Can you see yourself (and your equipment) when you are invisible?
Not unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
It does not matter in most cases anyway. I can touch my nose with my eyes clothes, and so can most people I know so you don't have to worry about miss chances against yourself if that is why you are asking.
I think it might matter if you're looking for a specific item in your backpack, and you can't just use touch, for whatever reason, to do it.
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but while invisible, can you pull out one of your scrolls and read it ?
I don't normally look in my bag when I reach for things. Now if I have two books that are the same size then I might have to look. Most GM's don't want to account for everything that might be in your backpack and to see if you might grab the wrong item though.
Invisibility is an Illusion (glamer spell).
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others (...)
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Therefore, one doesn't become inherently invisible; rather, others aren't able to perceive it with sight. Thus it depends whether the "subject", as indicated in the glamer description includes the recipient of the spell or just everyone else.
In the description of the invisibility spell, it is stated that:
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.
... which indicates that a caster cannot see through its own spell, but doesn't specify that the recipient is subject to the spell itself.
As far as I can see, the immediate rules surrounding invisibility neither confirm nor deny that the subject is invisible to itself.
Although I don't think that "realism" should be considered to validate fantasy rules, I'm convinced that a person who cannot see its own feet would trip and fall in rushed situations over difficult terrain, like my kid at Halloween who could see through his mask what was in front of him, but not where his feet stood.
'findel
Well since nowhere in the rules for invisibility does it mention anything about making it impossible to read scrolls, or find potions in your backpack (the bottles most likely all feel the same), or anything like that, I would argue that infact you still see yourself and your gear.
It does not even hint at it or in any way suggest it anywhere.
Why? *shrug* it's magic.
Fine, I'll try. Light is bend around you, but inside that "bubble" it still works normal for anyone in it.
The spell says your gear is also invisible. The rules state that invisible things can not be seen. Reading scrolls not likely by RAW. Of course I have never stopped a caster from reading a scroll before, but I don't know if I was breaking any rules or not.
IMHO the RAI-->The intent of the spell is not for the caster to be a hinderance to himself so the scroll reading is most likely allowed.
Seeing as how invisibility now only adds to stealth mechanically speaking, I would assume a person gets a bonus on Perception to things that are already in their possession.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Officially, you and your gear are invisible, so you cannot read a scroll unless you can see invisible things.
Where in the rules does it state that you cannot cast a spell from a scroll of you can't see?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where in the rules does it state that you cannot cast a spell from a scroll of you can't see?
right where you'd expect them to be.
Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll.
The spell says your gear is also invisible. The rules state that invisible things can not be seen.
A character's equipment, like the character itself, is invisible from the subjects of the invisibility effect.
Unless you can quote that the recipient of the spell is subject to its own invincibility effect, this argument has no weight. Since the rules don't confirm that the recipient is not subject to the effect either, we're still in a no-man's-land and we cannot objectively confirm or deny it with that piece of information.
IMO, the RAI behind the statement that equipment also becomes invisible is there to dispel the impression that you have to strip naked when becoming invisible, not to intend that you cannot read your scroll...
@ Cheapy: Again, its a matter of who are the subjects of the invisibility spell; if the recipient is not affected by its own invisibility, then it qualifies for reading a scroll just fine (assuming it has sufficient lighting and isn't blinded). The description of the spell, of the Illusion school and of the glamer sub-school are silent about that; it simply mentions "subject". The description of invisibility suspiciously avoids mentioning the recipient; it only states that even you (the caster) cannot see the recipient if different from self.
'findel
I think it might matter if you're looking for a specific item in your backpack, and you can't just use touch, for whatever reason, to do it.
Except, RAW, there is no change in the move action required to retrieve and item.
There are no rules for other situations when not being able to see oneself might make a difference. For example, it would probably be harder to pick a lock if you can't see the pick. It would probably also be harder to score a precise sneak attack if you couldn't see your sword, or aim a bow if you couldn't see your arrow.
I'm all for using rule 0, but if I have to resort to fiat in every single situation to determine whether a character can do X because the RAW has left the building, something has gone terribly wrong.
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.
I would say since it points out that you can't see the target if its someone else you can in fact see yourself just fine.
Well, except that the word "allies" includes the person being turned invisible. And "allies" also refers to yourself. So... I don't know.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't really that complicated. The spell makes you invisible. Unless you have the ability to see things that are invisible, you can't see yourself when you're invisible. If this were not the case, the spell would say "the caster can still see himself if he casts the spell on himself" or something to that effect.
Okay then what is the check penalty for picking a lock when you can't see your tools?
What effect does not being able to look at your components have on spell casting?
What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?
What penalty do you take on attacks with missile weapons since you can't aim them?
How much longer does it take to get something from your backpack?
What is the increase in reloading time for crossbows and guns?
When using a just drawn double weapon how do i know which side is the +2 flaming side and which is the +2 frost side?
Please answer using qoutes from developers or Text and not personal opinions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would read this statement
"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."
as a qualifier that differentiates this behavior from when you cast it on yourself, as if presuming "When you cast this on yourself, you can still see you (hence the "harmless" in the saving throw description) but in the event that you cast it on someone else, the caster isn't automatically immune from the Glamer...
This isn't really that complicated. The spell makes you invisible. Unless you have the ability to see things that are invisible, you can't see yourself when you're invisible. If this were not the case, the spell would say "the caster can still see himself if he casts the spell on himself" or something to that effect.
In most cases, the rules add "including you" in parenthesis when you are part of 'allies' or 'companion'.
In this case, the only reference to "you" is when you cast the invisibility spell on someone else; there it is specifically stated that you cannot see it. This could be taken as an implication that otherwise, you are capable to see yourself when you cast invisibility on yourself.
Does an archer take penalties shooting because it can't see it's bow or the arrows it fires?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a can of worms from way back. In an earlier edition (first or second), it stated something that is obvious, but can make life difficult for GMs and players alike.
Invisibility is an Illusion spell. It creates a false perception.
Illusion spells can be disbelieved. As the caster, you automatically know that the spell is an illusion and false, therefore you disbelieve it automatically and fundamentally. It doesn't mean that anyone else does.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. In fact, by this, the caster's friends if they have time to be convinced could make their saves and allow the caster to remain visible to them, but invisible to enemies.
Because completely invisible (non-illusory) spells and effect exist, and unless the perceiver has a chance to 'study it carefully or interact in some fashion' which is not common in combat, invisibility should work just fine in other respects.
I'm glad to see the PRD backs up this old ruling, but without the 'someone's invisible? I'll disbelieve!' game breaker in the old days.
Hope that helps.
As for other companions, they would be invisible to you (they could be invisible for another reason, after all, however unlikely) until you could 'Examine them carefully,' et al. Like a sidewalk artist painting a hole in the sidewalk might check the next day to make sure someone didn't put a real hole there...
Does an archer take penalties shooting because it can't see it's bow or the arrows it fires?
While I'm sure that you can train to overcome this obstacle, I would say that yes, an archer who cannot rely on sight to adjust the inclination of its bow would take a penalty. Any any case, I'm sure someone who cannot see its gun will be less accurate at shooting, unless you get a laser sight or something...
I suppose you could also examine yourself carefully, so if the spell is cast on you (instead of being the caster) you could easily 'disbelieve' so that you could still see yourself. This would prevent Invisibility being used as an offensive spell (keeping a mage from finding their spell components, throwing off aim and generally tripping over everything are effects of higher poweted spells...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you penalties for climbing because you don't know where your feet are? Do you take penalties for lock picking because you don't know where your picks are? Can you see through your eye lids? I need answers now. Also what action is breathing?
Can you see through your eye lids?
That's actually a good question :)
...leading to "can you advert your eyes in front of the Medusa when invisible?"
invisibility, immunity to gaze attacks.
What I want to know is... is it like someone else is doing it while you're invisible? Because, if so, I think my character might ask the wizard to save one casting of invisibility for him each night.
Edit: Might even purchase some... potent potions.
Invisibility sphere does mention that you can see yourself (and others) while under it's effects, which would lead me to beleave that you can not see yourself under normal invisibility. the exact words are "Those affected by this spell can see each other and themselves as if unaffected by the spell." So... if you can normally see yourself if invisible, why does this spell say you can (impling that normally you would not be able to).
being awair of your body (and by extention your sword) is something we learn while small. so I often know where my hand/arm/feet etc. are when I can't see them. and place them without aid of vision. kicking someone under a table would be a good example of this. Can't see my feet, but I can still kick them.
Agreed. "...see themselves...as if unaffected...". I would say that implies an exception to the general rule of invisibility.
As I asked earlier whats the penalty and please provide rules support.
Nowhere does it state that this or any other penalty can or will occur which leaves us with one of two options by RAW.
1. You can see yourself and your gear.
2. You take no penalties for not being able to see your self and your gear.
(...) which leaves us with one of two options by RAW.
1. You can see yourself and your gear.
2. You take no penalties for not being able to see your self and your gear.
...or both options. Neither is mutually exclusive.
As I asked earlier whats the penalty and please provide rules support.
Nowhere does it state that this or any other penalty can or will occur which leaves us with one of two options by RAW.
1. You can see yourself and your gear.
2. You take no penalties for not being able to see your self and your gear.
For what I see, and how it's stood in previous editions as well, see my posts above (with rules support). In which case, there are no penalties unless the invisibility comes from some other (non-illusory) source.
Otherwise, it would impact nearly every activity to greater and lesser degrees, and unless you want to limit invisibility use in general you should be considered to see yourself well enough to function.
For those that talk about being able know exactly where their body parts are when they can't see them, that's called kinesthetics. But even with normal kinesthetics, vision helps in very important ways. Sure, you could kick someone under the table, but could you kick an exact spot (sneak attack, most combat attempts, etc.)?
...or both options. Neither is mutually exclusive.(...) which leaves us with one of two options by RAW.
1. You can see yourself and your gear.
2. You take no penalties for not being able to see your self and your gear.
So you can see yourself,
but you also take no penalties for not being able to see yourself?
I'm not following.
You think you can't see yourself but you actually are seeing yourself.
Lol the defence for seeing yourself nerds the spell hard. A save every time you attack...
And not being able to see yourself doesn't?
Not necessarily. There are plenty of POSSIBLE effects that a strike or series of strikes could be: invisible force effects, physical invisibity (such as invisibile stalkers) or incorporeal monsters and other magic mean that unless someone can CAREFULLY examine the invisible creature and interact with it in ways that may or may not involve out of combat time, then it remains invisible. Basically, it translates into the gut feeling that most people have of invisibility, that it doesn't really affect the recipient negatively (unless they try crossing a highway), and it can't be broken by someone saying, "Hey, he's invisible, I disbelieve!"
(Actually, that's the part that ticked folks off when the ruling was made. The 'carefully examine' clause does away with it, because you're probably just 'carefully examining' air if you're doing it at a distance.)
What it does is make some other invisible things easier or harder to deal with. Say, an invisible bridge, or an invisible podium. Those are special cases anyway, usually.
Well this is one thing i do reccommend a tap on the FAQ button over.
As I asked earlier whats the penalty and please provide rules support.
Nowhere does it state that this or any other penalty can or will occur which leaves us with one of two options by RAW.
1. You can see yourself and your gear.
2. You take no penalties for not being able to see your self and your gear.
I have always played it as 2. :)
|
|
This is a can of worms from way back. In an earlier edition (first or second), it stated something that is obvious, but can make life difficult for GMs and players alike.
Invisibility is an Illusion spell. It creates a false perception.
Illusion spells can be disbelieved. As the caster, you automatically know that the spell is an illusion and false, therefore you disbelieve it automatically and fundamentally. It doesn't mean that anyone else does.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. In fact, by this, the caster's friends if they have time to be convinced could make their saves and allow the caster to remain visible to them, but invisible to enemies.
Because completely invisible (non-illusory) spells and effect exist, and unless the perceiver has a chance to 'study it carefully or interact in some fashion' which is not common in combat, invisibility should work just fine in other respects.
I'm glad to see the PRD backs up this old ruling, but without the 'someone's invisible? I'll disbelieve!' game breaker in the old days.
Hope that helps.
That makes perfect sense. Thank you. You've changed my mind.
Invisibility can not be disbelieved. That only works for illusion spells that have saving throws, and even then it only gives a bonus to the save.
Note that Makarnek referenced:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):
That section is clearly explaining illusions that do allow for saving throws. Such illusions are normally patterns, and are mind affecting while glamers(which is what illusions are) are not.
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Illusions are under the glamer subschool which has a very real effect on an object by changing the qualities of the subject making it seem to be different.
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Compare this to patterns which create the perception of unreal things that don't exist at all, and are thus mind affecting. That is also why undead which are immune to mind affects are immune to phantasms and patterns, but not glamers.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).