Continual Flame + Invisibility = No Fun [Archive] - Wizards Community

Continual Flame + Invisibility = No Fun [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rironin
01-01-07, 08:43 PM We've always used everburning torches and other uses of continual flame as an always-on light source for dungeon crawling. Since "A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched" and produces no heat, I usually had my characters wear a leather armband of some sort with the continual flame cast on it, but with a flap that could be pulled over and tied down to cover up the light if needed.

I never thought about what happened when I turned invisible. From the spell description, "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)." This seems to mean that anyone carrying an everburning torch in their backpack or a glowing magical dagger in a sheath can't turn fully invisible - even when they're invisible, all their light sources shine through their (now invisible) backpacks and scabbards and give away their position. Rather annoying...

One possible way around this that I see are things like heward's handy haversack or a bag of holding. Do glowing items stored in extradimensional spaces shine out from within those containers when they're invisible? I would be inclined to say no. This would mean that the bolts with continual flame cast on them in my quiver of elhonna wouldn't cause a problem, but my everburning armbands are out.

Any ways around this? Thanks!
Tenebrous_Sage
01-01-07, 09:15 PM Switch to Glowing Orbs, you can turn them off.
Tyler Do'Urden
01-01-07, 09:28 PM Other people can't see you, but you can see yourself. If you can see yourself, then you can see your equipment. Therefore, your equipment can "see" itself and you. And therefore if your everburning torch is in a backpack or concealed behind your cloak, it won't be giving off visible light.

When it's taken out, then you'll get the invisible light source effect.
rironin
01-01-07, 10:32 PM That's a logical interpretation. It looks like the people who do the Rules of the Game articles on the WotC website (Skip Williams in this case) go both ways. By RAW, they seem to think my (unhappy) interpretation holds true:

The rules don't explain what happens when you carry a concealed light source when you become invisible. They also don't say what happens if you're invisible and you tuck a light source into your clothing. If you follow the rules to the letter, the concealed light source just keeps right on shining. In that case, it's best to dump any continual flame effects you might have tucked away in your gear so that their light won't give you away while you're invisible.

But they give Tyler's interpretation as a reasonable way to play it:

On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that anything that doesn't shed light when you conceal it on your person while visible also doesn't shed light when you conceal it on your person while invisible. So, for example, if you carry a coin with a continual flame spell on it in a belt pouch, where it doesn't shed light, it won't start shedding light when you become invisible. If you later pull it out of the pouch, but hold onto it, the coin stays invisible, but it sheds visible light. Later, you can douse the light by putting the coin back into the pouch.

I think I'll go with Tyler's and this optional interpretation. My quotes come from this Rules of the Game article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a).
Tyler Do'Urden
01-01-07, 10:53 PM I think I'll go with Tyler's and this optional interpretation.Who you callin' optional, meatbag?
rironin
01-01-07, 11:16 PM Well, since the first paragraph of the article contradicts your interpretation and has the words "If you follow the rules to the letter," and the second paragraph which agrees with you wholeheartedly begins with "On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to assume..." that sounds like RAW and your interpretation don't agree. I have no idea where the Rules of the Game articles fall in the hierarchy of accepted RAW canon, but assuming that the Rules of the Game articles are an authority, then it sounds like your interpretation (which I endorse) is a house rule. But only just :)
Tyler Do'Urden
01-01-07, 11:24 PM There was a time when the word "meatbag" indicated that the surrounding statement was humorous.
rironin
01-01-07, 11:32 PM There was a time when the word "meatbag" indicated that the surrounding statement was humorous.Oh, and I'd hoped it was! But on these boards I take no chances. I did get the Bender reference from the outset, though. :D
Manyfist
01-02-07, 12:01 AM Oh, and I'd hoped it was! But on these boards I take no chances. I did get the Bender reference from the outset, though. :D

That was an HK-47 reference FYI.
Ananvil
01-02-07, 12:28 AM Well, my personal take would be that, given Invisibility is an illusion, you don't actually stop reflecting (or blocking) light, everyone just perceives it as you do, do to magical influence. So having a light source in a backpack or up a sleeve that would normally block the light would still do so.

Also, given this, I would think that you'd be able to disbelieve an invisibility spell if you were able to "interact" with an invisible person. I wonder if that would make it so that you could attempt to disbelieve an Improved Invisibility spell after the first attack...?
Tyler Do'Urden
01-02-07, 12:47 AM That was an HK-47 reference FYI.Well, I've heard 'meatbag' come from the speakers of a number of fictional robots. But had I intended to reference Bender, I'd've addressed you as "coffin stuffer."
rironin
01-02-07, 10:24 AM Well, my personal take would be that, given Invisibility is an illusion, you don't actually stop reflecting (or blocking) light, everyone just perceives it as you do, do to magical influence. So having a light source in a backpack or up a sleeve that would normally block the light would still do so.You could probably develop an illusion spell that worked this way, but that's not how the standard invisibility spell works in D&D. A class of illusions called Glamers (to which invisibility belongs) create real effects - they really create bright light or special effects that subjects perceive with their senses, rather than having an impression of perception placed in their minds. Another class of illusions, Phantasms, handles the creation of mental images in subjects.

As for disbelieving invisibility, some illusion spell descriptions have "Will (disbelief)" listed in the Saving Throw section to indicate that they should receive a Saving Throw as soon as they are confronted with the effect. Invisibility generally seems to be handled differently, and I think if you gave people saves you'd hobble the spell a bit. Also, invisibility specifically states that your allies can't see you, and giving them disbelief Saves (with bonuses, because they'd know you were there) would be a very easy way to get around that restriction. Invisibility seems to be more fun if you just play it as a straight up fact - this/that is now invisible, even if you're holding an invisible object or interacting with it directly.
The_sleeper1
01-02-07, 12:18 PM Other people can't see you, but you can see yourself. If you can see yourself, then you can see your equipment. Therefore, your equipment can "see" itself and you. And therefore if your everburning torch is in a backpack or concealed behind your cloak, it won't be giving off visible light.

When it's taken out, then you'll get the invisible light source effect.

Dont you need see invisibility to see yourself and gear? Did they change teh text of it from 2nd ed?

Unless I am mistaken, unless you have see invis on you you can not see your gear and your gear may or may not block the light depending on your DM.
rironin
01-02-07, 12:53 PM Dont you need see invisibility to see yourself and gear? Did they change teh text of it from 2nd ed?The spell description in v3.5 is silent on the issue, but the article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a) I linked to above suggests that invisible creatures ought to be able to see themselves and their gear, if only to avoid massive confusion:Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself. This helps avoid arguments about exactly what an invisible creature can do without a penalty. Even if you assume an invisible creature can see itself, it still does not cast a shadow or a reflection (or at least not one most people could notice; see Part Two).
Nom
01-02-07, 03:58 PM Other people can't see you, but you can see yourself. If you can see yourself, then you can see your equipment. Therefore, your equipment can "see" itself and you. And therefore if your everburning torch is in a backpack or concealed behind your cloak, it won't be giving off visible light.

When it's taken out, then you'll get the invisible light source effect.Nice argument, Tyler, but as you will see from the spell description, the rules for light sources explicitly say that they are not muted, and the immediate context is the rules for putting stuff in bags. Though the OP notes, correctly, that if the item is in a dimensional pocket then it can't emit light.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rironin 01-01-07, 08:43 PM	We've always used everburning torches and other uses of continual flame as an always-on light source for dungeon crawling. Since "A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched" and produces no heat, I usually had my characters wear a leather armband of some sort with the continual flame cast on it, but with a flap that could be pulled over and tied down to cover up the light if needed. I never thought about what happened when I turned invisible. From the spell description, "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)." This seems to mean that anyone carrying an everburning torch in their backpack or a glowing magical dagger in a sheath can't turn fully invisible - even when they're invisible, all their light sources shine through their (now invisible) backpacks and scabbards and give away their position. Rather annoying... One possible way around this that I see are things like heward's handy haversack or a bag of holding. Do glowing items stored in extradimensional spaces shine out from within those containers when they're invisible? I would be inclined to say no. This would mean that the bolts with continual flame cast on them in my quiver of elhonna wouldn't cause a problem, but my everburning armbands are out. Any ways around this? Thanks!
Tenebrous_Sage 01-01-07, 09:15 PM	Switch to Glowing Orbs, you can turn them off.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-01-07, 09:28 PM	Other people can't see you, but you can see yourself. If you can see yourself, then you can see your equipment. Therefore, your equipment can "see" itself and you. And therefore if your everburning torch is in a backpack or concealed behind your cloak, it won't be giving off visible light. When it's taken out, then you'll get the invisible light source effect.
rironin 01-01-07, 10:32 PM	That's a logical interpretation. It looks like the people who do the Rules of the Game articles on the WotC website (Skip Williams in this case) go both ways. By RAW, they seem to think my (unhappy) interpretation holds true: The rules don't explain what happens when you carry a concealed light source when you become invisible. They also don't say what happens if you're invisible and you tuck a light source into your clothing. If you follow the rules to the letter, the concealed light source just keeps right on shining. In that case, it's best to dump any continual flame effects you might have tucked away in your gear so that their light won't give you away while you're invisible. But they give Tyler's interpretation as a reasonable way to play it: On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that anything that doesn't shed light when you conceal it on your person while visible also doesn't shed light when you conceal it on your person while invisible. So, for example, if you carry a coin with a continual flame spell on it in a belt pouch, where it doesn't shed light, it won't start shedding light when you become invisible. If you later pull it out of the pouch, but hold onto it, the coin stays invisible, but it sheds visible light. Later, you can douse the light by putting the coin back into the pouch. I think I'll go with Tyler's and this optional interpretation. My quotes come from this Rules of the Game article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a).
Tyler Do'Urden 01-01-07, 10:53 PM	I think I'll go with Tyler's and this optional interpretation.Who you callin' optional, meatbag?
rironin 01-01-07, 11:16 PM	Well, since the first paragraph of the article contradicts your interpretation and has the words "If you follow the rules to the letter," and the second paragraph which agrees with you wholeheartedly begins with "On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to assume..." that sounds like RAW and your interpretation don't agree. I have no idea where the Rules of the Game articles fall in the hierarchy of accepted RAW canon, but assuming that the Rules of the Game articles are an authority, then it sounds like your interpretation (which I endorse) is a house rule. But only just :)
Tyler Do'Urden 01-01-07, 11:24 PM	There was a time when the word "meatbag" indicated that the surrounding statement was humorous.
rironin 01-01-07, 11:32 PM	There was a time when the word "meatbag" indicated that the surrounding statement was humorous.Oh, and I'd hoped it was! But on these boards I take no chances. I did get the Bender reference from the outset, though. :D
Manyfist 01-02-07, 12:01 AM	Oh, and I'd hoped it was! But on these boards I take no chances. I did get the Bender reference from the outset, though. :D That was an HK-47 reference FYI.
Ananvil 01-02-07, 12:28 AM	Well, my personal take would be that, given Invisibility is an illusion, you don't actually stop reflecting (or blocking) light, everyone just perceives it as you do, do to magical influence. So having a light source in a backpack or up a sleeve that would normally block the light would still do so. Also, given this, I would think that you'd be able to disbelieve an invisibility spell if you were able to "interact" with an invisible person. I wonder if that would make it so that you could attempt to disbelieve an Improved Invisibility spell after the first attack...?
Tyler Do'Urden 01-02-07, 12:47 AM	That was an HK-47 reference FYI.Well, I've heard 'meatbag' come from the speakers of a number of fictional robots. But had I intended to reference Bender, I'd've addressed you as "coffin stuffer."
rironin 01-02-07, 10:24 AM	Well, my personal take would be that, given Invisibility is an illusion, you don't actually stop reflecting (or blocking) light, everyone just perceives it as you do, do to magical influence. So having a light source in a backpack or up a sleeve that would normally block the light would still do so.You could probably develop an illusion spell that worked this way, but that's not how the standard invisibility spell works in D&D. A class of illusions called Glamers (to which invisibility belongs) create real effects - they really create bright light or special effects that subjects perceive with their senses, rather than having an impression of perception placed in their minds. Another class of illusions, Phantasms, handles the creation of mental images in subjects. As for disbelieving invisibility, some illusion spell descriptions have "Will (disbelief)" listed in the Saving Throw section to indicate that they should receive a Saving Throw as soon as they are confronted with the effect. Invisibility generally seems to be handled differently, and I think if you gave people saves you'd hobble the spell a bit. Also, invisibility specifically states that your allies can't see you, and giving them disbelief Saves (with bonuses, because they'd know you were there) would be a very easy way to get around that restriction. Invisibility seems to be more fun if you just play it as a straight up fact - this/that is now invisible, even if you're holding an invisible object or interacting with it directly.
The_sleeper1 01-02-07, 12:18 PM	Other people can't see you, but you can see yourself. If you can see yourself, then you can see your equipment. Therefore, your equipment can "see" itself and you. And therefore if your everburning torch is in a backpack or concealed behind your cloak, it won't be giving off visible light. When it's taken out, then you'll get the invisible light source effect. Dont you need see invisibility to see yourself and gear? Did they change teh text of it from 2nd ed? Unless I am mistaken, unless you have see invis on you you can not see your gear and your gear may or may not block the light depending on your DM.
rironin 01-02-07, 12:53 PM	Dont you need see invisibility to see yourself and gear? Did they change teh text of it from 2nd ed?The spell description in v3.5 is silent on the issue, but the article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a) I linked to above suggests that invisible creatures ought to be able to see themselves and their gear, if only to avoid massive confusion:Although the rules don't specifically say so, assume that a creature using a magical invisibility effect is invisible to others but not to itself. This helps avoid arguments about exactly what an invisible creature can do without a penalty. Even if you assume an invisible creature can see itself, it still does not cast a shadow or a reflection (or at least not one most people could notice; see Part Two).
Nom 01-02-07, 03:58 PM	Other people can't see you, but you can see yourself. If you can see yourself, then you can see your equipment. Therefore, your equipment can "see" itself and you. And therefore if your everburning torch is in a backpack or concealed behind your cloak, it won't be giving off visible light. When it's taken out, then you'll get the invisible light source effect.Nice argument, Tyler, but as you will see from the spell description, the rules for light sources explicitly say that they are not muted, and the immediate context is the rules for putting stuff in bags. Though the OP notes, correctly, that if the item is in a dimensional pocket then it can't emit light.