Invisibility and Manyjaws

[ThirdWizard]

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

I love the implications of that one.

PC Fighter: Is anybody over there?
Invisible PC Wizard: Lets find out.
*invis PC wizard casts fireball*
Invisible PC Wizard: "Nope, still invisible. It's clear."

 

[Kieperr]

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

Yes. It is an offensive spell you have cast and it hampers your opponent at that moment.

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

-Hyp.

Correct. Casting Sanctuary is not an offensive action as specified in calypso15's rules quote above.

 

[Sithobi1]

Why not? Opponents have to resist Sanctuary with saving throws...How is that any different? And it "hampers" the enemies.

 

[DreamChaser]

Why not? Opponents have to resist Sanctuary with saving throws...How is that any different? And it "hampers" the enemies.

Because of the definition of "offensive." Hampering is a defensive thing (reducing your likelihood of being harmed). Besides, sanctuary meets neither of the other two criterea; no opponent can be the target or within the area of effect.

DC

 

[Sithobi1]

According to the rules quote by Calypso, "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws...are attacks."

 

[frankthedm]

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.

ERROR... ERROR... VIOLATION OF CONJURATION SCHOOL PARAMETER

Supplying SRD rules text...

Conjuration
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands.

A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because of the definition of "offensive." Hampering is a defensive thing (reducing your likelihood of being harmed). Besides, sanctuary meets neither of the other two criterea; no opponent can be the target or within the area of effect.

For the purposes of Invisibility, the term 'attack' includes those spells.

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.)

But there's a definition for the purpose of spells in general:

Attacks: 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.

Do we consider that Invisibility extends the general definition, or replaces it? Does a spell that an opponent resists with a saving throw, the deals damage, or that otherwise harms or hampers subjects break invisibility if it is not a spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe?

What does it mean for an effect to include a foe? We know that if a summoned celestial badger - the effect of a Summon Monster spell - deals damage to a creature, that this does not count as the spell itself harming the creature. So if a fiery ray - the effect of a Scorching Ray spell - deals damage to a creature, is the Scorching Ray spell itself harming anyone? Is this an effect including a foe? And if so, how is it different from Summon Monster?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

ERROR... ERROR... VIOLATION OF CONJURATION SCHOOL PARAMETER

Not necessarily. I can Create a slab of iron which falls on some oblivious monster fighting below and crushes it, without violating the Conjuration school text. The Wall of Iron appears on a surface capable of supporting it, then topples over.

You could do something similar with a slab of lead via Major Creation - create it so that it's resting on the surface capable of supporting it, but balanced in such a fashion that it cannot remain upright.

-Hyp.

 

[Kieperr]

Do we consider that Invisibility extends the general definition, or replaces it? Does a spell that an opponent resists with a saving throw, the deals damage, or that otherwise harms or hampers subjects break invisibility if it is not a spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe?

Neither. It simply reiterates what the general definition states. If there is no foe targeted or in the area or effect then there is no foe to make a saving throw, to take damage, or to be harmed or hampered.

What does it mean for an effect to include a foe? We know that if a summoned celestial badger - the effect of a Summon Monster spell - deals damage to a creature, that this does not count as the spell itself harming the creature.

You summon a badger. The badger attacks an orc. When does the badger include the orc? As the caster, all you have done is summon a badger. You have not taken an offensive action against the orc.

So if a fiery ray - the effect of a Scorching Ray spell - deals damage to a creature, is the Scorching Ray spell itself harming anyone? Is this an effect including a foe? And if so, how is it different from Summon Monster?

It differs because when you create the fiery ray you make an attack with it. You create an effect and you attack with that effect. You have taken an offensive action against an opponent.

 

[frankthedm]

Not necessarily. I can Create a slab of iron which falls on some oblivious monster fighting below and crushes it, without violating the Conjuration school text. The Wall of Iron appears on a surface capable of supporting it, then topples over.

You could do something similar with a slab of lead via Major Creation - create it so that it's resting on the surface capable of supporting it, but balanced in such a fashion that it cannot remain upright.

-Hyp.

I diagree, wall of iron specifies it has the ability to topple over. To major creation an object, the surface it is created on has to be able to support it. Whether it is the surface or the object that prevents the support, IMHO the spell fails.