|
I've got a L11 loremaster in my game who has put a permanent arcane sight on himself. The spell says that the target's eyes glow blue. So when the spellcaster goes invisible, the blue glow is still visible when the caster's eyes are open, right?
How can that glow be hidden? Would it require a custom pair of goggles?
This player wanted his PC to use prestidigitation to "change the color of his eyes" and I told him that they're no longer blue -- now their green. But their still glowing. ;)
I told him we'd let it go for right now (he could hide the glow) and I'd post here to see what the collective wisdom of the Internet says. I figure there are enough of you using Aid Another that I should get a pretty good answer. So who's going to make the roll and who's going to be aiding? ;)
I've got a L11 loremaster in my game who has put a permanent arcane sight on himself. The spell says that the target's eyes glow blue. So when the spellcaster goes invisible, the blue glow is still visible when the caster's eyes are open, right?
No the glow is NOT visible while the character is invisible. Just like a person holding a torch who then becomes invisible does not have a flame floating around visible for everyone to see. The person, everything they wear, everything on them and that they hold cannot be seen. Hence the glow from their eyes cannot be seen.
Visible spell effects on a person become invisible when that person does. So an invisible person covered with stone skin for example is still totally invisible. An invisible person with an active Fire Shield spell is also totally still invisible and so on.
That is the whole entire POINT of invisibility, in that it makes you not able to be seen. It would be a useless spell otherswise.
Making a spell permanent has a cost in game that the character needs to pay to make it happen. Why should there also be penalties that are not already worked into the spells?
|
I've got a L11 loremaster in my game who has put a permanent arcane sight on himself. The spell says that the target's eyes glow blue. So when the spellcaster goes invisible, the blue glow is still visible when the caster's eyes are open, right?
How can that glow be hidden? Would it require a custom pair of goggles?
This player wanted his PC to use prestidigitation to "change the color of his eyes" and I told him that they're no longer blue -- now their green. But their still glowing. ;)
I told him we'd let it go for right now (he could hide the glow) and I'd post here to see what the collective wisdom of the Internet says. I figure there are enough of you using Aid Another that I should get a pretty good answer. So who's going to make the roll and who's going to be aiding? ;)
Maybe it's just my total hatred of casters who use this spell to defeat any and all attempts at concealment, but I would force him to live with the glow until he spends extra magic on a glamor or something to conceal it. Invisibility would work because it's the sort of illusion magic required to hide the glow, but wouldn't it be a pain if some evil caster who'd also given himself a permanent arcane sight saw him anyway?
I've got a L11 loremaster in my game who has put a permanent arcane sight on himself. The spell says that the target's eyes glow blue. So when the spellcaster goes invisible, the blue glow is still visible when the caster's eyes are open, right?No the glow is NOT visible while the character is invisible. Just like a person holding a torch who then becomes invisible does not have a flame floating around visible for everyone to see. The person, everything they wear, everything on them and that they hold cannot be seen. Hence the glow from their eyes cannot be seen.
Visible spell effects on a person become invisible when that person does. So an invisible person covered with stone skin for example is still totally invisible. An invisible person with an active Fire Shield spell is also totally still invisible and so on.
That is the whole entire POINT of invisibility, in that it makes you not able to be seen. It would be a useless spell otherswise.
Making a spell permanent has a cost in game that the character needs to pay to make it happen. Why should there also be penalties that are not already worked into the spells?
I don't know if the rules still exits in Pathfinder, but in v3.5, invisibility did NOT hide light. If you were carrying a torch when you cast invisibility, you would go invisible, all your gear would disappear, and even the torch would be gone. The flame, however, would still be floating next to you.
EDIT: From the invisibility spell in Pathfinder--
"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible."
I don't know if the rules still exits in Pathfinder, but in v3.5, invisibility did NOT hide light. If you were carrying a torch when you cast invisibility, you would go invisible, all your gear would disappear, and even the torch would be gone. The flame, however, would still be floating next to you.EDIT: From the invisibility spell in Pathfinder--
"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible."
I would disagree that the flame would still be visible because the flame is just a chemical reaction so it would be hidden by invisibility.
However, I do agree that it would not hide the light being cast by the flame. In a dimly lit conditions the enemy would get a perception check to notice why that hall way is being filled with moving light.
Now the spell of arcane sight says that the eyes glow blue. Ok that is fine but it never mentions how strong a glow they are. If his glowing eyes are like headlights then the invisibility would not show immediately the source but enemies could become aware of the light being cast upon. However this also means the player can now read in the dark and wouldn't need a torch. On the other hand the glowing blue eyes might just appear like Fremen eyes from Dune. They would glow in the dark and might give their position away if trying to be stealthy but that kind of glow would not cast light nor give yourself away.
Lastly arcane sight can be used to spot invisible foes but only if they are carrying magical gear in which case the person with arcane sight would notice the aura of the magical gear and would know at least what square the invisible guy is in. Fireball spell coming online.
|
|
However, I do agree that it would not hide the light being cast by the flame. In a dimly lit conditions the enemy would get a perception check to notice why that hall way is being filled with moving light.
Yep, that's pretty obvious from the description of the invisibility spell and I wasn't confused about any of that. :)
Now the spell of arcane sight says that the eyes glow blue. Ok that is fine but it never mentions how strong a glow they are. If his glowing eyes are like headlights then the invisibility would not show immediately the source but enemies could become aware of the light being cast upon.
I don't think the glow needs to be strong at all for someone else to see it. Think of the Cheshire Cat's eyes peering out at you from nothingness. That's how I see the arcane sight working.
However this also means the player can now read in the dark and wouldn't need a torch.
I don't see any logical connection between the two. A candle can allow me to pinpoint an individual carrying said candle, but where does that imply that a single candle is enough to read by? Or that the blue glow does not, in fact, effectively blind the character as the rods in the back of their eyes can no longer absorb as much of the surrounding light! This seems particularly likely to me -- the spellcaster would be able to detect auras and such, but everything would have a washed out looked to it as though a photograph had been overexposed.
On the other hand the glowing blue eyes might just appear like Fremen eyes from Dune. They would glow in the dark and might give their position away if trying to be stealthy but that kind of glow would not cast light nor give yourself away.
This.
Lastly arcane sight can be used to spot invisible foes but only if they are carrying magical gear in which case the person with arcane sight would notice the aura of the magical gear and would know at least what square the invisible guy is in. Fireball spell coming online.
Wrong again. Sorry. :)
The spell allows the detection of magical auras, just as detect magic does (read the spell description). That means an invisible creature or object will be giving off such an aura and will thus be detectable. The creature is still invisible and still has total concealment, but it will be known that something in that area is giving off an aura of illusion magic (figment) if the spellcaster makes their Knowledge (arcana) check (and they probably will).
Actually I think that Arcane Sight only detects the magical aura of magical items and not effects from buffs.
If it could detect all magical auras then anything with a magical auras would glow.
A Paladin would glow. Clerics would glow. Some races would glow.
By that argument arcane sight used against them if they are invisible would show them a blue glowing light being or at least he silhouette of said such beings.
Now here is the where interpretation on a GM's part comes in. Permanency was a legacy spell from 2nd edition. It was also the spell used to create magical items but at a huge cost. One point of constitution drain that was permanent, ouch, but you could make one hell of a powerful magical item if you wanted to and could last the process so it was worth it sometimes.
What I am getting at is would you count the PC's eyes as magical items now? If you do then it would show up via arcane sight but if you count it still as only a constant buff then it would only be a spell buff and not show up via arcane sight.
Close your eyes.
I can't see I can't see.
Why?
Cause I gots me eyes closed.
You know you can mix lead into glass as well as darken them. So then smoky goggles would hide eyes that are not under an invisibility spell and the lead in the glass would block the vision of the arcane sight to detect glow; if the eyes are treated as magical items.
|
My take on this would be that the eyes do cast some light, not a lot, but some, so it would be very situational. Basically I would apply a penalty to stealth much like invisibility provides a bonus. The situational part would come down to ambient lighting conditions, if you were invisible in broad daylight, probably no penalty, if you were invisible in pitch black maybe a -10 penalty.
I would also have to go situational on what the effect of a successful opposed perception roll was. If the foe was expecting a sneak invisible eye, then I would allow perception to identify the square that you are in, since they are looking for environmental clues to find the sneaky-sneaky person. If they were just guards lurking about on duty, a successfully perception would make them suspicious, I would tell the character using stealth that the guards have started acting suspicious, he would then have the opportunity to take action like stand still/find cover/close his eyes/blast the guards to oblivion/use a 10ft pole to do something tricky/say "ooOOooOooOOoooO in an attempt to scare the guard/etc once he chose an action I would have the guards reroll their perception against what ever the new DC was to see if they figure out what is going on.
|
|
Actually I think that Arcane Sight only detects the magical aura of magical items and not effects from buffs.
this:
This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.
Close your eyes.
Yeah, you could just close your eyes. Arcane sight can can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it. Your eyelids are none of these, amusingly. I wonder how this caster sleeps at night. ;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless Arcane Sight says that the light emanating from the eyes is candle strength (ie. 5-ft. radius) or stronger, than no, the arcane sight spell would not be visable if the character was invisible. This also means, though, that the character cannot use the glow from his or her eyes as an emergency light source.
Plus, a permanent set of glowing eyes? Sounds like an awkward conversation starter to me, and worthy of a few pointed questions whenever the player goes someplace new...
There are always benefits, and penalties from actions that players do. It's up to us, the GMs, to remind them of that once in a while.
Actually I think that Arcane Sight only detects the magical aura of magical items and not effects from buffs.this:
This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.
OK, now you are taking my argument out of context. If you take in the fact that arcane sight sees all magical auras and sees them much better and faster than detect magic it would see the magical aura of the invisibility spell and not to mention if there is anything inherently magical they are holding or carrying. The target would still be invisible but the arcane sight person would still know where the target is.
I know a lot of GMs who would be against this.
Actually I think that Arcane Sight only detects the magical aura of magical items and not effects from buffs.this:
This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.OK, now you are taking my argument out of context. If you take in the fact that arcane sight sees all magical auras and sees them much better and faster than detect magic it would see the magical aura of the invisibility spell and not to mention if there is anything inherently magical they are holding or carrying. The target would still be invisible but the arcane sight person would still know where the target is.
I know a lot of GMs who would be against this.
Against what? A second level spell being countered, by, what, a fifth? Sixth? I'm not sure I see an issue . . . That IS how the spell works.
Against what? A second level spell being countered, by, what, a fifth? Sixth? I'm not sure I see an issue . . . That IS how the spell works.
Look I never said I was against this. In fact I am all for it. I am merely stating a fact that a lot of GMs dislike it and I have seen many arguments about this.
|
|
only says they glow blue, it doesnt say that htew glowing eyes emit a light whatsoever.
Now that's just silly. My American Collegiate dictionary (yes, I still have a dead-tree dictionary in my office!) says that the definition of glow is:
v. -
1. To shine brightly and steadily, especially without a flame.
2. To have a bright, warm color, usually reddish.
3. To have a healthful, ruddy coloration.
4. To flush; to blush.
5. To be exuberant or radiant, as with pride.
n. -
1. A light produced by a body heated to luminosity; incandescence.
2. Brilliance or warmth of color, especially redness.
3. A sensation of physical warmth.
4. A warm feeling of passion or emotion; ardor.
In the spell description, "glow" is being used as a verb so we can eliminate the noun definitions. The first verb definition actually says "brightly" and I'm okay with that, except that I would normally treat a glow as being "soft" or "subtle" instead of "bright".
Did the creators pick glow to mean a soft glow or to mean that the emanation of light was significant (as per the dictionary definition)? I guess that's up to the GM. IMC I think I'm going to use Galnorag's approach that the emitted light has a situational effect. That seems most reasonable.
And Brogue's point about not be able to turn this ability off! That's a hoot! I can just see a loremaster who has to take drugs to be able to sleep at night!
To the others who comment about being able to see all magical auras, well... duh. That's what the spell says it does! I have no problems with PCs being able to see auras from invisible creatures or objects -- the spellcaster knows that there's something invisible nearby (assuming they correctly identify the magic school, but at this level I'm thinking they will).
My issue was just that the mage cast invisibility and thought they would be visually undetectable without huge Perception checks and I think that's false. But can a spell like prestidigitation overcome this limitation by coloring the eyes or somehow masking the glow?
Note that I'm not arguing that his eyes are visible, only that the light radiating from his eyes (i.e. the glow) is visible. Can a one-hour long cantrip somehow block that in a reliable way?
|
I've got a L11 loremaster in my game who has put a permanent arcane sight on himself. The spell says that the target's eyes glow blue. So when the spellcaster goes invisible, the blue glow is still visible when the caster's eyes are open, right?
How can that glow be hidden? Would it require a custom pair of goggles?
This player wanted his PC to use prestidigitation to "change the color of his eyes" and I told him that they're no longer blue -- now their green. But their still glowing. ;)
I told him we'd let it go for right now (he could hide the glow) and I'd post here to see what the collective wisdom of the Internet says. I figure there are enough of you using Aid Another that I should get a pretty good answer. So who's going to make the roll and who's going to be aiding? ;)
I would honestly rule as a GM that the glow is purely cosmetic and doesn't negatively impact him. In the case of pitch black, a pair of darkened goggles would get the job done.
Realistic reference on stealth from my military training. I remember my instructor telling me on a clear night a single match flame can be seen on a clear night from over a mile away.
only says they glow blue, it doesnt say that htew glowing eyes emit a light whatsoever.Now that's just silly. My American Collegiate dictionary (yes, I still have a dead-tree dictionary in my office!) says that the definition of glow is:
v. -
1. To shine brightly and steadily, especially without a flame.
2. To have a bright, warm color, usually reddish.
3. To have a healthful, ruddy coloration.
4. To flush; to blush.
5. To be exuberant or radiant, as with pride.n. -
1. A light produced by a body heated to luminosity; incandescence.
2. Brilliance or warmth of color, especially redness.
3. A sensation of physical warmth.
4. A warm feeling of passion or emotion; ardor.In the spell description, "glow" is being used as a verb so we can eliminate the noun definitions. The first verb definition actually says "brightly" and I'm okay with that, except that I would normally treat a glow as being "soft" or "subtle" instead of "bright".
Did the creators pick glow to mean a soft glow or to mean that the emanation of light was significant (as per the dictionary definition)? I guess that's up to the GM. IMC I think I'm going to use Galnorag's approach that the emitted light has a situational effect. That seems most reasonable.
And Brogue's point about not be able to turn this ability off! That's a hoot! I can just see a loremaster who has to take drugs to be able to sleep at night!
To the others who comment about being able to see all magical auras, well... duh. That's what the spell says it does! I have no problems with PCs being able to see auras from invisible creatures or objects -- the spellcaster knows that there's something invisible nearby (assuming they correctly identify the magic school, but at this level I'm thinking they will).
My issue was just that the mage cast invisibility and thought they would be visually undetectable without huge Perception checks and I think that's false. But can a spell like...
Well if you want to talk about color then yes it would effect detectability. Blue light can be seen from greater distance than red light. However, this distance would not make much of a difference in game because those distances are so great.
Changing the color of the glow wouldn't really help if we are talking about a distance less than 100 yards.
And Brogue's point about not be able to turn this ability off! That's a hoot! I can just see a loremaster who has to take drugs to be able to sleep at night!
Honestly, that was more a joke, than anything. A poke at the literal nature of the rules.
And did you really type all that out from your dead-tree when dictionary.com is only a click away? >.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the invisibility spell, the source of the light is not visible, but the light itself is. I interpret this as meaning that any change in lighting conditions (such as a torch changing the lighting from darkness to normal within 20 feet and dim another 20 feet out) still occurs, but the torch itself can't be seen at all.
Either the "glowing eyes" from arcane sight change the lighting conditions in the immediate area or they don't. Since the spell description doesn't say they do, then I assume they don't.
The eyes themselves shouldn't show up, and since the eyes themselves don't change the ambient lighting, that doesn't give away the character either.
So, as I read and understand the two spells, invisibility completely hides the mage whether or not he has arcane sight. The mage doesn't have to do anything else.
correct me if im wrong but dosent infravision give a redish glow to the eyes?
If this is the case then the entire question is moot as no race with this quality would ever go undetected in the dark.
correct me if im wrong but dosent infravision give a redish glow to the eyes?
If this is the case then the entire question is moot as no race with this quality would ever go undetected in the dark.
That's first and second edition. Infravision was abolished with the onset of third.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the spell doesn't say the light's strength (frex, a candle), the glow is just superficial and not enough to read by... basically like those full-panel glowing wristwatches.
If you're invisible, the glowing isn't visible, but the light from it is. But the light is so superficial that it's really not *illuminating* anything beyond about six inches, so unless the caster puts his face 6" from an object, observers won't be able to see the light from the glowing eyes.
Arcane sight, like detect invisibility, lets you detect the location of an invisible creature's aura, but doesn't let you attack them as if they were visible. Basically, these spells let you pinpoint the invisible creature's square (thus, you know which square to attack, but still have the 50% miss chance).
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to post, SKR. :)
As the spell doesn't say the light's strength (frex, a candle), the glow is just superficial and not enough to read by... basically like those full-panel glowing wristwatches.
Yeah, I expected that.
If you're invisible, the glowing isn't visible, but the light from it is. But the light is so superficial that it's really not *illuminating* anything beyond about six inches, so unless the caster puts his face 6" from an object, observers won't be able to see the light from the glowing eyes.
Except in complete darkness it would be noticeable even from a distance -- where one expects to see darkness they see... something else.
Realistic reference on stealth from my military training. I remember my instructor telling me on a clear night a single match flame can be seen on a clear night from over a mile away.
I also have a military story:
<off-topic>
I got along real well with the BRM instructor, an ex-sniper ("Call me Diego", he said). He took me and two others on a nighttime "training mission" and we shot at hidden targets. He took his five shots at five different flashes of light at what seemed a million miles away (each light actually flashed twice with about a four-second gap). After he shot we walked closer and he told us that those lights represented a cigarette being puffed by a guard. When we finally stopped and took our shots the little red flashes of light seemed very close. Afterwards we investigated the targets: he had hit all five of his from 350+ yards, and none of the recruits had hit any of our targets from ~70 yards. My excuse is that it was pitch black out... ;)
</off-topic>
Arcane sight, like detect invisibility, lets you detect the location of an invisible creature's aura, but doesn't let you attack them as if they were visible. Basically, these spells let you pinpoint the invisible creature's square (thus, you know which square to attack, but still have the 50% miss chance).
Yep, as I figured. Good to have confirmation, though.
So I will play that the "blue glow" is fluff text and is negligible except in an area of complete darkness, when the glow might be enough to be noticed by an alert sentry. And the glow would be there even if the spellcaster were invisible. Although closing his eyes would be enough to turn it off -- the same way putting an invisible weapon into an invisible sheath somehow prevents it from shedding visible light!
It's all good. Thanks for the opinions everyone! :)
|
Unless Arcane Sight says that the light emanating from the eyes is candle strength (ie. 5-ft. radius) or stronger, than no, the arcane sight spell would not be visable if the character was invisible. This also means, though, that the character cannot use the glow from his or her eyes as an emergency light source.
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except in complete darkness it would be noticeable even from a distance -- where one expects to see darkness they see... something else.
Except we're in a unique situation here because we're talking about an invisible object that is giving off light; we don't really have anything in the real world that corresponds to that (even your cigarette example is a visible source giving off visible light), so we can't say whether or not such a light would be visible. The burning cigarette is visible because its light is illuminating the physical cigarette. A "sourceless" light is illuminating nothing (assuming the source, the invisible glowing eyes, isn't near enough to an object to illuminate that object). Best to hand-wave it as flavor and say it's not visible than to speculate on the unreal situation.
Except in complete darkness it would be noticeable even from a distance -- where one expects to see darkness they see... something else.Except we're in a unique situation here because we're talking about an invisible object that is giving off light; we don't really have anything in the real world that corresponds to that (even your cigarette example is a visible source giving off visible light), so we can't say whether or not such a light would be visible. The burning cigarette is visible because its light is illuminating the physical cigarette. A "sourceless" light is illuminating nothing (assuming the source, the invisible glowing eyes, isn't near enough to an object to illuminate that object). Best to hand-wave it as flavor and say it's not visible than to speculate on the unreal situation.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way.
|
|
Except in complete darkness it would be noticeable even from a distance -- where one expects to see darkness they see... something else.Except we're in a unique situation here because we're talking about an invisible object that is giving off light; we don't really have anything in the real world that corresponds to that...
Expect we DO have things like that. Consider a neon sign. Neon itself is an invisible gas, but if you run an electric current through it, it produces light. Same with a CFL bulb.
Expect we DO have things like that. Consider a neon sign. Neon itself is an invisible gas, but if you run an electric current through it, it produces light. Same with a CFL bulb.
Except the light is reflecting off the glass of the bulb or the container of the neon sign. There's always a backdrop or surface of some kind.
I don't believe that VISIBLE light can exist without matter.
|
|
Expect we DO have things like that. Consider a neon sign. Neon itself is an invisible gas, but if you run an electric current through it, it produces light. Same with a CFL bulb.Except the light is reflecting off the glass of the bulb or the container of the neon sign. There's always a backdrop or surface of some kind.
Light, by itself, in darkness, may well be invisible to the naked eye.
Not really, no. Yes, in the context of a bulb there is glass that's being illuminated by the reflected light, but the glass is just there to keep the gas from escaping, it's not necessary to produce the light.
For a more basic example, consider a fire. In it's purest form (like, say, an oxy-acetylene torch), the light is coming from a gas that is invisible, yet you can clearly see the colour and shape of the flame, not just light reflected off of the wielder. Or even stars! That hydrogen itself is invisible, but everyone can see the sun, or for that matter, nearby stars. There is nothing but vacuum between the earth and them, but you can still see it.
The real question is how diffuse is the light source? An indirect, general illumination is next to invisible (like a light with a very soft filter), but otherwise there is no practical difference between emitted and reflected light. An invisible lantern shouldn't give off light at all.
That said, of course, this is magic, so nothing says that you couldn't have "invisible light", that doesn't show until it reflects off of a non-invisble object, which is the way I see the spell working. But it does make for a fascinating thought experiment.
Not really, no. Yes, in the context of a bulb there is glass that's being illuminated by the reflected light, but the glass is just there to keep the gas from escaping, it's not necessary to produce the light.
For a more basic example, consider a fire. In it's purest form (like, say, an oxy-acetylene torch), the light is coming from a gas that is invisible, yet you can clearly see the colour and shape of the flame, not just light reflected off of the wielder. Or even stars! That hydrogen itself is invisible, but everyone can see the sun, or for that matter, nearby stars. There is nothing but vacuum between the earth and them, but you can still see it.
The real question is how diffuse is the light source? An indirect, general illumination is next to invisible (like a light with a very soft filter), but otherwise there is no practical difference between emitted and reflected light. An invisible lantern shouldn't give off light at all.
That said, of course, this is magic, so nothing says that you couldn't have "invisible light", that doesn't show until it reflects off of a non-invisble object, which is the way I see the spell working. But it does make for a fascinating thought experiment.
I revised my earlier statement for clarity. You must have been in the middle of posting when I made the edit.
...even your cigarette example is a visible source giving off visible light....
Not a visible source in the dark at a distance of more than a dozen or so yards, and still noticeable enough to alert nearby enemies.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
...even your cigarette example is a visible source giving off visible light....Not a visible source in the dark at a distance of more than a dozen or so yards, and still noticeable enough to alert nearby enemies.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I mean "visible" meaning "not invisible." :p
|
|
At a close distance, and invisible source of light can probably not be detected in a vacuum, BUT will be detected if walls are near the invisible source of light (i.e. you'll see a circle of light painted on the nearest wall(s).)
At far distances, the invisible source of light is still invisible, but because light radiates equally in all direction (spherical geometrical spreading), the sphere then becomes a point source in its own right (akin to looking at star: the distance separating Earth to visible stars is so great that you have no chance at looking at the matter itself... you are looking at a "ball of light" that is now acting as a point source).
At medium distance, the invisible source of light, if important enough (i.e. on the order of the daylight spell) will look like a freaky looking moving SUN!!! imagine the fright an invisible wizard with daylight could give to a village!!!! :)
Why not just tell the player "i do not want that spell combined with Permanency, please" rather than fabricate excuses to hose the player with it?
The spell doesn't provide any text or rules to support beating him over the head with it. If you don't like the spell combined with permanency remove it. Don't try to find some reason to beat the guy over the head just because you don't like the spell. Man up. Tell them No.
But don't change the way spells work just because someone combines it with another legit spell. If its too powerful of a combination, or too annoying, or whatever.. just go to the player and refund his cash and take the combination "off the table".
-S
Close your eyes.Yeah, you could just close your eyes. Arcane sight can can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it. Your eyelids are none of these, amusingly. I wonder how this caster sleeps at night. ;-)
Although the sleeping part isn't to be taken literally, I believe the rest is wrong.
While Arcane Sight is 'similar to Detect Magic' (and not 'funtions like Detect Magic') I believe it is too much to include the barrier penetration.Detect Magic is a emancipation from you, penetration barriers, while Arcane Sight (surpisingly) is based on sight. As your sight is blocked by barrier (walls or eyelids), you are not able to see auras behind these.
"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible."
Absolutely correct. Exept nowhere in the Arcane Sight spell does it say that the spell provides illumination. Light spells or darkness spells and spells that produce enough of either to have an effect provide information as to how much illumination they provide or prevent, even down to as much as a single candlepower. As such the glow from the casters eyes created by arcane sight is not strong enough to project illumination in a meaningful enough way as to be seen through invsibility. It is by definition, 'fluff'.
So while his eyes may glow, the glow is subtle enough that it is noticible but not powerful enough to be even a single candles worth of illumination.
I would still think that the entire effect is covered by invisibility. Spell fluff should not cause game mechanic penalties to a player that are not stated explicitly in a spell. In game social situations/rp are another matter entirely.
The light it produces would need to reflect OFF something to be even seeable while invisible. As Mr Reynolds notes, the light generated is too weak to be seen on it's own.
Look at it this way, the universe is full of countless stars all giving off light, filling the entirety of existance with traveling light waves. But you do not SEE the lightwaves. You see their effect on what they strike.
Otherwise we would not refer to outer space as a 'great black emptiness filled with points of light'. It would be a great white emptiness filled with nothing, since the wash of light would blot out the background stars that created the light in the first place.
Another example: If you hang a lantern in the very center of a large enough cavern, were the walls, floor and ceiling are outside it's effective illumination range, you will see the LANTERN shining brite but you will not see an area of light around the lantern. There is nothoing for the illumination of the lantern to reflect off of therefore there is no illumination so see. If you made that lantern invisisble the cavern would be as dark as if it was not there at all.
|
|
Another example: If you hang a lantern in the very center of a large enough cavern, were the walls, floor and ceiling are outside it's effective illumination range, you will see the LANTERN shining brite but you will not see an area of light around the lantern. There is nothoing for the illumination of the lantern to reflect off of therefore there is no illumination so see. If you made that lantern invisisble the cavern would be as dark as if it was not there at all.
If you are miles away from the lantern I agree. If you are within one mile or getting closer you might get a "nebula" effect or sorts, especially if the air is humid/smoky/hazy/foggy. The crisper the air the hardest the nebula will be to spot, until you're close enough to see the light reflect off your gear/hands/weapons...
Another example: If you hang a lantern in the very center of a large enough cavern, were the walls, floor and ceiling are outside it's effective illumination range, you will see the LANTERN shining brite but you will not see an area of light around the lantern. There is nothoing for the illumination of the lantern to reflect off of therefore there is no illumination so see. If you made that lantern invisisble the cavern would be as dark as if it was not there at all.If you are miles away from the lantern I agree. If you are within one mile or getting closer you might get a "nebula" effect or sorts, especially if the air is humid/smoky/hazy/foggy. The crisper the air the hardest the nebula will be to spot, until you're close enough to see the light reflect off your gear/hands/weapons...
And you are showing my point perfectly. The light ITSELF is not visible. What it hits or refacts off of (humidity in the air as you cite) IS. 0 humidity would be as I said above.
And the glow from the spell mentioned in the OP is no lantern. It is not even candle strength.
And the glow from the spell mentioned in the OP is no lantern. It is not even candle strength.It doesn't matter how strong the light is.
A torch when invisible cannot be seen. The only thing that can be seen is the level of the light in that area which might be higher than normal due to the torch.
In the case of Arcane Sight the glowing eyes don't raise the light level so there is nothing to notice.
-James
I am pretty sure we just said the same exact thing James. :)
|
|
Why not just tell the player "i do not want that spell combined with Permanency, please" rather than fabricate excuses to hose the player with it?
Wow, someone's got a *** up their *** today, huh? ;-)
Man up. Tell them No.
Um, get a clue, dude. I have no problem with a permanent use of arcane sight.
I was asking if the glowing blue eyes should be visible when the spellcaster himself is invisible. There was no intent expressed or implied that I was trying to "hose the player".
In any case, this has been an interesting discussion and I appreciate all of the comments (I've been gone for a couple days and couldn't check back; and the Paizo forum software doesn't make it easy, either).
I'm going to stick with the "blue glow" as 100% flavor text and nothing else -- no effect on invisibility and no effect on the spellcaster's ability to sleep at night. :) The player will be appreciative of all of the intelligent discussion that went on here. As am I!