My Alchemist hit her enemy with a bomb, the enemy then caught fire.
The next round the enemy cast Greater invisibility on them self.
Would they still be shedding light even though invisible?
DBH
|
Yes. The an invisible light source is invisible, but the light still shines and illuminates the area. Likewise, an invisible creature standing in a pool of water will leave hollow spots in the water.
Edit: From the spell, "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)."
yes.
Thanks.
DM said no, but we decided to ask the experts.
DBH
Also from the Invisibility description in the Core Rulebook Glossary.
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.
Your GM can do what he wants of course, but his ruling is clearly against the rules as written.
@Jester David, what exactly do you mean by "partially revealed"? There would be a bright patch in the room from which screams of pain and the crackling of flame could be heard.
Not really.
You'd know "Hey why is it light in here when there's no lightsource? Oh damn theres something invisible here"
But actually pinpointing it now is a lot harder. You can probably narrow it down by examining shadows and such.
RAW its seems to me the flames would be visible, not only because light given off is visible (which is mainly what allows flame to be seen), but also objects dropped, picked up (unless hidden) and flour that hits an invisible creature all stay visible. Only gear carried, held or hidden remains invisible.
Also there would likely be some smoke given off.
Pinpointing the creature should be automatic, however maybe partial concealment, with something like a 20% miss chance.
The GM can simply add a circumstantial bonus to the Perception check of the PC attempting to pinpoint the invisible creature if they're on fire. There'd be screaming. And the smell.
Oh the smell of charred flesh.