Things that stop invisibility..yes or no?

[Olive]

Stone to Mud will break an invisibility if there are any enemies in the area affected (i.e. standing on the affected stone).

But the area of effect doesn't include the enemies. They're above the area of effect.

 

[LordAO]

Has anyone ever come up with a legitimate explanation as to why you can't "attack" while invisible?

I'm not trying to flame, here. I just honestly want to know why an action that is an "attack" will disrupt the spell, yet the same kind of action(s), if not direct attacks, won't.

The metaphysics of this spell don't make any sense to me at all.

 

[Staffan]

Has anyone ever come up with a legitimate explanation as to why you can't "attack" while invisible?

In 2e, I used the "Somebody else's problem field" version of invisibility - people just ignored the invisible person, rather than the person being transparent. If you attack someone, it's a bit hard to ignore you anymore.

In 3e, one might say that it the hostile intentions and the direct or indirect contact with an enemy breaks the fragile glamer, or somesuch. Never really bothered me.

 

[Forsythe]

Thanks for the responses...

I was surprised to see the lack of agreements.

Does anyone know of an errata or FAQs on the topic...or does 3.5 have more explicit wording?

Thanks
Forsythe

 

[doktorstick]

Does anyone know of an errata or FAQs on the topic...or does 3.5 have more explicit wording?

I doubt it. They probably have a mixutre of new 3.5e wording and old, overlooked wording from 3.0e to add to the confusion. *smirk*

/ds