Fix/Disable Retributive Invisibility

[roguethree]

This spell functions differently from ANY other invisibility spell in the game. All other spells, whether implemented as spells or feats (Assassin greater invisibility etc.) are actually a combination of standard invisibility and concealment. If the caster performs a hostile action, the invisibility is gone, but the concealment stays. This one, however, preserves BOTH the concealment effect AND the invisibility effect, which means enemies without True Seeing/See Invisibility won't be able to see the caster even AFTER he performs a hostile action.

It functions like this on Sundren. Please fix, or if unable to, please remove.


Thanks!


-r3

[Torgar]

How long has this been a known issue? If sundren's been around 6 years, does that mean every warlock who's played and taken that KNEW it was broken and has just been exploiting all this time? Wow, that's lame.

[Dragor]

Wow, that's lame.

Almost everything about a Warlock is lame

[Cornuto]

Should be an easy fix.

[Seheren]

Save it works as intended. PnP rules it is Improved invisibility.


Retributive Invisibility(CArc p135)
<Invocation(glamer)[sonic], S, 1StdAct, Personal,
1rnd/lvl(D)>
– The invoker is Invisible, even if he/she attacks.
If the invisibility is Dispelled, all creatures in a
20’ radius Burst around the invoker take 4d6
Sonic damage (Fort½) and are Stunned for 1
round (FortNeg).
Effective Spell Level: 6th.


Search it before stating it is broken.

[Kitsunestume]

or Greater Invisibility spells/feats could be aligned to the P&P versions.

[Delexos]

How long has this been a known issue? If sundren's been around 6 years, does that mean every warlock who's played and taken that KNEW it was broken and has just been exploiting all this time? Wow, that's lame.

Almost everything about a Warlock is lame

I would appreciate it if you did not simply attempt to call every player who has ever played a warlock an exploiter, I think you should take a look at the thread about the Betari Box, because honestly, jumping to conclusions based upon assumptions is what has caused much of the damage between the player base as it stands, furthermore saying that almost everything about a class is 'lame' is hardly very respectful to those players who strive to earn the right to play as that class and I personally feel it undermines a lot of great roleplay that goes into such characters.

Personally I did not know this was an exploit or even an issue, as one of the most active warlocks on the server I can state that I rely heavily on Retributive invisibility, I have never hidden that fact, you need only look at the "Dungeon Balancing" thread to see that I openly talk about how the use of Retributive invisibility is the one thing that has gotten me out of many scrapes. Considering the ease with which see invisibility potions/spells/scrolls can be acquired plus the fact that many of the mob spawns can actively see invisibility, it honestly never occurred to me that the invocation was doing anything other than what it was supposed to do in the first place, in fact if anything I had believed it was broken for a completely different reason, and that was because to my knowledge retributive invisibility has never unleashed a sonic attack after being dispelled.

I wont ask you to retract your accusation that all 281 Warlock characters to ever grace Sundren are exploiters, but I would ask that in future you consider your posts more carefully.

If Ret invis actually is broken then I am personally all for having it fixed to be in line with how it is supposed to be. However as Seheren points out there appear to be pencil and paper D&D rules stipulating that this spell actually works as designed. I would therefore ask that more research is put into this particular invocation before a ruling is determined as to whether or not the spell is 'broken'.

I would be more inclined to believe a spell descriptor from pen and paper dungeons and dragons over a quote from a Neverwinter Nights 2 wiki page.

However as I am not well read on such issues I would defer to the judgement of the staff in this case once all information has been gathered.

Thanks.

[Torgar]

If you took this feat, and you noticed that your invis NEVER BROKE while you used it, and you said nothing, that is the definition of exploiting. Using an ability or feature in a way that is mechanically broken.

[Cornuto]

Allowing the caster to keep 50% concealment is basically treating all opponents as blind versus you, but allows the NPCs and hostile PCs the chance to attack you.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded

Keeping the NWN2 'invisibility' status makes it so that you can't even be mechanically targeted by NPCs or hostile PCs.

Its broken. (In the context of the video game)



e: Also, cool it with the accusations please.

[Torgar]

I never accused directly a single person on exploiting, just a blanket statement. If they choose to take offense, then maybe there is an underlying reason TO be defensive.

[roguethree]

Save it works as intended. PnP rules it is Improved invisibility.

However as Seheren points out there appear to be pencil and paper D&D rules stipulating that this spell actually works as designed.

If considering paper and pencil mechanics with the paper and pencil description (and we should), it doesn't, because in paper and pencil, you can trace the source of an attack from a Greater Invisible PC and interact with it. In the Obsidian game engine, without See Invisibility or similar, you can not. This is why Greater Invisibility, after a hostile action, removes the invisibility but grants 50% concealment: the targets being attacked should be able to identify the source of the attack and go after it.

If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance).

Therefore, Retributive Invisibility does not work as intended, in NWN or PnP.

Search it before stating it is broken.

Obviously, I did, else I wouldn't have posted the issue. Thanks for tackling this, Cornuto.

[Cornuto]

Glad everyone's being extra fucking ridiculous today.

[Delexos]

*Edited*

[Seheren]

It isnt greater invisibility.. It is Improved invisibility which is different.. It is what Pixies have.

That description was the copied from the complete arcane source book.. Though if it needs to be in line with the NWN2 description thats fine.

[Cornuto]

Pixies are somehow more invisible?