| breithauptclan |
If casting invisibility only works to hide the naked creature but not their clothes or equipment, then the spell wouldn't actually do anything for the majority of PCs. So obviously that is a wrong ruling.
For items that the creature picks up after the spell is cast, that is a different matter. I would probably have those still be visible - either permanently or for some duration of time. Even if that amount of time is one action that it takes to store the item inside a pocket or pouch of your invisible clothing.
| SuperParkourio |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say the Invisibility is the target and what they wear and carry. Including familiars.
If you drop something, it becomes visible. If you pick something, it becomes invisible.
Of course, any "Con the GM" shenanigans will get vetoed real fast.
Yeah, that makes sense considering the Invisible Object spell lets you fire ammo without revealing your position. It would be pointless if your ammo stayed invisible well after being fired.
I don't know if familiars should be included, though. Those are separate creatures.
The Raven Black
|
The Raven Black wrote:I would say the Invisibility is the target and what they wear and carry. Including familiars.
If you drop something, it becomes visible. If you pick something, it becomes invisible.
Of course, any "Con the GM" shenanigans will get vetoed real fast.
Yeah, that makes sense considering the Invisible Object spell lets you fire ammo without revealing your position. It would be pointless if your ammo stayed invisible well after being fired.
I don't know if familiars should be included, though. Those are separate creatures.
I feel it would penalize the caster with a familiar on their shoulder too much if they were not included.
And the object familiars would become a mess of rules.
Easier to just apply it to creatures too IMO.
| SuperParkourio |
SuperParkourio wrote:The Raven Black wrote:I would say the Invisibility is the target and what they wear and carry. Including familiars.
If you drop something, it becomes visible. If you pick something, it becomes invisible.
Of course, any "Con the GM" shenanigans will get vetoed real fast.
Yeah, that makes sense considering the Invisible Object spell lets you fire ammo without revealing your position. It would be pointless if your ammo stayed invisible well after being fired.
I don't know if familiars should be included, though. Those are separate creatures.
I feel it would penalize the caster with a familiar on their shoulder too much if they were not included.
And the object familiars would become a mess of rules.
Easier to just apply it to creatures too IMO.
Are casters normally allowed to keep familiars on their person like that? And what's an object familiar? Can you give an example?
| breithauptclan |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what's an object familiar? Can you give an example?
Baba Yaga Witch Patron familiars and Kitsune Star Orb are the ones that come to mind immediately.
| SuperParkourio |
Objects on one's person are normally impossible for another creature to target with harmful effects. I suppose that's the purpose of object familiars. So I guess object familiars on an invisible creature would be invisible while creature familiars would need a separate invisibility spell cast on them?
| breithauptclan |
That is one possible way to rule it while staying within what is stated in the rules.
I suspect that this is another place where the rules are left deliberately unspecified. There are trope-level scenarios that don't work no matter what way we rule how items and possessions interact with casting Invisibility on a target. So it is left up to the players at the table to make a ruling for their particular scenario and game.
| shroudb |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Raven Black wrote:Are casters normally allowed to keep familiars on their person like that? And what's an object familiar? Can you give an example?SuperParkourio wrote:The Raven Black wrote:I would say the Invisibility is the target and what they wear and carry. Including familiars.
If you drop something, it becomes visible. If you pick something, it becomes invisible.
Of course, any "Con the GM" shenanigans will get vetoed real fast.
Yeah, that makes sense considering the Invisible Object spell lets you fire ammo without revealing your position. It would be pointless if your ammo stayed invisible well after being fired.
I don't know if familiars should be included, though. Those are separate creatures.
I feel it would penalize the caster with a familiar on their shoulder too much if they were not included.
And the object familiars would become a mess of rules.
Easier to just apply it to creatures too IMO.
during the pf2 reveal stream, when the developers themselves were playing with each other to showcase the game, one of them was an alchemist with a monkey familiar on his hsoulder.
so i would be hardpressed to deny a player that asked for something similar to that.
| breithauptclan |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for Mounted Combat don't prevent a tiny creature from riding a small or medium size creature.
There are the Special Rules for riding sentient creatures, but that wouldn't apply to a familiar because they have the Minion trait. The rule about losing one action each round is for a tiny PC riding an ally PC, or a Summoner riding their Eidolon (without Steed Form).