| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In my current campaign, a janni rogue has been a persistent thorn in the PCs' sides for a while now. When the janni did turn up, the PCs turned the tables on him, successfully zapping him with a dimensional anchor spell and pounding him with damage. Suddenly realizing that the PCs were now capable of posing a serious threat to him, the janni tumbled out a nearby window and turned himself invisible.
Now here's where things got sticky, leading to the question above.
Dimensional anchor's flavor text mentions a "shimmering emerald field" that covers the target. The argument I now find myself in is whether that "field" remains visible or not, and if not, whether the "glow" of the aura should be visible. (Specifically, whether or not the "field" negates the invisible genie's total concealment, thus making him a valid target for magic missile spells.)
I've gone looking for an answer to this and found absolutely nothing, but I'll hold off on my personal opinion and any further details so as to avoid muddying the waters.
So, what say you?
ETA: Fixed some punctuation.
I would say that flavor text does not override mechanics.
|
I would say, no. The intent and purpose of dimensional anchor is to stop creatures from teleporting or moving to other planes, not to reveal invisible creatures. If it were intended to do so, then it would explicitly state that it does so, as per glitterdust.
I can see the interpretation you're presenting, but I think that would be a house rule more than RAW.
Edit: +1 to Tiny Coffee Golem
Split down the middle...you know what square he is in...but can not target directly. So no MM, but can stab, shoot arrows, or use AoE spells...like Farie Fire.
Split down the middle...you know what square he is in...but can not target directly. So no MM, but can stab, shoot arrows, or use AoE spells...like Farie Fire.
This is how I would play it too. Allow the shimmering field to act as if you successfully made a Perception check to pinpoint an invisible enemy.
Allow the shimmering field to act as if you successfully made a Perception check to pinpoint an invisible enemy.
Just remember to do the same to your players. Is the wizard casting Light, or does the fighter have a magic item that emits light? Well, good luck with that invisibility.
Just remember to do the same to your players. Is the wizard casting Light, or does the fighter have a magic item that emits light? Well, good luck with that invisibility.
I thought that was standard practice... Invisibility makes you and your equipment go invisible, it doesn't hide your visible auras or light sources.
If you looked up the description of some headgear, you might read "this hat covers the wearer's head with a brown leather layer of leather". Well then, their head's got brown on it! So invisibility should ignore the hat, right? 'Cuz it's brown. And leather.
My point is that the shimmering (as in insubstantial) emerald (as in green) field (as in area) shouldn't be treated any differently from a hat. It too becomes invisible.
Heck, I might argue that if someone were to cast invisibility after getting whacked with glitterdust, that could be argued to become invisible again. I won't, because I wouldn't play it that way or allow it that way at my table, but only because glitterdust is strongly worded for how it interacts with invisibility. The dimensional anchor spell has no more effect than would prestidigitation to change the colour of their belt would.
If you looked up the description of some headgear, you might read "this hat covers the wearer's head with a brown leather layer of leather". Well then, their head's got brown on it! So invisibility should ignore the hat, right? 'Cuz it's brown. And leather.
My point is that the shimmering (as in insubstantial) emerald (as in green) field (as in area) shouldn't be treated any differently from a hat. It too becomes invisible.
Heck, I might argue that if someone were to cast invisibility after getting whacked with glitterdust, that could be argued to become invisible again. I won't, because I wouldn't play it that way or allow it that way at my table, but only because glitterdust is strongly worded for how it interacts with invisibility. The dimensional anchor spell has no more effect than would prestidigitation to change the colour of their belt would.
See bolded sections, taken directly from Invisibility...
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. 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.
So your brown headgear would become invisible, being that it is counted as "carried gear".
As stated, light is never made invisible, only the light source. So the light source in this case is the character emanating the field. The character as the light source can go invisible, but the light from the field never will.
My point is that the shimmering (as in insubstantial) emerald (as in green) field (as in area) shouldn't be treated any differently from a hat.
shimmer (Merriam-Webster) intransitive verb
1: to shine with a soft tremulous or fitful light : glimmer2: to reflect a wavering sometimes distorted visual image
shimmering (Collins English Dictionary) shimmer —vb
1. (intr) to shine with a glistening or tremulous light
shine (Collins): —vb , shines, shining, shone
1. (intr) to emit light
2. (intr) to glow or be bright with reflected light
(more)
That seems to imply the object emits some sort of light, but in common usage, it's generally assumed that some existing light is being reflected, rather than emitted.
So if the shimmering emerald field emits light, then they can locate his position. If it merely alters the light that would be reflecting from it, then they can't.
I think the intent of the spell was not to cause the creature to glow and hamper being invisible.
Yes, you are RAW/RAI correct, but I really don't have too much of an issue with a 4th level spell impacting a 2nd level spell (or SLA) in this way, while not totally negating it.
I'm also sure it is not something the designer/editor of the spell even though of.
This is the fun/spirit of the game, players will come up with interesting workarounds. It's a brilliant way to get the PITA Badguy.
How did you play it John Mangrum?
I would probably rule that the characters have a substantial miss chance. They know where he is but a glimmering aura is not enough to guarantee a hit.
How did you play it John Mangrum?
It was the end of the session, and I was in a fairly tired state; also keeping in mind that my players loathe this villain, I allowed myself to be talked into accepting that the "field" was visible, which allowed the party sorcerer to blow the janni out of the sky with magic missiles. Even as I allowed it, however, I had a pit in my stomach that I was seriously punking a moderately significant villain. Within about 10-15 minutes I'd reached the conclusion that I'd made a bad call. There's no language in the spell that overrides invisibility, no mention of a visible glow that would remain visible even if the field itself were invisible, and the utter absence of online discussion cemented in my head that I'd wandered into an extreme corner case. The problem this presents for the players is that they hadn't prepared any means of countering the janni's invisibility, and with him being a nimble rogue, area attacks have proven useless against him in the past, so the answer to this puzzle basically boils down to:
1) Field Visible: The invisible janni is completely outlined by shimmering energy, negating his total concealment. End result: PC sorcerer targets janni with magic missiles and blows him out of the sky.
2) Field Invisible: The janni is stealthy, invisible, and flying under the open night sky. The PCs pursuing him aren't terribly perceptive. End result: The PC have virtually no chance of locating the janni once he moves from his last known position. Janni escapes to lick his wounds.
3) Field Invisible, Glow Visible: The janni retains total concealment, but the faint luminescence gives him away, making it possible to pinpoint the square he occupies. Magic missile can't target the janni, but the PCs can fly faster than he can. End result: The encounter results in a protracted chase from which the janni probably doesn't escape.
With our next session rapidly coming up, I told the players I was going back on my earlier decision (specifically, that the magic missiles couldn't target the janni, so I was backing up the combat to the moment the janni moved out of melee and turned invisible, giving the PCs a round of actions while the now-invisible janni remained in a known location. My players were... not happy about this, but rather than argue with them I've come looking for a broad consensus.
For me, the issue isn't looking for excuses to keep this bad guy alive; time's running out for this guy as regardless, and in a best case scenario he escapes with the sobering realization that he needs to start treating the PCs like a deadly threat rather than pawns and chumps who happen to be holding the treasure he wants. No, for me it's purely wanting to make sure that I haven't killed a significant NPC via means that are flatly impossible. "Terrible GM Rules Call" would be a lousy cause of death to put on this guy's death certificate.
I'm also very much a goose-and-gander GM; PCs and NPCs obey the same rules, so this is setting a precedent for future encounters.
(I admit I'm also a little gun shy, having once allowed a bad precedent about glyph spells to nearly derail a 2nd edition Ravenloft campaign, long, long ago.)
3) Field Invisible, Glow Visible: The janni retains total concealment, but the faint luminescence gives him away, making it possible to pinpoint the square he occupies. Magic missile can't target the janni, but the PCs can fly faster than he can. End result: The encounter results in a protracted chase from which the janni probably doesn't escape.
This option is the correct one based on the way that Invisibility works. So you weren't far off in how you made your call.
Personally I would go with your third option. This sets a reasonable precedent and you can just rule that the character's killed the janni with some method other than Magic Missile. This prevents you from retroactively allowing the janni to live.
Personally I'm good with number 3 and number 2. Number 3 is probably the 'most correct' though.
This option is the correct one based on the way that Invisibility works. So you weren't far off in how you made your call.
I agree on the basis of how invisibility works; the question in this case is whether the field actually glows.
It occurs to me that the issue is somewhat broader than my specific scenario. Really, the question isn't just "Does dimensional anchor defeat invisibility?" It's "Do fields and auras defeat invisibility?" There's about half a dozen spells this could affect, it seems.
Wrathful mantle, for the record, explicitly does glow like a torch, but as far as I can find it's the only spell that cloaks a single target in a shimmering field or aura that does so.
I thought that was standard practice... Invisibility makes you and your equipment go invisible, it doesn't hide your visible auras or light sources.
Just remember to do the same to your players. Is the wizard casting Light, or does the fighter have a magic item that emits light? Well, good luck with that invisibility.
Invisibilty specificly hides light sources.
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).
Your Light spell becomes invisible, but the light it creates (20' normal, 20' dim) does not.
Does the shimmer provide illumination (5' dim, perhaps)? If so that can't become invisible otherwise, it's gone. The spell makes no mention of the light shep by this emerald field, so it sheds none.
I'd say it doesn't emit light (since the spell doesn't specify that it does).
Especially since it specifies a "shimmering emerald field" rather than an aura. I'd picture it as a sort-of semi-translucent green oil-slick effect covering the creature and its equipment (if any).
I'd probably be sold if it said "aura", though.
Even if you accept the fact that the field is visable...Magic Missile is a targetted spell and would not have been able to be used.
And I agree with Quantum Steve in the basic fact that the spell does not say it sheds light...therefore..it does NOT.
I recall a similar debate asking if the glowing eyes of arcane sight revealed an invisible caster's presence.
I recall a similar debate asking if the glowing eyes of arcane sight revealed an invisible caster's presence.
Aha! Thanks for that. Here's what SKR had to say in that discussion:
As the spell doesn't say the light's strength (frex, a candle), the glow is just superficial and not enough to read by... basically like those full-panel glowing wristwatches.
If you're invisible, the glowing isn't visible, but the light from it is. But the light is so superficial that it's really not *illuminating* anything beyond about six inches, so unless the caster puts his face 6" from an object, observers won't be able to see the light from the glowing eyes.
Arcane sight, like detect invisibility, lets you detect the location of an invisible creature's aura, but doesn't let you attack them as if they were visible. Basically, these spells let you pinpoint the invisible creature's square (thus, you know which square to attack, but still have the 50% miss chance).
I think the janni's going to get away.
Glad I could help. :)
I really hate flavor text with light/fire in it that does not describe whether or not it emits light. A big offender to this is fire elementals/elemental body(fire)
|
From the description I would go with option 3. A light strong enough to be noticed if you are really close, but not strong enough to illuminate anything.
So I would give a decent bonus to perceiving the janni location (+5 or so) if it is a dark night or they are indoor, but nothing more.
Outside with a starlight sky? Maybe a +2, the background is bright enough that it will affect the chance to pinpoint him.
Mathias, I share you pain.
A fire elemental shed light?
A air elemental is visible? (RAW it is, but why? I is actually a cloud shaped elemental?)
A water elemental is visible while immersed in water?
On the other hand treating a air or water elemental as invisible or partially concealed when in the right environment will increase their CR.
I had a character that died because my GM ruled that an air elemental in whirlwind form was opaque and that I didn't have line of sight to teleport out.
Good question.
It was the Shift ability of a conjuration (teleportation) specialist wizard. The ability specifically states you need line of sight.
I was hoping to avoid Concentration checks by using a supernatural ability.