Invisibility states that it only turns the target and the target's gear invisible, it makes no mention as to whether or not spell effects are also intended to be invisible as well. At a quick glance, it looks like no, the fire from fire shield would not explicitly be invisible, but this feels a bit like GM call area to me.
It would not. Invisibility cannot hide light (it's explicitly called out in the rules).
You and your gear would be invisible, the flames might even be invisible, but the light generated by the flames would be quite obvious.
It would not. Invisibility cannot hide light (it's explicitly called out in the rules).
Doesn't fire shield only raise the level of illumination up 1 step to a maximum of normal illumination? If already in normal illumination or bright illumination, there would be no light to be hidden.
And the question was whether or not the flames were visible, not the light generated.
And the question was whether or not the flames were visible, not the light generated.
Though technically true, you must surely realize the point of the question: The OP wants to know if he can be detected. The answer is yes.
Fact.
Apart from what has already been said, that light is never made invisible, which could probably apply to most flashy spell effects, here are two possible approaches, I think.
Option a: the spell description tells us that it makes a character plus carried gear invisible. Spell effects are neither, so they are not rendered invisible.
Option b: if an invisible character drops an item, which means: does not touch an item anymore, like when making a ranged attack, that item becomes visible. Picked up items become invisible only after they are covered with already invisible cloth.
If we apply that rule in a similar manner, every spell effect that has no direct contact with the caster (blade barrier, for example, has none, while barkskin has) is not turned invisible. A spell cast after invisibility is never invisible because it is not covered by clothing.
|
Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition
A transmutation alters something that already exists, so if your skin is invisible and you cast barkskin then it is now thick and invisible. You cast Form of the Dragon you are now an invisible dragon.
... In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing...
Evocations create somthing new so those effects would not be invisible, Flame Blade, Produce Flame, Fire Shield, ect. Most force effects are already invisible like mage armor and shield.
the same would apply to conjuration spells, and so on.
Now if fire shield or another spell effect was already in place before you went invisible ... not sure. It would go on a case by case basis I would think.
You could say that Fire Shield lights yourself on fire (appear to immolate yourself) without causing damage and then it would still be you and your stuff, but on fire, and now your invisible and so is your stuff but this probably isn't gonna fly with a sane GM.
-Flash
Unless the spell has the light descriptor I would think it is not visible.
The spell is on your person so it should be visible or invisible just as you are.
Unless the spell has the light descriptor I would think it is not visible.
The spell is on your person so it should be visible or invisible just as you are.
I'd say it's a GM call since the description says it increases the light level by one within ten feet.
I would probably rule that the light is visible. In a brightly lit area I'd probably come up with a spot DC. In the dark the person would still be invisible, but the light would be unmistakable.
If the spell say that then I would agree that the light can be seen.
The spell is on your person so it should be visible or invisible just as you are.
That is a pretty libral reading of invisibility. Spells are neither you nor objects in your possession, and fire shield has a visual effect noted while not containing a clause about how it interacts with invisibility the way that mirror image does.
Meh,
If you cast invisibility first, the fire shield would be visible. If you cast invisibility second, the fire shield would be invisible. At least that is how I would work it. ymmv.
The spell is on your person so it should be visible or invisible just as you are.That is a pretty libral reading of invisibility. Spells are neither you nor objects in your possession, and fire shield has a visual effect noted while not containing a clause about how it interacts with invisibility the way that mirror image does.
Yeah it is, but that was a personal ruling. I do admit I was not clear about that.
Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
The spell is the source of the light so I would apply that here also.
I remember reading a debate a few years ago about arcane sight and whether or not the glowing blue eyes it caused would give away an invisible caster.
It is an odd interaction of effects; though having arcane sight active while under the effects of invisibility seems much more likely to occur than fire shield, and not emitting light seems like it would be a much more difficult case to argue. I still feel that this is a mostly a GM call area (other than the illumination portion, of course), but I see nothing to suggest that the flames of a fire shield spell would be invisible along with the caster.
I would have the light from the flames be visible, but not the flames. I am not saying that is how it works, and I do think it is a GM call.
...having arcane sight active while under the effects of invisibility seems much more likely to occur than fire shield, and not emitting light seems like it would be a much more difficult case to argue.
Are you arguing that glowing eyes do not emit light? :P
The very definition of "glowing" requires that there is light being emitted.
After a couple of years trying to decide...I think I like you.
Another convert! *pumps fist triumphantly*