Banning Greater Invisibility in gladiatorial matches?

[Jon_Dahl]

Edit: There will be 2,000 spectators and since my campaign is rather low on magic, there cannot be any way that the crowd could see invisible creatures. The organizers cannot get an artifact for that.

Hello, everyone! The PCs in my campaign are going to participate in a gladiatorial tournament in our next session. Two of the PCs have a habit of flying around and fight while using greater invisibility. The organizers of the tournament have a dilemma: ban or not ban spells that make the fights less interesting to see? Such as not seeing the fighters...

Pros:
+ The fights are more of spectacle when there is actually toe-to-toe fighting AND it can all be seen.
+ All rules should be there to make the fights as entertaining as possible. We are not here to see winners. We are here to see memorable fights. You can't remember what you can't see.
+ My players would finally have to adapt, just once, and not just use the same formula (i.e. fly unseen and spam spells). It is justified to get the PCs JUST ONCE out of their comfort zone.

Cons:
- Spellcasters will avoid the tournament.
- The audience will know that spellcasters are severely handicapped and thus the tournament will be more of a game and less a real fight.
- The PCs will most likely die. Not all, though. But maybe one.

What do you think? Ban boring spells, like Greater Invisibility, for gladiatorial combat or not?

[Venger]

it's a legitimate strategy. let your players do it. they've paid to get the spell in their book or whatever, let them have fun with it. if you want to think about spectacle, say the people in the coliseum get 3d glasses that let them see all the action.

if your goal isn't to stop your spellcasting pcs from entering, don't ban stuff t hey use

[ExLibrisMortis]

It makes sense to ban invisibility, unless you give the spectators access to see invisibility (for a fee, of course).

It's fair to ban a few spells, especially for sensible reasons, but it's polite to give your players a fair chance of finding out beforehand and preparing accordingly--after all, the rules of gladiatorial combat are determined ahead of time, and they aren't exactly secret, are they? If your players show up to the session with invisibility prepared, and only hear that it's banned when they enter the arena, that's more likely to get a negative response. Hearing of the ban ahead of time shouldn't be a problem at all.

[Phhase]

What if the crowd gets See Invisibility? Not only does this mean they can see the action, it means they might yell to the other guy, giving him a general idea where you might be. And your fans might try to shout over them to stop them. It could be pretty cool.

[Jon_Dahl]

What if the crowd gets See Invisibility? Not only does this mean they can see the action, it means they might yell to the other guy, giving him a general idea where you might be. And your fans might try to shout over them to stop them. It could be pretty cool.

There will be 2,000 spectators and most of them have used all the extra money they have on the tickets and betting. Think of the huge crowd in the movie Gladiator. The idea of a spell or an item that would help the audience to see the fighters is untenable, especially since my campaign is very low-magic.


Hearing of the ban ahead of time shouldn't be a problem at all.

Great! They will know the rules three days before the fights. Will do. Thank you.



it's a legitimate strategy. let your players do it. they've paid to get the spell in their book or whatever, let them have fun with it. if you want to think about spectacle, say the people in the coliseum get 3d glasses that let them see all the action.

if your goal isn't to stop your spellcasting pcs from entering, don't ban stuff t hey use

If the crowd has 2,000 3D glasses that can be used to see invisible creatures, the PCs will be in deep trouble in my game world

[Venger]

If the crowd has 2,000 3D glasses that can be used to see invisible creatures, the PCs will be in deep trouble in my game world

says who? you could have them bolted in like those telescope things at the racetrack

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Maybe cover the area with a neutral version of Hallow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallow.htm) that has Invisibility Purge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilityPurge.htm) attached? Say it's to also prevent competitors from escaping, if it's that kind of gladiators.

[Jon_Dahl]

says who? you could have them bolted in like those telescope things at the racetrack

That 'technology' has to come somewhere. If 2,000 SI goggles can be developed for a very low cost, it will be something significant. Questions will be asked.

[Jon_Dahl]

Maybe cover the area with a neutral version of Hallow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallow.htm) that has Invisibility Purge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilityPurge.htm) attached? Say it's to also prevent competitors from escaping, if it's that kind of gladiators.

Sure, that's good. But I was just thinking that you get a 'yellow card' for using greater invisibility. But sure, we can have that.

[Doug Lampert]

Your gladiatorial games can work as you like. But we've got win-loss-tie records from substantial numbers of Roman Gladiators, and the "loss" number is often much higher than 1. There's no reason defeat needs to mean death unless that's specifically part of your scenario.

The object is a good show (AFAIK Romans did not charge admission, the show was put on in honor of a dead ancestor and most often paid for by an aspiring politician, seating was by voting/citizenship category, with the first rows reserved for equestrians and senators, whose votes counted for more than the commons).

The sponsor of the games got to decide if the winner of a fight finished off the loser, and available evidence is that there were penalty clauses in the contract for getting too many valuable gladiators killed.

High level characters aren't common, in D&D land getting them killed in a show means a real hit to the next show.

A "realistic" D&D gladiatorial should be fought to about loss of half HP, and then you give up.

Invisibility and save or die spells should all be banned because they ruin the show, but big flashy spells like fireball should be strongly encouraged! If magic is allowed at all, you should start at long range and not allow any ranged weapons except spells.

Let the fireballs and lightning bolts and scorching rays fly! That's a show. Maybe there's an obstacle to keep melee types from charging all the way to the casters to give them plenty of time to blow their wad, and to give the rogues plenty of time to show off their evasion and/or improved evasion.

The rules aren't just about banning things that make for a bad show, they're about enabling things that make for a good show.

[tiercel]

says who? you could have them bolted in like those telescope things at the racetrack

I suppose the point is that if some sporting venue can afford 2000 always-on see invisibility items, even with (presumably) some discount for making them all fixed wondrous architecture, it establishes that the world potentially also has plenty of invisibility-busting items for sale at, say, the local Medieval Mart, and that the PCs shouldn’t be surprised when any foes high enough to face them are also sporting ToHeckWithYou brand see-invis steampunk goggles. —If that’s not the world the DM is running, then it doesn’t make sense for the arena to have thousands of magic items.

———

It’s also worth thinking about what kinds of other rules and restrictions the arena is likely to have:

Is flying allowed, and if so, to what height (and can flying combatants leave the area circumscribed by the arena floor)? The arena has a vested interest in keeping the combat in view of the audience, after all
By the same token, are combatants allow to burrow into th ground or create barriers that completely restrict visibility to the audience?
Are all tactics, spells, or effects that could harm/affect the audience forbidden?
Are surrenders (individual or team) allowed, what form do they take, and must surrender be respected?

[Afghanistan]

That 'technology' has to come somewhere. If 2,000 SI goggles can be developed for a very low cost, it will be something significant. Questions will be asked.


Edit: There will be 2,000 spectators and since my campaign is rather low on magic, there cannot be any way that the crowd could see invisible creatures. The organizers cannot get an artifact for that.

You do not need artifact levels of magic to make something that would allow 2,000 spectators to benefit from a See Invisibility spell. You would only need a 3rd level Wizard with Craft Wondrous Items and you can very easily make a piece of Wondrous Architecture (Stronghold Builder's Guide, p.70) that would grants anyone in a specific area the benefits of the See Invisibility spell. If the players ask "Hey, why does this work?" you can simply explain the sections where the audience is seated as granting the viewers See Invisibility, the works of ancient wizards, or recreated using forgotten technology by some Archimedes type Wizard in your setting and donated to the city for their permission to set up shop there. Creates a means by which your party can get alchemical items, magic items, etc while also setting up a potential plot point that your players are free to follow or discard at their leisure, while still granting them access to an array of features and items.

It also functions as treating magic as rare and extremely hard to come by, as only this low level Wizard is even capable of producing some of the more extraordinary magical effects.

[Luckmann]

Have all participants required to wear an anklet that electrocutes anyone that is fully invisible for more than 6 seconds, forcing them to save vs. fortitude or be stunned, and if the invisibility isn't dismissed within 12 seconds, casts Glitterdust centered on the anklet.

[ericgrau]

Edit: There will be 2,000 spectators and since my campaign is rather low on magic, there cannot be any way that the crowd could see invisible creatures. The organizers cannot get an artifact for that.

Hello, everyone! The PCs in my campaign are going to participate in a gladiatorial tournament in our next session. Two of the PCs have a habit of flying around and fight while using greater invisibility. The organizers of the tournament have a dilemma: ban or not ban spells that make the fights less interesting to see? Such as not seeing the fighters...

Pros:
+ The fights are more of spectacle when there is actually toe-to-toe fighting AND it can all be seen.
+ All rules should be there to make the fights as entertaining as possible. We are not here to see winners. We are here to see memorable fights. You can't remember what you can't see.
+ My players would finally have to adapt, just once, and not just use the same formula (i.e. fly unseen and spam spells). It is justified to get the PCs JUST ONCE out of their comfort zone.

Cons:
- Spellcasters will avoid the tournament.
- The audience will know that spellcasters are severely handicapped and thus the tournament will be more of a game and less a real fight.
- The PCs will most likely die. Not all, though. But maybe one.

What do you think? Ban boring spells, like Greater Invisibility, for gladiatorial combat or not?
#1 I hope magic items are plentiful to your PCs. That's a common mistake with "low magic": turning it into unfair magic. The game isn't built for this any more than fighters can fight unarmed and armor-less or casters without their spel-lbook and/or spell components.

Second, you can still see a fight when one person is invisible. You can see his spell effects and the attempts of the opponent to locate him, via sound most simply: DC 20 listen when he casts a spell (spells with verbal components must be cast in a strong voice) or takes other violent action, higher DC when he moves. Locates the square but does not negate the 50% miss chance. Furthermore casting greater invisibility and fly takes 2 rounds during which the caster may be attacked and has done nothing to attack, during which tremendous damage could be done. The opponent might also ready an action to disrupt the casting of one or both spells. In between casting greater invisibility and fly there are other tactics like seeing foot prints in the dirt floor. This allows interesting and entertaining tactics for the spectators to see. Also helpful for your fights in general, any monster can do them, and require nothing more than reading the invisibility rules and the combat rules. It is easier on casters if you allow buff rounds. But then are others allowed to use potions and buff items? Again, keep it fair. I'd disallow buff rounds altogether. Either enforce it with detect magic or disallow buffing for several minutes or 30 minutes before the fight, so only longer buffs are available ahead of time.

I had to get all of that out of the way before I can examine the issue. There is still a lot for spectators to see even if you allow greater invisibility, as described above. But I can understand how there is less for them to see. You could ban just invisibility on the grounds that it disrupts the visibility of the match. I don't really see that as severely handicapping casters or really handicapping them much at all since they have plenty of other options. While you're at it ban anything that is very similar to invisibility, like hide in plain sight.

I agree that giving the crowd see invisibility cannot exist without a level of cost or cheese that will only beg the question of why everyone else isn't easily doing the same outside of the arena. Or extreme DM fiat. "This arena has ancient and powerful magic that exists nowhere else and the secrets to make it are long forgotten! Did the ancients use this magic to harbor a force that now threatens the world, whom you must now thwart? Nay, they used it to move my plot forward a small amount!"

[Jon_Dahl]

Good stuff so far, but most likely I will not use ways to block the use of invisibility. Instead, the infringing gladiators will just receive a warning from the ref. Nevertheless, feel free to talk about these methods if you wish.

[RedMage125]

I'm going to assume that your PCs are volunteering to participate in this, and are not enslaved to do so.

Age of Worms had a module where the party chose to participate in a Champion's Belt arena. I believe the module was called "The Champion's Belt", actually. I would look that up. There were several rules that were laid out to all the gladiators in advance. Spellcasting was allowed, and teams usually had a few rounds worth of time to cast short-duration buffs before a given round started. The only rule I remember firmly is that Flight (magical or otherwise) was limited to 30 feet off the ground, or the gladiator would be disqualified. Violators would be given one "warning" on this rule.

My suggestion would be that invisibility spells are either forbidden, or at least invisibility is to be limited to 3 consecutive rounds. That could allow for characters who like to disappear, and then re-appear to strike an opponent. On the 3rd round, the announcer could let them know their invisibility needed to drop this round or they'll be disqualified. And then if they don't, they're out, and called on it as soonas they DO appear. Yes, this means Greater Invis. is probably right out.

[Clementx]

Remaining invisible for a ten-count (ie three rounds) is considered fleeing the fight, and is a forfeit. Apply the same restriction to any other way of avoiding making/receiving an attack/save.

[zlefin]

I'd probably ban it; there should also be a note that certain other spells may also be banned, and the PCs should check with you about their planned loadouts.

Since the goal of the matches is to provide spectacle and betting for the viewers, anything which makes it hard to view, or less interesting to watch would be an issue.

Filling the area with fog spells for instance; while a little bit of pop and hide may be ok, if the whole fight can't be seen due to fog, it's not interesting to watch. Save or lose enchantments might also be a bit boring (i.e. dominate, hold person), as they just make one person immobilized then taken out; though it'd depend somewhat on the scenario involved. Illusions which can't be seen by the audience might also be forbidden.

from a better's perspective, spells where you can't see the effects also raise concerns about match rigging.

[Zanos]

Isn't seeing a fireball come out of nowhere to incinerate somebody pretty exciting?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not sure why invisibility is a problem if the people the PCs are fighting are actually level appropriate foes. Invisibility, even the greater version, isn't that hard to break. Pick up and chuck a handful of dirt when you think you know where they are, use listen checks to find them, have access to any of a whole host of features, feats, or magic items to bypass it directly.

As long as the visible gladiator is fighting dynamically and not just getting his butt handed to him by a foe he can't meaningfully interact with, invisibility shouldn't be a big deal.

If the stage can be thematically altered with something like water pumps (the romans did it), having the ground covered in a small amount of water or mud can also make both listen checks and spot checks to locate an invisible creature much easier. Having a fight on a series of small boats or floating platforms can be a fun scene too, invisibility or no.


The larger question is how do you allow serious magic into the arena without putting literally everyone in attendence in mortal danger? In the closest modern equivalent, Battlebots, the arena is surrounded by bullet-resistant plastic to prevent shrapnel from the competitors reaching and potentially harming the audience and projectile weapons, save flamethrowers, are outright forbidden. By comparison, stopping a whole host of spells from accidently killing whole swathes of the audience would be extremely difficult without magical warding that is, apparently, beyond the "tech" level of your setting.

[Jon_Dahl]

The larger question is how do you allow serious magic into the arena without putting literally everyone in attendence in mortal danger? In the closest modern equivalent, Battlebots, the arena is surrounded by bullet-resistant plastic to prevent shrapnel from the competitors reaching and potentially harming the audience and projectile weapons, save flamethrowers, are outright forbidden. By comparison, stopping a whole host of spells from accidently killing whole swathes of the audience would be extremely difficult without magical warding that is, apparently, beyond the "tech" level of your setting.

They will be in mortal danger. The audience knows that they are coming to watch nukes duke it out while they sit next to them. This is not explicitly stated, but everyone understands it. There will be a local archmage there who has come to enjoy her evening, and she will do something if necessary. She won't fight anyone, but she can protect the audience a little bit.


I'm going to assume that your PCs are volunteering to participate in this

That is correct.


Remaining invisible for a ten-count (ie three rounds) is considered fleeing the fight, and is a forfeit. Apply the same restriction to any other way of avoiding making/receiving an attack/save.

This is brilliant, I'm totally stealing this idea! Thank you. "If there is no fighting or we can't see your stupid ***, we'll stop the fight and brand the culprit officially a coward. Naturally, you won't get paid and you will have to leave the kingdom while you still own two legs. Now get out of my sight."

[HeraldOfExius]

This is brilliant, I'm totally stealing this idea! Thank you. "If there is no fighting or we can't see your stupid ***, we'll stop the fight and brand the culprit officially a coward. Naturally, you won't get paid and you will have to leave the kingdom while you still own two legs. Now get out of my sight."

"Now get out of my sight" probably isn't the best way to end a threat directed at somebody with access to Greater Invisibility.

[Biggus]

Spellcasters have plenty of ways to be hard to target without being invisible: Mirror Image, Blink, Displacement etc. They wouldn't be defenceless by any means; it wouldn't even go so far as to even the odds between casters and martials, just make the casters slightly less certain to win.

And more importantly: the audience pays for the contest, nobody wants to pay for a fight they can't see. The organisers will very soon not have an audience if they don't ban it. If you are going to allow it, it needs to be very strictly limited, not only do you forfeit if you're invisible for three rounds or longer, but also if you go invisible again within five rounds of becoming visible.

[denthor]

Just so your aware I have very twisted humor.

In a evil monster game we started in an arena my first choice of "character" a hungry harpy.

The DM almost allowed it. Then I smiled(gave myself away). The harpy song charms everyone that fails the save she eats while they stand and allow it.

So banning something is a good thing.

[RedMage125]

And more importantly: the audience pays for the contest, nobody wants to pay for a fight they can't see. The organisers will very soon not have an audience if they don't ban it. If you are going to allow it, it needs to be very strictly limited,

Agreed. that was the point I was making as well.


not only do you forfeit if you're invisible for three rounds or longer, but also if you go invisible again within five rounds of becoming visible.
That last part seems excessive. As long as they are not invisible for more than 3 rounds, that should be the only limit. A gladiator who pops in an out of sight, assassinating and eviscerating thier foes could be very entertaining for the audience.

Also, you're talking about 8 rounds minimum. Most combats don't last that long.

[Biggus]

That last part seems excessive. As long as they are not invisible for more than 3 rounds, that should be the only limit. A gladiator who pops in an out of sight, assassinating and eviscerating thier foes could be very entertaining for the audience.

Also, you're talking about 8 rounds minimum. Most combats don't last that long.

If you allow them to go invisible again immediately after reappearing, in a 5-round fight they'll only be visible for 1 round, that's barely any improvement on just letting them be invisible all the time. Maybe a 5-round cool-off is excessive, but there needs to be one, I'd say 3 rounds absolute minimum.

[heavyfuel]

When I had a tournment, I followed a similar idea.

Role playing wise, I told them that the organizer game them a somewhat hefty book of rules that must be abided.

Out of character I told the players "Look, no spells/effects that make it difficult to see what's going on. No invisibility, no fog cloud, etc. If you're unsure if something counts or not, ask me or risk being disqualified. If you think you found a loophole, remember that loopholes don't exist. There's a reason the rule book for fights is like 300 pages long.

Also, no killing. Though accidents do happen"

[Evil DM Mark3]

If we are taking Roman Gladiatorial matches as a template then it probably goes by event. Romans loved mis-matches, odd rules and so on. We are talking about people who answered "who would win in a fight between a dwarf and a woman?" by saying "lets go along Friday and find out." (There were also set types of fight with certain types of weapon of course).

As a general rule, I would say banning anything that might make the audience demand their ticket price back. Invisible guy vs 3 knights for example might be fun. 2 invisible guys in an arena 4 inches deep in sand might also be interesting. 2 guys, one who goes invisible and then shanks the other isn't fun at all.

[Jon_Dahl]

Great posts so far, thank you, and I'm absolutely taking this idea:


When I had a tournment, I followed a similar idea.

Role playing wise, I told them that the organizer game them a somewhat hefty book of rules that must be abided.

Out of character I told the players "Look, no spells/effects that make it difficult to see what's going on. No invisibility, no fog cloud, etc. If you're unsure if something counts or not, ask me or risk being disqualified. If you think you found a loophole, remember that loopholes don't exist. There's a reason the rule book for fights is like 300 pages long.

Also, no killing. Though accidents do happen"

[heavyfuel]

Great posts so far, thank you, and I'm absolutely taking this idea:

Glad you liked it :smallsmile:

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, I would think saying "here's a list of stuff that will get you disqualified" should do the trick.

I mean, people participate in these things for the loot/fame/glory, right? They don't get any of that if they're disqualified.

[Quertus]

Boy, as simple as this sounds, it's really complicated to write out.

As I picture them, arena fights may well use animals. Or monsters (many of whom are dumb. Or lack shared languages). So there are no rules that cannot be enforced. Or, rather, there are no *universal* rules. Some monsters just *are* invisible. And gladiators would be used to that. As would audiences. Gladiators pursuing bags of flour, audiences throwing rotten tomatoes (with 2,000 attack rolls, *someone's* gonna hit, and spoil that invisibility), etc, would all be common practices.

So, I say that they'd be "used to" it, but it depends on showmanship (and how the fight was billed) as to whether they'd like it.

Then there would be the rules (and "rules") of individual matches. Perhaps a Dragon volunteers to participate in a (nonlethal (to it)) match, and agrees not to use its breadth weapon on the crowd, so long as they don't throw rotten vegetables at it. Probably complete with announcements to put your compost under your seats, and a demonstration by the Dragon as a "friendly" reminder.

Perhaps some matches have flying monsters / mounts tethered with ropes / chains, so that they cannot exceed a certain height (probably not outside throwing range, for example).

Were I running a game like this, I'd give the party a Knowledge check to know about the rules (and "rules") - automatic success for local residents who attend the games. *And* give the people who run the games a chance based on the party's reputation to specifically mention their take on invisibility.

And what would their take on invisibility (and anything else that reduces what the crowd can see) be? Depends on their experiences. But I'm guessing a) not a fan, and b) if the party's reputation is known, the opponents would have See Invisibility running, to discourage viewer-unfriendly tactics. Whether or not the party is told beforehand.

[Malphegor]

Have the arena grounds be covered in dust, dirt and sand- fighters can then kick up some sand and dust to test if there is an invisible wizard (an... inwizardible) in a 5ft square.

Makes the fight interesting as the fighters have to avoid being hit whilst trying to bring up dust- almost like a live version of playing Minesweeper.

[KillianHawkeye]

almost like a live version of playing Minesweeper.

Watching somebody play Minesweeper doesn't seem that interesting, even if it were played with real mines...