Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OpakeDragon 06-21-07, 04:13 AM	Sleight of Hand ... If you try to take something from another creature, you must make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check to obtain it. The opponent makes a Spot check to detect the attempt, opposed by the same Sleight of Hand check result you achieved when you tried to grab the item. An opponent who succeeds on this check notices the attempt, regardless of whether you got the item. ... If the thief is invisible how does this affect the attempt? does it deny the opponent a chance to detect the attempt? or just give him a penalty? one could argue that the DC should be lowered. the thief doesn't have to work as hard to conceal his actions as he is already invisible. does anyone else agree? thanks for all your help.
tui 06-21-07, 08:17 AM	Being invisible certainly wouldn't deny a chance to notice. Normally you get a -20 to spot someone who is doing something while invisible. It might be appropriate to decrease that slightly since when you try to pick someone's pocket, you're actually briefly touching and interacting with them. You can read a bit more about invisibility in this Rules of the Game article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040921a).
Thiez 06-21-07, 08:44 AM	Wouldn't stealing an item from a creature count as an 'attack' ? It's a bit like Disarm, only in slow-motion... :)
tui 06-21-07, 09:16 AM	Wouldn't stealing an item from a creature count as an 'attack' ? It's a bit like Disarm, only in slow-motion... :) Huh, I hadn't thought of that... I just read through this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-116519.html) and was fairly well convinced that picking someone's pocket would break Invisibility. Specifically the argument that swayed me the most was pointing out the sentence from Invisibility: "Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell." This seems to imply to me that actions against attended objects DO break the spell... And just to clarify with the OP, being invisible (through Improved Invisibility, if necessary) wouldn't change how easy it is to pick someone's pocket, but I think it would change how likely it is for them to notice you doing it.... so it shouldn't modify your Slight of Hand check, but rather modify their Spot check.
Shadowfax7 06-21-07, 09:32 AM	It's an opposed Spot check, thus apply the -20 penalty to it for being invisible and moving (the penalty for being invisible and not moving is -40, which wouldn't aply in this situation). The Spot check is not for feeling someone picking your pocket, it's for "seeing" someone do it. It is presumed that if you succeed on the DC 20 Sleight of Hand check, your pocket picking has not been felt.
Evicmar 06-21-07, 09:32 AM	I would argue that something in a pocket/pouch/backpack/sack is not attended. It's put away and not thought about. Are you constantly thinking about everything you have in your pockets? Also you can cut a rope bridge without breaking invisibility. Keep in mind that the spot check is to notice there is something tugging on an item you are carrying and not to visible see the attempt. Invisibility would not grant a penalty to the spot check in this view. However, should the mark notice the attempt, I'd also have it break the invisibility due to it then becoming an attended item after the check. just my 2 cents.
tarkin 06-21-07, 10:25 AM	That is wrong Evicar. Anything you carry, even in a bag, is definitely ATTENDED. Please note that UNattended objects are almost always destroyed by spells like fireball. It is only attended objects that are mostly immune to area attack spells.
DrMorganes 06-21-07, 11:02 AM	@ Tarkin: Absolutely! @ Thiez: I'm not sure I'd count a pick pocket attempt as an attack. Trip, Sunder, and Disarm attempts are all directly aimed at causing some change in the physical state of the target through overpowering force. Pick Pocket, on the other hand, definitely does NOT use overpowering force. So... I'd say an invisible thief (let's call a spade a spade, shall we? :D Besides, rogues aren't the only class with Sleight of Hand as a class skill) would gain no bonus to their pick pocket attempt. Being invisible doesn't make it any easier to stick your hand into someone's pocket, after all. I wouldn't apply any modifier to the target's roll to notice the attempt, either. Being invisible isn't the same as being intangible. The target will have the same opportunity to notice that tug on his belt or hand in his pocket. However, I would apply the -20 to the Spot Check to notice the location of the would-be footpad. I'd also apply a penalty of some sort to future pick pocket attempts on the same target within the same encounter. Consider: Pip spots a wealthy merchant type walking down a sparsely-populated street. Ever the cautious type, she activates her ring of invisiblity, approaches the merchant, and tries to nick the bulging coinpurse from his belt. Her check fails (blast!, she thinks, I knew I should have sharpened my knife this morning!) and the merchant feels a gentle tug at his belt. Surprised, he looks about. (Not having any ranks in Spot, his check fails miserably.) Seeing nothing, he sketches the holy symbol of Garl Glittergold in the air to ward off evil, mutters a distinctly non-magical prayer, tucks his coinpurse into a pocket of his tunic, and puts his hand in the pocket as he hurries down the street. Pip sighs. Knowing she'll have a hard time getting the purse from the pocket unnoticed, she decides to tail the merchant rather than try again. Perhaps she'll get a chance to stick a shiv in his ribs and make off with not only his purse, but the rings on his fingers and that heavy gold chain around his neck as well! Or - she hardly dares to think - he'll lead her to a warehouse full of goodies ripe for the taking! She offers a fervent prayer to Olidammara and sets off after her mark.
OpakeDragon 06-22-07, 01:41 AM	First off, DrMorganes is right, and I was not questioning whether or not the invisibility would be broken because I know it wont. Its a skill check not an attack. As I see it now, I believe that if my DC 20 Sleight of Hand check succeeds, I make off with the coin purse (from the example) no matter what, but the mark still gets a chance to Spot the attempt, at no penalty against my check result. If my Sleight of Hand check fails, then I don't make off with the purse, and the mark gets his Spot check against my check result, to spot the attempt. If he notices either attempt he can try another check to notice my presence, but at a -20 penalty to Spot do to my invisibility (I'd have shoved the purse into my shirt immediately if I got it thus making it disappear as well).
Ezurus 06-22-07, 02:07 AM	First off, DrMorganes is right, and I was not questioning whether or not the invisibility would be broken because I know it wont. Its a skill check not an attack. As I see it now, I believe that if my DC 20 Sleight of Hand check succeeds, I make off with the coin purse (from the example) no matter what, but the mark still gets a chance to Spot the attempt, at no penalty against my check result. If my Sleight of Hand check fails, then I don't make off with the purse, and the mark gets his Spot check against my check result, to spot the attempt. If he notices either attempt he can try another check to notice my presence, but at a -20 penalty to Spot do to my invisibility (I'd have shoved the purse into my shirt immediately if I got it thus making it disappear as well). Agreed, Invisibility does not grant any bonuses to sleight of hand checks, nor does it impose any penalties on spot checks. It only gives bonuses to (+20) to hide checks. I would however consider imposing a -5 penalty on the spotter for distraction, that is, assuming he's not aware that there is a person next to him. He should really have a chance to spot the sneaky thief before the pick pocketing even happens.
Evicmar 06-22-07, 02:05 PM	That is wrong Evicar. Anything you carry, even in a bag, is definitely ATTENDED. Please note that UNattended objects are almost always destroyed by spells like fireball. It is only attended objects that are mostly immune to area attack spells. This is up to DM interpretation. Unattended item that are exposed to fireballs and spell are destroyed. While in a sack/backpack/pouch they are not exposed to the fireball and are not destroyed. I view this as the sack/backpack/pouch being attended and it's contents as being fair game. The spot check would be to notice the tug on the container, not the contents.
Ezurus 06-22-07, 02:36 PM	Slieght of Hand is NOT an attack, it's a skill. An invisibile person could make a heal check on another character, they could make any skill check that doesn't involve an attack. The spell description has that sentence about unattended items because you CAN attack unattended items without breaking the spell. Invisibility is very specific about what you can and cannot do, and it does not give any rules about making skill checks. There are rules in place to give the target of the pick-pocketing attempt a chance to notice it. I don't think that any extra rules are necessary.
Skara 06-22-07, 04:12 PM	I think a lot of people are missing what Ezurus said. It's not the same to pickpocket if you're invisible, you don't see ANYTHING out of the corner of your eye. I would say, in not in a crowded situation, they would get a penalty, because they did not notice anyone nearby that could have 'bumped into them'. They're totally unawares, rather than knowing someone is standing right next to them, or saw a flicker of movement. I'd say a -2 or -4 penalty on the spot check, nothing amazing.