D&D 1E Treasure "hidden by invisibility"

[ScottDeWar_jr]

So, maybe the editing oversight was NOT adding objects with creature touched?

 

[Lanefan]

So, maybe the editing oversight was NOT adding objects with creature touched?

Maybe. The PH came first, so I wonder if EGG changed his mind between 0e and 1e and then changed it back again between writing the PH and the DMG.

Or maybe he wanted the player-side version of Invisibility to only work on creatures but NPCs to be able to cast it on objects, which if true is awful design.

 

[ScottDeWar_jr]

I wonder if EGG jr. Has some insight on this?

 

[ilgatto]

(...) Or maybe he wanted the player-side version of Invisibility to only work on creatures but NPCs to be able to cast it on objects, which if true is awful design

I suppose it may have been a sign of the times, times when OD&D still required DMs to improvise A LOT where the rules were concerned.

I suppose EGG may have "decided" not to include objects in the AD&D Invisibility spell because he may well have suffered many a headache during endless discussions involving (permanently!) invisible swords, pit traps, doors, windows, stairs in a dungeon (there's undoubtedly better examples), when perhaps a lot of what he may have wanted to achieve was make it harder for PCs to find treasures (do see D&D2, p. 28 and DMG, p. 167 in this regard).

Anyway, Read Languages anyone?

 

[el-remmen]

I don’t get the concern about the consistency of rules for PCs vs. the possibilities of an encounter. Just because the PC version of the spell cannot effect objects doesn’t mean that some version of the spell might exist that can or some magical item or monster ability, etc. can.

I also don’t think of this as a “gotcha.” I think there are plenty of ways for PCs to potentially find the invisible treasure and the assumption should not necessarily be that PCs are meant to find all the treasure in a dungeon. So they miss some? Big deal.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t get the concern about the consistency of rules for PCs vs. the possibilities of an encounter. Just because the PC version of the spell cannot effect objects doesn’t mean that some version of the spell might exist that can or some magical item or monster ability, etc. can.

If a version of the spell exists that can make objects invisible, where is it and how can I-the-PC-mage learn it?

I also don’t think of this as a “gotcha.” I think there are plenty of ways for PCs to potentially find the invisible treasure and the assumption should not necessarily be that PCs are meant to find all the treasure in a dungeon. So they miss some? Big deal.

Very much agree here. I'm just not sold on the whole invisible-objects piece, for the reasons @ilgatto noted plus others.

 

[Andvari]

I think it's a workable feature. I don't think it's a good idea to just stick a random invisible treasure chest out of the way in a random, otherwise empty room. But you can telegraph the existence of treasure so the players suspect they might have to do more to find it. For example, a locked, sturdy iron door, guarded by a strong foe. But apparently that room is empty. Another might be a dead wizard with a treasure map pointing to an "empty" room. "Invisibility" is in his spellbook.

 

[ScottDeWar_jr]

I suppose it may have been a sign of the times, times when OD&D still required DMs to improvise A LOT where the rules were concerned.

I suppose EGG may have "decided" not to include objects in the AD&D Invisibility spell because he may well have suffered many a headache during endless discussions involving (permanently!) invisible swords,

There is glassteel spell for this!

pit traps, doors, ..... edit....stairs in a dungeon

Someone mentioned invisible walls.

Also, limited wish does wonders for such a magical effect to affect the sanity of players!

 

[Andvari]

Invisible walls can be a fun gag. Especially if there's a monster behind it, holding something shiny and taunting the party.

 

[Mannahnin]

Detect Magic in any form would work too, in that the invisibility enchantment would radiate faint magic; and if the invisible object was itself magical it too would radiate.

True. If one had either Detect Invisibility or Detect Magic up when passing through/checking out the room you could pick up info.

I suppose it may have been a sign of the times, times when OD&D still required DMs to improvise A LOT where the rules were concerned.

I suppose EGG may have "decided" not to include objects in the AD&D Invisibility spell because he may well have suffered many a headache during endless discussions involving (permanently!) invisible swords, pit traps, doors, windows, stairs in a dungeon (there's undoubtedly better examples), when perhaps a lot of what he may have wanted to achieve was make it harder for PCs to find treasures (do see D&D2, p. 28 and DMG, p. 167 in this regard).

Yes. And sure, not every magical effect has to be one that PCs can recreate. I do think that just letting Invisibility work on objects is fine. I know Gary did a lot of limiting and reducing the power and scope of spells and PC abilities in AD&D, but I really think he overdid it in a lot of places.

If a version of the spell exists that can make objects invisible, where is it and how can I-the-PC-mage learn it?

It could be researched as a new spell, if the DM didn't want regular Invisibility to have that additional utility.

I think it's a workable feature. I don't think it's a good idea to just stick a random invisible treasure chest out of the way in a random, otherwise empty room. But you can telegraph the existence of treasure so the players suspect they might do more to find it. For example, a locked, sturdy iron door, guarded by a strong foe. But apparently that room is empty. Another might be a dead wizard with a treasure map pointing to an "empty" room. "Invisibility" is in his spellbook.

Definitely.