| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The spells Shield and Mage Armor (and others) state:
"Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you."
and
"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."
Can I see it with a See Invis spell?
No, because it's not invisibile as per invisibility, not is it ethereal. A better wording would be a 'transparent shield of force' or 'transparent, but tangible, field of force' for those spells. Wall of Force is made up of the same material as Mage Armor and Shield. Pure Force energy, and since its simply an energy field, more or less, it is also transparent.
Yes, you would be able to see them as they are essentially just invisible objects, but it would not necessarily be immediately obvious what exactly they were since it would just look like blurry translucent patches hovering around someone.
No, because it's not invisibile as per invisibility
It doesn't have to be invisible as the spell. Also, the objects created are described directly as invisible. Force energy can be seen without means to see invisible objects in other cases, so it would seem that in this one a See Invisibility spell would allow you to see them.
Greetings, fellow traveller.
Interesting question. The fluff text would imply it, but generally you use detect magic or Spellcraft as the spell is being cast to know what's going on magic-wise.
While I can understand that you want to avoid having to cast (and waste a standard action in doing so) another spell, I'd still point out, that detect magic is only a cantrip/orison and can (usually) be cast multiple times per day, thus not wasting a higher spell slot.
Ruyan.
EDIT: Wow, ninja'd 4 times in no time...
I figured this would split the discussion into 2 separate camps. Taking the RAW, there isn't more than 1 definition of Invisible. You either see it or you don't.
I would tend to agree with Domingo that you would see an effect but not necessarily know what it was.
I did not mean to imply there were multiple states of invisibility. Rather, I meant to say that a creature or object doesn't necessarily have to become invisible through a spell effect of the Invisibility spell or Greater Invisibility spell. Natural invisibility of an object or creature can be seen with the spell as well.
|
The real question would end up being, do Shield and Mage Armour create effects that qualify as objects or beings.
Those are the only types of things See Invisibility lets you see after all.
You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.
I don't believe either of them would qualify as objects, they obviously aren't beings. Some people who want more of a real life logic to it might say they were a type of object, but mechanically they are just effects on a creature so shouldn't be subject to that kind of spell. Plus it makes Invisibility Purge weirder.
Arcane Sight is a much better spell for this kind of thing, and as such should probably be the go to spell for seeing spell effects in action.
I say it does see them since both spell create a shield and armor. I believe it would still require a check to identify those spells as usual. Besides wwwhy shouldn't a see invisibilitty spell see an invisible and tangible object? It's a niche spell that doesn't need nerfing.
Sadonic soul the spells don't create a shield or armor. That would imply objects. If that were the case they could be sundered. All they do is create spell effects that give the same bonuses as some objects. Since spell effects such as spiritual weapon are not actual objects they are not subject to anything that would affect an object unless otherwise stated.
As an example the wall of force is a force affect, but it can be damaged, just like an object because the spell specifically says it can.
They are tangible objects made of planes of force. They interact with the world as if they were normal solid objects. Glitterdust and paint cling to them. Fairie Fire outlines them. Water and smoke move around them.
See Invisible is a higher level spell that does only one thing. It let's you see things you normally can't.
Mage Armor and Sheild shouldn't be somehow exempt just because there's a slight difference in the descriptive wording.
If they are objects what is their hardness rating?
Show me rules text that says they are objects, not magical effects.
They are not tangible objects at all, any more than spiritual weapon is. If it is actually armor or a shield made of force then hand it to another party member. :)
|
|
Actually I'm going to change my opinion on Mage Armour. Didn't even think to look but it does have the Conjuration (Creation) [Force] spell descriptors so it is actually creating an object around you that is invisible.
Here I'll quote out of the magic section.
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spell caster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.
So the spell is actually creating something around the caster that is an object, granting them those bonuses so you should be able to see if using See Invisibility. Now, it probably will just look kind of odd around them as it's made of force, maybe a thin kind of bubble, or however your GM or whoever decides to describe. An odd magical glowy suit of samurai armour? That would be pretty cool. Suppose it shouldn't look better then a chain shirt though.
Wait, if it's magically real, solid armour that's actually a worn object, shouldn't it negate a monk's abilities? Oh heck! Plus it says, "Unlike mundane armor" which certainly could imply that it is counted as magical armour! It even then goes into detail on its other armour attributes. Which would make bracers of armour a bit more desirable, but I think I'm going to get flamed by the monk crowd! x.x;
Oh right, Shield is a bit harder. It's just an abjuration. Ummm... That one is harder because Abjuration just kind of mentions it can make physical or magical barriers. It's a magical barrier, but that one is more of a spell effect in the end it seems like. At very least it isn't clear cut obvious like Mage Armour is with a bit of digging. I don't know, ETV. Expect Table Variation. Maybe this needs and FAQ, or perhaps I'll email The Kobold.
Actually I'm going to change my opinion on Mage Armour. Didn't even think to look but it does have the Conjuration (Creation) [Force] spell descriptors so it is actually creating an object around you that is invisible.
Here I'll quote out of the magic section.
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spell caster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.So the spell is actually creating something around the caster that is an object, granting them those bonuses so you should be able to see if using See Invisibility. Now, it probably will just look kind of odd around them as it's made of force, maybe a thin kind of bubble, or however your GM or whoever decides to describe. An odd magical glowy suit of samurai armour? That would be pretty cool. Suppose it shouldn't look better then a chain shirt though.
Wait, if it's magically real, solid armour that's actually a worn object, shouldn't it negate a monk's abilities? Oh heck! Plus it says, "Unlike mundane armor" which certainly could imply that it is counted as magical armour! It even then goes into detail on its other armour attributes. Which would make bracers of armour a bit more desirable, but I think I'm going to get flamed by the monk crowd! x.x;
Oh right, Shield is a bit harder. It's just an abjuration. Ummm... That one is harder because Abjuration just kind of mentions it can make physical or magical barriers. It's a magical barrier, but that one is more of a spell effect in the end it seems like. At very least it isn't clear cut obvious like Mage Armour is with a bit of digging. I don't...
Flame, flame, flame. :P
I doubt any sane GM would rule that having Mage Armor cast on them, would count as armor for the purposes of Monk abilities.
I believe your confusing Invisible with Transparent. The effects are specifically stated as being Invisible.
I believe you've gone too far down the rabbit hole!
If you expect your tabletop RPG rules to be perfect in their rule wording, such as knowing exactly when to use the word "transparent" vs "invisible" then... you're going to have an incredibly disappointing gaming career. xD
For the purpose of see invisibility, if an object is invisible, it is visible to you with see invisibility.
The Knowledge (arcana) check to determine that a shield spell is a shield spell is fairly low.
I wanted to say no since they have no visible equivalent, I went and look up invisible stalker to get an idea of how that spell would handle it, the 'natural invisibility' power of the creature only mentions 'invisibility purge' not working, so I guess it would be seen as something transparent but visible, ghostly armor.
I figured this would split the discussion into 2 separate camps. Taking the RAW, there isn't more than 1 definition of Invisible. You either see it or you don't.
This is not true. Will O The Wisp , for example, have "natural invisibility" and thus aren't affected by invisiblity purge. So, although it does not affect "see invisibility", there are 2 definitions of invisible.
To the OP.
Since these are invisible, then per the See invisible descriptor, yes you can see them.
We've always played that there was a visual representation for these spells but re-reading I guess you could stealth those quite nicely and no one would know that you are using them.
You learn something every day.
We've previously played that these are the glass like representations of invisible objects like in a comic book. You can see them but they are see through. When they get hit there is a shimmer/vibration effect. I guess that's the effect you'd get if you cast "see invisible" and I'll bring it to our group that these spells are well and truly invisible from here out.