It is not always 40 there are modifiers to that DC depending on the situation.
I never said it was. I even said assuming they are not stealthing which is to say "assuming no other modifiers".
Even the wording of higher level divination spells imply that they don't beat invisibility (Arcane Site, Greater Arcane Site, Analyze Dweomer, etc) - I believe all three of them say something along the lines of " ... on a creature or object you can see" which to me implies that you have to be able to see something first to see the the aura on it.
It would be nice to get a FAQ on what can see invisibility and what can't.
Actually they don't imply that. Just like in 3.5 invis has nothing to defeat divination spells.
Arcane Sight and Greater Arcane Sight both reference go back to detect magic. None of them say you have to be able to see a creature to detect the aura coming from it. I can see how the "within your sight" can be confusing, but it does also reference detect magic, which has no such language. Since AS and GAS are both higher forms of detect magic, then they would also work. Also, like I said before, detect magic worked in 3.5, and there has been no changes in the rules that go against that.
Analyze Dweomer is the only one requiring you to see the creature.
The DC to "notice" a creature, and the DC to "locate" a creature are not the same. The flat DC 20 is just to nice someone within 30 feet. The actual stealth modifier is to pinpoint the square the creature is in.
If you wish to pinpoint the square of the invisible creature the DC is 40(assuming they are not stealthing. That is because of the +20 modifier for pinpointing the creature. Remember, then you make a perception check to locate an invisible creature it is to find the square, not to notice them. That is why noticing them is only a flat 20, but to find the square they are in is much more difficult.
I don't quite understand your reasoning here. In the case of a visible creature, the DCs to notice and to locate would be equal, or rather, it would be a DC 0 check to pinpoint someone you can clearly see. Adding invisibility into the mix means that you'd have to rely on senses other than sight, which necessitates the scaling modifiers.
The flat DC 20 is to notice an "active invisible creature", which I take to mean one not trying to remain quiet or still by making Stealth rolls. If a flat DC 20 was all that was ever necessary to notice invisible characters, invisibility would actually become a detriment to mid- or high-level characters, as it would somehow be easier to notice an invisible stealthy man than a simply stealthy one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more PF than PF. Playing PF RAW is the least pure way of being a hobbyist. Gamers create. Nothing in the rules makes me think that the writers know any more about making a game than anyone else. The core rules barely qualify as an outline.You know, it’s all very nice and all that in someones home-ruled game, Detect Magic (since it can be “spammed” ) doesn’t work against Invisibility. Of course, in some folks games, there is no Invisibility. Or spellcasters. And in others, the “Ghostbusters’ style goggle they can buy down at the high tech shop can detect invis, and then they can shoot them with a rail-gun (powered by peasants) . But who gives a rodent’s rear end?
The question here is what the rules say. And the RAW (and the RAI) both say that given certain circumstances, a Detect Magic can show you generally where a Invisible creature is.
Dems the rules. Take your houserules to the Houserules section, where you can also take about you allowing pulse-lasers, Time-lords, and Pokemon critters. May be fun, but it's not Pathfinder.
We know that nobody plays by RAW, but the rules forum is to find out what the intent was. From there we are free to houserule either because we don't agree with the the rule, or because we dont like how it works in our games, but that does not change what the original rule us.
I don't quite understand your reasoning here. In the case of a visible creature, the DCs to notice and to locate would be equal, or rather, it would be a DC 0 check to pinpoint someone you can clearly see. Adding invisibility into the mix means that you'd have to rely on senses other than sight, which necessitates the scaling modifiers.The flat DC 20 is to notice an "active invisible creature", which I take to mean one not trying to remain quiet or still by making Stealth rolls. If a flat DC 20 was all that was ever necessary to notice invisible characters, invisibility would actually become a detriment to mid- or high-level characters, as it would somehow be easier to notice an invisible stealthy man than a simply stealthy one.
My reasoning does not matter. I am just telling you what the 3.5 and Pathfinder rules say. Like I said, there is an article on this made by the 3.5 developers. Personally I dont like the DC 20 to notice rule.
It is a DC 0 to perceive something you can see, and it is a DC 20 to notice(not locate) an invisible creature within 30 feet.
When it comes to a creature using stealth that is not invisible there is no "noticing" in the sense that you know they are in the room. You either pinpoint their location or you do not.
I think the flat 20 DC was put in place more as a balancing feature, than because it makes sense.
PS:In short I agree the rule does not make sense.
edit:made a correction
My reasoning does not matter. I am just telling you what the 3.5 and Pathfinder rules say. Like I said, there is an article on this made by the 3.5 developers. Personally I dont like the DC 20 to notice rule.
It is a DC 0 to nice something you can see, and it is a DC 20 to notice(not locate) an invisible creature within 30 feet.
Could you possibly point me to the article you've mentioned, if it exists online? I'd like to read what they defined as "active" versus "passive" invisible creatures for the purposes of noticing them, since the word has to have some reason for being there.
Could you possibly point me to the article you've mentioned, if it exists online? I'd like to read what they defined as "active" versus "passive" invisible creatures for the purposes of noticing them, since the word has to have some reason for being there.My reasoning does not matter. I am just telling you what the 3.5 and Pathfinder rules say. Like I said, there is an article on this made by the 3.5 developers. Personally I dont like the DC 20 to notice rule.
It is a DC 0 to nice something you can see, and it is a DC 20 to notice(not locate) an invisible creature within 30 feet.
Yes.
Article in questionNote that here is spot DC to "notice" and another one to "locate".
I'll say it: this isn't 3.5. You can certainly graft in 3.5 material, hence the "compatible" part on all the books, but Pathfinder is its own game with its own core book, own FAQs and clarifications. If you want to play a Pathfinder game with 3.5 rules I won't disparage you for that. However, just because it's in 3.5 doesn't mean it automatically applies to the PFRPG. If that were true then the line between core and 3rd party material just got very, very blurry. Since this is the rules forum then we should not be trying to blur those lines. We should be trying to clarify them.
Yes.
Article in questionNote that here is spot DC to "notice" and another one to "locate".
Ah, thanks.
I do note that they define active as "having moved within the last turn", and provide higher DCs for when that's not the case. Seems like something Pathfinder forgot to bring over.
Based on that omission, it seems like you could argue equally well that the DC 20 to notice invisible creatures doesn't apply to someone who hasn't moved recently. However, lacking any alternate DCs, the invisible man would then be completely impossible to notice or locate outside of a DC 40. I'm not honestly sure which is the less reasonable of the two.
I'll say it: this isn't 3.5. You can certainly graft in 3.5 material, hence the "compatible" part on all the books, but Pathfinder is its own game with its own core book, own FAQs and clarifications. If you want to play a Pathfinder game with 3.5 rules I won't disparage you for that. However, just because it's in 3.5 doesn't mean it automatically applies to the PFRPG. If that were true then the line between core and 3rd party material just got very, very blurry. Since this is the rules forum then we should not be trying to blur those lines. We should be trying to clarify them.
You missed my point. I never said anything automatically applies. PF is backwards compatible, and IF the rules have NOT changed that means they are the same.
So until you show me a rules change that means they work the same way, so if you want to say the works differently now then you need to show evidence of said change.
As an example if I work for company A, and they are bought out by company B, and I get a new employee handbook, with the new company's name on it, but the words on pages 100-125 are the same as they were for the old company, that policy has not changed.
edit:However that may not mean the rest of the polices on the other pages has not changed. PF is the same way. They explicitly changed how skills ranks work so that is different. They did not change the fact that a 20 is still an automatic hit so that is still the same.
Would be a good idea for everyone to FAQ the OP. It would be nice to get an official ruling of the PF game.
If nothing automatically applies from 3.5 then that invalidates your statement about things not changing until Paizo publishes something to say it changes. You can't have it both ways.
If the rules are the same as from 3.5, thus automatically applying to any Pathfinder game, then according to what you're saying I should be well within expected behavior to try to use 3.5 feats and other 3.5 material as they haven't been explicitly banned or negated.
This means that not only does every player need to own the CRB but also the 3.5 PHB, PHB2 and so forth. Furthermore this means that Pathfinder is not really its own game but is simply more of a continuation. I highly doubt this would fly for PFS or the vast majority of Pathfinder gaming sessions. The new person coming into Pathfinder has probably 3x the reading to do to really, truly get acquainted with the rules, then, right? Hardly.
Buri I will try this again.
If the words did not change change then the rule is still the same, so in that case it does automatically apply.
Otherwise the rule is different.
Were you arguing semantics or did you not really understand what I was saying?
As for allowing 3.5 feats there is nothing wrong it, but just like in 3.5 you should be careful as to what you allow since not everything that was made for 3.5 was balanced, even for 3.5.
The same even applies to using Pathfinder options in Pathfinder.
The new person coming into Pathfinder has probably 3x the reading to do to really, truly get acquainted with the rules, then, right? Hardly.
As far as this statement the rules in 3.5 were not always clear. That is why the rules of the game article were written, and the pathfinder devs were also 3.5 devs. If they intended for a change to be made I am sure it would have been made. SKR specifically was part of the building process for 3.5.
edit:Otherwise all you have is "well I am sure they forgot....".
So on one hand we have "I don't like these rules".
My stance--> On the other hand we have "The words have not changed". Same words carry the same meaning, and there is not one case where the words did not change, but PF changed the meaning.
Why should this be any different?
Bit of both semantic and misunderstanding apparently. I still think you're wrong. It's simply overly burdensome to expect to push multiple, large books at someone before they actually know the rules. This would only serve to push away new players. The single CRB was a good move by Paizo.
To imply that even after reading it you still really don't know the rules is simply wrong and puts people who haven't played 3.5 at a distinct disadvantage to the point where saying that all unchanged 3.5 rules still apply even though they're not in the CRB anywhere is asinine. If that is true then we'd all need copies of the various handbooks going back to 1st edition, yes? It's a natural conclusion based on your premise.
I don't care what the history of the game system is or the devs, for that matter. For simple sanity sake knowing the CRB is quite sufficient and all-encompassing for playing Pathfinder how it's "meant" to be played.
It's more PF than PF. Playing PF RAW is the least pure way of being a hobbyist. Gamers create. Nothing in the rules makes me think that the writers know any more about making a game than anyone else. The core rules barely qualify as an outline.You know, it’s all very nice and all that in someones home-ruled game, Detect Magic (since it can be “spammed” ) doesn’t work against Invisibility. Of course, in some folks games, there is no Invisibility. Or spellcasters. And in others, the “Ghostbusters’ style goggle they can buy down at the high tech shop can detect invis, and then they can shoot them with a rail-gun (powered by peasants) . But who gives a rodent’s rear end?
The question here is what the rules say. And the RAW (and the RAI) both say that given certain circumstances, a Detect Magic can show you generally where a Invisible creature is.
Dems the rules. Take your houserules to the Houserules section, where you can also take about you allowing pulse-lasers, Time-lords, and Pokemon critters. May be fun, but it's not Pathfinder.
Except that your answers don;t qualify to be here' Rules Questions" since they are simply not by the rules.
A flat DC 20 to notice an invisible creature trying to hide in a room is absurd on the face of it.Why?
They are breathing and taking up space and a 20 is the highest an untrained person with average abilities could successfully achieve.
Then why list a stealth bonus for the scenario that you don't move at double the moving bonus? You can detect that someone is there but have NO idea where? That doesn't make a lot of sense. In the hypothetical of a wizard succeeding on the DC 20 but not the 40+ to cast invisibility purge on the room remove the entire point of being invisible and investing in stealth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be a good idea for everyone to FAQ the OP. It would be nice to get an official ruling of the PF game.
No, it would not be. They already have an "official ruling" it's called the rules. In fact, no one here is trying to deny those are the rules. It's simply that some don;t like the RAW and like their houserules better. Now, that's fine and all, we all play by some sort of houserules.
I am not saying you have to read 3.5.
I am saying that if the devs did not change the words then they intended for them to say the same. It would be silly to expect someone who transferred to Pathfinder to become a mind reader and automatically know the same words no longer mean the same thing.
With that aside I have more specific quote since this topic(detect spells and invis) came up when Pathfinder was being developed.
Howdy everybody,
Concerning Detect Magic, there was a thought floating around that it should take 1 whole minute of concentration before it picked up auras, instead of one round. This might eleviate some of the concerns, as few parties would be willing to wait constantly while the wizard was detecting for magic. It would also prevent the detection of invisible creatures before they struck.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
As you can see they thought about changing the concentration time to one minute, but how the spell works, has not changed.
PS:Due to some words being left out of that made it seem like 3.5 knowledge was assumed. That has come up in the past. Some of it has been errata'd by now, but I do remember having to explain rules in the past that were not as well defined as they were in 3.5. I don't think it was intentional, but it was obvious to them(the devs). However it was not so obvious to many others. As an example the interaction of monk BAB with another class's BAB caused issues, since it was not explained well in the book.
edit:for clarity.
Assuming the person using Detect Magic would stand around for 3 rounds to pinpoint the auras, it seems viable. This isn't the first time Divination beats Illusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All really good guards take a level of Diviner.How many guards are capable of spamming Detect Magic?You wouldn't know it was invisibility. Until the third round. Just that there was a magical effect somewhere in the room.
I'm a guard. The first thing I do is make sure there is no magic in the damn room. So if some idiot thinks being invisible will make them "invisible" I can spot an aura and know "hey, someone's in the room."
Understand?
What, you think magical items just lay around all over the place?
"Hey, Joe, there's some magic aura in here."
"No worries, it's probably just something Merlin dropped."
"Yeah, he's always dropping magic stuff all over the place."
"Really annoying. Makes me keep thinking there's someone invisible in the dang room."
Expensive guards. 25g a pop. Every room. Every time they enter. Or more: every three rounds. Or every round, just to be sure they don't have magic aura on too. In addition to their paid wage for being a skilled laborer for all the ranks they have in spell craft to know about such magic in the first place. Man, I should be a first level diviner guard. For, like, a day. Then quit.
10 rounds a minute.
60 minutes an hour.
24 hours in a day.
That's 14,400 rounds a day.
14400*25 = 36,000 gold per day of work.
I mean, sure, that's not enough to buy me everything, but if I've got prestidigitation at will, and I buy a ring of sustenance with constant feather fall and endure elements, what more could a guy want? Retirement central, baby.
Or, if I was really ambitious to go for 1 million gold, I'd need to work for...
1,000,000/36,000 = 1,000/36 = about thirty.
Since I can't go 24/7 for a month straight (well, I could, there's nothing stopping me by the rules), let's say I only work 12 hours a day. Okay, so, now I work for two months, and end up with 1 million gold! As a first level diviner!
Srsly, guys, the rules suck, I broke them for you just now! Everyone's going to just play 1st lvl diviners now, they're so OP...
(No, but seriously, detect magic sucks at catching invisible people. A simple permanent Alarm spell would work much better, over all, especially if paired with a magic aura spell.)
|
Then why list a stealth bonus for the scenario that you don't move at double the moving bonus? You can detect that someone is there but have NO idea where? That doesn't make a lot of sense. In the hypothetical of a wizard succeeding on the DC 20 but not the 40+ to cast invisibility purge on the room remove the entire point of being invisible and investing in stealth.A flat DC 20 to notice an invisible creature trying to hide in a room is absurd on the face of it.Why?
They are breathing and taking up space and a 20 is the highest an untrained person with average abilities could successfully achieve.
Yes it does make sense. I hear someone breathing, I heard someone move, I smell someone (and possibly hear if they pass gas...).
There are 5 senses. You have removed one.
Even with hearing, unless it is a particularly echoey room, you get a general idea of direction yet the "just to notice" check doesn't grant that. This is why it doesn't make sense. The same with smell. You can generally detect which places have stronger scents than others even in the same room. It sounds like they had an idea but only implemented half of it. Thus, it feels off.
|
Since the RAW and RAI are well defined and no one is arguing them this debate is clearly about opinion and not rules. That makes me curious what perspectives encourage what opinions. Do those of you who think a DC 20 perception check is too low to notice an active invisible creature often play characters that take advantage of invisibility? Is this rule something that threatens your characters directly?
For my own point of view, I never play characters that regularly turn invisible. This rule isn't something I often have to contend with regularly. I also have no problem with the DC 20.
What are your backgrounds in relation to this rule?
Tam
The DC 20 to simply detect their presence is counter to the illusion school description. You're telling someone else's mind: hey, I'm not here. So, they don't see you. They pay no mind to you to even look unless you do something stupid like bump into a piece of furniture or something. There is already a boon given for detecting moving invisible creatures which is half the bonus to stealth.
Myself have played characters that go invisible. I'm not playing one now and haven't in more than a few months. As I said, it simply feels off as is. So you can detect their presence but have absolutely no idea where? So you go about your search while the invisible creature can move on its own turn and is probably either evading you or simply leaves the room while you search like a crazy person for something that very well may not be there now.
The game provides a multitude of ways to detect invisible creatures including constant sensory abilities that make it simply useless. The DC 20 really does nothing in and of itself except quite likely making people paranoid. If done entirely as RP and not metagame then even after a few successes the character that's doing the detecting will simply start ignoring the feeling and might seek some sort of counseling/healing if they slip into deep paranoia. Then, they might actually get something meant to reveal invisible creatures. It's not like the DC 20 reveals "hey, there's an invisible creature in the room." That's too much info. All you know is that you get a feeling like there's another presence in the room. That's all I'd give my players were I GMing this, anyway.
The DC 20 does not say it is needed to detect "an invisible creature". It says it is needed to detect "an active invisible creature." If it was meaning ANY invisible creature it would not need the adjective "active".
Now "active" is open to interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assume it means an invisible creature that is moving around normally. An invisible creature attempting to hide and sneak is not "active".
|
|
The DC 20 does not say it is needed to detect "an invisible creature". It says it is needed to detect "an active invisible creature." If it was meaning ANY invisible creature it would not need the adjective "active".
Now "active" is open to interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assume it means an invisible creature that is moving around normally. An invisible creature attempting to hide and sneak is not "active".
And I think the activity is the indicator that you are using senses other than sight.
If there were an invisible statue or wall, it would give very few clues for other senses (until you literally touch it) for example.
Most characters using invisibility have a good chance of having some other magic item or effect on them as well, which will also give off auras. Are those that want to nerf Detect Magic from actually detecting magic in the case of Invisibility, going to have it function as Magic Aura as well? Otherwise this will usually be a moot point. And speaking of Magic Aura, isn't that the obvious counter to stop Detect Magic spammers if that is what all the concern is about?
The DC 20 does not say it is needed to detect "an invisible creature". It says it is needed to detect "an active invisible creature." If it was meaning ANY invisible creature it would not need the adjective "active".
Now "active" is open to interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assume it means an invisible creature that is moving around normally. An invisible creature attempting to hide and sneak is not "active".
And I think the activity is the indicator that you are using senses other than sight.
If there were an invisible statue or wall, it would give very few clues for other senses (until you literally touch it) for example.
The adjective is on the TARGET, not the OBSERVER ciretose. Your interpretation here makes no sense the way the actual rule is parsed.
As for me, I'll just read the rule using the definition of the word "active" which is: "Engaging or ready to engage in physically energetic pursuits". (italicized key portion for clarity.)
|
|
The rules are as follow, and say exactly what I just said.
"The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."
The active only applies within 30 feet, because you get a free check at that point.
"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."
Yeah, there's that "active invisible creature" again. As opposed to, you know, just your standard, run-of-the-mill "invisible creature".
The word "active" matters ciretose. It's part of the RAW. It has meaning. It means "engaged in physically energetic pursuits".
You can choose to simply IGNORE the word, but then why not ignore the word "invisible" instead and have it just read "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active creature within 30 feet..."
That reading is literally exactly as logical as your reading. There are two adjectives for "creature". You choose to ignore the first one. Why not ignore the second?
|
|
The active is what triggers the free check within 30 feet. If the invisible creature is active withing 30 feet
"The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."
and gets a perception check.
I'm not ignoring the word, you are overlooking the context. Which is why I posted the link.
You are misinterpreting the context. Your interpretation is exactly the same as if the word "active" is not present in the rule. If your interpretation is correct, the word "active" is meaningless.
|
|
No active is what triggers the perception check.
If the Observer gets within 30 feet of an active invisible creature, they get a DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature is nearby. If they get a 40 Perception check, they can even pin point it.
If the thing isn't "Active", as in an invisible object, they aren't doing anything (Sound, smell, etc...) that would trigger the perception check.
No active is what triggers the perception check.
If the Observer gets within 30 feet of an active invisible creature, they get a DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature is nearby. If they get a 40 Perception check, they can even pin point it.
If the thing isn't "Active", as in an invisible object, they aren't doing anything (Sound, smell, etc...) that would trigger the perception check.
Or, you know, sitting quietly, standing still in a corner, or other "non-active" things a creature can do.
|
|
Or, you know, sitting quietly, standing still in a corner, or other "non-active" things a creature can do.No active is what triggers the perception check.
If the Observer gets within 30 feet of an active invisible creature, they get a DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature is nearby. If they get a 40 Perception check, they can even pin point it.
If the thing isn't "Active", as in an invisible object, they aren't doing anything (Sound, smell, etc...) that would trigger the perception check.
Your trying to change the topic because you now realize I was right and it was about the observer...
You tried to call me out, not the other way around, sir.
EDIT: Also not moving is on the chart.
The DC 20 to simply detect their presence is counter to the illusion school description. You're telling someone else's mind: hey, I'm not here. So, they don't see you. They pay no mind to you to even look unless you do something stupid like bump into a piece of furniture or something. There is already a boon given for detecting moving invisible creatures which is half the bonus to stealth.
Myself have played characters that go invisible. I'm not playing one now and haven't in more than a few months. As I said, it simply feels off as is. So you can detect their presence but have absolutely no idea where? So you go about your search while the invisible creature can move on its own turn and is probably either evading you or simply leaves the room while you search like a crazy person for something that very well may not be there now.
The game provides a multitude of ways to detect invisible creatures including constant sensory abilities that make it simply useless. The DC 20 really does nothing in and of itself except quite likely making people paranoid. If done entirely as RP and not metagame then even after a few successes the character that's doing the detecting will simply start ignoring the feeling and might seek some sort of counseling/healing if they slip into deep paranoia. Then, they might actually get something meant to reveal invisible creatures. It's not like the DC 20 reveals "hey, there's an invisible creature in the room." That's too much info. All you know is that you get a feeling like there's another presence in the room. That's all I'd give my players were I GMing this, anyway.
Glamers are not mind-affecint illusions so they are not telling the mind anything.
The DC 20 DOES reveal that an invisible creature is in the room. I am not saying it makes sense, but that is what it does.
Or, you know, sitting quietly, standing still in a corner, or other "non-active" things a creature can do.No active is what triggers the perception check.
If the Observer gets within 30 feet of an active invisible creature, they get a DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature is nearby. If they get a 40 Perception check, they can even pin point it.
If the thing isn't "Active", as in an invisible object, they aren't doing anything (Sound, smell, etc...) that would trigger the perception check.
Your trying to change the topic because you now realize I was right and it was about the observer...
You tried to call me out, not the other way around, sir.
I don't even understand your point. It's STILL about the target ciretose. The TARGET is an inactive creature, not an active one.
If I WAS calling you out, then I still am. You have not in any way advanced your argument with this.
No active is what triggers the perception check.
If the Observer gets within 30 feet of an active invisible creature, they get a DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature is nearby. If they get a 40 Perception check, they can even pin point it.
If the thing isn't "Active", as in an invisible object, they aren't doing anything (Sound, smell, etc...) that would trigger the perception check.
In the 3.5 article that wraithstrike linked earlier, "active creature" is defined as "has moved (that is, gone from one place on the battlefield to another) during its last turn". Pathfinder may lack exact rules like those, but there's at least one existing interpretation that differs from what you're describing.
|
|
Or, you know, sitting quietly, standing still in a corner, or other "non-active" things a creature can do.No active is what triggers the perception check.
If the Observer gets within 30 feet of an active invisible creature, they get a DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature is nearby. If they get a 40 Perception check, they can even pin point it.
If the thing isn't "Active", as in an invisible object, they aren't doing anything (Sound, smell, etc...) that would trigger the perception check.
Your trying to change the topic because you now realize I was right and it was about the observer...
You tried to call me out, not the other way around, sir.
I don't even understand your point. It's STILL about the target ciretose. The TARGET is an inactive creature, not an active one.
If I WAS calling you out, then I still am. You have not in any way advanced your argument with this.
Read the links.
1. The paragraph I provided is about when the observer gets a "hunch" to notice an invisible creature. It is about the observers check, not the target.
2. There is a modifier for being still and being stealthy (as well as for moving, etc...)
3. "Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters."
In other words, the very act of being a creature makes you active.
What are you trying to accomplish?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the 3.5 article that wraithstrike linked earlier, "active creature" is defined as "has moved (that is, gone from one place on the battlefield to another) during its last turn". Pathfinder may lack exact rules like those, but there's at least one existing interpretation that differs from what you're describing.No active is what triggers the perception check.
If the Observer gets within 30 feet of an active invisible creature, they get a DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature is nearby. If they get a 40 Perception check, they can even pin point it.
If the thing isn't "Active", as in an invisible object, they aren't doing anything (Sound, smell, etc...) that would trigger the perception check.
And in that instance, in 3.5 it would then be a DC 30 check rather than a DC 20 check because the creature gets a +10 modifier for standing still.
And not moving is covered in Pathfinder, in the I linked above. If not moving made them inactive, why would it be a modifier in the chart?
Fifth modifer
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
And not moving is covered in Pathfinder, in the I linked above. If not moving made them inactive, why would it be a modifier in the chart?
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
So, in that case, the DC to notice an invisible creature which hasn't moved in the last six seconds would be 40, dropping to 20 if it moves less than half speed, 15 at half speed, and 10 at full speed, correct?
|
|
So, in that case, the DC to notice an invisible creature which hasn't moved in the last six seconds would be 40, dropping to 20 if it moves less than half speed, 15 at half speed, and 10 at full speed, correct?And not moving is covered in Pathfinder, in the I linked above. If not moving made them inactive, why would it be a modifier in the chart?
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
That matches up to the numbers under the invisibility spell, (+40 on stealth if not moving) although the language is a bit confusing with the last sentence in the paragraph, and the fact that it would almost never be a DC 20 check since if you are moving it would be more and if you aren't it would be less. That might be an error or something that needs clarification.
Either way, the active has nothing to do with moving anymore, since not moving is a modifier on the chart. Not moving does not make you not active anymore. So if you are within 30 feet of a creature that is invisible, you get a check.
Edit: It would actually be base 20 (which never really happens as if you are not moving it is +20, moving half is 15, moving full 10)
Unless they intended +20 to be not moving, but that doesn't jive with the plus 40 for the spell.
Seems to me it could use some clean up.
See Invisible, Glitterdust, and True Seeing (I believe) all negate all aspects of Invisibility and Greater Invisibility - including the 50% miss chance.
Personally, I don't see it as overpowered. It's numerous rounds of concentration to identify the exact square, still leaves a 50% miss chance, and can be overcome simply by moving (stealthily) to another square out of the cone.
More than that, before I would let a caster use Detect Magic in this fashion he'd need to have a reason to do so - which would be a high-DC Perception check.
I don't see anything in Glitterdust to indicate that it negates the 50% miss chance. I do, however, see a -40 penalty to stealth.
Being invisible gives you total concealment and a 50% miss chance.
Glitterdust makes an invisible creature/object visible by "visibly outlining invisible things."
If you are no longer invisible then you no longer have a 50% miss chance.
There is one big caveat to the detect magic spell that often get overlooked: false-positives. Everything magical is going to register, not just what you're looking for. If there is so much as a "light" spell or a piece of magical ammunition in your field of view then you're getting a positive feedback on the presence of magic. A very astute player might be able to deduce something from this information, but the fact remains that there are a lot of situations where the first two rounds of detect magic are functionally useless. All the GM needs to do is stick a continual flame spell on the walls at 60 foot intervals and spell is pretty heavily neutered.
That's not to say that detect magic can't be used to find invisible creatures, or that it isn't very powerful for a cantrip (it is), but it's hardly a catch-all counter.