If you don't think See the Unseen works because "no sense can detect you," why would you think See the Unseen even works against normal invisibility? See the Unseen applies to your sense of sight. You know, the thing normal invisibility is supposed to always make you undetected against.Because it specifically says it targets the invisible condition, not the undetected condition. The spell makes you undetected, not invisible. Hence why the argument of "you can't see a goblin in a bush" was brought up, since we are equating being undetected and being invisible as the same condition.Both spells say they make you undetected. You are running yourself in circles here.
I don't think there's actually room to argue that the part where it says "you're undetected" is just an explanation of the invisible status in one, but not the other. That's what your position would require, though.
EDIT: Literally why even mention that you count as invisible if you could just say you're undetected to others for the duration of the spell to communicate your reading? On your reading, the entirety of the part about counting as invisible could be removed and it wouldn't change anything.
No, the invisibility spell says you have the invisible condition, and then gives a basic rundown of what that condition does, referencing being undetected (it doesn't even mention sight). Disappearance says you have the undetected condition. If all we're going to do is make these conditions identical, then the game should just get rid of one of them and simplify it.
If anything, referencing the invisible condition in this case is in error, because it's capacity to affect all senses is invalidated by the invisible condition saying non-sight based senses ignore that condition, so the idea that it is even a suitable condition for this effect doesn't even track if the intent is it works on all senses.
I've always taken the advantage of Disappearance over Invis 4 just to be that you don't need to Sneak to become 'properly' undetected again after doing something that reveals your position, it just naturally happens on any movement. But who knows; invisibility rules are a mess.
Tbh it's a bit of a nuclear option if you don't let invis detection work or if the opposition doesn't have it available, as it makes you basically invincible. I've often seen gentlemen's agreements between players and GM not to use it in combat.
The spell doesn't make you any more invincible than the 4th rank counterpart or by simply using Sneak. You can still be hit in the square you occupy. You can still be blown apart by fireballs. It works as a great de-aggro option, but makes you invincible? Hyperbole.
And really, if the spell shouldn't be used in combat, give it the Exploration tag. Even if you did, this makes it much worse than 2nd rank invisibility, which does effectively the same thing with infinitely less cost.
No, the invisibility spell says you have the invisible condition, and then gives a basic rundown of what that condition does, referencing being undetected (it doesn't even mention sight). Disappearance says you have the undetected condition. If all we're going to do is make these conditions identical, then the game should just get rid of one of them and simplify it.If anything, referencing the invisible condition in this case is in error, because it's capacity to affect all senses is invalidated by the invisible condition saying non-sight based senses ignore that condition, so the idea that it is even a suitable condition for this effect doesn't even track if the intent is it works on all senses.
This position is literally inconsistent with itself; you could apply the same logic to invisibility, and claim the reference to the invisible condition is an error, and really, it just makes you undetected to all creatures. The sentence and clause order ultimately doesn't matter to interpreting it, because the invisible status is completely different than the explainer in the spell text anyways. Under the most sane interpretation of the spell—the one that I don't see people arguing with here, and the one consistent with the other rules elsewhere—you're just supposed to know to look at the status, prioritize the keyword rules, and then take the keyword explainer inside the spell as some kind of abbreviated and highly inaccurate description. And this is something people agree on! Why you are unwilling to extend this logic to disappearance and accept "you're undetected" is also a bad shorthand there is beyond me.
Also, the invisible status doesn't actually reference sight except in the first sentence (which is usually the sort of "flavor intro"). It never references senses afterwards. You're kind of left to infer that part yourself from the senses and detection rules, and the sidebar on detecting with other senses. None of these spells can be made to make any sense without the senses and detection rules.
If that is the case then Seeking does nothing since you are positing it can't reach a stage lower than undetected, which also doesn't make sense because if no sense can detect you, then See the Unseen shouldn't work either. Either Seek works and you can be Hidden, or it doesn't.
Seek works because the spell carves out an exception for Seek, wherein evidence left behind gives away the target's location. But eventually, the target is going to have their turn, which is imperceptible.
Are you suggesting that the same evidence continues to work against the target after one successful Seek? I can get behind that. I could see an observer continuing to focus on disturbed dust and other signs to keep track of the target. In that case, Sneak to become undetected again would be necessary after all.
But once undetected again, the only way to be detected once again would be Seek, as the target is "otherwise undetectable." So Disappearance is still very strong.
Not if the bush is uprooted from the ground. And it's infinitely more cost effective if you have a Wood Kineticist.
If you're just going to wear a bush, then we have to treat the bush as an extension of you. You can't just hide in your own clothes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea what his argument is or if it’s correct (imagine reading Darksol posts in the 2020s, couldn’t be me), but it is with no pleasure that I report his position is correct.
I will not be elaborating further.
This position is literally inconsistent with itself; you could apply the same logic to invisibility, and claim the reference to the invisible condition is an error, and really, it just makes you undetected to all creatures. The sentence and clause order ultimately doesn't matter to interpreting it, because the invisible status is completely different than the explainer in the spell text anyways. Under the most sane interpretation of the spell—the one that I don't see people arguing with here, and the one consistent with the other rules elsewhere—you're just supposed to know to look at the status, prioritize the keyword rules, and then take the keyword explainer inside the spell as some kind of abbreviated and highly inaccurate description. And this is something people agree on! Why you are unwilling to extend this logic to disappearance and accept "you're undetected" is also a bad shorthand there is beyond me.
Also, the invisible status doesn't actually reference sight except in the first sentence (which is usually the sort of "flavor intro"). It never references senses afterwards. You're kind of left to infer that part yourself from the senses and detection rules, and the sidebar on detecting with other senses. None of these spells can be made to make any sense without the senses and detection rules.
Okay, and if we took that basic description to its logical conclusion, interpreting each spell effect to do the same thing, then the only difference between rank 4 Invisibility and Disappearance is that one lasts 1 minute, and the other lasts 10 minutes, making any ideas of it being hard to make it a heighten entry of the parent spell instead, or justification for it being its own spell, absurd. (I'd even argue that it lasting 10 minutes does not justify a 4 rank differential, since even most spells with that kind of differential have maybe one or two rank differences at the most, and extending it to 10 minutes is a barely helpful benefit overall, but semantics.) That all being said, that's why the argument of "It must do something more/different than its parent spell" is the only sensible argument to be had, because anything else is either stupidity or laziness on Paizo's part, and I'd rather not believe the developers are designing in bad faith. After all, "I need to be dispelled or found via Seek" isn't exactly gamebreaking at 15th level, especially at 8th rank where spells like Maze exist, and other spell effects can properly counteract its effect (like Dispel Magic, or Truesight).
It's probably easier to have all of the senses and detection rules in one place than scattered throughout every spell or effect that either alters senses or detection capabilities. Imagine every such spell or ability having several paragraphs; the Player Cores would have probably had to be split between 3 books if that was the case. But really, I'd like to think of invisible as being a specific subset of undetected, and if the idea is that they are synonyms, then the game has no benefit of using interchangeable game terms, especially when they are meant to symbolize different things.
If that is the case then Seeking does nothing since you are positing it can't reach a stage lower than undetected, which also doesn't make sense because if no sense can detect you, then See the Unseen shouldn't work either. Either Seek works and you can be Hidden, or it doesn't.Seek works because the spell carves out an exception for Seek, wherein evidence left behind gives away the target's location. But eventually, the target is going to have their turn, which is imperceptible.
Are you suggesting that the same evidence continues to work against the target after one successful Seek? I can get behind that. I could see an observer continuing to focus on disturbed dust and other signs to keep track of the target. In that case, Sneak to become undetected again would be necessary after all.
But once undetected again, the only way to be detected once again would be Seek, as the target is "otherwise undetectable." So Disappearance is still very strong.
Not if the bush is uprooted from the ground. And it's infinitely more cost effective if you have a Wood Kineticist.If you're just going to wear a bush, then we have to treat the bush as an extension of you. You can't just hide in your own clothes.
It's not so much an exception, more of a reminder, since the base undetected condition already lets you perform a Seek action to make a creature hidden anyway. You might not know precisely what such a creature does anyway, whether they are undetected or hidden, but you still at least know the square that a hidden creature occupies versus an undetected one, meaning it's easier to gauge what activities they accomplished (at least in terms of movement).
It does, because you remain Hidden until you Sneak once you have been successfully Seeked, and only by succeeding a Stealth check from the Sneak action will you go back to being Undetected, meaning if you have little to no Sneak investment, you only really need to be sought after once, and then maybe Pointed Out once for your allies if necessary. It might waste actions here or there, but most monsters have crazy high perception, or special abilities where it doesn't matter if they see you or know where you're at.
The problem becomes that Invisibility already accomplishes this for yourself with nowhere near the spell rank cost, and the idea that a 4th rank spell doubles in power by increasing the duration to 10 minutes instead of 1 minute (which is overkill in 90% of combats anyway) isn't really
It was mostly facetious, but you could make the same argument with said goblin hiding behind a tower shield, if it helps matters any.
This thread has literally made me go put a clarification on invisible into a freshly made houserules doc. From here on out, my players will just have this monstrosity that collates the scattered rules instead of the default invisible status:
You can't be seen. You're undetected to everyone who has sight as their only precise sense. Precise senses other than sight ignore the invisible condition.
Creatures can also Seek to detect you; if a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature until you Sneak to become undetected again. If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak. You can't become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic.
Other effects might also partially foil invisibility. For instance, if you were in the snow, the footprints would make you hidden instead of undetected. In a similar vein, if someone threw a net on you, you would be concealed (though not observed) as long as you remained under the net.
I might also add a clause about imprecise senses and visual actions, like so, though I'm unsure if I want to do it without adding clauses to spells that the target can use your Spell Attack modifier in place of their Stealth modifier and your Spell DC in place of their Stealth DC. I may just leave it out to avoid playing game designer more than I need to.
Creatures can still detect you with an imprecise sense. For example, if you did something noisy—such as speak, stomp, or cast a spell without the subtle trait—you would then be hidden instead of undetected until you successfully used Sneak.
As other creatures cannot see you, cannot use actions with the visual trait.
And I'm just going to rewrite Disappearance to explicitly use a different status called "Imperceptible," or something. Make it something like this:
You can't be perceived. You're undetected to everyone, regardless of what precise, imprecise, or vague senses they have. As other creatures cannot see or hear you, you cannot use actions with the auditory or visual traits, cannot use sonic attacks, and cannot cast spells unless they have the subtle trait.
It's still possible for a creature to find you by Seeking: they might look for disturbed dust, shout in a direction and see if the noise is absorbed, or figure out some other way to discover the presence of an otherwise-undetectable creature. If a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature; however, you can become undetected again simply by moving to a different square.
As with being invisible, some effects can partially foil being imperceptible. if you were in the snow, your footprints would make you hidden instead of undetected. In a similar vein, if someone threw a net on you, you would be concealed (though not observed) as long as you remained under the net.
Being imperceptible counts as being invisible for the purposes of effects that refer to the invisible status, such as See the Unseen, Revealing Mist, Revealing Light, and so on.
God, I hate the senses and detection parts of the rules so much.
I added clauses in line with Silence because it's the clearest precedent for how something like this works. I do agree it's obnoxious to be unable to cast spells unless you have conceal spell, for what it's worth. It's just that I'd consider it the most "defensible" ruling I can get if I limit myself to extrapolating from elsewhere in the system. I generally prefer to look at things from that angle with 2E, rather than going at it with my own sensibilities. If I rewrote how all this worked to my own preferences, it would look quite different (and probably significantly stronger).
It's not so much an exception, more of a reminder, since the base undetected condition already lets you perform a Seek action to make a creature hidden anyway. You might not know precisely what such a creature does anyway, whether they are undetected or hidden, but you still at least know the square that a hidden creature occupies versus an undetected one, meaning it's easier to gauge what activities they accomplished (at least in terms of movement).
Your ability to Seek is limited by the senses you have to Seek with. If you are blinded and deafened, Seek will not help you locate any undetected creature. Likewise, if you have no senses that can reveal an undetected creature, Seek will normally do you no good. That's why it's an exception.
It does, because you remain Hidden until you Sneak once you have been successfully Seeked, and only by succeeding a Stealth check from the Sneak action will you go back to being Undetected, meaning if you have little to no Sneak investment, you only really need to be sought after once, and then maybe Pointed Out once for your allies if necessary. It might waste actions here or there, but most monsters have crazy high perception, or special abilities where it doesn't matter if they see you or know where you're at.
I think you're overestimating the number of monsters that can hard-counter this, but I agree that high Stealth creatures would make for more effective targets of Disappearance than those without.
The problem becomes that Invisibility already accomplishes this for yourself with nowhere near the spell rank cost, and the idea that a 4th rank spell doubles in power by increasing the duration to 10 minutes instead of 1 minute (which is overkill in 90% of combats anyway) isn't really
No, even if you Sneak with 4th rank Invisibility, you are still detected if you Strike or Cast Fireball or do basically anything that isn't Step or Sneak. This is because the invisible condition normally only thwarts vision and leaves hearing alone. With Disappearance, you can Strike, Cast a Spell, and even Grapple a target without revealing what square you're in.
It was mostly facetious, but you could make the same argument with said goblin hiding behind a tower shield, if it helps matters any.
Does Take Cover actually provide cover when used with a Tower Shield? It appears to simply increase the circumstance bonus provided by the shield. And even if it counted as cover, you'd have to Raise the Shield, Take Cover, then Hide. Then Raise a Shield would end at the start of your next turn, so you've basically just skipped your entire turn and contributed nothing.
-snip-
That argument is only sensible if you have absolutely zero senses (pretty sure even oozes and plants have some form of senses), and even then, the general rules don't care if you have senses or not. Seek doesn't have a requirement line of "you have a sense" or anything similar along those lines. At best we can argue that it is there so stupid GMs don't argue that you can't Seek it, but that is essentially semantics.
Possibly, but it is more likely to fail against higher level or boss enemies. Often times I see creatures of equivalent levels having equal or higher perception scores than even the most focused of characters. Either way, my point is that the odds are more likely to be against them than for them, or automatic for characters affected by Disappearance, as we are trying to claim.
Uh, no, per RAW, if you perform any activity besides Hide, Step, or Sneak, it reveals your location. Disappearance doesn't hide spell manifestations and the like either, unless maybe it has the Subtle trait, and even then it can be argued that it will still make some form of manifestation, meaning Disappearance is not the automatic get-out-of-jail free card we're making it out to be anyway. It's also still not really demonstrating any power over a 4th rank Invisibility effect.
Yes, you can take cover while a tower shield is raised, hence why the AC increase goes from 2 to 4. The Shield Paragon stance raises your shield automatically, and if you are Hasted with a Returning throwing weapon, you can still Strike prior to doing everything. Even so, it can make the enemy waste actions avoiding the cover and hidden condition, so if you have some way of drawing threat, it has potential.
When a 8th slot spell is countered without a check by a common, routine 2nd slot spell it's nonsense.
I think it's more they decided it should cost you two eighth level spell slots instead of one, since Hidden Mind fixes the problem. Can't say I like it too much, but the fix is there.
Baarogue is correct, this makes no sense at all. It's not Silence, and it's not defensible: magic just need words, not that anyone around hear them. [Silence does actually remove them] By your logic you can't cast spells in an empty room :D
I feel the logic is decently well supported.
1) The "detecting with other senses" sidebar explicitly says Silence might make you invisible to a creature relying on hearing as its precise sense. (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2405) That's about the only explanation anywhere of what it'd be like to be invisible to hearing.
2) Silence says it stops you from making sounds, and explicitly says this prevents you from casting spells.
3) Disappearance stops others from hearing you. But it isn't a mental effect, and therefore doesn't work by blocking the senses of others. It changes the sensory stimulus itself, as per the illusion trait.
4) Silence is the same; it isn't a mental effect, and changes the sensory stimulus itself, as per the illusion trait.
5) Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters. (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2233)
The thing you're pressing at with the empty room question is whether or not it prevents the target from hearing themselves, basically; it does say "from others' senses," leaving it open whether or not it affects the target but probably implying it doesn't. I feel like this is messy territory, though. I don't see any way it excepts the target while still being an illusion effect and not a mental effect. "If the words are silenced as they leave my mouth, did I speak?" is starting to split hairs in a dangerous way. If a gagged caster cannot cast, and I think most people would agree they cannot, neither should a caster whose words cannot leave their mouth due to magic be able to cast. The situation is analogous.
I think that if you start concocting things like "The illusion magic is a field is 1 millimeter away from the caster's face! The sound really does come out!" you start getting a bit off the rails and having to make up things that haven't been described. Of course, there's an argument I'm already off the rails by trying to do exegesis on how a poorly written spell works, but yeah.*
While I personally agree that all this isn't ideal from a design perspective, I hesitate to believe it's actually out of line with the rest of caster power in 2E. Most effects that could theoretically be too much for a party to handle, or have too much problem-solving power, are riddled with caveats. 2E is fairly consistent on preferring niche use but not broken to broken. And Disappearance can quickly become broken.
===
*Speaking of that, I was curious about what Baarogue said about playtest Disappearance, and went and checked it.
"The target becomes invisible and is completely silent. This defeats all forms of blindsense and blindsight."
While they could've removed the bit about "silent" because they felt "silent" had bad implications... I think it's just as likely they reworded it because it was unclear how being invisible and silent defeated tremorsense or scent. The new wording is more expansive, and implies it blocks any kind of sensory stimuli, not just sight and sound.
I'm honestly on the fence on whether or not making a melee strike should reveal you, especially if the target doesn't know what kind of weapon you're using. Getting hit from a given direction doesn't guarantee someone is in the square next to you.
The game also typically ignores your sense of touch, which is what'd be used to detect someone hitting you—assuming Disappearance doesn't block touch stimuli, anyways, which is getting so far off the rails I don't even want to think about it.
Blindsense and Blindsight were what all non-sight senses were lumped into in the playtest, such as life sense, echolocation, tremorsense, etc. I actually feel like the playtest disappearance wording was almost perfect, but Blindsense and Blindsight were large chunks of text you'd have to look up and understand so I get why they dropped those and tried to "simplify" it all into the spell's description. Not exactly succeeded, but tried
I know. I just think there's a flavor mismatch there that they probably wanted to rectify. Again, not clear to me (and probably a lot of others) how being silent and invisible stops tremorsense from working. The second sentence just doesn't follow from the first. It's a lot clearer how being invisible to all senses stops tremorsense from working.
So, now 2 8th spellslots and one of those on an uncommon spell? Yep, still nonsense.
Still pales in comparison to unambiguous interactions involving the light cantrip and darkness spells. I think you just want spells to be better than PF2E wants them to be (not that I can blame you, because I'd prefer it as well).
Disappearance doesn't prevent you from speaking and doesn't say you can't cast spells. That's all the logic that needed. Full stop. You can write another three, ten, hundred pages - nothing will change.
You can homerule as you like of course.
To be clear, I never meant to imply that I thought this was how the spell worked RAW. (Though I think it's not very clear how it works RAW.) I just have more simulationist players on casters, usually, and they will very quickly start digging through the grey areas of the spell; they'll want to know how it works and what the more flavor-level effects are. Once I acknowledge that you make no sound, Silence makes it look like being unable to speak and being unable to be heard is a distinction without a difference inside of the system. This just follows that logic to its conclusion.
The spell is still very strong even if you can't cast without conceal spell; you'd just want to use it on a martial character (for combat) or a familiar (to scout) instead of yourself.
That argument is only sensible if you have absolutely zero senses (pretty sure even oozes and plants have some form of senses), and even then, the general rules don't care if you have senses or not. Seek doesn't have a requirement line of "you have a sense" or anything similar along those lines. At best we can argue that it is there so stupid GMs don't argue that you can't Seek it, but that is essentially semantics.
The general rules very much care whether you have the senses. Precise sense is required to observe a creature. Imprecise sense is required to know what square a creature is in. Without either of those, the target is generally undetected. Seek doesn't list "you have a sense" as a requirement because Pathfinder's rules already assume that is true by default.
Possibly, but it is more likely to fail against higher level or boss enemies. Often times I see creatures of equivalent levels having equal or higher perception scores than even the most focused of characters. Either way, my point is that the odds are more likely to be against them than for them, or automatic for characters affected by Disappearance, as we are trying to claim.
Worse odds against bosses is what the entire game is built around. This is fine.
Uh, no, per RAW, if you perform any activity besides Hide, Step, or Sneak, it reveals your location. Disappearance doesn't hide spell manifestations and the like either, unless maybe it has the Subtle trait, and even then it can be argued that it will still make some form of manifestation, meaning Disappearance is not the automatic get-out-of-jail free card we're making it out to be anyway. It's also still not really demonstrating any power over a 4th rank Invisibility effect.
That rule in the Sneak action about becoming observed after taking nonstealthy actions assumes you are capable of being detected in the first place, which you aren't. I'll concede the point about spell manifestations, but Seek is still the only thing that can reveal your position.
Yes, you can take cover while a tower shield is raised, hence why the AC increase goes from 2 to 4. The Shield Paragon stance raises your shield automatically, and if you are Hasted with a Returning throwing weapon, you can still Strike prior to doing everything. Even so, it can make the enemy waste actions avoiding the cover and hidden condition, so if you have some way of drawing threat, it has potential.
I suppose the effects of Take Cover aren't being replaced, just amended, so it would give you standard cover and +4 circ to AC. This does look interesting, though it's still very action intensive. And of course, you still can't Sneak anywhere because moving ends Take Cover.
It is hyperbole, but not by much. For a character of that level, 50 or more speed is routine, meaning that you've got roughly a 100-ft emanation of spaces on the ground to move to after taking your Strike for the turn (and that's before accounting for Flying and Haste). That is an amount of space that one simply cannot reasonably cover in a round with the 15-ft bursts allowed by Seek, or randomly chucking fireballs around (let alone targeting squares with Strikes at random). If you have an archer (say, a ranger or rogue) pop a scroll of Disappearance, they can often quite effortlessly solo Extreme encounters, as long as the space isn't totally crammed and the GM doesn't act on meta-knowledge.The spell doesn't make you any more invincible than the 4th rank counterpart or by simply using Sneak. You can still be hit in the square you occupy. You can still be blown apart by fireballs. It works as a great de-aggro option, but makes you invincible? Hyperbole.I've always taken the advantage of Disappearance over Invis 4 just to be that you don't need to Sneak to become 'properly' undetected again after doing something that reveals your position, it just naturally happens on any movement. But who knows; invisibility rules are a mess.
Tbh it's a bit of a nuclear option if you don't let invis detection work or if the opposition doesn't have it available, as it makes you basically invincible. I've often seen gentlemen's agreements between players and GM not to use it in combat.
50 feet is a lot of movement; most characters will cap out around 35-40 movement on average, especially with heavy armor or being a Dwarf. An Elf with Tailwind, Nimble Elf, Fleet, and maybe Greater Boots of Bounding will give you 60 feet of movement at the most, not barring shenanigans like Monk class, or Time Jump.
That depends on the encounter and creature abilities. If we had a creature that either possesses or can utilize See the Unseen (or a similar effect), that strategy is immediately shut down with the interpretation that it works on Disappearance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol is right that Take Cover behind a tower shield is taking cover - as in it provides the increased bonus to AC and reflex saves against damaging effects, but considering several "as usual, you can't Hide with this cover because your position is still obvious" entries exist I doubt you'll find a GM willing to allow you to Hide behind it. See Portable Weapon Mount (Tripod, Shielded) and Shield Wall for similar items used for cover
I do disagree that you can't be Hiding behind it; I would personally amend that you can only be Hidden while taking cover with it, since your shield is still detected, and it's clear enough you are using the shield as cover to Hide behind, but at the end of the day, the rules are pretty clear on what you can and can't do with it here, and it's not even that fancy to allow anyway.
That argument is only sensible if you have absolutely zero senses (pretty sure even oozes and plants have some form of senses), and even then, the general rules don't care if you have senses or not. Seek doesn't have a requirement line of "you have a sense" or anything similar along those lines. At best we can argue that it is there so stupid GMs don't argue that you can't Seek it, but that is essentially semantics.The general rules very much care whether you have the senses. Precise sense is required to observe a creature. Imprecise sense is required to know what square a creature is in. Without either of those, the target is generally undetected. Seek doesn't list "you have a sense" as a requirement because Pathfinder's rules already assume that is true by default.
Possibly, but it is more likely to fail against higher level or boss enemies. Often times I see creatures of equivalent levels having equal or higher perception scores than even the most focused of characters. Either way, my point is that the odds are more likely to be against them than for them, or automatic for characters affected by Disappearance, as we are trying to claim.Worse odds against bosses is what the entire game is built around. This is fine.
Uh, no, per RAW, if you perform any activity besides Hide, Step, or Sneak, it reveals your location. Disappearance doesn't hide spell manifestations and the like either, unless maybe it has the Subtle trait, and even then it can be argued that it will still make some form of manifestation, meaning Disappearance is not the automatic get-out-of-jail free card we're making it out to be anyway. It's also still not really demonstrating any power over a 4th rank Invisibility effect.That rule in the Sneak action about becoming observed after taking nonstealthy actions assumes you are capable of being detected in the first place, which you aren't. I'll concede the point about spell manifestations, but Seek is still the only...
They do, but the idea that a creature has absolutely zero senses is all that matters for disallowing Seek, not whether that given sense is relevant to detecting them. Whether they are precise, imprecise, or vague, doesn't matter for Seek.
I mean, it's not that hard to narratively explain how an enemy that is undetected can be eviscerating enemies from melee (cuts and slashes show up on a creature), ranged (arrows flying out of a random space into a creature), or magic (magical glyphs with a green ray streaking out in a given square) that the idea of being unable to be found out isn't outside the realm of impossibility. The enemies would still be hidden because you can't precisely tell their location, but you can see projectiles and such emanating from the square they're fired from. Honestly, the trickiest part would be melee attacks with a Reach weapon, since those can be done from a distance without obvious direction.
Sadly, the tower shield ploy was already covered in the rules, Baarogue cited it. Again, I disagree with it narratively and mechanically, but it's nowhere near as vague in what the rules say, so I'll just chalk it up to game balance and move on.
They do, but the idea that a creature has absolutely zero senses is all that matters for disallowing Seek, not whether that given sense is relevant to detecting them. Whether they are precise, imprecise, or vague, doesn't matter for Seek.
This argument makes zero sense to me. You have no senses that can perceive the target, but you have a nose so it doesn't count?
I mean, it's not that hard to narratively explain how an enemy that is undetected can be eviscerating enemies from melee (cuts and slashes show up on a creature), ranged (arrows flying out of a random space into a creature), or magic (magical glyphs with a green ray streaking out in a given square) that the idea of being unable to be found out isn't outside the realm of impossibility. The enemies would still be hidden because you can't precisely tell their location, but you can see projectiles and such emanating from the square they're fired from. Honestly, the trickiest part would be melee attacks with a Reach weapon, since those can be done from a distance without obvious direction.
You can just walk up to the enemy, stab them, and walk somewhere else. A wound does appear, but who knows where you went after that? A gap in the sound spectrum could reveal where you went, but they'd have to Seek you to find that gap first. Arrows can also be hidden with Invisible Item, and by that level you can cast Invisible Item with an unlimited duration, so ammunition isn't an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They do, but the idea that a creature has absolutely zero senses is all that matters for disallowing Seek, not whether that given sense is relevant to detecting them. Whether they are precise, imprecise, or vague, doesn't matter for Seek.This argument makes zero sense to me. You have no senses that can perceive the target, but you have a nose so it doesn't count?
I mean, it's not that hard to narratively explain how an enemy that is undetected can be eviscerating enemies from melee (cuts and slashes show up on a creature), ranged (arrows flying out of a random space into a creature), or magic (magical glyphs with a green ray streaking out in a given square) that the idea of being unable to be found out isn't outside the realm of impossibility. The enemies would still be hidden because you can't precisely tell their location, but you can see projectiles and such emanating from the square they're fired from. Honestly, the trickiest part would be melee attacks with a Reach weapon, since those can be done from a distance without obvious direction.You can just walk up to the enemy, stab them, and walk somewhere else. A wound does appear, but who knows where you went after that? A gap in the sound spectrum could reveal where you went, but they'd have to Seek you to find that gap first. Arrows can also be hidden with Invisible Item, and by that level you can cast Invisible Item with an unlimited duration, so ammunition isn't an issue.
No, I am saying that having even just vague senses is enough for a Seek action, and that the only way that a Seek action doesn't work is if you are already equivalent to a corpse, which coincides with the general rules for Seeking hidden or undetected foes anyway. Otherwise being able to Seek any sort of undetected or hidden foe makes no sense mechanically or narratively.
That is true; hit and run tactics would be the superior play, but again, if the general rules are that you must Sneak to go back to being undetected, then you would be observed (aka hidden in that square) from the square you made an attack or cast a spell from, and you would have to successfully Sneak for them to not know where you moved to.
Interesting note about the Invisible Item spell, but sadly that is only one object/ammunition per casting, and you would have to be able to at least have See the Unseen active for you to actually reasonably use it, which, while mostly trivial, isn't entirely helpful for a non-spellcaster. That is a good idea in the future, though.
Maybe. "Spells with the darkness trait or the light trait can always counteract one another, but bringing light and darkness into contact doesn’t automatically do so. You must usually cast a light spell on a darkness effect directly to counteract it (and vice versa), but some spells automatically attempt to counteract opposing effects." Interesting why I don't remember any particular argument in earlier discussions about that stressing 'always' which is right there. That 'usually' is explained with the further 'but' maybe someone did say. Maybe just my memory. Also, this isn't even remaster change, the text is identical. But there's some ambiguity: there really isn't a written way to target spells with each other. But 'always can' should trample that. Somehow. Ok, this was off-topic.
And I do sometimes want spells to be better, it's indisputable. But in this case it's not 'just' that. It's 8th rank, it should be great, not barely even better than 4th. Your example with light is good... if it works. As I remember some still won't allow cantrips counteract slot spells that easy :)
You can just go straight to Darkness's text: "... This also suppresses magical light of your darkness spell's rank or lower." But Light is a cantrip that autoheightens, and Darkness... is a slotted spell. And 4th rank Light has a 60 foot radius, while darkness is only ever a 20 foot burst. It's kind of a joke. You don't even have to counteract. The heightened light cantrip just overrides it.
EDIT: The light probably won't extend past the outside of the darkness spell, if I'm reading it charitably, but even that severely weakens the spell effect.
No, I am saying that having even just vague senses is enough for a Seek action, and that the only way that a Seek action doesn't work is if you are already equivalent to a corpse, which coincides with the general rules for Seeking hidden or undetected foes anyway. Otherwise being able to Seek any sort of undetected or hidden foe makes no sense mechanically or narratively.
You can indeed Seek with a vague sense, but "at best, a vague sense can be used to detect the presence of an unnoticed creature, making it undetected. Even then, the vague sense isn't sufficient to make the creature hidden or observed. When one creature might detect another, the GM almost always uses the most precise sense available." Sometimes, there's only so much that the most precise sense available can manage. That makes complete sense mechanically and narratively. Disappearance thwarts even vague senses, though, which is why the exception is needed to keep the spell in line.
That is true; hit and run tactics would be the superior play, but again, if the general rules are that you must Sneak to go back to being undetected, then you would be observed (aka hidden in that square) from the square you made an attack or cast a spell from, and you would have to successfully Sneak for them to not know where you moved to.
The general rules also say that detecting creatures requires senses precise enough to detect them. The Sneak action does say that you become observed if you do anything other than Hide/Sneak/Step, but that clause doesn't say you become hidden instead if you were invisible. Everyone agrees you become hidden though, because no sense can observe you. The same principle applies when you can't become detected because no sense can detect you.
Interesting note about the Invisible Item spell, but sadly that is only one object/ammunition per casting, and you would have to be able to at least have See the Unseen active for you to actually reasonably use it, which, while mostly trivial, isn't entirely helpful for a non-spellcaster. That is a good idea in the future, though.
This depends on whether or not touch is treated as a precise sense (at least for things already being touched), but I don't feel like opening that can of worms in this thread.
The general rules also say that detecting creatures requires senses precise enough to detect them. The Sneak action does say that you become observed if you do anything other than Hide/Sneak/Step, but that clause doesn't say you become hidden instead if you were invisible.
This depends on whether or not touch is treated as a precise sense (at least for things already being touched), but I don't feel like opening that can of worms in this thread.
The Sneak action covers that under the critical failure entry, saying that invisible creatures are hidden instead of observed, meanwhile a failure still means you are merely hidden, but know your movement. In short, invisible just makes it to where you don't really suffer any consequences for critically failing a Sneak check, unless the precise sense is not sight-based, in which case you need Foil Senses (or Disappearance) for it to apply.
Pretty sure touch is a vague sense. To use Grapple as an example, if you are initiating a Grapple, you need to make the flat check. If you are maintaining an already successful Grapple, no flat check would be required.
The Sneak action covers that under the critical failure entry, saying that invisible creatures are hidden instead of observed, meanwhile a failure still means you are merely hidden, but know your movement. In short, invisible just makes it to where you don't really suffer any consequences for critically failing a Sneak check, unless the precise sense is not sight-based, in which case you need Foil Senses (or Disappearance) for it to apply.
The critical failure entry for Sneak has no bearing on what happens when you perform an action other than Hide/Sneak/Step.
Pretty sure touch is a vague sense. To use Grapple as an example, if you are initiating a Grapple, you need to make the flat check. If you are maintaining an already successful Grapple, no flat check would be required.
*sigh* Guess we're opening this can after all.
Touch is indeed a vague sense by RAW since - for most creatures - vision is the only precise sense and hearing is the only imprecise sense. But actually running touch as a vague sense breaks much of the game. In that Grapple example, for instance, you would still need a flat check to maintain a Grapple on an invisible creature, because vision doesn't work and that's your only precise sense. Likewise, if you were Grappled by an invisible creature, you would need a flat check to Escape from the creature because you can't see them and Escape targets the Grappler instead of the condition itself. Even worse, if you are blinded and want to cast Sound Body on yourself, you would need to succeed on a flat check or else you miss your own body, wasting the spell.
That is why many people run touch as a precise sense that only applies to things you are already touching. Already Grappling a foe? There's no question where he is then. Escaping an invisible foe? Pry his hand open and get outta there. Touch your own face? Of course! Attack an invisible creature that's Grappling you? Well, yes, but only the part that's actually touching you (if targeting specific body parts is relevant).
Some people instead run touch as a precise sense with 0 range, but I feel this doesn't address the Grapple example properly, and it even introduces new shenanigans regarding Tiny creatures who need to occupy your space to attack you.
The Sneak action covers that under the critical failure entry, saying that invisible creatures are hidden instead of observed, meanwhile a failure still means you are merely hidden, but know your movement. In short, invisible just makes it to where you don't really suffer any consequences for critically failing a Sneak check, unless the precise sense is not sight-based, in which case you need Foil Senses (or Disappearance) for it to apply.The critical failure entry for Sneak has no bearing on what happens when you perform an action other than Hide/Sneak/Step.
Pretty sure touch is a vague sense. To use Grapple as an example, if you are initiating a Grapple, you need to make the flat check. If you are maintaining an already successful Grapple, no flat check would be required.*sigh* Guess we're opening this can after all.
Touch is indeed a vague sense by RAW since - for most creatures - vision is the only precise sense and hearing is the only imprecise sense. But actually running touch as a vague sense breaks much of the game. In that Grapple example, for instance, you would still need a flat check to maintain a Grapple on an invisible creature, because vision doesn't work and that's your only precise sense. Likewise, if you were Grappled by an invisible creature, you would need a flat check to Escape from the creature because you can't see them and Escape targets the Grappler instead of the condition itself. Even worse, if you are blinded and want to cast Sound Body on yourself, you would need to succeed on a flat check or else you miss your own body, wasting the spell.
That is why many people run touch as a precise sense that only applies to things you are already touching. Already Grappling a foe? There's no question where he is then. Escaping an invisible foe? Pry his hand open and get outta there. Touch your own face? Of course! Attack an invisible creature that's Grappling you? Well, yes, but only the part that's actually touching...
It does because it's referencing an exception if you become instantly observed (such as doing anything other than Step, Sneak, or Hide), as simply failing a Sneak just makes you hidden, which is already no different than being invisible. In short, it's an extrapolation of expected outcomes, where the anything other than Step, Sneak, or Hide normally leads to being observed, but the invisible condition negates that unless you have a non-sight based precise sense.
It's really not that big of a can of worms, maybe a tiny sardine tray at the most. The thing with Grapple is that you are maintaining what is already there, it would be like needing to retroactively make a flat check on a Strike you already succeeded at. In addition, Grapple isn't an attack roll, it's a skill check, so the logic of Strikes or Attacks don't apply to it 1 for 1.
Grapple is a skill check, but the flat check is on targeting, not making an attack roll
I've kind of lost the plot on what you two are arguing now. What's the issue?
A few arguments have been happening at once. Darksol has been separating his points by paragraph in order of my points. My points are formatted with the thing I'm responding to directly above each point.
Grapple is a skill check, but the flat check is on targeting, not making an attack roll
Doesn't mean anything. The target is already grappled. I shouldn't have to make a flat check to target something that I still have afflicted with my appendage.
Grapple is a skill check, but the flat check is on targeting, not making an attack rollDoesn't mean anything. The target is already grappled. I shouldn't have to make a flat check to target something that I still have afflicted with my appendage.
Yes, provided that your sense of touch is enough to precisely sense the target. If not, things get pretty stupid.
Mutants and Masterminds also runs touch as a precise sense, apparently (you must already be touching the target or it doesn't apply).
Yes, provided that your sense of touch is enough to precisely sense the target. If not, things get pretty stupid.Grapple is a skill check, but the flat check is on targeting, not making an attack rollDoesn't mean anything. The target is already grappled. I shouldn't have to make a flat check to target something that I still have afflicted with my appendage.
If that is somehow not precise enough, when a flat check has already succeeded and the circumstances behind it cannot possibly change, we have to make flat checks to wield or hold weapons, or cast spells from staves and scrolls, because apparently vague senses aren't good enough for even basic mechanical function.
Anyway, Darksol is arguing that even if your most precise sense is vague, Seeking an undetected creature will make it hidden because nothing in Seek says the creature remains undetected if you can only vaguely sense it. I'm arguing against this because vague senses can't thwart the undetected condition.
Darksol is also arguing that Sneak's critical failure note about staying hidden if you are invisible is the reason that nonstealthy actions don't render invisible creatures observed. I'm arguing against this because being impossible to observe keeps you from being observed, and the critical failure entry is irrelevant to things outside the critical failure entry.
Also, we are now discussing the precision or lack thereof of touch as a sense. I agree with him that touch should be treated as precise as long as you are already touching something, such as existing Grapples and stuff on your person.
Anyway, Darksol is arguing that even if your most precise sense is vague, Seeking an undetected creature will make it hidden because nothing in Seek says the creature remains undetected if you can only vaguely sense it. I'm arguing against this because vague senses can't thwart the undetected condition.
Darksol is also arguing that Sneak's critical failure note about staying hidden if you are invisible is the reason that nonstealthy actions don't render invisible creatures observed. I'm arguing against this because being impossible to observe keeps you from being observed, and the critical failure entry is irrelevant to things outside the critical failure entry.
Also, we are now discussing the precision or lack thereof of touch as a sense. I agree with him that touch should be treated as precise as long as you are already touching something, such as existing Grapples and stuff on your person.
I don't disagree thematically, but mechanically, Seek has always been allowed to find creature locations, so saying it just can't or that Disappearance needs a call out isn't really accurate.
I suppose I will concede this point somewhat due to this entry with the invisible condition.
A creature with the invisible condition (by way of an invisibility spell, for example) is automatically undetected to any creatures relying on sight as their only precise sense.
However, there is a slight caveat.
You can Seek to attempt to figure out an invisible creature's location, making it only hidden from you. This lasts until the invisible creature successfully uses Sneak to become undetected again.
So a basic humanoid creature can still Seek you (no mention of any required senses, merely that they can take the action), and once that is successful, you must still take the Sneak action, which must still make a check, and only with a successful check can you go back to being undetected. This also helps reinforce the first argument as well.
I still think that Seeking with a vague sense can't reveal the location of an undetected creature (at best it would let you notice them), but perhaps this is immaterial since Disappearance says you can Seek the target to locate it. Whether it's an exception to how Seek works or a reminder of how it already works, it definitely works in the case of Disappearance.
I think we agree now that after being successfully detected with Seek, the Disappeared target must Sneak to become undetected again. But I also think that there are plenty of actions you can perform while Disappeared that can't reveal what square you're in, so Disappearance is way better than rank 4 Invisibility.
Likewise, if you were Grappled by an invisible creature, you would need a flat check to Escape from the creature because you can't see them and Escape targets the Grappler instead of the condition itself.Escape targets nothing. Literally. Check the action. It's a non-targetable action.
No, 'choose' is not 'target'.
I did check the action. There is no question that the Grappler is the target.
(attack)
You attempt to escape from being grabbed, immobilized, or restrained. Choose one creature, object, spell effect, hazard, or other impediment imposing any of those conditions on you. Attempt a check using your unarmed attack modifier against the DC of the effect. This is typically the Athletics DC of a creature grabbing you, the Thievery DC of a creature who tied you up, the spell DC for a spell effect, or the listed Escape DC of an object, hazard, or other impediment. You can attempt an Acrobatics or Athletics check instead of using your attack modifier if you choose (but this action still has the attack trait).Critical Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target. You can then Stride up to 5 feet.
Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target.
Critical Failure You don't get free, and you can't attempt to Escape again until your next turn.
That seems a little silly to me that you have to target a creature or effect immobilizing you; that would then technically mean that if they are/it is hidden or something similar that you would have to flat check to try to break free, which makes no sense, not unlike the argument of having to flat check to maintain a grapple.
Even if RAW is clear, it creates unintended consequences for players (and potentially creatures as well; it makes an invisible grapple-focused creature significantly harder to escape from, for example).
That seems a little silly to me that you have to target a creature or effect immobilizing you; that would then technically mean that if they are/it is hidden or something similar that you would have to flat check to try to break free, which makes no sense, not unlike the argument of having to flat check to maintain a grapple.
Even if RAW is clear, it creates unintended consequences for players (and potentially creatures as well; it makes an invisible grapple-focused creature significantly harder to escape from, for example).
Precisely why it is important that touch is treated as precise when applicable. Unless, of course, the Grappler can actually thwart touch.
Touch isn't mentioned at all in the rules for senses, so it's possible the developers weren't thinking about it and didn't intend to make it vague.