Enough has changed in Pathfinder from v3.5 that I'm not sure of this answer any more.
If an invisible attacker is struck by a mundane arrow, can the arrow be seen to have stuck in "something" ?
Usually, an object picked up by an invisible creature does not become invisible unless the creature conceals it on his person or in his already carried objects (like a bag or a backpack). Would this hold true for an arrow or javelin that strikes him ? (Until he plucks it out and drops it).
I say its a DM call, depending on what is cooler at the time. If it seems cinematic or dramatic to have mr. invisible running around with a bleeding arrow floating in the air, then go for it. If the DM needs the target to be invisible he should just say "the bad guy breaks the arrow off and you don't see it any longer".
If you are asking if an arrow that has hit an invisible creature stays visible while protruding from the body allowing to pinpoint the creature's square then no.
Ammunition is destroyed with a sucessful hit. Only hit point damage stays.
Technically there isn't an arrow there anymore.
I see that this is not very realistic, but it's the way it goes.
If you are asking if an arrow that has hit an invisible creature stays visible while protruding from the body allowing to pinpoint the creature's square then no.
Ammunition is destroyed with a sucessful hit. Only hit point damage stays.
Technically there isn't an arrow there anymore.I see that this is not very realistic, but it's the way it goes.
"Destroyed" means "rendered unusable", not "vanished into thin air".
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
IMO, if a single hit from an arrow can negate invisibility, then what's the point of spells like glitterdust or invisibility purge? Part of the problem here is the vagueness of the hit point system. If a character has 100 hit points, does that mean he can be practically rendered into a porcupine before going down or does that mean that all the hits he takes are "glancing blows" until a "lucky shot" pops him in the throat and he goes into the negatives? If this is the case, then a single arrow hit might not even be sticking out of the target to begin with.
Play it safe. Arrows don't negate invisibility.
Question regarding the subject;
You can attack a square you think the invisible guy is standing in with a 50 % miss chance right?
Shouldn't arrows grant some sort of line attack with this? Especially at close range?
*standing in A1*
Player: I shoot an arrow straight at square D1
DM : You miss, he becomes visible again, standing in C1.
Player: Didn't my arrow just pass through that square?
I get this doesn’t work in the least for curved shots, but shooting down a 5 by 30 ft alley?
Question regarding the subject;
You can attack a square you think the invisible guy is standing in with a 50 % miss chance right?
Shouldn't arrows grant some sort of line attack with this? Especially at close range?
*standing in A1*
Player: I shoot an arrow straight at square D1
DM : You miss, he becomes visible again, standing in C1.
Player: Didn't my arrow just pass through that square?I get this doesn’t work in the least for curved shots, but shooting down a 5 by 30 ft alley?
It's for the same reason you don't have a chance to hit all the guys standing in all the squares in the same hall way when you fire at the first one. It starts getting out of control when you try to put that much realism into it. Also you were attacking him and missed, so your miss already accounts for him being in a different square. You would essentially be getting multiple attempts to hit with the same attack, it just doesn't make sense.
As to the original post I don't see a problem with it showing what square the target is in. I'd say you still have the same miss chance as you don't know exactly where that hit is on the target. It just helps pinpoint which square the target is in so you know which sqaure to shoot at. Also you have to get that hit in the first place in order to take advantage of it. Invisibility can be pretty powerful as it is and this won't happen a lot.
Even invisible people duck when you aim a bow down the hallway they are standing in.
But do they provide cover for visible or invisible creatures behind them ?
So the firer (if he can observe the square he fired thru and got lucky on the miss chance) knows that he's gotten a hit, but no ongoing knowledge.
As for the arrow attacking OTHER unknown invisible targets on the way to the intended invisible target ? Big DM headache, so I think we're just going to say they don't provide any cover or get attacked, for simplicity if nothing else.
I don't see anything wrong with having an arrow that struck an invisible creature also become invisible. There might be that brief visual image of an arrow that stopped in mid-air, and maybe even a little splash of blood (for descriptive effect), and then...the next moment it vanishes as the invisibility spell overtakes it. Having an arrow jabbed into one's body seems more "a part of him" than merely picking up an arrow would be, so I'd allow for the "extension of his gut" to become invisible.
However...the trail of blood would NOT be...
"Destroyed" means "rendered unusable", not "vanished into thin air".If you are asking if an arrow that has hit an invisible creature stays visible while protruding from the body allowing to pinpoint the creature's square then no.
Ammunition is destroyed with a sucessful hit. Only hit point damage stays.
Technically there isn't an arrow there anymore.I see that this is not very realistic, but it's the way it goes.
To me this also means forget about it; it's work is done.
Even if it is only for simplicity's sake.But yeah, you're right, ammunition doesn't vanish into thin air. It's still there, attached to the target, really.
What do you think? It's still visible or it is not?
Say it goes through him and a bloody arrow clatters into the opposite wall. Ta dah, end of story.
...but now I'm curious about a tanglefoot bag hitting an invisible person.
Good enough for me.
About the tanglefoot...
I'd just stick with the penalties described and not mess with invisibility.
And if the target is glued to the floor, then you know where it is, don't you? 50% miss chance would still apply obviously.
Good enough for me.
About the tanglefoot...
I'd just stick with the penalties described and not mess with invisibility.
And if the target is glued to the floor, then you know where it is, don't you? 50% miss chance would still apply obviously.
I think I would drop it to 20%. You can see his outline in the glue :)
I think I would drop it to 20%. You can see his outline in the glue :)Good enough for me.
About the tanglefoot...
I'd just stick with the penalties described and not mess with invisibility.
And if the target is glued to the floor, then you know where it is, don't you? 50% miss chance would still apply obviously.
Mmmm, if the arrows are "swallowed" by the invisibility why not the glue?
And if the target is not glued to the floor, what happens? 20% miss chance also?
Do we allow the tanglefoot bag to downgrade invisibility benefits to something similar to blur?
Then we should allow arrows to stick out of the invisibility field, just for coherence.
Wouldn't this be too much of an added benefit for a 50gp alchemical item? Or an arrow?
I think I would drop it to 20%. You can see his outline in the glue :)Good enough for me.
About the tanglefoot...
I'd just stick with the penalties described and not mess with invisibility.
And if the target is glued to the floor, then you know where it is, don't you? 50% miss chance would still apply obviously.Mmmm, if the arrows are "swallowed" by the invisibility why not the glue?
And if the target is not glued to the floor, what happens? 20% miss chance also?
Do we allow the tanglefoot bag to downgrade invisibility benefits to something similar to blur?
Then we should allow arrows to stick out of the invisibility field, just for coherence.Wouldn't this be too much of an added benefit for a 50gp alchemical item? Or an arrow?
or you can hit them with a 1 cp bag of flour and reveal them.
I have an instinct that tricks like the bag of flour ought to work against something like the Invisible Stalker, which has natural invisibility (defined in it's bestiary entry), but ought not work against Invisibility spells. Unfortunately, I can find no actual text to back this up.
But, regardless, my 2cp = Invisibility spells should get the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to "invisibilizing" objects that stick onto or into invisible persons, but that a naturally invisible creature, should not get this benefit of the doubt.
It probably seems like an arbitrary distinction to make, but I just don't imagine Illusion magics stopping at a character's skin or clothing. I think it is reasonable to assume that the spell isn't so easily foiled.
or you can hit them with a 1 cp bag of flour and reveal them.I think I would drop it to 20%. You can see his outline in the glue :)Good enough for me.
About the tanglefoot...
I'd just stick with the penalties described and not mess with invisibility.
And if the target is glued to the floor, then you know where it is, don't you? 50% miss chance would still apply obviously.Mmmm, if the arrows are "swallowed" by the invisibility why not the glue?
And if the target is not glued to the floor, what happens? 20% miss chance also?
Do we allow the tanglefoot bag to downgrade invisibility benefits to something similar to blur?
Then we should allow arrows to stick out of the invisibility field, just for coherence.Wouldn't this be too much of an added benefit for a 50gp alchemical item? Or an arrow?
Ok, make the flour reduce miss chance to 20% also instead of fully revealing the invisible guy and we have a deal. ;)
But we leave arrows out of the question, coherence be damned. >_<It's all DM fiat after all... so let's have fun.
Perhaps a +15 to hide, instead of +20, and it is reduced to a 40% miss chance?
An arrow can be broken off easily and quickly, and it is far to say that one would do this if invisible.
|
I know this is the Rules Forum and all, not the House Rules Forum, but here goes anyway:
Dating all the way back to 1st ed, I have ruled that invisibility extends to the boundary of one's "aura", about 6 inches from your flesh. As long as clothing, weapons, etc etc are within 6 inches of your skin, it's also invisible. If you pick up an object, it remains visible until you bring it entirely within your "aura radius". Thus the bag'o'flour trick never worked (although footprints in the flour on the floor DO work) to reveal the invisible, and an arrow stuck in a target won't either, provided it doesn't stick out farther than 6" (or the target removes/breaks the arrow).
All the above, of course, is IMC and YMMV.
What do you think? It's still visible or it is not?
Well, I let a player find an invisible vampiric decapus by loading a holy water censor with ink and spraying the room (of course, it literally just so happened that the creature in question was within reach of said character and had the next initiative score ... meaning the clever player got rewarded by a vicious tentacle whipping of doom and energy draining), so I don't think that allowing something harder to pull off (requires knowing or guessing the creature's square and succeeding at a 50% miss chance roll) is beyond the pale.
or you can hit them with a 1 cp bag of flour and reveal them.I think I would drop it to 20%. You can see his outline in the glue :)Good enough for me.
About the tanglefoot...
I'd just stick with the penalties described and not mess with invisibility.
And if the target is glued to the floor, then you know where it is, don't you? 50% miss chance would still apply obviously.Mmmm, if the arrows are "swallowed" by the invisibility why not the glue?
And if the target is not glued to the floor, what happens? 20% miss chance also?
Do we allow the tanglefoot bag to downgrade invisibility benefits to something similar to blur?
Then we should allow arrows to stick out of the invisibility field, just for coherence.Wouldn't this be too much of an added benefit for a 50gp alchemical item? Or an arrow?
Ok, make the flour reduce miss chance to 20% also instead of fully revealing the invisible guy and we have a deal. ;)
But we leave arrows out of the question, coherence be damned. >_<It's all DM fiat after all... so let's have fun.
I would proably let them get the square, but still the 50% miss, for 1 turn or until he gets a swift action, or something like that, if the players thought to ask. Its a creative solution.and I like those.
or you can hit them with a 1 cp bag of flour and reveal them.
I've never once GMed or played with a party that carries around a bag of flour just in case they encounter someone or something that uses invisibility. I don't know that I ever will, but it seems silly to think it will happen.
I've never once GMed or played with a party that carries around a bag of flour just in case they encounter someone or something that uses invisibility. I don't know that I ever will, but it seems silly to think it will happen.or you can hit them with a 1 cp bag of flour and reveal them.
Its standard gear for my party for exactly that reason.
What do you think? It's still visible or it is not?Well, I let a player find an invisible vampiric decapus by loading a holy water censor with ink and spraying the room (of course, it literally just so happened that the creature in question was within reach of said character and had the next initiative score ... meaning the clever player got rewarded by a vicious tentacle whipping of doom and energy draining), so I don't think that allowing something harder to pull off (requires knowing or guessing the creature's square and succeeding at a 50% miss chance roll) is beyond the pale.
I guess the situation wouldn't have been half the fun for your players if you ruled that the trick didn't work. Probably the same outcome, as it seems that the foul creature was already in position to attack, but not as rewarding.
Things like this make me see that while rules discussion is fun here in the boards. Once upon the table things are more about helping the players do awesome things than adhering strictly to the RAW.
BTW, did the character survive to tell the tale? Now I'm curious :)
BTW, did the character survive to tell the tale? Now I'm curious :)
The character was "killed" (as in reduced to -10 hp, this was in 3.5), but in that campaign I had an Action Point system in place, like Eberron, with the addition that any character could spend 3 Action Points to prevent their own death or that of any other character. So, no, the character didn't really die.
The reason for that action point rule was so that I could DM a campaign from beginning to end with the same characters. Which turned out to be a good plan, because no character went through that campaign with fewer than two deaths. Maybe even three deaths each, I can't remember off hand. The character who revealed the decapus died the most, and in the most horrible ways -- for example, impaled to a wall by a full Power Attack crit from a flesh golem wielding a scythe, which did well over 200 damage, at level 6 or 7. The decapus death wasn't pretty, either, for that matter; 10 tentacles at 1d8+12 damage each add up really fast when you're a rogue.