Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Nevvur Nov 01, 2014 4:20:29	In an unusual turn of events, a player at my table suggested he ought to receive a penalty for attacking with his cross bow while invisible. His reason? He can't see the the weapon to aim down the sights. Seems logical, and reminded me of a conversation on this forum about shooting from heavy obscurement (effectively blinded, but also unseen) at a non-obscured target.    I told him his proprioceptors still work just fine, though more out of interest in avoiding house rules (and irking players who aren't so keen on heavy realism in their fantasy game). It got me wondering two things though... Did previous editions ever address this in the spell description for Invisibility? Like a line that reads you can still see yourself?   Also, what are your thoughts on players suggesting penalties (and bonuses, for that matter) outside RAW? I realized in hindsight this case could have been role played and a penalty adjudicated. Ex:   Player: My character grumbles quietly under the sounds of battle, lacking the confidence to fire true without being able to see the sights on his crossbow. DM: Alright, your lack of confidence causes disadvantage, cancelling out the advantage of your invisibility. Roll normally.   Thanks in advance for your time and feedback
#2 Uchawi Nov 01, 2014 5:19:35	If they want to roleplay it in more detail, then all the power to them, and it is easy to advocate it as a DM. You could implement a familiarity rule with any given item, effect, etc. It is similar to technology levels in modern games. So if you gain a piece of equipment, or a item grants a new ability, you can implement a breaking in period with there may be penalties for using it. Or you could remove proficiency for a set period of time.
#3 Noctaem Nov 01, 2014 6:02:39	Well if the player decides he wants to impose penalties on himself that aren't by the rules, I suppose as DM you can just go with it.  But this is not the general way to handle invisibility.
#4 Mad_Jack Nov 01, 2014 9:45:02	As near as I can recall, it's never been stated in any edition of D&D that invisible characters couldn't see themselves or their equipment. The closest thing I know of is the statement that when you drop an object it becomes visible again. Which could imply that even the invisible character couldn't see it. But that opens up a whole can of verisimilitude worms that you probably shouldn't open - How do you adjudicate the difficulties of having to do everything by touch? He can't tell which scroll he's pulling out of his scroll case, even if he has them color coded. Can't pull out a magic arrow if it's in the same quiver as the rest of his ammo unless he has some method of distinguishing it by touch alone. If he picks up a book, he can't read it - it's invisible. He can't count the change in his pocket. Wouldn't know his shoe was untied even if he was looking at his feet. Quite frankly, it's a rabbit hole I wouldn't start wandering down. Invisible characters should be able to perceive themselves and their equipment in some fashion.   Personally, I've always imagined it as an invisible character looking down at their hand or weapon and seeing it as slightly translucent, and the same for creatures with blindsight or tremor sense, whereas everyone else wouldn't be seeing the character as all.
#5 Novacat Nov 01, 2014 9:54:01	I hadn't ever thought about it before, but I would definitely say that invisible characters must necessarily be able to see themselves.
#6 OoftaMeg Nov 01, 2014 10:33:17	If you rule that an invisible person can't see themselves, forget "can't tell which scroll" he pulled, he couldn't read the scroll because he couldn't see it.
#7 Noctaem Nov 01, 2014 11:54:33	Yeah, an invisible creature not being able to see itself creates all sorts of problems with other game mechanics.  Almost every single aspect of the game would be affected somehow or at some point.
#8 Nevvur Nov 01, 2014 15:27:36	Good points.   Incidentally, I almost did spot-fluff the Inivisibility spell to say you could see yourself, along the lines of Mad Jack's ghostly translucence. I hadn't gone so far as to consider all the other types of actions that would be affected if the character couldn't see himself (e.g. reading a scroll), but I'm convinced it's gotta be part of the spell now, whether the description mentions it or not. Thanks again all.
#9 Ganymede425 Nov 01, 2014 16:34:50	Nevvur wrote:
#10 Nevvur Nov 01, 2014 19:03:50	Yeah, that's a good way of looking at it, and when generalized, is applicable to many of the debates I've seen around here on other topics.    Tangent; shortly after writing the OP I recalled a conversation from years ago on the physics of invisibility. Notably, when conceived as light bending around the object, one's pupils must remain visible. Otherwise no light would be transmitted to the brain, and the invisible person would be blind himself. Just one more way science gets in the way of magic.    (note, I'm not advocating a scientific approach to fantasy, just remarking)
#11 jonathonhawke Nov 01, 2014 19:10:01	I would think that it's the retinas that need to remain visible, not the pupils.
#12 El_Condoro Nov 01, 2014 19:41:57	Because it's an illusion spell, I have always thought that the invisible creature is not actually invisible, just that the illusion affects all those who try to see him (her). The invisible creature and all creatures he wants to be able to see him (the rest of the party, for example) make automatic saves to be able to dispel the illusion, while all others are affected. That's just the way I'd play it, otherwise it becomes a liability rather than an asset.