From: scythe@stein.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: invisibility
Keywords: picking up objects
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:21:44 GMT

In article <24316@galaxy.ucr.edu> rogue@ucrengr.ucr.edu (ed zeamba) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.212517.16823@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> laruedm@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (David Larue) writes:
>>
>> -=> I was always told (by at least four DMs, and I think it was even in
>> -=> one of the handbooks) that Invisibility was classified as a "special"
>> -=> illusion, one that could NOT be saved against.  But that the caster
>> -=> could indeed  see himself and his items.  
>>
>>In my DMG, p120, it says:
>>
>>INVISIBILITY
>>Invisibility is...etc.
>>
>>First, an invisible creatrue is invisible to everyone, *INCLUDING ITSELF*.
>>											 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>So if you're invisible, you can't see your items, foe
>>feet, or anything!
>>
>>-= Justin =-
>
>The PHB was corrected by the Wizard's HB, in which it says you DO
>see yourself...  Thats their policy: all latter publications
>take precedence over older ones.  But, unfortunately, they
>dont edit them as well as the hard-backs, thus only those
>of us with near-photo-graphic memory, can remeber TSR's
>correct rules.
>For instance: the PHB is vague on weapon specialization as to
>the number of weapons.  The Fighters HB, says you can specialize
>in any number, then a newer book say that the fighter's HB
>is wrong and the origianl PHB is supposed to mean Only One Weapon.
>
><sigh>
>-- 
>     /                                                                \
>@###I===============> "Know me as GORD of GREYHAWK..." <===============I###@ 
>     \		                                                      /
>rogue@ucrengr.ucr.edu		UC Riverside -- home of the Guildsman

To be quite blunt, the whole arguement is stupid =) The rules themselves
are constantly contradicting eachother, because no one has any idea of
what invisibility is - so here's my suggestion: A few new spells-

Invisibility I (Illusion)
(all effects same as standard 2nd level mage invis spel, except where
noted)
This is a specialized illusion, used to convince creature that they can't see
the wizard, even though he is right there.  This means - all creatures
that are immune to illusions CAN see the wizard.  All undead, golems, etc.
Chalk dust, faerie fire, glitterdust, all will not reveal the wizard
because all the creatures will "look past" the wizard.  However,
the spell is not powerful enough to maintain the illusion after the wizard 
attacks, and so the spell is automaticaly broken.  Not this
only prevents them from seeng the wiz (they can still hear, smell, etc)

Invisibility II ( Alteration )
Level 3
Duration 1 round/level
Other effects same as second level invis spell.
This is an alteration spell.  It essentially makes the wizard see-through.
All creatures that are immune to illusion CAN NOT see the wizard.  Undead,
golems and the like CAN NOT see the wizard.  However, this is a harder
effect to produce (thus the much shorter duration and higher level).  Dust
and the like not on the wizard at the time of casting will reveal him.
Faerie fire will always reveal the wizard, even it it is cast before the invis
spell.  This spell only masks sight.  Other means must be used to avoid
the other senses.

Improved Invisibility I ( Illusion )
This spell is identical to Improved Invisibiliy except where noted.
This is an improved version of invisibility.  It has the same effects
with the added bonus of hiding the wizard from smell and hearing.
In addition, the spell is not broken if the wizard attacks.

Notes- Infravision senses people with alteration invis, but not illusion
invis.  Things picked up become invisible if by someone with illusion invis,
but seem to be levitating if picked up by someone with alteration invis,
unless hidden under a coat or the like.

There.  Does that help at all? =)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he goes swimming does he get wet, | The Grim Reaper
Or does the water get him instead?     | scythe@u.washington.edu
-They Might Be Giants, "Particle Man"  |
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Villager: She turned me into a newt!   |Lister, If two people came to you 
Bedevere: A newt?                      |for a job, and one of them was dead,
Villager: I got better.....            |who would you choose? -Rimmer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA