RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice

Invisible Wizard and a touch attacking familiar

Advice

Search Thread

Search this Thread:

A player has asked about the following scenario.
1- Wizard is invisible and has a thrush familiar under his cloak.
2- Wizard casts a touch spell designating his familiar as the “toucher.”
3- Familiar flies out, touches a target and flies back to the still invisible wizard and hides inside the wizards invisible closk.
4- Invisible Wizard uses a move actin to change location.
5- repeat...1 thru 4

Observations about the plan and specifically, how easy would it be for the bird to find the invisible wizard without "see invisible" and what action would it be for the bird to hide under the invisible cloak?

I can see a couple potential flaws here.

1) upon exiting an observant enemy might be able to spot where the thrush came out and have a general idea where the invisible have is, at the very least figure this out shiuld allow a new Will Save to negate.

2) it's iffy but would that constitute a direct attack or count as an indirect attack? The familiar is, technically, an extension of the mage. Si that one night be DM call.

3) to return to the mage, the thrush would need to succeed a Will Save to negate the spell and would be visible for a bit of time until it can get under the clothes (A move action really, maybe climb to cling on the clotges), allowing the enemy a chance to save or attack against the known invisible threat.

The Thrush is an independent creature and not affected by the wizard's invisibility, which can only affect one creature at a time. It therefore stays visible.

No one usually runs it like that, but if you use "it's an independent creature" to game invisibility, then you have to deal with the downsides of that.

/Edit:

Andre Roy wrote:
Stuff about Invisibility involving Will Saves

Will saves? Enemies don't get Will Saves against invisibility. The being/object getting turned invisible gets a will save to stay visible.

I am ok with the Thrush being invisible once he is completely inside the invisible cloak. I treat familiars as "items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing" even though they are creatures.

The downside is the familiar is going to be needing to get replaced soon as such activity is drawing a huge bullseye on familiar. I personally think the activity is reasonable as described but normally as a GM I don't go aggressively after familiars. This activity though is going to remove my gloves.

Even if the wizard doesn’t deliver the touch, he is still the caster and it is considered an attack for the purposes of magic, if the spell hampers the target.
Valandil Ancalime wrote:
I am ok with the Thrush being invisible once he is completely inside the invisible cloak. I treat familiars as "items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing" even though they are creatures.

As I said, "It's usually not run like that, but if they want to game the system..."

But if you want to allow it, it seems you will have to deal with the consequences.

Finding the square the wizard is in should be trivial, the Familiar remembers it, no need to pinpoint.
Then, he has a 50% "hit chance" to actually find the wizard in said square due to the wizard's concealment.
If he misses him, the wizard will have to grab and store him, spending at least a move action, preventing the wizard from moving.

Also, how does the Thrush fly out, deliver the spell, and fly back? Usually, they'd need to fly out (move action), deliver the spell (standard action touch attack - the wizard gets that for free as part of the casting, the Familiar doesn't), and would be out of actions.
Flyby attack would usually allow something like this, but Thushes don't have this.
Kayerloth wrote:
The downside is the familiar is going to be needing to get replaced soon as such activity is drawing a huge bullseye on familiar. I personally think the activity is reasonable as described but normally as a GM I don't go aggressively after familiars. This activity though is going to remove my gloves.

That was my thought as well.

Melkiador wrote:
Even if the wizard doesn’t deliver the touch, he is still the caster and it is considered an attack for the purposes of magic, if the spell hampers the target.

Indirect attacks don't break invisibility, do you have a FAQ or something to support your interpretation?

Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:

Finding the square the wizard is in should be trivial, the Familiar remembers it, no need to pinpoint.

Then, he has a 50% "hit chance" to actually find the wizard in said square due to the wizard's concealment.
If he misses him, the wizard will have to grab and store him, spending at least a move action, preventing the wizard from moving.

Also, how does the Thrush fly out, deliver the spell, and fly back? Usually, they'd need to fly out (move action), deliver the spell (standard action touch attack - the wizard gets that for free as part of the casting, the Familiar doesn't), and would be out of actions.
Flyby attack would usually allow something like this, but Thushes don't have this.

Good points. So you would say a move action to grab/store if the thrush misses his landing.

It’s not the touch that breaks invisibility in this case. It’s casting a spell to hamper an opponent. Magic missile doesn’t require the wizard to make an attack roll either but it would still end invisibility.

Quote:
All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.

@Melkiador: That's as much "Technically true RAW" as my "Familiars wouldn't become invisible in the first place since they're a separate creature", so I'd assume it simply gets ignored.
Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Good points. So you would say a move action to grab/store if the thrush misses his landing.

Actually, I would say stuff like that should only be allowed with special investments (There are feats that allow single-target spells to affect both wizard and familiar, for example), but there are so many house rules (familiar fading in and out of invisibility, acting during the wizard's turn instead of before or after, the familiar apparently getting extra actions) and loopholes (does it count as an attack because the wizard casts a spell that affects an enemy? RAW, yes, but does it make sense?) at play that I'd say this belongs in the homebrew area.

None of this is supposed to be used like that.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
@Melkiador: That's as much "Technically true RAW" as my "Familiars wouldn't become invisible in the first place since they're a separate creature", so I'd assume it simply gets ignored.

That’s up to your DM. If he’s cool with it, then good. But I’d never expect a DM to rule your way.

Overall I'd say its hazy as far as the familiar and invisibility is concerned rules wise.

Warning Thinking "out loud" here:

Spoiler:
Yes it is the wizard using the wizard's ability to use his familiar to deliver the touch spell, an extension of the wizard and his abilities. On the other hand at least for me and my GM'ing he is another sentient creature, a very special npc, he's not Dominated or otherwise magically controlled ... or is he? He is called or summoned or something similar but undefined in game terms by a ritual that takes 8 hours. At least if he needs replacing it does. The rules don't actually specify how they are initially "chosen" to aid the spell caster outside of the process being, perhaps, listed as spell-like (Sp), which makes the bonded object the (Ex) choice. But unless more is said elsewhere the 'magical, spell-like' portion is come and gone with his choosing. He's now a magical beast with his own free will and he has been chosen to aid the spell caster. He and the wizard are made invisible by virtue of the wizards share spell ability. After that we are to my thinking off into GM judgement land. I personally could play it either way as a PC as long as the ruling was consistent. As a GM I'd say the familiar chooses to follow the desire of his master the wizard and 99+% of the time deliver the touch attack as desired but being free willed might instead do something else on the very rare occasion, for example, spots another overwhelming threat his master is not aware of. That free will is for me what says the familiar using the touch attack even in a hostile manner would not effect the spell caster any more than companion/party member choosing to attack after the wizard made him invisible would nix the wizards invisibility. But that is just my thinking and further evidence could change things. Nothing in these thoughts says Melkiador is incorrect, particularly with respect to RAI. There is evidence in the higher level Invisibility spells that in fact RAI would intend the Invisibility to be broken. See both Invisibility Sphere and Mass Invisibility. But for obvious reason (normally single target) there is no similar language in Invisibility itself.

I do agree the Thrush/familiar is out of actions, that was an excellent point - move to get in range to touch, attack action to touch. He'd need further feats or abilities to return to the 'safety' under the Invisible Wizards cloak within the same round. In turn that should allow foes the time to set up a Ready Action once familiar (O.o) with the tactic being employed to potentially target both with attacks. And it makes the return trip to the wizard a bit more problematic. Wizard doesn't move which has its own issues or the wizard moves and the familiar might have a bit more problems returning to his master.

The familiar may be able to deliver the touch as a free action.

Quote:
The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would.
Quote:
In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.

The master would deliver the touch as a free action, if it is done on the same round as the cast, and the familiar delivers it as the master would.

Kayerloth wrote:
Yes it is the wizard using the wizard's ability to use his familiar to deliver the touch spell, an extension of the wizard and his abilities. On the other hand at least for me and my GM'ing he is another sentient creature, a very special npc, he's not Dominated or otherwise magically controlled ... or is he? He is called or summoned or something similar but undefined in game terms by a ritual that takes 8 hours. At least if he needs replacing it does. The rules don't actually specify how they are initially "chosen" to aid the spell caster outside of the process being, perhaps, listed as spell-like (Sp), which makes the bonded object the (Ex) choice. But unless more is said elsewhere the 'magical, spell-like' portion is come and gone with his choosing. He's now a magical beast with his own free will and he has been chosen to aid the spell caster.

I really don't think that makes a difference. The wizard casts the spell. If the spell effect harms someone, then it's an attack for magic purposes. This is no different than a wizard casting fireball into an empty field. If the field is truly empty, then no attack occurred. However, if there was someone hiding in the field, then it was an attack.

Melkiador wrote:

The familiar may be able to deliver the touch as a free action.

Quote:
The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would.
Quote:
In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.
The master would deliver the touch as a free action, if it is done on the same round as the cast, and the familiar delivers it as the master would.

I never considered that angle. I wonder if there is a FAQ or something about this?

It is an interesting argument. One thing I'd like to point out is two creatures can't take actions at the same time. The wizard has to finish his actions before the familiar can act, or the familiar has to finish is actions before the wizard can act. They don't share a turn.

For the familiar to hide in the wizard's clothing the familiar would need to be able to see invisible. The act of hiding should require an action of its own, which is part of a move action. A stealth roll would probably be appropriate to determine if the familiar hid itself well enough to be covered by invisibility or not.

Something else to consider is the size of the familiar. If it is a Small or larger creature everything should be fine. If the familiar is Tiny or smaller size it must enter the target's hex to perform an attack and this incurs an AoO. The touch attack itself shouldn't since delivering touch spells is considered an armed attack.

Also spells need line of effect when cast. If the familiar is hiding itself in the wizard's clothing...does the wizard have line of effect to the familiar?

The last issue as has already been pointed out is that the familiar is not an object. Objects put into pouches and clothing become invisible. There is no provision for an invisible creature to hide another creature. Considering the way the caster is trying to game the system by narrowly skirting the definition of who is doing the harm with this touch spell, I don't feel obliged to let the familiar who has left the wizard and returned to count as an object.

This has been answered in the FAQ:

https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbd

That said, the issue with the attacking familiar should negate its invisibility once it attempts to attack with the spell and that opens it up to attacks of opportunity when it leaves a threaten square (not to mention affecting the master if it returns without discharging the spell). If it is tiny and the target has a reason to know the creature is approaching, then it sets off the attack of opportunity as it enters the square of the target (unless the target forgoes the AOO in favor of attacking when it leaves, since most creatures only get one per round, it is optional to execute). I must point out that it is also in the FAQ that these actions can incur only one AOO for the familiar and only due to its movement.

The question about finding the spot where the master is while invisible can be resolved through the mystical bond of the master and familiar. However, splitting any character, NPC, or creature's initiative with anyone or anything else beyond special circumstances (such as readied actions) falls outside the RAW as the FAQ quote specifically states the master and familiar are independent creatures. I will stipulate that under normal circumstances, master and familiar act at the same initiative, but they can not split actions (i.e. interrupting) during the initiative (no one else does, do they?) unless of course they have a specific ability to allow it.

So, the master can cast his spell and move in the same round, but he/she will be locked in that spot for one round until their point in the initiative order comes around again. Then, the familiar gets to act (this is predicated on the master having to cast the spell first). In the situation where the familiar is holding the charge, it is a completely different story and the "hold the charge" rule comes into play costing the familiar the standard action to "attack" instead of free with the casting. However, it gets to go first, so if it has an extra action or some other way of moving and attacking as a single action, then it can return to the caster and he/she can then take their full action and move or do otherwise as normal.

Finally, actions of flight need to be considered. Anything in flight must make fly checks to perform certain actions, such as hover or make turns greater than 45 degrees. This does not even bring up the movement cost increases and decreases for gaining and losing altitude at similar angles. Has the flying familiar ever missed a check? How is the master "putting the familiar away" out of initiative order? That should leave the visible "tag" until he/she gets the action economy (move equivalent action) to put it away inside the cloak of invisibility.

There is a lot going on for this character (apparently all the time) requiring one to be familiar with the spell in question, action economy, basic combat, familiar special rules, "holding the charge" special rules, invisibility, invisibility and targeting (attacking), and flight. Did I miss anything?

Hmmm well the if your link is intended to link to the FAQ is doesn't at least for me. It takes me to this thread.

And no think that covers most of it. Falls under it seems too good it probably is and your twisting the rules a bit much.

In any case the melee touch attack is only free in as far as it is part of casting the spell and being delivered by melee touch, unarmed strike or natural weapon. Any move action necessary to bring the caster (or familiar) within melee range is not also free or ... that needs fixin!

your bird would be sooooo dead...
getting aoo when entering the target space to deliver is one thing. but any semi intelligent creature being attacked by invisible creatures would ready an action to hit it once it's visible and and in reach.(or ready to grapple it, even if the target doesn't have improved grapple it won't get an aoo since it is in the 5th space near the target when he grapple it and has no reach to retaliate!)
consider this. is hitting the enemy with your delivered spell that important to let him strike at the birdy least twice (more if he got combat reflexes, since leaving the area after delivering is a 2nd move action and one more aoo for it).

doing hit (actually hex) and vanish tactics is best left for the Ashiftah

https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbd Fixed the URL link.

I usually remember these things, but it looks like the familiar is indirect enough to not break invisibility.
zza ni wrote:
...to let him strike at the birdy least twice (more if he got combat reflexes, since leaving the area after delivering is a 2nd move action and one more aoo for it).

Thanks Melkiador, you just beat me to it. I must have been very tired last night.

I wanted to address zza ni's assertion an attack of opportunity can happen twice because of two different move actions. Here is a quote from D20PFSRD as it was faster than finding it in my rulebook:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attacks-of-Opportunity

So, you can only make a single attack of opportunity per opponent during a given round for movement regardless of the reason for the movement.

Edit - it seems the standard way of adding a URL is not working properly and I do not have the time this morning to figure that out if someone would be so kind as to fix this, I am off to work.

I'm usually kind enough to let a familiar count as part of a wizard for most things. So yes, I would certainly let a wizard who was carrying their familiar and cast invisibility have their familiar be invisible as well, even though this isn't actually true according to the rules.

That doesn't mean I am going to extend that kindness indefinitely though. I am certainly not going to let a familiar that is delivering a touch spell be considered an object anymore. Trying to hide your familiar in your invisible cloak won't work at all, it will remain completely visible.

I also don't think the familiar move, deliver touch spell as a free action, and move works. You get a free action to deliver the touch spell as part of casting the touch spell (it doesn't have to happen at the same time, you can cast-move-touch but if you don't cast the spell, you don't get the free action, and the familiar didn't cast the spell.

"In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." As we learned in the breaking invisibility FAQ your familiar is not you.

The only way the familiar moves, touches, then moves again is if it is a flying familiar using a Flyby Attack feat. This allows the familiar to deliver an attack at any point during its move, not before or after. This feat implies that, even though your attack is part of a Free Action, using an attack under normal, non-Flyby Attack situations ends your movement.

I'm also in the same camp that the second your familiar leaves your person and is no longer an "object" stored on you, Invisibility is null and void. Since the spell targets a single creature it couldn't then get "invisible" again.

I'd rule this solely because of the FAQ granting that the Touch spell delivery by the familiar doesn't break Invisibility. That is a RIDICULOUSLY powerful ruling. It essentially means that a familiar, even under the effects of a Vanish spell, is considered to actually be under a Greater Invisibility or whatever the spell is that lets you attack and not break it, provided the familiar just delivers your Touch attacks.

If, however, your PC WANTED to still do this I'd simply make them take 1 extra round casting Invisibility on their familiar, separate from themselves. At that point, let the mobile damage spirit fly!
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
FAQ granting that the Touch spell delivery by the familiar doesn't break Invisibility.

To make it perfectly clear, the FAQ says it doesn't break the Familiar's master's invisibility. It would certainly break the familiar's invisibility, if the familiar was invisible.

O.O!!

Every now and then a difference between the 3.5E rules and PF pop up that can make large differences. Bolding mine.

PF text wrote:
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
3.5E text wrote:

Share Spells

At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.

PF apparently changed it to an either or option from the 3.5E. In addition to the other changes this means he would need to cast Invisibility twice to perform this course of action. My brain was still thinking 3.5(as it tends to do from many hours using those rules) That change also makes it pretty clear the question about the Invisibility fairly moot right, since the debate centers not on the Familiar but the outcome for the Wizard? And the FAQ also no longer relevant? Or??

A lot of (most?) GMs house rule sufficiently tiny familiars effectively "worn" by their masters caretakers to behave similarly to objects, and objects can be made effectively invisible by hiding them in the clothing or pouches of an invisible creature. That way you don't end up with mysterious floating tiny centipedes, and you don't have to deal with "oops, a cockroach crawled into my bag when I wasn't looking, that kinda screwed up my invisibility!" situations. Plus it's just weird treating a creature that much differently from an object in such a visible fashion--not that we don't do that elsewhere in some pretty weird fashions, but this one is particularly jarring.
Thedmstrikes wrote:
zza ni wrote:
...to let him strike at the birdy least twice (more if he got combat reflexes, since leaving the area after delivering is a 2nd move action and one more aoo for it).

Thanks Melkiador, you just beat me to it. I must have been very tired last night.

I wanted to address zza ni's assertion an attack of opportunity can happen twice because of two different move actions. Here is a quote from D20PFSRD as it was faster than finding it in my rulebook:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attacks-of-Opportunity

So, you can only make a single attack of opportunity per opponent during a given round for movement regardless of the reason for the movement.

Edit - it seems the standard way of adding a URL is not working properly and I do not have the time this morning to figure that out if someone would be so kind as to fix this, I am off to work.

not so - specific words are "same move action".

and i was careful to be specific. if you use a 2nd move action then you can provoke again.
the rule is that the same move action can't provoke more then once . so moving out of threatened and ,say entering a space used by bigger enemy, would only provoke once. but going in, stopping to touch and then with a 2nd move going out will provoke twice, once ofr the first move action once for the 2nd. (as mentioned flyby attack movement will only provoke once as it's once action)
zza ni wrote:
Thedmstrikes wrote:
zza ni wrote:
...to let him strike at the birdy least twice (more if he got combat reflexes, since leaving the area after delivering is a 2nd move action and one more aoo for it).

Thanks Melkiador, you just beat me to it. I must have been very tired last night.

I wanted to address zza ni's assertion an attack of opportunity can happen twice because of two different move actions. Here is a quote from D20PFSRD as it was faster than finding it in my rulebook:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attacks-of-Opportunity

So, you can only make a single attack of opportunity per opponent during a given round for movement regardless of the reason for the movement.

Edit - it seems the standard way of adding a URL is not working properly and I do not have the time this morning to figure that out if someone would be so kind as to fix this, I am off to work.

not so - specific words are "same move action".

and i was careful to be specific. if you use a 2nd move action then you can provoke again.
the rule is that the same move action can't provoke more then once . so moving out of threatened and ,say entering a space used by bigger enemy, would only provoke once. but going in, stopping to touch and then with a 2nd move going out will provoke twice, once ofr the first move action once for the 2nd. (as mentioned flyby attack movement will only provoke once as it's once action)

I had a moment this morning to cut and paste from the latest printing of the CRB since my links are not working properly:

CRB wrote:

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of o pportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given o pportunity, but if the

same opponent provokes two attacks of o pportunity from you, you could make two s eparate attacks of o pportunity (since each one represents a d ifferent opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Please read toward the end of the entry and it should clear this right up for you.

blahpers wrote:
A lot of (most?) GMs house rule sufficiently tiny familiars effectively "worn" by their masters caretakers to behave similarly to objects, and objects can be made effectively invisible by hiding them in the clothing or pouches of an invisible creature. That way you don't end up with mysterious floating tiny centipedes, and you don't have to deal with "oops, a cockroach crawled into my bag when I wasn't looking, that kinda screwed up my invisibility!" situations. Plus it's just weird treating a creature that much differently from an object in such a visible fashion--not that we don't do that elsewhere in some pretty weird fashions, but this one is particularly jarring.

Agreed and this isn't the Rules forum etc.,

But then why the fairly obvious rewording?
Dave Justus wrote:

I also don't think the familiar move, deliver touch spell as a free action, and move works. You get a free action to deliver the touch spell as part of casting the touch spell (it doesn't have to happen at the same time, you can cast-move-touch but if you don't cast the spell, you don't get the free action, and the familiar didn't cast the spell.

"In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." As we learned in the breaking invisibility FAQ your familiar is not you.

I don't think anyone was ever under the illusion that the familiar is "you". But the rules for familiars say, "The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would".

And the rules for touch spells specify "rounds" and not "turns". Meaning that after the wizard casts and it becomes the familiar's turn to do things, it is still the "same round".
Kayerloth wrote:
blahpers wrote:
A lot of (most?) GMs house rule sufficiently tiny familiars effectively "worn" by their masters caretakers to behave similarly to objects, and objects can be made effectively invisible by hiding them in the clothing or pouches of an invisible creature. That way you don't end up with mysterious floating tiny centipedes, and you don't have to deal with "oops, a cockroach crawled into my bag when I wasn't looking, that kinda screwed up my invisibility!" situations. Plus it's just weird treating a creature that much differently from an object in such a visible fashion--not that we don't do that elsewhere in some pretty weird fashions, but this one is particularly jarring.

Agreed and this isn't the Rules forum etc.,

But then why the fairly obvious rewording?

For the share spells thing? No idea. Maybe Paizo felt that getting two spells for one casting was too likely to break something somewhere down the line.

Melkiador wrote:

It’s not the touch that breaks invisibility in this case. It’s casting a spell to hamper an opponent. Magic missile doesn’t require the wizard to make an attack roll either but it would still end invisibility.

Quote:
All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.

The wizard did none of those things when he cast the spell on his familiar.

If you continue reading a little further, you find the rest of the relevant rules.

Invisibility wrote:
Causing harm indirectly is not an attack.

It’s always questionable how indirect it can be though. There’s a FAQ for this case. But there are still other odd cases. Like does a delayed blast fireball break invisibility? What about a flaming sphere?
Melkiador wrote:
It’s always questionable how indirect it can be though. There’s a FAQ for this case. But there are still other odd cases. Like does a delayed blast fireball break invisibility? What about a flaming sphere?

Good question. Flaming Sphere, I'd say no. If I cast a Grease spell on the ground and someone slips in it a minute later, Invisibility would not end. Or if you summon a monster and tell it to go attack something, your Invisibility doesn't drop. So in the case of Flaming Sphere, you're just telling a spell where to go, and if someone gets in the way, they become damaged. I would call that indirect harm. However, if you actually cast the Flaming Sphere on top of a foe, then yeah, that's a direct attack in my opinion, and your Invisibility would end.

As far as Delayed Blast Fireball, that's a toughie, but I would say yes Invisibility would drop, but only if you're launching it into the area of foes. It's a direct attack that happens to be delayed. It says it works like fireball so... I'd say you become visible the exact second you launch the bead from your finger if it goes near foes (even if you've chosen for it to delay 5 rounds). However, if you launch the Delayed Blast Fireball in an area with no foes (and choose for it to delay 5 rounds), you would not become visible, even after it had detonated (and even if it detonated and actually hit a bunch of foes, because at that point, it's indirect harm again-- they walked into one of your ongoing spells, and that wouldn't drop Invisibility).

/shrug.

Invisibility wrote:

Invisibility

Report Ad

School illusion (glamer); Level alchemist 2, antipaladin 2, bard 2, inquisitor 2, magus 2, medium 2, mesmerist 2, occultist 2, psychic 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, spiritualist 2, summoner/unchained summoner 2; Domain trickery 2; Bloodline arcane 2; Elemental School void 2

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (an eyelash encased in gum arabic)

EFFECT

Range personal or touch
Target you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./level
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless) or yes (harmless, object)

DESCRIPTION

The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. 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.

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. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.

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. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.

Flaming Sphere wrote:

Flaming Sphere

Report Ad

School evocation [fire]; Level bloodrager 2, druid 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2; Subdomain arson 2; Elemental School fire 2

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (tallow, brimstone, and powdered iron)

EFFECT

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)

Effect 5-ft.-diameter sphere
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Reflex negates; Spell Resistance yes
By the way…
This spell can start fires on a ship.

Source Skull & Shackles Player’s Guide

DESCRIPTION

A burning globe of fire rolls in whichever direction you point and burns those it strikes. It moves 30 feet per round. As part of this movement, it can ascend or jump up to 30 feet to strike a target. If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 3d6 points of fire damage to that creature, though a successful Reflex save negates that damage. A flaming sphere rolls over barriers less than 4 feet tall. It ignites flammable substances it touches and illuminates the same area as a torch would.

The sphere moves as long as you actively direct it (a move action for you); otherwise, it merely stays at rest and burns. It can be extinguished by any means that would put out a normal fire of its size. The surface of the sphere has a spongy, yielding consistency and so does not cause damage except by its flame. It cannot push aside unwilling creatures or batter down large obstacles. A flaming sphere winks out if it exceeds the spell’s range.

Delayed Blast Fireball wrote:

Delayed Blast Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 7; Subdomain arson 7; Elemental School fire 7

EFFECT

Duration 5 rounds or less; see text

DESCRIPTION

This spell functions like fireball, except that it is more powerful and can detonate up to 5 rounds after the spell is cast. The burst of flame deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 20d6). The glowing bead created by delayed blast fireball can detonate immediately if you desire, or you can choose to delay the burst for as many as 5 rounds. You select the amount of delay upon completing the spell, and that time cannot change once it has been set unless someone touches the bead. If you choose a delay, the glowing bead sits at its destination until it detonates. A creature can pick up and hurl the bead as a thrown weapon (range increment 10 feet). If a creature handles and moves the bead within 1 round of its detonation, there is a 25% chance that the bead detonates while being handled.

Fireball wrote:

Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level bloodrager 3, magus 3, sorcerer/wizard 3; Domain fire 3; Elemental School fire 3

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)

EFFECT

Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
It’s always questionable how indirect it can be though. There’s a FAQ for this case. But there are still other odd cases. Like does a delayed blast fireball break invisibility? What about a flaming sphere?

Good question. Flaming Sphere, I'd say no. If I cast a Grease spell on the ground and someone slips in it a minute later, Invisibility would not end. Or if you summon a monster and tell it to go attack something, your Invisibility doesn't drop. So in the case of Flaming Sphere, you're just telling a spell where to go, and if someone gets in the way, they become damaged. I would call that indirect harm. However, if you actually cast the Flaming Sphere on top of a foe, then yeah, that's a direct attack in my opinion, and your Invisibility would end.

As far as Delayed Blast Fireball, that's a toughie, but I would say yes Invisibility would drop, but only if you're launching it into the area of foes. It's a direct attack that happens to be delayed. It says it works like fireball so... I'd say you become visible the exact second you launch the bead from your finger if it goes near foes (even if you've chosen for it to delay 5 rounds). However, if you launch the Delayed Blast Fireball in an area with no foes (and choose for it to delay 5 rounds), you would not become visible, even after it had detonated (and even if it detonated and actually hit a bunch of foes, because at that point, it's indirect harm again-- they walked into one of your ongoing spells, and that wouldn't drop Invisibility).

If you didn't aim the effect in that direction nothing would take damage. Something choosing to run up to a flaming sphere isn't you causing the damage, directing it toward someone is you doing it. If that doesn't count, then neither should using weapons because you just happen to shake your arm and obviously it isn't your fault that guy got cut up by the sword that happened to be there or that guy that stepped in front of your arrow.

Any case where you manipulate an object or magical manifestation and that same object/manifestation causes harm is directly caused by you.

I guess the part of this thread I still don't get is: in the OP there's nothing to indicate that Invisibility, as a spell, was actually cast on the Thrush. If it hid on the wizard's person and there was no Spell, Feat or Ability that auto-granted a split duration of Invisibility between Wizard and Familiar, that means that the Thrush never ACTUALLY received the effect of the spell. The bird simply benefitted from being a "possession" of the wizard and on the caster's person so therefore defaults to the wizard's state of being unseen.

Now we can debate whether casting the Touch spell and handing it to the familiar breaks the Wizard's Invisibility. We can also debate whether the Thrush's attack at the behest of the caster breaks Invisibility. The part I still can't wrap my head around is:

From the OP wrote:

1- Wizard is invisible and has a thrush familiar under his cloak.

2- Wizard casts a touch spell designating his familiar as the “toucher.”
3- Familiar flies out, touches a target and flies back to the still invisible wizard and hides inside the wizards invisible closk.
4- Invisible Wizard uses a move actin to change location.
5- repeat...1 thru 4

Observations about the plan and specifically, how easy would it be for the bird to find the invisible wizard without "see invisible" and what action would it be for the bird to hide under the invisible cloak?

The bolding is from me. These seem to suggest that the bird RETURNS to a state of invisibility by taking some action after it delivers the Touch spell.

What?

If the wizard took the Teamwork Feats that simulate the bond to a familiar and bonded with, say, a Sprite (Tiny sized Fey). The creature isn't ACTUALLY a Familiar, just a really close friend of the Wizard's. The Sprite is hiding on the Wizard, grabs a Touch spell wand and then flies out with the device, intending to use it's Use Magic Device skill to try and activate the thing.

Would this Fey then be able to just hide back inside the Wizard's robes afterwards? If the Wizard achieved Huge size through a Transmutation, then went Invisible and had the party's Medium sized Rogue in their pocket, then the Rogue jumped out and delivered a Sneak Attack... could THEY just dart back in with a Stealth check next round and re-invisible?

If we rule for whatever reason that the Wizard stays invisible while the Familiar delivers the Touch spell, but the Familiar itself was never actually the target of Invisibility, how do we justify the Familiar then returning to the Wizard's person and gaining Invisibility afterwards?

Now by comparison, I offer this scenario:

A Wizard casts Invisibility. The next round they reach into a Bag of Holding and withdraw a +1 Dancing Longsword which then makes a Melee attack independent of the spell caster. At the conclusion of said Melee attack the Wizard uses a Free action to grasp and re-secure the blade in the Bag. Now whether or not that Melee attack breaks invisibility can be debated as the

Dancing wrote:
activating character is not considered armed with the weapon. The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items.

but once the Wizard retrieves the item, I would say that IF they're still Invisible they would REMAIN invisible because the item they're taking onto their person is, indeed, an inanimate object at that point.

Does this make sense?

And that's problematic. The issue is if you start to look at it closer does that mean if you're Enlarged to size Large you could now hide the groups two halflings under your garb while invisible, would they now essentially be invisible too? What's the size limit? Could the argument be made well what if the 'item' is 3 size categories smaller would that work since under the rules it's now small enough to enter the space of another creature or do they need to be even smaller yet. What if I cast Invisibility on a Gelatinous Cube that I've gained control of (summoned or whatever) could the whole party hide behind it while we approach the guardpost at the end of the hallway since its now Invisible body 'fills' the hallway? How about if I throw a tarp over said Cube and we all get under it? Silly!, absolutely but it demonstrates why thinking about it too much will get you in the deep end quickly. Now replace the Cube with a Large Tower Shield since objects can clearly be invisible and possessed/wielded why does that work (assuming you think it does) and the Cube doesn't (again assuming you think it doesn't)?

Invisibility much like Polymorph is an extremely classical magical ability and both are rife with issues as demonstrated by the fact that nearly every new edition has tweaked, in a fairly significant manner, and added rules to those spells.

I don't have an issue with the Thrush being hidden within the wizard's garb. At that point the familiar Thrush is 100% (i.e Total) concealed. The question is whether the Thrush's attack disrupts, at this point by RAW, a separate and second casting of Invisibility, on the wizard himself because of their special bond. I don't think RAW has a good answer and RAI is well and truly muddled.

@Mark - ugh never mind apparently I need more sleep ... edited to remover this portion of my response.

You'd need improved share spells for invisibility to affect the familiar as well, which I don't think is the situation OP is talking about.

Important to consider if the thrush isn't small, it takes an AoO as it tries to deliver the touch spell. If it is small, I have a hard time believing it can hide in the wizard's robes.

On top of that, I don't have my CRB in front of me, but doesn't a familiar have to spend an action to deliver the touch spell? You get a free touch attack as part of casting the spell, but I don't believe the familiar does. I could be wrong, but that would mean in this situation would the familiar would spend a whole turn next to the target, provoke at least two AoO, and possibly be targeted for the regular attacks.

@Mark - Rereading your post I'd say the OP doesn't make it clear. Some, like myself, were assuming that the Wizard's Share Spell ability enabled them to both be invisible. Now clearly by RAW that's not the case. And as far as I can see it doesn't really matter if the Thrush was invisible or not as the question isn't about the familiar but what its activities does to the wizards condition of Invisibility and to a degree when that effect occurs. As has been pointed out the whole activity has some issues beyond the question of the wizards invisibility. The OP seems to have treated the Thrush as an object and its return to within his garb it regained the Invisibility per the spell description of an "item picked up etc.."

SETF, Spell Casters for the Ethical Treatment of Familiars, wants to respectfully remind people that a familiar is not an object. These are innocent animals, outsiders, or other types of creatures, magically transmuted by the arcane process that binds them to their caretaker. From the most savage Mauler to the most erudite Sage familiar, these are sentient companions deserving of our admiration and esteem. Take a moment today to thank a familiar in YOUR life! - Paid for by the Witches for a Safer Level 1 Association

Seriously though a Familiar isn't an Object. Heck, in one of the fluff bits about Familiars on the SRD it suggests that sometimes the player might not even control them; that they are sentient enough to be considered a GM NPC or something.

At level 1, before spending a feat to upgrade it or choosing an Archetype to modify it, a Wizard with a Thrush Familiar has a Diminutive sized bird that qualifies as a Magical Beast with a 6 Int and the ability to speak. These creatures are so impactful that their mere presence near the Wizard grants a +3 on Diplomacy checks. This creature, with a 6 Int, also shares all of it's caretaker's Skill ranks, flies at 40' with Average ability and a +12 modifier, and has a baseline Stealth skill of +14 and a Perception of +5. In a single round, provided it can see, the Thrush can Double Move, using Stealth, and scout 40' beyond its caretaker, then return and accurately report what it saw. It even has a chance, however slim, to use it's own caretaker's knowledge check to identify any monsters it might have perceived.

Not an object. If you want one of those, take the Bonded Object option.
Melkiador wrote:

I don't think anyone was ever under the illusion that the familiar is "you". But the rules for familiars say, "The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would".

And the rules for touch spells specify "rounds" and not "turns". Meaning that after the wizard casts and it becomes the familiar's turn to do things, it is still the "same round".

I don't know that 'just as the master would' can be taken as liberally as you would like to.

Not needing an action because the master would not need an action? What about having more than 0' reach because the master has 5' reach? Using the Master's to hit bonus instead of the Familiars?

I think it pretty obvious that 'just as the master would' as some limits at least.

The familiar uses it's own combat abilities such as attack bonus and reach, and it also uses its own actions, not the actions the master has, including the free touch the master gained as part of casting the spell.

By RAW the Thrush isn't invisible at any point in this theoretical discussion unless the wizard has Improved Shared Spells feat, or cast a seperate Invisibility on the Thrush.

So step 1 Wizard casts Invisibility. Technically by RAW the Thrush in the Wizard's pouch is visible and just floating in mid air not flying.

Step 2: wizard gives the Thrush a touch spell. Now we have a glowing Thrush that stil isn't flying.

Step 3: The Thrush exits the Wizard's person and delivers a touch attack. Again, completely visible.

Step 4: The Thrush returns to the Wizard. Not sure how though, the Familiar Bond doesn't give any kind of special sense so the bird can't see the Wizard. Though the wizard could give instructions to call the bird to his location...like talking a bird into flying to a pane of glass.

Step 5: The still invisible Wizard stuffs a still visible bird into his cloak. Opponents can still see the bird, it isn't hidden.

Normally most GMs wouldn't even question if the familiar is invisible if its hiding on the caster. Just like normally you don't try to damage every item a player is carrying if they fail to save vs a fireball. We skip over a lot of things that logically should be done because they are inconvenient and get in the way of enjoying the game. But when someone wants to take advantage of that good will, they should lose the benefit of that good will until they stop trying to abuse it.
Dave Justus wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

I don't think anyone was ever under the illusion that the familiar is "you". But the rules for familiars say, "The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would".

And the rules for touch spells specify "rounds" and not "turns". Meaning that after the wizard casts and it becomes the familiar's turn to do things, it is still the "same round".

I don't know that 'just as the master would' can be taken as liberally as you would like to.

It's kind of impossible to "know" without an FAQ. But you have to admit that there is at least a good reason to think that the familiar can deliver the spell as a free action, based on the rules that we have.

And honestly, I don't think we can be sure that the familiar isn't intended to use the master's combat abilities/statistics to deliver the spell. It doesn't appear to be the popular opinion, but I don't think that opinion is based on any rules.

But maybe you can explain what you think "just as the master would" means? What does that text do? What does it not do?
Melkiador wrote:
But maybe you can explain what you think "just as the master would" means? What does that text do? What does it not do?

I believe it means that the familiar, not the master is holding the charge and thus can now deliver the spell (just like the master would be able to deliver a spell if they were holding the charge). The spell that is delivered is identical to what would have been delivered by the master, but two deliverers are different creatures with their own unique abilities (and actions.) Any feats the effect the spell, like spell focus would of course remain with the spell, so the DC is the same regardless of who delivers it, the spell is delivered 'just as the master would.'

I have never heard of anyone suggest that a familiar would use the masters BAB, reach, feats or anything else and if that was the case it would be much more clearly explained.

Until this discussion, I had never heard of anyone suggest that the familiar would get the free touch that came from casting a touch spell either.

I see a reasonable way to read that sentence and a completely unreasonable way to read it. I suppose if you disagree with me on that, we are pretty much at an impasse.

This bit by Mark pretty much sums it up for me and unless something very clearly states otherwise in RAW nothing the Thrush does has any direct effect on a Wizard under the effect of his own Invisibility anymore than any one of the rest of the Wizards companions would.

Mark Hoover wrote:

SETF, Spell Casters for the Ethical Treatment of Familiars, wants to respectfully remind people that a familiar is not an object. These are innocent animals, outsiders, or other types of creatures, magically transmuted by the arcane process that binds them to their caretaker. From the most savage Mauler to the most erudite Sage familiar, these are sentient companions deserving of our admiration and esteem. Take a moment today to thank a familiar in YOUR life! - Paid for by the Witches for a Safer Level 1 Association

Seriously though a Familiar isn't an Object. Heck, in one of the fluff bits about Familiars on the SRD it suggests that sometimes the player might not even control them; that they are sentient enough to be considered a GM NPC or something.

The last bit is exactly what I meant in my second post in this thread when I said "very special npc ... "

... and this is why, in the one cosmopolitan city in my homebrew, there is a very fancy, expensive inn dedicated specifically to Familiars, Animal Companions, Eidolons and Awakened animals employed by the PCs. In any relationship, no matter how tight the bond, people need time away once in a while. Pamper your special friend at the Feather and Hound.

Here your thrush will receive the finest es car got, shelled if they prefer, with an expansive songbird cage of gilt silver floored in marble, the size of most palace bedrooms. At the Feather and Hound your prized Familiar will want for nothing as their stay includes private grounds with fountains, trees and a variety of play courses, a view of the sea shore with daily excursion packages, spa facilities available morning to evening, and a personal team of valets and attendants.

Sometimes even a Sacred Mount just needs a little "me" time. They provide you preternatural security and support over the course of your adventures; aren't they worth feeling like the special creatures they really are once in a while? Come to the Feather and Hound and let US be your Familiar's Familiar!
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Invisible Wizard and a touch attacking familiar All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice