My player thinks arrows > invisibility

[DM Jelani]

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

[Nocte ex Mortis]

No. The arrows are now technically 'part' of him/his gear. No dice.

[My Self]

You have no idea where the arrows are in relation to the target. They could be stuck on an arm, poking into the chest, just barely piercing through a helmet, etc. Plus, they're moving as the creature is dodging around. Unless you fill your target up with so many arrows all over that you get a clear outline, they're going to have some level of concealment.

However, on another level, the arrows have effectively become objects that are held by and part of the creatures, so they should probably be invisible, too.

[Cavall]

Ammuntion that hits a target is destroyed. Therefore, not viable to track.

However you can also say they are now being carried by the target, making them no longer viable to track.

[Oxylepy]

You could say it's carried by the creature and thus is invisible, but that kind of negates the tucked away aspect of the spell.

By rights the player is seemingly correct, but this negates the spirit of invisibility. Honestly, the game's mechanics don't actually cover this and it's up to the GM, personally I'd say no to the player because it sets a dangerous precidence for future use of invisibility, and negates the party's use of the spell, as well as the challenge of dealing with invisibility.

If the player is declared correct, most anything could negate invisibility, such as dust accumulating on the creature.

I'd declare the arrows not sticking inside the creature, merely cutting them. Actual injury (removing arrows from wounds, amputation, etc) are outside the realm of the rules.

[Jiggy]

DM Jelani wrote:

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

The invisibility spell description wrote:

...items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.

Those arrows are visible until the creature spends the actions to hide them behind his invisible clothes. (Perhaps this is why wizards wear those flowing robes? In fact, I think I'm adopting that as headcanon now. But anyway, moving on...)

Strictly speaking, the rules are silent on what effects result from having visible arrows sticking out of an invisible target, so that's a GM call. However, any sense of internal consistency for your game world is shattered if the visible, seemingly-floating arrows don't tell you anything (and you'll probably lose any sort of trust from your players and be branded an adversarial GM who just wants to "win", deserved or not). Personally, I'd let it reveal the caster's position, but not mitigate the miss chance.

Hope that helps!

[Goth Guru]

Glitterdust says it outlines invisible creatures. Arrows say no such thing.

You want a cheep way of tracking invisible creatures? Try dumping flour on the floor. Where they stand the flour vanishes. The floor is unaffected.

[Dr Styx]

CRB wrote:

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

.

The arrows would still be visible, giving the player to pinpoint what square the target is in. But not negate/midigate the miss chance from total concealment. As stated above, there is no way for the player to know from where the arrows protrud.

[Covent]

Jiggy,

I normally agree with you but here I would remind you that this is the rules forum. In strict RAW the ammunition is destroyed after a hit. Not sticking out simply non-existent therefore granting no advantage and certainly not allowing for pinpointing or tracking an invisible target.

I think your Fifth edition is showing. :-)

Disclaimer: Last line is a gentle rib to Jiggy as he is a cool cat and in no way intended disparagingly.

[zainale]

he can track the target by the blood trail if it bleeds.

ammunition breaking might be raw but that's just dumb not all ammo breaks every time.

glitterdust and fairyfire and such spells stick to the target and reveal the target. but that might be because of light emissions.

jiggy has a good point. you should hide the arrows.

[Covent]

If this was the advice forum, fine give advice, this is not. This is the rules forum and the OP posted here asking for rules to back up his position. Whether it is "dumb" or not ammunition being destroyed on a hit is the rules and there are no rules for blood trail. So without something like the aforementioned bag of flour, no the rules say you get nothing from hitting an invisible target besides the damage and special effects your attack deals, period.

[Mergy]

Neat problem. Does the response change if they're durable arrows?

[Covent]

Mergy wrote:

Neat problem. Does the response change if they're durable arrows?

Good question!

With durable arrows I would state that there are no rules about sticking out arrows or blood trail and items/abilities/actions only do what they say they do so no. I would not grant any benifit from a successful attack simply as there is no rule allowing for such.

[Mergy]

It's sticky. I like rewarding player ingenuity, and I'm not a fan of invisibility in combat for how much it bogs down the game. Of course, archers do not need another advantage over melee.

Ask for arrows with a faerie fire enhancement. That way it's a cool trick instead.

[Valantrix1]

Who said the arrows stuck in the target? They might have went through it and out the other side. Either way, the rules are clear. The arrows were destroyed on a hit, so the best the attacker would see is pieces of the arrow, which don't have to be sticking out of the target.

[Lorewalker]

"You fool! You've only succeeded in increasing my arrow inventory by 1!"

[Sundakan]

There are no rules that allow this to happen, partly because HP is an abstract.

Who's to say the arrows even stuck in him? HP is often fluffed as "stamina" or "will to fight" with only the knockout or killing blow even dealing damage.

[Aziraya Zhwan]

One thing you can always say is that Pathfinder is primarily a permissive system saying "You can do X" instead of "You can't do X". What this means is that unless it's written that something happens, it doesn't happen by RAW. Granted, that's where GMs come in to give circumstance bonuses and other such adjudications, but the RAW answer is that "The rules don't say getting shot with arrows does anything to the invisibility... so they don't".

As you said though you don't want to be that kind of GM (invoking Rule 0), so I would possibly go with Jiggy's idea. Until the person spends some kind of action to either tuck away the arrows or knock them loose from himself then other players know where he's at but the miss chance is still very much active for the reasons outlined by others above me.

[Mergy]

I like the idea of attacks against the invisible foe making it EASIER to track the foe. Drops of blood, stuck arrows, etc., reduce the Perception check needed to pinpoint, and at a certain penalty, make it plain where the foe is standing, although the miss chance remains.

Granted, rules forum. Of course it doesn't work that way in the rulebook.

[Nathan Monson]

The most I would give this guy is the square. not even tremorsense negates the miss chance, for that you need a way to actually see him, or a pretty complete outline (as in glitterdust).

[Diego Rossi]

DM Jelani wrote:

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

The arrows don't stick in the target. Most of the hit points damage are grazes, cuts and bruises, not an arrow piercing your lung and sticking out.

Hit points are a abstract representation of our ability to dodge, get minor wounds and still be able to fight and so on.

[Diego Rossi]

Jiggy wrote:

DM Jelani wrote:

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

The invisibility spell description wrote:

...items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.

Those arrows are visible until the creature spends the actions to hide them behind his invisible clothes. (Perhaps this is why wizards wear those flowing robes? In fact, I think I'm adopting that as headcanon now. But anyway, moving on...)

Strictly speaking, the rules are silent on what effects result from having visible arrows sticking out of an invisible target, so that's a GM call. However, any sense of internal consistency for your game world is shattered if the visible, seemingly-floating arrows don't tell you anything (and you'll probably lose any sort of trust from your players and be branded an adversarial GM who just wants to "win", deserved or not). Personally, I'd let it reveal the caster's position, but not mitigate the miss chance.

Hope that helps!

Please, show me the rule that explain what result you need to do to have the arrows stick in your target instead of grazing him.

Doing 1 hit point of damage is enough or you need more?
Barely rolling enough to hit is enough or we need more?
If we hit touch AC it stick in the armor even if we miss the enemy actual AC?

There is no rule about arrow sticking in a target, adding it change the game.

if we follow this kind of logic: I have wounded you with my sword, your blood a has been spilled, now it is outside of you and visible. You need to tuck it away to make it invisible again .

[My Self]

Lorewalker wrote:

"You fool! You've only succeeded in increasing my arrow inventory by 1!"

Hah.

1. Continue getting shot until you collect 60 arrows
2. Run to town to sell all for 1 gp
3. Cast Greater Invisibility and repeat
4. ...
5. Profit?

[Rysky]

Lorewalker wrote:

"You fool! You've only succeeded in increasing my arrow inventory by 1!"

Ah! A fellow player of Elder Scrolls I see.

[Ascalaphus]

There's a way for your player to achieve his aims with stronger rules coverage:

dye arrow
marker dye
glowing ink

Invisibility doesn't stop you from emitting light, so now it should be possible to track the invisible enemy.

[Slithery D]

My Self wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

"You fool! You've only succeeded in increasing my arrow inventory by 1!"

Hah.

1. Continue getting shot until you collect 60 arrows
2. Run to town to sell all for 1 gp
3. Cast Greater Invisibility and repeat
4. ...
5. Profit?

There's a Creatures and Caverns book were a group pretends to be werewolves threatening a field so a rich farmer will shoot silver arrows at them that they pick up and sell.

[Philo Pharynx]

Now if you cast light on the arrow, I'd let it help you pinpoint the target. You'd still have a miss chance.

[Jiggy]

Covent wrote:

...the ammunition is destroyed after a hit.

Forgot that part! Yeah, that changes the equation.

The player should have used a net instead. :D

Also, wow, it's amazing how many people missed my "ammo is destroyed" error and instead went with the (also wrong) "if it's on his person it's automatically invisible too" answer. And then there's the whole "maybe getting hit doesn't actually mean getting hit because HP might not mean what the CRB says it means" thing. I guess we could all stand to put a little more effort into actually knowing what the hell we're talking about.

So! Let's put it all together! Walking through it step by step:

We know that the damage dealt from the arrows was piercing damage. More to the point, it was not slashing damage (so we know it didn't graze him with a slice as it passed by) and it was not bludgeoning damage (so we know it didn't run into him and explode without puncturing him).

We know that the CRB defines hit point damage as actually physically getting hit (not straining to dodge at the last second or whatever), which is further backed up by the interactions (or distinct lack thereof) between the rules for cure spells, fatigue/exhaustion, injury and contact poisons, natural HP recovery, falling damage, rolling a 1 on a save against an AoE, and plenty else.

Furthermore, we know that "ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless". This clearly includes the possibility of breaking into pieces, but also clearly includes the possibility of simply being bent/cracked/split to the point of uselessness while still being all one piece. As the rules go no deeper on this topic, it's left to the GM to make a ruling. Given that the OP's goal is to find a way to enforce how he wants things to go, I'll go out on a limb and say we're going with "broken into pieces".

When you put the above three paragraphs together, we have the following firmly established: The arrows physically struck the target, they punctured the target, and they broke into pieces.

From there, we move on to the invisibility rules (note that, based on context from the OP, I'm guessing that the creature is not naturally and permanently invisible, but rather a spellcaster who cast greater invisibility). Contrary to the belief of several posters in this thread, an object being on the caster's person does not automatically become invisible. As I quoted before, an object acquired after the invisibility spell was cast does not become invisible until it gets "tucked away", hidden behind/within what is already invisible.

That's where our earlier conclusions become important: if the arrow pierced the target and then broke into pieces, then where are the pieces? Any that were "sticking out" would be on the ground, while the rest would be buried in the flesh of the spellcaster. What could be more "tucked away" than being physically inside the invisible spellcaster? Thus, if the only part of the arrow that's still on the caster's person is the part embedded in his flesh, then it will turn invisible.

Put it all together, and we have our final answer: As long as the GM declares that the ammunition rules' "destroyed or rendered useless" means "shattered into pieces", then by the rules the caster's invisibility will not be compromised.

Ta-dah! :D

[Lorewalker]

Jiggy wrote:

Covent wrote:

...the ammunition is destroyed after a hit.

Forgot that part! Yeah, that changes the equation.

The player should have used a net instead. :D

Also, wow, it's amazing how many people missed my "ammo is destroyed" error and instead went with the (also wrong) "if it's on his person it's automatically invisible too" answer. And then there's the whole "maybe getting hit doesn't actually mean getting hit because HP might not mean what the CRB says it means" thing. I guess we could all stand to put a little more effort into actually knowing what the hell we're talking about.

So! Let's put it all together! Walking through it step by step:

We know that the damage dealt from the arrows was piercing damage. More to the point, it was not slashing damage (so we know it didn't graze him with a slice as it passed by) and it was not bludgeoning damage (so we know it didn't run into him and explode without puncturing him).

We know that the CRB defines hit point damage as actually physically getting hit (not straining to dodge at the last second or whatever), which is further backed up by the interactions (or distinct lack thereof) between the rules for cure spells, fatigue/exhaustion, injury and contact poisons, natural HP recovery, falling damage, rolling a 1 on a save against an AoE, and plenty else.

Furthermore, we know that "ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless". This clearly includes the possibility of breaking into pieces, but also clearly includes the possibility of simply being bent/cracked/split to the point of uselessness while still being all one piece. As the rules go no deeper on this topic, it's left to the GM to make a ruling. Given that the OP's goal is to find a way to enforce how he wants things to go, I'll go out on a limb and say we're going with "broken into pieces".

When you put the above three paragraphs together, we have the following firmly established: The arrows physically struck the target, they punctured the...

Too fun not to poke holes....

What about the pieces of broken shaft that would stick to the clothing, in a breaking into pieces situation? They would just float in mid-air to any observer clearly giving away the invisible persons position.

[Irontruth]

Note that the rule doesn't say "destroyed". It says "destroyed or rendered useless".

Destroyed =/= disintegrated
Destroyed = not usable

An arrow that hits is no longer useful as an arrow. The matter involved doesn't cease to exist though. There's still pieces of wood, feather and metal that exist are somewhere on the battlefield.

I agree, they might not necessarily be attached to the invisible person though.

[DmRrostarr]

How big would the pieces of broken arrow be, if they are to be seen?

Maybe use a Perception check as a move action to determine the square based on distance and size of the piece (diminutive?), but still have the 50% miss chance....

[GeneticDrift]

Durable arrows don't break.

I would say start describing the arrows...but that would get boring fast. It bounces off, or sticks into some armor, grazes an unprotected spot, misses, cuts an ear off. That's just one full attack.

Deflects off a cliff, washes away in the water,the wind carries it off to who knows where, a surprise eagle grabs it for it's nest....

[hasteroth]

As there is no rule, I'd suggest a house rule (unless this is PFS). Force the player to roll percentile to determine whether the arrow remains visible. Make it only a 20% chance of success. If failed the arrow either passed through, slashed along the side, or broke enough on impact to be concealed beneath clothes. And even if successful a perception check is required to determine the exact square (fairly low DC at this point) and if a high enough roll perhaps the miss chance might be mitigated to 20%.

Also no blood trail unless inflicted with a bleed effect.

If my players are being creative I hate just shutting them down, but I also hate letting them overcome extremely difficult things with mundane commonplace things like "shooting an arrow," so (barring PFS) I like to introduce mechanics (usually percentile) whenever this kinda thing happens.

[bbangerter]

Jiggy wrote:

We know that the damage dealt from the arrows was piercing damage. More to the point, it was not slashing damage (so we know it didn't graze him with a slice as it passed by) and it was not bludgeoning damage (so we know it didn't run into him and explode without puncturing him).

The idea that only slashing weapons can do grazing hits is flawed logically. It might be more common from a slashing weapon, but not exclusive to them. Both bludgeoning and piercing weapons are also possible of grazing hits that lead to more superficial damage.

As to the rest of the discussion:
There are a number of ways the whole situation could be fluffed - Jiggy provided one possibility with shattered into pieces and those pieces still 'on' the person are covered in flesh.

The arrow might have also hit the chain armor with just enough force to leave a puncture wound, then fallen to the floor. Or it may have struck bone after going in just a short distance, and again fallen to the floor afterword. Or gone entirely through the body, shaft and feathers included.

[Terquem]

Two men hiding behind a barricade as the armies of Yargorik the Merciless sack the village of Rowberry

"Eddie, Eddie, quick. I'm out of arrows, have you got any? We might hold them off for another moment and then the halberdiers will arrive from the garrison."

"Yeah, yeah, Chuck. Yeah, I've got, hold on, wait, one, two, um, six, yeah I've six."

"Great give me two, and then we'll shoot at the same time. If I go out in this, You'll have two left in case we can't stops those mangy kobolds together."

"sorry, Chuck, no can do."

"Eddie, come on, we've grown up together, Rowberry is our home. We can do this, together. Please."

"Sorry, Chuck. The arrows are useless."

"Useless? Why are you carrying around arrows that are useless? That doesn't make any sense."

"well, Eddie, they didn't start out as useless. They were sort of rendered that way when they hit me, see. I've got one in the knee, two in the shoulder, this one is...."

[Charon's Little Helper]

bbangerter wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

We know that the damage dealt from the arrows was piercing damage. More to the point, it was not slashing damage (so we know it didn't graze him with a slice as it passed by) and it was not bludgeoning damage (so we know it didn't run into him and explode without puncturing him).

The idea that only slashing weapons can do grazing hits is flawed logically. It might be more common from a slashing weapon, but not exclusive to them. Both bludgeoning and piercing weapons are also possible of grazing hits that lead to more superficial damage.

As to the rest of the discussion:
There are a number of ways the whole situation could be fluffed - Jiggy provided one possibility with shattered into pieces and those pieces still 'on' the person are covered in flesh.

The arrow might have also hit the chain armor with just enough force to leave a puncture wound, then fallen to the floor. Or it may have struck bone after going in just a short distance, and again fallen to the floor afterword. Or gone entirely through the body, shaft and feathers included.

In addition - HP is an inherently abstract system. The arrows could just as easily have missed them entirely, but to dodge them used up a chunk of his HP awesome juice. (Same reason the Stormtroopers never hit Luke/Leia/Han, they were hitting their AC sometimes, but they were PCs with a good chunk of HP to chew through before actually hitting them.)

[Diego Rossi]

Jiggy wrote:

Covent wrote:

...the ammunition is destroyed after a hit.

Forgot that part! Yeah, that changes the equation.

The player should have used a net instead. :D

Also, wow, it's amazing how many people missed my "ammo is destroyed" error and instead went with the (also wrong) "if it's on his person it's automatically invisible too" answer. And then there's the whole "maybe getting hit doesn't actually mean getting hit because HP might not mean what the CRB says it means" thing. I guess we could all stand to put a little more effort into actually knowing what the hell we're talking about.

So! Let's put it all together! Walking through it step by step:

We know that the damage dealt from the arrows was piercing damage. More to the point, it was not slashing damage (so we know it didn't graze him with a slice as it passed by) and it was not bludgeoning damage (so we know it didn't run into him and explode without puncturing him).

We know that the CRB defines hit point damage as actually physically getting hit (not straining to dodge at the last second or whatever), which is further backed up by the interactions (or distinct lack thereof) between the rules for cure spells, fatigue/exhaustion, injury and contact poisons, natural HP recovery, falling damage, rolling a 1 on a save against an AoE, and plenty else.

Furthermore, we know that "ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless". This clearly includes the possibility of breaking into pieces, but also clearly includes the possibility of simply being bent/cracked/split to the point of uselessness while still being all one piece. As the rules go no deeper on this topic, it's left to the GM to make a ruling. Given that the OP's goal is to find a way to enforce how he wants things to go, I'll go out on a limb and say we're going with "broken into pieces".

When you put the above three paragraphs together, we have the following firmly established: The arrows physically struck the target, they punctured the...

There is a BIG difference between being hit and having arrow stick in you in Pathfinder.

You are trying to apply RL logic to an abstract system, but the you stop halfway because applying it in full will break the system.

RL: you get hit by a solid hit by an arrow, it penetrate a few centimeters and stick in your body, true.
But then you have a piece and metal and wood struck into your body. Moving increase the damage, probably you are bleeding, there are very good chances that you are dead or incapacitated.

Pathfinder: you get hit by a arrow, you lose X hit points. End of the effect.

If you want to add effects because it is "more realistic" you should redo the whole system as you are breaking piece of it to follow your tastes and you shouldn't do it in the rule forum.

PRD wrote:

Hit Points (hp): Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment. To determine a creature's hit points, roll the dice indicated by its Hit Dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first Hit Die normally. Wounds subtract hit points, while healing (both natural and magical) restores hit points. Some abilities and spells grant temporary hit points that disappear after a specific duration. When a creature's hit points drop below 0, it becomes unconscious. When a creature's hit points reach a negative total equal to its Constitution score, it dies.

[dragonhunterq]

Yeah, I would like to see the rule where ammunition sticks out of the target.

[N N 959]

@OP

It appears no specific rule cover this, but it's unequivocal that if an arrow did stick into a person, the arrow would remain visible per RAW. While it's clearly open to GM adjudication, I would highly recommend GMing the game in a manner as consisted with reality as you can manage. If that means some BBEG gets taken out much easier than you thought...you can always create more.

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows, you're going to be able to at least track the square based on the arrows. So as others have suggested, I'd allow pinpointing without negating the miss chance.

Arrows kill by piercing and sticking. If you're not sure about this, watch a bow hunter reality TV show.

Alternatively, let the wizard spend a round to pull out the arrows.

[Diego Rossi]

N N 959 wrote:

@OP

It appears no specific rule cover this, but it's unequivocal that if an arrow did stick into a person, the arrow would remain visible per RAW. While it's clearly open to GM adjudication, I would highly recommend GMing the game in a manner as consisted with reality as you can manage. If that means some BBEG gets taken out much easier than you thought...you can always create more.

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows, you're going to be able to at least track the square based on the arrows. So as others have suggested, I'd allow pinpointing without negating the miss chance.

Arrows kill by piercing and sticking. If you're not sure about this, watch a bow hunter reality TV show.

Alternatively, let the wizard spend a round to pull out the arrows.

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."

BTW: "He has hit me with his weapon, so there is blood on it, I see where he is ..."

[bbangerter]

N N 959 wrote:

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows,

<Blinks>. Come again?

[pauljathome]

I think that we should change this argument to one about what hit points represent :-). After all, in some interpretations of hit points, those arrows didn't actually hit you and certainly didn't necessarily stick in.

As a practical matter, letting a single hit eliminate invisibility seems very overpowered to me so I am firmly in the "invisibility trumps arrows" camp

[hasteroth]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."

I see your realism and raise you generic complaints about encumbrance thresholds being unrealistic.

[Mergy]

bbangerter wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows,

<Blinks>. Come again?

In my personal experience shooting arrows at invisible people, the police tend to get called quite quickly.

[Qaianna]

Personally, I'd wonder how visible those arrows would be in general. Or what action it is to swat them off, especially if they're not sticking in far enough to seriously hinder. And the idea would by default devalue other weapon ideas. Blunt arrows and bullets (sling or otherwise) wouldn't stick out of anything.

And a returning dagger would just zip back to you and undo all that you were trying to do in the first place. Ha ha.

[pauljathome]

Mergy wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows,

<Blinks>. Come again?

In my personal experience shooting arrows at invisible people, the police tend to get called quite quickly.

Nope. I've shot arrows at invisible people and the cops never got called.

[Komoda]

pauljathome wrote:

Mergy wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows,

<Blinks>. Come again?

In my personal experience shooting arrows at invisible people, the police tend to get called quite quickly.

Nope. I've shot arrows at invisible people and the cops never got called.

Until today.

[Quintain]

Komoda wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Mergy wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows,

<Blinks>. Come again?

In my personal experience shooting arrows at invisible people, the police tend to get called quite quickly.

Nope. I've shot arrows at invisible people and the cops never got called.

Until today.

You need better neighbors.

[Goth Guru]

You can rule that the arrows might be sticking out of the person, but only if they are from a crit.

When I'm GMing, you would have to have fairy fire or something on the arrow to to make it visible. Ammo can have the tracer quality that causes it to light up and imbed if it hits, piercing only.

[dragonhunterq]

For the rules forum I am seeing a lot of non-rules suggestions and answers.

None of the rules about tracer ammo that I can find has any mention of embedding for instance, whether piercing or otherwise.