Arcane mark begins to glow and becomes visable. doese it mean if an invisable creature who is in the 60 feet cone his mark wil light up and you can see where it is?
lets say i cast arcane mark on a quasit then it casts invisabilety on itself so it becomes invisable my mark goese dark ofcourse.
but then i cast detect magic and the quasit is in its area of effect can my buddies use that lit up mark as a target even for ranged attacks?
Arcane Mark
School universal; Level magus 0, sorcerer/wizard 0, summoner 0, witch 0
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
EFFECT
Range touch
Effect one personal rune or mark, all of which must fit within 1 sq. ft.
Duration permanent
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
DESCRIPTION
This spell allows you to inscribe your personal rune or mark, which can consist of no more than six characters. The writing can be visible or invisible. An arcane mark spell enables you to etch the rune upon any substance without harm to the material upon which it is placed. If an invisible mark is made, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible, though not necessarily understandable.
See invisibility, true seeing, a gem of seeing, or a robe of eyes likewise allows the user to see an invisible arcane mark. A read magic spell reveals the words, if any. The mark cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed by the caster or by an erase spell.
If an arcane mark is placed on a living being, the effect gradually fades in about a month.
Arcane mark must be cast on an object prior to casting instant summons on the same object (see that spell description for details).
School illusion (glamer); Level alchemist 2, antipaladin 2, bard 2, inquisitor 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2; Domain trickery 2; Bloodline arcane 2
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (an eyelash encased in gum arabic)
EFFECT
Range personal or touch
Target you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./level
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless) or yes (harmless, object)
Support d20pfsrd.com and Third Party Publishers
What You Don't See Can Hurt You!
This book takes up the study of the dark side of invisibility. The power to walk unseen is hardly evil in itself, but what unraveling of the mind might occur as it struggles to reconcile the sense that you're not all there?
ADVERTISEMENT
DESCRIPTION
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.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.
Detect Magic
School divination; Level bard 0, cleric/oracle 0, druid 0, inquisitor 0, magus 0, sorcerer/wizard 0, summoner 0, witch 0
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Component: V, S
EFFECT
Range 60 ft.
Area cone-shaped emanation
Duration concentration, up to 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
DESCRIPTION
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.
yeah i think RAW you wouldnt see it but as an arcane mark has such a small radius it would be easy to spot where it comes from you might even see the outlines of the mark.
its like a spotlight shining at you in the dark you can't see the light itself but you cen definetly fire at it
|
Honestly, I am almost sure that the writer idea was that it glow for the guy casting detect magic only, and that the glow is the normal glow of a magic aura.
Using detect magic you would already detect the invisible creature square as you would be detecting the invisibility spell aura.
RAW it seem it will glow for everyone and that would make this use of detect magic marginally more useful, but it would still use your standard action as detect magic has a duration of concentration, as soon as you stop concentrating it disappear.
People attacking the glowing mark would still suffer from the 50% miss chance give by invisibility.
that logic is totly sound anyone disagree?
My GM had the same reasoning.
The following is all opinion, as there is no official rule on this.
Nothing defines how brightly it glows. I'd hazard that in broad daylight the glow would be so insignificant as to not even be noticeable. In complete darkness there would be a little light that could pinpoint the location of the creature - at least from a close range - more than 10-15' feet away I'd say it just doesn't cast enough light to be seen.
RAI I'd agree with Diego, it only glows for the caster of detect magic.
|
|
To support the opposite interpretation and citing myself from the other thread [yes, a bit of self aggrandizing :P]:
About the invisible/glowing thing, seeing the original intention of the spell, i.e. putting a a mark stating the property of an object or creature, it its reasonable to assume that it will glow and be readable to all when you use detect magic.
It would be a good way to deter theft: "This is my horse." "Prove it." Detect magic and on the rump of the horse appear your glowing seal.
With the current use of the spell by a magus it become less logic. Like it having no saving throw or spell resistance. Bot appropriate if you are putting the mark on your items or your horse, less appropriate if you are putting the mark on an unwilling enemy.
|
But keeping in mind that the spell has been around far longer than the Magus and that particular application of the spell, it made sense at the time. It unfortunately has the strange application for Magi. It might make sense if the spell-combat ability clarified that the spell in question had to be a spell that called for a melee touch attack.
That said, I agree with the idea that it was probably intended to only work for the caster. But, RAW, I see nothing to indicate that it doesn't work like the black-light flashlight idea, lighting up the mark for everybody, and as a player I would hope for that version. As a GM, I see nothing wrong with it, even factoring in the Magi shenanigans.
|
|
But keeping in mind that the spell has been around far longer than the Magus and that particular application of the spell, it made sense at the time. It unfortunately has the strange application for Magi. It might make sense if the spell-combat ability clarified that the spell in question had to be a spell that called for a melee touch attack.
That said, I agree with the idea that it was probably intended to only work for the caster. But, RAW, I see nothing to indicate that it doesn't work like the black-light flashlight idea, lighting up the mark for everybody, and as a player I would hope for that version. As a GM, I see nothing wrong with it, even factoring in the Magi shenanigans.
A side note: "a spell that called for a melee touch attack" is something that don't exist. There is a old thread about that and all the spells with a range of touch count as armed attacks if you are trying to touch an opponent, regardless of what spell you are using.
For some strange reason you want to cast invisibility on an enemy? Your touch count as an armed attack.
Like you I thought that there was a difference between offensive and non-offesive touch spells, but the people in that thread showed me that I was wrong with several clear rule citations.
Invisebilety?
That's French for invisibility?
LOL, I have posted several times in this thread and hadn't noticed that.
Regardless of whether everyone can see it or not , the glow from Arcane Mark isn't just from the aura as in that case you couldn't read it, as you would just be detecting the aura which doesn't focus down to anything smaller than a 5 foot square.
|
|
Regardless of whether everyone can see it or not , the glow from Arcane Mark isn't just from the aura as in that case you couldn't read it, as you would just be detecting the aura which doesn't focus down to anything smaller than a 5 foot square.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura eminates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
You can pinpoint a magic aura location with precision, but that don't overcome the 50% miss chance against an invisible opponent.
|
|
GreenMandar is right, though. Arcane Mark specifically calls out that it isn't just an aura (which would have gone unstated, but that it will "glow and become visible, though not necessarily understandable." If it were just the aura becoming visible, then the bit about it being understandable wouldn't be there. That part refers to the potential inability of the viewer (caster or others) to read the language the mark is written in.
Also, Diego, thanks for pointing that out. I don't know that I agree with it, though, because there are touch-range spells that specifically call out their effect requiring a successful touch attack (shocking grasp, touch of fatigue, touch of idiocy to name a few). From a couple of such spells:
You must succeed on a touch attack to strike a target.
Your successful melee touch attack applies a ...
I do realize that any touch-range spell could be delivered through a touch-attack to a hostile opponent, but there are differences between spells that call for it (some listed above), and spells that don't (statue, darkvision, resist energy, etc.). I didn't say that it would be simpler to have Spellstrike only apply to spells that already call for a touch attack, just that it might make more sense for the intended application of the ability.
The spell doesn't allow a save and has a duration of permanent, with a casting time of only one standard action. Broken.
Okay, not really broken. It's perfectly fine for it's intended use (although I think the spell should have a casting time of 1 minute, because it lasts forever).
IMO, to use it in combat should give the NPC a Will save (and it should be on an object, not a person, so in theory they can get rid of whatever is glowing; pick their belt or something else they can't get off easily).
Not permanent
If an arcane mark is placed on a living being, the effect gradually fades in about a month.
In my game I've ruled that it is visible to ALL when someone hits it w/a Detect Magic. This by RAW does not negate the bonuses of Invisibility nor does it grant any other bonus to the Detect Magic caster or their allies. It does however allow my wizard player to find the major bits of his expended crossbow bolts, gather them, and keep them for when he has a good deal of downtime, like back at camp for the night. He then casts Mending obsessively and restores the ammo he recovered.
Between this and looting the dead he's not had to buy more crossbow bolts in 4 levels.
Fluff wise the script when it appears is a very subtle glow, barely visible in direct sunlight and at roughly the font size of 14 on a Word Doc. It is small, subtle but clear when revealed, allowing the caster to identify their mark and such.
I also have a variant sprite called a Graveborn Sprite - they use Arcane Mark to mark an enemy then they spend the next month harassing the victim. These harassments may begin as innocuously as pouring a packet of sneezing powder in their stew or putting a tack on their stool. As the month wears on however the pranks grow more devious or lethal. If the victim is too foolish to understand the harassment and deal w/it they often end up dead or worse. However if they take precautions, protect themselves and survive long enough for the mark to fade they are forgiven whatever transgression they committed to receive the affliction in the first place.
|
|
GreenMandar is right, though. Arcane Mark specifically calls out that it isn't just an aura (which would have gone unstated, but that it will "glow and become visible, though not necessarily understandable." If it were just the aura becoming visible, then the bit about it being understandable wouldn't be there. That part refers to the potential inability of the viewer (caster or others) to read the language the mark is written in.
Also, Diego, thanks for pointing that out. I don't know that I agree with it, though, because there are touch-range spells that specifically call out their effect requiring a successful touch attack (shocking grasp, touch of fatigue, touch of idiocy to name a few). From a couple of such spells:
You must succeed on a touch attack to strike a target.Your successful melee touch attack applies a ...I do realize that any touch-range spell could be delivered through a touch-attack to a hostile opponent, but there are differences between spells that call for it (some listed above), and spells that don't (statue, darkvision, resist energy, etc.). I didn't say that it would be simpler to have Spellstrike only apply to spells that already call for a touch attack, just that it might make more sense for the intended application of the ability.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
There rules are very straightforward; they don't make any difference between offensive and non offensive touch spells.
You try to touch an opponent with a touch spell active? It is a armed touch attack.If you ant to read the relevant discussions, this is the FAQ thread I started about this and is the other relevant thread. As you can easily see initially I shared your opinion, but it was proved to me that I was wrong.
|
|
Diego, I do concede that you are right about any touch-range spell qualifying as far as being usable against opponents and qualifying for Spellstrike. I only meant to disagree with you regarding this:
A side note: "a spell that called for a melee touch attack" is something that don't exist.
My examples were pointing out spells that do, in fact, call for a melee touch attack. I was also commenting that if they modified Spellstrike to reflect that, it might make Spellstrike make a little bit more sense than to have it apply to any possible Touch-range spell.
But yes, you're right. :)
|
|
Look cure light wound. It don't call explicitly for a touch melee attack. But it can be used as a melee touch attack against undead.
There are several spells that can be or are melee touch attacks that don't say anything about that in the description of the spell.
To cite your whole phrase:
It might make sense if the spell-combat ability clarified that the spell in question had to be a spell that called for a melee touch attack.
and rephrase what I said,
The check that you suggest can't be used, as any spell with a range of touch can be used for a armed touch attack and for a few of them (in particular the cure/inflict set of spell but probably they are not the only one) the spell description don't call for a melee touch attack but they can be used as a melee attack with the intention to harm the enemy.
Your solution instead of giving more sense to sopellstrike will open a can of work, limiting the effect of broad study.
Broad Study (Ex): The magus selects another one of his spellcasting classes. The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class. This does not allow him to cast arcane spells from that class's spell list without suffering the normal chances of arcane spell failure, unless the spell lacks somatic components. The magus must be at least 6th level and must possess levels in at least one other spellcasting class before selecting this arcana.
You can pinpoint a magic aura location with precision, but that don't overcome the 50% miss chance against an invisible opponent.
Because you can't precisely tell whether you put the arcane mark on their hand or their bum. That makes the difference between having to aim left or right, or aiming up.
Lovely idea with the discussion about whether attacks need melee touch attacks: Tell the party fighter you are going to cast a buff through a handshake, and then hit him with Shocking grasp instead. I say the fighter, since most builds call for them to have 7 int and almost no skill points. He would never pass a spellcraft check.
|
|
You know, Lemeres, that gives me an idea. There are a couple of spells (Charm Person, Command, etc.), that allow you to force an opponent to do something not obviously harmful. Convince the enemy to close their eyes for two rounds, then to open them and shake your hand. A lot of touch-range spells have no obvious visible effect until they strike (unless flavor-ruled otherwise), so it wouldn't be obviously harmful to shake the hand of somebody holding a Shocking Grasp spell until you shook it and it struck. No touch-attack needed.
|
|
Also, Lemeres, there isn't anything that says that you don't know exactly where you put the Arcane Mark. RAW, it doesn't appear in a random location. It appears where it is placed, whether that means it appears where the weapon struck it (when using Spellstrike), or that it appears in a chosen location upon the creature struck.
Favorite tactic of the Graveborn Sprite:
Surprise round: attack from stealth, moving and attacking foe w/touch attack. If successful victim is marked with invisible Arcane Mark. The trap is set for the next month.
Round 1: Graveborn Sprite has a +8 initiative; hopefully they've won first move of the round. They then Bluff to create a distraction and then move 1/2 movement in conjunction with a Stealth check.
Further rounds: once properly away, they tail the victim. The Graveborn attempt to keep a low profile and wait for the opportune moment. Once that moment presents itself, they get to w/in 60' from stealth and begin the 3 rounds of Detect Magic. Said moments would be 1. in the presence of other fey, preferably other Graveborn Sprites; 2. in the presence of the superstitious; 3. in a compromising situation.
Finally, upon completing the detection, the sigil becomes visible on the victim. This alerts any Graveborn Sprites or their allies among the fey that it is pranking time and that the victim is target #1.
The only GM fiat I would take (no PC has ever gotten past a couple encounters w/these things before dealing w/the Graveborn Sprites and getting the thing removed) is that, as the month goes on, the color of the glyph becomes deeper and darker. This lets onlookers know how far along this little "curse" has progressed. That way, if they make it to the darkest shade and survive the final "prank", then the device is removed (1 month time elapses) and the PC would've grudgingly earned the respect of the sprites.