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: 3382380" data-attributes="member: 37198">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: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>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.</blockquote>

Verification