Invisibility and Spiritual Weapon

[Hypersmurf]

What about Fireball? You're not making an attack roll, it's up to the targets to jump out of the way...you just happened to put your fireball in that spot...

That's covered by the Invisibility spell description; it's a spell whose area includes a foe.

But Invisibility also explicitly states that summoning monsters doesn't end invisibility. Even if they - as the effect of a spell you cast - damage your opponents, it's considered 'causing harm indirectly'.

Whether it's a summoned Fiendish Dire Weasel or a weapon of force that's causing the harm indirectly, does it make a difference? Spiritual Weapon seems closer to Summon Monster than Magic Missile in how it fits the categories Invisibility places things into.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, it does so with your BAB and wisdom modifier. If, subsequent to the SW, you cast divine power and owl's wisdom, both will (somehow) affect the SW already cast. What's the connection?

The connection is the spell text. That connection still doesn't make it you that's making the attack roll; it's still the weapon making the attack, not the caster.

-Hyp.

 

[Thurbane]

I guess it depends if you consider a Spiritual Weapon to be separate of the caster in the same way a summoned monster is.

Personally, I consider directing a Spiritual Weapon to be an attack the same way I would consider a Confusion spell not targeted at a specific being to be an attack, and would make you visible. In effect, a summoned monster is an idependant (if not free-willed) sentient being. Would ordering a Charmed or Dominated creature to attack break Invisibility?

...of course, all of this is my personal interpretation, and not neccessarily RAW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Would ordering a Charmed or Dominated creature to attack break Invisibility?

I'd say no - it's causing harm indirectly just like directing your summoned monster.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

At the risk of taking on something well out of my weight class, I think I disagree with Hypersmurf.

Summon Monster 1 has this blurb about the summoned monsters:

It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. [BOLD]If you can communicate with the creature[/BOLD], you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions

The creature is acting on its own, but taking orders. Most DM's let the summoner direct the creature as they please. However, a DM would be well within his rights to declare that the player cannot direct its opponents unless he speaks a language the creature can understand (if it does not speak common, and the caster cannot speak Fiendish or Celestial).

When you are directing a summoned creature and invisible, you are speaking to it. The actions the creature takes are not coming out of your actions. But:

- Retargeting a spiritual weapon takes a move action from the caster
- Moving a flaming sphere takes a move action from the caster

For purposes of the Invisibility spell, I would define an attack as any action by the caster that results in an opponent taking damage, making a saving throw, or suffering an attack. Aside from Summon Monster spells, I suspect that Illusions may also not count as attacks, but that has never come up.

I think there is a case to be made that a player can cast Spiritual Hammer, then go invisible, then let it attack on its own and stay invisible. But I do not think the caster can stay visible if he is taking an action that results in an opponent being attacked.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Infiniti2000]

The connection is the spell text. That connection still doesn't make it you that's making the attack roll; it's still the weapon making the attack, not the caster.

Well, what's an attack roll? "When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus." In this case, 'your' == 'caster'. I think that's a fairly strong case for equivalency. Yes, I realize the spell says 'its' and other spells like acid arrow say 'your', but the connection that makes them equivalent is the BAB (plus wisdom modifier) of the caster.

I agree that SW is closer to SM than MM. I also think it's closer to AA than SM.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I think that this thread begs the question: WHY does attacking someone ruin your invisibility? Apart from game balance/mechanics reasons that is.

F'rinstance: Wally the Wizard is invisible. He attacks Freddy the Fighter with his staff, Freddy then sees Wally.

Does Freddy see Wally because Wally's sudden violent movement ruins the illusion? Or do Wally's violent intentions in some way disrupt the calm focus needed to maintain invisibility? Or does the spell encourage Freddy to ignore Wally until Wally's action can't help but attract Freddy's attention?

This could probably be worked out by considering what sort of illusion invisibility is. (Sorry, don't have PHB handy I can't check.) Is it mind affecting or does it have a physical component (Glamour?)? And then you could make the decision as to whether or not particular spells (and other actions, for instance speaking, running and jumping) might break the spell's effect.

A comparison to Improved Invisibility might help clarify as well. (again, don't have PHB handy so I'm just guessing.)

Could we chalk this one up to the usual complaint of lack of centralised, cohesive rules for spells?

Oh and sorry for my usual rules-light answer to a rules question.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is it mind affecting or does it have a physical component (Glamour?)?

It's a Glamer, and it isn't Mind-Affecting.

-Hyp.