Invisibility question

[Tuzenbach]

If a being is invisiable (2nd level spell) and sets a polearm to receive a charge, yet makes no motion to actually "attack", while another being randomly runs into the weapon set against the charge, does the invisibility wear off?

 

[Trainz]

If a being is invisiable (2nd level spell) and sets a polearm to receive a charge, yet makes no motion to actually "attack", while another being randomly runs into the weapon set against the charge, does the invisibility wear off?

Yes. The set to receive a charge action is in fact an attack that would cancel you invisibility.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The set to receive a charge action is in fact an attack that would cancel you invisibility.

Well, the Ready action to set isn't, but once it's triggered, and you actually receive the charge, it is

-Hyp.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Even if no effort is made whatsoever to even *try* to inflict damage upon the on-coming foe?

OK, how about this? Instead of setting a weapon to recieve a charge, the invisible character simply lies down in the path of on-rushing foes. They don't see him so they trip and actually impale themselves on their own weapons during the impending tumble. Does the invisibility wear off *then*?

 

[Crosshair]

If you're lying down, they'd probably figure out where you are, but you wouldn't be visible.

Unless someone knows otherwise.

 

[Tuzenbach]

If you're lying down, they'd probably figure out where you are, but you wouldn't be visible.

Unless someone knows otherwise.

Ah, but in NEITHER of the above scenarios is an attack ever attempted. The foes just happen to run into the invisible character.

 

[Trainz]

Even if no effort is made whatsoever to even *try* to inflict damage upon the on-coming foe?

OK, how about this? Instead of setting a weapon to recieve a charge, the invisible character simply lies down in the path of on-rushing foes. They don't see him so they trip and actually impale themselves on their own weapons during the impending tumble. Does the invisibility wear off *then*?

Well, you asked us if it does, and me and Hyp told you it indeed does (cancel invisibility).

THAT SAID...

When you incorporate very intricate maneuvers in combat (like the one you just described above), it kinda becomes outside the rules (you have to keep in mind that the rules can cover only so much combat possibilities). At that point, it becomes the job of the DM to decide what happens.

What I'm trying to say is that you can basically rule-zero anything, but be careful for:

-Game balance
-Consistency
-Player reaction

If all that is respected, then I guess you have a go with whatever ruling you want to make.

 

[argo]

Even if no effort is made whatsoever to even *try* to inflict damage upon the on-coming foe?

In which case I would rule that you remain invisible but simply do not deal damage to the foe. Remember, hitting and dealing damage are abstract in d20 and the intent behind the action is more important than the description of the action itself. You can either take you attack and lose your invisibility or let the opponent go by and stay invisible. Your choice but you can't fast-talk your way into getting both.

Looking at things from a pure rules prespective supports this conclusion as well. Caltrops have to make an attack roll against someone entering their space in order to deal damage and they are just lying there on the ground. Same with the spikes at a bottom of a spiked pit trap: the target is falling on them much the same way he might be running onto your spear but the imobile spikes still have to make an attack roll to hit and deal damage. Again, this is because damage in DnD is abstract, armor can entierly absorb/deflect the impact of a blow so you still have to make your attack roll to see if you get through the armor to deal damage. And that means you lose invisibility.

Hope that helps.

 

[pogre]

Ah, but in NEITHER of the above scenarios is an attack ever attempted. The foes just happen to run into the invisible character.

I would read it more as a strict liability style rule. If the invisible subject creates a direct attack (with or without intent), said subject is made thereby visible.

How's that for a bit of legalese.

Certainly it could go the other way - but I do not see this situation as "causing harm indirectly" as suggested by the PHB.

 

[Thanee]

If a being is invisiable (2nd level spell) and sets a polearm to receive a charge, yet makes no motion to actually "attack", while another being randomly runs into the weapon set against the charge, does the invisibility wear off?

No.

Setting a spear against a charge is a ready action. If a charging character is within reach, you can use that action to attack that character. That's an active attack on your end.

There is no randomly running into a spear and take damage.

If the invisible one does not attack the charging character, there is no damage dealt and the invisibility does not wear off. The charging character must stop movement, since the path is blocked. That's all.

Bye
Thanee