FAQ vs PRD (Natural Invisibility)

[Jadeite]

Natural Invisibility wrote:

Natural Invisibility (Ex or Su) This ability is constant—the creature remains invisible at all times, even when attacking. As this ability is inherent, it is not subject to the invisibility purge spell.

Format: natural invisibility; Location: Defensive Abilities.

FAQ wrote:

Does invisibility purge work on creatures that are naturally invisible?

In general, yes--nothing in the spell description says it only works on spells or other magical sources of invisibility.
However, note that the invisible stalker's natural invisibility specifically says that it is not subject to invisibility purge. Thus, will-o'-wisps and pixies become visible, but invisible stalkers do not.

Back to Top
—Sean K Reynolds, 06/30/11

Will-o'-wisp wrote:

Defensive Abilities natural invisibility

[Dolanar]

Will-o'-Wisp wrote:

Natural Invisibility (Ex) Will-o'-wisps have the ability to extinguish their natural glow as a move action, effectively becoming invisible, as per the spell.

Will-o'-Wisp

Invisible Stalker wrote:

Natural Invisibility (Ex) This ability is constant—an invisible stalker remains invisible at all times, even when attacking. As this ability is inherent, it is not subject to the invisibility purge spell. Against foes that cannot pinpoint it, the invisible stalker gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks when moving, or +40 when standing still—these bonuses are not included in the statistics above.

Invisible Stalker

while they have an identical name the invisible stalker's is constant while the Will-o'-Wisp's is use activated, so I imagine that is the main reason Sean says it would work against a Will-o'-Wisp.

[Allia Thren]

I don't see the problem. "Natural invisibility" is usually affected by Invisibility purge, unless it specifically states that it's not.
Where's the contradiction between FAQ and PRD that you see?

[Dolanar]

It seems as though there is variation within the "Natural Invisibility" family, the Entry in the PRD states that the defensive ability "Natural Invisibility" is never affected by the spell Invisibility Purge, as stated in Jadeite's original post. However, Sean K. Reynolds stipulated that the Will-o'-Wisp's Natural invisibility was contrary to the abilities stated workings. I think this comes up to a Broad definition vs Specific definition of the rulings, where the basic defensive ability is the broad rule while the individual entry for the Will-o'-Wisp is the specific ruling.

[Allia Thren]

Yes, I was blind, I see it now.
I guess the FAQ overrules the PRD though, and natural immunity means it can be dispelled.

However, Pixies for example can turn their invisibility on and off as a free action... so they won't really be visible for very long.
(however pixies only have invisibility, not natural invisibility)

[Dolanar]

That's the rub, if you read back to my first post, the Invisible Stalker's "Natural Invisibility" is permanent & always on. the Will-o'-Wisp's is use activated, similar to the Pixie. Now, in theory it could be a misprint that the Will-o'-Wisp HAS "Natural Invisibility" in the first place & that they were meant to have "Invisibility" just like the Pixie. Regardless however, from what I have gathered Specific beats General when it comes to the rulings, & the Will-o'-Wisp's entry regarding their invisibility is the most accurate portrayal & in that entry it does not state immunity to Invisibility Purge also note that since Invisibility Purge does not have a Spell Resistance entry, Will-o'-Wisps are not immune to it either.

[Kaisoku]

I get the impression that "natural invisibility" would mean that they actually don't have a visible form: there's no form to see if the "invisibility" were somehow taken away.
I guess you could throw flour on them and see what sticks, but that's not the same thing as the Invisibility Purge spell.

Since Will'o'wisp has a visible form, I'm guessing the intention was that they get pixie-style invisibility.

Invisible Stalkers are made of air, and have no form that is visible, so it makes more sense to have "natural" invisibility that can't be removed.

[Dolanar]

Exactly, so thats why I think perhaps the Will-o'-Wisp Entry is a misprint or unintentional in some way as it doesn;t seem they should have "Natural Invisibility" per se.

[Allia Thren]

No, pixies have a physical form and use magic to hide it.
Will-o'-wisps are different. They have no actual form, what you see is the glow they have. They can turn off that glow. They're not really invisible, but there's just not anything there to see anymore.

So I'd actually say the wisps can't be uncovered by Invisibility Purge either, since there's no invisibility to purge, instead you would have to hold the magic flashlight under their noses again.

[Kaisoku]

They are a strange case... it seems like they are automatically emitting the light, and have to suppress it. I guess the Invisibility Purge makes them stop suppressing it?

An invisible stalker's normal state is invisible, so the spell has nothing to "interrupt".

[Dolanar]

I believe this is the reason for the question to be honest.

[Talonhawke]

As a DM gonna have to rule in the way of purging the wisp since its natural form is lighted as opposed to the stalker whose is invisable.

[vip00]

Not to bring up an old thread, but is this going to get addressed officially at some point? At this point, the PRD as well as the printed material are in direct conflict with the FAQ when it comes to how invisibility purge interacts with natural invisibility. I know we have freedom as DMs to interpret rules, but it's just confusing to have directly contradicting and irreconcilable rules.

PRD wrote:

Natural Invisibility (Ex or Su) This ability is constant—the creature remains invisible at all times, even when attacking. As this ability is inherent, it is not subject to the invisibility purge spell.

FAQ wrote:

Invisibility Purge: Does this work on creatures that are naturally invisible?

In general, yes--nothing in the spell description says it only works on spells or other magical sources of invisibility.
However, note that the invisible stalker's natural invisibility specifically says that it is not subject to invisibility purge. Thus, will-o'-wisps and pixies become visible, but invisible stalkers do not.

—Sean K Reynolds, 06/30/11

[David Thomassen]

FAQ>PRD. If the creature's invisiblity mentions that it is not subject to invisibility purge then the FAQ says it is still immune to Invis Purge. The FAQ should have said to remove that last line from the Natural Invisibility description.
The first part still stands - they remain invisilbe while attacking (Unless Purged)

[mcgreeno]

Allia Thren wrote:

No, pixies have a physical form and use magic to hide it.

Will-o'-wisps are different. They have no actual form, what you see is the glow they have. They can turn off that glow. They're not really invisible, but there's just not anything there to see anymore.

I have to agree with Allia

The natural form of the wisp is air just like the stalker. I'm not sure if invisibility purge can force a supernatural power (aka the wisps glow) to activate.

If it worked like magical flour, the I could see it.