Talk:See invisible

SLASHEM

Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --Tjr 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just invisible items, pixies are extremely brutal if you lack both see invisible and telepathy, and with intrinsic telepathy but no see invisible it'll likely still get at least one theft in before you even know it exists. There's also star vampires, which are always invisible, but they appear late enough that you should have see invisible by then. And invisible items are still somewhat of a nuisance; while I was doing some SLASH'EM testing in explorer mode I used the starting wand of wishing to wish for a scroll of charging. It was invisible and thus couldn't be read. -- Qazmlpok 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"One possible negative side-effect of only seeing invisible temporarily is that peaceful monsters might make themselves invisible (since you can then still see them), but once you can't see them anymore (e.g., by removing the ring of see invisible), they stay invisible. Running into them will then anger them, which might end in a quick death."

It's true that temporary see invisible is temporary, but wouldn't it be more to the point to say "One possible negative side-effect of not seeing invisible at all etc."? It seems that whoever wrote this tried to say that temporary see invisible is sometimes worse than no see invisible, which is silly. Or am I missing something?__Train (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)