Thoughts on what Improved Invisibility is "supposed" to represent

[ancalimohtar]

These are just some rambling thoughts about Improved Invisibility. They may be outside the scope of SR.

 

Theoretically, this whole "visible-but-see-through" thing that the Infinity Engine uses doesn't actually exist. There aren't supposed to be two distinct "stages" of invisibility. Improved Invisible is just Invisibility that doesn't go away after an attack, except once you make it obvious you're in that spot, people can stare at that spot, and see shimmering imperfections, and swing at it wildly.

 

This means that the phenomenon of having a glowing circle around your feet because you have Spell Turning active but not being targetable by physical attacks should not (theoretically) exist. There's no difference between people knowing you're there because you swung a sword and people knowing you're there because you have a giant glowing sphere around you.

 

But of course, the game engine has limitations, etc., etc. That's fine. The problem is, Improved Invisibility should therefore impose a much stronger penalty to being hit--you're literally swinging at flashes of shimmering air. -4 is nothing. It should be the same penalty as blindness, -8 or -10 or whatever it is. However, going "full" invisible in combat while being targeted should not be possible. Thieves backstabbing and then chugging an invisibility pot should only make them improved invisible (see-through in IE), not fully invisible. If people are looking for you, they should still be able to see you.

 

So ideally, anyone going "invisible" while in LOS of an enemy would not become fully-invisible, only improved-invisible. Thieves can go from improved-invisible to fully-invisible with a stealth check, even in LOS. Mages can go directly to full-invisible with Mislead and Project Image. (This gives Mislead a purpose aside from cheesing backstabs.) Nobody else can go fully-invisible if they're already in combat.

 

Again, probably impossible to do and outside the scope of SR, just thinking out loud, so to speak.

[Demivrgvs]

This means that the phenomenon of having a glowing circle around your feet because you have Spell Turning active but not being targetable by physical attacks should not (theoretically) exist.

I once planned to make a fully invisible character not display those fancy spell animations, but overall the effort required to "fix" that is not worth it considering AI opponents generally don't remain fully invisible for more than just a few seconds.

 

Improved Invisibility should impose a much stronger penalty to being hit--you're literally swinging at flashes of shimmering air. -4 is nothing.

Theoretically I could agree, as in PnP the character wouldn't be partially visible, but fully invisible, even after an attack. I'm not sure if something needs to be done or can be done though.

 

On a side note, Improved Invisibility will be hugely more effective within SRv4 because spells such as True Seeing won't destroy it anymore, but only make the fully invisible target partially visible.

 

So ideally, anyone going "invisible" while in LOS of an enemy would not become fully-invisible, only improved-invisible. Thieves can go from improved-invisible to fully-invisible with a stealth check, even in LOS. Mages can go directly to full-invisible with Mislead and Project Image. (This gives Mislead a purpose aside from cheesing backstabs.) Nobody else can go fully-invisible if they're already in combat.

 

Again, probably impossible to do and outside the scope of SR, just thinking out loud, so to speak.

Yep, not doable.

[ancalimohtar]

On a side note, Improved Invisibility will be hugely more effective within SRv4 because spells such as True Seeing won't destroy it anymore, but only make the fully invisible target partially visible.

 

So how do you get rid of Imp Invis in order to Breach?

[kreso]

Afaik True Seing will allow for targeting of Imp.Invisible characters on whoever has it active. They will remain under Imp.invisibility (keeping AC bonus) but will be targetable by spells cast by someone with True Sight.

[ancalimohtar]

Oh alright, that works for me. The problem may become that it will get hard to tell if you've TS'd or not, they will still look the same before and after TS right?

[kreso]

I can only speak for what I've seen thus far in KR, but yes. TS will still completely dispel Invisibility&Mirror Images.

[Demivrgvs]

Afaik True Seing will allow for targeting of Imp.Invisible characters on whoever has it active. They will remain under Imp.invisibility (keeping AC bonus) but will be targetable by spells cast by someone with True Sight.

That is correct. Exactly as per KR's Inquisitor.

 

Oh alright, that works for me. The problem may become that it will get hard to tell if you've TS'd or not, they will still look the same before and after TS right?

I'm not following you here. It doesn't matter how the opponent looks like, if you character has an ongoing See Invisibility or True Seeing then you already know that such character can target Improved Invisible targets with spells (should not even suffer the -4 attack roll penalty) even though target's II remains active (aka party members without TS still suffer attack rolls penalty and cannot cast spells against it).

 

For this reason v4 spell removals won't need neither AoE nor the latest SCS workaround (bypassing II via hack). Your caster simply needs to have one of those two spells active to be able to use any antimagic attack against II targets.

[ancalimohtar]

Oh alright, that works for me. The problem may become that it will get hard to tell if you've TS'd or not, they will still look the same before and after TS right?

I'm not following you here. It doesn't matter how the opponent looks like, if you character has an ongoing See Invisibility or True Seeing then you already know that such character can target Improved Invisible targets with spells (should not even suffer the -4 attack roll penalty) even though target's II remains active (aka party members without TS still suffer attack rolls penalty and cannot cast spells against it).

 

For this reason v4 spell removals won't need neither AoE nor the latest SCS workaround (bypassing II via hack). Your caster simply needs to have one of those two spells active to be able to use any antimagic attack against II targets.

 

Ah, I understand. So the point is, True Seeing no longer affects the enemies, but rather the caster. Rather than dispelling illusion spells, it gives casters the ability to treat any invisible guy as visible. But then what about Mirror Image and Blur and things like that? It's not possible to give characters with True Seeing the ability to ignore those Illusion effects, right? How would Non-Detection work then? Enemy mages with Non-Detection, Imp Invis, and then all the protection spells, how would you be able to target them with anti-magic (so that you could target them with breach)? Also, with SCS, every fight is going to have enemy mages with Imp Invis; all your mage's level 6 slots are going to be filled with True Seeing--or are you increasing the duration to 8 hours?

[kreso]

Ah, I understand. So the point is, True Seeing no longer affects the enemies, but rather the caster.

Correct. I think it makes them "see" as Liches, who "see" invisible creatures.

 

But then what about Mirror Image and Blur and things like that?

Mirror Image is dispelled, same as thieves hiding in shadows and Invisibility. Afaik Blur stays, but I may be wrong.

 

It's not possible to give characters with True Seeing the ability to ignore those Illusion effects, right?

They ignore II completely, and any bonuses associated with it afaik.

 

Also, with SCS, every fight is going to have enemy mages with Imp Invis; all your mage's level 6 slots are going to be filled with True Seeing--or are you increasing the duration to 8 hours?

It lasts same as it does now, a turn. Isn't it enough? I doubt I'll need more than 1 or 2 per mage. It will nerf Conjurers in regards to debuffs, but will not affect gameplay that drastically. It's actually better, since TS is much OP as it is (dispels every illusion spell in the game automatically unless under SI:div, for 60 seconds!).

[Demivrgvs]

So the point is, True Seeing no longer affects the enemies, but rather the caster. Rather than dispelling illusion spells, it gives casters the ability to treat any invisible guy as visible.

Exactly.

 

But then what about Mirror Image and Blur and things like that? It's not possible to give characters with True Seeing the ability to ignore those Illusion effects, right?

Unfortunately it's not possible. I found a way to make TS work as per PnP against Blur (and SR's Ghost Armor) but it involved using a parameter (e.g. target's gender or something similar set to illusionary) which cannot be altered without risking to cause issues.

 

How would Non-Detection work then?

Non-detection will keep a fully invisible target such when targeted by anti-illusion spells or abilities, and also protect all other illusionary protections such as Blur or MI from getting easily dispelled by Dispel Illusions, Oracle, and similar spells.

 

SRv4 Non-detection will pretty much behave as a "breachable" (the protected creature is allowed a save) Spell Immunity:Div (the protected creature is fully immune).

 

Enemy mages with Non-Detection, Imp Invis, and then all the protection spells, how would you be able to target them with anti-magic (so that you could target them with breach)?

Not much different from the current SCS which makes anti-magic attacks bypass II. The only difference is that instead of allowing it by default with SR you need to have See Invisibility or TS running to do so.

 

Also, with SCS, every fight is going to have enemy mages with Imp Invis; all your mage's level 6 slots are going to be filled with True Seeing--or are you increasing the duration to 8 hours?

Both mages and clerics have a low level version of TS, the current Detect Invisibility and Invisibility Purge, which will perform as TS against II. The latter spell is still superior within SR because it also tears down Blur and MI, and with v4 it will not only protect from Spook but also more powerful illusion spells such as Phantasmal Killer and Weird, while also weakening summoned illusionary creatures.

[DavidW]

This means that the phenomenon of having a glowing circle around your feet because you have Spell Turning active but not being targetable by physical attacks should not (theoretically) exist.

I once planned to make a fully invisible character not display those fancy spell animations, but overall the effort required to "fix" that is not worth it considering AI opponents generally don't remain fully invisible for more than just a few seconds.

 

I had a really sustained go at doing this a year ago, basically with the Mislead spell in mind. I basically persuaded myself that it was impossible, though if you think otherwise I'd be interested in the method. (I now have some fairly powerful coding tools to build and modify effects on the fly, so I don't mind if it's complicated!)

[ancalimohtar]

Okay, so can you clarify some potential situations:

 

Situation 1:

Enemy rogue hides/drinks potion.

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge, or TS.

Now all party members can fully see him? Or is he improved invisible on the screen, but mage/cleric treats him as fully visible? Can he still complete a backstab on the party fighter? Either way, Detect/Purge clearly affects enemies in this situation (letting party fighter target him at the very least) rather than just the caster.

 

Situation 2a:

Enemy mage casts Invisibility, then Mirror Image

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge

Now all party members can fully see him? Or is he improved invis on screen, but mage/cleric treats him as fully visible? Mirror Image stays, since Detect/Purge doesn't affect illusion spells unless they're invisibility-based?

 

Situation 2b:

Enemy mage casts Invisibility, then Mirror Image

Party mage/cleric casts TS.

All party members fully see him? Or is he improved invis on screen, but mage/cleric traets him as fully visible? Mirror Image gone, right?

 

Situation 3:

Enemy mage casts Improved Invis and Mirror Image

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge

All party members except the mage will treat him as improved invisible, but the mage/cleric will treat him as fully visible (targetable by spells etc). The player will know at any point in time whether the mage/cleric treats him as fully invis or improved invis by checking to see if the mage/cleric has the Detect/Purge portrait icon

 

Situation 4a:

Enemy mage casts Imp Invis, then Mirror Image, then Non-Detection.

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge

Enemy mage must save or... what? Since Detect/Purge now has an effect on the caster rather than the enemy, how will the player (looking at the screen) be able to tell whether your mage/cleric can now target the enemy mage with spells? (Also Mirror Image stays, right?)

 

Situation 4b:

Enemy mage casts Imp Invis, then Mirror Image, then Non-Detection.

Party mage/cleric casts True Seeing

How is this different from situation 4a?

 

Also, how is casting Detect/Purge + Oracle different from just casting TS?

[kreso]

1) completely visible - as vanilla

2a) completely visible - as vanilla

2b) completely visible - as vanilla

3) Mirror Image will be dispeled, mage will be partially revealed, and targetable by spells cast by whoever has TS

 

I don't know the other answers.

[Demivrgvs]

I had a really sustained go at doing this a year ago, basically with the Mislead spell in mind. I basically persuaded myself that it was impossible, though if you think otherwise I'd be interested in the method. (I now have some fairly powerful coding tools to build and modify effects on the fly, so I don't mind if it's complicated!)

Well, it was more than a year ago but I think my idea more or less was the following:

- every invisibility effect also cast a secondary spell with a custom sec type

- that secondary spell prevents those animations from displaying (via opcode 291)

- every spell or effect which is supposed to dispel invisibility also removes the secondary spell via "remove sec type"

This should work for all II like spells, but not for normal invisibility which is broken by the caster himself, to handle that as well I think you need to add the following:

- every invisibility spell or effect also add a melee/ranged EFF which removes the custom sec type when an attack is attempted

- every spell in the game flagged as hostile needs an external global effect which removes the custom sec type on self when cast

 

I know I'm crazy, but I actually think it could work, wouldn't it?

 

 

Situation 1:

Enemy rogue hides/drinks potion.

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge, or TS.

Now all party members can fully see him? Or is he improved invisible on the screen, but mage/cleric treats him as fully visible? Can he still complete a backstab on the party fighter? Either way, Detect/Purge clearly affects enemies in this situation (letting party fighter target him at the very least) rather than just the caster.

That's the best we can do with this engine. Against normal "not Improved" invisibility nothing will change.

 

Situation 2a:

Enemy mage casts Invisibility, then Mirror Image

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge

Now all party members can fully see him? Or is he improved invis on screen, but mage/cleric treats him as fully visible? Mirror Image stays, since Detect/Purge doesn't affect illusion spells unless they're invisibility-based?

Invisibility is gone, Mirror Image remains.

 

Situation 2b:

Enemy mage casts Invisibility, then Mirror Image

Party mage/cleric casts TS.

All party members fully see him? Or is he improved invis on screen, but mage/cleric traets him as fully visible? Mirror Image gone, right?

Both invisibility and images are gone.

 

Situation 3:

Enemy mage casts Improved Invis and Mirror Image

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge

All party members except the mage will treat him as improved invisible, but the mage/cleric will treat him as fully visible (targetable by spells etc). The player will know at any point in time whether the mage/cleric treats him as fully invis or improved invis by checking to see if the mage/cleric has the Detect/Purge portrait icon

Exactly.

 

Situation 4a:

Enemy mage casts Imp Invis, then Mirror Image, then Non-Detection.

Party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge

Enemy mage must save or... what? Since Detect/Purge now has an effect on the caster rather than the enemy, how will the player (looking at the screen) be able to tell whether your mage/cleric can now target the enemy mage with spells? (Also Mirror Image stays, right?)

On a failed save invisibility is gone, but Improved Invisibility is not. On a successful save the enemy remains fully invisible. Mirror Image is never affected by Detect Invisibility or Invisibility Purge. The mage using See Invisibility will try each round, once per round, to "breach" Non-detection. As soon as the protected creature fails a save the mage will be able to see that creature.

 

Situation 4b:

Enemy mage casts Imp Invis, then Mirror Image, then Non-Detection.

Party mage/cleric casts True Seeing

How is this different from situation 4a?

The difference is that with TS Mirror Image can be dispelled once Non-detection is "breached" on a failed save.

 

Also, how is casting Detect/Purge + Oracle different from just casting TS?

You may consider TS as a sort of See Invisibility + Oracle + SI:Illusion.

[kreso]

I had a really sustained go at doing this a year ago, basically with the Mislead spell in mind. I basically persuaded myself that it was impossible, though if you think otherwise I'd be interested in the method. (I now have some fairly powerful coding tools to build and modify effects on the fly, so I don't mind if it's complicated!)

Didn't you do it already? IIrc, in newest BWS, there's an option under Stratagems installation "disable animations on II characters" or something like that. I was surprised since I don't have such an option on my manual install.

 

@Demi

Few weeks ago you said my tweak to KR berserker was complicated and now this!?

Jokes aside, I think this Invisibilty system might work out nicely.