A fellow DM and I disagree on the conditions of an invisible creature becoming visible from an attack.
One interpretation is that swinging a weapon and missing is not an attack, and thus, the invisible creature remains invisible.
The other interpretation is that the intent to harm a foe, whether successful or not, is an attack, and the invisible creature becomes visible.
Which interpretation is correct? Can rules and precident be cited so this argument can be put to rest?
A follow-up: If you melee attack a foe from a hidden position, and miss, but are allowed a second attack, is the foe denied her Dex bonus to AC on the second attack?
:) I wish a pat answer was good enough here. This is not a debate about play, this is a discussion between 2 DMs about what the books say.
As a DM, you of course may interpret the rules as you like, but this from the SRD might help.
"...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. 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."
Nowhere is it mentioned about missing the target and remaining invisible.
Thanks for that input--I've studied that pretty closely. Unfortunately, in the description for invisibility, I do not find a clear ruling. I'll rephrase the question:
Is an "attack" an attempt to harm someone, or is it the act of harming someone? (Or, better yet, is it defined clearly somewhere in the rules? Please? :))
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There's a huge section in the SRD (and correspondingly in the PHB) about attacks. Here's the most on point quote I can find:
Attack Rolls
An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.
Even when you swing and miss, you are making an attack roll. The fact that you fail the check doesn't make the action you took into something other than an attack. By that logic, you could argue that every attack roll that you make and fail doesn't count as an "attack." Thus, a creature with 3 "attacks" would get to swing as many times as they wanted until it connected 3 times, since none of the misses are "attacks."
As a DM, you of course may interpret the rules as you like, but this from the SRD might help.
"...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. 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."
Nowhere is it mentioned about missing the target and remaining invisible.
I have to agree with the above and add that it is the action you take that determines the result. If you take an attack action, then the invisibility spell will certainly end, regardless of if you actually hit or not. I am sure that if your invisible PC wanted to shoot a crossbow deliberately at a wall next to an enemy and the bolt made a satisfying thud in the stonework, that that action itself (which doesn't require an attack roll) would not cause your PC to magically appear. The SRD supports this because you are shooting at an "untended object" - the wall. Actually, there are lots of actions that will not cause your PC to become visible but taking an attack action will always do so.
Edit: Darn me and my increadibily slow typing! What the last 4 posters said... ditto!
David's quoting of the SRD is essentially correct; in addition, it is the intent that defines the attack, not the resulting hit or miss.
Arguing that a missed attack doesn't dispel invisibility would be to imply that the spell requires some kind of physical trigger to end it, such as an impact of blade or arrow on the target; this argument doesn't hold, since a missed attack doesn't mean that there was no physical contact - just that there was no injury to the target. At that point, all arguments will start down a slippery slope of determining "where does a hit begin and damage start" that will drag the group into a black hole of rules-lawyering.
Simply put, an attack is the intent to direct a harmful effect at a target that you are hostile to - be it spell or weapon; at that moment, invisibility ends.
IMHO, issues like this leave me annoyed at the implied attempt to create ambiguities in the rules that can be exploited.
M
Not to overburden things, but there's another question--the larger question of why an attack breaks an invisibility spell where other types of vigorous movement do not.
I would argue (though it seems the RAW is against me here) that low level invisibility is meant to mask slow and careful movements, but that the kind of fast, forceful movement required to damage someone is too much for the spell to conceal and so it causes a disruption of the spell. I would argue that jumping across a chasm would also kill the spell, as would dodging out of the way of an incoming spell effect. The idea that somehow it's based on intent of the attacker, and that it's only in a situation where the user attempts to hurt only another single target feels cheap and game-mechanicky to me. I've always been much more satisfied with answers that try and take a rule and weave it believably into the world of the game.
My two bits.
I agree that it's "mechaniky", but I also have to go with the rules on this one. Violent motion has nothing to do with it.
It's not totally mechaniky, however. Intent has a very real impact on magic, even in the game world. If a commoner, under the supervision of a wizard, waved his hands in the correct fasion and used the correct material components, and spoke the right words, would he cast a fireball? I don't think so. It has to do with the mind of the caster. Thus, mindest, intent, etc., all have a very real impact on magic in game, and thus making it feel "mechaniky."
Now, one could argue that the rules don't extrapolate on the option of a commoner casting magic under careful supervision because it would be so rare for such a situation, and that if it did occur, they would indeed cast the spell. This has in-game sense, too, but leaves you with a TON of "mechaniky" elements, so if you're trying to avoid that, you just shot yourself in the foot.
It's probably better all around to realize that the game is not compatable with real-world physics when considered at length; they are outside of the scope of the game, and attempts to include them only slow and dull play, and thus it is better to simply not think too much about them.
Hopefully arguments like this don't slow your game down. A game-halting argument about rules like this happens once every five sessions or so, and then for only 30 minutes or so. Any more than this and I would quit playing.
Now, one could argue that the rules don't extrapolate on the option of a commoner casting magic under careful supervision because it would be so rare for such a situation, and that if it did occur, they would indeed cast the spell. This has in-game sense, too, but leaves you with a TON of "mechaniky" elements, so if you're trying to avoid that, you just shot yourself in the foot.
It's probably better all around to realize that the game is not compatable with real-world physics when considered at length; they are outside of the scope of the game, and attempts to include them only slow and dull play, and thus it is better to simply not think too much about them.
One thing I love about 3rd edition is the new explaination of magic preparation. The reason (and I know this is a tangent, but it's interesting) that the peasant couldn't cast a fireball by making the hand gestures, saying the words and using the components, is that they are finishing components. Each spell itself is a dreadfully long ritual the wizard conducts during his spell preparation just leaving off the last few elements, a toss of some phosphorus, a gesture of the hands and the activation phrase. Just doing these last parts isn't a whole spell and so in themselves are ineffective. Now if a commoner were step by step lead through the entire ritual, he would probably blow himself up...but if he didn't he would have a spell prepped for use. Now would he remember the right things to say and do to finish it in the heat of the moment? Would he accidently do them to impress some hick at the bar and blow himself up? Well that's why wizards don't let commoners prepare spells.
To the other point, the real point. I really am pretty fast and loose with RAW. I take consistancy over game-mechanickiness any day of the week. Granted there's a lot of magical provisos that are just there for game benefit, but then those are usually the first ones to get tinkered over. I don't try to get real world physics out of it when I'm done, but I do shoot for an internally consistant world where the magic is convincingly real enough to myself and my players that we can enjoy the game.
Anyhow, I'm not sure where this all breaks down and shoots me in the foot? Seems to work fine.
David's quoting of the SRD is essentially correct; in addition, it is the intent that defines the attack, not the resulting hit or miss.
Arguing that a missed attack doesn't dispel invisibility would be to imply that the spell requires some kind of physical trigger to end it, such as an impact of blade or arrow on the target; this argument doesn't hold, since a missed attack doesn't mean that there was no physical contact - just that there was no injury to the target. At that point, all arguments will start down a slippery slope of determining "where does a hit begin and damage start" that will drag the group into a black hole of rules-lawyering.
Simply put, an attack is the intent to direct a harmful effect at a target that you are hostile to - be it spell or weapon; at that moment, invisibility ends.
IMHO, issues like this leave me annoyed at the implied attempt to create ambiguities in the rules that can be exploited.
M
Its not even the attempt to harm. Its targeting thats the key. In the extreme if you cast detect magic on a creature while your invisible you target the creature with a spell and therefore become visable.