Invisibility and Arrows


Rules Questions


I'm with a new group, and most are either rules lawyers or people who try to resolve Adventure Conflicts by arguing with the DM.

I've got enough experience as a GM in various systems to deal with such things but, as I'm fairly new to Pathfinder rules, and I know my people--I know what's going to happen Saturday.

They are going to fight a wizard with greater invisibility. No problem. Should be fun and challenging since they don't have see invisibility yet (but have Glitterdust and all of them have pouches of flour...cool).

However, there are two archers in the party and I promise you, as soon as one of them hits the Wizard with a successful pinpoint and concealment check, this is what they are going to say:

"Okay...so we are going to keep our eyes on the visible arrows that are now sticking out of the invisible Wizard to target him."

I see nothing in the Pathfinder rules that addresses this. I'm fully prepared to inform them, "No" and move on, but it's easier with these guys to say, "Pull it up in the SRD." That usually ends it.

In the Invisibility rules (LINK HERE) I see nothing about "visible arrows" pinpointing invisible opponents.

Is there any validity to this pending argument? If not, I'll just use my DM powers.


Nothing in the rules says that arrows stick in their opponents. They could pass through the target. Nobody assumes arrows that stick into someone are visible, otherwise people would just throw daggers at invisible creatures to locate them.

There is also this:

Quote:
Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

There is no arrow to track because it is destroyed. <---This should be all you need.


Going to have to disagree with Wraith on this one.

The rule regarding ammunitions says "or rendered useless". The point of that rule is to make sure people can't buy 20 arrows and use the same 20 arrows forever. It has no bearing on whether an arrow remains in a creature and is visible.

The reality is neither 3.5 nor Pathfinder don't contemplated arrows sticking out of creatures. Nor do they consider the fact that if you got cut by a sword, you'd bleed pretty heavily.

Personally, the rules certainly allow someone shot with an arrow to be easier to pinpoint. I'd still apply the 50% concealment. Not sure why you feel the need as a GM to deny that. Pinpointing an then hitting invisible target is no trivial matter.


N N 959 wrote:

Going to have to disagree with Wraith on this one.

The rule regarding ammunitions says "or rendered useless". The point of that rule is to make sure people can't buy 20 arrows and use the same 20 arrows forever. It has no bearing on whether an arrow remains in a creature and is visible.

The reality is neither 3.5 nor Pathfinder don't contemplated arrows sticking out of creatures. Nor do they consider the fact that if you got cut by a sword, you'd bleed pretty heavily.

Personally, the rules certainly allow someone shot with an arrow to be easier to pinpoint. I'd still apply the 50% concealment. Not sure why you feel the need as a GM to deny that. Pinpointing an then hitting invisible target is no trivial matter.

The "or" without an answer means it is up to the GM, and arrows are not meant to foil spells. Now the question can also be asked "do the arrows count as attended objects?"

If so they are also invisible since that could mean they are carried, but really the rules don't say one way or the other. I am willing to bet the PDT would not let arrows foil invisibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OTOH, if you're going to let bags of flour work you ought to let arrows work. Really the same idea. Though I have shot an arrow completely through a deer and have had an arrow shatter and bounce out after hitting a shoulder bone. Why not give them a percentage chance of it working? Maybe 50% or 25% or something.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@OP - the simplilist thing to remember is that the Pathfinder HP system is an abstract one.

It doesn't actually take chopping at a mid level character a dozen times with an battleaxe to kill him. Until his HP drops low - all of those hits on his HP are near misses, perhaps grazing him etc.

Therefore - unless the arrow in question drops the wizard into negative HP - at which point his invisability become pretty much irrelevant - those archers aren't actually hitting him at all, but are instead using up his higher level awesomeness or maybe grazing him etc.

Back in the d20 modern faq there was a really great explanation for why tanks had the same HP as mid level characters. In the case of a tank (or in Pathfinder terms - a big monster) - HP is actually getting hit, but for characters it means near misses etc.

As to the flour - I'd let them work to help find the square the wizard is in - but not help with the 50% miss chance. Glitterdust only works through the invis spell because it's a magic specifically designed to.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:


As to the flour - I'd let them work to help find the square the wizard is in - but not help with the 50% miss chance. Glitterdust only works through the invis spell because it's a magic specifically designed to.

Hmm, flour ought to show footprints if the wizard moves. Might not be obvious so some sort of perception check would be needed. "OK, you rolled 22 on perception, you notice tracks in the flour leading into that square there." :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Advanced Player's Guide wrote:

Powder, Normal

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.

There's already rules for the flour thing. So if flour works only momentarily, so would arrows. They don't stick and remain visible. The arrow would hit, confirm that there is an invisible creature right there, and then disappear. Glitterdust sticks and remains visible because magic. Nothing else does.


The Mighty Khan wrote:
Advanced Player's Guide wrote:

Powder, Normal

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.

There's already rules for the flour thing. So if flour works only momentarily, so would arrows. They don't stick and remain visible. The arrow would hit, confirm that there is an invisible creature right there, and then disappear. Glitterdust sticks and remains visible because magic. Nothing else does.

The flour rules are for flour, not arrows. While a GM can adjudicate this how she likes, it's inappropriate to present the rules for flour as being determinative for arrows. Flour only works momentarily because it doesn't stick out from the target and the rules don't really talk about it ticking to the target at all. If it was tar and feathers it absolutely should last longer than one round.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
@OP - the simplilist thing to remember is that the Pathfinder HP system is an abstract one.

And while this is true, even a normal person isn't going to die from being shot and stuck with arrow in the leg.

Because this system is abstract, it has limitations. There's no definitive rule about what happens when you get hit with an arrow or a thrown dagger/dart/shuriken. It's entirely plausible under the rules to allow someone to be tracked by an arrow/dart/shuriken sticking out of their thigh.
It's also plausible to allow the target stuck to break off the arrow or pull it out as a move action.

I'm betting that a lot of where people come down on this issues is based on the outcome/bias the have going in. GMs always seem to have an issue when simple things defeat their NPC tricks. Players who use one tactic or another always want to defend it i.e. Wizards certainly won't like sticky arrows and archers will.

Simplified game play says being hit won't reveal you in most situations. A GM looking to add a richer game should make plausible allowances.


wraithstrike wrote:
The "or" without an answer means it is up to the GM

The "or" does not mean that. It's a catch all in case you're shooting something like a ghost and the player wants to argue that the arrow would not be "destroyed." An arrow could have its shaft split or lose the feathers on the vane. This way you can have arrows sticking out of a dead body but not have them be reusable.

I'm going to repeat what I said: The ammunition rules are not written with regards to this question, so let's not use the rule to indicate one outcome versus another.

Quote:
and arrows are not meant to foil spells.

They are certainly are meant to foil spells if the spells can be foiled by something like an arrow. The rules are certainly not going to contemplate everything that might happen if shot by an arrow. It's up to the GM to decide.

Quote:
Now the question can also be asked "do the arrows count as attended objects?"

They don't as they were not possessed by the spell recipient at the time of its casting. The Greater Inviso rules say that any object picked up has to be placed under clothes that are already invisible. Ergo an arrow shaft sticking out of your thigh is visible. An arrow head buried in your armor is not.

So the question is what type of action is it to break off the shaft?


daimaru wrote:
OTOH, if you're going to let bags of flour work you ought to let arrows work.

Not really. The flour is intended to work that way by the rules. The arrows are not, and I don't think the OP wants the arrows to work. He has already said he won't allow it. He just wants to use the book to say no instead of going to "the GM said so".


wraithstrike wrote:
He has already said he won't allow it. He just wants to use the book to say no instead of going to "the GM said so".

Yes, I see the same thing. I wish GMs did not take this approach to GMing.


The Mighty Khan wrote:
Advanced Player's Guide wrote:

Powder, Normal

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.

There's already rules for the flour thing. So if flour works only momentarily, so would arrows. They don't stick and remain visible. The arrow would hit, confirm that there is an invisible creature right there, and then disappear. Glitterdust sticks and remains visible because magic. Nothing else does.

This I agree with. Archers can also shot into more than one square if they are not sure about where the wizard is. They could get lucky and find him that way. Buying a dog that is trained may also work since dogs have scent. That at least gives them a direction to shoot at.

Scarab Sages

I believe the arrow would be visible. As N N 959 points out, the item was "picked up" by the wizard after he was already invisible.

However, unless they have colorful tassels at the end of their arrows, it will still be difficult to track him even if you rule the arrows are visible. (This depends on how far away he is, the background, light level, etc). So I'd still require a perception to pinpoint his square, but the arrow gives them a big bonus such as +10 or even +15.

In the end, even if they can see where he is due to arrows/footprints, that only pinpoints the square, not exactly where he is (they still can't see him), and I'd say they still get the 50% miss chance. Only glitterdust removes this miss chance (or blindsense, obviously).

They might even say they want to use blood drops to track him. Though in combat bending down to look for blood may expose them to attacks of opportunity.

After getting hit a few more times, if the wizard has a cloak, maybe he'll smarten up and use it to cover himself and the arrows. That is if you want him to escape. Don't do that right away as it's cheesy, and also note that takes up a hand he can't use to cast with.

With the 50% still in effect, I think it's not too bad to allow the arrows to track him, since I assume you eventually want them to beat him. Rather than bad it is an ingenious use of the technology they have available.

The only real problem comes in if they repeat this with a size Large or larger creature, they may try to argue against even the 50% miss, since they know the monster must fill up the whole space.

Sovereign Court

N N 959 wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
@OP - the simplilist thing to remember is that the Pathfinder HP system is an abstract one.

And while this is true, even a normal person isn't going to die from being shot and stuck with arrow in the leg.

No - but it would slow them down and decrease their fighting prowess. HP damage doesn't. I think you should stick to grazes, denting armor, & near misses unless the hit does something beyond HP damage because of a rogue talent or something.


Berti Blackfoot wrote:

I believe the arrow would be visible. As N N 959 points out, the item was "picked up" by the wizard after he was already invisible.

However, unless they have colorful tassels at the end of their arrows, it will still be difficult to track him even if you rule the arrows are visible. (This depends on how far away he is, the background, light level, etc). So I'd still require a perception to pinpoint his square, but the arrow gives them a big bonus such as +10 or even +15.

In the end, even if they can see where he is due to arrows/footprints, that only pinpoints the square, not exactly where he is (they still can't see him), and I'd say they still get the 50% miss chance. Only glitterdust removes this miss chance (or blindsense, obviously).

They might even say they want to use blood drops to track him. Though in combat bending down to look for blood may expose them to attacks of opportunity.

After getting hit a few more times, if the wizard has a cloak, maybe he'll smarten up and use it to cover himself and the arrows. That is if you want him to escape. Don't do that right away as it's cheesy, and also note that takes up a hand he can't use to cast with.

With the 50% still in effect, I think it's not too bad to allow the arrows to track him, since I assume you eventually want them to beat him. Rather than bad it is an ingenious use of the technology they have available.

The only real problem comes in if they repeat this with a size Large or larger creature, they may try to argue against even the 50% miss, since they know the monster must fill up the whole space.

The other problem is that players don't often think about the repercussions about the same rules being used against them. Then some want to go by the book again.

That is why I just prefer to go by RAI to avoid things like that. By the rules nothing says an arrow sticks out. It could have only grazed the wizard, it could have shot through his hand. It could have broken(per the rules), with the rest deep enough inside of him to not be seen. etc etc.

IIRC someone in the party has glitterdust. If the caster uses a spell that is a -20 to the perception DC, so he can be found that way.


Unless you want to add a whole subset of rules about whether or not an arrow sticks out of a body (As pointed out by daimaru, not all will) it's much easier to assume they don't, and it's not certainly not inconsistent with existing rules.

And as to DM bias, ask your invis. loving player how much he likes this idea.


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The "or" without an answer means it is up to the GM

The "or" does not mean that. It's a catch all in case you're shooting something like a ghost and the player wants to argue that the arrow would not be "destroyed." An arrow could have its shaft split or lose the feathers on the vane. This way you can have arrows sticking out of a dead body but not have them be reusable.

I'm going to repeat what I said: The ammunition rules are not written with regards to this question, so let's not use the rule to indicate one outcome versus another.

Quote:
and arrows are not meant to foil spells.

They are certainly are meant to foil spells if the spells can be foiled by something like an arrow. The rules are certainly not going to contemplate everything that might happen if shot by an arrow. It's up to the GM to decide.

Quote:
Now the question can also be asked "do the arrows count as attended objects?"

They don't as they were not possessed by the spell recipient at the time of its casting. The Greater Inviso rules say that any object picked up has to be placed under clothes that are already invisible. Ergo an arrow shaft sticking out of your thigh is visible. An arrow head buried in your armor is not.

So the question is what type of action is it to break off the shaft?

Everything is up to the GM, but nothing says an arrow sticks at all. The attacks are abstractions. There is no rule the players can use to say "this is how it was intended to work".


Berti Blackfoot wrote:

[Snip!]

The only real problem comes in if they repeat this with a size Large or larger creature, they may try to argue against even the 50% miss, since they know the monster must fill up the whole space.

My counter to this is usually that the 50% miss chance by concealment (specifically because of invisibility) isn't just missing the person entirely; it's also not being able to anticipate / react to their specific position / parries / dodges / etc. Some of that would apply to large or larger creatures, and some wouldn't. Even not being able to see the best angle to swing to land a solid rather than glancing blow on thick skin plays into this. Sight is a large component of successfully landing a hit, even if you know exactly where someone / something is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidgardSerpent wrote:
Berti Blackfoot wrote:

[Snip!]

The only real problem comes in if they repeat this with a size Large or larger creature, they may try to argue against even the 50% miss, since they know the monster must fill up the whole space.

My counter to this is usually that the 50% miss chance by concealment (specifically because of invisibility) isn't just missing the person entirely; it's also not being able to anticipate / react to their specific position / parries / dodges / etc. Some of that would apply to large or larger creatures, and some wouldn't. Even not being able to see the best angle to swing to land a solid rather than glancing blow on thick skin plays into this. Sight is a large component of successfully landing a hit, even if you know exactly where someone / something is.

To add to this taking up more than one square does not mean you take up all of the space in those squares.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
He has already said he won't allow it. He just wants to use the book to say no instead of going to "the GM said so".
Yes, I see the same thing. I wish GMs did not take this approach to GMing.

Apprantly many among the new generation of GMs fear being outcast and pilloried in message boards like this one if they don't submit to being bullied by RAW Lawyers. Another thing to thank the Internet for.


LazarX wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
He has already said he won't allow it. He just wants to use the book to say no instead of going to "the GM said so".
Yes, I see the same thing. I wish GMs did not take this approach to GMing.
Apprantly many among the new generation of GMs fear being outcast and pilloried in message boards like this one if they don't submit to being bullied by RAW Lawyers. Another thing to thank the Internet for.

I don't really see that, but I don't visit the other sites as much as I used to either. The common thing I see here is to note house rules up front. I don't see a "you must follow the book" attitude.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Invisibility and Arrows All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.