My group and I were having a discussion about light in PF. Under invisibility it states:
"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible."
And with Arcane sight, specifically says:
"This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you."
My group tends to error on the side of being pretty harsh or rules sticklers. It seems to me that this is a bit of an extreme interpretation of the rules regarding light. Thoughts? Any clarification around this?
Thanks!
Bump
It really depends if you interpret it as being a light source. If treat it as a light source then it will dimly illuminate where the invisible creature is. This would only matter if said creature was in an area of natural darkness. Any magical darkness effect would conceal it as would any light source that is stronger than the glow.
When they say 'Light' here they are really referring to illumination levels, as generated by a torch or the light spell. An torch (invisible or otherwise) sheds light that illuminates 20' radius as normal light and increased ambient light by one level another 20' (40' altogether.) It is this light, i.e. the capacity to illuminate that never becomes invisible. So if I am carrying an invisible torch then I am going to be moving in a visible 20' area of normal illumination with an addtional 20' area of increased illumination. The torch won't be visible, but the altered light levels in areas as I move around will be.
In other words, whether a source of light if visible or not, it's capacity to illuminate remains unchanged.
The Arcane sight spell, despite having a special effect of a blue glow, doesn't provide any illumination, not even as much as a candle does.
Note that if we decide that 'light can never become invisible' to it's strongest possible terms, then there is no such thing as 'invisible' in the game at all, since light is what we are seeing, not a person directly. When I see something, what I am seeing is light that is either emitted or reflected from that thing, if no light can ever become invisible, then I will see that thing the same whether it is 'invisible' or not. This is obviously not a correct interpretation.
Great post, Dave. That’s the argument I’ve made to the group as well - all though you articulated it better. These guys tend to interpret rules to the harshest degree at times. So points like these are really helpful.
Thank you!