See Invisibility and Ethereal Creatures

[pjrogers]

This question came up at a game yesterday. Our PCs entered a room where there were four creatures native to ethereal plane who were in fact ethereal. The creatures saw us from the ethereal plane and were able to get a surprise round on us which they used to planewalk to the material plane.

My wizard had See Invisibility up which says that one can “see any objects or beings that are … ethereal.” However, the GM ruled that I could not see the creatures we encountered before they planewalked to the material plane because they were “ethereal creatures” rather than “objects or beings that are … ethereal.” I didn’t understand the distinction and thought his ruling was incorrect. However, I hate slowing down a game by arguing over rules interpretations and said ‘that’s fine, it’s your table, and I’ll go with your interpretation.’

However, I would like to raise the issue here. Does the distinction between an “ethereal creature” and a “being that [is] … ethereal” make sense? Should my wizard PC with See Invisibility have been able to see the creatures when we entered the room in the situation described above?

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Beings = creatures. Your GM was smoking something.

If you need evidence from the spell that "creatures" per se are seen,

see invisible wrote:

Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.

[pjrogers]

Thanks for confirming my interpretation. I gather there isn't anyone who would like to argue against this position.

[Kayerloth]

Nope not me anyway. He should have seen them. Worst case he might have argued you needed to beat any Stealth they may have been employing with your Perception as the ability to see them doesn't necessarily mean you do see them (if you follow me).