flaming sphere and invisibility

[Hypersmurf]

Living creatures certainly can make a saving throw against the spell, although doing so is usually useless. It therefore qualifies under the strictest reading of "Attack" that Hypersmurf (and apparently you) advocate.

They can, but they must elect to. If they don't, then that spell is not, at the point that it is cast, a spell that opponents resist with a saving throw.

If one of your chosen targets chooses to resist the Mass Cure Light Wounds with a saving throw, then the spell is a spell that opponents resist with a saving throw, and is thus an attack, and ends invisibility.

For what it's worth, Invisibility is the example spell used in the text just before they define Attacks.

I strongly disagree with the ruling you've provided from Andy Collins and Skip Williams regarding Fireball. If I cast Fireball in an empty space, it's not an attack. If I cast Fireball in what I presume to be empty space, and accidentally damage a creature, that's an attack, and invisibility ends.

This is what I wanted to see. Is that in a glossary somewhere?

PHB p171, Magic Overview, Special Spell Effects, Attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If one of your chosen targets chooses to resist the Mass Cure Light Wounds with a saving throw, then the spell is a spell that opponents resist with a saving throw, and is thus an attack, and ends invisibility.

Which is an utterly absurd conclusion, though arrived at through logical progression. That was, in fact, my point.

First, look at the two most common meanings of "resist" (from Merriam-Webster Online): (1) to exert oneself so as to counteract or defeat; (2) to withstand the force or effect of.

Note that these two definitions of the same simple word have substantially different meanings. The first meaning encompasses only an exertion, an attempt at fending something off. The second meaning clearly embodies the idea that the exertion was successful.

If reading "all spells that opponents resist with saving throws" in one fashion results in an absurd result, then a reasonable person considers the possibility that it should be read in another fashion. Especially given that the language can easily mean at least three different things, depending upon how proper a grammarian the writer was.

First, it could be read with the second common meaning, which leads to the result that the voiding of invisibility becomes contingent upon whether or not the subject of the invisible caster's spell succeeded on his saving throw, not on whether he was entitled to a saving throw or required to make a saving throw. (I.e., it depends on whether the spell was "resisted" or instead had full effect.)

Hopefully everybody sees that, logically, that is an absolutely valid reading of the rule. Also hopefully, everybody sees that it's an absurd reading of the rule.

Second, the language could be read with the first common meaning of "resist," meaning that what is required to void invisibility is only the attempt to resist. This branches into two possible meanings:

The Hypersmurf Interpretation: Not only must the target be permitted a saving throw against an invisible caster's spell, the target must, in fact, choose to attempt that saving throw. While a little bit of a stretch, this is also a logical interpretation, if one doesn't consider the effects of the interpretation.

The Wilder Interpretation: The target must only be permitted a saving throw, but the spell in question must be somehow offensive (damaging, hindering, hampering, et cetera) in use and intent.

Note one absurdity of the Hypersmurf Interpretation: a creature with the ability to see invisible, ranks in Spellcraft, and the Special Quality of "healed by magical fire" could watch an invisible mage prepare to cast a fireball, recognize the spell, and choose not to attempt a saving throw against the spell. (Declining the saving throw would be the smart thing to do!) Note the outcome for the mage, under the Hypersmurf Interpretation: he remains invisible!

There are many possible permutations of these factors that could easily arise in a real game, leading to same ridiculous outcome.

Hopefully most folks -- maybe even Hypersmurf -- recognize the absurdity of that interpretation, so will look to the Wilder Interpretation, which fits perfectly with the understanding of the rules the vast majority of us have and have had.

I strongly disagree with the ruling you've provided from Andy Collins and Skip Williams regarding Fireball. If I cast Fireball in an empty space, it's not an attack. If I cast Fireball in what I presume to be empty space, and accidentally damage a creature, that's an attack, and invisibility ends.

I realize that you probably believe you made an argument in the above paragraph. You did not. You stated disagreement, and then you made assertions as to how the rules function, without offering any logical support.

A fireball cast into an area the wizard believes to be unoccupied is no more an "offensive combat action" against a hapless person in the area than a nuclear test on an atoll is an "offensive combat action" against the shipwrecked sailor who crawled his way atop the atoll 10 minutes before the test.

 

[Ranes]

The second meaning clearly embodies the idea that the exertion was successful.

Actually, the second meaning says nothing about exertion being a factor at all. Your point stands. I'm just being pedantic.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Actually, the second meaning says nothing about exertion being a factor at all. Your point stands. I'm just being pedantic.

Actually, it some instances it could conceivably matter. Thanks for the sharp eyes, reading patience, and correction.

 

[Ranes]

What if it's a very small (harmless) rock?

Very small pebbles float.

(source: Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Seriously, I'm not certain of anything any more. I'd say that if the pebble was dropped in order to hit the creature, it's an attack. If it wasn't, it isn't.

 

[Scion]

It really does seem to come down to intent in most cases. With the summon monster problem melfs acid arrow pretty much falls under the same category, it is summoning something that just so happens to be used to hurt something else.

What if you dont know your buddy is undead? You are invisible, see he is in need of some healing, pop a heal on him. Uh oh, you just hurt him badly, maybe even killed him. But, you didnt know it was going to hurt him, you thought it was beneficial.

What if you have another buddy who gets better, faster, stronger, etc as his total hp go down, but of course you dont realize it. He is down by half and you heal him up, since this is 'hampering' the subject it seems to qualify as an attack and you are now visible.

Of course, all of those are silly to some degree. I would just prefer it to be nicely cut and dried without all of the ambiguity in the various statements. Maybe someday... Currently though it seems to be mostly about intent and somewhat about final effect. Rather like alignment actually.

 

[Bad Paper]

I know of one "official" instance when an invisible wizard uses a flame sphere without appearing. In Forge of Fury, there is a Duergar Illusionist who's suggested tactic is to use flaming sphere while remaining invisible...

AR

yes! Snurrevin! Specifically, he likes to "cast flaming sphere and then turn invisible in the next round, guiding the sphere's attacks while staying out of sight." So! Casting the spell would negate invisibility, but guiding it to attack would not, at least according to Richard Baker, Miranda Horner and the WotC crew. Do others agree with this logic? This seems silly and almost backward to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Note one absurdity of the Hypersmurf Interpretation: a creature with the ability to see invisible, ranks in Spellcraft, and the Special Quality of "healed by magical fire" could watch an invisible mage prepare to cast a fireball, recognize the spell, and choose not to attempt a saving throw against the spell. (Declining the saving throw would be the smart thing to do!) Note the outcome for the mage, under the Hypersmurf Interpretation: he remains invisible!

I don't see how that's different to casting Mass Cure Light Wounds including an undead creature as a target (deals damage, and is thus an attack), versus casting the same spell on your allies (doesn't deal damage, and is thus not an attack).

Casting fireball on an area that includes a goblin? That's an attack. Casting fireball on an area that only includes your healed-by-fire creature? Not an attack.

Per the text that describes what the term "attack" means when used by a spell where the word is important, that uses invisibility as its example!

I realize that you probably believe you made an argument in the above paragraph. You did not. You stated disagreement, and then you made assertions as to how the rules function, without offering any logical support.

A fireball cast into an area the wizard believes to be unoccupied is no more an "offensive combat action" against a hapless person in the area than a nuclear test on an atoll is an "offensive combat action" against the shipwrecked sailor who crawled his way atop the atoll 10 minutes before the test.

Invisibility doesn't end exclusively contingent upon an "offensive combat action". It ends if the subject "attacks any creature".

We have a definition of what "attack" means.

Offensive combat actions are considered attacks. But that's not the end of the definition.
Attempts to turn or rebuke undead are considered attacks.
All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that harm or hamper are considered attacks.

Additionally, invisibility contains further information. For the purposes of the invisibility spell, any spell that targets a foe, or whose area or effect includes a foe, is also an attack... where 'foe' is dependent of the subject's perceptions.

If you cast Cure Light Wounds on someone who you perceive to be a foe, that is, per the text of invisibility (and only for purposes of the invisibility spell) an attack.

If you cast Detect Magic so that the area includes someone who you perceive to be a foe, that is, per the text of invisibility (and only for purposes of the invisibility spell) an attack.

Any spell that targets a foe. Any spell whose area or effect includes a foe.

Now, what exactly defines a foe is something I'll whole-heartedly admit is unclear, and I've said so for years

-Hyp.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Hmmm, what about casting flaming sphere to block an escape route before anyone is near it (and susceptible to damage). Is that offensive?

I think this is the type of ruling best left to the DM on a case-by-case basis. If the caster is using the spell for offensive purposes I'd say it's an attack and invisibility ends. If not, then I'd let it go. But I'd definitely be on the lookout for attempts to abuse the situation...

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Casting fireball on an area that includes a goblin? That's an attack. Casting fireball on an area that only includes [a] healed-by-fire creature? Not an attack.

And there you have it folks.

Wow.


Jeff