Casting spells and invisibility.

[LucasB]

Someone tell me for the purpose of counter spelling... you can't see your target so how can you counter spell him?

[jbadams]

My understanding is that you can't. Counterspelling requires a Spell craft check to identify the spell being cast, and Spell craft specifies that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".

In my opinion the rules probably should allow for a penalised check based on other senses such as hearing (somatic components), smell (some spell components may have a distinctive scent), etc., but unfortunately the rules are very vision-centric and do not allow for this.

[SlimGauge]

be sure you have "see invisible" running before you attempt to counterspell an invisible caster

[Jeraa]

jbadams wrote:

My understanding is that you can't. Counterspelling requires a Spell craft check to identify the spell being cast, and Spell craft specifies that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".

In my opinion the rules probably should allow for a penalised check based on other senses such as hearing (somatic components), smell (some spell components may have a distinctive scent), etc., but unfortunately the rules are very vision-centric and do not allow for this.

As per the FAQ, all spells have a manifestation you can identify. You don't need to see the caster to identify a spell. Identifying the spell isn't a problem.

The issue is about the rules of counterspelling. Counterspelling requires you to select the caster as a target for the counterspell. Can you target a caster you can't see and possibly don't know if he is even there?

[SlimGauge]

Some believe (myself included) that if the caster is invisible, so are the manifestations at the caster side of the spell.

[_Ozy_]

SlimGauge wrote:

Some believe (myself included) that if the caster is invisible, so are the manifestations at the caster side of the spell.

Based on what?

[jbadams]

I must admit that I'm in the camp that rules manifestations also become invisible, but there isn't actually any clear rules support for this happening. It could be argued that if the manifestations remain close to the caster they're covered by the rules for objects, or argued that they're covered by the rules for light never becoming invisible, but unfortunately the FAQ ruling is (intentionally) very vague and doesn't help one way or another. Based on that if I were asked for the RAW I would probably have to side with manifestations being visible, but will continue to rule otherwise in my games as I feel it violates the intention of the Invisibility spell of allowing a caster to (usually) cast non-offensive spells undetected.

[PokeyCA]

Just so long as there are no verbal components. Speech doesn't become silent in an Invisibility spell.

[wraithstrike]

Jeraa wrote:

jbadams wrote:

My understanding is that you can't. Counterspelling requires a Spell craft check to identify the spell being cast, and Spell craft specifies that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".

In my opinion the rules probably should allow for a penalised check based on other senses such as hearing (somatic components), smell (some spell components may have a distinctive scent), etc., but unfortunately the rules are very vision-centric and do not allow for this.

As per the FAQ, all spells have a manifestation you can identify. You don't need to see the caster to identify a spell. Identifying the spell isn't a problem.

The issue is about the rules of counterspelling. Counterspelling requires you to select the caster as a target for the counterspell. Can you target a caster you can't see and possibly don't know if he is even there?

That's not what the FAQ says. It is what some extrapolated out of it.

[Daw]

There is no universal agreement on this, find out how your table wants to play it, adjust your tactics accordingly.

[jbadams]

wraithstrike wrote:

Jeraa wrote:

As per the FAQ, all spells have a manifestation you can identify. You don't need to see the caster to identify a spell. Identifying the spell isn't a problem.

That's not what the FAQ says. It is what some extrapolated out of it.

Seems like a reasonable FAQ question to me. :)

[The Sword]

It's already been answered. 'Entirely up to each table - but we suggested you use the artwork as an example.'

Ultimately at what point does a manifestation stop? When you stop chanting and waving your arms or when the lightning bolt strikes your chest. They could never rule on the thousands of spells that exist. It will depend on Common sense and failing that DM Fiat.

[_Ozy_]

The Sword wrote:

It's already been answered. 'Entirely up to each table - but we suggested you use the artwork as an example.'

Ultimately at what point does a manifestation stop? When you stop chanting and waving your arms or when the lightning bolt strikes your chest. They could never rule on the thousands of spells that exist. It will depend on Common sense and failing that DM Fiat.

The FAQ didn't even come close to dealing with whether invisibility affects visible manifestations. So no, it hasn't been answered.

You can try to interpret the answer from Pathfinder modules and adventure paths with invisible spellcasters which become much easier to deal with if manifestations are visible, but then, that assume that you believe Pathfinder was written with the intent that visible manifestations were always part of the 'unwritten rules'.

Personally, I think most of the official Pathfinder sources didn't bother to consider them at all.

[Defile]

Personally, i think the manifestations are a good thing.

Ive played the uber wizard with Improved Invisibility and Fly cast and its actually not much fun just easily blowing everything up after a few times. Ive also been the DM on the other end of that. What i saw from both perspectives is the rest of the players at the table bored ore annoyed.

To me its more an issue of making casters have to think a bit tactically. With manifestations still being visible even if the caster is not makes the caster have to think about positioning and what spells they will cast.

Rules wise the Invisibility spell says it makes the 'caster' non visible which it does. The manifestations are not the caster. An invisible caster holding a torch would still leave visible light and smoke once it left the torch. Even spells that the caster does not 'wield' would still be visible. Blade Barrier is a good example of this. Casting that spell would handily identify which square the caster is in while still leaving the caster defended by Invisibility.

Id just use the rules of the Clever Caster feat as a base for diminishing the manifestations. Never mind with making anyone take the feat and just make it something any caster can try.

But again, just by base rules only the caster themselves is made invisible.