(3.X) invisibility questions, clothing, containers.

[Deca4531]

So the rules on invisible objects are very sparse, hell there pretty much are none that i can find. So here are a few questions im looking for answers to.

1. If i make a chest invisible can you see whats inside? If an invisible person picks up something and hides it inside their cloths it becomes invis so i assume yes, but...

2. If i make my cloths or armor invis can you see through me or do i just look naked. Remember im INSIDE these items not behind them.

3. (this is a common one) if i attack with an invis weapon does it become visible. The sword isnt making the attack, i am. The same way as if you ran into an invis wall and get knocked out, it wasnt the wall making an attack.

The reason i need clairification on this is because i want to make the invis cloak from harry potter, the inside lining with perm invis and the other side without. If i attack from within the cloak, since its not the cloak making the attack it shouldn't loose its invis. Thats my theroy anyway.

[Ashtagon]

1 - Anything that is completely concealed by your clothing (or yourself) while you are invisible also becomes invisible. This includes consumed food (the alternative would be fairly gross).

2 - I'd rule that those parts of your body not concealed by the clothing remain visible. Part concealment means a 20% miss chance, iirc.

3 - I'd rule that the weapon would become visible. And incidentally, an invisible weapon (wielded by a visible wielder) does not grant any benefit anyway, iirc. The key here is not that an attack roll was made, but that it was wielded. However, note that greater invisibility allows for attack rolls without becoming visible.

Harry Potter's cloak is essentially enchanted with greater invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilityGreater.htm).

[Gruftzwerg]

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg

open the articles "There, Not There" Part 1-6 and read the invisibility parts

[KillianHawkeye]

Harry Potter's cloak is essentially enchanted with greater invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilityGreater.htm).

In a world where almost no one (not even Death himself, or so the legend goes) can detect invisible creatures.

[MesiDoomstalker]

In a world where almost no one (not even Death himself, or so the legend goes) can detect invisible creatures.

To be fair, Harry's Cloak is actually an artifact ripped straight from Death's own cloak. Death then of course has a cloak of similar power (no one ever sees Death coming). So saying no one can detect Harry with his cloak is pretty much expected.

[Segev]

To be fair, Harry's Cloak is actually an artifact ripped straight from Death's own cloak. Death then of course has a cloak of similar power (no one ever sees Death coming).

Theodore Roosevelt did.

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/3/2/2/40322.jpg?v=1

[KillianHawkeye]

To be fair, Harry's Cloak is actually an artifact ripped straight from Death's own cloak. Death then of course has a cloak of similar power (no one ever sees Death coming). So saying no one can detect Harry with his cloak is pretty much expected.

Yes, Harry's cloak was noted to be superior to others of similar function, which is to be expected as it was later revealed to be one of the Deathly Hallows. Dumbledore, as far as I can remember, was the only one shown to be able to detect Harry while under the Cloak of Invisibility. So Dumbledore > Death, apparently.

My point, though, was that sensing invisible things was in general a fairly rare ability in the Harry Potter mythos, whereas in D&D it is a very commonly used 2nd-level spell. Anyone who's a fan of Harry Potter/D&D crossover fan-fiction should be well aware that, despite the many advantages of Harry Potter-style wand-using spellcasting, the people of the Harry Potter universe are woefully unoptimized when compared to a typical 3rd Edition Wizard.

[Big Fau]

Yes, Harry's cloak was noted to be superior to others of similar function, which is to be expected as it was later revealed to be one of the Deathly Hallows. Dumbledore, as far as I can remember, was the only one shown to be able to detect Harry while under the Cloak of Invisibility. So Dumbledore > Death, apparently.

My point, though, was that sensing invisible things was in general a fairly rare ability in the Harry Potter mythos, whereas in D&D it is a very commonly used 2nd-level spell. Anyone who's a fan of Harry Potter/D&D crossover fan-fiction should be well aware that, despite the many advantages of Harry Potter-style wand-using spellcasting, the people of the Harry Potter universe are woefully unoptimized when compared to a typical 3rd Edition Wizard.

Luna was also able to see him.

[Deophaun]

3 - I'd rule that the weapon would become visible. And incidentally, an invisible weapon (wielded by a visible wielder) does not grant any benefit anyway, iirc.
That may not be entirely true for all weapons. I know somewhere there is a line about basically knowing the reach of a creature's melee attack, and yet there are some rare creatures where their reach is not known until they attack due to the hidden structure of their bodies. An invisible polearm or spiked chain could well work like that.

[Deca4531]

I realize that Harry's cloak was akin to an artifact in 3rd edition terms, im just trying to make something close to it. What i need to know thought is if i can even do that to a cloak and be shrouded inside it, and if i attack from within the cloak will it become visible? The cloak isnt making any kind of attack, its only providing cover for an attack. I read the "There, Not There" and it only really deals with creatures, not items.

On a side note, Harry being invisible can only hide him from sight, im sure Dumbledore has like 8 super charged senses that could have warned him of harry's presence.

[Zombimode]

I realize that Harry's cloak was akin to an artifact in 3rd edition terms, im just trying to make something close to it. What i need to know thought is if i can even do that to a cloak and be shrouded inside it, and if i attack from within the cloak will it become visible? The cloak isnt making any kind of attack, its only providing cover for an attack. I read the "There, Not There" and it only really deals with creatures, not items.

Well, form a GM perspective it seems that you are trying to reap the benefits of an greater invisibility item without paying the full price for it.

This would be my stance on that matter: if you want the effect of greater invisibility you have to pay the price for that.

[Segev]

Assuming you're using something like greater invisibility, which doesn't break upon attacking, your weapons would remain invisible, too.

If you mean ammo, then it becomes visible essentially as soon as it hits something. Arguably, as soon as it leaves the firing weapon/character, but since explicitly the benefits of invisibility extend to the attack, it doesn't "matter" if it's visible from the moment it releases or not, by the mechanics. The only point it might matter for is telling where it came from. And I'd argue that you shouldn't get that kind of advantage, as invisibility that is meant to be ruined when you attack actually drops when you do so. If it's not meant to be ruined by attacking, don't try to make it so by inventing ways to "see through it" that aren't in the rules.

[Deca4531]

Well, form a GM perspective it seems that you are trying to reap the benefits of an greater invisibility item without paying the full price for it.

This would be my stance on that matter: if you want the effect of greater invisibility you have to pay the price for that.

Oh this is no where near as good as greater invis for several reasons.

1. You would have to move extremely slowly. you are basically holding a blanket over your head, so any vigorous movement would risk blowing it open, showing your feet, or any number of things that would give you away.
2. Since the inside of the cloak isn't invisible your ability to see would be greatly restricted. The magic of Harry's cloak made it see through when under it, this one can't do that.
3. Melee combat would be practically impossible outside the first attack, see reason 1
4.Ranged combat would be very difficult. A bow requires 2 hands, leaving none to hold the cloak and causing it to open. a crossbow would be possible, but a light crossbow would suffer negatives if used in one hand, and the noise would give away your position. A hand crossbow doesn't do much damage, and if you could afford a heavily enchanted hand crossbow then you could probably afford the normal ring of invisibility.
5. Spell casting would be very difficult. A verbal component can give you away, and you would suffer spell failure with semantic components and risk loosing control of the cloak. Any projectile would also risk hitting the inside of the cloak unless you stuck your hand out of it to cast it, thus giving you away.

This item isn't meant to cheese combat, though im sure you could find a way to do it if you wanted to. it's meant to be more of a scouting and escape tool for melee, since casters can just cast the spell themselves, and have many other escape spells. Normal rings of invis don't restrict you as much and only cost 20,000, half that if you make it yourself at 7th level. This cloak would cost 10,450 even if you made it yourself (using pathfinder Permanency).

My concern is when i do go into combat do i risk dispelling my cloak, even if I'm not using it's invisibility quality. If I do then by that logic i can dispel invis on any object simply by holding it and punching someone. If you say "It would only get dispelled if you were using its invis side and attacked." then your telling me that the magic making it invisible can tell the difference and is a sentient, living thing. When your invisible you know that your attacking something, and presumably the spell uses that knowledge to trigger the dispelling.


Assuming you're using something like greater invisibility, which doesn't break upon attacking, your weapons would remain invisible, too.

There is no greater invisibility for items as that spell cant be made permanent. Normally you wouldn't have to as an item isn't alive and cant make the decision to attack someone.

[Deophaun]

Oh this is no where near as good as greater invis for several reasons.
None of which really matters, because the cloak itself has all the properties of greater invisibility. That you have chosen to put those qualities on an item that is not as useful for your intended purpose just means you are being inefficient or unimaginative in the cloak's application. I always err on the side of unimaginative, as that's a temporary condition that can be overcome at the most inconvenient of times.

[Deca4531]

None of which really matters, because the cloak itself has all the properties of greater invisibility. That you have chosen to put those qualities on an item that is not as useful for your intended purpose just means you are being inefficient or unimaginative in the cloak's application. I always err on the side of unimaginative, as that's a temporary condition that can be overcome at the most inconvenient of times.

You're absolutely right, and as i said in my last post you could cheese combat with this if you tried. I can think of plenty of ways to cheese this with just an hand crossbow and sneak attack. but that's not the point of this thread, the point is to determine the limits and function of an invisible item. To that end ill quote the spell effect and present my case as to why my concept would work.

"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature (the cloak is not making the attack). For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions (this part assumes its the player who is invisible. The cloak isn't alive and cant perceive anything, let alone who is a foe. this also indicates that if you jokingly attacked your ally it wouldn't end the effect). Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack (this is what the cloak is, at worst, doing. And even that is a stretch). Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack (Relationship wise, if the cloak is the player, then the person attacking from the cloak would be the summoned monster), cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly (You might be able to argue that a sword can do this, but a cloak can not), however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area."

I know you are getting a powerful item way cheaper than you should be able to, even with its limitations, but isn't that the reward for being creative? It's not hard to make a stupidly over powered build (like trip fighter in 3.5, or basically any spell caster) But with proper limitation this item should be manageable for an experienced DM

As a side note, i appreciate your attempt to not sound insulting lol