Invisibility and Flaming Sphere

Jarjaxle · Aug 18, 2008

Is it possible for a Wizard to use his Flaming Sphere power to create a Flaming Sphere. Then on his next turn use his Invisibility power, and then in the following rounds sustain that Invisibility by spending a standard action, sustain the Flaming Sphere by spending a minor action and move the Flaming Sphere next to enemies by spending a move action? If he does this, moving the flaming sphere around and placing it next to targets and dealing damage to them, does that break his invisibility? Or can he do this round after round for the entire encounter?

I have a player that is planning on doing this and the real argument is whether or not dealing damage, but not rolling a D20 to hit, counts as an "Attack".

What is everyone's opinion on the matter?

Kaelkatar · Aug 18, 2008

The damage is mild.
Almost anything can outrun the sphere.
You can attempt to detect the wizard.
The wizard is using two daily powers.

Even if it does work, its not all that overpowered.

Mort_Q · Aug 19, 2008

Sounds reasonable to me.

Jhaelen · Aug 19, 2008

I'd allow it.

Amphimir Míriel · Aug 19, 2008

Jarjaxle said:
Is it possible for a Wizard to use his Flaming Sphere power to create a Flaming Sphere. Then on his next turn use his Invisibility power, and then in the following rounds sustain that Invisibility by spending a standard action, sustain the Flaming Sphere by spending a minor action and move the Flaming Sphere next to enemies by spending a move action? If he does this, moving the flaming sphere around and placing it next to targets and dealing damage to them, does that break his invisibility? Or can he do this round after round for the entire encounter?

I have a player that is planning on doing this and the real argument is whether or not dealing damage, but not rolling a D20 to hit, counts as an "Attack".

What is everyone's opinion on the matter?

I´d say its valid.

IncompleteUserNa · Aug 19, 2008

I had kind of been under the impression that you could only sustain one effect at a time, so I checked the PHB and on p. 278 it says "You can sustain an effect once per turn." I can see this being interpreted in one of two ways:

A) It doesn't matter if you have enough actions to sustain multiple effects at a time, you can only use one of your actions per turn to sustain anything.

B) You can sustain as many effects as you have actions for, but you can't sustain an effect with 3 minor actions in one turn and expect it to stick around for three turns. This should go without saying, but if they didn't say it someone would try it.

Naturally, the way you choose to interpret it is going to be biased based on whether you're a player who wants to burn things with impunity or a DM who wants to keep his players from having fun.

KarinsDad · Aug 19, 2008

IncompleteUserNa said:
I had kind of been under the impression that you could only sustain one effect at a time, so I checked the PHB and on p. 278 it says "You can sustain an effect once per turn."

Bigby's Grasping Hand requires this statement, regardless of interpretation A or B. Without it, one could attack with the Hand and then squeeze multiple times each round with it.

jaelis · Aug 19, 2008

IncompleteUserNa said:
I had kind of been under the impression that you could only sustain one effect at a time, so I checked the PHB and on p. 278 it says "You can sustain an effect once per turn."

I think that if they had mean option A, they would have said "You can sustain only one effect per turn." As it is written, I think the statement would apply individual to each effect you try to sustain.

I think the invisibility trick would work fine.

Saeviomagy · Aug 20, 2008

The simple fact of the matter is that the tactic is ineffective at best, excepting for very specific scenarios (ie - a horde of wizard-hating minion artillery).

Let him do it, then let the other players tell him off for being a waste of space.

KarinsDad · Aug 20, 2008

Saeviomagy said:
The simple fact of the matter is that the tactic is ineffective at best, excepting for very specific scenarios (ie - a horde of wizard-hating minion artillery).

Let him do it, then let the other players tell him off for being a waste of space.

Ineffective? Waste of Space?

Nearly automatic 1D4+Int mod, probably against multiple foes each round is typically stronger than Scorching Burst. Same area, a lot more average damage (2.5+x > 3.5/2+x/2) since there is no to hit roll. This does not include any initial 2D6+Int mod damage of FS. Even against a solo, this is solid damage every round. Probably more than many of the other PCs do on average.

Plus, the Wizard himself is mostly out of harms way (which means the Leader does not need to heal him, etc.).

This is a very good tactic when the Wizard is low on healing surges.

Invisibility and Flaming Sphere

Jarjaxle

First Post

Kaelkatar

First Post

Mort_Q

First Post

Jhaelen

First Post

Amphimir Míriel

Explorer

IncompleteUserNa

First Post

KarinsDad

Adventurer

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

Saeviomagy

Adventurer

KarinsDad

Adventurer

Similar Threads