Does flame make invisible visible?

[Emirikol]

If a wizard is hit by an alchemists fire and is set alight, does he become visible?

Em

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a wizard is hit by an alchemists fire and is set alight, does he become visible?

The wizard and his clothes remain invisible.

The flames and the alchemist's fire do not turn invisible. Any soot or smoke that sticks to the wizard does not turn invisible.

Until he puts the fire out, it will be very easy to pinpoint his square. Opinion is divided as to whether he'd retain a miss chance from concealment, however.

-Hyp.

 

[Drawmack]

That is correct and the rules reference I use is the one where the wizard becomes invisible while holding a light so the light source is invisible but the light is not. Since fire generates light - I think the argument is valid.

 

[Norfleet]

The wizard will be invisible. However, he will also be on fire, which largely negates any benefit of being invisible, as the fire is clearly visible, and because it is the WIZARD that is on fire, the fire is wizard-shaped and located in the same place as the wizard.

 

[kreynolds]

...the fire is wizard-shaped...

I'm thinking the fire wouldn't actually be "wizard-shaped" until the wizard was good and dead. Personal preference, I guess.

 

[hoyerhan]

That is correct and the rules reference I use is the one where the wizard becomes invisible while holding a light so the light source is invisible but the light is not.

This makes no sense, at least no in our *real* world. What we see is light, either emitted from a source or reflected, and our eyes cannot tell the difference between the two. Of course, one cannot be invisible in the real world either...

As I see it, two options are possible:
1) The light source is visible, as if it weren't affected by invisibility.
2) The light source is invisible, and that means it doesn't emit light at all.

Which one is better, I don't know.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, one cannot be invisible in the real world either...

That's sort of the key point there, don't you think?

The text of the spell Invisibility 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)."

Physics simply doesn't enter into it.

-Hyp.

 

[hoyerhan]

The text of the spell Invisibility 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)."

Physics simply doesn't enter into it.

-Hyp.

Yes, you are right. I didn't know the spell said so. I guess I'll have to live with it then

 

[Hypersmurf]

I guess I'll have to live with it then

Doncha just hate it when a magic spell that allows someone to see even though their retinas are completely transparent to all light disobeys some other principle of real-world optics?

-Hyp.

 

[Ferret]

If a wizard is hit by an alchemists fire and is set alight, does he become visible?

Em

Why not? Did you say he was invisible?