Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6971505" data-attributes="member: 6787503">So we agree that against an opponent with only melee capability an invisible and undetected elf cannot be attacked. You can cast spells during melee, however. See the section on "Casting Spells During Melee" on p. 65 of the DMG. You're going to have to explain this distinction a little further. I don't see anything like it in AD&D where the word attack seems to have its natural language meaning and isn't a term of game jargon. In fact, on p. 80 of the DMG, you'll find fireball, yes "the magical fireball" listed as a form of attack along with other magical effects and blows from opponents, among other things. This scenario shows that you haven't understood what I've been saying. Maybe that's my fault for not explaining things well enough. The elves in your scenario, although invisible, are not undetected precisely because they are observed while becoming invisible. Therefore, they can be attacked in the way you describe. What I've been arguing is that the elves, if undetected, could not be attacked. I already have, but I'll post it again since you seem to have already forgotten it. This is from p. 60 of the DMG, under the heading Invisibility: "... if the party is observed [becoming invisible], there is no reason why an opponent cannot attack..." This statement assumes that normally, if the party is not observed becoming invisible (or is not detected in any other way) then there is a reason why an opponent cannot attack. Notice that this rule is not qualified by any reference to melee whatsoever.The spell doesn't give the magic-user the ability to detect a hidden elf.</blockquote>

Verification