Pathfinder 1E Does Detect Thoughts break Invisibility? When?

[CroBob]

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.

Where does this come from? Casting the spell creates the area of effect for the spell, which is the part Invisibility actually cares about. You could have cast the spell five years ago for all that matters. If the effect includes enemies in the area, then enemies are in the area. There's no clause in the invisibility spell stating "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe, unless you cast the spell before the spell had an effect... which normally a spell has an effect prior to it's being cast, because it doesn't have to make sense, because MAGIC!"

 

[Stormonu]

Pathfinder, as I labeled the thread. I am referring to the caster's invisibility. As per the PF rules, for invisibility: "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe". Detect thoughts is a spell whose area may include a foe, but the caster is not immediately aware of this at the time of the spell's casting.

Wait, wait, wait ... does that mean if an invisible mage casts, say fireball centered on an ally or a neutral farmer that it doesn't dispel invisibility? If it would still cause invisibility to fail, then I don't see why detect thoughts wouldn't drop upon targeting a neutral or friendly being

 

[Li Shenron]

"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe".

The amount of arguments in this thread are just convincing me that the description of Invisibility was simply plain-bad design.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=29746]paradox42[/MENTION], I canvassed the meaning of "perception" in my post.

You are interpreting "perception" as meaning "conscious awareness", which is tenable, I think, but not the only viable interpretation in this context (and in any event does not entail the relevance of intention, only of knowledge, which is different - in crminal law, for example, many jurisdictions do not treat oblique intention as sufficient grounds for liability).

But "perception" in this context could also mean "belief" or "the caster's lights", in which cas [MENTION=6683307]CroBob[/MENTION] would be correct - if the being is a foe by the caster's lights, or in the opinion of the caster, then even if the caster does not know the being is there s/he is still affecting someone who is, according to the caster's "perception" of the situation, an enemy.

Because I tend to find invisiblity OP, I would go with the more cruelling interpretation that CroBob is running. But for those who like the idea of an invisible Detect Thoughts-using scout, go with the more generous interpretation!

 

[CroBob]

I want to make it clear that I am not advocating any particular DM ruling, I'm merely stating what the pertinent rules are saying about the situation. As pemerton said, what you should actually do depends on the kind of game you want to run.

 

[Starfox]

I am with Thotas on this. When you cast a divination spell, you do not yet know if the target is an enemy or not - Even with spells like detect evil, a positive result does not necessarily make them enemies. When you cast fireball, you attack someone, which pretty much is the definition of enemy in DnD, so they are enemies at the instant of effect.

But the continuing effect of detect evil and detect magic are border cases, as observed above (I could not xp paradox 42 again).

 

[N'raac]

Let's complicated matters further. Can the caster use this as his own system for determining whether there are hidden dangers in an area? Perhaps we're concerned that supposed rescued lady is really an enemy in disguise, or that there may be an invisible, or ethereal, or camouflaged enemy in this deserted location we're considering bedding down in.

So the Invisible Wizard casts Invisibility, then Detect Magic, and slowly turns to scan a 60' radius around himself. If there's an otherwise undetectable or unknown enemy in that area, he suddenly turns visible and we know there is an enemy in our midst.

Also useful for investigations. We're suspicious that this fellow who's telling us his story about the issue we're investigating may be bluffing us and have something to do with the invaders. Again, a simple Detect Magic (any Detect, but a zero level one costs no resources) combined with Invisibility is an infallible Sense Motive - he's an enemy if I turn visible, and not if I remain invisible? Here we get into the character's perceptions, so unless he believes that target is an enemy he stays invisible, and if he believes its an enemy, rightly or wrongly, he appears.

Casting a beneficial spell with an area effect that includes an enemy (disguised, hidden or itself invisible) would certainly seem to cause the caster to become visible as well. Seems like it adds a Divination effect that I would not expect Invisibility to have.

 

[Thotas]

The deal is, I think, that the word foe implies intent, so when applying the RAW you need to factor that in. Those saying intent is important are right, it's there but just not spelled out. Imagine this scenario: Wizard turns Rogue invisible. Rogue comes up to Sneak Attack, but Enemy Caster has "See Invisible" going. Spotting the Rogue, he casts "Confusion" or "Suggestion" or something else that temporarily impairs Rogue's ability to properly distinguish friend from foe. So he attacks Fighter from his own side. Since he's just attacked his friend, are we to assume Rogue remains invisible because he didn't actually attack a foe? I'm guessing you all say "No".