D&D General TSR to WoTC shift--OR--the de-prioritization on Exploration spells/classes

[Greg Benage]

Or it once was, at any rate.

I think 5e incentivizes non-DPR, control spells in combat more than ever. As hit points become more bloated, spells that neutralize enemies without reducing them to zero become even more valuable. Maybe even more so in 1D&D if they're dialing back DPR a bit.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My rule of thumb boils down to if it would or could blow your invisibility if you did it, it's combat.

Invisibility is ruined if you cast any spell. So by your logic, light, goodberry, knock, wizard eye, etc are all combat spells.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've always run it that it makes a wooshing sound (like when a gas stove ignites). Which isn't soundless, but is hardly loud either. The armored guards falling over is still more than likely the primary consideration as to whether anyone hears anything (the same as sleep).

In 5e we have several spells, like Thunderwave, that explicitly call out that they're audible at 300 feet. Fireball has no such rule, and in point of fact the 5e PHB describes it as a low roar, so clearly even in 5e fireballs are not intended to be loud spells.

I mentioned above how we won't ever have total agreement and that's OK, but you will never convince me that "it's a stretch to think sleep is more discreet than a fireball."

First you said it didn't list any sound, then you say a low roar (so that changed). A low roar is still a roar. And an explosion (it says that too) is still an explosion. I'm sorry, but I find it a bit silly to argue that sleep is not more discreet than a fireball.

 

[Alzrius]

Invisibility is ruined if you cast any spell.

Is that how it was in AD&D 1E? I skimmed my PHB and DMG, and couldn't find where it says that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is that how it was in AD&D 1E? I skimmed my PHB and DMG, and couldn't find where it says that.

In AD&D, it's only dispelled if you make an attack. Spells don't ruin it.

 

[Nikosandros]

In AD&D, it's only dispelled if you make an attack. Spells don't ruin it.

Non-offensive spells don't ruin it. If you attack someone with a spell, it's broken.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Non-offensive spells don't ruin it. If you attack someone with a spell, it's broken.

It doesn't say that. And since sleep doesn't require an attack roll nor does it have a saving throw, it wouldn't be considered an attacking spell regardless.

 

[Mort]

It doesn't say that. And since sleep doesn't require an attack roll nor does it have a saving throw, it wouldn't be considered an attacking spell regardless.

the 5e invisibility spell explicitly ends if the target of it casts a spell period (attacking with a spell, or intent to harm, is not a factor):

So yes, sleep would break it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

the 5e invisibility spell explicitly ends if the target of it casts a spell period (attacking with a spell, or intent to harm, is not a factor):

View attachment 269491

So yes, sleep would break it.

They were asking about 1e, not 5e. If you read my post above that, for 5e I myself said any spell breaks invisibility, which would mean any spell is a combat spell by Lanfan's argument.

 

[Mort]

They were asking about 1e, not 5e. If you read my post above that, for 5e I myself said any spell breaks invisibility, which would mean any spell is a combat spell by Lanfan's argument.

Sorry, hard to keep track when multiple editions are in play.