Hey all. Quick question. The Kineticist's Telekinetic Invisibility talent requires a standard action to use, but does it need to be maintained with new standard actions each round? That would make it a lot weaker.
As I read it, Self Telekinesis DOES need to be maintained with new standard actions round after round. So, while it is good for mobility, it is not like a fly spell that would allow the kineticist to blast from the air, right?
Telekinetic Invisibility says "this works as invisibility" (i.e. the spell) so it has a duration of 1 minute per level. You can renew it as a standard action whenever, however, so it's effectively "indefinite invisibility whenever you want at no cost."
You are correct about Self-Telekinesis. The talent is mostly for "vaulting over chasms" or "reaching balconies" or similar. If you want pseudo-flying, you will need Greater Self-Telekinesis, which changes the movement to a move action and allows you to hover.
Great! Thanks so much.
I've heard a lot of people say that it is indefinite, and that kinetic powers that don't have specific duration mentioned are generally indefinite/instantaneous.
Have I heard wrong? If so, do you have any additional rules to support your stance?
I gather you are questioning employing the time limit on invisibility? PossibleCabbage's interpretation sounds reasonable, given the reference to the invisibility spell. In any event, given the no burn cost to re-cast, it makes no real difference.
Or were you asking about something else?
I gather you are questioning employing the time limit on invisibility? PossibleCabbage's interpretation sounds reasonable, given the reference to the invisibility spell. In any event, given the no burn cost to re-cast, it makes no real difference.
Or were you asking about something else?
Seems like you're understanding me correctly. Having to reactivate it can absolutely matter if you are on a lengthy scouting mission and you end up giving yourself away with your spell-like ability's manifestations, or if you happen to end up in a combat encounter when it runs out and you have to waste an action to reactivate it.
I know there is a big manifestation if you gather power, but what is the manifestation with just using the ability? I may have missed that.
It depends on your GM, and how flashy wants to make your powers. Kineticists sometimes reminds me of a certain class that came from The Darkest Dephts of the Cheese Plane.
I've heard a lot of people say that it is indefinite, and that kinetic powers that don't have specific duration mentioned are generally indefinite/instantaneous.
Have I heard wrong? If so, do you have any additional rules to support your stance?
Because it's easier for the GM to make it unlimited than tracking every single 'round of action'.
I know there is a big manifestation if you gather power, but what is the manifestation with just using the ability? I may have missed that.
It's an "unwritten rule" that exists only in developer commentary on these boards, and in the official FAQ.
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.
Note that the manifestations caused by the act of spellcasting even appear when using spell-like abilities. Whether or not they give away an invisible caster is a contentious point of debate.
It exists strictly as a balancing mechanism.
I feel like the manifestations FAQerrata exists to prevent people with stuff bordering on mind control powers from just abusing them willy nilly in every social situation. Which is to say, if you use your mind control powers to get a better price on fruit people are going to notice and there will likely be repercussions.
Allowing an invisible person to renew their invisibility without giving themselves away through their manifestations seems wholly appropriate. Invisibility already has limitations built into it in order to check abuse (and greater invisibility has a very short duration), so it doesn't seem necessary to further check abuse.
If nothing else, you should be able to duck behind some curtains or something to obscure your brief visibility.
Yeah, but invisibility can't hide any amount of light, and spell manifestations are often portrayed as displays of glowing runes and the like.
Manifestations are technically undefined in their nature, so it's certainly not a hard rule, but it IS heavily implied enough to cause a whole lot of debate on the matter.
It is incredibly common for invisible spellcasters to do all sort of non-offensive casting, and I've never heard of anyone being thereby exposed. So I tend to agree with PossibleCabbage on this one. I think invisibility obscures spell manifestations.
It is incredibly common for invisible spellcasters to do all sort of non-offensive casting, and I've never heard of anyone being thereby exposed. So I tend to agree with PossibleCabbage on this one. I think invisibility obscures spell manifestations.
It's not incredibly common. Virtually EVERYONE did it that way before that FAQ was released. Whether Paizo likes to admit it, they released a paradigm shift of a new rule with that one.
It even invalidated numerous published encounters and adventures.
Think about it: Succubi can no longer entrance people without giving themselves away, doppelgangers can no longer read your thoughts in a crowded tavern, etc.
A terrible rule if I do say so myself, but one no less official for it.
But given the FAQ makes no reference to invisibility, I think it is a little much to take it as announcing a major change in that respect. But I do understand your interpretation of it. Also, as the FAQ allows the spellcaster to invent their own manifestations, the caster could invent manifestations that do not involve light but would otherwise be noticeable if the caster were not invisible. For example, the kineticist's body could vibrate, and/or the body of the recipient of a spell-like touch effect from a kineticist could vibrate. To take another example, a caster's hands could change color; runes that don't exactly emit light could appear on a caster's palm; etc.
But better to avoid such creative evasion and just rule that manifestations don't appear when casting non-offensive spells while invisible. That interpretation even makes more sensible the notion that offensive spells break invisibility -- such spells DO have visual manifestations, which break the invisibility effect. In that light, the notion that non-offensive spells do not have visual manifestations while a caster is invisible is basically implied by the spell.
It is incredibly common for invisible spellcasters to do all sort of non-offensive casting, and I've never heard of anyone being thereby exposed. So I tend to agree with PossibleCabbage on this one. I think invisibility obscures spell manifestations.It's not incredibly common. Virtually EVERYONE did it that way before that FAQ was released. Whether Paizo likes to admit it, they released a paradigm shift of a new rule with that one.
It even invalidated numerous published encounters and adventures.
Think about it: Succubi can no longer entrance people without giving themselves away, doppelgangers can no longer read your thoughts in a crowded tavern, etc.
A terrible rule if I do say so myself, but one no less official for it.
IIRC spell-like, extraordinary and supernatural abilities don't make you glow like a disco ball when you 'cast' them, only the effect they... emulate? is audible and visible.
Care to tell me the link of that FAQ please?
Ravingdork quoted it above. I'd be interested in your take:
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.
Ravingdork quoted it above.
I also linked to it in the same post I quoted it. It's the 9th post in this thread.
It does say "the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details." So that seems to suggest it is up to the PC, subject to the GM's veto if the PC is being unreasonable. I don't know what being "up to your group" means, but I doubt the other PCs would object to a PC defining his/her manifestations.
But, in any event, I prefer an interpretation that invisibility, by necessary implication, suppresses the manifestations of non-offensive spells. Nothing in the FAQ states to the contrary.
I mean a reasonably manifestation for casting "invisibility" is "my skin and clothing change color,running through a variety of colors and patterns, eventually fading into the background like a chameleon" which is not something that anybody would notice if you already happen to be invisible.
Which is to say, no one is likely to notice that you are briefly blue with orange polka dots if you happen to be invisible at the time.
Regarding manifestations of a telekineticist though, one would imagine they generally take the form of "threads of aether coalescing or entwining or moving around". Is aether, by default, even normally visible to people without magical or special senses? Like does basic telekinesis look different than you'd imagine because people can see the threads of aether you've attached to what you've moving around? If I use Greater Self-TK to fly around, do I look like Spider-Man?
I also linked to it in the same post I quoted it. It's the 9th post in this thread.Ravingdork quoted it above.
Holly molly I am blind as a molerat! Much appreciated.
I mean a reasonably manifestation for casting "invisibility" is "my skin and clothing change color,running through a variety of colors and patterns, eventually fading into the background like a chameleon" which is not something that anybody would notice if you already happen to be invisible.
One must not confuse the manifestations generated from the act of spellcasting with the actual effects of the spell, which only occur after the act of casting is completed. What you describe sounds much more like the latter than the former.
Food for thought - if you look up Jason Bulmahn's posts and search for manifestations you'll get a look at some of the thought process behind that FAQ. That is to say - that spells always manifest is supposed to be a 'given' in pathfinder and even a silent and stilled spell gets a spellcraft check to identify it (although Jason suggested that a -4 penalty per metamagic might be a good home rule).
In other words - as far as the 'manifestation' goes - given that a silent spell while invisible is supposed to produce a 'clear identifiable sign' that allows a spellcraft check - I believe that there is no possible way to cast while invisible unless you are alone somewhere. Other threads that this has been discussed are numerous - and it has ramifications on other things as well such as Hat of Disguise (as that requires a standard to recast and thus isn't something that lets you rely on being hidden).
Simply put - they made it (by RAW and RAI) very very very difficult to cast a spell secretly in pathfinder - anything you play otherwise I think is a house rule. My guess (just a guess really) is that a majority of tables don't know about or use these rules fully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but it totally screws over common fantasy tropes such as illusionists or enchanters, who can't do there prescribed jobs as written any longer.
One must not confuse the manifestations generated from the act of spellcasting with the actual effects of the spell, which only occur after the act of casting is completed. What you describe sounds much more like the latter than the former.
Well, if you want the "Actual procedure" for casting the spell it's just "I wave my arms around and while I'm doing it I turn blue and other colors then disappear" (based on the source material, pretty much all kineticist SLAs should be cast by arm waving). If I'm invisible already, nobody's going to see me waving my arms around.
Going back to "what happens when i set an invisible thing on fire?" the light emitted by the actions might still be visible. something along the lines of "You see faint blue and gold light flicker for a moment and die away in an empty space a few feet in front of you".
But why would anything the telekineticist do emit light? If it's a pyrokineticist, there's going to be fire involved an fire emits light, but things like wood, rocks, void, and air certainly don't.
Sometimes spell manifestations are going to involve glowing runes, but fundamentally "what your manifestations look like" ought to be up to the player and there's no reason they can't choose something that wouldn't be visible if an invisible person did it. Invisibility already has checks against using spells against non-allies, so I don't think this open to abuse.
I'm still not sure though, is aether by default visible? If my manifestation for telekinetic invisbility is "I weave a cloak of aether and throw it over myself, thereby disappearing" can people see the strands of aether? How I imagine telekinesis and mage hand working is "nobody can see anything attached to the floating object" so I'm thinking maybe not.
The ability description says: "You weave strands of aether, bending light and dampening sound; This works as invisibility except that the aetheric bending is easier to notice than normal invisibility, so your bonus on Stealth checks is halved (+10 while moving and +20 while perfectly still)." I do think aether is generally invisible and if it weren't then I don't think it would be possible to use it to bend light and and make a character invisible.
I do generally agree with PossibleCabbage about manifestations and won't use the interpretation of the FAQ that some have articulated in the game I run -- the FAQ says nothing about invisibility so I stand by my interpretation of how the spell works. But of course most casting has an audible component that might give a caster away. But spell-like abilities such as the kineticist's do not have verbal components...
|
One of the goals of the goal of the FAQ is to make difficult to use magic without being noticed.
What is the effect of telekinetic invisibility? +10 to stealth check if moving. +20 if still.
You are "weaning strand of aether, bending light", so you aren't perfectly still and you aren't using stealth.
Base Dc of noticing you 0, +10 for the TK invisibility effect, total DC 10. Plus distance and other effect hiding you.
BTW, you are "bending light" while you activate the effect. You know what bend light? A prism. So probably you are projecting a nice rainbow while you activate the effect.
You have to be at least level 6 to get TK invisibility, so that's 6 minutes per blast. I figure on an extended scouting mission, if you maintain an appropriate internal clock that's more than enough time to find a closet or something where you can renew it and no one can see you.
The question remains though, if I try to use it again while it's already up, I have already effectively "bent light" in order to obscure myself, so if I reset the duration by using it again (i.e. bending light) while the light is already bent, will anyone see that? I envision TK Invisibility as working like the Predator's cloaking in the 1987 film of the same name, so it's sort of an "the air shimmers if you move" kind of thing.
Base Dc of noticing you 0, +10 for the TK invisibility effect, total DC 10. Plus distance and other effect hiding you.
I definitely disagree with the notion that one cannot use stealth while using telekinetic invisibility. They have already made it a lot weaker than regular invisibility. To say you can't use stealth would just nerf it. Unless you're suggesting that one cannot use stealth just during the one round you are initiating the effect, but can use it the 6 minutes thereafter. I don't necessarily agree with that either, but it is less problematic.
|
|
Base Dc of noticing you 0, +10 for the TK invisibility effect, total DC 10. Plus distance and other effect hiding you.I definitely disagree with the notion that one cannot use stealth while using telekinetic invisibility. They have already made it a lot weaker than regular invisibility. To say you can't use stealth would just nerf it. Unless you're suggesting that one cannot use stealth just during the one round you are initiating the effect, but can use it the 6 minutes thereafter. I don't necessarily agree with that either, but it is less problematic.
While casting telekinetic invisibility, wether you are already invisible or not, you can't use stealth.
Casting a spell break your stealth. You can move and reenter stealth after casting, but you have breached your stealth attempt.
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
It looks like only an attack breaks stealth.
|
|
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).It looks like only an attack breaks stealth.
Or waving your arms around, or speaking, or plenty of not listed activities.
Source? You can certainly wave your arms quietly or talk quietly. Heck, we even have a word for stealth talking.
And spell-like abilities don't have a verbal component. Like Melkiador, I don't see why moving arms breaks stealth.
|
|
Source? You can certainly wave your arms quietly or talk quietly. Heck, we even have a word for stealth talking.
Whispering =/= speaking, If you want, make that "normal speaking". Even less from spellcasting spells with a V component, that require "a strong voice".
Wave your arm quietly? You can move your arm quietly, but waving generally isn't referred to small, precise gestures. It is used for broad movements.
After 2 blogs and a lot of playtesting there isn't a comprehensive ruleset for stealth, invisibility affect how much noise you make, but being behind a totally opaque cover don't give a bonus to visual stealth, and so on.
So yes, it is totally an opinion on how it work and it is meant to work.
Also, if you were trying to do these things while using stealth then you would be finding the best times to do them and not be noticed. So you wave your hands when they look the other way. And you make noise when they are making noise to drown out your own.
That's almost my point, though. The rules are merely an abstraction trying to simulate a reality. Only attacks break stealth for the same reason that you can look in all directions at the same time. Because this is a game first and that's just the way the game works.