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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

This statement is incorrect, however.

RAW, any spell cast directly at a foe (i.e., targets the foe or includes the foe within the area of effect), regardless of intent, results in a loss of invisbility.

Intent doesn't matter.

 

[RigaMortus]

This statement is incorrect, however.

RAW, any spell cast directly at a foe (i.e., targets the foe or includes the foe within the area of effect), regardless of intent, results in a loss of invisbility.

Intent doesn't matter.

Right, and if I cast Detect Magic and this supposed "foe" happens to be within that area, I as the player will percieve him as not a foe at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

This statement is incorrect, however.

RAW, any spell cast directly at a foe (i.e., targets the foe or includes the foe within the area of effect), regardless of intent, results in a loss of invisbility.

Intent doesn't matter.

You are correct that intent does not matter (my bad). But, the spell must actually affect the foe for it to be considered an attack, even if the foe is within the area of effect.

"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. 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.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. 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. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area."

If the spell does not directly affect foes at all (such as Bless), then it does not negate the invisiblity.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Intent most certainly matters.

See this thread for some of the bizarre things that happen when rules are read out of context: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106124


Jeff

 

[Li Shenron]

Funny thing that when I posted this list I was purposefully trying not to focus the problem on the friend/foe perception In fact I also had this problem of course, and quite similar there's the question about what happens if you cast a spell such as a fog (non-damaging) or a darkness in a room where you don't know yet there's a foe hiding. Such as casting a Daylight spell only to be able to see in a dark place, and you don't know there are foes there which get hurt by the light.

As I expected, there are different opinions about each of these spells... One thing that strikes me in instead that everyone agrees that the spell through the familiar does end Invisibility. Why are you all so sure about it? I have doubts because in a way it's pretty much an independent creature from the caster as a summoned creature is: both are orderer to attack but they do it on their own.
In a weird circumstance, a Wiz could send his familiar bat far away to deliver a spell somewhere, then start doing some other job, turn invisible, and perhaps see his invisibility unexpectededly end because the bat 1 mile away has delivered the spell?

 

[Li Shenron]

About Wall of Fire, when I said "nearby" I meant close enough to hurt the foe, but not cast OVER him.

About the Detect spells, could it be too much if it was a Detect Thoughts?

 

[RigaMortus]

One thing that strikes me in instead that everyone agrees that the spell through the familiar does end Invisibility. Why are you all so sure about it? I have doubts because in a way it's pretty much an independent creature from the caster as a summoned creature is: both are orderer to attack but they do it on their own.
In a weird circumstance, a Wiz could send his familiar bat far away to deliver a spell somewhere, then start doing some other job, turn invisible, and perhaps see his invisibility unexpectededly end because the bat 1 mile away has delivered the spell?

Well the problem is, the Wizard is casting through the familiar. Instead of the Wizard touching the opponent, the familiar is. But it is the Wizard's spell doing the damage or taking effect. If the familiar had it's own way to cast a spell, and the Wizard ordered it to do so, then Invis would not drop. If the Wizard orders his familiar to attack, Invis won't drop off.

Think of it like a wand. If I am invis and use a wand, well I'm not casting the spell, the wand is, right? Same thing with the familiar.

 

[Li Shenron]

Think of it like a wand. If I am invis and use a wand, well I'm not casting the spell, the wand is, right? Same thing with the familiar.

It still doesn't feel the same thing to me.

I can't find an example in the rules, but if you could cast a spell on your ally and the ally used that spell to attack the foe, it would not end the invis.

 

[monboesen]

Its also very strange that you could cast your Fog cloud and stay invisible. But if for some reason an invisible foe is within area of effect you suddenly turn visible.

How can the Invisibility spell know if an enemy is within area of effect and react accordingly ?

We really need a new sort of mechanic for that spell. Maybe something along only allowing move actions without breaking it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Its also very strange that you could cast your Fog cloud and stay invisible. But if for some reason an invisible foe is within area of effect you suddenly turn visible.

How can the Invisibility spell know if an enemy is within area of effect and react accordingly ?

We really need a new sort of mechanic for that spell. Maybe something along only allowing move actions without breaking it.

It is based on the perception of the caster, not the magic of the Invisibility spell.

So, if you see a peasant and cast Fog Cloud in his area, your invisibility will not go down. The peasant might be the reoccurring villain of the campaign, but if the spell caster does not know that, he stays invisible. If, on the other hand, the invisible spell caster knows that is the reoccurring villain, then the Invisibility spell goes down. Exact same situation, only the spell caster has specific knowledge of the NPC in one case and does not in the other.

If an invisible foe is in the area of the Fog Cloud and you do NOT know he is there, you stay invisible. If you do know he is there (and that he is a foe or even suspect he is a foe I would think), then it goes down.

A foe is only a foe if the spell caster perceives him that way. Part of the Invisibility spell "monitors the throughts of the spell caster" or some such so that when he casts at anyone he perceives to be an enemy, the Invisibility spell expires.