Invisibility and figurine of wondrous power

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hi to all,

if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)
If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
"permanent invisible")

Thanx
Juza

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> Hi to all,
>
> if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
> its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
> why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)
> If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
> "permanent invisible")

I'd rule that the effects of the permanent invisibility were supressed
whilst in creature form. No rules cite I'm afraid, but you could read
the "Feather Falling and Belayed companions" thread if you were feeling
adventurous, as it's all about what should happen when the target of a
spell becomes invalid for one reason or another. The conclusion to that
thread really was that there's no conclusive answer to this question so
do what you feel is right!

If in creature form it attacked then I'd rule that this wouldn't end
the permanent invisibility (i.e. it would revert to being invisible
when it reverted to statue form).

This is all IMO though as I'm pretty sure there isn't anything
conclusive in the RAW for this situation.

 

[willie]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Juza" <none> wrote in message news:42afe272$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
> Hi to all,
>
> if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
> its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
> why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)
> If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
> "permanent invisible")
>
> Thanx
> Juza
>
Hmmmm. That is a tuffy. But it DOES bring to mind a few interesting
situation.
First, if it is permanently invisible and you drop it, how would you FIND
it?
Second, How is it going to react the first time you summon it and it can't
SEE
itself? I am assuming it has animal intelligence, so it would probably
become
very frightened upon not being able to see itself. And if it freezes in
panic, would
you notice that it isn't responding to your command? And third, when it
changes
back to a statue that is invisible, again I ask, how would you FIND it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Willie wrote:
> "Juza" <none> wrote in message news:42afe272$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
> > its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
> > why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)
> > If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
> > "permanent invisible")
> >
> > Thanx
> > Juza
> >
> Hmmmm. That is a tuffy. But it DOES bring to mind a few interesting
> situation.
> First, if it is permanently invisible and you drop it, how would you FIND
> it?
> Second, How is it going to react the first time you summon it and it can't
> SEE
> itself? I am assuming it has animal intelligence, so it would probably
> become
> very frightened upon not being able to see itself.

>From Rules of the Game:

"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."

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> First, if it is permanently invisible and you drop it, how would you FIND
> it?

See invisibility?? (which I permanented on me... ) )

> Second, How is it going to react the first time you summon it and it can't
> SEE itself? I am assuming it has animal intelligence, so it would probably
> become very frightened upon not being able to see itself. And if it
freezes in
> panic, would you notice that it isn't responding to your command?

My familiar is a cat. I'm 11th wizarz. I can speek with my familiar. My
familiar can speak with animals of its kind. My figurine is Golden Lion. My
familiar can eventually calm the lions

> And third, when it changes back to a statue that is invisible, again I
ask, how would you FIND it?

Again with See invisibility... )

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <42afe272$1_2@news.bluewin.ch>, "Juza" <none> says...

> if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
> its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
> why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)

I'd say yes, even though you can't make invisibility permanent on
creatures, since it's still the same "thing" so the invisibility is
still on it. No rules cite, though.

BTW, could you make invisibility permanent on an iron golem? Is it
treated as an object, a creature, both...?

> If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
> "permanent invisible")

Yes. The premanency makes the duration "Permanent" but doesn't change
anything else about the spell. And once you attack, invisibility is
negated.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, IHateLashknife@hotmail.com hastily
scrawled:
>Juza wrote:
>> Hi to all,
>>
>> if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
>> its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
>> why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)
>> If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
>> "permanent invisible")
>
>I'd rule that the effects of the permanent invisibility were supressed
>whilst in creature form. No rules cite I'm afraid, but you could read
>the "Feather Falling and Belayed companions" thread if you were feeling
>adventurous, as it's all about what should happen when the target of a
>spell becomes invalid for one reason or another.

Wow! That thread is not about invalid targets, nor is this one.

>The conclusion to that
>thread really was that there's no conclusive answer to this question so
>do what you feel is right!

The conclusion to that thread was that there's a bunch of idiots on
this web board who can't comprehend simple written English, and that
the answer is simple.




Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

First let me establish some definations I am going to use here. Type is
meant to be the creature type per the MM rules. State is meant to mean is
the thing Animal, Vegitable, or Mineral

Finding an exact rules cite is probably not going to be possible. I looked
at the rules under Invis, Figurine of Wondrous Power, Druid shapchange,
Animate Object spell, Animated Objects in the MM, Polymorph and Shapechange
spells and found nothing definitive. This is where the DM needs to make the
house interpretation and set a precedent on "Do spells on an object or
creature survive if said object/creature undergoes a state or creature type
change" and apply their own interpretation.

I would rule that yes any spells survive state changes; but as a figurine,
the item is an object and can have perm invis per the invis rules. Once it
is given the command word it becomes a construct type per MM creature types
so cannot be perm invised. I give it the construct type since all the
standard DMG figurines require the use of Animiate Object in their creation
and Animated Objects in the MM are typed as constructs.

Additionally, I would rule that when activated the creature is invis but
start the duration timer on it based on the original caster level, and on
attack looses invis until it is reverted to its statue form, then the object
goes invis again due to permanency. Tricky situation if the creature dies on
the battlefield and reverts to statue form as it might make it hard to
locate.

Others might say that since the figurine has undergone a state change, from
object to construct, the invis was on the object, not the construct so when
the command word is given the invis is lost.

But this causes tricky situations to arise when creatures undergo type
changes. Do you lose positive and negative spell effects when you change
types? Does a Geas or curse effect disappear from a type or state change?
What about all the protectives cast on a creature that is also under a
Shapechange effect. Since Shapechange survives a type change as you can do
multiple changes within the duration of the spell, I would say that at least
from type to type all spells, positive and negative, remain intact.

But what about an invis PC/NPC that gets turned to stone by some effect. Is
the new statue of the PC/NPC still invis since now that it is an object and
not a creature?

All in all, I would say DM call, but make sure whatever rule is applied, is
universally applied in all similar situations.

"Juza" <none> wrote in message news:42afe272$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
> Hi to all,
>
> if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
> its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
> why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)
> If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
> "permanent invisible")
>
> Thanx
> Juza
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The Immunity to Magic (EX) for the standard MM Golems pretty much forbids
this IMO.

How much tougher do you need to make golems? Gee let me greater invis,
stoneskin, imbue with spell ability, bless, protection from (insert
alignment elements here), protection from arrows, ironguard, bulls strength
my golem then send it out to do my bidding.

"Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1a15ada5cde85e9896cc@news.iskon.hr...
> In article <42afe272$1_2@news.bluewin.ch>, "Juza" <none> says...

> BTW, could you make invisibility permanent on an iron golem? Is it
> treated as an object, a creature, both...?
>

> Jasin Zujovic
> jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Kirk Janetzke" <janetzke@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KZVre.57367$PR6.27596@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> The Immunity to Magic (EX) for the standard MM Golems pretty much
forbids
> this IMO.
>
> How much tougher do you need to make golems? Gee let me greater invis,
> stoneskin, imbue with spell ability, bless, protection from (insert
> alignment elements here), protection from arrows, ironguard, bulls
strength
> my golem then send it out to do my bidding.

Kirk. Place your reply below the message you are replying to. It aids the
flow of the conversation and is the standard convention for newsgroup
postings.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> "Kirk Janetzke" <janetzke@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:KZVre.57367$PR6.27596@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>>The Immunity to Magic (EX) for the standard MM Golems pretty much
>
> forbids
>
>>this IMO.
>>
>>How much tougher do you need to make golems? Gee let me greater invis,
>>stoneskin, imbue with spell ability, bless, protection from (insert
>>alignment elements here), protection from arrows, ironguard, bulls
>
> strength
>
>>my golem then send it out to do my bidding.
>
>
> Kirk. Place your reply below the message you are replying to. It aids the
> flow of the conversation and is the standard convention for newsgroup
> postings.
>
>

I blame google groups for these non-conformists.

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:36:50 -0400, Shawn Roske
<shawn_roske@sympatico.ca> dared speak in front of ME:

>Symbol wrote:
>> "Kirk Janetzke" <janetzke@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:KZVre.57367$PR6.27596@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>>>The Immunity to Magic (EX) for the standard MM Golems pretty much
>>
>> forbids
>>
>>>this IMO.
>>>
>>>How much tougher do you need to make golems? Gee let me greater invis,
>>>stoneskin, imbue with spell ability, bless, protection from (insert
>>>alignment elements here), protection from arrows, ironguard, bulls
>>
>> strength
>>
>>>my golem then send it out to do my bidding.
>>
>>
>> Kirk. Place your reply below the message you are replying to. It aids the
>> flow of the conversation and is the standard convention for newsgroup
>> postings.
>
>I blame google groups for these non-conformists.

Please. This isn't even non-conformity; it's sheer laziness.
Or, in some cases, dickheadedness.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, IHateLashknife@hotmail.com hastily
> scrawled:
> >Juza wrote:
> >> Hi to all,
> >>
> >> if I make my figurine permanent invisible (with permanency) when it is in
> >> its statue form, when it becomes a creature, is it still invisible? If yes
> >> why, if not why (can you cite ev. rules, please?)
> >> If yes, if it attacks, does it become visible than? (although it is
> >> "permanent invisible")
> >
> >I'd rule that the effects of the permanent invisibility were supressed
> >whilst in creature form. No rules cite I'm afraid, but you could read
> >the "Feather Falling and Belayed companions" thread if you were feeling
> >adventurous, as it's all about what should happen when the target of a
> >spell becomes invalid for one reason or another.
>
> Wow! That thread is not about invalid targets, nor is this one.

Permanency - Invisibility works on an object but not a creature. If the
object becomes a creature you couldn't then cast Permanency -
Invisibility on it.

If someone with Featherfall cast on them becomes overloaded then the
Featherfall goes wrong somehow. Some were also arguing that any
Featherfall cast at that point would fizzle.

Unless I'm missing something those are the main points.

> >The conclusion to that
> >thread really was that there's no conclusive answer to this question so
> >do what you feel is right!
>
> The conclusion to that thread was that there's a bunch of idiots on
> this web board who can't comprehend simple written English, and that
> the answer is simple.

Just to humour me then (as I can't be bothered to read through 500+
posts in the other thread again), and at the risk of starting the
Featherfall thread up again, where did you find some RAW that tell you
whether a 'Featherfaller' who becomes overloaded has his Featherfall
suppressed or cancelled (or something else...)?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Fielding wrote:
> If the
> invisibility spell has ended for some reason (dispelled, duration expired,
> creature attacked, whatever) then the permanency /still/ won't have a valid
> target when your animated object un-animates, so the object will remain
> visible.

As I said earlier I prefer it that attacking didn't get rid of the
invisibility when the creature became an object again. Similarly, there
would be no duration issues for me as it's not invisible when it's a
creature anyway. Dispel Magic may still dispel it though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
news:8195b1lebtetb1471obu11bt7ttiofqvdh@4ax.com:

>>> Kirk. Place your reply below the message you are replying to. It
>>> aids the flow of the conversation and is the standard convention
>>> for newsgroup postings.
>>
>>I blame google groups for these non-conformists.
>
> Please. This isn't even non-conformity; it's sheer laziness.
> Or, in some cases, dickheadedness.
>

Besides, this particular problem existed LONG before Google
Groups. Effing Micro$oft contributed mightly with their newsreader.
AOL too.

--
Marc

Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
Doyle : What was that ?
Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:36:45 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
dared speak in front of ME:

>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
>news:8195b1lebtetb1471obu11bt7ttiofqvdh@4ax.com:
>
>>>> Kirk. Place your reply below the message you are replying to. It
>>>> aids the flow of the conversation and is the standard convention
>>>> for newsgroup postings.
>>>
>>>I blame google groups for these non-conformists.
>>
>> Please. This isn't even non-conformity; it's sheer laziness.
>> Or, in some cases, dickheadedness.
>>
>
> Besides, this particular problem existed LONG before Google
>Groups. Effing Micro$oft contributed mightly with their newsreader.
>AOL too.

AOL's newsreader was more prone to context-free replies.

Then there were the web-boards, which spawned the "subject is the
reply" hordes. Many a thread was butchered by them, till they were
driven back to the boards which spawned them.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Fielding wrote:
> <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119032727.107570.160720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Richard Fielding wrote:
> >
> >> If the
> >> invisibility spell has ended for some reason (dispelled, duration
> >> expired,
> >> creature attacked, whatever) then the permanency /still/ won't have a
> >> valid
> >> target when your animated object un-animates, so the object will remain
> >> visible.
> >
> > As I said earlier I prefer it that attacking didn't get rid of the
> > invisibility when the creature became an object again. Similarly, there
> > would be no duration issues for me as it's not invisible when it's a
> > creature anyway. Dispel Magic may still dispel it though.
> >
> Just checking, but you do realise that from what I said in the previous
> post, the invisibility would be back to permanent again if it were still
> active when the creature de-animated, right? ...And that unless it did
> something to break the invisibility it would still be invisible as a
> creature?

Ah, sorry, I misread it!

> Anyhow the explanation I gave was based on permanent invisibility being a
> combination of two spells, but I suppose you could rule that they combine to
> form a single "combi-spell".
>
> If we do that, then it would be suppressed/cancelled as soon as the object
> animated, but would become invisible again when it de-animated (assuming
> you're using the suppression model).

Yeah thats how I was envisioning it. I never really considered thinking
about it as if the invisibility was the target (or one of the targets)
of the Permenancy. Interesting.

Given that target, etc. just say "see text" and they have target,
effect & area all lumped into one I reckon they probably envisioned the
Permenancy spell as 'copying' these details from the spell being
'Permenancied'. Just guesswork of course but IMO it fits best. Whether
that helps us in this particular case though, I don't think it does
unfortunately.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119032727.107570.160720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Richard Fielding wrote:
>
>> If the
>> invisibility spell has ended for some reason (dispelled, duration
>> expired,
>> creature attacked, whatever) then the permanency /still/ won't have a
>> valid
>> target when your animated object un-animates, so the object will remain
>> visible.
>
> As I said earlier I prefer it that attacking didn't get rid of the
> invisibility when the creature became an object again. Similarly, there
> would be no duration issues for me as it's not invisible when it's a
> creature anyway. Dispel Magic may still dispel it though.
>
Just checking, but you do realise that from what I said in the previous
post, the invisibility would be back to permanent again if it were still
active when the creature de-animated, right? ...And that unless it did
something to break the invisibility it would still be invisible as a
creature?

Anyhow the explanation I gave was based on permanent invisibility being a
combination of two spells, but I suppose you could rule that they combine to
form a single "combi-spell".

If we do that, then it would be suppressed/cancelled as soon as the object
animated, but would become invisible again when it de-animated (assuming
you're using the suppression model).

--
All the best,
RF

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Richard Fielding hastily scrawled:
>
>I believe I am somehow misreading what you have written. It appears to me
>that you are claiming that the lack of anything in the spell description
>about suppression/cancellation means the spell will continue to function
>even after it has been overloaded. In other words the spell will function
>when the spell description says it will not.

The spell description does not say that it will not function when the
target has an over-max load, it will function perfectly well and the
target will plummet to the earth like a stone. Carrying an over-max
load doesn't make you an invalid target, it just keeps you from being
affected by the spell. Much like being immune to magical sleep
doesn't make an elf an invalid target for Sleep. It simply means the
elf is unaffected by the spell.




Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118844279.343516.29010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'd rule that the effects of the permanent invisibility were supressed
> whilst in creature form. No rules cite I'm afraid, but you could read
> the "Feather Falling and Belayed companions" thread if you were feeling
> adventurous, as it's all about what should happen when the target of a
> spell becomes invalid for one reason or another. The conclusion to that
> thread really was that there's no conclusive answer to this question so
> do what you feel is right!

That was not the conclusion of the thread. The WOTC web pages clarified
every single issue.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118844279.343516.29010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The conclusion to that
> > thread really was that there's no conclusive answer to this question so
> > do what you feel is right!
>
> That was not the conclusion of the thread. The WOTC web pages clarified
> every single issue.

As I've given up replying to Eds obtuse posts could you let me know
what you're referring to exactly as I didn't see that post in the
original thread. (I kind of assumed that it wasn't going anywhere after
the first 100 posts about whether a dragon can grapple a wizard, or
whatever that bit was all about )

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Richard Fielding hastily scrawled:
>Good argument for why "suppressed" is a less than perfect word to use, but
>what you say is what I meant when I said it, so all's well. I just wish I
>could think up an alternative word for suppression now.

/nod



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin