Invisibility and Etherealness?

[bret]

I would say no.

There is nothing in the rules about an ethereal creature being able to see invisible.

Just because the See Invisible spell can also see Ethereal and Astral creatures does not mean that those creatures can automatically see invisible creatures. It is a side effect of that spell.

Edit: Spelling

 

[Berk]

Being ethereal doesn't let you see invis.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Go read the rant on invisibiilty at Sean K. Reynolds' site.

Based on that discussion, I'd rule with you. If invisibility affects ethereal creatures, that's one powerful 2d level spell, seeing as how it can affect creatures on another plane with no saving throw. Name another low level spell with infinite planar effects.

 

[gfunk]

If invisibility affects ethereal creatures, that's one powerful 2d level spell, seeing as how it can affect creatures on another plane with no saving throw. Name another low level spell with infinite planar effects.

Invisibility never allows a saving throw to begin with.

"Infinite planar effects" is a little extreme, I think. Only the Plane of Shadow and the Ethereal overlap the Prime everywhere. All other Planes cannot see the Prime w/o scrying.

 

[Stalker0]

I think its pretty clear. Ethereal don't see with blindsight, if they did it would be mentioned.

Invisiblity will work.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Being ethereal doesn't let you see invis.

OK, but do you have a page number that states this (don't take that in a rude way)? That's why I posted the thread. We have been discussing this, and have come up with rulings, but wanted actual rules citations that refute or support this assertion. Everything I've seen in the books could support arguments for either side, as we've seen in this thread.

So far, it strikes me that I have, indeed, seen all there is to read about invisibility and etherealness in the Core Books. Again, while everyone has presented some very good reasoning for both arguments, I have to say that the rules themselves are vague, and thus don't provide the definitive answer I was looking for (sorry, Stalker0, it doesn't seem that clear to me - but that's a good point you make). That's OK, because it's easy enough to establish a House Rule.

 

[Shayuri]

I'll toss in my two cents on the issue.

--I understand your reasoning, but I see it like this: physical objects on the material plane have analogs on the ethereal plane. That is, one is seeing a something like a spirit version of the object, not the object itself. In effect, ethereal creatures are seeing the "ghosts" of objects, and thus the way light is refelcting off the object in the material world has no bearing on what is going on in the ethereal world. But, again, that's just my way of looking at it.

If one goes by the rules as printed, your reasoning here is flawed. Objects on the material plane do NOT have Ethereal equivalents. This is why ghosts can pass freely through walls...it's because the walls don't exist on the Ethereal. A creature in the Ethereal can see into the Material plane. When they do, they see material plane objects. An illusion, be it a magic sculpting of light or something else, is a material plane object (it may not be solid, but it is an "object" according to the rules). Thus, they see them or fail to see them as the case may be.

--OK, but do you have a page number that states this (don't take that in a rude way)? That's why I posted the thread. We have been discussing this, and have come up with rulings, but wanted actual rules citations that refute or support this assertion. Everything I've seen in the books could support arguments for either side, as we've seen in this thread.

I feel that your logic here is going wackbards. There is no page number that states specifically that Ethereal beings can't see invisible creatures/objects because there doesn't need to be. The description for invisibility does not exclude Ethereal beings. Therefore, by definition, it includes them. Therefore, also by definition, Ethereal beings cannot automatically see invisible creatures or objects.

The books truly only support one conclusion. All of the arguments I've seen on this thread against that conclusion are, to my eyes, rather painfully stretched, and based on premises that have nothing to do with the rules, and everything to do with individual interpretations of "how planes work" and so on.

The GM of the game is well within his rights to redefine spell effects to conform to his, or her, conception of the game cosmology. For example, in a game I ran once, I redefined Improved Invisibility (not regular) as a Transmutation effect rather than an illusion, that partially shifted an individual onto the Ethereal plane, while leaving him solid on the Material. I was a wee bit inspired by Lord of the Rings. The upshot was that, while Improved Invisible, a being saw the material world as though he were ethereal...yet still interacted with it as though he were material. In addition, ethereal beings could see him (because visually he was ethereal too), and he could see ethereal beings.

Note however that this was most emphatically a house rule. It is not in any way related to the rules as printed in the books. The rules, as printed, do not under any circumstances grant immunity or resistance of any kind for ethereal creatures against any sort of illusion, including invisibility. If you wish a hard rule on that, I suggest reading the DMG under the description of Incorporeal and Ethereal states, as well as the Ethereal Jaunt and Etherealness spells and the spell description for Invisibility.

There's no mention of invisibility under Etherealness or any related powers. There's no mention of etherealness under invisibility. Hence, one must conclude that those states do not modify the descriptions for each other in any way.

...this was longer than I intended. Sorry.

*deposits 4 cents*

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Again, I understand your reasoning. I disagree with your assertion that the arguments against ethereal creatures being unable to see invisible creatures are stretching. I also think there are a lot of implied properties of the Etheral Plane that are not defined in the books, but, as you say, it really is up to individual DMs as to how the plane works, so to speak. That is, the Ethereal Plane is described so little, that, by necessity, the DM has to come up with his own rationalization of it. That's how I see it, and that's how I reason that the rules don't necessarily support one argument over another in this regard.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd say the ruling's in your hands, Colonel.

Based on SKR's discussions of invisibility, I would rule that there is no effect from invisibility (per my post above).

The discussion on magic in the ethereal plane in the MotP leads me to believe this is also true (it specifically mentions that only spells and spell-like abiliities with the force descriptor and "abjurations that specifically affect ethereal beings" can cross the ethereal/material boundary), but the planar description goes on to say that "seeing and hearing is otherwise normal ... so gaze and sonics attacks and abilities launched from the Material Plane affect ethereal creatures". (MotP, pp54-55).

Isn't DMing fun?

 

[hong]

Again, I understand your reasoning. I disagree with your assertion that the arguments against ethereal creatures being unable to see invisible creatures are stretching. I also think there are a lot of implied properties of the Etheral Plane that are not defined in the books, but, as you say, it really is up to individual DMs as to how the plane works, so to speak.

Correct.

That's how I see it, and that's how I reason that the rules don't necessarily support one argument over another in this regard.

Incorrect. Since the rules are silent on the matter, the default situation applies, which is that ethereal creatures are just as affected by invisibility as anyone else. The rule, essentially, is that there are no special exceptions for ethereal creatures.

Your argument isn't much different to saying that just because there are no special rules for how orcs take damage, that means the DM can make up stuff to fill the gap. No special rules are given for how orcs take damage, because no special rules are needed: they take damage just like everyone else.