[PF] Non-detection + See Invis

[Frosty]

So, I'm thinking of using an Imp familiar as a spy. It has Invis at-will, which is great. If it has the Pilferer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar/familiar-archetypes/pilferer-familiar-archetype) Familiar Archetype, it becomes even sneaker!

I want to use it to spy on a spellcaster (a witch, specifically), and I am worried about it being seen with the See Invis spell. The archetype does provide a constant Nondetection effect, however, and I'm wondering whether that will make it harder for See Invis to work on the imp.

[Psyren]

By RAW, it protects from all divinations that try to detect you, so yes.

[Frosty]

An by RAI?

[Vertharrad]

Wow I've had players tell me non-detection doesn't work against spells like detect spells that don't target you specifically. Was they wrong???

[Frosty]

Wow I've had players tell me non-detection doesn't work against spells like detect spells that don't target you specifically. Was they wrong???Like, all the detect spells I know of targets the casters himself so he can use his eyes and see auras of evil/undead/good/law/chaos etc.

[Psyren]

Clairvoyance doesn't target anyone and Nondetection blocks that too. I think the "detect" part is the important aspect, rather than whether or not a given divination targets anyone.

[Vertharrad]

I got tired of players wanting to ape the system so I haven't DMed in years. The one 2e DM that taught me how to really role-play used combos such as non-detection and invis. And my reading of the spell in 3e/3.5e didn't see a problem with it. But apparently to lawyer type word demons there is a problem with it. More power to you guys.

[Spore]

a) It's one of the only spells beside "Obscure Object" that protects from Divinations in the CRB.

b) It even gives a casting level check with 45% Chance to suceeed anyway on two casters with similar level.

c) It costs 50 GP and a slot every casting. It isn't much but it will sum up quickly if the main source of scouting for the group.

I don't see HOW ON EARTH it should be RAI for it to ignore the rambling of a rules lawyer.

[Crake]

Non detection protects you against scrying (such as clairvoyance/clairaudience) and spells that emnate from you, like detect spells and locate object, for the two examples it gives you. Those spells all affect other people in some way, they're in an area, or being viewed, the spell is creating an effect that affects the target of the non-detection spell. However, see invisibility is a personal spell, it doesn't affect the target of the non-detection spell at all, it is simply giving the recipient of the spell another mode of vision.

I know this is pathfinder, so it uses slightly different rules, but skip williams (the author of the 3.5 phb) wrote an article somewhere saying that spells that are personal, or targeting the user are not blocked by spells like non-detection and mind blank, because the spells aren't affecting the protected creature, but the user of the spell.

[Spore]

That ruling would bring down the spell from "situational" to highly "situational". Which is no problem at all for witches or wizards (which are powerful anyhow) but makes it a wasted slot for sorcerers and bards (which are good but don't need a larger gap between them and wizard/sorcerers).

And to be frank if my DM tells me it works like xy Mr Williams or any Paizo author can go .... somewhere else for all I care.

[Vertharrad]

Sporeegg we agree on that point very much.

[Person_Man]

Honestly, it's not worth worrying about.

If you're put significant resources into the stealthy/scouting niche for your character or familiar, then you're only going to be found if the DM decides that the enemy that you are attempting to remain hidden from is uber powerful or paranoid. And if that's the case, it doesn't matter how well you've optimized or what the RAW implications are, the DM will find a workaround.

[Frosty]

Well, the NPC in question will be actively looking for my agents, but they don't necessarily know that I have an imp familiar. I hope that'll help.

[Arc_knight25]

Regardless if the NPC can see your imp. It still has a stealth skill check to make. Being invisible gives some pretty good bonuses to your stealth check. Also share a touch spell with him so he isn't completely "unarmed".

[Frosty]

If the target can see invisible, doesn't the +20 bonus from Invisibility go away? It's only logical.

[Ravens_cry]

Invisibility Purge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/invisibility-purge) does work though since it's an evocation and not a divination effect.

[Frosty]

Of course Purge does. That's not what I'm asking though. If they purge, it's because they already think something invisible is close-by.

[Ravens_cry]

Of course Purge does. That's not what I'm asking though. If they purge, it's because they already think something invisible is close-by.
Fair enough.
My point is it's very tempting for the DM to meta things a little for such things, especially if the player is, in their mind, 'abusing' the ability to send the familier off to go touch someone. I don't like it, but I can understand the temptation.

[Frosty]

My Familiar is doing only reconnaissance. I want to make sure a certain character is not plotting against me.