It does say "generally speaking." That means that it could still easily be stuck in the target should the GM want it to. The rest of my post is unaffected by that error.
No one is sawing the DM can't or shouldn't make a house-rule for arrow sticking. You're just seeing a lot of people saying 'that's not in the rules'. Secondly, the rule is "generally" as some types of ammunition isn't destroyed, such as Durable Arrows. "Durable arrows don’t break due to normal use, whether or not they hit their target" Another example of ammo not breaking is with weapons that use other weapons as ammo. For instance, a Spear-sling can fire harpoon at someone and as the harpoon is a weapon, it's not destroyed and could stick in the target. So it's basically 'generally speaking, unless another rules overrides it'.
The GM needs to make things up sometimes.
Again, I don't think anyone disputes that, but "make things up" isn't exactly the focus of a section of the forum called 'Rules Questions' is it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Put the onus on the other foot. "Show me the rules that support your position, and I'll consider it." Let HIM do all the work.
It does say "generally speaking." That means that it could still easily be stuck in the target should the GM want it to. The rest of my post is unaffected by that error.No one is sawing the DM can't or shouldn't make a house-rule for arrow sticking. You're just seeing a lot of people saying 'that's not in the rules'. Secondly, the rule is "generally" as some types of ammunition isn't destroyed, such as Durable Arrows. "Durable arrows don’t break due to normal use, whether or not they hit their target" Another example of ammo not breaking is with weapons that use other weapons as ammo. For instance, a Spear-sling can fire harpoon at someone and as the harpoon is a weapon, it's not destroyed and could stick in the target. So it's basically 'generally speaking, unless another rules overrides it'.
Someone did just say that the GM shouldn't make up a ruling. That's precisely what I was responding to.
Durable arrows didn't exist what the CRB was written. Thrown weapons are not considered ammo, even when used like ammo. Generally speaking means that the ammo doesn't always get destroyed, or as some people like to presume: disintegrated. The arrow is still there. It just isn't usable anymore. That's all it means.
The GM needs to make things up sometimes.Again, I don't think anyone disputes that, but "make things up" isn't exactly the focus of a section of the forum called 'Rules Questions' is it?
Since there is not rule on this, the GM will have to make something up. This being the rules forum doesn't change that. The rules support a bunch of different solutions that the GM can use. Pick one and move on. There really isn't anything to say beyond that. It's the role of the GM to make a decision when the rules don't say anything.
Durable arrows didn't exist what the CRB was written. Thrown weapons are not considered ammo, even when used like ammo. Generally speaking means that the ammo doesn't always get destroyed, or as some people like to presume: disintegrated. The arrow is still there. It just isn't usable anymore. That's all it means.
#1 rules are often written in anticipation that new rules might override them.
#1b the book Durable Arrow predates the core book actually.
#2 Spear-sling is a projectile weapon that fires spears. "Projectile weapons use ammunition". It just so happens here that the ammo is a weapon in it's own right. What do you expect will happen when all of an items structural integrity, hp, vanish?
#3 Destroyed means it has 0 hp. "cannot be repaired, and is nothing more than junk" "ruined". Meaning it's not useful for much. When people think "usable", that'd include "usable" for bypassing invisibility too.
Since there is not rule on this, the GM will have to make something up. This being the rules forum doesn't change that. The rules support a bunch of different solutions that the GM can use. Pick one and move on. There really isn't anything to say beyond that. It's the role of the GM to make a decision when the rules don't say anything.
"make things up" is house-rule/advice actually. "when the rules don't say anything" is literally the inverse of a rules question/answer.
This discussion has taken a turn for the absurd. I'm taking my leave of this. Honestly, if you are unable to understand that since there are no rules covering this and that the GM is into having to go into houserule territory (which is something that the GM is supposed to do), then there is no reason to discuss this any further.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion has taken a turn for the absurd. I'm taking my leave of this. Honestly, if you are unable to understand that since there are no rules covering this and that the GM is into having to go into houserule territory (which is something that the GM is supposed to do), then there is no reason to discuss this any further.
I'm not sure anyone has failed to understand that without rules you need to go into houserules territory, or even that doing so is appropriate.
What is said is that once you are discussing houserules, this particular forum isn't the right one.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't cover it. Period. Rules discussion over. Take further advice or houserule suggestions to the Advice or Houserule forum(s).
I surrender Graystone! You are right. I was wrong. I'm a little surprised you took my post seriously.So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?
Covers the holes with clothing....Gone.
Breaking the arrow would be an attack, and that would break the Invisibility
:P
You can't break the arrow, it's already broken/destroyed!
Broken = 1/2 or less hp. Destroyed = 0 hp. "ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless" Useless pretty much equals destroyed in this case. "When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined." This mean an attack does nothing as it's already at 0 hp.
LOL It was more a comment on the original post, simply breaks the arrows off, than yours. If you can't break off the arrow, you're stuck with it forever!!! If only there was a rule to pull out the arrow that no rule stuck in you... ;)
Durable Arrow predates the core book actually.
Weren't they reprinted in a later source though?
So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?
Covers the holes with clothing....Gone.
Sure. I'd probably adjudicate it takes a move action to remove/break off/cover one - standard action for taking care of multiples. And then we're in business. Either way, the invisible creature is inconvenienced by the arrows in a reasonable way for some reasonable time.
Durable Arrow predates the core book actually.Weren't they reprinted in a later source though?
Alchemy manual I think. They first came out in 2008 and the core is 2009.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've still not seen anyone generate enough ambiguity to not use this rule:
It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.
Sure, there are rules for the invisible creature picking up items and whether they stay visible or not, but being hit by an arrow isn't picking something up. Nor does being hit by an arrow mean it's now sticking out of you.
It's this simple: there is a rule for pinpointing an invisible creature's location. There are rules for some special senses which allow automatic pinpointing. Those are the rules. Anything which is outside the normal pinpointing rule and isn't a special sense, is a house rule.
All this talk of "it's outside the rules"? Nope, sorry. The pinpointing rules are clear as day, and do not include any special caveats about items not picked up by the invisible character. Even the ubiquitous "bag of powder" trick only allows pinpointing "momentarily" and only works in a single square, and the rules for that suggest that sprinkling it on the floor and tracking (what do you know, there are rules for tracking invisible creatures, too) is more effective.
If a player wants to pinpoint an invisible creature, there are existing rules. If a player wants to circumvent those rules because "reasons", you're in house rule territory.
So, money where mouth is: I'll bet a year's subscription to the RPG book line, including shipping to anywhere in the world, that if PDT respond to the following rule question the substantive response will be "No", but may include a caveat that the GM might want to make pinpointing easier:
If an invisible creature is damaged in combat by a weapon that could reasonably become attached (such as an arrow sticking out), can the invisible creature be automatically pinpointed?
So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?
Covers the holes with clothing....Gone.
Breaking the arrow would be an attack, and that would break the Invisibility
:P
Re-read invisibility.
Destroying an inanimate object don't break it.Hey Graystone, I caught another one!
:P
LOL Man, good bluff check. ;)
I've still not seen anyone generate enough ambiguity to not use this rule:
It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.Sure, there are rules for the invisible creature picking up items and whether they stay visible or not, but being hit by an arrow isn't picking something up. Nor does being hit by an arrow mean it's now sticking out of you.
It's this simple: there is a rule for pinpointing an invisible creature's location. There are rules for some special senses which allow automatic pinpointing. Those are the rules. Anything which is outside the normal pinpointing rule and isn't a special sense, is a house rule.
All this talk of "it's outside the rules"? Nope, sorry. The pinpointing rules are clear as day, and do not include any special caveats about items not picked up by the invisible character. Even the ubiquitous "bag of powder" trick only allows pinpointing "momentarily" and only works in a single square, and the rules for that suggest that sprinkling it on the floor and tracking (what do you know, there are rules for tracking invisible creatures, too) is more effective.
If a player wants to pinpoint an invisible creature, there are existing rules. If a player wants to circumvent those rules because "reasons", you're in house rule territory.
So, money where mouth is: I'll bet a year's subscription to the RPG book line, including shipping to anywhere in the world, that if PDT respond to the following rule question the substantive response will be "No", but may include a caveat that the GM might want to make pinpointing easier:
If an invisible creature is damaged in combat by a weapon that could reasonably become attached (such as an arrow sticking out), can the invisible creature be automatically pinpointed?
I actually like the answer you're betting on. Temporary circumstance bonus to the usual Perception check to find your target if considered reasonable.
|
So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?
Covers the holes with clothing....Gone.
Breaking the arrow would be an attack, and that would break the Invisibility
:P
Re-read invisibility.
Destroying an inanimate object don't break it.Hey Graystone, I caught another one!
:P
As you are giving out false information and some poor sod searching the forum could thing you were saying something real, it is better to correct you.
Put another way: when you gest, don't do it in a way that will damage people searching the rule forum for advice.
All this talk of "it's outside the rules"? Nope, sorry. The pinpointing rules are clear as day, and do not include any special caveats about items not picked up by the invisible character. Even the ubiquitous "bag of powder" trick only allows pinpointing "momentarily" and only works in a single square, and the rules for that suggest that sprinkling it on the floor and tracking (what do you know, there are rules for tracking invisible creatures, too) is more effective.
The bag of flour trick will work for as long as the creature is covered in it in my games.
Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
That's how the bag works against general invisibility. One manner of becoming invisible is the more specific Invisibility spell, which has its own caveat about how to deal with stuff picked up while under its influence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk of "it's outside the rules"? Nope, sorry. The pinpointing rules are clear as day, and do not include any special caveats about items not picked up by the invisible character. Even the ubiquitous "bag of powder" trick only allows pinpointing "momentarily" and only works in a single square, and the rules for that suggest that sprinkling it on the floor and tracking (what do you know, there are rules for tracking invisible creatures, too) is more effective.The bag of flour trick will work for as long as the creature is covered in it in my games.
Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.That's how the bag works against general invisibility. One manner of becoming invisible is the more specific Invisibility spell, which has its own caveat about how to deal with stuff picked up while under its influence.
Re-read what you quoted, in particular the parts I bolded.
1) you don't throw the bag at a creature, you throw it to a square.
2) it momentarily reveal if there is a invisible creature in the square.
So you are not covering the creature with calk or flour, you are creating a cloud of calk or flour in the square and you see the empty outline of the creature.
So where does all the powder go? Does it disappears completely? Does it settle down to indiscriminately cover anything that happens to be in the square? Does it magically avoid creatures in the square?
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.
|
|
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.
You would think, but some explicitly believe otherwise. They make up rules about what happens when the rules are silent... the text does not say creatures get covered so by magical default rule #77, they do not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So where does all the powder go? Does it disappears completely? Does it settle down to indiscriminately cover anything that happens to be in the square? Does it magically avoid creatures in the square?
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.
After a couple of seconds it deposit on everything, even the invisible person. But there is a big difference between what stick to a moving creature against what fall to the ground.
You have ever seen one of those graduation ceremonies where students throw handful of flour against the one getting his degree?
They are throwing flour directly against him, but unless he/she is wet very little stick to the target. And they are throwing it directly against him.
In this situation you aren't doing that, you are throwing your flour in the air or on the ground trying to cover the whole square.
so it do exactly what it say it do. It "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there".
you see, there is a rule,it say exactly what it do. Arguing that it "logically should do" something different as no place in this section of the forum.
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.You would think, but some explicitly believe otherwise. They make up rules about what happens when the rules are silent... the text does not say creatures get covered so by magical default rule #77, they do not.
So for you, how long is "momentarily" and how you read "reveals if there is an invisible creature there" is the same thing as it is cover it and make it visible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.You would think, but some explicitly believe otherwise. They make up rules about what happens when the rules are silent... the text does not say creatures get covered so by magical default rule #77, they do not.
The rules don't say anything at all about what happens to the powder when you throw it at the square. When Diego writes: "you are creating a cloud of calk or flour in the square and you see the empty outline of the creature", that's not in the rules either. He made that up. But it is what you would expect when you throw around generous helpings of powdery substance. It makes sense in the imaginary world.
Filling in sensible specifics where the rules fall short is something everyone does all the time. It's such a natural thing to do that Diego probably didn't even realize that he criticized me for making something up while the whole scenario he paints is one he just made up himself and has just as little grounding in the rules as written as my version.
What makes no sense, is to invent sensible stuff where the rules aren't explicit, but at some point in the narrative arbitrarily stop following through. If you imagine a cloud of powder, the powder is there all the way, and it should behave like a cloud of powder, or your game devolves into nonsense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.You would think, but some explicitly believe otherwise. They make up rules about what happens when the rules are silent... the text does not say creatures get covered so by magical default rule #77, they do not.The rules don't say anything at all about what happens to the powder when you throw it at the square. When Diego writes: "you are creating a cloud of calk or flour in the square and you see the empty outline of the creature", that's not in the rules either. He made that up. But it is what you would expect when you throw around generous helpings of powdery substance. It makes sense in the imaginary world.
Filling in sensible specifics where the rules fall short is something everyone does all the time. It's such a natural thing to do that Diego probably didn't even realize that he criticized me for making something up while the whole scenario he paints is one he just made up himself and has just as little grounding in the rules as written as my version.
What makes no sense, is to invent sensible stuff where the rules aren't explicit, but at some point in the narrative arbitrarily stop following through. If you imagine a cloud of powder, the powder is there all the way, and it should behave like a cloud of powder, or your game devolves into nonsense.
Perfect, you throw the powder and it do something, that something is spelled out:
"momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there".Full stop.
I added an explanation of how it do that, you added something that isn't in that text and actually contradict it.
After a couple of seconds it deposit on everything, even the invisible person. But there is a big difference between what stick to a moving creature against what fall to the ground.
You have ever seen one of those graduation ceremonies where students throw handful of flour against the one getting his degree?
They are throwing flour directly against him, but unless he/she is wet very little stick to the target. And they are throwing it directly against him.
I've seen pictures (and video) of Kim Kardashian being flour-bombed. She was covered in copious amounts.
In this situation you aren't doing that, you are throwing your flour in the air or on the ground trying to cover the whole square.
so it do [b+exactly[/b+ what it say it do. It "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there".you see, there is a rule,it say exactly what it do. Arguing that it "logically should do" something different as no place in this section of the forum.
There's no doubt in my mind that there will be significant amounts of flour on a creature if there was enough flour to outline it. The invisibility mentioned in the powder entry is referring to the general concept of invisibility, as mentioned in the glossary. (Which, incidentally, includes this snippet: "One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).")
So for you, how long is "momentarily" and how you read "reveals if there is an invisible creature there" is the same thing as it is cover it and make it visible?
That's another problem right there. "Momentarily" is not specifically defined in the rules so anyone's interpretation of how long this moment lasts is valid. Anyone's interpretation that's not ridiculous is valid and a correct way to handle the powder issue in the game.
Also, who's to say that the interpretation of "momentarily" we're supposed to apply here isn't its meaning of "a moment from now"? You throw the powder, and a moment later the creature is outlined, for an unspecified time ("until the flour falls off or blows away").
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a couple of seconds it deposit on everything, even the invisible person. But there is a big difference between what stick to a moving creature against what fall to the ground.
You have ever seen one of those graduation ceremonies where students throw handful of flour against the one getting his degree?
They are throwing flour directly against him, but unless he/she is wet very little stick to the target. And they are throwing it directly against him.I've seen pictures (and video) of Kim Kardashian being flour-bombed. She was covered in copious amounts.
In this situation you aren't doing that, you are throwing your flour in the air or on the ground trying to cover the whole square.
so it do [b+exactly[/b+ what it say it do. It "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there".you see, there is a rule,it say exactly what it do. Arguing that it "logically should do" something different as no place in this section of the forum.
There's no doubt in my mind that there will be significant amounts of flour on a creature if there was enough flour to outline it. The invisibility mentioned in the powder entry is referring to the general concept of invisibility, as mentioned in the glossary. (Which, incidentally, includes this snippet: "One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).")
So for you, how long is "momentarily" and how you read "reveals if there is an invisible creature there" is the same thing as it is cover it and make it visible?
That's another problem right there. "Momentarily" is not specifically defined in the rules so anyone's interpretation of how long this moment lasts is valid. Anyone's interpretation that's not ridiculous is valid and a correct way to handle the powder issue in the game.
Also, who's to say that the interpretation of "momentarily" we're supposed to apply here isn't its...
One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).
Object, not a creature, for the simple reason that you aren't throwing some flour in its general direction, you are coating it.
Coating something in flour is a bit more thoroughly than simply throwing the flour in its area and hoping that enough will cover it.And, just for the record, a unit of powder is 1/2 lbs, about 230 grams. In a 1,5*1,5 meters area.
About 1 gram for square cm of the floor. Way kless when you consider all the vertical surfaces. "significant amounts". Not really.
You are missing the not insignificant point that you are targeting the square, not a creature.
Someone just pointed out to me that there's a definitive answer to how long something will be revealed if it's revealed "momentarily". Momentarily means "for a moment". Moments last 90 seconds. It's an actual unit of time.
|
|
So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?
Covers the holes with clothing....Gone.
Breaking the arrow would be an attack, and that would break the Invisibility
:P
Re-read invisibility.
Destroying an inanimate object don't break it.Hey Graystone, I caught another one!
:P
As you are giving out false information and some poor sod searching the forum could thing you were saying something real, it is better to correct you.
Put another way: when you gest, don't do it in a way that will damage people searching the rule forum for advice.
The thread was hijacked and derailed from its initial purpose a while back. Lighten up.
But if you really can't take a joke, then I must point out that you are giving false information.
It is false that destroying inanimate objects does not negate Invisibility. Sundering is an Attack on an Inanimate object, and it does end Invisibility.
You probably meant destroying an unattended inanimate object. But an arrow sticking inside me may not be unattended. In fact, it would have all my attention! But then again, so might any object that I am intent on breaking.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions.
As you can see the spell don't speak in any way of attended/unattended object. It is broken by attacking a foe. In Pathfinder the equipment of a creature is treated as part of that creature, so attacking a foe equipment count as attacking a foe and break it, but you aren't your foe, so breaking a item that is on you isn't an attack on a foe.
|
|
Someone just pointed out to me that there's a definitive answer to how long something will be revealed if it's revealed "momentarily". Momentarily means "for a moment". Moments last 90 seconds. It's an actual unit of time.
Actually the medieval moment was a very variable measure, depending on latitude and season. Moment
It was 1/40 of a solar hour, but the daylight period was divided in 12 solar hours regardless of the season. The 6-8 modern hours of daylight of the shortest days of winter were broken in 12 segments called hours. So in winter a moment could be something like 40 seconds. In summer at the polar circle you have a few days where the sun never set and the 12 medieval daylight hours would cover 24 hour as counted by a clock, so a "moment" would be 180 seconds long.Not a precise unit of time for modern standards.
So the revelatory powers of powder are more protracted in the summer. Nice.
In any case, there's no rule anywhere that deals with just how long an invisible creature will be revealed by powder. If a GM says 1 round, fine. A fraction of a second? No problem there. A minute? On the longish side, but nothing's there to contradict it.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions.As you can see the spell don't speak in any way of attended/unattended object. It is broken by attacking a foe. In Pathfinder the equipment of a creature is treated as part of that creature, so attacking a foe equipment count as attacking a foe and break it, but you aren't your foe, so breaking a item that is on you isn't an attack on a foe.
This isn't true either. Please people (on all sides of a discussion), read the rules before discussing them (or re-read even if you think you already know the rules)
Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell.
So the revelatory powers of powder are more protracted in the summer. Nice.
No. That is simply the incorrect definition of moment to be using.
Your other points are fair ones to make.
Flour can stay in the air A long time.
This was several bags of flour in an enclosed kitchen, so effective against invisibility might not be as long with a specially prepared one square dose. If you carry a 10 pound sack and the barbarian flings it with all his might, nobody is seeing anything for a while.
|
|
Flour can stay in the air A long time.
This was several bags of flour in an enclosed kitchen, so effective against invisibility might not be as long with a specially prepared one square dose. If you carry a 10 pound sack and the barbarian flings it with all his might, nobody is seeing anything for a while.
You risk a dust explosion too it the dust particles concentration is high enough.
But the quantity of dust particles needed to see someone is very different from needed to start a allergic reaction.
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.
Use durable arrows?
The dean of the Illusion school made some Straw Man Golems.
He lined all the teachers, students, and other facility with bows and arrows in a massive firing squad. He cast greater invisibility on the Strawman currently being used as a target. "Ready, aim, fire!" Everybody fired at the 5 by 5 square where they knew the strawman to be standing. They saw no pieces of arrows sticking out . The whole thing collapsed and became visible after the damage landed next round.
They then tried it with durable arrows on another Strawman with the same "pretty much" results.
The answer is still no. Unless you use overcomplicated homebrew rules, anything embedded in the flesh is like teeth, part of the body. In Pathfinder, they have regeneration spells so they never invented false teeth.
I should really just stop posting in this topic till it gets moved to homebrew.