If it requires an attack roll it breaks invisiblity, otherwise I'd say it doesnt.
my 2C
There are different ways to attack though, a dominate person is just as much of an attack as a fireball.
That's not true, stinking cloud, dispel magic, fireball and other spells can break invisibility.If it requires an attack roll it breaks invisiblity, otherwise I'd say it doesnt.
my 2C
"my 2C" <-- Indicates opinion.
|
My general rule is that if you include the person as a target or include them in the area, it breaks invisibility. The exception being spells with the "harmless" tag. Any other activity does not as the spell explicitly states that indirect harm doesn't count (such as summoning a creature then having it attack).
Since wall of ice, by definition, cannot include a creature in its area (the spell fails if you attempt to do so), the wall of ice spell would be incapable of breaking invisibility (barring, of course, a DM ruling that a failed spell can break invisibility). Either way, you cannot both successfully form a wall of ice *and* break your invisibility by casting it.
I really don't think dispel magic would end invisibility.
Anything requiring an attack roll or saving throw most likely would though, as would anything that directly deals damage (such as stone call).
If it requires an attack roll it breaks invisiblity, otherwise I'd say it doesnt.
my 2C
Enforcing saving throw or inflicting damage without attack roll/saving throw won't break invisibility for you?
I judge it as "anything requiring an attack roll, or that requires the target(s) to make a saving throw, or does hit point damage, or ability damage." I've not been caught out yet.
|
I mean I'm not worried about the whole casting of the spell thing since the enemy using it is a spell like ability at will.
The wording is just confusing when it comes to harm and AoE and attack...I wanted to say it wouldn't break bc the hemisphere doesn't even do damage if you break the wall and climb through like the regular wall...its just inconvenient.
I judge it as "anything requiring an attack roll, or that requires the target(s) to make a saving throw, or does hit point damage, or ability damage." I've not been caught out yet.
I'd go with this answer.
|
|
I judge it as "anything requiring an attack roll, or that requires the target(s) to make a saving throw, or does hit point damage, or ability damage." I've not been caught out yet.
What about Grease? It requires a saving through but it doesn't cause any damage...short of being comical by today's standards its harmless.
|
|
I really don't think dispel magic would end invisibility.
Anything requiring an attack roll or saving throw most likely would though, as would anything that directly deals damage (such as stone call).
Dispel magic by its very nature has to be included as you need to target the creature or include it in its area of effect.
Invisibility quote.
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.
|
|
I really don't think dispel magic would end invisibility.
Anything requiring an attack roll or saving throw most likely would though, as would anything that directly deals damage (such as stone call).
Dispel magic by its very nature has to be included as you need to target the creature or include it in its area of effect.
Invisibility quote.
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.
Let me go ahead and finish quoting the spell because you managed to leave out the rest of the important text there.
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.
Now lets look at the second part I bolded. What if as a defensive measure you put Wall of Ice in hemisphere form over your allies? Does that end your Invisibility because they'd get a reflex, but probably choose to intentionally fail it.
I judge it as "anything requiring an attack roll, or that requires the target(s) to make a saving throw, or does hit point damage, or ability damage." I've not been caught out yet.What about Grease? It requires a saving through but it doesn't cause any damage...short of being comical by today's standards its harmless.
Fair question, and I'd judge that it kills invisibility if a creature is within the AoE at point of casting. (Actually "at point of casting" probably needs to be included somewhere in my conditional for Invis to drop.) In other words if an effect immediately and forcibly impacts negatively upon foes, it drops Invis, but spells in place do not. This avoids a lot of arguments about "but I didn't directly attack or affect him".
Correct, as I judge it. Importantly, the hemisphere does not require a saving throw if you are adjacent to it at point of casting: you don't even have to voluntarily fail it, you can just decide not to even have a save at all (since the spell description says they "may attempt" a save), so for the enclosing allies as protection option it wouldn't remove Invis.
|
|
I really don't think dispel magic would end invisibility.
Anything requiring an attack roll or saving throw most likely would though, as would anything that directly deals damage (such as stone call).
Invisibility say: " 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. "? Yes
You are casting it on a foe? Yes
Casting dispel magic on a foe break invisibility? Yes!
@Ossian Probably casting a hemispherical Wall of Ice shouldn't break invisibility.
The effect isn't targeted and the Area of Effect of the spell is the volume of ice in the actual hemisphere, not the area it encompass.
It is a bit of a corner case so both interpretations have some validity, but I am in favour of not breaking invisibility.
Trapping someone inside a hemisphere is including them in the area of effect, so yes that would break it.
Putting down the wall to separate you from someone else would not, as long as you didn't try to put the wall on them.
So then the question arises can I use the wall form to go AROUND a PC? Since it isn't an AOE type spell it shouldn't break Invisibility?
And I see how the reading can go both ways, but I just don't see the hemisphere as being an AoE per say...
Area: hemisphere of ice with a radius of up to 3 ft. + 1 ft./level
That's an area.
Throwing a spell around a friend is fine.
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.
To put it simply - it can't depend on the casting character's perceptions. Case in point: Invisible Spellcaster drops a hemispherical ice wall around a friend to protect him, but he is not aware of the invisible foe standing adjacent to the ally, who is also within the AoE of the hemisphere. Does Invis drop for the caster?
I daresay, it seems like we're missing something here:
"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."
According to this, Wall of Ice would end Invisibility.
"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."
Here's what I'm more concerned with. In order for Wall of Ice to end Invisibility, it would need to both target a foe/area that includes a foe and cause harm directly.
Now, of course, that's not spelled out for us, so I will ask: does Wall of Ice directly harm a foe? I don't think so. It does not deal damage or impose a penalty or give them a negative condition. It prevents movement, but not by effecting the foe. It does that by being there. Your foe's inability to move past the Wall of Ice is a side effect of it being there. If this limited mobility is harmful to your foe, it's indirect.
"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."
To further my point, let us compare Wall of Ice to these options. Summon a monster, it doesn't break invisibility. Summon a wall (a significantly less attack-like action, I would say), it does? Taking out a bridge, triggering traps, and unleashing the hounds are all more direct forms of attack than Wall of Ice, and they still count as indirect.
Opposing views? I feel confident, but then again, I don't think casting Wall of Ice while Invisible is all that awesome. I'd be absolutely okay with it. But I'd like to hear what other people think Da' Rulez say.
Here's what I'm more concerned with. In order for Wall of Ice to end Invisibility, it would need to both target a foe/area that includes a foe and cause harm directly.
Being stuck inside a sphere of ice is a harmful effect, thats why there's a reflex save to break up the wall as its forming.
|
|
Here's what I'm more concerned with. In order for Wall of Ice to end Invisibility, it would need to both target a foe/area that includes a foe and cause harm directly.Being stuck inside a sphere of ice is a harmful effect, thats why there's a reflex save to break up the wall as its forming.
No there is a Reflex save if the wall is going to end up occupying space that you occupy. Ever seen a sphere? If you are standing within one space of the end of the sphere it is going to force you to crouch or lop off your head...
To put it simply - it can't depend on the casting character's perceptions. Case in point: Invisible Spellcaster drops a hemispherical ice wall around a friend to protect him, but he is not aware of the invisible foe standing adjacent to the ally, who is also within the AoE of the hemisphere. Does Invis drop for the caster?
Simply put, RAW it would (assuming the spell is considered aggressive, which some could argue - you are basically locking up that enemy whether it was your intention or not on casting the spell). The spell would have an opponent within its effect, which would trigger invis dropping.
|
|
To put it simply - it can't depend on the casting character's perceptions. Case in point: Invisible Spellcaster drops a hemispherical ice wall around a friend to protect him, but he is not aware of the invisible foe standing adjacent to the ally, who is also within the AoE of the hemisphere. Does Invis drop for the caster?Simply put, RAW it would (assuming the spell is considered aggressive, which some could argue - you are basically locking up that enemy whether it was your intention or not on casting the spell). The spell would have an opponent within its effect, which would trigger invis dropping.
So from a perceptions stand point what if my ally and enemy are fighting side by side and I cast the Hemisphere to protect my ally from outside forces? In that case then it was a defensive measure for my ally and not offensive on my enemy so then it wouldn't break invisibility?
Just took a look at all the spells which include a "hemisphere" - there aren't many - and I'm now inclined to believe that a hemisphere is a specific AoE that does not consider the space inside to be within the AoE, but squares that the hemisphere itself intersects with are considered to be the AoE.
|
|
Just took a look at all the spells which include a "hemisphere" - there aren't many - and I'm now inclined to believe that a hemisphere is a specific AoE that does not consider the space inside to be within the AoE, but squares that the hemisphere itself intersects with are considered to be the AoE.
See thats what I've been sayin...its really kind of crumby wording!
So from a perceptions stand point what if my ally and enemy are fighting side by side and I cast the Hemisphere to protect my ally from outside forces? In that case then it was a defensive measure for my ally and not offensive on my enemy so then it wouldn't break invisibility?
As long as your ally is the one inside the sphere you're fine. If the enemy is the one inside the sphere you pop back to visibility.
No there is a Reflex save if the wall is going to end up occupying space that you occupy. Ever seen a sphere? If you are standing within one space of the end of the sphere it is going to force you to crouch or lop off your head...
Any creature adjacent to the wall when it is created may attempt a Reflex save to disrupt the wall as it is being formed.
You need to make at least a 15 foot radius wall at level 12 to not have them adjacent to a square.
But either way the area of effect is the entire hemisphere: not just the sliver of outside hemisphere to the sliver of the inside hemisphere. If someone is inside the dome they are in a spells area of effect and invisibility breaks.
|
|
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere. If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area) but the Hemisphere does. Seems kind of cheap but per the rules doesn't appear to be against them. So why does one work but not the other?
|
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere. If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area) but the Hemisphere does. Seems kind of cheap but per the rules doesn't appear to be against them. So why does one work but not the other?
Of course, making a box around the enemy takes four turns, and four casts of wall of ice.
As long as your ally is the one inside the sphere you're fine. If the enemy is the one inside the sphere you pop back to visibility.
With respect, I disagree. Attacking your ally with a sword would end the invisibility, why would this be any different?
I'm personally of the mind that wall of ice doesn't end invisibility under any circumstances. It's not directly effecting/targeting anyone any more than cutting a rope bridge or dropping a cage around them.
|
|
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere. If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area) but the Hemisphere does. Seems kind of cheap but per the rules doesn't appear to be against them. So why does one work but not the other?Of course, making a box around the enemy takes four turns, and four casts of wall of ice.
Could you elaborate as to why it takes that many rounds?
Ice Plane: A sheet of strong, hard ice appears. The wall is 1 inch thick per caster level. It covers up to a 10-foot-square area per caster level (so a 10th-level wizard can create a wall of ice 100 feet long and 10 feet high, a wall 50 feet long and 20 feet high, or any other combination of length and height that does not exceed 1,000 square feet). The plane can be oriented in any fashion as long as it is anchored. A vertical wall need only be anchored on the floor, while a horizontal or slanting wall must be anchored on two opposite sides.
Nothing says it has to be one continuous straight wall. Just says here is the dimensions you have to work with. Even goes so far as to say the plane can be oriented in any fashion as long as it is anchored...
As long as your ally is the one inside the sphere you're fine. If the enemy is the one inside the sphere you pop back to visibility.With respect, I disagree. Attacking your ally with a sword would end the invisibility, why would this be any different?
I'm personally of the mind that wall of ice doesn't end invisibility under any circumstances. It's not directly effecting/targeting anyone any more than cutting a rope bridge or dropping a cage around them.
And I still have to agree with you right now Ravingdork. I see how it goes both ways but I am still leaning towards it not breaking Invisibility.
|
|
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere. If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area) but the Hemisphere does. Seems kind of cheap but per the rules doesn't appear to be against them. So why does one work but not the other?Of course, making a box around the enemy takes four turns, and four casts of wall of ice.Could you elaborate as to why it takes that many rounds?
Because the definition of a 'plane' is a straight flat surface. Notice it's similarity to Wall of Iron, and its difference in description from Wall of Stone.
|
|
Wall of Iron specifically says flat (which making a box would do its not warped) and then says you may shape its edges to fit the space. How would you define that?
Nothing in the spells description says it has to be a solid, straight wall, but if you would like to argue semantics you could use the definition of plane to form a circular wall around the enemy. Or since the definition of a plane is ongoing and infinite the wall itself should have no ends to it both height and length would be infinite. (Not to mention a plane has no depth to it...its a 2 dimensional object)
|
|
Or since the definition of a plane is ongoing and infinite the wall itself should have no ends to it both height and length would be infinite. (Not to mention a plane has no depth to it...its a 2 dimensional object)
Well, obviously. Let's use the most literal definition we can make, even though the description states it has a thickness and maximum size.
The "shape the edges to match the space" clause is so that you can cast wall of ice in, for example, a circular tunnel and not leave massive gaps in the sides and bottom (much like a geometric plane would do if it intersected a cylinder).
How do you explain the defined dimensions in Plane of Ice mode? It's shown to be X long by Y tall by T thick, with X and Y being multiples of 10ft squares. How do you fit those dimensions into a hollow box (which would be X long by Y tall by Z wide by T thick) or a cylinder (which would be X radius by Y tall by T thick)?
Wall of Ice isn't Wall of Stone. Wall of Ice's description includes words implying single straight surfaces in the form of plane and sheet, and examples directly showing single straight surfaces. Wall of Stone explicitly states that it can be any shape you want.
If you're going to go as far as using the definition of "a plane is any shape with flat sides I want to make", then you might as well make an sculpture of an air-plane and be done with it.
PS:
you could use the definition of plane to form a circular wall around the enemy
I'd love to see a Pathfinder game be played in cylindrical (or spherical!) coordinates.
|
|
Wall of Stone basically says the same thing in more words. You can make a bridge of it (you can do that with ice too), it can be connected to make a ramp as long as it is connected at the ends (you can do that with wall of ice too), and it must be solidly planted in stone if vertical (wall of ice just says it is attached to the ground if vertical).
There is nothing in stone that I saw any different than ice when it comes to its abilities. Meaning 2 different contributors wrote the spells and Paizo is notorious for trying to mix up the language they use but in doing so over complicating a simple problem.
|
|
Really? You would equate "anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level" with "stone wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level (S)" (where "S" means shapable; note it's not there with Wall of Ice or Iron).
You would equate "a 10th-level wizard can create a wall of ice 100 feet long and 10 feet high, a wall 50 feet long and 20 feet high, or any other combination of length and height that does not exceed 1,000 square feet" with "if the span is more than 20 feet, the wall must be arched and buttressed. This requirement reduces the spell's area by half. The wall can be crudely shaped to allow crenelations, battlements, and so forth by likewise reducing the area"?
I personally think that the lack of a "(S)" in the effect line kills your interpretation.
On topic: I agree that casting Wall of Ice (or any of the Wall spells) never removes invisibility.
As long as your ally is the one inside the sphere you're fine. If the enemy is the one inside the sphere you pop back to visibility.With respect, I disagree. Attacking your ally with a sword would end the invisibility, why would this be any different?
Because as stated above, with bolding, invisibility only breaks if an area of effect includes a FOE. It is a completely different clause than making an attack.
I'm personally of the mind that wall of ice doesn't end invisibility under any circumstances. It's not directly effecting/targeting anyone any more than cutting a rope bridge or dropping a cage around them.
What about a resilient sphere?
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere.
And that's wrong. Hence the 'contradictions' you're getting.
Look, you can't throw an offensive spell at someone and stay invisible. You attack someone, you pop back into visibility and take the very real possibility that they're going to stick a sword in your spleen. You're attacking them by trapping them in the ice just as sure as if you used a fireball, hold person, or resilient sphere.
If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area)
No you cannot. Wall of ice is not shapable (s) It comes in a hemisphere with a very small radius or rather large "anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level" THATS the part of the spell description that says you can't turn it into a box to box people in.
|
|
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere.And that's wrong. Hence the 'contradictions' you're getting.
Look, you can't throw an offensive spell at someone and stay invisible. You attack someone, you pop back into visibility and take the very real possibility that they're going to stick a sword in your spleen. You're attacking them by trapping them in the ice just as sure as if you used a fireball, hold person, or resilient sphere.
If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area)No you cannot. Wall of ice is not shapable (s) It comes in a hemisphere with a very small radius or rather large "anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level" THATS the part of the spell description that says you can't turn it into a box to box people in.
To your first segment: Yes you can. You just have to use that offensive spell indirectly in some fashion (such as creating an object above them and letting gravity do the work). You can even summon monsters and have them attack without breaking invisibility (explicitly so in the invisibility spell's description). You can even trigger a trap on them. You just can't hit them with anything (spell, ability, weapon) that is considered a combat action if it directly targets them or "foes" within an area in which they happen to reside.
As to your second point: Since nothing says the hemisphere is hollow, I'd assume it is not and you cannot trap someone in it at all (the ice fails to form if someone or something occupies the space). If it were hollow then the part it did not touch would not part of its area and thus wouldn't break invisibility.