|
I was playing a scenario the other night where we were fighting a creature with Greater Invisibility up. I got lucky with an Explosive Bomb and set the creature on fire for a round. While the creature is on fire, does being on fire negate its concealment from Greater Invisibility or maybe reduce it to a 20% miss chance?
We were able to get through the encounter without any party member deaths anyway without having to rule on this, but I'd like to know for future reference.
Depends on whether the fire is also invisible or not.
Given that mundane chalk dust can negate the concealment from Greater Invisibility, I see no reason that fire can't,.... but that's a GM's ruling.
Well, we know that you can still see the light from an invisible torch, so I imagine you can see the light from the invisibly on fire monster. What's not clear is if that gives any benefit beyond allowing observers to pinpoint the correct square.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know that an invisible light source still produces light.
We also know that if an invisible creature picks up an object, that object stays visible (unless they stick it in their invisible pocket or something). Basically, something "added" to the invisible creature after the invisibility started will not automatically become invisible.
We also know that a puff of powder in a square will reveal the presence of invisible creatures, but won't negate the miss chance.
There are no rules (that I'm aware of) that directly deal with invisible creatures being on fire, so it's up to the GM to make a call, even in PFS.
Personally, based on the above things we do know about invisibility, I'd say that your ability to see the fire on the creature (or at least its light) makes it obvious what square he's in, but I wouldn't have it negate the miss chance. I'm not sure whether I'd consider him targetable by spells. Tough call.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say you can pinpoint the square, but normal miss chance and other penalties still apply.
I wonder whether the exact mechanics of how the thing caught on fire matters?
I mean, if you just applied enough heat that it caught fire on its own, then we would have an invisible torch situation (pinpoint is automatic, but you still can't actually see anything)
But if you doused it in oil and lit it on fire...well, the oil itself would not be too different from chalk powder, right? As in the burning oil itself is still visible, and outlines the target's shape enough so it loses concealment.
So, if we assume that is the case, an alchemist's fire would help for the 2 rounds it takes to burn up (and it is generally a good idea to use on invisible targets anyway).
I would say you can pinpoint the square, but normal miss chance and other penalties still apply. ^ 2
|
|
I was thinking that this would reduce the miss chance to 20% and identify the creature's square. The creature would still be invisible, but its form would be clearly outlined in flames, not unlike the Faerie Fire effect. So it seems to me that you would be able to hit the target much more easily but still have enough of a miss change to negate precision damage such as Sneak Attack.
We also know that if an invisible creature picks up an object, that object stays visible (unless they stick it in their invisible pocket or something). Basically, something "added" to the invisible creature after the invisibility started will not automatically become invisible.
So if i shoot an arrow at an invisible creature and hits, the arrow will be visible and the square can be pinpointed?
What exactly does the spell Faerie Fire do that putting an invisible creature on fire not do? It's the same "effect", except one is magical and one is not. In both cases, the creature is outlined, one in magical lines and the other in real fire.
I'd apply the same effect: -20 on stealth, no benefit from concealment, blur, invisibility, etc.
RAW no.
I would give something like +20 - +30 circumstance bonus on all perception checks to pinpoint it depending on lighting condition.
Burning creature are just burns, it is not outlined like in skyrim or anything. Others see bunch of flames dancing around.
The creature would still be invisible, but its form would be clearly outlined in flames, not unlike the Faerie Fire effect.
Considering that being on fire only does 1d6 points of damage per round, I don't think it's quite that extensive.
What exactly does the spell Faerie Fire do that putting an invisible creature on fire not do? It's the same "effect", except one is magical and one is not. In both cases, the creature is outlined, one in magical lines and the other in real fire.
I'd apply the same effect: -20 on stealth, no benefit from concealment, blur, invisibility, etc.
Things that are "on fire" are not necessarily outlined, and usually aren't. If only my left sleeve were aflame, you can't see to disarm the sword from my right hand.
Assuming that on-fire equates to outlined by faerie fire is not supported by anything in the rules. Faerie fire generates glowing glittering dust that covers everything in the area it is cast. A creature catching on fire isn't necessarily being completely immolated. He sleeve could just be on fire. It really doesn't specify how much "on-fire" an individual is.
I always lean towards a more restrictive interpretation, and I think equating on fire to completely outlined is farrrrrrrrrrrrrr too generous. Since no where in the rules does it specify that being on fire negates concealment I'm not apt to be so generous.
RAWFixed that for you. There's a big difference between the rules saying that you keep the full benefits of invisibility while visibly emanating light, and the rules saying nothing one way or the other.noundefined.
If rules dont say that effect of catching fire gives penalties to stealth then there is none. They only get 1d6 fire damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er, no. That's why there's a GM at the table, to make decisions that the rules don't cover.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
RAWFixed that for you. There's a big difference between the rules saying that you keep the full benefits of invisibility while visibly emanating light, and the rules saying nothing one way or the other.noundefined.If rules dont say that effect of catching fire gives penalties to stealth then there is none. They only get 1d6 fire damage.
The rules do say that light is never invisible. "They only get 1d6 fire damage" breaks that rule.
The rules say you can see the light of the fire. The rules don't say what the exact effects of that fact are, but being intelligent means we know that "the light is visible" and "the light is invisible" are different from each other.
What do you suppose that difference might be?
Faint light is not visible in broad daylight - its like looking at screen with low brightness setting when sun shining in the window behind your back.
If you have good perception maybe you can see air distortion from heat.
But rules does not say anyting about that. Moving while invisible - bonus 20, stay still - bonus 40. Burst in the flames? No andjustment. Maybe does not makes sense but that what is written, i do not assume anything on top of that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Faint light is not visible in broad daylight - its like looking at screen with low brightness setting when sun shining in the window behind your back.
If you have good perception maybe you can see air distortion from heat.
But rules does not say anyting about that. Moving while invisible - bonus 20, stay still - bonus 40. Burst in the flames? No andjustment. Maybe does not makes sense but that what is written, i do not assume anything on top of that.
You say you're not going to assume anything on top of what's written, but then justify your position with comparisons to looking at a screen in sunlight?
Also, if open flames are a "faint light" that you can't see in daylight, you have a vision impairment. Most PCs have no such impairment, so imposing that severe of a limit is exactly the kind of additions to the rules that you claim to be against.
The rules say you can see the fire. Period.
Faint light is not visible in broad daylight - its like looking at screen with low brightness setting when sun shining in the window behind your back.
But what about not broad daylight?
And that's not really a good analogy. Fire per RAW is not a "faint light"--it would probably follow torchlight rules. Not to mention the fact that flames are visible in bright daylight. I've seen flames while in blinding sunlight many, many times (I was a Girl Scout camp counselor in Arizona).
lol the fire would be considered 'carried' and turn invisible.
RAWnoundefineddefined and the answer is no.Fixed that for you. There's a big difference between the rules saying that you keep the full benefits of invisibility while visibly emanating light, and the rules saying nothing one way or the other.
Fixed it for ya.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/invisibility.html#_invisibility
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. 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.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_concealment
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
The Light is a visual clue to look for the invisible creature.
Assuming that on-fire equates to outlined by faerie fire is not supported by anything in the rules. Faerie fire generates glowing glittering dust that covers everything in the area it is cast. A creature catching on fire isn't necessarily being completely immolated. He sleeve could just be on fire. It really doesn't specify how much "on-fire" an individual is.
I always lean towards a more restrictive interpretation, and I think equating on fire to completely outlined is farrrrrrrrrrrrrr too generous. Since no where in the rules does it specify that being on fire negates concealment I'm not apt to be so generous.
Um... That is the Glitterdust spell, not the Faerie Fire spell.
/cevah
|
|
RAWnoundefineddefined and the answer is no.Fixed that for you. There's a big difference between the rules saying that you keep the full benefits of invisibility while visibly emanating light, and the rules saying nothing one way or the other.Fixed it for ya.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/invisibility.html#_invisibility
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. 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.
So, if the creature is set aflame after it becomes invisible, the flames remain visible, unless and until the creature puts the flames in its pockets or under its clothing.
As long as the creature is burning, in the situation given above, its location would be visible, i.e. which swuare it is in, but it would retain the effects of total concealment, i.e. a 50% miss chance.
Similar to an invisible creature standing in a puddle, its feet would displace water, making an empty hole showing which square it is in, but not with sufficient clarity to guarantee hitting it solidly.
|
|
I wonder whether the exact mechanics of how the thing caught on fire matters?
I mean, if you just applied enough heat that it caught fire on its own, then we would have an invisible torch situation (pinpoint is automatic, but you still can't actually see anything)
But if you doused it in oil and lit it on fire...well, the oil itself would not be too different from chalk powder, right? As in the burning oil itself is still visible, and outlines the target's shape enough so it loses concealment.
So, if we assume that is the case, an alchemist's fire would help for the 2 rounds it takes to burn up (and it is generally a good idea to use on invisible targets anyway).
Powder: Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.[/quote+
I don't see anything about "losing concealment" in there.
You know what is the location of the invisible creature, but concealment is a separate issue.
|
|
You can wear fire? I can't wait to see the fall collection from Armani of
"Girl screaming down a runway in a burning inferno"
Check out PFS PC Katisha, who tends to have a continual flame on the inside of her cloak, IIRC.
And, of course, real world stunt men, who tend to wear flames on the outside of fireproof suits for some scenes...
You say you're not going to assume anything on top of what's written, but then justify your position with comparisons to looking at a screen in sunlight?
Also, if open flames are a "faint light" that you can't see in daylight, you have a vision impairment. Most PCs have no such impairment, so imposing that severe of a limit is exactly the kind of additions to the rules that you claim to be against.
The rules say you can see the fire. Period.
So you can attack fire. Or light. Rules does not say attacking fire have any effect on concealment or invisibility.
now "common sense" explanation:
If there is fire on the creature you can not tell if its creatures right arm and you should swing right, if its left arm burning and you shoul swing left, or maybe its his tail, not to mention you cannot discern location of light source if its invisible.
Seriously, look at gas fire during broad daylight - there will be only faint blue flickers for even most eagle-eyed person.
In darkness there will be just lit room and if it have pillars on the round at every 5ft you can discern light source location by looking at their shadow. Otherwise no. You probably can assume a sqare if you stand behind 2 people a see their shadows, trace lines paralel to them and see where they cross, but this is in no way reduce concelement.