Which of the following offensive actions would end an Invisibility spell?

[KarinsDad]

That doesn't work, I'm afraid, barring some pretty scary szizo .. schizo ... craziness.

Otherwise, what prevents you from saying, "I'm casting this fireball into that mass of orcs over there. I don't really think of them as foes, so much as friends I just haven't met yet. So, I stay invisible, right?"

No one would let that fly, I imagine ...

Actually, it does work, but it is dependent on the DM adjudicating properly.

If the PC casts a "harmful" spell with anyone in the area, then the DM should rule that the PC decided someone was his foe.

If the PC casts a "harmless" spell with anyone in the area, then the DM should adjudicate (for the player) whether anyone in that area is a foe or not. He should do this based on his concept of whether the PC should think that someone in the area is a foe, not on whether someone in the area IS a foe to the PC (i.e. is hostile to the PC, but the PC does not know it).

Enemy and friend are very loosely defined in DND.


So, in order to follow the "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions)" rule, you basically decide as DM that if it is an "offensive" spell, the PC autotmatically made someone his enemy. If the spell is not offensive, you as DM decide if the PC thought that someone was an enemy. If so, he becomes visible. If not, he does not.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Define "harmful," "harmless," and "offensive."

It is for exactly this reason that the RAW specify any spell including a foe as a target or in its area of effect is an attack.

Note that a Cure Light Wounds spell, when cast on someone whom you deem a foe, counts as an attack as far as invisibility is concerned.

 

[RigaMortus]

Define "harmful," "harmless," and "offensive."

It is for exactly this reason that the RAW specify any spell including a foe as a target or in its area of effect is an attack.

Note that a Cure Light Wounds spell, when cast on someone whom you deem a foe, counts as an attack as far as invisibility is concerned.

It is exactly for this reason that the RAW states the character determines who is a foe and who is an ally.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is exactly for this reason that the RAW states the character determines who is a foe and who is an ally.

Actually, to be precise, it does not state this.

It states:

"(Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions)"


In the case of NPCs, the DM decides what their perception is.

In the case of PCs, the player could be allowed (in a given game) to decide what his perception is, but this can lead to abuse. Instead, the DM should decide for PCs because the DM is pretty much aware of who the real foes are, plus how the players should be reacting to certain NPCs.


To me, this is like a Spot roll. I often allow my players to roll those dice and calculate the result. But, there are some occasions where they should not even be aware that they get a Spot check, so I roll it for them.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It is exactly for this reason that the RAW states the character determines who is a foe and who is an ally.

In which case, I can lob fireballs with impunity, so long as I declare everyone within the area of effect an ally - even if they're only a temporary ally.

In the case of PCs, the player could be allowed (in a given game) to decide what his perception is, but this can lead to abuse. Instead, the DM should decide for PCs because the DM is pretty much aware of who the real foes are, plus how the players should be reacting to certain NPCs.

Under absolutely no circumstances should any DM ever, ever do this.

EDIT: Barring the usual caveats of mental control, magical insanity, etc.

 

[azmodean]

According to:

Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.

(emphasis mine)

I would say that directing the Flaming Sphere, casting the wall of stone, and targeting Forceful Hand at an opponent would not break invisibility. I would consider them to be sufficiently similar to "summoning a monster and have them attack" to count as "not directly offensive"

- drop something casually from above an enemy
- teleport something above an enemy, and let it fall

These two are somewhat problematic, but I think I'd treat them the same as "setting a spear and waiting for an opponent to walk into it". That is, you get an attack roll with a bonus of +0 to hit the target, since you're not really trying. With an altitude necessary to do serious damage with a dropped target, we're talking a significant range penalty.

For example, say you drop the object from 50' above the target, you're looking at -2 per range incriment, which is 10' for an improvised weapon, so -10 range penalty. Oh wait, I forgot the -4 nonproficient penalty, so -14 alltogether. Still about a 50% chance to hit the target, if they have an AC of 4 For a grand total of... probably not that much damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

Under absolutely no circumstances should any DM ever, ever do this.

Nonsense.

It does NOT state players get to CHOOSE what their character perceptions are.

If the PC sees an illusion "of a scary creature", to the character's perception, it is a scary creature. The player does not decide.

If the PC hears a sound, to the character's perception, he heard a sound.

The player does not choose that the PC did not hear the sound.

The concept of friend/foe, ally/enemy is very vague in DND, but they turn around and base rules mechanics off of it.

Because of that, the DM has to be the one to decide who foes are.

Granted, a player can attack anyone he wants to with a spell and by doing so, indirectly declare that he is a foe.

But, the player cannot cast Detect Magic on "a foe" and declare "No, he is not REALLY a foe, so I stay invisible.". This is up to the DM to decide.


It is "character perception" according to RAW, not player declaration.


Also, to make this more complex, there are the rules on Hostile and Unfriendly opponents. The opponents declare if they are unfriendly or hostile to the PCs, hence, again, the DM decides.

Bottom line, an NPC is only an ally (or neutral) if the player wants him to be an ally (or neutral) and the NPC wants to be an ally (or neutral).

The NPC is a foe if the player wants him to be a foe OR the NPC wants to be a foe.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nonsense.

It does NOT state players get to CHOOSE what their character perceptions are.

I'll leave that up there and alone.

Note, also, that nowhere does it state that players get to CHOOSE what their character does in any given round of combat.

Your PoV on this one is pretty far out there, KD.

PC: "I've decided to cast an area-effect dispel magic on my party and our retainers, hoping to dispel the Hold Person affecting all of them."

DM: "You cast the spell, and turn visible."

PC: "Why? I didn't target an enemy ..."

DM: "Yes, you did."

PC: "Who?"

DM: "Yeah, you know Bob? The sell-sword you hired in the last town?"

PC: "What about him?"

DM: "You think of him as an enemy."

PC: "No, I don't. He's saved my life at least once. He's a trusted ally!"

DM: "Nope. He's your foe. Trust me."

Ridiculous.

 

[azmodean]

I have to side with KarinsDad on this one, as much as it pains me. (Nothing personal KD, I just disagree with you a LOT )

The scenario suggested by Patryn does not line up with what KarinsDad is saying. KD, as I understand it, is saying that it is up to the DM to determine what the PC percieves. He is not suggesting that invisibility would be dropped by a PC casting a spell on a creature the PC believes is his ally, but is not. In that scenario, the DM is aware that the PC believes the targets of the spell are all allies, so the invisibility effect would not drop.

Similarly, if a character casts an area dispell which happens to hit an invisible opponent the the character was unaware of, invisibility would be preserved as well. (all of this equally applies to sanctuary as well IIRC)

All KD is saying is that the player is not allowed to dictate who the character percieves as an ally or enemy, in the same way as the player is not allowed to dictate that if they come across a symbol, they did not notice it.

Perception is one of the primary things the DM is in charge of adjucating.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

All KD is saying is that the player is not allowed to dictate who the character percieves as an ally or enemy

Exactly.

If I, as a player, cannot dictate whether my character percieves someone as an ally or an enemy, then the DM is mind-controlling my PC. I cannot say, "Bob the Mage thinks of Billy the Fighter as an ally, and those orcs as foes," because the DM can come in and say, "No, actually, Bob the Mage thinks those orcs are allies and Billy the Fighter is a foe."

The above situation applies.

In simpler terms:

Player: My character thinks X.
DM: No, he doesn't.