Invisibility and Bat Familiars

[Ridley's Cohort]

I really don't see how a bat would know whether someone is invisible or visible beyond 10' (given the rules as written).

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Right. Keep in mind, however, that this ability is limited by the level of the wizard, (and thus the form of communication he and his familiar can use,) as well as the familiar's perspective. The wizard needs to be at least 5th-level before he can actually speak with his familiar to try to glean the info he wants. And at that point he'll have to try and explain to the bat the difference between the invisible foe and the non-invisible one (since from the bat's perspective, they're all visible.)

Once the wizard is strong enough to talk with his familiar, and has managed to find a way for the bat to differentiate between invisible and visible (for the wizard), then he can successfully query the bat as to the location of any hidden enemies. Even then, he still has to deal with the 50% miss chance, and the invisible foe can still attack him at a +2 to attack, possibly + a sneak attack or two.

And although they can't understand it, foes will notice the wizard talking to the bat. So that bat had better be ready for the invisible foe to start targeting it.

Agreed. I had a druid remove a bat from a bag of tricks and ask it where the invisible quasit which had just attacked was hiding, by asking it where the "small creature" was (I have house-ruled that a person who removes an animal from a bag of tricks can speak with that animal, as though subject to a speak with animals spell). The bat pointed out the correct square, and the party then attacked that square, suffering the usual 50% miss chance. On the quasit's next turn, it shredded the bat, having identified the bat as the cause of its problems.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[LokiDR]

Blindsight can be very powerful. But remember there are no less than 6 different ways for characters to get this ability: Blindsight (FR spell) Blindsight (Savage Species Spell) Improve Blindsight (SS spell) Blindsight 5' Radius feat (Sword and Fist), Blindsight wildshaping feat (MotW), and Blindfold of True Darknes (A&EG). That doesn't include playing strange races that have blindsight.

I think that if you allow the players to play with the more powerful blindsight spells, you should allow the bat familar to be used as an easy invisibilty dector. Otherwise, the bat becomes a pretty useless familar. If you don't allow FR, SS, or A&EG, I would say you should force the player to be inteligent in their questions to the familar, as others have mentioned.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think that if you allow the players to play with the more powerful blindsight spells, you should allow the bat familar to be used as an easy invisibilty dector. Otherwise, the bat becomes a pretty useless familar. If you don't allow FR, SS, or A&EG, I would say you should force the player to be inteligent in their questions to the familar, as others have mentioned.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Even if you allowed all those Blindsight sources in, they cost at the very least a 3rd-level spell slot, and at the most a feat that requires a 19+ Wisdom. Why should the bat familiar be allowed to mimic a 3rd-level spell at will, or a feat that requires a 19+ Wisdom, simply because other means to acquire the ability exist? Requiring the wizard to handle his bat familiar as outlined above doesn't make the bat familiar any more useless than the hawk familiar, who's never gotten anything to begin with.

 

[LokiDR]

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Even if you allowed all those Blindsight sources in, they cost at the very least a 3rd-level spell slot, and at the most a feat that requires a 19+ Wisdom. Why should the bat familiar be allowed to mimic a 3rd-level spell at will, or a feat that requires a 19+ Wisdom, simply because other means to acquire the ability exist? Requiring the wizard to handle his bat familiar as outlined above doesn't make the bat familiar any more useless than the hawk familiar, who's never gotten anything to begin with.

The hawk has a great spot score to begin with.

The SS blindsight spell (lower level) is 2nd, with a relatively long duration. If you cast this on a good portion of the party, you can really hurt anything that tries to be stealthy. If a 2nd level spell can do that, the bat should be able to notice a creature is invisible, but not neccessarily tell you exactly where it is. If you only use the feats that require wis 19 or high levels of druid, the matter should be handled differently.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The hawk has a great spot score to begin with.

The SS blindsight spell (lower level) is 2nd, with a relatively long duration. If you cast this on a good portion of the party, you can really hurt anything that tries to be stealthy. If a 2nd level spell can do that, the bat should be able to notice a creature is invisible, but not neccessarily tell you exactly where it is. If you only use the feats that require wis 19 or high levels of druid, the matter should be handled differently.

First let me say that I can see where you're coming from, and I respect your opinion here. I just don't quite agree with it.

The hawk does have a decent Spot score, but that score is not on par with the blindsight of the bat, even if you run it with the guidelines above. My point in bringing up the hawk is that the bat is not, and will never be, the most useless familiar. That honor lies with the hawk. So there's no reason to make the blindsight ability more powerful to keep the bat from becoming powerless.

And even if you could get Blindsight at 1st-level, it's not balanced for the wizard to get it for free at will, by allowing the wizard to "use" the bat's blindsight without any restrictions.

Because of these reasons, I play it as I stated above. It makes the bat useful, but if you want to avoid the hassles involved with the wizard/familiar exchange, then you have to get blindsight yourself, but whatever means available.

 

[niteshade6]

Isn't there a rule that if a familiar can see a target, then the wizard can cast spells as if he can see that target as well? I believe this would allow a wizard with a bat familiar to still use targeted spells on invisible enemies, but he certainly would not be able to say shoot them with his crossbow without a miss chance (and the bat might have some difficulty communicating exactly where the enemy was).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Isn't there a rule that if a familiar can see a target, then the wizard can cast spells as if he can see that target as well? I believe this would allow a wizard with a bat familiar to still use targeted spells on invisible enemies, but he certainly would not be able to say shoot them with his crossbow without a miss chance (and the bat might have some difficulty communicating exactly where the enemy was).

No. The rule you're thinking of is in regards to Teleport. If a familiar has seen a location, then the wizard is considered to have seen it too, for the purposes of teleportation.

For anything else, the wizard must fulfill any Line-of-Sight and Line-of-Effect requirements himself.