pinpointing invisible opponents

[Elethiomel]

Err?

Knowing the thoughts of an enemy (because he failed a Will save) doesn't have an affect upon him?

Indeed not, because that's not correct usage of "affect". "Effect" would be more correct, or "doesn't affect him" would also be correct.

That aside, I think any effect it has upon the target is indirect - you know what the target is thinking and so you can act to counter it - You gain knowledge, you don't take away from the target.

 

[Nail]

The target needed to save to resist your magic. That's "an attack", plain and simple.

Whether the magic is divination, evocation, or enchantment is completely and totally irrelevant.

 

[phindar]

Nail: We're talking at cross purposes. You keep arguing the way the spell does work, I'm talking about how it should work.

I'm saying that what causes Invisibilty to fail should be what you do, and not who you do it to. It should be the act of casting Fireball that makes Invisibility fail, not who's in the radius. (As it stands now, according to the RAW, casters can fireball their own party and remain invisible, as long as they don't catch any enemies in the area of effect.)

What I am saying is that its a much simpler and more logical (easier to remember, easier to adjudicate) ruling to say that an Attack causes Invisibility to fail, rather than basing it on the perceptions and foes of the caster. (If for no other reason than as the spell is currently written, one can go all day listing ways in which it makes no sense, as I have done many times in this topic. An invisible person could, for instance, walk around casting Detect Thoughts in taverns and city streets, reading the mind of the populace, as long as he likes them. And then, if he read someone's mind and discovered that person was planning on killing him, that person would be his "foe", and he'd suddenly become visible. If that makes sense to you, then I wouldn't worry about it, keep using the spell as it's written. If that seems hinky, then consider the alternative I've outlined above.)

So, if an Attack causes Invisibility to fail, the next most important question is what exactly constitutes an attack? My definition is anything that adversely affects the target, be it a physical attack or spell or ability (regardless of what the target, or if there even is one). Beneficial spells are in, the caster can heal and buff to his invisible heart's content. Divinations-- even though some require Will Saves-- aren't "Attacks", because they don't have an affect the target. (What you do with the information may, but the spell itself doesn't affect the thinker any more than my car radio affects a broadcast tower.)

Saying an attack causes Invisibility to fail is an easy, instinctive, common sense ruling. Its a much more elegant way of handling it than the current RAW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm saying that what causes Invisibilty to fail should be what you do, and not who you do it to. It should be the act of casting Fireball that makes Invisibility fail, not who's in the radius. (As it stands now, according to the RAW, casters can fireball their own party and remain invisible, as long as they don't catch any enemies in the area of effect.)

I don't agree - a caster who fireballs his own party will break invisibility. Fireball fits the definition of Attack on p171 ("All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.").

There might be some ambiguity as to whether the extra definition of 'attack' in the invisibility text replaces or augments the p171 definition... except that Invisibility is the example spell used on p171. So anything that fits the p171 definition of 'Attack' will break invisibility, and so will anything that fits the expanded definitions specific to invisibility on p245. When p245 says "An attack includes..." it is adding to the definition of 'attack', not making an exclusive list.

A fireball on your own party is a spell that deals damage, and is thus an attack per p171, and will thus break invisibility.

-Hyp.

 

[Jhulae]

So, wait. I have some questions based on some things said in previous posts.

Let's say I'm a diviner who's currently invisible (via the Invisibility spell).

Does summoning a creature (knowing it is going to attack the foe nearest to it) dispel my invisibility, or does my invisibility remain, since all my spell did was summon a creature?

Does casting a Wall of Magma (which forms a barrier, but also damages things via heat) next to my foes dispel my Invisibility?

Does casting Stinking Cloud (not a damaging spell, but one my foes have to make a save against) make me visible?

How about Cloud Kill? Does Cloud Kill dispel my invisibility if I cast it on my foes? What about if I cast it 10' above my foes, knowing that next round it will descend to 'ground level' and kill them then? And, if it doesn't dispel it if I cast it above my foes, why should it (if it does make me visible) when I cast it at 'ground level'?

 

[phindar]

A fireball on your own party is a spell that deals damage, and is thus an attack per p171, and will thus break invisibility.

I don't disagree with you in theory. As the RAW states: "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." And if they'd left it at that, it'd almost make sense. But the RAW continues: "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.)"

According to a strict (if mindless) interpretation of the RAW, you can cast fireballs at your allies because an attack is a spell cast at a foe. You can also cast an unlimited number of fireballs and remain invisibile, as long as you don't cast them at anyone. My point is that it should be the act of casting Fireball that causes invisibility to fail, not who (if anyone) ends up in the area of effect. Basically, take out those two sentences in the RAW and replace them with, "The spell ends if the subject makes an attack."

Now, "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks" would go along way towards clearing up the confusion about Invisibility, except that even here, there are logical inconsistencies. Detect Thoughts is resisted by a saving throw (on the third round) and so constitutes "an attack". This was why I chose it as an example, because it was a Will Save Divination, as opposed to Detect Evil, which doesn't have a save. According to the RAW, Detect Thoughts is an attack, but Detect Evil isn't. But Detect Evil is a spell with an area, and so would fail if a foe was in the area of effect. (Here are two spells that do practically the same thing-- get information from a subject-- but have two different effects on the Invisibility spell.)

All of which leads to more confusion. An invisible caster could cast Detect Thoughts on his party (presumably), at least for the first two rounds and then its up to the GM if the party can waive their saves so that the spell won't fail. Likewise, a caster could Detect Evil on his own party and remain invisible. But if a foe walked up into the area of effect, the caster would be in violation of the Invisibility spell and become visible, even though the character wasn't doing anything different from round to round. Likewise, and invisible person could cast Detect Evil and walk all over a city. No saves would be triggered, he doesn't see any of his foes, and so he'd remain invisible.

Even with the Invisibility spell description and the further explanation of what constitutes an attack, there still seems like there's a lot of grey area here. And my personal waystick of a rule is not if it makes sense after you read the spell, then look up something else in the PHB, and then follow the rules to their logical (if absurd) conclusion. The rule should make sense in the first five seconds, because that's really all the GM has time for when running a game. (This goes back to Vonnegut's rule that anyone who can't explain what they do to a 7-year old is a fraud.)

Edit: It occurs to me we are drifting far afield of the OT, and a discussion about how to fix Invisibility would be more appropriately located in the House Rules section. If I get the energy (which is unlikely) I'll post a new topic in that forum dealing with this facet of the discussion. But I'll stop flogging this dead horse in here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't disagree with you in theory. As the RAW states: "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." And if they'd left it at that, it'd almost make sense. But the RAW continues: "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.)"

Includes, but is not limited to. Hitting someone with a sword is also an attack for purposes of this spell. Any spell satisfying the p174 definition is also an attack for purposes of this spell.

According to a strict (if mindless) interpretation of the RAW, you can cast fireballs at your allies because an attack is a spell cast at a foe.

An attack includes spells cast at a foe. Fireball cast at allies is still a spell that deals damage, and is thus still an attack.

Now, "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks" would go along way towards clearing up the confusion about Invisibility...

Not 'would go a long way'; does go a long way.

According to the RAW, Detect Thoughts is an attack, but Detect Evil isn't. But Detect Evil is a spell with an area, and so would fail if a foe was in the area of effect.

That's right. The example I usually use is Detect Magic.

Of course, while a spell that deals damage is an attack regardless, a saving throw only matters if it's an opponent who resists it. (What's not clear is whether "a spell that opponents resist with saving throws" refers to a spell that has a saving throw entry, or a specific instance of a spell that has a saving throw entry which is, in this case, cast on an opponent.)

Likewise, a caster could Detect Evil on his own party and remain invisible. But if a foe walked up into the area of effect, the caster would be in violation of the Invisibility spell and become visible, even though the character wasn't doing anything different from round to round.

Just like an invisible character could happily wander round smacking gargoyles with his sword... until one of them turns out to be a Gargoyle. Then it's an attack on a creature, and invisibility ends.

I don't have a problem with it...

-Hyp.

 

[Jhulae]

I'd really appreciate some thoughts on my questions posted above, please. These are spells I use all the time in a game I'm in, so it's fairly important.

Thanks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does summoning a creature (knowing it is going to attack the foe nearest to it) dispel my invisibility, or does my invisibility remain, since all my spell did was summon a creature?

Not an attack - specifically covered in the Invisibility spell description.

Does casting a Wall of Magma (which forms a barrier, but also damages things via heat) next to my foes dispel my Invisibility?

I'm not familiar with Wall of Magma, but let's look at Wall of Fire. If you cast it so that the 'hot' side faces away from the opponents, at the moment it manifests, it is not an attack.

If the hot side is facing them, and they are immediately in a position to take damage, it's debatable, but I'm inclined to say that this falls under 'a spell whose effect includes a foe', and is thus an attack.

If you cast the spell in round 1, and in round 3 a foe moves through the wall, again, it's debatable - is this a spell dealing damage (and thus an attack), or is it the effect of a spell causing damage (more analogous to a summoned monster)? If we take the latter position, how is it different to Scorching Ray, which produces an effect that causes damage?

Does casting Stinking Cloud (not a damaging spell, but one my foes have to make a save against) make me visible?

If it's cast such that the effect includes a foe (that is, he's within the cloud), it's an attack for the purposes of invisibility.

How about Cloud Kill? Does Cloud Kill dispel my invisibility if I cast it on my foes? What about if I cast it 10' above my foes, knowing that next round it will descend to 'ground level' and kill them then? And, if it doesn't dispel it if I cast it above my foes, why should it (if it does make me visible) when I cast it at 'ground level'?

Cast at ground level, it's an attack, just like Stinking Cloud. Cast above ground, the answer's the same as for Wall of Fire... does an effect which deals damage in a subsequent round count as an attack?

-Hyp.

 

[phindar]

If the hot side is facing them, and they are immediately in a position to take damage, it's debatable, but I'm inclined to say that this falls under 'a spell whose effect includes a foe', and is thus an attack.

If you cast the spell in round 1, and in round 3 a foe moves through the wall, again, it's debatable - is this a spell dealing damage (and thus an attack), or is it the effect of a spell causing damage (more analogous to a summoned monster)? If we take the latter position, how is it different to Scorching Ray, which produces an effect that causes damage?

Cast at ground level, it's an attack, just like Stinking Cloud. Cast above ground, the answer's the same as for Wall of Fire... does an effect which deals damage in a subsequent round count as an attack?

-Hyp.

This is why I say it is vastly simpler to rule that its the attack itself that spoils Invisibility, rather than who is in the area of effect. I know I said I would move this dead-horse flogging to House Rules, but I have to hit the horse one more time.

Jhualee asked how Invisibility would function in four situations, and the answers were 1) Yes, 2) Its debatable, 3) Its debatable, 4) Yes, but its debatable. Now, let me be very clear here, because typing can be ambiguous but I'm not being snarky or anything like that. Hyp's answers were correct and well thought out. I'm just saying that I think the spell description isn't great. There is some poor wording and what I think is some faulty logic from the authors that leads to the best possible response according to the RAW being, in certain situations, "Who Knows?"

So my suggestion is make it so that an attack spoils Invisibility; it doesn't matter who or what you are attacking, even if you are attacking no one, its the attack that causes the spell to fail. And as a trial run, I'm going to use Jhualee's 4 questions:

• Does summoning a creature (knowing it is going to attack the foe nearest to it) dispel my invisibility, or does my invisibility remain, since all my spell did was summon a creature?
  
  Invisibility remains, same as the RAW, and for the same reason.
  
  Does casting a Wall of Magma (which forms a barrier, but also damages things via heat) next to my foes dispel my Invisibility?
  
  The spell does damage, and so is considered an attack. Casting Wall of Magma spoils invisibility. (Casting Wall of Iron wouldn't. Tipping a Wall of Iron on somebody would, because tipping the wall is an attack, not because you cast the spell.)
  
  Does casting Stinking Cloud (not a damaging spell, but one my foes have to make a save against) make me visible?
  
  Yes. It has a detrimental effect, so it is considered an attack and Invis fails. Same as the Raw, but:
  
  How about Cloud Kill? Does Cloud Kill dispel my invisibility if I cast it on my foes? What about if I cast it 10' above my foes, knowing that next round it will descend to 'ground level' and kill them then? And, if it doesn't dispel it if I cast it above my foes, why should it (if it does make me visible) when I cast it at 'ground level'?
  
  Cloud Kill is an attack, so you would become visible when you cast it, even if no enemies were in the area of effect.

According to the RAW now, whether or not you would become visible later if enemies ended up in the Cloudkill is debatable. On the one hand, I don't think it makes any sense to become visible rounds after you no longer have anything to do with a spell, on the other, it seems pretty cynical to let casters put Cloudkills in the air above enemies since the fog is going to fall on them next round anyway. Its one of those classic rule conundrums in which both answers give me a headache.

What I like best about my alternate take on the rule is that is gets rid of the idea that doing something won't cause the spell to fail, but doing the exact same thing in a different situtation would. To me, that's what makes the RAW faulty, because it begs the questions 1) What's different? and 2) How does the spell know? This leads to the debate, which in the right set of circumstances will bog down the game. We play to play, we have the forum tp debate rules theory.

My way cleans up 99% of those problems. (I won't say 100%, because who knows? Tomorrow the sun may rise in the west. But it clears up a lot of them.) When I clean up the wording a bit, I'll post it in House Rules. Until then, I really have to stop beating this dead horse. But I appreciate your forbearance in letting me ramble on a bit.