| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Quick Q
If you've got basic invisibility cast on you and you deliver a touch spell through your familiar who is the one making the attack role , do you lose your invisibility or keep it since you didn't directly attack ?
Quick Q
If you've got basic invisibility cast on you and you deliver a touch spell through your familiar who is the one making the attack role , do you lose your invisibility or keep it since you didn't directly attack ?
I'd let you keep it in my game.
The familiar is the on making the attack, but people that care about their familiars keep them away from combat.
Short Story Time:I had a player who would send his familiar into combat provoking attacks while entering and leaving threatened squares. For some reason I always rolled a 1 or 2 on the dice against that familiar even if I had a magical night where I was critting the rest of the party.
The party even started to joke that I could not kill it, and would vote to send it in to do things they did not want to do, and to my chagrin I never even did 1 point of hit point damage do it during an entire campaign.
Here are the lines from the invisibility spell:
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.
The touch spell targets a creature, and the invisible wizard cast it. Just because they aren't the ones doing the touching doesn't matter. They cast a spell that targets a foe. Question is, when does the invisibility end, when the spell is cast or when the spell is discharged? I'm leaning towards discharged, because up to that point it hasn't targeted a foe. Seems a little odd that a familiar touches someone half-a-mile away and suddenly you're visible, but that's magic for you.
However, allowing it I think would be a reasonable house rule. You'd have to be wary of abuse, but that's countered by the caster putting their familiar in danger more often. Don't forget that familars are (by default) Tiny creatures, which means they provoke an AoO just getting close enough to a small or larger creature to attack them.
One other possible method. If you were to cast the touch spell, have the familiar hold the charge, and then become invisible (by means other than casting since casting again would cancel the held spell), then the familiar would be able to touch no problem. They're making the attack roll on their own, and the casting occured before you were invisible. No problem.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here's the lines from the invisibility spell:
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.The touch spell targets a creature, and the invisible wizard cast it. Just because they aren't the ones doing the touching doesn't matter. They cast a spell that targets a foe. Question is, when does the invisibility end, when the spell is cast or when the spell is discharged? I'm leaning towards discharged, because up to that point it hasn't targeted a foe. Seems a little odd that a familiar touches someone half-a-mile away and suddenly you're visible, but that's magic for you.
However, allowing it I think would be a reasonable house rule. You'd have to be wary of abuse, but that's countered by the caster putting their familiar in danger more often. Don't forget that familars are (by default) Tiny creatures, which means they provoke an AoO just getting close enough to a small or larger creature to attack them.
One other possible method. If you were to cast the touch spell, have the familiar hold the charge, and then become invisible (by means other than casting since casting again would cancel the held spell), then the familiar would be able to touch no problem. They're making the attack roll on their own, and the casting occured before you were invisible. No problem.
Good point. What if the familiar is invisible also would he stay invisibile?
Good point. What if the familiar is invisible also would he stay invisibile?
Don't think so, since he's making an attack roll that targets a foe. Touch spells are a double edged sword when it comes to invisibility it seems. :)
Good point. What if the familiar is invisible also would he stay invisibile?Don't think so, since he's making an attack roll that targets a foe. Touch spells are a double edged sword when it comes to invisibility it seems. :)
Actually only one of them is attacking. The wizard does not become invisible for casting a spell that is delivered by touch attack since those spells don't have targets. Spell with targets are spells like charm person.
For a spell that requires a touch attack the attack is not made until the attack roll is made so it should really apply to either the wizard attacking through the familiar or the familiar itself doing the attacking.
As for the invisibility line it is assuming the caster is also the one delivering the touch for touch attack spells.
The caster handing the spell off to the familiar, as a figure of speech, is no different than giving it a dagger to use.
so one or the other should keep invisibility ..... maybe XD
so one or the other should keep invisibility ..... maybe XD
That is the way I see it. The casting of the spell does not end a touch spell. You can cast a spell and never even use it, not only that the target of a touch spell is the creature touched so there is no target until the attack takes place anyway. As to who becomes visible is mostly a DM's call, but I would go with the familiar since they are the one making the attack roll, and therefore the attack.
|
I would say you would lose the invisibility spell. I think you have to remember that, in game terms, a familiar is a class feature just like school specialization. It is basically an extention of the wizard. If the familiar makes any kind of attack, in game terms it really is the same as if the wizard made the attack.
At least, that's how I would probably handle it
I would say you would lose the invisibility spell. I think you have to remember that, in game terms, a familiar is a class feature just like school specialization. It is basically an extention of the wizard. If the familiar makes any kind of attack, in game terms it really is the same as if the wizard made the attack.
At least, that's how I would probably handle it
A familiar is also an NPC, and while being to deliver spells, it is still its own creature. If it were a device then I would agree that the wizard would lose invis instead since devices don't attack on their own except in special circumstances.
I would say you would lose the invisibility spell. I think you have to remember that, in game terms, a familiar is a class feature just like school specialization. It is basically an extention of the wizard. If the familiar makes any kind of attack, in game terms it really is the same as if the wizard made the attack.
At least, that's how I would probably handle it
I don't agree that the attack made from a familiar is the same as if the wizard made the attack. Otherwise you would have to make the same ruling for an invisible druid, if his animal companion attacked anyone.
A touch spell isn't targeted per se. While they generelly include a target line, treating them as normal targeted spell makes the rules a bit contradictory.
You don't choose a target when casting the spell. The target is determined by the touch attack that delivers the spell.
An important line in invisibility is: "Causing harm indirectly is not an attack". I would definately think, that sharing a spell with a familiar, is as indirect as summoning creatures that attacks.
I'm still of the opinion that in the original circumstance, the invisible wizard using his familiar to deliver a touch spell becomes visible when the touch spell is delivered. By RAW anyway. It's weird, but there it is. Touch spells do have a target, but that target isn't chosen until the touch attack is made. Regardless of who or what makes that touch attack, as soon as it's done the wizard has cast a spell that targeted a (presumed) foe. As per RAW, that causes invisibility to end. If the familiar is also invisible, they just did a touch attack, that targeted a foe. Therefore by RAW, they also become visible. Like I said, double-edge sword.
I'm still of the opinion that in the original circumstance, the invisible wizard using his familiar to deliver a touch spell becomes visible when the touch spell is delivered. By RAW anyway. It's weird, but there it is. Touch spells do have a target, but that target isn't chosen until the touch attack is made. Regardless of who or what makes that touch attack, as soon as it's done the wizard has cast a spell that targeted a (presumed) foe. As per RAW, that causes invisibility to end. If the familiar is also invisible, they just did a touch attack, that targeted a foe. Therefore by RAW, they also become visible. Like I said, double-edge sword.
Either the wizard is the attacker because he is the source of the attack or the familiar becomes the new source since the spell was transferred to him. I think the source is up to debate, but I don't think it is RAW or RAI to say both lose invis.
This is interesting though.
I'm still of the opinion that in the original circumstance, the invisible wizard using his familiar to deliver a touch spell becomes visible when the touch spell is delivered. By RAW anyway. It's weird, but there it is. Touch spells do have a target, but that target isn't chosen until the touch attack is made. Regardless of who or what makes that touch attack, as soon as it's done the wizard has cast a spell that targeted a (presumed) foe.
I think the RAW can't be called as clearly if you consider the latter part of the spell describtion:
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
Apart from what constitutes an attack in the eyes of this spell (targeting spells, area effects and attacks), it goes on to explain that an attack must be direct to break your invisibility. I mantain that i cannot view a spell shared with the familiar as a direct attack (in invisibility's perspective) from the wiard.
|
|
Since we are talking about invisibility I have a Q or two.
Does an invisible PC, that casts summon monster to attack foes become visible? (had this happen in a game I ran, I ruled it did not since HE didn't make ANY attacks)
Does an invisible PC, lets say a priest, who casts any cure spell or channel energy for healing become visible?
Since we are talking about invisibility I have a Q or two.
Does an invisible PC, that casts summon monster to attack foes become visible? (had this happen in a game I ran, I ruled it did not since HE didn't make ANY attacks)
No, invisibility specifically states that you can summon monster and stay invisible.
Does an invisible PC, lets say a priest, who casts any cure spell or channel energy for healing become visible?
No, he stays invisble as well. The text mentions casting beneficial spells on allies, and uses Bless as an example. As long as you are only healing your friends, and not harming others, then it is okay.
Note on channel energy: if there are any living foes in the area, it becomes a bit tricky, as you are actually affecting them by the spell. It might actually not be correct by the rules to allow it, so selective channeling might be a choice.
I agree with wraithstrike on this. Using the familiar to deliver a touch attack makes it indirect by RAW, thus not popping the caster's invisibility. Consider that summon monster is indirect and mentioned directly in the text.
So then you are thinking that a channel positive healing all in the radius, even if it's baddies, should end the invisible state?
I think, I would allow the cleric to stay invisible if the situation came up.
RAW-wise I am not sure that he is supposed to, as his spell affects the baddies as well.
So then you are thinking that a channel positive healing all in the radius, even if it's baddies, should end the invisible state?I think, I would allow the cleric to stay invisible if the situation came up.
RAW-wise I am not sure that he is supposed to, as his spell affects the baddies as well.
Invisibility breaks if you directly attack someone (friend or foe). Affecting anyone (friend or foe) with a heal effect wouldn't break invisibility.
I think this can be answered by the fact that a wizard that casts a spell into a spell storing item (for say the parties fighter) while invisible wont lose invisibility when it is cast from the item. Just think of familiars as killable spell storing.
The familiar is the on making the attack, but people that care about their familiars keep them away from combat.
Short Story Time:I had a player who would send his familiar into combat provoking attacks while entering and leaving threatened squares. For some reason I always rolled a 1 or 2 on the dice against that familiar even if I had a magical night where I was critting the rest of the party.
The party even started to joke that I could not kill it, and would vote to send it in to do things they did not want to do, and to my chagrin I never even did 1 point of hit point damage do it during an entire campaign.
Like in my campaign:
Bunny with sunrod gets released by invisible monk to confuse the troll while he runs out.
Bunny survived 2 trolls, the trolls didn't.
Bunny is now Trollslayer the First!
Familier is suppose to be ON PAR with arcane bond lets not forget....
I'd allow it in my game... wanna risk your familier.. go for it..
Might i suggest the diabolist PRC with the imp companion and improved share spells???
I got my imp up to 45 AC :P lets deliver some touch spells (I run a game that has gone from level 1 - 16 and is continuing) and I am in a game that started at 13 - 15
if you actucally put some resources/spells into it keeping a familiar alive isn't too hard.
|
|
Both familiar and caster lose their Invisibility because they both fulfill conditions that end the spell.
- Familiar is invisible. It makes a touch attack. At that precise moment, the familiar fulfills the condition "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." Thus, the Invisibility spell cast on the familiar ends.
- Wizard is invisible. He casts the touch attack spell and transfers its activation to his familiar. When the familiar makes the touch attack, the wizard fulfills the condition of the "spell as an attack" condition ("For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe"). Since the wizard is indeed using a spell that targets a foe (as all touch attack spells do), he is considered making an attack and thus loses invisibility.
Summoning creatures is not a "spell as an attack", since it does not target a foe, nor includes one in its area or effect. When the summoned creatures attack, it is not part of any spell cast by the wizard. Thus the wizard summoning creatures and having them attack his enemies does not at any time fulfill any condition that ends the Invisibility spell. Thus he stays invisible.
Channeling is not a spell and thus cannot be considered as a "spell as an attack". In fact, a case could be made that channeling to hurt your foes is not an attack, though I would rule that it is one since you are causing direct damage to those you consider foes.
No. You and your familiar are one love, one heart, one soul
(come to jamaca and feel all right... where was i?)
you and your familiar are the same person, thats why you can share the same invisibility spell. So if he attacks, and you are him, then you are attacking.
The familiar is a separate creature from you. If it attacks, it doesn't break your invisibility, any more than you directing a summoned monster to attack would break your invisibility. The familiar is making the attack, not you.
If the familiar is invisible, this would break the familiar's invisibility.
The familiar is a separate creature from you. If it attacks, it doesn't break your invisibility, any more than you directing a summoned monster to attack would break your invisibility. The familiar is making the attack, not you.
If the familiar is invisible, this would break the familiar's invisibility.
If the familiar is delivering my touch spell, does that break my invisibility (since I am attacking with a spell)?
If the familiar is delivering my touch spell, does that break my invisibility (since I am attacking with a spell)?The familiar is a separate creature from you. If it attacks, it doesn't break your invisibility, any more than you directing a summoned monster to attack would break your invisibility. The familiar is making the attack, not you.
If the familiar is invisible, this would break the familiar's invisibility.
Your not though. No more than if you cast a spell on a party member who then delivered it into an enemy. They are attacking 'using' your spell. That's the very definition of 'indirectly' attacking someone, which is allowed by the spell.
Same as if you used mage hand to cut a rope holding up a rope bridge while the bad guy was on it. You are not attacking anyone directly, but you are indirectly by dumping them in the lava below the bridge.
Since pathfinder did away with both the "the familiar is a part of yourself" and "any spell you cast on yourself is also cast on your familiar" bit the familiar would have no invisibility from you (unless it hid under your robes/hat) and would be visible as it was attacking (and moving into the enemies square)