Pathfinder 1E Does Detect Thoughts break Invisibility? When?

[CroBob]

Spellcraft sounds about right. It is, after all, all about the crafting of spells.

 

[Li Shenron]

"Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions."

...

This also depends on what is meant by "foe". Does this mean currently having hostile intent, or the potential for it?

I would personally rule that a foe in this case is defined by the caster's action rather than caster's perception or the target's intentions, because traditionally the limitation of Invisibility has been that it should end whenever you do something aggressive. Detect Thoughts is not directly aggressive, hence I wouldn't end the invisibility effect. Should the caster have an ability to inflict some damage via Detect Thoughts, then in that case I would consider that an aggression and end Invisibility.

 

[Sammael]

I would personally rule that a foe in this case is defined by the caster's action rather than caster's perception or the target's intentions, because traditionally the limitation of Invisibility has been that it should end whenever you do something aggressive. Detect Thoughts is not directly aggressive, hence I wouldn't end the invisibility effect. Should the caster have an ability to inflict some damage via Detect Thoughts, then in that case I would consider that an aggression and end Invisibility.

As a DM, this is the interpretation that I would go with. However, I think that it is not in accordance with RAW, which is why I posed the question in the first place - I am a player in this campaign and I want to use the Invisibility/Detect Thoughts combo myself, so I wanted to make sure it is a valid tactic. I will also discuss it with the DM, of course.

 

[paradox42]

The people who responded to my post by saying intent doesn't matter misunderstood what I meant, I think. Or perhaps just didn't think it through.

As pemerton posted, the Invisibility spell itself states that the caster's perceptions are a determining factor in exactly what constitutes a "foe." By this wording, if a creature counts (in the caster's view) as a "foe," and the caster uses a spell which includes said creature in its area or as a target, then that spell constitutes an "attack" for the purposes of Invisibility.

Saying that a spell which includes a creature within its area that the caster might consider a foe after the spell is cast, constitutes an "attack," is patently absurd. The caster's perceptions at casting time do not include the (potential!) enemies, and therefore cannot be counted against the clause in the Invisibility spell description. Consider the case of an Elf caster casting Detect Thoughts and aiming it at a closed door which neither the caster nor any allies has opened or checked through. If the caster then detects thoughts from the other side indicating that there are Orcs on the other side of the still-closed door, this does not suddenly make the spell an "attack" which then breaks Invisibility; it rather makes the spell a scouting tool which told the caster (and presumably, by extension, his allies) that enemies exist beyond the door.

By contrast, if the caster is in a room within which his allies and several other creatures exist, including some angry-looking Orcs who will almost certainly Charge into battle given the flimsiest excuse, and the caster casts and aims a Detect Thoughts so as to include the angry Orcs in its AoE, then that constitutes an attack- because the Orcs are clearly Enemies as far as the caster is concerned, and the caster obviously knows they are there (in fact, the spell was specifically aimed so as to catch them). That breaks Invisibility.

 

[CroBob]

...that enemies exist beyond the door.

Right there. The caster, upon determining thinking things are on the other side of the door, labelled those things "enemies". So did he cast the spell into an area where it effected enemies? Yes.

 

[paradox42]

Right there. The caster, upon determining thinking things are on the other side of the door, labelled those things "enemies". So did he cast the spell into an area where it effected enemies? Yes.

And at casting time, he didn't know. Therefore, it was not an attack when initiated, and Invisibility is not removed.

 

[Starfox]

And at casting time, he didn't know. Therefore, it was not an attack when initiated, and Invisibility is not removed.

What about a paladin using Detect Evil, then? If he gets a result, that is almost certainly an enemy, as a paladins detect evil is almost the same as detect enemy?

My question is a bit silly, but also kind of fun theoretically. Its about semantics, really.

 

[paradox42]

What about a paladin using Detect Evil, then? If he gets a result, that is almost certainly an enemy, as a paladins detect evil is almost the same as detect enemy?

My question is a bit silly, but also kind of fun theoretically. Its about semantics, really.

My point is that the result doesn't matter. Only the caster's perceptions at casting time matter. Casting time is when the action is taken; therefore, only at casting time can the action be labelled an "attack."

If the Paladin uses Detect Evil and pings a critter that he didn't know in advance was Evil, as Evil, then he knows that said critter might be an enemy (and please note: simply having an Evil aura does not make the critter an automatic enemy of the Paladin except in the most knee-jerk unthinking-reflexive-alignment worlds- a majority of GMs would require more than simple detection of Evil to justify the Paladin attacking the critter without taking a hit against his/her Code of Conduct) and then and only then will further actions taken against said critter be an "attack" by Invisibility.

Because concentrating on an active effect is itself an action, there is a gray area wherein a GM might say that a caster continuing to use a Detection effect upon critters he/she perceives to be hostile after something the spell detected causes the caster to label them as "enemies," is itself an "attack." In such a case, then a caster who concentrates to maintain the effect would lose Invisibility. But causing the caster to lose it at casting time clearly goes against the RAW, and the evident intent of the rules.

 

[CroBob]

And at casting time, he didn't know. Therefore, it was not an attack when initiated, and Invisibility is not removed.

It doesn't matter when it was initiated. Invisibility states "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe". Therefore, if you use a spell, any spell, that includes an enemy in the area or the effect of the spell, you just effectively made an attack and cancelled the Invisibility. Even if you didn't know it would happen beforehand, it did. It doesn't matter when it was cast, because the effects persists beyond casting time. This is a pretty black and white issue. Either an enemy was in the area of the spell, or there was not one. Either or.

 

[Thotas]

Finding an enemy via the casting of a divination is a result of the spell. For that result to then have results for the casting itself is a reversal of causality. So I'm gonna say you stay invisible.