Invisibility and Manyjaws

[calypso15]

I actually found a pretty clear answer to this:

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

Calypso

 

[Hypersmurf]

I actually found a pretty clear answer to this:

Is it, though?

Summon Monster creates an effect, which can damage opponents. Spiritual Weapon creates an effect, which can damage opponents.

In both cases, it is the spell effect that is dealing the damage. The spell does not target an opponent; it creates something that attacks the opponent.

So if in the case of Summon Monster, the 'spell itself' is not harming anyone, can we not use the same logic to say that in the case of Spiritual Weapon, it is not the 'spell itself' causing the harm?

Also, note that this definition of 'attack' is not necessarily applicable to invisibility:

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.)

So does 'includes' mean 'as well as all spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks', or 'instead of all spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks'?

If I cast an Entangle, such that no creatures are in its area, is this an attack? It is "a spell that opponents resist with saving throws", but there are no opponents attempting to do so.

What if, two rounds later, an opponent attempts to enter the Entangled area, and rolls a saving throw? Is the Entangle now considered an attack?

What about Sanctuary? It is "a spell that opponents resist with saving throws"... if I cast Sanctuary on myself, will it break Invisibility?

-Hyp.

 

[Corsair]

Is it, though?

Summon Monster creates an effect, which can damage opponents.

See now you're just making stuff up. Did you even read the last sentence? You can't pick and choose what RAW you use.

 

[Hypersmurf]

See now you're just making stuff up. Did you even read the last sentence? You can't pick and choose what RAW you use.

Of course I did.

"Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."

But we also know that the monster is the effect of the spell; for example, from the text of Dispel Magic: If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning)...

So we know that the summoned monster is the effect of an ongoing spell, and that the spell is not an attack because the spell itself doesn't harm anyone. So damage from the effect of an ongoing spell is not damage from the spell itself, and does not break invisibility.

Spiritual Weapon is an ongoing spell that creates an effect that harms people. Just like Summon Monster.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

This thread was a good laugh - never before have I seen Hyp accused of making stuff up.

Hyp, to push the other side of the issue, I would point out that a spiritual weapon can have no purpose other than to attack, whereas a summon monster can (though it is unlikely.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, to push the other side of the issue, I would point out that a spiritual weapon can have no purpose other than to attack, whereas a summon monster can (though it is unlikely.)

But unless you order otherwise, the summoned monster will attack. So at the moment the spell comes into effect - before you have a chance to give an order - the monster's intention will be to attack.

It's not possible to cast Summon Monster in such a way that the creature does not appear rearing to attack your foes. You can, subsequently, tell it to do something else... but the spell is always cast to create an effect whose purpose is to attack.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

But unless you order otherwise, the summoned monster will attack. So at the moment the spell comes into effect - before you have a chance to give an order - the monster's intention will be to attack.

It's not possible to cast Summon Monster in such a way that the creature does not appear rearing to attack your foes. You can, subsequently, tell it to do something else... but the spell is always cast to create an effect whose purpose is to attack.

-Hyp.

True - though, as you pointed out for entangle, it may not be capable of attacking that round (in this case, due to not being close enough to an enemy.) So is it the intent that matters? If so, then we might argue that as long as you cast entangle with the intent to trip up an enemy in a subsequent round, it qualifies as an attack.

This seems unsatisfactory somehow.

If I cast a rapid Major Creation, intending to create a slab of lead that will fall upon some oblivious monster fighting below and crush it, I am certainly not casting an offensive spell. I am, however, casting a spell with the intent to injure something. It seems pretty clear that that intent should not override the designation of some spells as offensive and some spells as inoffensive.

So we are back at the headache.

 

[Kieperr]

Is it, though?

Summon Monster creates an effect, which can damage opponents. Spiritual Weapon creates an effect, which can damage opponents.

In both cases, it is the spell effect that is dealing the damage. The spell does not target an opponent; it creates something that attacks the opponent.

So if in the case of Summon Monster, the 'spell itself' is not harming anyone, can we not use the same logic to say that in the case of Spiritual Weapon, it is not the 'spell itself' causing the harm?

Actually no. The difference being that the summoned creature attacks as a creature whereas the spiritual weapon attacks as a spell.

If I cast an Entangle, such that no creatures are in its area, is this an attack? It is "a spell that opponents resist with saving throws", but there are no opponents attempting to do so.

This is not an attack for the reason you have stated, no opponent has resisted it. No opponent, no attack.

What if, two rounds later, an opponent attempts to enter the Entangled area, and rolls a saving throw? Is the Entangle now considered an attack?

Yes. It is a spell you have cast and an opponent, at this point, has resisted.

What about Sanctuary? It is "a spell that opponents resist with saving throws"... if I cast Sanctuary on myself, will it break Invisibility?

Not unless you are your own opponent.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.)

What is the target entry for Summon Monster? What is the target of Spiritual Weapon? What is the target of Flaming Sphere?

If there is no target (when it is cast), then I don't think it breaks invis (unless of course it is an AE spell that includes a foe).

 

[Hypersmurf]

[Entangle] Yes. It is a spell you have cast and an opponent, at this point, has resisted.

[Sanctuary] Not unless you are your own opponent.

So you're suggesting that if I cast Entangle, and two rounds later, an opponent resists it with a saving throw, my Invisibility ends.

But if I cast Sanctuary, and two rounds later, an opponent resists it with a saving throw, my Invisibility does not?

-Hyp.