flaming sphere and invisibility

B

Bad Paper

First Post

• Nov 4, 2004

• #1

After much head-scratching, I am considering ruling that an invisible wizard casting flaming sphere does not cancel the invisibility. Does anybody have a take on this?

Consider: flaming sphere's "effect" is the sphere itself, which moves at the caster's command. There is never a "target;" if it enters a space with a creature, that creature must make a Reflex save. This implies to me that a FS is an environmental hazard more than a weapon. If summoning a monster doesn't cancel invisibility (and I consider that a stretch), then FS certainly doesn't.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

P

Patryn of Elvenshae

First Post

• Nov 4, 2004

• #2

Agreed with the logic, though beware of the slippery slope. "If summoning a flaming sphere isn't a hostile action, then neither is dropping this rock."

 

Jeff Wilder

First Post

• Nov 4, 2004

• #3

I agree with the logic that casting flaming sphere isn't an "attack" for the purposes of invisibility, but I would personally rule that moving the sphere into a space with the intention of using it to damage the occupant is such an attack.

 

0-hr

Starship Cartographer

• Nov 4, 2004

• #4

So if I aim a firball at an empty square it's not an attack, regardless of how many people just happen to be engulfed by its environmental effect?

 

DarkWizard

First Post

• Nov 4, 2004

• #5

That's exactly the logic that would make invisibility an uber-deadly spell, if the "flaming sphere isn't an attack" concept is brought to the table.

 

Jeff Wilder

First Post

• Nov 4, 2004

• #6

Ki Ryn said:

So if I aim a firball at an empty square it's not an attack, regardless of how many people just happen to be engulfed by its environmental effect?

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, if you launch a fireball into an area that you genuinely believe to be empty, and it turns out you are wrong, that is not an attack for purposes of invisibility. This is per Skip Williams and Andy Collins, who have both said that intent is the most important principle in determining an "attack" for purposes of invisibility.

Now if you launch a fireball into an empty square, but you know that the effect will engulf people in the area, that is an explicit attack.

 

T

tensen

First Post

• Nov 4, 2004

• #7

wilder_jw said:

I agree with the logic that casting flaming sphere isn't an "attack" for the purposes of invisibility, but I would personally rule that moving the sphere into a space with the intention of using it to damage the occupant is such an attack.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

 

MerakSpielman

First Post

• Nov 4, 2004

• #8

But summoning monsters and having them attack doesn't turn off invisibility. Why should it be different for summoning a Flaming Sphere?

 

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...

• Nov 4, 2004

• #9

"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."

Flaming Sphere is a spell that opponents resist with saving throws...

-Hyp.

 

Pielorinho

Iron Fist of Pelor

• Nov 4, 2004

• #10

In my old campaign I rationalized invisibility (which if you think about it is a completely irrational spell idea) by the uberdevice of saying all magic consisted of calling on spirits for aid. The spirit that provided invisibility was a trickster spirit that loved sneaky and hated bloody; if it perceived you doing anything hostile, it'd run away. Due to a quirk in how it perceived the world, it didn't connect you with any creature you summoned.

It very slightly changed the rules (e.g., a wizard who cuts a rope bridge on which enemies stand turns visible under my ruling, whereas I don't think she would under the RAW), but it made it make more sense, and players could figure out where the line was pretty easily, and if they couldn't, well, neither could their character.

Daniel