9
\$\begingroup\$

The feat reads as follows:

Brighsoul

The fire inside you asserts itself as beaming, radiant light. Your body is naturally luminescent, glowing with the effects of a primal Light cantrip. A cantrip is heightened to a spell level equal to half your level rounded up. The light is involuntary and constant; if counteracted, it returns in 1d4 rounds. You suffer a -2 circumstance penalty on Stealth checks to Hide or Sneak and gain a +1 circumstance bonus on saves against light effects and effects that inflict the Blinded or Dazzled conditions.

If a creature under the invisible condition were to use the Hide action, would they still apply the -2 penalty to their check?

Logically speaking, if the invisible condition implied just that the light passes through a creature, that does not prevent the creature from producing light, so it would make sense to apply the penalty.

However, if the invisible condition suffocates any light emanating from you or just magically prevents other creatures from seeing you, the most logical conclusion would be to not apply the check.

What is the general consensus on this matter?

PS: While Brightsoul is what arised the question, this would also apply to things like someone wearing an armor that has been targeted by the cantrip Light or any other effect that causes the invisible creature to emanate light.

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

8
\$\begingroup\$

You're an invisible light source

You can be both invisible and emit light. All light passes through you, but that doesn't stop light sourced from you from being produced.

The Invisibility spell is clear on this interaction (and while the Invisible condition need not follow those rules, there's no reason not to apply it):

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).

In practice, I'd consider the light to remove the major benefits of invisibility; you shouldn't be undetected by default, requiring a seek to find you, because "undetected" implies they can't even identify the space you occupy; your invisible body means figuring out exactly where you are is more difficult, but it's very easy to pin down what space you're in (frankly, it's kind of ridiculous how low the penalty to Hide/Sneak is; the only place you could conceivably hide effectively would be behind cover in a brightly lit area).

A reasonable way to adjudicate the combined effect would be to treat you as Concealed; you're not truly invisible, but it is harder to get a bead on you when you're just a light source with no visible body. You're harder to target than if you weren't invisible at all, but still easier to target than invisible or hidden creatures.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Just because they know which square you are in, the flat check DC should not be reduced from 11 to 5. Not having to seek you is enough of a penalty. \$\endgroup\$
    – András
    Sep 9, 2022 at 6:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @András: I can see an argument for default Hidden vs. Concealed; it really depends on how you interpret the way an invisible light source looks (can you see the light emanating from the body, producing a glowing outline, or is the area just mysteriously bright in a circle around said body?). It's GM call how they want to adjudicate it, there's no clear rule. I lean towards Concealed simply because I view it as seeing a bright hazy outline of the body, which seems enough to avoid the flat-footed mechanic for Hidden; they should be able to see you well enough to avoid your attacks as normal. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 9, 2022 at 11:04
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ erm - the quoted Invisibility spell is for Pathfinder 1e, while the question is tagged for and quotes Pathfinder 2e. As far as I can tell, PF2e Invisibility (both spell and condition) are silent on what they do to light sources. 2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=164 2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=426 \$\endgroup\$
    – YogoZuno
    Sep 10, 2022 at 4:14
4
\$\begingroup\$

There do not appear to be any rules covering the interaction between Invisibility (both spell and condition) and Light sources (including the Light cantrip). So, it would appear to be open to interpretation.

In the absence of any specific rule or interaction, I would expect that the Light continues to function. Invisibility spell is an illusion, which is noted as often involving 'false sensory stimuli' - I think it more likely the spell would alter the visibility of the invisible person, and not change any spell effects on them.

The Invisibility condition also mentions that circumstances might make an invisible creature hidden or concealed rather than undetected. So, a GM might rule that the light effect would do so. But there is no rule covering this directly that I could find.

Whether or not the Stealth penalty would apply would depend on how the interaction of the two was ruled. If the GM ruled that the light effect was still visible, then it would seem sensible to also apply the Stealth penalty.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .