Can you see yourself when invisible?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Dragonamedrake wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I think Dragonamedrake was referring to other things like not being able to pull the correct item out of your backpack because you can't see them.

Correct. Nowhere in the rules does it state that you recieve any sort of negative for being invisible when trying to interact with your own gear.

I have seen others asking for proof that you can see yourself. Well where is your proof that you cant? Does the spell say you cant? Does the spell (or any other section of the book for that matter) give any sort of negative effect for being invisible? No. There is nothing.

All of this is pure conjecture based on what you "THINK" should happen when someone is invisible, however the rules just dont support your opinion. Houserule it all you want, but thats exactly what it is. Its not cheesing a spell when you follow the rules. Expecially when the rules are both supported RAW and RAI.

The book says you are invisible. It never gives you a free pass just because you cast the spell on yourself. If I drop a fireball centered on myself the rules don't say I have to take the damage also in those exact words, but.....

Where is the RAW that says you are immune to your own invis spell?


Grick wrote:

Does the spell say you cant?

Yes.

Invisibility: "The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too."

If you cannot see things that are invisible, then you cannot see things that are invisible. Since your gear is invisible, and you cannot see things that are invisible, you cannot see your gear.

No where in the spell does it say your effected by the spell. Yes your gear is invisible. That means you dont have to dis-robe to be invisible. However it could be reasoned that the target of the spell isnt affected by the illusion. I tend to think of it as a reflective bubble that coats you and your belongings but because your inside you can still see normally.

It doesnt say that no. But it also doesnt give any negatives for YOU to while interacting with your gear. If it was intended then I have to believe that 3.0, 3.5, or PF would have stated something to that effect. However I have never seen anything of the sort which leads me to my conclusion.

Quote:

Does the spell (or any other section of the book for that matter) give any sort of negative effect for being invisible?

Yes. Many of them were covered a few posts up.

Again I have yet to see an actual rule posted that declared a negative for the target. His allies sure. But not the target.

Quote:

All of this is pure conjecture based on what you "THINK" should happen when someone is invisible, however the rules just dont support your opinion.

What the rules don't support is being able to see invisible things when you can't see invisible things.

Thats my point. The rules neither state yes or no. However, if you apply some sort of negative effect for being invisible then your adding rules. I however am simply following them as written (RAW... wow I know what it means!) and I believe its intended to work that way. (RAI).

I understand if you have a different opinion, but there is no reason to get ugly. Time for me to get off anyways.

Liberty's Edge

My old group always had fun with this. If you are invisible to yourself then light is passing through you... so the photo-receptors in your eyes, being invisible, are not absorbing any light. Which therefor means that while invisible you are completely blind. :]

IMO 'you can see yourself' is a much simpler solution than 'you cannot see yourself, but we will ignore all (or most) of the drawbacks that would actually cause and pretend that everything still works as if you could see yourself'. I don't see a clear statement on the issue anywhere in the rules and thus much prefer going with the solution that doesn't create countless possible exception issues.


You can't see yourself. That much is pretty clear.
Whether or not that causes issues using your gear per RAI is a different topic, and one I had not considered.
RAW you can't read a scroll you can't see however, and by RAW that scroll would be invisible. If the GM wishes to make an exception he can, but if it was PFS he would be bound by the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonamedrake wrote:
No where in the spell does it say your effected by the spell.

You're effected by the spell if you are the target of the spell. All of this is assuming you've either cast the spell on yourself, or someone cast it on you. In either case, you were willing or failed your save, and have not yet dismissed or broken the spell effect.

The spell applies a condition to the target. That condition is Invisible. The spell doesn't need to specify every aspect of being Invisible, because it's covered in the Invisible condition.

Just like a spell that makes you Panicked doesn't need to mention every aspect of being Panicked, because it's covered by the condition of being Panicked.

You're a wizard. You're holding a scroll. You cast Invisibility on yourself, willingly.

Is the scroll invisible? Yes.

Can you see things that are invisible? No.

Can you see and read the invisible scroll? No.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
Yes your gear is invisible. That means you dont have to dis-robe to be invisible.

Correct. And because you're invisible, and you cannot see things that are invisible, you cannot see yourself or your gear. Because it's invisible.

Dragonamedrake wrote:

I tend to think of it as a reflective bubble that coats you and your belongings but because your inside you can still see normally.

It doesnt say that no.

Then why are you telling people in the rules forum that it works that way?

Dragonamedrake wrote:
But it also doesnt give any negatives for YOU to while interacting with your gear.

It makes you invisible. You suffer all the effects of being invisible, good and bad.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
If it was intended then I have to believe that 3.0, 3.5, or PF would have stated something to that effect.

PF does state that. The spell says it makes you invisible. Things that are invisible are not visible. That's what invisible means. Visually undetectable. If it's invisible, you cannot see it.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
Again I have yet to see an actual rule posted that declared a negative for the target. His allies sure. But not the target.

Blur: "Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect"

Mirror Image: "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect"

Target or Targets: "Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target..."

Not being stabilized because the cleric can't see you is a negative. For you more than your allies. Unless you're arguing philosophy in that once you're dead, your allies suffer more than you do, because you've gone on to your great reward...

Dragonamedrake wrote:
I however am simply following them as written (RAW... wow I know what it means!)

The rules do not state that you can see things that are invisible. In fact, they state exactly the opposite: That you cannot see things that are invisible.


Ryst Crowman wrote:
My point is even if you could not see your body parts, you would be aware of where they were and what they were doing.

Yes, this is basically what hand-eye coordination is.

Although, I think there is a difference between touching your nose and, for example, running down a set of stairs (or worst, running down an uneven or irregular set of stairs). The former is such an easy task that you can succeed despite terrible penalties (speaking in RPG terms).

Driving is more difficult than touching your nose, but you can still rely on the fact that the wheel, the pedal and the shift stick will always be in the same position, regardless of conditions of the road. If it wasn't for the road itself, you could easily drive without looking at the control.

When fighting or moving through difficult terrain, your sight becomes much more in demand, to the point that it become terribly difficult should you be blindfolded. But even if you could see what's in front of you, I remain convince that part of your own body awareness comes from own sight (of yourself). Even if we're talking about a split second via your peripheral vision, you need to know where your foot is in order to move it if your brains interpret that it might be in danger, and part of that knowledge comes from sight. Remove that awareness through sight and you would be handicapped. Not crippled to the point of not knowing where your foot is, but you'd be "taking a penalty".

This is more obvious when you try shooting with a handgun without looking at your weapon. The handgun is simply an extension of your arm and yet, your brain needs awareness of the position of both your handgun and the position of the target to aim, and much of that awareness is conveyed through sight. I think it would be similar with a sword or a bow.

I also agree that this level of detailed realism has no place in a RPG like Pathfinder however, and I can easily live with the fact that you cannot see yourself when invisible, and that there is no problem about it.

'findel


nosig wrote:


having played all editions of this wonderful game of ours (started in 1975) - I can honestly say that in the groups I have played in we have always played that you could NOT see yourself when under the effects of an invisibility spell... which does not really apply in this case - as we are discussing the rules in PF. (and in earlier editions of D&D the rules were much more open to interpretation - "house rules" were very common).

Most rules were house rules back then ;).

I can't recall exactly where I saw the disbelieve invisibility ruling, and it very likely could be Dragon Magazine, but I do remember it. I like the idea because it makes sense, after all, a wizard shouldn't be fooled by his own illusion (unless he was REALLY good, or had a low wisdom). It explains why a wizard could see himself, and why others couldn't. Pathfinder takes it a step further and keeps people from disbelieving from afar...


Lets take the discussion another step ahead.

If you cast displacement on yourself, do you know where you really stand?


CBDunkerson wrote:

My old group always had fun with this. If you are invisible to yourself then light is passing through you... so the photo-receptors in your eyes, being invisible, are not absorbing any light. Which therefor means that while invisible you are completely blind. :]

IMO 'you can see yourself' is a much simpler solution than 'you cannot see yourself, but we will ignore all (or most) of the drawbacks that would actually cause and pretend that everything still works as if you could see yourself'. I don't see a clear statement on the issue anywhere in the rules and thus much prefer going with the solution that doesn't create countless possible exception issues.

Thank you. This was what I was trying to get across. There is no clear statement either way. Obviously I don't see the points made by several of the posters. They seem to be trying to apply real world physics to a spell based on the fluff of the spell description clarifying that you don't have to take your belongings off for it to be an effective spell.

Basically you have two points of view.

A. It doesn't say you can see yourself so obviously you cant.

B. It doesn't say you cannot see yourself or apply negatives to that effect so obviously you can.

I understand that not everything is spelled out in every spell and that leaves room for personal interpretation. But Invisibility has been a staple in D20 for a very very long time. Not once have I seen a rule book, module, class feature, or ability ever mention any negative side effect from being invisible and I have played this game since 2nd ed. That doesn't prove anything but it leads me to believe the intent of the spell wasn't to hinder the target from interacting with his gear.

Would be nice if we heard something official because I just don't think there is enough for either side to prove the other wrong.


wraithstrike wrote:

Note that Makarnek referenced:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):

That section is clearly explaining illusions that do allow for saving throws. Such illusions are normally patterns, and are mind affecting while glamers(which is what illusions are) are not.

Magic Chapter wrote:

Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

Illusions are under the glamer subschool which has a very real effect on an object by changing the qualities of the subject making it seem to be different.

Quote:
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Compare this to patterns which create the perception of unreal things that don't exist at all, and are thus mind affecting. That is also why undead which are immune to mind affects are immune to phantasms and patterns, but not glamers.

Undead traits wrote:


Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).

You've already noted the glamer/illusion switch in the wording above, no sweat.

Basically, Invisibility is an Illusion, and as such falls under the blanket disbelief rules, just because most people don't get a saving throw because they don't spend enough time to, doesn't mean it isn't possible. All illusions can be disbelieved, given opportunity, but phantasms and patterns show a translucent effect afterwards. Why would it say illusions (all) and then single out the translucency for those two subtypes? You can't read by implied rules and not see that.

As for undead being affected by glamers, that's REALLY news to me. Wow, you're right, and it makes almost no sense, well, maybe a little. I guess the glamers would usually be cast on them, and on others they're being indirectly affected. Otherwise you couldn't cast invisibility on a bunch of zombies and send them roaming freely throughout the... oh, wait, I'll stop before I have my players find out.

I'd certainly offer a saving throw for a change self, if that's still a glamer, if there was reason, say a gnome using it and passing as a human and then walking thoughtlessly into a three-foot tall passage, as an example. If anybody was watching carefully, that is.

Seriously though, people, run it how you want to, just don't be a jerk needlessly. It makes perfect sense to say that the spell allows the recipient to see themselves (if only as a transparent image, only visible from the recipient's eyes), that way everybody can do what they need to when they need to. It is magic, after all. I just offered a reason that it could be so, using the rules in the current book, and off of older rulings (which quite possibly was surrounded by another article about how hard it is to act when you can't see yourself).

Or, don't. I'd throw my rock in the pile for don't penalize. There's already enough modifiers out there...

I take heart to note that no one disagreed with the "Can of Worms" statement...


Dragonamedrake wrote:

Basically you have two points of view.

A. It doesn't say you can see yourself so obviously you cant.

B. It doesn't say you cannot see yourself or apply negatives to that effect so obviously you can.

You left one out.

C. It says you are invisible. Since you cannot see things that are invisible, you cannot see yourself.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
Not once have I seen a rule book, module, class feature, or ability ever mention any negative side effect from being invisible and I have played this game since 2nd ed.

Blur. Displacement. Mirror Image. Any beneficial targeted spell.


Makarnak wrote:
Invisibility is an Illusion, and as such falls under the blanket disbelief rules, just because most people don't get a saving throw because they don't spend enough time to, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

The disbelief rules only apply to spells that specifically say disbelief.

That's why that section is titled "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)" and that relevant spells (like Silent Image, Hallucinatory Terrain, Illusory Wall, Phantasmal Killer, etc.) have "disbelief" in their saving throw line.

Makarnak wrote:
Why would it say illusions (all) and then single out the translucency for those two subtypes?

It doesn't say "illusions (all)."

It says "A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline."

This does not grant a saving throw to a spell that does not have one. You can't disbelieve a Simulacrum and have it poof out of existence.


Grick wrote:
It says "A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline."

That reminds me, I meant to ask: would a disbelieved glamer also appear translucent, disappear altogether or simply "revealed to be false" ?


Grick we are going around in circles here and we are both starting to sound like broken records. My point is we have two interpretations. There isn't enough for either side to prove its point. Its to open.

However here is a question for you.

Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Ethereal creatures are invisible. Since ethereal creatures are not materially present, Perception checks, scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help locate them. Incorporeal creatures are often invisible. Scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help creatures find or attack invisible, incorporeal creatures, but Perception checks can help.

Does an Invisible Stalker ever dout its real. I mean after all it cant see itself. :P

What about Ghost! O my! lol. I kid I kid.


nosig wrote:
having played all editions of this wonderful game of ours (started in 1975) - I can honestly say that in the groups I have played in we have always played that you could NOT see yourself when under the effects of an invisibility spell... which does not really apply in this case - as we are discussing the rules in PF. (and in earlier editions of D&D the rules were much more open to interpretation - "house rules" were very common).

A couple others have said similar things. Just want to point out that in second edition at least, the Complete Wizard's Handbook explicitly laid out the rules regarding invisibility:

Complete Wizard's Handbook wrote:

Wizards should keep in mind that invisibility is an illusion, a condition of artificial reality-- it's not an enchantment that causes the caster (or creature of the caster's choice) to literally disappear. As such, invisibility is subject to all of the advantages and limitations of illusionary magic. Following are the most pertinent points:

· The invisible character can always see himself; in effect, he automatically disbelieves the illusion.
· The caster cannot tell with certainty which observers have successfully disbelieved his illusion of invisibility ; he can only be sure by observing their reactions.
· All objects on the invisible subject's person are also invisible. However, the DM might wish to impose limitations, since it might not make sense for a 30-foot pole carried by an invisible character to also be entirely invisible. <snip>

Not, of course, that this has a whole bunch of bearing on Pathfinder RAW. Carry on!


So if you were invisible to yourself, would you not suffer some penalty to your attack roll b/c you can't see where the end of your rapier is? Or suffer some stealth penalty b/c you can't see where your scabbard ends, or where the edge of your shield is so you don't accidentally bump things into doorways?

I have a question for you invisible-means-invisible folks. Do you play with these types of penalties, or do you assume the PCs can handle themselves perfectly?


Dragonamedrake wrote:
There isn't enough for either side to prove its point.

Sure there is. The rules and basic logic prove the point.

The spell makes the scroll you're holding invisible.

You cannot see things that are invisible.

Thus, you cannot see the scroll you are holding.

You're arguing that you can see things that are invisible, and you've stated that the rules say this, but when shown that the rules don't say this (that they say the exact opposite, in fact) you start saying that it's all opinion.

Dragonamedrake wrote:

However here is a question for you.

Does an Invisible Stalker ever dout its real.

It doesn't matter what the Invisible Stalker's opinions on itself are. It's invisible at all times. And, since it cannot see invisible things, if it was holding an invisible scroll, it could not activate it.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
What about Ghost!

A ghost is incorporeal, not invisible. If a ghost casts invisibility on itself, and it cannot see things that are invisible, then it cannot see an invisible scroll it's holding.

Neither of those creatures are ethereal, which I suspect was your point. If our example wizard were to cast Ethereal Jaunt, he would be invisible to creatures on the material plane, however he would treat other ethereal creatures and ethereal objects as if they were material. This means an ethereal wizard can see and read an ethereal scroll.

Laurefindel wrote:
That reminds me, I meant to ask: would a disbelieved glamer also appear translucent, disappear altogether or simply "revealed to be false" ?

"A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline."

Since a glamer is not a figment or a phantasm, there is no translucent outline.

If you interact with Hallucinatory Terrain and make your will save, you see the real natural terrain for what it is. It no longer looks, sounds, and smells like some other sort of natural terrain.


Another question. If an invisible wizard uses an invisible mineral prism to cast read magic on an invisible scroll he is holding, can he read it?


LeDM wrote:
So if you were invisible to yourself, would you not suffer some penalty to your attack roll b/c you can't see where the end of your rapier is?

No, because the rules don't say so. In fact, against a sighted opponent, you gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls.

LeDM wrote:
Or suffer some stealth penalty b/c you can't see where your scabbard ends, or where the edge of your shield is so you don't accidentally bump things into doorways?

No, again because the rules don't say so. In fact, you gain a +20 bonus on stealth checks (+40 if you're not moving).

LeDM wrote:
I have a question for you invisible-means-invisible folks. Do you play with these types of penalties, or do you assume the PCs can handle themselves perfectly?

I don't invent penalties for falling down stairs because you can't see your feet, or being unable to use your sword because you can't see which end is on fire, or being able to read your invisible scrolls, if that's what you mean.

LeDM wrote:
Another question. If an invisible wizard uses an invisible mineral prism to cast read magic on an invisible scroll he is holding, can he read it?

You don't cast on the scroll, you cast it on yourself. ("Target you")

Once you've cast Read Magic it lets you decipher magical inscriptions. You still have to be able to see those magical inscriptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for saying all that so I don't have to, Grick.

+1


LeDM wrote:

So if you were invisible to yourself, would you not suffer some penalty to your attack roll b/c you can't see where the end of your rapier is? Or suffer some stealth penalty b/c you can't see where your scabbard ends, or where the edge of your shield is so you don't accidentally bump things into doorways?

I have a question for you invisible-means-invisible folks. Do you play with these types of penalties, or do you assume the PCs can handle themselves perfectly?

Penalties such as these would be circumstantially determined by a GM, if they're going to be present at all. I wouldn't rule it that way, personally. I make the assumption they can handle themselves well enough to not cause themselves penalties doing most tasks.


You realize the Invisible stalker thing was an attempt at a light hearted joke right?

Also repeating oneself over and over doesn't make you right. It just becomes so frustrating people stop arguing. You might have gotten that mistaken with winning the argument. We have a guy in our group who has the same issue. Its like banging your head against a wall.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
...repeating oneself over and over doesn't make you right. It just becomes so frustrating people stop arguing. You might have gotten that mistaken with winning the argument.

That's true. And claims without substantiation, when made in the face of compelling arguments, logic, or evidence to the contrary, are usually just irrational opinions. His substantiation--his logic--is rather straightforward. There are no tricks or difficult subtleties to understand. I don't see any substantiation to what you're saying. Here's the argument:

Definition: The spell Invisibility makes invisible the subject upon which it is cast.

1) If Invisibility is cast upon you, then you are invisible. (by definition)
2) If something is invisible, then it cannot be seen. (by definition)
3) If something cannot be seen, then you cannot see it. (by definition)
c) Therefore, if someone casts Invibility upon you, then you cannot see you. (from 1, 2, and 3)

1) A -> B
2) B -> C
3) C -> D
c) Therefore, A -> D

The argument regarding gear is very similar:

Definition: The spell Invisibility makes invisible the gear of a person upon which it is cast.

1) If Invisibility is cast upon you, then your gear is invisible. (by definition)
2) If something is invisible, then it cannot be seen. (by definition)
3) If something cannot be seen, then you cannot see it. (by definition)
c) Therefore, if someone casts Invibility upon you, then you cannot see your gear. (from 1, 2, and 3)

What's your argument?

Edit: Note, my definitions do not say, "...make invisible to everyone but the subject..." because the definition of the spell does not contain that nor does any of the stats of the spell imply that.


jupistar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Then you tuck it under your coat and it's unable to be seen by others. However when you pull it out again is it visible or invisible? That's my point above.
Pulling it out a second time after it is invisible is no different than pulling it out the first time it was invisible. It would still have to be dropped or put down to be seen by anyone. Pulling it out of the coat does not stop it from being invisible.
I'm not sure that's so clear. It says "disappears" not "becomes invisible". So, it's reasonable to question if the item regains the invisibility state itself or if it's just, sort of, hidden from view within something that is itself invisible. I think it could go either way and I'm ruling in my game that it does.

I would be in the "it stays visible" camp except. . . at that point you have an invisible object blocking visibility to a visible object. What? So. . .your clothing is invisible, but it is opaque to visible things behind it. . .only not visibly opaque.

So if the ground behind you is not invisible also, it cannot be seen? Which I know no one would argue (I hope), but is where that leads to logically.

Personally, I would prefer a non-invisible object stay visible no matter how an invisible creature orients it. Makes more sense, and is interesting. However, I am pretty certain the rules do allow for a regularly viewable object to be hidden by invisible clothing. Hmm, new idea for traps!


I feel like you guys have convinced me. I guess if the party wizard wants to cast spells from a scroll while invisible, he's just going to have to ethereal jaunt it.


Godwyn wrote:
jupistar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Then you tuck it under your coat and it's unable to be seen by others. However when you pull it out again is it visible or invisible? That's my point above.
Pulling it out a second time after it is invisible is no different than pulling it out the first time it was invisible. It would still have to be dropped or put down to be seen by anyone. Pulling it out of the coat does not stop it from being invisible.
I'm not sure that's so clear. It says "disappears" not "becomes invisible". So, it's reasonable to question if the item regains the invisibility state itself or if it's just, sort of, hidden from view within something that is itself invisible. I think it could go either way and I'm ruling in my game that it does.

I would be in the "it stays visible" camp except. . . at that point you have an invisible object blocking visibility to a visible object. What? So. . .your clothing is invisible, but it is opaque to visible things behind it. . .only not visibly opaque.

So if the ground behind you is not invisible also, it cannot be seen? Which I know no one would argue (I hope), but is where that leads to logically.

Personally, I would prefer a non-invisible object stay visible no matter how an invisible creature orients it. Makes more sense, and is interesting. However, I am pretty certain the rules do allow for a regularly viewable object to be hidden by invisible clothing. Hmm, new idea for traps!

Actually, I think you make a great argument for it becoming invisible and not simply disappearing from view. If I draw my sword, while invisible, and drop it, then pick it up again and hold it behind my back, I would expect it to still be visible. Even though it's in my possession and is "blocked" by my invisible body, it doesn't disappear, because it hasn't been "tucked away". Thus, the only rational conclusion is that when something is entirely enveloped within something that is invisible and disappears, it is not because it is blocked, but rather because it takes on the invisibility state.


LeDM wrote:
I feel like you guys have convinced me. I guess if the party wizard wants to cast spells from a scroll while invisible, he's just going to have to ethereal jaunt it.

Ethereal jaunt it? Why not just set it down and let the invisibility fall off and then pick it up again?


jupistar wrote:
LeDM wrote:
I feel like you guys have convinced me. I guess if the party wizard wants to cast spells from a scroll while invisible, he's just going to have to ethereal jaunt it.
Ethereal jaunt it? Why not just set it down and let the invisibility fall off and then pick it up again?

Sure, or you could even lay it flat on the ground and read it from there. But in either case the enemy would have a (perhaps small) chance to see a scroll appear out of nowhere, and might guess that someone is nearby.

EDIT: except of course I forgot that ethereal creatures can't attack non-ethereal creatures in general. Doh.


LeDM wrote:
jupistar wrote:
LeDM wrote:
I feel like you guys have convinced me. I guess if the party wizard wants to cast spells from a scroll while invisible, he's just going to have to ethereal jaunt it.
Ethereal jaunt it? Why not just set it down and let the invisibility fall off and then pick it up again?
Sure, or you could even lay it flat on the ground and read it from there. But in either case the enemy would have a (perhaps small) chance to see a scroll appear out of nowhere, and might guess that someone is nearby.

Oh, I agree. Much like using a light source while invisible or walking through water could make you detectable.

I agree with wraith, though. I'm not sure you can cast a spell from a scroll not being held by you. Maybe you can (I haven't tracked down any rules on the subject), but it implies that someone could cast a scroll you're holding... maybe even an enemy.


Ahorsewithnoname wrote:
Grick wrote:


Talonhawke wrote:
What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

The Strouhal equation for cruising flight (fA/U = 7 beats per second * 0.18 meters per beat / 9.5 meters per second) yields a Strouhal number of roughly 0.13 indicating the average cruising airspeed velocity of an unladen European Swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour. This would convert to a tactical fly speed of 120 feet.

He didn't specify what species of swallow. Off the bridge you go.

Bold for emphasis


jupistar wrote:
I agree with wraith, though. I'm not sure you can cast a spell from a scroll not being held by you. Maybe you can (I haven't tracked down any rules on the subject), but it implies that someone could cast a scroll you're holding... maybe even an enemy.

Hmm. I'd allow it under the right conditions. It would be hard. You have to have a good view of it (meaning you are right behind the guy and looking over his shoulder, or perhaps a super high concentration check would allow you to read it upside down if you are right in front AND the scroll is laid flat so you can see the whole thing. THEN you'd pretty much have to ready an action to pull it off before the scrolls owner manages to get the spell cast since he's probably not wasting much time between getting the scroll out and reading it. Even then, I may call for initiative checks to see who actually finishes casting the spell first.


LeDM wrote:
jupistar wrote:
I agree with wraith, though. I'm not sure you can cast a spell from a scroll not being held by you. Maybe you can (I haven't tracked down any rules on the subject), but it implies that someone could cast a scroll you're holding... maybe even an enemy.
Hmm. I'd allow it under the right conditions. It would be hard. You have to have a good view of it (meaning you are right behind the guy and looking over his shoulder, or perhaps a super high concentration check would allow you to read it upside down if you are right in front and the scroll is laid flat so you can see the whole thing. THEN you'd pretty much have to ready an action to pull it off before the scrolls owner manages to get the spell cast since he's probably not wasting much time between getting the scroll out and reading it. Even then, I may call for initiative checks to see who actually finishes casting the spell first.

Yeah, except if you remember, the words of the spell disappear as it's being read. Actually, it says "as the spell is cast". So does "as it is cast" mean "during the reading" or "upon completion of the reading and the spell is resolved/resolving"? If one person starts reading it, what happens when the other person tries to read it, too? Can one person ruin another person's scroll casting by interrupting and reading some of the words on the scroll? Do we get a mishap then?


jupistar wrote:
Yeah, except if you remember, the words of the spell disappear as it's being read. Actually, it says "as it the spell is cast". So does "as it is cast" mean "during the reading" or "upon completion of the reading and the spell is resolved"? If one person starts reading it, what happens when the other person tries to read it, too? Can one person ruin another person's scroll casting by interrupting and reading some of the words on the scroll? Do we get a mishap then?

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I think there would be an exploit there since any caster could try and interrupt a scroll being cast so long as they could see at least one word on the scroll. Methinks that this cannot be the case. I'd say then that all the words disappear at once when the spell is cast, but not during reading.

This brings up another interesting question. What if you are scrying on a caster. Can you try to cast his scroll before he does even though you aren't anywhere near it?


seems like a no brainer that he can't see himself, nor read scrolls that are invisible but I FAQ it nonetheless.


LeDM wrote:

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I think there would be an exploit there since any caster could try and interrupt a scroll being cast so long as they could see at least one word on the scroll. Methinks that this cannot be the case. I'd say then that all the words disappear at once when the spell is cast, but not during reading.

This brings up another interesting question. What if you are scrying on a caster. Can you try to cast his scroll before he does even though you aren't anywhere near it?

A lot of possible exploits and exceptions. I think it would be much easier to rule, and will do so myself, that a person must be physically touching a scroll (what about gloves or gauntlets???) to cast the spell on it. This is would be a prerequisite of the magic inherent in scrolls for them to work. I can only see the issue of "skin" contact being the sticking point here.

Otherwise, we take your approach. We would have all those problems we just discussed, but we could argue that no one would be so irrational and foolhardy to try to gank someone else's scroll use because the scroll holder could move and interrupt the non-holder's casting, resulting in a mishap that could be very harmful. Even just a little jiggling by the holder could end up causing a mishap.


Makarnak wrote:


You've already noted the glamer/illusion switch in the wording above, no sweat.

Basically, Invisibility is an Illusion, and as such falls under the blanket disbelief rules, just because most people don't get a saving throw because they don't spend enough time to, doesn't mean it isn't possible. All illusions can be disbelieved, given opportunity, but phantasms and patterns show a translucent effect afterwards. Why would it say illusions (all) and then single out the translucency for those two subtypes? You can't read by implied rules and not see that.

As for undead being affected by glamers, that's REALLY news to me. Wow, you're right, and it makes almost no sense, well, maybe a little. I guess the glamers would usually be cast on them, and on others they're being indirectly affected. Otherwise you couldn't cast invisibility on a bunch of zombies and send them roaming freely throughout the... oh, wait, I'll stop before I have my players find out.

I'd certainly offer a saving throw for a change self, if that's still a glamer, if there was reason, say a gnome using it and passing as a human and then walking thoughtlessly into a three-foot tall passage, as an example. If anybody was watching carefully, that is.

Seriously though, people, run it how you want to, just don't be a jerk needlessly. It makes perfect sense to say that the spell allows the recipient to see themselves (if only as a transparent image, only visible from the recipient's eyes), that way everybody can do what they need to when they need to. It is magic, after all. I just offered a reason that it could be so, using the rules in the current book, and off of older rulings (which quite possibly was surrounded by another article about how hard it is to act when you can't see yourself).

Or, don't. I'd throw my rock in the pile for don't penalize. There's already enough modifiers out there...

I take heart to note that no one disagreed with the "Can of Worms" statement...

There are no blanket disbelief rules.

I will ask you this.
1. What save is used, reflex, will, or fort to disbelieve an illusion spell that does not have a save listed or has save none. Provide a rules quote

2.Why would some illusion spells have "Saving Throw Will disbelief" if all illusions can be disbelieved anyway?

Before answering those I will also add that the developers have said mirror image can not be disbelieved and it is an illusion.

Before the 3.5 isn't PF argument comes up the wording on the illusion rules is the same so until the wording is changed the rules work the same way.

3.5 clarification using mirror image wrote:

What happens when an attacker accidentally uses a touch spell against a figment from a mirror image spell? You can hold the charge with a touch spell, right? So if you touch an image (which really isn’t there), is the touch spell

discharged? Does the touch spell user get a chance to disbelieve the image and avoid discharging the spell?

D&D FAQ v.3.5 81 Update Version: 10/19/07
As noted in an earlier question, the figments from a mirror image spell function just like creatures for the purpose of aiming spells. If a foe using a touch spell touches an image, the spell is harmlessly discharged (though the image is destroyed). There is no chance to disbelieve a mirror image spell—if therewas, the spell would have a saving throw entry and the entry would read “Will disbelief.

---------------------------------

There is also this issue.
magic chapter wrote:
None: No saving throw is allowed.

This has yet to be disputed, and yes there are illusion spells with that entry.

What can of worms statement are you talking about?

Ok I found it. Things don't work the same as 1st and 2nd edition. As an example illusions could hurt you in prior editions if you did not disbelieve them. IIRC undead were immune to all illusions even invis because it was considered to be mind affecting. Glamers however are no longer mind affecting. They affect the target, not the people looking upon the target, and that is why they can not be disbelieved.

Liberty's Edge

Makarnak wrote:
nosig wrote:


having played all editions of this wonderful game of ours (started in 1975) - I can honestly say that in the groups I have played in we have always played that you could NOT see yourself when under the effects of an invisibility spell... which does not really apply in this case - as we are discussing the rules in PF. (and in earlier editions of D&D the rules were much more open to interpretation - "house rules" were very common).

Most rules were house rules back then ;).

I can't recall exactly where I saw the disbelieve invisibility ruling, and it very likely could be Dragon Magazine, but I do remember it. I like the idea because it makes sense, after all, a wizard shouldn't be fooled by his own illusion (unless he was REALLY good, or had a low wisdom). It explains why a wizard could see himself, and why others couldn't. Pathfinder takes it a step further and keeps people from disbelieving from afar...

Probably Dragon magazine, around number 80, but, if i recall correctly, that number of the magazine had 3 kinds of invisibility spells:

- a mental one that convinced you that convinced you that the person protected by "mental invisibility" was not here, so that you overlooked him unless he was acting against you;
- a illusion based one that had you covered by a trompe-l'œil image of the background (like the alien of predator);
- a alteration based version that made you actually transparent.

So those suggested rules were based on a complete redoing of invisibility. It is hardly applicable here unless you want to implement all the other effects.
The idea has its merits, especially for critters invisibility, as the origin of critter invisibility is different from creature to creature, but it would create a lot of complications.

Probably, as long as you are houseruling it, the trompe-l'œil version, for illusion based invisibility, is the best version: you and all your gear are covered by a extremely high quality depiction of the background and the use of perception allow the other people to notice those small differences and blurring created by the spell while it try to project the correct background in all the directions.

Currently invisibility work like a cloak: everything that get put under the cloak become invisible, and stay invisible as long as it touch you.

Liberty's Edge

Makarnak wrote:


As for undead being affected by glamers, that's REALLY news to me. Wow, you're right, and it makes almost no sense, well, maybe a little. I guess the glamers would usually be cast on them, and on...

So you treat undead as if they were unaffected by things like blur, mirror image and so on? teh simplest way to see glamers and figments is to treat them as holographic projections. You use eyes (or other appropriate senses) to perceive them? You see (or perceive) them.

Liberty's Edge

Makarnak wrote:


I take heart to note that no one disagreed with the "Can of Worms" statement...

Actually saying that invisibility don't make you invisible to yourself don't remove the "can of worms", it simply open it from the other end.

It in how invisibility interact with other thins and open the "it can disbelieved" part of the problem.

Liberty's Edge

jupistar wrote:
LeDM wrote:

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I think there would be an exploit there since any caster could try and interrupt a scroll being cast so long as they could see at least one word on the scroll. Methinks that this cannot be the case. I'd say then that all the words disappear at once when the spell is cast, but not during reading.

This brings up another interesting question. What if you are scrying on a caster. Can you try to cast his scroll before he does even though you aren't anywhere near it?

A lot of possible exploits and exceptions. I think it would be much easier to rule, and will do so myself, that a person must be physically touching a scroll (what about gloves or gauntlets???) to cast the spell on it. This is would be a prerequisite of the magic inherent in scrolls for them to work. I can only see the issue of "skin" contact being the sticking point here.

Otherwise, we take your approach. We would have all those problems we just discussed, but we could argue that no one would be so irrational and foolhardy to try to gank someone else's scroll use because the scroll holder could move and interrupt the non-holder's casting, resulting in a mishap that could be very harmful. Even just a little jiggling by the holder could end up causing a mishap.

Remember: to cast a scroll you need to decipher it first. so your hypothetical reader has to spend at least 1 round deciphering it before he can cast it.

Edit: he could probably use UMD to cast it blindly, but he would have al the problem of casting a spell blindly plus the difficulties of using a scroll. Miscasting it could be very bad.

Liberty's Edge

Given the way the rules are written (i.e. no statement about an exception) it seems likely that the writers intended the invisible person to be invisible to themselves.

However, given the many problems that should logically introduce it seems best to play the power as if the invisible person CAN see themselves.

The 'Illusory Wall' spell provides a precedent for this type of 'all but self illusion'... it creates an image of a wall that the caster can see through, but other creatures cannot - even if they disbelieve / know the wall is an illusion. Ergo, arguments that illusions are always all or nothing except for disbelief don't hold up... there is an example to the contrary and thus invisibility could be another one. I argue that it should be to avoid the many implications of being unable to see oneself which the rules don't provide any guidance for (or even mention of).


Despite the RAW I run it as if the invisible person can see themselves, and anything they are holding. It makes it easier for me as a GM.

Dark Archive

Laurefindel wrote:
Ryst Crowman wrote:
My point is even if you could not see your body parts, you would be aware of where they were and what they were doing.

Yes, this is basically what hand-eye coordination is.

Although, I think there is a difference between touching your nose and, for example, running down a set of stairs (or worst, running down an uneven or irregular set of stairs). The former is such an easy task that you can succeed despite terrible penalties (speaking in RPG terms).

Driving is more difficult than touching your nose, but you can still rely on the fact that the wheel, the pedal and the shift stick will always be in the same position, regardless of conditions of the road. If it wasn't for the road itself, you could easily drive without looking at the control.

When fighting or moving through difficult terrain, your sight becomes much more in demand, to the point that it become terribly difficult should you be blindfolded. But even if you could see what's in front of you, I remain convince that part of your own body awareness comes from own sight (of yourself). Even if we're talking about a split second via your peripheral vision, you need to know where your foot is in order to move it if your brains interpret that it might be in danger, and part of that knowledge comes from sight. Remove that awareness through sight and you would be handicapped. Not crippled to the point of not knowing where your foot is, but you'd be "taking a penalty".

This is more obvious when you try shooting with a handgun without looking at your weapon. The handgun is simply an extension of your arm and yet, your brain needs awareness of the position of both your handgun and the position of the target to aim, and much of that awareness is conveyed through sight. I think it would be similar with a sword or a bow.

I also agree that this level of detailed realism has no place in a RPG like Pathfinder however, and I can easily live with the fact that you cannot see yourself when invisible, and that there is no...

Unle the stairs are invisible running down them is not difficult, do you look at your feet when you run? Hey if you want to penalize your characters invispower go ahead. I don't have to play with yall.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Ryst Crowman wrote:
Unle the stairs are invisible running down them is not difficult, do you look at your feet when you run?

When running downstairs? I *always* look at my feet. It's too easy to stumble on that last step, otherwise.


pH unbalanced wrote:
Ryst Crowman wrote:
Unle the stairs are invisible running down them is not difficult, do you look at your feet when you run?
When running downstairs? I *always* look at my feet. It's too easy to stumble on that last step, otherwise.

Me too, and I run up and down stairs on a daily basis. Steep stairs, spiral stairs, annoyingly deep stairs, crazily narrow stairs, stairs with 3 different pitch, stairs that vibrate and wable when you go up and down; I've got them all at work!

And when I trained for cross-country running, I didn't need to look constantly at the ground on the road or on the track, unless there was a sidewalk coming, or the sidewalk came to an end, or when the dirt roads were full of potholes after rain, or the forest path was full of roots, or the stream that I had to cross with two strategically placed stones to hop on.

In most of these situation, not only was I looking at the ground, but I was looking at my feet as well. Never more than for a split second, but I'm convinced that I'd miss the second rock in the brook if I couldn't see and coordinate my foot (actually, I did missed that rock quite a few times).

Would I make a fuss about this in a D&D game; probably not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are all wrong. The last and relevant part of the spell description answers clearly all these questions. I'll quote it for you:

from d20pfsrd.com wrote:


from Invisibility wrote:

Emphasis mine.


Well, thanks for the correction. You've really cleared things up!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jupistar you obviously have see invisibility! I hit the FAQ button to contribute.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qlj


wraithstrike wrote:
It does not matter in most cases anyway. I can touch my nose with my eyes clothes, and so can most people I know so you don't have to worry about miss chances against yourself if that is why you are asking.

We all know of the five "classic" or "gross" senses, but there are many others. They make sense if you think about them, but are usually taken for granted. Balance and sensitivity to temperature are among them, as is our ability to know the whereabouts of a body parts relative to others - which you have described. Everyone has worried about loss of sight or the dreariness or never tasting food again, but imagine if you were incapable of remaining upright for more than a few seconds? That might be a good spell actually...

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you see yourself when invisible? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.