6
\$\begingroup\$

Laser weapons cannot do damage to invisible creatures (Core Rulebook, p. 184; emphasis mine):

Laser weapons emit highly focused beams of light that deal fire damage. These beams can pass through glass and other transparent physical barriers, dealing damage to such barriers as they pass through. Barriers of energy or magical force block lasers. Invisible creatures don’t take damage from lasers, as the beams pass through them harmlessly. Fog, smoke, and other clouds provide both cover and concealment from laser attacks. Lasers can penetrate darkness, but they don’t provide any illumination.

The Aurora property negates invisibility for 1 minute on a hit (Armory, p. 27):

When an aurora weapon strikes a target, the creature glows with a soft luminescence for 1 minute. This negates invisibility effects and makes it impossible for the target to gain concealment from or hide in areas of shadow or darkness.

At the moment I am assuming that (a) you can still make attacks against an invisible target with a laser and (b) it will still apply non-damage effects (correct me if these are incorrect). This would mean that a laser with aurora (such as via a Mechanic's prototype weapon) would still negate invisibility for future shots.

If I fire a laser weapon with the Aurora property, does the (lack of) damage occur before the target's invisibility is negated, or after?

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

I think your assumption that you can "make attacks against an invisible target with a laser" is correct, but it won't hit ("strike") an invisible creature.

Therefore, your second assumption, that "it will still apply non-damage effects" would be incorrect.

Which makes your question moot.

A laser does not hit invisible creatures, "the beams pass through them harmlessly". Which also means the aurora-equipped laser beam never "strikes" an invisible creature. So the before/after question does not matter because it will not work.

Interested in others' take on this though...

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

I would read "don't take damage" as taking precedence in this case, but as it does not say "cannot be hit" the aurora effect would negate the invisibility after being struck.

That's RAW interpretation. Thematic interpretation... (i.e. house-rule based on descriptive text) I'd consider still having the target invulnerable to lasers as long as the invisibility would have lasted, as aurora simply outlines them and denies concealment. Still a useful effect to have, since it allows you or any allies with non-optical weapons to attack the target freely.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.