This depends on your table, J.B.
There is nothing resembling a consensus on this, and won't be. Playstyles hang on the table's answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is in constant debate. I'm just going to FAQ it and any other topic on it until the devs answer it.
Because an invisible creature can still be 'seen' with an incredible perception check I like to think you might see a bending light effect around the target.
At my table, spell manifestations are visible even if the caster is invisible. Had a summoning-focus wizard who frequently went invisible at my table once, and man that was annoying ...
But rather seriously, if there's even a little indication of a rule which can limit full casters, I'll grasp at it. Invisibility is mostly for casters, who are the most powerful classes. Having spell manifestations be visible at pretty much all times means those casters are a little less powerful.
And it's not like invisibility is useless for them. It just makes the order in which they do things important. Cast spell first, then move several squares away and the enemy is as clueless as ever. Even a 5 ft. step mean they won't know exactly where to find you, and if they still do, there's a 50% miss chance. So, I don't feel bad at all for screwing with invisible casters.
But rather seriously, if there's even a little indication of a rule which can limit full casters, I'll grasp at it. Invisibility is mostly for casters, who are the most powerful classes. Having spell manifestations be visible at pretty much all times means those casters are a little less powerful.
I know a lot of folks are mildly annoyed that the FAQ on spell manifestations spoiled their invisible or hidden or subtle spellcasting. But Blymurkla has hit the nail right on the head: this ruling imposes at least some limits on spellcasters, and makes it a wee bit harder for them to lord it over non-spellcasting characters.
If a spellcaster really wants to be good at subtle or hidden spellcasting, he's got to work on it, by investing in the right feats and skills. Simply going invisible won't be the go-to solution, since spell manifestations are still visible.
This said, it would be nice if the various feats, skills and other means of concealing spellcasting were more thoroughly specified, and if some of the pertinent options had a quantifiable game effect (things like still spell, silent spell and so on) in terms of spellcraft checks and perception checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone letting their Wizard get pinpointed by their verbal components should go take a good look at the Ventriloquism spell. Even if they make their save they still don't know where your square is, just that you're using an illusion to make it sound like it's coming from somewhere else.
Because an invisible creature can still be 'seen' with an incredible perception check I like to think you might see a bending light effect around the target.No it can't. You can get the idea that an invisible creature is in the general area with a decent check, and pinpoint an invisible creature with an extremely high check using other indicators like disturbed dust on the floor, or sounds of footsteps, etc...
If you could 'see' an invisible creature with a high perception, then you would be able to target them with spells. And you can't.
Don't get your knickers in a knot, the result of a successful perception check is thematically interesting and needs some sort of explanation when the creature is hovering in the air with a silence spell.
Yes, Invisibility has a visible manifestation as it is being cast. All spells do.
No, it does not have a visible manifestation once completed. A great many spells lack obvious manifestations once completed. Some have defined means of detection (e.g. Sense Motive) others require a combination of Detect Magic and Knowledge: Arcane to identify.
But that's not the question. The question is, if I'm invisible and casting another spell is the manifestation for that spell visible?Yes, Invisibility has a visible manifestation as it is being cast. All spells do.
No, it does not have a visible manifestation once completed. A great many spells lack obvious manifestations once completed. Some have defined means of detection (e.g. Sense Motive) others require a combination of Detect Magic and Knowledge: Arcane to identify.
Yes.
All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.
There are feats that allow for concealment of spellcasting.
All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.
How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?
|
All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?
Spellcraft uses the same penalties as Perception. So if you can't see the manifestations, you can't see the manifestations.
|
How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?Spellcraft uses the same penalties as Perception. So if you can't see the manifestations, you can't see the manifestations.
...and, by the same logic, the penalties invisibility imposes on Perception checks would also apply to Spellcraft checks.
Spellcraft uses the same penalties as Perception. So if you can't see the manifestations, you can't see the manifestations.All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?
What was the DC to notice spell manifestations?
There is none. -20 to a null value is meaningless.
...and, by the same logic, the penalties invisibility imposes on Perception checks would also apply to Spellcraft checks.
This, however, is a reasonable extrapolation.
|
|
...and, by the same logic, the penalties invisibility imposes on Perception checks would also apply to Spellcraft checks.How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?Spellcraft uses the same penalties as Perception. So if you can't see the manifestations, you can't see the manifestations.
*nods*
It would be up to GM adjudication on a spell per spell basis I guess, depending on what Manifestations remain on you and what would escape the invisibility "field" so to speak. If at all.
Greater Invisibility would cloak your bow and you pulling the arrow and firing, but once the arrow was fired it would be visible. So would all manifestations be covered by invisibility or only some?
Hmmm...
Spellcraft uses the same penalties as Perception. So if you can't see the manifestations, you can't see the manifestations.
It's unclear to me whether the manifestations emit their own (brief) light - are they glowing sparkles or more like colorful smoke? If the former, then it should be possible to see them in the dark - the perception modifiers would be altered accordingly
If you can see the manifestations, you can see the manifestations. (And if that's a tautologous statement, then it's a tautologous statement.)
Spell manifestations are super noticeable flash of light, forced visible to everyone within 4,000ft, no chance or options to fail, goes through all walls and other barriers.
;P
I faq this. There isn't enough clarification to make one option better than the other.
...and, by the same logic, the penalties invisibility imposes on Perception checks would also apply to Spellcraft checks.
Except Invisibility gives a bonus to stealth, not a penalty to perception.
|
|
Spellcraft uses the same penalties as Perception. So if you can't see the manifestations, you can't see the manifestations.It's unclear to me whether the manifestations emit their own (brief) light - are they glowing sparkles or more like colorful smoke? If the former, then it should be possible to see them in the dark - the perception modifiers would be altered accordingly
If you can see the manifestations, you can see the manifestations. (And if that's a tautologous statement, then it's a tautologous statement.)
The Manifestations have a visual effect, but nowhere is stated that they raise light levels.
Except Invisibility gives a bonus to stealth, not a penalty to perception.Core rulebook table of invisibility penalties to perception
Sigh...
I keep forgetting how spread out the rules for invisibility are. The spell gives a bonus to stealth, yet the glossary gives perception modifiers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not the question. The question is, if I'm invisible and casting another spell is the manifestation for that spell visible?Yes, Invisibility has a visible manifestation as it is being cast. All spells do.
No, it does not have a visible manifestation once completed. A great many spells lack obvious manifestations once completed. Some have defined means of detection (e.g. Sense Motive) others require a combination of Detect Magic and Knowledge: Arcane to identify.
Yes.
All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.
There are feats that allow for concealment of spellcasting.
Let's be honest, the spell manifestions are errata added in based on artwork and a need to explain why you still get a Spellcraft check on a Still/Silent spell. That is why Invisibility has nothing in it for suppressing them.
|
I think this question comes up on average once per month, and each time the result is the same; people dig in to their positions and the rules simply aren't clear enough to come to a definite conclusion.
The case for invisibility not working for me hinges on this line in Spellcraft:
Action: 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,
You don't need to see the caster, you need to see the spell. As it is being cast. That implies that the spell is visible while it is being cast.
So then the question is: if an invisible caster "creates" a new spell by starting to cast it, is that spell invisible?
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.
Since the "spell as it is being cast" seems to be a new "thing" in the universe, I think it would be visible.
---
However, this is a very technical interpretation that leads to the conclusion that invisible casting is tricky. You reveal your location and possibly what spell you're casting.
You still enjoy some benefits of invisibility, such as miss chance, no sneak attacks and being able to skulk away without provoking.
And indeed there are quite a few encounters in various adventures that imply that the writer/editor at the time thought invisible casting worked fine. I don't think that's evidence about how the rules team thinks about it now though.
Until this was (sort of) clarified, people could write contradictory encounters without either writer being wrong. If you clarify the rules someone is going from "uncertain" to "wrong".
Let's be honest, the spell manifestions are errata added in based on artwork and a need to explain why you still get a Spellcraft check on a Still/Silent spell. That is why Invisibility has nothing in it for suppressing them.But that's not the question. The question is, if I'm invisible and casting another spell is the manifestation for that spell visible?Yes, Invisibility has a visible manifestation as it is being cast. All spells do.
No, it does not have a visible manifestation once completed. A great many spells lack obvious manifestations once completed. Some have defined means of detection (e.g. Sense Motive) others require a combination of Detect Magic and Knowledge: Arcane to identify.
Yes.
All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.
There are feats that allow for concealment of spellcasting.
To be equally fair, Invisibility does nothing to conceal any other action the user takes to influence the world beyond himself.
Opponents can still see doors open/close, arrows that have been unleashed, light sources carried, objects picked up, etc.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really good that the nature of the manifestations is intentionally vague and can be re-themed as needed... but really bad that it's so unspecific as to leave actual game mechanics without a clear ruling.
They just need to go away.
Otherwise, they clarify the issue and the specifics cause a host of problems, or they leave it as is and nobody knows up from down.
Best just to dump the idea of manifestations altogether. Spotting spellcasting on the spell's components would make much more sense and be far easier to adjudicate. At least they have rules citing their existence!
|
All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?
If a spell says that it's magical manifestations CREATE light, then Yes, if in an area of normal darkness. Otherwise I think you have to assume the manifestations merely reflect light, so if there is no light, there is nothing to reflect.
Then in areas of magical darkness the answer would always be no. because you can't see normal/magical light in magical darkness anyway. (Barring specific examples where it's called out otherwise, IE Daylight canceling magical darkness)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?If a spell says that it's magical manifestations CREATE light, then Yes, if in an area of normal darkness. Otherwise I think you have to assume the manifestations merely reflect light, so if there is no light, there is nothing to reflect.
Then in areas of magical darkness the answer would always be no. because you can't see normal/magical light in magical darkness anyway. (Barring specific examples where it's called out otherwise, IE Daylight canceling magical darkness)
Yep, but that's the issue. Most of the game doesn't even acknowledge that magical manifestations even exist. So there's really no such thing in this game as a spell that says its magical manifestation creates light. There's also no such thing in this game as a spell that says its magical manifestation doesn't create light.
Yep, but that's the issue. Most of the game doesn't even acknowledge that magical manifestations even exist. So there's really no such thing in this game as a spell that says its magical manifestation creates light. There's also no such thing in this game as a spell that says its magical manifestation doesn't create light.All spells have manifestations and nothing in the text of Invisibility suppresses them.How about darkness? If I can't see the caster because it's too dark, are the magical sparkles visible?If a spell says that it's magical manifestations CREATE light, then Yes, if in an area of normal darkness. Otherwise I think you have to assume the manifestations merely reflect light, so if there is no light, there is nothing to reflect.
Then in areas of magical darkness the answer would always be no. because you can't see normal/magical light in magical darkness anyway. (Barring specific examples where it's called out otherwise, IE Daylight canceling magical darkness)
Not exactly true - there are plenty of spells that take very little effort to justify as creating light, e.g. any spell with the light, fire or electricity descriptors.
Manifestations of spells with the light descriptor could even be argued to interact with magical darkness, depending on relative spell levels.
|
|
If I had to rule, I would probably say Light, Fire, Sun domain/descriptor spells would generate some amount of light while manifesting, and a greater light when finally released.
Electricity I would apply similar to static electricity. If you put on wool socks turn off the lights and slide your feet around on the carpet, you don't see any glow coming from around your feet, but when you touch the metal door knob you notice a spark of light when it's released. So their manifestations would not provide light, but the release of the spell in use would. Even with a more powerful charge from a lightning bolt, if you look up into the sky during a thunderstorm at night you don't see the energy gathering up, you only see the flash when it is released.
Other spell types create visible manifestations, but they do not create light themselves. So you would need to be able to see in the dark in order to see them.
I also don't believe even the manifestation of a lvl 20 Daylight spell should be powerful enough to cut Magical Darkness, since it requires the Daylight spell to counter it, the mere act of gathering the energy to do so should not be powerful enough.
As for the initial question. No, invisibility hides you and things that you carry, if you pick something up after being invisible you have to conceal it for it to become invisible. therefore I would rule if you start casting a spell while invisible the manifestations around you are not included in the concealing magic of the invisibility spell. So yes you should be able to be seen (only to locate the square, so still a 50% miss chance) when casting. So readied attacks can hit the correct square with 50% miss chance. Otherwise the caster can always cast then move and be anywhere again by the time someone tries to attack that square normally.
Unfortunately All of this is only my opinion, and holds no solid answers beyond how I feel and the reasoning behind my choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you put on wool socks turn off the lights and slide your feet around on the carpet, you don't see any glow coming from around your feet
It seems like it would be better to have a simple rule rather than to have to categorise thousands of spells through sock logic.
According to a Google image search I just did, healing /curing spells cause a glow to appear around your hands. Assuming this is what it's supposed to look like in Pathfinder, either this is actual light and you could use a healing spell for temporary illumination if you dropped your matches while trying to light a candle in the dark... or it isn't. A simple yes or no that applies to all spells would be ideal.
If I'm in normal darkness and I don't have an actual light spell, can I use the manifestation of casting another spell to get a look around?
There is a difference between generating light and increasing the light level.
Fairy Fire and similar effects do the first without doing the second.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe manifestations have been approved to be tattoo runes that glow or change color.
The thing is there's a new technical term, manifestation, that has very little rules to it. they are 1 it's a visible part of casting any spell or SLA and 2 it's what you spellcraft. And I think that's all the clarifying rules we have about them.
|
|
It seems like it would be better to have a simple rule rather than to have to categorise thousands of spells through sock logic.
It certainly would be, if I were to pick only one answer, it would be no, just because you see a 'manifestation' when something is cast, doesn't mean it creates or emits it's own light. It is just as likely to be <insert random material component here> that reflects the light that is already present, allowing you to see it.
According to a Google image search I just did, healing /curing spells cause a glow to appear around your hands.
Just because movies and video games have all magic glow because it creates nice visual effects doesn't mean those same rules apply to pathfinder. Come back with a google search that finds a Pathfinder Developer stating it, not random pictures.
Assuming this is what it's supposed to look like in Pathfinder, either this is actual light and you could use a healing spell for temporary illumination if you dropped your matches while trying to light a candle in the dark... or it isn't.
As Snowlilly points out above there are spells that put off light, but not enough to change light levels, even if we do assume spell manifestations put off light does not mean it puts off enough light so that you could see anything other than the source of the light. Using real physics, yes you could do that with even the dimmest of light sources. In game mechanics, it does not automatically work that way.
A simple yes or no that applies to all spells would be ideal.
Again, correct it would be ideal. Until we get that answer, we make due with what we can. But also until that answer comes from the Dev's the result will always be "Up to the GM" because that's the standard rule# 1 whenever the is no other rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until they clarify the rules GMs - even for PFS - are permitted to adjudicate this as they see fit. What PFS GMs can't do is ignore the fact that manifestations exist.
If you choose to ignore manifestations or make them visible no matter what the circumstances then you really don't need any other rules, for everyone else we can start with a proposal- a starting point for your own houserules - feel free to tidy up the language, or let me know what have I missed, or any rule I have inadvertantly broken etc.:
Manifestations are usually clearly visible requiring a Perception check DC -10 to notice . They may be bright or even appear to glow, but do not generate their own light and interact with darkness as any other object.
Increase the DC by 4 for each component removed (whether by metamagic or another effect).
Other modifiers to perception work normally (+1/10', +20 due to invisibilty etc.)
Feats or abilities such as Conceal Spell or Secret Signs can use this perception DC for any opposed check (not just perception checks) if it is more beneficial to do so.