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

[Thanee]

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?

Then the wizard has attacked the target. The familiar is just an extension of the wizard in this case. The attack comes directly from the wizard.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

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

With regard to this discussion, there are three types of intent.

The intent of the spell caster to cast into an area with a foe.

The intent of the spell caster to pretend that a foe is not a foe so that his invisibility spell does not go down.

And, the intent of the spell caster to cast a spell into an area for one reason which the spell caster does not consider an attack, but it affects the foe, so it becomes "an attack".

We were talking about the third one. I agree that intent in the first case is relevant. But, intent in the other two cases does not matter. You cast a spell that affects (or could affect) a foe in ANY way, the invisibility goes down.

 

[azmodean]

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.

Just don't explain it this way to your players.

"but I have Mind Blank up!"

 

[KarinsDad]

Just don't explain it this way to your players.

"but I have Mind Blank up!"

No kidding.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

This way to adjudicate is not much less blurry... What if the caster doesn't know his spell is harmful to someone?

What if you try to cast a Cure X Wounds (an uncommon case to have this and Invis, but yet) on an NPC allied to the party, only to find that such NPC is an undead?

That's why I mentioned the case of Daylight: usually it's a harmless spell, unless someone is hurt by strong light.

 

[KarinsDad]

This way to adjudicate is not much less blurry... What if the caster doesn't know his spell is harmful to someone?

What if you try to cast a Cure X Wounds (an uncommon case to have this and Invis, but yet) on an NPC allied to the party, only to find that such NPC is an undead?

That's why I mentioned the case of Daylight: usually it's a harmless spell, unless someone is hurt by strong light.

It is not about harm, it about effect.

If the spell "targets" the foe in any way, shape or form, then it is considered an attack, even if the spell does not harm the target in any way.

For example, Detect Magic. The foe is included in the list of targets that are applicable to this spell, hence, it is considered an attack.

A foe is not included in the list of targets that are applicable to a Bless spell, hence, it does not affect him.

A foe is not included in the area of a Wall of Iron. The wall might fall over on him, but he was not a target of the spell.

Fog Cloud, Darkness, Light, and other area effect spells (unlike Bless) effectively target every creature within their area, even if they do not harm them.

So if you target an NPC with a spell and consider that NPC to be a foe (if you do not know he is there, you cannot consider him to be a foe per se), you go visible.


In the Cure X Wounds on an ally who is really an Undead and really harmed, you stay invisible. You considered him an ally, not a foe. If you then change your mind and now consider him a foe and cast a second Cure spell on him, you become visible.

Three elements to this. The spell must target the NPC, you must consider the NPC to be a foe, and you must be aware the NPC is there. If you target an invisible foe who you are not aware is in the area of effect, you stay invisible.

 

[RigaMortus]

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.

That is the difference right there. You cast the spell ON your ally. Your ally then does the damage. But you cast spells THROUGH your familiar. You are the one still doing the damage.