Dispel Magic and Invisibility question

[Lucius Foxhound]

Quick question: would an invisible caster using dispel magic as a counterspell become visible? It's not an "attack"... but...

Thanks!

 

[Destil]

No. The rules for becoming visible are very specific. You are not directly causing harm in any way, with any use of Dispel Magic.

 

[hong]

"For the purposes of this spell, an 'attack' includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area of effect includes a foe" -- PHB description of invisibility, p.218.

A targeted dispel or counterspell would thus count as an attack.

 

[Veldrane]

A targeted dispel or counterspell would thus count as an attack.

I agree about the targeted dispel.
Strictly by the rules, a counterspell action is a targeted dispel too, so it would end the Invisibility. Actually, since I see the counterspell action as an action targeting the opponent's spell, and not the opponent himself (in fact, when you counterspell, you don't dispel any buff the enemy has, even if, by the rules, it's a targeted dispel), I rule otherwise. That's my call, anyway, the rules say Invisibility ends.

Edit: Quote

 

[Tom Cashel]

Actually, since I see the counterspell action as an action targeting the opponent's spell, and not the opponent himself...

No offense, but you're wrong about that, Vel.

"How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, the character must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell."

Dispel Magic used as counterspell:
"Counterspell: The spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work. The character must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster’s spell."

And as Hong mentioned....

Invisibility:
"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."

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Although I think Tom is right, I think a counterspelling to end Invisibility is not in the spirit of the rules, hence, it may need to be houseruled. Blocking a spell should not be considered an attack.

But since Tom's a bit of a rules lawyer (he's my DM), he'd never allow it. The last house rule Tom implemented was: "This is my house, don't spill anything."

 

[Tom Cashel]

Blocking a spell should not be considered an attack.

It isn't.

You're confusing "blocking a spell" with preventing a spell from being cast. There are plenty of ways to block spells that aren't considered attacks. But counterspelling, by definition, targets the opponent.

And the way you "interpret" rules, Lucius, we need a rules lawyer in the group.

 

[Veldrane]

No offense, but you're wrong about that, Vel.

No offense at all

As I said in my post, I know rules states a counterspell breaks Invisibility..

 

[Tom Cashel]

You wouldn't believe the rules debates we're having over this mageduel...

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

For of those of you who don't know, the rules for a Magedule (MoF) state that you can't use any "attack" item in the duel, in short, anything that would end an invisibility spell.

This little rule added an extra three hours to our still-not-completed mageduel! The rules questions that have come up thus far include:

1. Can you use a scroll of dispel magic to counterspell? (we've decided you can't).

2. Can you use a scroll of dispel magic to dispel a minor globe of invulnerability? (this is still up for debate).

3. Can you counterspell a spell being cast by someone within a minor globe of invulnerability? (it was ruled you could not).

They'll be lots more ... what was supposed to be a cool duel between mages has become an endless rules debate ... sorta ruined the duel a bit, but what can you do?