Can you see yourself while invisible?


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Say for example ....

You want to perform a heal check on yourself while invis

You need to retrieve an item from your backpackers while invis

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Invisibility says nothing about only being invisible to other people, so unless you can see invisible creatures somehow, no, you can't see yourself.

That said, you also wouldn't forget where your sword is, what's in your pocket, or where that searing pain located on your body just because you're invisible. Adjudicate responsibly. ;)


No you can't see yourself. But the actions you list don't expressly require you to see what you you are doing. Don't be surprised if the GM makes said actions harder & longer to accomplish, but the RAW doesn't make them forbidden.

One action that the RAW on this subject does prevent is using a scroll.

Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll.

IF you already had the scroll in hand, you could drop the scroll {free action] rendering it visible, Pick it up {move action], then use the scroll {standard action or longer].


This has come up before. RAW the answer is no, but the game is a lot easier if you assume that you can.


RAW seems to say you can see yourself. At least that's implied by this sentence:

"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."

It wouldn't be necessary to specifically call out what happens when you cast the spell on others, unless that situation works differently from what happens when you cast it on yourself.

Of course, the spell should just have gone out and said you could see yourself, like invisibility sphere does.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I thought about it some more, and came to the conclusion that RAW definitely says you can see yourself.

Invisibility is an illusion (glamer) spell.

Illusion says "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others." and "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."

Since you cast it yourself, you know it isn't real. Thus you can see yourself.


Are wrote:

Actually, I thought about it some more, and came to the conclusion that RAW definitely says you can see yourself.

Invisibility is an illusion (glamer) spell.

Illusion says "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others." and "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."

Since you cast it yourself, you know it isn't real. Thus you can see yourself.

This is pretty much what I think. If you know it's an illusion, you arent' affected by it.

Quite frankly, if you could NOT see yourself there would be a LOT more penalties... People don't realize how much they have to 'see' stuff in order to make simple things happen. It'd be like walking up stairs in the dark, Probably be a lot more stubbed toes :D

It's really just easier to go 'Lord of the Rings' style and say that they at least 'something.'


Does Invisibility allow a saving throw to disbelieve? I always took the saving throw to be against someone trying to turn you invisible. How do you specify interaction in that way? You're not using the illusion to make you not there, so that someone who touches you realizes that you ARE there, it makes you unseeable, and there isn't any way I can think of for you to interact with something in that way.

The illusion, in this case, IS real--you are making the subject not visible. Think of it in terms of some modern or sci-fi technology: it bends light around you rather than allowing it to reflect off of you (a la Predator, Solid Snake, or one of a million other examples).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

the illusions are never REAL (except the shadow subschool which can have partial real effect)
read the illusion school and its subtypes, like glamer.

+1 Are


gourry187 wrote:

Say for example ....

You want to perform a heal check on yourself while invis

You need to retrieve an item from your backpackers while invis

How about you store most of your stuff in a Handy Haversack and never have to worry about this possibility. You just need to know where the Handy Haversack is and when you retrieve items from it the correct item moves to your hand. Vision is not a requirement.


I remember playing a game of Rolemaster (second edition) many years ago when a PC cast Invisibility. Then we wondered if his lantern would continue to shed (visible) light.

After a couple of minutes, the GM handwaved it.

Dark Archive

Are wrote:

Actually, I thought about it some more, and came to the conclusion that RAW definitely says you can see yourself.

Invisibility is an illusion (glamer) spell.

Illusion says "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others." and "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."

Since you cast it yourself, you know it isn't real. Thus you can see yourself.

Seconded.

If you could not see yourself and your equipment, imagine the difficult in doing anything! Imagine trying to swing an invisible sword. Imagine trying to attack with precision using an invisible sword. Seems like it would be really difficult to get that sneak attack damage if you can't tell where your weapon is about to hit the target. Or imagine trying to make sure you are grabbing the cold iron tipped arrows instead of the adamantine ones you've been saving. How do you tell the difference (quickly enough to use them in combat)?

Not sure about scrolls though, but given how glamer spells work, and illusion spells in general, and how Invisibility Sphere works, I'd say sure, use your scrolls too.


I say yes you can see yourself as the spell has a saving throw to see through the illusion and as you know that its an illusion you automatalicly make the saving throw so you cam see your self
Also in invisibility sphere ( which is just invisibility with an aoe ) it states that everyone in the area of the spell can see each other and themselves


I would rule not because it takes one of the most powerful spells in the game (hello, it's the stuff of sexy shower scenes) and makes it a bit more a comedy of errors. I would not have any negatives, you fumble along just fine, but I would want the flavour to come out.

"I move up the stairwell rubbing my bruised knee and suddenly realize that the first step was closer than I imagined, and it's not like I could look down and see where to put my friggin foot"

As the character gets more powerful they will inevitably grab see invisibility and their awesomeness will stand out, especially compared to lower level casters.

p.s. RAW/RAI arguments are deflected via my apathy/ennui shields. The only driving force for me is consistency (so the players know what to expect and have a universe they can depend on) and fun (if they're giggling they won't realize just how many of my childhood complexes I'm working out on them....cheaper than therapy!).


This is an interesting question. I think Are answered it best.


I am not sure about the need to see to do things; ever heard of touch-typing?

That said, I do think you probably see yourself just fine.


Nothing in the spell says you can see yourself, but nobody I know runs it that way. I think it has always been assumed that you could.

Also, knowing something is an illusion does not mean you are not affected by it. Not all illusions can be disbelieved. Otherwise mirror image would lose a lot of its power.


Did anyone read the spell description?
It says:
1)"The creature or object touched becomes invisible." ...
2)"If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject" ... (unless you can see invisible)

The second quote is just pointing out a detail that is probably overlooked a lot.

Invisible Condition: SUMMARY
Visually undetectable.

AS PER THE SPELL
You cannot see yourself using your eyes.
The good news is there are only a few draw backs to this. (can't read your scrolls :/ )

But on a more important note...
you can disbelieve invisibility... wow.
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." say what?!

A Spellcraft DC to know someone is casting invisibility is 17. I think this is pretty good proof that it isn't real. :(

Also being the one casting the spell is pretty good proof it isn't real yet "if you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject"

We have reached a pretty solid contradiction = house rule.

There are logical groups
1)Everyone with proof can see. illusion is a glamer after all.

2)No one can see, even caster, even subject. As per the spell description.

Its a tough call for sure, its logical to state the more specific rule overpowers the broad rule, but in this case what is more specific; a spells right to be magical, or a sub schools right to be dis believable?

I think since the spell is a glamor spell, the spell description is more specific then the glamor school rule. I have to go with the spell description on this one (option 2) and house rule that since the ability to disbelieve invisibility creates contradiction in the very text of the spell, invisibility is not disbelievable.

You could attempt a hybrid but I fear you will be facing the contradiction I pointed out. Namely, how could the wizard ever not see someone he casted invisibility on?

Sczarni

Here's another wrinkle for you to chew on.

My DM rules that if you cast Invisibility on yourself, then cast it on your ally, you and your ally can now see each other because you were made invisible by the same caster and are thus the same "wavelength" of invisibility.

*scratches chin thoughtfully*

Dark Archive

I think it's obvious that an invisible character can see himself and his gear, as if unaffected by invisibility.

1) The spell Invisibility is harmless. It says so. Why would a harmless spell present so many penalties and difficulties? It wouldn't. So it doesn't. It's harmless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spells that can be disbelieved say so in the heading.

They specifically call for a will save. I guess I need to open up a thread on this just to get FAQ's for it can errata'd.

Sczarni

If you really want an RAW answer, here's the best one I've got:

The Invisibility spell doesn't list any penalties or restrictions on what the subject can or can't do while unable to see him or herself. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the subject can see him or herself because it doesn't affect his or her ability to do anything.

For example, it specifically says your gear is invisible. But it doesn't say that it takes longer to retrieve a stowed item, so it doesn't. You can do it just as easily as if you could see it normally (which implies that you can see it normally, or that the spell magically compensates you for it somehow).


And you don't much need to see yourself. If you close your eyes and touch your finger to your nose, you will probably succeed. Try it with a specific toe and you'll probably get pretty damn close. We have a sense (not among the "classic" five) that allows us to know where the parts of out body are in relation to each other.

Shadow Lodge

This was answered by RAW in post 6:

Are wrote:

Actually, I thought about it some more, and came to the conclusion that RAW definitely says you can see yourself.

Invisibility is an illusion (glamer) spell.

Illusion says "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others." and "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."

Since you cast it yourself, you know it isn't real. Thus you can see yourself.

So... Yeah.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I've always run it that you can see yourself, because I think it's cooler that way. Plus, most of the fantasy stories I can think of with invisibility work that way.

The Exchange

At first I thought this was my old thread from 7 months ago. Then I realized that this OP uses "while" and I used "when" in the subject.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o2qw?Can-you-see-yourself-when-invisible#1

there's the thread for where I asked this last May...

conclusion on that thread was that "No, you can't see yourself" - but heck, maybe it's different this coming year.

Liberty's Edge

Applying logic and science to an illogical, unscientific game sometimes ends badly, but here goes.
If invisibility means that light passes through (or around) the invisible character, then that character cannot see himself, or anything else! Vision depends on the interaction between light and the retina. I think H. G. Wells actually addressed this issue in The Invisible Man, leaving the title character's retinas visible. According to RAW, an invisible character is not blind, so I conclude that he can see himself and his gear.

Argument 2:
The wizard who invented the spell about 800 years ago did not publish her results until she had refined the spell to the point that she could see herself while the spell was active.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you see yourself while invisible? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.