..but I would not say supernatural effects are not attacks. Some would be, and some would not be. I don't think stealing something counts as an attack. I do think that the object gives the stealer's position away though, which I discussed in an earlier post.
Some SU's do act like spells though.Back to SU's, a dragon breath weapon is an attack. An SU's that acted like dominate person is an attack, and so on. An SU that summon a monster is not an attack.
PS: Treating them like spells is not the issue. SU's can never be treated like spells even if they reference a spell. They don't have casters levels or spell levels. For the purpose of invis they only need to meet the targeting parameters to be an attack, and/or reasonably count as an attack such as a breath weapon.
Yes, and we agree on most of this. Dominate person is something I'd consider an attack, for example, whereas charm person I would not because of the opportunities the spell creates.
The person stealing the item could also gently set it on the ground, which I think would avoid notice as opposed to the thing floating 30 feet through the air. Then again, I'm of the general opinion that Stealth needs a revamp, so that's really all I have to say on that.
The main reason I'm pointing this out is because Diego Rossi said that it would break invis because it was a spell, which it is not. I attempted to prove why it wouldn't in what I admit was a roundabout manner simply because that is how I think, and I didn't want to look like some kind of ivory tower know-it-all, hopefully have some people along for the ride while I illustrated what the su descriptor is used for: Weird in-between effects that shouldn't be considered spells.
This is the issue, and it is not true. You only have to look at the SU's abilities to see if it falls within invis's guidelines for an attack if it does not do physical damage like a dragon's breath would, as an example. That does not mean you assign it a spell or caster level which is impossible by the rules anyway.
Any supernatural aura effects.
Any mind-affecting supernatural effect, including beneficial ones such as the succubus' touch because it has to be treated as a spell now.
Those are the problems that arise if you allow supernatural abilities to be treated as spells universally.
Is it cheap to use a hypothetical sleep su effect and put people to sleep when out of battle? I'd say so. Hell, if you were trying to kill them I'd consider it an attack. But saying "all of these are basically the same as spells" will ultimately make things really weird, and I don't think it was what the designers intended, nor wrote into invisibility for that reason.
Because, unlike some people, I have to make an argument for a preconceived notion to be overturned.The CONCLUSION, not assumption, from the rules is that you cannot attack and stay invisible, and even though a spell like ability or supernatural power may not be a spell it is still an attack.
I know this. I am pointing out effects that are not spells, not attacks, that would be looped in with spells as far as "an effect targeting a creature goes.
I am about this close to not being polite anymore and just reporting you. You're overreacting by quite a bit, calling me arrogant for doing something like trying to illustrate my point and believing something you don't, and generally being mad on the internet.
And I still don't know why. So I can only assume you're either trying to stir up trouble or just verbally abuse me some more. I only claim you're being an ass because, guess what. You're behaving in an inflamatory manner when I say anything you don't agree to, claim that the rules are crystal clear when I'm not arguing with them, I'm asking questions that illustrate what was wrong as far as considering things spells that weren't goes, and things that weren't attacks goes.
I'm sorry that you saw me as trying to stir up trouble, I hope you can stop before this escalates any further.
I know this. I am pointing out effects that are not spells, not attacks, that would be looped in with spells as far as "an effect targeting a creature goes.
I have no idea how you're reaching the conclusion that a harpy's song is not an attack if its not via the "its not a spell its a supernatural ability" clause
I am about this close to not being polite anymore and just reporting you.
You calling me an ass (twice) is polite?
You're overreacting by quite a bit, calling me arrogant for doing something like trying to illustrate my point and believing something you don't, and generally being mad on the internet.
You did not (and have not) demonstrated that you know more about monster abilities than I do. The only thing you demonstrated was that your ideas were more in line with your ideas. I am aware that there are a lot of supernatural abilities, many of which will be an attack using the spell rules. However i do not see that as a problem.
And I still don't know why. So I can only assume you're either trying to stir up trouble or just verbally abuse me some more. I only claim you're being an ass because, guess what. You're behaving in an inflamatory manner when I say anything you don't agree to, claim that the rules are crystal clear when I'm not arguing with them, I'm asking questions that illustrate what was wrong as far as considering things spells that weren't goes, and things that weren't attacks goes.
The problem is that when you ask the questions the only answer you will accept as correct are the ones that are correct according to your own ideas. To you (by logic i am unable to determine) a harpy's song is not an attack, so any logic that declares a harpy's song to be an attack (including judging it like a spell) MUST be wrong.
As far as an attack goes, someone's mind is at least as much at the core of their being, if not more so, than their body. Interfering with how their mind works with ANY mind effecting ability, is attacking not only their person but their very person-hood. If it requires a saving throw to defend against, the thing that triggered the save is some kind of attack.
I'm sorry that you saw me as trying to stir up trouble, I hope you can stop before this escalates any further.
As much as i like donkeys repeatedly referring to me as one is probably not going to help.
I know this. I am pointing out effects that are not spells, not attacks, that would be looped in with spells as far as "an effect targeting a creature goes.I have no idea how you're reaching the conclusion that a harpy's song is not an attack.
You have made that obvious. And that's your opinion. I disagree with it. You explain later how you reach that conclusion, why were the rest of your sarcastic comments necessary?
I am about this close to not being polite anymore and just reporting you.
You calling me an ass (twice) is polite?
Compared to how you're acting, I'm showing exceptional restraint. Are you arguing that you were not being an ass? Please reread your posts.
If you're put off by my "calling it like I see it", consider what you've said earlier as well. The attitude you currently have towards me. There are far more descriptive terms I could use for the way you're behaving, but calling you them would not be appropriate behavior.
You're overreacting by quite a bit, calling me arrogant for doing something like trying to illustrate my point and believing something you don't, and generally being mad on the internet.You did not (and have not) demonstrated that you know more about monster abilities than I do. The only thing you demonstrated was that your ideas were more in lines with your ideas. I am aware that there are a lot of supernatural abilities, many of which will be an attack using the spell rules. However i do not see that as a problem.
So you're OK with aura effects, bluff checks, and various other things that sit in an area where they are not supposed to trigger as they are not an attack, and letting them trigger? I do not believe this. Understand that this is what I am arguing. You fail to provide any empyrical evidence that this is what the designers intended, pay attention to the reason I am illustrating this, or allowed any of my points to stick because they don't agree with your ideas. If you were presenting actual definitions as to what an attack was, why abilities are (su) instead of (sp)
And I still don't know why. So I can only assume you're either trying to stir up trouble or just verbally abuse me some more. I only claim you're being an ass because, guess what. You're behaving in an inflamatory manner when I say anything you don't agree to, claim that the rules are crystal clear when I'm not arguing with them, I'm asking questions that illustrate what was wrong as far as considering things spells that weren't goes, and things that weren't attacks goes.
The problem is that when you ask the questions the only answer you will accept as correct are the ones that are correct according to your own ideas. To you (by logic i am unable to determine) a harpy's song is not an attack, so any logic that declares a harpy's song to be an attack (including judging it like a spell) MUST be wrong.
As far as an attack goes, someone's mind is at least as much at the core of their being, if not more so, than their body. Interfering with how their mind works with ANY mind effecting ability, is attacking not only their person but their very person-hood. If...
Because that's the point. If ANY spell targets an opponent, invis breaks. If ANY attack targets an opponent, invis breaks. Supernatural effects that are neither should not trigger because they are neither, and there is a reason for this.
^ My argument.
A harpy's song fascinates you. An attack in invisibility is defined as an effect doing DIRECT HARM to a creature. Being forced to walk is not directly harmful. In fact, the ability gives you a chance to save if you run into hazards. It is not directly harmful because it causes no damage, merely forces you to act in a certain way. If this is considered an attack, you could consider bluff an attack because it causes you to behave in a certain way.
I am still going to ask you to please act more reasonably, because you are still being very inflammatory with your insinuations. Sorry I wasn't clearer, I like thinking out loud.
Yes, and we agree on most of this. Dominate person is something I'd consider an attack, for example, whereas charm person I would not because of the opportunities the spell creates.
By the rules it is an attack. It is not even up for argument since it targets someone. Targeting and Area of Affect have very specific meanings in the game with regards to magic.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
Those are the problems that arise if you allow supernatural abilities to be treated as spells universally.
Is it cheap to use a hypothetical sleep su effect and put people to sleep when out of battle? I'd say so. Hell, if you were trying to kill them I'd consider it an attack. But saying "all of these are basically the same as spells" will ultimately make things really weird, and I don't think it was what the designers intended, nor wrote into invisibility for that reason.
No it won't, and nobody is suggesting that SU's follow the exact same rules as spells. We are only saying for purposes of attacks they are the same. Your argument is completely different than the one we are making.
If the SU targets someone it is an attack. If it does damage it is an attack. That has nothing to do with it in other regards.SU's don't provoke, are not subject to dispel magic, and so on. The rules explicitly prevent those interpretations.
Affect= verb.
"The marijuana affects me so that I become cheerful."
Affects me. Acts.
Effect= noun.
"The effect of the marijuana is such that I become cheerful."
Has an effect. Owns the effect, since marijuana is a thing.
Now, stop arguing and smoke the peace pipe! :)
You have made that obvious. And that's your opinion. I disagree with it. You explain later how you reach that conclusion, why were the rest of your sarcastic comments necessary?
I thought how i reached the conclusion it was an attack was obvious from the get go.
Are you arguing that you were not being an ass? Please reread your posts.
I did. I don't think it qualifies as being an ass.
If you're put off by my "calling it like I see it", consider what you've said earlier as well.
You mean when you got mad at me calling your argument as i saw it, whereas you went right for the person as you saw it.
So you're OK with aura effects
Yes.
bluff checks,
No. A bluff doesn't force anyone to do anything or to act.
various other things
Maybe.
If you were presenting actual definitions as to what an attack was, why abilities are (su) instead of (sp)
Because the spell is in the player's guide and written primarily for players.(its probably written for the 3.0 players guide when player's access to supernatural abilities was almost nil)
My argument.
.. is exactly the rules lawyering I said, you agreed, that it was.
A harpy's song fascinates you. An attack in invisibility is defined as an effect doing DIRECT HARM to a creature.Being forced to walk is not directly harmful.
Direct harm is not direct hit point damage. Having your head messed with is harming you. Why would this be different for SU abilities than spells?
Note the word in your own argument "forced". How are you not being harmed by being forced to do something?
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt
Screwing with someone's head is as much an attack as screwing with their mind.
If this is considered an attack, you could consider bluff an attack because it causes you to behave in a certain way.
Cause, but does not FORCE. There's a difference.
I am still going to ask you to please act more reasonably,
No, especially considering what you consider "Reasonable" is saying nothing bad about your logic and not objecting to outright name calling.
By the rules it is an attack. It is not even up for argument since it targets someone. Targeting and Area of Affect have very specific meanings in the game with regards to magic.
I was arguing more about the effect than whether or not it's a spell. Could you please tell/link me to what you mean by "Targeting and Area of Affect have very specific meanings in the game with regards to magic."? I don't think I know exactly what you're implying.
No it won't, and nobody is suggesting that SU's follow the exact same rules as spells. We are only saying for purposes of attacks they are the same. Your argument is completely different than the one we are making.
If the SU targets someone it is an attack. If it does damage it is an attack. That has nothing to do with it in other regards.
SU's don't provoke, are not subject to dispel magic, and so on. The rules explicitly prevent those interpretations.
I really wish someone had said that earlier. I assumed something in that original post where I shouldn't have, that he was implying that ranged legerdemain was a spell-like ability.
SU effects that include people in their area are the main problem. Targeting people is something that shouldn't reveal with supernatural abilities, because it undermines a number of supernatural abilities that should not break invisibility like auras that can't be turned off, making bluff checks with the aid of a supernatural ability, and other abilities that don't seem like attacks or can be supportive and fall somewhere in-between. I believe this was a deliberate classification to avoid such circumstances occurring by the designers. That is the reason why I was making that argument.
You have made that obvious. And that's your opinion. I disagree with it. You explain later how you reach that conclusion, why were the rest of your sarcastic comments necessary?I thought how i reached the conclusion it was an attack was obvious from the get go.
OK.
Are you arguing that you were not being an ass? Please reread your posts.
I did. I don't think it qualifies as being an ass.
Besides your circular arguments that these are allowed so they're allowed, do you have any arguments for them being allowed?
I don't know how to deal with bold faced malarkey except to point out that it is in fact bold faced malarkey. If I had more tact i might find another way to put it that both fully pointed out exactly what logical fallacy you were using and spared your feelings but I don't.
I questioned your reasoning, which even you admitted was rules lawyering. Instead of answering for your reasoning, you instead assumed that said reasoning was ok, used it by the standard by which conclusions were to be reached, and then used it by the standard by which conclusions should be judged. I'm rather insulted that you didn't think I'd notice.
You toss up backhanded insults and a facade of arrogance and wonder why people aren't bending over backwards to phrase things less succinctly.
Clearly you have not been polite, have been accusatory and angry since your first response, and are trying to make me look like the bad guy for calling you out on it. I've insulted you because you ARE being inflammatory, and I don't think I've been any more snooty than any other regular members of this forum. If you can't deal with that, you should have been prudent enough to step away from the argument by this point. I asked you to give arguments, but you refused and kept insulting me, kept acting inflammatory, and kept up a steady tone of general sarcasm and anger. If you can't see that, I'm hoping that this may show you what you've been saying to me to make me believe that you've been unreasonable.
Wraith figured out what the argument was and responded reasonably. I reacted reasonably to him. I don't know why you couldn't do the same, and assumed from all of 2 posts that I deserved so much piss and vinegar.
Affect= verb.
"The marijuana affects me so that I become cheerful."
Affects me. Acts.
Effect= noun.
"The effect of the marijuana is such that I become cheerful."
Has an effect. Owns the effect, since marijuana is a thing.
Now, stop arguing and smoke the peace pipe! :)
I always get them mixed up. I have learned to accept it as my one constant grammatical fault. :)
Wraith figured out what the argument was and responded reasonably. I reacted reasonably to him. I don't know why you couldn't do the same, and assumed from all of 2 posts that I deserved so much piss and vinegar.
-wraith and I have been saying pretty much the same thing from the get go. I don't see why you think our answers are all that different.
Because it is. Whether something is a spell or a spell like ability or a physical action is irrelevant to it being an attack or not.
If a spell that targets a foe is an attack then anything else that has to target a foe is also an attack, yes, including harpy songs
which is completely irrelevant.
You can cast spells without breaking invisibility. Spell/not spell is not an important distinction. The only distinction that matters is whether something is an ATTACK or is it not an attack. If a spell that targets a foe is an attack then anything else that has to target a foe is also an attack, yes, including harpy songs.
The CONCLUSION, not assumption, from the rules is that you cannot attack and stay invisible, and even though a spell like ability or supernatural power may not be a spell it is still an attack.
This is a sonic mind-affecting charm effect.<--- affecting your opponents mind is an attack.
(including judging it like a spell)
I was arguing more about the effect than whether or not it's a spell. Could you please tell/link me to what you mean by "Targeting and Area of Affect have very specific meanings in the game with regards to magic."? I don't think I know exactly what you're implying.
Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present......
The invis spell references targets and areas of effect. These determine the spells aiming/target selection method. Charm person along with dominate uses the target method. Fireball uses an AoE method.
SU effects that include people in their area are the main problem. Targeting people is something that shouldn't reveal with supernatural abilities, because it undermines a number of supernatural abilities that should not break invisibility like auras that can't be turned off, making bluff checks with the aid of a supernatural ability, and other abilities that don't seem like attacks or can be supportive and fall somewhere in-between. I believe this was a deliberate classification to avoid such circumstances occurring by the designers. That is the reason why I was making that argument.
Some auras can be turned off.
Fear Aura (Su) The use of this ability is a free action. The aura can freeze an opponent (as in the case of a mummy's despair) or function like the fear spell. Other effects are possible. A fear aura is an area effect. The descriptive text gives the size and kind of the area.
I am sure there are some that can't be turned off though, but those monsters were not designed to be stealth monster, and they can attack you from outside of the aura.
An example would be red dragons whose aura is 5 or 10 feet but the dragons can attack for 20 feet out so those would be a nonfactor. No monster I looked up with an aura would be negatively affected by this. All of the outsiders have an aura of 5 feet that I found, and getting to within 5 feet of them out of combat is not likely. Their reach is past the aura in every situation.
edit:for clarity
You're assuming that anything targeting an opponent is an attack, which is not defined within the rules. Everyone who I have played with has said that no, suggestion is not an attack, no, singing and fascinating people is not an attack. You are making that assumption, assuming I know it but am delibrately ignoring it, and then getting mad at it.
I have not seen the rule that says "anything" targeting the mind is an attack, and there are plenty of ways I can imagine that it would break established rules. The arguments you are making are not the conclusions I reached after looking over the rules.
You're assuming that anything targeting an opponent is an attack, which is not defined within the rules.
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.
Everyone who I have played with has said that no, suggestion is not an attack, no, singing and fascinating people is not an attack. You are making that assumption, assuming I know it but am delibrately ignoring it, and then getting mad at it.
Suggestion
School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, M (a snake's tongue and a honeycomb)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one living creature ---->an attack includes any spell targeting a foe
Fascinate (Su): At 1st level, a bard can use his performance to cause one or more creatures to become fascinated with him. Each creature to be fascinated must be within 90 feet ------> an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe
Anything targeting a FOE's mind is an attack. The bard can sing to help his allies but if he sings to hurt his enemies he becomes visible.
I have not seen the rule that says "anything" targeting the mind is an attack, and there are plenty of ways I can imagine that it would break established rules. The arguments you are making are not the conclusions I reached after looking over the rules.
Please demonstrate something within the established rules that targets someone elses' mind and is not an attack WITHOUT using the idea that spell like abilities are not inherently not attacks because they're not spells. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in the area of effect its an attack.
The invis spell references targets and areas of effect. These determine the spells aiming/target selection method. Charm person along with dominate uses the target method. Fireball uses an AoE method.Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present......
Alright. What I'm saying is that the EFFECT isn't an attack.
Some auras can be turned off.
Yes, but I meant some other auras or I guess in this case a proximity based effect? Take a look at the xacarba. Its ability affects any creature within 30 ft, and has an additional action it can take in response to a spell being cast. This effect immediately affects any creature within 30 ft by imposing a caveat. Therefore, if it approaches any creature, it becomes visible.
I don't think that occurrance makes sense, but that's as far as my thinking process goes in terms of what you're saying.
You're assuming that anything targeting an opponent is an attack, which is not defined within the rules. Everyone who I have played with has said that no, suggestion is not an attack, no, singing and fascinating people is not an attack. You are making that assumption, assuming I know it but am delibrately ignoring it, and then getting mad at it.
I have not seen the rule that says "anything" targeting the mind is an attack, and there are plenty of ways I can imagine that it would break established rules. The arguments you are making are not the conclusions I reached after looking over the rules.
I am not assuming anything. For the purpose of the invis spell magic targeting an opponent is an attack. That is in the spell description. It does not matter what the people you have played with have said with regard to the actual rules. It only matters what the book says. By the book if an opponent is target then it is an attack.
Once again:
he 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.
As I said target is a specific term with regards to magic. The only way suggestion would not be an attack is if there is specific verbage in the invis spell stating it as an exception, but there is not.
I am not saying targeting an enemy is always an attack for the general rules. I am saying it is an attack for the purpose of the invisibility spell because the spell says so.
an attack includes any spell targeting a foe
I got that part. I am asking where ELSE it says that suggestion is an attack. Why would it include that caveat if suggestion is an attack anyway? It's covered by the phrase indicating that an attack breaks the spell.
Please demonstrate something within the established rules that targets someone elses' mind and is not an attack WITHOUT using the idea that spell like abilities are not inherently not attacks because they're not spells. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in the area of effect its an attack.
By that definition, cure light wounds is an attack. Diplomacy is an attack. Bluff is an attack. Channel positive energy is an attack. I do not consider these attacks. I do not think they break invisibility.
Suggestion is not an attack by your prior definition if you use it in certain ways, such as saying "The weather outside is nice." If I cast a spell on you to cause you to have a thought, without forcing you to do anything, is it an attack?
How can an action sometimes be an attack, and other times not be, when every other part of the action is the same aside from the thought planted in the target's mind?
This is what I am trying to figure out. I can't follow your logic.
an attack includes any spell targeting a foeI got that part. I am asking where ELSE it says that suggestion is an attack. Why would it include that caveat if suggestion is an attack anyway? It's covered by the phrase indicating that an attack breaks the spell.
Please demonstrate something within the established rules that targets someone elses' mind and is not an attack WITHOUT using the idea that spell like abilities are not inherently not attacks because they're not spells. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in the area of effect its an attack.By that definition, cure light wounds is an attack.
Not true at all.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
Now if the foe happens to be undead I agree.
You're assuming that anything targeting an opponent is an attack, which is not defined within the rules. Everyone who I have played with has said that no, suggestion is not an attack, no, singing and fascinating people is not an attack. You are making that assumption, assuming I know it but am delibrately ignoring it, and then getting mad at it.
I have not seen the rule that says "anything" targeting the mind is an attack, and there are plenty of ways I can imagine that it would break established rules. The arguments you are making are not the conclusions I reached after looking over the rules.
I am not assuming anything. For the purpose of the invis spell magic targeting an opponent is an attack. That is in the spell description. It does not matter what the people you have played with have said with regard to the actual rules. It only matters what the book says. By the book if an opponent is target then it is an attack.
Once again:
he 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.As I said target is a specific term with regards to magic. The only way suggestion would not be an attack is if there is specific verbage in the invis spell stating it as an exception, but there is not.
I am not saying targeting an enemy is always an attack for the general rules. I am saying it is an attack for the purpose of the invisibility spell because the spell says so.
Sorry man, I was responding to the other guy there. I forgot to quote him. I responded to your post just before you made that one.
an attack includes any spell targeting a foeI got that part. I am asking where ELSE it says that suggestion is an attack. Why would it include that caveat if suggestion is an attack anyway? It's covered by the phrase indicating that an attack breaks the spell.
Please demonstrate something within the established rules that targets someone elses' mind and is not an attack WITHOUT using the idea that spell like abilities are not inherently not attacks because they're not spells. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in the area of effect its an attack.By that definition, cure light wounds is an attack.Not true at all.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.Now if the foe happens to be undead I agree.
Alright. Now imagine any of those effects I mentioned targeting a foe.
By that definition, cure light wounds is an attack.
Cure light wounds on a friend is not an attack, because the attack is NOT targeting a foe.
Cure light wounds on the undead would be an attack.
Diplomacy is an attack. Bluff is an attack.
They don't target anyone, its just you talking.
Your right to talk under invisibility is absolute.
Affecting someone elses mind with a spell or effect requires targeting them with a spell.
Channel positive energy is an attack.
Not always. Heal your friends? Area doesn't include a foe.
Hurt the undead: that's an attack
Technically, healing a bad guy with a positive energy burst WOULD be an attack. I'd house rule that one out.
I do not consider these attacks. I do not think they break invisibility.
You're house ruling then. The rules are pretty clear.
Suggestion is not an attack by your prior definition if you use it in certain ways, such as saying "The weather outside is nice." If I cast a spell on you to cause you to have a thought, without forcing you to do anything, is it an attack?
Yes, it is if you used a foe, because an attack is defined as an effect targeting a foe.
How can an action sometimes be an attack, and other times not be, when every other part of the action is the same aside from the thought planted in the target's mind?
Your premise is that using Suggestion on your opponents mind for something harmless is not an attack. That premise is incorrect, so the rest of your argument doesn't follow.
This is what I am trying to figure out. I can't follow your logic.
-You can't mess with someone's head without targeting them with a spell or ability
-messing with someone's head is targeting them with a spell or ability
-There's no difference in what constitutes an attack between a spell or another similar ability
-Targeting someone with a spell or ability is an attack.
- So messing with someone's head has to be an attack.
The invis spell references targets and areas of effect. These determine the spells aiming/target selection method. Charm person along with dominate uses the target method. Fireball uses an AoE method.Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present......
Alright. What I'm saying is that the EFFECT isn't an attack.
Some auras can be turned off.Yes, but I meant some other auras or I guess in this case a proximity based effect? Take a look at the...
That creature has no aura, and does not fit the criteria.
A monster with an aura will have it specifically stated since aura is a specific game term. As an example:Adult Bronze Dragon CR 13
XP 25,600
LG Huge dragon (water)
Init +0; Senses dragon senses; Perception +28
Aura frightful presence (180 ft., DC 23)
That monster you linked to has no aura, and no AoE or target SU. It has a feature that allows it to redirect spells if it chooses to do so.
Redirect Spell (Su) Any creature that attempts to cast a spell within 30 feet of a xacarba must cast the spell defensively. If the caster fails the concentration check to do so (or if the caster opts to not cast defensively), the xacarba can choose the target of the spell as a swift action. The new target must be a legal target—if there's no legal alternative target to choose from, this ability cannot be used.
Note the word "can" make is optional, and it takes a swift action to use the ability if the monster chooses to do so. There is no AoE. Now if the monster redirects the spell towards a foe then its invisibility is broken, but your concern of invisibility being broken by an aura the monster can't control is not an issue here.
sooo....as long as the invisible creature charms,dominates or compels creatures that aren't hostile to it, and therefore aren't foes, it stays invisible? Wierd.
I think it's weirder that if the creature's hostile, they would turn visible after we consider what you've mentioned. The other side of the argument considers that an attack, which would mean that even against a non-hostile target it would make you visible.
Sorry man, I was responding to the other guy there. I forgot to quote him. I responded to your post just before you made that one.
I thought you were referring to me. NP. I will read the other post and catch up.
Pfc 1106 Blackjack avatar
sooo....as long as the invisible creature charms,dominates or compels creatures that aren't hostile to it, and therefore aren't foes, it stays invisible? Wierd.
Technically you could have a VERY hippy, skippy, tree hugging friend to all living things who stays invisible and dominates and charms monsters because he doesn't want his more violent friends (the adventuring party) to hurt them. You know, the sort of person who thinks the giant spiders are adorable and the tarasque needs to be let out to exercise for a bit.
Even if said creatures were hostile to them, as long as they're not hostile to the monsters he can still do it becauseExactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions.
Any player trying that had best reaaaaaaaaaly be role playing it.
sooo....as long as the invisible creature charms,dominates or compels creatures that aren't hostile to it, and therefore aren't foes, it stays invisible? Wierd.
The issue here is why would you use such actions against your buddies? Well I can think of circumstances, but they are far from the norm.
Alright. Now imagine any of those effects I mentioned targeting a foe.an attack includes any spell targeting a foeI got that part. I am asking where ELSE it says that suggestion is an attack. Why would it include that caveat if suggestion is an attack anyway? It's covered by the phrase indicating that an attack breaks the spell.
Please demonstrate something within the established rules that targets someone elses' mind and is not an attack WITHOUT using the idea that spell like abilities are not inherently not attacks because they're not spells. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in the area of effect its an attack.By that definition, cure light wounds is an attack.Not true at all.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.Now if the foe happens to be undead I agree.
Lying to someone is not an attack, nor does it do harm. Acting on a lie that was told to you might cause harm, but the bluff itself is no attack.
The specific ways to attack someone in a game are physical(weapons), and magic.
Note the word "can" make is optional, and it takes a swift action to use the ability if the monster chooses to do so. There is no AoE. Now if the monster redirects the spell towards a foe then its invisibility is broken, but your concern of invisibility being broken by an aura the monster can't control is not an issue here.
I didn't mean that portion. I meant this one:
Redirect Spell (Su) Any creature that attempts to cast a spell within 30 feet of a xacarba must cast the spell defensively. If the caster fails the concentration check to do so (or if the caster opts to not cast defensively), the xacarba can choose the target of the spell as a swift action. The new target must be a legal target—if there's no legal alternative target to choose from, this ability cannot be used.
It imposes that restriction on every creature within 30 feet. The caster may not be aware, but he is being targeted by that effect.
Also, I'm out for now.
Note the word "can" make is optional, and it takes a swift action to use the ability if the monster chooses to do so. There is no AoE. Now if the monster redirects the spell towards a foe then its invisibility is broken, but your concern of invisibility being broken by an aura the monster can't control is not an issue here.
I didn't mean that portion. I meant this one:
Redirect Spell (Su) Any creature that attempts to cast a spell within 30 feet of a xacarba must cast the spell defensively. If the caster fails the concentration check to do so (or if the caster opts to not cast defensively), the xacarba can choose the target of the spell as a swift action. The new target must be a legal target—if there's no legal alternative target to choose from, this ability cannot be used.It imposes that restriction on every creature within 30 feet. The caster may not be aware, but he is being targeted by that effect.
Also, I'm out for now.
I knew what you were taking about. That is not an attack. All it does is allow the monster to effectively steal the spell. Stealing spells is not an attack.
It does not fit the AoE criteria, nor does it do direct harm. Until the monster throws a spell back at the party that is would be used to break invis he can stay invisible.
Geez, we've reached the point of arguing grammar again?
You have to admit this is every bit as entertaining as the baby killing paladin thread.
Lying to someone is not an attack, nor does it do harm. Acting on a lie that was told to you might cause harm, but the bluff itself is no attack.
The specific ways to attack someone in a game are physical(weapons), and magic.
Then a suggestion spell or effect should be classified under the same ruling. What was being said was that anything that targeted a creature was an attack. Bluff and diplomacy have targets listed in their descriptions.
For ease of lookup: suggestion
I don't think something that was a hypothetical (su) suggestion should trigger the effect.
Note the word "can" make is optional, and it takes a swift action to use the ability if the monster chooses to do so. There is no AoE. Now if the monster redirects the spell towards a foe then its invisibility is broken, but your concern of invisibility being broken by an aura the monster can't control is not an issue here.
I didn't mean that portion. I meant this one:
Redirect Spell (Su) Any creature that attempts to cast a spell within 30 feet of a xacarba must cast the spell defensively. If the caster fails the concentration check to do so (or if the caster opts to not cast defensively), the xacarba can choose the target of the spell as a swift action. The new target must be a legal target—if there's no legal alternative target to choose from, this ability cannot be used.It imposes that restriction on every creature within 30 feet. The caster may not be aware, but he is being targeted by that effect.
Also, I'm out for now.
I knew what you were taking about. That is not an attack. All it does is allow the monster to effectively steal the spell. Stealing spells is not an attack.
It does not fit the AoE criteria, nor does it do direct harm. Until the monster throws a spell back at the party that is would be used to break invis he can stay invisible.
It does have an area of effect. 30 feet.
Lying to someone is not an attack, nor does it do harm. Acting on a lie that was told to you might cause harm, but the bluff itself is no attack.
The specific ways to attack someone in a game are physical(weapons), and magic.Then a suggestion spell or effect should be classified under the same ruling. What was being said was that anything that targeted a creature was an attack. Bluff and diplomacy have targets listed in their descriptions.
For ease of lookup: suggestion
I don't think something that was a hypothetical (su) suggestion should trigger the effect.
I'm afraid where this logic fails is that you are comparing what amounts to a simple lie (the BBEG isn;t home right now you better go hom to your wives).
To a compulsion effect that quite literally wrestles your mind. (I suggest you turn around and go home. Don't mind the arrows in your back.)
What makes it an attack is that it quite literally and aggressively forces your mind into something.
tldr: Lying to someoen is not atacking them forcing them through magic is.
This is why Invisible tricksters dont bother trying compulsion effects, typically you can expect illusions, taunts, buffs to the bad guys allies.
Lying to someone is not an attack, nor does it do harm. Acting on a lie that was told to you might cause harm, but the bluff itself is no attack.
The specific ways to attack someone in a game are physical(weapons), and magic.Then a suggestion spell or effect should be classified under the same ruling. What was being said was that anything that targeted a creature was an attack. Bluff and diplomacy have targets listed in their descriptions.
For ease of lookup: suggestion
I don't think something that was a hypothetical (su) suggestion should trigger the effect.
The suggestion spell falls under the exact words for an attack. Suggestion is a magical compulsion also. It is a spell that attacks your mental facilities. Bluff just means you got outsmarted.
Lying to someone is not an attack, nor does it do harm. Acting on a lie that was told to you might cause harm, but the bluff itself is no attack.
The specific ways to attack someone in a game are physical(weapons), and magic.Then a suggestion spell or effect should be classified under the same ruling. What was being said was that anything that targeted a creature was an attack. Bluff and diplomacy have targets listed in their descriptions.
For ease of lookup: suggestion
I don't think something that was a hypothetical (su) suggestion should trigger the effect.
I'm afraid where this logic fails is that you are comparing what amounts to a simple lie (the BBEG isn;t home right now you better go hom to your wives).
To a compulsion effect that quite literally wrestles your mind. (I suggest you turn around and go home. Don't mind the arrows in your back.)
What makes it an attack is that it quite literally and aggressively forces your mind into something.
tldr: Lying to someoen is not atacking them forcing them through magic is.
This is why Invisible tricksters dont bother trying compulsion effects, typically you can expect illusions, taunts, buffs to the bad guys allies.
It does say you have to make it sound reasonable, but I see what you mean.
Especially because it says:
The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.
I construed that as meaning it cannot be used directly offensively, which would qualify for the caveat in invisibility talking about indirect stuff.
|
sooo....as long as the invisible creature charms,dominates or compels creatures that aren't hostile to it, and therefore aren't foes, it stays invisible? Wierd.The issue here is why would you use such actions against your buddies? Well I can think of circumstances, but they are far from the norm.
Wait...now things are either buddies or foes?
I guess the point is, the wording is subjective. Invisibility is currently being playtested in the stealth playest. It needs to be.
My group rules that if you (the invisible guy) actively do something that hurts a creature or causes it to make a save, then it breaks invis. That of course is only how we rule it though.
Cheers
It does have an area of effect. 30 feet.
Note the word "can" make is optional, and it takes a swift action to use the ability if the monster chooses to do so. There is no AoE. Now if the monster redirects the spell towards a foe then its invisibility is broken, but your concern of invisibility being broken by an aura the monster can't control is not an issue here.
I didn't mean that portion. I meant this one:
Redirect Spell (Su) Any creature that attempts to cast a spell within 30 feet of a xacarba must cast the spell defensively. If the caster fails the concentration check to do so (or if the caster opts to not cast defensively), the xacarba can choose the target of the spell as a swift action. The new target must be a legal target—if there's no legal alternative target to choose from, this ability cannot be used.It imposes that restriction on every creature within 30 feet. The caster may not be aware, but he is being targeted by that effect.
Also, I'm out for now.
I knew what you were taking about. That is not an attack. All it does is allow the monster to effectively steal the spell. Stealing spells is not an attack.
It does not fit the AoE criteria, nor does it do direct harm. Until the monster throws a spell back at the party that is would be used to break invis he can stay invisible.
That is not an area of affect. That is just the proximity to which you have to make cast defensively. It is no different than not casting defensively if you are within a monster's melee reach. If you don't cast defensively the monster gets a free swing. For this monster if you don't cast defensively it gets to steal your spells.
In that it is not entertaining in the slightest? Yes.Geez, we've reached the point of arguing grammar again?You have to admit this is every bit as entertaining as the baby killing paladin thread.
I am going to have to go to that one later one. I knew when it started it would not go well.
sooo....as long as the invisible creature charms,dominates or compels creatures that aren't hostile to it, and therefore aren't foes, it stays invisible? Wierd.The issue here is why would you use such actions against your buddies? Well I can think of circumstances, but they are far from the norm.Wait...now things are either buddies or foes?
I guess the point is, the wording is subjective. Invisibility is currently being playtested in the stealth playest. It needs to be.
My group rules that if you (the invisible guy) actively do something that hurts a creature or causes it to make a save, then it breaks invis. That of course is only how we rule it though.
Cheers
I was using the rules. I don't comment on people's houserules unless I think they are askign for advice.
PS:The spell does say that who is a foe is up to the view of the person that is invisible.
My group rules that if you (the invisible guy) actively do something that hurts a creature or causes it to make a save, then it breaks invis. That of course is only how we rule it though.Cheers
I was under the impression that was how all groups did it. Apparently there are groups that do otherwise.
My group rules that if you (the invisible guy) actively do something that hurts a creature or causes it to make a save, then it breaks invis. That of course is only how we rule it though.
- I'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with a case where this wasn't in line the rules. (ie, the hippy skippy tree hugging enchanter above can get by on a technicality)
I was under the impression that was how all groups did it. Apparently there are groups that do otherwise.
My group rules that if you (the invisible guy) actively do something that hurts a creature or causes it to make a save, then it breaks invis. That of course is only how we rule it though.Cheers
Possible exception:
You buddy is charmed/dominated. You can cast a charm/dominate person spell to regain control which forces them to make a will save, but it is not a foe. I think that is the significance of the word foe, and it should not break the spell, IMHO. Of course you still have to win the opposed charisma check, but that is another issue.
Wonders how threads get hundreds of posts.
Opens thread.
Skips to last page.
Reads petty argument.
Leaves thread.
Never again.
|
I am going to have to go to that one later one. I knew when it started it would not go well.In that it is not entertaining in the slightest? Yes.Geez, we've reached the point of arguing grammar again?You have to admit this is every bit as entertaining as the baby killing paladin thread.
PALADIN POSTS AM ONLY GOOD PART OF THREAD.
Wonders how threads get hundreds of posts.
Opens thread.
Skips to last page.
Reads petty argument.
Leaves thread.Never again.
It is normal. :)
I construed that as meaning it cannot be used directly offensively, which would qualify for the caveat in invisibility talking about indirect stuff.
It still requires a save and still requires you to perform the action repeatedly until the effect wears off. The "harmless" caveat is entirely up to GM interpretation as a savvy player can and will justify the negation by saying the effect is harmful in some way no matter how ludicrous. Generally speaking I define attack as any direct or indirect spell or effect that enforces damage or status effect on the opponent.
Skill checks except for perhaps intimidate don't function like this as they do not enforce this harm on another character so much as create a situation where harm is possible. This falls under the category of illusion effects and buffs as well since no direct harm is being done only incidental harm from falling for the illusion or getting curbstomped by the invisible mans allies. Suggestion in this case inflicts a status effect on the opponent; that is they force the target to do soemthing they would not normally do by removing their control. The same goes for charm person which is an even more indirect method it still inflicts a status effect on a person.
Now before you go on saying that an effect that doesn't cause direct harm via hit point damage shouldn't break it consider that many combat maneuvers don;t deal damage either by the definitions your pulling an invisible opponent could bullrush, drag, dirty trick, trip, and even grapple all day long purely because they don't deal damage but rather establish an effect. Yet, I don't believe that you would go so far as claim that these to would fall under the no popping invisibilty category. You'll also note that the spell itself even establishes what constitutes indirect methods of attack including summoning monsters and directing them to attack none of these mention interaction with the opponent at all beyond speaking.
What really needs to be applied here is not RAI or RAW but common sense.
I construed that as meaning it cannot be used directly offensively, which would qualify for the caveat in invisibility talking about indirect stuff.It still requires a save and still requires you to perform the action repeatedly until the effect wears off. The "harmless" caveat is entirely up to GM interpretation as a savvy player can and will justify the negation by saying the effect is harmful in some way no matter how ludicrous. Generally speaking I define attack as any direct or indirect spell or effect that enforces damage or status effect on the opponent.
Skill checks except for perhaps intimidate don't function like this as they do not enforce this harm on another character so much as create a situation where harm is possible. This falls under the category of illusion effects and buffs as well since no direct harm is being done only incidental harm from falling for the illusion or getting curbstomped by the invisible mans allies. Suggestion in this case inflicts a status effect on the opponent; that is they force the target to do soemthing they would not normally do by removing their control. The same goes for charm person which is an even more indirect method it still inflicts a status effect on a person.
Now before you go on saying that an effect that doesn't cause direct harm via hit point damage shouldn't break it consider that many combat maneuvers don;t deal damage either by the definitions your pulling an invisible opponent could bullrush, drag, dirty trick, trip, and even grapple all day long purely because they don't deal damage but rather establish an effect. Yet, I don't believe that you would go so far as claim that these to would fall under the no popping invisibilty category. You'll also note that the spell itself even establishes what constitutes indirect methods of attack including summoning monsters and directing them to attack none of these mention interaction with the opponent at all beyond speaking.
What really needs to be...
I don't think it's common sense at all. I have killed someone using a suggestion spell, and I still don't think it's a directly offensive effect because it doesn't have to be. They were very extenuating circumstances and I couldn't have accomplished anything glibness wouldn't have. You could suggest to have someone run away because you will hurt them, for example. I don't think that's offensive because you could do such a thing with diplomacy, and it's not an offensive effect (except perhaps in a bazaar).
As far as other aura effects, I believe there were some that had emotions tied to them. There's an excellent example of a monster in Castle Ravenloft that could rage creatures and remain invisible, as well as a few other emotion based effects. It fed on negative emotions. In a situation like that, suddenly deciding that you hate the thing that's making you angry and then having it pop out of invisibility the next time it tries it doesn't make sense to me.
I'd consider combat maneuvers attacks because when you make them you are making an attack roll. Since you can't actually force anyone to harm themselves with charm person or suggestion except through trickery, I don't see those as offensive effects.