Invisibility Question

[anamiac]

So, I'm rolling a Muckdweller - a 13 inch tall lizard. He's a level 13 arcane caster with Dragon Familiar as a feat. His familiar is a silver dragon wyrmling, with the ability to change her form. They like to run around with her in human form and him sitting in her pocket (possibly with reduce person casted on him), as if he were the familiar and she were the wizard.

As she's intelligent, can speak languages and has opposable thumbs, there's no reason why she can't use wands, and help out with the action economy of the duo. One wand that I'm looking at is a wand of invisibility.


My understanding is that share spells only applies to spells the master casts? So, she'll have no way of using the wand to make them both invisible in a single round?
If she were already invisible, is there any reason why I couldn't have him cast a spell, then have her recast invisibility on him and move every round? It would use up the wand fast though, which leads me to my next option:
Since she's invisible and he's in her pocket, could he duck down into her pocket after attacking and become un-see-able (by virtue of her invisible clothing blocking line of sight)? Then re-emerge with a hide check (his hide check modifier is ungodly) to do it all again next round?

[Rijan_Sai]

To my understanding, #3 would be correct (I'm sure there are reasons for why it might not be, though...)

I could certainly see a combat round turn looking something like:

Move: Stand from prone;
Standard: Cast;
Swift: whatever is available;
Free: drop to prone back in the pocket.

[KillianHawkeye]

1. Yes.
2. Sure.
3. I'm pretty sure that should work.

[Venger]

So, I'm rolling a Muckdweller - a 13 inch tall lizard. He's a level 13 arcane caster with Dragon Familiar as a feat. His familiar is a silver dragon wyrmling, with the ability to change her form. They like to run around with her in human form and him sitting in her pocket (possibly with reduce person casted on him), as if he were the familiar and she were the wizard.

As she's intelligent, can speak languages and has opposable thumbs, there's no reason why she can't use wands, and help out with the action economy of the duo. One wand that I'm looking at is a wand of invisibility.


My understanding is that share spells only applies to spells the master casts? So, she'll have no way of using the wand to make them both invisible in a single round?
If she were already invisible, is there any reason why I couldn't have him cast a spell, then have her recast invisibility on him and move every round? It would use up the wand fast though, which leads me to my next option:
Since she's invisible and he's in her pocket, could he duck down into her pocket after attacking and become un-see-able (by virtue of her invisible clothing blocking line of sight)? Then re-emerge with a hide check (his hide check modifier is ungodly) to do it all again next round?



To my understanding, #3 would be correct (I'm sure there are reasons for why it might not be, though...)

I could certainly see a combat round turn looking something like:

Move: Stand from prone;
Standard: Cast;
Swift: whatever is available;
Free: drop to prone back in the pocket.


1. Yes.
2. Sure.
3. I'm pretty sure that should work.

Reduce person does not work on you. You're a monstrous humanoid. Assuming your group plays by the normal transparency rules, you might look into a dorje of compression if your character is capable of using wands

Share spells only applies to spells you cast on yourself. If she casts spells on you, they will not trickle down to affect her as well.

1) correct
2) correct
3) invisible clothing blocks line of effect, but it doesn't block line of sight. it's invisible. you can by definition see through it.

[Kayblis]

Point 3 depends on whether invisibility covers everything inside your clothing too, which is something any sane person would rule Yes. Think about it, the stuff in your pocket doesn't stay visible when you use Invisibility, you don't see flying coins or floating gems or an airborne backpack when you use such an item. The enemy can't see your rat familiar when you cast Invisibility even if you forget to say "oh, it affects my rat too". By the same logic, you don't stay visible after using a ring of invisibility(you go invisible, not just the ring).

If your DM rules otherwise, the master could cast Invisibility while the pet uses another wand, preferably one that doesn't involve direct attacks like 90% of the Conjuration school. You can still get some mileage out of wand-wielding pets without the trick above, even though it would be nice to have it. Greater Invisibility also allows attacks, so it's a more expensive version of the trick if the first one gets rejected.

[Segev]

If you cast invisibility on a creature that is holding another creature, the second creature (the one being held) remains visible. It may well appear to be floating in mid-air.

Invisibility only automatically extends to items carried, not creatures. When you have constructs, this might become a gray area (particularly for intelligent magic items, which are technically creatures, but usually get all the item rules anyway), but your muckdweller PC is definitely not an item, so doesn't benefit from the Silver Dragon familiar's invisibility.

[Venger]

Point 3 depends on whether invisibility covers everything inside your clothing too, which is something any sane person would rule Yes. Think about it, the stuff in your pocket doesn't stay visible when you use Invisibility, you don't see flying coins or floating gems or an airborne backpack when you use such an item. The enemy can't see your rat familiar when you cast Invisibility even if you forget to say "oh, it affects my rat too". By the same logic, you don't stay visible after using a ring of invisibility(you go invisible, not just the ring).

If your DM rules otherwise, the master could cast Invisibility while the pet uses another wand, preferably one that doesn't involve direct attacks like 90% of the Conjuration school. You can still get some mileage out of wand-wielding pets without the trick above, even though it would be nice to have it. Greater Invisibility also allows attacks, so it's a more expensive version of the trick if the first one gets rejected.

it doesn't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) it makes your gear invisible, so you can steal stuff. creatures ≠ gear.


If you cast invisibility on a creature that is holding another creature, the second creature (the one being held) remains visible. It may well appear to be floating in mid-air.

Invisibility only automatically extends to items carried, not creatures. When you have constructs, this might become a gray area (particularly for intelligent magic items, which are technically creatures, but usually get all the item rules anyway), but your muckdweller PC is definitely not an item, so doesn't benefit from the Silver Dragon familiar's invisibility.

No, because constructs are still creatures.

Honestly, if you care about doing stuff like this, you're a muckdweller. pick up hide as a class skill (martial study for a shadow hand discipline will do it) and just make mundane hide checks while your familiar does this. I'm sure you can find something to take cover under in the battlefield.