Invisibility and Etherealness?

[Stalker0]

Well, yeah, I mentioned above that I'd just House Rule it, but the point was to resolve a debate in such a way that one side or the other couldn't say...well, pretty much what has been said on this thread so far.

Unfortuantely, that's how many debates end up here.

If you want a specific passage, I don't think your going to find it. Its time to resort to logic.

Can we all agree that WOTC books use the premise, that if a rule is made, it always applies unless an exception is mentioned?

I have to go with Hong's reasoning. Invisibility and etherealness have their descriptions, and neither have any exceptional effects on the other. Therefore, until we find something that states otherwise, we keep invis functioning.

From what the MOTP has said so far, is that hearing and seeing function normally except for the ghostly image thing. Well, that's not an exception to invis, so we maintain our view as before.

Thinking about invis as an illusion and how that works is madness. That's going to get you into real world physics and just drive people batty. Its not an image spell that is really vague about how it interacts with people. ITs very clear.

So like I've said, according to the books that is the LAW right now. That should be enough to show to your players and say "prove me wrong"

 

[dkilgo]

Good point Stalker0.

 

[jontherev]

I'm not trying to throw flames here, but I haven't really seen an argument yet using any rules to allow ethereal creatures to see invis. There's no rule that says wizards must wear red cloaks either. There's no rule that says bards must tip their hat at the end of a song. There's no rule that says adventurers must use scabbards. You get my point. Unless there is a rule that specifically says they can see invis., you MUST presume they cannot...or make a house rule otherwise. The burden of proof is on you Col., not your player. Again, not meant to be flammable.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yes, but with the same logic (and text) you can argue that since invisibility is neither a force-descriptor spell, nor an abjuration that specifically affects an ethereal creature (which are specifically listed as the ONLY spells/spell effects which can have an effect across the Material/Ethereal boundary), then invisibility DOES NOT function, because it is not listed as an exception.

We're back where we started.

Frankly, I doubt the problem ever occurred to anyone in playtesting, or there might be some clearer verbage someplace. Again, houserules territory -- roughly equal evidence both ways.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Again, Olgar makes a good point. Since the abjurations and force-descriptor spells are the only ones specifically mentioned...well, you see where the amiguity comes in. I don't expect to find anything that is less ambiguous, and I doubt this player will either.

 

[skymage]

i don't understand any arguements against invisibility working on ethereal creatures.

there are no exceptions made for ethereal creatures and invisibility.

all invisibility does is make it so the TARGET can't be seen. it in no way has a direct effect on anything viewing that target. invisiblity does have the INDIRECT effect of making it so creatures can't see the target, but there is no direct effect on anything except the target.

as for the passage in the MotP all it is saying is that spells you cast can't have any effect on an ethereal creature unless it is a force or an abjuration in other words you can't make an ethereal creature invisible, but you can be invisible to the ethereal creature.

it's how i see it anyways. i hope i helped. i felt the answer was to obvious for me to remain silent. i'm not saying that i have to be right just that i think it is obvious.

 

[jontherev]

Yes, but with the same logic (and text) you can argue that since invisibility is neither a force-descriptor spell, nor an abjuration that specifically affects an ethereal creature (which are specifically listed as the ONLY spells/spell effects which can have an effect across the Material/Ethereal boundary), then invisibility DOES NOT function, because it is not listed as an exception.

We're back where we started.

Frankly, I doubt the problem ever occurred to anyone in playtesting, or there might be some clearer verbage someplace. Again, houserules territory -- roughly equal evidence both ways.

You're right, it doesn't work on the ethereal plane. However, it doesn't HAVE to. The ethereal creature is looking onto the material plane, and that is where the invisible foe is. The ethereal being is the one who is "crossing over" to view things on the material plane I think. Besides, there is no save for Invisibility right (harmless)? If you cast Invis. at an ethereal being, it will sizzle, and that's how you use the descriptor. If they wanted ethereal creatures to have immunity to illusions and also effectively have blindsight, it would have been plainly spelled out. A power this nice should not be found by guessing. It could have been mentioned in either special ability (Etherealness OR Invisibility) or errata and has not. Until that happens, the answer is invisibility works vs. ethereal beings, imo. However, it shouldn't be game-breaking to allow, and shouldn't even happen often enough to worry about.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

all invisibility does is make it so the TARGET can't be seen. it in no way has a direct effect on anything viewing that target. invisiblity does have the INDIRECT effect of making it so creatures can't see the target, but there is no direct effect on anything except the target.

Direct vs. indirect is entirely semantic . Are you invisible because I can't see you, or can't I see you because you're invisible?

Either way, the ability of a creature not to be seen is an effect of the spell. This makes Invisibility one of the most powerful spells in the game for its level, as it affects an infinite number of creatures at infinite range without saving throw (how many other spells can you say that about?). Compare it to Hallucinatory Terrain (a 4th level Glamer) or Screen (an 8th level Glamer), both of which can be used to achieve the same effects as invisibility, but allow a save by the observer to overcome if interacted with. Not so Invisibility. But I digress.

Read the description of the Ethereal Jaunt spell. It also specifies what spell effects extend into the Ethereal. If the ability of a creature to be unseen is an effect of invisibility (again, direct or indirect is purely semantic here), then by that language the EFFECT does not extend into the Ethereal plane.

All, of course, IMO. I don't think its spelled out clearly enough for a firm, unbiased rules-based decision either way.

 

[Stalker0]

Direct vs. indirect is entirely semantic . Are you invisible because I can't see you, or can't I see you because you're invisible?

Either way, the ability of a creature not to be seen is an effect of the spell. This makes Invisibility one of the most powerful spells in the game for its level, as it affects an infinite number of creatures at infinite range without saving throw (how many other spells can you say that about?). Compare it to Hallucinatory Terrain (a 4th level Glamer) or Screen (an 8th level Glamer), both of which can be used to achieve the same effects as invisibility, but allow a save by the observer to overcome if interacted with. Not so Invisibility. But I digress.

All, of course, IMO. I don't think its spelled out clearly enough for a firm, unbiased rules-based decision either way.

Read the description of the Ethereal Jaunt spell. It also specifies what spell effects extend into the Ethereal. If the ability of a creature to be unseen is an effect of invisibility (again, direct or indirect is purely semantic here), then by that language the EFFECT does not extend into the Ethereal plane.

Invisibility IS one of the most powerful spells for its level, I don't think anyone's really debating that.

Hallucinatory Terrain affects a much larger area that invis., lasts much longer, can be made to fool someone as to opposed to just disappearing, and doesn't necessary grant a save unless you interact with it (and looking doesn't count).

Screen is designed to be useful against scrying, and again effects a much longer area.

Reading Invis, note that invis is not an effect spell upon someone, its a glamer. Glamer effects the target of teh spell, not those who interact with the target. No effect needs to pierce into the etheral to work here, the object is simply no longer producing a obaque image that someone can view. Since ethereal jaunt says you look into the material plane, you see the material plane.

Would you view a clear pond any more obaquely than I would in the material?

If in fact ethereal jaunt also gave you virtaully see invis, and an immunity to illusions, then it would become much more powerful than it was intended.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'm surprised this has garnered as much attention as it has. I appreciate everyone's efforts. Basically, as shown by this thread, there is not a clear-cut rule that cannot be argued over (what else is new, huh? ). Basically, that is what I was trying to find out. Good arguments have been given for both sides, but that is a side effect of what I was looking for, not the actual answer. Nevertheless, the discussion has given a lot of food for thought on the subject, which is valuable given that a House Ruling will be in order. Thanks much guys!