Nope.
Now that’s how ya bust a bolt in his seat.
Ride or die!
|
Guys check the description of the spell.
"The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
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."
I'd say the quasit's new, extreme piercing becomes invisible as "gear."
So you could target him without having to find his square, but still have a 50% miss chance because the critter is invisible, right?
That's how I would rule it but I'm not sure what the RAW says. Otherwise you would get one person with See Invisibility that hit it and it's invisibility is ruined against everyone.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
When you hit an invisible critter with an arrow you lose sight of the arrow... hell the arrow isn't even necessarily sticking in the Quasit. It could've grazed it, slashed across it's arm, etc. etc. Bottom line is just managing to hit an Invisible creature does not reveal it's location (past that round that is).
Ugh.
I would rule that the arrow would quickly disappear giving no extra clue as to the creature's location.
I recall (though it could be from second edition) that anything less then 10' in length carried by the creature that is invisible or becomes so shortly after being "picked up". Otherwise invisibility would be ruined all the time by blood, dust and dirt. People's shoes, clothing and weapons would be visible within a round or two of combat.
I'd say the quasit's new, extreme piercing becomes invisible as "gear."
Incorrect.
Try these articles from Skip Williams to learn why:
There, Not Threre (Part One)
There, Not There (Part Two)
Essentially, if an invisible creature picks up an object, the object remains visible unless he takes steps to hide it within his clothing or gear (such as a backpack, sack, etc.) that turned invisible at the time of the original casting of invisibility. So, if an arrow strikes an invisible quasit, you're going to see an arrow seemingly hanging in mid-air that will clearly mark the quasit's location (in terms of which five-foot square to target with follow-up attacks). But, because you still can't quite "see" the target, you're going to face a 50% miss chance. At least you don't have to make Spot or Listen checks anymore to locate him, though.
Meanwhile, if the beleaguered quasit wants to disappear entirely again, have it pull the arrow out and cast it away. There might be a bit of a blood trail to still mark the creature's location, but a DM would have to require Spot checks again to find that tell-tale sign.
My two-cents,
--Neil
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Wow, I didn't know the ole bag-o-flour still worked.
IMC, it doesn't. :)
I still think that negating invisibility in such a manner is "cheap." The way I rule it is that if willfully attacking something breaks invisibility but interacting with the environment does not, then willfully picking something up causes it to be visible but having something forced upon you does not.
That's just my interpretation and, while I'm aware that there are very strong arguements to support the fact that invisibility can be thwarted by things like a bag of flour, I think it's silly and don't run it that way.
Incorrect.Try these articles from Skip Williams to learn why:
There, Not Threre (Part One)
There, Not There (Part Two)Essentially, if an invisible creature picks up an object, the object remains visible unless he takes steps to hide it within his clothing or gear (such as a backpack, sack, etc.) that turned invisible at the time of the original casting of invisibility. So, if an arrow strikes an invisible quasit, you're going to see an arrow seemingly hanging in mid-air that will clearly mark the quasit's location (in terms of which five-foot square to target with follow-up attacks). But, because you still can't quite "see" the target, you're going to face a 50% miss chance. At least you don't have to make Spot or Listen checks anymore to locate him, though.
Meanwhile, if the beleaguered quasit wants to disappear entirely again, have it pull the arrow out and cast it away. There might be a bit of a blood trail to still mark the creature's location, but a DM would have to require Spot checks again to find that tell-tale sign.
My two-cents,
--Neil
If a player of mine came to me with this I would say "So?"
It isn't internal consistent.Rule what you like but if objects remain visible then any creature can find an invisible creature's relative location at any time.
Situation #1
Steve the fighter: "Where did the drow go?"
Walter the rogue: "Uh, can't you see the dust covered boots running away from us?"
Situation #2
Ebert the wizard: "Where is that Bastard that stabbed me?"
Bob the mighty fighter: "Probably still holding that blade outlined in your blood."
Ebert the wizard: blank stare
Bob the mighty fighter: *sigh* "Five feet to your left."
If a player of mine came to me with this I would say "So?" It isn't internal consistent. Rule what you like but if objects remain visible then any creature can find an invisible creature's relative location at any time.
How so?
Situation #1
Steve the fighter: "Where did the drow go?"
Walter the rogue: "Uh, can't you see the dust covered boots running away from us?"
Not without a Spot or Listen check. And that's essentially what you have to use to identify the 5-foot square occupied by an invisible creature anyway. And, just because you know what square he's in (because you spotted the dusty boots)...doesn't mean that lets you attack normally. You still suffer the 50% miss chance because you can't gauge the opponent's physical anatomy and defenses well enough to land a telling blow...much less make contact.
Situation #2
Ebert the wizard: "Where is that Bastard that stabbed me?"
Bob the mighty fighter: "Probably still holding that blade outlined in your blood."
Ebert the wizard: blank stare
Bob the mighty fighter: *sigh* "Five feet to your left."
Now this example is more pertinent. But if someone stabbed poor Ebert from 5-feet away with a blade, the invisibility effect typically ends anyway. If the attacker was using improved invisibility and he landed a blow, then his invisible sword would potentially be outlined in blood...but that still wouldn't negate the 50% miss chance...in the same manner that dusty boots wouldn't either.
All that results from those situations is that you can tell what 5-foot square is occupied...so you don't have to guess anymore. And, arguably, you don't have to make Spot checks or Listen checks to keep tracking the guy as he moves around.
IMO, that's why the bag of flour dousing should be a legitimate strategy. Coat the guy so you can not only tell what 5-foot square he's occupying, but cover him well enough that you can see his every move. That way you successfully negate his advantage. And there's nothing wrong with that. Remember, you have to pinpoint his location in order to attack him with the flour anyway. Or, if you've got an area-effect spell that can do something similar, take the shotgun approach and see if you can't tag him that way, too.
Overall, I don't think any of that has consistency problems within the RAW. But that's just my two-cents. It's no skin off my nose if you still disagree with Skip's interpretation of the rules. As always, it's your game. Make of it what you will...
--Neil
Overall, I don't think any of that has consistency problems within the RAW. But that's just my two-cents. It's no skin off my nose if you still disagree with Skip's interpretation of the rules. As always, it's your game. Make of it what you will...
I agree, to each their own.
It makes sense to me and I let any of my players know the way I "roll" when they mention using invisiblity.If it works in your game go for it. I'm sure I would have fun with it in your game that way too, but not just in my game.
See, instead of a bag of flour I would use a bag of rice to find an invisible creature (that isn't flying). Rice gets displaced when the creature moves and makes noise when stepped on. It doesn't make it harder for my players they just have to use different tactics.
Yes, but Glitterdust works because it gives off some light, and light sources have been established to not become invisible. The flour, however, would become invisible when it hit the blighters.
Not without a Spot or Listen check. And that's essentially what you have to use to identify the 5-foot square occupied by an invisible creature anyway. And, just because you know what square he's in (because you spotted the dusty boots)...doesn't mean that lets you attack normally. You still suffer the 50% miss chance because you can't gauge the opponent's physical anatomy and defenses well enough to land a telling blow...much less make contact.
A spot check to notice dust thrown up by a creature and dust attached to a creature are not the same thing. If getting dirty negated invisibility, it would never work.
Now this example is more pertinent. But if someone stabbed poor Ebert from 5-feet away with a blade, the invisibility effect typically ends anyway. If the attacker was using improved invisibility and he landed a blow, then his invisible sword would potentially be outlined in blood...but that still wouldn't negate the 50% miss chance...in the same manner that dusty boots wouldn't either.All that results from those situations is that you can tell what 5-foot square is occupied...so you don't have to guess anymore. And, arguably, you don't have to make Spot checks or Listen checks to keep tracking the guy as he moves around.
Greater Ivisibility shouldn't get downgraded to Displacement after one attack.
|
|
I've always loved that bag of flour can conquer invisibility, just like you can (almost) kill a vampire by burning down the house he is in during the day, why can't fancy spells and supernatural tricks have flaws in them? It keeps the game interesting. If an invisible creature swims the moat, then crawl through the mud and reeds to the castle walls before slipping in the side door; he's going to be visible from all of that mud and trackable from the dripping water, that's what he gets for playing dumb. Pixies and Quasits fly everywhere though so they're mud free.
Improved Invisibility beats displacement because of five-foot step - your opponent knows which square you attacked from, not which square you're in, a thin line of blood is going to be very hard to see (hey, everybody waste a move action trying to spot the invisible dude's square) and the invisible creature only needs a rag in his free hand to clean the blade (i'd call that a free action).
Except then the rag would show red, by your logic.
And the reason crawling through muck is still bad is the mud that will drip off you.
|
|
If my home boy shoots a quasit with an arrow, is the arrow invisible if the quasit was invisible?Heathy, why do you ask? You already know the answer - I have ruled. ;-)
Oh, I know. I asked before you ruled. You've been pretty squared away as a dm, I was just anxious and wondered how it all worked.
Plus I thought it might be a better subject than the latest"4e ate my grandmother" thread.
Cant a Quasit turn invisible at will?
Cant it just appear and then dissapear in the next round? And if it did that wouldnt the arrow in its gut dissapear then?
Example - Fighter who weilds a Greatsword turns invisible and picks up a Greatsword lying on the floor. His own sword in hand would be invisible because he was weilding it when the invisibilitu was cast. The sword he picked up would be visible however.
So if the arrow is visible and appears to be stuck in the air, if the quasit dispelled its invisibility and quicky dissapeared again the arrow would go with it.
Wow, I didn't know the ole bag-o-flour still worked.IMC, it doesn't. :)
I still think that negating invisibility in such a manner is "cheap." The way I rule it is that if willfully attacking something breaks invisibility but interacting with the environment does not, then willfully picking something up causes it to be visible but having something forced upon you does not.
That's just my interpretation and, while I'm aware that there are very strong arguements to support the fact that invisibility can be thwarted by things like a bag of flour, I think it's silly and don't run it that way.
This is getting confusing. I think that if faerie dust works, the bag of flour should. Though maybe the 'dust' is magical... still, I think you oughta reward characters for creative thinking. I need to think on this...
Can't a Quasit turn invisible at will? Can't it just appear and then dissapear in the next round? And if it did that wouldnt the arrow in its gut dissapear then?
By the interpretation laid out in the earlier assessment...yes.
The quasit could spend an action appearing/disappearing and much like anything else it carried, the arrow stuck in its hide would disappear. The blood dripping from the wound? Eh, not so much.
But again, blood trails and small bits of dust and debris that get picked up by an invisible creature still require Spot checks to locate. That's how "pinpointing" an invisible creature so you can attack its 5-foot square works. You have to use Spot or Listen to sense some tell-tale sign of its existence. Otherwise, you're just taking a shot in the dark. And even when you do pinpoint his 5-foot square, it's more an "educated" shot in the dark.
Now, if an invisible creature picks up a major coating of something (i.e., flour, crawling through mud and muck, etc.), that's when you not only automatically pinpoint his 5-foot square, but you also nullify the 50% miss chance. And if, as a DM, you don't feel comfortable with completely dispensing with an invisible attacker's advantage due to the flour trick, knock it down to a 20% miss chance (similar to a blur effect) or something in between, if it makes you feel better.
All in all, though, I prefer that interpretation for my games. It feels a bit more realistic.
But, as I said, that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
I hearken back to the good old days when people used to argue over rules minutae.
I know. This thread brought back happy memories. Memories of being glad to argue over the the intertubes.
This is getting confusing. I think that if faerie dust works, the bag of flour should. Though maybe the 'dust' is magical... still, I think you oughta reward characters for creative thinking. I need to think on this...Wow, I didn't know the ole bag-o-flour still worked.IMC, it doesn't. :)
I still think that negating invisibility in such a manner is "cheap." The way I rule it is that if willfully attacking something breaks invisibility but interacting with the environment does not, then willfully picking something up causes it to be visible but having something forced upon you does not.
That's just my interpretation and, while I'm aware that there are very strong arguements to support the fact that invisibility can be thwarted by things like a bag of flour, I think it's silly and don't run it that way.
If by "faerie dust" you mean glitterdust, the spell, then yes, I believe the reason it does what it does is precisely because it's magical, and not simply because it happens to be a sparkly dust, and all dust outlines an invisible creature. Further, I don't think that the dust outlines invisible creatures by virtue of invisibility not masking light. It can mask the source of the light. Glitterdust sheds no significant illumination, in terms of altering the lighting conditions of an area. It just sparkles magically. One of the properties of the spell, by complete arbitrary fiat, is that it also outlines invisible creatures. This should not be taken as a precedent to allow mud, bags of flower, etc., to outline an invisible creature.
No where in the description of invisibility, the spell, is there any mention of something so simple as a bag of flour ruining the effect. There is a mention that stepping in a puddle can make the subject "detectable," but I take that to mean the ripples it creates and, if you were watching at the moment the invisible subject's foot touched the puddle, you'd see the impression of their foot.
At least, that's the way I read things.
Yes, player creativity should be rewarded, but that shouldn't come with the cost of rampantly negating or otherwise majorly impairing useful abilities like invisibility. I may allow characters to "see" an invisible creature swimming through water or walking through very thick fog due to the impression they make in the thick atmosphere. Maybe.
I think I would allow them to pin-point a square with create water by creating it above a creature's head. But even then, it's an instantaneous effect. As soon as the creature moves, you've lost track of it again. I'd probably allow spot checks for a few more rounds to notice the water dripping from the target and thus be able to trace his path.
In my eyes, that is player creativity and worthy of reward. Simply carrying a bag of flower isn't creative at all. It's cheap, as Fatespinner said.
All IMO, of course.
|
Cant it just appear and then dissapear in the next round? And if it did that wouldnt the arrow in its gut dissapear then?
So if the arrow is visible and appears to be stuck in the air, if the quasit dispelled its invisibility and quicky dissapeared again the arrow would go with it.
Yeah, which is still weird in my book, but acceptable... I see that as the case, and my mind goes "well if this the things that physically touch the skin of the person as they cast invisibility goes, and their barefoot, does that mean the floor turns invisible too?
|
First, the best way for low level characters to defeat a quasit is for them to drown it. They even provide you a convenient pool for drowning in the first AP adventure.
Second, assuming the arrow "sticking" is a possible logical flaw given what HP represent. They represent both the ability to take damage and the ABILITY TO AVOID taking damage. Prior to a hit that takes a creature/character to 0 hp, all you have really done is reduced the creatures ability to avoid taking damage. The PHB is pretty clear that no real damage happens until 0hp.
Third, invisibility (and the DR/Fast Heal) are really the only advantages a quasit has. Do you really want to nerf them so badly?
The answer to that question should be...
DM: Of course not, you are perfectly right.
Players: Hells yeah, I want all encounters to be as easy as possible.
Christian
The PHB is pretty clear that no real damage happens until 0hp.
I disagree. This may be true with some monsters. With others HP really is just how much of a beating they can take without falling over. That's the great bit about abstract systems: They can mean many things.
This is getting confusing. I think that if faerie dust works, the bag of flour should. Though maybe the 'dust' is magical... still, I think you oughta reward characters for creative thinking. I need to think on this...If by "faerie dust" you mean glitterdust, the spell, then yes, I believe the reason it does what it does is precisely because it's magical, and not simply because it happens to be a sparkly dust...
Ooo! Sparkly!
|
|
Ooo! Sparkly!This is getting confusing. I think that if faerie dust works, the bag of flour should. Though maybe the 'dust' is magical... still, I think you oughta reward characters for creative thinking. I need to think on this...If by "faerie dust" you mean glitterdust, the spell, then yes, I believe the reason it does what it does is precisely because it's magical, and not simply because it happens to be a sparkly dust...
It'd be funny to rule that whenever someone casts Glitterdust, they bust out a pink, glittery wand, with a star on the top. Just to see their reaction at the table. :D
The PHB is pretty clear that no real damage happens until 0hp.I disagree. This may be true with some monsters. With others HP really is just how much of a beating they can take without falling over. That's the great bit about abstract systems: They can mean many things.
My feelings are the same. My understanding is that with the vitality system, no real damage occurs until a specified point. However, in D&D, hit points can mean almost anything. It could be action-movie-esque hits where the hero gets smacked over and over and over, likely beyond what a human could take and remain conscious, yet they do. Or it could be dodges, ducks, and near misses (that one's for you, Mr. Shiny!). It could be gods-granted toughness, to take blows that would normally lay a man low and keep going without even really being phased. All these things can even be expressed by different characters at the same table in the same battle.
Thus the issue at hand (well, at least the first issue raised here) may, in truth, be a non-issue, so long as the DM remembers to simply say the arrow skims by or somehow otherwise doesn't stick in the target, as others have posted already.
First, the best way for low level characters to defeat a quasit is for them to drown it. They even provide you a convenient pool for drowning in the first AP adventure.
I think there's actually two, but one is a lot more fun to use.
Dm: Where?
Player: D'uh! The one that doesn't look like lava.
Dm: Make a <insert save name here> save! Muahahahahaha....
This would be even better if they just jump in all the way.
I think I'm going to chime in on the arrow (or flour, etc.) disappearing once the quasit goes invisible again. Seems like the best tradeoff between fun and combat balance.
My feelings are the same. My understanding is that with the vitality system, no real damage occurs until a specified point. However, in D&D, hit points can mean almost anything. It could be action-movie-esque hits where the hero gets smacked over and over and over, likely beyond what a human could take and remain conscious, yet they do. Or it could be dodges, ducks, and near misses (that one's for you, Mr. Shiny!). It could be gods-granted toughness, to take blows that would normally lay a man low and keep going without even really being phased. All these things can even be expressed by different characters at the same table in the same battle.
Which is why I established a consistent system to make it clear what HPs actually mean. IMC, no one is actually wounded until his/her HP reach half of the maximum, which can be important when you are fighting to first blood, for example. At 20% of max HP, the character is "battered" and at 10%, "near death." I have found that this system is easy from a math standpoint and provides a realistic measure for Players and DM to measure the effectiveness of their attacks. The two major positive results are preventing the Unrealistic Stand and Fight Syndrome ("We've been fighting this creature for six rounds and it's not even wounded, yet. Maybe we should split.") and the Waste of the Big Winkie on the Mortally Wounded ("Player: OK, well I've been holding this back, but I guess I better use my maximized Fireball on this beast that won't die! I do 60 HP of damage! DM: Ok, it's dead. It only had 2 HP left, anyway. Player: Grrrr.")
Thus, I would rule that the arrow doesn't stick in the quasit unless it brings the quasit below 50%.
o
Just for note:
I treat invisibuility as Skip wants us to. It's only 2nd level, after all.
I treat improved/greater invisibility as if invisibility was being cast on you every round. thus an arrow (if it actually stuck in you, which isn't a sure thing) struck you, it would be visible until your turn, when it would fade away as gear you are carrying when the spell :resets."
This methods has always worked for me, but is entirely house rules (which are, for us, the bext kind)
|
|
Just to way in, in my draconically humble opinion (which lacks most humility along with humanity (and why not, it was my arrow)) there are a few different modes of invisibility.
A) chameleon invisibility (the Predator) magical illusion that changes the reflected light to look like what should be reflected, but never quite perfect
B) phase effect - light simply passes through the subject
C) Somebody Elses Problem Field (or the later version of a perception filter (cookies for the references)) in which the effect alters the observers and not the actual person
Which is all irrevalent drivel, so getting back to meaningful mechanics, from the SRD:
Invisibility
Illusion (Glamer)...
and
Illusion
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.Glamer
A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
So does hitting an invisible creature with an arrow (a critical mind you), a creature that has been intoning a spell and therfore provoking listen checks, constitute proof (no save necessary) or meerly interaction (will save)... And for how many of the party members?
So does hitting an invisible creature with an arrow (a critical mind you), a creature that has been intoning a spell and therfore provoking listen checks, constitute proof (no save necessary) or meerly interaction (will save)... And for how many...
From what I can tell, invisibility is a bit different.
If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
This would mean that invisibility doesn't have a save to be able to see something. It does, however, have saves to avoid becoming invisible(?!).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Arrows that hit their target are destroyed in game terms, so there's nothing sticking out of that quasit. Same reason you can't silence something by shooting it with an arrow that has silence on it.
These sorts of situations arise when you try and stretch the game physics beyond what they actually model.
Okay, if the arrow made a solid hit and wasn't destroyed, I think it would stay visible until invisibility is cast again (my previous stance). Just read in the Rules Compendium (got it cheap, woot) that just picking up an item isn't enough to make it invisible, the quasit would have to actively try to hid it in clothing, etc.
An interesting point this brings up is certain returning weapons. Once thrown, both weapon and quasit would become visible. The quasit immediately turns invisible again. The next round, the weapon zips back to where it was thrown from. If the quasit catches it, the weapon is now visible. This might not seem important, but if characters catch on and start readying attacks for when the dagger stops in midair...
Okay, if the arrow made a solid hit and wasn't destroyed, I think it would stay visible until invisibility is cast again (my previous stance). Just read in the Rules Compendium (got it cheap, woot) that just picking up an item isn't enough to make it invisible, the quasit would have to actively try to hid it in clothing, etc.
An interesting point this brings up is certain returning weapons. Once thrown, both weapon and quasit would become visible. The quasit immediately turns invisible again. The next round, the weapon zips back to where it was thrown from. If the quasit catches it, the weapon is now visible. This might not seem important, but if characters catch on and start readying attacks for when the dagger stops in midair...
No, I don't think that's how it would play out. Throwing the weapon would be a standard action, depriving the quasit of the ability to turn invisible "immediately." The demon would have to wait until the next round, then the weapon had already returned, to go invisible again, at which point it would be a moot point (the weapon would dissappear with the quasit).
Now, if either action could somehow be made into a quick, swift, or immediate action, then your situation might occur.
|
|
Arrows that hit their target are destroyed in game terms, so there's nothing sticking out of that quasit. Same reason you can't silence something by shooting it with an arrow that has silence on it.
These sorts of situations arise when you try and stretch the game physics beyond what they actually model.
I think there is a difference between "rendered unusable" and "destroyed". In this situation, destroyed would require the arrow to be utterly annihilated, vaporised or whatever. That isn't going to happen, so presumably you should see something. The fact that the fletching might be wrecked or the head snapped off internally should not make the thing automatically invisible.
|
|
Just for note:
I treat invisibuility as Skip wants us to. It's only 2nd level, after all.
I treat improved/greater invisibility as if invisibility was being cast on you every round. thus an arrow (if it actually stuck in you, which isn't a sure thing) struck you, it would be visible until your turn, when it would fade away as gear you are carrying when the spell :resets."
This methods has always worked for me, but is entirely house rules (which are, for us, the bext kind)
I concur with Heathy - nice solution.
|
|
First, the best way for low level characters to defeat a quasit is for them to drown it. They even provide you a convenient pool for drowning in the first AP adventure.
Second, assuming the arrow "sticking" is a possible logical flaw given what HP represent. They represent both the ability to take damage and the ABILITY TO AVOID taking damage. Prior to a hit that takes a creature/character to 0 hp, all you have really done is reduced the creatures ability to avoid taking damage. The PHB is pretty clear that no real damage happens until 0hp.
An interesting point which others have expanded upon.
Third, invisibility (and the DR/Fast Heal) are really the only advantages a quasit has. Do you really want to nerf them so badly?
Christian
It also has a very high AC (as written) and decent hp. It has quite a lot going for it.