How to avoid luminous armor ruining your invisibility?

[ayvango]

Luminous armor is known as one of the best options for keeping mage self. Other options are illusion spells like the invisibility spell. But the armor sheds light so it would expose mage immediately.

Is there any cunning way to mitigate shining property of the luminous armor?

[DeTess]

Maybe wear a heavy cloak over it as long as you're trying to be invisible?

[Necroticplague]

Invisible spell metamagic

[ayvango]

Invisible spell metamagic
Is banned for many reasons.

What if I cast both greater luminous armor and armor of darkness?

[Anthrowhale]

Cast 'No Light' and use darkvision.

[ayvango]

In that case area of no illumination would give up your position as well as area of bright illumination in the original case. In either case you would fail to sneak past guards using invisibility spell.

[Quertus]

Research you own custom spell, that doesn't shed light.

[Anthrowhale]

In that case area of no illumination would give up your position as well as area of bright illumination in the original case. In either case you would fail to sneak past guards using invisibility spell.

I agree. All solutions I can think of involve blocking line of sight, line of effect, or invisible spell. (I see no evidence that Armor of Darkness would work.)

[Malphegor]

Alternatively, that Surpressible Spell metamagic The Giant made in the gaming articles, homebrew though it may justifiably be classed, would be useful to put on it- user has to concentrate a bit to dampen the effect of the spell that's in their armour. That seems justifiable to me. Bumps up the price of the item though, but if you want to be luminous most of the time then turn off your light when invisible, that's how I'd play it.

[gkathellar]

Have a discussion with your DM. Here's why:

If you look at, say, Randuir's suggestion in the first response, there's a logic to it, right? The cloak would cover up the light if you weren't invisible, so why should that change? But if you showed up to the table with that logic, your DM might point out that you're transparent now, including your cloak, so the light should go through the cloak. Shouldn't it? Hell, the question itself gets weird if you start to think about, because you're invisible ... but also emitting visible light? Is that allowed?

This is one of those wacky cases where maybe there's a rules-as-physics answer out there somewhere, but it's probably best to work out on an individual level so that everyone's on the same page.

[ericgrau]

Greater mage armor is an easy way around it. 3rd level spell for +6 AC. But it doesn't help against melee attacks like luminous armor does. So if you're trying to get all day protection, and then cast invisibility to flee a fight I see the problem.

Note that invisibility does hide light sources but not the light you shed. So your presence would be obvious but it would be hard for foes to find your exact square and even if they did you still get a 50% miss chance.

You could wear a cloak all day but that would negate the -4 to melee attacks and I'm not sure if an invisible cloak would still block light.

I think your best bet would be to have both mage armor and luminous armor active all day. When you cast invisibility, move away from your foes. They know the general area you're in but not exactly where you are, so you're relatively safe. Next round as you continue to flee, dismiss luminous armor. You're not benefiting from the -4 to melee attacks anyway, so it's only -1 AC.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The RAW is ambiguous*, but blocking line of effect really should still work when you're invisible. If I was carrying a sealed metal box with an everburning torch inside of it, and I cast Invisibility on myself, the light from the torch should still be blocked by the box. If I swallow some bioluminescent creatures who can survive stomach acid and then cast Invisibility on myself, you shouldn't see glowing stomach contents floating around in mid-air.

Start with that, and then just put a cloak on yourself to block the light-shedding effect. A big mundane LoE-blocking cloak is useful for a variety of reasons anyway, including to counter lifesense.

*The RAW states the light does not become invisible; it decidedly does not say that light sources immediately ignore LoS/LoE rules. The ambiguity is whether an invisible thing blocks LoS/LoE. This is the same ambiguity that leads to such inane questions as "If Invisibility means all light passes through you, does that mean you're effectively blind because your retinas don't absorb any light?" It's much easier to rule that the actual physical world does not change (so, the invisible person actually does block light as normal) but the spell simply gives the illusion of no light being blocked/reflected down to the last perfect detail, including things like the invisible person not casting a shadow.

[ericgrau]

The RAW is ambiguous*, but blocking line of effect really should still work when you're invisible.
Does that mean glass blocks light spells?

But the serious answer is that light spells don't have a radius so the light acts like normal light and spell line of effect doesn't apply. And normal light passes through an invisible cloak.

[GrayDeath]

Research a Liminous Armor Version that only emitts Infrared Light.

Not only will you be Invisible with it (to most beings, as Infravision isnt a thing any more^^) youll alos be Hot. ^^

(OK, this should probably be half blue ^^)

[Quertus]

OK, I think I'm about to kill some cat girls...

Does light pass through invisible objects?

So, you can see while invisible. By real-world physics, we know that that means that the light is absorbed by the eyes in this world and, barring any evidence to the contrary, that's the way it works in the game world, too.

Yet people don't become blind when invisible*, so their eyes, at least, absorb light. Yet there is no evidence that their eyes can be spotted (unlike the scrying sensor).

So, the most reasonable things I can imagine is that the invisibility could be accomplished by affecting minds or by creating light.

If it works by affecting minds, and I draw and show a card behind the back of an invisible person, can the viewer actually know what card it is? Because no-one actually knows which card was chosen to control what the mental illusion should show. Shouldn't this make mental invisibility really fragile to disbelief and the like?

To work by manipulating and creating light, it would need to be Transmutation & Evocation. And, depending on how it was implemented, it could be vastly superior** to most forms of invisibility. But how would it interact with things like True Seeing? How does True Seeing interact with mirrors?

* outside Star Wars
** Or inferior, if it made you blind while invisible

[Necroticplague]

Does light pass through invisible objects?
Yes. They don't break line of sight, so anything like gaze attacks or light goes right through.


So, the most reasonable things I can imagine is that the invisibility could be accomplished by affecting minds or by creating light.
If it works by affecting minds, and I draw and show a card behind the back of an invisible person, can the viewer actually know what card it is? Because no-one actually knows which card was chosen to control what the mental illusion should show. Shouldn't this make mental invisibility really fragile to disbelief and the like?

To work by manipulating and creating light, it would need to be Transmutation & Evocation. And, depending on how it was implemented, it could be vastly superior** to most forms of invisibility. But how would it interact with things like True Seeing? How does True Seeing interact with mirrors?
Or, hear me out, we could try reading the spell itself to say how it works.

Invisibility
Illusion (Glamer)

A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities
It doesn't affect either light itself, or anyone's minds (though there is a PF spell for the latter, and I think 3.5 has a psionic power for that). It affects the object's sensory qualities. Think of it as changing the refraction index of something until light goes right through. You can still see because eyes work fundamentally differently in DnD, as indicated by things like Darkvision and See in Darkness that don't make any real sense.

[ayvango]

Maybe wear a heavy cloak over it as long as you're trying to be invisible?
a) wouldn't luminous armor adapt to your clothing and always be on top of them? That is expected behavior unless you want armor replace your underwear.

b) cloak that blocks all light entirely should be very cumbersome and restricting moving.

[Jack_Simth]

Cast a 3rd level darkness spell. Luminous Armor sheds light as per Daylight, so if it is tied by a 3rd level darkness spell, then prevailing light conditions apply in the overlapping area.

[ayvango]

So, the most reasonable things I can imagine is that the invisibility could be accomplished by affecting minds or by creating light.

If invisibility is some kind of brainwashing radiation then it should wear off with distance (inverse square law). So the bigger is distance the less effective would be spell. Speaking of game mechanics it means that spell should have effect radius. But invisibility works on any distance.

So I believe that invisibility spell duplicates EM-waves. One copy gets absorbed in your eyes. Another copy goes AROUND you (not through). In that case phase distortion make possible to notice your presence with 40 spot check.

Duplication function has its power limit. So it is possible to overload spell with intense light. e.g. searing light rays goes through it.

[noob]

I am convinced that the invisibility spell only made the target invisible and to the caster.
It works on the mind of the subject and the spell says that even the caster is under the effect but never that anyone else is unable to see you.
But all the benefits from invisibility are accrued from believing you are impossible to see and not from being impossible to see.
So people ignore you because you are looking like a person who thinks nobody can see him and it is why attacking "break invisibility"
Greater invisibility fools you so efficiently that when you attack people you still act as if they did not notice you.

[gkathellar]

I am convinced that the invisibility spell only made the target invisible and to the caster.
It works on the mind of the subject and the spell says that even the caster is under the effect but never that anyone else is unable to see you.
But all the benefits from invisibility are accrued from believing you are impossible to see and not from being impossible to see.
So people ignore you because you are looking like a person who thinks nobody can see him and it is why attacking "break invisibility"
Greater invisibility fools you so efficiently that when you attack people you still act as if they did not notice you.

Here, have an Internet. You deserve it.

[ayvango]

it is why attacking "break invisibility"

I suspect that there is no physical explanation behind this feature. It is purely game balancing quirk. Like the True Creation that converts XP to matter basing on market price instead of just mass.

[Doctor Awkward]

Does light pass through invisible objects?

Yes. Obviously.
That's what makes them invisible. Otherwise the object would be reflecting the light and you could see it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Does that mean glass blocks light spells?Whoops, I meant line of sight.
But the serious answer is that light spells don't have a radius so the light acts like normal light and spell line of effect doesn't apply. And normal light passes through an invisible cloak.1. LoS and LoE apply to more than just spells. An effect without a listed radius can still be blocked by something that would block LoS or LoE, whichever is appropriate; for instance, if a visible person put an everburning torch in a box, clearly the light does not shed because the box blocks LoS.
2. I would need to see textual support that states invisible objects never block line of sight. Granted, ruling that invisible objects always block LoS is the least reasonable option. But we're talking about a light source contained within an object that would normally block LoS, and then the object goes invisible.

Again, if invisible things never block LoS you end up with some very strange corner cases, and due to the ambiguous text it is reasonable to rule that LoS can be blocked by invisible objects in these particular corner cases. An all-encompassing way to rule it is what I proposed before: Invisible things do not allow light to pass through; they simply create an illusion that light is passing through as though nothing is there. Hence the invisible thing effectively does not block LoS to something behind it, but it may block LoS to something within it.

[ayvango]

I have sane presumption about invisibility mechanics. It just creates bubble around object. Outside light passes unimpaired around the bubble. Light produces inside passes freely through effect boundary.

If you prevent inner light spreading with some measures within the bubble, then it would not be visible outside.

Invisibility spell make entire creature invisible, not their individual belongings.

[noob]

I have sane presumption about invisibility mechanics. It just creates bubble around object. Outside light passes unimpaired around the bubble. Light produces inside passes freely through effect boundary.

If you prevent inner light spreading with some measures within the bubble, then it would not be visible outside.

Invisibility spell make entire creature invisible, not their individual belongings.

Actually all the belongings of the creature close enough to it are invisible until they separate from the creature.
However objects that emits light keeps emitting light while invisible.
And spells are not told to become invisible.

[ericgrau]

2. I would need to see textual support that states invisible objects never block line of sight. Granted, ruling that invisible objects always block LoS is the least reasonable option. But we're talking about a light source contained within an object that would normally block LoS, and then the object goes invisible.
I... thought that was part of the definition of invisible. Or 1 step away. If you can't see it, then you can see what's behind it. Not being able to see an object and yet not being able to see what's behind it seems like what would need explanation in any/all cases.

The weird part is that invisible light sources would give off any light in the first place, and that is only the case because the invisibility spell says so. That's the only reason why I could think that there might likewise be a weird way to block this light. So I'm not sure. But the absence of a rule leaves me not knowing one way or another, not assuming the light is blocked. We're just in weirdville. So... ask the DM? <shrug> If it weren't for that I'd say invisible objects absolutely do not block light, but if there's an exception then it's related to being a part of or carried by the invisible creature as I think you said.

[Deophaun]

The weird part is that invisible light sources would give off any light in the first place
It's not that weird. Invisibility prevents an object from absorbing or reflecting light. It does not prevent an object from emitting light. Such properties are not unheard of in real life. Neon gas neither absorbs nor reflects light as it glows within the glass tubes that populate the Vegas Strip. Well, at least not to any degree that matters for our purposes.

[Calthropstu]

Invisibility turns you and all your gear invisible. The light being shed by your gear is part of your gear.

You shed invisible light.

[ericgrau]

It's not that weird. Invisibility prevents an object from absorbing or reflecting light. It does not prevent an object from emitting light. Such properties are not unheard of in real life. Neon gas neither absorbs nor reflects light as it glows within the glass tubes that populate the Vegas Strip. Well, at least not to any degree that matters for our purposes.

I don't know any solids that do the same. And that seems like an arbitrary distinction. Though if we assume it to be true, covering the light won't work.

[noob]

Invisibility turns you and all your gear invisible. The light being shed by your gear is part of your gear.

You shed invisible light.
the light that is part of your gear becomes visible when you stop wearing it so it becomes visible right when it leave its source.
When you stop wearing an item it becomes visible and new items you gain during invisibility are not turned invisible.(which is why bags of flour are mentioned as a counter to invisibility)

[Calthropstu]

the light that is part of your gear becomes visible when you stop wearing it so it becomes visible right when it leave its source.
When you stop wearing an item it becomes visible and new items you gain during invisibility are not turned invisible.(which is why bags of flour are mentioned as a counter to invisibility)

I would argue it depends how invisibility works. If it works by bending light, would it not bend the light going outward as well?
If it works by removing your presence in the mind of others, the light would also be removed. "You and your gear become invisible" is all we get.

Invisible gear probably shouldn't be considered as shedding light especially since NUMEROUS magic items, most notably weapons, do so. If the invisible fighter with a flaming longsword has no issues, then neither should this character.

[noob]

I would argue it depends how invisibility works. If it works by bending light, would it not bend the light going outward as well?
If it works by removing your presence in the mind of others, the light would also be removed. "You and your gear become invisible" is all we get.

Invisible gear probably shouldn't be considered as shedding light especially since NUMEROUS magic items, most notably weapons, do so. If the invisible fighter with a flaming longsword has no issues, then neither should this character.

Well this invisible fighter with a flaming long-sword is trying to do sealth?
Maybe he just puts his sword in a scabbard.
And/or wears a well covering mundane cloak over his armor if it glows too.

[Thurbane]

Just a citation relevant to the conversation:


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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Maybe you could use inertial armor or maybe a psychoactive skin of ectoplasmic armor, instead? Set a psion friend up with a spellblade of inertial armor and have him hit you with a fully augmented and redirected manifestation of it.

[Deophaun]

I don't know any solids that do the same.Hot glass.

[Calthropstu]

Just a citation relevant to the conversation:

Well there ya go. Proof definitive, I have lost this debate.

[Necroticplague]

I would argue it depends how invisibility works. If it works by bending light, would it not bend the light going outward as well?
If it works by removing your presence in the mind of others, the light would also be removed. "You and your gear become invisible" is all we get.

It doesn’t do either of those. The first is based on an assumption of physics we don’t have any reason to beleive is true in the DnD world, and the second isn’t remotely supported by the spell. A spell like that would be either a Phantasm, Pattern, or Enchantment. Instead, invisibility is a Glamer, much like Disguise Self.

[Jack_Simth]

Is there any cunning way to mitigate shining property of the luminous armor?Yes. Get a friendly Cleric to cast Deeper Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deeperDarkness.htm) for you every so often (five days for a minimum cleric who can cast it). Luminous Armor sheds light as per the Daylight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/daylight.htm) spell, which specifies:
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.

Deeper Darkness has a 60 foot area of effect, essentially the same as Daylight (biggest difference being discounting the Dim light). So you'll get normal light in the area of the deeper darkness. If you're carrying it with you while you've got the Luminous Armor running, you're fine. When you don't want the darkness effect, just put it under a light-proof covering. Like, say, have it on the blade of a dagger, and sheath it.

[gkathellar]

The first is based on an assumption of physics we don’t have any reason to beleive is true in the DnD world,.

Really, this is all much simpler if you assume, in the fashion of some RL ancient magical traditions, that vision is a faculty reaching outward from the person who sees rather than passive reception of information. In those traditions, it was believed that invisibility was possible by literally repelling the sight of others. This squares much better with the way D&D handles things.

[Necroticplague]

Really, this is all much simpler if you assume, in the fashion of some RL ancient magical traditions, that vision is a faculty reaching outward from the person who sees rather than passive reception of information. In those traditions, it was believed that invisibility was possible by literally repelling the sight of others. This squares much better with the way D&D handles things.

Given the very description of the Glamer school itself, this seems likely. You're only changing how you interact with sense-beams/fields (eye-beams, in this case), not anything else about the object.

[Calthropstu]

Given the very description of the Glamer school itself, this seems likely. You're only changing how you interact with sense-beams/fields (eye-beams, in this case), not anything else about the object.

Unfortunately, the rules state that physics/science as we know them are in play.

Invisibility is feasible still however, and may even be currently functional (simply have clothes that act like a screen that can project what is opposite their wearer using special calculations and numerous cameras)

If invisibility were to work in the real world, that's how it'd have to be done. Basically you'd be wearing millions of tiny screens and cameras that give invisibility.

[Deophaun]

Unfortunately, the rules state that physics/science as we know them are in play.
The rules state that, unless otherwise stated, assume the world works the way we understand it. In this case, it is stated otherwise by the use of the word "magic." Now, if you had something that was granting you (Ex) invisibility, that would be physics/science.

[Calthropstu]

The rules state that, unless otherwise stated, assume the world works the way we understand it. In this case, it is stated otherwise by the use of the word "magic." Now, if you had something that was granting you (Ex) invisibility, that would be physics/science.

Fair, though I read that as "magic uses the most expedient way to make you invisible." My exlanation DOES cover the quirks of invisibility though... Creating a thin sheen of invisi recorders/projectors would explain why picking up new items doesn't make them invisible, and an attack basically pierces the sheen and renders it nonfunctional. Eh, idle conjecture at this point.

[Deophaun]

Fair, though I read that as "magic uses the most expedient way to make you invisible."
Meh, that's boring. I read it as "magic uses the most whacked out way to make you invisible, as imagined Terry Pratchett relating the thoughts of an ancient Greek philosopher strung out on opium."

[Lapak]

Meh, that's boring. I read it as "magic uses the most whacked out way to make you invisible, as imagined Terry Pratchett relating the thoughts of an ancient Greek philosopher strung out on opium."
Invisibility functions by temporarily concealing you from the Observer, an unknowable watcher who is aware of all beings at all times and through its awareness supplies them with the philosophical property of 'visibility.' Attacking another being the Observer is watching causes it to realize that something is amiss and breaks the spell.

(The Observer is also one of the reasons why D&D world physics is different. It provides an absolute frame of reference and eliminates relativity.)

(This also implies that you should be able to get away with attacking someone else who is invisible without breaking invis.)

[noob]

Invisibility functions by temporarily concealing you from the Observer, an unknowable watcher who is aware of all beings at all times and through its awareness supplies them with the philosophical property of 'visibility.' Attacking another being the Observer is watching causes it to realize that something is amiss and breaks the spell.

(The Observer is also one of the reasons why D&D world physics is different. It provides an absolute frame of reference and eliminates relativity.)

(This also implies that you should be able to get away with attacking someone else who is invisible without breaking invis.)

You still break invisibility when attacking someone invisible(in the rules as written) so it does not works properly.
While my explanation is both silly and works.

[Max Caysey]

Luminous armor is known as one of the best options for keeping mage self. Other options are illusion spells like the invisibility spell. But the armor sheds light so it would expose mage immediately.

Is there any cunning way to mitigate shining property of the luminous armor?

If the light source is invisible it gives off no light! So being invisible will render the luminescent property inoperable while invisible!