Unless they are leaving a blood trail, the blood won't be at all visible. Anything carried by an invisible creature (excepting other creatures) is also invisible (out to 10 feet at least).
10 feet seems a bit much, guess that is done for reach weapons though.
If you attack an invisible creature and damage him would you or others see blood around him or coming out of him?
How does this work? Would there be blood on his clothes and would it show?
I assume you would see blood around the ground and squirting around the air?
This is a very interesting question! The combat rules of D&D, according to Monte and Sean, are designed to be "abstract" so that you should not let nuances of reality intrude when it could hold up the game etc. - so in this case I would tell the player that basically yes, you bleed but it's covered under your invisibility spell - until you attack you are not visible in any manner (unless he has greater invisibility on).
10 feet seems a bit much, guess that is done for reach weapons though.
That is if they were carrying the item when the spell was cast. An item picked up later has to be concealed on the creature to be invisibile.
That said, a creatures blood is part of them and thus invisible. Once it leaves a creature (such as on a sword blade) it becomes visible. It would not be unreasonable to allow a Survival roll to try and track a wounded creature that is fleeing while invisible or one that moves during combat. The character would just be using a different skill to locate the target.
I really wish they would add in the phrase
Anything leaving a invisible character becomes visable in 1d4 rounds.
As the spell is writen now..
I think blood would remain invisible on the invisible person.
I think blood would become visible on the weapon that was used to strike him.
I think blood would be come visible on the ground. (( altought i would house rule that it would take 1d4 rounds... to keep in spirit of the perpose of the orgianl spell use )).
Anyway my take of it.
This issue was handled in the second League of Extraordinary Gentlemen book. It was pretty nasty, too.
This is a very interesting question! The combat rules of D&D, according to Monte and Sean, are designed to be "abstract" so that you should not let nuances of reality intrude when it could hold up the game etc. - so in this case I would tell the player that basically yes, you bleed but it's covered under your invisibility spell - until you attack you are not visible in any manner (unless he has greater invisibility on).
+1
BTW, If you want to allow a bit of simulationism; some mundane ways to counter invisibity, you can visit this thread where some of these ideas were discussed.
Combat is an exercise in descriptive storytelling, so let the DM and players work it out however they feel it is best I say. Just because a hit does 20 or 30 points of damage does not mean it causes a bleeding wound.
Bleeding attacks (rogue talent), bleeding criticals (feat), and wounding weapons do cause bleeding damage, but even they are open to debate as to how much blood loss they cause. So again it comes down to how the DM and player describe it at their table.
FWIW, I would make use of the blood trail and survival check to "track" an injured, invisible foe. /salute!
Combat is an exercise in descriptive storytelling, so let the DM and players work it out however they feel it is best I say. Just because a hit does 20 or 30 points of damage does not mean it causes a bleeding wound.
Bleeding attacks (rogue talent), bleeding criticals (feat), and wounding weapons do cause bleeding damage, but even they are open to debate as to how much blood loss they cause. So again it comes down to how the DM and player describe it at their table.
FWIW, I would make use of the blood trail and survival check to "track" an injured, invisible foe. /salute!
It might not cause blood loss at all even. Constructs don't (usually) have blood, but are still susceptible to bleed attacks.
Combat is an exercise in descriptive storytelling, so let the DM and players work it out however they feel it is best I say. Just because a hit does 20 or 30 points of damage does not mean it causes a bleeding wound.
Bleeding attacks (rogue talent), bleeding criticals (feat), and wounding weapons do cause bleeding damage, but even they are open to debate as to how much blood loss they cause. So again it comes down to how the DM and player describe it at their table.
FWIW, I would make use of the blood trail and survival check to "track" an injured, invisible foe. /salute!
It may not be a bleeding wound, but the does not mean there is no loss of blood either. I would allow someone to track the creature later (drips), and a blood splatter at the site, if the person took a decent amount of damage from a hit.