Can an invisibile character see himself [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can an invisibile character see himself [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Theogonist
12-07-06, 11:04 AM Hi crowd,
the topic says it all, can an invisible character see herself and thus determine if she is still invisible or not? (The spell used would be the standard lvl 2 invisibility spell).

The question came up, as it's not explicitely mentioned that the caster cannot see herself as opposed to the higher level variants. (Mass Invisibilty)

In my opinion when casting invisibility on yourself you cannot see your hands or equipent carried. This would also make using scrolls impossible as well as identifying which potion you just pulled from your backpack (unles there are other means than optical to differentiate between the vials of course).

Thanks for your input :)
Jaxgaret
12-07-06, 11:28 AM I'm pretty certain that you can see yourself.

One argument for this view is that the spell doesn't state any restrictions on personal item use, and it would if you could not see your own items.
mvincent
12-07-06, 01:31 PM From the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a):
"Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself. This helps avoid arguments about exactly what an invisible creature can do without a penalty."
Seeker95
12-07-06, 01:37 PM I rule that you can see yourself because it is mind-affecting.
However, with invisibility sphere, I rule that you cannot see the others.
mvincent
12-07-06, 01:42 PM I rule that you can see yourself because it is mind-affecting.To clarify: you have altered invisibility in your game to be mind-affecting (and thus useless against undead, constructs, vermin, etc.)?
calvinNhobbes
12-07-06, 02:29 PM Invisibility is an Illusion(glamer).

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.

A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

The wording is unfortunate since illusions do not really affect the mind directly, only indirectly via the senses. Enchantments affect the mind directly.

Technically you have not changed yourself at all (that would be a transmutation). You have merely created the illusion you are not there. There is no reason why you would be subject to your own illusion.

Compare invisibility to other illusions (glamer) like displacement or blur and a transmutation like blink.
Ryusage
12-07-06, 02:37 PM I don't think it would be possible to turn someone invisible without them noticing, if that is your intention.
risner
12-07-06, 02:53 PM I rule you can see yourself and you know when your spell is active and about to expire.
High Octane
12-07-06, 07:41 PM If Invisibility is mind affecting it should be renamed to "SEP field" or the "Someone-else's problem field"
daota
12-07-06, 08:13 PM Invisibility
Illusion (Glamer)

Illusion
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.

Glamer
A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. Glamers change the subject's sensory qualities. It is not mind-effecting, it is sense-effecting. You don't see them because the spell is messing with your vision, not your brain.
TheAngryFish
12-07-06, 08:15 PM anything that is immune to mind affecting doesn't usually use conventional sight anyway
runestar
12-07-06, 10:23 PM In one of the dnd novels, this invisible character could not see himself, and thus had a bit of difficulty getting used to simple tasks like walking. But then, its just a story.

I would say that since the invis spell does not mention anything about penalties regarding what you can or cannot do, just assume that regardless of whether you can actually see yourself or not, you still are not penalized for whatever actions you are taking.:)
Chrono Nexus
12-07-06, 10:24 PM I can see how this question could effect things, like if a character had to retrieve a scroll and then activated the wrong one by mistake.
It hasn't come up in my games so far, so I'll just ignore it until it does.
Neutronium_Dragon
12-07-06, 10:30 PM Simply put, a spell isn't mind-affecting unless it has the [mind-affecting] descriptor.

Some Illusion spells are mind-affecting and have this descriptor, but not all of them are or do. The ones which do are patterns and phantasms (and this is noted in the Illusion text, if you keep reading it), which are expressly the types of illusion that work on the target's mind.

Glamers and figments and shadows don't, since they work on sensory qualities or by manipulating extradimensional energy. Illusion is a glamer; it alters the sensory quality of the target, not the minds of those viewing it.

This has also been the subject of a D&D designer rant: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
calvinNhobbes
12-07-06, 10:39 PM From a neurophysiologic stand point, not being able to see yourself would not completely make you unaware of your body. There are multiple somatosensory pathways in the body, especially in the limbs, to help your brain define your position in space. As an exercise, close your eyes and move your arms and legs around. You can "see" where they are going. But obviously sight is a very important additional confirmational/feedback pathway.

As an aside, I could see designing a transmutation spell that actually made you completely transparent (like "living" glass :D ). Since you couldn't see your body you would get penalties (perhaps similar to being blind). You could even cast it on another creature to mess with them, but they would probably get a Fort save.

EDIT: As another aside, I could see making an enchantment [mind-effecting] spell (let's call it ignore) that required any creature that came within a certain distance of you to make a will save, if they failed it was as if you weren't even there.

The same overall outcome can be created by multiple schools, it's all how you go about doing it. :D
WizO_Cat
12-09-06, 12:13 AM Ok, this thread is being reopened. However, for those that decided to make their posts personal and have experienced their deletion, consider this to be your fair warning: further violations will result in disciplinary actions. And before it is asked, it doesn't matter who starts it or which side of the argument take part in the past or subsequent offenses - disciplinary actions will be taken.

Happy posting.
Stormonu
12-09-06, 08:07 AM Hmm. The inability to not see yourself and/or equipment could make it difficult to do things like read a scroll. We've always played that because it is an illusion, the caster/recipient can automatically disbelieve it and thus is unaffected by the invisibility.
runestar
12-09-06, 08:11 AM In theory, how is a person even able to be see while invisible? Since light is not reflected by the cornea and stuff...?:P
green_yawgmoth
12-09-06, 09:42 AM From a neurophysiologic stand point, Applying neurophisiology to D&D is a lot like applying physics to D&D. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
calvinNhobbes
12-09-06, 09:55 AM Applying neurophisiology to D&D is a lot like applying physics to D&D.
If by completely and totally relevant then I agree.

Let me know next time you have a D&D world where humans have no brains, can't see, hear, or smell, and there is no gravity.

Real world science may not apply to "magic", but to say it has no bearing in a D&D setting, or any fantasy setting in general, is just silly. Note how almost every fictional setting ever made has humans in it. Ever wonder why? Because it provides a baseline of normality to compare the fantastic elements to.
Seeker95
12-09-06, 12:00 PM Real world science may not apply to "magic", but to say it has no bearing in a D&D setting, or any fantasy setting in general, is just silly.I read yawg's comment, and noted that he did not say "it has no bearing".

green yawgmoth wrote:
Applying neurophisiology to D&D is a lot like applying physics to D&D.

It can reasonably interpretted to mean that the application of such real-worl sciences and the knowledge advances we have made in the real world are not always helpful in obtaining the objective of having fun if applied to D&D. The physics of gravity or electricity become too cumbersome when applied to falling and lightning bolts. The neurophysiological sciences of the senses are equally cumbersome - and potential fun-killers - when wielded by a player at the gaming table.

Send the physics or neuroscience major on the next pizza run if they insist on remaining a physics or neuroscience major at the gaming table. When they present evidence that they can be a D&D player at the table, they are welcome to re-join the game.
Damionte
12-09-06, 12:39 PM In theory, how is a person even able to be see while invisible? Since light is not reflected by the cornea and stuff...?:P

Think of invisibility as a localised effect. Like a force field of invisibility around you. Stops on the edges sort of thing.

Kinda like a warp bubble on star trek. People used to ask all the time, "If they're going faster than light how can they see? Or "Why is it everyone isn't squished into the back of the ship?"
Theogonist
12-09-06, 04:14 PM From all I read I strongly support a locally altered reality variant.

As Sean's rant (link see somewhere up) shows, it cannot be a mind affecting spell as it would go far beyond a 2nd level spell.
Unfortunately disbeliefing (as in the good old times) does not work then either.

Also the description of Invisibility says it's a Glamer.

What would be the conclusion from that?
In my games the invisible character cannot see himself nor any equipment he has on him. This makes reading a scroll or finding the desired equipment difficult, but hey, it's a 2nd level spell, what can you expect :)
Esponer
12-09-06, 07:44 PM Excellent question. Like many such technical questions it appears that the answer isn't hidden somewhere in the text, and is instead down to our interpretation (or more likely, the interpretation of the DM in the game you're playing in). I would email Customer Service asking their thoughts, but I suspect their answer would just be to reiterate my suspicion: that there is no official ruling to be had.

The best answer here, I would think, is "we just don't know". There are two ways then to go about asking how it should indeed work:
What would be best for the game?
What seems somehow more logical?

The first point depends on players' personal feelings, and I'm not sure which I'd prefer. I think I'd enjoy playing it either way. For the purposes of general convenience and based on, I think, the majority of fiction, it might be better if invisibility does not preclude a character from seeing themselves or their equipment. Although I think this is the more common interpretation in fiction, I think I'd greatly enjoy the breath of fresh air of a story where this isn't the case — in fact, whilst I hadn't considered it beforehand, I may bear this in mind for a story of mine (in which I hadn't really thought about magical invisibility before, even though it certainly has a place as Form sorcery, some form of lightbending, as well as Will sorcery, à la cloud mind).

I do think the more logical interpretation is probably that you cannot see yourself, but invisibility in D&D (possibly thankfully) has no scientific definition or explanation. The explanation I'd be most likely to suggest is that you simply let light pass straight through you, which would make you not only incapable of seeing yourself but also blind. Since that one can't be the way it works then, I think my second favourite "logical" interpretation is that you are surrounded by an energy field which perfectly replicates its surroundings (this is something that, if in psionics, would be kineticism). This doesn't necessarily mean that you could see yourself — actually you probably couldn't, as any part of yourself that you tried to look at, you'd be looking at from outside the field. It would necessitate a bit more complexity to let yourself see yourself.

Invisibility probably includes that little complexity — some sort of added function to the field that lets what's enclosed by it see yourself properly. I do think that seeing yourself is the most sensible result.

The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisibility) on invisibility is quite interesting, as I remember, and suggests some other explanations. This (http://members.aol.com/Rapunz1/invisibility.html) article might also prove interesting, although I'm a little unconvinced by it, personally.

Happy gaming.
Red_Rabbit
12-10-06, 12:39 AM My reading of it because this is a rough question is that since it's not mind effecting. Than you can't see yourself, (you are bending light to hide yourself) but I let my players be able to find things on there person. Mainly because you can close your eyes and still find your carkeys or that book in your backpack, but if you wanna read it you better turn on the lights or take that invisibility off.

To my point
1)No you can't see yourself (so than you know your invisible or still invisible).
2)Yes you can find that scroll in your backpack, if you have 2 you better hope you are getting the right scroll.
3)No you can't read that scroll invisible.
4)You can pull out that dagger in the sheath on your side because you can feel it on your side.

Cloak of Invisibility is different for me, because you can see whatever is inside the cloak.

The Rabbit
Nom
12-10-06, 04:07 AM Note that invisibility sphere (Brd3, Sor/Wiz3), which "functions like invisibility, except that this spell confers invisibility upon all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient", explicitly allows the affected creatures to see each other. This sets a precedent for regular invisibility unless there's a good reason to rule otherwise.
Theogonist
12-11-06, 03:21 AM Note that invisibility sphere (Brd3, Sor/Wiz3), which "functions like invisibility, except that this spell confers invisibility upon all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient", explicitly allows the affected creatures to see each other. This sets a precedent for regular invisibility unless there's a good reason to rule otherwise.

Invisibility Sphere works differently as it is exactly that, a sphere.
And the question came up because it is not explicitly stated in the description of Invisibility that you can or cannot see yourself :)

WizO_Cat: Please just report the offenses. Thanks.
Dheran
12-11-06, 04:01 AM There isn't a definitive answer on this point. That said, Nom's made a good point by referencing Invisibility Sphere.

The question probably doesn't actually need to be answered. One thing that Invisibility explicitly does not call out is any penalties to the character who becomes invisible, such as having a harder time aiming an attack.An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). Additionally,an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, 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. So even if the invisible character can't see themselves or their possessions, they function at least as well as if they could, or better (for making attacks). Can an invisible being read an invisible scroll? Apparently so. After all, it's magic. We don't need to know how it works.
Theogonist
12-27-06, 04:44 AM Finally someone pointed me to a clarification.

Skip Williams writes:
Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself.

Rules of the Game: There, not there (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a)
Norric121
12-27-06, 03:10 PM LOL
this came up in our game last night, where the Rogue did a Use Magic Device on a Wand of Invisibility and failed.. Assume the Wand doesn't glow or shine or make noise when it functions (cuz it's a sneaky wand), did he know he's not invisible?
Dheran
12-28-06, 12:30 PM LOL
this came up in our game last night, where the Rogue did a Use Magic Device on a Wand of Invisibility and failed.. Assume the Wand doesn't glow or shine or make noise when it functions (cuz it's a sneaky wand), did he know he's not invisible? He'll get an opportunity to make a Spellcraft check (which is a cross-class skill for a Rogue) but otherwise probably won't know. That said, it's possible to test for invisibility if you have a light source. Just hold your hand between the light source and the wall. If you see your hand's shadow, you're not invisible. If there's just illlumination without a clear source, you are invisible. Also, if there's ambient light you can just drop a mirror at your feet. If you see the ceiling instead of yourself, you're invisible.

Rogues are supposed to be skillful characters. I'm sure that after one failure with UMD he'll learn to check his work.
mvincent
12-28-06, 12:56 PM Finally someone pointed me to a clarification.

Skip Williams writes:
Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself.

Rules of the Game: There, not there (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a)Note that the quote (and RotG link) was given in the third post of this thread.
mvincent
12-28-06, 01:04 PM LOL
this came up in our game last night, where the Rogue did a Use Magic Device on a Wand of Invisibility and failed.. Assume the Wand doesn't glow or shine or make noise when it functions (cuz it's a sneaky wand), did he know he's not invisible?One can normally tell if they have succeeded in casting a spell or not. Also, it seems reasonable that you would see yourself similarly to how being able to see invisible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) creatures is normally handled:
"You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures."
Theogonist
01-08-07, 09:45 AM Note that the quote (and RotG link) was given in the third post of this thread.
Ashes on my head, I totally missed the link in the post :(
Mysticaloctopus
01-08-07, 03:25 PM If Invisibility is mind affecting it should be renamed to "SEP field" or the "Someone-else's problem field"

The SEP Field! Classic! SEP Field should be a lower-level mind-affecting spell which, while not causing invisibility, makes a person seem hidden as if they had Hide in Plain Sight as long as they're not trying to draw attention to themselves.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Theogonist 12-07-06, 11:04 AM	Hi crowd, the topic says it all, can an invisible character see herself and thus determine if she is still invisible or not? (The spell used would be the standard lvl 2 invisibility spell). The question came up, as it's not explicitely mentioned that the caster cannot see herself as opposed to the higher level variants. (Mass Invisibilty) In my opinion when casting invisibility on yourself you cannot see your hands or equipent carried. This would also make using scrolls impossible as well as identifying which potion you just pulled from your backpack (unles there are other means than optical to differentiate between the vials of course). Thanks for your input :)
Jaxgaret 12-07-06, 11:28 AM	I'm pretty certain that you can see yourself. One argument for this view is that the spell doesn't state any restrictions on personal item use, and it would if you could not see your own items.
mvincent 12-07-06, 01:31 PM	From the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a): "Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself. This helps avoid arguments about exactly what an invisible creature can do without a penalty."
Seeker95 12-07-06, 01:37 PM	I rule that you can see yourself because it is mind-affecting. However, with invisibility sphere, I rule that you cannot see the others.
mvincent 12-07-06, 01:42 PM	I rule that you can see yourself because it is mind-affecting.To clarify: you have altered invisibility in your game to be mind-affecting (and thus useless against undead, constructs, vermin, etc.)?
calvinNhobbes 12-07-06, 02:29 PM	Invisibility is an Illusion(glamer). Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened. A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear. The wording is unfortunate since illusions do not really affect the mind directly, only indirectly via the senses. Enchantments affect the mind directly. Technically you have not changed yourself at all (that would be a transmutation). You have merely created the illusion you are not there. There is no reason why you would be subject to your own illusion. Compare invisibility to other illusions (glamer) like displacement or blur and a transmutation like blink.
Ryusage 12-07-06, 02:37 PM	I don't think it would be possible to turn someone invisible without them noticing, if that is your intention.
risner 12-07-06, 02:53 PM	I rule you can see yourself and you know when your spell is active and about to expire.
High Octane 12-07-06, 07:41 PM	If Invisibility is mind affecting it should be renamed to "SEP field" or the "Someone-else's problem field"
daota 12-07-06, 08:13 PM	Invisibility Illusion (Glamer) Illusion Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. Glamer A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear. Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. Glamers change the subject's sensory qualities. It is not mind-effecting, it is sense-effecting. You don't see them because the spell is messing with your vision, not your brain.
TheAngryFish 12-07-06, 08:15 PM	anything that is immune to mind affecting doesn't usually use conventional sight anyway
runestar 12-07-06, 10:23 PM	In one of the dnd novels, this invisible character could not see himself, and thus had a bit of difficulty getting used to simple tasks like walking. But then, its just a story. I would say that since the invis spell does not mention anything about penalties regarding what you can or cannot do, just assume that regardless of whether you can actually see yourself or not, you still are not penalized for whatever actions you are taking.:)
Chrono Nexus 12-07-06, 10:24 PM	I can see how this question could effect things, like if a character had to retrieve a scroll and then activated the wrong one by mistake. It hasn't come up in my games so far, so I'll just ignore it until it does.
Neutronium_Dragon 12-07-06, 10:30 PM	Simply put, a spell isn't mind-affecting unless it has the [mind-affecting] descriptor. Some Illusion spells are mind-affecting and have this descriptor, but not all of them are or do. The ones which do are patterns and phantasms (and this is noted in the Illusion text, if you keep reading it), which are expressly the types of illusion that work on the target's mind. Glamers and figments and shadows don't, since they work on sensory qualities or by manipulating extradimensional energy. Illusion is a glamer; it alters the sensory quality of the target, not the minds of those viewing it. This has also been the subject of a D&D designer rant: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
calvinNhobbes 12-07-06, 10:39 PM	From a neurophysiologic stand point, not being able to see yourself would not completely make you unaware of your body. There are multiple somatosensory pathways in the body, especially in the limbs, to help your brain define your position in space. As an exercise, close your eyes and move your arms and legs around. You can "see" where they are going. But obviously sight is a very important additional confirmational/feedback pathway. As an aside, I could see designing a transmutation spell that actually made you completely transparent (like "living" glass :D ). Since you couldn't see your body you would get penalties (perhaps similar to being blind). You could even cast it on another creature to mess with them, but they would probably get a Fort save. EDIT: As another aside, I could see making an enchantment [mind-effecting] spell (let's call it ignore) that required any creature that came within a certain distance of you to make a will save, if they failed it was as if you weren't even there. The same overall outcome can be created by multiple schools, it's all how you go about doing it. :D
WizO_Cat 12-09-06, 12:13 AM	Ok, this thread is being reopened. However, for those that decided to make their posts personal and have experienced their deletion, consider this to be your fair warning: further violations will result in disciplinary actions. And before it is asked, it doesn't matter who starts it or which side of the argument take part in the past or subsequent offenses - disciplinary actions will be taken. Happy posting.
Stormonu 12-09-06, 08:07 AM	Hmm. The inability to not see yourself and/or equipment could make it difficult to do things like read a scroll. We've always played that because it is an illusion, the caster/recipient can automatically disbelieve it and thus is unaffected by the invisibility.
runestar 12-09-06, 08:11 AM	In theory, how is a person even able to be see while invisible? Since light is not reflected by the cornea and stuff...?:P
green_yawgmoth 12-09-06, 09:42 AM	From a neurophysiologic stand point, Applying neurophisiology to D&D is a lot like applying physics to D&D. ;) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
calvinNhobbes 12-09-06, 09:55 AM	Applying neurophisiology to D&D is a lot like applying physics to D&D. If by completely and totally relevant then I agree. Let me know next time you have a D&D world where humans have no brains, can't see, hear, or smell, and there is no gravity. Real world science may not apply to "magic", but to say it has no bearing in a D&D setting, or any fantasy setting in general, is just silly. Note how almost every fictional setting ever made has humans in it. Ever wonder why? Because it provides a baseline of normality to compare the fantastic elements to.
Seeker95 12-09-06, 12:00 PM	Real world science may not apply to "magic", but to say it has no bearing in a D&D setting, or any fantasy setting in general, is just silly.I read yawg's comment, and noted that he did not say "it has no bearing". green yawgmoth wrote: Applying neurophisiology to D&D is a lot like applying physics to D&D. It can reasonably interpretted to mean that the application of such real-worl sciences and the knowledge advances we have made in the real world are not always helpful in obtaining the objective of having fun if applied to D&D. The physics of gravity or electricity become too cumbersome when applied to falling and lightning bolts. The neurophysiological sciences of the senses are equally cumbersome - and potential fun-killers - when wielded by a player at the gaming table. Send the physics or neuroscience major on the next pizza run if they insist on remaining a physics or neuroscience major at the gaming table. When they present evidence that they can be a D&D player at the table, they are welcome to re-join the game.
Damionte 12-09-06, 12:39 PM	In theory, how is a person even able to be see while invisible? Since light is not reflected by the cornea and stuff...?:P Think of invisibility as a localised effect. Like a force field of invisibility around you. Stops on the edges sort of thing. Kinda like a warp bubble on star trek. People used to ask all the time, "If they're going faster than light how can they see? Or "Why is it everyone isn't squished into the back of the ship?"
Theogonist 12-09-06, 04:14 PM	From all I read I strongly support a locally altered reality variant. As Sean's rant (link see somewhere up) shows, it cannot be a mind affecting spell as it would go far beyond a 2nd level spell. Unfortunately disbeliefing (as in the good old times) does not work then either. Also the description of Invisibility says it's a Glamer. What would be the conclusion from that? In my games the invisible character cannot see himself nor any equipment he has on him. This makes reading a scroll or finding the desired equipment difficult, but hey, it's a 2nd level spell, what can you expect :)
Esponer 12-09-06, 07:44 PM	Excellent question. Like many such technical questions it appears that the answer isn't hidden somewhere in the text, and is instead down to our interpretation (or more likely, the interpretation of the DM in the game you're playing in). I would email Customer Service asking their thoughts, but I suspect their answer would just be to reiterate my suspicion: that there is no official ruling to be had. The best answer here, I would think, is "we just don't know". There are two ways then to go about asking how it should indeed work: What would be best for the game? What seems somehow more logical? The first point depends on players' personal feelings, and I'm not sure which I'd prefer. I think I'd enjoy playing it either way. For the purposes of general convenience and based on, I think, the majority of fiction, it might be better if invisibility does not preclude a character from seeing themselves or their equipment. Although I think this is the more common interpretation in fiction, I think I'd greatly enjoy the breath of fresh air of a story where this isn't the case — in fact, whilst I hadn't considered it beforehand, I may bear this in mind for a story of mine (in which I hadn't really thought about magical invisibility before, even though it certainly has a place as Form sorcery, some form of lightbending, as well as Will sorcery, à la cloud mind). I do think the more logical interpretation is probably that you cannot see yourself, but invisibility in D&D (possibly thankfully) has no scientific definition or explanation. The explanation I'd be most likely to suggest is that you simply let light pass straight through you, which would make you not only incapable of seeing yourself but also blind. Since that one can't be the way it works then, I think my second favourite "logical" interpretation is that you are surrounded by an energy field which perfectly replicates its surroundings (this is something that, if in psionics, would be kineticism). This doesn't necessarily mean that you could see yourself — actually you probably couldn't, as any part of yourself that you tried to look at, you'd be looking at from outside the field. It would necessitate a bit more complexity to let yourself see yourself. Invisibility probably includes that little complexity — some sort of added function to the field that lets what's enclosed by it see yourself properly. I do think that seeing yourself is the most sensible result. The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisibility) on invisibility is quite interesting, as I remember, and suggests some other explanations. This (http://members.aol.com/Rapunz1/invisibility.html) article might also prove interesting, although I'm a little unconvinced by it, personally. Happy gaming.
Red_Rabbit 12-10-06, 12:39 AM	My reading of it because this is a rough question is that since it's not mind effecting. Than you can't see yourself, (you are bending light to hide yourself) but I let my players be able to find things on there person. Mainly because you can close your eyes and still find your carkeys or that book in your backpack, but if you wanna read it you better turn on the lights or take that invisibility off. To my point 1)No you can't see yourself (so than you know your invisible or still invisible). 2)Yes you can find that scroll in your backpack, if you have 2 you better hope you are getting the right scroll. 3)No you can't read that scroll invisible. 4)You can pull out that dagger in the sheath on your side because you can feel it on your side. Cloak of Invisibility is different for me, because you can see whatever is inside the cloak. The Rabbit
Nom 12-10-06, 04:07 AM	Note that invisibility sphere (Brd3, Sor/Wiz3), which "functions like invisibility, except that this spell confers invisibility upon all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient", explicitly allows the affected creatures to see each other. This sets a precedent for regular invisibility unless there's a good reason to rule otherwise.
Theogonist 12-11-06, 03:21 AM	Note that invisibility sphere (Brd3, Sor/Wiz3), which "functions like invisibility, except that this spell confers invisibility upon all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient", explicitly allows the affected creatures to see each other. This sets a precedent for regular invisibility unless there's a good reason to rule otherwise. Invisibility Sphere works differently as it is exactly that, a sphere. And the question came up because it is not explicitly stated in the description of Invisibility that you can or cannot see yourself :) WizO_Cat: Please just report the offenses. Thanks.
Dheran 12-11-06, 04:01 AM	There isn't a definitive answer on this point. That said, Nom's made a good point by referencing Invisibility Sphere. The question probably doesn't actually need to be answered. One thing that Invisibility explicitly does not call out is any penalties to the character who becomes invisible, such as having a harder time aiming an attack.An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). Additionally,an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, 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. So even if the invisible character can't see themselves or their possessions, they function at least as well as if they could, or better (for making attacks). Can an invisible being read an invisible scroll? Apparently so. After all, it's magic. We don't need to know how it works.
Theogonist 12-27-06, 04:44 AM	Finally someone pointed me to a clarification. Skip Williams writes: Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself. Rules of the Game: There, not there (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a)
Norric121 12-27-06, 03:10 PM	LOL this came up in our game last night, where the Rogue did a Use Magic Device on a Wand of Invisibility and failed.. Assume the Wand doesn't glow or shine or make noise when it functions (cuz it's a sneaky wand), did he know he's not invisible?
Dheran 12-28-06, 12:30 PM	LOL this came up in our game last night, where the Rogue did a Use Magic Device on a Wand of Invisibility and failed.. Assume the Wand doesn't glow or shine or make noise when it functions (cuz it's a sneaky wand), did he know he's not invisible? He'll get an opportunity to make a Spellcraft check (which is a cross-class skill for a Rogue) but otherwise probably won't know. That said, it's possible to test for invisibility if you have a light source. Just hold your hand between the light source and the wall. If you see your hand's shadow, you're not invisible. If there's just illlumination without a clear source, you are invisible. Also, if there's ambient light you can just drop a mirror at your feet. If you see the ceiling instead of yourself, you're invisible. Rogues are supposed to be skillful characters. I'm sure that after one failure with UMD he'll learn to check his work.
mvincent 12-28-06, 12:56 PM	Finally someone pointed me to a clarification. Skip Williams writes: Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself. Rules of the Game: There, not there (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a)Note that the quote (and RotG link) was given in the third post of this thread.
mvincent 12-28-06, 01:04 PM	LOL this came up in our game last night, where the Rogue did a Use Magic Device on a Wand of Invisibility and failed.. Assume the Wand doesn't glow or shine or make noise when it functions (cuz it's a sneaky wand), did he know he's not invisible?One can normally tell if they have succeeded in casting a spell or not. Also, it seems reasonable that you would see yourself similarly to how being able to see invisible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) creatures is normally handled: "You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures."
Theogonist 01-08-07, 09:45 AM	Note that the quote (and RotG link) was given in the third post of this thread. Ashes on my head, I totally missed the link in the post :(
Mysticaloctopus 01-08-07, 03:25 PM	If Invisibility is mind affecting it should be renamed to "SEP field" or the "Someone-else's problem field" The SEP Field! Classic! SEP Field should be a lower-level mind-affecting spell which, while not causing invisibility, makes a person seem hidden as if they had Hide in Plain Sight as long as they're not trying to draw attention to themselves.