I think casting a spell would more be like quite talking than loud talking, but that's probably for the GM to decide.
But in that case, the DC to notice the NPC wizard being in the room would be 0. But that still doesn't mean you can pinpoint the square he is in.
And as it seems, pinpointing an invisible creature isn't explained anywhere.
|
1) going off the chart here (drop down to Invisibility): it would be a perception check vs DC of 20 +20 for being invisible -20 for talking or being in combat (since the dominate spells have a verbal component), thus a DC of 20. You cannot use stealth to hide a verbal component since it needs to be spoken in a "strong voice", so the wizard should not be adding stealth to that check. Note, this just tells you what square they are in if they are within 30 feet, you would still get a 50% miss chance to attack them with an attack roll. If you just wish to know if they are in the room, it would be a DC of 0.
2) Per the magic section in the PRD:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
And the target for Dispel magic says:
Target or Area one spellcaster, creature, or object
So, if you cannot see the spellcaster, creature or object you wish to effect, you cannot dispel magic on the spell effecting them.
|
|
I think casting a spell would more be like quite talking than loud talking, but that's probably for the GM to decide.
But in that case, the DC to notice the NPC wizard being in the room would be 0. But that still doesn't mean you can pinpoint the square he is in.And as it seems, pinpointing an invisible creature isn't explained anywhere.
Verbal spell components need to be spoken in a "Strong voice". It may not be a loud voice, but it is also not a whispered or quiet voice.
I've been taling a look at the rules in the D&D SRD and it seems that that section on invisibility got simply copied with just cutting the paragraph on Move Silently and Listen.
However, the rules for pinpointing an invsible creature by sound work just fine in PF as well.
A creature can use hearing to find an invisible creature. A character can make a Listen check for this purpose as a free action each round. A Listen check result at least equal to the invisible creature’s Move Silently check result reveals its presence. (A creature with no ranks in Move Silently makes a Move Silently check as a Dexterity check to which an armor check penalty applies.) A successful check lets a character hear an invisible creature “over there somewhere.” It’s practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature. A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location.
Just make it a Perception roll against the Stealth roll, that simply ignores the modifier for being invisible. So take the DC for hearing a person talking and increase that by +20. DC 0 seems a good idea, since the NPC wizard tries to talk quietly, but you don't actually need to make out the things he says, for a final DC of 20 plus 1 for every 10 feet of distance and any other unfavorable conditions (like the other PCs running around).
Make a Perception check that beats that number and you have the square the invisible NPC is in.That still does not allow to make a targeted dispel against the square he's in.
dispel magic can be used to dispel invisibility via the second usage of the targeted spell. spellcraft to ID the spell (+ circumstance bonus?) then locate the square/squares he his in, then pop the spell (targeting the spell NOT the creature).
the stealth skill/dex will apply to an invisible creature, and does so automatically.
your DM was correct to apply the situational modifier for spell casting noise, however it has been implemented incorrectly and is waaaaay to big of a modifier (-20 would work if he were an invisible alarm clock set on max, -2 is for favorable conditions e.g. a creature speaking a spell); it is always an opposed check: stealth vs. perception, every time. also keep in mind that if he has moved since casting the spell (cast then move) the sound of the spell being cast would be no help at all. if he stands still, his modifier is actually +40 to stealth for being invisible (ouch).
even if you do locate him, keep in mind that he still has complete cover and does not grant LOS. basically your characters are in a bind without a way to see/ detect invisible creatures. mundane splash effects help a lot (flour, water, alchemists fire) by granting circumstance bonus'. combine those with area attacks and have your ranged attackers ready actions for when they hear him cast a spell, making it easier to locate him.
your DM seems very forgiving. invisibility is HARD to beat without magic and a "dc" of 0 is ridiculously low (same DC to hear a conversation), especially since it is not being done as an opposed roll (which is what the skill perception calls for).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does PF distinguish between noting the square someone is in via perception versus "in the room?" Why within 30 feet?
(Thanks for you help so far, I think we are getting close to the answer.)
On the dispel, I tend to agree (belatedly) that since you cannot see the target, dispel magic cannot work on invisible creatures. Further, that likely means you cannot counterspell anything they do as that also requires that you see that spell being cast (which you cannot if it has somatic components.) This makes invisibility pretty powerful.
So - please elaborate more on the perception piece and does anyone disagree with the targeting piece of this?
Felwred
For the perception check thing. Here is the PRD on it (link here. scroll down to "invisibility):
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. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
That first part A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. states that you can at least notice that there is an active, invisible creature with 30 feet of you.
Then it goes on to state, It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. This tells you that you add +20 to that DC to find the square that they are in.
You can check farther then 30 feet out, but then it adds to the DC. From the perception skill info, you would add +1 to the DC per 10 feet.
|
|
dispel magic can be used to dispel invisibility via the second usage of the targeted spell. spellcraft to ID the spell (+ circumstance bonus?) then locate the square/squares he his in, then pop the spell (targeting the spell NOT the creature).
the stealth skill/dex will apply to an invisible creature, and does so automatically.
your DM was correct to apply the situational modifier for spell casting noise, however it has been implemented incorrectly and is waaaaay to big of a modifier (-20 would work if he were an invisible alarm clock set on max, -2 is for favorable conditions e.g. a creature speaking a spell); it is always an opposed check: stealth vs. perception, every time. also keep in mind that if he has moved since casting the spell (cast then move) the sound of the spell being cast would be no help at all. if he stands still, his modifier is actually +40 to stealth for being invisible (ouch).
even if you do locate him, keep in mind that he still has complete cover and does not grant LOS. basically your characters are in a bind without a way to see/ detect invisible creatures. mundane splash effects help a lot (flour, water, alchemists fire) by granting circumstance bonus'. combine those with area attacks and have your ranged attackers ready actions for when they hear him cast a spell, making it easier to locate him.your DM seems very forgiving. invisibility is HARD to beat without magic and a "dc" of 0 is ridiculously low (same DC to hear a conversation), especially since it is not being done as an opposed roll (which is what the skill perception calls for).
It is a DC 0 (DC of 20 -20 for "in combat or speaking")to know that there is an invisible creature in the room talking in a strong voice (required for verbal spells).
It would be a +20 DC to know which square the creature was in.
my point is, its not a flat DC. it is always an opposed roll to locate the creature. where is this -20 coming from? a BATTLE (as in armies of guys with swords killing each other) has only -10 to the DC....
regardless, i would ALWAYS treat locating an invisible creature as an *opposed* check situation (perception vs. stealth) as is described by the perception skill (NOT a flat DC).
remember, if you make it very easy to find invisible creatures it hurts the PCs more than NPCs; characters are far more likely to be invisible than bad guys. a "DC 20" check is child's play for most solo monsters.
It would seem that it's an opposed roll if they are using stealth.
If they are speaking, then you can figure out where they are based on sound, not sight.
It does say that being in combat or speaking is a -20, which will negate the standing still.
It also clearly says that it's a DC. I think that assumes Stealth is not being used. However, even if it is an opposed stealth rule, the -20 for speaking or being in combat (I take that to mean actively fighting someone, not just being in the general vicinity) applies.
|
|
my point is, its not a flat DC. it is always an opposed roll to locate the creature. where is this -20 coming from? a BATTLE (as in armies of guys with swords killing each other) has only -10 to the DC....
regardless, i would ALWAYS treat locating an invisible creature as an *opposed* check situation (perception vs. stealth) as is described by the perception skill (NOT a flat DC).
remember, if you make it very easy to find invisible creatures it hurts the PCs more than NPCs; characters are far more likely to be invisible than bad guys. a "DC 20" check is child's play for most solo monsters.
From the table in the PRD:
Invisible creature is... Perception
In combat or speaking –20
Moving at half speed –5
Moving at full speed –10
Running or charging –20
Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15
|
Dispel Magic would not work, as the target cannot be seen and therefore the spell cannot be targeted. However, just as a side note, Greater Dispel Magic DOES work, since it is a Burst spell, and burst spells do not require line of site but rather affect everything within their area.
Zizz...
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. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
The chart lists a DC of -20 if the invisible creature is in combat or speaking.
So if an invisible wizard is casting a spell it is a DC 0 Perception check to know that there is an invisible combatant within 30 feet. To pinpoint the exact space of the invisible wizard requires a DC 20 Perception check. There is still a 50% miss chance though even if you have identified the precise square of the invisible wizard.
So in this case, the PRD specifically calls for a static DC for detecting the invisible spell caster. If the invisible caster were not in active combat (such as casting a spell) then a Perception vs Stealth (with applicable modifiers) would be appropriate. But I just cannot imagine a situation where a caster can cast a spell stealthily (short of the Silent Spell Metafeat).
well argued about "stealth". point conceded.
any spell without a verbal component could be cast while using stealth, i suppose, but that's about it.
don't know how i missed that -20 modifier, i even looked ;O. i suppose it would be smart to stand still given that penalty, making it a DC 40 check to pinpoint an invisible target casting a spell (though it seems counter intuitive that a caster standing in one place is harder to find than one moving).
still, the caster could use the rules for sniping to force an opposed check after a dominate attempt (if you consider it a ranged attack). the stealth roll would be 1d20+?(stealth)+40(invisibility standing still)-20 (sniping)-20 (casting)+20(to pinpoint, really a penalty to the perception roll)= 1d20+20+stealth. not bad, but youd be better off with the DC40 not trying to hide (lol). casting non-attack spells wouldn't even require that, though. he could simply cast, then move and activate stealth (no action) to force an opposed check. for the brief moment he was casting it would be DC 20 to pinpoint, but after movement it would become an opposed check (modifiers are arguable).
after rereading dispel magic i have become undecided about whether you can dispel invisibility, but i am still hopeful. why? because you can target a spell instead of a creature. detect magic would allow you to target the spell invisibility with dispel magic, without actually seeing the creature its cloaking. it would take three rounds though, and by then its probably already too late...
|
|
Dispel Magic would not work, as the target cannot be seen and therefore the spell cannot be targeted. However, just as a side note, Greater Dispel Magic DOES work, since it is a Burst spell, and burst spells do not require line of site but rather affect everything within their area.
The write-up on Dispel Magic does not bear this up. It specifically details a section on targeted dispel of a specific spell and there is nothing indicating that it is necessary to "see" the spell you are targeting (many of the "buff" spells [i.e. Bull's Strength, Bless, etc] do not have a visual descriptor, but it is possible to dispel them nontheless).
To keep this from being too easily defeated, I would suggest requiring the caster to pinpoint where the spell is (using previously established methods) and then casting the spell.
|
|
still, the caster could use the rules for sniping to force an opposed check after a dominate attempt (if you consider it a ranged attack). the stealth roll would be 1d20+?(stealth)+40(invisibility standing still)-20 (sniping)-20 (casting)+20(to pinpoint, really a penalty to the perception roll)= 1d20+20+stealth. not bad, but youd be better off with the DC40 not trying to hide (lol). casting non-attack spells wouldn't even require that, though. he could simply cast, then move and activate stealth (no action) to force an opposed check. for the brief moment he was casting it would be DC 20 to pinpoint, but after movement it would become an opposed check (modifiers are arguable).
My thinking is that the standing still benefit would not apply unless you are using a spell with only verbal components (perhaps material as well as it does not state that one must present the materials, only possess them) and beginning to speak would ruin the ability to use the Stealth skill because it is possible to perceive the caster the moment he begins. The bonus for pinpointing would have no effect because the purpose of sniping is to maintain ones obscured location and once you open your mouth and say something that benefit is lost.
But this is just my 2cp
FW
makes sense to me. i hadnt considered somatic components, but it seems reasonable (rustling clothes and the like). so no "immobile" bonus then.
i disagree about the purpose of the sniping check, however. the idea is to do something that is obvious/loud while hidden (attacking however that may be), then immediately hide afterwords preventing detection. there is no stipulation about not making noise or performing observable actions while making the sniping attack. the stealth is used after the speaking. at that point the caster is not obviously detectable because he is no longer making noise. same idea would apply to casting a non-attack spell, then moving and using stealth while invisible. the casting is done and the stealth check is part of the movement. it works because most perception checks are reactive. all creatures would get a check when invisi-caster casts, then again when he uses stealth. an invisible caster can use stealth immediately after casting because he has complete concealment and becomes undetectable by sound the moment he finishes the spell.
"You can use concealment to make a Stealth check."
"...invisibility provides total concealment..."
"Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action."
seems pretty clear that you can use the concealment provided by greater invisibility to make a stealth check for free as part of a move action taken immediately after casting a spell. i see nothing that says you cant, or anything that says you must continue speaking after casting a spell, while you move (thus rendering you perceptible at that time).
rogues do this type of thing all the time e.g. " i free action shout(visible & loud, cant use stealth), use a move action to go to that area of total concealment , then i use a move action within that area with a stealth check to hide." how is that different? why can a rogue do it but an invisible caster cant?|
|
In the example you provide, the rogue is not sniping, he merely obscures his location with the second move action. This is possible because concealment granted by shadows makes it hard to see and the stealthy lad (lass) can lose themselves in the darkness/fog/clouds/etc.
I guess for all intents and purposes a spellcaster *could* use sniping assuming he stood perfectly still and did not cast a spell every other round (thereby allowing use of the Stealth Skill), but there would be no material benefit I can think of for doing this.
Even if the caster was a rogue or another class that benefitted from precision damage, there would be no benefit to Sniping while Invisible because ultimately he is still Invisible.
If you are trying to use Sniping as a way to remove the victim's ability to pinpoint the location of the invisible caster, I would say that, again, because he has to speak (assuming there is a verbal component of the spell cast), he has nullified that ability. Using a ranged weapon does not (IMHO) materially invoke the other senses (tremorsense, blindsense, etc. not withstanding of course) to disallow use of the Stealth Skill.
FW
true, in that comparison i was actually relating the rogues action to a non-attack spell, then move & stealth.
for our purposes i believe that it is reasonable to use the "invisibility" definition of an attack - a spell that targets a foe. given that definition it seems reasonable that a caster could "snipe" with a dominate spell. the snipe stealth check is a move action, so the caster could cast an attack spell every turn and remain hidden (the stealth check satisfies the stealth requirement for subsequent sniping). if he was under the effects of "haste" the caster could even move after the stealth check (prompting another stealth check, but allowing movement). note that there are absolutely no conditions placed on the snipe attack, other then it being a ranged attack from a distance of 10 feet or more. the attack itself can be as noisy or visible as you'd like (e.g. sonic bolts & flaming arrows are fine, as is a sunburst). the same principle applies in modern warfare: hide, shoot a loud & bright gun, hide = sniping.
using sniping: 1d20+x(stealth)+20(invisibility)-20(snipe)=1d20+stealth vs perception -20 to pinpoint. effectively 1d20+(stealth)+20 vs. perception.
this is CONSIDERABLY better than DC20 no-stealth pinpoint.adding in a range modifier makes it even more effective. note that i do not include -20 because of noise, as the noisy spell is the standard action attack (which can be noisy). logic: a bow attack has the same stealth penalty as speaking (-20, counts as combat), and is clearly not included in a snipe stealth check.
Dispel Magic would not work, as the target cannot be seen and therefore the spell cannot be targeted. However, just as a side note, Greater Dispel Magic DOES work, since it is a Burst spell, and burst spells do not require line of site but rather affect everything within their area.
Suppose you located the spell area first with detect magic? You could then target the visible aura.
Suppose you located the spell area first with detect magic? You could then target the visible aura.Dispel Magic would not work, as the target cannot be seen and therefore the spell cannot be targeted. However, just as a side note, Greater Dispel Magic DOES work, since it is a Burst spell, and burst spells do not require line of site but rather affect everything within their area.
I don't think Detect Magic works that way. You would have to concentrate 3 full rounds to get to the point where Detect Magic tells you "the strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic".
So that's 3 rounds just to get to school:illusion and you still might not be able to because you don't have line of sight to anything invisible.|
|
true, in that comparison i was actually relating the rogues action to a non-attack spell, then move & stealth.
for our purposes i believe that it is reasonable to use the "invisibility" definition of an attack - a spell that targets a foe. given that definition it seems reasonable that a caster could "snipe" with a dominate spell. the snipe stealth check is a move action, so the caster could cast an attack spell every turn and remain hidden (the stealth check satisfies the stealth requirement for subsequent sniping). if he was under the effects of "haste" the caster could even move after the stealth check (prompting another stealth check, but allowing movement). note that there are absolutely no conditions placed on the snipe attack, other then it being a ranged attack from a distance of 10 feet or more. the attack itself can be as noisy or visible as you'd like (e.g. sonic bolts & flaming arrows are fine, as is a sunburst). the same principle applies in modern warfare: hide, shoot a loud & bright gun, hide = sniping.using sniping: 1d20+x(stealth)+20(invisibility)-20(snipe)=1d20+stealth vs perception -20 to pinpoint. effectively 1d20+(stealth)+20 vs. perception.
this is CONSIDERABLY better than DC20 no-stealth pinpoint.adding in a range modifier makes it even more effective. note that i do not include -20 because of noise, as the noisy spell is the standard action attack (which can be noisy). logic: a bow attack has the same stealth penalty as speaking (-20, counts as combat), and is clearly not included in a snipe stealth check.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
From my perspective, because casting a spell many times has a verbal component, it is not possible to use the Stealth skill at all. I can concede that shooting a bow does make some noise, but the duration of this noise would be very short (a fraction of a second) as opposed to a spell being cast (more than 3 seconds - of a 6-second round). Add that to the potential that the only fighting going on is the actual shots from the sniper and there begs the observation that there is combat and then there is COMBAT.
Invisibility, like darkness, fog or other things, works to confound the visual component of a perception check allowing the minor movement involved in using ranged weapons to snipe. Given a large amount of background noise (aside from combat between a few participants - i.e. hissing steam, volcano eruptions, avalanche, etc.), I would willingly adjudicate that sniping is possible.
Again, just my 2cp
FW
|
|
true, in that comparison i was actually relating the rogues action to a non-attack spell, then move & stealth.
for our purposes i believe that it is reasonable to use the "invisibility" definition of an attack - a spell that targets a foe. given that definition it seems reasonable that a caster could "snipe" with a dominate spell. the snipe stealth check is a move action, so the caster could cast an attack spell every turn and remain hidden (the stealth check satisfies the stealth requirement for subsequent sniping). if he was under the effects of "haste" the caster could even move after the stealth check (prompting another stealth check, but allowing movement). note that there are absolutely no conditions placed on the snipe attack, other then it being a ranged attack from a distance of 10 feet or more. the attack itself can be as noisy or visible as you'd like (e.g. sonic bolts & flaming arrows are fine, as is a sunburst). the same principle applies in modern warfare: hide, shoot a loud & bright gun, hide = sniping.
From the PRD:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Ranged attacks are defined as an attack with a ranged weapon in this case.
Rays and spells that make an attack roll qualify as ranged weapons.
I don't really disagree with the idea that a spell could be used to snipe, but I just wanted to point out that sniping does specify a ranged attack, which is a specific defined term in the book and thus a limiting condition against using the snipe rules per RAW for a dominate spell.
Suppose you located the spell area first with detect magic? You could then target the visible aura.Dispel Magic would not work, as the target cannot be seen and therefore the spell cannot be targeted. However, just as a side note, Greater Dispel Magic DOES work, since it is a Burst spell, and burst spells do not require line of site but rather affect everything within their area.
I don't think Detect Magic works that way. You would have to concentrate 3 full rounds to get to the point where Detect Magic tells you "the strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic".
So that's 3 rounds just to get to school:illusion and you still might not be able to because you don't have line of sight to anything invisible.
You don't need to know what school it is.
"In the first round you can detect the presence or absence of magical auras."
I would think it reasonable to be able to tell which 5'ft square the aura's in. What you can't do is tell if it's a ring or a wand or weapon or whatever. But I suppose that's a moot point if the GM decides you lose the aura you want to aim at as soon as you start to cast something else.
|
"In the first round you can detect the presence or absence of magical auras."
I would think it reasonable to be able to tell which 5'ft square the aura's in. What you can't do is tell if it's a ring or a wand or weapon or whatever. But I suppose that's a moot point if the GM decides you lose the aura you want to aim at as soon as you start to cast something else.
Not reasonable, read the spell.
3rd round: The strength and location of each aura.
On the first round, all you know is that it is in the 60' cone of the spell, not where in the cone it is. On the third round, you get to localize it to a specific 5' square, but not before.
Also remember that Invisibility would only have a faint aura, so it could easily be blocked by a stronger aura between the detector and the Invisibility spell.
And if the Invisibility moves out of the cone, you have to start over.
You would be better off having the Paladin spend his turn starting his Detect Evil ability (Standard action), and then use his Move action to bump it to the third turn effect of Detect Evil, in the hope that the person under Invisibility has an actual aura of evil. If you are lucky, the Paladin could use his Free action pointing out where the evil aura is.
Actually, there are plenty of ways even a non-caster can wind up with See Invisibility, and any of them would probably be a better way of dealing with it, especially since it negates the miss chance, as well.
Elixir of Spirit Sight
Hand of Glory
Just for two off the top of my head.
I don't let players hide when using invisibility. If you are standing invisibly on the pitchers mound of rigly field with all the lights going you CANNOT hide. You are completely relying on the invisibility. Its a flat dc 20 (dc zero for someone in plain sight +20 for invisibility)
to notice that there's something there.
That's enough to spot the zip code of the invisible caster for the area of effect dispel.
EDIT: I also thought AoE dispels weren't available anymore and had to be targetted.
Huh. you're right. That reaaaaly sucks.
Wands of glitterdust for everyone then.
The problem with the sight/sound thing is that in pathfinder there's no mechanic for seperating them. Invisibility makes you quieter because it increases your stealth DC.