|
What do you think, does casting entangle end invisibility?
(My opinion is no, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.)
On a similar note, would tanglefoot bags do the trick (if you can hit)?
No, it wouldn't end invisibility. But it would make identifying the square a snap!
I would say no. The spell is cast on the ground and attacks on its own, similar to summon monster which does not ruin invisibility.
It's not really like summon monster. For example, summon monster summons a monster, which then attacks, et cetera, more or less on its own. Entangle, OTOH, doesn't make attacks at all. It creates an area of effect that forces a specific type of saving throw to avoid certain consequences. In that respect, it's similar to, say, fireball.
If I'm DM, entangle is an attack, and it will cancel invisibility. YMMV.
"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
Seems it depends om where the spell is cast.
I have just now realised that we are talking about different things. There are two interpretations:
Does an invisible spellcaster casting entangle lose invisibility? The answer is no.
Does an invisible creature entangled by entangle lose invisibility? Technically no, but one might argue that it's easy to target the space that the plants are wrapping around.
Same deal with a tanglefoot bag that makes a direct hit, or even more mundanely, a bag of flour?
I guess my worry about the line that says "has enemies in the area" or whatever is...what about beneficial spells that have enemies in the area. Say Bless or Haste, would they end Invisibility?
If you cast it and there are foes in the area, it's an attack.
If you cast it into an unoccupied area and foes move into the area after it's cast, it's not an attack.
I agree with Jason Nelson in regards to an invisible caster casting entangle.
From invisibility spell description:
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.
I guess my worry about the line that says "has enemies in the area" or whatever is...what about beneficial spells that have enemies in the area. Say Bless or Haste, would they end Invisibility?
In the case of Bless and Haste the answer's easy. Those are targeted spells, so don't target the enemy.
Edit: Bless doesn't say it targets, but it only affects allies = doesn't affect foes.
An "Entangle" spell wouldnt reveal an invisible opponent but it would make them easy to identify (especially if they fail their saves), the same could be said of most generalised non-target specific spells.
An attack directly targeted against a invisible creature whose location you are sure of (and assuming you successfully beat the 50% miss chance) and you land say a "Scorching Ray" on them then sure, they would be discovered, but a "Fireball" spell would not (though it would still hurt the opponent on a failed save (or even partially on a successful save if they didnt have "Evasion" for instance) since it doesnt specifically 'find' the target.
At least thats what I have learned to glean from my days playing 3.5
"Invisible" characters cannot undertake any obvious actions, vulgar (obviously harmful) spell casting, manipulating objects (while said object is being observed) and so on. But they can for instance use spells with a 'Personal' range on themselves or ones which dont priduce harmful effects that may effect themselves and others.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
An "Entangle" spell wouldnt reveal an invisible opponent but it would make them easy to identify (especially if they fail their saves), the same could be said of most generalised non-target specific spells.
An attack directly targeted against a invisible creature whose location you are sure of (and assuming you successfully beat the 50% miss chance) and you land say a "Scorching Ray" on them then sure, they would be discovered, but a "Fireball" spell would not (though it would still hurt the opponent on a failed save (or even partially on a successful save if they didnt have "Evasion" for instance) since it doesnt specifically 'find' the target.At least thats what I have learned to glean from my days playing 3.5
"Invisible" characters cannot undertake any obvious actions, vulgar (obviously harmful) spell casting, manipulating objects (while said object is being observed) and so on. But they can for instance use spells with a 'Personal' range on themselves or ones which dont priduce harmful effects that may effect themselves and others.
I think the OP was asking if the caster of entangle was using invis, whether the invis would break.
But, you bring up an interesting corner case: Clearly the entangle would affect the invisible creature, but would it reveal the invisible creature's location?
I would say no, as the tangle-o-vines the spell produces from all the plants in the area are all writhing around, so it's not like a perfectly still pool of water with an invisible guy wading in it.
I might, however, give a bonus to Perception checks to spot the location of an invisible creature within the area of an entangle, or just penalize their Stealth checks as if it were heavy undergrowth (which I think is -4 to Stealth).