| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The question is wether this ability hides you from scent, tremorsense or the like?
To me it does, any thoughts?
Undetectable: This grants its bonded user the ability to become utterly undetectable while invisible. While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected or scryed by any method.
The question is wether this ability hides you from scent, tremorsense or the like?
To me it does, any thoughts?Undetectable: This grants its bonded user the ability to become utterly undetectable while invisible. While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected or scryed by any method.
And my reasoning for that is; any method implies that spellcasting is a method for detecting and natural senses is a different method of detecting invisible creatures. And this ability prevents any such method
I used to think it would only stop magical means of detecting, but the part where it says "can't be detected or scryed by any method" seems pretty clear.
I would say scent, tremorsense and blindsight count as "methods of detecting" so they would be fooled by this ability.
I guess this depends on whether "detect" is used in its common english sense or a specific game term.
Keep in mind that scryed is an additive in addition to what is already there. Without "or scryed," the sentence would be read as thusly:
"While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected by any method."
Taking the context clue from there would mean that any means to detect the creature's whereabouts or nearby presence would automatically fail, end of discussion.
What about glitterdust, invisibility purge, antimagic field and dispel magic?
I want to bring this back... My players are using this to destructive means.
It's hard to deal with.
How and what are the means of finding an invisible opponent?
What about glitterdust, invisibility purge, antimagic field and dispel magic?
RAW, he cannot be detected by any means. You'd need to manually attack every square (or cast spells whose area could potentially affect the square the desired target may be in), and any effects that don't involve detection or revealing the location of the target apply to do anything to him.
And since you cannot see the target, he gets Total Concealment at all times. Of course, effects that ignore Concealment would be very powerful against this kind of foe.
This just seems wrong. If a monster had this ability he would be very difficult to kill. Players would cry foul.
Imagine a high level rogue with this and vanishing move. He is unbeatable.
Or better yet, a Mage with imp invisibility.
This just seems wrong. If a monster had this ability he would be very difficult to kill. Players would cry foul.
They very well can, but these are Mythic Rules; the Power Creep in Mythic Games is so much stronger and overpowering than the traditional game, so coming across this is to be expected. There are tools that help the PCs deal with such unforeseeable threats, and quite frankly, coming across invisible enemies isn't rare or almost unheard of. By 3rd level it's possible, and by 5th level and higher it's basically commonplace.
I don't see how this is ridiculously powerful. It can be defeated by casting any of the spells Morain listed above as well as See Invisibility.
But what about the line, cannot be detected.
See invisibility shouldn't work.
I do think invisibility purge should work. So should glitter dust.
Flour...
I do think invisibility purge should work. So should glitter dust.
Flour...
Glitterdust nor flour negates the benefits of invisibility. They only reveal the target's square and negate the stealth bonus.
Dispelling the invisibility on the other hand works.
Wait... What does that mean?
Glitterdust doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility?
I know the are still invisible, but since the are outlined, you can see them.
Right?
Effectively, shouldn't they no longer have the invisible condition?
But what about the line, cannot be detected.
See invisibility shouldn't work.
They are undetectable while invisible. To a person with See Invisibility going, they are not invisible. If this power were to be the equivalent of having Mind Blank active while invisible, I think they would have mentioned it in the description (and if that is the intent it would be worth it to state that just for clarity).
Wait... What does that mean?
Glitterdust doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility?
I know the are still invisible, but since the are outlined, you can see them.
Right?Effectively, shouldn't they no longer have the invisible condition?
Glitterdust is a conjuration spell, not divination. As long as the target is within the cast area, it should work as normal to reveal him.
Wait... What does that mean?
Glitterdust doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility?
I know the are still invisible, but since the are outlined, you can see them.
Right?Effectively, shouldn't they no longer have the invisible condition?
Glitterdust specifically doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility. It merely cancels out the stealth bonus and informs you of what square they're in.
Take a look at Faerie Fire which is a far better alternative to Glitterdust.
Faerie Fire specifically says that it negates the concealment granted by Invisibility.
Wait... What does that mean?
Glitterdust doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility?
I know the are still invisible, but since the are outlined, you can see them.
Right?Effectively, shouldn't they no longer have the invisible condition?
Glitterdust specifically doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility. It merely cancels out the stealth bonus and informs you of what square they're in.
Take a look at Faerie Fire which is a far better alternative to Glitterdust.
Faerie Fire specifically says that it negates the concealment granted by Invisibility.
I wouldn't say "specifically". It can be interpreted either way. Part of it as a "common sense" thing (you're shining and outlined - you can be seen), and part of it due to faerie fire.
Faerie fire states:
Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a -20 penalty on all Stealth checks. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.
Note that only the second sentence states that it is specific to faerie fire. This makes it completely reasonable to interpret the two other statements as an explanation of the rule of "outlined". And what does glitterdust say it does?
"visibly outlining invisible things"
It doesn't specify what this does mechanically - it only says they're outlined. What does it mean to be outlined? Well, according to faerie fire:
Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.
|
But what about the line, cannot be detected.
See invisibility shouldn't work.
The person can not be detected. So spells like detect evil, detect magic, detect law...none of those would work. Its the same sort of discussion that went on with Invisibility and Non-detection.
The ability states as the OP posted
Undetectable: This grants its bonded user the ability to become utterly undetectable while invisible. While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected or scryed by any method.
I think this is a case of RAW vs RAI. I would think it was intended to be any form of detect spell or any form of scrying. But f you take it as written i can see it as nothing can detect it.
In my game I made a ruling to use what i believe to be the RAI. I explained it to my players using examples and that is how it is being done. You could always do the same thing. If they ever come out and clarify it in a Errata or FAQ then I will change my ruling.
SRM clarified Undetectable as literally cannot be sensed/detected/observed by any means, perception checks, detect spells, crying, it even eliminates discern location and blindsight.
The case of spells affecting the observer (such as see invisible) is easy enough to adjudicate: invisibility doesn't work against that creature, so undetectable doesn't function.
The case of spells that reveal invisible creatures is a little more complex. Creatures in the area of effect of glitter dust and faerie fire are not made visible: they are outlined and do not gain the benefit of the concealment invisibility normally grants.
Undetectable basically says "so what?" to that. The concealment is a side-effect of being invisible. The undetectable creature is still invisible, and thus still benefiting from undetectable. Undetectable does not say "if the creature is benefitting from concealment granted by invisibility". So wiping out the concealment has no effect on undetectable.
Sorry, Undetectable is still the insanely powerful tool it seems to be.
Ok, so my understanding so far is:
* see invisibility will work
* glitterdust will pin point but not remove the concealment
* perception checks and sent will not work
* fairy fire will remove the concealment
What about true seeing?
Chemlak: What is SRM?
Ok, so with more clarification:
Chemlak is right... This is an insanely powerful tool.
See invisibility does not work.
Glitterdust will work
Perception checks, tremor sense, blind sense, etc will not work
Fairy Fire will work... if you can somehow find the people (5ft burst)
Yeah.. pretty much screwed.
Invisibly purge and area dispels work, but looks like purge is the only sure fire way to stop it.
Ok, so with more clarification:
Chemlak is right... This is an insanely powerful tool.
See invisibility does not work.
Glitterdust will work
Perception checks, tremor sense, blind sense, etc will not work
Fairy Fire will work... if you can somehow find the people (5ft burst)Yeah.. pretty much screwed.
Invisibly purge and area dispels work, but looks like purge is the only sure fire way to stop it.
While it is very powerful, and while I disagree with Radney-MacFarland (though note that this is not an official FAQ, "just" a dev comment, which of course is a big deal anyway), there are methods to counter it. As far as I know, logic and rational thought is still allowed to use to calculate where the opponent is. If they cast spells, depending on interpretation and how spells are run (it's pretty vague by the rules, but some rules give off the impression that spells create visual effects at the caster - such as a Silent, Still spell still being identifiable and counterable with spellcraft), you might be able to notice where the spell is cast from and answer with a readied glitterdust.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree, Ilja.
As I said, Undetectable should probably be treated as Total Concealment that can't be overcome by any sense/detection method. However, intelligent characters can still work around this: if a creature took a full attack from a certain square (and you will know which square it was), you know they're within 5 feet of that location. It is possible to "game the system" at least a little to narrow things down. And things like flour on a black floor will still help you pinpoint the square. You just have to contend with the miss chance.
Yes, it's powerful. And I can see it turning random encounters into jokes. But against prepared encounters that have an idea what to expect? There are options. Just very few mechanical ones - they require out-of-the-box thinking.