Detect Magic Vs. Invisibility


Rules Questions

101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

ciretose wrote:
In other words, the very act of being a creature makes you active.

That's completely counter to the definition of active.

There was already a clarification of this rule from 3.5 linked earlier. Didn't the same devs work on PF as 3.5? If they wanted to change it they wouldn't have copied the same wording.

This seems settled to me.

Edit: "being" isn't an act either, it's a state.


Dasrak wrote:

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.

This is an excellent point. Even an ongoing spell or another character with a magical item can interfere with the spell. All the spell tells you is that there is a magical aura in that 60' cone, so a bless spell will interfere with it.

Heck, even if we go with AD's guard example, we can find ways to counter it. Cast a weak spell on a pebble and give the guards a false trail while you sneak in. Of course, that will still give them the knowledge that someone is near, so it might not satisfy AD. How about this: hire some kids to throw the pebbles near the guards on a daily basis for a week or so. At first, the guards will be vigilant and find the kids responsible, but they will soon (after a week or so) become complacent (thinking it's just some kids playing pranks). Now you can use that complacency to get past them even with a magical aura, and they won't know you're there until it's way too late. But what if you're in an area where there are few (if any) children? Cast the spell on bits of string, and attach the string to small animals in the area. Keep the guards guessing and busy chasing rats or cats while you sneak in to steal from the treasury.

Heck, just cast vanish or invisibility on a couple of cats and let them loose near the guards. Sure, they might detect your illusion spells, but they'll also see several other illusion spells moving about, and they'll have to choose which one to focus on (for three rounds).


Just carry a thin sheet of lead.

Liberty's Edge

Paulicus wrote:
ciretose wrote:
In other words, the very act of being a creature makes you active.

That's completely counter to the definition of active.

There was already a clarification of this rule from 3.5 linked earlier. Didn't the same devs work on PF as 3.5? If they wanted to change it they wouldn't have copied the same wording.

This seems settled to me.

Edit: "being" isn't an act either, it's a state.

Except the current pathfinder rule shows that not moving is a state where you are still active, which I link to, and posted.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Just carry a thin sheet of lead.

After this thread, I was trying to conceive of some ridiculous way that a rogue could construct a suit of lead armor, but alas, an invisible suit of lead armor could have its magic detected without having to pass through the material.

I run invisibility versus detect magic by the book -- many people seem to have big conceptual problems with that, but I don't.

In a straight-up combat sense, even when you know that a creature is there, it takes a round of (Standard action) concentration for a character to detect magic; to determine the highest strength aura; and finally, to pinpoint the square of a Faint Illusion spell. All creatures still have miss chance against the square and can't target some spell effects at all, and if the spotter uses a Standard action to attack the target then it's no longer able to spot for the others without repeating the process. Even if an invisible creature that doesn't move can have its square pinpointed after three rounds by an enemy that can't effectively join the combat, it still gains the defensive benefits of invisibility against other combats and I think that's a great benefit from a spell.

Still, I acknowledge that one of the best parts of Stealth is preventing creatures from even knowing anything is there at all, and while detect magic may seem to ruin that, I don't find any problem with it detecting invisibility for that reason either.

The situation required for invisibility to constantly ruin Stealth seems really contrived to me. For it to be considered a chronic problem, I feel it requires not only that a stealth character be poorly-built and poorly-run, but also that the GM introduce a specific set of circumstances, and then re-introduce it to constantly nullify the character's abilities. And, well, that's not a system problem. That's a GM problem, like one that throws nothing but Hobgoblins against a ranger with Favored Enemy (Human) or Oozes against an Enchanter. Fire Immunity, Mindless, true seeing, Damage Reduction and Incorporeal traits can all make players' days hard -- but they're fair rules that make certain creatures more effective against certain others. If anything, it's GM abuse that has the potential to make it unfair and un-fun.

Regarding the circumstances -- the dungeons of my games aren't filled to the brim with first-level spellcaster guards that swarm through a dungeon constantly using detect magic on every room without deviation. Even if they did, they'd probably fall into predictable search patterns, or they'd get lazy and take a break every once in a while. Nor have I seen this behavior in any adventure paths or modules that I've come across.

Even when that is the case -- and I'm of the opinion that it usually should not be, unless you've already gotten your cover blown -- then there are a variety of methods to pursue and weaknesses to exploit that can keep you safe from detect magic when you have invisibility.

Detect magic has its limitations. It doesn't penetrate many walls or doors; it's a directed Cone; it's slow; and it detects all magic.

Assuming the 'stone walls dungeon' setting, this means that a creature generally has to enter the same room as an invisible creature to try to detect it -- if line of effect is blocked (such as a detective scanning through a doorway, when the hidden creature is just around the corner) then nothing will be perceived. Meanwhile, many hidden creatures will hear the detective as they patrol the dungeon, which may give them the time necessary to react such as moving into another room, moving into a position where they can slip past the doorway, hiding behind an object, Readying an action or activating a magical effect.

At that, ambient magical effects will automatically 'waste' the first round of detect magic. I've been through several dungeons that had ambient magical effects, some of which even risked blinding you from the power of their auras. Even now, I'm about to run a game session where the dungeon is peppered with continual flame sconces -- the second or third such location in this adventure path. In those cases, the presence of a magical aura on the first round tells you nothing useful or suspicious, and this only furthers the ability of a hidden creature to improve its hiding place or to slip past the detective or out of another exit.

Fast Stealth is especially useful in that situation, one of few advantages rogues have that other classes do not. Other classes are really only able to replicate it well by doubling their move speeds, which usually doesn't come so fast and cheap, and rogues may have equal access to those effects as well.

Honestly, the most threatening thing in the average dungeon to a rogue is a trap, perhaps with a detect magic trigger. Which really just emphasizes the usefulness of characters that can disable magical traps.

If a stealth character constantly has trouble being detected while invisible, then they should consider gaining access to a nondetection, mind blank or similar effect. Some times gaining one ability doesn't solve all your problems for you; sometimes you have to invest as much into your skills as you want to get out of them.

tl;dr - Good GMs often give stealthy players opportunities to gather information and observe the enemy. Good players learn to take advantage of these opportunities and make plans. Good GMs build dungeons to be fun to explore and give their players opportunities to use their strengths, rather than repeatedly designing situations that take their strengths away. Good players build their characters to be able to deal with obstacles, rather than building them for exactly one thing and then demanding that the world change to suit their character. Good players learn to identify areas that they fail repeatedly at, and find new ways of reacting to them that are more likely to succeed.


Dasrak wrote:

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.

It also means that in any party above level 4 or so, the wizard has to be in front. Otherwise they will be getting false positives off of the other party members.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Detect Magic would require three rounds of concentration on an area. That's basically three standard actions and you have to be looking at the same area. Detect Magic doesn't let you "see" magic either. You just have a feeling about it. That would fall over Arcane Sight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Buri wrote:

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.

Actually you are quite wrong there. Invisiblity is a glamor, it changes YOU and does not effect someone elses mind.

PRD wrote:
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.

With invisibility the subject is the person targeted by the spell, thus the one invisibile.


And so I was.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Invisibility sucks. I'd totally win.


Yep, invisibility is not a Mind-affecting spell. It works just fine against zombies because it makes you invisible rather than tricking creatures into thinking you're invisible.

I actually like that mechanic better, since it leads to fewer questions of "So he pretends I'm not there? What if I stand right in front of the painting? What if I stand in the doorway?"

We had a lot of house-ruling and arbitration in World of Darkness games for that reason.


It doesn't have the mind-affecting descriptor. However, illusions are described as tricking the senses. So, it is in actuality, but it doesn't gain any mechanical immunities and so forth as it doesn't have that descriptor. However, with it being a glamer, instead of tricking your mind to think I'm not there I simply look as if I'm not there. Depending on your take on invisibility it's the same thing.


It approaches a really semantic direction. As long as everybody is clear that mindless zombies and electronic video-recorders don't see you . . .

Obviously you're fooling the senses of physics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, there seems to be a recurring idea that because Detect Magic is a 0 level spell that can (poorly and only partially) counter invisibility, which is two levels higher, that makes it unfair or unbalanced. But there are examples of other lower level spells being a counter or potential barrier to higher level ones. For example some spells related to the detecting and invisibility:
See Invisibility (3rd level) counters(completely) Greater Invisibility (4th level).
Magic Aura (1st level) counters (completely) Arcane Sight (3rd level).
Would people have these nerfed as well?
And am I missing something or why are characters who have access to Invisibility which is 2nd level, not also using Magic Aura which is 1st level (and lasts for a day per level) to hide their aura? This seems like an easy fix, if worried about Detect Magic or Arcane Sight.


That is EXACTLY what I was going for! So you wear a suit of lead armor, cast invisibility, then then magic aura on the armor.

Detect magic doesn't register the armor because of magic aura, and detect magic doesn't detect you because you're concealed by a thin sheet~ of lead.

It was nondetection that was tripping me up.

So what do you think the stats of this would need to be? Lead Full Platemail, as platemail, AC lowered by 2, max Dex lowered by 2, an extra -6 armor check penalty, weight increases by +50%? Hahahah.


Why would you even need the lead armor?


Because although nondetection could protect you from detect spells, it can be broken with a successful caster level check when using detect magic.

Detect magic cannot pass through a thin sheet of lead, which would allow you to be invisible while fully encapsulated in lead and safe from detection (no check necessary).

However, if you're wearing invisible lead, then detect magic doesn't have to pass through the lead -- it just has to hit the surface of the lead to inform the user that magic is present. In short, you're safe from detection but your armor is not.

So magic aura finishes off our defensive trick. Invisibility gives you concealment (and a stealth bonus) wherever you go, the armor protects the invisibility from detection, and the magic aura protects the lead armor from detection.


Dang! Magic aura affects an object weighing up to 5 lbs per caster level. Brief research indicates that lead may weigh an extra half the weight of an equal volume of rolled steel, so if you make full plate out of lead, it may very well be around 75 pounds, which would require a CL 15 magic aura to cover.

Open to correction on relative weights. I didn't do any more than a quick google search.


Just don't lick your armor!

Just one other voice to add to conversation... I understand this isn't a rule book source, but I was just reading Pirate's Honor and during a battle at the end a character does exactly this. She uses detect magic to locate an invisible creature. It's not cannon, but the fact that it is published by Paizo and got through editing could indicate that the company also agrees that this usage is a valid RAW interpretation. Interesting enough, the context of the use was that it was done out of desperation, and took the main spell caster out of combat for a decent amount of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In terms of using lead, there's an easier way to go about it. Since detect magic is a cone, you don't need to surround yourself with lead, you just need to put a lead barrier between yourself and the caster. This can be accomplished by using a tower shield with a thin sheet of lead attached to the outside. If you then use the tower shield to provide total cover, the only thing that can be detected is the invisible sheet of lead, which can have magic aura cast on it. You don't need to cast it on the whole shield, which will be behind the lead anyway, so a third level caster (lowest that can cast invisibility) should have no problem with the task.
Sure, the armor check penalty can be obnoxious, but you can stay out of 30 ft. range if possible. And if the shield is darkwood and masterwork, you can move by at less than half speed with a +8 bonus on your Stealth check (more depending on distance). If the casting is at regular intervals, like every other turn or something, you can stand still behind the shield while the spell is being cast, then loop the shield over your back and sneak forward when it is not.
And if worst comes to worst and the spamming guard gets a hunch that something's there, what is his first response going to be? Cast detect magic, of course!


It takes three rounds using detect magic to determine the location of an aura. Most likely the imp has moved by then. Using detect magic in this way would prove almost impossible against any intelligent creature. Especially a creature like the imp, who has spell craft and arcane knowledge. Not only would the creature move out of the effect of that spell, it would likely target said spell caster first.

So round one, you detect the presence of magic. Round two, the presence of magic has moved and is no longer detectable. Round three you re-direct the detect magic and find its presence again. Round four, the presence of magic has moved and is no longer detectable. Rinse and repeat.


wraithstrike wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Banecrow, please explain to me what an "active invisible creature" means. Because if I'm trying to hide from you, even while invisible, I'm going to be as "inactive" as I can possibly be.

It does not say you can notice the presence of "an invisible creature in the room". It says an "active invisible creature within 30 feet."

Thus the DC 20 does not necessarily apply. If I am deliberately trying to hide from you, then you need to make a perception check against my stealth. And that's when the +20 to the DC applies.

Fair enough. It does not say in the room, but the flat DC still applies if you are within 30 feet. It does not say you can only use it within 30 feet, if........

edit:and like I like the flat DC only lets you know someone invisible it is there. The +20 mod is to find the square they are in.

Bold from me.

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.

Aside from the whole thing be horribly imprecise it specifically says it see it or target it accurately with an attack.
Therefore at most you a a feeling that somethings not right. If you start slamming off Glitterdust or Detect Magics (both attack spells in this circumstance) then the most any GM should allow you is a random chance, based on how much area there is within 30', to actually catch the invisible creature.

The problem isn't per se with the RAW rules but with the fact that much like the OooTs characters in a dungeon who stop suddenly and say "we're in trouble. I just made a perception check and I can't see anything".

So unless the GM is going to make a regular issue of having nothing in particular trigger "something doesn't feel right" then they need to make the information from that DC 20 perception ck (a 5+ roll on at least one PC in any 10th level parties) as unclear as possible and completely unusable for targeting purposes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't contribute to thread necromancy, don't contribute to thread necromancy, don't contribute to thread necromancyHAY GUIZE I GOT AN OPINION!

dammit

No need for me to repeat the freewheeling arguments about game balance (I think it's a fine workaround, maybe you don't, argument's been had). But here's my take on a role-play-not-roll-play level. Any illusion is an illusion, it is a trick that fools the senses of the mark.

Be you a stage magician of no arcane talent or the most powerful wizard on earth, your illusions and tricks are misdirection, misconception, and manipulation. When you create the illusion of an orc warrior but forget to make its reflection in a nearby puddle, people will see through it. If you render yourself invisible on the visible spectrum but fail to silence your clacking footsteps you will be discovered. If you cover yourself with an illusory wall but fail to suppress the magical aura of your illusion it can be detected.

There was a recent story I read where a demonic poison was disguised with illusion, and only the wizard's failure to also disguise the reflection of the poison saved the intended victim from a messy and corrupted death. I thought that was a good plot device, YMMV.

It is not unreasonable to say that at some level suppressing the aura should simply be part of the spell, but it is also not unreasonable to say that maybe such a spell is less effective than its regular counterparts of the same level, maybe "null-magic invisibility" is a 3rd level spell instead of a 2nd level one.


In response to Stephen's post, neither detect magic nor glitterdust is a targeted attack. If you thought you heard something or get a feeling that you're not alone, especially if you're supposed to be guarding an area, it might be perfectly reasonable to highlight everything within ten feet of you or check for magic auras within a quarter of your field of vision. Just because you can't target them doesn't mean the spells don't work on them if they happen to be in the area.

That said, I don't think detect magic is a game problem, because there are ways around it, people aren't going to be using it all the time, and it only takes away one aspect of invisibility's usefulness. The fact that invisibility isn't foolproof unless you're careful gives players an incentive to think up clever ways to avoid dangerous situations instead of just spamming a second level spell on the party rogue whenever finesse is needed. Unless, of course, the GM abuses it, in which case it is broken. Same with everything else in the pathfinder system.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The FAQ tag reads "answered in errata", but I'm not able to find anything in the spell ruling or the FAQ. Can someone give me a link to the answer...?


I believe you should be able to detect the presence of the invisibility spell with detect magic. If the subject doesn’t move for three rounds you would be able to discern its location. You would still have the 50% miss chance. I just don’t see anything standing still long enough to allow you to discern its location.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Invisibility is a Glamer spell. There is no mind affecting component preventing you from seing the creature it is merely a visual element that hides the creature from normal sight.

The spell however is still in place, emitting an aura of the illusion school. Thereby it is detected by a Detect magic spell. Without this element of Detect magic many magical traps could be avoided by invisible adventurers, enemies without access to high level invisibility countering spells would be defenseless against anyone using greater invisibility (even moreso than usual) and most encounters could be picked apart or avoided completely.

Please note that Using detect magic will by no means negate the complete benefit of invisibility.
An invisible creature pinpointed by Detect invisibily still has 50% concealment and +2 ac against any attackers who rely on the cantrip to detect him and he is immune to attacks of opportunity. Furthermore if the detecting creature takes any action other then concentrating the exact location is lost. Additionally the invisible creature cannot be targeted by most spells, because there is still no legal target for them to apply the spell too. You cannot, for example, target a creature seen via detect magic with Magic missile, because magic missile requires a target creature, even if you know where the creature is you still do not see it.


tsuruki wrote:

Invisibility is a Glamer spell. There is no mind affecting component preventing you from seing the creature it is merely a visual element that hides the creature from normal sight.

The spell however is still in place, emitting an aura of the illusion school. Thereby it is detected by a Detect magic spell. Without this element of Detect magic many magical traps could be avoided by invisible adventurers, enemies without access to high level invisibility countering spells would be defenseless against anyone using greater invisibility (even moreso than usual) and most encounters could be picked apart or avoided completely.

Please note that Using detect magic will by no means negate the complete benefit of invisibility.
An invisible creature pinpointed by Detect invisibily still has 50% concealment and +2 ac against any attackers who rely on the cantrip to detect him and he is immune to attacks of opportunity. Furthermore if the detecting creature takes any action other then concentrating the exact location is lost. Additionally the invisible creature cannot be targeted by most spells, because there is still no legal target for them to apply the spell too. You cannot, for example, target a creature seen via detect magic with Magic missile, because magic missile requires a target creature, even if you know where the creature is you still do not see it.

+1 I agree with this 100%


Kudaku wrote:
The FAQ tag reads "answered in errata", but I'm not able to find anything in the spell ruling or the FAQ. Can someone give me a link to the answer...?

Some questions say that when they have not been answered and the illusion line of spells have no protection from detect magic or spellcraft. Some people dont like it, but that is how it is. One problem is that people forget it would take 3 rounds for detect magic to find the invisible creature's square. Another one is that they also assume it lets you know there is an invisible creature there. All you do is pinpoint the aura. It could be an invisible creature, invisible object, or another illusion spell. Spells also leave auras after they are gone, so you could be looking at the aura of a spell effect that was there. Basically there is no invis vs detect magic because detect magic does not automatically let you know that something invisible is there, nor does give away the location instantly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
The FAQ tag reads "answered in errata", but I'm not able to find anything in the spell ruling or the FAQ. Can someone give me a link to the answer...?

There is actually a clear RAW answer on this already in the books.

PRD - Mythic Invisibility wrote:


The invisible target can't be detected with detect magic or other spells that detect magic auras. The invisibility can't be penetrated, revealed, or dispelled by spells of 2nd level or lower (such as see invisibility or glitterdust), though true seeing and dust of appearance can reveal the invisible target's presence.

Want to be non-detectable to DM? Use the mythic version. The converse then is that the non-mythic version leaves you vulnerable to aura detecting spells.


I have returned form the dead to take over the worl- oh, holy craaaaaap! *its head rolls off the side of the screen*


Something I realised last night as I was falling asleep.

The Raw says that if you are within 30' of an active invisible person you can detect their general presence with a DC 20 Perception check.

If a person hiding counts as "active" then for a person with a good stealh roll it is harder to hide if you are invisible than if you are aren't.

The standard person hiding merely has to make a better Stealth check than the person perceiving does a Perception check.

The invisible person hiding will be detected as "present" regardless of their Stealth check result so long as the spotter makes a DC 20 Perception check "I know you hiding in here somewhere".

Does this suggest to other people that there is something wrong with the way people want to use the "make a DC 20 Perception check to know their is an Invisible person within 30'"?


I think that statement is there to keep invis under control because otherwise you get +20's and +40's to to stealth checks, which can be really high before invis comes into play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think Invisibility Stealth would've worked better if they had just said something like "you make take a 15 (20?) on your stealth check when invisible and can hide in plain sight unless the invisibility is nulified by some effect.
All the concealment works as per standard.

After all when hiding been invisble is really nice but in truth you can still be heard, things you touch still move and are affected by you. It shouldn't be the all powering stealth art relatively close quarters that it is without magic. But it does make stealth a lot easier if you only have to worry about sound and things you touch moving/been affected. You don't have to worry about your actual line of sight.

Personal;ly as a GM having read some of the earlier threads I told my players that you can get the 1st 2 rounds of effects from Detect abilities on Invisble creatures, but you don't get the 3rd round. Because that requires seeing the aura clearly , which you can't because it's invisible. You are only detecting the side effects.


Can you use detect magic to find an invisible creature? Yes.

Can you use detect magic to pinpoint the creatures square, assuming the creature remains still. Yes.

Can you use detect magic to negate any of the negatives/buffs you and the creature get for being invisible? No.

I use the same trick when I vs evil guys with my paladin. Detect evil lets me know they are around, and depending how I use it, even pinpoint where they are...it doesn't negate the bonuses they get for being invisible though, so if I were to attack the square I would still have to roll miss chance and stuff. This is where things like glitter dust comes in handy. :P


In the section you are referring to, it says it takes a DC 20 Perception check to notice an invisible creature. It then says that the DC is increased by 20 if you're trying to pinpoint it. At the end of that same paragraph, it says, "There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC...", this DC still referring to the only DC given, the DC 20 for noticing. This is then followed by a table of modifiers. If the creature is using Stealth, they Perception DC is "Stealth check +20." There is an additional +20 bonus if they are not moving.

So a creature with a +15 Stealth bonus and who rolls a 15 on their Stealth check:
normally a Perception DC 30 to see (and thus pinpoint) them
if invisible, Perception DC 50 just to notice "something's there"
if invisible and not moving, or if being pinpointed, Perception DC 70
if invisible, not moving, and being pinpointed, Perception DC 90
and anyone who attacks them still gets a 50% miss chance no matter what
and they can just move again to be not pinpointed any more

In other words, invisibility is cool.


Avoron wrote:

In the section you are referring to, it says it takes a DC 20 Perception check to notice an invisible creature. It then says that the DC is increased by 20 if you're trying to pinpoint it. At the end of that same paragraph, it says, "There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC...", this DC still referring to the only DC given, the DC 20 for noticing. This is then followed by a table of modifiers. If the creature is using Stealth, they Perception DC is "Stealth check +20." There is an additional +20 bonus if they are not moving.

So a creature with a +15 Stealth bonus and who rolls a 15 on their Stealth check:
normally a Perception DC 30 to see (and thus pinpoint) them
if invisible, Perception DC 50 just to notice "something's there"
if invisible and not moving, or if being pinpointed, Perception DC 70
if invisible, not moving, and being pinpointed, Perception DC 90
and anyone who attacks them still gets a 50% miss chance no matter what
and they can just move again to be not pinpointed any more

In other words, invisibility is cool.

There have been quiet a few debates on that. So far the devs have stayed away.

Shadow Lodge

This was answered right near the top of the thread by Banecrow in early 2013.

CRB, Glossary wrote:
Invisibility does not thwart divination spells.

link to Glossary, check right near the bottom of the Invisibility entry. This might have been part of the "Answered in Errata" bit the FAQ is referring to, I'm not sure.

101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Detect Magic Vs. Invisibility All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.