: To be more helpful, invisibility doesn't have a Disbelief save, so no amount of studying will reveal an invisible creature

It is not immediately obvious to me that knowing whether a creature is invisible in RAW requires a disbelief save. Could you cite the relevant RAW?

I'm not entirely sure what OP meant by his first post, but I'll try answering it by saying:

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Spot and Listen checks can both be used to notice invisible creatures, although Spot's DCs for doing so are fairly difficult, so failing one of those means that the invisible creature is not detected.

My question is about knowing whether a creature or object is invisible, not about noticing or detecting one. Could you perhaps try again?

We answered this question in the last thread –

Do tell.

you can't disbelieve invisibility.

This is obviously true, but I don’t see how it helps answer my question.

There is no failure or success to realize something is invisible – it just is.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. You might be saying that RAW does not cover my question, even indirectly or partially. You might be saying that neither knowing something is invisible nor failing to know it is possible under RAW (which would be pretty weird, but, hey, RAW). You might be saying something else entirely.

What you have to then do is find a way of detecting it that either bypasses the glamer or doesn't rely on sight at all.

If I am interacting with it or studying it carefully, haven't I already done this?

Standard listen checks can reveal that there's something moving in a square or in a direction. Spot checks might notice something getting disturbed, etc, etc,

This is obviously true, but I don’t see how it helps answer my question.

Take a look at the Special Abilities section on the srd. It goes over this. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)

If it goes over whether when studying the target carefully or interacting with it can fail to reveal it to be invisible, I don’t see where.

Btw, you didn't need a new thread, you could have just posted in the old one.

In my experience, when all the replies in a mistitled thread are about the title instead of the intended subject, there is no point in trying to steer the thread to the intended subject – not when there are that many replies.

That said, the creature REMAINS invisible unless they break their invisibility, it gets dispelled, etc, etc. There's no check anyone can make to ignore invisibility -- you either have a special ability, spell, or the like that let's you ignore invisibility or you don't. Most often you do not.

This is all obviously true, but I don’t see how it helps answer my question.

CRtwenty

2013-07-29, 09:06 AM

I think you're a little confused over how invisibility works. Something is either invisible, or it's not. There's no way to disbelieve something is invisible, since disbelief isn't applicable to invisibility spells. It's not like an illusory wall where you can disbelieve it and walk through it. Knowing there's an invisible object nearby doesn't make it any less invisible, you just know its location.

True Seeing and similar effects allow you to see the object through the invisibility. Spot checks allow you to notice things that betray the invisible thing's presence, Listen checks allow you to hear the invisible thing if it moves. Other abilities like Scent, Blindsense and the like allow you to locate the invisible thing without using sight.

If you know something is there, or have located it via other means you can interact with it or study it to the best of your ability. But it's still invisible. You can pull an invisible lever to open a secret door even if you can't see it. An invisible book can be opened and paged through, but you can't read it.

EDIT: Just to quote RAW. By RAW Invisibility is an Illusion spell, and can thus be disbelieved after interaction which isn't explicitly stated but would likely involve locating and touching the invisible object itself. However passing such a save has no noticeable effect, the object would remain invisible unless dispelled making the entire thing pointless to do since you could easily locate and dispel or use some other ability without the need for a disbelief save.

Psyren

2013-07-29, 09:10 AM

Do tell.

I did.

If I am interacting with it or studying it carefully, haven't I already done this?

Again, there's nothing to "reveal." It's either invisible or it isn't.

"Interacting with it" does nothing to remove the invisibility condition. The spell/ability tells you this itself - even if you manage to pinpoint an invisible creature on one round, it can simply change position and force you to restart the detection process all over again. It's not like, say, Silent Image, where you can go "Ha! That's an illusion!" and not be further inconvenienced by it.

"Studying it carefully" requires supremely sharp eyesight (i.e a Spot check on par with noticing shifting air currents) or extranormal senses. And even those don't remove the invisibility condition, you're simply rendering it irrelevant (for the purposes of knowing something is there, at least.)

I'm not seeing what's complicated about this.

Agincourt

2013-07-29, 09:21 AM

Read the Invisibility description:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Invisibility_(Spell)

"The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so."

A person literally becomes invisible. There is nothing to disbelieve. Notice how it says they stay invisible if they "open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs..." (several more examples given). Any of those could be considered interacting with a creature if it were possible to have a Will save to disbelieve, but it never mentions you can.

This is because it is a Glamer illusion:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Glamer_Subschool
The subject of the spell has literally had their sensory qualities changed.

Deophaun

2013-07-29, 09:52 AM

By RAW, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it fail to reveal it to be invisible.
I think I get what you're asking.

If you know a creature is there, and you have identified the square that it is in with a successful listen check (or some other means, like tremorsense or a spot check in a very dusty room), and there is no other means of concealment available, then you can reasonably intuit that the creature is invisible.

If you are searching for a hidden creature inside, say, a fog cloud, or in a pitch-black room while having normal vision, then you wouldn't know if the creature is invisible even if you know where it is.

SethoMarkus

2013-07-29, 09:58 AM

I think I get what you're asking.

If you know a creature is there, and you have identified the square that it is in with a successful listen check (or some other means, like tremorsense or a spot check in a very dusty room), and there is no other means of concealment available, then you can reasonably intuit that the creature is invisible.

If you are searching for a hidden creature inside, say, a fog cloud, or in a pitch-black room while having normal vision, then you wouldn't know if the creature is invisible even if you know where it is.

But largely it wouldn't matter. If you know a creature is present, but you cannot see it, then the creature is functionally invisible. Rules wise it wouldn't change anything. Fluff wise you can say whatever you want.

I was going to post something similar to you, but then decided that it still wouldn't change the situation. A creature is either invisible or they are not; you either can see them (though some special ability), or you cannot. In the example you gave with the fog cloud or pitch-black room, the invisibility spell is virtually useless since all creatures within that space would be functionally invisible (total concealment). (That is, aside from creatures within 5 feet of each other in a fog cloud, then the invisible creature will be marginally better than a non-invisible creature.)

Segev

2013-07-29, 10:05 AM

What gets funny is when you use something like Mirror Image along with Invisibility.

Deophaun

2013-07-29, 10:07 AM

But largely it wouldn't matter. If you know a creature is present, but you cannot see it, then the creature is functionally invisible. Rules wise it wouldn't change anything. Fluff wise you can say whatever you want.
Actually, there may be situations where it could matter, such as you're dealing with a mixed group that includes sighted and blind with blindsight creatures (such as Grell). The blindsighted creatures would see you but wouldn't know you were invisible, and so might not know to warn their sighted counterparts.

Corner-case, but possible.

GreenETC

2013-07-29, 10:11 AM

SethoMarkus

2013-07-29, 10:12 AM

Actually, there may be situations where it could matter, such as you're dealing with a mixed group that includes sighted and blind with blindsight creatures (such as Grell). The blindsighted creatures would see you but wouldn't know you were invisible, and so might not know to warn their sighted counterparts.

Corner-case, but possible.

True, one a one-vs-one case it wouldn't matter, but you are correct that in sharing information among multiple party members it could get a bit tricky. Still, carefully studying an invisible creature wouldn't garner any more information than realizing that there is an invisible creature there (mechanically speaking).

Psyren

2013-07-29, 10:13 AM

Actually, there may be situations where it could matter, such as you're dealing with a mixed group that includes sighted and blind with blindsight creatures (such as Grell). The blindsighted creatures would see you but wouldn't know you were invisible, and so might not know to warn their sighted counterparts.

Corner-case, but possible.

Extremely corner-case. If I have superior senses of any kind (hell, even if I don't!) and I see something potentially dangerous, it would be silly of me not to warn the folks I'm with, and just assume everyone can see what I can see.

dascarletm

2013-07-29, 11:13 AM

Think of an invisible object, like a stuffed teddy bear. Imagine someone hands it to you.

It still feels like a teddy bear, both in shape and size, as well as texture, so you can surmise that it might be a teddy bear. However, you can have no idea what it actually looks like. That teddy bear may actually be shaped like a rabbit or a mouse, but you'd have no idea because you physically cannot tell. You can give a best guess, but you're never certain.

If a creature is invisible and you grab him and grapple him, you can gauge that he's a Medium sized creature, but without any other way to tell, he could range from an Orc to an Elf and you'd never be able to tell.

I wouldn't say that would be true. I would assume you could tell the difference between a teddy-bear shaped stuffed animal and a stuffed animal shaped like a rabbit. It's in the ears. Just like with elves. You could feel that they have pointed ears (assuming you have them pinned or helpless or something to that effect) and guess they are most likely an elf. Though determining between a drow and a wood elf (assuming they have roughly the same body shape) where the only difference is like skin color, that you wouldn't know.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-29, 11:25 AM

... Just like with elves. You could feel that they have pointed ears (assuming you have them pinned or helpless or something to that effect) and guess they are most likely an elf. Though determining between a drow and a wood elf (assuming they have roughly the same body shape) where the only difference is like skin color, that you wouldn't know.

I'm told that the book Identifying Elven Subrace with Your Hands, and it's sister publication, Breaking Out of Elven Prisons, are highly coveted in certain circles.:smalltongue:

Cybris75

2013-07-29, 11:37 AM

Imagine being blind - everything is invisible to you (except if you have blindsight). No matter how hard you try to believe someone is visible, you still don't see them. This specific sense is blocked, but not other senses.

dascarletm

2013-07-29, 11:45 AM

I'm told that the book Identifying Elven Subrace with Your Hands, and it's sister publication, Breaking Out of Elven Prisons, are highly coveted in certain circles.:smalltongue:

I think that is covered in: That one Book about Blue Magic

Drachasor

2013-07-29, 12:07 PM

Alright, let me try to make this 100% clear to you...

Assume a creature or object is under the affect of the spell invisibility.

By RAW, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it fail to reveal it to be invisible.

(Vadskye got me curious.)

ALWAYS. It always fails to reveal something is invisible.

Except where otherwise stated by the rules, of course. But you seem to be aware of the special text regarding spot checks and the like. So I don't really get why you are asking this. I don't really see how "failing the relevant spot and listen checks" doesn't answer your question.

If you just mean noticing stuff changing, that's up to the player more than anything. If a glass gets moved across the room when your back is turned, there are many explanations. Same with stuff changing due to invisibility. You can't be sure the invisibility explanation is the right one outside of the right spot/listen checks.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-29, 03:01 PM

I think that is covered in: That one Book about Blue Magic

Oh, I have heard about this book, and I would like to acquire it. From what I've heard, it's likely on my list of "wait, get it in print! Quick, while that's still a thing." Do you have the full name of said book.

As to the OP's point, I think the OP is trying to develop some nuance about "revealing something to be invisible" not "revealing something invisible." At least that seems what the OP was asking.

In other words, he just wants to know the ways that something invisible could otherwise reveal it's presence or have it's presence revealed, without cancelling or affecting the invisibility.

And there are a couple of things that people often don't think about. Rain and some kinds of weather kind of give the game away, as water will drip off of the invisible creature. Water of any kind screws with invisibility, as voids and disturbances in the water are readily apparent. Snow is similarly effective.

I'm under the impression that light is the only thing that passes through invisible critters, so windblown stuff is also going to be impeded. A keen-eared person can probably hear the disturbance in significant (but not huge) wind currents created by the presence of another body. In a still room, a person walking will disturb the air and move curtains and nearby dust.

So it's hardly a foolproof strategy. That said, the RAW mechanical benefit is hard to beat, so it comes up a lot in the game.

Deophaun

2013-07-29, 04:02 PM

I'm under the impression that light is the only thing that passes through invisible critters
Oh no. Anything will pass through an invisible critter given enough velocity. :smallbiggrin:

dascarletm

2013-07-29, 04:30 PM

Oh, I have heard about this book, and I would like to acquire it. From what I've heard, it's likely on my list of "wait, get it in print! Quick, while that's still a thing." Do you have the full name of said book.

book of erotic fantasy I think

Darth Stabber

2013-07-29, 04:48 PM

Oh no. Anything will pass through an invisible critter given enough velocity. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, just about anything moving at a meaningful fraction of C will pass through an invisible creature. Fire up the commoner railgun!!!

Fitz10019

2013-07-29, 04:59 PM

Assume a creature or object is under the affect of the spell invisibility.

By RAW, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it fail to reveal it to be invisible.

(Vadskye got me curious.)

When you're blind, blind-folded, or otherwise sightless, no amount of studying will reveal the invisibility of a creature or object.

You can make an object invisible, make that invisibility permanent, then entrust the object to a blind person to keep track of it. He/she might never realize it's invisible. Is this a hide-the-phylactery trick?

CRtwenty

2013-07-29, 05:18 PM

In other words, he just wants to know the ways that something invisible could otherwise reveal it's presence or have it's presence revealed, without cancelling or affecting the invisibility.

I don't think that's what the OP is asking. His wording indicates that he's looking for some way to use the disbelieve mechanic to bypass invisibility, which can't happen.

Anyway very high DC Spot and Listen checks can bypass Invisibility, exactly for the reasons you mentioned.

TuggyNE

2013-07-29, 05:40 PM

Oh no. Anything will pass through an invisible critter given enough velocity. :smallbiggrin:

Well, Exit Wound, yes, but otherwise I'm not actually sure a weapon attack will do that. Maybe Cleave?

ideasmith

2013-07-31, 07:33 AM

Again, there's nothing to "reveal." It's either invisible or it isn't.
Whether it is or isn’t invisible is exactly what there is to reveal.

I think I get what you're asking.

If you know a creature is there, and you have identified the square that it is in with a successful listen check (or some other means, like tremorsense or a spot check in a very dusty room), and there is no other means of concealment available, then you can reasonably intuit that the creature is invisible.

If you are searching for a hidden creature inside, say, a fog cloud, or in a pitch-black room while having normal vision, then you wouldn't know if the creature is invisible even if you know where it is.
Thank you for getting this thread on track.
You are close, my question is indeed about determining whether or not the creature/object is invisible, but I am asking about the RAW of the specific case of “studying the target carefully or interacting with it”.

But largely it wouldn't matter.
It largely wouldn’t.

If you know a creature is present, but you cannot see it, then the creature is functionally invisible. Rules wise it wouldn't change anything. Fluff wise you can say whatever you want.
If see invisibility or some such spell is available, knowing whether the object/creature you can’t see is invisible or unseen for some other reason can be of some importance.

True, one a one-vs-one case it wouldn't matter, but you are correct that in sharing information among multiple party members it could get a bit tricky. Still, carefully studying an invisible creature wouldn't garner any more information than realizing that there is an invisible creature there (mechanically speaking).
By RAW, perhaps not. It is not clear whether there is any RAW on this subject whatsoever.

Extremely corner-case. If I have superior senses of any kind (hell, even if I don't!) and I see something potentially dangerous, it would be silly of me not to warn the folks I'm with, and just assume everyone can see what I can see.
Of course, not everything D&D characters see will be dangerous.

Alright, let me try to make this 100% clear to you...

ALWAYS. It always fails to reveal something is invisible .
You have stated your opinion with 100% clarity.

Except where otherwise stated by the rules, of course. But you seem to be aware of the special text regarding spot checks and the like. So I don't really get why you are asking this. I don't really see how "failing the relevant spot and listen checks" doesn't answer your question.
Spot and Listen checks to sense the presence and location of creatures fail to be examples on at least two grounds:
• Knowing the presence and/or location of a creature is not the same as knowing whether it is invisible.
• Neither Spot nor Listen checks are obviously needed when “studying the target carefully or interacting with it”.

If you just mean noticing stuff changing.
I don’t.

As to the OP's point, I think the OP is trying to develop some nuance about "revealing something to be invisible" not "revealing something invisible." At least that seems what the OP was asking.
This is correct.

In other words, he just wants to know the ways that something invisible could otherwise reveal it's presence or have it's presence revealed, without cancelling or affecting the invisibility.
A few clarifications:
• Whether the invisibility is affected/cancelled is not directly relevant to my question.
• I am specifically curious about “studying the target carefully or interacting with it”.
• I am specifically curious about RAW.

When you're blind, blind-folded, or otherwise sightless, no amount of studying will reveal the invisibility of a creature or object.
This makes sense. Is there RAW to back it?

You can make an object invisible, make that invisibility permanent, then entrust the object to a blind person to keep track of it. He/she might never realize it's invisible. Is this a hide-the-phylactery trick?
Interesting.

I don't think that's what the OP is asking.
While Phelix-Mu was a bit off, he was a lot closer than you are.

His wording indicates that he's looking for some way to use the disbelieve mechanic to bypass invisibility, which can't happen.
My wording does not indicate any such thing.

TuggyNE

2013-07-31, 07:45 AM

My wording does not indicate any such thing.

Quick post before I head to bed, more to come later perhaps, but I'd like to note that the first three or four times I read your post(s), that's exactly what I thought you meant. I'm still not quite clear what you're trying to disbelieve, but I gather it has something to do with distinguishing hidden/extraplanar/gone from invisible for purposes of mysterious corner-case interactions?

Chronos

2013-07-31, 07:49 AM

OK, I think this addresses the OP's very vague and confusing question:

If you have some means of knowing a creature or object is present and the circumstances allow you to see things, but you can't see it, then you know that it's invisible. If you don't know it's present, or if circumstances don't allow you to see anything, you don't know whether it's invisible or not. If you can see it (and don't have Detect Invisibility or True Seeing), then you know it's not invisible. All of this is obvious, and requires no rolls of any sort nor any game mechanics.

Perhaps it would help if the OP explains why he wants to know this. Is this due to some situation that came up in a game? If so, what was the situation?

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 08:36 AM

Thank you for getting this thread on track.
You are close, my question is indeed about determining whether or not the creature/object is invisible, but I am asking about the RAW of the specific case of “studying the target carefully or interacting with it”.
OK, let's take a scenario where this actually matters (somewhat).

There's a mansion on a crowded street, protected by two guards at the gate entrance. A wizard with true seeing (unlike see invisibility, true seeing does not helpfully distinguish between visible and invisible subjects) happens to be walking through the crowd, just as an invisible thief saunters right past the guards and inside the gate (which, we'll say, was open as a carriage was departing). The wizard notices the thief enter. How can he tell if the thief is invisible or not?

The answer is; he cannot. Not through a simple roll, anyway. He could ask the guards why they let such an ill-dressed vagabond in, in which case the guards would be very confused and perhaps alarmed. This would alert the wizard to the possibility that the thief was invisible. But generally, that's it. You'd need to come to the conclusion through actual roleplay and deduction. There's nothing like a standard action spot check for this scenario.

dascarletm

2013-07-31, 09:32 AM

He also could roll a spellcraft. The DC is 20+spell level to tell a spell already in effect.

Psyren

2013-07-31, 09:58 AM

@ OP:

Your question relates to this line, correct?

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion."

My question to you then is - how do you think this passage applies to invisibility?

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 10:07 AM

He also could roll a spellcraft. The DC is 20+spell level to tell a spell already in effect.
The problem is you need to be able to detect the spell in effect. If you are under true seeing, you lack that ability.

dascarletm

2013-07-31, 11:45 AM

The problem is you need to be able to detect the spell in effect. If you are under true seeing, you lack that ability.

Would seeing someone walk past guards uncontested or unnoticed count? Additionally he could cast detect magic.

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 11:51 AM

Would seeing someone walk past guards uncontested or unnoticed count?No, that's not an effect of the spell (invisibility is the effect, the guards ignoring him is a consequence).

Additionally he could cast detect magic.
And how would you know to cast detect magic?

Same way you'd know he was invisible.

dascarletm

2013-07-31, 01:37 PM

And how would you know to cast detect magic?

Same way you'd know he was invisible.

common sense? If I see something strange like that I'd assume invisibility or mind control, and perhaps, if not that then, just a strange occurrence. Assuming the wizard doesn't have arcane sight up/permanent.

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 01:43 PM

common sense? If I see something strange like that I'd assume invisibility or mind control, and perhaps, if not that then, just a strange occurrence. Assuming the wizard doesn't have arcane sight up/permanent.
That is the general thrust of my point, yes. The same common sense that would tell you "this guy is using something magical" is the same common sense that would skip the middleman and go to "this guy is invisible" (mind control over multiple guards being unlikely).

dascarletm

2013-07-31, 01:44 PM

That is the general thrust of my point, yes. The same common sense that would tell you "this guy is using something magical" is the same common sense that would skip the middleman and go to "this guy is invisible" (mind control over multiple guards being unlikely).

Ah, I misunderstood where you were coming from on this. my bad.:smallbiggrin:

lsfreak

2013-07-31, 02:41 PM

Well, in this particular example, unless there's something about the person that sets them out as an obvious thief, the person with true seeing likely just thinks it's one of the people the guards know to let in. Which is where it would be helpful to distinguish whether or not someone's invisible.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-31, 03:13 PM

@ OP:

Your question relates to this line, correct?

My question to you then is - how do you think this passage applies to invisibility?

It doesn't, invisibility offers a save for the target who becomes invisible (hence the harmless tag), but not the would be observers. There is no saving throw for interacting to offer.

ideasmith

2013-08-02, 02:11 PM

I have a very tentative start on that list. These entries only apply to “studying the target carefully”, and I am making some assumptions that need to be double checked.
Those assumptions are: that an objects invisibility/visibility counts as a “detail” for purposes of the Search skill; that studying an object carefully counts as “active effort” for purposes of the Search skill; that it takes at least 2 minutes of such active effort to count as having studied an object carefully. Help double-checking these assumptions would be appreciated.

RAW situations in which studying the target carefully or interacting with it fails to reveal it to be invisible
• It is “readily apparent” that the object is invisible.
• You are not within 10 feet of the object.
• It is a high-DC trap, and you have neither trapfinding, nor any ability that substitutes for trapfinding.
• Taking 20 on the Search check is not sufficient to meet the DC. (No RAW method of calculating this DC has been located. It would likely depend on why the invisibility wasn’t readily apparent.)

Quick post before I head to bed, more to come later perhaps, but I'd like to note that the first three or four times I read your post(s), that's exactly what I thought you meant. I'm still not quite clear what you're trying to disbelieve, but I gather it has something to do with distinguishing hidden/extraplanar/gone from invisible for purposes of mysterious corner-case interactions?
Invisibility can’t be disbelieved. Knowing whether something is or is not invisible might be possible, and is what disbelief would accomplish if it were possible. I’m motivated by curiosity, but if satisfying my curiosity sheds light on any corner cases, that’s all to the good.

OK, I think this addresses the OP's very vague and confusing question:

If you have some means of knowing a creature or object is present and the circumstances allow you to see things, but you can't see it, then you know that it's invisible. If you don't know it's present, or if circumstances don't allow you to see anything, you don't know whether it's invisible or not. If you can see it (and don't have Detect Invisibility or True Seeing), then you know it's not invisible. All of this is obvious, and requires no rolls of any sort nor any game mechanics.
You are close, my question is indeed about determining whether or not the creature/object is invisible, but I am asking about the RAW of the specific case of “studying the target carefully or interacting with it”.

Perhaps it would help if the OP explains why he wants to know this. Is this due to some situation that came up in a game? If so, what was the situation?
‘Why’ boils down to ‘curiosity’, but I can describe the events that triggered by curiosity:
As part of a discussion, Vadskye gave the lack of a disbelief save as an example of illusions being “real” in some non-trivial sense. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15663784&postcount=32 )
After determining what the actual benefit to making a disbelief save was, I replied that the save seemed redundant. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15688486&postcount=44)
Then I started wondering the RAW on this point actually was.
So I asked.

OK, let's take a scenario where this actually matters (somewhat).

There's a mansion on a crowded street, protected by two guards at the gate entrance. A wizard with true seeing (unlike see invisibility, true seeing does not helpfully distinguish between visible and invisible subjects) happens to be walking through the crowd, just as an invisible thief saunters right past the guards and inside the gate (which, we'll say, was open as a carriage was departing). The wizard notices the thief enter. How can he tell if the thief is invisible or not?

The answer is; he cannot. Not through a simple roll, anyway. He could ask the guards why they let such an ill-dressed vagabond in, in which case the guards would be very confused and perhaps alarmed. This would alert the wizard to the possibility that the thief was invisible. But generally, that's it. You'd need to come to the conclusion through actual roleplay and deduction. There's nothing like a standard action spot check for this scenario.
As described, this situation is not one for which my question would directly matter, since the wizard is as yet neither studying the thief carefully nor interacting with the thief.

@ OP:

Your question relates to this line, correct?
It contains a direct quote from that line.

@ My question to you then is - how do you thAink this passage applies to invisibility?
It doesn't.

Psyren

2013-08-02, 02:17 PM

It doesn't.

Precisely correct - so what are you asking then?

That line relates to disbelief saves. Invisibility doesn't have one. All the rest is tilting at windmills.

PrismCat21

2013-08-02, 04:08 PM

{scrubbed}

ideasmith

2013-08-02, 07:34 PM

Precisely correct - so what are you asking then?
While it has dawned on me that my question is not clearly put, knowing that does not tell me how to word it more clearly. I have been attempting to reply to posts in a manner that helps clarify what I’m asking.

That line relates to disbelief saves.
It also relates to other things; most relevantly studying things carefully, interacting with things and recognizing things as illusory.

Invisibility doesn't have one.
But invisible creatures and objects can be studied carefully and can be interacted with, and can be recognized as invisible.

All the rest is tilting at windmills.
Not sure what you mean here.

TriForce

2013-08-02, 07:49 PM

Aracor

2013-08-02, 07:53 PM

But invisible creatures and objects can be studied carefully and can be interacted with, and can be recognized as invisible. Here's the confusion...why do you think this is so? Where do you get this idea?

jindra34

2013-08-02, 08:04 PM

It also relates to other things; most relevantly studying things carefully, interacting with things and recognizing things as illusory.

No. No it does not. How is language under a category labeled Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief), ever not going to relate to Disbelief? Its describing the situation under which you can make that type of saving throw. And as an invisible object is still an object and not an image or other sensory projection, there is nothing to disbelieve, there is still a real solid object there. Its just not interacting with light as you'd expect.

Edit:
For clarity lets compare Silent Image's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silentImage.htm) saving throw line

Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)
to Invisibility's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm)

Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object)
Note the big keyword difference?

Psyren

2013-08-02, 08:54 PM

It also relates to other things; ost relevantly studying things carefully, interacting with things and recognizing things as illusory.

What people are trying to tell you is that you neither have to study something carefully nor interact with it to realize it is invisible. Again, that line only applies to disbelievable illusions - as you admitted above, it has no applicability to invisibility.

Your question is akin to asking: "By RAW, when does studying an elf carefully or interacting with it fail to reveal it to be an elf?" There is no check for that, unless the character in question is blind, or somehow doesn't know what elves are.

But invisible creatures and objects can be studied carefully and can be interacted with, and can be recognized as invisible.

To repeat from above - Recognizing them as invisible doesn't require that level of a process. All it takes is a glance. The only possible scenario where you could be not sure if something is invisible or not is if something else could also be preventing you from seeing them - such as (as I said above) being blind, or in total darkness, or swathed in fog. But in cases like that, it wouldn't matter anyway.

Not sure what you mean here.

A fruitless exercise or contest.

ideasmith

2013-08-03, 07:34 PM

ok, im going to try awnsering (what i think the question is) with a hypothetical situation:

a person, (who doesnt really matter, but lets say hes a lvl 5 warrior) stubs his toe to something, but cant see what it is. he bends over, streches his hands out, and feels a object on the floor, but cant see it. this is the invisible object.

as i understand your question, its "at what point by RAW, will the warrior realize he is handling a invisible object?"
That is approximately what I was asking. The character in your example seems to be both interacting with and carefully studying the invisible object. Your example is, though, only a small subset of possible situations in which my question would be relevant.

the awnser to that is: there are no rules about that.

but there are no rules specifically saying when a character draws the conclusion something is invisible, its mostly roleplay
The Search rules seem relevant, as I indicated above. WotC published a lot of RAW, and you haven’t mentioned searching through it all, so it is not clear what you are basing the these statements on.

a character, with any amount of inteligence, will realize REALLY soon he has encountered something thats invisible. it wont help him actually SEE the object ofc, but he knows its there, will have the possibility to figure out what it is by touch, and has a good chance to realize its magic that makes it invisible,
This has already been covered, and is not obviously relevant.

Here's the confusion...why do you think this is so? Where do you get this idea?
Since it is possible to carefully study visible objects and creatures and sight is not needed to study objects and creatures carefully (very useful, but touch can be an adequate substitute), I conclude that it is possible to study invisible objects and creatures carefully.

Since it is possible to interact with visible objects and creatures and sight is not needed to interact with objects, I conclude that it is possible to interact with invisible objects and creatures.

Since there are ways in which a creature or object not known to be invisible can be determined to be invisible, I conclude that it is possible for a creature or object to be recognized as invisible.

How is language under a category labeled Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief), ever not going to relate to Disbelief?
It does relate to disbelief, as I just acknowledged. It also relates to other things.

Its describing the situation under which you can make that type of saving throw. And as an invisible object is still an object and not an image or other sensory projection, there is nothing to disbelieve, there is still a real solid object there. Its just not interacting with light as you'd expect.

Edit:
For clarity lets compare Silent Image's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silentImage.htm) saving throw line

to Invisibility's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm)

Note the big keyword difference?
I’m not seeing your reason for pointing out these obvious – but not terribly relevant – facts.

What people are trying to tell you is that you neither have to study something carefully nor interact with it to realize it is invisible.
This isn’t always true, and the fact that there are usually other ways to tell whether things are invisible does not remove the question of when the methods I’m asking about work.

Again, that line only applies to disbelievable illusions - as you admitted above, it has no applicability to invisibility.
Since it is has no applicability, it does not determine whether the methods it mentions are useful in determining whether something is invisible. Which means that determining whether they are so useful by RAW must be done in some other manner.

Your question is akin to asking: "By RAW, when does studying an elf carefully or interacting with it fail to reveal it to be an elf?" There is no check for that, unless the character in question is blind, or somehow doesn't know what elves are.
And D&D characters can be blind, and might not know what invisibility is.

To repeat from above - Recognizing them as invisible doesn't require that level of a process. All it takes is a glance.
There are known exceptions to that, one of which, “if something else could also be preventing you from seeing them”, you point out below.

The only possible scenario where you could be not sure if something is invisible or not is if something else could also be preventing you from seeing them - such as (as I said above) being blind, or in total darkness, or swathed in fog.
A second involves true seeing; there are doubtless others.

But in cases like that, it wouldn't matter anyway.
It might, for example when deciding whether to cast see invisible.

CRtwenty

2013-08-03, 08:21 PM

I have absolutely no idea what this topic is even about anymore. :smallsigh:

jindra34

2013-08-03, 08:41 PM

I have absolutely no idea what this topic is even about anymore. :smallsigh:

I'm not sure. It kinda sounds like he thinks application of disbelief rolls will allow a person to identify a spell per Spellcraft's Identify An Ongoing Magical Effect, without Spellcraft. I think. But mostly it seems like someone patching together something out of wrong readings of rules.

Also still waiting for an explanation of how that section can ever apply to anything other than what its header describes.

Psyren

2013-08-03, 11:14 PM

And D&D characters can be blind, and might not know what invisibility is.
...
There are known exceptions to that, one of which, “if something else could also be preventing you from seeing them”, you point out below.

If they are blind/the area is obscured (by darkness, fog etc.), then there is ultimately no difference between something being invisible or simply concealed. Or rather, the difference is mere pedantry.

It might, for example when deciding whether to cast see invisible.

That won't help you see in the dark, or through fog. In that instance you would take a common sense approach - remove the obscurity in the area (use light, blow away fog, or whatever else) and only then consider See Invis if you still didn't see anything. Using See Invisibility first wouldn't help, because casting it has no chance of working if the area is also shrouded.

In short, the answer to your question is this: if you can't tell something is invisible just by looking, no amount of careful study or interaction will change that. Either you know right away or you don't. Just like recognizing an Elf (or any other Knowledge/Spellcraft check) - it's a simple query of your brain and senses, with a yes/no response.

Drachasor

2013-08-03, 11:26 PM

I'm not sure. It kinda sounds like he thinks application of disbelief rolls will allow a person to identify a spell per Spellcraft's Identify An Ongoing Magical Effect, without Spellcraft. I think. But mostly it seems like someone patching together something out of wrong readings of rules.

Also still waiting for an explanation of how that section can ever apply to anything other than what its header describes.

I think he has actually worded his question horribly and not realized that his horrible wording is mangling any attempt to understand him.

I think he's asking about something like determining the existing of Pluto based on perturbations in the orbit of Neptune (and earlier Neptune based on perturbations in the orbit of Uranus). But outside of what's explicitly in the rules that handwaves such issues with a Spot check and the like, there are no rules that cover things like this.

Once you have a certain degree of separation between the invisible creature and its influence of the world, there are a ton of possible explanations. Figuring out whether it is an Unseen Servant, Telekineses, one of dozens of other effects, or an Invisible Creature is not something the rules could reasonably cover. So they don't.

georgie_leech

2013-08-04, 11:12 AM

Perhaps it would be easier to answer your question if you could clarify something:

By RAW, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it reveal it to be invisible (omission intended).

TriForce

2013-08-04, 12:00 PM

That is approximately what I was asking. The character in your example seems to be both interacting with and carefully studying the invisible object. Your example is, though, only a small subset of possible situations in which my question would be relevant.

The Search rules seem relevant, as I indicated above. WotC published a lot of RAW, and you haven’t mentioned searching through it all, so it is not clear what you are basing the these statements on.

i COULD list every book i have, and going by them page by page explaining that your awnser isnt on them, but first of al it would seem a but unneccecairy, and second of all, i would be lying.

if you are talking ONLY about magical invisibility, you would need a spellcraft check to determine the spell or effect making something invisible, but ANYONE can immediatly tell its invisible as soon as they realize it exists, just not HOW it became invisible
the reason i say that these rules do not exist is because per definition ANYTHING you cant see is invisible. for a blind person, invisibility has no meaning, since everything and anything is invisible to him. determening if something is invisible or not is just a logical conclusion a character makes the moment he realizes something is there but cant be seen, there are no rules for that for the same reason there are no rules stating when a character likes the colour purple or not, its a observation by the character, and by extension, the player

ideasmith

2013-08-05, 08:31 AM

I have absolutely no idea what this topic is even about anymore. :smallsigh:
It is about the question in the OP.

I'm not sure. It kinda sounds like he thinks application of disbelief rolls will allow a person to identify a spell per Spellcraft's Identify An Ongoing Magical Effect, without Spellcraft. I think.
I’m not sure how you reconcile that belief with

Invisibility can’t be disbelieved.
in post 43 of this thread, or the various less direct statements of the same sentiment elsewhere in this thread.

But mostly it seems like someone patching together something out of wrong readings of rules.
The OP did specify “By RAW”. With all (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267923) that (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214988) implies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283778).

Also still waiting for an explanation of how that section can ever apply to anything other than what its header describes.
They can’t and don’t. (Just because a rule relates to something does not mean the section it is in applies to that something.) As the saying goes, don’t hold your breath.

If they are blind/the area is obscured (by darkness, fog etc.), then there is ultimately no difference between something being invisible or simply concealed. Or rather, the difference is mere pedantry.
You were expecting a thread about a single RAW question not to involve pedantry?

That won't help you see in the dark, or through fog. In that instance you would take a common sense approach - remove the obscurity in the area (use light, blow away fog, or whatever else) and only then consider See Invis if you still didn't see anything. Using See Invisibility first wouldn't help, because casting it has no chance of working if the area is also shrouded.
While see invisibility doesn’t let the caster see anything if the caster can’t see, it can certainly be cast. It can be handy to be able to see invisible creatures as soon as the shrouding goes down, rather than having to cast it afterwards.

In short, the answer to your question is this: if you can't tell something is invisible just by looking, no amount of careful study or interaction will change that. Either you know right away or you don't. Just like recognizing an Elf (or any other Knowledge/Spellcraft check) - it's a simple query of your brain and senses, with a yes/no response.
My question was about RAW, this answer seems to be about common sense.

I think he has actually worded his question horribly and not realized that his horrible wording is mangling any attempt to understand him.
Any suggestions about rewording it?

I think he's asking about something like determining the existing of Pluto based on perturbations in the orbit of Neptune (and earlier Neptune based on perturbations in the orbit of Uranus).
That sounds about right, though if some RAW source actually has rules intended to cover it, I am certainly interested.

But outside of what's explicitly in the rules that handwaves such issues with a Spot check and the like, there are no rules that cover things like this.
Have you actually checked all existing RAW for such rules?

Once you have a certain degree of separation between the invisible creature and its influence of the world, there are a ton of possible explanations. Figuring out whether it is an Unseen Servant, Telekineses, one of dozens of other effects, or an Invisible Creature is not something the rules could reasonably cover. So they don't.
Did I imply that I expected RAW to be reasonable? If so, then my apologies.

Perhaps it would be easier to answer your question if you could clarify something:

By RAW, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it reveal it to be invisible (omission intended).
It certainly would! Unfortunately, I don’t know, and am not prepared to purchase a large amount of out-of-print books attempting to find out.

i COULD list every book i have, and going by them page by page explaining that your awnser isnt on them, but first of al it would seem a but unneccecairy, and second of all, i would be lying.

if you are talking ONLY about magical invisibility, you would need a spellcraft check to determine the spell or effect making something invisible, but ANYONE can immediatly tell its invisible as soon as they realize it exists, just not HOW it became invisible
the reason i say that these rules do not exist is because per definition ANYTHING you cant see is invisible. for a blind person, invisibility has no meaning, since everything and anything is invisible to him. determening if something is invisible or not is just a logical conclusion a character makes the moment he realizes something is there but cant be seen, there are no rules for that for the same reason there are no rules stating when a character likes the colour purple or not, its a observation by the character, and by extension, the player
You seem to be saying that including rules intended to cover this would be pointless and silly. While this is certainly true:

• RAW is known to include pointless and silly rules.
• What a rule is intended for is not RAW (Rules As Written), but rather RAI (Rules As Intended).

Psyren

2013-08-05, 08:50 AM

You were expecting a thread about a single RAW question not to involve pedantry?

Not when the question has a simple answer, no. Of course, anything can appear complex when it is obfuscated enough.

While see invisibility doesn’t let the caster see anything if the caster can’t see, it can certainly be cast. It can be handy to be able to see invisible creatures as soon as the shrouding goes down, rather than having to cast it afterwards.
...
My question was about RAW, this answer seems to be about common sense.

Ah, but you yourself are applying common sense above when you say "it may be a good idea to have See Invisibility running just in case my potential target is being cautious, and has invisibility up even while they are shrouded by fog/darkness/etc." So a common sense response is not out of place here.

But that doesn't change my response to your RAW question - neither careful study of the invisibility glamer nor interaction with it will reveal whether a target is simply invisible, shrouded by something else, or both. Your recourse is to peel back the layers: blow away fog, shine light in the darkness, negate invisibility, dispel magic if you can, etc. The order you do these in, and whether you perform every option available to you in the sequence, does depend on common sense - if, as you claim above, conserving resources (including action efficiency) is important to you.

SanguisAevum

2013-08-05, 09:04 AM

This is about as black and white as rules / spells questions get.

There can be no room for confusion.

"Invisibility" does NOT offer a save to disbelive.

Invisibility
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2, Trickery 2
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal or touch
Target: You or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lb./level
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) or Yes (harmless, object)

Compare with a spell that does....

Silent Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect: Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)
Spell Resistance: No

Once again.

NO SAVE VS INVIS, you must use spot / listen to detect an invis creature naturally. Otherwise, you need magical assistance.

Duke of Urrel

2013-08-05, 09:44 AM

This is about as black and white as rules / spells questions get.

There can be no room for confusion.

"Invisibility" does NOT offer a save to disbelive.

We should add: Yes, you can in one particular situation make a Will save against the Invisibility spell: When somebody tries to turn you invisible by first casting the Invisibility spell and then touching you, but you don't want to be invisible. If your Will save succeeds, the Invisibility spell fails completely, and you remain visible.

I used to be confused by this notation in spell statistics blocks. For example, I once assumed that observers using alignment-detection spells could make Will saves to overcome the effect of the Undetectable Alignment spell, because the "Saving Throw" line says "Will negates." In fact, nobody using a divination spell can "negate" the ongoing effect of the Undetectable Alignment spell by making a Will save. The Will save is mentioned only for the event that you are targeted by the Undetectable Alignment spell and you don't want your alignment to be undetectable. If your saving throw succeeds, the spell fails altogether, and your alignment remains detectable.

Believe me, when it comes to misinterpretation of the rules, I've been there, done that!

Psyren

2013-08-05, 09:49 AM

We should add: Yes, you can in one particular situation make a Will save against the Invisibility spell: When somebody tries to turn you invisible by first casting the Invisibility spell and then touching you, but you don't want to be invisible. If your Will save succeeds, the Invisibility spell fails completely, and you remain visible.

That scenario has nothing to do with disbelief though, so Sanguis is still correct.

georgie_leech

2013-08-05, 11:37 AM

It certainly would! Unfortunately, I don’t know, and am not prepared to purchase a large amount of out-of-print books attempting to find out.

Then we can't answer the question. The answer for "when does X not happen?" is unlikely to be useful without knowing when X happens in the first place.

To put it another way: If you don't know the RAW on recognising invisible objects, how could you know when they fail to work?

Also, you may want to consider that given the number of replies by some fairly knowledgeable posters that there aren't rules governing this, any more than there are RAW rules governing whether your character can correctly determine whether a key unlocks a door. Formalising logical processes is both difficult to do concisely and unlikely to make the game any more playable.

Duke of Urrel

2013-08-05, 11:48 AM

That scenario has nothing to do with disbelief though, so Sanguis is still correct.

Indeed. I intended my comment only as supplemental information, for the sake of further clarification, and not as an objection.

However, I do disagree with the notion that certain rules are "obvious," just because some of us, or maybe even most of us, were lucky enough to interpret them correctly the first time. I know first-hand that some of us are not always so lucky – there are, believe me, a lot of wrong ways to interpret the RAW, and I've discovered a fair share of them myself, through what I prefer to believe is creativity rather than stupidity. And so I wanted to ask for a little understanding.

Ideasmith, I would recommend that you read Skip Williams's article series "All About Illusions" from Dragon magazine. You can find the first article here: http://http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a. [Edit: Also recommendable is the discussion of invisibility in particular in the series "There, Not There," which starts here:http://http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a]

Some people quibble a lot about what certain recommendations and interpretations that Williams has offered, but I personally have found the "Rules of the Game" articles very helpful.

Deophaun

2013-08-05, 11:57 AM

And so I wanted to ask for a little understanding.
Then what are you doing on the Internet?

Drachasor

2013-08-05, 12:46 PM

Have you actually checked all existing RAW for such rules?

...

Did I imply that I expected RAW to be reasonable? If so, then my apologies.

This isn't about what you'd find in an unreasonable D&D rule, however. What you are asking for is the same as asking if you can solve a mystery with an intelligence check....when you have insufficient clues. It is waaaay out of the bounds of what the rules are going to cover. The rules only deal with direct interactions. Noticing something unique to a creature, or detecting a spell with another spell, that sort of thing.

There simply can't be rules to determine of the spooky action at a distance is from causes A, B, C, D, E or something you've never seen before. Anything approaching that will be directly under the Invisibility rules, not hidden in some secret place in a book, because you don't write game rules that solve logic puzzles on insufficient evidence.

What you are looking for does not exist.

ideasmith

2013-08-11, 08:37 PM

Ah, but you yourself are applying common sense above when you say "it may be a good idea to have See Invisibility running just in case my potential target is being cautious, and has invisibility up even while they are shrouded by fog/darkness/etc." So a common sense response is not out of place here.

You misconstrue: I did not meant to suggest any blanket dislike of applying common sense that would cover discussion of when RAW might matter if the DM was foolish enough to apply it. I was pointing out that the question you seemed to be answering was not the one I had asked.

Then we can't answer the question. The answer for "when does X not happen?" is unlikely to be useful without knowing when X happens in the first place.

To put it another way: If you don't know the RAW on recognising invisible objects, how could you know when they fail to work?

If I wanted to know the answer badly enough, I would purchase all the RAW I don’t already have, study up on how RAW is interpreted on this forum, and so on. I don’t see how my ignorance makes this process any more difficult for others than it would be for me, especially since at least some posters on this forum have done one or more of the needed steps.

Also, you may want to consider that given the number of replies by some fairly knowledgeable posters that there aren't rules governing this, any more than there are RAW rules governing whether your character can correctly determine whether a key unlocks a door. Formalising logical processes is both difficult to do concisely and unlikely to make the game any more playable.

Three posters have made such replies; their degree of knowledge of RAW as a whole is unknown to me (although Drachasor obviously knows his way around the core rules).

Ideasmith, I would recommend that you read Skip Williams's article series "All About Illusions" from Dragon magazine. You can find the first article here: http://http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a. [Edit: Also recommendable is the discussion of invisibility in particular in the series "There, Not There," which starts here:http://http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a]

Some people quibble a lot about what certain recommendations and interpretations that Williams has offered, but I personally have found the "Rules of the Game" articles very helpful.

Thank you for providing the links. While they don’t work on my computer, it was thoughtful of you.

aleucard

2013-08-14, 04:08 AM

Telok

2013-08-14, 06:53 AM

Before a question can be answered it must be understood. Ideasmith, please follow these steps so that we can clearly understand what you are asking.

1: Restate your question using simple and direct language. You may provide links to the portions of the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) that you do not understand. Providing an example of the situation or rule that you have a question about can be helpful.

2: State what your question is not about. If your question is not about disbelief saves, say so. If you are not asking about how to detect invisible creatures then you need to say so. Please clearly delineate what you are not asking about.

3: Is this your question? "Given a dark room containing a human rogue without magic items and an Invisible Stalker (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/invisibleStalker.htm), how can the rogue determine that the Invisible Stalker is invisible?"

ideasmith

2013-08-19, 09:10 PM

While this whole topic is tangled in the kind of way that allows string to be used as a flail, I think I know what you're asking.

You're wanting to know if there are any ways to identify something as being invisible without just 1: knowing it's there and 2: not being able to see it anyway. The only other question that I could decipher you possibly wanting to know the answer to is how to tell someone's invisible with True Seeing, but this answer applies there, too.

No I am not. Someone who is “studying the target carefully or interacting with it” will almost certainly know that it’s there, and might or might not be able to see it. Also, I am more interested in the cases where these activities don’t result in knowing the whether the target is invisible.

The only method that really comes to mind is the Spellcraft check to recognize an ongoing effect. If it's an (Ex) ability doing it that doesn't work off of magic, then the only way is to know that something you can't see is physically there. If you got a blindfold on or something and can't use the Spellcraft method, the question is unanswerable unless if someone else does it and tells you. Unless if it detects magic in some way, no alternate senses in the books exist that'll tell you if something is invisible without sight; that's like trying to describe sounds to someone without hearing.

That Spellcraft check might well be part of the answer. There might be RAW cases where one can detect the effect without knowing what they are, and knowing that something is under the spell invisibility probably entails knowing that it is invisible.

Before a question can be answered it must be understood. Ideasmith, please follow these steps so that we can clearly understand what you are asking.

I have gotten started on your suggested steps. I have also run into some snags; perhaps you could help me with them?

1: Restate your question using simple and direct language. You may provide links to the portions of the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) that you do not understand. Providing an example of the situation or rule that you have a question about can be helpful.

I’m not sure how to reword it more simply/directly without changing the meaning.

2: State what your question is not about. If your question is not about disbelief saves, say so. If you are not asking about how to detect invisible creatures then you need to say so. Please clearly delineate what you are not asking about.

I doubt you mean everything I am not asking about; such a list would be absurdly long. I have guessed as to what subset thereof you are suggesting, and make a rough draft based on that guess.

“Assume a creature or object”

My question is not about invisible forces or effects or whatever.

“is under the affect of the spell invisibility.”

My question is not about other sources of invisibility, such as other spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or other spells, even if based on or otherwise related to invisibility.

“By RAW”

My question is not about other ways of interpreting the rules, such as RAI, common sense, or what works for a given gaming group.

“, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it”

My question is not about other methods of gaining information.

(Saving throws are only relevant to the extent that they affect whether these activities reveal whether the creature/object is invisible; this is probably not at all.)

“fail to reveal it to be invisible.”

My question is not about other information that might be gained about the creature or object, or about other results of studying carefully or interacting.

3: Is this your question? "Given a dark room containing a human rogue without magic items and an Invisible Stalker (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/invisibleStalker.htm), how can the rogue determine that the Invisible Stalker is invisible?"

It is related, however:

• I’m not assuming any particular environment or lighting condition.
• I’m not assuming any particular class, race, or equipage on the part of the informee.
• I’m not assuming that the object or creature is an Invisible Stalker
• I am only asking about RAW, not other methods of interpreting the rules
• I am only asking about information gained by studying carefully or interacting, not by other methods of gaining information
• Invisible Stalkers would most likely be invisible due to a supernatural ability, not the spell invisibility.

denthor

2013-08-19, 09:25 PM

Invisibility will fail if you are in a medium that has to move to make space for you. Be displaced.

Water is the classic. You swim you move the water. You stand in ankle deep water you displace the water you see where the legs are. If you are fully under water you displace and your body is visible.

In the air not so much.

If you move along the beach you displace the sand with foot prints. You can be tracked and you may be tackled. They know what square you are in.

In heavy grass/wheat plant life waist deep or higher you would leave a trail. See crop circles

In a swamp foot prints might be obscured but you would still displace water.

Invisibility has an odd trait if you snatch something the next round it is invisible because you put it under your cloak or in a pocket.

jindra34

2013-08-19, 09:54 PM

Deophaun

2013-08-19, 11:24 PM

Water is the classic. You swim you move the water. You stand in ankle deep water you displace the water you see where the legs are. If you are fully under water you displace and your body is visible.
Where is this? I can see being detectable on the surface: there are ripples and splashes physically emanating from your position, though it's probably not enough to negate miss chance, it should be enough that no one has to guess what square you're in.

Completely submerged, though? I need some RAW to support your statement.

Telok

2013-08-20, 01:23 AM

“Assume a creature or object”
“is under the affect of the spell invisibility.”

My question is not about other sources of invisibility, such as other spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or other spells, even if based on or otherwise related to invisibility.

“, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it”

My question is not about other methods of gaining information.

“fail to reveal it to be invisible.”

My question is not about other information that might be gained about the creature or object, or about other results of studying carefully or interacting.
Gotcha. I think I understand now. Things that will not reveal that something is invisible:
A person using True Seeing may not realize that something is invisible because they can see it.
Blindsense/Blindsight will not reveal that something is invisible, it only shows that something occupies that space.
Senses other than sight (touch, hearing, scent, taste) will not work because invisibility is a visual effect.
Tremorsense will only reveal that there is only a moving object on the ground in that space.
Detect Foo spells won't tell you if something is invisible, they tell you if Foo is present. Unless you create a Detect Invisibility spell, that will.

This only really matters when you can't see at all, because invisibility is a vision specific spell. The normal way to tell if something is invisible is to not see it and know that it is present.

Note too that the source of the invisibility and the nature of the target is almost never an issue in regards to your question. Whether something is invisible because of a spell, power, mystery, spell-like ability, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, super-epic skill check, or DM fiat makes almost no difference (it may matter to Detect Magic if it isn't a magical effect). Invisible is a status that usually won't change regardless of the source of the invisibility. Likewise an invisibility effect does not change based on the thing that it makes invisible. There is no difference between the effect invisibility of a person, rock, or shrubbery. They are all equally invisible.

Edit:

Where is this? I can see being detectable on the surface: there are ripples and splashes physically emanating from your position, though it's probably not enough to negate miss chance, it should be enough that no one has to guess what square you're in.

Completely submerged, though? I need some RAW to support your statement.

An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility)
In the middle of the bottom half. There is room for discussion as it is a single, general statement, sentence instead of a detailed rule with examples.

Deophaun

2013-08-20, 01:51 AM

In the middle of the bottom half. There is room for discussion as it is a single, general statement, sentence instead of a detailed rule with examples.
Benefiting from concealment hardly qualifies as "invisibility will fail."

TuggyNE

2013-08-20, 01:59 AM

I doubt you mean everything I am not asking about; such a list would be absurdly long. I have guessed as to what subset thereof you are suggesting, and make a rough draft based on that guess.

“Assume a creature or object”

My question is not about invisible forces or effects or whatever.

“is under the affect of the spell invisibility.”

My question is not about other sources of invisibility, such as other spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or other spells, even if based on or otherwise related to invisibility.

“By RAW”

My question is not about other ways of interpreting the rules, such as RAI, common sense, or what works for a given gaming group.

“, when does studying the target carefully or interacting with it”

My question is not about other methods of gaining information.

(Saving throws are only relevant to the extent that they affect whether these activities reveal whether the creature/object is invisible; this is probably not at all.)

“fail to reveal it to be invisible.”

My question is not about other information that might be gained about the creature or object, or about other results of studying carefully or interacting.

All right, how's this for an extremely simple answer:

It will always fail to reveal it to be invisible.

"Study"/"interacting" is not defined as something that is useful at specifically and with certainty giving any information at all about invisibility in the general case; it simply does not have any such RAW function at all. It's defined basically for illusions that can be disbelieved, and that's it.

Specific cases might plausibly strongly suggest that something is invisible, but there is no rule that allows you to be certain of this simply by studying/interacting, because that's not what studying and interacting are defined for. Therefore, in the formal sense, you simply cannot derive any conclusion for or against a hypothesis that a creature is invisible by way of the spell.

Proof of this, unfortunately, relies on the absence of any text anywhere in any official sourcebook that contradicts my view, and is therefore impractical, but so far as I know, this is the state of RAW.

Telok

2013-08-20, 05:13 AM

Benefiting from concealment hardly qualifies as "invisibility will fail."

Exactly. What I quoted is what RAW says. What that means is up to individual DMs.

jindra34

2013-08-20, 08:42 AM

Note too that the source of the invisibility and the nature of the target is almost never an issue in regards to your question. Whether something is invisible because of a spell, power, mystery, spell-like ability, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, super-epic skill check, or DM fiat makes almost no difference (it may matter to Detect Magic if it isn't a magical effect). Invisible is a status that usually won't change regardless of the source of the invisibility. Likewise an invisibility effect does not change based on the thing that it makes invisible. There is no difference between the effect invisibility of a person, rock, or shrubbery. They are all equally invisible.

Well there are a couple of instances where the source of invisibility matters. One being Supreme invisibility which makes a good showing on rendering you undetectable, seeing how it takes true seeing to pierce it. And then there is iirc a few psionic powers which more or less make you unable to sense it through mental influence, which precludes EVERYTHING, at least until you make a will save (you get one every time it not being there causes irregularities). But those are VERY niche cases.

cerin616

2013-08-20, 09:03 AM

I dont understand why people are so confused by the OPs question

He wants to know, by RAW, when does interacting with, or studying, a creature that is invisible, fail to alert you to the fact that it is invisible.

There are no exact RAW rules to this but we can make assumptions based on RAW that does exist.

Using nonvisual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature. Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object.

A dread wraith notices and locates living creatures within 60 feet, just as if it possessed the blindsight ability

This works much like blindsense--the creature knows what square each thinking being is in, but it does not see the being, and the being still has total concealment unless the creature can see it by some other means.

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle)

This statement show that invisibility is directly connected to sight. If you cannot see, you cannot distinguish between visible and invisible. You can, however, detect things that are not visible.

This would be a case in which you "interact or study a creature" and "fail to notice that it is invisible"

So realistically, there are only a few different scenarios that can happen with something that is invisible.

1. you don't know something is there, and thus cannot interact or study it
2. You can study and interact with something and can't see it, thus are immediately made aware of the fact that it is "invisible" (although you are not necessarily aware that it is from a spell)
3. You see without vision, and thus are incapable of distinguishing between visible and invisible, and thus no amount of studying and interacting would reveal its visibility unless you can sense the effect causing the invisibility (detect magic would be an example). Even if the creature informed you of its invisibility, you would not be capable of confirming the fact.

Fitz10019

2013-08-20, 09:13 AM

I'll take another stab at this, and use the mansion:

A female wizard with true seeing is greeted in the street by a male stranger. He is invisible, but her true seeing does not reveal this fact. The stranger invites her to come and meet his lord, who will have work for her. The wizard agrees to accompany the stranger to the lord's mansion. As they walk along for about 10 minutes, turning down various streets, the wizard studies her guide, because she thinks the man looks somewhat familiar. She visually studies his features comparing him to her memories.
When they arrive at a mansion, the guide waves to the guards and walks through the gate. The wizard attempts to follow, but the guards bar her way, demanding that she identify herself. The guide continues on without the wizard, and the ensuing conversation makes it obvious that the guards are not aware of the guide.
On second thought, the mansion is unnecessary because the walk is worth discussing. Should the wizard have a chance of realizing the guide is invisible during the 10 minute walk as she studies his features?

Consider: How would light play across the guide's face as he passes in and out of shadows, turning this way and that? Would an invisible nose cast a shadow? The wizard probably sees the guide like a badly photo-shopped insertion, contrasting gratingly with his background and the expected effects of the ambient light. Should visual studying get a Search roll to note these discrepancies?

Or perhaps True Seeing should only reveal a pitch black form for an invisible person, because no light is striking the person.

Segev

2013-08-20, 09:20 AM

Anything that penetrates invisibility will see light play on the invisible thing as it would normally. Though he might not cast a shadow. This...really comes down to DM call.

And yes, I know that something failing to cast a shadow doesn't work as it's oft portrayed mystically; much of what distinguishes our features are the shadows cast by them on themselves. But *handwave* maaaaaagiiiiiiiic.

cerin616

2013-08-20, 09:45 AM

I'll take another stab at this, and use the mansion:

On second thought, the mansion is unnecessary because the walk is worth discussing. Should the wizard have a chance of realizing the guide is invisible during the 10 minute walk as she studies his features?

Consider: How would light play across the guide's face as he passes in and out of shadows, turning this way and that? Would an invisible nose cast a shadow? The wizard probably sees the guide like a badly photo-shopped insertion, contrasting gratingly with his background and the expected effects of the ambient light. Should visual studying get a Search roll to note these discrepancies?

Or perhaps True Seeing should only reveal a pitch black form for an invisible person, because no light is striking the person.

Now... this... is... interesting.

You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are.

Does this mean that you see the invisible character and recognize that they are invisible because that's "the way things actually are"

Fitz10019

2013-08-20, 12:11 PM

You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are.
Does this mean that you see the invisible character and recognize that they are invisible because that's "the way things actually are"
Ah, good point, so no pitch black form.

Invisibility is not a spell that affects the mind of the observer -- the target is invisible, so light passes through them. Therefore, I still pose no nose shadow, nor brow, ear, chin, wrinkle shadows. Even his mouth when he speaks would be well-lit by the available light. My assumption is invisible=100%transparent, which can be argued against with 'maaaaagiiiic' naturally.

Segev

2013-08-20, 03:59 PM

Ah, good point, so no pitch black form.

Invisibility is not a spell that affects the mind of the observer -- the target is invisible, so light passes through them. Therefore, I still pose no nose shadow, nor brow, ear, chin, wrinkle shadows. Even his mouth when he speaks would be well-lit by the available light. My assumption is invisible=100%transparent, which can be argued against with 'maaaaagiiiic' naturally.

Yeah, because the trope evoked by D&D invisibility is one where shadows are almost more a "mystic" thing than a fact of blocking the light, I suspect that your shadow is made invisible along with you by the spell. Thus, True Seeing would "reveal" the shadow as well as it does you. (So, too, would See Inivisible.)

This leads to an interesting potential interaction (and I'm not about to argue this as more than a DM-call that I recommend; the RAW are silent, so a DM can call it however he likes): Make your "windows" out of permanently invisible stone, and have your chamber lit solely by light coming in through them. When you turn yourself invisible, anybody who uses See Invisible now can't see anything at all as the invisible shadows cast by the stone "windows" now blacken out everything!

BRC

2013-08-20, 04:16 PM

Yeah, because the trope evoked by D&D invisibility is one where shadows are almost more a "mystic" thing than a fact of blocking the light, I suspect that your shadow is made invisible along with you by the spell. Thus, True Seeing would "reveal" the shadow as well as it does you. (So, too, would See Inivisible.)

This leads to an interesting potential interaction (and I'm not about to argue this as more than a DM-call that I recommend; the RAW are silent, so a DM can call it however he likes): Make your "windows" out of permanently invisible stone, and have your chamber lit solely by light coming in through them. When you turn yourself invisible, anybody who uses See Invisible now can't see anything at all as the invisible shadows cast by the stone "windows" now blacken out everything!

If we assume that Invisibility is turning the invisible object to 100% transparency, maybe not.

The Stones are 100% transparent (or near enough that you can't tell a difference), all light passes through them. The Light passing through the stones is not part of the Illusion, it's a side-effect.

With True-seeing You see the Stones as solid, because that's the way they really are. However, the room is perfectly well lit because the light is really passing through the stones and lighting the rest of the room.

To achieve the effect you describe, you would want an unlit room with an illusion of a lit room laid over it. The Silent Image spell is a figment, so it affects the mind without dealing with reality. In that case, becoming "Invisible" would simply be a matter of removing yourself from the illusion of the room.

Fitz10019

2013-08-21, 01:21 AM

Pickford

2013-08-21, 01:33 PM

Think of an invisible object, like a stuffed teddy bear. Imagine someone hands it to you.

It still feels like a teddy bear, both in shape and size, as well as texture, so you can surmise that it might be a teddy bear. However, you can have no idea what it actually looks like. That teddy bear may actually be shaped like a rabbit or a mouse, but you'd have no idea because you physically cannot tell. You can give a best guess, but you're never certain.

If a creature is invisible and you grab him and grapple him, you can gauge that he's a Medium sized creature, but without any other way to tell, he could range from an Orc to an Elf and you'd never be able to tell.

I gather you are not actually blind then.

Practice feeling some ordinary objects in your own home with your eyes closed. The difference is...palpable.

edit:

Does this mean that you see the invisible character and recognize that they are invisible because that's "the way things actually are"

Invisibility is an illusion, and true seeing sees the creature as they are normally (absent the illusion).

forsaken1111

2013-08-21, 02:17 PM

I think this thread has more off-topic posts than on-topic.

As I understand it, the question is:

At what point in studying or interacting with an object or creature can you determine that it is invisible when that fact is not readily apparent. Such situations can occur when you are, as an example, under the effect of a True Seeing spell while interacting with or studying a potentially invisible object or creature.

Ideasmith posited that the fact of the target's invisiblity could be a 'detail' discoverable via the search skill.

The search skill description says that you may 'find secret doors, simple traps, hidden compartments, and other details not readily apparent'. While it is not RAW that 'state of invisibility' would qualify as a 'detail' to be found, it is conceivable if a bit of a stretch.

Originally I was going to say that Search has nothing to do with detecting magic, and would be unsuitable for finding a 'detail' pertaining to a spell but you CAN use Search to detect magical traps as a rogue which at least hints at some crossover into magical effects. This is clarified in the text to mean "The spells explosive runes, fire trap, glyph of warding, symbol, and teleportation circle" which "create magic traps that a rogue can find by making a successful Search check". There are a few other spells included specifically by name which can be detected by Search and which are unaffected by Disable Device. This suggests that Search can be used to detect magical effects from these spells which do not have a physical sign such as a mark or rune.

Furthermore it states that "Active abjuration spells within 10 feet of each other for 24 hours or more create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration
spells." More evidence that Search can be used to detect minute signs of magical energy.

Nothing in the RAW description of the Search skill explicitly states that Invisibility specifically or Illusion spells in general are detectable by a search check. It is indicated that Search checks while studying or interacting with an object or creature can reveal minute magical effects, but at no point does it state that the state of invisibility of an object or creature is one of those effects.

From what I see in RAW, the Search skill can help you detect the presence or absence of an object but not its state of invisibility.

ideasmith

2013-08-28, 08:56 PM

I think part of your issue Idea is the thought that “studying the target carefully or interacting with it” will help at all. Short of casting Analyze Dweomer, the only things that might help you determine that the object is invisible (besides basic logic of the 'can I see it, is it there, can I see something further away' kind) would be Knowledge or Spellcraft. Both of which would allow a single roll when you first encounter it (and again later after you leveled and put skill points into them. IF it was still a problem). So sitting there staring at an invisible rock, turning it over et. all won't change the outcome.

This is clearly true by RAI, but not so clearly true by RAW.

I dont understand why people are so confused by the OPs question

He wants to know, by RAW, when does interacting with, or studying, a creature that is invisible, fail to alert you to the fact that it is invisible.

There are no exact RAW rules to this but we can make assumptions based on RAW that does exist.

This statement show that invisibility is directly connected to sight. If you cannot see, you cannot distinguish between visible and invisible. You can, however, detect things that are not visible.

This would be a case in which you "interact or study a creature" and "fail to notice that it is invisible"

So realistically, there are only a few different scenarios that can happen with something that is invisible.

1. you don't know something is there, and thus cannot interact or study it
2. You can study and interact with something and can't see it, thus are immediately made aware of the fact that it is "invisible" (although you are not necessarily aware that it is from a spell)
3. You see without vision, and thus are incapable of distinguishing between visible and invisible, and thus no amount of studying and interacting would reveal its visibility unless you can sense the effect causing the invisibility (detect magic would be an example). Even if the creature informed you of its invisibility, you would not be capable of confirming the fact.
This is a thoughtful and well reasoned analysis, and I will be going with it unless a more specific or more direct rule gets spotted.
It does seem to be limited to the SRD, though.

I think this thread has more off-topic posts than on-topic.

As I understand it, the question is:

At what point in studying or interacting with an object or creature can you determine that it is invisible when that fact is not readily apparent. Such situations can occur when you are, as an example, under the effect of a True Seeing spell while interacting with or studying a potentially invisible object or creature .
Close enough.

Ideasmith posited that the fact of the target's invisiblity could be a 'detail' discoverable via the search skill.

The search skill description says that you may 'find secret doors, simple traps, hidden compartments, and other details not readily apparent'. While it is not RAW that 'state of invisibility' would qualify as a 'detail' to be found, it is conceivable if a bit of a stretch.

Originally I was going to say that Search has nothing to do with detecting magic, and would be unsuitable for finding a 'detail' pertaining to a spell but you CAN use Search to detect magical traps as a rogue which at least hints at some crossover into magical effects. This is clarified in the text to mean "The spells explosive runes, fire trap, glyph of warding, symbol, and teleportation circle" which "create magic traps that a rogue can find by making a successful Search check". There are a few other spells included specifically by name which can be detected by Search and which are unaffected by Disable Device. This suggests that Search can be used to detect magical effects from these spells which do not have a physical sign such as a mark or rune.

Furthermore it states that "Active abjuration spells within 10 feet of each other for 24 hours or more create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration
spells." More evidence that Search can be used to detect minute signs of magical energy.

Nothing in the RAW description of the Search skill explicitly states that Invisibility specifically or Illusion spells in general are detectable by a search check. It is indicated that Search checks while studying or interacting with an object or creature can reveal minute magical effects, but at no point does it state that the state of invisibility of an object or creature is one of those effects.

From what I see in RAW, the Search skill can help you detect the presence or absence of an object but not its state of invisibility.

I was dubious about the Search skill possibility when I suggested it (which is why I used the word “tentative” – and only mentioned it once).