Last night in my game the Summoner cast Greater Invisibility on himself, and took damage from an area of effect spell while invisible.
I assume the partial concealment doesnt apply to the spell damage - but my question is - does taking damage end the invisibility? I know attacking while invisible does unless you use 'greater' invisibility - I just cant find anywhere in the rules that mentions taking damage while invisible?
It doesn't mention it anywhere because taking damage doesn't do anything.
The only real benefit (besides the obvious, damaging them) is if you smack someone successfully with a melee attack you know what square they're in, so you can inform your teammates on what square they're in.
Still have to deal with 50% miss chance, but don't have to attack a square and hope you picked the right one.
But an AoE? Naw. Unless it's Glitterdust (which explicitly reveals invisible creatures).
Thanks for the confirmation!
The AoE still hits them as normal though right?
Yeah. Concealment like that does nothing against stuff that doesn't directly target them, which an AoE does not (it targets a grid intersection).
Thanks again!
One might be able to notice the flames of a fireball wrapping around an invisible victim, or the electricity of a lightning bolt illuminating a vague humanoid shape as it courses through their body, or the splatter of blood when slashed by a sword, but this is not explicitly stated in the rules.
Yup. Ravingdork is correct in saying that it is not covered in the rules. You are of course free to houserule that AoE damage reveals that invisible creatures are present.
But you should be aware that doing so dramatically changes the power of invisibility.
So... Invisibility becomes slightly less powerful?
Edit: Damned mouse sticking.
Ahem! SO in this case where the houserule is in effect, taking a hit from a properly spectacular spell effect such as Fireball you'd allow to reveal an invisibly creature? Seems like the perfect contingency for a fireball trap to me!
|
Personally, I don't consider secondary effects to be a "house rule". It's just good GMing. As Splendor noted, adjudicating invisibility is a part of the rules.
Footprints in the mud, a hole in the pool of water, the ant swarm that covers something you can't see, the door that opens and closes by itself, leaves going crunch crunch and moving about as something invisible runs through them, and the list goes on. It's something a good GM should adjudicate.
In most cases, these things will only alert you to the presence of an invisible creature, or at best, will allow you to determine which square to attack, but the invisible creature still has concealment (50% miss chance) in all but the most extreme cases.
|
|
Things like this are where Perception checks are called for. The DC can and should vary depending on the circumstances of the immediate location and other environmental factors as appropriate.Personally, I don't consider secondary effects to be a "house rule". It's just good GMing. As Splendor noted, adjudicating invisibility is a part of the rules.
Footprints in the mud, a hole in the pool of water, the ant swarm that covers something you can't see, the door that opens and closes by itself, leaves going crunch crunch and moving about as something invisible runs through them, and the list goes on. It's something a good GM should adjudicate.
In most cases, these things will only alert you to the presence of an invisible creature, or at best, will allow you to determine which square to attack, but the invisible creature still has concealment (50% miss chance) in all but the most extreme cases.
Exactly!
Against a player, it would have no effect.
But if it happened against an enemy first, I'd give them a free perception check to see the invisible stalker instead of the normal action it requires. Just cause house ruling on the fly against players is bad form.