The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses, allowing the target to count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have.
I've heard that since it says the target "counts as invisible," see the unseen can't reveal the target because the target only counts as invisible rather than actually being invisible. Why does that matter? There's no restriction on for what purpose the target counts as invisible. How is that not functionally equivalent to being invisible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that sounds like players trying to game the system by nit-picking the wording.
Disappearance would cause the target to become Undetected to all senses. Sight, scent, even tremorsense.
But See the Unseen would mean that while the Goloma happens to be adjacent to that target, it is still only Hidden instead of Undetected, and only needs a DC 5 flat check to target them successfully.
Never heard of a Goloma. I see you are talking about that ancestry's see the unseen feat. But I'm not sure what issue you're taking with this. The feat doesn't seem to rely on senses in the first place, so it should work.
I was talking about the spell see the unseen, formerly see invisibility. If you become undetected in a way that thwarts all senses, and if you explicitly count as invisible, and if see the unseen is still giving you the ability to see invisible creatures, then what is different from the perspective of see the unseen compared to using see the unseen to detect ordinary invisible creatures?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. Two things with the same name. Cool.
I still wouldn't let Disappearance completely negate the See the Unseen spell.
If See the Unseen only lets you negate the invisibility, then that is still sufficient to let you see the target of Disappearance by sight as described in the See the Unseen spell.
You still wouldn't be able to detect the target of Disappearance by scent, or tremorsense (so hiding from you would still be easier). But you could find them by sight using See the Unseen.
"Count as invisible" is not the same as being invisible. You do not have the invisible condition while the spell is active. You have the undetected condition. See the Unseen does nothing against undetected foes, only invisible foes. Therefore, there is zero interaction with these effects.
And that is what sounds like trying to game the system by nit-picking the wording.
What does Invisible do?
Oh, right. It causes the creature to be Undetected to everyone using vision as their only precise sense.
So 'being invisible' and 'counting as invisible' both mean that you are Undetected to people looking for you and See the Unseen does interact.
What does Invisible do?
Oh, right. It causes the creature to be Undetected to everyone using vision as their only precise sense.
So 'being invisible' and 'counting as invisible' both mean that you are Undetected to people looking for you and See the Unseen does interact.
Invisible as a condition does nothing because the spell doesn't convey that condition. Here's what it says:
You shroud a creature from others' senses. The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses, allowing the target to count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have.
So, the spell makes the target undetected. Not invisible, undetected. What does undetected do? It doesn't make you invisible, that's for sure. Even if you wanted to argue it does, it applies to all senses. That includes the ability to see invisible creatures, and if you want to disagree with that, then petition Paizo to remove that entry from the relevant Beastiaries/Monster Core books.
And that is what sounds like trying to game the system by nit-picking the wording.
No, gaming the system is saying a 2nd level spell trumps an 8th level spell by ignoring the intent behind the spell effect. The Disappearance spell is literally four times the spell level of the effect, and even counteracting-based effects of significantly higher level are nowhere near as effective.
If you don't like the way it is written because of the level disparity, houserule in a counteract check to it then. At that point the level disparity doesn't cause problems.
Don't try to tell me that it isn't written the way that it is written.
Invisibility makes you Undetected to vision. Disappearance makes you undetected to vision and all other senses.
See the Unseen works on Invisibility. So See the Unseen works on the visual sense of Disappearance. Same as it works on Invisibility. It won't overcome the other sensory Undetected conditions.
If you don't like the way it is written because of the level disparity, houserule in a counteract check to it then. At that point the level disparity doesn't cause problems.
Don't try to tell me that it isn't written the way that it is written.
Invisibility makes you Undetected to vision. Disappearance makes you undetected to vision and all other senses.
See the Unseen works on Invisibility. So See the Unseen works on the visual sense of Disappearance. Same as it works on Invisibility. It won't overcome the other sensory Undetected conditions.
Your interpretation makes a 2nd rank spell trounce an 8th rank spell that was literally written to avoid all forms of automatic detection. There's a reason they implemented the TGTBT clause in the rules. This is one of those reasons. **EDIT** And really, it does cause problems, because now you're having a high level spell become completely useless because the ability to see invisible creatures is commonplace, like, 2 spell ranks ago.
If I was trying to tell you that, then I would have changed the wording and tell you that's how it works. But I didn't. All I'm saying is that you're fixated on something that's barely (and probably incorrectly) referenced in the spell. And really, if they meant to say "invisible," they'd just say it. Saying it "counts as invisibility" is a pointless distinction if you're just going to make it function identically to simply having the Invisible condition, and nothing else.
So then why does a rank 2 spell work, but an effect which gives Echolocation, Lifesense, Tremorsense, etc. doesn't? You're literally trying to make an exception for something that is no different than these effects here. If you have these effects, you precisely see entities with those senses. Except, you would absolutely go and defend it. But this one rank 2 spell is somehow exempt? What makes it exempt?
If disappearance wasn't supposed to interact with or be vulnerable to effects that affect invisible, they wouldn't have mentioned invisible. "Count as invisible" means it's susceptible to effects that detect or affect invisible. It's as simple as that
This is oversimplifying it, because if that's the case, then the clause referencing that it affects all senses means nothing, since the invisible condition states all non-sight based senses ignore the condition, meaning any references to the spell making the target "undetected...to all senses" is pointless, since the other senses ignore it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The light cantrip autoheightens, and overrides unheightened darkness spells. See invisibility foiling invisibility would be peanuts in comparison.
Does see invisibility not work on greater invisibility? 4th level invis is foiled by the second level spell all the same. I see no reason that see the unseen wouldn't work on Disappearance, by RAW; you're still concealed to the person that uses it. I likewise see no reason by RAW that Revealing Mist (the item) or Revealing Light wouldn't work. Disappearance is just... not a particularly well-thought out or well-written spell.
The too good to be true clause is only relevant when the rules are vague. This aspect of disappearance, at least, isn't particularly vague.
The vast majority of Reddit comments on this over the year agree with me that Sense the Unseen/See Invisibility doesn't help against Disappearance. Certainly that was the old PF1 interaction - True Seeing was the counter, and then you used Mind Blank to shut that down.
It is my understanding that the ONLY thing that helps against disappearance is a successful Seek action.
I'm fairly certain the intent is just that you get invisible benefit, but applied to any senses a creature might have, not just sight. I.E., you start undetected (if cast outside of sensory range) and can never become observed via seek checks. You can still become hidden or observed-but-concealed in the usual "cute" ways, as player core states: net, bag of flour, tracks in the snow, and so on. (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2420)
I'd rule that disappearance also prevents you from making yourself hidden instead of undetected in situations like "I use intimidate and yell really loudly while I have heightened invis up," which—in my opinion—would make you hidden until you stealthed, because of how imprecise senses work.
Of course, whether or not you can even intimidate someone while disappearance is running is basically GM fiat—the spell is silent on this and anything anywhere close to it. It doesn't say it acts as though you're under the effects of Silence; it just says you have the invisible status, but for hearing. Have fun with that rules discussion! The "detecting with other senses" sidebar (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2405) implies that Silence could work like Invisibility for creatures whose only precise sense is hearing, so the RAI could be that you should be under the effects of Silence. But how are you supposed to guess that? Infer it from the short description where it says it makes you silent? That's certainly not what I expect from a game as rigorous as PF2E. And if that's true, I sure hope you have conceal spell if you're casting Disappearance on yourself, since you can't cast anything that doesn't have the subtle trait under the effects of Silence. This spell is such a mess.
If disappearance wasn't supposed to interact with or be vulnerable to effects that affect invisible, they wouldn't have mentioned invisible. "Count as invisible" means it's susceptible to effects that detect or affect invisible. It's as simple as thatThis is oversimplifying it, because if that's the case, then the clause referencing that it affects all senses means nothing, since the invisible condition states all non-sight based senses ignore the condition, meaning any references to the spell making the target "undetected...to all senses" is pointless, since the other senses ignore it anyway.
The only thing this proves is that the spell is written poorly (which we all knew). It doesn't show that you're not treated as invisible; in fact, about the only reasonable interpretation of it would make you invisible (since sight is a sense, and being counted as invisible with respect to sight is just... being invisible). Even the spell's short description says it makes you invisible: "Make a creature invisible, silent, and undetectable by any and all senses."
If the intent were for see the unseen to not work, the spell likely would've included a clause about it. The invisible status itself even includes a clause that magic works against it.
Yep, nothing can help against Disappearance outside Dispel Magic (if you manage to target it, very GM dependent) and other magic suppressing effect. The creature is undetectable to all senses, it's not invisible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disappearance wouldn't be useless if See the Unseen worked against it. How many monsters have See the Unseen at those levels? 10% maybe? And even if they do, they still can't hear you Stride. If you walk behind a wall, you're gone. Other monsters will typically rely on special senses, which Disappearance thwarts. See the Unseen is not a sense. It's a revelation effect.
And counting as invisible is just like being invisible, just like counting as undead qualifies effects that target undead.
Disappearance wouldn't be useless if See the Unseen worked against it. How many monsters have See the Unseen at those levels?
Monsters use Disappearance, too. And See the Unseen, at the level you cast Disappearance, is cast by most casters for an 8 hour duration. So it'd make a level 8 spell mostly useless.
And counting as invisible is just like being invisible, just like counting as undead qualifies effects that target undead.
No. Disappearance has 2 effects: Counting as Invisible is just one of them, the other one is being Undetected. So there's definitely a weird interaction that can lead to 2 interpretations. One being too bad to be true and the other being much more balanced, hence why the general consensus is on See the Unseen and other spells beating Invisibility not working on Disappearance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disappearance wouldn't be useless if See the Unseen worked against it. How many monsters have See the Unseen at those levels?Monsters use Disappearance, too. And See the Unseen, at the level you cast Disappearance, is cast by most casters for an 8 hour duration. So it'd make a level 8 spell mostly useless.
Breaking line of sight is all it takes to become undetected again since the PCs can't hear the monster move. And monsters get pretty high Speeds at those levels, too, so players might not even know where to Seek.
And counting as invisible is just like being invisible, just like counting as undead qualifies effects that target undead.No. Disappearance has 2 effects: Counting as Invisible is just one of them, the other one is being Undetected. So there's definitely a weird interaction that can lead to 2 interpretations. One being too bad to be true and the other being much more balanced, hence why the general consensus is on See the Unseen and other spells beating Invisibility not working on Disappearance.
Disappearance forces the enemy to waste actions Seeking you just to gain a 50% chance to be able to target you, and it only lasts until your turn, at which point you can do literally anything you want and no one will know what happened because they can't perceive it. See the Unseen working against it isn't too bad to be true. It's throwing the dog a bone.
The undetected condition being separate from the counting as invisible is an interesting argument, though. But what would be the point of writing a spell that lets you count as invisible only to give you an undetected condition that renders counting as invisible moot?
Disappearance wouldn't be useless if See the Unseen worked against it. How many monsters have See the Unseen at those levels? 10% maybe? And even if they do, they still can't hear you Stride. If you walk behind a wall, you're gone. Other monsters will typically rely on special senses, which Disappearance thwarts. See the Unseen is not a sense. It's a revelation effect.
And counting as invisible is just like being invisible, just like counting as undead qualifies effects that target undead.
Yes, it would, because then it is literally no different than 4th rank invisibility besides instead lasting 10 minutes; at that point, Disappearance shouldn't exist as a spell, and it should just be a heightened entry in the original spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it would, because then it is literally no different than 4th rank invisibility besides instead lasting 10 minutes; at that point, Disappearance shouldn't exist as a spell, and it should just be a heightened entry in the original spell.Disappearance wouldn't be useless if See the Unseen worked against it. How many monsters have See the Unseen at those levels? 10% maybe? And even if they do, they still can't hear you Stride. If you walk behind a wall, you're gone. Other monsters will typically rely on special senses, which Disappearance thwarts. See the Unseen is not a sense. It's a revelation effect.
And counting as invisible is just like being invisible, just like counting as undead qualifies effects that target undead.
Again, Disappearance thwarts ALL senses. The target can't hear you, so audible things that would normally require a Stealth check or reveal you outright simply can't do that. 4th rank invisibility doesn't come close.
The undetected condition being separate from the counting as invisible is an interesting argument, though. But what would be the point of writing a spell that lets you count as invisible only to give you an undetected condition that renders counting as invisible moot?
Rules about Invisibility are unfortunately very badly written. The spell Invisibility is for example no exception.
There are very clear rules about senses and then Paizo rewrites them anywhere they are addressed, adding mistakes in the process.
So, I don't think there's a point, in my opinion it's a mistake.
Even the sentence: "The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses" doesn't make sense. Being undetected is a consequence of not being perceivable. It should say that you can't be perceived by any sense and that would imply that you are Undetected. But stating that you are Undetected can end up causing issues if one day an effect specifically says that you can detect creatures that are not perceivable...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of Reddit comments on this over the year agree with me that Sense the Unseen/See Invisibility doesn't help against Disappearance.
So... Appeal to the Majority fallacy.
-----
This entire debate hinges on whether Invisibility means anything more than 'Undetected to the sense of vision'.
That and truncating the rule quote from Disppearance. The full quote is "count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have". The idea that 'count as invisible' means something other than being Invisible for the sense of vision doesn't really hold up when you look at the full quote.
The Invisibility condition only references vision as a sense. The full quote from Disappearance is making it clear that the same style of condition is applied to all senses, not just vision.
What 'count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have' means is that you do have the standard Invisible condition. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils the sense of hearing. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils tremorsense. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils Scent. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils echolocation. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that...
You get the idea.
So yes. See the Unseen would interact with the Invisibility to vision condition that is part of, but not the entirety of, the Disappearance spell.
You could even homebrew a Smell the Unseen variant spell that counters the Invisibility to Scent part of Disappearance.
Again, Disappearance thwarts ALL senses. The target can't hear you, so audible things that would normally require a Stealth check or reveal you outright simply can't do that. 4th rank invisibility doesn't come close.Yes, it would, because then it is literally no different than 4th rank invisibility besides instead lasting 10 minutes; at that point, Disappearance shouldn't exist as a spell, and it should just be a heightened entry in the original spell.Disappearance wouldn't be useless if See the Unseen worked against it. How many monsters have See the Unseen at those levels? 10% maybe? And even if they do, they still can't hear you Stride. If you walk behind a wall, you're gone. Other monsters will typically rely on special senses, which Disappearance thwarts. See the Unseen is not a sense. It's a revelation effect.
And counting as invisible is just like being invisible, just like counting as undead qualifies effects that target undead.
No, it doesn't, because if it truly thwarted all senses, that would include sight; you know, the most common precise sense in the game, and the one required for See the Unseen to apply. It doesn't thwart sight, because if it did, then See the Unseen wouldn't be applicable, because your sense you are using to apply See the Unseen is being thwarted.
And really, if you want to be semantic, 4th rank Invis + Foil Senses trumps it, so it's much closer than you think.
Legit, being in a bush or having a Blur spell is more efficient than Disappearance if you want to avoid detection or have an unconditional miss chance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it doesn't, because if it truly thwarted all senses, that would include sight
The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses
Why are you trolling?
Unrelenting Observation, a mostly "WTF" spell that is rank 8, also works to counter Disappearance.
No, it doesn't, because if it truly thwarted all senses, that would include sightThe target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all sensesWhy are you trolling?
I am actually the one being trolled here if you actually bothered to read the thread.
You cast see the unseen. Congrats you can now see invisible creatures and objects. However, it is ultimately moot as the caster of disappearance isn't invisible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it doesn't, because if it truly thwarted all senses, that would include sight; you know, the most common precise sense in the game, and the one required for See the Unseen to apply. It doesn't thwart sight, because if it did, then See the Unseen wouldn't be applicable, because your sense you are using to apply See the Unseen is being thwarted.
See the Unseen un-thwarts vision, letting you see invisible creatures as though they weren't invisible. That's the whole point.
And really, if you want to be semantic, 4th rank Invis + Foil Senses trumps it, so it's much closer than you think.
Foil Senses applies when you Sneak. With Disappearance, you do not even need to Sneak.
Legit, being in a bush or having a Blur spell is more efficient than Disappearance if you want to avoid detection or have an unconditional miss chance.
Neither of those things mutes you, and Blur doesn't even let you Hide. And even if See the Unseen reveals you while you're under Disappearance, you are still concealed.
No, it doesn't, because if it truly thwarted all senses, that would include sight; you know, the most common precise sense in the game, and the one required for See the Unseen to apply. It doesn't thwart sight, because if it did, then See the Unseen wouldn't be applicable, because your sense you are using to apply See the Unseen is being thwarted.See the Unseen un-thwarts vision, letting you see invisible creatures as though they weren't invisible. That's the whole point.
And really, if you want to be semantic, 4th rank Invis + Foil Senses trumps it, so it's much closer than you think.Foil Senses applies when you Sneak. With Disappearance, you do not even need to Sneak.
Legit, being in a bush or having a Blur spell is more efficient than Disappearance if you want to avoid detection or have an unconditional miss chance.Neither of those things mutes you, and Blur doesn't even let you Hide. And even if See the Unseen reveals you while you're under Disappearance, you are still concealed.
You still have to Sneak while Hidden to go back to Undetected when an enemy uses a Seek action successfully, regardless of whether you Foil Senses or not, meaning the argument of not needing to Sneak makes no sense. In both cases, you have to Sneak to be able to foil the creature again.
All of those benefits are pointless because the invisible condition does not apply to non-sight based senses. And being concealed is the same as having a Blur effect on you, so comparing it to a Blur spell is still quite an apt comparisons.
I still believe a goblin wrapped in a bush is more effective than the Disappearance spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like way too many people are reading Disappearance as something unique and special, instead of simply "4th rank invis but it works against tremorsense and everything else." Saying "it's an eighth rank spell! It should be good!" ignores the reality that a majority of the high level spells aren't good, and frankly also ignores that Disappearance is still pretty good even on the worst reading: enemies have a guaranteed miss chance against you regardless of their senses, and will likely waste actions locating you or forgo attacking you entirely, which is great.
===
I'm also seeing backflips to ignore basic rules writing conventions. The mechanical cashout of Disappearance is "the target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses, allowing the target to count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have." This is pretty parallel to how invisibility is written, just with the two parts reversed: "Illusions bend light around the target, rendering it invisible. This makes it undetected to all creatures..." It just makes you invisible, and then gives you an analogous status to invisible for every sense in the game. That's it. Nothing here implies you get further benefits like immunity to See the Unseen. Your "you're invisible, but towards hearing!" and "you're invisible, but it's towards tremorsense!" and so on don't interact with or prevent See the Unseen. That spell effect isn't a sense, and you are granted the normal "invisible" effect by disappearance, so See the Unseen works. I see no mechanical interaction here whatsoever.
(Now, maybe you think you should gate See the Unseen behind a counteract check... but then the spell becomes unusable, because it's a narrow effect gated behind a counteract check on a spell you absolutely don't want to waste slots heightening.)
===
The mechanical cashout of invisibility is also pretty tame to begin with.
You can't be seen. You're undetected to everyone. Creatures can 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.
You get no stealth bonuses or anything of the sort; it just floors your stealth results. You are set to undetected on cast if you aren't seen, but you become only hidden until you sneak if you are seen on cast.
If you combine that with the rules about how imprecise senses work, the senses and detection rules imply that imprecise senses can still find you without a check if you aren't sneaking; you'll just be hidden.
You can usually sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense, but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed condition. It might be undetected by you if it’s using Stealth or is in an environment that distorts the sense, such as a noisy room in the case of hearing.
The rules here seem to imply you can hear and locate an invisible creature that isn't making stealth checks. At this point, it's GM fiat whether invisibility overrides this or not—it's a question of whether you think the senses rules take precedence, or the forced "undetected" status takes precedence, and both the senses rules and the invisibility spells are written poorly. But I don't think Invisibility does or should ignore imprecise senses. It's obvious tremorsense and other precise senses work against invisibility; it's unclear why imprecise senses like hearing shouldn't. And the way disappearance is written implies invisibility is foiled by other senses, both precise and imprecise—and that makes sense. If it weren't so foiled, why would disappearance even need to exist? 4th rank invisibility would be enough otherwise.
When the rules are read this way, Disappearance also gains a huge benefit: you cannot be detected by imprecise senses, because you are treated as invisible towards every sense. You would no longer need to sneak. That seems like an improvement worthy of an 8th level slot.
===
Really, though, I think this whole argument comes down to this:
People are wishfully reading the spell as giving you some kind of legally distinct invisible status, wholly undefined in the rules. They think that because this SUPER INVISIBLE status isn't the same as the invisible status, nothing that works on invisibility works on SUPER INVISIBILITY.
That is nonsense. If they'd intended that, they'd have just made a SUPER INVISIBLE status. There are plenty of tiered statuses in the game.
Then why didn't they just make it a heightened entry in the original Invisibility spell instead of trying to make it it's own distinct spell if the whole intent is that it's just another level of the same exact spell?
It's a waste of page space and a literal trap spell. I would sooner prepare most any other spell in the game over this pile of garbage.
If you want a constant miss chance, just cast Blur and be done with it. It's more effective and can be done as early as 3rd level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why didn't they just make it a heightened entry in the original Invisibility spell instead of trying to make it it's own distinct spell if the whole intent is that it's just another level of the same exact spell?
I went over that...
EDIT: Even beyond that, they may have felt it needed to cost spontaneous casters an additional spell known instead of just a signature slot, and prepared casters an on-level spell learning cost.
EDIT 2: Most heightens are also simple changes or numerical scalings. This is neither.
If you want a constant miss chance, just cast Blur and be done with it. It's more effective and can be done as early as 3rd level.
4th rank invis is significantly stronger than blur; it's a DC 11 flat check to hit you once you're hidden, instead of DC 5.
EDIT: Fixed DC 6 to DC 5. Whoops.
You still have to Sneak while Hidden to go back to Undetected when an enemy uses a Seek action successfully, regardless of whether you Foil Senses or not, meaning the argument of not needing to Sneak makes no sense. In both cases, you have to Sneak to be able to foil the creature again.
How can that be? No one can see, hear, smell, or even feel you. Even if someone located you with Seek, how could they know what square you are in after you've walked somewhere else?
All of those benefits are pointless because the invisible condition does not apply to non-sight based senses. And being concealed is the same as having a Blur effect on you, so comparing it to a Blur spell is still quite an apt comparisons.
I still believe a goblin wrapped in a bush is more effective than the Disappearance spell.
You don't have to use magic or Seek to locate a creature concealed by a bush or Blur. It's already observed. Disappearance is only comparable to Blur if it gets countered by an effect that reveals the creature, and even then the creature is still concealed. And if the target goes around a corner, they are gone.
4th rank invis is significantly stronger than blur; it's a DC 11 flat check to hit you once you're hidden, instead of DC 6.
Concealment is DC 5.
4th rank invis is significantly stronger than blur; it's a DC 11 flat check to hit you once you're hidden, instead of DC 6.Concealment is DC 5.
Oh, my bad. I'd just played in game that had one of the effects where the flat check heightens in specific conditions last night.
Then why didn't they just make it a heightened entry in the original Invisibility spell instead of trying to make it it's own distinct spell if the whole intent is that it's just another level of the same exact spell?I went over that...
EDIT: Even beyond that, they may have felt it needed to cost spontaneous casters an additional spell known instead of just a signature slot, and prepared casters an on-level spell learning cost.
EDIT 2: Most heightens are also simple changes or numerical scalings. This is neither.
If you want a constant miss chance, just cast Blur and be done with it. It's more effective and can be done as early as 3rd level.4th rank invis is significantly stronger than blur; it's a DC 11 flat check to hit you once you're hidden, instead of DC 6.
Given that it is posited that it can be beaten by a 2nd level spell, which is the same spell used to defeat other versions of it as well, the argument that it was powerful enough to warrant it being split into two slots is not one I am inclined to believe. This isn't PF1/3.X, where they made Fireball and Delayed Blast Fireball distinct spells.
As for it being too hard to list as a heighten effect, I call shenanigans. Plenty of other spells with heighten entries change the effectiveness and applicability of spells; to suggest it was too hard to do when there are other spells with heighten entries that do this is likewise not an argument I am inclined to believe.
You are burning a spell slot twice the rank for an effect that is very easily trounced in a couple more spell ranks in levels. Blur is simple and equally effective against such foes, and doesn't have much in the way of counters (at least, not more than any other spell).
You still have to Sneak while Hidden to go back to Undetected when an enemy uses a Seek action successfully, regardless of whether you Foil Senses or not, meaning the argument of not needing to Sneak makes no sense. In both cases, you have to Sneak to be able to foil the creature again.How can that be? No one can see, hear, smell, or even feel you. Even if someone located you with Seek, how could they know what square you are in after you've walked somewhere else?
You don't have to use magic or Seek to locate a creature concealed by a bush or Blur. It's already observed. Disappearance is only comparable to Blur if it gets countered by an effect that reveals the creature, and even then the creature is still concealed. And if the target goes around a corner, they are gone.All of those benefits are pointless because the invisible condition does not apply to non-sight based senses. And being concealed is the same as having a Blur effect on you, so comparing it to a Blur spell is still quite an apt comparisons.
I still believe a goblin wrapped in a bush is more effective than the Disappearance spell.
Because those are the rules for the hidden condition. Once you are hidden, your square is known until you succeed at a Stealth check to go back to being undetected. Ergo, if somebody without See the Unseen successfully Seeks you as you are undetected, and you decide to Sneak and failed, they know which square you moved to. Invisibility and Disappearance does not change this.
It doesn't matter if you do or not, the flat check is still the same (flat 11 since the goblin is hidden inside the bush), and targeting doesn't matter because being undetected doesn't exist in either case, as even an imprecise sense makes a creature automatically hidden. And no spell effect can overcome it (other than maybe Destroy Foliage).
Because those are the rules for the hidden condition. Once you are hidden, your square is known until you succeed at a Stealth check to go back to being undetected. Ergo, if somebody without See the Unseen successfully Seeks you as you are undetected, and you decide to Sneak and failed, they know which square you moved to. Invisibility and Disappearance does not change this.
In order to reach a worse stage of detection, the observer needs to actually be capable of sensing you. If no sense can detect you at all, you are undetected by default. You don't know where I am IRL. I'm undetected. I didn't have to Sneak to get that way.
It doesn't matter if you do or not, the flat check is still the same (flat 11 since the goblin is hidden inside the bush), and targeting doesn't matter because being undetected doesn't exist in either case, as even an imprecise sense makes a creature automatically hidden. And no spell effect can overcome it (other than maybe Destroy Foliage).
The goblin is hidden? OK, but that goblin can't take the bush with them. And if the goblin leaves the bush, they're observed. And if the goblin Strikes, they're observed. And the bush can be set on fire. What point are you making? That bush is stronger than Disappearance because See the Unseen doesn't work against it? Is bush stronger than Invisibility?
Because those are the rules for the hidden condition. Once you are hidden, your square is known until you succeed at a Stealth check to go back to being undetected. Ergo, if somebody without See the Unseen successfully Seeks you as you are undetected, and you decide to Sneak and failed, they know which square you moved to. Invisibility and Disappearance does not change this.In order to reach a worse stage of detection, the observer needs to actually be capable of sensing you. If no sense can detect you at all, you are undetected by default. You don't know where I am IRL. I'm undetected. I didn't have to Sneak to get that way.
It doesn't matter if you do or not, the flat check is still the same (flat 11 since the goblin is hidden inside the bush), and targeting doesn't matter because being undetected doesn't exist in either case, as even an imprecise sense makes a creature automatically hidden. And no spell effect can overcome it (other than maybe Destroy Foliage).The goblin is hidden? OK, but that goblin can't take the bush with them. And if the goblin leaves the bush, they're observed. And if the goblin Strikes, they're observed. And the bush can be set on fire. What point are you making? That bush is stronger than Disappearance because See the Unseen doesn't work against it? Is bush stronger than Invisibility?
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.
Not if the bush is uprooted from the ground. And it's infinitely more cost effective if you have a Wood Kineticist.
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.
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.
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.