Hey there... I've got a player who's fielding a 5th level Arcanist who's a bit of a trickster. His current go-to configuration is to cast Invisibility and then use the Stealth skill to crank up his Stealth check into the 50's.
My question is rather simple, can he stack the +20 to Stealth from his Invisibility *and* his +12 Stealth when starting a turn in the open (not starting from cover/concealment)? Or does he simply use the +20 to Stealth from the Invisibility spell?
Thanks in advance for your help with this rule.
You get +20 whenever you're invisible. The skill bonus stacks with this.
Invisibility gives full concealment, so yes, he can start "in the open" as it were with the full +32. If he just stands still he's looking at +52.
Yep. That's how it works.
My rule of thumb is that if you cast invisibility and then DO NOT use stealth, enemies will be able to notice changes in environment as you pass or hear your footsteps as you clunk along.
Don't forget that casting a spell causes a manifestation that will enable you to pinpoint the location. Just like if someone shoots an arrow or makes an attack.
It is your call if they Auto-identify square with a touch spell or give them the sniper penalty with a ranged spell.
Don't forget that casting a spell causes a manifestation that will enable you to pinpoint the location. Just like if someone shoots an arrow or makes an attack.
It is your call if they Auto-identify square with a touch spell or give them the sniper penalty with a ranged spell.
I would LOVE to get a reference for this mechanic... do you know where I find the verbiage in Paizo's canon writings?
Invisibility gives full concealment, so yes, he can start "in the open" as it were with the full +32. If he just stands still he's looking at +52.
In reading through the PRD, it neglects to mention that the Invisibility spell provides "full concealment"... can you tell me where I can reference that in the books (I have them all so it doesn't have to be just in the Core manual)? Without that designation, you can see where I'm confused about stacking Stealth *and* Invisibility.
I would LOVE to get a reference for this mechanic... do you know where I find the verbiage in Paizo's canon writings?Don't forget that casting a spell causes a manifestation that will enable you to pinpoint the location. Just like if someone shoots an arrow or makes an attack.
It is your call if they Auto-identify square with a touch spell or give them the sniper penalty with a ranged spell.
Regardless if someone watched them go invisible they can still fire at the square they were in with a 50% miss chance. Of course a smart caster would cast then move, but it's not a requirement.
Here you go:
"Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues)."
It's in the combat section under concealment.
|
Stealth skill says: "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."
Fast Stealth (Ex)
Benefit: This ability allows a rogue to move at full speed using the Stealth skill without penalty
Hidden Flight (Ex)
Prerequisites: Fast Stealth
Benefit: A rogue with this talent may run or charge while Stealthed by taking a -10 to her Stealth check.
Unchained skill unlocks:
5 Ranks: Reduce the Stealth penalty from sniping by 10. (-20 becomes -10)
10 Ranks: Stealth check penalties for moving quickly are halved (so Hidden Flight -10 becomes -5), including the ability unlocked at 5 ranks (sniping -10 becomes -5), moving full speed (already at no penalty thanks to Fast Stealth), and reaching concealment after creating a distraction (-10 becomes -5).
...I know, two rogue talents required, but mighty handy for say, 10th level rogue NPCs you want to throw at the party... imagine having rogues running at full speed while invisible with only -5 penalty to Stealth... you can get a lot of thievin' / infiltratin' done with a simple 3 min invisible potion...
The FAQ clarified that casting a spell has a visual manifestation. That is pretty clear. What the manifestation consists of is down to your imagination, but it was made clear that even a stilled, silent, eschewed spell has a visible effect. As invisibility only affects you and the gear you are holding at the time of casting this manifestation would be visible.
At the very best I would ask the caster to remake their stealth check at the -20 sniper penalty for trying to stay hidden when attacking.
The manifestation could be swirling tattoo-like runes on your skin. Or a pattern flashing from your eyes. Those wouldn't be visible under invisibility.
The FAQ failed to clarify if invisibility hides such manifestations. There's a lot of argument about it.
They could be, the FAQ said look to the artwork for your inspiration so that is what I do. Like I said, at least as obvious as the sound and appearance of a bolt leaving a crossbow. It doesn't seem unreasonable - though I accept that it hasnt been spelled out.
|
|
The FAQ clarified that casting a spell has a visual manifestation. That is pretty clear. What the manifestation consists of is down to your imagination, but it was made clear that even a stilled, silent, eschewed spell has a visible effect. As invisibility only affects you and the gear you are holding at the time of casting this manifestation would be visible.
At the very best I would ask the caster to remake their stealth check at the -20 sniper penalty for trying to stay hidden when attacking.
You still need to make a successful Perception check to notice a spell is being cast. This is adjusted by distance, poor conditions and other factors. Some have suggested a penalty to this check if components of the spell are missing (i.e. still, silent, eschewed). One would use the Perception table and match the DC with those listed there as examples (verbal component: 'hear details of a conversation' = DC 0; somatic: 'notice a visible creature' = DC 0) Some GMs may not allow a check in the first place if say, there's only a somatic component, and the caster is invisible, but some may enforce the base DC 0 + 20 = DC 20 due to invisibility, as the hand movements are perhaps creating slightly noticeable visual disturbances like heat rising from hot pavement, etc.
Then, in order for you to know which spell is being cast, you must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell. Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I make it a habit to have non-detection running if I'm going to make it a habit of going invisible a lot. That way some shmuck with detect invisibility doesn't just automatically see me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I make it a habit to have non-detection running if I'm going to make it a habit of going invisible a lot. That way some shmuck with detect invisibility doesn't just automatically see me.
Yeah. My bloatmage, who has a ring of invis, has non-detection up at all times. It works about 50% of the time vs a full caster.
The manifestation could be swirling tattoo-like runes on your skin. Or a pattern flashing from your eyes. Those wouldn't be visible under invisibility.
In the first case, the tattoos glow for a moment, same for the second. Point being that there is a moment of vulnerability to a Perception check.
Also note that senses not depending on eyes, such as scent, enhanced hearing, tremorsense etc. are not impacted by invisibility.
you don't need to identify the spell, just identify which square it is cast in. If a fireball emanates from a space or a hold person then you can use that to identify the location of the caster unless they move after casting. Just like if someone attacks from invisible you can identify their space.
|
It is just a dc 20 to notice that an invisible creature is near.
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. "
Also invisible things that produce light still do so. Any glowing from casting makes you stand out...just a bit strangely.
The manifestation could be swirling tattoo-like runes on your skin. Or a pattern flashing from your eyes. Those wouldn't be visible under invisibility.In the first case, the tattoos glow for a moment, same for the second. Point being that there is a moment of vulnerability to a Perception check.
Also note that senses not depending on eyes, such as scent, enhanced hearing, tremorsense etc. are not impacted by invisibility.
I guess Cunning Caster's Bluff vs. Perception test should benefit from a -20 modifier on the Perception test if you're invisible...
I guess Cunning Caster's Bluff vs. Perception test should benefit from a -20 modifier on the Perception test if you're invisible...The manifestation could be swirling tattoo-like runes on your skin. Or a pattern flashing from your eyes. Those wouldn't be visible under invisibility.In the first case, the tattoos glow for a moment, same for the second. Point being that there is a moment of vulnerability to a Perception check.
Also note that senses not depending on eyes, such as scent, enhanced hearing, tremorsense etc. are not impacted by invisibility.
Only if it's a still spell. The -20 is for people holding themselves absolutely still.
Addendum: the "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" means you can't even attempt identifying a spell being cast by an invisible creature unless you have "see invisibility" spell active or similar magics.
That does NOT say "You must be able to clearly see the spellCASTER as the spell is being cast".
It says you must be able to see the SPELL.
If the spell has some visible component then you can see that visible component even if the caster is invisible. Unless there is a wall or or other concealment (perhaps darkness or fog, etc.) preventing line of sight.
In other words, the visibility of the caster has no bearing on the quote you provided, and you can totally attempt to see and identify a SPELL as it is being cast by an invisible caster - unless your GM rules that the visible component of spell casting is hidden by the invisibility (which it might be, but there is no source saying that it is, so that's up to each GM to decide).
I make it a habit to have non-detection running if I'm going to make it a habit of going invisible a lot. That way some shmuck with detect invisibility doesn't just automatically see me.Yeah. My bloatmage, who has a ring of invis, has non-detection up at all times. It works about 50% of the time vs a full caster.
Mind blank being the obvious auto-succeed upgrade.
you don't need to identify the spell, just identify which square it is cast in. If a fireball emanates from a space or a hold person then you can use that to identify the location of the caster unless they move after casting. Just like if someone attacks from invisible you can identify their space.
The FAQ doesn't indicate where the visible signs of the spell emanate from either.
Something like fireball should be, initially, from the caster - as the bead of flame moves from the caster to the target.
Something like hold person, the visible manifestations could just as well be swirling chains constricting the target, with no visible indication where the caster is located.
So, expect GM table variation on whether the visible manifestation (if allowed beyond invisibility at all) would allow you to pin point the casters square.
Also note that senses not depending on eyes, such as scent, enhanced hearing, tremorsense etc. are not impacted by invisibility.
That's a little broad. Scent would give your opponent knowledge w/in 5' of your location, but you would still have total concealment and a 50% miss chance. I'm pretty sure a GM would rule that way for my Animal Companion w/ scent, and not just let her auto-find and attack an invisible opponent w/out the 50% penalty.
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated
Note the caster has choice over what the details are, not whether there are details or not. The FAQ quite clearly says take the artwork for inspiration and for examples. A quick scan of about 150 pathfinder artworks shows that spells all seem to have external visual effects that emanate from the caster. I havent seen one where that wasn't the case. These aren't all damaging spells by any means.
You can rule it how you want, but it seems the intention and method of determining reasonable results has been made very clear.