Post/Author/DateTime	Post
HaloJunky 03-03-08, 10:32 PM	If a large, huge, or gargantuan creature were to hold, cover or conceal a PC, would the PC be turned invisible if the larger creature were turned invisible? Similarly would displacement, mirror image or other spells that affect the larger creature also affect the PC? The spell description says that they and there possessions would become invisible/copied/displaced, and if the PC is in a pocket or something does the PC receive the benefits of the spell?
Talisman 03-03-08, 10:36 PM	In a word: No. Creatures are not objects, and even with slavery cannot be considered "possessions" of other creatures. The only exceptions would be familiars, special mounts and animal companions, and they have special rules.
lifeblender 03-04-08, 01:11 AM	The only real exception would be a swallowed creature. Anything else is too temporary (covering up, holding, etc.).
Kouk 03-04-08, 08:26 AM	If you kill them first, their bodies count as objects :P
Sinfire Titan 03-04-08, 11:25 AM	I don't know you guys. There is a thread on the CO Boards about hiding the entire party in your nether regions with a DC 90 Hide check...
Talisman 03-04-08, 01:34 PM	Yes, but the CO people are insane. We are merely... ... Eccentric! Yeah, that's it...
Sunic_Flames 03-04-08, 01:44 PM	*puts away fighter/donkey joke* No. But if hidden in something invisible, you can't see them. They aren't actually invisible though. I posted this a while back. If a human with a cat in their backpack casts invisibility and you wouldn't get a floating cat, why not a larger creature doing the same thing with a humanoid? A PC in a pocket or something would not get any shared spells. They would however have total cover as long as they're in there, and presumably would have to be targeted to be attacked. Would be rather weird if you took a 50% chance to hit a displaced guy, but not the guy in his backpack who you still have to aim at.
icuall 03-04-08, 01:59 PM	If a large, huge, or gargantuan creature were to hold, cover or conceal a PC, would the PC be turned invisible if the larger creature were turned invisible? The spell description says that they and there possessions would become invisible/copied/displaced, and if the PC is in a pocket or something does the PC receive the benefits of the spell? I say yes. If a Huge Giant is holding a human in his one hand, completely covered, and goes invisible, I'd rule the human is also invisible. Same as a Human completely holding a grasshopper in his hand and activates a Ring of Invisibility. The human is possessing the grasshopper as the Giant is possessing the human. We are not talking about ownership only physically possessing.
Rood_Inverse 03-04-08, 08:28 PM	I would say... No. PCs hiding behind an invisible wall are still visible. I'd say this falls under the same concept. A spell would have to reproduce the environment behind what was invisible (like how the Predator's cloak refracts and displaces like, or Harry Potter's magic coat works), in order for any targets other than "self" to be invisible. It's semantics to me... But an invisiblity spell, to my understanding, makes a target transparent like glass. In order to cover players, the spell (and its effect) would have to more closely resemble camoflage covering. . . . To that extent, icuall, I need to disagree. You can see other opponents and allies on the other side of a Predator, even is said Predator is using his body as a shield. And, of course, when the Predator has a foe on his weapons (we'll exaggerate and call this a "possession"), you can see the foe being suspended "in the air."
icuall 03-05-08, 11:17 AM	Rood, I agree to your wall example. And to clarify the wall is not in possession of the creature behind it. In regards your Predator example, the subject hanging in the air is being held by the invisible Predator, not being covered in possession as in mine. The situation is different. I answered too hastily. I should have clarified that in my example, a Huge giant has the medium creature in his hand. Completely covered in his hand and not visible throught the giants hand (not being held or dangling). Med creature would also become invisible when the Huge giant went invisible. I imagine the invisibility field which is encompassing the hand and it is completely surrounding the medium creature. Thus the light is refracted all around the Med creature and not able to reflect through to the medium creature. If the giant ate the med creature, the med creature would become invisible.
eamon 03-05-08, 11:44 AM	Invisibility doesn't work like glass; for instance, placing objects into an invisible bag renders them effectively invisible. It would be better to describe invisibility as a some sort of light redirection, which redirects light around the object. As such, much like normal invisibility doesn't apply to items picked up after invisibility takes effect but will hide those items that are retroactively hidden within cloathing folds, for instance, a giant that could hide a human in his hand could render a human imperceptible. The human would not be invisible per the game mechanic, so a second human inside the hand could perceive the first, and a creature under the true seeing effect would not perceive the hidden creature (since the creature is hidden in an entirely non-magical way).
Sunic_Flames 03-05-08, 11:53 AM	The simplest way to solve it is to ask: Could it be done entirely without magic? If you put a cat in your backpack, you cannot see the cat unless you either look in the backpack, or the cat sticks some part of its body out. There's no reason it would not still work if invisible. Likewise a giant with a human hidden under his cupped hand would be nonvisible either way. A dragon who ate someone (with ketchup!) would also hide their meal, because you can't normally see through scales, muscle, sinew... :P
Lincoln Hills 03-05-08, 04:41 PM	My personal house ruling has been that the smaller creature is effectively invisible as long as it is entirely concealed by the truly invisible creature (the one on whom the spell or effect is cast.) However, the concealment has to be total: even a boot or elbow sticking out negates the invisibility from all directions. (This is to negate endless arguments about "angle of view" and whether taking cover behind an invisible creature grants the same benefits.) Thus, in general, a creature must either be confined somehow (like the backpack in previous examples, or being engulfed by a gelatinous cube) or willing to conceal itself (a halfling hiding under an invisible stone giant's cloak.) The hidden creature does not share the actual spell: the halfling in that last example would lose invisibility the second he left his place of concealment, even if he was hiding on the giant when the giant received an invisibility effect. (Unless we're talking multiple-target spells.)
Rood_Inverse 03-05-08, 07:06 PM	The simplest way to solve it is to ask: Could it be done entirely without magic? Such statements, so full of common sense... It reminds me that I occasionally forget to shave with Occam's Razor. I was over-thinking the issue, and my opinion is amended. Invisibility can carry over in such a situation. Question, though... Would a closed fist be able to grant that 100% concealment? Without crushing the target trying to be concealed? Seems you'd have to close your fist pretty tight to hide something completely...