Invisibility...when does it end?

[bouncyhead]

Hmmmm. This is classic gamism/simulation. (well, simulation of a totally fantastical, unsimulatable type thing).

The dispel on attack clause will never make any empirical sense. It's purely to stop invisibility becoming an uber-spell.

Not sure I can remember this coming up that much in my games. Guess I might start with: Is an attack roll or saving throw (where DC is based on invisible attacker's attributes etc.) involved? In the case of the daylight bomb, to hit a precise square the rogue has to make an attack roll.

Doesn't extricate us from the issue of intent though...

 

[pawsplay]

So in your world magic spells have some built in AI.

Nope.

The invisible rogue sees the shadowy shapes of some humanoids ahead. To get a better idea who it is he throws a clay encrusted light pellet into their midst. Upon impact the clay breaks away exposing the party of Drow to the light.

"WOOP WOOP WOOP. ALARM! ALARM ALARM. Magic protocol elaboration system system detects Drow being adversly affected by light pellet thrown by invisible Rogue. Deactivate Invisibility"

Doesnt that sound silly?

Yes, you have succeeded in sounding silly.

 

[pawsplay]

Hmmmm. This is classic gamism/simulation. (well, simulation of a totally fantastical, unsimulatable type thing).

The dispel on attack clause will never make any empirical sense. It's purely to stop invisibility becoming an uber-spell.

Not sure I can remember this coming up that much in my games. Guess I might start with: Is an attack roll or saving throw (where DC is based on invisible attacker's attributes etc.) involved? In the case of the daylight bomb, to hit a precise square the rogue has to make an attack roll.

Doesn't extricate us from the issue of intent though...

I'm content that lobbing a pellet with malicious intent is sufficiently unambiguous for my simulation-beating heart.

 

[blindrage]

"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth."

If you are following the rules as written and as point by one the rules guys at Pazio, throwing the daylight stone into the middle of the drow does not cause attack. It follows the examples given. The rouge is not attacking no one and cause indirect harm by blindly them and alerting his party the drow are coming.

 

[kinem]

So ... suppose we have a guy who is a little crazy. Perhaps he is a good guy but he thinks everyone else needs to die before they can sin too much.

So he casts invisibility and lobs fireballs left and right at anyone he sees ... and he remains invisible! Am I right? After all, there are no foes in his mind, just people he is trying to help.

Alternatively, he might just be stupid, and not realize the cause and effect between fire and burnt bodies. (Obviously a sorcerer.)

An uber-spell has been born here today!

Or ... we could fix the spell and make it not depend on intent

 

[pawsplay]

"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth."

If you are following the rules as written and as point by one the rules guys at Pazio, throwing the daylight stone into the middle of the drow does not cause attack. It follows the examples given. The rouge is not attacking no one and cause indirect harm by blindly them and alerting his party the drow are coming.

No, he is directly blinding them with a daylight pellet. About as directly as if he threw a hand grenade.

 

[blindrage]

So ... suppose we have a guy who is a little crazy. Perhaps he is a good guy but he thinks everyone else needs to die before they can sin too much.

So he casts invisibility and lobs fireballs left and right at anyone he sees ... and he remains invisible! Am I right? After all, there are no foes in his mind, just people he is trying to help.

Alternatively, he might just be stupid, and not realize the cause and effect between fire and burnt bodies. (Obviously a sorcerer.)

An uber-spell has been born here today!

Or ... we could fix the spell and make it not depend on intent

Fireball is an attack spell. It says so in it's writing.

 

[blindrage]

No, he is directly blinding them with a daylight pellet. About as directly as if he threw a hand grenade.

But he not attacking them directly is he? Hmm like I said I think I'm going to with how the spell is written and the ruling from the Pazio rules guy(s).

 

[coyote6]

Most strawmen do.

If you attack a straman, does that end your invisibility?

 

[kinem]

Fireball is an attack spell. It says so in it's writing.

Does it say that in invisible ink?

Fireball (Pathfinder_OGC)

Even if it did say so - which it doesn't - so what? My point holds for damage-causing spells in general, which obviously don't all say such a thing.

BTW, fireball has lots of other uses besides as an attack - destroying evidence, for example, or illuminating a distant area briefly - so it shouldn't say such a thing. IIRC there are similar 4e powers which can only be used to attack creatures - thus breaking simulationism. Yuck.

If you attack a straman, does that end your invisibility?

Depends on whether you hate straws