PDA

View Full Version : Is Blade barrier invisible?



Splendor
2010-11-27, 07:44 AM
Just reading blade barrier spell again... It's a force based spell, and alot of the other force based spells are invisible, so is blade barrier?
Doesn't say it is, but doesn't say it's not.

Eloel
2010-11-27, 07:47 AM
Blade Barrier is visible.
It provides cover, cover allows hiding. Hiding behind invisible things makes no sense.

Dr Strangelove
2010-11-27, 07:48 AM
I had always envisioned it as a barrier made out of actual, you know...swords. And it does provide cover, which would incline me towards it being semisolid, or at least visible. But check with your DM to be sure (if you are the DM, make your own ruling).

Splendor
2010-11-27, 08:00 AM
Blade Barrier is visible.
It provides cover, cover allows hiding. Hiding behind invisible things makes no sense.

5' thick solid glass provides cover, can you hide behind that?
Wall of force gives you full cover, can you hide behind that?
Wall of water gives cover and is transparent (not opaque), can you hide behind that?

Just because something provides cover does not mean it isn't see through.

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-27, 08:22 AM
Let's see....

An immobile, vertical curtain of whirling blades shaped of pure force springs into existence.

Now, let's compare that to some other Force spells:

A wall of force spell creates an invisible wall of force.


An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.


This powerful spell brings into being an immobile, invisible cubical prison composed of either bars of force or solid walls of force (your choice).

As opposed to:

A globe of shimmering force encloses a creature, provided the creature is small enough to fit within the diameter of the sphere.


Interposing hand creates a Large magic hand that appears between you and one opponent.


You create an unmoving, opaque sphere of force of any color you desire around yourself.



Seems to me that if the effect is invisible, it will say so. Don't assume that anything made of pure force is invisible, because that's blatantly untrue.

Escheton
2010-11-27, 08:49 AM
In ddo it has a visual effect.

Splendor
2010-11-27, 08:52 AM
I didn't assume it was invisible, I asked a question in order to see if its written somewhere differently in one of the other WOTC books or already answered in a sage advice.

Battering ram, Blast of force, Force Claw, Battering Ram, Wall of Force, Force cage and Mage Armor are specifically invisible.

Force Chest you can choose weather it's visible or not.

Persistent Blade and Vortex of Teeth are both translucent.

The Chain Missile, Dinosaur Stampede, Enveloping cocoon, Ethereal chamber, Force missile, Force wave, Howling Chain, Manyjaws, Moonpath, Slapping Hand, Spiritjaws, Sword of Deception, Thunderlance and Wingbind Spells all give exact descriptions of what they look like.

Bigby's spell don't ever say there are visible. Neither does Tenserís Floating Disk, Magic missile, Spiritual weapon, Gembomb or Blade Barrier.

So, these hand full of spells that do not state whether they are visible or invisible.
How do you determine if they are visible or invisible?

Escheton
2010-11-27, 09:00 AM
Gut DM call. Will the pc's abuse it if it is invisible? yes? visible. no? invisible

Callista
2010-11-27, 09:08 AM
Yeah, an invisible Blade Barrier is definitely abusable. Just cast and lure enemies across it...

You should have to deliberately cast it with Invisible Spell for that to work.

Quietus
2010-11-27, 09:46 AM
If the spell description specifically says it's invisible, as noted above with Wall Of Force, Mage Armor, and such, then it's invisible. Otherwise, it has a specific appearance - whirling blades for Blade Barrier, giant floating hands for Bigby's spells, etc.

Zeta Kai
2010-11-27, 03:27 PM
It looks plenty visible to me. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0457.html)

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-27, 07:09 PM
I didn't assume it was invisible, I asked a question in order to see if its written somewhere differently in one of the other WOTC books or already answered in a sage advice.

Battering ram, Blast of force, Force Claw, Battering Ram, Wall of Force, Force cage and Mage Armor are specifically invisible.

Force Chest you can choose weather it's visible or not.

Persistent Blade and Vortex of Teeth are both translucent.

The Chain Missile, Dinosaur Stampede, Enveloping cocoon, Ethereal chamber, Force missile, Force wave, Howling Chain, Manyjaws, Moonpath, Slapping Hand, Spiritjaws, Sword of Deception, Thunderlance and Wingbind Spells all give exact descriptions of what they look like.

Bigby's spell don't ever say there are visible. Neither does Tenserís Floating Disk, Magic missile, Spiritual weapon, Gembomb or Blade Barrier.

So, these hand full of spells that do not state whether they are visible or invisible.
How do you determine if they are visible or invisible?

My point was it will SAY whether or not it's invisible, since that's a rather important detail. Blade barrier is described as being blades, so it looks like blades. I'm sure there's a whole host of non-Force spells that don't bother to mention their visibility, either. Why haven't you asked about them?

Is bull's strength invisible? Now that's a question! :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-11-27, 07:35 PM
5' thick solid glass provides cover, can you hide behind that?
Wall of force gives you full cover, can you hide behind that?
Wall of water gives cover and is transparent (not opaque), can you hide behind that?

If it provides cover (at a cursory glance, I couldn't find the rule you're referring to), you can hide behind it, assuming you're not being observed, or have appropriate HiPS.
Wall of Force blocks the line of effect, and thus provides total cover, so technically you wouldn't have to hide.
Wall of Water seems to provide cover against attacks only (or more specifically, against attacks from the outside to the inside, but not the other way around) so you can't hide behind it. You might be able to hide inside it, though.
Anyhow, I agree with Killian (and the Giant), if Blade Barrier was invisible it would say so. Instead, it describes the effect as a "vertical curtain of whirling blades", so I assume that's what it looks like.

Psyren
2010-11-27, 09:43 PM
If the spell description specifically says it's invisible, as noted above with Wall Of Force, Mage Armor, and such, then it's invisible. Otherwise, it has a specific appearance - whirling blades for Blade Barrier, giant floating hands for Bigby's spells, etc.

This. It's visible.

And even if it was invisible, the blades are constantly whirling. That's going to refract the light like crazy and make it obvious anyway.

Greenish
2010-11-27, 09:47 PM
And even if it was invisible, the blades are constantly whirling. That's going to refract the light like crazy and make it obvious anyway.Invisible things don't refract the light. Invisibility in D&D isn't a cloaking device, it's the real thing.

Psyren
2010-11-27, 10:08 PM
Invisible things don't refract the light. Invisibility in D&D isn't a cloaking device, it's the real thing.

False - you can spot invisible creatures without magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm), so there is at least some light refraction going on. This is further supported by the fact that moving invisible things are easier to see. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#spot)

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-27, 10:13 PM
False - you can spot invisible creatures without magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm), so there is at least some light refraction going on. This is further supported by the fact that moving invisible things are easier to see. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#spot)

But it doesn't say that it's possible because of light refraction. That's just your assumption of how it works.

Psyren
2010-11-27, 11:07 PM
But it doesn't say that it's possible because of light refraction. That's just your assumption of how it works.

Of course it's an assumption - as I was not a member of the PHB design team, I can only assume what they meant by "invisible." But being an assumption doesn't make it wrong.

If invisible in D&D truly meant "unable to be detected visually" then no DC of Spot check would work - they would automatically fail (just like Listen checks automatically fail in magical silence.) Since they don't, there is clearly something there to be detected.

awa
2010-11-27, 11:12 PM
i always assumed it was stuff like spotting the grass bending under the invisible person feet and other similar effects.

Psyren
2010-11-27, 11:18 PM
i always assumed it was stuff like spotting the grass bending under the invisible person feet and other similar effects.

And if they're levitating in open space?

awa
2010-11-27, 11:22 PM
some other subtle effect such as the way the dust in the air blows around them.
I could point out that invisibility works on creatures with dark vison in complete darkness so your argument has whole as well.

Psyren
2010-11-28, 03:13 AM
some other subtle effect such as the way the dust in the air blows around them.
I could point out that invisibility works on creatures with dark vison in complete darkness so your argument has whole as well.

That is more a commentary on how darkvision itself defies logic than any problem with my own reasoning. Also, the spot check would work even in a dust-free environment, or underwater, or in a pocket dimension/rope trick etc. The only commonality between those places where sight would be concerned would be a presence or absence of light.

The Giant's take on darkvision is that it actually creates light (see oots #76 and# 471); while that's not my personal view, it does actually provide an explanation of how the bloody thing works. :smalltongue:

grimbold
2010-11-28, 06:42 AM
IMO you could rule it either way really.
personally i think the visual aspect is cool so my group uses it. I like to think of it as the one that we see in OoTS

Eloel
2010-11-28, 07:27 AM
That is more a commentary on how darkvision itself defies logic than any problem with my own reasoning. Also, the spot check would work even in a dust-free environment, or underwater, or in a pocket dimension/rope trick etc. The only commonality between those places where sight would be concerned would be a presence or absence of light.
No comment on other things, but underwater? You -will- be known.

Project_Mayhem
2010-11-28, 11:29 AM
Yeah, there would be a big you shaped hole in the water

awa
2010-11-28, 01:05 PM
if darkvison created light then every one could see by it which is a massive change to the rules. darkvison would instead just be light

AstralFire
2010-11-28, 01:06 PM
if darkvison created light then every one could see by it which is a massive change to the rules. darkvison would instead just be light

I think they meant that darkvision creates a type of light that can only be seen by those with darkvision - see RADAR.

Psyren
2010-11-28, 02:40 PM
if darkvison created light then every one could see by it which is a massive change to the rules. darkvison would instead just be light

I know that - I'm sure Elan being "blinded" by Durkon's darkvision was pure Rule of Funny. What I'm pointing out is the deeper meaning behind that joke - that nobody actually knows how Darkvision works.

In any case, I reiterate - it's possible to see invisible things without magic, therefore they aren't truly invisible. I personally think refracting light makes more sense than random particles or pieces of the creature retaining visibility.