flaming sphere and invisibility

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes:
FWIW, wilder, I play in a style much more similar to yours than to Hypersmurf's. However, you need to tone down the argument style: calling other poster's statements "absurd" is not appropriate. If you have any questions regarding this, you may write to me at siuloir at mindspring dot com; do not discuss in an incivil fashion, or discuss this moderator's notes, in this thread.

Daniel

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here's my take on it:

You remain invisible while directing a flaming sphere.

Why? Because your action does not cause the save. You direct the sphere, the sphere takes the action, the sphere causes the save.

In the same way that a bad guy could be invisible and tell his minions to attack, or a caster could let a summoned monster go off and thwack someone, and both would remain invisible.

In the case of melf's acid arrow - if I cast melf's at someone, and then a quickened invisibility, do I become visible when the target takes damage on the next round?

No

If I summon a monster, then become invisible, then the monster attacks someone - I stay invisible.

If I tell the monster what to do, and it attacks, I stay invisible.

In fact, if I summon the monster while invisible, then it attacks, I stay invisible.

So if I tell the burning sponge what to do, and it attacks, I should also stay invisible.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Whether it's codified or not -- and I'm quite willing to take your word that it's not...

I looked, and couldn't find anything... I wouldn't swear that that means there's nothing to find, though.

The difference between the Hypersmurf Interpretation and the Wilder Interpretation is that the HI requires a DM to check the rules to determine that detect magic doesn't qualify as an attack.

To check the rules, or to know them.

Which is what rules are there for, after all... to describe mechanics. In any situation, you must either know the rules or look them up to determine how they apply.

That is an assertion that follows from your argument. It is not actually an argument. I have demonstrated repeatedly how one can logically interpret the rule in such a way that this assertion is false.

It's in the spell text.

"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.) 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."

This is completely separate to the Magic Overview definition of 'attack', which doesn't reference foes at all. It's additional information specific to the invisibility spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Moderator's Notes:
FWIW, wilder, I play in a style much more similar to yours than to Hypersmurf's. However, you need to tone down the argument style: calling other poster's statements "absurd" is not appropriate.

I beg your pardon, but it is not only "appropriate," there is a name for it: reductio ad absurdum. Which means that if the interpretation of language ends up with results that make absolutely no sense, the interpretation is incorrect.

From www.brainyencyclopedia.com:

Reductio ad absurdum (from Latin reduction to an absurdity) is a type of logical argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result. This is also known as proof by contradiction.

Frankly, some of y'all need to understand the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the arguer. Calling an argument absurd is no more inappropriate than calling an argument "incorrect;" in fact, it should be more helpful, because it points out why the argument is incorrect.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So if I tell the burning sponge what to do, and it attacks, I should also stay invisible.

Except that you're not telling the flaming sphere what to do, and then having it follow your orders more or less on its own. You are, instead, directing the flaming sphere deliberately -- i.e., with intent -- to force a saving throw or deal damage to your target. It's analogous to using telekinesis to fling a boulder at a target, or directing mage hand to drop a flask of alchemist's fire on a target.

Casting the flaming sphere into an empty space -- say, with the intent of starting a bonfire (or not): Not an attack.

Casting the flaming sphere deliberately into an occupied space, such that the character occupying that space has to make a saving throw: An attack.

Moving the flaming sphere deliberately into an occupied space, such that the character occupying that space has to make a saving throw: An attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I beg your pardon, but it is not only "appropriate," there is a name for it: reductio ad absurdum.

But there's a difference between a result that is unexpected or unintuitive, and one that is absurd.

Having Detect Magic end Invisibility might not be intuitive, but it doesn't immediately follow that the rule is wrong.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But there's a difference between a result that is unexpected or unintuitive, and one that is absurd.

Yes, there is a difference. I chose my adjective properly.

Having Detect Magic end Invisibility might not be intuitive, but it doesn't immediately follow that the rule is wrong.

No, it doesn't immediately follow. But if it were the case, such a result would be absurd enough that a reasonable person might wonder if his interpretation of the rules were correct ... especially given that someone has demonstrated another, equally valid, way of reading the rules that does not end up in the same or an equally absurd place.

Here's what it comes down to:

Under the Hypersmurf Interpretation:

(1) The rules for what constitutes an attack on page 171 are different from the rules for what constitutes an attack under the description of invisibility, despite the fact that invisibility is specifically mentioned in the paragraph on page 171.

(2) A magic missile cast at an iron golem does not count as an attack, by the page 171 rules.

(3) Yet a magic missile does count as an attack under the description of invisibility.

(4) A flaming sphere cast for the purpose of lighting a bonfire counts as an attack, and end invisibility.

(5) A flaming sphere deliberately moved onto an iron golem only counts as an "attack" if the iron golem chooses to make a saving throw! In other words, whether the movement of the flaming sphere is considered an attack or not, or ends invisibility or not, is up to the monster!

(6) A mass cure light wounds that a living ally elects to make a saving throw against counts as an attack, per the rules on page 171, and ends invisibility.

I could go on, but these are enough. Now I might be the only one reading this that finds the above results to be absurd, not merely "unintuitive" or "unexpected," but I doubt it.

Meanwhile, under the Wilder Interpretation:

(1) The description of "attack" on page 171 (in which invisibility is specifically named) and the description of "attack" in invisibility are intended to be congruent. Both give examples as to what constitutes an attack, and although these examples differ, the rules aren't intended to differ. They both depend upon the intent of the caster, not upon whether or not a spell actually affects its target (or worse, whether or not a target chooses to let a spell affect it).

(2) Launching a magic missile is an attack, even if cast at a target that is immune to it. It thus ends invisibility.

(3) Casting a flaming sphere for the purpose of lighting a bonfire is not an attack, and does not end invisibility.

(4) Casting or moving a flaming sphere onto a target is an attack, and ends invisibility.

(5) Casting mass cure light wounds upon living creatures is not considered an attack, and does not end invisibility.

I know which interpretation every single DM I've played under has used. How 'bout y'all?


Jeff

 

[Bad Paper]

conclusions

My conclusion is seems to be coming down on the side of this:
The NPC of Snurrevin in the Forge of Fury is simply incorrect, and that even directing a flaming sphere to attack will cancel invisibility. This begs the question of not directing the flaming sphere, and, for example, placing it in the only exit from a room in which you have someone cornered. If that someone chooses to pass through the sphere's space (invoking a Reflex save), well what? I cast the spell with the intention of damaging my foe, even if I never used it against him...

Secondly, if I'm invisible and try to swipe someone with a ghoul touch, and I miss the touch attack, do I lose the invisibility? Or does it persist until I make contact?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My conclusion is seems to be coming down on the side of this:
The NPC of Snurrevin in the Forge of Fury is simply incorrect, and that even directing a flaming sphere to attack will cancel invisibility.

I agree. I suppose that's obvious.

This begs the question of not directing the flaming sphere, and, for example, placing it in the only exit from a room in which you have someone cornered.

This is the same as casting a wall of ice for the same purpose. As long as the wall of ice is not cast to injure someone -- e.g., as a horizontal sheet overhead -- or hamper someone -- e.g., as a trapping hemisphere -- the wall of ice is not an attack, even if someone subsequently breaks through, moves through it, and takes the indicated cold damage. Same with the flaming sphere ... the intent is not to injure, it is to block an exit.

If that someone chooses to pass through the sphere's space (invoking a Reflex save), well what?

You have done nothing except cast a spell which has indirectly resulted in harm. It is not an attack, and invisibility is not broken.

As an aside, by the letter of the rules, a flaming sphere only deals its damage to creatures "it strikes" or if it "enters a space with a creature." A strict constructionist -- no names, but his initials are Hypersmurf -- would probably argue that moving through the space occupied by the sphere doesn't count for damage. That's almost certainly not the intent of the spell, but that is what it says. Also note that, in any event, somebody with a good Jump modifier can go over the sphere; it's only five feet in diameter.

Secondly, if I'm invisible and try to swipe someone with a ghoul touch, and I miss the touch attack, do I lose the invisibility? Or does it persist until I make contact?

Even Hypersmurf would agree on this one: the attempt to attack using ghoul touch is clearly an "attack," under any reading of the rules, and ends invisibility immediately.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(1) The rules for what constitutes an attack on page 171 are different from the rules for what constitutes an attack under the description of invisibility, despite the fact that invisibility is specifically mentioned in the paragraph on page 171.

The rules for what constitutes an attack on p171 certainly apply to invisibility. Made all the more clear by the fact that invisibility is mentioned.

There are further rules that define further actions as attacks for the purposes of invisibility, found in the invisibility description.

(2) A magic missile cast at an iron golem does not count as an attack, by the page 171 rules.

Fair enough.

(3) Yet a magic missile does count as an attack under the description of invisibility.

That's right. So while a magic missile cast at an iron golem would not break a Sanctuary, it would break Invisibility. Invisibility has a special paragraph extending the definition of 'attack', while Sanctuary does not. Sanctuary therefore uses only the p171 rules; Invisibility uses the p171 rules, augmented by the additional definitions.

(4) A flaming sphere cast for the purpose of lighting a bonfire counts as an attack, and end invisibility.

How so?

(5) A flaming sphere deliberately moved onto an iron golem only counts as an "attack" if the iron golem chooses to make a saving throw! In other words, whether the movement of the flaming sphere is considered an attack or not, or ends invisibility or not, is up to the monster!

Right.

(6) A mass cure light wounds that a living ally elects to make a saving throw against counts as an attack, per the rules on page 171, and ends invisibility.

Right.

A strict constructionist -- no names, but his initials are Hypersmurf -- would probably argue that moving through the space occupied by the sphere doesn't count for damage.

Absolutely. It deals damage when it enters your space. If the caster then chooses not to use any more move actions, it deals no more damage, even if you stay in its square.

I've maintained that for years now.

-Hyp.