Maybe I'm overlooking something

[Socratov]

I recently pondered the invisibility, arcane sight and trueseeing a bit and come to the conclusion that using magic to become invisible would make one detectable by detect magic (you'd see an illusion aura but not the person itself). Is this true? I mean, it would make a warlock stronger since he can do detect magic at will. And except when you are a rogue or other kind of precision based attacker you'd only need to know where the person would be before blasting his/her/it's ass. or is this not correct?

[Chained Birds]

Or throw flour into the air, if you are looking for a mundane solution to a magical problem. But yes, detect magic will allow you to detect an aura though the invisible person still has concealment as you can't actually see him.

[Gwendol]

Yes, but it takes a while for detect magic to give any direction to the aura, just a sense of something in the vicinity.

[Darth Stabber]

Check with your gm to see if this allows attacking the aura's center, and what kind of penalty it inflicts. Personally I wouldn't assign a penalty other than no crits and no precision damage.

[Socratov]

Check with your gm to see if this allows attacking the aura's center, and what kind of penalty it inflicts. Personally I wouldn't assign a penalty other than no crits and no precision damage.

well, crit's i woudl allow (you have to be lucky after all) but precision based damage would be off the table (you need to see a discernable anatomy to place the dagger best after all) by RAW. But how about RAW? Woudl it work by RAW?.

[Darth Stabber]

well, crit's i woudl allow (you have to be lucky after all) but precision based damage would be off the table (you need to see a discernable anatomy to place the dagger best after all) by RAW. But how about RAW? Woudl it work by RAW?.

To my knowledge it is unclarified, but it does make quasit familiars significantly more useful. Also note kiddies, this is why you turn invisible AND hide.

[Malak'ai]

The would still have some sort of concealment (20%, maybe even full concealment of 50%) so no, I wouldn't allow precision damage in any form as you cannot actually see them well enough to aim your blow properly.

[Andreaz]

The would still have some sort of concealment (20%, maybe even full concealment of 50%) so no, I wouldn't allow precision damage in any form as you cannot actually see them well enough to aim your blow properly.50% most like it. At most you just know in what square the guy is, and that takes 3 rounds of concentration, after which you must drop concentration to do anything relevant. Finding an invisible foe through detect magic and attacking him costs you 5 rounds and a spell (Cast. Concentrate. Concentrate. Concentrate. Attack, losing the spell here).


If that's how my enemy chooses to fight my invisibility spell, I'll be damn glad.

[Grelna the Blue]

Yeah, it'll work. With significant caveats. It takes 3 rounds of concentration (a standard action) to localize the magical auras present with Detect Magic. The spell ends as soon as you stop concentrating. Unless you have the ability to cast a Quickened spell, once you have pinned down a location you will not be able to target it with a spell until round 4. And if you do not gain initiative on round 4 and the invisible creature moves before your action, you have wasted your attack on an empty hex. Plus, even if it does not move, the creature will gain the benefit of concealment, a miss chance on all your targeted attacks.

It can be done, and occasionally it will be useful to try. Most of the time, wizard and sorcerer PCs are far better off making See Invisible permanent upon themselves.

[Togo]

The simplest way to detect invisibility is through a decent spot check. DC 40 if they're stationary, DC 20 if they're moving. Boosting your spot isn't hard.

This is why you go invisible and hide, as darth said.

This is also why scrying (following someone with an invisible sensor) is not nearly so trouble free as it might appear. Scry on someone moving in a crowd, and someone is bound to notice.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Detect magic can still be helpful if its rendered permanent, since an aura entering the AoE would be noticed immediately, but the time required to pin-point prevents it from being particularly effective against invisible foes. True-seeing negates invisibility outright except perhaps superior invisibility (8th or 9th level spell, so it's pretty tough to get past)

Arcane sight, however, makes magical invisibility a non-issue. You automatically pin-point any magic auras in the AoE and negating invisibility can be done in any of a number of magical and even mundane ways once you know where to aim. You -may- be able to get around this with the magic aura spell to conceal the invisibility spell's aura, but then magic aura's aura may be detectable.

[jindra34]

Detect magic can still be helpful if its rendered permanent, since an aura entering the AoE would be noticed immediately, but the time required to pin-point prevents it from being particularly effective against invisible foes. True-seeing negates invisibility outright except perhaps superior invisibility (8th or 9th level spell, so it's pretty tough to get past)


Superior Invisibilty renders you invisible to everything but True Seeing. Yeah even an 8th level spell fails against the absolute spells that pop in at 6th level spells.

[Snowbluff]

Or throw flour into the air, if you are looking for a mundane solution to a magical problem. But yes, detect magic will allow you to detect an aura though the invisible person still has concealment as you can't actually see him.

You don't need to. According to you, the airborne dust gathering on them will give away their location immediately.

[Lonely Tylenol]

You don't need to. According to you, the airborne dust gathering on them will give away their location immediately.

I'm confused. I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing here, but Chained Birds is absolutely right--in fact, that is the entire point of the Glitterdust spell, as well as the flour pouch (Dungeonscape). They do exactly what you think they would do--cover the invisible creature in a visible layer of dust or flour, which means it's thick enough for anybody to see. Airborne dust gathering on them will be just as visible as individual dust particles are normally, which is to say, "not at all". Comparing the combined contents of a bag of flour with individual dust particles is ridiculous.

As far as Detect Magic is concerned: yes, you would be able to use Detect Magic to discern the location of auras, and their strength, on the third round of concentrating on an area (and immediately with Arcane Sight), but as a form of countering invisibility, it's not altogether that feasible, as it requires concentration (a standard action) to maintain, which means you're limited to your move action and your swift/immediate action (plus any free actions you can commit). Breaking concentration ends the Detect Magic effect (and any benefits that it might entail), and even pointing out the location of a creature doesn't make it any less invisible to everybody else. Assuming you overcome this obstacle (or are using Arcane Sight), you would still be able to see magical invisibility per the auras, yes, and be able to approximate the location of the aura, but I suspect that this is functionally no better than, say, blindsense would be (you can't literally see the person as if they were a real, visible person, as per See Invisibility, but you are actively aware of their presence). That means you are still denied your Dexterity bonus against them, and they still have total concealment against you (50% miss chance), as per the blindsense rules, but since you are aware of their presence and general location, you can actually fight back against them.

[Psyren]

You don't need to. According to you, the airborne dust gathering on them will give away their location immediately.

You'd have to stand motionless for a pretty long time before the ambient dust in the air collects enough for that. Unless the area itself is extremely dusty/smoky.



This is also why scrying (following someone with an invisible sensor) is not nearly so trouble free as it might appear. Scry on someone moving in a crowd, and someone is bound to notice.

Actually, it's a lot harder to do it that way. Crowds grant cover (from a person or sensor scanning for someone in them) and can be used to hide. (RC 92.)

[Snowbluff]

I'm confused. I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing here, but Chained Birds is absolutely right--in fact, that is the entire point of the Glitterdust spell, as well as the flour pouch (Dungeonscape). They do exactly what you think they would do--cover the invisible creature in a visible layer of dust or flour, which means it's thick enough for anybody to see. Airborne dust gathering on them will be just as visible as individual dust particles are normally, which is to say, "not at all". Comparing the combined contents of a bag of flour with individual dust particles is ridiculous.


You'd have to stand motionless for a pretty long time before the ambient dust in the air collects enough for that. Unless the area itself is extremely dusty/smoky.


Well, you gather dust and crap regardless of whether or not you are moving. Everything that touches you will not be invisible as you are. Blood from enemies, rain, floating dust. If you strike it, moving or otherwise, chances are it will get stuck to your little mage robes.

Glitterdust is a magical effect. No arguments can be made, it makes pretty shiny marks on the target.

Have you ever tossed a bag of flour? I'd actually be surprised if you can make out the invisible person's flour from the floating flour dust.

Doesn't matter though. The spell Invisibility is the worst thought out spell int the game. It even goes as far to assume that it was developed by land-based creatures (as you make a pocket while in water).

[Psyren]

Have you ever tossed a bag of flour? I'd actually be surprised if you can make out the invisible person's flour from the floating flour dust.

You can, but they do still get concealment (20% miss chance), and a +10 to hide instead of +20. And yes, the flour in question is perfectly ordinary flour; the book cracks a joke about "using it to bake bread" in its entry.

[Snowbluff]

You can, but they do still get concealment (20% miss chance), and a +10 to hide instead of +20. And yes, the flour in question is perfectly ordinary flour; the book cracks a joke about "using it to bake bread" in its entry.

Okay. :smallsmile:

Hmm... perhaps when the mage is dead you can grind his bones to make your bread? I mean you just threw a bunch of your hard-earned flour at him, might as well get something out of it.

[Darth Stabber]

The spell Invisibility is the worst thought out spell int the game.

Really?

Minor creation. How much free poison should we give players at any one time? Oh wait let's give to psions at lvl1, you can't spell poison without psion. And that's just off the top of my head.

[Snowbluff]

Really?

Minor creation. How much free poison should we give players at any one time? Oh wait let's give to psions at lvl1, you can't spell poison without psion. And that's just off the top of my head.

Still better thought out than invisibility. Psions are a full caster, anyway. The spell itself isn't thought out poorly, it's just porrly placed.

[ThiagoMartell]

I recently pondered the invisibility, arcane sight and trueseeing a bit and come to the conclusion that using magic to become invisible would make one detectable by detect magic (you'd see an illusion aura but not the person itself). Is this true? I mean, it would make a warlock stronger since he can do detect magic at will. And except when you are a rogue or other kind of precision based attacker you'd only need to know where the person would be before blasting his/her/it's ass. or is this not correct?

There was a FAQ added to the end of the 3.0 Player's Handbook and this was one of the things it addressed. Yes, detect magic can detect invisible creature,s but only after 3 rounds of concentration. It's not as useful as it sounds.

[Darth Stabber]

Still better thought out than invisibility. Psions are a full caster, anyway. The spell itself isn't thought out poorly, it's just porrly placed.

Making gallons of poison at the drop of a hat isn't poorly thought out? If you are a shaper psion and you lose a fight at low-mid levels to something not immune to poison, that's your own fault.

[Phelix-Mu]

Personally, I find that Spot skill and invisibility spell interact poorly. It is a sad invisibility spell that, on a moving target, has a 5% chance to be seen through by someone with no ranks in Spot and a 10 Wis. Certainly, by the time you move up to greater invisibility spell this should get harder. In reality, a better use of spells would be some kind of illusion to Disguise self as harmless/ally of target. At least Disguise uses some kind of opposed check.

Hide plus invisibility does solve a lot of issues, but now one might be better off using some kind of concealment magic (darkness, shadowness, etc) and then Hide, since a lot of concealment magic will also yield benefits over an area (helping allies) and can add lots of confusion factor.

I almost find invisibility on objects to be more useful than on people. Throw invisible pebbles, invisible floors to make people think there is a pit and stop to find a way around it, invisible closed doors. Things where people wouldn't think to stop and make a Spot check.

On the other hand...
could you invisibility on the fighter and have him stand still until the enemy runs into him, provoking attack of opportunity for entering the fighters square? Seems clear from Spot DCs that it is more beneficial for an invisible person to stand still, and if no one sees you and you block the way forward, you can provoke AoO. Guess normal invisibility still drops when the attack is made, though...hmm. Still like it more on objects and to obfuscate rather than fight. Unless it's some kind of at will thing (warlocks, pixies, ninjas, etc.).

[Acanous]

The proper order of operations is Invisibility, Silence, Mind Blank. Then you're undetectable by anything EXCEPT someone tossing around flour.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Have you ever tossed a bag of flour? I'd actually be surprised if you can make out the invisible person's flour from the floating flour dust.

I know this has all been addressed, but... I cited a book for a reason. Yes, a flour pouch for spotting invisible creatures is a thing.

The question is a matter of quantity. The game probably accounts for the minute residue of blood flecks and dust by even letting you have a Spot check in the first place. If you throw a half-pound of flour at someone, however, it creates a visible coat of dust.

I guess what I'm saying is that if this woman (http://www.fakingcreativity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/carolina-covered-with-flour-eggs-and-tea-leaves.jpg) were invisible, I'd probably still see her thanks to the flour, but if this woman (http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091808/ltDoNotForsakeMe.jpg) were invisible, the dust that has accumulated on her person from her time sitting probably wouldn't be so clear.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Personally, I find that Spot skill and invisibility spell interact poorly. It is a sad invisibility spell that, on a moving target, has a 5% chance to be seen through by someone with no ranks in Spot and a 10 Wis. Certainly, by the time you move up to greater invisibility spell this should get harder. In reality, a better use of spells would be some kind of illusion to Disguise self as harmless/ally of target. At least Disguise uses some kind of opposed check.

Hide plus invisibility does solve a lot of issues, but now one might be better off using some kind of concealment magic (darkness, shadowness, etc) and then Hide, since a lot of concealment magic will also yield benefits over an area (helping allies) and can add lots of confusion factor.

I almost find invisibility on objects to be more useful than on people. Throw invisible pebbles, invisible floors to make people think there is a pit and stop to find a way around it, invisible closed doors. Things where people wouldn't think to stop and make a Spot check.

On the other hand...
could you invisibility on the fighter and have him stand still until the enemy runs into him, provoking attack of opportunity for entering the fighters square? Seems clear from Spot DCs that it is more beneficial for an invisible person to stand still, and if no one sees you and you block the way forward, you can provoke AoO. Guess normal invisibility still drops when the attack is made, though...hmm. Still like it more on objects and to obfuscate rather than fight. Unless it's some kind of at will thing (warlocks, pixies, ninjas, etc.).

Even if an enemy gets lucky and rolls that 20, the invisible character still has total concealment. All he's got to do is freeze then roll a (new) hide check and suddenly the enemy can't see him any more, then he moves away and the guy's got to spot him all over again with that piddly little 5% chance.

It's a poor sneak-thief/spy/assassin that doesn't put resources toward spotting others like him, so being able to see or hear that Joe Commoner noticed you should be child's play. Nevermind that since you do have total concealment you can roll a hide-check right out in the open. 3rd level rogue using a potion: 6 ranks, at least a +2 dex mod, +20 for being invisible gets you a d20 +28 Vs Joe Commoner's non-existent spot modifier. Even if you roll a 1 and he rolls a 20 he'll be 9 points shy of spotting you.

[ThiagoMartell]

I know this has all been addressed, but... I cited a book for a reason. Yes, a flour pouch for spotting invisible creatures is a thing.

The question is a matter of quantity. The game probably accounts for the minute residue of blood flecks and dust by even letting you have a Spot check in the first place. If you throw a half-pound of flour at someone, however, it creates a visible coat of dust.

I guess what I'm saying is that if this woman (http://www.fakingcreativity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/carolina-covered-with-flour-eggs-and-tea-leaves.jpg) were invisible, I'd probably still see her thanks to the flour, but if this woman (http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091808/ltDoNotForsakeMe.jpg) were invisible, the dust that has accumulated on her person from her time sitting probably wouldn't be so clear.
For some reason, that second picture makes me feel very very sad.

[Phelix-Mu]

I wasn't really insinuating a specific Joe Commoner v Rogue scenario, more that usefulness of invisibility spell goes down in my book if you can randomly be seen. Ofc anyone with stealth should also Hide, but now invisibility should really just be "that thing that gives you total concealment," better phrased as "that other thing that gives you total concealment".

Consider trying to move through a village of commoners with invisibility. The spell makes it sound easy (ignoring for the moment that they could hear you), but really your success will depend on your Hide check. Contrast with silence spell, which can be overcome how? Can you make a really high Listen check to hear someone that has been silenced?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I wasn't really insinuating a specific Joe Commoner v Rogue scenario, more that usefulness of invisibility spell goes down in my book if you can randomly be seen. Ofc anyone with stealth should also Hide, but now invisibility should really just be "that thing that gives you total concealment," better phrased as "that other thing that gives you total concealment".

Consider trying to move through a village of commoners with invisibility. The spell makes it sound easy (ignoring for the moment that they could hear you), but really your success will depend on your Hide check. Contrast with silence spell, which can be overcome how? Can you make a really high Listen check to hear someone that has been silenced?

There's a failure of logic here though. You only sneak when you need to avoid being seen. If you're just going across town, what does it matter how many random, faceless commoners see you?

Also, I'm pretty sure I just showed that unless the character you're hiding from has ranks in spot, there is -no- chance of being spotted. The natural 20 is an auto-success rule only applies to attacks and saves. It does not apply to skill checks.

Even if you have no hide modifier at all, you dex 10 wizard you, simply making an untrained hide check makes the DC they have to spot 1d20 +20. The minimum there is 21, so anyone who doesn't have either one or more ranks in spot or at least a +1 wis modifier can't spot you.

[Psyren]

The proper order of operations is Invisibility, Silence, Mind Blank. Then you're undetectable by anything EXCEPT someone tossing around flour.

Or a high spot check. Or Touchsight. Or Tremorsense. Or Scent. Or...


Personally, I find that Spot skill and invisibility spell interact poorly. It is a sad invisibility spell that, on a moving target, has a 5% chance to be seen through by someone with no ranks in Spot and a 10 Wis.

You're citing a commonly held misconception that a natural 20 on skill checks is auto-success. This is not the case. Thus, even if you roll a 20 on your Spot, you still have to contend with their own Hide check and Dex modifier; having 0 ranks and 10 wis means even a +1 modifier on their side will make them undetectable by you visually.

[Togo]

Thus, even if you roll a 20 on your Spot, you still have to contend with their own Hide check and Dex modifier;

Only if they are attempting to hide. Which slows them down a fair bit.

[Psyren]

Only if they are attempting to hide. Which slows them down a fair bit.

Well yes, one would have to be making a check in the first place in order for it to be an opposed check. Not sure what you're getting at.

[Malak'ai]

Personally, I find that Spot skill and invisibility spell interact poorly. It is a sad invisibility spell that, on a moving target, has a 5% chance to be seen through by someone with no ranks in Spot and a 10 Wis. Certainly, by the time you move up to greater invisibility spell this should get harder. In reality, a better use of spells would be some kind of illusion to Disguise self as harmless/ally of target. At least Disguise uses some kind of opposed check.

Without reiterating what others have said about hiding while invisible and what not, I see the effects of the Invisibility spell being very similar to the how the Predators invisibility works in the movies. That it refracts light around the target. This is why when they move there's the slight displacement/distortion that gives others the chance (no matter how slim) to see them.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well yes, one would have to be making a check in the first place in order for it to be an opposed check. Not sure what you're getting at.

Well, if you are making an opposed check, it does limit your speed to one-half your base speed. Paradoxically, anybody trying to move faster than that while actually attempting to hide (+15 modifier if moving less than full speed, +0 modifier if moving full speed or greater) is easier to spot than a person making no effort to hide while moving (DC20), unless that character has a high Hide modifier.

[Snowbluff]

I think the thread title might be a pun.

[MasterFu]

If I was houseruling this, I'd probably handle it similarly to the rules for Scent (the monster ability) vs an invisible target.

What about using a spell, summon, or familiar to whirlwind the flour away? Mirror image?

[Crake]

The proper order of operations is Invisibility, Silence, Mind Blank. Then you're undetectable by anything EXCEPT someone tossing around flour.

Mind blank doesn't work against spells with range personal like Arcane sight, so that would still work perfectly fine. Fools detect magic easily though.

Edit: Actually, on second thought, arguably not? Mind Blank specifies "information gathering by divination spells or effects". Arcane sight could arguably cover information gathering. By that ruling, Mind Blank would stop See Invisibility and true seeing, but I'm pretty sure Skip said anti-divination doesn't stop personal range divination spells.

[Archmage1]

Well, just going to say this.
For being sneaky, wizards use invisibility.
Rogues use their ring of blinking.
If you are a rogue of 10+ levels, and you don't have one... Fix that deficiency. Sneak attacking without flanking CAN be brought.