Detecting invisible objects.

[AxeMental]

In our game last night there was a large invisible object (a chest) on the ground in front of one of the PCs. The character wanted to cover the chest in his cloak (or perhaps debris from the ground) to get a visual of the objects dimensions. I didn't allow this to work; my impression is that anything thrown on the invisible object (using the 1st level MU spell as a guide -which states gear worn by the recipient turns invisible as well) would also turn invisible. The player sited popular books and movies that would suggest his attempts should work. My objection was that invisible objects in a dungeon would collect dust and become visible over time, if what he suggested was the case. All that said, I didn't actually have any evidence one way or another. Curious how you would handle this (based on your btb understanding, or examples in modules). Thanks, and if this topic has come up in the past please post link (I have some recollection of a discussion on this, but not sure when and where).

PS BTB can the 2nd level MU spell be used to make inanimate objects invisible (ie. that are not in some way alive/undead (ie. a chest, a sword etc.).

The spell only mentions it being casted on a "recipient" and then discusses worn equipment also turning invisible (it doesn't specifically say it can't be an inanimate object, but this may have been assumed by Gygax and not worth mentioning). Webster's defines recipient as: "a person who receives something", Google's dictionary definition: "a person or thing that receives or is awarded something". The later suggests a chest or sword (a thing) could be a recipient I suppose.

[Juju EyeBall]

I would have allowed it instead of making them waste a bunch of time figuring out how to do it.

[TRP]

Dust gathering on invisible objects may be something I should consider in the future. The dust would be obvious under continual light, fairly noticeable under lantern light or a light spell, and it would be barely noticeable with a torch (akin to finding a secret door).

I would allow the cloak trick to work.

[Flambeaux]

Dust gathering on invisible objects may be something I should consider in the future. The dust would be obvious under continual light, fairly noticeable under lantern light or a light spell, and it would be barely noticeable with a torch (akin to finding a secret door).

I would allow the cloak trick to work.

I'm of the same opinion.

[T. Foster]

There's a potential disconnect between invisibility caused by the Invisibility spell (and/or a Ring of Invisibility, which IIRC works the same way) and by some other means. The spell (as you point out) only affects creatures, and extends to their clothing and possessions as well as their bodies, so if a creature under an Invisibility spell picks up an object the object disappears, if a cloak is draped over the creature it disappears, etc. But if an inanimate object is invisible it's not because of that spell (IIRC Dust of Disappearance is the only thing in the rulebooks that explicitly can make an inanimate object invisible, though some other high-level spells could presumably also achieve the effect) so the same rules don't necessarily apply and it's a pure judgment call on your part whether you want it to function like the spell, like the psionic discipline, like Dust of Disappearance, like a Cloak of Elvenkind, or some other way.

[EOTB]

I would let the cloak stratagem work.

As for dust, etc., it comes down to game play. In my mind, this kind of realism is hand-waived away unless explicitly described as a local condition.

[Chainsaw]

I would let the cloak stratagem work.

As for dust, etc., it comes down to game play. In my mind, this kind of realism is hand-waived away unless explicitly described as a local condition.

Same here.