| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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
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.
Invisibility (Su) A pixie remains invisible even when it attacks. This ability is constant, but the pixie can suppress or resume it as a free action.
Is this an error in the FAQ, the Bestiary or perhaps a mistake on SKR's part?
Natural Invisibility states it is not subject to Invisibility Purge, which makes the little addendum in the Invisible Stalker entry redundant. Yet the FAQ states that Invisibility Purge works on Natural Invisibility. I know the Pixie is subject to the spell as the Pixie doesn't have Natural Invisibility, but I quoted it's ability as it was specifically called out by SKR.
So my question, for the Devs, is which one is correct? The FAQ or the Bestiary?
No offense meant, but this isn't about 'how to rule it' it's an inconsistency in the rules.
I'm asking this because the Bestiary clearly states one thing, but SKR says it works another way, yet the Bestiary entry was never changed. Either SKR was mistaken, and Natural Invisibility works as presented in the Bestiary, and the FAQ needs an update; or the FAQ is correct, and the entry in the Bestiary needs to be changed to reflect the FAQ entry.
There are a few mistakes in the FAQs, and if the reply hasn't been added to the errata, it isn't truly a part of the game. It IS an inconsistency, and it's probably one that will never see an errata-level correction. With the wording from invisible stalker, it could also be read that any "inherent" source of invisibility isn't subject to invisibility purge. What "inherent" means, I don't believe it says, but it's just a small piece of evidence showing yet another small flaw in the game.
The solution that would make the most sense to me would be to make it so Natural Invisibility (Su) is subject to invisibility purge while Natural Invisibility (Ex) is not subject to invisibility purge. Supernatural abilities don't function in anti-magic fields and other areas where magic doesn't function, while Extraordinary abilities continue to function, and that could be extended to kinds of invisibility working against invisibility purge. Of course if the ability is really "natural," then I'd think it would be Extraordinary, not Supernatural in nature.
Maybe, but the point is that the referenced creature, the Will-o-wisp, has "Natural Invisibility (EX). That would be the inconsistency in your scenario.
When rules conflict, use the golden rule:
Logic.
Determine if you believe the invisibility would be biological or magical. If it's biological, no invis purge, if it's magical, invis purge.
For example, there are several deep sea fish that can 'cloak' by changing the colour on their bottom to match the colour above them, meaning anything looking from below sees something akin to what the Predator looks like when cloaked.
So some creatures could have totally biological invisibility.