Master Invisible w/Familiar and Touch Spells

[Weeble]

I'm sure this has been asked.

Does the Master who is invisible stay so when his familiar delivers a touch attack?

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Master Invisible w/Familiar and Touch Spells"

Does the Master who is invisible stay so when his familiar delivers a touch attack?

Oooo. Very interesting. I hadn't really given this tactic much thought. I want to say no, the caster doesn't stay invisibile. I realize that all the caster did was cast the spell, but he cast it through his familiar, and his familiar attacked. I think there's enough of a connection there for me to be comfortable with that.

 

[IceBear]

I could see it going either way, but if the wizard wanted to send his familiar into melee combat while he stood nearby in safety I might allow it. Then the monster will only have the familiar to focus his rage on now won' t he

IceBear

 

[Weeble]

Yeah, I had posted the thread before I got off my lazy arse and actually read the spell. According to what I can tell, an indirect attack keeps the caster invisible. Now, would this be considered an indirect attack?

 

[kreynolds]

Now, would this be considered an indirect attack?

Not in my opinion. An indirect attack is cutting a rope that the enemy is climbing, or collapsing a bridge that the enemy is walking on. The Touch ability allows you to designate the toucher of the touch spell, but you are still the caster, so you are still the attacker, and so is your familiar, just in case he's invisible too.

Icebear has a good point though. I might just let someone do it, just so that I can smoke their familar.

 

[IceBear]

Ya, I think you could easily argue that since the spell is coming from the spellcaster and just being channelled through the familiar it's the same as if he cast it with respect to invisibility.

I just like giving PCs enough rope to hang themselves sometimes too

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

Ya, I think you could easily argue that since the spell is coming from the spellcaster and just being channelled through the familiar it's the same as if he cast it with respect to invisibility.

Exactly. Here's further proof that the "attacker" doesn't fully change to the familar. The only way the attacker could be considered only the familiar, the caster would need to completely bestow the touch spell upon his familiar and leave it up to him. But the Touch ability doesn't work like that. If you designate your familiar the toucher, and you later cast another spell, the familiar loses the touch spell. There is definately a solid link between the two.

But very very true about the hanging bit.

 

[Magic Rub]

[edit] scratched that first thought [edit]

The Familiar ability is allot like the Archmage ranged attack ability. I think the intent is that a spell cast through the familiar is the same as if it was from the caster. I'd think that both would become visible. It would be a little unbalanced if just the familiar became visible after delivering the attack, some improved familiars can become invisible at will. The mage could just sit around all day casting through his/her familiar

 

[Caliban]

Re: Master Invisible w/Familiar and Touch Spells"

I'm sure this has been asked.

Does the Master who is invisible stay so when his familiar delivers a touch attack?

If he can somehow become invisible after "charging" his familiar.

If you have a touch spell active, it's discharged if you cast another spell, and I believe the act of casting the touch spell would cause you to become visible.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Master Invisible w/Familiar and Touch Spells"

and I believe the act of casting the touch spell would cause you to become visible.

Not really. You only become visible when you "attack". So, you can cast a touch spell and hold the charge while remaining invisible. The instant after you actually deliver the touch spell, you become visible. Also, you can remain invisible and cast spells all day long, so long as you don't do anything that constitutes an "attack".