Casting Light on an invisible creature

[Dyllan]

This came up last session, in discussion (not in play). If the sorcerer can see invisible, and casts light on an invisible creature, can the party see the light, or is it "invisible light" that can only be seen with the invisibility spell?

Either way, I can see it being very helpful. If you can't see the light, then Light + See Invisibility is effectively darkvision to the limit of the light (further if you have low light vision).
If you can see the light, then you're using a level 0 spell to negate some of the benefits of Invisibility.

[Caphi]

Light targets objects. I don't think creatures qualify.

[Starbuck_II]

This came up last session, in discussion (not in play). If the sorcerer can see invisible, and casts light on an invisible creature, can the party see the light, or is it "invisible light" that can only be seen with the invisibility spell?

Either way, I can see it being very helpful. If you can't see the light, then Light + See Invisibility is effectively darkvision to the limit of the light (further if you have low light vision).
If you can see the light, then you're using a level 0 spell to negate some of the benefits of Invisibility.

If issue: you can only cast Light on objects.
Solving that issue:
Yes, you can see the light, but that only lets you see the square the creature is in. It still has all the other benefits.

[Gralamin]

This came up last session, in discussion (not in play). If the sorcerer can see invisible, and casts light on an invisible creature, can the party see the light, or is it "invisible light" that can only be seen with the invisibility spell?

Either way, I can see it being very helpful. If you can't see the light, then Light + See Invisibility is effectively darkvision to the limit of the light (further if you have low light vision).
If you can see the light, then you're using a level 0 spell to negate some of the benefits of Invisibility.

Covering an invisible creature with flour is a classic way of detecting it. Similarly, Glitterdust covers it in shiny magical materials. However Light has to target an object, and you have to touch it. This means that you could make the opponents clothes give off light if you get into melee, but if they drop the clothes you lose the advantage, making it fairly easy to counter.

[Dyllan]

Covering an invisible creature with flour is a classic way of detecting it. Similarly, Glitterdust covers it in shiny magical materials. However Light has to target an object, and you have to touch it. This means that you could make the opponents clothes give off light if you get into melee, but if they drop the clothes you lose the advantage, making it fairly easy to counter.

I'm not sure that dropping clothes you're wearing mid combat is a "fairly easy" way to counter it. But is the consensus that it would still give off light then, even if the object it was cast on is invisible?

[Volkov]

The thought of someone running around nude and invisibly scares me.

[Sir_Elderberry]

The thought of someone running around nude and invisibly scares me.

SPECIAL
When Bloodied: Invisible Killer Thing becomes naked. This has no mechanical effect, but make sure you mention it to the players.

[Mongoose87]

SPECIAL
When Bloodied: Invisible Killer Thing becomes naked. This has no mechanical effect, but make sure you mention it to the players.

What is this?

[Lysander]

From the invisibility spell:

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).

[Dyllan]

Alright, so next time I should just read the spell description.

Thanks

[mummy162]

You could cast light on a weapon the invisible target is carrying, assuming (as we've mentioned) he's not unarmed and naked. In that case, you should probably be pitying him and giving him some clothes instead of fighting him.

[PhoenixRivers]

You could cast light on a weapon the invisible target is carrying, assuming (as we've mentioned) he's not unarmed and naked. In that case, you should probably be pitying him and giving him some clothes instead of fighting him.

Unless he's a psion. In which case, you should be scared.
And disturbed.

[Frosty]

Maybe he's naked to get a better Hide modifier?

[PhoenixRivers]

Maybe he's naked to get a better Hide modifier?

Why else would he be invisible?
Duh.

[AslanCross]

The thought of someone running around nude and invisibly scares me.

But it lowers his armor check penalty!

[Volkov]

But it lowers his armor check penalty!

If it's a he, it scares me even more, if it's a she and she's really pretty, the only thing that scares me is that she doesn't want to show me her....assets....

[Curmudgeon]

This gives me an idea.

1. Get some gauze and pitch, and make yourself a "sticky patch".
2. Cast Continual Flame on the patch.
3. Cast Invisibility on the patch.
4. Stick the patch to an enemy using Sleight of Hand.

They're now lit up and incapable of hiding, but they can't find the source of the light.

[ericgrau]

You have to touch the object to be lit up but I suppose it could be done. All you'd see is a floating light telling you about where the invisible creature is, though. It'd still get concealment for a 50% miss chance.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Um...... isn't this what the spell faerie fire is for?

[ericgrau]

Faerie fire negates concealment. No 50% miss chance with faerie fire. Light wouldn't negate concealment.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Faerie fire negates concealment. No 50% miss chance with faerie fire. Light wouldn't negate concealment.

Exactly. Why would you risk trying to touch an enemy just to find out which square he's in when you could hit him from at least 400ft away and negate his concealment outright.

Edit: because you're a sorcerer not a druid My bad.

[Darrin]

Covering an invisible creature with flour is a classic way of detecting it. Similarly, Glitterdust covers it in shiny magical materials. However Light has to target an object, and you have to touch it. This means that you could make the opponents clothes give off light if you get into melee, but if they drop the clothes you lose the advantage, making it fairly easy to counter.

Dungeonscape has rules for using bags of flour as splash weapons to reveal invisible creatures. Unfortunately, although the flour tells you what square the creature is in, they still get a miss chance, but it's reduced to 20%.

Glitterdust is an amazingly useful spell, and while it does reveal the location of invisible creatures, it unfortunately says nothing about negating the miss chance. So by RAW they still get a 50% miss chance. Really, really annoying oversight for an otherwise wonderful spell. It might be worth asking your DM to combine the effects of glitterdust and faerie fire so that they work the same way.

Faerie Fire is the only thing that outlines invisible creatures *and* negates the miss chance by RAW. Unfortunately, it's #*&%$*&$ druid-only. Fortunately, there's another way to get a faerie fire effect:

Torch Bug Paste, Complete Scoundrel p. 120. Throw as a ranged touch attack, splash effect that coats the target and every adjacent creature/object with a faerie fire effect that lasts an hour. Can't be dispelled, and it can only be washed off with at least 1 gallon of water (1 gallon = 2 waterskins).

[PhoenixRivers]

Dungeonscape has rules for using bags of flour as splash weapons to reveal invisible creatures. Unfortunately, although the flour tells you what square the creature is in, they still get a miss chance, but it's reduced to 20%.

Glitterdust is an amazingly useful spell, and while it does reveal the location of invisible creatures, it unfortunately says nothing about negating the miss chance. So by RAW they still get a 50% miss chance. Really, really annoying oversight for an otherwise wonderful spell. It might be worth asking your DM to combine the effects of glitterdust and faerie fire so that they work the same way.

At the very least, it should be ruled to work as other outlining effects (water and flour), which lower it to 20% concealment.