I think the Rules Compendium mentioned something about the Flour-Invisibility thing. Have to look when I get home.
About the tanglefoot bag-Invisibility: I'd say your DM is right. You know in which place (square) the orc is, but can't really see him => total concealment.
Attacking the glue is helping the orc to break free, so I would not do that.
Indeed I believe that the flour issue has been addressed, similarly to clothes and equipment of an invisible person: it becomes invisible and thus does not really help.
Unless of course you have lots of flour, spread as a cloud in the air, and then look for gaps in that cloud (but due to difficulty that is still partial concealment).
Thanks for your response. If you are able to successfully hit the target with flour how much would concealment % go down? I would assume the flour would give you a fairly good outline of the invisible target. I do not think it should completely negate the concealment but would having 20% less concealment be a reasonable assumption?
Also, in the Tanglefoot bag example, by my character attacking the glue I would be attacking the target(The glue it stuck to his legs) Why would I still only get a 50/50 shot of hitting the target if I am specifically attacking the glue that is attached to his legs? Please explain.
I am not sure that I would reduce the 50% concealment at all if the target was hit with flour. There would be a lot of flour in the air, being thrown off by the target's movement and being covered by the invisibility.
As for the Tanglefoot, well, if you are attacking the glue, you are freeing your target (see p116 of the Beta).
The goo does not perfectly cover the target in the first place, so you are getting a partial "image" of the target, not a complete virtual image of the target. This means that your attacks have a chance of not hitting what you thought was the target (fold of the cloak, a sheath, the goo, etc..) rather than the target itself.
You may want to take note that the spell Glitterdust states that while the spell does "visibly outlining invisible things", it does not state that it cancels out the miss chance. And I do believe that Glitterdust would more effectively cover/outline a target than either floor or a tanglefoot bag.
The DM argued that he would still have 100% concealment thus I still only have a 50% chance of hitting him even though my character can see the glue and knows his tangled. The DM went on to say that the Orc could simply touch the glue or put his cloak over the glue to it would also be invisible.
I think your DM made a poor judgment call. I checked the Rules Compendium and it doesn't change the "flour" rule from the DMG, so it's pretty clear to me that the glue would have rendered the orc at least partially visible.
Also, how does exactly does throwing a sack of flour and hitting with it on a invisible opponent? Shouldn't you be able to see a fairly clear outline of the invisible opponent who a bunch of flour on him and would that not decrease the concealment buy a certain %?
The problem is that the DMG is vague as to what exactly happens when you coat an invisible creature in flour. It seems clear to me that you can pinpoint the square such a creature is in, but whether it still benefits from concealment is not stated.
But since outlined creatures don't gain the benefit of concealment (see following post), I'd rule that a flour-coated creature doesn't, either.
You may want to take note that the spell Glitterdust states that while the spell does "visibly outlining invisible things", it does not state that it cancels out the miss chance.
It doesn't need to explicitly say so. The only reason there's a miss chance in the first place is because the target is visually undetectable (i.e., invisible). Since glitterdust visibly outlines the target, it is no longer "invisible," and thus there is no miss chance.
For comparison, see faerie fire, which specifically states that "Outlined creatures do not benefit from concealment normally provided by darkness...blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects."
Also, how does exactly does throwing a sack of flour and hitting with it on a invisible opponent? Shouldn't you be able to see a fairly clear outline of the invisible opponent who a bunch of flour on him and would that not decrease the concealment buy a certain %?
Personally, I'm one of those who believes that the invisibility spell should only cover those things that were on the castee's person at the time the spell was cast or those things that the castee knowingly and deliberately takes into his/her custody. Dumping a bucket of paint, for instance, should outline the figure to a degree (or at least show this floating blob of paint where the figure was hit). Blood, we know does visibly spater from an invisible target, allowing tracking by blood drops,for instance. I'd say that some grains of flour could possibly make a hazy outline, though they would be fairly easy for the target to shake off.
Our group recently got into a discussion concerning Tangle bags and flour and how it should affect Invisibility. We were chasing a Orc who had a Ring of Invisibility and one of the members had a Scout headband. He threw a tangle bag at the Orc and he missed his save.
We got into an argument on how much my character could see of him after the Tangle bag hit him. A Tangle is basically 3lbs. of hard sticky glue that sticks to the opponents feet. The DM argued that he would still have 100% concealment thus I still only have a 50% chance of hitting him even though my character can see the glue and knows his tangled. The DM went on to say that the Orc could simply touch the glue or put his cloak over the glue to it would also be invisible.
However, this is not case you must put items in your bag or conceal them to make them invisible also. I said my character is going to attack the glue that I can see (which would be Orcs leg) Now would I only have a 50% chance of hitting him if I simply attacking the glue which is his leg?
Also, how does exactly does throwing a sack of flour and hitting with it on a invisible opponent? Shouldn't you be able to see a fairly clear outline of the invisible opponent who a bunch of flour on him and would that not decrease the concealment buy a certain %?
First off go for the sound if the dm is really pulling that you still can't see the orc then I suggest either setting the effected area on fire with say a flask of oil lit afterwards or a wizard/sorceror casting a burning hands, that will show him up no matter what the dm says since there no smoke without fire and vice versa and that orc isn't going to keep quiet whilst you burn him alive and if the dm says thats an evil act point out they are the one prolonging the situation not you if they want to play silly beggars be prepared to have it returned because an invisible foe should be treated as a very scary situation meriting a suitable response and for examples of such a response I heartedly recommend Slayers the anime series even the various movie versions or just check wikipedia under "dragon slave" and "Lina Inverse".
As for the flour what you should remember that even if invisible that "cloud" of flour will ahow up the invisible person's presence no matter whether any flour in physical contact turns invisible that spell cannot turn the entire cloud invisible so it lasts until they can get clear of the cloud and even then they should be leaving footsteps in flour allowing it to be tracked.
Hmm true the cloud might prevent seeing the orc BUT you have forgotten any movement in that cloud will also draw the cloud in that direction no matter how slightly that will draw attention and I'd say a Stealth check to avoid that orc being stuck with a number of opportunity attacks unless the dm doesn't recognise that opportunity attacks are not limited to melee attacks admittedly it will be hard to hit them just not impossible.
Yes it should reduce the concealment as long as its in the cloud even if its just a shadow its still alot more visible than it was before the bag of flour was thrown and it would leave evidence of its passage the dm could say they managed to bathe before you could catch up to remove that trail but remember even if this creature is invisible it isn't able to cloak either its sounds nor its scent now you understand why animal companions are so useful!
Hmm if what your dm is saying is true shouldn't you just attack the interior of the outline in the glue that remains visible?
I wonder if shocking grasp would work if you touched say a staff to the visible glue bit or covered the foe in water and then electrocuted it?
I wonder how they resolved this?
So does throwing/dousing a sack of flour on a invisble target lessen the concealment %? If so, by what %?
For a player the answer is simple... ask you DM. If you are the DM then the answer is less simple :)
I like the above suggestion of hitting the target with a flour bag and might allow it. Just throwing a fistful of flour in the general direction of an invisible creature? Would not be much help. The rules are pretty gray here and the 'Rules of the Game' and FAQ are ultimately just DM recommendations.
It takes a LOT of flour to cover a large enough area to guarantee decent coverage of something and even then dusting off (move action) would eliminate about 90% of the flour. A direct hit with a large amount should work though.
So does throwing/dousing a sack of flour on a invisble target lessen the concealment %? If so, by what %?For a player the answer is simple... ask you DM. If you are the DM then the answer is less simple :)
I like the above suggestion of hitting the target with a flour bag and might allow it. Just throwing a fistful of flour in the general direction of an invisible creature? Would not be much help. The rules are pretty gray here and the 'Rules of the Game' and FAQ are ultimately just DM recommendations.
It takes a LOT of flour to cover a large enough area to guarantee decent coverage of something and even then dusting off (move action) would eliminate about 90% of the flour. A direct hit with a large amount should work though.
Out of curiosity how much flour would you say could cover say a 10'x10' square in these circumstances?
Regarding concealment etc. one should also remember how to-hit works in D&D. Since armor reduces the chance to hit someone, it shows that the chance does not represent the possibility for the weapon to make physical contact with the target, but to do it in a way that actually does damage.
When an invisible creature is hit by a tangle bag, cloud of flour or similar visible area effect, you get better idea where the target is: thus reduction in concealment is in order. In most cases it doesn't however completely remove the concealment (the only exceptions are effects which cover the target completely and clearly, eg. Glitterdust and being completely underwater). Tanglefoot might only give a rough idea where the body is, or where its legs are, or maybe it's an arm...and cloud of flour give concealment in itself (you can try to look for gaps and movement inside the cloud but it's not easy).
Giving exact changes for concealment? That's a DM call. In a pinch halving the concealment works wonders, but that's up to DM to decide.
What is interesting is that the "official" answer posted above contradicts what was said in Dungeonscape, which states that an invisible creature doused in flour is visible until the next round, by which time the flour largely falls off or is covered up/integrated into its already invisible frame.
So according to Dungeonscape, flour negates invisibility for one round, and then everything goes back to normal next round. So if you have one character dedicated to spewing flour every round, you could conceivably negate someone's invisibility for as long as you had flour.
Out of curiosity how much flour would you say could cover say a 10'x10' square in these circumstances?
Certainly more than a fistful... I would say at least 2 lbs. If you doubt, try an experiment. There is also a big problem with delivery and distributing the flour evenly.
What is interesting is that the "official" answer posted above contradicts what was said in Dungeonscape, which states that an invisible creature doused in flour is visible until the next round, by which time the flour largely falls off or is covered up/integrated into its already invisible frame.
I think ultimately the number of decisions by WotC on this issue is only limited by how many times various authors have tried to address the issue.
So according to Dungeonscape, flour negates invisibility for one round, and then everything goes back to normal next round. So if you have one character dedicated to spewing flour every round, you could conceivably negate someone's invisibility for as long as you had flour.
Or you could use the flour to outline the target for one round then hit him with Faiery Fire.
When an invisible creature is hit by a tangle bag, cloud of flour or similar visible area effect, you get better idea where the target is: thus reduction in concealment is in order. In most cases it doesn't however completely remove the concealment (the only exceptions are effects which cover the target completely and clearly, eg. Glitterdust and being completely underwater).
Nitpick: An invisible creature in the water "is still hard to see and benefits from concealment." (DMG, page 295)
What is interesting is that the "official" answer posted above contradicts what was said in Dungeonscape, which states that an invisible creature doused in flour is visible until the next round, by which time the flour largely falls off or is covered up/integrated into its already invisible frame.
So according to Dungeonscape, flour negates invisibility for one round, and then everything goes back to normal next round.
The only reference to flour I could find in Dungeonscape is the "flour pouch," a mundane item of negligible weight (which must therefore contain not a lot of flour). But that item's description doesn't say the effect only lasts 1 round. It says:
Coating an invisible creature in flour lets you keep track of its position and reduces the miss chance to 20% (instead of the normal 50% for total concealment). While an invisible creature is coated in flour, its bonus on Hide checks is reduced to +10 if the creature is moving, or to +20 if it is not moving (PH 76). If the creature moves through water, is subjected to a gust of wind, or spends a full-round action brushing the flour off, all the flour is removed from its body.
And that's for what must be a very small amount of flour. I would imagine that larger amounts of flour would be even more effective.
Wow . . . I know I read about the "one round and then out" thing before, and somehow I must have connected this to the item in Dungeonscape by mistake. Sorry about that.
Now I have to figure out where I read the other flour ruling from.