Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

In D&D the duration for fox's cunning and invisibility are both 1 min./level. Even without testing one can probably tell that FK has made invis's duration far higher than whatever the FK-equivalent to 1 min./level might be. But I got curious, and so did a quick test to compare the two.

This was done without the extend spell feat applied to either casting. My skill with fox's cunning is master (skill level 23), and with invis, adept (skill level 16, I think, or maybe 17). Invis lasted approximately seven minutes and thirty seconds longer than fox's cunning, despite my being far more practiced with the latter.

This long duration allows characters to step leisurely through extremely dangerous areas without any fear of being discovered by mobs--I'd know, I recently used it on a lower level alt to bypass an entire area to get to the quest mob in the back--and zip from one side of the world map to the other in a few short minutes. I believe its original intent in D&D was related to surprise attacks, very short spying/scouting missions if the caster's level is decent, and getting away from danger quickly when you end up in a bad situation, not to bestow invincibility for eight IC hours, which is how long Fk's version would last me if I were to extend it.

Shortening the duration of this spell to be in line with spells like fox's cunning would be appropriate. I personally would like to see it fade significantly more quickly even than that, but I doubt the majority would find such a dramatic decrease appealing. A shorter duration for this spell makes IC sense, and would probably cut down on its nearing code-abusive uses.

I'd be willing to support this if the other bigger issues with casters were fixed first. As is, I rarely use it, but I see it as a legitimate way to bypass fodder. There are more and more NPCs that are able to disregard it nowadays and the tools to do so have been available to builders for a long time as far as I know. The wizard class has a lot of spells that to some give the feeling of code abuse because in essence the class is designed to break the conventional rules of DnD. Not sure about the 2-3e Player's handbook but in the 5e it clearly states to players that these are the solid rules that all characters must follow but there are exceptions to them, most often spells.

In short, this is a good spell for lower level casters that unlike yourself and I, don't have the tools or know how to make wizarding fun through 5x rooms of goblins and then continue. If you were a new wizard and wanted to actually explore / walk through a zone and appreciate the descriptions, find hidden things and so on. This is about one of the only ways to do it solo which given the player base, needs must sometimes.

Another point to recognize is that I have been playing for some 2 years and a lot of my spells aren't at adept. I wouldn't encourage newbies to grind skills because I don't see it as a fun behaviour to promote. At apprentice the spell lasts perhaps 2 or 3 minutes and i would rather see newbie wizarding get easier than it is rather than harder.

In summary, I think it is a spell that is good for new players but that higher level players can overuse but only if builders don't include couter measures for them in their higher level dungeons. Leave it as is and make the higher level content more appropriate as the newer zones have been doing.

To get where i'm coming from, please read here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14377&hilit=a+serious+discussion

i view this as one of the changes that in truth is appropriate, but there are other factors about the class that I would see fixed before I would be confident in saying that yes, this crutch can be removed for a greater more balanced spellcasting experience. It's not code abuse because it is very easy to counter measure if it was the builder's intention to. If anything, we still need certain things like greater invis to be implemented at level 4, and sorry but no, invis + nondetection isn'tt comparable.

Greater invis:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisi ... reater.htm

Yemin wrote: Another point to recognize is that I have been playing for some 2 years and a lot of my spells aren't at adept. I wouldn't encourage newbies to grind skills because I don't see it as a fun behaviour to promote. At apprentice the spell lasts perhaps 2 or 3 minutes and i would rather see newbie wizarding get easier than it is rather than harder.

Definitely. I don't encourage new players to grind--I don't particularly enjoy it myself. Though, to clarify, I just did another test with a much less played alt of mine, who has invis somewhere in the ameture level, and it lasted some eight-and-a-half minutes without extend. Whether this is too much even considering the difficulties that come with low level wizards and bards is obviously up for debate, but I think it is. As for the nearing code-abusive uses that I referred to, I completely understand that casters are, in a word, rulebreakers (it's one reason I enjoy playing them! lol), but there I'm talking about those, like me, who are tempted to simply mem two invis spells and walk invisibly through an entire area, kill boss man at the end with an instant death spell, and invis back up to get out so they can get their shiney rewards. Or those who use invis and carry on long and loud conversations two feet away from aggressive mobs because the code doesn't support sounds giving a character away. And I do see this kind of behavior fairly often. Self-policing in these sorts of situations is certainly a start, but I think taking away the temptation altogether would be good.

You do bring up some good points, though. It's not everyone who abuses this spell, and clearly it's not every time a lowbie wizard/bard logs on and sees others around the same level he/she can adventure with, so sometimes things need to be given or enhanced to allow them to go on alone. I've been dealing with this very issue to some degree on the aforementioned lowbie wizard I've been running, so that's understood. And there are plenty of things that could be made better for these classes so that they wouldn't have to rely so heavily on invis as is. It's not an easy problem to solve.

As an aside, I forgot to note anything in my first post about mass invis. I believe it has a similarly long duration, though I've not looked into it specifically. If so, it would be another I'd advocate changing to a shorter duration, perhaps after a few things are improved for the wizarding experience as a whole, if not right away.

8 mins sounds longer than I remember but eh.

I have noticed that there is some disparity in duration. Old characters with high skill level, especially if they extend it, can have it last quite a long time. This is the case with my illusionist for example.

On the other hand, my bards, for example, having a low level and a low skill level, have the spell lasting virtually mere seconds.

I would see nicely a recalibration that made the spell last longer for lower character and skill levels but a shorter time for higher character and skill levels.

Regardless, there is to ackonowledge that by reducing duration for a spell you are not going to prevent any misuse of it. Who does that will continue to do so, simply on shorter time-frames. So I feel a bit lukewarm toward the proposal.

Shorter at higher levels would be punative and would only make sense if we agreed this is some kind of abuse. This has obviously outlined that there is something weird about who is casting the spell though.

I don't believe it to be a matter of age. I can swear 100% that when Heren and in turn Mers had it in the beginning it lasted some 2 minutes, 3 tops.

Check if using different components changes anything and see.

Yemin wrote:Shorter at higher levels would be punative and would only make sense if we agreed this is some kind of abuse.

I am not convinced it is really an abuse, personally. In fact I called it misuse.

I would recognize, however, that there might be some poor rp done with the spell, especially if speaking near intelligent hostile mobs. But poor rp does not necessarily mean abuse in my book.

*nod

I'll note that the second test I did with the spell, to see its duration at lower skill levels, was done at skill level 6, character level sixteen, and the character had about 100 hours on it at that time. That character, who really isn't very old or high level at all, had it last 8.5 mins without extend. Areia gets it to last 20.5 mins without extend.

Yes, character level and skill level both do affect (some?) spells' potency (i.e., duration, damage, etc.), but I'm not sure how much character level plays a part. As I mentioned above, abuse or misuse or whatever one wants to call it with invis is one reason I think it deserves a change, but conforming to our version of D&D rules and making IC sense are others. It doesn't quite make sense that such a low level spell, even unpracticed, is so powerful, when one compares it to other spells of similar level.

But the points raised against the change are some good ones, too.

As a final note for now, I agree with Yemin on V's proposal to make it last less with higher skill levels. That's the opposite of what proficiency should do, and I think that applies to any spell or skill.

Thanks for the good discussion! I'm curious to see what if anything others think about it.

Trying to bring spell balance to dnd's spell lists will be the job of a few years.... good luck if that is the road you are proposing to embark on.