Invisibility and spell manifestations

[blahpers]

This question has come up in the past, but I'm not sure it was ever definitively settled.

If a creature begins casting a spell while invisible, are the spell manifestations visible?

There are some published scenarios, including one in Rise of the Runelords: Anniversary Edition, that do not work as published if spell manifestations are able to give away the presence and/or location of an invisible caster, but that could me a matter of said scenarios being published before the spell manifestation FAQ. Regardless, I'd like to know how much encounter redesign is in my future. : )

[Dave Justus]

Certainly it is going well beyond the FAQ to conclude from it that any spell casting automatically pinpoints the location of an invisible caster.

I would suggest that the 'spell manifestations' manifest on/around the target, not the caster of the spell and any visual manifestations would manifest at the same level of visibility as the target as well (so if the caster is invisible and casts bulls strength on themselves, the manifestations are invisible as well.) Obviously any spell that has obvious visible manifestations already would remain visible.

I suspect that if rules this way, there will be less need to make changes to existing adventures, although some will doubtless need to be made.

[Agodeshalf]

I don't think it was every settled. To me the FAQ states that all spells have manifestations, and those manifestations are what is used to facilitate spellcraft checks.

FAQ wrote:

Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

Still, silent, eschew components are not sufficient because they can't hide the manifestations. You need conceal spell and improved conceal spell to hide/misdirect an observer from your spell.

Now the crux of the issue is: are the casting of spell and the creation of said manifestation concealed by invisibility. If I lit a torch while invisible, is it and the light it gives off hidden. To me, the manifestations are a byproduct of magic use, and as such isn't hidden by the invisibility spell.

[blahpers]

The torch thing is actually defined--the torch is invisible, but the light is not.

[GM Rednal]

In the spirit of the FAQ, I roll with the idea that manifestations are visible even if the caster isn't. (This prevents invisible casters from running totally amok in social situations - invisible domination is bad, yo. The whole point of manifestations is to be a limit, and circumventing that limit with a popular, low-level spell seems like a bad plan.)

This isn't quite as bad for casters as it may seem at first. They can cast while invisible and then move, preventing enemies from dog-piling their last known location. If they get foes to ready ranged attacks against them out of fear of casting, that's locking enemies down and making things easier on the rest of the group. Either way, they're still pretty potent.

[wraithstrike]

No official answer was ever given. Hopefully they answer before moving on to PF2.

[bbangerter]

GM Rednal wrote:

In the spirit of the FAQ, I roll with the idea that manifestations are visible even if the caster isn't. (This prevents invisible casters from running totally amok in social situations - invisible domination is bad, yo. The whole point of manifestations is to be a limit, and circumventing that limit with a popular, low-level spell seems like a bad plan.)

Given that casting a domination spell while invisible will immediately end the invisibility, I think this is a rather moot point.

If the caster is under greater invisibility, and working against a CR appropriate encounter, inability by opponents to have a means of neutralizing said invisibility is a failure on their part.

[blahpers]

It's more of a situation where they may not realize the need to neutralize invisibility--e.g., seemingly social situations. Not every party has a member with constant rather than activated means of seeing invisible creatures.

[LordKailas]

the party just needs to get into the habit that every social occasion must include random intermittent castings of glitter dust "for the lolz" or else it just isn't a proper gathering/meeting/social event/bartering/bridge crossing/etc.

[Richard Crawford]

I'm hesitant about further weakening illusions.

[Azothath]

IMO spell manifestations are intentionally murky so that (as stated by designers) spell casters cannot run amok freely casting whatever they want covertly. I take it that casting is both visual and auditory depending upon the components. Ultimate Intrigue went into rules for covert casting etc (basically not worth the trouble)...

Invisibility does not cover the auditory part and thus observers can hear that. Trained observers can probably guess what is being cast. It also doesn't cover any visual aura(manifestations) caused by the casting (if you believe there is one).
Illusion of Calm is a bit different as it would hide visual activity in your square and some minor auditory effects. As verbal components are relatively non-covert it would be best to use Silent Spell metamagic or something to change your sound or location of your sound to relocate the auditory part. I've used Ventriloquism or Silent Table.

[Dasrak]

The big issue isn't actually invisibility, it's stealth. Most people seem to agree that invisibility should hide spell manifestations, as all historical precedent points to this being accepted practice (and for most spells you'd need greater invisibility anyways). However, the consequence of such a ruling is that the stealth skill would also become a means of concealing spell manifestation. When you strip away their magical and mundane nature, both invisibility and stealth ultimately provide the same benefit: total concealment. When we're looking at whether invisibility affects spell manifestations, what we're really asking is whether the concealment level of the spellcaster also applies to his manifestations. The answer to this question affects more than just invisibility, and the concern is that it might create an exception that devours the rule by providing too many ways to conceal spellcasting. Personally I've been running it this way since before the spell manifestation FAQ was even a thing (with the added houserule that the sleight of hand skill can be used to conceal any actions being made while observed, including spellcasting) and I've never had a problem.

There's one additional question that needs to be answered above and beyond the matter of concealment. That is whether spell manifestations are light sources. If they are, then being invisible is not necessarily enough to conceal them. If they raise the lighting level of their surroundings, then the lighting effect would still be visible even if the manifestation itself is not.

In the interest of FAQ-friendliness, here are the two questions:

1) Does a spell manifestation have the same level of concealment as the caster?

2) Are spell manifestations light sources? If so, what lighting level do they have?

[Swift016]

Easy solution.

Just have your familiar ready an action to throw a tarp over your manifestation when it appears. No line of effect, no spellcraft check.

[LeesusFreak]

Oh come on.

[Azothath]

the tarp idea won't work just as a cloth won't work. It does not block line of effect as it is not sealed to the ground (not a contiguous enclosement), reference Emergency Force Sphere. There is a ruling or commentary about cover and a 1ft square area that works for the tarp argument. Unfortunately the base of the tarp exceeds the 1ft square area requirement.

if a caster is performing a summoning in a pup-tent or large bag(thus has total cover in a way) observers can still clearly hear the casting and (as the tent does not fill his square) observe any spellcasting manifestations in his square.
They can then proceed to beat him with clubs to disrupt the casting. The observer's don't need to know exactly what spell the caster is effecting, just plain old observation, paranoia, and metagaming.

The GM provides sensibility where RAW goes awry, that's his job.

[Azothath]

The correct way to do this is for the caster to be in a larger than the caster's size enclosure that is without openings, like a shed with the door closed. Perception modifier is +5 at a minimum with Line of sight and Line of Effect blocked, attackers will have to break down the shed door to get you...
Cast Spectral Hand.
Invoke the power of your Ring of X-Ray Vision.
Cast a low level touch spell and attack people outside the shed within 20ft (ring).