Invisibility and glowing swords

[RangerWickett]

You know those nifty glowing swords everyone loves? Fully 30% percent of magic weapons shed light, according to the rules, so they're pretty popular, I imagine.

But if you turn invisible, isn't it pretty easy to find you when your sword is glowing?

 

[Pyrex]

Opponents can determine your square pretty easy, yeah.

But they still have a 50% miss chance to hit you.

Just sheathe your (invisible) sword in its (invisible sheath) and you're good to go.

 

[frankthedm]

You know those nifty glowing swords everyone loves? Fully 30% percent of magic weapons shed light, according to the rules, so they're pretty popular, I imagine.

Not popular with rogues at all.

But if you turn invisible, isn't it pretty easy to find you when your sword is glowing?

Yes, it is somewhat easy to find you. But if you have to deal with this issue, here is a last ditch rules wrangling that may help;

Radii, like light, originate from the intersection, so there is only a 25% chance of the foe choosing the correct square.

 

[tobensg]

If the torch is invisible is the light it gives invisible or does it visibly illuminate an area?

Invisibility is the state of an object which cannot be seen.

Since objects can be seen by light in the visible spectrum from a source reflecting off their surfaces and hitting the viewer's eye, the most natural form of invisibility (whether real or fictional) is an object which does not reflect nor absorbs light (that is, it allows light to pass through it). In nature, this is known as transparency, and is seen in many naturally-occurring materials (although no naturally-occurring material is 100% transparent).

If the light is invisible would you need detect invisibility to see in a dark room or mine illuminated by an invisible torch?

Whee!

-Toben

 

[frankthedm]

If the torch is invisible is the light it gives invisible or does it visibly illuminate an area?

Rules cover this fairly clearly.

Invisibility
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light spell (or similar spell) cast upon it

 

[tobensg]

Right you are.

I guess a 1 in 4 chance of guessing the correct square on top of the 50 % miss chance is as good as a character holding a light source can get.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Light however is an emination (I assume light is also). Eminations are blocked by line of effect issues so, sheathing your invisible glowing sword in your invisible sheath quite effectively hides the light. Of course, a 'realistic' or 'logical' argument could be drawn the other way.

 

[frankthedm]

Light however is an emination (I assume light is also). Eminations are blocked by line of effect issues so, sheathing your invisible glowing sword in your invisible sheath quite effectively hides the light. Of course, a 'realistic' or 'logical' argument could be drawn the other way.

The rule the ewok ranger was referring to seems to indicate that was the case anyways...

Light Generation

Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell (bright light in a 20-foot radius, shadowy light in a 40-foot radius). These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can’t be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Well, yes and no... You either have to rule that the invisible item emanates light that passes through the invisible item(s)/weilder ... or that Line of Effect (LoE ) is blocked by the invisible item(s)/weilder

While physics may suggest the latter I would submit that the former aligns better with game mechanics. Otherwize those 30% swords would emanate from within thier invisible sheaths.

The physics alternative, invisible sheath blocking LoE, would mean that the bearer of the item blocks Line of Effect and casts a shadow.... not the ideal result of casting invisibility upon oneself.....

So.. just remember that LoE for light emanations is not blocked by an invisible creature/object despite RAW to the contrary

 

[cheshire_grin]

Well, yes and no... You either have to rule that the invisible item emanates light that passes through the invisible item(s)/weilder ... or that Line of Effect (LoE ) is blocked by the invisible item(s)/weilder

The SRD says...

An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible.

Thus an invisible scabbard does block LOE in at least some cases (although you could argue pretty convincingly that "light effects" are a special case and not blocked).

Either way, this does lead to a bit of a paradox, as you note, since this implies that if an invisible item is between you and another item, you can't see the other item (otherwise wrapping a visible item in your invisible cloak wouldn't hide it).

Which means invisible items can be seen by the way they hide items on the other side of them, just like visible items do.

I think this is one of those places where the designers just throw up their hands and say "eh, it's magic". Somehow the illusion "knows" that the sword or the small visible item should be hidden, while other items (such as the bush behind you) shouldn't. Which isn't an unreasonable ruling, IMO.