If I cast invisibility on another creature (or even on myself) can I see the target as the caster of the spell?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that the caster is immune to their spell's effect, generally; so no, you can't see the target.
About seeing yourself when invisible, that's an interesting question. I'd say that you do, but I wouldn't expect to see any hard rule about it published.
Not being able to see yourself when invisible, if you rule that way, is a particular for illusionist wizards under the 1 hour effect of Invisibility Cloak who want to pull out their spellbook to refocus while invisible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I come down pretty strong on the no side.
There is no option to "disbelieve" invisibility.
For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it.
RAW- even if you know something is an illusion you can't see through it unless you successfully disbelieve it.
As Invisibility doesn't allow for "disbelief" you can't see "through" the illusion.
If I cast invisibility on another creature (or even on myself) can I see the target as the caster of the spell?
Per RAW, no. Even on yourself. That would likewise mean they would have to succeed at DC 11 flat checks to target themselves with spells and abilities. And good luck trying to find anything in your backpack or Bag of Holding without knowing precisely where it's located. Disorganized? Too bad, by the time you grab the item you need to defeat the monsters, the fight's over.
That being said, most GMs aren't that mean and impose those things on people who make themselves invisible. But it certainly wouldn't be wrong for a GM to do so. Just a dick move.
If I cast invisibility on another creature (or even on myself) can I see the target as the caster of the spell?
Of course you can...
See Invisibility lets you see anyone's invisibility, including your own! ;P
Per RAW, no. Even on yourself. That would likewise mean they would have to succeed at DC 11 flat checks to target themselves with spells and abilities. And good luck trying to find anything in your backpack or Bag of Holding without knowing precisely where it's located. Disorganized? Too bad, by the time you grab the item you need to defeat the monsters, the fight's over.
I don't think RAW would require a flat check to target yourself. The Flat check are for targets that are hidden from you, and despite being invisible you aren't "hidden" from yourself.
I would be ok with the invisible person being able to see themselves, since they are "inside" the spell effect.
I know it's silly, but is there anything in the RAW that actually indicates you can't be Hidden from yourself?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's silly, but is there anything in the RAW that actually indicates you can't be Hidden from yourself?
"While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are."
Unless disoriented somehow, you know precisely where you are.
I know it's silly, but is there anything in the RAW that actually indicates you can't be Hidden from yourself?"While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are."
Unless disoriented somehow, you know precisely where you are.
I'd disagree as to know "precisely where you are" without a Precise Sense, like vision.
Otherwise, you'd be Observed: Observed
Source Core Rulebook pg. 621 1.1
"Anything in plain view is observed by you. If a creature takes measures to avoid detection, such as by using Stealth to Hide, it can become hidden or undetected instead of observed. If you have another precise sense instead of or in addition to sight, you might be able to observe a creature or object using that sense instead. You can observe a creature only with precise senses." If you can't see yourself, unless you have another precise sense, you're hidden from yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd disagree as to know "precisely where you are" without a Precise Sense, like vision.I know it's silly, but is there anything in the RAW that actually indicates you can't be Hidden from yourself?"While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are."
Unless disoriented somehow, you know precisely where you are.
Proprioception is quite precise.
Proprioception is quite precise.I'd disagree as to know "precisely where you are" without a Precise Sense, like vision.I know it's silly, but is there anything in the RAW that actually indicates you can't be Hidden from yourself?"While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are."
Unless disoriented somehow, you know precisely where you are.
Not really. There is a reason people look in a mirror to put on makeup instead of just putting it on, or for shaving or cutting your own hair. Try bandaging yourself blindfolded. So it's not a pin point, precise sense. Now it it's ability for self-movement, that works fine but it's an unconscious execution that doesn't require precise movement: walking without looking at the ground is different than carefully stepping where you have to watch your step.
Now on to the actual game, it too doesn't count that as a sense, precise or not. Under Blinded, "if vision is your only precise sense, you take a –4 status penalty to Perception checks." If Proprioception counted as a precise sense, nothing would ever take the -4.
Per RAW, no. Even on yourself. That would likewise mean they would have to succeed at DC 11 flat checks to target themselves with spells and abilities. And good luck trying to find anything in your backpack or Bag of Holding without knowing precisely where it's located. Disorganized? Too bad, by the time you grab the item you need to defeat the monsters, the fight's over.
I don't think RAW would require a flat check to target yourself. The Flat check are for targets that are hidden from you, and despite being invisible you aren't "hidden" from yourself.
I would be ok with the invisible person being able to see themselves, since they are "inside" the spell effect.
But you can't see yourself. If you cannot detect yourself (or your gear, more importantly,) with a precise sense, then you are, indeed, hidden from yourself. You aren't making an illusion of yourself being invisible, you are altering the perceptive frequencies regarding yourself, and that should realistically include yourself, since it's not a matter of Will to be able to perceive you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. There is a reason people look in a mirror to put on makeup instead of just putting it on, or for shaving or cutting your own hair.
I'll remember this when one of my players want to put on makeup while invisible.
But as long as you just need to touch yourself to be the target of a spell, I think we can consider proprioception is a precise sense with a range of 0 feet (or 0 foot?).
But as long as you just need to touch yourself to be the target of a spell, I think we can consider proprioception is a precise sense with a range of 0 feet (or 0 foot?).
Oh, myself I'm not making an argument on seeing or not seeing yourself so I'm not really talking about targeting.
For targeting, I'd count it differently than need pin point accuracy. For instance, there is a difference in trying to pick an invisible lock and being able to touch an invisible lock for a Knock spell. As such, I'd be fine with being able to touch yourself as long you didn't need to pin point a specific area. So for instance, you'd be able to touch yourself and cast a Sigil on yourself but you'd have to make a check to see if you put it where you wanted and/or made it correctly.
As to the actual rules, it's just not covered. As such it'd be DM fiat what unlisted senses are for precise/imprecise.
You can feel your own body via sense of touch and the nervous system, but items in backpacks not so much, and no way you feel items in a Bag of Holding. Not to mention, being able to judge what items you have in your hand based on how they feel? You might not know you have a Wand of Fireball in your hand, and may instead be a Wand of Burning Hands, if you possess both items, unless you're extremely familiar with what they are and how they feel in comparison to one another.
A good way to appropriate this is to have someone put a set of items you know of in a sack and to have you try and find one of those items specifically for yourself while blind-folded. It is about the same as trying to look for items you possess while invisible, since the items themselves are also invisible. And if you have numerous items that are similar, you'll have a hard time differentiating between them unless you expressly know those differences.
I won't say it's impossible, but it's certainly not something most people can just do.
|
I don't think it's really a super great idea to really have the Hidden Condition apply to/against yourself if you're invisible. Perhaps as others mentioned if you have some undifferentiated equipment on your person that you're trying to draw/locate/use it would be good enough to just require a Flat Check versus that item when you go to retrieve it but I certainly wouldn't punish someone by telling them they cannot target themselves with Spells and the like.
As for what is RAW? I'm not really certain but I tend to lean into more strict readings which WOULD make you Hidden to yourself but that just seems not so fun to me, in pracice.
It probably wouldn't apply to you specifically, but it would apply to things attached to you that aren't you. Like items.
Pathfinder invisibility isn't necessarily the same as invisibility in every other universe. Using other universes' invisibility rules isn't really applicable to how the game mechanics are already spelled out for us.
Which is, per RAW, you can't actually see yourself, or your possessions, unless you have a sense (or ability) that lets you (such as See Invisibility spell, or Truesight).
Even comparing Pathfinder 1 invisibility to Pathfinder 2 invisibility isn't realistic, and those are technically continunities of the same universe!
Movement doesn't really change while invisible; you can see where you're going, and based on what you all see based on your position, you know which square you are in. It's not like walking in an area of Darkness without a light source or Darkvision. As for manipulation, invisible creatures and invisible objects aren't much different in terms of application, meaning any rules you'd apply to creatures you'd likewise apply to objects. Can't see the object doesn't mean you won't accidentally bump into said object, plus it would actually require seeking it out to determine which square it's located if you don't know its location originally, or if you need to know if it did or didn't move.
Both of these taken into consideration, are not unlike being Hidden.
But really, "Because pop culture says so" is a poor rules argument that I wouldn't expect to have fly in any PFS situation. This would be like me saying it works like 5E, PF1, or even Harry Potter invisibility because they are more popular than PF2. Not only is it not applicable, but it's an apples or oranges comparison.
I don't get what you're saying about movement and manipulation being mostly the same when invisible. Most people can't touch type and would be noticeably slower if they couldn't see their fingers. Moving at combat speeds over rough ground would cause similar problems.
From a game mechanics standpoint, that doesn't matter in the same way as being Invisible doesn't make you unable to select an eligible space to launch a Fireball at, just because you can't see your finger pointing at the designated spot. From a realism standpoint, I can type without seeing my fingers just fine, since my ability to type in this case is more hingent on observing what I am typing and far less on observing my hands or keyboard (to the point of not needing to observe it whatsoever), as well as my familiarity with my current keyboard, so I don't personally think that is an apt example, unless we're talking about untrained individuals, in which case the math properly represents that already.
If you mean rough terrain, then the mechanics already cover that, and it applies regardless of whether you can see or not; if anything, being blind to yourself is far less impeding than being blind to the area around you, and the rules demonstrate that well enough as it is.
If you were resolving it via the action system, what would be the DC for the Seek check to pull items from your pack?
From strict RAW, it's basically GM FIAT, though if an enemy is performing the Conceal an Object activity, it would be against the check made for that activity.
The GM attempts a single secret Perception check for you and compares the result to the Stealth DCs of any undetected or hidden creatures in the area or the DC to detect each object in the area (as determined by the GM or by someone Concealing the Object). A creature you detect might remain hidden, rather than becoming observed, if you’re using an imprecise sense or if an effect (such as invisibility) prevents the subject from being observed.
Being hidden means you know its location, but requires performing DC 11 flat checks to affect an item with attacks, spells, abilities, etc.
When Seeking a creature using only imprecise senses, it remains hidden, rather than observed. A creature you’re hidden from is flat-footed to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails affect you. Area effects aren’t subject to this flat check.
I know the entry mentions creatures in particular, but I can't imagine the same concept wouldn't apply to objects that are invisible as well.