pinpointing invisible opponents

[Hypersmurf]

Intent.

Just like 1st ed Find Traps doubles as "Detect Intent", when, say, detecting a weak wall meant to collapse on purpose, or a weak wall that was just old and ready to fall on someone anyway.

So if I suspect that those goblins over there are just an illusion, and my intent is to detonate my fireball in the empty space the illusions appear to be occupying, I'm not making an attack... even if it turns out they were real goblins after all?

-Hyp.

 

[Twowolves]

So if I suspect that those goblins over there are just an illusion, and my intent is to detonate my fireball in the empty space the illusions appear to be occupying, I'm not making an attack... even if it turns out they were real goblins after all?

-Hyp.

It's an attack. Interacting with an illusion in order to see if they are not real, especially with a fireball, is an attack.

I'm not saying it makes much sense, it's just the only way to define "attack" for the purpose of ending an invisibility spell that makes any sort of sense, especially without hard and fast rules defining such.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not saying it makes much sense, it's just the only way to define "attack" for the purpose of ending an invisibility spell that makes any sort of sense, especially without hard and fast rules defining such.

Why does it make more sense than "If the area includes a foe"?

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

What makes swinging an axe at a goblin any different to swinging an axe at a rope supporting a bridge?

-Hyp.

So its just as easy to hit creatures as to hit objects eh? no difference?...interesting

 

[phindar]

In game mechanics, hitting the goblin and hitting the rope are very similar. They both have Armor Class and hit points, both require you take an action to make the attack. Mechanically there's no real difference. (Hitting the goblin may be more difficult, but there's no difficulty cap to Invisibility. Hitting a sleeping goblin might even be easier than hitting a moving object, but the goblin would still cause you to become visible and the object wouldn't.)

All I'm saying is it would be more elegant from a rules perspective to say what sort of action causes Invisibility to end, rather than what set of circumstances in which the actions take place. (And basing it on the character's perception lays track to all sorts of problems. If the act of casting Scorching Ray causes Invisibility to end, it wouldn't matter if you were using it on a goblin, the illusion of a goblin or the rope the goblin is climbing up.)

 

[Twowolves]

Why does it make more sense than "If the area includes a foe"?

-Hyp.

Sure it would make more sense if the rules were stated that way. But, they aren't. It's a hold over from OD&D/1st ed, grandfathered in without being looked at too closely. There is no way to judge designer intent when all the designers did was essentially copy and paste it from the old write up.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure it would make more sense if the rules were stated that way. But, they aren't. It's a hold over from OD&D/1st ed, grandfathered in without being looked at too closely. There is no way to judge designer intent when all the designers did was essentially copy and paste it from the old write up.

So if the rules were stated as "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe." it would make more sense, but they aren't?

-Hyp.

 

[RedFox]

So if the rules were stated as "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe." it would make more sense, but they aren't?

-Hyp.

Umm, guys... maybe the intent of that wording is the emphasis on the word "foe" rather than standard AoE. In other words, spells like Fireball will work just fine on an invisible critter, because they're untargeted. But the rule is referring to stuff like Scare, where they're targeted in the AoE.

At least that's my interpretation. Admittedly the text is a bit wonky. But I see no reason why being invisible should render one immune from the effects of, say, Sleep.

 

[phindar]

How about "Invisibility fails if you make an attack"?

I've been thinking about the wording, whether it should be a spell that forces a saving throw (but then no save attack spells wouldn't end the spell) and so on... but I think we're making it more difficult by half. Everybody knows what constitutes an attack, why Hold Person would cause the spell to fail, but Detect Thoughts wouldn't.

It should be the act of casting the attack spell, or making the attack roll that causes Invisibility to fail, not whether or not you hit anything.

 

[Nail]

Everybody knows what constitutes an attack, why Hold Person would cause the spell to fail, but Detect Thoughts wouldn't.

Why would Detect Thoughts (which allows a save) not be an attack?

The current description of Invisibility would include the spell Detect Thoughts, when including a foe, to be an attack. I'd say that's spot on.