# Cloak of Invisibility: Best item in the game?



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

So, Cloaks of Invisibility give you the normal Neck slot +Enhancement to Fort/Ref/Will defenses, and a daily power. Its daily power is invisibility until end of the encounter, until 5 minutes passes, or until you're hit by a melee or ranged attack.

On the surface, that seems kinda "so what?". But now, go look up the definition of Invisibility. In 4E, _you do not lose Invisible status except under the circumstances listed in the power_. Now look through the Monster Manual and count how many monsters have Tremorsense, Blindsight, or can see invisible creatures. There are very few; even Dragons only have darkvision. A few Demons have truesight 6, a couple creatures have tremorsense and blindsight. 

Now add a Trained and Focused Stealth skill, and possibly armor or a ring that boosts Stealth, to prevent enemies from pinpointing you; remember, you can be pinpointed with a Perception vs Stealth check. However, even Orcus only has a +28 Perception. It's reasonably easy to get into the 30's for Stealth checks.

Now mix all that together and add in the fact that area-of-effect attacks don't drop your stealth, only _melee _and _ranged _attacks. Voila, nigh-invulnerable character. It's possible to solo Orcus with the right build and a Cloak of Invisibility, simply because he has no way to detect invisible characters. Yeah, he has that rechargeable close burst 10 explosion, but he's going to be targeting it blindly most of the time, and it's a 6-recharge.

Yeah, it's an Epic item and it should be Epic. It's also a Daily power, so only one use per day. The problem is that it's essentially a daily "I Win" button against the vast majority of the monsters in the MM. About the only thing I've seen that really has any reasonable chance against a Cloak of Invisibility is the Tarrasque, because it has a huge Blindsight range.

So, Cloak of Invisibility: Best item in the game? I think so.


----------



## hong (Jun 11, 2008)

I'd change it to a sustain move or std action.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 11, 2008)

I'd change it so that it ends if you attack, just like _invisibility_.


----------



## Oompa (Jun 11, 2008)

How can it be an insta win? When you make an attack, you become visible.. and then you cant use the item anymore..


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Oompa said:
			
		

> How can it be an insta win? When you make an attack, you become visible.. and then you cant use the item anymore..



Incorrect. Only Invisibility effects that specifically say you are no longer invisible if you attack carry that particular drawback. Invisibility in most cases is more akin to 3.5 _greater invisibility_ than _invisibility_.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Jun 11, 2008)

I don't see the issue. This is an epic-level item we're talking about. Even if area attacks don't turn you visible, they still hit you, and even with a Stealth in the mid-30's, a +28 Perception check still has a decent chance to sense your presence. And if you're standing around being all invisible, Orcus takes his sweet time to kill your teammates, and then leaves if you're still annoying him with your attacks.


----------



## baberg (Jun 11, 2008)

It seems like +28 Perception should be more than enough to find you.  Per p.281, when you end your turn invisible you make a Stealth check (assume you have +30 as you said, not sure if that's realistic for a level 30 or not).  So at the end of your turn you roll d20 and add 30.  So you've got a Stealth range of 31-50, average of 40.  

Orcus has a passive perception of 38 (10+28), so 40% of the time Orcus knows which direction you're in (beating the check means you know a direction, beating by 10 means you know the square).  On its turn it can use a Minor action to perform a Perception against your most recent Stealth check with the same consequences.  All it takes is for you to roll poorly (4 or less, for 34) and Orcus to roll above average (16+) and he's got you pinpointed.

And even if you're not pinpointed, he's got you within a handful of squares anyways with just beating stealth.  Or have I crunched the numbers wrong?


----------



## Oompa (Jun 11, 2008)

Uhm.. Invisble on phb 281 only say's you cant be seen, you get combat advantage and dont provoke OA's..

Invisibilty as an power, or even greater invisibility as an power both say that when you attack, you become visible..


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 11, 2008)

Oompa said:
			
		

> Uhm.. Invisble on phb 281 only say's you cant be seen, you get combat advantage and dont provoke OA's..
> 
> Invisibilty as an power, or even greater invisibility as an power both say that when you attack, you become visible..



And what does the item say?  Does it say that you become visible if you attack?  If not, then you dont.


----------



## Oompa (Jun 11, 2008)

Yeah.. that is true


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> And even if you're not pinpointed, he's got you within a handful of squares anyways with just beating stealth.  Or have I crunched the numbers wrong?



+30 is lowballing it. You have a base of +15 level, +5 trained, +3 Feat, +6 sylvan armor without including stat bonuses; that's +29. If you have even a moderate Dex you'll have over +30. With a high-dex build you'll have +35 with no real issue. The maximum is +41 (5 trained, 15 level, 10 dex, 3 feat, 2 racial, 6 item) without relying on other characters to give you Power bonuses.

Here's a Ranger build that's perfectly usable without the Cloak, but can easily exploit the Cloak to kill Orcus all by himself without ever being at risk of death:[sblock=Invisi-Ranger]*Invisi-Ranger*
*Male Razorclaw Shifter Ranger Battlefield Archer Demigod 30* 
*Alignment:* Unaligned
*Deity:* Sehanine

*Str:* 12 (+1)
*Dex:* 30 (+10)
*Con:* 13 (+1)
*Int:* 12 (+1)
*Wis:* 26 (+8)
*Cha:* 10 (+0)

*Hit Points:* 170 *Bloodied:* 85
*Healing Surge:* 45 *Surges per day:* 8
*Initiative:* +27 (roll twice, take higher)
*Speed:* 8
*Perception:* 46 (darkvision) *Insight:* 39
*Action Points:* 1

*AC* 47 *Fortitude* 33 *Reflex* 42 *Will* 40

*Basic Melee Attack:* +23 (Longsword) *Damage:* 1d8+20 or 1d8+21
*Basic Ranged Attack:* +33 (Longbow) *Damage:* 1d10+38

*Skills:*

```
Acrobatics		+31 (+15 Level, +10 Dexterity, +2 Racial, +4 Item)
Arcana			+16 (+15 Level, +1 Int)
Athletics		+27 (+5 Trained, +15 Level, +1 Str, +6 Item)
Bluff			+15 (+15 Level, +0 Cha)
Diplomacy		+15 (+15 Level, +0 Cha)
Dungeoneering		+23 (+15 Level, +8 Wis)
Endurance		+27 (+5 Trained, +15 Level, +1 Con, +6 Item)
Heal			+28 (+5 Trained, +15 Level, +8 Wis)
History			+16 (+15 Level, +1 Int)
Insight			+29 (+15 Level, +8 Wis, +6 Item)
Intimidate		+15 (+15 Level, +0 Cha)
Nature			+28 (+5 Trained, +15 Level, +8 Wis)
Perception		+36 (+5 Trained, +15 Level, +8 Wis, +2 Feat, +6 Item)
Religion		+21 (+5 Trained, +15 Level, +1 Int)
Stealth			+41 (+5 Trained, +15 Level, +10 Dex, +2 Racial, +3 Feat, +6 Item)
Streetwise		+15 (+15 Level, +0 Cha)
Thievery		+25 (+15 Level, +10 Dex)
```
[sblock=Feats]
Defensive Mobility
Initiate of the Faith
Fleet-Footed
Precise Hunter
Weapon Focus: Bows
Alertness
Adept Power: Weapon of the Gods
Danger Sense
Distant Shot
Sly Hunter
Acolyte Power: Mass Cure Light Wounds
Secret Stride
Combat Anticipation
Epic Resurgence
Armor Specialization: Hide
Skill Focus: Stealth
Quick Draw
Evasion
Far Shot[/sblock]*Languages:*
Common[sblock=Class and Racial abilities] 
Hunter's Quarry
Prime Shot
Archer's Action
Battlefield Experience
Battle Surge
Divine Spark
Divine Recovery
Divine Miracle[/sblock][sblock=Powers]
Nimble Strike (At-Will Attack, Standard, Ranged attack + shift)
Twin Strike (At-Will Attack, Standard, Two weaker ranged attacks)

Manticore Volley (Encounter Attack, Standard, Three ranged attacks with increasing damage for multiple hits)
Thundertusk Boar Strike (Encounter Attack, Standard, Two attacks + push target)
Hawk's Talon (Encounter Attack, Standard, Strong and accurate attack)
Combined Fire (Encounter Paragon Attack, Immediate Reaction, Strong ranged attack after an ally makes a ranged attack)
Razorclaw Shifting (Encounter Racial, Minor, +2 Speed and +1 AC and Reflex until end of encounter)
Yield Ground (Encounter Utility, Immediate Reaction, Shift Wis squares after being damaged with a melee attack and gain bonus to defenses)
Weave Through the Fray (Encounter Utility, Immediate Interrupt, Shift Wis squares as an enemy moves adjacent to you)
Archer's Glory (Encounter Paragon Utility, Free, Gain a limited duration action point when you kill an enemy)

Confounding Arrows (Daily Attack, Standard, Three ranged attacks + ongoing daze or stun)
Three-in-One Shot (Daily Attack, Standard, Three strong ranged attacks + bonus to hit if first attack lands)
Weapon of the Gods (Daily Attack, Minor, Weapon is blessed until end of encounter)
Quarry's Bane (Daily Paragon Attack, Standard, Strong ranged attack vs all designated quarries)
Open the Range (Daily Utility, Immediate Interrupt, Shift 1 square then move 1 + Wis squares as an enemy moves adjacent to you)
Mass Cure Light Wounds (Daily Utility, Standard, You and all nearby allies recover hp equal to healing surge amount)
Master of the Hunt (Daily Utility, Minor Stance, Add Wis to damage modifiers)
Divine Regeneration (Daily Epic Utility, Minor, You gain Regeneration equal to your highest stat until end of encounter)
Healing Word (Daily Class Feature, Minor, Self or ally uses a healing surge and gains surge + 6d6 hp)[/sblock][sblock=Equipment]
Phasing Longbow +6
Sylvan Elderhide Armor +6
Dancing Longsword +4
Cloak of Invisibility +6
Ioun Stone of True Sight
Ring of Invisibility
Ring of Regeneration
Dynamic Belt +4
Gloves of Piercing
Boots of Striding
Bracers of the Perfect Shot +4[/sblock][/sblock]And here's how his Orcus fight goes, on average:[sblock=Invisi-Ranger vs Orcus]Initiative:
Invisi-Ranger avg 37
Orcus avg 32

Round 1: 1,525 hp remaining
Standard to become invisible until end of encounter or struck by a targeted attack
Minor to use Weapon of the Gods
Move as neccesary

Round 2: 1,525 hp remaining
Minor to select Orcus as his Hunter's Quarry
Minor to activate Master of the Hunt
Standard to use Hawk's Talon (+45 vs 48 to hit for 2d10+3d6+1d6+45 damage, avg 84, and -2 AC until end of next turn*) use Action Point to reroll if needed (assuming a hit**)
Spend Action Point for extra Standard Action
Standard action to use Confounding Arrows (+39 vs 46 to hit x3 for 1d10+1d6+45 damage each, avg 113 total)

Round 3: 1,328 hp remaining
Standard action to use Three-in-One Shot (+39 vs 46 to hit for 2d10+1d6+45 damage / half on miss, avg 50, and avg +3 to hit for remaining attacks; +42 vs 46 to hit x2 for 2d10+1d6+45 damage each / half on miss, avg 110 total; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry damage, avg 10)
Move action as neccesary
Minor to activate Divine Regeneration if needed to heal damage from aura or burst - 30 regen will completely heal all of Orcus's possible damage

Round 4: 1,158 hp remaining
Standard action to use Manticore Volley (+39 vs 46 to hit x3 for 1d10+1d6+45 damage each, avg 113 total; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry, avg 10)
Move action as neccesary

Round 5: 1,035 hp remaining
Standard action to use Thundertusk Boar Strike (+39 vs 46 to hit x2 for 1d10+1d6+45 damage, avg 75 total; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry, avg 10)
Move blah blah

Round 6: 950 hp remaining
Standard action to use Twin Strike (+39 vs 46 to hit x2 for 2d10+1d6+35 damage each, avg 69; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry, avg 10)
Move

Round 7-18: 871 hp remaining
Repeat Round 6

Round 19: -77 hp remaining

* - On average, there's at least one hit every round. As such, I automatically lowered Orcus's AC by 2 for every shot after the first assumed hit from Hawk's Talon. Even losing the Weapon of the Gods AC penalty occasionally doesn't significantly alter the outcome of the fight, just makes it last a couple more rounds. Similarly, Hunter's Quarry is always assumed to trigger each round, since you decide which attack to use it on _after_ rolling all attack rolls and, on average, at least on attack hits.
** - Hawk's Talon only has a 10% chance to miss and can be re-rolled if needed, leaving an actual 1% chance to miss. As such, I assumed a hit just to simplify math. A miss and reroll delays the kill by one round; the 1% chance for a complete miss causes a few more rounds delay as it's harder to set up the initial -2 AC penalty.[sblock=Summary of Attack Bonuses]
+15 Level
+10 Dexterity
+2 Proficiency
+6 Enhancement
+1 Prime Shot
+2 Combat Advantage due to Invisibility
+1 Battlefield Experience
(+8 Wisdom for Hawk's Talon)
(+3.5 average for the second and third shots on Three-in-One Shot due to power bonus)[/sblock][sblock=Summary of Damage Bonuses]
+15 Level
(+10 Dexterity on every attack except Twin Strike)
+8 Wisdom due to Master of the Hunt
+6 Enhancement
+3 Weapon Focus
+3 Sly Hunter[/sblock][/sblock]Result: Orcus dead in 18 rounds of fighting, not counting criticals. Invisi-Ranger had Regeneration 30 for nearly the entire fight and a +41 Stealth check, meaning that Orcus could never pinpoint his square, and Orcus's damage aura + burst couldn't do enough damage to kill him even if he makes the Perception check to know where he's being attacked from.

Note that he still has plenty of time to kill the two Atropals and eight Lich Vestiges, if you _really_ want to give him the extra experience from sending him up against Orcus's recommended encounter group. Orcus's encounter group is a level ~45 encounter for a solo character. In other words, there should be no way a level 30 should be beating it solo, let alone without a scratch on him. _Especially_ a level 30 that would be one-shotted by Orcus if he could actually attack him (Touch of Death is an auto-hit against Fort 33).


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 11, 2008)

I stopped reading when I realized you were adding +15 (½ level) to all of his damage rolls.


----------



## skullking (Jun 11, 2008)

I take it Orcus doesn't have the sense to take a second wind when he gets low on hit points.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 11, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I stopped reading when I realized you were adding +15 (½ level) to all of his damage rolls.




...nevermind that the encounter just lasts longer, then. Pointing this out does nothing to counter the argument.

Yay, strawmen!


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I stopped reading when I realized you were adding +15 (½ level) to all of his damage rolls.



Amusing. You stop at the _end_ of the post, for a mistake that (while egregious) doesn't change the outcome of the fight at all, then make a smarmy reply.

Here's the corrected fight summary:[sblock=Invisi-Ranger vs Orcus]Initiative:
Invisi-Ranger avg 37
Orcus avg 32

Round 1: 1,525 hp remaining
Standard to become invisible until end of encounter or struck by a targeted attack
Minor to use Weapon of the Gods
Move as neccesary

Round 2: 1,525 hp remaining
Minor to select Orcus as his Hunter's Quarry
Minor to activate Master of the Hunt
Standard to use Hawk's Talon (+45 vs 48 to hit for 2d10+3d6+1d6+30 damage, avg 55, and -2 AC until end of next turn*) use Action Point to reroll if needed (assuming a hit**)
Spend Action Point for extra Standard Action
Standard action to use Confounding Arrows (+39 vs 46 to hit x3 for 1d10+1d6+30 damage each, avg 81 total)

Round 3: 1,389 hp remaining
Standard action to use Three-in-One Shot (+39 vs 46 to hit for 2d10+1d6+30 damage / half on miss, avg 37, and avg +3 to hit for remaining attacks; +42 vs 46 to hit x2 for 2d10+1d6+30 damage each / half on miss, avg 81 total; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry damage, avg 10)
Move action as neccesary
Minor to activate Divine Regeneration if needed to heal damage from aura or burst - 30 regen will completely heal all of Orcus's possible damage

Round 4: 1,261 hp remaining
Standard action to use Manticore Volley (+39 vs 46 to hit x3 for 1d10+1d6+30 damage each, avg 81 total; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry, avg 10)
Move action as neccesary

Round 5: 1,170 hp remaining
Standard action to use Thundertusk Boar Strike (+39 vs 46 to hit x2 for 1d10+1d6+30 damage, avg 54 total; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry, avg 10)
Move blah blah

Round 6: 1,106 hp remaining
Standard action to use Twin Strike (+39 vs 46 to hit x2 for 2d10+1d6+20 damage each, avg 47; +3d6 Hunter's Quarry, avg 10)
Move

Round 7-25: 1,049 hp remaining
Repeat Round 6

Round 26: -34 hp remaining

* - On average, there's at least one hit every round. As such, I automatically lowered Orcus's AC by 2 for every shot after the first assumed hit from Hawk's Talon. Even losing the Weapon of the Gods AC penalty occasionally doesn't significantly alter the outcome of the fight, just makes it last a couple more rounds. Similarly, Hunter's Quarry is always assumed to trigger each round, since you decide which attack to use it on _after_ rolling all attack rolls and, on average, at least on attack hits.
** - Hawk's Talon only has a 10% chance to miss and can be re-rolled if needed, leaving an actual 1% chance to miss. As such, I assumed a hit just to simplify math. A miss and reroll delays the kill by one round; the 1% chance for a complete miss causes a few more rounds delay as it's harder to set up the initial -2 AC penalty.[sblock=Summary of Attack Bonuses]
+15 Level
+10 Dexterity
+2 Proficiency
+6 Enhancement
+1 Prime Shot
+2 Combat Advantage due to Invisibility
+1 Battlefield Experience
(+8 Wisdom for Hawk's Talon)
(+3.5 average for the second and third shots on Three-in-One Shot due to power bonus)[/sblock][sblock=Summary of Damage Bonuses]
(+10 Dexterity on every attack except Twin Strike)
+8 Wisdom due to Master of the Hunt
+6 Enhancement
+3 Weapon Focus
+3 Sly Hunter[/sblock][/sblock]25 rounds to kill Orcus solo.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

skullking said:
			
		

> I take it Orcus doesn't have the sense to take a second wind when he gets low on hit points.



Second Wind is only available to Player Characters unless otherwise noted in the monster/NPC statblock (p291, PHB). Orcus does not have such a notation.


----------



## kerbarian (Jun 11, 2008)

While I doubt any DM would allow Orcus to be so unprepared as to die to that kind of attack, the cloak is definitely overpowered as written.  For a mere 2-level bump compared to a basic Amulet of Protection -- the same as a Safewing Amulet, which just reduces falling damage -- its invisibility shouldn't be nearly so powerful.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see errata for this.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Yeah. The gist of the thread isn't "LOL I KILLZ ORKUS"; it's "Wow, this magic item is _really crazy good_". I just used Orcus as an illustration of _how_ crazy good it is.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 11, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Amusing. You stop at the _end_ of the post, for a mistake that (while egregious) doesn't change the outcome of the fight at all, then make a smarmy reply.
> 
> Here's the corrected fight summary:[sblock=Invisi-Ranger vs Orcus]Initiative:
> Invisi-Ranger avg 37
> ...




Yeah, you caught the irony..

I agree with you though, the item is silly overpowered as written from what I can see. Although Orcus has 3 healing surges, netting him another 1143 hps, if one of his lackeys could heal and if they aren't killed first, it won't help him much..

I find it odd that the invisibility granted by the cloak is so different from the powers that also carry the invisibility keyword. So odd, that I would have to assume it is a blunder in the writing.


----------



## eleran (Jun 11, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Yeah. The gist of the thread isn't "LOL I KILLZ ORKUS"; it's "Wow, this magic item is _really crazy good_". I just used Orcus as an illustration of _how_ crazy good it is.





Don't come play in my game then, because you'll come visible the instant you attack.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Don't come play in my game then, because you'll come visible the instant you attack.



That's house rules, which is fine if that's how you want to swing it. It pretty much makes the item useless, though. It goes from being the best magic item to one of the worst.


----------



## eleran (Jun 11, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> That's house rules, which is fine if that's how you want to swing it. It pretty much makes the item useless, though. It goes from being the best magic item to one of the worst.





Except that to me, its not a house rule, it is a correct interpretation of the RAW, as opposed to your RAI which I reject.


----------



## Boarstorm (Jun 11, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Except that to me, its not a house rule, it is a correct interpretation of the RAW, as opposed to your RAI which I reject.




Appears to be the other way around, as best I can tell.


----------



## Xect (Jun 11, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Except that to me, its not a house rule, it is a correct interpretation of the RAW, as opposed to your RAI which I reject.



I can't see exactly where it's written that invisibility breaks when you attack.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Jun 11, 2008)

Haven't read the books. . . but didn't somebody mention Orcus having a blast 6 area attack or something?  Even targeting it randomly he'll tag the ranger with it eventually, ending his invisibility long before he gets smoked.

If the ranger is in melee orcus can just drop it on himself - game over.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Orcus has a burst 10 attack that is centered on himself, which means he needs to be within 10 squares of the creature whose location is unknown to him.



My proposed solution is to re-word the item so that its invisibility wears off when you take damage from any attack, rather than just from melee or ranged attacks. That would allow it to work as a source of combat advantage until a well-targeted fireball lands on your head, at which point the magic of the cloak fades.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Jun 11, 2008)

Oh, and you're using stats for a 30th level ranger.  For Orcus to be a "hard" encounter, he should be 3-4 levels above the "party" level.

Thus, per the DMG the ranger should only be 26 - 27 level for soloing this to be a hard encounter.

Does that make a difference in the math?

Having a 30th level ranger solo a 30th level monster, is like bragging that your 3rd level fighter can solo a bugbear.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 11, 2008)

I, conversely, don't have a problem with it.

I think it's OK that a 30th level character tricked out to max for stealth along with stealth-related items should be able to stealthify anything in the MM.  He is, by definition, the stealthiest character possible.  If _he_ can't do it, then Orcus may as well have a power that reads "Cannot be stealthed ever".

Presumably Orcus' epic level intelligence means that he wouldn't just stand there being dumbly hit by something he can't detect, and more than he'd repeatedly walk into a door.  I can't realistically see a solo-kill coming out of this unless Orcus _wanted_ to die!


----------



## Boarstorm (Jun 11, 2008)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> Oh, and you're using stats for a 30th level ranger.  For Orcus to be a "hard" encounter, he should be 3-4 levels above the "party" level.
> 
> Thus, per the DMG the ranger should only be 26 - 27 level for soloing this to be a hard encounter.
> 
> ...




1) Orcus is level 33.

2) Orcus is a solo, meaning he's supposed to be challenging to a group of FIVE level 30s.

It means something.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> Oh, and you're using stats for a 30th level ranger.  For Orcus to be a "hard" encounter, he should be 3-4 levels above the "party" level.
> 
> Thus, per the DMG the ranger should only be 26 - 27 level for soloing this to be a hard encounter.
> 
> ...



Uhh, you clearly are not as familiar with the Encounter Creation rules as you think you are.

For one, the "Party Level" of a party consisting solely of level 30 character(s) is ... 30.
For two, Orcus is a level 33 Solo monster, meaning he's theoretically a Hard challenge for a group of 5 level 30 PCs.
For three, there's only one character in the party.

Add 1, 2, and 3, and you end up with an encounter level well into the 40's for a single character. Remember, to determine EL, you take the experience value of the encounter (225k, for Orcus), divide it by the number of party members (1) and compare it to the chart. The chart ends at level 40 with 111k experience per standard monster. Orcus is a ~45-47 encounter for a solo character (47 if the +16k xp increase doesn't speed up, ~45 if it does).


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jun 11, 2008)

Yes, a 30 ranger soloing Orcus is similar to a 1st level character being able to solo the black dragon at the end of D&DXP's Scalegloom Hall - a 4th level solo monster.  That one was able to usually kill or at least knock unconscious at least 1, usually 2 or 3 out of 5 1st level PCs (barring horrible rolling on the DM's part).


----------



## Storminator (Jun 11, 2008)

Seems like once in those 25 rounds Orcus will actually make a perception check on you, then he hits you with his "you die" power and, well, you die!

:shrug: Epic seems like it's full of win buttons.

PS


----------



## Roger (Jun 11, 2008)

It doesn't seem particularly more powerful than the Hide in Plain Sight encounter ability (rogue utility 16) or the Hide from the Light ability (rogue utility 22).



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Seems like once in those 25 rounds Orcus will actually make a perception check on you, then he hits you with his "you die" power and, well, you die!
> 
> :shrug: Epic seems like it's full of win buttons.
> 
> PS



Orcus's instant kill attack is a reach 4 melee attack. Orcus is unable to ever pinpoint a mobile character with +38 or higher Stealth who is invisible. You do the math.







			
				Roger said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem particularly more powerful than the Hide in Plain Sight encounter ability (rogue utility 16) or the Hide from the Light ability (rogue utility 22).



Hide in Plain Sight requires the rogue to never move, which means Orcus can use triangulation to pinpoint his location even if he never exceeds the Rogue's Stealth check by 10. Hide from the Light requires the Rogue to only use at-will or basic attacks, which won't kill Orcus before the 5 minute duration of an "until the end of the encounter" power runs out.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 11, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Orcus's instant kill attack is a reach 4 melee attack. Orcus is unable to ever pinpoint a mobile character with +38 or higher Stealth who is invisible. You do the math.




Orcus doesn't have to beat the Stealth check by 10+. He just has to two of either himself and his many minions beat the check at all, then triangulates.

PS


----------



## FadedC (Jun 11, 2008)

Given his insane perception score, Orcus can probably pretty easily figure out about what square the arrow attacks originated from, give or take. All he has to do is move around until he bumps into somebody and then smack them. It may take him a few rounds, but given his speed and size he can move through quite a few squares in a turn. If he misses on his first try, well he does have action points.

He can also move to the original attack point and use him burst 10 AoE. It's unlikely the ranger got further away then that.


----------



## tafkamhokie (Jun 11, 2008)

This may be 3e thinking as I have not thoroughly read the 4e books yet.  But I know in 3e, there was the caveat that when you attacked while invisible, the defender knows what square the attack came from.  

Granted, you are free to move after you attack, but the defender is also free to ready an action to attack you when you attack them...before you get to move.

Don't know if the same rules exist in 4e, but they certainly make intuitive sense.

With Orcus' attacks being as devastating as they are, I would think he would only have to ready an attack a couple of times before he tagged the stealth ranger and either killed him outright or negated the invisibility.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Neither Lich Vestiges (max roll 39) nor Atropals (max roll 40) can ever possibly beat a +41 Stealth check. If Invisi-Ranger was an Elf instead of a Razorclaw Shifter (ie, no racial modifier to Stealth), they'd *still* be unable to beat his Stealth check (min roll 40 with a higher modifier).


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Given his insane perception score, Orcus can probably pretty easily figure out about what square the arrow attacks originated from, give or take. All he has to do is move around until he bumps into somebody and then smack them. It may take him a few rounds, but given his speed and size he can move through quite a few squares in a turn. If he misses on his first try, well he does have action points.
> 
> He can also move to the original attack point and use him burst 10 AoE. It's unlikely the ranger got further away then that.



Orcus's Perception is +28 vs Invisi-Ranger's +41 Stealth. Orcus has to roll at least a 15 to have even a chance to know which direction Invisi-Ranger is, and that's only if Invisi-Ranger rolls a 1. Even if he does get lucky and peg Invisi-Ranger with his AoE, Invisi-Ranger is still invisible and will be at or near full health on his next turn, thanks to Divine Regeneration. Note that Orcus and Invisi-Ranger move at the same speed unless Orcus flies, and Orcus incurs penalties for flying.







			
				tafkamhokie said:
			
		

> This may be 3e thinking as I have not thoroughly read the 4e books yet. But I know in 3e, there was the caveat that when you attacked while invisible, the defender knows what square the attack came from.
> ...
> With Orcus' attacks being as devastating as they are, I would think he would only have to ready an attack a couple of times before he tagged the stealth ranger and either killed him outright or negated the invisibility.



Invisibility in 4E is guaranteed total concealment and a Stealth vs Perception check to determine location. Orcus will fail the check the vast majority of the time, so he won't even know what direction the invisible attacker is - though he would know what square Invisi-Ranger started in, since he doesn't start the encounter invisible.

As for "devastating attacks" ... Orcus has to hit Invisi-Ranger with a _melee or ranged_ attack. Not a burst. Bursts don't break the Cloak's invisibility, only targeted attacks. Orcus basically has no hope of being able to ever determine the exact square that Invisi-Ranger is in, so it's nigh-impossible for him to hit Invisi-Ranger with a targeted attack. His aura + 1/6 turns of burst cannot possibly outdamage Invisi-Ranger's Regeneration 30. Invisi-Ranger is in no danger from Orcus. None at all.


----------



## mvincent (Jun 11, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Cloak of Invisibility: Best item in the game? I think so.



Assuming you are playing with a group (which is the default) being invisible often doesn't benefit the party, as the enemy will simply attack another party member instead.

But sure, invisibility is great when you want to engage in the 'math'erbatory act of solo Orcus pummeling.


----------



## TK Lafours (Jun 11, 2008)

It is a sweet item, but that's why it's epic. 

It's hard to imagine a DM going "gosh, you're killing Orcus, he continues to flail around blindly". 

If, as a high-level PC you were faced with an enemy with this item,  you would likely either come up with a creative way to locate or trap him or you would flee, thus ending the encounter and ending the invisibility for the day.  Then, before the day is up, you would try to reengage and kill the guy and take his cloak.  This is exactly what I would expect Orcus to do, flee, and then track you down and kill you for your awesome cloak.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Assuming you are playing with a group (which is the default) being invisible often doesn't benefit the party, as the enemy will simply attack another party member instead.



You and I have a very different definition of "doesn't benefit the party". I would say that being able to pick and choose which members of the party are not attacked by *instant-kill attacks* (or, really, any high-level monster's uber-attack) is a serious and tangible benefit. Again, it's trivially easy to equal Orcus's Perception (and he has about the highest in the game at the moment) with your Stealth without even having a positive Dex modifier (and it's impossible to have a _negative_ Dex mod by level 21). At that point, you basically become immune to all of his attacks except his aura and his burst, and neither of those really has a chance of killing a character by itself.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jun 11, 2008)

A few points - Orcus will know which direction the attack came from, at the very least.  I'd say he has a good chance to know which square specifically, especially if it was a melee attack.  Personally, I'd rule that as a +5 or even +10 bonus to a Perception roll to pinpoint the ranger's square.  

Then, if Orcus has a readied action for when he gets hit to attack the square that he was attacked from, there's a good chance he targets the right square, and sometime in those 25 rounds he is going to hit.  Just sayin'.  The stealth really only helps you avoid his targeted attacks as long as you can not be where he thinks you are by the time he attacks.  

Then, assuming that you are still beating him, what exactly is keeping him there?  You don't become Demon Prince of the Undead by letting anyone with _one_ cool trick to play it out to the end - you retreat, figure out a counter, and then nail the slippery thing.

Edit: I forgot to add that some people have speculated that Divine Regeneration has a mistake in it, that it is supposed to give you Regen equal to your modifier, not your score itself.  Regen = score pretty much makes you invulnerable for that encounter, so I can't see that being the intent.  Really really tough, yes; invincible, no.


----------



## occam (Jun 11, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Presumably Orcus' epic level intelligence means that he wouldn't just stand there being dumbly hit by something he can't detect, and more than he'd repeatedly walk into a door.  I can't realistically see a solo-kill coming out of this unless Orcus _wanted_ to die!




Yeah, as with other uber-powerful combos, I don't see this being an inevitable auto-kill against a powerful and intelligent opponent. First, Orcus won't be alone, and that doesn't just mean the encounter will take longer. Between his aura and blast powers, and those of the atropals and lich vestiges, Invisi-Ranger is going to take necrotic damage out the yin-yang, enough to overpower his divine regeneration.

But more significantly, all Orcus needs to totally defeat this tactic is to call in a bunch of abyssal ghoul myrmidons, have them target every square not already occupied, and wait for one of them to roll a 20 on the attack. (The lich vestiges need only a 17 to hit with a shadow ray, including the total concealment penalty, and Orcus only needs a 15.) Call in a balor or two, who only need a 17 to hit with a flame whip, then a 12 with demonic accuracy after missing, and Invisi-Ranger is in real trouble. The PC is briefly renamed Visi-Ranger before becoming a splattering on the floor, or being touched with death and at the demon lord's mercy.

In fact... forget the abyssal ghouls and the balors. Call in enough kobold minions and they'll get the job done.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> A few points - Orcus will know which direction the attack came from, at the very least. I'd say he has a good chance to know which square specifically, especially if it was a melee attack. Personally, I'd rule that as a +5 or even +10 bonus to a Perception roll to pinpoint the ranger's square.



Again, that's fine for house rules, but it's not how invisibility works in 4E. You only know direction to an invisible creature/character if you beat their Stealth check - though, as I mentioned, the creature *would* know which square Invisi-Ranger started the fight in.







> Then, if Orcus has a readied action for when he gets hit to attack the square that he was attacked from, there's a good chance he targets the right square, and sometime in those 25 rounds he is going to hit.



Invisi-Ranger can attack from as far away as 45 squares. Orcus's attacks that can break invisibility can only hit from 4 squares away.







> Then, assuming that you are still beating him, what exactly is keeping him there?



Invisi-Ranger moves as fast as Orcus does, and Orcus mostly doesn't know where Invisi-Ranger is. Not knowing where whatever you're running from is located makes it hard to run away from it.






			
				occam said:
			
		

> First, Orcus won't be alone, and that doesn't just mean the encounter will take longer. Between his aura and blast powers, and those of the atropals and lich vestiges, Invisi-Ranger is going to take necrotic damage out the yin-yang, enough to overpower his divine regeneration.



The lich vestiges have no chance at all to hit Invisi-Ranger. I-R can take a few turns to pretty much auto-kill all 8 vestiges (Designate each as a Quarry thanks to Battlefield Archer, then use the BA daily attack power to attack every quarry). The Atropals can never even detect I-R, so they have to randomly come within 5 squares of him to damage him, and even if both of them AND Orcus were all within Aura range of I-R, *similar auras do not stack*. Check the rules. 3 auras all doing 10 necrotic damage deal a grand total of 10 necrotic damage per round, not 30. The atropals are *a complete nonfactor*.







> But more significantly, all Orcus needs to totally defeat this tactic is to call in a bunch of abyssal ghoul myrmidons, have them target every square not already occupied, and wait for one of them to roll a 20 on the attack. (The lich vestiges need only a 17 to hit with a shadow ray, including the total concealment penalty, and Orcus only needs a 15.) Call in a balor or two, who only need a 17 to hit with a flame whip, then a 12 with demonic accuracy after missing, and Invisi-Ranger is in real trouble. The PC is briefly renamed Visi-Ranger before becoming a splattering on the floor, or being touched with death and at the demon lord's mercy.



That's all Orcus needs to do to defeat *any* attack, though. It's not a counter to Invisi-Ranger, it's a house rule that prevents him from ever dieing to any attack at all. Orcus has no ability to summon any creatures. There are creatures that have the ability to summon allies (Pit Fiends, for example), and Orcus is not one of them.





Again, though... *THIS IS NOT ABOUT ORCUS*. It's about an item that makes characters essentially invulnerable to 90% of the monsters in the MM. Why would any character ever take any neck slot item OTHER than a Cloak of Invisibility? Hell, it's not even a level 30 item! Compare a Cloak of Invis to a Cloak of Invuln. The Invuln cloak is a million gold more and far, far, far less effective against the vast majority of enemies.


----------



## FadedC (Jun 11, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Orcus's Perception is +28 vs Invisi-Ranger's +41 Stealth. Orcus has to roll at least a 15 to have even a chance to know which direction Invisi-Ranger is, and that's only if Invisi-Ranger rolls a 1. Even if he does get lucky and peg Invisi-Ranger with his AoE, Invisi-Ranger is still invisible and will be at or near full health on his next turn, thanks to Divine Regeneration. Note that Orcus and Invisi-Ranger move at the same speed unless Orcus flies, and Orcus incurs penalties for flying.Invisibility in 4E is guaranteed total concealment and a Stealth vs Perception check to determine location. Orcus will fail the check the vast majority of the time, so he won't even know what direction the invisible attacker is - though he would know what square Invisi-Ranger started in, since he doesn't start the encounter invisible..




I didn't realize about the burst thing, so that doesn't help. But still even if Orcus can't usually make his checks to find the ranger, he can still see where the arrows he shoots come from. That will give him a pretty good idea of where to start wandering around. On average I think he could find the ranger within 4 rounds, and then with his action point he's fairly likely to knock him out of invisibility given 2 tries. 

Now if you can give the ranger access to an encounter length fly ability (and there's probably some way to do that), then it's much harder for him to guess what squares he might have moved into.


----------



## Nine Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

I hope the OP is applying the normal Stealth modifiers for movement more than 2 squares (-5), speaking (-5) or running (-10).  I think that if the ranger keeps to one spot, he will eventually get hit, its only a matter of time.

My only problem with these types of "exercises" is that they are so damn subjective.  In a real game, this just wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 11, 2008)

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> I hope the OP is applying the normal Stealth modifiers for movement more than 2 squares (-5), speaking (-5) or running (-10).  I think that if the ranger keeps to one spot, he will eventually get hit, its only a matter of time.



Invisi-Ranger has Secret Stride, so he does not incur the -5 penalty for moving more than 2 squares. He doesn't need to speak, and unless Orcus takes a run action, Invisi-Ranger doesn't need to do that either.


----------



## mvincent (Jun 11, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> You and I have a very different definition of "doesn't benefit the party".



Probably. In 3.5, we always had players that snuck around invisibly while the rest of the party sucked up the damage. They always _thought_ they were being useful, but their tactic was almost always sub-optimal, mathematically. Yes, there _can_ be exceptions... I just haven't encountered those players yet.

Spreading the damage across several PC's means everyone stays in the fight longer. Even as a wizard I would occasional jump in to take a hit (so that the fighter wouldn't have to waste a round drinking a potion, or so a mass cure spell is optimized).

In 4e (which seems to be all about the HP's rather than save-or-die effects), this seems even more true.


----------



## drquestion (Jun 11, 2008)

Like Morrus, I don't really see the problem with this.

All the analysis really says is that a character who essentially has the highest possible stealth score, plus a cloak of invisibility, is likely to be completely undetected in the encounter that he uses the cloak.  That's fine, he's a 30th level demigod who's maxed his stealth.  He _should_ be almost impossible to find.

Contrary to the analysis, Invisi-ranger won't actually be able to solo any of the high-level solo monsters in any realistic in-game situation.

Orcus, as long as he's in a room that's 200x200 or smaller, or can move into one quickly (and really, what's he gonna be doing wandering outside alone?), will kill the ranger, who only has 170 hp, well before the 25 rounds are up just with his aura, which has a range of 20 squares and does 10 damage per round, 20 if he's bloodied.  

Looking at the two 30th-level solos, the red dragon, if he can't pin down the ranger, can just fly away, and the tarrasque, as the OP mentions, is pretty likely to eventually find the ranger with his blindsight, and then trample him, which ends the invisibility.

In sum, it's clearly a really good item, and probably a no-brainer for an epic level stealth character, but I don't see it being game-breaking in practice.


----------



## GiMiK1214 (Jun 11, 2008)

I agree with the OP that in the RAW this works. There are 4 types of attacks. Ranged, Melee, Close and Area. I believe the intent of the item was for All four to break the invisibility, and things like auras and ongoing damage to not break it.

Of course when my players reach that point if it hasn't been corrected that is how I will run it.


----------



## occam (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> That's all Orcus needs to do to defeat *any* attack, though. It's not a counter to Invisi-Ranger, it's a house rule that prevents him from ever dieing to any attack at all. Orcus has no ability to summon any creatures. There are creatures that have the ability to summon allies (Pit Fiends, for example), and Orcus is not one of them.




I wasn't referring to conjuring minions from thin air, merely that Orcus won't be encountered in some random dungeon room, or wandering alone through the woods; he's going to have a retinue.

And the mob of minions is a specific (and moreover, realistic within the game) counter to this tactic, which depends on never being hit. While a tribe of kobolds won't have much direct impact on a 30th-level PC, a single hit from one will render him visible, and thus dead in this situation.

The uber-tactic is easily defeatable with halfway-decent encounter design. It's still cool impressive, and will make for the kernel of legends when the PC ascends to become the Demigod of Stealth, but not utterly broken.


----------



## 2eBladeSinger (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai has some serious ownage in the thread, it's very entertaining to read.  The This-would-never-happen-to-Orcus-in-my-game camp is missing the point.  It's about RAW and about a broken item, and using the RAW to demonstrate how the item is broken.  It's well done.  Invisiranger (IR) needs a better name, however.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 12, 2008)

By 30 PCs are supposed to have the heads of "many" demonlords on their walls.  *shrug*  It's 4E.


----------



## theNater (Jun 12, 2008)

There's no problem with the Cloak of Invisibility.

If something's too powerful, it's the Demigod's Divine Regeneration power.

Invisiranger has 170 hit points.  Orcus can beat through that by *being within 20 squares* of Invisiranger for 17 out of the 25 rounds.  It goes faster once he gets bloodied, and even faster if he can catch Invisiranger in his Necrotic Burst a few times.  Assuming Orcus succeeds on his perception checks half the time, he'll easily do 170 points of damage to Invisiranger before he goes down.

Removing the Invisibility effect doesn't greatly increase the damage Orcus can normally do.  Certainly not enough to worry somebody regenerating 30 hit points a round.  The only real advantage Orcus has on a Demigod he can see over Invisiranger is his Touch of Death.  It's a big advantage, sure, but the Cloak of Invisibility has removed _one_ power, while Divine Regeneration has removed _all_ of the others.

I think you've found an awesome synergy.  You've picked up two epic powers that each make somebody very hard to kill and made somebody who is nearly impossible to kill.  Well done!


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Your assumption is ill-placed. Orcus won't make his Perception check anywhere near half the time. Actually, this is the matrix of possible methods for Orcus succeeding on the check:
	
	



```
I-R's Roll		Orcus's Roll
1			15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2			16, 17, 18, 19, 20
3			17, 18, 19, 20
4			18, 19, 20
5			19, 20
6			20
```
That's just over a 5% chance if I did the math correctly (which I may well not have; that's more advanced statistical analysis than I feel like doing at 1 AM). With a 5% chance to know Invisi-Ranger's direction (not pinpoint his location - it is impossible for Orcus to do that), there are, on average, 2 rounds in the fight where Orcus has a decent idea where Invisi-Ranger even is - round 1 where I-R goes invisible, and round X where he rolls well and I-R rolls poorly.

Thus, yes, removing the Invisibility *does* greatly increase the damage Orcus can normally do, considering he doesn't normally do any damage at all!


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> In 4E, _you do not lose Invisible status except under the circumstances listed in the power_. .




Huh.. looking through the PHB, it clearly states in the Wizard Invisibility spells (both regular and greater) that invisibility ends by attacking.. How would the cloak be any different?  

The only difference I can see with the cloak and the Invisibility spells is that the cloak doesn't require any actions to sustain.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Huh.. looking through the PHB, it clearly states in the Wizard Invisibility spells (both regular and greater) that invisibility ends by attacking.. How would the cloak be any different?
> 
> The only difference I can see with the cloak and the Invisibility spells is that the cloak doesn't require any actions to sustain.



Look up the definition of Invisibility. It's on page 281, IIRC. There are no end clauses. You can remain invisible indefinitely if whatever granted you the invisibility doesn't say otherwise.

The Wizard's invisibility spells are actually just about the only ones that _do_ drop on attack. Most drop after movement or on the end of your next turn.


----------



## Liryel (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Look up the definition of Invisibility. It's on page 281, IIRC. There are no end clauses. You can remain invisible indefinitely if whatever granted you the invisibility doesn't say otherwise.
> 
> The Wizard's invisibility spells are actually just about the only ones that _do_ drop on attack. Most drop after movement or on the end of your next turn.




Inivisiblity on page 281 states:
*You can't be seen by normal forms of vision
*You have combat advantage against any enemy that can't see you.
*You don't provoke opportunity attacks from enemies that can't see you.

What in that tells you what will an will not break invisibility?


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 12, 2008)

Other than Wizard's spells and the cloak, what else provides invisibility?

I don't know..  I really think it's fairly obvious that it's treated like the invisibility spell except that it's an item and therefore usable by anybody (not just the wizard) and doesn't require any concentration to maintain.  

I personally think you might be looking too hard at the Invisibility section on page 281 while totally disassociating it from the spells that provide it.  

I could be wrong, though, and it'd be nice to see a FAQ clear it up.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

The ability that gives you invisibility, obviously. The Wizard spells specifically state that attacking breaks invisibility. Cloak of Invisibility states that the end of the encounter or being damaged by a melee or ranged power breaks invisibility.

Because there is no general rule that states "Attacking while invisible removes the invisible status", Cloak of Invisibility's invis does not go away when you attack.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Other than Wizard's spells and the cloak, what else provides invisibility?
> 
> I don't know..  I really think it's fairly obvious that it's treated like the invisibility spell except that it's an item and therefore usable by anybody (not just the wizard) and doesn't require any concentration to maintain.
> 
> I personally think you might be looking too hard at the Invisibility section on page 288 while totally disassociating it from the spells that provide it.



There's a ranger power, several rogue powers, a warlock at-will (and probably some warlock powers past the at-will too, I'm just not familiar with the warlock), a couple wizard powers, a cleric power IIRC, several items, and more than a few monsters.

Of all of those, I do believe that only the two wizard powers state that they drop when you attack.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 12, 2008)

Okay, and except for the proviso that it lets you move, how is this item any different from the rogue abilities then?

If a rogue used ranged attacks with their hide in plain sight abilities at 30th level, they'd be nigh impossible to attack, just like the cloak, yes?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

No, because he's easy to locate. He cannot move. You only need either two or three different data points (move + perception check) to pinpoint his square exactly, and once you've done that, invisibility is just +5 defenses to him.


----------



## Meloncov (Jun 12, 2008)

Wouldn't the direction the arrows are coming from give a pretty good idea where the invisible ranger is?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Not by rules as written. The only way to know the direction of an invisible creature is to beat its stealth check with your perception. Also note that Invisi-Ranger can shoot and then move (or shoot and move in the same action, given how mobile Rangers are).


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 12, 2008)

The level 22 rogue ability does let the rogue move.  So, the rogue can shoot and move, repeat, ad nauseum.

So again, how is the cloak different?

And, if nobody can spot the rogue via a perception check at 30th level with his ability up, how again is that different from the cloak?  

According to the 'you can't tell where the direction of fire is coming from' thing you're saying, then the same applies to the bow using rogue with his level 22 ability.

Again, how is this different?


----------



## Llamas Notsheep (Jun 12, 2008)

Haha great thread, fun read.

Yeah, RAW pretty clearly makes for a ridiculously powerful cloak, whether or not you think it's broken.  The whole idea that it's just an unclearly-written version of the invisibility spell is shot by the fact that it enumerates the conditions for the invisibility to end.  _Expressio unius est exclusion alterius_ and all that jazz.

Obviously any good DM would find ways to prevent the abuse of this power, but as long as you don't piss off your DM...


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

The rogue using Hide from the Light can only use basic attacks (hah) or at will attacks (hah). He won't do enough damage per round to kill Orcus before his invisibility wears off.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

And people are STILL focusing on the stuff that doesn't even matter, by the way. *It doesn't matter whether the cloak is better than a class daily power* (though it _very_ clearly is; only someone who hasn't bothered to read the full text of both powers would even suggest otherwise).

I asked this back on page 2 or 3, but I'll ask it again because _every single poster_ has ignored it.

Compare a Cloak of Invisibility to a Cloak of Invulnerability. Which would you rather have? Which is more expensive? Compare and contrast.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> The rogue using Hide from the Light can only use basic attacks (hah) or at will attacks (hah). He won't do enough damage per round to kill Orcus before his invisibility wears off.




And, if she's using her 'Hide in Plain Sight' which doesn't allow her to move, but still makes her completely undetectable at level 30 with her screaming stealth bonuses (which means no triangulation as per your statements - because nobody knows where the ranged attacker is shooting from...), the only difference becomes movement.

And, also.. you say in a blanket statement this is the most powerful magic item in the game.  But clearly it's *only* so for very specific classes - those with a high stealth bonus.  For anyone else, how is this the most powerful item in the game?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> And, if she's using her 'Hide in Plain Sight' which doesn't allow her to move, but still makes her completely undetectable at level 30 with her screaming stealth bonuses (which means no triangulation as per your statements - because nobody knows where the ranged attacker is shooting from...), the only difference becomes movement.
> 
> And, also.. you say in a blanket statement this is the most powerful magic item in the game.  But clearly it's *only* so for very specific classes - those with a high stealth bonus.  For anyone else, how is this the most powerful item in the game?



Here, I'll spell it out for you in little baby words:

Cloak of Invisibility is invisibility _*THAT HAS NO RESTRICTIONS*_. Nothing can drop you from the invisibility against 90% of the monsters in the MM except the passage of time. It is impossible for them to pinpoint your position, so they cannot effectively use either of the two "end clauses" on the invisibility. Every other invisibility effect in the game has an effective "end clause": attacking, moving, moving more than 2 squares, attacking with a non-at-will power, or at the start/end of your next turn.

Cloak of Invisibility is unique in that it defeats its own end clauses. It gives you effective immunity to the two things that could cause it to stop working.

EDIT: And please stop lying about what I've said. I never once stated "The Cloak of Invisibility is the best item in the game". I never stated or presented it as fact. The thread title asks a question. I answered the question at the end of my original post "I think so". I never once "said in a blanket statement that this is the most powerful magic item in the game". Please don't lie about what I've said.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 12, 2008)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the direction the arrows are coming from give a pretty good idea where the invisible ranger is?



Yes, as determined by the stealth check that you must make.  If you wish to attack and remain hidden you must make a stealth attack.  If you succeed then you are hidden from the target and you have combat advantage against that target.  If you fail then you are not hidden from the target and you dont have combat advantage.  In addition, if you fail while invisible (or fail while having superior cover, same difference) the target knows which direction you are in as well a a general distance.  If you fail your stealth check by 10 or more, then the target knows exactly where you are.

EDIT:  Except for the fact that you retain CA against an enemy that cant see you.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Here, I'll spell it out for you in little baby words:
> 
> Cloak of Invisibility is invisibility _*THAT HAS NO RESTRICTIONS*_. Nothing can drop you from the invisibility against 90% of the monsters in the MM except the passage of time. It is impossible for them to pinpoint your position, so they cannot effectively use either of the two "end clauses" on the invisibility. Every other invisibility effect in the game has an effective "end clause": attacking, moving, moving more than 2 squares, attacking with a non-at-will power, or at the start/end of your next turn.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  I did forget your original post had a ? beside it. But you've also been 'challenging' everyone to prove you wrong as well as anyone who disagrees with you, making your "I think so" at the end of your original post more like an "It is".

But again, *you* haven't answered how this item is so fantabulous for anybody *without* a screaming high stealth bonus.  I'll give you that it's a great item for Rogues and Rangers.  

But, being hit via Melee or Ranged *ends* the cloak's invisibility.  So how's the cloak an awesome item for Fighters?  Clerics?  Wizards?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> But again, *you* haven't answered how this item is so fantabulous for anybody *without* a screaming high stealth bonus.




Yes, I have. Any character in the game can give up two of their many, many feats (which everyone has been complaining they can't find enough uses for anyway) to get +23 Stealth without even a positive Dexterity score. +23 is enough to reliably pull the wool over the eyes of just about any creature _except_ Orcus.

I've already said that before in the thread. Multiple times, in fact. +20 Stealth is just skill training and level bonus. That's it. +20 Perception is very nearly the highest of any monster in the entire MM. Toss anything extra on top of Skill Training and you can do pretty much whatever you want with the vast majority of the MM. A +29 is as simple as skill training, skill focus, and a +6 item bonus (and there are several ways to get that), and that even beats Orcus's perception!


----------



## Bront (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Yes, I have. Any character in the game can give up two of their many, many feats (which everyone has been complaining they can't find enough uses for anyway) to get +23 Stealth without even a positive Dexterity score. +23 is enough to reliably pull the wool over the eyes of just about any creature _except_ Orcus.
> 
> I've already said that before in the thread. Multiple times, in fact. +20 Stealth is just skill training and level bonus. That's it. +20 Perception is very nearly the highest of any monster in the entire MM. Toss anything extra on top of Skill Training and you can do pretty much whatever you want with the vast majority of the MM. A +29 is as simple as skill training, skill focus, and a +6 item bonus (and there are several ways to get that), and that even beats Orcus's perception!



That still specifically requires 2 feats in order to maximize the potential of the item.  Also, such characters wouldn't be able to move far without making themselves potentially much easier to spot.  

Also, you are taking the planing of the GM out of the equation.  Invisi-ranger is a one trick pony, and it's not likely a GM would simply let something like that go encountered for any important encounter.

In the Orcus example, why doesn't Orcus simply run, eventually forcing Invisi-Ranger to run, till he locates Invisi-ranger due to his running, which allows him to blast the area he's in?  Wash, rinse, repeat, and the ranger runs out of HP or invisibility before Orcus is dead.

In a vacuum, where foes square off till they're dead, it may look superior, but that's not what actually happens during the course of play.

Besides that, you're saying that said item is the best item in the game for a character designed to use it.  I'm sure there are other items that are equality powerful in the hands of a character specifically designed to use it.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Bront said:
			
		

> Invisi-ranger is a one trick pony



You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Remove the cloak and Invisi-Ranger is still an absolutely 100% viable character.

You've also - again - not addressed the actual point of my post, instead focusing on the intentionally hyperbolic Orcus example.

Orcus does not matter.

Compare the Cloak to any other item of its slot. It is clearly superior, even though it is priced as a middle of the road item.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 12, 2008)

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> My only problem with these types of "exercises" is that they are so damn subjective.  In a real game, this just wouldn't be a problem.




Thank you for the victory of common sense.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

I'm getting a headache from it, so from this point on:

Orcus is no longer a part of this thread. Orcus does not matter. Orcus was a sidenote that grew out of hand, and even though it did a perfectly fine job of proving my point about the item, people insist on making the thread about Orcus instead of discussing the item itself.

I will no longer respond to Orcus. Orcus is dead to me. Dead!

I will only discuss the Cloak of Invisibility in this thread.

By the way, I'm *still* waiting for someone claiming the Cloak of Invisibility isn't all that to compare it to the Cloak of Invulnerability.


----------



## skullking (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Second Wind is only available to Player Characters unless otherwise noted in the monster/NPC statblock (p291, PHB). Orcus does not have such a notation.




Well I don't have the books yet thanks to Amazon.co.uk 

But then again if they allow a level 33 solo to be killed by a single level 30 character due to a single item the rules are probably not woth buying.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 12, 2008)

I agree with you that Orcus isn't what people should be focusing on (switch out Orcus for a proper level foe and you still have that problem)

However, the problem I think isn't actually the cloak which _IS_ a strong item but Divine Regeneration (this is the 2nd combo-trick I've seen that hangs on Divine Regeneration).

re: Invulnerability vs Invisibility
That's actually an easy comparison. As you pointed out yourself, the stealthiest of the stealth get crazy good with the invisibility cloak however, the benefit _IS_ tied very strongly to optimization (Maxxed out dex, skill training + skill focus, + racial beanie).

Whereas the invulnerability scarab works irrespective of the build of the character. 

Again, this is similar to the problem with blade cascade as others pointed out that if you allow a power to be min-maxxed, the optimizers will break it and trying to nerf if will make it an useless item for the non-optimizers.

Not sure what the solution is....


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

No, the greatness of the Cloak of Invisibility is that you DON'T have to have maxed out everything to use it well. Just Skill Training will make your Stealth equal the Perception of all but a bare handful of monsters. You don't really NEED to add anything else to it - and how many characters put an 8 in Dex at character creation, anyway? Anyone else will have at least a +1 on top of Skill Training by the time they can find a Cloak of Invis.

Also, Divine Regen has nothing to do with it. Invisi-Ranger could do everything he can do without it, including killing any monster in the book that doesn't have blindsight, tremorsense, or truesight. Don't forget he has a second wind, mass cure light wounds, healing word, and divine recovery. He effectively has over 400 hit points.


----------



## Lore Raithbone (Jun 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Also, Divine Regen has nothing to do with it. Invisi-Ranger could do everything he can do without it, including killing any monster in the book that doesn't have blindsight, tremorsense, or truesight. Don't forget he has a second wind, mass cure light wounds, healing word, and divine recovery. He effectively has over 400 hit points.




orcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcusorcus

Okay, thats out of the way; I completely agree with you.  You can still use stealth (and your daily powers) to hide from Orcus/other enemies as normal.  However, with a modest investment in Stealth, which is not a bad idea in general, the cloak is simply too good. Unless a monster has some way to defeat invisibility, with this cloak any ranged attacker becomes (for an encounter) effectively immune to their attacks.

Even high level Defenders would want this item, as a Paladin or Fighter you can't see marking you is terribly powerful (again, they have to invest 2 feats into stealth).  Scale fighter with a light shield, heavy blade, the heavy blade opportunity feat, and this cloak makes for a nasty, nasty combo.  There are plenty of Paladin powers that go off when a marked foe decides to attack someone else too (though the Paladin must end every round adjacent to the target, so to be honest its better for the Fighter).

The real nasty thing would be if everyone in the party took this as their neck slot item, and honestly there is no reason not too.  When you absolutely, positively need to win an encounter, its just a monumentally better tactic and item to have than anything else.

The problem is, as a DM it would never become an issue, but then again I can fix any problem power in the game... its just so good I don't even really know how to fix it while maintaining a good power-parity.  Make it "if you take any damage"?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Lore Raithbone said:
			
		

> The problem is, as a DM it would never become an issue, but then again I can fix any problem power in the game... its just so good I don't even really know how to fix it while maintaining a good power-parity.  Make it "if you take any damage"?



My suggested fix, a couple pages back, was "You become invisible until the end of the encounter or until you are hit by an attack". You can still dance through auras that way, but any attack will break the effect, and there are few epic-tier encounters that don't have at least one AOE monster. It becomes a good choice, but not a no-brainer.


----------



## drquestion (Jun 12, 2008)

I'm still just not seeing how this is overpowered.  You're focusing on what the cloak does - 1/day, if you're maxed for stealth, you'll probably be invisible and undetected the whole encounter.  

That's fine.  That's what the cloak is meant to do - I agree with your interpretation of that.  Rather than thinking about this as the ranger solo (which is not going to be the case in most campaigns), think about what happens in the context of a group.

Being invisible adds a little to his expected damage output - because he's got combat advantage all the time - but a +2 to hit for the encounter certainly isn't going to make a drastic change, especially at epic levels.

So, what's left is that the ranger is more or less impossible to target with melee or ranged attacks (he still might end up getting caught in a burst or blast if he's not careful, or he's fighting in a small area).  

As someone pointed out earlier, the primary effect of this is to shunt any damage he might have taken onto the rest of the party.  It's not as if the monsters who might have attacked him earlier are just going to stand around if they can't find him - they'll try to kill his friends, then worry about him later.

And the ranger can do this 1/day.  I just don't think it's going to be a problem for a typical campaign.  Maybe in some kind of corner case where everyone is built like this, but that seems pretty unlikely.

Divine regeneration is much, much worse than this, because the character is not only close to invulnerable (it's really hard for enemies to dish out more than 30 damage per round on a sustained basis), he's also soaking up damage that would have otherwise hit the rest of the party, which the invisible guy is not.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 12, 2008)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but according to my reading of RAW, a character who attacks is no longer considered hidden (pg 188, under the success condition of stealth).  

I see nothing to negate this on pg 281 (which seems, to me at least, to relate to targeting invisible creatures outside of them communicating their position, and is also relevant to attacking creatures because they auto-stealth at the end of their turn).  

Thus, I would say that as soon as the invisible character attacks, creatures know which square it made the attack from (though it retains Total Concealment, and would get the automatic Stealth check at the end of it's turn to become hidden again).  

It could certainly move after the attack, but it will only get so far, significantly increasing the chance that it's square will be targeted, particularly by large area effects.

Assuming for the moment that I am correct, coupled with the facts that the cloak is epic and only functions for one encounter each day, I wouldn't consider it overpowered.  The Scarab of Invulnerability is certainly useful in it's own right.

I could only see the cloak being too good if everyone had one and the DM consistently allowed the players to have only one encounter each day (but at that point much of 4e's balance goes straight out the window).

I suspect that it is Divine Regeneration that is too strong.  Regen 30 for an entire encounter is, IMO, too good.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 12, 2008)

Invisible creatures are not hidden. The rules are very, very clear that invisibility offers two things:

Total Concealment from creatures that cannot see you (truesight).
A Stealth vs Passive Perception check to be completely undetected.

Creatures can choose to make active Perception checks to detect you if they have reason to. Being attacked would be a reason. Seeing the character go invisible would be a reason.

Note that there's nothing at all in the Invisible description or in the Targeting Creatures You Can't See sidebar that references being hidden.


So, yes, you're right that, RAW, attacking removes the Hidden condition.
You're wrong in that the Hidden condition has absolutely nothing to do with the Invisible condition.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 12, 2008)

Not adding much to this interesting thread, but tbh, I'm totally down with this. If someone builds their character that way and the DM chooses to let them get this item, then, cool, I guess.


----------



## Destil (Jun 13, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> and how many characters put an 8 in Dex at character creation, anyway?



A) Fighters, Rangers (Two-Weapon Str & Con based), Wizards, Warlords, Warlocks, Clerics and Paladins are all rather viable for 8 Dex. Meaning 10 at Epic.
B) Armor Check. Plenty of people will not be starting at +0
C) There's enough feats that skill training can not be a given.
D) You need way more than skill training. The other stealth related feats take out huge penalties and let you move fast. Strip all of those, and the ranger stealth / mobility powers, and pinpointing your guy is a lot easier.
E) Melee types don't get much out of this. That many fewer squares to hide in.
F) Allow me to introduce Aid Another. Something that's *actually* broken. Minions were built for this. He may not be part of the problem, but Orcus' allies can all use Aid Another every round. Automatic +20 right there.
G) Active perception check is a standard action. How often the opposed roll happens is still up in the air per the RAW... but the baddie could be getting twice as many rolls depending on how you read those rules. 
H) I also agree with the assertion that Divine Regeneration is part of the problem. Let's see this without demigod.... (which is another +1 for the Dex bump)
I) Also, not everyone wants to wear armor that can have Stealth bonuses on it... how many resources have you allocated to stealth here, total?

So, all in all it's an excelent item for a stealthy PC. And not so good for many many others.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 13, 2008)

Destil said:
			
		

> A) Fighters, Rangers (Two-Weapon Str & Con based), Wizards, Warlords, Warlocks, Clerics and Paladins are all rather viable for 8 Dex. Meaning 10 at Epic.



Wizards, Warlords, and Warlocks I'll give you. They have a use for Intelligence. No one else is going to dump Dex when they could dump Int instead. Dex is unquestionably a better stat than Int. It does everything Int does AND adds to Initiative (except for skills, where it doesn't really matter if you're deciding which to dump - it's going to be a difference of +1 at most). You'll see far, far more stupid characters than clumsy ones.


> D) You need way more than skill training. The other stealth related feats take out huge penalties and let you move fast.



What "other stealth related feats"? The only one is Secret Stride. 







> Strip all of those, and the ranger stealth / mobility powers, and pinpointing your guy is a lot easier.



What Ranger stealth/mobility powers? Invisi-Ranger doesn't use any of them. He doesn't need to, thanks to the Cloak.


> H) I also agree with the assertion that Divine Regeneration is part of the problem. Let's see this without demigod.... (which is another +1 for the Dex bump)



I already showed the math without Divine Regeneration. I-R has over 400 effective hit points and orcus only deals about 320 before he keels over if he's in range of I-R every single round of the fight.


> how many resources have you allocated to stealth here, total?



A skill choice, two feats out of nineteen (neither of which is strictly necessary), and one magic item out of 11 (which also provides a bonus to Athletics, btw).

For the ability to be unkillable for one encounter per day, that's pretty cheap.


----------



## Tharizdun (Jun 13, 2008)

I've read this thread with much interest, and after perusing the books I came to the conclusion that the cloak is not overpowerd.
A good Dm knows what his players are up to, and in this case he would have 30 levels of experience.
By the time the PC was 30th level, I'm sure a ritual like "invisibility purge" could be used by Orcus and his henchmen. Or one of Orcus' party or even Orcus himself can be given a ring of true sight (see DM Toolbox, monsters can be given magic to use, take a few HP, to hit/AC away from Orcus, give him magic instead). If the PC's beat Orcus, fine, their Campaign is over so who cares that they get the item. If not, well, maybe the next generation of PCs will find a different method to kill big old O.

Don't see Orcus as a bunch of stats, he's level 33 and as a big gun, he's used to getting attacked by wannabe's who want to make a name for themselves.

As a DM, I would see if the ranger abused his invisibility. if not, let him kill O (and O kill his party). If he did, I'd throw the ring of true sight/ invisibility purge ritual scheme at him.

I think that changing the rules outright (without trying to beat the Player at his own game with the game) to prevent the PC using the cloak is a sign of weakness, and not the kind of DM I'd have at the helm of my adventuring life.


----------



## mrfarenheid (Jun 13, 2008)

I joined enworld because this really annoyed me... what all you are thinking is that Orcus is some sort of PC enemy boss with an script behind him and not a smart DM using it.

I hope this thread's creator to be beaten by that DM


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm a little confused on how invis-ranger gets a 30 dex?  Can someone explain? And the 26 Wis?


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

mrfarenheid said:
			
		

> I joined enworld because this really annoyed me... what all you are thinking is that Orcus is some sort of PC enemy boss with an script behind him and not a smart DM using it.
> 
> I hope this thread's creator to be beaten by that DM




Seriously, there are ways around invisibility.  When you attack aren't you no longer "hidden"?  Even if you are invisibile to sight, you are not stealthed at that point.  During that time anyone knows what square you are standing in.  Couldn't orcus or whoever, Meepo at that point just use a held action to attack at -5 and blow the invis before the end of the rangers round when he gets to re-stealth?

This is not broken at all and requires no rules adjustments from what I can tell.


----------



## Destil (Jun 13, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Wizards, Warlords, and Warlocks I'll give you. They have a use for Intelligence. No one else is going to dump Dex when they could dump Int instead. Dex is unquestionably a better stat than Int. It does everything Int does AND adds to Initiative (except for skills, where it doesn't really matter if you're deciding which to dump - it's going to be a difference of +1 at most). You'll see far, far more stupid characters than clumsy ones.



Wizard, Warlock and Warlord multiclass feats all have some appeal. And we're looking at +1 Dex. Everyone who thinks Dex for initiatives is a non-choice hasn't thought about Knowledge (Monsters), Ritual Casting and the average length of a 4E encounter (init just isn't that big, and one feat with no prerequisite fixes the problem if you care that much).

I'll give you the other two points you brought up (though +stealth armor is really not a given, can't get that in Godplate)... so what about the other 6?


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused on how invis-ranger gets a 30 dex?  Can someone explain? And the 26 Wis?




Is it bad etiquette to quote yourself?  Anyhoo, was wondering if the OP could answer this as well as respond to how his invisi-ranger attack plans survive a simple held action on the part of whoever invisi-ranger is fighting?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused on how invis-ranger gets a 30 dex?  Can someone explain? And the 26 Wis?



His starting stats (pre-race) are 10 str, 11 con, 18 dex, 10 int, 14 wis, 8 cha. After racial stats, that's 20 dex and 16 wis. He puts +1 in both stats at every 4 and 8 level, and +1 in all stats at 11 and 21. In addition, at level 21, his Demigod status gives him the special trait Divine Spark, which is +2 to 2 stats. 20 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 30. Similarly with 16 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 26.







> Seriously, there are ways around invisibility. When you attack aren't you no longer "hidden"? Even if you are invisibile to sight, you are not stealthed at that point. During that time anyone knows what square you are standing in. Couldn't orcus or whoever, Meepo at that point just use a held action to attack at -5 and blow the invis before the end of the rangers round when he gets to re-stealth?
> 
> This is not broken at all and requires no rules adjustments from what I can tell.



I already covered this earlier in the thread. Invisibility has nothing to do with being "hidden". The only way to detect an invisible creatures/character is to succeed on a Perception vs Stealth check. Attacking does not reveal an invisible creature/character unless the power text says otherwise. Attacking does not make the invisible creature auto-fail its Perception vs Stealth check unless you're using a house rule.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> His starting stats (pre-race) are 10 str, 11 con, 18 dex, 10 int, 14 wis, 8 cha. After racial stats, that's 20 dex and 16 wis. He puts +1 in both stats at every 4 and 8 level, and +1 in all stats at 11 and 21. In addition, at level 21, his Demigod status gives him the special trait Divine Spark, which is +2 to 2 stats. 20 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 30. Similarly with 16 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 26.I already covered this earlier in the thread. Invisibility has nothing to do with being "hidden". The only way to detect an invisible creatures/character is to succeed on a Perception vs Stealth check. Attacking does not reveal an invisible creature/character unless the power text says otherwise. Attacking does not make the invisible creature auto-fail its Perception vs Stealth check unless you're using a house rule.




Invisibility may not have anything to do with being hidden, but any use of the stealth skill does.  It is the only thing the stealth skill is for in fact, to remain hidden.  In fact the rules under stealth for superior cover or total concealment exactly match what is written under using stealth while invisible.  However, under stealth it also clearly states some actions that cause you to be not hidden.  When this happens the enemy can locate you if they can see or hear you.  Obviously if you are invisible, they can't see you.  But you are not silenced and they know where you are until you can do something to re-stealth.


----------



## Ciaran (Jun 13, 2008)

Destil said:
			
		

> F) Allow me to introduce Aid Another. Something that's *actually* broken. Minions were built for this. He may not be part of the problem, but Orcus' allies can all use Aid Another every round. Automatic +20 right there.



Zurai, you didn't respond to this one.  Is Destil incorrect about this being a viable counter to the Cloak?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> Invisibility may not have anything to do with being hidden, but any use of the stealth skill does.  It is the only thing the stealth skill is for in fact, to remain hidden.  In fact the rules under stealth for superior cover or total concealment exactly match what is written under using stealth while invisible.  However, under stealth it also clearly states some actions that cause you to be not hidden.  When this happens the enemy can locate you if they can see or hear you.  Obviously if you are invisible, they can't see you.  But you are not silenced and they know where you are until you can do something to re-stealth.



Incorrect. The rules for Invisible creatures are separate from the rules for creatures using Stealth to hide. If they wanted all of the same conditions to apply, they would have just said "Because an Invisible creature has total concealment, it may use the Stealth skill even if it doesn't have cover or concealment otherwise" (or something similar). Instead, they give a third of a page to explain how Invisibility works. In actuality, there are a lot of changes to the rules for invisible creatures. It's only a minor action to actively search for them, you don't have any idea of the distance to them unless you beat their check by 10, you can never target them directly, and attacking doesn't automatically unstealth them.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 13, 2008)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> Zurai, you didn't respond to this one.  Is Destil incorrect about this being a viable counter to the Cloak?



It is in a solo situation, assuming Invisi-Ranger doesn't just pop all the minions in two rounds of attacks from 45 squares out. In a situation where the entire group, or even a significant portion of the group, is using their Cloaks, it's really not a counter at all.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm sure if I had a chance to study the books I could see where the invisibility could be overcome. . . but its really a moot point.

As others have mentioned, this will be a solo encounter because Orcus will kill the rest of the party.  If for some reason he is unable to effectively combat the ranger at that point (which I find unlikely), he will simply leave until he can arrange a battle more tactically advantageous for himself.

That's going to be true of any powerful intelligent monster - ESPECIALLY one as smart as Orcus.

The whole "ranger can solo orcus" thing is theorycrafting that has little to nothing to do with actual gameplay.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 14, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Incorrect. The rules for Invisible creatures are separate from the rules for creatures using Stealth to hide. If they wanted all of the same conditions to apply, they would have just said "Because an Invisible creature has total concealment, it may use the Stealth skill even if it doesn't have cover or concealment otherwise" (or something similar). Instead, they give a third of a page to explain how Invisibility works. In actuality, there are a lot of changes to the rules for invisible creatures. It's only a minor action to actively search for them, you don't have any idea of the distance to them unless you beat their check by 10, you can never target them directly, and attacking doesn't automatically unstealth them.




Well just about everything you said there was blatantly incorrect.  The first line in the second paragraph on page 280 of the PHB where it describes "how to target what you can't see" says in bold letters *Invisible creature uses Stealth*.  Sounds like they are using stealth there, a skill that has a very specific description.  That little subsection does not say anything whatsover about having special rules as it is simply restating a portion of the stealth skill description having to do with creatures with total concealment.   Are you implying that that little blurb is the ONLY way to target an invisible creature?  I don't see anything on page 280 that mentions tremorsense?  Yet apparently that works.  Of course it does.

In order for a creature to be unable to target you it must be unable to see and hear you.  Invisibility takes care of the see part but Stealth, the skill, takes care of them hearing you.  If you stand there and shout, they will know what square you are in, it does not even take a perception roll. Or since that isn't mentioned on page 280 is that not the case?

And the "Rules for Invisible Creatures" you seem to mention as being a separate set of guidelines do not exist.  It does in fact state that all invisibility is is just another example of total concealment.  There are no separate rules for being invisible that fall outside the guidelines of full concealment.  There are 3 effects listed under invisible though: 1) You can't be seen by normal forms of vision, 2) you have combat advantage against an enemy that can't see you (which is different than mere stealth, but that's another thread), and 3) You don't provoke OA from enemies that can't see you.  That's it.  If you want to not be heard, its a stealth vs perception check using full concealment guidelines that's it.  And it clearly states that attacking or shouting negates any stealth effects.

Peace!  I'm out.......


----------



## Zurai (Jun 14, 2008)

otterscrubber said:
			
		

> The first line in the second paragraph on page 280 of the PHB where it describes "how to target what you can't see" says in bold letters Invisible creature uses Stealth. Sounds like they are using stealth there, a skill that has a very specific description. That little subsection does not say anything whatsover about having special rules as it is simply restating a portion of the stealth skill description having to do with creatures with total concealment.



It's an additional use of the Stealth skill that can only be used in special circumstances (namely, while invisible or otherwise unable to be seen). The rules in the sidebar *are not* identical to the rules in the Stealth skill sidebar in the Skills section. I've already pointed out the differences, which you choose to ignore while erroneously stating that they're identical. By the way, it's page 281.







> Are you implying that that little blurb is the ONLY way to target an invisible creature?  I don't see anything on page 280 that mentions tremorsense?  Yet apparently that works.  Of course it does.



Of course it does - Termorsense specifically says it does. "You can perceive creatures ... touching the ground or another shared surface ... without needing to make a Perception check". Similarly, Truesight says "Automatically sees through Illusions within line of sight".

Tremorsense and Truesight are exceptions to the rules. I was going to say Blindsight as well, but actually that's not true: It specifically says "making Perception checks as normal", which means the Tarrasque also falls to a Cloak of Invisibility.







> In order for a creature to be unable to target you it must be unable to see and hear you.



Can you please cite the source for this? As far as I know, only creatures with Blindsight can target by sound rather than sight.


----------



## gnfnrf (Jun 14, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Tremorsense and Truesight are exceptions to the rules. I was going to say Blindsight as well, but actually that's not true: It specifically says "making Perception checks as normal", which means the Tarrasque also falls to a Cloak of Invisibility.




I'm not sure where you are quoting from, but DMG p. 67 is pretty clear that blindsight ignores invisibility.

Also, I see no indication that invisibility hides the physical effects of your attacks (such as bolts of energy from a wizard, or arrows from a ranger.)  You can't be seen, but your attacks still can.  Granted, there are no specific rules to determine the location of an archer from the angle of an arrow, but that is what the DM is for.

Lastly, a creature can physically search the battlefield by moving around.  It cannot enter the invisiranger's square, so when it fails to move, it knows where the ranger is (or nearly so, depending on its size).

As for the comparison between the cloak and the scarab of invulnerability:

For solo adventuring, the cloak is much better.  For a party, the scarab is.  Rather than just removing one character from the target list (and providing a minor offensive advantage), the scarab actually lowers the total damage output of the bad guys, making it more likely that the part will win.  Magic item levels, of course, are based on their usefulness to a party, not a single adventurer.

---
gnfnrf


----------



## Liebot (Jun 14, 2008)

Why does this conversation even need to take place?  Any DM worth his or her salt isn't going to allow a PC to be permanently invisible with no repercussion.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 14, 2008)

Liebot said:
			
		

> Why does this conversation even need to take place?  Any DM worth his or her salt isn't going to allow a PC to be permanently invisible with no repercussion.



1. It's not permanent. It lasts for one encounter, 5 minutes, or until struck by a targeted attack.
2. It's important because DMs shouldn't have to go out of their way to counteract an overly powerful item. There shouldn't be broken items.


----------



## Liebot (Jun 14, 2008)

Oh ok, didn't see the item's details in the thread.  What are the specifics of a targeted attack?  For instance, if the invisible person is caught in an area attack, are they made visible?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 14, 2008)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you are quoting from, but DMG p. 67 is pretty clear that blindsight ignores invisibility.



I was quoting the Blindsight rules from the MM. A sidenote, but that's an annoyance I have with 4E: You have to cross-reference all 3 books manually to find the full rules for something. The PHB doesn't mention tremorsense, truesight, or blindsight as foils for invisibility. The DMG lists tremorsense and blindsight as specific foils but doesn't list truesight. The MM says that truesight and tremorsense work but blindsight just gives them a normal perception check. You can't get the whole story without looking in all three books. Grrrr.



> As for the comparison between the cloak and the scarab of invulnerability:
> 
> For solo adventuring, the cloak is much better.  For a party, the scarab is.  Rather than just removing one character from the target list (and providing a minor offensive advantage), the scarab actually lowers the total damage output of the bad guys, making it more likely that the part will win.  Magic item levels, of course, are based on their usefulness to a party, not a single adventurer.



Scarabs work for two turns - you basically have to know that the enemy is going to unleash Hell on you in the next chance it gets to attack you. Cloaks work for the entire fight. I respectfully submit that being untargetable for an entire fight is going to be more useful, on average, to either a solo character or a member of a party, than taking no damage from a single pre-determined round of attacks.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 14, 2008)

Liebot said:
			
		

> Oh ok, didn't see the item's details in the thread.  What are the specifics of a targeted attack?  For instance, if the invisible person is caught in an area attack, are they made visible?



Nope. Only attacks with a range of *melee* or *ranged* will remove the invisibility. Those attacks never include an area of effect - they always target individual creatures, objects, or squares (in the case of invisible creatures).


----------



## Liebot (Jun 14, 2008)

Hell, that does seem problematic.  It's daily though, right?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 14, 2008)

Liebot said:
			
		

> Hell, that does seem a problematic.  It's daily though, right?



Yes, it is a Daily item power.

Let's not discuss what happens when people buy multiple cloaks for their character...


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 14, 2008)

I too think that this is not a 'broken' item.. or even a broken combination. Its just what I would expect a 30th level demi-god to be capable of.

And since pretty much all the theoretical combat encounters are just that.. _theoretical_, no house rules to 'fix' this are needed.

All you need is an encounter area that has a door


----------



## Gort (Jun 14, 2008)

Zurai makes a good point in this thread, in my opinion. Just because you can wrangle some kind of, "Well, as a DM I'd never let a player get away with this!" thing doesn't invalidate the fact that the rules are unclear or need to be changed.

Players can pick this item up at level 23 as well, so it's not like it's a massively expensive or "only at level 30" item.

To be honest, I think I'd like to see the cloak errataed to be the same as other invisibility - if you attack, you become visible. In my opinion, invisibility is best balanced for scouting, surprise attacks, and retreat.

What I think happened here is that the writers simply forgot to make the same stipulations about invisibility on the cloak as they did in the other occurences of the power.


----------



## Mr Jack (Jun 14, 2008)

I do think the Cloak of Invisibility is overpowered compared to items of its level. I don't agree that it's the master stroke presented. For these reasons:

1. It doesn't make the wearer silent, thus any opponent can track the user by the sounds they make (sure, you can be stealthy to make your movement silent, but that bowstring still snaps when you loose arrows).
2. Moving more than 2 squares applies a penalty to stealth checks.
3. It doesn't make the attacks invisible, thus the opponent can see the incoming arrows and where they come from.
4. Against melee attacks they can ready an attack action against it.
5. Against intelligent opponents they can use exactly the same anti-invisibility tactics smart players might use - throwing sand, etc. - to locate the player.

Some of these are not explicitly dealt with by rules as written, but the p.42 gives suitable guidelines for setting the DCs, and high level monsters are likely to pass them.


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 14, 2008)

To get down with it:
Is the items Good?: Yes, Very Good.. Nice Item!
Is it Broken?: No, not the Least..
Is it leveled/priced inapropritately?: It seems resenable fit for its level.

Point to consider: 4e is a Team Game.. nearly seems like you cant run a proper encounter without it being a Team effort. again: TEAM TEAM TEAM TEAM. many options and realisms are removed to make it much more playable, especially for more players than 3e.

Now consider the point ---> If you try to do anything with the game thats different than the intent, of course you might end it ruin things or making them imbalanced. But for the TEAM game 4e is, the item is *nothing out of the ordinary*.. it doesn't inhance team effort in any way.
It won't ever be a problem for any game, hence its neither the best item, nor in need to be changed.

compare this to earlier discussions of "Decanter of Endless Water" from 3e. One of the coolest items to sustain a Keep... until someone said: "Ok, i flood the World, GG"


----------



## Glitch13 (Jun 14, 2008)

*Read Stealth*

I believe the focus of this argument has not been on the right point. I agree that RAW as written says that Invisibility from the Cloak is not broken when you attack, however read the entry for stealth (pg 188).

Under the success section note what it is saying: If you attack, Stealth ends. (not invisibility...stealth)

Quite simply ready an action to await the Ranger to attack, your reaction will occur right after his (presumably) standard action to attack Orcus. At this point his stealth is nothing, he has total concealment (-5, oh darn) and you can now make a perception check to find the Ranger for the noise he made. Heck I will be nice and say its a conversation level noise....not even battle (cause rangers are sneaky) so DC 10 +2 assuming the ranger is more then 10 squares away. Well my math is not full proof but I bet Orcus's passive perception allows him to notice the noise at +10 so he even knows the exact location of the noise. 

Another solution, I did not so fully consider was that Orcus has darkvision. One of my favorite new twists on Stealth is that if you have a light source you are seen automatically (nasty trick with the Wizards light cantrip - the new faerie fire). So Orcus puts the lights out and now its Invisibility for everyone. I would assume though, it would be possible to tweak Mr. Ranger to get him some Darkvision, but hey it's another RAW option.

I still like Mr. Invisi-Ranger's build though.


----------

