flaming sphere vs. invisibility

[Dracorat]

Were the item in question a magically-created weapon or arrow, then yep it would break stealth.

 

[TYPO5478]

In all five cases, we have a spell whose area includes a foe, which the text of the invisibility spell describes as an attack for the purposes of the invisibility spell.

The text of the DBF spell indicates that the 'burst' occurs on detonation, so until that occurs, I can only assume that 'Area: 20 ft. radius spread' described in the Fireball spell doesnt apply. Once it does, upon detonation, the area of the spell doesn't include a foe, because he's moved.

When the DBF 'bursts', we have a spell whose area includes a foe.

We also have a definition for attacking with a spell (for the purposes of the invisibility spell), and it includes any spell whose area includes a foe.

I suppose the same goes for grease, alarm, silence, antimagic field (although I'm not sure how that would even work), any of the detect spells, magic circles, a variety of walls, clouds and fogs or for nearly any other spell that might actually be useful against a creature. The ironic thing is that it isn't a problem to cast those spells when it isn't useful, but as soon as it becomes useful, it's detrimental.

What I still don't understand (besides why explosive runes, even with all the restrictions, should qualify) is how a foe could be included in the effect of flaming sphere: a 5-ft.-diameter sphere. Even if the sphere touches them, they're still outside of it. Or is mere contact enough to be "included" in the effect? And if so, how do you determine whether someone on the edge of the area or effect actually contacted it or not?

What about summoning monsters that can contain other creatures? Sure, invisibility says that summoned creatures are okay, but if the summoned entity can swallow, swarm, envelop, or otherwise engulf a foe, isn't that foe contained within the effect of the summon monster spell? Which of the phrases describing invisibility is more applicable at that point?

 

[evilbob]

The ironic thing is that it isn't a problem to cast those spells when it isn't useful, but as soon as it becomes useful, it's detrimental.

Only if you're invisible.

Even if the sphere touches them, they're still outside of it. Or is mere contact enough to be "included" in the effect? And if so, how do you determine whether someone on the edge of the area or effect actually contacted it or not?
...but if the summoned entity can swallow, swarm, envelop, or otherwise engulf a foe, isn't that foe contained within the effect of the summon monster spell?

That's a whole direction of thinking that is just out-thinking itself: it's a spell. Your spell is attacking someone directly. The spell causes damage. The technicality you're introducing here does not - in my opinion - matter.

But then again, the point of your bringing all this up is, I believe, trying to over-complicate the issue in order to show the futility of the opposing argument. (Correct me if I'm wrong, however.)


For what its worth, I agree with TYPO's interpretation of the 5 situations Hypersmurf proposed earlier in this thread: "yes; yes, but only when the bead bursts; no; yes; no." But, that's because I still fall into the very nebulous "whether or not something was intended to be an attack" camp, which is an interpretation I admit, but makes the rule much more clear. However, I think the RAW interpretation probably supports Hypersmurf's answer of (what I believe to be) "all yes," and "DBF breaks invis when cast."

I'm also of the mind that all of the sort of "logical extreme" cases that folks are introducing - like reading explosive runes several days later or hurting yourself to break somone's invis spell - are all simply incorrect. The spell was not intended to be defensively abused in that manner, and I can't think of a better word to describe those kinds of actions.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I suppose the same goes for grease, alarm, silence, antimagic field (although I'm not sure how that would even work), any of the detect spells, magic circles, a variety of walls, clouds and fogs or for nearly any other spell that might actually be useful against a creature.

Detect Magic is one of the first spells I reference when discussing what breaks invisibility.

It's a spell whose area (might) include a foe. Per the text in invisibility, if there's a foe, Detect Magic is an attack.

What I still don't understand (besides why explosive runes, even with all the restrictions, should qualify) is how a foe could be included in the effect of flaming sphere: a 5-ft.-diameter sphere. Even if the sphere touches them, they're still outside of it. Or is mere contact enough to be "included" in the effect? And if so, how do you determine whether someone on the edge of the area or effect actually contacted it or not?

I don't consider Flaming Sphere to be a spell whose effect includes a foe. I consider it to be a spell opponents resist with saving throws.

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

My logic RE: Invisibility is simple.

bool bCasterIsInvis = true;

/*Check each spell effect here. Mundane effects are handled separately*/
foreach(NonAlly in Game)
{
 if(Monster.NeedsToMakeSavingThrow.AgainstSpellEffect(Caster) == true) bCasterIsInvis = false;
 if(Monster.TakesDamage.AgainstSpellEffect(Caster) == true) bCasterIsInvis = false;
 if(Monster.ResistsEffectOf.AgainstSpellEffect(Caster) == true) bCasterIsInvis = false;
 if(Monster.StatusChangeApplied.AgainstSpellEffect(Caster) == true) bCasterIsInvis = false;
}

Notice there is NO allowance for when any spell was cast. This is intentional.

 

[TYPO5478]

My logic RE: Invisibility is simple.

Even though it's been a long time since I coded anything, I think I followed that. However, the most significant problem I see is that you haven't excluded summon monster. Your second IF statement would definitely include damage from a summoned being (considering that the effect of the summon spell is the creature).

I don't consider Flaming Sphere to be a spell whose effect includes a foe. I consider it to be a spell opponents resist with saving throws.

Which raises another question about summon monster: what if a summoned creature forces a foe to make a save? Are they saving against the summon spell, or the effect of the summon spell? Without the spell, the opponent wouldn't have had to make the save.

Only if you're invisible.

Heh. Fair enough.

the point of your bringing all this up is, I believe, trying to over-complicate the issue in order to show the futility of the opposing argument.

I'm not trying to complicate the issue at all; the issue is complicated enough by itself. I'm simply trying to specify the nuances of everyone's respective interpretations (of which, at this point, I count four: Dracorat's, Hypersmurf's, evilbob's and mine). They're all different to one degree or another, so each is capable of yielding different results when applied to the same situation. Not to mention the fact that we will be playing out this scene sooner or later, and I want to make sure I understand the consequences of my actions before I take them.

The problem I have with the "intention to attack" interpretation is that intentions are difficult, if not impossible, to determine objectively. Even if you could, the character could change his intentions retroactively.

Consider this scenario in terms of intention: an invisible sorceror casts flaming sphere in a space where it won't break his invisibility (so he's safe at least to begin with). His plan is to send the sphere to set a building on fire. Along the path to that building, there are several foes. If any of the enemies get burned, will it be considered an attack (keeping in mind that the sorceror's only intention is to ignite the structure behind them)?

 

[Dracorat]

However, the most significant problem I see is that you haven't excluded summon monster. Your second IF statement would definitely include damage from a summoned being (considering that the effect of the summon spell is the creature).

Which raises another question about summon monster: what if a summoned creature forces a foe to make a save? Are they saving against the summon spell, or the effect of the summon spell? Without the spell, the opponent wouldn't have had to make the save.

Actually it handles summons fine. The spell effect of Summon Monster is to bring in to being one monster, allow you to communicate with it and then dismiss the monster at the end of the spell.

What the monster does beyond that is the responsibility of the monster, not the spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which raises another question about summon monster: what if a summoned creature forces a foe to make a save? Are they saving against the summon spell, or the effect of the summon spell? Without the spell, the opponent wouldn't have had to make the save.

Summon Monster is Saving Throw: None. Compare that with a random example like oh, say, Flaming Sphere , with a Saving Throw: Reflex Negates. One is a spell that does not permit a saving throw. The other is a spell that opponents resist with saving throws.

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

At this point, we're going in circles. I'm finished, but thanks for the chat, y'all.