flaming sphere and invisibility

[Jeff Wilder]

Does the "intent" arguement break down in the case of "accidentally" attacking someone?

Gimme a "for example"?

If you mean, "fireballing a room you truly think is empty, but it's not," no, it doesn't break down. The Sage(s) has ruled that such a fireball does not end invisibility.

I've given it quite a bit of thought, and I can't find a situation in which it breaks down, as long as you remember to judge from the wizard's POV in all cases.

The one possible problem -- and this is true in RL, too, in law -- lies in proving intent. In RL, proving intent is very difficult, which, for example, is why civil rights laws are not as strong as the drafters intended them to be. In a game, if you're a DM with metagaming players, you may run into players launching fireballs into empty rooms with "no intent" to hurt anyone within. But in D&D, unlike in RL law, it is both easier to spot such deceptions, and less troubling to make assumptions against the guy trying them, so it shouldn't really be a problem.

And if it turns out to be, just do what the law does in many cases ... equate extreme recklessness -- called acting with a "depraved heart" in law -- with intent.

BTW, Jeff, I admit I had to google the sponge joke. Eeew.

Actually, that makes me feel better. I was worried it might be over the line, but I rationalized that anybody who wasn't supposed to get it wouldn't.

Seinfeld made the devices famous, BTW.


Jeff

 

[Nail]

As long as we're poking about here: What about intent to harm an object?

As I think about it, neither interpretation propose here would cause the wizard to become visible.

 

[angry monkey]

Nail:

SRD, invisibility spell description:

Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell.

On to the larger discussion.

It seems to me that it comes down to the fallibility of the English language. As Jeff can attest, even long debated and scrutinized laws cannot always be written in a manner that excludes all possible mis-interpretations.

I would not be the first to say that the Sage may have made a mistake in his ruling that Fireballing an area devoid of known foes does not end invisibility. But, as strange as that may sound, it is a ruling. Perhaps with as much validity as any other ruling or rule. Published and posted rules can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and though there is no one interpretation that we will all abide by, I think we can agree that the most reasonable interpretations should be the starting point.

Dang, I have always hated it when people invoke the "common sense" argument, considering it the shield of one who does not read the rules or cannot apply logic. And here I am, about to propose it as the final litmus test.

I guess that's the point, it should be the FINAL test.

Regardless, and though Hyper has near legendary status on these boards (as well as in my heart, you blue man of destiny). I have to agree with Jeff.

Personally, I think that the WI is more consistent, believable (if that word can be used to describe an obscure ruling on magical effects), and fair. The fact that the sage's opinion can be used to back it up is also nice.


Perhaps his argument is a bit more confrontational than is usual for this forum, I don't think that any potential rudeness implicit in his words take away from his argument. He does consistently say that Hypersmurf's argument is absurd, but I don't recall him every saying that Hypersmurf is absurd. I appreciate that the two of them are willing to duke it out over this topic, as when I start to argue a point IRL, I usually win only because the other people/person get tired of arguing.

Thanks guys.

 

[angry monkey]

Gimme a "for example"?

If you mean, "fireballing a room you truly think is empty, but it's not," no, it doesn't break down. The Sage(s) has ruled that such a fireball does not end invisibility.

I've given it quite a bit of thought, and I can't find a situation in which it breaks down, as long as you remember to judge from the wizard's POV in all cases.

what about a party that Dominates a third party mage, and uses it to attack persons not actually foes of that mage?

Or some other magical effect that might convince a mage that their enemies are not their foes, and won't be hurt by the offensive spell? How about if the mage willfully fails their saving throw?

These aren't particularly reasonable examples, so I think they will work well in this thread....

 

[Jeff Wilder]

what about a party that Dominates a third party mage, and uses it to attack persons not actually foes of that mage?

Yeah, that's about as borderline as it gets. Me, I'd look at it like this:

If the purpose of invisibility getting dispelled by attacking is to keep the attacker from being able to nuke targets while cloaked, then which is better in this case: allowing the wizard to nuke targets while cloaked, or not?

I'd go with "not," and the invisibility drops.

You could look at it this way: instead of a magical dominatation, imagine it's a more mundane compulsion. "Turn invisible and slay these people, or I kill your daughter, whom I've kidnapped," say. In such a case, the wizard is unwilling, being compelled, but still has intent, and his hapless targets would still be his "foes," right? (I imagine they, at least, would sure as hell think so.)

But, again, that's definitely the toughest case I can think of, and in such a case I do think you have to look at why the designers wanted invisibility to switch-off in the first place, and make a ruling based on that reasoning.

Or some other magical effect that might convince a mage that their enemies are not their foes, and won't be hurt by the offensive spell?

This one's easier. If the mage truly doesn't believe he's hurting people, he has to no intent to attack ("damage, harm, or hinder"). Invisibility survives.

How about if the mage willfully fails their saving throw?

I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind here. Could you elaborate?


Jeff

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind here. Could you elaborate?

I think I get it.

The demon uses a Suggestion spell to convince the invisible PC wizard that casting Fireball at the other PCs won't hurt them. You've submitted that in this case, the wizard has no intent to harm, so invisibility is not broken.

Given this, can the PC sorcerer use Suggestion to convince the invisible PC wizard that casting fireball at the horde of orcs won't hurt them... with the wizard deliberately failing his save, so the Suggestion definitely takes effect?

-Hyp.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Personally, I'd allow the invisible caster to use domination provided the spell was cast prior to the invisibility. My reasoning is that the subsequent offensive attacks made by the dominated person are not made by the invisible caster. I'd keep an eye out for potential abuse if this became a problem, though.

And it makes for a cool scenario to boot!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Given this, can the PC sorcerer use Suggestion to convince the invisible PC wizard that casting fireball at the horde of orcs won't hurt them... with the wizard deliberately failing his save, so the Suggestion definitely takes effect?

Personally, I'd probably say, "Sure."

Again, though, you could infer intent to attack from the wizard's deliberate failing of the saving throw. A RL analogy would be a property owner who intentionally sets a deadly trap to catch trespassers and then forgets about the trap. The forgetting doesn't negate the original intent.

And again, you can look at the why instead of the when for invisibility going away ... which ruling best serves the "why"?

As for a wizard dominating another wizard, then ducking under cover of invisibility and using the other wizard to nuke people, this is another good corner case.

On the one hand, you could analogize to summon spells. This is probably what I'd do. Summoned creatures have no more free will than dominated creatures, really.

On the other hand, you could say that the dominated wizard is really no more than a weapon wielded by the dominating wizard. Although I can obviously see the argument, I think it's weaker, and I think ruling this way is more problematic.


Jeff

 

[angry monkey]

Hyp was closer to the proposed intent of my suggested abuse, a pc wizard dominates a pc sorcerer, who then believes that the orcs are his friends, and will be magically healed by his repeated fireballs even though they look like they are getting hurt.

IMC that would be ruled an abuse, and the invisibility would fall off. If the PC went out of his way to rule that it was an effective use of a loophole, I'd either use it against the party, or do some other tricky evil DM sort of thing that I normally save for rings of three wishes.

Regardless of my campaign's dynamics, I only point out this possible abuse of the "intent" rule because any argument about philosophy or law ends up getting into extremes (or should I say "absurdities") and I thought this example was both extreme and absurd.

Heck, maybe I'd reward the PCs for thinking something like that up. I don't know about the rest of you all, but when you're in your 30s and people can bring stuff like that to the table, you appreciate that someone went and spent the time to think it up.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Heck, maybe I'd reward the PCs for thinking something like that up. I don't know about the rest of you all, but when you're in your 30s and people can bring stuff like that to the table, you appreciate that someone went and spent the time to think it up.

That's pretty why I said I'd probably allow it, even if it does stretch things a bit. If you think about it, also, it's not that big an abuse ... putting a wizard in that situation isn't an easy thing for the real bad guy to do, after all. Plus, turning an enemy against his friends is a classic maneuver.