Is anyone else annoyed by the fact that a 8th level spellcaster casting See invisibility(2nd lvl) can automatically and easily see a 20th level spellcaster who has cast Invisibility(also 2nd lvl)? This has happened many times over the course of my games, and I am tempted to house rule a change. Some spells scale in power depending on the Caster Level of the caster. Others do not. Why? A fifteenth level fireball is most certainly more powerful than a 5th level fireball, but the same can not be said for near half the spells available.

I am thinking of instituting opposed caster level checks in all situations where spells directly oppose each other. In the above example, the 8th level caster would have to roll very well indeed if he wished to overcome the invisibility of the 20th level caster.

I just cannot imagine a fourth level sorcerer casting a 2nd level spell and catching Boccob in the act. What do you think?

Tam

Invisibility is a great spell, almost a "cheat" if you will. (especially the Greater Invis) Having it automatically negated by a simple 2nd level spell is a way to moderate it a bit. And there is nondetection if a caster is really determined to go unnoticed.

But if it really is a problem in your game, test out your house rule and tell us how it turns out.

I agree with TS. It is all designed to balance. Being invisible has so many advantages. Being able to counter those advantages with a 2nd level spell seems fair. Its just a matter of the spellcaster remembering to have it ready to use.
Also maybe the invisible wizard is something your gaming group has come to expect. All of us who run games have habits that we fall into. Maybe time to throw them a curve.

well, something to consider.

Camouflage (a 1st lvl Druid spell) gives a +10 to hide

Invis gives you +40 when still, +20 when moving.

@ 19th lvl, the ranger/druid/rogue probably has +25-30ish spot, basically making it a simple opposed roll when the wizard is moving around the battlefield invisible.

i wouldn't worry about invis (or higher lvl casters using low level spells to great effect..that same wizard could easily have see invis permanency'd on him, or any number of other effects) or other low level spells. at least, not so much that i'd start houseruling them away.

-the hamster

I also agree with TS - he summed up the issue pretty well.

Also, your thread titles could use some work. I never would've guessed that this was about the topic of invisibility just reading the header.

I like the idea of opposed rolls for invisibilty type spells. I have often toyed with modifying a bunch of spells to function with opposed caster level checks, but never got around to it because it increases the amount of rolling in a game without actually adding a whole lot to the overall experience.

If you wanted to change things up a little bit you could say that the "see invis" type spells only pierce spells of their level or lower. Therefore imp invis will not be pierced by see invis, but it would be pierced by true seeing.
This is reminiscent of the light vs dark spells which is a pretty standard set of rules.

Also, your thread titles could use some work. I never would've guessed that this was about the topic of invisibility just reading the header.

The thread itself is not about Invisibility, that was just the example I used. Similar situations arises for me when light and darkess spells override each other, knock versus arcane lock, web and freedom of movement etc. I am just wondering if the magical might of the spellcaster involved should or should not have more impact on the power of the spell cast than the spell's listed level. Many spells do this, envocation spells almost always.

I appreciate everyone's views, and the deciding factor for me may be all the extra die rolling my game would then require.

Tam

Invisibility is a great spell, almost a "cheat" if you will. (especially the Greater Invis) Having it automatically negated by a simple 2nd level spell is a way to moderate it a bit. And there is nondetection if a caster is really determined to go unnoticed.

But if it really is a problem in your game, test out your house rule and tell us how it turns out.

Never felt that nondetection or mind blank did a thing against see invis. See invis gives the caster the ability to see the invisible, so it's not actually doing anything to anyone else, and as such isn't blockable by divination countermeasures.

The thread itself is not about Invisibility, that was just the example I used. Similar situations arises for me when light and darkess spells override each other, knock versus arcane lock, web and freedom of movement etc. I am just wondering if the magical might of the spellcaster involved should or should not have more impact on the power of the spell cast than the spell's listed level. Many spells do this, envocation spells almost always.

Ah. In that case, since Russ is already on this thread, let me add break enchantment and feeblemind to the discussion.

(just kidding)

(no, please, pretend I didn't mention it)

(NOOOOOO!!!)

Actually, nondetection forces caster level checks for any divination spells trying to interac/perceive the warded creature/object. Its a great way of blocking see invisibility.

And mind blank protects you from "information gathering divinations". Terribly worded, would be better if a list was given, but this is followed by noting that scrying effects don't register you at all. We took this to beleive that mind blank was meant to be a "superior" form of Nondetection, and thus perfectly protected against see invisibility. Still plenty of ways to find your invisible assailant: glitterdust, alchemist fire (obtuse, but theoretically sensible), dispel magic, tremorsense, blindsense, etc. At the level where Mind Blank starts getting thrown around, invisibility is actually kind of worthless.