So our inquisitor likes using the blistering invective spell to open up combat and the question came up how this spell would react with invisibility. If the invisible person failed the reflex save and caught fire would you be able to see them?
You would see the light from the fire and could feel the heat, but you could not see them directly. The rules state "An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light spell (or similar spell) cast upon it." Replace the word "torch" with "target of blistering invective that fails the save".
EDIT: Jiggy'd
Good question. I think if they caught fire you would automatically pinpoint their square, but probably does not negate the other bonuses of invisibility. Catching on fire is vague, and doesn't really say if it's a sleeve or the whole body.
So what does "give off light" mean mechanically when trying to spot, hit, etc. the invisible guy?
I imagine that the screaming would help with targeting by sound.
The fire is invisible, but the light is not, basically.
So the light is increased by however many steps a torch increases it (meaning you can likely tell the epicenter of the light source unless the whole area is well lit).
The person is still invisible, though, with all the benefits that brings.
The fire is invisible, but the light is not, basically.
So the light is increased by however many steps a torch increases it (meaning you can likely tell the epicenter of the light source unless the whole area is well lit).
The person is still invisible, though, with all the benefits that brings.
Why would the fire be invisible? For example throwing bag of flour against invisible enemy does outline him (UE). Why would fire be any different.
Why would the fire be invisible? For example throwing bag of flour against invisible enemy does outline him (UE). Why would fire be any different.The fire is invisible, but the light is not, basically.
So the light is increased by however many steps a torch increases it (meaning you can likely tell the epicenter of the light source unless the whole area is well lit).
The person is still invisible, though, with all the benefits that brings.
Because that's the only way I can figure for the rules text on the subject to matter (an invisible torch still gives off light. If the fire was not invisible, then that text would be pointless since yes, obviously, fire gives off light).
Why would the fire be invisible? For example throwing bag of flour against invisible enemy does outline him (UE). Why would fire be any different.The fire is invisible, but the light is not, basically.
So the light is increased by however many steps a torch increases it (meaning you can likely tell the epicenter of the light source unless the whole area is well lit).
The person is still invisible, though, with all the benefits that brings.
I'm imagining the Invisible Man in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen getting hit with that flamethrower.
|
Why would the fire be invisible? For example throwing bag of flour against invisible enemy does outline him (UE). Why would fire be any different.
While admittedly the exact text in the item description is vague, it does mention that the flour does "momentarily" outline them. My groups took that to mean that you don't see the flour that's actually on the invisible person, but the puff of powder around them disperses in a person-shaped clear area.
EDIT: Though the rule that picking something up later doesn't make it invisible makes it difficult with this. It would seem that if the person is on fire when they turn invisible, the fire is invisible. If they are invisible and then catch on fire, the fire should be visible. I guess the flour assumes that it gets scattered in their area, not directly on them. Sticky, damp flour on the other hand...?
|
Because that's the only way I can figure for the rules text on the subject to matter (an invisible torch still gives off light. If the fire was not invisible, then that text would be pointless since yes, obviously, fire gives off light).Why would the fire be invisible? For example throwing bag of flour against invisible enemy does outline him (UE). Why would fire be any different.The fire is invisible, but the light is not, basically.
So the light is increased by however many steps a torch increases it (meaning you can likely tell the epicenter of the light source unless the whole area is well lit).
The person is still invisible, though, with all the benefits that brings.
Well, except that invisibility works differently on your gear and on stuff that is added to you.
If you are carrying flour, it is invisible. If you have flour poured on you it is visible. If you are carrying a torch, it is invisible. If someone lights you on fire, the fire should be visible.
I am glad to see people as conflicted as my group was about this..
I don't think it is all that complicated.
-------------------
Objects that are picked up
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away). An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible.
-------------------
Thus if you are set on fire, then you cast invisibility. You, items you carry, your clothes and the flames coming from you, turn invisible.
If you cast invisibility, then you are set on fire, the fire around you is quite visible.
Why should it matter how he caught on fire....he is still on fire!
The distinction is that if I douse an invisible target in lamp oil or alchemist's fire, that fuel is just as visible as paint or flour splashed onto an invisible target. The resulting flames from the ignition of that fuel in combination with the oxidizer from the surrounding air are visible, because both the fuel and the air were not affected by the invisibility.
If I cause the target to spontaneously combust (via blistering invective), the fuel is the target itself. That fuel is already invisible, so the contention is that the flames would also be invisible (since the oxidizer, while not invisible, is the surrounding air and not normally visible).
In either case, the light from the flames and the smoke is visible, and the radiant heat can be felt.
Compare to an alcohol (ethanol/methanol) fire from the days when CART/USAC used it as fuel. The fire itself is invisible. Chemisty Link
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amy the Alchemist: Good thing I learned how to make incendiary bombs after all that business with the drow! ^_^ (tosses a bomb)
Invisible Assassin: (catches fire) AAAARRRRRRRGGGH!!!! Oh my God, I'm on &$#%ing fire!! Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!
Stan the Sorcerer: Hey, do you guys hear something?
Paladin Paul: What, right around where Amy threw her bomb?
Invisible Assassin: Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh oh god oh god oh god
Rina Rogue: I dunno, something's glowing there, but I can't see it, and that means I can't sink a couple knives into its back.
Amy the Alchemist: Well, it's screaming about being on fire, and... oh, there's some visible fire now. I didn't know fire elementals just popped out of nowhere!
|
|
So...
If I light an invisible opponent on fire with blistering invective, the light from the fire is visible, but the fire is not: pinpoints square, but still has 50% miss chance.
If I light an invisible opponent on fire with Alchemists fire or a bomb, the light from the fire is visible, and the fire (and it's fuel) is visible: pinpoints square, reduces miss chance to 20% miss chance. (Operating on the assumption that it probably doesn't completely outline the target like glitterdust does.)
Does that sound reasonable?
I dunno, having two different mechanics for different kinds of "on fire" is probably more trouble than it's worth.
what kind of worth are we talking about? 10 gold pieces 20?
I'd stick with pinpoints square, no change to miss chance because as Jiggy says, it's not worth the headache.