Arcane sight -- can glowing eyes be hidden?


Rules Questions

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:
And the glow from the spell mentioned in the OP is no lantern. It is not even candle strength.

I understand that there is a certain definition of 'glow' that we are working from here, but I'm not sure it's accurate to the intention of the 'fluff'.

Cats, for example, have glowing eyes. It's not because their eyes possess some unusual phosphorescence, but rather a trick of the way that light reflects off of their tapetum lucidum - which is effectively a mirror in the back of their eyes behind the retina which provides more light for the retina to see, allowing them to see better in the dark. Low-light vision, effectively.

Arcane Sight could have a similar effect, creating a feature that allows magical emanations to be gathered, reflected, and processed by the eyes of the creature under the effects of the spell. The visual effect would be a slight reflection of that energy - of which there is enough ambient energy from the spell itself - that registers as blue spectra to the casual observer.

In this way, the eyes of the caster would be only as visible as a cat's eyes in the darkness - and since cats in the Bestiary have no penalties to Stealth (a massive bonus, in fact), that would suggest that Arcane Sight would similarly impose no penalty for glowing eyes.

If anything, it allows the opportunity for the GM to isolate glowing eyes as a reason for a failed Stealth check for purposes of flavor, but they have absolutely no effect on the mechanics of the game - nor do they provide phantom light in circumstances of invisibility since the 'glow' is from subtle reflection, not illumination.

Scarab Sages

Dirlaise wrote:
In this way, the eyes of the caster would be only as visible as a cat's eyes in the darkness - and since cats in the Bestiary have no penalties to Stealth (a massive bonus, in fact), that would suggest that Arcane Sight would similarly impose no penalty for glowing eyes.

Excellent point! Thank you.


We have alchemists now. They can make sunglasses. Masterwork sunglasses - sunglasses you can wear at night! You can enchant them as goggles.

Liberty's Edge

If the eyes in question shed any light (bright light 5 ft., dim light 10 ft. or something like that), then invisibility would not make that invisible. And then, in this case, I could understand the conundrum.

But there's no light shed by the eyes. They're just glowy (so people know something supernatural is up when they can see the guy).

Sovereign Court

Nebulous_Mistress wrote:
We have alchemists now. They can make sunglasses. Masterwork sunglasses - sunglasses you can wear at night! You can enchant them as goggles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLEuWEvH5GI

:)

i wish i could find a hot tub time machine to go back to the 80's...

Liberty's Edge

Nebulous_Mistress wrote:
We have alchemists now. They can make sunglasses. Masterwork sunglasses - sunglasses you can wear at night! You can enchant them as goggles.

"Don't tell me you're going to wear those sunglasses on a night mission!"

"My vision is augmented."


people probably wouldn't have continued the discussion if you hadn't said you would give a penalty to stealth checks. now for my redundant opinon: if the spell doesn't give a distance for light emitted, there is no light emitted for the purpose of game mechanics

Liberty's Edge

In the 3.5 campaign I'm playing in, I deliberately didn't get Permanent Arcane Sight because of this (not the invisible thing, the fact that I'd look like a damned freak all the time). The DM would probably be ok with a non-glow version of the spell if I researched it.

As written, your eyes glow, that means, they emit photons, or light beams, or however physics works in your games. The rules are clear that you can't make a light source invisible. How far out it's visible is the real question.

If this is a home game, try to research a version that doesn't have this restriction. Have a material component or something that costs gold if your DM suddenly gets the idea that "your eyes glow blue" is secretly written as a balance constraint to hold back all those diviners or whatever.


This thread is making life very difficult. I quit smoking in May. I want one!!


cfalcon wrote:
In the 3.5 campaign I'm playing in, I deliberately didn't get Permanent Arcane Sight because of this (not the invisible thing, the fact that I'd look like a damned freak all the time)

Although, honestly, in a world full of wizards, sorcerers and thousands of fantastic things and spells, I would assume the occasional person with glowing eyes, while unusual, would be like a person with green, purple or bright orange hair in the real world. It would stand out, be unique, but hardly unseen before.

After all Golarion has a history ranging in the THOUSANDS of years. Magic has existed for all of that. Powerful mages would probably often permanency things on themselves once they could for the utility.


cfalcon wrote:


As written, your eyes glow, that means, they emit photons, or light beams, or however physics works in your games. The rules are clear that you can't make a light source invisible. How far out it's visible is the real question.

Actually not quite right.

You can make a lit torch invisible.

However the change in light levels will be evident.

-James


On a related note:

If you cast invisibility on a fire elemental, is the light given off by its body still visible?


Prestidigitation can create simple visual effects. Surely it can be used to hide simple visual effects too?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Psisquared wrote:

On a related note:

If you cast invisibility on a fire elemental, is the light given off by its body still visible?

Yes.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
VRMH wrote:
Prestidigitation can create simple visual effects. Surely it can be used to hide simple visual effects too?

IMO that is too vague of a question. As a GM it would be entirely circumstantial on what you're trying to do. So, maybe.


Gilfalas wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
In the 3.5 campaign I'm playing in, I deliberately didn't get Permanent Arcane Sight because of this (not the invisible thing, the fact that I'd look like a damned freak all the time)

Although, honestly, in a world full of wizards, sorcerers and thousands of fantastic things and spells, I would assume the occasional person with glowing eyes, while unusual, would be like a person with green, purple or bright orange hair in the real world. It would stand out, be unique, but hardly unseen before.

After all Golarion has a history ranging in the THOUSANDS of years. Magic has existed for all of that. Powerful mages would probably often permanency things on themselves once they could for the utility.

Also, one man's "freak" or "lame" is another man's "Bad A**"

"That guy over there is so massively powerful that magic is literally LEAKING OUT OF HIS EYES! He is not someone to screw around with."

Permanent spell effects are an excellent way to separate you from the common dirt farmers.

Liberty's Edge

Arcane Sight ( a 3rd level spell) trumps Invisibility (a second level spell).

I'm not sure that it's clear, by RAW, whether or not Arcane Sight lets you precisely see the character, of if it only reveals the space they are in.

In any event, Arcane Sight still requires that you be able to "see" the target, so while it trumps invisibility (just as detect magic does), it does nothing against Stealth, which continues to be a very valuable skill even in high-level, high-magic games.

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Arcane sight -- can glowing eyes be hidden? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.