| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I still don't see what difference it makes if the spell makes you start with being hidden or unobserved...
...So again, what difference does it supposedly make?
That depends on how strict you are reading the rules.
According to Invisible you are undetected to everyone until someone successfully seeks you... unless you become invisible while being observed in which case you are hidden instead.
A hidden creature is one that the attacking party would "know" exists separate and apart from the new Illusionary body that it should believe is their original target.
As written once cast there are now 2 entities in the targets space: One is the target who is newly invisible and the other is the illusionary dead body version of the them. If you apply invisible's contingency for becoming invisible while being observed, that means that technically the attacking creature is aware of both the illusion and the newly invisible target.
This is a problem since the spell is cast as a reaction, most likely on an opponents turn, meaning the target doesn't have a chance to successfully sneak away from their original space until their next turn.
Let's put it this way:
The GM has a BBEG use Drop Dead as a method to escape to fight another day. Maybe one of his minions cast it on him rather than him casting it himself. You strike down the big bad, and the GM informs you that it was a killing blow!
The GM now informs you that his body is on the floor and, "something" is also in the same space, but hidden from your sight.
Remember, the text of the spell has no mention of bypassing the hidden instead of undetected clause of Invisible. So you "know" that the bad guy is both in his space dead, and somehow also not dead, but you can't see him.
It kinda wrecks the flavor of the spell this way, almost like the designer of the spell forgot about said rider in Invisible.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's common for writers to not fully understand rules when they reference them, they shouldn't be expected to know exactly how every spell or ability they write will interact with every other spell or ability. It's up to the GM to fix small inconsistencies like this. Being hidden means that the target knows you're occupying that specific space. It's obvious by the spell description that they wouldn't know you're there, they would think you were dead. Also remember that a dead body is an object not a creature. So for all intents and purposes, there's a corpse, an object, lying in that square, not a creature. To say that you're Hidden after this spell is cast is just completely ignoring the intent behind the spell, and to be frank, is bad GMing.
GMing isn't about running things as close to RAW as possible, it's being able to make judgement calls to fix broken rules and to make the game more fun for your players.
Yeah, I still don't see what difference it makes if the spell makes you start with being hidden or unobserved...
...So again, what difference does it supposedly make?
That depends on how strict you are reading the rules.
According to Invisible you are undetected to everyone until someone successfully seeks you... unless you become invisible while being observed in which case you are hidden instead.
A hidden creature is one that the attacking party would "know" exists separate and apart from the new Illusionary body that it should believe is their original target.
As written once cast there are now 2 entities in the targets space: One is the target who is newly invisible and the other is the illusionary dead body version of the them. If you apply invisible's contingency for becoming invisible while being observed, that means that technically the attacking creature is aware of both the illusion and the newly invisible target.
This is a problem since the spell is cast as a reaction, most likely on an opponents turn, meaning the target doesn't have a chance to successfully sneak away from their original space until their next turn.
Let's put it this way:
The GM has a BBEG use Drop Dead as a method to escape to fight another day. Maybe one of his minions cast it on him rather than him casting it himself. You strike down the big bad, and the GM informs you that it was a killing blow!
The GM now informs you that his body is on the floor and, "something" is also in the same space, but hidden from your sight.
Remember, the text of the spell has no mention of bypassing the hidden instead of undetected clause of Invisible. So you "know" that the bad guy is both in his space dead, and somehow also not dead, but you can't see him.
It kinda wrecks the flavor of the spell this way, almost like the designer of the spell forgot about said rider in Invisible.
Why would you assume he would know the dead body wasn't the only one in the square? Hidden doesn't tell you anything about the creature, nothing. If a creature is hidden, you don't know what it is. There is nothing in the text of hidden that indicates you know what it is, what size it is.
And in general the rules state two medium creatures cannot occupy the same square, so if the enemy sees a medium creature in the form of a body occupying a square why would he not think it was the illusory body? How would he know given he cannot see the hidden creature. He can't determine whether it is standing or sitting or doing anything.
The spell is clear on what it does. You think a dead body is in the square and the creature you hit died. It doesn't make you undetected. The enemy is free to swing at the square against an invisible target. Not sure why that is a problem.
The DM using DM knowledge that the player is alive is ridiculous. Which is why the actions of a creature after casting this spell is very DM dependent depending on how the creature would react to the events caused by the spell.
I'm not sure why people are trying to rules lawyer this spell into some absolute when it is a spell that clearly requires some thought by the GM and is dependent on what you're fighting. Something that can see through invisibility isn't going to hesitate to bring the hammer on the target, spell won't even work on them. Whereas if you're fighting a mook orc, they would be completely confused and probably just move on to the next visible target.
The spell is situationally useful and pretty easy to run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you assume he would know the dead body wasn't the only one in the square?
"While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are.": it tells you something is there and it's general location. You can see the illusionary body, and since it's a precise sense, you know exactly where it is so you have something with a precise location and something with an imprecise location. That's just how the rules work.
Hidden doesn't tell you anything about the creature, nothing. If a creature is hidden, you don't know what it is. There is nothing in the text of hidden that indicates you know what it is, what size it is.
Sure, but the basics don't change. You still have a visible body and a Hidden creature where there used to be a single visible body so an extra creature appeared for some reason.
And in general the rules state two medium creatures cannot occupy the same square, so if the enemy sees a medium creature in the form of a body occupying a square why would he not think it was the illusory body? How would he know given he cannot see the hidden creature. He can't determine whether it is standing or sitting or doing anything.
What does Medium have to do with anything? We have Tiny PC's after all and plenty of Tiny creatures. Secondly, the rule only applies to creatures: if one is a dead body, there isn't any dissonance as it's perfectly fine to share the same space as a dead body.
If the target sees a dead body the exact size of the target he just dropped and senses something in the square, then why would he not think it was the body?
Because "This illusion looks and feels like a dead body" and a dead body isn't a creature so there is no way to make that mistake: that corpse is an object.
"creature: An active participant in the story and world. This includes monsters and nonplayer characters (played by the Game Master) and player characters (played by the other players)." Page 630 from the CRB
By definition a dead body isn't active participant: it's as active as a rock or log: ie, any object.
I'll put down the way we run it from what we understand of the spell and rules.
The target is rendered invisible. An illusion of the body with a fatal wound exists in the square.
The invisible target is not hidden, but the enemy does not know the invisible target is alive and moving. As far as his senses are concerned, the physical presence in the square is the dead body.
If the enemy has some experience with drop dead, then they can choose to disbelieve the illusion and swing at the square anyway knowing this clever little trick such as a high level experienced fighter or something. They will get the miss chance for an invisible creature.
As a DM I am of the mind you must determine how much experience an enemy might have with such a trick. Then you can determine what actions they might take to counter it or if they ignore it.
It is not mind control. The target isn't undetected because the enemy does know the target is in the square. So it makes sense they are not undetected and shouldn't be undetected. It's the combination of invisible with the illusion that makes it work and requires some thought by the DM as to how the enemy might react.
A creature with motion sense who doesn't rely on site is going to plow right through drop dead whereas Joe Blow guard is going to believe the illusion and move on to the next visible target.
I would say how you play this spell requires a little DM thought and understanding of the enemies experience and capability.
I don't understand how your points are benefitting your conclusion that it makes creatures hidden and not undetected. You're literally describing a creature becoming undetected unless:
1. There's a reason to disbelieve the spell (such as recognizing the spell, them appearing to die when you don't think they should have, etc.) thus getting that free check the spell describes. Or:2. An observer has some other way of detecting them (like motion sense), which would render them neither hidden nor undetected.
I mean, I guess in a way you're right: the spell doesn't make the target undetected. But only in the same way that it doesn't make them hidden either. It makes them invisible with a (hopefully) reasonable alibi, resulting in various levels of detection depending on what else is happening and the senses of the observer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get that hang-up between creature and object that some of you seem to have.
So 'hidden' means, the enemy still knows that there is a creature in the square. And the spell helpfully provides an illusionary body as a decoy. Which is, as we can agree on, not a creature of its own, but an object, an illusion.
How then, do you figure, that the enemy would be aware of the distinction? Determining that the illusion of the dead character is just that, an illusion, is handled by a perception check. Which the enemy is only entitled to if they have reason to disbelieve the illusion in the first place. The spell itself says so. Otherwise, the enemy believes the illusion.
So again: 'Hidden' means, the enemy know there is a creature in the square. Drop Dead provides an illusionary decoy that, unless disbelieved, displays that creature as dead/dying. So the question should be, what would the enemy do to that body? What does that illusionary body make the enemy do?
And here is the hang up: If the enemy were, for some reason, to know that the illusion is not real, then it would still not make a difference, since the character is still under invisibility. And even if the character was undetected, the enemy would still guess to attack the original square, since they have no indication that the character has left the square to begin with.
And once the character does leave the square, a stealth roll is required: On a failure, the enemy does realise that a creature, and apparently an invisible one at that, just vacated the square with the dead body. The character is hidden, but not undetected. On a success, the character gets away and the enemy does not know that an invisible creature just moved. Hence undetected.
There is no reason for the spell to leave the character undetected. It makes them invisible and provides a decoy illusion that forces the enemy to believe that the character is out of the fight, unless a successful roll to disbelieve is made, which the enemy is not even entitled to, unless it has a valid reason to disbelieve the illusion.
From then on, it is a matter of how the enemy reacts to a dropped foe, or rather, its illusion thereof, and there is no functional difference between the character themselves being hidden or unobserved.
Edit: Or to put it another way: If the spell left the character undetected instead of hidden..
"Oi, I just knocked out that humie, and suddenly I can no longer sense a creature in that square? But I see a body right there! What gives?! Something isn't right..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So 'hidden' means, the enemy still knows that there is a creature in the square. And the spell helpfully provides an illusionary body as a decoy. Which is, as we can agree on, not a creature of its own, but an object, an illusion.
How then, do you figure, that the enemy would be aware of the distinction?
Yes, 100%. The spell clearly says it appears to be a dead body and hidden also informs them that there is a creature there which can NOT be the corpse as it isn't a creature.
Determining that the illusion of the dead character is just that, an illusion, is handled by a perception check.
Doesn't matter: you 100% believe there is a body there and you still sense something hidden there or you disbelieve it and you can tell there is a fake body there along with a hidden creature... Both cases end up with them detecting a hidden creature and seeing a separate dead body [fake or real doesn't matter].
Drop Dead provides an illusionary decoy that, unless disbelieved, displays that creature as dead/dying.
Not dying but dead: it's an important distinction. Dying means it's still a creature and dead means it's an object.
There is no reason for the spell to leave the character undetected. It makes them invisible and provides a decoy illusion that forces the enemy to believe that the character is out of the fight, unless a successful roll to disbelieve is made, which the enemy is not even entitled to, unless it has a valid reason to disbelieve the illusion.
And makes them detected and noticed by default and they KNOW a creature is there and that body, believed or not isn't it. Dead bodies are NOT creatures and the spell specifically make an image you can clearly see which is separate from the creature you can imprecisely sense that's in the same space.
"Oi, I just knocked out that humie, and suddenly I can no longer sense a creature in that square? But I see a body right there! What gives?! Something isn't right..."
No it's "Oi, I just [killed] that humie, and I can still sense a creature in that square? But I see a body right there! What gives?! Something isn't right..." It's a dead body that's seen clearly AND said body can't be the creature detected as objects aren't creatures and the spell clearly shows a DEAD body.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a quark of the way that the detection rules work. Through the lens of the rules taken as literally as possible, as Drop Dead is cast, the attacking creature suddenly becomes aware of not one, but 2 individual entities in that square. One of them is the illusory body, the other is the creature itself who is now invisible.
Your (Lycar) argument is that this makes no sense. I 100% agree with you. But that is how the rules interact when taken strictly literally.
Which is why in my first post in the thread I advocated that the GM should run the spell in the way that serves the plot the best, even if that means you gloss over some rules.
I.E. Ignore the rider in Invisible (the condition) that says that you become hidden rather than undetected by creatures who observe you becoming invisible.
Edit: Okay, let me ask you this.
Have you played a character with an imprecise special sense, like Scent? If so, then you should know that creatures have a tough time sneaking up on such a creature, because anything within 30 or so feet (whatever the range of your sense) becomes hidden to you rather than undetected. It "pings" the enemy so to speak, let's you know that they are in X square. You Know the enemy exists even though you haven't seen them.
Now apply that logic to Drop Dead. One second you are swinging at someone. The next, they are struck dead, but for whatever reason and with whatever sense, you "detect" another creature in the space with the now dead body of your adversary. You "know" that something besides the body is there.
The spell doesn't stipulate that the attacker only focuses on the body. It doesn't bypass the hidden rider in invisible. So taken as literally as possible, the rules interaction makes Drop Dead pretty bad at doing what it is themed to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you assume he would know the dead body wasn't the only one in the square?"While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are.": it tells you something is there and it's general location. You can see the illusionary body, and since it's a precise sense, you know exactly where it is so you have something with a precise location and something with an imprecise location. That's just how the rules work.
Hidden doesn't tell you anything about the creature, nothing. If a creature is hidden, you don't know what it is. There is nothing in the text of hidden that indicates you know what it is, what size it is.Sure, but the basics don't change. You still have a visible body and a Hidden creature where there used to be a single visible body so an extra creature appeared for some reason.
And in general the rules state two medium creatures cannot occupy the same square, so if the enemy sees a medium creature in the form of a body occupying a square why would he not think it was the illusory body? How would he know given he cannot see the hidden creature. He can't determine whether it is standing or sitting or doing anything.What does Medium have to do with anything? We have Tiny PC's after all and plenty of Tiny creatures. Secondly, the rule only applies to creatures: if one is a dead body, there isn't any dissonance as it's perfectly fine to share the same space as a dead body.
If the target sees a dead body the exact size of the target he just dropped and senses something in the square, then why would he not think it was the body?Because "This illusion looks and feels like a dead body" and a dead body isn't a creature so there is no way to make that mistake: that corpse is an object.
"creature: An active participant in the story and world. This includes monsters and nonplayer characters (played by the...
That is an absolutely ridiculous expectation for them to detail for this spell.
The spell is clear how it runs. It cannot spell out every possible situation.
This is the kind of attempts at rules lawyering that absolutely ruined PF1. I'm not sure why since the designers have stated quite clearly PF2 uses naturalistic language to describe a spell such as drop dead. I'm not sure why people are having trouble running it.
It's very clear from a natural language standpoint how this spell runs. If others want to make it hard trying to parse every rule that might counteract what the stated text of the spell says it does, I guess they can have at it. They did this in PF1 until the game was utterly ruined for some DMs.
I've run this spell multiple times. The spell is clear in what it does. I'm not about to argue over Hidden versus Undetected. The illusion makes the person look dead and barring extrasensory perception that detects invisibility, anyone looking at that square sees a dead body the size of the creature killed. It will have to spend actions or take a chance against an invisible target swinging at that square.
Easily adjudicated and extremely clear both RAW and intent since the exact text of the spell now counts as rules text as has been pointed out to me.
I'll put down the way we run it from what we understand of the spell and rules.
The target is rendered invisible. An illusion of the body with a fatal wound exists in the square.
The invisible target is not hidden, but the enemy does not know the invisible target is alive and moving. As far as his senses are concerned, the physical presence in the square is the dead body.
If the enemy has some experience with drop dead, then they can choose to disbelieve the illusion and swing at the square anyway knowing this clever little trick such as a high level experienced fighter or something. They will get the miss chance for an invisible creature.
As a DM I am of the mind you must determine how much experience an enemy might have with such a trick. Then you can determine what actions they might take to counter it or if they ignore it.
It is not mind control. The target isn't undetected because the enemy does know the target is in the square. So it makes sense they are not undetected and shouldn't be undetected. It's the combination of invisible with the illusion that makes it work and requires some thought by the DM as to how the enemy might react.
A creature with motion sense who doesn't rely on site is going to plow right through drop dead whereas Joe Blow guard is going to believe the illusion and move on to the next visible target.
I would say how you play this spell requires a little DM thought and understanding of the enemies experience and capability.
I don't understand how your points are benefitting your conclusion that it makes creatures hidden and not undetected. You're literally describing a creature becoming undetected unless:
1. There's a reason to disbelieve the spell (such as recognizing the spell, them appearing to die when you don't think they should have, etc.) thus getting that free check the spell describes. Or:
2. An observer has some other way of detecting them (like motion sense), which would render them neither hidden nor...
I am not.
A hidden creature does not reveal what it is. If you don't know what it is if you didn't see it prior to turning invisible, you don't for example get to make Recall Knowledge check against it unless it reveals itself in some other way.
Hidden is not visible, does not reveal any traits, and you can't see it. It is a medium sized creature or object as far as you're concerned.
The spell text which is considered rules text to my knowledge states
The target appears to fall down dead, though it actually turns invisible.
That means that anyone watching thinks the target has died and that the dead body is the target. That part of the spell is rules text.
That means if their is another invisible target in the square, it isn't necessarily the target that died to anyone affected by the spell. That's the part I don't get in this argument. Because a medium creature is hidden by invisibility in the square does not mean it knows that invisible creature is the one that was struck down and killed via the illusion.
Hidden is still hidden. You know nothing about the hidden being other than what you intuit from your other senses or what you knew about it's location before hand.
I would not force a player to not swing at the square if an NPC priest used this on an NPC enemy. I would let my player swing because he's seen this trick used a 100 times by the priest in his party. He would still have to swing against the invisibility miss chance.
It's really not a problem if the target is only hidden. The text explains what happens. And as a DM you will have to make a decision as to whether the creature buys into it or just swings at the invisible being in the square.
Suffice it to say, drop dead is one of those spells that does what it says and requires the DM to think about how the targets it is used against would react to it.
If I had this spell used against a 1000 year old dragon, I wouldn't hesitate to have the dragon swing at the square. He's seen this trick many times over his lifetime and doesn't fall for it.
It seems people want some clear ruling on this spell and it isn't a spell that should have a clear ruling. It really depends on what you're fighting. It's still not useless because invisibility is a powerful defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's common for writers to not fully understand rules when they reference them, they shouldn't be expected to know exactly how every spell or ability they write will interact with every other spell or ability. It's up to the GM to fix small inconsistencies like this.
That is an absolutely ridiculous expectation for them to detail for this spell. The spell is clear how it runs. It cannot spell out every possible situation. This is the kind of attempts at rules lawyering that absolutely ruined PF1. I'm not sure why since the designers have stated quite clearly PF2 uses naturalistic language to describe a spell such as drop dead. I'm not sure why people are having trouble running it.
One problem of a partially rules heavy and very minutely detailled game like PF2 being that the 1st statement in combination with the 2nd statement doesn't add up on a very good basis, especially over time. You can not expect to publish a ton of (new) spells, feats, equipment and rules without considering (ideally but unrealistically every) interaction with existing spells, feats, equipment or rules, else elements of the game will become broken or overpowered and/or heavily reliant on (sensible) GM decision.
Of course a lot of this also comes down to personal preference and ranges from "I can do GM calls all day" to "I am very much annoyed to having to GM call not too uncommon occurences much too often" (with the later actually happening in our campaign).
In my humble opinion passing any mechanically relevant text by a rules expert or rules council is an investment that your product can only benefit from in the long run and as such as least as important as trying to use natural language wherever possible and/or creating an immersive flavor and setting. As we are all human even the expert / council will not catch everything, so I do not at all expect perfection from the get go. However everything that slipped through will most likely be identified by the thousands and millions of players and can easily be incorporated in an errata and/or the next printing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in lieu of responding to the double post I decided to cherry pick a few key points and address them directly.
Hidden is still hidden. You know nothing about the hidden being other than what you intuit from your other senses or what you knew about it's location before hand.
So you agree that the attacking creature knows "something" beyond the body is there then?
I would not force a player to not swing at the square if an NPC priest used this on an NPC enemy. I would let my player swing because he's seen this trick used a 100 times by the priest in his party. He would still have to swing against the invisibility miss chance.
If I had this spell used against a 1000 year old dragon, I wouldn't hesitate to have the dragon swing at the square. He's seen this trick many times over his lifetime and doesn't fall for it.
So you would inject what amounts to player knowledge (really in this case GM knowledge) into the story and directly mess with what the character/dragon is experiencing? Just because a particular party uses this spell doesn't mean they will recognize it every time it is used against them. The character knows what the character knows. The player knows what the GM tells them their character knows. I mean if you just allow any player or 1000 year old dragon KNOW that an illusion is an illusion, then what is the point of a will save to disbelieve?
That is the root of the issue in the rules text imo, by the rules as written when Drop Dead is cast, the GM should notify the player (if it is a player who was the attacker anyway) that they see a body and that they also know that there is a hidden enemy in that square.
Again, I'm not a fan of this but it is how the rules work when taken 100% literally.
That is an absolutely ridiculous expectation for them to detail for this spell.
It is very much not. It would take a single line stating that the target is undetected despite being observed when becoming invisible. And guess what, the rules are written with the expectation that this sort of circumstance will come up. This is the perfect example of the reason that Specific Overrides General exists in the first place.
This is the kind of attempts at rules lawyering that absolutely ruined PF1. I'm not sure why since the designers have stated quite clearly PF2 uses naturalistic language to describe a spell such as drop dead. I'm not sure why people are having trouble running it.
At the risk of sounding like I'm attacking you, I will say that this is one of the most tired and pointless arguments I've ever read from you. You are on the Rules Discussion Forum broseppi. If you don't want to experience "rules lawyering" then stick to general.
As to running it, who is having trouble? I haven't seen a single person post that they simply can't deal with having to run this spell, and so they banned it from their games until it's made clear or anything of that nature. The OP merely pointed out that by applying the rules clearly and literally as printed on the page, Drop Dead doesn't really "hide" the character it is supposed to hide. It makes them invisible, but Hidden only. There is a world of difference between undetected and hidden. Any decent GM would know that.
And nothing really "ruined" PF1. At the end of the day, the GM has the right of veto on any cockamamie schemes that the player wants to try to implement. If anything, the proliferation of stacking buffs was what rocked the balance of PF1, and that can be adjusted by the GM through what resources they let their players pull from for character building and banning certain abilities/feats. In other words: You let PF1 be ruined for You.
TL;DR
I don't think you are having the argument you think you are. I don't think anyone is advocating that you SHOULD run Drop Dead the way it works as printed. Instead, you should adjudicate the situation and run it the way it best serves the narrative.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell is clear how it runs. It cannot spell out every possible situation.
#1 the spell is quite clear what they intended to happen. #2 while they can't spell out EVERY situation, they sure can have it work as intended out of the box which is where Drop Dead fails.
This is the kind of attempts at rules lawyering that absolutely ruined PF1.
Pointing out that the spell doesn't work intended isn't "rules lawyering", it's pointing out the rules interaction, in the RULES section of the forum mind you, doesn't match the seeming intent. If that ruined PF1, well it should ruin ANY game where you actually follow the rules.
Now I've never said how I think it should be run: I think it's should be run as you're undetected, by RAI and the fact that the spell would otherwise be pretty worthless. This would be a house-ruling though as it's pretty clear when you go point by point that it doesn't work that way as written. One can point out where the things go wrong without being dirty, rotten, no good "rules lawyering"...
So your argument is that, by strict RAW interpretation, the spell offers no advantage over a simple Invisibility spell, because the illusionary decoy has exactly no effect?
Because the enemy still senses a 'creature' hidden in the square, but sees only a corpse, which is not-a-creature, and thus is automagically aware of the fact that something is off?
And if the spell would render the character undetected instead of merely hidden, that that would achieve what the spell supposedly is meant to do, which is to effectively stop the character from being perceived as an active combatant?
Then I suppose, the best hotfix is to declare the target character is undetected, unless the enemy has reason to disbelieve the illusion and makes a successful save, in which case the character is merely rendered invisible but hidden.
Unless the successful save cancels the entire spell, including the invisibility part, in which case the character is still fully visible and s.o.o.l. . What say you? Does a successful disbelieve cancel the entire spell or not?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally believe the spell should make you Unnoticed rather than Undetected. The creature believes you to be dead, and as long as you continue to make stealth checks, has no reason to assume there's some unseen combatant on the field.
Here's how I would rule the various outcomes of the spell:
1. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has no reason to believe they didn't just kill the target, so they don't get a save. The target is Unnoticed. The enemy moves on, possibly to the guy who just waved his arms around and cast something.
2. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has reason to believe that Strike wouldn't have killed the target, so makes a save and passes. The target is now Undetected. The enemy knows something is up, since the "corpse" is an illusion, but doesn't know what exactly happened. Was the person always an illusion? Did they teleport or move away? Their next action is to Seek to see if they can detect the target.
3. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has Recognize Spell and successfully identifies the spell. The target is Hidden, since the enemy knows exactly what the spell the ally just cast was. Their next action is to Strike again.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument is that, by strict RAW interpretation, the spell offers no advantage over a simple Invisibility spell, because the illusionary decoy has exactly no effect?
Because the enemy still senses a 'creature' hidden in the square, but sees only a corpse, which is not-a-creature, and thus is automagically aware of the fact that something is off?
And if the spell would render the character undetected instead of merely hidden, that that would achieve what the spell supposedly is meant to do, which is to effectively stop the character from being perceived as an active combatant?
Yeah, pretty much this.
Then I suppose, the best hotfix is to declare the target character is undetected, unless the enemy has reason to disbelieve the illusion and makes a successful save, in which case the character is merely rendered invisible but hidden.
Unless the successful save cancels the entire spell, including the invisibility part, in which case the character is still fully visible and s.o.o.l. . What say you? Does a successful disbelieve cancel the entire spell or not?
Drop Dead doesn't involve a save. The attacking party, at GM discretion, can get a "free" perception check to disbelieve Drop Dead's illusion based on the circumstances of the target's "death".
If a creature disbelieves the illusion, then they will know that something is off. But the spell doesn't end, the Illusion doesn't even disappear in the same way that an illusionary wall doesn't disappear when a creature is pushed through it.
And I see nothing wrong with this. This is a 5th Level spell, so comes up late enough that many creatures will have access to non-sight based senses or See Invisibility etc... If the attacker otherwise detects the invisible target then they will be hidden or detected as appropriate without ending the spell.
It is a sustained spell so costs the caster an action to keep up each round unlike Invisibility. At 7th level casting it matches 4th level Invisibility in allowing the target to commit hostile actions without ending.
As written it's only real benefit is being a reaction to cast. Imo, and I think in most people's opinions, it should do what it is clearly flavored to do, mask the target's escape effectively. It does not do that as written, at least not that well.
I personally believe the spell should make you Unnoticed rather than Undetected. The creature believes you to be dead, and as long as you continue to make stealth checks, has no reason to assume there's some unseen combatant on the field.
Here's how I would rule the various outcomes of the spell:
1. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has no reason to believe they didn't just kill the target, so they don't get a save. The target is Unnoticed. The enemy moves on, possibly to the guy who just waved his arms around and cast something.
2. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has reason to believe that Strike wouldn't have killed the target, so makes a save and passes. The target is now Undetected. The enemy knows something is up, since the "corpse" is an illusion, but doesn't know what exactly happened. Was the person always an illusion? Did they teleport or move away? Their next action is to Seek to see if they can detect the target.
3. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has Recognize Spell and successfully identifies the spell. The target is Hidden, since the enemy knows exactly what the spell the ally just cast was. Their next action is to Strike again.
This sounds exactly right to me, regardless of the RAW. Good call on Unnoticed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds exactly right to me, regardless of the RAW. Good call on Unnoticed.I personally believe the spell should make you Unnoticed rather than Undetected. The creature believes you to be dead, and as long as you continue to make stealth checks, has no reason to assume there's some unseen combatant on the field.
Here's how I would rule the various outcomes of the spell:
1. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has no reason to believe they didn't just kill the target, so they don't get a save. The target is Unnoticed. The enemy moves on, possibly to the guy who just waved his arms around and cast something.
2. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has reason to believe that Strike wouldn't have killed the target, so makes a save and passes. The target is now Undetected. The enemy knows something is up, since the "corpse" is an illusion, but doesn't know what exactly happened. Was the person always an illusion? Did they teleport or move away? Their next action is to Seek to see if they can detect the target.
3. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has Recognize Spell and successfully identifies the spell. The target is Hidden, since the enemy knows exactly what the spell the ally just cast was. Their next action is to Strike again.
Mechanically there really isn't much of a difference between Unnoticed and Undetected. A small number of abilities key off of Unnoticed, like the Assassin's Assassinate ability, but that ability is basically impossible to use mid combat as is, so I don't see an issue.
I would only add to #3 that if another character with Recognize Spell and the spell prepared instead of the attacking creature, that the target is hidden against the recognizing creature, but Undetected against the attacking one until the recognizing creature uses the Point Out action to pinpoint them. If you had no idea what magic was cast, you wouldn't have a reason to think your opponent was invisible after all. But your friend could, and give you that information.
I personally believe the spell should make you Unnoticed rather than Undetected. The creature believes you to be dead, and as long as you continue to make stealth checks, has no reason to assume there's some unseen combatant on the field.
Here's how I would rule the various outcomes of the spell:
1. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has no reason to believe they didn't just kill the target, so they don't get a save. The target is Unnoticed. The enemy moves on, possibly to the guy who just waved his arms around and cast something.
2. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has reason to believe that Strike wouldn't have killed the target, so makes a save and passes. The target is now Undetected. The enemy knows something is up, since the "corpse" is an illusion, but doesn't know what exactly happened. Was the person always an illusion? Did they teleport or move away? Their next action is to Seek to see if they can detect the target.
3. Enemy Strikes target, and an ally casts the spell. The enemy has Recognize Spell and successfully identifies the spell. The target is Hidden, since the enemy knows exactly what the spell the ally just cast was. Their next action is to Strike again.
That sounds good, although I feel that a successful perception check ought to leave the character merely hidden. On the other hand, nothing stops the enemy form attacking the square anyway, just to see if they can score a hit anyway. Depends on the creature in question.
But yes, if someone opponent recognises the spell and can clue in the attacker, then the invisibility effect is all that remains.
|
Of course your enemy knows there is a creature in your square, they supposedly just knocked out that creature, and the spell provides a handy illusionary corpse to confirm that knowledge.
I don't have a specific citation right off the top of my head, but it was my understanding that per-the-rules a corpse is not a creature.
Whether you, personally, are hidden or undetected in the square you start in matters not at all, because the enemy, without having a reason to disbelieve the illusion, can only target the illusion with whatever action it deigns to affect your 'corpse' with.
The illusion tells the opponent that the target is dead. But if the target is hidden rather than undetected, the opponent also detects an invisible creature in the same space, which for most opponents means directly next to them. The opponent need not believe that the invisible creature who has suddenly appeared next to him is the target to be justified in attacking into the square.
|
|
That is an absolutely ridiculous expectation for them to detail for this spell.
The spell is clear how it runs. It cannot spell out every possible situation.
This is literally every possible situation in which the spell is ever cast, as written. It always results in the illusion of an object in the square and a hidden creature also in the square. And all the spell needed to say to avoid this is "though it actually turns invisible [and begins as undetected]."
Easily adjudicated and extremely clear both RAW and intent
Yes, extremely clear that RAI and RAW are in conflict, and easily adjudicated by choosing which of the two to use.
That means that anyone watching thinks the target has died and that the dead body is the target. That part of the spell is rules text.
Believing the target died and the corpse is the target is completely compatible with also realizing that an invisible creature has just appeared in the same space. How an opponent reacts to that realization depends on the opponent, though.
Or, you know, run the spell as it was intended, even though that's not how it was written.
That is an absolutely ridiculous expectation for them to detail for this spell.
The spell is clear how it runs. It cannot spell out every possible situation.
This is literally every possible situation in which the spell is ever cast, as written. It always results in the illusion of an object in the square and a hidden creature also in the square. And all the spell needed to say to avoid this is "though it actually turns invisible [and begins as undetected]."
That wouldn't work if someone can detect invisible creatures though.
|
|
That wouldn't work if someone can detect invisible creatures though.
Nearly every creature can detect invisible creatures, and by default do detect them if they can be seen when they became invisible and have not yet successfully performed the Sneak action; that's the issue under discussion.
Even if you mean observers that have a relevant sense other than vision, as a starting point the Invisible condition doesn't seem to care:
While invisible, you can't be seen. You're undetected to everyone.
[clip]
If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak.
What I'm proposing, then, would be in line with the general invisibility rules, and relevant special senses would provide the exception, as they do any time a creature is invisible around an observer with special senses.
Observers with special senses is also a less commonly occurring hiccup than the general problem with the spell's wording.