Invisible Fist's invisibility. What is it?

[Terminus Est]

I can't believe I never saw this but after glancing over a build that someone made and seeing them call it "improved invisibility" I then got curious and reread the ACF. This is exactly (and all) that it has to say about it:

As an immediate action, you can become invisible for 1 round.

Later it says that it's a supernatural ability. I'm used to things like this clarifying, "Like the spell invisibility" but it just simply says invisible for a round.

This obviously has a huge, huge ramification on lower to mid-level rogues, especially if they don't have a party that's well designed to allow flanking.

[Jackinthegreen]

It does exactly what it says.  It makes the character Invisible.  Yes, it is quite nice for a rogue.

[Terminus Est]

I feel like a bonehead. I long ago got it in my head that the ability was like the spell invisibility and never bothered to recheck it.

[NiteCyper]

Reminds me of the Evasion ability in the Alpha Protocol video-game. The biggest difference is that AP's is reactive rather than at-will. This looks like a readied action, but here's what I'm talking about.

This obviously has a huge, huge ramification on lower to mid-level rogues, especially if they don't have a party that's well designed to allow flanking.

Perhaps I am too unfamiliar with "lower to mid-level" combat, but how is there a "huge, huge ramification"? I've always been underwhelmed by the likes of the Ninja's rounds-long invisibility.

Ah yes I see now. Invisible Fist recharges in three rounds. I appreciate all other clarifications too, Jackinthegreen.

Monks who are willing to give up evasion can pick up the invisible fist class feature allowing them to turn invisible for 1 round out of every three. Since the intent of the design for this chapter was to provide options for adversaries, players should check with their DMs before going nuts with these options.

Bah humbug.

[Jackinthegreen]

Perhaps I am too unfamiliar with "lower to mid-level" combat, but how is there a "huge, huge ramification"? I've always been underwhelmed by the likes of the Ninja's rounds-long invisibility.

Mostly because invisibility that doesn't break upon attacking is very nice and few opponents at that level have ways to counter it.  I wouldn't call it "huge" but it's definitely a nice bonus.

[Terminus Est]

Well, I just consider it huge because at (and I meant low-mid, to mid, I should clarify) those levels, a sneak-attacker is just starting to add some extra attacks.

Invisibility means one sneak attack, with around 2-4d6 extra. Being invisible like greater invisibility means two or three more extra sneak attacks, which also means 2 or 3 more Craven bonuses along with -2 penalties to each attack.

Using my currently level 11 SAer as an example, it's the difference between.

(+2 to hit)  1d6 + 4d6 + 11
+1d6
+1d6
+1d6

versus

(+2 to hit)  1d6 + 4d6 + 11
(+2 to hit)  1d6 + 4d6 + 11
(+2 to hit)  1d6 + 4d6 + 11
(+2 to hit)  1d6 + 4d6 + 11

In otherwords, about 28 damage per hit that lands and a +2 per attempt after the first attack.

[Jackinthegreen]

You probably haven't played many high-powered games then since 28 damage per attack is decent but only having four attacks isn't, but it's better than plenty of other things.  Let's optimize it more shall we?

To give you an idea of what would be considered high-op for a rogue, it would start with TWF and crescent knives (which doubles attacks essentially), then add Martial Stance: Assassin's Stance for an extra 2d6 SA, Craven, and Unorthodox Flurry, which allows Flurry to work with a specific light weapon.

With the TWF feat and gloves of the balanced hand to grant improved TWF, that's 2 off-hand attacks and at least 3 main hand attacks, which are all doubled for 10 attacks total.  10 x (1d3 + 6d6 + 11) for a total of 10d3 + 60d6 + 110 for an average damage of 340 total.

Haste's extra attack would of course add another 2d3 + 12d6 + 22, and then there's a spell called Sakkratar's Triple Strike which works like haste but grants yet another attack and would up the average damage to 476 before counting the extra flaming property it bestows on your weapons for its duration.

476 damage in one round is pretty decent, but massive damage is one of the tamer things when it comes to D&D optimization.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1767.msg17675#msg17675 might give you some inspiration on how Invisible Fist can be used to even better potential.

[Terminus Est]

I generally play casual games, yes. My friends and I tend to enjoy playing within what I consider a traditional setting/environment. We play races that are generally more common and if we pick up LA's, they have to fit the Dm's setting, so playing a cheetah-shapeshifting something or another just isn't what we want to do.

I was just pointing out that, using very common rules (not digging into some weird-ass shit), 28 damage extra per attack is pretty big considering that I had just accidentally glossed over the form of invisibility that was granted. I think most friendly games (or maybe just the people I've played with) revolve around a gentlemanly agreement that we try and stay within intention. 300+ damage at 11th level isn't intended, it's just exploiting D&D's hap-hazard rules.

I appreciate min/maxing and would love to play a game with others who were all about it . . . but as I said, we play casual games where RP comes before all of that and we try to keep it fun for everyone without torturing the DM.

[Unbeliever]

I was just pointing out that, using very common rules (not digging into some weird-ass shit), 28 damage extra per attack is pretty big considering that I had just accidentally glossed over the form of invisibility that was granted. I think most friendly games (or maybe just the people I've played with) revolve around a gentlemanly agreement that we try and stay within intention. 300+ damage at 11th level isn't intended, it's just exploiting D&D's hap-hazard rules.

I appreciate min/maxing and would love to play a game with others who were all about it . . . but as I said, we play casual games where RP comes before all of that and we try to keep it fun for everyone without torturing the DM.

Just to be clear, even without doing any "weird-ass shit" 28 damage extra per attack isn't all that big a deal without having a lot of attacks.    Compare to a core-only God Wizard or Druid.  It's not nothing, but given that it requires a significant investment in the awesomness that is monk levels, it's not exactly going to go all tippyverse. 

And, as you can see from my tag or motto or whatever we call that thing I am a strong proponent of gentleman's agreements -- you should build to your group and your own preferences.  The builds Jack referred to and linked to are what might fairly be called "extreme" in that they take the ability to the outer edges of what can be done with it.  And, you can choose to adopt whatever bits and pieces of them you deem most useful. 

Terminus, a bit of friendly advice.  You're on a charopp board and have asked some charopp questions.  I found the above post vaguely insulting.  As if we, the people whose advice you have solicited, engage in "weird-ass shit" don't play "friendly games" are "exploiting haphazard rules" and are just "torturing the DM."  While in my youth I did occasionally torture some DMs -- though in my defense they totally deserved it -- it's not generally what we're about.  Jack prefaced it by saying that he was referring to high-powered games and spent the time to give you an alternative perspective. 

In short, it's not nice to tar us with some variation of the munchkin brush, even by implication. 

[Jackinthegreen]

Adding a bit onto what Unbeliever said, a lot of these "crazy" builds have plenty of roleplay support within the game.  One way of thinking about it is like the characters are fighting for their lives, as indeed they usually are.  You can be sure those in that situation are going to use the best resources known to them and can pretty well make it work within the game.

But we acknowledge (at least the more considerate of us do) that there are other ways people play the game.  A lot of the advice given on improving characters is mostly for the effect of "If the going gets tough, this is how the tough get going."  If the going isn't so tough then of course things will turn out different, and it's important for readers to figure out what will work for their games and not stress over what doesn't.

[Terminus Est]

Terminus, a bit of friendly advice.  You're on a charopp board and have asked some charopp questions.  I found the above post vaguely insulting.  As if we, the people whose advice you have solicited, engage in "weird-ass shit" don't play "friendly games" are "exploiting haphazard rules" and are just "torturing the DM."  While in my youth I did occasionally torture some DMs -- though in my defense they totally deserved it -- it's not generally what we're about.  Jack prefaced it by saying that he was referring to high-powered games and spent the time to give you an alternative perspective. 

In short, it's not nice to tar us with some variation of the munchkin brush, even by implication.

Well, I meant no insult. . . but a spade is a spade. . . D&D's rules are hap-hazard and exploitable, a lot of the extreme CharOp is weird-ass shit and, generally speaking, unless the DM has openly promoted aggressive min/maxing, the more extreme stuff is just torturing the guy as he has to DM to the level that his players are building. I guess I should have stuck to the word "casual" instead of friendly...but otherwise, I really don't see the insult in anything I wrote.

[sirpercival]

That's kinda why one of the first questions we ask when someone asks for op help is "what's the optimization level of your group?".  Really the advice we give is to give you an idea for the options and strategies that are out there, rather than "use this build or your character is bad and you should feel bad".

[Unbeliever]

Terminus, a bit of friendly advice.  You're on a charopp board and have asked some charopp questions.  I found the above post vaguely insulting.  As if we, the people whose advice you have solicited, engage in "weird-ass shit" don't play "friendly games" are "exploiting haphazard rules" and are just "torturing the DM."  While in my youth I did occasionally torture some DMs -- though in my defense they totally deserved it -- it's not generally what we're about.  Jack prefaced it by saying that he was referring to high-powered games and spent the time to give you an alternative perspective. 

In short, it's not nice to tar us with some variation of the munchkin brush, even by implication.

Well, I meant no insult. . . but a spade is a spade. . . D&D's rules are hap-hazard and exploitable, a lot of the extreme CharOp is weird-ass shit and, generally speaking, unless the DM has openly promoted aggressive min/maxing, the more extreme stuff is just torturing the guy as he has to DM to the level that his players are building. I guess I should have stuck to the word "casual" instead of friendly...but otherwise, I really don't see the insult in anything I wrote.

I tried to indicate why it was.  The BGs themselves have covered a lot of this territory already in their podcasts, so I'll defer to their more patient responses.

As Percival indicates, at best it's a level of degree rather than kind.  Taking Improved Critical and then using a falcion rather than a club is optimization.  But, is that an "exploit?"  No one is disputing that "extreme" Charopp is well ... extreme.  It's right there in the name.  But, once you take the stance that most Charopp = exploit, you've made and stated a value judgment. 

This is apparently a value judgment you want to stick to.  That's fine.  You're entitled to that.  Just don't come here and expect a warm reception and to ask advice from the people whom you've just implied (or outright stated) are playing the game in a manner that is unfriendly, dickish, un-fun for everyone, and don't know how to role-play. 

[Terminus Est]

Because I'm new here, I'm going to be very tame with this response.

You are some how taking things very personally. I like to min/max and CharOp when I can, but most of my games are casual. I admitted that "friendly" should have been said as "casual".

It's a game and if we can't acknowledge our quirks, we're going to have problems.

I asked about a rule that I had previously misinterpreted (and thought, "shit I've been giving up about 60 damage every round or so, what a dummy I am") I didn't beg for character optimization.

Cheers to you. If you don't like me, feel free to ignore my posts. I'd prefer not to be hostile with people but I don't really care that much, either.

[sirpercival]

It's true that you didn't ask for optimization help, and this isn't in the MinMax It! board, it's on the questions board, so I understand about not wanting unasked-for advice.  In terms of the response you got, however, understanding it may be easier if you read this and this.

A lot of people on the boards have had bad experiences of being accused of "cheating", "powergaming", "roll-playing instead of role-playing" and stuff like that, and have come to these boards for a community of like-minded people who prefer to have a lot of system-mastery, and pay attention to what the capabilities of different combinations are.  It hits a sore spot whenever someone implies that optimization is synonymous with "DM-torturing".

[Jackinthegreen]

I posted that optimization bit to showcase what can be done (as shown with the line "To give you an idea of what would be considered high-op..." not necessarily to say "you should play it this way."  A lot of questions are about things the person would like to use and improve on, so showing what kind of improvement can be made can be helpful.  Anything posted is up for whomever to use, and if they don't it's their choice and no skin off my back because it's silly to worry about that anyway.  I'll make a note for future reference to ask if the poster wants that kind of advice though since preventing this kind of posting would be helpful.

Whether it's an exploit is a matter of opinion and the debates will continue until the end of time since there's no official word on whether that certain combination of abilities is more powerful than what the designers were comfortable with.  Whether it's what a group is comfortable with is the main question anyway, and for Terminus's usual games it would seem that particular ability combination isn't in comfortable territory.  And that's fine.

But, there are also groups who wouldn't bat an eyelash at it.  To them it is not "weird-ass shit" because they are comfortable with having those numbers the way they are.  I don't recommend using words such as "weird-ass shit" because of the response it elicits, as you've definitely noticed.  It is generally quite insulting to say someone is doing that kind of thing.  What I would recommend is sticking to more judgment-neutral terms, though of course those might vary between people as well.  I used optimize since I believe it is fairly neutral, but I have seen some make it (or its contextual implications) a derogatory word.

[Terminus Est]

[EDIT]

Nevermind, it's really a non-issue to me and fail to see how it became one at all.