reading attack vs invisible caster

[IceBear]

I think one of the problems that most people have with invisibility is that (and we're going back to 1st and 2nd here) it was part of the illusion/phantasm sphere. whili they tried to clean it up in 3E its the Phantasm part that always makes it messy. here are a few reasons why i believe this happens.

first is that 1-3rd level spells were only supposed to alter the basic perseptions of the players environment. it is the ability to pierce these simple perceptions that make these spells weaker.

second is that 4th and higher begins encorperating phantasms. a little bit of smoke to give the mirror some room to work.

third is that most people started campaings at 1st level they got bored with the game by 5th level and never really got into the more powerfull stuff. and the people that started mid level typically went after the more flashy stuff.

how many people have built an illusionist up from 1st to 20th
the hard way? How many have built a Transmuter up?

and since 3E is an extension of the original concept this philosophy continues. the idea that there is a fundmental shift in spell power after 3rd is consitant on both the divination AND arcane charts. although i will admit that its much better now that there are not 2 diferent spells with the same name.

last is a regurgitation from earlier....I believe caution should be exercised when when giving TOO much power to a low level spell. cus when the 7th level version comes around BAM! right in the kisser.

which brings us back to the begining.... does the invisibility go away before or after he begins casting the attack spell.

my opinion is that its goes away During the casting. not before or after (althought this amounts to the same as before). I feel this makes the most sense logicly as well as Dramaticly. since it is the action that causes the spell to disapate then it should disipate AS the action takes place.

iso
"...more human then human..."

I agree with this, BTW. There are lots of things in 3E that are the way that they are because of prior editions. As I said the first time, the main reason invisibility was left as an illusion spell was because of illusionists which were the first specialist class. It really seems to fit better as a transmutation spell (though it's not really changing the target, so maybe not - it's a weird one)

IceBear

 

[hong]

Re: Ah! Here it is...

Q:I have a question about the invisibility spell. The description states that if you attack a target, the spell is cancelled. An invisible attacker always receives a bonus to hit a target, unless they have blindsight or something similar. So my question is this; If you are under the effects of invisibility, and you have three attacks at +16/+11/+6, do you gain the usual bonus to hit with the first attack, all of the attacks, or none of the attacks?

A:All of them. (Note you have to use the full attack action to make all those attacks, so your opponent must be close by.)

Copied and pasted from this thread. It's an email reply I think, not actual Sage Advice. Use it or not.

The consensus here for the longest time has been that invisibility only applies on your first attack. I think I'll go with ~100 opinions as opposed to one.

 

[hong]

Because he would be visible and therefore the target would be able to use his dexterity against the attack from the visible attacker, and therefore would not qualify as a target for a sneak attack.

Either you're visible while you're attacking, and your opponent gets to use his dex, or you're invisible while you're attacking and your opponent doesn't get his dex. These are your options, they are clearly spelled out in the rules.

Exactly. "Invisible while attacking", not "invisible until after the attack".

I don't see anywhere in the combat modifiers "attacker just turned visible after having been invisible".

Do you really need a combat modifier spelled out for attacking someone who's visible?

 

[drnuncheon]

Exactly. "Invisible while attacking", not "invisible until after the attack".

Those sound the same to me.

"OK, I haven't attacked yet, I'm invisible...I'm attacking...invisible while attacking...twisting the knife in the kidney, still invisible while attacking...OK, I'm done attacking, hey, I'm visible again."

If you're invisible while you're attacking, then you are obviously invisible until after the attack. If you become visible during the attack, then you are by definition not 'invisible while attacking'.

J

 

[jontherev]

Re: Re: Ah! Here it is...

The consensus here for the longest time has been that invisibility only applies on your first attack. I think I'll go with ~100 opinions as opposed to one.

Ok,no sweat. I apologize for having the audacity to post a Sage reply. Where was this 100 opinion consensus again? I missed it.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Ah! Here it is...

Ok,no sweat. I apologize for having the audacity to post a Sage reply.

No problem. Next time, you get to wear the "Skip disagrees with me, therefore he's wrong" hat.

 

[FlimFlam]

If you can "attack" indirectly and still remain invisible (such as cutting a rope bridge), could you toss alchemist fire in an unoccupied square and have the splash damage hit someone yet still remain invisible? Seems to be the same thing to me as cutting a rope bridge.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah it does - you can see though that I wasn't interpreting the rules with that; it's explicitly stated in the spell description. I think they wanted to allow people to summon while invisible and then they got themselves caught. Theoretically, dropping a flash of alchemical fire to the ground will allow you to remain invisible, but dropping it directly on someone wouldn't.

IceBear