Hexes and Invisibility


Rules Questions


Does using a Hex against a creature end invisibility effects? I am thinking about a Witch with a level in Assasin for a Way if the Wicked Campaign. My thought is that if I could go invisible with a potion or ring, study my target, then evil eye and misfortune them, then sneak attack denying their Dex because of the invisibility, I would have a pretty decent shot at killing pretty whomever I want without much of a fight. Will this plan Work? Also open to other suggestions.


If you make the bad guy roll a saving throw it voids the invisibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

“Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.” -Magic Chapter


Even if it doesn't require a saving throw but still imposes a negative effect it is an attack and will break invisibility.


What about the Cackle Hex? Would that break invisibility?


Additionally, is there a way to Hex a creature without the creature knowing they are being Hexed? Or at least not knowing where the Hex is coming from?


Dot


I would say cackle would break invisibility. Any action that can cause a direct negative effect will break invisibility. Continuing a negative effect would qualify.

As for "is there a way to Hex a creature without the creature knowing they are being Hexed? Or at least not knowing where the Hex is coming from?" I would say that if a creature makes a saving throw they are aware that something happened. If the hex doesn't require anything obvious to use it then it is possible to use it without someone knowing who used it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cackle does not make an attack or require a save. I would say it does not break invisibility.

A hex that affects the area an enemy is about to go into won't break it either.

/cevah


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cackle is not an attack. It just extends an existing effect. It does not cause the effect to take place any more than the extend spell feat does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always ruled this as there are 4 things that count as a "direct attack" and can end Invisibility:

1. Anything that requires you to make an attack roll. This includes Combat Maneuvers.

2. A spell, effect, or other action you take that directly results in another creature needing to make a saving throw. This means that casting Grease on the ground where a creature is standing would break Invisibility, but casting it on the ground where no one is standing wouldn't. Additionally, if a creature enters the space of your Grease AFTER you've placed it, your Invisibility wouldn't break when they need to make an Acrobatics check to avoid moving at half speed.

3. A spell, effect, or other action that directly results in you dealing hp or ability damage to another creature. Setting a trap that will later trigger and deal damage doesn't break Invisibility.

4. Anything that requires you to make a CL check vs. SR, or a CL check to end a pre-existing effect (i.e. Dispel Magic)

With this in mind, I'd rule that the Cackle Hex doesn't end Invisibility, but your character WOULD be making lots of noise, making it easier for other creatures to hone in on your location. As for Hexing a creature without them knowing - there's nowhere that directly covers this in RAW, but using lateral reasoning, the Mesmerist's Hypnotic Stare ability DOES plainly state that you can choose to remove the memory of you using the ability from the mind of the creature you target. No other spell or ability has ever said this, implying that Hypnotic Stare is the only mental attack in the game that can. Having said that, if you were to Hex another creature in a crowded room, or from a hiding place, you might have a case that they know they've been Hexed, but simply don't know where it came from. This is entirely up to yuor GM, though.


Cuup wrote:
Invisibility, but your character WOULD be making lots of noise,

In fact, I could see that being ruled anywhere between between "favorable conditions" to "hear the sound of battle" or some combination (that's a -2 DC, a -10 DC, a -6 DC if averaged, or -12 if both).

In my mind, though, invisibility is ridiculous - there's no reason it should grant that +20 or +40 - it should just give you constant total concealment, and/or allow you to "take 10" (or perhaps 15 or something); such an arrangement would certainly make it more viable to reward those with actual skill investments. But maybe that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say cackling would make it trivially obvious where you are. It would be like being invisible and yelling. Sure, you still have total concealment, but people are pretty sure you're in this area when you yelled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Claxon wrote:
I would say cackling would make it trivially obvious where you are. It would be like being invisible and yelling. Sure, you still have total concealment, but people are pretty sure you're in this area when you yelled.

Absolutely. I'd rule similarly for other spell casting (that wouldn't otherwise break the ongoing invisibility) that had a verbal component, but maybe require a perception check to notice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I would say cackling would make it trivially obvious where you are. It would be like being invisible and yelling. Sure, you still have total concealment, but people are pretty sure you're in this area when you yelled.

The Ventriloqism spell might be tactically useful here. People would know someone is nearby, but would think that your Cackling originates from a different direction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I would say cackling would make it trivially obvious where you are. It would be like being invisible and yelling. Sure, you still have total concealment, but people are pretty sure you're in this area when you yelled.
The Ventriloqism spell might be tactically useful here. People would know someone is nearby, but would think that your Cackling originates from a different direction.

That is very viable misdirection.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Kwisatz Haderach wrote:
What about the Cackle Hex? Would that break invisibility?

Cackle is not an attack. It has no affect on other creatures, it modifies already existing hexes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I would say cackling would make it trivially obvious where you are. It would be like being invisible and yelling. Sure, you still have total concealment, but people are pretty sure you're in this area when you yelled.

Unless they had a terrible perception score they should be able to know where the caster is, but the caster still has the benefit of concealment, and the caster still can't be targeted with spells. It would likely negate the -20 to perception that invisibility provides since I would think it would be loud enough to at least count as speaking. However all the caster has to do is move on the next round since the caster will likely still survive, or the caster can use cackle, and then move.

If someone spoke and moved, or fired a weapon and then moved they should be able to not be detected since the first act has no way of giving away their new location.

PS: Clarification and providing rules based ideas


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I would say cackling would make it trivially obvious where you are. It would be like being invisible and yelling. Sure, you still have total concealment, but people are pretty sure you're in this area when you yelled.

Unless they had a terrible perception score they should be able to know where the caster is, but the caster still has the benefit of concealment, and the caster still can't be targeted with spells. It would likely negate the -20 to perception that invisibility provides since I would think it would be loud enough to at least count as speaking. However all the caster has to do is move on the next round since the caster will likely still survive, or the caster can use cackle, and then move.

If someone spoke and moved, or fired a weapon and then moved they should be able to not be detected since the first act has no way of giving away their new location.

PS: Clarification and providing rules based ideas

Yes, if it wasn't clear that is exactly what I meant.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Hexes and Invisibility All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.