Both Hidden Mind and Veil of Privacy would work if they successfully counteracted the detection spell with appropriate traits (these do).
Hidden Mind performs better, has the save bonus, and starts out a minimum of rank 8, but Veil of Privacy works fine if heightened enough to -1 rank (competitive counteract check) or +1 rank (easy mode) vs the spell trying to see you.
Hidden Mind will attempt to counteract See the Unseen and Truesight, as they are both revelation spells. It's exactly the answer provided to your question, and uncommon so GMs can decide where they want the detection/counter-measure arms race to end. As mentioned, Veil of Privacy works too (with less advantage), and is uncommon for the same reason.
If you're rocking high-rank spells, moving from Invisibility to Disappearance is a good idea, since other precise senses aren't rare then.
Veil of Privacy is uncommon but a curriculum spell for Ars Magica school.
(Runelords, too, but that’s a rare school.)
Veil of Privacy is uncommon but a curriculum spell for Ars Magica school.
(Runelords, too, but that’s a rare school.)
Good point. "Making sure the GM is okay to deal with super-invisibility" is still a good idea. Citation: my experience playing PF1.
Good point. "Making sure the GM is okay to deal with super-invisibility" is still a good idea. Citation: my experience playing PF1.Veil of Privacy is uncommon but a curriculum spell for Ars Magica school.
(Runelords, too, but that’s a rare school.)
We had the same with my bard char in pf2, high level play in fights vs bosses. It is something a gm must certainly want. It does have its own problems with allies by the way. No way for a bard to use visual or auditory effects essentially means it is only a caster. How do allies find/target someone with this combo of spells? Even sense allies (human ancestry feat) is gone I think. Not detectable bij all senses vs sense allies...
It really gets funny when enemies start doing the same (the big bad guy in our case).
Hmm thanks, I see benefits in using Hidden mind with Heightened Invisibility as opposed to Disappearance. Mostly because I can use a single casting of an 8th level spell and combine it with 2-3 Heightened invisibility's per day and get similar effects. Id rather not use 2-3 Disappearances as those 8th level spell slots are quite strong I could cast other spells.
Yeah, if you need it for multiple uses throughout the day rather than one big stealth sequence, then it's hard to argue with the big discount of heightened Invisibility. Plus, leaving other senses unaffected is also less likely to cause a headache.
At some point all high level, intelligent, well equipped humanoid or similar enemies (and PCs) should be carrying a level 7, 60gp, L bulk Greater Revealing Mist. Two actions to draw and activate and reduce everything invisible in a 30’ cone to concealed, no matter what magic it’s using.
But no one does this. guess_I’ll_die_then.jpg meme
At some point all high level, intelligent, well equipped humanoid or similar enemies (and PCs) should be carrying a level 7, 60gp, L bulk Greater Revealing Mist. Two actions to draw and activate and reduce everything invisible in a 30’ cone to concealed, no matter what magic it’s using.
But no one does this. guess_I’ll_die_then.jpg meme
Partly, it's not knowing/remembering alchemical tools. Partly, it's because anything invisible can move out of the area and resume invisibility. (Mostly the former; I don't think I've come across the item before.)
Good point. "Making sure the GM is okay to deal with super-invisibility" is still a good idea. Citation: my experience playing PF1.
Exactly. There needs to be some give and take on both sides of the screen in order to avoid getting into an arms race.
Such as:
At some point all high level, intelligent, well equipped humanoid or similar enemies (and PCs) should be carrying a level 7, 60gp, L bulk Greater Revealing Mist. Two actions to draw and activate and reduce everything invisible in a 30’ cone to concealed, no matter what magic it’s using.
Until you get a player that insists that those won't work either.