Finding invisible spellcasters via their spellcasting

[wraithstrike]

Franz Lunzer wrote:

... but might still shed light for a split-second.

Pathfinder doesn't do split seconds, however you do have a point because the group could decide that is how the manisfestation takes place.

I just thought of something. Some spells such as the summoning spells are cast until the beginning of the caster's next turn of if the manisfestation is always visible for a certain group he is lit up for a decent amount of time. One AoE, and he could lose the spell.

[Caosbot]

The spell manifestations it's not exactly "in the hands of the caster" or "around the caster" can be, "near", "through the target way", "on the floor", "in the air", it's a cosmetic effect.

[Nicos]

Caosbot wrote:

The spell manifestations it's not exactly "in the hands of the caster" or "around the caster" can be, "near", "through the target way", "on the floor", "in the air", it's a cosmetic effect.

A cosmetic rules with mechanic implications. Implications that are not fully clear, hence the thread.

[Matrix Dragon]

I may as well point out that the rules for invisible creatures states that if an invisible creature is "In combat or speaking" the perception DC to find him gets a -20 modifier. If he is also moving, he gets an additional -5 penalty to stealth as well, if not more. Casting in combat basically gives you such harsh penalties to stealth that the perception DC to notice you can easily drop to 0 if not lower.

Moving only makes it easier for other characters to find him, since the moving invisible character loses the +20 stealth bonus for standing still.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/glossary.html#invisibility

[Ravingdork]

Can someone please give me a hard Perception DC to pinpoint the specific square of someone who is spellcasting while invisible? I keep hearing about various modifiers, but no final DC is ever mentioned with any apparent certainty.

I guess we will need two answers: One for when the caster is moving about (I assume the rules mean moving from one square to another, not merely waving one's hands about) and another for when he is standing still (that is, not leaving his square).

[Snowlilly]

wraithstrike wrote:

and if he is invisible so is the manifestation.

Given the entire FAQ was about casting while invisible, the only way to interpret the FAQ in-context is that the manifestations are observable while the caster is invisible.

Quote:

ob·serv·a·ble

/əbˈzərvəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: observable

able to be noticed or perceived; discernible.
"observable differences"

synonyms: noticeable, visible, perceptible, perceivable, detectable, conspicuous, distinguishable, discernible, recognizable, evident, apparent, manifest, obvious, patent, palpable, overt, clear, distinct, plain, unmistakable

You can argue that the "observable" manifestation is non-visible, but it remains obvious and unmistakable (per synonyms of observable.)

[Ravingdork]

Snowlilly wrote:

Given the entire FAQ was about casting while invisible, the only way to interpret the FAQ in-context is that the manifestations are observable while the caster is invisible.

Are we looking at the same FAQ? I don't see the word invisibility anywhere.

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

[thejeff]

Snowlilly wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

and if he is invisible so is the manifestation.

Given the entire FAQ was about casting while invisible, the only way to interpret the FAQ in-context is that the manifestations are observable while the caster is invisible.

I'm confused. I assumed we were referring to this FAQ

Quote:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

This FAQ doesn't mention invisibility. It's about identifying spells as they're cast, particularly when they don't have V/S/M components.

Is there another FAQ in question here?

[Matrix Dragon]

Ravingdork wrote:

Can someone please give me a hard Perception DC to pinpoint the specific square of someone who is spellcasting while invisible? I keep hearing about various modifiers, but no final DC is ever mentioned with any apparent certainty.

I guess we will need two answers: One for when the caster is moving about (I assume the rules mean moving from one square to another, not merely waving one's hands about) and another for when he is standing still (that is, not leaving his square).

Here, this should help:

Perception DC modifier Chart
In combat or speaking: –20
Moving at half speed: –5
Moving at full speed: –10
Running or charging: –20
Not moving: +20
Using Stealth: Stealth check +20
Some distance away: +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door): +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall): +15

So, in theory, a spellcaster who is casting a spell at someone (aka in combat) while standing still... has a +20 to stealth. That's +40 from stationary invisibility, and -20 from being in combat. He does not get to add his stealth roll to this number because you have to move in order to re-apply stealth after attacking (I think).

A spellcaster who is invisible and casts while moving at half speed has a -5 overall to stealth. That's +20 from invisibility, -20 from being in combat, and -5 from moving at half speed. Of course, a character who moves while being invisible gets to make a stealth check, so he could easily get this number to be much higher. Let's assume the character gets an average of 20 on his stealth checks, and that would bring the perception DC to find him to 15 (plus other modifiers).

Finding an invisible character in combat isn't actually that hard if you remember to apply the -20 "in combat" penalty to stealth.

[bbangerter]

Ravingdork wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

The FAQ never says that all manifestations are visible...

No, but they are observable. Nothing in the rules for invisibility seem to change this, sadly.

To hear my players talk about it, it's like a wizard with permanent arcane sight trying to use invisibility. It just doesn't work.

(Which is ironic, considering the PCs have been casting spells while invisible every other battle up to this point.)

Ask them to point out which part of the FAQ says that visible magical manifestations are centered on the caster. I could visualize such just as easily being centered on the target, coming down out of the sky, erupting from the ground, or a host of other possibilities - all dependent on the nature of the spell being cast.

Ultimately this becomes a GM call. Ray of <x>, I'd probably allow them, with a perception check, to note the point of origination. Hold person? I always describe it as chains of force wrapping around the target.

[vhok]

thejeff wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

and if he is invisible so is the manifestation.

Given the entire FAQ was about casting while invisible, the only way to interpret the FAQ in-context is that the manifestations are observable while the caster is invisible.

I'm confused. I assumed we were referring to this FAQ

Quote:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

This FAQ doesn't mention invisibility. It's about...

this is exactly the problem. they don't talk about what happens if your invisible and casting a spell. because they don't mention it but they say the manifistations are visible 2 of my dm's have both said even if I am invisible my spell casting is not and they can easily see where I am if I cast a spell. that is why we need an FAQ for this FAQ.

[Snowblind]

bbangerter wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

...

Ask them to point out which part of the FAQ says that visible magical manifestations are centered on the caster. I could visualize such just as easily being centered on the target, coming down out of the sky, erupting from the ground, or a host of other possibilities - all dependent on the nature of the spell being cast.

Ultimately this becomes a GM call. Ray of <x>, I'd probably allow them, with a perception check, to note the point of origination. Hold person? I always describe it as chains of force wrapping around the target.

The manifestations can't be on the target because the caster only has to decide their target as the spell comes into effect, which is after spellcraft checks are made.

While I am posting, here are a few more rules tibits:

Invisibility explicitly states that it hides a creature and its gear. Spell manifestations are neither. Trying to extend the effects of invisibility to them is an inference, and a highly questionable one too.

Lastly, Spellcraft specifically says that the caster must see the spell being cast. I can't think of a sane way that a spellcraft check could be totally dependent on the caster seeing the spell (and only dependent on seeing the spell) without the spell manifestations being visible for the caster to see.

[Ravingdork]

Thanks Matrix Dragon, but if I'm not mistaken, people don't take a -5 penalty to Stealth checks unless they move greater than half their speed. Also, though it is implied that you need to move to stealth, there's no hard rule that says this. I imagine an invisible creature would have a fair amount of leeway when it comes to stealthing (seeing as he has total concealment and all).

[Azothath]

this will always be a contentious topic in a Rules Thread due to the intentionally nebulous definition. Basically it's up to your GM.

I think it's better to take a practical stance on what seems fair. Clearly that will be a bit different for each GM and group. It's a complex issue.

If a caster hides all parts of the act of casting, then it should raise the Perception DC to a very high number if not impossible for a mundane observer during combat.

So still, silent and eschew materials (effectively raising a spell's level by 3, should add 20 to the DC of a perception check to spot the casting. This would move the casting out of the range for most first level observers who are not using magic and have no spellcraft.

Obvious effects will still be noticeable.
People will still add 2 and 2 to notice that a monster appeared out of nowhere and there's just this guy standing 30ft away... he musta cast a spell! (of course this is in retrospect)

Spells such as Illusion of Calm, Vanish, Obscuring Mist, Ventriloquism, Fog Cloud, Invisibility, Silence, Wall of Fire, Wall of Stone, etc that effect perception and lines of effect will always have an impact on what is detectable/observable.

[bbangerter]

Snowblind wrote:

The manifestations can't be on the target because the caster only has to decide their target as the spell comes into effect, which is after spellcraft checks are made.

Ok. That still doesn't make such manifestations centered on the caster. Out of the sky, up from the ground, or any other numerous other options are available.

[Snowblind]

bbangerter wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

The manifestations can't be on the target because the caster only has to decide their target as the spell comes into effect, which is after spellcraft checks are made.

Ok. That still doesn't make such manifestations centered on the caster. Out of the sky, up from the ground, or any other numerous other options are available.

It doesn't rule that out. However...

Quote:

...

Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

Based on the above, the style of manifestation probably shouldn't make a serious difference to observers who are near the caster, because the specifics of the manifestation is being used to make manifestations "not obvious", potentially outright denying them the ability to detect the spellcasting, or concealing who is doing the actual casting (and thus allowing the caster to run amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation). For example, no manifestations high in the sky while the caster is in the middle of a room with no windows, or high in the sky and off to the side while the caster is in a crowd.

Something like a bolt of magicalness coming down from the sky onto the caster is probably fine, though

[Dasrak]

The crux of the issue comes down to this text:

Spellcraft wrote:

Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

The question is: does being able to clearly see the spell require being able to clearly see the caster, or can a spell be noticed independently of the creature casting it? I've pored over this question previously, and I do not believe there is a definitive answer. It's just never specified anywhere.

If you rule that the spell is perceived separately of the caster, then the question becomes what is the check to the notice the spell? The FAQ gives us no leads in terms of how big or noticeable it is. We could take some rough guesses, but as it currently stands it'd be the GM's call as to what the DC should be and what other similar effects could also be perceived separately from an invisible creature. Personally I dislike this ruling for two reasons if only because it bloats the number of perception checks in combat situations that are already technically complex. Note that this ruling doesn't mean it's impossible to conceal spellcasting, it just means the concealment must be general and not targeted to a specific creature/object like invisibility is.

On the other hand, if you rule that seeing a spell inherently requires seeing the caster then the question becomes how casting a spell modifies your stealth check. The closest precedent we have for this is how invisibility handles items in your possession:

Invisibility wrote:

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.

So in this case the spell would be a light with no visible source. While that's helpful, it still leaves questions. For instance, how difficult is it to notice a light with no visible source? The rules don't say what kind of check would be required for such a thing. Moreover, the FAQ that established that magic is inherently noticeable doesn't specify how powerful a light source it is. Is it as much as a torch? A candle? Or does it produce no light at all, and is as difficult to see as any other physical object in total darkness?

So both possible approaches have pitfalls and questions that need to be answered by the GM in any case. My own personal ruling is that noticing a spell requires the observer to successfully notice the spellcaster, and the visual display don't create enough light to be noticed in anything brighter than total darkness. No extra perception rolls, and simple to remember and apply.

I'd totally support the FAQ on this topic to get an official answer on the matter.

Matrix Dragon wrote:

Perception DC modifier Chart

In combat or speaking: –20

I've never seen this penalty before. Could you reference the source?

[Matrix Dragon]

Dasrak, I found it in the glossary of the PRD, in the invisibility section: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/glossary.html#invisibility

[Dasrak]

Matrix Dragon wrote:

Dasrak, I found it in the glossary of the PRD, in the invisibility section: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/glossary.html#invisibility

Invisibility wrote:

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.

So this kind of perception check only work within 30 feet, you have a baseline DC of 40 to pinpoint an exact square, and if the invisible creature is using stealth (no reason the wizard wouldn't; casting spells that don't require attack rolls doesn't break stealth) you add 20 + stealth check to the DC. It's worth noting that invisibility also adds a bonus on all stealth checks, so even with 0 in the stealth skill and a roll of natural 1 a wizard who is moving at half speed while invisible has a stealth result of 21. That takes us up to 61. Then -5 for moving at half speed then -20 for talking and being in combat, so the DC is 36. This DC, which is the lowest possible you would ever see in this situation, is already very difficult even for high level characters, and if the wizard isn't moving the DC explodes to 101. And if he's got a decent stealth check, just forget about it.

An opposed perception vs stealth check has a much lower DC than this and doesn't have a 30 foot limitation. I'm not sure what to make of these rules, but they look like text from 3.5 that never got updated to interact properly with how invisibility/stealth/perception work in Pathfinder. I think I'm just going to keep using opposed Stealth and Perception checks at my table and ignore this particular glossary item in cases where stealth is being used (works well when stealth isn't at play, mind you).

[wraithstrike]

The same rules were in 3.5. They were explained in a rules of the game article.

[CampinCarl9127]

Magic wrote:

Verbal (V)

A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.

Others may disagree with my interpretation, but I understand 'strong voice' to mean at bare minimum that the caster is projecting as if speaking to a classroom. So the answer is very simple. The PCs make a perception check, how well they roll will determine what kind of information they know about the casters location. Easy.

[BigNorseWolf]

20 you know their zipcode

40 to get their square.

[Azothath]

BTB Casting isn't subtle, I think that's clear. In most of the Paizo artwork there are circular rune-thingys which I assume is one interpretation of the spell "manifestations". It's always close to the caster and thus would give away the square but not necessarily the caster's exact position. As it is company artwork one assumes it is a valid interpretation for PFS.

Knowing spellcasting is occuring is different than knowing who cast the spell or what the spell is (before the effect becomes obvious or known).

For a home game it might be a tad obvious and certainly blow the cover of most low level Illusionists. It would certainly be more subtle if the manifestations were tied to the casting components. DnD 3.5 never emphasized the text as where Paizo has. So that's something to note in your Pathfinder logbook.

The running amok part IMO is a moot point as a caster capable of using 4th level spells can certainly come up with ways to cover or conceal his spellcasting. Besides, 9th level casters run amok as is... lol... how else do we get BBEGs?

For a complication an invisible caster could stand next to his target scapegoat and cast(invis, silent MM), then 5 ft away leaving the scapegoat to be accused of casting a spell by most mundane observers.

[wraithstrike]

Snowlilly wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

and if he is invisible so is the manifestation.

Given the entire FAQ was about casting while invisible, the only way to interpret the FAQ in-context is that the manifestations are observable while the caster is invisible.

Quote:

ob·serv·a·ble

/əbˈzərvəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: observable

able to be noticed or perceived; discernible.
"observable differences"

synonyms: noticeable, visible, perceptible, perceivable, detectable, conspicuous, distinguishable, discernible, recognizable, evident, apparent, manifest, obvious, patent, palpable, overt, clear, distinct, plain, unmistakable

You can argue that the "observable" manifestation is non-visible, but it remains obvious and unmistakable (per synonyms of observable.)

That FAQ was not about casting while invisible. It was about spells with no components, and SLA's.

[Snowblind]

wraithstrike wrote:

...

That FAQ was not about casting while invisible. It was about spells with no components, and SLA's.

We do have the actual text of invisibility for that, you know.

Invisibility wrote:

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.
...

Spell manifestations are not the creature or object touched, they are not the gear carried by the recipient, and they are not an item that has been tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Thus, Invisibility does not hide them. Invisibility would help with concealing spell manifestations about as much as it would help with concealing the caster's voice while they speak loudly.

[_Ozy_]

Except, there is no rule that says manifestations must be visible phenomena, correct? It could be a series of loud bells ringing out, a sudden chill in the air, a pungent odor that permeates a 20' radius...for example.

Those types of manifestations aren't visible to begin with.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

They can be visible but part of the casters body. I've used the example of black, tatto-like runes that appear on your skin. Meets the FAQ requirements, meets invisibility requirements. The FAQ left enough flexibility that both answers to the invisibility question can be correct at different tables.

[wraithstrike]

Can be visible is not the same as "must be visible", which is basically what I have been saying.

[Ravingdork]

What if the spellcaster wasn't invisible, but was obscured by a large illusion he was residing in? Would his spellcasting manifestations be observable then?

[wraithstrike]

Ravingdork wrote:

What if the spellcaster wasn't invisible, but was obscured by a large illusion he was residing in? Would his spellcasting manifestations be observable then?

The rules don't say how the manifestation presents itself. So it might not be visible at all. They really leave it up to the GM.

To answer your question if the illusion, I would say if they believe the illusion is real then it would act like a real <insert whatever illusion is imitating>, and if that would block line of sight then so would the illusion.

Another thing to look at is someone in a fog cloud. Even if the manifestation is visible the opponent can't see beyond 5 feet into the cloud. Widen spell just got a lot more useful because it pretty much extends the fog to an entire room, and you don't even have to worry about see invisibility or glitterdust giving you away.

[Doomed Hero]

Ravingdork wrote:

What if the spellcaster wasn't invisible, but was obscured by a large illusion he was residing in? Would his spellcasting manifestations be observable then?

If the manifestations were of the visible variety, yes.

[bbangerter]

Snowblind wrote:

Based on the above, the style of manifestation probably shouldn't make a serious difference to observers who are near the caster, because the specifics of the manifestation is being used to make manifestations "not obvious", potentially outright denying them the ability to detect the spellcasting, or concealing who is doing the actual casting (and thus allowing the caster to run amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation). For example, no manifestations high in the sky while the caster is in the middle of a room with no windows, or high in the sky and off to the side while the caster is in a crowd.

Something like a bolt of magicalness coming down from the sky onto the caster is probably fine, though

For a caster that is visible, sure, but outright denying a caster who took the time to learn and cast invisibility any advantage for having done so isn't exactly fair either. The rules do not state "invisible casters who cast spells have their position revealed". It is one possible interpretation, but not the only one - the rules at present simply leave that open as a GM call.

[Brother Fen]

The invisible caster is still invisible until broken as per the spell description. Anyone searching for him would still have to do so with a perception check.

[Dasrak]

Ravingdork wrote:

What if the spellcaster wasn't invisible, but was obscured by a large illusion he was residing in? Would his spellcasting manifestations be observable then?

The manifestation shares the same space as the caster, and the illusion is blocking line of sight to that square so its contents cannot be seen. This one would avoid the caster being pinpointed regardless of how you rule invisibility.

[Bandw2]

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Magic wrote:

Verbal (V)

A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.

Others may disagree with my interpretation, but I understand 'strong voice' to mean at bare minimum that the caster is projecting as if speaking to a classroom. So the answer is very simple. The PCs make a perception check, how well they roll will determine what kind of information they know about the casters location. Easy.

I see this brought up, but this is only a perception check to detect his voice, not his square...

[Bandw2]

Doomed Hero wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

What if the spellcaster wasn't invisible, but was obscured by a large illusion he was residing in? Would his spellcasting manifestations be observable then?

If the manifestations were of the visible variety, yes.

s

so if the caster was surrounded by an illusionary curtain, you could still see the spell through the illusion?

[Conjoy]

_Snowblind _ wrote:

Spell manifestations are not the creature or object touched, they are not the gear carried by the recipient, and they are not an item that has been tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Thus, Invisibility does not hide them. Invisibility would help with concealing spell manifestations about as much as it would help with concealing the caster's voice while they speak loudly.

So you would utilise a FAQ that is unrelated to the circumstances to invalidate the basic rules of the spell, which say what ends the spell? Why describe spells like Bless as not breaking Invisibility if you are saying the opponents can see obvious manifestations of Bless being cast?

[Franz Lunzer]

Conjoy wrote:

_Snowblind _ wrote:

Spell manifestations are not the creature or object touched, they are not the gear carried by the recipient, and they are not an item that has been tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Thus, Invisibility does not hide them. Invisibility would help with concealing spell manifestations about as much as it would help with concealing the caster's voice while they speak loudly.

So you would utilise a FAQ that is unrelated to the circumstances to invalidate the basic rules of the spell, which say what ends the spell? Why describe spells like Bless as not breaking Invisibility if you are saying the opponents can see obvious manifestations of Bless being cast?

Well, knowing *someone* is (somewhere) there casting a spell is very different from seeing someone appear out of thin air because they cast another spell.

An attack spell breaks invisibility. That is clear, the caster of said spell is now visible (if lighting and vision of the observer permit it).

A spell that doesn't break invisibility, doesn't. The caster is still invisible (total concealment) and his location isn't actually revealed, even if his presence is.

[wraithstrike]

Conjoy wrote:

_Snowblind _ wrote:

Spell manifestations are not the creature or object touched, they are not the gear carried by the recipient, and they are not an item that has been tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Thus, Invisibility does not hide them. Invisibility would help with concealing spell manifestations about as much as it would help with concealing the caster's voice while they speak loudly.

So you would utilise a FAQ that is unrelated to the circumstances to invalidate the basic rules of the spell, which say what ends the spell? Why describe spells like Bless as not breaking Invisibility if you are saying the opponents can see obvious manifestations of Bless being cast?

Basically he thinks the rule should work a certain way and he is trying to justify it, but as pointed out above by others nothing supports that the manifestation gives away the location. The manifestation FAQ was only meant to let people know that some magic was going on so casters cant just cast spells without while sipping tea, and have nobody ever know about it. The manifestation can appear away from the caster since the FAQ said it is up to the group to decide how it works. Maybe it appears as writing on the wall or strange arcane symbols in the air, as an example.

[Ravingdork]

Let's face it, the game developers have said for years that casters can summon monsters while invisible without invalidating their invisibility. Anyone saying otherwise is either a poster who wants to be right regardless of the facts, or a developer who is knowingly changing the game.

*Starts making popcorn*

[wraithstrike]

Ravingdork wrote:

Let's face it, the game developers have said for years that casters can summon monsters while invisible without invalidating their invisibility. Anyone saying otherwise is either a poster who wants to be right regardless of the facts, or a developer who is knowingly changing the game.

*Starts making popcorn*

You know someone is going to ask for proof.

<waits for someone to ask>

[The Sideromancer]

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Let's face it, the game developers have said for years that casters can summon monsters while invisible without invalidating their invisibility. Anyone saying otherwise is either a poster who wants to be right regardless of the facts, or a developer who is knowingly changing the game.

*Starts making popcorn*

You know someone is going to ask for proof.

<waits for someone to ask>

How do you intend for him to prove he's making popcorn? ;)

[Nicos]

The Sideromancer wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Let's face it, the game developers have said for years that casters can summon monsters while invisible without invalidating their invisibility. Anyone saying otherwise is either a poster who wants to be right regardless of the facts, or a developer who is knowingly changing the game.

*Starts making popcorn*

You know someone is going to ask for proof.

<waits for someone to ask>

How do you intend for him to prove he's making popcorn? ;)

Oh, I like Reductio ad absurdum, but I think a video would suffice for this :p

[wraithstrike]

The Sideromancer wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Let's face it, the game developers have said for years that casters can summon monsters while invisible without invalidating their invisibility. Anyone saying otherwise is either a poster who wants to be right regardless of the facts, or a developer who is knowingly changing the game.

*Starts making popcorn*

You know someone is going to ask for proof.

<waits for someone to ask>

How do you intend for him to prove he's making popcorn? ;)

Well it was an hour ago so he has probably eaten it already. :)

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

wraithstrike wrote:

The Sideromancer wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Let's face it, the game developers have said for years that casters can summon monsters while invisible without invalidating their invisibility. Anyone saying otherwise is either a poster who wants to be right regardless of the facts, or a developer who is knowingly changing the game.

*Starts making popcorn*

You know someone is going to ask for proof.

<waits for someone to ask>

How do you intend for him to prove he's making popcorn? ;)

Well it was an hour ago so he has probably eaten it already. :)

actually I think he's watching the dump scene in "The Trouble With Tribbles" on the BBCAmerica Star Trek Marathon and he's throwing his popcorn at Kirk.

[Ravingdork]

wraithstrike wrote:

The Sideromancer wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Let's face it, the game developers have said for years that casters can summon monsters while invisible without invalidating their invisibility. Anyone saying otherwise is either a poster who wants to be right regardless of the facts, or a developer who is knowingly changing the game.

*Starts making popcorn*

You know someone is going to ask for proof.

<waits for someone to ask>

How do you intend for him to prove he's making popcorn? ;)

Well it was an hour ago so he has probably eaten it already. :)

There's always more popcorn! :D

[bbangerter]

Dasrak wrote:

The manifestation shares the same space as the caster...

Citation needed from either the rules, a FAQ, or I'd even settle for a developer comment on it....

[Dasrak]

bbangerter wrote:

Citation needed from either the rules, a FAQ, or I'd even settle for a developer comment on it....

If you rule that the spell's visual display doesn't share the same space as the caster then we're back to square one: the visual display can be somewhere the caster is not, and therefor doesn't reveal his position.

So either the spell shares the same space as the caster and gets all the same concealment afforded by that space, or it does not and is therefor not a reliable means of locating the caster's position in the first place.

[bbangerter]

Dasrak wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

Citation needed from either the rules, a FAQ, or I'd even settle for a developer comment on it....

If you rule that the spell's visual display doesn't share the same space as the caster then we're back to square one: the visual display can be somewhere the caster is not, and therefor doesn't reveal his position.

So either the spell shares the same space as the caster and gets all the same concealment afforded by that space, or it does not and is therefor not a reliable means of locating the caster's position in the first place.

That is precisely my point. The rules do not directly support the notion that casting a spell auto-pinpoints an invisible caster. The FAQ leaves it open to GM fiat if they want to do so, but also leaves it open that it does not.

You made the claim "The manifestation shares the same space as the caster...". I challenged you to support that idea from the rules. The manifestation may, or may not, share the same space as the caster - again left open to GM fiat to rule how they like.

[Nicos]

There is not much to argue really. Nothing can be truly said about an unwritten rule, only a FAQ can solve it.