Does casting Ventriloquism while Invisible end the Invisibility?


Rules Questions


I believe invisibility is ended when you do something to a hostile target that affects their saves. Ventriloquism is an illusion and they get a will save. Would this end the invisibility? I'm looking for RAW, not RAI.

EDIT: For clarity, I am an Invisible witch, using Ventriloquism to Cackle away from me so the enemy thinks I'm flying around over there in stead of over here.


Invisibility wrote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
Ventriloquism wrote:
Effect intelligible sound, usually speech

So ventriloquism does not "target" a foe, or include a foe in its effect. There is nothing in the description of Invisibility that mentions saves for the attacks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
icantfallasleep wrote:
I believe invisibility is ended when you do something to a hostile target that affects their saves. Ventriloquism is an illusion and they get a will save. Would this end the invisibility? I'm looking for RAW, not RAI.

Yes. if you're doing something to someone that they get a save against, which does not involve casting a cure spell to heal, it's essentially an attack and your invisibility ends. You can however use the spell more subtly and still keep your invisibility by not directly putting it on an unwilling creature.


LazarX wrote:
icantfallasleep wrote:
I believe invisibility is ended when you do something to a hostile target that affects their saves. Ventriloquism is an illusion and they get a will save. Would this end the invisibility? I'm looking for RAW, not RAI.
Yes. if you're doing something to someone that they get a save against, which does not involve casting a cure spell to heal, it's essentially an attack and your invisibility ends. You can however use the spell more subtly and still keep your invisibility by not directly putting it on an unwilling creature.

I modified the OP for clarity. I will be using Cackle while Invisible to project my Cackle from a different location, to confuse the enemy and to make sure I am not in the vicinity of any AoE spells.


Brf is right.

Getting a save has nothing to do with ending the invisibility spell. Spells end invisibility if they target a foe or if their area of effect includes a foe (with certain exceptions like bless, that don't cause a harmful effect.)


Dave Justus wrote:

Brf is right.

Getting a save has nothing to do with ending the invisibility spell. Spells end invisibility if they target a foe or if their area of effect includes a foe (with certain exceptions like bless, that don't cause a harmful effect.)

So Illusions like Ventriloquism and Silent Image don't affect them because they don't target the enemy, but anything mind affecting that targets them will.

What about AoE like Black Tentacles. Say it's cast in an area where no enemies are. Would that end invisibility? If no, then will it end when they are dumb enough to enter the area on a different turn?

Just making sure I understand the mechanics of ending invisibility.


I'd say by RAW it shouldn't break invisibility.

For reference, here's the relevant text in the invisibility spell description.

Quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe . Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

The Ventriloquism spell has no target or area line, And its effect is "Intelligible sound; usually speech". So by RAW, it literally can't ever qualify as an attack.

Edit: oops, ninja'd


Black tentacles would end invisibility just like fireball would.


icantfallasleep wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

Brf is right.

Getting a save has nothing to do with ending the invisibility spell. Spells end invisibility if they target a foe or if their area of effect includes a foe (with certain exceptions like bless, that don't cause a harmful effect.)

So Illusions like Ventriloquism and Silent Image don't affect them because they don't target the enemy, but anything mind affecting that targets them will.

What about AoE like Black Tentacles. Say it's cast in an area where no enemies are. Would that end invisibility? If no, then will it end when they are dumb enough to enter the area on a different turn?

Just making sure I understand the mechanics of ending invisibility.

Case 1. No. Casting on a spot with no perceivable enemies doesn't break invisibility.

Case 2. It depends on the GM.

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
Black tentacles would end invisibility just like fireball would.

I don't think so:

Quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe . Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

Both black tentacles and summon monster are conjuration spells that attack indirectly...


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Black tentacles would end invisibility just like fireball would.

I don't think so:

Quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe . Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.
Both black tentacles and summon monster are conjuration spells that attack indirectly...

Black Tentacles has a 20 ft radius spread. So casting it in a space with a foe would count as an attack.


Black tentacles has an area of affect. It being a conjuration spell does not change that. It also includes a foe.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To cut to the point that you might be glossing over, your cackle should be considered an attack if it's extending a hex on an enemy. If it's just for allies, you should be fine.

For black tentacles your invisibility would break if you cast the spell in an area including an enemy. If someone walked in or if you went invisible after the spell was in effect, that would not break invisibility.

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
Black tentacles has an area of affect. It being a conjuration spell does not change that. It also includes a foe.

I agree somewhat on it being a hostile spell *if it includes a foe* but I could also think of it as a summoned creature with its own will... if you think about it, Summon Monster does not break invisibility and it brings forth monsters that are *mobile* and actively seek targets, whereas Black Tentacles is stationary.

Casting it on unoccupied squares with the intent to discourage pursuit is clear cut non-hostile in my opinion. I could also to a certain extent accept a ruling that most conjurations without an energy descriptor or that target a creature directly are not invisibility breakers (i.e. acid arrow has acid descriptor so no... but tentacles... meh...)

Edit: grease ok, web ok, aqueous orb no, ice spears no, adhesive spittle no, create pit ok, rain of frogs ok... etc.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Black tentacles has an area of affect. It being a conjuration spell does not change that. It also includes a foe.

I agree somewhat on it being a hostile spell *if it includes a foe* but I could also think of it as a summoned creature with its own will... if you think about it, Summon Monster does not break invisibility and it brings forth monsters that are *mobile* and actively seek targets, whereas Black Tentacles is stationary.

*snip*

Edit: grease ok, web ok, aqueous orb no, ice spears no, adhesive spittle no, create pit ok, rain of frogs ok... etc.

Well, I kind of disagree that Black Tentacles should be considered a summoned monster. Interpreting the rules as saying that seems like a bit of a stretch IMO.

Anyway, the OP did say RAW. :) And the rules clearly state that casting a spell with an enemy in its target area breaks invisibility. Black Tentacles, Grease, and Create Pit all have AoEs, so regardless of the flavor text, they can break invisibility if you cast them so the target area includes a foe.

Also even if you count casting Black Tentacles as summoning a monster, it still has an AoE that can include a foe, therefore it still counts as a direct attack if you hit a foe with it. Even if summoning a monster is called out as an example of things that don't break invisibility, that doesn't negate the rules about having a foe in the target area.


OP specifically mentioned casting them in an area without a foe as a ground target AOE.

That would not break invis, nor would a foe stepping into them after it was cast. That would fall under indirect attack.

As far as a summoned monster goes, the summoning spells are not attacks, nor do they include AOE effects that could have a foe in it.

Once the creature is summoned and acting, it's the one making attacks, and can be considered indirect attacks from the caster, so it's also good.

They would be 100% kosher as far as raw, with the caveat that black tentacles were not including a foe in it's area upon initial casting.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Oddly, if there were an undetected invisible foe in the AoE of that black tentacles then the invisibility on the caster would break, even though the "attack" was unintentional. Invisibility is weird. There have always been these corner cases.

I'm fond of having a bad guy's lair lined with traps, and having the invisible bad guy trigger them because setting off a trap isn't an attack either, even if foes are in the affected area and the bad guy isn't.


Setting off a trap to harm someone would be an attack.


Gamerskum wrote:

Setting off a trap to harm someone would be an attack.

Causing harm indirectly does not break invisibility. The trap is attacking, not the invisible creature who triggered it. The spell itself even says it is acceptable.

Quote:
Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Will the following set off visibility?


  • Adhesive Spittle - Yes, when used to spit at an enemy
  • Aqueous Orb - Yes, if used against an enemy
  • Black Tentacles - Yes, if there is an enemy in the area at the time of casting
  • Cackle - No, it is not a targeting effect
  • Create Pit - Yes, if there is an enemy in the area at the time of casting
  • Cure spell - Yes, if used as an attack
  • Fireball - Yes, if there is an enemy in the area
  • Grease - Yes, if there is an enemy in the area at the time of casting
  • Ice Spears - Yes, if there is an enemy in the area
  • Rain of Frogs - No, it does not qualify per the RAW
  • Silent Image - No, it does not qualify per the RAW
  • Triggering a trap - No, it's the trap making the attack, not you
  • Summon Monster - No, it does not qualify per the RAW
  • Ventriloquism - No, it does not qualify per the RAW
  • Web - Yes, if there is an enemy in the area at the time of casting

This is RAW insofar as I can tell. Ice spears is the oddball in the group since it doesn't have an area line, but clearly effects an area in the spell description. Rain of frogs seems like an area spell, since it summons a swarm, but it really isn't. It's just another summoning spell like summon monster. Most of the others are pretty straight-forward.


icantfallasleep wrote:

I believe invisibility is ended when you do something to a hostile target that affects their saves. Ventriloquism is an illusion and they get a will save. Would this end the invisibility? I'm looking for RAW, not RAI.

EDIT: For clarity, I am an Invisible witch, using Ventriloquism to Cackle away from me so the enemy thinks I'm flying around over there in stead of over here.

Indirect spells do not cause you to lose invisibility. An illusionary wall does not cause a save on those looking at it. Those who interact with it get a save to see it for what it is.

As opposed to fireball, which causes anyone you cast it on to make a save.

1) Spells which optionally cause saving throws as part of their effects if interacted with do not drop your invis. as long as they are not cast directly onto an enemy.

2) Spells that immediately cause saving throws when used on targets do.

Note that #2 trumps #1.

Examples:

Wall of fire cast 10 feet away from any enemy such that no saving throw is immediately taken = #1

Wall if Fire cast ONTO enemies forcing an immediate saving throw = #2

But Ventriloquism is a figment and ...

PFSRD wrote:
Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

... it would not be unreasonable to rule that despite causing a saving throw the Ventriloquism would not drop your invisibility as it does not qualify for Invisibilities line of ...

PFSRD wrote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.

All that said if you look at only RAW I would think that Ventriloquism would drop Invisibility. Which seems sorta silly given what it does and I think that is why GM's can make rulings.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Black tentacles has an area of affect. It being a conjuration spell does not change that. It also includes a foe.

I agree somewhat on it being a hostile spell *if it includes a foe* but I could also think of it as a summoned creature with its own will... if you think about it, Summon Monster does not break invisibility and it brings forth monsters that are *mobile* and actively seek targets, whereas Black Tentacles is stationary.

Casting it on unoccupied squares with the intent to discourage pursuit is clear cut non-hostile in my opinion. I could also to a certain extent accept a ruling that most conjurations without an energy descriptor or that target a creature directly are not invisibility breakers (i.e. acid arrow has acid descriptor so no... but tentacles... meh...)

Edit: grease ok, web ok, aqueous orb no, ice spears no, adhesive spittle no, create pit ok, rain of frogs ok... etc.

It is a spell affect. It is not a creature in any sense of the word.

I do agree that casting it on unoccupied squares would not break invisibility.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does casting Ventriloquism while Invisible end the Invisibility? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.