Magic Ammunition Costs

[kreynolds]

Do you happen to have the "Thick-Headed" feat?

Hehe. I guess my feats are pretty entertaining, otherwise people would forget them. Yep, I definately need to make a netbook of metagame feats.

 

[AuraSeer]

Everywhere in the game, if I cast a spell directly at you or an area effect spell around you, I am attacking you if my intent is to harm you, disable you, neutralize you, etc.

This statement is just wrong. I'll even quote a rule for you.

Read the description of Invisibility again. From the SRD: "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.)"

Intent has absolutely nothing to do with it. You can become visible by casting Detect Good, if there's a foe in the affected quarter-circle. Even Healing Circle qualifies as an 'attack', if you accidentally catch a foe in the radius.

 

[Zhure]

It's not my position. It's the definition of attack in the book.

The writers apparently wanted to distinguish between things like casting spells on allies (not an attack) and casting a spell on an enemy (an attack).

Everywhere in the game, if I cast a spell directly at you or an area effect spell around you, I am attacking you if my intent is to harm you, disable you, neutralize you, etc. Dispel Magic is not an exception to this.

If I cast a spell that eventually harms or hinders you (e.g. Summon Monster), then I am not directly attacking you.

So yes, I understand that intent with regard to attacking is only pertinent to spells cast directly at or around targets. This includes Dispel Magic which is what we were discussing.

So yes, if you cast a Summon Monster spell, you are not attacking. The creature is attacking if you order it to do that. If you cast Transmute Rock to Mud at the ceiling above an opponent while Invisible, you will not become visible due to casting that spell.

In both of these cases, you are not attacking. You are indirectly harming an opponent which is not considered an attack according to the rules of the game. Intent with regard to attacking is only pertinent to whether you are actually attacking according to the attack definition.

Since intent is important, then we should go with the intent on Dispel Magic. C.f., Skip's ruling.
Greg

 

[Ashtal]

Gee, look ... a flame-war on a bubbling simmer.

Agree to disgree, folks. A isn't going to convince B, who isn't going to convince A, who draws in C, D, E, and F at various stages of the argument.

Come on ... it's a nice Sunday morning, at least where I am. Play nice, move on, nothing is to be gained here.