| Eacaraxe |
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This came up in another thread (the DM wizard hate thread over in general discussion), and I thought I would take it upon myself to seek clarification. The circumstance in particular is an invisible arcane trickster using ranged legerdemain to pickpocket a wizard's spell component pouch, though this could certainly extend to any use of sleight of hand to pick-pocket.
So, here are the background assumptions and info:
Spoiler:
- The wizard is unaware of the trickster, allowing the SoH check.
- The trickster is using normal invisibility, as per the 2nd-level spell.
- A spell component pouch is an attended object.
- Sleight of Hand is a skill check.
- Ranged legerdemain is a supernatural ability.
- The trickster is using normal invisibility, as per the 2nd-level spell.
- A spell component pouch is an attended object.
- Sleight of Hand is a skill check.
- Ranged legerdemain is a supernatural ability.
Here is the pertinent excerpt from invisibility:
Spoiler:
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.
Here is a bullet point summary of the arguments in favor of breaking stealth:
Spoiler:
- Sleight of Hand targets a foe, because the component pouch is an attended object. The type of action is irrelevant, only the targeting.
- The action harms the foe. That harm is direct.
- The action harms the foe. That harm is direct.
Here is a bullet point summary of the arguments against breaking stealth:
Spoiler:
- Sleight of hand is not an attack as defined by invisibility, not being a spell, spell-like ability, attack action or combat maneuver. There is evidence for this within ranged legerdemain's description, as using sleight of hand at range would incur the -20 sniping penalty for stealth were it considered an attack, but it does not.
- The action does not incur damage, negative modifiers or negative conditions, which seems to be the threshold of "harm" for invisibility.
- Even if stealing a spell component pouch constitutes "harm", it is not direct because it only prevents a caster from casting spells with material components, not prohibiting spell casting directly as would silence or disruption, forcing caster level or concentration checks, or applying negative modifiers to those checks.
- The action does not incur damage, negative modifiers or negative conditions, which seems to be the threshold of "harm" for invisibility.
- Even if stealing a spell component pouch constitutes "harm", it is not direct because it only prevents a caster from casting spells with material components, not prohibiting spell casting directly as would silence or disruption, forcing caster level or concentration checks, or applying negative modifiers to those checks.
The rules themselves include critical omissions of fact or ambiguous statements either way:
Spoiler:
- Skill checks are omitted from invisibility's special targeting rules or for what is considered an attack.
- Invisibility specifies actions against (i.e. attacking) unattended objects do not break stealth. It omits whether this applies to attended objects, but actions such as disarms, sunders or item-targeting spells are already accounted for as attacks and spells.
- Invisibility specifies actions against (i.e. attacking) unattended objects do not break stealth. It omits whether this applies to attended objects, but actions such as disarms, sunders or item-targeting spells are already accounted for as attacks and spells.
So, what does everyone think?