Talk:See invisible - Revision history

Qazmlpok: /* Confusing sentence */

2016-01-13T04:05:38Z

‎Confusing sentence

Train: /* Confusing sentence */ new section

2015-04-11T09:19:03Z

‎Confusing sentence: new section

Qazmlpok at 16:32, 13 August 2011

2011-08-13T16:32:05Z

Tjr: Created page with "==SLASHEM== Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --~~~~"

2011-08-13T15:41:02Z

Created page with "==SLASHEM== Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --~~~~"

New page

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 13 January 2016
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:"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."		:"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?__[[User:Train\|Train]] ([[User talk:Train\|talk]]) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)		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?__[[User:Train\|Train]] ([[User talk:Train\|talk]]) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
		+	::Late response, but yes. There are situations where temporary see-invisible is worse than no see invisible. Say you have a pet [[Titan]] from a polymorph trap. You go to drink-test potions and drink an uncursed potion of see invisible. Your titan will happily cast invisible now that you can see it. When the potion effects wear off, you will still have a titan that you can't see. Quest friendlies are another potential issue, as some of them are spellcasters as well and will turn invisible as well, and accidentally attacking them is very bad. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] ([[User talk:Qazmlpok\|talk]]) 04:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 11 April 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)		Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --[[User:Tjr\|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. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 16:32, 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. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|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?__[[User:Train\|Train]] ([[User talk:Train\|talk]]) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 13 August 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==SLASHEM==		==SLASHEM==
	Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)		Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --[[User:Tjr\|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. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)