Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 1843755" data-attributes="member: 5122">Yes, there is a difference.  I chose my adjective properly.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</blockquote>

Verification