|
*SPOILERS*
Depends, has he already told you that he will *always* have it up so he doesn't need to particularly mention it? Also, if there is no limit to what lvl of spell it sees thru, he'll probably also see Miss Riavaldi accompanying Orbius when they come to claim Terrem. But I do believe that she wears a veil over her face, just in case. Here's an idea though. Say the slavers have put hoods over the childrens' faces so they're less likely to try to run. They could just be putting the hood back on one of the children when the pc's enter. Or you could also see that because of whatever fel means give the warlock his powers, he see's mysterious marks, shadows, whatever on most people. Pass these off to him in notes so the other players won't be clued in. He won't think anything odd of it probably until he sees that Zenith has one also. If the player said he had cast the invocation that day :)
I'm starting SC again (I ran it all the way through with great success last year) with a new group.
I've got a player who is playing a Warlock with the See the Unseen invocation (see invisibility and darkvision 60', 24 hour duration). I'm trying to decide if being aware of the Carcerian Sign from the get-go (they'll plainly see it on Terram's face when they attempt the rescue) is a bad thing or not.
I don't think it's a bad thing. By Zennith Trajectory, the party *has* to see the mark on zennith's forehead. There's even an encounter with an invisible stalker to make sure the party casts see invisible. Until that time, the birthmark doesn't have to be anything more than a curiosity.
|
|
I had a bit on a convoluted story going on early in the adventure that specifically involved one of my pc's looking for this mark purposefully. I had a player who wanted to take his character towards True Necro and of course wanted to be a member of the church of Wee Jas. Giving a bit of thought about how I could work that into the story of the over all campaign and why he would work with a group of do gooders, including a paladin of cuthbert, I gave him a vision of his goddess as his prologue, one that left his staking out the alley where ruphus was to be accosted without knowing just why. When he was startled later that day seeing a priest being pushed into the alley and apparently being mugged, and a group of bystanders rushing in to protect him, well... It must be his goddess' will.
The goal of all this was to really emphasize the corruption that was growing in the church, and over the course of the adventure he had a great deal of interactions with Ike, and even a few with Embril herself though she rarely had time to deal with such trivial concerns.
At the end of Life's Bazaar he was given a task from his higher ups. He was to look for anyone with this strange mark. They were of interest to the church and that was all he needed to know. Embril magically added an item to him, which allowed him to see the invisible(which he was unaware of, made for some interesting moments where the party thought he was crazy when a goblin adept ran past them) and which I used to give him the very distinct impression that Embril and Ike could use to keep tabs on him.
The fun part of the interaction came when he first saw the parties thief, just as they were about to head down towards Drakthars way for the first time. The thief was a shackleborn, and thus had the sign as well. I had thought to use this as a point where I could make him test his loyalties a bit, either he has to pull back from the church or work against the party and from his belief his goddess' wants.
You never can guess I players mind though... He managed to rationalize that obviously his goddess had placed him there so he could deliver this prize to the church, and convinced the thief that he should come back with him after they returned from the dungeon. Unfortunately their first encounter with Drakthar went poorly due to a huge number of bad rolls on their part and good ones on mine, and the thief fell and they had to withdraw without his body. After a day it had rotted away and our cleric had to go and report his failure. It would have been interesting trying to explain to our theif why his character was going to be stuck in a cage and he was probably going to be rolling a new char...
i have to agree with chef's slaad. my own heavy-handed DM methods cost me a great player. i was thwarting class abilities simply because i felt they were ruinging my plot. player got fed up and left, rightly claiming that i was not willing to let the class abilities work the way they should.
i have since learned that it's best if you prepare for the class abilities, and then alter npc reactions accordingly. for instance, let rhivadi SEE the warlock see her. assuming she knows him by that point, she can make his life a virtual hell in order to keep her secret.
at low levels he ain't gonna understand half of what he's seeing anyway - and any 10th level wizard could make see invisibil permanent on himself anyway. i don't think it's a game-breaker, instead i have learned to see it as a wonderful dmming and role-playing opportunity.
|
Also, if it helps, See Invisibility does not negate the invisibility, it simply provides a visual indicator that an invisible crearure is present. While it may allow the birthmark to be clearly seen, Rhivadi would appear as a fuzzy or ephemeral feminine shape of Medium size, perhaps humanoid for more detail- that could be any woman in Caludron, after all, and so it creates more questions (and keeps the plot safe) while rewarding the warlock with leads and valuble information (i.e. the beholder has a magic-using assistant.
Remember, only invisibility purge or true seeing outright cancel the invisibility and allow the individual's identity to be seen.
careful there, see invisibility reads "you can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible."
there's more, but that last phrase "as if they were normally visible" would indicate that features would be determined. like i said, gotta be careful about taking away abilitties as they are written.
|
|
I would agree with you, Atlanta, except that the very next sentence is "Such creatures {i.e. invisible or ethereal} are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you to easily discern between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures."
PHB, 275.
Bold emphasis and i.e are mine.
From that sentence, it seems that a visible Rhivadi and an invisible Rhivadi would appear as normal and as a "translucent" feminine outline," respectively.
Are we both quoting from a paper-version PHB? I ask only because I know the SRD has the occassional tendency of excluding clarifying phrases, such as the one I just quoted.
taking my info from the hardcover 3.5 phb after checking for errata. just becuz something's translucent does not mean you don't make out features. all translucent means is you can see through them a bit.
my players are getting "as if they were normally visible, though slightly translucent" as my take on the wording. to each dm their own, i was just sharing my experience.
Just to throw in my 2 cents, I would think that seeing them as normal but kinda see-through doesn't really distinguish them from random ethereal guy number 47 much- I personally would agree with seeing them as simply shapes.
Although it does give me an idea about an enemy that kills his identical twin, summons its ghost, casts ethereal jaunt and mirror image on himself, and then gives out cash prizes if someone manages to find out which one he is.