Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phindar" data-source="post: 3380508" data-attributes="member: 37198">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.</blockquote>

Verification