flaming sphere and invisibility

[irdeggman]

True enough Hyp - the casting of a summon spell doesn't constitute an intended attack action. But IMO if the summoned creature (or ally) is directed to attack (or threaten) then that action breaks the line and casues the caster to become visible again. While if the summoned creature (or ally) just does what comes naturally to it it is not an intended attack.

A corrolary be the turn undead and cleric making a threatening move.

IMO it all depends on what the caster's intentions are.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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

So is mass cure light wounds.

That line -- "all spells that opponents resist with saving throws" -- must be talking about an actual saving throw being attempted, not about the mere potential of a saving throw being attempted.

Thus the Sage's ruling about fireball ... launching it into a part of the battlefiend you believe to be empty -- even if you're wrong -- is no more an "offensive action" than summoning a wall of iron in the same circumstances.

It's easy to see things getting to be a mess, though, that's for sure.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Bah!

*whips invisible wizard around and slaps him soundly* "No flaming sphere for yoouu!"

What Hyp said.

A mass cure light wounds used againt undead creatures will have saves made against it and causes damage, so the wiz would again lose invisibility.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A mass cure light wounds used againt undead creatures

I didn't say "used against undead creatures."

By Hypersmurf's strict reading of "Attack" -- wow, is that a redundant phrase -- a casting of mass cure light wounds that includes living opponents would end invisibility. MCLW is a spell that "opponents resist with saving throws," even though it is "(Harmless)."

There is no harm in saying "casting flaming sphere doesn't break invisibility, but moving it to damage opponents does," is there? If the spell isn't used to attack opponents, evoking it is no difference than building a bonfire, is it?

 

[Pielorinho]

A mass cure light wounds used againt undead creatures will have saves made against it and causes damage, so the wiz would again lose invisibility.

Actually, the wizard wouldn't, since he doesn't have mass cure light wounds on his spell list . But the cleric with the Trickery domain might run into this problem, and if she's dumb enough to cast mass cure light wounds on living opponents, then she deserves what she gets, inasmuch as she'll turn visible.

Except under my house rule; then the spirit that controls invsibility would just be confused.

Daniel

 

[Liquidsabre]

I didn't say "used against undead creatures."

Didn't have to, these are the only creatures who DO make a saving throw vs the spell. Living creatures don't make a saving throw vs the spell as it is harmless (i.e. does not inflict damage).

Actually, the wizard wouldn't, since he doesn't have mass cure light wounds on his spell list .

Lol, yea I meant a cleric heh. Though if you might recall a Wiz with the feat Arcane Disciple (healing domain) would have mass cure light wounds on their spell list.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Didn't have to, these are the only creatures who DO make a saving throw vs the spell. Living creatures don't make a saving throw vs the spell as it is harmless (i.e. does not inflict damage).

Living creatures certainly can make a saving throw against the spell, although doing so is usually useless. It therefore qualifies under the strictest reading of "Attack" that Hypersmurf (and apparently you) advocate.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

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.

Daniel

This is awesome. I will use this from now on whenever it is consistent with cosmology.

 

[Bad Paper]

"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."

This is what I wanted to see. Is that in a glossary somewhere? I haven't had the chance to look this up. Busy busy these days.

So if the question is whether the spell itself does damage, then can my invisible wizard use Telekinesis to push someone off a cliff? The spell itself does no damage. I guess that's kind of an attack... What if my invisible wizard uses Control Water to drown someone?

Then, regarding the second post in this series, if my invisible wizard drops a rock down a hole, and accidentally hits a creature that was down there? What if it's a very small (harmless) rock?

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I know of one "official" instance when an invisible wizard uses a flame sphere without appearing. In Forge of Fury, there is a Duergar Illusionist who's suggested tactic is to use flaming sphere while remaining invisible...

AR