Invisibility...when does it end?

[Mark Chance]

I don't know, those sound just as ill-defined to me. What qualifies as "being struck"? If I fling water around a room, does being hit by a drop count? Replace the water with flour, or sand, or gravel, or bees?

Ah, but "being struck" isn't really part of the definition. The key is, "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. 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."

 

[James Jacobs]

If summoning a balor into the midst of a group of drow won't break invisibility (the spell specifically says you can summon monsters, remember)... I would say that throwing a light pellet wouldn't either. Later in the spell, it says "causing harm indirectly is not an attack."

The result of throwing a light bomb affects the drow, certainly, but it's not a specific attack on the drow. And this way, we don't have different results if the character throws a light pellet at creatures without light sensitivity.

The rogue wouldn't become visble, therefore, by throwing the daylight pellet. But they'd certainly know SOMEONE was nearby messing with them!

 

[kinem]

I don't know, those sound just as ill-defined to me. What qualifies as "being struck"? If I fling water around a room, does being hit by a drop count? Replace the water with flour, or sand, or gravel, or bees?

coyote6: In my suggestion I said 'with sufficient pressure'. Obviously there will always be a role for the DM as the final arbiter, but in this case, the fluff needn't come into play too much. To spell it out: if points of damage are inflicted (or would have been, if not for DR and such, depending on how the wording ends up), then it is sufficient. If not, not. I thought my intention to mimic to some extent the mechanic of attacks ending the spell was obvious, but maybe not.

But to clarify: My main objection to the current wording of invisibility is not its lack of definition. It's the stupidity of the invisible person's intentions coming into play - and in a way contrary to the caster's interests, so it's not as if you could argue that monitoring his intentions could have been intentionally worked into the spell! The ending of the spell should be based on physical action, justified by saying that it somehow makes maintaining invisibility too difficult. The opportunity to make it more well-defined is just an obvious bonus.

Mark Chance: He was referring to my post above his.

 

[Mark Chance]

Mark Chance: He was referring to my post above his.

Yes, he was.

Here's my take: Invisibility ends if you attack, directly or indirectlly, one or more foes. An attack is something that harms one or more foes by its nature. Daylight is not an attack spell; therefore, it won't end invisibility even if cast at drow.

But that's just me.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm going to say that throwing an object to have any effect on foes is always an attack. Throwing is an attack, and using a pellet or something with an effect on it is effectively activating an item or using the equivalent of a magical item.

 

[Anguish]

The more I think about it, the more I think this acts like a fireball without a reflex save. The simultationist in me hates the rules changing depending on who's in the area, but it's pretty clear. If you cast a fireball into an area without occupants, you remain invisible. If you cast a fireball into an area full of puppies, you become visible. Now, according to the rules, even if those puppies have immunity to fire damage the intent is to attack, and even if no damage is dealt, you become visible. Amusingly, if you know they're immune, you're not attacking, so you don't.

It becomes the ultimate metagaming rule. Does the player know/think the spell is likely to be harmful to its recipient? Does the spell directly impact the recipient? If yes to either, they become visible.

Summon spells don't count because the spell doesn't harm the target. The results of the spell do. Same thing for making a wall of iron and tipping it over.

So, sadly, IMHO lobbing this object at a bunch of drow makes you visible. Doing the same at a bunch of humans, not so much. Amusingly, lobbing it at a bunch of drow disguised as humans makes you visible.

 

[billd91]

I tend to give invisible creatures a lot of latitude about causing indirect discomfort to enemies. If throwing a daylight pellet counts as an attack, then so would opening the shutters on a brightly lit day if the drow were in a darkened room. And that, to me, seems ridiculous.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I'm going to say that throwing an object to have any effect on foes is always an attack. Throwing is an attack, and using a pellet or something with an effect on it is effectively activating an item or using the equivalent of a magical item.

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

 

[coyote6]

Yeah, I'd say tossing a fireball would end invisibility, regardless of the presence or absence of enemies, foes, opponents, targets, allies, compatriots, comrades, friends, frenemies, victims, schmucks, suckers, losers, or other individuals or collectives.

 

[Mark Chance]

"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?

Most strawmen do.