| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Marthkus, you are not answering the question. Are you claiming that invisibility does not give +20 to stealth?
The spell doesn't for any checks that are not vision based.
And the spell says that it doesn't make you magically quieter, does it not?
Apparently it's making you mundanely quieter...
Sigh...
You're confusing the mechanics for the fluff. The mechanics of Invisibility state that you receive a bonus to stealth checks. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The fluff is that if you happen to fail the check it would make sense to describe it as the enemy hearing you since they obviously can't see you.
Sigh...
You're confusing the mechanics for the fluff. The mechanics of Invisibility state that you receive a bonus to stealth checks. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The fluff is that if you happen to fail the check it would make sense to describe it as the enemy hearing you since they obviously can't see you.
Ignoring lines of the spell is not RAW. You don't get claim that certain sentences are just not the rules.
Non-spell sources of invisibility may make you quieter, but the spell explicitly says it does not.
EDIT: Fluff, you can see the effects of an invisible creature. Just like in 3.5 when you could use spot to pinpoint an invisible creature with a DC 20 check. Pretty sure that wasn't hearing them...
Non-spell sources of invisibility may make you quieter, but the spell explicitly says it does not.Right. No one said it didn't.
That doesn't change the fact that you get a +20 to stealth while moving though.
No effect of the spell can make you quieter, even the +20 to stealth checks or being invisible.
It doesn't have to make you quieter! You're getting a bonus to stealth checks because you're invisible. It's not like everyone in the vicinity will be able to hear your every movement just because you lack a magical means of silencing your movements.
If there were separate checks for hearing and seeing you'd have a point. But there are not.
Yeah, I think I'll follow CW's suggestion on this one.
Indeed, its sage advice. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the true meaning of Christmas.
It doesn't have to make you quieter! You're getting a bonus to stealth checks because you're invisible. It's not like everyone in the vicinity will be able to hear your every movement just because you lack a magical means of silencing your movements.
If there were separate checks for hearing and seeing you'd have a point. But there are not.
THE SPELL CANNOT MAKE YOU QUIETER.
If the bonus to stealth checks would make you quieter, it doesn't. The specific rules of the spell override the general rules of stealth.
Yeah, I think I'll follow CW's suggestion on this one.Indeed, its sage advice. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the true meaning of Christmas.
Presents!
but uhh... does there really have to be a conversation about whether invisibility makes you quieter or not? Sort of detracts from any points about spellcasters doesn't it?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think I'll follow CW's suggestion on this one.Indeed, its sage advice. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the true meaning of Christmas.Presents!
but uhh... does there really have to be a conversation about whether invisibility makes you quieter or not? Sort of detracts from any points about spellcasters doesn't it?
I like to think it highlights the fact that people who don't think casters are powerful probably aren't following the actual rules and seem to have a hard time understanding them even when explained. Which I think sums up why there is a split on this issue. Some people play by the rules and thus know casters are very powerful, other people bend, twist and outright disregard the rules until it conforms to their expectations that casters are not overpowered. The second would be fine if they didn't try to argue about their bending/twisting/disregarding of the rules as though they were the rules.
I like to think it highlights the fact that people who don't think casters are powerful probably aren't following the actual rules and seem to have a hard time understanding them even when explained. Which I think sums up why there is a split on this issue.Yeah, I think I'll follow CW's suggestion on this one.Indeed, its sage advice. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the true meaning of Christmas.Presents!
but uhh... does there really have to be a conversation about whether invisibility makes you quieter or not? Sort of detracts from any points about spellcasters doesn't it?
Also highlights people thinking caster are super broken may not be following the rules.
"But, but... UMD makes any Commoner just as good a caster as a Wizard, and every Fighter can afford to raise both Int and Cha and still be an effective martial character."
I wonder if these people also think a Commoner who invest in Str and buys a magic sword is just as good a martial as a Fighter.
"But, but... UMD makes any Commoner just as good a caster as a Wizard, and every Fighter can afford to raise both Int and Cha and still be an effective martial character."
I wonder if these people also think a Commoner who invest in Str and buys a magic sword is just as good a martial as a Fighter.
Oh we never even got to what makes casters too strong. We wasted 90% going over all the spell rules debates.
EDIT: There may be like 7 post talking about the actual topic.
The character who closes his eyes is still receiving a penalty to hear the motion of the invisible character with his eyes closed? Really?
Does the guy who looks away get a bonus to the check because he wasn't using his eyes?
That said, invisiblity applies the Invisibility condition, which has its own pile of rules and is the source of the bonus.
The character who closes his eyes is still receiving a penalty to hear the motion of the invisible character with his eyes closed? Really?Does the guy who looks away get a bonus to the check because he wasn't using his eyes?
That said, invisiblity applies the Invisibility condition, which has its own pile of rules and is the source of the bonus.
Yes, but if the spell provides the condition, then it's still an effect from the spell and CAN'T make you quieter.
EDIT:
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.
Nothing I said particularly matters.
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Right, and that's the perception. However when your sneak your using 20+stealth. The logic that it makes you quieter is that perception is your sneak + Move silently, its your ability to hide from all of that. No, it doesn't make you quiet, but your check as a whole is better, and that check includes how quiet you are.
If that makes sense.
Either way, its pedantic to argue about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell says it doesn't make you quieter.
The spell says it doesn't make you quieter.
Save the spell itself flat out says that it does NOT make you quieter. QED…
And the spell says that it doesn't make you magically quieter, does it not?
NO IT F+*$ING DOESN'T, which is what I've been trying to tell you two boneheads. Read the damned spell.
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.
The ONLY mention of sound at all is that bit I bolded.
It says it doesn't make you magically silent. I.E. you can still make noises, people can still detect you via sound, etc.
It does NOT say, as you two keep falsely repeating "this spell does not make you quieter".
It grants a +20 to Stealth checks. That's as unambiguous as it gets.
+20 to Stealth applies against people seeing you, hearing you, smelling you, touching you, and even f!!%ing tasting you if that somehow came to be an issue.
Invisibility adds to all of these. It does not say "it adds to Stealth checks to avoid being seen" (which would be quite redundant since invisible creatures are "visually undetectable").
It is BEYOND stupid to keep saying something that is not only not mentioned ANYWHERE in the spell, but which makes no sense whatsoever from a logical perspective at all when you look at it within the context of the other rules that interact with invisibility.
It's not rocket science.
Invisibility adds +20 to Stealth.
Stealth can help you move quieter.
Therefore Invisibility can make you quieter.
The end.
You cannot in good faith argue against that, because you have nothing to argue WITH. Your only bone of contention is a false assertion you MADE UP and kept attributing to the spell text.
Can we please end this debate about Invisibility? It's pointless. Marthkus will continue to ignore logic and claim his interpretation is RAW...
Then again, the original subject of this thread seems to be long dead, so maybe it doesn't matter what we talk about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Now that that's over can we accept that a flat +20 to a skill check is pretty amazing and makes people who spend their careers learning how to stealth look like chumps? And against things like, low lvl guards, its suddenly easy to get around and accomplish a lot unseen.
Now you also have flight, spider climb, teleport, dimensional door, charm person, fabricate, fly, and a number of other spells to plan around because spellcasting, which is the main class feature of... spellcasters! Not even going out of core yet, or looking at combat options.
EDIT:
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.Nothing I said particularly matters.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
Now you also have flight, spider climb, teleport, dimensional door, charm person, fabricate, fly, and a number of other spells to plan around because spellcasting, which is the main class feature of... spellcasters! Not even going out of core yet, or looking at combat options.
Idk Buffing the beat sticks is one of the most effective tactics because it always works and requires very little foreknowledge of the encounter.
Does that make casters less powerful? No. But it does leave room for other kinds of classes in the party.
We all agree that haste is a powerful spell right? Haste is pretty meaningless in a party of fullcasters.
I also thought this thread was about spellcasters being strong, not them invalidating other classes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all agree that haste is a powerful spell right? Haste is pretty meaningless in a party of fullcasters.
Clerics, Druids, Oracles and Dragon Disciples are full casters as well and they benefit greatly from Haste.
EDIT: CWheezy Investigator'ed me (Ninjas are underpowered!)
I also thought this thread was about spellcasters being strong, not them invalidating other classes...
To be fair, the thread was originally about casters being a problem, not about them being strong.
Now you also have flight, spider climb, teleport, dimensional door, charm person, fabricate, fly, and a number of other spells to plan around because spellcasting, which is the main class feature of... spellcasters! Not even going out of core yet, or looking at combat options.Idk Buffing the beat sticks is one of the most effective tactics because it always works and requires very little foreknowledge of the encounter.
Not even going out of core yet, or looking at combat options
Yes, haste is amazing, the best use I've seen is... a summoner using it on all his summoned friends!
I also thought this thread was about spellcasters being strong, not them invalidating other classes...
Eh, all part of the gig! They hit the cap of someone else and excel, and they can use those superpowers to bypass encounters and solve problems like no one else, hence me saying that you have to plan around.
I also thought this thread was about spellcasters being strong, not them invalidating other classes...To be fair, the thread was originally about casters being a problem, not about them being strong.
The OP is talking about casters vs encounters. So interpret that as you will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what martial/caster disparity looks like...
As tongue-in-cheek as it is, it still makes a sadly accurate representation of what happens in PF past 8th level or so.
We all agree that haste is a powerful spell right? Haste is pretty meaningless in a party of fullcasters.
Druids and Clerics are both fullcasters.
We all agree that haste is a powerful spell right? Haste is pretty meaningless in a party of fullcasters.Druids and Clerics are both fullcasters.
And oracles, and summoners have a full caster list and a close number of spells, and shaman will be soon.
This is what martial/caster disparity looks like...
As tongue-in-cheek as it is, it still makes a sadly accurate representation of what happens in PF past 8th level or so.
Ya, this is the martial caster divide in 3.5 and by extension Pathfinder in easy convenient and you-can-explain-it-to-someone-who-doesn't-even-play-the-game form.
Until your mundanes aren't BMX Bandit and only very good with their BMX, casters are going to Angel Summoner their way through the campaign.
This is what martial/caster disparity looks like...
As tongue-in-cheek as it is, it still makes a sadly accurate representation of what happens in PF past 8th level or so.
Yeah...
I saw that in 3.5 pretty much every campaign.
I haven't really had that problem in PF. Caster Rofl is not as effortless anymore.
Until your mundanes aren't BMX Bandit and only very good with their BMX, casters are going to Angel Summoner their way through the campaign.
No joke, next campaign I run I'm going to have to play legend because I'm just not interested in planning around it or seeing it anymore.
Are you honestly trying to argue that a spell with the words "Sor/Wiz 1" in its description is not a level 1 spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list?
That's the most desperate argument I have seen in these boards in a long, long time.
I love the fact that you've put forth exactly 0 evidence of the contrary - or even an argument.
Instead of calling me desperate, could you explain why the sorcerer spell class feature has this line?
These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study.
Instead of claiming the argument is desperate or stupid, could you people put forth counterarguments?
I mean, by my reading all of the rules makes sense in regard to this. Spells in an actual list of spells for the sor/wiz are on the sor/wiz spell list. Spells that have a sor/wiz spell designation but are not published on any list (such as blood money) are "unusual spells" that the sorcerer can gain "understanding of through study".
How does that not make sense?
This is what martial/caster disparity looks like...
As tongue-in-cheek as it is, it still makes a sadly accurate representation of what happens in PF past 8th level or so.
Yeah...
I saw that in 3.5 pretty much every campaign.
I haven't really had that problem in PF. Caster Rofl is not as effortless anymore.
Actually... in a weird way PF makes it easier for new players to make an OP wizard then in 3.5. Oh it lowered the power ceiling that a person with high system mastery can get the Wizard to. But it brought the floor up for people with lower optimization skills. The number of races that get a +2 floating stat bonus alone make Wizard optimization much much easier then in 3.5 where +INT races were limited. The increased hit dice, allowing INT increases to retroactively give you skill points, new class abilities, and xp costs removed from spells and crafting make playing a overpowered caster much easier for someone with low amount of system mastery.
Instead of calling me desperate, could you explain why the sorcerer spell class feature has this line?It's so a sorcerer can learn "unusual spells". Incidentally that clause is a holdover from 3.5 where it exists entirely for the DM to make up or add new spells to the sorcerer's list as a whim.
But if a homebrew spell has a sor/wiz level, and if that means a spell is on the spell list, that's still irrelevant. If it doesn't, the sorcerer can't cast it.
Either being castable by a sorcerer means it's automatically on the spell list and that line could never ever be relevant, or it's not and the line is relevant for you guess what - rare spells that are not on any list of spells.
It doesn't make sense because Blood Money says, right on the tin, that it's a sorcerer/wizard spell.
It doesn't make sense because, under your houserule the "one guy" who knows it that you keep bringing up can't cast the spell because it's not on his spell list.
Please don't call something a "houserule" unless you can actually provide some kind of evidence of it being such a thing. Which you have not.
And again, the rules are very clear that you can cast spells not on your spell list. See the sorcerer quote above. They just have to be a "sorcerer spell" as you put it. So stop claiming that my reading is flawed because of something I've already shown is not an issue.
It doesn't make sense because "Spells that have a sor/wiz spell designation but aren't on a spell list" isn't a thing and you've yet to be able to back your assertion that it is up.
Why should the burden of proof be on me? I've claimed something not written in the rules isn't in the rules. A negative can't be proved. If you want to claim that something is in the rules (that sor/wiz 1 = on the sorcerer spell list) then you should provide evidence.
It's a sorcerer/wizard spell because it's on the sorcerer/wizard list. That's what that language means.
And where do the actual rules say that?
Heck, for people so bent on the RAW you seem to assume a whole lot that is not written.
Actually... in a weird way PF makes it easier for new players to make an OP wizard then in 3.5. Oh it lowered the power ceiling that a person with high system mastery can get the Wizard to. But it brought the floor up for people with lower optimization skills. The number of races that get a +2 floating stat bonus alone make Wizard optimization much much easier then in 3.5 where +INT races were limited. The increased hit dice, allowing INT increases to retroactively give you skill points, new class abilities, and xp costs removed from spells and crafting make playing a overpowered caster much easier for someone with low amount of system mastery.This is what martial/caster disparity looks like...
As tongue-in-cheek as it is, it still makes a sadly accurate representation of what happens in PF past 8th level or so.
Yeah...
I saw that in 3.5 pretty much every campaign.
I haven't really had that problem in PF. Caster Rofl is not as effortless anymore.
All true points, but PF did make sweeping nerfs across a great many of the "I win" spells.
Spells are the lifeblood of the caster, and those average out far weaker in PF.
I love the fact that you've put forth exactly 0 evidence of the contrary - or even an argument.
Do you really think your argument has any merit?
You know what... Nevermind. I'll just adapt CWheezy's advice to your posts as well.
Gaber, for your argument to be valid, you need an example of an unusual spell that already falls under that line.
*looks at spell list*
*Sees blood money*
Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?
What spell list? Because the PRD doesn't seem to list it as part of any spell list at all.
This is basically the same thing as the monk weapon proficiency thingy. Just because a weapon has the "monk" trait that allows a monk to flurry with it doesn't mean a monk is automatically proficient with the weapon, because the trait doesn't state that it is so.
Likewise, just because a spell has a sor/wiz level that allows the sorcerer to learn and cast it doesn't mean it's automatically on a spell list and can be learnt freely, because the magic rules doesn't state that it is so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of claiming the argument is desperate or stupid, could you people put forth counterarguments?
I mean, by my reading all of the rules makes sense in regard to this. Spells in an actual list of spells for the sor/wiz are on the sor/wiz spell list. Spells that have a sor/wiz spell designation but are not published on any list (such as blood money) are "unusual spells" that the sorcerer can gain "understanding of through study".
How does that not make sense?
While I understand your logic, you are just incorrect. The "Sorcerer/Wizard" spell list is comprised of every spell contained in the universe of content that has been created for the game. The fact that one "snapshot" of this list, included in the CRB, comprises the "sorcerer/wizard spell list", is easily countered with the fact that Ultimate Magic and the Advanced Player's Guide both also have "Spell Lists" that are all separate and distinct from one another. "Spell List" is used singularly. Which "spell list" are you limited to, when dozens exist?
If your class is capable of casting the spell, it is on your class's "spell list" as a spell of the appropriate level.