DC to Pinpoint Invisible Creature


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brandenfascher wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

A single source can only give one modifier to a check.

Identify the largest applicable modifier and only apply it once.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that only the best listed modifier on the table is applied, so for an invisible creature at its best:

*Base DC of 20, ignore lone pinpoint bonus because using Stealth, +20 DC for using Stealth + opposed Stealth (Final DC of 40 + Stealth result) to pinpoint; Having no additional modifier bonuses even if the target is also holding still (+20 DC) 50 feet away (+5 DC) behind a stone wall (+15 DC)... And this is because the single source is "everything related to the placement and varied actions of the invisible creature"?

And at it's worst:

*Base DC of 20, +20 to pinpoint, -20 DC when creature is speaking/in combat (Final of DC 20) to pinpoint; Having no additional penalties even if the target is also running/charging (-20 DC)?

That doesn't seem right. Or did you mean:

*Modifiers, such as penalties for moving at half speed vs at full speed vs running don't stack; So if movement of the creature is running, use only the (-20 DC) as it's the largest penalty modifier from the same source (source as in types of movement).

That would make sense, but in that note, there aren't any modifiers besides types of movement which appear to be "from the same source" in the table in that regard. I guess I don't understand what was meant by "from the same single source", and that makes a big difference.

--------

In any case, I think the penalties for invisibility perception DC's are being overlooked which seem to give some semblance of balance, even with stealth involved.

If I assume all bonuses/penalties in the chart stack besides the varying types of movement (and non-movement), and the invisible creature is not in combat/speaking/running/charging, the creature would be difficult to pinpoint, although movement does greatly decrease the DC:

*Not moving: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, +20 not moving, +20...

I have no idea what Irontruth is talking about since he didnt go into detail, but it works like this.

20(base to notice)+20(pinpoint invisible opponent)+20(for not moving while being invisible)=60

If they decide to actually use stealth then it is 60+stealth roll- any penalties.

That is because the DC to notice(know something is there) is easier than the DC to pinpoint(locate the square it is in, which is logical.

Then if they are not moving they are even more difficult to detect.

I dropped the 20 to notice in my home games so it is more reasonable, but still really good. <---house rule

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "single source" is invisibility. Invisibility only ever adds a +20 or a +40, not more than that.

wraithstrike wrote:

have no idea what Irontruth is talking about since he didnt go into detail, but it works like this.

20(base to notice)+20(pinpoint invisible opponent)+20(for not moving while being invisible)=60

So in what you have here, I believe the Base 20 DC you list is the hunch DC? That does not get added when trying to pinpoint. By the time you are trying to pinpoint something, you already know (or think) it is there. You're no longer making a roll to notice that something is off. You've already made that roll or been attacked or whatever else. So the base is 0, not 20. Wraithstrike, I think that's the only disagreement I have with what you listed. The rest is an explanation of what's meant by the same source not stacking. The breakdown would be:

Base 0 DC to spot someone who is not invisible. +20 for being invisible if the target is moving, or +40 if not moving. +stealth roll.

You would not add an additional +20 to the stealth roll. Why not? Because it's coming from the same source (invisibility) as the +20 or +40 that you have already rolled.

So if someone has a +10 stealth bonus, and they take-10, and they are moving, then the result would be:

0 + 20(invisibility) + 10(take-10) + 10(stealth bonus) = DC 40

If you list the source in the math, it's much clearer. Stealth says add 20 for an invisible creature, sure, but then what does it look like?

0 + 20(invisibility) + 10(take-10) + 10(stealth bonus) +20(invisibility stealth bonus) still equals DC 40, not 60. Why?

You would ignore the invisibility stealth bonus, because it's coming from the same source as the earlier invisibility bonus. It is, essentially, the same bonus, just presented in a different place.

But one is adding to stealth, and one is adding to the DC to perceive, right? Aren't those separate things?

No, they aren't. Your stealth roll is being added to the DC to perceive, which starts at 0 for a visible creature, then adds 20 for a moving invisible creature, then adds stealth. If you add an extra 20 to stealth for being invisible, then you are adding the invisibility bonus twice to the same thing, the DC to perceive. Since bonuses from the same source don't stack, you only count it once.

Other things that Brandenfascher listed like being behind a wall would still be added on top of that. So if it's a +15 bonus for being behind a wall, that's a different bonus than invisibility, and would be added. Why is it different? Being behind a wall affects sound, scent, etc. not just sight. Being 20 feet away is yet another, different source. Moving at full speed would still be a -5. Etc.

But the main thing is, when trying to pinpoint, you add one bonus for invisibility, either a +20 if moving or a +40 if not moving. Not an additional 20 to notice (you've presumably already done that). Not an additional +20 to stealth (that's already accounted for). Just +20 or +40. Then whatever your normal stealth roll would be with all the other modifiers that are not coming from invisibility.


But if you don't start with the notice DC and go up from there then pinpointing is no harder than noticing despite that being implied by "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."

A creature with a stealth penalty might actually be easier to pinpoint than to notice.

Also, are you saying the notice and pinpoint are always separate rolls? That even if I got a 45 on my Perception check (in your stealth example) I would only notice and would still need to roll again (using a move action?) to pinpoint?

As for the wall, the weirdness about that isn't that the wall adds something because you can't hear etc, but that invisibility adds 20 when you don't have line of sight in the first place.

Scarab Sages

The DC to notice and the DC to pinpoint are only the same if the observer is aware of the creature already and if the target is moving and not using stealth. If the target isn't moving, it's a DC 20 to notice something's not right, and a DC 40 to pinpoint.

If it's an initial perception roll and you have no idea something is in the room at all, then yes, it's a DC 20 to notice something is there, and if you hit DC 40 on that check and it's moving (and not using stealth), then you would know what square it's in right away. DC 60 if it's not moving. So if we're talking about pinpointing a creature that you aren't aware of at all, I'll agree it's the higher DC.

If you just make the DC 20 to notice on the first check, then you know it's somewhere within 30 feet. If you then try to pinpoint on your turn, you don't need to notice it's somewhere within 30 feet again. If it's been casting spells or attacking you, you don't need to notice it's there again. You can just pinpoint it.

Negative stealth rolls make the system do strange things, but that's not limited to invisibility. If someone is 200 feet away, there's a -10 to the perception check to see them, effectively making it a DC 10. If they roll stealth, they can add to that. If they roll a negative stealth result, the DC is going to be lower. It's just an artifact of having a skill system that can result in a negative roll. It really doesn't care if invisibility is involved or not.

EDIT: To tie it into the same source not stacking... The initial DC 20 is just to know there's something somewhere. The +20 mentioned in that passage is the same +20 granted by invisibility to a moving creature, and the same +20 granted by stealth to an invisible creature. If you're not aware of the target at all, you have to make that extra DC 20 roll. Once you're aware of the target, why would you need to roll to be aware of the target again?


Ferious Thune wrote:

The DC to notice and the DC to pinpoint are only the same if the observer is aware of the creature already and if the target is moving and not using stealth. If the target isn't moving, it's a DC 20 to notice something's not right, and a DC 40 to pinpoint.

If it's an initial perception roll and you have no idea something is in the room at all, then yes, it's a DC 20 to notice something is there, and if you hit DC 40 on that check and it's moving (and not using stealth), then you would know what square it's in right away. DC 60 if it's not moving. So if we're talking about pinpointing a creature that you aren't aware of at all, I'll agree it's the higher DC.

If you just make the DC 20 to notice on the first check, then you know it's somewhere within 30 feet. If you then try to pinpoint on your turn, you don't need to notice it's somewhere within 30 feet again. If it's been casting spells or attacking you, you don't need to notice it's there again. You can just pinpoint it.

Negative stealth rolls make the system do strange things, but that's not limited to invisibility. If someone is 200 feet away, there's a -10 to the perception check to see them, effectively making it a DC 10. If they roll stealth, they can add to that. If they roll a negative stealth result, the DC is going to be lower. It's just an artifact of having a skill system that can result in a negative roll. It really doesn't care if invisibility is involved or not.

If the target isn't "active", there's no chance to notice. We can debate how "moving" relates to "active".

For the pinpoint without having noticed case, I was using your "0 + 20(invisibility) + 10(take-10) + 10(stealth bonus) = DC 40" example. You're saying that in that case, it would be DC 60 and you do add invisibility in twice?

I'm not even sure what RAW justification you're using for the "Don't add modifiers from the same source twice", but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have an exception for this.

The point for the other thing isn't "negative modifiers" it's that pinpointing is supposed to be harder than noticing - "practically impossible (+20 DC)" in fact. Having it only be harder if you can stack stealth and other modifiers on doesn't match that.


20 + 1d20 + stealth modifier is harder than 20 (except maybe in full plate mail).

Scarab Sages

Under Spell Effects "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source." There are those that claim that you get the DC 20 to know something is there +20 to pinpoint +40 if they are invisible and not moving + stealth +20 more because it says "stealth +20" in the chart, so you're starting at DC 100 before stealth is even rolled. That's what I mean by bonuses from the same source (the invisibility spell) don't stack. The +20 to pinpoint the +20 on stealth and the +40 for not moving are all the same effect. In that case you would only get the +40.

Active isn't defined, so that's going to be GM discretion. I would say it's something less than just "not moving." Like unconscious, maybe. But a GM could rule otherwise.

My DC 0+ etc., etc. is assuming that you are already aware that something is there and you are actively trying to pinpoint it. You are no longer trying to notice it. You've already noticed it. You're just rolling against invisibility and stealth now.

If you have not noticed it, then the DC starts at 20 and is modified from there accordingly. But you do not need to gain "a hunch 'something's there'" when that something has hit you upside the head with an attack and taken a move action or 5 foot step. At that point you're just rolling against their stealth modified by invisibility.

If you want to look at it another way, once you are aware of them and in combat, the DC 20 to notice and the -20 for being in combat essentially offset each other. Note the -20 does not say in melee. If they are taking combat actions or you are taking combat actions against them, they're in combat. In other words,

If it's a non/combat situation, like someone invisible hiding in a room and trying not to be noticed at all, that might get the extra DC20.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
For the pinpoint without having noticed case, I was using your "0 + 20(invisibility) + 10(take-10) + 10(stealth bonus) = DC 40" example. You're saying that in that case, it would be DC 60 and you do add invisibility in twice?

It may be that you can't pinpoint someone on the initial roll. I'm not entirely sure about that. The interpretation that you start with the DC20 and add +20 to that relies on reading that paragraph as the pinpoint roll being part of the hunch roll. It could just be incredibly poorly written and the +20 be referring to the +20 to stealth. The rules really are that much of a jumble, that it isn't completely clear what they mean, because that +20 bonus appears in at least 4 different places in the rules. The invisibility spell, stealth, the chart in the invisibility special ability along with the stealth roll, and in that paragraph.

But the DC 20 is to know someone is there at all. That's different than looking for something you know is there. That's not adding invisibility twice, that's another category within invisibility.

To pinpoint:
Aware of a moving invisible target: +20
Aware of a stationary invisible target: +40
Not aware of a moving invisible target: +40
Not aware of a stationary invisible target: +60

To become aware that there is a target at all: DC20

The extra +20 is not because they are invisible. It's because they are invisible and you have no idea they are there at all. Once you know they are there, you don't need to become aware of them again.

I won't pretend that the rules are clear. They are written and presented in an incredibly confusing way. But DCs to spot that begin in the 100+ range before any roll are not correct. All we can do is take the rules that are there and go with the interpretation that makes the most sense.

I also really wish they had t used language like "practically impossible" to refer to a DC 40 check. That's something that a lot of characters can make on a take 10 well before reaching high levels.


Reading through stealth skill description I arrive a the following DC's, based on my own reading:

Notice someone invisible moving within 30ft: DC0 to DC15 (depending on the move-speed)
Notice someone invisible not moving but doing something within 30ft: DC20 (using actions without leaving the square)
Notice someone invisible not moving within 30ft: DC40

Pinpoint someone invisible moving within 30ft: DC20 to DC35 (depending on the move-speed) +Stealth (if stealthing) (-20 if in combat)
Pinpoint someone invisible not moving within 30ft: DC60 +Stealth (if stealthing)


It's definitely true that the rules are a jumble. I'd say FAQ it, but I know they're not going to answer this, if they haven't already.

I'm perfectly comfortable reading the text to mean that pinpointing is 20 harder than noticing, in addition to any other modifiers.

I would point out that "notice" is useful even once you've become aware of them the first time - even if you can't pinpoint them, making the notice roll means you know they haven't left the area.


Brandenfascher wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

A single source can only give one modifier to a check.

Identify the largest applicable modifier and only apply it once.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that only the best listed modifier on the table is applied, so for an invisible creature at its best:

*Base DC of 20,

What is the base DC to notice a creature that is not invisible?


thejeff wrote:
I know they're not going to answer this, if they haven't already.

We can't be sure of that. Sometimes questions that have been hanging around for years are suddenly answered.

Scarab Sages

EDIT: (Response is to thejeff) That's fine as long as you are applying the negative modifiers in a similarly permissive manner. In combat does not mean making an attack. It does not say in melee. It does not say casting a spell (although it does say or speaking, which would include spells with verbal components). Just in combat. So an equally encompassing interpretation of that would mean if you are in initiative and participating in any way in the fight, you take a -20 to the DC. Plus penalties for how far you move, etc. as Franz listed. Which means you're going to need to beat a DC -10 to be aware of someone moving full speed through a room in the middle of combat, and a 10 to pinpoint them (if they aren't using stealth), because the penalty for moving full speed is listed separately from the bonus from invisibility, even though the bonus from invisibility is already 20 lower just for moving at all.

Or you could try to make sense of it. Not add the bonus for needing to notice the creature you already know is there. Not penalize movement twice for the creature. Etc.


Ferious Thune wrote:

EDIT: (Response is to thejeff) That's fine as long as you are applying the negative modifiers in a similarly permissive manner. In combat does not mean making an attack. It does not say in melee. It does not say casting a spell (although it does say or speaking, which would include spells with verbal components). Just in combat. So an equally encompassing interpretation of that would mean if you are in initiative and participating in any way in the fight, you take a -20 to the DC. Plus penalties for how far you move, etc. as Franz listed. Which means you're going to need to beat a DC -10 to be aware of someone moving full speed through a room in the middle of combat, and a 10 to pinpoint them (if they aren't using stealth), because the penalty for moving full speed is listed separately from the bonus from invisibility, even though the bonus from invisibility is already 20 lower just for moving at all.

Or you could try to make sense of it. Not add the bonus for needing to notice the creature you already know is there. Not penalize movement twice for the creature. Etc.

I do try to make sense of it.

I just don't come to the same conclusions you do.


thejeff wrote:

It's definitely true that the rules are a jumble. I'd say FAQ it, but I know they're not going to answer this, if they haven't already.

I'm perfectly comfortable reading the text to mean that pinpointing is 20 harder than noticing, in addition to any other modifiers.

I would point out that "notice" is useful even once you've become aware of them the first time - even if you can't pinpoint them, making the notice roll means you know they haven't left the area.

I disagree. I think the DC to notice someone is 0. The modifier for invisibility in the "notice someone invisible" has already been applied to the DC 20. Why? Because the DC to notice someone not invisible is 0, and the modifier for someone being invisible is +20. The two line up just fine.

Looking at the invisibility table, not moving only gives a +20. Well, the spell says +40, but if we consider that the base bonus while active is +20, adding the two +20s we arrive at +40.

There is not +60 listed any where. So any modifiers being added that bring it to that point would be erroneous (just from Invisibility) because that would be double dipping on bonuses.

I'll believe something higher than +40 if someone can show me a cause for double-dipping. You can make the case that they're different, but I don't think they are. All the +20's are from invisibility, and I don't think it can give you more than one +20 (with the exception of the +40 being broken in half to show how it's received, but the +40 supersede's the +20).

The base DC should be considered as if the person were visible, then invisibility grants a modifier to that roll (plus allowing for the roll, since it grants concealment and all that).

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:

I do try to make sense of it.

I just don't come to the same conclusions you do.

Fair enough.

(I haven't slept, so probably not making my point effectively at this stage, and I didn't mean to say you weren't making sense. More that there are redundancies in the table of modifiers. Anyway, I'm going to step away from the boards for a bit until I've have some rest.)


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's definitely true that the rules are a jumble. I'd say FAQ it, but I know they're not going to answer this, if they haven't already.

I'm perfectly comfortable reading the text to mean that pinpointing is 20 harder than noticing, in addition to any other modifiers.

I would point out that "notice" is useful even once you've become aware of them the first time - even if you can't pinpoint them, making the notice roll means you know they haven't left the area.

I disagree. I think the DC to notice someone is 0. The modifier for invisibility in the "notice someone invisible" has already been applied to the DC 20. Why? Because the DC to notice someone not invisible is 0, and the modifier for someone being invisible is +20. The two line up just fine.

Looking at the invisibility table, not moving only gives a +20. Well, the spell says +40, but if we consider that the base bonus while active is +20, adding the two +20s we arrive at +40.

There is not +60 listed any where. So any modifiers being added that bring it to that point would be erroneous (just from Invisibility) because that would be double dipping on bonuses.

I'll believe something higher than +40 if someone can show me a cause for double-dipping. You can make the case that they're different, but I don't think they are. All the +20's are from invisibility, and I don't think it can give you more than one +20 (with the exception of the +40 being broken in half to show how it's received, but the +40 supersede's the +20).

The base DC should be considered as if the person were visible, then invisibility grants a modifier to that roll (plus allowing for the roll, since it grants concealment and all that).

Notice in the case of Invisibility is special. There is no base DC for noticing someone as distinct from pinpointing them.

The base DC for pinpointing a visible person is 0.

If we did treat the Notice as a base 0 + 20 for invisibility, then it would make sense to add the rest of the modifiers in - for distance and movement and stealth, etc. Which I'd actually prefer, but which can't be the intent, if there's no further difficulty to pinpoint.

It would get around the problem of the highly stealthy urban* ranger sneaking past the town* guards with no chance of being spotted, but if he tries to do it invisible, they won't be able to pinpoint him, but they've got a good chance to know he's there and sound the "invisible spy" alarm.

*Camouflage in favored terrain. Any number of other possibilities set up the same situation.


Ferious Thune wrote:
Under Spell Effects "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."
Special Spell Effects - Bonus Types wrote:
Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. The same principle applies to penalties- a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

I bolded parts that was describing what it was referring to in terms of "bonus types".

Under the Magic rules for "Designing Spells":

Designing Spells - Bonus Types wrote:
There are many types of bonuses in the game. It's tempting to look at that list of bonuses, find "holes" in the spell list that don't have spells for certain bonus types, and create a new spell that adds one of those unused bonus types to your favorite statistic or roll. Resist this temptation. Not all bonus types are equal within the game, and many bonus types are only meant for certain things. See Table 2–7: Bonus Types and Effects...

Instead of recreating the entire table here, I have included the URL to that Bonus Types section for reference:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/designingSpells.html #bonus-types

The bonus types it refers to in the table are: Alchemical, Armor, Circumstance, Competence, Deflection, Dodge, Enhancement, Inherent, Insight, Luck, Moreale, Natural Armor, Profane, Resistance, Sacred, Shield, and Size.

Nothing refers to spells themselves as a bonus type, or invisibility as a bonus type, or the DC modifiers as having or being a bonus type.

The bonus types that the magic page was referring to are all modifiers for things like Attack, Damage, Skill check Bonuses (not alterations to a DC modifier), CMB, CMD, Saves, and the like. As far as I can tell these bonus type rules have no relation to the modifiers being discussed with the invisibility special ability; neither the words "Bonus" or "Type" are mentioned at all on the Invisibility Special Ability page.

The only place where bonus types might have some relevance is that the invisibility spell says a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on it's Stealth checks. This is an untyped bonus. Unless otherwise specified, untyped bonuses stack (EDIT: forgot to note, they stack as long as they're from different sources. However, this is the only stealth bonus mentioned in the entire spell...). I have no idea how that works with the modifiers mentioned in the Special Ability invisibility section.

If the spell and the ability by the same name are referring to the +40 stealth bonus being the same as the DC modifiers of "Base 20, +20 while not moving to detect a creature's presence in the area" as being one and same thing, then of course it's utterly confusing (as we can see) that it would describe it differently between the two and it would have been best that the spell simply refers the Special Ability for the invisibility modifiers in the first place (but it doesn't, so here we are).

On that note, perhaps its possible that the spell is to be treated as a separate effect than the special ability, as I can't seem to find a direct reference to the invisibility special ability from the invisibility spell description, or vice versa. (EDIT: After giving it more thought, I think this is exactly how it's supposed to be. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. The Spell (by the same name only) does not use Special Ability mechanics, but only grants +40 untyped bonus to stealth check, lowered to a +20 untyped bonus if moving, and that's it. No pinpointing rules for the spell. The Special Ability (by the same name only) follows mechanics I described from my last post.)


For example, here's "The Invisible Man". Under his special abilities, there is "Natural Invisibility (Ex)" which is not a spell related effect:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-15/adgrif-yoderbie-alchemically- invisible-human-rogue-6-assassin-8/

So the mechanics for this NPC would follow Invisibilty Special Ability rules with pinpointing and all of that.

Otherwise a creature under the invisibility Spell effect only gets a single untyped Stealth bonus (+40 standing still, +20 moving), and no pinpointing mechanics and whatnot; purely a stealth vs. perception.


Brandenfascher wrote:

For example, here's "The Invisible Man". Under his special abilities, there is "Natural Invisibility (Ex)" which is not a spell related effect:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-15/adgrif-yoderbie-alchemically- invisible-human-rogue-6-assassin-8/

So the mechanics for this NPC would follow Invisibilty Special Ability rules with pinpointing and all of that.

Otherwise a creature under the invisibility Spell effect only gets a single untyped Stealth bonus (+40 standing still, +20 moving), and no pinpointing mechanics and whatnot; purely a stealth vs. perception.

I'm pretty sure all the special ability invisibility stuff applies - as well as all the other random bits on invisibility elsewhere.

Otherwise the Invisibility spell only helps you when you can actually use Stealth and may not even be enough to use it depending on how strictly you take only what's specified in the spell.
Certainly if you're running or doing something else that forbids using stealth.


thejeff wrote:

I'm pretty sure all the special ability invisibility stuff applies - as well as all the other random bits on invisibility elsewhere.

Otherwise the Invisibility spell only helps you when you can actually use Stealth and may not even be enough to use it depending on how strictly you take only what's specified in the spell.
Certainly if you're running or doing something else that forbids using stealth.

Humor me if you will:

Interestingly, the spell seems self contained in its mechanic. It says "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... ...Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks...".

So with the invisibility spell, it implies that there is not even a check to even attempt to detect a creature made invisible by its effect unless the creature does something that would require a check (cause a visual disturbance or a noise). From what I gather, at that point if the invisible creature is not using stealth, they're detected, but if they are, they have a big chance to avoid being detected.


Ah, but I just found invisibility is listed as a condition, and the condition says to refer to invisibility under Special Abilities. I missed that. Well, back to square one then, but with that being the case, invisibility is really weird. Because RAW is so ambiguous on invisibility between the spell and the special ability I'd say it either needs FAQ or Errata as has been suggested. Personally I'd make a GM call to just stick to either the Special Ability or the Spell mechanics as far as how to use perception to perceive the creature.


Brandenfascher wrote:
Ah, but I just found invisibility is listed as a condition, and the condition says to refer to invisibility under Special Abilities. I missed that. Well, back to square one then, but with that being the case, invisibility is really weird. Because RAW is so ambiguous on invisibility between the spell and the special ability I'd say it either needs FAQ or Errata as has been suggested. Personally I'd make a GM call to just stick to either the Special Ability or the Spell mechanics as far as how to use perception to perceive the creature.

Or just realize that they don't actually conflict, any more than any other parts of the hot mess that are the invisibility/stealth/perception/vision rules.


Well, this is a terrible mess. While reading this to try and make sense of things, I came across the realization that passing a perception check against someone who is using stealth allows you to notice them. Unless you decide that "notice" means the same thing as "know the square they are in" (otherwise usually "pinpoint"), there isn't any way to determine someone's square if they're under total concealment.

My take is that "notice" from the perception description should be treated as "pinpoint", and invis should give +20/+40 to stealth checks, with the "pinpoint" +20 bit only applying to things that can't make stealth checks like invisible rocks or an invisible pendulum or something. That's not really what it says, though...


thejeff wrote:
Or just realize that they don't actually conflict, any more than any other parts of the hot mess that are the invisibility/stealth/perception/vision rules.

I have a hard time realizing no conflicts. Ultimately it seems the spell's description is what's causing confusion since it's the only thing bringing up anything about a bonus to a skill check in the whole process. If the rules of the Invisibility (the spell) is supposed to be exactly the same rules listed as Invisibility (the special ability), then by RAW they conflict.

Case 1

Special Ability states:
*A 20 DC perception check is available to detect presence of an invisible creature within 30 feet, and the creature doesn't have to be doing anything in particular to qualify for this perception check, although it can be very high DC to beat. It could be standing perfectly still, using stealth, and everything, and the invisible creature would be involved in a perception check made by a creature who initially isn't aware of its presence.

Spell states:
*There is no perception check available until the creature does something to trigger a perception check, making it purely a reactive check (makes noise or causes visual disturbance).

Case 2

Special Ability states:
*A 20 DC perception check +20 modifier to pinpoint the square of the creature, and a +20 additional modifier for standing still, based on the list of table modifiers. The special ability does not state that the creature is requiring to use the Stealth skill to gain any "stealth bonuses" or anything for these modifiers (it would be RAI to read into it that it is).

*It is not a stealth bonus; otherwise it would (should) have specified the creature gets a stealth bonus instead. DC modifiers and skill bonuses are different things! A creature choosing not to use stealth for example would still get all of the DC modifiers against (and for) being perceived that don't involve stealth. For the Speacial Ability, in the modifiers table there is only a +20 if using Stealth with the stealth check result, and it's not a bonus to stealth, but a modifier to the DC if the creature is using stealth. In any case, the creature only loses +20 DC modifier (plus skill check result) if choose not to stealth.

Spell states:
*There is no DC specified to perceive the creature.

*Instead, the creature gains a flat +40 Stealth bonus for standing still; if the creature decides not to use stealth, they loose +40 stealth bonus. Big difference to keeping "Standing Still" DC modifier but losing Stealth modifier in the Special Ability description. In the spell it does get reduced to +20, but only if "moving" at any conceivable speed, which that in of itself is another case:

Case 3

Special Ability states:
*Standing Still: +20 modifier to Perception DC.
*Moving, but less than half speed (such as 5-foot step): No modifier to Perception DC.
*Moving, at half speed: -5 modifier to Perception DC
*Moving, at full speed: -10 modifier to Perception DC
*Running/charging, -20 modifier to Perception DC

Spell states:
*Moving any speed is reduced to a +20 to stealth bonus, which is strictly -20 less than standing still (but still only with a stealth check), which evens out to being the same reduction as the special ability's 5-foot step, except only when used with stealth (if we're making the attempt to compare the two as the same), even if the character is moving half/full speed, but the Special Ability confers worse modifiers with higher rates of movement.

Maybe we are reading more into the general use of a general invisibility rule than is necessary because of the description in a specific spell. Maybe this is more like how gaining a new feat can alter a character's standard combat abilities, but doesn't alter everyone else's use of it, like how a bull rush normall provokes AAO, but a character gaining the Improved Bull Rush feat gains prevention of an AAO. In this sense the invisibility spell might be a modification to the normal invisible detection rules to increase the flow of a game since it's one of the most commonly used spells in the game; keeping track of a party of 5-6 players made invisible would be difficult using the Special Ability rules, for instance.
(Let's see, Jhiharda is using stealth at half speed... Rhoki is moving at full speed without stealth, but Uma is full speed with stealth, and Leroy is running around the cultists like a madman... Screw it, let's just make this a flat stealth bonus!)


There are other differences that suggest the Invisibility spell is a modification to the Special Ability rules. For instance, the invisibility spell states that if you pick up an object, the object becomes invisible.

Spell 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.

However, the Special Ability states that the picked up object remains visible unless it gets tucked into or behind something invisible:

Special Ability wrote:
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).

The spell does specify that light still is visible as per the Special Ability though, as if to clarify that this aspect isn't modified.

Ack, I misread the quoted part of the spell. It does state that items disappear if tucked into clothing. Disregard.


If you're going to compare, don't interpret first and then compare.

Case 1)
Special ability: "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check."

Spell: "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required,"

"Active" in the special ability description counters your "doesn't have to be doing anything" and "could be standing perfectly still".

They're essentially the same if you read "active" as covering making noises or leaving traces while moving. Being a big hole in the water might go far enough as to not require a check at all.

Case 2 and 3 are basically the special ability going into more detail. The basics are the same, 20 harder to see, another 20 if you're not moving. The special ability and the table give more modifiers. There's confusion about what things are bonuses to stealth or to the Perception DC and which apply when- which is where most of the confusion in these threads comes from.

All of my previous arguments in this thread, by the way, were based on the special ability text, not on the spell. It's quite clear to me from the special ability that it's 20 points harder to pinpoint an unmoving invisible creature than a moving one.

I'm perfectly willing to agree there are RAW conflicts between all sorts of aspects of the whole Invisibility/stealth/Perception/Vision complex, but I don't see the spell vs the condition/ability as a particularly bad example. Those two can be easily reconciled and I've rarely seen any confusion arise from them.


I see, I glossed over the "active" part. You're right. So this means Special Ability invisibility also doesn't allow a creature to be detected with a perception check if it's standing still (not active), so Case 1 is out the window. Thanks for pointing that out.

The reason I bring up differences between the spell and the special ability is because of what others keep bringing up about "bonus types" and un-typed bonuses. There literally is no mention of "bonus" in all of the special ability's mechanics. The closest thing that someone might infer a bonus (which is a stretch) is that one of the table modifiers says that there is an increased perception DC modifier (by 20) if the creature is using stealth. It does not explicitly state that it is a bonus of any kind, however, but it is explicitly a modifier to Perception DC according to the table column that the represented number is placed in. However, the spell itself explicitly states a bonus to stealth that is even a much different amount than the special ability's perception DC modifier, and it seems like everyone tries to interpret that to somehow make stealth part of "standing still" in the special ability's rules.

Interesting enough, that stealth bonus didn't even exist in the original 3.5 invisibility spell description (yes yes, it's not proof for RAW, but more a supporting evidence):

D&D 3.5 Invisibility Spell wrote:
...Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature...
Pathfinder Invisibility Spell wrote:
...Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature...

The bold part is the mechanical changes added to the spell in Pathfinder. If that part were absent in Pathfinder's spell, then I believe we would have much less issues and just go by the Special Ability's mechanics. But, the changes were made, so it seems like the invisibility spell was intentionally meant to work in its own way, at least for the mechanics of detecting an invisible creature.


Yeah, then we'd just go back to arguing over what the Special Ability's mechanics mean.

Like the rest of this thread and all the others. :)

I also refuse to believe the intent of the Invisibility spell was to have no effect if the user wasn't using Stealth. For example: I cast Invisibility and run away. You can be targeted because you're not using stealth and invisibility does nothing but provide a bonus to stealth checks.


thejeff wrote:
I also refuse to believe the intent of the Invisibility spell was to have no effect if the user wasn't using Stealth. For example: I cast Invisibility and run away. You can be targeted because you're not using stealth and invisibility does nothing but provide a bonus to stealth checks.

I agree with you. If my understanding of the spell's use as only a modification of the detection rules, you are correct. That doesn't leave out total concealment miss chances, though, so that at least is still effective, and the spell doesn't end just by being detected.

The same thing would happen (as I stated in my first post) if we were strictly using the Special Ability rules (especially if you consider "in combat" to mean "participating in combat rounds" such that the creature is considered a combatant, or in other words, has a place in combat initiative):

*Starting Pinpoint perception DC = Base detect DC (20) +20 = DC 40
*Running/Charging (Can't use stealth, -20 to DC) and "in combat" (-20)
End result perception DC = 0. Everyone who can't roll a negative perception check succeeds 100%.

The only thing going for not being pinpointed while running away is any additional bonuses such as being behind a door, wall, or a long distance away.


Brandenfascher wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I also refuse to believe the intent of the Invisibility spell was to have no effect if the user wasn't using Stealth. For example: I cast Invisibility and run away. You can be targeted because you're not using stealth and invisibility does nothing but provide a bonus to stealth checks.

I agree with you. If my understanding of the spell's use as only a modification of the detection rules, you are correct. That doesn't leave out total concealment miss chances, though, so that at least is still effective, and the spell doesn't end just by being detected.

The same thing would happen (as I stated in my first post) if we were strictly using the Special Ability rules (especially if you consider "in combat" to mean "participating in combat rounds" such that the creature is considered a combatant, or in other words, has a place in combat initiative):

*Starting Pinpoint perception DC = Base detect DC (20) +20 = DC 40
*Running/Charging (Can't use stealth, -20 to DC) and "in combat" (-20)
End result perception DC = 0. Everyone who can't roll a negative perception check succeeds 100%.

The only thing going for not being pinpointed while running away is any additional bonuses such as being behind a door, wall, or a long distance away.

Nothing in the Invisibility spell about concealment or a 50% miss chance :)

Scarab Sages

Checking back in, much more rested and hopefully making more sense...

A positive modifier is a bonus. A negative modifier is a penalty. No, the modifiers listed under invisible creatures are not modifiers to stealth. They are modifiers to the DC to pinpoint. Stealth is also a modifier to the DC to pinpoint, so a modifier to stealth is therefore a modifier to the DC to pinpoint.

Determining Bonuses wrote:
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells shows the modifier for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.

That's in reference to Ability modifiers, but it's also the only place I've found "modifier" defined.

The whole set of invisibility rules is poorly written, but the contention is that these are not sets of different modifiers, but just restatements of the same modifiers in the context of how they are being looked up.

The invisibility special ability mentions a +20 to pinpoint. The contention is that is the same +20 as the +20 to stealth for a moving creature using invisibility. The chart includes a +20 for not moving. That makes the total bonus +40, the same bonus as stated in invisibility for a stationary creature.

You're also missing a reference. Stealth the skill also mentions a +20 for an invisible creature, +40 if they are not moving.

Stealth wrote:
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.

That doesn't reference the spell. It just says "if you are invisible."

Why are these things listed so many places? Well, if you have something like an Invisible Stalker, you're going to look at the invisibility special ability, so you need to list the modifier there. If you're a wizard casting invisibility, you're going to look at the spell. If you're a Rogue, you might look in Stealth. So they listed the modifiers all three places. They just happened to do so in a way that makes it confusing. But looking at the larger picture, you can see the same modifiers carried over in each case. +20 for moving, +40 for stationary.

That should really be the end of it, if that were clarified by FAQ to be the case. Sadly, it hasn't been. I suspect buried somewhere in the Stealth playtest that never made it into an official errata its was discussed, and indications I've seen elsewhere are that that interpretation is correct, but I don't have a link to a definitive post.

So then you get people claiming (not you or wraithstrike, but they are out there) that the +20 from invisibility stacks with the +20 that stealth lists which stacks with the +20 to pinpoint, and sometimes even that the chart in the invisibility special ability says to add "Stealth +20," and also says to add +20 if you're not moving, so that is thrown in as an additional +40 on top of the others, meaning you're starting at +100 or +120 before you ever roll stealth. The rules counter to that, if it's not accepted that they are all the same bonus, is that they are all coming from the same source (being invisible), and untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack. That argument shouldn't be necessary. because there's a very strong indication that they are all just the same bonuses listed in different places.

Where I'm up in the air is about when you add in the base DC20 to notice someone and when you don't. The way it's written, it doesn't make sense to me that you would need to do that every round, because it's described as noticing and a hunch that something is there. But I'll accept that it isn't clear whether or not you do. I also think it's ambiguous enough that until there's an FAQ, I'm not wrong to rule at my table that you don't add that DC in once you are aware of the opponent, or at the very least, that the penalty for being in combat offsets it. You're not wrong to rule that it applies every round, either.


I've claimed it, but only in an attempt at reductio ad absurdem, countering other claims for stacking, basically "If you think these stack, there's no reason to stop there." I think I was up to +120, while moving, but I don't remember the details. :)

BTW, if I understand your arguments, the chance to pinpoint an moving invisible character in combat is essentially their stealth roll? No other advantage from invisibility? Just that they can use stealth.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's definitely true that the rules are a jumble. I'd say FAQ it, but I know they're not going to answer this, if they haven't already.

I'm perfectly comfortable reading the text to mean that pinpointing is 20 harder than noticing, in addition to any other modifiers.

I would point out that "notice" is useful even once you've become aware of them the first time - even if you can't pinpoint them, making the notice roll means you know they haven't left the area.

I disagree. I think the DC to notice someone is 0. The modifier for invisibility in the "notice someone invisible" has already been applied to the DC 20. Why? Because the DC to notice someone not invisible is 0, and the modifier for someone being invisible is +20. The two line up just fine.

Looking at the invisibility table, not moving only gives a +20. Well, the spell says +40, but if we consider that the base bonus while active is +20, adding the two +20s we arrive at +40.

There is not +60 listed any where. So any modifiers being added that bring it to that point would be erroneous (just from Invisibility) because that would be double dipping on bonuses.

I'll believe something higher than +40 if someone can show me a cause for double-dipping. You can make the case that they're different, but I don't think they are. All the +20's are from invisibility, and I don't think it can give you more than one +20 (with the exception of the +40 being broken in half to show how it's received, but the +40 supersede's the +20).

The base DC should be considered as if the person were visible, then invisibility grants a modifier to that roll (plus allowing for the roll, since it grants concealment and all that).

Notice in the case of Invisibility is special. There is no base DC for noticing someone as distinct from pinpointing them.

The base DC for pinpointing a visible person is 0.

If we did treat the Notice as a base 0 + 20 for invisibility, then it would make sense to add...

I think it does make perfect sense actually. If you take the Invisibility section alone, it's easy to continue running up the DC and getting to these outrageous DC's and get all this confusion. It also means that the Invisibility section and the Perception skill section don't line up.

But if instead you use my interpretation, the two sections are consistent.

Perception skill gives the DC to notice a visible person as 0. It also lists a modifier if that person is invisible (+20). That puts it at DC 20.

What is the DC to notice an active invisible person? DC 20.

Also, if you look at the Darkness section, the DC to pinpoint what square they are in is +20 over whatever it would be normally. What is the normal DC? 0. What is the DC in darkness? 20.

Changing the DC to 40 makes Invisibility incongruous with other information. Therefore, my explanation for that incongruity is that people are interpreting the language incorrectly and adding the +20 modifier twice. Fixing that interpretation causes all of these rules to match up and be aligned.

The starting DC is actually 0, not 20. All the math lines up when you do that. If you start from 20, the math doesn't make sense.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:

I've claimed it, but only in an attempt at reductio ad absurdem, countering other claims for stacking, basically "If you think these stack, there's no reason to stop there." I think I was up to +120, while moving, but I don't remember the details. :)

BTW, if I understand your arguments, the chance to pinpoint an moving invisible character in combat is essentially their stealth roll? No other advantage from invisibility? Just that they can use stealth.

No, I would say Stealth +20. I'm coming around to the idea that the base DC 20 applies, but that it's generally offset by the penalty for being in combat.


Ferious Thune wrote:
A positive modifier is a bonus. A negative modifier is a penalty. No, the modifiers listed under invisible creatures are not modifiers to stealth. They are modifiers to the DC to pinpoint. Stealth is also a modifier to the DC to pinpoint, so a modifier to stealth is therefore a modifier to the DC to pinpoint.

I understand now; this ultimately gets down to the semantics for that Special Ability modifier table. Are you saying this means the table says there is an untyped Stealth Bonus (modifier) for the creature? What I'm saying is that the table strictly says that all of the modifiers listed are "Perception DC Modifier" per the column descriptor. While it does include a stealth check result, it is not referred to as a bonus to a stealth check, and therefore not subject to the "no stacking untyped bonuses" rules that were referenced earlier from the Magic section.

As for definitions of bonuses and modifiers, in "Common Terms" I read the definition of bonus is: "Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores". From my understanding a DC (Difficulty Class) is not a check or statistical score, and as such the stacking rules don't apply for DC modifiers such as on tables like that. You can roll a check to beat a difficulty class, but a check a DC ain't. So that is where I'm not following this line of reasoning. Perhaps a DC is a statistical score, but statistics seems like such an out of place word to describe a DC, and yet the common terms description for Difficulty Class does not refer to it as a check or a statistic.

Ferious Thune wrote:
The invisibility special ability mentions a +20 to pinpoint. The contention is that is the same +20 as the +20 to stealth for a moving creature using invisibility. The chart includes a +20 for not moving. That makes the total bonus +40, the same bonus as stated in invisibility for a stationary creature.
Ferious Thune wrote:

You're also missing a reference. Stealth the skill also mentions a +20 for an invisible creature, +40 if they are not moving.

Stealth wrote:
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.

Apparently that's another thing I missed, "hidden" in the bottom-most parts of the stealth skill's features (I failed my perception check again). I'm tempted to assume that this was geared toward the typical PC character using the stealth skill with the invisibility spell... but I can't argue assumptions for RAW. It makes little sense to not simply refer directly to the Special Ability for the precise details, but yet I can see their purpose as being a faster set of rules for improved gameplay flow. Why Special Abilities would be left with a much different looking set of rules otherwise is beyond me.

Scarab Sages

If the bonuses to the DC can stack from the same source, can I cast vanish and invisibility on the same character and double the DCs?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Untyped modifiers from the same source don't stack for anything in Pathfinder that I'm aware of.


Brandenfascher wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
You're also missing a reference.
Apparently that's another thing I missed, "hidden" in the bottom-most parts of the stealth skill's features (I failed my perception check again). I'm tempted to assume that this was geared toward the typical PC character using the stealth skill with the invisibility spell... but I can't argue assumptions for RAW. It makes little sense to not simply refer directly to the Special Ability for the precise details, but yet I can see their purpose as being a faster set of rules for improved gameplay flow. Why Special Abilities would be left with a much different looking set of rules otherwise is beyond me.

Because most of us don't see that as a "much different looking set of rules"? Just one with more details.


Ferious Thune wrote:

If the bonuses to the DC can stack from the same source, can I cast vanish and invisibility on the same character and double the DCs?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Untyped modifiers from the same source don't stack for anything in Pathfinder that I'm aware of.

No, because neither spell actually gives you bonuses, they both apply the same condition, invisibility. Having that condition gives you bonuses.

But it's still only one condition, even if you apply it in two different ways. So you only get whatever comes from having the condition.

Exactly what that is, is under debate.

Scarab Sages

I know what the answer is. It's his contention that modifiers can stack from the same source I'm trying to get to the bottom of. That idea quickly gets you to the +100 DCs we were talking about, because your stealth roll is boosted by 40 for not moving, and the DC to pinpoint is boosted by 20 according to the chart. EDIT: for not moving

You can't be invisible twice. That's my point. Adjusting for invisibility in the stealth roll, then adjusting for invisibility again is giving someone invisibility twice.


Ferious Thune wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I've claimed it, but only in an attempt at reductio ad absurdem, countering other claims for stacking, basically "If you think these stack, there's no reason to stop there." I think I was up to +120, while moving, but I don't remember the details. :)

BTW, if I understand your arguments, the chance to pinpoint an moving invisible character in combat is essentially their stealth roll? No other advantage from invisibility? Just that they can use stealth.

No, I would say Stealth +20. I'm coming around to the idea that the base DC 20 applies, but that it's generally offset by the penalty for being in combat.

The base 20 is replaced by Stealth+20, then you have to beat it by 20 to pinpoint.

Scarab Sages

And subtract 20 for being in combat?


Ferious Thune wrote:

I know what the answer is. It's his contention that modifiers can stack from the same source I'm trying to get to the bottom of. That idea quickly gets you to the +100 DCs we were talking about, because your stealth roll is boosted by 40 for not moving, and the DC to pinpoint is boosted by 20 according to the chart. EDIT: for not moving

You can't be invisible twice. That's my point. Adjusting for invisibility in the stealth roll, then adjusting for invisibility again is giving someone invisibility twice.

I don't think "modifiers from the same source don't stack" is a useful argument against that.

I think "These are clumsily written references to the same modifier" is a useful argument.

Besides, haven't you come around to "they do stack", but there's a penalty if you're in combat?

I would absolutely agree that you've got a +60 to your Stealth if you're invisible and not moving. I just don't actually think you can then argue that your Stealth roll (based on the line in the Stealth skill) gets another +40 - not because there is another +40 there, but it doesn't stack, but because that's just another reference to the same +40.


Ferious Thune wrote:
And subtract 20 for being in combat?

If they're engaging in combat, obviously.

Scarab Sages

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's advocating. Because it sounds to me like he's saying you get the bonus to stealth and the +20 to pinpoint and the base 20 to notice for a DC 80, not 60.

Scarab Sages

Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
And subtract 20 for being in combat?
If they're engaging in combat, obviously.

Then that's the same total I listed.

Do you add +20 or +40 to stealth in addition to this?


Ferious Thune wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
And subtract 20 for being in combat?
If they're engaging in combat, obviously.

Then that's the same total I listed.

Do you add +20 or +40 to stealth in addition to this?

It's possible that I'm not following the conversation as well as I should.

I read it as you saying that beating Stealth+20 would result in you pinpointing the creature. I'm saying that beating Stealth+20 makes you aware of the presence of an invisible creature, and that you still have to beat that by another 20 to pinpoint.

Scarab Sages

Right, but it adds up to the same number whether you say the extra 20 is to notice or to pinpoint.

Roll Stealth with your normal bonuses. Add 20 for being invisible and moving. Add 20 to pinpoint. Subtract 20 for being in combat. The net is Stealth+20 to pinpoint.

or

Roll Stealth with your normal bonuses. Add 20 to notice. Add 20 to pinpoint. Subtract 20 for being in combat. The net is Stealth+20 to pinpoint.

At that point, we're just arguing about what to call the bonuses, and there's no real point in doing that if we're basically arriving at the same place.

The issue is that Stealth tells you to add +20 or +40 to the Stealth roll. So understanding what you mean by "Stealth+20" is important. Is Stealth= 1d20+Your Stealth Bonus+20 for being invisible and moving and then you add 20 for the base DC to notice and if you exceed by another 20 you pinpoint them? Example with Stealth +10 and a take 10/roll of a 10:

10(roll) + 10(stealth bonus) + 20(invisible and moving) + 20 (Base DC to spot) - 20 (in Combat) = DC40 to notice, DC60 to pinpoint.

Or is the +20 that Stealth is telling you to add included already somewhere in the Base DC to notice and the +20 to pinpoint? Giving you:

10(roll) + 10(stealth bonus) + 20(Base DC to notice) - 20(in Combat) = DC 20 to notice, DC 40 to pinpoint.

In the first situation, I feel like you'd be adding the same +20 twice. The +20 stealth is telling you to add is already included somewhere in the rules that the invisibility special ability is telling you to use. Whether that +20 is the pinpoint adjustment or whether it's the base DC doesn't really matter, as long as it's only counted once.

What I've come around to is accepting three things. The DC to notice and the DC to pinpoint are separate modifiers. One of them (doesn't really matter which) is the same as the +20 stealth tells you to add if you're moving. And finally, the rules already incorporate my assertion that you don't need to notice someone is there that has already made themself obvious by attacking or whatever means. The way that the rules incorporate that is with an equivalent penalty once you are in combat with the invisible creature. As long as that creature stays in the area and is actively participating in combat, the -20 adjustment offsets the base 20 DC to notice, and everything works out in a way that makes sense (to me, anyway) without creating ridiculously high or ridiculously low DCs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Does spell perfection give you double the bonuses?

Scarab Sages

I don't think I understand the question. Spell Perfection only doubles the effect of a feat. What feat would it be doubling?

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / DC to Pinpoint Invisible Creature All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.