That's brilliant. Close your eyes and you negate +40 stealth. Rules legal too!
You know that closing your eyes turn everyone around you Invisible...
It says nowhere that Invisibility is only granted by the spell... Someone behind a door is invisible to you.
I think the rule is there to emphasize that creatures who had no special senses heavily rely on sight to percept the world around them.
So the DC to detect a non moving creature behind a thick door is : 45
DC 20 because he is invisible, +20 still, +5 door.
I agree that since the Invisibility condition already give you +20 to perception the Spell Invisibility should not grant you the additionnal +20 to stealth, it should give you only the "invisible condition" which already give you the 20 base DC to the Perfception check.
This is how I rule it at my table but per raw the Invisibility spell does grant you +20/+40 to stealth.
Same with the Stealth+20 DC modifiers in the invisible table, it should be DCF Modifiers Stealth since it's a modifier to the base 20 DC.
RAW-wise the DC to detect someone under the Invisible Spell not moving and actively stealthing with a stealth skill of 10 within 30 feet of you is : Base DC 20 (detect invisible) + 20 (not moving) + 70+1d20 (Stealth+20 : 10 Stealth skill, +40 stealth invisibility spell, +20 cause it's noted Stealth +20 in the table, +1d20 roll) = 110+1d20... A bit too much I think but it seem to me it's RAW... ;)
Once again the Invisibility spell should just give you the "invisible condition" and the DC modifier should just be Stealth and not Stealth+20. That would solve a lot of issues... ;p
invisibility was always op'd, but merging listen and spot into perception made it go to plaid.
Lohengrin , you seem to have added a 70 in there and i have no idea where it came from.
basically, your best bet is to wait until someone casts. The DC to hear them is zero , they can't stealth, and their holding still is irrelevant , and its STILL a 20 to get their zip code and a 40 to get their square.
Lohengrin , you seem to have added a 70 in there and i have no idea where it came from.
basically, your best bet is to wait until someone casts. The DC to hear them is zero , they can't stealth, and their holding still is irrelevant , and its STILL a 20 to get their zip code and a 40 to get their square.
The 70 come from Stealth skill at 10, invisibility spell add +40 to stealth while not moving, and the table in the Invisibility entry says the DC modifier to percept is Stealth +20... x_x
IMHO, it doesn't stack as much as OP believes. My 2c:
"can... notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20"
is it's own unique usage of Perception, distinct to pin-pointing or normal Perception checks.
Just as Acrobatics or Survival can be used for distinct purposes all these are distinct.
"Can do X with Skill" "Can do Y with Skill" "Can do Z with Skill" does not imply one unified check.
The +20 DC references to "pinpoint... with *A* Perception check" not as modifier to "within 30'" check.
All the modifiers in Invisibility Table only apply to the second check, i.e. pin-pointing, because:
"There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to *THIS* DC if the invisible creature is..."
My emphasis on the part indicating a SINGULAR DC (the immediately preceding one, i.e. Pinpointing),
not plural "these" which would be the term to indicate both above DCs/checks. That is supported by
the modifiers including distance (/10'), when the "General Presence" flat DC covers all distances <30'.
This is how I've always run it, and have never seen reason to do so otherwise. Seems to work well.
case 3-- same as 2 but stealths 15' (half-speed)
stealth check = 15 (hypothetical; no penalty on stealth check)
base = stealth + 20 (DC: 35)
move at half speed: -5 (DC: 35-5 = 30)
some distance away: +1 per 10' (DC: 30+1 = 31; could be 30+2=32 if creature moved 15' directly away from you and is thus 20' away)perception roll
less than 30 = no idea whether or not it moved
perception 30 = know it moved
perception 31-50 = know approximate direction it moved
perception 51+ = go ahead and charge the square (50% miss chance)
Stealth check can't be 15 unless you have -5 to stealth and roll a 1... Don't forget the +20 to stealth with invisibility spell... ;)
And to ready an action such as "ready to interrupt spellcasting by an invisible creature" you have to know there's an invisible creature around, so you have to successfully roll a percept check to see if there's someone around.Once he cast I agree it's easy to detect there's someone and it's not impossible to know where he was, but once he moved in stealth good luck to detect if he is still here, and you have to be very good to pinpoint his location... ;)
IMHO, it doesn't stack as much as OP believes. My 2c:
"can... notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20"
is it's own unique usage of Perception, distinct to pin-pointing or normal Perception checks.
Just as Acrobatics or Survival can be used for distinct purposes all these are distinct.
"Can do X with Skill" "Can do Y with Skill" "Can do Z with Skill" does not imply one unified check.
The +20 DC references to "pinpoint... with *A* Perception check" not as modifier to "within 30'" check.
All the modifiers in Invisibility Table only apply to the second check, i.e. pin-pointing, because:
"There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to *THIS* DC if the invisible creature is..."
My emphasis on the part indicating a SINGULAR DC (the immediately preceding one, i.e. Pinpointing),
not plural "these" which would be the term to indicate both above DCs/checks. That is supported by
the modifiers including distance (/10'), when the "General Presence" flat DC covers all distances <30'.
This is how I've always understood it, and have never seen reason to do otherwise. Seems to work well.
All the modifiers in Invisibility Table only apply to the second check, i.e. pin-pointing
So it's DC 20 percept roll to notice wether if the person is in combat, still, or singing loudly while dancing around you ? :p
Yup, that table doesn't apply, although some parts of it overlap with normal Perception modifiers. (so no -20DC for in combat, but normal -10DC for hearing sound of battle applies) Since you're perceiving vague conditions of that 30' at large ("gaining a hunch something is there"), I don't apply normal distance modifiers since "there" is the entire 30' radius area which directly abuts you. If you're distracted, asleep, if they smell like garbage, those all apply though.
And you're still eligible to make normal Perception check (not "hunch" and not "pinpointing Invisi-bastards") for things like hearing people singing or fighting, you just won't get either the square-pinpointing or "within 30' hunch" info, you'll have even less awareness of distance from you.
IMHO, it doesn't stack as much as OP believes. My 2c:
"can... notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20"
is it's own unique usage of Perception, distinct to pin-pointing or normal Perception checks.
<edit>All the modifiers in Invisibility Table only apply to the second check, i.e. pin-pointing, because:
Sorry - but if the creature that is invisible is using stealth - then that is incorrect.
Notice a creature using Stealth Opposed by Stealth
We note that if a creature is using stealth (regardless of invisible status) that perception is an opposed roll.
Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target.
So - on an opposed roll - we see by the rules there is no set DC that gives a success. And if a creature is using stealth - they add 20 to the roll - so a DC 20 perception is only good enough to notice a creature that is not using stealth. To be fair - a creature with a negative stealth score (there are plenty) can have a lower DC than 20 to notice due to negatives.
Sorry - but if the creature that is invisible is using stealth - then that is incorrect.
We note that if a creature is using stealth (regardless of invisible status) that perception is an opposed roll.
IMHO that is a toss-up, either one can rule Stealth-ing creatures basically negate the entire existence of "hunch" check because it's flat base DC isn't compatable with an opposed check, OR one can rule that "hunch" checks ignore Stealth completely, i.e. Stealth is only applicable to normal and "pinpointing" checks. I don't really feel strongly either way there.
Yup, that table doesn't apply, although some parts of it overlap with normal Perception modifiers. (so no -20DC for in combat, but normal -10DC for hearing sound of battle applies) Since you're perceiving vague conditions of that 30' at large ("gaining a hunch something is there"), I don't apply normal distance modifiers since "there" is the entire 30' radius area which directly abuts you. If you're distracted, asleep, if they smell like garbage, those all apply though.
So when you stealth you use the Stealth opposite roll only no bonus from being invisible ? Or does it got the +20 for being invisible ?
It's a nice way to deal with it, I have chosen a different approach but not really that different from yours... I use "Invisibility" as a "condition" so the Invisibility spell only gives you the "Invisibility" condition and no bonus to stealth... but in addition whenever you CAN'T be seen your also in the "invisible condition" (for example when your in another room with all doors closed and no windows)... I use the table in the ionvisibility entry as is with DC 20 base but have removed the +20 to Stealth+20 when "Using Stealth" and it works really great for me ;)
A simple DC 20 is too low in my opinion a level 10 auto-detect too easily since most player max perception in this game, you need the +20 if not moving otherwise invisibility is practically moot... :)
Edit > I forgot : Total Concealment grant you the "invisibility condition" of course :p
IMHO that is a toss-up, either one can rule Stealth-ing creatures basically negate the entire existence of "hunch" check because it's flat base DC isn't compatable with an opposed check, OR one can rule that "hunch" checks ignore Stealth completely, i.e. Stealth is only applicable to normal and "pinpointing" checks. I don't really feel strongly either way there.Sorry - but if the creature that is invisible is using stealth - then that is incorrect.
We note that if a creature is using stealth (regardless of invisible status) that perception is an opposed roll.
I can appreciate that stance.
Good reason to have a FAQ though.
So when you stealth you use the Stealth opposite roll only no bonus from being invisible ? Or does it got the +20 for being invisible ?
The Pinpointing Invisiblity Table states that Stealth Opposed Check applies. AFAICT there really shouldn't be a "separate" Pinpointing vs normal Perception check, just a clarification on result of Pinpointing while maintaining Full Concealment, but discrepancies in modifiers not withstanding there isn't much other distinction between the two types of checks.
A simple DC 20 is too low in my opinion a level 10 auto-detect too easily since most player max perception in this game, you need the +20 if not moving otherwise invisibility is practically moot... :)
I wouldn't call that a level 10 auto-pass for many characters/creatures and stuff like Unfavorable/Terrible Conditions and Distracted still apply. But yeah, if you are moderately diligent in maxing out Perception it will be near auto-pass at high levels barring special abilities of Invisible character. But you still don't know where they are within 30', it's just a hunch, so I don't see a fundamental problem it just makes no-magic moderate-skill-focus characters have minimal baseline awareness of environment. Scent already does this with no check, and you can get a direction with a Move Action.
As I wrote in previous comment, you CAN rule that Stealth flat out negates the existence of the "hunch" check, although I personally don't rule that way because it seems like such a thing would be explicitly stated - I'm just not huffed enough to argue about it either way. And I'm probably biased because I don't see the net outcome (as I describe above) being an unbalanced outcome for the game, knowing something is nearby but not knowing what it is nor what square(s) it is in still leaves the Invisible creature with major advantage. And just like people can maneuver tactically to avoid provoking AoOs, Invisible creatures can tactically maintain 30' distance whenever possible, keeping this is mind. IMHO, that ruling isn't a big deal for anybody already comfortable with the "Visual Spellcasting Phenomenon AKA Floating Runes" FAQ (which was all but confirmed by Paizo early on, but only explicitly stated in FAQ relatively recently).
I can appreciate that stance. Good reason to have a FAQ though.
Sure, it does simply fail to spell out things it should.
Previous claim to agnosticism re: "hunch" vs Stealth aside, I guess I *do* have my choice based on concept of "if something totally negates an ability saying "you can do X", it should say so" (thus, "hunch" prevails), but the rules should not force the reader to engage in constitutional lawyering like that, ESPECIALLY when they're already borked enough splitting rules up between 2 or 3 sections.
|
Nope, it's been repeatedly stated by Devs in the past that all spellcasting has visibile manifestations, even while invisible.
Metamagics such as still spell and silent spell fo nothing to negate this either. Their purpose is simply to allow spellcasting while bound or gagged respectively.
Personally, I think this is stupid, but that's how it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, it's been repeatedly stated by Devs in the past that all spellcasting has visibile manifestations, even while invisible.
No, it hasn't. They've stated all spells have [visible] manifestations. End of statement. Note they don't even use the word visible to describe the manifestations, though I feel that is an implied and won't argue that point.
I have yet to see any dev comments in official or unofficial form how invisibility interacts with that.
|
|
Nope, it's been repeatedly stated by Devs in the past that all spellcasting has visibile manifestations, even while invisible.
No, it hasn't. They've stated all spells have [visible] manifestations. End of statement. Note they don't even use the word visible to describe the manifestations, though I feel that is an implied and won't argue that point.
I have yet to see any dev comments in official or unofficial form how invisibility interacts with that.
The Invisibility Spell itself makes it clear how it interacts with spell manifestations
The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too.
So Invisibility makes it clear that only the creature or object touched become invisible, along with the target's gear if it's a creature. Spell manifestations do not become invisible as they are none of those things.
Nope, it's been repeatedly stated by Devs in the past that all spellcasting has visibile manifestations, even while invisible.
Metamagics such as still spell and silent spell fo nothing to negate this either. Their purpose is simply to allow spellcasting while bound or gagged respectively.
Personally, I think this is stupid, but that's how it is.
Cunning Caster, Conceal Spell and Improved Conceal Spell feats from Ultimate Intrigue can help you with this... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, it's been repeatedly stated by Devs in the past that all spellcasting has visibile manifestations, even while invisible.
No, it hasn't. They've stated all spells have [visible] manifestations. End of statement. Note they don't even use the word visible to describe the manifestations, though I feel that is an implied and won't argue that point.
I have yet to see any dev comments in official or unofficial form how invisibility interacts with that.
The Invisibility Spell itself makes it clear how it interacts with spell manifestations
The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too.So Invisibility makes it clear that only the creature or object touched become invisible, along with the target's gear if it's a creature. Spell manifestations do not become invisible as they are none of those things.
What is the manifestation is "Turns the casts skin plaid while casting?" Does the casters skin become visible during that time?
What if it is "Turns the casters clothing and gear invisible during casting?"
There are any number of variations on these themes that would qualify as magical manifestations, but would be hard to justify as not being invisible for an invisible caster.
Likewise there are many variations of magical manifestations, sparkling lights, hands glowing red, etc, that would be hard to justify as remaining invisible.
The point is, stating manifestations are or are not effected by invisibility simply is not covered in the rules. It would very much depend on how a group of players wants to describe their manifestations for their spell casters.
Sadly no, strictly by the rules being invisible makes your harder to find even if the person trying to find you is blind. It's a blanket increase to perception check DCs/bonus to stealth checks, not just visual ones.
That's not true.
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the Blind-Fight feat has a better chance to hit an invisible creature. Roll the miss chance twice, and he misses only if both rolls indicate a miss. (Alternatively, make one 25% miss chance roll rather than two 50% miss chance rolls.)
A creature with blindsight can attack (and otherwise interact with) creatures regardless of invisibility.
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.
The correct statement is : Invisibility gives you a huge bonus on stealth rolls against all forms of detection unless you are blind - why?
That's a FAQ question there.
It says that you can hear a person with invisibility on them, but how do you hear a person in the pathfinder rules?
By making a perception check against their perception DC.
What's the perception DC of an invisible person? It's +20/+40 because that's the boost that invisibility gives to perception DCs/Stealth checks.
Likewise there are many variations of magical manifestations, sparkling lights, hands glowing red, etc, that would be hard to justify as remaining invisible.
I think that's exactly what they had in mind when they said that manifestation are visible, since they specifically said that light does not become invisible when someone is invisible... ;)
In high magic universe we usually represent magic cast with a lot of flashing light while casting... that's the part that does not become invisible since it's explicitly stated in invisibility that light never become invisible only the source... :)
It says that you can hear a person with invisibility on them, but how do you hear a person in the pathfinder rules?
By making a perception check against their perception DC.
What's the perception DC of an invisible person? It's +20/+40 because that's the boost that invisibility gives to perception DCs/Stealth checks.
Nope per RAW for someone to hear another person if he is Invisible you need a perception check DC20 +/- the DC Modificators from this table.
Your example is given if someone stealth... How do you rule the roll if there's no stealthing part ? :)And even if you use stealth it's not a simple Perception check vs Stealth +20/+40 per RAW it's a DC20+Stealth+20 check as stated in the table above... And invisibility give you +20/+40 stealth...
This is where our issue come from, is it Percept vs Stealth (+20/+40 if invisible) or Percept vs DC 20+Stealth+20 as stated in the table above or is it Percept vs DC20+Stealth+20+20 for not moving, and in those case does the +20/+40 stealth bonus from invisibility apply or not ?
Does the table apply to hunch check or only to pinpoint ?
What about other bonus/malus from the perception skill table ? Stack ? Replace ? FAQ please :p
It says that you can hear a person with invisibility on them, but how do you hear a person in the pathfinder rules?
By making a perception check against their perception DC.
What's the perception DC of an invisible person? It's +20/+40 because that's the boost that invisibility gives to perception DCs/Stealth checks.
IMHO, the key to understanding RAI is comparing the very similar Pinpointing Invisibility rules and the rules for Pinpointing while Blinded. The latter leave out alot of the numeric modifiers the Invisibility Table has (Blindness by RAW not subject to modifiers for target moving/fighting/staying still etc), but gives a more coherent presentation of "hierarchy of information/awareness"...
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature "over there somewhere." It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
Note the "beats the DC by 20" is analogous to the DC to Pinpoint Invisible creature. But by implication of the analogy, the +20/40 etc Invisibility modifiers should ONLY apply to the Perception check to Pinpoint, and NOT to a lower standard of "I know they are "over there somewhere"" i.e. the non-Pinpointing Perception check. By the same token, those type of modifiers probably SHOULD also apply for Blinded characters Pinpointing "non Invisible" characters. The rules probably SHOULD not waste word count duplicating identical mechanics, but instead merge Blinded/Invisibility into one mechanic that functions consitently.
Likewise, the intermediary, vague informational position of "Hunch within 30'" feels relatively similar to the "it's somewhere over there" mode of Blinded, although both their result ("within 30' but unknown direction" vs "vague direction but unknown distance") and mechanic nuances of their checks (standard Stealth/Perception vs non-Stealth Base DC with limited Mods) diverge significantly from each other. (much more so than Invis/Blind Pinpointing comparison) Still, one thinks in an ideal, rationalized system those probably could be merged to a large extent (perhaps retaining some distinction, but sharing core paradigm).
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature "over there somewhere." It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).Note the "beats the DC by 20" is analogous to the DC to Pinpoint Invisible creature. But by implication of the analogy, the +20/40 etc Invisibility modifiers should ONLY apply to the Perception check to Pinpoint, and NOT to a lower standard of "I know they are "over there somewhere"" i.e. the non-Pinpointing Perception check. By the same token, those type of modifiers probably SHOULD also apply for Blinded characters Pinpointing "non Invisible" characters. The rules probably SHOULD not waste word count duplicating identical mechanics, but instead merge Blinded/Invisibility into one mechanic that functions consitently. Likewise, the intermediary informational position of "Hunch within 30'" should also be available to Blinded characters.
The irony in all this is it would...
Ooooh nice find... :) The Blindness condition entry in the rulebook does not state this... You effectively have to read the Environment Darkness part to find that rule :D
It's a nice and simple rule that doesn't give a clue as to what modifiers should apply to the roll...As written it seems that there's no modifiers on the roll so if there's an invisible opponent just cast Darkness you take a -4 to percept but you can easily have more than a hunch , you've got a general direction of your target ("hear an unseen creature over there somewhere.”), and it's a free action each round that let you try to pinpoint for a free action...
And what if the opponent is not using stealth ? Don't care, it's a stealth check wether the opponent want it or not... with no modifiers axcept -4 on percept for darkness which can be overcome if you are blind for a long time... O_o
And of course it only apply when you are blinded by Darkness :
"A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes"
As written it seems that there's no modifiers on the roll so if there's an invisible opponent just close your eyes
(bold words are my own)
The entire blinded rules make the entire thing much simpler (IMO) and Quandry is on the money when he states these rules should work together.
There should be no difference between being Invisible and being blinded and being in 'total darkness'.
End result would be to use a -4 on the person making perception checks - and add 20 to any stealth roll (if any) the invisible person is using to pinpoint. Does this nerf invisibility? A bit - but it's still a cheap displacement - and puts more emphasis on the users stealth skill to remain undetected.
Frankly (my opinion here) that kind of rule works - without all the gymnastics and multiple clauses and 3 places to read the rules to get there.....
As written it seems that there's no modifiers on the roll so if there's an invisible opponent just close your eyes(bold words are my own)
The entire blinded rules make the entire thing much simpler (IMO) and Quandry is on the money when he states these rules should work together.
There should be no difference between being Invisible and being blinded and being in 'total darkness'.
End result would be to use a -4 on the person making perception checks - and add 20 to any stealth roll (if any) the invisible person is using to pinpoint. Does this nerf invisibility? A bit - but it's still a cheap displacement - and puts more emphasis on the users stealth skill to remain undetected.
Frankly (my opinion here) that kind of rule works - without all the gymnastics and multiple clauses and 3 places to read the rules to get there.....
Thing is, I think, that the Blinded condition mostly account for the "surprise to be suddenly blinded while you are not used to and doesn't prepare for it"... In game you should be able to play a b lind character who slowly get the habit of being blinded (losing the malus slowly on time and then with some training become able to fight Blindfight and be able to use your other senses to greater height Blindsense... When one of my players is willing to go the hard road I'm willing to give big reward :p)
And the only thing that I don't like with Quandary rule is that the non-moving invisible person is way to easy to hunch... At least put the +20 to the DC for percept if non moving ;)And give the Invisible condition to everyone you can't possibly see ... :p
It says that you can hear a person with invisibility on them, but how do you hear a person in the pathfinder rules?
By making a perception check against their perception DC.
What's the perception DC of an invisible person? It's +20/+40 because that's the boost that invisibility gives to perception DCs/Stealth checks.IMHO, the key to understanding RAI is comparing the very similar Pinpointing Invisibility rules and the rules for Pinpointing while Blinded. The latter leave out alot of the numeric modifiers the Invisibility Table has (Blindness by RAW not subject to modifiers for target moving/fighting/staying still etc), but gives a more coherent presentation of "hierarchy of information/awareness"...
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature "over there somewhere." It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).Note the "beats the DC by 20" is analogous to the DC to Pinpoint Invisible creature. But by implication of the analogy, the +20/40 etc Invisibility modifiers should ONLY apply to the Perception check to Pinpoint, and NOT to a lower standard of "I know they are "over there somewhere"" i.e. the non-Pinpointing Perception check. By the same token, those type of modifiers probably SHOULD also apply for Blinded characters Pinpointing "non Invisible" characters. The rules probably SHOULD not waste word count duplicating identical mechanics, but instead merge Blinded/Invisibility into one mechanic that functions consitently.
Likewise, the intermediary, vague informational position of "Hunch within 30'" feels relatively similar to the "it's somewhere over there" mode of...
I use the rules for blindness to govern invisibility in my games, but that's not what the rulebook says about invisible things, whether it's RAI or not is hard to say as these questions have been posed to the designers and FAQ requested for years with no response.
The rules say that the DC to perceive an invisible creature starts at 20 or 40 if they aren't moving beat by 20 to pinpoint, a character that is blind still locates an invisible creature by making a perception check against that DC. In the Pathfinder rules being invisible makes you harder to find whether the creature making the check can see or not.
I use the rules for blindness to govern invisibility in my games, but that's not what the rulebook says about invisible things, whether it's RAI or not is hard to say as these questions have been posed to the designers and FAQ requested for years with no response.
The rules say that the DC to perceive an invisible creature starts at 20 or 40 if they aren't moving beat by 20 to pinpoint, a character that is blind still locates an invisible creature by making a perception check against that DC. In the Pathfinder rules being invisible makes you harder to find whether the creature making the check can see or not.
And don't forget that the spell invisibility give you another +20/+40 to your stealth roll... ;)
And that in darkness the roll is just percept vs stealth per RAW...Per RAW it's true, this is how it's done... But since it's clear that RAW is certainly not RAI we can ask the dev to faq and pinpoint how we wish it should be formuled (pretty please like stealth do a new invisibility/Blinded reunion playtest :p )
There should be no difference between being Invisible and being blinded and being in 'total darkness'.
Not really. When blinded, I'm not using vision to perceive anything. When not blinded, I'm relying on my vision. Humanoids tend to be very vision-dependent. All the other things that I am seeing are taking my attention away from the non-visual cues that someone is nearby.
I think a lot of those things are just repeating the same thing, rather than all adding them together.
.....
TL;DR - an invisible creature not trying to stealth takes a DC 20 or 40 Perception check to spot, depending on whether it's moving or not. If the creature is actually trying to hide, the DC is [stealth check]+20 for mobile, or [stealth check]+40 for immobile.
FAQ'd. Wraith is right to FAQ this because this constantly comes up on the forums and at tables I play at.
That said, I agree 100% with Ascalaphus' analysis about the numbers correlating to other rules texts and when to assume a stealth roll is/is not applicable. It stands to reason that many of the modifiers are repeated in those different contexts while they aren't explicitly referring to other portions of the rules. They probably should have been explicit to dispel this confusion.
That's a good point: When you can see, but something's invisible, your eyes are telling you "there's nothing there". Without that, you're much more likely to pick up on the other cues you might notice.There should be no difference between being Invisible and being blinded and being in 'total darkness'.Not really. When blinded, I'm not using vision to perceive anything. When not blinded, I'm relying on my vision. Humanoids tend to be very vision-dependent. All the other things that I am seeing are taking my attention away from the non-visual cues that someone is nearby.
I agree it's a good point. I also think that begs the rules a verisimilitude that lacks everywhere else the rules cover. But it's a great point.
IMHO, it doesn't stack as much as OP believes. My 2c:
"can... notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20"
is it's own unique usage of Perception, distinct to pin-pointing or normal Perception checks.
Just as Acrobatics or Survival can be used for distinct purposes all these are distinct.
"Can do X with Skill" "Can do Y with Skill" "Can do Z with Skill" does not imply one unified check.The +20 DC references to "pinpoint... with *A* Perception check" not as modifier to "within 30'" check.
All the modifiers in Invisibility Table only apply to the second check, i.e. pin-pointing, because:
"There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to *THIS* DC if the invisible creature is..."
My emphasis on the part indicating a SINGULAR DC (the immediately preceding one, i.e. Pinpointing),
not plural "these" which would be the term to indicate both above DCs/checks. That is supported by
the modifiers including distance (/10'), when the "General Presence" flat DC covers all distances <30'.This is how I've always run it, and have never seen reason to do so otherwise. Seems to work well.
It's always worked that way. I even compared the 3.5 and Paizo charts, and they are basically the same. At best you can argue that Paizo forgot to change the chart and words, but until they change the words the rule is the same.
Starfinder got rid of the "DC 20 to notice" rule when it comes to invisible creatures. Hopefully they errata the same thing into PF. They also define various states of "awareness", which seem to come from the Ultimate Intrigue book, and a blog on stealth, but it has been expanded.
Starfinder got rid of the "DC 20 to notice" rule when it comes to invisible creatures. Hopefully they errata the same thing into PF. They also define various states of "awareness", which seem to come from the Ultimate Intrigue book, and a blog on stealth, but it has been expanded.
I liked the "DC 20 to notice" because it served as a limitation to invisibility (which is way OP) and trumps broken stealth scores.
I also run perception as working as both "Spot" and "Listen" but with the same scores. Modifiers, like invisibility, that would only logically affect sight-based perception checks don't affect the DC for hearing-based perception checks. The +20 for standing still, likewise, would make it harder to hear a creature, but not see it. Imprecise senses like hearing would usually take a penalty anyway in cases when sight and hearing both keyed off the same DC.
The end result was Invisibility had mostly the same DCs to notice the creature, but modifiers didn't stack and kept the numbers from getting ridiculous, but that's house-rules.
That's brilliant. Close your eyes and you negate +40 stealth. Rules legal too!I do this every time I read a thread when Invisibility is brought up, but I'd just like to say that when I GM I ignore almost everything about invisibility in the rule books and use the rules for the blinded condition as my base to govern perception checks against invisible creatures. The perception DC to become aware of them is +4, and I run it that pinpointing still requires beating the DC by 20 (so a difficult but possible +24). This makes it a bit harder than it was in 3.5 using Listen Vs move silently, but not as insanely impossible as it is in PF.
It's an example of how mangled these rules became in the transfer from 3.5 that it's now much easier to notice the presence of another creature while blinded than it is to notice a creature that is invisible.
No, not at all rules legal. There are no rules that allow pinpointing an invisible character by a dc 24 perception check.
And really. Invisibility is fairly easily counterable.
Tremorsense, See invisible, Glitterdust, dispel magic, faerie fire, bag of flour, more than a dozen items.
What y'all are complaining about, essentially is that you can't be bothered to invest in 2-3 fairie fire scrolls. 75 gp. Or a wand of fairie fire, at the very worst.
First player- pulls wand of fairie fire out from handy haversack. Nails 4 squars - miss. Second player uses move action to grap wand, nails another 4 squares... 3rd player ...
Anything you can solve with 75 gp isn't a problem.
If the invisible creature is only hiding your idea works. If he is attacking the party people could be dead by the time he is uncovered.
Also if you read the post you would know the main goal was to find out how the rule was intended to work more than anything else.
That's brilliant. Close your eyes and you negate +40 stealth. Rules legal too!I do this every time I read a thread when Invisibility is brought up, but I'd just like to say that when I GM I ignore almost everything about invisibility in the rule books and use the rules for the blinded condition as my base to govern perception checks against invisible creatures. The perception DC to become aware of them is +4, and I run it that pinpointing still requires beating the DC by 20 (so a difficult but possible +24). This makes it a bit harder than it was in 3.5 using Listen Vs move silently, but not as insanely impossible as it is in PF.
It's an example of how mangled these rules became in the transfer from 3.5 that it's now much easier to notice the presence of another creature while blinded than it is to notice a creature that is invisible.
No, not at all rules legal. There are no rules that allow pinpointing an invisible character by a dc 24 perception check.
And really. Invisibility is fairly easily counterable.
Tremorsense, See invisible, Glitterdust, dispel magic, faerie fire, bag of flour, more than a dozen items.What y'all are complaining about, essentially is that you can't be bothered to invest in 2-3 fairie fire scrolls. 75 gp. Or a wand of fairie fire, at the very worst.
First player- pulls wand of fairie fire out from handy haversack. Nails 4 squars - miss. Second player uses move action to grap wand, nails another 4 squares... 3rd player ...
Anything you can solve with 75 gp isn't a problem.
Yes, invisibility is no problem if you're somehow already aware of the presence of the invisible creature, have an entire party capable of hitting the DC 20-21 UMD check on a wand/scroll of a druid spell, have no concerns that clustering yourselves in a small group to pass around the wand against a creature that is apparently capable of using magic, and the creature either doesn't get to act before any of your party or is too dumb to simply move into one of the clusters of squares that you already hit with the wand.
A single source can only give one modifier to a check.
Identify the largest applicable modifier and only apply it once.
How is the "in combat" modifier defined? Does having to roll initiative constitute being in combat?
Anyway, looks like I've been doing invisibility wrong for a while...Thanks for this.
The "in combat" modifier is a -20, and I would say it starts once an offensive action is taken so even if the part is jumped it should still apply.
edit: However the modifier should only be in place during the rounds he attacks. If he decides to go hide then it won't apply.