Spell target vs invisibility

[Daermoth]

Hey there folks, I've got a few questions regarding some situations and some rules in terms of spells with a target of say creature and invisibility.

So for the pertinent rules...

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.

So based, on this we cannot attack or target a specific opponent that for example is invisible, we can attack a square, that's fine.

How does the "You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target." part of the rule interact with this, the you can touch the enemy is somewhat obvious, however the part after that makes it a bit confusing for me, what does specifically choose the target mean? Because if you cannot see them, I presume you cannot choose them since you cannot target. So if you wanted to say cast Hydraulic Push for example, which has the line "Target one creature or object", would you be able to cast it if you touch the enemy or not at all if the enemy was invisible? And if you could while touching them, would that provoke an attack since it is not explicitly called a touch spell?

As for another situation, can you cast spells of the same nature, that target a creature, on yourself while you are invisible, basically can you target yourself? More or less the same issue, would the touch part of the rule suffice or do you need to actually be able to specifically choose the target?

Thanks for any help in advance!

[Pizza Lord]

You cannot target a creature you cannot see. So you can't cast any magic missiles at an invisible target, for instance.

If you can touch them, then yes, you can target them with the spell. This isn't a normal thing that comes up a lot.

I think it would be considered an armed attack, similar to holding a charge on a touch spell, so it shouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity. You'd have to reach into the square you think the target is in and have the 50% miss chance for total concealment. Otherwise you'd already have to be touching the creature, such as in a grapple or being grappled or swallowed whole. I think if you missed, because they weren't in the square or you failed the concealment roll, I would probably rule the spell lost (since, unlike a touch spell that lets you hold the charge, I think that only applies to actual touch spells).

Quote:

can you cast spells of the same nature, that target a creature, on yourself while you are invisible,

You can always target yourself. Being invisible makes no mention of having trouble seeing yourself or handling your own gear (unless that gear has a separate invisibility from you, as opposed to just being your gear when you cast invisibility on yourself).

[Daermoth]

After researching a bit more and finding this rule about rays.

Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.

The line that says "You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell." seems to mention you really need to see and not just touch, could it be that the first rule about targeting mentions touching specifically only in relation to melee touch attack spells rather than the target one creature and such spells then?

Also it does say in invisibility that you need to employ means of seeing through invisibility either by mundane or magical means and it doesn't specify anywhere either that you can actually see yourself, and I don't see why you would really unless it mentioned it.

[Chell Raighn]

Rays make no mention of touching the target for the simple fact that they are intended to be used at range. The rule operates on the assumption that you are not going to be close enough to touch the target, nor does it make any changes to the rule in regards to touching.

The general rule: you need to see or touch the target to target with a spell
Specific rule: rays do not require you to see the target.
Complete rule result: you need to see the target, unless casting a ray, or touch the target to target them with a spell.

[AwesomenessDog]

Note that if you can actually pass a DC 40+ perception check, you may be able to see an invisible person to target them. In either case, just buy a wand of glitterdust, figure out approximately where they are (easier perception check to know if they are within 30ft of you and a direction, and if you're in an open area, anything making significant noise should at least be easy to determine direction), and coat them in glitter. Or prepare echolocation.

[Kurald Galain]

What Chell said. You can cast touch attack spells (or ranged touch attack spells) if you can't see the target, using the rules for attacking unseen creatures (i.e. 50% miss chance).

You can cast "target creature" spells only if you can see the target, or touch it. So if you cannot see the creature and it is unwilling, you must make an attack roll to touch it (again with 50% miss chance); or make a very hard perception check.

You can cast area effects, lines, cones, and so forth if you can't see the target, with no penalty.

And you can always target yourself, because you can touch yourself and are a willing target.

[Diego Rossi]

AwesomenessDog wrote:

Note that if you can actually pass a DC 40+ perception check, you may be able to see an invisible person to target them.

No. Wth that check you pinpoint an invisible creature, but you don't see it.

Invisibility, CRB, p. 563 wrote:

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack.

It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).

- * -

Invisibility, CRB, p. 563 wrote:

A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature.

A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature’s current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.

Touching a creature that way still only pinpoint it, and the touch last only the time of the attempt.

You need to touch the creature while casting the spell, so you need to grapple a creature while casting the spell, or have it pinned and unable to move or unconscious while you cast to maintain the touch. So, generally, you can cast only spells with a swift action casting time.

If the target is willing to receive the spell it is another matter, at that point it can touch you, so you have no need to find it.

[Trokarr]

Would Magus spellstrike/spell combat using unarmed strikes work? You “touch” the target with an unarmed strike and cast a spell as part of the same action?(assuming you can hit with the US of course)

[Diego Rossi]

Trokarr wrote:

Would Magus spellstrike/spell combat using unarmed strikes work? You “touch” the target with an unarmed strike and cast a spell as part of the same action?(assuming you can hit with the US of course)

It works like any other attack in a square will work. 50% miss chance, you touch the target and know its position only if and when the attacks land. So it will allow you to deliver a spell through a touch attack, but not a targeted spell.

All touch spells can be delivered by a touch attack.