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

[azmodean]

DM: the ork hits you for 12 damage.

Player: On my action I cast quickened invisibility on myself, take a 5' step away from my new friend, and cast dispell magic on the area he is in.

DM: That was totally pointless, you cast dispell magic and you become visible again.

Player: No, see he's my friend now, he's obviously mind controlled, so I'm trying to bring him to his senses. Therefore the invisibility stays.

DM: You have no reason to think that, the invisibility woud drop if you do that, you can redeclare your actions if you want.

Player: you can't decide what I believe! It's my character!

Ridiculous.

KD and I are assuming that the DM is going to decide what the PCs percieve in a rational way. If the DM isn't doing that, then the game is going to fall apart anyway. Yes, there is the potential for the DM to abuse the situation and do freaky things to the PCs, which happens, but the perceptions of the characters are in the hands of the DM, he is the mediator between the players and his game world, there is no way for them to percieve things indipendently of the DM.

Really I don't see how this is different from other forms of perception, such as sight and even knowledge.

Player: My character knows X.
DM: Your character doesn't have that knowledge skill, no he doesn't.

Seems pretty resonable to me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And, I posit, less ridiculous than the DM deciding what my character believes.

One requires that I play my character consistently. The other requires that someone who is not playing my character attempt to play my character consistently.

I know which one I'd choose. Do you?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Player: My character knows X.
DM: Your character doesn't have that knowledge skill, no he doesn't.

Actually, he does:

Untrained: An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

Given that I've got an Int bonus of +4, and we're dealing with relatively common knowledge (DC 5 to 10 range), we're talking about something my character would probably remember.

Roll those dice, DM, and then you can tell me whether or not my character knows that angels come from Heaven, even though I don't have any ranks in Knowledge (The Planes).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Also, the proper way to handle this:

DM: the ork hits you for 12 damage.

Player: On my action I cast quickened invisibility on myself, take a 5' step away from my new friend, and cast dispell magic on the area he is in.

DM: That was totally pointless, you cast dispell magic and you become visible again.

Player: No, see he's my friend now, he's obviously mind controlled, so I'm trying to bring him to his senses. Therefore the invisibility stays.

DM: You have no reason to think that, the invisibility woud drop if you do that, you can redeclare your actions if you want.

Player: you can't decide what I believe! It's my character!

is:

DM: Okay, you want to free your new friend from his mental compulsion?

PC: Yes.

DM: Roll a Spellcraft check.

PC: Okay ... 23.

DM: Based on your knowledge of magic, it'll require a targeted Dispel Magic against the compulsion effect affecting his mind. Still want to do it?

PC: Okay ...

DM: Roll your Caster Level check.

And play proceeds.

Much neater, don't you think?

Then, afterwards, you can ask the player not to be so cheesy.

 

[punkorange]

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.

This is where common sense on the DM's part comes in. I would not play under a DM who would allow this.

 

[azmodean]

Let's go back to the original quote that started this sub-discussion.

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.

My interpretation of this:
In most circumstances the player determines who is a foe (actually, in most cases it's so obvious that it doesn't come up).
In some cases, if a player is attempting to abuse the system in this way, the DM needs to step in and clarify what is actually being percieved.

As to your most recent post, my apologies for being unclear, let me clarify.

Player: My character knows X. (Where X is a piece of knowledge that would require a knowlegde check with a DC exceeding 10.)
DM: Your character doesn't have that knowledge skill, no he doesn't.

This seems to be going nowhere, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

One point though, there is no one "proper" way to handle a given situation. Your approach is perfectly valid, but I would prefer to directly address the issue, because I know it won't cause problem with my players among other things.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Whereas my interpretation is, "Occasionally, a player will decide to have his character act in a way in with which I, as the almighty DM, disagree."

[EDIT]
Or, more appropriately, "You could concievably let the players decide, but some of them will abuse this. Therefore, the only solution is that the players never decide; the DM does."
[/EDIT]

Specifically:

plus how the players should be reacting to certain NPCs

That's a bit more megalomaniacal than I like my DMs to be.

 

[Thanee]

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"

I think the difference between summon monster and flaming sphere is, that you control the latter with your own will and intent.

The monsters have their own mind. It's them who attack, but with the flaming sphere, it's you.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

Whereas my interpretation is, "Occasionally, a player will decide to have his character act in a way in with which I, as the almighty DM, disagree."

I do not think you understand. Nobody is really disagreeing with this.

What we are talking about is:

1) all spells cast directly at foes (i.e. targets the foe or includes the foe within the area of effect) with the intent of attacking result in loss of invisibility AND

2) if the player is attempting to abuse the situation with regard to who the PC considers a foe, the DM has the right and duty to step in and overrule.

99% of the time, this would not be an issue. Both the DM and the player will be in sync on who the PC perceives to be a foe. On that other 1%, if the player makes a reasonable case, a reasonable DM will agree. If not, the DM can and should overrule the player since it is a perception of the character, not the perception of the player.

With regard to Li Shenron's original list, yes:

- cast a Dispel Magic whose area of effect includes an enemy (even if the intent is to dispel harmful magic, a foe in the area makes it a targeted attack by default)
- cast a non-damaging fog spell whose area of effect includes an enemy (it is hard to conceive of this as not an attack on the senses of an enemy)
- cast a light/darkness spell whose area of effect includes an enemy (if the intent is to attack, say casting light on a Drow, this is a gray area which requires DM adjudication)
- cast a Forceful Hand or similar spell
- cast a Wall of Fire nearby an enemy (only if it attempts to damage the enemy when cast)
- cast a touch spell through Spectral Hand
- cast a touch spell through your familiar
- direct a spell such as Flaming sphere (no attack, no target, no area... still offensive)

No:

- cast a light/darkness spell whose area of effect includes an enemy (if the intent is not to attack, but to light up an area so the PCs can see)
- cast a Detect spell whose area of effect includes an enemy
- cast a Wall of Iron and let it 50% fall on an enemy
- drop something casually from above an enemy (no different than triggering a trap on an opponent)
- teleport something above an enemy, and let it fall

The difference between Flaming Sphere and Summon Monster is that the monster is being told to attack, the monster is controlling the actual attack. With Flaming Sphere, the caster is explicitly directing the spell (as opposed to ordering a creature) to attack. In this case, the caster is explicitly attacking.


The Light spell on the drow example above is a good example of the DM overruling the player.

Player: "I only cast Light."
DM: "Yes, but your intent was to penalize the Drow. That's an attack."


It is well within the DM's perogative to rule that a given spell is an attack and that a given target is considered a foe.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Player: "I only cast Light."
DM: "Yes, but your intent was to penalize the Drow. That's an attack."

In which case its actually better to not know a creature's weaknesses.