Warder1's page

First, thank you all for the replies! I have taken time to read through all of these and will definitely incorporate some feedback provided into the next opportunity I get on this.

Per the Invisible effect rules, a creature that becomes invisible while being observed is only Hidden unless they Sneak. You don't mention rolling sneak checks in your writeup, so I'm not sure if you were accounting for that.

I did totally miss that. Thank you! I will have to implement that next time I get the chance to see how much of a difference that makes.

Just from the previous experience, it seems like it will end combat a round or two sooner (as I expect the sneak to pass more often than not) - but otherwise not change much.

But still, WoW and a couple of other monsters (poltergeist) are way off the normal curve for how nasty they are.

Yes, I am running a pre-written adventure path that features plenty of both of those. I understand why due to the deities involved, but because of the heavy play of invisibility with these two creatures I am looking at replacing some future encounters featuring these monsters with something else (or maybe making them elite but not using the invisibility at all...).

They're a good reason to make certain you have Magic Missile/Force Barrage handy (as if incorporeal creatures weren't enough).

Wouldn't magic missiles and Force Barrage just not work since they are immune to magic (at least the will-o'-wisps)? I'm torn, each one does damage based on something that could be physical (a dart of force / a projectile launched by force). But at the same time, isn't fireball just a ball of fire you are hurling - and they aren't immune to fire?

It seems like regardless of how the thing is done, it is still magical in origin so the WoW would at least be immune to them?

But it you have any other area effects, they aren't affected by flat checks.

How many area effects are low level enough? Alchemists have them with flasks, but how many others are? If it takes a specific class/archetype to beat a mechanic - that seems wrong to me.

You generally should be using readied actions

This could be helpful. But only works for characters with ranged attacks (i.e. won't work for the monk / fighter in my group). Because melee actions, if they aren't in reach, just go to waste. And I would assume invisible creatures would pop up in different places as a habit in combat.

packing Revealing Light/fairie fire/glitterdust scrolls or invisible enemies will be a pain,

I think I will remind them the next time they visit town about these options. Although based on the previous comment about "immunity to magic" for WoWs specifically I am not sure how well they work there. Although poltergeists it would work. My only concern then is it makes the combat too easy. BUT if the players want to spend some gold to make a combat trivial, that seems fine. But forcing them to spend gold to avoid a mechanic they dislike seems a little worse...

----------------------------------------------------------

All in all, it seems I was playing it (mostly) correctly. The part I missed only makes the combat end a few rounds sooner (if the invisible ones fail the sneak then more likely to be hit).

But my whole problem of invisibility of "the monster does the exact same thing every round" still stands (that is how it should be played). The players do almost the exact same thing with the following changes:
-Did the monster successfully sneak?
-Are you ranged (or spell based with a 1 action spell if not a WoW) and can ready an action to hit it when it becomes visible?
-Do you want to spend a few gold to make this combat really easy?

So I think those modifications can make it tolerable in smaller doses, but since I feel there are an excessive number of these creatures in this adventure path, I may look at substituting in some different creatures where appropriate.

Again, thank you all for your insight, I really appreciate it!

As the GM, I am not enjoying running combats with invisible creatures. My players are also not enjoying it. Am I doing something wrong? Or is there other advice to make the combats more enjoyable to both run and/or experience as a player?

Note: Seeing invisibility might be ok, but more on that later, as my party doesn't have anything to do that.

Sample combat:

The group of players is a fighter, a monk, a cleric, and an investigator.

They are up against a will-o'-wisp, who starts invisible.

Round 1
Will-o'-wisp start by making a melee attack to shock (Action 1). Then uses the "Go Dark" ability to become invisible (Action 2). Then moves to a different location (next to player 4). (Action 3)

So enemy became visible -> hidden -> invisible.

Player 1 uses seek with action 1. They do not beat the required DC with the perception roll.
Player 1 uses seek again with the second action. They do not beat the required DC with the perception roll.
Player 1 picks a random square to swing at, and misses.
(Why seek a third time if you can't point out and it will become invisible again?)

Player 2 uses seek with action 1. They do beat the required DC with the perception roll.
*Note: The enemy is now hidden to you, rather than undetected.
Player 2 "points out" the location to everyone else.
Player 2 moves over to the enemy, ends turn.

Player 3 moves over to the enemy.
Player 3 attacks. Fails the DC 11 flat check.
Player 3 attacks. Succeeds the flat check. Fails to hit AC.

Player 4 casts a spell. Oops, they are immune to magic.
Player 4 moves.

Round 2
Enemy does the exact same thing: shock -> Go dark -> moves next to player 1.
*Everyone in combat gets a chance to hit the hidden creature as it is trying to move. 2 people roll flat checks. 1 misses. One succeeds, but misses AC.

Player 1 uses seek with action 1. They do not beat the required DC with the perception roll.
Player 1 uses seek again with the second action. They do not beat the required DC with the perception roll.
Player 1 picks a random square to swing at, and misses.

Player 2 uses seek with action 1. They do not beat the required DC with the perception roll.
Player 2 uses seek again with the second action. They do not beat the required DC with the perception roll.
Player 2 picks a random square to swing at, and misses.

Player 3 uses seek with action 1. They do not beat the required DC with the perception roll.
Player 3 uses seek again with the second action. They beat the DC.
Player 3 "points out" to the other people in the group.

Player 4 moves (Action 1)
Player 4 melee swings, misses on flat DC check
Player 4 swings, misses on AC check.

Round 3
Enemy does the exact same thing: shock -> Go dark -> moves next to player 4 again.
*Only player 1 and 4 can react. Player 4 doesn't have one, player 1 does, swings, and misses on flat check*

Player 1 and sees it.
Player 1 "points out" to the other people in the group.
Player 1 moves next to it

...
*more things happen - the enemy is eventually defeated*
...

Analysis
The first player AFTER the wisp always must seek. Because they are invisible, their stealth is naturally high. So often the first player after will spend their entire round either seeking or swinging wildly because seeks failed.

The second player after the enemy: 50% of the time will seek, the other 50% of the time knows where it is from player 1. Even if they "know where it is" they must move to be near it (1 action), and take 2 swings. Half the time it will fail.

Third player will often know where it is. If they do not, they must seek. If they do, they face the same DC 11 flat check to miss with attacks. So often will miss on one due to flat check, and the other is 50% chance of hitting (roughly)

Fourth player will almost always know where it is, but must move -> attack -> attack

Note: Will o' wisp is especially annoying due to magic immunity.

So what does that tell us?
1. First player will often not get the chance to do anything in combat besides "look for stuff" (fairly boring)
2. Second player, half the time will look for stuff (fairly boring), and the other half will get to do two attacks, one which will miss because the creature is hidden (failing a DC 11 flat check? Annoying), and the other will miss 50% of the time just due to AC mechanics.
3. Third player will often get to hit, but will likely get only one hit (move, attack, attack, with one missing to flat check and one 50% chance to miss due to AC)
4. Fourth player (cleric) gets to do nothing against will-o'-wisp (or against other creatures, 50% chance to blow a spell slot on DC11 flat check miss).

Which means on average there is one hit per round. So this will last 5-6 rounds.

Note:
Yes, meta-gaming it is smart to have the caster(s) do the seeking (since their melee is bad at best), or have the best perception go first. Better odds of people with the ability to do something meaningful have more opportunities, but that seems awfully mechanically exploitative at best.

The other possibility is somehow having the group get the ability to see invisible things. Does that make the combat too easy? I assume the invisibility adds to the challenge rating (would will-o'-wisp still be 6 if it couldn't be invisible? Highly unlikely). So if everyone can see it now, the group makes one or two round(s) of attacks and combat is over.

Or maybe only one person can see the invisible creature. Cool, now they don't spam the seek action but still have to spend an action to make it hidden to everyone, and then you still have the same annoyance of having half of your player's attacks / spell slots just miss to the flat check since they are still hidden (except to the one player who can see it).

Am I missing something obvious? Do some GMs handle invisibility differently? Is there anything that can be done to make combats with invisible creatures more fun but also not too easy?

Any advice is appreciated, thanks!