As part of the remaster, is it too late to request clarifications on the way Disappearance interacts with See Invisibility / Faerie Fire / Glitterdust?

[SandersonTavares]

It's been a contentious topic on most forums and groups I've been a part of. On one hand, it would feel awful to have an 8th level spell be countered by very low level resources, and on the other, some people think it's absurd that the spell is essentially uncounterable other than by seeking and counteracting. I'm on the first camp.

[Rysky]

Disappearance wrote:

It's still possible for a creature to find the target by Seeking, looking for disturbed dust, hearing gaps in the sound spectrum, or finding some other way to discover the presence of an otherwise-undetectable creature.

A bag of flour explicitly beats it.

[SandersonTavares]

Rysky wrote:

Disappearance wrote:

It's still possible for a creature to find the target by Seeking, looking for disturbed dust, hearing gaps in the sound spectrum, or finding some other way to discover the presence of an otherwise-undetectable creature.

A bag of flour explicitly beats it.

Which feels absurd, doesn't it?

[Rysky]

No

[SuperBidi]

You still need to determine where the enemy is before throwing the bag of flour. So you're still seeking for it. And considering how Seek is limited (30-foot cone or 15-foot burst) and that the check is Secret, an intelligent enemy can easily evade an entire party (but not a lucky one) if there's enough space to move. So in my opinion, it serves the purpose of the spell. Invisibility is far more limited, both because you need to use actions to Hide/Sneak (and can fail them), but also because you are detected by other senses. So I'm in the "Glitterdust works" camp. It's a low level spell, but the difficulty with Disappearance is not to remove the effect but to know where to target.

[SandersonTavares]

I mean, sure. If you think it's reasonable that, for example, I spend my turn moving and casting disappearance (which, by doing it after moving, I end my turn and everyone knows what square I'm in) a farmer can spill tar on me and suddenly my spell that requires me to be level 15 is essentially useless, ok. My complaints, even though I personally find it ridiculous, are about the way the spell is written, using both "undetected" and "invisible" and allowing for a lot of confusion.

[HumbleGamer]

Having access to disappearance would also mean have some teleports, like a lvl 4 dimensionsl door, or flying features.

In combat encounters, I hardly doubt high level monsters/characters would travel with bags of flour.

Outside combat encounters, just disappearance and time jump would do it.

To me, it's just a bad spell ( mean I don't allow it when I am the DM) given this 2e is a combat/tactical game, and I agree it could have been written in a better way.

[Rysky]

So the request is for a buff, not a clarification.

[Errenor]

SandersonTavares wrote:

It's been a contentious topic on most forums and groups I've been a part of. On one hand, it would feel awful to have an 8th level spell be countered by very low level resources, and on the other, some people think it's absurd that the spell is essentially uncounterable other than by seeking and counteracting. I'm on the first camp.

Well, it's not countered by Faerie Fire, Glitterdust, and by flour or Powder. All these things counter invisibility, but Disappearance is very clearly not it:

"The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses" (not 'invisible', simply straight 'undetected', and that's all)
"count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have"
Seeking works.
It's clearly written both RAI and RAW. I don't understand the confusion.
Like, when the target is not actually invisible, but 'counts' as it, it doesn't matter at all, how it looks and whether there's flour or other powder on it. It's also rather logical.

[YuriP]

I disagree. If you count as invisible so everything that effects invisible is also valid. Also the rest os the spell texts allows other ways to detect it:

Quote:

You shroud a creature from others' senses. The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses, allowing the target to count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have. It's still possible for a creature to find the target by Seeking, looking for disturbed dust, hearing gaps in the sound spectrum, or finding some other way to discover the presence of an otherwise-undetectable creature.

Nothing states that Disappearance is invalid to any way to detect an invisible creature like See Invisibility or Faerie Fire or Glitterdust because Disappearance still counts as invisible.

Remember that Invisible is a condition not a specific spell effect. Things that counters invisibility is countering the condition not the Invisibility spell.

The main advantage of Disappearance is that it potentially remove the need to Sneak once other senses (like sounds, smells, life sense...) then vision also are also "invisible" and cannot be detected by any senses this doesn't prevent other things that aren't senses to effect.

[SuperBidi]

The main issue is See Invisibility. But there's Non Detection that can deal with it (it's an Uncommon spell but if you intend on using Disappearance on a monster you can also choose to give it Non Detection).
Also, you obviously move after casting Disappearance, not before. So PCs will have to Seek anyway.

[Errenor]

YuriP wrote:

Remember that Invisible is a condition

which Disappearance does not give.

Also, it counts as invisible, yes, but 'no matter what senses'. No matter what tools for vision you use, for example.
Anyway, ok. I agree that RAW could be clearer, if it creates this much misunderstanding :( Maybe a specific line like "Anything which helps with invisibility won't help with this spell" should have been included. But I still think that RAI is clear enough.

[YuriP]

Errenor wrote:

...
Also, it counts as invisible, yes, but 'no matter what senses'. No matter what tools for vision you use, for example.
...

Senses ≠ tools. Sorry but your are freely extending the interpretation of senses to other things.

I understand that you may interpret "counts as invisible" as something different from Invisibility condition but my interpretation is the opposite that is an invisibility condition that extends to other senses only, the rest is equal and will apply as invisibility normally.

[Deriven Firelion]

It's an 8th level spell that is an enhanced invisibility. If you want to resist divinations, stack it with mind blank.

[The Raven Black]

I read it as the target (and only the target) evading detection by any sense (and not only vision).

But indirect telltale signs of its presence can still be perceived and acted upon, even though the creature is Undetected.

It negates the possibilities to counter Invisibility by using other senses (Tremorsense, Scent ...).

[The Raven Black]

The spells countering Invisibility will work on the visual part. Someone using another sense will still be unable to detect them.