Invisibility Mechanics - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Invisibility Mechanics

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
poet.desmond
Jul 21, 2010 17:50:14 A mechanics question came up during a game I was GMing; it runs like this:
The player was level 6; Smart 3/Mage 3. For reasons to complicated to go into, he found himself attacked in his home. He managed to slip into his bedroom, and cast invisibility on himself. After the mooks entered, he commented--"My cat sleeps in my room." His cat being his familiar, and this being something that had somehow been mentioned before, I agreed the cat was likely in there, and very probably awake now. So, he said he wanted to cast a spell, glanced at what he had available, and declared it would be Vampiric Touch. Then he said he wanted the cat to be the toucher.
Which brought everything to a halt. I knew off the top of my head that the cat could be a proxy for touch-attack spells, but at the same time, any attack should cease invisibility, making it pointless.
I could see his viewpoint; he, himself, wasn't attacking, his familiar was; but he was casting the spell that allowed the attack. I decided to let it slide; I declared he would remain invisible, but that the spell's verbal function would give the mooks a shot at locating him with a quick listen check. With background noise (he'd specified before combat began that he was listening to music on his stereo, with the volume all the way up), I made it DC 25, which each of the mooks blew completely. After that session, I spent some time looking through the core and Urban Arcana, but couldn't find anything helpful.
So, my question is, mechanically, is that appropriate functionality? Can a familiar acting as a touch-proxy keep a caster invisible?
#2
TheRealOrion
Jul 21, 2010 18:03:05 That's a funny one. I think, in your place, I would have made the cat visible. That way, there's more tension in the room. Your mage can't just waltz out because his familiar is now under attack. Also, the familiar was the one doing the attacking.
#3
backstabbist
Jul 23, 2010 1:44:35
mSRD:Invisibilty-
For purposes of this spell, an “attack” includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

Seems to me a 'foe' was directly effected by the spell
... the 3rd level Vampric Touch spell
... cast by a 3/3 mage?

Using the familiar isnt 'indirect' enough to maintain invisibilty in my opinion.

#4
TheRealOrion
Jul 23, 2010 12:05:35 Right you are! My bad. I had thought that you cast Vamp Touch on yourself, technically, and then make a touch attack, a distinction that makes a lot of difference if you're casting it through a familiar, but the spell description clearly says "Target: Living creature touched." So there you go. It should have made both of them visible the second the cat lunged for the thug. Good call.
#5
backstabbist
Jul 23, 2010 13:59:59 its a tricky bit of offhanded-sentient spell quagmire-
You can shoot a gun in the air and maintain invisibility,
but the spell somehow knows if you shoot that gun AT SOMEONE, and ends itself

If the invis spell is smart enough to do that,
then you cant trick it by using the familiar to deliver your touch attack spell that you cast
(the cat dont have arcane levels, so IT didnt cast the touch spell)

#6
TheRealOrion
Jul 24, 2010 3:43:45 I know you're joking, but that's not the point of how spells work. They simply do work a certain way, and not another way. A lot of magic and the supernatural in literature works by similar, seemingly arbitrary rules. Why does knowing someone's true name give you power over them? Why does it matter what exact words you use when you make a wish with a djinni? Again, I know you're joking, but if you try to introduce mechanical/practical thinking to magical effects, you only have yourself to blame when they don't behave that way. They follow a different set of "logics." Accept that fact or move on to a different genre.

All due respect.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 poet.desmond Jul 21, 2010 17:50:14	A mechanics question came up during a game I was GMing; it runs like this: The player was level 6; Smart 3/Mage 3. For reasons to complicated to go into, he found himself attacked in his home. He managed to slip into his bedroom, and cast invisibility on himself. After the mooks entered, he commented--"My cat sleeps in my room." His cat being his familiar, and this being something that had somehow been mentioned before, I agreed the cat was likely in there, and very probably awake now. So, he said he wanted to cast a spell, glanced at what he had available, and declared it would be Vampiric Touch. Then he said he wanted the cat to be the toucher. Which brought everything to a halt. I knew off the top of my head that the cat could be a proxy for touch-attack spells, but at the same time, any attack should cease invisibility, making it pointless. I could see his viewpoint; he, himself, wasn't attacking, his familiar was; but he was casting the spell that allowed the attack. I decided to let it slide; I declared he would remain invisible, but that the spell's verbal function would give the mooks a shot at locating him with a quick listen check. With background noise (he'd specified before combat began that he was listening to music on his stereo, with the volume all the way up), I made it DC 25, which each of the mooks blew completely. After that session, I spent some time looking through the core and Urban Arcana, but couldn't find anything helpful. So, my question is, mechanically, is that appropriate functionality? Can a familiar acting as a touch-proxy keep a caster invisible?
#2 TheRealOrion Jul 21, 2010 18:03:05	That's a funny one. I think, in your place, I would have made the cat visible. That way, there's more tension in the room. Your mage can't just waltz out because his familiar is now under attack. Also, the familiar was the one doing the attacking.
#3 backstabbist Jul 23, 2010 1:44:35	mSRD:Invisibilty- For purposes of this spell, an “attack” includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Seems to me a 'foe' was directly effected by the spell ... the 3rd level Vampric Touch spell ... cast by a 3/3 mage? Using the familiar isnt 'indirect' enough to maintain invisibilty in my opinion.
#4 TheRealOrion Jul 23, 2010 12:05:35	Right you are! My bad. I had thought that you cast Vamp Touch on yourself, technically, and then make a touch attack, a distinction that makes a lot of difference if you're casting it through a familiar, but the spell description clearly says "Target: Living creature touched." So there you go. It should have made both of them visible the second the cat lunged for the thug. Good call.
#5 backstabbist Jul 23, 2010 13:59:59	its a tricky bit of offhanded-sentient spell quagmire- You can shoot a gun in the air and maintain invisibility, but the spell somehow knows if you shoot that gun AT SOMEONE, and ends itself If the invis spell is smart enough to do that, then you cant trick it by using the familiar to deliver your touch attack spell that you cast (the cat dont have arcane levels, so IT didnt cast the touch spell)
#6 TheRealOrion Jul 24, 2010 3:43:45	I know you're joking, but that's not the point of how spells work. They simply do work a certain way, and not another way. A lot of magic and the supernatural in literature works by similar, seemingly arbitrary rules. Why does knowing someone's true name give you power over them? Why does it matter what exact words you use when you make a wish with a djinni? Again, I know you're joking, but if you try to introduce mechanical/practical thinking to magical effects, you only have yourself to blame when they don't behave that way. They follow a different set of "logics." Accept that fact or move on to a different genre. All due respect.