|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it too soon to ask questions about Secrets of Magic rules here?
I’ve already seen some lively discussion around this issue, but it doesn’t look like there has been any official ruling (that I have seen).
The summoner’s sigil “will shine through clothing, appear over cloaks, and remain unaffected by obfuscating magic.”
What counts as “obfuscating magic”? Specifically, will it remain visible if the summoner/eidolon is invisible? Can you see it if the summoner is hiding inside a barrel? (Absurd example intended.)
It would seem that the most reasonable interpretation would be “if you can see the summoner you can see the sigil”, which means it wouldn’t be seen behind walls, inside boxes, or went invisible. But “obfuscating magic” is vague enough and I’ve seen enough good arguments on both sides of the question that I wanted to post it here.
When the Nethys Archives is updated, try to bump this topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it too soon to ask questions about Secrets of Magic rules here?
I’ve already seen some lively discussion around this issue, but it doesn’t look like there has been any official ruling (that I have seen).
The summoner’s sigil “will shine through clothing, appear over cloaks, and remain unaffected by obfuscating magic.”
What counts as “obfuscating magic”? Specifically, will it remain visible if the summoner/eidolon is invisible? Can you see it if the summoner is hiding inside a barrel? (Absurd example intended.)
It would seem that the most reasonable interpretation would be “if you can see the summoner you can see the sigil”, which means it wouldn’t be seen behind walls, inside boxes, or went invisible. But “obfuscating magic” is vague enough and I’ve seen enough good arguments on both sides of the question that I wanted to post it here.
The best answer until we get a rules posting is "Ask your GM."
In my opinion, based on the text you provided, I would rule that Invisibility does not, since invisibility makes all of the character and their possessions unable to be seen, but any sort of disguise or spell that changes appearance (such as Veil or Battle Form spells) would most definitely be affected. In short, you can't hide the fact that you are a Summoner, seems to be the intent, and effects which alter that fact specifically would not change that.
|
|
The best answer until we get a rules posting is "Ask your GM."
In my opinion, based on the text you provided, I would rule that Invisibility does not, since invisibility makes all of the character and their possessions unable to be seen, but any sort of disguise or spell that changes appearance (such as Veil or Battle Form spells) would most definitely be affected. In short, you can't hide the fact that you are a Summoner, seems to be the intent, and effects which alter that fact specifically would not change that.
Unfortunately in my case, I am the GM, and three of my players have writing credits in the book and THEY don't know. :-)
Anyway, I agree with your interpretation, and hopefully it'll be in some FAQ eventually because I've seen this question no fewer than 4 different places (other thank this one).
What counts as “obfuscating magic”? Specifically, will it remain visible if the summoner/eidolon is invisible? Can you see it if the summoner is hiding inside a barrel? (Absurd example intended.)
I'd say equipment doesn't work to block it. So no platemail helm, hats or cowls. Now non-equipment like barrels, walls, ect block it fine.
IMO, I'd treat it like spellcasting manifestations: Even if you're invisible and casting spell without verbal components, you give off manifestations people detect. Personally, I'd put it in the same category. So, IMO, invisibility doesn't help, much like a carried torch's light would be noticed on an invisible creature.
What counts as “obfuscating magic”? Specifically, will it remain visible if the summoner/eidolon is invisible? Can you see it if the summoner is hiding inside a barrel? (Absurd example intended.)I'd say equipment doesn't work to block it. So no platemail helm, hats or cowls. Now non-equipment like barrels, walls, ect block it fine.
IMO, I'd treat it like spellcasting manifestations: Even if you're invisible and casting spell without verbal components, you give off manifestations people detect. Personally, I'd put it in the same category. So, IMO, invisibility doesn't help, much like a carried torch's light would be noticed on an invisible creature.
My initial reaction to this was shock since our interpretations usually jibe, except I can see some sense in this because of the PF1 tactic of the Summoner hiding as much as possible (not that all did that, but I've seen many spend nearly every action running/hiding except to pop out and buff). Yes, the pair share hit points in PF2 (they kept that, right?), but I'd think the Summoner's still the more fragile link. IMO it wouldn't be a bad thing if the Summoner couldn't go invisible while their Eidelon's active.
But might there be ramifications on Hide/Sneak that are unpalatable?
What counts as “obfuscating magic”? Specifically, will it remain visible if the summoner/eidolon is invisible? Can you see it if the summoner is hiding inside a barrel? (Absurd example intended.)I'd say equipment doesn't work to block it. So no platemail helm, hats or cowls. Now non-equipment like barrels, walls, ect block it fine.
IMO, I'd treat it like spellcasting manifestations: Even if you're invisible and casting spell without verbal components, you give off manifestations people detect. Personally, I'd put it in the same category. So, IMO, invisibility doesn't help, much like a carried torch's light would be noticed on an invisible creature.
Now I picture a Summoner wearing a pair of barrel overalls to cover-up the fact they have a Summoner Sigil on them lol. Maybe Tower Shields will be making a return, where they just plant it and use it for Greater Cover in a corner somewhere. After all, if it's not attached, it won't apply the Summoner Sigil, right?
It could be, and I have a funny feeling that with this thought process in mind, this is what Paizo would rule should an errata come to light. But I got my fingers crossed that Paizo won't screw the Summoner over that badly to where they can't use basic defense/escape spells to their advantage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My initial reaction to this was shock since our interpretations usually jibe, except I can see some sense in this because of the PF1 tactic of the Summoner hiding as much as possible (not that all did that, but I've seen many spend nearly every action running/hiding except to pop out and buff). Yes, the pair share hit points in PF2 (they kept that, right?), but I'd think the Summoner's still the more fragile link. IMO it wouldn't be a bad thing if the Summoner couldn't go invisible while their Eidelon's active.
There where some vocal advocates of the Summoner in the playtest that proudly said that they hid rooms away while their Eidolon adventured for them and they'd just heal themselves if the Eidolon took damage... :P
But might there be ramifications on Hide/Sneak that are unpalatable?
Not for me: they officially get twice the Exploration actions and other benefits of another pseudo-character so I'm not super worried they have an inability to Sneak while the eidolon is out. Those summoners that wish to go invisible and/or Sneak and not glow would want to do so solo.
For me, I put it in the same category as a riding drake animal companion on a stealth mission: lets all try and pretend we can't see the large dragon behind the bush...
IIRC one of the Eidolon provides Invisibility to both Eidolon and Summoner. That would be pretty useless IMO if the Sigil means Invisibility does not work.
I would need to see the specifics on that ability, but that could be more of a specific trumps general, though.
IIRC one of the Eidolon provides Invisibility to both Eidolon and Summoner. That would be pretty useless IMO if the Sigil means Invisibility does not work.
How is it useless? You are still Hidden and can't become Observed until the spell ends. So is a DC 11 flat check to targeting you useless? Not IMO. The sigil just prevents you from ever using invisibility to become undetected because, you know, you ARE GLOWING [and are prohibited from covering it up]! IMO, it gets the same ruling I'd use if a wizard holding a torch and went invisible. Sure they can't see you but they sure can see the light and it's not hard to follow the shadows to a source.
IIRC one of the Eidolon provides Invisibility to both Eidolon and Summoner. That would be pretty useless IMO if the Sigil means Invisibility does not work.How is it useless? You are still Hidden and can't become Observed until the spell ends. So is a DC 11 flat check to targeting you useless? Not IMO. The sigil just prevents you from ever using invisibility to become undetected because, you know, you ARE GLOWING [and are prohibited from covering it up]! IMO, it gets the same ruling I'd use if a wizard holding a torch and went invisible. Sure they can't see you but they sure can see the light and it's not hard to follow the shadows to a source.
The problem is that the "glow" isn't really defined as being strong enough to emit a light source. Most effects which radiate light have a radius of effect; Light spells, Torches, Continual Flames, etc. all have a listed area in which they illuminate. The Summoner Sigil might have it, but until we get the full entry (which is fine if we have to wait), it might not even do anything like that, or it might create something else entirely.
Now, it's not unreasonable to define it as simply being a 5 foot square (or even a 2.5 foot square)'s worth of light (for those who have low-light vision), but the fact it's not defined means it's subject to GM interpretation; some GMs may rule it's just like a non-heightened Light spell that can be dispersed by dispel or an Anti-Magic Field, or something that can't be affected by dispels or anti-magic effects. Or, they might rule the above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the "glow" isn't really defined as being strong enough to emit a light source.
But it IS defined well enough: it's bright enough to show through cloaks, helms and the like. It doesn't have to officially illuminate a defined set of squares to be seen. If you can see the glow through a helm, IMO you can see it through an invisibility.
Now, it's not unreasonable to define it as simply being a 5 foot square (or even a 2.5 foot square)'s worth of light
If it's bright enough to show through mundane equipment you might use to cover it up I don't think it needs more defining for this subject. I don't need to know if I can read by the sigil to know it's strong enough to be seen and nothing in invisibility should change that. In fact, the smaller the area it illuminates, the easier it is to find the summoner: if it only glows 5", then you can make a pretty good guess where he is.
The problem is that the "glow" isn't really defined as being strong enough to emit a light source.But it IS defined well enough: it's bright enough to show through cloaks, helms and the like. It doesn't have to officially illuminate a defined set of squares to be seen. If you can see the glow through a helm, IMO you can see it through an invisibility.
Now, it's not unreasonable to define it as simply being a 5 foot square (or even a 2.5 foot square)'s worth of lightIf it's bright enough to show through mundane equipment you might use to cover it up I don't think it needs more defining for this subject. I don't need to know if I can read by the sigil to know it's strong enough to be seen and nothing in invisibility should change that. In fact, the smaller the area it illuminates, the easier it is to find the summoner: if it only glows 5", then you can make a pretty good guess where he is.
Yes, but the entire item that you can see the sigil on is invisible. If the idea is that the sigil bleeds through worn items, but the item is invisible, it would baffle me that the sigil can still be seen as just some floating "runes" in the air; but a wall or similar structure is A-OK, even if they're absolutely pressed up on it?
Then this means there is no flat check to strike an Invisible Summoner, since the sigil, which is clearly visible, is enough of a target to not miss due to not knowing where they are precisely located compared to somebody that is hidden or completely unseen. This also means Veil and similar spells (even Battle Forms, if available) would not cover the sigil, even if it's a complete change of form, because there's nothing in the effect that states a complete change of form doesn't make the sigil work anymore.
Granted, this might make for an interesting AP plothook; a powerful summoner NPC was polymorphed into a sheep and made into some personal pet for BBEG, but man, short of a Disappearance spell or Legendary Stealth, there is no escaping this trap of an ability. The fact that dual-wield Tower Shields provides better help than an iconic spell originally favored by spellcasters (including Summoners) is one of the biggest nerfs I've ever seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to, at least at my tables, treat "obfuscating magic" as magic that simply disguises one's self as another creature or object. I'm not going to extend that into Invisibility, especially considering the Psychopomp Eidolon's 2nd ability would lose a lot of purpose.
I do hope there'll be a clarification that'll be put up, but that probably won't be for 1+ years.
That language sounds the same as that for the rope in the PF1 Rope Trick spell. I'm surprised that they would do this again given all the confusion that created.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but the entire item that you can see the sigil on is invisible. If the idea is that the sigil bleeds through worn items, but the item is invisible, it would baffle me that the sigil can still be seen as just some floating "runes" in the air; but a wall or similar structure is A-OK, even if they're absolutely pressed up on it?
Why does it matter if the symbol itself is identifiable when the glow is visible? Replace a glowing sigil with a lit candle and the same thing happens... 'Look over there, something is glowing and moving around...' Quite simply, do you allow invisible creatures to walk around with light sources and not have said light sources noticeable? The answer to that is the same answer to 'can someone see the sigil when I'm invisible?'
Then this means there is no flat check to strike an Invisible Summoner, since the sigil, which is clearly visible, is enough of a target to not miss due to not knowing where they are precisely located compared to somebody that is hidden or completely unseen.
That just isn't true. An invisible person standing in snow, water, dust could be detected from that, and you could know where their feet are but that doesn't negate the flat chance. Even if you can see the symbol, you wouldn't know if you're seeing the front or back for instance. Look at the spell Faerie Fire once: the WHOLE body is "limned in colorful, heatless fire" and invisibility only drop to concealed. Seeing the sigil on the forehead is a LOT less than that.
I'm going to, at least at my tables, treat "obfuscating magic" as magic that simply disguises one's self as another creature or object.
So it breaks through spells like Deceiver's Cloak [6th level], Fey Glamour [5th], Fantastic Facade [ritual 9th] and the like but a simple invisibility [2nd] thwarts it? *shrug* if that's what you want to do. I can't say it makes much sense to me. It seems in the same category as oracles and trying to bypass their curse.
That language sounds the same as that for the rope in the PF1 Rope Trick spell. I'm surprised that they would do this again given all the confusion that created.
Yep. "The rope can't be removed or hidden": full stop. IMO, that makes even less sense that glowing foreheads in that situation: a 10th level spell [say someone used a Wish [10th]] can't hide/disguise either.
So a summoner master of disguise concept is completely off the table? LAME!
I can't think of any practical reason to limit character concepts so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a summoner master of disguise concept is completely off the table? LAME!
I can't think of any practical reason to limit character concepts so.
Well, not 100% off the table. You could be the master of disguising yourself as other summoners. ;)
Is the sigil always shining or only when it is covered with clothes ?
The summoner’s sigil is a game mechanic rather than a feature representing something real, so its details are fuzzy. Its purpose is to identify the summoner of the eidolon to the casual onlooker. Otherwise, we would have the mystery, "The Creekbend Village monster appears out of nowhere, attacks someone, and then vanishes. We have no clue whether it is an independent creature or a summons."
Let me propose a magical mechanic. The sigils ordinarily appear as non-glowing marks on the foreheads of the summoner and eidolon. Unseen to mortal eyes, a tether in the astral plane connects the two sigils. If a visible physical object or illusion overlaps the tether, the object glows with the sigil at the entry and exit points of the tether. For most physical object, that is a temporary flash of the sigil because the tether moves. But for cloth wrapped over a sigil, the tether is relatively stationary so the glowing sigil is fairly fixed in place.
With that mechanic, an exposed sigil would not shine, but a sigil under a hat would make a shining sigil on the hat. An illusionary disguise that leaves the forehead unchanged would have a sigil mark, but an illusionary disguise that covers the sigil would have a sigil glow. And an invisible summoner counts as an uncovered forehead with an invisible sigil mark. But an occasional flash of the sigil on nearby walls and other objects would tell people that a summoner is involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And all these problems go away the moment the summoner pretends they don't have their primary class feature.
Yes, but the entire item that you can see the sigil on is invisible. If the idea is that the sigil bleeds through worn items, but the item is invisible, it would baffle me that the sigil can still be seen as just some floating "runes" in the air; but a wall or similar structure is A-OK, even if they're absolutely pressed up on it?Why does it matter if the symbol itself is identifiable when the glow is visible? Replace a glowing sigil with a lit candle and the same thing happens... 'Look over there, something is glowing and moving around...' Quite simply, do you allow invisible creatures to walk around with light sources and not have said light sources noticeable? The answer to that is the same answer to 'can someone see the sigil when I'm invisible?'
Then this means there is no flat check to strike an Invisible Summoner, since the sigil, which is clearly visible, is enough of a target to not miss due to not knowing where they are precisely located compared to somebody that is hidden or completely unseen.That just isn't true. An invisible person standing in snow, water, dust could be detected from that, and you could know where their feet are but that doesn't negate the flat chance. Even if you can see the symbol, you wouldn't know if you're seeing the front or back for instance. Look at the spell Faerie Fire once: the WHOLE body is "limned in colorful, heatless fire" and invisibility only drop to concealed. Seeing the sigil on the forehead is a LOT less than that.
People might notice unusual increases in light, and it would alert them to a potential intruder, but not precisely where the light source is (at least, without doing some metagame math), but if a sigil is visible in a specific square, then characters know which square the light source is, and it's not extremely hard to attack the sigil in particular, especially if the sigil is expected to be attached to, you know, something. It's not like the sigil is detached from the Summoner in some fashion, thus warranting a flat check, or that the sigil is only partially visible or isn't precisely observed. It's no different than if a character is only partially invisible; characters who attack certain obviously visible parts (while making the check harder, as appropriate from GM FIAT) shouldn't suffer from a miss chance any more than trying to attack a smaller-sized creature, as a comparison. In short, it's not a strong enough effect to warrant a flat check, much less a full flat 11 flat check from being hidden or unseen.
That's a far more likely case to not gauge where the humanoid (or whatever) body is located, because while you see the square they occupy based on circumstantial evidence, you don't physically see them with a precise sense. With a sigil, that is clearly and unequivocally observed, meaning there is no guessing as to where precisely the sigil is located. And while Faerie Fire works that way, so does See Invisibility; a spell that is specifically meant to let you see invisible creatures likewise only treats them as outlines. It is still a flat 5 in that case, because you can't precisely see the interiors of the creature and you might only graze certain non-essential parts, like cloth scraps of a backpack or tabard. A Sigil is physically attached to the summoner.
Now, whether someone will know this to be true is a whole different matter entirely. But assuming a character or NPC is aware of this fact, it will do no favors for the Summoner compared to even simply wielding a Tower Shield and raising it over yourself to cover the sigil (move, raise, press).
Heck, even the Eidolon wouldn't benefit from these things because they have an identical sigil, by design, to designate to basically anyone with half a brain that they are connected in some fashion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are inserting a lot of mechanics into this ability that don't actually exist in its description.
The sigil does not produce light with any radius. It doesn't negate concealment or miss chance. It doesn't interact with stealth at all.
The only thing it explictly does is inform any intelligent creature that the Summoner and Eidolon are intrinsically connected without needing any prior knowledge or to make a check.
Trying to make the sigil do anything other than that is just coming up with houserules to make the summoner worse, which doesn't seem necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are inserting a lot of mechanics into this ability that don't actually exist in its description.
The sigil does not produce light with any radius. It doesn't negate concealment or miss chance. It doesn't interact with stealth at all.
The only thing it explictly does is inform any intelligent creature that the Summoner and Eidolon are intrinsically connected without needing any prior knowledge or to make a check.
Trying to make the sigil do anything other than that is just coming up with houserules to make the summoner worse, which doesn't seem necessary.
Except when that concealment or miss chance arises as a result of obfuscating magic, which the sigil specifically addresses, or disguises, which again, the sigil specifically addresses by stating the sigil bleeds through clothing and equipment that is worn.
I will agree that the "shines through" thing is flavor text, especially when there is no form of light type or radius involved, but the simple fact of the matter is I can't use obfuscating magic (like illusion or some transmutation spells) to hide or cover up or alter the sigil; that's RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you can't disguise or hide the sigil... That's it though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sigil does not produce light with any radius.
It shines brightly enough to do so through mundane coverings... That's enough mechanics for me without noting anything also about it's brightness of radius of light: A match stick stands out quite bit in the dark without me being able to read something 5' away or being able to see it through a thick coat.
It doesn't interact with stealth at all.
Well no more than any source of light. I'd say the same thing about an android using their nanites, causing the circuitry to glow, while sneaking around. If someone that literally glows in the dark has the exact same chance to hide as one that doesn't then something is wrong. Which is harder to find in the dark: a firefly that's glowing or one that isn't?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are inserting a lot of mechanics into this ability that don't actually exist in its description.
The sigil does not produce light with any radius. It doesn't negate concealment or miss chance. It doesn't interact with stealth at all.
The only thing it explictly does is inform any intelligent creature that the Summoner and Eidolon are intrinsically connected without needing any prior knowledge or to make a check.
Trying to make the sigil do anything other than that is just coming up with houserules to make the summoner worse, which doesn't seem necessary.
We regularly insert details into invisibility that are not addressed in the rulebooks. What happens when an invisible creature was holding a light source, such as a lit lantern, when rendered invisible? Does the illumination from the lantern still radiate out, even though the lantern and its flame are invisible? Or do the photons from the lantern become invisible and thus the lantern does not brighten the room?
The summoner's sigil states, "will shine through clothing, appear over cloaks, and remain unaffected by obfuscating magic.” What if the summoner hides behind a barrel for concealment? Will the sigil shine through that? What if the summoner is in Obscuring Mist? That is obfuscating magic. What if the summoner polymorphs into a turtle and pulls his head into his shell? What if the summoner holds an ice-pack to his forehead and bluffs that he has a headache?
Either the sigil's non-hiding liability has limits or the summoner can never be undetected. Hidden would be the best he could hope for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is harder to find in the dark: a firefly that's glowing or one that isn't?
If we ever get rules for fireflies, I'll let you know. Right now all we have is Summoners though and "Summoners can't make Hide checks" and "Summoners can't benefit from Concealment" and "Summoners can't wear Disguises" are definitely not in the rules for how they work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PF1 version could be covered up by clothing and explicitly said Invisibility worked, though magical disguises/polymorph spells wouldn't hide it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They took it too far. All they had to write was "the sigil on the summoner and eidolon makes it obvious to the common layman that they are somehow linked" or something similar.
Instead, they had to make a footnote into a potentially crippling penalty.
I mean, that is what it says.
The stuff you wrote in the errata thread about Summoners being unable to wear disguises or use Stealth aren't reflected anywhere in the rules for summoners.
Which is harder to find in the dark: a firefly that's glowing or one that isn't?If we ever get rules for fireflies, I'll let you know. Right now all we have is Summoners though and "Summoners can't make Hide checks" and "Summoners can't benefit from Concealment" and "Summoners can't wear Disguises" are definitely not in the rules for how they work.
Well, the rules for Hiding require that you must be concealed or benefitting from cover to do so. If the sigil does enough to make that concealment or cover (such as from invisibility) irrelevant, then they fail to meet the requirements for the Hide activity. Same goes for concealment; if the sigil does enough to negate (or even reduce) the effectiveness of concealment, then technically they can't benefit, even if they would otherwise "have" it. You most certainly can't not have a clearly identified square, though, if you can't hide or cover it in any fashion that isn't from structures or similar obstacles.
As for them not being able to wear disguises, they totally can. They just can't really impersonate people or hide the fact that the sigil is there, and if it's easily identified, well, that really, really hurts the chances of being able to disguise yourself and go about a city or stronghold undetected.
"This is a symbol of our lord's elite inner circle! Why, pray tell, do YOU not recognize it?!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or they don't have their eidolon with them, the sigil doesn't glow, and they can infiltrate just fine. If they're trying to disguise themselves then not being followed around by a dragon, or angel, or magical robot, or walking tree is probably a good idea anyway, and it still only takes three actions to manifest an eidolon.Which is harder to find in the dark: a firefly that's glowing or one that isn't?If we ever get rules for fireflies, I'll let you know. Right now all we have is Summoners though and "Summoners can't make Hide checks" and "Summoners can't benefit from Concealment" and "Summoners can't wear Disguises" are definitely not in the rules for how they work.Well, the rules for Hiding require that you must be concealed or benefitting from cover to do so. If the sigil does enough to make that concealment or cover (such as from invisibility) irrelevant, then they fail to meet the requirements for the Hide activity. Same goes for concealment; if the sigil does enough to negate (or even reduce) the effectiveness of concealment, then technically they can't benefit, even if they would otherwise "have" it. You most certainly can't not have a clearly identified square, though, if you can't hide or cover it in any fashion that isn't from structures or similar obstacles.
As for them not being able to wear disguises, they totally can. They just can't really impersonate people or hide the fact that the sigil is there, and if it's easily identified, well, that really, really hurts the chances of being able to disguise yourself and go about a city or stronghold undetected.
If the sigil is specifically active when an Eidolon is, sure. But based on the conversation details (or lack thereof), this crucial piece of information was withheld, thereby making me think it functioned independent from the Eidolon.
Really, the only added information was that the Eidolon also had this sigil, not that it is only active when an Eidolon is. Regardless of this fact, though, is the question of if a spell like Invisibility counts as "obfuscating magic."
Regardless of this fact, though, is the question of if a spell like Invisibility counts as "obfuscating magic."
Psychopomp Eidolon
Hidden Watcher 7th
Your eidolon can render both of you unseen.
Once per hour, it can cast invisibility targeting you,
them, or both of you at once. If the spell targeted
both of you, the spell ends for both of you if either
of you uses a hostile action.
Just going to leave this here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of this fact, though, is the question of if a spell like Invisibility counts as "obfuscating magic."Psychopomp Eidolon
Hidden Watcher 7th
Your eidolon can render both of you unseen.
Once per hour, it can cast invisibility targeting you,
them, or both of you at once. If the spell targeted
both of you, the spell ends for both of you if either
of you uses a hostile action.Just going to leave this here.
Doesn't this ability still leave the sigils in place, thereby making their square visible and easy to both identify and attack?
This does nothing to answer my question.
The Sigil only glows (and thus cannot be hidden by any means) when the eidolon is manifested.
I cannot find any simple clear statements on any of the other points.