If I cast ghost sound while using 2nd-level invisibility, does that act make me visible? Why or why not?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably not, but making a 100% universal statement is impossible because intent and judgement calls are baked deeply into the definition of Hostile Action.
So it's based on intent then? So if I cast a fireball harmlessly in the air, hitting nothing, I maintain invisibility, but if I cast fireball on a tree, and a hidden chipmunk I didn't know about dies, I still maintain invisibility?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup.
"Sometimes spell effects prevent a target from using hostile actions, or the spell ends if a creature uses any hostile actions. A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For instance, lobbing a fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action."
So it's based on intent then? So if I cast a fireball harmlessly in the air, hitting nothing, I maintain invisibility, but if I cast fireball on a tree, and a hidden chipmunk I didn't know about dies, I still maintain invisibility?
Accidentally burning down a city isn't hostile but intentionally step on an ant is.
So the best character to play is a dodering old absent minded invisible evocationist?
So the best character to play is a doddering old absent-minded invisible evoker?
Clearly!
But why would he need to be invisible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the best character to play is a doddering old absent-minded invisible evoker?Clearly!
But why would he need to be invisible?
Sorry I can't remember.
Sorry I can't remember.So the best character to play is a doddering old absent-minded invisible evoker?Clearly!
But why would he need to be invisible?
You wrote a note for yourself but now that it's invisible you can't read it...
"Sometimes spell effects prevent a target from using hostile actions, or the spell ends if a creature uses any hostile actions. A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For instance, lobbing a fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action."
Another reading of that is, fireball can cause harm or damage, so it's always a hostile action.
How about if you cast Ray of Frost but miss? It didn't cause damage, so does it break invisibility?
I would rule that any damaging spell counts as a hostile spell. Any spell that puts a negative condition on the target is a hostile spell (Bless would not be hostile, Bane would be hostile).
So, you have spells that buff an ally, and spells that have environmental effects (ghost sound, mage hand, etc.) that would count as "non-hostile."
Of course, casting Bless is certainly carrying intent to harm, right? You're casting a spell that you know makes your allies more likely to hit or crit. You're not doing that to be nice, you're doing that to be hostile. Likewise casting Ghost Sound to misdirect an enemy is carrying malign intent. You're hoping the enemy wanders off in the wrong direction so you can steal its stuff, or gank it while it's alone, etc. So there is plenty of grey area within which we can argue the finer points of intent and etc. However, for me and my games, I'd rule that "HP damage or negative conditions" are the types of spells that count as capital H Hostile."
Seriously, I can't think of any circumstances where Ghost Sound would be considered a hostile act. But casting it (or any spell) does make you hidden rather than undetected unless you used Silent Spell with a successful stealth check.
"A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm."
Person sneaking by dangerous creature that is asleep when a scream the "volume equal to four normal humans shouting" goes off the the person is RIGHT beside it: the creature then proceeds to maul the sneaking person. Do you count that as "indirectly" causing harm to that person? Wouldn't the caster be aware it could/would cause harm?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ghost sound in particular is a spell that is a lot of fun, but gets a lot of people interpreting it in different ways, and some of those ways feel like they push the boundaries of what the spell is intended.
In particular, I think a lot of players want it and message to basically benefit from the silent spell feat for free, and be inconspicuous spells. But PF2 is pretty explicit about casting components being difficult to hide and requiring class feats even to attempt to hide them. That hurts with message, but ventriloquism, cast in advance, is an option that works to do all of these things without you having to cast a spell in the moment. The game has ways to do the silent diversion casting, and the silent message delivery already covered.
The whole "what is hostile intent" is another aspect of the game that is probably best to ask your GM about before making assumptions, but I personally generally rule it more towards jdripley's ruling that "HP damage or negative conditions" is what usually qualifies, and either of those need to be fairly directly linked to the invsible person's actions. Like activating the switches to turn on a room full of traps probably wouldn't qualify to me unless those traps immediately and actively started causing damage to PCs. If the traps were static and the PCs had to walk into them, then I wouldn't have turning them on turn the PC invisible.
Ghost sound pretty squarely falls into not directly an action that is going to cause harm except under extreme circumstances. I will always warn my players if they are taking an action that feels like it is going to break their invisibility before making them commit to that action.
Ok, but I can't think of any non-contrived circumstances.Seriously, I can't think of any circumstances where Ghost Sound would be considered a hostile act. But casting it (or any spell) does make you hidden rather than undetected unless you used Silent Spell with a successful stealth check."A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm."
Person sneaking by dangerous creature that is asleep when a scream the "volume equal to four normal humans shouting" goes off the the person is RIGHT beside it: the creature then proceeds to maul the sneaking person. Do you count that as "indirectly" causing harm to that person? Wouldn't the caster be aware it could/would cause harm?
How is sneaking contrived? Most entail some kind of danger/risk that the spell draws to you. Dynamic Encounters in the Gamemastery guide even talks about Combining Encounters when someone raises an alarm. It's the "opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster" scenario except you know you're drawing the attention of the "horrible monster". It can be the monster/npc next to someone or in the next room or floor as long as the person know they might be attracted to the noise.
Can you REALLY not think of a time when you've played that a noise 4 times as loud as a shout might have drawn a dangerous monster/npc to the group?
"Hostile actions breaking invisibility" is a 100% gamist thing. It intends to prevent invisible people from harming others with impunity (without at least the better version of invisibility.)
Since this is a GM call, expect it to be adjudicated primarily on your perceived intent.
As an aside, expect a fair number of GMs not to have a good grasp of the rules regarding invisible creatures, hidden vs undetected, casting spells while invisible and the effect upon the hidden or undetected status of the caster, the use and effects of Silent Spell or Conceal Spell, etc. At least, this has been my experience in PFS.
Invisibility is up there with illusions as something players conceptually want to be able to exploit to great effect, but really, really don't want it used against them with the same level of power. The rules for PF2 are actually pretty robust and effective, but they are not easy to parse through in a hurry, when the situation first arises, if the GM isn't prepared for it. '
It would be pretty cool for someone savvy in the video arts to make some youtube videos of "difficult" PF2 encounters for GMs to run, specifically slowing down to explain how the complicated rules work.
Casting spells while invisible
Using illusions to trick foes
Chasing a sneaking enemy through tall grass at night
Narratively making sense of how pushing and then grabbing is the PF2 version of dragging
How do I break a table?
etc.
I am betting you'd get a lot of views as people linked them to various rules question message board posts.
Invisibility is up there with illusions as something players conceptually want to be able to exploit to great effect, but really, really don't want it used against them with the same level of power.Note that Invisibility, itself, is Illusion magic.
Also, while I don't disagree with your statement, my comment was about misunderstanding the rules in general regarding Invisibility. A player who understands and builds for the rules finds himself in an awkward position when he has taken feats like Conceal Spell and Silent Spell with invisible casting in mind, but then GMs routinely grant the same abilities to virtually every invisible creature. Or when that same character invests in Stealth and Deception in order to maximize his chances of remaining undetected, using actions to Sneak, but then finds that the GM treats all invisible creatures as undetected at all times - even after casting spells or attacking, without ever using actions to Sneak or making Stealth checks. Feels like a whole lot of wasted feats and skill investments.
The idea about tutorials sounds good, but I'm starting to feel like all those rules are effectively TL;DR for most people, and I'm skeptical they'll take the time to watch videos either. Frankly regretting my attempt to play an Illusionist in PFS at this point.
I agree. I also think though that having those videos to use as reference might help players who see GMs really missing the application. Even if it doesn't help in the moment, after a session you can share it with your group and maybe someone will watch it if it is not a 2 hour video explaining how to handle one encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Invisibility is up there with illusions as something players conceptually want to be able to exploit to great effect, but really, really don't want it used against them with the same level of power.Note that Invisibility, itself, is Illusion magic.
Also, while I don't disagree with your statement, my comment was about misunderstanding the rules in general regarding Invisibility. A player who understands and builds for the rules finds himself in an awkward position when he has taken feats like Conceal Spell and Silent Spell with invisible casting in mind, but then GMs routinely grant the same abilities to virtually every invisible creature. Or when that same character invests in Stealth and Deception in order to maximize his chances of remaining undetected, using actions to Sneak, but then finds that the GM treats all invisible creatures as undetected at all times - even after casting spells or attacking, without ever using actions to Sneak or making Stealth checks. Feels like a whole lot of wasted feats and skill investments.
The idea about tutorials sounds good, but I'm starting to feel like all those rules are effectively TL;DR for most people, and I'm skeptical they'll take the time to watch videos either. Frankly regretting my attempt to play an Illusionist in PFS at this point.
The bottom line is that GMs are inconsistent with each other. Paizo deliberately haven't cleared up the rules. But GMs take short cuts. Some GMs are just sloppy and inconsistent with the rules.
So if you want to play a concept like an illusionist then you need to read the rules conservatively.
It sucks.
For illusions some will let you get away with nothing, some with require a Deception check. and some will require all the feats. Personally I think it does vary a fair bit depending on the circumstance and the Arcana knowledge of your opponent. But it should be spelled out.
In defense of GMs I always assume appropriate feats for monsters. Because module designers aren't always the best with rules either. If a monster is clearly designed to do a tactic, then as a GM I do assume they have the basic feats and skills to make that tactic work even if I have to make a few details up.
In PF1 and before, I treated it as:
If you use an attack roll or someone has to make a save, it breaks invisibility. If no attack roll or save then it does not break invisibility.
/cevah
In PF1 and before, I treated it as:
If you use an attack roll or someone has to make a save, it breaks invisibility. If no attack roll or save then it does not break invisibility./cevah
So magic missiles didn't break it? ;)
There's always the exceptions. :-/
/cevah
Magic should be somewhat unpredictable, so I think the model of "things which would normally not break invisibility, sometimes do if the way in which are using them is especially cheesy" works fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic should be somewhat unpredictable, so I think the model of "things which would normally not break invisibility, sometimes do if the way in which are using them is especially cheesy" works fine.
I 100% disagree with this. Arcane magic is so close to science it can be reliably taught in schools. And deciding that a given action will sometimes break invisibility when the GM feels like it makes the whole system shaky.
IMO using RAW and clear houserules is far better than relying too much on fuzzy "RAI".
Magic should be somewhat unpredictable, so I think the model of "things which would normally not break invisibility, sometimes do if the way in which are using them is especially cheesy" works fine.I 100% disagree with this. Arcane magic is so close to science it can be reliably taught in schools. And deciding that a given action will sometimes break invisibility when the GM feels like it makes the whole system shaky.
IMO using RAW and clear houserules is far better than relying too much on fuzzy "RAI".
Agreed!