First off I'm in the bandcamp that doesn't think a 0th level spell should be able to defeat a 2nd level spell, but I'm asking you how you would adjudicate this situation.
1) Attacker casts Create Water into a square with an invisible creature.
....a) Does the defender make a Reflex save to avoid the water?
....b) Is the defender outlined briefly?
....c) Is the defender wet and leaves visible wet foot-prints?
2) Attacker casts Create Water into a square that an invisible creature moves though
....a) Does the defender leave foot prints? For now long?
....b) How much water do you need to make the area muddy?
The invisible character is still invisible, and still has a 50% miss chance even if his square is detected. I would just allow invis to win outright though.
Reflex save to avoid the water or have their square outlined until the start of their turn when they can do the golden retriever shake as a free action?
From the Conjuration rules:
It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Is the location open?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now from the Invisibility rules:
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).
And in response to Hama:
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.
The rules only apply when you are actively doing it. See Glitterdust.
Water would be considered invisible while clinging to an invisible character. It would be as if he tucked it under his clothes.
So you are saying that if I have a bucket of red paint, and randomly splash it into a square that contains an invisible character, and the invisible creatue failed a reflex save versus the splash attack, the paint that splashes on him would then turn invisible? That is certainly a new one on me.
Master Arminas
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Water alone can foil invisibility, so creative use of the Create Water spell should be able to foil it in the same manner as water.
Invisibility extends to objects in your possession, that includes water drops. While the water created by the spell would make it obvious that an invisible creature is there (since the water disappears in the vague shape of the creature), is would not stick around in midair.
Create water, like powder, can identify the square an invisible creature is in, but won't remove the 50% miss chance.
This is one of those RAGMD* situations its gonna vary from table to table.
*Rules As Game Master Decides
Huh, that's a nice way to use a 0 lvl spell.
Kudos.
|
Water would be considered invisible while clinging to an invisible character. It would be as if he tucked it under his clothes.So you are saying that if I have a bucket of red paint, and randomly splash it into a square that contains an invisible character, and the invisible creatue failed a reflex save versus the splash attack, the paint that splashes on him would then turn invisible? That is certainly a new one on me.
Master Arminas
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Any paint splashed on the creature will become invisible. Any paint splashed around the creature will, however, remain visible. You cannot foil a spell through mundane means. However, if the creature vacates the square in which you splashed it, it will leave visible red footprints, and thus you will not have to succeed on a perception check to pinpoint the square which the creature inhabits. 50% miss chance will, of course, remain.
I can think of plenty of instances where mundane means foil spells.
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Any paint splashed on the creature will become invisible. Any paint splashed around the creature will, however, remain visible. You cannot foil a spell through mundane means. However, if the creature vacates the square in which you splashed it, it will leave visible red footprints, and thus you will not have to succeed on a perception check to pinpoint the square which the creature inhabits. 50% miss chance will, of course, remain.Water would be considered invisible while clinging to an invisible character. It would be as if he tucked it under his clothes.So you are saying that if I have a bucket of red paint, and randomly splash it into a square that contains an invisible character, and the invisible creatue failed a reflex save versus the splash attack, the paint that splashes on him would then turn invisible? That is certainly a new one on me.
Master Arminas
And that is, in my own humble opinion, is outweighed by common sense. Magic does not automatically trump mundane means and options. If you are invisibile, and someone splashes paint in the square you are in (and you get splattered), guess what? You can now be partly seen! That is how I run it, at least. And if you pick up a bucket while you are invisibile, that bucket remains visible. Anything you do not have on your person at the time the spell is cast does not become invisible just because you pick it up and it is now in your possession. That is how I rule it, at least.
Master Arminas
|
|
Not this kind of spell, which is specifically designed so that a character should NOT be detected by people who do not: have magical help, insanely sharp senses.
Any mundane means of detecting an invisible creature would automaticaly fail in my games, except that it would show the square where the creature is standing at the moment. So, no, water, paint, flour, dust or anything else, should not be supposed to reveal a creature obscured by a 3rd level spell, which, let us remember cast by near superhuman to superhuman characters.
So your character buys a sack of flour for 2cp at the market and i should let him reveal invisible creatures? Yeah right.
First of all invisibility is a 2nd level spell. Second, that particular technique has been used to defeat it since the hoary old days of 1st edition. However, it has its downsides (covering everything in flour, lugging around a 5-lb bag, hitting with a 5-lb. bag, etc., etc., etc.).
So this second level spell, gained by a neophyte 3rd level wizard means that he walk (invisibly) into a store, pick up any item he wants (which then turns invisible without him casting another spell), and walk right back out? Hmmmm? I'd say no.
Master Arminas
|
|
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Any paint splashed on the creature will become invisible. Any paint splashed around the creature will, however, remain visible. You cannot foil a spell through mundane means. However, if the creature vacates the square in which you splashed it, it will leave visible red footprints, and thus you will not have to succeed on a perception check to pinpoint the square which the creature inhabits. 50% miss chance will, of course, remain.Water would be considered invisible while clinging to an invisible character. It would be as if he tucked it under his clothes.So you are saying that if I have a bucket of red paint, and randomly splash it into a square that contains an invisible character, and the invisible creatue failed a reflex save versus the splash attack, the paint that splashes on him would then turn invisible? That is certainly a new one on me.
Master Arminas
And that is, in my own humble opinion, is outweighed by common sense. Magic does not automatically trump mundane means and options. If you are invisibile, and someone splashes paint in the square you are in (and you get splattered), guess what? You can now be partly seen! That is how I run it, at least. And if you pick up a bucket while you are invisibile, that bucket remains visible. Anything you do not have on your person at the time the spell is cast does not become invisible just because you pick it up and it is now in your possession. That is how I rule it, at least.
Master Arminas
Well, sorry, does not work like that.
This is the spell. It clearly states that anything that you tuck under your clothing becomes invisible as well. I rule that flour, paint and similar things become invisible with the character. And common sense in a world of magic?
|
|
My bad...2nd level. And yes, a wizard can cast invisibility, enter a store, take an item and tuck it under his robe. After which it will turn invisible. Of course if someone notices an item floating up and suddenly dissapearing, it is another story completely. Also, what if the store is full of people? How will the wizard avoid bumping into people? This is not 1st edition. And i would really love if devs came to clarify, although the chances are slim.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.
if tucked being the operative part of the sentence; or are you just ignoring that verbage? Which means, from a different point of view, that anything you do not actively and deliberately spend an action hiding underneath your clothing (which is invisibile) or within a pouch (which is also invisible) remains visible. And that most certainly includes paint, flour, or water.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine for your game, Hama, but don't go around saying that your interpretation is the end of it for everyone else's game.
Show me anything in the rules that even remotely suggests that a fluid/solvent/etc., splashed on an invisible creature would, itself, become invisible. I find that argument to be completely ridiculous.
Who the devil said anything about foiling the spell completely, Hama? It doesn't dispell the invisibilty and you still have a miss chance and concealment. But there is no longer any guessing about what square your are in. Watch the old classic film The Invisible Man or the modern Hollow Man and you will see what we are talking about here.
But when that big floating blob of red paint goes running past, I think it is pretty safe to presume that the creature it is on and that I can't see is invisible and in this specific square! Heck, I might even allow someone a bonus on the rolled miss chance because of that.
Master Arminas
|
|
Who the devil said anything about foiling the spell completely, Hama? It doesn't dispell the invisibilty and you still have a miss chance and concealment. But there is no longer any guessing about what square your are in. Watch the old classic film The Invisible Man or the modern Hollow Man and you will see what we are talking about here.
And i have said that in every single one of my posts, but it seems that nobody read that, being stuck in my "stuff that covers invisible creatures becomes invisible" point.
But when that big floating blob of red paint goes running past, I think it is pretty safe to presume that the creature it is on and that I can't see is invisible and in this specific square! Heck, I might even allow someone a bonus on the rolled miss chance because of that.
Master Arminas
As i have said, IMHO, anything spilled on an invisible character should become invisible, simply because if i were a wizard and researched the spell to make myself invisible, i would certainly take into account a random chamber pot spill, flying bird pooping on me while passing over, rain or paint or flour or some such, otherwise, how would i be able to sneak into the house of the pretty countess and watch her change? That is why there is glitterdustand dust of appearance which costs 800gp.
I just think that you are too rooted in common sense. Magic is not common sense. It is magic.
But the spell, in your own quote, doesn't do that. Yes, you can hide stuff under your invisible clothes--but if you don't it remains visible. Sorry, Hama, but neither invisibility or greater invisibility does that. Invisibility circle might. I'd have to check.
Master Arminas
As a GM I would consider this to be a reasonably creative use of a zero level spell. But I wouldn't allow it to be used as a replacement to glitterdust.
A 20th level caster could create 40 gallons of water, which if cast to cover an entire five foot square area (one square on the game board) would be slightly more than six inches thick before raining on the square. Such a deluge would almost certainly reveal an invisible creature as the water splashed on and around the creature. However, I would probably give the creature a reflex save (using the caster's normal DC for a zero level spell).
If the caster attempted to cover four squares (100 sq feet) with the spell, the water would be between one and two inches thick. I'd probably require at least a DC 15 spot check to see the invisible creature. Again, a reflex save would apply.
Just off the top of my head I'd say that three inches or more of water would reveal a creature that failed a reflex save.
Between one and three inches I'd say would reveal a creature that failed a reflex save if the spellcaster succeeded in a DC 15 spot check.
Less than one inch I'd say doesn't reveal anything.
The water, once on the floor, would make a puddle that is entirely within the GM's discretion. Whether the puddle revealed the location of the creature would be dependent on too many circumstantial things to come up with any specific rule. But at the very least I'd give the creature at least an opportunity to apply stealth to its movement.
Finally, water that soaked into the creature's clothes or fur would be treated as having become part of the creature's clothing and would be as invisible as if the creature were sweating.
Just how I'd do it.
Tremorsense, ftw.
Try 1,800 gp. And read the item again.
Price: 1,800 gp
This power appears to be a very fine, very light metallic dust. A single handful of this substance flung into the air coats objects within a 10 foot radius, making them visible even if they are invisible. It likewise negates the effects of blur and displacement. In this, it works like the faerie fire spell. The dust also reveals figments, mirror images, and projected images for what they are. A creature coated with the dust takes a -30 penalty on its Stealth checks. The dust's effect lasts for 5 minutes.
Dust of appearance is typically stored in small silk packets or hollow bone tubes.
It automatically affects everyone in a 10-foot radius, no save. It negates invisibility. It negates bluff. It negates displacement. It outlines creatures like a faerie fire spell. It renders many types of illusion irrelevant. Creatures covered take a -30 penalty on all Stealth checks. And it lasts for 5 minutes.
There is quite a bit of difference between have to hit a single target with a 5-lb bag of flour and this item. Never mind that dust of appearance weighs virtually nothing.
Master Arminas
And I just checked invisibility sphere. It only affects creatures and what they are carrying. So no, none of the spells do what you want it do, Hama. Sorry, but them's the facts.
Master Arminas
|
This is the spell. It clearly states that anything that you tuck under your clothing becomes invisible as well. I rule that flour, paint and similar things become invisible with the character. And common sense in a world of magic?
Maybe you should read that spell description again, or even just what you typed.
items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature
How the hell is your wizard tucking his flour or paint-covered clothing into itself?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A puddle on the floor makes an invisible character detectable. It is clearly called out in the spell.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).
So throw the water on the floor and call it a day.
Blegh
Ninaje'd by karkon, whose statement is like iceberg vs titanic.
A puddle on the floor makes an invisible character detectable. It is clearly called out in the spell.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).So throw the water on the floor and call it a day.
So how many gallons of water per 5-foot square to make a puddle? 7.48 gallons of water take up 1-cubic foot.
You know, he doesn't even have to step in a puddle. Pour that much water on someone and he is going to be dripping quite a bit afterwards. Just follow the dripping droplets. lol
Master Arminas
|
Just to chime in: I agree that Create Water could most certainly reveal what square the invisible creature is in, though it would still leave a 50% miss chance (something that coats them with a non-translucent material, like flour or paint, would negate that to some extent).
@Hama: Your assertion that mundane should never counter magical is patently ludicrous. Many spells explicitly list mundane counters. Even the one currently being discussed (Invisibility) has explicitly mentioned mundane counters, and create water would be operating off of one of those that are explicitly enumerated. Heck, you can stop a lot of spells with cloth (such as suppressing darkness or light spells, or simply blocking line of effect for a variety of other effects). A weaker fireball could even be stopped by closing the door! (Though the door would not be too well off.) The Reverse Gravity spell is completely negated by possessing flight, meaning your average crow could naturally ignore a 7th level spell.
There are many more examples, but the point remains that mundane counters for spells are extremely common.
Casters should not be immune to creative countering just because you can wave the word "magic" over the situation.
The height of a puddle of water is 4.5 mm (0.177165354 inches) not 1.0 cm (0.393700787 inches)...that might make the math work better.
|
|
Just wanted to chime in with another vote for it's a neat trick to pinpoint the invisible's square, but attacker will still have 50% miss chance and invisible guy will still have the Stealth bonus (although he would probably have to re-Stealth after the splash).
from the PRD Glossary section:
"Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment."
"Can be tracked" does not mean "must be tracked."
An invisible creature using stealth is not going to be obvious if moving through puddles. They would have to move slow, but that's what stealth IS.
If an invisible creature runs blindly through a puddle, then by all means the water will help identify where he WAS. But if he's sneaking, then you'll have to beat his stealth check.
|
Show me anything that says that it should...and again, mundane stuff should not foil the spell completely, just reveal the square in which the creature is in.
From the Core book Glossary, on invisibility:
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
It does not foil it completely, but until it is removed, it would allow them to track the location of the invisible person.
Even if you know where they are, you still have the 50% miss chance.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know, for a single copper you can buy a little pouch of powder. You can throw it into a square as an attack against AC 5, and a hit tells you whether or not there's an invisible creature in that square (the 50% miss chance still applies).
I, for one, am okay with a cantrip being as powerful as a copper piece.
|
|
It seems that everyone suffers from messageboard blindnesss, completely ingoring the fact that i have agreed repeatedly that using water/pain/flour/etc on a character would reveal the square said character is occupying, and would continue to reveal that square for several rounds.
What i disagree with is the fact that some people think that spilling water/paint/flour on an invisible character should reduce the miss chance from 50% which is ridiculous, or reduce the stealth bonus, which is also ridiculous. Also, in my opinion, any paint spilled on an invisible creature should also become invisible until the spell expires or the paint/water/flour is separated from the character.
@ Stabbity, those are specific counters.
It seems that everyone suffers from messageboard blindnesss, completely ingoring the fact that i have agreed repeatedly that using water/pain/flour/etc on a character would reveal the square said character is occupying, and would continue to reveal that square for several rounds.
What i disagree with is the fact that some people think that spilling water/paint/flour on an invisible character should reduce the miss chance from 50% which is ridiculous,...
You also appear to be ignoring what they are writing. Most of the posts above agree that it would locate where the invisible person is and that there would still be the 50% miss chance.
Both sides seem to vehemently arguing the same side. That may be because both sides were not terribly clear on what they meant at first. Then of course emotions got involved.
... or reduce the stealth bonus, which is also ridiculous...
This is less clear. Only a few mentioned this. I happen to agree. It does not reduce the stealth bonus given by the invisibility. It gives an additional penalty to using stealth in this situation/environment. Most GM's I have seen would give a person a penalty of -2 to -4 if trying to sneak in an area where it is inherintly difficult. Sneaking across a rubble strewn floor, a pile of leaves, or through a mud puddle all fit that situation.
...Also, in my opinion, any paint spilled on an invisible creature should also become invisible until the spell expires or the paint/water/flour is separated from the character...
That would be in the nature of a house rule since the books clearly disagree with you on this one. It is a house rule I have seen fairly often though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My other favorite line for invisibility is this:
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.
If you have an object that gives off light, and have it out when you are invisible, people are going to be able to see where you are.
Also, while floured/watered/painted you do remain concealed, the flour/water/paint does not. While you could use stealth, the item covering you cannot, and still remains visible. Sure, you are still hard to hit (50% miss chance, I would lessen that chance if you where 100% covered in flour, but that is neigh impossible to do) since you are now being observed, you cannot use the stealth skill.
Since stealth states:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Want to use stealth and slink away, get that flour/water/paint off of you (great use for a level 0 spell called prestidigitation).