| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Table on page 563 notes that if the invisible creature is "Not Moving" the Perception DC to detect it is reduced by 40? I don't get it... Should it just say +0 or not note that entry at all?
Also why does the title of the column say "Perception". Should it be "Perception DC"?
Sorry, but this is just confusing.
Also when it says -20 for in combat or speaking... what counts as "combat"? I mean, if an invisible wizard attacks he loses his invisibility. Does it refer to creatures that can attack and remain invisible?
Table on page 563 notes that if the invisible creature is "Not Moving" the Perception DC to detect it is reduced by 40? I don't get it... Should it just say +0 or not note that entry at all?
Also why does the title of the column say "Perception". Should it be "Perception DC"?
Sorry, but this is just confusing.
Also when it says -20 for in combat or speaking... what counts as "combat"? I mean, if an invisible wizard attacks he loses his invisibility. Does it refer to creatures that can attack and remain invisible?
This was discussed here but no Paizonite ever chimed in on it. I went ahead and updated the table here with their suggestions.
That looks like it is probably a typo. You are right, an invisible creature should not take get a -40 to the DC to Perceive it. In the spell Invisibility, it explicitly gives the creature a +40 to its Stealth check if it doesn't move...
This was discussed here but no Paizonite ever chimed in on it. I went ahead and updated the table here with their suggestions.Table on page 563 notes that if the invisible creature is "Not Moving" the Perception DC to detect it is reduced by 40? I don't get it... Should it just say +0 or not note that entry at all?
Also why does the title of the column say "Perception". Should it be "Perception DC"?
Sorry, but this is just confusing.
Also when it says -20 for in combat or speaking... what counts as "combat"? I mean, if an invisible wizard attacks he loses his invisibility. Does it refer to creatures that can attack and remain invisible?
Our favorite website. We used it all the time during our sessions :)
To make it clear: the table is supposed to apply to the DC to pinpoint a creature's exact location. It assumes a base DC of 40 (DC 20 to "feel" that there's some hidden creature around and +20 DC to use perception to pinpoint it). So the DC to pinpoint a stationary hidden creature would be... 80? That seems too high. Something here doesn't work. That's why I suggested that the table should note +0 for stationary creatures. The base DC discussed in the paragraph before the table suggests a score of 40 (20+20).
We need an official clarification.
Any official response? The modifiers don't add up together. There are too many contradictions. I wish Paizo would fix their Core Rulebook before starting a beta for an advanced guide... There are tons of errors in the Core Rulebook and so far only a single meager errata was released.
To quote the PRD - read the bold/italic print. The "+40" is a unnamed bonus on stealth checks. If you are moving that drops to a +20 unnamed bonus on stealth checks. IF required.
Invisibility:
School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (an eyelash encased in gum arabic)
Range personal or touch
Target you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./level
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless) or yes (harmless, object)
The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
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. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. 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. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.
No official word on this yet?
The title of the table should definitely say "Perception DC" and not just "Perception", and the modifiers are wrong. Also it's unclear from the text what the base DC to which you apply the modifiers in the table is. I've seen people interpret it differently.
I believe it has been stated before that if there is a conflict between the text and a table, that the text takes precedence over the table.
I think it matters alot just exactly "when" it is you are looking for the invisible person.
Take two scenarios:
You see a wizard in a blind alley disappear. The alley is 5ft corridor.
You walk to where he was and try to see him. THe important thing here is that -you know he is there- ( or suspect it).
In such case, yes. he should take a penalty to the check. Why? because of your prior knowledge.
Now take a different scenario:
You are randomly searching a 30x30 room to see if there is someone invisible in it. You really have no idea- you just want to be sure. So you and your team go through the room and search it. In this case, moving actually makes them aware you are there. SO hiding in the corner breathing quietly and not moving is actually helpful since they have no clue you are actually there.
(note- the rules don't make this distinction, that I'm aware of. But it does help to make some sense of it)
-S
Yep this is wrong (perhaps the table erroneously combines modifiers to the DC with another table of modifiers to the Perception check?). I'll forward this to the Bulmahn.
Thanks Sean.
Yep this is wrong (perhaps the table erroneously combines modifiers to the DC with another table of modifiers to the Perception check?). I'll forward this to the Bulmahn.
Thanks for the update, Sean! Please also note that the table contradicts the invisibility-related modifiers as they appear under the Invisibility spell. For example, under the spell there's no distinction between walking and running, while in the table there is. It's all one big mess.
This was discussed here but no Paizonite ever chimed in on it. I went ahead and updated the table here with their suggestions.Table on page 563 notes that if the invisible creature is "Not Moving" the Perception DC to detect it is reduced by 40? I don't get it... Should it just say +0 or not note that entry at all?
Also why does the title of the column say "Perception". Should it be "Perception DC"?
Sorry, but this is just confusing.
Also when it says -20 for in combat or speaking... what counts as "combat"? I mean, if an invisible wizard attacks he loses his invisibility. Does it refer to creatures that can attack and remain invisible?
I just checked the 3.5 Player's Handbook. On page 309 it says that locating the square an invisible creature occupies is a DC 40 check. This suggests that the modifier for "Not moving" in the Pathfinder table should be 0 and not +40.
The breakdown in Pathfinder:
Base DC 20 = notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet
+20 to DC = pinpoint an invisible creature's location
So the base DC to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature is 40, just like what it was in 3.5. To this you can add modifiers from the table (whose heading should say "Perception DC modifier" and not "Perception"). To keep in line with 3.5 the modifier for not moving should be +0 for a total DC of 40 for pinpointing an invisible creature's location. Now if the creature is moving, it should be easier to locate it, so you should then apply the other modifiers from the table, which I assume are correct.
This still doesn't resolve the problem with the invisibility DCs given under the invisibility spell - those ones don't take into account different movement types and contradict the table.
Any word from Bulmahn regarding this?
Any errata for this? Any update from Bulmahn?
Any errata for this? Any update from Bulmahn?
*bump*
It seems pretty clear with the invisibility description. stealth check +40 would be the opposed perceptions DC for an unmoving invisible creature.
Clear...? Have you read the entire thread, or should I repeat the different contradictions and mistakes in the rules? SKR agreed this needs clarification, but for you it's all clear? *sigh*
Bumping it up. And update from Bulmahn? From someone else?
And no errata yet although the last one (which was really minimal) was back in August...
The errata is out, and guess what? Nothing has been fixed. Meager 2 pages of errata. Nothing about invisibility or about 100 other errors.
I am still waiting for a lot of things to be fixed before I buy the hardcover edition.. My other thought is to print out the pdf version and just change out the errata's pages as they become available.
I find it sad it's been over 7 months since I asked for a clarification regarding the invisibility modifier problems in the rules, but there's nothing new regarding the topic and no Paizo member (except for SKR's brief comment) has taken the time to address this issue (which was sadly completely ignored in the latest errata).
This bothers me too. It is a glaring error that deserves to be fixed or at least have some official comment/explanation.
This bothers me too. It is a glaring error that deserves to be fixed or at least have some official comment/explanation.
14 months after release the 4th printing comes out, and yet these errors are still there and the invisibility rules are messed up. Paizo - you suck.
|
While not a fan on encorus' tone I can totally appreciate his frustration.
This is not just a dropped ball, this is a dropped ball that has had grass grow all over it and now has a family of earwigs living underneath it. The top has deflated and the ball now collects rainwater for several different insect species.
This should have been in the 4th printing and definitely needs an errata a.s.a.p.
I'm wondering how long people will continue putting up with this.
If enough people make it insanely clear what it is they expect for their gaming $ maybe Paizo will deliver it. For me, I want some damn attention paid to the errata and not some token 5 minutes here and there updating one or two questions a week when there are hundreds (if not more) mistake, typos, and pieces of missing text throughout the assortment of books Paizo continues to spit out every couple of months.
As can be seen from above, I subscribe to the Companion, Chronicles, and Campaign setting lines. I'm at a point now where if I don't see significant improvements in the errata/FAQ situation I'll just stop sending them $ every month. I've got better things I can spend my hard earned money on. If Paizo doesn't want to focus on what I want them to focus on that's fine with me, I'll just take my $ elsewhere.
I have to say that this sure makes me appreciate the quality of the 3.0 (core) books all the more. In their case they started from scratch and created an entirely new system with relatively few errors.
|
This bothers me too. It is a glaring error that deserves to be fixed or at least have some official comment/explanation.14 months after release the 4th printing comes out, and yet these errors are still there and the invisibility rules are messed up. Paizo - you suck.
Get over it! sheesh. Let me know when you write a 600 page book. It is obvious that standing still and being invisible makes you harder to spot. You don't need someone to hold your hand and make it clear for you. If it bothers you that much, get yourself a Bic black pen, change all those minuses to pluses and pluses to minuses. Its perfectly clears that is how it works. I can see that it was just one person working the text and one person working the tables and the logic got swapped. Looking at the table only, I see a column that says perception, then I see one that says "invisible creature is".
Invisible and not moving..... -40
When I look at that, I don't do "hey, I am able to be pointed out by anyone! Their DC is -10" I see "Their perception check has a -40 applied to it! they will never see me"
Yep- I don't get it either...
I just can't understand how it works, so I'll have to come up with my own until we hear from Jason:-)
GRU
FYI, corrected in 4th printing.
spacer
spacer
spacer
neilspacer
Last column of table is "Perception DC Modifier" and the values from top to bottom are
-20
-5
-10
-20
+20
Stealth check +20
+1 per 10 feat
+5
+15
FYI, corrected in 4th printing.
spacer
spacer
spacer
neilspacerLast column of table is "Perception DC Modifier" and the values from top to bottom are
-20
-5
-10
-20
+20
Stealth check +20
+1 per 10 feat
+5
+15
Thanks for the reply, Sean. However, this is not in the 4th printing errata file that you can download. It's also not in my GM's Core Rulebook which he just re-downloaded from you and which is supposed to reflect the 4th printing. Also, I wonder why it's +20 and not +0 (which is how it worked in 3.5). And this still contradicts with the Invisibility spell, where they mention a fixed modifier no matter what type of movement you use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The change is definitely in the 4th printing version of the book (I have the physical book here, and was referring to it when I made my last post).
It was left out of the 3rd printing update file and the PDF of the 4th printing, but this has been corrected.
As for the contradiction with the spell listing, the spell says
which is saying the same thing as the table:
If you are invisible and moving, you make a Stealth check at +20.
If you are invisible and not moving, you add an additional +20 modifier to your check (for a total of +40).
So yes, this issue has been fixed!
We've received the update. It was a bit confusing that it was broken into two this time around. Thanks a lot for the explanation and for pushing this out Sean!