flaming sphere vs. invisibility

[evilbob]

...you don't target the spell on a foe...

...But you do target a foe with the spell. Or rather, you may intentionally roll the spell into an area that includes an enemy, at which point they must make a reflex save or take damage. That isn't technically "targeting" the foe, to use the word how it is most often used in these spell descriptions - but at the same time, that's exactly what you're doing.

...and the Effect it creates does not include a foe.

...Well, unless you include a foe in the effect of the spell. Which you can do, after it is cast, to cause damage.

I agree that there is a really hard case for a RAW settlement of this on either side, and the technicality seems to side with not breaking invis. However, I believe that the intent seems to indicate that a directly offensive action would break the spell. Rolling your ball of fire into someone seems directly offensive.

This may just boil down to an intent debate, which really can't be solved. But more opinions are welcome.

 

[Hypersmurf]

...But you do target a foe with the spell. Or rather, you may intentionally roll the spell into an area that includes an enemy, at which point they must make a reflex save or take damage. That isn't technically "targeting" the foe, to use the word how it is most often used in these spell descriptions - but at the same time, that's exactly what you're doing.

How do you consider this different to instructing your Summoned Air Elemental "Whirlwind and move into that guy's square"? You're intentionally moving the effect of your spell into an area that includes an enemy, at which point they must make a reflex save or take damage.

What about casting Transmute Rock To Mud at the cavern ceiling above your opponent's head? The opponent is not in the area of the spell, but he takes the damage stated in the spell description as a result of it.

-Hyp.

 

[Vegepygmy]

...But you do target a foe with the spell. Or rather, you may intentionally roll the spell into an area that includes an enemy, at which point they must make a reflex save or take damage. That isn't technically "targeting" the foe, to use the word how it is most often used in these spell descriptions - but at the same time, that's exactly what you're doing.

But (as you recognize) that isn't "targeting" a foe.

...Well, unless you include a foe in the effect of the spell. Which you can do, after it is cast, to cause damage.

Causing a foe to be affected by a spell's effect (such as when the foe is attacked by a summoned monster) isn't the same as including a foe in a spell's effect. Consider the wall of fire discussion, above.

 

[evilbob]

I agree that transmuting rock to mud above an enemy's head would not break the spell; that is an indirect attack, and more or less covered in the invis description.

I also agree that someone walking into a wall of fire wouldn't break it, either.

However, at the same time, a flaming sphere seems too dissimilar to the summoned creatures example.

 

[RigaMortus2]

It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

The sphere moves as long as you actively direct it (a move action for you); otherwise, it merely stays at rest and burns

I see "directing" a Summoned Monster more in lines with telling your ally to attack a specific target.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I see "directing" a Summoned Monster more in lines with telling your ally to attack a specific target.

Your ally who was conjured by a spell you cast and has no choice about following your instructions because of that spell?

-Hyp.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

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.

So. Say you cast Explosive Runes on your Bunk at the Inn in case of Thieves.

Leave the next day. But the Runes are still active.

Fast Forward 10 Levels, 2 Decades of Game Time and 6,000 Miles Away.

Your (now) Mage/Thief/Assassin is Invisible and going in for the Kill.

Just before you strike. The DM Annouces "Your Invisibility goes away"

"Huh?"

Yep. Those Explosive Runes back a the Inn from the Session Last Semester. Seems a Maid happened to choose just this moment to read them. Ironic, ain't it?"


Or. If you suspect Invisible Creatures. 1. Turn Invisible. 2. Fireball. 3. See if you become Visible.

The INTENT of becoming Visible when Attacking is to keep the Spell Balanced with its Level (thus why Imp. Invisibility Exists).

I'm more inclined to keep with the Spirit of the Limitation, than any Iron-Clad Rule. As long as I'm willing to be flexible, I won't get someone trying to turn the letter of the rule against the spirit.

In this case. I'd probably only rule the Invis goes away if the Caster Knowingly targets a foe by moving the Sphere. (I.E if he moves into or through a Hidden Rogue or Invisible Creature he doesn't know about; I'll roll Saves/Damage behind the Screen & he'll be none the wiser).

 

[Bad Paper]

hey! I think this was my first thread!

ahh, memories... http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106124

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, right... spell that opponents resist with a saving throw is defined as an attack, isn't it?

Then yeah, I'll switch my vote back to 'ends invisibility'

Spiritual Weapon, on the other hand, still seems analogous to Summon Monster to me, though Is it a 'spell that deals damage'? Or is it a spell that evokes a weapon, and the weapon deals damage, in the same way that Summon Monster conjures a monster, and the monster deals damage?

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Oh, right... spell that opponents resist with a saving throw is defined as an attack, isn't it?

Then yeah, I'll switch my vote back to 'ends invisibility'

Spiritual Weapon, on the other hand, still seems analogous to Summon Monster to me, though Is it a 'spell that deals damage'? Or is it a spell that evokes a weapon, and the weapon deals damage, in the same way that Summon Monster conjures a monster, and the monster deals damage?

-Hyp.

IMO the difference with Spiritual Weapon is that the caster makes an attack roll using his BAB - the key here being that it is his BAB and not the summoned creature's. It also uses the caster's Wisdom mod instead of Str Mod as a bonus.