Cast See Invisibility on others or not?

[1StrangeFellow]

I don't know if I got the idea from older editions, or other games and game systems, but I always thought that you could cast See Invisibility on other people.

However, there is an area and range listed for the spell but no target information (ie, You; creature touched; etc). Because the text description uses the word 'you', my DM ruled that if I cast the spell I could only use it on myself.

I'm not arguing his ruling based on what is in the book, but for some reason it doesn't seem "right" that I can't cast it on others like you can with other perception-enhancing spells like Darkvision and True Seeing.

 

[hong]

You can only cast see invisibility on yourself, yes.

If you wanted, you could make it a targeted spell and then you could cast it on others. Discussion of this would be more appropriate in the House Rules forum.

 

[Negative Zero]

with a range of medium, you can cast the spell on anyone within the specified distance that you can see. if the spell could only be cast on yourself, the range would say personal, as in the example of the shield spell. hope that helps

-NegZ

<edit>
if you need anymore convincing, check out the range explanations on PHB pg. 148

 

[hong]

with a range of medium, you can cast the spell on anyone within the specified distance that you can see. if the spell could only be cast on yourself, the range would say personal, as in the example of the shield spell. hope that helps

Huh?

By this logic, the various detect X spells could also be cast on anyone because they also don't have a target entry. The range and area stats refer to the area within which invisible objects are revealed. Didn't you notice that the spell description starts with "you see any objects or beings that are invisible..."?

 

[Gromm]

Huh?

By this logic, the various detect X spells could also be cast on anyone because they also don't have a target entry. The range and area stats refer to the area within which invisible objects are revealed. Didn't you notice that the spell description starts with "you see any objects or beings that are invisible..."?

I would say you can cast it on other people, though the description is vague it also doesn't say a target. Other detection spells have "Area:Quarter circle emanating from you...", but this one does not.

I've allowed it in the past to give non-spell casters a chance to fight invisible opponents, otherwise they usually end up just watching. True sight does allow for a target so it does have a form of precident.

Maybe the sage can clear up the confusion.

 

[hong]

Other detection spells have "Area:Quarter circle emanating from you...", but this one does not.

Irrelevant. See invisibility has area: cone, and cones always emanate from the caster [PHB, p.149]. In this respect, it's no different from the detect X spells.

 

[1StrangeFellow]

The way the spell reads literally doesn't seem to have much consistency or logic, however. My argument is with WoTC, not you or the DM.

For one thing, the range doesn't help in most situations because in dark dungeons or dimly lit scenes where you're likely to encounter invisible things, your vision doesn't always allow you to see as far as the range of the spell anyway (100' + 10'/level). My dwarf's darkvision in the dimly lit ruins he was in today, for example, only allowed him to see 60'. Why wouldn't see invisible just allow you to see invisible to your limit of vision? Why would it provide a range beyond your normal vision under some circumstances? Why couldn't you see something beyond this range to your natural limit, say in a field in pure daylight while a spell like True Seeing, which seems like the 'upgrade' to See Invisible would? Making it a cone with a certain range makes it, as you suggest, similar to the detect spells, which screws with the naming conventions in the PHB, it should then be called Detect Invisible.

With Darkvision, just one spell level higher, you can grant others the ability to see in total darkness. One level lower, a spell that grants the ability to enhance vision in respect to one thing only - invisibility, which should be considerably (extremely) more rare than darkness in most worlds - apparently can only be cast on yourself. The 3rd level spell has daily uses and applications, and can be cast on others - night and darkness are extremely common. The 2nd level spell is good in one case - that rarely encountered invisible foe - and apparently can only be cast on yourself. Compared to the differences between other 2nd and 3rd level spells, See Invisibility seems too weak compared to another vision-enhancing spell at 3rd level, Darkvision.

Also, compared to other 2nd level spells this seems fairly weak. If it is considered a utility spell that you can only cast on yourself, then compared to other utility spells of that level you can only cast on yourself this seems to have one use, instead of multiple uses like Alter Self. As it reads See Invisible is only good when fighting an invisible foe and only helps the typically weakest fighter (not in my case, but typically) in the party - the wizard. If you could at least cast it on others and see each other while invisible so that you can stay together, signal to one another, not bump into or get caught in an invisible companion's crossfire or allow a more combat-capable character to see and hit an invisible target, it would then have more uses like other spells of its level.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As Hong's already stated, See Invisibility only works for the caster. If a non-spellcaster wants to be able to see invisible creatures, there's a simple solution: he buys a potion.

 

[1StrangeFellow]

Regardless, I think WoTC screwed up or started smoking something the day they got to See Invisible. The biggest reasons apparent to me:

1) It's considerably less useful than other spells of the same level that you can only cast on yourself. Situations where it is useful are considerably more rare than similar spells near the same level.

2) The way it's described it behaves like a detect spell, but if this is so, it is one of the few - if not the only - detect-like spells that is not called Detect (Blank).

3) There's no spell that does allow others to see invisible companions or foes until you jump up several more spell levels (at which point it is unlikely you would waste spell slots on multiple spells of this type unless you were extremely high level).

4) When a See Invisibility-like spell is typically encountered in MMPORGs, CRPGs or pen-and-paper RPGs, it is most often something castable on others (otherwise it has too limited a use, as I mentioned above several times).

I know what the spell description says, I can read rules and make judgements based on them, and have done for the past ten or fifteen years but I still think this is just plain wrong and Wizards screwed up or dropped the ball when writing this spell.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think the spell's fine. There are plenty of ways to deal with invisible foes, and you don't have to go up several levels to get them either.

Glitterdust is a nice 2nd-level spell that reveals invisible creatures.

Faerie Fire is a nice 1st-level spell that reveals invisible creatures.

Sure, See Invisibility would be stronger if you could cast it on other people, but I think it's fine as, and where, it is. If you want to see invisible creatures yourself, cast See Invisibility. If you want to try and reveal invisible creatures for everyone, blanket an area with Glitterdust. If you want to be sure to reveal invisible creatures for everyone, cast See Invisibility followed up by Glitterdust. Heck, at two 2nd-level spell slots, most times it'll still be cheaper than casting See Invisibility on every member of the party.

Of course, you could always just ask the cleric to use a 3rd-level slot to cast Invisibility Purge, which uses up less slots for the same effect...but then, clerics don't get Fireball.