| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Invisibility states: "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."
Here is Flaming Sphere: "If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 3d6 points of fire damage to that creature... The sphere moves as long as you actively direct it (a move action for you)"
So, my wizard goes invisible. Then, he casts Flaming Sphere as a standard action. Doesn't become visible. Next, as a move action, he directs it to move directly south for 30 feet. In its path, happens to be a goblin, 20 ft due south of the sphere. It then enters the square with the goblin, stops, and deals 3d6 damage.
The million dollar question... is this an attack to end invisibility? If you read the spells, it technically isn't an attack to end invisibility. This is a move action to direct the ball to go from point A to point B. If the goblin gets in the way, then make it needs to make a reflex save, or get burned. According to invisibility, it isn't an attack if you cut the rope on a bridge and cause the enemies to fall. This, to me, is the same thing.
My wizard should still be invisible, to skulk around the battle field and summon monsters or enlarge his allies to his heart's content, all without becoming visible.
What say you?
Invisibility states: "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."
Here is Flaming Sphere: "If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 3d6 points of fire damage to that creature... The sphere moves as long as you actively direct it (a move action for you)"
So, my wizard goes invisible. Then, he casts Flaming Sphere as a standard action. Doesn't become visible. Next, as a move action, he directs it to move directly south for 30 feet. In its path, happens to be a goblin, 20 ft due south of the sphere. It then enters the square with the goblin, stops, and deals 3d6 damage.
The million dollar question... is this an attack to end invisibility? If you read the spells, it technically isn't an attack to end invisibility. This is a move action to direct the ball to go from point A to point B. If the goblin gets in the way, then make it needs to make a reflex save, or get burned. According to invisibility, it isn't an attack if you cut the rope on a bridge and cause the enemies to fall. This, to me, is the same thing.
My wizard should still be invisible, to skulk around the battle field and summon monsters or enlarge his allies to his heart's content, all without becoming visible.
What say you?
I would count it as an attack since the spell does direct damage.
|
Invisibility states: "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."
You must have missed the bolded part, eh? ;)
Seems to me if the sphere enters another creature's space, the "area or effect" has included that creature, hasn't it?
|
Invisibility states: "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."You must have missed the bolded part, eh? ;)
Seems to me if the sphere enters another creature's space, the "area or effect" has included that creature, hasn't it?
The gentleman who allowed his cat to type his alias is correct. If you just used flaming sphere to burn a forest down you would be find but as soon as you put a creature in it's area effect it's an attack.
But correct me if I am wrong, the wizard is directing the spell 30 ft south. Technically, the creature is getting in the way of the sphere. Shame on him/her/it. Use your reflexes, or get outta the way.
What if said wizard wanted to send a flaming sphere to that square 30 ft south because their group tactics are to place a flaming sphere in place B in order for the fighter type to bull rush his enemy right into a spongy ball of flame? But, wizard guy doesn't have time to look at the diagonal's of the battle grid to notice the flippant goblin standing there. Flaming sphere rolls right into him, and he gets hot a moment too late and is getting burned by a ball of flame...
How is that an attack? Sure, you can read soo much into that previous statement. But I guess the DM and all involved (especially the goblin) would have to weigh the intent.
To the guy named by cats... Didn't leave that off on purpose, but you are right. Now... to that I say this. If wizard guy tells sphere to go to point B, and some an ally is in the way, then the ally suffers 3d6 without the invisibility ending because they aren't a foe? But if the goblin in the original post is deemed to be a bad guy by the wizard, then the invisibility ends?
|
|
But correct me if I am wrong, the wizard is directing the spell 30 ft south. Technically, the creature is getting in the way of the sphere. Shame on him/her/it. Use your reflexes, or get outta the way.
Now you are getting silly.
The same could be said for a fireball.
"I was just trying to send up a signal flare, shame on that dragon for being up there"
The wording of invisibility does not speak to intent, only to "area of effect".
You can cast flaming sphere on your allies all day long because these are game rules and they don't have to have any real logic or sense to them outside the game context.
Edit: Though if you cast flaming sphere on your allies very often they will likely not be your allies for long.
Well I think a valid question is being brought up though. Obviously if I cast wall of fire somewhere to be on top of enemies that would be an attack. But what if I just set one up to bisect the battlefield and don't immediately affect any creatures...when do I become visible? Or do I? If it's not an attack when cast, does it later become an attack?
What about less obvious examples, like grease. Say I place a grease on the ground before combat even begins. During combat I am invisible, but then a creature steps into that area...what happens? As for the OP's example, what if a creature voluntarily moves into the space occupied by the flaming sphere?
We know that summoning, and buffing, and healing are kosher. What about a circle of protection against evil? Do I become visible as soon as an evil summoned creature attempts to cross it? Only when he succeeds?
How is directing a summon named "flaming sphere" to attack something any different than directing a summon named "lemure" to attack something?
Because it isn't a "spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe".
Because it isn't a "spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe".
That describes both flaming sphere and summon monster equally, assuming you don't cast the flaming sphere directly on top of something.
I'm just saying that if you direct a flaming sphere into someone's square, then you've broken the invis.
Technically, i suppose if you summoned a creature that grappled someone (ie. they were in the same square) you'd also have broken the invis.
But most of the time the summoned creature doesn't 'target' a foe. And the effect is the square that the summoned creature is in - therefore, not including a foe.
Rules for Invisibility as per the low-level spell have always been difficult to use in certain situations. Personally, I'd use a couple house-rules to smoothen things. For instance, anything having a perceivable effect would hint at the wizard's location, giving people attacking the invisible wizard the possibility of hitting him with a reduced penalty. Or we could use Concentration rules for the wizard to stay invisible (can't do more than a standard action per round). Or the same Concentration for the enemies to perceive a slight outline of the wizard.
For the Flaming Sphere burning the goblin: since we rule combat in turns, it's not possible for a foe to "suddenly" cross the sphere's path (barring immediate actions). If the wizard moves the sphere 30' south and a goblin is in its path, it's an attack. As per RAW, I think that the wizard becomes visible.
Now, what could be perceived differently is a couple invisible wizards rolling flaming spheres around. Is involuntarily hitting an invisible foe considered an attack?
|
|
Well I think a valid question is being brought up though. Obviously if I cast wall of fire somewhere to be on top of enemies that would be an attack. But what if I just set one up to bisect the battlefield and don't immediately affect any creatures...when do I become visible? Or do I? If it's not an attack when cast, does it later become an attack?
What about less obvious examples, like grease. Say I place a grease on the ground before combat even begins. During combat I am invisible, but then a creature steps into that area...what happens? As for the OP's example, what if a creature voluntarily moves into the space occupied by the flaming sphere?
We know that summoning, and buffing, and healing are kosher. What about a circle of protection against evil? Do I become visible as soon as an evil summoned creature attempts to cross it? Only when he succeeds?
It's really strange, the way people have run the spell in my memory doesn't exactly mesh with the wording of the spell.
"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. "
The way I see it any spell you cast that directly attacks an enemy breaks it, so if you create a wall of fire that doesn't damage any enemies then it's not a problem. If they move into the effect then it's indirect, you didn't cause them to take damage, they took damage because they entered an active effect. The flaming sphere is directed by you, if you move it into a square you are attacking the creature in that square. If it moves is is moved into the square then it's indirect.
So grease, wall of XXX, Cloud spells, black tentacles, blade barrier, will cancel invisibility if you cast it when someone is in the area but not if they walk into the active effect.
Any spell you actively direct onto an enemy -> Flaming sphere, grasping hand, call lightning, spiritual weapon, telekinesis, etc is an attack.
Summons spells... The creature is attacking, your magic goes into summoning the creature and binding it to you, but your magic is not actively 'attacking' anything. Compare this to the sphere where your magical energies are directly affecting your chosen victims.
To be honest I'm not entirely sold on that myself but there is a significant difference there.
|
|
I don't understand all of the confusion!
The invisibility spell specifically states "whose area or effect includes a foe."
If I check the spell descriptions for fireball, it has an Area. Flaming sphere has an Effect. Other spells specifically target creatures and require attack rolls by the spellcaster or saving throws on the part of the target; that sounds like an attack to me.
Show me where summon monster has any of those...?
The important word is "includes". The area or effect for flaming sphere cannot include a foe, because it deals its damage by touch, not by envelopment. It's a solid object.
And anyway, by that definition, casting a grease spell ahead of a creature then having the creature stumble into the spell's area would cause invisibility to drop, even though the mage didn't even do anything.
|
|
The important word is "includes". The area or effect for flaming sphere cannot include a foe, because it deals its damage by touch, not by envelopment. It's a solid object.
And anyway, by that definition, casting a grease spell ahead of a creature then having the creature stumble into the spell's area would cause invisibility to drop, even though the mage didn't even do anything.
Considering the word they are trying to clarify is attack I think the flaming sphere case is pretty thin.
As for grease, I don't think that is the intent but you could make a case for it and run it that way. It isn't going to make much difference in the long run.
If I check the spell descriptions for fireball, it has an Area. Flaming sphere has an Effect. Other spells specifically target creatures and require attack rolls by the spellcaster or saving throws on the part of the target; that sounds like an attack to me.
Show me where summon monster has any of those...?
Sure.
Effect: one summoned creature
All spells have a target, an area, or an effect. It's part of the definition of a spell. Simply having a target, an area, or an effect doesn't make a spell an attack. Shield has a target. Summon monster has an effect. Bless has an area.
Considering the word they are trying to clarify is attack I think the flaming sphere case is pretty thin.
No thinner than the case against summoned monsters, which also are an Effect of a spell that can be commanded to interact physically with an enemy.
OK, so most of us seem to agree that the wizard can't just say "well, the goblin should have moved" or "I didn't check the path for goblins". An attack is an attack.
But what if that goblin were invisible?
A previous poster said you could use your flaming sphere to burn down a whole forest and it wouldn't break your invisibility because you are just moving the sphere without making any attacks. That is a correct statement.
But what if, while you're moving the sphere to burn down the forest, you bump into an invisible druid standing there? You have moved your sphere into the druid's space, constituting an attack, hence your invisibility drops? Why?
That begs the question of why does invisibility drop in the first place? What is so special about Magic Missile that the mere act of casting it kills your invisibility, but Summon Monster I, which takes much longer to cast (and presumably more chanting, more arm waving, and more arcane stuff in general) doesn't kill the invisibility?
Well, one possible explanation is that "making an attack" is an act of will, a deliberate aggressive action that somehow dis-harmonizes your invisibility. If you believe this, then accidentally bumping into an ivnisible druid cannot possibley constitute such a willful deliberate act, so it should not kill the invisibility.
One other possible explanation is that causing harm to other creatures causes some kid of psychic rebound on the guy who causes the harm. This rebound is what dis-harmonizes the invisibility. In that case, even the accidental bumping of the invisible druid causes the harm and generates the rebound that kills the invisibility.
I can see a DM ruling it either way.
But for me, that psycic rebound sounds like malarky. I believe the first explanation - your deliberate act of will to do harm is what kills the invisibility. Therefore, accidental harm (and it must really be accidental - just whistling and looking the other way won't cut it) wouldn't kill the invisibility.
So, if the wizard in the OP's original post were truly unable to see the goblin (invisibility, total concealment, etc.), then I would rule that the contact was accidental and the wizard's invisibility is not broken.
Is that RAW? Not quite. But I don't think RAW is clear on this either way. Sometimes, we just have to ask ourselves "Why does it work that way?" and once we answer that with something we can get our heads around, then we apply that answer to each situation - and sometimes we get unexpected results.
|
|
So, if the wizard in the OP's original post were truly unable to see the goblin (invisibility, total concealment, etc.), then I would rule that the contact was accidental and the wizard's invisibility is not broken.
Hmm. So let's say there's a hallway 20-feet wide and within that space is a line of invisible creatures going across the hall. The wizard starts moving the flaming sphere in that direction and it reaches the limit of its movement. One of the invisible creatures calls out, "We're blocking the hallway in front of the sphere!"
Now the wizard knows the creatures are there. When the sphere moves again, does the invisibility go away?
I really don't like when spells rely on the intent of the caster. It makes things difficult to adjudicate in a consistent way from session to session, month to month, year to year. Given that, I'm more likely to stick with the mechanics that are spelled out. And there's nothing about intent in the invisibility spell, only results.
@Zurai: Yes, the summon monster spell is an effect. And if the "area or effect includes the foe" then the invisibility drops. So how does an ape with 4 arms "include a foe"?
It's pretty obvious to me that the description is referring to areas (like fireball) or an effect (like flaming sphere) where the description specifically allows for a creature to share the space of the "area or effect" that includes the foe. (In 3.5 you could make the argument that the ape could grapple and be in the same square. But that's still obtuse.) The "area or effect" is (to me anyway) clearly referring to spells with an area of effect, or effects such as the green shimmering of the dimensional anchor spell.
As I said, I think any action taken by the spellcaster that damages or hinders a foe qualifies for dropping the invisibility. That would mean anything with an attack roll or saving throw roll. That still allows indirect attacks by apes, by creating a hole below an opponent (unless you want to give them a Reflex save!), and so on.
How does the invisibility spell know? Good question. How does your thermos know that you put hot stuff inside and want to keep it hot, or that you put cold stuff inside and want it to stay cold? It's magic. Well, that and game balance. ;)
@Zurai: Yes, the summon monster spell is an effect. And if the "area or effect includes the foe" then the invisibility drops. So how does an ape with 4 arms "include a foe"?
It's pretty obvious to me that the description is referring to areas (like fireball) or an effect (like flaming sphere) where the description specifically allows for a creature to share the space of the "area or effect" that includes the foe.
So if you summoned a celestial poisonous frog (summon monster I) and had it attack, it would break invisibility? Poisonous frogs are Tiny and thus must enter a square in order to attack it, and you have to make a full-round action Handle Animal check in order to give it directions because it knows no languages.
So if you summoned a celestial poisonous frog (summon monster I) and had it attack, it would break invisibility? Poisonous frogs are Tiny and thus must enter a square in order to attack it, and you have to make a standard action Handle Animal check in order to give it directions because it knows no languages.@Zurai: Yes, the summon monster spell is an effect. And if the "area or effect includes the foe" then the invisibility drops. So how does an ape with 4 arms "include a foe"?
It's pretty obvious to me that the description is referring to areas (like fireball) or an effect (like flaming sphere) where the description specifically allows for a creature to share the space of the "area or effect" that includes the foe.
No, because the creature is not within the frog's area, you've got it backwards. Arguably though, by this logic, swarms summoned on top of someone would break it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe creatures cannot be summoned into an occupied square anyway.
HOWEVER, the spell invisibility makes a specific exemption to summoning creatures so that is a moot point, as well as for spells (like bless or haste) whose area includes enemies but does not attack or affect them whatsoever. Bless: fine, Prayer: pops you out of invisibility.
No, because the creature is not within the frog's area, you've got it backwards.
It's the same thing with flaming sphere. It's a solid object. It doesn't envelop enemies to attack them; it touches them. The creature is never within the flaming sphere's area any more than it is within the frog's.
No, because the creature is not within the frog's area, you've got it backwards.It's the same thing with flaming sphere. It's a solid object. It doesn't envelop enemies to attack them; it touches them. The creature is never within the flaming sphere's area any more than it is within the frog's.
I love you zurai, so I'm gonna be easy on you. A frog is a summoned creature and hence a specific exception, and therefore an uneven comparison with flaming sphere. Flaming sphere has an area of one five foot diameter sphere, on the board takes up one 5-ft square space, and to damage someone must move into their occupied space.
You can either interpret this as the area of the effect of flaming sphere overlaps i.e. "includes" that of the the creature it is burning OR since the sphere does not completely encompass the creature (dispite occupying the same space) and thus does not trip your invisibility up. However in the second instance, you are STILL certainly attacking that creature, whether it requires an attack ROLL or not.
I believe I understand your argument, but the only reason summons don't de-invis you is because the spell makes a specific exception for summoned creatures. Thems the breaks. Since Flaming Sphere is by no means a particularly powerful spell (IMHO) if you were to make your argument at my table I'd probably let it fly.
So to add a crazy wrinkle.
If I conjure a large rock, I don't pop out of invisibility.
I conjure a large rock in the air, still invisible.
The rock falls on someones head, I pop out?
I didn't attack them, gravity did!
So to add a crazy wrinkle.
If I conjure a large rock, I don't pop out of invisibility.
I conjure a large rock in the air, still invisible.
The rock falls on someones head, I pop out?
I didn't attack them, gravity did!
Sounds fair, and in keeping with the specific examples in invisibility of allowed actions (like cutting the rope to a chandalier that would drop on someone).
I know, the spirit of the rules is weird and iffy.
To explain how I rationalize the logical inconsistencies inherent in this spell, I need to talk nerdy to you.
Ever watch the new Doctor Who? In season 3 people put on this perception filter amulet kajigger. It doesn't strictly make you "invisible" i.e. light doesn't bend around you, but people just don't notice you like they wouldn't notice a specific tree in the woods. To them you just completely don't matter. Until you do something big and flashy which breaks the effect, like shooting someone or stealing their wallet.
I believe I understand your argument, but the only reason summons don't de-invis you is because the spell makes a specific exception for summoned creatures.
No, it doesn't. It uses summoned monsters as an example of an indirect attack. An exception would be, "giving commands to the results of spell is considered an attack, except in the case of summoned monsters". Instead it says, "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".
The, "and so forth" at the end of that sentence means that anything that uses the same mechanics is treated the same way.
Exceptions are Batman. They're the unique instances that do not conform to the general rule (in this case, a super hero with no super power).
Examples are the X-Men. They're the pattern or model or illustration for a general rule (in this case, super heroes having super powers).
Summoned monsters are used as an example in the text of invisibility; it doesn't call them out as a unique instance that goes against the rule. Instead, it uses them to define the rule.
|
|
Considering the word they are trying to clarify is attack I think the flaming sphere case is pretty thin.No thinner than the case against summoned monsters, which also are an Effect of a spell that can be commanded to interact physically with an enemy.
Already answered that above. You are summoning the creature and binding it, it is attacking. It's effectively the same as telling your fighter buddy to attack, this buddy happens to come from another plane.
The flaming sphere cannot attack, it cannot move without being actively directed by you. What you are saying is like saying slamming 50 spears into someone with telekinesis isn't an attack because you aren't affecting the person with TK just the spears.
The flaming sphere cannot attack, it cannot move without being actively directed by you. What you are saying is like saying slamming 50 spears into someone with telekinesis isn't an attack because you aren't affecting the person with TK just the spears.
No, actually, it's not. Telekinesis requires one or more attack rolls, which falls into the "making an attack roll" clause of ending invisibility. Not comparable at all.
I believe I understand your argument, but the only reason summons don't de-invis you is because the spell makes a specific exception for summoned creatures.No, it doesn't. It uses summoned monsters as an example of an indirect attack. An exception would be, "giving commands to the results of spell is considered an attack, except in the case of summoned monsters". Instead it says, "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".
The, "and so forth" at the end of that sentence means that anything that uses the same mechanics is treated the same way.
Exceptions are Batman. They're the unique instances that do not conform to the general rule (in this case, a super hero with no super power).
Examples are the X-Men. They're the pattern or model or illustration for a general rule (in this case, super heroes having super powers).Summoned monsters are used as an example in the text of invisibility; it doesn't call them out as a unique instance that goes against the rule. Instead, it uses them to define the rule.
Now you're calling out my semantics which has nothing to do with the case. I want to be on your side, and I half agree with you, so there's no need to be a jerk.
It all hinges on whether you feel a flaming sphere is a direct attack, or causes damage indirectly. You seem to feel it is indirect, and thus should fall under the umbrella of things you can do such as summoning creatures to attack for you, or cutting a rope with an anvil on it. I tend to feel that since the spell requires explicit direction from the caster and requires SR and a saving throw to avoid damage that it is a direct attack. However I also feel that should an enemy voluntarily enter the space occupied by the flaming sphere, or be forced into it by a third party, then no harm no foul.
And again, rules have always been a bit sketchy when it comes to invisibility and I'd wager it's the source of 10% of genuine rules conundrums.
The flaming sphere cannot attack, it cannot move without being actively directed by you. What you are saying is like saying slamming 50 spears into someone with telekinesis isn't an attack because you aren't affecting the person with TK just the spears.No, actually, it's not. Telekinesis requires one or more attack rolls, which falls into the "making an attack roll" clause of ending invisibility. Not comparable at all.
I don't see that exact wording "making an attack roll" I see "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." I'd personally say that intentionally moving a flaming sphere into a square occupied by an enemy with the intent of hurting said enemy would be an attack. Any spell that calls the intent of the caster into play is going to be slippery.
|
I don't see whats so hard here. Part of the reason for invis dropping is game balance. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Why do people try so hard to cheese things so bad. First off your flaming sphere actively damages someone thus you lose invis. It is a spell under your control, linked to you - you can still exert control over it, thus it is an attack by you. Invis pops. Summoning a creature is for all intents and purposes a instant spell effect. Once the creature appears it is no longer a spell effect and no longer linked to you magically. The grease comparison is just silly. You are not attacking with grease in a sense of doing damage or even targeting someone and if they move through it on their turn, well that is their own fault. Likewise if you summon a wall of fire and later on an enemy crosses that line it is not an attack by you and does not drop invis. Creating a rock floating above someones head and then letting gravity take over is CLEARLY an intent to attack and cause damage to someone. That would drop your invis just as if you had created a rock and then picked it up and threw it. Same as cutting a rope to drop an anvil. You are targeting someone directly waiting for the correct time to cut the rope. An attack role will be made against your intended target. Sounds like an attack to me.
Another thing people seem to also forget is anything they try and cheese out of the system can be used against them. The last thing I want is during an outdoor encounter is having an invis wizard flying creating summoned rocks to drop on peoples heads from 100' up while mentally controlling his flaming sphere to roll (not attack!) all over the party. Seriously you guys tried using any of this cheese at my table and you be eating more of it than you served. Wow three encounters in a row where all the bad guys have potions of invis? Wow imagine that.
I don't see whats so hard here. Part of the reason for invis dropping is game balance. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Why do people try so hard to cheese things so bad. First off your flaming sphere actively damages someone thus you lose invis. It is a spell under your control, linked to you - you can still exert control over it, thus it is an attack by you. Invis pops. Summoning a creature is for all intents and purposes a instant spell effect. Once the creature appears it is no longer a spell effect and no longer linked to you magically. The grease comparison is just silly. You are not attacking with grease in a sense of doing damage or even targeting someone and if they move through it on their turn, well that is their own fault. Likewise if you summon a wall of fire and later on an enemy crosses that line it is not an attack by you and does not drop invis. Creating a rock floating above someones head and then letting gravity take over is CLEARLY an intent to attack and cause damage to someone. That would drop your invis just as if you had created a rock and then picked it up and threw it. Same as cutting a rope to drop an anvil. You are targeting someone directly waiting for the correct time to cut the rope. An attack role will be made against your intended target. Sounds like an attack to me.
Another thing people seem to also forget is anything they try and cheese out of the system can be used against them. The last thing I want is during an outdoor encounter is having an invis wizard flying creating summoned rocks to drop on peoples heads from 100' up while mentally controlling his flaming sphere to roll (not attack!) all over the party. Seriously you guys tried using any of this cheese at my table and you be eating more of it than you served. Wow three encounters in a row where all the bad guys have potions of invis? Wow imagine that.
+1
I have always played this way. If the players want to push the rules to the max then expect the baddies to do the same. I am much more for RAI than RAW, just use common sense.
Summoning a creature is for all intents and purposes a instant spell effect. Once the creature appears it is no longer a spell effect and no longer linked to you magically.
False. It has a duration other than Instant; it thus continues to be a magical effect and can be removed with dispel magic. Furthermore, no spell is "linked to you magically". This isn't Shadowrun, where every spell has its caster's magical signature as part of it and you can track the caster by the spell's signature. The only spell in the entire game that is linked to a specific caster is arcane mark, and there only indirectly.
The grease comparison is just silly. You are not attacking with grease in a sense of doing damage or even targeting someone
This has nothing to do with invisibility. Not all attacks are damaging.
===
Furthermore, you complain about people trying to "cheese" the spell, but you act like flaming sphere is more powerful than summon monster. Flaming sphere is one of the absolute worst spells in the book. It is less lethal than a summon monster I. If it's a matter of power, flaming sphere should be allowed simply because it's about the gimpiest thing you could possibly try to do from invisibility, and summon monster should be strictly and explicitly disallowed.
PRD: Invisibilty
.... For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. .....
PRD: Flaming Sphere
Effect 5-ft.-diameter sphere
When the caster sends the sphere to your square it is an attack and invisibility should drop since you are in the sphere's effect.
PRD: Invisibilty
.... For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. .....
PRD: Flaming Sphere
Effect 5-ft.-diameter sphere
When the caster sends the sphere to your square it is an attack and invisibility should drop since you are in the sphere's effect.
I've already covered this in this thread. Recently, even.
PRD: Summon Monster I
Effect: one summoned creature
PRD: poisonous frog
Tiny
Poisonous frogs must enter the target's space to attack. That means a spell's effect is in the same square the target is, which should cancel invisibility by the rationale presented above.
The important word is "includes". The area or effect for flaming sphere cannot include a foe, because it deals its damage by touch, not by envelopment. It's a solid object.
And anyway, by that definition, casting a grease spell ahead of a creature then having the creature stumble into the spell's area would cause invisibility to drop, even though the mage didn't even do anything.
I see I was beaten to the punch. Yes it does "touch", but the game term it uses is effect so the spell should be broken.
Scorching Ray also touches by the RL life definition, and the game term. Are you going to tell me that scorching ray does not cancel invisibility?PRD:
Scorching Ray
Effect: one or more rays
...Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.....
PRD: Invisibilty
.... For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. .....
PRD: Flaming Sphere
Effect 5-ft.-diameter sphere
When the caster sends the sphere to your square it is an attack and invisibility should drop since you are in the sphere's effect.
I've already covered this in this thread. Recently, even.
PRD: Summon Monster I
Effect: one summoned creature
PRD: poisonous frog
TinyPoisonous frogs must enter the target's space to attack. That means a spell's effect is in the same square the target is, which should cancel invisibility by the rationale presented above.
The sphere takes up the entire area. Logically this should not work since the sphere is solid, and two objects can't occupy the same area. They should have actually described it as a giant rolling ball of fire, but the fluff should not matter. By RAW, and intent Flaming Sphere should drop the spell.
By RAW, and intent Flaming Sphere should drop the spell.
Neither of these has been proven at all.
Neither of these has been proven at all.By RAW, and intent Flaming Sphere should drop the spell.
Are you going to ignore the word effect in favor of flavor text. In other words if the sphere was entirely made of fire and said to fill the entire square would you agree?
PRD: Invisibilty
.... For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. .....
PRD: Flaming Sphere
Effect 5-ft.-diameter sphere
When the caster sends the sphere to your square it is an attack and invisibility should drop since you are in the sphere's effect.
I've already covered this in this thread. Recently, even.
PRD: Summon Monster I
Effect: one summoned creature
PRD: poisonous frog
TinyPoisonous frogs must enter the target's space to attack. That means a spell's effect is in the same square the target is, which should cancel invisibility by the rationale presented above.
That frog does not have an effect as far as area is concerned. The sphere does. The sphere specially calls out the 5 ft area as its effects. By the book, that is not even a similar case.
Yes I am ignoring logic in favor of RAW. By my logic summon monster spells would break the invisibility, but that is another debate for another day.
Are you going to ignore the word effect in favor of flavor text.
No. It is crystal clear that simply having an effect tag does not make a spell an attack, because summon monster has an effect tag. What I'm doing is comparing the two spells:
Flaming sphere creates a minion that can be directed to attack opponents.
Summon monster creates a minion that can be directed to attack opponents or can attack on its own.
So the fact that flaming sphere has no free will is what makes it break invisibility? In that case, why does triggering a trap as the party passes it not break invisibility? The trap has no free will and it's just as much of an attack as flaming sphere is.
I would love to continue the debate, but I have a game to run too. We can pick this up later.
Are you going to ignore the word effect in favor of flavor text.No. It is crystal clear that simply having an effect tag does not make a spell an attack, because summon monster has an effect tag. What I'm doing is comparing the two spells:
Flaming sphere creates a minion that can be directed to attack opponents.
Summon monster creates a minion that can be directed to attack opponents or can attack on its own.So the fact that flaming sphere has no free will is what makes it break invisibility? In that case, why does triggering a trap as the party passes it not break invisibility? The trap has no free will and it's just as much of an attack as flaming sphere is.
I am not saying an effect makes an attack. I am saying when the effect includes an area that can be measured such as a 5 foot diameter and that area can also include an enemy, and the enemy can be damaged just by dropping/moving the spell so it's affect includes a the enemy, that should be an attack. The frog being in your area does not automatically equal damage. The flame does unless you make a save.
If the trap is sprung by someone it should break invisibility since they actively activated it, but if they party sets it off by not finding it or failing the disarm DC that is not an action on the part of the trap maker.
In the case of flaming sphere he put it in the enemy's square with the intent to do damage. By RAW the invis spell does not account for accidentally striking someone, but it should. That is an oversight IMHO.
To take it further, if the sphere was created, and made to be invisible I would equate it to a trap, and not make the caster become visible since the creature walked into the sphere, but the rules don't account for things like that. I see your point, with the trap to an extent, but the sphere is blatant to me.
PS: I really am leaving this time. :)
I am not saying an effect makes an attack. I am saying when the effect includes an area that can be measured such as a 5 foot diameter and that area can also include an enemy, and the enemy can be damaged just by dropping/moving the spell so it's affect includes a the enemy, that should be an attack. The frog being in your area does not automatically equal damage. The flame does unless you make a save.
So summon swarm is an attack, then? It has an "Effect" that takes up a defined amount of space and can include an enemy, and the enemy is damaged simply by being within the space occupied by the effect.
Problem: It's a (lot of) summoned creature. Summoned creatures are used as an explicit example of spells that don't break invis.
If the trap is sprung by someone it should break invisibility since they actively activated it
Not according to invisibility. It specifically lists triggering a trap as an example of allowed actions.
In the case of flaming sphere he put it in the enemy's square with the intent to do damage.
And in the case of summon monster, he directed it to the enemy's square with the intent to cause damage. What's the difference?
|
|
The flaming sphere cannot attack, it cannot move without being actively directed by you. What you are saying is like saying slamming 50 spears into someone with telekinesis isn't an attack because you aren't affecting the person with TK just the spears.No, actually, it's not. Telekinesis requires one or more attack rolls, which falls into the "making an attack roll" clause of ending invisibility. Not comparable at all.
This is what happens when you read the rules like a lawyer and ignore the intent behind the rules. Nice job. Are you summoning a Paizo developer next? That would be amusing.
And you still haven't addressed my response about summoned versus the sphere.
If an invisible mage summons a flaming sphere, can I go throw myself onto the sphere to break his invisibility?
I am in the area of effect being attacked by the spell....
And you still haven't addressed my response about summoned versus the sphere.
Actually, I addressed it before you posted it. Perhaps you'd care to read the thread instead of making ad-hominems?