flaming sphere vs. invisibility

[frankthedm]

So you can detect the presence of invisible foes by seeing whether your area-effect spells dispel your own invisibility?

Yes. If you know they are a foe.

Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions

 

[Kularian]

Does casting wall of fire break invisibility? If not, then later, when a person lept through the wall, does *that* would break invisibility?!

Yes, if a person is in the area of effect, and Yes.

So then...say you make a poisoned sandwich while invisible. Making said sandwich isn't an offensive action, so you stay invisible. However, when an enemy sees the sandwich and chooses to eat it, your invisibility breaks, since they ate the poison that you placed there?

Sorry Draco, I'm against you here. If wall of fire was cast 'on' a target, invisibility breaks. If a foe decides to leap through the wall of fire of his own choice, there's no offensive action on your part, and thus invisibility doesn't break.


EDIT: I realized I missed answering the OP. If you willfully direct the sphere toward a specific target, I would treat that as breaking invisibility. ....then again, invisibility explicitly states that summoning monsters that attack doesn't break it. ANd the sphere, while in the evocation school, is quite similar to said monsters.

That's a very tough call, as you can command the summoned monsters to attack if you speak their language, and that doesn't break inviz. Commanding a flaming sphere, though...The way that I'd rule it is that if one intentionally directs the flaming sphere at an enemy, then it would break inviz, though I really can't justify it. That's how I'd rule it were I DM, so that's my decision...

 

[Dracorat]

So then...say you make a poisoned sandwich while invisible. Making said sandwich isn't an offensive action, so you stay invisible. However, when an enemy sees the sandwich and chooses to eat it, your invisibility breaks, since they ate the poison that you placed there?

Sorry Draco, I'm against you here. If wall of fire was cast 'on' a target, invisibility breaks. If a foe decides to leap through the wall of fire of his own choice, there's no offensive action on your part, and thus invisibility doesn't break.

Since the sandwich is a mundane item, it falls under the causing harm indirectly statute, so your example doesn't fly. Let's say instead that you had prepared Explosive Runes, written them on a paper, cast Invisibility on yourself and then an 'enemy' came by, read the paper and the runes exploded.

You would become visible.

 

[Kularian]

Eh....good point. But I still can't justify that an opponent leaping through a wall of fire breaks inviz. Nor the explosive runes.

But, I will say this: RAW, I believe you are correct. But I would not use such things in my campaigns. If the player is creative enough to force an enemy to read some Explosive Runes or walk into a Wall of Fire, I'd allow them to stay inviz, because in my eyes, they aren't taking any offensive action.

I agree to disagree, and we'll leave it at that,

 

[Vegepygmy]

Since the sandwich is a mundane item, it falls under the causing harm indirectly statute, so your example doesn't fly. Let's say instead that you had prepared Explosive Runes, written them on a paper, cast Invisibility on yourself and then an 'enemy' came by, read the paper and the runes exploded.

You would become visible.

No, I don't think you would. That would, again, be causing harm indirectly.

Nor would a flaming sphere cause you to become visible. Flaming sphere is not an Area spell, so it doesn't include a foe in its area. Nor is it a Targeted spell. It is an Effect spell, and the effect created by the flaming sphere in this scenario does not include a foe. That a foe may later be damaged by the spell is irrelevant; that's the same as summoning a monster that then attacks your foe.

Same for wall of fire. If, as Kularian says, the wall is brought into effect such that it damages a foe, invisibility is broken. But if the wall is positioned so that no one is harmed when it first appears, and someone later moves close enough to it to be damaged, that's indirect harm.

 

[Sejs]

Since the sandwich is a mundane item, it falls under the causing harm indirectly statute, so your example doesn't fly. Let's say instead that you had prepared Explosive Runes, written them on a paper, cast Invisibility on yourself and then an 'enemy' came by, read the paper and the runes exploded.

You would become visible.

Nah, that'd fall under the same aegis as Wall of Fire. The enemy's action caused themselves harm.

The difference with flaming sphere would be if you cast flaming sphere and roll it over an enemy (you're attacking; invis drops) versus them running up and throwing themselves on it (they're being doorknobs; invis stays).

 

[Dracorat]

I agree to disagree, and we'll leave it at that,

I agree. =) (to disagree)

 

[geosapient]

Since the sandwich is a mundane item, it falls under the causing harm indirectly statute, so your example doesn't fly. Let's say instead that you had prepared Explosive Runes, written them on a paper, cast Invisibility on yourself and then an 'enemy' came by, read the paper and the runes exploded.

You would become visible.

I would deifinitely say no here as the Explosive Rune spell was cast prior to becoming invisible. And even if you did go invisible before casting the rune I would argue that it wouldn't dispell invisibility.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The difference with flaming sphere would be if you cast flaming sphere and roll it over an enemy (you're attacking; invis drops)

I disagree. By the definition of "attack" given in the invisibility spell, this is no more an "attack" than is summoning a monster and directing it to attack a foe. You don't make an attack roll with the flaming sphere, you don't target the spell on a foe, it isn't an Area spell, and the Effect it creates does not include a foe.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I disagree. By the definition of "attack" given in the invisibility spell, this is no more an "attack" than is summoning a monster and directing it to attack a foe. You don't make an attack roll with the flaming sphere, you don't target the spell on a foe, it isn't an Area spell, and the Effect it creates does not include a foe.

Similarly with Spiritual Weapon, for example.

On the other hand, casting Detect Magic such that the area includes a foe is an attack, by the definition in the Invisibility spell.

-Hyp.