Ninja Vanish Trick vs Invisibility Purge?

[K-kun the Insane]

There was an argument at today's Pathfinder Society game over this. An anemy Ninja vanished and then our Cleric of Lamashtu used a scroll of Invisibility Purge. The GM said that it didn't work as the Ninja was not magically Invisible while the player argued that since it used the words "as Invisibility" it should be visible. No trace was also brought up but I don't remember why.

It came down to the argument that the whole purpose was for the Ninja to be niegh undetectable vs the whole purpose of the spell was to make things detectable.

Eventually the GM relented to keep us moving as we were nearly out of time, though he still disagreed.

So who was right?

[Trinam]

Per the SRD,

da SRD wrote:

You surround yourself with a sphere of power with a radius of 5 feet per caster level that negates all forms of invisibility.

Anything invisible becomes visible while in the area.

Is Vanish Trick a form of invisibility? Yes. Is it specifically noted as being immune to invisibility purge, like the invisible stalker's invisibility is? No. Ergo, is it subject to invisibility purge? Yes. Invisibility purge would work even on something that was nonmagically invisible, if such a thing were actually possible in pathfinder (stealth rules don't count).

There's straight up no way to read this one otherwise, it's open and shut.

Also, because the Vanish Trick is a (Su)-type ability, it would not function in an antimagic field spell and therefore is considered at least somewhat magic.

[Fromper]

Agree with Trinam. It's a supernatural disappearance that works "as invisibility". I really don't see any other way to read it, or what the GM could have been thinking.

[Trinam]

Fromper wrote:

what the GM could have been thinking.

'Ninjas are cool and badass.'

Obviously.

[callmedoug]

Fromper wrote:

Agree with Trinam. It's a supernatural disappearance that works "as invisibility". I really don't see any other way to read it, or what the GM could have been thinking.

I was GM, 2 reasons I was thinking that way

1- this very thing happened in scenerio I was playing in and it was ruled as it didn't work

2 - the ninja after using Ki to use VT rolled a 19 on stealth along with +17 was higher than any any opposing perception without VT - highest perception was 32 ( I believe) Ninja moved prior to the purge and was hiding in wait, my reason was party would not have found the hiding ninja with their opposed perceptions so why should they simply because he used a feat to allow him to move to the hide location under cover on VT

I have been GMing for less than a year, still learning , I try to be fair and realistic it just didn't seem realistic for purge to work but then I have not been doing this long enough to know every rule

Should point out we were playing a scenerio 3 of 4 players had GMed and played before so they already knew for the most part what as going to happen.

So that was what I was thinking, and apparently I was wrong.

[Fromper]

If the ninja had a location to hide and had moved there invisibly before the purge was cast, then yes, a normal opposed stealth check would still apply. But he wouldn't be invisible while within range of the purge.

[callmedoug]

Fromper wrote:

If the ninja had a location to hide and had moved there invisibly before the purge was cast, then yes, a normal opposed stealth check would still apply. But he wouldn't be invisible while within range of the purge.

He was hiding along side of a curved wall, not enough to give him cover but was thinking for a ninja that should have been enough. None the less the whole issue didn't make any difference in the scenario, he was last baddie and was in no position to do anything but get one last attacks before being killled