The attack, not the casting of the spell is what determines who loses invisiblity. Since it is the attacker doing the actual attacking that causes the spell to break, it would have to be the attacker that loses invisiblity if they had it.
The caster never attacked anyone directly or indirectly. He gave someone else the ability to attack through magic. It would be no different than the caster putting a spell into a spell storing weapon, and then the fighter using that spell to attack someone.
Cool I'm going to spring this encounter on them guilt free the. Thanks for the feedback everyone.
Threadjack, since I've not gotten an answer to this question:
Cast a Fireball where nobody is standing and nobody gets harmed: does not negate Invisibility.
I agree. My question is about Delayed Blast Fireball. If you throw it out there and no one is in the effect, then you stay invisible. What if you throw it out and then someone moves into the area during the delay? Does it matter if you expected that movement- ie, threw it into an opponent's path, timed to go off when they were there, vs. you were throwing it out as a signal and someone moved up to it that you did not expect (in both cases there was no one in the blast area when you cast it). And then the invisiblity breaks when? When the blast goes off?
Thanks. /threadjack
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that there were over 80 posts on this topic across two threads I found.
min84, I would rule that the invisibility is not broken because an attack did not occur in that moment. It is another example of an indirect attack. You set up the conditions but in the moment you cast the spell you did not violate invisibility.
- Gauss
Not an answer to the question, but a question for the OP: Is the Necromancer using Silent spell to cast? Otherwise, invisible or not, his chanting is going to be a pretty big clue that it's not the familiar casting the spells.
Good question, thanks for bringing that up.
I think the invisible Necromancer will be on an elevated platform or behind a barrier somewhat removed from the combat while the party contends with skeletons and a trap. Right now, he doesnt have silent spell, but off the top of my head I was think he could cast quietly enough to justify a perception DC of 15 + distance? Either that or stealth + distance vs perception? I haven't drawn up the encounter area yet but I figured I could place him somewhere close enough for the familiar to go back and forth between him and the fray but far enough sp the party wont be able to catch on he is there without at least rolling better then take 10 on perception. What do you think?
As an alternative I could switch out one of his feats for silent spell. We are at least two sessions away from this encounter, I'm just planning ahead.
Or you could give him a Lesser Silent Metamagic Rod. It's only worth 3000gp and how many rounds is this guy going to be able to get spells off before the party catches on, anyway? Additionally or alternatively, the first spell could already have been cast when the fight starts, with the familiar holding the charge. Of course, if you did that the wizard would have to wait until the familiar made an attack and discharged the spell before casting another, but it would still allow for greater action economy.
Thanks for the ideas guys. I have to think all of this through and like I say I havent drawn out the environment for the encounter on a grid yet.
I don't imagine this as a straightforward "boss fight" that revolves completely around this invisible caster delivering these touch spells through the familiar. Im trying to keep this one pretty dynamic with a few things going on at once.
The quasit flying in and out of the fight with new touch spell charges to deliver is something I hope to be able to pull off on 2 or 3 rounds, tops. Just enough so that it adds a twist when the party figures it out.
I believe they will have their hands full with a lot of mooks (dwarven skeletons as it happens) and at least one trap or "skill challenge" in the mix. I think there will be some kind of altar or gem that is producing a desecrate effect and perhaps upgrading any skeletons animated in the are to be burning skeletons (or at least ones that explode when they're defeated, but I can't seem to find such a template?)
I want to design this altar so that it can be overcome or suppressed with some combination of disable device, knowledge religion or arcana, and castings of bless or consecrate.
Thanks for the help guys.
Don't forget:
The familiar must be touching the master when he casts the spell or else the familiar cannot deliver the touch. This means on round one, they are touching, master casts, familiar moves and touches, then on round two, master delays, familiar moves to master and touches master, master casts, familiar has no actions left to move or touch, so it holds the charge to touch next round. Round three, master cannot cast or it disrupts the familiar's held spell, familiar moves and touches, then on round four familiar returns and touches master.
You can see that using this process, the master/familiar cannot cast and touch every round; there will be gaps where an entire round goes by with the master not casting, and other rounds where the familiar is not touching.
Also don't forget:
Spells with verbal components cannot be whispered or spoken quietly: "To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."
The Perception DC to hear clear verbal speech is 0. Distance will add up to about +2 (farther than that, and the familiar needs extra rounds to get to and from the battle), and you might claim that the PCs are distracted by battle (+5 DC), but that only puts the DC around 7 for the PCs to hear the guy casting his spells.
Also don't forget:
The caster cannot hide behind a wall or around the corner; he must have line of sight to the target of the spell, even if his familiar will do the touching: "Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target."
Therefore, it's difficult to add extra Perception DC modifiers such as Through a Closed Door or Through a Wall since the caster needs line of sight.
Which means that it's almost guaranteed that some or even all of the PC will hear every spell being cast.
Some things to help have already been mentioned. Silent Spell can really help with the Perception stuff. Haste could give the familiar more distance on its moves. If the spellcaster has two free hands (no staff, rod, etc.) he can touch the familiar instead of making the familiar touch him, so he can cast more often. The familiar could have Spring Attack which could let him deliver the touch attacks while he keeps moving (and if hasted, he could move up to 60 feet: 30' out, touch, 30' back, all in one round).
DM_Blake, I disagree with how often a familiar can be delivering a touch spell. It should be every other round.
Round 1: Contact exists. Master casts, familiar goes to touch.
Round 2: Master casts a non-touch spell (perhaps a friendly buff spell) while familiar returns.
Round 3: Contact exists. Master casts, familiar goes to touch.
Repeat rounds 2 and 3.
Additionally, there are familiars (such as the Arbiter) that can make this an every round thing due to Flyby attack.
Regarding sound, the spellcaster could also use a potion or wand of Forced Quiet to prevent spellcasting from being heard although that will burn an action. :)
Regarding line of sight, I disagree. You do NOT need line of sight to cast a touch spell. You do need touching the target qualifies as per your quote. While not explicitly stated I believe the intent is that designating the target is done via touching, not via casting otherwise touch effects against targets you cannot see is impossible.
- Gauss
I think a familiar with Flyby Attack is going to be a necessity. Otherwise, it's just going to get ganged-up on after the first or second touch spell, and unless it is super-buffed, it's going to die that round in all likelihood.
Also don't forget:
The caster cannot hide behind a wall or around the corner; he must have line of sight to the target of the spell, even if his familiar will do the touching: "Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target."
Therefore, it's difficult to add extra Perception DC modifiers such as Through a Closed Door or Through a Wall since the caster needs line of sight.
Actually, that would only apply on ranged touch spells. Other touch spells don't need a target specified when you cast them, only when you actually try to discharge them. You could cast Vampiric Touch in the jacks of an inn, hold the charge, walk into the common room and clap someone on the back in a friendly fashion and watch in pretended horror as they then keeled over. Of course, if in this particular game you or the GM have established fluff for that spell that says your hand is wreathed in purple flame when that spell is cast and/or your target is left a withered husk if killed, that won't be an inconspicuous way of assassinating something, but it's still an option.
Alternatively, a slightly wounded cleric might cast Cure Serious Wounds and hold the charge, planning to move into melee to heal a badly wounded fighter, see the fighter decapitated before she can do so, and then cure herself preparatory to what is bound to be a very stressful encounter. She had an intended target when she cast the spell, but ended up going with a different target instead. Perfectly legal.
Also, a wall specifically designed for a situation like this could easily have one or more peepholes, although if so they'd allow a Perception to the party PCs to notice them.
Thanks for the clarification on the DC to notice the sound of a spell being cast, Kalshane and DM Blake. It has come up a few times recently with an illusionist PC trying to pull off spells discretely and I wasn't sure what the DC should be. I usually try to err in favor of the PC's when I'm not sure about something so I used the DC for hearing whispered conversation since the player made a point of saying he was trying to disguise the fact that he was casting a spell. I suppose you are both right though, silent spell exists as a feat for a reason.
Zog of Deadwood, a silent spell rod would be a little steep for a NPC wizard of this level in my campaign, but I will consider it because it would be a nice drop for the PC illusionist who often wants to cast spells unnoticed.
Thanks again, everyone, for helping me work all of this out! I appreciate it!
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 agree with Chernobyl and I am bolding the portion that I think is relevant to the discussion.
"at the time the wizard casts the touch spell" it targets no enemy, the subsequent actions of that spell when delivered by the familiar shouldn't break the wizard's invisibility. It would break invisibility for the familiar, since it is delivering a touch attack, but not the distant wizard.
|
Not an answer to the question, but a question for the OP: Is the Necromancer using Silent spell to cast? Otherwise, invisible or not, his chanting is going to be a pretty big clue that it's not the familiar casting the spells.Good question, thanks for bringing that up.
I think the invisible Necromancer will be on an elevated platform or behind a barrier somewhat removed from the combat while the party contends with skeletons and a trap. Right now, he doesnt have silent spell, but off the top of my head I was think he could cast quietly enough to justify a perception DC of 15 + distance? Either that or stealth + distance vs perception? I haven't drawn up the encounter area yet but I figured I could place him somewhere close enough for the familiar to go back and forth between him and the fray but far enough sp the party wont be able to catch on he is there without at least rolling better then take 10 on perception. What do you think?
As an alternative I could switch out one of his feats for silent spell. We are at least two sessions away from this encounter, I'm just planning ahead.
What does it matter if they hear him casting the spells? He is invisible......unless one of the characters in the group has Scent, Dispel Magic, or See Invisibilty they are going to have a hard enough time as it is.
The goal is to make it challenging, not to kill the party.........or is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wall is one way to go, of course, but have you considered having the villain invisible and flying (from a potion), instead? So long as the familiar can fly and knows where to go, it seems as if that could work even better.
Party member A: There's a guy up there somewhere near that corner! I heard him!
Party member B: We all heard him, dumbass! Let us know when you've figured out how we're supposed to hit a guy we can't even see!
Not an answer to the question, but a question for the OP: Is the Necromancer using Silent spell to cast? Otherwise, invisible or not, his chanting is going to be a pretty big clue that it's not the familiar casting the spells.Good question, thanks for bringing that up.
I think the invisible Necromancer will be on an elevated platform or behind a barrier somewhat removed from the combat while the party contends with skeletons and a trap. Right now, he doesnt have silent spell, but off the top of my head I was think he could cast quietly enough to justify a perception DC of 15 + distance? Either that or stealth + distance vs perception? I haven't drawn up the encounter area yet but I figured I could place him somewhere close enough for the familiar to go back and forth between him and the fray but far enough sp the party wont be able to catch on he is there without at least rolling better then take 10 on perception. What do you think?
As an alternative I could switch out one of his feats for silent spell. We are at least two sessions away from this encounter, I'm just planning ahead.
What does it matter if they hear him casting the spells? He is invisible......unless one of the characters in the group has Scent, Dispel Magic, or See Invisibilty they are going to have a hard enough time as it is.
The goal is to make it challenging, not to kill the party.........or is it?
I guess the DC I wanted to figure out would be the one to reallize that the quasit is not the one casting the spells himself. The goal of this particular wizard is definitely to kill the party... but my goal as a DM designing this encounter is to make it interesting.
I think as a player I would enjoy figuring out the twist.
Thanks for the clarification on the DC to notice the sound of a spell being cast, Kalshane and DM Blake. It has come up a few times recently with an illusionist PC trying to pull off spells discretely and I wasn't sure what the DC should be. I usually try to err in favor of the PC's when I'm not sure about something so I used the DC for hearing whispered conversation since the player made a point of saying he was trying to disguise the fact that he was casting a spell. I suppose you are both right though, silent spell exists as a feat for a reason.
Zog of Deadwood, a silent spell rod would be a little steep for a NPC wizard of this level in my campaign, but I will consider it because it would be a nice drop for the PC illusionist who often wants to cast spells unnoticed.
Thanks again, everyone, for helping me work all of this out! I appreciate it!
I'm leaning towards a raised platform with a shadowy corner out of sight from the battlefield.
I would say since the familiar touch spell entry says "just as the master would" I would vote break. To me it looks like the intent is for the familiar to be an extension of the wizard and count as the wizard for this purpose.
?
All that is saying is that normally the caster would make a touch attack to deliver a spell (or if holding a charge could make a natural attack and deliver as a part of that, etc). This ability to deliver the touch spell is now the burden of the familiar to do so, and has the same rules that the original caster would follow. That is the familiar needs to make a touch attack or a natural attack to deliver the spell. All the normal rules for that then apply - including that making an attack makes the attacker lose invisibility (in this case the familiar).
I read most of this thread. Just to throw this in: you could use some illusion spells to cover the caster, or peep holes in a wall. Though you might need a way to extend the duration.
fairy dragon has improved invisbility as a 3/day
Official Rules Response
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbd
Familiar and Invisibility: If I use my familiar to deliver a touch spell while I am invisible, does that break my invisibility?
No. The familiar is not you, and the familiar attacking does not count as you attacking, therefore your invisibility is unaffected.
Delivering touch spells via a familiar just became more tempting. ;) Thanks PDT!
Delivering touch spells via a familiar just became more tempting. ;) Thanks PDT!
But still just as dangerous as before - nobody likes losing their familiar, especially witches!
Thanks PDT.
Delivering touch spells via a familiar just became more tempting. ;) Thanks PDT!But still just as dangerous as before - nobody likes losing their familiar, especially witches!
Thanks PDT.
Yup - I didn't say that it was a good idea, just that it was more tempting for an invisible caster. :)
Yup - I didn't say that it was a good idea, just that it was more tempting for an invisible caster. :)Delivering touch spells via a familiar just became more tempting. ;) Thanks PDT!But still just as dangerous as before - nobody likes losing their familiar, especially witches!
Thanks PDT.
Risk vs reward is a fairly positive thing to encourage IMO.
Nice. I missed this ruling in oct.