Ethereal Ninja attacking a sleeping PC.

[Shin Okada]

Is there any particular reason the party can't just sleep inside a Rope Trick spell?

All the PCs have some kind of Extradimensional or Non-Dimensional containers such as Bag of Holding or HHH.

I know this issue is somewhat unclear by 3e/3.5e RAW. But as several players in my play group have been playing DnD for 20+ years, since the release of 3.0e our consensus has been that bringing such containers into an extradimensional space created by Rope Trick and such are big no-no. So, no one ever tried to sleep in there.

Maybe we should now follow the latest comment of Skip the sage and make only BoH/PH combination to be dangerous.

 

[irdeggman]

Context:
Irdeggman's post was in response to my pointing out that the Ethereal Strike ability gives you a round in which to use it - it has to be made by the end of your next turn, not the end of this one - so that the attack being a full-round action isn't a barrier. After I point this out, Irdeggman started calling a CdG "not an attack" as what appears to be a fall-back argument - so I pointed out a logical consequence of labeling it such, and note that it's somewhat silly.

The full-round issue has already been dismissed as not being all that important.

After all, if using a weapon to create a life-threatening injury on another isn't an "attack", then what is?

No it was not a fall back argument - it was a rules reading argument.

The word "attack" in the invisibility spell does not mean "attack action" it refers to the broad meaning of attack being pretty much anything that causes damage. The CdG is not an "attack" action, nor is it a "full attack" action. It is an action that causes damage though.

Now if you wish to interpret the GS to have the same meaning then that is fine.

But if so doing then the CdG falls under the full attack action interpretation - which GS does not apply to (or else you could use it for a full round worth of attacks - like from the full attack action). That is unless you are saying that you can use it for that - which is an entirely different thing.

 

[Jack Simth]

No it was not a fall back argument - it was a rules reading argument.

The word "attack" in the invisibility spell does not mean "attack action" it refers to the broad meaning of attack being pretty much anything that causes damage. The CdG is not an "attack" action, nor is it a "full attack" action. It is an action that causes damage though.

Now if you wish to interpret the GS to have the same meaning then that is fine.

But if so doing then the CdG falls under the full attack action interpretation - which GS does not apply to (or else you could use it for a full round worth of attacks - like from the full attack action). That is unless you are saying that you can use it for that - which is an entirely different thing.

Ghost Strike doesn't mention an "attack action" either:

Ghost Strike (Su): At 8th level and higher, a ninja can spend one daily use of her ki power to strike incorporeal and ethereal creatures as if they were corporeal. She also

 

[Jack Simth]

No it was not a fall back argument - it was a rules reading argument.

It appeared to me to be a fallback argument based on the aspect that your initial objection was that the Ninja only had a standard action with which to attack - and when I pointed out that the Ninja can do a full-round action, you switched to saying that a Coup De Grace was not an "attack". As you listed the "not an attack" argument after the standard-action only was pointed out as not applying, and did not list the "not an attack" argument in the initial segment where you were objecting to the full-round coup-de-grace, it appeared to be a fallback to my eyes. I'm misinterpreting intent? Okay - it happens; I apologize.

The word "attack" in the invisibility spell does not mean "attack action" it refers to the broad meaning of attack being pretty much anything that causes damage.

And yet, it explicitly mentions that triggering traps, cutting the ropes on a bridge people are standing on, summoning monsters and having them attack, and so on, don't count.

The CdG is not an "attack" action, nor is it a "full attack" action. It is an action that causes damage though.

Now if you wish to interpret the GS to have the same meaning then that is fine.

But if so doing then the CdG falls under the full attack action interpretation - which GS does not apply to (or else you could use it for a full round worth of attacks - like from the full attack action). That is unless you are saying that you can use it for that - which is an entirely different thing.

Ghost Strike doesn't mention an "attack action" either:

Ghost Strike (Su): At 8th level and higher, a ninja can spend one daily use of her ki power to strike incorporeal and ethereal creatures as if they were corporeal. She also can use this ability to strike foes on the Material Plane normally while ethereal (for example, while using her ghost step ability).
Activating the ghost strike ability is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It affects the next attack made by the ninja, as long as that attack is made before the end of her next turn.

(Emphasis added)

It just says "attack" and "strike" it does not say "attack action". Compare to the phrasing on Invisibility:

Invisibility

Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2, Trickery 2
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal or touch
Target: You or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lb./level
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) or Yes (harmless, object)

The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). 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.) 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 the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.

Arcane Material Component: An eyelash encased in a bit of gum arabic.

(Emphasis added)

How do you possibly interpret one to include a Coup De Grace, and the other, not?

 

[Nimloth]

Is the group aware that the ninja can use ghost step to go ethereal? Are the friendly creatures aware of this tactic of the ninja?

It would seem seem to me that the party should be aware of this possible tactic of the ninja (having encountered him before). However, how experienced with high level characters (and high level ninja) are the players?

I would suggest having their hosts make some comment about the ninja. Maybe the hosts have some way of stopping this tactic. They live in this dungeon and apparently are at odds with the BBEG (otherwise, why risk helping the adventurers). So why haven't they been killed with the same tactic?

 

[Starbuck_II]

And yet, it explicitly mentions that triggering traps, cutting the ropes on a bridge people are standing on, summoning monsters and having them attack, and so on, don't count.
How do you possibly interpret one to include a Coup De Grace, and the other, not?

Because it also says: an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

Coup de Grace is a effect that targets a foe.

Weird thought: invibility only goes away if target foes. Does that mean you can target your allies with attacks and stay invisible (not sure why you would want to but could you?)?

 

[irdeggman]

Coup de Grace is a effect that targets a foe.

But it is not a spell (which is the text in question).


Let's look a little deeper.

SRD (from invisibility entry)

If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

PHB pg 305

attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neiutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

The reason the invisibility text specifically talks about spells is becasue of the attack roll issue. For instance a magic missile has no attack roll and yet still targets an individual - so it breaks invisibility. In fact (per the FAQ, and a strict reading of the rule) so does Detect Magic since it can be targeted on an individual or its area of effect can include a foe.

from FAQ

Would casting detect magic be considered an attack for the purpose of ending an invisibility spell?

The invisibility spell states that “for purposes of the spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.” [Emphasis added.] Detect magic and similar spells have an area, so if this area included a foe, it would count as an “attack” for this purpose.

Note that CdG is not resolved by an attack roll (and can only be done with a melee weapon or a bow/x-bow when adjacent). It is considered an auto critical hit and the only time the saving throw comes into play is if the target survives the damage then the save is to not-die.

So technically (as I was trying to point out) a CdG is not an attack.

 

[Jack Simth]

But it is not a spell (which is the text in question).


Let's look a little deeper.

SRD (from invisibility entry)





PHB pg 305



The reason the invisibility text specifically talks about spells is becasue of the attack roll issue. For instance a magic missile has no attack roll and yet still targets an individual - so it breaks invisibility. In fact (per the FAQ, and a strict reading of the rule) so does Detect Magic since it can be targeted on an individual or its area of effect can include a foe.

from FAQ


Note that CdG is not resolved by an attack roll (and can only be done with a melee weapon or a bow/x-bow when adjacent). It is considered an auto critical hit and the only time the saving throw comes into play is if the target survives the damage then the save is to not-die.

So technically (as I was trying to point out) a CdG is not an attack.

Ah - so, as it's not a spell, and it's not an attack, a Coup De Grace doesn't break invisibility, then. Interesting.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Note that CdG is not resolved by an attack roll (and can only be done with a melee weapon or a bow/x-bow when adjacent). It is considered an auto critical hit and the only time the saving throw comes into play is if the target survives the damage then the save is to not-die.

So technically (as I was trying to point out) a CdG is not an attack.

Ah - so, as it's not a spell, and it's not an attack, a Coup De Grace doesn't break invisibility, then. Interesting.

So, so very happy none of the groups I've ever been in have played strictly by RAW.

And that none of them consider the FAQ a legitimate source to base decisions on, for that matter.

 

[Jack Simth]

So, so very happy none of the groups I've ever been in have played strictly by RAW.

And that none of them consider the FAQ a legitimate source to base decisions on, for that matter.

I'm just playing devil's advocate to point out the ridiculousness inherent in not counting a CdG as an attack, myself. You use a weapon, you hit someone, you deal damage. If that's not included in the set of actions that meet the criteria for "attack", something funny is going on.

Granted, Irdeggman's "something funny" is for a good cause - the lack of what amounts to an arbitrary character death - but it's still something funny, and has some rather nasty repercussions if interpretation goes that way. Sort of like how, by RAW, the "dead" status confers no particular limitations on actions if you have some way to avoid unconsciousness.