| 14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question is in the thread title.
I need to know for an upcoming encounter I'm planning.
I would say yes, it would. You are casting the spell, and even though you're not delivering it, it is targeting a foe.
I agree. Invisibility breaks if you attack, including spell attacks, but Invisibility does not specify the delivery method of the attacks which means that ALL delivery methods of attacks break Invisibility.
Ah. Bummer.
I'd say it wouldn't. If the touch attack is using your familiar's attack bonus, then it's the one "targeting a foe".
Deliver Touch Spells Through Familiar (Su) says "...he can designate his familiar as the 'toucher'. The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master could."
But the master is still the caster of the targeted spell, right? Only the means of delivery has changed.
Is Greater Invisibility an option?
if the familiar is the one doing the attack it does not break invisibility. any more than summon monsters do. the act of casting say chill touch doesnt break invis. Its the attack. However the caster in this case isnt doing the attack the familiar with. ergo invis isnt broken.
You can cast spells that hurt people while invisible. you just cant directly target them yourself. Ie black tenticles in open area with no bad guys who then run intot he tenticles does not break invis. droping black tenticles on them will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mojorat: That is contradictory to the actual rules of the Invisibility spell. I quoted them above. Black Tentacles, for example, would definitely break invisibility.
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.
Frostbite would not break invisibility because when you initially cast it, you are basically generating the charge, and thus you're not targeting a foe with the actual casting, nor is the foe within the area or effect of the spell.
You are attacking, the familiar is just the tool. Saying that the familiar is able to deliver your spell attack without breaking invisibility is like saying your arrow delivers your bow attack without breaking invisibility. In both cases, you make the attack, your familiar or your arrow is the just the means of delivering that attack.
Is Greater Invisibility an option?
NPC is a level 6 necromancer, party is 5th level. Greater Invisibility seems like a pricey scroll to give a bad guy at this level. Plus then he can use some nasty rays on them as well. I was more excited about them trying to figure out what was going on as this nasty quasit drops ghoul touch and frigid touch on them.
if the familiar is the one doing the attack it does not break invisibility. any more than summon monsters do. the act of casting say chill touch doesnt break invis. Its the attack. However the caster in this case isnt doing the attack the familiar with. ergo invis isnt broken.
You can cast spells that hurt people while invisible. you just cant directly target them yourself. Ie black tenticles in open area with no bad guys who then run intot he tenticles does not break invis. droping black tenticles on them will.
Wish I could agree but the spell targets an enemy and you cast the spell... sounds like invisibility would have to break.
I need a new plan.
If the familiar were invisible, then yes, it would break invisibility for the familiar. However, I don't believe it affects an invisible master at all.
Here is the ability in question:
Deliver Touch Spells (Su):
If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.
Relevant text from Invisibility spell:
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.
If the familiar is delivering touch spells for its master, is it not an indirect attack?
I think the troublesome bit appears two sentences before the one you bolded.
"...an attack includes any spell targeting a foe..."
Huh. I generally consider myself to be pretty good when it comes to rule interpretations, but I gotta admit this one is pretty sticky. I really cannot make up my mind which way is right, because both arguments have valid points.
Would this be a valid FAQ candidate?
| 28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Having read the examples of "causing harm indirectly" calls this into question.
I would still say that you could summon a demon, and order the demon to attack, but the moment that you augment its attacks by casting a spell and then having it deliver it, Invisibility would probably break; even though you're using an alternate method of delivery, you are still casting the spell, and the spell is targeting a foe.
But I'm willing to FAQ it. Something like this?
Since an invisible caster can cause indirect harm, can he cast a touch spell and then have his familiar deliver it without breaking Invisibility?
Well, would casting the Arcane Cannon spell break invisibility? I think most would say no, as casting the spell itself doesn't target anyone. It creates a spell effect, which then targets creatures, similar to summoned monsters.
Contrariwise, a Fireball spell that has been imbued into another PC using Imbue with Spell Ability would break invisibility on that PC when it was cast by that PC (the one imbued). It wouldn't affect the original caster at all.
In fact, it isn't the act of casting that breaks invisibility. It is the act of targeting. An invisible caster who casts a Vampiric Touch spell but "holds the charge" becomes visible the first time that caster tries to deliver it. With a familiar delivering a touch spell, the caster doesn't target--the familiar does.
|
CRB page 83
Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.
invisibility, CRB 302
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.
****
If the attack roll to deliver a touch spell is delivered by the familiar, then it shouldn't break invisibility from the caster. When wizard is not attacking. Should fall under "causing damage indirectly"
|
|
I think the troublesome bit appears two sentences before the one you bolded.
"...an attack includes any spell targeting a foe..."
When then the caster casts the spell, it doesn't have a target. Its held in hand, just by the familiar. If he casts shocking grasp on himself, and doesn't attack or do anything for 2 rounds, does he turn visible? no, he doesn't, because he hasn't ATTACKED anybody. the spell hasn't targeted a foe YET.
The familiar targets a foe when he touches someone. The trick about pulling this off though, is the familiar has to be in contact with the caster when the spell is given to him.
The black tentacles trick is true as well. if its placed in an area where there are no enemies, than its not an attack.
|
|
Well, would casting the Arcane Cannon spell break invisibility? I think most would say no, as casting the spell itself doesn't target anyone. It creates a spell effect, which then targets creatures, similar to summoned monsters.
Contrariwise, a Fireball spell that has been imbued into another PC using Imbue with Spell Ability would break invisibility on that PC when it was cast by that PC (the one imbued). It wouldn't affect the original caster at all.
In fact, it isn't the act of casting that breaks invisibility. It is the act of targeting. An invisible caster who casts a Vampiric Touch spell but "holds the charge" becomes visible the first time that caster tries to deliver it. With a familiar delivering a touch spell, the caster doesn't target--the familiar does.
Arcane cannon is given its own attack bonus, its own attack rolls...just like a summonned creature would, so I'd say that this would not break the caster's invisibility.
Well, would casting the Arcane Cannon spell break invisibility? I think most would say no, as casting the spell itself doesn't target anyone. It creates a spell effect, which then targets creatures, similar to summoned monsters.
Contrariwise, a Fireball spell that has been imbued into another PC using Imbue with Spell Ability would break invisibility on that PC when it was cast by that PC (the one imbued). It wouldn't affect the original caster at all.
In fact, it isn't the act of casting that breaks invisibility. It is the act of targeting. An invisible caster who casts a Vampiric Touch spell but "holds the charge" becomes visible the first time that caster tries to deliver it. With a familiar delivering a touch spell, the caster doesn't target--the familiar does.
Arcane cannon is given its own attack bonus, its own attack rolls...just like a summonned creature would, so I'd say that this would not break the caster's invisibility.
I concur. Just so, a familiar has its own attack bonus and rolls...
There are valid arguments to both sides.
The difference here is that one side is arguing what the rules say (attacking with a spell breaks invisibility) and the other side is arguing what they think the rules should have said (familiars, like summoned creatures, act autonomously even when delivering their master's touch attack so that doing so doesn't break invisibility).
Now, maybe the rules should have said that. Me, personally, I disagree with summoning monsters and letting them attack without breaking invisibility. Sounds like loophole/cheese to me, but there it is, in black and white. At least, the summoner did NOT cast an attack spell.
In the case of casting Chill Touch, clearly an attack spell, and letting a familiar be the instrument of delivering it, this also smacks of loophole/cheese, but it fails my test on two grounds:
1. The rules don't explicitly allow it
2. The caster DID cast an attack spell
For those two reasons, I'm disinclined to interpret this in favor of maintaining invisibility, but I accept that those who argue differently have a passable precedent in the monster summoning exclusion.
Which makes this a good candidate for a FAQ.
Having read the examples of "causing harm indirectly" calls this into question.
I would still say that you could summon a demon, and order the demon to attack, but the moment that you augment its attacks by casting a spell and then having it deliver it, Invisibility would probably break; even though you're using an alternate method of delivery, you are still casting the spell, and the spell is targeting a foe.
But I'm willing to FAQ it. Something like this?
Since an invisible caster can cause indirect harm, can he cast a touch spell and then have his familiar deliver it without breaking Invisibility?
Why don't you guys figure out the best way to word it and I will edit my original post so we can all hit FAQ on the same post?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 83 Player hand book =
Familiars =
Attacks = Use the master's base attack bonus, as calculated from all his classes.
Deliver Touch Spell (su) = last line " As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates"
.........................
This, and only this, makes me think that unlike summoned spell, the familiars remains a part of the actual caster. The familiar is a extension of the caster, and using it to attack people, is the same as if the caster himself caused the attack. ( otherwise the familiar would not have acted or attacked at all), and directing your familiar to attack, would be a attack, and would brake the invisibility spell.
In the case of Chill Touch, the familiar would not break the invisibility spell effect, until after he made the attack. (Casting chill touch, in and of itself would not break the spell).
..........................
anyway, i pushed the FAQ Mark button above as well.
I think the troublesome bit appears two sentences before the one you bolded.
"...an attack includes any spell targeting a foe..."
When then the caster casts the spell, it doesn't have a target. Its held in hand, just by the familiar. If he casts shocking grasp on himself, and doesn't attack or do anything for 2 rounds, does he turn visible? no, he doesn't, because he hasn't ATTACKED anybody. the spell hasn't targeted a foe YET.
The familiar targets a foe when he touches someone. The trick about pulling this off though, is the familiar has to be in contact with the caster when the spell is given to him.
The black tentacles trick is true as well. if its placed in an area where there are no enemies, than its not an attack.
I still have to disagree, because the spell has an entry for Target: Creature Touched. Even though the familiar delivers the spell, it was cast by the master and targets an enemy.
Black Tentacles is a separate discussion but at the risk of a slight derail I will say I believe that breaks invisibility too.
There are valid arguments to both sides.
The difference here is that one side is arguing what the rules say (attacking with a spell breaks invisibility) and the other side is arguing what they think the rules should have said (familiars, like summoned creatures, act autonomously even when delivering their master's touch attack so that doing so doesn't break invisibility).
Now, maybe the rules should have said that. Me, personally, I disagree with summoning monsters and letting them attack without breaking invisibility. Sounds like loophole/cheese to me, but there it is, in black and white. At least, the summoner did NOT cast an attack spell.
In the case of casting Chill Touch, clearly an attack spell, and letting a familiar be the instrument of delivering it, this also smacks of loophole/cheese, but it fails my test on two grounds:
1. The rules don't explicitly allow it
2. The caster DID cast an attack spellFor those two reasons, I'm disinclined to interpret this in favor of maintaining invisibility, but I accept that those who argue differently have a passable precedent in the monster summoning exclusion.
Which makes this a good candidate for a FAQ.
I'm surprised you think it's cheesy. I don't think it works by RAW, but I wouldn't find it cheesy if it did.
I would say that attacking through a spectral hand would break the invisibility because the caster controls it and gives a +2 augmentation to the touch attack.
The familiar on the other hand, is an autonomous creature, albeit following the instructions of its master.
The distinction lies here....
The opponent can target the familiar and attack it. The loss of a familiar is far greater than the loss of an incorporeal hand that could be resummoned the following round.
I would allow invisibility to continue but attack the familiar to discourage the player from using that tactic too often and making cheese out of it.
In my case, I'm the DM, wanting to know if this tactic is legal for an NPC villain.
I would say yes. And what is great about it is when your PCs see the familiar hitting them with spells, they may think it is the BBEG, especially if it's an Imp or Quasit.
Then, bamm!
The real BBEG comes out of hiding when his familiar is badly hurt or down.
I like that idea Grimmy =)
In my case, I'm the DM, wanting to know if this tactic is legal for an NPC villain.
IMO it does not break the casters invisibility. But it is an interesting discussion. I would also ask the following question, do I want my players to use this tactic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are overlooking that not only can a Familiar deliver a touch spell, but they can also count as 'You'.
If you so wished, I believe the Familiar delivering a spell like this wouldn't break YOUR Invisibility.
But it would break the FAMILIAR'S own Invisibility.
I think people are overlooking that not only can a Familiar deliver a touch spell, but they can also count as 'You'.
If you so wished, I believe the Familiar delivering a spell like this wouldn't break YOUR Invisibility.
But it would break the FAMILIAR'S own Invisibility.
Thats why we all have fairy dragons.
If this isn't FAQ worthy I would be satisfied if Wraithstrike weighs in :)
In my case, I'm the DM, wanting to know if this tactic is legal for an NPC villain.IMO it does not break the casters invisibility. But it is an interesting discussion. I would also ask the following question, do I want my players to use this tactic?
I would have no problem with the tactic from players but I just don't think it's legal. I'm glad some of you disagree though, I hope I am proven wrong.
I think people are overlooking that not only can a Familiar deliver a touch spell, but they can also count as 'You'.
If you so wished, I believe the Familiar delivering a spell like this wouldn't break YOUR Invisibility.
But it would break the FAMILIAR'S own Invisibility.
If we take that as true then could an invisible character with a familiar just walk up and bonk someone with his stick and then let the familiar become visible?
Because that would be cool. I would put my hawk on the end of a bat, crack some dude in the face with it and then have the hawk appear out of nowhere and go to town on his face too.
My take, casting an attack spell does not negate invisibility unless it makes an attack.
Cast a Fireball where nobody is standing and nobody gets harmed: does not negate Invisibility.
Cast an touch attack spell without rolling an attack roll. Does not negate Invisibility. Nobody has been targeted. Nobody has been affected.
Attack with the held charge from a touch attack spell, that will negate invisibility.
A Familiar delivering the attack spell for you should not negate your invisibility, you did not make an attack. The familiar did.
Like most things regarding invisibility, there are few hard rules as to what qualifies as an attack and what does not, but my general rule of thumb is...Did the caster make an attack roll, force a saving throw, or directly caused a deleterious effect upon the recipient.
- Gauss
But you cast a spell that targeted your foe. That's explicitly called out as causing invisibility to end. No?
Except you didn't Grimmy, without making a touch attack nobody has been targeted.
- Gauss
OK I could see that. But it says right in the spell description. Target: Creature Touched.
Yeah, I could see either way on this one. I think it's FAQ worthy.
Who touched that creature?
If merely casting an offensive touch spell negates invisibility then no wizard will ever get a touch spell off again. It does not negate invisibility since it does not qualify as an attack. Nobody has been targeted. No attack has been made.
Cast invis, cast your touch spell, walk up to the target, make your attack roll with your invis bonuses, THEN you become visible.
Now, once we establish whether or not people agree with the above we can debate whether or not a familiar negates your invisibility for you. Personally, I could see it going either way but I think that this falls under the same concept as summoned monsters. You are not the one making the attack rolls to deliver the touch spell. The familiar is.
- Gauss
Who touched that creature?
Who cast the spell?
I'm on the fence.
If merely casting an offensive touch spell negates invisibility then no wizard will ever get a touch spell off again. It does not negate invisibility since it does not qualify as an attack. Nobody has been targeted. No attack has been made.
Cast invis, cast your touch spell, walk up to the target, make your attack roll with your invis bonuses, THEN you become visible.
Now, once we establish whether or not people agree with the above we can debate whether or not a familiar negates your invisibility for you. Personally, I could see it going either way but I think that this falls under the same concept as summoned monsters. You are not the one making the attack rolls to deliver the touch spell. The familiar is.
- Gauss
I do agree with the above. The target entry says "creature touched", so the caster can stay invisible until the creature is actually touched.
Is it just me, or does it seem like maybe it's the listed target (creature touched) in the spell description may be faulty?
Granted, you attack a creature with the spell, but wouldn't the actual target be the caster since it's affecting him before the enemy? I mean, since you could cast the spell and hold it before even seeing a creature to touch, how is the target 'creature touched'?
Kind of like drinking a potion of fire breath. Ultimately its use is for attacking a foe, but the person drinking the potion is the one being imbued with the magic.
Ok, so now that we have that casting a touch attack spell does not result in loss of invisibility we can discuss, what actually does result in loss of invisibility?
The touch attack. Who is making the touch attack? The familiar. So, the familiar loses it's invisibility, but that doesn't mean you are.
The above is my take, on the rules. It is far from clear but I think it is the act of making an attack that negates invisibility. Since the familiar is the one making the attack it is not your invisibility it is negating.
Personally, I don't see this as a big deal. It isn't like the familiar will live long if it does this on a regular basis.
- Gauss
Not quite how I read it Gauss. Invisibility says "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe..." My take is that once the spell has been delivered that condition has been fulfilled. The spell was still cast by the master, not the familiar. I could see it going either way though. I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong. I started this thread in hope of that actually.
I guess I'm going to go ahead and run this encounter as planned then. Most of you seem to think it is legit.