Visibly invisible

[quiet1mi]

I was wondering if there was a way to increase the standard DC:20 spot check to recognize that "something" is there.... I find it quite silly that it becomes harder to notice my presence when I am visible (Base Hide check is 22+1d20) rather than invisible....

I do understand the DC:20 only gives a yes or no that something is over in this direction... unfortunately my DM is quite privy to using area of effect spells reasonably to counter my stealth tactics... With my high reflex this is not a initially lethal issue but I do not have evasion (10 levels of just beguiler) and I have little HP: (37)...

I do have the Dark Stalker, so it difficult to pinpoint me (DC:1d20+42+1 per 10 ft away from observer +10 if I reman still)... but having my presence noticed may be lethal to me.

I will talk to my Dm about enforcing the +1 to the DC per 10 ft the observer is, along with the -5 penalty with being distracted.

My largest issue is that the people I am sneaking around are Drow that invested into spot and listen if they can. (I recognize this as not picking on me as Drow use both stealth and denying scouts for warfare...)

[Heliomance]

You can make hide checks while invisible. The Invisibility gives +20 to the hide check.

[Mongoose87]

Does the spot DC not go up by 1 for every ten feet?

[PhoenixRivers]

Spot DC doesn't go up for the "detect something's Fishy" roll. It's a flat DC 20 check to notice that there's an invisible creature within 30 feet.

The easiest way to circumvent this is to stay greater than 30 feet away, if possible. When not possible to stay at a safe range, it is possible to use a tower shield (which will also be invisible) to have total cover from any AoE attacks. This should largely protect you from most AoE damage effects (Zone of Revelation and the like could be an issue, though.)

Otherwise, maintain legitimate cover and concealment as often as possible. Total concealment and they don't get the DC 20 roll. Most any cover gives reflex bonuses vs aoe, and total cover negates it.

[dsmiles]

Spot DC doesn't go up for the "detect something's Fishy" roll. It's a flat DC 20 check to notice that there's an invisible creature within 30 feet.

True, but I think this is a crap rule. Invisibility in DnD doesn't necessarily function like the Predator's. Maybe you should talk to your DM about this.

[PhoenixRivers]

True, but I think this is a crap rule. Invisibility in DnD doesn't necessarily function like the Predator's. Maybe you should talk to your DM about this.

Crap rules are rules nonetheless. This isn't necessarily Predator invisibility. Footsteps in puddles, footprints in the ground, space in the air where dust isn't, part of the character's body blocking a breeze, and more. It doesn't reveal that something's in a specific spot... Only that there's something in the area that isn't quite right.

[quiet1mi]

The +1 DC per 10 feet comes from the penalty that people often forget to apply to their spot checks... My DM included...

Will reread that 30ft thing... That is very interesting... I do not think I could carry around a tower shield and sneak around effectively with the -10 penalty it carries around... My 6 strength also puts a damper on carrying it around. It is tempting to have one in a bag of holding and deploy it as cover when I am staying still. (Thus increasing the DC to 40 because the observe has no line of sight to me, but to the inanimate invisible tower shield)

I may just invest into smoke sticks or a mage handed ever smoking bottle during combat... Nothing can see through the concealment it generates, not even true sight...

Can anyone confirm any rules about being somewhere filled with smoke?

[PhoenixRivers]

The +1 DC per 10 feet comes from the penalty that people often forget to apply to their spot checks... My DM included...

Will reread that 30ft thing... That is very interesting... I do not think I could carry around a tower shield and sneak around effectively with the -10 penalty it carries around... My 6 strength also puts a damper on carrying it around. It is tempting to have one in a bag of holding and deploy it as cover when I am staying still. (Thus increasing the DC to 40 because the observe has no line of sight to me, but to the inanimate invisible tower shield)

I may just invest into smoke sticks or a mage handed ever smoking bottle during combat... Nothing can see through the concealment it generates, not even true sight...

Can anyone confirm any rules about being somewhere filled with smoke?

Actually, they do have Line of Sight to you. And the wall behind you. Invisible objects don't block line of sight. Just Line of Effect (and people can still target you if they can see your shield, by targeting it). Total cover is the best thing the shield gives you, on rounds you don't attack.

Actual smoke is not penetrable by any effect short of blindsense/blindsight/tremorsense or the like. Illusory smoke, however, is. Yes, a level 1 Obscuring Mist trumps a True Seeing.

That said, it also clues someone in that something's not right. Spheres of fog or smoke rather stick out.

Smoke sticks aren't the best. You also need a lighting method, and the action economy isn't so great for something with such a small area of smoke.

Also, smoke forces saves for choking, so if you use smoke (rather than fog), get yourself a bottle of air.

[PinkysBrain]

Just for reference ... where is this DC20 again in the rules?

[jseah]

from d20srd:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm

A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it.

Under epic usage of skills:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#spot

The character can pinpoint the location of an invisible creature, or detect an illusion with a visual component.

DC20 - Notice presence of active invisible creature

[daggaz]

That flat dc20 spot check to notice the presence of an invisible creature within 30 ft of you, is for when the invisible creature is not attempting to hide, but is just standing there or walking by or whatever..

Invisibility grants +20 to hide, and thus a 20 or greater on a spot check will break that, with the caveat that you still cant physically see the creature, only notice its presence.

If you actually hide while invisible, it takes a spot check equal or greater than your hide check +20 to notice your presence. Same caveat still applies, of course.

[BobVosh]

Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you.

If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.

Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen.

A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it.

I'm going to assuming "generally" here refers to when it isn't actively using the hide skill. Seems like a very reasonable amount of RAI.

[PhoenixRivers]

I'm going to assuming "generally" here refers to when it isn't actively using the hide skill. Seems like a very reasonable amount of RAI.

When people say RAI, they almost always mean "RAI think they should work".

"Generally" could also mean that the DM has the option of the denying it based on no environmental clues to give it away.

[Volkov]

Trying to spot a level 20 rogue with maxed out ranks in hide who is invisible is really darned hard. You people should try it someday.

[PinkysBrain]

When people say RAI, they almost always mean "RAI think they should work".

"Generally" could also mean that the DM has the option of the denying it based on no environmental clues to give it away.

Bolding added by me.

If you acknowledge his interpretation as compatible with the RAW then you can't really argue your own interpretation as unequivocal RAW now can you? For what it's worth I agree with BobVosh, I think your interpretation is silly but I'm willing to admit it seems common enough based on empirical evidence. Just like my own and BobVosh seems common enough based on the same evidence.

[PinkysBrain]

Trying to spot a level 20 rogue with maxed out ranks in hide who is invisible is really darned hard. You people should try it someday.

Everything which require a D20 roll goes wildly out of wack by level 20, opposed rolls, attack rolls, saves ... it just breaks. That 3e is slightly broken is a known factor.

[Volkov]

Everything which require a D20 roll goes wildly out of wack by level 20, opposed rolls, attack rolls, saves ... it just breaks. That 3e is slightly broken is a known factor.

Of course, unless he rolls a one on his hide check and you a twenty on your spot check, then he's screwed.

[PhoenixRivers]

Bolding added by me.

If you acknowledge his interpretation as compatible with the RAW then you can't really argue your own interpretation as unequivocal RAW now can you? For what it's worth I agree with BobVosh, I think your interpretation is silly but I'm willing to admit it seems common enough based on empirical evidence. Just like my own and BobVosh seems common enough based on the same evidence.

I acknowledge that the line he's citing is one wholly up to DM interpretation. The interpretation I gave is not "my own interpretation". I was merely listing other possibilities.

Arguing undefined rules is akin to arguing Rule 0, or building houses on Tapioca Pudding. There's no ground to stand on if you say "I'm right".

The only right answer is that the individual DM is responsible for determining what "generally" means.

Why? Because there's no RAW interaction between the Hide skill and spotting the presence or absence of invisible characters within 30 feet.

The RAW application of Spot/Hide interaction is thus: Spot < Hide? You don't see em. Otherwise, you do see them, and know where they are.

Any speculation beyond that is just that. Speculation. Which has no bearing in a "how things work" discussion.

[BenTheJester]

Of course, unless he rolls a one on his hide check and you a twenty on your spot check, then he's screwed.

Remove or reduce the picture in your sig, please

[Mando Knight]

Spot DC doesn't go up for the "detect something's Fishy" roll. It's a flat DC 20 check to notice that there's an invisible creature within 30 feet.

Remember, this is a "detect something fishy" DC. This is where you see a displaced floorboard or something, and you get some kind of feeling that something's around there, even if you can't see it. It's one of the RAW "I've got a bad feeling about this" checks.

[quiet1mi]

Wouldn't a person who is skilled in hiding (+22 before I touch the dice and without invisibility) Take pains to avoid any of that...

And in regards to tremorsense, blindsight, blindsense, I can get around those thanks to darkstalker from the lords of madness book. So in other words... this DC: 20 is the only thing giving me away...

One More Thing... If I am invisible and in the open, I have total concealment thanks to invisibility.

I have Total concealment, I can take a hide check and add 20 if I am active, 40 if I am not...

If I roll my hide check, while being invisible, and a Warlock with devil sight rolls a spot check to find me (keep in mind that most warlocks do not have a high wisdom or have spot as a class skill)... Can he "see" me even if his spot check fails to beat my hide check?

If he does see me by the virtue of having line of sight to me, and me losing concealment. Could I just cast obscuring mist/ fogcloud/ throw a smoke stick and reroll my hide check and find a place with concealment.

[Mando Knight]

If a character has the ability to see invisibility, then you lose Total Concealment against that character, and thus can't use Hide against him without some form of Hide In Plain Sight, or other source of Cover or Concealment.

[PhoenixRivers]

Wouldn't a person who is skilled in hiding (+22 before I touch the dice and without invisibility) Take pains to avoid any of that...

You'd think. However, that's not how it works by the rules.

And in regards to tremorsense, blindsight, blindsense, I can get around those thanks to darkstalker from the lords of madness book. So in other words... this DC: 20 is the only thing giving me away...

The same book that includes mindsight. Then there's touchsight and lifesight.

One More Thing... If I am invisible and in the open, I have total concealment thanks to invisibility.

I have Total concealment, I can take a hide check and add 20 if I am active, 40 if I am not...

If I roll my hide check, while being invisible, and a Warlock with devil sight rolls a spot check to find me (keep in mind that most warlocks do not have a high wisdom or have spot as a class skill)... Can he "see" me even if his spot check fails to beat my hide check?

Provided you have no other form of concealment, he doesn't even need to roll to see you. 'Cover' and 'concealment' aren't something you have or don't have, in most cases. They're something you have or don't have in relation to someone else. If they can see you? You don't benefit from the spell.

If he does see me by the virtue of having line of sight to me, and me losing concealment. Could I just cast obscuring mist/ fogcloud/ throw a smoke stick and reroll my hide check and find a place with concealment.

Yes. However, you would not receive the invisible bonus to a foe that can see invisibility.

[quiet1mi]

So the moral of the story is just be more than 30 ft away, as foot prints are footprints...